- It's 5 PM. Welcome to the Redevelopment Commission meeting for Monday, May 24, 2026. We'll start the
- meeting with a roll call, please. Aurene McRobbie here. Steve Scambaleri here. John West here. Deborah
- Meyerson here. Directors present, please. Anna Killian-Eason, present. Christina Binley, Hand Department.
- Tammy Caswell, present. Jeff McKim, City Controller, present. Kendall Kenoki, Engineering, present.
- Thank you all. We will first item on our agenda is the approval of minutes from April 20th, 2026. We
- have both an executive session summary and a public meeting minutes. I'm willing to take both and a
- motion unless people prefer to separate it.
- I'm assuming people accept both together. I'll move approval of the April 20th, 2026 executive session
- summary and minutes. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes
- unanimously. Next item on our agenda is the claims register from April 24th, 2026. Any comments or questions
- from commissioners on this item? If not, I will accept a motion.
- Move approval of the current register for April 24. Thank you. Thank you. Second. We've got a first
- and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next on the agenda is the
- payroll register for May 1, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on the payroll register?
- If not, I'll accept a motion. Move approval of the payroll register for May 1.
- Second. First and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next, we've
- got reports on our agenda. We have a director's report. Just a brief update. I wanted to share with
- you that the Hopewell PUD is going back to council on Wednesday. We'll talk about that a little bit more.
- Kendall from Engineering will have a couple of things to discuss. Also to let you know that I was asked
- by HUD to give a presentation, a spotlight, onto some of our programs. I think it was a week ago or
- a week and a half ago they presented me with two awards. So it was a very nice event and I was happy
- to participate, but certainly have turned around our relationship
- Excellent. Congratulations. That's terrific. Do we have a legal report? Just coming up in the future,
- we'll have the annual pass through resolution at the next meeting in May. And as Anna said, after the
- rest of the business,
- We would like to have a discussion about the Hopewell PUD and where council's at and see where the RDC's
- at and talk through that. Maybe have a resolution, maybe talk about some of the things that they've
- passed and haven't passed. But I think that would be a good discussion to have after the resolutions.
- OK, thank you. We will return to that. Do we have a treasurer's report?
- No treasurer's report today. I just wanted to let everybody know that I've been working on
- kind of revitalizing and updating a report that the former controller used to provide that kind of listed
- out for each of the TIF areas all your outstanding commitments.
- and the expenses again against them and you know this is it's kind of an ongoing project because some
- of these commitments go way way back so we're we're in the process of uh and by we I mean Christina
- is in the process of updating them but our intention is to
- Put them put the latest edition of the report in your next packet and actually speak to it in the Treasurer's
- report at the next meeting. That was just thinking about that. I'm going to ask you, but you answer
- it before I do. Thank you. Do we have a business development update? No, just a small update. As I emailed
- the commissioners earlier this week, the trades district annual block party date has been set for September
- 25th from 5 to 8 p.m. So mark your calendars.
- have a party to go to and the public is invited. Lovely. Thank you so much. And do we have a Hopewell
- engineering report? Yes, we do. So first is the lot line adjustment, which is the creation of three
- lots, four units, kind of early, phase zero. That's going to get finished up this week. Probably on
- Wednesday we'll have that recorded. And so the next step is for the consultant flintlock range
- submit for building permits, and then those will be ready for a builder to pick up and construct whenever
- that stage in the process is ready. So we're about wrapped up with that, which is great. The other update
- is primary plat. So assuming everything goes well on Wednesday, we are ready to go to plan commission
- in June. So fingers crossed on that. I think the last thing under consideration really doesn't affect
- the plat at all. It's the affordable housing component.
- So we're very excited to hopefully move forward as long as that passes on Wednesday. One thing I did
- want to bring to your attention is we're trying to make some decisions here on certain aspects of the
- design. And I'm going to share my screen again. But one part of that is First Street, which is, of course,
- our newly reconstructed roadway adjacent to the development.
- One thing we've kind of been looking at is should we go ahead and install parking on first street to
- help with the needs of the new neighborhood. There's some pros and cons to that. So this is a newly
- reconstructed roadway. However, as part of the build out of the subdivision, we're going to be making
- some utility connections into the roadway.
- There is a sanitary sewer that got crushed during construction. It's a completely separate item, but
- they're going to have to go in and rebuild the sewer in the middle of that roadway. So we were kind
- of, we had the consultant just take a quick look at what would it take to add parking adjacent to this
- development along First Street, and they calculated about $218,000 was the expense to do that. So that's
- moving the new street trees, moving the new street lights, building new pavements. So I kind of wanted
- to get a temperature check about what the commissioners thought about going that route, understanding
- that it's going to be an active construction site. There's very well going to have to be reconstruction
- work from just damage during construction. However, probably not to this level. So there's kind of pros
- and cons, and just wanted to see if I could get a little feelings on this.
- Let me also just bring up that the McDowell neighborhood adjacent to Hopewell has expressed some concern
- with parking and the lack thereof. These buildings, so the two Faulkner buildings that are part of the
- site plan that front this first street potential parking are larger multifamily buildings that don't
- have a lot of parking. So we could leave it as is, but you are already tearing up the road and sidewalk.
- So is now the time to try and address that is kind of the question. OK. I'll open this up to comments
- and questions from commissioners in response to either that or any other parts of the engineering report.
- Can you go back to the exhibit yet? Yeah. Tell me what I'm looking at here. So this is, and that's what
- I was trying to pull up, maybe to give a little more context.
- So First Street currently has a tree plot and a sidewalk. And then there's kind of unused space before
- you get to the right-of-way line. So what is sketched up is adding a lane of parking and then moving
- the tree plot back behind that parking and then moving the sidewalk back behind that. So you're essentially
- jogging your sidewalk down where the parking is and then jogging it back up. And so this would be for
- this block and this block.
- Correct, yeah. And this would be public parking? Yes. Public metered parking? Well, not metered. It
- could be metered someday. It's up to the city, but right now we only meter in the downtown area, so
- that would be a departure for that. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you said something to that effect.
- So this would be public parking available to anyone?
- Right. It could, you know, council could pass an ordinance to limit it to two hours. It could
- be a residential permit parking zone. You know, there's a lot of things that could be done with it,
- but right now, yeah, it would just be free parking. How many parking spaces looks like Kendall?
- Looks like 21. Could you go back to the neighborhood? Sure.
- My question is, as opposed to reconstructing First Street, which I understand that, but there's the
- lane right there, which I know is supposed to be intentionally there and not have parking. But why would
- you move First Street and do all the parking on First Street? Why not just at least consider whether
- to widen the lane so that the parking that instead of on First Street, the next block over is on that
- lane? Again, that's a kind of flintlock question, too. But I'm just trying to understand. You've got
- another street that hasn't even built yet that's right there.
- the parking there as opposed to redoing $200,000 worth of street that's just was just done in the last
- year? It's a good question. I think part of the issue is that the right of way for first is already
- there and we have it available so we can't push the buildings into that right of way. So that kind of
- restricts us. There's also a lot of driveways and parking off of the lane so I'm not sure how much parallel
- parking we'd actually be able to gain. Maybe a few spots.
- And we're already digging it up, right? I mean, some of this we're going to pay for regardless of whether
- we had parking or not. Some of it is being intentionally dug up for utility connections and things.
- Others of it, you know, whenever construction, unless you're very intentional about protecting it, it
- could get damaged during construction as well. So there's kind of two sides of that. Can you remember
- what the deadline was in terms of doing the whole first street construction when we knew that Hopewell
- South was going to be
- coming up, I'm just trying to understand the kind of sequencing of the timing and all that. Oh,
- like when? Like why First Street was redone first before this whole lot that we knew. I mean, obviously
- all the hopefuls being redeveloped. So just help me understand why that order of operations was chosen.
- It's really challenging to sequence the infrastructure versus the private development or the city-supported
- development.
- I know on Hopewell West we did it at the same time and that that's been a challenge because there's
- been a contractor building a building and then another contractor building a road and they're all on
- top of each other and who's responsible for what. That has been a challenge. First Street was a federally
- funded project so we had to go through the whole tip process and of course that's you apply four years
- out and then you get to it. So that was before my time but yeah sometimes though you can't really
- do the infrastructure after the construction. You either have to do it during or before. And East is
- a great example. We have our brand new park out there that we're going to have to try and protect while
- all that redevelopment happens. And Second Street's about to be done this year. And you're kind of walled
- in on what you can disturb during construction. Yeah, it's really challenging. There's not a great way
- to perfect way to do it, I guess.
- Just one really quick question. The 218,000 is just for moving the trees, creating the parking, moving
- the sidewalk. It has nothing to do with the crushed sewer line. Is that correct? Right. That's a completely
- separate issue. It's just something that's going to impact the new road as well. The crushed sewer line.
- Whose responsibility is that? Because that's a new piece, and that's why I'm asking. The responsibility
- is pending.
- Again, it really has nothing to do with this body, but the city is asserting that the contractor damaged
- it during construction. So the legal folks are talking about that. Long story short, we got a crushed
- sewer line. When we put 90 plus people in here, it's going to have to be fixed. Yeah, I mean, it has
- to be fixed no matter what. OK. So that's just a matter of what the responsibility goes to. At this
- present moment, we've got an infrastructure that we paid for.
- that as a community that has a problem. But we didn't pay for it. Well, when I say we, the community,
- I want to be clear on that, not the RDC. Was that part of the federal? Yeah, I mean, that was an existing
- utility that was just under there. It wasn't being replaced as part of the project, and it got crushed.
- OK, so it was existing. Yes. When we hit that $218,000, we're essentially talking $10,380 per space.
- for 21 spaces. And I'm not going to sit here and try to design it. What about the part right across
- the street next to Core where Jackson Street is? Because Jackson Street is dead ends. I'm just asking
- because we are tearing up something that is brand new. What about it? Well, can parking be put there?
- Like on the empty lots? I'm asking the question just to clarify
- If we don't have to tear something up and we can maintain and keep what we've already paid for. I think
- the challenge is you don't have a plan for the rest. So you don't know how that might impact the rest
- of it. Yeah, there's two parts of that. It's a temporary solution because we know that property will
- redevelop at some point. The parking will go away. The other thing is I don't think planning allows
- just parking vacant land.
- So it's part of a planning process and changement of the UDO. When I say planning, it's the UDO, yeah.
- Yeah, the UDO would need to be adapted accordingly because we're trying to get maximum amount
- of affordability here. But it's still temporary. Well, I mean, two years from now, we could be taking
- it out. Right. Well, and the PUD originally, where this road was all put together, only incorporated
- approximately, what, 28 units for the area that we're talking
- through the PUD at the present moment. So just so we can be clear, I realize that the 200 plus thousand
- has nothing to do with the sewer line. But that all is going to get torn up to repair the sewer line,
- whether we add parking or not. So the fact that we're tearing up existing road won't matter. Is that
- the point? That's really why we're.
- we're considering it so seriously is because we know that there's already impacts happening to this
- road. I don't like adding parking to First Street particularly, but one of my concerns with the PUD
- is the lack of parking. And if we can offset that with some parallel parking on the road, it's better
- than I think where we are now.
- The only consideration I have on parking. I hate that we have to tear something up that's brand new.
- I understand the infrastructure. Because as I drive around town, I see where people cut into the new
- roads. Because we only get one or two shots every 20 years to redo these. But we do have a parking garage
- at some point in that particular neighborhood that can be utilized. We invested $200,000 into that.
- The parking garage refurbishment, just saying, that's not the question that you're posing. It's just
- something I'm wondering about. That garage needs millions of dollars worth of work. Exactly. So we know
- that the garage needs investment to be sustained, even though the basic assessment so far is that it
- can continue as opposed to what happened to the 4th Street garage. It is meaningful that the existing
- residents in McDowell
- this would benefit them at a point when there's going to be a lot of other disruption in their neighborhood.
- So it also seems like a point in favor of doing that. I have a question about just parking demand prediction.
- I don't see that as Flintlock's forte, per se, even though obviously they're designing the neighborhood.
- and I don't know in terms of within the city, just trying to, because it's one thing to say, I already
- see, should we put some parking spaces on First Street? But I don't have a good sense of how many spaces
- are already in Hopewell South, what the predicted demand is, how this area in the neighborhood, whether
- McDowell or adjacent neighborhoods, that's what a parking demand management study would do. And I'm
- 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
- figures about this as opposed to just, we think we need parking, which is not insignificant, but I want
- something more specific, some data to say, OK, this is what we have, this is what we need, et cetera.
- Well, we are more than happy to try and dig up some additional information. This is a very informal
- conversation to kind of give you guys a heads up about the fact that they need to repair a crushed
- sewer line, and while we're at it, do we want to take this on while we're there, or just leave it as
- such? So we can decide to bring the business back to you with some additional supporting information
- as much as available without spending a lot of money, because you would have to authorize the spending
- of money for the study. So unless legal has a separate opinion. No, I thought it should be brought up
- tonight for that very reason to see what questions you have.
- so that we could answer those and bring back more information. You'll be asked to approve the overall
- preliminary plat. So this would be a piece of that. So since it's not something that has been discussed
- before, that's why we thought it would be important to bring it now and not wait. And so we could bring it.
- back some answers to those things. And I do know that Allie has some answers to that because there is
- some discussion of the parking and how many parking per unit and things like that. There is some of
- that information out there. I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but we do have some information
- that we can use and we can get with engineering. We can probably get some questions answered.
- So yeah, that was the purpose of bringing this out early, was to make sure we could answer your, find
- out what you're doing. Yeah, I think it's good timing to try and get a more specific prediction of what,
- not just what the allocation is, find one and a quarter spaces per unit or whatever that may be, what
- that ratio is, but what the predicted demand might be, again, especially hearing from neighbors.
- And just, again, there's a bigger picture than just the acreage for the Hopewell South.
- We know that parking does not necessarily commit itself to neighborhood boundaries. So trying to get
- a little bit more of a handle on that to help with decision making moving forward would be terrific.
- And we do know there's going to be a parking for 714 with Centerstone and things like that.
- So that parking, when that gets developed, goes away, there's going to be much more parking demand in
- that area for those reasons as well.
- Two quick questions, one question, one comment. What's our time frame, Kendall, that this needs to be
- dealt with, decided, so we can actually get it done? The sooner the better with everything. OK, are
- you talking, coming back, asking for that money next, in two weeks? Well, I probably won't come back
- and ask for the money until we have a contractor to award a whole contract. But I probably can come
- back in two weeks with more specific information to help
- maybe get some more guidance on this. OK. What I'm looking at, trying to hit your cost effective construction
- schedule in order to make this happen, is hopefully we move forward in the Hopewell PUD. When you're
- looking at this, are you talking six weeks, eight weeks, something done by January? I'm just trying
- to get a time frame, because obviously with this crushed sewer line, there's a sense of urgency. Oh,
- a timeline for construction? Yes. This would be constructed as part of everything else.
- It would be. So you're talking spring, realistically. We'll have to get started this year. And then
- when it comes to, this is a comment in regards to, it comes to our parking consideration. As we put
- forth and we're trying to do a PUD that we get compact urban form that's walkable and close to downtown,
- I hate to be concentrating on parking, parking, parking, because
- If this project goes forth as it's been designed by Flintlock, we've moved it forward. The council has
- started to move it forward. I don't want to get hung up on that we need tons of more parking. I don't
- think we're talking about tons more parking. I think we're talking about a potentially reasonable addition
- to one area. Sure. I'm good with that, 21. I'm just saying overall when we start talking about parking.
- And just so it's clear, in the street sections of the PUD, it does give us
- flexibility to potentially add parking to First Street if it was deemed necessary. So we just left flexible
- language in there to accommodate if it came up at some point, because it had been expressed by the neighbors.
- So not committing to it, but a possibility. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I do have one more
- thing. With the home builders and meeting with them, there's been a lot of,
- discussions about how we can help facilitate just a really easy building process in Hopewell South.
- And one of those is we were talking about right-of-way permitting, which is my department's thing, and
- having all these builders out there. Normally, they would have to coordinate with us to do their closures,
- maybe go to the board, all of these things. And so some strategies we came up with to maybe help facilitate
- and streamline that is have the RDC's project manager
- talk to all of the home builders and figure out what closures are needed, and then go to the board and
- get those approved for them so they don't have to worry about them. So that's one thing we're considering.
- The other thing is any kind of right of way permit fees, have those be covered by the RDC. It's really,
- I mean, it's like $100 plus your closure fees. So I'm estimating like $2,000 to $5,000 total in permit
- fees. But that could be something else we could do to kind of help them out.
- But a much bigger item that was asked about was water and sewer connection fees. So this is something
- that I'm going to bring to you more formally. But this, for 98 units, it's $4,308 per unit to connect
- to our water and sewer. This covers the plant costs, the added infrastructure costs of connecting these
- homes to our water filtration and sewage treatment plants. Say that figure again. $4,308 per unit. There's
- 98 units, so that's $400.
- and $22,184 in water and sewer connection fees that normally the builder would have to pay when they
- make their taps. In this case, we are considering asking you to maybe cover those fees. That's a significant
- additional investment, though. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention that we're discussing
- it. That's going to come as a formal resolution maybe in two weeks or in an upcoming meeting. Just kind
- of wanted to bring that to your attention. I think that's all I had.
- On that same note, I've got a procedural question. When one applies for a building permit, if I heard
- you right, the underlying developer, which is Fintlock, they're applying for the building permits, not
- the contractor that's actually constructing the buildings? I know that's the case for the first three.
- It may be the case for the entire subdivision.
- But then the contractor, the license, who has the license, like the licensed plumber or the licensed
- electrician, whatever, they're the ones who actually have to come pick up the permit from the building
- department. Part of the building department, part of the permitting process of the building department
- is that there's a sign off by a licensed plumber and a licensed electrician.
- We can't dictate what the builders are going to, who they're going to use. So they would need to have
- their electrician sign off or their plumber sign off, take that down to the building department to receive
- their permit. So we're going to do everything up to that point. Then they would be responsible
- for identifying their plumber and electrician to get the final, to pick up the final permit. OK. Are
- the builders going to be responsible for buying the permit based on the square footage cost that the
- permit costs?
- That's not what you just said. Well, there's a lot of permitting costs to the building permit fees.
- I don't know if we've discussed those yet. We haven't discussed that. I imagine this probably would
- be up to each individual builder, but we would do all the legwork up until that point. So it's up for
- discussion at this point, but it would be common for each builder to pay their permitting fees. Right.
- Well, that's kind of what my question is, who actually
- Who's the applicant? It's a pre-approved plan, so it would be Flintlock or on behalf of the city, but
- then it will be them when they pick up. For each individual address? Yes. Okay. But that could be another
- opportunity to cover another fee whenever the building permits. I don't even know what they are. It
- lists piggy banks. Here comes Kendall.
- It should be expensive, dude. You should ask me to stop coming. Now, I got to ask the question. Does
- CBU have any care and consideration to help on this, because it's completely separate? Well, I think
- the way they see it is they have to bear these costs one way or another. So it's essentially impact
- fee for the plants to cover the additional.
- And one more question which is related to just looking at the grading of the site and that is related
- to the earlier request from the Council for Community Accessibility about adding as many no-step entrances
- as possible not all of which would make quote-unquote accessible units but at least visitable units
- and I'm just wondering if there's any kind of further insight in terms of the engineering to date that would
- kind of add to that because that was kind of like the information that was needed to answer that question.
- Yeah I'll probably have to update you at a future meeting. I know every accessible unit that was identified
- we are providing level entry to and we've been directed to provide level entry to as many as possible.
- 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
- like bookmark of stuff that
- would be helpful to come back with. It would be helpful to know if there's any differential between,
- let's say, the original plat and, let's say, again, how many no-stuff entrances there could be. And
- this isn't, again, just the accessible units. It's looking at making as many accessible, visitable units
- as possible. So thank you. Anything else before we move on our agenda? OK. Thank you, Kendall. Yes,
- thank you for your report.
- Okay, so we are on to new business. We're on to Resolution 26-30, which is the approval of neighborhood
- improvement grants. Would you like to speak to that? Is it okay for me to? Yes.
- OK, so Angela Van Royen from HAND, happy to present to you the Neighborhood Improvement Grant funding
- recommendations for this year. We did have seven applications this year. And first and foremost, I would
- like to thank formally the council members who were the ones who got to make these decisions.
- So first of all, we had Laurie McRobbie from the Redevelopment Commission, Tom Payne, who is the president
- of the Near West Side Neighborhood Association,
- Caleb Throckmorton, who is the president of the Matlock Heights Neighborhood Association, Maria McCormick,
- who is from our city engineering department, and Dana Workman, who is from Public Works in the Street
- and Traffic Division. So they made the recommendations for the funding of the projects that I'm going
- to present to you tonight.
- I'll get through this. I'm going to just hit the highlights here. So there are seven of them.
- So we did, again, this year had a total budget of $30,000. And with seven applications, that meant we
- had to spread things a little bit thin in certain places. But there are recommendations for funding
- for all seven of these projects.
- The first one is from the Bentley Court Community Association. This is the second year of a three-year
- project. You also approved funding for them from last year. This is a continuation of their wildlife
- corridor project along Winslow Road. And this year they were requesting $12,300. The recommended funding
- is $8,000. They're at the point now that they're actually going to be installing gardens this year.
- Last year it was a lot of
- preparation work and getting the site prepared. So that's where they are at this stage of the project.
- The second one was from the Bloomington Housing Authority Residence Council, and this is for Walnut
- Woods Community Pantry makeover. There is a current pantry there, but they do not have capacity for
- storage for the food that they get from Hoosier Hills, and so they need to improve the circumstances
- and the infrastructure there. And so that one was recommended for full funding of $6,550.
- The Gentry Estates Homeowners Association requested funds for cluster mailbox replacement. This one
- was three separate locations within the neighborhood, not just the cluster mailboxes, but also this
- concrete pads that they sit on, all of which were deteriorating. They requested $10,000. The recommended
- funding for that one is $3,000. The Gentry Honors Homeowners Association was requesting money to refurbish
- their main entrance signs.
- They also requested 10,000. The recommended funding for that one is 2,600. The Prospect Hill Neighborhood
- Association again this year is requesting funds for improvements in Rose Hill Cemetery. You've seen
- this one in the past as well, helping to restore headstones in the cemetery. They requested 10,000 and
- we're recommending 4,000 for that project.
- The Sherwood Green Homeowners Association is looking to replace private street signs with ones that
- are compatible with the city and reflective and much more visible and easy to read. They've had issues
- with first responders, delivery drivers not being able to find their way in the neighborhood. They were
- requesting $9,225. The recommended funding for that one is $3,500.
- And then finally, the Spicewood Neighborhood Association requested funds for a native pollinator garden.
- And they requested $2,350, and that was recommended for full funding. A 16-year-old in the neighborhood
- is the one who presented that project, so we were all quite impressed with that. She's a new beekeeper,
- so this would be very nice to have native plants.
- So those are all the projects. Again, the total for this year is $30,000. And so I present it to you
- and request that you approve the funds. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from commissioners
- on resolution 26-30? I don't have any more questions. I got all my answers. One question that I should
- give them. Some of these projects, of course, we weren't able to fulfill.
- the matches they made. Will any of these projects fall off, or will they continue to be able to be done?
- I have not heard whether or not they will. The general consensus was there were a number of them that
- are HOAs, you may have noticed, that they have the ability to do special assessments or have funds that
- they have on hand or reserve. So hopefully, those will go forward. If they're not able to do it, they'll
- have to let us know, and we will just maybe say, hey, try again next year
- more funding. If that happens, I don't want to do the 1F game, but if that's the case, would any of
- that money be able to be reallocated to any of these other projects? Yes, I would say so. We could certainly
- fully fund some of the others. The Bentley Court, because we've already, the thought was that we've
- already invested a lot in this one from the first year, so we want to make sure that they can accomplish
- that. We could bump that one up. Also, Prospect Hills, certainly Rose Hill Cemetery could always use
- more money for Headstone, so that would be an easy one to reallocate.
- Or some of the others who just didn't get as much, we could just give it to them. So yeah. Yeah. Yeah,
- thank you. Angela, does the expectation for the neighborhood match amount remain the same regardless
- of what level we fund at? Yeah, it has to be 10% minimum. That's all. It doesn't have to be as much
- as what they, well, for some of them it'll be more if they go through the project and we haven't given
- them what they've requested.
- So the neighborhood match amounts are what we see here? The neighborhood match amounts are the amount
- that they budgeted for with full funding. Yes. Yes, that's how that works. That was the original numbers
- that they presented. So they'll either do smaller projects or invest more of their own dollars. Yes,
- exactly. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. The spice wood, that's going to help the other gardens that are being
- vented, because we've got pollinators.
- can't go wrong. Absolutely. Absolutely. Angela, do you ever encounter neighborhoods that are raising
- money elsewhere from beyond their own HOA or that are just seeking grant funds from some other grant
- entity? Not too much. Bentley Court did talk about that to look for other places for funding, whether
- from private businesses or I'm not sure exactly where they would, but that is something they did discuss as
- a possibility if they didn't have full funding. But generally, neighborhoods, I think, just don't really
- know where to start oftentimes, because this is a grassroots kind of project, and they're not really
- all about fundraising. So I guess it would depend on the nature of the project and how big it is and
- how invested they are in it. Yeah. Rose Hill is one that conceivably could find other sources, and I
- think has in the past. I think the Monroe County is
- Historical Society Center has provided funding for that. So that's a very long-term ongoing need. So.
- Yeah, this is just the neighborhood, local neighborhood that's trying to help out. It's trying to help
- out. Yeah, they certainly have lots of need there. No one's going to walk through Rose Hill. You should
- go walk through because it has significant Monroe County and Bloomington history in it.
- And the peonies are stunning right now. There's been a lot of time walking in that one, and as you look,
- it gives you a good sense of where we came from, and we've got to maintain it. Thank you for
- the presentation. Before I put this up for a vote, I'm just going to say that I am going to abstain
- from this. I have an ownership interest at Sherwood Green, and so I'm not going to put myself in the
- vote. But that said, I will accept a motion for resolution 26-30
- I'll move approval resolution 26-30. I'll second. First and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. And
- one abstention. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. OK. We are now opening the public hearing
- for resolution 26-31, which is
- A resolution modifying and confirming a declaratory resolution of the city of Bloomington Redevelopment
- Commission designating and declaring a certain area as an economic development area, approving an economic
- development plan for the said area, establishing a residential housing program in said area, and regarding
- related matters in the summit district economic development area. Who would like to speak to that? I
- would like to speak with that.
- This has finally come full circle. Back in March, March 2nd, this commission approved and adopted resolution
- 2617, which was the declaratory resolution that designated an area known as the Summit District Economic
- Development Area as an economic development area pursuant to Indiana code, and also designating a part
- of that as an allocation area.
- That allocation area was Shasta Meadows as part of the Summit District. This is on the west side next
- to Wimmer Road, and it is the first neighborhood of five in there to be developed. And since it was
- to be developed residentially,
- This would be considered a residential allocation area. So it would have what the statute calls a residential
- housing development program. After being approved here, it went to the city of Bloomington advisory
- Plan Commission, and on April 13th, 2026, it was approved by Resolution Z0206-04005. And they determined
- that the declaratory resolution and plan did conform with the plan of the development for the city of
- Bloomington.
- and they designated central resolution as a written order of the planning commission approving
- the declaratory resolution. And then on April 22nd of 2026, pursuant to code, the common council of
- the city of Bloomington adopted resolution number 22-08
- and approve the declaratory resolution, the plan, and the plan commission order. So then on May 20,
- 2024, OK, this is why I went back down.
- I'll put this in here to make sure that everybody understood the purpose of doing this TIF area. Back
- on May 20th of 2024, the Common Council of the City of Bloomington, by ordinance 2020-407, created the
- Summit District Planned Unit Development, whose boundaries coincide with the Summit District EDA.
- And the PUD plan, as it was approved by common council, states that the summit district development,
- quote, is necessarily dependent upon the city of Bloomington's support concerning utility capacity and
- expansion, as well as developing funding sources, including tax incremental financing to support road
- and related infrastructure completion.
- Since the declaratory resolution was approved here on March 2nd, on March 4th, House Enrollment Act
- number 1001 was passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor. And it made a change when
- a determination of a residential TIF would occur when it expired.
- The date that that law comes into effect would be July 1st of 2026. Also wanted to make sure that it
- was noted that part of the Summit District economic development area is part of the consolidated TIF
- at the very part. And when you create this TIF, it will be removed from the consolidated TIF
- And this is a TIF in and of itself. The hearing was published for tonight. And we followed all of the
- steps required to get to this point. So this is not only modifying the declaratory resolution because
- of that change,
- And what the modification is is related to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the declaratory resolution, which
- strikes the end sentence of those and inserts this. The program shall expire on the earlier of 25 years.
- after the date on which the first obligation is incurred to pay principal interest on bonds or lease
- rentals on leases payable from tax increment revenues from the program or the date on which said bond
- obligations or lease rentals are satisfied. So it's the earliest of those two dates is when it would
- expire. So that is the difference between
- the declaratory resolution as it stood and how it's being modified by the confirmatory resolution tonight.
- So we'll have the public hearing where you'll hear public comment. You're free to discuss it before
- you open public comment or open for public comment and then discuss.
- And we would hope that you would take action tonight to approve this modifying and confirmatory resolution.
- Thank you for that presentation. And we do have, when it comes to if you have questions, we have Justin
- Chang from Reedy Financial is here tonight, as well as your staff. OK. So we'll open it first for questions
- and comments from commissioners on resolution 26-31.
- Will we determined or have an estimate as to what the entire TIF area will actually result? What will
- the TIF funding be over the, either the, I guess the length, if it's bonded, then it would be for 25
- years? Yes.
- Community Financial has been working on a report on that. And so I could pull it up. I guess, would
- you like to give some preliminary? There we go. Yeah, so for Shasta Meadows, we're applying it.
- This is a few years of building out. We're projecting a three-year build out. So we'll start collecting
- TIF revenues in 2029, starting at about $200,000 for Shasta Meadows, and reaching full construction
- in 2032. So 2032 will be the first year that we receive the full year of TIF revenues, and that will
- be about $700,000.
- Like Dana mentioned, 25-year TIF life. We won't receive $700,000 for 25 years if we issue the bonds.
- Let's say in 2027, we'll only get 25 years when we issue that bond. So something to keep in mind.
- Thank you. The bond issue, as far as when we look for any of the infrastructure improvements and such,
- the allocation time frame is not from here. It's from when the bonds are issued.
- Yes, when they close on the closing date. When they close on the date, that is our 25 years that we
- would maximize in regards to? Yes, the clock. The clock would tick at that point, not starting tonight?
- No. OK. Just want to verify that. And then quick question for Dana in regards to the House Enrolled
- Act 1001. What's the pro and con in regards to it? Because obviously, we need to have this in place
- prior to July 1st. Well, we would wait.
- It does say in here that this will become effective on July 1st. That way, it becomes effective when
- this law becomes effective. Otherwise, right now, under the current law, it's 20 years. That's the change.
- Yeah, so that's the change. Another change that they made that was drastic, next year, in the middle
- of next year, it was supposed to go back to the old way of doing residential TIFs.
- And they totally struck that part of the statute out. And so we're staying with the way the statute
- reads now with adding this expiration term is the way it reads now. Could read something different.
- So when we do it on July 1st, we're setting, we're set up where we can fund the infrastructure through
- the TIF 25 years from the date of the bond closing.
- And the number of the bond closing, we don't even know what the bond is at this particular time. We
- do not know yet. We do not at that. That's still an unknown. We'll have to come back. Right. And we'll
- be bringing that report to you in the near future. It just came out. And internally, we haven't even
- had a chance to look through it and see what questions we have. But we will be bringing that to you.
- And Andy actually does.
- look out for all five neighborhoods and what the entire thing would look like. So we can expect that
- within the next month or two. OK. And then with that, since we've already went and approved some dollars
- in the previous resolutions to try to get the engineering and things going, are we moving forward in
- regards to that even as we approve this? Yes. Or potentially approve it?
- Yes, we're moving forward with getting agreements for the design of the infrastructure to bring back.
- This may be a question that Kendall's gone. So how long does it take to actually get some of that taken
- care of, looked at, so we can actually see if we can get something eroded or something? I don't know
- the answer. I'm so sorry. No, I figured with Kendall gone. That's a question for him. We'll hit him
- next time.
- Yes, nine months, but I don't know. Okay. Well, I'm just, as we look at our housing shortage and the
- things we're looking at, and we talk about these things, you know, from a personal standpoint, those
- timelines to try to get our public infrastructure in. Yeah. And of course, the assessed value won't
- go up until the built out and things like that. So it'll take time. So we'll, but one of the things
- is that the bonds can pay back.
- if necessary. So there's different ways that it can be structured. Plus, it looks like one of the other
- neighborhoods may even get started as, well, this one's still in process. So, you know, we can look
- at that as well. We decided doing only this residential TIF first because the other
- A couple of the other areas have commercial areas, and it may be that we want to look at them differently
- because of that and see what method might be best. And this change just happening in March is being
- looked at to see how this really affects, because the timing has been a major change between the difference
- between residential and commercial. Now that this has moved to 25 years, that kind of makes
- They're not as different. So we've got to start looking at that a little harder, what the real difference
- is. What the financial impact will be. Yeah. OK. Thank you. OK. There's no other questions or comments
- from commissioners. We'll open it for public comment. Any public comment on resolution 26-31 as part
- of the public hearing? Anything online? Seeing none, I will invite a motion
- for approval. Roll approval of resolution 26-31. Second. First and a second, aye. I need to abstain
- from this vote because I am an adjoining property on it. OK. Thank you. OK. So we have a move and a
- second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All in favor and one abstention. Thank you. OK. We are now on to
- other business.
- Oh, sorry, close the public hearing. Yes, that is the conclusion of the public hearing. Thanks. Don't
- want to open it and not close it. Okay, so we're now on to other businesses or any other business that
- would be before the RDC this evening. Would you like for me to start? Sure. Okay. I can start screen
- share. Okay. I have drafted a
- or several of us have been working on a draft of a potential resolution. This is in regards to Hopewell
- South and the PUD. As you know, the council has met several times on this already, and you've had a
- work session with them. And so put together a resolution to try to see if we can
- Make sure what you're OK with that they've passed and what you're not and what your thoughts are on
- the things that are still up and being debated, because they meet in two days. And to get your feelings
- would be important. We don't have to pass it as a resolution. We can look at each thing individually.
- 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
- do it. I felt that this was the best way. One of the reasons is because there is that legal debate between
- what is a reasonable condition and what is an amendment. Many of the things that they passed, I honestly,
- my honest legal opinion, and I strongly feel, are amendments.
- And the case law shows that the council cannot do an amendment unilaterally, that it has to be agreed
- to by the petitioner. And by doing a resolution and at least giving acknowledgement or at least giving
- acknowledgement that you're OK with doing it, the Misty Woods case shows clearly that that would be enough.
- to acquiescence to the amendments for them to be valid. So I think this would help just keep any of,
- by doing this, it makes whether it's a reasonable condition or an amendment irrelevant, because it doesn't
- matter. You both agree on it.
- kind of just trying to make it easy. I don't know if you can. Can you enlarge that document?
- Enlarge that. Are there hard copies of this available? I know that we've got a copy. We've made several
- changes since that went out. I thought the hard copies reflected the changes. Oh, you've printed a new
- one? Mm-hmm. OK. So do these hard copies reflect the most recent changes? OK. Thank you very much.
- Thank you. So the.
- First part of the resolution is the normal whereas clauses that we talk about how Hopewell South came
- along. So you have seen all of those before on the first page. On the second page, the second whereas
- clause is where we pick up.
- Because, well, the first one there is where you passed. By determination 25-152, the RDC determined
- that rezoning Hopewell South blocks 8, 9, and 10 to a PUD would further the public's best interest in
- redevelopment of Hopewell South. Then whereas the common council has voted and passed certain conditions
- pending the council's overall approval or denial of Hopewell South PUD,
- Then I talk about the legal issue there on what's classified as reasonable condition or an amendment.
- And this would eliminate that debate. And I point out that there are some continuing conditions that
- are being debated. And so put in some language that we can play with as we move along.
- And the last whereas is just that you wish to express what your positions are on what's being pending
- and what has been already passed. So the one you just reaffirm your support for the project is overall.
- Number two is where it goes through what actually was
- that I added to that that doesn't appear for some reason. I had added to number two, I'd added something
- to it. It's important, so give me please give me a second.
- want me to start going over the reasonable conditions while you look for number two? So several of the
- items the city council has already voted on. And so some of those include items that really would not
- be an amendment to the overall PUD. And so those are the things that I think he's
- got here as accepting those items that have already been approved. Reasonable condition number one,
- as permitted under state law, the allowed use table will be amended to reflect the project goals. We
- did that early on after plan commission, so that seems like a moot point at this time. Reasonable condition
- two, a rational phasing plan will be created. We did have a phasing plan in the PUD. We just further
- clarified that again with an additional exhibit, but it was already in there.
- a reasonable condition, eight. The PUD street standards and street sections will be updated to reflect
- a six foot minimum sidewalk width for all streets except for Rogers streets and lanes. So that was an
- increase to the size of the sidewalk, but it did not cost us any units. So it was something that they
- had issued as a reasonable condition and did vote to pass that.
- On reasonable condition nine, the sidewalks bisecting block nine in the east, west, and north, south
- directions will be updated to reflect a minimum width of eight feet. These sidewalks shall be fully
- within either the public right of way. The pedestrian and bicycle easement right of way dedication will
- be increased as necessary to accommodate this change.
- The one change that they had made at the council meeting was that this particular reasonable condition
- would have taken out several accessible parking spaces. It wouldn't have cost us units, but it would
- have cost us spaces. And so the author of the resolution was willing to modify it to say that the sidewalk
- running north and south may be narrowed as necessary to accommodate the planned accessible parking spaces.
- So we didn't lose anything there.
- It will cost us more money, but we didn't lose anything there. Reasonable condition 10 be the PUD street
- standards and street sections, including the Wiley Street and Jackson Creek Streets. Cross sections
- will be updated as necessary to reflect a tree plot minimum width of five feet, located between the
- sidewalk and drive lane for all portions of the right of way located within the PUD.
- two, and block eight on the north side of Wiley Street, the sidewalk may be immediately adjacent to
- the street for a portion of the block as necessary to accommodate the existing building if preserved.
- So that speaks to the 714 South Rogers building and how if they were to widen the sidewalk in the right
- of way, it would go into the actual building. So this is just jogging around that little bump out
- The right-of-way dedication will be increased as necessary to accommodate these changes. And then front
- stop backs along Wiley and Block 9 may be decreased as necessary to accommodate the additional right-of-way
- dedication. For reasonable condition 12, the Rogers Street cross section will be updated to reflect
- the design requirements of the transportation plan, including a five-foot tree plot and a 10-foot sidewalk.
- We had put in the PUD a minimum of five feet, just with flexible language, because we really didn't
- know what the situation was. So it's not going to cost us more money, but it doesn't affect the plan terribly.
- that we feel like is okay. And block A, in the immediate proximity to the stairwell of the existing
- building, the width of either the tree plot or sidewalk may be reduced to grading or design elements,
- making it physically challenging to maintain the width specified in paragraph one. Reasonable condition
- 14, petitioner will work with the city of Bloomington Engineering, Planning and Transportation departments
- to design the lanes with a target speed of 10 miles an hour.
- utilizing design elements intended to create a low speed and high comfort environment for vulnerable
- road users. So that was a more recent addition. That's a change since we've met as a group with the
- council. That is true. I believe Hopi was the council member that introduced that particular reasonable
- condition. And they did, I believe, vote to adopt that. Now, those are the things that they have
- voted on, agreed to, and we feel like are not a huge deal. Certain elements will certainly cost us more
- money, but they are not costing us units. They're not a big amendment to the plan. So it seems to be
- OK. Now, number three. Well, let's go back to the top. OK, sure. I'm not a fan of Google Docs. What
- I put in there left.
- try to revive it. So what it says, the conditions that the because wanted to make a point that in that
- work session, we all understood that this was going to cost extra in design and in construction costs
- to make these changes. So this is just acknowledging that the conditions that the Common Council have placed
- on the Hopewell South PUD will cause additional costs in design and construction costs, especially those
- related to the widening of sidewalks and right-of-ways. However, to move this critical neighborhood
- development along for affordable housing for our residents, the RDC will accept the following conditions
- placed on the Hopewell South PUD. It would have been less expensive to go with PUD as it stood,
- These are things that the council would like to put in and, again, to negotiate. These are things that
- you discussed and you would be willing to move forward with. If we could pause at that. I want to, just
- before we move on to the rest of this, just pause for any questions or comments from commissioners on
- this section, just because it's saying that RTC accepts this. I want to make sure that's actually the case.
- My question in regards to it, we went through, you've just read some of the ones we all have an agreeance
- on without a question. And while, yes, it may cost more, we've talked about that. Why put it in and
- say, well, we'd love to do it cheaper? But these conditions create that. So if we're agreeing to them
- in order to get our unit count up, keep our affordability what we can, and still be able to work together
- for the benefit of the community to put that kind of in, we know it's going to cost more, and it's based
- on the council creating that situation.
- I mean, we brought the PUD up. So I don't feel comfortable saying, from my standpoint, saying as a member
- that, well, it would have been cheaper if you guys hadn't put these conditions on. That said, I would
- be interested in some transparency. Is there any cost analysis to compare what the additional infrastructure
- upgrades would cost?
- I feel like that's, even if it's not up for debate, I think for transparency purposes, it would be valid
- to include somewhere. Sure. I think the sidewalk widening was a piece that I think Ali had clarified
- early on, that it was an additional 20% worth of sidewalk concrete. So I don't have specific costs.
- And I think that's one of the challenging things, is here we're debating affordability. We don't have
- a cost yet. How can you commit to a number that it's
- you have no idea to. So that's one of the challenges right now. That's also why we're saying, yes, we're
- OK with it, in theory, but every little thing affects affordability in the long term. So it's not that
- we're saying no. It's not that we're criticizing it. But it is accounting. If you're looking at the
- balance sheet, it is a deduction.
- And again, this is a draft, so it's your resolution, so you can modify it in any manner that you so
- choose. I just look at that as kind of like, well, we were going to give you something else because
- of it having to go through a PUD process. Well, it is a fact that what we brought was less expensive.
- And that was the overall goal, to bring as many attainable, affordable units as possible and demonstrating
- what might happen if we were to
- change some of the things in the UDO, to address it in a different way, to demonstrate how we might
- be able to bring more attainable ownership or units to Bloomington, period. So it is a piece of it.
- And it's not meant to be inflammatory. I didn't author it, but. I'm not looking for inflammatory. I'm
- just looking to take something else out that doesn't create anything that causes any additional thing.
- Because we have to work together. Any additional what? Any additional.
- push back in regards to it. We've got, we've got. And this is just reading it into the record to state
- that these are additional costs, but we're agreed. And to be completely transparent, we're saying it
- most likely will cost me. So if you want transparency, if you want to, if you want to maybe modify the
- language will cause
- Maybe you would soften that by saying, well, most likely cause, because we haven't done the other. There's
- no question it will cause more. Well, then I don't know what the issue is. I think we leave it as is.
- All right. OK. I think that's kind of. I thought it was placating somebody's concern. No, I understand.
- Just a concern, because we're not through a PV process yet. Sure. Just in comments I had heard, and I did.
- Again, it's your resolution. No. The parallel is if we were, and we are not, if we were accepting something
- that reduced the number of units, we would be saying that. Right. We wouldn't say something most likely
- to reduce it. Yeah. It's a very simple question. To me, this is a fair thing to do. Well, and to be
- perfectly honest, the item that's left for discussion is affordability. And I think that it's very difficult
- for everyone to understand that we don't know what the costs are. It's hard to commit. We've put very
- loose language into the PUD about making sure that we're complying with the standards, but not pinning
- it down yet because we don't have those exact costs, not because we're not trying to deliver affordability,
- not because we're trying to target 120% of their median income, because we don't know yet. And in this
- geopolitical environment,
- Gas is almost $5 a gallon now. What do you think that's going to do to construction materials? Interest
- rates as well. So we have a very challenging environment. I'll speak to that. I know I'm jumping ahead
- in point five. The issue of affordability. One question I'm just curious about in terms of, let's say,
- acknowledging that there's a higher cost of some of the infrastructure upgrades that are being
- that council has approved. Are we essentially writing a blank check on that? Or is that something that
- we have? Because as you know, we don't know the costs yet. And it's not a bottomless well of here's
- more funding. So my question is, are there any kind of opportunities for revisiting along the way as
- specific costs become clearer and more into focus so we can say, here's what we have. Here's what it's
- going to cost. We need to revisit.
- Because this is ideal, but there's realities that we may have to face up to later. Are you talking about
- in relation to portability or just overall? The overall project, because obviously, the funds that are
- available for the project may be some may be for infrastructure, some may be for other components of
- Purple South. And I'm just trying to get a sense of the checkpoints to revisit as we understand the
- costs and can compare it with available funds. Well, in this case, they moved the minimum from five to six.
- There's no moving it back without amending the PUD. So in that particular thing, there's no going back.
- So as detailed as this PUD is getting, engineering is getting very, and design people are getting very
- limited on what flexibilities they do have.
- So when it comes back with the design, there's not going to be very many options. Well, that's why I'm
- looking at this resolution. Because this is the point of the RDC to make a statement on this. And again,
- we just got this a few hours ago. And I understand the timing is because council's meeting on Wednesday.
- But my point is that.
- I would love this resolution to be an opportunity to at least make an observation along those lines
- to note that costs are increasing with these upgrades. And while I think they certainly will benefit
- quality of life again, to achieve the affordability has another budget line component and trying to
- find some way to at least recognize that in this resolution so that again, when push comes to shove
- with reality of budget affordability and available funds,
- that at least we're on record as having noted that. Again, I'm just putting that out there because we
- are getting boxed in at this point. And again, I really appreciate and admire what council has done
- to get us to this point, but also recognizing the pros and cons of where we're going. So just trying
- to see if we can, in somewhere, again, in here, have a statement to recognize that. And again, I don't
- have a chance to wordsmith it because we're kind of under the time
- I'm just expressing the overall concept. And I welcome other feedback on that. We did try to do some
- wordsmithing on the affordability part later on, too. Yeah, but that won't take care of what I think.
- So if there's something different that you would like to add or remove to this, I'd be happy to make
- any modifications. I support the thought. I'm not sure how to do it.
- But I can see that being a real issue, a possibility that we get down the road. But if I hear you correctly,
- virtually anything that would be considered a significant cost overrun will end up being a PUD revision,
- which would have to go through a long process with council approval. So we couldn't.
- nothing would get changed without their knowledge, which is only fair because this is an agreement between
- the two parties. But this is, boy, it really does tie us down and does not match the reality of the
- world right now. So it's,
- Will this come down to a phasing situation in regards to when we look at our affordability to answer
- the question that Deborah's asking in regards to affordability based on the timeline you put together
- where we put a phasing plan together? So to make sure we're on the same page from what the dollars are,
- if it's phased out correctly, then we'll be able to have a timeline and a budgetary basis to know. It's
- going to cost us more money to put in infrastructure
- the horizontal in phases. It's such a small area that it need, and you've probably heard Kendall talk
- about that previously. So I don't know that it would save us anything to phase out the different blocks
- at this point. I mean, block eight is a separate issue, but between blocks nine and 10, all
- of the infrastructure is going in in one phase to save
- Right, yeah. The larger you can do, but to try to address accordingly so that we don't get ahead of
- our skis in regards to the financial commitment. We'll know once the engineering comes back,
- we get the bids, and we'll know if we're anywhere near. Because at this present moment, we're still
- gathering everything and trying to get our project approved through the PED process. Well, correct.
- But I mean, I think the other thing to think about
- It's not just the horizontal costs. It's the vertical as well. We will not know what lumber is,
- for instance, which went astronomically high during the COVID pandemic. So we just don't know.
- We don't know. As our consultant said, the cheapest, the most affordable house you can build is the
- one you built last year. That's correct. So that's where the time frame I'm trying to look at and ask
- these questions in order to try to move this forward because, you know,
- I think we move forward. I think the stop gap that we have is that if we find ourselves hitting the
- wall, we just stop. And as much as everybody wants affordable housing to be built yesterday, if we can't
- build it affordably or we can't do the infrastructure correctly, we stop.
- We go back and we have to revisit this. And if that means redoing the PUD, so be it. But that's the
- reality of the situation we're in. But I don't think we can prevent or put any language in here or do
- anything that's gonna protect us from that reasonable possibility. We just have to move forward and
- do the best we can do until we hit the wall.
- I think you make a very good point. I mean, the more conditions that are added to this and the costs
- that are added to this, we actually don't create more affordability. We stop it. Sorry. At this point,
- we have the majority of the items identified that we've agreed with the council on that we will do.
- The costs will come at a date once this is passed and we start moving forward, providing it gets passed.
- I'm trying to think through. And I appreciate what John and Randy have said. And it may just be, yep,
- and we're moving forward. And I will accept that if that's where we're going. I'm just trying to think
- we're at a point in time right now where council has yet to revisit this on Wednesday. And I'm trying
- to just think if there's anything that we can put forward that council might consider to provide some
- kind of leniency. And I don't know, again, the lawyers maybe have to weigh in on what that would look like.
- But something that says if when the costs come in, the project costs exceed, you know, because we don't
- want the project to come to a complete stop. And I'm trying to just understand what loophole we might
- be able to create so that we can accept these conditions if they do not substantially change the viability
- of the project. But if that becomes an issue, we don't want it to say, well, we just have to stop now because
- We've run out of money, and all this work that's been put into this project can't move forward now because
- we've just hit bottom. So I'm trying to just figure out, or we have to revisit the PUD and take another
- year and a half to do that. I'm just trying to think of a way that the timeline right now with RDC talking
- now and council meeting on Wednesday, if there's anything. And again, I don't know if we can do it right
- now at this public meeting. I don't know.
- I'm just trying to see if there's an opportunity to look at how to keep the project moving in a way
- that preserves the affordability, builds the housing, and may need some leniency in some of the additional
- costs that are being encumbered right now. And again, council's adopted it. Again, I appreciate what
- they've done with that. So are you saying that we, for example, would in some way
- And we would have to go back, I realize, the process. But for example, reduce the size of the sidewalks,
- 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
- want to say, sidewalks may be up to six feet wide, right? And that way you've got, OK, when it comes
- down to doing the numbers, we say, OK, six feet wide is what we're aiming for. But right now, we want
- to make the numbers match.
- 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.
- But if we're looking at a 20% additional project cost and then having to go back to amend the PUD, again,
- there's a lot of work, a lot of dedicated interests that have been invested in this, and I want to honor
- that. But again, if we can have some kind of, again, if we can work with council where there might be
- an opportunity to have that leniency built in to say up to
- these ideal conditions then when the numbers come in we can be like great we can do it or hmm we need
- to revisit that and we have it built into the current language we don't have to go back all around and
- again i'm just trying to get a sense if that has any viability or feasibility with the current timeline
- we're in right now and i'm okay if we go back to no
- We can't, we just gotta move ahead, because I want this project to move ahead, but I'm just trying to
- see if there's any leverage we can use in this moment. What we ended up doing here though, and I agree
- 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
- up doing is we just replicated what the council passed. Yeah, that's exactly what we passed.
- We're really asking them to revoke. Or to revise. Or revise it. Well, which is an easier process,
- 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
- process that we can open up. So that they're going to agree to that. They may not. And if not, then
- we're back where we are right now. But I think it's soft. Exactly. That's my point. I really think we
- have a philosophical problem.
- Well, yes. I mean, absolutely you do. But philosophically, is it affordability that's the priority?
- Or is it the size of the sidewalk? I mean, that is the real challenge right now is we as a community
- want all the bells and whistles, but we don't want to pay for it. And we are stuck paying the bills
- and looking at the balance sheet. And so it's very easy to say, well, yeah, just pay for it.
- You're the city. It doesn't really work like that.
- By going through this process, we have put in full transparency the issues that occur in our community
- for developing affordable housing based on what we have put forth in the past through our UDL. It needs
- revision. This is one of the things we're trying to put forth. Having been involved in PUDs previously,
- the chance of having that leniency and the say of, well,
- You can do this, you can't do this. In order to move a project forward under a PUD, you have to come
- to an agreement of what we can be done. Getting leniency on a PUD is extremely difficult because once
- it's in there, it's its own ordinance. Well, that's why I'm asking you, at this point, we can have the
- up to you. And I guess I'm looking at the lawyers, looking at other folks who have
- additional experience on this just to try and figure out, is this viable? Is this an option? Can we
- consider this? Or if it's a done deal, then we'll just go ahead and pass this. First, the sidewalks.
- The PUD, as presented, had five foot minimum sidewalks. And so they went to six foot minimum sidewalks.
- So what you're saying that,
- you know, up to six basically puts it back to where it was. Well, maybe in a way that's more palatable.
- Right. And, you know, I understand that that may, you know, seem like six of one half a dozen of the
- other. But, you know, it inspires the imagination more to say up to six than a minimum of five. Right.
- So I think that it could be that the RDC says that they would accept
- a variation of that condition that they passed. I think that's fine. At this point, the RDC cannot add
- something new to the PUD that's not already being discussed. Because you can't amend it after it's already
- gone there. So you can only work with what they've been discussing.
- So anything that you want to add like a separate condition that, hey, if any of this causes cost overruns
- to where we can't afford it, then we can modify it as necessary. Something like that can't happen. Yeah,
- I'm just only looking at the reasonable conditions that council has adopted that's under Section 2.
- Tweaking those specifically. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm, again, I'm just, given that we started this
- conversation with talking about the,
- additional costs, right? And I'm just trying to say, OK, we're acknowledging there are additional costs.
- We don't know how to actually attach a number to that yet. But trying to even use the current decision-making
- process to leave some latitude to be able to make the project move forward, honestly. So would you want
- that language to say that up to six is
- as long as feasibly possible. So would you reject it if it stayed the way it was? Or would you say,
- hey, this is really what we want. Please consider this and make this amendment to that condition. And
- would you accept that condition if they didn't do that?
- Again, I don't want to have a hard line on anything at this point. I want the project to move forward.
- And putting a hard line saying, not going to accept whatever means that it comes to a stop again. So
- I'm just speaking for myself, but I am interested to invite council to understand the impact of the
- infrastructure upgrades and know that we are interested and would like to welcome that, but also need
- some wiggle room to be able to
- achieve the affordability and keep the project moving forward. That's the thing I'm anxious about is
- that, yay, we sign off on this, we move it forward, and then the numbers come in. And we're like, we
- can't afford it anymore because we don't know the numbers on that yet. So I'm trying to create the wiggle
- room so we can keep the project and get it coming out of the ground. And I just don't know if we're
- there yet because we have the open-ended questions. Well, so what if?
- On number two here, it said something in time. I realize it's not exactly binding, but the RDC will
- accept the following conditions placed provided that it does not cost us the affordability or some kind
- of wordsmithing to that effect. Does that say that we have to reduce affordability? Correct. And I mean,
- the one thing that we all need to be aware of is that we've committed to a certain percentage that are
- permanently affordable.
- What did these costs do? They drive up the costs of the other units as well. So then we're overall not
- delivering as many units. So just challenging. But maybe some language like that. Yeah, no, that would
- be great. And then again, there's an opportunity for council potentially on Wednesday to understand
- this conversation and how this perhaps is
- adapted this language as you suggested. And then potentially, again, have the opportunity to create
- the wiggle room to keep the project moving forward. Should one of us be at the council meeting on Wednesday
- and at least offer those viewpoints and public comments before they vote?
- Do they remember your speech that you just gave us? I'll try and wordsmith it and make it shorter and
- more succinct. That's the point. Yeah. Well, my thought was that this passed, that I would send it to
- the council. The council attorney? The council attorney and further members, and so that they would
- have it ahead of time.
- Every time they come up with a reasonable condition that they're discussing, then the petitioner has
- a chance to respond. And so I would respond to them. I'd just repeat that same thing over and over again.
- Which means it would be good to have that language, as you suggested, in the resolution so that we've
- made it as clear as we possibly can.
- So then what I've just added is, however, to move this critical development along for affordable housing
- for the residents, the RDC will accept the following conditions placed on the Hopewell South PUD by
- the city of limited common council, provided that these conditions do not significantly impact
- the affordability goals of the project. Please tell me if you want something different. That is definitely
- the intention of what I've been talking about and interested in, again, others' responses to. But something
- that acknowledges
- that this is something that we don't know the full outcome yet, but we are anticipating is something
- that we need to understand may come down the pipe. And again, hopefully this conversation can be continued
- on council side on Wednesday to appreciate and understand that, and then perhaps have a counterpart
- that they may be able to continue it.
- the whole document to work with. So let's move on. I think that's a good change. Let's move on. These
- reasonable conditions are just the ones that are part of that. I want to comment on the whole thing
- just to make sure, given there's been contention from a legal standpoint over the period of time, and
- then getting this to the council's attorney tomorrow for them to then digest for a Wednesday night meeting
- It seems a little difficult to do because the first thing this says is, okay, you got to go through
- it and giving the council adequate time because until this came up, my understanding was that this Wednesday
- would hopefully be the last. Tomorrow is a city holiday as well. No, I'm sorry. I apologize. Wednesday.
- Wednesday. So we got a city holiday. So we're essentially going to get this to the council
- on Wednesday for them to vote on the PUD that night. There's nothing for them to vote on from this.
- This is just information that where you guys stand, right? This is not an ordinance. No, I understand.
- I understand. This is just our comments to the council. But if they were to be in a position to modify
- something to say, okay, we understand the point that RDC is making on this and we're willing to take
- what we've already accepted and voted on, but we're
- Again, open to adjust it to create the wiggle room that we're looking for to get the project built so
- that, again, best case scenario, it's meeting all these conditions in their full entirety. Wiggle room,
- being able to tweak it if we need to to be able to keep the project moving and not just be in the hole
- because the budget doesn't meet the reality. And I would agree that to Randy's comment, the timing is
- not ideal, but it is optimal.
- It's the best we could do given the timing and the constraints on this particular body. And the fact
- that we have meeting schedules, too. So. Is the reality of the meeting schedules in the? Well, it is.
- But at some point, we've got to say, OK, guys, just like when it was coordinated for the RDC and the
- city council to sit down and go through it after we'd been through a couple painful meetings, that there
- was discussion between the
- attorneys on both ends. And I'd really like to get out of what's legal and go to what's right. Does
- council have to, is this their last shot at voting on the PD? So they could choose to postpone it. They
- can kick it down the road, but this next meeting could potentially, if everything was agreed between
- the RDC and we did what we've talked about at the
- If that was good, would this next meeting be the last meeting that the council would have to do? Not
- necessarily. Not necessarily. So this week was the date that Carrie had mentioned, Mayor Thompson had
- mentioned to the council she was hoping that we'd work together for the month of April and then come
- to some resolution hopefully by this week. But we don't know. I mean, there's a lot to discuss.
- I think we should probably move on. There's ways that they could look at it again. Yeah, it's a PUD.
- I mean, you can always go back through the process if we run out of money. Because that's what happens
- in the private world, is when you get a PUD approved, you may run out of money. Well, that's the other
- thing. If this was a private developer, they wouldn't have been spending $300 an hour on their attorney
- all this time.
- And then guess what happens to those costs? They get baked into the project and passed on to the end
- user. So it's not money growing on trees. This is real money. We're fortunate to be in the position
- we are, from an affordability standpoint, of the soft costs that have to be put into this at the present
- moment. The quicker we can get moved forward, the better off we're going to be from an affordability
- standpoint. Dana, just briefly, can you go back to your question?
- They could make it happen if they wanted to do it again. Right. OK. Dana, can you just quickly go back
- to paragraph two, or section two, just the initial, because there was some language in there that was,
- the conditions that the common council has placed on Hopewell South PUD will cause increases in design
- and construction, or will increase design and construction costs, period. You want it to be period?
- Or comma, then, especially related to. But yeah, there's too much going on in that sentence. Can we
- tighten that up? Because it's confusing as red. Do you want to get rid of especially those related to
- widening of sidewalks and right-of-way? Not necessarily. The conditions that the Common Council placed
- on the Hopewell South PUD will increase design and construction costs.
- Design and construction costs, get rid of the extra costs. Thank you. I just didn't want that to be
- confusing once we got there. Are we ready to move on to item number three?
- The common council on March 25, 2025 passed reasonable condition number six, which read, all buildings
- must use either electricity or on-site renewable energy sources for all significant energy needs, including
- for space heating, water heating, and cooking. The RDC rejects reasonable condition six as it is directly
- prohibited by Indiana code. The RDC is not planning to install any utilities other than those specifically
- shown in the Hopewell South
- Can I ask, short and sweet, why do we need to put it in if it's state law? Because they passed it. Because
- we have to respond. Got it. Thank you. I understand the council member that proposed it is planning
- to ask for it to be stricken, but we just need to make sure it's covered. This was one of the items
- that we talked about
- pretty extensively in the work session about efficiency. So if you will remember, the original reasonable
- condition was asking that all of the buildings be LEED silver. LEED silver is not a reasonable standard
- for single-family residential. That's really more designed for multi-family residential. So one of the
- items that we had discussed was about related to something called a HERS rating. So the RDC is committed
- to implementing
- reasonable cost-effective and practicable measures to provide as much energy efficiency for the benefit
- of both the homeowners and the environment. Construction documents shall incorporate best practice air
- sealing deck placement within condition space and high efficiency all-electric systems. In order to
- achieve as much efficiency as possible, the RDC commits to conducting a plan review with a certified
- energy rater
- for each of the building plans in the plan catalog with a targeted home energy rating score of 65. 100
- is generally known as the model of energy code in our HERS rating. So there's two pathways to efficiency.
- I don't know if I need to get into this or not, but we're going for something.
- that's called the prescriptive path. So they're looking at the total amount of volume within the home,
- what the air exchanges are, how we might address efficiency. In smaller homes, it's harder to achieve
- efficiency. This is a little crass, but the way that you can think about it is really, if we go any
- lower than this, it's going to be incredibly difficult to accomplish. Small homes are the hardest to
- deliver efficiency. So if a 500 pound person wanted to lose half their body weight,
- That's possible. But if a 100 pound person wanted to lose half their body weight, it's not as possible.
- With smaller homes, just opening the door would cause a significant air change. And so you would be
- losing a significant portion of the air volume within the home. It's hard to make up for that.
- On these small lots, there's not enough room to put in a geothermal system, nor would that help our
- efficiency. The ROIs on those are not great, but they are the most efficient type of system. There's
- limited duct work here. We would already be using what the model energy code calls for for insulation,
- duct sealing, that kind of thing. So 65 is ambitious.
- It's definitely better than what I would say most of the HIRS ratings that are out there. So it's definitely
- accomplishing efficiency. I have been pushed by the author of this reasonable condition to lower it.
- He wanted to get it down to 50. I'm telling you now that is not possible. And if it were, we would need
- to sink a whole lot more money into it and be on a lot bigger lot.
- again, trying to split the baby here. What about the multifamily units? What about them? Does that allow
- for any of those to be able to utilize a more energy efficient portion? Possibly, but I don't think
- it's going to weight it enough to drive it down to where he's looking for. And they're not really part
- of this view, do they? We do have multifamily units. We do, but not. They're not big. I understand.
- Trying to look at what considerations. I have a question about what the reasonable or whatever condition
- is that there's nothing referenced here about the action the council took. Did they ask? They have not
- taken action on it. So they are looking, though, for a commitment that would address both all electric
- and efficiency at the same time.
- which you can choose to do or choose not to do. But when we were discussing in the work session, this
- is sort of the language that we landed on at that time. I do know that he would like that number to
- change if at all possible, but I'm telling you. So could I suggest that at the end of that paragraph,
- we add a sentence that says, achieving a score lower? Or this is the right wording.
- will add significant cost to the project and significantly impact affordability if it is even achievable.
- Yeah. I don't think it is even possible because of the size of the lots. There's nowhere to put the
- geos. They're very limited duct work, very limited windows, even the most efficient. Even with more money.
- It's not even spray foam. Yeah. And this is, you're getting into costs that throw way out to hit that.
- And efficiency is still possible. Absolutely. It's just, it needs to be cost effective. It can't be.
- The majority of the issues are related to the small homes and the amount of volume of air within the
- home. When you're talking about efficiency, it's all about how much air is being leaked to the outside
- of the building. It was discussed with Ali, the front lock, that the nice thing about this is that it's
- using the plans and giving those plans to the raider.
- It's not having to do it for each building and each unit and having additional charge to each unit.
- And by doing it for each plan, that's going to keep the overall cost. It was about $6,500 or something
- like that? Yeah, it's the difference between the performance path and the perspective path. The performance
- path, they would be using a blower door on the home, a duct blaster, all kinds of stuff to see what's
- going on with the home throughout the process.
- The prescriptive path is very similar. It's looking at the same air exchange as the volume. It's using
- calculations, but it certainly tells you what you need to know up front. Like, you will be putting this
- R value in. You will be putting these double low-E windows in. You will be, you know, so it tells you
- how to reach the efficiency. The other thing, too, is that we may end up having to reach the score.
- We may end up having to put in a PTAC unit
- which actually have a little bit shorter life than some of the HVAC units, like an electric heat pump
- or whatnot. But those are a little bit easier to deliver efficiency in some of these smaller units.
- Yes, sir. Well, speaking of which, you've said all the electric systems in four.
- Does that contradict in any way what we said in number three? No, because this would be part of what
- your commitment is in relation to the, it's part of the commitment that he's looking for. And actually,
- I think I have it pulled up. And this is something you're committed to doing, as in this is what you
- want to do, this is what you intend to do.
- The council has talked about recording a commitment, and as it relates to number three, recording a
- commitment to be all electric by a government entity, the RDC, to me is against the law just as bad
- as making it a reasonable condition.
- But so far, there's been no plans to install any other utility in there to provide for that, except
- for electricity. Based on the IURC, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and past experience,
- please tell me if things have changed. We don't get a say which utilities wants to be put in. It's at
- their expense. They get to put them in, and the home builder
- can decide which utilities they want to utilize. But to the best of my knowledge, unless something has
- changed, we as a body don't, and utilizing a public right of way, if that utility so chooses to put
- it in, they can't. Whatever's a right of way is a right of way. So consequently. So should we strike
- the all electric bit?
- That's why I asked the question, if there's a gas line in the right-of-way and some builders choose
- to use gas, are we now telling them they can't? Well, and truth be told, the most efficient system is
- really high-efficiency furnace of an add-on heat pump. One operates below 40 degrees and one operates
- Which is expensive, but we're very expensive. They are more expensive to put in, but as far as your
- overall monthly costs, I don't think the author of this is looking at that. I think they're looking
- at long-term carbon impact, that kind of thing. Which is real. Yeah. If we had storage, small neurological
- nukes are great. So where are we on this one? We're simply stating our commitment here
- Can we commit to all electric right now? So this means if they would, for number three, if they need
- to strike, what they did. For four, what the RDC is saying is that if the council so chooses to put
- on a condition that is substantially similar to this, that
- It's something that they already see is good, but this is the kind of thing that you want to see. So
- therefore, they know your position. So if they are looking at this item, energy efficiency, they know
- that this is what you would agree to if they were looking in that for a condition for this. OK, I recognize that.
- My question is just that one section or one point where we're saying all electric systems. Yeah. To
- Randy's point, if there's gas available, are we telling builders that you should use it? That's all.
- Right. No, we don't know that we can. We struck that out. Well, that goes back to my contradiction question.
- How does four not contradict one?
- Well, maybe it's that we just took it out. Yeah, we can take it out. But that's what he's expecting,
- I can tell you that, because here's his reasonable condition. And quite frankly, we can deliver all
- electric systems. We may have to have supplemental gas if somebody wants to put it in at a later date
- or any other time. And the gas company may not want to go through the infrastructure cost. This is something
- we haven't had discussions with.
- And I think maybe you've already said this, so I'm sorry if this is a repeat, but in the lanes where
- the infrastructure is going, it's not wide enough to put a gas line. So any gas line that would be coming
- in would have to be on the periphery would be the gas. So maybe this is a non-issue. Sort of, but you're
- not wrong. I mean, what stops somebody from putting a propane tank out there? Well, that's a lot. Not
- that we would want them to do that. I'm just saying.
- Hopefully that would be an HOA violation. Yeah. No kidding. But just saying. Unless we bury it. What
- I'm saying that it's not in the plans is when they're out there putting in the infrastructure originally,
- no gas is not a part of it. So if they want to come back later and put it in,
- They're going to have to restore everything. It's up to the utility in that portion. I mean, just taking
- into consideration the lots that we gave to Summit Hill, I tell you right, those are all going in electric.
- There was no gas infrastructure put in at all. Right. And we're saying construction documents shall
- incorporate all electric. That's what we're committing to.
- Right, we're just saying that the plans are as are the plans, and it doesn't include. We're not anticipating
- adding that into when we build it out. Can we look at this reasonable condition? And I know our language,
- but can we just reaffirm that we do or do not agree with this? I mean, all homes shall be designed
- used using pre-approved plans model to achieve energy performance equivalent to home energy rating systems
- for 65 or better. Construction documents shall incorporate best practice air ceiling deck placement
- within condition space and high efficiency all electric systems. Building inspections shall confirm
- compliant installation to details. Isn't that pretty much what we said? Yeah. Yes. Just double checking.
- Everything that they all elected. And are we putting it in or taking it out? I think we have to keep
- it out. What's that? I think we have to keep it out. Take it out, OK. Because it's the state law. OK.
- OK, so moving on. We can petition the state house to change their law.
- Let's not do that tonight. And how much time will that take? I wonder if it would be easier. Just kidding.
- The RDC reaffirms its commitment to making housing at Hopewell South PUD, if approved, as affordable
- as can be obtained during the economic conditions at the given time and truly desires to maintain
- affordability as far into the future as it's reasonably able to be achieved. Additionally, the RDC will
- fervently strive to assist those at or below 100% AMIA as defined in the Hopewell South PUD plan. The
- RDC reiterates its affordable housing commitment from said plan. The paragraph comes straight out of
- the plan. Right. We all have to read it to us. OK. We're good. Sorry. My eyes water under these lights.
- The Hopewell South PUD does not clearly state how the RDC intends to meet Tier 1. The RDC is committed
- to an increase of 10% more permanently affordable dwelling units for homeowners under 120% AMI, thus
- satisfying the approval criteria of the UDO. So that's straight out of the UDO. So that takes the 15%
- that's in the PUD and explains how the PUD is going to be
- meet the code requirement for the PUD is by using the other 10%. And so that's the 25%. So that's what
- you just said, but I'll just assume that you know. The code requires to meet tier one, you have to do
- one of a couple things. Most of them you can't do because of the type of project. This is one of the
- only things you can do.
- So what you should be doing is adding that 10%, so you'll do 25%. Yeah, because the new code says 25%
- in the UDO. This was a timing issue, is my understanding, of when things were put forth. But affordability
- language is also written more for apartments, not for home ownership. That is incredibly true. There
- are numerous areas within the UDO that do not delineate single family from multi-family.
- and I believe have really contributed to the type of developments that we see today. So the RDC would
- willingly commit to increase the percentage of affordable dwelling units and make more units permanently
- affordable at a lower AMI if it were possible. But given the current economic market and the unknown future,
- the RDC cannot rightfully commit to something that may well be unattainable under current and nor future
- circumstances. What the RDC can do and will do is state that the RDC's overarching purpose of creating
- the Hopewell South PUD is to serve as many people and families as possible, providing truly affordable
- homes in a neighborhood that they can be proud of, and having that affordability component last far
- into the future for generations to come. One of the things that I
- am suggesting to the council is really related to they want to pin us down at 50% right now. Very difficult
- to do until we know the numbers. But if we could just simply go back to council and report periodically
- on what the current conditions are and what the affordability we could actually achieve are, I think
- that would be a better approach as opposed to just writing a blank check not knowing.
- But if we could just work with them and report annually. And I greatly dislike Google, because I put
- a paragraph in here, and it's gone, that stated that the RDC would- Yeah, I thought I wrote it the first
- time. Yeah. Something to the effect that the RDC would willingly report.
- You know, the reason why I can't remember the words that I used. I don't know, did you, Steve? So what
- you're saying is basically it wants you to report it to the council to tell them where we're at? Yeah.
- Is that what you're looking at? Yeah, if the RDC would agree to report it to the county council, it's
- made them maximize its eligibility. You want to put that back in there? Yeah. Can you tell me what you
- mean? The RDC agrees to report it? Except I would say on an annual basis, not so that they decide on it.
- What's that? To report on an annual basis to the Common Council on the efforts made to maximize
- affordability. Period. Yeah. Yeah. I know there was a lot of discussion about the details here,
- but to me, you've already seen once this very thing.
- wants this to be as affordable as possible, and wants it to last as long as possible. It's taking every
- step they can to make that happen. And so the council's winning that same thing. So it's like it's a
- shared vision. And I just would hope that the RDC
- reiterating their dedication to this project, and that's what this project is, would be enough to satisfy
- them that you're going to do what it takes, the best you can, to achieve the best results you possibly
- can. You want to go way up above anything that you put in as minimums, but you can't commit to what
- you don't know you can commit to as the only issue.
- Well, I just think that the language in the PUD was written very flexibly. Like, we will meet the conditions
- of the UDO, which is up to 120%, and we didn't pin it down further just to give ourselves some flexibility
- on what the AMIs were achieving, not knowing what the costs are.
- thinking that we would just, we'll meet the parameters, no problem. And then we'll deliver as many affordable
- units as we possibly can, not just at 120%. So I think it's been misconstrued what that language actually
- was in there for. It was for flexibility, not because we were shying away from affordability. We're
- putting in here from a commitment standpoint in order to establish trust for the future. We've got a
- lot more property over there. We have to do something.
- OK, we're close, guys. Short-term rentals. Local governments may not unreasonably restrict short-term
- rentals, however, and that's Indiana code. However, the RDC recognizes concerns with short-term rentals
- and how that may negatively impact the affordability goals of people and families and the overall
- neighborhood environment of Hopewell South.
- The RDC believes that the Hopewell South Homeowners Association, mentioned in paragraph four above,
- will be the appropriate tool to truly be able to set the guidelines and have those boundaries monitored
- by homeowners themselves. Do you need to fix that because we took it out of work? So that a proposal?
- There's not many ways that you can control short-term rentals, unfortunately. We would all love to be
- able to regularly. So the RDC believes they hope the South Homeowners Association will be the appropriate
- tool that you would be able to set up. So a private homeowners association can vote to approve covenants
- and restrictions that would exclude short-term rentals. We can't as a body.
- The city cannot. The homeowners association and your neighbors, through their governance and restrictions,
- can't. Yeah. Yeah, but they draft and develop those documents. Right. It's not us. It's not us. In the
- beginning, it will be. We can't drive that. Yes. So are you guys good with that, to the extent? Yeah.
- Yeah. Deborah, are you?
- I'm just curious. I appreciate that that's the role an HOA can play here. I'm just trying to understand
- the bigger role of what an HOA will do in this neighborhood. And just if that's something that's being
- committed to having an HOA in the neighborhood, just because that's another layer of administration
- and organization that the homeowners will be responsible for that not every neighborhood, it's an extra
- layer, especially if we're talking about
- People who have affordable housing, that's great. They may have a lot of other things committing their
- time to manage an HOA. So I'm just trying to understand at this stage, and this is a little bit separate
- from short-term rentals. I don't need to talk about it now, but just that's what I'm thinking about,
- trying to connect the dots. So in Ally's, in Flipknot's Excel sheet that included like
- target pricing that was based on comps and your monthly payments and that kind of thing. She did include
- an HOA fee just to get that established. There are two common buildings on the plan that are, I think
- one is a bike storage. I mean, it's bike friendly neighborhoods. So things like that that would need
- maintenance. So it was a nominal cost. It was certainly not a lot.
- push that back onto the city. Mowing the lawn, also in the common area. It's just that there's one thing
- about kind of overseeing a bike shed, another thing about looking up for short-term rentals in a minute.
- Part of the covenants and restrictions. And that will be added to the private neighborhood to enforce.
- Like covenants and restrictions are not enforced by them. And it's recorded, and it's part of their
- deed. So they don't really have a choice.
- Now, you're right. It may have to be policed, but it's not a question. There's multiple homeowners
- associations that people don't even think about that exist. Like ours. We just have a party once a year.
- OK. That's fine. That's not something that had been previously discussed in my experience, so I just
- 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,
- but those two parking areas.
- Well, there's some discussions with like CPU because there's storm water and things like that and gas
- and different things and we, or not gas, grass, not gas and different things and how that might be done.
- And so there's going to be discussions on how that's going to work out. Stuff that has to be managed
- and paid for. And it could be that the
- At least while the development's going on, maybe even the RDC is a member of it, because only some of
- the lots. We will be. We will, because we'll have lots. So we can help. So we will be a participant,
- probably, in drafting the CNRs. And we should learn from our past mistakes in that.
- We need to create it, if we're creating it from the beginning and not wait until the end, that's what
- we saw with Evergreen Village. Yeah, that was a disaster. Yeah, so see, and then what's really nice
- is we've got a lot of experience that when we're drafting it, it's just not, hey, I've created my own
- neighborhood for the first time. We've got the hand department being able to
- These things have been problems. The RDC authorizes the Redevelopment Commission Executive Director
- Hannah Killian-Hanson on her for her design need to represent this resolution in whole or in part in
- physical form, electronic form, or orally as the circumstances warrant to the City of Wilmington Common
- Council at any given time or place following
- this resolution's adoption, including but not limited to at the Common Council's regular meeting to
- be held on May 6, 2026 in the council chambers at Wilmington City Hall. Generally, I've been the one
- at the meetings, so I am happy to relinquish this duty if one of you would rather do it.
- For consistency, I appreciate it. I'm happy to join you at the meeting. I'm just saying, for consistency,
- thank you for doing that. We'll send you flowers. I think seven needs to be in there, because I do recall
- a council person or two asking whether or not this was your opinion, or did you have the support of
- the RDC. So I think it's a good question.
- Actually, at first I thought, why do we need that? And then I remembered the comments. Now I remember
- why. But I don't know why number eight needs to be there. I don't know. I put it in everywhere because-
- You love to just write it. I can try it. Want to take it off? No. It gives us a chance to do something
- that we need to. I don't know. If it serves a purpose, I'm fine. But I don't know what it was.
- OK. I think we're good to go. So we've got a final document that's been modified with the changes that
- we've talked about tonight, correct? Yeah, it will be added to the minutes. We'll get it online as well
- on an adjusted agenda, and then any members of the public that are interested in obtaining
- public information. OK. And you'll need to get that to us tomorrow for signature.
- Either Tammy or Christina will be docu-signing that over to you. I already sent one to you. Could you
- put eight back in? Because sometimes there are things that may come up that it's a catch-all in case
- something comes up. Margie and I discussed that. We're trying to get that into resolutions just to make
- sure that something doesn't come up that we can't deal with.
- OK. OK, so we have thoroughly discussed resolution number 62032. I will open it for public comment.
- I realize it's not in the packet, but you've heard us discuss it. If you have questions or comments.
- I'm sorry? It's not a public hearing. Well, it's a resolution that we're voting on. Is it not open for
- public comment? If you wish to vote on it tonight, then yes. OK, well, I thought it was being
- presented to council, so we either vote on it or it doesn't get presented to council, right? Okay,
- so anyway, I mean, we can decide if we don't want to move it forward, but again, for the purposes of
- a public meeting at which we're discussing something that the RDC would vote on, I was assuming that
- it would be open to public comment, at least inviting that. Yes, if you intend to vote on it, you can
- open it to public comment. And again, RDC members may decide that you're
- We discussed it, but maybe it's not ready to move forward, but I'm just going through the steps here.
- So any public comment, either in person or online on the resolution we just discussed, resolution 2632.
- Not seeing any, I will invite a motion. Again, that's just presented before us. We've talked about the
- sensitivity of it. If the RDC would like to move it forward, this is the opportunity to either offer
- a motion second or not.
- I'll offer a motion. I move that we approve resolution 26-32 as amended tonight. Second. We've got a
- first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. I like this wordsmithing. I think everybody
- did a great job with the election being tomorrow and only giving the council one day. It concerns me.
- we might get pushed forward or farther on. Well, I think the one thing, though, is that this really
- does give us the authorization to speak on your behalf if you're not there, because you're in agreement.
- I agree with that. It's that if election wasn't tomorrow,
- where the city staff is on. Well, and in terms of process, we've just voted. Right. So we're done. Yeah.
- So we're done. Yep. OK. So my understanding is we have one more item of business tonight, and that is
- a memo that's in proposed form for the RDC to consider that's regarding the proposed land swap. Well,
- not directly. I mean, it's not directly related.
- kind of an overall. It's a response to the, at least that's how it's phrased. Again, if there's another
- way we want to frame it, that's the purpose of our discussion now. Thank you for the hard copy. So I
- will offer to speak to this, at least as a start, just because my name's on it. But I will certainly
- invite staff and other commissioners,
- John West contributed to this as well. Anyway, the point of this memorandum is, again, it's addressed
- to John Weickart, the chair of the Capital Improvement Board. It's labeled as from me on behalf as president
- of this RDC. And the subject is an RDC response to the proposed property swap.
- between College Square and the south parcels, the parcels to the south of the convention center. And
- the goal of this memorandum, I could read the purpose, but I'll just say is that we, those are the members
- of the commission that were present at the April 20th meeting verbally responded, but we felt that a
- written response would be helpful to continue the conversation just to
- clarify what the position is, what we're open to, what the role is, and that's why this memo exists.
- So I will just read the purpose as listed in the memo and then stop and invite again staff or especially John who
- shared comments that were the foundation for this memo. So this memo outlines the reasoning
- and considerations that informed the unanimous decision by the City of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission
- on April 20, 2026 to decline the Capital Improvement Board CIB's proposed property swap, evolving the
- College Square property at West Fourth Street and South College Avenue, also known as the Bunger and
- Robertson lot, and the four parcels at West Second and South College Avenue. Again, just the formal
- statement of the purpose in here. I'm going to stop there because, again, there's lots of stuff in here.
- I can read it word for word, and I will as appropriate so that at this public meeting it's clear what's
- in here. But I'm just going to stop to invite either staff or especially, again, since John West started
- this idea to comment or otherwise weigh in. I'll comment quickly.
- I did initiate this and what really caused me to start this was out of a little bit of frustration from
- what I perceive to be a disconnect with the public and with some of our elected officials as to what
- the RDC really does and what is our responsibilities.
- And after seeing some comments after our vote regarding the land swap, it was clear to me that there's
- just a lot of misinformation. So the pieces that I really focused on was the statutory role of the RDC
- and the 2025 priorities. Well, 2025 priorities, which is when this group, this RDC started,
- those priorities are carried into 2026. That was kind of the impetus behind my comments. Some of this
- other stuff is backup information, which I didn't draft. But I just felt like there had to be a document
- maybe the public can rely on and look at and say, hey, OK, that's what the RDC does. Thank you.
- Any other, again, comments from staff that you'd like to include just as part of this? I'm going to
- ask the RDC what would be helpful. Obviously, you've got the written copy in front of you. I am also
- welcome to advice in terms of the purpose of a public meeting. Again, there's six pages here.
- Reading it all word for word may be a little much, but I'm happy to do it if it's appropriate and desired.
- I can otherwise at least read the headers off. So again, public kind of knows the general framework
- that we're talking about. But I'm open to guidance on the appropriate way to move forward on that from
- either RDC or staff on how to do that.
- 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
- 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
- of our plan. No, it was not. All right, so. OK, well, I will read it then. And it might just take 10
- minutes, so it's fine. So I read the purpose, and I read the front matter, which is in terms of how
- it's addressed to the CIB. Second section is the background and statutory role of the RDC.
- The redevelopment commissions, as authorized under the laws of the state of Indiana, are charged with
- advancing community and economic development through strategic investment. The RDC fulfills this mission
- by capturing incremental property tax revenue generated within designated tax increment financing, also
- called TIF, districts in the city of Bloomington. These funds are reinvested into critical
- public infrastructure, safety improvements, and site readiness efforts that catalyze private investment
- support long-term economic growth, and strengthen existing neighborhoods. In doing so, the RDC enables
- transformative projects that would not otherwise be feasible without targeted TIF support. The RDC is
- not chartered to function as a commercial developer, building contractor, landlord, property manager,
- or land bank. Those roles fall outside our statutory mandate and primarily operational capacity.
- The 2025 priorities, which as John noted, was based on the current RDC composition moving into 2026.
- But over the last two years, at the start of 2025, RDC established two primary objectives. One, to advance
- inherited projects to move forward on Hopewell, the Mill Tech Park, and initiate work on Sudbury.
- And two, manage the real estate portfolio. Sell or otherwise put to productive use RDC-owned parcels
- that currently serve
- no clear purpose. The RDC's existing workload is manageable and can be funded at the current TIF levels,
- but the TIF fund is not a bottomless bank account. The next section, considerations regarding the proposed
- swap. When the CIV proposed exchange in College Square for the four parcels at West Second and South
- College Avenue, the RDC evaluated the proposal against both its financial position and its core objectives.
- several factors weighed against acceptance. One, financial terms were unfavorable. The exchange did
- not represent a sound financial opportunity for the RDC. The RDC fulfilled its statutory obligation
- by obtaining two independent appraisals of College Square, which averaged $7.59 million. No comparable
- appraisals, environmental assessments, or rent roll documentation were provided
- for the four West 2nd Street parcels at the time of the swap proposal, making a sound financial comparison
- impossible. Two, operational burden. The West 2nd Street buildings include contributing historic structures
- that would require coordination with the Historic Preservation Commission and potential demolition delay
- proceedings. Several buildings exhibit significant deferred maintenance, commercial tenants are departing,
- and residential leases are not being renewed. The RDC has no staff capacity, management infrastructure,
- nor statutory mandate to assume ongoing landlord responsibilities. Absent the capacity to actively manage,
- create a plan, and reinvest in these properties, transferring such responsibilities to the RDC would
- likely perpetuate or further exacerbate a pattern of deferred maintenance and building degradation that
- tenants have experienced
- under prior county ownership. Third, strategic misalignment. Accepting the parcels would have been a
- distraction from the RDC's objectives as described above. Fourth, likely short-term outcome. Given the
- above, any RDC ownership of the parcels would likely have been temporary, making acceptance an inefficient
- use of RDC time and resources.
- A 30-day moratorium would not have been sufficient time to complete appraisals and environmental reviews
- for the southern parcels. Fifth, financial burden on limited resources. The four CIB parcels would need
- to undergo due diligence, which has not been done to date. Assistance to renters whose leases will terminate,
- securing and possible repair of structures, studies to determine the highest best use of the property,
- possible site remediation or preparation and offering process. The RDC has committed itself to other
- projects and cannot add this additional project and reasonably believes that all projects could be financed
- appropriately. And this is some of the background, a note on the history of the four parcels. Both the
- current custodian, the CIB, and the prior owners, Monroe County commissioners, originally designated
- these parcels for convention center use or support services.
- a purpose funded by innkeeper's tax revenue. When the swap was proposed to the RDC, that designated
- use was set aside without explanation. The RDC believes the custodians of the innkeeper's tax deserve
- transparency on how these assets are ultimately deployed. Next section, the public offering supports
- convention center goals. The RDC's decision to move forward with a public offering for College Square
- is not a rejection of the Convention Center's goal of securing a host hotel. To the contrary, the CIB
- is expressly welcome to respond to the public offering on the same terms as any other party. The offering
- language specifically contemplates hotel proposals, and any respondent proposing a hotel would be required
- to obtain necessary CIB approvals as a condition of the offering, assuring alignment between the two bodies.
- Moving forward with the offering actually accelerates the timeline for resolution, creating more options
- rather than fewer. The RDC evaluates responses based on project quality and alignment with its economic
- development objectives. A compelling hotel proposal that serves the convention center's needs will receive
- serious consideration. Next section, the public offering lets the market determine value.
- The RDC's decision to pursue a public offering is not only procedurally appropriate, but it is the only
- method that allows the market to establish what College Square is actually worth. The appraisals set
- a floor, not a ceiling. The two independent appraisals establish the minimum the RDC will accept for
- College Square. A competitive process creates the conditions for the market to speak.
- Any response that exceeds the floor would be a direct benefit to the community. In the event that the
- offers are less, this is a true indication of the property's value for the type of economic development
- requested. Limitations of appraised value relative to RDC policy and council direction. The appraisals
- do not fully account for the RDC's policy objective to exclude student-oriented multifamily development
- which typically represents the highest value use under an income-based valuation approach. As a result,
- the valuations may overstate market assumptions that are not aligned with the RDC's intended development
- outcomes. In May 2024, the city council transmitted a letter signed by eight of nine members expressing
- a preference that the RDC recover the full acquisition cost of the parcels. While the council does not
- have the statutory authority to impose this requirement,
- The RDC has taken this guidance into consideration in the interest of intergovernmental cooperation.
- Accordingly, failing to test the market and make a good-faith effort to achieve that outcome would be
- inconsistent with the Council's stated direction. By contrast, a subsequent letter received in December
- 2025 indicated support for a land swap from only three Council members,
- reflecting a position that did not constitute a majority and therefore lacks the same level of collective
- council endorsement. The proposed swap bypassed price discovery entirely. No market test was applied
- to the West Second Street parcels and none was proposed. Accepting the exchange would have required
- the RDC to assign value to those properties based on the CIB's framing rather than independent evidence.
- The public offering corrects for that.
- Transparency strengthens whatever outcome follows. If a hotel proposal ultimately prevails through open
- competition, its legitimacy is greater than if it had been awarded through a bilateral exchange conducted
- under time pressure. A competitive process protects all parties, including the CIB. Next section is
- RDC support for the Convention Center and Host Hotel.
- The RDC has been an active partner in the success of the Bloomington's Convention Center expansion.
- The RDC has consistently demonstrated this commitment over the last two years in several concrete ways.
- From 2024 to 2025, there was over a year of active negotiations where the City of Bloomington and Dora
- Hospitality negotiated an agreement centered on the College Square site as a host hotel location.
- The Hunden study notes that the average public subsidy for a headquarters hotel over the past 25 years
- is approximately 33%, with some committees financing such projects entirely through public bonds, and
- cautions that the city and the county should be prepared for this reality. Despite this, substantive
- discussions regarding how to address the anticipated funding gap did not occur, and were largely presumed
- to fall to the RDC.
- While the cost of the land alone does not approach a 33% subsidy, the RDC nonetheless engaged in a good
- faith efforts over an extended period to bridge that gap to the greatest extent possible. In April 2025,
- the RDC approved $100,000 to approve a site analysis for the parcel, the College Square parcel, when
- Dora Hospitality was evaluating the feasibility of building a host hotel on the property.
- RDC retained ownership of that work product. In May 2025, the College Square is a construction asset.
- The RDC allowed Weddle Brothers Construction to use the College Square property as a construction management
- office throughout the Convention Center expansion project at no cost to the CIB. In June 2025,
- At its June 2, 2025 meeting, the RDC authorized an additional $300,000 to support a potential agreement
- with Dora Hospitality specifically to fund architectural drawings to determine what portion of the RDC's
- real estate would be needed for the hotel, establish the proposed structure and design plans, and produce
- renderings of the overall hotel concept. Taken together,
- The RDC's April and June 2025 expenditure commitments represent $400,000 in pre-deal investment on behalf
- of the hotel project, commitments that may be appropriately counted among the public incentives Dora
- representative described as necessary to make the project financially viable when presenting to the
- CIB in September 2024. In 2025 and 2026, there have been two independent appraisals of College Square
- Consistent with its statutory obligations and its commitment to fiscal transparency, the RDC commissioned
- two independent appraisals of College Square, one by first appraisal completed in March 2026 at a cost
- of $5,000, and one by Michael C. Lady advisors completed in May 9, 2025 for a cost of $39.50.
- The average of these two appraisals, $7.59 million, became the minimum offering price for the public
- offering now underway. In November 2025, when the CIB set a December 17, 2025 deadline for concrete
- progress on the hotel, the RDC provided an update at the CIB's November 2025 meeting. RDC executive
- Director Anna Killian Hanson told CIB members directly that the RDC remained committed to supporting
- the Convention Center hotel project. She also described the funding challenge candidly, noting, despite
- offering a significant contribution, a very large funding gap does still exist. At the same meeting,
- RDC member John West added that the commission had spent considerable time with city legal counsel and
- the controller's office to identify
- every available funding mechanism stating, we want this project to happen. We think the Bunger and Robertson
- property is ideal for the hotel, but the funding is what it is. And on April 6, 2026, the Redevelopment
- Commission approved the conveyance of three parcels to the CIB at no cost for Convention Center expansion
- use. In conclusion, the RDC's unanimous vote regarding the proposed land swap
- was not a vote against the Convention Center or the Coast Hotel. Rather, this vote reflects a clear-eyed
- assessment of our statutory role, our current capacity, our financial constraints, and our obligations
- to the community. The RDC remains committed to a transparent, competitive process that will make College
- Square a transformative economic asset for downtown Bloomington. This approach ensures that any ultimate
- development, whether hotel or otherwise,
- reflects both community priorities and real market conditions, positioning the city for a more durable
- and defensible result. Okay, so any comments or questions from commissioners on this proposed memorandum
- to the CIB? Where does this get distributed other than the CIB? It's public now, kind of.
- I imagine you could probably respond to the exact same group that sent us Mr. Whitehart's request for
- the swap, which included the common council, the county commissioners, the mayor. Where do we get that
- from the public to say? We most certainly can do whatever you'd like. We can add it to our meeting folder
- online so that it can be accessed once you approve
- adopted or issue it. I'll leave it up to you. I just want to make sure something we've read into as
- a memorandum at the end is put out. And it absolutely will be part of the minutes too. I think legal
- always says boards speak through their minutes. So it will definitely be part of that. I just want to
- make sure this particular document itself of it is voted on is put out there so everybody has an opportunity
- to look at it and see it. Absolutely.
- That's the goal. It's the goal. Complete transparency. Yep. When does the CRD meet again? Do we know?
- Well, usually it's... Jane, do you know when they meet? It's probably the second Wednesday of this month,
- right? Yeah. It's always on the 1st. I think May 13th. The next Wednesday? A week from this one? A week
- from this one?
- Just just a comment so they can see it everybody in the public can see it and we've got you know people
- in the public that actually from an affordability standpoint while it's not our property in any capacity
- you know as redevelopment and my own personal opinion anything we can do to help maintain the affordability
- of our community
- for the residents is something we should always look at. And it's not our choice. That's not what this
- is. This doesn't state that. I understand. That's just my opinion. On this, it's well-worked method
- based upon our goals, objectives, and what the state law says. I think it's very thorough. Thank you.
- Again, it was a collaborative effort, so I appreciate it. Appreciate that.
- John initiated it, so I think I really am deeply grateful for that. Well done, John. You should lead
- a meeting sometime. I would encourage the CIB to take into consideration the properties that have been
- given by the redevelopment and by the county and take them into consideration for the affordable housing
- individual. It's not our purview, but just encouragement. I think that we're still passed the bill in some way.
- to preserve the home. I think this is well done. My one very minor comment is, can we recognize the
- specific statutes for the state of Indiana? Can we reference them in the paragraph on background and
- statutory role of the city? We'll get up a lawyer for that. IC 36-7-14 at sequence. And for the record,
- I actually looked that up before I wrote that.
- So if we change multiple sections within that, that's it. Yeah, I didn't know which part to use. That's
- the chapter is 36-7-14, and then that sequence ET period, SEQ period. Well, you'll have to tell us that
- again. Yeah. Remember the presentation we had from a law firm from Minneapolis that gave us all a binder?
- Yes. That's where I got all this. OK. I used the binder. Excellent. I've got it on my shelf, too. I
- guess that's the question. We can get the transparency. Yeah. Is it something that we need to add? That
- is a question. Just add it as a footnote. Yeah. I'm sorry. I missed that piece. What was it? The reference
- to the statue itself. Just to put it in the footnote? Just put it in the footnote. Perfect. I concur
- with every reference to what you've already seen.
- does, and everything is 100% accurate. So my question is, I know we have members of the public here
- who are interested in this procurement topic. Again, I'm just trying to navigate what is a little bit
- of a departure from the typical agenda items. I'm asking for consultation. I'd like to open it for public comment.
- I think that's totally appropriate. We seem to have some folks that would like to speak to this. How
- did they know it was going to be on the agenda? They didn't. Did you guys know? Don't worry about it.
- We do our homework. We appreciate that. That's good. I think they said the last meeting that they would
- be coming back very soon. Did you not? Yes.
- OK, so we're open for public comment. And again, the public comment is about this land swap and the
- memorandum as opposed to just general. Usually there's not like a general public comment part of this.
- So just asking that you include your comments relevant to the memo. But if you'd like to speak, please
- come up to the table. Should I say right here? Yes, and just state your name, please.
- My name is Amber Core and I'm a representative of Homes for All here today to speak to you about the
- Seminary Point Affordable Homes Project. We are here to ask this commission to keep the land
- swap negotiations alive with the CIB. It is our understanding that the Indiana Redevelopment Commissions
- in general have the full capacity to grant property to
- community development corporations when certain property is deemed appropriate for providing low or
- moderate income housing. These Indiana codes, which was actually just quoted by you, but there's a different
- section, 36-7-14-22.2, sales or grant of real property to urban enterprises,
- association, or community develop corporation procedure. These Indiana codes grant RDCs powers beyond
- the standard property transfer process to offer land to CDCs for the purpose of developing affordable
- housing. We interpret this Indiana code as a means of encouragement to redevelopment commissions to
- find properties well suited for affordable housing projects.
- projects just like Seminary Point, a property where super affordable apartments already exist. Homes
- for All has finalized a partnership with a qualified community development corporation, which will serve
- as our land grant recipient. We are also finalizing a formal proposal for Seminary Point with a five-year
- development timeline and funding plan.
- We are open to hearing all potential solutions the RDC may put forth on saving the seminary point block
- from destruction and on preserving the super affordable apartments for the Bloomington residents who
- call it home. Lastly, our specific ask for today, place the land swap negotiations with the CIB on your
- agenda for the next meeting and add our formal presentation to your next meeting's agenda so that we
- may share our vision
- for Seminary Points. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else with public comments? Yes. I am Bryce Green.
- I am a representative of DSA, Democratic Socialist, and in partnership with Homes for All, also on this
- affordable housing project and Seminary Point. To the point of the memo, it seems to be written in response
- to something that the activists were not asking
- Like they were never asking for the RDC to become a developer, to become a landlord, become like a source
- of finance. They were asking, as Amber mentioned, for the RDC to facilitate the transfer from the CIB,
- which is currently bound by the rules of the innkeeper's tax, from the RDC to the RDC.
- But that would not be a hot potato that the RDC would have. It would be then transferred to a community
- land trust, which is perfectly within the statutory power of the RDC. And one of the hangups on this
- seems to be this question of the relative value of Seminary Point and College Square. We've been talking
- with numerous city council members, some already and some in the future,
- about this question, and most of them that we've talked to, maybe not a majority yet, are totally in
- favor of the land swap if this is for affordable housing, if this is to preserve these Seminary Point
- apartments, which I must reiterate include 29 units that are super affordable. It seems to me that given
- that we are all in a housing crisis and we all understand that, preserving that
- Housing that can be used for our most vulnerable people should be a higher priority than, you know,
- the Hopewell development, which is, you know, I'm not going to be able to afford a house at Hopewell.
- I mean, it's not even on my radar. So, and we actually had a meeting with Mayor Thompson on Friday about
- this very issue.
- And she raised some of the same concerns that you all raised about the RDC being not a developer and
- about the limited funds that the city has at its disposal. That's all understandable. But when we explained
- that we actually have a plan for how to transfer this property from the RDC to a community land trust,
- we've been talking with sources of financing. We've been talking about getting professional assessments
- about what it would take to bring these buildings to a livable standard.
- which buildings are not able to be brought up that way and what we should do about that. We have been
- working on this. This isn't something that we are omitting. This is part of the plan that we hope that
- you guys would help facilitate. So we're not asking for more of your time beyond being like an intermediary
- in between the CIB
- and people who are committed to and dedicated to preserving affordable housing. That's all we're asking
- for. And our understanding of the law is that this is perfectly within the statutory authority of the
- RDC. The only thing that we're working on trying to get a written acknowledgement of is for the city
- council to say that they don't necessarily hold to their
- requests that you recruit the full value of College Square if the property is going to be used as a
- way to preserve affordable housing. Swapping it for Seminary Point and then giving Seminary Point to
- a community land trust would meet that criteria. So these conversations are happening between the city
- council amongst themselves and between us and the city council and also between us and the mayor, all
- of whom said that they would prefer
- this affordable housing to remain. I mean, I assume all of you guys would prefer that as well. So it's
- really just a matter of reconciling all the concerns and positions. And on our end, it's a matter of
- finalizing financing, securing all the inspections and assessments and quotes that we need. That's what
- we're asking for. And the decision to
- not put that 30-day moratorium on accepting offers. It makes sense from all of your perspective, but
- it also is less incentive for the CIB, who is the current landlord at Seminary Point. They don't want
- to be landlords, obviously. But they may have been open to extending the leases of the tenants and of
- the commercial properties
- If there was a chance or if there was a reasonable expectation that this isn't a long-term thing, that
- they're not going to be stuck being a landlord for however many years, another 16 years, for example.
- If there was a reasonable expectation that everybody in the room, including everybody out of the room,
- the city council, the mayor, all of you guys, are working towards preserving this housing and spending
- it off into community land trusts,
- I assume they would have no problem with extending this lease a little bit longer just to ensure that
- people aren't displaced in the bureaucratic mix-up and finagling of actually preserving the housing.
- So that's basically what I wanted to say. I talked with many of the tenants who, or many of the people
- who are working with the tenants who are concerned about the fact that they're going to be
- They're going to be displaced. And all this talk about comparable housing, I mean, that's like utter
- nonsense. I mean, I don't even have to explain to you why. We're not going to get $500 or $600 rent
- downtown. But also, I mean, Jeff Santiks, I was talking to him just yesterday or a few days ago. And
- he was talking about how he has to sign a new lease within a week and a half.
- if he's going to be moving all of his stuff out of that location. All of this is unnecessary.
- If the RDC says, yes, we're seriously considering this, if the CIB says, yes, we want this, then there's
- really no reason for Jeff to leave, or any of the tenants, or Friendly Beasts, or anything. But that's
- basically all I wanted to say. And I appreciate your time in letting me speak on this. Thank you. Thank you.
- My name's Barry Herbers. Thank you for letting us do this sort of impromptu. I appreciate it. I just
- wanted to speak to... Sorry. I've spent a good amount of time these last couple of weeks like knocking
- doors in the place for the folks who are living there to get a chance to talk to them and I understand
- and I no shade at all but it's very easy to refer to the
- the CIB is not renewing the leases in the sort of passive voice, but when I talk to these people, it's
- not as simple as like, oh, well, they're just moving to another similar place. I knocked on the door
- the other day with one of our colleagues here, and I waited a moment, then I knocked again just to make
- sure, and then a very, very, very sleepy-eyed young man who kind of reminded me of myself
- um, opened the door and he basically, he, he, he was very, he was very tired because he works third
- shift, he said, and at first he was really hesitant to talk. But then when we, we told him that we were
- hoping to help the place out, he actually just started like just talking and talking and talking and
- he, he, he like, he had so much to say. And the main thing was that he's, he's not, he didn't,
- he went to the, um, he went to their open house, like the one, the county, the county recommended, I
- know that's not you guys, that's not, not your fault and this is not your fault. But, and,
- He said that, yeah, it was pointless. They had nothing in the same price range and remotely the same
- area like they said they would. And now he's gonna move in with his mother because she's also having
- trouble affording rent and they're gonna move out of downtown and that's the best that he can find for
- himself and he's not sure what to do. I spoke with a family who I've had a lot of trouble getting in
- contact with because they're so busy and often the wife is, the mother is pregnant with a second child and
- They have... The husband is a recovering addict. He said I could speak about this as long as I didn't
- mention the names. They're struggling to find any place to move to for their new kid. They have a dog.
- They're not going to be able to stay in this town. I understand that it's not like you're going to see
- the population decline or whatever, but we're pushing out.
- an entire class of people, just the working class of people. And I know that's not your fault.
- That's not, you didn't like instigate this, but you do have like an opportunity to help us to solve
- this problem with the community land trusts and the financers we've been talking to. And it doesn't
- take being a landlord. And I understand that you're using the best information you have. We're all just
- trying to figure this out here. And I just, I really think you should consider doing it because it's
- the right thing to do.
- and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Gwen Zimmer. I appreciate you guys giving
- us the opportunity to give public comment. I'd like to echo some of the same points from my friends.
- I am also an advocate from Bloomington Homes for All. And I'd just like to reiterate that we do not
- intend for the RDC to operate
- as a landlord or to pump a bunch of capital, a bunch of money into to refurbish the buildings and to
- give those buildings the deferred maintenance that they clearly need for them to stay affordable housing.
- That's not our intention at all. I'd just like to reiterate that we have a formal relationship with
- an existing community land trust that has formally with their board in a meeting agreed to
- be willing to take on that property as a project to establish a cooperative living arrangement for the
- tenants who want to stay, who don't have alternative plans already locked in, as well as new people
- who we want to bring in and have that affordable housing as an opportunity for different people coming
- in to the city or looking for better options for themselves. So I'd just like to reiterate those points that
- You don't have to manage the land, be a landlord to help preserve this affordable housing. And I think
- that's really important to note. And really the only disagreement on the City Council about the difference
- in the values of the properties is that question, right? But like Bryce mentioned, there are several
- counselors who are in favor of waiving their concerns about the price if it goes to affordable housing,
- to preserving this housing.
- So that's just all I'd like to say. Thank you for your time. I appreciate you guys. Thank you. Hey everyone.
- My name is Matthew. I fully agree with what everyone else said and that is absolutely our plan.
- We talked to John after the meeting, and we kind of told you a little bit about this. Again, our intention
- is not to make you all a landlord. We know that that's not the role. So yeah, to continue to pursue
- a land swap or an adjacent plan with the CIB to save Center Point, a place where affordable housing,
- residents, and flourishing businesses commute in a very historic part of Bloomington. Maybe you all
- know already, but at the City Council meeting, unprompted,
- Unprompted, like nobody even mentioned this, but five of the city council members explicitly mentioned
- how they're in favor of a land swap. And a couple of them even mentioned like a disappointment with
- the decision that y'all made about that this is kind of referencing, sorry. And to like, and like explicitly
- mentioned that the RDC should pursue negotiations with the CIB, should continue the conversation, should
- be actively working to create a win-win.
- And this land, and like we said, this land would never even have to touch the RDC's hands potentially,
- right? There was a world where you could give the CIB the land or a portion of it and the CIB transfers
- the land to the partner that we were talking about that has already agreed to, that they already are
- managing affordable housing and they have already agreed to take over this land and that they're doing
- so incredibly well already in Bloomington. So it's not like we're trying to reinvent the wheel with
- something like this either.
- Also, I just want to clarify, Homes for All, we want to be an active player, and I think we are already
- into this situation that we're finding ourselves in. And I hope that you guys can kind of see us as
- participants in this. Really, I've mentioned this prior, but we really have an incredible plan for Seminary
- Point. We're pulling on evidence-based models from other cities that have used a multi-stakeholder
- cooperative model, where both businesses and affordable housing residents have gotten successful financing and have
- to create and build what has then become a hot spot in their town. Specifically in Traverse City in
- Michigan is like one example of this, of having done this. We're actively meeting with city councilors,
- city leaders, housing leaders, funders, financers, even with the mayor, like Bryce said. And there's
- a lot of excitement about this plan, and I think a lot of them are honestly expecting that we will meet with you.
- tell you about our plan, to show you kind of what we're thinking through. We have a presentation, we're
- putting together a formal business plan right now. We're very serious about this. So yeah, we would
- love to meet with any of y'all one-on-one or give a formal presentation to the RDC to kind of talk more
- about what that could look like.
- And the purpose of that is to hear your thoughts and concerns about the general situation, given now
- the new knowledge maybe of helping maybe informing you all that our plan is not to just make you all
- landlords, and then two, to show you the plan, get your thoughts and your feedback on the viability
- of something like this, like us kind of looking at it as community partners. So yeah, all that to say,
- yeah, let's kind of meet, work together, show you this plan, get involved to create a really big and
- what one of the council members said, a brave take on what we can do for the city and as a win-win.
- Thank you. Thank you. Anybody online who'd like to make a public comment?
- Oh, any in person? Oh, thanks. Hi. My name is Sarah St. John Wolford. I work for Habitat and studied
- construction at Ball State, and I'm also here with Homes for All. I just wanted to let you all know
- that I am putting together numbers from reputable contractors in the area. The idea of we're working
- on it, I just wanted to give you a time frame that I should have those within the next week or two.
- I really see the passion that you all have for this. You spent the first two hours discussing Hopewell.
- And you're still here three hours in. So I really appreciate you all for your time. But in talking about
- Hopewell, a large thing that kept coming up was affordability. I think we can all agree that the most
- expensive housing is a new construction. And that is incredibly obvious in Hopewell.
- You know, Randy mentioned that the least expensive house is the one you built yesterday, and these were
- built decades ago. And so although there is absolutely concern with deferred maintenance and problems,
- a lot of the infrastructure that's already there makes this a really incredible opportunity to keep
- affordable units in our community. Hopewell offers, I forget the exact numbers, but 90 plus units.
- This is the opportunity to add to that number 21 additional units at a minimum and hopefully more like
- 40. So you have the capability and possibility of increasing by almost 50% the numbers that we're talking
- about with Hopewell. And as someone who works at Habitat, you know, that's two years
- of house building for us in four years if we can hit that 40-unit number. So I just really encourage
- you guys to keep an open mind and to continue to listen. And thank you all for your time. Thank you.
- Thank you. Appreciate the public comment. I don't see anybody else in person. Seems like there's anybody
- online. OK, just checking. OK.
- Well, the item that we have before us is the memorandum. Certainly, the public comment is helpful to
- understand the bigger picture. But beyond the specific legal citation that was described earlier, anything
- further from commissioners at this stage before I'll ask if there would be a vote to forward this to the CIB?
- Yes, please. Not changing the memo or anything, but I just want to make sure it's understood. In Indiana
- code, the RDC has a very large leeway in how they develop property, how they exchange property. So whenever
- you are bringing in those offers, you can gauge them.
- We've mentioned this meeting after meeting. And you can gauge them in what, after the 30 days, the price
- doesn't matter anymore. You look at them based on what those projects are, the value of them to the
- community. So you're not necessarily weighing them just on price. So I just wanted to know that that's
- a factor. And I'm not sure.
- CIB would be willing to go with that project on their own without having to go through the RDC. Yeah,
- that's certainly something that I hope that Homes for All is considering as well in terms of directly
- approaching CIB about that. Can I respond to that briefly? The CIB has told us that they believe that
- they are bound by the rules of the innkeeper's tax with which the county purchased land.
- And they do not believe that they are able to relinquish that land for any purpose other than the tourism
- language that's specified in the statute. You could argue that preserving friendly bees, local businesses,
- along a popular corridor could contribute to tourism. But I tried to make that argument to them. And
- they told me to, well, they said no. No, that's appreciated. And I'll just note.
- I'm curious if CIB was able to negotiate a sale of the property that they have and if they used the
- revenues from that sale for the purpose. Again, I don't know, I'm not the lawyer in the house. I'm just
- saying that I think it would be plausible for the lawyers at least to weigh in on if CIB, as the owner
- of the property, figures out what happens to it next and then use the revenues from that to then
- put towards the college square. I'm just saying that that's. Anyway, again, I would hesitate to have
- too much of a back and forth, but I appreciate your comments. But just that the CIB did not own the
- property until a few weeks ago. And we still don't own that property. RDC does not own that property,
- but bam. That's why we're advocating the land trust or the land. Yeah, I guess that's kind of my question,
- sorry, just from a real estate standpoint.
- Have you spoken to the CIB about making an offer to purchase? About making an offer? No, but the reason
- that we didn't was because they said that they don't believe that they could keep that. They don't believe
- they could sell it to us because it has nothing to do with the convention center. Well, I understand.
- This could be a lawyer fight between them. I'm not a lawyer. But again, every second that we're talking
- about this,
- closer to the date. The innkeeper's tax was used to finance through the county, now the CIB, with the
- understanding that it would be used for the convention center or convention center services. Nothing
- says that that wouldn't apply to us if we stepped in tomorrow. So that doesn't go away. So I'm not sure
- how we necessarily would solve that problem.
- getting back to the memorandum, which is where we are with the memorandum, regardless of what, and this
- is my opinion, regardless of what we might try to do, you folks have certainly stimulated some thought,
- and you've brought up one piece of information that wasn't available to us last time you spoke, and
- that's the CDC piece, if there
- truly the end owner. But that doesn't change the fact that I think this memorandum has to go out. Because
- at the end of the day, my intention when I started this was to talk about RDC's responsibilities in
- everything we do in the community. It's gotten drafted as something specific to
- the CIB's offer, and that's what stimulated all the conversation. But at the end of the day, I think
- that there's a lot of important information that the community needs to know and some elected officials
- need to know as to what we do, what we're all about, and what the money gets spent on. And so therefore,
- I'd like to see the memorandum pushed forward. That does not mean that we can't have conversations about
- other things, but it just
- speaking just to this memorandum. Would you like to rephrase it as a motion? I'm just inviting you.
- I'm sure there's somebody else that wants to speak up. So do I want to make that motion, or do I want
- to wait until? Someone else to make the motion? No, somebody else to speak. OK. I do want to make sure
- that all comments have been heard among RDC before we open up for the motion. That's why I wanted to.
- My comment is directly to the Housing for All and the individuals and want to thank you for coming out
- when you didn't even know what was being discussed. So since you're here and the transparency is going
- to be, I applaud you for your efforts accordingly. We are in a little bit of a situation because we
- don't own the property. The CIB owns it. And the best I could ask for anybody involved either with the
- CIB or any of that nature is to be able to extend leases while there's time for discussion.
- There are two RFPs that are out right now for the College Square property and also for the property
- that you occupy in Seminary Point. Is that what we're calling? I want to verify that. And the other
- parcels that were given by the RDC to the CIB for the host hotel or whatever they choose to do with
- it. So the discussion at this present moment, we're happy to have dialogue.
- to help redevelop the community and hit the affordable housing that we all want. And the advocacy that
- you're providing helps get those discussions. But right now, there's two separate RFPs that are out,
- and your official landlord would be the CIB. I would encourage you to ask for extensions while some
- of those discussions have, because I'm hopeful that you're aware of when the deadlines for these RFPs
- are, because there's two dates that don't coincide with each other.
- So I would encourage you to continue to have dialogue. But the redevelopment at this present moment
- is happy to have, or me personally, happy to have discussions, try to put things forward. But we really
- have no control over it but trying to put forth through this memorandum what our position is based upon
- what we're statutorily required to do. I do applaud you guys, though. Thank you. Absolutely. Any other
- comments from commissioners?
- I will just also extend my thanks to all of you. I learned a lot here tonight. I appreciate the work
- you're doing. I think it's super important for Bloomington, and I hope we can find a path forward. Yes,
- it's powerful to have advocates at the table, and it provides other paths towards considering how to
- move forward. So that is invaluable. With that said, for the memorandum that's on the table,
- literally as well as figuratively. I'm going to invite a motion to approve sending this memo to the
- CIB. And? With the annotation as indicated, the legal citation. Yeah. And also other, are you going
- to expand that? All right, I'll make the motion. I'll move that we, uh,
- distribute this memorandum to the CIB as well as that laundry list of recipients that was... It will
- be copied to others to... Exactly. Who were copied on the original transmission costs. Correct. I do
- have a question about this though, or is, in the from,
- Is it going to be from the entire committee? I mean, based upon the vote? Yeah, I would like it to be.
- I think I was just mirroring the original annotation of the memo that we received with the request for
- negotiations for the land stock, which was technically from Mr. Weikart, even though I believe the CIB
- approved that. So whatever format is preferable is fine. Because again, that's why we're having this
- approval tonight of the memo it's not literally just from me it's more just the formality of how it's
- phrased and i'm open to tweaking that it doesn't matter it's more just again it was just mirroring what
- was sent to us so so the members that vote to approve it would also have their name on it or would it
- be collectively from the redevelopment whatever the commissioners would like to do that just needs to
- be clarified in your vote just make it collective it's easier assuming it passes i would see
- you on behalf of the RDC or something like that would be sufficient. Would you rather all of our names
- were attached to it? I'm welcome to have your names attached. But again, I feel like, again, our vote
- tonight is representing that. So whatever people want is fine. I don't have a- You just can't make it
- collective. You could put approved 5-0 or whatever you want to do as well. That makes sense.
- Just put the vote tally on. Just put the vote tally on. OK. OK, I made a motion. Did I get a second?
- Second. OK, we have a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
- Thank you for your thoughtful discussion about the memorandum. We will get the final tweaks that we've
- just discussed as amended into that and transmit it, both attach it to the minutes,
- attached to the public packet from today and then send it out to the CIB. Can we attach it to the public
- packet so people would have access to it immediately? Yeah, absolutely. Great, okay. I believe, is there
- any other business for tonight? I move we adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.