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.