- Welcome to the redevelopment commission meeting for the city of Bloomington for Monday, June 1st, 2026.
- We'll start the meeting with a roll call, please. John West here. Thank you. And staff present, please.
- Dana Kerr, legal. Kendall Kenoki, engineering department. Go ahead, Anna. Hi, Anna Killian-Hinson. I
- am remote, but I am here. Christina Thinley, hand department. Kate McHaswell, hand department. Jane
- Coopersmith, economic and sustainable development. Jeff McKim, city controller. Here we go, everybody.
- We do also have Jess Goodman from Parking, who's going to address things later. First item on our agenda
- this evening is the approval of minutes from May 4th, 2026. Do we have any questions or comments from
- commissioners on the minutes? If not, I'll take a motion to approve. Move for approval. Second. We've
- got a first and a second. Since we have some online, we'll do a vote by roll call, please. Steve Scambler,
- yes. John West, yes.
- We're ready to grab the yes. We're ready to ask the yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Passes unanimously.
- Next item in the agenda is the claims register for May 22nd, 2026. Any questions or comments
- from commissioners on this claims register? Commissioners? On page three of eight, among the claims
- registers, we have a social media marketing for the hand department. Could you share a bit about
- what that program is and what the goals are for that. Hold on, I gotta get there. I think that's something
- that Angela does for her neighborhood improvement grants. So she has somebody who goes in and posts
- things to our Facebook page and Instagram and all that stuff about neighborhood improvement stuff. Okay,
- and she contracts with Tori Hamilton to actually do that.
- That is correct, yeah. And I think it was, is it Winslow Ranch is the name of his company? Yeah. Okay,
- thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners on the claims register for May 22nd, 2026?
- If not, I'll take a motion. I've got one quick question. On the 25-19, it'd be on page 23,
- on the ES net utilities. Is this something in the past prior to their lease starting or will we be paying
- utilities for that? I can speak to that. So the arrangement on that lease is that we pay utilities and
- they reimburse in their monthly rent payments at a set rate. And then we reconcile at year end.
- And that, yeah.
- And just for clarity, that was a standardized agreement that they had to comply with. It was a federal
- requirement. So it was not our template by any means. And I would highly advise against getting into
- a similar release in the future. Appreciate that. Thank you. Yes. Page 8, pay number 5239, Mother's
- Nature Landscaping.
- Is that being paid out of the proper account? It seems that wouldn't be a TIF payment. It would be more
- of an operating a payment. So whatever was in the resolution? Well, I don't know what was in the resolution,
- but it seems like an annual maintenance expense, not something that the TIF would fund. We can look
- it up. Thank you. You let us know after.
- Thank you for your questions. Anything else before we move on this item for the claim register of May
- 22nd? I'll take a motion, please. I'll move approval of claims registered for May 9th, 22nd. Second.
- We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. C. Scambaleri, yes. John West,
- yes. Lorraine McRobin, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
- Debra Meyers and yes, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the payroll register
- for May 15th, 2026. Any comments or questions on this item? Move approval of the payroll register for
- May 15th, 2026. Second. First and a second. Vote by roll call, please. C. Scambler, yes. John West,
- yes. Lori McRobie, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
- Deborah Meyer saying yes, passes unanimously. Thank you. Next on our agenda are reports. Do we have
- a director's report this evening? I have a director's report. Happy to answer any questions. And then
- I would also like to allow Kendall to do his engineering update under my report, please. OK, thank you.
- With that said, we will turn it over to Mr. Hood. I'll go ahead. Kendall Kanopi, engineering department.
- During the duration of the PUD approval process, you had requested updates at every meeting about the
- progress of our design. At this point, the PUD has been approved. I think the final changes are before
- you tonight. I wanted to get a temperature check, but my impression or plan moving forward is to move
- full steam ahead on the design and moving towards all the approvals.
- That's one of the agenda items tonight is authorization for myself or the engineering department to
- apply for all the needed approvals for Hopewell South. But the idea being that I kind of come to you
- when there are major milestones or specific things I need feedback on, but not necessarily at every
- meeting moving forward. I just wanted to make sure that all of the RDC members were in agreement.
- I mean, I can continue to come every two weeks, but
- I don't feel it's really necessary at this point, but just wanted to get your feedback. Yeah, I would
- tend to agree with Kendall once we codified the. The PUD then I guess we are full steam ahead. The reasoning
- behind your visits before was that we were working at a snail's pace because we weren't sure where the
- PUD was going to land, but I think we maybe have a grasp on it now. So I'd be OK with it, personally.
- Yeah, I would agree with that. Obviously, I think, Kendall, you said any significant updates and milestones.
- And those obviously would be important to report back. And maybe if we go as long as six months, there
- ought to be about one of those. Even then, maybe something that comes in at six months, so we stay on top.
- I would suggest quarterly, though. It seems like there's something worthwhile to at least report quarterly,
- even if everything's fine. You're all thinking way longer term than I was in terms of the pace of this
- project. I would assume I will be back much more frequently than that. That would be good news, right?
- I agree with Sue in regards to quarterly.
- specifically is what is the time frame you anticipate the engineering to be able to be completed so
- it can move forward with actual construction documents? Yeah I was going to get into that with resolution
- 2638 here but just very briefly we're shooting for a July plan commission for primary plat. After that
- the PUD allows the secondary plat to be approved at staff level and
- So we would submit the secondary plat after the primary plat is approved. And as part of that submission,
- also submit a variety of other required approvals, the PUD final plan, the site development permit,
- all of these other permits that are required. And once we get through permitting and approvals, we would
- then prepare the bid docs and put it out to bid. So I still anticipate we can get the
- infrastructure out to bid this year. However, with the couple delays that we've had, I don't anticipate
- we will be able to do much construction before the end of the year. It's probably going to be mostly
- in 2027. However, you do have the lot line adjustment and kind of those initial homes that could start
- this year if that's the desire. And it's possible that the contractor might get out and do some earthworks
- and utility work, depending on weather and
- just before we go on, I did look up the Mother Nature's. The resolution does specify it's the downtown
- consolidated tip. So that's why it's open like that. We probably wrote that up. Sorry to jump in there.
- We probably ought to be looking at that a little closer in the future. It seems to make sense maybe
- when we're doing the resolution, but I don't think it's always applicable.
- Yeah, I think that that was just an oversight. That should have probably gone to the 2519 account, because
- it is, and that's how most of our other landscaping contracts have been paid. So Dana and I can work
- on an amendment to adjust that funding, and then we can work on switching that over in the next couple
- meetings. I was just going to quick comment. I agree with the general comments in terms of occasional
- updates being warranted.
- I am curious because there had been the previous discussion about how many, let's say lots might be
- graded for no step entrances. If that's something that at what stage that might be further determined
- just because it was an outstanding question. I don't have a good sense of when that can be fully evaluated.
- Yeah, we just kind of finalized with the architect, the actual building footprints on each lot, the
- door locations, the parking, the garage locations.
- So they're actually working now on kind of the detailed grading plan, which you'll be able to answer
- that question. So I anticipate probably the next couple of weeks, we'll probably know that information.
- So I would like to invite you to come back when you have that information. I'll take a note. Thank you.
- Appreciate that. OK. If that's it for our combined directors and engineering report, we'll go to legal.
- Just to let you know, we will start the Hopewell South TIF process.
- Since we were dealing with the PD again tonight, didn't want to overwhelm. So probably the next meeting
- or first meeting in July, we'll pick that up. We'll likely, we'll get it done by the end of the year.
- It takes a couple of months to get through, but there's not a hurry rush to get it through. We just
- would like to finalize it by the end of the year.
- Do we have a treasurer's report? Yes. Thank you. Jeff McKim, City Controller and Treasurer of the RDC.
- I wanted to talk just for a couple of minutes about the new TIF project status report that was included
- in your packet. And the idea is that this is we're trying to come up with a format that will be included
- in every packet. So you will essentially from now on see this report updated with the current data in every
- in every packet for the RDC. It probably looks somewhat familiar in that it is based on a report developed
- by our former controller. Christina has put an incredible amount of effort into going back in time and
- trying to figure out what was missing.
- We guarantee you there are still old projects or old commitments that are out there. So you'll see new
- things appear over time as we discover them. The overall, just to talk about how the report is organized,
- the top block just shows literally the cash balance of the relevant TIF funds. So you have four funds
- that you manage, the RDC, the 2519 fund,
- the consolidated TIFF, the PROW TIFF, and the Meridian TIFF. And so that's the actual cash balance of
- those funds as of the date that's listed on the report. And then after that is the resolutions and their
- approved amount, expended amount, and remaining balance are kind of grouped by project. So Hopewell
- East, South, Hopewell West,
- 7th and 14th South Rogers, the Showers West Buyouts, 1st Street Reconstruction, B-Line Extension, 17th
- Street West, College Square, the Southwest Quadrant, and then we have the kind of more general maintenance
- and appraisals blocks.
- Again, this shows you what you approved by resolution, how much has been expended, and what's the balance.
- Every now and then, we'll see something that's quite a bit older, something that you authorized a long
- time ago that engineering will clean up and make a claim on. I would expect us to see a few lines added
- from time to time from much older resolutions. But I think this gives you an idea of
- of what the report is going to look like. We definitely encourage you when you get the packet and see
- this to send us any questions about details in the email so that we can certainly give you the answers
- in the public meeting, but you'll give us a chance because just because there's a lot of detail here
- and a lot of specifics give us the opportunity to actually research the status of any particular resolution
- or project. So are there any just that said,
- Are there any questions? Yes. This is kind of a design consideration. Would it be possible to put the
- project name at the top of each block, and then at the bottom, you're just going to say total? Well,
- it was, because when I did that, it's in a table. And so the names are at the top. But when you export
- it into a PDF, because you've got to merge that, John.
- We get what you're saying. It's the way that we had intended. It just doesn't export to PDF that way.
- I can go in and maybe put another line in there. I'll read from the bottom up. We're with you. I did
- that just to annoy you, John. I was shocked. For the record. I had a question that again, maybe I'm
- just missing something which is very likely that
- All of these projects are under just the consolidated TIF? Or the RDC. I don't think we have any crowd,
- and we have no Meridian projects. Right, right, right. And again, this is just to reinforce
- those distinctions. I think because back to the earlier discussion about keeping track of what a CalSync
- should come out of,
- It seems to me it would be helpful to have, and maybe it's just another column, a very narrow column,
- that just indicates, you know, could be put somewhere where it will export to say the consolidated TIF
- or the RDC TIF in every block. We can do that. But we just keep track of what's going into what. I would
- find that helpful. We can do that. Right, Christina?
- Sure. I'll get right on that. It's just an account. We'll just call it fund. I mean, it's a fund. Because
- it's kind of a misnomer when it's under tip balances. It's not really a fund. We didn't call it fund
- balances. Yeah, there you go. I'm changing it right now. I support and agree with Commissioner Robby's
- request to just have
- these projects organized by TIFF source. So that's easy to kind of reference. And if we could write,
- justify the dollar figures, it's just easier to kind of read it as how much easy, just because that
- way they all line up. Thanks. Jeff, quick question in regards to clarification. When we look at our
- balances that we have,
- That 26 million on our consolidated that's the inclusive of the 11 minute that money came in from the
- trades district also correct Make sure where that was and then when we look at our Excuse me our college
- square portion if there's some things that were in previously from a Resolution is that something that
- we bring up in regards to?
- Like you said, there's some things that may be out there in the back. I was just thinking of legal costs
- that we did incur in there. It's just one from a resolution standpoint. Are these just specific resolutions?
- Not particularly the total overall cost we've had. It's not the total overall cost. This is what's currently
- open. Currently open? Yeah. OK. It doesn't include anything from a closed statement. Exactly. All right.
- OK. Thank you.
- This is really helpful. I really look forward to having this in. And for each agenda. So thank you for
- putting this together and for maintaining it. I know it's simple to look at, but I know it's a lot of
- work to pull it together. So hopefully it'll be easier to maintain now that it's solidly in place.
- We will, if that's it for our Treasurer's Report, we'll move to our Business Development Update.
- I think it's time to move on to new business. Our first resolution of the evening is resolution 2633,
- determination of no excess assessed value in the allocation areas and ratification of notice thereof.
- Who would like to speak to that? We have Justin Channing with us from reading. If you wouldn't mind,
- basically the short version is that this is a statement that
- you make every year that says that you evaluate all your projects and what expenditures that you believe
- that you're going to have, and you look at the revenues that you have brought in the preceding year,
- and to determine if there's any of the captured assessed value that you could, revenues that you could
- pass through onto the underlying taxing districts.
- And this is a statement that, no, you have projects and needs for the funds that have been captured,
- and that at this point in time for this year, you do not have any excess to pass through. But I can
- let Justin explain it more in a technical terms. That really is the gist of the report requirement
- There's really, I have three documents here which you guys all should have as well. There's three parts
- to this. First is resolution, which is essentially the RDC saying whether yes we are or no we're not
- going to pass through for the resolution. I believe it's no we're not passing through, okay. And then
- another requirement is that we need to send letters out to all the underlying units, including the county
- auditor to notify them of us not passing through pay 2027 assessed values.
- And then the worksheet exhibit A, this is really just our calculations showing what we're not passing
- through. The requirement is if we need to spend half of the TIF revenues we expect to collect in 2027,
- obviously we don't know 2027 TIF revenues yet. So when we do the calculations, we use 2026s and just
- take next year's what we expect that payments to be capitalized in professional services. And we get
- that to under 200% to say,
- We're planning on using more than half of our TIF revenues in 2027, so we're electing not to pass through.
- Everything else in the reporting is similar to what you've all done in the previous years. The only
- change is that we're more required to do it now, because if we don't, the auditor is required
- to automatically pass through 5% of assessed values. So really the only thing for us is to make sure
- we do it and send out all the notices.
- I'm just curious of the additional documentation you just described. It's not part of this resolution.
- I don't see it as an attachment. Is there a reason for that? It seems like it would be part of the resolution
- or an addendum or something. Is it the? In the previous years, it wasn't attached to it. It's what we've
- found. Which is OK. That's something that I've provided as a sample.
- This isn't always required as long as the RDC can show the expenditures. It's what's mailed out. We'll
- get you all a copy of it as well as what's mailed out. OK. Yes. And we'll just need to make sure the
- county auditor gets copies of what's signed today so that she could do her uploads to Gateway and make
- sure we retain our assessed values, TIF assessed values next year.
- ever did. What you have in your hand is it just a blank form or is it actually have the amounts filled
- out? This is a template so the amounts filled out on are not real. If that makes sense. It's just for
- me as a reference when I'm going through it. Yes, but I don't know about that. Is it required from the
- DLGF to have these numbers attached to this resolution?
- Technically, no, I don't believe it says so in the statute, but that may be more of a data question,
- but I don't believe it says so in the statute. The RDC just needs to make a notice of it to the underlying
- units and county auditor. We do it just because it's, we have one ready just because it's easier to
- show numbers.
- but I don't think, I don't believe is required, but that may, again, that may be a data question. The
- first time I was here last year is one of the first things that we did, and we didn't have it last year.
- So, but it does go out with a notice. So we'll include it, when it goes out with a notice, we'll make
- sure that you all have a copy of it as well. But we have more expenditures than is over
- Yeah, yeah, we could. Included with. The minutes at the next meeting. But we could go ahead and do the
- resolution because we want to get the notices out. We in the next meeting we could bring it back in
- and have it part of the minutes of the next meeting so that you.
- have it in the public meeting. You can make it part of the treasurer's report. I just want to make sure
- that all the paperwork is together with the same resolution so the public has the ability to look at
- it. And we can definitely attach it to the resolution on for the public. Yeah, thank you. Any other
- questions or comments or commissioners? If not, I'll take a motion on resolution 26-33.
- for resolution 2633. Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote via roll call, please.
- See Scambler, yes. John West, yes. Lurie Minrabi, yes. Randy Gassity, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Motion
- passes unanimously for resolution 2633. A quick aside, just because I'm seeing the meridian spider TIF
- referenced in here and noting that wasn't in the TIF project status.
- it would be useful just in the next edition of the TIF project status to have that in there in the list.
- It was? Okay, I'm sorry, I missed it. Oh, you're right. I just must have, I saw it but had kind of glossed
- over it. Thank you for that correction. Okay. We are moving on to resolution 2634, which is approval
- of technology upgrades at the mill.
- Who would like to speak to that? Thank you. For the record, John Fernandez, Amplify Bloomington. What
- we're asking for is support from the RDC for $69,700 to upgrade and install new
- AV and technology for the vent hall at the mill. As you may know, the equipment that's in the mill now
- is from the original redevelopment project in 2018. It's pretty dated. And with the level of investment
- that's happening there, it makes a lot of sense for us to really bring forward a complete product that
- really meets the standards of today and tomorrow.
- We did seek three proposals from various vendors and the proposal that we're recommending is with a
- sharp business systems. It was the lowest of the three bids, but importantly was also the most on point
- in terms of demands for this kind of space because of their experience doing lots of more business oriented
- corporate spaces.
- They were able to bring us a lot of really good ideas. They also include in their proposal a lot of
- staff training and three years of service and a three year guarantee on the work. You know, we're here
- asking the redevelopment commission for support and you're probably wondering why would you invest in
- technology? Isn't that the tenant's responsibility? And in many cases that would be true.
- I would just add a couple of things. You know, the mill's currently being renovated with a little over
- $867,000 of grant funding that we were able to procure with IU's help to do the improvements, to expand
- capacity, and improve the value of the property. Part of that includes refining the
- So it has better acoustics, more privacy. You have to come over and check it out because it's coming
- together really well. The event space is a critical part of the overall programming that we do as Amplify
- Bloomington. We have lots of startup pitches there. Many of our partners do convenings there. And again,
- the technology is just falling behind what these
- Clients and organizations inspect as baseline I'd also note that And it just seems to me that you know
- if if we're bringing eight hundred and sixty seven thousand dollars to the rebuilding of the space You
- know the sixty nine thousand we're asking to top it off for tech seems kind of a reasonable co-investment
- I'd also note that
- If you recall last year, we experienced some significant structural issues at the mill with the southern
- wall and resulted in the mill being closed, the event space being off limits for several months, which
- ended up, you know, resulting in some material rental income losses for the mill. But at that time,
- John Crane, who was a structural engineer that was hired by the city recommended some additional
- stabilization measures that the RDC as owners of the building would have been asked to make to preserve
- and protect the building from any further issues related to the southern wall. And with the renovations
- that we're doing, those additional measures aren't required.
- because as you may recall from the plans that we shared with you, we've reinstalled the floor in the
- event hall and it's created a much more stable environment where you just don't have that big open expanse
- with the 30 foot ceilings. So that's why we're here today and we would ask that you would support our
- proposal. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2634?
- Well, it's hard. Yeah, I would assume it would be at least that long. I mean that you're always going
- to have new. You know advances in technology, the package that we've selected. We think has a lot of
- durability because we're not doing anything that's radical in terms of the types of uses.
- The proposal includes way better micing systems, better speakers, better technology that's user-friendly
- for customers and for ourselves. So I think it would be reasonable to assume it'll have a decent lifespan
- of at least five to 10 years. John, I have a related question, which is that will you be kind of baking
- into your normal operating costs
- ongoing upgrades as needed and improvements to the AV capability of that space. Eventually, whether
- it's a wholesale replacement or whatever it has to be, either maintenance or simply a desire to take
- advantage of new technology, will that be considered, and if you will, a quasi-operating cost? I think
- in the future that's possible. Nothing in the near term, Lori.
- You know, we've were as part of the grant funding, we are getting a lot of new furniture upgrades and
- desk upgrades. So we are making those kinds of fixtures kind of improvements as we go. I think that
- we would assume that we would continue to do that kind of work in the future on a periodic basis.
- John, you're right. One of the questions that came to my mind is why wouldn't the tenant take this on?
- What specifically does the lease require? I think it says that, well, I'd have to pull it up, I think.
- Is it attached as one of your things? No. Same with the whereas clauses as the second from the end.
- Yeah. The exhibit B,
- Section one, the lease agreement states that DMI is responsible for the replacement of all information
- technology equipment. That doesn't mean that you cannot do that. The reason that I drafted this resolution
- as a payment to amplify is so that as they are the tenant and it would be
- part of theirs that they can enter into the contract to have it installed and they can work with the
- installer and any warranty issues and any concerns like that directly without involving the RBC. But
- as part of the lease, it would be part of their responsibility, but that does not mean that you can't
- do it if you so choose.
- sort of look at this as a capital improvement, certainly not a operational expense. What I would be
- opposed to is getting into a situation where, and maybe to follow up on Lori's question, we don't want
- to be the funders or administrators of your tech plan and tech equipment. And every time something is
- problematic, suddenly this is ours.
- And so we're not really following the lease as this section's written. We're kind of going around it.
- And maybe we can justify it by saying it's a capital expense. And the intent of the lease was for ongoing
- expenses, which is a little bit different. Anyway, I bring that up as it's a bit of a concern to me.
- I don't want to go down this path. Yeah, I appreciate that, John. And I wasn't around in 2018.
- for the initial improvements to the mill. I'm making an assumption that maybe someone can confirm or
- dismiss, but I'm assuming at the time that the renovation was happened, all the equipment, all the furniture,
- all the fixtures were funded by the RDC as part of the redevelopment project. I doubt that.
- the dimension mill went out separately and did that. I only raise that because I think this is kind
- of a unique timing issue with the, you know, 800 and some thousand dollars worth of improvements that
- are happening to the building that the city redevelopment commission is not funding that this is just
- sort of coincides with that unique circumstance as well.
- of the selection as far as what the 69-7 and looking over the Crestron system, which I have a lot of
- experience with, I have to say, secondary to what the lease says, if we're gonna do this type of system,
- it should be done, done now, complete, and then if the future dimension mail puts money back for that
- as it goes, a Crestron system, the university uses a significant amount of them, and they tend to have
- a very long life,
- very horrible. Well, I'm glad you brought that up. I didn't mention it. I mean, that's one of the issues
- that why we're here today is that the build out continues. The event hall space is expected to be completed
- mid June. So if we, you know, pull the trigger on what we're going to install, some of the wiring some
- of the integration into the system happens now we don't have to go back and
- and change any electronics or bust up any walls or anything. It'll be installed as part of the redevelopment
- or the reconstruction project. Okay. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? If not, I'll
- open it for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none.
- I will invite a motion for Resolution 2634. Move approval of Resolution 2635. That's 34. 34, sorry.
- 34, 35, whatever it takes. Move approval of Resolution 2634. Sneak the help call south in there. Second.
- OK, we have a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Steve Scambaleri, yes.
- John West, yes. Laurie McRabbie, yes.
- Randy Cassidy yes. Deborah Meyerson yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
- I look forward to having you over when we do our big grand reopening later this summer. I think you'll
- be really pleased with what we're doing with your building. Do you have dates for that? No.
- Probably mid-July, late July. Great. Thank you. All right, thanks.
- The next item on our agenda is resolution 2635, which is approval of final conditions passed by the
- common council for the Hopeful South PUD ordinance. Who would like to speak to that? I can start if
- you want. You were sent the PUD as it was passed by the common council.
- As the resolution states, there remains that disagreement between legal counsel, between Watson Amendment
- and what's a reasonable condition. The council had placed several conditions upon the passage of the
- PUD. Those are listed at the
- just to pass the first couple of pages of the ordinance. And we can go through each one of those if
- you would like to do so. Basically, that's up to you if you want to. The choices that you have are to,
- in my mind, would be to
- accept these. And I know from the last resolution that was done, there was much discussion that,
- you know, that you really, you know, when the previous ones that you accepted, that you really would
- like to do them to the best of your ability and fully intend to do those ones that you previously accepted
- to the extent that they're feasibly possible to do.
- And so that language is in there that you would fully intend to do these and commit to these commitments,
- wrong word to use, because it has a different legal meaning, but that you would strive to achieve all
- of these to the extent that it's feasibly possible to do so.
- And the hope would be that you could do so, that you would work to find ways to make all of these work
- out. So I know that the Marshal was at the meeting and heard everything. I can't remember if Randy made
- it or not.
- It's up to you if you'd like to go through the reasonable conditions we can. If you do not wish to accept
- them, then it would mean to try to draft a different PUD to go back and basically start again with trying
- to get something else.
- past. Please don't make me do that. In which really nobody, including Anna and Kendall and I and many
- others really don't want to try. There have been discussions internally that we do believe that with
- some hard work and effort that could very
- likely achieve these and feasibly do so. And so we work really hard to make that happen if you wish
- to move forward with the PUD as the conditions placed on them state. May I interject here too as well?
- Would you guys like us to go through the list that was kind of finalized? Some of them at this point
- are a little bit moved, but I'm happy to go through them. I'm not sure who all has taken a look or watched
- the council meeting from when it was passed. I'd like to hear it, Anna, if you can. OK. Let's run through
- them briefly. I don't want to take a whole lot of time.
- And I think this is the best that we can do right now. I also want to flag for you that council did
- say, you know, because we have expressed some concern about how feasible some of the conditions are.
- We, but council did say that, you know, if we are unable to meet some of these conditions to come back
- to them. So there is that.
- But let's briefly just chat through what has been presented. So one of the first reasonable conditions
- that was proposed was really semantics and formatting preferences, changing the allowed use table. That
- was done prior to the submission. And Anna, could you reference the ordinance number, just so we can
- follow? Sure. So if you are-
- Do you guys have the council ordinance number 2026-06? Yes. Yes. In front of you. Yes. OK. Let's start
- on reasonable condition. The first reasonable condition, which starts at page four of that ordinance,
- it was to update the allowed use table, which, again, was a formatting preference. And that was done
- prior to submission to council.
- or at least after the first meeting. So that was done pretty early on. That has been completed. The
- next reasonable condition was related to providing a rational phasing plan, which was already part of
- the PD submission as well. Because the infrastructure does not make sense to go in in multiple phases,
- it is only cost effective to do it in one phase. So everything was already intended to be one phase.
- And that was also in those documents that were submitted. So that to me is taken care of. The next reasonable
- condition was related to energy efficiency standards. And I will tell you that the way that this ordinance
- that we received in completion from the clerk, it is a little bit confusing because it does list in
- the initial condition that we would have to meet the lead silver standards.
- which is not how we landed. And that is clarified later on in this document as far as how we're meeting
- energy efficiency standards. So I'll get to that in just a second. The next reasonable condition was
- related to the six foot sidewalk. And I believe that that has also been updated.
- to make sure that we're not removing any accessible units or losing any units at all. So there were
- some wider sections of sidewalk that we landed on as a compromise that would not cost us units. So there's
- that one. Then the next one was to update the Wiley Street and Jackson Street cross sections to reflect the tree
- plot, minimum width of five feet, located between the sidewalk and the drive lane for all portions of
- the right-of-way located within the P2B and Block 8 on the north side of Wiley. The sidewalk may be
- immediately adjacent to the street for a portion of the block as necessary to accommodate the existing
- building footprint if the 714 South Roger Street building is preserved. So those were all things that
- we felt like we
- we could reasonably agree to, although it will cost more and obviously in concrete for both of the last
- two conditions, but we did feel like that was an okay compromise. The next reasonable condition was
- a requirement that the Rogers Cross section be updated to reflect the design requirements of
- the transportation plan, including the five foot tree plot and the 10 foot sidewalks.
- So again, I think that's the same thing, but it was just the updated language. The next one,
- on page 10 of 12, the petitioner will work with the City of Bloomington Engineering and Planning and
- Transportation Departments to design the lanes with a target speed of 10 miles per hour, utilizing design
- elements intended to create a low speed and high comfort environment for vulnerable road users.
- I am not an engineer, so I'm not exactly sure what will be necessary to accomplish that. I imagine it's
- probably going to be some speed bumps or some other deterrents. Kendall, if he's still in the room,
- might be able to speak to that. Heather? Yeah, I'm going to bring you all some options when we get to
- that. But you could go to the parking lot, speed umbrella. You could do something more aesthetic. You
- have to spend more money. So there's ways to do that.
- And then the next reasonable condition, there were multiple reasonable conditions related to
- the affordability. And this was an alternative that was proposed by Council Member Piedmont-Smith at
- the last meeting that was at least 35% of all dwelling units in Hopewall South community shall be designed
- as permanently affordable with a goal of 50% of all dwelling units.
- Initially, we had submitted at 25%, which was the requirement of the PUD. And so for eligibility, it
- says a minimum of the 15% of the total dwelling units will be reserved for households earning at or
- below 90% AMI. And a minimum of 20% of total dwelling units will be reserved for housing earning at
- or below 120% of the area median income.
- The whole argument has been this entire time that we don't know what the construction costs are, so
- it's hard to commit to exactly what affordability we can provide. This was a much better compromise
- than some of the previous reasonable conditions related to affordability just because, again, we don't
- know exactly what we're dealing with.
- So the reasonable condition also goes through the compliance with the requirements shall be secured
- through a legal mechanism or any combination of mechanisms. It also says that permanent affordability
- mechanisms shall be structured to remain enforceable independently of ongoing public subsidy. However,
- the use of public subsidy to establish, preserve, extend, or deepen permanent affordability shall be permitted
- provided that affordability restrictions remain in effect for the duration required under this condition.
- It also says the petitioner shall report back to the common council every six months from the date of
- passage of the ordinance for five years regarding the methods and progress on implementation. So I think
- that's probably the most significant reasonable condition that we have on the PUD right now.
- And then finally, the final page,
- goes through the energy efficiency housing standards where we actually landed, which was that all the
- homes shall be designed using a pre-approved plan model to achieve energy performance equivalent to
- a home energy rating score of 65 or better, and construction documents shall incorporate best practice,
- air sealing deck placement within conditioned space, and high efficiency all electric systems. So that
- was something that we had discussed being sort of our limits.
- for that condition anyway. So that would be it. Happy to get through. Thank you. So I had a, and sorry,
- I have to bring back up the resolution. I think we talked a lot about most of these, and I think we
- had conversations that reflected the sense of the commission that we
- recognize the need to meet the council where they are and to move the project forward. We know that
- worst case scenario is we have to go back and do another PUD. I don't think any of us want to do that.
- I don't think anybody wants to do that. But we need to start and see where we get to. It's a wording
- change to the resolution that I want to propose to be
- even clearer about what our intent is. The phrase, in the last whereas, it ends with the words feasibly
- possible, which don't strike me as completely grammatical. Maybe it's legally fine, but kind of redundant.
- But I think what we're really trying to say is we will do whatever we can to meet these conditions.
- Assuming that it's not going to undermine the goals of the project and I think we should say that It's
- going to be more words in the resolution, but that we have had much longer resolutions than this I don't
- think that's a big problem something like We intend to comply with the conditions to the extent that
- they can feasibly be accomplished without significantly undermining the goals of increasing Bloomington's
- housing stock and
- Bloomington's affordability goals, something like that. To be very clear, what we're talking about when
- we say feasible is the ultimate goal of why we're doing Hopewell in the first place. And I can put that
- text in an email and send it off. Thank you. I think the words that you just used. By the way, we need
- to be restated then at the end of
- number 200 therefore. Are you wanting to make that an amendment, Lori? I'm proposing it as an amendment
- to this resolution. Second. We're not yet taken to a vote. We're still having comments and then a warning
- for public comment, so. You didn't change it. That's what everybody wants. Yeah, I think it's
- would be fine so that when we vote on it, it's as amended. Dave, do you want me to send you that text?
- That I just write it? You might want to drop it in the chat, and then that way it's clear to the public
- as well. OK. Thank you. Yeah, let's discuss. So the proposed language is being
- and we'll invite any discussion on that proposed amendment. Is that what you're interested in commenting
- on? Is this an appropriate time to raise a question? To Lori's amendment. Yes, please. I agree with
- Lori. So the premise is I think that that's reasonable. What I'm not sure about is she references the
- Bloomington housing stock, which is
- broad and I think that the amendment needs to be limited to PUD. So undermining the goals of the PUD
- or the Hopewell South project or something to that effect.
- Any other questions or comments specific on this proposed amendment and then we can make sure that there's
- any other discussion about the resolution as a whole before we open it for public comment.
- going going on before we go to public comment. Yeah, I wanted I wanted to ask a question. Okay, that
- was about the overall. Okay, no, that's good. I just wanted to make sure that we're covering our bases.
- So Anna, this is for you. And it's it's a hot seat question. The the affordability language is going
- to be difficult at best.
- so that we're not kicking a can down the road. Is it, in your opinion, really feasible, given the assumption
- that construction costs, I guess, don't skyrocket any more than they are today? You're right. It is
- a hot seat question.
- The problem is that we don't know what we don't know. But that being said, I mean, the goal is affordability,
- which obviously work in every day. The good news is that we have multiple tools that will be available
- for us to help reach this goal. So again, really want to try to accomplish it, see what we can make
- happen, whether it's by utilizing health funds or partnerships with nonprofits.
- The other thing that we're working on, as you guys know, is potentially creating a Hopewell South residential
- TIF, which then would require a housing program and reinvestment in the area. So that might be a tool
- to help us as well, because I understand that you guys are not interested in committing to permanent
- subsidies in the project. Completely understand there's only so much life in the TIF,
- And we have projects that we're committed to. And it would undermine the overall goal of the PUD. We're
- going to do our college try on trying to get as many affordable units as possible without creating an
- additional burden to our VC. Thanks, Hannah.
- Any further comments or questions for discussion before opening this for public comment for resolution
- twenty six dash thirty five. Well we my understanding and we can clarify this is that we were going
- to. Have a vote on the resolution as amended because we haven't voted on this resolution yet.
- This is just a draft. So they updated the draft. And so. So we don't have to vote. I'm sorry to be slow
- about this. No, you don't have to vote on the amendment. This is just a draft that I bring to you. And
- then you edit it the way you want it. And then you make a motion to approve it the way you want it.
- So you've made some edits to it so you would move to
- approve it as it's been edited. So any other edits are appropriately brought up now? Yes. Yeah.
- Minor one, if I may. The one, two, three, four. That's the whereas. The fifth whereas paragraph has
- apparently omitted a couple words by resolution 2584. Any and all bids for the Hopewell South Blocks
- 9 and 10 were rejected. Yeah, that's been added. As they did not appropriately serve the goals.
- So we'll correct that for the other ones. Good, thank you. Okay, so I'm vetting any further comments
- from commissioners, edits, amendments. Again, we're not voting on it yet because we're gonna open it
- for public comment, but I'm looking if we're transitioning to public comment or if there's anything
- further that commissioners would like to discuss for 2635.
- One more point clarification regards to it since lorries put this in the in the chat and then they is
- going to include that in this resolution. Yes. Thank you. Yes, it has been changed in the resolution.
- So when we vote on this, it will be as amended based on the language that's in the.
- chat as presented that's been amended, as well as the edit that Commissioner Scambaleri had noted for
- that fifth, whereas to make sure that the different course of action for blocks done in 10 or rejected
- of Hopewell South that is necessary for the existing plan is not achievable. Okay, are we
- done with comments and questions and amendments and edits. Seeing. No further I will open public comment
- either online or in person for resolution twenty six dash thirty five. Yes.
- I think that even though it was very painful for everybody involved, especially Anna, I think that the
- end result with the reasonable conditions is a better project. I'm confident that you'll be able to
- get more affordable units this way and it'll be overall,
- a great boon to the community. So I hope that you will vote yes. But I am mainly the author of the big
- compromise between requiring 50 percent to be permanently affordable and requiring 25 percent to be
- permanently affordable. So I think we ended at 35 percent. That was still not good enough for three
- council members, I should say. It was a 6-3 vote.
- And if that is not feasible, then you wouldn't have to start over with a whole new PUD, you could just
- come back to council and ask for an amendment. So that's my comment, please vote yes, thank you. Thank
- you for the collaboration, I know it was tricky. Okay, any further public comment online?
- In person, seeing none, I will invite a motion for resolution 26-35. I'll move approval of resolution
- 26-35. Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do the vote by roll call, please. Sue Scambaleri,
- yes. John West, yes. Lori McRoney, yes. Rami Cassidy, yes.
- Thank you. And I'm just going to make a side note there was a- an email I got earlier from a neighbor
- from of hopeful south who had some comments. There is the continued plotting that will be going on-
- there is definitely opportunity for more.
- just want to emphasize that this is a project that is ongoing there are. The final details are still
- taking shape and so if there are people who would like to contribute their opinions and concerns
- considerations that there is continued opportunity to do that so. They shouldn't afford them to the
- end department to end in that way they can get filtered to the right people yeah. So yeah and thank
- you for going through those
- conditions they were you're much better with the technical part of those things. Thank you. Thank you.
- No problem. Thank you guys. I'm so glad that we're through this because that was miserable. I keep it
- real. Okay well the next item on our agenda is perhaps a slightly simpler version of Hopewell South which is
- Resolution 2636 approval of Hopewell South lot line adjustment. Who would like to speak to that? Thank
- you for your attention tonight. So this is something I hinted on during my update, but this is adjusting
- the lot lines that exist currently at Hopewell South. This is to provide the opportunity to construct
- some early homes. So it probably the most useful
- linked to click on is the one that says attachment to exhibit A. This essentially shows you the three
- existing lots that were platted 100 years ago as part of the Dixie Highway addition to the
- city of Bloomington. We are essentially just moving where those lines are. This is something that is
- commonly done between two property owners when they agree on a new location of the lot line. They can
- do that administratively through our planning department.
- That's exactly what we've done here. The RDC owned all three of these lots. So essentially this matches
- the future plan lot lines than the approved PUD. And this just shifts the existing lot lines to create
- basically two of two lots in the future subdivision. So 148A and 149A are essentially what's going to
- be created in the future. And then 150A is the remainder.
- But these are three lots of record. So anyone can apply for a building permit from the building department
- and receive that and build a structure on these lots. They are already ready to go. So no, you know,
- for all the other lots, we're going to have to go through platting. We're going to have to go through
- permitting, all kinds of permitting. These would just be class two structures, which the state legislature
- has streamlined. It's a two week process. So as soon as you sign these
- deeds and get this recorded, you can have a permit to build a structure in two weeks if you wanted to.
- I know that the RDC as a body has to go through additional steps, public offerings, things, but essentially
- this sets you up to be able to do something really fast, which is really exciting. So we are ready to
- go ahead and record this. I'm happy to answer any further questions on it. That's all I have for my
- presentation.
- or comments from commissioners on resolution 2636? I guess I just want to make sure I know what I'm
- looking at. So the exhibit that has the three lots identified, that's what I ought to be looking at?
- Yep. All right. I think so. OK. And there's probably an address associated with the former medical office
- building that
- there if you want to kind of get an idea of where you are in space. Any other questions or comments
- from commissioners on resolution 2636 about the lot line adjustment? I will open it for public comment,
- either online or in person. Seeing none, I will open it for a motion for resolution 2636.
- resolution twenty six thirty six. Seven got a first and a second. Are you. Anyone I saw you the other
- day. Walking we're going to need to move. Yeah you were just were you running down the beeline and then
- walking back. Now I guess the namely.
- Okay we we did have a first and a second we now are now doing a vote by a roll call on twenty six thirty
- six. C. scambler yes. John West yes I was so taken back by Eric.
- there we go, okay. Randy Cassidy, yes. Deborah Myersing, yes. Motion passes unanimously for resolution
- 2636. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is resolution 2637, which is approval of an agreement with
- Calumet Civil Contractors Incorporated for temporary storage at Hopewell East Development. Who would
- like to speak to that? Ken Okanoki, engineering department again. So we're actually shifting projects now.
- This is the federally funded Second Street project that's happening on Second Street between Walker
- and the beeline. The RDC happens to be the proud owners of a very nice empty lot directly adjacent to
- the construction site in a very urbanized area. So of course, this was quite enticing to the contractor.
- They needed a location for some lay down and construction staging. So this is a request for them to utilize
- the northwest portion of Hopewell East for that. So this is at the intersection of 2nd and Rogers, the
- southeast corner. If you look at the Calumet lay down exhibit, which is one of the links in your agenda,
- you can take a look at the requested lay down area. So this is a location will essentially be a fenced
- in gravel contractor yard for the duration of construction, which is through the end of the year.
- And then once they're done, they'll take up all that gravel and fencing and they'll reseed the lot for
- the future plans. There are existing monitoring wells related to the environmental studies that have
- been done and continue to be done on Hopewell East. So those areas, we have taken note of those and
- those will be protected with concrete Jersey barriers. So contractor will stay out of those areas. They
- will access the site from second street. So this is the
- the side that they're just going to be reconstructing anyway. At the very, very end when they build
- the sidewalk and kind of finalize that, we'll have them access from the existing alley that exists back
- there, but generally they'll be accessing from the front and protecting everything else that was built
- as part of Hopewell East. Yeah, this is essentially a request from the contractor to you all just
- for their construction purposes, they're responsible for any other permits they need to do. This isn't
- really something that the city is, we're facilitating this request, but generally it's an agreement
- between the contractor and the RDC, so happy to answer any questions on it. Okay, any questions or comments
- from commissioners on 2637? Of course I do. Okay.
- Well, I've got I don't have a problem with the purpose, but I've got three issues. And they're all in
- the agreement. There's a 90 day, what I call kick out clause. But this is only a seven month contract.
- So I think 90 days is too long, it should be 30. I
- If I'm right, if I got my bearings right, this is that kind of grassy area, it's a little bit of a slope,
- it's right on the corner of second and Rogers. So they're gonna basically gravel that, it's part of
- it anyway, so they can take vehicles on it, right? Okay, so there is, in this,
- I heard what you said, but in the agreement, I don't see any language that would enforce erosion control,
- and I don't see any language that requires them, despite what you said, put it back into the condition
- it is in. That'd be 13. Yeah, I don't think it says that. So I return possession of the property and
- same or improved condition as the
- when kind of possession. Yeah, it's it's the same language that we always use. And I always bring this
- up. At least, I'd like to see that it's something expanded for for ongoing erosion control. Because,
- you know, we've, we spent a lot of time and effort to get that to be a nice grassy area that's now doesn't
- have any runoff. We're gonna have runoff as soon as they start digging it up. So and I put
- I put the 90 days in there. And the reason I did that was because when they're working with that construction
- project, if they're in the middle of the project, I know it's going to be difficult to find another
- area. But I also put in there, if they breached in any way, by not living up to any of the other terms
- of the agreement, that they would have 10 days from notice to cure it.
- and if they didn't cure it, they'd have to be out in five days. Then I think we need to be a little
- more specific as to our expectations while they're using the land, because if they fall back on the
- 90 days, most likely the contract is over anyway. So it doesn't allow you to have an immediate, take
- immediate action, particularly.
- Well, you somewhere up here, you've got where they are professional in the way they use the property.
- I don't remember the exact language. Maybe we ought to have a little detail into that. What are our
- expectations?
- I think they've got to be sure they contain themselves within the allotted area. They've got to control
- the erosion and put up all the barriers necessary to prevent it from happening. Hey, Randy, I need your
- help on this. This is your cup of tea.
- Well, my concern completely is what it took to get us a staff to get grass established there and keep
- it from eroding. And also take into consideration the street to the east, which we've already reconstructed,
- and where they're going to add a second gate to the street improvements. From the standpoint of looking
- at a lay down, I know convenience and ease on a seven month project is going to be beneficial.
- But I also look at the circumstances of what has happened in the past. And while all contractors, we
- all have our intent to put everything back, it may not necessarily get that way. So my question is,
- who's going to establish what it is now, and then what it needs to be put back, and possibility of a
- bond for doing that? Kendall, is this under the public works requirements from a contractual standpoint?
- I think this is an agreement between the RDC and the contractor, so you can put in any requirements
- you want, but the Board of Public Works is not involved. Let me rephrase that again. Is this contract
- between Calumet and the City of Bloomington administered through Public Works? No. Well, okay, so the
- construction project, it's a federally funded project, so it's actually through INDOT.
- Okay, so it's the end off basis. Yeah, contracts will be already secret. Okay, contracts are DC in but
- it's in it's through in this agreement is already seeing the contractor, the project is between the
- contractor and in that. And then we as the city, the Board of Public Works as a contract with in that.
- Okay. My main concern, john is the basis of
- being able to put it back, I mean, we don't even know what's gonna happen with this lot of the pressing
- moments of gravel. It may not be a bad thing, but the erosion's an issue, and then the concern I have
- is that we've got a secondary gate that needed to protect the second street improvements, but I want
- to make sure that we can have it put back correctly, and that the improvements that have already been
- done to the east side on this roadway that Milestone did isn't jeopardized after the fact.
- So to put language in, the simplest thing is to see if we could identify what it costs to put it back
- with and just have a bond so we can verify. I mean, bond is not a horrible expense of ours at the level
- of the size contract we gave. At the very least, maybe we ought to have some photos of what it is today.
- So absolutely. We're not going on memory. Right. Because there's already been, and I happen to just
- There's already been a circumstance across the street on the west side there where they were getting
- ready for the temporary traffic signals where they buried the truck. Now it was a subcontractor. My
- main concern is verifying what it is now and making sure it gets put back correctly and whose responsibility
- is it to verify it and that the money's there either with retention or in a bond.
- Since they're not paying any rent, there's no security deposit. There is no money. So bonds are your
- only option if you want to get out of that room. Well, I'm just looking at the standpoint of what we
- may do to make sure, because once the project's done, if there's any damage, it's the only thing. If
- it's an end-off project, Kendall, what recourse do we have? Well,
- There's a lot of moving parts here. So these roads are not yet accepted by the Board of Public Works.
- If the alley and the new road, Madison Street, was accepted by the board, they would have to still get
- a right of way use permit from us if they were going to use those roads in any way. And then we would
- have a bond, we being the engineering department. However, these haven't been accepted by the board
- yet because we're still closing out permits. So they're really RDC owned roads. So you all are rightfully
- so, I think,
- responsible for holding a bond for these roads until those roads are accepted by the board. So I guess
- we have two options. We take them to get accepted by the Board of Public Works, ASAP, or probably more
- simpler, they just have to post a bond. So it's more of just the lay-down area we're talking about.
- It's the travel area around as well. Well, the lay-down area is just accessible by Second Street, but
- I think what... Yeah, but when there's a travel
- accessible from the south, they're going to have to go through RDC property. The idea was that it wouldn't
- be accessible from the south only at the very end after they built their sidewalk. Yeah, but at that
- very end, they will be using RDC property. So this doesn't come. To access, yeah. I mean, the other
- option is we could say you have to take down the staging area.
- and then finish the sidewalk and just never use the RDC's property, I suppose. I would think that that
- would at least be our best realm so that we minimize the amount of traffic that is occurring. Because
- during construction afterwards, having that argument of whose responsibility it is always becomes a
- problem. So if they could eliminate that exit onto the south end,
- Dan, I might recommend just adding a number in there that says access is only permitted from 2nd Street
- to the staging area. Maybe that would cover it. Do we need to vote on this today? Or can you guys take
- our comments, modify the agreement, and bring it back next time? I really don't want to do this unless you like.
- It's not ready yet. Have to do have to find something. Yeah, there's. With that relevation stuff too,
- I think there's enough time to get it ready. You've got kind of that actually I was just gonna say exactly
- what John suggested so. I agree with John. So proposal is to postpone. And return with a revised agreement
- based on comments.
- to secure some of the concerns that have been discussed. Okay, thank you for that discussion. We will
- move to the next item on our agenda. So that's tabled for 2637. We're moving to 2638, which is authorization
- for city staff to apply for the submission of a primary plat, secondary plat,
- Plot Vacation, PUD Final Plan, and all associated permits and approvals for Hopewell South on behalf
- of the RDC. Who is speaking to that? Is that? Yeah, Kevin. I can have the engineering department again.
- So this is essentially, we have to make a number of applications, the plan commission for our primary
- plot and our plot vacation of the Dixie Highway addition, and then
- Just a number of applications to the planning department for secondary staff level approval, PUD final
- plan approval, site development permit. We have to apply to CBU a million times along the way. We have
- to apply to IDEM for sanitary sewer and water main permitting. We have to apply to the state for construction
- stormwater general permit. These are just the things that come to mind. So this is kind of a blanket approval
- You're saying we affirm and agree with the project. We want it to move forward. Please apply for all
- of these permits in order to do so. I will, I guess, warn you that I do plan on coming back to ask for
- specific design changes, update you on specific milestones. But as soon as you approve this resolution,
- essentially,
- the PUD as it's been approved by city council and as the conditions have been approved tonight. We're
- essentially moving forward, preparing construction documents, getting all of our permits and approvals
- and putting it out to bid and then coming back to you to award it to a contractor with an actual dollar
- amount associated with that. So if you would like to have another, I mean, there's going to be maybe
- the secondary plat we talked about,
- when you have to sign that, we'll come back for that. And maybe there's something that I'm forgetting
- that we'll have to come back for. But essentially, this is authorizing us to bring it all the way to
- the point of award and then coming to you with a here's what it's going to cost. Here's the apparent
- low bidder. Can we award this? So if you'd like to be informed or updated at another step in the process,
- you can let me know or you can require it as part of this resolution.
- But yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions on this. And I think I had talked about the schedule a little
- bit too earlier, but I can reiterate that too if needed. And we'd be happy to report too of any things
- that were completed, any permits that were signed, or applications that were signed. So you can have
- a running tab of those and put those in the minutes. OK. Thank you for that.
- additional information. Do we have any questions or comments on resolution 2638 as described? Okay.
- Hearing none, any public comment, either online or in person? Seeing none, I will invite a motion for
- resolution 2638. I'll move approval of resolution 2638.
- We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Seuss Kimberley, yes. John West,
- yes. Laura McRobbie, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Motion passes unanimously for a
- resolution 2638. Thank you. Quick comment. Yeah. It wasn't part of the resolution, but to your point
- about coming back and having to report, we didn't really respond to that. I'm only speaking for me.
- You need to come back every two weeks and report unless there's something significant that has to be
- reported on. Or every time you hit a milestone here, you can tell the staff. It's not that we don't
- think. You're welcome to send a written memo, I think. That could be part of the meeting. We'd be happy
- to put your name on that chair if you want to come back.
- Just get her done. All right. Okay, we've got one more item on the main business part of the agenda,
- which is resolution 2639, approval of professional services agreement with applied engineering for plumbing
- engineering services at the 4th Street garage. Who would like to speak to that? I can start out. Okay.
- So you'll remember a couple of meetings ago in my treasurer's report, I talked about some
- remediation that needed to be done at the fourth street garage and that there were excess funds in the
- fourth street garage taxable bonds to be able to fund that and that we would be seeing some contracts
- associated with the that remediation well this is the first and kind of probably most urgent of the
- contracts associated with that those repairs that I described and we have here
- Jess Goodman, who is the manager of parking garages for public works, for parking services, who's going
- to describe the project. Okay. Jess Goodman, I'm with the Department of Public Works. This Applied Services
- is going to assess the 4th Street garage. They're going to look at the existing storm drains, see if
- the laterals are sloped where they're supposed to be. They're also going to
- assess the sup pump to make sure it is large enough for the size of the garage. So right now we're having
- a lot of flooding because of the storm drains are just not working properly. So they will be putting
- together a scope of work so I could put it out for a bid for the repairs.
- And I will just add that you have a tenant moving in relatively soon, and right now there is water is
- leaking in the space that you're going to have a tenant occupying. Thank you for that presentation.
- Comments, questions from commissioners on resolution 2639? Yeah, I've got a couple. So if I'm understanding
- you correctly, there's still bond funds
- available. Four hundred forty two thousand. And so we're drawing down on those funds. Well that's good
- news. This resolution that's got nothing to do with staff by the way just infuriates me. Clearly there
- was. This this project was not
- and so we're coming back and now doing it again. How old is this garage? So it's not that old. No, so
- so we so we not we don't have any recourse.
- Is there not errors in emissions insurance from the original contractor that would cover this kind of
- thing? Probably not that, but maybe some, you know, well, their bonds been released. I mean, this is
- ridiculous. That's a four year old garage. And it was just not plumbed properly from the get go. So
- I don't know if this is the subcontractor's fault or the architect's fault that signed off on it or
- You know, an engineer's mistake, but this is. I think this engineering study will help tell us that.
- I was going to ask, do we need an assessment in order to make our case? Yes. Or something like that.
- Yes, we would need to know, is this a cause? Is there something else that was done afterwards that led
- to this? Has it been overflowing for four years? Has it been flooding for four years?
- You know, we'd need to look into it more, but trying to find out if things were slow properly to begin
- with, if pumps were sized correctly, if the sump itself was sized correctly. Those are all things that
- we would need to know to determine where an error or emission might have occurred. Was it actually built
- to specifications? Those are all questions we can't answer without doing
- some work to find out why it's doing what it's doing. And if that were the case, could we then, if we
- found error zero emissions, could we theoretically recoup the $14,000? Possibly. Well, not to mention
- the repair cost. Right. Well, of course. This is the small part. This is all it's asking us for today.
- Of course, there are statutes of limitations and things like that, time to bring. I don't know what
- all those are off the top of my head for architectural engineering services. But it would be something
- the legal department would be looking into. OK. All right. Good to know. So in sum, we need to do this
- to have whatever information we
- And may I just say, I think not only do you need to do this to potentially recoup something, but even
- if that's not possible due to statutes of limitations, you clearly need to do both this and any subsequent
- repair to make sure that the garage, you get the full lifetime out of the garage. No, I know, I know.
- After this engineering is done, we will have an evaluation of what the problem was and the potential
- for what it takes to repair it. Repairs are going to be necessary, irregardless of if we're able to
- recover it. We need to know so we can have the potential of finding out why a four-year-old garage already
- has problems. Correct. Any further comments or questions from commissioners on resolution 2639?
- I will open it for public comment. Not seeing anything in person or online. I will open it for a motion
- for resolution 2639. Move approval. Motion to approve 2639 as presented. Second. Second. Get a first
- and second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Sue Skambler, yes. John West, yes. Lauren McRobbie,
- yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Passes unanimously for 2639.
- Thank you. That's the conclusion of our new business. Any other outstanding business items that would
- be at this part of the agenda? I'm gonna go ahead. One quick question in regards to then if we had any
- additional information come back from our bond council on our showers west
- No, no, we are still working with them. We've gathered a bunch of information and we're exchanging that
- information and that's where we're at right now. All right, thank you. One item I wanted to bring up
- is that there was just a question of whether the RDC has an opportunity for public comment for items
- that are not on the agenda. And my understanding is that the custom is
- There would not be that, but it's a custom as opposed to maybe a policy. And my question is to make
- that just formal so it's not an ad hoc thing or trying to remember how to do it. If the RDC would like
- to make that a policy, one, if they would, and two, if the answer is yes, to make that a policy that
- all public comment is reserved for items on the agenda.
- how we establish that more formally, just to be able to be consistent with that. I would recommend that
- you make a vote on the record for that, and then that it be reflected on the agenda, that the public
- comment is reserved for items that are on the agenda. That could just be a standing reference on the
- agenda, just so that it's always there, OK? Yes. So I will open, I'm just, that's my,
- proposal that that might be something of interest for the RDC just to make operation of our business
- meeting as predictable and known as possible. I'm opening that for discussion amongst the commissioners
- if you would like to consider making that a policy that as Mr. Kerr said would be on the agenda just
- kind of as a note for everybody's reference. I think that would clarify expectations for the public
- as well. Yeah. And I think that's important. Okay.
- I agree, and I think the policy, although it's been practiced forever, that way we ought to codify it.
- So I would, if you make a motion, I would agree with it. I would ask the question, do we wish to give
- you or the president of the RDC the power to set time limits as well? I can see there being occasions
- when that would be very helpful. Your comments are in for resolution. I'm sorry?
- Resolution comments. When public setting time limits on public comments, so three minutes per member
- of the public, for example, or something like that when they're speaking to a resolution, correct? So
- I don't know if that's a separate item we need to vote on, or if we are simply setting policy regarding
- public comment in general. It's however you choose to do it. First of all, in underneath state law,
- you do not have to offer
- public comment at all. I'd recommend not, but you don't have to. The only ones by state law that have
- to are school boards. But if you do offer it, it is good to have some guidelines, and it is good to
- post those on the agenda so those coming to the meetings know. It is not uncommon for people to boards
- and commissions to set
- time limits. It can be time limits per person. It could be time limits per public comment period, or
- it could be time limits for both. Three minutes, five minutes are very common. 20 minutes, 30 minutes
- are very common for total. It could... Randy, silent yourself.
- So yeah. That'll be on the B square bulletin. Maybe it could be one minute in five minutes or one minute
- per person. Sorry, sorry. Can I ask you just a question as to whether the Common Council sets time limits
- for public comment? Oh yeah. Yes. Three minutes. And what is that?
- Three minutes. Three minutes per person. I would say that if we impose time limits, they ought to be
- consistent with what other public bodies do because it makes it a little bit easier for people who are
- attending our public meetings. And we can always be soft on how rigidly we force that. I suspect that
- happened to the council meetings. It's just a thought to keep things consistent.
- Let me give you an example. At our last meeting, school board meeting up on the RBD school board, we
- had a public comment period, and it was supposed to be for 30 minutes. There was a number of people
- wanting to comment. So at the end of 30 minutes, I asked, being the president, I asked for a motion
- to extend that comment period. And there was a motion and a second, and it was voted to extend that
- comment period. And we went longer to allow those who were there
- to make their comments. It's very rare for us to have that many people. So we went ahead and extended
- it. So you have the flexibility to amend that. I recommend amending it by a vote if you're going to
- amend it during the meeting. But you can always do that during the meeting if you so choose. Also, as
- the president of the commission,
- have the authority to regulate the decorum, make sure everybody's in line and things like that as well.
- But yes, so you can limit what, and many people do limit to what's on the agenda for, like you said,
- for the very reason of knowing what you're going to be talking about when you get there. So you can
- be very much prepared, especially if this isn't your everyday job.
- And but again, most people, most boards and commissions do limit the amount of time per person. Again,
- council does three minutes. And if you wanted to limit that per item as well as you could, it's up to
- you. I'd suggest we go to a limit per person. And we don't necessarily have an overall limit.
- First of all, we don't get that many
- that much public comment. And it's not, as long as we stick to the agenda, three minutes per person,
- I would think would be fine. I don't wanna cut people off. I mean, I don't mind cutting an individual
- off if they're gonna talk too long, but I don't wanna cut off people that actually showed up because
- our 20 minutes is gone. And then we gotta go through the process of extending. And we can always modify
- that if we find,
- a room full of public commenters, but the room's not big enough to have that many people here anyway.
- So it's not like the council that brings on a huge assembly. So what would be the next step? Someone
- to make a motion for what they wish, if it's to limit public comment to the items that are on the agenda.
- And actually, you've been limiting the comment to action items on the agenda as far as resolutions.
- You don't take comments on claims or minutes or things like that. So limiting comments to the resolutions
- on the agenda and limiting comments to three minutes per person. Someone wants to make a motion to that
- effect and it passed.
- That can be added to the agenda. So when it goes out, it's printed there. Everybody knows. And it's
- in the minutes as having been adopted by this commission. OK, so I'm going to make the proposal as stated.
- Essentially, I'm not going to repeat everything you just said, because that's basically, I think, what
- we've discussed and agreed on. And that would be then posted on each agenda
- But that's the policy, so that's known by everybody who is at the meeting. Does that have to come back
- as a resolution at the next meeting, or will this be just added as a item that the RDC just approves
- to be added on to the agenda? This is just an item that you're voting on. It does not need
- to be a resolution. It does need to be voted on, because it's a policy for the commission. But since
- it's a policy, it's not a resolution.
- OK, so, yeah. When will we be able to put that policy out for public? They'll know it as a next month,
- next meeting? Yeah, it's a next meeting. And it'll be in the minutes from this meeting on the next meeting
- for the approval of minutes for this meeting. And it'll be on the agenda next meeting. So it'll be on
- every agenda, Randy. They can see it. OK, thank you. OK, so.
- Appropriately, I would make the motion. Okay, so I'm making the motion to adopt that policy as stated.
- Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. To Scamblary, yes.
- John West, yes. Lori McCrombie, yes. Randy, you're silent. We can't reach our mic state. I'll have to
- get you a secretary. I'm spending a bar in Boulder, Colorado.
- Oh, jeez. And we needed to know that. It's a honey bar. All right. I don't want to know anymore.
- Did you vote, Randy? Yes. Okay. I didn't know if I heard. I just heard about the bar. Okay. And I am
- also voting yes. That's a unanimous vote for the policy as stated. It will be on the agenda as of the
- next meeting. Thank you. Do we need a motion? We don't need the part about the bar in the minutes, though.
- Yeah. Yeah. Well, he needs training. Okay. Any other further business before we get a motion to adjourn?
- Seeing none, take a motion to adjourn. So moved. So moved. Okay. Thank you all.