WEBVTT 00:00:00.802 --> 00:00:14.608 - Welcome to the redevelopment commission meeting for the city of Bloomington for Monday, June 1st, 2026. 00:00:14.608 --> 00:00:28.414 - We'll start the meeting with a roll call, please. John West here. Thank you. And staff present, please. 00:00:29.826 --> 00:00:37.766 - Dana Kerr, legal. Kendall Kenoki, engineering department. Go ahead, Anna. Hi, Anna Killian-Hinson. I 00:00:37.766 --> 00:00:45.628 - am remote, but I am here. Christina Thinley, hand department. Kate McHaswell, hand department. Jane 00:00:45.628 --> 00:00:53.726 - Coopersmith, economic and sustainable development. Jeff McKim, city controller. Here we go, everybody. 00:00:56.578 --> 00:01:03.558 - We do also have Jess Goodman from Parking, who's going to address things later. First item on our agenda 00:01:03.558 --> 00:01:10.339 - this evening is the approval of minutes from May 4th, 2026. Do we have any questions or comments from 00:01:10.339 --> 00:01:17.120 - commissioners on the minutes? If not, I'll take a motion to approve. Move for approval. Second. We've 00:01:17.120 --> 00:01:24.234 - got a first and a second. Since we have some online, we'll do a vote by roll call, please. Steve Scambler, 00:01:24.234 --> 00:01:25.630 - yes. John West, yes. 00:01:27.010 --> 00:01:34.632 - We're ready to grab the yes. We're ready to ask the yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Passes unanimously. 00:01:34.632 --> 00:01:41.720 - Next item in the agenda is the claims register for May 22nd, 2026. Any questions or comments 00:01:41.720 --> 00:01:49.341 - from commissioners on this claims register? Commissioners? On page three of eight, among the claims 00:01:49.341 --> 00:01:56.734 - registers, we have a social media marketing for the hand department. Could you share a bit about 00:01:57.474 --> 00:02:05.515 - what that program is and what the goals are for that. Hold on, I gotta get there. I think that's something 00:02:05.515 --> 00:02:13.029 - that Angela does for her neighborhood improvement grants. So she has somebody who goes in and posts 00:02:13.029 --> 00:02:20.920 - things to our Facebook page and Instagram and all that stuff about neighborhood improvement stuff. Okay, 00:02:20.920 --> 00:02:25.278 - and she contracts with Tori Hamilton to actually do that. 00:02:28.162 --> 00:02:37.817 - That is correct, yeah. And I think it was, is it Winslow Ranch is the name of his company? Yeah. Okay, 00:02:37.817 --> 00:02:47.660 - thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners on the claims register for May 22nd, 2026? 00:02:47.660 --> 00:02:56.190 - If not, I'll take a motion. I've got one quick question. On the 25-19, it'd be on page 23, 00:02:56.354 --> 00:03:05.070 - on the ES net utilities. Is this something in the past prior to their lease starting or will we be paying 00:03:05.070 --> 00:03:13.540 - utilities for that? I can speak to that. So the arrangement on that lease is that we pay utilities and 00:03:13.540 --> 00:03:21.434 - they reimburse in their monthly rent payments at a set rate. And then we reconcile at year end. 00:03:21.434 --> 00:03:22.750 - And that, yeah. 00:03:26.882 --> 00:03:36.280 - And just for clarity, that was a standardized agreement that they had to comply with. It was a federal 00:03:36.280 --> 00:03:45.496 - requirement. So it was not our template by any means. And I would highly advise against getting into 00:03:45.496 --> 00:03:54.621 - a similar release in the future. Appreciate that. Thank you. Yes. Page 8, pay number 5239, Mother's 00:03:54.621 --> 00:03:56.446 - Nature Landscaping. 00:03:56.610 --> 00:04:05.042 - Is that being paid out of the proper account? It seems that wouldn't be a TIF payment. It would be more 00:04:05.042 --> 00:04:13.879 - of an operating a payment. So whatever was in the resolution? Well, I don't know what was in the resolution, 00:04:13.879 --> 00:04:21.986 - but it seems like an annual maintenance expense, not something that the TIF would fund. We can look 00:04:21.986 --> 00:04:25.310 - it up. Thank you. You let us know after. 00:04:27.586 --> 00:04:35.856 - Thank you for your questions. Anything else before we move on this item for the claim register of May 00:04:35.856 --> 00:04:44.045 - 22nd? I'll take a motion, please. I'll move approval of claims registered for May 9th, 22nd. Second. 00:04:44.045 --> 00:04:52.234 - We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. C. Scambaleri, yes. John West, 00:04:52.234 --> 00:04:56.126 - yes. Lorraine McRobin, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. 00:04:56.290 --> 00:05:04.655 - Debra Meyers and yes, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the payroll register 00:05:04.655 --> 00:05:12.556 - for May 15th, 2026. Any comments or questions on this item? Move approval of the payroll register for 00:05:12.556 --> 00:05:20.302 - May 15th, 2026. Second. First and a second. Vote by roll call, please. C. Scambler, yes. John West, 00:05:20.302 --> 00:05:23.710 - yes. Lori McRobie, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. 00:05:23.906 --> 00:05:30.881 - Deborah Meyer saying yes, passes unanimously. Thank you. Next on our agenda are reports. Do we have 00:05:30.881 --> 00:05:37.996 - a director's report this evening? I have a director's report. Happy to answer any questions. And then 00:05:37.996 --> 00:05:45.250 - I would also like to allow Kendall to do his engineering update under my report, please. OK, thank you. 00:05:45.250 --> 00:05:52.574 - With that said, we will turn it over to Mr. Hood. I'll go ahead. Kendall Kanopi, engineering department. 00:05:53.474 --> 00:06:01.069 - During the duration of the PUD approval process, you had requested updates at every meeting about the 00:06:01.069 --> 00:06:08.738 - progress of our design. At this point, the PUD has been approved. I think the final changes are before 00:06:08.738 --> 00:06:16.332 - you tonight. I wanted to get a temperature check, but my impression or plan moving forward is to move 00:06:16.332 --> 00:06:21.470 - full steam ahead on the design and moving towards all the approvals. 00:06:21.602 --> 00:06:27.795 - That's one of the agenda items tonight is authorization for myself or the engineering department to 00:06:27.795 --> 00:06:34.051 - apply for all the needed approvals for Hopewell South. But the idea being that I kind of come to you 00:06:34.051 --> 00:06:40.244 - when there are major milestones or specific things I need feedback on, but not necessarily at every 00:06:40.244 --> 00:06:46.313 - meeting moving forward. I just wanted to make sure that all of the RDC members were in agreement. 00:06:46.313 --> 00:06:49.534 - I mean, I can continue to come every two weeks, but 00:06:49.762 --> 00:06:59.272 - I don't feel it's really necessary at this point, but just wanted to get your feedback. Yeah, I would 00:06:59.272 --> 00:07:09.435 - tend to agree with Kendall once we codified the. The PUD then I guess we are full steam ahead. The reasoning 00:07:09.435 --> 00:07:19.038 - behind your visits before was that we were working at a snail's pace because we weren't sure where the 00:07:19.394 --> 00:07:26.588 - PUD was going to land, but I think we maybe have a grasp on it now. So I'd be OK with it, personally. 00:07:26.588 --> 00:07:34.275 - Yeah, I would agree with that. Obviously, I think, Kendall, you said any significant updates and milestones. 00:07:34.275 --> 00:07:41.540 - And those obviously would be important to report back. And maybe if we go as long as six months, there 00:07:41.540 --> 00:07:49.086 - ought to be about one of those. Even then, maybe something that comes in at six months, so we stay on top. 00:07:53.666 --> 00:08:02.441 - I would suggest quarterly, though. It seems like there's something worthwhile to at least report quarterly, 00:08:02.441 --> 00:08:10.809 - even if everything's fine. You're all thinking way longer term than I was in terms of the pace of this 00:08:10.809 --> 00:08:19.178 - project. I would assume I will be back much more frequently than that. That would be good news, right? 00:08:19.178 --> 00:08:22.590 - I agree with Sue in regards to quarterly. 00:08:22.914 --> 00:08:29.067 - specifically is what is the time frame you anticipate the engineering to be able to be completed so 00:08:29.067 --> 00:08:35.589 - it can move forward with actual construction documents? Yeah I was going to get into that with resolution 00:08:35.589 --> 00:08:41.926 - 2638 here but just very briefly we're shooting for a July plan commission for primary plat. After that 00:08:41.926 --> 00:08:46.110 - the PUD allows the secondary plat to be approved at staff level and 00:08:46.562 --> 00:08:54.037 - So we would submit the secondary plat after the primary plat is approved. And as part of that submission, 00:08:54.037 --> 00:09:01.089 - also submit a variety of other required approvals, the PUD final plan, the site development permit, 00:09:01.089 --> 00:09:08.493 - all of these other permits that are required. And once we get through permitting and approvals, we would 00:09:08.493 --> 00:09:14.558 - then prepare the bid docs and put it out to bid. So I still anticipate we can get the 00:09:14.754 --> 00:09:20.588 - infrastructure out to bid this year. However, with the couple delays that we've had, I don't anticipate 00:09:20.588 --> 00:09:26.254 - we will be able to do much construction before the end of the year. It's probably going to be mostly 00:09:26.254 --> 00:09:32.032 - in 2027. However, you do have the lot line adjustment and kind of those initial homes that could start 00:09:32.032 --> 00:09:38.034 - this year if that's the desire. And it's possible that the contractor might get out and do some earthworks 00:09:38.034 --> 00:09:40.446 - and utility work, depending on weather and 00:09:46.338 --> 00:09:52.730 - just before we go on, I did look up the Mother Nature's. The resolution does specify it's the downtown 00:09:52.730 --> 00:09:59.185 - consolidated tip. So that's why it's open like that. We probably wrote that up. Sorry to jump in there. 00:09:59.185 --> 00:10:05.391 - We probably ought to be looking at that a little closer in the future. It seems to make sense maybe 00:10:05.391 --> 00:10:10.046 - when we're doing the resolution, but I don't think it's always applicable. 00:10:11.202 --> 00:10:17.955 - Yeah, I think that that was just an oversight. That should have probably gone to the 2519 account, because 00:10:17.955 --> 00:10:24.330 - it is, and that's how most of our other landscaping contracts have been paid. So Dana and I can work 00:10:24.330 --> 00:10:30.831 - on an amendment to adjust that funding, and then we can work on switching that over in the next couple 00:10:30.831 --> 00:10:37.268 - meetings. I was just going to quick comment. I agree with the general comments in terms of occasional 00:10:37.268 --> 00:10:38.846 - updates being warranted. 00:10:38.946 --> 00:10:44.845 - I am curious because there had been the previous discussion about how many, let's say lots might be 00:10:44.845 --> 00:10:50.863 - graded for no step entrances. If that's something that at what stage that might be further determined 00:10:50.863 --> 00:10:57.234 - just because it was an outstanding question. I don't have a good sense of when that can be fully evaluated. 00:10:57.234 --> 00:11:03.133 - Yeah, we just kind of finalized with the architect, the actual building footprints on each lot, the 00:11:03.133 --> 00:11:06.142 - door locations, the parking, the garage locations. 00:11:06.594 --> 00:11:12.869 - So they're actually working now on kind of the detailed grading plan, which you'll be able to answer 00:11:12.869 --> 00:11:19.330 - that question. So I anticipate probably the next couple of weeks, we'll probably know that information. 00:11:19.330 --> 00:11:25.792 - So I would like to invite you to come back when you have that information. I'll take a note. Thank you. 00:11:25.792 --> 00:11:32.253 - Appreciate that. OK. If that's it for our combined directors and engineering report, we'll go to legal. 00:11:32.253 --> 00:11:36.478 - Just to let you know, we will start the Hopewell South TIF process. 00:11:36.674 --> 00:11:44.348 - Since we were dealing with the PD again tonight, didn't want to overwhelm. So probably the next meeting 00:11:44.348 --> 00:11:51.874 - or first meeting in July, we'll pick that up. We'll likely, we'll get it done by the end of the year. 00:11:51.874 --> 00:11:59.253 - It takes a couple of months to get through, but there's not a hurry rush to get it through. We just 00:11:59.253 --> 00:12:02.942 - would like to finalize it by the end of the year. 00:12:05.570 --> 00:12:12.789 - Do we have a treasurer's report? Yes. Thank you. Jeff McKim, City Controller and Treasurer of the RDC. 00:12:12.789 --> 00:12:20.078 - I wanted to talk just for a couple of minutes about the new TIF project status report that was included 00:12:20.078 --> 00:12:27.437 - in your packet. And the idea is that this is we're trying to come up with a format that will be included 00:12:27.437 --> 00:12:35.006 - in every packet. So you will essentially from now on see this report updated with the current data in every 00:12:35.554 --> 00:12:46.416 - in every packet for the RDC. It probably looks somewhat familiar in that it is based on a report developed 00:12:46.416 --> 00:12:56.871 - by our former controller. Christina has put an incredible amount of effort into going back in time and 00:12:56.871 --> 00:13:00.830 - trying to figure out what was missing. 00:13:01.186 --> 00:13:08.591 - We guarantee you there are still old projects or old commitments that are out there. So you'll see new 00:13:08.591 --> 00:13:16.213 - things appear over time as we discover them. The overall, just to talk about how the report is organized, 00:13:16.213 --> 00:13:23.546 - the top block just shows literally the cash balance of the relevant TIF funds. So you have four funds 00:13:23.546 --> 00:13:26.494 - that you manage, the RDC, the 2519 fund, 00:13:26.594 --> 00:13:34.894 - the consolidated TIFF, the PROW TIFF, and the Meridian TIFF. And so that's the actual cash balance of 00:13:34.894 --> 00:13:43.438 - those funds as of the date that's listed on the report. And then after that is the resolutions and their 00:13:43.438 --> 00:13:51.576 - approved amount, expended amount, and remaining balance are kind of grouped by project. So Hopewell 00:13:51.576 --> 00:13:53.854 - East, South, Hopewell West, 00:13:53.954 --> 00:14:04.222 - 7th and 14th South Rogers, the Showers West Buyouts, 1st Street Reconstruction, B-Line Extension, 17th 00:14:04.222 --> 00:14:14.889 - Street West, College Square, the Southwest Quadrant, and then we have the kind of more general maintenance 00:14:14.889 --> 00:14:17.182 - and appraisals blocks. 00:14:17.378 --> 00:14:25.092 - Again, this shows you what you approved by resolution, how much has been expended, and what's the balance. 00:14:25.092 --> 00:14:32.517 - Every now and then, we'll see something that's quite a bit older, something that you authorized a long 00:14:32.517 --> 00:14:40.014 - time ago that engineering will clean up and make a claim on. I would expect us to see a few lines added 00:14:40.014 --> 00:14:46.142 - from time to time from much older resolutions. But I think this gives you an idea of 00:14:46.338 --> 00:14:52.822 - of what the report is going to look like. We definitely encourage you when you get the packet and see 00:14:52.822 --> 00:14:59.370 - this to send us any questions about details in the email so that we can certainly give you the answers 00:14:59.370 --> 00:15:05.791 - in the public meeting, but you'll give us a chance because just because there's a lot of detail here 00:15:05.791 --> 00:15:12.657 - and a lot of specifics give us the opportunity to actually research the status of any particular resolution 00:15:12.657 --> 00:15:15.518 - or project. So are there any just that said, 00:15:15.714 --> 00:15:23.706 - Are there any questions? Yes. This is kind of a design consideration. Would it be possible to put the 00:15:23.706 --> 00:15:31.619 - project name at the top of each block, and then at the bottom, you're just going to say total? Well, 00:15:31.619 --> 00:15:39.689 - it was, because when I did that, it's in a table. And so the names are at the top. But when you export 00:15:39.689 --> 00:15:43.998 - it into a PDF, because you've got to merge that, John. 00:15:45.026 --> 00:15:53.278 - We get what you're saying. It's the way that we had intended. It just doesn't export to PDF that way. 00:15:53.278 --> 00:16:01.448 - I can go in and maybe put another line in there. I'll read from the bottom up. We're with you. I did 00:16:01.448 --> 00:16:09.538 - that just to annoy you, John. I was shocked. For the record. I had a question that again, maybe I'm 00:16:09.538 --> 00:16:13.502 - just missing something which is very likely that 00:16:14.658 --> 00:16:23.013 - All of these projects are under just the consolidated TIF? Or the RDC. I don't think we have any crowd, 00:16:23.013 --> 00:16:30.404 - and we have no Meridian projects. Right, right, right. And again, this is just to reinforce 00:16:30.404 --> 00:16:38.839 - those distinctions. I think because back to the earlier discussion about keeping track of what a CalSync 00:16:38.839 --> 00:16:40.446 - should come out of, 00:16:41.122 --> 00:16:48.485 - It seems to me it would be helpful to have, and maybe it's just another column, a very narrow column, 00:16:48.485 --> 00:16:55.920 - that just indicates, you know, could be put somewhere where it will export to say the consolidated TIF 00:16:55.920 --> 00:17:03.500 - or the RDC TIF in every block. We can do that. But we just keep track of what's going into what. I would 00:17:03.500 --> 00:17:07.326 - find that helpful. We can do that. Right, Christina? 00:17:07.682 --> 00:17:16.443 - 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 00:17:16.443 --> 00:17:24.790 - it's kind of a misnomer when it's under tip balances. It's not really a fund. We didn't call it fund 00:17:24.790 --> 00:17:33.302 - balances. Yeah, there you go. I'm changing it right now. I support and agree with Commissioner Robby's 00:17:33.302 --> 00:17:35.038 - request to just have 00:17:35.426 --> 00:17:43.395 - these projects organized by TIFF source. So that's easy to kind of reference. And if we could write, 00:17:43.395 --> 00:17:51.285 - justify the dollar figures, it's just easier to kind of read it as how much easy, just because that 00:17:51.285 --> 00:17:59.175 - way they all line up. Thanks. Jeff, quick question in regards to clarification. When we look at our 00:17:59.175 --> 00:18:00.990 - balances that we have, 00:18:01.474 --> 00:18:09.570 - That 26 million on our consolidated that's the inclusive of the 11 minute that money came in from the 00:18:09.570 --> 00:18:17.904 - trades district also correct Make sure where that was and then when we look at our Excuse me our college 00:18:17.904 --> 00:18:26.079 - square portion if there's some things that were in previously from a Resolution is that something that 00:18:26.079 --> 00:18:28.222 - we bring up in regards to? 00:18:28.642 --> 00:18:35.369 - Like you said, there's some things that may be out there in the back. I was just thinking of legal costs 00:18:35.369 --> 00:18:42.352 - that we did incur in there. It's just one from a resolution standpoint. Are these just specific resolutions? 00:18:42.352 --> 00:18:49.334 - Not particularly the total overall cost we've had. It's not the total overall cost. This is what's currently 00:18:49.334 --> 00:18:56.061 - open. Currently open? Yeah. OK. It doesn't include anything from a closed statement. Exactly. All right. 00:18:56.061 --> 00:18:57.022 - OK. Thank you. 00:18:59.458 --> 00:19:05.720 - This is really helpful. I really look forward to having this in. And for each agenda. So thank you for 00:19:05.720 --> 00:19:11.922 - putting this together and for maintaining it. I know it's simple to look at, but I know it's a lot of 00:19:11.922 --> 00:19:17.941 - work to pull it together. So hopefully it'll be easier to maintain now that it's solidly in place. 00:19:17.941 --> 00:19:23.838 - We will, if that's it for our Treasurer's Report, we'll move to our Business Development Update. 00:19:30.786 --> 00:19:38.972 - I think it's time to move on to new business. Our first resolution of the evening is resolution 2633, 00:19:38.972 --> 00:19:47.157 - determination of no excess assessed value in the allocation areas and ratification of notice thereof. 00:19:47.157 --> 00:19:55.263 - Who would like to speak to that? We have Justin Channing with us from reading. If you wouldn't mind, 00:19:55.263 --> 00:20:00.158 - basically the short version is that this is a statement that 00:20:00.802 --> 00:20:09.490 - you make every year that says that you evaluate all your projects and what expenditures that you believe 00:20:09.490 --> 00:20:17.847 - that you're going to have, and you look at the revenues that you have brought in the preceding year, 00:20:17.847 --> 00:20:26.370 - and to determine if there's any of the captured assessed value that you could, revenues that you could 00:20:26.370 --> 00:20:30.590 - pass through onto the underlying taxing districts. 00:20:30.690 --> 00:20:40.040 - And this is a statement that, no, you have projects and needs for the funds that have been captured, 00:20:40.040 --> 00:20:49.297 - and that at this point in time for this year, you do not have any excess to pass through. But I can 00:20:49.297 --> 00:20:58.462 - let Justin explain it more in a technical terms. That really is the gist of the report requirement 00:20:58.722 --> 00:21:05.016 - There's really, I have three documents here which you guys all should have as well. There's three parts 00:21:05.016 --> 00:21:11.128 - to this. First is resolution, which is essentially the RDC saying whether yes we are or no we're not 00:21:11.128 --> 00:21:17.301 - going to pass through for the resolution. I believe it's no we're not passing through, okay. And then 00:21:17.301 --> 00:21:23.715 - another requirement is that we need to send letters out to all the underlying units, including the county 00:21:23.715 --> 00:21:28.254 - auditor to notify them of us not passing through pay 2027 assessed values. 00:21:28.386 --> 00:21:35.297 - And then the worksheet exhibit A, this is really just our calculations showing what we're not passing 00:21:35.297 --> 00:21:42.275 - through. The requirement is if we need to spend half of the TIF revenues we expect to collect in 2027, 00:21:42.275 --> 00:21:49.118 - obviously we don't know 2027 TIF revenues yet. So when we do the calculations, we use 2026s and just 00:21:49.118 --> 00:21:55.961 - take next year's what we expect that payments to be capitalized in professional services. And we get 00:21:55.961 --> 00:21:57.790 - that to under 200% to say, 00:21:57.890 --> 00:22:04.908 - We're planning on using more than half of our TIF revenues in 2027, so we're electing not to pass through. 00:22:04.908 --> 00:22:11.467 - Everything else in the reporting is similar to what you've all done in the previous years. The only 00:22:11.467 --> 00:22:17.632 - change is that we're more required to do it now, because if we don't, the auditor is required 00:22:17.632 --> 00:22:24.256 - to automatically pass through 5% of assessed values. So really the only thing for us is to make sure 00:22:24.256 --> 00:22:26.814 - we do it and send out all the notices. 00:22:28.834 --> 00:22:36.575 - I'm just curious of the additional documentation you just described. It's not part of this resolution. 00:22:36.575 --> 00:22:44.841 - I don't see it as an attachment. Is there a reason for that? It seems like it would be part of the resolution 00:22:44.841 --> 00:22:52.732 - or an addendum or something. Is it the? In the previous years, it wasn't attached to it. It's what we've 00:22:52.732 --> 00:22:57.918 - found. Which is OK. That's something that I've provided as a sample. 00:22:58.178 --> 00:23:04.972 - This isn't always required as long as the RDC can show the expenditures. It's what's mailed out. We'll 00:23:04.972 --> 00:23:11.633 - 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 00:23:11.633 --> 00:23:18.427 - county auditor gets copies of what's signed today so that she could do her uploads to Gateway and make 00:23:18.427 --> 00:23:22.846 - sure we retain our assessed values, TIF assessed values next year. 00:23:24.834 --> 00:23:33.028 - ever did. What you have in your hand is it just a blank form or is it actually have the amounts filled 00:23:33.028 --> 00:23:41.142 - out? This is a template so the amounts filled out on are not real. If that makes sense. It's just for 00:23:41.142 --> 00:23:49.335 - me as a reference when I'm going through it. Yes, but I don't know about that. Is it required from the 00:23:49.335 --> 00:23:53.790 - DLGF to have these numbers attached to this resolution? 00:23:54.818 --> 00:24:03.328 - Technically, no, I don't believe it says so in the statute, but that may be more of a data question, 00:24:03.328 --> 00:24:12.344 - but I don't believe it says so in the statute. The RDC just needs to make a notice of it to the underlying 00:24:12.344 --> 00:24:20.770 - units and county auditor. We do it just because it's, we have one ready just because it's easier to 00:24:20.770 --> 00:24:21.950 - show numbers. 00:24:22.114 --> 00:24:29.767 - but I don't think, I don't believe is required, but that may, again, that may be a data question. The 00:24:29.767 --> 00:24:37.646 - first time I was here last year is one of the first things that we did, and we didn't have it last year. 00:24:37.646 --> 00:24:45.299 - So, but it does go out with a notice. So we'll include it, when it goes out with a notice, we'll make 00:24:45.299 --> 00:24:51.902 - sure that you all have a copy of it as well. But we have more expenditures than is over 00:24:57.954 --> 00:25:09.009 - Yeah, yeah, we could. Included with. The minutes at the next meeting. But we could go ahead and do the 00:25:09.009 --> 00:25:19.742 - resolution because we want to get the notices out. We in the next meeting we could bring it back in 00:25:19.742 --> 00:25:26.718 - and have it part of the minutes of the next meeting so that you. 00:25:27.138 --> 00:25:35.021 - have it in the public meeting. You can make it part of the treasurer's report. I just want to make sure 00:25:35.021 --> 00:25:42.676 - that all the paperwork is together with the same resolution so the public has the ability to look at 00:25:42.676 --> 00:25:50.256 - it. And we can definitely attach it to the resolution on for the public. Yeah, thank you. Any other 00:25:50.256 --> 00:25:56.926 - questions or comments or commissioners? If not, I'll take a motion on resolution 26-33. 00:25:59.202 --> 00:26:06.832 - for resolution 2633. Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote via roll call, please. 00:26:06.832 --> 00:26:14.843 - See Scambler, yes. John West, yes. Lurie Minrabi, yes. Randy Gassity, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Motion 00:26:14.843 --> 00:26:22.702 - passes unanimously for resolution 2633. A quick aside, just because I'm seeing the meridian spider TIF 00:26:22.702 --> 00:26:27.966 - referenced in here and noting that wasn't in the TIF project status. 00:26:28.578 --> 00:26:37.203 - it would be useful just in the next edition of the TIF project status to have that in there in the list. 00:26:37.203 --> 00:26:45.992 - 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 00:26:45.992 --> 00:26:54.289 - over it. Thank you for that correction. Okay. We are moving on to resolution 2634, which is approval 00:26:54.289 --> 00:26:57.246 - of technology upgrades at the mill. 00:26:57.986 --> 00:27:13.443 - Who would like to speak to that? Thank you. For the record, John Fernandez, Amplify Bloomington. What 00:27:13.443 --> 00:27:25.566 - we're asking for is support from the RDC for $69,700 to upgrade and install new 00:27:26.146 --> 00:27:34.660 - AV and technology for the vent hall at the mill. As you may know, the equipment that's in the mill now 00:27:34.660 --> 00:27:43.256 - is from the original redevelopment project in 2018. It's pretty dated. And with the level of investment 00:27:43.256 --> 00:27:51.769 - that's happening there, it makes a lot of sense for us to really bring forward a complete product that 00:27:51.769 --> 00:27:55.902 - really meets the standards of today and tomorrow. 00:27:56.642 --> 00:28:05.097 - We did seek three proposals from various vendors and the proposal that we're recommending is with a 00:28:05.097 --> 00:28:13.889 - sharp business systems. It was the lowest of the three bids, but importantly was also the most on point 00:28:13.889 --> 00:28:23.020 - in terms of demands for this kind of space because of their experience doing lots of more business oriented 00:28:23.020 --> 00:28:24.542 - corporate spaces. 00:28:24.642 --> 00:28:32.143 - They were able to bring us a lot of really good ideas. They also include in their proposal a lot of 00:28:32.143 --> 00:28:39.869 - staff training and three years of service and a three year guarantee on the work. You know, we're here 00:28:39.869 --> 00:28:47.519 - asking the redevelopment commission for support and you're probably wondering why would you invest in 00:28:47.519 --> 00:28:54.270 - technology? Isn't that the tenant's responsibility? And in many cases that would be true. 00:28:54.434 --> 00:29:04.966 - I would just add a couple of things. You know, the mill's currently being renovated with a little over 00:29:04.966 --> 00:29:15.601 - $867,000 of grant funding that we were able to procure with IU's help to do the improvements, to expand 00:29:15.601 --> 00:29:24.190 - capacity, and improve the value of the property. Part of that includes refining the 00:29:24.386 --> 00:29:32.308 - So it has better acoustics, more privacy. You have to come over and check it out because it's coming 00:29:32.308 --> 00:29:40.623 - together really well. The event space is a critical part of the overall programming that we do as Amplify 00:29:40.623 --> 00:29:48.859 - Bloomington. We have lots of startup pitches there. Many of our partners do convenings there. And again, 00:29:48.859 --> 00:29:52.702 - the technology is just falling behind what these 00:29:52.834 --> 00:30:01.556 - Clients and organizations inspect as baseline I'd also note that And it just seems to me that you know 00:30:01.556 --> 00:30:10.277 - if if we're bringing eight hundred and sixty seven thousand dollars to the rebuilding of the space You 00:30:10.277 --> 00:30:19.253 - know the sixty nine thousand we're asking to top it off for tech seems kind of a reasonable co-investment 00:30:19.253 --> 00:30:20.862 - I'd also note that 00:30:22.114 --> 00:30:30.709 - If you recall last year, we experienced some significant structural issues at the mill with the southern 00:30:30.709 --> 00:30:39.140 - wall and resulted in the mill being closed, the event space being off limits for several months, which 00:30:39.140 --> 00:30:47.326 - ended up, you know, resulting in some material rental income losses for the mill. But at that time, 00:30:48.194 --> 00:30:55.902 - John Crane, who was a structural engineer that was hired by the city recommended some additional 00:30:55.902 --> 00:31:04.166 - stabilization measures that the RDC as owners of the building would have been asked to make to preserve 00:31:04.166 --> 00:31:12.431 - and protect the building from any further issues related to the southern wall. And with the renovations 00:31:12.431 --> 00:31:17.278 - that we're doing, those additional measures aren't required. 00:31:17.986 --> 00:31:25.179 - because as you may recall from the plans that we shared with you, we've reinstalled the floor in the 00:31:25.179 --> 00:31:32.800 - event hall and it's created a much more stable environment where you just don't have that big open expanse 00:31:32.800 --> 00:31:40.065 - with the 30 foot ceilings. So that's why we're here today and we would ask that you would support our 00:31:40.065 --> 00:31:47.614 - proposal. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2634? 00:31:50.434 --> 00:32:00.525 - Well, it's hard. Yeah, I would assume it would be at least that long. I mean that you're always going 00:32:00.525 --> 00:32:10.518 - to have new. You know advances in technology, the package that we've selected. We think has a lot of 00:32:10.518 --> 00:32:19.422 - durability because we're not doing anything that's radical in terms of the types of uses. 00:32:19.522 --> 00:32:28.490 - The proposal includes way better micing systems, better speakers, better technology that's user-friendly 00:32:28.490 --> 00:32:37.544 - for customers and for ourselves. So I think it would be reasonable to assume it'll have a decent lifespan 00:32:37.544 --> 00:32:46.427 - of at least five to 10 years. John, I have a related question, which is that will you be kind of baking 00:32:46.427 --> 00:32:49.246 - into your normal operating costs 00:32:49.730 --> 00:32:57.690 - ongoing upgrades as needed and improvements to the AV capability of that space. Eventually, whether 00:32:57.690 --> 00:33:05.729 - it's a wholesale replacement or whatever it has to be, either maintenance or simply a desire to take 00:33:05.729 --> 00:33:13.927 - advantage of new technology, will that be considered, and if you will, a quasi-operating cost? I think 00:33:13.927 --> 00:33:18.942 - in the future that's possible. Nothing in the near term, Lori. 00:33:19.490 --> 00:33:27.409 - You know, we've were as part of the grant funding, we are getting a lot of new furniture upgrades and 00:33:27.409 --> 00:33:35.173 - desk upgrades. So we are making those kinds of fixtures kind of improvements as we go. I think that 00:33:35.173 --> 00:33:42.782 - we would assume that we would continue to do that kind of work in the future on a periodic basis. 00:33:53.858 --> 00:34:02.767 - John, you're right. One of the questions that came to my mind is why wouldn't the tenant take this on? 00:34:02.767 --> 00:34:11.676 - What specifically does the lease require? I think it says that, well, I'd have to pull it up, I think. 00:34:11.676 --> 00:34:20.326 - Is it attached as one of your things? No. Same with the whereas clauses as the second from the end. 00:34:20.326 --> 00:34:22.142 - Yeah. The exhibit B, 00:34:22.626 --> 00:34:33.487 - Section one, the lease agreement states that DMI is responsible for the replacement of all information 00:34:33.487 --> 00:34:44.771 - technology equipment. That doesn't mean that you cannot do that. The reason that I drafted this resolution 00:34:44.771 --> 00:34:52.574 - as a payment to amplify is so that as they are the tenant and it would be 00:34:52.994 --> 00:35:02.098 - part of theirs that they can enter into the contract to have it installed and they can work with the 00:35:02.098 --> 00:35:11.201 - installer and any warranty issues and any concerns like that directly without involving the RBC. But 00:35:11.201 --> 00:35:20.395 - as part of the lease, it would be part of their responsibility, but that does not mean that you can't 00:35:20.395 --> 00:35:22.558 - do it if you so choose. 00:35:24.802 --> 00:35:33.472 - sort of look at this as a capital improvement, certainly not a operational expense. What I would be 00:35:33.472 --> 00:35:42.402 - opposed to is getting into a situation where, and maybe to follow up on Lori's question, we don't want 00:35:42.402 --> 00:35:51.245 - to be the funders or administrators of your tech plan and tech equipment. And every time something is 00:35:51.245 --> 00:35:54.366 - problematic, suddenly this is ours. 00:35:57.218 --> 00:36:04.149 - And so we're not really following the lease as this section's written. We're kind of going around it. 00:36:04.149 --> 00:36:11.352 - And maybe we can justify it by saying it's a capital expense. And the intent of the lease was for ongoing 00:36:11.352 --> 00:36:18.215 - expenses, which is a little bit different. Anyway, I bring that up as it's a bit of a concern to me. 00:36:18.215 --> 00:36:24.670 - I don't want to go down this path. Yeah, I appreciate that, John. And I wasn't around in 2018. 00:36:25.922 --> 00:36:34.454 - for the initial improvements to the mill. I'm making an assumption that maybe someone can confirm or 00:36:34.454 --> 00:36:43.746 - dismiss, but I'm assuming at the time that the renovation was happened, all the equipment, all the furniture, 00:36:43.746 --> 00:36:51.518 - all the fixtures were funded by the RDC as part of the redevelopment project. I doubt that. 00:36:52.514 --> 00:36:58.939 - the dimension mill went out separately and did that. I only raise that because I think this is kind 00:36:58.939 --> 00:37:05.493 - of a unique timing issue with the, you know, 800 and some thousand dollars worth of improvements that 00:37:05.493 --> 00:37:12.047 - are happening to the building that the city redevelopment commission is not funding that this is just 00:37:12.047 --> 00:37:15.710 - sort of coincides with that unique circumstance as well. 00:37:26.338 --> 00:37:33.351 - of the selection as far as what the 69-7 and looking over the Crestron system, which I have a lot of 00:37:33.351 --> 00:37:40.642 - experience with, I have to say, secondary to what the lease says, if we're gonna do this type of system, 00:37:40.642 --> 00:37:47.724 - it should be done, done now, complete, and then if the future dimension mail puts money back for that 00:37:47.724 --> 00:37:54.876 - as it goes, a Crestron system, the university uses a significant amount of them, and they tend to have 00:37:54.876 --> 00:37:56.126 - a very long life, 00:37:56.482 --> 00:38:04.392 - very horrible. Well, I'm glad you brought that up. I didn't mention it. I mean, that's one of the issues 00:38:04.392 --> 00:38:12.529 - that why we're here today is that the build out continues. The event hall space is expected to be completed 00:38:12.529 --> 00:38:20.288 - mid June. So if we, you know, pull the trigger on what we're going to install, some of the wiring some 00:38:20.288 --> 00:38:26.014 - of the integration into the system happens now we don't have to go back and 00:38:26.338 --> 00:38:37.224 - and change any electronics or bust up any walls or anything. It'll be installed as part of the redevelopment 00:38:37.224 --> 00:38:47.411 - or the reconstruction project. Okay. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? If not, I'll 00:38:47.411 --> 00:38:54.302 - open it for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none. 00:38:55.394 --> 00:39:03.819 - I will invite a motion for Resolution 2634. Move approval of Resolution 2635. That's 34. 34, sorry. 00:39:03.819 --> 00:39:12.665 - 34, 35, whatever it takes. Move approval of Resolution 2634. Sneak the help call south in there. Second. 00:39:12.665 --> 00:39:20.669 - OK, we have a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Steve Scambaleri, yes. 00:39:20.669 --> 00:39:23.870 - John West, yes. Laurie McRabbie, yes. 00:39:24.418 --> 00:39:31.546 - Randy Cassidy yes. Deborah Meyerson yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all very much. 00:39:31.546 --> 00:39:38.605 - I look forward to having you over when we do our big grand reopening later this summer. I think you'll 00:39:38.605 --> 00:39:44.910 - be really pleased with what we're doing with your building. Do you have dates for that? No. 00:39:44.910 --> 00:39:49.502 - Probably mid-July, late July. Great. Thank you. All right, thanks. 00:39:50.050 --> 00:40:00.719 - The next item on our agenda is resolution 2635, which is approval of final conditions passed by the 00:40:00.719 --> 00:40:11.388 - common council for the Hopeful South PUD ordinance. Who would like to speak to that? I can start if 00:40:11.388 --> 00:40:19.070 - you want. You were sent the PUD as it was passed by the common council. 00:40:19.554 --> 00:40:32.459 - As the resolution states, there remains that disagreement between legal counsel, between Watson Amendment 00:40:32.459 --> 00:40:44.755 - and what's a reasonable condition. The council had placed several conditions upon the passage of the 00:40:44.755 --> 00:40:48.286 - PUD. Those are listed at the 00:40:49.282 --> 00:41:01.897 - just to pass the first couple of pages of the ordinance. And we can go through each one of those if 00:41:01.897 --> 00:41:14.890 - you would like to do so. Basically, that's up to you if you want to. The choices that you have are to, 00:41:14.890 --> 00:41:17.918 - in my mind, would be to 00:41:18.210 --> 00:41:25.739 - accept these. And I know from the last resolution that was done, there was much discussion that, 00:41:25.739 --> 00:41:33.577 - you know, that you really, you know, when the previous ones that you accepted, that you really would 00:41:33.577 --> 00:41:41.882 - like to do them to the best of your ability and fully intend to do those ones that you previously accepted 00:41:41.882 --> 00:41:45.918 - to the extent that they're feasibly possible to do. 00:41:46.466 --> 00:41:57.977 - And so that language is in there that you would fully intend to do these and commit to these commitments, 00:41:57.977 --> 00:42:09.054 - wrong word to use, because it has a different legal meaning, but that you would strive to achieve all 00:42:09.054 --> 00:42:15.678 - of these to the extent that it's feasibly possible to do so. 00:42:15.874 --> 00:42:29.041 - And the hope would be that you could do so, that you would work to find ways to make all of these work 00:42:29.041 --> 00:42:42.336 - out. So I know that the Marshal was at the meeting and heard everything. I can't remember if Randy made 00:42:42.336 --> 00:42:43.742 - it or not. 00:42:44.034 --> 00:42:56.186 - It's up to you if you'd like to go through the reasonable conditions we can. If you do not wish to accept 00:42:56.186 --> 00:43:08.337 - them, then it would mean to try to draft a different PUD to go back and basically start again with trying 00:43:08.337 --> 00:43:10.974 - to get something else. 00:43:11.106 --> 00:43:23.454 - past. Please don't make me do that. In which really nobody, including Anna and Kendall and I and many 00:43:23.454 --> 00:43:35.681 - others really don't want to try. There have been discussions internally that we do believe that with 00:43:35.681 --> 00:43:40.766 - some hard work and effort that could very 00:43:41.026 --> 00:43:54.738 - likely achieve these and feasibly do so. And so we work really hard to make that happen if you wish 00:43:54.738 --> 00:44:08.862 - to move forward with the PUD as the conditions placed on them state. May I interject here too as well? 00:44:09.122 --> 00:44:16.310 - Would you guys like us to go through the list that was kind of finalized? Some of them at this point 00:44:16.310 --> 00:44:23.925 - 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 00:44:23.925 --> 00:44:31.469 - the council meeting from when it was passed. I'd like to hear it, Anna, if you can. OK. Let's run through 00:44:31.469 --> 00:44:35.454 - them briefly. I don't want to take a whole lot of time. 00:44:35.970 --> 00:44:43.548 - And I think this is the best that we can do right now. I also want to flag for you that council did 00:44:43.548 --> 00:44:51.202 - say, you know, because we have expressed some concern about how feasible some of the conditions are. 00:44:51.202 --> 00:44:59.008 - We, but council did say that, you know, if we are unable to meet some of these conditions to come back 00:44:59.008 --> 00:45:01.054 - to them. So there is that. 00:45:01.346 --> 00:45:09.736 - But let's briefly just chat through what has been presented. So one of the first reasonable conditions 00:45:09.736 --> 00:45:18.208 - that was proposed was really semantics and formatting preferences, changing the allowed use table. That 00:45:18.208 --> 00:45:26.436 - was done prior to the submission. And Anna, could you reference the ordinance number, just so we can 00:45:26.436 --> 00:45:28.798 - follow? Sure. So if you are- 00:45:29.314 --> 00:45:38.177 - Do you guys have the council ordinance number 2026-06? Yes. Yes. In front of you. Yes. OK. Let's start 00:45:38.177 --> 00:45:46.954 - on reasonable condition. The first reasonable condition, which starts at page four of that ordinance, 00:45:46.954 --> 00:45:55.644 - it was to update the allowed use table, which, again, was a formatting preference. And that was done 00:45:55.644 --> 00:45:58.398 - prior to submission to council. 00:45:58.690 --> 00:46:06.003 - or at least after the first meeting. So that was done pretty early on. That has been completed. The 00:46:06.003 --> 00:46:13.463 - next reasonable condition was related to providing a rational phasing plan, which was already part of 00:46:13.463 --> 00:46:20.996 - the PD submission as well. Because the infrastructure does not make sense to go in in multiple phases, 00:46:20.996 --> 00:46:28.382 - it is only cost effective to do it in one phase. So everything was already intended to be one phase. 00:46:28.738 --> 00:46:36.977 - And that was also in those documents that were submitted. So that to me is taken care of. The next reasonable 00:46:36.977 --> 00:46:44.991 - condition was related to energy efficiency standards. And I will tell you that the way that this ordinance 00:46:44.991 --> 00:46:52.482 - that we received in completion from the clerk, it is a little bit confusing because it does list in 00:46:52.482 --> 00:46:58.174 - the initial condition that we would have to meet the lead silver standards. 00:46:58.562 --> 00:47:07.462 - which is not how we landed. And that is clarified later on in this document as far as how we're meeting 00:47:07.462 --> 00:47:16.106 - energy efficiency standards. So I'll get to that in just a second. The next reasonable condition was 00:47:16.106 --> 00:47:23.038 - related to the six foot sidewalk. And I believe that that has also been updated. 00:47:23.330 --> 00:47:32.669 - to make sure that we're not removing any accessible units or losing any units at all. So there were 00:47:32.669 --> 00:47:42.661 - some wider sections of sidewalk that we landed on as a compromise that would not cost us units. So there's 00:47:42.661 --> 00:47:53.214 - that one. Then the next one was to update the Wiley Street and Jackson Street cross sections to reflect the tree 00:47:53.346 --> 00:48:00.120 - plot, minimum width of five feet, located between the sidewalk and the drive lane for all portions of 00:48:00.120 --> 00:48:06.761 - the right-of-way located within the P2B and Block 8 on the north side of Wiley. The sidewalk may be 00:48:06.761 --> 00:48:13.601 - immediately adjacent to the street for a portion of the block as necessary to accommodate the existing 00:48:13.601 --> 00:48:20.375 - building footprint if the 714 South Roger Street building is preserved. So those were all things that 00:48:20.375 --> 00:48:21.438 - we felt like we 00:48:21.826 --> 00:48:29.359 - we could reasonably agree to, although it will cost more and obviously in concrete for both of the last 00:48:29.359 --> 00:48:36.601 - two conditions, but we did feel like that was an okay compromise. The next reasonable condition was 00:48:36.601 --> 00:48:43.337 - a requirement that the Rogers Cross section be updated to reflect the design requirements of 00:48:43.337 --> 00:48:49.566 - the transportation plan, including the five foot tree plot and the 10 foot sidewalks. 00:48:49.794 --> 00:48:56.775 - So again, I think that's the same thing, but it was just the updated language. The next one, 00:48:56.775 --> 00:49:04.356 - on page 10 of 12, the petitioner will work with the City of Bloomington Engineering and Planning and 00:49:04.356 --> 00:49:12.312 - Transportation Departments to design the lanes with a target speed of 10 miles per hour, utilizing design 00:49:12.312 --> 00:49:19.518 - elements intended to create a low speed and high comfort environment for vulnerable road users. 00:49:20.194 --> 00:49:26.633 - I am not an engineer, so I'm not exactly sure what will be necessary to accomplish that. I imagine it's 00:49:26.633 --> 00:49:32.824 - probably going to be some speed bumps or some other deterrents. Kendall, if he's still in the room, 00:49:32.824 --> 00:49:39.140 - might be able to speak to that. Heather? Yeah, I'm going to bring you all some options when we get to 00:49:39.140 --> 00:49:45.455 - that. But you could go to the parking lot, speed umbrella. You could do something more aesthetic. You 00:49:45.455 --> 00:49:48.798 - have to spend more money. So there's ways to do that. 00:49:50.498 --> 00:49:57.159 - And then the next reasonable condition, there were multiple reasonable conditions related to 00:49:57.159 --> 00:50:04.392 - the affordability. And this was an alternative that was proposed by Council Member Piedmont-Smith at 00:50:04.392 --> 00:50:12.056 - the last meeting that was at least 35% of all dwelling units in Hopewall South community shall be designed 00:50:12.056 --> 00:50:16.926 - as permanently affordable with a goal of 50% of all dwelling units. 00:50:17.442 --> 00:50:26.012 - Initially, we had submitted at 25%, which was the requirement of the PUD. And so for eligibility, it 00:50:26.012 --> 00:50:34.498 - says a minimum of the 15% of the total dwelling units will be reserved for households earning at or 00:50:34.498 --> 00:50:42.983 - below 90% AMI. And a minimum of 20% of total dwelling units will be reserved for housing earning at 00:50:42.983 --> 00:50:46.462 - or below 120% of the area median income. 00:50:47.106 --> 00:50:54.040 - The whole argument has been this entire time that we don't know what the construction costs are, so 00:50:54.040 --> 00:51:00.973 - it's hard to commit to exactly what affordability we can provide. This was a much better compromise 00:51:00.973 --> 00:51:08.115 - than some of the previous reasonable conditions related to affordability just because, again, we don't 00:51:08.115 --> 00:51:10.750 - know exactly what we're dealing with. 00:51:11.682 --> 00:51:17.619 - So the reasonable condition also goes through the compliance with the requirements shall be secured 00:51:17.619 --> 00:51:23.676 - through a legal mechanism or any combination of mechanisms. It also says that permanent affordability 00:51:23.676 --> 00:51:29.791 - mechanisms shall be structured to remain enforceable independently of ongoing public subsidy. However, 00:51:29.791 --> 00:51:36.382 - the use of public subsidy to establish, preserve, extend, or deepen permanent affordability shall be permitted 00:51:37.186 --> 00:51:43.946 - provided that affordability restrictions remain in effect for the duration required under this condition. 00:51:43.946 --> 00:51:50.451 - It also says the petitioner shall report back to the common council every six months from the date of 00:51:50.451 --> 00:51:57.147 - passage of the ordinance for five years regarding the methods and progress on implementation. So I think 00:51:57.147 --> 00:52:03.078 - that's probably the most significant reasonable condition that we have on the PUD right now. 00:52:03.078 --> 00:52:05.246 - And then finally, the final page, 00:52:05.346 --> 00:52:11.783 - goes through the energy efficiency housing standards where we actually landed, which was that all the 00:52:11.783 --> 00:52:18.094 - homes shall be designed using a pre-approved plan model to achieve energy performance equivalent to 00:52:18.094 --> 00:52:24.657 - a home energy rating score of 65 or better, and construction documents shall incorporate best practice, 00:52:24.657 --> 00:52:31.157 - air sealing deck placement within conditioned space, and high efficiency all electric systems. So that 00:52:31.157 --> 00:52:35.070 - was something that we had discussed being sort of our limits. 00:52:35.330 --> 00:52:46.544 - for that condition anyway. So that would be it. Happy to get through. Thank you. So I had a, and sorry, 00:52:46.544 --> 00:52:57.326 - I have to bring back up the resolution. I think we talked a lot about most of these, and I think we 00:52:57.326 --> 00:53:04.766 - had conversations that reflected the sense of the commission that we 00:53:05.186 --> 00:53:13.426 - recognize the need to meet the council where they are and to move the project forward. We know that 00:53:13.426 --> 00:53:21.914 - worst case scenario is we have to go back and do another PUD. I don't think any of us want to do that. 00:53:21.914 --> 00:53:30.236 - I don't think anybody wants to do that. But we need to start and see where we get to. It's a wording 00:53:30.236 --> 00:53:34.686 - change to the resolution that I want to propose to be 00:53:35.362 --> 00:53:44.285 - even clearer about what our intent is. The phrase, in the last whereas, it ends with the words feasibly 00:53:44.285 --> 00:53:53.466 - possible, which don't strike me as completely grammatical. Maybe it's legally fine, but kind of redundant. 00:53:53.466 --> 00:54:02.046 - But I think what we're really trying to say is we will do whatever we can to meet these conditions. 00:54:02.338 --> 00:54:08.967 - Assuming that it's not going to undermine the goals of the project and I think we should say that It's 00:54:08.967 --> 00:54:15.725 - going to be more words in the resolution, but that we have had much longer resolutions than this I don't 00:54:15.725 --> 00:54:22.225 - think that's a big problem something like We intend to comply with the conditions to the extent that 00:54:22.225 --> 00:54:29.048 - they can feasibly be accomplished without significantly undermining the goals of increasing Bloomington's 00:54:29.048 --> 00:54:30.206 - housing stock and 00:54:30.530 --> 00:54:39.239 - Bloomington's affordability goals, something like that. To be very clear, what we're talking about when 00:54:39.239 --> 00:54:47.949 - we say feasible is the ultimate goal of why we're doing Hopewell in the first place. And I can put that 00:54:47.949 --> 00:54:56.575 - text in an email and send it off. Thank you. I think the words that you just used. By the way, we need 00:54:56.575 --> 00:54:59.422 - to be restated then at the end of 00:55:00.098 --> 00:55:09.840 - number 200 therefore. Are you wanting to make that an amendment, Lori? I'm proposing it as an amendment 00:55:09.840 --> 00:55:19.769 - to this resolution. Second. We're not yet taken to a vote. We're still having comments and then a warning 00:55:19.769 --> 00:55:28.574 - for public comment, so. You didn't change it. That's what everybody wants. Yeah, I think it's 00:55:28.770 --> 00:55:39.210 - would be fine so that when we vote on it, it's as amended. Dave, do you want me to send you that text? 00:55:39.210 --> 00:55:49.751 - That I just write it? You might want to drop it in the chat, and then that way it's clear to the public 00:55:49.751 --> 00:55:57.758 - as well. OK. Thank you. Yeah, let's discuss. So the proposed language is being 00:55:57.986 --> 00:56:07.134 - and we'll invite any discussion on that proposed amendment. Is that what you're interested in commenting 00:56:07.134 --> 00:56:15.847 - on? Is this an appropriate time to raise a question? To Lori's amendment. Yes, please. I agree with 00:56:15.847 --> 00:56:24.733 - Lori. So the premise is I think that that's reasonable. What I'm not sure about is she references the 00:56:24.733 --> 00:56:27.870 - Bloomington housing stock, which is 00:56:29.346 --> 00:56:44.231 - broad and I think that the amendment needs to be limited to PUD. So undermining the goals of the PUD 00:56:44.231 --> 00:56:52.926 - or the Hopewell South project or something to that effect. 00:57:01.442 --> 00:57:13.873 - Any other questions or comments specific on this proposed amendment and then we can make sure that there's 00:57:13.873 --> 00:57:24.446 - any other discussion about the resolution as a whole before we open it for public comment. 00:57:31.970 --> 00:57:40.132 - going going on before we go to public comment. Yeah, I wanted I wanted to ask a question. Okay, that 00:57:40.132 --> 00:57:48.536 - was about the overall. Okay, no, that's good. I just wanted to make sure that we're covering our bases. 00:57:48.536 --> 00:57:56.698 - So Anna, this is for you. And it's it's a hot seat question. The the affordability language is going 00:57:56.698 --> 00:57:58.718 - to be difficult at best. 00:58:03.426 --> 00:58:17.240 - so that we're not kicking a can down the road. Is it, in your opinion, really feasible, given the assumption 00:58:17.240 --> 00:58:29.913 - that construction costs, I guess, don't skyrocket any more than they are today? You're right. It is 00:58:29.913 --> 00:58:32.574 - a hot seat question. 00:58:33.154 --> 00:58:41.008 - The problem is that we don't know what we don't know. But that being said, I mean, the goal is affordability, 00:58:41.008 --> 00:58:48.362 - which obviously work in every day. The good news is that we have multiple tools that will be available 00:58:48.362 --> 00:58:55.502 - for us to help reach this goal. So again, really want to try to accomplish it, see what we can make 00:58:55.502 --> 00:59:01.214 - happen, whether it's by utilizing health funds or partnerships with nonprofits. 00:59:01.602 --> 00:59:09.867 - The other thing that we're working on, as you guys know, is potentially creating a Hopewell South residential 00:59:09.867 --> 00:59:17.531 - TIF, which then would require a housing program and reinvestment in the area. So that might be a tool 00:59:17.531 --> 00:59:25.120 - to help us as well, because I understand that you guys are not interested in committing to permanent 00:59:25.120 --> 00:59:31.582 - subsidies in the project. Completely understand there's only so much life in the TIF, 00:59:31.970 --> 00:59:41.356 - And we have projects that we're committed to. And it would undermine the overall goal of the PUD. We're 00:59:41.356 --> 00:59:50.561 - going to do our college try on trying to get as many affordable units as possible without creating an 00:59:50.561 --> 00:59:54.622 - additional burden to our VC. Thanks, Hannah. 01:00:00.162 --> 01:00:10.060 - Any further comments or questions for discussion before opening this for public comment for resolution 01:00:10.060 --> 01:00:19.669 - twenty six dash thirty five. Well we my understanding and we can clarify this is that we were going 01:00:19.669 --> 01:00:28.702 - to. Have a vote on the resolution as amended because we haven't voted on this resolution yet. 01:00:29.154 --> 01:00:37.048 - 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 01:00:37.048 --> 01:00:44.865 - about this. No, you don't have to vote on the amendment. This is just a draft that I bring to you. And 01:00:44.865 --> 01:00:52.455 - then you edit it the way you want it. And then you make a motion to approve it the way you want it. 01:00:52.455 --> 01:00:56.478 - So you've made some edits to it so you would move to 01:00:56.866 --> 01:01:03.267 - approve it as it's been edited. So any other edits are appropriately brought up now? Yes. Yeah. 01:01:03.267 --> 01:01:09.935 - Minor one, if I may. The one, two, three, four. That's the whereas. The fifth whereas paragraph has 01:01:09.935 --> 01:01:16.669 - apparently omitted a couple words by resolution 2584. Any and all bids for the Hopewell South Blocks 01:01:16.669 --> 01:01:23.070 - 9 and 10 were rejected. Yeah, that's been added. As they did not appropriately serve the goals. 01:01:27.778 --> 01:01:35.566 - So we'll correct that for the other ones. Good, thank you. Okay, so I'm vetting any further comments 01:01:35.566 --> 01:01:43.354 - from commissioners, edits, amendments. Again, we're not voting on it yet because we're gonna open it 01:01:43.354 --> 01:01:51.065 - for public comment, but I'm looking if we're transitioning to public comment or if there's anything 01:01:51.065 --> 01:01:55.614 - further that commissioners would like to discuss for 2635. 01:01:56.930 --> 01:02:07.174 - One more point clarification regards to it since lorries put this in the in the chat and then they is 01:02:07.174 --> 01:02:17.418 - going to include that in this resolution. Yes. Thank you. Yes, it has been changed in the resolution. 01:02:17.418 --> 01:02:25.854 - So when we vote on this, it will be as amended based on the language that's in the. 01:02:26.306 --> 01:02:36.030 - chat as presented that's been amended, as well as the edit that Commissioner Scambaleri had noted for 01:02:36.030 --> 01:02:45.850 - that fifth, whereas to make sure that the different course of action for blocks done in 10 or rejected 01:02:45.850 --> 01:02:54.430 - of Hopewell South that is necessary for the existing plan is not achievable. Okay, are we 01:02:55.106 --> 01:03:12.442 - done with comments and questions and amendments and edits. Seeing. No further I will open public comment 01:03:12.442 --> 01:03:24.990 - either online or in person for resolution twenty six dash thirty five. Yes. 01:03:25.122 --> 01:03:36.492 - I think that even though it was very painful for everybody involved, especially Anna, I think that the 01:03:36.492 --> 01:03:47.530 - end result with the reasonable conditions is a better project. I'm confident that you'll be able to 01:03:47.530 --> 01:03:53.822 - get more affordable units this way and it'll be overall, 01:03:54.434 --> 01:04:02.762 - a great boon to the community. So I hope that you will vote yes. But I am mainly the author of the big 01:04:02.762 --> 01:04:10.847 - compromise between requiring 50 percent to be permanently affordable and requiring 25 percent to be 01:04:10.847 --> 01:04:18.932 - permanently affordable. So I think we ended at 35 percent. That was still not good enough for three 01:04:18.932 --> 01:04:22.974 - council members, I should say. It was a 6-3 vote. 01:04:23.522 --> 01:04:33.665 - And if that is not feasible, then you wouldn't have to start over with a whole new PUD, you could just 01:04:33.665 --> 01:04:43.807 - come back to council and ask for an amendment. So that's my comment, please vote yes, thank you. Thank 01:04:43.807 --> 01:04:52.670 - you for the collaboration, I know it was tricky. Okay, any further public comment online? 01:04:53.826 --> 01:05:04.606 - In person, seeing none, I will invite a motion for resolution 26-35. I'll move approval of resolution 01:05:04.606 --> 01:05:15.491 - 26-35. Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do the vote by roll call, please. Sue Scambaleri, 01:05:15.491 --> 01:05:21.726 - yes. John West, yes. Lori McRoney, yes. Rami Cassidy, yes. 01:05:22.594 --> 01:05:32.919 - Thank you. And I'm just going to make a side note there was a- an email I got earlier from a neighbor 01:05:32.919 --> 01:05:43.042 - from of hopeful south who had some comments. There is the continued plotting that will be going on- 01:05:43.042 --> 01:05:47.294 - there is definitely opportunity for more. 01:05:48.098 --> 01:05:54.910 - just want to emphasize that this is a project that is ongoing there are. The final details are still 01:05:54.910 --> 01:06:01.452 - taking shape and so if there are people who would like to contribute their opinions and concerns 01:06:01.452 --> 01:06:08.197 - considerations that there is continued opportunity to do that so. They shouldn't afford them to the 01:06:08.197 --> 01:06:14.942 - end department to end in that way they can get filtered to the right people yeah. So yeah and thank 01:06:14.942 --> 01:06:16.830 - you for going through those 01:06:17.314 --> 01:06:26.739 - conditions they were you're much better with the technical part of those things. Thank you. Thank you. 01:06:26.739 --> 01:06:36.072 - No problem. Thank you guys. I'm so glad that we're through this because that was miserable. I keep it 01:06:36.072 --> 01:06:46.046 - real. Okay well the next item on our agenda is perhaps a slightly simpler version of Hopewell South which is 01:06:46.178 --> 01:06:54.486 - Resolution 2636 approval of Hopewell South lot line adjustment. Who would like to speak to that? Thank 01:06:54.486 --> 01:07:02.955 - you for your attention tonight. So this is something I hinted on during my update, but this is adjusting 01:07:02.955 --> 01:07:11.182 - the lot lines that exist currently at Hopewell South. This is to provide the opportunity to construct 01:07:11.182 --> 01:07:15.134 - some early homes. So it probably the most useful 01:07:15.522 --> 01:07:21.345 - linked to click on is the one that says attachment to exhibit A. This essentially shows you the three 01:07:21.345 --> 01:07:26.539 - existing lots that were platted 100 years ago as part of the Dixie Highway addition to the 01:07:26.539 --> 01:07:32.305 - city of Bloomington. We are essentially just moving where those lines are. This is something that is 01:07:32.305 --> 01:07:38.127 - commonly done between two property owners when they agree on a new location of the lot line. They can 01:07:38.127 --> 01:07:41.438 - do that administratively through our planning department. 01:07:41.570 --> 01:07:49.912 - That's exactly what we've done here. The RDC owned all three of these lots. So essentially this matches 01:07:49.912 --> 01:07:58.173 - the future plan lot lines than the approved PUD. And this just shifts the existing lot lines to create 01:07:58.173 --> 01:08:06.354 - basically two of two lots in the future subdivision. So 148A and 149A are essentially what's going to 01:08:06.354 --> 01:08:11.006 - be created in the future. And then 150A is the remainder. 01:08:11.490 --> 01:08:17.769 - But these are three lots of record. So anyone can apply for a building permit from the building department 01:08:17.769 --> 01:08:23.696 - and receive that and build a structure on these lots. They are already ready to go. So no, you know, 01:08:23.696 --> 01:08:29.681 - for all the other lots, we're going to have to go through platting. We're going to have to go through 01:08:29.681 --> 01:08:35.960 - permitting, all kinds of permitting. These would just be class two structures, which the state legislature 01:08:35.960 --> 01:08:40.126 - has streamlined. It's a two week process. So as soon as you sign these 01:08:40.578 --> 01:08:47.570 - deeds and get this recorded, you can have a permit to build a structure in two weeks if you wanted to. 01:08:47.570 --> 01:08:54.902 - I know that the RDC as a body has to go through additional steps, public offerings, things, but essentially 01:08:54.902 --> 01:09:01.827 - this sets you up to be able to do something really fast, which is really exciting. So we are ready to 01:09:01.827 --> 01:09:08.616 - go ahead and record this. I'm happy to answer any further questions on it. That's all I have for my 01:09:08.616 --> 01:09:09.566 - presentation. 01:09:11.266 --> 01:09:20.257 - or comments from commissioners on resolution 2636? I guess I just want to make sure I know what I'm 01:09:20.257 --> 01:09:29.337 - looking at. So the exhibit that has the three lots identified, that's what I ought to be looking at? 01:09:29.337 --> 01:09:38.867 - Yep. All right. I think so. OK. And there's probably an address associated with the former medical office 01:09:38.867 --> 01:09:40.126 - building that 01:09:40.322 --> 01:09:49.910 - there if you want to kind of get an idea of where you are in space. Any other questions or comments 01:09:49.910 --> 01:09:59.881 - from commissioners on resolution 2636 about the lot line adjustment? I will open it for public comment, 01:09:59.881 --> 01:10:08.510 - either online or in person. Seeing none, I will open it for a motion for resolution 2636. 01:10:11.362 --> 01:10:23.828 - resolution twenty six thirty six. Seven got a first and a second. Are you. Anyone I saw you the other 01:10:23.828 --> 01:10:36.538 - day. Walking we're going to need to move. Yeah you were just were you running down the beeline and then 01:10:36.538 --> 01:10:41.182 - walking back. Now I guess the namely. 01:10:41.666 --> 01:10:59.649 - 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 01:10:59.649 --> 01:11:10.782 - six. C. scambler yes. John West yes I was so taken back by Eric. 01:11:22.594 --> 01:11:29.634 - there we go, okay. Randy Cassidy, yes. Deborah Myersing, yes. Motion passes unanimously for resolution 01:11:29.634 --> 01:11:36.469 - 2636. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is resolution 2637, which is approval of an agreement with 01:11:36.469 --> 01:11:43.373 - Calumet Civil Contractors Incorporated for temporary storage at Hopewell East Development. Who would 01:11:43.373 --> 01:11:50.686 - like to speak to that? Ken Okanoki, engineering department again. So we're actually shifting projects now. 01:11:50.946 --> 01:11:58.031 - This is the federally funded Second Street project that's happening on Second Street between Walker 01:11:58.031 --> 01:12:05.258 - and the beeline. The RDC happens to be the proud owners of a very nice empty lot directly adjacent to 01:12:05.258 --> 01:12:12.698 - the construction site in a very urbanized area. So of course, this was quite enticing to the contractor. 01:12:12.698 --> 01:12:20.350 - They needed a location for some lay down and construction staging. So this is a request for them to utilize 01:12:20.802 --> 01:12:27.836 - the northwest portion of Hopewell East for that. So this is at the intersection of 2nd and Rogers, the 01:12:27.836 --> 01:12:35.007 - southeast corner. If you look at the Calumet lay down exhibit, which is one of the links in your agenda, 01:12:35.007 --> 01:12:42.041 - you can take a look at the requested lay down area. So this is a location will essentially be a fenced 01:12:42.041 --> 01:12:48.734 - in gravel contractor yard for the duration of construction, which is through the end of the year. 01:12:49.026 --> 01:12:55.482 - And then once they're done, they'll take up all that gravel and fencing and they'll reseed the lot for 01:12:55.482 --> 01:13:01.813 - the future plans. There are existing monitoring wells related to the environmental studies that have 01:13:01.813 --> 01:13:08.081 - been done and continue to be done on Hopewell East. So those areas, we have taken note of those and 01:13:08.081 --> 01:13:14.600 - those will be protected with concrete Jersey barriers. So contractor will stay out of those areas. They 01:13:14.600 --> 01:13:18.110 - will access the site from second street. So this is the 01:13:18.850 --> 01:13:25.360 - the side that they're just going to be reconstructing anyway. At the very, very end when they build 01:13:25.360 --> 01:13:32.130 - the sidewalk and kind of finalize that, we'll have them access from the existing alley that exists back 01:13:32.130 --> 01:13:38.835 - there, but generally they'll be accessing from the front and protecting everything else that was built 01:13:38.835 --> 01:13:45.214 - as part of Hopewell East. Yeah, this is essentially a request from the contractor to you all just 01:13:46.722 --> 01:13:54.299 - for their construction purposes, they're responsible for any other permits they need to do. This isn't 01:13:54.299 --> 01:14:01.655 - really something that the city is, we're facilitating this request, but generally it's an agreement 01:14:01.655 --> 01:14:09.600 - between the contractor and the RDC, so happy to answer any questions on it. Okay, any questions or comments 01:14:09.600 --> 01:14:13.278 - from commissioners on 2637? Of course I do. Okay. 01:14:14.434 --> 01:14:25.397 - Well, I've got I don't have a problem with the purpose, but I've got three issues. And they're all in 01:14:25.397 --> 01:14:36.468 - the agreement. There's a 90 day, what I call kick out clause. But this is only a seven month contract. 01:14:36.468 --> 01:14:41.950 - So I think 90 days is too long, it should be 30. I 01:14:43.234 --> 01:14:52.956 - 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, 01:14:52.956 --> 01:15:02.128 - it's right on the corner of second and Rogers. So they're gonna basically gravel that, it's part of 01:15:02.128 --> 01:15:09.374 - it anyway, so they can take vehicles on it, right? Okay, so there is, in this, 01:15:09.666 --> 01:15:17.918 - I heard what you said, but in the agreement, I don't see any language that would enforce erosion control, 01:15:17.918 --> 01:15:25.936 - and I don't see any language that requires them, despite what you said, put it back into the condition 01:15:25.936 --> 01:15:33.799 - it is in. That'd be 13. Yeah, I don't think it says that. So I return possession of the property and 01:15:33.799 --> 01:15:36.446 - same or improved condition as the 01:15:36.802 --> 01:15:43.836 - when kind of possession. Yeah, it's it's the same language that we always use. And I always bring this 01:15:43.836 --> 01:15:50.733 - up. At least, I'd like to see that it's something expanded for for ongoing erosion control. Because, 01:15:50.733 --> 01:15:58.040 - 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 01:15:58.040 --> 01:16:04.254 - have any runoff. We're gonna have runoff as soon as they start digging it up. So and I put 01:16:04.514 --> 01:16:12.213 - I put the 90 days in there. And the reason I did that was because when they're working with that construction 01:16:12.213 --> 01:16:19.212 - project, if they're in the middle of the project, I know it's going to be difficult to find another 01:16:19.212 --> 01:16:26.421 - area. But I also put in there, if they breached in any way, by not living up to any of the other terms 01:16:26.421 --> 01:16:31.390 - of the agreement, that they would have 10 days from notice to cure it. 01:16:31.522 --> 01:16:40.141 - 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 01:16:40.141 --> 01:16:48.759 - more specific as to our expectations while they're using the land, because if they fall back on the 01:16:48.759 --> 01:16:57.464 - 90 days, most likely the contract is over anyway. So it doesn't allow you to have an immediate, take 01:16:57.464 --> 01:17:00.222 - immediate action, particularly. 01:17:17.698 --> 01:17:26.672 - Well, you somewhere up here, you've got where they are professional in the way they use the property. 01:17:26.672 --> 01:17:35.470 - I don't remember the exact language. Maybe we ought to have a little detail into that. What are our 01:17:35.470 --> 01:17:36.702 - expectations? 01:17:47.650 --> 01:17:59.707 - I think they've got to be sure they contain themselves within the allotted area. They've got to control 01:17:59.707 --> 01:18:11.765 - the erosion and put up all the barriers necessary to prevent it from happening. Hey, Randy, I need your 01:18:11.765 --> 01:18:16.286 - help on this. This is your cup of tea. 01:18:17.602 --> 01:18:24.455 - Well, my concern completely is what it took to get us a staff to get grass established there and keep 01:18:24.455 --> 01:18:31.779 - it from eroding. And also take into consideration the street to the east, which we've already reconstructed, 01:18:31.779 --> 01:18:38.767 - and where they're going to add a second gate to the street improvements. From the standpoint of looking 01:18:38.767 --> 01:18:45.150 - at a lay down, I know convenience and ease on a seven month project is going to be beneficial. 01:18:45.442 --> 01:18:51.961 - But I also look at the circumstances of what has happened in the past. And while all contractors, we 01:18:51.961 --> 01:18:58.415 - all have our intent to put everything back, it may not necessarily get that way. So my question is, 01:18:58.415 --> 01:19:04.933 - who's going to establish what it is now, and then what it needs to be put back, and possibility of a 01:19:04.933 --> 01:19:11.710 - bond for doing that? Kendall, is this under the public works requirements from a contractual standpoint? 01:19:13.090 --> 01:19:20.013 - I think this is an agreement between the RDC and the contractor, so you can put in any requirements 01:19:20.013 --> 01:19:27.074 - you want, but the Board of Public Works is not involved. Let me rephrase that again. Is this contract 01:19:27.074 --> 01:19:34.135 - between Calumet and the City of Bloomington administered through Public Works? No. Well, okay, so the 01:19:34.135 --> 01:19:40.158 - construction project, it's a federally funded project, so it's actually through INDOT. 01:19:41.794 --> 01:19:50.202 - Okay, so it's the end off basis. Yeah, contracts will be already secret. Okay, contracts are DC in but 01:19:50.202 --> 01:19:58.366 - it's in it's through in this agreement is already seeing the contractor, the project is between the 01:19:58.366 --> 01:20:06.774 - contractor and in that. And then we as the city, the Board of Public Works as a contract with in that. 01:20:06.774 --> 01:20:10.366 - Okay. My main concern, john is the basis of 01:20:10.594 --> 01:20:16.504 - being able to put it back, I mean, we don't even know what's gonna happen with this lot of the pressing 01:20:16.504 --> 01:20:22.300 - moments of gravel. It may not be a bad thing, but the erosion's an issue, and then the concern I have 01:20:22.300 --> 01:20:28.039 - is that we've got a secondary gate that needed to protect the second street improvements, but I want 01:20:28.039 --> 01:20:33.835 - to make sure that we can have it put back correctly, and that the improvements that have already been 01:20:33.835 --> 01:20:39.006 - done to the east side on this roadway that Milestone did isn't jeopardized after the fact. 01:20:41.154 --> 01:20:48.364 - So to put language in, the simplest thing is to see if we could identify what it costs to put it back 01:20:48.364 --> 01:20:55.715 - with and just have a bond so we can verify. I mean, bond is not a horrible expense of ours at the level 01:20:55.715 --> 01:21:03.137 - of the size contract we gave. At the very least, maybe we ought to have some photos of what it is today. 01:21:03.137 --> 01:21:10.206 - So absolutely. We're not going on memory. Right. Because there's already been, and I happen to just 01:21:10.434 --> 01:21:17.829 - There's already been a circumstance across the street on the west side there where they were getting 01:21:17.829 --> 01:21:25.150 - ready for the temporary traffic signals where they buried the truck. Now it was a subcontractor. My 01:21:25.150 --> 01:21:33.130 - main concern is verifying what it is now and making sure it gets put back correctly and whose responsibility 01:21:33.130 --> 01:21:39.134 - is it to verify it and that the money's there either with retention or in a bond. 01:21:42.146 --> 01:21:49.931 - Since they're not paying any rent, there's no security deposit. There is no money. So bonds are your 01:21:49.931 --> 01:21:57.717 - only option if you want to get out of that room. Well, I'm just looking at the standpoint of what we 01:21:57.717 --> 01:22:05.502 - may do to make sure, because once the project's done, if there's any damage, it's the only thing. If 01:22:05.502 --> 01:22:10.590 - it's an end-off project, Kendall, what recourse do we have? Well, 01:22:13.826 --> 01:22:19.484 - There's a lot of moving parts here. So these roads are not yet accepted by the Board of Public Works. 01:22:19.484 --> 01:22:25.198 - If the alley and the new road, Madison Street, was accepted by the board, they would have to still get 01:22:25.198 --> 01:22:30.857 - a right of way use permit from us if they were going to use those roads in any way. And then we would 01:22:30.857 --> 01:22:36.404 - have a bond, we being the engineering department. However, these haven't been accepted by the board 01:22:36.404 --> 01:22:42.285 - yet because we're still closing out permits. So they're really RDC owned roads. So you all are rightfully 01:22:42.285 --> 01:22:43.006 - so, I think, 01:22:43.170 --> 01:22:49.812 - responsible for holding a bond for these roads until those roads are accepted by the board. So I guess 01:22:49.812 --> 01:22:56.453 - we have two options. We take them to get accepted by the Board of Public Works, ASAP, or probably more 01:22:56.453 --> 01:23:02.902 - simpler, they just have to post a bond. So it's more of just the lay-down area we're talking about. 01:23:02.902 --> 01:23:09.479 - It's the travel area around as well. Well, the lay-down area is just accessible by Second Street, but 01:23:09.479 --> 01:23:12.574 - I think what... Yeah, but when there's a travel 01:23:12.930 --> 01:23:20.884 - accessible from the south, they're going to have to go through RDC property. The idea was that it wouldn't 01:23:20.884 --> 01:23:28.393 - be accessible from the south only at the very end after they built their sidewalk. Yeah, but at that 01:23:28.393 --> 01:23:35.827 - very end, they will be using RDC property. So this doesn't come. To access, yeah. I mean, the other 01:23:35.827 --> 01:23:40.510 - option is we could say you have to take down the staging area. 01:23:41.474 --> 01:23:49.389 - and then finish the sidewalk and just never use the RDC's property, I suppose. I would think that that 01:23:49.389 --> 01:23:57.226 - would at least be our best realm so that we minimize the amount of traffic that is occurring. Because 01:23:57.226 --> 01:24:04.910 - during construction afterwards, having that argument of whose responsibility it is always becomes a 01:24:04.910 --> 01:24:09.982 - problem. So if they could eliminate that exit onto the south end, 01:24:19.746 --> 01:24:27.805 - Dan, I might recommend just adding a number in there that says access is only permitted from 2nd Street 01:24:27.805 --> 01:24:35.786 - to the staging area. Maybe that would cover it. Do we need to vote on this today? Or can you guys take 01:24:35.786 --> 01:24:44.542 - our comments, modify the agreement, and bring it back next time? I really don't want to do this unless you like. 01:24:50.178 --> 01:24:59.267 - It's not ready yet. Have to do have to find something. Yeah, there's. With that relevation stuff too, 01:24:59.267 --> 01:25:08.802 - I think there's enough time to get it ready. You've got kind of that actually I was just gonna say exactly 01:25:08.802 --> 01:25:18.337 - what John suggested so. I agree with John. So proposal is to postpone. And return with a revised agreement 01:25:18.337 --> 01:25:20.030 - based on comments. 01:25:21.058 --> 01:25:31.210 - to secure some of the concerns that have been discussed. Okay, thank you for that discussion. We will 01:25:31.210 --> 01:25:42.059 - move to the next item on our agenda. So that's tabled for 2637. We're moving to 2638, which is authorization 01:25:42.059 --> 01:25:49.822 - for city staff to apply for the submission of a primary plat, secondary plat, 01:25:50.018 --> 01:25:57.596 - Plot Vacation, PUD Final Plan, and all associated permits and approvals for Hopewell South on behalf 01:25:57.596 --> 01:26:05.398 - of the RDC. Who is speaking to that? Is that? Yeah, Kevin. I can have the engineering department again. 01:26:05.398 --> 01:26:13.051 - So this is essentially, we have to make a number of applications, the plan commission for our primary 01:26:13.051 --> 01:26:18.078 - plot and our plot vacation of the Dixie Highway addition, and then 01:26:18.242 --> 01:26:24.748 - Just a number of applications to the planning department for secondary staff level approval, PUD final 01:26:24.748 --> 01:26:31.254 - plan approval, site development permit. We have to apply to CBU a million times along the way. We have 01:26:31.254 --> 01:26:38.202 - to apply to IDEM for sanitary sewer and water main permitting. We have to apply to the state for construction 01:26:38.202 --> 01:26:45.150 - stormwater general permit. These are just the things that come to mind. So this is kind of a blanket approval 01:26:45.730 --> 01:26:53.330 - You're saying we affirm and agree with the project. We want it to move forward. Please apply for all 01:26:53.330 --> 01:27:01.081 - of these permits in order to do so. I will, I guess, warn you that I do plan on coming back to ask for 01:27:01.081 --> 01:27:08.908 - specific design changes, update you on specific milestones. But as soon as you approve this resolution, 01:27:08.908 --> 01:27:09.886 - essentially, 01:27:10.370 --> 01:27:16.612 - the PUD as it's been approved by city council and as the conditions have been approved tonight. We're 01:27:16.612 --> 01:27:22.915 - essentially moving forward, preparing construction documents, getting all of our permits and approvals 01:27:22.915 --> 01:27:29.279 - and putting it out to bid and then coming back to you to award it to a contractor with an actual dollar 01:27:29.279 --> 01:27:35.459 - amount associated with that. So if you would like to have another, I mean, there's going to be maybe 01:27:35.459 --> 01:27:37.662 - the secondary plat we talked about, 01:27:38.114 --> 01:27:44.104 - when you have to sign that, we'll come back for that. And maybe there's something that I'm forgetting 01:27:44.104 --> 01:27:50.035 - that we'll have to come back for. But essentially, this is authorizing us to bring it all the way to 01:27:50.035 --> 01:27:55.966 - the point of award and then coming to you with a here's what it's going to cost. Here's the apparent 01:27:55.966 --> 01:28:02.191 - low bidder. Can we award this? So if you'd like to be informed or updated at another step in the process, 01:28:02.191 --> 01:28:06.302 - you can let me know or you can require it as part of this resolution. 01:28:07.330 --> 01:28:15.507 - But yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions on this. And I think I had talked about the schedule a little 01:28:15.507 --> 01:28:23.452 - bit too earlier, but I can reiterate that too if needed. And we'd be happy to report too of any things 01:28:23.452 --> 01:28:31.242 - that were completed, any permits that were signed, or applications that were signed. So you can have 01:28:31.242 --> 01:28:37.182 - a running tab of those and put those in the minutes. OK. Thank you for that. 01:28:37.410 --> 01:28:47.368 - additional information. Do we have any questions or comments on resolution 2638 as described? Okay. 01:28:47.368 --> 01:28:57.525 - Hearing none, any public comment, either online or in person? Seeing none, I will invite a motion for 01:28:57.525 --> 01:29:03.102 - resolution 2638. I'll move approval of resolution 2638. 01:29:05.698 --> 01:29:13.192 - We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Seuss Kimberley, yes. John West, 01:29:13.192 --> 01:29:20.541 - yes. Laura McRobbie, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Motion passes unanimously for a 01:29:20.541 --> 01:29:27.890 - resolution 2638. Thank you. Quick comment. Yeah. It wasn't part of the resolution, but to your point 01:29:27.890 --> 01:29:35.166 - about coming back and having to report, we didn't really respond to that. I'm only speaking for me. 01:29:36.162 --> 01:29:44.509 - You need to come back every two weeks and report unless there's something significant that has to be 01:29:44.509 --> 01:29:52.773 - reported on. Or every time you hit a milestone here, you can tell the staff. It's not that we don't 01:29:52.773 --> 01:30:01.367 - think. You're welcome to send a written memo, I think. That could be part of the meeting. We'd be happy 01:30:01.367 --> 01:30:06.078 - to put your name on that chair if you want to come back. 01:30:08.450 --> 01:30:15.733 - Just get her done. All right. Okay, we've got one more item on the main business part of the agenda, 01:30:15.733 --> 01:30:23.521 - which is resolution 2639, approval of professional services agreement with applied engineering for plumbing 01:30:23.521 --> 01:30:30.948 - engineering services at the 4th Street garage. Who would like to speak to that? I can start out. Okay. 01:30:30.948 --> 01:30:37.438 - So you'll remember a couple of meetings ago in my treasurer's report, I talked about some 01:30:37.954 --> 01:30:44.777 - remediation that needed to be done at the fourth street garage and that there were excess funds in the 01:30:44.777 --> 01:30:51.533 - fourth street garage taxable bonds to be able to fund that and that we would be seeing some contracts 01:30:51.533 --> 01:30:58.157 - associated with the that remediation well this is the first and kind of probably most urgent of the 01:30:58.157 --> 01:31:03.390 - contracts associated with that those repairs that I described and we have here 01:31:03.554 --> 01:31:11.193 - Jess Goodman, who is the manager of parking garages for public works, for parking services, who's going 01:31:11.193 --> 01:31:19.125 - to describe the project. Okay. Jess Goodman, I'm with the Department of Public Works. This Applied Services 01:31:19.125 --> 01:31:26.544 - is going to assess the 4th Street garage. They're going to look at the existing storm drains, see if 01:31:26.544 --> 01:31:32.126 - the laterals are sloped where they're supposed to be. They're also going to 01:31:32.450 --> 01:31:40.403 - assess the sup pump to make sure it is large enough for the size of the garage. So right now we're having 01:31:40.403 --> 01:31:47.982 - a lot of flooding because of the storm drains are just not working properly. So they will be putting 01:31:47.982 --> 01:31:53.534 - together a scope of work so I could put it out for a bid for the repairs. 01:31:54.978 --> 01:32:03.603 - And I will just add that you have a tenant moving in relatively soon, and right now there is water is 01:32:03.603 --> 01:32:12.059 - leaking in the space that you're going to have a tenant occupying. Thank you for that presentation. 01:32:12.059 --> 01:32:21.192 - Comments, questions from commissioners on resolution 2639? Yeah, I've got a couple. So if I'm understanding 01:32:21.192 --> 01:32:24.574 - you correctly, there's still bond funds 01:32:25.410 --> 01:32:38.356 - available. Four hundred forty two thousand. And so we're drawing down on those funds. Well that's good 01:32:38.356 --> 01:32:51.302 - news. This resolution that's got nothing to do with staff by the way just infuriates me. Clearly there 01:32:51.302 --> 01:32:55.198 - was. This this project was not 01:32:55.586 --> 01:33:13.736 - and so we're coming back and now doing it again. How old is this garage? So it's not that old. No, so 01:33:13.736 --> 01:33:21.566 - so we so we not we don't have any recourse. 01:33:22.018 --> 01:33:29.161 - Is there not errors in emissions insurance from the original contractor that would cover this kind of 01:33:29.161 --> 01:33:36.233 - thing? Probably not that, but maybe some, you know, well, their bonds been released. I mean, this is 01:33:36.233 --> 01:33:43.236 - ridiculous. That's a four year old garage. And it was just not plumbed properly from the get go. So 01:33:43.236 --> 01:33:50.238 - I don't know if this is the subcontractor's fault or the architect's fault that signed off on it or 01:33:51.682 --> 01:33:59.368 - You know, an engineer's mistake, but this is. I think this engineering study will help tell us that. 01:33:59.368 --> 01:34:07.055 - I was going to ask, do we need an assessment in order to make our case? Yes. Or something like that. 01:34:07.055 --> 01:34:14.893 - Yes, we would need to know, is this a cause? Is there something else that was done afterwards that led 01:34:14.893 --> 01:34:21.438 - to this? Has it been overflowing for four years? Has it been flooding for four years? 01:34:21.570 --> 01:34:29.586 - You know, we'd need to look into it more, but trying to find out if things were slow properly to begin 01:34:29.586 --> 01:34:37.602 - with, if pumps were sized correctly, if the sump itself was sized correctly. Those are all things that 01:34:37.602 --> 01:34:45.773 - we would need to know to determine where an error or emission might have occurred. Was it actually built 01:34:45.773 --> 01:34:51.454 - to specifications? Those are all questions we can't answer without doing 01:34:51.842 --> 01:35:00.633 - some work to find out why it's doing what it's doing. And if that were the case, could we then, if we 01:35:00.633 --> 01:35:09.425 - found error zero emissions, could we theoretically recoup the $14,000? Possibly. Well, not to mention 01:35:09.425 --> 01:35:18.302 - the repair cost. Right. Well, of course. This is the small part. This is all it's asking us for today. 01:35:19.170 --> 01:35:27.349 - Of course, there are statutes of limitations and things like that, time to bring. I don't know what 01:35:27.349 --> 01:35:35.773 - all those are off the top of my head for architectural engineering services. But it would be something 01:35:35.773 --> 01:35:44.197 - the legal department would be looking into. OK. All right. Good to know. So in sum, we need to do this 01:35:44.197 --> 01:35:46.814 - to have whatever information we 01:35:52.834 --> 01:36:01.071 - And may I just say, I think not only do you need to do this to potentially recoup something, but even 01:36:01.071 --> 01:36:09.713 - if that's not possible due to statutes of limitations, you clearly need to do both this and any subsequent 01:36:09.713 --> 01:36:17.950 - repair to make sure that the garage, you get the full lifetime out of the garage. No, I know, I know. 01:36:18.690 --> 01:36:25.897 - After this engineering is done, we will have an evaluation of what the problem was and the potential 01:36:25.897 --> 01:36:33.033 - for what it takes to repair it. Repairs are going to be necessary, irregardless of if we're able to 01:36:33.033 --> 01:36:40.668 - recover it. We need to know so we can have the potential of finding out why a four-year-old garage already 01:36:40.668 --> 01:36:47.518 - has problems. Correct. Any further comments or questions from commissioners on resolution 2639? 01:36:47.714 --> 01:36:55.790 - I will open it for public comment. Not seeing anything in person or online. I will open it for a motion 01:36:55.790 --> 01:37:03.634 - for resolution 2639. Move approval. Motion to approve 2639 as presented. Second. Second. Get a first 01:37:03.634 --> 01:37:11.554 - and second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Sue Skambler, yes. John West, yes. Lauren McRobbie, 01:37:11.554 --> 01:37:17.534 - yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Passes unanimously for 2639. 01:37:17.666 --> 01:37:27.340 - Thank you. That's the conclusion of our new business. Any other outstanding business items that would 01:37:27.340 --> 01:37:37.109 - be at this part of the agenda? I'm gonna go ahead. One quick question in regards to then if we had any 01:37:37.109 --> 01:37:44.222 - additional information come back from our bond council on our showers west 01:37:49.250 --> 01:37:57.512 - No, no, we are still working with them. We've gathered a bunch of information and we're exchanging that 01:37:57.512 --> 01:38:05.535 - information and that's where we're at right now. All right, thank you. One item I wanted to bring up 01:38:05.535 --> 01:38:13.558 - is that there was just a question of whether the RDC has an opportunity for public comment for items 01:38:13.558 --> 01:38:19.198 - that are not on the agenda. And my understanding is that the custom is 01:38:19.394 --> 01:38:26.566 - There would not be that, but it's a custom as opposed to maybe a policy. And my question is to make 01:38:26.566 --> 01:38:33.954 - that just formal so it's not an ad hoc thing or trying to remember how to do it. If the RDC would like 01:38:33.954 --> 01:38:41.198 - to make that a policy, one, if they would, and two, if the answer is yes, to make that a policy that 01:38:41.198 --> 01:38:45.214 - all public comment is reserved for items on the agenda. 01:38:46.498 --> 01:38:53.611 - how we establish that more formally, just to be able to be consistent with that. I would recommend that 01:38:53.611 --> 01:39:00.520 - you make a vote on the record for that, and then that it be reflected on the agenda, that the public 01:39:00.520 --> 01:39:07.428 - comment is reserved for items that are on the agenda. That could just be a standing reference on the 01:39:07.428 --> 01:39:13.310 - agenda, just so that it's always there, OK? Yes. So I will open, I'm just, that's my, 01:39:13.474 --> 01:39:19.619 - proposal that that might be something of interest for the RDC just to make operation of our business 01:39:19.619 --> 01:39:25.946 - meeting as predictable and known as possible. I'm opening that for discussion amongst the commissioners 01:39:25.946 --> 01:39:32.091 - if you would like to consider making that a policy that as Mr. Kerr said would be on the agenda just 01:39:32.091 --> 01:39:38.175 - kind of as a note for everybody's reference. I think that would clarify expectations for the public 01:39:38.175 --> 01:39:41.278 - as well. Yeah. And I think that's important. Okay. 01:39:42.562 --> 01:39:50.359 - I agree, and I think the policy, although it's been practiced forever, that way we ought to codify it. 01:39:50.359 --> 01:39:58.081 - So I would, if you make a motion, I would agree with it. I would ask the question, do we wish to give 01:39:58.081 --> 01:40:05.802 - you or the president of the RDC the power to set time limits as well? I can see there being occasions 01:40:05.802 --> 01:40:11.934 - when that would be very helpful. Your comments are in for resolution. I'm sorry? 01:40:12.034 --> 01:40:18.909 - Resolution comments. When public setting time limits on public comments, so three minutes per member 01:40:18.909 --> 01:40:25.851 - of the public, for example, or something like that when they're speaking to a resolution, correct? So 01:40:25.851 --> 01:40:32.930 - I don't know if that's a separate item we need to vote on, or if we are simply setting policy regarding 01:40:32.930 --> 01:40:39.736 - public comment in general. It's however you choose to do it. First of all, in underneath state law, 01:40:39.736 --> 01:40:41.438 - you do not have to offer 01:40:41.570 --> 01:40:50.465 - public comment at all. I'd recommend not, but you don't have to. The only ones by state law that have 01:40:50.465 --> 01:40:59.186 - to are school boards. But if you do offer it, it is good to have some guidelines, and it is good to 01:40:59.186 --> 01:41:08.168 - post those on the agenda so those coming to the meetings know. It is not uncommon for people to boards 01:41:08.168 --> 01:41:10.174 - and commissions to set 01:41:10.466 --> 01:41:21.764 - time limits. It can be time limits per person. It could be time limits per public comment period, or 01:41:21.764 --> 01:41:33.175 - it could be time limits for both. Three minutes, five minutes are very common. 20 minutes, 30 minutes 01:41:33.175 --> 01:41:40.222 - are very common for total. It could... Randy, silent yourself. 01:41:41.506 --> 01:41:51.778 - So yeah. That'll be on the B square bulletin. Maybe it could be one minute in five minutes or one minute 01:41:51.778 --> 01:42:02.148 - per person. Sorry, sorry. Can I ask you just a question as to whether the Common Council sets time limits 01:42:02.148 --> 01:42:08.702 - for public comment? Oh yeah. Yes. Three minutes. And what is that? 01:42:10.658 --> 01:42:18.106 - Three minutes. Three minutes per person. I would say that if we impose time limits, they ought to be 01:42:18.106 --> 01:42:25.702 - consistent with what other public bodies do because it makes it a little bit easier for people who are 01:42:25.702 --> 01:42:33.225 - attending our public meetings. And we can always be soft on how rigidly we force that. I suspect that 01:42:33.225 --> 01:42:39.198 - happened to the council meetings. It's just a thought to keep things consistent. 01:42:40.610 --> 01:42:46.921 - Let me give you an example. At our last meeting, school board meeting up on the RBD school board, we 01:42:46.921 --> 01:42:53.169 - had a public comment period, and it was supposed to be for 30 minutes. There was a number of people 01:42:53.169 --> 01:42:59.417 - wanting to comment. So at the end of 30 minutes, I asked, being the president, I asked for a motion 01:42:59.417 --> 01:43:05.665 - to extend that comment period. And there was a motion and a second, and it was voted to extend that 01:43:05.665 --> 01:43:09.726 - comment period. And we went longer to allow those who were there 01:43:10.082 --> 01:43:18.623 - to make their comments. It's very rare for us to have that many people. So we went ahead and extended 01:43:18.623 --> 01:43:26.997 - it. So you have the flexibility to amend that. I recommend amending it by a vote if you're going to 01:43:26.997 --> 01:43:35.539 - amend it during the meeting. But you can always do that during the meeting if you so choose. Also, as 01:43:35.539 --> 01:43:38.302 - the president of the commission, 01:43:39.522 --> 01:43:47.796 - have the authority to regulate the decorum, make sure everybody's in line and things like that as well. 01:43:47.796 --> 01:43:55.832 - But yes, so you can limit what, and many people do limit to what's on the agenda for, like you said, 01:43:55.832 --> 01:44:03.788 - for the very reason of knowing what you're going to be talking about when you get there. So you can 01:44:03.788 --> 01:44:09.118 - be very much prepared, especially if this isn't your everyday job. 01:44:09.218 --> 01:44:17.457 - And but again, most people, most boards and commissions do limit the amount of time per person. Again, 01:44:17.457 --> 01:44:25.616 - council does three minutes. And if you wanted to limit that per item as well as you could, it's up to 01:44:25.616 --> 01:44:33.134 - you. I'd suggest we go to a limit per person. And we don't necessarily have an overall limit. 01:44:33.134 --> 01:44:36.094 - First of all, we don't get that many 01:44:37.762 --> 01:44:44.856 - that much public comment. And it's not, as long as we stick to the agenda, three minutes per person, 01:44:44.856 --> 01:44:52.021 - I would think would be fine. I don't wanna cut people off. I mean, I don't mind cutting an individual 01:44:52.021 --> 01:44:59.115 - off if they're gonna talk too long, but I don't wanna cut off people that actually showed up because 01:44:59.115 --> 01:45:06.420 - our 20 minutes is gone. And then we gotta go through the process of extending. And we can always modify 01:45:06.420 --> 01:45:07.614 - that if we find, 01:45:07.714 --> 01:45:17.399 - a room full of public commenters, but the room's not big enough to have that many people here anyway. 01:45:17.399 --> 01:45:26.989 - So it's not like the council that brings on a huge assembly. So what would be the next step? Someone 01:45:26.989 --> 01:45:37.054 - to make a motion for what they wish, if it's to limit public comment to the items that are on the agenda. 01:45:37.602 --> 01:45:46.256 - And actually, you've been limiting the comment to action items on the agenda as far as resolutions. 01:45:46.256 --> 01:45:55.430 - You don't take comments on claims or minutes or things like that. So limiting comments to the resolutions 01:45:55.430 --> 01:46:04.430 - on the agenda and limiting comments to three minutes per person. Someone wants to make a motion to that 01:46:04.430 --> 01:46:06.334 - effect and it passed. 01:46:06.562 --> 01:46:14.246 - That can be added to the agenda. So when it goes out, it's printed there. Everybody knows. And it's 01:46:14.246 --> 01:46:22.468 - in the minutes as having been adopted by this commission. OK, so I'm going to make the proposal as stated. 01:46:22.468 --> 01:46:30.382 - Essentially, I'm not going to repeat everything you just said, because that's basically, I think, what 01:46:30.382 --> 01:46:36.222 - we've discussed and agreed on. And that would be then posted on each agenda 01:46:36.482 --> 01:46:43.210 - But that's the policy, so that's known by everybody who is at the meeting. Does that have to come back 01:46:43.210 --> 01:46:49.807 - as a resolution at the next meeting, or will this be just added as a item that the RDC just approves 01:46:49.807 --> 01:46:55.751 - to be added on to the agenda? This is just an item that you're voting on. It does not need 01:46:55.751 --> 01:47:02.348 - to be a resolution. It does need to be voted on, because it's a policy for the commission. But since 01:47:02.348 --> 01:47:04.830 - it's a policy, it's not a resolution. 01:47:05.730 --> 01:47:13.540 - OK, so, yeah. When will we be able to put that policy out for public? They'll know it as a next month, 01:47:13.540 --> 01:47:21.654 - next meeting? Yeah, it's a next meeting. And it'll be in the minutes from this meeting on the next meeting 01:47:21.654 --> 01:47:29.388 - for the approval of minutes for this meeting. And it'll be on the agenda next meeting. So it'll be on 01:47:29.388 --> 01:47:34.014 - every agenda, Randy. They can see it. OK, thank you. OK, so. 01:47:34.210 --> 01:47:41.516 - Appropriately, I would make the motion. Okay, so I'm making the motion to adopt that policy as stated. 01:47:41.516 --> 01:47:48.397 - Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. To Scamblary, yes. 01:47:48.397 --> 01:47:55.632 - John West, yes. Lori McCrombie, yes. Randy, you're silent. We can't reach our mic state. I'll have to 01:47:55.632 --> 01:48:00.030 - get you a secretary. I'm spending a bar in Boulder, Colorado. 01:48:00.258 --> 01:48:06.602 - Oh, jeez. And we needed to know that. It's a honey bar. All right. I don't want to know anymore. 01:48:06.602 --> 01:48:13.208 - Did you vote, Randy? Yes. Okay. I didn't know if I heard. I just heard about the bar. Okay. And I am 01:48:13.208 --> 01:48:19.880 - also voting yes. That's a unanimous vote for the policy as stated. It will be on the agenda as of the 01:48:19.880 --> 01:48:26.878 - next meeting. Thank you. Do we need a motion? We don't need the part about the bar in the minutes, though. 01:48:29.538 --> 01:48:38.272 - Yeah. Yeah. Well, he needs training. Okay. Any other further business before we get a motion to adjourn? 01:48:38.272 --> 01:48:44.926 - Seeing none, take a motion to adjourn. So moved. So moved. Okay. Thank you all.