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