Welcome to the redevelopment commission meeting for the City of Bloomington for June 15th, 2026. We'll
start the meeting with a roll call please. Laura McRobbie, present. Steve Scambaleri, here. Brandi Cassidy,
present. John West, here. Debra Meyerson, here. Staff present, please. Anna Killian Hanson, housing
development. Christina Finley, hand department. Henry Caswell, hand department. Jeff McKim, city controller.
First item on our agenda is the approval of minutes from June 1st, 2026. Any questions or comments from
commissioners? If not, I will take a motion. Yes, I do have at least a question on page three. Under
resolution 2637 is the
The language that we added to the draft of is, I think, the draft of resolution 2635, which is covered
on the previous page. So it just may be that whatever is written there should not be in that part of
the minutes. That is correct. It has nothing to do with resolution 2637. Good catch. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from commissioners about the minutes from June 1st? Move for approval.
Second. As amended. We've got a first and a second for the minutes as amended. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the Claims Register from
June 18th, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this item?
On Fund 2209-9216, I know what it was. Can you tell me what page it is? Oh, I apologize. There's a lot
of claims there. Yeah, there are. Yeah, okay. It'd be on page 9 of 111, and it's 2209 Fund,
and it's the 9216. I know it's for the maintenance of the lots, which is our responsibility. I just
want to be able to
bring up that at some point with page nine. Well, on mine it's page nine. It's page two of six. Page
two of six, thank you. I apologize. Oh, it's the middle of the page 9216. Page two of six. Williams
Creek Management. Yes. I know it's for the maintenance of the Evergreen lots. I just want to keep it
on radar at some point to be able to try to get that homeowners association going. We have attempted.
I know. I know we have. They have not
cooperative and actually just so that you're aware I do believe that that was home funding that we use
it is so it because we use home funding in the project originally yes I just want to bring it up because
at some point the homeowners Association have to take responsibility they were supposed to yes okay
thank you and then the only and the other question would be
under I think it's 25-19 on the Duke bills where we're getting college square and we don't have any
tenants there, is that correct? We do have Wettle in the building. Wettle, okay. And the reason I ask
that when I combined up the college square bills for the Duke it was like $2,045 now and I think that
incorporates two months. And yeah, there are individually metered units there that
harder to pay. We're paying the minimum. Okay, so basically that's the weddle and associated minimums
for a couple months. Yes, but I will tell you that we are supposed to be billing back weddles, so we
do owe them a bill back for some utilities and that is coming there expecting it. We've talked about
it as recently as last week. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And while we're on subject to college square
and utilities, I just want to flag for you that we did receive and it will be coming out in the
following claim register, I don't think in this one, a more than $1,000 water bill for College Square.
Apparently there was a leak in the common area restroom. It has been repaired, but just FYI, that was
a little shocking, but has been taken care of. Is there any, in terms of what else, use of the property,
anything where there could be some weekly, let's say, just kind of scan to look for things before they
kind of get adequate
I'm just trying to get a sense of what capacity. It was them that discovered it. They're in the one
end of the building and they've got their own restrooms. And the end that you're talking about probably
was where the offices were. And that's what I'll even use that end. I'm not sure they discovered the
leak, but yes. So we, it may be another conversation to say, should we shut off all common area? That's
where I was headed. Yeah. Okay.
We can work on that. No, no. Got to ask. It's okay to question work, but we don't use it. Anything else
on the plan? Yeah, I've got not a question about the bill, but just a status kind of
Climate control at the Trades Garage. I see that we've got quite a few invoices from HFI. And I know
that we've got a situation there where we've been having a hard time stabilizing it. The Trades Garage
has mostly been stabilized. I will have to talk to the facilities and get back to you
what they were working on there. Because we did have Blue Fox working on the trades commercial space.
This may be specific to something else. I'll have to report back on that. This may be their billing
previous to Blue Fox going in and handling
So it may just be a billing catch up. Yeah, and actually you can tell, and you can see it says 7-11-25,
7-18-25. So this is prior to me getting involved to find the root cause. Yeah. These are some older
bills. So we're paying them, but they never actually solved the problem. Correct. They tried a number
of different things.
on the 6 of 6 on the BOKF, which is our solar panels. What is the interest basis of that? I'm going
to have to let Jeff and Dana answer that. This is our portion that we pay, and we pay that how often?
Twice a year.
separated out the interest or is that principal plus interest? I don't have the. I only have the principle
and interest for the total solar bonds payment, not just the RDC's portion of it, but right now. Let's
see if we're looking at. 2026 we.
the total payment on the bond is $427,600 and of that $132,600 is interest. So you can just kind of
do the proportionally, the interest is going to be about 30% of the total cost.
all been broke out between utilities, RDC, and parks. Those are the three entities that have the payment
overall for 427. Exactly. Okay, thank you. Okay, are you done, Randy? Yes. One more on page two of six
leading into page three of six, the ICD ARFA expenditures. Question for our controller, can you do just a
30-second or 60-second update on ARPA funding and where we are with that. I think this is our last year
for some of those expenditures, if I remember correctly. I mean, yes, but I would need to get the detail
on these specific expenditures. But yes, we are still paying out various contracts associated with ARPA.
Sorry, I'll have to send you the detail. All projects for ARPA have to be complete by the end of this county.
That's what I was remembering. So yes. So it's going to be whether everyone spends what they've been
allocated or not, but they have until the end of this calendar year and that is it. And if we don't
do the dollars revert then or what? They do revert. OK. Thank you. Does that put us at any risk as far
as a lot of people?
There are no further questions on the claims register from June 18, 2026. I'll take a motion. Move approval
of the claims register. Second. The person is second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes
unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the payroll register for May 29, 2026. Any questions
or comments from commissioners?
second we've got a first and a second all in favor say aye aye any opposed thank you okay next there's
directors report there is no formal directors report I will let you know that I got a message from John
Hernandez last week that they have had a water intrusion issue at the porch and so I
It's about $2,500 is what they're anticipating for the repair. We would likely try to run that through
the 2602 funding line, which is for maintenance of all RDC properties. But just to give you a heads
up that that is coming and I told him to move forward with the repair because water intrusion issues
are the largest issue with degradation of properties.
doing a legal report. I do have a report with questions. Thank you. Treasurer's report. Just a brief
one. Actually, Tammy is going to share a spreadsheet on the screen. This is a report that we'll actually
send out to you for the minutes, but I just wanted to let everybody know that we did receive our spring
property tax settlement for 2026.
This chart up here actually shows the amount of settlement we received over $13 million in property
tax a couple of days ago. This chart that I'll send out actually shows the property tax revenue by allocation
area. Like I said, I don't think there's any point to go through this in detail at this meeting, but
I'll send this out to the group and it'll be part of the minutes.
But I just kind of wanted to let everybody know that we had received that settlement. It was about $3
million more than the equivalent spring settlement of last year. And we've still not received anything
for the meridian tip. So that number still remains zero. Happy to take any questions. Is there an anticipated?
online for one number native might be part of that? No, you know, I was thinking of calling the assessor
and talking about that. I just worked on this chart today and I... Yeah, it'd be kind of curious just
to know like how that timeline is managed because obviously it's not necessarily on the property tax
timeline because it's being... I'm just... Well, no, it should still be on the property tax timeline,
yeah. Okay. So when you say we've received three million dollars more,
based upon what the assessed value was at the time that the properties have came into being paid. So
does that allow $3 million more to be spent on any projects that are necessary? Well, yes. But remember,
we're still anticipating this revenue for future bonds that we've discussed. So it shouldn't be considered
gravy. It just means that it's not found money. But it's additional dollars that we weren't calculating
on at the present time. Right. It does mean that
our allocation areas are mostly continuing to create the increment that we anticipated. And then dealing
with the Prowl Road Tif, that goes away at the end of this year. That goes away at the end of this year.
So we'll receive one more settlement, the fall settlement, at the end of the year and that will be it
for the Prowl Road Tif. When do we have to spend down that allocation buy for that
So I'm going to defer to Anna on this. We've had some discussions about the... But the kids are proud
to. Yeah. We do not have, my understanding, Dana, correct me, that we don't have a hard and fast deadline
of when we need to spend it by. It's just when we stop collecting these at the end of this year. Is
that correct? Yeah. Correct. But we really should be trying to find the right project for that area.
There's been a few that's popped up that ended up getting taken care of already, but we do need to start
looking at what some of the needs are in that area. There's been so much work in other places, not being
able to focus on that, but I believe getting with engineering
structure stressors that are in that area is an important next step for that. And as of today, that
TIF fund has $831,000 in it, and there'll probably be another, in the fall there'll probably be another
around 40,000, 45,000. So yeah, it'll be like 875 maybe, something like that by the end. Recognizing
that that could get chewed up
infrastructure improvements, and so forth. One nice, visible, neighborhood visible kind of thing to
do would be to take some proposals for some neighborhood beautification that could happen as a result
of that. Could happen with that funding. I mean, much like we did the neighborhood improvement grants,
these were big sums of money, and they got the neighborhood together to do various projects. It might
be a nice additional way to cap off
that's funding, you know, 20 grand allocated, something like that. Anyway, just a suggestion. Can you
just remind me what the vision was for the TIF when it was, let's say, created 25 years ago, whatever
that was? I don't remember. Yeah. You remember? I don't. That corridor was envisioned to be a business
corridor going up north of the north side of the county. OK.
And I remember the conversation, and they visualized, just think of what, in Marion County, what Meridian
looks like. This could be our little, our little Meridian. And so it would, you know, there was a building,
a big office building built, and it was more projected.
correct me if I'm wrong, Randy, because your memory's better than mine, but there was actually a business
park that was envisioned. It was envisioned there based upon the all good building that originally was
taken over, and then the addition for it was added on, Meadows came in, and it was supposed to be a
business park in that particular area, and as 69 came through, it was going to be an off ramp that then
would bring us into the park. But the park was going to be there first, before 69, and then, of course,
the park never materialized,
No need for an offering. Yeah. Yeah. All good. All good dealership. All good. Had a big leasing company,
a leasing company that built the original building. I'm thinking the part of Prowl that goes south from
10th Street. Isn't there a block or two? Oh, you're in downtown Prowl. Downtown Prowl. Yeah. No, this
is one of the high school north Kinzer Road Prowl. Just north of the high school. I thought
about neighborhood stuff. Sorry.
So we call it the pro road. The Hedricks? I'm sorry? Hedricks? If you look across from North High School,
you can still see a silo there. Okay, because Phil Hedrick had a little farmer and he's the one that
provided the donkey to Bob Knight.
My treasurer's report is coming up with a proposal for the use of those funds because I understand from
legal that there's not maybe a deadline but that also is an appropriate and responsible use of the funds
and I'm just trying to understand you know
when it comes back to us, who might be helping to get it to that point? We are working as a team on
that. Okay. So we have an internal RDC team that includes legal, the controller, me, and the director
of economic and sustainability. So Jane. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to get a sense of how that
might be. And with this, we see this very often in our other hand funds where
projects make application and while we're looking at them, they may fall through just for feasibility
reasons or whatnot. So we've looked at a few different things that have not reached fruition to this
point. Okay, thank you for that. Okay, next we have a business development update. Director Cooper Smith
is out this week, so I do not believe that she has one. Anna, did you have the? Okay, that's fine. Just
wanted to make sure.
I do see Mr. Kanoki here. Do you have an engineering for Hopewell update? Even though we kind of released
you formerly of that. I don't have an update this week. I'm here for an agenda item. But I will say
we are planning on having the number of zero step entry units for you by the end of this week. So your
next meeting should be able to update. Exciting. OK. Thank you so much. And I have an intent to schedule
with the CC.
Yes. Okay. Yeah, I have to check that. That would be great. Okay. We are on to new business. We're looking
at resolution 26-37, which is the approval of an agreement with Calumet Civil Contractors, Incorporated
for temporary storage at Hope Police Development. Is that what you're here for, Mr. Kenoki? Yes. Kenoki
Engineering Department. So this was brought before you at your last meeting. We received some great
feedback on the language of the agreement. But just to recap, this is
an agreement to allow the contractor for the West Second Street modernization project to use the northwest
corner of Hopewell East as a staging area. So this is the southeast corner of Rogers and Second. The
agreement was presented to you last meeting. There was some feedback given, and I think Dana has done
a great job incorporating all the feedback. But I'll just recap briefly what the changes are.
One request was no access to the alley or any of the new Hopewell East infrastructure will be permitted,
so we removed that from the exhibit and from the agreement itself. Improved the language regarding
restoration of the site once they're complete. We added a bond requirement for them. The request was
30 days to kick them off of the site, and Dana actually put 15 in there, so we went above and beyond.
And then we added some language about the erosion control responsibilities. So I skimmed through. I
don't know, Dana, do you have anything to add? Any changes that you made? No, we talked about the amount
of the bond. And so we, Kendall and I, we went back and forth about the different kinds of things that
might need to be replaced if things went really bad. And so there's monitoring wells there.
and so replacing abandoning current monitoring wells if ever damaged and installing new ones and things
like that. And so I believe both of us felt comfortable that the $100,000 bond would be sufficient as
a restoration bond to make sure the property gets back to its condition. OK. Thank you. Any questions
or comments from commissioners on resolution
What's our rule as we're turning this property over to Calumet to utilize as a staging area where are
we at with our previous contractor and then having release of liability based upon whether it be trees
restoration and the rest of that so that we don't end up into you cause this we didn't have that. Yeah
so we have done our
We have done everything except for release the retainage to that contractor. So they are waiting for
our final pay app release of retainage. And we're just waiting on sign off from some city departments
like planning on a lot of the plantings. There were plantings that have died that are being replaced.
So my thought is if all of that is completed before Calumet is out of there, then this little section will
kind of become Calumet's responsibility. This is really just a little grass area so it's not the subject
of kind of all the ongoing. Right, I just want to verify that where we're setting it we're not getting
into something well that was fine that we verify ahead of time with photos and written documentation
that it was in this condition we expected to be put back in that condition. Yeah and Dana actually added
a line that photos have to be taken and they have to restore it to the existing condition. Who on the city's
be responsible for documenting and keeping track of that. Is that you? Is that Anna? So that we have
pre-usage photography so we verify. Yeah, that's a good question. Probably since this is RDC, it's going
to be Anna Dragovich. I will say we are, with our little construction camera, we are taking a picture
every 10 minutes now. So we've got a couple of weeks for the green to, I think we can,
I just want to verify that we're not getting into finger pointing. And then you feel based upon your
experience that $100,000 will put it back into the condition. Yeah. And that's kind of assuming a worst
case scenario. Yeah. OK. And this is a performance and payment performance bond. Yes. OK. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments? Otherwise, I'll open. Oh. Sorry. One last question.
given the fact that this contract is supposed to be done by December 26 or December 31st of 26, where
is our restoration time that we're looking at? Because you're not going to plant grass and you're not
going to have anything done until spring. So just trying to look at that because if they finish in December,
we're not going to be able to come back and really plant and get ourselves where it needs to be until
spring. Yeah, I think we would hold the bond until all of that was established. Is there
Anything specific in the language, Dana, that speaks to that? No, not as far as the time frame. So we
would just work with them. We would not release the bond until we were satisfied. Right. Like, anyway,
what I'm trying to establish is so that they understand they need to get it done by this time, and then
whether it be June 1,
the condition because we've got a good stand to grasp the present moment and I understand we want buildings
and people there but we also need to on a on a project like this that we're looking at outward appearances
are always important as we're trying to look at the project overall for the future right okay so timing
just when it's got to be done some question if you could work that out amongst the staff I appreciate
Yeah, it looks like the language is pretty open, so we can hold the bond until we believe the site's
been restored in a satisfactory fashion. Yeah, which is great. I'm just trying to hold all of us accountable,
time-wise. There are no other questions or comments from commissioners. I'll open it for public comment,
either online or in person for Resolution 26-37. Seeing none, I will ask for motion. Move approval of
Resolution 26-37.
We've got a person in second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is 26-40, which is the approval of the First Amendment to the 2025 CDBG
Social Services Grant Agreement with Middleway House. Seeking an extension of time.
new federal requirements that came out during the grant process last year did make it harder for agencies
to expend their funds and a lot of which was just caused by guidance not necessarily being there for
how to proceed in making sure we hit those compliance standards. So this would just be an extension
of time to allow them to do so but most likely if we can get that ironed out they'll spend it well before
the next actual funding grant gets underway.
Any questions or comments from commissioners on this amendment? I'm just curious, are there
other not-for-profits that will have the same problem? Yes. We'll be seeing this again. Most likely.
Okay. Any other questions or comments? Otherwise, I'll open it up for public comment, either online
or in person, for Resolution 26-40. Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion, please. I'll make a motion to
approve 26-40 as presented. Second.
first and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next item in the agenda
is resolution 2641, which is the approval of the purchase of project management software. Who would
like to speak to that? Hannah Dragovich is going to be taking that one. Yeah, I can. Hope well. As you
all know, it is quite a robust project. I mean, we were just discussing
Who's going to track what? Who's going to be responsible for what? Who's going to be aware day to day?
And right now, the team is doing, I think, fairly well working in just a simple Google Sheets spreadsheet.
But as we go on and as this project gets more and more complicated with contractors digging out there
and proximity that I'm just anticipating things getting more complicated.
We're kind of getting to the point where our to-do list sort of has a to-do list. And so I would really
love for the team to get monday.com is what I'm recommending specifically to purchase so that folks
can just have more of a, I guess, a more dynamic way to manage the project. I don't know if you're familiar
with working with any of those, but I can go into a little bit more details if you want, but it's,
a more robust way to facilitate a project and make sure things are getting tracked. And just visually
as opposed to a spreadsheet, which is really the purpose is more financial tracking and not project
management. Having a proper project management tool will just help us keep track of things. And so to
start, I'm recommending 10 what monday.com calls seats,
our subscriptions. And to purchase an annual subscription for those 10 seats, the total cost is $2,280.
And so that will be 10 people across several departments who are directly working, have tasks with Hopewell.
So hopefully that provides clarity.
Have you enough? I think it's a good start. You know, I was trying to be a bit more conservative. Not
necessarily. I don't think people necessarily who will have to say it. There are a lot of folks on the
on the Hopewell team that do contribute, but they may not directly be responsible for tasks specifically.
They may have a big hand in
the decision making process, but they may not necessarily be directly responsible for tasks. So I think
to start 10 would be enough. It does get, I think it's strange when we're working at this subscription
level, which is called pro as opposed to like an enterprise level, the subscriptions start out at three,
five, then they go to 10 to 15 to 20. So, um,
I thought 10 was good, because otherwise, I don't know, 15 would be too many. That's probably a really
long way to answer your question, but 10, yes, 10 feels like it's not. And this is an annual cost, so
next year we'll be presumably voting again to renew those seats, because this is like a, I mean, we're
going to be in this for a while, more than a year. Yeah, yeah, I would think so. How long has monday.com
been around? I don't know. It's a good question. Are they?
Yeah, say that again. I think it's pretty well recognized as a project management. Which leads me to,
which is where I'm really headed is, are they going to be around for a while? So, I mean. At this point,
anything is better? Anything is better. We need project management software. We have far too many projects
going on to be operating the way we are. So, John, you had a question?
I was just wondering if you had a consultation with IT in terms of either, if any other departments
use project management software, what they use. And IT might have a recommendation or they might have
recommended what you looked at. I'm just curious kind of how that. Yeah. So you feel like it seems like
you want to say something. No. I would just say that that has been sort of on the back burner for IT.
And we're kind of hoping that.
demonstrate some leadership here and perhaps set a standard. But if not, I mean, that's, you know, then
presumably we might switch at some point in the future. So we're probably not just buying this software
just for the Hopewell project, but you could use it for any project.
The 10 people that have a subscription, yeah, they'll be able to use it for any other projects, not
necessarily RDC, but the purposes that I will have you having them use it for is hopeful. Yes, but this
is for all RDC projects. Okay, well, I guess you're seeing where I was headed. If this is going to be
a city-wide platform, which everybody could maybe benefit from it, why is the RDC paying
This is specific for RDC projects. At this point, that is the only reason for Hopewell, all of the other
RDC projects, period. We're looking for timeframes, individual tasks in order to identify one single
platform that everybody can look at to identify what is being done, what has been done. You're $228
per seat. That's on an annual basis, correct? There's no additional subscription plus I'm sure we got
how many hours of help in order to do this. I have not heard of monday.com. I looked at some of their
videos in order to verify it. It essentially sets up the time frame. It allows you to import and export
from Excel. The two primary ones that we deal in these large projects is Procore and Bluebeam. Now,
being fiscally responsible based on the size of our RDC projects and such and just starting in this,
this is dirt cheap. And it's still,
maintains the basics of what you need to manage a project. I'm not questioning the use of it or the
purpose of it or the value of it. If this rolls into being a city-wide, everybody in the building is
using it, then maybe we ought to come up with a way to share the costs. I agree. That's what I was having.
I agree. It's my understanding that the
City's been looking for two years at looking at the program. It hasn't come up with one yet. And so,
Hopewell can't wait for that continued, you know, going down, kicking that can down the road. So, the
purpose was to get something going now for RDC projects, and yes,
And it could be that the city chooses something else down the road, and this may morph into something
else later. But yes, it's not intended to be something that everybody uses at the expense of RDC. It's
something for the RDC to use now because it's needed now. And then again, if it does,
If the city comes up with one, if it's the same thing, then cost sharing would be very appropriate way
forward. But the city has yet to decide on a way forward. Good answer. Thank you. Are you going to require
any of our contractors also to utilize the software? Not in the way that
seats will. They will be able to view things and I believe comment on them, but they will not be able
to alter timelines. You'll have administrative rights in regards to it. It will be able to be looked
at. Contractors that engage with the city will be able to add to with your permission or look at what
it is so you know where they are from a time frame standpoint.
I can't remember if they can add to, but I know they will be able to view. But we are not purchasing
licenses or seats. No, not at all. The reason I ask this is in our ProCores, Bluebeams and other software
or other project management, there are permissions that are given so that the owner as the manager of
the project management software is aware of where the circumstances are. So it's not up to you at all
times to always update where they are.
And I'm just going to say, I think it's awesome. I really am excited that you're doing this, because
I totally appreciate the value of good project management software. And I've used a variety of different
kinds based on just my own professional experience, just even with clients, because everybody's got
something different, and I've got to figure out how to use it. I have not used Monday.com, although
I have heard very good things about it. My one just kind of suggestion is,
and it's not going to be like, oh, all of a sudden everything's dumped in here. I know it takes time
to build it up, but just to maybe trial it with a project, make sure it's doing what you need it to
do just because once you're in, if you realize there's things that maybe aren't quite what you hoped
it would be or not working perfectly, it's harder to pull out because it's just so embedded in there.
And if there's a lot of projects that are embedded on there, it even becomes more
of that commitment, so just trying to kind of test it out, make sure it's doing what you need it to
do, because there are other options if you're like, well, it's not really doing X or Y that we've hoped
it would, and it's a little easier to extract yourself if you've kind of not maybe overcommitted, at
least in the first quarter or two quarters or whatever. I appreciate that. I have been working within
a trial that Monday.com gave, and I've actually asked them to extend it generously.
I have been, you're right, there is a learning curve to getting it set up in a really logical way that
works. And that's taken a little bit of time, but I'm hopeful that I've got a good thing going. So far
so good. So far so good. I haven't been using it with the team because they don't have seats yet,
but yeah. Thanks for initiating it again. I think it's a great move and I will look forward to having
RDC projects embedded in that. Thank you for your support.
Okay, so we've had Commissioner comments any public comment on resolution 26 dash 41 41. Thank you Not
seeing anything online or in person I will ask for a motion motion to approve Resolution 26 41 second
got a first and a second all in favor say aye. Aye Any opposed pass unanimously Okay, you're on to resolution 26 42
which is authorization for a designee to set a litigation through mediation on behalf of the Blue Newton
RDC. Who would like to speak to that? Yes, sir. I can do that. There is a mediation in the two appellate
court cases which are stemming from the trial court cases which have been resolved as far as motions
for summary judgment, but there's not been
any further action taken in the trial court cases pending these Court of Appeals cases. But on June
29th, there is a forewarned technologies in the Board of Relators. There is a mediation scheduled half
a day for each. And it has been suggested that Deborah Meyerson would be the representative for
the Redevelopment Commission. And what we're asking for in this resolution is for the RDC to authorize
Deborah Meyerson as the president of RDC to settle litigation and mediation related to trial court and
court of appeals cases with the Bloomington Board of Realtors,
and worn technologies LLC as was identified in the resolution. So this is giving the authority again
to Debra Meyerson to be that representative that can speak on behalf of the entire RDC when it comes
to mediation. There was an executive session held earlier
to discuss litigation and what boundaries might be appropriate. And so there is guidance for Deborah
Meyerson on that. So this is the, again, allowing Deborah Meyerson to be able to enter into agreements
should they be reached during mediation.
I'm gonna invite for questions or comments from commissioners, but since I'm kind of hot seat on this
proposal, I'm gonna start, which I don't usually do, which is I wanted to propose there are two different
complainants named in here and wanted to offer to split that because of the time commitment involved
and the expertise involved.
so that the RDC might authorize two. And I wanted to propose that Randy Cassidy might split that with
me, if that would be amenable to all RDC members, where we might each take one of the different complainants
to participate on behalf of the RDC. And so I'll just put that out there for, or just generally open
for comment. I want this read. I'm fine with that. I'll open it in its capacity whatsoever.
What's that? I'm happy to help in any capacity whatsoever to help get resolution in our community and
for the government. As long as, that sounds good to me, as long as it works from a legal standpoint.
Do we need the resolution to be specific at this point to say, because we have and or language in the
resolution. We just need to say. Or we just. And or because.
Not knowing if there would be an RDC representative available. So then it would allow the Corporation
Council, who is by statute authorized to handle the legal affairs for the city of Bloomington, including
the RDC. We could put, what I would suggest would be to put Deborah Meyerson or her designee
And then she could simply write, you know, designate whomever would be in her place to fill in for her.
That whatever makes sense for the residents. Okay, I'll follow on here. We will follow on how to do
that. Okay, any other comments or questions from commissioners?
Yeah, I need to recuse myself from voting because I am a member of BBOR. Okay, thank you. If you want
to leave in or in there so that the Cooperation Council could settle if for some reason our PC member
couldn't be. I think that would be helpful to cover the bases within the resolution as it's written. Okay.
So I will open resolution 26-43 for public comment, either in person or online. Not seeing any, I will
ask for a motion. Move approval of resolution 26-42. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in
favor say aye. Aye. And one abstention. So we've got four in favor and one abstention. Thank you. Next
item on the agenda is the
26-43, which is the approval of the 2026 annual action plan. Who would like to speak to that? I'm happy
to speak to that. So as you know, we are a participating jurisdiction and an entitlement community that
basically means that we get an annual allocation of home investment partnership funds and community
development
block grant, CDBG funds. Every year as part of that, we have to provide a plan called an annual action
plan before our funding for the next calendar year is approved. We also have to provide a caper, which
is basically an end of year report. How did you do? How was the funding used? We have learned in the
last year that the best
practices is to bring the annual action plan to you for formal adoption, just to say, yes, we reviewed
it. We're good with it. Essentially, we have already been to you guys for a good majority of what's
in the annual action plan, which is the allocations that were decided by the Citizen Advisory Commission
earlier last year. However, this is the formal plan. Our program years run from June 1st to May 31st
of each calendar year.
HUD didn't announce their allocations until late so we have a certain amount of time in which to publicly
notice the annual action plan for at least 30 days and then submit to HUD. We technically have until
August 15th to submit but after your formal approval this would be going straight to them hopefully
this week sometime so that would just allow them to approve the projects that were voted on by the CIC
and officially approve our allocations and start our program here. So I know this is strange for you
because you've already seen the projects and you don't normally vote on the annual action plan. But
moving forward, it would likely be that we will start bringing the allocations and annual action plan
to you at the same time for approval. Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners
on resolution 2643?
presented. This just cleans up everything. Yeah we don't technically need to do this but this is just
best practices to make sure that we're getting as much public participation as possible in our plan.
It has been out for notice I think May 22nd or April 22nd to May 22nd so it has been out for 30 days.
We've also had a lot of CAC meetings so it's had a lot of public scrutiny the way that it is
For transparency. Appreciate that. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? We'll open it
for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion for resolution 2643.
I move to approve 26-43. Thank you. And I will just say that all projects are based on applications.
Applications for the 27 funding year will be opened up
around August, September. So, we're at the mercy of who applies. So, if you have an awesome project,
apply. Thank you. Okay. We have one, a motion. We have a second. We have a first and a second. All in
favor say aye. Aye. The opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. We are on to resolution 2644, which
is the approval of an agreement with Marshall Security LLC for security patrols at Hopewell Properties.
Would they speak to that?
Happy to speak to you about that again. So last year you guys approved a year of security patrols at
the Hopewell site. They have been beneficial to us. I know we went back and forth on what is the frequency?
How long should they be there? How long are we gonna keep this up? The truth is that we get a number
of reports that they respond to weekly,
some daily, I would say definitely weekly. We have a lot of attractive nuisances. So we have the 714
South Rogers Street building, which is vacant, that has attracted a lot of incidents. But the number
one site that we've had more reports on is the garage. So it too is an attractive nuisance. It's cool
in the summer. The fencing keeps getting pulled down. So we're trying to deploy
someone to go repair that again. But as we start construction and get more heavy equipment out there,
it seems like potentially a bad idea to pull back from security. Some activity during the day may be
a good thing. It's what happens after that that I'm concerned with. So what's before you is a contract
to approve the same
cadence and frequency that we've been on the same schedule for another year. I'm happy to discuss
alternatives. I believe it's $28 and 11 cents per hour and we're on 12 hour shifts and those are varied
shifts. So it's not nine to nine or whatever. It's just so that there's some infrequency for visitors.
for that presentation. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2644? My only comment
in regards to the 714 building, I'd really like to at least get our structural report at some point
in order to at least identify where we think we're going with that. It has to be secured and maintained
and from my experience of being out of multiple hours of the night, Marshall security is there significantly
in regards to even if you pull in
So they're doing a good job. Just be nice to get ourselves to the point where we're not having to worry
about security because we've got enough residents and activity in that area. At this point, we're not
there. I do believe that those reports will be forthcoming soon. We do not have a final draft yet, but
Anna Dragovich has been working very hard
questions or comments. I'm wondering what this kind of agreement, it just would be interesting, and
I don't know if it can be appended later, just a summary of what the activity has been on the site,
you know, just a one-pager of like, you know, which sites and how many incidences and what
kind of incidences. It just would kind of help reinforce the value of this service. Well, that's why
I was saying a summary, right, in terms of like,
you know, which address and what kind of, and then what number of those kinds. They range widely from
incidents. Yes, it won't fit on one page. We can get you some sort of summary, but you may not touch
on it. That's something that will take a lot of staff time. Yeah, something that hopefully you already
have. It can just be, you know, use AI and then say, give me a summary of what you already have. And
they may be able to spit out from their system
They have to record it. Right. They send me an email every time something happens, so they're filling
my inbox. Okay, okay. Well, I appreciate certainly the verbal report and it just seemed like it would
be helpful to have that. And my other question is, let's say once construction does get started, what
typically is the, let's say, role or division between, let's say RDC owns the property, but there may
be, again, equipment or
other that the actual developer construction team, is there any kind of splitting of costs for stuff
like that, or is that really just the property owner? That's a really good question. I'm going to have
to defer to legal. I think once we have construction crews there, I mean, if they're putting them in
the infrastructure, there are crews that are out there. So it'd be up to that contract. Yeah, the contractor.
providing their own security for their own things. It's like all the other contracts we've had, they
must provide security for their own equipment. But to the extent that we're also the developer, there's
going to be things there that the
you know, like the city's installing on behalf of the RDC that still needs to be covered and just overall
security of the site as individual builders would be working on individual, you know, wads. There's
still the entire project site and the areas that aren't being developed at a particular time, so they're
still going to need security.
So there's still going to be security needs, as well as the 714 building. There's still going to be
security needs there, even while others are on site. No, we would not have liability for their equipment.
But to the extent that there are things that are the RDC, then yes, the RDC would want to protect those
assets. Thank you for that visual information.
Okay. If there's nothing else from commissioners, I'll open 2644 for public comment, either online or
in person. Seeing none, I will ask for a motion. Move approval of resolution 2644, agreement to acquire
security. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Thank you.
The last item on the business tonight is the resolution 2645, which is the approval of an amendment
of maintenance of property owned by the Readabout Commission of the City of Bloomington. Who would like
to speak to that? I am happy to speak to you about that again. So in January, you guys approved up to
$300,000 for the maintenance of your REC properties.
Unfortunately, we're noticing we're at the halfway point for this calendar year. And so we've spent
about $150,000, $149,962.58 to date as of June 12th when this was run. And if we anticipate receiving
the utility bills as we have thus far this year, we will completely commit all of our funding.
additional needs that are coming in, whether that's what happened at the forge or whatnot. So I'm a
little bit concerned and just want to make sure that we have some cushion to be able to respond as nimbly
as possible to any building issues. So as an exhibit to your resolution, there's a breakdown as to how
we've spent that funding. So utilities was about $86,390.
Showers West maintenance was $36,000. College Square was a little over $5,000 at $53.90. Trades District
was a little over $10,000. $10,773.76. 627 North Morton was $2,100. 4th Street Garage was $454. And
mowing thus far has been $85,000.
That is why the resolution is back before you. When we were trying to process some invoices, we noticed
this last week or the week before that we were likely going to have an issue with some of our blanket
POs for our utilities if we move forward in the same capacity. Just curious, do you happen to have a
number on what
I'm just talking just utilities, because those tend to be more predictable than, you know, maintenance.
But just what that might have been, let's say, for 2025, I guess, calendar year, or fiscal year,
I'm not sure, but previous year. We could run a report that shows everything paid, like, say, Duke Energy
or a specific place. But we do have a project code that it will show us everything paid to our 2602
But that won't just be utilities. That would be everything. I mean, it could be done, but we have to
get that. We have to get that. Yeah. To compare in terms of even a ballpark for next time we authorize
this for them. Anyway, so sorry. I wanted to open that open to all commissioners like this. Hopefully
we can dispose of some property where this won't be an issue in 27 levels. Yeah. That was.
in regards to these ongoing expenses while we need to hold ourselves and maintain to the highest standard
because, you know, we expect everybody in the private sector to do that. We have to maintain and continue
these properties, but we also have to look as we've discussed previously of the timeframe in order to
dispose of them on some of these properties that are non-tax generating and obviously maintenance expenses.
So we get them back into productive use in our community and employment and housing. Well, we know that
or we never anticipate fairly substantial utilities increases next year as well. So, I mean,
in all utilities, we know that the CVU was working on finishing up a rate case in water and then moved
on to wastewater. You know, eight to 10% in Duke, similar with Centerpoint.
And my concern is just a matter of those expenses will be ongoing. There's not revenues coming in to
offset any of those. And these are non-tax generating properties. Correct. And you have Duke bills.
And I flagged this before for you. But Duke bills in Showers West that are $8,000, $9,000, $7,000. So
very expensive utilities there. It's an older building with vaulted ceilings.
insulation and individual HVAC units that are likely at the end of their life cycle. So, you know,
we have, it's an expensive building for utilities. Okay. We have discussed too, maybe next year having
two separate resolutions, one for utilities and one for maintenance. So you can see them separately
and that may help you keep better, you know,
Yeah. End result comes down, try to cut the expenses that we can and not have something that we're owning
as a city that we're not utilizing. Okay. Personal opinion. Thank you. Anything else from commissioners?
Yeah. Are you not bringing this to us a little prematurely? We are, but it has to do with the blanket
POs for the utilities if they are
projected, so I'll let you guys explain. Well, right now we have like 124,000 that's just basically
encumbered from that 300,000. So it's showing right now we only have like 15,000 available that we can
use. In reality, there's more than that, but that amount will already be used through the end of the
year. So does that make sense? Because it's earmarking for those utilities for the rest of the year,
anticipating what's needed.
And they have to open them up as a blanket purchase order. So we can modify that and reduce it. But
the problem is going to be the same as we go through the year no matter what. So I'd rather nip it in
the bud. And so that we can respond when I get somebody calling and saying, hey, we have water intrusion
issue. Do you want me to wait for the next RDC meeting for approval? I'm just saying, no, go. The reason
I ask that is not that you don't have the expenses, but you're throwing a dart.
As to what you need, we are and so I was thinking with three more months. Payout, you'll have a better
idea. That's all I'm saying. We won't have to come back at this. You want to come back to the trough?
I know you will, but well, that's why I'm hoping that 50,000 colors will get us a little bit further
down the road. It may not be enough. Jeff, you're no, I mean, I was just saying you pretty much already
said it that that the
utilities was essentially already obligated, even though we haven't actually spent it. It's kind of
consuming a lot of that ceiling because of that open purchase order. And it doesn't make sense at this
point to bring you a resolution that says, let's now track utilities separately. Because of the way
that our system works, you have to give it a project code that you can't really peel back
So it would be very difficult to run reports. Maybe at the beginning of 27, it would be wise to separate
them at that point. But right now, I'm not sure that it does. OK. Thank you. If there's nothing else
from commissioners, I will open it for public comment either online or in person for resolution 26-45.
Seeing none, I will ask for a motion
resolution 2645 for maintenance of property. I already see property. I will second it. First and a second
all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. That concludes our new business for tonight.
Any outstanding items before we adjourn? One last comment just to verify you are working on trying to
dispose of some of this in the next year. Yes.
And the last RDC report that we provided at the previous meeting, you should have seen that the resolution
for appraisals, which usually goes untouched, has been being drawn down. Excellent. Thank you for that.
Okay. I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you all.