Welcome to the City of Bloomington Re-Development Commission meeting for September 14th, 2026. We'll
start the meeting with a roll call, please. C. Schimilari here. Brandi Cassidy here. Are the folks online
as well? Lori, you're muted. Lori McRavi, present. Thank you. And Deborah Meyerson, present. We have
staff present, please. Anna Killian-Hansen, present. Christina Finley, hand department.
Okay, make as well hand apartment. Jeff McCamp, city controller. Kendall Kenoki, engineering.
Jane Cougarsmith, economic and sustainable development. Anna Draganich, economic and sustainable development.
Mike Decoff, police chief. Jeff Rogers, Bloomington police. Paul Post, Bloomington police. David Hurd,
legal department. Sam Planner, Monroe Taxical Corporation. Thank you all.
We'll start with reports. Do we have a director's report? Sure. So I want to first bring to your awareness
that we do have an amended agenda tonight, which now includes a third resolution, which is 2661, which
is an approval of a work scope for HFI in Showers West. So that should be on the amended agenda and
linked online.
I do also want to bring to your awareness that we are having a survey right now for the community to
be involved in naming of the lanes in Hopewell South. We are receiving submissions for potential names
until tomorrow, and then that list will be finalized and run against existing roads to make sure that
we have no duplications. And there will be another community vote that will conclude this weekend with final
potential names for the lanes in Hopewall South. Our civil engineers need that for the platting process
so we're trying to expedite that as best as possible. I also want to bring to your awareness that our
CDBG funding cycle for 2027 is underway right now. You know our program years actually start the following
June so not a January
January start date. So we are receiving applications right now. Pre-applications are due, which the
application is online on September 17th, so this week. Then October 1st, the completed applications
need to be in. And we intend on having our citizen advisory committee meetings on October 1st.
October 22nd and October 29th to determine what those projects are. As you are aware, we every year
have to ask the RDC for representation at the CIC, both for physical improvements and social service
committees. It does, however, say in the code that if you would like someone to attend in your proxy,
you do have the ability to appoint someone.
Director Coopersmith has volunteered for the Physical Improvements Committee. If you guys are unable
to participate, I know we have asked a lot of you recently. So just to put those dates out there, I
will email them to you as well. But we do have that potential need coming up. Could you repeat the dates,
please? Sure. It is October 1. Well, the CAC organizational meeting will be October 1.
The public hearing, which is where you receive information about the projects, is October 22 with a
final vote on October 29. So I will also email you. If you're willing to volunteer, please let me know.
But we can't go from there. They're all the same time of day? They're all at 5.30 PM, every one of them.
And those are the same dates for both committees. And when do you need to have assignments by? In the
next week or two would be great. Anything else for the director? No, thank you. We will move to our
legal report please. I'd like to report that the two
TIF declarations, the declaratory resolution to remove residential parcels from the Bloomington Consolidated
TIF will be going to council for approval. It did go through plan commission and was approved. And so
that is the next step. After that, assuming approval from the council, those resolutions, that and the
one creating the Hopewell South TIF,
will come back to the RDC for a public hearing on October 5th. Starting that public hearing would be
at 5 PM. So that would be part of the October 5th meeting. So those will be coming back. So those are
getting close. And also, we do have several important things on the agenda.
Typically, I'll be presenting at the beginning and then asking others to step in. What date did you
say that was going to the council on residential properties to be removed? I'm sorry. Did you say what
date that was going to council? This Wednesday. It'll be this Wednesday? This Wednesday, yes.
Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a treasurer's report? No time to report. Thank you. A business development
update? Not this evening.
Oh, one item. I just wanted to remind everyone and members of the public that the Trades District Block
Party is on Saturday, September 26th. It features a range of free and family community activities, and
it's a chance to kind of invite the public into the Trades District and share what's been going on there.
So hope you can attend. I believe it starts at five. It may start at four.
Okay, thank you. Okay, and I have a Hopewell update on the agenda. Is there a separate Hopewell update
besides the lanes? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. That's the engineering part. Yeah, so good evening. Just wanted
to kind of bring the RDC up to date on just a few things with the Hopewell engineering development.
So we are working towards filing for all of our permits. We intend on having everything wrapped up.
hopefully next week, end of next week, then we'll go ahead and file. So I just have a few items I wanted
to kind of run over with you all. So last time I was here, you had asked about parking spaces. So I
have kind of added all those up and there are 108 total parking spaces within the development. So this
includes all of the off-street parking and then parking that's on Jackson and Fairview, which are the
you know, reconstructed streets or a new street. It does not include Wiley. And of those 108, eight
of those are accessible spaces. And as you know, there are 98 units. So we're at a little over one parking
space per unit being installed in the development. Any questions on parking? How many are accessible
again? Eight of those 100, yep.
I'm just curious, how many of the, if you know, the actual parcels have off-street parking? Off-street
parking? Let's see here. Well, actually, you said that the 108 included all off-street, so that's for
the individual homes, right? The 108 includes on-street and off-street, but I do have those numbers.
So we have 86 or 88 off-street parking spaces
and 20 on-street parking spaces. Again, that doesn't include Wiley, which is adjacent, but because it's
just an existing street, it didn't include that. Anything else on parking? Okay, I have a few other
items as well. So you had also asked for the number of zero-step entry units, and we've talked about
this before, but just wanted to reiterate, so 65 of the 66 buildings will have barrier-free entry into them.
So that includes all of the accessible units as well as all of the other buildings, the exception of
one, which is just very challenging topographically to do. But that was a big priority for the development.
We were able to do that. Our engineers were able to figure it out. So I'm really happy about that. But
any questions about zero-step entry? That's great. Say that number one more time. 65 of the 66 buildings,
yes. Wow. 99%.
That is great. Is there any parallel in terms of, again, I realize this is getting from the exterior
grading to the interior, but any update that you might be able to share in terms of zero step to get
in of where we might be headed in terms of interior visitability? Again, I realize it's getting a little
out of your scope. I'm just asking because it's the topics on the table. Yeah, so I mean, obviously
the accessible units, whether they're ADA,
Universal Design, FHA, they will meet those particular requirements. Basically, there's a barrier-free
entry into the ground floor of the building, not necessarily if it's a multi-story building.
or whatever to other stories. With some of the hallways and doorways and stuff like that. That's all
I'm trying to say. I can't speak to that. I don't think we have final plans yet. OK. Anyway, just so
we can kind of keep our eyes on getting into the building is great. Staying in there and navigating
is the next step. I'm just trying to kind of make sure we are closing the loop on that. Yeah. Yeah,
that's a great point. We'll develop that. Coming soon. OK. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. So the next one
is street lighting. So I do have a little.
handout if you want to take one and pass it down. So the city uses Duke Energy street lighting program
for street lights. This development, like really any other development, we are proposing what's called
the traditional light fixture. So if you see, it's kind of in the middle of your sheet. And it's just
called the traditional. And the reason I included this sheet is because it has the budget.
So it doesn't have the actual price, but it kind of shows you relative to each other how much the lights
cost. So those traditional lights are standard for residential subdivisions. That's what you'll see
out at like Hopewell West, they've been put up. First Street, it's that exact same type of light. So
it's a pretty affordable, but a bit more aesthetic. Now some ways that we could save costs is instead
of going with traditional, we could go with just regular roadway lights.
You know, they're nothing special, but you'll see them like all around high-use camp. It's just a standard
roadway light that can illuminate a larger area for a lower cost. But as you can see, there's a lot
of other options. Obviously, the price goes up, but you know, those acorn lights, the mini bells, teardrops.
Am I missing something as far as when I'm talking cost? Yeah. And where this is at, because I'm seeing
style A, style B. Oh, so that is, sorry.
Up on the top is the type of light fixture, which is what I'm talking about right now. The bottom is
the type of actual pole. So we go with style A, just standard. You can go with style B, C, D, E, but
as you can see, the cost goes up. Oh, I'm sorry. The circles are completely irrelevant. The problem
is that when you go online, Duke doesn't do the price
comparison anymore, so this is an old copy I had sitting on my desk. So yeah, apologies for the confusion.
The circles are just, I at one point, and I think at another point, I spilled my lunch on this, so sorry,
but the information is good on this. I just could not find this anywhere online. Yeah, so we're looking
at style A traditional, and the question for you today is, do you want to go with something
nicer but more expensive, do you want to go the most cost-effective route, which is the roadway lighting,
or do you want to stick with just what we typically would do, which is the traditional style A? Well,
your traditional is going to be 12 feet, correct? Yeah, so those are the shorter 12-foot poles, yep.
And if you're going into the roadway lighting, the Cobra heads as we refer to them,
You know, you're talking about what approximately 25 25 foot pole would pull. No, we wouldn't go with
the woods. So we'd still go with the styling. Okay. And then, I mean, when we're talking either dark
skies or something from a neighborhood standpoint, we've already got
We've already established the traditional on First Street, is that correct? Yeah, so I would say roadway
lighting are really good for dark sky. They shine down. The traditional are okay. They shine farther
out, but they don't shine up. Some of these, like the acorn, are not good for dark sky. Okay, so traditional,
we've got a cutoff on it, so we don't have glare.
that's going to go in. We've got approximately a 12-foot pole accordingly. And how many are we talking?
And what's the cost per month? Because the cost is going to be absorbed through Public Works.
Is this correct, or is this an expectation? So the RDC will pay the initial construction cost, which
is 50% of the total construction cost of the light. And then Public Works pays the ongoing maintenance
cost for the lights moving forward. OK. How many are we proposing?
I don't have that number for you. I apologize. I think the engineer is still finalizing that.
My recommendation would be to go with traditional at this point. We've already established some on First
Street. Correct. It's a matter of how we look consistency in regards to our neighborhoods without going
back and redoing. So I'm just curious what the spacing is to make sure that we get adequate safety in
regards to light.
and that we have not so much light that it's not creating above-effects, it's creating a neighborhood
that we're gonna have a problem in the neighborhood. Yeah, the spacing will likely be very similar to
First Street, so they're pretty, you know, they're spaced pretty close together because they don't shine
as far as the taller roadway lights. So then we're into a matter of cost issues. Correct, yeah. Trying
to look at from a long-term standpoint. Yeah. And I hate to throw anything else on you because you give
us an idea, because I'm assuming there's a photometric that'll show.
what that is, and then this is an ongoing operational cost, whether it be our first cost, which is more
because of the distance between them versus what the operational costs that we would then throw on to
Public Works, which is still everybody's dollars. So. I have a quick clarifying question just because
it's great to have.
Electrician, you know, expert here. But there's lots that I... So I'm just curious, were you saying
that the roadway is a taller pole so that it emits more light in terms of there be maybe fewer? Yeah,
there would be fewer lights. So in terms of the overall investment, not only might it be... Well, it
looks like at least according to the gradation on this sheet that they might be roughly similar, but
because it emits more light in terms of the spacing, there'd be fewer that you'd have to buy. Okay,
just wanted to make sure I got that straight. Yes. Thanks.
I mean, the traditional, what we've got, I'm good with. I just like to know where we are on a cost aspect
in regards to what our DC needs to fund through Hopewell and then operationally that difference. Yeah,
in the coming weeks, we can pull together the final cost, especially once I have this direction from
you on the lighting. Or even a cost comparison. I don't even know from, again, this is public work side
of things, but from an operations perspective, if it's fewer things to repair, if you've got fewer lights
out there,
with an equal amount of luminescence, shall we say? Yeah, so Duke Energy takes care of all maintenance,
but you do have to pay per light, you know, ongoing. So there's a lower operations cost, perhaps,
as well, because there's just fewer lift poles. Yes, correct. Anyway, just trying to get a sense of
that, even though I like the continuity part, I'm also into, you know, trying to be efficient with our
use of funds, so. Right. So you'll get back to us on that.
Yeah, I can get you that information. But it sounds like, for now, kind of the traditional style A is
probably where we want to go, but I'll get you the pricing and then. It'd be nice to be able to compare
if that's not too much trouble, just to be able to say, OK, we can do 10 poles for this much, or we
can do 20 poles for that much, or whatever the difference is. OK, so really just roadway versus the
traditional. Yeah, that seems reasonable. OK. OK, thank you for your help with those questions. Yeah.
Anything else on the street later?
Now, just a matter of, depending on where the elevations of the houses are, the traditional tends to
keep, especially if we have two stories. Okay, yeah. Again, I really appreciate your expertise in that.
Okay, next, I have another exhibit for you. So this is, there's one more, sorry. So,
So a while back we had talked about so our hopeful south development You know is building these internal
sidewalks and we have one that dead ends on the west end of the project and there is an existing platted
alley between
the edge of our development in Wiley Street. So if you look at the exhibit on the back here, and initially
I came before you and talked about, you know, is this something that we'd like to pursue connecting
this alley with the development? And you all had said, yeah, let's look into the cost of that. So that's
what we've done here. So on the other side, this is our estimated construction cost to build out this alley.
This would be, you know, it's a standard 12 foot platted alley, very similar to most of the alleys you
see in a lot of our more traditional older neighborhoods in the city of Bloomington. I think what they're
showing here is 10 feet of pavement. You could probably go down to eight feet if you wanted to. And
the idea is that rather than having a dead end, you could have pedestrian and bicycle connectivity,
as well as vehicles now have another way to kind of get back to some of these units, especially the five
units that aren't really adjoining a lane. This would be a way that an ambulance could get back there,
a moving truck, something like that. And it would also serve these existing properties if they wanted
to come off of it at some point in the future. So this is the proposed design and the estimated cost.
And I guess I just wanted to get your feedback on, is this something we want to pursue? I will say that
this would be
impactful to the adjacent property owners, so we probably want to do some coordination and outreach
with them if this is something you want to pursue. But yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions about
it. For the benefit of the public, it's $128,170.50 to build out that. I don't know. On that, we already
have the right way. Correct, yes. So it's already existing.
And if we look to make sure there's no structures already been put in at Miami. There are a few,
you know, there's trees there. I think there's a couple of shorter fences that would need to be relocated.
There is a power pole that would need to be shifted over as part of our utility relocations. Now all
those utilities will be relocated at no cost to the city. But yes, there are a few things like that.
If you think of this, this is the
grassway thoroughfare that starts on Jackson Street that those center houses line up to and so this
would continue that all the way instead again dead-ending would continue it all the way to Wiley Street
so it would be a continual thoroughfare and not just drop off so again it would be a connectivity piece there
and you are continuing that main avenue, you know, walkway avenue through Hopewell to the next road
system. That's connectivity, connectivity situation at the present moment. We have the right of way.
The alley has just not been maintained is what it really comes down to as far as... Yeah, it's possible
it was never built out. It is possible maybe it was there at some point. Yeah. Yeah.
Brings me to the next question. As we build this road out, or build this alleyway out, and I'm all about
connectivity in regards to the way this goes out, because long-term, who's going to maintain the alley?
So all alleys are maintained by our public works department. Now, they're typically the lowest priority
in terms of what gets maintenance, but they are ultimately responsible. OK. And the reason I ask that
is we put a new alley in,
I want to make sure that we're looking to spend $128,000 to make connectivity, which is critical in
regards to transportation, alternative transportation, that we also make sure that it's going to be
maintained long-term. Also, based upon what I'm seeing here, you're going to actually add connectivity
to the back of some of these other lots, which will give them either access or a potential possibility for
an ADU or something of that nature. That's complete planning, but it gives possibilities for granny
flats or something. Where does the money come from? You. Just to back up, though, there is no resolution
in front of you tonight for an official vote. This is just an update, so we can answer any additional
questions and bring it back to you at a future date. So this would have to come back as a resolution.
So what do you need from us tonight? Well, I'd really just like to know if this is something you'd like
to pursue or if it's something that it's like, no, we want to keep costs down. We don't want to do anything
extra or somewhere in between. I mean, the connectivity is a pretty compelling argument. Especially
since the right of way is already there. Yeah, so based on what I've seen, I would support it.
I would agree. Okay. I'm supportive because I just don't want to have to take land. We don't have to.
Having right of way is great. Let's use it. Okay. And this cost estimate, you feel comfortable? Oh yeah.
Yeah, our consultants been really good. Anything else on that one? I've got one more. So this is another handout.
This is just an update on the traffic. This is an update on the traffic calming. So we were tasked with
looking for creative ways to keep speeds low on the lanes. So what we've come up with is essentially
a combination of visual roadway narrowing and vertical deflection.
So this is just one example of the lanes. On the west and east sides here, we have a raised crosswalk
where the vehicles have to go up and over the sidewalks. And then in the middle, where you have the
internal sidewalks, you have another raised crosswalk where vehicles are going up and over. And then
as you can see here, it's a 20-foot wide roadway. But what we've done is we've made the outer edges
The five feet on each side is concrete pavement, but it's just regular white concrete pavement. And
then in the middle, we have colored concrete pavement to kind of visually establish a 10-foot driving
lane and visually kind of narrow this to a driver, the space that they are driving on, even though the
full 20 feet is accessible to trash trucks, emergency vehicles, passing. This is a two-way lane.
things like that. So with a combination of these factors, we think that we've been able to, you know,
this will keep vehicle speeds very low. I mean, this is, this would be great, you know, just from an
engineering perspective, this is really desirable in a residential neighborhood to keep vehicle speeds
down. This is more aggressive than what we've done typically in any of our neighborhood traffic calming programs.
That's what we were tasked to do as part of the PUD approval, as you know. So I just kind of wanted
to give you an update on this. I don't really need anything from you, but I'm happy to hear any thoughts
you may have about it. But just wanted to show you kind of the direction we are going for this. It was
a reasonable condition to try to keep speeds as low as possible on these lanes. And this has been determined
by the engineers
that are consulting with and our engineer, traffic engineer, that they believe that this would be effective
in achieving the desired results. Well, let me get really simple here. How many humps? How many humps?
Humps. Humps? Speed bumps? Speed bumps? Well, I mean, there's really just one mid-block and then as
you enter the lanes from each
side but they're more i wouldn't call them humps they're race crosswalks so they're a little bit it's
not like a speed bump it's like an up and over type comparative to what we just put in on roger street
for the trail yeah yeah yeah like the race crosswalk on rogers yeah same same scenario exactly okay
okay thank you thank you okay that's all i had thanks
OK, well, thank you for those updates. The next item on our agenda is our claims. We have three claims
registers from August 14, August 28, and September 11, 2026. I'm going to invite the option to adopt
those as a whole. But if you'd like to separate them, please feel free. In the meantime, I'll open it
for questions from commissioners. The only question, I have two questions for 814.
9281, it's got the Henry, Jack Henry. It doesn't identify properties, and I understand if we could just
put in the future what those properties are. One of them is listed 749. Let me look here. It's the first
one. Jack Henry. It's line 9281. Yeah, there's a couple of them on page three and four.
For future clarification, we just identify what properties that are. And then the only other one is
9941 on Flintlock. Are we complete with the contract or do we have more to go? They've not drawn? Okay.
We still have additional work for them too. Okay. Just verify. Thank you. Any other questions? Other claims?
Lori. Yeah, I'm sorry. I wasn't sure if I was interrupting someone if I am. Sorry. I have a question
on claims registered for September 11 on page 105. I'm just curious. There's an item for claw clasp,
bead storage box, colored pencils, bookmark kit that I'm just curious about. It's not the usual thing.
It's what? That we see on the plans registers. But it's also followed by payments that look like they're
going to the neighborhoods that were successful in applying for the Neighborhood Improvement Grants.
And I was just curious to know if, in one case, it looks like there was a lump sum transfer of the funds
that were awarded of $3,000 to Gentry Estates.
And others. So, so really two questions. One is, I was just curious about the craft supplies, but, but
mainly just to get a quick update on those neighborhood improvement projects. Sure. So the Amazon purchases
for the supplies appear to be for, for some tabling events and it is hand materials, office supplies.
And then as far as the.
Neighborhood improvement grants, I am not aware of the current status, though it does look like the
$3,000 was issued to Gentry Estates. And it also looks like $148.81 was issued to Spicewood neighborhood
as well. I can report back to you. Yeah, if we get it, I don't know if it's appropriate to get an update
on those projects at some point in the future. Obviously, those are ongoing. Those grants were just
made this summer. So it could be in the spring that we get an update. But it would be nice to get an
update on those. Sure. I'm more than happy to find out and report back at the next meeting. I had a
question regarding the August 14th climate together. But please refresh my memory. And this is a question
for Jeff. What is the relationship?
I know we have CDBG. Council has historically done the Jack Hopkins work. Jack Hopkins grants come through
us for approval too? As a matter of fact, no. HAND administers those claims on behalf of the council
office because they did not have the capacity to do so. So our social services program manager helps
facilitate all of the claims associated with those awards. Those are really a council project.
Yeah. It's not part of your code or oversight. So it's simply because HAND has an administrative role?
Yes. We are facilitating those for council. Got it. Thank you. Any other questions? Again, we've got
three claims registers to consider. Just making sure we're good. Before I ask for a motion to adopt,
again, I'm going to ask for all three. One more question.
829 to 911. Fund 2234 on the unsafe building. 21. At least on my computer. 828 claim with a 911. 828,
829 to 911. 911. 911. It's a Silver Creek. Is that something we'll get reimbursed for or is that spent money?
on the structural evaluation on the cracking one. It was part of a settlement agreement. It had to come
out of unsafe. So unfortunately, you will not get that back. Thank you. OK. Thank you for those questions.
Would you like a motion? If we're ready for a motion, I'll ask for it. I move approval of the claims
registers for August 14, August 28, and September 11, 2026. I'll second.
We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call. We have online participation. C. Scambillari,
yes. Raina Cassidy, yes. Laurie McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Passes unanimously. Thank you.
Next on our agenda are two payroll registers from August 21, 2026, and September 4. And we need questions
from commissioners on either of these items. And again, I'll also suggest that we can pass those in
a single motion after questions.
Got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Cese Kimberley, yes. Rene Cassidy, yes.
Lauren McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyers, yes. Passes unanimously. Thank you. We are now up to the several
different meeting minutes. And I'll just name off the dates, but I will also suggest that we can do
this in a single motion. But this is for August 17, 2026, regular meeting, and then several executive
sessions from August 17.
August 31, September 1, September 8, and September 9, 2026. So if there's any questions or corrections
on any of these documents from commissioners, otherwise, I will ask for a motion, please. Move approval
of the minutes for August 17's regular meeting and the executive sessions on the dates that you outlined.
Thank you. Second.
We have a first and a second. We'll do a roll call, please. C. Scambaleri, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
Lori McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Passes unanimously. OK. Next on our agenda is new business.
We have resolution 2659, declaring support for the redevelopment and use of 714 South Rogers Street
property and building as the new Bloomington Police Department headquarters
and associated public safety facilities and uses. And it looks like we have. Data curves. Okay. Yes.
As of course you're aware with several resolutions that you've passed so far that whenever the PUD was
created for Hopewell South, this building was thought that it could possibly be used for
the Bloomington Police Department's headquarters and other uses affiliated with that. And so by resolution
2543, the RDC decided that they would look into some due diligence to go down that path and see if this
would be possible. That due diligence led to further work and we
By resolution 25131, the RDC contracted with American Structure Point to complete a feasibility study.
That feasibility study was completed. It determined that the thing with the building is that there's
no plans from the original design.
of the building and so while it is a large concrete structure and it's been used as a nursing home and
it's also been used as offices already, there's just not any plans on the structural aspects of it.
So the structure point couldn't say 100% positively that
it would be perfect to use, but they did say that there are options that can be done that they believe
would enable the building and possibly addition onto the building to be used to make a very effective
police headquarters with the additional services that
are being considered possibly to go along with that. And so they were, we also engage or you engage
using the first resolution funds of Mr. Kelly Abel through his company to look at the feasibility study
as well. And after further discussions with StructurePoint and discussions with Kelly Abel,
Even though structure points feasibility study has some kind of higher level numbers in there, there
were a lot of assumptions being made that weren't necessarily needed to be made associated to this particular
project. And there was some narrowing of scope. And so it was determined that the project budget could be
much less than what was in their original scope. And so it's been determined that a project in the vicinity
of $30 million could create a very effective, efficient police headquarters using that building. The
location is suitable, especially suitable because it's already in
the possession of the Redevelopment Commission is in the Hopewell South PUD, which already has flexibility
built into it on how this can be developed. And so it allows for a lot of the things that we would want
to see with parking and with landscaping
and elevation changes and setbacks and all those things are already accounted for and flexible in that.
So that is a tremendous benefit of using this site. So the next step for the RDC, if the RDC would so
choose, would be to
pass a resolution, as you have before you, stating that you are, at this point in time, making the decision
to commit to using the 714 building and property for the purpose of the Bloomington Police Department
headquarters and want to start the next steps in the process of
going forward with what that would look like and what that would cost and what, you know, bonding options
there would be and all the different pieces that go into it and you would be making that commitment
to the saying that, you know, at this point you would not be considering any other use for that property
from this point forward unless some circumstances would change
But you know that you are committed to this project. This allows again a lot of things to to move forward.
We're talking about owners representative here after after this resolution. For for the project and
so this again is a. A way for you to publicly announced that you are ready to make a commitment.
to use 714 South Roger Street for the Bloomington Police headquarters and ancillary facilities and that
you're willing to take that step. And so we have the Honorable Mayor Thompson with us and Chief Decoff
with us to if they would like to add to anything to this.
I think we've done a good amount of research and looking into potential areas to do the new police station.
And this site held two clear advantages. First of all, it's a building that we believe can be reused that has
the weight-bearing capacity to do various things that we need in the police station. It's also located
within a block of what the police had previously identified as their ideal location for a new station.
So it puts to good use a big concrete building that otherwise would be
detriment to our climate to take down the entire building and would be frankly wasteful. And it's where
the police would really ultimately like to be. We have done some outreach in the neighborhood and around
the area. And while no support is unanimous, there's fairly welcoming
feeling to having that police station located there. So from my perspective, I think this is a win.
And I recommend approval of the resolution. And I'll turn things over to Chief DeKoff. Hi. Thank you.
So this is a great opportunity for us to move out of a building that has basically outlived its life. It leaks.
making offices out of storage units. We just don't have any room for growth in the current facility.
So this building offers space that we think will serve our needs for up to 50 years. It's a great location.
It's on major roadways. So it gives us access to get around the city pretty easily. The union is in
support of it. Everybody's pretty excited about the potentials. It's a
As the mayor said, it's a big concrete building, so we think that it will serve our needs really well,
and we're excited about the project and ask for your support. We will open it up for questions or comments
from commissioners.
for resolution 2659. I'd like to ask the controllers. I just wanted to make some regards to... Sorry,
I apologize. No, that's okay. I actually just wanted to make one quick comment that even though this
resolution does mention bonding, this is not the official resolution that kicks off the bonding process.
So that would come at a later date after some more work.
This is purely for the RDC to indicate our approval of the use of this property that is under our ownership
to be able to move forward with the industry. Exactly. And so at some point, if indeed you do decide
to move forward, there will be another resolution that will formally kick off your intention to seek
bonds. And then that would also go to city council for approval. Thank you for that clarification. Before
you go to questions, Anna Dragovich is the project manager on this. Do you have anything you'd like
to add about this?
Thank you. No, I think everyone here has covered it really well. I appreciate it. Thank you. And regarding
the $30 million, that was placed in there as a budget number so that you could define what you would
be looking at as your potential commitment to use potentially a bonding process for that. So it was
so you would.
be again presenting to the public what your feelings were towards make obligation to moving forward.
So as your controller said, yes, no, this is not the beginning of a bonding process at all. This is
stating what you believe would be a budget that you would set at this point in time. And of course,
you could change that should you choose so.
Thank you for that clarification. Anything further before we turn to commissioners? OK. Open it up for
questions and comments from commissioners on resolution 26-59. Go ahead. This is identifying $30 million
to come out of the consolidated TIF. Well, it would be.
a bond that would then be serviced by the consolidated TIF. And in your estimation, based on you've
looked at the financials with our financial consultants, the consolidated TIF will have continued enough
revenue in order to service this in the time frame that the consolidated TIF exists. So another 13.
And given this resolution, Dana, as we're looking at that, if for whatever reason the building didn't
pan out, we would still be at a position of where the property would be, the location that it's needed,
and the financial ability would not exceed 30 million. That's the dollars we're looking at. Well, that's
your decision. OK. Well, I'm just saying, when we look at this consolidated tip and we're trying to
identify moving forward on something which I think the police definitely
It's time for something in order to secure the security of our community. That is the top end of what
we think we can bond because I want to make sure that we're able to financially afford it. Well, understand
that it's complicated because there are other commitments that you may want to make in the future with
respect to Summit and Hopewell.
when we're saying 30 million is feasible, we're also taking into account other projects that we think
you may want to consider. And so we believe that 30 million is a responsible amount that can accomplish
the project, and Anna can talk about that more if you want to, that can both accomplish the project
and fits within your potential bonding capacity given these other projects as well. Well, because of
the constraint of SEA 1 and such, I just want to verify that financially
have that ability yes yeah okay thank you and then the only other question i have which i think we have
a council elected official here the geographic area that it's in if the neighborhood as a whole is supportive
of this location if i ask isabel that or not if it's in her district i cannot answer that sorry okay thank you
Mixed responses. Thank you. Other than that, this is just the first step. Just to put a finer point
on Randy's question, could you describe the process we've gone through to engage the neighborhood in
conversations? And I'm not sure who to direct that to.
I can address at least part of it. We had a large public meeting. I've also gone to the Neighborhood
Association meeting to discuss this. And I have been door knocking on five different occasions in the
neighborhood just to get individual feedback and brief people on where we are with the process.
The majority of people who answer their door and want to offer an opinion are supportive. And we do
have a handful of people that are against having the police in their neighborhood. And I also just want
to note that this is
You know, while this is a larger space, the size of our police department has nothing to do with the
size of the building that they're in. So this is not trying to signal to the community that we're about
to dramatically expand the size of our police force. We are understaffed. We do plan to get to adequate
staffing, but we
This is not a signal to the community that we're about to dramatically increase the number of sworn
officers. We are under housed right now in a situation that is frankly dilapidated and is not proper
working conditions. So that's why we need a move. And we do need adequate space for the police that
we currently have and
to get to our full staffing. But this is not a signal that we're about to overstaff our police department.
Well, and I think if I recall correctly, both you and Chief DeKoff have made comments in the past about
the non-sworn officers that we have added to our police department and how we've very intentionally
moved our police department in that direction. So thank you.
Any other questions from commissioners about resolution 2659? I'll say it does seem like a very important
and useful way to reuse this building again in terms of as an asset in the community and something that's
well suited for the proposed use. It seems like a good fit. So I appreciate that this has been explored
because it's otherwise been a vacant building for a long time that didn't have an obvious reuse to it
and this seems like
the appropriate direction to go in. I'm going to open this up for public comment for resolution 2659.
I'm here. You have two here. Oh, thank you. I live in the neighborhood. I live a quarter of a mile away.
I don't recall any public outreach for this. I do recall there being a feasibility, a cultural feasibility
study for the re-designation of the space in the cultural space.
I quite frankly, whether or not the mayor thinks that it signals or does not signal an increased police
presence in my neighborhood, that building doesn't loom on a hill in the neighborhood that will be built
there. There's a lot of unhoused community there. It will signal an elevation of the police presence
in the community as a community member who has not asked my opinion of this. I think that building is
suitable for many things other than the police station. And I am disappointed in this trajectory.
I'm sorry, I didn't get your name. Layla Reichard. Thank you. Any other public comment, either in person
or online? See Holly Warren online. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me OK? Yes, thank you. OK, thank you.
So I'm the former assistant director for the city of Bloomington. And I just want to remind you all
that there was an arts feasibility study in 2022 that actually recommended
714 South Rogers be used as an artist's space. This was a space that would have included both individual
studios for artists, as well as shared workshop space that would have had specialized equipment. It
would have also included space for performance, music, and dance. These are all resources that are essential
to our very beloved and important arts community.
This building was actually saved originally for this piece before this administration. Earlier iteration
of the Hopewell committee agreed that this building would not be knocked down.
So we could explore options for turning this into an art space. We did explore the space with
the architectural team that produced the feasibility study. They found that the infrastructure that
exists for the building at this point in time made this a great candidate to make this kind of art space
for our community.
I can also share that as someone who used to review all of the many applications that came into the
Bloomington Arts Commission for funding, there is a huge need for affordable artist studio space in
our community. The four community art spaces that are promised as part of Indiana University's recent
Ready 2.0 grant are not adequate to house the number of deserving artists for this purpose.
And I just want to also remind you all that one of the original things that was called out in the Hopewell
master plan was spaces for community gathering and creative development in this neighborhood. And in
addition to that, being able to provide a resource like this
board of this community is going to enable our artists to be able to stay here, contribute to the economy,
and really be able to make Bloomington an innovative center that is known throughout the Midwest. So
I just wanted to remind you all of that and just ask you all to reconsider that as you are making decisions
about how you're allocating space in this new neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Hi.
Isabel B. Monsmith, District 1 City Council. And this is in my district. I wanted to ask about
the feasibility study. So American Structure Point did the study. I found in Bloom Docs the letter to
Anna Dragovich of April 10th that basically said it was not feasible.
to use the police station or use that 714 South Rogers to reuse it as a police station. And that now
I'm hearing that the KGA, Avicon, LLC reviewed the feasibility study. And I guess determined it could
be used that way. But I don't know where I can find that.
So I'm just asking for more transparency on the studies that have been done to back up proceeding with
this project. I can speak to that a little bit. That letter was written at a snapshot in time when,
what's the matter? You have to face the microphone. It's fine. I thought it was.
Yeah. OK. Sorry. So a reminder to folks, the building doesn't have original construction drawings, which
makes it kind of complicated that we're not able to go and see the structure of the building itself.
And so when that letter was written, there are kind of some unknowns around what the building is capable
of as far as meeting the really strict requirements for
these types of essential facilities like police departments, fire stations, hospitals, and things like
that. So we think that through further investigation, we'll be able to determine if that building can
indeed become sort of an office type building for some parts of Bloomington, for the Bloomington Police
Department, or if we need to say construct an addition
which is one of the conceptual designs that StructurePoint reviewed, that would house those essential
facilities that cannot fit within the existing structure. I hope that, I trust that makes sense. There's
portions of a police department that need to be able to still be operational in a worst-case scenario
such as a natural disaster, and that has to do with
the actual structure of the building. Does that make sense? I'm not a structural engineer, but I'm trying
to interpret them really well, so doing my best. So what it entails is that you can add an addition,
a limited addition onto the building that meets, they call it category four, design that would withstand
like earthquakes, things of, you know,
horrific natural disasters so that the operations, critical operations could remain active with the
other part, the main structure that is there would unlikely be able to handle that, which at the time
it was built and most buildings that are constructed do not meet those kind of standards.
because they're specialized. But that does not mean that the building could not be used for the office
space, for the training rooms, for interview rooms, for so many other operational aspects of it. It's
only those critical emergency operations that need to be in a facility that
is strong enough to handle all that. And since there's no plans on how the main structure was designed,
it would be unfeasible to make that entire structure able to withstand to become a category four. So
what would be feasible, they determined, would be to have an addition where they could have the emergency
operations.
and still utilize the existing structure, again, concrete solid structure for the other operations of
the police department. So it's only a limited portion of the operations of the police department that
would need to be in that type of a building. And so that addition would
take away the fact that the entire building would need to be redesigned and supported to meet that,
which, again, that would not have been feasible. That would just, to find out how it was constructed,
do all those studies, and then do all of the stabilizing for sheer force and so on and so forth would
just have, even if it was possible, would have been extremely expensive.
However, that building has been used again as a nursing home, has been used for offices. There's very
little doubt that it can continue to be used for offices and meeting rooms and those kind of operations,
which is what most of the structure needs would be for the police department. It's just those critical
operations that need a specialized
type of structure, and that's what the addition can be. And just to be clear, our current police building
does not meet those standards.
neither does our current dispatch. So we don't currently, the city does not currently have a facility
that does meet that standard. And while it's not a hard requirement, it is a best practice. And so we
feel it's really recommended that we do that addition that will just house the Emergency Operations
Center and dispatch. And that's what is,
that's what's critically needed in a time of disaster. So we want to make sure, without a doubt, that
that's structurally sound to virtually anything. Can we see the KGA Advocon review that public? Yeah,
I think so. Yeah, the reports from the public, they were in the, were they in the packet or? Not in
the packet. Okay, we can.
Yeah, we can make sure that they're put on the website. So could it be included as an addendum to this
packet in terms of, since this is part of the agenda, that it could be added as part of the publicly
available resources on this? That was going to be one of my questions, so I appreciate that that can
be added. My other question is getting back to Ms. Warren's comment, which is about the need
for artist studio space, which I realize is not part of this resolution. But I'm just asking if there's
been any reconsideration since that study was done in 2022. I'm happy to speak to that. Jane Cooper
Smith, Director of Economic and Sustainable Development. And yes, Ms. Warren.
It completely accurately represents the recommendations of the tray and feasibility study that was done
in 2022. There have been a number of changes on the ground since that time. The need remains consistent.
The funding environment has changed drastically. And we've also had one pilot project under our belts.
And then we have received funding for the location
of an arts incubator at the Showers Admin Building, which was of course a former property of the RDC,
was purchased by the Erden Opportunity Fund. I can't remember what year exactly. And the plan for that
building is actually for 12 artist studios, four of which are reserved for Bloomington locals, four
of which are reserved for IU graduates. So those are future Bloomington locals.
This is part of our effort to recruit people to remain in our community. And then for regional artists
who will be coming into Bloomington. This was a regional partnership was an essential requirement in
order to access the funding for this program. The second floor of the building is in reserve for
Creative entrepreneur spaces. So there are already people occupying that building We know that that's
a critical part of our economy that we want to grow It's not just practicing artists, although we know
practicing artists are in dire need of studio space that we know that creative You know professionals
also need to be able to stand up their businesses so the second floor supports that and then the third
floor does meet that performance
requirement, performance-based needs. So I apologize. I don't know the capacity offhand, but it is for
performances that would be open to the public. So this Showers Avenue building really does tick a lot
of the boxes of that requirement. But the most important piece of it is that after that project receives
this cash injection from the REDI Arts and Culture Grant, it will be self-sustaining.
It will likely have a small programming request coming from the city's budget. But for example, our
commitment for the 2027 budget, if that's approved, it's $20,000, not $100,000. So we've really learned
a lot of lessons over the last four years. And I believe that we've taken this recommendation from the
Trehand feasibility studies super seriously.
Happy to answer any questions about that. One other question I was going to ask based on the resident's
comment from the McDonald Gardens neighborhood is just, what's the plan from here on out in terms of
public outreach to the neighborhood just because it seems like there's an opportunity for additional
outreach? And I'm just wondering what the plans are for that.
So we've already reached out to the chair of the McDowell Gardens Neighborhood Association again to
get back on the agenda now that we have we've been kind of waiting to see what the feasibility and direction
of this is. So we've already reached out to be able to go back and talk to them again. We've been keeping
Prospect Hill in the loop as well so we'll probably reach out to them as well just to
give them an update and get feedback. Any other outlets besides the neighborhood associations?
I think we're planning on a public meeting, right? We're currently working on coming up with a date
and outline for a larger public meeting regarding Hopewell in general, too, just to get people aware
of what's going on at Hopewell South, but then also potentially with the 714 site. So we have not pinned
down an exact location yet or a date, but it is coming soon. We understand that that is a need. Thank you. OK.
Any other public comment before we take this to a vote? Yes. My name is Paul Post, president of FOP
Lodge 88. I represent the collective bargaining unit, DPD. Jeff's going to talk after this. He's the
detective representative. We're here just to express, like Chief Deakoff said, our not having any issues
at all with this plan. We've really enjoyed working with Mayor and Chief Deakoff, looking at some ideas
for the potential of that property.
And I really appreciate seeing some of the things that are possible going forward. So we're here to
say we have no objection. Thank you. Good evening. Jeff Rogers, Blount Police Department. Been with
the department over 20 years now. Been one of the representatives for about the last dozen years.
We have, we need a new police department, so we have to look at what is optional for that.
We were heavily involved in the Showers West proposal. One of the primary challenges with that location
was accessibility, and also the longevity of the building. This, as has been stated, is gonna be a 40,
50-year building, something that we can work with for a very long time. Accessible, it's also within
centrally located, so it really checks off a lot of boxes that we are going to need.
And if we don't do this location, I know a lot have been looked at, so we're limited by options as well.
So I know Paul, myself, the chief, everybody is in favor of this as far as the police department goes
and the location. Thank you. Looking around, any final public comment? If not, I will take this for
Any further questions on commissioners or take this for a motion to vote? On resolution 26-59. One quick
clarification in regards to our class 4 building and such, an addition on this from what I'm hearing
from the police department is the need for the class 4 is not a continual all of the building. It can
be additional work.
And this $30 million will adequately take care of the class four and the additional office to serve
our community for 50 years. I would love to say we have enough money to give them a brand new building
as much as they need for 50 years. But we have to be fiscally responsible. And if this is the best solution,
I'd like to see that we move forward. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll open this for our motion.
Approval of resolution 2659. I'll second. Second. Got a first and a second. We'll vote by roll call,
please. Sue Scambaleri, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. Laurie McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Motion
passes unanimously for resolution 2659. Thank you all. OK. Moving on to our next item on our agenda, we have
Owners representative quotes who would like to speak to that I can keep going First I'd like to explain
that the owners representative First is a professional services and for professional services for the
Redevelopment Commission This is not the type of services that you would go that you're required by
statute to go out to
do RFPs for, RFQs for. Professional services are so unique to the, a lot of it has to do with
the relationship between the provider of those services and the client. So that connection
and the qualifications of the provider are so important that
doing an RFP and RFQ is not the kind of process that the statute requires you to go through. You can
use aspects of that to the extent that you want to, you desire to, but when it comes down to it, the
choice of whom you use is yours. What the owner's representative would be would be for this
the Bloomington Police Department project. And so there are some people with local ties that the staff
reach out to and ask for them to submit proposals on their willingness and ability to be owners'
representatives. We got three responses for that.
They are three very different responses in very different ways. And since, you know, just getting them
in and getting them to you, my recommendation at this point would be for you to take time to look them
over, consider them, think of questions that you might have, and you could let staff know we would be happy to
talk over your questions that you have with them, get their answers back to you. If you would like additional
to look elsewhere as well, we can do any of that. You can merely reach out to us by email and instruct
us how you would prefer that we go. It doesn't have to be something that
You vote on if someone says they want us to look further, we can look further. If someone says they
ask these questions, we ask those questions. It's not something that requires a vote or anything that
all of you say we have to ask certain questions. If you all have questions, you can ask your questions.
So again, the relationship is very key
to an owner's representative. So we want to make sure that we get this right. I do understand there's
a desire to have an owner's representative. And so what this process moving this project along would
look like would be that there would be three, I like to use the pun, building blocks. There would be
an owner's representative that represents you.
that represents the mayor, that represents the police department, that represents the community, that
wants to get the very best out of each and every dollar that's spent on the project, making sure that
the right decisions are made for Bloomington, for the RDC, for the police department, for the project.
And they look out for you.
Then the other two pieces, one would be the architect engineer to do the design work. And then the method
of services of building would be recommending, in this case, would be what's called a CMC, where the
construction manager would be the constructor. In that manner, you can have an agreement
on an amount that you would construct the project for. And so now you've got a cap. And then the benefit
of getting your construction manager and your architect engineers at the same time is they can work
together. Because the CMC, a lot of times, has some really good ways to do some value engineering.
the architects and say, well, we like this design. We think this layout would be the best in doing it
this way. The CMC may say, well, you know what? If you move this wall this way, you can save X amount
of dollars because of that. I'm just making something up, of course. But there's ways that you can do
some value engineering that the CMC, because of the way they know
how the construction ends up going in the field, working with architects and engineers, that partnership
there of having those two entities working together is a great value. Now, the architect engineers,
again, professional services, the way you go about doing it, can do it RFP, but you can still select
whom you choose, who you think has the best
thoughts for this project and qualifications for this project. The CMC, there is a statutory process
for that that's required. So you do have to go out for an RFP process. The details in the statute are
pretty open, so it is not
very cumbersome, but there is a process of how that goes. You develop a committee that reviews the responses
that come in and make recommendations to the RDC and so forth. So you have these three different entities.
looking out for your interest. You have the architects and engineers who are doing the design work who
have, you know, you want to pick one that has specialized knowledge in public safety, one that would
have good knowledge in the reuse of buildings such as you have. And then you have CMC that the same
way you want some that have knowledge of
public safety buildings, knowledge of renovating existing buildings, and doing the constructing part.
So those are the three building blocks that would make a great project. And so again, for tonight, you
have three different proposals. Again, they're very different, and I think they are
enough different, you know, I would recommend you taking them under consideration at this point in time
in reviewing them and letting us know, you know, how, what you would like for us to do next. Um,
October 5th, we'd be happy to, um, if, uh, bring a recommendation based on, uh, input that we receive,
um, for, for the owner's rep.
On October 5th, we could also possibly bring a proposal for you to approve the RFP to go out for architect
and engineer. It's my understanding that even though you wouldn't have to, you would like to start with
that process for transparency, to make sure that everything's held, the accountability is there.
And then we can also consider either that meeting or a later meeting what we put out for the CMC. You
may want the architect engineer on board to help with putting out what you put out for the CMC to make
sure that you're educated enough unless ownership is in that area where they could help with that.
Without the need for the architect engineer to do so so it kind of depends on what the owner qualifications
are at that point, but anyway, so you have those three and so that's If you have any questions, I'm
happy to answer. Thank you I have a question just I assume that the
Various entities within the city will be also reviewing those proposals. Or is the decision completely
up to us? The decision would be up to you. The project is an RDC project on RDC property. So it would
be up to you. But yes, the other entities in the city have great interest in it.
Our mayor, of course, has great interest in this project. Chief Dekoff from the police department have
great interest in this project. So any input where their input would be valuable definitely would want
their input on that as well. I think short of actually having any of those entities
indicate a preference, it would be helpful to me to know what kinds of considerations from the perspectives
of those other entities we ought to be considering when we look at them from our perspective. So it's
possible for whoever to forward some. It wouldn't need to be anything particularly elaborate or long,
but simply a list of criteria that would
So, the city staff is looking at these responses, we don't have a recommendation right now which is
why there's no resolution attached to these.
We are simply asking you to take them under advisement at this point. It's a little bit complicated
because it's comparing apples to oranges if you look at the various quotes. So we're trying to pin down
some more concrete ways of comparing those responses, but certainly wanted to make sure that you were
aware that we did receive these so that we can start moving down
making a decision in the future, especially if there's additional questions or if we want to pursue
additional quotes. So no vote is required this evening on this particular agenda item. We're just bringing
them to your attention. And our intent is to involve an owner's rep specifically so that we can target
our budget and make sure that we deliver the project within our budget.
I will say that I do have just some thoughts that I can email to Dana to send out that are just exactly,
I think, what you're asking for, Lori, that are just some things to consider. Not an opinion about which
of the three, but just some questions to be asking. Right. Input as well. And others might have some.
One last question is, what's our time frame? When will this come back for a boat?
It has not been predetermined at this point. As soon as possible, we would like to keep the project
moving, but it has not been determined at this point. So our next meeting is on October 5th, so it's
very possible that it could be at that point. We have a little bit of time to get some answers and try
to figure out a better way to compare them. So as commissioners, one, in terms of sharing criteria that
might be helpful to consider,
I understand that the controller may provide some of that. Staff may provide some of that. I know that
I would appreciate hearing those criteria. If we have specific questions we'd like to share, should
we just send them directly to you? Please, yeah. And some of the things that we would consider is what
is the time involvement? What is the commitment? What is the price?
What is the experience? All of these things will be under consideration, but yes, please let me know.
Okay, thank you. And especially as you said, in terms of comparing like terms of the proposal, which
may not be presented on like terms, trying to find a way to help understand that as part of our evaluation,
that would be very welcome. You probably noticed that one of them didn't even have a price, so.
Yeah, so that's really appreciated that still need to evaluate the criteria. All three of them had prices
associated, but two of them were hourly rates. Right. So that's where the time commitment is an important
part of the invasion. Great. Well, I do greatly appreciate your sharing these for our consideration
as to help inform our vote. And we will be happy to forward questions that we can then
have as part of responses that will help us with understanding each of these proposals. Those criteria
come through Dana be distributed accordingly. This is all in the public realm. Any other comments from
commissioners on this? Otherwise we'll move down the agenda. Okay so the next item on our agenda is
resolution 26
60, approval of the second amendment to the agreement with Mother Nature Landscaper Incorporated for
stormwater mitigation measures at Hopewell South. I'm going to keep on rolling here. The engineering
department caught me in the hallway and let me know that at Hopewell South, the sheet water storm water flow
particularly of course on the west side, goes westerly towards Centerstone and it goes northwesterly
to an actual point that is at the corner of the RDC property and is leaving the RDC property with enough
volume and force that it's creating a galley
in the front yard of the Centerstone. And this is being considered a potential safety issue for those,
the clients of Centerstone. Many of them walked through and from Centerstone. The believed cause of
the issue is twofold. One is that the buildings were removed.
And so there needs to be some seed, some grass in areas to help soak up and slow down some of the storm
water. In addition to that, there is the First Street Project, which raised the sidewalk along First
Street, which also made it so that
water that had gone before off more evenly across and off into First Street now is forced to travel
more westerly towards that point. So engineering came up with a design for mitigation measures that
they believe would—could
reduce the impacts to the offsite neighbors. And it is a combination of using some hay bales,
straw bales, and just using some grass seeding some of the areas where the buildings were.
to get some vegetation growing and using some of the sloping barriers and doing this at different intervals
so that it wouldn't be just diverting all the water at one other point, you know, off into First Street,
but it would be trying to move the water towards
the north towards First Street and so that could be taken up in that stormwater system. So there is
a project, a contract that you already have with Mother Nature. They take care of the Trace District.
So the quickest way to get these
This concern mitigated would be to do a contract amendment with Mother Nature Landscaping. The amount
that they have quoted to do this work would be not to exceed $16,890. It is a healthy sum. However,
the concern for
The neighboring property damage to the neighboring property potential liability issues with Tort claims
the things created from the going a lot of center stones again clients Do you know walk through? through
that area apparently so This It will be
a while, quite a few months before any groundbreaking would be done at the site. And therefore, to wait
would just exacerbate the problem and the damages and the risk of liability. Were this simply from a
legal basis? Were this simply sheet flow normally?
you're not responsible for sheet flow. She flows pretty natural. However, when you have a point source,
which is what you have here, that's a different story. And so it is a recommendation of the engineering
department and legal department to take these mitigation measures to stabilize the stormwater flow on
the Hopewell South. Thank you. Anything further before we open this for questions or comments
from commissioners for resolution 2660? I want to clarify. This is where we tore down the Alcott building,
the houses, and it's flowing east. And the work that we've done to the road to raise it up. We raised
the road up in the Oregon. Somehow, based on this time frame, we've missed
the basis of being able to mitigate something on existing buildings to the east. And based
on the engineering's review of what Milestone did from a standpoint, it's outside the scope.
So right now, we've got a $16,000 turd. And unfortunately, water is the worst thing for any building.
And so we're not being good neighbors to. It's cutting into what I refer to as the bluff factory, the building.
Part of it does include some fencing to restrict access. Well, this is a temporary mitigation situation.
So with this temporary mitigation, my concern in regards to this, because it didn't cut cotton engineering
previously with our contractors not responding, we're right back in the same situation. So when we're
looking at this from Hopewell South standpoint, what kind of time frame are we doing? Because if these
are temporary measures, what's
When do we think we're going to be able to do something? Because I don't want to have to go back here
again. I know. So this is, as you said, temporary until we can get the actual horizontal infrastructure
going, which hopefully you will be awarding a contract for in the very near future. Hopefully this fall
we'll see what happens.
Hopefully they can correct that from there. Now our civil team is well aware of the problem, so that
they're going to be on any corrective measures. Is there anything based upon previously from an engineering
standpoint of the individuals that engineered in the beginning to say what the hell happened? I was
not involved at that time, so I cannot accurately answer. Basically, we're keeping ourselves from getting
litigated against by our neighbor.
And taking care of the problem. Yeah, being a good neighbor and taking care of the problems because
we created it as a RDC and the project that was done on First Street and the demolition that occurred.
Well, I understand something has to be done. I can't say I'm happy about it. We totally agree. I knew that.
Sorry. Sorry, I wanted to raise just a question. Not that there may not be time. This may not be feasible.
But given the amount of money here, is there any reason that we should be putting this out for competitive
bid? Sorry, Lori. Well, I was just going to say, I've actually
Coincidentally use mother nature to mitigate a foundation problem that we had and we did get other bits
and they came in the cheapest Yeah, it was a residential and a fair bit because this is a temporary
fix And it's five figures So just a question about whether we ought to be seeing if there's another
suitable contractor out there who could do this and
for less? I think the challenge is that the longer that you let this go on, the worse the damage becomes
to the adjacent property owners. And so while we would love to be able to spend time finding the most
cost-effective bid, really what we need to do is to fix this right away so that we're not causing any
more damage to the building, which could theoretically be significantly more than this quote in front of you.
My meeting was with the engineering department and with JD Boroff, our facilities director, and when
they grabbed me in the hall, they said that this was, they deemed it to be, you know, not a life-threatening
emergency, but as far as
damages, potential damages to go, a serious issue that needed to be dealt with quickly. So
from an engineering and facility standpoint, they were instructing me that it needed to be done quickly.
And so this was the quickest path to a resolution that I could get to. This is essentially a race to
beat more rain. Yeah.
Understood. Thank you. Saturday night, I got four inches. Friday night, four inches. Oh my gosh. OK.
So any further questions? OK. I'll ask for a motion for resolution 26-60, please. I'll make a motion
to approve 26-60. Second. For the first and the second, we'll do a vote by roll call, please. C. Scambaleri,
yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. Corey McRobbie, yes.
Debra Meyers, yes. Motion passes unanimously for resolution 2660. Thank you. The last item on our agenda
this evening is resolution 2661, which is approval of a scope of work for Harold Fish, Incorporated
HFI in Showers West. Who would like to speak to that? I, once again, can do this. This is coming to
you because it exceeds $5,000. This is at Showers West.
Um, it is another HVAC issue, uh, that is in the suite that the fire department is occupying. Um,
the work, uh, quote from HFI is for 6,250. So again, it exceeds the $5,000, uh, limitation. Um,
and the, uh, I,
again, was contacted by J.D. Boruff on this one, facilities director, and he indicated that this work
would, is about half the cost of replacing the unit, but he believed that it would be sufficient and
that if this work was
done, there would not be a need to replace the unit. So he thought this was the most cost effective
approach. He did not recommend replacing the unit. I think part of that too is with not knowing exactly
how and the different ways the showers might be used might be a part of that. But again, this is coming
to you because it's over $5,000 and so
It was asked by our director of facilities who helped evaluate the problem if you would approve the
scope of work so this job can be completed.
The engineering department housed in this particular suite, so the air conditioner just wouldn't hold
a charge any longer, which is why it needed to have this coil replacement. Yeah. It's the former CFC
suite, the 200. OK. So I heard fire department. Is that? It's not fire department. It is engineering
department. It's suite 200. OK. Thanks. I was wondering about that when I heard that, because I had
seen engineering on here.
Do we have like a general kind of maintenance schedule for the Showers West building in terms of as
opposed to just doing stuff ad hoc when stuff comes up? I mean, because as a property owner, we should
probably know what we're getting into, right?
Yes, you should. We do not have a comprehensive idea of all of the repairs that are necessary. We know
that some HVAC units are aging out and will need some attention. We haven't gotten the comprehensive
look though because we don't know exactly what's happening with the building or how long you will retain
ownership as well.
We know that our utilities are extremely expensive. Yes. And that's another thing that I'm thinking
about. So I understand there's uncertainty that makes it hard to make a commitment, let's say, to a
longer term plan or something. But between the cost of utilities, which is obviously monthly, this emergency
HVAC repair, and just the fact that there is a known list of, let's say, upcoming liabilities, I'm just
asking for
guidance on how we could set that on track in a more responsible way, then I feel like you know and
I understand why we're not there yet but I'm saying this is an opportunity, even though it's not just
about the resolution to try and put that into scope. The facilities team has been working alongside
to project managers to determine future use but then also look at what the future needs might be. I
don't think that they're there yet so they are trying to piece together some of those items but we're
just not there quite yet. Okay and I'm just going to ask again because it's on our agenda and rather
than wait for the next emergency thing to come up they're not there yet is there something that could
be within scope just to
rather than deal with deferred maintenance to be, again, more responsive, even though, again, I understand
certainly there are outstanding questions that could affect the direction they're going, but at least
to get a baseline to work with and then help us with decision-making from there. Yeah. I don't know
how to respond to that because we do know that there are some quite expensive repairs that are needed
over there that are more than a million dollars. Wow.
Um, we're trying to get a comprehensive look at the building to understand what is going to be needed
and when, but until we have that, I hesitate to get too far into the weeds. Sure. Okay. Um, so my last
part of my series of questions and then I'll share the air here is just, is there a point? I'm just,
again, trying to be proactive on this.
Again, understanding there are outstanding questions that we don't have all the answers to. I understand
that. But I'm just asking if there's a way that we could maybe have a quarterly proactive look like,
where are we with this? Just because, again, rather than have to deal with deferred maintenance that
comes up with emergency stuff ad hoc that we have no choice but to just put it out there for.
I'd love to be in a more responsible and responsive position to say, okay, we know this. And again,
I realize there's things we may not want to hear, but nonetheless, I feel like we're at a stage at this
point, especially with the final private tenants that are leaving or kind of having been squared off
and we are fully in possession of the building that we need to have a more of a plan than an ad hoc
situation, so. And that work is,
being assembled right now. Just so you are aware, the day in the life of the hand department processing
RDC claims, if it was just $1,900 less, it wouldn't even be before you. Right. But nonetheless, it's
an important opportunity for the conversation, because it's not something that we have necessarily regularly
on our schedule now. And we're moving into a space where at least some of this should be on our radar,
even if, again, there's things that are unanswered or that
could change our trajectory. Anyway, so yeah, so I'm just, again, using this as a platform because it's
come before us to have the conversation that we might not otherwise be having. I think quarterly makes
sense until you continue to, while you continue to own the building. Okay, so right now we're in September,
so let's say in December, we'd have maybe a way to get an update on where we're at with, again, current
facilities review of the
Property and again, we may know more things that by then that may help guide our conversation But just
so it's an intentional conversation rather than an emergency conversation. So anyway, thanks for my
Tolerating my digression. I will others may have others to add to my digression or even just about this
actual resolution I'll turn it over. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that discussion too. I don't have
any questions on this particular resolution though
What am I going to do with it? OK. Well, if there's no further questions, I'll open it for public comment
for a resolution 2661. I'm not seeing anything online or in person. I will ask for a motion for 2661,
please. I'll make a motion to approve 2661 as presented. Thank you. Second. Second. OK, a first and
a second. We'll do a vote by roll call. Yes. Sue Scambaleri, yes. Brandi Cassidy, yes.
Debra Meyers and yes passes unanimously for a resolution 2661. Thank you all. We are now at the end
of our agenda and I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. Thank you.