WEBVTT 00:00:00.290 --> 00:00:06.931 - Well, it is now 5.01. Welcome to the redevelopment commission meeting for the city of Bloomington for 00:00:06.931 --> 00:00:13.506 - Monday, October 5th, 2026. We will start the meeting with a roll call, please. Lauren McRobbie here. 00:00:13.506 --> 00:00:20.342 - Sue Scambaleri here. John West here. Deborah Meyerson here. Staff present, please. Hannah Killian-Hanson 00:00:20.342 --> 00:00:26.983 - here. Christina Finley, hand department. Henry Caswell, hand department. Jeff McKim, city controller. 00:00:26.983 --> 00:00:28.350 - 32, hand department. 00:00:29.666 --> 00:00:37.048 - Thank you. Dana Kerr, legal. Thank you. Anybody online? OK. Can we start with the report? Do we have 00:00:37.048 --> 00:00:44.503 - a director's report today, please? We do not. But how do we answer any questions? A legal report? No, 00:00:44.503 --> 00:00:51.957 - I'm sorry. There is no legal report. OK. Treasurer's report? One was sent out to you. If you have any 00:00:51.957 --> 00:00:58.462 - questions, please let me know. But there's nothing particularly exciting. Yes? Question. 00:00:58.946 --> 00:01:13.344 - And it's very nice, I appreciate it very much. So the next to last category, which is maintenance. First 00:01:13.344 --> 00:01:23.902 - of all, could you just define what that category is? That's resolution 2602. 00:01:27.554 --> 00:01:39.117 - which authorizes up to $5,000 in maintenance repairs without prior authorization. OK, so that's what 00:01:39.117 --> 00:01:51.710 - the $300,000 is. It's one of our annual resolutions. And then $26.45 is what? It should have above the title. 00:01:57.474 --> 00:02:07.219 - I thought, as I recall, that we've done 2645 because we were going to maybe getting close to that $300,000 00:02:07.219 --> 00:02:16.963 - limit, especially with the cost of utilities and showers west. We amended it to increase it, yeah. Because 00:02:16.963 --> 00:02:26.526 - I think we started it with $200,000 or $250,000, and we increased it to three. All right. OK. Thank you. 00:02:29.666 --> 00:02:38.088 - Any other questions for the treasurer? If not, we'll ask for a business development update. Well, there 00:02:38.088 --> 00:02:46.995 - is an update. AMP, the tech entrepreneurship startup event in the trades district will actually be happening. 00:02:46.995 --> 00:02:55.255 - It used to be called Startup Week. It will be happening across the community starting October 28. All 00:02:55.255 --> 00:02:58.494 - events are free and open to the public. 00:02:58.754 --> 00:03:06.030 - The keynote speaker will be the CEO of Sweetwater Music in from Fort Wayne, I guess. So it's a big get. 00:03:06.030 --> 00:03:13.236 - We're all really excited about it. Hope to see you there. The other thing that I will bring James Bell 00:03:13.236 --> 00:03:17.854 - for her is that we just got approved for three opportunity zones. 00:03:18.018 --> 00:03:24.532 - based on her work and application, which is a really big deal, because a lot of other municipalities 00:03:24.532 --> 00:03:31.110 - did not get even one. We had a lot of support. It was a big win. I think the big headline for the RDC 00:03:31.110 --> 00:03:37.882 - is that even though Hopewell was included in the 1.0, and development didn't move fast enough to attract 00:03:37.882 --> 00:03:44.589 - investment, but we still made a really good case, and we were able to keep that in as a 2.0 opportunity 00:03:44.589 --> 00:03:46.782 - zone. So we really hope we'll be. 00:03:47.266 --> 00:03:54.689 - ready to knock that out of the park this round. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you. It's great. Thanks, 00:03:54.689 --> 00:04:02.113 - Emma. And I don't see Kendall here, so I don't know that we have a hopeful update. There is no hopeful 00:04:02.113 --> 00:04:09.608 - update this time. OK. Thank you. OK. Well, we will move to claims, please. Our first item on the agenda 00:04:09.608 --> 00:04:15.806 - is, well, sorry, I'm seeing the agenda order. I'm going to do it in the agenda order. 00:04:15.906 --> 00:04:22.948 - Claims from September 25, the claim register, September 25, 2026. Any questions or comments 00:04:22.948 --> 00:04:30.832 - from commissioners on this claim register? If not, I'll take a motion to adopt. Well, I would just say 00:04:30.832 --> 00:04:38.639 - this is the one that I think Randy had a whole series of questions, which have been, were the answers 00:04:38.639 --> 00:04:45.758 - sent to him in writing? Yeah. OK, great. Which we can share. If there's any way to summarize 00:04:45.890 --> 00:04:52.190 - The nature of his questions and how they were answered, that would be welcome. Yeah. Basically, he wanted 00:04:52.190 --> 00:04:58.430 - to know how much we'd spent on utilities for Showers West and South College. I was going to say, because 00:04:58.430 --> 00:05:04.848 - I have the response on there. So he had a question. It is page 2 of 7, account 5399L. What are the mortgage 00:05:04.848 --> 00:05:10.910 - releases for? What were the balances that were aid or were the mortgage that was forgivable? That was 00:05:10.910 --> 00:05:11.742 - the question. 00:05:12.130 --> 00:05:19.884 - And these were for down payment and closing cost assistance that's been forgiven. There was a five year 00:05:19.884 --> 00:05:27.339 - forgiveness period on those. Page three of seven, fund 2402, he had a question about health net and 00:05:27.339 --> 00:05:34.869 - salaries. That was an ARPA claim, and they still have approximately 141,000 to spend down by the end 00:05:34.869 --> 00:05:35.838 - of the year. 00:05:35.938 --> 00:05:44.455 - Page four of seven, he had a question about 2519, 5900. Vet environmental mold sampling, is this a continuing 00:05:44.455 --> 00:05:52.276 - cost? It is. Just for the 714 building, they're doing intermittent spraying until we get that up and 00:05:52.276 --> 00:06:00.096 - rolling. Page five of seven, what are the total monthly utility bills for College Square and Showers 00:06:00.096 --> 00:06:04.510 - West, and what have we paid for each property this year? 00:06:04.930 --> 00:06:15.081 - Since January, Shower's West total Duke energy bill is $76,957.93. For College Square, it was $30,172.80. 00:06:15.081 --> 00:06:24.754 - Let's see. There was a question about an ES net gas bill. Are they reimbursing us? I do believe that 00:06:24.754 --> 00:06:32.798 - they send us reimbursements through the year. We have to issue an invoice, however. 00:06:33.346 --> 00:06:40.814 - Then there was Fund 2519, Marshal's Security. What is the total? We've paid them this year. We have 00:06:40.814 --> 00:06:48.357 - paid them $83,746.29. So that was his series of questions and concerns. Sorry. Anything further from 00:06:48.357 --> 00:06:56.199 - commissioners, either based on that report or anything that you are inspired by for this claim register? 00:06:56.199 --> 00:07:02.398 - If not, I'll take a motion. Move approval of the claims register for September 25. 00:07:03.618 --> 00:07:09.334 - Second. So first and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any abstentions or opposals? No. 00:07:09.334 --> 00:07:16.118 - Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the payroll registers, two of them, one from September 00:07:16.118 --> 00:07:22.463 - 18th and the other from October 2nd, 2026. Any comments or questions from commissioners on either of 00:07:22.463 --> 00:07:28.933 - these? If not, I'll take a motion. Do you want one for both of the registers or do you mind? I'll take 00:07:28.933 --> 00:07:32.702 - a motion for both unless someone requests to separate them. 00:07:36.226 --> 00:07:44.114 - for the payroll registers for September 18 and October 2. Second. We've got a first and a second. All 00:07:44.114 --> 00:07:52.080 - in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next on the agenda is the minutes from the RDC 00:07:52.080 --> 00:07:59.814 - meeting of September 14, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on the minutes? If not, 00:07:59.814 --> 00:08:05.150 - I will take a motion. Move approval of the minutes for September 14. 00:08:07.618 --> 00:08:13.894 - Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. 00:08:13.894 --> 00:08:20.357 - We'll move on to new business and open for a public hearing. Anything I need to say specifically other 00:08:20.357 --> 00:08:26.758 - than open for a public hearing? No. OK. So this is resolution 2662, which is confirming a declaratory 00:08:26.758 --> 00:08:33.159 - resolution of the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission designating and declaring a certain area as an 00:08:33.159 --> 00:08:36.862 - economic development area known as the Hopewell South EDA. 00:08:37.250 --> 00:08:45.253 - approving an economic development plan for said area, establishing a residential housing program in 00:08:45.253 --> 00:08:53.577 - said area, and regarding related matters. Who would like to speak to that? I'll begin. And then we also 00:08:53.577 --> 00:09:01.820 - have Justin Chang here with us from Reedy Financial, who can help fill in comments as well. We started 00:09:01.820 --> 00:09:07.102 - this process a few months ago in creating a separate TIF district 00:09:07.490 --> 00:09:16.814 - for the Hopewell South neighborhood. And we have gone through the entire process now. It started here 00:09:16.814 --> 00:09:25.956 - with the declaratory resolution. It went to the planning commission. And they looked at it and felt 00:09:25.956 --> 00:09:33.726 - that it matched the plans for the city of Bloomington. It then went to city council. 00:09:33.858 --> 00:09:45.293 - And they also approved it as well. And now it comes back here for a public hearing. And so this is where 00:09:45.293 --> 00:09:56.292 - the public now, should they like to speak on the creation of this TIF, would have the opportunity to 00:09:56.292 --> 00:10:03.806 - do so. Once they have had the opportunity to speak, then it would be 00:10:03.906 --> 00:10:12.970 - to the commissioners to determine if they would like to confirm the declaratory resolution, which is 00:10:12.970 --> 00:10:22.483 - what this resolution does. And upon passing this confirmatory resolution, the Hopewell South TIF district 00:10:22.483 --> 00:10:31.547 - will be created. It is an economic development area and an allocation area one. If you remember back 00:10:31.547 --> 00:10:33.342 - when we did summit, 00:10:33.570 --> 00:10:41.738 - Some of it will end up being five neighborhoods, so we did economic development area for the entire 00:10:41.738 --> 00:10:49.988 - Summit development and then PUD and then only created allocation area for the Shasta Meadows because 00:10:49.988 --> 00:10:58.892 - that's the first neighborhood. Of course, Hopewell South is a smaller neighborhood and just one neighborhood 00:10:58.892 --> 00:11:01.342 - and so it would be the entire 00:11:01.602 --> 00:11:11.519 - area would be an allocation area. It is a residential TIF. And the time period that it would last would 00:11:11.519 --> 00:11:21.246 - be 25 years from the initial obligation. So if you were to bond against that, then the time from when 00:11:21.246 --> 00:11:30.782 - that first bond payment would be due, there would be a 25-year. That would start the 25-year clock. 00:11:31.138 --> 00:11:42.485 - creating this district. The RDC has already committed substantial funds to create the Hopewell South 00:11:42.485 --> 00:11:53.944 - PUD in neighborhood and continuing to support that project. This would be a way to either continue to 00:11:53.944 --> 00:12:01.022 - use these funds within the Hopewell South or to even reimburse 00:12:01.314 --> 00:12:09.065 - for funds that you had put into this project that you could then be reimbursed for and used for other 00:12:09.065 --> 00:12:16.663 - projects. And Justin, there's a chair up here if you would like to come up here and you can correct 00:12:16.663 --> 00:12:23.198 - me in all the things I said wrong or add to that and anything that you would like to. 00:12:25.730 --> 00:12:31.957 - I think, Dana, you covered most of everything. Really, the final step after this is for us to communicate 00:12:31.957 --> 00:12:38.124 - with the auditor's office and make sure they are in the know of the TIF creation. But we sort of already 00:12:38.124 --> 00:12:43.999 - notified them. So once we have the resolutions, we should be good to go. I'd be happy to answer any 00:12:43.999 --> 00:12:49.873 - questions. If you have questions for us, you could do that. And then it is a public hearing, so you 00:12:49.873 --> 00:12:51.870 - would open it for public comment. 00:12:52.482 --> 00:12:59.137 - Shall I invite for commissioner questions or comments and then public? Either way, you wouldn't go with 00:12:59.137 --> 00:13:05.728 - this. OK, well, that's typically how we do it, is we're going to make sure for the purpose of a public 00:13:05.728 --> 00:13:12.447 - hearing. That would be fine, as always. So I will open this for commissioner questions or comments about 00:13:12.447 --> 00:13:19.230 - resolution 2662. Question. Dana, this may be hard to answer, but there's, you referenced, there's various 00:13:19.230 --> 00:13:22.110 - other sections of Hopewell besides this one. 00:13:22.530 --> 00:13:33.100 - Is it the administration's potential plan to create a TIF district in each of those other areas within 00:13:33.100 --> 00:13:43.773 - Hopewell? In my opinion, it's too early to tell because we're not sure what those other areas are going 00:13:43.773 --> 00:13:50.238 - to develop as. In my opinion, it is also likely that they may. 00:13:50.594 --> 00:14:00.342 - because they may require additional infrastructure needs or other things to assist in their development. 00:14:00.342 --> 00:14:09.719 - If they don't, then maybe they will not. It just depends on what the need for the project is that it 00:14:09.719 --> 00:14:18.910 - goes in there, is the driving force on whether there would need to be a special TIF for that area. 00:14:19.202 --> 00:14:28.235 - And I'm going to ask this question not to undo what we've done here. So I'm not headed down in some 00:14:28.235 --> 00:14:37.268 - weird direction. But why wouldn't we have done Hopewell the same way we did Summit and create a tip 00:14:37.268 --> 00:14:46.481 - for the total area and then allocate as we went along? It is because Hopewell South is, we could have 00:14:46.481 --> 00:14:48.830 - done that in that manner. 00:14:49.186 --> 00:14:58.767 - At the time, we were considering just Hopewell South and, again, not knowing the others. It is something 00:14:58.767 --> 00:15:07.982 - that we could have done, but since it was the city's project, we were just going to do that one at a 00:15:07.982 --> 00:15:18.110 - time. You're right. It could have been done in either way. Either way, you have to go through the same process 00:15:18.434 --> 00:15:27.676 - to establish the allocation area. So there's not a large difference for it. Part of the difference in 00:15:27.676 --> 00:15:37.099 - summit is that the other parts of Hopewell are all ready in a TIF. There were parts of summit that were 00:15:37.099 --> 00:15:46.431 - not. There was some open areas that were not within a TIF. So by creating the entire area, you brought 00:15:46.431 --> 00:15:48.062 - all that together 00:15:48.386 --> 00:15:57.717 - The rest of Hopewell that's not part of Hopewell South is in, I believe, the Adams Crossing number two 00:15:57.717 --> 00:16:06.776 - expansion, maybe, TIF. So it's already part of a TIF area anyway. I just want the record to reflect 00:16:06.776 --> 00:16:15.834 - that we now have a full contingency of the commission here. Commissioner Cassidy has joined us just 00:16:15.834 --> 00:16:17.918 - again for the minutes. 00:16:18.050 --> 00:16:29.280 - and for the purposes of this public hearing as well. Any other questions or comments from commissioners 00:16:29.280 --> 00:16:40.403 - on resolution 2662, please? If not, I will open it for public comment, either in person or online. Not 00:16:40.403 --> 00:16:46.558 - seeing any, I will ask for a motion for resolution 2662. 00:16:46.914 --> 00:16:57.977 - Resolution 2662 to create the Hopewell South TIF. Second. First and a second on paper say aye. Aye. 00:16:57.977 --> 00:17:09.262 - Any opposed? And one abstention. So four in support and one abstention on resolution 2662. Thank you. 00:17:09.262 --> 00:17:14.462 - And the public hearing for 2662 is now closed. 00:17:15.810 --> 00:17:22.390 - The next item in our agenda is Resolution 2663, which is confirming the amending of the declaratory 00:17:22.390 --> 00:17:29.298 - resolution of the Consolidated Economic Development Area and the Consolidated Economic Development Plan, 00:17:29.298 --> 00:17:36.010 - removing certain residential parcels and regarding related matters. And this is now open for a public 00:17:36.010 --> 00:17:42.853 - hearing as well. Who would like to speak to that? I will as well. Again, when we brought Hope Plus Off, 00:17:42.853 --> 00:17:44.958 - we brought this to you as well. 00:17:45.090 --> 00:17:55.519 - There are a number of, that was in the declaratory resolution, there were a number of residential properties 00:17:55.519 --> 00:18:05.087 - within the consolidated TIF that had formally been able to be, and I'll use very general terms, and 00:18:05.087 --> 00:18:14.846 - Justin Jane from reading can be more precise, were able to be balanced out with how they were treated 00:18:15.010 --> 00:18:24.161 - and not have a negative impact on the revenues for the consolidated TIF. However, there was a change 00:18:24.161 --> 00:18:33.946 - in the way the program was used according to the DLGF, which then caused the, when the residential property 00:18:33.946 --> 00:18:43.097 - were part of the TIF, that they would end up having a negative impact on the revenues of the TIF. So 00:18:43.097 --> 00:18:44.094 - the way to 00:18:44.354 --> 00:18:52.523 - counter that would be to actually just remove them from the TIF. And so that's what we came here for 00:18:52.523 --> 00:19:00.773 - originally. Again, the process, declaratory resolution, just like you have to do to create a TIF, you 00:19:00.773 --> 00:19:09.427 - need to do to take properties out of the TIF. And so we did a declaratory resolution, went to the Planning 00:19:09.427 --> 00:19:10.398 - Commission, 00:19:10.498 --> 00:19:21.279 - went to council, they both approved, and it's back here for the public hearing. Again, this is for the 00:19:21.279 --> 00:19:31.537 - purposes of countering the negative impact that these residential properties had in TIF revenues. 00:19:31.537 --> 00:19:39.806 - And Justin, if you want to pull up a chair to that corner there and add. Yeah? 00:19:39.938 --> 00:19:46.991 - It's a declaratory resolution before us. It's essentially what Dana mentioned. There was a change in 00:19:46.991 --> 00:19:54.115 - how softwares handle residential parcels in commercial TIF allocation areas, whereas it didn't matter 00:19:54.115 --> 00:20:01.378 - before. And now it's actively hurting the TIF. I believe in 27, we were projected to have an 18 million 00:20:01.378 --> 00:20:08.990 - incremental assessed value decrease due to this, which equates to about $350,000 or so. So by removing this, 00:20:09.346 --> 00:20:15.808 - to this year, we could prevent that from happening and prevent that from happening in future years as 00:20:15.808 --> 00:20:22.207 - well. And like Hope, well, after this, we'll need to bring this to the auditor's attention, let them 00:20:22.207 --> 00:20:28.986 - know of the TIF allocation area changes. This was really because of the software change, correct? Correct. 00:20:28.986 --> 00:20:34.878 - It's a software change with the auditor's office, even though it's not anything the auditors 00:20:35.170 --> 00:20:41.372 - office did. It's just how the software had to handle it based on guidance provided by the DLGF. And 00:20:41.372 --> 00:20:47.636 - it's not unique to Monroe County, other counties? Correct, correct. We're doing, I want to say we're 00:20:47.636 --> 00:20:54.024 - doing five of these before we end the year because it is impacting quite a lot of communities. I think 00:20:54.024 --> 00:21:00.537 - I mentioned before there is a community further up north where their assessed value went from 50 million 00:21:00.537 --> 00:21:04.382 - down to 14. They didn't have a bond so it was okay but I mean 00:21:04.738 --> 00:21:15.924 - they lost 70% of their revenues because of this. So it can be very significant. Thank you for that additional 00:21:15.924 --> 00:21:26.602 - information. Any comments or questions from commissioners on resolution 2663? So to clarify, to clarify, 00:21:26.602 --> 00:21:32.094 - that sounded like Randy. This is impacting the entire 00:21:32.482 --> 00:21:39.859 - consolidated tip. This is what we're trying to offset, not any smaller individual tip. Correct. 00:21:39.859 --> 00:21:47.773 - All right. There's no negative consequences to the taxpayer? To the taxpayer, no. They'll see the same 00:21:47.773 --> 00:21:55.457 - tax bill. OK. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other questions or comments from commissioners, 00:21:55.457 --> 00:22:01.758 - we'll open it for public comment for Resolution 2663, either online or in person. 00:22:02.594 --> 00:22:10.025 - Seeing none, I will ask for a motion, please, for resolution 2663. I'll make a motion to approve 26-63 00:22:10.025 --> 00:22:17.313 - as presented. Second. There are a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes 00:22:17.313 --> 00:22:24.672 - unanimously. Public hearing is now closed. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is resolution 2664, 00:22:24.672 --> 00:22:31.454 - which is the approval of amendment number two to the agreement with Flintlock Limited Company 00:22:31.618 --> 00:22:38.781 - additional services related to the creation of a plan unit development, or PUD, for Hopewell South. 00:22:38.781 --> 00:22:46.087 - Who would like to speak to that? I'll be happy to discuss this. So as you know, as we were navigating 00:22:46.087 --> 00:22:53.680 - the entitlement process for Hopewell South, accessibility was a key concern. And so there were two plans, 00:22:53.680 --> 00:22:58.622 - Gardena and the EGRET, that were designed initially as type B units. 00:22:58.690 --> 00:23:06.447 - However, through discussion, through the process, we agreed that they could be converted into type A, 00:23:06.447 --> 00:23:14.053 - which is a much more stringent requirement and requires some moving of walls and that kind of thing 00:23:14.053 --> 00:23:21.354 - to meet clearance requirements. So this is the amendment to reflect that change in their scope. 00:23:21.354 --> 00:23:27.134 - Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2664? 00:23:28.674 --> 00:23:37.251 - This design change just puts us into the pre-approved plans. So whenever we get to that point of building, 00:23:37.251 --> 00:23:45.668 - this is ready to go. Correct. And this is just an accessibility improvement. And it was only, I believe, 00:23:45.668 --> 00:23:53.764 - a $6,000 increase for that change. So seeing as accessibility was a key component of our entitlement 00:23:53.764 --> 00:23:58.654 - process, we need to make sure that we're doing it correctly. 00:24:03.074 --> 00:24:11.227 - I do greatly appreciate the attention and diligence to add the accessibility component, and I'm glad 00:24:11.227 --> 00:24:19.622 - to be able to support that in this context. I'll open it for public comment for resolution 2664, either 00:24:19.622 --> 00:24:27.774 - online or in person. Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion, please. Move approval of resolution 2664 to 00:24:27.774 --> 00:24:31.326 - amend the agreement with Plintlock. Second. 00:24:32.098 --> 00:24:39.385 - We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. 00:24:39.385 --> 00:24:46.973 - Thank you. Next item on our agenda is resolution 2665, which is the approval of a second addendum to 00:24:46.973 --> 00:24:54.561 - the preliminary design contract for Hopewell South. Who would like to speak to that? OK. The part of 00:24:54.561 --> 00:25:01.022 - the project of Hopewell South that was discussed was that we were going the RDC would 00:25:01.602 --> 00:25:12.564 - try to make the projects as ready for development as possible. That was the purpose of having the house 00:25:12.564 --> 00:25:23.210 - plans ready. What this would do would prepare the plot plan for each of the lots so that it would be 00:25:23.210 --> 00:25:27.742 - ready for the particular building that was 00:25:27.842 --> 00:25:36.570 - to be situated on it. So each plot plan, of course, it would be needed to be created separately. And 00:25:36.570 --> 00:25:44.694 - so this would be the fees for the engineering company. Crossroads has done all the design for 00:25:44.694 --> 00:25:53.854 - the neighborhood. So it makes a lot of sense to let them step in and create these plot plans. And this is 00:25:53.986 --> 00:26:02.734 - Just another one of the barriers that the RDC is is taken care of for the developers so that they can 00:26:02.734 --> 00:26:11.740 - come in and build these these homes and So it's helping them with this step again Crossroads is uniquely 00:26:11.740 --> 00:26:20.488 - qualified to do this because of their experience with the rest of the neighborhood so the engineering 00:26:20.488 --> 00:26:22.718 - department has asked that 00:26:22.882 --> 00:26:34.210 - We request that you approve this resolution to allow Crossroads to do those designs. Thank you. I will 00:26:34.210 --> 00:26:45.759 - open this for questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2665. Go ahead. It's not a comment. 00:26:45.759 --> 00:26:52.798 - You might want to look at whereas number six, there's something 00:26:52.962 --> 00:27:05.163 - dramatically wrong with the sentence. It's the one that says in resolution 2627. It looks like in the 00:27:05.163 --> 00:27:16.766 - should just be removed. It's kind of what I thought. Yes, apologize for that. The with should be 00:27:25.666 --> 00:27:34.076 - Just to verify, when they're done here, the houses will be placed on the lot. They will know their setbacks. 00:27:34.076 --> 00:27:42.177 - They will know exactly what it is. And it will be in a development, ready to go, where once the building 00:27:42.177 --> 00:27:49.507 - permit, they don't have to go through and do additional lot engineering. Or for sewers, water, 00:27:49.507 --> 00:27:52.670 - or any of it. It'll be build-ready lots. 00:27:53.026 --> 00:27:59.528 - And so as you know, when you apply for a building permit, it requires you to take the layout of at least 00:27:59.528 --> 00:28:06.216 - the perimeter of the home, measure the setbacks, all of the stuff that when you're making that application. 00:28:06.216 --> 00:28:12.408 - So this is what is necessary to make application with the building department, which will be a next 00:28:12.408 --> 00:28:19.220 - step after we receive these on the lots so that they'll be ready to be picked up once we issue the offerings. 00:28:19.220 --> 00:28:20.830 - OK. Wonderful. Thank you. 00:28:23.234 --> 00:28:30.767 - There's no other questions or commissioners. I'll open it for public comment, either online or in person, 00:28:30.767 --> 00:28:38.016 - for resolution 2665. Not seeing any, I will ask for a motion, please. I'll make the motion to approve 00:28:38.016 --> 00:28:45.123 - 26-65 as presented. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? 00:28:45.123 --> 00:28:47.326 - Passes unanimously. Thank you. 00:28:48.514 --> 00:28:57.451 - Next item on the agenda is resolution 2666, which is the approval of a scope of work for VET environmental 00:28:57.451 --> 00:29:05.803 - engineering LLC at Showers West. Who would like to speak to that? So essentially in the fire suite, 00:29:05.803 --> 00:29:14.907 - there was a roof leak that caused a moisture penetration issue, which then yielded some suspected biological 00:29:14.907 --> 00:29:17.246 - growth, also known as mold. 00:29:17.346 --> 00:29:25.634 - There was a need for some mold remediation and fog treatment to follow that up. And so since you do 00:29:25.634 --> 00:29:33.922 - currently own the building, unfortunately, this bill was over $5,000 threshold, but only by $85.03. 00:29:33.922 --> 00:29:42.625 - So now it is before you. Thank you for that description with more information. Any questions or comments 00:29:42.625 --> 00:29:46.686 - from commissioners on resolution 2666? Question. 00:29:47.330 --> 00:29:54.727 - When did the leak occur, just out of curiosity? I believe it was last year, but I don't know off the 00:29:54.727 --> 00:30:02.491 - top of my head. Facilities was handling a lot of that coordination, and I know that it has been repaired. 00:30:02.491 --> 00:30:09.888 - So they had, I believe, B&L sheet metal. And they're just getting paid now? Well, that's not for the 00:30:09.888 --> 00:30:15.454 - roof repair. This is for the subsequent mold from the moisture penetration. 00:30:16.322 --> 00:30:26.395 - thought that this service would have been subsequent to the? I think it took a minute to grow. Because 00:30:26.395 --> 00:30:36.371 - the invoice is 9-15-2026. Just to follow up on the question comment, the roof's repaired. It is. It's 00:30:36.371 --> 00:30:40.478 - at least patched. It's not a replacement. 00:30:43.234 --> 00:30:50.447 - If there's no other questions or comments from commissioners, I'll open it for public comment on resolution 00:30:50.447 --> 00:30:57.527 - 2666. Not seeing anything online or in person. I'll ask for a motion, please. Move approval of resolution 00:30:57.527 --> 00:31:04.607 - 2666. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. 00:31:04.607 --> 00:31:05.342 - Thank you. 00:31:06.050 --> 00:31:13.059 - Next item on the agenda is resolution 2667, which is approval of a second amendment to the agreement 00:31:13.059 --> 00:31:20.069 - with Mother Nature Landscaping, Incorporated for Landscaping Services at the Trades District and the 00:31:20.069 --> 00:31:27.147 - Trades District garage. Who would like to speak to that? I will speak to that. And I want to say that 00:31:27.147 --> 00:31:34.226 - this is actually the third amendment. And so I do request that this still be considered tonight, even 00:31:34.226 --> 00:31:35.614 - though I'd like to. 00:31:35.746 --> 00:31:45.472 - make a few changes. I'll let you know exactly what those changes are because of trees and the timing 00:31:45.472 --> 00:31:55.102 - of the year that you can cut things and trim things and such. I've been told getting into that time 00:31:55.102 --> 00:32:05.598 - period. The only change, though, is that this is the third amendment and not the second, and that I would be 00:32:06.114 --> 00:32:15.863 - add a whereas clause after the one that discusses Resolution 2628. It would be, whereas by Resolution 00:32:15.863 --> 00:32:25.420 - 26-60, the RDC approved the Second Amendment to the agreement for stormwater mitigation measures at 00:32:25.420 --> 00:32:35.742 - Hopewell South for a not to exceed amount of $16,890. So that would be the addition. Everything else would. 00:32:35.874 --> 00:32:46.092 - remain the same, that addition of that whereas clause, and to change this to be the third amendment 00:32:46.092 --> 00:32:56.515 - both in the resolution and in the attached agreement. So what the agreement is for to go back is that 00:32:56.515 --> 00:33:01.726 - there is the need to replace six street trees that 00:33:01.922 --> 00:33:12.547 - have died and that the for some the sidewalk openings are there with sidewalk cones that stated do not 00:33:12.547 --> 00:33:22.965 - reflect well on the look of the trades district which has been very important to the RDC and so it's 00:33:22.965 --> 00:33:28.638 - they need to be replaced there is also some irrigation 00:33:28.866 --> 00:33:40.071 - line issues that need to be repaired. There are two areas where there are low-hanging limbs, one where 00:33:40.071 --> 00:33:51.058 - it's obstructing the delivery truck access, another where it overhangs to where it can be considered 00:33:51.058 --> 00:33:58.238 - an issue for pedestrians. And so the city staff had got the quote 00:33:58.530 --> 00:34:14.503 - from Mother Nature Landscaping to replace the trees and to do the tree trimming respectively. And that 00:34:14.503 --> 00:34:26.910 - amounted to the $10,950. And so they would ask your consideration for approval. 00:34:30.658 --> 00:34:40.535 - commissioners on resolution 2667. Six tree trees out of how many about? That seems like a lot to me 00:34:40.535 --> 00:34:50.906 - is where I'm headed. Is there some systemic problem with soil or? That I do not know as this was dropped 00:34:50.906 --> 00:34:54.462 - to me. There are a number of trees. 00:34:54.914 --> 00:35:01.978 - A lot of it had to do with the tree grates. If you remember, there was an issue with the tree grates 00:35:01.978 --> 00:35:08.973 - that you guys recently approved resolution to get that piece figured out in the electrical box. The 00:35:08.973 --> 00:35:17.086 - tree grates are kind of structured in that there are little punch outs based on how large the tree becomes and that 00:35:17.218 --> 00:35:24.431 - adjustment had not been made since they were planted. And so there were some issues related to that, 00:35:24.431 --> 00:35:31.858 - which have now been corrected. But now that they've gone in and done that work, there was an irrigation 00:35:31.858 --> 00:35:38.999 - line that needed some work, and then also these tree replacements to get everything back up to par. 00:35:38.999 --> 00:35:43.998 - Thank you. Can I ask whose responsibility it was to adjust the grate? 00:35:44.354 --> 00:35:50.896 - I mean, I do remember that we discussed this earlier. Well, our landscaper, Mother Nature's, is who 00:35:50.896 --> 00:35:57.503 - adjusted them. But it would have been up to our landscaping contractor or our direction to tell them 00:35:57.503 --> 00:36:04.045 - to do that. To do what they said to do. Yeah. So we might include that as part of the Mother Nature 00:36:04.045 --> 00:36:10.718 - contract or, for example, in the future, so that since they're already attending to stuff, if there's 00:36:10.718 --> 00:36:13.662 - a need to increase the tree rate to at least 00:36:13.794 --> 00:36:22.041 - put in the recommendation that could then be considered by the city. And they've been very good about 00:36:22.041 --> 00:36:30.289 - kind of flagging future issues that are coming up or things that we need to pay attention to. So yes, 00:36:30.289 --> 00:36:38.940 - absolutely. Are we replacing the new trees to be identical to the ones that are being taken out? I believe 00:36:38.940 --> 00:36:40.638 - so. And aren't they? 00:36:41.378 --> 00:36:50.103 - There was a specific type that was listed. Yeah, it's in the exhibit. I just want to, it doesn't say. 00:36:50.103 --> 00:36:59.255 - I believe so. And it has to be an approved tree, I believe, by the UDO. And Jane, who was going to present 00:36:59.255 --> 00:37:07.980 - this, had to take off. But she had our urban forester go out and take a look at all of these and kind 00:37:07.980 --> 00:37:11.230 - of coordinate with Mother Nature. OK. 00:37:11.714 --> 00:37:22.525 - This is not so much direction to this project, but I've seen a number of occasions where the UDO directed 00:37:22.525 --> 00:37:33.132 - us to do tree plantings when they were the inappropriate tree to begin with, outgrew the space, created 00:37:33.132 --> 00:37:39.966 - irrigation problems, took out utilities. I mean, the list goes on. 00:37:40.130 --> 00:37:46.872 - An example where if we had done something different to begin with, that we might have been seeing a 00:37:46.872 --> 00:37:54.018 - different result? I don't think there's any way to say. That would be a good question for urban forester. 00:37:54.018 --> 00:38:00.962 - Well, it's maybe a good learning exercise. And maybe that, you know, an example, maybe this is not the 00:38:00.962 --> 00:38:07.838 - right example, but you'd think that maybe we'd learn from this and change what we plan to begin with. 00:38:09.218 --> 00:38:19.585 - Maybe not as many of them. I'd be happy to. That's my public comment. We'll take that under advisement 00:38:19.585 --> 00:38:29.751 - and see where that can go. I do say, though, that the urban forester did look at these specific tree 00:38:29.751 --> 00:38:38.206 - types in the specific locations and felt that these specific ones were appropriate. 00:38:38.594 --> 00:38:45.413 - Not just that they were on the list, but not only that they were on the list, but they were, he felt 00:38:45.413 --> 00:38:52.299 - that they were appropriate for the location. So hopefully that helps. The basis is, you've got to put 00:38:52.299 --> 00:38:59.051 - them back. So we've got to put them back. The only question is caliper size, calipers and size, and 00:38:59.051 --> 00:39:05.802 - does it match the existing trees that are there that has already been planted in the district so we 00:39:05.802 --> 00:39:08.030 - have continuity and consistency? 00:39:08.930 --> 00:39:17.033 - That's a question for the urban protester. It's not going to get resolved now. We need to put them back. 00:39:17.033 --> 00:39:24.827 - Time frame on this. I assume from your previous comment, the Indiana bats coming into this. Contract 00:39:24.827 --> 00:39:32.544 - was for this year. OK. Yeah, that works. OK. One other just request. I appreciate the verbal edits. 00:39:32.544 --> 00:39:37.406 - I would always appreciate if it's too late to go in the packet 00:39:37.506 --> 00:39:45.033 - if we could get just a paper copy of edits. I mean, it's just the word second to third. That's one thing. 00:39:45.033 --> 00:39:52.346 - But there's a whole whereas in there that. I do apologize for that. I honestly found out about an hour 00:39:52.346 --> 00:39:59.447 - before the meeting. And I was in another meeting when I found out. That's fine. But just if there's 00:39:59.447 --> 00:40:06.334 - a way to just say, print this page out to the commissioners, it would just be much better. I do. 00:40:06.626 --> 00:40:14.026 - know that that has been mentioned before, and I do apologize that this is not coming sooner to you. 00:40:14.026 --> 00:40:21.425 - Is there something we can wait till the next meeting? They're chomping at the bit to get going. I'm 00:40:21.425 --> 00:40:28.825 - not sure it needs to wait till the next meeting. Just ask. Yeah. OK. OK. If there's nothing further 00:40:28.825 --> 00:40:36.446 - from commissioners, I'll open this for public comment for resolution 2667, either online or in person. 00:40:36.578 --> 00:40:44.542 - Seeing none, I will ask for a motion, please. Move approval of resolution 2667. Second. Got a first 00:40:44.542 --> 00:40:52.507 - and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next up on the 00:40:52.507 --> 00:41:00.471 - agenda is resolution 2668, which is approval of issuance of request for proposals for architectural 00:41:00.471 --> 00:41:02.462 - and engineering services 00:41:02.562 --> 00:41:13.927 - for the reuse of the 714 South Roger Street property and building as the new Bloomington Police Department 00:41:13.927 --> 00:41:24.867 - headquarters and associated public safety facilities and uses. Who would like to speak to that? I will 00:41:24.867 --> 00:41:31.134 - start with this. The next step in the project, the RDC has 00:41:31.810 --> 00:41:43.535 - agreed to move forward with the 714 building as the Bloomington Police Headquarters and associated uses. 00:41:43.535 --> 00:41:54.814 - And the next step, we are still in the works of looking at the owner's representative's information. 00:41:54.814 --> 00:42:00.286 - And so there's nothing more on that for tonight. 00:42:00.578 --> 00:42:12.809 - But to keep things moving, this is RFP for the architect to provide architectural services and engineering 00:42:12.809 --> 00:42:24.697 - services. If you look over the RFP, you'll see that it is a phased approach. And it's a phased approach 00:42:24.697 --> 00:42:27.326 - in a manner so that if 00:42:28.866 --> 00:42:39.321 - You know, the intention is, of course, to adaptively reuse this building. And so that is the focus of 00:42:39.321 --> 00:42:49.673 - the RFP. And so there are certain steps that need to be taken to ensure how that would be done, what 00:42:49.673 --> 00:42:57.566 - it would look like. And there are options within that that may be available. 00:42:57.698 --> 00:43:08.366 - So we tried to keep it as broad to get the architectural engineering firms to be creative. Yet, again, 00:43:08.366 --> 00:43:18.931 - try to keep them focused on as much, reusing as much of the building as possible as well. And also by 00:43:18.931 --> 00:43:26.078 - doing a staged approach, a phased approach, if a phase is completed, 00:43:26.242 --> 00:43:35.255 - and there needs to be some sort of a pivot, a move, and direction, then you haven't gone too far and 00:43:35.255 --> 00:43:44.358 - you're being budget conscious and mindful and able to make those changes as they become necessary, if 00:43:44.358 --> 00:43:54.174 - they become necessary. Hopefully it's linear and not having to make any pivots, but this way this proposal is 00:43:54.466 --> 00:44:04.937 - request for proposal is written gives you that flexibility and keeps timing keeps things moving yet 00:44:04.937 --> 00:44:15.513 - also is budget minded to make sure that you don't go too far in any one direction before finding out 00:44:15.513 --> 00:44:23.262 - that there may need to be some sort of a change. There was a comment that 00:44:23.746 --> 00:44:34.702 - the notifying the firms of a selection the week of November 23rd, that would be, well, it'd basically 00:44:34.702 --> 00:44:45.444 - be impossible if there were interviews being done the week of the 16th. There is a meeting November 00:44:45.444 --> 00:44:52.318 - 16th if the proposals came in on November 6th and they could be 00:44:52.450 --> 00:45:02.638 - It's possible they could be considered during the meeting on November 16, depending on what was received 00:45:02.638 --> 00:45:12.437 - and what more needed to be done after that and a contract agreed to on the 7th. Or it may be that an 00:45:12.437 --> 00:45:22.334 - alternative would be if the 16th doesn't work, that the 7th could be a time to consider them as well. 00:45:22.658 --> 00:45:32.765 - thought was that if the, you know, to maybe not have the firm, of course, not have the firms notified 00:45:32.765 --> 00:45:42.972 - that week of the 23rd, of course, the schedule is always subject to change anyway if things don't work 00:45:42.972 --> 00:45:52.286 - accordingly. But if there's no way for the RDC to make a commitment by November 16th meeting, 00:45:52.514 --> 00:46:03.714 - that, again, that could be delayed selection to the December 7. And since there's only one meeting in 00:46:03.714 --> 00:46:15.134 - December, it could be that a draft AIA contract could be approved with final form being where you could 00:46:15.134 --> 00:46:20.734 - give the authorization to the Corporation Council. 00:46:20.866 --> 00:46:30.338 - to approve the final form of that contract. The contract can contain all of the items that we wouldn't 00:46:30.338 --> 00:46:40.178 - want to be in that contract so that you would have those terms, yet it would allow the Corporation Council 00:46:40.178 --> 00:46:48.638 - to approve the final form. And it would also, in a resolution on the 7th, you could approve 00:46:49.378 --> 00:47:00.311 - the president of the RDC to execute that document upon completion of the final form. And then that way, 00:47:00.311 --> 00:47:10.088 - again, there would not be a need to bring it back. AIA contracts are by nature, by what they 00:47:10.088 --> 00:47:16.606 - are, standardized forms. Yet they do often need to be tweaked 00:47:16.898 --> 00:47:29.838 - for the benefit of us as the client. So we could make changes to this, or again, as these are always 00:47:29.838 --> 00:47:42.906 - subject to change anyway in the timelines, we could leave it as it is or just simply strike that line 00:47:42.906 --> 00:47:46.750 - regarding notice of selection 00:47:46.850 --> 00:47:56.292 - leave everything else the same or call the instead of track execution the last December 7, it could 00:47:56.292 --> 00:48:05.734 - be architect selection. That was brought up, so. Thank you for presentation and walking through the 00:48:05.734 --> 00:48:15.742 - different timelines for consideration. I'm opening this up for questions and comments from commissioners. 00:48:16.194 --> 00:48:25.483 - of any part of the resolution 2668, but particular attention to the timeline as discussed so far. I'll 00:48:25.483 --> 00:48:34.592 - go forward. He was polite not to mention my name, but I'm the one that asked about it. I thought the 00:48:34.592 --> 00:48:43.070 - overall RFP was pretty well done, and really I had no objections to the body of the document. 00:48:44.194 --> 00:48:54.001 - But I do object to the timeline. And with all of the potential variations, I don't want to set anticipation 00:48:54.001 --> 00:49:03.626 - for something that we're just not going to get done. And I don't see us getting this review and selection 00:49:03.626 --> 00:49:13.342 - done the way it's stated. So I'm going to recommend that we just go through the proposal to do November 6, 00:49:14.338 --> 00:49:23.115 - And then firms will be notified as soon as possible thereafter and don't give any specific dates and 00:49:23.115 --> 00:49:32.674 - give us the freedom to collaborate as we need, because this really doesn't give us any chance to collaborate, 00:49:32.674 --> 00:49:42.233 - particularly if we do interviews and presentations. Thank you. Other comments or questions from commissioners 00:49:42.233 --> 00:49:43.710 - on the different 00:49:44.066 --> 00:49:50.599 - paths on this timeline as presented so far. I just have to agree with John. Given Thanksgiving and the 00:49:50.599 --> 00:49:57.449 - time frames, the reality of getting it done on a human basis is extremely difficult in regards to anything. 00:49:57.449 --> 00:50:03.919 - We know when they're due. We'll take them under advisement as we do everything and then get back with 00:50:03.919 --> 00:50:05.758 - them at our soonest possible 00:50:06.402 --> 00:50:13.172 - time, and if necessary, in order to meet the time frame to continue the project, we can always call 00:50:13.172 --> 00:50:19.943 - for an executive, or not executive, but we can call for an additional meeting if necessary in order 00:50:19.943 --> 00:50:26.713 - to meet our time frames. So I concur with you. I would support that as well. So what I'm hearing as 00:50:26.713 --> 00:50:33.551 - proposed, I'm just going to recommend for the purpose of taking a motion on this, that the proposals 00:50:33.551 --> 00:50:35.582 - will be due November 6, 2026. 00:50:36.066 --> 00:50:44.097 - interviews and presentations. The other deadlines that are after that, this is on page 54 of the packet, 00:50:44.097 --> 00:50:51.898 - are going to be left open-ended to be determined by the RDC in collaboration with staff just to allow 00:50:51.898 --> 00:50:58.782 - sufficient time to get through the process in an appropriate way. OK. Can I just comment? 00:50:59.330 --> 00:51:06.165 - relax the bond timeline for precisely this purpose. We worked with bond counsel and with Reedy. And 00:51:06.165 --> 00:51:13.410 - we didn't want the bond timeline to drive the process. We want to make sure that everybody is comfortable 00:51:13.410 --> 00:51:20.449 - with having your subject matter experts in place. So. Thank you for that clarification. If there's any 00:51:20.449 --> 00:51:27.694 - other questions or comments from commissioners, if not, I'll open it for public comment, either in person 00:51:27.694 --> 00:51:28.446 - or online. 00:51:28.994 --> 00:51:37.224 - Not seeing any, I will ask for a motion for resolution 2668. I'll move approval of resolution 2668 as 00:51:37.224 --> 00:51:45.616 - amended regarding the timeline. I'll second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. 00:51:45.616 --> 00:51:53.685 - Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is resolution 2669, approval of 00:51:53.685 --> 00:51:58.526 - professional services agreement with Reedy Financial Group. 00:51:58.818 --> 00:52:12.713 - Who would like to speak to that? OK. I can do that as well. Back in resolution 2611, there was an approval 00:52:12.713 --> 00:52:25.828 - of an agreement for financial services with Reedy. And the contract that was signed at that sign was 00:52:25.828 --> 00:52:27.646 - for municipal 00:52:27.778 --> 00:52:40.013 - advisory services related to bonding. There was a contract that was in place at that time already from 00:52:40.013 --> 00:52:52.367 - 2024. So what work has been done since that time was still under contract, yet Reedy and the city still 00:52:52.367 --> 00:52:57.118 - wanted to enter into a new contract for 00:52:57.250 --> 00:53:08.475 - the reporting services and for additional project services, special services as needed. And so what 00:53:08.475 --> 00:53:20.149 - this resolution does is ratifies the fact that, yes, the agreement that was signed back with resolution 00:53:20.149 --> 00:53:24.190 - 2611 is ratified that you do indeed 00:53:24.290 --> 00:53:33.877 - Under those terms weren't ready to assist us with our bonding financial advising and in addition to 00:53:33.877 --> 00:53:43.943 - that that for annual not to exceed fee of $85,000 they would help with our required reporting that needs 00:53:43.943 --> 00:53:50.654 - to be done which actually will next month we'll have some of that and 00:53:50.882 --> 00:54:00.931 - And then for special projects as they arise, an additional not to exceed amount of $80,000. Again, we 00:54:00.931 --> 00:54:10.882 - have Justin Chang from Reedy Financial here with us that can answer any questions that you may have. 00:54:10.882 --> 00:54:20.734 - And we have found that Reedy Financial, Justin Chang and his colleagues have been extremely helpful 00:54:21.026 --> 00:54:33.585 - throughout the, well, for me, since I've been here, in providing financial services to me and my staff 00:54:33.585 --> 00:54:46.022 - and the controller. I'll let the controller speak to his relations as well. And so we, from me and my 00:54:46.022 --> 00:54:50.046 - staff, we would request approval 00:54:50.178 --> 00:54:59.028 - of this resolution, do you have anything to add? Only that we also continue to work with Reedy and Justin 00:54:59.028 --> 00:55:07.711 - and his team on the civil city side as well, and we'll continue to do so, both on the municipal advisor 00:55:07.711 --> 00:55:11.134 - and the general financial services side. 00:55:12.354 --> 00:55:21.537 - I'll personally just say that I have really enjoyed working with 3D. They've been awesome. Justin will 00:55:21.537 --> 00:55:30.542 - take my calls on a whim. Just want to clarify a couple things that Dana mentioned. So there's really 00:55:30.542 --> 00:55:39.726 - two contracts, but three parts. The first is the general municipal advisory. Fancy way of saying that. 00:55:39.726 --> 00:55:41.598 - So we're looking at, 00:55:41.986 --> 00:55:48.148 - any financing projects where we need to borrow money from the RDC. That's what that contract is for. 00:55:48.148 --> 00:55:54.797 - We need to have a specific one for that due to SEC regulations. It's not us trying to make it more confusing 00:55:54.797 --> 00:56:00.898 - for you all. The second part is the RDC services. And the two parts of the RDC services, one is the 00:56:00.898 --> 00:56:07.121 - $85,000, which you all thought you had agreed to in February, which is for financial planning and TIF 00:56:07.121 --> 00:56:10.110 - reporting services, including the spending plan, 00:56:10.466 --> 00:56:16.938 - presentation passed through a neutralization as well as a quarterly financial plan that's 85,000 not 00:56:16.938 --> 00:56:23.346 - to exceed and we will likely be hitting that we're close to that every single year. The second part 00:56:23.346 --> 00:56:29.753 - is the special projects for RDC services that's 80,000 not to exceed. We do not anticipate being at 00:56:29.753 --> 00:56:33.534 - 80,000 or remotely close to that each year. This year it's 00:56:33.890 --> 00:56:41.865 - special, I mean, we have Shasta Meadows, we have Hopewell, we have the Residentials, we have SEA-1 analysis, 00:56:41.865 --> 00:56:49.255 - those all go under the RDC special projects. But even then, I believe we're at maybe $40,000 through 00:56:49.255 --> 00:56:56.719 - this year, and this is a big year. So the $80,000 really is just a cap, but we're not anticipating us 00:56:56.719 --> 00:57:01.694 - hitting that cap this year, and definitely not in the future years. 00:57:05.314 --> 00:57:14.395 - Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2669? Yeah, let me just, again, just to clarify 00:57:14.395 --> 00:57:23.306 - here. So $85,000, we've already, that's a contract we've already signed, and that's the regular business 00:57:23.306 --> 00:57:31.792 - that we do that we involve reading financial incorrect. Technically not already signed, but we will 00:57:31.792 --> 00:57:33.150 - treat it as is. 00:57:33.250 --> 00:57:40.583 - because the contract that was previously signed was actually the general MA contract, not the 85,000 00:57:40.583 --> 00:57:48.352 - RDC services, which this is a confusion that we've had many calls about already. But we will retroactively 00:57:48.352 --> 00:57:55.758 - go back to earlier this year and essentially prorate the rest of 26 as if that contract was signed in 00:57:55.758 --> 00:58:01.566 - the beginning of the year. So 85,000, I believe that equates to $7,100 monthly. 00:58:01.666 --> 00:58:08.344 - If we prorate the rest of the year, we're looking at $6,000 a month based on what we've built so far. 00:58:08.344 --> 00:58:14.956 - So instead of building $71,000 a month, we will just build $6,000 a month not to exceed that amount. 00:58:14.956 --> 00:58:21.961 - I hope that answers the question. Again, this was something that we- It's confusing because of the whereas 00:58:21.961 --> 00:58:29.032 - doesn't really say that. Or maybe it does and I just don't get it. The contract mentions that. The contract 00:58:29.032 --> 00:58:31.454 - does. The resolution that was passed 00:58:32.002 --> 00:58:42.450 - approve that, yet the contract that was attached to the resolution that was passed was the municipal 00:58:42.450 --> 00:58:52.795 - advisor contract and not the $85,000 contract. So you are ratifying the contract that was signed to 00:58:52.795 --> 00:58:58.174 - keep Reedy Financial as your municipal advisor, yet 00:58:58.818 --> 00:59:06.764 - agreeing to the actual $85,000 contract that is attached to this resolution. Essentially, there was 00:59:06.764 --> 00:59:15.107 - a mismatch between resolution and contract. Contract A and resolution A became contract B and resolution 00:59:15.107 --> 00:59:23.212 - A, and the other one was not signed, and no resolution for that. So that's essentially what happened. 00:59:23.212 --> 00:59:25.278 - Is this a clerical error? 00:59:26.466 --> 00:59:38.804 - It was a confusion with there being two extremely similar contracts at the same time. And that was the 00:59:38.804 --> 00:59:50.783 - confusion. Do we need to do any retroactive amendments to 2611 since it was approved with the wrong 00:59:50.783 --> 00:59:55.934 - contract? No. That's why the ratification. 00:59:56.130 --> 01:00:05.124 - You're ratifying the approval of the previous contract. And so that covers the previous contract being, 01:00:05.124 --> 01:00:13.773 - if there was any question of its validity, that solidifies it. And now you have a new contract, new 01:00:13.773 --> 01:00:22.681 - resolution going forward for the work that's not related to the municipal advisor. So you're ratifying 01:00:22.681 --> 01:00:24.670 - the municipal advisor. 01:00:25.090 --> 01:00:34.948 - that's already in place and just ratifying it in case there was ever any question, yet you're signing 01:00:34.948 --> 01:00:44.902 - that contract that would otherwise have been attached to 2611 back then. And the $80,000 is additional 01:00:44.902 --> 01:00:48.478 - for special needs, special projects. 01:00:49.154 --> 01:00:56.145 - Correct. So that TIF creations would be an example. Hopewell, Shasta Meadows, and the residential remodels 01:00:56.145 --> 01:01:03.136 - that we're doing. Those are examples of those. And that's what you said would not likely reach the $80,000 01:01:03.136 --> 01:01:09.670 - cap. Yes. Again, this year we had four pretty large projects. And we're still only at around 40. So 01:01:09.670 --> 01:01:16.661 - it's not every year we expect to have this many special projects. So it's very unlikely to get to $80,000. 01:01:16.661 --> 01:01:18.686 - So we're ratifying a contract. 01:01:19.106 --> 01:01:30.353 - that's got an expiration date, no doubt. What is that expiration date? The municipal advisor contract 01:01:30.353 --> 01:01:41.379 - is an annual contract that I believe does not have an expiration date. It is perpetual until either 01:01:41.379 --> 01:01:48.766 - you cancel it and if at some time the amounts will be renegotiated 01:01:49.058 --> 01:01:57.825 - then there would be an amendment at that time. So is the $80,000, that's per year? That's not perpetual? 01:01:57.825 --> 01:02:06.591 - The first RDC special project? Yeah, the cap is on a 12-month basis, yes. So January to December, that's 01:02:06.591 --> 01:02:15.358 - the cap that we can get to $80,000. And this is also perpetual? Could you have made this more difficult? 01:02:19.202 --> 01:02:26.733 - I imagine that it's not a contract that would end at the end of the calendar year, since it's based 01:02:26.733 --> 01:02:34.717 - on an annual sum, and that we just renew it. Just trying to understand. I understand trying to streamline 01:02:34.717 --> 01:02:42.625 - things, but it still seems a little unconventional. I'm just asking about most contracts that we approve 01:02:42.625 --> 01:02:47.294 - have a deadline of when they sunset. And it's unusual to have 01:02:47.394 --> 01:02:56.028 - a continuously renewing contract. And so I'm asking, is there a reason for that structure as compared 01:02:56.028 --> 01:03:04.578 - to our more conventional structure? Most of our RDC services contract are like such. They don't have 01:03:04.578 --> 01:03:13.804 - an end date, but that's something we can add. Our regular contracts don't have an end date for RDC services. 01:03:13.804 --> 01:03:15.582 - So we don't have to. 01:03:15.810 --> 01:03:23.132 - We don't have to approve renewing a contract. Correct. There's no automatic process for us to do that. 01:03:23.132 --> 01:03:30.241 - This just continues. Continues until canceled by I-40. Until the cap is hit in any particular year, 01:03:30.241 --> 01:03:37.421 - but not from year to year. Yes, correct. And that would be a clause. Yeah. I'll ask staff if there's 01:03:37.421 --> 01:03:41.758 - any reason to consider otherwise. I understand that's really 01:03:41.986 --> 01:03:49.718 - you know, kind of usual mode of business. It's just not our usual mode of business. So I'm just asking 01:03:49.718 --> 01:03:57.450 - if there's any reasons or pros and cons to consider either option. Yeah. One of the reasons is because 01:03:57.450 --> 01:04:05.106 - a lot of the, like for instance, the bonding at 740 building, that's carrying over into next year. So 01:04:05.106 --> 01:04:09.310 - many of these things are overlapping from year to year. 01:04:09.442 --> 01:04:18.516 - And so many of these projects that these bonds are going for last for multiple years. And so having 01:04:18.516 --> 01:04:27.680 - the same financial advisor through them is very helpful. It is something that I'd have to look back, 01:04:27.680 --> 01:04:36.935 - because I can't remember off the top of my head, that you can terminate if you so choose. You have to 01:04:36.935 --> 01:04:38.750 - be able to do that. 01:04:38.850 --> 01:04:50.929 - So you're allowed to terminate if you so choose. But by having it perpetual, it creates stability in 01:04:50.929 --> 01:05:03.009 - that relationship. It creates, again, these are long-term projects. These are long-term bonds. These 01:05:03.009 --> 01:05:08.510 - last a long time. And so to renew every year, 01:05:08.898 --> 01:05:19.471 - would, for one, for the consultant, place uncertainty into it. For us, would possibly put us in a bad 01:05:19.471 --> 01:05:29.836 - position if we even changed to try to get a new advisor up to speed. We benefit from locking in the 01:05:29.836 --> 01:05:33.982 - financial advisor as well. That's good. 01:05:34.242 --> 01:05:40.936 - I think of it as succession planning, too, because what happens is one of us isn't here. There's somebody 01:05:40.936 --> 01:05:47.504 - in my position that isn't as familiar with what's going on. And we don't want something to fall through 01:05:47.504 --> 01:05:53.946 - the cracks. So they've been very good about letting us know what to keep an eye on when our reporting 01:05:53.946 --> 01:06:00.514 - is due. And so I would err on the side of caution. If we find that we're ready to move on, then there's 01:06:00.514 --> 01:06:03.166 - an option to cancel the contract and move 01:06:03.362 --> 01:06:09.987 - move on, so. It's completely up to us to cancel it at any particular time based on the conditions of 01:06:09.987 --> 01:06:17.137 - the contract. And essentially, in order to continue Reedie's special projects and the other, we're approving 01:06:17.137 --> 01:06:23.827 - a not to exceed, two not to exceed contracts, 185, 180. So the total amount's 165,000 until such time 01:06:23.827 --> 01:06:30.387 - as we say we're done with Reedie. Seal. Seal, yeah. Seal. Yeah. Is it reasonable to, and this would 01:06:30.387 --> 01:06:32.158 - just be a, I guess it was, 01:06:32.322 --> 01:06:38.687 - procedural thing that wouldn't require resolution, but to say that we'd like to have a review every 01:06:38.687 --> 01:06:45.370 - five years, every three years, just a moment when we step back and just make sure everything's on track, 01:06:45.370 --> 01:06:51.736 - that there are other circumstances such that, you know, it might make sense for us to think about a 01:06:51.736 --> 01:06:58.483 - different, I mean, this is, take everything, everything everyone has said about the services you provide, 01:06:58.483 --> 01:07:02.238 - and certainly your presentations here have been excellent. 01:07:02.370 --> 01:07:09.641 - But it just seems prudent that we would have something built in to say, you know, we're going to check 01:07:09.641 --> 01:07:16.912 - in. And that that's a kind of requirement in our process to do that. Yearly review or something. Well, 01:07:16.912 --> 01:07:24.182 - I don't think it needs to be yearly. It could be every three years or something. But I don't know. Are 01:07:24.182 --> 01:07:31.806 - you thinking of we would just bid out those services just to collect quotes to try and make sure that we're 01:07:32.866 --> 01:07:41.545 - receiving similar or are we, is it just a review of the current service to review? Check in, make sure 01:07:41.545 --> 01:07:49.971 - everything is proceeding, you know, Justin is succeeded by somebody else in the religion, you know, 01:07:49.971 --> 01:07:58.734 - yeah, a number of things. So it's not just being defective. That was part of HAA told them, but it was, 01:07:58.734 --> 01:07:59.998 - it became the, 01:08:00.258 --> 01:08:08.407 - have to upload it to Gateway and the website. I'm just saying that the General Assembly may require 01:08:08.407 --> 01:08:16.718 - us to re-propose MA agreements. That decision may be made for us at some point in the future. And I'm 01:08:16.718 --> 01:08:25.030 - not proposing re-bidding. I'm proposing simply a checkpoint. Well, you have periods of the year where 01:08:25.030 --> 01:08:27.230 - you will have to hear from 01:08:27.586 --> 01:08:35.003 - Justin, for instance, I think we're anticipating on November 2, you'll get your annual TIF impact report. 01:08:35.003 --> 01:08:42.069 - So maybe it's every year when you have your annual TIF impact report you guys are considering. There 01:08:42.069 --> 01:08:49.346 - might just be a reminder that this service is brought to you by, and this is how the agreement has been 01:08:49.346 --> 01:08:53.054 - established, and that it's just a way of daylighting 01:08:53.282 --> 01:08:59.056 - the status of the agreement, which is not typical for RDC. So that if there's, again, so especially 01:08:59.056 --> 01:09:05.177 - as new RDC members come on, they just understand this is how it works. And if there's a desire to discuss 01:09:05.177 --> 01:09:11.239 - further, people at least know what the status is. I will say we do also change language in our contracts 01:09:11.239 --> 01:09:17.129 - every three to five years as well. So if anything comes up, like such an AI was added to the language 01:09:17.129 --> 01:09:20.478 - this year. So there are normally changes every few years. 01:09:20.674 --> 01:09:27.416 - Naturally, that's going to happen. So the prompt conversation anyway. Yes. Well, I just might say there's 01:09:27.416 --> 01:09:34.412 - two different elements. One is like an annual part of the annual report and notification. And then certainly, 01:09:34.412 --> 01:09:40.772 - if there's changes to the contract agreement, that would presumably come before us as a resolution. 01:09:40.772 --> 01:09:46.750 - So we would see it in that, under that realm. So anyway, I appreciate Laura bringing that up. 01:09:47.394 --> 01:09:56.743 - OK, you're in the hot seat on November 2nd. OK, any other questions or comments from commissioners on 01:09:56.743 --> 01:10:06.093 - this resolution? Any public comment on resolution 2669? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion. I'll make 01:10:06.093 --> 01:10:15.259 - a motion to approve 2669 as presented and discussed. Second. Got a first and a second. All in favor 01:10:15.259 --> 01:10:16.542 - say aye. Aye. 01:10:16.770 --> 01:10:25.375 - Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We now have on our agenda several resolutions in two parts that I'm 01:10:25.375 --> 01:10:33.980 - going to propose to the RDC that we consider two different groupings. The first is the CDBG physical 01:10:33.980 --> 01:10:42.585 - improvement grants, which is resolutions 2670 through 2674. And then separately, the social services 01:10:42.585 --> 01:10:46.078 - CDBG grants, which is 2675 through 2679. 01:10:46.338 --> 01:10:55.267 - I will ask for a comment or a presentation on that. Would that in mind if after hearing the presentation, 01:10:55.267 --> 01:11:04.702 - if commissioners wish to separate those out, please advise before we get a motion. So I'll turn it over to you. 01:11:05.250 --> 01:11:12.517 - CDBG physical improvements program manager with us tonight I do just want to remind you that you guys 01:11:12.517 --> 01:11:19.712 - have already seen all of these projects you've already approved all of these projects last year when 01:11:19.712 --> 01:11:26.836 - we were talking about allocations and This is just the point of the year when the actual agreements 01:11:26.836 --> 01:11:34.174 - come back around and the funding is actually in our hands So I'm back with CDBG again So you guys have 01:11:34.690 --> 01:11:43.048 - Five different agreements before you. I'll just run through them real quick. Probably not in the same 01:11:43.048 --> 01:11:51.325 - order that they're on there. So Boys and Girls Club, their project is some gym improvements and some 01:11:51.325 --> 01:12:00.011 - security access points being added. Also, there are some exterior improvements around the property that's 01:12:00.011 --> 01:12:04.190 - being done as well. That agreement is for 169,000. 01:12:04.962 --> 01:12:14.241 - Life Designs, they have a group home at 1701 East Winslow Road. That is getting new flooring, and that 01:12:14.241 --> 01:12:23.520 - agreement is for $19,420. Middleway House at 338 South Washington Street, they are going to be getting 01:12:23.520 --> 01:12:30.366 - a new fire panel and other fire detection components that go along with it. 01:12:31.138 --> 01:12:42.243 - And that agreement is for $11,334. New Hope for Families, they are doing some improvements in the basement 01:12:42.243 --> 01:12:53.140 - of the family shelter. That is going to give them more area to conduct services. And they are also doing 01:12:53.140 --> 01:13:00.094 - some HVAC improvements in the family shelter as well. Summit Hill. 01:13:00.226 --> 01:13:09.677 - Community Development Corporation. I'm sorry? Oh, I'm sorry. 60,000. Summit Hill Community Development 01:13:09.677 --> 01:13:19.678 - Corporation, BHA, they are going to be redoing the Reverend Butler playground and the surrounding courtyard. 01:13:19.678 --> 01:13:28.670 - There's quite a bit of work that needs done in that courtyard to make it presentable and safe and 01:13:29.026 --> 01:13:37.887 - the play equipment needs updated. I do believe that that playground was originally put in with CDBG 01:13:37.887 --> 01:13:46.748 - several, several years ago. And we were happy to put it, redo it again for them, for the community. 01:13:46.748 --> 01:13:55.166 - And that agreement is for $200,000. Okay. Thank you for that summary of these approved grants. 01:13:55.842 --> 01:14:02.911 - Any questions or comments from commissioners? Again, this is specifically for the CDBG 2026 physical 01:14:02.911 --> 01:14:10.191 - improvement grant agreements. As noted, these have already been seen and presented to the RDC, but this 01:14:10.191 --> 01:14:17.330 - is the final stage of that approval. I will ask for questions or comments on any of these grants. Now 01:14:17.330 --> 01:14:23.070 - that the money has been allocated, are these projects in part already in process? 01:14:23.618 --> 01:14:30.364 - forward? They're not in process yet. None of them were able to start before the funding was available. 01:14:30.364 --> 01:14:37.176 - But they are all ready to move forward. Environmentals are all done. They're just waiting on agreements 01:14:37.176 --> 01:14:44.053 - to sign. So once the agreements get done, then we'll start hitting the timelines to be able to see these 01:14:44.053 --> 01:14:47.262 - projects in place in the near future. Thank you. 01:14:49.314 --> 01:14:57.978 - Any other questions or comments from commissioners on the physical improvement grants for CDBG? I will 01:14:57.978 --> 01:15:06.726 - open it for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, I will ask for a motion that would 01:15:06.726 --> 01:15:15.222 - include resolutions 26-70 through 26-75 for the physical improvement grants. 26-74? Oh, I apologize. 01:15:15.222 --> 01:15:18.334 - I saw. I move approval of resolution 01:15:19.298 --> 01:15:27.828 - 26, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74. Second. Got a first and a second for these resolutions as presented. All 01:15:27.828 --> 01:15:36.527 - in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. So next on our 01:15:36.527 --> 01:15:45.056 - agenda is the other half of our CDBG grant agreements, which are social services grants. And we have 01:15:45.056 --> 01:15:48.350 - Cody Teeth in here to talk about both. 01:15:49.058 --> 01:15:58.090 - Good evening. I have five agreements for you guys, and I'll go just in order of their funding amount 01:15:58.090 --> 01:16:07.479 - that I have here. The first being Community Kitchen with their free meals program at $24,938.09. Hoosier 01:16:07.479 --> 01:16:13.470 - Hills Food Bank for their food distribution program at $19,949.70. 01:16:14.434 --> 01:16:24.720 - Then Boys and Girls Club, the Ferguson Cresmont Child Care and Education Programs at $17,954.34. Then 01:16:24.720 --> 01:16:35.510 - New Hope for Families, Early Learning Scholarship Fund, or at least at their shelter, their family shelter 01:16:35.510 --> 01:16:43.678 - at $17,954.34. And then Middleway House with the New Wing Shelter at $15,262.93. 01:16:44.674 --> 01:16:53.610 - These contracts cover a lot of things that we see in our consolidated plan as a need, so anything from 01:16:53.610 --> 01:17:03.154 - meal services to child care as well as shelter stays. Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners 01:17:03.154 --> 01:17:12.958 - on the CDBG social services grants for the resolutions as presented? I will open it for public comment on these. 01:17:13.250 --> 01:17:22.755 - resolutions for CDBG social services grants. Seeing nothing in person or online, I will ask for a motion, 01:17:22.755 --> 01:17:31.990 - please. Move approval of resolutions 26, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79. Second. And a first and a second. All 01:17:31.990 --> 01:17:40.957 - in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. So that is the conclusion of our 01:17:40.957 --> 01:17:42.750 - new business items. 01:17:43.074 --> 01:17:51.245 - I will now move to general discussion for RDC, anything that people would like to present for discussion 01:17:51.245 --> 01:17:59.104 - this evening. Yeah, I'd like to just throw one thing out. I don't want to discuss it. I just want to 01:17:59.104 --> 01:18:07.430 - throw it out there. Is there some scenario or opportunity for the RDC to transfer the ownership of Showers 01:18:07.430 --> 01:18:11.710 - West to some other entity where we get out from under? 01:18:12.578 --> 01:18:20.962 - I just know it out there. It's on my mind. I know it's on Randy's mind. He just didn't say it. And I 01:18:20.962 --> 01:18:29.845 - think we're going to be asking that question more often. So I don't know what path that has to go through, 01:18:29.845 --> 01:18:38.561 - but there's a FYI. I appreciate that. I understand completely. We process all the claims. We understand. 01:18:38.561 --> 01:18:39.806 - We understand. 01:18:40.034 --> 01:18:47.340 - We're not revenue generating anymore. And if it's going to be used internally, then how about it? Jeff, 01:18:47.340 --> 01:18:54.434 - do you want to take that question about transitioning? You don't have to answer it. No, I would need 01:18:54.434 --> 01:19:01.529 - to research the process. We just want to put it on. It's on. I believe the administration is working 01:19:01.529 --> 01:19:08.062 - on trying to figure that piece out. And so we'll update you just as soon as we possibly can. 01:19:08.834 --> 01:19:16.536 - I have a counterpart question that I would be interested in some active discussion about, which is, 01:19:16.536 --> 01:19:25.008 - I know that the engineering department is over in Showers West now. Who else is in Showers West as occupants, 01:19:25.008 --> 01:19:32.864 - not including the original tenants who have negotiated terms of occupancy? Fire and city council. OK. 01:19:32.864 --> 01:19:38.718 - So city councils know they're now, too? Correct. OK. So here's my question. 01:19:38.850 --> 01:19:45.188 - pays the bills, owns the building. But there's departments moving in. I would like to request a lease 01:19:45.188 --> 01:19:51.526 - agreement. I think that that would be an appropriate way to manage the responsibilities and expenses, 01:19:51.526 --> 01:19:58.113 - or at least to discuss that with other RDC members. It just seems like there's a kind of gray area that's 01:19:58.113 --> 01:20:04.575 - being, in my opinion, getting a little too gray. I think it needs to be clear. So anyway, I'm proposing 01:20:04.575 --> 01:20:06.750 - that for discussion at the moment. 01:20:06.882 --> 01:20:14.229 - With any questions that RDC members might want to discuss with staff, we can obviously return to this. 01:20:14.229 --> 01:20:21.361 - But I think it's an important point that requires further examination. I'd like to speak to that. I 01:20:21.361 --> 01:20:28.565 - totally agree with Deborah. However, if we in the shore hall can focus on transfer of title, I don't 01:20:28.565 --> 01:20:30.206 - care about the leases. 01:20:30.466 --> 01:20:36.051 - I just suspected that that might take a little longer and we have occupancy of that building right now, 01:20:36.051 --> 01:20:41.690 - including stuff that has never been announced to us. I didn't know council was moving over there, right? 01:20:41.690 --> 01:20:47.007 - I mean, that wasn't presented to the RDC like, oh, could we move council into the building, right? 01:20:47.007 --> 01:20:51.518 - We own it. We don't have any lease agreement. We hear how much the utilities costs. 01:20:51.618 --> 01:20:57.243 - There's no discussion about how repairs, roof leaks, right? You know, how things are being managed or 01:20:57.243 --> 01:21:02.813 - handled. And I just feel like we need clarity on that, even though I totally agree that the transfer 01:21:02.813 --> 01:21:07.887 - of ownership is an important question. I just suspect that that might take a little longer. 01:21:07.887 --> 01:21:13.733 - I don't know. If it goes quickly, great. But I'd rather see it go quickly and we don't spend time writing 01:21:13.733 --> 01:21:19.358 - leases. OK. So maybe we could have the first question answered in terms of the transfer of ownership. 01:21:19.458 --> 01:21:27.702 - who would do it and how quickly it might happen. And once we get some clarity on that, if that's still 01:21:27.702 --> 01:21:35.705 - kind of gray or if there needs further discussion, if it requires more time than, let's say, by the 01:21:35.705 --> 01:21:43.949 - end of the calendar year, then we need to start looking at a lease agreement because, again, this gray 01:21:43.949 --> 01:21:46.910 - area is not tolerable right now. OK. 01:21:47.394 --> 01:21:51.710 - Anything else for discussion this evening? Otherwise, I'll take a motion to adjourn.