Well, it is now 5.01. Welcome to the redevelopment commission meeting for the city of Bloomington for
Monday, October 5th, 2026. We will start the meeting with a roll call, please. Lauren McRobbie here.
Sue Scambaleri here. John West here. Deborah Meyerson here. Staff present, please. Hannah Killian-Hanson
here. Christina Finley, hand department. Henry Caswell, hand department. Jeff McKim, city controller.
32, hand department.
Thank you. Dana Kerr, legal. Thank you. Anybody online? OK. Can we start with the report? Do we have
a director's report today, please? We do not. But how do we answer any questions? A legal report? No,
I'm sorry. There is no legal report. OK. Treasurer's report? One was sent out to you. If you have any
questions, please let me know. But there's nothing particularly exciting. Yes? Question.
And it's very nice, I appreciate it very much. So the next to last category, which is maintenance. First
of all, could you just define what that category is? That's resolution 2602.
which authorizes up to $5,000 in maintenance repairs without prior authorization. OK, so that's what
the $300,000 is. It's one of our annual resolutions. And then $26.45 is what? It should have above the title.
I thought, as I recall, that we've done 2645 because we were going to maybe getting close to that $300,000
limit, especially with the cost of utilities and showers west. We amended it to increase it, yeah. Because
I think we started it with $200,000 or $250,000, and we increased it to three. All right. OK. Thank you.
Any other questions for the treasurer? If not, we'll ask for a business development update. Well, there
is an update. AMP, the tech entrepreneurship startup event in the trades district will actually be happening.
It used to be called Startup Week. It will be happening across the community starting October 28. All
events are free and open to the public.
The keynote speaker will be the CEO of Sweetwater Music in from Fort Wayne, I guess. So it's a big get.
We're all really excited about it. Hope to see you there. The other thing that I will bring James Bell
for her is that we just got approved for three opportunity zones.
based on her work and application, which is a really big deal, because a lot of other municipalities
did not get even one. We had a lot of support. It was a big win. I think the big headline for the RDC
is that even though Hopewell was included in the 1.0, and development didn't move fast enough to attract
investment, but we still made a really good case, and we were able to keep that in as a 2.0 opportunity
zone. So we really hope we'll be.
ready to knock that out of the park this round. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you. It's great. Thanks,
Emma. And I don't see Kendall here, so I don't know that we have a hopeful update. There is no hopeful
update this time. OK. Thank you. OK. Well, we will move to claims, please. Our first item on the agenda
is, well, sorry, I'm seeing the agenda order. I'm going to do it in the agenda order.
Claims from September 25, the claim register, September 25, 2026. Any questions or comments
from commissioners on this claim register? If not, I'll take a motion to adopt. Well, I would just say
this is the one that I think Randy had a whole series of questions, which have been, were the answers
sent to him in writing? Yeah. OK, great. Which we can share. If there's any way to summarize
The nature of his questions and how they were answered, that would be welcome. Yeah. Basically, he wanted
to know how much we'd spent on utilities for Showers West and South College. I was going to say, because
I have the response on there. So he had a question. It is page 2 of 7, account 5399L. What are the mortgage
releases for? What were the balances that were aid or were the mortgage that was forgivable? That was
the question.
And these were for down payment and closing cost assistance that's been forgiven. There was a five year
forgiveness period on those. Page three of seven, fund 2402, he had a question about health net and
salaries. That was an ARPA claim, and they still have approximately 141,000 to spend down by the end
of the year.
Page four of seven, he had a question about 2519, 5900. Vet environmental mold sampling, is this a continuing
cost? It is. Just for the 714 building, they're doing intermittent spraying until we get that up and
rolling. Page five of seven, what are the total monthly utility bills for College Square and Showers
West, and what have we paid for each property this year?
Since January, Shower's West total Duke energy bill is $76,957.93. For College Square, it was $30,172.80.
Let's see. There was a question about an ES net gas bill. Are they reimbursing us? I do believe that
they send us reimbursements through the year. We have to issue an invoice, however.
Then there was Fund 2519, Marshal's Security. What is the total? We've paid them this year. We have
paid them $83,746.29. So that was his series of questions and concerns. Sorry. Anything further from
commissioners, either based on that report or anything that you are inspired by for this claim register?
If not, I'll take a motion. Move approval of the claims register for September 25.
Second. So first and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any abstentions or opposals? No.
Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the payroll registers, two of them, one from September
18th and the other from October 2nd, 2026. Any comments or questions from commissioners on either of
these? If not, I'll take a motion. Do you want one for both of the registers or do you mind? I'll take
a motion for both unless someone requests to separate them.
for the payroll registers for September 18 and October 2. Second. We've got a first and a second. All
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next on the agenda is the minutes from the RDC
meeting of September 14, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on the minutes? If not,
I will take a motion. Move approval of the minutes for September 14.
Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
We'll move on to new business and open for a public hearing. Anything I need to say specifically other
than open for a public hearing? No. OK. So this is resolution 2662, which is confirming a declaratory
resolution of the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission designating and declaring a certain area as an
economic development area known as the Hopewell South EDA.
approving an economic development plan for said area, establishing a residential housing program in
said area, and regarding related matters. Who would like to speak to that? I'll begin. And then we also
have Justin Chang here with us from Reedy Financial, who can help fill in comments as well. We started
this process a few months ago in creating a separate TIF district
for the Hopewell South neighborhood. And we have gone through the entire process now. It started here
with the declaratory resolution. It went to the planning commission. And they looked at it and felt
that it matched the plans for the city of Bloomington. It then went to city council.
And they also approved it as well. And now it comes back here for a public hearing. And so this is where
the public now, should they like to speak on the creation of this TIF, would have the opportunity to
do so. Once they have had the opportunity to speak, then it would be
to the commissioners to determine if they would like to confirm the declaratory resolution, which is
what this resolution does. And upon passing this confirmatory resolution, the Hopewell South TIF district
will be created. It is an economic development area and an allocation area one. If you remember back
when we did summit,
Some of it will end up being five neighborhoods, so we did economic development area for the entire
Summit development and then PUD and then only created allocation area for the Shasta Meadows because
that's the first neighborhood. Of course, Hopewell South is a smaller neighborhood and just one neighborhood
and so it would be the entire
area would be an allocation area. It is a residential TIF. And the time period that it would last would
be 25 years from the initial obligation. So if you were to bond against that, then the time from when
that first bond payment would be due, there would be a 25-year. That would start the 25-year clock.
creating this district. The RDC has already committed substantial funds to create the Hopewell South
PUD in neighborhood and continuing to support that project. This would be a way to either continue to
use these funds within the Hopewell South or to even reimburse
for funds that you had put into this project that you could then be reimbursed for and used for other
projects. And Justin, there's a chair up here if you would like to come up here and you can correct
me in all the things I said wrong or add to that and anything that you would like to.
I think, Dana, you covered most of everything. Really, the final step after this is for us to communicate
with the auditor's office and make sure they are in the know of the TIF creation. But we sort of already
notified them. So once we have the resolutions, we should be good to go. I'd be happy to answer any
questions. If you have questions for us, you could do that. And then it is a public hearing, so you
would open it for public comment.
Shall I invite for commissioner questions or comments and then public? Either way, you wouldn't go with
this. OK, well, that's typically how we do it, is we're going to make sure for the purpose of a public
hearing. That would be fine, as always. So I will open this for commissioner questions or comments about
resolution 2662. Question. Dana, this may be hard to answer, but there's, you referenced, there's various
other sections of Hopewell besides this one.
Is it the administration's potential plan to create a TIF district in each of those other areas within
Hopewell? In my opinion, it's too early to tell because we're not sure what those other areas are going
to develop as. In my opinion, it is also likely that they may.
because they may require additional infrastructure needs or other things to assist in their development.
If they don't, then maybe they will not. It just depends on what the need for the project is that it
goes in there, is the driving force on whether there would need to be a special TIF for that area.
And I'm going to ask this question not to undo what we've done here. So I'm not headed down in some
weird direction. But why wouldn't we have done Hopewell the same way we did Summit and create a tip
for the total area and then allocate as we went along? It is because Hopewell South is, we could have
done that in that manner.
At the time, we were considering just Hopewell South and, again, not knowing the others. It is something
that we could have done, but since it was the city's project, we were just going to do that one at a
time. You're right. It could have been done in either way. Either way, you have to go through the same process
to establish the allocation area. So there's not a large difference for it. Part of the difference in
summit is that the other parts of Hopewell are all ready in a TIF. There were parts of summit that were
not. There was some open areas that were not within a TIF. So by creating the entire area, you brought
all that together
The rest of Hopewell that's not part of Hopewell South is in, I believe, the Adams Crossing number two
expansion, maybe, TIF. So it's already part of a TIF area anyway. I just want the record to reflect
that we now have a full contingency of the commission here. Commissioner Cassidy has joined us just
again for the minutes.
and for the purposes of this public hearing as well. Any other questions or comments from commissioners
on resolution 2662, please? If not, I will open it for public comment, either in person or online. Not
seeing any, I will ask for a motion for resolution 2662.
Resolution 2662 to create the Hopewell South TIF. Second. First and a second on paper say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? And one abstention. So four in support and one abstention on resolution 2662. Thank you.
And the public hearing for 2662 is now closed.
The next item in our agenda is Resolution 2663, which is confirming the amending of the declaratory
resolution of the Consolidated Economic Development Area and the Consolidated Economic Development Plan,
removing certain residential parcels and regarding related matters. And this is now open for a public
hearing as well. Who would like to speak to that? I will as well. Again, when we brought Hope Plus Off,
we brought this to you as well.
There are a number of, that was in the declaratory resolution, there were a number of residential properties
within the consolidated TIF that had formally been able to be, and I'll use very general terms, and
Justin Jane from reading can be more precise, were able to be balanced out with how they were treated
and not have a negative impact on the revenues for the consolidated TIF. However, there was a change
in the way the program was used according to the DLGF, which then caused the, when the residential property
were part of the TIF, that they would end up having a negative impact on the revenues of the TIF. So
the way to
counter that would be to actually just remove them from the TIF. And so that's what we came here for
originally. Again, the process, declaratory resolution, just like you have to do to create a TIF, you
need to do to take properties out of the TIF. And so we did a declaratory resolution, went to the Planning
Commission,
went to council, they both approved, and it's back here for the public hearing. Again, this is for the
purposes of countering the negative impact that these residential properties had in TIF revenues.
And Justin, if you want to pull up a chair to that corner there and add. Yeah?
It's a declaratory resolution before us. It's essentially what Dana mentioned. There was a change in
how softwares handle residential parcels in commercial TIF allocation areas, whereas it didn't matter
before. And now it's actively hurting the TIF. I believe in 27, we were projected to have an 18 million
incremental assessed value decrease due to this, which equates to about $350,000 or so. So by removing this,
to this year, we could prevent that from happening and prevent that from happening in future years as
well. And like Hope, well, after this, we'll need to bring this to the auditor's attention, let them
know of the TIF allocation area changes. This was really because of the software change, correct? Correct.
It's a software change with the auditor's office, even though it's not anything the auditors
office did. It's just how the software had to handle it based on guidance provided by the DLGF. And
it's not unique to Monroe County, other counties? Correct, correct. We're doing, I want to say we're
doing five of these before we end the year because it is impacting quite a lot of communities. I think
I mentioned before there is a community further up north where their assessed value went from 50 million
down to 14. They didn't have a bond so it was okay but I mean
they lost 70% of their revenues because of this. So it can be very significant. Thank you for that additional
information. Any comments or questions from commissioners on resolution 2663? So to clarify, to clarify,
that sounded like Randy. This is impacting the entire
consolidated tip. This is what we're trying to offset, not any smaller individual tip. Correct.
All right. There's no negative consequences to the taxpayer? To the taxpayer, no. They'll see the same
tax bill. OK. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other questions or comments from commissioners,
we'll open it for public comment for Resolution 2663, either online or in person.
Seeing none, I will ask for a motion, please, for resolution 2663. I'll make a motion to approve 26-63
as presented. Second. There are a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes
unanimously. Public hearing is now closed. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is resolution 2664,
which is the approval of amendment number two to the agreement with Flintlock Limited Company
additional services related to the creation of a plan unit development, or PUD, for Hopewell South.
Who would like to speak to that? I'll be happy to discuss this. So as you know, as we were navigating
the entitlement process for Hopewell South, accessibility was a key concern. And so there were two plans,
Gardena and the EGRET, that were designed initially as type B units.
However, through discussion, through the process, we agreed that they could be converted into type A,
which is a much more stringent requirement and requires some moving of walls and that kind of thing
to meet clearance requirements. So this is the amendment to reflect that change in their scope.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2664?
This design change just puts us into the pre-approved plans. So whenever we get to that point of building,
this is ready to go. Correct. And this is just an accessibility improvement. And it was only, I believe,
a $6,000 increase for that change. So seeing as accessibility was a key component of our entitlement
process, we need to make sure that we're doing it correctly.
I do greatly appreciate the attention and diligence to add the accessibility component, and I'm glad
to be able to support that in this context. I'll open it for public comment for resolution 2664, either
online or in person. Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion, please. Move approval of resolution 2664 to
amend the agreement with Plintlock. Second.
We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Thank you. Next item on our agenda is resolution 2665, which is the approval of a second addendum to
the preliminary design contract for Hopewell South. Who would like to speak to that? OK. The part of
the project of Hopewell South that was discussed was that we were going the RDC would
try to make the projects as ready for development as possible. That was the purpose of having the house
plans ready. What this would do would prepare the plot plan for each of the lots so that it would be
ready for the particular building that was
to be situated on it. So each plot plan, of course, it would be needed to be created separately. And
so this would be the fees for the engineering company. Crossroads has done all the design for
the neighborhood. So it makes a lot of sense to let them step in and create these plot plans. And this is
Just another one of the barriers that the RDC is is taken care of for the developers so that they can
come in and build these these homes and So it's helping them with this step again Crossroads is uniquely
qualified to do this because of their experience with the rest of the neighborhood so the engineering
department has asked that
We request that you approve this resolution to allow Crossroads to do those designs. Thank you. I will
open this for questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2665. Go ahead. It's not a comment.
You might want to look at whereas number six, there's something
dramatically wrong with the sentence. It's the one that says in resolution 2627. It looks like in the
should just be removed. It's kind of what I thought. Yes, apologize for that. The with should be
Just to verify, when they're done here, the houses will be placed on the lot. They will know their setbacks.
They will know exactly what it is. And it will be in a development, ready to go, where once the building
permit, they don't have to go through and do additional lot engineering. Or for sewers, water,
or any of it. It'll be build-ready lots.
And so as you know, when you apply for a building permit, it requires you to take the layout of at least
the perimeter of the home, measure the setbacks, all of the stuff that when you're making that application.
So this is what is necessary to make application with the building department, which will be a next
step after we receive these on the lots so that they'll be ready to be picked up once we issue the offerings.
OK. Wonderful. Thank you.
There's no other questions or commissioners. I'll open it for public comment, either online or in person,
for resolution 2665. Not seeing any, I will ask for a motion, please. I'll make the motion to approve
26-65 as presented. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Passes unanimously. Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is resolution 2666, which is the approval of a scope of work for VET environmental
engineering LLC at Showers West. Who would like to speak to that? So essentially in the fire suite,
there was a roof leak that caused a moisture penetration issue, which then yielded some suspected biological
growth, also known as mold.
There was a need for some mold remediation and fog treatment to follow that up. And so since you do
currently own the building, unfortunately, this bill was over $5,000 threshold, but only by $85.03.
So now it is before you. Thank you for that description with more information. Any questions or comments
from commissioners on resolution 2666? Question.
When did the leak occur, just out of curiosity? I believe it was last year, but I don't know off the
top of my head. Facilities was handling a lot of that coordination, and I know that it has been repaired.
So they had, I believe, B&L sheet metal. And they're just getting paid now? Well, that's not for the
roof repair. This is for the subsequent mold from the moisture penetration.
thought that this service would have been subsequent to the? I think it took a minute to grow. Because
the invoice is 9-15-2026. Just to follow up on the question comment, the roof's repaired. It is. It's
at least patched. It's not a replacement.
If there's no other questions or comments from commissioners, I'll open it for public comment on resolution
2666. Not seeing anything online or in person. I'll ask for a motion, please. Move approval of resolution
2666. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is resolution 2667, which is approval of a second amendment to the agreement
with Mother Nature Landscaping, Incorporated for Landscaping Services at the Trades District and the
Trades District garage. Who would like to speak to that? I will speak to that. And I want to say that
this is actually the third amendment. And so I do request that this still be considered tonight, even
though I'd like to.
make a few changes. I'll let you know exactly what those changes are because of trees and the timing
of the year that you can cut things and trim things and such. I've been told getting into that time
period. The only change, though, is that this is the third amendment and not the second, and that I would be
add a whereas clause after the one that discusses Resolution 2628. It would be, whereas by Resolution
26-60, the RDC approved the Second Amendment to the agreement for stormwater mitigation measures at
Hopewell South for a not to exceed amount of $16,890. So that would be the addition. Everything else would.
remain the same, that addition of that whereas clause, and to change this to be the third amendment
both in the resolution and in the attached agreement. So what the agreement is for to go back is that
there is the need to replace six street trees that
have died and that the for some the sidewalk openings are there with sidewalk cones that stated do not
reflect well on the look of the trades district which has been very important to the RDC and so it's
they need to be replaced there is also some irrigation
line issues that need to be repaired. There are two areas where there are low-hanging limbs, one where
it's obstructing the delivery truck access, another where it overhangs to where it can be considered
an issue for pedestrians. And so the city staff had got the quote
from Mother Nature Landscaping to replace the trees and to do the tree trimming respectively. And that
amounted to the $10,950. And so they would ask your consideration for approval.
commissioners on resolution 2667. Six tree trees out of how many about? That seems like a lot to me
is where I'm headed. Is there some systemic problem with soil or? That I do not know as this was dropped
to me. There are a number of trees.
A lot of it had to do with the tree grates. If you remember, there was an issue with the tree grates
that you guys recently approved resolution to get that piece figured out in the electrical box. The
tree grates are kind of structured in that there are little punch outs based on how large the tree becomes and that
adjustment had not been made since they were planted. And so there were some issues related to that,
which have now been corrected. But now that they've gone in and done that work, there was an irrigation
line that needed some work, and then also these tree replacements to get everything back up to par.
Thank you. Can I ask whose responsibility it was to adjust the grate?
I mean, I do remember that we discussed this earlier. Well, our landscaper, Mother Nature's, is who
adjusted them. But it would have been up to our landscaping contractor or our direction to tell them
to do that. To do what they said to do. Yeah. So we might include that as part of the Mother Nature
contract or, for example, in the future, so that since they're already attending to stuff, if there's
a need to increase the tree rate to at least
put in the recommendation that could then be considered by the city. And they've been very good about
kind of flagging future issues that are coming up or things that we need to pay attention to. So yes,
absolutely. Are we replacing the new trees to be identical to the ones that are being taken out? I believe
so. And aren't they?
There was a specific type that was listed. Yeah, it's in the exhibit. I just want to, it doesn't say.
I believe so. And it has to be an approved tree, I believe, by the UDO. And Jane, who was going to present
this, had to take off. But she had our urban forester go out and take a look at all of these and kind
of coordinate with Mother Nature. OK.
This is not so much direction to this project, but I've seen a number of occasions where the UDO directed
us to do tree plantings when they were the inappropriate tree to begin with, outgrew the space, created
irrigation problems, took out utilities. I mean, the list goes on.
An example where if we had done something different to begin with, that we might have been seeing a
different result? I don't think there's any way to say. That would be a good question for urban forester.
Well, it's maybe a good learning exercise. And maybe that, you know, an example, maybe this is not the
right example, but you'd think that maybe we'd learn from this and change what we plan to begin with.
Maybe not as many of them. I'd be happy to. That's my public comment. We'll take that under advisement
and see where that can go. I do say, though, that the urban forester did look at these specific tree
types in the specific locations and felt that these specific ones were appropriate.
Not just that they were on the list, but not only that they were on the list, but they were, he felt
that they were appropriate for the location. So hopefully that helps. The basis is, you've got to put
them back. So we've got to put them back. The only question is caliper size, calipers and size, and
does it match the existing trees that are there that has already been planted in the district so we
have continuity and consistency?
That's a question for the urban protester. It's not going to get resolved now. We need to put them back.
Time frame on this. I assume from your previous comment, the Indiana bats coming into this. Contract
was for this year. OK. Yeah, that works. OK. One other just request. I appreciate the verbal edits.
I would always appreciate if it's too late to go in the packet
if we could get just a paper copy of edits. I mean, it's just the word second to third. That's one thing.
But there's a whole whereas in there that. I do apologize for that. I honestly found out about an hour
before the meeting. And I was in another meeting when I found out. That's fine. But just if there's
a way to just say, print this page out to the commissioners, it would just be much better. I do.
know that that has been mentioned before, and I do apologize that this is not coming sooner to you.
Is there something we can wait till the next meeting? They're chomping at the bit to get going. I'm
not sure it needs to wait till the next meeting. Just ask. Yeah. OK. OK. If there's nothing further
from commissioners, I'll open this for public comment for resolution 2667, either online or in person.
Seeing none, I will ask for a motion, please. Move approval of resolution 2667. Second. Got a first
and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next up on the
agenda is resolution 2668, which is approval of issuance of request for proposals for architectural
and engineering services
for the reuse of the 714 South Roger Street property and building as the new Bloomington Police Department
headquarters and associated public safety facilities and uses. Who would like to speak to that? I will
start with this. The next step in the project, the RDC has
agreed to move forward with the 714 building as the Bloomington Police Headquarters and associated uses.
And the next step, we are still in the works of looking at the owner's representative's information.
And so there's nothing more on that for tonight.
But to keep things moving, this is RFP for the architect to provide architectural services and engineering
services. If you look over the RFP, you'll see that it is a phased approach. And it's a phased approach
in a manner so that if
You know, the intention is, of course, to adaptively reuse this building. And so that is the focus of
the RFP. And so there are certain steps that need to be taken to ensure how that would be done, what
it would look like. And there are options within that that may be available.
So we tried to keep it as broad to get the architectural engineering firms to be creative. Yet, again,
try to keep them focused on as much, reusing as much of the building as possible as well. And also by
doing a staged approach, a phased approach, if a phase is completed,
and there needs to be some sort of a pivot, a move, and direction, then you haven't gone too far and
you're being budget conscious and mindful and able to make those changes as they become necessary, if
they become necessary. Hopefully it's linear and not having to make any pivots, but this way this proposal is
request for proposal is written gives you that flexibility and keeps timing keeps things moving yet
also is budget minded to make sure that you don't go too far in any one direction before finding out
that there may need to be some sort of a change. There was a comment that
the notifying the firms of a selection the week of November 23rd, that would be, well, it'd basically
be impossible if there were interviews being done the week of the 16th. There is a meeting November
16th if the proposals came in on November 6th and they could be
It's possible they could be considered during the meeting on November 16, depending on what was received
and what more needed to be done after that and a contract agreed to on the 7th. Or it may be that an
alternative would be if the 16th doesn't work, that the 7th could be a time to consider them as well.
thought was that if the, you know, to maybe not have the firm, of course, not have the firms notified
that week of the 23rd, of course, the schedule is always subject to change anyway if things don't work
accordingly. But if there's no way for the RDC to make a commitment by November 16th meeting,
that, again, that could be delayed selection to the December 7. And since there's only one meeting in
December, it could be that a draft AIA contract could be approved with final form being where you could
give the authorization to the Corporation Council.
to approve the final form of that contract. The contract can contain all of the items that we wouldn't
want to be in that contract so that you would have those terms, yet it would allow the Corporation Council
to approve the final form. And it would also, in a resolution on the 7th, you could approve
the president of the RDC to execute that document upon completion of the final form. And then that way,
again, there would not be a need to bring it back. AIA contracts are by nature, by what they
are, standardized forms. Yet they do often need to be tweaked
for the benefit of us as the client. So we could make changes to this, or again, as these are always
subject to change anyway in the timelines, we could leave it as it is or just simply strike that line
regarding notice of selection
leave everything else the same or call the instead of track execution the last December 7, it could
be architect selection. That was brought up, so. Thank you for presentation and walking through the
different timelines for consideration. I'm opening this up for questions and comments from commissioners.
of any part of the resolution 2668, but particular attention to the timeline as discussed so far. I'll
go forward. He was polite not to mention my name, but I'm the one that asked about it. I thought the
overall RFP was pretty well done, and really I had no objections to the body of the document.
But I do object to the timeline. And with all of the potential variations, I don't want to set anticipation
for something that we're just not going to get done. And I don't see us getting this review and selection
done the way it's stated. So I'm going to recommend that we just go through the proposal to do November 6,
And then firms will be notified as soon as possible thereafter and don't give any specific dates and
give us the freedom to collaborate as we need, because this really doesn't give us any chance to collaborate,
particularly if we do interviews and presentations. Thank you. Other comments or questions from commissioners
on the different
paths on this timeline as presented so far. I just have to agree with John. Given Thanksgiving and the
time frames, the reality of getting it done on a human basis is extremely difficult in regards to anything.
We know when they're due. We'll take them under advisement as we do everything and then get back with
them at our soonest possible
time, and if necessary, in order to meet the time frame to continue the project, we can always call
for an executive, or not executive, but we can call for an additional meeting if necessary in order
to meet our time frames. So I concur with you. I would support that as well. So what I'm hearing as
proposed, I'm just going to recommend for the purpose of taking a motion on this, that the proposals
will be due November 6, 2026.
interviews and presentations. The other deadlines that are after that, this is on page 54 of the packet,
are going to be left open-ended to be determined by the RDC in collaboration with staff just to allow
sufficient time to get through the process in an appropriate way. OK. Can I just comment?
relax the bond timeline for precisely this purpose. We worked with bond counsel and with Reedy. And
we didn't want the bond timeline to drive the process. We want to make sure that everybody is comfortable
with having your subject matter experts in place. So. Thank you for that clarification. If there's any
other questions or comments from commissioners, if not, I'll open it for public comment, either in person
or online.
Not seeing any, I will ask for a motion for resolution 2668. I'll move approval of resolution 2668 as
amended regarding the timeline. I'll second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is resolution 2669, approval of
professional services agreement with Reedy Financial Group.
Who would like to speak to that? OK. I can do that as well. Back in resolution 2611, there was an approval
of an agreement for financial services with Reedy. And the contract that was signed at that sign was
for municipal
advisory services related to bonding. There was a contract that was in place at that time already from
2024. So what work has been done since that time was still under contract, yet Reedy and the city still
wanted to enter into a new contract for
the reporting services and for additional project services, special services as needed. And so what
this resolution does is ratifies the fact that, yes, the agreement that was signed back with resolution
2611 is ratified that you do indeed
Under those terms weren't ready to assist us with our bonding financial advising and in addition to
that that for annual not to exceed fee of $85,000 they would help with our required reporting that needs
to be done which actually will next month we'll have some of that and
And then for special projects as they arise, an additional not to exceed amount of $80,000. Again, we
have Justin Chang from Reedy Financial here with us that can answer any questions that you may have.
And we have found that Reedy Financial, Justin Chang and his colleagues have been extremely helpful
throughout the, well, for me, since I've been here, in providing financial services to me and my staff
and the controller. I'll let the controller speak to his relations as well. And so we, from me and my
staff, we would request approval
of this resolution, do you have anything to add? Only that we also continue to work with Reedy and Justin
and his team on the civil city side as well, and we'll continue to do so, both on the municipal advisor
and the general financial services side.
I'll personally just say that I have really enjoyed working with 3D. They've been awesome. Justin will
take my calls on a whim. Just want to clarify a couple things that Dana mentioned. So there's really
two contracts, but three parts. The first is the general municipal advisory. Fancy way of saying that.
So we're looking at,
any financing projects where we need to borrow money from the RDC. That's what that contract is for.
We need to have a specific one for that due to SEC regulations. It's not us trying to make it more confusing
for you all. The second part is the RDC services. And the two parts of the RDC services, one is the
$85,000, which you all thought you had agreed to in February, which is for financial planning and TIF
reporting services, including the spending plan,
presentation passed through a neutralization as well as a quarterly financial plan that's 85,000 not
to exceed and we will likely be hitting that we're close to that every single year. The second part
is the special projects for RDC services that's 80,000 not to exceed. We do not anticipate being at
80,000 or remotely close to that each year. This year it's
special, I mean, we have Shasta Meadows, we have Hopewell, we have the Residentials, we have SEA-1 analysis,
those all go under the RDC special projects. But even then, I believe we're at maybe $40,000 through
this year, and this is a big year. So the $80,000 really is just a cap, but we're not anticipating us
hitting that cap this year, and definitely not in the future years.
Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2669? Yeah, let me just, again, just to clarify
here. So $85,000, we've already, that's a contract we've already signed, and that's the regular business
that we do that we involve reading financial incorrect. Technically not already signed, but we will
treat it as is.
because the contract that was previously signed was actually the general MA contract, not the 85,000
RDC services, which this is a confusion that we've had many calls about already. But we will retroactively
go back to earlier this year and essentially prorate the rest of 26 as if that contract was signed in
the beginning of the year. So 85,000, I believe that equates to $7,100 monthly.
If we prorate the rest of the year, we're looking at $6,000 a month based on what we've built so far.
So instead of building $71,000 a month, we will just build $6,000 a month not to exceed that amount.
I hope that answers the question. Again, this was something that we- It's confusing because of the whereas
doesn't really say that. Or maybe it does and I just don't get it. The contract mentions that. The contract
does. The resolution that was passed
approve that, yet the contract that was attached to the resolution that was passed was the municipal
advisor contract and not the $85,000 contract. So you are ratifying the contract that was signed to
keep Reedy Financial as your municipal advisor, yet
agreeing to the actual $85,000 contract that is attached to this resolution. Essentially, there was
a mismatch between resolution and contract. Contract A and resolution A became contract B and resolution
A, and the other one was not signed, and no resolution for that. So that's essentially what happened.
Is this a clerical error?
It was a confusion with there being two extremely similar contracts at the same time. And that was the
confusion. Do we need to do any retroactive amendments to 2611 since it was approved with the wrong
contract? No. That's why the ratification.
You're ratifying the approval of the previous contract. And so that covers the previous contract being,
if there was any question of its validity, that solidifies it. And now you have a new contract, new
resolution going forward for the work that's not related to the municipal advisor. So you're ratifying
the municipal advisor.
that's already in place and just ratifying it in case there was ever any question, yet you're signing
that contract that would otherwise have been attached to 2611 back then. And the $80,000 is additional
for special needs, special projects.
Correct. So that TIF creations would be an example. Hopewell, Shasta Meadows, and the residential remodels
that we're doing. Those are examples of those. And that's what you said would not likely reach the $80,000
cap. Yes. Again, this year we had four pretty large projects. And we're still only at around 40. So
it's not every year we expect to have this many special projects. So it's very unlikely to get to $80,000.
So we're ratifying a contract.
that's got an expiration date, no doubt. What is that expiration date? The municipal advisor contract
is an annual contract that I believe does not have an expiration date. It is perpetual until either
you cancel it and if at some time the amounts will be renegotiated
then there would be an amendment at that time. So is the $80,000, that's per year? That's not perpetual?
The first RDC special project? Yeah, the cap is on a 12-month basis, yes. So January to December, that's
the cap that we can get to $80,000. And this is also perpetual? Could you have made this more difficult?
I imagine that it's not a contract that would end at the end of the calendar year, since it's based
on an annual sum, and that we just renew it. Just trying to understand. I understand trying to streamline
things, but it still seems a little unconventional. I'm just asking about most contracts that we approve
have a deadline of when they sunset. And it's unusual to have
a continuously renewing contract. And so I'm asking, is there a reason for that structure as compared
to our more conventional structure? Most of our RDC services contract are like such. They don't have
an end date, but that's something we can add. Our regular contracts don't have an end date for RDC services.
So we don't have to.
We don't have to approve renewing a contract. Correct. There's no automatic process for us to do that.
This just continues. Continues until canceled by I-40. Until the cap is hit in any particular year,
but not from year to year. Yes, correct. And that would be a clause. Yeah. I'll ask staff if there's
any reason to consider otherwise. I understand that's really
you know, kind of usual mode of business. It's just not our usual mode of business. So I'm just asking
if there's any reasons or pros and cons to consider either option. Yeah. One of the reasons is because
a lot of the, like for instance, the bonding at 740 building, that's carrying over into next year. So
many of these things are overlapping from year to year.
And so many of these projects that these bonds are going for last for multiple years. And so having
the same financial advisor through them is very helpful. It is something that I'd have to look back,
because I can't remember off the top of my head, that you can terminate if you so choose. You have to
be able to do that.
So you're allowed to terminate if you so choose. But by having it perpetual, it creates stability in
that relationship. It creates, again, these are long-term projects. These are long-term bonds. These
last a long time. And so to renew every year,
would, for one, for the consultant, place uncertainty into it. For us, would possibly put us in a bad
position if we even changed to try to get a new advisor up to speed. We benefit from locking in the
financial advisor as well. That's good.
I think of it as succession planning, too, because what happens is one of us isn't here. There's somebody
in my position that isn't as familiar with what's going on. And we don't want something to fall through
the cracks. So they've been very good about letting us know what to keep an eye on when our reporting
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
an option to cancel the contract and move
move on, so. It's completely up to us to cancel it at any particular time based on the conditions of
the contract. And essentially, in order to continue Reedie's special projects and the other, we're approving
a not to exceed, two not to exceed contracts, 185, 180. So the total amount's 165,000 until such time
as we say we're done with Reedie. Seal. Seal, yeah. Seal. Yeah. Is it reasonable to, and this would
just be a, I guess it was,
procedural thing that wouldn't require resolution, but to say that we'd like to have a review every
five years, every three years, just a moment when we step back and just make sure everything's on track,
that there are other circumstances such that, you know, it might make sense for us to think about a
different, I mean, this is, take everything, everything everyone has said about the services you provide,
and certainly your presentations here have been excellent.
But it just seems prudent that we would have something built in to say, you know, we're going to check
in. And that that's a kind of requirement in our process to do that. Yearly review or something. Well,
I don't think it needs to be yearly. It could be every three years or something. But I don't know. Are
you thinking of we would just bid out those services just to collect quotes to try and make sure that we're
receiving similar or are we, is it just a review of the current service to review? Check in, make sure
everything is proceeding, you know, Justin is succeeded by somebody else in the religion, you know,
yeah, a number of things. So it's not just being defective. That was part of HAA told them, but it was,
it became the,
have to upload it to Gateway and the website. I'm just saying that the General Assembly may require
us to re-propose MA agreements. That decision may be made for us at some point in the future. And I'm
not proposing re-bidding. I'm proposing simply a checkpoint. Well, you have periods of the year where
you will have to hear from
Justin, for instance, I think we're anticipating on November 2, you'll get your annual TIF impact report.
So maybe it's every year when you have your annual TIF impact report you guys are considering. There
might just be a reminder that this service is brought to you by, and this is how the agreement has been
established, and that it's just a way of daylighting
the status of the agreement, which is not typical for RDC. So that if there's, again, so especially
as new RDC members come on, they just understand this is how it works. And if there's a desire to discuss
further, people at least know what the status is. I will say we do also change language in our contracts
every three to five years as well. So if anything comes up, like such an AI was added to the language
this year. So there are normally changes every few years.
Naturally, that's going to happen. So the prompt conversation anyway. Yes. Well, I just might say there's
two different elements. One is like an annual part of the annual report and notification. And then certainly,
if there's changes to the contract agreement, that would presumably come before us as a resolution.
So we would see it in that, under that realm. So anyway, I appreciate Laura bringing that up.
OK, you're in the hot seat on November 2nd. OK, any other questions or comments from commissioners on
this resolution? Any public comment on resolution 2669? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion. I'll make
a motion to approve 2669 as presented and discussed. Second. Got a first and a second. All in favor
say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We now have on our agenda several resolutions in two parts that I'm
going to propose to the RDC that we consider two different groupings. The first is the CDBG physical
improvement grants, which is resolutions 2670 through 2674. And then separately, the social services
CDBG grants, which is 2675 through 2679.
I will ask for a comment or a presentation on that. Would that in mind if after hearing the presentation,
if commissioners wish to separate those out, please advise before we get a motion. So I'll turn it over to you.
CDBG physical improvements program manager with us tonight I do just want to remind you that you guys
have already seen all of these projects you've already approved all of these projects last year when
we were talking about allocations and This is just the point of the year when the actual agreements
come back around and the funding is actually in our hands So I'm back with CDBG again So you guys have
Five different agreements before you. I'll just run through them real quick. Probably not in the same
order that they're on there. So Boys and Girls Club, their project is some gym improvements and some
security access points being added. Also, there are some exterior improvements around the property that's
being done as well. That agreement is for 169,000.
Life Designs, they have a group home at 1701 East Winslow Road. That is getting new flooring, and that
agreement is for $19,420. Middleway House at 338 South Washington Street, they are going to be getting
a new fire panel and other fire detection components that go along with it.
And that agreement is for $11,334. New Hope for Families, they are doing some improvements in the basement
of the family shelter. That is going to give them more area to conduct services. And they are also doing
some HVAC improvements in the family shelter as well. Summit Hill.
Community Development Corporation. I'm sorry? Oh, I'm sorry. 60,000. Summit Hill Community Development
Corporation, BHA, they are going to be redoing the Reverend Butler playground and the surrounding courtyard.
There's quite a bit of work that needs done in that courtyard to make it presentable and safe and
the play equipment needs updated. I do believe that that playground was originally put in with CDBG
several, several years ago. And we were happy to put it, redo it again for them, for the community.
And that agreement is for $200,000. Okay. Thank you for that summary of these approved grants.
Any questions or comments from commissioners? Again, this is specifically for the CDBG 2026 physical
improvement grant agreements. As noted, these have already been seen and presented to the RDC, but this
is the final stage of that approval. I will ask for questions or comments on any of these grants. Now
that the money has been allocated, are these projects in part already in process?
forward? They're not in process yet. None of them were able to start before the funding was available.
But they are all ready to move forward. Environmentals are all done. They're just waiting on agreements
to sign. So once the agreements get done, then we'll start hitting the timelines to be able to see these
projects in place in the near future. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from commissioners on the physical improvement grants for CDBG? I will
open it for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, I will ask for a motion that would
include resolutions 26-70 through 26-75 for the physical improvement grants. 26-74? Oh, I apologize.
I saw. I move approval of resolution
26, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74. Second. Got a first and a second for these resolutions as presented. All
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. So next on our
agenda is the other half of our CDBG grant agreements, which are social services grants. And we have
Cody Teeth in here to talk about both.
Good evening. I have five agreements for you guys, and I'll go just in order of their funding amount
that I have here. The first being Community Kitchen with their free meals program at $24,938.09. Hoosier
Hills Food Bank for their food distribution program at $19,949.70.
Then Boys and Girls Club, the Ferguson Cresmont Child Care and Education Programs at $17,954.34. Then
New Hope for Families, Early Learning Scholarship Fund, or at least at their shelter, their family shelter
at $17,954.34. And then Middleway House with the New Wing Shelter at $15,262.93.
These contracts cover a lot of things that we see in our consolidated plan as a need, so anything from
meal services to child care as well as shelter stays. Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners
on the CDBG social services grants for the resolutions as presented? I will open it for public comment on these.
resolutions for CDBG social services grants. Seeing nothing in person or online, I will ask for a motion,
please. Move approval of resolutions 26, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79. Second. And a first and a second. All
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. So that is the conclusion of our
new business items.
I will now move to general discussion for RDC, anything that people would like to present for discussion
this evening. Yeah, I'd like to just throw one thing out. I don't want to discuss it. I just want to
throw it out there. Is there some scenario or opportunity for the RDC to transfer the ownership of Showers
West to some other entity where we get out from under?
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
think we're going to be asking that question more often. So I don't know what path that has to go through,
but there's a FYI. I appreciate that. I understand completely. We process all the claims. We understand.
We understand.
We're not revenue generating anymore. And if it's going to be used internally, then how about it? Jeff,
do you want to take that question about transitioning? You don't have to answer it. No, I would need
to research the process. We just want to put it on. It's on. I believe the administration is working
on trying to figure that piece out. And so we'll update you just as soon as we possibly can.
I have a counterpart question that I would be interested in some active discussion about, which is,
I know that the engineering department is over in Showers West now. Who else is in Showers West as occupants,
not including the original tenants who have negotiated terms of occupancy? Fire and city council. OK.
So city councils know they're now, too? Correct. OK. So here's my question.
pays the bills, owns the building. But there's departments moving in. I would like to request a lease
agreement. I think that that would be an appropriate way to manage the responsibilities and expenses,
or at least to discuss that with other RDC members. It just seems like there's a kind of gray area that's
being, in my opinion, getting a little too gray. I think it needs to be clear. So anyway, I'm proposing
that for discussion at the moment.
With any questions that RDC members might want to discuss with staff, we can obviously return to this.
But I think it's an important point that requires further examination. I'd like to speak to that. I
totally agree with Deborah. However, if we in the shore hall can focus on transfer of title, I don't
care about the leases.
I just suspected that that might take a little longer and we have occupancy of that building right now,
including stuff that has never been announced to us. I didn't know council was moving over there, right?
I mean, that wasn't presented to the RDC like, oh, could we move council into the building, right?
We own it. We don't have any lease agreement. We hear how much the utilities costs.
There's no discussion about how repairs, roof leaks, right? You know, how things are being managed or
handled. And I just feel like we need clarity on that, even though I totally agree that the transfer
of ownership is an important question. I just suspect that that might take a little longer.
I don't know. If it goes quickly, great. But I'd rather see it go quickly and we don't spend time writing
leases. OK. So maybe we could have the first question answered in terms of the transfer of ownership.
who would do it and how quickly it might happen. And once we get some clarity on that, if that's still
kind of gray or if there needs further discussion, if it requires more time than, let's say, by the
end of the calendar year, then we need to start looking at a lease agreement because, again, this gray
area is not tolerable right now. OK.
Anything else for discussion this evening? Otherwise, I'll take a motion to adjourn.