- Alright seeing as we have a quorum. Well, I'll call to order this meeting of the Common Council of the
- city of Bloomington for Wednesday, November 19th 2025 our council president Councilmember Stossberg
- is not able to be here tonight. She may arrive later, but that's why I'm chairing the meeting for now
- Well, the clerk please call the roll. Yes councilmember Flaherty here Ruff here Rallo here Piedmont
- Smith here daily here Zulek
- Here Rosenberger here and sorry here. Thank you Thank you So to summarize our agenda for tonight, we
- will have one set of minutes for approval Then we will move on to the reports section of the agenda
- Where we have reports from council members then Reports from the mayor city clerk city offices city
- boards and commissions. I don't believe we have any in that category tonight
- Reports from council committees, although I don't think we have any of those either. And then reports
- from the public. So that's the first opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that
- are not on the agenda tonight. Then we move on to appointments to boards and commissions. And we do
- have at least one appointment this evening. Then we will move on to legislation for first readings.
- We have ordinance 2025-19.
- to amend Title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Removal and Impound of Vehicles. Then we
- will have Ordinance 2025-20 to amend Chapter 4.32 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Non-Consensual
- Towing Business in regard to Title IV, Updating Permissible Towing and Storage Fees for Non-Consensual
- Towing Services
- Then we have ordinance 2025-44 to amend title 10 of the Bloomington municipal code entitled wastewater
- in regard to septic hauler rate adjustment. And then we have an appropriation ordinance 2025-14 to specially
- appropriate from the general fund, motor vehicle highway fund, local road and street fund, parks and
- recreation general fund, public safety, local income tax fund,
- Common council, Jack Hopkins funds, solid waste fund and fleet maintenance fund expenditures, not otherwise
- appropriated. Um, and all those, those four items for first reading, um, the way that we, uh, do business
- is that we literally just read them into the record and there's no public comment on those items. If
- people are interested in any of those four items, they will be discussed and they will be public comment
- on December 3rd.
- Then we will move on to legislation for second readings and resolutions where we have resolution 2025-20
- to fund emergency food services with a distribution from the Jack Hopkins social service grant program.
- Ordinance 2025-45 to fix the salaries of all elected city officials for the city of Bloomington for
- the year 2026. And ordinance 2025-41
- to amend title 20 unified development ordinance of the Bloomington municipal code in regard to a use
- table amendment for single room occupancy buildings. And we do have two amendments for that. Then comes
- a period of additional public comment on items that are not on the agenda. And then we will review the
- draft council schedule for calendar year 2026. And if we're ready to, we can vote on that.
- And then we shall adjourn. So let us move to the minutes. I move that the minutes from July 23rd 2025
- be approved. Second moved and seconded. And since we have no council members that are on zoom tonight,
- we can do a voice vote. But first, are there any questions or corrections?
- Okay, Deputy Clerk McDowell, will you please, oh wait, I just said we can do a voice vote. So all in
- favor of approving those minutes, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, those minutes are adopted.
- We will next move on to reports from council members. And we'll start on my left with Council Member
- Asari. Do you have a report this evening?
- No, well, yes, just two quick things. The first thing is that for those living in the Maple Heights
- district, I'm going to be attending the Homeowners Association or the Neighborhood Meeting this Monday.
- And so if you're there, I would love to meet with you. I know that's happening over Zoom. Also, just
- a general report that I think Innovation Week two weeks ago, we haven't had a chance to read out from
- that, was a great success.
- Many of my colleagues were able to come to some of the sessions, and I thank you to the Trade District
- and the Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and IU for putting on a fantastic event. I would recommend if
- anybody has a chance particularly to look at some of the notes from the last session around arts. There
- were some very actionable things there for us that aren't very low-hanging. I would say that are low-hanging fruit.
- So I think those are all posted online And then the third thing is that councilmember daily and I am
- hosted together with Commissioner Jody Madeira, I think Fairly successful first community conversation
- around food security and I think there'll be a lot more coming out of it. But the main thing is I think the main
- takeaway from my vantage point is that despite the government opening back again, you know, Bloomington
- has a persistent problem around affluent security. I think we're not really meeting the target of meeting
- the vast need in this community. There are a lot of people that are doing a lot, but they need a lot
- of help, particularly of manpower and, of course, finances. And so, of course, we'll have an opportunity
- to talk a little bit more about that later today, but just in terms of reporting out on activity. Thank you.
- Thank you councilmember Rosenberger. Thank you. I would like to say ditto on the Maple Heights meeting.
- It's on zoom. Did you mention that part? And okay, I will be there too. That's it for now All right
- councilmember Zulek, yes, just briefly This is not technically a committee report because I'm just telling
- y'all what I'm working on but the at the council
- Committee on special processes. We decided that we wanted to move forward with identifying how we might
- adopt a consent agenda for City Council and I have been working on that with our council attorney attorney
- later and so I just want to thank attorney liner for the time that she spent on this and Hopefully We
- will have shorter meetings y'all so I
- Thank you. That's my report Thank you councilmember Daley No report. Thank you All right going to the
- other end councilmember Flaherty no part. Thanks councilmember Ruff no report. Thank you and councilmember
- Rallo no report All right, and I will just briefly I just With the state of our
- democratic republic in the face of the federal government and state government challenges to democracy,
- I just cannot give up the opportunity to just say a few words. And I was looking at my constitution
- today. And the first article in the Bill of Rights says, Congress shall make no law respecting
- an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or of abridging the freedom of
- speech or of the press
- or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- So, I mean, there are many parts of the Constitution that the Trump administration has violated, but
- just tonight focusing on this freedom of the press, it has been truly shocking how President Trump has
- used his power to sue
- members of the press, communications outlets, CBS News, ABC News, the BBC now as well. Any news outlet
- that reports things that he doesn't like, whether they are factual, does not make any difference to
- him. He has gone after them. And I think it's atrocious and it violates the Constitution.
- And I just wanted to say that. I don't need to dwell on it, but I just cannot resist to point out the
- many ways in which I fear for the democracy in this country. And as an elected representative, we also
- have sworn to uphold the constitution of the state of Indiana and the United States. And so I just wanted
- to take this opportunity to speak out against violations at the highest levels of government. So we
- shall now move on.
- We don't have any reports from the mayor clerks the offices. We don't have any official reports from
- council committees. We will move to reports from the public. So this is the first opportunity for public
- comment on items not on tonight's agenda. So if anybody has such a comment they can approach the podium
- and please write your name very legibly and then state your name and you'll have up to three minutes.
- And if you're on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function, and we will get to you as well. Good evening,
- Madam President. Seems like old times. This is Christopher Emge from the Greater Bloomington Chamber
- of Commerce. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight, first of all. I wanted to talk, I think,
- a couple weeks ago, and the timing wasn't quite with the passing of Charlotte Zeebo, but we had our
- future cast luncheon a few weeks ago where the chamber hosted with the Rotary Club and the Kelly School
- of Business.
- Bloomington's at a crossroads economically, is what I got from that. Data from the Indiana Business
- Research Center Kelly School shows wages in the US grew a healthy 3.7% in 2025 while Indiana wages grew at 5.6%.
- But according to Professor Phil Powell, wages in Bloomington fell 6.2%. As we rely more on local income
- tax, that should be alarming to all of us. This was driven not surprisingly by cuts and
- hiring freezes at Indiana University. Specifically, academia's wages dropped 18%. Employment, while
- it grew in the state and nation, it fell 2% here. When an institution this size pulls back,
- there is impact. There's impact on retailers, restaurants, housing market. We all sort of feel that
- crunch, consumer spending falls.
- But the challenge I think presents an opportunity for us to sort of rebalance our economy toward sort
- of a broader private sector balanced approach. Since despite the issues with academia, we've seen private
- business are proving resilient here in our community. Specifically, small business creation rose 3%
- last year. That's more than three times the national rate.
- That's advanced manufacturing, life science, hospitality, tourism, creative technology, and media. And
- that lends us to much like technology week that Council Member Sari mentioned, we have the trades district
- that exemplifies this sort of growth. Entrepreneurs, private investors, and of course university talent
- collaborate to drive real innovation, real new jobs. So I'm urging the Council to make investments in
- this private enterprise specifically.
- Streamline local regulation and permitting for small businesses Convoluted permitting and all of that
- is just makes things cumbersome. So we want to sort of support public private partnerships Bloomington
- economic future depends on not one institution alone, but a broad range of them So our real strength
- lies in private business
- The other thing I wanted to mention since I have 30 seconds is the Planning Commission met a couple
- weeks ago on housing incentives And there was some debate there if you've not watched that I'm going
- to recommend it But we're got to rethink on our housing incentives specifically looking at the payment
- Lou instead of having sort of specific Units that are at a specific rate on the compliance and administrative
- cost it takes to do that I welcome further conversations later on that
- Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. And just to clarify, I'm still council vice president.
- I just happen to be chairing this meeting. Thank you. Do we have anybody on zoom? No hands raised on
- zoom. Is there anybody else in council chambers who would like to give comment on items that are not
- on the agenda? All right. Seeing none, we will go to appointments to boards and commissions. Do I have a motion?
- On behalf of interview committee team see I move that Joseph shing be appointed to seat C2
- for the commission. That's what we're doing right now. Right. OK. Someone looked confused for the commission
- on the status of children and youth and Zachary Ammerman to the Commission on Sustainability C5. Second.
- Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to make those appointments to the Commission on Status of Children
- and Youth and Commission on Sustainability. Any questions or comments. All right. All in favor please
- say aye. Aye. Any opposed. All right. We thank them for their service and thank you to Team C for bringing
- those forward. Next we will move to legislation for first reading.
- I move that ordinance 2025 dash 19 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only.
- All right. All in favor of having this introduced read by title and synopsis only please say aye. Aye.
- Aye. Any opposed. Well the clerk please read.
- Ordinance 2025 dash 19 to amend title 15 of the Bloomington municipal code entitled vehicles and traffic.
- The synopsis is ordinance 2025 19 updates the maximum charges authorized towing services may collect
- when performing city initiated toes to reflect more accurately the costs associated with towing services
- and current market pricing. Thank you.
- I move that ordinance 2025-20 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second.
- All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the clerk please read. Ordinance 2025-20 to
- amend chapter 4.32 of the Bloomington municipal code entitled non-consensual towing business regarding
- updating towing license requirements.
- and permissible towing and storage fees for non-consensual towing services under chapter 4.32. The synopsis
- is ordinance 25-20, I'm sorry, 2025-20, updates the maximum fees authorized towing services may charge
- when performing non-consensual towing and imposes additional requirements for licensing and operation
- of towing companies within the city's jurisdiction. Thank you.
- I move that ordinance 2025 dash 44 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second.
- All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the clerk please read ordinance 2025 dash 44 to
- amend title 10 of the Bloomington municipal code entitled wastewater septic collar rate adjustments.
- The synopsis is this ordinance amends the rates and charges in title 10 of the Bloomington municipal code.
- Entitled wastewater to reflect increased costs of treating hauled wastewater to the Dillman wastewater
- treatment plant Thank you, I move that appropriation ordinance 2025-14 be introduced and read by the
- clerk by title and synopsis only second All in favor, please say aye aye Any opposed Will the clerk
- please read appropriation ordinance 2025-14 and
- to specially appropriate from the General Fund Motor Vehicle Highway Fund CC Jack Hopkins fund expenditures
- not otherwise appropriated appropriating various transfers of funds within the General Fund Parks and
- Recreational General Fund Motor Vehicle Highway Fund Local Road and Street Fund Public Safety Local
- Income Tax Fund Solid Waste Fund and Fleet Maintenance Fund and the synopsis is
- This ordinance appropriates various transfers of funds within the general fund, motor vehicle highway
- fund, local road and street fund, parks and recreation general fund, public safety lit fund, CC Jack
- Hopkins fund, solid waste fund and fleet maintenance fund. Thank you. And those four items of legislation
- will be discussed and possibly voted on on December 3rd.
- Next we'll move to legislation for second reading and resolutions. I move that resolution 2025 dash
- 20 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second. All in favor. Please say aye.
- Aye. Any opposed. Any opposed. All right. Well the clerk please read resolution number 2025 dash 20
- to fund emergency food services with a distribution from the Jack Hopkins social services grant program.
- The synopsis is this resolution sponsored by councilmember asari distributes funds from the jack hopkins
- social services grant program to hoosier hills food bank of bloomington indiana for emergency food services
- Thank you I Move that resolution 2025-20 be adopted second All right councilmember asari, would you like to?
- introduce this item for us. Sure. Just very briefly and for the benefit of the public, two weeks ago
- in light of the ongoing government shutdown, council sent a letter to the mayor requesting an additional
- appropriation from the Jack Hopkins fund that we might distribute to organizations working in food security.
- The Jack Hopkins fund is money that we set aside within the budget every single year for council to
- specifically deal with emergency
- And so this felt like an appropriate use. That letter, all of us signed, sent to the mayor, and so we're
- now accompanying that with a resolution authorizing the release of those funds. I believe the amount
- of funds that were sent to the mayor
- I should have known off the top of my head, is roughly half of what's still available. We wanted to
- make sure we still had a little bit of flexible money left in this fund, either for future years or
- other emergencies, and also sort of reflecting the fact that the government shutdown has ended.
- Happy to take any questions. I guess the last clarification that's worth making is that we, following
- suit of CDBG, have suggested that this money, well not suggested, are pointing this money to Hoosier
- Hills Food Bank. They have a network of other agencies that they work with and it's fairly, you know,
- unrestricted in terms of how they use it, only so far restricted that they need to use it to help people
- who need food. I think that's everything. Happy to take any questions. Thank you. Are there questions
- for Council Member Asari? I do have one question. So in the funding agreement under funding requirements
- number two,
- It says sub recipients who provide services related to reducing homelessness must one participate in
- a coordinated service delivery system and to require residency in Bloomington's housing and urban development
- service area. So this seems to reflect the mayor's stated priority that we with city funds we prioritize
- or well we as a community prioritize helping people who are from Bloomington or Monroe County and not
- people from elsewhere. And so I I really wonder which which actually heading home originally supported
- but more recently is not supporting. So I wonder why the residency requirement in particular is in here.
- I think that's a fair point. And Attorney Lainer, correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, the MOU as it exists
- is a reflection of the MOUs that we've been using throughout the Jack Hopkins process. So it might have
- just been a slight oversight. The committee had made it a stated purpose that
- those organizations that are funded, which is somewhat irrelevant for this particular transaction, but
- that the organizations that we fund that are working in homelessness, that they needed to abide by the
- heading home plan. This was, I think, something that we've sort of done over the last two years. So
- I think that's just a vestige of that. But I think I have no issue amending that if that needs to be
- amended. But I also don't think in this particular case it might be somewhat moot.
- I just think that's a policy issue that should be investigated and not forgotten. I mean, I'm not prepared
- to bring an amendment. I don't think it's, you know, that vital in this case, but that basically, and
- I don't even know if Wheeler Mission, for example, is an entity that does not screen for where somebody is from.
- And I don't know if they ever receive food from Hoosier Hills. It may be a totally moot point, but I
- don't want to forget that that is a policy choice and actually heading home has kind of changed shifted
- their opinion on that. Agreed. Thank you for bringing that up. Council attorney Liener. I can speak
- to this briefly. This is not an issue within the Jack Hopkins program in the interest of time and given
- the fact that this
- is an emergency. We used council staff use the MOU that CFRD was using with Hoosier Hills Food Bank
- to streamline the process and make it more acceptable and easier for Hoosier Hills Food Bank. So this
- is the only situation that I'm aware of where this language would be
- a part of a distribution by council. It's not in the Jack Hopkins typical funding agreement, for example.
- Oh, okay. That's good to know. Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the public. Is there any
- member of the public who would like to comment on Resolution 2025-20, an emergency grant for food security
- from the Jack Hopkins Fund?
- Do we have anybody online who is raising a hand? All right. Well, we will come back to council for comments.
- Any council members care to comment prior to the vote? Council members will look. Yes. Thank you. All
- I want to say is this is something I'm really proud to vote for and I'm thankful to my colleague and
- friend council member. Sorry for making it happen. So thank you.
- Any other comments? Council Member Daley. Thank you. I just want to also second that. Thank you very
- much to Council Member Asari. I'm really glad that you thought of this. Every little bit helps. And
- just to reiterate what we learned at our community conversation, I think most food assistance organizations
- agree that what they need most of all is consistent and reliable donations
- Whether it's funding or food but something that they know every every month that they can rely on So
- as a side note, yes, let's I'm so proud to vote for this but also let's all maybe kind of keep remembering
- that we can also Contribute and keep doing more on a regular reliable basis. Thank you Thank you, and
- I'll just add my thanks to councilmember sorry and oh, I'm sorry I
- Onto you first. That's all I wanted to say Go ahead councilmember. Sorry. I would just I would just
- know tonight and you know, hopefully speaking on on all of our behalf I think that you know We're not
- trying to virtue signal here by you know, it's a it's a fairly small amount of money realistically given
- the need and the need that
- this community that is sort of asking from us is something more like 1% of what we pay on public safety.
- And so I do think that as we're thinking about outcome-based budgeting in the year ahead and years following,
- that I hope that we can make food security one of the many things that we really focus on and that we
- can create some solid outcomes that we might tie budget to in more significant ways moving forward.
- Any other comments Seeing none Will the clerk please call the roll on resolution 20 25-20 Councilmember
- Flaherty. Yes, Ruff. Yes, Rallo. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Daly. Yes, Zulek. Yes, Rosenberger. Yes,
- and Asari. Yes. Thanks All right. That resolution is adopted. I
- I move that ordinance 2025 dash 45 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second.
- All right. All in favor of introduction, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the clerk please read
- ordinance 2025 dash 45 to fix the salaries of all elected city officials for the city of Bloomington
- free the year 2026.
- The synopsis is this ordinance sets the maximum 20 26 salary rate for all elected city officials for
- the city of Bloomington Sorry, I move that ordinance 2025 dash 45 be adopted second All right I don't
- know that we have a presentation on this this was vetted by the
- Um, fiscal committee, the special fiscal committee of the common council. Um, and, uh, it reflects a 2.7%
- cost of living increase for all of the elected officials of the city Bloomington, the mayor, the clerk,
- and the council members. Um, I don't know what else there is to say. So are there any questions?
- Seeing none, is there any member of the public who would like to comment on Ordinance 2025-45, fixing
- the salaries of elected officials for next year? Good evening, Madam Vice President. Chris Renfrew from
- the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I just want to take this time to thank all of our elected
- officials for taking the time to run for office, spend countless hours to try to improve this community.
- It doesn't go unnoticed, and I do want to put my
- Put my sort of kudos to all of you here. Clerk Bolton's not here today. The mayor is not here, but it
- does mean a lot to have people who are committed to public service running for office. So thank you
- for your service to the community. It's appreciated. Is there anybody on zoom who would like to comment?
- No, nobody else here in chambers. I don't think.
- So we'll come back any final comments from council members before we vote. Yes, council member Flaherty.
- Thank you. I have no opposition to cost of living adjustments as a general principle to apply to salaries.
- But my feeling has been consistent with the mayor. I recommended last year that when we think about
- elected official salaries, we should be rooting it.
- first and foremost in a cohesive and consistent and comprehensive framework for city government I Don't
- think this proposal reflects that in particular I think while there are differences in what elected
- public service entails relative to civil city staff say that the Investments the city made over the
- last several years in an updated compensation scheme with
- Sort of criteria to use to guide the Importance of a role the the seriousness of the decision-making
- involved You know the hours required And things like that and that we should really be using that as
- the basis of like a values informed decision about elected official compensation We had a lot of a lot
- more robust discussion last year and I think entering into that it was clear that I
- peer benchmarking is a priority for some folks, which is a perfectly fine filter, I think, to run a
- conclusion through and to potentially moderate or interpret a conclusion that's rooted in our compensation
- framework. But I don't think a mere cola on existing salaries alone without it being rooted in that
- framework is a proposal I can support.
- so I'll continue to support and you know an approach where we where we actually rooted in the city's
- compensation framework and a set of values rather than adjusting prior year salaries alone or simply
- looking at peer benchmarking which I think is inadequate and kind of a disservice to What we pay elected
- officials generally and not myself I could sort of care less personally but I think for the whole system
- and what we're trying to encourage with respect to Who runs for office?
- Are we paying the fare of the etc? So for those reasons, I'll be voting no this year. Um, but Maybe
- we'll think about it next year. Thanks Any other comments All right seeing none Will the deputy clerk
- please call the roll on ordinance 2025-45 councilmember ruff Rallo Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes daily
- Yes. Zulek. Yes. Rosenberger. No. Sorry. Yes. And Flaherty. No. Thank you. That ordinance is adopted
- with a vote of six to two. We'll move on to the next item. I move that ordinance 2025 dash 41 be introduced
- and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed.
- Well the clerk please read.
- Ordinance 2025-41 to amend Title 20, the Unified Development Ordinance of the Bloomington Municipal
- Code regarding use table amendment, single room occupancy. The synopsis is this amendment modifies table
- 03-1, allowed use table, use standard specifics, use specific standards as well as several definitions
- within the Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the use single room occupancy
- as directed through council resolution 2024-25. This ordinance is in accordance with Indiana code 36-7-4-600.
- I move ordinance 2025-41 be adopted. Second. All right. Um, we have, uh, Mr. Gerlich from planning and
- transportation here to present.
- Please come on up Thank you Eric Grulick development services manager so as kind of prefaced here, this
- is a response to a council resolution directing us to Investigate changes to the unified development
- ordinance regarding the use of residential rooming house to incorporate potential new use single room
- occupancy paying attention to various items that were outlined in that resolution and
- Some of those were making this a allowed use in some capacity in multiple zoning districts removing
- the owner occupancy restriction and Looking out ways that we can promote this use within the community
- and and allow this in lots of different locations and zoning districts so one of our challenges so first
- I guess let me just kind of say you know, we have the use residential rooming house that is in the zoning
- code now and
- It is a permitted use in the multifamily districts with a you specific some you specific limitations
- It's also a permitted use in all of the mixed-use districts and so the residential rooming
- houses characterized as a building that has a common kitchen common bathroom and then multiple sleeping areas and
- and so we have only had real one development that has come in and Construct a single-room occupancy
- use that is at the location of 14th in college Just south of the CVS. There are three buildings that
- were built several years ago that function under this ordinance allowance but we haven't seen many of
- these come forward and
- So as we were working through the council resolution and looking at ways to allow this in residential
- district, which was one of the purposes of the ordinance itself.
- You know one of the things and we've I've mentioned this several times is you know We always have to
- look at things with a very cautious eye and be careful that we're not opening a door for something else
- that we don't want And as is the challenge with with many things regarding dwelling units and occupancy
- That's something that the unified development ordinance regulates very heavily and very purposefully
- To make sure that the number of occupants in a building are controlled based on the unified development
- ordinance requirements You know the reason for that are obviously linked to impacts on adjacent properties
- You know the more people in a building oftentimes more coming and going more trash more noise etc So
- that's why occupancy is limited and regulated to a very high regard so one of our concerns with this
- was making sure that
- You know, we're not just enabling a situation where landlords or other owners are just getting more
- people in a building and not accomplishing what we're looking for.
- You know what we're looking for what the hope is, you know is Buildings that have low rent based on
- you know, the low need for what they're actually renting You know, there's renting a bedroom and they're
- sharing common spaces And so in situations, you know when you look at other communities and the use
- of single-room occupancy You know, they're looking at large buildings Situations where you're reusing
- a hotel for instance
- Or you know situations where you have large buildings So as we went through this process of looking
- at what changes we can incorporate looking at other zoning codes throughout the Throughout the nation
- in the community we we see this use in mixed-use commercial districts all the time But we did not find
- regulations within other communities to allow this within single-family districts And so that's where
- it really became challenging
- And so as we went through conversations with the Plain Commission This went to two hearings at the Plain
- Commission And we heard lots of comments from neighbors and members of the community You know that was
- certainly a concern that was echoed numerous times is making sure that this is not just a path to get
- more renters within rental units and so one of the prevailing comments that we heard was certainly the
- desire to try to incorporate certain
- Confines and restrictions to kind of prevent that so the owner occupancy component for the single-family
- district came up a lot of times You know, we've looked at certain aspects like limiting it to a nonprofit
- legal department was very concerned about Stating who can own a property So this was you know, as we
- look through other communities. This was certainly something that we ran into a lot were Restriction
- that it has to be operated by a non-for-profit Which is is certainly fine, but we can't control who owns
- Property so we kind of ran into that hurdle a little bit So we well, we recognize that one of the purposeful
- statements of the resolution from the council was to remove the owner occupancy You know what we're
- bringing forward and what is before you today does include that as a use specific standard as as part
- of That use being allowed in the single-family districts that being the r1 r2 r3
- and our four districts So we we went back and forth during the Plain Commission hearings on a couple
- different aspects of this one of those was the number of bedrooms that were in each unit and then also
- the number of occupants that were allowed in each unit so at the first hearing that just went to the
- Plain Commission we did have occupancy limitation of one person proposed and
- Per unit, but then we had a higher bedroom count that was allowed and an owner occupancy There were
- a lot of concerns that were raised about the number of bedrooms that were in there And so we we did
- scale that back to the three bedrooms in regards to the number of occupants that are allowed per building
- Again, we kind of went back and forth on that one of the things that we certainly wanted to try to accomplish
- You know, the hope was of this was you know, you allow for couples or a family or some situations
- like that that allows for more than one person to occupy a unit or a bedroom I should say and so that's
- why our proposal currently has occupancy of two people per bedroom we are not regulating children legal
- department advised against that so you know we are not regulating
- Number of children only adults and so what we have brought forward to try to balance what we heard coming
- from Plaint Commission hearings as well as members of the public is a proposal to Modify the use residential
- rooming house to rename that single room occupancy We are proposing to allow it as a conditional use
- with you specific standards in the r1 r2 r3 and r4 district as a permitted use
- With those same you specific standards within the RM and RH And then permitted uses within all of the
- mixed-use districts with the exception of the mixed-use institutional district So real quick, I'll just
- kind of go through some of those you specific standards that I mentioned in the r1 through r4 There's
- a maximum of three bedrooms that are allowed In an SRO, there are no other no limitations on number
- of bedrooms in any other districts
- There is a limit of two adults per bedroom Which I discussed, you know, the reason for that was to allow
- for couples or families to some capacity to occupy these buildings We included a use specific standard
- similar to the duplexes where there was a buffer that has created a hundred fifty foot buffer that exists
- for two years we included the language that a property owner cannot have any notice as a violation and
- Included the similar language for the SROs if you're constructing a new one that they be compatible
- to surrounding structures in regards to roof pitch front porch width and depth access so the same kind
- of standards that we see with duplexes and
- And then as I mentioned, you know one of the things that seemed to be very important to the members
- of the community and certainly the Planning Commission was Including the owner occupancy allowance or
- requirement I should say within the r1 r2 r3 and r4 and the main reason for that was it it Ensures that
- the owner lives there which takes away, you know the the high rental
- Capability or possibility of you know, one person just establishing SROs are all over this city for
- the simple purpose of getting more occupants and they're not really Accomplishing what we were hoping
- for so we were you know bound a little bit by what we can legally allow or not allow We can certainly
- allow or require that the owner lived there So that was just one attempt to try to ensure that you know,
- this doesn't become just a proliferation for more
- rentals with higher occupancy allowances and not really accomplishing what The council was hoping to
- see with this resolution So with this there are several other changes kind of running throughout the
- union unified development ordinance of removing the references to residential rooming house Replacing
- that with single-room occupancy But beyond that, you know the main meat of it certainly in the use specific
- standards and then
- the allowed use table changes that we are proposing. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
- Thank you. At this time, I would like to move Amendment 1 because it just clarifies some things. It
- doesn't change any things substantive. So to avoid talking about everything twice, I'd like to go ahead
- and move Amendment 1 and
- Can I give this to you council member daily? Because I'm the sponsor of that amendment. Are you moving
- second? Yes, I move amendment one. Second. Thank you. Okay, so amendment one is to add a whereas clause
- to clarify that it is the city council that was asking the planning staff and the planning commission to
- consider single room occupancy buildings. And then it attaches a new attachment A that is more clear
- than the previous attachment A. It has some red lining instead of just bold face. It corrects a couple
- of typos. And then it does make clear that the definition
- between residential rooming house and single room occupancy that definition did change. That was not
- clear with the attachment a previously. So that's what this amendment does. All right. Thank you very
- much. Council member Smith. Any questions on Amendment 1. I don't see any. So now we can move to public
- comment on Amendment 1 only not the entire
- Ordinance do we have anybody in the council chambers or on zoom who would like to? Make public comment
- on amendment one only I Don't see any movement here anybody online All right All right, so then we will
- move on any comments council member comments on amendment one You guys are easy all right, let's move
- for a vote can we do a voice vote on this or do we need to I
- Do a roll call vote. I don't remember. All right Deputy clerk McDowell, would you mind? Yes. Thank you
- Yes Excuse me councilmember Rallo Rallo, I'm sorry. I thought you said rough Yes Piedmont Smith.
- Yes daily. Yes Zulek. Yes Rosenberger. Yes. Sorry. Yes Flaherty. Yes and rough
- Yes, thanks Super that passes eight to zero and I will pass the gavel back to you. Thank you Thank you
- So I think we can take questions for mr. Grulick on the ordinance at this point because we are
- Now we just have the slightly remit amended more clear version in front of us. And then of course we
- do have another amendment which I do intend to get to as well. So but let's see if there are any questions
- first. Council member sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Grulick to two quick questions. Could you talk
- a little bit more about that buffer zone explain the reasoning behind it and also for the benefit of
- both me and the public, how exactly does that work?
- Yeah, absolutely. Um, so this was an attempt to try to make sure there's not a proliferation I guess
- some a lot of these are just to appease concerns of a saturation of one particular area that might have
- this use more than other portions of the city so though as part of the conditional use approval a 150
- foot buffer is created around this property that no other SROs are allowed within a two-year time period and
- So so that they can't there there can't be two sro's next to each other within a two-year time period
- of one being established There has to be at least 150 foot buffer before another one could be established
- within that two-year time period within but after two years you could have another correct and and and
- the and and but that's only within our one through four Correct. So that's specific to the conditional
- use aspect
- Okay, so okay fantastic and then the second one is about the parking the parking spaces Just can you
- help me understand the change that we're making so it's two spaces For the unit and then one per bedroom.
- Is that a change or is that just a clarification? So that yes, so that's not a change from the current
- maximum. It's just a renaming of the
- Changing from guest room to bed to okay. It was just three. So it's just a maximum So, you know within
- the r1 r2 and r3 and r4, you know nine times out of ten You're just allowed a singular driveway. So
- we're really not getting into a situation of delineating how many cars are in a driveway this would
- really only kind of come into play if there were spaces that were being created off of an alley for
- instance and
- But I guess but the parking maximum would apply for every other district So in the single-family you're
- controlled by a driveway with so the parking maximum is really just gonna come and come into play in
- Mixed-use districts where you're not just to make sure it's a parking maximum not a parking minimum
- Correct. There's not a there's not a minimum. Okay. Thank you Other questions from councilmembers
- councilmember Rosenberger, thank you do these
- Units have to be attached They they don't have to be In the mixed-use districts and single-family districts,
- it does only allow for one dwelling unit To meet that definition. So in the single-family and the r1
- r2 and r3, you could only have one building as a dwelling unit you could have a duplex, you know if
- there was some other use and
- You know, so well, I guess not in a duplex because you wouldn't have that 150 foot separation But in
- the single-family districts, it would just be one building. Yeah and by single-family districts do you
- mean our districts that have small apartment buildings up to like 30 units and condos up to 30 units
- is that sort of like what you're referring to like Prospect Hill has
- I live in a 32 unit condo building, but are you calling that a single-family? No, so so in the single-family
- districts what I mean specifically is the r1 r2 r3 or I live in one of those Yes, I just there there
- is a condo that was built in the 90s with 32 units So it's just I mean, I think it's confusing to refer
- to it as single-family sure where we have Very different housing types in all of our neighborhoods.
- They're just not allowed now
- Okay, so I have a single-family home and I could attach two more units to it. Is that what this is saying?
- Well, so that would be a triplex if I'm under saying what you're describing that would be a triplex
- but only which would only be an allowed use in the r4 district Okay, so we're trying to make three affordable
- units, but in some case I mean if an owner has to live there then we would only be making two potentially
- new affordable units for people who don't own the property and
- Well, so there would still be only one unit you can have bedrooms. So that's that's I think an important
- character different Hey, okay is there's only one dwelling in it. So one kitchen and then you can have
- three bedrooms Well, I guess I was thinking about is they're different rentals, right? So I You would
- be renting a room correct. Yes, so we would only be creating two new rentals Per a sorrow in our wonder
- for yes, so something very small. Okay. Thank you. Yeah
- Councilmember allo Thank you So this is Housing form that's meant for affordability it is And I imagine
- that we have some kind of Range of rent in mind. Do you happen to have that range? I
- Yeah, so again that was something that we discussed with a legal department, you know And so rent control
- or rent restrictions are not something that we can impose by right, you know as an incentive, you know
- So that's how we accomplish that with the incentive section and say, you know You can have certain amount
- extra units that have to be within a certain AMI, but those are incentives So it's not a requirement.
- Yeah, I'm just wondering about a scale range of affordability Is that at all been discussed?
- What would this potentially offer? Yeah, so so that that's a challenging question. Yeah, obviously as
- you're aware of
- You know how how to you know the dream when you see these operated in a lot of communities in in larger
- buildings You know, they're operated by a non-for-profit or by a municipality with a very purposeful
- goal of creating these affordable units So they're set out to control the rent by the property owner,
- you know not by the the
- Municipality themselves and so that's that's where it just legally becoming very challenging for us
- to try to Accomplish what you see, you know when you when you think of an SRO You know instinctively
- you think that yes, oftentimes these are very affordable because you're renting a very small area But
- they don't have to be you know, some owner could charge whatever they want and that's that's our challenge
- here in Bloomington a lot as Rental units are very price
- matched or Restricted with what the maximum value and rent and profit that the owner can get and so,
- you know You have to come into it Perfectly saying I am going to offer these with a lower rent with
- with that set mind But we can't regulate or require that So these could possibly be affordable by Possibly
- not they could be if the owner chooses that yeah, so
- I wondered about the the existing ones the existing residential rooming houses So there's one I think
- at Eagleson and Atwater Yeah, so there there are there are a few Grandfathered rooming houses that are
- kind of scattered around the third Street and Atwater area. I Don't know what the rents are of those.
- Well, I was going to ask is it What are those considered now are those rooming houses? I
- So the grandfather's rooming houses are not considered our SROs No, they're they they came in when rooming
- houses were allowed in a previous code So the owner doesn't live there so they don't meet our current
- so it's a legal non-conforming use Okay Okay, I think that's That's good for now. Thank you Any other
- first round questions Councilmember rough So you mentioned a minute ago there the owner living there
- Can you kind of compare the requirement for an ADU and the owner being required to either live in the
- ADU unit or the main unit? And can you sort of compare, are we talking, what are the differences and
- similarities with what we're talking about here with SROs?
- Yeah, so it's the same situation, you know the language for the accessory dwelling units requires the
- owner to live on the property whether it's in the main dwelling unit or the adu either one of those
- have to be owner occupied so that is insured through You know making sure that they claim that property
- on their homestead exemption form So that's how we ensure that the owner lives there and is claiming
- that and can only be claiming that one property so you don't see any like
- Sort of the loopholes or ways sort of to take to get around that requirement Well, so yeah, so there
- is you know, certainly and this is something that we do I don't know how often it happens because we're
- not involved with the recording of deeds and
- But we do have had conversations where an owner Has said well if I put my kids name on the deed Does
- that mean that they live there and it's like as long as they are claiming that and no one else is claiming
- that property as their Homestead exemption then yes, you could put a child on your deed and they would
- be the owner there and so that would be an allowance for I don't want to say a loophole but something
- to that effect
- And so that was a challenge. That was a reality. And, you know, there weren't enough, I guess, safeguards
- that we could put in here. You know, you're I think the council is certainly probably aware of what
- we're trying to ensure, but also make sure it doesn't get abused. And so this was this was a very challenging
- set of rules and regulations to try to incorporate within the R1, R2 and R3 and R4 districts. OK,
- thank you. Any other first round question?
- If not we'll go to councilmember sorry. Okay. So within our one and our four the difference here like
- what we're what we're making a conditional use is that somebody who currently occupies a home can say
- you know what I'd like to rent out the rooms in the rest of my house that I'm currently occupying. That
- is the only change that we're making in our one through our four.
- Yes by adding so right now the UDO in terms of the uses does not allow for residential rooming houses
- in the r1 r2 r3 and r4 So this would be allowing that as a conditional use So we propose it as a conditional
- use so that there is a public process That neighbors can be involved with so it does have a little bit
- higher level of transparency with it Is there any other change happening in our one through our four? I
- Not not really I mean other than allowing this use but then with the use specific standards that come
- with it Right, but I'm but I'm saying like when you're thinking about the archetypes of things that
- could happen here There's outside of that example. Is there any other example that creates more more?
- housing in or
- Shelter is maybe a better way of describing it. But is there like housing in in the residential areas?
- No, not not specifically and and yeah, you know for some of the reasons that I mentioned of you know
- how to how to balance, you know occupants and number of people and number of bedrooms and and then on
- that note the the Subpoint or the I think it's B. I'm sorry
- That says that no no room should be rented for less than 30 consecutive days How does that interact
- with? Airbnb's those type of things. Yeah, so so the main distinction there is to differentiate this
- kind of from a hotel and
- You know hotels you check in check out whatever so this is ensuring a higher level of occupancy Then
- you're just saying the night and then you're moving on So, yeah Councilmember Rosenberger, can I piggyback
- on that Airbnb question because right now I Can rent the second room like say I have a house with a
- second room. I can rent that by the night and
- On Airbnb. Yes, we do not have any regulations right now for everything that we can with the state and
- I Can still do that? I mean after this I can still do that And it's different. I am also a little confused
- of how this is different than me renting my Room in my house for a month at a time Is it the number
- of people?
- Yes, so this I mean this would be one the really the smallest differences you would be allowed two people
- per bedroom, right? Okay, and so that is an amendment that may be introduced later Tonight that there
- is a different limit. Okay, so mostly the difference is You can have a two two people potentially with
- children in in a bedroom. Okay. Yes. Thank you All right any other questions councilmember Ruff
- A minute ago you mentioned the involvement or the opportunity for involvement of the residents area
- the neighborhood community in the process and they just want to get clarification my understanding based
- on talking to our staff is that all SRO condition use Petitions would would go to the BZA there. There's
- no staff level and
- There's no situation In our at least our 1r4 worth it'd be a staff level improvement It would go to
- the BZA to be yeah, you could go you to the Board of Zoning Appeals or the hearing officer But both
- of those require public notification letters signs ads and a public hearing So What determines in a
- given case whether it would go to the hearing officer or
- the BZA So typically we take things to the hearing officer that we're recommending approval of that.
- Nobody is speaking out against That don't seem to have any real issues. No remonstrators against things
- that maybe there is a little bit more Public input that has been received maybe there's something that
- we do feel it needs a higher level of transparency and viewing we send those to the Board of Zoning
- Appeals and
- Okay, so I'm sorry, but that was that was not the understanding I came into the meeting with I came
- into the meeting with the understanding that It just goes to the BZA Yes, they do plexes for instance
- was specifically written in that they have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals We did not include that
- language with the SRO use specific limitations So there is a possibility it could go to the hearing
- officer Yeah, I thought it was
- Like the the plex situation Yeah, so plexes duplexes as conditional uses those have to go to the Board
- of Zoning Appeals That was something that was very specifically written in To those provisions. Okay.
- Thank you Any other questions councilmember Rosenberg, sorry, yes, I have another one I want to talk
- about this in relation to try plexes so
- My question is going to be Why the owner occupancy but I want to first just like say something about
- it I think the owner occupancy does kind of I mean I'm going to vote vote yes on this but I think the
- owner occupancy like misses the purpose of an SRO because I think the vision is a place for you know
- people to live and
- Kind of in their own space and in a shared space and not necessarily in someone else's space too So
- I think it is meant to be more of a co-op situation and I know co-ops are allowed so that's okay, but
- I think this instead is going to kind of have a problem of Like using single-family homes for SROs instead
- of potentially like new development as SROs sort of more similar to triplexes so
- That was like my vision of it, I guess but why then the owner occupancy? Is it just because? comments
- at well so that that was to help curtail a proliferation of these by one particular Person or landlord
- who just wants to has a lot of rentals and say well I'm gonna I'm gonna go get an SRO every single one
- of my rentals and now I've just got six people where I can only have three Other
- councilmember questions I Think if we have another amendment that could come forward at this point.
- Oh Yes councilmember rough. I just like to follow up on my last question with with our council attorney
- administrator Are you in agreement with that interpretation that
- makes a decision about whether an SR our proposal goes to the BZA or as just heard by the hearing officer
- I Thought with respect to the conditional uses that it went to the BZA Eric I'm looking for that site
- right right now and
- Yeah, so so the UDO in terms of processes, you know, it outlines a path for the hearing officer and
- says what they can and cannot hear so they can hear variances from development standards as well as
- conditional uses, you know, the UDO is not
- Specific of you know staff can determine based on criteria X Y & Z, you know the criteria that I mentioned
- It's just what we use as an internal guideline, you know for something like this We're probably going
- to err more times than not on being more conservative and sending it to the Board of Zoning Appeals
- You know if there were situations And we kind of dealt with this a little bit with accessory dwelling
- units when those first came out in the UDO We were sending every single one of those to the BZA, you
- know as we kind of went down the line and you know
- We got more comfortable with dealing with it. If there were specific situations, we might send it to
- BZA. But as it became a little bit more standard, you know, we were sending those to the hearing officer
- just to make things a little bit easier on members of the public that were trying to
- Do them oftentimes going to the Board of Zoning Appeals can seem very heavy to members of the public
- You know, they have to be up on TV in front of a board and City Council chambers and you know that can
- feel very imposing and sometimes that was a restriction for folks and so You know what they'd use as
- we went down the line Like I said, sometimes we would send those to the hearing officer but starting off
- You know, we're certainly being very conservative and sending most of those are all of those to the
- Board of Zoning Appeals So I would expect that you know, if these start to come forward We would be
- sending the majority of these if not all of them in the BZA for a while Yeah Okay, thank you All right,
- are there any other questions Or we can go to the amendment the second amendment
- I'd like to move amendment to to ordinance 2025 41 second All right. Councilmember Rallo, please present
- your amendment Yes, this is fairly simple It changes The occupancy from two adults to one in an SRO
- unit You might put it up
- we put put the language up so people can see the strike out and The addition so I have two reasons for
- the amendment One is concern about overcrowding of the unit I Don't see room a single room is adequate
- for families So having a single adult is one way to encourage the occupancy and
- of an individual It doesn't preclude children blood but it but it it is more likely to be occupied by
- an individual And So it's really a it's a means of for health and safety of the residents of the SRO
- the second reason is
- Evolves from what Councilman rough mentioned in his inquiry, which is The possibility and I I can imagine
- the fact I've known single-family houses purchased With the child included in the title of the home
- and so it's to prevent the circumvention of our over occupancy code and
- Limits single-family zones to three unrelated adults It's also in alignment with HUD regulations which
- limit SRO occupancy a one person per unit And That's it Thank you
- May I ask staff for their input on this amendment? Yeah, so certainly that that is a approach that the
- council could take is limiting occupancy to one individual per room You know the challenge with that
- is it really just kind of puts us back to literally exactly the situation where we're at now Where you
- can have one unit three bedrooms one person a bad and so we haven't really done anything
- So that I'm just pointing out that that would be the implication Obviously of that amendment, but that
- would be for the council obviously to decide if that's something they want to pursue Thank you questions
- for councilmember Rallo or for staff regarding the amendment councilmember salary first a question for
- staff Mr. Gulick is in your opinion
- Given the concerns that councilmember all are raised. Are there other ways that one could design the
- policy to accomplish those things? Yeah, that's that's that's a great question. And and that was the
- challenge that we faced as well You know when when we first brought this to the first round at the Plain
- Commission we had the occupancy at one but we had a higher bedroom count because you know one of the
- things that we
- away from the resolution that came from the council is you know, you want to allow this in the single-family
- districts and You you want to move the needle a little bit you want to give an allowance for a little
- bit more Than what current code allows for and so we are challenged with how do we accomplish that?
- You know, so right now like I said, you can have a you can have three bedrooms. You can have One person
- in each and that's what you get. So if we want to move that needle a little bit, we've got to move it somewhere
- You know whether that's the number of occupants per room or that's the number of bedrooms. It's in a
- unit You know one of those two things has to give and so this was just simply our suggestion though
- the Plain Commission seemed amenable to and members of the public seemed amenable to so that's kind
- of how we got to where we are with that and do you see a contradiction with the should this not pass
- if if with with the
- over occupancy regulations in the UDO Would we need to also adjust those to bring them into compliance
- if we know because the the definition of this says it For individuals that don't meet the definition
- of family and so that excludes this from that Excellent. Um, and then and so that my question
- for councilmember Rallo Considerations of people being related. I mean if you know
- two adults who are related in some way want to room together. Are you concerned about that, or are you
- concerned about the proliferation of some other type of people using rooms together? Well, what I'm
- concerned about is the potential for families to occupy, say, five individuals, two parents and three
- children or something, to occupy a single room. That's possible.
- Because we can we're not going to regulate children So I think to err on the side of caution we should
- we should limit it to one the the other potential is that I mean, I think we already have a problem
- with Owner occupancy in our community the availability of single-family homes Airbnb's are taking them
- off the market private equity firms are purchasing them and
- We're adding another incentive here for the purchase of a home. That's very lucrative That then could
- essentially double the occupancy charge rent cover the mortgage payment and I think that that is completely
- conceivable if This was not a university town. It probably wouldn't matter but that is the context we're
- living in right now, so I
- I'd just like to follow up on Council Member Osari's question, which I may have misunderstood, but was
- the question whether Council Member Rallo would be opposed to a married couple defined as a family because
- they're married or whatever, occupying an SRO, was that the question? Yeah, I was just trying to understand
- if the concern, like in terms of the design here of the amendment, if the concern
- is if it's more on the side of you might have a family, which is a point he brought up, you might have
- four people living in an SRO versus the concern being that you might have, for example, two students
- living in an SRO. So I can give comment later, but I was just trying to understand what was the impetus
- of the design here.
- Yes. Good question. Well then can I follow up with staff for a minute. So the given our definition of
- family are we allowed to limit a bedroom to one person. I mean I'm sorry I'm a little confused where
- the definition of family comes in because currently if they are related adults
- You can have unlimited number of them in a single-family home anyway So I'm kind of wondering how this
- would be different Yep, great question so in the definition of family or I'm sorry in the definition
- of residential rooming house that is changing to single-room occupancy You know it states in there that that
- The individuals that are occupying it do not meet the definition of family and so that is in regards
- to just saying that the the unit itself is regulated differently And that everybody that is living there
- isn't related and so it's acknowledging it's calling that out as something different and
- That everybody is there is not meeting the definition of family because they're not all related. They're
- not all on the same lease So that's that's the important distinction there. So in this case here, they're
- on individual leases or something different and so that's that's the key characteristic of How that's
- different and how this is allowed for residential rooming houses to even exceed the number of occupants
- and mixed-use districts where you can have you know 40 people in a dwelling unit and
- Because it's it's exempted because they're in different leases and they're just not subject to the definition
- of meeting family So if we compare to a single-family home in an r3 district, for example Where you
- could have 12 people if they're all related you could have 12 Potentially 12 adults. Yeah living in
- that home. Yeah, let's say it has four bedrooms You could I mean
- That would be a lot more people than you could have if you had an SRO because it's limited to three
- bedrooms, two in each bedroom. And so that's an important characteristic of the Fair Housing Act that
- says you can't regulate how many family members, how many people you are related to or married to by
- blood or marriage or other legal adoption. So the Fair Housing Act governs who you can and can't regulate
- to that capacity. So I don't know if Anadina is online or if
- attorney wants to help speak to the Fair Housing Act in any regards more specifically But that's that's
- an important distinction there of how families everybody's related by blood marriage, etc and how that's
- allowed to be unrelated regulated is because the Fair Housing Act language and Decisions, but am I right
- in my example that you could have 12 adults in a single-family home Higher density than this SRO proposal
- would allow
- in that same house. Yes. So yes, you can have 12 people, if it meets the definition of family, where
- they're not a lease, because they all live there, they're all related by blood marriage, so they're
- a separate thing. And then you have a situation where you're not that. So the situation where you're
- not that, and you're signing a lease, and you're not all related, that's where you're restricted to
- three. A situation where you're not signing a lease, and you're regulated separately,
- As individuals so you're not meeting the definition of family. So that's where you're allowed to have
- Or not be subject to that three or five, you know in the mixed-use districts Okay councilmember sorry
- very quick follow-up piggybacking on her follow-up to my follow-up is if we pass this amendment are
- we saying that a family could not occupy an SRO in our one through four and
- So the family could, but not an adult. So you could have one adult and as many kids as you want. But
- not two married, not two married adults. No, so that was when this first came forward. There was language
- in there that said people, persons that meet the definition of family, or three unrelated, or
- Occupants or something like that, but that was that was very that was contradictory to have adults or
- family members because then you're getting into that situation of you could have 14 people in there
- if they're all related like that's not what we want so we're calling this out differently and saying
- to adults period and Then children are unrelig regulated Councilmember Zulek Councilmember Rallo, I'm so
- I understand the occupancy concern but I'm a little bit concerned about separating families or just
- you know two people who are together but not married by law. Would you consider if we were to change
- this to two adults a maximum of two adults and a maximum of three total people per bedroom. Would that be more.
- I thought we is mr. Gorlick. I'm sorry that we need your assistance here Because what you're saying
- is two adults plus a child And I don't think we can limit we can't restrict a number of children Correct.
- We would not be regulating them in any capacity. Okay, I understand Thank you. So there's I had another
- question man so I had another consideration that is that that
- specifies one person per unit in SROs Would violating that make these SROs ineligible for HUD funding
- That is possible But I think the HUD requirements or restrictions are just if you're getting funding
- for them, you know, they don't you know, somebody can certainly if if
- This is just an allowance that you can have up to two if somebody an individual and organization was
- seeking a HUD funding They would just restrict it to one occupant per room and then that would meet
- them. So we're not necessarily Making them have two people they would be choosing that it's just an
- allowance But I'm I'm anticipating that if this is a commercial endeavor. It is likely to be applying
- for Assistance for HUD for some kind of public assistant
- Could be but that would obviously have to be the the well thought-out intentions of the organization
- And so if they were saying hey, we need this HUD funding Then they would bring for this as we are limiting
- occupancy to one individual per room Okay, thanks other questions on the amendment councilmember rough
- This is for anybody staff or council or the sponsor and
- Do we have any Information or understanding of why HUD? Limits to one person per room There's obviously
- a reasoning behind it. Do we anybody have any idea why I Don't have a specific background on on why
- that was No
- Any other questions? Councilmember Asari? I was trying to formulate the question, maybe more of a, it's
- somewhat of an open thing, but I'm trying to understand, and Councilmember Aurello would love your thoughts
- on this too, the sort of balancing here between the owner having to live in the property to begin with,
- and R1 through R4, and then the idea that there would be this huge proliferation
- coming from both sides, right? Because I get the concern here. I get the notion that you might have
- basically three very large families, let's say two married and a bunch of kids in three different rooms.
- So you could have 12 people or something like that living in a small single family house or something
- like that. I get the concern. But I'm trying to understand whether, I mean, the fact that we're requiring
- that the owner live there, it feels like enough of a barrier to me to that.
- So just your thoughts on I'm just trying to wrap my head around like what are the appropriate barriers?
- I mean, what are the appropriate guardrails here for what we're trying to achieve? Yes, there can be
- large families Occupying a single family home. I guess the context that I'm referring to is really one
- of living in a university town Where? We have the
- It's been a greater and greater likelihood of Families parents who have money to purchase homes Purchase
- a home for their child and then Rent it out to to to others this doubles the occupancy so it makes it
- even more attractive to do that and
- So this is going to I would assume accelerate that process. I have a question I think for staff. So
- SROs would be subject to residential rental occupancy permits through hand right. I don't I don't think
- that they would because these would be a boarding house.
- As I recall from conversing with them and they don't inspect those similar to hotels and motels That's
- not what I recall I'm looking now Okay. Yeah, I and I apologize. I had this written down a long time
- ago and I forgot to recheck my notes on this but that was my Previous thought was that they they would
- not but I might be mistaken. So I apologize and
- For not having a clear answer on whether or not hand would inspect these Counselor liner, do you know
- whether these would be subject to hand inspection? No, I don't Mr. Hiddle, would you happen to know
- seeing a director Hiddle in the audience? What What did you say? He does not know. Okay. Well, I will try to
- out Councilmember Rosenberger, I kind of think they wouldn't be It's been a while since I've read our
- Inspection program, but I think it exempts short term and that is anything under 30 days, but It's been
- a couple years since I've read it but this SROs would have to be rented for at least 30 days or longer
- Correct. So they oh so they wouldn't be exempt so they would get inspected. Yes, okay
- Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. The jurisdiction in title 16 says this residential rental unit and logic
- lodging establishment inspection program title shall apply to all residential rental units and lodging
- establishments located within the corporate boundaries of the city. That sounds to me like it would
- be included. Are there other questions?
- Councilmember Rosenberger, I think this is for staff Did you all I kind of see an either or either?
- six people owner occupied or one person per Rental bedroom, but I think both is too cumbersome. Did
- you all think about both of those? also another detail that I think about with
- you know, we think it's just lucrative for a landlord to rent out then every room. If we had like two
- per bedroom with no owner occupancy, there are cons to that where right now students or anyone rent
- in one single lease for the most part where anyone is on the hook for, you know, $3,000 a month and
- that landlord can
- if someone defaults, that landlord can go after everyone for $3,000 a month, right? Where like, if these
- are single room occupancies, it does change the risk for a landlord, too, if someone defaults, because
- they would be defaulting on their own bedroom. And it wouldn't be as big of a loss to them, and they
- couldn't recover as much. So there are pros and cons, no matter what, I guess, to an owner living in
- it or not. Yes.
- Okay, and then but then did you think about owner occupancy versus number per bedroom? Like in that,
- you know, we're yes. Yeah Yeah, so that was where I was you know kind of at the onset trying to explain,
- you know all the various challenges of you know how to add additional capacity additional housing additional
- sleeping areas while trying to curtail and make sure that it doesn't just become a proliferation of more
- Over occupancy or higher occupancy. I guess is probably a better word You know for rental units everywhere
- because you know, yes every you know If there's not the owner occupancy then anybody who owns multiple
- properties could in theory come along and get this For every single property that they have which is
- not what we were trying to accomplish So the owner occupancy component was really the the only way to
- make sure that it limits that to just that one unit and
- And so that's I mean, that's just a challenge, you know, and obviously the all the members of the council
- are recognizing I think you know these these challenges of how to try to get more housing and make it
- something different than what we've got right now without it just being a proliferation of more student
- rental Uses and not necessarily what we were hoping to accomplish Can I keep going yes, I guess too I just
- I want to ask like don't you agree that? Students are also cost burdened and by alleviating rent levels
- for everyone even if it some people will sure take advantage of this kid on the deed and Six students
- can live there. I'll tell you what I would have loved to share a bedroom with any of my friends I lived
- with my sister for 16 years and I was horrified to live alone I was horrified. I was a baby, but like
- this will help everyone by I
- Even if there are six students living together, it should help in some way our housing supply It will
- certainly increase the ability to house more individuals You know if if you know you take off the owner
- occupancy and allow this to be everywhere Obviously, you know, there's pros and cons of you know, what
- is the reality? Will it be? you know
- Affordable that is less than market rate or what is the maximum that you could possibly get from people
- that want to live there? You know nine times out of ten people gonna charge as much money as they can
- possibly get from it And that's that's just our reality that we deal with here in Bloomington You know
- unless it is operated specifically by a non-for-profit that is getting funding from
- You know that has those restrictions that go along with it. They have the rent restrictions that they
- are imposing themselves You know, then then you get the the ideal situation, you know where you've got
- an SRO that is providing affordable rents Because that is something that is being forced or not forced,
- you know requirement of funding
- Yeah, I was a the rooming houses that are you know that I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation
- on third or 14th Street You know, I have the understanding of the rents. They are very expensive And
- because they can get it You know the only situations where you know, you really have rents that are
- not that are the co-op houses But that's a different business model Other questions on amendment to
- Councilmember Flaherty Yeah, thank you I'm a little confused. I mean, yes people charge what they can
- within a market But but it's exactly that it is a market there are limits to that Like don't you agree
- that a 3,000 square foot home would sell for more than a 1,000 square foot home If all other attributes
- are fairly equal, right? Like yes similarly
- You know, what you're getting, if you're renting a whole house by yourself, or you're renting a bedroom,
- or you're sharing in the rental of a bedroom between two people, like regardless of whatever the market
- price is for those things, allowing more people, allowing two people to occupy a room instead of one,
- all else equal does lead to lower rents, by which I'm defining as the rental amount that per capita
- we are paying.
- Right? Am I missing something? That's the idea, dream of supply and demand, but like you said, we have
- not from a reality standpoint seen that. My question is much more basic, which is that if you take a
- given rental amount, whatever the market price is, and divide it by two versus dividing it by one, is
- it not cheaper to divide it by two? You're assuming that that rent stayed the same and somebody didn't
- raise that rent knowing that they can get that times six.
- Okay, so your assertion is that if we allow to the rental price will double Relative to what it would
- be. Otherwise, I think that's very likely I mean if I own a piece of property and I knew that I could
- get more from a Renter. Yeah, then I would I would do that. I Question the market logic but and like
- Okay, I do a follow-up for their sponsor as well. I
- which is, I've always been a little bit, found a little bit paradoxical, like the arguments over the
- number of people in a house or a room, when we talk about putting pressure on the housing market, because
- there are a finite number of people who want to live here, and when we take five-bedroom houses and
- limit them to three people, we are leaving bedrooms empty, and in fact, creating spillover effects that affect
- their houses and and similarly that when we you know add a thousand or two thousand new units of You
- know rental housing like it's it's and maybe expensive because it's a new construction But real people
- live there and those are real people that would otherwise be trying to get housing, you know within
- existing structure So I guess I'm curious like does that It when we talk about limiting I don't think
- this is going to blow up into some like big thing I think this is incrementalism, but like let's assume
- there's a hundred
- three-bedroom Houses that do this over time if it's single-room, you know person occupancy, that's 300
- people if it's two and they all max that out that's 600 people in the same exact number of Units or
- homes so it's housing 300 more people relative to the way what this amendment would allow that are no
- longer, you know competing against others for housing I guess
- I'm curious for your perspective is on that and like if you think like maybe I'm missing something in
- your rationale But I would think that actually allowing and yes without overcrowding But like, you know
- a couple to live in a bedroom would would help alleviate if anything pressures on the housing system
- Well Okay, there's there's a little bit done pack there I regarding supply and demand
- We have approved thousands and thousands of apartments and rents haven't Noticeably decrease to clarify.
- I'm not asking about price availability and that's it. There's availability. There's there's there isn't
- full occupancy of these multifamily units that have been built and But it's available but apparently
- it hasn't affected the rents so I think it's a faulty and
- I mean, it's a it's a simplistic argument to say supply and demand is going to automatically result
- in a decrease in in cost of units, but Because it hasn't been shown to happen. I Mean, you can't demonstrate
- that it has no actually in places like Minnesota Minneapolis. It's been demonstrated that That's that's
- that's fine. We're talking here. That's actually not the argument I'm making my question was but don't
- you like What's what do you disagree with?
- about the fact that allowing two people would allow more people to live in a given number of housing
- units and therefore decrease the pressure on the availability of other housing units. I'm not understanding.
- It seems to me like that argument would actually resonate with your concerns. I'm not an expert,
- but HUD is, and HUD recommends or actually stipulates, requires only one person per room per unit. I
- see it as potentially, and we have to think about potential scenarios, worst cases,
- entire families occupying a room is that Is that what we would like to see happen here because that
- is certainly Potential in fact, I would think that might be even be a likelihood that it would happen
- So I don't want to incentivize that first of all and then secondly I I do know examples of
- houses single-family houses that have been purchased by well-heeled parents that have
- Changed the title to their son or daughter and that would this would further incentivize it because
- now you can double the occupancy and That seems very attractive for covering the mortgage for the time
- that the student is living in town That that does compete with housing and it competes with single-family
- housing which we happen to have in short supply So, I mean what we were doing here is circumventing
- our own over our occupancy code and
- so if people Want to do that then that is that this is a means to do that Can you give me a HUD citation
- also? I just wanted to look that up while we're talking about it Send to me Feel free to email me or
- Or if there's an easy citation to reference that'd be that'd be helpful. Thank you. Yeah, that's that's
- it Thanks other questions on amendment to councilmember. Sorry quick question for mr. Grulick Conditional
- the conditional use would what be renewed yearly you get it once you have it you have forever or correct
- it would run it would run with the property forever and because there's a
- because there's a two-year boundary around the likelihood that this creates this ginormous proliferation
- of just SROs all over R1 and R2, R4. If that happened, it would mean that all the people in R1 and R4
- currently are going to sell their houses, go somewhere else outside of the city or in the city,
- Be bought up by people in New York who then bring their kids here move out of all of the student housing
- Then they occupy our one and our four right like that That's what would have to happen and it would
- have to happen in some type of beautiful Sequence like all of the places would within a hundred and
- fifty meters of each other would have to do that in coordination Yes, well, I mean that's there's obviously
- a lot of factors that would go into that you know each property owner would have to have a
- A lot of offers for that to be enticing to sell their houses and move but but my point my point is that
- the likelihood that that we go from like Zero SROs to thousands of SROs is quite low. Would you agree?
- It depends on which you know if there is if there's a cost a huge cost benefit and there are people
- that are willing to buy those and
- Then it's possible, you know, if there was an organization that was like hey Here here's a money-making
- scheme immediately and we're ready to go Okay, well but my my my question really is just about
- Will we have some early indicators? So assuming that we were to have you know that it was looking like
- oh my gosh Like it's a full occupation of our one through our four like we'd be able to change this
- if we wanted to Sure. Yes it to get to your question Do I think that this is going to immediately tomorrow
- result in our phones ringing off the hook in the proliferation of these? No, I don't I don't think that's
- very likely. I
- It depends on what it looks like, you know, if it's something that leaves with what's shown right now
- I think the chance of these happening in the r1 r2 r3 and r4 is very low
- It gets restricted to something else where there is a huge cost benefit to somebody who is living in
- a house and they you know Get an offer for it and they're like holy cow, you know I can make a lot of
- money just selling my house right now then I could get in the fair market for you know somebody a different
- family or something like that then then maybe but it assumes that there is a Surplus of investors that
- this is the business model that they want to pursue and my very last question and then I will hold my piece and
- Because of the the conditional use element of it every single one That that wants to go up for one of
- these is going to have to appear before the BZA, correct or or the hearing officer But yeah some public
- body but so so another another lever that we might have as a city if we really were facing Oh my gosh,
- just too many of these are happening in our one in our four is we could for example direct the BZA to
- be like, please stop
- please stop approving all of these. Well, so there would be a different solution. There would be a moratorium
- of some sorts that would suspend the regulation, and then we would have the opportunity to change that.
- I don't think we can direct the BZA not to approve it, but there would be a better solution if that
- was the goal. But the point is also that the BZA has some say here. If people felt like there was this
- huge proliferation, there's another buffer here, barrier that's in place. Yeah, I would just be cautious,
- because the criteria for the BZA
- You know are outlined in the udio And so, you know, we would have to find a change in findings For something
- that that is those criteria. Awesome. Thank you. Oh Attorney liner but the question was raised regarding
- hand inspections earlier and Under the Bloomington Municipal Code each residential rental unit and premises
- located within the city
- Shall be inspected by the hand department. That's entitled 16. Thank you. Any other questions on Amendment
- 2 before we go to the public. Seeing none we'll go to the public for comments on Amendment 2. So specifically
- changing the occupancy limit from one from two people per bedroom to one person per bedroom in the single
- room occupancy.
- So if there are any comments on that, please come to the podium. Be sure to neatly write your name for
- the record, and then state your name, and you'll have up to three minutes. Good evening, Madam Vice
- President. This is Christopher Herring from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. Just to kind
- of a note from the business community, what I hear on the conditional uses and going through the BZA,
- that that is a hurdle, and it does cause individuals to think if they want to move forward.
- based on the process being slower. I just want to put that note in there for everybody. And also,
- the BZA, we don't want to overload their cases either. That's not something that can just simply make
- decisions on everything that comes through or that would never get anything done. It would backlog them,
- maybe even more. But thank you for your time. Thank you.
- Hi, good evening. My name is Jan Sorby and I wanted to speak to this because First of all, I want you
- all to know I'm in favor of SROs. I'm in favor of rooming houses My family lived in probably
- every alternative kind of housing there is and
- And anyway, I lived in a rooming house, and it provided a very cheap place for me to live when I was
- going through a transition in undergraduate school. And it was one person, one room. The owner did live
- on site. They had an apartment on the main floor. There were three bedrooms upstairs. And at that time,
- I actually had a stalker. And having someone on,
- site to take care of cleaning toilets having a clean shower Squabbling over whose shelf that food was
- on The back door was never locked and so it was a real safety concern for people that lived upstairs
- Door was never locked. We had locks on our doors, but to have someone stand outside your door constantly
- knocking and
- And we could turn to the person, the owner, and say, hey, do something about this. So I think it's really,
- really important. So specifically, though, I would love to see both of these forms of housing in this
- town. I think they're needed. I think that there are a lot of single people. And I think that housing
- gets gobbled up.
- And I think that if you have one person, one room, it will fit the HUD mandates. I think that this housing
- will not be built without funding. We have section eight, housing. We have housing authority. This is
- just another tool in the toolbox. And yes, it targets single people.
- And there's also a mandate in terms of the International Building Code on how much space is needed for
- one or two people. I think they say 100 square feet per person and then 50 or 75 depending on where
- you live for the next person. And so consequently you're getting a bigger room and it's mandatory
- For health reasons and that's why HUD makes these regulations and it's good thing. We need section 8
- we need SROs we need housing That's just simply a rooming house. We need all and we need Our housing
- that we have that the county takes care we need all these tools and I think this does specifically
- Your time is up. Oh, I didn't know how much time I have. How much time did I have? That was three minutes.
- Three minutes. OK, please consider this. It's very needed. Is the little screen with the timer on it
- not working? OK, does that little screen by the podium give the time? OK, just checking.
- Is there anybody else who would like to give public comment? Is there anybody on zoom who would like
- to give public comment on amendment to Okay seeing none we will come back to council members for final
- comments prior to a vote on amendment to Would any council members like to comment councilmember Rosenbarger
- I have another question
- I guess the question is maybe for the sponsor I think if we were to limit to one person Something else
- needs to change and I think it's okay to have the owner occupancy, but would you do more bedrooms?
- I mean, I know this isn't a negotiation, but I think that It doesn't make sense to me for three bedrooms,
- but I do see some Places, you know with some I don't know a larger number of folks living in one bedrooms. I
- But I think for me the way it is now I'm not for the one person per room Other comments from councilmembers
- Councilmember sorry, I think I may be building off of what councilmember Rosenberger said I think I
- Appreciate the concerns raised by councilmember Rallo. I think that to those concerns I think that there's
- plenty of other
- guardrails Currently and so I don't think that I will be supporting this amendment Councilmember Zulik
- Thank you, I'll just say ditto to what's already been said and I'll add I think sometimes we kind of
- hamstring ourselves with over regulation and I just want to caution against that but I really do appreciate
- the work that has gone into creating this amendment and answering all of our questions. So, thank you and
- other comments from council members Councilmember rough Yeah, I looked into this a little bit I don't
- think anywhere else That at least that I was able to find very easily does does multiple people in a
- single room occupancy So this is just an experiment and I think We're just guessing here and my guess
- is that we can get what we want
- the kind of affordable housing we want for the for the folks we want with following the HUD guidelines
- taking advantage of programs that will might only be allowed if you are following the guidelines and
- We will eliminate the chances of potential abuses by by adopting this amendment so
- I'm gonna be supporting this amendment Thank you other public comment, I mean a councilmember comment
- Councilmember Flaherty sure I'm I appreciate that Councilmember Rallo sent me a citation which I was
- just looking at which is
- if I can cite it adequately on the fly. If you Googled section 982.605, SRO, housing quality standards,
- you'd probably find it. He's right that that section does specify one person per unit. I tried to quickly
- do some additional searching as to the rationale, and I can't find anything particularly more supportive
- than it's a definitional thing.
- that, by definition, single-room occupancy means one person per room. And then, I was also trying to
- search, does HUD have general guidance on whether or not two people occupying a bedroom is okay? And
- I think that is okay. And so, I think most people would think that's okay in most contexts. And so,
- I'm not convinced, I guess, that it's a health and safety issue. I wish I had a little more time to
- look into it.
- Do find myself thinking similarly to the council member Rosenberger on this that I would be much more
- amenable to Defining it as single person if we weren't kind of unduly restricting it in in other ways
- in particular the owner occupancy requirement Yeah, yeah some of those things so you know I'm gonna
- vote no on the amendment because the ordinance does have those things and so I think we're kind of
- balancing restrictions in a sense, but If for some reason we didn't vote to approve this tonight, I
- would be interested like Exploring that trade-off a little more. But yeah, that's our map Thank you
- any other councilmember comment on the amendment councilmember rough. I'm sorry I
- Yes, I just wanted to respond to say that I appreciate my colleagues responses I I'm concerned about
- the feasibility of the potential for a family occupying a single room in an SRO It seems the probability
- is higher having two adults To encourage a family to do so
- So if that is acceptable for this body that may be a consequence and I think the likelihood is reduced
- by having One adult per room, so Thank you Okay, any other councilmember comments If not, I will take
- a crack at it so
- this proposal came out of, um, a series of, uh, deliberation sessions we had in 2024, um, about homelessness
- and what the city council can do, uh, to alleviate homelessness. And, um, through the course of, um,
- at least one of those meetings, I was in a group, um, with people who, who provide social services for
- unhoused folks. Um,
- And they said a big stumbling block for people coming out of homelessness is that often they are a couple
- and they want to stay together and but one of them doesn't qualify for the housing and the other one
- does. Also this is also a problem I know from my own experience at emergency winter shelter is that
- often the rule is you know you can't stay together if you're a
- male and female couple, because the men go to one place and the women to another. And that's been a
- problem of just keeping people warm and safe because they want to stay together and so they may not
- go to a shelter. So anyway, so going back to those conversations, that's where this whole proposal that
- we asked for in November of 2024 came from was those conversations. So in my view, you know,
- Allowing two people is a real response to community input in that this in some cases and I realize it
- may be a small percentage but in some cases this may be a housing type that is available to folks coming
- out of homelessness and They want to stay together and they may need you know have have a Need to stay
- together to support each other and so
- That's, that's why when I authored the resolution asking the planning department and the planning commission
- to look at this, it did include try to make it allowable for two adults. So that's how we got here.
- And I, uh, I appreciate the concerns of council member Rallo, um, by bringing forward this amendment,
- but they don't rise to a level for me to scale it back and only allow one person.
- And I, of course, since I've done a lot of research into this, I was fully aware that the HUD definition
- of an SRO, I mean, it's single room occupancy. You know, logically, single room means one person.
- So yes, that's how it originated, and that I was aware of that definition. To me, it was just their
- definition of it. And we can have our own definition, and I know other cities have their own definition.
- I think it is rare to have
- definition that allows two people but I think in this case I would like to keep it with the two people
- as far as overcrowding these are these rental units would be inspected by hand and so any regulations
- international building code or safety regulations would be enforced by hand so I'm not too concerned
- about that and I also
- I really question whether the probability of having a family live in the room is higher if we allow
- two adults. The majority of families, at least at the New Hope shelter, usually just have one adult.
- So that's just one sample. There are many families at all income levels that have just one adult, so
- I really don't see that it's making it more probable for a family if we allow two.
- I mean if we allow just one So Madam chair, I'd like to add one more quick comment if I could councilmember
- rough Yeah, I just want to say I I don't just at face Face value in this discussion necessarily agree
- that the term single-room occupancy Somehow is logically referring to
- single-person I Think it's just as likely probably more like on my movie that's referring to the fact
- that you're leasing a single room Does anything to do with referring to him? You know the people the
- single single mom's occupancy to me It's a single room Not a single person Okay, as as so I just wanted
- to say that's that's why I view that I
- Okay, any other follow-up comments before we vote on Amendment 2? Would the clerk please call the roll
- on Amendment 2 to ordinance? Scroll, scroll, scroll. 2025-41, thank you. Council Member Piedmont-Smith.
- No. Daly. No.
- Zulek? No. Rosenberger? No. Asari? No. Flaherty? No. Ruff? Yes. And Rallo? Yes. And that amendment fails
- with a vote of two to six. We now go back to the ordinance as it was amended through amendment one.
- As a whole, are there any follow-up questions from council members? Council member Asari?
- Thank you. Mr. Grulick. I'm sorry. I held my piece on the amendment and now I will stop holding my piece
- We've talked an awful lot about the are through our one through our four But we haven't talked about
- changes being made elsewhere. Are there changes being made elsewhere? Not not really, you know, it's
- still a permitted use in all the districts. Um, but
- We we excluded it from the MI district mixed-use institutional, but you don't really have many dwelling
- units most of the mixed-use institutional or Institutional uses churches schools Government facilities
- to some degree We did otherwise outside the permitted in the ME district from it had been conditional
- previously, right? Correct. Yep. So we're changing it from a conditional to a permitted use in the ME
- And then in terms of the owner occupancy, that doesn't apply for the mixed use. Correct, because one
- of the use-specific standards says that that only applies to the R1, R2, R3, and R4. Thank you. Other
- questions from council members? All right, seeing none, we will go to the public for public comment on
- Ordinance 2025-41 Real quick, I got is this a question or what I got a text message from a constituent
- who said they Wanted to speak during the last public comment for the amendment and they weren't Identified
- are acknowledged or something. So I just want to say that there may be someone online that
- Okay, yes, we do have a hand raised online it was raised after the public comment Period on the amendment
- was closed But we can certainly open it up for them Yeah Um, so I I didn't see any additional questions
- from council members So let's go to public comment on ordinance 2025 dash 41 as amended by amendment 1 and
- Um, and we can start with the person online. If other people who are on zoom would like to comment,
- they can use the raise hand function and anybody in council chambers who would like to comment can make
- their way to the podium and of course sign in legibly. So let's start with the person online. Um, you
- should start by stating your name and then you'll have up to three minutes, please.
- You should be able to unmute yourself now. We're waiting for the person on Zoom who had their hand raised
- to give public comments. So if that's you, please unmute yourself and let us know what you have to say.
- Good evening. Can you hear me. Yes please state your name for the record and you'll have up to three
- minutes. Yes my name is Eric ghost. And I must admit that I had I raised my hand for the last public
- comment period. And so I had to step away. So are we I can offer my comment because it's more of a general
- comment. Would you like for me to proceed. Yes please go ahead. OK. So there's some important points that that
- should be clear and may not be yet. One is that effective June 1st, there was a title 16 interpretation
- issued by the city that reads if a residential rental unit is owned by a limited liability corporation
- or similar entity and it's and is occupied as a primary residence by the incorporated or the governing
- person or the registered agent or their equivalent and the property shall be treated as an as occupied
- by the owner and LLC is considered an owner.
- an LLC is considered a person. Why would an LLC not be created for each property existing or to be developed,
- create a manager-managed LLC operating agreement, incorporate one or more tenants as authorized agents
- of the LLC as a minority non-controlling member, claim a homestead exemption, pay 1% property tax, and
- then potentially not register the property as a rental?
- The SRO concept came out of the 2024 deliberation sessions and a rental price of zero to $500 per month
- was cited. If we're intending single room occupancy uses to address affordable housing, then this ordinance
- is not well formed nor fully baked with all due respect. A UDO revision that facilitates more affordable
- single room occupancy housing can be written and approved.
- The SRO housing that will be approved if the current language is adopted has been referred to as a dorm
- that and that are very unlikely to be affordable. It has been clearly and repeatedly declared that there
- is no requirement for a hearing by the BZA. And again, with all due respect, throwing spaghetti on the
- wall to see if it sticks is not an approach we should be taking, especially in Bloomington where the
- predominant driver of housing
- Supply and demand is the development operation and transfer of market rate rental housing. Thank you.
- Thank you. Is there any other hand raised on Zoom? No, there isn't. Okay. Is there anybody in council
- chambers who would like to comment? Please come up to the microphone. Remember to sign in if you haven't
- already and
- Date your name and you'll have up to three minutes. Hi again, sorry about the time last time. My name
- is Jan Sorby and I do want to say that I researched a lot of different cities and I could not find one
- other city that allowed SROs
- residential areas Everybody allowed it in not one city and everyone allowed it in mixed use and hire
- I Think mr. Gulick said in to the Plan Commission that he could not find any also If I'm wrong about
- that, correct me And looking at these
- Different cities Salt Lake City had a particularly good Legislation about SROs and their Legislation
- looks like this It's very well thought out. It's very detailed It covers a lot of different things it
- covers the occupancy, of course it covers number of toilets per bedroom and
- number of showers per bedroom. It covers square footage for communal space. What spaces cannot be used
- as communal spaces. It covers the purpose of having the owner or a person on site. It talks about security
- plans. It talks about cleaning plans.
- And it has many, many thought out ideas. And I found it particularly good. I find ours half-baked. I
- wish that there were more regulations so people know what they're getting into. I think that these can
- be, this is a multi-family type. And there are gonna be a lot of people there. And it's hard enough
- to have your spouse or your children to clean up.
- And I can tell you from living in a rooming house, nobody wanted to clean. And so there had to be a
- cleaning schedule. So there are things that are very particular to intense uses. This is an intense
- use. And the more intense the use, the more problems that can happen. Just like going to a busy intersection,
- more contact. So I think ours is half-baked. I don't think it's ready for prime time yet.
- I think it needs a lot of work. And I want to repeat, I do think that these forms are essential. These
- are really good forms. They're historic forms. And historic, like I said, oh, seven more minutes. OK,
- I also want seconds. I also wanted to say that Motel 6, which came down. That's your time. Sorry. Was
- a mistake.
- Any other members of the public who'd want to comment, please come to the microphone and legibly write
- your name and then you'll have three minutes. And start by stating your name as well. Thank you. My
- name is Wendy Brished.
- And I've been living in the same house that I moved here when I was four years old in 1963 in Elm Heights
- on First and Woodlawn. And I've been a witness of what's happened to upzoning, what happened in the
- 70s and 80s, which was disastrous. I watched neighborhoods fall. I watched the street that I was on
- fall into disrepair,
- kind of chaos and whole blocks get lost within just a few years. And then I watched the slow, slow recovery
- when the three-person limit was placed again by Mayor Allison. And that was a big deal. And it took
- about 30 years for the pride to come back. Finally, families with children are moving back.
- We have across the street a new a new family with children and up the street a new family with children
- But at the same time I'm now seeing rentals Being increasingly I mean houses that have never been rentals
- before increasingly becoming houses renting for a lot of money I this plan just seems to be Really dangerous
- for vulnerable neighborhoods IU is smack dab in the middle of our housing. It's not like it's off to
- the side it's smack dab in the middle and I
- the houses in M Heights rent for They went years in advance and they are 1,500 to 2,000 a bedroom now
- For the nice ones and the nice ones are being bought up and rented up just as easily for that money
- I just wonder how I lived in by the way I lived in a parent owned house for two years on University
- Avenue and it and there's a lot of them and I can see that being passed down and down and down and I'm
- just wondering
- How do you propose to protect the housing that's here with this plan? Why is it being allowed in the
- vulnerable neighborhoods because they're already falling now and I would really like to see
- more consideration being given to the availability of resident of resident owned Affordable older housing
- that Bloomington really needs and this isn't exactly what I had right written down but
- I wasn't here last week because my neighbor was very sick and I had to take her to the hospital. And
- that's really, and the neighbor across the street also was willing to help. That's what we need in our
- neighborhoods. We need real neighborhoods, family neighborhoods. We need some kind of protection against
- transitioning to completely student rentals. I've seen about 75% of the houses around me transition.
- And I would just like to see
- Something in this I think rooming houses are great. I think they should be planned I think I agree that
- this this plan is a little bit careless. It's a little bit on I know that something people want to do
- something but that something needs to be in the right direction it needs to be So it really does help
- the right people and not hurt the other people and I would just I would just
- encourage you to Take some time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other hands raised on zoom,
- okay, we'll go to the next person here in chambers Hello, my name is John Lawrence I'll be quick
- One thing I want to sort of follow up with something Jan was trying to get out and didn't have enough
- time Her last statement was about the fact that Motel 6 was a lost opportunity Those are the sort of
- buildings that get used for SROs large cities are protecting old hotels and motels and creating SRO
- units And I think that's something you should think about in the future there are
- there are existing hotels that in the future might become available and maybe the city can be involved
- in that. And I just then want to reiterate what the person before me was saying. I think we're constantly
- chipping away at neighborhoods where there are, where there is existing housing that is, I know some
- will disagree with this, but it's relatively affordable. We're losing affordable housing. I've seen
- it happen with, with duplexes. I'm seeing $150,000 houses go down.
- getting replaced with six and seven hundred thousand dollar units and then charging a thousand dollar
- rent. It's the same sort of thing where we're replacing things that existing with with a different rather
- than replacing a farm. Why don't we add forms put them in places where we have space. We have plenty
- of space. Drive down Walnut Street. There's all sorts of vacant parking lots. We should be highlighting
- those areas and not trying to chip away at stuff that exists when we have a need for single family housing.
- Sorry I'll in on that. Thank you. Thank you. Last call for public comment on ordinance 2025 41. I don't
- see anybody else in council chambers. Anybody on zoom. OK. Well we will come back to council for final
- comments on ordinance 2025 dash 41. Would any council member like to comment. It's a quick question.
- Yes. Go ahead.
- I wanted mr. Corlick's Opinion of the owner occupancy requirement Is Mr. Ose brought up a potential
- scenario where an LLC is Owns the property it it is as a legal entity a person it bestows that legal
- Definition to an agent of the LLC who lives on the property happens to be a tenant but is that is is
- that something that Could potentially Be problematic for the owner occupancy requirement. Have you have
- you encountered that or thought about that? I would have to check with the auditor on that because that's
- a sounds like a specific element of the homestead exemption language
- So I don't have an answer on that tonight But it I mean it's possible Well again, this is we're incentivizing
- the potential for profit-making here under certain circumstances and so All right, I mean obviously,
- you know setting up an LLC is not an easy thing So there would be lots of steps you'd have to go through
- to even be able to do that Well, I did in the afternoon
- Butterfirm, but anyway, I I wonder if this this could be problematic. Anyway, thank you for your response
- Okay Councilmember comments on the legislation who would like to make a comment before we go to a vote
- Councilmember, sorry Thank you
- You know, I'm a little conflicted in the sense that, you know, I share some of residents' comments that
- this may be, I think we often hear, like, you know, the things that we're doing aren't ready for prime
- time or something like that. And I think in some sense I share that. I share that position, but perhaps
- for different reasons. Namely because, like, this is,
- At the end of the day, all that we're doing here is allowing two people to live in residential, like
- that's the change that we've made. It's a fairly small, fairly incremental change. And I don't know
- if we're addressing, as Mr. Grulick pointed out one time, the thing that we as a council really wanted
- to address. But then, and so I'm trying to get some estimate of
- You know, what is the likelihood that, you know, that we create, you know, an awful lot of housing here?
- It seems very low, that being said. I think that as Vice President Piedmont-Smith has said multiple
- times, I think that it's, you know, I think
- If it's 300 new available units, I think that's better than zero. But I do think that it may be interesting
- to think about some of these levers in relationship to each other. I'm not suggesting that we push this
- aside, but I do think that it's something that we should continue to revisit, just so that we actually
- can move forward with trying to create and
- More possibilities and pathways to affordable housing, but I'm I'll be voting. Yes tonight But I do
- just feel like there's a lot a lot more that we we need to continue to do in the space And and oh I
- have a little bit more I will just say I think also because because they sorry I hadn't turned off my
- mic I Recognize a lot of the concerns. I think that the residents have raised a council member Rallo
- has raised but
- I think that we've put a lot of restrictions already with the owner occupancy. I hear what Mr. Ost said,
- the conditional use. I think that we would have a lot of runway here that if you saw this going in the
- wrong direction that we'd be able to course correct.
- But again, I don't see the threat with the many barriers that we've put in place to those of you who
- are particularly concerned of this huge proliferation of this and that our neighborhoods are all going
- to change. I don't see those arguments taking place here with all the guardrails that are in place.
- So though I hear all of those concerns,
- Will be voting. Yes. Okay now I'm finished but Other councilmember comments Councilmember Rosenberger
- Hi, thank you. I plan to vote. Yes on this some bullet points in no particular order as usual. I love
- that Salt Lake City legislation and I'm gonna come back to that. The first question is
- Do we use other cities as examples here or do we not just because when we were dealing with duplexes?
- We absolutely couldn't use other cities as examples, but now we're using Salt Lake City I am all for
- using other cities as examples and and legislation Ideas and I would love to keep doing that for example
- It might be Hopi Boulder
- Big movement bedrooms are for people we have five bedroom homes here There are not being used to their
- full rental capacity because we have a three unrelated rule So we have bedrooms that are going empty
- other communities are changing this. That's something else we could look at So with that Salt Lake City
- legislation, there were some really good things in there I think I agree also with mr. MG conditional is a mess
- Would be happy to number one pass this tonight number two amend to add more details like the bathrooms
- for per bedrooms For example, and then number three bring it back amended and as a permitted use and
- r1 to r4 Another note November I do remember in November 2023 it's so confusing with councilmember Stossberg
- up there. Okay This is just distracting a little okay
- I was hoping that we could do something like an eight. I remember we talking about it around the table
- that maybe something like an eight-bedroom Single-room occupancy in residential neighborhoods, but here
- we are three bedrooms for six people in residential. So I guess it's something I do think A resident
- commented that these might look like dorms I think that's great because we can call them dorms or we
- can call them
- You know rooms without full-blown kitchens and I think there's a great need out there for people to
- rent smaller spaces and a lot of people Don't cook or use kitchens that don't need to pay for that space
- So I think this is a great way to offer something that is missing middle housing for a lot of folks
- and that can also be College students. I know a lot of folks come to college and don't cook or aren't
- interested in it And so really don't need that whole kitchen
- Just the final note. This is mostly off-topic, but you can build a 15-bedroom house right now without
- needing any special permissions. Thank you Thank you other councilmember comment Councilmember Rallo
- Yes, I I'm sure I think we should compare us to other cities and
- Particularly ones that have demographics like our own. I don't think salt Lake City meets that test
- but in any case I also think that we should draw on the experience of People in the community that have
- already seen bad Outcomes of various policies in the past and and so not repeat them. So I
- and it's my experience that restrictions after the fact are generally more difficult than to deploy
- them anticipating those outcomes and and preventing them and so I I Do see some potential for adverse
- outcomes. I'm I I like the idea of reporting houses I like the idea of single-room occupancy. I think
- that what's being ignored is the potential for Certain
- Very likely scenarios, particularly when profit incentives exist So I'm concerned about Too many people
- occupying a room I'm concerned about a Incentivizing the circumvention of our over occupancy code And
- I'm also concerned that the conditional use for the r1r4 simply or
- Now requires staff approval and and not a public hearing before the BZA My understanding was our council
- attorney her opinion was that it it it does go before the BZA Planning and transportation staff say
- it's the opposite So I'm a bit in a quandary regarding that but I think that it requires a public hearing
- should have that I
- It occupies a neighborhood. So for those for those reasons, I'm afraid I'll have to vote against this
- but I but I appreciate the effort that's gone into it and I'm hoping bad outcomes. Don't don't materialize.
- Thanks Other councilmember comments Councilmember rough
- This is not a criticism of staff at all It was difficult as staff explained to try and deal with this
- Initiative that was carried to or directed to staff by by council In this case it was very difficult
- Six feels it's experimental to me and I see the risks of
- I see the risks, the downsides, without having a more thorough set of expectations and rules and without
- me understanding better when I came in, I don't fully understand the difference between how this will
- be handled in terms of BZA versus hearing officer compared to duplexes compared to ADUs
- So given given all these questions I still have and the fact that I do think it's experimental with
- risks that potential risk that to me right now thinking about it outweigh the Benefits potentially more
- likely than not So I'm gonna vote no tonight on this I
- Other council member comments. Council member Stossberg, do you wanna weigh in? We see you on the screen.
- Okay. I'll apologize for a minute. I'm just getting out of a school event. So I don't feel as though it's,
- My understanding right now is that amendment one passed and then amendment two did not pass on this
- I don't know what has been discussed and what has not been discussed. I heard councilmember Rosenberger
- Commenting regarding some concerns about bathroom access because there's not as it's written Anything
- about minimum number of bathrooms required and
- That is something that I talked about with staff through the playing commission process. And because
- of enforcement sort of challenges with that and what standards we would set with that. It did not end
- up being something that made it into the final bill. So at this point, I'm comfortable with that. And
- I think I'm comfortable with the change as it was and then the changes from amendment one. So I will
- be voting in favor. Thank you.
- Thank you, any other council members would like to comment? Okay, I'll just make a few comments. I agree
- with a lot of what has been said. I understand the hesitation on the part of some residents and colleagues,
- but I think that as far as housing and the housing crisis we're in, we need to do everything we can
- to provide more housing options. And I think this is one small key
- one small part of the answer. As for converting hotels, I appreciate the public, two members of the
- public bringing up the Motel 6 situation. I know that the director of hand about a year ago was talking
- to a couple of other hotels that were on the market to be sold. I don't think that
- came to anything, but I know that the city would be interested in an opportunity like that to convert
- to SRO. So I think they are on the lookout for that. Coming back to Council Member Rallo's concern about
- having a family live in a room, there was a documentary I watched a couple years ago about
- families struggling to keep housing, especially during the pandemic. And there was a mother with two
- or three children living in one room and they were very grateful because they had a place to live. So
- I'm not saying that most of these will be used for people coming out of homelessness, but I want to
- allow that and
- allow people who have extra bedrooms also who are not money-making LLCs to make the bedrooms available
- in their homes. I think there are enough guardrails here that it will not have a big negative impact
- on neighborhoods. If you recall in 2021, there was a huge debate about duplexes and triplexes.
- and fourplexes and what we've seen since then is that very few have been built and that the neighborhoods
- were not destroyed. So I think that those concerns, I understand the concerns. I mean, I live
- in a neighborhood where houses are also becoming rentals, but I think that would happen regardless of
- what we do about SROs.
- the more housing we can provide The more opportunities there are for for people who don't have housing
- now or can't afford the housing now So I'll be voting in favor If there are any final question final
- there are no final comments Councilmember Rallo Yes, just to say that I think that the there are a lot
- of pressures on one's ability to
- Afford a house in this community single-family houses homes are under threat They're under threat through
- Airbnb's they're under threat through being bought up by large Owners equity firms and so forth, but
- I would say that we had evidence the other day that there is a steady progression of plexing occurring
- in the community and as Mr. Hittle
- demonstrated and year by year we're losing not a few but cumulatively a significant amount of single
- family homes becoming rare for people to establish in ownership equity and so forth. So which is a shame
- because we're turning into our rental community instead of one of owner occupancy. Thank you.
- All right. If there are no other comments, um, will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance 2025
- dash 41. Council member Davis amended council member Davie. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Sorry.
- Yes. Uh, Flaherty. Yes. Ref. No. Rallo. No. And Piedmont Smith. Yes.
- Thank you. Legislation is adopted by a vote of six to two. Oh, I'm sorry. Hopey, yeah, I apologize.
- Council members, that's okay. I jumped in a little late tonight. So yes. All right. So that legislation
- passes by a vote of seven to two. And we can then go to the next item on the agenda.
- which is additional public comment on items not on the agenda. Is there anybody who would like to comment
- on things not on the agenda that did not do so at the start of the meeting? Are there any hands raised
- on Zoom? Okay. So then we come to council schedule and we have a proposed annual council legislative
- schedule for 2026 in our packet.
- And if, you know, if there are no concerns or revisions, we could try to vote on this this evening.
- If you would like more time, you know, let us know. Does anybody have any questions or comments on the
- draft proposed schedule? Yes, Council Member Rosari.
- One positive comment. I think that it's great that the first two months that we only scheduled two meetings,
- I think to give some flexibility. You know, I've been on this soapbox forever that if we overbook and
- then it makes it sometimes difficult to do things as they emerge. So with that in mind, though, I'm
- wondering if
- Towards the end of the time that we're in right now, I think we've run into a handful of things this
- year where we wanted to schedule things and the year gets quite compact. So I'm just wondering if we
- wanted to dispense of one of the scheduled meetings just to have a little bit of flexibility there or
- one of the deliberation sessions. But I think broadly speaking, any time that we minimize the amount
- of scheduled meetings is a good thing. I support.
- Any other comments or questions about the proposed schedule? Yeah, I think that, oh, wait, is that a
- hand raise? Council Member Stossberg, okay. Go ahead, Council Member, Council President Stossberg. Yeah,
- thank you. I just wanted to appreciate ESOC's idea about eliminating one of the later meetings in the
- year, and I think
- Like one of the things is we have a lot of legislation right now at the end of the year to you. So I'm
- hesitant to Eliminate any of our later meetings at this time I do want to make a note though that we
- did eliminate one of the meetings that we did have this year This year we had a meeting on September
- 30th as another regular session and I realized on that date this year that
- Like by the time we didn't have a meeting, we had had a meeting like every week except for one since
- our summer recess had come back, like a meeting of some kind, a special meeting or other. And so I was
- like, okay, let's give a week off in there just because it's really intense to have so many weeks of
- meetings, both on council members and also on staff. So to council member Asari's point, I did think
- about that when working on the schedule with attorney Lainer.
- Thank you. And I will just say, I also like the fact that we do not have the deliberation sessions in
- January and February because we will be very busy with our interview committees, especially since starting
- in January, we'll have council liaisons assigned to boards and commissions. And so that process will
- require an extra meeting probably of the interview committees.
- So hopefully lightning the the meeting schedule will allow for those interview committee committees
- to do their work. Council member sorry may I make one just logistical suggestion because we have said
- in the past that one of the reasons why we set our calendar ahead of time. Yes it's for us for example
- for for staff to know when to schedule things and so on.
- But but one of the other logistical things that we we have brought up in the past is that we need to
- also know when we book out the space What I would suggest is that we just always have Wednesdays booked
- out regardless of whether we schedule the meeting because so that in the case that we want to have an
- emergency meeting or we want to that we don't run into this like well someone else is using council
- chambers type of situation, but I and then that way we can dispense with meetings or schedule them as
- necessary as things emerge, but you know again, I
- been on the soapbox the whole time, very much for us being a bit more agile with our approach to scheduling
- and meeting to allow us to sort of contract as necessary. Well, since the matter of reserving this room
- for Wednesday nights that are not on this list of meeting dates, that I suppose could be decided between
- the council president and the staff.
- Either this council president or the one starting in January. So any other comments? And if not, I would
- entertain a motion on adopting the schedule. Motion to adopt the annual council legislative schedule
- for 2026. Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Any final comments, questions?
- With a clerk, please call the roll on adoption of the 2026 schedule Councilmember Zulek. Yes Rosenberger.
- Yes. Sorry. Yes Flaherty. Yes, Ruff Rallo Piedmont Smith. Yes Stasberg Yes, and daily. Yes. Thank you
- All right Do we have any other schedule items to review? Um
- I don't think so. We will not meet next week. I wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving and we will meet
- again on December 3rd. Thank you.