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.