WEBVTT 00:00:00.290 --> 00:00:08.771 - I'm gonna go ahead and call this regular session of the Bloomington Common Council the order here on 00:00:08.771 --> 00:00:17.252 - December 17th 2025 Will the clerk please call the roll? Ruff Rallo here Piedmont Smith here Stasburg 00:00:17.252 --> 00:00:22.878 - here daily here Zulek here Rosenberger here. Sorry here. Thanks. I 00:00:23.938 --> 00:00:30.993 - Great, thank you so much. So I often start on meeting with just kind of a note about something. And 00:00:30.993 --> 00:00:38.400 - so today this is our final meeting of the 2025 council session. And I just wanna take a minute and thank 00:00:38.400 --> 00:00:45.525 - city staff this year for all of the work that they've done. And I especially wanna call out, I wanna 00:00:45.525 --> 00:00:46.654 - call out a few, 00:00:46.850 --> 00:00:53.701 - folks and I realized that I could like literally call out every department because all of them at one 00:00:53.701 --> 00:01:00.620 - time or another like kind of like step up and do things no matter which department that they're in but 00:01:00.620 --> 00:01:07.336 - this tonight specifically I want to call out our public works and our plow teams because we've it's 00:01:07.336 --> 00:01:14.053 - December 17th. We've had three snow events that have not one of them has happened between eight and 00:01:14.053 --> 00:01:15.934 - five Monday through Friday. 00:01:16.258 --> 00:01:22.214 - So and somehow things still got plowed and we could still go so a huge Thank you to our plow teams our 00:01:22.214 --> 00:01:27.997 - snow removal crew and that also includes not just the folks that are out there actually plowing but 00:01:27.997 --> 00:01:33.779 - all of the dispatch related folks that are Managing behind the scenes and mechanics managing behind 00:01:33.779 --> 00:01:40.140 - the scenes and all of those sorts of things that make those things go And I also want to shout out sanitation 00:01:40.140 --> 00:01:44.766 - because they're still out there early in the morning picking up our our cans in 00:01:44.994 --> 00:01:51.424 - And I'm really happy that we, if you didn't know, delayed trash pickup by a day this week so that Monday 00:01:51.424 --> 00:01:57.854 - morning when it was really, really cold, our crews did not have to get out there. So I appreciated that. 00:01:57.954 --> 00:02:04.152 - that the city did that. And the last category that I want to call out are just administrative staff 00:02:04.152 --> 00:02:10.659 - members. You know, those folks that organize the calendars, they answer the phones, they keep everything 00:02:10.659 --> 00:02:16.919 - organized, they make our appointments, they have a lot of connection with residents who call in, and 00:02:16.919 --> 00:02:18.654 - sometimes it's a little bit 00:02:18.818 --> 00:02:25.683 - underappreciated. And I want to give a special shout out to our own temporary legal researcher, Christine, 00:02:25.683 --> 00:02:30.238 - whose last day is officially today in the position that she's been in. 00:02:32.770 --> 00:02:38.567 - She started this temporary position in May and has done a phenomenal job supporting council members 00:02:38.567 --> 00:02:44.827 - and also council staff. So a huge thank you to Christine. And I would have gotten her flowers or something, 00:02:44.827 --> 00:02:50.740 - but she's actually flying somewhere tomorrow and I thought that it would only be a burden to give her 00:02:50.740 --> 00:02:53.406 - something the day before she flies somewhere. 00:02:54.658 --> 00:03:02.423 - With that, I'll go ahead and summarize the agenda. We are gonna start out with four minutes for approval 00:03:02.423 --> 00:03:09.892 - from our four budget hearings this year, August 18th, 20th, 25th, and 27th. Then we'll have a report 00:03:09.892 --> 00:03:16.030 - time. We'll start with reports from council members, then we'll have a report from 00:03:16.130 --> 00:03:21.563 - the planning and transportation department about unified development ordinance updates. We've had a 00:03:21.563 --> 00:03:26.996 - couple of deliberation sessions about that kind of stuff this year, and the planning department has 00:03:26.996 --> 00:03:32.538 - done some reaching out to the community about that, so we'll hear more about that. We do have a short 00:03:32.538 --> 00:03:38.026 - report from the committee on council processes for council committees, and then we'll have our first 00:03:38.026 --> 00:03:43.568 - reports from the public. So that's the first time for the public to comment on an item that is not on 00:03:43.568 --> 00:03:44.926 - our agenda this evening. 00:03:45.218 --> 00:03:51.152 - So members of the public will have three minutes to comment on things not on the agenda. During legislation 00:03:51.152 --> 00:03:56.262 - time, there will be time for people to comment on things that are on the agenda. We will not 00:03:56.262 --> 00:04:01.756 - have appointments to boards and commissions tonight, because there are none. We have no legislation 00:04:01.756 --> 00:04:07.415 - for first readings, because it's the last meeting of the year. And that also, though, means that there 00:04:07.415 --> 00:04:11.646 - are several things for second reading, in one case, actually, third reading. 00:04:12.034 --> 00:04:20.077 - that we will cover tonight. So our legislation for second readings and resolutions starts with ordinance 00:04:20.077 --> 00:04:28.043 - 2025-19, amending title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code regarding removal and impound of vehicles. 00:04:28.043 --> 00:04:36.392 - This is a third reading for that item. And two weeks ago at our last regular session, we did adopt amendment 00:04:36.392 --> 00:04:40.222 - one to that. Then we will go to ordinance 2025-20 00:04:40.482 --> 00:04:47.617 - which is amending chapter four of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled non-consensual towing businesses 00:04:47.617 --> 00:04:54.819 - and other updates. Then we will have resolution 2025-21, acknowledging receipt of the collective bargaining 00:04:54.819 --> 00:05:01.620 - agreement between the city of Bloomington and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 00:05:01.620 --> 00:05:08.222 - Employees for years 2026, 27, and 28. Then we will have ordinance 2025-40, oh, and just as a note, 00:05:08.354 --> 00:05:13.902 - Yesterday in the packet addendum, there was an updated agenda put out and that resolution was added 00:05:13.902 --> 00:05:19.615 - in that packet addendum. If anybody's going, wait a minute, that's not the agenda that I'm looking at. 00:05:19.615 --> 00:05:25.385 - In the packet addendum released yesterday is this updated agenda with that resolution. Our fourth thing 00:05:25.385 --> 00:05:31.265 - on the agenda after the resolution is ordinance 2025-47, amending Title VIII of the Bloomington Municipal 00:05:31.265 --> 00:05:36.813 - Code entitled Historic Preservation and Protection to establish a historic district around the Ivan 00:05:36.813 --> 00:05:37.534 - Adams House, 00:05:38.850 --> 00:05:46.611 - And then we'll have ordinance 2025-43 to annex certain real estate to the city of Bloomington. And lastly, 00:05:46.611 --> 00:05:53.502 - we'll deal with ordinance 2025-46 to amend the zoning maps in anticipation of that annexation. 00:05:54.882 --> 00:06:01.631 - After our legislation for this evening, we will have an additional period of public comment. So if anybody 00:06:01.631 --> 00:06:07.939 - wants to comment on something not on the agenda and they did not comment during the first period of 00:06:07.939 --> 00:06:14.246 - public comment, then they can do that then. Any notes on council schedule and then we will adjourn. 00:06:14.246 --> 00:06:20.554 - So going back to the beginning with minutes. I move that the minutes from August 18th, August 20th, 00:06:20.554 --> 00:06:21.374 - August 25th, 00:06:21.506 --> 00:06:27.804 - August 27th from 2025 all be approved Second, thank you. We have a motion to approve the minutes any 00:06:27.804 --> 00:06:34.039 - councilmember questions or comments on those minutes Great since we're all here in person we can go 00:06:34.039 --> 00:06:40.461 - ahead and do a voice vote on this all those in favor Please say aye. Aye any opposed Thank you so much 00:06:40.461 --> 00:06:46.696 - motion passes unanimously moving on to reports from councilmembers Let's go ahead and start down at 00:06:46.696 --> 00:06:49.502 - the end my left with councilmember. Sorry. I 00:06:50.498 --> 00:06:59.145 - No report. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Rosenberger. I have a report It's not really prepared 00:06:59.145 --> 00:07:07.964 - so I just I wanted to I guess debrief very quickly on a Redevelopment Commission meeting that happened 00:07:07.964 --> 00:07:17.125 - this Monday and talk about a Property that is owned by the RDC a couple of properties. It's called College 00:07:17.125 --> 00:07:18.238 - Square. It's 00:07:18.626 --> 00:07:25.637 - College Avenue across from the Atlas bar between third and fourth streets And basically, this is an 00:07:25.637 --> 00:07:33.279 - awesome property that the city or RDC bought a few years ago and The Convention Center and the CIB basically 00:07:33.279 --> 00:07:40.360 - thought about making it a hotel and that is still an option I'm sorry. I did not prepare this at all 00:07:40.360 --> 00:07:42.814 - So we just have to kind of wing it 00:07:44.610 --> 00:07:52.374 - Okay Okay, I just want to give you a brief summary right and we're looking at making that entire property 00:07:52.374 --> 00:07:59.772 - a Hotel a host hotel for the Convention Center. It's a really huge. It's a really huge piece of land 00:07:59.772 --> 00:08:04.606 - It is it is a city block long and so something that we're kind of 00:08:04.770 --> 00:08:12.775 - Pushing pause on making the whole thing potentially a host hotel, which I think is really exciting I've 00:08:12.775 --> 00:08:20.471 - been thinking of it kind of as like a mini Hopewell development It is almost a blank slate where we 00:08:20.471 --> 00:08:28.476 - can we can put a lot of stuff in there that the city needs and residents need Just for example, there's 00:08:28.476 --> 00:08:32.478 - a similar block on call on college is North College 00:08:32.706 --> 00:08:35.038 - potentially across from Big Red. 00:08:35.298 --> 00:08:41.896 - And it has a hotel it has restaurants on the bottom. It has shops along along college It has a parking 00:08:41.896 --> 00:08:48.559 - garage in it. It has So the seven I think it's a seven-story commercial building and it has potentially 00:08:48.559 --> 00:08:55.221 - maybe 80 housing units in it So I think it's neat that we have a lot of options for this property where 00:08:55.221 --> 00:09:01.884 - we can look at housing We can look at affordable housing. I know folks are really on board with getting 00:09:01.884 --> 00:09:04.254 - more affordable housing downtown. So 00:09:04.706 --> 00:09:10.719 - It's really a neat city opportunity that doesn't come along a lot, but it's mostly a parking lot right 00:09:10.719 --> 00:09:16.790 - now and I think that's it. I'm just looking forward to the RDC Well, I think they're not really working 00:09:16.790 --> 00:09:22.627 - on it right now anymore But the CIB and the county and the city all working together on this To see 00:09:22.627 --> 00:09:28.523 - what we can really get in that space. Thanks Thank you council members you look do you have a report 00:09:28.523 --> 00:09:34.302 - no report, thank you. Thank you councilmember Daly. No, thank you Thank You councilmember Flaherty 00:09:35.522 --> 00:09:41.221 - Yeah, thank you. I also wanted to follow up on recent activity with the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission 00:09:41.221 --> 00:09:46.606 - because I think there were some pretty Material like choice points around policy and trust and I think 00:09:46.606 --> 00:09:52.305 - it was a positive outcome even though there was some Challenges along the way. So I just wanted to highlight 00:09:52.305 --> 00:09:57.534 - some of that as well for the public and just reflection so I wanted to thank the members of the RDC 00:09:57.534 --> 00:10:03.076 - for their service and for meeting with us along with department directors Cooper Smith and Killian Hansen 00:10:03.076 --> 00:10:04.958 - during a work session last week and 00:10:05.698 --> 00:10:11.086 - It was definitely not an optimal set of circumstances and choices that led us to that work session But 00:10:11.086 --> 00:10:16.526 - hopefully folks learn from it and we can meaningfully involve the city's fiscal body on major financial 00:10:16.526 --> 00:10:21.391 - decisions in the future Especially where the council has formalized a policy position on the 00:10:21.391 --> 00:10:26.726 - issue Tangentially, I do have a number of ideas around RDC related reforms, but I will save those for 00:10:26.726 --> 00:10:32.062 - some time in 2026 I also wanted to specifically credit commissioners Cassidy McRobbie and Meyerson on 00:10:32.162 --> 00:10:37.723 - for introducing and voting on an amendment to their resolution 25-136 prior to its passage at their 00:10:37.723 --> 00:10:43.285 - Monday meeting this week. So that resolution, consistent with the clear policy position of the City 00:10:43.285 --> 00:10:49.124 - Council, confirmed that the RDC does not intend to give away a $7 million piece of property to a private 00:10:49.124 --> 00:10:54.908 - hotelier in order to subsidize a convention center host hotel. I won't get into the question of whether 00:10:54.908 --> 00:11:00.469 - a subsidy is needed for a host hotel. That's a different question, but that was the decision of the 00:11:00.469 --> 00:11:01.470 - RDC at that time. 00:11:02.338 --> 00:11:07.641 - So this is a $7 million win for the residents of Bloomington, whose tax dollars can now be leveraged 00:11:07.641 --> 00:11:13.155 - for resident benefits. In particular, affordable housing is a prime option, as Councilmember Rosenberger 00:11:13.155 --> 00:11:18.459 - highlighted, and there's actually a variety of pathways to achieve that from here, including on that 00:11:18.459 --> 00:11:23.709 - site or even elsewhere, if we sold that site or traded it with the county government, for instance, 00:11:23.709 --> 00:11:29.118 - which owns land to the south, some of which actually has relatively affordable housing at this moment. 00:11:29.378 --> 00:11:34.775 - So this matters because for the past decade, there has been widespread agreement explicitly among folks 00:11:34.775 --> 00:11:40.172 - involved with the Convention Center expansion that two specific funding sources are meant to cover that 00:11:40.172 --> 00:11:45.206 - expansion project. And to be clear at that project, the Monroe County Capital Improvement Board, 00:11:45.206 --> 00:11:50.396 - or CIB, has repeatedly characterized as inclusive of a host hotel. So those two funding sources are 00:11:50.396 --> 00:11:55.585 - the food and beverage tax and the innkeeper's tax. The former was meant primarily for construction, 00:11:55.585 --> 00:11:59.166 - while the latter was meant primarily for operations and maintenance. 00:11:59.842 --> 00:12:04.796 - The county government has also used the innkeeper's tax to purchase land as a possibility for convention 00:12:04.796 --> 00:12:09.561 - center expansion. So before the city council was willing to agree to appropriate the city's food and 00:12:09.561 --> 00:12:14.562 - beverage tax proceeds, it made itself very, very clear that its understanding and expectation, consistent 00:12:14.562 --> 00:12:19.374 - with the decade of discussion on this, was that the food and beverage tax proceeds alone would be the 00:12:19.374 --> 00:12:24.234 - city's sole financial contribution to the project. To the best of my recollection, and I'm pretty sure 00:12:24.234 --> 00:12:28.574 - about this, no one with the CIB or other interested parties raised objections at that time. 00:12:28.706 --> 00:12:34.825 - and said, no, we don't think that's possible, or we're going to come to the city later for other resources. 00:12:34.825 --> 00:12:40.775 - And so some members of the council in particular were quite explicit that this was conditional for their 00:12:40.775 --> 00:12:46.441 - vote, or conditioned for their vote. And so we moved forward. We appropriated the funds. Of course, 00:12:46.441 --> 00:12:52.277 - the convention center is going up right now. But now we face a situation where the city is being asked 00:12:52.277 --> 00:12:57.886 - to contribute a considerable amount of additional taxpayer dollars to the burden of our residents. 00:12:58.082 --> 00:13:03.322 - And I think there are lots of good other options. Several media sources, I think, or at least one who's 00:13:03.322 --> 00:13:08.411 - here with us tonight, did cover a memo that a few colleagues and I sent to the RDC earlier this week 00:13:08.411 --> 00:13:13.450 - that outlined some of those options. I think it would be a great idea for elected officials of both 00:13:13.450 --> 00:13:18.539 - county and city government to get together early in the new year to talk about those options and how 00:13:18.539 --> 00:13:23.880 - to make sure that we're using those two funding sources that have long been identified for the Convention 00:13:23.880 --> 00:13:28.062 - Center expansion project optimally to achieve those outcomes that everybody wants. 00:13:28.322 --> 00:13:34.431 - And so, really, that's it. I wanted to update folks on that. I wanted to acknowledge that the RDC vote 00:13:34.431 --> 00:13:40.599 - was, I think, an important inflection point of some sorts. I think the risks were not just the finances 00:13:40.599 --> 00:13:46.590 - itself, but also trust from the public, from the city council to the mayor's administration with the 00:13:46.590 --> 00:13:52.461 - CIB. And based on other things that have happened over the past two years, that's not always been, 00:13:52.461 --> 00:13:57.918 - you know, our strongest resource. So it would have been a shame to see it go further south. 00:13:58.050 --> 00:14:06.198 - So with that, thank you again to those commissioners and RDC for their service Thank You councilmember 00:14:06.198 --> 00:14:14.345 - Ruff I'd just like to take a second to Thank our council leadership council members Stossberg Piedmont 00:14:14.345 --> 00:14:22.255 - Smith and daily for the work they've done On council leadership this year. It's a lot of extra work 00:14:22.255 --> 00:14:28.030 - and a lot of times pretty thankless and So it's it's greatly appreciated 00:14:28.802 --> 00:14:41.047 - Last thing I just want to quickly just say Show some respect and gratitude to the bipartisan principled 00:14:41.047 --> 00:14:53.057 - stance taken by our Indiana Senate and rejecting a completely Out of line power play In redistricting 00:14:53.057 --> 00:14:58.238 - the redistricting recent redistricting push 00:14:58.978 --> 00:15:06.731 - It was coming down on Indiana from outside and just really I had died people from all over the country 00:15:06.731 --> 00:15:14.183 - from friends of us and and Colleagues from around the country from all different brittle political 00:15:14.183 --> 00:15:21.786 - persuasions saying Wow Thanks, Indiana Senate I'm proud to have connections with with with the state 00:15:21.786 --> 00:15:27.582 - of Indiana at this point in time which we haven't always been able to say so 00:15:28.226 --> 00:15:35.845 - Much appreciation and respect to them to the Indiana Senate for that. Thank you Thank You councilmember. 00:15:35.845 --> 00:15:43.101 - Oh, I just like to make an announcement that Councilmember rough and I have our monthly constituent 00:15:43.101 --> 00:15:50.357 - meeting this Saturday at 10 a.m December 20th, we have it by zoom and you can find that link at the 00:15:50.357 --> 00:15:57.758 - council website which is bloomington.in that gov slash council and You're welcome to join us. We have 00:15:57.986 --> 00:16:06.713 - Usually very lively intense discussions numerous topics and we're scheduled for an hour But we often 00:16:06.713 --> 00:16:15.699 - go 90 minutes two hours and councilmember rough me spend the rest of the day on zoom I'm not committing 00:16:15.699 --> 00:16:24.513 - him but But we we look forward to seeing people there so it's a it's a good time so please come Thank 00:16:24.513 --> 00:16:27.710 - You councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes 00:16:28.066 --> 00:16:35.726 - I'd like to just highlight, as I've done in the past, to highlight yet another way in which the Trump 00:16:35.726 --> 00:16:43.236 - administration is violating the US Constitution that we all have sworn to uphold and that President 00:16:43.236 --> 00:16:51.422 - Trump has sworn to uphold, but is not doing a very good job of. Today's topic is war powers, US Constitution 00:16:51.422 --> 00:16:57.054 - Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 11, Congress has the power to declare war. 00:16:58.146 --> 00:17:05.959 - Even though in early October, President Trump decided that the United States is engaged in a formal 00:17:05.959 --> 00:17:14.006 - armed conflict with drug cartels, that his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected 00:17:14.006 --> 00:17:22.053 - smugglers for such groups are unlawful combatants. So basically he's declared war on a drug cartel and 00:17:22.053 --> 00:17:27.678 - he has killed 80 plus people doing it in violation of international law 00:17:28.194 --> 00:17:35.257 - the Constitution. I just want to quote a little bit from an article that appeared yesterday on the American 00:17:35.257 --> 00:17:41.993 - Constitution Society website by Chris Edelson, a professor at American University. Over the past three 00:17:41.993 --> 00:17:47.486 - months, the Trump administration has effectively gone to war with an amorphous foe. 00:17:47.618 --> 00:17:53.934 - Although the administration describes this as non-international, i.e. not between nations, armed conflict 00:17:53.934 --> 00:17:59.952 - with vaguely defined drug cartels, it is in fact a one-sided affair in which US missiles have struck 00:17:59.952 --> 00:18:06.148 - and killed more than 80 people on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Perhaps most notoriously, 00:18:06.148 --> 00:18:12.285 - one of these strikes killed two men who survived an initial attack and were clinging to wreckage. Some 00:18:12.285 --> 00:18:16.158 - experts are concerned that all of the strikes are simply murder. 00:18:17.250 --> 00:18:23.416 - Despite the broad consensus among international law experts that the US military campaign violates 00:18:23.416 --> 00:18:29.831 - international law, President Donald Trump has suggested he could escalate the fight, including perhaps 00:18:29.831 --> 00:18:36.558 - by an invasion of Venezuela. The administration has claimed without evidence that the boats it is attacking 00:18:36.558 --> 00:18:42.786 - are bringing drugs from Venezuela to the United States. The Trump administration's military actions 00:18:42.786 --> 00:18:44.094 - also violate US law. 00:18:44.258 --> 00:18:51.539 - many, many disappointing things about the Trump administration. And I just, I think we need to keep 00:18:51.539 --> 00:18:59.111 - talking about it and keep pointing it out that this is a violation of law and a constitution that we're 00:18:59.111 --> 00:19:06.464 - all so proud of. That's it. Thanks. Thank you. I also have a short report. Hopefully it'll be short. 00:19:06.464 --> 00:19:09.886 - There's a few things that I wanted to mention. 00:19:10.658 --> 00:19:17.825 - I appreciate Councilmember Ruff bringing up the Indiana Senate and the failure of that mid-century 00:19:17.825 --> 00:19:25.427 - redistricting vote. I mentioned that a couple weeks ago, and I just wanted to kind of follow up on that. 00:19:25.427 --> 00:19:33.029 - And I am thrilled that our senators listened to the people of Indiana who, by and large, through surveys 00:19:33.029 --> 00:19:39.038 - and through calling both Republicans and Democrats and also independents, all were 00:19:39.522 --> 00:19:45.893 - Predominantly against that move and I'm really really happy that our senators actually listens to the 00:19:45.893 --> 00:19:52.203 - people in this situation And I wanted to make a note about my constituent meetings as well I'm gonna 00:19:52.203 --> 00:19:58.512 - change those up a little bit in the new year I've been kind of doing that a little bit trying trying 00:19:58.512 --> 00:20:03.134 - some different things to figure out how I feel is the best kind of way to 00:20:03.234 --> 00:20:10.348 - connect in different ways with constituents. So I feel like my the best constituent meetings have really 00:20:10.348 --> 00:20:12.990 - focused on one person and they're like 00:20:13.538 --> 00:20:18.234 - concern that they're bringing in that moment. And so instead of having just constituent meetings where 00:20:18.234 --> 00:20:22.931 - it's like, hey, everybody come to make sure that those people that come with very specific things that 00:20:22.931 --> 00:20:27.764 - they want to talk about can just make a calendar appointment with me. So there's a lot of tech out there, 00:20:27.764 --> 00:20:32.461 - I'm sure, that you've used it, where it's like, yes, just schedule an appointment with me. Here's your 00:20:32.461 --> 00:20:34.558 - time blocks. So it'll be something like that. 00:20:34.882 --> 00:20:42.668 - ways to do that and to get on my calendar. So look for that in the new year. That's a new tech field 00:20:42.668 --> 00:20:50.685 - you could say for me. I've never done that before. I know it's not hard. But during the holiday recess, 00:20:50.685 --> 00:20:52.766 - I'm hoping to set that up. 00:20:52.866 --> 00:20:58.074 - then I'm gonna take a note to actually talk about council scheduling right now, even though council 00:20:58.074 --> 00:21:03.698 - schedule time is at the end, because by the end of a meeting, maybe my colleagues aren't gonna be listening 00:21:03.698 --> 00:21:09.270 - as closely anymore, so I'm hoping that you're all listening right now about my note on council scheduling, 00:21:09.270 --> 00:21:14.530 - which is that in January we have a couple weeks without regular session meetings, but I'm gonna urge 00:21:14.530 --> 00:21:19.946 - you guys right now when you're looking at your January calendars to kind of pencil in some reservations 00:21:19.946 --> 00:21:22.654 - on those Wednesday nights for interview committees. 00:21:22.978 --> 00:21:28.621 - because interview committee stuff, as a reminder, is changing next year with the new resolution that 00:21:28.621 --> 00:21:34.376 - Council Member Zulek, I'm pretty sure, is the one who brought that. So that all needs to be rethought. 00:21:34.376 --> 00:21:40.075 - And I spoke with Clerk Crosley today, and so she also kind of has that on her schedule and hoping to, 00:21:40.075 --> 00:21:45.718 - you know, in January, get some of those things scheduled. So if we could, as council members, try to 00:21:45.718 --> 00:21:51.417 - work with that and thinking about our January schedule, that would be fantastic. And other than that, 00:21:51.417 --> 00:21:52.702 - just to our community, 00:21:53.122 --> 00:22:01.615 - Happy holidays, all of the holidays. Happy Hanukkah a little late, happy solstice, merry Christmas, 00:22:01.615 --> 00:22:10.449 - happy Kwanzaa, happy new year, a little early, a little late, all of those things. But happy snow days. 00:22:10.449 --> 00:22:18.942 - E-learning is almost like snow days, sort of, for some people. So winter can be a fun time. Anyway. 00:22:19.746 --> 00:22:26.250 - That wraps it up and we are moving on to reports from the mayor, city clerk, city offices, and city 00:22:26.250 --> 00:22:32.689 - boards and commissions. So we have our planning and transportation director, Hiddle. If you could, 00:22:32.689 --> 00:22:37.502 - as usual, state your name for the record and it's great to have you here. 00:22:46.658 --> 00:22:53.971 - Thank you. Good evening David Hittle director of the Department of Planning and Transportation Here 00:22:53.971 --> 00:23:01.285 - with a year-end update on our housing attainability study slash project To let you know where we've 00:23:01.285 --> 00:23:08.598 - been and where we're going with this with this important, I think initiative So the project purpose 00:23:08.598 --> 00:23:16.350 - is to consider potential unified development ordinance or UDO amendments and other housing policy changes 00:23:16.450 --> 00:23:23.258 - to increase access to attainable housing in Bloomington. And with any changes to UDO or other ordinance 00:23:23.258 --> 00:23:30.066 - language, you look for your marching orders, really, from the comprehensive plan. You want the language 00:23:30.066 --> 00:23:36.678 - in the comprehensive plan to guide you to make those changes. We talked a little bit about this in a 00:23:36.678 --> 00:23:43.224 - little bit more detail at the second of the deliberative sessions, and I kind of quoted from all of 00:23:43.224 --> 00:23:46.366 - the points in the comp plan that are pertinent. 00:23:46.498 --> 00:23:52.397 - taper that off a little bit and just kind of cut to the chase and talk about this goal 5.3 that talks 00:23:52.397 --> 00:23:57.891 - about housing supply to help meet current and projected regional housing needs of all economic 00:23:57.891 --> 00:24:03.442 - and demographic groups by increasing Bloomington's housing supply with infill development reuse 00:24:03.442 --> 00:24:06.334 - of non-residential developed land and development 00:24:07.138 --> 00:24:13.228 - Vacant land if it is at least partially surrounded by existing development and the specific policy that 00:24:13.228 --> 00:24:18.673 - comes from that says encourage opportunities for infill and redevelopment across Bloomington 00:24:18.673 --> 00:24:24.645 - with consideration for increased residential densities Complementary design and underutilized housing 00:24:24.645 --> 00:24:30.911 - types such as accessory dwelling units duplex triplex and fourplex buildings courtyard apartments bungalow 00:24:30.911 --> 00:24:34.014 - courts townhouses row houses and live workspaces and 00:24:35.170 --> 00:24:41.288 - Avoid placing these high-density forms in single-family neighborhoods that last sentence kind of just 00:24:41.288 --> 00:24:47.407 - slams the brakes on the vibe that the rest of the paragraph I think establishes and I'd have loved to 00:24:47.407 --> 00:24:53.405 - have been a fly on the wall of the Moment that the decision was made to add that last sentence, but 00:24:53.405 --> 00:24:59.463 - I'm not sure exactly where that came from I think there is a lack of precision in the language there 00:24:59.463 --> 00:25:04.862 - and I think it's muddles the intention of the previous paragraph for a variety of reasons 00:25:05.218 --> 00:25:12.594 - Comprehensive plan also includes the climate action plan which does state encourage density and increase 00:25:12.594 --> 00:25:19.619 - housing options and affordability with the goal of increasing gross density by 3% of 2018 values So 00:25:19.619 --> 00:25:27.135 - this initiative set out to find out how we can do that how we can realize those particular Recommendations 00:25:27.135 --> 00:25:33.598 - from the comprehensive plan and so beginning earlier this year about five or six months ago 00:25:33.698 --> 00:25:40.355 - We established that we would be meeting with a variety of stakeholders neighborhood associations institutions 00:25:40.355 --> 00:25:46.650 - the university the school district the development community and and talk about variety of issues among 00:25:46.650 --> 00:25:53.126 - them housing So we met with all of those groups as I mentioned still a few more to go We have neighborhood 00:25:53.126 --> 00:25:59.178 - organizations scheduled through January and I think one in early February and peer cities scheduled 00:25:59.178 --> 00:26:01.054 - throughout January as well and 00:26:02.210 --> 00:26:08.188 - With regards to pure cities. We looked at cities that are a little bit more akin to the profile 00:26:08.188 --> 00:26:14.851 - of Bloomington than just your typical college towns Bloomington is a relatively small city nestled against 00:26:14.851 --> 00:26:21.140 - really large University and so it doesn't it's not terribly instructive to look only at Ann Arbor or 00:26:21.140 --> 00:26:23.070 - Madison or some of our Big Ten 00:26:23.170 --> 00:26:29.732 - The big ten usual suspects if you will so we expanded that to talk to other cities that have 00:26:29.732 --> 00:26:37.424 - large universities That are a little bit more can in terms of ratio permanent residents to student residents 00:26:37.424 --> 00:26:44.551 - that that Bloomington is so we've been adding to this list and Excited to add Bozeman, Montana to it 00:26:44.551 --> 00:26:46.174 - next week, which is on 00:26:46.274 --> 00:26:55.361 - a sentence only a planner would ever say, I think. But they're very interesting in that they are a blue 00:26:55.361 --> 00:27:04.710 - village in a red sea. They are leading the nation in housing reform and zoning reform relative to housing. 00:27:04.710 --> 00:27:13.534 - And they, fascinatingly enough to me, have a huge influx of population and a median housing price of 00:27:13.534 --> 00:27:15.806 - a million dollars almost. 00:27:16.034 --> 00:27:22.064 - If you kind of take the whole thing and boil it down to really a fundamental tension, it's this, 00:27:22.064 --> 00:27:28.529 - it's good, it's needed, it's desirable for us to optimize residential infill opportunities. At the same 00:27:28.529 --> 00:27:34.372 - time, another sentence that's true is that off-campus student housing pressures may overwhelm 00:27:34.372 --> 00:27:36.734 - core neighborhoods. So where there is 00:27:37.346 --> 00:27:43.380 - Opposition to ideas here. It's coming from those core neighborhoods and really core isn't the right 00:27:43.380 --> 00:27:49.475 - word It's really more campus adjacent neighborhoods And and we've sort of seen by virtue of the fact 00:27:49.475 --> 00:27:55.750 - that off-campus housing pressures are so Large and the existing built environment of Bloomington giving 00:27:55.750 --> 00:28:02.026 - its population outside of the university is not particularly large that there is the potential for this 00:28:02.026 --> 00:28:04.862 - dynamic that's not desirable to take place and 00:28:06.626 --> 00:28:14.434 - If we look at our zoning map all of the yellow indicates Single-family zoning. I should say residential 00:28:14.434 --> 00:28:21.941 - zoning the lighter the yellow the the lower intensity or lower density the zoning the single-family 00:28:21.941 --> 00:28:27.422 - typologies are allowed so the canary yellow was it basically are two and 00:28:28.034 --> 00:28:34.770 - Which allows only for single-family dwellings. I'll add the caveat that it does allow for accessory 00:28:34.770 --> 00:28:42.045 - dwelling units But for a variety of reasons including restrictions on those placed by the zoning ordinance. 00:28:42.045 --> 00:28:48.781 - There's not a lot of those being built right now So we have about 5,000 plus acres that are in that 00:28:48.781 --> 00:28:51.678 - category of single-family zoning exclusive 00:28:52.354 --> 00:28:59.140 - We have 200 acres that are R4 that also allow for duplexes by right. And then we have 1,400 acres that 00:28:59.140 --> 00:29:05.860 - allow for different types of multifamily. So the overwhelming majority of residentially zoned land in 00:29:05.860 --> 00:29:10.142 - the city of Bloomington allows only for single family dwellings. 00:29:11.138 --> 00:29:18.073 - This is the allowed use table which tells you a little bit more about that in detail as you get into 00:29:18.073 --> 00:29:25.076 - the the mixed-use districts There's a variety of residential and commercial and multifamily uses that 00:29:25.076 --> 00:29:32.285 - are allowed but the our districts which are essentially the residential districts are very single-family 00:29:32.285 --> 00:29:40.318 - only heavy Really the goal here with this project is to allow for more diverse types of housing to flourish at least 00:29:40.450 --> 00:29:47.137 - Give them a fighting chance in the city right now. It's been historically easy to build single-family 00:29:47.137 --> 00:29:53.890 - dwellings And as of late, it's been easy to build really big mega student development projects But not 00:29:53.890 --> 00:29:59.988 - much in between so we'd like to change the regulations do more removal than addition to take 00:29:59.988 --> 00:30:06.872 - away obstructions and obstacles that I think do not rightly curtail the development of this this missing 00:30:06.872 --> 00:30:09.822 - middle or gentle density type of housing and 00:30:10.882 --> 00:30:17.469 - We're going to look at a couple different variations here. One of them is the idea of the cottage 00:30:17.469 --> 00:30:24.257 - development. This is not in Bloomington. This is in Santa Monica, I believe. It's a very common type 00:30:24.257 --> 00:30:27.550 - of development, previous mid-century and before. 00:30:27.682 --> 00:30:34.003 - Really the 20s to the 50s. They're also very common in Chicago common in Minneapolis common in a number 00:30:34.003 --> 00:30:40.141 - of eastern cities We'll have really one of these in Bloomington, which I'll talk about just a little 00:30:40.141 --> 00:30:46.280 - bit in a moment We do have a slot for this in our zoning ordinance But among its restrictions is one 00:30:46.280 --> 00:30:52.357 - that says you have to start with a minimum of an acre You have to have a minimum of 400 square feet 00:30:52.357 --> 00:30:54.910 - of internal green space per dwelling unit 00:31:02.690 --> 00:31:09.980 - the individual dwelling units are not allowed for sale and They are allowed nowhere by right. So in 00:31:09.980 --> 00:31:17.269 - order to develop any of these anywhere You need to get conditional use approval from the BZA, which 00:31:17.269 --> 00:31:25.069 - is a process that that is not without friction This is another example from California. This is an example 00:31:25.069 --> 00:31:29.662 - from Fishers more recently built that's 11 units, I believe on 00:31:30.338 --> 00:31:36.514 - 1.7 acres so 6.5 units per acre Obviously the land costs are reduced if you're able to put a number 00:31:36.514 --> 00:31:42.999 - of houses A number of dwelling units on a property like this. They're smaller than normal dwelling units 00:31:42.999 --> 00:31:49.176 - And so they they tend to be much more affordable to people Beyond those who might be able to afford 00:31:49.176 --> 00:31:55.352 - a single-family dwelling today, especially in this city Here's Bloomington's example. And this is a 00:31:55.352 --> 00:31:56.958 - little bit more than just 00:31:57.058 --> 00:32:03.025 - A cottage development. This is the co-housing project on short street. So there's a lot of cooperative 00:32:03.025 --> 00:32:09.050 - operational parameters at play here It's fascinating place. I spent an afternoon there and I don't know 00:32:09.050 --> 00:32:15.017 - if everybody's visited or not but I think if you're able to Sit down at the pavilion and talk to their 00:32:15.017 --> 00:32:20.868 - founders a little bit about how it's developed and you can kind of experience the actual life of the 00:32:20.868 --> 00:32:26.430 - neighborhood which I think makes it really really appealing. This is just a quick site plan and 00:32:26.850 --> 00:32:33.984 - Overview that shows central greens and then the houses flank those greens rather than flanking streets, 00:32:33.984 --> 00:32:41.118 - which is the typical arrangement This is one in Indianapolis I talked a little bit about it at the last 00:32:41.118 --> 00:32:48.321 - deliberative session and I'll just repeat that here because I think it's instructive These are two urban 00:32:48.321 --> 00:32:53.054 - lots 35 feet wide that were consolidated and on which were built six 00:32:53.314 --> 00:33:01.785 - dwellings They're all single-family dwellings. They're all owned fee simple They are I think 1200 square 00:33:01.785 --> 00:33:10.014 - feet each three bedrooms and 2.5 baths apiece They are for sale in a two of them. I've sold I think I 00:33:10.210 --> 00:33:16.539 - And the going rate for those is $271,000, which is, again, you know, we'd love to be able to see houses 00:33:16.539 --> 00:33:22.807 - for sale less than that, but that's quite a bit less than the median sale price in Bloomington. Again, 00:33:22.807 --> 00:33:29.075 - smaller houses, smaller lots, less yard, really all, I think, desirable things for a lot of the people 00:33:29.075 --> 00:33:35.282 - that live here, especially given what we know about the demographics of the city these days. The most 00:33:35.282 --> 00:33:37.534 - common household is a single person. 00:33:38.242 --> 00:33:45.781 - Two-person household and the second most common is a single person and together they make the vast majority 00:33:45.781 --> 00:33:53.111 - of the household types that are in Bloomington And there's just a lot of desire for this type of housing 00:33:53.111 --> 00:34:00.371 - development and it's just not available anywhere This view from the beginning at the front of this site 00:34:00.371 --> 00:34:03.582 - Also, we're looking at duplexes and triplexes 00:34:03.714 --> 00:34:11.448 - And the opportunity to allow them perhaps a little bit more frequently with conditions and protect perhaps 00:34:11.448 --> 00:34:18.820 - in specific overlay areas This is a duplex This is a duplex that is actually in the the house catalog 00:34:18.820 --> 00:34:25.470 - that is part of the Hopewell development. So just a little bit of background about that and 00:34:26.530 --> 00:34:33.731 - Hopewell will be sort of governed by a catalog with a variety of different home types and the person 00:34:33.731 --> 00:34:41.075 - who buys a lot there will choose from that catalog one of any any one of a number of a dozen different 00:34:41.075 --> 00:34:48.205 - homes this this is a duplex in that it has a Front unit and then another unit attached that's above 00:34:48.205 --> 00:34:55.406 - a garage in the back And it's simple architecture, you know, it's it's relatively modest in terms of 00:34:55.406 --> 00:34:56.190 - its of its 00:34:56.322 --> 00:35:05.775 - Silhouette and massing, smaller than the average house, and again, small yard, something that I think 00:35:05.775 --> 00:35:15.136 - we would like to see encouraged here. Where you begin to run into real concerns about these kinds of 00:35:15.136 --> 00:35:24.126 - housing typologies is existing character of neighborhoods and opportunities for those typologies 00:35:24.578 --> 00:35:30.958 - poorly executed to compromise that character. Again, we took a quick look at this at the last deliberative 00:35:30.958 --> 00:35:37.158 - session. I think it's instructional to do it again. But this was 7-11 East Cottage Grove two years ago. 00:35:37.158 --> 00:35:43.240 - This was 7-11 East Cottage Grove a couple months ago. And this is what 7-11 Cottage Grove is proposed 00:35:43.240 --> 00:35:49.381 - to be next year. Now, in a lot of ways, this makes sense. This is a stone's throw from the university. 00:35:49.381 --> 00:35:54.270 - And there's probably good reason to increase density in that particular location. 00:35:54.434 --> 00:36:03.061 - would argue that this is not particularly successful in preserving or honoring or really recognizing 00:36:03.061 --> 00:36:11.687 - in any way existing neighborhood context. If you look at some of the figures behind it, it begins to 00:36:11.687 --> 00:36:20.058 - become apparent why this is happening. This is a three-unit structure. Each unit rents for $6,000 00:36:20.058 --> 00:36:24.414 - a month. So that's about $18,000 a month in whole. 00:36:24.610 --> 00:36:30.598 - Look right across the street. This is a single-family dwelling that is that was for rent for forty six 00:36:30.598 --> 00:36:36.877 - hundred and twenty dollars a month so eighteen thousand one hundred and twenty a month versus four thousand 00:36:36.877 --> 00:36:42.866 - six hundred and twenty a month you begin to see that the pressures for creating these kinds of changes 00:36:42.866 --> 00:36:49.726 - Another thing that we are interested in looking at is the possibility of easing path for accessory dwelling units and 00:36:49.858 --> 00:36:55.902 - This is an accessory dwelling unit actually built in Bloomington. Actually, let me rephrase that. This 00:36:55.902 --> 00:37:01.888 - is not in Bloomington, but the thing was built in Bloomington. Um, this is from origin studios, which 00:37:01.888 --> 00:37:08.167 - ships mainly to the coasts. I think they've built one in town, um, but they build high end sort of bespoke 00:37:08.167 --> 00:37:14.622 - ad use and they ship, um, to the places where ad use are welcomed with more open arms. Um, I think they have, 00:37:14.754 --> 00:37:22.446 - developed one and placed it in town actually. Interestingly enough, and this is a look inside the warehouse 00:37:22.446 --> 00:37:29.853 - in Bloomington, the owner has a history in developing housing in developing nations and I think is very 00:37:29.853 --> 00:37:37.758 - interested in putting together a product that is much more affordable and seeing that being used here locally. 00:37:39.074 --> 00:37:45.118 - With that idea comes another one which is which is creating opportunities for administrative lot splits 00:37:45.118 --> 00:37:50.930 - Just look at any one of these. This is this is The idea of the single-family dwelling in front with 00:37:50.930 --> 00:37:56.858 - an ADU then developed in back You have a single-family dwelling in front in Bloomington It's probably 00:37:56.858 --> 00:38:02.902 - pretty expensive once you build the ADU and back becomes that much more expensive as a property because 00:38:02.902 --> 00:38:08.830 - you essentially have two houses on it but if you're able to split off that ADU and sell it fee simple 00:38:09.154 --> 00:38:14.759 - Either by administrative lot splits by acknowledging that on a corner lot You have two street frontages 00:38:14.759 --> 00:38:20.417 - or by creating an opportunity for flag lots to make that back lot legal Then you're allowing more people 00:38:20.417 --> 00:38:26.183 - in infill area, which means you're again. You're using existing pipes existing streets You're not building 00:38:26.183 --> 00:38:31.626 - new infrastructure. You're not asking the police department to stretch emergency services to stretch 00:38:31.626 --> 00:38:36.638 - its service area so it's the most cost-effective way of locating more people in the city and 00:38:37.378 --> 00:38:44.257 - We're also going to looking at subdivision regulations Specifically recalibrating lot dimension requirements 00:38:44.257 --> 00:38:50.820 - a lot of our zoning districts width and area and other dimensional requirements Are quite a bit greater 00:38:50.820 --> 00:38:57.195 - than the the lots on which they stand, especially the older lots Which were developed with with less 00:38:57.195 --> 00:39:03.569 - width with less area And I think one option is to is to make it so that the dimensional requirements 00:39:03.569 --> 00:39:07.166 - actually match those that are that are built and are not 00:39:07.298 --> 00:39:15.007 - thrusting those older homes and lots immediately into non-conforming status Also, I think that as I 00:39:15.007 --> 00:39:23.333 - noted earlier we can make our architectural regulations more meaningful for example right now with duplexes 00:39:23.333 --> 00:39:31.582 - we have very subjective language telling us to take a look at their porches and their door orientation and 00:39:32.290 --> 00:39:38.827 - site development in terms of parking, but those don't get us very far. I think in terms of providing 00:39:38.827 --> 00:39:45.300 - for a truly desirable architectural end product, I think we can do a better job of that. Let's talk 00:39:45.300 --> 00:39:52.355 - to some local architects. Maybe the idea is to put together a work group to help improve those architectural 00:39:52.355 --> 00:39:59.151 - regulations so that neighborhood character is not compromised in the way that I think arguably you could 00:39:59.151 --> 00:40:00.510 - say it is right now. 00:40:01.794 --> 00:40:09.050 - Short-term rental is it's something that's been talked about At any given time this number has changed 00:40:09.050 --> 00:40:16.517 - but I'm going to say now that at any given time there are 400 listings in Bloomington that are identified 00:40:16.517 --> 00:40:23.562 - as Perpetual meaning year-round whole house rentals meaning no one lives in them. They're only used 00:40:23.562 --> 00:40:25.182 - as literal mini hotels 00:40:25.282 --> 00:40:32.074 - That number has changed in terms of what we've thought it was, but as I've talked to people in the industry 00:40:32.074 --> 00:40:37.923 - and looked at the way that AirDNA, which is the main data aggregator for short-term rentals, 00:40:37.923 --> 00:40:44.401 - how they do it, it looks as though there are about 400 at any given time. It's a big number for houses 00:40:44.401 --> 00:40:50.691 - taken out of circulation for a city the size of Bloomington. There's not much we can do in terms of 00:40:50.691 --> 00:40:54.590 - zoning regulations. We are exploring the idea of capping that 00:40:54.754 --> 00:41:01.758 - Requiring permits and then establishing a maximum cap so that it can't get any greater and then ideally 00:41:01.758 --> 00:41:08.898 - over time Some of those there through attrition would come back into the housing pool Looking and talking 00:41:08.898 --> 00:41:15.902 - with with peer cities there are a number of techniques that are employed to deal with with the issue of 00:41:16.770 --> 00:41:22.729 - I won't call it a problem, because there's problems in a lot of ways. It's a good problem to have. But 00:41:22.729 --> 00:41:28.515 - the issue of off-campus housing, one of them is to impose separation requirements so that if a home 00:41:28.515 --> 00:41:34.416 - is occupied by students, then it needs to be separated by a certain number of feet from other places. 00:41:34.416 --> 00:41:40.491 - That's done in Pennsylvania. Another is to establish a rental density allowance. That's done in a number 00:41:40.491 --> 00:41:44.830 - of cities in Minnesota, and Carmel and Fishers also did something similar. 00:41:45.378 --> 00:41:51.205 - I think arguably their motivations are a little bit different. I think in Carmel and Fishers, they are 00:41:51.205 --> 00:41:56.919 - pretty forthright about it just about just not wanting rentals. Our concern here is the distribution 00:41:56.919 --> 00:42:02.746 - of student housing, I think. But those are opportunities. Other things that are happening with regards 00:42:02.746 --> 00:42:08.573 - to housing attainability is we are at the beginning slash middle of an audit process, which is looking 00:42:08.573 --> 00:42:14.174 - at how we handle our permit reviews and ways for us to become a little bit more efficient in that. 00:42:14.498 --> 00:42:21.529 - Time is money. So if we're able to do that, it takes away costs of development. The HW stands for Hopewell. 00:42:21.529 --> 00:42:28.235 - So those are components of the Hopewell program. It's going to be the pre-approved home catalog, which 00:42:28.235 --> 00:42:35.006 - I think we could extend to use elsewhere in the city, the Lender Developer Training Program, which will 00:42:35.006 --> 00:42:41.712 - happen next year. The pursuit of advanced building codes is something that I think is next year or the 00:42:41.712 --> 00:42:44.446 - year after. In a lot of places, there are 00:42:44.610 --> 00:42:53.046 - amendments to building codes legislative Usually coming from the state that that allows for things like 00:42:53.046 --> 00:43:01.238 - single staircase designs and Sort of removal of relic fire codes that that no longer Have much to do 00:43:01.238 --> 00:43:07.646 - with safety but allow for more more efficient development and then the there's 00:43:07.938 --> 00:43:15.782 - an opportunity to improve coordination with IU. There's really no formal coordination with IU with regards 00:43:15.782 --> 00:43:23.626 - to how off-campus housing is executed. And I think that that's something that could be done. Other places, 00:43:23.626 --> 00:43:31.324 - usually the larger cities have very comprehensive formal written agreements with the universities within 00:43:31.324 --> 00:43:36.382 - them. They can include everything from shared stadiums to mitigating 00:43:36.898 --> 00:43:42.606 - Mitigating payment to the city for for neighborhood impacts. There's really a variety of things I don't 00:43:42.606 --> 00:43:48.150 - know that that's something that could be employed here would be employed here, but it's I think it's 00:43:48.150 --> 00:43:53.693 - interesting to note that those exist Timeline director Hittle. Yes as a note that's been 20 minutes, 00:43:53.693 --> 00:43:59.182 - which is the period So a couple more minutes, maybe I wrap that up and then council members you can 00:43:59.182 --> 00:44:03.902 - help me decide Whether you want to have extra time for questions after that. Okay, so 00:44:04.130 --> 00:44:10.777 - Thanks. This is the end. We're at the timeline. I apologize. I didn't know I was taking that much time. 00:44:10.777 --> 00:44:17.360 - So our goal here is to come forward with a housing attainability UDO package, which is going to be the 00:44:17.360 --> 00:44:24.135 - things that we've talked about here and then whatever comes up in the meantime that we will bring forward 00:44:24.135 --> 00:44:30.526 - for review and refinement and adoption eventually, hopefully, that will incorporate the things that 00:44:30.722 --> 00:44:38.219 - we've just discussed, and do it in a way that satisfies as many concerns as possible. That is the general 00:44:38.219 --> 00:44:45.361 - timeline through April. I'd like to complete the first phase of outreach immediately, and then begin 00:44:45.361 --> 00:44:52.575 - to craft UDO amendment ideas and options, take those back to the public and to stakeholders, and then 00:44:52.575 --> 00:44:57.950 - through the late spring, refine the draft amendments and initiate adoption. 00:45:01.026 --> 00:45:09.083 - I'll stop there. Thank you. Um council members. Do you have questions? Okay, we have a couple of questions 00:45:09.083 --> 00:45:16.764 - up here. So let's go ahead and extend Let's start with just five minutes until 721 Just because we do 00:45:16.764 --> 00:45:24.671 - have a lengthy legislative agenda council member all Thank You director head home So two housing studies 00:45:24.671 --> 00:45:30.846 - I'm aware of have indicated that people desire owner occupied single-family homes 00:45:31.714 --> 00:45:43.024 - Over the last decade or so we've had a disproportionate number of rentals built And at the same time 00:45:43.024 --> 00:45:54.223 - as you notice we as you noted we've had a number of a thousand or so Homes that have been converted 00:45:54.223 --> 00:45:57.470 - to short-term rentals so And 00:45:57.986 --> 00:46:05.757 - So there's institutional investors, there are people who are buying and renting these. Fishers Indiana 00:46:05.757 --> 00:46:13.755 - put a 10% cap on rentals recently. It's effective January 1st of 2026. Is that something we could explore 00:46:13.755 --> 00:46:21.299 - to try to maintain the housing stock that we have that people desire? Yeah, that's certainly one of 00:46:21.299 --> 00:46:27.486 - the techniques that could be employed. It's one of the things that we'll look at. 00:46:27.650 --> 00:46:37.176 - Again, I think we don't want to demonize student housing. It's good that students are here. And we don't 00:46:37.176 --> 00:46:46.338 - want to, I think, necessarily follow the same line of reasoning that Fishers did in their employment 00:46:46.338 --> 00:46:55.864 - of that particular rule. I think that they're relatively forthright in that rentals are a less desirable 00:46:55.864 --> 00:46:57.406 - mode of residing 00:46:57.538 --> 00:47:04.672 - than owner-occupied. And I don't know that that's a course we want to take, but that is being utilized 00:47:04.672 --> 00:47:12.083 - in other college towns as a means of distributing where housing rentals, or student rentals in particular, 00:47:12.083 --> 00:47:19.286 - are located. So that'll be part of what we're looking at, yes. It is a tool that's out there. It's used 00:47:19.286 --> 00:47:26.490 - extensively in Minnesota and other places, especially where there are colleges, and it's something that 00:47:26.490 --> 00:47:27.390 - can be done. 00:47:27.618 --> 00:47:33.952 - To hear that. Thank you other questions council members who look Thank You director Hiddle earlier in 00:47:33.952 --> 00:47:40.286 - your presentation. I heard you equate core neighborhoods with campus adjacent neighborhoods Would you 00:47:40.286 --> 00:47:46.433 - say that that's correct? Yeah, I wrote core neighborhoods But but really there are campus adjacent 00:47:46.433 --> 00:47:52.767 - neighborhoods green acres for example that you wouldn't really call core so it may be better that the 00:47:52.767 --> 00:47:55.934 - language I could have used was campus adjacent and 00:47:56.418 --> 00:48:04.241 - most of which are core, but not all. Thank you. In a town where over 50% of the population is students, 00:48:04.241 --> 00:48:11.838 - to what extent do you think it's a reasonable expectation for residents who are not students who are 00:48:11.838 --> 00:48:19.134 - living within a square mile of the circumference of campus that people don't live with students? 00:48:19.134 --> 00:48:24.926 - To me, every student would want to live near campus. I don't understand why. 00:48:26.114 --> 00:48:34.605 - I don't think that the expectation should be especially for Campus adjacent neighborhoods that they 00:48:34.605 --> 00:48:43.265 - wouldn't live near students. I don't think that's reasonable I Think that You know as I talked to the 00:48:43.265 --> 00:48:51.926 - neighborhoods what I expected to hear was concerns about student behavior and that was really minimal 00:48:51.926 --> 00:48:54.558 - and as I talked to other other 00:48:54.818 --> 00:49:01.714 - Peer cities that's one of the things that they talk most about I don't hear as much of that here. What 00:49:01.714 --> 00:49:08.475 - I what I really hear is that When when this when a lot is repurposed for student housing, especially 00:49:08.475 --> 00:49:15.237 - if it's redeveloped the thing that is built is Jarringly different from what it replaced or what was 00:49:15.237 --> 00:49:22.199 - there? So from my perspective, I'm hearing a lot about more architectural standards massing things like 00:49:22.199 --> 00:49:23.806 - that I don't think that 00:49:23.938 --> 00:49:30.371 - The idea of trying to remove students from those neighborhoods is a good one. For one thing, if we distribute 00:49:30.371 --> 00:49:36.570 - them all over the city, then perhaps those that wouldn't have had to have drive to campus are now driving 00:49:36.570 --> 00:49:42.652 - to campus. More vehicle miles traveled. There's a lot of reasons that we would want them within walking 00:49:42.652 --> 00:49:48.734 - distance. But it's really structures that are being built for them that I think are really staggeringly 00:49:48.734 --> 00:49:52.126 - out of place with the neighborhoods that are established. 00:49:52.578 --> 00:49:59.886 - That have a right to expect something better And when you say student housing, are you referring to 00:49:59.886 --> 00:50:07.267 - the luxury multifamily homes that are available to everyone or to IU housing? No, I'm referring more 00:50:07.267 --> 00:50:14.794 - to Not not the mega projects not the high amenities student housing on North North College more to the 00:50:14.794 --> 00:50:17.790 - the infill housing that's being put into 00:50:18.082 --> 00:50:24.181 - campus adjacent neighborhoods, like the one I showed you on Cottage Grove, where a house is removed 00:50:24.181 --> 00:50:30.280 - and a thing that is clearly intended for students that has all the hallmarks of student housing and 00:50:30.280 --> 00:50:36.441 - is in fact eventually rented to students is replacing it. That's more the student housing that we're 00:50:36.441 --> 00:50:40.222 - talking about. But it has no legal status as student housing. 00:50:40.802 --> 00:50:47.679 - Yeah, Pennsylvania does. They've established student housing is a structure in which an undergraduate 00:50:47.679 --> 00:50:54.624 - lives, one or more. We don't have that here. OK, thank you. And I just have another question. It's not 00:50:54.624 --> 00:51:01.771 - directed at you, so please don't take it anyway. But the way we talk about students is pretty aggressive. 00:51:01.771 --> 00:51:08.716 - Do you think that that has any impact on students wanting to stay here and be a part of our workforce? 00:51:08.716 --> 00:51:10.334 - That's a good question. 00:51:10.754 --> 00:51:17.299 - I'm not meaning, or certainly hoping that I'm not coming across as talking aggressively about students. 00:51:17.299 --> 00:51:24.034 - It's not you. And I think that that goes for my department as well. I mean, what is Bloomington if there's 00:51:24.034 --> 00:51:30.579 - no university? What is the university if there are no students? We absolutely have to accommodate them. 00:51:30.579 --> 00:51:37.061 - I just think that it can be done better than we're doing it now. Absolutely. Thank you. But your point 00:51:37.061 --> 00:51:39.390 - is very well taken. I appreciate it. 00:51:40.322 --> 00:51:45.094 - Thank you. That is technically the end of the time that we had does anybody else have a burning question 00:51:45.094 --> 00:51:49.640 - that okay So I'm gonna extend for another three minutes till 725 you think that'll do it. We'll try 00:51:49.640 --> 00:51:54.367 - councilmember Flaherty Thank you. I want to echo and elevate the points councilmember Zulik was raising 00:51:54.367 --> 00:51:59.094 - it, you know I think there were a number of generalities that don't hold true universally and we should 00:51:59.094 --> 00:52:03.730 - be very careful about language that tends to stigmatize or villainize some of our residents I hear it 00:52:03.730 --> 00:52:06.366 - a lot too. What I also heard in those comments was like I 00:52:07.010 --> 00:52:12.292 - a perspective that's different than what we heard in the presentation, and that brings me to my question 00:52:12.292 --> 00:52:17.373 - about process. What I see on the screen right now is an anticipated staff process over the next five 00:52:17.373 --> 00:52:22.655 - months, and I'm curious for what you envision to be the best path for collaboration between city council 00:52:22.655 --> 00:52:27.886 - members who are legislators and policymakers in our own right, also care very deeply about implementing 00:52:27.886 --> 00:52:33.470 - the values and ideas and policies and goals in our comprehensive plan and our climate action plan, and indeed, 00:52:33.570 --> 00:52:39.286 - Collaborated with your staff extensively in the past in order to propose ideas And so where do our ideas 00:52:39.286 --> 00:52:45.164 - on you do changes related to housing attainability in this project fit into this process? Are they welcome? 00:52:45.164 --> 00:52:50.662 - How will they be included? Tell us what you'd like to see please and in particular I well I'll leave 00:52:50.662 --> 00:52:56.214 - it at that and I think some follow-up probably in written form would be helpful to give structure and 00:52:56.214 --> 00:53:01.767 - clarity to all of us Thank you. Yeah, I do have some ideas and I'm certainly open to other ideas from 00:53:01.767 --> 00:53:03.454 - the council if there are other 00:53:03.874 --> 00:53:10.640 - Ideas are processes that would work better I do want the the the coordination and the conversation with 00:53:10.640 --> 00:53:17.342 - council as we move into this I'm thinking that by March we're going to be able to assemble that packet 00:53:17.342 --> 00:53:23.848 - that housing attainability udl packet that's going to have probably not just a rote set of language 00:53:23.848 --> 00:53:31.070 - that take it or leave it but will have variety of options some different ways of incorporating different ideas 00:53:31.170 --> 00:53:37.865 - mixing and matching some of the mechanisms that we've talked about here and then take it back to the 00:53:37.865 --> 00:53:44.825 - public and and Council for refinement review further consideration at that point Yeah, and that's that's 00:53:44.825 --> 00:53:51.454 - about it Thank you. Just a brief follow-up. Would you it sounds like that would set the universe of 00:53:51.454 --> 00:53:57.022 - the possible with what you propose in March and then we'd be left to refinement and 00:53:57.378 --> 00:54:03.429 - At a subsequent phase. Would you be open to council members contributing ideas to that universe of things 00:54:03.429 --> 00:54:09.194 - that is explored in the next phase of public engagement? Yeah, I review and refinement is the phrase 00:54:09.194 --> 00:54:15.016 - that I wrote And and then my my idea there is that during the review part the beginning part You know 00:54:15.016 --> 00:54:20.382 - other ideas it we're open to other ideas. So we're not we're not again. We don't want to come 00:54:20.642 --> 00:54:25.269 - To you or to the public with anything that's pre baked or even half baked We want we want input from 00:54:25.269 --> 00:54:29.849 - everybody who's interested in providing input, right? I want to make sure we get the input on ideas 00:54:29.849 --> 00:54:34.430 - that are coming from council members as well Because this has been a point of friction before where 00:54:34.430 --> 00:54:39.194 - even there's opportunities for future input But we're told that wasn't the right way to do it. So we're 00:54:39.194 --> 00:54:43.958 - gonna do it a different way This is the different way I'm making sure that we are active and like clear 00:54:43.958 --> 00:54:47.806 - in the expected process So we don't get blindsided again in the future by the mayor 00:54:47.906 --> 00:54:55.327 - Thank you. Yeah, and I'll add to that that I think we can put that in writing so that it is more clear 00:54:55.327 --> 00:55:02.748 - because it's not, as I'm leaving it right now, there's not the clarity that it should have. So I think 00:55:02.748 --> 00:55:10.385 - we'll do that and then forward it to the council. Yes, sir. Great, thank you. Any other burning questions 00:55:10.385 --> 00:55:17.086 - that are gonna necessitate an extension of this report time again? Great, thank you so much. 00:55:17.410 --> 00:55:26.561 - Perhaps there'll be follow-up via email, but I really appreciate your coming today and for your presentation 00:55:26.561 --> 00:55:35.461 - Next we have I gotta get back to my agenda Reports from council committees committee on council processes 00:55:35.461 --> 00:55:41.086 - councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, thank you. I just wanted to make 00:55:41.186 --> 00:55:47.605 - Colleagues and the public aware of a few things that the committee on council processes have been working 00:55:47.605 --> 00:55:54.084 - on And they are as follows We're looking at moving the general provisions regarding boards and commissions 00:55:54.084 --> 00:56:00.442 - in the municipal code from section 2.08 executive branch to section 2.12 boards commissions and councils 00:56:00.442 --> 00:56:04.862 - number two we're looking at allowing for discussion at first reading and 00:56:05.634 --> 00:56:12.225 - Number three, we're looking at allowing a consent agenda for certain items that require a vote but are 00:56:12.225 --> 00:56:18.879 - not substantive and or controversial. And number four, we're looking at whether or not we might require 00:56:18.879 --> 00:56:25.406 - a council member to sponsor each item of legislation that appears on the agenda of a regular session. 00:56:25.858 --> 00:56:32.278 - So if you have colleagues who are not on the committee, have any feedback, please contact a committee 00:56:32.278 --> 00:56:38.573 - member. And same for members of the public, if you have concern or interest in these. The committee 00:56:38.573 --> 00:56:44.867 - is comprised of myself, council members Flaherty, Daly, and Zulick. Of course that committee makeup 00:56:44.867 --> 00:56:50.910 - may change in January, but I want to make sure everybody knew what we're working on, thank you. 00:56:52.098 --> 00:56:57.679 - Thank you. Are there any councilmember questions for councilmember Piedmont Smith and the committee 00:56:57.679 --> 00:57:03.315 - on council processes? All right. Seeing none, we will move along down our agenda to reports from the 00:57:03.315 --> 00:57:09.342 - public. So this is our first period of public comment. If there is a member of the public who is interested 00:57:09.342 --> 00:57:11.742 - in making a comment on an item that is not 00:57:11.906 --> 00:57:17.213 - on our agenda tonight. If you are here in person, you can go ahead and make your way to the podium. 00:57:17.213 --> 00:57:22.521 - There should be a sign in sheet and you can sign in and then state your name for the record and you 00:57:22.521 --> 00:57:27.881 - would have up to three minutes. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand using the reactions tab or 00:57:27.881 --> 00:57:33.454 - you can send a chat message to the host. And I do see somebody approaching the podium. So we'll go ahead 00:57:33.454 --> 00:57:38.920 - and start here in chambers when you've signed in and are ready. Is the timer all set? Wonderful, thank 00:57:38.920 --> 00:57:40.990 - you so much. And begin with your name. 00:57:42.210 --> 00:57:47.866 - Thank you, Madam President. This is Christopher Emge from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. 00:57:47.866 --> 00:57:53.576 - You know, I wanted to talk, I could talk about several different issues that are sort of affecting this 00:57:53.576 --> 00:57:59.177 - community, but that being the last meeting of the fiscal and calendar year, I want to do a little bit 00:57:59.177 --> 00:58:04.723 - of reflection from a chamber business perspective. I want to first acknowledge the Council's ongoing 00:58:04.723 --> 00:58:10.324 - work on outcome-based budgeting. It has been a process, and it's been a very gradual one and at times 00:58:10.324 --> 00:58:11.038 - challenging. 00:58:11.202 --> 00:58:17.068 - Slow, but the effort continues to move forward Outcome based budgeting is a noble endeavor one that 00:58:17.068 --> 00:58:23.520 - strengthens accountability clarifies priorities and helps ensure public resources are aligned with measurable 00:58:23.520 --> 00:58:29.797 - goals It's not easy. It's necessary and when we have to do less with less essential Also want to recognize 00:58:29.797 --> 00:58:35.780 - the broader fiscal and council processes undertaken this year Councilmember Piedmont Smith mentioned. 00:58:35.780 --> 00:58:39.358 - It's I think usually my favorite hour within the council and 00:58:39.810 --> 00:58:45.781 - The willingness to dig in the details wrestle with Some trade-offs engaged in discussion outside the 00:58:45.781 --> 00:58:52.049 - regular session has been vital and a really big council benefit. I believe Those additional conversations 00:58:52.049 --> 00:58:58.020 - whether their committee work sessions or smaller since it smaller settings have helped clarify a lot 00:58:58.020 --> 00:59:04.051 - of issues before they reach this room and that matters and before I go further I just want to kind of 00:59:04.051 --> 00:59:08.958 - briefly acknowledge sort of my role in this space with the chamber its work I take 00:59:09.186 --> 00:59:15.384 - very seriously, but I don't take myself seriously. I generally enjoy the never-ending cycle of local 00:59:15.384 --> 00:59:21.704 - government, including our brethren at the county, the clash of personalities, the strong opinions, the 00:59:21.704 --> 00:59:27.902 - long and even longer meetings, and the imperfect process of trying to muddle through this. I do this 00:59:27.902 --> 00:59:34.161 - work because I want the city to succeed. In fact, as my family have formally begun house-hunting, one 00:59:34.161 --> 00:59:39.070 - of our non-negotiables is staying within Bloomington's incorporated boundaries. 00:59:40.034 --> 00:59:47.102 - That's not accidental. This is more than a job, but rather reflects a long-term commitment to this community 00:59:47.102 --> 00:59:53.651 - that I have confidence in their future You know, I also want to nods the deliberation meetings While 00:59:53.651 --> 01:00:00.136 - they have not been perfect see last week. They are a step in the right direction Creating space for 01:00:00.136 --> 01:00:04.286 - the council members to talk through issues with one another and 01:00:04.674 --> 01:00:10.233 - for the public to better understand the different perspectives strengthens transparency and leads to 01:00:10.233 --> 01:00:15.793 - better outcomes. I truly believe that these conversations are a very effective and clear way to sort 01:00:15.793 --> 01:00:21.462 - of visualize and talk about the goals that members want to accomplish in a timely and wise fashion and 01:00:21.462 --> 01:00:26.966 - that our progress is measurable. This year has not been without our challenges and I hopefully next 01:00:26.966 --> 01:00:32.030 - year we can get those different disagreements and tough conversations to a better position. 01:00:32.418 --> 01:00:38.521 - But those disagreements is not a failure in many cases reflects the council cares deeply about the right 01:00:38.521 --> 01:00:44.449 - thing Thank you for your services. You're navigating a very challenging landscape and I'll see you in 01:00:44.449 --> 01:00:50.319 - 2026. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other members of the public who would like to make a public 01:00:50.319 --> 01:00:56.247 - comment during this period? Do we have any hands raised on zoom? Yes, there's one wonderful. Let's go 01:00:56.247 --> 01:00:57.758 - ahead and go to zoom then 01:00:58.978 --> 01:01:04.861 - When you're unmuted, you can state your name for the record and then you'll have up to three minutes 01:01:04.861 --> 01:01:10.860 - Hi, this is Paul so I Would like to thank council members Rollo Ruff and Stossberg for holding monthly 01:01:10.860 --> 01:01:16.743 - meetings with groups of Bloomington citizens. I Wish that every member of the council did the same I 01:01:16.743 --> 01:01:21.694 - also wish that five minutes were allowed for public comments as existed last year. I 01:01:23.618 --> 01:01:29.694 - Meanwhile, for the past few days, I've been appalled by how many of the sidewalks in Bloomington have 01:01:29.694 --> 01:01:35.709 - been left unshoveled by irresponsible property owners, thereby leaving hapless pedestrians to trudge 01:01:35.709 --> 01:01:41.904 - through snow and ice. A large part of the problem is that the current municipal code is outdated. Title 01:01:41.904 --> 01:01:48.277 - VI covers snow removal. Section 6720 provides details about code enforcement and fines for non-compliance. 01:01:48.277 --> 01:01:52.030 - The initial penalty is only $50. The second violation is $100. 01:01:52.258 --> 01:01:59.692 - all subsequent violations occur of a fine of 150. That ordinance was written in July of 2014. The city 01:01:59.692 --> 01:02:07.199 - of Bloomington analysis found that the median home value in 2015 was $173,000. Over the past few months 01:02:07.199 --> 01:02:14.489 - in comparison, the median home value was varied between 300,000 and 375,000 depending on when and by 01:02:14.489 --> 01:02:16.510 - whom the analysis was done. 01:02:17.506 --> 01:02:23.867 - It seems accurate to say that the housing market in Bloomington has doubled since 2014. Therefore, I 01:02:23.867 --> 01:02:30.165 - request that the City Council amend the code and double the snow removal fines. Finally, a few days 01:02:30.165 --> 01:02:36.589 - ago, I was using Google Maps, and I accidentally discovered that the street views of the neighborhood 01:02:36.589 --> 01:02:43.076 - just west of the stadium are several years out of date. What I saw on my computer screen was the ghost 01:02:43.076 --> 01:02:45.406 - of a livable, walkable neighborhood. 01:02:45.954 --> 01:02:52.340 - with abundant old trees and low density houses and businesses with generous setbacks. In other words, 01:02:52.340 --> 01:02:58.727 - it was a real neighborhood with front yards. What exists today are monstrous mega student development 01:02:58.727 --> 01:03:05.113 - projects, a term used by the director of housing just earlier this evening. These are ugly four story 01:03:05.113 --> 01:03:10.686 - buildings that crowd the sidewalks so as to squeeze every bit of profit out of the land. 01:03:12.098 --> 01:03:18.702 - It is really sad to see Bloomington selling its soul to the paradigm of continual growth. I think we 01:03:18.702 --> 01:03:25.371 - are actually on the verge of declining university enrollments due to declining birth rates and due to 01:03:25.371 --> 01:03:31.910 - our friends with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It seems to me that IU probably sees 01:03:31.910 --> 01:03:37.598 - this coming and they are externalizing their temporary need for housing onto the city. 01:03:39.170 --> 01:03:46.707 - Absent increasing enrollments, Bloomington does not need more people. We need to figure out how to shield 01:03:46.707 --> 01:03:54.457 - ourselves from the intrusion of the capitalist marketplace instead of submitting to it and thereby betraying 01:03:54.457 --> 01:04:01.638 - future generations. This is a long overdue conversation. I think that growth is killing Bloomington, 01:04:01.638 --> 01:04:07.966 - not nurturing it. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Any other hands raised on Zoom? 01:04:09.506 --> 01:04:15.923 - I don't see anybody moving in chambers. So we will carry on down our agenda We don't have any boards 01:04:15.923 --> 01:04:22.276 - appointments to boards and commissions tonight. We don't have any legislation for first readings So 01:04:22.276 --> 01:04:28.692 - we'll go right into legislation for second readings. I Move that ordinance 2025-19 be introduced and 01:04:28.692 --> 01:04:35.172 - read by the clerk by title and synopsis only Second, thank you Since we're all here we can do a voice 01:04:35.172 --> 01:04:35.998 - vote on this 01:04:36.258 --> 01:04:43.640 - It's been moved and seconded to introduce ordinance 2025 19 all those in favor, please say aye Aye opposed 01:04:43.640 --> 01:04:50.746 - Thank you. Will the clerk please read Ordinance 2025 19 to amend title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal 01:04:50.746 --> 01:04:57.989 - Code entitled removal and impound vehicles regarding chapters fifteen point four eight and fifteen point 01:04:57.989 --> 01:05:04.888 - five to Updating permissible towing and storage charges for authorized towing services the synopsis 01:05:04.888 --> 01:05:05.854 - is as follows 01:05:06.050 --> 01:05:15.168 - Ordinance 2025-19 updates the maximum charges authorized towing services may collect when performing 01:05:15.168 --> 01:05:24.287 - city initiated toes to reflect more accurately the costs associated with towing services and current 01:05:24.287 --> 01:05:31.870 - market pricing Thank you so much Move that ordinance 2020 2025-19 be adopted second 01:05:32.706 --> 01:05:39.377 - Thank you so much. As a note, as I said earlier, this is technically a third reading on this item. And 01:05:39.377 --> 01:05:46.243 - at our regular session a couple of weeks ago, we did adopt Amendment 1, which was included in the packet. 01:05:46.243 --> 01:05:52.720 - Who's here to present from the city? And of course, last time we had an extensive discussion around 01:05:52.720 --> 01:05:59.197 - this. So go ahead, please state your name for the record. Good evening. Edina Casamanian, Assistant 01:05:59.197 --> 01:06:01.982 - City Attorney for the City of Bloomington. 01:06:02.754 --> 01:06:09.554 - At the last council meeting I had the opportunity to present proposed legislation under title 15 of 01:06:09.554 --> 01:06:16.490 - the Bloomington municipal code Which distinct from title four covers police and city initiated towing 01:06:16.490 --> 01:06:23.426 - Tonight we're here again to discuss title 15 and I'm here with police contracted towing companies and 01:06:23.426 --> 01:06:29.342 - with sergeant Jacob hunter to answer any questions you may have regarding title 15 and 01:06:31.554 --> 01:06:38.958 - Thank you. I do have an amendment on this one. Does council want to talk about the amendment first or 01:06:38.958 --> 01:06:46.507 - do you have questions about the ordinance as it's presented to us? I don't see any questions. I'm gonna 01:06:46.507 --> 01:06:54.202 - pass the gavel to my vice president All right, so we have an amendment just to remind everybody amendment 01:06:54.202 --> 01:06:56.670 - one was adopted two weeks ago and 01:06:56.898 --> 01:07:04.095 - And I believe we have another amendment council member Stossberg. Yeah I'd like to move amendment four 01:07:04.095 --> 01:07:11.363 - to ordinance twenty twenty five nineteen second. All right it's been moved and seconded. Council member 01:07:11.363 --> 01:07:18.560 - Stossberg could you please tell us what the amendment is about. Yeah. So the amendment that I proposed 01:07:18.560 --> 01:07:25.687 - last week if you recall I had a concern with two things. I have concern with the storage fees. Twenty 01:07:25.687 --> 01:07:26.526 - four hours. 01:07:26.882 --> 01:07:36.316 - And that seems to not be an issue last week in terms of my amendment But I also had a concern about 01:07:36.316 --> 01:07:46.126 - the business hours not being defined in the the ordinance but like saying that you know additional fees 01:07:46.126 --> 01:07:56.126 - could be charged outside of business hours, but not having any concept of what business hours would be so 01:07:56.226 --> 01:08:03.393 - In terms of those two changes, and I included a memo, by the way, in the packet addendum yesterday, 01:08:03.393 --> 01:08:10.704 - sections two and three of my amendment deal with those two things. And the phrase that we agreed upon 01:08:10.704 --> 01:08:16.510 - with legal was to refer the business hours to be defined in the police contract. 01:08:16.802 --> 01:08:22.321 - And that seemed to be okay with everybody and that was kind of discussed last time to actually in terms 01:08:22.321 --> 01:08:27.627 - of folks who were present said Yeah, like we can work that out and the police department said yeah, 01:08:27.627 --> 01:08:32.350 - we can make sure that that is in the contract So it's like clearly defined for everybody 01:08:32.546 --> 01:08:39.521 - And then this the first section of this actually comes at the request of the administration To change 01:08:39.521 --> 01:08:46.495 - the word officer to member of the Bloomington Police Department in acknowledgement that sometimes non 01:08:46.495 --> 01:08:53.606 - sworn officers are respondents in different cases including things like vehicular accidents And so they 01:08:53.606 --> 01:08:54.974 - might be the person 01:08:55.490 --> 01:09:02.125 - in charge in those situations. And also there was also the question last week. If you remember, there 01:09:02.125 --> 01:09:08.955 - was another amendment that was never introduced last week that had to do with payment of fees. And those 01:09:08.955 --> 01:09:15.459 - changes were made because of state code updates. And so this was just another section that had been 01:09:15.459 --> 01:09:22.289 - they forgot to change that section. So I hope that was clear. So you may have any questions for me about 01:09:22.289 --> 01:09:25.086 - it. Are there questions about Amendment 4? 01:09:25.282 --> 01:09:36.512 - To ordinance 2025 19 Okay, I don't see any I Guess we can go ahead and go to the public Is there any 01:09:36.512 --> 01:09:47.965 - member of the public who would like to speak to the amendment? Just reviewed by councilmember Stasberg 01:09:47.965 --> 01:09:52.190 - to the amendment to ordinance 2025 19 01:09:57.474 --> 01:10:05.550 - Anybody in chambers getting up to speak to the amendment And I see a shake of the head from our staff. 01:10:05.550 --> 01:10:13.391 - So nobody online has raised a hand So we can come back to the council. Are there any final comments 01:10:13.391 --> 01:10:21.231 - on the amendment? Councilmember daily Just thank you. I know we had a really extensive conversation 01:10:21.231 --> 01:10:26.014 - about this last week and it caused a lot of hand-wringing so 01:10:26.402 --> 01:10:33.492 - I'm really happy with these changes. Thank you very much. I'm happy to support this Council member Stossberg. 01:10:33.492 --> 01:10:40.066 - Thank you. I hope by lack of questions and comments others are also willing to support this I want to 01:10:40.066 --> 01:10:46.705 - send a thank you out to staff legal and the police department who helped refine this language over the 01:10:46.705 --> 01:10:53.150 - last couple weeks and also our council staff who helped prepare documents things Any other comments 01:10:56.674 --> 01:11:08.349 - Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment for to ordinance 2025-19? Councilmember 01:11:08.349 --> 01:11:20.596 - Flaherty. Yes Ruff. Yes, Rallo. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes Stasberg. Yes, Daly. Yes, Zulek. Yes Rosenberger. 01:11:20.596 --> 01:11:24.030 - Yes, sorry. Yes. Thank you. I 01:11:24.642 --> 01:11:32.732 - All right, that amendment is adopted by a vote of nine zero and I'll hand back the gavel. Thank you 01:11:32.732 --> 01:11:40.984 - so much Madam chair, yes Councilmember all or breath. Yeah, I would like to Introduce amendment five. 01:11:40.984 --> 01:11:49.156 - I'm not sure if this is the time to do it. I've shared that amendment with everybody it It's in your 01:11:49.156 --> 01:11:52.958 - inbox should be With my fellow council members 01:11:53.282 --> 01:12:02.279 - think the city legal has Discussed it with Okay, so we have a motion to introduce amendment five that 01:12:02.279 --> 01:12:11.188 - is in our inboxes And it looks like it has shown up on the big screen right now. Do we have a second 01:12:11.188 --> 01:12:20.539 - for that motion? Thank you Councilmember off do you want to talk about your amendment? Yeah, very briefly 01:12:20.539 --> 01:12:21.950 - in talking with 01:12:22.914 --> 01:12:33.959 - Over the past few days some of the business members involved in in both non-consensual toes and and 01:12:33.959 --> 01:12:45.778 - the toes Under title 15 that this is dealing with This amendment adds the ability for The towing companies 01:12:45.778 --> 01:12:51.742 - tone business to have a $25 administrative fee that's 01:12:52.194 --> 01:13:02.772 - separate from the the physical cost of the physical toe and I think the the amendments entirely consistent 01:13:02.772 --> 01:13:13.053 - with the whole purpose of the ordinance in that the purpose of the ordinance is to bring fees and rates 01:13:13.053 --> 01:13:21.950 - up to date and to reflect real costs of doing the toes and Based on my conversations with 01:13:23.138 --> 01:13:34.201 - doing the toes From the businesses. I became convinced that this They've been there are costs Administrative 01:13:34.201 --> 01:13:44.451 - costs that are just not captured not reflected by the changes that are proposed in the ordinance out 01:13:44.451 --> 01:13:51.454 - in the ordinance changes outside of this and not being someone who's 01:13:51.970 --> 01:14:01.586 - involved in the business I I I won't probably be the best person to Try to answer questions, but I think 01:14:01.586 --> 01:14:11.111 - during the comment section of public comment. We should be hearing from Folks who will do a much better 01:14:11.111 --> 01:14:20.819 - job than I could do it explaining as was explained to me over the past several days why This is justified 01:14:20.819 --> 01:14:21.918 - fair needed 01:14:22.178 --> 01:14:31.333 - reflective of the reality on the ground and in finally I'll add that my understanding is that both the 01:14:31.333 --> 01:14:40.400 - sheriff's office for the county who manages the county initiated toes and the IU in Indian University 01:14:40.400 --> 01:14:50.089 - for their toes explicitly allow in their in their language this a fee 25 dollar administrative fee separated 01:14:50.089 --> 01:14:51.422 - out broken out 01:14:51.746 --> 01:15:00.477 - itemized out of the actual toe itself so if Folks have some questions for me. I will I'll try to answer 01:15:00.477 --> 01:15:08.956 - as best I can at this point But I think we'll definitely be hearing from folks who are professionals 01:15:08.956 --> 01:15:18.023 - in the business and who will make the case that That this is necessary and fair Questions for councilmember 01:15:18.023 --> 01:15:20.542 - rough from council members. I 01:15:21.570 --> 01:15:31.466 - Thank you, how did you identify $25 as the the cost sorry, I can barely hear you How did you identify 01:15:31.466 --> 01:15:41.169 - $25 as the cost for well in my discussions with the towing businesses my understanding was that was 01:15:41.169 --> 01:15:51.550 - actually something that When they were initially solicited for input from the city to the upcoming changes 01:15:52.194 --> 01:16:01.790 - We're going to be worked on and done and introduced This was actually a number and if a cost that was 01:16:01.790 --> 01:16:11.668 - brought up and Didn't make its way into what we finally saw us in the proposal for the ordinance changes 01:16:11.668 --> 01:16:22.110 - and at initially my understanding again is initially the the businesses didn't feel like it was something that 01:16:22.242 --> 01:16:30.334 - They were going to push for harder again, but since that time in the past several months There have 01:16:30.334 --> 01:16:38.751 - been some changes in state auditing auditing processes of the towing businesses and their toes and some 01:16:38.751 --> 01:16:47.167 - additional city administrative Demands that have caused them to rethink Not really pushing to have this 01:16:47.167 --> 01:16:51.294 - as part of the changes this $25 administrative fee 01:16:51.778 --> 01:16:59.531 - So I think we'll probably hear more about that when people have an opportunity to speak but $25 was 01:16:59.531 --> 01:17:07.283 - The it might be the number it might actually be the number that the city I mean that the county and 01:17:07.283 --> 01:17:15.269 - IU also have identified is what they allow or what they what they admit for This fee, okay, but that's 01:17:15.269 --> 01:17:17.982 - unconfirmed that's not confirmed I 01:17:18.562 --> 01:17:27.115 - Maybe someone can confirm when we get up, but that's my understanding Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are 01:17:27.115 --> 01:17:36.170 - there other councilmember questions for councilmember of councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, so the Ordinance 01:17:36.170 --> 01:17:45.310 - as amended without this new amendment already allows for an administrative towing fee of $25 to the city and 01:17:46.530 --> 01:17:54.760 - So this would add another $25 going to the towing company. Is that right? It would be both assessed 01:17:54.760 --> 01:18:03.155 - Yes, so that fee that goes to the city for that I believe that the BPD charges before a person can go 01:18:03.155 --> 01:18:11.714 - get their car from the towing agents that goes to that's a that's a Charge almost like a tick a traffic 01:18:11.714 --> 01:18:13.278 - ticket to the city 01:18:13.378 --> 01:18:20.692 - The the towing business has nothing to do with that that goes that's what you pay the city through BPD 01:18:20.692 --> 01:18:27.864 - To get the form that you need to take to get your car released. I believe that's my understanding So 01:18:27.864 --> 01:18:34.965 - yeah, this is separate. This is purely for the administrative burden on the businesses Okay, I have 01:18:34.965 --> 01:18:41.214 - another question Are there other first-round questions for a consumer? Okay, I I have I 01:18:42.242 --> 01:18:55.026 - Do you know what these fees are actually for? Yeah, well for example, I do have a couple brought up 01:18:55.026 --> 01:19:08.449 - for That were articulated to me So for example Plymouth City, so one I'll give one example for the title 01:19:08.449 --> 01:19:10.622 - 15 type toe city 01:19:11.010 --> 01:19:18.514 - initiated towing versus title for non-consensual private towing so Bloomington City parking enforcement 01:19:18.514 --> 01:19:25.874 - any tows impounded from Bloomington parking enforcement Must verify amount of ticket accumulation for 01:19:25.874 --> 01:19:33.233 - release vehicles cannot be released until all parking tickets in collection have been paid in full or 01:19:33.233 --> 01:19:39.294 - payment arrangements made our business office being the private tow not the city or 01:19:39.458 --> 01:19:46.599 - Our business office is responsible for getting collection charges collected from set amount from form 01:19:46.599 --> 01:19:53.951 - emailed from Bloomington City Parking We must have paint copies and confirm paid amounts from collection 01:19:53.951 --> 01:20:01.022 - agency before vehicle can be released Once we've confirmed this amount requested be paid then we can 01:20:01.022 --> 01:20:08.164 - release vehicle to registered owner so this is some administrative process that the That the business 01:20:08.164 --> 01:20:09.214 - undertakes and 01:20:09.698 --> 01:20:17.272 - That's an example that I was just it was described to me. Is there a fee for acquiring that information 01:20:17.272 --> 01:20:24.554 - from the city? For acquiring that information. Yeah, like is there a direct fee for the wiring that 01:20:24.554 --> 01:20:31.836 - I'm like does the city charge the tows company paid the $25 to this to the BPD but for this this is 01:20:31.836 --> 01:20:37.662 - a There's no payment that the only payment is from the person getting their car 01:20:38.530 --> 01:20:47.672 - That's not what I'm asking I'm asking so it sounds like it sounds like in that message that you just 01:20:47.672 --> 01:20:50.750 - read the the tow company needs to 01:20:51.042 --> 01:20:57.083 - Confirmed that payment was made on those tickets. So basically they have to like look something up So 01:20:57.083 --> 01:21:03.243 - what I'm asking is is there a fee charged to the tow company? For asking the city for that confirmation 01:21:03.243 --> 01:21:09.284 - and information and I kind of see the clerk machine over there and I don't know if maybe Because this 01:21:09.284 --> 01:21:15.326 - is probably like the clerk's office that deals with all of these tickets and things So is there a fee 01:21:15.326 --> 01:21:19.294 - for that information exchange? we don't always deal with these but 01:21:21.122 --> 01:21:26.965 - The form that is issued by parking enforcement No, I don't believe that the towing companies have to 01:21:26.965 --> 01:21:32.865 - pay for that I believe usually the person who's gotten their vehicle towed is responsible for getting 01:21:32.865 --> 01:21:39.055 - the form from parking enforcement and bringing it over to the towing company so they can verify it parking 01:21:39.055 --> 01:21:41.022 - enforcement can generally look in 01:21:41.762 --> 01:21:47.723 - T2 which is the program that we use for parking enforcement and tracking citations and permits and those 01:21:47.723 --> 01:21:53.968 - sorts of things So it will list the license plate with any citations that have been issued in our outstanding 01:21:53.968 --> 01:21:59.645 - the form itself lists the amount as posted ticket numbers themselves, which could be problematic if 01:21:59.645 --> 01:22:05.493 - they appeal those tickets in the Middle of that step, but I think that's something that can be handled 01:22:05.493 --> 01:22:11.454 - Come back in but there's no fees associated with any of that exchange of information No, okay. Thank you 01:22:12.130 --> 01:22:19.798 - Other first round questions Comes member Piedmont Smith. You said you had a second round. Um, yeah, 01:22:19.798 --> 01:22:27.696 - I You know just reading the ordinance It's like there's a fee for this then there's a fee for that and 01:22:27.696 --> 01:22:35.517 - if this then there's other fee and this is this it just you know starts rattling your brain and makes 01:22:35.517 --> 01:22:39.198 - it sound like a bank with all these hidden fees 01:22:39.298 --> 01:22:48.998 - So I'm wondering whether it was considered to add this $25 in to just telling fee so that we don't so 01:22:48.998 --> 01:22:58.603 - that we have one less fee to list here so that it's more straightforward to the Vehicle owners. Yeah 01:22:58.603 --> 01:23:06.782 - my understanding and in talking with the businesses was that That would be acceptable 01:23:07.010 --> 01:23:14.804 - unacceptable approach but less desirable because with the My understanding is they feel like they would 01:23:14.804 --> 01:23:22.373 - like to have a breakdown so that people see of what what the costs are what what what they're paying 01:23:22.373 --> 01:23:30.167 - what it's going towards and and that break that breaking out of the administrative component as opposed 01:23:30.167 --> 01:23:35.038 - to actual physical toe itself is is an important thing for their 01:23:35.810 --> 01:23:44.672 - Business and their public engagement. I think they felt like with with with their customers or the people 01:23:44.672 --> 01:23:52.781 - who are they're working with That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you Are there other questions? 01:23:52.781 --> 01:24:01.810 - All right, I have a second round question to you I'm wondering if there's a staff opinion on this amendment 01:24:01.810 --> 01:24:04.318 - or I mean we have We have our 01:24:04.514 --> 01:24:13.293 - City attorney here. We have police department representative. We have representative from ESD any all 01:24:13.293 --> 01:24:21.986 - of you want to come forward and They're having a debate over there for folks on zoom They're they're 01:24:21.986 --> 01:24:28.958 - not sure who's who's gonna have to come up and give an opinion on this for me. I 01:24:34.210 --> 01:24:44.861 - Thank you and Edina Casamania from city of Bloomington assistant city attorney This is new so I haven't 01:24:44.861 --> 01:24:55.409 - had times to really consider it. So that's my Opinions or any other two companies, so thank you. Okay. 01:24:55.409 --> 01:25:01.758 - Thank you Other questions councilmember rough I would like to 01:25:02.146 --> 01:25:10.044 - Make sure people do know it was 11th hour But I did reach out to legal and we did we did have a discussion 01:25:10.044 --> 01:25:17.573 - and I appreciate your responsiveness to my To my outreach for input from you. So, thank you Would you 01:25:17.573 --> 01:25:25.249 - like to clarify your No, yes, I did we did talk and so I am aware of it but it wasn't brought up during 01:25:25.249 --> 01:25:27.390 - any of our conversations and 01:25:27.746 --> 01:25:34.827 - When we were considering proposed legislation for title 15 in the last, you know few months So I did 01:25:34.827 --> 01:25:41.907 - explain that to councilmember ruff. But yes, we did we it's new today I found out about it today. So 01:25:41.907 --> 01:25:48.988 - and we did talk about it just and briefly and you don't have a position on it or an opinion on it or 01:25:48.988 --> 01:25:54.526 - I Don't have an opinion or a position Okay, yeah any other staff members wanna 01:25:56.226 --> 01:26:03.887 - If you'd state your name for the record D del Rosa assistant director for small business development 01:26:03.887 --> 01:26:12.004 - ESD Once again, I Literally just saw and heard about this when I walked into council chamber, so I haven't 01:26:12.004 --> 01:26:17.086 - had time to review it I would like to have confirmation as to what 01:26:17.346 --> 01:26:24.917 - And you does as far as there as far as this administration fee so I can have some informed input on 01:26:24.917 --> 01:26:32.563 - it but at this time because of the Lack of time to review this. I don't really have a position on it 01:26:32.563 --> 01:26:38.014 - Okay, thank you Any other councilmember questions about amendment five? 01:26:40.098 --> 01:26:46.020 - All right, seeing none, let's go ahead and go to public comment. So this would be just public comment 01:26:46.020 --> 01:26:51.884 - related to Amendment 5 to Ordinance 2025-19. Is there anybody in chambers who would like to speak to 01:26:51.884 --> 01:26:57.748 - Amendment 5? Thank you. Go ahead. There's a sign-in sheet. Go ahead and sign in, and then state your 01:26:57.748 --> 01:27:01.406 - name for the record. And then you'll have up to three minutes. 01:27:07.202 --> 01:27:14.298 - My name is Cody Chandler. I own a Chandler automotive and towing. We this fee is allowed to be charged 01:27:14.298 --> 01:27:21.462 - at IU and county also lets us charges fee they call it a service fee but we are allowed to charge that. 01:27:21.462 --> 01:27:28.489 - The reasoning for this charge is their specific requirements on release of each of these vehicles. So 01:27:28.489 --> 01:27:35.378 - these are impounds. So there is an administrative duty on each one of them. For Bloomington parking 01:27:35.378 --> 01:27:36.894 - we actually determine 01:27:37.346 --> 01:27:43.731 - The paid tickets the city doesn't do that. We confirm that on our end So we get the form it'll have 01:27:43.731 --> 01:27:50.307 - a number on it and then we are the ones that make sure they pay the collection So it's on us that they 01:27:50.307 --> 01:27:56.883 - pay those collection fees on the non-consensual side The record-keeping requirements are separate from 01:27:56.883 --> 01:28:03.396 - normal record-keeping requirements. We're not talking about the non-consensual side right now because 01:28:03.396 --> 01:28:05.758 - we're just on title 15 but as far as 01:28:06.018 --> 01:28:14.457 - On the city initiated that that's the reason why there's specific requirements Thank you, yep We have 01:28:14.457 --> 01:28:22.813 - another person coming forward in chambers so go ahead and state your name for the record then you'll 01:28:22.813 --> 01:28:27.198 - have up to three minutes Thank you for signing in Hi 01:28:27.298 --> 01:28:31.779 - Ken perishkins Westside service and towing here in Bloomington Thank you again for the opportunity to 01:28:31.779 --> 01:28:36.171 - be able to do some of your towing with the city We appreciate it. I would just like to clarify some 01:28:36.171 --> 01:28:40.827 - of the fees and charges that you're talking about the $25 administration fee that city Bloomington Police 01:28:40.827 --> 01:28:41.662 - Department charges 01:28:41.922 --> 01:28:47.343 - Generally those fees are only charged if there is an initiation of investigation or something like that 01:28:47.343 --> 01:28:52.712 - So just because your car got towed by BPD Doesn't mean you have to go get a release form from the city 01:28:52.712 --> 01:28:57.560 - of Bloomington Not all of those fees not everybody gets that $25 fee Only the ones that were 01:28:57.560 --> 01:29:03.294 - under investigation that they have to investigate or something like that. Okay I'm just giving you real-world 01:29:03.294 --> 01:29:08.507 - specs of it. If you guys have any questions for me, I can answer that the administration fee for us 01:29:08.507 --> 01:29:11.582 - to conduct that are a lot with the the city of Bloomington 01:29:11.938 --> 01:29:20.495 - towing ordinance where they are get city tickets and he was another gentleman mentioned that You we 01:29:20.495 --> 01:29:21.950 - confirm the fees 01:29:22.722 --> 01:29:28.004 - That person had to pay for their parking tickets, which means we have to call the city. We sit online 01:29:28.004 --> 01:29:33.182 - We sit in on hold we wait We have to go from not only from the city to see if they've paid then but 01:29:33.182 --> 01:29:38.412 - have their tickets also went to collections So then we have to call and find out who the collections 01:29:38.412 --> 01:29:43.694 - agency is on it confirm with them Then we have to call back There's a lot of hours and sometimes when 01:29:43.694 --> 01:29:48.510 - the parking tickets and stuff. It can be a real mess the city unfortunately needs to work on 01:29:48.610 --> 01:29:53.847 - Getting that collaboration a little bit better back and forth between us so that we don't have to do 01:29:53.847 --> 01:29:59.032 - all the confirming We towed it because you had parking tickets. We didn't go look for it. We didn't 01:29:59.032 --> 01:30:04.373 - chase you down We didn't do that. The city called us to come and get it because they were in violation 01:30:04.373 --> 01:30:09.766 - with that being said We as the towing company have to now do all that work trying to get back and forth 01:30:09.766 --> 01:30:14.951 - No, they did not charge us a fee But there is a lot of time invested by trying to get a hold of all 01:30:14.951 --> 01:30:18.270 - these people to confirm that they've had all these tickets paid 01:30:18.530 --> 01:30:23.690 - Personally think there's also more stuff that goes in with it also State regulation requires us to file 01:30:23.690 --> 01:30:28.999 - a 72-hour notice anytime we tow anything in whether it's whether it's towed in by you guys whether they're 01:30:28.999 --> 01:30:34.159 - You know, whatever the condition it was towed in those are fees incurred to us. That's not even on here 01:30:34.159 --> 01:30:39.220 - That's more administration fees that we pay out of our pocket plus the person in the office having to 01:30:39.220 --> 01:30:40.510 - file those that paperwork 01:30:40.642 --> 01:30:45.904 - Then if they don't respond after the 72 hours Then we also have to notify the state again and all the 01:30:45.904 --> 01:30:51.321 - lien holders and everybody else that we have your car or the parent Whoever the lien holder or the title 01:30:51.321 --> 01:30:56.635 - holder the car car is those are a lot of fees that we incur ourselves That we don't also get to charge 01:30:56.635 --> 01:31:01.795 - and in all honesty the $25 is cheap, but we're willing to make it at that point A lot of places let 01:31:01.795 --> 01:31:07.005 - us charge up to 50 to 75 dollars for administration fees. I don't think we're really asking for that 01:31:07.005 --> 01:31:10.462 - much If you guys have any other questions, thank you appreciate it 01:31:11.906 --> 01:31:18.780 - Thank you. Do we have any hands raised on zoom right now for this public? Okay, wonderful looks like 01:31:18.780 --> 01:31:25.586 - we have somebody else in person Go ahead and sign in state your name for the record and you'll have 01:31:25.586 --> 01:31:32.460 - up to three minutes Hi, sorry, I'm Cameron myself I'm with Blaine's record service in reference to a 01:31:32.460 --> 01:31:38.654 - question that was asked if there's any direct, you know fee for us to get information from 01:31:39.138 --> 01:31:45.994 - No, there's not but there are very indirect costs with us. It is a lot of labor. It's very intensive 01:31:45.994 --> 01:31:52.849 - to Handle the impound process whenever a vehicle is towed by the police And that's the the cost does 01:31:52.849 --> 01:32:00.112 - not get reimbursed even by the $25. There's title searches Certified letters we have to send out sometimes 01:32:00.112 --> 01:32:01.470 - two three four five 01:32:01.570 --> 01:32:08.526 - Per vehicle at nine dollars a piece that come up So the $25 while it is appreciated doesn't nearly cover 01:32:08.526 --> 01:32:15.150 - the cost, but it would be definitely appreciated in the addition of this You know the the time that 01:32:15.150 --> 01:32:22.106 - it takes is is a Is a real consideration because we do spend a lot of time in office and a lot of people 01:32:22.106 --> 01:32:28.996 - to make sure that someone Legitimately gets their vehicle back to the right person especially in a very 01:32:28.996 --> 01:32:30.718 - student centered town and 01:32:31.042 --> 01:32:38.074 - You run into a lot of situations where you're dealing with not the registered owner. We have to contact 01:32:38.074 --> 01:32:44.836 - the registered owner sometimes in a different state So there is a lot of like I said time, you know 01:32:44.836 --> 01:32:51.666 - when time has value as well So I I fully support the $25 for that reason Thank you Anybody raise the 01:32:51.666 --> 01:32:58.563 - hand on zoom anybody else in council chambers who wants to speak to amendment five? Right seeing none 01:32:58.563 --> 01:33:00.862 - that's gonna come back to council 01:33:01.154 --> 01:33:07.101 - Is there council comments on this? Council member, sorry. I might have missed something. So I totally 01:33:07.101 --> 01:33:13.165 - understand the argument being made. And then I understood the comments made by the public. Can somebody 01:33:13.165 --> 01:33:19.404 - help me understand something I'm missing? Because all the examples that were given seem to be not examples 01:33:19.404 --> 01:33:25.468 - of consensual towing, but rather like when somebody is getting a ticket or something, doesn't that fall 01:33:25.468 --> 01:33:29.374 - under the next thing that we're talking about, not under Title 15? 01:33:30.914 --> 01:33:39.342 - Councilmember rough. Do you want to explain why you have that under title 15? Does anybody maybe from 01:33:39.342 --> 01:33:47.936 - the police? Department want to talk about why these fees might come with a police initiated toe I Think 01:33:47.936 --> 01:33:56.529 - probably city legal might want to talk about the just reading title five to title 15 title four. That's 01:33:56.529 --> 01:33:58.430 - what I missed you Well 01:33:59.714 --> 01:34:05.084 - Let's go ahead and just in case there are other people who also might have confusion about this because 01:34:05.084 --> 01:34:10.403 - if there's anything I learned as a teacher One person's question is usually another person's question. 01:34:10.403 --> 01:34:15.619 - I'm sergeant Jacob Potter with the Blompton police And I know from the police department perspective 01:34:15.619 --> 01:34:21.196 - as far as this administrative fee I know it may help the tow companies when it comes to parking enforcement 01:34:21.196 --> 01:34:26.411 - and their toes but I can say from the police department's perspective we act we have a form that any 01:34:26.411 --> 01:34:29.406 - vehicle that we tow under our authority, so if it's not a 01:34:29.858 --> 01:34:35.768 - What we call a private tow where the owner is actually requesting the tow truck to come get their car 01:34:35.768 --> 01:34:41.910 - safe from a traffic accident If we tow it under our authority, basically the owner doesn't want it towed, 01:34:41.910 --> 01:34:47.878 - but we're gonna tow it will fill out a tow form We take that tow form turn into our records department 01:34:47.878 --> 01:34:53.788 - In order for the vehicle to be released that said individual owner operator has to show up to BPD and 01:34:53.788 --> 01:34:56.222 - we fill out the rest of this tow form and 01:34:56.354 --> 01:35:02.446 - which then gets given to them or sent to the tow company for the release of that vehicle. So that shows 01:35:02.446 --> 01:35:08.361 - the tow companies that per the police department, you are allowed to release this vehicle to them. I 01:35:08.361 --> 01:35:14.453 - see their argument as far as under parking, because I know there's some frustration with that, but from 01:35:14.453 --> 01:35:20.017 - the police department perspective, I don't see any reason for the fee itself. Okay, thank you. 01:35:20.017 --> 01:35:25.406 - Council member, sorry, does that answer your question about the difference between the two? 01:35:25.634 --> 01:35:34.365 - Other councilmember I I thought that we are on comment, but maybe we any last questions as a question 01:35:34.365 --> 01:35:43.610 - or comment Okay, any questions? Councilmember P not smith So I don't I'm a little confused by what sergeant 01:35:43.610 --> 01:35:52.342 - hunter just said so There is already in the ordinance the $25 administrative fee that goes to BPD for 01:35:52.342 --> 01:35:54.910 - you know the time it takes to 01:35:55.138 --> 01:36:01.964 - Fill out the forms and and then I believe I heard him say that he sees no reason for the tow company 01:36:01.964 --> 01:36:09.129 - to have an administrative fee Did did I understand that correctly? And if so, could you please elaborate? 01:36:09.129 --> 01:36:16.023 - I I just say from the police department perspective because the example given for this administrative 01:36:16.023 --> 01:36:22.917 - fee we Eliminate that they don't have to communicate with us to wonder whether or not the vehicle can 01:36:22.917 --> 01:36:23.998 - be released and 01:36:24.162 --> 01:36:31.981 - We give that form to them and we make sure it's given to them through the citizen or through the vehicle 01:36:31.981 --> 01:36:39.576 - owner Okay, I see but But the arguments given through the public comment that they still have to make 01:36:39.576 --> 01:36:47.097 - sure that there are no outstanding parking tickets or other related fines Against that vehicle owner 01:36:47.097 --> 01:36:53.054 - That's still valid. I mean that that's still that is a that's a valid issue and 01:36:53.506 --> 01:37:01.119 - When it comes to parking because obviously Parking is no longer with police or under the police department 01:37:01.119 --> 01:37:08.447 - So from my understanding just from my interaction with the public and the work Parking enforcement say 01:37:08.447 --> 01:37:15.703 - they tow a vehicle for unpaid tickets The same frustration that you guys that everyone's been told at 01:37:15.703 --> 01:37:21.822 - council tonight has been explained to me to where it's an issue of them trying to get 01:37:21.922 --> 01:37:28.177 - Confirmation that all fees are paid to parking We don't have that issue Because we clearly have that 01:37:28.177 --> 01:37:34.494 - form sent over to the tow company for the vehicle to be released So they rarely have to call us back. 01:37:34.494 --> 01:37:40.749 - Hey, can this vehicle be released? The frustration that they're having is is the parking enforcement 01:37:40.749 --> 01:37:47.065 - issue I can't speak to that in their process, but I know from the police department standpoint We are 01:37:47.065 --> 01:37:51.710 - very open with them as far as the vehicle being released or can it not be? 01:37:52.226 --> 01:37:58.937 - The administrative fee that you asked about for for us There are key components or key times when we 01:37:58.937 --> 01:38:05.914 - don't charge that like recovered stolen vehicles So say someone's car stolen and we find it on the south 01:38:05.914 --> 01:38:12.625 - side of Bloomington We call the tow company to come pick it up. They still have to come to us to get 01:38:12.625 --> 01:38:19.336 - a tow form Completed or signed saying we're releasing it, but we don't charge that fee for that type 01:38:19.336 --> 01:38:20.798 - those types of issues 01:38:21.186 --> 01:38:29.080 - We also have the ability to override that fee so a supervisor can do that For that administrative fee 01:38:29.080 --> 01:38:36.897 - on our end in case circumstances come up And so on we can always override that But that's the answer 01:38:36.897 --> 01:38:44.946 - for your if that enlightens you on the $25 fee for us for the city Can I ask a follow-up so Mr. Parrish 01:38:44.946 --> 01:38:50.750 - was saying that the $25 fee is only charged if there's an investigation in 01:38:50.946 --> 01:38:58.254 - Initiated is that how does investigation typically that that could be very wide? As far as what can 01:38:58.254 --> 01:39:05.928 - entail so that could be as simple as a traffic stop say a driver's arrested The vehicles in the roadway. 01:39:05.928 --> 01:39:13.455 - We obviously can't leave it there So we tow it under our authority We felt the tow form when they come 01:39:13.455 --> 01:39:17.694 - to pick the vehicle up. They have to pay that $25 fee and 01:39:19.138 --> 01:39:26.141 - Again, like I said, like the recovered stolen vehicles, we don't charge for that. Other circumstances, 01:39:26.141 --> 01:39:32.532 - we can override that fee if we need to. But that's typically what those fees would come from. 01:39:32.532 --> 01:39:39.059 - Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? All right, council members, did you have a comment? Yes, 01:39:39.059 --> 01:39:46.062 - thank you. I just want to say thank you to all of the representatives from the tow companies that came 01:39:46.062 --> 01:39:47.966 - out to speak with us today. 01:39:48.162 --> 01:39:54.853 - Actually was planning on voting no against this but after hearing what you all had to say, I'm going 01:39:54.853 --> 01:40:01.876 - to vote Yes, so I just want everyone in the room to know that activism works and so does public speaking. 01:40:01.876 --> 01:40:08.633 - Thank you Thank you, are there other councilmember comments comes number Flaherty Yeah I'm gonna vote 01:40:08.633 --> 01:40:15.324 - no. I feel some uncertainty about it and the lateness of it I know Colleague is acknowledged is like 01:40:15.324 --> 01:40:16.318 - part of it and 01:40:16.706 --> 01:40:22.780 - The challenge with this, including the first time we heard it in 2020, is that we're talking about setting 01:40:22.780 --> 01:40:28.457 - a reasonable overall level for towing with respect to a set of business decisions that we have very 01:40:28.457 --> 01:40:34.475 - little insight into. We can talk to folks all we want, but this forum is not a good place to work through 01:40:34.475 --> 01:40:40.379 - the nitty-gritty of the business costs and what's reasonable. And I guess my view is ultimately we need 01:40:40.379 --> 01:40:45.886 - to set a reasonable level overall. This is an increase. This is what these ordinances are about. 01:40:46.466 --> 01:40:51.838 - and how folks run their businesses and how they manage costs, of which there are many, you know, 01:40:51.838 --> 01:40:57.763 - no doubt, is up to them. And we hope we set it at a level that is viable for businesses to do the business 01:40:57.763 --> 01:41:03.412 - in a non sort of extractive or userist way, right? And that's the principle, I guess, and I feel like 01:41:03.412 --> 01:41:08.950 - that's what the fee is about and that's what the update was about. And I'm open to it needing to be 01:41:08.950 --> 01:41:14.654 - higher than what was proposed in this ordinance coming from staff, but like I am not in a position now 01:41:15.010 --> 01:41:22.818 - to be able to make that determination with any type of confidence. And for that reason, I don't feel 01:41:22.818 --> 01:41:30.549 - like I can reasonably vote no. I'm sorry, vote yes on the amendment. So I just wanted to explain my 01:41:30.549 --> 01:41:38.357 - thinking on it. Thank you. Thank you. Other council member comment on amendment five. Council member 01:41:38.357 --> 01:41:43.614 - Ruff. Yeah, I know that some staff asked for verification of the IU 01:41:44.162 --> 01:41:51.755 - The county having allowing a service fee or administrative fee. That's for this exact this purpose this 01:41:51.755 --> 01:41:59.567 - specific purpose. I'm pretty sure that I'd be surprised if that's not accurate if I've been told something 01:41:59.567 --> 01:42:07.160 - wrong and if we have one of the speakers Confirmed that one of the towing company representatives Mitch 01:42:07.160 --> 01:42:13.950 - said that that is the case it is allowed by the city and and I mean by that county and by IU 01:42:14.050 --> 01:42:23.002 - Plus to mr. Flaherty's point I believe I looked into this a little bit. I believe that the city I mean 01:42:23.002 --> 01:42:31.781 - the county allows 200 and that the tow cost when the fees are all added up is about two 210 or 215 I 01:42:31.781 --> 01:42:39.777 - use is the same in our school the cities will be I think 200 at this so it'll be a less and 01:42:39.777 --> 01:42:42.558 - this administrative fee which I 01:42:42.914 --> 01:42:50.745 - believe are is allowed by the county and by you brings it actually closer to what the Amount is for 01:42:50.745 --> 01:42:58.811 - the city. I mean for the county and for iu toast that that's all I want to say. Thanks Thank you other 01:42:58.811 --> 01:43:06.799 - councilmember comment Councilmember Piedmont Smith Yeah, I'm also uneasy about approving this for the 01:43:06.799 --> 01:43:10.558 - same reasons that councilmember Flaherty stated 01:43:10.914 --> 01:43:17.871 - It seems like this is something that our staff is more the staff in not just the city legal department 01:43:17.871 --> 01:43:24.761 - but the economic sustainable development department who actually works with businesses and would have 01:43:24.761 --> 01:43:31.651 - a better insight into you know what is reasonable and could verify these these comparisons that we're 01:43:31.651 --> 01:43:38.473 - hearing tonight. They're in a much better position to make a recommendation and this was not part of 01:43:38.473 --> 01:43:40.094 - the recommendation that 01:43:40.546 --> 01:43:48.968 - The city staff brought us in the ordinance itself. So I am quite hesitant to approve it just on you 01:43:48.968 --> 01:43:57.979 - know the basis of kind of hearsay at this point. Not that I don't trust everybody's you know input tonight 01:43:57.979 --> 01:44:06.906 - but I it doesn't seem like a solid basis on which to to make a decision. So I'm not sure about supporting 01:44:06.906 --> 01:44:09.854 - this amendment tonight. Thank you. 01:44:11.202 --> 01:44:18.338 - Thank you other councilmember comment councilmember Rosenberger Thank you, I Would just like to echo 01:44:18.338 --> 01:44:25.615 - what councilmember Piedmont Smith said I understand it's just sometimes we have really late amendments 01:44:25.615 --> 01:44:33.598 - But I do not feel like I know enough to vote Yes on this. So for now, I am a no vote Other councilmember comment 01:44:38.626 --> 01:44:48.079 - Seeing none, I'll go ahead and take a turn at council member comment. I'm actually I'm also a no vote 01:44:48.079 --> 01:44:51.230 - on this I think that This kind of 01:44:51.394 --> 01:44:56.743 - You know in terms of dealing with the parking tickets and the clerk I feel like that's something that 01:44:56.743 --> 01:45:02.091 - you know as councilmember Flaherty said should be kind of built into other business expenses and then 01:45:02.091 --> 01:45:07.545 - in terms of some of those other Fees that and and I appreciate the gentleman who spoke with me a couple 01:45:07.545 --> 01:45:13.050 - a couple weeks ago after the meeting about this and as One of the public commenters said, you know state 01:45:13.050 --> 01:45:18.504 - regulations require 72 hour notices which means that you know, they might there might be fees, but they 01:45:18.504 --> 01:45:19.710 - might not accrue until 01:45:20.418 --> 01:45:27.841 - Multiple hours afterwards and so to be able to give all two companies this like immediate ability to 01:45:27.841 --> 01:45:35.410 - charge this extra $25 fee I just I'm really opposed to that without any other I mean it it doesn't say 01:45:35.410 --> 01:45:43.126 - that they need to be itemized to actually meet actual fees that the tow companies are charged for Having 01:45:43.126 --> 01:45:46.654 - to you know pay money to look up information or 01:45:46.850 --> 01:45:52.761 - access databases or anything like that. It's just this kind of flat fee. And that, to me, it means that 01:45:52.761 --> 01:45:58.842 - this $25 could just get dumped on top of every single tow by every single company every time that happens. 01:45:58.842 --> 01:46:04.923 - And once again, I'm going to bring up what I brought up last week about predatory towing. And I appreciate 01:46:04.923 --> 01:46:10.720 - that there's some honest tow companies out there. But we also need to remember that there are a whole 01:46:10.720 --> 01:46:16.062 - lot of predatory tow companies out there. And those predatory tow companies take advantage of 01:46:16.194 --> 01:46:24.264 - residents, especially our student population, especially our visitor population and especially our population 01:46:24.264 --> 01:46:31.599 - that Might not be able to very you know carefully and strictly read our city code to figure out all 01:46:31.599 --> 01:46:39.082 - of these things and to realize that they can complain about inappropriate towing so I am a no vote on 01:46:39.082 --> 01:46:42.750 - this and I really urge my my colleagues to to not 01:46:42.882 --> 01:46:50.641 - Approve this additional fee unless there were lots more Lots more places to protect residents in terms 01:46:50.641 --> 01:46:58.550 - of itemizing and really understanding it and I'll also second the the concern that I think Councilmember 01:46:58.550 --> 01:47:06.083 - Piedmont Smith mentioned in terms of our staff recommendations and and things Consulting with staff 01:47:06.083 --> 01:47:12.862 - around this sort of fee issue. So, thank you If there are no other councilmember comments 01:47:13.218 --> 01:47:27.259 - Seeing none Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment 5 to ordinance 2025 19? Councilmember Ruff 01:47:27.259 --> 01:47:40.894 - Yes Rallo. Yes Piedmont Smith. No Stossburg. No daily. Yes Zulek. Yes Rosenberger. No, I'm sorry Yes 01:47:42.850 --> 01:47:55.903 - No Wait a second, I lost count five four zero that was five four Yes passed, right? Okay. All right, 01:47:55.903 --> 01:48:09.214 - so that amendment passes five to four All right, that brings us back to ordinance 2025 19 as amended I 01:48:12.034 --> 01:48:21.111 - Are there councilmember questions? On it as amended Is there public comments on it so now this is like 01:48:21.111 --> 01:48:30.277 - public comment on the entire ordinance As it's been amended by three amendments amendment one amendment 01:48:30.277 --> 01:48:39.090 - four and amendment five So this you know, this also includes like the original ordinance which does 01:48:39.090 --> 01:48:41.822 - have some things not that have 01:48:41.986 --> 01:48:49.056 - Been covered in the amendment. So I see somebody in chambers already signing in Please state your name 01:48:49.056 --> 01:48:55.988 - for the record and then you'll have up to three minutes Okay, my name is Jacob Padawan. I'm with toe 01:48:55.988 --> 01:49:03.057 - time towing and recovery. I don't tow for again the police here in this town, I don't other towns, but 01:49:03.057 --> 01:49:10.195 - I did want to kind of help with that uneven vote that I do believe the $25 administrative fee is a good 01:49:10.195 --> 01:49:11.774 - thing on that side and 01:49:11.874 --> 01:49:18.502 - As she was concerned with was slapping that on every single tow these guys Tow cars all the time have 01:49:18.502 --> 01:49:25.454 - a lot less abandoned cars than paid cars, but at the same time I was hoping to give you guys some numbers. 01:49:25.454 --> 01:49:31.952 - I can tell you that Indiana lean is a company that a lot of us use at least I do now it's a hundred 01:49:31.952 --> 01:49:39.294 - and thirty dollars to two hundred and ten dollars on average depending on what state that vehicles registered in 01:49:39.426 --> 01:49:45.678 - That's what every guy here is paying on every vehicle that we have for 72 hours out of our own pocket 01:49:45.678 --> 01:49:51.931 - So with that administrative fee being slapped on every single car, it's still barely averaging Enough 01:49:51.931 --> 01:49:58.122 - money to cover just that cost alone for the amount of abandoned cars that we do get so I just wanted 01:49:58.122 --> 01:50:04.435 - to kind of Stand up for them and let you guys know that that's what it costs. I used to do it in-house 01:50:04.435 --> 01:50:09.278 - in-house was $100 a year prescription plus a $5 for every single VIN check and 01:50:09.762 --> 01:50:17.578 - when it comes down to the car being abandoned and you have to put the ad in a newspaper to let the Vehicle 01:50:17.578 --> 01:50:25.247 - or let the public know the car is going to be up for auction Costs roughly seven dollars and fifty cents 01:50:25.247 --> 01:50:32.698 - per car to list it in said auction in the newspaper An auctioneer fee to sell that junk vehicle if it 01:50:32.698 --> 01:50:36.350 - sells at all or not is $75 per car on average and 01:50:37.122 --> 01:50:43.847 - Junk certificate if the car is left behind and you use indiana lean to file a junk certificate Which 01:50:43.847 --> 01:50:50.971 - is how we have to legally get permission from the state? to dispose of a vehicle after it's been abandoned 01:50:50.971 --> 01:50:57.763 - and not sold at the auction that is again another $60 fee occurred by The tow company themselves just 01:50:57.763 --> 01:51:04.488 - to get rid of a car that's going to bring us back roughly 180 to 260 dollars from the junkyard so we 01:51:04.488 --> 01:51:05.886 - end up with a lot of 01:51:06.722 --> 01:51:12.766 - Lot of costs roughly about $600 invested in every single abandoned car So I hope that helps you put 01:51:12.766 --> 01:51:18.930 - in perspective because you are right. You don't have to do any of these things Until it's pretty much 01:51:18.930 --> 01:51:25.155 - 72 hours. You have to do it within 72 hours So you are right it doesn't have to be done on day one But 01:51:25.155 --> 01:51:31.199 - the amount of cars that get picked up on day one that pay that fee is how we can afford To do it on 01:51:31.199 --> 01:51:35.550 - day three for the cars that are not picked up and I hope that helps and 01:51:39.202 --> 01:51:45.436 - Thank you. Looks like we have another council another comment in here is anybody raised a hand on zoom 01:51:45.436 --> 01:51:51.670 - Okay, go ahead and sign in Signed in once they your name for the record and then you're very sure what 01:51:51.670 --> 01:51:57.844 - side service and towing just about the 72 hour I don't think you guys understand the clarification on 01:51:57.844 --> 01:52:04.078 - that the 72 hour notice means that the owner lean holder or occupant of the vehicle has to have notice 01:52:04.078 --> 01:52:07.710 - in their hand within 72 hours not filed within 72 hours and 01:52:08.802 --> 01:52:14.839 - So generally the same day filing when we get the car in is when we send it out Because you have to send 01:52:14.839 --> 01:52:20.760 - certified letters and notifications to the property the owner of the vehicle the 72-hour notice Which 01:52:20.760 --> 01:52:26.855 - is required by the state of Indiana has to be in their hand within 72 hours Not just us filing the paper 01:52:26.855 --> 01:52:32.892 - Okay, so those fees generally are accrued the very same day the vehicle comes in because a lot of these 01:52:32.892 --> 01:52:37.246 - vehicles are abandoned or they get towed away from an accident they may be 01:52:37.698 --> 01:52:43.456 - Who knows in the hospital they may have got arrested they may have this the actual owner of the car 01:52:43.456 --> 01:52:49.387 - may not know That that car has been impounded. It may be the lien holder. It may be the parent. It may 01:52:49.387 --> 01:52:55.145 - be whoever and If we don't file that letter within 72 hour within the reason and they receive it We 01:52:55.145 --> 01:53:01.191 - cannot charge more than 72 hours worth of it So if it's there for 30 days before the lien holder finally 01:53:01.191 --> 01:53:07.294 - comes to get it if they didn't get my letter I get to charge three days. I don't get to charge 33 days. I 01:53:07.906 --> 01:53:13.791 - See what I'm saying? They have we have to give legal notification and it has to be in their hand within 01:53:13.791 --> 01:53:19.619 - 72 hours Just to clarify some of that. Thank you Thank you another person in council chambers Go ahead 01:53:19.619 --> 01:53:25.277 - and state your name for the record and then you'll have up to three minutes. Hey, I'm Cameron Myzel 01:53:25.277 --> 01:53:30.935 - again with Blaine's record service. I wanted to clarify just a couple things Councilmember Silsberg 01:53:30.935 --> 01:53:36.254 - you had an issue with predatory towing. I think everything we're talking about in title 15 is 01:53:36.482 --> 01:53:42.892 - directed You know, there's a different standard The police are allowing us to do it because we've met 01:53:42.892 --> 01:53:49.302 - certain requirements You and that the fee that we were asking for it says just to help cover our cost 01:53:49.302 --> 01:53:55.587 - It is also in line with what the county allows us to charge as well as IUPD I know you need to seek 01:53:55.587 --> 01:54:01.997 - further clarification, but just another person to tell you that it is as well $25 for those You know, 01:54:01.997 --> 01:54:06.270 - I appreciate the opportunity to toe for the city of Bloomington and 01:54:06.498 --> 01:54:13.276 - And it's been really insightful this year being able to learn kind of the different things with the 01:54:13.276 --> 01:54:20.122 - city, because we hadn't done it forever. So we're back on there, and it's great to be able to do it. 01:54:20.122 --> 01:54:26.901 - And I just wanted to just... We try to do everything legitimately. And I hate to get bulked in with 01:54:26.901 --> 01:54:32.798 - people who don't. And I get really, I don't know, just passionate about it, because... 01:54:32.898 --> 01:54:39.017 - We do try to do everything by the law by the book. We're transparent about our pricing We try to itemize 01:54:39.017 --> 01:54:45.019 - everything out with us. I understand your concerns because I've seen both sides And I and I completely 01:54:45.019 --> 01:54:50.847 - understand the apprehension before I was in towing I thought you know tow companies were a bunch of 01:54:50.847 --> 01:54:56.907 - You know sleazeballs. I didn't know any better But after the last few weeks, you know, our our services 01:54:56.907 --> 01:55:01.278 - have been so necessary the amount of hours that me and my guys have put in 01:55:01.858 --> 01:55:08.347 - It's the things that we don't think about you know, and I understand this is the dirty side of it You 01:55:08.347 --> 01:55:14.962 - know, it's the it's the money no one wants to pay and I get that completely and I understand that We're 01:55:14.962 --> 01:55:21.324 - just asking to be able to charge what we're worth on the things that the police are asking us to do 01:55:21.324 --> 01:55:27.685 - Thank you Thank you. Is there other public comments on Ordinance 2025 19 as amended Any hands ended 01:55:27.685 --> 01:55:28.830 - up raised on zoom 01:55:31.298 --> 01:55:42.021 - That brings us back to councilmember comment then on the ordinance as amended So any councilmember comment 01:55:42.021 --> 01:55:52.643 - councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, I I do think that You know, we need to allow towing companies to charge 01:55:52.643 --> 01:55:57.854 - what it costs them to do the work Overall I believe 01:55:58.274 --> 01:56:06.082 - This has been a very frustrating thing for me to review as a council member. This ordinance as well 01:56:06.082 --> 01:56:14.281 - as the next one are on our agenda because I feel like we received incomplete information from city staff 01:56:14.281 --> 01:56:22.089 - in order to really put this in context and understand all the details. I'm still confused about the 01:56:22.089 --> 01:56:26.462 - 72 hour thing that the state mandates. I just feel like 01:56:26.658 --> 01:56:35.431 - We were given a very short memo to go with the changes. Then we were given another very short memo that 01:56:35.431 --> 01:56:44.034 - went with in the packet for this week. And there were several questions that I had raised even before 01:56:44.034 --> 01:56:53.566 - the first reading or the first, I'm sorry, before the second reading that were not clarified in a timely manner. 01:56:53.890 --> 01:57:02.140 - And so I find that this whole process has provided the council with insufficient context and information 01:57:02.140 --> 01:57:10.232 - to understand the changes and to approve the changes. Now that we have drawn it out to a third reading 01:57:10.232 --> 01:57:18.324 - and there have been a lot of emails back and forth and our staff and legal staff and other people have 01:57:18.324 --> 01:57:21.310 - chimed in, I do feel better about it. 01:57:21.442 --> 01:57:29.183 - I do understand it well enough that I feel like I can vote on it but I would ask the legal department 01:57:29.183 --> 01:57:36.925 - and the related folks in economic development who Speak with our private companies that have licenses 01:57:36.925 --> 01:57:44.742 - with the city to please be more careful and inclusive in the future I don't understand why for example 01:57:44.742 --> 01:57:47.550 - the amendment by councilmember rough 01:57:47.682 --> 01:57:55.611 - was apparently something that towing companies wanted to see and Apparently had stated earlier, but 01:57:55.611 --> 01:58:03.777 - somehow it didn't get to staff. I don't know what failure of communication there was there and whether 01:58:03.777 --> 01:58:11.865 - it was anybody's fault, but I I just encourage staff to remember that we are all generalists up here. 01:58:11.865 --> 01:58:13.054 - We do not know 01:58:13.698 --> 01:58:20.285 - You know, we don't have parts of Indiana State code memorized. We do not know how towing companies work 01:58:20.285 --> 01:58:26.683 - usually We need a lot of contacts in order to understand and make good decisions So I just encourage 01:58:26.683 --> 01:58:33.460 - them to to provide more of that in the future But that said I thank everybody for coming out and speaking. 01:58:33.460 --> 01:58:40.237 - I have learned a lot and I will be supporting the ordinance tonight. Thank you Other councilmember comment 01:58:40.237 --> 01:58:41.694 - councilmember Flaherty 01:58:41.858 --> 01:58:47.479 - Just very briefly earlier this evening when a report was being given about the process committee an 01:58:47.479 --> 01:58:53.662 - item that was discussed is the possibility of requiring a council member sponsor for all items of legislation 01:58:53.662 --> 01:58:59.733 - in the future some other cities do that it's something I'm interested in exploring and one of the potential 01:58:59.733 --> 01:59:05.692 - and Positives, you know that could come from that is getting somebody's eyes from the council perspective 01:59:05.692 --> 01:59:08.446 - on legislation before it actually comes here and 01:59:08.706 --> 01:59:13.560 - we could hopefully address a bunch of these issues. You could have questions about, you know, was X 01:59:13.560 --> 01:59:18.462 - considered, how was this involved? You know, it's not gonna solve everything, but I think this isn't 01:59:18.462 --> 01:59:23.607 - the only instance in which we've seen, I guess, legislation coming from the administration, no disrespect 01:59:23.607 --> 01:59:28.558 - intended, but you know, we've really had to tediously work through things at the council level, which 01:59:28.558 --> 01:59:33.558 - I think is not a good use of everyone's time. And so, that's just a change. I wanna put a plug for it, 01:59:33.558 --> 01:59:38.654 - because I think this is an example of one of those times this year when we could have benefited from it. 01:59:40.834 --> 01:59:49.445 - Councilmember comment Councilmember Rallo. Yeah, just to say I appreciate the public coming in and the 01:59:49.445 --> 01:59:57.973 - businesses and their Informative comments been very helpful Other councilmember comment I'll go ahead 01:59:57.973 --> 02:00:06.584 - and take a comment then I'm Honestly a little conflicted right now and it seems crazy to be conflicted 02:00:06.584 --> 02:00:10.430 - over a $25 fee but I really think that it's a 02:00:10.850 --> 02:00:17.724 - Like it's this philosophical issue for me that if that kind of like administrative fee would need to 02:00:17.724 --> 02:00:24.666 - be charged then I think that it should be you know, and honestly one of the public commenters said it 02:00:24.666 --> 02:00:31.472 - that well, they're gonna charge everybody a small fee instead of just charging a fee for the people 02:00:31.472 --> 02:00:38.142 - that they actually have to look stuff up for and I think that like I really struggle with that as 02:00:38.690 --> 02:00:46.500 - concept in this kind of situation and I Really struggle with that as a concept in this kind of situation 02:00:46.500 --> 02:00:54.087 - because somebody could get towed and then literally come back to their car an hour later Call the tow 02:00:54.087 --> 02:01:01.673 - company, you know, it's required that the vehicle be available within 60 minutes of tow We've already 02:01:01.673 --> 02:01:04.574 - said hey, they can charge a $75 out of 02:01:04.802 --> 02:01:12.763 - Hours fee, you know token car gets towed at 11 p.m. They come back for it at 1145 they go meet the person 02:01:12.763 --> 02:01:18.846 - at at midnight at the soonest possible time that they could get it back and then 02:01:18.978 --> 02:01:24.747 - You can get slammed with the tow charge the special fee charge, which we didn't actually ask a question 02:01:24.747 --> 02:01:30.461 - about this But it's like how do we know if they had to do something special with the you know with how 02:01:30.461 --> 02:01:36.008 - to tow it and then they can get charged with the out of business hours charge and then they can get 02:01:36.008 --> 02:01:41.666 - charged with this administrative charge even though they didn't really have to do anything for it and 02:01:41.666 --> 02:01:44.606 - I think that that's extremely problematic that we're 02:01:44.706 --> 02:01:50.415 - Dumping those charges on our residents and yeah, I acknowledge that this is for like the police initiated 02:01:50.415 --> 02:01:55.855 - toes So maybe it's a little bit different But I'm not sure that it actually is and one of the goals, 02:01:55.855 --> 02:02:01.240 - you know is to try to keep these two codes 15 and for an alignment and I think this is a place that 02:02:01.240 --> 02:02:06.680 - I really have a problem with putting this language into the next one because of the predatory towing 02:02:06.680 --> 02:02:12.766 - issue which I don't think happens as much with the police contracts towing because the police have contracts and 02:02:13.602 --> 02:02:19.615 - You know something about this fee could be written into that contract you that like well, you know and 02:02:19.615 --> 02:02:25.686 - it also sounds like some of the police initiated contacts Contracts have to do with you know, this this 02:02:25.686 --> 02:02:31.699 - back and forth and person stuff with the clerk's office which you know takes some labor time, but some 02:02:31.699 --> 02:02:37.595 - of them don't and They don't require that kind of thing. They don't require anything and then we put 02:02:37.595 --> 02:02:41.214 - it in there anyway, so I'm extremely conflicted right now and 02:02:41.794 --> 02:02:51.032 - Even though it seems crazy to be conflicted over a $25 fee because I think that it It could really Add 02:02:51.032 --> 02:03:00.269 - up will say that it could really add up So if there are any other councilmember comments Count number, 02:03:00.269 --> 02:03:09.327 - sorry I'll just say and I don't know Maybe I'm just I don't know sleep deprived or something but the 02:03:09.327 --> 02:03:11.390 - the part the part that 02:03:11.810 --> 02:03:19.180 - that I'm a little lost on in this is the functioning of this ordinance to begin with, is that we're 02:03:19.180 --> 02:03:26.181 - not setting fees, we're capping them, and I think that in the cases where no fee is mentioned, 02:03:26.181 --> 02:03:33.772 - like we're not, that any fee could be placed on things if we're not capping them. So I just, I'm maybe 02:03:33.772 --> 02:03:40.478 - a little lost, I don't know, but I think that what we're trying to do here is actually cap 02:03:40.610 --> 02:03:49.242 - I mean, maybe it's not the perfect tool but I mean I from the perspective of what's presented to us 02:03:49.242 --> 02:03:58.133 - the goal is to Is to cap what can be charged and so I think that that's fairly clear So I'll be voting 02:03:58.133 --> 02:04:08.318 - yes for us. But again, please correct me if I'm wrong because I seem to be lost Thank you Other councilmember comment 02:04:09.858 --> 02:04:17.820 - I'll respond to that from my perspective. Yeah, it is capping it, but it's also suggesting it. So it 02:04:17.820 --> 02:04:25.860 - becomes this like, oh, here's another fee that it's almost like you don't think about the elephant in 02:04:25.860 --> 02:04:27.358 - the room until you 02:04:27.554 --> 02:04:33.025 - Until like it's in front of you and so like that's that's kind of why I it's like and and in when I 02:04:33.025 --> 02:04:38.659 - was looking at state code and that's the other thing actually why I'm kind of concerned about that fee 02:04:38.659 --> 02:04:44.239 - is that in state code and I was trying to look it up during the proceedings and I couldn't I Couldn't 02:04:44.239 --> 02:04:49.765 - do both things at the same time and effectively look up because state code is can be a challenge but 02:04:49.765 --> 02:04:55.564 - my memory is that in state code if they charge fees, they're supposed to itemize their fees and So that's 02:04:55.564 --> 02:04:57.150 - where it's kind of like well 02:04:57.282 --> 02:05:03.427 - I feel like if we're gonna kind of enter this into our toe ordinance in terms of being able to recoup 02:05:03.427 --> 02:05:09.632 - some of those fees, then it should be done differently. That it should be done with more deliberation, 02:05:09.632 --> 02:05:15.716 - that it should be done with more attention and understanding of what state code says about what fees 02:05:15.716 --> 02:05:21.741 - they're supposed to charge and then how you're supposed to deal with it in state code. Because this 02:05:21.741 --> 02:05:26.078 - is one of those, it's like our code and state code, they have to follow 02:05:26.594 --> 02:05:32.839 - and and you know, so I just I really I I'm really concerned about that piece of it as well in terms 02:05:32.839 --> 02:05:39.271 - of that so and I'm not sure that'll make a difference tonight because the whole thing is it's Probably 02:05:39.271 --> 02:05:45.640 - gonna pass at this point Would be my guess but I guess I'm I'm concerned about that and I you know if 02:05:45.640 --> 02:05:52.072 - it does pass like I guess I'm just gonna be interested in talking with staff and legal about that more 02:05:52.072 --> 02:05:53.758 - in terms of state code and 02:05:53.858 --> 02:06:00.858 - Related stuff because I think that this is like a clumsy and far too basic way to introduce something 02:06:00.858 --> 02:06:08.064 - Like this that may have merit especially for some of those cars that are there for a long time But might 02:06:08.064 --> 02:06:14.995 - also end up being problematic in ways that you know, our legal department didn't have time to really 02:06:14.995 --> 02:06:21.926 - look at Other council comment All right. Will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance 2025 19 as 02:06:21.926 --> 02:06:22.750 - amended and 02:06:24.578 --> 02:06:38.176 - Councilmember Rallo. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes Stossburg. No Daily. Yes Zulick. Yes Rosenberger. Yes. 02:06:38.176 --> 02:06:51.774 - I'm sorry. Yes Sorry clarity, yes and rough yes Thank you. That passes eight one on to the next one 02:06:54.402 --> 02:07:04.201 - I move that appropriation. No Sorry Sorry Forgive me. I move that ordinance 2025 dash 20 be read By 02:07:04.201 --> 02:07:13.999 - the clerk by title and synopsis only Second, thank you. It's been moved to introduce ordinance 2025 02:07:13.999 --> 02:07:22.622 - 20 all those in favor, please say aye I Opposed. Thank you. Will the clerk please read? 02:07:26.914 --> 02:07:33.798 - Ordinance 2025-20 to amend Chapter 4.32 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Non-Consensual Towing 02:07:33.798 --> 02:07:40.354 - Business regarding updating towing license requirements and permissible towing and storage fees for 02:07:40.354 --> 02:07:45.534 - non-consensual towing services under Chapter 4.32. The synopsis is as follows. 02:07:45.634 --> 02:07:53.484 - Ordinance 2025-20 updates the maximum fees authorized towing services may charge when performing 02:07:53.484 --> 02:08:02.062 - non-consensual towing and imposes additional requirements for licensing and operation of towing companies 02:08:02.062 --> 02:08:10.478 - within the city's jurisdiction. Thank you. I move that ordinance 2025-20 be adopted. Second. Thank you. 02:08:10.478 --> 02:08:13.310 - Who is here from staff to present? 02:08:16.290 --> 02:08:22.428 - Thank you so much. You could introduce yourself for the record and the floor is yours for sure Andrea 02:08:22.428 --> 02:08:28.446 - de la Rosa assistant director for small business development Department of economic and sustainable 02:08:28.446 --> 02:08:34.765 - development This these amendments, I'm sorry ordinance 2025 20 of proposes these amendments to introduce 02:08:34.765 --> 02:08:40.904 - a background check requirement for licensing adding the name of the towing company unrequired signage 02:08:40.904 --> 02:08:43.070 - and requiring the towing company to 02:08:43.234 --> 02:08:49.613 - to display its license in a conspicuous fashion to be consistent with chapter 15.48 of title 15 of the 02:08:49.613 --> 02:08:55.931 - Bloomington municipal code for removal and empowerment of vehicles and also for Bloomington to remain 02:08:55.931 --> 02:09:02.248 - competitive with other localities the amendments also increase the fees of the fees a licensed towing 02:09:02.248 --> 02:09:08.690 - company is allowed to charge for towing special treatment and storage and lastly the amendments require 02:09:08.690 --> 02:09:12.158 - payment of all storage fees for release of the vehicles 02:09:12.258 --> 02:09:20.946 - Enable storage fees to begin to accrue after 12 hours at the storage facility Thank you Thank you, and 02:09:20.946 --> 02:09:29.044 - I also have amendment on this one, but maybe we can do questions about the base ordinance first 02:09:29.044 --> 02:09:37.901 - Do councilmembers have questions about the ordinance as presented? Right seeing none I'll pass the gavel 02:09:37.901 --> 02:09:41.022 - then to councilmember Piedmont Smith 02:09:42.722 --> 02:09:51.309 - All right, do we have any amendments to ordinance 2025 20 Councilmember Stossberg. Thank you. I would 02:09:51.309 --> 02:09:59.981 - like to Move amendment three to ordinance 2025 20 second All right, amendment three has been moved and 02:09:59.981 --> 02:10:08.736 - seconded councilmember Stossberg, please Describe what this would do. Thank you. I'm Trying to actually 02:10:08.736 --> 02:10:11.262 - find it in my there we go. Um 02:10:12.834 --> 02:10:21.486 - So the first thing it does, well, yeah, so the first thing it does in section one is add a section to 02:10:21.486 --> 02:10:30.563 - the business license application to require that tow companies tell the ESD department what their business 02:10:30.563 --> 02:10:39.046 - hours are and then kind of stick to them. And that has to do with that fee at the end that they can 02:10:39.046 --> 02:10:40.318 - charge $75 for 02:10:40.418 --> 02:10:46.513 - Fee if a vehicle is picked up outside of business hours, so then this defines business hours per the 02:10:46.513 --> 02:10:52.608 - license request it also says that Offers a minimum amount of business hours of 40 business hours per 02:10:52.608 --> 02:10:58.703 - week and then having at least some hours on Saturday and Sunday But as otherwise not defined so, you 02:10:58.703 --> 02:11:04.798 - know one hour on Saturday and one hour on Sunday at a time of their choosing would count toward that 02:11:04.994 --> 02:11:11.426 - People could be open several hours on the weekends and closed during a weekday because that's not necessarily 02:11:11.426 --> 02:11:17.391 - prohibited. And I tried to make that language flexible, but also that you need to have kind of a full 02:11:17.391 --> 02:11:23.238 - slate of business hours. And my understanding is that most non-consensual toes happen on Friday and 02:11:23.238 --> 02:11:29.495 - Saturday nights. And so I thought that that's why I put in the requirement of the weekend hours so there's 02:11:29.495 --> 02:11:33.822 - at least some possibility for people to be able to pick up their vehicles 02:11:34.114 --> 02:11:41.422 - without a fee on the weekend the other thing that that section one does is Kind of make a slight alteration 02:11:41.422 --> 02:11:48.189 - to the background check that was originally presented As it was originally presented the background 02:11:48.189 --> 02:11:54.956 - check had to be clear of formal violations from outside the jurisdiction of the city of Bloomington 02:11:54.956 --> 02:12:01.790 - and I changed the language to be they need to be free of violations from both inside and outside and 02:12:02.018 --> 02:12:10.220 - the jurisdiction of the city. I tried to also format this amendment. So if people don't like a certain 02:12:10.220 --> 02:12:18.502 - section of it, then we can strike a whole section instead of just voting no on the whole thing. Section 02:12:18.502 --> 02:12:26.544 - two is probably the one that makes the biggest difference. So our current ordinance simply says that 02:12:26.544 --> 02:12:30.526 - the signage needs to be, let's see if I can find, 02:12:30.850 --> 02:12:38.137 - actual phrasing, that it needs to be posted in plain view and visible to the public at each entrance 02:12:38.137 --> 02:12:45.425 - and exit. And I think that that is language that's not very specific. So section two of my amendment 02:12:45.425 --> 02:12:52.857 - adds more specific language to the sign requirements in terms of sign size and material and legibility 02:12:52.857 --> 02:12:59.134 - and where they're posted. And so it changes the formatting of that just a wee bit too. 02:13:00.546 --> 02:13:08.633 - Then the next section switches that as it did in the first one the the storage fees accruing after 12 02:13:08.633 --> 02:13:16.562 - hours back to the 24 hours And then adds the additional line that business hours have to be defined 02:13:16.562 --> 02:13:24.729 - in the license application described further up Are there any questions for me Any questions regarding 02:13:24.729 --> 02:13:27.742 - the amendment that was just described 02:13:31.682 --> 02:13:41.177 - member of Yeah, I wonder if the sponsor knows or has an idea who Would the with the tow operator the 02:13:41.177 --> 02:13:50.577 - tow business be responsible for Confirming the size of for example the minimum size of the sign and 02:13:50.577 --> 02:14:00.542 - if they did do a tow and turned out that that wasn't the minimum size was a med of the signage or and the 02:14:00.866 --> 02:14:08.051 - victim or the person who was towed Came back after would they come after the property owner or the towing? 02:14:08.051 --> 02:14:14.833 - company did I Think I would have to go back and read through title four carefully in that section So 02:14:14.833 --> 02:14:21.616 - maybe staff knows this off the top of their head, but I'm pretty sure that the sign requirements end 02:14:21.616 --> 02:14:23.966 - up being on the property owner and 02:14:24.290 --> 02:14:31.596 - not on the tow company. And the tow company, there's another section that I think is not being amended, 02:14:31.596 --> 02:14:38.761 - so maybe if you didn't go back and read the whole tow ordinance, you might not have seen it, that the 02:14:38.761 --> 02:14:45.786 - tow company is required to do a written authorization, including certain amounts of information. So 02:14:45.786 --> 02:14:53.022 - that's a piece that, so a tow company doing a non-consensual tow would be in violation if they did not 02:14:53.186 --> 02:15:02.188 - Properly do that paperwork and tow authorization stuff and that's on them But I think the signage requirement 02:15:02.188 --> 02:15:10.454 - is on the property owner. Is that correct? To my knowledge, I'm sorry detail Rosa assistant director 02:15:10.454 --> 02:15:17.246 - for fault small business development To my knowledge that is correct however it is 02:15:17.826 --> 02:15:27.560 - The tow company's responsibility to provide all of that information for the signage I believe that it 02:15:27.560 --> 02:15:37.579 - is the property owners responsibility to have all of those out In full view this just kind of solidifies 02:15:37.579 --> 02:15:45.118 - that with this language Does that answer your question is helpful, thank you I 02:15:47.650 --> 02:15:58.838 - Any other questions from council members about the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we will go to the public. 02:15:58.838 --> 02:16:09.398 - Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on amendment three to ordinance 2025-20? 02:16:09.398 --> 02:16:16.926 - Just the amendment at this time. There'll be an opportunity for overall 02:16:17.538 --> 02:16:25.914 - Yes State your name for the record and my name is Jake again with the tow time towing recovery here 02:16:25.914 --> 02:16:34.290 - in Bloomington. We are one of the non-consensual Towing providers and I guess my biggest concern on 02:16:34.290 --> 02:16:43.168 - the signage thing is not just for me But other companies that are in this particular part of the business 02:16:43.168 --> 02:16:46.686 - We've put many strains on business owners 02:16:48.226 --> 02:16:55.037 - that we service to be out in the middle of the night and any weather to be present when They should 02:16:55.037 --> 02:17:02.120 - be home sleeping just to make sure their business lot is free and clear of cars when the business opens 02:17:02.120 --> 02:17:09.408 - again I Want to be clear that the state law says under 9-22-1-16 That states that a vehicle may be removed 02:17:09.408 --> 02:17:15.742 - without any warning or signage if deemed to be interfering with business safety and security 02:17:16.258 --> 02:17:23.260 - There's usually typically an amendment to a contract where they give us all these written permissions 02:17:23.260 --> 02:17:30.261 - beforehand. However, currently we are practicing a separate Consensual toe form for businesses. I had 02:17:30.261 --> 02:17:37.400 - a few people that wanted me to bring that up My other concern is that it regulates signage in the state 02:17:37.400 --> 02:17:43.166 - law 12 by 18 inches, which is currently what we have I also have reflective signage 02:17:43.746 --> 02:17:50.971 - Quarter-inch thick aluminum already out there on a lot of properties that are low-lit if it's a gas 02:17:50.971 --> 02:17:58.268 - station I don't waste my money. They look like a light bulb but What I would like to make concern of 02:17:58.268 --> 02:18:05.566 - is that to do the signs the way that you guys want I got a quote today from Van Horn that was For 18 02:18:05.566 --> 02:18:12.574 - by 24 inch signs the way that you want them with reflective Final it's $80 for just the sign and 02:18:13.154 --> 02:18:19.038 - Per-sign and that doesn't include hardware that doesn't the bolts. It doesn't include posts That doesn't 02:18:19.038 --> 02:18:24.698 - include construction glue to glue it to a building or anybody's labor to go change all these out And 02:18:24.698 --> 02:18:30.526 - if you guys pass a sign ordinance change like that, I have somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 signs that 02:18:30.526 --> 02:18:36.186 - are already out on properties Maintained every year we make sure that they try to be visible and You 02:18:36.186 --> 02:18:42.238 - know in good condition like like you guys are asking for But to go change these out for the size difference 02:18:42.594 --> 02:18:48.747 - That's gonna cost me 160 to 175 thousand dollars to make that change instantly as soon as you pass it 02:18:48.747 --> 02:18:55.021 - I'm one company out of four licensed companies in this town. I Personally think there's way better ways 02:18:55.021 --> 02:19:01.234 - to make people Understand the rules regulations and consequences for parking where they are and I have 02:19:01.234 --> 02:19:07.448 - very good ideas for that I just think it should fall down to educating the people coming into the town 02:19:07.448 --> 02:19:11.550 - better so that they don't make mistakes and if they choose to still 02:19:12.354 --> 02:19:19.770 - for the better way to put it, be stupid. You know, everybody does park pretty innocently for 5 to 10 02:19:19.770 --> 02:19:27.260 - minutes. I mean, I've done it. I think my own kid's done it. Yeah, I think everybody's been guilty of 02:19:27.260 --> 02:19:34.896 - that. My own tow company towed my own kid. I think it's hilarious, and she paid. So it does happen very 02:19:34.896 --> 02:19:37.246 - innocently sometimes, and as... 02:19:37.538 --> 02:19:45.854 - Stasberg said she's been caught in that situation. I know that a couple other council members have and 02:19:45.854 --> 02:19:54.251 - I'll go ahead and comment later. That is your time. Thank you. I'm sorry. What was your full name again 02:19:54.251 --> 02:20:02.487 - Jacob? Any other public comment on the amendment Do we have anybody online no, okay, we can come back 02:20:02.487 --> 02:20:04.990 - to council members for any any 02:20:05.346 --> 02:20:16.305 - Follow-up questions or comments regarding the amendment councilmember Rallo. Did we hear from staff? 02:20:16.305 --> 02:20:27.372 - Do they have a comment on this amendment and Specifics miss de la Rosa. Do you want to comment on the 02:20:27.372 --> 02:20:34.750 - amendment? I Thank you for clarifying those prices on the signage I 02:20:35.362 --> 02:20:43.446 - I do still believe that there needs to be improvements to the signage, but I think that maybe Having 02:20:43.446 --> 02:20:51.530 - a lengthy period of time to slowly be able to upgrade Might be a fair compromise Obviously trying to 02:20:51.530 --> 02:21:00.094 - spend a hundred and twenty thousand dollars by July is pretty ridiculous I would think as a business owner 02:21:01.026 --> 02:21:10.097 - am very much amenable to an extension of a Year two years something to that effect. I'm willing to go 02:21:10.097 --> 02:21:16.766 - back to the drawing board on the signage Thank you councilmember Stossberg 02:21:17.666 --> 02:21:23.181 - I want to clarify that so that is one of the reasons why when I wrote this amendment I tried to put 02:21:23.181 --> 02:21:28.697 - all of the signage stuff into that section to you by itself So that then that could be struck if we 02:21:28.697 --> 02:21:34.543 - needed to and then keep the rest However, I do kind of have a question about that that sign quote because 02:21:34.543 --> 02:21:40.113 - the minimum size requirement that is in the amendment is 12 inches by 18 inches and I feel like what 02:21:40.113 --> 02:21:45.022 - I heard the public comment or say was that he got a quote for 18 inches by 24 inches and 02:21:47.778 --> 02:21:55.054 - I modified that to be 12 by 18. And so I modified that because the first draft of this, I needed to 02:21:55.054 --> 02:22:02.548 - run it through the UDO, and I needed to run it through engineering, and I needed to run it through all 02:22:02.548 --> 02:22:10.115 - of the people who actually put up signs. And so that was where the UDO, there's a whole signage section 02:22:10.115 --> 02:22:12.734 - in the UDO. It actually looks like, 02:22:12.994 --> 02:22:18.548 - complicated in some ways because there's like things that you can just kind of do no matter what and 02:22:18.548 --> 02:22:24.213 - then there's things that you need maybe permission for and maybe you can do it and maybe you can't and 02:22:24.213 --> 02:22:29.767 - it's a whole long thing. But anyway, 12 inch by 18 inch signs, you should be able to put those up on 02:22:29.767 --> 02:22:35.266 - your property without having to get any special permission from the planning department in terms of 02:22:35.266 --> 02:22:39.006 - your signage. And if I'm remembering correctly, you're not limited. 02:22:39.426 --> 02:22:47.163 - By number so like in theory, I think you could have like a gazillion 12 by 18 signs and You're still 02:22:47.163 --> 02:22:54.899 - within code which would could be you know, potentially like hilarious but So yeah, I changed that to 02:22:54.899 --> 02:23:02.789 - the 18 by to the 12 by 18 for that reason But like I said, I mean I put all the signage stuff into one 02:23:02.789 --> 02:23:07.998 - section so that we could strike that if we felt like that needed to 02:23:08.930 --> 02:23:14.905 - More than two weeks and that was something we didn't get to discuss this particular ordinance a couple 02:23:14.905 --> 02:23:20.881 - weeks ago But I was like, oh something needs to be done with signs But there's no way that I have time 02:23:20.881 --> 02:23:26.682 - right now to do this and then with this postponement. I thought okay, maybe I can do something with 02:23:26.682 --> 02:23:32.658 - signs and This is what I ended up with. So All right any other comments from council members about the 02:23:32.658 --> 02:23:34.398 - amendment Councilmember Zulek 02:23:35.682 --> 02:23:48.284 - Yes, I would be happy to support this with the strike through of section 2 but I can't support it as 02:23:48.284 --> 02:24:01.010 - is Second I don't think that was a motion. I moved to strike section 2 of amendment second All right, 02:24:01.010 --> 02:24:05.502 - so we have a motion on the table to 02:24:05.730 --> 02:24:19.993 - the amendment by striking section 2 Any comments on that wait is that is a motion to amend an amendment 02:24:19.993 --> 02:24:33.022 - a debatable I think so Okay councilmember Sossberg thinks it is so Any comments on that motion 02:24:37.250 --> 02:24:46.586 - So I will just say I would prefer to just change the effective date rather than striking all of section 02:24:46.586 --> 02:24:55.562 - two. But there's a motion on the table, so I guess we have to vote on that first. Do we have public 02:24:55.562 --> 02:25:04.898 - comment on that? Pardon me? Public comment. Attorney Lanner, is public comment required on an amendment 02:25:04.898 --> 02:25:06.334 - to an amendment 02:25:09.026 --> 02:25:16.981 - It seems to me that it's the same topic, so I don't know that we need public comment again. I don't 02:25:16.981 --> 02:25:25.334 - think that the VMC addresses that. Okay. I think, well, I'll go ahead. Is there any member of the public 02:25:25.334 --> 02:25:33.289 - who would like to comment on the amendment to the amendment? So that would be striking section two, 02:25:33.289 --> 02:25:35.198 - which is about signage. 02:25:43.202 --> 02:25:49.611 - I do want to make sure you guys understand I am in full support of making things more transparent and 02:25:49.611 --> 02:25:56.021 - obvious and Your name for the record again take a pattern one again with toe time. I do like the idea 02:25:56.021 --> 02:26:02.493 - of having reflective signage I don't want anybody be missing these signs So really my only concern was 02:26:02.493 --> 02:26:09.028 - the size thing And if we are going to add the reflective being required, I still have quite a few signs 02:26:09.028 --> 02:26:12.798 - that aren't like probably 15% of my signs aren't reflective 02:26:13.154 --> 02:26:19.093 - noticed she I Don't remember a name behind me said that they were open to like a time frame I think 02:26:19.093 --> 02:26:25.032 - two years is more than fair and I would say the average life expectancy of the vinyl on these signs 02:26:25.032 --> 02:26:31.150 - When they're reflective is actually about two years anyways, so they should be maintaining those signs 02:26:31.150 --> 02:26:37.267 - and replacing them as they dry crack and Whatever, so I think that's more than fair time frame. I hope 02:26:37.267 --> 02:26:41.662 - that helps Thank you any other comments on the amendment to the amendment 02:26:44.642 --> 02:26:56.227 - Hands on zoom. No, okay. All right back to council any final comments about the amendment to strike 02:26:56.227 --> 02:27:08.391 - section 2 of amendment 3 Councilmember Stossberg Yes, I think this is a question for council staff Given 02:27:08.391 --> 02:27:12.446 - the comment by both of those folks 02:27:12.642 --> 02:27:23.568 - I mean, I would think that there would be a high chance that we would come back with signage requirements 02:27:23.568 --> 02:27:34.082 - if this is struck. Is it easy for staff to potentially amend the amendment by changing the date under 02:27:34.082 --> 02:27:35.422 - section two? 02:27:37.090 --> 02:27:44.766 - Relatively easy amendment to an amendment to do on the fly or should we just strike it and then like 02:27:44.766 --> 02:27:52.518 - deal with bringing it back sometime next year Are you suggesting that the date of July? 2026 would be 02:27:52.518 --> 02:28:00.422 - Changed July 2027 like I mean, I don't know. So maybe it would be way just like quicker and easier just 02:28:00.422 --> 02:28:05.438 - strike it and then bring it back but I The motion on the table is 02:28:06.018 --> 02:28:16.941 - to amend the amendment by striking. And so I'm just wondering about the advisability of striking versus 02:28:16.941 --> 02:28:27.864 - amending the amendment differently. We could amend it by revising the date as well. All right, is there 02:28:27.864 --> 02:28:30.910 - a date that Miss Della Rose? 02:28:36.962 --> 02:28:50.195 - Mr. La Rosa if you could please come to the podium Detail Rossa City of Bloomington, I believe that 02:28:50.195 --> 02:29:04.222 - 2028 I'm sorry. I'm doing the math in my head July 20 or July 1st 2029 I think would probably be the best 02:29:04.898 --> 02:29:15.433 - I'm sorry dicey 2029 2028 would be the best extension of that that gives two years for sign replacement 02:29:15.433 --> 02:29:26.170 - of just the regular sign replacement that mr. Padawan had Suggested and then whatever else is outstanding 02:29:26.170 --> 02:29:29.918 - Okay Okay council members, all right 02:29:30.466 --> 02:29:36.230 - So far as we're discussing time periods, I don't know who best to ask this to so I'll ask it to you 02:29:36.230 --> 02:29:42.224 - is What's like the natural? Lifespan of a sign because there's a natural time like you don't leave them 02:29:42.224 --> 02:29:48.218 - up forever right at some point you update them, right? That's actually funny because I do know a little 02:29:48.218 --> 02:29:54.212 - bit a little bit about Yeah, it is around two to three years. It also depends on the weather conditions 02:29:54.212 --> 02:29:55.422 - and we have a pretty 02:29:55.586 --> 02:30:01.298 - rough environment, even with weather resistant signs, it is around two years. And then because I'm not 02:30:01.298 --> 02:30:06.843 - allowed to ask the public a question at this time, can I ask you to get the general sense from them 02:30:06.843 --> 02:30:12.444 - if that's roughly true? Because I think there's something, I think if you're thinking about timeline 02:30:12.444 --> 02:30:18.211 - and we are saying, hey, we want to update this, it makes sense that you sort of put it on a scale while 02:30:18.211 --> 02:30:23.646 - they update them, update them to the new thing. That makes sense. I think that's reasonable. Yes. 02:30:23.778 --> 02:30:30.344 - I can't ask you questions, but. Generally, yes. Even the weather resistance signs do need to be replaced, 02:30:30.344 --> 02:30:36.662 - and their lifespan in a harsh climate like we do have seasonal climate is around a year and a half to 02:30:36.662 --> 02:30:42.856 - two years. So if we set it at that, if we set it at- Around two years should be ample time. And now 02:30:42.856 --> 02:30:49.174 - a quick process question. We're considering now the striking of, but then we're having a conversation 02:30:49.174 --> 02:30:53.758 - about an alternate approach, which is extending the time period, correct? 02:30:54.242 --> 02:31:02.277 - Yes. But there's no motion on the table at the moment. There's no contrary motion. So we still need 02:31:02.277 --> 02:31:10.473 - to vote for this motion regardless. And then, OK, so I would just say, I think I would be amenable if 02:31:10.473 --> 02:31:18.910 - the ultimate goal is to improve signage for residents as a deterrent around predatory towing, et cetera. 02:31:19.010 --> 02:31:24.843 - I think I would be amenable to the approach of extending the timeline so that we actually are, I mean, 02:31:24.843 --> 02:31:30.732 - these will be updated anyways, and so we want them to be updated with an improved outlook. I think that 02:31:30.732 --> 02:31:36.508 - sort of makes a lot of sense. So I would, in that case, hope that we could maybe withdraw the current 02:31:36.508 --> 02:31:42.228 - motion, and I would move that we do the other thing, but I won't move until we make a decision about 02:31:42.228 --> 02:31:43.134 - this first one. 02:31:44.354 --> 02:31:52.238 - Thank you any other comments before we vote on the motion to amend by striking section two Councilmember 02:31:52.238 --> 02:32:00.121 - Stossberg If we vote on it, I'll go ahead and vote no on it so that then we can hope to amend it instead 02:32:00.121 --> 02:32:07.705 - So then we don't have to deal with a whole nother ordinance next year changing that Attorney Lainer, 02:32:07.705 --> 02:32:10.558 - did you have something to add? We can 02:32:12.034 --> 02:32:21.954 - insert the new dates and share the a proposed amendment on on the screen for tonight's meeting. If you'd 02:32:21.954 --> 02:32:31.495 - like to vote on that tonight. Thank you. If this motion fails then we might come to that. Thank you. 02:32:31.495 --> 02:32:38.014 - Right. What is it not possible to just on the current amendment just 02:32:38.242 --> 02:32:44.550 - Right. We need a new amendment to amend the amendment. Like we can't just amend the amendment. 02:32:44.550 --> 02:32:51.589 - We need a new, okay. Cool. Yes. Cool. Yes. And you know, there's a statement in the Bloomington municipal 02:32:51.589 --> 02:32:58.495 - code that any amendment has to be in writing. Um, so. All right. I think we're ready, um, for the clerk 02:32:58.495 --> 02:33:04.670 - to please call the roll on the amendment to amendments. I'm happy to withdraw the amendment. 02:33:06.754 --> 02:33:14.177 - The amendment was made that motion was made by councilmember Daley It's up to you I Withdraw my amendment 02:33:14.177 --> 02:33:21.251 - to the amendment to strike the amendment. I move that amendment. What would number will it be? Do we 02:33:21.251 --> 02:33:28.464 - have to do we need a number? I move that we amend amendment. Whatever. What number is it three? I move 02:33:28.464 --> 02:33:33.086 - that we amend amendment three by adding a period of two years and 02:33:34.210 --> 02:33:43.323 - Is that right or to July 2028 was that the exploit? Yeah, so I move that we amend amendment three to 02:33:43.323 --> 02:33:52.978 - reflect a implementation date of July 1st, 2028 All right, it's been moved and seconded to amend amendment 02:33:52.978 --> 02:34:02.633 - three by extending the deadline for the signage adjustment to July 1st, 2028 Any comments I mean questions 02:34:02.633 --> 02:34:03.806 - or questions 02:34:04.450 --> 02:34:12.603 - Councilmember Stasburg for clarity. Do we need to cite section 2 as part of that motion or should I 02:34:12.603 --> 02:34:21.001 - just say it now that that date is in section 2? Yeah, I think you can clarify that and we'll show this 02:34:21.001 --> 02:34:29.155 - on on the screen in just a moment. Okay, fantastic All right, should we wait until the motion is on 02:34:29.155 --> 02:34:33.150 - the screen Yes, we do need Amendments in writing 02:34:34.242 --> 02:34:41.771 - Councilmember Stosper. Oh This is the time that I can comment or just ask a question I'd lost where 02:34:41.771 --> 02:34:49.375 - we are. We are at comments. I mean not questions. I'm sorry questions I Would like to give staff the 02:34:49.375 --> 02:34:57.054 - opportunity to display this so everybody knows what we're talking about Since we're not just striking 02:34:57.054 --> 02:34:59.614 - something we're editing something 02:35:18.210 --> 02:35:29.527 - All right, if you could make that a little bit larger. Thank you. Oh, that's super large. All right, 02:35:29.527 --> 02:35:40.731 - so this is in section two. So if you could scroll down a little bit. So what we're doing here is in 02:35:40.731 --> 02:35:48.126 - part B, we're changing the effective date. Oh, part A and part B. 02:35:48.354 --> 02:35:56.608 - to be the part A would be before July 1st, 2028, and part B would be on or after July 1st, 2028. 02:35:56.608 --> 02:36:05.542 - All right. If there are no other council questions, we can go to the public. Is there any public comment 02:36:05.542 --> 02:36:14.562 - on this amendment to the amendment? Which just extends the time to comply with the new sign requirements. 02:36:14.562 --> 02:36:15.838 - Don't see any. 02:36:16.482 --> 02:36:24.032 - Anybody raising a hand online? Okay, we'll come back to council. Any comments before we vote? Council 02:36:24.032 --> 02:36:31.657 - member Stossberg. I just want to say that my intention with the section was to better and more clearly 02:36:31.657 --> 02:36:39.059 - define, honestly for the tow companies, but also for enforcement of this, what posted in plain view 02:36:39.059 --> 02:36:41.502 - and visible to the public means. 02:36:41.858 --> 02:36:47.863 - So that then it's easier for the tow companies to comply and also easier for residents and city staff 02:36:47.863 --> 02:36:54.222 - to determine whether there is compliance. So as the public commenter mentioned I mean it's totally possible 02:36:54.222 --> 02:37:00.286 - that you have a whole lot of signs that already fall under this category that are big enough that have 02:37:00.286 --> 02:37:06.174 - big enough font that like have all the stuff in them because I didn't actually change the contents. 02:37:06.306 --> 02:37:12.933 - requirements Except I think that staff added hours of enforcement there, but I'll bet that those are 02:37:12.933 --> 02:37:19.494 - often up as well so Just to kind of clarify that concept that there are probably a lot of signs out 02:37:19.494 --> 02:37:26.187 - here out there that do comply with this but once again like it's the predatory towing thing that that 02:37:26.187 --> 02:37:33.470 - is really troubling to me generally and so I think the clearer we can make things the better for everybody and 02:37:35.970 --> 02:37:50.321 - Okay, any other comments on this amendment? Clerk Bolden, will you please call the roll on amendment 02:37:50.321 --> 02:38:05.950 - one to amendment three to ordinance 2025-20? Sure, Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. Yes. Wait, sorry. Stossberg? 02:38:06.434 --> 02:38:17.326 - Yes, Zulek. Yes, Rosenpacher. Yes. Sorry. Yes clarity. Yes rough. Yes Rallo. Yes. Thank you All right. 02:38:17.326 --> 02:38:28.218 - So amendment 3 has now been amended with a vote of 9-0 to change the the date to July 1st, 2028 so now 02:38:28.218 --> 02:38:33.822 - we're back to Amendment 3 as it has now been amended 02:38:34.690 --> 02:38:44.544 - Are there any final comments from council before we vote on this? All right, seeing none clerk Bolden, 02:38:44.544 --> 02:38:54.494 - will you please call the roll on amendment three as amended? Happily councilmember Stasberg. Yes Daley. 02:38:54.494 --> 02:39:03.966 - Yes, Zulek. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Sorry. Yes Flaherty. Yes rough. Yes Rallo. Yes and Piedmont Smith 02:39:04.450 --> 02:39:14.069 - Yes. All right. Amendment three has been adopted and I'll turn the gavel back over to President Stossburg. 02:39:14.069 --> 02:39:23.328 - Great. Thank you. So now I'd like to. All right. Councilmember Ruff would like to move Amendment four. 02:39:23.328 --> 02:39:32.408 - Is there a second for that. Councilmember Ruff. So I mean all these quick quick. Amendment four does 02:39:32.408 --> 02:39:34.206 - the same thing that 02:39:34.338 --> 02:39:44.249 - Amendment 5 for 2025-19 did it does this does the same thing for 2025-20 which deals with non-consensual 02:39:44.249 --> 02:39:53.876 - toes, so it allows that the $25 administrative additional administrative fee My understanding is that 02:39:53.876 --> 02:40:02.654 - for the exact same reasons the whole purpose of revisiting or the main purpose of revisiting 02:40:02.946 --> 02:40:12.371 - the overall ordinance was to bring the fees into line with what real costs were to reflect real costs 02:40:12.371 --> 02:40:21.797 - and the changes that have taken place since the last adjustments were made and that Particularly when 02:40:21.797 --> 02:40:29.374 - it comes to non-consensual toes In speaking with some of the operators there they 02:40:29.506 --> 02:40:37.879 - Since this process was begun and discussions first happened between the administration and staff and 02:40:37.879 --> 02:40:46.334 - Businesses about updating and changing the structure and fees that there have been some state the the 02:40:46.334 --> 02:40:54.624 - environment the regulatory environment in the auditing environment of the state has significant has 02:40:54.624 --> 02:40:58.686 - significantly increased administrative burden on 02:40:59.618 --> 02:41:09.597 - on the towing businesses. And so this adjustment is again something that would have been argued for 02:41:09.597 --> 02:41:19.974 - a lot more assertively I think by the towing companies a handful of months ago, six months ago compared 02:41:19.974 --> 02:41:25.662 - to now. They would argue a lot more strongly for it now. 02:41:25.826 --> 02:41:34.570 - in large part due to an increased administrative burden of the current environment of monitoring and 02:41:34.570 --> 02:41:43.661 - auditing of the state of all their work that they do do so again in this case, this is not an area where 02:41:43.661 --> 02:41:52.838 - I I have a tremendous amount of knowledge, so I will assume that we'll hear from the operators businesses 02:41:52.838 --> 02:41:55.262 - who will explain more about 02:41:55.682 --> 02:42:04.380 - what these changes have been and why this Administrative fee is important very important to 02:42:04.380 --> 02:42:14.686 - their profitability and success of their business model Excuse me, are there questions on was that amendment 02:42:14.686 --> 02:42:20.926 - for Any questions on amendment for it comes member Piedmont Smith 02:42:22.114 --> 02:42:31.099 - Councilmember rough on your amendment to ordinance 20 25 dice 19 that was parallel to this one you argued 02:42:31.099 --> 02:42:40.337 - that the $25 administrative fee was reasonable because Of the requirements the city puts on towing companies 02:42:40.337 --> 02:42:49.068 - to look up and see if The the vehicle owner has any outstanding parking fees or any other fees so that 02:42:49.068 --> 02:42:51.102 - wouldn't be the case in 02:42:52.226 --> 02:43:00.406 - Ordinance 2025 20 because these are not police initiated toes so I'm a little confused that you now 02:43:00.406 --> 02:43:08.585 - have a new argument for the $25 fee, which is the the state Regulatory environment. Can you expound 02:43:08.585 --> 02:43:17.501 - on that? Yeah, so it's it's not a Different arguments the same argument. Basically. It's that administrative 02:43:17.501 --> 02:43:21.918 - costs to the businesses aren't captured and reflected 02:43:22.082 --> 02:43:31.155 - under What's proposed in the ordinance now and that this $25 administrative fee? Will help 02:43:31.155 --> 02:43:41.424 - offset particularly particularly increases in the demands that have developed But I think particularly 02:43:41.424 --> 02:43:46.110 - in the recent past as has been explained to me 02:43:46.338 --> 02:43:54.995 - state record-keeping requirements from pounded vehicles with record logs authorization forms pictures 02:43:54.995 --> 02:44:03.567 - keeping documents for years The software that's required for some of the license plating and in VIN, 02:44:03.567 --> 02:44:12.310 - you know recording events and actually Doing what is it takes to get those numbers? and again, I think 02:44:12.310 --> 02:44:14.686 - I am hoping we'll hear from 02:44:14.850 --> 02:44:24.953 - more from the the businesses, but Basically, I've heard their arguments in the past handful of days 02:44:24.953 --> 02:44:35.459 - and Considered them to be valid Justification for putting the $25 administrative fee on in this section 02:44:35.459 --> 02:44:42.430 - also Okay, so those state administrative burdens were also there for 02:44:43.586 --> 02:44:49.965 - Title 15. I don't think it's the same. I think there's a different for a non-conceptual private towing 02:44:49.965 --> 02:44:56.219 - I think there's some differences and we'll maybe hear about that if someone wants to from one of the 02:44:56.219 --> 02:45:02.908 - businesses wants to talk about that if they're not the same record-keeping requirements and and validations 02:45:02.908 --> 02:45:09.534 - required Okay, but they have increased That's my understanding. Okay. All right. Thank you other questions 02:45:12.482 --> 02:45:17.972 - Okay, I have one, and I think that it's for the attorneys, and I don't know which attorney should answer, 02:45:17.972 --> 02:45:23.254 - because I know there were two different attorneys on these two different ordinances, and I don't know 02:45:23.254 --> 02:45:28.537 - if both of them are in the room or not, or maybe one is online, I'm not sure. So I referenced earlier 02:45:28.537 --> 02:45:33.716 - when we were talking about the first amendment from Councilmember Ruff, that there was somewhere in 02:45:33.716 --> 02:45:39.102 - state code that I had read that talks about itemizing fees, and I've actually managed to find that now. 02:45:39.330 --> 02:45:46.769 - that Indiana Code 24-14-5-1 requires an itemized invoice of actual towing charges assessed by the towing 02:45:46.769 --> 02:45:53.854 - company that can be made available to the owner of the motor vehicle. And one of the things that it 02:45:53.854 --> 02:46:01.080 - titles there is other fees, including documentation fees and motor vehicle search fees, each fee must 02:46:01.080 --> 02:46:07.102 - include a full description of the services that were provided. So we're calling this 02:46:08.002 --> 02:46:13.525 - an administrative fee, but is an administrative fee different from a documentation fee? So in terms 02:46:13.525 --> 02:46:19.103 - of some of those things from public comment and what I heard last week from, or two weeks ago when I 02:46:19.103 --> 02:46:24.737 - stayed after to talk to somebody, is yeah, some of these fees have increased to do title searches and 02:46:24.737 --> 02:46:30.315 - things like that, and there's requirements on notification related to title searches and all of that 02:46:30.315 --> 02:46:36.446 - category of thing, and those fees have increased, but it sounds to me as though if our code is silent on them, 02:46:36.546 --> 02:46:43.199 - And so this administrative fee might not even include that fee. Like if that could categorize 02:46:43.199 --> 02:46:50.347 - as a documentation fee, which is maybe different from the administrative fee, then the tow companies 02:46:50.347 --> 02:46:53.886 - could charge that exact documentation fee already 02:46:54.786 --> 02:47:00.477 - Whatever the state, you know, whatever the actual fee is whatever it actually costs them to do those 02:47:00.477 --> 02:47:06.506 - searches on those vehicles and that putting in this cap on this administrative fee does absolutely nothing 02:47:06.506 --> 02:47:12.479 - to prevent them from also charging that documentation fee on top of it and any other motor vehicle search 02:47:12.479 --> 02:47:13.662 - fees because that is 02:47:14.082 --> 02:47:21.049 - What Indiana code says so this is where I'll once again raise the issue that this is a last-minute amendment 02:47:21.049 --> 02:47:27.441 - that has not gone through legal that has not been fully vetted with the way that state code is laid 02:47:27.441 --> 02:47:34.217 - out and I think that it is Incredibly rushed. So I think this has to be a question. So will the attorneys 02:47:34.217 --> 02:47:40.736 - please weigh in on that part of state code and the fees and the invoicing and how this administration 02:47:40.736 --> 02:47:42.526 - administrative fee would be 02:47:42.626 --> 02:47:52.363 - cataloged and characterized and whether you know this actually Encompasses the tow companies then not 02:47:52.363 --> 02:48:01.337 - being able to charge other fees Yes, good evening Alexandria Pratt with city legal so the way 02:48:01.337 --> 02:48:06.206 - I'm understanding the the argument here I think is 02:48:06.562 --> 02:48:19.520 - connected with fees and records under 24-14-8 of state code. There is a requirement there under 24-14-8-2 02:48:19.520 --> 02:48:32.233 - to maintain the invoice described in this section for a period of not less than two years from the date 02:48:32.233 --> 02:48:33.822 - of issuance. 02:48:33.922 --> 02:48:43.756 - That section also authorizes during this two year period, a law enforcement agency or the attorney general 02:48:43.756 --> 02:48:53.499 - to request those records. So my understanding is that the claim is that this fee would cover this storage 02:48:53.499 --> 02:49:02.046 - and search under this section. But again, this was not brought to our attention until today. 02:49:02.754 --> 02:49:11.662 - so I I Don't have any further comment to offer So your interpretation would be this administrative fee 02:49:11.662 --> 02:49:20.483 - would cover the record-keeping requirements but the argument that I've heard from Councilmember rough 02:49:20.483 --> 02:49:29.909 - just barely actually was that it covers the actual like fees for things being charged and what was mentioned 02:49:29.909 --> 02:49:32.158 - earlier in public comment 02:49:32.258 --> 02:49:40.609 - fees being charged for looking up title searches and things like that to verify ownership of the car 02:49:40.609 --> 02:49:49.126 - and potentially having to mail documents to the owner if the owner doesn't show up on their own within 02:49:49.126 --> 02:49:51.358 - a certain number of hours. 02:49:52.962 --> 02:49:59.982 - I don't think that would apply to this this situation because under the invoice requirement that needs 02:49:59.982 --> 02:50:06.934 - to be listed as a charge the actual charge that was incurred by the town company Okay, so the defense 02:50:06.934 --> 02:50:13.886 - of this $25 is like councilmember rough What do you have to say then in terms of the defense of this? 02:50:13.886 --> 02:50:20.702 - $25 fee in terms of what you already said I didn't mean to imply or suggest that I thought that the 02:50:20.994 --> 02:50:29.828 - Administrative activities and duties and responsibilities were the same under The title 15 type of toes 02:50:29.828 --> 02:50:38.407 - compared to the non-consensual private toes my understanding is that there's a very different set of 02:50:38.407 --> 02:50:47.665 - requirements and duties and that state auditing activities and and other types of monitoring and enforcement 02:50:47.665 --> 02:50:49.534 - have placed a greater 02:50:50.370 --> 02:51:00.322 - burden that has manifested in the last half a year that wasn't there before. And that the input from 02:51:00.322 --> 02:51:10.472 - the businesses about the ceiling or the cost and fees and associated costs would be argued differently 02:51:10.472 --> 02:51:20.030 - now or asserted differently from the businesses than it might have been a handful of months ago. 02:51:21.026 --> 02:51:31.423 - Due to the administrative burden that has appeared. Increase, the increase in that. Right. I'm not sure 02:51:31.423 --> 02:51:41.720 - how the administrative burden has increased because the section I just quoted that requires the record 02:51:41.720 --> 02:51:50.718 - keeping provision has been enforced since 2019. So yes, I understand and appreciate that. 02:51:50.882 --> 02:52:00.685 - and but I'm Just speaking for I think business owners who may I hope will speak soon that it's there's 02:52:00.685 --> 02:52:10.202 - not been a change in the actual requirements of rules, but there's been a change in the environment 02:52:10.202 --> 02:52:20.766 - under which to the extent to which details and Are expected and required and audited Now compared to before so 02:52:20.994 --> 02:52:26.861 - That's the change in the environment. That's what I tried to say not not changing necessarily in rules 02:52:26.861 --> 02:52:32.558 - and regulations, but change in the environment And I understand but I have no knowledge of that. So 02:52:32.558 --> 02:52:38.482 - and I don't really either That's why I'm hoping we'll hear from some of the operators. Yeah. Thank you. 02:52:38.482 --> 02:52:44.350 - Yeah. Thanks. Thank you I think that that was we're still in councilmember question area. So are there 02:52:44.350 --> 02:52:47.198 - other councilmember questions about amendment for 02:52:49.538 --> 02:52:55.627 - All right, seeing none, let's go ahead and go to public comments about Amendment 4 to Ordinance 2025-20. 02:52:55.627 --> 02:53:01.541 - So if you're a member of the public who would like to comment, you can make your way to the podium or 02:53:01.541 --> 02:53:07.572 - raise your hand on Zoom using the Reactions tab, sign in, state your full name for the record, and then 02:53:07.572 --> 02:53:13.950 - you'll have up to three minutes. Hi there, my name is Jacob Padawan, again with Toe Time Towing and Recovery. 02:53:14.530 --> 02:53:22.525 - As far as administrative fee, I guess justifications between the differences of what you guys are both 02:53:22.525 --> 02:53:30.442 - thinking about As far as itemized charges for like you said certified letters Notifications going out 02:53:30.442 --> 02:53:38.360 - You have to do BMV inquiries that cost money to you, but I do agree with you that Every little charge 02:53:38.360 --> 02:53:44.414 - should be itemized every step of the way the fur from the first BMV search to 02:53:45.122 --> 02:53:50.467 - Finding out who the lean holders are and let's say there's a lean holder and a wife and a You know guy 02:53:50.467 --> 02:53:55.760 - that owns the vehicle. That's three letters. You have to send out So in theory you should be charging 02:53:55.760 --> 02:54:01.001 - somebody that needs three letters for three letters and charging somebody that only needs one letter 02:54:01.001 --> 02:54:06.190 - one letter You know what I mean? Like I definitely agree with that as far as the administrative $25 02:54:06.190 --> 02:54:11.742 - fee. I don't necessarily think that covers any of those other fees I think the administrative idea is more 02:54:13.090 --> 02:54:20.001 - Related to the administrative requirements to follow these ordinances and state laws. We do get Reached 02:54:20.001 --> 02:54:26.846 - out to by attorney generals. Sometimes we do get reached out by the city. I know the city required all 02:54:26.846 --> 02:54:33.624 - four towing companies on the Non-consensual towing thing to provide all of our paperwork for the last 02:54:33.624 --> 02:54:40.734 - two years that took a whole new employee and my current office staff two and a half weeks to print out all 02:54:41.314 --> 02:54:47.688 - All of those forms and it was like three huge paper boxes used for that paperwork I mean that does a 02:54:47.688 --> 02:54:54.125 - lot of time and stuff invested too and there's a lot of those things that you don't see you know what 02:54:54.125 --> 02:55:00.562 - I mean as far as administrative Goes and if you guys got any questions, maybe I'll come up and try to 02:55:00.562 --> 02:55:07.125 - answer those two. Thank you Thank you, it's our other public comment on amendment for Go ahead and sign 02:55:07.125 --> 02:55:11.038 - in state your name for the record job up to three months. Yep 02:55:11.266 --> 02:55:18.156 - Robert Chandler with Chandler automotive and towing to to clarify what he said on the non-consensual 02:55:18.156 --> 02:55:25.455 - towing the records that they set when This ordinance was set in place in 2019 Those records are additional 02:55:25.455 --> 02:55:32.549 - to what state records are so they're civic. So when we are audited like we just were there's a specific 02:55:32.549 --> 02:55:36.574 - log written off pictures on file every all those items and 02:55:37.026 --> 02:55:43.955 - are separate from what we would have in our QuickBooks or what we'd have in our other tow categories. 02:55:43.955 --> 02:55:50.883 - On top of that, we still have to do the state fees. Those are still associated with it. But on these, 02:55:50.883 --> 02:55:57.812 - the biggest issue is the ordinance has brought separate guidelines, separate paperwork, separate logs 02:55:57.812 --> 02:56:04.740 - that we have to keep separate. And especially since this recent audit that we had, we are doing those 02:56:04.740 --> 02:56:06.846 - different now for that reason. 02:56:07.778 --> 02:56:17.902 - Thank you. Thank you. Is there other public comment on this amendment? Is there any hand raised on zoom? 02:56:17.902 --> 02:56:28.025 - All right, see no nobody move in chambers. We're back to council members. Is there comments on amendment 02:56:28.025 --> 02:56:36.606 - for council member Piedmont Smith? Well, I'm just going to say the same thing I said for 02:56:36.930 --> 02:56:45.019 - for of the previous ordinance and that I Don't feel comfortable Making this decision about administrative 02:56:45.019 --> 02:56:52.650 - fees on the on the fly and just based on What the the businesses have told one councilmember so I'm 02:56:52.650 --> 02:57:00.510 - going to be voting no on this amendment. Thank you Thank you, are there other councilmember comments I 02:57:07.586 --> 02:57:15.993 - I'm also gonna make a comment. I'm also gonna vote no on this. I think that it's preemptive to put this 02:57:15.993 --> 02:57:24.562 - administrative fee on here without vetting it better and I also Feel to some degree as we've gone through 02:57:24.562 --> 02:57:32.889 - this that it was some measure of Insider sort of communication that this got up here at all as opposed 02:57:32.889 --> 02:57:34.910 - to kind of going through 02:57:36.002 --> 02:57:51.218 - Larger vetting process with legal and ESD. So I'll also be voting no on this Any last comments Okay, 02:57:51.218 --> 02:58:05.982 - will the clerk please call the roll on amendment for to ordinance 2025 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes clarity 02:58:06.626 --> 02:58:22.313 - No rough. Yes, Rallo. Yes Piedmont Smith. No Stasberg no So that passes six to three So now we are back 02:58:22.313 --> 02:58:34.078 - to ordinance 2025 20 as amended There were no original councilmember comments 02:58:34.690 --> 02:58:43.465 - About it or a council member questions about the ordinance as a whole in terms of the original presentation 02:58:43.465 --> 02:58:52.078 - of it Has anybody come up with any comments or a question since then? Questions we're on question because 02:58:52.078 --> 02:59:00.691 - we have to do public comment you um, and I actually do have one if nobody else has one and I Am wondering 02:59:00.691 --> 02:59:04.510 - in the I have to find it now. I'm sorry. Um, I 02:59:07.010 --> 02:59:17.845 - towing fees section 432 130 where it Changes the fees for special treatment Who gets like how do you 02:59:17.845 --> 02:59:28.788 - decide or get to decide whether a vehicle needs that special treatment or not? and who gets to decide 02:59:28.788 --> 02:59:36.190 - that so and like especially in the non-consensual piece when the the 02:59:36.642 --> 02:59:44.367 - Vehicle owner isn't actually there Like how does the vehicle owner even like know that that special 02:59:44.367 --> 02:59:52.093 - treatment was used and how do they know if that special treatment was necessary? Can anybody answer 02:59:52.093 --> 03:00:00.127 - that for me that's from staff Like I feel like this is one of these answers that like staff should have 03:00:00.127 --> 03:00:06.462 - asked tow companies so that's why I'm hoping that staff knows the answer this and 03:00:08.162 --> 03:00:16.032 - Alexandrina Pratt would see illegal. I think there'll be something the towing companies would be able 03:00:16.032 --> 03:00:24.133 - to address better. I understand. It's technical So I'll just leave them to explain Okay, how that works? 03:00:24.133 --> 03:00:32.312 - All right Other questions or Let's go ahead and go to public comment then so this would be general public 03:00:32.312 --> 03:00:36.478 - comment on the whole ordinance 2025 20 as was amended 03:00:37.698 --> 03:00:43.825 - I was gonna clarify on the hang on. Let's let's wait until our staff is ready for the timer, 03:00:43.825 --> 03:00:50.412 - please Okay, so go ahead and state your name again for the record Robert Chandler channel I've been 03:00:50.412 --> 03:00:57.198 - telling to clarify on like the special equipment Actually, it gets undercharged Believe it or not most 03:00:57.198 --> 03:01:04.510 - the time when you tow a car with no keep in mind. There's no keys to these vehicles most the cars nowadays are 03:01:04.674 --> 03:01:10.972 - Most of time they're pulled into a parking spot. So the front wheel drift front drive wheels Have to 03:01:10.972 --> 03:01:17.520 - have what we call dollies or the car has to be spun around on gojacks to access the front a lot of times 03:01:17.520 --> 03:01:23.755 - there could be a curb interference to where a third set of special equipment that we have to use to 03:01:23.755 --> 03:01:29.118 - slide it from the curb has to be used and then most these cars are all will drive and 03:01:29.666 --> 03:01:37.027 - Some of them have electronic emergency brakes, that's been a new thing. Nine times out of 10, I mean, 03:01:37.027 --> 03:01:44.244 - it's almost 9.9 times out of 10 that the special equipment is to be used. It's very rare to regular 03:01:44.244 --> 03:01:51.966 - base tow a car unless the keys are accessible. I mean, it's even that nowadays, it's changed dramatically. 03:01:51.966 --> 03:01:59.038 - Thank you. Thank you. Are there other public comment? Has anybody raised hand on Zoom about this? 03:01:59.874 --> 03:02:05.813 - Go ahead and continue hearing chambers. State your name for the record. You'll have up to three minutes. 03:02:05.813 --> 03:02:11.582 - Jacob Patamon with Tow Time Towing again. I'm just going to second exactly what he has. My data shows 03:02:11.582 --> 03:02:17.465 - the same thing. About nine cars out of 10 do have to have special equipment. And yes, we multiple times 03:02:17.465 --> 03:02:23.291 - have to use two different forms of special equipment, whether that's dollies and go-jacks or sometimes 03:02:23.291 --> 03:02:27.646 - it's skates. All different damage-free towing equipment that we have to use. 03:02:28.162 --> 03:02:34.015 - Really needs to be kept in your guys consideration is this isn't where somebody's broke down at a Walmart 03:02:34.015 --> 03:02:39.647 - and they're calling for the consensual to with keys. Like you said, this is somebody that's illegally 03:02:39.647 --> 03:02:45.224 - parked in a vaults parking lot parking garage with a beam on one side and eight inches to the car on 03:02:45.224 --> 03:02:50.911 - the other and a lot of times believe it or not alleyways Behind the bluebird. We have four lots behind 03:02:50.911 --> 03:02:54.942 - the bluebird Very very tight. We can only fit out of two of those alleys 03:02:55.074 --> 03:03:00.719 - I have to stop a whole nother driver from doing what they're doing to come help safely handle a car 03:03:00.719 --> 03:03:06.364 - on Go Jackson dollies to an alley so the truck can get to it and pull it out the only alley it fits 03:03:06.364 --> 03:03:12.065 - out with dollies. You know what I mean? So there's actually some cars that the cap actually hurts us 03:03:12.065 --> 03:03:17.879 - dramatically because drivers have to split those fees, they're paid on commission, they're pretty much 03:03:17.879 --> 03:03:23.524 - trying extra hard to do something that's not going to pay them and you gotta take the good with the 03:03:23.524 --> 03:03:24.766 - bad, we do it anyway. 03:03:25.090 --> 03:03:30.915 - I do want to say that there's also, I towed a Lamborghini Urus twice this year. That's a $450,000 car 03:03:30.915 --> 03:03:36.911 - with a carbon fiber body kit that was on it. I think that, like I said, you don't get to pick and choose 03:03:36.911 --> 03:03:42.678 - what you're towing. It could be a dilapidated boat that fell off a trailer and somebody left it in a 03:03:42.678 --> 03:03:48.788 - parking lot. It could be a car where they robbed the wheels, tires, suspension, hood, motor, transmission, 03:03:48.788 --> 03:03:55.070 - half the interior, and left the crustacean sitting in a parking lot at Bard Villa. You know, I have probably, 03:03:55.874 --> 03:04:02.695 - Somewhere north of 130 examples of things that aren't even cars that we've had to remove from a property 03:04:02.695 --> 03:04:09.320 - from spools of wiring to underground whatever that a bunch of crap is on a Spool that Duke Energy has 03:04:09.320 --> 03:04:15.816 - and you know, they just leave stuff everywhere in this town there we they parked full bulldozers on 03:04:15.816 --> 03:04:22.507 - people's properties and I've been asked to pull a bulldozer or a Camper semi trucks. I just got called 03:04:22.507 --> 03:04:23.806 - to the mall to do a 03:04:23.938 --> 03:04:30.285 - Semi and trailer completely separate from each other which I can't do but We have to tell a lot more 03:04:30.285 --> 03:04:36.883 - than college kids is what I'm getting at and there's a lot There's a lot to it. So the special equipment 03:04:36.883 --> 03:04:43.293 - fees are very important to have and maybe look into Allowing that charge possibly for both of them is 03:04:43.293 --> 03:04:49.765 - one thing I was thinking about when it was $25 I don't know because I didn't read it, but I think it's 03:04:49.765 --> 03:04:51.902 - getting bumped up to is it 50 and 03:04:53.314 --> 03:04:59.884 - on the new ordinance? Yeah, so that's much more in line and fair, I think, too. So I hope that comment 03:04:59.884 --> 03:05:06.262 - helps. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other members of the public who wish to comment on this? Has 03:05:06.262 --> 03:05:13.023 - anybody raised a hand on Zoom? Okay, great. Seeing nobody, I think that we're back to council for either, 03:05:13.023 --> 03:05:19.529 - actually there were no really questions before, so let's go ahead and go to council member comment on 03:05:19.529 --> 03:05:22.910 - ordinance 2025-20 as amended. Council member, sorry. 03:05:23.074 --> 03:05:30.028 - Just thank you all for being here for this long. Thank you for this long twice. And thank you for your 03:05:30.028 --> 03:05:35.902 - contributions. I trust the fact and I should have probably asked just to confirm this. 03:05:36.002 --> 03:05:41.848 - Asked separately, you know the these rate changes aren't arbitrary I'm very appreciative of the of the 03:05:41.848 --> 03:05:47.524 - city's work and I'm gonna set establishing them Thank you all for your partnerships and and in this 03:05:47.524 --> 03:05:53.313 - work and I know that you know Your margins aren't great and you're doing something that sort of helps 03:05:53.313 --> 03:05:58.988 - the city keep going Thank you for the businesses that you run and thank you for just being here I'm 03:05:58.988 --> 03:06:05.118 - sorry that we're keeping you so long, but I'll be voting. Yes on this Thank you other councilmember comment 03:06:05.602 --> 03:06:12.959 - Yeah, I heard the marks my colleague there thanks for bearing with us through a somewhat tedious process 03:06:12.959 --> 03:06:20.246 - what I heard mr. Chandler's remarks are a Strong case for back in angled parking to save everyone money 03:06:20.246 --> 03:06:27.253 - in the event you get towed Thank you, we'll just we'll just slide in whatever we want right now and 03:06:27.253 --> 03:06:34.750 - council come in are there other councilmember comments Councilmember rough Yeah, I just want to thank Mike 03:06:35.010 --> 03:06:43.629 - my colleagues for you know understanding, you know, sometimes things Do come up late and are worked 03:06:43.629 --> 03:06:52.249 - through as well as a council member who might be sponsoring something can and I want to thank staff 03:06:52.249 --> 03:07:01.472 - You know for for also on short notice really helping work up what I thought was fair in terms of improving 03:07:01.472 --> 03:07:03.454 - the legislation so and 03:07:03.714 --> 03:07:10.300 - We thank the input of the the community of the community who deals most closely with with this activity. 03:07:10.300 --> 03:07:16.698 - So thanks to everyone Thank you other councilmember comment That's my rosemary hi, I want to say also 03:07:16.698 --> 03:07:23.222 - thanks for being here and then I just wanted to say in general Sometimes I don't talk that much because 03:07:23.222 --> 03:07:29.871 - there's so much other talking that I opt out So I just want to put that out there. I am paying attention. 03:07:29.871 --> 03:07:30.686 - Thank you. I 03:07:32.674 --> 03:07:39.452 - Thank you other councilmember comment All right, I'm gonna be really short and say I My question about 03:07:39.452 --> 03:07:46.098 - that special treatment wasn't because I was quibbling with the concept of Needing special treatment. 03:07:46.098 --> 03:07:52.679 - I just wanted to understand exactly what that meant. So I appreciated understanding the Damage free 03:07:52.679 --> 03:07:57.022 - aspect in terms of you know, how you have to get vehicles out and 03:07:59.682 --> 03:08:07.407 - I also appreciate the city attorney's Contributions in terms of understanding that administrative fee 03:08:07.407 --> 03:08:15.435 - and what is supposed to cover a little bit and so that Clarifies things for me Better for this ordinance. 03:08:15.435 --> 03:08:23.539 - I had to think about it for a little while which is why I voted no earlier But I will go ahead and support 03:08:23.539 --> 03:08:29.598 - this as even with that $25 administrative fee kind of I'm still not sure that I 03:08:29.762 --> 03:08:37.506 - love it. And that's where it's just like I can see like, okay, maybe an administrative fee is reasonable 03:08:37.506 --> 03:08:43.038 - based on the title of Indiana code that the attorney read in terms of that 03:08:43.202 --> 03:08:51.015 - record storage, but that requirement has been there for a while, so shouldn't that be factored in somewhere 03:08:51.015 --> 03:08:58.321 - else? And so that's the part that I'm like, I feel like that should be factored in somewhere else in 03:08:58.321 --> 03:09:05.772 - terms of the cost of doing business. And also 25 seems sort of arbitrary to me still. So I'm still not 03:09:05.772 --> 03:09:11.198 - a huge fan of that. But if anything, we can always amend this title again. 03:09:12.930 --> 03:09:22.976 - It proves that that $25 is not a good number. So I'll be supporting this as it stands currently Any 03:09:22.976 --> 03:09:33.827 - last councilmember comment Great, then will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance 2025 20 as amended? 03:09:33.827 --> 03:09:42.366 - Councilmember Zoellick. Yes Rosenberger. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes clarity. Yes rough. Yes 03:09:42.754 --> 03:09:51.558 - Rallo. Yes, you month Smith. Yes Stasberg. Yes daily. Yes Thank you. Thank you. So that passes nine 03:09:51.558 --> 03:10:01.066 - zero Onto the next and I do want to note that this is the resolution that got added on the agenda yesterday 03:10:01.066 --> 03:10:10.398 - I Move that resolution 2025 dash 21 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second 03:10:10.818 --> 03:10:19.609 - Moved and seconded introduced resolution 2025 21 all those paper, please say aye. Aye opposed. 03:10:19.609 --> 03:10:29.603 - Thank you. Will the clerk please read Resolution 2025 21 resolution acknowledging receipt of the collective 03:10:29.603 --> 03:10:34.878 - bargaining agreement between the city of Bloomington and 03:10:35.010 --> 03:10:41.698 - and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees for calendar years 2026, 2027, 03:10:41.698 --> 03:10:49.076 - and 2028, and pledging fiscal support. The synopsis is as follows. This resolution presents the collective 03:10:49.076 --> 03:10:56.109 - bargaining agreement negotiated between the Executive Branch of the City of Bloomington and the local 03:10:56.109 --> 03:11:00.798 - 2487 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. 03:11:01.890 --> 03:11:09.140 - also known as AFL CIO asked me Council 962 to the common council of the city of Bloomington Monroe County 03:11:09.140 --> 03:11:16.116 - Indiana for their review rather than approval and to inform them in detail of the fiscal implications 03:11:16.116 --> 03:11:23.092 - of the CBA. By passage of this resolution the council acknowledges receipt of the CBA its opportunity 03:11:23.092 --> 03:11:30.205 - to make inquiry and expresses its support to fund the same. Thank you. I move that resolution 2025 dash 03:11:30.205 --> 03:11:31.710 - 21 be adopted second. 03:11:32.226 --> 03:11:37.795 - Thank you. It looks like we have deputy Marinette waiting to present if you could state your name for 03:11:37.795 --> 03:11:43.583 - the record and on the floor shores Gretchen app deputy mayor. I'm very happy to present to you our AFSCME 03:11:43.583 --> 03:11:49.152 - contract negotiation I won't reiterate everything that's in the memo in the interest of time since we 03:11:49.152 --> 03:11:54.666 - have folks who are still waiting but I will say that we had a very productive bargaining session all 03:11:54.666 --> 03:11:59.198 - year and I'd like to thank our partners in AFSCME and all the department heads who 03:11:59.298 --> 03:12:05.844 - Did a great job of gathering input from 200 AFSCME employees across three different divisions to inform 03:12:05.844 --> 03:12:12.201 - our agreement Just to give everyone a sense of the timeline we began at the beginning of the year We 03:12:12.201 --> 03:12:18.622 - conducted a salary study together some market information and compared to the current salary rates We 03:12:18.622 --> 03:12:25.105 - began our negotiation meetings with AFSCME in July and held about 10 meetings with them to go over the 03:12:25.105 --> 03:12:28.126 - contract line by line It's a very long contract 03:12:28.226 --> 03:12:35.057 - It was approved by union members by a vote of 82 to 7 on December 2nd The cost of implementing this 03:12:35.057 --> 03:12:42.093 - contract was fully covered in the budget that we've already presented and that you've already approved 03:12:42.093 --> 03:12:49.403 - and passed for 2026 so no further appropriation will be required We will bring an amended salary ordinance 03:12:49.403 --> 03:12:54.526 - in January that will include the new pay schedules for the different roles 03:12:55.010 --> 03:13:02.270 - The significant points of this particular contract it includes a five flat five percent increase in 03:13:02.370 --> 03:13:09.359 - That you had already proved across all positions for 2026 3% cost of living for 2027 and 2028 we did 03:13:09.359 --> 03:13:16.693 - a significant amount of work on the pay grades and tenure steps for apps me they had many many pay grades 03:13:16.693 --> 03:13:23.751 - 23 if you compare to the entire civil city has 14 and that covers in the civil city that covers roles 03:13:23.751 --> 03:13:28.318 - from an entry-level position all the way up to the controller and 03:13:28.482 --> 03:13:35.172 - people supervising millions of dollars and hundreds of people the apps me positions do not 03:13:35.172 --> 03:13:43.185 - include supervisory or financial responsibilities and so we we wanted to Make sure that we weren't spreading 03:13:43.185 --> 03:13:51.198 - too thin across too many grades. We also improved their tenure steps. That is the most significant impact of 03:13:51.362 --> 03:13:59.413 - Most asked me members of this is that instead of it taking in the example I gave in a particular role 03:13:59.413 --> 03:14:04.702 - It would have taken 25 years to get essentially a $4 an hour raise 03:14:05.058 --> 03:14:10.897 - We have shortened that schedule so that they now reach the midpoint of their salary after five years 03:14:10.897 --> 03:14:16.968 - and for most AFSCME employees that means they will not only receive the percentage increase we discussed 03:14:16.968 --> 03:14:23.039 - but they will also By the end of the three-year contract have moved up one or two steps in tenure, which 03:14:23.039 --> 03:14:24.542 - is a significant increase 03:14:24.674 --> 03:14:31.643 - kind of hidden pay raise the only employees who don't benefit from that are the people who are already 03:14:31.643 --> 03:14:38.612 - at the max of the tenure scale who've been working for the city for 35 years and that's only about six 03:14:38.612 --> 03:14:45.513 - people we also increased on-call pay a few certifications some shift premiums and for convenience for 03:14:45.513 --> 03:14:52.280 - administration and ease for employees change some funding that we would give employees to reimburse 03:14:52.280 --> 03:14:54.174 - them for equipment costs to 03:14:54.402 --> 03:15:00.302 - Siphoned we don't need to it's a lot of paperwork to administer. They know what equipment to buy We 03:15:00.302 --> 03:15:06.380 - can just give them the money and they will more efficiently purchase their own gear for that I'm happy 03:15:06.380 --> 03:15:12.516 - to answer any questions that you have about the process or about the changes that have been made Great. 03:15:12.516 --> 03:15:17.118 - Thank you so much. Are there any questions from council members about this? I 03:15:21.282 --> 03:15:28.080 - I have one question actually because the resolution one of the things that spells out is that the council 03:15:28.080 --> 03:15:34.685 - is aware of the fiscal implications and so basically you say there aren't any fiscal implications next 03:15:34.685 --> 03:15:41.354 - year because it's already like built in but I just want to want to clarify that step because the tenure 03:15:41.354 --> 03:15:47.895 - steps like because like the 5% was built in but is the tenure step like that piece also like built in 03:15:47.895 --> 03:15:51.230 - somewhere already? Well the tenure step it is it is 03:15:51.458 --> 03:15:58.264 - We don't have to allocate any additional money for tenure changes that will happen in 2026 when we create 03:15:58.264 --> 03:16:05.005 - our 2027 and 28 budgets and then we'll Have to allocate, you know Salaries accordingly wages accordingly 03:16:05.005 --> 03:16:11.683 - to cover those but for 2026 budget year like we're all set. They're all set. Great. Thank you any other 03:16:11.683 --> 03:16:18.424 - questions Great, let's go ahead to Public comment then if any member of the public would like to comment 03:16:18.424 --> 03:16:20.286 - on Oh Council members, sorry 03:16:21.346 --> 03:16:30.011 - Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Knapp. Just a question about whether or not there are within the 03:16:30.011 --> 03:16:38.936 - contract, within the CBA rather, are there agreed upon staffing levels with different branches or with 03:16:38.936 --> 03:16:47.601 - different entities within AFSCME? I don't believe so. I mean, the salary ordinance that we'll bring 03:16:47.601 --> 03:16:49.854 - to you I think spells out 03:16:50.274 --> 03:16:57.962 - Pretty sure correct me if I'm wrong on this someone who knows better How many roles are at each title 03:16:57.962 --> 03:17:06.102 - is that correct? Yes, but then does the city commit? Good evening council Jessica McClellan city controller 03:17:06.102 --> 03:17:12.734 - the AFSCME contract doesn't have a number of positions, but the salary ordinance does I 03:17:13.154 --> 03:17:18.885 - And the salary ordinance will come to you in January and every position will be divided out into what 03:17:18.885 --> 03:17:24.617 - department is in and how many positions the city's currently has in that Think how many employees the 03:17:24.617 --> 03:17:30.348 - city has in that position, but we're not committing within the within the CBA We're not making a firm 03:17:30.348 --> 03:17:36.360 - agreement for example that we will staff with some or say anything like that Just saying on a year-to-year 03:17:36.360 --> 03:17:41.979 - basis that foot absolutely correct, and that's a good point. Thank you so much Thank you. Any other 03:17:41.979 --> 03:17:42.878 - last questions? 03:17:44.898 --> 03:17:50.889 - I want to jump preemptively to public comment again. All right, so now we can move to public comment 03:17:50.889 --> 03:17:56.821 - I think on resolution 2025-21. If there are members of the public who would like to comment on this 03:17:56.821 --> 03:18:03.286 - resolution, you can make your way to the podium if you're in chambers or raise your hand using the reactions 03:18:03.286 --> 03:18:09.574 - tab on Zoom. I don't see anybody moving in chambers. Has anybody raised a hand? Okay, I think that brings 03:18:09.574 --> 03:18:13.726 - us back to council then. Any council members have any final comments? 03:18:14.786 --> 03:18:21.944 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith Just thank you to the negotiating team and asked me leadership and I'm 03:18:21.944 --> 03:18:29.246 - glad we came to a good resolution Other councilmember comments I'll just quickly second that and also 03:18:29.246 --> 03:18:36.547 - say that I really appreciate the tenure step apart and really appreciate that idea that you know, you 03:18:36.547 --> 03:18:40.126 - don't have to work for 20 years in order to get a 03:18:40.386 --> 03:18:48.079 - $4 that it takes a little less time. I think that that is a little bit more rewarding and Could then 03:18:48.079 --> 03:18:55.925 - potentially retain talent better and I think that that's really important because it costs a whole lot 03:18:55.925 --> 03:19:03.694 - to train people so Council member sorry, I just want to give kudos to the administration particularly 03:19:03.694 --> 03:19:05.598 - dr paycheck and our Well 03:19:06.402 --> 03:19:17.523 - departing controller. But to all of you, I think this is worth noting that this is the third contract 03:19:17.523 --> 03:19:28.862 - negotiation, right? I mean, we did police, fire, and now the AFSCME in the space of essentially a year. 03:19:29.250 --> 03:19:35.044 - at least the reports that we're getting are that, you know, they were very positive, that everybody's 03:19:35.044 --> 03:19:40.952 - very happy. We had a unanimous support of the police union, et cetera. And I think that that's a really 03:19:40.952 --> 03:19:46.916 - good indicator, right, of something that we've set out to do as a city, which would be, you know, what's 03:19:46.916 --> 03:19:48.734 - the word that you use, top-tier 03:19:49.026 --> 03:19:55.370 - Of choice employer you say it better, but you know an employer of choice And and I just really want 03:19:55.370 --> 03:20:01.904 - to commend the the administration for handling it I think so smoothly also to counsel Margie Rice just 03:20:01.904 --> 03:20:08.439 - thank you very much for for doing this so well And and appreciate this resolution. Thank you Thank you 03:20:08.439 --> 03:20:14.846 - any other council member comment Fantastic will the clerk please call the roll on resolution 2025 21 03:20:17.474 --> 03:20:27.048 - Councilmember Rosenberger. Yes. Sorry. Yes clarity. Yes Rough. Yes, Rollo. Yes, Piedmont Smith. 03:20:27.048 --> 03:20:37.022 - Yes Stasberg. Yes, Daly. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Thank you Thank you that passes unanimously 9-0 on to the 03:20:37.022 --> 03:20:47.294 - next I Move that ordinance 2025 dash 47 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only 03:20:47.906 --> 03:20:56.506 - All those in favor, please say aye aye opposed. Thank you. Will the clerk please read Ordinance Ordinance 03:20:56.506 --> 03:21:05.025 - 2025-47 to amend title 8 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled historic preservation and protection 03:21:05.025 --> 03:21:13.382 - to establish a historic district regarding the Ivan Adams House historic district Bloomington Historic 03:21:13.382 --> 03:21:16.222 - Preservation Commission petitioner 03:21:16.514 --> 03:21:24.681 - The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance amends chapter 8.20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code inside 03:21:24.681 --> 03:21:32.612 - a list of designated historic and conservation districts in order to designate the Ivan Adams House, 03:21:32.612 --> 03:21:40.778 - parcel number 013-065800-00, Lades Lot 28, located at 115 East 12th Street, City of Bloomington, Monroe 03:21:40.778 --> 03:21:43.998 - County, Indiana, as a historic district. 03:21:44.098 --> 03:21:50.776 - Built in the mid 1920s, the Ivan Adams House is a craftsman California bungalow that retains a high 03:21:50.776 --> 03:21:57.588 - degree of architectural integrity. The house is associated with Ivan Adams, one of the most prominent 03:21:57.588 --> 03:22:04.333 - local stone carvers whose work can be found in significant and recognizable sites around Bloomington 03:22:04.333 --> 03:22:11.145 - and the United States. Thank you. I move that ordinance 2025-47 be adopted. Second. All right. Who is 03:22:11.145 --> 03:22:13.950 - here to present ordinance 2025-47 for us? 03:22:17.410 --> 03:22:26.707 - Come on up state your name for the record and then the floor is yours Thanks, Noah Sandweiss historic 03:22:26.707 --> 03:22:36.551 - preservation program manager for the city of Bloomington Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development 03:22:36.551 --> 03:22:45.757 - The property at 115 East 12th Street qualifies for local designation under the following highlighted 03:22:45.757 --> 03:22:46.942 - criteria and 03:22:47.426 --> 03:22:54.006 - found in ordinance 9520 of the municipal code for historic significance 1A, having significant character, 03:22:54.006 --> 03:23:00.523 - interest, or value as part of the heritage, development, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, 03:23:00.523 --> 03:23:06.793 - or nation, or is associated with a person who played a significant role in state, local, or national 03:23:06.793 --> 03:23:13.435 - history. The petitioner in this case is the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission, and the property 03:23:13.435 --> 03:23:16.414 - in question is located at 115 East 12th Street, 03:23:17.602 --> 03:23:25.114 - which will be referred to from here on out as the Ivan Adams House. 115 East 12th Street is a gable 03:23:25.114 --> 03:23:32.776 - front, one story California bungalow that retains most of its original features, but has been resided 03:23:32.776 --> 03:23:40.363 - with wide asbestos board. The house was first owned between 1927 and 1945 by Ivan Adams and his wife 03:23:40.363 --> 03:23:45.246 - Gladys. Ivan ranked among the most prominent local stone carvers 03:23:45.858 --> 03:23:52.546 - whose work includes the Bloomington Courthouse World War II Memorial, the IU Seal at Foster Quad Dorm, 03:23:52.546 --> 03:23:59.623 - contributions to the columns and frieze of the Fine Arts Palace for Chicago's Century of Progress exhibition 03:23:59.623 --> 03:24:06.180 - in 1933, the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., the 21-foot statue of 03:24:06.180 --> 03:24:12.998 - Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital at Indian Hill in Camden, New Jersey, and various other statues, the Virgin 03:24:12.998 --> 03:24:14.686 - Mary and Catholic Saints, 03:24:15.042 --> 03:24:21.954 - for institutions around this country. A monumental statue of his marks the grave of Gladys and himself 03:24:21.954 --> 03:24:28.664 - in Rose Hill Cemetery. Adams' Herald Times obituary in 1968 describes him as one of Monroe County's 03:24:28.664 --> 03:24:35.777 - most famous stone carvers. And in 1977, local carver Ronald Wampler described him as, one of the greatest 03:24:35.777 --> 03:24:42.488 - stone carvers in the area I've ever known. After Adams moved out, the house was rented for the next 03:24:42.488 --> 03:24:44.702 - 30 years to a number of tenants. 03:24:45.154 --> 03:24:51.736 - most of whom did not stay longer than several years. One of the most prominent occupants was Robert 03:24:51.736 --> 03:24:58.713 - Quirk, a professor of Mexican history and an editor of the American Historical Review. He was a recipient 03:24:58.713 --> 03:25:05.493 - of the Frederick Jackson Turner Award for debut books by historians and lived at the address from 1955 03:25:05.493 --> 03:25:12.470 - through 1956. In 1977, this house was the first Bloomington residence of James and Susan Butler, founders 03:25:12.470 --> 03:25:13.918 - of the Butler Winery. 03:25:14.882 --> 03:25:21.922 - From 1987 through 1991, Thelma is the residence of opera student Judith Barnes and visiting lecturer 03:25:21.922 --> 03:25:29.240 - in Spanish, Anthony Kerrigan. Kerrigan won the National Book Award in 1975 for his translation of Miguel 03:25:29.240 --> 03:25:36.559 - de Unamuno's The Agony of Christianity and a senior fellowship in literature from the National Endowment 03:25:36.559 --> 03:25:41.438 - for the Arts for a lifelong contribution to American letters in 1988. 03:25:42.402 --> 03:25:48.825 - He was the first to translate the Spanish writings of Jorge Luis Borges into English and taught at both 03:25:48.825 --> 03:25:55.000 - IU and Notre Dame while living at 115 East 12th Street. Judas Barnes is the founder of the Vertical 03:25:55.000 --> 03:26:01.670 - Player Repertory Opera Company in New York. For a property to be eligible for listing under this criterion, 03:26:01.670 --> 03:26:07.969 - several conditions must be met. Firstly, in most cases, the person associated with this property must 03:26:07.969 --> 03:26:10.686 - have made their significant accomplishments 03:26:11.234 --> 03:26:16.331 - at least 50 years ago. And secondly, the property must be associated with this period in their life 03:26:16.331 --> 03:26:21.531 - or career. Anthony Kerrigan has been widely acknowledged for his contributions to Spanish literature. 03:26:21.531 --> 03:26:26.832 - However, there are other properties associated with his career from more than 50 years ago. So it would 03:26:26.832 --> 03:26:32.133 - be difficult to make the case for designating the house in which he lived from 1987 through 1991. Susan 03:26:32.133 --> 03:26:37.281 - and James Butler established one of the early Southern Indiana wineries, as well as the Indiana Wine 03:26:37.281 --> 03:26:38.046 - Grape Council. 03:26:38.818 --> 03:26:44.631 - They left this house in 1982 when they established their own winery and their contribution to local 03:26:44.631 --> 03:26:50.502 - history is more closely associated with the Butler Winery property. Stone carver Ivan Adams lived at 03:26:50.502 --> 03:26:56.431 - this property for a good part of his productive career while he participated in carving of public and 03:26:56.431 --> 03:27:02.418 - religious monuments, both locally and nationwide. He's locally recognized as one of the most prominent 03:27:02.418 --> 03:27:05.150 - carvers in Southern Indiana limestone history. 03:27:05.858 --> 03:27:12.766 - particularly as the number of sculpture carvers dwindled post-war. He moved in 1946 to 2921 South Rogers 03:27:12.766 --> 03:27:19.345 - during the latter part of his career where he built a house and workshop, neither of which is still 03:27:19.345 --> 03:27:26.384 - standing. The exterior of the building at 115 East 12th Street has been fairly unaltered from its original 03:27:26.384 --> 03:27:33.489 - appearance and is an excellent example of a 1920s California bungalow. I'm just going through some examples 03:27:33.489 --> 03:27:35.134 - of some of his work both 03:27:35.618 --> 03:27:46.196 - Locally and nationwide Thank you Is that the conclusion of your presentation that is okay. Thank you. 03:27:46.196 --> 03:27:55.841 - Mr. Sam Weiss I'm giving the gavel back to President Stossburg. Great. Thank you so much Are 03:27:55.841 --> 03:28:05.278 - there councilmember comment or questions for mr. Sandweist? Councilmember Piedmont Smith I 03:28:08.258 --> 03:28:15.825 - In my experience, I find this an unusual request in two ways. And I want to ask you if there have been 03:28:15.825 --> 03:28:23.466 - other precedents that I'm just not thinking about. For one thing, there's only one criteria that's met. 03:28:23.466 --> 03:28:31.180 - And for another, it's a single house that's neither notable nor outstanding. Do you know whether there's 03:28:31.180 --> 03:28:37.278 - been precedent for one or both of those qualities in getting historic designation? 03:28:37.762 --> 03:28:48.407 - So the contributing category, our rating for a historic property means that it's not identifiably eligible 03:28:48.407 --> 03:28:58.455 - along architectural criteria for listing. You know, the category that's selected here in Bloomington 03:28:58.455 --> 03:29:03.230 - Municipal Code 1A most closely corresponds with 03:29:04.290 --> 03:29:11.693 - the National Register of Historic Places criterion B for association with significant individuals. There 03:29:11.693 --> 03:29:19.025 - are lots of examples of sites that are associated with significant individuals that may not have a high 03:29:19.025 --> 03:29:26.216 - degree of either architectural integrity, which this does, or outstanding architectural significance, 03:29:26.216 --> 03:29:32.702 - but are nonetheless significant because of their association with individuals who have made 03:29:33.090 --> 03:29:41.463 - a significant impact in state local or national history or are associated with events or broad patterns 03:29:41.463 --> 03:29:49.594 - of history that may not be apparent from their immediate exterior appearance. But I mean, I know you 03:29:49.594 --> 03:29:57.645 - haven't been with the city all that long, but do you know whether there have been other cases where 03:29:57.645 --> 03:30:02.878 - we've approved a single building that is only contributing? Yes. 03:30:04.418 --> 03:30:13.081 - Yes, there have. There have been. Can you think of any examples you could share with us? No. Well, what 03:30:13.081 --> 03:30:21.744 - was that? Right, there's one nearby, 700 North Walnut. Shoot. Another one that comes to mind, actually, 03:30:21.744 --> 03:30:30.073 - my parents' house, 1033 South Ballantine, was nominated for, in part, architectural significance. I 03:30:30.073 --> 03:30:34.238 - believe the nomination also included reference to 03:30:34.690 --> 03:30:42.232 - its significance for urban planning in post-war Bloomington suburbs. And that was just a contributing 03:30:42.232 --> 03:30:49.922 - structure. Right, that was a contributing structure. There have been some other contributing structures 03:30:49.922 --> 03:30:57.612 - that have been nominated and since reevaluated as notable. A couple examples that come to mind. There's 03:30:57.612 --> 03:31:03.454 - a property, I believe, is it First National Bank? No, not First National Bank. 03:31:04.098 --> 03:31:13.735 - The bank building on Kirkwood that was designated and I believe 2023 that had been listed as a contributing 03:31:13.735 --> 03:31:23.462 - building initially when that was Passed as a local single building historic district I believe the ordinance 03:31:23.462 --> 03:31:33.278 - amended it to be a notable property that one was listed for its architectural significance primarily actually 03:31:36.898 --> 03:31:47.086 - Thank you. Are there other councilmember questions? I have one then So when we had the Historic Preservation 03:31:47.086 --> 03:31:56.901 - Commission here and we learned about like the process and and that kind of thing How does that translate 03:31:56.901 --> 03:31:59.518 - to one property where it's? 03:32:01.826 --> 03:32:09.986 - So the way it's been explained to me, it's like there's a committee that decides on the rules, essentially. 03:32:09.986 --> 03:32:17.995 - And then everybody has to follow them. But it's just like one person and one property and a single owner. 03:32:17.995 --> 03:32:25.852 - It's not a public structure in any way. It's like, how does that translate in terms of who gets to make 03:32:25.852 --> 03:32:29.630 - the rules and who ensures the rules are followed? 03:32:30.562 --> 03:32:37.880 - You know, one of the things that I've heard as well, the person who might live in a historic district 03:32:37.880 --> 03:32:45.199 - and not realize it, and then they make a renovation, and then a neighbor says, oh, hey, you needed to 03:32:45.199 --> 03:32:52.589 - go. You know, it's kind of like reporting others. But in this case, like, who's going to enforce this? 03:32:52.589 --> 03:32:59.262 - I mean, how does this work? So there are dozens of, I believe, dozens of individually listed 03:32:59.746 --> 03:33:07.218 - Buildings as historic districts in Bloomington There really isn't a line drawn in city code as to what 03:33:07.218 --> 03:33:14.182 - you call a district Whether it's you know a single building or multiple buildings When it comes 03:33:14.182 --> 03:33:21.582 - to Notification of property owners, you know, there's several points at which that happens Of course, 03:33:21.582 --> 03:33:29.054 - it happens during the nomination process at a couple of points when the property is up for a vote with 03:33:29.666 --> 03:33:36.418 - Historic Preservation Commission to forward to City Council and then again ahead of the City Council 03:33:36.418 --> 03:33:43.103 - vote to pass the ordinance also Annually notifications are sent out to property owners or owners of 03:33:43.103 --> 03:33:49.856 - properties within hysteric districts in the city of Bloomington so that would also include owners of 03:33:49.856 --> 03:33:56.608 - single property districts or owners of properties within single property districts I guess to answer 03:33:56.608 --> 03:33:58.814 - the second part of your question 03:33:59.362 --> 03:34:08.105 - when Alterations to single property districts are being reviewed I always defer to the Secretary of 03:34:08.105 --> 03:34:17.286 - Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties And that's sort of the nationally recognized 03:34:17.286 --> 03:34:27.166 - set of standards That's used For say for instance federally funded projects or projects on federal buildings For 03:34:27.586 --> 03:34:34.272 - best practices in the treatment of historic properties so that has a recognized set of standards and 03:34:34.272 --> 03:34:40.891 - you know, we have a commission as well that staffed with people who have a background and expertise 03:34:40.891 --> 03:34:47.775 - in the areas of architecture and history and historic preservation, so You know whether it's a district 03:34:47.775 --> 03:34:54.395 - that has its own set of guidelines written by residents or the city or whether it's an individually 03:34:54.395 --> 03:34:55.454 - listed building 03:34:56.802 --> 03:35:05.466 - There will be criteria laid out in the packet to sort of show the work For how a determination is made 03:35:05.466 --> 03:35:14.131 - Okay, thank you other questions All right seeing none we'll go ahead and go to public comments on this 03:35:14.131 --> 03:35:19.262 - if there's a member of the public who would like to speak to 03:35:20.066 --> 03:35:25.443 - Lost my ordinance number again ordinance 2025 47. I see somebody making their way to the podium already 03:35:25.443 --> 03:35:30.975 - Go ahead and sign in state your name for the record and you'll have up to three minutes If you are online, 03:35:30.975 --> 03:35:36.145 - you can go ahead and raise your hand using the reactions tab or send a chat message to the host And 03:35:36.145 --> 03:35:41.470 - let's go ahead and start here in chambers. Thank you. Hi, my name is John Butler I'm the owner of this 03:35:41.470 --> 03:35:42.142 - property and 03:35:42.466 --> 03:35:52.226 - I 100% support the designation of this property as a historic district Ivan Adams was an exceptional 03:35:52.226 --> 03:36:02.082 - carver and Preserving his memory is important to the cultural heritage of this city And it's a modest 03:36:02.082 --> 03:36:11.262 - home It's a thousand square feet. It's a very sort of unobtrusive structure and I think that's 03:36:11.586 --> 03:36:19.563 - Partly why it's so important that we save it because a great person lived in this small house and that 03:36:19.563 --> 03:36:27.618 - we shouldn't necessarily measure the greatness of our citizens necessarily just by the houses that they 03:36:27.618 --> 03:36:30.174 - live in and so, you know this is 03:36:30.466 --> 03:36:37.856 - One small building but it helps tell the story of Bloomington in Bloomington's history the stone industry 03:36:37.856 --> 03:36:45.176 - Was one of the major industries in Bloomington and for over about a hundred years It was probably really 03:36:45.176 --> 03:36:52.357 - the driving force of the local economy and in the stone industry a very small percentage of the people 03:36:52.357 --> 03:36:58.910 - who work there were actually carvers there were cutters people who made dimensional stone and 03:36:59.042 --> 03:37:06.578 - But there were very few carvers people who made statues and finery and Ivan Adams was one of the best 03:37:06.578 --> 03:37:14.261 - to ever do that And so if we can hold this house up As an example of where you know a modest place that 03:37:14.261 --> 03:37:21.871 - a great person can come from I think Bloomington will benefit so thank you for your time Thank you for 03:37:21.871 --> 03:37:27.486 - your consideration and please vote. Yes, and let us continue this legacy of 03:37:27.970 --> 03:37:37.763 - And educate future generations Thank you, are there other other public commenters go ahead and come 03:37:37.763 --> 03:37:47.751 - on up Sign in and state your name for the record and then you'll have up to three minutes Hi, my name 03:37:47.751 --> 03:37:57.054 - is Sam de Saller and I'm currently serving on the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission 03:37:57.186 --> 03:38:03.940 - Here to voice my support of the Ivan Adams house become a new historic district is proposed by HPC and 03:38:03.940 --> 03:38:10.760 - Also supported by the new owners. Mr. Butler I don't have much additional to say as Noah's presentation 03:38:10.760 --> 03:38:17.645 - and mr. Butler statement has covered most salient points, but Not as a commissioner, but as an architect 03:38:17.645 --> 03:38:23.678 - in a long time resident of Bloomington I note that the process of this proposed district is 03:38:24.034 --> 03:38:30.510 - Imparted direct response to our by neighborhood raised residents to counteract development pressure 03:38:30.510 --> 03:38:37.050 - a number of houses in the neighborhood This neighborhood alone including 7-eleven East Cottage Grove 03:38:37.050 --> 03:38:43.137 - Shown earlier this evening in the presentation by director Hiddle of the Bloomington Planning 03:38:43.137 --> 03:38:49.872 - and Transportation Department Over the last several months been either slated for demolition or already 03:38:49.872 --> 03:38:53.822 - demolished. We see a lot of these in front of the Commission 03:38:56.066 --> 03:39:02.650 - As Director Hittle already noted, what's replacing 7-Eleven Eaves Cottage Grove, though more dense and 03:39:02.650 --> 03:39:09.298 - more lucrative for developers, is incompatible with the neighborhood. It removes an entry-level housing 03:39:09.298 --> 03:39:15.818 - from the market and perhaps more importantly, replaces the fabric that makes Bloomington Bloomington. 03:39:15.818 --> 03:39:22.210 - And I think this house is a stellar example of that in its simplicity and its form. It also removes 03:39:22.210 --> 03:39:25.278 - entry-level housing from the market and perhaps 03:39:25.538 --> 03:39:31.852 - Until there's some meaningful form of design review for new developments more properties like 7-eleven 03:39:31.852 --> 03:39:38.104 - East cottage will be built not more or some more single-family homes will be bought by developers and 03:39:38.104 --> 03:39:44.356 - taken off the market I support ad use of rental caps smaller lots and houses infill aggressive design 03:39:44.356 --> 03:39:50.302 - review for new housing and buildings in Bloomington and also obviously historic preservation and 03:39:51.042 --> 03:39:57.333 - I have time I think I do I'd like to make another plea to both you all and to the mayor's office To 03:39:57.333 --> 03:40:03.939 - fill the vacancies on our commission and Confirm those members still willing to serve HPC was made aware 03:40:03.939 --> 03:40:10.231 - last week that one of our voting members will have a conflict starting in January and won't be able 03:40:10.231 --> 03:40:16.711 - to help us maintain quorum and we won't have enough members to legally meet if Current members are not 03:40:16.711 --> 03:40:20.926 - confirmed and barely enough to make quorum if so and vacancies are 03:40:21.410 --> 03:40:27.352 - are not filled. We have a couple that have been empty for over six months. Please do what you can. And 03:40:27.352 --> 03:40:33.294 - thank you. I hope you approve this petition. Thank you. Are there other members of the public who wish 03:40:33.294 --> 03:40:39.178 - to make a comment? I see a couple of people starting to move. Are there any hands raised on Zoom? OK, 03:40:39.178 --> 03:40:45.120 - let's go ahead and continue here in chambers. When you get over there, please sign in, state your name 03:40:45.120 --> 03:40:47.774 - for the record. You have up to three minutes. 03:40:55.234 --> 03:41:01.710 - Hi, my name is Amy Butler. I'm a new owner of this house as well with my husband. I wasn't going to 03:41:01.710 --> 03:41:08.640 - speak because I tend to get emotional about this subject. This house was going to get torn down in August, 03:41:08.640 --> 03:41:15.441 - beginning of August. We saw a demolition sign on it. I own the house next door to it. Actually, a friend 03:41:15.441 --> 03:41:22.176 - of mine, he died last year and left me that house. And I was devastated to see this little yellow house 03:41:22.176 --> 03:41:24.702 - have a demolition sign in front of it. 03:41:24.834 --> 03:41:31.512 - But I wanted you to know that I am very hopeful that you will let us, if you vote for this, I mean, 03:41:31.512 --> 03:41:38.257 - no matter what, we're still gonna take care of this house as best we can and make Bloomington proud, 03:41:38.257 --> 03:41:44.935 - but I would really like you to give us the opportunity to help Bloomington's cultural heritage and, 03:41:44.935 --> 03:41:52.414 - you know, designate this. You know, the man did amazing work and stuff all the way from California to New York. 03:41:52.578 --> 03:41:59.545 - You know, the square in Bloomington, the beautiful kissing couple on the building at Atwater and Third. 03:41:59.545 --> 03:42:06.780 - I really would like you to go look at that sculpture. In relief, it's like two to three inches of limestone 03:42:06.780 --> 03:42:13.746 - that he carved the kissing couple in. It's amazing. And you should see the size of the limestone blocks 03:42:13.746 --> 03:42:21.182 - on the back of the house. They are huge for this teeny little house. But anyway, I wanted to thank the builder 03:42:21.730 --> 03:42:27.575 - that gave us the opportunity to buy this house from them once they realized it was going to be culturally 03:42:27.575 --> 03:42:33.200 - designated. They gave us the opportunity to buy it, and I really appreciate that. And I want to thank 03:42:33.200 --> 03:42:38.825 - my friend John, who left me the means to be able to purchase the house from them so that we know that 03:42:38.825 --> 03:42:44.505 - it's going to be taken care of well. And I want to thank our neighbors, especially James Ford, for his 03:42:44.505 --> 03:42:49.854 - support in this project, trying to save this little house. But my husband grew up in this house, 03:42:49.954 --> 03:42:57.763 - Amazing Carver lived in this house and I think it's something that's worth saving and you know marking 03:42:57.763 --> 03:43:05.420 - is culturally significant for the town But anyway, I thank you for your opportunity to do this Thank 03:43:05.420 --> 03:43:13.153 - you Other public comment go ahead and come on up You want to go ahead and sign in and state your name 03:43:13.153 --> 03:43:17.854 - for the record you have up to three minutes I have to sign in 03:43:18.594 --> 03:43:27.205 - My name is Karen Duffy, and I sit on the Historic Preservation Commission as an advisor appointed by 03:43:27.205 --> 03:43:35.987 - you. Thank you very much for that. And I just want to really underscore what Dr. Butler said about the 03:43:35.987 --> 03:43:45.281 - cultural heritage importance of this. We're all quick, I think, to point out the importance of the limestone 03:43:45.281 --> 03:43:48.350 - industry. We understand that it was 03:43:49.090 --> 03:43:57.643 - foundational, that's an unintended pun, but to the economic growth and development of our community. 03:43:57.643 --> 03:44:06.111 - But we've been very slow as a community to recognize any individual workers. And here, I think when 03:44:06.111 --> 03:44:15.003 - this house came up before the Historic Preservation Commission, we recognized that we had an opportunity 03:44:15.003 --> 03:44:17.374 - here, a rare opportunity to 03:44:17.858 --> 03:44:27.488 - do just this to Bring attention to an individual worker as dr. Butler said again carvers are at the 03:44:27.488 --> 03:44:37.599 - top of the Scale I guess you'd say the hierarchy of workers the most highly skilled within the limestone 03:44:37.599 --> 03:44:47.422 - industry and this was not just any carver he was a carver's carver recognized by other carvers and so 03:44:47.522 --> 03:45:01.932 - and his work is appreciated across the country as well as in Bloomington. So now this opportunity is 03:45:01.932 --> 03:45:15.486 - before you and I urge you to support it as we did and correct this lack. Thank you. Thank you. 03:45:16.834 --> 03:45:22.541 - Looks like we have somebody else moving in chambers, getting ready. Has anybody raised a hand on Zoom? 03:45:22.541 --> 03:45:28.192 - Okay, let's go ahead and continue here in chambers. Thank you for signing in. State your name for the 03:45:28.192 --> 03:45:33.899 - record, and then you'll have up to three minutes. Hi, my name is Daniel Schlegel. I'm also on the HPC, 03:45:33.899 --> 03:45:39.496 - but I'm also director of the History Center here in town. And I just wanted to say, if you just take 03:45:39.496 --> 03:45:45.202 - a moment and think about the last time you were in a museum, and then narrow that to a history museum, 03:45:45.202 --> 03:45:46.366 - and then narrow that 03:45:46.786 --> 03:45:52.865 - to how much you read there. I'll admit, I don't read everything at a museum, and I work at one. But 03:45:52.865 --> 03:45:58.944 - my point is, being able to go and see a house like this, although most people, I'm guessing, aren't 03:45:58.944 --> 03:46:05.023 - gonna go inside, but being able to see the size and scope of that and realize what someone was able 03:46:05.023 --> 03:46:11.467 - to accomplish after living there, makes an impact. No one's gonna stop by there and read a plaque. That's 03:46:11.467 --> 03:46:12.318 - not exciting. 03:46:12.514 --> 03:46:18.506 - you can't conceptualize something like that. If anyone's traveled to Europe and you've seen some of 03:46:18.506 --> 03:46:24.618 - the buildings they have that are literally out of the pages and illustrations of what the Middle Ages 03:46:24.618 --> 03:46:30.789 - look like, those buildings are still standing. When you get to go inside those and look around and you 03:46:30.789 --> 03:46:36.841 - can start to visualize and understand who lived there, what they did, it makes a much larger impact. 03:46:36.841 --> 03:46:39.358 - And this might be a single building, yes, 03:46:40.130 --> 03:46:45.677 - But for what we have at the History Center, we have very little about workers. We don't have much on 03:46:45.677 --> 03:46:51.444 - the carvers. But something like this is something the city of Bloomington and Monroe County can be proud 03:46:51.444 --> 03:46:56.936 - of because of what he's accomplished. After learning about all the great research Noah's done, I've 03:46:56.936 --> 03:47:02.538 - tried to go out and see what's local. I haven't been able to go to DC and show us what Noah's told us 03:47:02.538 --> 03:47:08.030 - about. But being able to go there and see that, I have a much greater appreciation for all of that. 03:47:08.290 --> 03:47:13.906 - So it's just something to consider. Obviously, I'm gonna urge you to vote yes for very good reason. 03:47:13.906 --> 03:47:19.522 - But at the History Center, we have a research library. And when people see and read about something 03:47:19.522 --> 03:47:25.475 - like this and this stone carver that lived at this house, they've gotten curious about their own, whether 03:47:25.475 --> 03:47:31.147 - they're a longtime or newer resident. We had a whole house, I think it was four young ladies from IU 03:47:31.147 --> 03:47:36.820 - that were sophomores, juniors, that came in just to research their house because they wanted to know 03:47:36.820 --> 03:47:37.662 - more about it. 03:47:38.690 --> 03:47:46.243 - No one is famous as this, but the fact they were curious enough that they came in to see it was fantastic. 03:47:46.243 --> 03:47:53.373 - And I encourage more people to do that, because you might be surprised at what you learn. Thank you. 03:47:53.373 --> 03:48:00.715 - Thank you. Is there any other public comments on this ordinance? Hands on Zoom? Great. All right, let's 03:48:00.715 --> 03:48:07.774 - come back to council then. First, any lingering questions that popped up because of public comment? 03:48:10.402 --> 03:48:19.916 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith Sorry, it took me a minute I knew I had one in here Is this house in a 03:48:19.916 --> 03:48:29.715 - neighborhood that could become a larger historic district Yes Yes, this property is located in an area 03:48:29.715 --> 03:48:39.038 - that was surveyed by the state of Indiana as being potentially eligible for a larger district and 03:48:39.490 --> 03:48:47.047 - Called the cottage Grove neighborhood and that's currently being explored right it is Okay Is there 03:48:47.047 --> 03:48:54.605 - any reason to Why why don't we just wait and since there's no imminent demolition Why don't we just 03:48:54.605 --> 03:49:02.314 - wait until we can approve the bigger neighborhood? You could I mean what I would say is this building 03:49:02.314 --> 03:49:09.342 - is being nominated on its own merit it was nominated by the Historic Preservation Commission 03:49:10.178 --> 03:49:17.706 - prior to any inkling that there would be an effort to nominate the larger neighborhood and You know 03:49:17.706 --> 03:49:25.234 - also we don't know what the end result of that process will be Could be lots of outcomes so I would 03:49:25.234 --> 03:49:33.138 - urge the council to judge this property on its own merit Okay. Thank you Thank you. Any other questions? 03:49:33.138 --> 03:49:38.558 - Right seeing none, let's go ahead and go to a council member comment. I 03:49:38.850 --> 03:49:49.112 - Do any council members want to comment on this ordinance? Councilmember Rallo Well, I'm very happy to 03:49:49.112 --> 03:49:59.273 - support this I really appreciate being brought forward by Mr. San wise in the in the Commission It's 03:49:59.273 --> 03:50:06.014 - an interesting discussion because yeah, I mean, you know typically 03:50:06.466 --> 03:50:14.752 - We're looking at architectural significance in this very modest home, but it reflects our local heritage 03:50:14.752 --> 03:50:22.879 - and it reflects It really demonstrates the cultural value of structures. So And it really enriches our 03:50:22.879 --> 03:50:31.086 - sense of place so And it's very appropriate since this community was shaped and grew with the limestone 03:50:31.086 --> 03:50:35.742 - industry One value of of hearing petitions like this is as 03:50:36.290 --> 03:50:44.766 - that I learned so much about about history in this community and and so I'll be enthusiastically supporting 03:50:44.766 --> 03:50:53.086 - this and thanks for everybody that was involved and and in making it happen Thank You councilmember Zulek 03:50:53.282 --> 03:50:59.199 - Yes, thank you. So this property is in the small but mighty district six So naturally I have had the 03:50:59.199 --> 03:51:05.116 - wonderful opportunity to meet with the butlers at length and I'll second a lot of what councilmember 03:51:05.116 --> 03:51:10.975 - Rallo said But just on the the personal side like these are people that put in the work in terms of 03:51:10.975 --> 03:51:16.950 - community engagement They knocked every single door that's in the proposed Cottage Grove conservation 03:51:16.950 --> 03:51:22.750 - district that was previously discussed like they have done the work for this project and so I just 03:51:22.850 --> 03:51:30.142 - Want to commend you both and mr. Ford who I've also met with so thank you And I'm happy to support this 03:51:30.142 --> 03:51:37.224 - Councilmember daily Thank you. Yeah, I'm also happy to support this. I love I love when the historic 03:51:37.224 --> 03:51:44.236 - preservation issues come up before us I was a student of history and so these just kind of you know 03:51:44.236 --> 03:51:49.214 - tickle my happy spot and I think I think you guys did a great job with 03:51:49.506 --> 03:51:56.294 - All the research and the information you provided with us, it's fascinating. I love being able to help 03:51:56.294 --> 03:52:02.949 - preserve such important parts of history and of Bloomington. So thank you very much for all the work 03:52:02.949 --> 03:52:09.869 - that you have all done with this and for bringing this here and for hanging out so long with us tonight. 03:52:09.869 --> 03:52:16.722 - And I'll definitely be voting yes, so thank you. Other council member comment? Council member Flaherty. 03:52:16.722 --> 03:52:19.358 - Thanks. Yeah, I really appreciate this. 03:52:20.322 --> 03:52:25.966 - proposal and the discussion tonight. Personally, I'm a little torn, and I'll just try to explain. I 03:52:25.966 --> 03:52:32.175 - think the contributions of Ivan Adams as a stonecarver are significant and meaningful, and I think preserving 03:52:32.175 --> 03:52:37.932 - that cultural heritage is also important. I think there is a variety of ways to do that, and what I'm 03:52:37.932 --> 03:52:43.801 - grappling with here is what I would characterize as the less traditional path to historic preservation, 03:52:43.801 --> 03:52:49.502 - which is not based on architectural significance, but based on some type of historical significance. 03:52:50.018 --> 03:52:55.991 - that criteria and city code says has significant character interest or value as part of the development 03:52:55.991 --> 03:53:01.964 - heritage or cultural characteristics of the city state or nation and that's not what we're highlighting 03:53:01.964 --> 03:53:07.937 - here, but rather is associated with the person who played a significant role in local state or national 03:53:07.937 --> 03:53:13.795 - history and I guess like definitionally, that's sort of like true here, but the word association like 03:53:13.795 --> 03:53:17.758 - That could mean a lot of things and I guess I'm just not sure that I 03:53:17.986 --> 03:53:24.652 - someone of cultural or historical significance living at a place on its own without more is, for me, 03:53:24.652 --> 03:53:31.319 - like a sound criterion or a basis for historic preservation. I did hear remarks about the importance 03:53:31.319 --> 03:53:38.117 - of saving a house and preventing new development and things like that, which I understand where that's 03:53:38.117 --> 03:53:44.784 - coming from, and I actually appreciate the family, who obviously personally has so much at stake and 03:53:44.784 --> 03:53:47.358 - cares so much about this property too, 03:53:47.650 --> 03:53:53.720 - has been able to purchase it, and in any case, will be able to preserve it for their own memory and 03:53:53.720 --> 03:54:00.276 - enjoyment. But again, I think, to me, those considerations actually drift away from the purpose of historic 03:54:00.276 --> 03:54:06.103 - preservation, which isn't to prevent development or keep duplexes out. That's not what historic 03:54:06.103 --> 03:54:12.416 - preservation's actually meant to be about, at least in my opinion. And so when we talk about preserving 03:54:12.416 --> 03:54:15.390 - history in Bloomington, I just don't think that, 03:54:16.418 --> 03:54:23.815 - designating this house as historic Rings true to like there's a disconnect. That's all And so just trying 03:54:23.815 --> 03:54:30.934 - to make a principal decision based on how I think about things and I'm actually not a hundred percent 03:54:30.934 --> 03:54:37.913 - sure how many of it But thank you for the opportunity to at least think about it that way Thank you 03:54:37.913 --> 03:54:45.310 - other councilmember comment Councilmember rough Yeah, I have to disagree that that there's a disconnect I 03:54:46.050 --> 03:54:54.362 - the limestone industry We need we don't need to talk about that's meant to this community what the history 03:54:54.362 --> 03:55:02.362 - of that is and and this person Living in that house during productive years of his engagement with the 03:55:02.362 --> 03:55:10.285 - with the industry I mean this romanticize it a little bit but I think he imbues the the house and the 03:55:10.285 --> 03:55:14.014 - property and then in the area around there with 03:55:15.458 --> 03:55:22.970 - what he did and what he was. I grew up in Malak Heights on the north side of town and in the 1960s, 03:55:22.970 --> 03:55:30.483 - 1960s, seems like a long time ago when I was a young boy, there was a master stone carver who lived 03:55:30.483 --> 03:55:37.995 - around the, down the street and up. His name was Harold Elgar. And we used to go up there as little 03:55:37.995 --> 03:55:44.606 - kids because he would have in his yard little limestone frogs and animals that he would 03:55:44.898 --> 03:55:54.008 - place around, they were all over his property. And we would go up there and we'd go all through and 03:55:54.008 --> 03:56:03.574 - around the house and see him looking out at us and I'm sure happy, but that's part of when we designated 03:56:03.574 --> 03:56:12.867 - Malak Heights, historic neighborhood, that's part of it. So I just don't think there's, I think there 03:56:12.867 --> 03:56:14.142 - is a connect. 03:56:14.786 --> 03:56:22.514 - Thread that goes through an individual where they live in a specific house and then out from there into 03:56:22.514 --> 03:56:30.391 - the community Through the history and into our future if we preserve it. So I'll be very happy to support 03:56:30.391 --> 03:56:37.821 - support this Thank you, excuse me other councilmember comments Hi, thank you for all these comments 03:56:37.821 --> 03:56:44.286 - thanks for everyone for being here tonight it's getting late we're not close to done I 03:56:45.410 --> 03:56:53.278 - I do not plan to support this tonight. I do I am grateful for all the research done I think with artists 03:56:53.278 --> 03:57:01.372 - a lot of the time their legacy is Preserved in their work and I do love that Ivan Adams has work throughout 03:57:01.372 --> 03:57:08.940 - Bloomington and the Midwest and the country and I think that Is a tribute to him and I I don't see a 03:57:08.940 --> 03:57:13.886 - strong connection to preserve where he lived and then would maybe 03:57:14.978 --> 03:57:24.085 - Strive somewhere and do work. I think too for me. It's a very slippery slope in Preserving homes where 03:57:24.085 --> 03:57:33.546 - people live who contributed something to our community that is of note. Thanks Other councilmember comment 03:57:33.546 --> 03:57:37.790 - I'll just very quickly say then that that I'm I 03:57:38.050 --> 03:57:43.476 - Not supportive of this this evening for a lot of the things councilmember Flaherty and councilmember 03:57:43.476 --> 03:57:49.117 - Rosenberger just said but also kind of the bigger issue that I feel like it's this interesting precedent 03:57:49.117 --> 03:57:54.596 - and I guess for me personally It's like I have a pretty high bar that you have to leap over for me to 03:57:54.596 --> 03:58:00.076 - go Yeah, I want to I want to call that a historic preservation district and to just meet one of those 03:58:00.076 --> 03:58:01.150 - standards is really 03:58:01.378 --> 03:58:09.689 - just is gonna rarely probably make it no matter which one of those things that it is. I agree that there 03:58:09.689 --> 03:58:17.763 - are other ways to better kind of mark the memory and the significance of his artwork. And I don't see 03:58:17.763 --> 03:58:25.837 - his artwork represented somewhere around this house. And the precedent of doing that, I think that it 03:58:25.837 --> 03:58:28.766 - is the really, really slippery slope 03:58:29.602 --> 03:58:37.638 - I think that that it wouldn't be great maybe to to start going down that and secondly currently this 03:58:37.638 --> 03:58:45.594 - house is owned by people who are going to Use it effectively I'll say and in the state that it's in 03:58:45.594 --> 03:58:54.027 - and take care of it and all that kind of stuff I also kind of hesitate to like put these kind of shackles 03:58:54.027 --> 03:58:59.358 - on it into the future as well without a larger kind of district so 03:59:00.322 --> 03:59:10.436 - That's I guess how I feel about it any last councilmember comment before we go to a vote All right, 03:59:10.436 --> 03:59:20.954 - I'm not seeing any so will the clerk please call the roll on Result or ordinance 2025 47 Councilmember, 03:59:20.954 --> 03:59:24.190 - sorry. Yes clarity no Rough yes 03:59:31.938 --> 03:59:50.077 - Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes Stasberg. No Bailey. Yes Zulek. Yes Rosenberger. No Thank you that passes six 03:59:50.077 --> 03:59:52.190 - to three So 03:59:53.346 --> 04:00:01.465 - Recognizing that it's late. I kind of want to give council members a couple minutes to get some wiggles 04:00:01.465 --> 04:00:09.271 - out but I also want to recognize that it is 1030 at this point and Yeah, so if people are good with 04:00:09.271 --> 04:00:17.467 - just keeping going I know that this is a long legislative agenda tonight and I'm super duper sorry about 04:00:17.467 --> 04:00:23.166 - that next I Move that ordinance 2025. Yes. Do you need to vote under the 04:00:24.034 --> 04:00:32.056 - Just for each one we should probably do roll calls for introductions or well, we'll see how it works. 04:00:32.056 --> 04:00:40.079 - Yeah, maybe I'm sorry just on introductions. We have to make sure that we have two-thirds majority on 04:00:40.079 --> 04:00:48.494 - introductions I move that ordinance 2025 dash 43 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis 04:00:48.494 --> 04:00:49.438 - only second 04:00:50.210 --> 04:00:58.122 - All right, it's been moved to introduce ordinance 2025 43 We're gonna try a voice vote and see what 04:00:58.122 --> 04:01:06.351 - happens all in favor. Please say aye aye opposed Nobody is opposed. So thank you. Will the clerk please 04:01:06.351 --> 04:01:07.934 - read Ordinance 2024 04:01:11.490 --> 04:01:18.206 - I'm so sorry, I lost where I was. Ordinance 2025-43, an ordinance annexing certain real estate to the 04:01:18.206 --> 04:01:24.790 - city of Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance pursuant to 04:01:24.790 --> 04:01:32.033 - a voluntary annexation petition annexes the real estate commonly known as 2005 West Corey Drive, Bloomington, 04:01:32.033 --> 04:01:37.630 - Indiana, a parcel located outside of but contiguous with city boundaries. Thank you. 04:01:38.466 --> 04:01:45.521 - I move that ordinance 2025 dash 43 be adopted second. Thank you. Who's here to present tonight? Wheeler 04:01:45.521 --> 04:01:52.644 - City Assistant City Attorney Thank you Yep, we can hear you go ahead. Thank you for introducing yourself 04:01:52.644 --> 04:01:59.496 - for the record. Thank you. Yes. Thank you Happy to be here happy to talk about this tonight. This is 04:01:59.496 --> 04:02:06.280 - a petition for annexation the controlling statute is Indiana code for dash six dash three dash five 04:02:06.280 --> 04:02:07.230 - point one and 04:02:08.226 --> 04:02:15.578 - This type of an annexation is often referred to as a super voluntary, but it is a voluntary annexation. 04:02:15.578 --> 04:02:23.000 - To be eligible for this type of a voluntary annexation, the property in question must be located outside 04:02:23.000 --> 04:02:30.635 - of, but contiguous to the city. And looking at the statute, this particular section of the code, contiguous 04:02:30.635 --> 04:02:36.926 - means that the annexing property shares at least one eighth of its border with the city. 04:02:39.042 --> 04:02:45.287 - Under this particular statute, the way to initiate a voluntary annexation is to have filed a petition 04:02:45.287 --> 04:02:51.472 - for the voluntary annexation of the property, and that petition needs to have three things going for 04:02:51.472 --> 04:02:58.023 - it, which is to request an ordinance annexing the property. It must then be signed by 100% of the property 04:02:58.023 --> 04:03:04.269 - owners, and it must contain a header on the signature page that states, quote, petition for voluntary 04:03:04.269 --> 04:03:08.126 - annexation into the city of Bloomington, Indiana, close quote. 04:03:08.674 --> 04:03:15.659 - So when we're doing this, I know there are going to be some folks that are going to come up and want 04:03:15.659 --> 04:03:22.713 - to argue against this. They can argue against it, but they cannot remonstrate. I think it's important 04:03:22.713 --> 04:03:29.629 - for the Council to know that. So there won't be any remonstrating against this annexation. It's not 04:03:29.629 --> 04:03:36.614 - available by this statute. However, there is an appeal that can be taken. If Council were to approve 04:03:36.614 --> 04:03:37.790 - this annexation, 04:03:38.146 --> 04:03:45.085 - then an appeal could be sought. But the only issue on appeal would be whether there was contiguity. 04:03:45.085 --> 04:03:52.024 - And in this case, I think you're gonna find that there is contiguity. So there won't be any grounds 04:03:52.024 --> 04:03:59.171 - for an appeal. So the facts on this case real quick are that on October 22nd, 2025, Canyison LLC filed 04:03:59.171 --> 04:04:05.694 - its petition with the clerk for voluntary annexation requesting that an ordinance be adopted. 04:04:06.114 --> 04:04:14.742 - to annex lot two in Cory Lane Estates, which is commonly known as 2005 West Cory Drive. And he's asking 04:04:14.742 --> 04:04:23.121 - to annex that particular property into the city. He's eligible to do this because the property is in 04:04:23.121 --> 04:04:31.749 - fact located outside of the city and it does meet the one eighth contiguity requirement. The property's 04:04:31.749 --> 04:04:34.238 - perimeter totals 433.57 feet. 04:04:35.202 --> 04:04:42.423 - The property shares a border with the city that measures 126.04 feet, which greatly exceeds the required 04:04:42.423 --> 04:04:49.370 - one-eighth contiguity requirement. One-eighth contiguity would have only needed 54.19 feet, so we're 04:04:49.370 --> 04:04:56.591 - well above that requirement. The petition does meet statutory requirements. It did request the ordinance 04:04:56.591 --> 04:05:03.538 - be passed. It did, and it is 100% of all property owners who have signed. Kenyus and LLC is the only 04:05:03.538 --> 04:05:04.638 - property owner. 04:05:05.506 --> 04:05:14.314 - This property was signed, I'm sorry, the petition was signed by William Kanye Womate, who is the president 04:05:14.314 --> 04:05:22.545 - of Conyersen LLC. These facts are supported by the warranty deed which came with the petition. That 04:05:22.545 --> 04:05:30.942 - warranty deed was recorded with Monroe County Recorder's Office on July 30th, 2024, showing Conyersen 04:05:30.942 --> 04:05:32.094 - LLC as owner. 04:05:32.642 --> 04:05:38.740 - and articles of organization filed with the Secretary of State Corporations Division shows that William 04:05:38.740 --> 04:05:44.897 - Kanyuwamathai is the president of this corporation. The signature page does contain the necessary header 04:05:44.897 --> 04:05:49.470 - language, and so the petition does meet all necessary statutory requirements. 04:05:50.978 --> 04:05:56.900 - There are a couple of other statutory requirements that need to be met, and that is the council would 04:05:56.900 --> 04:06:02.879 - have had to first adopt a fiscal plan before it can consider this annexation, which as you recall, you 04:06:02.879 --> 04:06:08.743 - did do back on December 3rd. And then city council must also conduct a public hearing within 30 days 04:06:08.743 --> 04:06:14.664 - of the petition being filed, which again, council did do back on December 3rd of this year. With this 04:06:14.664 --> 04:06:20.702 - petition properly filed, the fiscal plan adopted by resolution and all other statutory requirements met 04:06:20.930 --> 04:06:27.342 - then City Council may adopt an ordinance annexing this property into the city. The ordinance as proposed 04:06:27.342 --> 04:06:33.631 - properly declares that the property is contiguous with the city. The petition is signed by 100% of the 04:06:33.631 --> 04:06:39.798 - owners and that the property is annexed into the city. That form of ordinance I think is appropriate 04:06:39.798 --> 04:06:45.905 - and city legal does recommend that the ordinance be adopted as written. I'm happy to try and answer 04:06:45.905 --> 04:06:48.286 - questions if there are any. Thank you. 04:06:50.082 --> 04:06:57.329 - Thank you, are there questions from council members about this ordinance? No questions. I do have one 04:06:57.329 --> 04:07:04.576 - actually because this was brought up during the public hearing that the roadway that this is actually 04:07:04.576 --> 04:07:11.965 - connected to because in the, let me find it, in the petition it said that the real estate is contiguous 04:07:11.965 --> 04:07:19.070 - to public highways and public rights of way, but technically that road isn't a public right of way, 04:07:19.234 --> 04:07:27.391 - But earlier, or like higher in the document, there is a deed that seems to say that they have an easement 04:07:27.391 --> 04:07:35.164 - or right of usage of that road because they're part of the Coraline Estates. So can you just kind of 04:07:35.164 --> 04:07:43.090 - clarify that little bit of legal language? Is that problematic in any way? There isn't anything in the 04:07:43.090 --> 04:07:48.862 - statute that requires the property to have that contiguity with a roadway. 04:07:49.538 --> 04:07:58.409 - What the contiguity that's required is that it be one eighth with the city. It just happens that it's 04:07:58.409 --> 04:08:07.367 - sitting on a roadway. It's unfortunate that it mentions it as a public roadway. It is a private drive, 04:08:07.367 --> 04:08:16.064 - I believe. I think that's accurate. But that does not change the statutory ability for the property 04:08:16.064 --> 04:08:18.238 - to be annexed. It's not, 04:08:18.402 --> 04:08:24.590 - of importance as it relates to whether or not the property can be annexed. Okay and is it correct that 04:08:24.590 --> 04:08:30.958 - that property does have an easement though for that private road as part of the original like deed stuff? 04:08:30.958 --> 04:08:37.086 - Because I was trying to read the deed stuff and understand that. So I would have to sit down and read 04:08:37.086 --> 04:08:43.334 - that section of the, well I'd have to read the deed again. I don't recall the language and what it says 04:08:43.334 --> 04:08:46.878 - on the deed as to whether it's got an easement to use that 04:08:47.394 --> 04:08:56.913 - private drive, but it is part of that whole neighborhood. If it was going to become a landlocked property, 04:08:56.913 --> 04:09:05.810 - it wouldn't be too hard to get a court to order that the owner of the property could use that road. 04:09:05.810 --> 04:09:15.774 - Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions? All right, let's go ahead and go to public comment on ordinance 04:09:16.354 --> 04:09:21.886 - 2025 43 if you're a member of the public who would like to make a comment You can go ahead and make 04:09:21.886 --> 04:09:27.529 - your way to the podium if you're online you can raise your hand using the reactions tab Thank you for 04:09:27.529 --> 04:09:33.173 - signing in so much You can state your name for the record and go ahead and start when you're ready My 04:09:33.173 --> 04:09:38.816 - name is Jay Nelson And first of all just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do 04:09:38.816 --> 04:09:40.254 - something I want to state 04:09:40.546 --> 04:09:47.135 - But my grandmother Liz at 2009 Coraline the wooded lot beside her home addressed as 2005 is the subject 04:09:47.135 --> 04:09:53.470 - of this proposed voluntary annexation and future duplex At your last meeting you adopted the fiscal 04:09:53.470 --> 04:09:59.805 - plan resolution for this annexation I understand state law requires that step but I'm asking you to 04:09:59.805 --> 04:10:05.950 - look more closely into the physical physical reality on the ground before you go any further and 04:10:06.658 --> 04:10:13.039 - First drainage and stormwater There's a pipe under quarry lane that directly connects the grass basin 04:10:13.039 --> 04:10:19.294 - on the north side of the street with the wooded basin on the south side Those two areas function as 04:10:19.294 --> 04:10:25.737 - a drainage system regardless, which way the water happens to flow at any given storm Bloomington's own 04:10:25.737 --> 04:10:32.118 - stormwater rules in title 13 and the stormwater design manual expect development proposals to map out 04:10:32.118 --> 04:10:35.934 - existing drainage patterns runoff directions and outfalls to 04:10:36.034 --> 04:10:42.321 - Prove that they will not increase flooding or undermine public infrastructure, and I don't believe that's 04:10:42.321 --> 04:10:48.844 - been done yet If this wooded lot is cleared and filled and paved for duplex with parking You're concentrating 04:10:48.844 --> 04:10:54.894 - more water into a very small basin tied to one crossroad pipe If that pipe ever plugs fails or simply 04:10:54.894 --> 04:11:01.240 - cannot handle extra volume the city will own that problem once the land is annexed That is not theoretical 04:11:01.240 --> 04:11:04.798 - issue for us. It would be in my grandmother's front yard. I 04:11:05.378 --> 04:11:11.883 - Second karst and substrate subsurface stability Bloomington and Monroe County sit in a well-documented 04:11:11.883 --> 04:11:18.261 - karst region with map sinkhole areas and sinking streams The lot in question already already behaves 04:11:18.261 --> 04:11:24.829 - like a bowl Cutting the trees adding a structure driveway stormwater facilities without a site specific 04:11:24.829 --> 04:11:31.207 - Geotechnical and karst study is a serious risk for the future residents and for the city's utilities 04:11:31.207 --> 04:11:34.238 - a sinkhole or other subsidence under a driveway 04:11:34.594 --> 04:11:41.666 - Sanitary line or that crossroad drain will be far more expensive than any tax revenue the single lot 04:11:41.666 --> 04:11:48.949 - can generate third neighborhood pattern and zoning Cori Lane is a short dead-end Street with one Single 04:11:48.949 --> 04:11:56.091 - family with single-family homes this one parcel would be the only city lot on the street and the only 04:11:56.091 --> 04:12:03.934 - duplex under Bloomington Udo duplexes in low-density residential districts are supposed to go through a special 04:12:04.066 --> 04:12:10.592 - Conditional review including a neighborhood meeting and the BZA scrutiny Because they can be incompatible 04:12:10.592 --> 04:12:17.118 - on lots with this When the subdivision was first built the developer had the easiest cheapest opportunity 04:12:17.118 --> 04:12:23.398 - to build here They chose not to and left this wooded this strongly suggests. They understood the site 04:12:23.398 --> 04:12:29.678 - as marginal and unbuildable because the drainage surface issues Just please vote no on this. It's not 04:12:29.678 --> 04:12:31.710 - the right thing to do. Thanks. I 04:12:34.498 --> 04:12:41.569 - Thank you. It looks like we have a line here. Go ahead and sign in and State your name for the record. 04:12:41.569 --> 04:12:48.503 - You'll have up to three minutes Even council members, my name is Paul post resident on the street in 04:12:48.503 --> 04:12:55.506 - question I would also agree with mr. Nelson asked you to vote no on this tonight what I'm gonna do is 04:12:55.506 --> 04:13:01.822 - point out the ludicrousness of the whole concept of annexing this one lot on our street and 04:13:02.626 --> 04:13:08.340 - As I stated before that area is island for as part of the greater annexation efforts by the city which 04:13:08.340 --> 04:13:13.942 - is under litigation currently We're still following all of that It just seems a little odd that what 04:13:13.942 --> 04:13:19.600 - hasn't been mentioned tonight is the only reason we're here is because the owner Just wanted to build 04:13:19.600 --> 04:13:25.148 - on the property and couldn't connect to the sewer lines. We have city utilities I pay more for city 04:13:25.148 --> 04:13:29.086 - utilities than everyone else because I'm technically in the county and 04:13:29.730 --> 04:13:35.984 - It's all he wants to do is hook up to the sewer, but we won't do that because of the litigation that's 04:13:35.984 --> 04:13:42.178 - still ongoing. It would make much more sense to let all that go through the courts and have an actual 04:13:42.178 --> 04:13:48.493 - final answer to that before we decide going further with this one lot creating a headache of logistical 04:13:48.493 --> 04:13:54.686 - problems. We've talked about all the things of having just one city lot on a street of non-city lots. 04:13:54.818 --> 04:14:00.630 - So I'd ask you to vote no on this. It just doesn't make sense right now There's there's several things 04:14:00.630 --> 04:14:06.328 - pending that I think would make more sense to you know, let us get a final answer on those Thank you 04:14:06.328 --> 04:14:12.027 - Thank you Has anybody raised a hand on zoom? Okay. Let's go ahead and continue here in chambers Come 04:14:12.027 --> 04:14:17.726 - on forward Please sign in state your name for the record and then you'll have up to three minutes. I 04:14:23.362 --> 04:14:30.755 - Hi, my name is Joseph Chan and I live on the property right adjacent to this parcel in question and 04:14:30.755 --> 04:14:38.296 - You know, we bought this property, you know, it's a starter house And we bought it with a great peace 04:14:38.296 --> 04:14:45.910 - of mind. There was a great excellent wooded area I didn't really pay much attention to it until it was 04:14:45.910 --> 04:14:50.494 - brought to my attention Just a few weeks ago actually where I 04:14:51.554 --> 04:14:59.609 - noticed that someone was trying to build on develop on this storm drain area and I couldn't help but 04:14:59.609 --> 04:15:07.583 - notice, Hey, wait a minute. My, my property drains directly into this place. So even if it does get 04:15:07.583 --> 04:15:15.558 - annexed or it does, and all of the zoning does get managed out, um, that provides, that presents a, 04:15:15.558 --> 04:15:18.110 - a legal trouble issue where now 04:15:18.978 --> 04:15:27.646 - Am I supposed to change my properties so that it doesn't drain into this? And there's a bunch of other 04:15:27.646 --> 04:15:36.061 - properties that drain into this. And it's only going to cause a bigger issue in the future, perhaps 04:15:36.061 --> 04:15:45.150 - not immediately, but the Karst question is certainly something that I feel like the gun is being jumped on. 04:15:45.986 --> 04:15:58.025 - And with so many lingering questions that Mr. Nelson has brought up, it behooves us to take a minute, 04:15:58.025 --> 04:16:10.655 - step back, and think about what are the implications of even annexing this in the first place. And there's 04:16:10.655 --> 04:16:15.966 - just a lot of questions that keep coming up, 04:16:16.482 --> 04:16:25.025 - What about the parking situation? It's almost half an acre, but if you pave on it and you have to raise 04:16:25.025 --> 04:16:33.240 - it up because there's a lot of incline on this property and the Access from the easement is also at 04:16:33.240 --> 04:16:41.454 - an incline as well. I know this because I walk past it every time I mow my lawn And it's it's quite 04:16:41.454 --> 04:16:45.726 - steep and the most level access point it touches my 04:16:46.178 --> 04:16:54.409 - property. So am I going to have to worry about people, the construction or surveyors coming out of my 04:16:54.409 --> 04:17:02.478 - property to survey this land? Who knows? But that's the concern that I have as someone who is going 04:17:02.478 --> 04:17:10.628 - to be directly affected by this development and annexation, whether it goes through or not. Yeah, so 04:17:10.628 --> 04:17:15.550 - I yield to the rest of the time. Thank you so much. Is there 04:17:16.066 --> 04:17:25.647 - Looks like, is there another comment? Yes. OK, good. Go ahead and come forward. Please sign in and state 04:17:25.647 --> 04:17:34.863 - your name for the record, and you'll have up to three minutes. Hello. I'm one of the other residents 04:17:34.863 --> 04:17:41.342 - in the same street. Can you state your name? Oh, right. Magda Andrade. 04:17:43.650 --> 04:17:51.289 - So yeah, I'm one of the other residents on that street. And yeah, I live pretty close to that zoning 04:17:51.289 --> 04:17:59.155 - location, that place that is in threat of annexing and rezoning. So I have a few concerns when it comes 04:17:59.155 --> 04:18:07.021 - to that property. So as Joseph has said, there is an incline there, and our storm drains go into there. 04:18:07.021 --> 04:18:13.374 - But the other concern that I have is that they are, if it is with the intention of, 04:18:13.538 --> 04:18:22.700 - Deforesting and building the duplex it can cause a really big risk on the neighbors Yeah on all of us 04:18:22.700 --> 04:18:31.772 - and the reason is Well based on what I read from the the notes here there hasn't been any addressing 04:18:31.772 --> 04:18:40.844 - on any environmental inspections or anything about the possible cars that there is so without giving 04:18:40.844 --> 04:18:42.910 - them the permission to 04:18:43.202 --> 04:18:49.668 - rezone and annex without Doing any of those inspections. Well, of course, you're just giving them all 04:18:49.668 --> 04:18:55.500 - the leverage to do as they wish to build the properties But then again, there's going to be 04:18:55.500 --> 04:19:01.965 - fewer opportunities to take any regulations or any safety checks for whatever is going to be building 04:19:01.965 --> 04:19:08.494 - there and then furthermore construction also performs a lot of perturbation and a lot of including the 04:19:08.494 --> 04:19:10.206 - weight of the concrete and 04:19:11.490 --> 04:19:20.272 - every material equipment used can actually put a risk on the load that the structure has. And yeah, 04:19:20.272 --> 04:19:29.318 - furthermore, if that place is deforested, it does come at the risk of further enhancing erosion, which 04:19:29.318 --> 04:19:37.310 - could then again be dangerous for our homes nearby. Yeah, it will make our structures look 04:19:37.954 --> 04:19:46.345 - Lose integrity when it comes to the actual changing of the property. So there's risks of erosion and 04:19:46.345 --> 04:19:54.653 - of course the whole Conversation about the storm drain and yeah, so I come from a standpoint that I 04:19:54.653 --> 04:20:03.045 - personally think it's a safety risk and I would please ask you to vote no Thank you, so anybody else 04:20:03.045 --> 04:20:07.614 - in chambers who would like to make a public comments I 04:20:08.642 --> 04:20:15.866 - Okay, while somebody is walking over, have any hands been raised on Zoom? If you just want to give me 04:20:15.866 --> 04:20:23.020 - a big wave when that happens, or if that happens, that would be great. Here in chambers, please sign 04:20:23.020 --> 04:20:30.315 - in, state your name for the record, and then you'll have up to three minutes. Hi, I'm Leslie Ruiz, and 04:20:30.315 --> 04:20:37.822 - I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me, so I'll be brief. I have serious concerns about the impact that 04:20:37.954 --> 04:20:44.473 - Building on this property and I'm aware that this is annexation and I understand and this is just my 04:20:44.473 --> 04:20:50.928 - first Ability to kind of voice my concerns about it, you know I have plenty of more flooding videos 04:20:50.928 --> 04:20:57.512 - and pictures from my basement and all of the fun things and I'm dealing with water on my side already 04:20:57.512 --> 04:21:04.031 - and I'm really concerned about what the impact of them building there would look like and what legal 04:21:04.031 --> 04:21:07.646 - issues that might bring up anyways, I know that there's 04:21:07.778 --> 04:21:13.852 - you know, common enemy stuff with water here in the state of Indiana, but there's nothing built there 04:21:13.852 --> 04:21:20.045 - right now. And if they do build there and it does impact my property, I don't know what recourse I have 04:21:20.045 --> 04:21:26.059 - at that point. So here I am at the very beginning of this process, just trying to be heard because I 04:21:26.059 --> 04:21:32.192 - do really have concerns. I think, you know, I know my neighbors have lots of concerns too, but I think 04:21:32.192 --> 04:21:35.646 - that I am probably the one that would be most impacted by 04:21:36.322 --> 04:21:42.527 - everything there. And, you know, I already have a loan for the basement that I had to fix because of 04:21:42.527 --> 04:21:48.732 - water. And so I just have large concerns over that. And again, I'm aware that that might not be what 04:21:48.732 --> 04:21:55.367 - you can hear right now, but I just feel like I need to say that at this point. I guess I also have concerns 04:21:55.367 --> 04:22:01.571 - about parking, like I said last time, and whether there's an easement or not for the road. Does that 04:22:01.571 --> 04:22:04.766 - easement include parking? What does that look like? 04:22:05.250 --> 04:22:12.526 - Because I cannot imagine that there could be a duplex there and more than one car parked in a 15-foot 04:22:12.526 --> 04:22:19.731 - driveway There on that property. I just cannot see it. So they will be using that road. They will be 04:22:19.731 --> 04:22:26.936 - parking on that street that You guys don't have any authority over that would be our responsibility. 04:22:26.936 --> 04:22:33.214 - I Don't know But again, thank you for hearing me and read my emails Thank you Thank you 04:22:33.890 --> 04:22:39.591 - Anybody else in chambers wish to make a comment I see somebody else moving and I don't see a wave from 04:22:39.591 --> 04:22:45.348 - staff So if you could make sure to sign in and then state your name for the record and also if you know 04:22:45.348 --> 04:22:50.884 - if you've spoken here about this tonight if you forgot to sign in just Make sure you go and do that 04:22:50.884 --> 04:22:56.696 - so that we have that for the record. Thank you Go ahead when you're ready to start with your name. Thank 04:22:56.696 --> 04:23:00.958 - you Good evening. My name is lieutenant Ray Reyes retired Navy naval officer 04:23:01.218 --> 04:23:08.920 - Also resident on Cory Drive Just to reiterate I've seen her property and and it does attain a certain 04:23:08.920 --> 04:23:16.546 - level of flooding Coming from the other side literally two years ago Flooded so bad. I literally saw 04:23:16.546 --> 04:23:24.549 - two beavers Set up shop there. I am NOT making that up. I have any of you seen seen this property Beavers 04:23:24.549 --> 04:23:28.702 - actual beavers with the tails the whole thing swimming 04:23:29.634 --> 04:23:37.158 - That's how bad it can get, almost encroaching into her basement. Have any of you seen the property? 04:23:37.158 --> 04:23:44.908 - It's not quite as big as this room. The road is literally there. He's gonna have to fill this hole in. 04:23:44.908 --> 04:23:52.583 - No one's seen a picture of it at all, anything? It's just a horrible idea. My neighbor, Paul Post, as 04:23:52.583 --> 04:23:57.022 - he told you, it doesn't make any sense. It really doesn't. 04:23:57.218 --> 04:24:04.999 - It's just a horrible not that we don't want the property there or neighbors or anything like that. It's 04:24:04.999 --> 04:24:13.005 - just it just Physically as an engineer myself, it doesn't make sense is you know, he told you as a builder 04:24:13.005 --> 04:24:21.011 - It's it's just a horrible idea and that's all Thank you any other comments public comments about ordinance 04:24:21.011 --> 04:24:26.622 - 2025 43 And I didn't see away from staff so that brings us back to council 04:24:27.586 --> 04:24:37.602 - Did public comment bring up any questions that council members would like to ask council members? Sorry 04:24:37.602 --> 04:24:47.906 - is Attorney Wheeler still on the call? Hey, hey To two quick questions. Are there any known infrastructure 04:24:47.906 --> 04:24:56.766 - deficiencies in the area that would require city investment? On the property itself, yes No 04:24:56.866 --> 04:25:06.375 - And the question that's come up again and again from residents in the area nearby, if there were some 04:25:06.375 --> 04:25:16.165 - material pains put on them or their properties, what recourse do they have? Should we, does the recourse 04:25:16.165 --> 04:25:19.614 - change if we were to annex this lot? 04:25:21.282 --> 04:25:28.649 - Annexation doesn't have any impact on the recourse that property owners would have that they're adjacent 04:25:28.649 --> 04:25:35.945 - or in the neighborhood. The development or not of this property does you know whether it gets developed 04:25:35.945 --> 04:25:43.102 - and if there are any issues as between the property owners it doesn't matter whether the property was 04:25:43.102 --> 04:25:48.574 - developed as a property in the county or developed as a property in the city. 04:25:50.914 --> 04:25:58.090 - What changes is that if we annex the property, then the property owner does have the opportunity to 04:25:58.090 --> 04:26:05.698 - connect to the water and sewer, which is available in Corey Lane. So it does make it a little bit easier, 04:26:05.698 --> 04:26:13.233 - I think, for the property to get developed. But all of these issues that are being brought up are issues 04:26:13.233 --> 04:26:18.974 - that would be brought up at the time of considering the zoning, considering the 04:26:19.650 --> 04:26:26.171 - the planning department looking at what's going to be developed on the property. These are issues that 04:26:26.171 --> 04:26:32.502 - get hashed out at that time. And then common enemy was brought up. The common enemy doctrine in the 04:26:32.502 --> 04:26:38.959 - state of Indiana would apply whether this property gets developed in or out of the city, in or out of 04:26:38.959 --> 04:26:45.353 - the county. So all of these issues just are not, they don't impact whether statutorily this property 04:26:45.353 --> 04:26:46.366 - can be annexed. 04:26:47.906 --> 04:26:54.956 - Thank you. And then the final question as a follow up to that, there was the point brought up about 04:26:54.956 --> 04:27:02.146 - conditional uses of duplexes in low density areas. Can you speak a little bit about that and how that 04:27:02.146 --> 04:27:09.266 - would apply here? Because I know we have a second piece of legislation following this about rezoning 04:27:09.266 --> 04:27:13.214 - that place. I'm not well versed in planning and zoning. 04:27:13.570 --> 04:27:20.074 - Would not be able I'd be shooting from the hip and probably getting it all wrong. So I I refrained from 04:27:20.074 --> 04:27:26.703 - Trying to answer those because I'm just not educated in the matter then I guess I see one of our planning 04:27:26.703 --> 04:27:33.081 - staff members who probably has been waiting here for questions like this and would invite Mr. Grulick 04:27:33.081 --> 04:27:39.710 - forward to maybe address that question about zoning if possible, please state your name for the record. I 04:27:40.002 --> 04:27:47.121 - Thank you Eric really development services manager So yes with the conditional use approval for development 04:27:47.121 --> 04:27:53.845 - on this. This is when we'd have a little bit finer tooth to look at any impacts to any regulations at 04:27:53.845 --> 04:27:56.350 - the city of limited utilities has the 04:27:56.450 --> 04:28:01.615 - Requirements that the UDO has so they would be required to submit I think we've talked about at least 04:28:01.615 --> 04:28:06.881 - a little bit from the last time and in the plane Commission hearings and in the packet The cars feature 04:28:06.881 --> 04:28:12.147 - possible cars feature that might be on the property. So that would have to be evaluated There are trees 04:28:12.147 --> 04:28:16.350 - that are obviously on the property that could be subject to our tree closed canopy 04:28:16.482 --> 04:28:22.535 - preservation requirements You know the lot was planted as as a legal lot of record So it was not there 04:28:22.535 --> 04:28:28.529 - are lots that were set aside in here. They have large easements on there There were several sinkholes 04:28:28.529 --> 04:28:34.641 - that were identified within this development when this was in the city and came forward for subdivision 04:28:34.641 --> 04:28:35.934 - approval in the 1990s 04:28:36.034 --> 04:28:41.984 - There were easements that were placed for identified sinkholes this particular feature on this thing 04:28:41.984 --> 04:28:48.110 - was not identified That doesn't mean that it's not that now, but that's something that we've identified 04:28:48.110 --> 04:28:54.060 - with them that we'll have to evaluate You know if they come forward for development So yes, we would 04:28:54.060 --> 04:28:59.774 - review it for any requirements within the udio If it's annexed and comes forward for development 04:28:59.970 --> 04:29:07.129 - Thank you so much. And so just the final question on that note, is it, am I correct in saying that should 04:29:07.129 --> 04:29:14.355 - we annex this plot lot today, there's still, that doesn't guarantee that the thing would be built. There's 04:29:14.355 --> 04:29:21.109 - still a whole mechanism that needs to, that the developer would have to go through in order to make 04:29:21.109 --> 04:29:27.998 - sure that all of the things that you just discussed were either ameliorated or planned appropriately. 04:29:28.194 --> 04:29:34.339 - Yes, so so annexing this doesn't guarantee that they can do everything that they want, you know Obviously 04:29:34.339 --> 04:29:40.543 - the zoning code has a lot of layers to it that guide what can and can't happen here setbacks environmental 04:29:40.543 --> 04:29:46.456 - preservation features So all those things would have to met as I mentioned was planted as a legal lot 04:29:46.456 --> 04:29:52.602 - of record So it is entitled to some development of some sort and if there are variances that are required 04:29:52.602 --> 04:29:57.182 - then that is something that the Board of Zoning Appeals would have to hear and 04:29:57.666 --> 04:30:06.104 - Review with a development proposal. Yeah Thank you any other questions from council members Councilmember 04:30:06.104 --> 04:30:14.065 - Rosenberger Hi, yes made potentially for the attorney unsure some of the public comments were about 04:30:14.065 --> 04:30:22.264 - how this would be the only Property on that street that is annexed because it's a voluntary annexation 04:30:22.264 --> 04:30:27.518 - could other properties on the street also do voluntary annexation 04:30:31.298 --> 04:30:40.481 - Each property that's outside of the city would have to go through the same examination that this property 04:30:40.481 --> 04:30:49.317 - did, which is to look and see whether or not the property has at least one-eighth contiguity with the 04:30:49.317 --> 04:30:58.414 - city's boundaries. Looking at the neighborhood, I would think that the properties that are running along 04:30:58.414 --> 04:31:00.926 - the same side of the street, 04:31:01.026 --> 04:31:08.579 - as the property in question for this annexation, I think all of those properties probably meet contiguity 04:31:08.579 --> 04:31:15.848 - because they're bordering the city's boundaries. So they would all be eligible. And then it's kind of 04:31:15.848 --> 04:31:23.116 - like a domino effect. Once those properties become annexed, then the properties around them can start 04:31:23.116 --> 04:31:29.886 - to look to see whether they have contiguity with the properties that have just become annexed. 04:31:30.370 --> 04:31:36.564 - So it's kind of, it can be that. It can have a domino effect, but that always presupposes that other 04:31:36.564 --> 04:31:42.697 - people would be interested in becoming part of the city. I don't know if that answers your question 04:31:42.697 --> 04:31:49.014 - very well. I can try again. That was good, thank you. Thank you. Other questions from council members? 04:31:49.014 --> 04:31:55.331 - Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead and go to council member comment. Do council members want to comment 04:31:55.331 --> 04:31:58.398 - on this ordinance? Council member Piedmont-Smith. 04:32:00.354 --> 04:32:08.171 - Yeah, I just want to thank the residents who came out both tonight and at our last meeting to talk about 04:32:08.171 --> 04:32:15.987 - this. I just want to, I think you made a lot of great points, especially about the environmental issues, 04:32:15.987 --> 04:32:23.432 - the flooding issues. But at this point, we are only, we have a petition from somebody to be annexed 04:32:23.432 --> 04:32:30.206 - and we have to evaluate it based on just the criteria in front of us, which are, you know, 04:32:30.530 --> 04:32:39.042 - that it's one-eighth contiguous to the city, which it is. And so all of these questions about what should 04:32:39.042 --> 04:32:47.233 - be allowed to be built there, what's the environmental, the geological decision as to the karst area, 04:32:47.233 --> 04:32:55.584 - what are the stormwater impacts of building there, all these things come later. We can't consider those 04:32:55.584 --> 04:32:59.198 - if it's not part of the city of Bloomington. 04:32:59.330 --> 04:33:07.875 - This is really just the first step. And we have to act on this petition. We can't just say, it would 04:33:07.875 --> 04:33:16.673 - be pointless. Before we vote yes on this, it would be pointless to invest lots of time in environmental 04:33:16.673 --> 04:33:25.387 - examinations and site plans and all that. We have systems in place to examine all those and to be very 04:33:25.387 --> 04:33:28.094 - careful about not building in a 04:33:28.898 --> 04:33:36.489 - Feature and to avoid stormwater runoff problems. We have very Detailed requirements about that, but 04:33:36.489 --> 04:33:44.156 - that comes later right now. We're only Looking at whether they meet the qualifications to be annexed 04:33:44.156 --> 04:33:51.747 - So I just want to be clear about that and I think they do and so I'll be voting. Yes Thank you. Are 04:33:51.747 --> 04:33:55.998 - there other councilmember comments? Councilmember rough 04:33:59.490 --> 04:34:10.350 - Yeah, I did visit the property. And to me, it's pretty obvious that the majority of the property is 04:34:10.350 --> 04:34:21.861 - a literal water conveyance channel. And in order to build on that thing, it's going to take a significant 04:34:21.861 --> 04:34:29.246 - amount of modification of the grade of pretty much the entire site. 04:34:29.986 --> 04:34:37.776 - not necessarily the main reason I'm going to vote no on this, but I'm in agreement with Mr. Post. I 04:34:37.776 --> 04:34:45.721 - don't think it makes any sense to be annexing this while we're in the middle of this annexation fight 04:34:45.721 --> 04:34:53.589 - where this administration seems to continue to want to throw good money after bad, in my opinion, in 04:34:53.589 --> 04:34:57.406 - this whole annexation business. And I don't want 04:34:57.602 --> 04:35:05.377 - throw this little bit into the mix and confuse it even more. If this can be developed someday, well, 04:35:05.377 --> 04:35:13.075 - after everything gets sorted out. And I don't really think it's particularly developable anyway, if 04:35:13.075 --> 04:35:21.003 - you go out there and look at it. But if they're entitled to something and they want to do it now, then 04:35:21.003 --> 04:35:26.238 - deal with whatever county regulations they would have to deal with. 04:35:26.594 --> 04:35:34.640 - So I'm gonna be voting no. Thank you, Councilmember Daly. Thank you. I'm just not convinced that annexing 04:35:34.640 --> 04:35:42.307 - this property is in the best interest of the city or the residents of Corey Drive. I agree with what 04:35:42.307 --> 04:35:49.974 - Mr. Post said as well that it would be, and I wrote this down because I liked the phrase, a headache 04:35:49.974 --> 04:35:53.086 - of logistical problems. I think that is, 04:35:53.250 --> 04:35:59.466 - Probably pretty accurate for this location. I'm just you know, the annexation and the sewer and and 04:35:59.466 --> 04:36:05.807 - how it's going to affect the neighboring properties So I agree that this doesn't make sense. It's not 04:36:05.807 --> 04:36:12.147 - the right move right now let everything else play out in terms of the rest of the annexation question 04:36:12.147 --> 04:36:18.364 - and then Talk about it then but I think right now. I'm I'm certainly not in favor of this voluntary 04:36:18.364 --> 04:36:21.534 - annexation Thank You councilmember Flaherty Thanks 04:36:21.730 --> 04:36:28.101 - I broadly agree with Councilmember Piemont-Smith's points and will be voting yes, but I wanted to go 04:36:28.101 --> 04:36:34.408 - a little further on this concept of like how this fits into the broader questions around annexation 04:36:34.408 --> 04:36:41.095 - and so It's the utilities current policy that we don't grant sewer connections for new properties outside 04:36:41.095 --> 04:36:47.718 - of city limits Because we used to do that and have people sign it, you know We used to do that and annex 04:36:47.718 --> 04:36:50.430 - people at the same time. It was a pair and 04:36:50.722 --> 04:36:55.973 - That was incredibly inefficient from a legislative standpoint. So then, we started getting people to 04:36:55.973 --> 04:37:01.277 - sign contracts saying, look, I'm going to be annexed in the future. I know I'm going to be annexed in 04:37:01.277 --> 04:37:06.580 - the future. I'm going to get my sewer now. And when it comes time to annex me later, I'm not going to 04:37:06.580 --> 04:37:11.779 - remonstrate. Then, we had a lot of folks challenging the validity of those contracts. And the state 04:37:11.779 --> 04:37:17.082 - took likely unconstitutional, in my opinion, as a lawyer, unconstitutional action to invalidate those 04:37:17.082 --> 04:37:20.670 - contracts, which is against both the state and federal constitution. 04:37:20.962 --> 04:37:26.334 - And so now we find ourselves in a situation where the city's policy about connecting the sewer has changed. 04:37:26.334 --> 04:37:31.308 - So this property actually can't be developed, is my understanding, if it remains in the county. And 04:37:31.308 --> 04:37:36.381 - my colleagues are right that whether it can or not with respect to karst features, et cetera, is like 04:37:36.381 --> 04:37:41.554 - a separate question from this inquiry. And so to play it out on the lawsuit front, I don't know exactly 04:37:41.554 --> 04:37:46.577 - where everything is at the current moment with the different areas that were intended for annexation 04:37:46.577 --> 04:37:48.766 - or attempted to be annexed in the lawsuits. 04:37:49.410 --> 04:37:55.766 - If in fact this area of the county is annexed, then this will be immaterial. It's all gonna be annexed. 04:37:55.766 --> 04:38:01.877 - If it is not annexed because the invalidation of our contracts is upheld by the state, then I don't 04:38:01.877 --> 04:38:07.988 - imagine utilities policy changing and in fact will be in this exact situation where this is exactly 04:38:07.988 --> 04:38:14.099 - the type of annexation that will be needed in order for this or any other property to be developed. 04:38:14.099 --> 04:38:19.294 - So it's like in both cases actually this annexation still makes sense in my opinion. 04:38:19.490 --> 04:38:25.066 - So, you know, yeah, I guess it's just like this. I do think this whole area of the county should belong 04:38:25.066 --> 04:38:30.159 - in the city. I think it's reasonable. I think it was aligned with expectations for a long time 04:38:30.159 --> 04:38:35.520 - and contractual agreements as well. I know not everybody has those agreements, but lots of folks in 04:38:35.520 --> 04:38:41.095 - different areas did. And it was a long-standing understanding between county and city governments that, 04:38:41.095 --> 04:38:45.438 - you know, eroded over time. I don't need to get into all that anymore, but like, 04:38:46.274 --> 04:38:54.460 - I don't know. I think that is relevant to the picture here but not to the not in the same way that my 04:38:54.460 --> 04:39:03.047 - colleagues have expressed Thank you other councilmember comment Councilmember Rallo I share the sentiments 04:39:03.047 --> 04:39:11.232 - of councilmember rough and councilmember daily. I I Don't want to rehash the entire annexation debate 04:39:11.232 --> 04:39:15.646 - except to say that the decisions pending and I would I 04:39:15.938 --> 04:39:24.691 - Prefer to wait To see how that manifests rather than do this Incrementally at this point, so I'll be 04:39:24.691 --> 04:39:33.356 - voting no. Thanks Your councilmember comment All right, I'm gonna go ahead and take a minute then I 04:39:33.356 --> 04:39:42.456 - Will say I largely agree with councilmember Piedmont Smith and largely agree with councilmember Flaherty 04:39:42.456 --> 04:39:45.662 - And I will be supporting this I also 04:39:46.498 --> 04:39:52.222 - Like I want to talk for a minute about the zoning stuff. So I'm the planning Commission representative 04:39:52.222 --> 04:39:57.946 - for council on the city planning Commission and so like I've seen a lot of this and I and I heard from 04:39:57.946 --> 04:40:03.504 - a lot of you guys at the planning Commission meeting related to the zoning of it and I have a whole 04:40:03.504 --> 04:40:09.172 - lot of faith like in terms of the the concerns that you guys have like totally legitimate, right, but 04:40:09.172 --> 04:40:11.006 - I have a whole lot of faith that 04:40:11.202 --> 04:40:16.357 - This isn't just like, if we annex it, then these people can do whatever they want. They can build whatever 04:40:16.357 --> 04:40:21.271 - they want there. That's just not the way it works. And I appreciate, I can't remember your name right 04:40:21.271 --> 04:40:26.137 - now off the top of my head. I appreciate that you were like, I just want to keep on talking about it 04:40:26.137 --> 04:40:30.810 - and every chance I have to be like, I'm really concerned about this drainage piece. Because yes, 04:40:30.810 --> 04:40:35.676 - do that. Because clearly, there's some clear concerns about drainage pieces. I think with developing 04:40:35.676 --> 04:40:40.446 - that, it might actually, potentially, because they would have to be required to deal with drainage 04:40:40.546 --> 04:40:46.381 - Maybe it could even help the drainage if there was approval and I think that there is maybe an if back 04:40:46.381 --> 04:40:52.103 - there somewhere but I don't think that that's necessarily relevant with the With with this step that 04:40:52.103 --> 04:40:57.768 - we're taking tonight. I also though want to point out again, which I pointed out at Plan Commission 04:40:57.768 --> 04:41:03.490 - And I think that I heard councilmember Flaherty correctly saying well if they could connect to sewer 04:41:03.490 --> 04:41:09.438 - then they could develop this property right now and I'll tell you they can't actually because the county 04:41:09.794 --> 04:41:16.795 - Downzoned this zone earlier this year. So a year ago by right somebody could have built a duplex on 04:41:16.795 --> 04:41:24.006 - there, you know the sewer issues aside with with Connecting to County sewer and then earlier this year 04:41:24.006 --> 04:41:31.007 - They they down zoned it and now it is not actually a big enough lot to build anything so Whether or 04:41:31.007 --> 04:41:38.008 - not somebody should be built on it I mean there's like a lot of politics back there and and and and 04:41:38.008 --> 04:41:39.198 - they didn't just 04:41:39.330 --> 04:41:45.467 - Down so this lot it was entire sections. We're in a housing crisis So to take something completely off 04:41:45.467 --> 04:41:51.425 - the table before it's had environmental review before it's gone through any of these steps and just 04:41:51.425 --> 04:41:57.621 - say oh We're not gonna allow anything to be built here ever Because it's too small. I mean I I get real 04:41:57.621 --> 04:41:59.230 - concerned about that. So I 04:41:59.778 --> 04:42:04.797 - I'm going to be supporting this. I'm also really supportive of you guys continuing to come out as it 04:42:04.797 --> 04:42:09.767 - goes through whatever process and planning it ends up having to go through to build anything at all 04:42:09.767 --> 04:42:14.737 - on there. Because those environmental reviews, all those things, they have to happen no matter what 04:42:14.737 --> 04:42:19.756 - gets built there. Even if it's something like by right, which maybe will be a single family home, it 04:42:19.756 --> 04:42:24.925 - would still have to jump through all those hoops to make sure that flooding wasn't going to be an issue 04:42:24.925 --> 04:42:28.702 - to make sure all of those concerns that you have are going to be addressed. 04:42:29.218 --> 04:42:43.360 - Any other council member comment before we call the roll. Great. Let's go ahead and call the roll on 04:42:43.360 --> 04:42:57.502 - ordinance twenty twenty five forty three. Council member Flaherty. Yes. No. No. Piedmont Smith. Yes. 04:42:58.786 --> 04:43:16.921 - Sasseberg. Yes. Daily. No. Zulek. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. That passes with a vote 04:43:16.921 --> 04:43:26.686 - of six to three. And so we have one more. Try it again. 04:43:26.850 --> 04:43:32.996 - I move that ordinance 2025 dash 46 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second 04:43:32.996 --> 04:43:38.967 - Let's go ahead and try a voice vote on this and see what happens. All those in favor. Please say aye. 04:43:38.967 --> 04:43:44.937 - Aye any opposed Thank you very much. Will the clerk please read? Yes, just for clarification. Who was 04:43:44.937 --> 04:43:47.454 - the second? Councilmember Zulek. Thank you 04:43:52.386 --> 04:43:59.486 - The ordinance 2025-46 to amend the Bloomington zoning maps and zone property currently in the Monroe 04:43:59.486 --> 04:44:06.656 - County jurisdiction to residential medium lot R2 in anticipation of voluntary annexation regarding to 04:44:06.656 --> 04:44:12.702 - 2005 West Corey Drive. William, I apologize for my pronunciation, Wamatai petitioner. 04:44:13.858 --> 04:44:22.148 - Synopsis says follows this ordinance recommends that the property at two zero zero five West Cory Drive 04:44:22.148 --> 04:44:30.758 - be zoned residential medium lot r2 if the voluntary annexation is approved Thank you, I move that ordinance 04:44:30.758 --> 04:44:38.809 - 2025 dash 46 be adopted second Thank you. So that annexation was approved which makes this ordinance 04:44:38.809 --> 04:44:41.918 - applicable There is an amendment to it 04:44:43.010 --> 04:44:50.815 - Why don't we go ahead and do the amendment first councilmember Zulek? Yes, I move that amendment one 04:44:50.815 --> 04:44:58.775 - be brought forward for ordinance 2025 dash 46 second Councilmember Zulek, would you like to talk about 04:44:58.775 --> 04:45:06.658 - your amendment? Yes very quickly it it is nothing but the correction of instead of an individual this 04:45:06.658 --> 04:45:12.222 - is under an LLC, which I do believe is Under the sole proprietorship of 04:45:12.450 --> 04:45:20.943 - Individual but it is just an update from the name to can use cognizant LLC Thank you, are there any 04:45:20.943 --> 04:45:29.435 - questions for council members who look about this is sort of a bookkeeping issue Great is there any 04:45:29.435 --> 04:45:37.928 - public comments about the amendment that's Clarifies the petitioner to align it correctly with like 04:45:37.928 --> 04:45:39.966 - other documentation and 04:45:42.498 --> 04:45:50.465 - Is there anybody on Zoom for public comment? Okay, thank you. Going back to council then, any comments 04:45:50.465 --> 04:45:58.587 - related to this bookkeeping change in amendment one? All right, seeing no comment, will the clerk please 04:45:58.587 --> 04:46:02.686 - call the roll on amendment one to ordinance 2025-46? 04:46:14.786 --> 04:46:27.246 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. That passes eight 04:46:27.246 --> 04:46:39.227 - zero. Councilmember Flaherty out of the room going back to the ordinance as amended. Now do we have 04:46:39.227 --> 04:46:42.462 - a presentation from staff. 04:46:44.898 --> 04:46:51.869 - State your name for the record and then the floor is yours Thank You Eric Grulick development services 04:46:51.869 --> 04:46:58.839 - manager so this resolution in this case Reflects a recommendation from the Planning Commission for the 04:46:58.839 --> 04:47:05.810 - zoning for this property Should it be annexed? So as it was decided and voted to be annexed and Zoning 04:47:05.810 --> 04:47:12.915 - obviously has to be given to the property So the property is currently in the Monroe County jurisdiction 04:47:12.915 --> 04:47:14.878 - planning jurisdiction and is 04:47:14.978 --> 04:47:22.694 - Zoned our ES which is a residential one. It's a very large lot Lot type it's a one acre lot size is 04:47:22.694 --> 04:47:30.641 - what the county has it Zoned as the minimum lot area as I mentioned a little bit earlier This was when 04:47:30.641 --> 04:47:38.511 - this was approved as a subdivision in the 1990s within the city It has a zoning designation of RS the 04:47:38.511 --> 04:47:44.606 - RS zoning district had a minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet and 60 feet and 04:47:44.674 --> 04:47:51.377 - So all of the lots that are within the subdivision reflected what the zoning code had at the time And 04:47:51.377 --> 04:47:58.080 - so fast forward 30 something years now You know that 7200 square foot 60 foot lot size equates to the 04:47:58.080 --> 04:48:04.651 - r2 zoning district The comprehensive plan that the county has as well as the comprehensive plan I'm 04:48:04.651 --> 04:48:11.420 - sorry the the comprehensive plan that the county has which is called the Monroe County urbanizing area 04:48:11.420 --> 04:48:14.640 - plan reflects their comprehensive plan and has a 04:48:14.640 --> 04:48:21.578 - as mixed residential This is very comparable to the property to the south of this that is within the 04:48:21.578 --> 04:48:28.722 - city that our comprehensive plan has designated as neighborhood residential Both designations encourage 04:48:28.722 --> 04:48:35.591 - a mix of housing types Talk about location adjacent to facilities In is predominantly single-family 04:48:35.591 --> 04:48:38.270 - in nature of both the zoning districts 04:48:38.338 --> 04:48:45.414 - So the Plain Commission's review and guidelines for this were a pretty easy Correlation in terms of 04:48:45.414 --> 04:48:52.703 - what the zoning should be for this So r2 as I mentioned reflects what the lot size is sizes are within 04:48:52.703 --> 04:49:00.416 - this neighborhood And so that was the Plain Commission's recommendation by a seven to zero vote To recommend 04:49:00.416 --> 04:49:07.422 - that this property be zoned r2, which is the residential medium lot zone district so with that I'm 04:49:07.522 --> 04:49:16.411 - Happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Does anybody have any questions for mr. Grulick 04:49:16.411 --> 04:49:26.116 - councilmember? Oh Yes, I'm glad you covered the compatibility If this as this property will now be annexed 04:49:26.116 --> 04:49:35.459 - by the decision of the council Any sort of Petition for development there Will require site inspection 04:49:35.459 --> 04:49:37.182 - by your department 04:49:37.954 --> 04:49:43.352 - So there are you know, there are a couple different development possibilities. So a single-family residence 04:49:43.352 --> 04:49:48.500 - Assuming that it would meet all of our requirements. We just need a building permit If the owner comes 04:49:48.500 --> 04:49:53.597 - forward with a duplex and that is a conditional use So they would have to have a neighborhood meeting 04:49:53.597 --> 04:49:58.295 - that would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals Regardless of either scenario it has to meet the 04:49:58.295 --> 04:50:03.293 - udio requirements for setbacks the environmental features would have to be evaluated you know, as I 04:50:03.293 --> 04:50:06.142 - mentioned we've already let the property owner know that 04:50:06.242 --> 04:50:12.473 - The karst feature or the potential karst feature will need to be evaluated There are trees that are 04:50:12.473 --> 04:50:19.141 - on the site that would be subject to our tree preservation requirements So there's a myriad of regulations 04:50:19.141 --> 04:50:25.871 - that would apply regardless of whether it's a by-right or conditional use I see. Yeah, I I think I remember 04:50:25.871 --> 04:50:32.103 - walking this property back in the 90s when it was part of the city and the Environmental Commission 04:50:32.103 --> 04:50:35.966 - and I remember large sinkhole so anyway, the point is is that 04:50:36.482 --> 04:50:44.910 - You'll you'll be mapping that sinkhole Yeah, we've already done of it and then the setback that would 04:50:44.910 --> 04:50:53.090 - be and then any developable land will be Essentially evaluated by your department. Yes. Okay Okay. 04:50:53.090 --> 04:51:01.352 - Thank you. Thank you other questions for mr. Grulick All right seeing none let's go ahead and go to 04:51:01.352 --> 04:51:05.566 - public comment on ordinance 2025 46 as amended and 04:51:06.082 --> 04:51:12.567 - So again that this this ordinance has to do with zoning this particular parcel into the residential 04:51:12.567 --> 04:51:19.312 - to lot Go ahead and come forward sign in state your name for the record You'll have up to three minutes 04:51:19.312 --> 04:51:25.797 - If you're on zoom and you want to comment you can raise your hand using the reactions tab or send a 04:51:25.797 --> 04:51:32.412 - chat message to the host Go ahead when you're ready. Once again, Jay Nelson in regards to zoning. I'm 04:51:32.412 --> 04:51:35.006 - not sure what can be done with this but 04:51:35.170 --> 04:51:42.026 - This whole entire road our single-family homes to then annex it and then slap in where we're gonna throw 04:51:42.026 --> 04:51:48.620 - a duplex in it Just doesn't really make sense. But being a builder and knowing that property as well 04:51:48.620 --> 04:51:55.150 - I don't see how it's physically possible to throw a duplex on there let alone allowing that to be a 04:51:55.150 --> 04:52:00.830 - Possibility, I believe is just the wrong way Just kind of a comment on this annexation 04:52:01.058 --> 04:52:07.722 - And the rezoning I just think is backwards If I want to DNX myself, I wish I could do that, right? But 04:52:07.722 --> 04:52:14.256 - it doesn't seem like there's a possibility to do that But you can annex a property and just jump all 04:52:14.256 --> 04:52:20.791 - over it But to even see that if it's buildable and what we're building on should probably be a first 04:52:20.791 --> 04:52:27.390 - step here in my concern before you're annexing anything or assuming the responsibilities of that land 04:52:27.554 --> 04:52:33.680 - But rezoning this if you do consider doing that it would be great to have some kind of caveat or restriction 04:52:33.680 --> 04:52:39.525 - Where it would be to a single family and there would be for the drainage issues or something that might 04:52:39.525 --> 04:52:45.427 - be done I don't know what's in your purview your power here to address those things and obviously you're 04:52:45.427 --> 04:52:48.574 - hearing nothing but Concerns because there are concerns 04:52:48.674 --> 04:52:55.165 - The builder didn't build on this lot for a reason and promise you as a developer and a builder myself 04:52:55.165 --> 04:53:01.784 - I would have built on that lot if I had the opportunity. So there's something going on here So I'm just 04:53:01.784 --> 04:53:08.148 - you know, putting the cart before the horse is kind of silly on some of this And it's I don't know. 04:53:08.148 --> 04:53:14.894 - It's a little backwards to me and it's unfortunate that we're not Going out there doing our due diligence 04:53:14.894 --> 04:53:17.694 - first before we're making decisions on mute 04:53:18.018 --> 04:53:24.132 - items And I really believe that this is going to be the case with this subject of being annexed over 04:53:24.132 --> 04:53:30.367 - and He's not going to be able to build on it. What's the point until the whole litigation is? All done 04:53:30.367 --> 04:53:36.542 - with annexation and then you know, maybe something else is done in the future But I don't ever seeing 04:53:36.542 --> 04:53:41.566 - a property on here. It shouldn't be rezoned. It shouldn't have been re annexed. So 04:53:45.378 --> 04:53:53.916 - Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to comment on ordinance 2025 46 as amended? 04:53:53.916 --> 04:54:01.980 - Has anybody raised a hand on zoom? All right, not seeing any other public comment. Let's go ahead and 04:54:01.980 --> 04:54:09.886 - go back to council. Any questions that came up during public comment? Seeing none. Any comment from 04:54:09.886 --> 04:54:12.574 - council members before your vote? 04:54:15.202 --> 04:54:23.233 - Yeah, you know, I understand that the current zoning being or in the county's urbanizing plan, it's 04:54:23.233 --> 04:54:31.506 - mixed residential and that is similar and consistent with what this proposal Would be but you know and 04:54:31.506 --> 04:54:39.296 - I respect that and I appreciate the thought that's gone into that from staff and in the planning 04:54:39.296 --> 04:54:42.910 - commissioners but I just think this thing is 04:54:43.074 --> 04:54:51.563 - Bassack words and wrong-headed and I don't want to be associated with the yes vote in any aspect of 04:54:51.563 --> 04:55:00.052 - it So I'm going to vote no on this, too Thank you any other council comments Councilmember Piedmont 04:55:00.052 --> 04:55:08.541 - Smith Well, I disagree I think that this is being done in a logical order First we voted on whether 04:55:08.541 --> 04:55:12.446 - to annex it now that it's annexed it needs to 04:55:13.570 --> 04:55:20.764 - to be zoned in a certain way. So we know how to apply the UDO. A UDO, may I remind everybody, that has 04:55:20.764 --> 04:55:27.748 - very strong environmental protections. So before anything is built there, there will be an analysis 04:55:27.748 --> 04:55:34.732 - of the geography and the topography and nothing built within 25 feet of the sinkhole. So if nothing 04:55:34.732 --> 04:55:41.787 - can be built there, then that'll be the result. But we got a piece of land now. We have to give it a 04:55:41.787 --> 04:55:42.974 - zoning category. 04:55:44.162 --> 04:55:51.580 - Um, so I don't, I certainly don't understand why my colleagues thinks colleague thinks this is back 04:55:51.580 --> 04:55:59.369 - ass words. I mean, this is a voluntary annexation. This has no impact on the legal case of our attempted 04:55:59.369 --> 04:56:07.010 - involuntary annexation. This is one property where the owner would like to be annexed has been annexed 04:56:07.010 --> 04:56:12.574 - now. So we're just going to leave this unzoned. It doesn't make any sense. 04:56:14.818 --> 04:56:20.443 - Thank you other councilmember comment comes member flirty sort of briefly agree that like I think this 04:56:20.443 --> 04:56:25.958 - is I appreciate the perspective that We have like a cart horse issue and that there should have been 04:56:25.958 --> 04:56:31.528 - like environmental review first and I just I think it's the opposite I really do think the first step 04:56:31.528 --> 04:56:37.044 - here is annexation and zoning and then you look at what specifically can be done or not and It might 04:56:37.044 --> 04:56:42.723 - be that the outcome is nothing is built here and nothing can be built here and like if that's the right 04:56:42.723 --> 04:56:43.870 - outcome based on our 04:56:44.066 --> 04:56:50.313 - City laws then like that's the outcome it should be and that's perfectly acceptable. That's fine Like 04:56:50.313 --> 04:56:56.621 - nothing will look wrong will have happened if that's the outcome. It's just like the thing running its 04:56:56.621 --> 04:57:03.174 - course So I appreciate that someone wanted to be annexed and that we are learning the process of voluntary 04:57:03.174 --> 04:57:09.482 - annexation because it might be One of the primary ways we're annexing for the foreseeable future Thank 04:57:09.482 --> 04:57:14.014 - you other councilmember comment Right seeing none. Oh councilmember Allah 04:57:14.338 --> 04:57:26.409 - Mr. Gerlich quick question Discussion I guess so I've been commented very much tonight. So take privilege 04:57:26.409 --> 04:57:37.911 - and talking a little bit So mr. Gerlich the r2 designation to single-family home conditional use for 04:57:37.911 --> 04:57:42.238 - more intense plex, right is is that a 04:57:42.626 --> 04:57:49.307 - Does that go before the BZA or is that? Yes, so conditional use for a duplex would go to the Board of 04:57:49.307 --> 04:57:56.184 - Zoning Appeals. Okay. All right. That's the clarification I need Thank you Seeing no other councilmember 04:57:56.184 --> 04:58:03.061 - comments. I Had a second quick follow-up comment councilmember rough. I Just wanted to clarify Of course 04:58:03.061 --> 04:58:09.808 - it I agree that would make no sense I agree with my comment colleague that would get no sense to leave 04:58:09.808 --> 04:58:11.838 - the property total unzoned but 04:58:12.098 --> 04:58:20.206 - I'm assuming that it's gonna pass It's gonna be approved The other thing I want to clarify was So it's 04:58:20.206 --> 04:58:28.393 - just kind of a protest vote making a statement that I do think it's it's bass backwards And that's what 04:58:28.393 --> 04:58:36.264 - I wanted to my other comment was it's a fishing reference bass backwards Thank you unless there are 04:58:36.264 --> 04:58:40.830 - other comments if the clerk could please call a roll on a 04:58:41.442 --> 04:59:04.076 - ordinance 2025 46 as amended Councilmember Rallo. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes Stasberg. Yes daily. No Zulek. 04:59:04.076 --> 04:59:10.974 - Yes Rosenberger. Yes Sorry. Yes 04:59:11.714 --> 04:59:18.171 - Yes breath no, thank you that passes seven to We are finally done with our legislative agenda this evening 04:59:18.171 --> 04:59:24.205 - y'all We are down to the period of additional public comment If there are any members of the public 04:59:24.205 --> 04:59:30.300 - who would like to make a comment on an item not on the agenda This is the time that they are welcome 04:59:30.300 --> 04:59:35.550 - to do so if they did not comment earlier at the first period of general public comment 04:59:35.682 --> 04:59:42.084 - Anybody would like to make that kind of comment in chambers, please make your way to the podium if you're 04:59:42.084 --> 04:59:48.244 - online Please raise your hand using the reactions tab or send a chat message to the host. I Don't see 04:59:48.244 --> 04:59:54.525 - anybody moving in chambers has anybody raised a hand on zoom fantastic Council schedule I already noted 04:59:54.525 --> 05:00:00.564 - please think about your calendars in the last two weeks of January for interview committee meetings 05:00:00.564 --> 05:00:01.470 - that are gonna 05:00:01.826 --> 05:00:09.536 - Be figured out the 1st of January meeting and otherwise our next regularly scheduled meeting as our 05:00:09.536 --> 05:00:15.550 - organizational meeting on January 7th and Happy holidays and we are adjourned