All right, good evening, everyone. I'll call the February 4th, 2026 regular session of the Bloomington
Common Council to order. Will our honorable clerk please call the roll? Stasberg? Here. Piedmont-Smith?
Here. Zulek? Here. Asari? Here. Rallo? Here. Ruff? Here. Rosenberger? Here. Thank you. All right.
This evening's agenda includes reports from council members. It is posted on the doors and online. If
you'd like to see it in more detail, there's also a handful of copies on the clerk's desk. But the agenda
includes reports from council members and city offices, including a report and discussion regarding
the Kirkwood Outdoor Dining Program. There will be a special time during this report for public comment,
separate from our two sessions of
public comment that are usually on the agenda. We will also consider appointments to boards and commissions.
We have two ordinances for first reading related to boards and commissions and ordinance procedures
and legislation for second reading, including a resolution to rename a council committee and an ordinance
amending the unified development ordinance related to affordable housing incentives and payment and
lieu provisions. So with that, I'm going to move to the section of approval of our minutes.
We have minutes from August 6 September 30th and October 8th. Are there any corrections to the minutes?
Fantastic hearing none do I have a motion I Move approval of minutes for August 6 September 30th and
October 8 2025 Thank you very much there is a motion and a second I
Clerk will you for us to accept the minutes? Will you please call the roll on that motion? Ready? Yes
Stasberg. Yes Piedmont Smith Yes, Zulek. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger. Thank you. I
Okay, we're gonna move on to reports. Today, I'll try something a little different. I'm sorry to be
unusual. But I'll call for reports in two rounds. If you have a general report on your activities, the
things you've been doing throughout the last couple of weeks, that'll be the first round. Second round
of reports for council members if you have any statements, political statements or the like. So we'll
start general updates. Are there any updates?
Councilmember Zulik. Hello, thank you. I just want to remind all of my council colleagues that we are
Initiating our new council liaison program for all of our different boards and commissions effective
January 1st. So in your interview committees, everyone should be assigned two to three boards and commissions
to serve as the council liaison. And as a reminder, these are the following expectations for that role.
One, every council member should reach out to the chairs and liaisons of their commissions, staff liaisons,
at least three times per year and attend at least one meeting.
Interview committees will be responsible for discussing any resolutions or recommendations Passed by
assigned boards and commissions and then councilmember liaison should apprise board and commission chairs
and staff liaisons of any relevant legislation being developed Or discussed by council and vice versa
Bonus points something that I have been doing is I have been going to coffee I've started going to coffee
with different boards and commission members to better learn the one-on-one and
of different commissioners experience working with the city of Bloomington and anything that they might
be advocating for so That is the expectations and your bonus points of the day. Thank you Thank you.
Any other updates from councilmembers councilmember Sasper Thank you
Want to remind folks I'm doing something a little different with my constituent meetings this year and
I'm scheduling one-on-one appointments with people during kind of pre scheduled time So my next right
now they're second Tuesday's and there is a link on my public calendar that you can follow to schedule
an appointment So mentioning that right now because the second Tuesday is next week. I
So it's next week between 1130 and 1 and there are a couple appointment times that have been booked
which I'm excited about And then there are still some openings So if anybody would like to have my undivided
attention on any kind of an issue or concern My plan is to meet in the council office suite over on
the other side and West showers for now but if you need an online link to meet online that also works and
And I guess the other update I'll give folks we had an MPO meeting last week and then I've also gotten
a couple of constituent comments about work that in dot is planning along 10th Street and especially
the 10th and Pete Ellis intersection because in dot does have a bunch of trees marked that
They expect are in the right-of-way and there is still kind of ongoing conversation right now between
and on the city about making sure that those are in the right-of-way But you can also submit a comment
and if you want to make a comment about those trees getting taken down, thanks Tremendous any other
updates from council members? Seeing none do any of you have any statements you'd wish to make and Even
if you said an update
Councilmember P much with Yes, thank you just a short statement There has been petition as well as a
protest on this matter so I wanted to say for the record that I share the concern expressed in by the
members of the public about the city of Bloomington using the company flock security and
for license plate cameras and other security cameras. Flock is not trustworthy. So even if Mayor Thompson's
administration tightens up the contract, I don't trust Flock to follow it nor to keep camera images
and associated data safe. In this national context of creeping fascism and increasing loss of personal
liberties, I don't think the city should continue its contract with Flock. Thank you, Council Member.
Any other statements?
Councilmember Stasberg Thank you. Um, I Want to take a minute to I'm hoping that I'm gonna get through
this statement by the way Because I have a feeling I wrote it and I was fine and saying it might be
a little bit harder I just want to take a minute to give acknowledgement to the children and youth who
are being caught in the middle of a situation that no one and especially not children should be caught
in if you haven't seen the photos of Liam Ramos and his bunny hat during the last two weeks, I can't
imagine what
news you've been watching. His story has been broadcast worldwide after he was used by ICE as bait and
then was taken into detention with his father. And for context, he's five.
He's five years old and being used as a pawn by an agency of the United States federal government And
he is not alone and that's the part that I really want to highlight because he got released But there
are hundreds of children in ICE detention in very similar situations as he was Hundreds of children
who the United States government is inflicting trauma upon hundreds of children who are not being given
adequate food or
water or medical care. Recently there have been reports that there are measles cases in the Texas facility
where Liam and his father were kept with hundreds of other families. The trauma being done to the children
in this country is shameful. It is shameful and it goes beyond the children that are in active or former
detention. It extends to the classmates of those children because suddenly their peer has disappeared
It extends to the children riding the school buses that are being followed by ICE agents who are waiting
for those children to get off the bus or hunting their parents.
while they wait for their kids. It extends to the older youth, the almost adults who are walking out
of their schools in protest, sacrificing their day of education for a more important moment in history
because someone has to stand up and our young people are taking it into their own hands because they
see how wrong this violence against our communities are. High school students across Indiana are walking
out in protest, and this includes our own high school students here in Bloomington.
South high school students had a protest outside their building North high school students walked the
three miles from at the high school in the snow in the cold to get to that protest last Friday to join
the community protest against ice and Our kids know what is happen that what is happening is wrong?
and the least then I can do is speak out from this seat here to acknowledge the trauma that's being
imposed upon them and Salute our kids for standing strong and being resilient. Thank you Thank you councilman Brazil
I would also like to note the passing of Representative Lee Hamilton earlier today. For those of you
who don't know, I graduated from the Hamilton Lugar School. And Lee Hamilton is always someone that
I wanted to grow up and be like. So I just want to acknowledge this community's loss. And we've lost
a lot of greats in the past couple of weeks. And so I just want to acknowledge that. Thank you.
Thank you. Any others? Going once.
Twice okay fantastic will now turn to the office of the mayor and we have today a presentation from
the economic and sustainable development Department our mighty ESD. We're going to talk to us about
Kirkwood plans for next year. Take it away Hi everyone Jane Cooper Smith director of economic and sustainable
development to speak with you and
This evening about the 2026 outdoor dining program and i'm here with a special projects manager chas
mottinger Yeah to provide you this update. I want to frame chas's presentation with A bit of process
information and positioning before passing to her for detail First off esd is leading the communication
efforts and the guides guidelines relating to outdoor dining However, this is very much a team effort
public works legal police
Parks fire engineering planning CFRD and office of the mayor have all been engaged in this process and
together the city administration makes this recommendation further the initial approach to this program
for 2026 based on communication between the legal teams
was for ESD to simply update the 2026 guidelines for the Board of Public Works. However, it has been
determined that the more appropriate way forward is to activate section seven of ordinance 2502, which
gives the city engineer the authority to temporarily or permanently suspend all or parts of the outdoor
dining program. So the city engineer will submit a statement to council and the Board of Public Works
indicating temporary suspension of the Kirkwood closure part of the outdoor dining program in 2026.
And that may happen as early as tomorrow. The city engineer was not able to be here for this presentation
tonight, but I'm happy to communicate questions back to him or facilitate that. While there are strong
opinions and feelings about the correct way forward, I want to highlight that there is truly a shared
vision for Kirkwood. This item tonight is potentially contentious because so many people care about it.
City planning and ESD will request funding as part of the 2027 budget cycle to begin the corridor study
a Request for proposals for a consultant for the corridor study, which will include an economic development
component as well as a planning component We will begin that process in q4 2026. So it's becoming very
much close to being present tense, which is exciting and
My colleagues and I look forward to beginning this collaborative process with the entire community so
that we can begin taking the steps to make Kirkwood Avenue a place where form and function align and
welcome all to the heart of Bloomington. With that, I'll pass to Chas so she can provide an overview
of our work to prepare our recommendation for 2026. Thanks. Thank you, Jane. Good evening, everyone.
All right.
So over in the past several years, our outdoor dining program has evolved from an emergency pandemic
response into a shared community vision, creating a vibrant space on Kirkwood Avenue, the city's gateway
from town to gown in the heart of Bloomington. City staff have listened, learned, and experienced many
lessons. And we have come to the conclusion that the current approach to seasonal closures has led to
incomplete solutions.
After reviewing data community engagement departmental input and operational realities city staff recommends
that in 2026 We keep Kirkwood Avenue open to vehicles year-round We enhance and expand the parklet program
and we shift resources towards micro activation efforts that strengthen the entire corridor and let's
get into the why despite of
57% increase in event activity last year and 16 more program days, we still saw an 8% decline in average
daily visits. This tells us that street closures alone are not enough to support consistent vibrancy
and that thoughtful activation and infrastructure improvements have a greater impact. Successes of the
program have included that some restaurants and bars saw increased foot traffic and sales during closure.
During the closures many residents enjoyed the walkable pedestrian focused environment However, we also
face significant and reoccurring challenges One is economic concerns some retailers and service businesses
reported decreases in visits parking and delivery access became problematic to infrastructure limitations and
Without permanent features such as shade, seating, hardscaping, and ADA-friendly services, blocks often
felt empty. Three, staff capacity and resources. We simply do not have the resources to continuously
program and manage a fully closed Kirkwood. Four are public safety concerns. Closed but unactivated
streets invite crowd surges, unsafe behavior, and congestion across bollards and alleyways.
Five, accessibility challenges.
Businesses and residents express frustrations with drop-off access wheelchair routes and delivery logistics
These issues make the 2025 model unsustainable the 2025 model also brings additional costs an estimated
80,000 annual loss in parking revenue only $17,500 in revenue from program fees increased overtime for
straight and sanitation workers additional trash and maintenance needs due to closed blocks and
We must shift to a more cost-effective model that still supports vibrancy. For 2026, we are going to
focus on the following three initiatives. And we're really excited about them too, by the way. One is
downtown activation. We're going to continue major high quality festivals such as the Taste of Bloomington
and Pride Fest. With the Kirkwood Activation Coordinator Consultant that was funded from the 2026 budget,
we're going to add small scale micro events.
Examples may include art crawls, coffee crawls, scavenger hunts, Instagram challenges, and
other business-driven promotions. These drive more long-term economic impact than closures alone. Two,
we're going to focus on parklet improvements. We're going to require accessible platforms that are level
to the sidewalk. We're going to encourage more greenery, shade, and lighting. We're also going to work
on finding long-term solutions to replace orange jersey barriers in the future.
Finally, we're going to focus on the long-term planning We're going to prepare for the 2027 Kirkwood
corridor study and this includes as Jane mentioned a request for proposals in 2026 and securing funding
in the 2027 budget cycle We're going to use this study to create a comprehensive community driven vision
for Kirkwood's future When we're looking at community engagement feedback highlights include businesses
downtown and along Kirkwood and
are about evenly split between expanding closures and scaling back to parklets. Residents generally
support a pedestrian friendly Kirkwood, but they emphasize the need for more amenities and accessibility
measures. Stakeholders such as Downtown Bloomington Inc, the Chamber of Commerce, and Indiana University
are supportive of a well-executed, sustainable approach.
Downtown strategies the consultant developing the city's downtown action plan has found that effective
major events and targeted micro programming Drive more economic benefit than full street closures City
staff connected with over 50 businesses over a hundred residents and the work still continues The vision
for Kirkwood is clear a safe inclusive vibrant and economically strong corridor that reflects Bloomington's
identity We just need a real plan to make it happen
Seasonal closures provide value, but they expose limitations of temporary infrastructure and limited
city resources. In 2026, our focus shifts towards better parklets, stronger activation, and long-range
planning that will allow Kirkwood to thrive year-round. We look forward to continuing the engagement
with you council members and the community as we move into the next phase. Thank you. We're happy to
answer questions. Council members, if anyone has a question.
Discussion point is also council members like Thank you. Thank you for the presentation I was just wondering
are there plans to close down Kirkwood during home games for IU football? Not at this not at this time
I think director of public works Adam Wason might respond to your question. Thank you. I
We have not considered whether or not we would close it for all the home football games or not at this
time You know as we think about the micro engagements and the smaller scale events It could be possible,
but we wouldn't plan just every weekend for football right now Thank you Any other questions, please
you thank you for the presentation and also appreciate the conversations that we had was funding or
in advance and
Director Cooper Smith mentioned so Ordinance 2020 502 was passed by the council. I think with the express
intent of creating some multi-year certainty for Down for the whole community really but especially
folks who make actual investments in their parklets and in other Expansions that would might go into
this. What is the right of way for that for this or typically space dedicated to cars? So Sharing that
as context a director
Cooper Smith mentioned that they're activating section 7 of that ordinance which reads to start in cases
of emergency lack of participation or any other reason that may render the program impractical the Common
Council authorizes the city engineer to permanently or temporarily suspend the program in part or in
whole I guess first just a clarification with like so I think I'm understanding that the administration
is saying the city engineer has determined that
One of these reasons to be true, which I guess I'm curious which it is. Is it an emergency? Is it lack
of participation or is it? Impractical and could you elaborate a bit on? On that please. Yeah, I mean
I so the memo hasn't been submitted yet. So it's not formalized But Margie's okay if I summarize where
we're coming from. So I think we're looking more at the at the third
Item where it's rendered impractical. I mean this body knows better than anyone else that we're working
with reduced resources now and going forward I think we also learned how much in 2025 how much How many
resources how much time is required to fully activate the corridor? the investments that we made in the
Sorry the downtown strategies consultant. Those were actually paid with Creed funds. So We're doing
what we can we have consultant funds that will go to these smaller activations and will request that
funding again in 2027 But I think just if you need a single answer, it's generally related to that But
in the draft memo that I saw the engineer is pointing to the reasons outlined in the memo that was presented
by ESD Which I think is multifactorial. So
But it's not engineering reasons, right? Like they're not reasons of engineering design safety. The
ordinance doesn't require engineering reasons It says or any other reason that renders the
program impractical Thanks for your interpretation. Yeah. Thanks. Sorry for interrupting Other questions
also feel free to make comments go ahead Thank you
Do you have any data on how the Poplar's construction might have impacted Kirkwood activity last year?
we Don't have specific data related to Poplar's or the Beverly I think is what it's called but we and
our key lead on parking is not was not available for additional data today, but
I don't know if Adam wants to talk about that. I mean in 2025 we had other pressures on parking related
to construction So I'm not sure if it's apples to apples But yeah, it's a good question. Thank you Can
I also add I know that this year we do have a there's construction that will also be going on that could
potentially impact a crooked closure in general just will impact downtown so there's going to
be a sidewalk maintenance project. Duke Energy is planning some major rerouting on one of their major
lines that feeds into IU. And again, with the continued Beverly project and also the CVS project or
better known as the 115 East Kirkwood project as well that these are all things to consider when we
look at this, that they will impact people downtown. Thank you.
Go ahead Can you tell me why the administration decided to study this when Last year we decided we would
keep it open and I think so many businesses on Kirkwood invested not in the Parkland but in their outdoor
dining space because we basically promised that we would keep it open for a number of years I think that
study, which you put in air quotes, is really just part of our due diligence for working on the guidelines
and the guideline updates. Yeah, I mean, I think it's that simple. It's part of our practice. Yeah,
go ahead. If I can say, so part of my job is to do the implementation of this program, whether that's
the Kirkwood closure or it's the parklets. So I work with a lot of people. As we mentioned before, when
we're doing this as a team effort,
Literally everyone every department at the city and these problems have been brought up in the past
Well a couple years, but really especially think shout out to our wonderful She's been here year the
public works special projects manager and Cassie we've just been able to understand better and
How this program works what the implementation? Successes and challenges are so and thanks to also the
council and when we presented before we've really had a better understanding of what the city can and
can't do what are the actual operational realities So that goes into it talking with people constantly
doing our due diligence as public servants and listening not to just
Largest voices are the loudest voices, but all the voices people still struggle with accessibility.
They struggle with Deliveries they struggle with all these other things so we're looking at the full
picture and these things just get brought to light and so we are Listening to the community to our colleagues
to people with these struggles and also with their successes with this program And that's it just gets
brought up. So for the past year since this happened, unfortunately You know, we have to deal with it
when we hear these things
Unless there's any objection from council members, I'd like to extend this time by 20 minutes.
Is that okay? Seeing none, Councilmember Rosemargie, you wanna continue? Any other questions? Go ahead.
Not a question for staff, it's sort of a procedural question.
sort of preempt what end of being a debate About whether we should allow during public comment general
public comment for tonight Comment on this item because it's technically on the agenda. It's
not a legislative item of legislation My instinct is to during public comment our 20 our general open
public comment if there are
people want to comment towards this item, my census would be to allow that. And I don't know if that
would take a motion or suspension of the rules, because technically it's on the agenda, even though
it's not an item of legislation, like I said. But I anticipate that. Excellent point. We included public
comment on the agenda as a part of this. Great. Other points? And feel free, questions, comments. Otherwise,
we can go to public comment if we'd like.
Comment I I do find this concerning If if the purpose of ordinance 2502 was simply if the administration
reaches a different policy conclusion For any reason they can go back on the ordinance then there was
no purpose in passing it in the first place At least implicit in that to me and in viewing the city
engineer with authority and emergencies and other
Situations to suspend it there's some presumption that it's not just the administration reached a different
conclusion than the council So that's just how I feel about it I guess and Even if it doesn't violate
the letter of the ordinance it certainly violates the spirit in my mind and That's not the first time
that's happened under the mayor Thompson administration and
The type of pattern that emerges makes it hard to trust when we are developing legislation, we're passing
budgets, those types of things. So to me, this is yet another data point on a larger picture, and it's
disappointing. And I appreciate the work that's gone into it, I appreciate the outreach, I appreciate
the creative solutions that are being proposed. To me, that's all both and, though, and it doesn't get
around the problematic aspect with respect to the legislation the council passed last year. Thank you.
That I did meet with our Council attorneys about the legislation because I was very confused about this
memo coming out with a recommendation to stop the outdoor dining program in Kirkwood and The ordinance
explicitly gives
to our city engineer and that is for the engineer to make Decisions based on his expertise this decision
is not based on Any work that the engineer does and I Spoke to our city engineer last week and he had
stayed out of this So he he knew a little bit about what was going on but was definitely not a part
of this decision and this memo came out much before
is now Deciding that it is impractical and I think the ordinance is clear that in section I think three
City staff has the authority but not authority but city staff is tasked with writing the guidelines
and the guidelines are to put into place how this program will be implemented and It doesn't give city staff a
authority to to stop part of this program like that is the city engineer and like the intent if you
watch the meeting from last year of that was for construction street closures because we had the Indiana
Avenue Street closure last year and so I am I am so disappointed that this is how this is going I I
know I went to one meeting with city staff about this but found it I
I found that the decision was already made before I even had my meeting, which was also disappointing
to me. And I don't know if any kind of public outreach happened here or not. I've really only heard
about a few anecdotes about negative things that people think about this program when I mostly hear
positive things from members of our community. So overall, I'm so incredibly disappointed. It's really
hard for me to even
Question on that note is Do we receive more legislation at some point to confirm? the the your intentions
for this year how Where how do you view it as progressing from from the meeting today? The legislation
The guidelines need to be updated via the Board of Public Works and it looks like
Like via section 7 the engineer needs to notify council needs to notify businesses 14 days in advance
of any suspension of the program and then council needs to be reported to about the reasons within 45
days of that suspension Backing the frame up just a little bit. I Am just listening deeply to the feedback
from council members Flaherty and Rosenberger and I think maybe what
might help is just the the reason this is coming up is because This team feels so strongly that the
implementation of the program Did not match the intent of the program. So I think that's why this is
coming before you and it is not intended to be underhanded and in fact the section 7 activation is really
because it seems like that's more aligned with the
what the rule states. So I don't know. I just wanted to offer that context and then just say I'm hearing
you. All right, if there's no other comments. Council Member Pima-Smith, do you have a comment?
I'm sorry, I might have missed your hand if it went up. Okay, in which case, I'll move to a session
of public comment now.
Same general rules, if you can state your name at the microphone or some alias, that would be great.
Make sure you sign in and you have three minutes. We'd love to hear from you. Oh, for those online,
if you're wanting to make public comment directly about the Kirkwood program, you can raise your hand
and we will acknowledge you in turn. We'll start in council.
Excuse me. Is this for items on the agenda or not on the agenda? This is specifically for this thing
about Kirkwood and then we're gonna have a second session of public comment after this So my name is
Adam Martinez the packet states
8% decrease in visits year-over-year I wonder how do we know that the street closure led to the decrease
the economy overall in 2025 was not great for Reasons I won't get into is it possible that the decline
could have been more significant had the street been open to cars The closure of Kirkwood to vehicle
traffic is a major reason that many residents myself included visit downtown in the summer when I'm
sharing drinks with friends, I want to hear their voices and
Not the roar of internal combustion engines and the squeaking of un-lubricated brakes. I want my lungs
to be filled with the smells of tacos and teriyaki, not gasoline fumes and microscopic bits of rubber
from car tires. I understand the program has presented some logistical challenges, but we should view
this as an opportunity to improve it rather than justification to regress. These problems are solvable.
The city should look towards other successful efforts to pedestrianize. There's Pike Place in Seattle,
34th Avenue in Queens,
They show that restricting private vehicle access is possible and it leads to communities that are more
connected more vibrant and more economically productive Kirkwood's pedestrian pedestrian ization should
be a starting point and not the end of the road I asked the government to make an example of Bloomington
to show our state in our country that we're not afraid of bold progressive action that improves the
lives of our residents Thank you But next in council chambers
Hi, my name is Nathan Petrie and I didn't prepare anything I just came and you know wanted to listen
to what you guys had to say and then Would say something if I thought it necessary and I just wanted
to you know start out by saying I only heard about this Two days ago. So to you know councilman Rosenberger's
point I did not you know, I thought you know, oh Kirkwood's gonna be closed again this summer. Great.
That's cool I liked it last summer and then you know, I just saw
Facebook and I follow, you know all the pay all Bloomington's pages and just saw you know, oh we're
gonna close it Here's why if you want to talk about it, you know, you can come to the City Council meeting
so in two days or you know one day I don't know if it was that long ago, but and then second point is I
drive for uber on the you know some nights and I'm sure you know you guys would know that Kirkwood Kirkwood
and done is a very very busy intersection and the street closure does nothing but help You know me when
I'm dropping students off at the bars or you know residents off at the bars at that intersection Because
right now it's open again and that stop sign is extremely important
busy and Students walking everywhere. You can't really tell when you can go and it was way simpler When
it was just done and it's you know straight on so I just like to speak to the safety concern of you
know Dropping people off at those bars and you know people patronizing those areas and that You know
that could just use some work in general but straight speaking strictly to Kirkwood I would almost wonder if
We could instead of doing a full closure do those partial closures like you guys were doing You know
in the fall instead of the entire thing. So that would be another point I'd like to bring up. So yeah,
thank you. Thank you next in council chambers Hi, my name is Matt Gleason I heard about this today as
well and I feel strongly about it. So I make some comments I would
Like the challenge the idea that the economic decline was because of the closing Like Adam said there's
a lot of other factors between 2024 and 2025 that led to decline in middle-class spinning power that
I would attribute that to Difficult access for door dash drivers and ride shares was cited as a reason
for giving up on this program, but I think we should be prioritizing pedestrian safety over those uses
I'd also question whether opening and closing the corridor throughout the season would cause more strain
on city resources to Bring out those bollards take them away over and over again Limited infrastructure
including shade and tables will cited as a reason to quit this program, but They were taken away due
to undesired activity is the quote but I feel that
using a lack of shade as anti homeless architecture or hostile architecture is kind of a step backwards
for Bloomington based on Bloomington's values. And so in my opinion I think keeping Kirkwood open to
close to traffic open to pedestrians would be great for the city's public space. There's not many places
that people can just exist or stay for free.
The city and this is one of them and I think it should say that way. Thanks. Thank you next in council
chambers Hi, my name is Greg Alexander What's killing Kirkwood is delivery drivers. It's not very subtle
They're funneling money into dot-coms, you know, it's it's a
Fee on top of what we're supposed to be paying to our restaurants They're making a mess of our traffic.
They are incentivizing people to eat far from their homes Without thinking about it without being aware
of it when we have so many people live downtown and so many restaurants downtown Allowing more drivers
on Kirkwood will only hasten that decline increasing car priority doesn't solve the problems that we
have that's kind of Just really depressing thing to have to say still I
But regarding the possibility of a Kirkwood corridor study You guys need to understand the history of
these corridor studies. We this body authorized one in 2019 And it took four years and then in 2023
the study finally was funded and completed and that was now two years ago a solid two years ago
We haven't seen any fruit of that In fact, we've doubled down on the expenditure at the same time as
it's become really clear that the mayor is simply going to decide based on her own opinions and You
should be real skeptical about claims of a future Kirkwood corridor study. We've established a pattern
of spending money and then ignoring the consultants If the mayor is going to decide regardless of what
the consultant says we can save that money and if the mayor is going to decide
Regardless of what you guys say, why are you wasting my time? Thank you. Thank you. Another in council
chambers. Hi, my name is Bob Castello. I'm the president of Kirkwood Community Association.
And I want to start by saying how disappointed I am that I have to be here last year We worked with
the city with Jane Cooper Smith and Kate Rosenberger To come up with an ordinance that everyone agreed
was the best for Kirkwood The whole premise behind it was so that we wouldn't be here every year talking
about this issue so that we as business owners could prepare invest and provide a
outdoor environment for customers and the community. Once again, we are here in February talking about
whether we're going to keep this open or closed. And I feel like it was disingenuous of the
city administration to enter into that agreement last year, only to come here this year with engineering
issues that they think they need to implement in order to close the city or close the street. We sent,
KCA sent you a rebuttal
To their memo we never received a memo from the city prior to this meeting We did receive a phone call
last week on Thursday to talk about it I guess that was the way to be inclusive prior to this meeting
But I don't feel like we're working well together and I think that if the city is going to close Kirkwood
for construction issues
And sidewalks, if we think about that for a moment, they're also talking about doing a study about closing
Kirkwood to pedestrian... to vehicular traffic. So do we want to invest money in fixing sidewalks, changing
them, doing construction on the street if in two years we're gonna close the street to vehicular traffic
and take the sidewalks out and make them curbless? So I...
kind of question the reasoning behind closing the street and I don't really have much more to say except
for the utter Disappointment and having to be here and spend more time talking about an issue that I
thought was resolved Thanks for your time Thank you. We have another comment in council chambers and
then we'll move to folks online. I
Good evening The Kirkwood Community Association has been going for a long time It's a pretty amazing
group. We have representatives of the university We have representatives of the business community for
the first time ever. We have a city council member attending We also have many people from the city
of Bloomington attending I've been raving about the meetings how effective they are They stopped being
effective last week
When we found out that City staff had sent a memo to the City Council about not engaging in the program
anymore No one talked to the major stakeholders This is the Kirkwood Community Association and we get
here tonight about canceling the program doing to engineering the engineer isn't here and There is no
statement, but everybody else from the city is here
This program is effective because of the businesses that represent Bloomington. All of our restaurants
that I consider institutions have activated the corridor. They're all locally owned. It's not chains,
it's Lenny's, it's Nick's, it's the Village Deli, it's Uptown, it's Farm. Those are the ones that are
invested in making Bloomington a better place
Not just for pedestrians, but for the community. That's where we go to see our friends That's where
we go to see the people in town. We care about it That's we go to ride our bike and wave as we're going
by as they're sitting out front of necks we've had something so special and Now we're going to put it
on pause We're not going to use our previous study about how to engage the quarter We're going to use
taxpayer funded study again that will have no results from in
or four years. Independent restaurants are dying all over the country. We've been very fortunate, but
it's not gonna last. It's not luck. It's hard work and commitment from the community. This administration
has not made that commitment. And the council did last year, and it's deeply upsetting that we have,
I think we had a 9-0 vote last year, and today the city comes and says, oh, due to engineering,
which sounds made up when you have no statement and no engineer that we're gonna cancel this program.
So on behalf of KCA, a huge thank you to the council for your support. We do appreciate it and we realize
you're powerless here. But we thank you for your support and we thank you for caring about the small
businesses in Bloomington. Thank you. Unless there's any objection, I'm gonna extend by 10 minutes,
is that okay?
All right, any folks online wanting to make public comment? You can raise your hand and we will acknowledge
you. Are there any folks online? Who? Attorney Bennett, will you say who, please? Oh, sorry. Is someone speaking?
We can hear you, albeit faintly. Hello, I'm Colin Nielsen. I've spoken before about this issue about
permanently closing Kirkwood to vehicular traffic. I just wanted to say that I think it is interesting
that there was a decline in foot traffic despite the increase in events during 2025.
would hesitate to like, I think the administration could be making a mistake of mistaking a hypothesis
for a fact and kind of reaching a conclusion like immediately like identifying one difference between
2024 and 2025 and then coming to the conclusion that that is the reason why there was a decline in foot
traffic when there could be other possible reasons.
I think it would be difficult for the city to try to identify all of those reasons. It could be general
trends, like was suggested by other speakers, general economic trends. But still, I think this,
I think there, without a doubt, Kirkwood is more enjoyable to visit as a pedestrian when there is no
vehicle or traffic. And I enjoy it.
enjoy it and my family enjoy it when we make the visit and I think that it would be a shame to get rid
of the corridor to get rid of the pedestrianization at least up until a study a corridor study could
be completed because as has been pointed out these corridor studies take several years so it
hate to wait for up until like 2030 until something finally comes out and I think with the corridor
study there should eventually I would hope that it would be able to identify an optimal solution for
all these issues that the city that the administration pointed out but right now I think it would be
beneficial to continue this program at least for another year
to see if 2025 numbers were just a fluke or if, oh yeah, so thank you. That's all. Thank you,
thank you. Are there other commenters online? All right, next person up. Thanks for the time. Galen
Cassidy here, one of the owners of Uptown Cafe. So obviously a big participant in this program.
And you know, I know this is tough for everyone. It's hard to know what you want. It's hard to change
with anything. And I definitely think it doesn't make sense necessarily on every block, but like this
ordinance has been written, I think the city engineer should determine that based on whatever's going
on in that specific season at the time.
I do think there's a lot of opportunity for Kirkwood in the future and I'm glad to know there's a quarter
study. I'm just worried that like some other commenters have mentioned that this is ultimately just
gonna be a bunch of time and money with nowhere to go. I think we need this experience now to know what
we wanna do with this space in the future when we do have the ability to maybe make some infrastructure
changes that could really make it a beautiful place. Kirkwood is obviously a jewel in this town
You know, I just, I just think that that opportunity for a pedestrian friendly Kirkwood in the future
is I'm optimistic about it. If, if we can accomplish it, if we set deadlines and we, we carve out a
budgets and we go into it with an intention that we actually want to make a change. But I think too,
too many times in the past has been the experience with this city, you know, many administrations. Um,
we've just kind of set these lofty goals, but they just end up being that and we never really try to
tackle it. So.
You know, I think an infrastructure change to Kirkwood, maybe it doesn't mean a complete road closure,
but it's some kind of conversion that is much more friendly to pedestrians. Safety is at the forefront
as well. And I'm just optimistic for that. So again, thank you for the time and appreciate
your consideration. Thank you so much. Do we have another commenter? That's all the folks online. Is
there anybody else in the room? Yeah, please.
And if anybody else you can anticipate and sign in ahead of time will save us all some time. Hi Talisha
topic with downtown Bloomington Inc. And I really just wanted to take this opportunity to thank everybody
who's been participating for five years on outdoor dining and the topic there's been so many thoughts
and city resources that
Put towards it private resources that have been put towards it. So, you know, I think we're all working
towards that vibrant downtown that's fun and safe and inviting and You know, it's just it's it's frustrating
for everybody all the way around but I just want to say thank you because it's important and That you
know, maybe there could be some type of compromise. I mean, I thought Galen's points were
valid and, you know, Bob had mentioned maybe earlier, too, especially those, you know, there are like
10 IU event dates that are significant dates, not as large as the IU celebrations for the national
championship, but, you know, graduation and Little 500 and some of those big weekends that
Especially safety if that's like one of the issues in in that done Kirkwood area when it gets so crowded
I'm not down there at 10 o'clock at night. So I don't know what it's like but
You know downtown's used so many different ways at different times of the day So it's it's worth listening
to that and planning for it But just kudos to the city staff for cleaning, you know, Zack who goes out
and picks up trash every single day The public works staff who are putting those bollards out and taking
them back in So, you know, I think a lot of people are trying we're just trying to figure out what is
going to work But thank you. Thank you
Evening, this is Chris Ramsey from the greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I wasn't going to speak
but I heard Galen's His public comment. I just want to echo those thoughts surgically on infrastructure
the you know Our conversation with the members and in our survey data was pretty split on this but one
thing that that was kind of
across the board was the space has not been activated consistent enough to feel comfortable and economically
productive We're just not quite there yet and it does work on certain blocks and it doesn't work on
others so often it feels empty underused and uninviting on outside major events and a lot of Toward
the east part of Kirkwood. There's just no shade. It's pretty brutal and so I was doing some problem-solving
and and What how do we pay for this infrastructure and one?
Idea I came up with was the city as it's moving towards selling the RDC property formerly known as Bunker
and Robertson To possibly use those proceeds to invest directly Into a permanent Kirkwood infrastructure.
I mean that we've heard a lot of work that's gone into this I hate to see this just kind of wait five
years or six years that a lot of people's best effort is into this but it also needs infrastructure
and it needs money where budgets are really tight, so I
I just want to give that and I just would appreciate everybody involved from the city staff to the council
on this I know this is a sort of a tough issue and we all have our heads Sort of in the right space
for this and we all want what is best. So I'm Hopeful. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you All
right going once for the last chance to make comments twice anyone online
Alright back to to council members. Do you have other questions or comments that we have about five
more minutes here? Thank you, I'll just take a quick comment Just a quick moment, I guess to also echo
some of the public commenters and trying to find some kind of a compromise Echoing the concept that
some of the blocks had more activation than others and
I think the other thing that has happened over the last five six years is that Bloomington as a community
has started assuming that it is going to be closed and that you know not only adds that bit of stability
to the business owners downtown, especially the restaurants and the street dining but also to the community
in terms of knowing, you know what route they need to go and it kind of struck me that
Actually, just now, as I was listening to folks, I was driving downtown with my daughter the other day.
Can't remember where we're going anymore, but the route was gonna take us up Kirkwood, and she was like,
oh, is Kirkwood open now? Because she just assumed that it was still closed and had figured out other
ways to move around, and the going back and forth, I guess, makes me a little bit nervous, and that
part of what we did last year was try to give that stability of going, yes, it's going to be closed.
What's going to be closed exactly is going to be based on that participation, which means, you know
at the staff level You're you're gonna make that decision at the staff level and I am a little
bit disappointed this year that then at the staff level We're going out even though there's participation
in some of these blocks We're still going to close it and I or we're still not going to close it and
I appreciate that there are some challenges related to having it closed, but I wish that we were approaching
those challenges a little bit differently and
than just deciding not to close it, thanks. Council Member Piemat-Smith. Yes, I want to start by thanking
the ESD staff for their hard work. I did meet with Ms. Monninger a couple of times, and I think their
memo makes good sense. On the other hand, and I think,
rereading ordinance 2025-02, I think the council made it very clear that we wanted to approve that,
which was a revision of the original ordinance that came to us last year. And we wanted to approve it
because we wanted to give the businesses some stability, at least for the foreseeable future to allow
the investments that they made last year in the outdoor dining and to be able to plan ahead.
And specifically now rereading section seven, where a discontinuation of the program is done by the
city engineer for engineering reasons is the implication that I'm reading in section seven. I think
the administration may now be asking the engineer to come up with
some engineering reason, but obviously these are not engineering reasons, most of them, for not closing
the street this year. And so I do feel like it's going against, if not the detailed words, but the spirit
of Ordinance 2025-02. So I hope that we can still change the direction here
in order to, well, change the direction back to stay on course to really make this a street for pedestrians.
And I also think, you know, I agree with the people who have brought up during public comment that,
you know, corridor studies take a long time and then you have to have the money to implement what the
study says. So it can be years before we're back on track
which I think is a track that we all agreed on at the outset that it's good to have this be a pedestrian
space. And that's in our transportation plan. So I hope that we can come up with some other solutions
for some of the difficulties the staff have raised and still close at least part of the street.
Thank you. Excellent. Thank you so much. Any anyone else? Please go ahead and we'll move on.
I'll just add one thing. I think there were some comments, and the memo definitely pointed to blocks
without shade. That's mostly the Monroe County Library block. I think we take away some sidewalk there,
and so there aren't street trees like the other blocks. But I do want to say, so it's kind of the memo
saying there are blocks that are not hospitable. But I want to say, we didn't talk that much about Uptown,
and Nix, and Village Deli, and Farm.
Those blocks are great and they feel so wonderful. And so we're focusing so much on this block with
the library that No, no one is participating there, but the places where people are participating It's
super awesome. And I think that's what people are saying here. So I just want to like make that point
that Those business owners really took it, you know upon themselves to take maximum space in the street
and picnic tables and Banners and lights and all the things and like it's very cool. You feel like oh
You're in little Europe sometimes and that's really great. So thanks for that Thank You councilmember
Okay, we're at 730 so for the sake of time if it's okay with everyone we should move on but I think
it's very clear that we want to continue having conversations and engagements on this and perhaps in
one of our deliberation sessions we can think about action that council might want to take in the space
seeing any objections I
Any objections? All right, then I will move on. Thank you so much to the mighty ESD for, well, dealing
with us. We appreciate you so much. All right, we are going to move on now to appointments to boards
and commissions.
We have a, you're right, sorry, I'm sorry, thank you. We have now a general session of public comments,
so if you want to make comment for things that are not on the agenda, now is your opportunity to do so.
Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Susan Brackney. When you ran for city council, I'm guessing that you
didn't expect that you'd be serving in the middle of an authoritarian takeover of our democracy.
But you are. Fascism is here. If you haven't already acknowledged this reality,
and considered what it may mean for you as a council and as individuals, I urge you, I urge you to do
so. I hope you'll meet with one another and with other local officials to plan for scenarios that could
happen here as bad actors continue to try to consolidate their power from fed to state to here. For instance,
What if ice or DHS sends their masked squads to protect our polling places? during the upcoming midterm
elections will the BPD I UPD Monroe County Sheriff's Department Cooperate with the masked agents or
will they protect us?
Have our law enforcement officials worked through these kinds of scenarios for themselves internally?
What about ice coming into area schools and businesses? No identification no proper warrant side signed
by a judge Some folks at the state level appear to be fine with this They may even pass a law requiring
schools to turn kids over to ice what do you do capitulate fight back?
If you fight back, what does that look like? What support do you need from the rest of us in order to
fight back? How about this one the DOJ is being used to pursue political enemies and chill free speech
What will the local prosecutor do if pressured to bring charges against poll workers local journalists
or opposition party leaders? What's the plan? capitulate or fight back
This last one is not simply a thought exercise. What about partnering with block security at a time
when our first and fourth amendment rights are being trampled upon? Why would we trust anyone at this
point while our data are being weaponized and used against us? This plays right into authoritarian rule
and is simply a non-starter. I'll leave you with this. Where are your personal and professional red lines
And what will you do if or when you're asked to cross them? We're counting on you to stand up and have
courage in the face of fascism so that we can too. Thank you. Thank you. Others in chambers? Weren't
you in line first? I think he was here first. Back for an encore.
Mr. President, this is Chris term G from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce tonight. I'm be
representing our 911 businesses Let's talk about identity momentum and what happens when a city invests
in its future with intention Last month our community erupted when IU won a national championship out
of nowhere But that moment reeled something bigger than a trophy it showed what Bloomington becomes
when the whole city rallies when pride turns into momentum and
when our collective story lifts everyone. It's not just about athletics, then. It's about what we're
capable of when we choose growth over complacency, unity over drift, purpose over futility. As I was
in my 18th interview on what the football team success means to the economy, I started thinking things
a little bit bigger and wrote in our advocacy matters post, I begged the question, if we harness that
same energy,
The belief the cohesion the narrative power of iu football across everything we build here. What would
happen? I believe that's not just a good question. It's the right question at the right moment earlier
than I was at the exciting economic vehicle Known as amplified Bloomington its kickoff led by John Fernandez
and that message was sharp and it was urgent Bloomington already has extraordinary assets. Our job is
to align them invest in them but championships
And branding don't sustain acidity a city livability does This morning I was at Sunrise Rotary with
dr. Winston the superintendent from MCC SC Who shared on a great example of some of that which was that?
2023 referendum that put six point two million dollars in this expanding early learning that investment
double pre-k access for families That's just not just an education win, but that's an economic development
one that we're investing in something
that shows huge growth. It strengthens our workforce, supports families, and makes Bloomington competitive
as a place to move, to stay. And Bloomington's not just a place to catch a game, grab a beer. It's where
we want to build careers, raise families, start a business, put down our roots, to fully recognize our
future. We need to do three things. We need to tell our story, market who we become, keep investing
in these places, in our talent, the foundations that matter,
Make growth easier streamline planning and permitting so private investing can and will happen as we've
heard and I've talked about our population is stagnated Our revenue structure leans heavily on local
income tax which tends to function best when we have people live and work here Long-term stability depends
on welcoming new residents families employers simply put Now is the time now is the time to align this
momentum remove barriers Invite investment and build Bloomington. We know
that is possible. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in council chambers? Hello. Sorry it's me again.
I'm Greg Alexander. I just want to express my dismay at the continuing state of the sidewalks now a
week and a half after the snow stopped.
Really think city staff needs to come before you and tell you if this system is working The thing that
really upsets me is department heads have come to you, but they told you it's working It's not working
having the property owners clear the sidewalk is not working It's not working for the high-injury network
where people are still walking in the street, even though drivers are completely back to normal They're
driving aggressively. They're driving fast. They're speeding It's not working at city-owned properties
The policy of having the property owner clear isn't working at city-owned policy at properties The city
is one of the bad landowners who doesn't clear their sidewalks When you fail to demand an honest and
correct answer from the administration you abandon democracy You can't solve every problem, but you
have given up on getting true answers That's you're acting on behalf of the voters
You're making us give up on that and I don't think we should give up on that that basic standard of
truth is important anyways Speaking of things. I also want staff to talk about There was a transportation
fatality downtown last October Sorry, it took me so long to get here staff hasn't come here yet and
said anything about it It sounds like a very old man experienced pedal confusion in a rental car he
crashed into a inside of a garage in a hotel downtown and
One of the other passengers in his car died in that wreck. You know, I know a lot of people just don't
care about something like that. There's no alleged wrongdoing, no scandal, no drunk driving, no leaving
the scene. You know, it's a single car crash, so it doesn't matter. I don't think that way at all. I
think that death matters. I think someone paid with their life to teach us a lesson, and we have to
listen. I really think staff should come to you every time somebody
dies in transportation So the administration is convinced that bringing cars downtown especially for
tourists is the solution to all of our economic problems and I'm I can't tell you what that's true or
not But they will suffer this kind of mishap this happens, you know, and we know it happens It's a cost
and you guys hear from a cohort that is convinced that as they age the secrets mobility is going to
be their cars and
We all know, eventually, you have to take away grandpa's keys. There's a huge consequence when you have
someone who is losing their acuity, losing their reaction time, losing their awareness, and they're
still driving. So those are costs that I think you guys need to be aware about and you need to explicitly
acknowledge. It doesn't tell you what you ought to do, but we need an accurate and honest accounting
of where we're at. Thanks.
Thank you. Do we have any comments online? All right. Okay, first person, take it away. Hello,
am I live? Yes, you are. We can hear you. Greg stole my thunder. I would like to draw your attention
to the recent down large snowstorm also, because I think one foot of snow exposed some glaring disparities
in how the city treats different groups.
And by the way, my name is Paul Rousseau. I should have said that. In my view, two classes of citizens
emerged. Those who are transported through public space within private motor vehicles and those who
are not. Snow stopped falling shortly before sunset on Sunday. The overwhelming majority of city streets
were cleared by sunset on Monday. Parking lots were cleared in the first few days. In sharp contrast,
Public sidewalks remained buried under packed snow and ice for several days. As I speak, 11 days after
the storm, there are still many sidewalks that were never touched and are simply treacherous for most
people over 30 years of age. I sent all of you in the council about an hour ago an email so you can
see the pictures for yourself or at least a dozen of them that I took.
If Bloomington wants to claim to be a community and particularly one that is equitable, this situation
must change. In my view, the city must become more responsive to the needs of pedestrians. I would recommend
greater flexibility to find new solutions in a world of increasingly unpredictable climate. I see three
areas of improvement that could be made, enforcement, education, and personnel, but I'm not an expert
at all. I don't claim to be.
but we clearly need to come up with creative solutions. First of all, I've been mostly impressed by
the performance of the compliance officers with housing and neighborhood development. My impression
is that they have been understandably overwhelmed by the failure of so many property owners to clear
adjacent public sidewalks as required in city code. It is probably no exaggeration to say that there
are still thousands of cases or there were still thousands of cases of non-compliance
as late as last Thursday, which was four days after the storm. But Hand has only seven employees assigned
to the problem, and they don't work on weekends. The process normally works like this. Each employee
has about one hour per day to discover cases of noncompliance on their own. I was told that most cases
are instead initiated by citizens who know about the YouReport system. Hand responds to YouReports within
one or two days.
A compliance officer then inspects sidewalks that were reported. If a violation is verified, then the
property owner is usually warned. This is usually two days after somebody in the public got out there
and notified them. If the violation persists, more days go by until an officer again has time to inspect
the site or until another report is received. Then the compliance officer visits the site again and
issues a ticket finally for a mere $50.
To understand how ineffective this enforcement that is your time Sarah the cost of removing the snow
would exceed $50 if someone had to be hired for the test Sorry Paul as I mentioned last month month
the fine schedule in the city code is out of date with more time I could have shared other ideas with
regard to education and personnel flexibility Paul. Thank you so much. That's that that was your time.
Thank you Thank you. We have another commenter online
You do. Good evening, President Asari and council members. My name is Vicki Vinker. I am the mayor of
Bloomington Sibling City Palo Alto, California. We have a different system of government out here, so
I'm also a member of our city council. It's been fascinating actually to listen in on this meeting.
We have been debating closing streets and such, so I've been taking notes and learning a lot.
Anyway, I was last before you about four years ago before I was on city council.
in the capacity as founder of Sibling Cities USA. I was delighted that the council voted to enter a
Sibling City relationship with Palo Alto. As most of you know, the purpose of Sibling Cities is to bridge
our nation's regional divides by community members in the two cities doing joint events. We have done
things that range from joint author talks, to town halls, to joint meetings of legal women voters, Rotary
Kiwanis, etc.
I am also a graduate of IU, so I wanted to let you know that the most recent Sibling Cities event was
a watch party for the College Football National Championship. And so tonight, I joined your meeting
to offer a giant congratulations from your friends in Palo Alto on being home to a national championship
team that inspired a nation.
And I will tell you that I actually put on my IU hat and my Rose Bowl t-shirt on the dais at the City
Council meeting the following Monday. So it's on video. You can see it if you want. Also, I wanted to
let you know that the Sibling Cities team is working on bringing a group of Palo Altans to visit Bloomington,
probably in October, but sometime in the fall. So I intend to come. There'll be some rotary friends and more.
The last delegation visit was a group from Bloomington coming out here, so it's our turn to travel.
And I know you can't engage in colloquy with public commenters, so I'll look forward to following up
with all of you offline, but I would love to see you then. So congratulations again on the national
championship. Bloomington is a very special place, and I really look forward to being back there this
fall. Thank you. Have a good evening.
Thank you so much and we look forward to receiving you. All right, we are now moving on to Appointments
to boards and commissions if we could we can just go Team by team list all of the people that you have
and then we can if there's any discussion or questions We can do that and then make hopefully this one
one motion to save some time. So team a I think councilman Sasberg
Thank you on behalf of interview committee team a I would like to move to make the following Appointments
for the Animal Control Commission to reappoint Sita Cohen to seat c1 For the Commission on the status
of black males to reappoint Sidhu McLeod to seat c2 for the Commission on aging to reappoint Wendy Rubin
to seat c1 and to appoint Stacey Bruce to seat c2 for the Board of Zoning Appeals to reappoint
Joe Throckmorton to seat c1 and
for the Bloomington Monroe County Human Rights Commission to reappoint Kathleen Bensburg to seat C2
and For the Board of Housing Quality Appeals to reappoint Zoe Zollman to seat C2 Thank you Any questions
or comments on TMA? I think team a also had one more appointment For the Commission on aging. Yes, that
was Stacey Bruce. I mentioned her in my I didn't catch that one. Sorry. I did. Thank you Thank you
Any other questions? Okay. Otherwise, yes, please Tell me more about the Board of Zoning Appeals
recommendation in particular was the proposed appointee Interviewed and how did that go? And if so,
and if not any insights you could share from staff recommendation or anything like that Interviewed
by us, but they were recommended by the staff to reappoint
Did the So I think it was last summer and actually beyond summer there was a long period of time where
there was a Duplex that was proposed as a conditional use that was pending before the Board of Zoning
Appeals For like many many meetings. They had some forum issues, but it was also sort of held up on
the basis of some Board members sort of
Not agreeing with the staff recommendation, but also failing to come up with their own set of recommendations
led to like six months of delay for the Homebuilder adds costs. It's you know, it kind of goes against
I think what the UDO says on Conditional use and so I I don't believe I'm mistaken I think and this
particular recommended Appointment was one of those people that was sort of preventing this or moving
forward. That was a concern to me at the time I
Did that come up at all in order to like the staff recommendation that did not come up Okay, I guess
I'd like to request that we pull that particular Recommendation for reappointment out for a separate
vote There's a motion to separate this to separate the question I guess Can we need to any did somebody
second that motion Well, nobody seconded my original motion. So should I just think
Yeah, I mean because we because I asked that we do them sort of as a batch so but you can you remove
that one Are you okay to remove it and we can consider that separately? Yeah, that's fine. Okay, then
in which case let's move on to group B. Do you want to? Introduce who's go ahead Councilman rough The
digital underground advisory committee reappoint Andy Coop
cc2 Commission on the status of women to appoint cc swallowing to seat c1 Shayla George to cc2 and petty
moon to cc3 For the dr. Martin Luther King jr. Birthday celebration commission to reappoint James Sanders
to cc2 for the community advisory on Public Safety Commission to appoint Michael Burton to cc2 to reappoint
Sharon Wayne Shabam
To see c3 and reappoint karshan nair to cc5 For the environmental commission to reappoint Mitchell Owen
to cc3 and to reappoint Shannon gate to cc4 for the utility service board to reappoint Megan parmenter
to cc1. Okay any questions or comments on on that list? Objections Seeing none team C
the Redevelopment Commission to reappoint Randy Cassidy to seat C1 and reappoint Deborah Meyerson to
seat C2. For the Commission on Hispanic and Latina Affairs to appoint Denora Sapp to seat C1 and reappoint
Maria Puskama to seat C4. For the Commission on Sustainability, appoint Christopher Miles to seat C4
and reappoint Zachary Ammerman to seat C5.
and for the Commission on the Status of Children and Youth to reappoint Joseph Shing to seat C2 and
to appoint Triana Moten to seat C4. Any comments, questions, objections? Okay, I'm seeing none. Is there
a motion for the three lists that are without objection? And then we can deal with the one with objection. So moved.
Is somebody moved that we adopt those three lists I moved that all three interview committee recommendation
interview committee team recommendations be approved All right, there's a motion in a second. Will the
clerk please call the roll? One more time councilmember Stasberg
Piedmont Smith Yes Zulek. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes Rallo Ruff. Yes Rosenberger Flaherty. Yes That motion
passes at 9. Oh, I'm sorry eight eight. Oh, sorry the one person the BZA appointment is there is there
a motion there I
But I have a comment. I just want to point out that when team a met we only had the one application
for the BZA and I think that that was part of the other reason why we didn't interview I just looked
at on board right now. We Received a second application for that board three days after our last meeting
So I'm gonna withhold that motion at the moment
Recommend to my colleagues on team a that given that Objection by a colleague that we should do additional
due diligence, especially since we have additional applicant for that board So I won't be making a motion
with regard to that tonight Great, okay. So then we're all in agreement. Okay, I think we also have
a an HPC appointment, is that correct? Does anybody want to motion to introduce them? I move that
For the Historic Preservation Commission to appoint Jeff Golden to seat m4 Karen Duffy to seat m7 John
Butler to seat m8 and Abby Hanson to seat m9 Second Thank you. I have a motion and a second and oh the
comment from the clerk. Sorry. I'd made a I made a mistake. I
No, no just to clarify that you're not appointing you're approving the mayoral appointment mayoral,
right? Okay, so can you it was my fault for writing it that way in the memo, so I apologize I move that
the Bloomington Common Council Approve the mayoral appointment recommendations to appoint Jeff Goldin
to seat M4 Karen Duffy to seat M7 John Butler to seat M8 and Abby Hansen to seat M9
Alright, there's a motion and a second any discussion Comments go ahead. Um, I will just say that the
outgoing chair Sam to solar was not reappointed and I will just
I would just like to thank him for his many many years of service to the Historic Preservation Commission
And say that I had a really really lovely time working with him, especially when we were putting together
the council HPC Joint discussion meeting. So thank you to Sam for his service Thank you any others.
All right, will the clerk please call the roll on that motion? Yes, and thank you
councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes Zulek, yes, sorry. Yes Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger Flaherty. Yes Stasberg.
Yes. Thank you Fantastic. Yay. Oh, we did it now if unless I'm wrong We are moving now to legislation
for first readings. Are there any motions? Oh
I would like to Move that ordinance 20 20 6 0 4 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis
only There's a motion and the second will the clerk please call the roll Councilmember Zoellick. Yes.
I Sorry, yes. Hello. Yes rough. Yes. I
Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stasburg. Yes Piedmont Smith Yes, thank you. All right that motion carries
will the clerk please read Yes ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero four to amend title two of the
Bloomington Municipal Code entitled administration and personnel to consolidate and amend boards and
commissions provisions in chapters two point zero two two point zero eight and two point one two the
synopsis is as follows
This ordinance sponsored by council member Piedmont Smith consolidates title two provisions regarding
boards commissions and councils into a single chapter adds code of conduct provisions and Renames the
Bloomington Commission on sustainability to the Bloomington Commission on sustainability and resilience
Excellent, thank you very much our next ordinance Ordinance twenty twenty six zero five be introduced
and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only
There's a motion and a second. Will the wonderful clerk, please call the roll. Councilmember Asari.
Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont-Smith. Yes.
And Zulek. Yes. Thank you. Will the honorable clerk please read.
Ordinance 2026-05 to amend Title II of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Administration and Personnel
to allow discussion at first readings of ordinances and to clarify the ordinance and resolution readings
provisions in Chapter 2.04. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance, sponsored by Councilmember Zulek,
allows debate and amendment of ordinances at first readings. It also clarifies the readings and voting
procedures for ordinances and resolutions.
Thank you very much. We're now moving on to legislation for second readings and resolutions Like to
move that resolution Twenty twenty six zero three be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis
only There is a motion in a second. Well the Honorable Clerk, please read ups call, please You know
the thing where we say yes and no
I'm there. Thank you. Councilmember Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger Flaherty. Yes Stasberg. Yes Piedmont
Smith Yes, Zulik. Yes and sorry. Yes Well the Now at this point what's already been read you've motioned
wrong, you know now motion that it be adopted what?
Just read it again. Hey read it Resolution 2026-03 to rename sidewalk standing committee of the Bloomington
of the Common Council Sorry, the synopsis as follows this resolution sponsored by council members Piedmont
Smith and Stasberg Renames the sidewalk standing committee to the pedestrian safety standing committee. I
Thank you. That's usually my cue I'd like to move that resolution 20 2603 be adopted All right, do we
have someone presenting on this Councilmember Stossberg take it away Councilmember Piedmont Smith and
I did not coordinate this earlier today, but I think that this is relatively easy
self-explanatory if you remember back to the Deliberation session we had last year. We talked about
sidewalk committee and we talked about committees in general the sidewalk committee as it is currently
known Has broadened its scope in recent years to not just fund sidewalks, but also fund other pedestrian
related projects. So this resolution aligns the what we're actually doing with
What the the committee purpose etc is and so it's one of those moments where it's like well I think
that we should either align with what we're doing or we should go back to the original purpose and Focus
more narrowly. So it adds that focus of not just
Sidewalk installation and improvement but also pedestrian access points traffic calming and other safety
improvements and then renames it as the pedestrian safety committee Which I do believe was one of the
suggestions that was thrown out at our meeting last year Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Do you have anything
to add? No, I did not. Thank you. Great. Thanks. If anybody has any questions, let me know wonderful
any questions Seeing none we will move to a time of public comment and
Does anyone in the public wish to comment on resolution 2026-03? Is there anyone online? Anyone in chambers?
All right, we'll return to council. Any comments? Seeing none.
Members that's just comment. I like to comment as a sponsor I just want to thank my colleagues for their
deliberation about This committee and committees in general that we did last year We did a lot of thought
about that and I just am grateful for everybody's input I'm glad that we could kind of put the little
bow of finish on this. So thanks. Thank you for your work Will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance
20? I'm sorry on resolution 20 2603 Yes councilmember Ruff
Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stossberg. Yes Piedmont Smith Yes, Zulek yes, sorry, yes that motion
carries eight That motion carries eight. Oh, thank you very much Nexus ordinance twenty twenty six.
Oh one Move that ordinance twenty
2601 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only There has been a motion and a second
will the clerk please call the roll yes councilmember Flaherty Stasberg yes Piedmont Smith Yes Zulik
yes, sorry. Yes Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes. Thank you. I
Thank you. That motion carries. Do I have another motion? Would you like me to introduce an amendment?
Well this time would you like I'm sorry. That's right. It was a mistake. You need to read I'm sorry
for the third time.
Move that ordinance 20 20 601 we voted this sorry. I this is my fault I'm doing a bad job You were you
were supposed to read by by title and synopsis for the third time and I'm sorry That's what we voted
on. Will the clerk please read? Absolutely
Ordinance 2026-01 to amend Title 20 Unified Development Ordinance of the Bloomington Municipal Code
regarding response to Resolution 2025-12 related to amending the affordable housing incentives and payment
in lieu provisions. The synopsis is as follows. Ordinance 2026-01 amends Title 20 Unified Development
Ordinance in the following manner.
One, it increases the maximum impervious surface coverage allowance for single-family detached and duplex
residential lots in the R1, R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts for owner occupancy projects using the affordable
housing incentives. Two, it increases the maximum impervious surface coverage allowance and decreases
the landscape area for projects that meet tier two affordability standards. And three, increases the
dollar amount of an eligibility for payments in lieu of providing housing.
All right. I see that we have I'll make a motion for it to be adopted 2020 601 to be adopted All right
Now I see that we have This is the director of Scanlon here. We've heard this before but so if there's
any updates that you'd like to give take it away
Assistant director Jackie Scanlon from planning and transportation. I don't have anything to add from
the last time We previewed this ordinance if you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them I guess
I do have one thing one of the items that we discussed Potentially being able to bring here tonight
was trying to determine what the total value loss of like financial loss of having a unit in perpetuity
or 99 years be affordable as opposed to doing a payment in lieu of
As you can imagine we've talked about before that's quite complicated I think what we are going to have
to do is we are going to have a contract with an economic planning firm this year for a nexus study
that's another portion of this part of the code related to commercial development and offsetting their
kind of creation of the need for affordable housing based on their kind of lower income positions that
they create that firm also does quite a bit of residential nexus study work, so I think we
Anticipate working with them to see if we can have them use our local data to project out what that
loss could be Otherwise, I think I'd mostly just be taking a shot in the dark I do think that based
on as I mentioned before I'm pretty sure councilmember Flaherty has talked about this in the past and
so I think it is I think we agree that the 50,000 is probably quite a bit less than the overall loss
that the city is
Losing by doing payment in lieu. But other than that, I don't have anything that I think I was supposed
to bring So let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Excellent. Thank you Councilman sasper And
I just have kind of a clarification question I suppose because I've heard a lot in the last couple of
weeks about the impervious surface coverage and we have actually a last-minute amendment related to
that in terms of that increase, but I just want to clarify for council and the public and myself that
In terms of projects that would use these affordable housing incentives, they would still have to follow
environmental requirements, right? So if there is like a karst feature on the property, they can't like
build on a karst property even if that means that they can't
The lot 80% if there's tree preservations, we have tree preservation rules They still have to follow
tree preservation rules. They still would have to follow anything from CBU related to Like stormwater
and all of that kind of stuff So those things combine like like this incentive doesn't like overrule
the need to follow all of those other environmental standards, right? Correct. Yes. Okay, all the other
environmental standards are still
In play and required to be met. Okay. Thank you Any other questions, all right, I think we have an amendment
Please go ahead Start a payment in lieu. I was trying to track for myself the historical evolution here,
but I'm in real time trying to catch up and maybe you can just help explain or remind
Explain for me a rhyme remind me of the the path we were on there. So I Have some of our past versions
of the UDO saved in my console related files and I was looking at the version from 2019 or 20 That really
discouraged payment in lieu as a mechanism. I think primarily for reasons related to Trying to get afforded
but both permanent affordability in units as opposed to dollars in the fund and
Trying to get affordable housing interspersed with market rate housing including within the same development
and so the sort of earlier version of the UDO had a very narrow set of circumstances in which payment
in lieu of providing affordable housing on in unit or on-site Could could be allowed and then I'm looking
at what I think is the most the current version of the UDO and reviewing that provision and it seems
like that's Changed quite a quite a bit, right?
In fact now it's just an option with no Discouragement relative to in unit affordability or in on-site
affordability at all. Is that right? It's just like this is a thing you can do. Yes, that's correct
Do you could you do you recall when we this was I think this came from staff? Was it last year the year
before? Was it under this administration I guess or was that under the previous administration?
Hold on. Let's see I believe it was the previous administration
Maybe 2024. Yeah, no, I think it was earlier than that. But let me check. Hold on I Feel like I also
have all the old videos as you can imagine Yeah, I think this ordinance is along with what we considered
with the Rolado last year have both like brought into sharper focus the implications of that policy
choice several years ago and I think it's related to how I'm interpreting and thinking about
Disordinates this before us today. So that's why I'm trying to trade sure there but Hold on. I'm just
trying to check quickly This will only take another we don't need to date actually I think just like
talking through it and you confirming something like those changes and sure so it changed Let's see
when the original rule was written the administration very much said priority the administration at
that time the Hamilton administration priority for units on site and
Second units off-site third payment in lieu So the regulations that were written in the 2019-2020 version
reflected that in the july 2021 version is Those are still there and then in the next version of the
udio, which is june 2022 they are gone so in june 2022, I think is when the previous administration
decided to
To kind of open that possibility up Do you recall if that was coming and if you don't remember it no
worries at all I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about the context of how we got to where
we are now and what we're considering about payment in lieu now was that coming from the hand department
or the planning department or More like the mayor's like office of the mayor. It's totally okay. Yeah,
I don't recall specifically I mean, I think I want to say I think off the top of my head the change
was because You know now it had been in place
for a couple of years, and we were starting to get some feedback about how difficult it was possibly
going to be in the student-focused larger developments to... like, yeah, getting the units in those
develops was maybe not actually the goal that... maybe not actually the outcome that the goal was that
we were trying to reach. Okay, so to your best recollection, it wasn't about
Difficulties of administration like getting the units filled. It was more about maybe we don't want
them in large student housing I do not think that that was something we were discussing heavily in 2022.
Okay, that's really helpful. Sorry Thank you for bearing with me on that. Thanks Councilmember Piedmont
Smith Yes, thank you I wanted to ask about the Reduced bulk requirements
specifically the text that says that the dimensional standards apply in residential zoning districts
that are also intended for owner occupancy in buildings that are intended for owner occupancy. How will
we ensure that, like how can we make sure that these are owner occupants? Like how do we know they're
intended for owner occupancy and how do we
Kind of make sure that they end up owner occupied That's a great question. I think The idea would be
that because this is like an opt-in program We're using the incentives which you don't have to that
if you would like to use them the you know decision-maker of your of your site like the plan Commission
would weigh whether or not
to let you use these incentives in part based on whether or not you're intending to have owner occupancy.
And one of the ways we could try to ensure owner occupancy long term is through zoning commitment. I
don't know exactly how that would be formulated but that's something we would work on with legal if
this were to be approved. So has city legal said that there's a pathway to do that?
Yes, I think as I stated last time they don't you know, they don't love when we're talking about owner
occupancy even though this is a You know discretionary program that you don't have to do but yes, they
Signed off on that. They think we could figure this out
And again, it's included because that was part of the resolution initially from council So we didn't
want to if we felt we could legally we didn't want to leave out any of the objectives from the resolution
that you gave to the Plan Commission So this was kind of the best way we felt we could include any potential
owner occupancy at this point And who follows up on zoning commitments like that the Planning
and Transportation Department
We would probably have to work in conjunction with hand, but I don't know because if their owner occupied
that may just be something we would be monitoring For example when you all first approved ad use zoning
commitments, which are still required were something that were being monitored annually to make sure
that the owner was still living on site so they basically were
Recorded zoning commitment indicating that they would live in one or the other of the structures And
then that's something we can hold them to at any time So the planning transportation Department does
have the capacity and the structure to follow up on this kind of thing
I think I mean we always need more capacity in our enforcement group, which is two people But I think
with the scale we're expecting with these incentives, which are not greatly used. We should be able
to handle that. Yes Thank you Yes, I had a question about process so it
It came to my attention that The Environmental Commission that normally weighs in on topics like this
It's somehow missed their I Don't know exactly what happened, but they weren't informed. I think they
weren't aware Yes, ECPC stopped meeting for a period of time and when this was formulated it was during
that period of time so they have since met and then actually, so ECPC I'm not gonna say right Environmental
Commission planning
Something they they make recommendations to that whole environmental commission who met today to discuss
that. Yes Okay, so this was just an interim Glitch yes, they are back to regular meetings and being
informed of projects and legislation on a regular basis By the environmental planner correct and invited
to comment. Okay, great Do they have a statement on this piece of legislation? They'll be speaking at
public comment. Yes, I
They probably could I don't know what your rules are about commission speaking, but they're intending
to speak a public comment, I believe Should I introduce any other questions before otherwise we'll introduce
the amendment Sorry, I wasn't here last time if this was already asked but I
last when you did the presentation you gave the example of the beeline houses the Yes, the Matt press
project in that press yes and as a good example of where the homes were bigger than The percentage allowed
correct, but we can't build those in most we can't build those homes anyway Because the lots are too
small, but you don't allow a lot size we don't so we don't allow like these coveted and
Lot sizes in our city that were a small house or a bigger house on a lot makes sense because a lot is
so little Correct. So this this section of the affordable housing incentives allows the minimum lot
area and a subdivision to be reduced by 50% In one of the r1 through r4 districts so you can get smaller
lots But yes, even if even if that equals out to the size of the map press lots they are over 80 and
They're most of them are over 90% So we would not be able to have the coverage that exists there. So
we still just can't make even with this Ordinance we can't make the amat press house in a neighborhood
not without a plan unit development at this time Which we are supposed to be decent. We're discouraging
PUDs. We're sure hosted they should yes, we
Planning developments are fine, you know if the intent of that are actually mixed use and something
you can't do in the code But I would say they are less common than they were probably at the time when
that development was created And I mean it sometimes when yeah, we're doing you do updates, right? We
were like we don't want to do PUDs anymore our most major you do update Look, we're not doing PUDs.
We're doing code changes Yeah, we do both we do the annual update we do have PUDs obviously Hope well
is going to plan Commission next
Week and Sudbury summit PD came to you all now, you know 2024 or whenever that was but um Yes, they're
definitely less common. I think the preference for us would be that the code just Outlined what we would
like to see developed and people wouldn't have to do go through PUDs to develop Thanks. That's so useful
to hear that you that that
Planning would rather not do PUDs. So you would rather not do the Hopewell PUD and you would rather
change the UDO To have zone zones allow what is wanted in the Hopewell PUD I'm not speaking specifically
about the Hopewell PUD but yes in PUDs in general I think we would prefer to have the code By right
design be what we want to see developed. I Really agree. Thank you so much Any other questions
If you want to yes, thank you. I'd like to move amendment one Second I do so Could staff put the amendment
up Yes, so this follows in my concern maybe a few
councilmembers concern about the the incentive to increase impervious maximums to 80% across all residential
zoning districts and Frankly, I found that a bridge too far in this ordinance so and and practically
speaking it's because Bloomington as we all know is beset with stormwater problems and
it's been a perpetual topic as long as I've been on the council and The this the primary purpose of
this amendment is to try to Not make matters worse. I think it also sets a bad precedent to have an
80% impervious surface We spent millions of dollars in stormwater in the city millions of dollars in
infrastructure We have decades to make up for it
Because of the build out in the 50s and the 60s and 70s which lacked proper standards many neighborhoods
don't have adequate stormwater and many people have problems with Their basements flooding and and and
so forth Also, we've worked hard on these standards that are in the present UDO and
climate models for the future indicate significantly wetter future for Bloomington and So all the said
and I I do understand that we're You know, the aim is incentivizing affordable housing. So So this amendment
sponsored by myself and councilmember rough aims to strike a balance and
So it increases incrementally from the current standards, which are, sorry, currently for R1 is 30%,
R2 is 40%, R3 is 45%, and R4 is 50%, maximum impervious surface coverage. It raises R1 from 30 to 40%,
r2 from 40 to 50 percent r3 from 45 to 60 percent and r4 from 50 to 65 percent So I think that if you
do some arithmetic you can find that you know an increase of 10 percent for a quarter acre lot and r1
would equal an additional 1,100 square feet and
So I think that provides an incentive maintains a positive incentive without compromising our environmental
code So comes member off do you have anything to to add That I agree wholeheartedly that you know, the
intention is noble here, but You know, I've been
Bloomington my whole life and these stormwater problems issues just continue to to grow and I feel like
you know to be able to address members of the community and say on one hand we're concerned about stormwater
and The increasing stormwater problems that that people are experiencing Partly due to the development
of the community partly due to the
changes in climate and rainfall But yet also say we we approved, you know doubling or you know of Impervious
service allowances and these zones 80% in some zones coverage is is too much. I know the current
administration and past administrations also have been working to develop longer-term strategy for ways
to do stormwater management stormwater capture and
Around the community and whatever opportunities and places that it can be done on small scales with
rain gardens encouraging and Helping to incentivize small rain garden project to bigger stormwater retention
projects where there might be opportunities to do that and when that time Comes when more of that larger
plan for a stormwater infrastructure is realized in the community down the road then maybe I would be
More enthusiastic about supporting a more dramatic increase and allow it of impervious service But at
this point with the communities the the instructors not there To in my view to responsibly increase
to this extent and this so this amendment that councilman Rallo developed and I agreed to co-sponsor
I think takes a step a significant step in
in the direction of having an incentive by allowing more impervious service, but Doesn't go to a point
where I would feel uncomfortable supporting it As I would be a couple supporting it in its original
proposed form without the amendment, so Thanks councilman Barallo for For doing this and thanks for
staff to staff for getting it put together quickly and and put out. So, thank you
Thank you. Um, do I have questions? Please Could you Explain why? Y'all chose 80% as a uniform amount
across the four zones Whereas the base zoning district standards for those four zones are sort of tiered
from smaller to larger I think
Recognizing that the the r1 lots are quite a bit larger and so on. So you need less of a large percentage
To build a reasonable structure So I guess like I was I'm surprised not to see the proposal from staff
To be similarly tiered as the base zoning conditions and this amendment even if it would have been higher
or say 70 75 80 85 or something like that, but can you tell me more? Well
I would say one thing that we were looking for there is ease of Understanding for the public the more
complicated the regulations are the less likely they are to use them and one of the things we're trying
to do with this is kind of make an opportunity for developers of traditional non affordable housing
to maybe consider including affordable housing if they were able to
You know be able to have more lots or more units with this 80% combined with the other incentives in
this section So the 50 and the 40 which again are across the four districts Even though each district
has a different minimum lot size a lot with three yard setback We just set a standard for this particular
incentive So just kind of following that pattern of setting one standard for all four I think that was
done initially for ease of use And so we we just felt we followed that pattern
Okay, um Okay, so 80% service coverage for an r1 lot could like could be a pretty substantial I don't
know I should look calculated the square footage like I guess are you comfortable with that outcome?
like do you feel like that's consistent with like the district intent and all that like I think the
likelihood that someone uses these affordable housing incentives so that they can build a house that
covers 80% of an r1 lot and
Incredibly small like infinitesimally small. We don't have very many Many of them are environmentally
restricted. I Don't we could exclude them or you could you could tear them as a councilperson Rallo
has suggested I Understand what you're saying. I don't think that in reality that is a
Sure, maybe R2 is a better example, because we have so few R1 lots. But I guess I'm trying to better
understand, too, like, is the aim, like, is what you're trying to accomplish actually getting people
to subdivide lots and then build? And that's why the 80% will make more sense, because when you subdivide
something, because you can now subdivide to a much smaller minimum lot size as part of the incentive
structure, that all of a sudden what is a large R2 lot, where it would make no sense to have 80% impervious
surface coverage if you divide it in half and you're building two houses,
Maybe it does make sense on these now quite small lots that would otherwise be non-conforming Yes, so
I think that that we envision that they will be used with the other incentives So 80% of a smaller lot
It is a may as opposed to a shall as many of our regulations are I think the idea is leaving that up
to the Planning Commission for example to see if that is appropriate I
Is that incentive generating the type of development that the administration is looking for or is someone
trying to use it? To build a gigantic house in the r1 I think we would staff as well before it goes
to the Planning Commission would be able to advise a petitioner on whether or not we thought that was
The design of the subdivision for example was, you know reaching the goals of what these incentives
are supposed to be doing and
We don't use these very much. We don't see them used very much and so the idea I think the main development
pattern that we see the See the potential use of this in is what you're describing of like a smaller
a smallish subdivision where the lots will be quite small and
So the lots can be covered more for an appropriately sized house like for example I spoke about last
time you like trail view the property that you have to have for humanity did on the beeline on the northwest
northwest of town they had to do that as a plan unit development there were no options had these incentives
existed at that time
You heard mayor Thompson say they probably actually could have gotten more lots than than they did and
so I think it's those kind of developments that we're anticipating that this could be used for because
they have to meet the tiers they have to put aside 15% of the units in perpetuity at low AMIs so I don't
know that I think I don't think that we think there is a lot of room for abuse here because of what
they will have to be giving in order to get this and
Okay, so we're mostly into, I'm sorry, can I keep going? So we're mostly anticipating for it, maybe
multiple lots being subdivided and building, say, two or more homes, one of which, minimum of 15% of
which will need to be permanently affordable based on AMI levels. Is that anticipated? Do we only really
have the infrastructure, not physical, but like a code infrastructure to support
For rental properties, how would that work for ownership? I guess like would they have to work with
a land trust or some other deed restriction on Like yeah, is this possible with ownership as well? Sure.
I Think it was spoken about a little bit at the last hearing but yes, we may have to look into some
sort of model like you're suggesting land trusts or potentially like a model like a
Someone like habitat uses to be able to make those permanently affordable while offering, you know the
ability for The owners of those houses to be able to accrue money as well over time So no, I don't think
that has been we have not flushed that out So yes, I do think it's probably easier for rental at this
point, but it's something that we are exploring especially with the intention of owner occupancy included
in the preamble for this section and
Okay, thank you Sorry councilman Stossberg then Rallo Staff because this incentive in general is as
you just said generally going to be used for a subdivision of more lots Can you just explain?
to council and to the public how subdivision development works in terms of what process it goes through
in terms of like what the requirements are. And I guess one of the things that I'm thinking is the slide
show that you showed last time where there was the picture of the number of lots and and I once again
I guess like my question earlier I want to give
Assurance that that this doesn't mean that you know if you have this space that suddenly like 80% of
the entire space is going to be covered with impervious surface that there's other Considerations that
go into subdivision development. So if you could just talk about those sure and how that works So depending
on the layout of the parcel that's being subdivided You may be required to be setting aside land for
a new road. For example you have to set aside land for
Detention as well. And so that is in title 13, which is run by CBU And so as we spoke a little bit about
last time There are requirements
Detention based on potential development at the location when we don't know what the development is
going to be specifically So any detention this is my understanding any detention designed for a subdivision
For example is going to be designed for each of the lots assuming each lot is built at maximum capacity
so maximum impervious surface coverage, so if there was conflict between how big the pond needed to
be and how many lots they were trying to get and
The pond would win out they as you mentioned with some of the other regulations This regulation does
not supersede any other regulations. It's like a ceiling that they can reach and then if other regulations
decrease how many units they can get then that just happens that happens with all of our Regulations,
they all have to be in play. So
There would be potential landscaping requirements as well if there was a street in there, obviously
all of the setbacks and some of those things are lowered in this section, in this incentive section.
But for example, if there was tree preservation required on the lot, the regular calculation for tree
preservation would be used, nothing here supersedes that, and that amount of land would have to be set
aside whether or not these incentives were used. And so all of those things that right now affect how
many lots can be created,
Outside of the specific dimensional standards regulations would still exist Thank you and just kind
of to follow up on that with maybe some like real numbers and I'm so sorry that I did not look up these
before I started but maybe you can remember because you're kind of amazing in that way, so In the couple
years that I've been on planning commission. We've maybe had at least two subdivisions that I can remember
come through and so one of them was on the
East south side of town that long narrow lot. Do you remember how many lots that got subdivided into
you? That's a good question. I'm not sure are you talking about the old Ivy Chase site? I think so.
Yeah, I would say maybe 25 and do you remember how many of those lots were actually buildable and
So because that's like the difference is it saying like okay if we split it into 25 lots How many were
we actually where the builders actually allowed to build on after the detention and the tree preservation?
For example, we have a petition right now that Land Commission will continue to see on North done
that has a large portion of the west side of the property is set aside because of environmental constraints
and then there are lots within the other lots that also have environmental constraints and have been
set aside. So none of that would change. You just may get more lots in between the areas that have to
be set aside for environmental reasons. We do not do very many subdivisions. I mean we're pretty large
scale subdivisions.
We do almost none. We've we did Kinzer Ridge on the north side. They had quite a few Singles and so
those were all set aside and those are going to be you know, those are intended to be kind of single-family
starter homes Could we have got we could have gotten more lots there. We only have so much raw land
left and so being able to kind of Build in more lots. I think helps us reach some of our goals. I will
note I think I noted that
Last time and I heard from director Zager after that after the last time I was here and she confirmed
that yes She, you know discussed this proposal with director Hittle and that CBU does not have concerns
related to stormwater based on this proposal Okay. Thank you So this is kind of curious to me good do
can we put up the zoning map just so we for Illustrated
Illustrative purposes because we were talking about our one district, which is the largest Occupies
the largest area of residential in the city, which is the yellow there And say we had a quarter quarter
acre lot You know with the 80% provision You know, we're talking about eight thousand seven hundred
square feet
But you were saying that would never happen. Are you talking about the yellow there on the yeah, that's
our to Our one is like at the very north end of town. That's our number of our one. Sorry Okay, sorry
almost we don't have almost any our one. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm mistaken So our two but but the point
is is that if I mean some of these lots are larger But I'm just taking quarter acre as an example so
That would 80 80 percent would be eight thousand seven hundred square feet
That would never happen in your mind There would be various restrictions, but what would the likely
impact be? What what is the maximum that you would envision on? a quarter acre lot, yeah to me This
is very reminiscent of kind of like the duplex conversation where like all of these areas are built
out that's why you can see all like the little squiggly roads like they're all subdivisions that this
Body and others approved in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s There there aren't a bunch of empty lots
there where people are going to tear down You know houses in Park Ridge so that they can build two and
make one of them affordable like that's not that doesn't feel realistic So I don't think we'll see a
lot of it there just like I may try to make the argument with the plexus which we haven't seen any out
there either and I just
So it's hard for me to answer that question because I again am envisioning I think the department is
envisioning this regulation more with like little larger pockets that we have like potentially for example,
there are some lots on hillside near the near CBU that Were developed as a cottage development,
which is fine. That's great. That's the only one we've ever done But if it could have been subdivided
and gotten, you know more units where people could own that that may have been more beneficial
Guess we're putting in incentives, right and I want to know like worst-case scenario in terms Yeah,
I mean, I think you're right worst worst-case scenario is that 80% of that lot could be covered. I mean
that that is possible I don't know Where I don't I'm not sure where those vacant lots exist That would
be it would it couldn't be one-off because they have to make at least 15% You know at AMI below 90
Once we adopt this and we put it in code and people have that expectation. It's hard to reverse I mean
people could right I mean Well, we come every year. So if we saw that it was something was happening
unintended We would we would bring it back I mean, I think we do try to bring them back to make them
better like we did with the ad use as well Isn't it better maybe to start off with an incentive? I mean,
I'm suggesting my amendment To see if that is
something that has a benign effect or or is taken as an incentive instead of going for 80% which I still
think is a It sends a bad message. I mean in my mind, maybe we're we've been we're working across purposes
We've been spending millions of dollars. I understand. There's a new project that's coming You know
in South Walnut potentially That's gonna probably cost a lot of city funds what I mean, but we're
We're going in the opposite direction here incentivizing impervious surface So it's a couple things
Okay, if you want me we are responding to the resolution that this body wrote you all said you wanted
us to try to incentivize developers and then in other conversations especially developers who don't
do affordable housing to build affordable housing you have to make it worth it for as we hear people
say and I mean, this is not my bailiwick, but it has to be able to pencil out
You have to be able to offer them something that they can't do now And so being able to get more houses
in for example, but it by using these incentives that would give us more units I do also want to make
clear for anyone who's watching. I know there's some of you do watch It's not 80% across the board for
these four districts it's 80% if you're building a single-family detached house or a duplex on a lot
and in a project where you're setting aside 15% of the
Units that you're trying to build to be permanently affordable at or below 90% of area median income
It's very it's much more nuanced and smaller I think than we are kind of like talking about we are not
coming forward and saying we should cover 80% of the city with pavement or houses that it's It isn't
that and I do think I put a lot of credence in
Director Zager, you know weighing in and saying that that based on what they have looked at at CBU They
do not think that this is going to have an effect on stormwater that they are concerned about Let's
move to public comment unless someone has an urgent question I
Yes, and this is just public comment on this amendment. I know that we have something from the Environmental
Commission So we'll start with the Environmental Commission if anybody else would like to make public
comment on amendment one to ordinance 2020 601 now is your time to do so Mr. Caldy Hi, my name is Matt
Caldy and I'm speaking in my capacity as a member of the Bloomington Environmental Commission planning
committee we were told that
If we approved the memo as a commission that one member could be present to read it to you tonight So
that's what i'm going to do Dear city of bloomington common council the bloomington environmental commission
planning committee Or ecpc has reviewed the department of planning and transportation's recommendations
for amending the unified development ordinance
Our commission appreciates the opportunity to provide input on these proposed changes We recognize the
need for affordable housing in bloomington and strongly support incentives that allow developers and
builders to include housing for a variety of bloomington residents Proposed udio amendments would allow
for the following changes It just summarizes the r1 from 30 to 80 r2 40 to 80 r3 45 to 80 and r4 50
to 80 percent maximum impervious surface
However, the proposed increases and allowed impervious surface percentages are associated with potentially
negative environmental impacts Our concerns fall into the categories of stormwater heat island effect
and tree canopy cover and health Regarding stormwater allowing more impervious surface increases multiple
stormwater related risks a John Johns Hopkins study found that for every percentage point increase of
roads parking lots and other impervious surfaces
annual floods increase on an average of 3.3 percent As noted in the city of Bloomington climate risk
and vulnerability assessment Indiana is projected to see a 25 percent increase in inland flooding by
2050 the potential increased risk of flooding would necessitate review of culvert maintenance and sizing
stream banks and degradation and Corresponding pollutants if the stormwater management plan is not sufficient
regarding heat island within the expected
Within the expected change in maximum impervious surfaces, it's possible that the tree canopy and soil
quality would also be reduced, potentially increasing heat island and decreasing moisture levels.
Urban heat, sorry, urban tree canopy is associated with reduced urban temperatures and therefore benefits
both human health and reducing energy use in cities. More buildings, roads and impervious surfaces increase
how the sun's heat is absorbed and re-emitted while simultaneously preventing water from accessing and
hydrating vegetation.
for retaining tree canopy and tree health. Bloomington was recognized as Indiana's first tree city USA
by the National Arbor Day Foundation in 1984 and many citywide initiatives demonstrate how Bloomington
prioritizes its tree population. Trees contribute to carbon dioxide uptake, air pollution removal and
stormwater mitigation by allowing increased impervious surface percentages and immediate concern is
how tree canopy will be affected.
2016 study found that in urban area with 33% to 66% impervious surface cover trees were most likely
to be in fair condition at above 65% impervious surface cover trees were most likely to be in poor condition
as Mentioned previously increased impervious surfaces may lead to lower moisture in soil reduced air
quality and less healthy trees your time a cycle that perpetuates urban heat island effect Thank you
Thank you Are there other public comments on the amendment is there anyone online? All right online
commenter All right Hi, my name is Heidi Brown and I'm commenting as a citizen of the Bloomington community
And I just like to bring to the council's attention that the comprehensive plan does mention impervious
cover. So as a goal for the city and the policy 3.2 point one states that the goal is to continue to
limit the amount of impervious surface in new developments or public improvement projects and to also
increase and read.
the infrastructure and reduce urban runoff. So just knowing that that's in the comprehensive plan, maybe
can help guide some decision-making. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other commenters?
Another online? Take it away. Hello, my name is Jamie Shoal and thanks for the opportunity to speak
this evening.
I want to address an unintended consequence or there may be a few that we've already heard of the. Surface
allowances. This change being presented is a way to support housing affordability. However, the impervious
coverage permanently removes land from food production, environmental function, and basically
Our communities resilience and those losses are not easily reversed Bloomington like most cities relies
on a just in time food system which we've seen a few times in recent memory to not meet community needs
when under stress under normal conditions grocery stores typically carry on.
only a few days of inventory. During these disruptions, the local food production becomes our critical
buffer and is already integrated into our local food system through the Bloomington Farmstop Collective
and Bethel Lane Farmstop and the farmers market. What matters more right now is we're living in a time
of economic uncertainty and a shifting world order. We can't see things in the bubble of Bloomington.
With rising inflation and growing concern about the purchasing power of households, people turn to sound
money, and that's gold and silver, reflecting the fear about inflation. Access to land that can grow
food is another form of real security, one that helps households offset rising grocery costs
with nutrient-dense food. This can be in row crops. This can be in agroforestry. This can manifest in
different ways.
There is also a public health dimension. Access to green productive land is associated with lower stress,
anxiety, and depression. And without that green space, the heat island effect could increase, which
we've already heard about. We know that whenever temperatures rise, people become often more aggressive.
Increasing impervious surfaces removes both environmental and mental health benefits while also eliminating
opportunities for supplemental income and meaningful work through urban agriculture, an activity supported
by our city's comprehensive plan. Once soil is sealed, it is effectively lost to food production for
generations. Even small increases when applied across neighborhoods could result in a significant cumulative
loss. So I urge council to consider whether
Whatever proposal comes about meets our stated goals around sustainability resilience food security
and public health and to explore all the various Alternatives that allow for housing flexibility without
permanently sacrificing the land that helps our community withstand future shocks Thank you. Thank you
for your time. Thank you Are there any other comments?
And you want to comment as an individual now rather than as a briefly as a citizen and not as a member
of the environmental Sure, just say say your name. Sure once again Matt Caldy. I I just want to express
it personally I feel I feel conflicted about the the proposed ordinance because I support affordable
housing and you know density is also in an environmental issue. I just struggled with the the 80% let alone
90% if tier 2 incentives are met impervious surface coverage I don't I don't see that as being reasonable
in most residential neighborhoods and and therefore Generally much prefer something along the lines
of the proposed amendment tiered numbers I feel like this is geared at subdivisions in general and I
don't think it'll come up all that often as being very narrow in scope but
Just feel very very conflicted about the whole thing because I want to want to support more housing
But just want to make sure we're not putting ourselves and our citizens at risk. So, thank you Thank
you. I Don't see any other comments. Are there anyone online? Fantastic. We'll come back to counsel
Anybody want to speak in favor of this other than the sponsors? Would anyone like to speak against the
amendment?
Please I was slowing the uptake on in favor. Go ahead, please in favor. Yeah Thank you to the sponsors
for bringing this I'm gonna vote for it I Feel like the exercise we're kind of like lost in a corner
of the UDO somewhere instead of like zooming out and talking about what can add housing to our community
that is modest and scale that might be owner-occupied that might be more affordable than the housing
we're seeing
These are things like smaller minimum lot sizes that are probably half the size of what the minimum
lot sizes are right now. Good form-based zoning code doesn't even generally have minimum lot sizes.
They focus on things like lot widths and build two lines. Our code is, I would say, broken relative
to the outcomes we say we want. I think while the intent of the resolutions that spurred this were positive,
I feel like
question including this amendment is like really really missing the forest for the trees and It's a
little hard to fully conceptualize what? Exactly the 80% up to 90% thing would look like in practice.
Maybe nothing at all. Maybe no one would use it I was trying to tease that out with staff and that was
helpful to engage but um, I just think we're kind of off base fully and I think this makes more sense
to support this amendment that tears the the
Incentive if in case this ordinance passes In a way that more closely mirrors what the existing and
purpose service requirements are across those four districts so that's my Speech in favor. Thank you.
Thank you so much. I'm councilmember Puma Smith Yes, I'm also in favor of this amendment I'm not so
concerned as the sponsors are about
the stormwater implications of covering more of the surface with impermeable building because there
is a CBU review that's part of approval of any development. And CBU director Zager has said that she
does not foresee a problem. But as the environmental commission has pointed out, there are many ecosystem
services provided by green space other than
the benefits for our stormwater system. I mean, the tree cover, the mitigating the heat island effect,
more absorption of carbon dioxide and general livability. I think those are all things that should be
considered before we allow more impermeable surface. And I also sort of agree with council member Flaherty
in that we are getting lost in some details that probably won't make a big dent
Either way because I doubt many people will take advantage of these incentives but I do think in this
case I I would prefer to not allow 80% and have it tiered to the Lot of sizes in our different residential
zoning districts. So I'm gonna support the amendment. Thank you. Would anybody like to speak against
the amendment? Please councilmember Stasberg Thank you
Do disagree with this? I appreciate councilmember Flaherty's concept of it being tiered If it was tiered
though, I think it should be tiered the other way and I think that we need to get back to what this
incentive is actually intended for which is subdivisions and if we think about the zoning map and thinking
about where we have our threes and our fours
There's not going to be new subdivisions and our threes and our fours. They're just aren't there's no
free land space in there So if we think about what is needed in our threes and our fours, it is something
different It's changing minimum lot sizes. It's making some of those shifts, right but the art are twos
especially
Like this is where we need to do this and from my seat on the Planning Commission There's been at least
one subdivision that their initial proposal during a Planning Commission lunch was paired homes and
Because they could not build the paired homes By right and there was no additional incentive like this
under the affordability incentive They instead did single-family homes. So instead of having some much
more affordable paired homes on this property Instead there are not
Affordable homes at all on it and it's actually right next to another Subdivision that does have paired
homes and that makes absolutely no sense to me. Okay, so so we can say like yeah, the the tiered thing
is is Maybe it would be better. Maybe it would be too complicated for builders and staff But the way
that this amendment writes it it is no incentive at all
And we're just back to builders not using this at all and instead the few subdivisions that come through
won't have any affordability in them unless that builder actually makes this choice to
Do basic designs to you know, whatever it is and and that build that's up on Kinza Ridge They said that
it's going to be more affordable that they have some Starter home starting at least when they presented
it a year and a half ago in like the 280 range or something like that But that's like the starter and
then every time you add anything on that like normal people want it like goes up to 400 like that
Maybe that feels affordable to some degree right now But it is not actually affordable and
if that development could have actually taken advantage of this and and Made some of those lots up on
Kendra Ridge smaller and put some paired homes on there and the paired homes could still have been a
decent size for a family to live in Then that could have extended affordability even more even if it
meant that some of those lots had
more coverage and I just I think that That we are maybe getting lost in the weeds a little bit because
how much is this actually going to be taken? Advantage of probably not very much, but it's not even
going to be improved at all by by changing it this drastically All right. Thank you so much Well, I
would just like to comment go ahead
I'd like to just say let's vote. Okay one last thing I mean I've said a lot but one last thing strikes
me and that is The our code should be evident should be self-evident people should be able to read it
and understand what it says What I'm very troubled by is that this 80% across the board We don't know
how it's going to be implemented. It's anyone's guess. I mean we've been told that it's going to be a
Radically less or less to some degree, but we don't know we don't know the number Shouldn't it be? specified
in our code as opposed to well, it's it could be 80% but it's likely to be less I Think I really find
that troubling Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?
Okay, go ahead If there's one thing I've learned in
Doing constituent services in the community over my terms on council It's that It doesn't take much
modification of a lot When it's developed to create a big problem for a lot adjacent or downstream Doesn't
take much at all. So even if this is something we're gonna say well, it's probably not gonna be used
or that very many situations where it could be applied that would have a big impact in very many areas and
Could where it could be done could have a tremendous negative impact on Other owners other homeowners
in these areas and it doesn't take much of a change in the drainage and the amount of runoff from a
from one property to really Suddenly where it never got in the basement before Suddenly is now causing
a problem for someone else. So even at a low level of utilization of this
It's still I it's not worth the risk to me Thank you. Well the clerk, please call the roll on amendment
1 to ordinance 20 2601 Councilmember Stasberg Piedmont Smith Yes Zulik no, sorry. Yes Rallo Yes
Ruff. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Thank you that motion carries 6-2 so we now go back to ordinance
20 2601 as amended I'd like at this moment to have a time of public comment. Would anybody like to comment
on the totality of ordinance 20 2601 as amended?
See no one in chambers. Do we have anyone online? Wonderful, I'll come back to council members. Do you
have any comments on the full thing? I'm starting with councilmember Rosenberger I Mean I will say And
I plan on voting no for this, I mean I'll just say I'm still asking questions, but I
Think like what we need is an affordability feast and what this is is like putting a pea on a plate
And it's just like not going to get anything done When we talk about our resolutions that we sent to
plan commission and then these this is like what came out of them I think this is for planning staff,
but Why didn't we change minimum lot size to allow more affordability in our city?
Do you want me to say that again? No, okay. I thought you're just like expounding. I'm so sorry. I'm
sorry I was questioning. I'm sorry. I thought it was comment because the resolution Dictated which sections
we could make suggestions. Oh, right. And so and when we try to do that up here We didn't get that resolution
introduced. So we didn't this council did not allow for changing minimum lot size like I think this
Think this ordinance doesn't make sense because we're not changing minimum lot size also with Hopewell
the PUD One of the plans is to allow alley frontage, which I think would also increase affordability
in our city Was that considered for this ordinance for it? Wasn't in one of the sections we were allowed
to look at so something this council kind of has just like
Quashed along the way. Okay, so I just think like I said, I just think this we have so much to do and
this is so Narrow like you were saying narrow earlier. I think That I I mean, I don't like the payment
in lieu. It's like it's missing a zero on the end of it I think to that and now I'm just on a comment.
I think thank you very much. I think to Mixed income housing is what we really need in this city and
we need to be encouraging that I mean we said we're priority
But when we have a payment and lose solo that is prioritizing Our affordable units being elsewhere.
I'm just really not a fan of that I don't mind taking a look at impervious surface coverage But I think
it has to also be done with minimum lot size since we can't even build in our city the
Matt press developments on the beeline or on South Dunn. I don't think it makes sense to change impervious
surface that much So for me, this is just totally missing the mark and I just don't want I think we
need to put more pressure and urgency on the administration to Do more and go bigger than this and that's
why I'm voting no on it Thank You councilmember Rallo and then councilmember Stasberg
Got a question just briefly So I Believe that this administration has a commitment to affordability
and you know, it's a difficult process The previous administration did they had certain tools? Miss
Scanlon do We used to have a aggregate spreadsheet of total units per year that we've added and
Do we still have that and are we keeping that? To date and can we see how many units we've been adding
over over the past few years? That's a great question when the Hamilton administration was in that was
something that I administered for them but I Shared that with the new administration, but it is not
something I have been asked to do So it's not up to date as far as I know but someone else may be that
document is shared So someone else may be doing that
You're not doing it, but someone maybe I don't know if anyone else's but I'm so could you know Well,
it's under the purview of planning and transportation I assume or I Mean so the document that we that
we maintained under the Hamilton administration was supposed to be it was keeping track of how many
units were approved So because most of our most of the approval bodies are ones we go to that's why
I was doing it But I don't know, you know
I'm not sure if something similar is being done now. I think that would be useful for the council to
have that data So I'm I guess I'm making a request I think probably my colleagues would be interested
to to just see where where we are You know where the trajectory was and then where we are since then
and how many horse affordable units I assume, you know, we've even lost a few maybe the Renato development
was in lieu payment was, you know surrendered by action of the council actually and
But it would just be good to have that number so we can be sure I'm happy to talk to director Hiddle
about it. Yeah. Terrific Thank you. Thanks councilmember Stasberg then councilmember Pema Smith I'm
trying really hard to not be frustrated about this right now But I as somebody who's been sitting on
the plan Commission for two years and really like making a study of our UDO for longer than that It's
really frustrating to me right now that it seems that there's
Minimal understanding of of this entire section of the UDO and what it actually says I
Appreciate councilmember Rosenberger's comments related to minimum lot sizes and we remember back to
March last year I wanted to introduce that and I would like minimum lot sizes to change and I want to
point out that within this incentive if some if a builder uses this incentive then their minimum lot
sizes get reduced by up to 50% their
Lot widths get reduced by up to 40%. Their side setbacks and rear setbacks are reduced. And all of those
things go together. And I feel like that entirely is getting missed, that it's not just this one piece
of impervious surface that changed. It is the whole package. And I think that there is a real lack of
understanding by the council as a whole right now, what our development ordinance actually does.
and that's just really kind of frustrating to me at this point and maybe it's just frustrating because
I've been studying it for so long and I think even if I wasn't on the Planning Commission I would have
been studying it because there's a few really important pieces of it that come before us like this change
and It is a complicated document and it does take work but all of us have that work capability in us and
So I guess that's a challenge. I will be voting in favor of this tonight, if only for the payment in
lieu changes. Voting against it doesn't make any difference in terms of the dollar amount. Payment in
lieu is allowed right now. Voting against this doesn't change the fact that it's allowed. We are not,
as a council, allowed to actually set the number. That number is in here. It has an example of what
the hand department expects to do.
this year, the hand department is the one that gets to actually set those details. The change that this
does in terms of the payment in lieu specifically says, hey, you need to do it based on the administrative
manual, and it demands that payment in lieu only be done for large projects. If there's more than 30
units, you're allowed to choose payment in lieu. If you're building a small development, you're not
even allowed to choose payment in lieu.
So I think that that's an important thing to point out. So I will be voting to support this even though
I'm Disappointed at how the impervious surface thing came out and I suspect that it will continue to
be unused Thank You councillor Puma Smith Yes, I
I want to reflect on what Council Member Rosenbarger said, and I do agree that we need a much bigger
overhaul of our UDO. And our early discussions about the Hopewell PUD really point the way to what changes
we should consider for the UDO as a whole. But I take her comments as yes, and we can also approve this
very incremental
Ordinance that is before us to make these very small amendments that may move the needle a little bit
and a little bit It's better than nothing. So I will be supporting this. Thank you All right Councilman
flirty you With much respect to our Planning Commission representative I've also spent many hundreds
of hours on the UDO and I do feel like I fully understand the implications of what we're deciding this
evening as well as the broader
landscape that's needed earlier and customer Stossberg you Mentioned that there aren't opportunities
to subdivide an R3 and R4. That's really not true There's actually many hundreds of opportunities to
subdivide an R3 R4 if we reduce the lot size minimums Probably not through this affordability incentive
though because one of the houses is already there, right? So yeah, okay got it. So not maybe opportunities
to use the affordability set of but hundreds if not thousands of
Backyards that can be turned into small-scale lots for small-scale development for ownership in Bloomington
It's a systems level solution as my colleague customer Rosenberger noted I was brought before this council
for introduction last year. It was not introduced Perhaps we will change that perhaps the administration
will bring something in forthcoming changes that I hope we see some collaboration with council on I
don't know I think
When I look at resolution 2512, one of the things it says is any payment in lieu qualifying standard
should exceed the requirements of actual creation of permanently affordable units. And that's what we've
kind of dug into a little bit. It's going to be a little bit of a context-specific inquiry. It's always
a little different.
But with the Rolada, we actually had an opportunity to ask questions about what was the delta between
a market rate unit and affordable unit? How many units are there? And we actually could run the numbers
in that case anyway of what is the value over a 100-year cycle of the subsidy, essentially, that's that
incremental difference between the AMI-level unit and the market rate unit. And you can kind of game
that out. And what it revealed is that the payment in lieu, we're getting something like 5 to 10 cents
on the dollar, maybe.
for compared to actual permanently affordable units going in in buildings and so I It's a broader reflection
that I think it was a mistake several years ago to move away from the fairly strict narrow allowance
of payment in lieu that we had in the initial Udo approval in 2019 I know this ordinance isn't affecting
that one way or another but I will note that again the whereas clause is
As far as the council's intent says that the payment and loot qualifying standards should exceed the
requirements of actual creation of permanently affordable units and like that's not at all the situation
we're in so I Don't think what's being proposed? Including what the hand department is proposing which
yes an increase. That's good Relative to the status quo, but it still doesn't actually meet the intent
expressed by the council in the resolution And I think we need to go back to the drawing board on this
and a good number of other things and
while this might make a very small incremental improvement, I think my vote of no tonight is just a
reflection that like, this is pretty broken. We really gotta fix some things. Thank you. Any other comments?
Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance 2601 as amended. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith.
Yes Zulek. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger Flaherty no Stossberg. Yes That motion
carries 6-2 and is adopted. Thank you so much. I
Thank you To the planning department for being here so late. All right, we now move to our final period
of Public comment if you have not commented in the other in the other section of public comment you
now may and You have three minutes anyone in council chambers Anyone online
Seeing none, we'll move to council schedule. Someone just joined, okay. Person who just joined, would
you like to give a public comment? Yes, was we referring to Heidi Brown? I didn't hear what you asked,
but I think the answer is yes. And this is public comment regarding the impervious coverage issue still?
No, this is general public comment for things that were not on the on the Agenda oh Okay, so not an
appropriate time to offer one more thought there No, ma'am Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you All right,
if there's no other comments All right. We'll move to issues of council schedule and
Attorney liner are there any updates on schedule that are relevant to the body? There had been some
discussion about holding potentially an executive session on February 18th and I learned today that
That no longer is possible. So there won't be a notice to schedule that meeting at that point
And we looking at dates potentially in March. Excellent. Thank you very much any other updates to council
schedule councilor Stasberg then Zulu I just want to announce that there's a fiscal committee meeting
on February 13th at 830 in the Allison conference room and it's also available by zoom. Thanks
I just want to let all council members know that due to the Accessibility requirements changing it is
a little bit more difficult for our staff members to prepare amendments within 24 hours notice of a
meeting and so we are asking that if you have an amendment, please let staff know by seven days after
the first reading discussion and if there are two weeks between meetings if there's Yes, so it that
would it for example if
There was a first reading introduced today on February 4th. The next council meeting is February 18th.
So that would be two weeks in between. If that is the case, up to seven days after first reading. So
that would be next Wednesday. If there's only one week in between two council meetings, please let staff
know by Monday at noon before the council meeting. Thank you. Right. Any questions, comments, anything
we're missing?
All right, if that's everything, we are adjourned.