WEBVTT 00:00:00.642 --> 00:00:10.507 - Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the most wonderful thing that you can imagine doing 00:00:10.507 --> 00:00:20.275 - on a Wednesday Which is this March 25th? 2026 regular session of the Bloomington Common Council Will 00:00:20.275 --> 00:00:30.526 - our honorable clerk, please read the roll or call the roll rather than read it Councilmember Flaherty air 00:00:31.170 --> 00:00:45.726 - Sasberg here Piedmont Smith Zulek present sorry here daily I'm here Rallo here rough here and Rosenberger here 00:00:45.890 --> 00:00:53.102 - Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you. The agendas are posted on the wall. And there's also a handful of copies 00:00:53.102 --> 00:01:00.382 - there if you'd like one in your hand. But tonight's agenda includes approval of minutes from the September 00:01:00.382 --> 00:01:07.390 - 24 committee of the whole meeting, reports from council members, city offices, boards and commissions, 00:01:07.390 --> 00:01:14.398 - and council committees. We have an appointment recommendation and second reading on ordinance 2026.06. 00:01:14.466 --> 00:01:22.799 - and then two resolutions. There are no items for first reading this evening. Let us move on then to 00:01:22.799 --> 00:01:31.466 - the minutes for approval. Is there a motion? Oh, yes. I move to approve the minutes for September 24th, 00:01:31.466 --> 00:01:40.049 - 2025 Committee of the Whole. Second. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any amendments to those 00:01:40.049 --> 00:01:44.382 - minutes? Ah, you disappeared. Oh, they're back. OK. 00:01:44.962 --> 00:01:54.728 - Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll. Council member Flaherty? Yes. Stossberg? 00:01:54.728 --> 00:02:05.675 - Yes. Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Zulek? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Ruff? Yes. Rosenberger? Yes. 00:02:05.675 --> 00:02:12.222 - We've lost visual. Now they're there. Now they're there, OK. 00:02:12.386 --> 00:02:21.454 - Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Those minutes have been approved. Okay. We'll now move on to a 00:02:21.454 --> 00:02:30.792 - time of reports and we will start with reports from council members. Does anyone have a report? Council 00:02:30.792 --> 00:02:32.318 - member Stasberg. 00:02:33.378 --> 00:02:40.241 - I think that this is now the right time to call attention to my draft priorities memo that was in the 00:02:40.241 --> 00:02:47.171 - packet addendum that got sent out today. If you recall a couple weeks ago in the deliberation session, 00:02:47.171 --> 00:02:54.034 - I said that I would use our conversation from that night and the follow-up survey results in terms of 00:02:54.034 --> 00:03:01.502 - everybody getting assigned those hundred points to allocate between those outcomes. And then I drafted a memo. 00:03:01.698 --> 00:03:08.956 - I will say that I definitely feel like this is quite a draft, and there were a few things after I sent 00:03:08.956 --> 00:03:16.073 - it in to be included in the packet that I went, hmm, I think that there's a few things that I wanted 00:03:16.073 --> 00:03:23.260 - to amend, so I want to kind of bring us through that first. I hope everybody's kind of looking at it. 00:03:23.260 --> 00:03:25.022 - In the second paragraph, 00:03:26.498 --> 00:03:32.395 - I guess it's just the second full sentence specific interest. So you guys wanted me to specifically 00:03:32.395 --> 00:03:38.647 - call out existing plans and how important it was to all of us that we like follow through on our existing 00:03:38.647 --> 00:03:44.721 - plans. And so that is the paragraph about that. And I wasn't sure if there needed to be some expansion 00:03:44.721 --> 00:03:47.198 - in the final draft around the interest in 00:03:47.330 --> 00:03:56.579 - Safe Streets for All plan climate action plan transportation plan Wasn't sure if the comprehensive plan 00:03:56.579 --> 00:04:05.650 - should go in there because the comprehensive plan is kind of a different type of plan But I wanted to 00:04:05.650 --> 00:04:14.366 - make sure to bring that up to make sure that nobody had Comment on that and Similarly When I Then 00:04:15.682 --> 00:04:22.038 - Put the list of things I wasn't sure if anybody wanted any specific expansion underneath those categories 00:04:22.038 --> 00:04:28.574 - Highlighting kind of the different specific things that might have gotten mentioned during that conversation 00:04:28.574 --> 00:04:34.990 - So if anything if there's anything that anybody wants in there, please let me know and then I specifically 00:04:34.990 --> 00:04:40.446 - wanted to call out under number one so it did raise the maintenance of city assets was the 00:04:40.674 --> 00:04:47.226 - was the highest ranking thing in the consolidated ranking, but I changed that to maintenance and enhancement 00:04:47.226 --> 00:04:53.478 - of city assets because we did have that conversation that we don't just wanna maintain, but we actually 00:04:53.478 --> 00:04:59.609 - wanna make some things better. And so I wanted to make sure that that reframing was acceptable to the 00:04:59.609 --> 00:05:05.740 - group. I also wanted to make sure that down on number six, that was, I can't remember what it was, it 00:05:05.740 --> 00:05:08.926 - was the economy one, it was the vibrant economy one, 00:05:09.122 --> 00:05:15.291 - and thank you to those of you who had suggestions. There were maybe three folks that had different 00:05:15.291 --> 00:05:21.771 - suggestions and I tried to kind of combine those to categorize number six as inclusive and strong local 00:05:21.771 --> 00:05:28.064 - economy, able to stay resilient and adaptable. So wanted to make sure that that worked out. And then 00:05:28.064 --> 00:05:32.862 - I had also gotten feedback from Council Member Piedmont-Smith who was unable 00:05:33.058 --> 00:05:39.987 - Because of illness to make that meeting a couple weeks ago about number seven Bloomington residents 00:05:39.987 --> 00:05:46.915 - have options other than uniformed officers for nonviolent issues whether that wanted to be reframed 00:05:46.915 --> 00:05:53.844 - and Then the the last thing actually two more things in terms of my own like wow, this was a drafty 00:05:53.844 --> 00:06:01.119 - draft I put a couple examples in the last paragraph that I have written about budget presentations right 00:06:01.119 --> 00:06:01.950 - in terms of 00:06:02.210 --> 00:06:07.653 - I said the maintenance of city assets and intersection redesign as two examples of how things could 00:06:07.653 --> 00:06:13.151 - fit into priority areas. I wanted to make sure that everybody was okay with the examples that I used 00:06:13.151 --> 00:06:18.595 - or if there are other examples you would prefer. And then I realized that it really needs a closing 00:06:18.595 --> 00:06:24.093 - paragraph and I need to put a closer in and I knew I at least wanted to close highlighting the dates 00:06:24.093 --> 00:06:29.536 - of the meetings that we had had these discussions just so that if anybody wanted to go back to some 00:06:29.536 --> 00:06:31.550 - of those source discussions that was 00:06:31.682 --> 00:06:37.618 - all here in the memo. And those are my comments about it. So that was kind of a lot of information. 00:06:37.618 --> 00:06:43.554 - So feedback for me about how y'all want it to be changed so that then next week we can have a final 00:06:43.554 --> 00:06:49.728 - draft that we can vote on. Thank you so much, Council Member Stossberg, and thank you for the work both 00:06:49.728 --> 00:06:55.782 - in leading the committee and putting this together. At this moment, any comments from council members 00:06:55.782 --> 00:06:59.166 - to Council Member Stossberg? Council Member Pumas-Smith. 00:07:02.498 --> 00:07:09.465 - I did as council member Stossberg mentioned I did have a concern about item number seven which says 00:07:09.465 --> 00:07:16.432 - Bloomington residents have options other than uniformed officers for nonviolent issues under public 00:07:16.432 --> 00:07:23.678 - safety. We since we already do have options other than uniformed officers for nonviolent issues we have 00:07:23.678 --> 00:07:30.366 - police social workers we have stride. I'm wondering what the council's priority is here. Is it. 00:07:30.626 --> 00:07:37.512 - to continue the police social worker programs as they are to increase financial support for stride to 00:07:37.512 --> 00:07:44.264 - create city positions outside of the police department that can serve as community responders. Some 00:07:44.264 --> 00:07:51.285 - combination of the above. I'd just like to get more clarity and I personally would like to see creation 00:07:51.285 --> 00:07:58.037 - of city positions outside the police department that can serve as community responders. But I don't 00:07:58.037 --> 00:08:00.062 - know if others agree with me. 00:08:02.178 --> 00:08:12.063 - I would agree with that take councilmember Piedmont Smith Anyone else have comments at this point I 00:08:12.063 --> 00:08:22.046 - had councilor Ralla just to say that I want to thank Councilman sasper for her excellent work at the 00:08:22.046 --> 00:08:32.030 - synthesis of what council desires in terms of budget and Distilling things down Regarding policing I 00:08:32.130 --> 00:08:41.192 - I mean, I've always maintained, I think it's important to have non-uniform police personnel, but also 00:08:41.192 --> 00:08:50.343 - having the required number of sworn officers in order to interact with the public, be able to have the 00:08:50.343 --> 00:09:00.382 - ability to be on neighborhood beats and be accessible to people, I think was reflected in the consultant report. 00:09:00.514 --> 00:09:08.012 - Some years ago that that was an important aspect in terms of integrating the police into the in public 00:09:08.012 --> 00:09:15.291 - safety into the community And it's been proven to work. So I hope that that is That's my reflection 00:09:15.291 --> 00:09:22.571 - on on on councilmember Piedmont Smith's position on that Thanks so much. I'm other other councilman 00:09:22.571 --> 00:09:24.318 - stuff. I just want some 00:09:24.482 --> 00:09:31.377 - some clarity on what councilmember Zulek and Piedmont Smith said in terms of clarity on this. So you 00:09:31.377 --> 00:09:38.067 - would like this to be clarified to basically have community responders outside of the department? 00:09:38.067 --> 00:09:45.099 - Councilmember Zulek, is that what you said as well? Yes, and or just an expansion of the programs that 00:09:45.099 --> 00:09:51.038 - are already available. Programs already available. And to councilmember Rallo's point, 00:09:51.586 --> 00:09:57.512 - The fully staffing the department was actually an outcome that got voted on early on in this process. 00:09:57.512 --> 00:10:03.495 - And I can't remember how many points it got off the top of my head, but it didn't rise to the priority 00:10:03.495 --> 00:10:09.595 - level, which is why it's not reflected in here. But that's certainly one of those pieces of this closing 00:10:09.595 --> 00:10:15.579 - paragraph that I need to write. Here are all the things that we talked about. Here is the full ranking 00:10:15.579 --> 00:10:21.214 - of data where individuals might have had different priorities, but this is really supposed to be 00:10:21.410 --> 00:10:28.867 - The thing where all of us are good with all these things. So I hope that that makes sense as to why 00:10:28.867 --> 00:10:36.324 - that specific thing is not Consolidated into the letter. Absolutely. I I understand fully and there 00:10:36.324 --> 00:10:43.856 - there are a lot of You know, there's a diversity of opinion about you know, obviously the city has a 00:10:43.856 --> 00:10:49.822 - lot of needs and I and the administration has been very diligently committed to 00:10:49.922 --> 00:10:58.262 - Hiring new officers and you know, I'm satisfied that that is already a priority And so we're well on 00:10:58.262 --> 00:11:06.685 - our way and so we can think outside the box in terms of other types of Public safety and policing and 00:11:06.685 --> 00:11:15.355 - so forth as well. So I have I have no quibbles with that. I appreciate you asking so Alternative wording 00:11:15.355 --> 00:11:17.502 - here. What if we say that 00:11:18.050 --> 00:11:26.077 - Bloomington residents have additional options other than uniformed police officers for nonviolent issues. 00:11:26.077 --> 00:11:33.649 - So it's saying additional. So. Doesn't say what form the additional options will take that would be 00:11:33.649 --> 00:11:41.828 - left open. Just adding the word additional in there. And I added the word police because uniformed officers 00:11:41.828 --> 00:11:46.750 - just to clarify what that means but it's probably not necessary. 00:11:50.658 --> 00:11:57.862 - Any other comments? Folks online, any comments? Okay. Thank you. I'll just add one, maybe two small 00:11:57.862 --> 00:12:05.137 - things. Again, thank you so much for putting this together. I think really emphasizing the fact that 00:12:05.137 --> 00:12:12.485 - this is a prioritized list. I think we say that at the beginning, but I just think making it a little 00:12:12.485 --> 00:12:14.142 - bit very clear because 00:12:14.434 --> 00:12:23.326 - both we forget things and the office of the mayor wasn't at every single one of these deliberations 00:12:23.326 --> 00:12:30.974 - sessions. And then the second I think was the way that we framed it at the beginning. 00:12:31.106 --> 00:12:36.781 - while we're talking about city plans, that's where we got all of these outcomes. And so our sort of 00:12:36.781 --> 00:12:42.684 - guiding principle is let's do the plans that we already have and where there are none, we're interested 00:12:42.684 --> 00:12:48.473 - in helping to develop those. But each of these outcomes are things that actually come from city plans 00:12:48.473 --> 00:12:54.205 - and then that we've prioritized. So I just think that being clear at the beginning about sort of the 00:12:54.205 --> 00:12:56.702 - process that got us there would be helpful. 00:12:58.402 --> 00:13:04.229 - Only thing with that is I'm I would have to go through I'm not sure that all of these the ones that 00:13:04.229 --> 00:13:10.172 - rose to the top did come from city plans because the list we started with from Councilman repeat Mott 00:13:10.172 --> 00:13:16.057 - Smith all came from city plans, but then we added them ourselves and We we made some suggestions for 00:13:16.057 --> 00:13:22.117 - wording but but the whole bunch Did we really yeah interesting? Yeah goals in December and then through 00:13:22.117 --> 00:13:25.438 - the surveys interesting and in February and I'm not sure 00:13:25.634 --> 00:13:31.829 - the top of my head which ones rose to the top and I could look yeah and maybe they they did I don't 00:13:31.829 --> 00:13:38.023 - think so though could for example making homelessness brief rare and non-repeating is not something 00:13:38.023 --> 00:13:44.651 - that's in one of those official city plans yeah though it is I mean it's the heading home plan essentially 00:13:44.651 --> 00:13:46.014 - which we've supported 00:13:46.114 --> 00:13:53.408 - But it's yeah, but I can certainly Expand that idea that this is a ranked list And and draw that out 00:13:53.408 --> 00:14:01.208 - to make sure that there's extra clarity there. Excellent. Thank you so much customer Stasberg and everybody 00:14:01.208 --> 00:14:08.791 - else please send emails to customer Stasberg between now and next week moving on any other councilmember 00:14:08.791 --> 00:14:11.102 - reports comes from people Smith 00:14:12.258 --> 00:14:20.372 - Just note we have five more minutes. Yes. I wanted to highlight that the waste reduction district of 00:14:20.372 --> 00:14:28.405 - Monroe County is accepting grant applications for projects that that have innovative ways to reduce 00:14:28.405 --> 00:14:36.760 - waste either through reduction of materials reuse or recycling programs especially those that can serve 00:14:36.760 --> 00:14:42.142 - as models for other communities and institutions in Monroe County. 00:14:42.306 --> 00:14:49.803 - Proposals may include but are not limited to projects related to newer expanded recycling programs food 00:14:49.803 --> 00:14:56.940 - waste diversion in this initiatives environmental education programs Waste related public outreach 00:14:56.940 --> 00:15:04.220 - initiatives and recycled content purchasing initiatives So those grants are available for nonprofits 00:15:04.220 --> 00:15:12.222 - for civic organizations and businesses Throughout Monroe County and that deadline is May 17th and you can find 00:15:12.354 --> 00:15:21.396 - More information at waste reduction district dot com. The second thing I just wanted to mention in the 00:15:21.396 --> 00:15:30.262 - context of our budget priorities it was noted that we don't have a public safety plan as a community 00:15:30.262 --> 00:15:33.598 - and I've been working on scheduling a 00:15:34.050 --> 00:15:40.506 - deliberation session that would bring the public into first of all define public safety and then move 00:15:40.506 --> 00:15:47.025 - on to a second session where we would talk about how the city can what our goals are for public safety 00:15:47.025 --> 00:15:53.481 - and how the city can work towards those goals. And I know we've had some scheduling problems. I think 00:15:53.481 --> 00:15:57.278 - that those should be subsequent sessions one after another. 00:15:57.506 --> 00:16:04.368 - So I just want to throw out there that if we're not able to schedule those subsequent sessions this 00:16:04.368 --> 00:16:11.231 - spring we could possibly do so in September and October. So stay tuned for more information about a 00:16:11.231 --> 00:16:15.966 - way to help us in our quest to have a public safety plan. Thank you. 00:16:16.130 --> 00:16:23.086 - Thank you so much. OK, we now move to reports from city offices and boards and commissions. And today 00:16:23.086 --> 00:16:30.382 - we have three presentations. We will start with a presentation from our parks and rec director Tim Street. 00:16:30.382 --> 00:16:31.678 - Sir, take it away. 00:16:45.474 --> 00:16:50.940 - Good evening, Council, Tim Street, Director of Bloomington Parks and Recreation. Thanks for taking some 00:16:50.940 --> 00:16:56.301 - time to hear from me this evening. I infrequently get to be in front of you, so it is nice to be here 00:16:56.301 --> 00:17:01.505 - and just give a general update on our master plan efforts. I know last time I was in front of you, 00:17:01.505 --> 00:17:06.813 - I believe, was budget hearings, and I referenced a lot about our master plan work that was underway. 00:17:06.813 --> 00:17:12.175 - Since then, we've done a lot more work on our master plan and just wanted to share some results as we 00:17:12.175 --> 00:17:14.750 - near completion of our master plan this evening. 00:17:15.170 --> 00:17:21.050 - So this is an outline of what we have been doing with our master plan So starting really late last spring 00:17:21.050 --> 00:17:26.929 - and into the summer. We worked a lot on community input through focus groups We had some really wonderful 00:17:26.929 --> 00:17:32.476 - engagement across the community in our various focus groups a community questionnaire that got more 00:17:32.476 --> 00:17:38.300 - than I think 1200 responses when we put it out at places like the farmers market and different community 00:17:38.300 --> 00:17:38.910 - events and 00:17:39.010 --> 00:17:44.880 - And then just various other one-on-one engagement through events, things like that, driving people to 00:17:44.880 --> 00:17:50.693 - the master plan website to get engagement and good community feedback. In the fall, actually late in 00:17:50.693 --> 00:17:56.621 - the fall, in November, December, we conducted our statistically valid community survey through Acuity. 00:17:56.621 --> 00:18:02.836 - We were able to get to the sample size that we needed. Thankfully, it took a little bit of extra incentives 00:18:02.836 --> 00:18:06.174 - and efforts to get things out through the US mail, which, 00:18:06.946 --> 00:18:12.974 - proven to be unreliably slow, but we navigated that. And we had a full financial analysis done through 00:18:12.974 --> 00:18:18.827 - the consultant as well for our 2024 finances to look at things like pricing and cost recovery goals 00:18:18.827 --> 00:18:24.094 - and things like that. And just to give us another outside perspective of how we're doing. 00:18:24.258 --> 00:18:29.631 - In the winter, what we've been working on right now is data and engagement review, reviewing all of 00:18:29.631 --> 00:18:35.219 - this information that's come in. We received our community survey results about a month ago. We've been 00:18:35.219 --> 00:18:40.699 - looking at those. Part of why I'm here tonight is I just wanted to share a little snapshot of what we 00:18:40.699 --> 00:18:44.030 - heard. And we've been working to draft our goals and actions. 00:18:44.258 --> 00:18:50.076 - And as we move into spring right now, it is the first week of spring officially, we are working on finalizing 00:18:50.076 --> 00:18:55.365 - our goals, actions, and adoption of a plan. So that plan will go to the Board of Park Commissioners 00:18:55.365 --> 00:19:00.707 - at their April 16th meeting. We plan to present the plan and our strategic actions to them then. Not 00:19:00.707 --> 00:19:06.261 - adopt it in the same meeting, that would be a lot to take in, but we hope by the May meeting we're ready 00:19:06.261 --> 00:19:11.550 - to answer any questions, deal with any feedback, and adopt our master plan for the next five years. 00:19:11.682 --> 00:19:17.861 - And just as a general reminder, having a master plan is really an absolute must for a Parks and Rec 00:19:17.861 --> 00:19:24.163 - Department. It makes you one for accreditation, for our ongoing accreditation efforts, it's required, 00:19:24.163 --> 00:19:30.342 - and it is a required part of getting any kind of grant through the state as well. So we really have 00:19:30.342 --> 00:19:36.892 - invested a lot in this process to hear from the community, and it means a lot for us in terms of planning 00:19:36.892 --> 00:19:38.622 - our efforts moving forward. 00:19:38.882 --> 00:19:44.183 - Entire survey results are like 80 pages of graphs and things like that. I'm not going to go through 00:19:44.183 --> 00:19:49.696 - all of that tonight. I know you have other things to get to. So I'm going to give you just a high level 00:19:49.696 --> 00:19:55.314 - overview of some of the key points and takeaways we're looking at. We had 405 residents respond completed 00:19:55.314 --> 00:20:00.350 - in November and December. The sample was then weighted by Acuity with their expertise in being 00:20:00.578 --> 00:20:07.081 - statisticians, I suppose, to match US Census targets for Bloomington and key demographics. And overall, 00:20:07.081 --> 00:20:13.334 - the margin of error was less than 5%, so we're really happy that this is a representative sample of 00:20:13.334 --> 00:20:19.712 - Bloomington and we can draw conclusions from it to pair with our other qualitative community feedback 00:20:19.712 --> 00:20:25.214 - that we've been working on. A few key findings, just wanna hit a few high-level things. 00:20:25.506 --> 00:20:31.952 - We're very gratified that our overall esteem ratings in the community are very favorable. Over 90% of 00:20:31.952 --> 00:20:37.703 - people are very supportive of what Parks and Rec is doing and what we offer for quality of 00:20:37.703 --> 00:20:44.212 - life in Bloomington. We wanna keep it that way. That is part of why we master plan. 78% found positive 00:20:44.212 --> 00:20:50.595 - value in tax support of parks, programs, and facilities. The most used self-reported facilities that 00:20:50.595 --> 00:20:53.502 - we see are the B-Lines, which are Brian Park, 00:20:53.954 --> 00:21:00.025 - Griffey Lake Nature Preserve and the rail trail. Not really any big surprises in what we see as most 00:21:00.025 --> 00:21:06.215 - used. We also have access to place or AI data to sort of look at cell phone usage and draw conclusions 00:21:06.215 --> 00:21:11.985 - about where people are going and honestly where they're not going to and where some areas might 00:21:11.985 --> 00:21:18.116 - be underutilized and have opportunity. As general demand and interest that we see from our residents, 00:21:18.116 --> 00:21:21.662 - number one, this is consistent, we see this a lot, trails. 00:21:21.762 --> 00:21:29.975 - 75% weighted said trails were a priority for them Open space and natural areas was next at 61% park 00:21:29.975 --> 00:21:38.270 - and trail amenities was next at 60% Coming in as the next highest rated two items were swimming pool 00:21:38.270 --> 00:21:46.647 - and pickleball at 38% and 28% The pickleball demand is real. It is here to stay Flipping over to more 00:21:46.647 --> 00:21:50.014 - of the event programmatic side of things 00:21:50.146 --> 00:21:56.142 - We see that the farmers market is the most in demand program that we offer, followed by outdoor concerts 00:21:56.142 --> 00:22:01.852 - and natural resources education. What's interesting about these top demanded areas is if you take a 00:22:01.852 --> 00:22:07.563 - look at the full survey results, we're putting out a press release sometime in the next week or two 00:22:07.563 --> 00:22:13.502 - that's gonna have a link to a lot more data if you wanna dive into it. All of those high demand things, 00:22:13.502 --> 00:22:19.384 - the top three in both programs, facilities, trails and in, excuse me, parks, facilities and trails and 00:22:19.384 --> 00:22:20.126 - in programs. 00:22:20.578 --> 00:22:28.169 - all have high demand but they all rate as having quality supply as well. So residents really want those 00:22:28.169 --> 00:22:35.468 - things and they feel like they are being provided those things. So then we're able to look at those 00:22:35.468 --> 00:22:42.914 - next level things like swimming pool and pickle ball to evaluate those for future investments. 47% of 00:22:42.914 --> 00:22:49.118 - our residents, half of our residents used park event or program throughout the year. 00:22:49.378 --> 00:22:55.980 - When we asked folks what they would rate as their top facility for investment to be improved, Bryant 00:22:55.980 --> 00:23:02.517 - Park Pool was the number one rated of the options, but of course none was also coming in at 24%. So 00:23:02.517 --> 00:23:09.249 - we're sensitive to the fact that it's an expensive time to be living anywhere in the United States and 00:23:09.249 --> 00:23:15.917 - we wanna make really good judicious decisions with our investments to serve the greatest good for the 00:23:15.917 --> 00:23:18.270 - community. Interestingly, you know, 00:23:19.042 --> 00:23:25.562 - Key facilities rated between 68% support, despite that, which was Mills Pool to 78% at Brian Pool favorably 00:23:25.562 --> 00:23:31.719 - for investment, but of course we recognize there's no dollar amount tied to that in a survey and it's 00:23:31.719 --> 00:23:37.937 - sort of just a, do you feel like you would like to support this with an investment? So we know there's 00:23:37.937 --> 00:23:44.095 - more work to be done there, but this gives us really key insights into, comparatively especially, how 00:23:44.095 --> 00:23:47.294 - our facilities and programs rank with the community. 00:23:47.778 --> 00:23:53.127 - I'm totally happy to share these are the four draft goals that we are taking forward to the park board 00:23:53.127 --> 00:23:58.319 - We've been pretty deliberative about these and talked about these a lot So the the four areas where 00:23:58.319 --> 00:24:03.772 - you're going to be focusing on for the next five years number one, of course making meaningful community 00:24:03.772 --> 00:24:09.432 - impacts Parks and Rec is here to provide opportunities for health connection and resilience in the community 00:24:09.432 --> 00:24:15.144 - Those will continue to be our priorities how we have to do that right now is we have to do that by critically 00:24:15.144 --> 00:24:16.702 - investing in what we have and 00:24:16.834 --> 00:24:22.592 - We've enjoyed a great period of of new things and new growth in our focus as I've discussed with the 00:24:22.592 --> 00:24:28.350 - council before and at budget hearings Is very much on how do we take care of what we have? How do we 00:24:28.350 --> 00:24:34.620 - keep our old pools our old facilities in good shape for future generations of people who live in Bloomington? 00:24:34.620 --> 00:24:38.782 - That ties right into number three. We have to be financially sustainable 00:24:38.882 --> 00:24:44.640 - That includes a long look at our cost recovery goals, our cost recovery strategy, where and how are 00:24:44.640 --> 00:24:50.514 - we subsidizing programs, are we making sure we're subsidizing the things that do the greatest general 00:24:50.514 --> 00:24:52.414 - good for the public. And lastly, 00:24:52.770 --> 00:24:57.738 - what was critical to doing all of those three things is we have to have a strong and connected staff. 00:24:57.738 --> 00:25:02.755 - So that is our fourth goal. So just wanted to give that brief update and happy to answer any questions 00:25:02.755 --> 00:25:07.674 - if you'd like. Otherwise, as I mentioned, the full survey results, there's a 20 page version which I 00:25:07.674 --> 00:25:12.642 - recommend looking at unless you really want to get into it and look at the 80 page version, which I'm 00:25:12.642 --> 00:25:17.854 - happy to supply, but we'll be releasing that with the press release sometime here in the next week or two. 00:25:21.314 --> 00:25:28.574 - Thank you so very much, Director Street, both for everything that you do and for the presentation. Are 00:25:28.574 --> 00:25:35.904 - there questions or comments? Please, Councilor Mbrella. Thank you. Thank you, Director Street. Director 00:25:35.904 --> 00:25:42.953 - Renison about 15 years ago said that pickleball was the future, and it's proven to be the case. But 00:25:42.953 --> 00:25:49.790 - besides pickleball and that kind of recreation, which is important, I'm concerned about Griffey. 00:25:50.530 --> 00:25:59.438 - The ecological integrity of Griffey First of all, we do we continue doing Yearly hunts, is that correct? 00:25:59.438 --> 00:26:08.091 - And do we continue doing plant census? In other words, do we? Do we deploy I can remember ecologic or 00:26:08.091 --> 00:26:16.659 - some firm to correct ecologic census and density and plant stature and things like that to make sure 00:26:16.659 --> 00:26:20.222 - that the understory was responding to the 00:26:20.962 --> 00:26:28.874 - relieving of Herbivory, is that happening? It is okay terrific. I'd like to see I Hopeful I know that 00:26:28.874 --> 00:26:36.864 - there's a legacy effect of high deer density But I'm hoping that you know the under stories rebounding 00:26:36.864 --> 00:26:45.087 - which is important And I wondered about something else. Oh Regarding the ecological integrity of Griffey, 00:26:45.087 --> 00:26:50.750 - there's a controlled burn that's happening It's a concern of some people 00:26:51.234 --> 00:26:58.796 - and You know, I'm favorable to these because of course, you know, they they happen in nature and it's 00:26:58.796 --> 00:27:06.433 - important could you could you describe the purpose and You know the prospects for these things and the 00:27:06.433 --> 00:27:08.286 - turns that are happening 00:27:08.450 --> 00:27:13.823 - So briefly, what we saw in the community survey was the number two thing that people ranked as being 00:27:13.823 --> 00:27:19.197 - in demand, being supported, is protection of existing natural resources. So clearly, it continues to 00:27:19.197 --> 00:27:24.623 - be a priority for our residents that we invest in and we take care of our existing natural resources, 00:27:24.623 --> 00:27:30.209 - be that the 1,300 acres of Griffey or the small nature preserves that we have in other places, the small 00:27:30.209 --> 00:27:35.902 - stands, the habitat, the connectivity of habitat, the native plants, all of the work that we do with that. 00:27:36.194 --> 00:27:42.458 - In terms of Griffey specifically, yes, we continue to do the deer hunt. I believe we're in year nine 00:27:42.458 --> 00:27:48.660 - of the deer hunt. We have made a very intentional decision to continue the research that we've been 00:27:48.660 --> 00:27:54.924 - doing there because we feel like this is important and ongoing to see what the effects are year over 00:27:54.924 --> 00:28:01.127 - year and rule out any variations of weather and drought that we have year over year to really get a 00:28:01.127 --> 00:28:05.406 - good trend line to see how effective the Griffey deer hunt is going. 00:28:05.506 --> 00:28:11.879 - I think it's important work that we're doing. I think we're leading the way on it Honestly with some 00:28:11.879 --> 00:28:18.189 - different parks and rec departments particularly in the state So it's important that we continue to 00:28:18.189 --> 00:28:24.499 - do the research to back up why we're doing it Similarly the the controlled burn that the prescribed 00:28:24.499 --> 00:28:30.809 - fire I should say rather is a similar effort to combat mesification in the forest and targets beach 00:28:30.809 --> 00:28:32.702 - maple forest stands which are 00:28:33.218 --> 00:28:40.004 - Overgrowing and overtaking our oak hickory forest, which is more climate resilience, which is also under 00:28:40.004 --> 00:28:46.791 - threat from the deer over browse So it's all interrelated The deer the controlled burn actually happened 00:28:46.791 --> 00:28:53.254 - yesterday and was a success. We had a great Prescribed fire out there. It went well, and we want to 00:28:53.254 --> 00:28:59.846 - continue to research and look at the effects of those on the natural resource And removal of Invasive 00:28:59.846 --> 00:29:02.302 - non non natives. Mm-hmm. That's going 00:29:02.594 --> 00:29:11.442 - Okay, and a and a happy Consequence of reducing your density is of course people who use the park are 00:29:11.442 --> 00:29:19.944 - not going to be subjected to hide your height tick density So then I can I hope so yes ticks Yes, 00:29:19.944 --> 00:29:27.838 - thank you, thank you great great customer sasberg I just wanted to follow up on the survey 00:29:27.938 --> 00:29:35.009 - Just because I mean you had four hundred and five residents complete the survey out of more than eighty 00:29:35.009 --> 00:29:41.808 - thousand residents So can you just talk about how that is? still like statistically significant and 00:29:41.808 --> 00:29:48.879 - That sort of thing especially because that's that's a number that's out there now, right to making sure 00:29:48.879 --> 00:29:55.678 - that That everybody I cannot talk about I took statistics in college, but I don't remember a lot. I 00:29:56.706 --> 00:30:03.710 - We worked with a professional survey firm who looked at Bloomington, who looked at the census information, 00:30:03.710 --> 00:30:10.387 - who looked at the population, the resident outcomes, everything like that, and came up with a number, 00:30:10.387 --> 00:30:17.064 - as statisticians do, that they said, we need this many randomized samples to be a statistically valid 00:30:17.064 --> 00:30:23.871 - survey, and to get the error of margin that they said, which is less than 5%. So while more respondents 00:30:23.871 --> 00:30:25.246 - would have continued 00:30:25.506 --> 00:30:31.193 - to decrease the error below that 5%, we still feel pretty confident statistically that this is a really 00:30:31.193 --> 00:30:36.661 - good valid survey for us to look at. I really wanted the quantitative part of it to look at to pair 00:30:36.661 --> 00:30:42.183 - with the qualitative feedback that we were getting from community focus groups and things like that. 00:30:42.183 --> 00:30:47.651 - So I think we're not just making decisions on the survey alone, but pairing it with everything else 00:30:47.651 --> 00:30:53.502 - that we've heard from the community through focus groups, through talking to people at the farmers market, 00:30:53.602 --> 00:31:01.396 - the outreach work we've done as part of the master plan process. Okay. Thank you. So those 405 survey 00:31:01.396 --> 00:31:09.190 - respondents don't include all of the other outreach that you did last year. Great. Thanks. Thank you. 00:31:09.190 --> 00:31:17.214 - Any other questions online. All right. Seeing none. Thank you. We now have a presentation from the Human 00:31:17.214 --> 00:31:20.958 - Rights Commission who's here. I see many of you. 00:31:41.922 --> 00:31:48.856 - Good evening. My name is Emma Williams and I'm the chair of the Bloomington Monroe County Human Rights 00:31:48.856 --> 00:31:55.588 - Commission I've been on the Commission for about three years Recent nomination to the chair. So and 00:31:55.588 --> 00:32:02.724 - I'm going to present the annual report from 2025 So the Commission is composed of seven members appointed 00:32:02.724 --> 00:32:10.398 - by the Monroe County Commissioners the Bloomington City Council and the mayor and our work is primarily guided by 00:32:10.690 --> 00:32:18.772 - responsibilities, which is the enforcement of the human rights ordinance and educating community members 00:32:18.772 --> 00:32:26.238 - about their rights and the responsibilities that are applicable to them under human rights laws. 00:32:26.238 --> 00:32:31.934 - So in 2025, the commission investigated 18 cases alleging discrimination. 00:32:32.162 --> 00:32:39.313 - Each of these cases reflects an individual or a family seeking fairness under our local ordinance And 00:32:39.313 --> 00:32:46.534 - our role is to essentially ensure that those claims are reviewed carefully and impartially in addition 00:32:46.534 --> 00:32:53.895 - to formal Investigations we responded to 83 inquiries and complaints and these often involve individuals 00:32:53.895 --> 00:33:00.766 - seeking guidance about their rights and whether their situation falls within our jurisdiction and 00:33:00.930 --> 00:33:07.972 - We work to make sure that they're pointed in the right place and given the correct resources for their 00:33:07.972 --> 00:33:15.083 - situation at hand if we're not able to help them. Beyond enforcement we also remain active in community 00:33:15.083 --> 00:33:20.894 - outreach because we want to touch as many people as possible so they understand what 00:33:21.058 --> 00:33:28.415 - we as a community can do to help them if they are facing discrimination. So we tabled at several different 00:33:28.415 --> 00:33:35.909 - events, Pride Fest, the ADA anniversary celebration, and La Fiesta del Antonio. And these are just important 00:33:35.909 --> 00:33:42.923 - ways for us to connect directly with the residents and increase awareness so they know exactly who to 00:33:42.923 --> 00:33:45.054 - come to if they have an issue. 00:33:45.218 --> 00:33:53.612 - We also hosted our annual art and essay contest for students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade. 00:33:53.612 --> 00:34:01.687 - So this year's theme was, how does diversity make our community stronger? And it encouraged students 00:34:01.687 --> 00:34:10.081 - from a really young age to engage with ideas of inclusion and respect for all community members. Looking 00:34:10.081 --> 00:34:14.718 - ahead, our strategic goals in 2026 reflect our past work. 00:34:14.946 --> 00:34:21.442 - We want to really focus on continuity of what we've been doing and the growth of the commission. So 00:34:21.442 --> 00:34:28.067 - we'll continue to review and respond to all inquiries and investigate all discrimination cases within 00:34:28.067 --> 00:34:34.693 - our jurisdiction and clubbing those into the correct parties if it falls outside of our jurisdiction. 00:34:34.693 --> 00:34:38.590 - We also plan to expand our educational efforts by attending 00:34:39.042 --> 00:34:45.746 - informational events and increasing outreach through publications and presentations. We often have different 00:34:45.746 --> 00:34:51.650 - members of the community and community organizations come in and educate us about what they do. 00:34:51.650 --> 00:34:57.862 - So that way, we have a lot of weapons at our resource. If we can't particularly help someone, we can 00:34:57.862 --> 00:35:04.074 - guide them to local resources as well as state resources that can help. And we also want to identify 00:35:04.074 --> 00:35:08.318 - new opportunities to support and protect people who are most at risk 00:35:08.450 --> 00:35:16.636 - discrimination in the community So yeah at its core the Commission it the work is about ensuring access 00:35:16.636 --> 00:35:24.744 - to information Processes and the protections guaranteed under local laws We're really grateful for the 00:35:24.744 --> 00:35:31.198 - continued support of the council and advancing our work and we invite everyone to 00:35:31.650 --> 00:35:38.726 - Attend our meetings which are held on the third Monday of each month 5 p.m. Here in City Hall usually 00:35:38.726 --> 00:35:45.664 - the hooker room or via zoom and Thank you for your time and commitment to protecting the rights and 00:35:45.664 --> 00:35:52.671 - dignity of everyone here in Bloomington and the county beyond and I am happy to answer questions and 00:35:52.671 --> 00:36:00.510 - Michael is really happy to answer questions Thank you so much any questions colleagues Councilman Piedmont Smith 00:36:02.658 --> 00:36:11.924 - Given the nationwide attacks on trans rights. Have you seen an uptick in the number of? Discrimination 00:36:11.924 --> 00:36:21.369 - complaints from the LGBTQ plus community From what I engaged Yes a little bit. I wouldn't I mean Michael 00:36:21.369 --> 00:36:27.486 - could answer more to that. I think Because we we have such a like a 00:36:28.098 --> 00:36:36.179 - We have such wide variety of cases, and each commissioner works on a individual case. It's hard for 00:36:36.179 --> 00:36:44.422 - me to gauge exactly what comes in until the end with the annual report. So, Michael, have you seen an 00:36:44.422 --> 00:36:52.745 - uptick? Yeah, I'm Michael Shermans from the Community Family Resources Department here at the city and 00:36:52.745 --> 00:36:56.382 - the liaison for the Human Rights Commission. 00:36:56.802 --> 00:37:03.524 - Yeah, there's definitely been an uptick in the amount of People in the LGBTQ plus community who have 00:37:03.524 --> 00:37:10.579 - come forward with issues And probably an overall increase not a large because it's not a large percentage 00:37:10.579 --> 00:37:17.301 - anyway of trans cases as well So there there is some more concern about that area and we continue to 00:37:17.301 --> 00:37:23.956 - try to address it in the same way that we always do Thank you, thank you, I'm glad people have this 00:37:23.956 --> 00:37:25.886 - resource councilmember daily 00:37:26.882 --> 00:37:33.819 - Thank you for that answer kind of in that same vein it can you identify anything maybe proactively that 00:37:33.819 --> 00:37:40.823 - we as a council can be doing to help you guys or help the You know marginalized members of our community 00:37:40.823 --> 00:37:47.560 - who are coming forward with more And I'm putting you on the spot trying to think of a solution right 00:37:47.560 --> 00:37:54.430 - there But but have you guys been able to identify anything that we could be doing to help? I think our 00:37:54.626 --> 00:38:01.258 - Commission members are made up of a broad variety of community members with various interests 00:38:01.258 --> 00:38:08.312 - and backgrounds. And so they might all have very specific things that they could give you. I think, 00:38:08.312 --> 00:38:15.790 - genuinely, the best thing to be doing right now is encouraging the members of the community, specifically 00:38:15.790 --> 00:38:23.198 - those most marginalized, that you are listening and you will do what you can in your power to, you know, 00:38:24.226 --> 00:38:33.529 - listen with empathy and assist. I know right now there's a lot of pressure for local governments nationwide 00:38:33.529 --> 00:38:42.400 - with sort of the administration coming down from both state levels and national levels and the threats 00:38:42.400 --> 00:38:51.358 - that kind of loom over everyone's head. It's definitely in the back of everyone's mind. So I think just 00:38:51.358 --> 00:38:53.598 - ensuring different groups 00:38:53.698 --> 00:39:00.576 - Being open and available to their thoughts and their feelings and ensuring that whatever you can do 00:39:00.576 --> 00:39:08.004 - within your power You are willing to give it a shot But I'll add that For nine years running we've received 00:39:08.004 --> 00:39:15.294 - a hundred score of a hundred on the human rights campaign thing But you've all probably been aware of and 00:39:15.458 --> 00:39:22.504 - And one of the things that we've always not got any extra points on, because you try to get more than 00:39:22.504 --> 00:39:29.411 - 100, is the actual not having an LGBTQ plus center for Bloomington. We have one on that campus, but 00:39:29.411 --> 00:39:35.006 - the community doesn't have one. And behind the scenes, we've been trying to help 00:39:35.106 --> 00:39:40.998 - Support that as much as possible with people and that's on its way. So I would say one of the ways you 00:39:40.998 --> 00:39:46.718 - could probably support it is Get in contact with those people and tell them that you're behind them 00:39:46.718 --> 00:39:52.496 - because they're they're on their way towards getting that center in place It's called the front door 00:39:52.496 --> 00:39:58.216 - I'm very excited about that. Actually. Yeah, I think that's fantastic. Thank you for those answers. 00:39:58.216 --> 00:40:04.222 - Thank you so much Councilmember Stossberg For the sake of the community listening, can you kind of walk? 00:40:04.386 --> 00:40:13.880 - through if somebody feels like they have need because they have been discriminated against in some way, 00:40:13.880 --> 00:40:23.557 - what should they do in order to get in contact with you? And if they are concerned about being retaliated 00:40:23.557 --> 00:40:28.030 - against, how do you deal with that kind of fear? 00:40:28.258 --> 00:40:34.142 - talk to people all the time, try to make sure that we have a safe space for them to be able to tell 00:40:34.142 --> 00:40:40.378 - what their issues, let them know that it's confidential that what we're doing, we will keep it to whoever 00:40:40.378 --> 00:40:46.733 - has to do it if we have an investigating commissioner. We give them opportunity to spell out their timeline 00:40:46.733 --> 00:40:52.911 - of what happened, who was involved, what it was, try to gather all of the information of what the actual 00:40:52.911 --> 00:40:58.206 - complaint is, and then give them the option to be able to try to work with the respondent 00:40:58.338 --> 00:41:04.575 - or bring it as a formal complaint and get an investigating commissioner involved. So we work with them 00:41:04.575 --> 00:41:11.115 - the best we can to try to ensure that they're going to be safe in this process. When it goes to respondent, 00:41:11.115 --> 00:41:17.412 - the complaint is made clear that retaliation is not acceptable. And that's sort of the general process. 00:41:17.412 --> 00:41:23.225 - It's a little bit longer than when we describe it to a complaint, but that's the upshot. Right, 00:41:23.225 --> 00:41:25.950 - but I mean, do they call you? Do they email? 00:41:26.050 --> 00:41:33.348 - Yeah, well, it comes in every way. So we see your emails. We have a form that's up on the web, so an 00:41:33.348 --> 00:41:40.718 - initial intake form that you can be able to do. We get phone calls all of the time. Other people will 00:41:40.718 --> 00:41:48.233 - pass it along. I get texts. It happens pretty much every way. And we accept anything that anybody wants 00:41:48.233 --> 00:41:49.534 - to do. Thank you. 00:41:49.986 --> 00:42:01.086 - Thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your service to the city and just residents. 00:42:01.086 --> 00:42:11.865 - Thank you We now have a presentation from the Commission on Hispanic and Latin affairs welcome Okay, 00:42:11.865 --> 00:42:19.550 - thank you so much I'm a tiny one Okay, thank you for having me here. Um 00:42:20.098 --> 00:42:28.015 - I'm Claudia. I'm in the commission for two years now and recently named the chair of the commission. 00:42:28.015 --> 00:42:36.010 - So we are so happy to be here. Um, our mission is to identify, understand and address the issues that 00:42:36.010 --> 00:42:44.240 - impact Hispanic and Latin residents while actively promoting access, reducing barriers and straightening 00:42:44.240 --> 00:42:45.886 - civic participation. 00:42:46.786 --> 00:42:53.528 - It's also important to recognize that Hispanic and Latin residents represent approximately 10% of the 00:42:53.528 --> 00:43:00.139 - Bloomington population, and we are committed to ensure that their voices are heard and reflected in 00:43:00.139 --> 00:43:07.211 - the life of our city. In practice, this means we work to deeply understand community experience to elevate 00:43:07.211 --> 00:43:12.830 - those voices and to help translate them into thoughtful and collaborative solutions. 00:43:13.666 --> 00:43:20.608 - We aim to strain connections between resident and local government, ensuring that communication is not 00:43:20.608 --> 00:43:27.349 - only accessible, but also culturally responsive and grounded in trust. And at the heart of our work 00:43:27.349 --> 00:43:34.359 - is a deep commitment to recognize and celebrate the contribution of Hispanic and Latin residents, which 00:43:34.359 --> 00:43:41.099 - are essential to the strength and vitality of our community. I also want to acknowledge the work of 00:43:41.099 --> 00:43:42.110 - the commitment 00:43:42.242 --> 00:43:50.442 - and commitment of our commissions who contribute to make this work possible. And I would especially 00:43:50.442 --> 00:43:58.724 - like to recognize our liaison Jimena Martinez, whose leadership and dedication has been instrumental 00:43:58.724 --> 00:44:07.170 - in helping us reach where we are today, especially in times like this for us. In terms of our 2025 key 00:44:07.170 --> 00:44:08.318 - achievements, 00:44:08.994 --> 00:44:15.737 - Our work focus on three key areas, expanding access to resources, training partnerships, and fostering 00:44:15.737 --> 00:44:21.694 - a strong sense of belonging across the community. In terms of access, we provide resources 00:44:21.694 --> 00:44:28.830 - through educational initiative, including Spanish languages workshop, focus on mental health, and parenting. 00:44:28.962 --> 00:44:35.679 - We also support families navigating FAFSA process in collaboration with IU La Casa Latino Cultural Center 00:44:35.679 --> 00:44:42.079 - and El Centro Comunal Latino helping families overcome language barriers and better access financial 00:44:42.079 --> 00:44:48.669 - aid for college. In term of partnership, one key initiative was the Mental Health Community Forum where 00:44:48.669 --> 00:44:55.070 - we brought together 10 local organizations and providers. This allow us to identify barriers such as 00:44:55.070 --> 00:44:58.238 - language access, stigma, and fear while beginning 00:44:58.498 --> 00:45:05.282 - to strengthen networking and referral pathways across organizations. We connect with MCSE to better 00:45:05.282 --> 00:45:12.269 - understand factors affecting student attendance and well-being with the goal of training communication 00:45:12.269 --> 00:45:19.731 - with families. And in terms of belonging, we focus on creating trusted spaces where families feel comfortable 00:45:19.731 --> 00:45:26.854 - engaging, asking questions, and accessing information in environments where they feel safe and welcomed. 00:45:26.854 --> 00:45:28.414 - These include partners 00:45:28.738 --> 00:45:35.127 - participating in community events, connecting with residents through Spanish language radio, and creating 00:45:35.127 --> 00:45:41.214 - opportunity for more direct and meaningful engagement. For example, during the La Fiesta del Otoño, 00:45:41.214 --> 00:45:47.422 - a long-standing community and family research tradition celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month, we hosted 00:45:47.422 --> 00:45:53.449 - an outreach booth to share information about city resources and connect with residents in welcoming 00:45:53.449 --> 00:45:57.246 - environment. This is an opportunity to celebrate our community 00:45:57.378 --> 00:46:05.638 - its culture, its contribution and presence in Bloomington. And we warmly invite you to join us this 00:46:05.638 --> 00:46:14.063 - year. Looking ahead for 2026, our work will continue to focus on amplifying the voice of Hispanic and 00:46:14.063 --> 00:46:21.662 - Latin residents and strengthening connections between the community and local institutions. 00:46:22.242 --> 00:46:28.912 - We will prioritize improving access to information and services, particularly by reducing language barriers 00:46:28.912 --> 00:46:35.582 - and expanding cultural responsive communications. We also aim to deepen partnership with schools, community 00:46:35.582 --> 00:46:41.943 - organization, and service providers so we can better understand community needs and response in a more 00:46:41.943 --> 00:46:48.243 - coordinated way. We will launch the Latino Recognition Award with our new focus on community center's 00:46:48.243 --> 00:46:51.454 - value, honoring individuals and organizations whose 00:46:51.554 --> 00:46:57.995 - leadership and service strengths, and uplifted Bloomington Hispanic and Latin community. And most important, 00:46:57.995 --> 00:47:04.022 - we want to continue to celebrate our community and its valuable contribution to Bloomington rooted in 00:47:04.022 --> 00:47:10.285 - hard work, strong family values, and deep sense of community. Ultimately, our goal is not only to respond 00:47:10.285 --> 00:47:16.490 - to immediate needs that we absolutely have, but also to contribute to long-term improvement that expands 00:47:16.490 --> 00:47:20.094 - opportunities, strength access, and support dignity for all. 00:47:21.826 --> 00:47:29.000 - More than welcome to have any response. Thank you so much. Muchas gracias. Questions? Comments? Councilmember 00:47:29.000 --> 00:47:35.587 - Puma-Smith. Yes. Thank you so much for your presentation and all your great work in the community. I 00:47:35.587 --> 00:47:42.173 - just want to state for the record that I think it's shameful that our federal government has created 00:47:42.173 --> 00:47:49.217 - a climate of fear for this population rather than recognizing and celebrating the contributions of Hispanic 00:47:49.217 --> 00:47:50.782 - and Latina communities. 00:47:50.914 --> 00:47:57.317 - to our culture, society, and economy. And it's also horrible that the Indiana General Assembly has preempted 00:47:57.317 --> 00:48:03.368 - local government's right to protect our communities by requiring us to collaborate with ICE, an agency 00:48:03.368 --> 00:48:09.301 - that has acted in blatant violation of civil and legal rights, especially those of Hispanic, Latine, 00:48:09.301 --> 00:48:15.176 - and other communities of color throughout the US. I support you, and I think I can speak for us all 00:48:15.176 --> 00:48:19.934 - that we support the communities that you represent and appreciate your hard work 00:48:20.098 --> 00:48:28.038 - Here in Bloomington Councilmember Daley Thank you for that presentation and also for all the work that 00:48:28.038 --> 00:48:36.210 - that the whole Commission does I know that this past year you guys had some tricky obstacles and barriers 00:48:36.210 --> 00:48:42.686 - and trying to continue, you know to operate with some normalcy and I think you guys 00:48:43.074 --> 00:48:50.639 - did a fantastic job and I'm really impressed with all of the hard work and commitment from the commission. 00:48:50.639 --> 00:48:57.921 - How can we as a council and also even as a community be supporting the commission better? I appreciate 00:48:57.921 --> 00:49:05.416 - so much this question. I would encourage the council to intentional consider Hispanic and Latin community 00:49:05.416 --> 00:49:07.678 - across all the city strategies. 00:49:07.810 --> 00:49:16.060 - from Parkinson's recreation to housing and public services to include and strengthen the language barriers 00:49:16.060 --> 00:49:24.387 - that we have, for example, and make more accessible in language, for example, or actually ensuring services 00:49:24.387 --> 00:49:32.098 - are also culturally responsive. It's also important to continue for us to celebrate our culture. So 00:49:32.098 --> 00:49:36.030 - be part of that. We invite you and we welcome you. 00:49:36.290 --> 00:49:45.755 - to our Fiesta del Otoño and to help us to change a narrative that are around our community because 00:49:45.755 --> 00:49:55.314 - we strongly think that our community and multiculturality help and make this city a better place. So 00:49:55.314 --> 00:50:05.630 - you're more than welcome to be in all our activities and to join us. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. 00:50:06.370 --> 00:50:14.773 - Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being here We now move on to a time of public comment 00:50:14.773 --> 00:50:23.098 - for things that are not on the agenda I'm sorry. We have a council committee report. I'm sorry. So before 00:50:23.098 --> 00:50:30.951 - that we have two council committee reports I think we start with Councilmember Rosenberger has as a 00:50:30.951 --> 00:50:34.014 - report. Thank you so much Take it away 00:50:34.274 --> 00:50:42.761 - Okay, thanks. That ended so abruptly. Let me just get, I need to get it. I'm just going to wing it for 00:50:42.761 --> 00:50:51.165 - the start. Okay, so this is the new, the old sidewalk committee, the new pedestrian safety committee. 00:50:51.165 --> 00:50:58.910 - So welcome to the pedestrian safety committee. We met in December and talked through our past 00:51:00.770 --> 00:51:08.807 - our past recommended and funded projects that we did in 2025 or even 2024 that are still ongoing like 00:51:08.807 --> 00:51:16.845 - North Jefferson Street. And we talked with staff about how we want this committee to move forward. So 00:51:16.845 --> 00:51:24.094 - because we have the transportation plan and the safe streets for all plan, what's so funny? 00:51:25.730 --> 00:51:33.776 - We can't see you, but they can, we just can't. You're over there, not over there. Oh, I'm sorry. I see 00:51:33.776 --> 00:51:41.744 - myself on the screen. It's not you, it's not you, it's not you. There, you're back. Okay, and so what 00:51:41.744 --> 00:51:49.556 - we really looked at this year is how the money, the $500,000 that council gets from the alternative 00:51:49.556 --> 00:51:55.102 - transportation fund, ATF, can be kind of the most efficiently used and 00:51:56.130 --> 00:52:04.156 - also a little bit like the most nimbly used, I would say. And so this has kind of always been something 00:52:04.156 --> 00:52:11.874 - that gets discussed at these meetings that like, how much does this committee want to like weigh in 00:52:11.874 --> 00:52:19.669 - on every specific project that might get done or do we want to give staff the flexibility to kind of 00:52:19.669 --> 00:52:25.534 - pick and choose projects as the year progresses? So last year we had three, 00:52:25.730 --> 00:52:33.158 - three projects that were kind of finished up or still ongoing this year. And then another committee 00:52:33.158 --> 00:52:40.587 - member might want to speak to those. And then we still gave a big chunk as flexible funding to work 00:52:40.587 --> 00:52:48.312 - in coordination with public works. So mostly when they were doing street repaving, planning staff would 00:52:48.312 --> 00:52:53.438 - see that opportunity as like increasing or putting in new bump outs. 00:52:53.602 --> 00:53:00.858 - bike lanes and things of that sort. So we felt like that went really well last year. And so this year 00:53:00.858 --> 00:53:08.044 - really is a pretty similar funding allocation and recommendation. There is the funding for the North 00:53:08.044 --> 00:53:15.442 - Jefferson Street sidewalk build out. And I think this is our third year on it and it will be completed. 00:53:15.442 --> 00:53:17.790 - So that's just East of Eigenman. 00:53:18.658 --> 00:53:24.667 - where that is. It's like a big student area and there wasn't a sidewalk. So that is, I think, 00:53:24.667 --> 00:53:31.187 - really lovely. And so we looked at the criteria that we used last year and these are safe streets for 00:53:31.187 --> 00:53:37.579 - all projects. And then we kind of so almost like extended the reach that it's not just public works 00:53:37.579 --> 00:53:44.419 - projects, but it can also be in conjunction with utilities or other city departments or other safe streets 00:53:44.419 --> 00:53:48.126 - for all projects. And then because this was a little more 00:53:49.794 --> 00:53:58.346 - Widely cast than normal we asked for a check-in mid-year from planning staff. So Probably Hank Duncan 00:53:58.346 --> 00:54:06.730 - will be giving us a mid-year report when we're back from recess sometime in July That's what I have 00:54:06.730 --> 00:54:15.198 - Thank you so much any questions for the for the committee Cuz Marella, well, it's more of it I think 00:54:15.198 --> 00:54:19.390 - there was a question raised by councilmember Rosa 00:54:19.490 --> 00:54:29.959 - Rosenberg Rosenberg, sorry Excuse me Spaced out about whether council input or plant planners are the 00:54:29.959 --> 00:54:40.530 - appropriate means by which we discern the needs of the community and I think a combination of them are 00:54:40.530 --> 00:54:48.638 - important because you know having been on the sidewalk committee for years and 00:54:49.346 --> 00:54:56.727 - There is the the lived experience needs of residents You know of where you know what the needs are in 00:54:56.727 --> 00:55:04.109 - their neighborhood that I think is invaluable, you know that may be overlooked by planners as much as 00:55:04.109 --> 00:55:11.490 - I respect of course the planners sort of 30,000 foot view and You know, so I think that you know, the 00:55:11.490 --> 00:55:18.654 - combination is is an important way to Prioritize needs and I recognize the needs list is very long 00:55:20.834 --> 00:55:28.317 - Thank you. Apologies, Council Member Rosemar. For some reason. Other... Go ahead, Council Member. That 00:55:28.317 --> 00:55:35.583 - wasn't a question, right? It was just a... Reflect on, do you share that view? Or are you thinking, 00:55:35.583 --> 00:55:42.993 - I mean, you were proposing maybe turning it all over to the planning staff? Is that your perspective? 00:55:42.993 --> 00:55:50.622 - That is the perspective of the committee for the most part, yes. I'm just one of the votes, one of four. 00:55:50.754 --> 00:55:58.263 - And yes, the breakdown now that I have my document up is 60,000 to finish that construction of North 00:55:58.263 --> 00:56:05.697 - Jefferson and then 435 for right of way acquisition, design and construction under the safe streets 00:56:05.697 --> 00:56:13.206 - priority projects. And then 5,000 for change orders because that sometimes happens where engineering 00:56:13.206 --> 00:56:18.782 - has to ask for special permission and now they kind of don't. I like that. 00:56:18.978 --> 00:56:25.543 - I think this is my sixth year on the committee and maybe my fifth year or fourth year as chair. And 00:56:25.543 --> 00:56:32.173 - every year we do have this council member Rallo question, which I appreciate. And I think it is like 00:56:32.173 --> 00:56:38.804 - for me, the transportation plan and the safe streets for all plan has taken into account what people 00:56:38.804 --> 00:56:44.318 - in neighborhoods want and need because of all the public engagement in those plans. 00:56:44.930 --> 00:56:55.906 - So that's my take on it. I would be happy for other committee members to weigh in on their take on that 00:56:55.906 --> 00:57:02.238 - as well. Council Member Stasberg. I have a question. In the 00:57:02.466 --> 00:57:08.882 - I guess it's 2025 update table. It has the fee lane and law lane intersection improvement that looks 00:57:08.882 --> 00:57:15.425 - like maybe it was $40,000 in like design kind of planning stuff. Do you know where that is or was that 00:57:15.425 --> 00:57:21.904 - brought up at all in discussion in terms of where that's laying in any kind of priority list? Because 00:57:21.904 --> 00:57:24.318 - often I guess I've felt like with the 00:57:24.706 --> 00:57:33.192 - with this committee's allocations, like you mentioned North Jefferson, it's like the third year in terms 00:57:33.192 --> 00:57:41.436 - of progressing on and continuing to devote some funds as budgeting allows to the same projects. So do 00:57:41.436 --> 00:57:49.922 - you know if that fee lane, law lane intersection is maybe going to be going to use some of that $435,000 00:57:49.922 --> 00:57:52.670 - this year? Was that talked about? 00:57:53.154 --> 00:58:00.371 - It is one of the optional, like the project is on the table and I forget what IU owns, but it's very 00:58:00.371 --> 00:58:07.588 - IU dependent because they own part of the property around there. I think it was a consideration last 00:58:07.588 --> 00:58:14.734 - year, but you can see we did not, or yeah, we did not spend any money on it last year. And instead, 00:58:14.734 --> 00:58:21.022 - I think we looked at that bus stop up the street. That was a problem with Briscoe where 00:58:21.410 --> 00:58:27.808 - students were crossing without just wildly crossing the street sort of because the bus stopped on the 00:58:27.808 --> 00:58:34.080 - opposite side and then they had to get across. So I think some money got spent on that. And then so 00:58:34.080 --> 00:58:40.666 - Hank Duncan did have the fee lane, law lane as an example of a project that will be looked at this year. 00:58:40.666 --> 00:58:47.189 - So I guess I don't know that it's like that there is a priority list, but I know it's an option if that 00:58:47.189 --> 00:58:49.886 - is helpful. Yeah, that is helpful. Thanks. 00:58:52.130 --> 00:59:03.348 - Thank you last chance questions comments There's all right. Thank you so much to the committee for that 00:59:03.348 --> 00:59:14.135 - rapport. Okay councilman Stossberg We're clerkless I didn't notice so we I think we have to do into 00:59:14.135 --> 00:59:21.470 - can we operate a meeting clerkless Okay, so We there's there we are 00:59:21.634 --> 00:59:30.347 - Sorry, I had a notice I had a notice that we had become clickless Well, we have to vote to approve so 00:59:30.347 --> 00:59:39.317 - I'll make a motion please I'll move to Prove the sidewalk. Sorry the pedestrian safety committee funding 00:59:39.317 --> 00:59:48.030 - recommendations for 2026 Second, there's a motion in a second. Will the clerk please call the roll? I 00:59:51.106 --> 01:00:10.334 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:00:11.586 --> 01:00:18.037 - Excellent that that that those recommendations carry Thank you so much to the hard work of the committee 01:00:18.037 --> 01:00:24.303 - and as always and thank you councilman burrows embargo for chairing that committee so diligently year 01:00:24.303 --> 01:00:30.446 - after year Okay, but now for for sake of time. Hopefully we'll move on to the hiring committee memo 01:00:30.446 --> 01:00:36.897 - Hopefully all of you had the chance to read the memo So happy as a committee to take any questions about 01:00:36.897 --> 01:00:41.566 - it And if none we can directly move to the two motions proposed in the memo 01:00:43.362 --> 01:00:50.809 - Councilman Sasberg, I think the only Okay, so I've actually I have two questions about the job description 01:00:50.809 --> 01:00:57.838 - One is job grade was highlighted and it was still a 12. Is that actually staying at 12? That will be 01:00:57.838 --> 01:01:05.006 - determined by the normal processes. Okay, so it hasn't gone through that yet Correct. Okay, great. And 01:01:05.006 --> 01:01:11.966 - then the second thing that I wanted to Bring up is under the exercised rights. I think that it is a 01:01:12.162 --> 01:01:20.154 - kind of a change, it's in consultation with the council president and consistent with human resources. 01:01:20.154 --> 01:01:28.301 - Basically, it sounds like the council president is then sharing supervisory authority over council staff 01:01:28.301 --> 01:01:36.138 - with this, I can't remember what we've called this role, the council attorney and director of common 01:01:36.138 --> 01:01:41.182 - council office, and I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with that. 01:01:41.922 --> 01:01:50.564 - in terms of actually sharing the supervisory authority with a single council member, just because I, 01:01:50.564 --> 01:01:59.378 - I mean, the attorney is the one who's in the office all the time with those people, and it's one thing 01:01:59.378 --> 01:02:08.191 - to consult. I mean, the language that was in there before was to just, when it comes to discipline and 01:02:08.191 --> 01:02:11.614 - firing, it was, where is it, to confer. 01:02:11.810 --> 01:02:18.695 - with the president, which doesn't give the president any power. That was the intention of that word, 01:02:18.695 --> 01:02:26.056 - confer, anyway, at the time, was to not give the president any actual power, but just to allow the attorney 01:02:26.056 --> 01:02:32.941 - to talk to somebody specific about that kind of procedure, but not necessarily anything else related 01:02:32.941 --> 01:02:40.030 - to staffing. So I don't love that we've then given power to a single council member to supervise staff. 01:02:40.706 --> 01:02:46.668 - Thank you. So I think as the committee, I mean, our committee respond if you feel otherwise, but the 01:02:46.668 --> 01:02:52.572 - word consultation is a synonym for confer to us. I don't think we saw this in any different way. So 01:02:52.572 --> 01:02:58.534 - we're happy to change it to confer. I don't think it makes a big difference. I guess I would want to 01:02:58.534 --> 01:03:04.614 - look up that definition. Let's just change it to confer. I'll do that for a second. We can just change 01:03:04.614 --> 01:03:09.278 - it to confer. I don't think any objection, but we'll just change it to confer. 01:03:12.738 --> 01:03:18.726 - We'll just say in conference or we'll just say conferring. Yeah in conference or yeah Something like 01:03:18.726 --> 01:03:24.832 - that as long as the intention is that the council attorney gets to make all of these decisions And the 01:03:24.832 --> 01:03:30.760 - council president is just like there. Yes, correct And that is exactly what we tried to capture. So 01:03:30.760 --> 01:03:36.688 - yeah that thank you for the thank you for that Yeah, so as long as that's kind of clear in whatever 01:03:36.688 --> 01:03:42.142 - language that was my only concern. Thanks Any other comments or questions By councilman rel 01:03:42.530 --> 01:03:51.172 - Well, I just wanted to thank the committee chair and president. I'm sorry for his His work the proposed 01:03:51.172 --> 01:04:00.063 - draft changes to the job description that the committee reviewed and that is before us tonight It required 01:04:00.063 --> 01:04:08.456 - a lot of work and I appreciate You know your your your take on it so Any other comments or questions 01:04:08.456 --> 01:04:11.198 - councilmember Rosenberger Thanks 01:04:12.354 --> 01:04:20.415 - The job grade 12. So what is the process exactly? Like I'm guessing you all as the committee kind of 01:04:20.415 --> 01:04:28.715 - wrote it so that it does appear to be more of a director position probably in line with like department 01:04:28.715 --> 01:04:37.095 - heads and then how do we get it changed if not now? Like does HR review it now? Because I think it would 01:04:37.095 --> 01:04:40.926 - be so great to hire into a different pay range. 01:04:41.666 --> 01:04:48.438 - Yeah, so the next process will work with HR to actually get it reviewed before posted. Oh, cool. Okay, 01:04:48.438 --> 01:04:55.276 - great. There's no guarantee that it would change, but we have a process for that to happen. And we have 01:04:55.276 --> 01:05:01.259 - written it with that in mind. Any other questions? And thank you so much for that, Council 01:05:01.259 --> 01:05:07.900 - Member Rosenberger. Just one last one. Yes, sir. When will it be posted? I'm clear. I don't know. As 01:05:07.900 --> 01:05:11.582 - soon as possible. As soon as possible. With post-haste. 01:05:15.234 --> 01:05:23.828 - Not that there's a sense of urgency. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. It'll go faster than this meeting 01:05:23.828 --> 01:05:32.017 - is going. I promise. I cannot I cannot keep that promise. Okay. Council members look I move that the 01:05:32.017 --> 01:05:40.612 - council approves this job description. Okay. There's a motion and a second to approve the job description 01:05:40.612 --> 01:05:44.990 - here. We have to will the clerk please call the roll. 01:05:45.762 --> 01:05:57.681 - Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't capture who the second was. Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulick. 01:05:57.681 --> 01:06:08.821 - Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Clarity. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. 01:06:08.821 --> 01:06:10.046 - Thank you. 01:06:10.850 --> 01:06:16.779 - And then there's a second request from the committee in the memo if if anybody would like to move for 01:06:16.779 --> 01:06:22.823 - that, that'd be great I move to authorize the hiring committee to identify and contract in coordination 01:06:22.823 --> 01:06:28.868 - with appropriate city processes with external vendors professional service providers or temporary legal 01:06:28.868 --> 01:06:35.029 - counsel as necessary to ensure Uninterrupted functioning of the council office and to support recruitment 01:06:35.029 --> 01:06:38.110 - efforts second as much in a second any discussion. I 01:06:38.626 --> 01:06:46.740 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith and Stossberg I would just ask that it it say and or temporary legal counsel 01:06:46.740 --> 01:06:54.853 - so that we can engage with external vendors professional service providers and or temporary legal counsel 01:06:54.853 --> 01:07:02.814 - Is that you take that as a friendly amendment? Councilmember daily I'm sorry. I was trying to send this 01:07:02.814 --> 01:07:08.478 - over to the clerk and I didn't hear what the I Knew you that we we we say 01:07:08.610 --> 01:07:19.258 - And or temporary legal counsel as necessary so that we could do both and not just one or the other I 01:07:19.258 --> 01:07:30.012 - think that's that's how it was written Okay, I'm sorry. I apologize. I misspoke. It should say and or 01:07:30.012 --> 01:07:32.542 - I just am wondering how 01:07:33.090 --> 01:07:39.789 - this is gonna work in terms of how, if we contract with an attorney, how their time is gonna be prioritized 01:07:39.789 --> 01:07:46.179 - in terms of, I mean, for example, yesterday in the CCP meeting, there were like three things that were 01:07:46.179 --> 01:07:52.444 - like, oh, I guess we're gonna have to consult with this about an, with an external person, and so is 01:07:52.444 --> 01:07:56.414 - that something that y'all have been able to talk about yet, or? 01:07:57.218 --> 01:08:03.303 - we've started at least to speak in broad terms about it. I mean, it's gonna be something we're gonna 01:08:03.303 --> 01:08:09.629 - have to feel out a bit. I mean, it's new territory here, but the goal is how do you get the actual legal 01:08:09.629 --> 01:08:15.895 - expertise that we need and minimizing the cost to the city. So, I mean, that's the framework that we'll 01:08:15.895 --> 01:08:21.980 - have to operate under, what that looks like in practice. We've talked, for example, we threw out the 01:08:21.980 --> 01:08:24.510 - idea that if you had an external council, 01:08:24.578 --> 01:08:29.829 - Could be something like every council member gets a 30 minute consultation a week or something like 01:08:29.829 --> 01:08:35.237 - that, you know, to talk about legislation, you know, something like that. And then that they're at our 01:08:35.237 --> 01:08:40.856 - meeting, you know, it could be something, you know, some some framework like that. So, you know, obviously 01:08:40.856 --> 01:08:46.211 - thinking about fairness and accessibility and equal accessibility and those type of things. But yeah, 01:08:46.211 --> 01:08:51.725 - I mean, it's a new territory. So we'll have to see. OK, thanks. OK, any other discussion points, please, 01:08:51.725 --> 01:08:52.670 - Councilman Rallo. 01:08:52.802 --> 01:09:00.917 - Well, just to say I want to express gratitude to Clerk Nicole Bolden for and her staff for all the help 01:09:00.917 --> 01:09:09.032 - given to the council In this interim while we were staff council the council office and apart from that 01:09:09.032 --> 01:09:16.913 - just generally speaking because it's been profound and really important and has kept us going so Yep 01:09:16.913 --> 01:09:18.942 - Any other discussion here 01:09:19.522 --> 01:09:32.124 - Okay, seeing none or online. Are you all okay with this? Okay, clerk, will you please kindly call the 01:09:32.124 --> 01:09:44.603 - roll? Yes, sorry. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. And 01:09:44.603 --> 01:09:47.198 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. 01:09:47.810 --> 01:09:54.145 - Woohoo, fantastic guys, we did it. Okay, if you're a Dune fan, that concludes Dune part one. And so 01:09:54.145 --> 01:10:00.734 - the crescendo of Dune part one though, the after bit is that we have a time now of public comment. This 01:10:00.734 --> 01:10:07.069 - is for anything that is not on the agenda. There'll be time of public comment for the things on the 01:10:07.069 --> 01:10:13.531 - agenda on each agenda item. So if you have a public comment, please come to the mic. Remember to sign 01:10:13.531 --> 01:10:17.776 - in. If you'd like to say your name or alias, and if you're online, 01:10:17.776 --> 01:10:23.604 - The same we will alternate between people online and in the room starting with them here in the room. 01:10:23.604 --> 01:10:29.432 - Take it away. Mr. MG Hey, good evening council. Mr. President. This is Christopher MG senior director 01:10:29.432 --> 01:10:35.317 - of government and community relations with your Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce tonight I just 01:10:35.317 --> 01:10:38.174 - want to highlight a couple upcoming opportunities 01:10:38.402 --> 01:10:44.514 - These are all open to the community and free you do not have to be a chamber member And I'd be remiss 01:10:44.514 --> 01:10:50.805 - if I didn't start with our wonderful partnership with the city who luckily most of them are here tonight 01:10:50.805 --> 01:10:57.157 - I can thank them personally that will be doing zing train systems for supporting staff at the Bloomington 01:10:57.157 --> 01:11:03.209 - Convention Center That's Wednesday April 1st from 8 a.m. To 4 p.m. We have 139 already registered we 01:11:03.209 --> 01:11:05.246 - can have about 20 more. This is a 01:11:05.794 --> 01:11:12.020 - award-winning workshop designed for business owners, managers, and HR professionals. Participants will 01:11:12.020 --> 01:11:18.185 - gain practical tools around hiring, training, performance management systems with a focus on building 01:11:18.185 --> 01:11:24.411 - stronger teams, improving retention, and addressing workplace challenges proactively. And then we have 01:11:24.411 --> 01:11:27.614 - some great volunteer opportunities. Michael Sherma's 01:11:27.746 --> 01:11:33.701 - being one of my great volunteers at the Success School's Reality Store, that's the foundation wing, 01:11:33.701 --> 01:11:39.715 - feel-good wing of the chamber. What is the Success School and what is the Reality Store? Well, we do 01:11:39.715 --> 01:11:46.206 - career and financial literacy at the Success School, and the Reality Store is a hands-on literacy simulation 01:11:46.206 --> 01:11:52.340 - where junior high students take the role of a 28-year-old, kids, marriages, divorce, and they navigate 01:11:52.340 --> 01:11:55.198 - life, budgeting around housing, transportation, 01:11:55.682 --> 01:12:03.833 - food and more and we will have volunteers play key role in connecting them with that real life experience 01:12:03.833 --> 01:12:11.523 - at different booths. So we'll be starting that first a week from Friday, April 3rd at Jackson Creek 01:12:11.523 --> 01:12:19.598 - Middle School. We have two shifts, a morning and an afternoon. And then we'll be finishing up our fourth 01:12:19.598 --> 01:12:22.366 - round Friday, May 8th at Tri North. 01:12:22.594 --> 01:12:29.106 - middle school, so we'd love to see you volunteer for that. If you have not, it is really a lot of fun 01:12:29.106 --> 01:12:36.001 - interacting with junior high students and them realizing how much children cost, how much they are actually 01:12:36.001 --> 01:12:42.449 - causing budget woes within their own household. And then on Tuesday, April 21st, we're gonna be back 01:12:42.449 --> 01:12:49.281 - actually with Elect Connect at the Waldron Center. This is our candidate election event. We'll be focusing 01:12:49.281 --> 01:12:50.430 - on the Democratic 01:12:50.594 --> 01:12:57.649 - primary from Monroe County Commissioner featuring the county council members Trent Deckard and David 01:12:57.649 --> 01:13:04.634 - Henry. Should be a wonderful way to network with them ahead of time and then see a moderated debate 01:13:04.634 --> 01:13:11.689 - with former John Fernandez. That starts at four o'clock and will end before six p.m. I thank you for 01:13:11.689 --> 01:13:18.046 - your time tonight and I hope everybody brought a lunch. Thank you. Is there anyone online? 01:13:24.514 --> 01:13:31.796 - Wonderful. Here back in the room. Take it away. Hello, my name is Matt Caldy. I'm here just to kind 01:13:31.796 --> 01:13:39.587 - of remind the community, anyone watching in Bloomington or in the Bloomington area, that the Environmental 01:13:39.587 --> 01:13:47.379 - Commission's Eco Heroes Art Contest is open for submissions. So we're looking for any artistic submissions 01:13:47.379 --> 01:13:54.078 - from ages pre-K all the way up to adult. We've had 2D art, 3D art, performance art, essays, 01:13:54.274 --> 01:14:02.236 - digital media, all kinds of creative stuff. Our theme this year is Our Nature at Night. So we're hoping 01:14:02.236 --> 01:14:10.044 - to get a lot of nocturnal themed, all the things that happen after sunset. Let's see. The submissions 01:14:10.044 --> 01:14:18.236 - are due by April 7th. They can be turned in here at City Hall during business hours. Or if it is a digital 01:14:18.236 --> 01:14:23.518 - submission, contestants can email environment at bloomington.in.gov. 01:14:23.810 --> 01:14:31.205 - the The presentation will be a part of the Earth Day event at switch yard park on April 18th So that's 01:14:31.205 --> 01:14:38.529 - where people will be able to pick up their submissions or get prizes Looking forward to a whole bunch 01:14:38.529 --> 01:14:45.278 - of submissions. So tell your friends. Thank you Thank you. Anybody else like to give comment? 01:14:59.426 --> 01:15:08.455 - Hi, my name is Christopher. I've been a citizen of Bloomington my whole life. Happy spring also. I have 01:15:08.455 --> 01:15:17.224 - a simple idea. How about as a city, we grow our own food? And I know what a lot of you are thinking. 01:15:17.224 --> 01:15:25.732 - It's infeasible, lands too expensive, et cetera. But I think we could come up with a way, grants, 01:15:25.732 --> 01:15:27.902 - fundraising, volunteers, 01:15:28.130 --> 01:15:36.906 - to grow our own food as a city, even if it's just 10% to start. I've personally done gardening my whole 01:15:36.906 --> 01:15:46.104 - life, and I really enjoy it. I believe gardening's great for health and wellness, and it can be therapeutic. 01:15:46.104 --> 01:15:54.543 - There's a story, an old story in Genesis. When God kicked out Adam and Eve, he stationed a cherubim 01:15:54.543 --> 01:15:56.990 - to guard the Garden of Eden. 01:15:57.858 --> 01:16:05.240 - Now, I don't know what your beliefs are, religious or whatnot, and I don't know where we would fall 01:16:05.240 --> 01:16:12.696 - on that timeline, but I do know we can grow our own food, and that's my simple suggestion. Thank you 01:16:12.696 --> 01:16:20.521 - for your time. Thank you so much. Any other comments? All right, is there any, come ahead, anybody online 01:16:20.521 --> 01:16:24.286 - in the meantime? No, there's not. Okay, fantastic. 01:16:30.850 --> 01:16:37.569 - Good evening, council. Thank you for your time. My name is Brianna. I'm a social work student at Indiana 01:16:37.569 --> 01:16:44.224 - University, and I'm here tonight as part of my social welfare policy and practices advocacy assignment. 01:16:44.224 --> 01:16:51.134 - While I am here for a class, this topic is deeply personal to me. I speak to you today as an adult survivor 01:16:51.134 --> 01:16:53.310 - of children of hoarding disorder. 01:16:53.730 --> 01:17:00.215 - My own upbringing in a hoarded home led to a period of homelessness in this town and has had a lasting 01:17:00.215 --> 01:17:06.575 - impact on my mental health and socioeconomic status. I wasn't brave enough as a child to escape that 01:17:06.575 --> 01:17:13.123 - environment, so I have chosen to use my education to advocate for those who are still trapped. Hoarding 01:17:13.123 --> 01:17:19.545 - disorder is a DSM-5 recognized condition that leads to extreme functional impairment, often exceeding 01:17:19.545 --> 01:17:21.182 - chronic pain or diabetes. 01:17:21.666 --> 01:17:29.851 - For children, it is associated with high levels of family strain, isolation, and long-term trauma. Currently, 01:17:29.851 --> 01:17:37.292 - these children are often invisible in our legal and social systems. My long-term goal is to request 01:17:37.292 --> 01:17:45.328 - a state amendment to Title 31 to specifically recognize hoarding related hazards as child neglect, ensuring 01:17:45.328 --> 01:17:50.686 - these families receive necessary mental health referrals and treatment. 01:17:50.882 --> 01:17:57.192 - As I begin this journey, I am asking for your guidance. Could you direct me to appropriate city resources 01:17:57.192 --> 01:18:03.205 - such as housing and neighborhood development to better understand how Bloomington currently supports 01:18:03.205 --> 01:18:09.158 - families in these complex environments? Thank you for your time and for hearing my story. Thank you 01:18:09.158 --> 01:18:10.110 - for sharing it. 01:18:24.418 --> 01:18:30.788 - Hello, my remarks are based on an essay that was written by the famous writer, Jason Hickel. There's 01:18:30.788 --> 01:18:37.411 - nothing democratic about capitalism. Yes, we get elected leaders every few years, even if we acknowledge 01:18:37.411 --> 01:18:43.781 - that this process is often corrupt and inadequate, but when it comes to the economy, the system that 01:18:43.781 --> 01:18:50.152 - affects our everyday lives and determines the shape and direction of our society, generally not even 01:18:50.152 --> 01:18:52.990 - a pretense of democracy is allowed to enter. 01:18:54.146 --> 01:19:00.473 - Under capitalism, production is controlled overwhelmingly by investable assets. Investors determine 01:19:00.473 --> 01:19:06.862 - what to produce, how to use our collective labor and our planet's resources, and what to do with the 01:19:06.862 --> 01:19:13.568 - surplus we generate. The primary purpose of production and surplus investment is not to meet human needs, 01:19:13.568 --> 01:19:20.022 - achieve social progress, or to realize democratically ratified objectives. The purpose is to maximize 01:19:20.022 --> 01:19:22.046 - and accumulate profit and power 01:19:23.010 --> 01:19:29.177 - That is the overriding goal. These decisions are made in the narrow interests of the capitalist class. 01:19:29.177 --> 01:19:35.225 - The workers, the people actually doing the production, rarely get any voice at all. This arrangement 01:19:35.225 --> 01:19:41.453 - is completely undemocratic. In fact, it is literally plutocracy. And when you govern a system like this 01:19:41.453 --> 01:19:47.440 - that leads to perverse outcomes, we end up with massive overproduction of things like fossil fuels, 01:19:47.440 --> 01:19:48.638 - SUVs, and mansions. 01:19:49.570 --> 01:19:56.021 - We get chronic under production of necessary things like renewable energy public transit and affordable 01:19:56.021 --> 01:20:02.349 - housing Because these are left less profitable to capital or not profitable at all The result is that 01:20:02.349 --> 01:20:08.676 - despite having extraordinary productive capacity with extremely high levels of output to the point of 01:20:08.676 --> 01:20:14.941 - blowing past planetary boundaries We nonetheless fail to ensure that ensure that everyone has access 01:20:14.941 --> 01:20:16.926 - to basic goods and services and 01:20:17.954 --> 01:20:23.575 - A critic may retort that capitalism is democratic because every person gets to vote with their dollars. 01:20:23.575 --> 01:20:29.087 - According to this argument, consumers determine the direction of the economy, which serves everyone's 01:20:29.087 --> 01:20:34.762 - needs in the most efficient way possible, but this argument does not hold water. The dollars of ordinary 01:20:34.762 --> 01:20:39.518 - people do not equal votes because we cannot buy the things that are not being produced. 01:20:40.258 --> 01:20:47.331 - We may want renewable energy, affordable housing, longer lasting products, public transit, and regenerative 01:20:47.331 --> 01:20:54.077 - agriculture, but these things are usually not produced because capital does not consider it profitable 01:20:54.077 --> 01:21:00.627 - enough to do so. Demand is a necessary but insufficient condition. It is profitability, not demand, 01:21:00.627 --> 01:21:07.176 - that determines investment. Capital determines production, and we only get to vote among the things 01:21:07.176 --> 01:21:09.534 - that capital is willing to produce. 01:21:10.498 --> 01:21:18.268 - None of this is inevitable. We can and should extend the principles of democracy into our economy And 01:21:18.268 --> 01:21:26.038 - so I strongly encourage Bloomington to make that a priority Thank you. Thank you. All right, and that 01:21:26.038 --> 01:21:33.808 - concludes our time of public comment Appointments to boards and commissions. I believe we have one is 01:21:33.808 --> 01:21:38.302 - there a motion? Please councilman P much Beth. Yes, I move 01:21:38.946 --> 01:21:47.287 - Appoint carry champion to seat c1 on the Historic Preservation Commission second there's a motion in 01:21:47.287 --> 01:21:55.627 - the second any discussion councilmember Stasberg, I just have a question because seats c2 and c3 are 01:21:55.627 --> 01:22:03.803 - also currently vacant and C1 like has a carryover right now. So is that a specific recommendation? 01:22:03.803 --> 01:22:05.950 - It is. Okay. Thank you. I 01:22:08.258 --> 01:22:22.575 - Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on this appointment? 01:22:22.575 --> 01:22:37.726 - Council Member Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Ruff? Yes. Rosenberger? Yes. Flaherty? Yes. Stosberg? Yes. 01:22:38.114 --> 01:22:47.996 - Yes. Zulek? Yes. Thank you. Oh, the TV is about to turn off again. Thanks, Michael. OK, we are now moving 01:22:47.996 --> 01:22:57.411 - on to legislation for second readings. No? What are we missing? Apologies. Oh, you have another one? 01:22:57.411 --> 01:23:01.886 - Well, we have a removal request. OK, go for it. 01:23:02.082 --> 01:23:10.293 - Drew Heron also on the Historic Preservation Commission has been not responsive and has missed the last 01:23:10.293 --> 01:23:18.425 - three meetings and has not responded to either emails from the chair and the staff liaison. So at this 01:23:18.425 --> 01:23:26.794 - point in time, I move that we remove Drew Heron from the Historic Preservation Commission. Second. Motion 01:23:26.794 --> 01:23:31.294 - to second. Any discussion? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. 01:23:31.842 --> 01:23:39.368 - I think in the past when somebody has when we've taken action to remove somebody from a commission, 01:23:39.368 --> 01:23:47.121 - we vote to to send that person a final notice that they will be removed unless they respond and attend 01:23:47.121 --> 01:23:54.798 - a meeting. And then if they don't respond to that, then we remove them. I think noting also the clerk 01:23:54.798 --> 01:24:00.894 - who is our memory says that that is the case. But thoughts, though, that we just 01:24:01.122 --> 01:24:06.927 - changed the legislation on how people can be removed from boards and commissions. And one of the things 01:24:06.927 --> 01:24:12.620 - that's specified there is not showing up now. I think that we could go with our president or we could 01:24:12.620 --> 01:24:18.480 - do it this way. I don't think it's written anywhere that we have to give the person another chance after 01:24:18.480 --> 01:24:24.117 - they've already reached out. I did just get a message from Deputy Clerk Crossley that said that that 01:24:24.117 --> 01:24:29.698 - is correct. And she can do that tomorrow if that's how we'd like to go as well. It's a you made the 01:24:29.698 --> 01:24:31.038 - motion. So your choice. 01:24:31.170 --> 01:24:39.573 - I will withdraw my motion and I move that the council sends one final letter to Drew Heron pending or 01:24:39.573 --> 01:24:47.977 - I guess not pending prior to his removal from the HPC Second there's a motion in the second any other 01:24:47.977 --> 01:24:56.545 - discussion All right clerk. Will you please call the roll? Yes, can be just a second. I want to capture 01:24:56.545 --> 01:24:58.110 - that. Thank you. I 01:25:01.186 --> 01:25:12.003 - Okay. Um council member Daley. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasburg. 01:25:12.003 --> 01:25:22.608 - Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. That also carries. Are there any other 01:25:22.608 --> 01:25:27.486 - boards and board and commission appointments? 01:25:29.346 --> 01:25:38.235 - Okay, thank you so much. Moving on to legislation for second readings. Are there any motions? I move 01:25:38.235 --> 01:25:47.301 - that ordinance 2026-06 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second. There's 01:25:47.301 --> 01:25:55.486 - a motion in the second. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Yes, ordinance 2020. Oh, geez. 01:25:55.650 --> 01:26:08.976 - Sorry, I jumped ahead of myself, even though I heard what she said. Council Member Rollo? Yes. Ruff? 01:26:08.976 --> 01:26:22.831 - Yes. Rosenberger? Yes. Flaherty? Council Member Flaherty? Yes. Thank you. Stasberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith? 01:26:22.831 --> 01:26:24.414 - Yes. Zulek? 01:26:24.770 --> 01:26:34.394 - Sorry. Yes and daily. Yes, that motion carries nine. Oh will the Honorable Kirk, please read Yes Ordinance 01:26:34.394 --> 01:26:44.107 - 2026 stash 06 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property from residential 01:26:44.107 --> 01:26:45.726 - urban lot are for 01:26:45.826 --> 01:26:53.046 - and residential multifamily are in within the transform redevelopment overlay, TRO, to plan unit development, 01:26:53.046 --> 01:27:00.004 - PUD, and to approve a district ordinance and preliminary plan. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance 01:27:00.004 --> 01:27:06.567 - amends the zoning of the property from residential urban lot and residential multifamily within the 01:27:06.567 --> 01:27:13.197 - transform redevelopment overlay to plan unit development. Thank you very much. Go ahead. I move that 01:27:13.197 --> 01:27:15.166 - ordinance 2026-06 be adopted. 01:27:15.586 --> 01:27:16.190 - Second. 01:27:16.514 --> 01:27:24.464 - Okay, just a brief note before we do, unless there's any dissent on this, I'd like to structure it this 01:27:24.464 --> 01:27:32.414 - way that we'll hear a initial presentation by the petitioner, namely the Office of the Mayor, have time 01:27:32.414 --> 01:27:40.441 - for any pending questions. There's already been questions asked and those have been posted in our packet 01:27:40.441 --> 01:27:46.480 - and online. Then we have a series of reasonable conditions I'd like to go over 01:27:46.480 --> 01:27:53.271 - each of those individually in the following fashion. The person who's proposed it or the people who 01:27:53.271 --> 01:28:00.265 - proposed it can just say a few words. I think they're all very straightforward. Any questions that you 01:28:00.265 --> 01:28:07.124 - might have for them, a response from the petitioner, and then we will vote for individual reasonable 01:28:07.124 --> 01:28:14.526 - conditions. And after that, we'll have a period of public comment. Question there is whether we want to vote 01:28:14.754 --> 01:28:20.946 - have public comment first really I think but is any any dissent or Thoughts on on the question of placement 01:28:20.946 --> 01:28:26.795 - of public comment comes more Stossberg, please Shouldn't we have public comment on all the reasonable 01:28:26.795 --> 01:28:32.700 - conditions? I It's I mean, it's it's it's up. It's up to the council I think that I think that one way 01:28:32.700 --> 01:28:38.491 - we could do it is here all the reasonable conditions have Have the discussion about them have public 01:28:38.491 --> 01:28:43.422 - comment completely so people can comment on them sort of as a whole and then vote and 01:28:44.066 --> 01:28:52.380 - I think I might be a bit of smoother. I think that when we've done it before, when we did it for summit 01:28:52.380 --> 01:29:00.933 - last year, I think each reasonable condition got individual public comment. Yeah. If that's what everybody 01:29:00.933 --> 01:29:08.368 - would like, is that any people online, are you okay with that? Councilmember Flaherty. Okay. 01:29:08.368 --> 01:29:11.006 - Okay. Councilmember P. Moskvich. 01:29:11.458 --> 01:29:20.100 - Yes, I think it would be more clear if we went through the entire process for each reasonable condition. 01:29:20.100 --> 01:29:28.741 - Okay, fine. So if there's no objections to that, that's how we'll proceed, yes? Okay, fantastic. Council 01:29:28.741 --> 01:29:37.465 - Member Flaherty, please. I did anticipate for the sake of efficiency the possibility of combining several 01:29:37.465 --> 01:29:40.510 - of mine that are related for kind of 01:29:40.674 --> 01:29:46.638 - at least joint discussion and possibly joint vote, if that's the mind of the council on it, or if people 01:29:46.638 --> 01:29:52.318 - want to have different opinions about different ones, even though they're related, we could vote on 01:29:52.318 --> 01:29:58.168 - them separately. And those would be to pair six and seven, which are about sustainability, and to pair 01:29:58.168 --> 01:30:04.246 - eight, nine, 10, and 11, which are all about dimensional standards with sidewalks, tree plots, and alleys, 01:30:04.246 --> 01:30:08.222 - and they are kind of intersectional. So I thought it would make sense 01:30:08.546 --> 01:30:14.213 - those jointly and so that's Exactly following what councilmember Piedmont Smith just mentioned, but 01:30:14.213 --> 01:30:20.107 - I think in those particular cases that that may make sense And if it's okay with my colleagues we could 01:30:20.107 --> 01:30:25.775 - proceed that way and can you just repeat councilmember Flaherty so six and seven and and then eight 01:30:25.775 --> 01:30:31.102 - through eight through Twelve eleven eight through eleven. Well separate. Yeah, okay Thank you 01:30:32.258 --> 01:30:38.239 - And then the other thing that I that I'd forgotten to note is I think of the reasonable conditions Four 01:30:38.239 --> 01:30:44.219 - and five might be in conflict with each other Or do we think that they could both or do they both exist 01:30:44.219 --> 01:30:50.142 - in the same space? Councilman Zulik. Well, I don't know if they're in direct conflict with each other, 01:30:50.142 --> 01:30:56.123 - but because they're both under the permanent affordability Reasonable condition topic it might be worth 01:30:56.123 --> 01:30:58.078 - discussing them simultaneously. I 01:31:01.570 --> 01:31:11.217 - Okay, any other comments? Okay, seeing none. With that, we have, you know, the main event. Will the 01:31:11.217 --> 01:31:21.346 - Office of the Mayor take it away, y'all? Should we start by saying, yay, Hopewell? I think so. You know, 01:31:21.346 --> 01:31:27.230 - we have been in this process, sorry, Carrie Thompson, Mayor. 01:31:27.970 --> 01:31:37.181 - We've been in this process for a while now, and you're gonna hear some more details tonight about Hopewell, 01:31:37.181 --> 01:31:46.137 - but I think I will spend my time mostly on the principles behind Hopewell and the changes that are being 01:31:46.137 --> 01:31:54.836 - suggested at this point. Although we are happy to answer questions about any of the PUD, it should be 01:31:54.836 --> 01:31:56.030 - said that our 01:31:56.354 --> 01:32:04.671 - The real representative of the petitioner, Ali Thurman, is not able to come to this meeting tonight. 01:32:04.671 --> 01:32:12.989 - And we knew that ahead of time when this was scheduled. So some of you have told me that Hopewell is 01:32:12.989 --> 01:32:21.471 - a once in a lifetime opportunity for this community. And while this is an important project, it should 01:32:21.471 --> 01:32:25.918 - not be the only time that we get to do housing right. 01:32:27.586 --> 01:32:35.741 - This is also only the first part of a much larger neighborhood. We have an opportunity today and an 01:32:35.741 --> 01:32:43.162 - obligation into the future to set a clear path for what housing in Bloomington can be. And 01:32:43.162 --> 01:32:51.562 - just as importantly, how we lead together to make that happen. So I'm encouraging us to set a standard 01:32:51.562 --> 01:32:55.966 - for how we show up as community leaders in this work. 01:32:56.482 --> 01:33:05.123 - instead of as politicians in this instance. I want to take this chance to live into a simple truth. 01:33:05.123 --> 01:33:13.763 - Party politics doesn't matter. Individual credit for who does what also doesn't matter. What builds 01:33:13.763 --> 01:33:22.663 - housing and what improves community is the decision to work together in good faith with great planning 01:33:22.663 --> 01:33:24.478 - for the common good. 01:33:27.234 --> 01:33:35.104 - While we have President Trump leading our country and once again setting a national political rhetoric 01:33:35.104 --> 01:33:42.744 - based on who is in and who is out, and thereby creating contentious conversations across the globe, 01:33:42.744 --> 01:33:50.844 - we are in a moment to do things very differently in Bloomington. We don't need to be politicians standing 01:33:50.844 --> 01:33:56.574 - against one another. We can be community leaders standing with one another 01:33:56.770 --> 01:34:05.054 - to get a project started that the community has been asking for, providing input on, and planning since 01:34:05.054 --> 01:34:13.099 - 2017. And I appreciate this council's participation in several important steps along that process. I 01:34:13.099 --> 01:34:21.224 - know that there are many possibilities of the impact that we can make when we create housing. When we 01:34:21.224 --> 01:34:23.614 - have a project like Hopewell, 01:34:24.354 --> 01:34:32.396 - we are prone to see an opportunity to live into a kind of housing utopia. Perfectly adorable units, 01:34:32.396 --> 01:34:40.760 - dwellings that are walkable to all of our resources, affordable to anyone, no matter your income level, 01:34:40.760 --> 01:34:48.963 - the best climate ratings, the biggest sidewalks, the widest lanes, but the fact of the matter is that 01:34:48.963 --> 01:34:54.110 - we can do exceedingly well at one or maybe two of those things. 01:34:55.746 --> 01:35:05.008 - and the rest of that catalog of desires that we have on any given project, we must choose to prioritize 01:35:05.008 --> 01:35:14.093 - where we want to have a clear impact, where we want to be best at something. Some other things may be 01:35:14.093 --> 01:35:23.177 - less than ideal. Otherwise, we will miss the mark on all of them. There is no housing utopia. When we 01:35:23.177 --> 01:35:24.958 - seek to build homes 01:35:25.410 --> 01:35:34.621 - for everyone, one home that would serve anyone, we won't be able to be anything for anyone. We will 01:35:34.621 --> 01:35:44.569 - miss the mark on any impact at all. Hopewell South is simply phase one. It is not Hopewell in its entirety, 01:35:44.569 --> 01:35:52.030 - and we have picked two specific goals to focus on. Be affordable at market rate, 01:35:52.674 --> 01:36:00.780 - to as many people as possible at the lowest income possible. And attainable to many more of our residents. 01:36:00.780 --> 01:36:08.507 - And be a neighborhood that makes the most of walkability. It is an idyllic walking distance to all of 01:36:08.507 --> 01:36:16.159 - the resources of family or individual needs. The design presented to you tonight does an exceedingly 01:36:16.159 --> 01:36:21.310 - good job of meeting those two goals. We also meet climate goals and 01:36:21.506 --> 01:36:29.272 - will commit to exceeding the base level in at least one other area. And while it won't be a panacea 01:36:29.272 --> 01:36:37.660 - of all of the city's comprehensive goals in one package, it has hit the mark on those two goals exceedingly 01:36:37.660 --> 01:36:41.310 - well. And we still do very well on the others. 01:36:41.954 --> 01:36:49.757 - These are attractive homes of modest size on modest lots. They have the ability to be built by local 01:36:49.757 --> 01:36:57.559 - builders with mortgages offered by local lenders. The question in front of you tonight is whether to 01:36:57.559 --> 01:37:05.903 - approve or deny the PUD, which was certified unanimously by the Plan Commission. That is the only question. 01:37:05.903 --> 01:37:11.774 - This is not my project. This is not council's project. This is and has been 01:37:11.906 --> 01:37:19.767 - our community's project. A project that the community has been co-creating since 2017 and it has received 01:37:19.767 --> 01:37:27.183 - perhaps more input than any other single housing development in our city's history. More than that, 01:37:27.183 --> 01:37:35.044 - this is our opportunity to show our community the way politics should work. Where we come together around 01:37:35.044 --> 01:37:38.974 - a project and make it as good as it can be together. 01:37:39.714 --> 01:37:47.792 - focusing on impact that we truly want to have. For too long, politicians have been categorized as sausage 01:37:47.792 --> 01:37:55.717 - makers. And by the time the sausage is made, no one actually got the impact that they were looking for. 01:37:55.717 --> 01:38:03.414 - We are a single party city, and this should not make it harder. This should make us more capable. It 01:38:03.414 --> 01:38:08.062 - means we have the ability and the responsibility to deliver. 01:38:08.994 --> 01:38:15.928 - And it means we have an opportunity to dispel the myth that we can't get things done because we can't 01:38:15.928 --> 01:38:22.726 - find a pathway to true prioritization. We want everything all the time. I've had conversations with 01:38:22.726 --> 01:38:30.000 - many of you over the past many months about this particular project. And in January, we had a full council 01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:36.935 - input session prior to taking the project to plan commission. We've taken your input and incorporated 01:38:36.935 --> 01:38:38.974 - it into what you see tonight. 01:38:39.394 --> 01:38:46.138 - And while there are some other ideas now on the table, I want to be clear that when any developer gets 01:38:46.138 --> 01:38:53.013 - to this stage in a development, requirements or conditions that demand a change in the map or the design 01:38:53.013 --> 01:38:59.561 - are costly to implement, not only due to the likely loss of lots, but due to the professional costs 01:38:59.561 --> 01:39:06.240 - associated with making the changes and the natural domino effect that they cause. It's important that 01:39:06.240 --> 01:39:08.990 - we as leaders understand that those costs 01:39:09.154 --> 01:39:16.894 - are not absorbed by the developer. They are passed on to the homeowner. In this way, we ourselves have 01:39:16.894 --> 01:39:24.634 - an opportunity to keep housing more affordable by offering our input and potential requirements before 01:39:24.634 --> 01:39:32.223 - plans are drawn in their final form and by making decisions in a timely way to avoid any unnecessary 01:39:32.223 --> 01:39:33.726 - inflationary costs. 01:39:34.978 --> 01:39:41.626 - The housing utopia mindset says make them affordable, walkable, widest sidewalks, large tree plots, 01:39:41.626 --> 01:39:48.474 - perfect stormwater, highest energy certifications, and no cost escalation over time. No single project 01:39:48.474 --> 01:39:55.189 - can hit all of these simultaneously. There are trade-offs, and we need a vision that we can actually 01:39:55.189 --> 01:39:59.710 - deliver on. And I believe that you have that in front of you today. 01:40:00.706 --> 01:40:08.301 - At the end of the day, we will be judged not on whether this project was perfect, but on whether we 01:40:08.301 --> 01:40:15.971 - move this community forward in a meaningful way. And as leaders, we will be judged on our ability to 01:40:15.971 --> 01:40:23.642 - work together to meet the needs of our community in this moment. That is the standard I am asking us 01:40:23.642 --> 01:40:28.958 - to meet tonight. I have asked Margie Rice to cover in one package the 01:40:29.090 --> 01:40:40.242 - reasonable conditions and the legal view on all of them so that you all have that legal background before 01:40:40.242 --> 01:40:50.973 - you move into discussion on the actual conditions. Margie? A little shorter than Carrie. Margie Rice, 01:40:50.973 --> 01:40:53.182 - Corporation Counsel. 01:40:53.314 --> 01:40:58.284 - As Carrie said, I'm going to try to be brief because you have a memo already from me in your packet. 01:40:58.284 --> 01:41:00.990 - We really do appreciate the point. We're here tonight. 01:41:01.090 --> 01:41:07.652 - being in front of you, seeking approval of this PUD, which was adopted unanimously. Approving a zoning 01:41:07.652 --> 01:41:14.469 - map is a legislative act, and you're the legislative body. So that is clear in Indiana law. It is governed 01:41:14.469 --> 01:41:20.840 - consistently across our state by specific provisions of the Indiana code, and there's a little case 01:41:20.840 --> 01:41:27.529 - law that is helpful. Indiana law has made it clear that a legislative body in Indiana must either reject 01:41:27.529 --> 01:41:29.950 - or adopt in its entirety as certified 01:41:30.306 --> 01:41:37.335 - A pud ordinance that it has been adopted by a plan commission Amendments to a pud which have that has 01:41:37.335 --> 01:41:44.227 - been adopted and certified are not an option at this stage of the legal process that's true for any 01:41:44.227 --> 01:41:51.531 - legislative body in Indiana and These are not my words. I'm going to be quoting from the Court of Appeals 01:41:51.531 --> 01:41:58.423 - The General Assembly intended that the local legislative body have no power to unilaterally amend a 01:41:58.423 --> 01:41:59.870 - recommended proposal 01:42:00.322 --> 01:42:07.311 - to change a zone map. Now while it's true that reasonable conditions may be imposed by a legislative 01:42:07.311 --> 01:42:14.854 - body it's important to remember tonight that reasonable conditions are not amendments to a PD and reasonable 01:42:14.854 --> 01:42:21.913 - commitments are provisions that are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest but they 01:42:21.913 --> 01:42:27.518 - can't alter or amend the PD that was adopted and certified. So things that would 01:42:27.650 --> 01:42:34.905 - Change the text or exhibits That the plan commission already approved or off-limits. So one point I 01:42:34.905 --> 01:42:42.378 - want to emphasize because I've heard it about summit is that People are saying well, how did we meant? 01:42:42.378 --> 01:42:49.778 - Okay, sorry Yeah is I've heard people say well, how did how did summit get changed? And I don't think 01:42:49.778 --> 01:42:54.494 - someone got changed. I think what happened was that the owner of 01:42:54.850 --> 01:43:03.348 - the petitioner agreed to certain amendment or certain conditions which is allowable. So it's it's allowable 01:43:03.348 --> 01:43:11.453 - for the owner to to agree to certain conditions which in that case is what they did. But remember that 01:43:11.453 --> 01:43:19.873 - council initiated amendments are not the same thing. So with that in mind I have reviewed the 13 proposals 01:43:19.873 --> 01:43:24.830 - offered by the council and there are several of those that are 01:43:24.930 --> 01:43:34.012 - consistent with the PUD and are actually just clarifications. And let me get to that. So there are there 01:43:34.012 --> 01:43:42.661 - are a handful though that are attempts to go back in time and go back to the pre planned commission 01:43:42.661 --> 01:43:45.342 - stage and amend the beauty. So 01:43:45.826 --> 01:43:53.382 - So that the council is clear on what the city's position is the legal analysis up front before we get 01:43:53.382 --> 01:44:00.939 - into the details I want to make sure that you guys have this in mind. So the four proposals marked as 01:44:00.939 --> 01:44:08.421 - conditions 1 2 5 and 6 clarify and are consistent with the PUD as certified. They are not amendments 01:44:08.421 --> 01:44:09.310 - to the PUD. 01:44:09.858 --> 01:44:16.151 - They I think the record tonight the public record should reflect that those proposals are already 01:44:16.151 --> 01:44:22.829 - incorporated into the PUD and the petitioner has no objection to those proposals which are one two five 01:44:22.829 --> 01:44:29.251 - and six. They are again just clarifications and I won't go over those in detail since you know what 01:44:29.251 --> 01:44:35.865 - they are and they're going to talk about them soon. The next the nine proposals though that are marked 01:44:35.865 --> 01:44:37.470 - as conditions three four 01:44:38.434 --> 01:44:46.917 - and 7 through 13 actually contradict the current PD language or exhibits or make amendments to what 01:44:46.917 --> 01:44:56.163 - the plan commission approved. And so those would be considered under state law and case law as impermissible 01:44:56.163 --> 01:45:05.324 - attempts to amend the PD that the plan commission already certified. The last one 13 is a little different. 01:45:05.324 --> 01:45:07.614 - It's not an impermissible. 01:45:08.386 --> 01:45:16.739 - Attempt to amend the PUD necessarily But it is It's a problem with state law. So state law has said 01:45:16.739 --> 01:45:25.093 - and we Mentioned earlier today that you know, the General Assembly likes to say what local units of 01:45:25.093 --> 01:45:33.780 - government can't do And there are often some of the ideas that we like Locally, but they have said that 01:45:33.780 --> 01:45:37.790 - an owner occupied short-term rental property is 01:45:38.530 --> 01:45:47.088 - That if it's not owner occupied Then the local unit of government is prohibited from interpreting and 01:45:47.088 --> 01:45:55.059 - enforcing its zoning regulations in a manner that is intended or has the effect of prohibiting 01:45:55.059 --> 01:46:03.617 - Or unreasonably restricting short-term rentals of property. So again, there's a there's a clause that 01:46:03.617 --> 01:46:06.302 - says that you essentially can't 01:46:06.402 --> 01:46:12.130 - ban owner occupied short term rentals and for the non owner occupied short term rentals it says that 01:46:12.130 --> 01:46:17.972 - you cannot interpret or enforce your zoning regulations in a manner that is intended or has the effect 01:46:17.972 --> 01:46:23.644 - of prohibiting or unreasonably restricting them. So I think that's off limits because of state law. 01:46:23.644 --> 01:46:29.542 - So we'll get into these details as you go through one one one by one happy to answer any questions that 01:46:29.542 --> 01:46:35.838 - go forward. Looking forward to this opportunity to work with you to get this PUD approved and to move forward. 01:46:36.066 --> 01:46:46.713 - So, thank you. Thank you so much, Council Rice. Questions for either the mayor or for Attorney Rice. 01:46:46.713 --> 01:46:57.572 - Starting with Council Member Stossberg. Thank you. And then Flaherty. Just to kind of clarify what you 01:46:57.572 --> 01:46:58.942 - just shared. 01:46:59.106 --> 01:47:07.147 - You think that one two five and six are consistent as is so it doesn't really matter on those whether 01:47:07.147 --> 01:47:15.267 - the petitioner agrees with counsel or not They're okay. And so they have to be done but three four and 01:47:15.267 --> 01:47:23.150 - seven through thirteen if Council wanted those done but the but the petitioner didn't agree then we 01:47:23.150 --> 01:47:27.486 - would not be able to do them So so furthermore, I mean 01:47:28.834 --> 01:47:37.860 - Have you discussed with the petitioner? Are they unwilling to do three four and seven through thirteen? 01:47:37.860 --> 01:47:46.625 - Yes, I think that those are already the plan Commission has already adopted plans that are different 01:47:46.625 --> 01:47:50.878 - than what is proposed tonight and the petitioner 01:47:51.394 --> 01:48:01.696 - Intends to move forward with what was presented to the Plan Commission. So the RDC has already voted 01:48:01.696 --> 01:48:12.100 - to To move that proposal forward and And that's what the RDC has approved and what the petitioner has 01:48:12.100 --> 01:48:18.526 - brought forward so so yeah, okay Councilman Flaherty Thank you 01:48:19.810 --> 01:48:28.551 - So first, just a question of clarification. Nobody's proposing to formally amend the ordinance, but 01:48:28.551 --> 01:48:38.078 - you're suggesting that reasonable conditions that, in your opinion, are tantamount to some type of amendment 01:48:38.078 --> 01:48:45.246 - are disallowed by Indiana law. Is that correct? It is most clearly a case that is 01:48:46.050 --> 01:48:54.074 - sort of most clearly on point is this case Misty Woods out of Crown Point. And there's not frankly a 01:48:54.074 --> 01:49:02.098 - lot of case law on this issue because it doesn't frankly come up or it's not litigated. I did run my 01:49:02.098 --> 01:49:10.677 - questions past a couple of other attorneys just because I always wanna make sure I'm not missing something. 01:49:10.677 --> 01:49:14.014 - Dave Schilling is a local county attorney 01:49:14.178 --> 01:49:20.161 - does Monroe County Planning Commission stuff. He was the Brown County Planning Commission attorney. 01:49:20.161 --> 01:49:26.623 - He argued the story in case in front of the Supreme Court. And that's a case that has a lot of conversation 01:49:26.623 --> 01:49:32.845 - about conditions and commitments. And I also ran this past Bob Clutter, who I was, when I was president 01:49:32.845 --> 01:49:39.486 - of the Municipal Lawyers Association, he was on the board with me. He's a land use attorney. And we've, we've, 01:49:40.258 --> 01:49:48.282 - contract with him to get legal advice when we need a second opinion and and they both agree that if 01:49:48.282 --> 01:49:56.947 - a reasonable condition is is something that Sort of for example in the story in case it was it was limiting 01:49:56.947 --> 01:50:00.638 - noise beyond a certain point things that like 01:50:01.378 --> 01:50:07.996 - public nuisances, things that governments are interested in. If it's a rationally related condition, 01:50:07.996 --> 01:50:14.549 - you can put it on there. But if it's an attempt to go backwards and say, I don't like what the plan 01:50:14.549 --> 01:50:21.168 - commission did, I want it to be different than what the petitioner submitted and the plan commission 01:50:21.168 --> 01:50:28.114 - approved, that's an actual amendment. And council can't initiate those sorts of amendments at this stage. 01:50:28.114 --> 01:50:30.014 - When it comes to a zone map, 01:50:30.402 --> 01:50:39.470 - Approval it is again what the Court of Appeals said local units were prohibited by the General Assembly 01:50:39.470 --> 01:50:48.712 - from doing anything other than rejecting or adopting as certified this ordinance Thank you for clarifying 01:50:48.712 --> 01:50:53.246 - and I guess so over the past decade the council has 01:50:54.626 --> 01:51:02.537 - past reasonable conditions and past ordinances for planned unity developments, including ordinances 01:51:02.537 --> 01:51:10.528 - 16-20, 16-24, 17-08, 19-23, 20-01, 24-07, all of which have reasonable conditions that do the things 01:51:10.528 --> 01:51:18.835 - that say we're not allowed to do. Those were all passed under the legal guidance of a variety of council 01:51:18.835 --> 01:51:23.582 - attorneys, including Dan Sherman, Stephen Lucas, Ash Kulak. 01:51:23.874 --> 01:51:33.992 - And I guess it feels like the current legal position you're taking is counter to the legal guidance 01:51:33.992 --> 01:51:44.211 - that the council has been acting under for a decade. And so I'm not confident that it's correct. And 01:51:44.211 --> 01:51:50.686 - so that's just my question is, how are you reconciling that and 01:51:51.906 --> 01:51:59.353 - Do you have anything else to say, I guess, in light of that? Sure. I haven't gone back and looked at 01:51:59.353 --> 01:52:06.948 - every one of those petitions, so I don't know whether those were cases where the property owner agreed 01:52:06.948 --> 01:52:14.543 - to those things. I also don't know whether Dan Sherman and the other attorneys, certainly Dan Sherman, 01:52:14.543 --> 01:52:19.262 - I don't know if the 2007 case that was the Misty Woods case was 01:52:19.714 --> 01:52:28.327 - He was still here in 2007. So I don't know what they read. I don't know whether they looked at the same 01:52:28.327 --> 01:52:36.692 - cases I looked at. I don't know what homework they did. But I can tell you I'm confident in my legal 01:52:36.692 --> 01:52:45.056 - opinion. And again, without looking back, my guess is the property owners might have agreed in order 01:52:45.056 --> 01:52:49.694 - to get it through the process. But I can tell you that, 01:52:50.338 --> 01:52:58.995 - It's very clear from, you know, the statutes and the case law that the General Assembly took away the 01:52:58.995 --> 01:53:07.482 - authority from the local legislative body to do anything other than approve or reject at this stage 01:53:07.482 --> 01:53:16.478 - of the process. Okay. I have one more question. Is that okay, Council President? Please, please continue. 01:53:17.698 --> 01:53:25.435 - So you you mentioned the city of Crown Point versus Misty with properties case, which I read in full 01:53:25.435 --> 01:53:33.095 - the opinion of the Court of Appeals Thank you for referencing that in your memo In that case I read 01:53:33.095 --> 01:53:40.831 - the sentence that you quoted and In the subsequent discussion and analysis from the Court of Appeals 01:53:40.831 --> 01:53:46.270 - what they're talking about is and was an amendment to Remove r2 zoning 01:53:46.498 --> 01:53:54.817 - from a PUD. The council in that case did not like that the R2 zoning included duplexes. They wanted 01:53:54.817 --> 01:54:03.302 - it to be R1 zoning and what was happening at the time was that Misty Woods properties did not want to 01:54:03.302 --> 01:54:11.038 - face rejection of the proposal and so the council initiated a change to remove R2 zoning and 01:54:11.906 --> 01:54:18.527 - Misty woods did not object and then the the ordinance as amended was passed The court says misty woods 01:54:18.527 --> 01:54:25.084 - failure to object cannot be considered mere silence acquiescence or inactivity Because it engaged the 01:54:25.084 --> 01:54:31.641 - council on the subject of amending the proposal was something more agreeable to the council And so in 01:54:31.641 --> 01:54:38.326 - other words by not withdrawing the petition when it was changed by the council the court is saying that 01:54:38.326 --> 01:54:40.126 - is functional agreement and 01:54:40.642 --> 01:54:46.491 - And so although the council did not have the statutory authority to amend the proposed ordinance to 01:54:46.491 --> 01:54:52.516 - change zoning maps on its own Misty woods certainly had the power to amend or withdraw its own request 01:54:52.516 --> 01:54:58.365 - and Let's see misty woods effectively amended his petition by telling the council that our wand was 01:54:58.365 --> 01:55:03.454 - acceptable and not withdrawing the petition both by its statements and its actions and 01:55:04.034 --> 01:55:09.190 - The court then says the council as legislative body with ultimate authority to enact or reject a proposed 01:55:09.190 --> 01:55:14.102 - ordinance has the authority to act on this amended ordinance without sending it back to the Planning 01:55:14.102 --> 01:55:19.015 - Commission which has a merely advisory role in the rezoning process. We conclude therefore there can 01:55:19.015 --> 01:55:24.171 - be no factual dispute as to whether the council had a rational basis for passing the ordinance as amended 01:55:24.171 --> 01:55:29.132 - and therefore the trial court erred in granting summary of judgment to Mr. DeWoods denying summary of 01:55:29.132 --> 01:55:32.926 - judgment to the city. So my reading of that case is actually standing for the 01:55:33.154 --> 01:55:40.112 - principle that is counter to the argument you're making. Or maybe it's consistent with it. And I'd like 01:55:40.112 --> 01:55:47.472 - to clarify that. And the way it would be consistent with it is you've said a few times now, if the petitioner 01:55:47.472 --> 01:55:54.296 - agrees to the change, then it's OK. And it feels to me like you're sort of suggesting that that would 01:55:54.296 --> 01:56:00.987 - be an agreement that the mayor and the petitioner here would come and say, yes, we want to do these 01:56:00.987 --> 01:56:02.526 - reasonable conditions. 01:56:02.850 --> 01:56:08.786 - is saying, no, that's not exactly right. If we pass a reasonable condition, even if it's not something 01:56:08.786 --> 01:56:14.722 - you prefer, because it's not something you brought, nevertheless, if we move forward and you find that 01:56:14.722 --> 01:56:20.543 - acceptable, the alternative being to withdraw the petition, that that is functional agreement and is 01:56:20.543 --> 01:56:26.421 - acceptable under Indiana law. I think we're on the same page. I think you and I are on the same page. 01:56:26.421 --> 01:56:30.398 - I think in Misty Woods, they agreed. And I think they didn't object. 01:56:30.818 --> 01:56:37.706 - into the record and said these are the ones we agree with these are the ones we don't agree with so 01:56:37.706 --> 01:56:45.077 - essentially Those that I've put on said the record should reflect. We think these are actual impermissible 01:56:45.077 --> 01:56:52.310 - amendments to the PUD Because they are they are to the ordinance because they are Go ahead Well, they're 01:56:52.310 --> 01:56:59.198 - only impermissible if you disagree which the council passes a reasonable condition, let's say seven 01:56:59.650 --> 01:57:05.122 - and you disagree, I suppose you could withdraw the petition, but if you agree to move forward after 01:57:05.122 --> 01:57:10.594 - the council passes reasonable condition number seven, then you've agreed. That's what happened with 01:57:10.594 --> 01:57:16.394 - the Misty Woods case. Misty Woods didn't voluntarily want to give up the R2 zoning. That was the proposal 01:57:16.394 --> 01:57:21.975 - they developed. They wanted to have the R2 zoning, but when the council said, no, that's not good for 01:57:21.975 --> 01:57:24.766 - us, you know, we're going to change it to R1 only, 01:57:24.962 --> 01:57:30.945 - Misty woods assented so that was the agreement then after the council decided I think the record was 01:57:30.945 --> 01:57:36.988 - different if you I've read the brief that was filed There's also you can get the brief that was filed 01:57:36.988 --> 01:57:43.149 - by Misty woods attorney Which the the Court of Appeals pretty much adopted their record, you know their 01:57:43.149 --> 01:57:49.133 - findings in fact I think it was a very different factual record than what is here. I think that that 01:57:49.133 --> 01:57:50.910 - property owner was silent and 01:57:51.682 --> 01:57:58.716 - Um, we're not, you know, we didn't have this kind of presentation and this kind of conversation we're 01:57:58.716 --> 01:58:05.682 - having. And so, you know, it might be, it might be helpful to read the, you know, and I can send you 01:58:05.682 --> 01:58:12.716 - the link, but the brief that was written, um, again, it's we're operating under six Oh eight section. 01:58:12.716 --> 01:58:19.958 - And so I just, it is, it is the choices, the options, and this was emphasized in that brief. The options 01:58:19.958 --> 01:58:21.406 - are reject or adopt. 01:58:22.466 --> 01:58:30.757 - The General Assembly took away the option for council initiated amendments Now again, this isn't unique 01:58:30.757 --> 01:58:38.888 - to Bloomington this across the state of Indiana and so and it's a it's a function of what the General 01:58:38.888 --> 01:58:47.259 - Assembly decided to do so your beef may be with the General Assembly not me but but you know, I do think 01:58:47.259 --> 01:58:51.006 - that in this case we've reached agreement with 01:58:51.106 --> 01:59:01.376 - As as mayor Thompson said we made many amendments prior to getting to this point At the plan commission 01:59:01.376 --> 01:59:11.252 - there was Councilmember Stossberg had asked for some changes those were made We've we have Modified 01:59:11.252 --> 01:59:19.646 - this and what is before you now was approved by the Redevelopment Commission that is 01:59:20.226 --> 01:59:28.973 - A body that voted on this so I don't have the authority to change that that RDC voted to forward this 01:59:28.973 --> 01:59:37.634 - and so Well, the RDC voted to forward it to the plan Commission and then the plan Commission adopted 01:59:37.634 --> 01:59:46.723 - and certified it but the redevelopment what you're seeing is what the redevelopment Commission ultimately 01:59:46.723 --> 01:59:49.982 - said go forward with and so I I think 01:59:50.178 --> 01:59:56.215 - I think councilmember Flaherty, I think you and I are on the same page. I think that what may be missing 01:59:56.215 --> 02:00:02.253 - is the level of detail that was had at the meeting. Um, and that's not reflected in the court of appeals 02:00:02.253 --> 02:00:08.175 - case, but there are some details in the brief that are helped. We're, we're insightful. Thank you. Can 02:00:08.175 --> 02:00:13.925 - I ask if we passed reasonable condition seven, for instance, and the mayor did not withdraw the RDC 02:00:13.925 --> 02:00:17.662 - did not withdraw the petition. And we then passed the ordinance. 02:00:18.530 --> 02:00:27.463 - Do you agree that reasonable condition seven would then apply? So I'm looking at your question. So do 02:00:27.463 --> 02:00:36.308 - your hypothetical is you pass seven and we don't withdraw the petition. I don't think so because I'm 02:00:36.308 --> 02:00:45.329 - on record tonight as saying we think that's an impermissible amendment. And I don't think that council 02:00:45.329 --> 02:00:47.518 - has the ability to amend 02:00:47.874 --> 02:00:54.267 - Under state law I think you would be violating home rule because you're doing something that the council 02:00:54.267 --> 02:01:00.477 - doesn't have the authority to do. So I think factually we're different. I'm on record as saying these 02:01:00.477 --> 02:01:06.748 - are the ones we think are consistent with the PUD and the other ones we think are actually amendments. 02:01:06.748 --> 02:01:13.019 - They're not reasonable conditions. There are amendments which the council is not allowed to do. Thanks 02:01:13.019 --> 02:01:14.846 - for sharing that perspective. 02:01:15.490 --> 02:01:25.022 - Dana Kerr, I am assistant city attorney. And I just wanted to add that when the court said that when 02:01:25.022 --> 02:01:34.648 - the county indicated that it would approve a zone change from A1 to R1 only, but not necessarily zone 02:01:34.648 --> 02:01:44.368 - change from R1 and R2, Misty Woods effectively amended his petition by telling the council that R1 was 02:01:44.368 --> 02:01:45.406 - acceptable 02:01:45.634 --> 02:01:55.606 - both by its statements at the February meeting and its actions in not attending the March meeting. So 02:01:55.606 --> 02:02:05.578 - there was a positive affirmation by Misty Woods that they would accept that amendment. Here, there is 02:02:05.578 --> 02:02:15.550 - no positive affirmation that the RDC would accept any amendment. So therefore, there's not an ability 02:02:15.778 --> 02:02:25.430 - during this meeting to make an amendment to the PUD in my legal opinion as well. Thank you. Yes. Who 02:02:25.430 --> 02:02:34.223 - is the actual petitioner here? Isn't it the RDC? Because that's the owner of this property. 02:02:34.223 --> 02:02:45.022 - Is that correct? So for the people online, they're saying yes. Yes. There is a nod from our corporation council. 02:02:45.570 --> 02:02:55.157 - So how can you. Sorry without due respect Corporation Council Rice how can you speak for the RDC if 02:02:55.157 --> 02:03:04.840 - they are not here to say yes we would agree to this condition or no we would not agree to it. Right. 02:03:04.840 --> 02:03:12.702 - So under state law Corporation Council the second class city represents the city. 02:03:13.154 --> 02:03:21.148 - and all of the boards and commissions within the city. So I'm the legal representative for the redevelopment 02:03:21.148 --> 02:03:29.069 - commission and I provide the legal advice for the redevelopment commission. And this is they have submitted 02:03:29.069 --> 02:03:36.769 - and asked for this ordinance that the plan or that the plan commission unanimously adopted and certified 02:03:36.769 --> 02:03:42.270 - to be here before you. So I don't understand your concern. I mean I am the 02:03:42.882 --> 02:03:50.986 - Corporation Council, head of the law department, represent the RDC. Yes, but they have not spoken about 02:03:50.986 --> 02:03:59.012 - the reasonable conditions. They have not had an opportunity to say, yes, we would actually accept this 02:03:59.012 --> 02:04:07.193 - reasonable condition. Legal has had conversations. So we believe that we're representing them and giving 02:04:07.193 --> 02:04:12.414 - you advice that is consistent with what they want to move forward. 02:04:13.026 --> 02:04:19.625 - So you have spoken with them since did since Friday when these reasons we have talked with individual 02:04:19.625 --> 02:04:26.160 - members of the redevelopment Commission Thank You Councilor Stossberg My name was invoked as part of 02:04:26.160 --> 02:04:32.889 - that So I would just like to clarify that there were no changes made by councilmember Stossberg between 02:04:32.889 --> 02:04:36.318 - the plan Commission meeting and it coming to council 02:04:36.386 --> 02:04:42.289 - a reasonable condition from the Plan Commission number 11 said that petitioner needed to work with me 02:04:42.289 --> 02:04:48.191 - to clarify language and the number of incorrect citations Etc, etc that were in the original document 02:04:48.191 --> 02:04:53.978 - from the Plan Commission But there were no actual changes made especially as there was just a whole 02:04:53.978 --> 02:04:59.997 - legal debate over which one of these reasonable conditions actually constitute changes and I was a very 02:04:59.997 --> 02:05:03.006 - specific and deliberate with the petitioner and the 02:05:03.170 --> 02:05:09.870 - Consultant who is unable to be here this evening to make sure that when we were looking at things there 02:05:09.870 --> 02:05:16.442 - were no actual changes made from what the Impression was that the plan Commission got so I first want 02:05:16.442 --> 02:05:22.949 - to say that but secondly, I guess I'm just wondering Related to the conversation that we're on right 02:05:22.949 --> 02:05:29.714 - now. So Corporation counselor council Rice just said that you know, she's spoken with individual members 02:05:29.714 --> 02:05:31.518 - of the RDC but if we do say 02:05:31.682 --> 02:05:39.217 - As a body appear tonight pass a reasonable condition that is one of those ones that she said would actually 02:05:39.217 --> 02:05:46.403 - be an amendment Is it possible to bring that back to the RDC to ask them? officially as a body if they 02:05:46.403 --> 02:05:53.519 - would accept that as part of getting this past Apologize I will let Corporation Council Pat come back 02:05:53.519 --> 02:06:01.054 - to that. I just wanted to To make sure that it was understood that are you answering my question right now? 02:06:01.506 --> 02:06:13.700 - Was answering the difference between the reasonable condition which this council can impose without? 02:06:13.700 --> 02:06:25.893 - The RDC approving that's not what I'm asking about right now, though Turn it back to the corporation 02:06:25.893 --> 02:06:31.326 - So I I want to be clear about the process so 02:06:33.122 --> 02:06:40.691 - The reasonable conditions that have been proposed are not consistent with what we discussed with the 02:06:40.691 --> 02:06:48.335 - Redevelopment Commission. So did I go over all 13 of these with the Redevelopment Commission members? 02:06:48.335 --> 02:06:56.278 - No. Have we talked to the Redevelopment Commission members about this PUD and the petition that is before 02:06:56.278 --> 02:07:01.374 - you? Yes. They voted on this before it went to the plan commission. 02:07:04.130 --> 02:07:13.247 - Though a lawyer can look at the reasonable conditions and make a legal determination whether it's consistent 02:07:13.247 --> 02:07:22.113 - with the ordinance as it was certified or it's not consistent. So what I'm giving you is my legal opinion 02:07:22.113 --> 02:07:31.230 - based on state law and case law. So if something that you consider to be an amendment is passed by this body 02:07:32.418 --> 02:07:40.907 - It needs to then could it I'm saying could it in the possibility go back to the Redevelopment Commission 02:07:40.907 --> 02:07:49.153 - specifically and have them approve the IP ID or whichever with that condition on it. I like a process 02:07:49.153 --> 02:07:57.642 - question. I think this is similar to my answer to Councilmember Flaherty's question. I think the council 02:07:57.642 --> 02:07:59.582 - would be amending a PUD 02:08:00.802 --> 02:08:09.153 - They, in many cases, and we can get into these when we get into, if you want to go over them individually, 02:08:09.153 --> 02:08:16.957 - or I can tell you now, my analysis about each one, but it, you would be, you are allowed to operate 02:08:16.957 --> 02:08:24.840 - within the confines of state law under Home Rule. You can do things, anything that you need to do in 02:08:24.840 --> 02:08:29.054 - your area, in your local area, as long as it doesn't, 02:08:29.250 --> 02:08:37.281 - Contradict or conflict with state law when you do when you contradict or conflicts with state law You're 02:08:37.281 --> 02:08:45.236 - outside the boundaries of home rule and I think if you amended the PUD tonight Which I think those nine 02:08:45.236 --> 02:08:53.650 - are amendments. I think you'd be operating outside the bounds of law And I think that would be impermissible. 02:08:53.650 --> 02:08:56.862 - I so I so my my answer is I I don't think 02:08:58.882 --> 02:09:05.497 - Procedurally that's not on the table today procedurally amending and I don't think those are reasonable 02:09:05.497 --> 02:09:11.857 - conditions. I think there are amendments which is not permissible. It's not within the authority of 02:09:11.857 --> 02:09:14.846 - the local legislative body tonight to do that. 02:09:15.106 --> 02:09:21.187 - I would really like to actually get the question answered, though, because earlier it was like, well, 02:09:21.187 --> 02:09:27.447 - if the petitioner agrees to something that could be considered an amendment, it's OK. So what I'm saying 02:09:27.447 --> 02:09:33.648 - is, can we bring something specific to the RDC and say, will you agree with this amendment? And so what 02:09:33.648 --> 02:09:39.610 - you're telling me is no. It seems just a really long way to say no. The RDC, because I said the RDC 02:09:39.610 --> 02:09:40.862 - wanted what has been 02:09:41.666 --> 02:09:48.538 - Proposed and adopted by the Plan Commission to be here before you they already made the decision that 02:09:48.538 --> 02:09:55.410 - what they want is Is in front of you it was and at that Plan Commission stage when it was adopted and 02:09:55.410 --> 02:10:02.484 - approved That's what the redevelopment Commission wanted to to be here And if there's a question between 02:10:02.484 --> 02:10:09.288 - it passing or failing depending on a reasonable condition Would the RDC rather have it fail or would 02:10:09.288 --> 02:10:11.646 - they rather consider an amendment? 02:10:12.450 --> 02:10:19.342 - And I'm telling you tonight that I think your option is to adopt or reject it. That is what I'm telling 02:10:19.342 --> 02:10:25.968 - you. Tonight, procedurally, where we're at is to reject it or adopt it now. Or postpone it. I don't 02:10:25.968 --> 02:10:32.860 - know if anybody else on the same team. Can't we postpone it to get an answer from the RDC about whether 02:10:32.860 --> 02:10:39.553 - they would accept any certain amendment? I think they've given the answer. OK. I think the answer is 02:10:39.553 --> 02:10:42.270 - clear that what they want to be approved 02:10:42.466 --> 02:10:51.104 - is is in front of you and we the the four Reasonable conditions I've put into the record I want the 02:10:51.104 --> 02:10:59.742 - record to reflect that we think those are consistent with what the plan Commission approved and the 02:10:59.742 --> 02:11:08.639 - author the other Proposals, I'm going to call them because I don't think the reasonable conditions the 02:11:08.639 --> 02:11:11.230 - other proposals go outside of 02:11:11.714 --> 02:11:20.362 - They're going back to the pre-plan Commission and amending what the redevelopment Commission wanted 02:11:20.362 --> 02:11:29.356 - approved Councilmember rather rather. Oh, yeah Corporation council race I had a question regarding just 02:11:29.356 --> 02:11:38.178 - to unpack you said that you Spoke to RDC members individually just to be clear not individually about 02:11:38.178 --> 02:11:41.118 - these 13 but we have talked about 02:11:41.410 --> 02:11:47.769 - This PUD as it was going through the phase in a formal meeting they approve this in a formal meeting 02:11:47.769 --> 02:11:54.066 - they approved the Proposal going forward in a way you talk to him about these reasonable conditions 02:11:54.066 --> 02:12:00.677 - not individually. No But you talked to him at all about the read these reasonable conditions No, because 02:12:00.677 --> 02:12:07.036 - they're so so the reasonable conditions and I'm giving you my legal let me just finish So how do you 02:12:07.036 --> 02:12:08.862 - know that they would accept? 02:12:09.346 --> 02:12:16.960 - You said one two five and six but not three four seven through thirteen because it's I'm giving you 02:12:16.960 --> 02:12:24.878 - my legal analysis of what is a reasonable condition and what is an amendment and so what they they gave 02:12:24.878 --> 02:12:33.101 - you a proposal that's what they wanted and and my legal analysis is that there are four that are consistent 02:12:33.101 --> 02:12:37.822 - with what the Redevelopment Commission voted on and there are 02:12:38.498 --> 02:12:45.804 - Nine that are inconsistent and would amount to an amendment. So I see but they haven't consented this 02:12:45.804 --> 02:12:53.039 - is your interpretation of what their interpretation or what their interpretation of these are That's 02:12:53.039 --> 02:13:00.345 - what you're maintaining. I'm giving they're not lawyers. They're they're they're petitioners and they 02:13:00.345 --> 02:13:02.494 - submitted the petition and so 02:13:03.138 --> 02:13:08.828 - So I'm giving you a legal analysis. They wouldn't have a legal opinion on this. So I'm giving you my 02:13:08.828 --> 02:13:14.631 - legal analysis about what is a reasonable condition and what is an amendment. Okay, but we're invoking 02:13:14.631 --> 02:13:20.265 - the RDC and the members and what they would accept or not. And you are interpreting what they would 02:13:20.265 --> 02:13:25.899 - accept or not. I'm telling you. No, I don't think that's correct. No, I don't think it's correct. I 02:13:25.899 --> 02:13:29.054 - just want to be clear. What I think is going on is that 02:13:29.794 --> 02:13:36.053 - The boards and commissions speak through their minutes of public meetings. That's how they act. So even 02:13:36.053 --> 02:13:42.131 - if I had talked to individual members about these 13 conditions, it wouldn't matter unless they were 02:13:42.131 --> 02:13:48.269 - in a public meeting as a body voting on it. Because boards, just like you, you have to be in a public 02:13:48.269 --> 02:13:54.468 - meeting voting on something. One of you can't say what the redevelopment commission would or would not 02:13:54.468 --> 02:13:59.102 - do. And so what the redevelopment commission already spoke, what they wanted 02:13:59.586 --> 02:14:06.310 - Go to the plan commission and what they want you to approve is before you tonight. I'm here as a lawyer 02:14:06.310 --> 02:14:12.839 - after reading the law and reading the case law and saying this Procedurally, what are you allowed to 02:14:12.839 --> 02:14:19.434 - do at this stage? Procedurally you are allowed to adopt or reject just case law on it Misty Woods the 02:14:19.434 --> 02:14:26.092 - best case on that Okay, so but we can't say for certain whether they would accept one two five or six. 02:14:26.092 --> 02:14:27.838 - That's your interpretation 02:14:28.834 --> 02:14:35.059 - Because they haven't been consulted. But you said they were consulted. I said that they were consulted. 02:14:35.059 --> 02:14:41.164 - That's why I said when I came right back up here, it said, I want to be very clear about what I said, 02:14:41.164 --> 02:14:47.089 - because I can see it's about Piedmont Smith saying. Specifically, what did you consult them about? 02:14:47.089 --> 02:14:53.314 - The PUD. No, but none of these reasonable conditions. That's what I said that. I said I didn't, because 02:14:53.314 --> 02:14:57.982 - they spoke through their minutes of their meeting when they approved the PUD. 02:14:58.466 --> 02:15:07.170 - Okay, so they've already said on its face what they want you to prove because you have an ordinance 02:15:07.170 --> 02:15:16.222 - in front of you that has that in there now. It's it's in front of you for adoption or rejection. Right. 02:15:17.282 --> 02:15:25.505 - This is what you maintain, yes. That's correct. I want to hear, I see Council Member Rosenberger has 02:15:25.505 --> 02:15:33.647 - ... Can I ask one clarifying question? Yeah. What is the or else here? What is the what? What's the 02:15:33.647 --> 02:15:38.206 - result? Let's say if council were to pass number seven, 02:15:38.274 --> 02:15:44.886 - Your is your what what happens thereafter? Are you saying that you will withdraw the petition and and 02:15:44.886 --> 02:15:51.497 - then we start from the beginning or Do you sue us like what what what what happens? Well in a typical 02:15:51.497 --> 02:15:57.655 - world what would happen is and and I of course at that stage would have to have a meeting with 02:15:57.655 --> 02:16:04.591 - the Redevelopment Commission who is the petitioner and they would have to have either an executive session 02:16:04.591 --> 02:16:05.758 - or public hearing 02:16:05.986 --> 02:16:12.800 - But I can tell you that if this were a private developer and you took action that was outside the bounds 02:16:12.800 --> 02:16:19.355 - of law, they would file what's called a declaratory judgment with the circuit court and ask for your 02:16:19.355 --> 02:16:26.234 - decision, which they would deem arbitrary and capricious to be held impermissible under state law because 02:16:26.234 --> 02:16:28.830 - it was outside the bounds of home rule. 02:16:28.962 --> 02:16:38.333 - Thank you. And then one follow-up, just building on many of the questions that were asked, do you maintain 02:16:38.333 --> 02:16:47.091 - that though things may not be reasonable conditions, that they can be accepted by agreement? If the 02:16:47.091 --> 02:16:56.375 - Redevelopment Commission, but again, I don't know that procedurally, that would be, you have two options, 02:16:56.375 --> 02:16:58.302 - approve as certified. 02:16:58.818 --> 02:17:09.646 - or reject yes so as certified is as you know look at the language and the exhibits that are in the ordinance 02:17:09.646 --> 02:17:18.686 - and and improve that or reject that as certified before you thank you so seven just so and 02:17:18.818 --> 02:17:24.784 - And we can talk about it. I just wanted to make sure I understood the boundaries. We had Councilmember 02:17:24.784 --> 02:17:31.155 - Rosenberger had her hand up. Then we'll go back to Councilmember Flaherty, then Councilmember Piedmont-Smith, 02:17:31.155 --> 02:17:36.946 - then back to you, Councilmember Arallo. Hi, thanks. My notes are like standard, a little scribbled. 02:17:36.946 --> 02:17:42.854 - OK, I mean, I want to back up a little bit because when we don't really, when we think maybe we don't 02:17:42.854 --> 02:17:47.198 - know how to do something, the first thing we do is consult the law, right? 02:17:48.770 --> 02:17:55.709 - Okay, so Indiana law 36, 7, 4, 15, 12, the power of a legislative body to adopt or amend an ordinance. 02:17:55.709 --> 02:18:02.783 - When adopting or amending a PUD district ordinance, the legislative body of a unit may do the following. 02:18:02.783 --> 02:18:10.194 - There are three things. We can do any of the three of them. And the first one is impose reasonable conditions 02:18:10.194 --> 02:18:16.931 - on a proposed planned unit development. So when we're sitting here tonight saying the only thing we 02:18:16.931 --> 02:18:18.750 - can do is approve or deny. 02:18:19.234 --> 02:18:26.288 - That is not what state code says. So that we can talk about reasonable conditions, council can pass 02:18:26.288 --> 02:18:33.482 - reasonable conditions and the petitioner can agree on those reasonable conditions. Then if things are 02:18:33.482 --> 02:18:40.747 - still a little murky, we're gonna look at case law, okay? So like the case law to me says a reasonable 02:18:40.747 --> 02:18:47.166 - condition was put out there to change zoning from a two to a one and the petitioner agreed 02:18:48.354 --> 02:18:55.576 - in the PUD was passed, okay? That's another way to do it. The third way, if you're still kind of murky, 02:18:55.576 --> 02:19:02.797 - is to look at past practices. So as Councilmember Flaherty said, there were at least six different PUDs 02:19:02.797 --> 02:19:09.741 - in the last decade where reasonable conditions were imposed, petitioner agreed to them, and the PUD 02:19:09.741 --> 02:19:14.046 - was passed. Another thing to do is to consult outside council 02:19:15.042 --> 02:19:23.656 - I spoke for an hour with a former class 2 city council attorney who said that a city council may impose 02:19:23.656 --> 02:19:32.104 - reasonable conditions as they see fit that anything can happen with a reasonable condition. I mean we 02:19:32.104 --> 02:19:40.634 - could say every lot needs to have chickens like that's what a reasonable condition is. So I think what 02:19:40.634 --> 02:19:44.030 - sounds confusing to me right now is that 02:19:44.290 --> 02:19:51.282 - It sounds like if the petitioner is in favor of one of our reasonable conditions, they're calling it 02:19:51.282 --> 02:19:58.273 - a reasonable condition. But if they are not in favor, they're calling it an amendment, which I think 02:19:58.273 --> 02:20:05.403 - we all agree we cannot make amendments. But the thing is, a reasonable condition according to history, 02:20:05.403 --> 02:20:10.526 - according to 36.7.4.15.12 of Indiana code is open-ended. I think tonight, 02:20:11.074 --> 02:20:17.858 - We do have other options. We could send it back to the RC. We can postpone until April 1st. I think 02:20:17.858 --> 02:20:24.641 - it would be really great if City Council also got some formal attorney eyes on this because I don't 02:20:24.641 --> 02:20:31.425 - think this is how it's done. I don't think this is what the law or case law or former practices are 02:20:31.425 --> 02:20:32.510 - saying. Thanks. 02:20:33.602 --> 02:20:38.898 - If council members I'm gonna say I think I think there's a little bit of now and I really appreciate 02:20:38.898 --> 02:20:44.456 - all of argument I think they're very very clear, but I think that we're Building off of the same argument 02:20:44.456 --> 02:20:49.752 - So and many of these are will be covered in their specificity when we go over each of the reasonable 02:20:49.752 --> 02:20:55.153 - conditions So unless unless there's dissent I would I would prefer that we could we move on to talking 02:20:55.153 --> 02:21:00.606 - about each of the each of the reasonable conditions I think I think is councilmember Flaherty, please I 02:21:01.410 --> 02:21:08.163 - Yeah, I had more questions for Council Rice. I don't need to ask those necessarily. But what it seems 02:21:08.163 --> 02:21:15.312 - like is that we actually have, at least my opinion is we have a dispute over the legality of the reasonable 02:21:15.312 --> 02:21:22.462 - conditions. I would say that Corporation Council's remarks over the last 20 minutes are directly counter to 02:21:22.658 --> 02:21:28.783 - every experience I've had with the PUD and working with four different counsel attorneys. It's also 02:21:28.783 --> 02:21:35.337 - directly counter past practice over the last decade, at least, and directly counter to corporation counsel 02:21:35.337 --> 02:21:41.891 - legal opinion in many prior PUD instances. So how we deal with that, because we have a corporation counsel 02:21:41.891 --> 02:21:48.383 - representing the RDC, although the RDC hasn't actually taken a formal position on any of these reasonable 02:21:48.383 --> 02:21:49.118 - conditions. 02:21:49.378 --> 02:21:57.010 - So we have Corporation Council representing the RDC in that way, saying these aren't allowed. I disagree 02:21:57.010 --> 02:22:04.569 - with that. How do we actually move productively forward on these tonight since we have a legal dispute? 02:22:04.569 --> 02:22:11.038 - Please. I just want to make a clarification that from my understanding in the past PUDs, 02:22:11.554 --> 02:22:20.622 - there have been requested reasonable conditions that while they may not have met the mark for a reasonable 02:22:20.622 --> 02:22:29.097 - condition, the petitioner agreed to them. So even if they were amendments, the petitioner agreed to 02:22:29.097 --> 02:22:37.741 - them. That is how these significant things get amended. They can be drafted as reasonable conditions, 02:22:37.741 --> 02:22:41.470 - but if they don't meet the mark of the law, 02:22:41.602 --> 02:22:50.856 - as a reasonable condition, the only way to get them in legally is to get the petitioner to agree to 02:22:50.856 --> 02:23:00.110 - them. I wanna back up to a 20,000 foot view as well. The combination of these reasonable conditions 02:23:00.110 --> 02:23:09.086 - will create a financial situation where we will not be able to, they will contradict each other. 02:23:09.506 --> 02:23:19.580 - So especially the affordability pieces will no longer be in play and so if we were to agree to all of 02:23:19.580 --> 02:23:29.655 - these We would then be missing the mark on affordability. And so we then are in a catch-22 So even if 02:23:29.655 --> 02:23:39.038 - we were to say we will agree to a hundred percent of these We could not then build this out so 02:23:39.362 --> 02:23:47.191 - We're in a, we now, and that's the problem with amending it after it goes to plan commission, especially 02:23:47.191 --> 02:23:54.796 - the sidewalk and lane changes, things like that. That's gonna change the lot layout and the number of 02:23:54.796 --> 02:24:02.029 - lots that we have and thereby the affordability and it will cost us design money, also impacting 02:24:02.029 --> 02:24:05.086 - affordability. Thank you, Mark Thompson. 02:24:06.242 --> 02:24:12.978 - Okay, I'm gonna, I'm gonna have us, unless there's a substantive question that's different than the 02:24:12.978 --> 02:24:19.781 - questions that have been asked. Councilman Morello? Well, I mean, what I wanna say is that this is a 02:24:19.781 --> 02:24:26.517 - dispute of what constitutes a reasonable condition, correct? I wanna set the context here for going 02:24:26.517 --> 02:24:33.725 - forward on this. And I want to just say to the council that we have a 90-day period from the certification 02:24:33.725 --> 02:24:35.678 - day, which is February 13th, 02:24:36.098 --> 02:24:44.578 - So we have time in order to settle a dispute of interpreting our legal authority. I find that the, I 02:24:44.578 --> 02:24:53.142 - disagree that most of these, it looks like all of them really are within, which should be interpreted 02:24:53.142 --> 02:25:02.462 - as reasonable. Why? Because they happen to follow our UDO. And so if we can't expect the UDO to be followed by 02:25:03.522 --> 02:25:11.106 - The city that owns the property that's developing this project It is precedent-setting because it won't 02:25:11.106 --> 02:25:18.691 - be reflected in I think a private developer coming forward and trying to follow our EDO so I would just 02:25:18.691 --> 02:25:26.275 - say that I think it's important. I think it's important enough that we Consider postponing and consults 02:25:26.275 --> 02:25:32.766 - a neutral arbiter Contract someone who can make a decision about our legal authority and 02:25:32.994 --> 02:25:40.592 - settle this matter so that we can go forward because we seem to be at a point of Can we even interpret 02:25:40.592 --> 02:25:48.043 - should we even go forward on these if they're if we're being told that? It's gonna sink the project, 02:25:48.043 --> 02:25:53.502 - right? So I would like to keep have everyone keep that in mind. Thanks. I 02:25:56.002 --> 02:26:03.525 - All right, with that, let's move on to actually talking about these individually, because it will give 02:26:03.525 --> 02:26:11.122 - an opportunity both for public comment and for a response directly on maybe what the effects of passing 02:26:11.122 --> 02:26:18.645 - them are. So the first one that we have here is by Councilmember Stosberg around use tables. Go ahead. 02:26:18.645 --> 02:26:25.438 - I move reasonable condition number one. Second. All right, and it's been moved and seconded. 02:26:25.986 --> 02:26:33.277 - So reasonable condition number one, by the way the synopsis I combined my reasonable conditions one 02:26:33.277 --> 02:26:40.568 - and two and when they got separated the synopsis on one Didn't quite get amended correctly. So just 02:26:40.568 --> 02:26:48.734 - FYI reasonable condition number one Requires an updated allowed use table to reflect the stated project goals I 02:26:49.154 --> 02:27:00.032 - Questioned that I asked about that at the first reading and I'm trying to find my tab that says where 02:27:00.032 --> 02:27:11.017 - the use table is And I am failing to find my thing but specifically it is being This whole PD is being 02:27:11.017 --> 02:27:16.670 - targeted as a residential area and the the use table 02:27:16.930 --> 02:27:25.181 - allows a bunch of things that are not residential to be put in. Art galleries, community centers, crops 02:27:25.181 --> 02:27:33.116 - and pasturage, amenity centers, recreation, various commercial uses, and so just kind of looking at 02:27:33.116 --> 02:27:41.129 - that a little bit closely, and that is something that we mentioned earlier, that that condition that 02:27:41.129 --> 02:27:44.382 - came from the Planning Commission had me 02:27:44.674 --> 02:27:48.962 - clarifying this a little bit and one of the things that got clarified was the actual use table that 02:27:48.962 --> 02:27:53.294 - went in and once the use table went in it was like oh my gosh like why are all of these uses allowed 02:27:53.294 --> 02:27:57.668 - here in this two block area and in the conversation with the petitioner it was like yeah but we can't 02:27:57.668 --> 02:27:58.654 - change that right now. 02:27:59.266 --> 02:28:04.927 - To go to the point that I made earlier. We can't actually change the use table at this point and so 02:28:04.927 --> 02:28:10.645 - that's why I wanted that in as reasonable condition number one and furthermore I think that there is 02:28:10.645 --> 02:28:16.419 - a line in my reasonable condition that says as permitted under state law because I think there's some 02:28:16.419 --> 02:28:22.081 - group home stuff that because some group homes include protected classes that have to be allowed in 02:28:22.081 --> 02:28:25.534 - any residential area, so that's why there's that line in the 02:28:25.634 --> 02:28:34.260 - The reasonable condition if anybody has any questions, let me know. Thanks any questions for councilmember 02:28:34.260 --> 02:28:42.321 - Stossberg Seeing none petitioner has already responded I think to this but anything else you'd like 02:28:42.321 --> 02:28:50.302 - to add to number one Thank you very much We're clerkless so give us a moment and we can continue I 02:29:06.082 --> 02:29:13.604 - Councilmember Stasberg has introduced reasonable condition one. I think we've already heard the response 02:29:13.604 --> 02:29:20.769 - from the responder so Public comment. Thank you. I forgot Went on long. Okay. Anybody would like to 02:29:20.769 --> 02:29:28.005 - comment on reasonable condition one which is a proposed condition to update the allowed use table to 02:29:28.005 --> 02:29:35.742 - reflect the stated project goals and a rational phasing plan So anybody who'd like to make comment on that? 02:29:36.706 --> 02:29:44.465 - Not the phasing plan. I'm sorry Anybody online no, there's not okay, we'll come back to council Will 02:29:44.465 --> 02:29:52.378 - the clerk please call the roll on voting for Or I mean, I don't do we need to do we need to do we need 02:29:52.378 --> 02:30:00.368 - to now motion to adopt it? How does that work? We vote fantastic. You already moved good. Okay, so will 02:30:00.368 --> 02:30:05.054 - a clerk please call the roll on reasonable condition one and 02:30:05.826 --> 02:30:19.617 - Yes, Councilmember Ruff. Yes. Wrong space. Rosenberger? Yes. Flaherty? Yes. Stossberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith? 02:30:19.617 --> 02:30:32.513 - Yes. Zulek? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Thank you. All right. Next motion, Councilmember 02:30:32.513 --> 02:30:33.918 - Stossberg. 02:30:34.306 --> 02:30:38.526 - Thank you, I'm gonna move reasonable condition number two go ahead 02:30:38.690 --> 02:30:45.326 - So reasonable condition number two asks for a rational phasing plan. A rational phasing plan is one 02:30:45.326 --> 02:30:51.963 - of those things that's required as part of a PUD process if there are phases. And the petitioner on 02:30:51.963 --> 02:30:58.798 - page 84 of our packet today has a phasing plan that is literally just an image and doesn't really tell 02:30:58.798 --> 02:31:05.700 - us anything. And so I'm requesting a rational phasing plan to be submitted to the final plan to include 02:31:05.700 --> 02:31:08.222 - a short description of each phase and 02:31:08.642 --> 02:31:16.036 - Requiring that phase one includes the construction of the interior road shared green space pedestrian 02:31:16.036 --> 02:31:23.574 - improvements and utility infrastructure including stormwater management facilities There is also a sort 02:31:23.574 --> 02:31:30.823 - of similar reasonable condition That came from the Plan Commission. I'm hoping that I can find that 02:31:30.823 --> 02:31:34.302 - exactly right That Also asks for a phasing plan 02:31:34.402 --> 02:31:40.735 - But that one asked for a very specific phasing plan about the stormwater utilities and all of those 02:31:40.735 --> 02:31:47.321 - kinds of details So my reasonable condition I think is a little bit different in terms of it Just being 02:31:47.321 --> 02:31:53.844 - more of a general like how are you going to develop this because the image that's included is just not 02:31:53.844 --> 02:32:00.557 - It doesn't really tell us anything. Thank you so much questions for council member Stossberg Okay, seeing 02:32:00.557 --> 02:32:02.014 - none petition response 02:32:05.858 --> 02:32:12.895 - Yes, we agreed to provide a phasing plan. The reason that there was no phasing plan included with this 02:32:12.895 --> 02:32:14.398 - is because typically, 02:32:14.594 --> 02:32:21.063 - a neighborhood where you would require a phasing plan, you would have several segments of roads and 02:32:21.063 --> 02:32:27.596 - then houses being built, et cetera, et cetera. All the roads are going in at the same time, which is 02:32:27.596 --> 02:32:34.130 - usually the concern of Plan Commission is when's the public infrastructure going to be built out and 02:32:34.130 --> 02:32:41.310 - turned over. So that's all in a single phase. We're happy to write that down and approve it as a phasing plan. 02:32:44.162 --> 02:32:52.155 - Thank you so much. Um, is there any public comment on the phasing plan? condition I Just want to note 02:32:52.155 --> 02:33:00.225 - that that's all written down in the Q&A that we provided for council as well. Thank you Public comment 02:33:00.225 --> 02:33:08.610 - none anyone on the line. What's your comment? All right, will the clerk please call the roll on reasonable 02:33:08.610 --> 02:33:12.606 - condition to Councilmember Rosenberger Yes clarity 02:33:13.986 --> 02:33:27.654 - Yes, Stasberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes, Daly. Oh, sorry. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. 02:33:27.654 --> 02:33:41.732 - Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. President. Yep. May I suggest that we consider the reasonable conditions 02:33:41.732 --> 02:33:43.646 - five and six? 02:33:44.130 --> 02:33:52.680 - because those we seem to be in agreement with the administration and I'm considering offering a motion 02:33:52.680 --> 02:34:00.980 - to postpone for clarification of the The other reasonable conditions in terms of their of our legal 02:34:00.980 --> 02:34:09.447 - authority So is the motion to combine five and six Or you hear them separately but in that order five 02:34:09.447 --> 02:34:10.526 - six, yeah, I 02:34:12.098 --> 02:34:20.041 - Anybody you motion to introduce it? I'm happy to hear it Please I think reasonable condition number 02:34:20.041 --> 02:34:28.221 - three which was submitted by me Can be dispensed with very quickly without introducing it, but I would 02:34:28.221 --> 02:34:36.164 - like to at least have the opportunity The mayor made a very concerted effort to reach out to me and 02:34:36.164 --> 02:34:41.406 - explain why this was unnecessary and redundant and I I agree with 02:34:41.538 --> 02:34:49.785 - Her persuasive points that she made to me and I would like Just for the sake of having on the record 02:34:49.785 --> 02:34:58.195 - to him the public Understand why I'm not moving forward with this if I would ask that someone from the 02:34:58.195 --> 02:35:06.361 - administration just say Just like will explain to me. This isn't really needed Is that okay So that 02:35:06.361 --> 02:35:09.790 - reasonable condition speaks to the ad use 02:35:10.018 --> 02:35:20.469 - being located on the same lot as an owner occupied home. And because all of the ADUs in this neighborhood 02:35:20.469 --> 02:35:30.328 - are on owner occupied lots already, it's just sort of a redundant, it's already in there. So I just 02:35:30.328 --> 02:35:36.638 - wanted to clarify with Council Member Ruff in a phone call that 02:35:36.770 --> 02:35:44.788 - That was our intention. And that's how this is being created. Thank you. All right, any motions? Council 02:35:44.788 --> 02:35:52.501 - member or president, sorry. Oh, please, thank you. I didn't see your hand. Go ahead, council member. 02:35:52.501 --> 02:36:00.290 - Maybe a point of information. I think, first, procedurally, I'm sympathetic to the idea of postponing 02:36:00.290 --> 02:36:04.414 - on other regional conditions. I don't know how we can 02:36:04.834 --> 02:36:09.693 - move forward on those in good faith when we don't have, when we have contradictory legal advice from 02:36:09.693 --> 02:36:14.792 - what we've received as legal advice consistently over time. Um, and, and so there's that, but with regard 02:36:14.792 --> 02:36:19.892 - to hearing five and six tonight, uh, or not, I thought number five and number four, um, are both involved 02:36:19.892 --> 02:36:24.703 - in permanent affordability and maybe have some conflict with another or another. So I don't know if 02:36:24.703 --> 02:36:29.658 - it makes sense to hear five tonight, even though the administration agrees with that one, if we aren't 02:36:29.658 --> 02:36:31.582 - also going to hear number four tonight. 02:36:33.346 --> 02:36:41.655 - Can I clarify, is that, am I understanding it correctly that four and five actually are mutually exclusive, 02:36:41.655 --> 02:36:49.426 - so to speak? That's how I understood them myself. So, I mean, I think that's a fair point. Okay. And 02:36:49.426 --> 02:36:57.120 - number six, I'm the sponsor of, while we could hear it quickly now, I'm agnostic if we feel like we 02:36:57.120 --> 02:36:59.582 - need to postpone on the others. 02:37:02.370 --> 02:37:07.774 - Here to hear motions, Council Member Stossberg. 02:37:07.874 --> 02:37:13.184 - Could be really instrumental to have a discussion about the affordability question right now Even if 02:37:13.184 --> 02:37:18.704 - we're I don't know if we have to move a reasonable condition for that and whether councilmember Flaherty 02:37:18.704 --> 02:37:24.171 - might want to do six first and we consider the affordability angle because At least from my perspective 02:37:24.171 --> 02:37:29.902 - that is a really big deal and I also want to point out that there is kind of an updated reasonable condition 02:37:29.902 --> 02:37:35.159 - number four that was in the packet addendum that went out today and so I want to make sure that the 02:37:35.159 --> 02:37:37.840 - public and council members realize that there is a 02:37:37.840 --> 02:37:44.906 - and updated reasonable condition number four. Absolutely, happy to hear any motions, everyone. Whatever 02:37:44.906 --> 02:37:51.903 - you'd like. I'll have a reasonable condition number six, then. Second. All right, motion and a second, 02:37:51.903 --> 02:37:58.765 - the reasonable condition six. Council Member Flaherty. Yep, okay. So reasonable condition number six 02:37:58.765 --> 02:38:05.831 - says all buildings must use either electricity or on-site renewable energy services for all significant 02:38:05.831 --> 02:38:06.782 - energy needs. 02:38:06.882 --> 02:38:14.885 - including for space heating, water heating, and cooking. The rationale is that this is consistent with 02:38:14.885 --> 02:38:22.811 - what our climate action plan calls for. Specifically, action EB4-A-2 suggests that we should be using 02:38:22.811 --> 02:38:30.814 - planned unit developments as an optional development choice that a landowner can make to ensure opt-in 02:38:30.814 --> 02:38:33.534 - building electrification, which is 02:38:33.922 --> 02:38:42.694 - the only viable scalable path for building decarbonization consistent with our net zero greenhouse gas 02:38:42.694 --> 02:38:51.211 - emissions goal for community-wide emissions. So I'm happy to answer questions about that. Questions 02:38:51.211 --> 02:38:59.727 - for Councilmember Flaherty. Seeing none, petition or response, any additional comment? Seeing none, 02:38:59.727 --> 02:39:03.134 - public comment on condition number six. 02:39:06.626 --> 02:39:18.005 - Anyone online. No nobody online. Please we have someone in council chambers. Thank you. I would just 02:39:18.005 --> 02:39:22.174 - like to make a note. Is it this one. 02:39:22.338 --> 02:39:31.493 - Sarah Wolford, I'm the housing solutions director at habitat for humanity and Renewable energy is also 02:39:31.493 --> 02:39:40.471 - something that we certainly consider on some of the smaller units There's not currently a mechanical 02:39:40.471 --> 02:39:49.538 - closet which I think can be Taken care of with a tankless water heater, but there are a lot of issues 02:39:49.538 --> 02:39:50.782 - with electric 02:39:51.586 --> 02:40:00.744 - Entirely electric on-demand water heaters. So perhaps if we move forward with all electric there could 02:40:00.744 --> 02:40:09.990 - just be a note Or make a provision on the plans for a mechanical closet Any other public comment anyone 02:40:09.990 --> 02:40:18.881 - online No comment online. Okay. Excellent. So will the clerk please call the roll on the reasonable 02:40:18.881 --> 02:40:20.126 - condition six 02:40:22.690 --> 02:40:34.526 - It's councilmember Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. 02:40:34.526 --> 02:40:46.480 - Yes. Rallo. Yes. Rough. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Thank you. Oh sorry that passes a reasonable condition 02:40:46.480 --> 02:40:52.222 - six. I move reasonable condition five. Go ahead. 02:40:52.514 --> 02:41:00.436 - Is there a second Second all right motion in a second, please go ahead Thank you. So this is actually 02:41:00.436 --> 02:41:08.668 - in line with a resolution that I will be bringing forward later that directs the Housing and Neighborhood 02:41:08.668 --> 02:41:16.823 - Development Department to develop a framework for long-term housing affordability specifically in regard 02:41:16.823 --> 02:41:20.862 - to home ownership and it includes an expectation of 02:41:21.474 --> 02:41:28.739 - guidelines set forth by the administration which should include tools such as set silent second mortgages 02:41:28.739 --> 02:41:36.073 - and or write a first refusal and The administration will report the full and final affordability structure 02:41:36.073 --> 02:41:43.133 - to the council prior to the first home sale Happy to answer any questions Any questions for councilman 02:41:43.133 --> 02:41:50.878 - Zulek a council member Stasberg I guess one of the things that that's uh, I want to bring up here with regard to 02:41:51.362 --> 02:41:59.991 - the affordability question at this stage. First of all, your reasonable condition specifically says 02:41:59.991 --> 02:42:09.138 - the units designed as permanently affordable, which means only the 15% of units that is originally stated 02:42:09.138 --> 02:42:17.854 - in the PUD language, like just to be clear that the UDO itself, under qualifying standards, requires 02:42:18.082 --> 02:42:25.545 - 15% of total dwelling units to be permanently income limited in the original qualification So those 02:42:25.545 --> 02:42:33.157 - are the 15% that you're talking about, right? Yes, and that and that that 15% are the only units that 02:42:33.157 --> 02:42:40.695 - are going to be affordable permanently affordable that is correct and the Strategies outlined in the 02:42:40.695 --> 02:42:47.934 - synopsis would be how we keep it permanently affordable Okay I also would like to point out that 02:42:48.418 --> 02:42:56.956 - That section it says that they must be permanently income limited through a deed restriction Unless 02:42:56.956 --> 02:43:05.495 - the city otherwise adjusts or releases this requirement. So you're suggesting that we should adjust 02:43:05.495 --> 02:43:14.289 - and release that requirement Sorry, can you this isn't this is in section 20 0 2 0 4 0 be Three of the 02:43:14.289 --> 02:43:18.302 - UDO and just to make a note on this as well as 02:43:18.978 --> 02:43:26.554 - that If if the planning department had responded in a timely way to my original request regarding AMI 02:43:26.554 --> 02:43:34.130 - adjustments that there would be a PUD requirement Insisting that 15% be not below 120 percent AMI but 02:43:34.130 --> 02:43:42.003 - below 90 percent AMI and That's not what's in here because they got it under the old restrictions because 02:43:42.003 --> 02:43:48.094 - there was a delay on the administrative side before we could actually put new new 02:43:48.642 --> 02:43:57.904 - AMI restrictions in the place but but I mean By by saying they're gonna do it with the silent second 02:43:57.904 --> 02:44:07.350 - mortgage and those other things we are then adjusting and releasing part of that requirement Any other 02:44:07.350 --> 02:44:16.062 - questions for customer Zulik response from from the office of the mayor I'm sorry didn't see I 02:44:16.898 --> 02:44:22.931 - Didn't understand what councilmember Stossberg's point which I understood her point. That's a good point 02:44:22.931 --> 02:44:28.677 - But how did that relate to this reasonable condition? Could she clarify that? Thank you because the 02:44:28.677 --> 02:44:34.595 - reasonable condition says the units designated as permanently affordable So I'm clarifying which units 02:44:34.595 --> 02:44:40.686 - are being designated as permanently affordable So it's this fifteen percent of units that are permanently 02:44:40.686 --> 02:44:44.478 - affordable under a hundred and twenty percent of AMI which is the 02:44:44.674 --> 02:44:52.813 - Previous requirement because of a delay on administration's behalf to Respond to a resolution from council 02:44:52.813 --> 02:45:01.105 - in a timely way so in my mind that's kind of reinforcing a few other things is that So I was just clarifying 02:45:01.105 --> 02:45:08.712 - that that's the 15% of units that or that's the those are the units that we're talking about in the 02:45:08.712 --> 02:45:11.070 - reasonable condition Thank you 02:45:14.978 --> 02:45:21.477 - Council member Flaherty. Thank you. So I mentioned a moment ago, I guess my read of reasonable conditions 02:45:21.477 --> 02:45:27.731 - four and five is that they are mutually exclusive or inconsistent with one another. So both could not 02:45:27.731 --> 02:45:34.107 - pass. Is that your understanding as well, council members elected if we pass reasonable condition five, 02:45:34.107 --> 02:45:40.361 - we cannot pass reasonable condition four because it would be in direct conflict with it. I think that 02:45:40.361 --> 02:45:42.078 - would be up to an attorney. 02:45:45.634 --> 02:45:52.739 - Council member Rosenberger. I could clarify on why I think they're contradictory if that's helpful, 02:45:52.739 --> 02:45:59.844 - but I can also do that via comment. So that doesn't need to be now, I suppose. But yeah, thank you. 02:45:59.844 --> 02:46:07.304 - Thank you. Council member Rosenberger. If I, I mean, I can weigh in on that question since RC4, I helped 02:46:07.304 --> 02:46:11.070 - draft it. Is that okay or tell me to wait? Go ahead. 02:46:11.650 --> 02:46:21.795 - I think the way they read they are different. RC5 talks about 15% being permanently affordable at 120% 02:46:21.795 --> 02:46:31.939 - AMI with different types of tools, silent second mortgage, right of first refusal. RC4 talks about 50% 02:46:31.939 --> 02:46:39.326 - permanently affordable with 15% being at 90% AMI, which is the updated UDO 02:46:40.162 --> 02:46:48.016 - PUD rule. And it talks about ground leases and deed restrictions or other shared equity models. So I 02:46:48.016 --> 02:46:55.948 - do think they're different in terms of percentages of AMI and percentage of a permanent affordability 02:46:55.948 --> 02:47:03.102 - and mechanisms to get that done. Thank you, Councilmember Rosenberger. Response. Thank you. 02:47:05.634 --> 02:47:13.866 - Thank you Margie Rice Corporation Council. I agree with council member Flaherty that four and five are 02:47:13.866 --> 02:47:22.019 - they conflict with each other. And just for the record I want to be sure that it's clear that that we 02:47:22.019 --> 02:47:27.454 - believe reasonable condition five offered by council members Zulek. 02:47:27.618 --> 02:47:36.587 - makes no change to the exhibits or modifies the PUD. It clarifies what is already existing in the PUD, 02:47:36.587 --> 02:47:45.295 - which is that the administration will develop affordability guidelines and will report the full and 02:47:45.295 --> 02:47:54.264 - final affordability structure to the council prior to the home sale. So I do agree with Council Member 02:47:54.264 --> 02:47:56.702 - Flaherty and the petitioner 02:47:57.218 --> 02:48:08.838 - Supports or agrees with thinking it's a reasonable condition number five Thank you councilmember Zulik, 02:48:08.838 --> 02:48:19.341 - thank you. Oh My gosh what I was about to say just completely left my head. So All right with 02:48:19.341 --> 02:48:25.822 - that councilmember Okay response then councilman Stosberg 02:48:27.234 --> 02:48:35.243 - I'm sorry. I know that Corporation Council already provided a response, but I just wanted to clarify 02:48:35.243 --> 02:48:43.253 - that That my read of this reasonable condition in order to to qualify as reasonable condition. It is 02:48:43.253 --> 02:48:51.341 - just a clarification however, that is the minimum of affordability that we would be providing is that 02:48:51.341 --> 02:48:54.910 - 15% and this particular reasonable condition 02:48:55.074 --> 02:49:04.586 - provides some tools that are alternative to what is, what has conventionally been the deed restriction. 02:49:04.586 --> 02:49:14.281 - Those deed restrictions in an ownership model prevent it from being marketable on a traditional mortgage. 02:49:14.281 --> 02:49:20.958 - And so would really, they would prevent them from being sold. Thank you. 02:49:22.338 --> 02:49:28.885 - All right. I'm councillor Sasberg. Then we'll go to public comment. I have another question because 02:49:28.885 --> 02:49:35.498 - like part of my Like close reading of this in the last couple weeks has been this understanding that 02:49:35.498 --> 02:49:40.670 - we're actually making an exception to what our PUD requirements say in the UDO 02:49:40.802 --> 02:49:49.607 - with using these tools for affordability. So my question is perhaps for Council Member Zulik, because 02:49:49.607 --> 02:49:58.326 - I have this question on the resolution that is later as well, or perhaps for the petitioner, is what 02:49:58.326 --> 02:50:08.254 - kind of data or research have you done that shows that these methods actually work in real life in municipalities? 02:50:08.642 --> 02:50:16.380 - appreciate that, you know the and I and I have like I I respect our Department head for hand but there 02:50:16.380 --> 02:50:23.969 - is nothing in this packet that Tells me or shows me. Oh, this was done in this municipality And this 02:50:23.969 --> 02:50:31.482 - is how it worked out this this works like this and this is how it works out it just feels like word 02:50:31.482 --> 02:50:33.886 - of mouth at this point and so I 02:50:34.018 --> 02:50:41.392 - would really appreciate having some actual data. So Council Member Zulek, have you read anything? Is 02:50:41.392 --> 02:50:49.204 - there a specific municipality that you can point to that uses these tools effectively? I will let Director 02:50:49.204 --> 02:50:56.578 - Killian-Hanson answer that in general, but the majority of the work that I've done has been speaking 02:50:56.578 --> 02:51:01.470 - with community members around Bloomington in different fields that 02:51:01.762 --> 02:51:09.810 - tangentially relate to Hopewell and and what building a house looks like and so I have not done that 02:51:09.810 --> 02:51:17.779 - research, but I've Spoken to a lot of different community members and that's how we've come up with 02:51:17.779 --> 02:51:25.986 - some of these opportunities Thank you so much Anna Killian Hansen director of housing and neighborhood 02:51:25.986 --> 02:51:27.102 - development I 02:51:27.970 --> 02:51:34.541 - First of all, I would like to say that what we're considering right now is land use. It is not affordability. 02:51:34.541 --> 02:51:40.874 - And the reason is because we cannot develop the affordability framework completely without knowing what's 02:51:40.874 --> 02:51:46.848 - getting approved. Everybody's adding different conditions that increase costs. So how do you commit 02:51:46.848 --> 02:51:53.598 - to affordability not knowing what the overall cost is? The RDC has not voted on the affordability mechanism yet. 02:51:54.082 --> 02:52:02.446 - One thing I want to draw attention to, thanks to our friends at the South Central Indiana Mortgage Brokers 02:52:02.446 --> 02:52:10.262 - Association, they facilitated a meeting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which I had last week, and 02:52:10.262 --> 02:52:18.313 - they actually have a staff member that is dedicated to helping municipalities facilitate some of these 02:52:18.313 --> 02:52:23.550 - alternative methods of affordability. And they have offered to vet 02:52:23.842 --> 02:52:30.656 - And work with us to make sure that any structure that we put in place is pre certified and complies 02:52:30.656 --> 02:52:37.947 - with Fannie and Freddie secondary mortgage market approvals. So that is something that's going to continue 02:52:37.947 --> 02:52:43.262 - to be ongoing. Is it ready tonight? No, we don't know what the final cost is. 02:52:43.394 --> 02:52:51.601 - I am curious if anybody took a look at my memo in the packet, which addresses many of these things. 02:52:51.601 --> 02:53:00.137 - If we're talking about 50% of the units being affordable, in fact, if you look at what we're providing, 02:53:00.137 --> 02:53:08.345 - we have more than 50% that are below 120% AMI. So we are agreeing to comply with what the UDO says, 02:53:08.345 --> 02:53:09.822 - which it was 15%. 02:53:09.954 --> 02:53:19.757 - At a hundred and twenty percent AMI it is not some sneaky way to manipulate or get around What you guys 02:53:19.757 --> 02:53:29.183 - have put in place subsequent to that but we are agreeing to comply with what the UDO said Thank you 02:53:29.183 --> 02:53:39.646 - director, okay Please that counts my prima Smith I think the the sticking point is the permanent affordability 02:53:39.938 --> 02:53:49.729 - In that per the UDO proposed PUD zoning district that is relying on affordable housing as meeting the 02:53:49.729 --> 02:53:59.903 - requirements has to income restrict at least 10 percent more of the dwelling units at or below the income 02:53:59.903 --> 02:54:07.198 - levels required to earn a tier one or tier two incentive. So that would be. 02:54:08.322 --> 02:54:16.542 - 15% plus 10%, that'd be 25% permanently affordable, or the income restricting the same number of dwelling 02:54:16.542 --> 02:54:24.374 - units, so 15%, but limiting incomes to at least 10% lower AMI. So that would be 15% of units at 110% 02:54:24.374 --> 02:54:31.198 - AMI. These are for the permanently affordable units. I think that's the sticking point. 02:54:35.138 --> 02:54:50.768 - The ordinance actually says 15% at 100% AMI. Thank you. Right. With that, we'll move to public comment. 02:54:50.768 --> 02:55:02.942 - Any public comment on, I've lost my place, any public comment on condition five? 02:55:03.650 --> 02:55:14.126 - This is on permanent affordability, please Good evening, I'm Ryan Langley I am the branch manager for 02:55:14.126 --> 02:55:24.499 - Rudolph mortgage here in Bloomington As well as a former County Council elected official Having some 02:55:24.499 --> 02:55:32.510 - flashbacks of some late-night budget discussions with mr. McKinn back here So 02:55:33.058 --> 02:55:39.142 - Here to speak specifically About the impact that deed restrictions can have on financing options for 02:55:39.142 --> 02:55:45.407 - local homebuyers Something that we know a great deal about To be clear I understand appreciate the goal 02:55:45.407 --> 02:55:52.033 - behind the affordability measures We all want more families in this community to have access to homeownership 02:55:52.033 --> 02:55:58.660 - But some of the deed restriction structures being discussed or implemented can create unintended consequences 02:55:58.660 --> 02:56:00.286 - in our mortgage market and 02:56:01.570 --> 02:56:08.376 - Most single single-family mortgage loans today are ultimately sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as already 02:56:08.376 --> 02:56:14.800 - mentioned Those agencies do not prohibit affordable housing programs outright The issue is when deed 02:56:14.800 --> 02:56:21.542 - restrictions go so far that they limit the resale the cap appreciation or permanently restrict the future 02:56:21.542 --> 02:56:27.902 - buyer pool based on their income At that point the property becomes a less marketable as collateral 02:56:29.794 --> 02:56:36.151 - Lending standpoint the question becomes very simple if a borrower defaults can that home be sold on 02:56:36.151 --> 02:56:42.635 - the open market at market value If the answer is no many lenders will not make that loan in the first 02:56:42.635 --> 02:56:49.246 - place Because the risk is too high and the loan may not meet the secondary market conditions That means 02:56:49.246 --> 02:56:55.920 - for fewer financing options for buyers less competition among lenders and in many cases higher borrowing 02:56:55.920 --> 02:56:58.590 - cost or denied loan access altogether and 02:56:59.362 --> 02:57:06.163 - And the people most affected are often the very people these policies are intended to help Single-family 02:57:06.163 --> 02:57:12.899 - and multifamily housing also do not function the same way in the financing world treating them the same 02:57:12.899 --> 02:57:19.376 - way May work in policy language But not in the secondary market permanent AMI based restrictions on 02:57:19.376 --> 02:57:25.854 - single-family homes are especially difficult Because they strength the future buyer pool and reduce 02:57:25.854 --> 02:57:28.574 - marketability There's also a larger issue 02:57:29.090 --> 02:57:35.839 - Homeownership remains one of the main ways families build equity and long-term wealth how it's called 02:57:35.839 --> 02:57:42.853 - homeownership a pillar of wealth building and Census data continues to show that major wealth gap between 02:57:42.853 --> 02:57:49.867 - those that own and those that rent When we permanently limit resale value of appreciation We work against 02:57:49.867 --> 02:57:56.550 - one of the most important benefits of owning the home So my request would be that we would work with 02:57:56.550 --> 02:57:58.270 - local lenders like us and 02:57:59.266 --> 02:58:06.818 - gather more of our input before finalizing that policy. If a buyer cannot finance the home, the home 02:58:06.818 --> 02:58:11.454 - is not truly affordable. It is simply unavailable. Thank you. 02:58:25.026 --> 02:58:31.492 - My name is Ryan still I work with Summit Hill Community Development Corporation. We have a land trust 02:58:31.492 --> 02:58:38.465 - in town and we Utilize a few of these different restrictions you guys are talking about My only encouragement 02:58:38.465 --> 02:58:45.375 - here would be to not limit the restriction to a specific one different styles work better with the different 02:58:45.375 --> 02:58:48.862 - groups of people and with different markets, right and 02:58:49.218 --> 02:58:57.683 - Go with a blanket deed restriction might limit the amount of lenders you have But if you leave it open 02:58:57.683 --> 02:59:05.984 - then you can discuss with local lenders what they might specifically want or might work for the area 02:59:05.984 --> 02:59:14.450 - Thank you Hello, my name is Sarah Wolford I'm with how Habitat for Humanity. I'm the housing solutions 02:59:14.450 --> 02:59:15.518 - director and 02:59:16.066 --> 02:59:23.037 - I just wanted to make a note that Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County used to use deed restrictions 02:59:23.037 --> 02:59:25.566 - until we realized that this placed a 02:59:25.666 --> 02:59:32.871 - burden on the families that we served. So in my time at Habitat for Humanity, we switched to primarily 02:59:32.871 --> 02:59:40.216 - using silent second mortgages and first right of refusals. And so when Stossberg asked about communities 02:59:40.216 --> 02:59:47.211 - where these things have been utilized, I just wanted to draw attention that they are being utilized 02:59:47.211 --> 02:59:49.310 - effectively in our community. 02:59:49.410 --> 02:59:57.720 - Right now and the last 40 houses That I've worked on with Habitat for Humanity have all utilized these 02:59:57.720 --> 03:00:05.787 - other kind of alternative rather than deed restrictions so The other thing I wanted to highlight is 03:00:05.787 --> 03:00:14.419 - first right of refusal makes it sound as if these things can only be utilized once for the first occupant, 03:00:14.419 --> 03:00:15.710 - but if the city 03:00:15.842 --> 03:00:25.108 - Chooses to purchase that home back it then is a restriction that again goes on to that home So as long 03:00:25.108 --> 03:00:34.103 - as the city continues to choose to purchase the home back that is something that will not just work 03:00:34.103 --> 03:00:43.549 - for the first Occupant of the home, but something that is continuously utilized Thank you Next commenter 03:00:43.549 --> 03:00:45.438 - I Paul Russo again I 03:00:45.794 --> 03:00:52.385 - Gosh in response to a written question by councilmember Flaherty about affordable housing the Planning 03:00:52.385 --> 03:00:58.912 - Department responded as follows in your packet the language and the incentive sections section of the 03:00:58.912 --> 03:01:05.567 - UDO states that housing units must be income restricted permanently Unless the requirement is otherwise 03:01:05.567 --> 03:01:11.966 - adjusted or forfeited by the city With this PUD we are building an adjustment to the length of time 03:01:11.966 --> 03:01:14.078 - for the affordability period and 03:01:14.434 --> 03:01:21.756 - for single family residents. The language in the UDO allows for an adjustment to the length of time 03:01:21.756 --> 03:01:29.372 - for that affordability, end quote. It seems to me that what this is saying is that the new housing will 03:01:29.372 --> 03:01:36.914 - not be permanently affordable. And I'm just wondering if people are so interested in this because they 03:01:36.914 --> 03:01:43.870 - see it as a plum investment opportunity. Because they're gonna be buying below market and then 03:01:44.130 --> 03:01:51.047 - It's going to appreciate and then they're going to be able to sell it at market rate. I would say it 03:01:51.047 --> 03:01:58.580 - doesn't have to be this way. The city owns the land. How often does that happen? We have a golden opportunity 03:01:58.580 --> 03:02:05.497 - it seems to me to maintain public ownership and thereby shield at least some of our housing from the 03:02:05.497 --> 03:02:08.990 - speculative ravages of the capitalist marketplace. 03:02:10.306 --> 03:02:17.765 - So I strongly suspect that there are skilled employees with hand and Bloomington Housing Authority who 03:02:17.765 --> 03:02:25.368 - would be able to manage such an undertaking. I'm also recalling that if you get your mortgage calculator 03:02:25.368 --> 03:02:32.972 - out and if you have a 30-year mortgage at 5% interest, over the life of the loan, you're gonna be paying 03:02:32.972 --> 03:02:36.158 - 53% of your payments are going to interest. 03:02:38.754 --> 03:02:46.536 - If you have a 1% mortgage, it's non-profit, it'll be 14%. So think about where our wealth is going in 03:02:46.536 --> 03:02:54.319 - this community. We own the land here. It's a golden opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Next commenter 03:02:54.319 --> 03:03:02.253 - in the room. Thank you again, Mr. President. This is Chris Jeremie from the Greater Bloomington Chamber 03:03:02.253 --> 03:03:06.526 - of Commerce. I just want to point out that I appreciate 03:03:06.978 --> 03:03:12.703 - first three speakers tonight working within mortgages, working within affordability that provided me 03:03:12.703 --> 03:03:18.427 - some input, some information on knowledge that I don't know. Sometimes we forget that we should know 03:03:18.427 --> 03:03:24.265 - what we don't know. I think Ms. Walford's comments from Habitat seem to support Council Member Zulek's 03:03:24.265 --> 03:03:29.933 - amendment. So it's important that we're listening to these comments on people who know what they're 03:03:29.933 --> 03:03:35.998 - talking about. We're dealing with clients and mortgages every day. Thank you for your time, appreciate it. 03:03:36.802 --> 03:03:46.798 - Thank you next comment or Hi, I'm Blake music president Rob mortgage work Brian I Came here to kind 03:03:46.798 --> 03:03:56.994 - of maybe echo what he was trying to say, but I've learned some things this afternoon that I think are 03:03:56.994 --> 03:04:05.790 - more easily addressed that could solve the overarching issues here in the you know city 03:04:06.082 --> 03:04:15.461 - surrounding County that I think we're trying to Solve a problem by fixing or sorry trying to solve a 03:04:15.461 --> 03:04:25.025 - problem. It doesn't exist That's caused by something that's a much larger scale of a problem I learned 03:04:25.025 --> 03:04:34.590 - about this this afternoon at a dinner that the city of Bloomington has a moratorium on subdivision and 03:04:35.938 --> 03:04:43.949 - Really what it comes down to at a macro level is that there's just a supply issue, which then causes 03:04:43.949 --> 03:04:52.594 - affordability problems. With our company, we're all over the state, we're all over Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, 03:04:52.594 --> 03:05:00.842 - and where we find the greatest affordability issues are where there's the largest amount of restrictive 03:05:00.842 --> 03:05:04.094 - policy put in place by local government, 03:05:05.250 --> 03:05:12.425 - and then it turns into how do we manufacture a solution for a problem that's created by other policy? 03:05:12.425 --> 03:05:19.600 - And so I feel like we all end up kind of chasing our tail by ignoring the initial, you know, snowball 03:05:19.600 --> 03:05:26.846 - starting to roll down the hill that ends up where we are today. So I think that is something obviously 03:05:26.846 --> 03:05:34.654 - outside the scope of this discussion, but I think that it is something, you know, very worth considering where 03:05:35.458 --> 03:05:41.269 - Rather than putting these really complex restrictive things in place. We could look at the root cause 03:05:41.269 --> 03:05:47.250 - of the issue Like I learned also today that you know Beezer homes who? Builds generally affordable homes 03:05:47.250 --> 03:05:52.947 - has left town just because they were tired and abandoned the final phase of a development they were 03:05:52.947 --> 03:05:58.758 - doing because they were just tired of the red tape and the and the fights that got into with with the 03:05:58.758 --> 03:06:03.486 - city, so I don't have a solution suggest per se for those things, but I think that 03:06:04.194 --> 03:06:10.480 - looking at the root cause of the problem that we're trying to solve is probably a more effective and 03:06:10.480 --> 03:06:16.765 - long-term solution than inventing problems to a, or sorry, inventing solutions to something that are 03:06:16.765 --> 03:06:23.237 - largely not related to the problem, the cause of the problem, sorry. Thanks. Thank you. Next commenter. 03:06:23.237 --> 03:06:29.647 - Is there anybody online while the comment is coming? There's no comments online, okay? If you do wanna 03:06:29.647 --> 03:06:32.510 - comment online, just raise the hand function. 03:06:35.010 --> 03:06:42.193 - Good evening. My name is Aaron comfort II and I am a longtime resident of the McDowell Gardens neighborhood 03:06:42.193 --> 03:06:48.911 - I want to thank the council and the administration for all the work they've put into the PUD that we 03:06:48.911 --> 03:06:55.762 - have today and I'd also like to thank the council and the administration for engaging so much with the 03:06:55.762 --> 03:06:58.622 - community on this project more generally I 03:06:59.682 --> 03:07:07.049 - I've been meeting with a group of residents in McDowell Gardens about the Hopewell South development 03:07:07.049 --> 03:07:14.417 - and I wanted to relay what we've been talking about because it may be of interest to the council and 03:07:14.417 --> 03:07:22.076 - to the administration. I met with a group of about 10 residents, long-term residents mostly, of McDowell 03:07:22.076 --> 03:07:29.662 - Gardens last week and we reviewed the most recent plans published about the Hopewell South development. 03:07:29.954 --> 03:07:40.074 - We also reviewed the catalog of pre-approved designs supplied by what was Flintlock Lab and is now called 03:07:40.074 --> 03:07:50.004 - something else. And one thing that we were excited about in McDowell Gardens was the low-rise apartment 03:07:50.004 --> 03:07:59.742 - building pre-approved design called the Faulkner. It is a 12 unit. Each one of them is a one bedroom. 03:08:00.738 --> 03:08:08.064 - And it is a 12 unit low-rise apartment building and when we were looking at the plan it appeared that 03:08:08.064 --> 03:08:15.247 - There were two lots or that there were there was an allocation that there would be two of these now 03:08:15.247 --> 03:08:22.430 - I'm not sure to what degree that is final. They're on 1st Street and we the residents the ten of us 03:08:22.430 --> 03:08:29.182 - all were kind of talking this over and we thought that more of that would be a good thing and 03:08:29.506 --> 03:08:38.207 - Now how does this relate to permanent affordability? part of it has to do with density and I encourage 03:08:38.207 --> 03:08:46.739 - the council and the administration to consider what it would mean to add a Just another apartment or 03:08:46.739 --> 03:08:55.440 - two like that that would Help a lot of people move into that area who otherwise may not be able to and 03:08:55.440 --> 03:08:59.326 - then as it relates to permanent affordability 03:08:59.682 --> 03:09:08.521 - That was the other center of the conversation I had with residents where our primary concern was not 03:09:08.521 --> 03:09:18.059 - with regulation but with no regulation, was with speculation. And right now there is not a lot of regulation 03:09:18.059 --> 03:09:26.898 - on the real estate market. And so what we were in favor of, what we as residents are in favor of was 03:09:26.898 --> 03:09:29.086 - regulating actually more 03:09:30.018 --> 03:09:37.296 - That there would be more opportunity for permanent affordability. So I was glad to see that introduced. 03:09:37.296 --> 03:09:44.714 - Thank you very much Any other comments anyone online No comments online. Okay. Thank you very much coming 03:09:44.714 --> 03:09:51.992 - back to council Any other comments? All right. We'll put this to a council member Stossberg I just want 03:09:51.992 --> 03:09:59.550 - to say that I'm not supportive of this reasonable condition. I mean partly because I mean I'm co-sponsoring 03:09:59.810 --> 03:10:07.373 - Updated reasonable condition number four and these two are not really aligned with each other but also 03:10:07.373 --> 03:10:14.863 - I I Really appreciate the folks who commented and said like yeah, we do have experience with this but 03:10:14.863 --> 03:10:20.958 - that's the kind of like neutral sort of Documentation that should be in our packet 03:10:21.122 --> 03:10:28.499 - honestly, like we shouldn't have to rely on hopefully somebody from the public comes who's actually 03:10:28.499 --> 03:10:36.244 - used this and We should be able to see that data and we haven't actually seen that data and I appreciate 03:10:36.244 --> 03:10:43.326 - that the the director of Hand put in a memo that it's true, but there was also no, you know, no 03:10:43.426 --> 03:10:52.335 - Reference to where she got heard information that I saw so I I want a little bit more information about 03:10:52.335 --> 03:11:01.244 - that before putting that in but secondly, I think that only having 15 percent of permanently affordable 03:11:01.244 --> 03:11:09.982 - units is not enough and It actually does say in our UDO in section, let's see 2006 oh seven oh four e 03:11:10.210 --> 03:11:17.025 - PUDs also have to meet additional requirements and the claim here is that they're meeting the additional 03:11:17.025 --> 03:11:23.516 - requirement of income restricting at least 10% more of the dwelling units at or below income levels 03:11:23.516 --> 03:11:30.526 - or Restricting the same number of dwelling units required to earn the tier one or tier two but limiting the 03:11:30.658 --> 03:11:37.088 - Incomes further down so either more units or lower incomes and I appreciate that they're saying, you 03:11:37.088 --> 03:11:43.709 - know in this that like 50% of units are kind of going to be naturally affordable, right because they're 03:11:43.709 --> 03:11:50.394 - small and so they they're going like well we meet that right, but These should be permanently affordable 03:11:50.394 --> 03:11:55.742 - units that extra 10% should be permanently affordable and this reasonable condition 03:11:55.874 --> 03:12:01.813 - says no, that's okay, just the 15% being permanently affordable and we can just kind of like wave and 03:12:01.813 --> 03:12:07.694 - adjust that requirement for these other units. They don't need to be permanently affordable and that 03:12:07.694 --> 03:12:13.633 - is something that reasonable condition four does ensure that it's not just the first 15 but it's also 03:12:13.633 --> 03:12:16.894 - the extra which once again are required as part of like 03:12:17.186 --> 03:12:23.443 - additional sort of PUD hoop to jump through and that's where you know comes into play this whole are 03:12:23.443 --> 03:12:29.948 - we talking about land use or are we talking about affordability but when we are up here deciding whether 03:12:29.948 --> 03:12:36.329 - or not to approve a PUD a very special request for land use our UDO tells us to consider affordability 03:12:36.329 --> 03:12:40.542 - therefore it is our job to consider affordability not just land use 03:12:41.282 --> 03:12:47.230 - And so that is what I contend, and that is why I'm gonna support reasonable condition number four and 03:12:47.230 --> 03:12:53.237 - not reasonable condition number five. And I also want to note that in the updated reasonable condition 03:12:53.237 --> 03:12:59.243 - number four, there is an addendum added about it doesn't just have to be deed restrictions, it doesn't 03:12:59.243 --> 03:13:05.133 - just have to be the land leases, but that there can be other things that you just have to bring back 03:13:05.133 --> 03:13:11.198 - to council basically and say, here's the proof of how it works, this is how we're actually gonna do it. 03:13:11.298 --> 03:13:18.528 - and I don't feel good about approving the concept of a plan right now. Thank you. Thank you so much. 03:13:18.528 --> 03:13:25.686 - Councilmember Flaherty. Thank you. First of all, just thank you to Councilmember Zulek for bringing 03:13:25.686 --> 03:13:33.059 - this reasonable condition. I think aspects of it, I, well, yeah, let me speak to, I guess, first, just 03:13:33.059 --> 03:13:40.862 - affirming that I agree with Councilmember Stosberg that affordability is absolutely part of the PUD process. 03:13:41.090 --> 03:13:47.986 - in the UDO as part of the process. And in particular, we actually are being asked to deviate from what 03:13:47.986 --> 03:13:54.748 - the UDO says. So just without question, factually, this is part of our decision-making and wanted to 03:13:54.748 --> 03:14:01.443 - clarify any ambiguity on that. We're not only considering land use, but substantively, I appreciate 03:14:01.443 --> 03:14:07.134 - what Council Member Zulek's reasonable condition is getting at. I think I am open to 03:14:07.330 --> 03:14:12.877 - flexibility on permanent affordability and exactly how we achieve that. I think I take very seriously 03:14:12.877 --> 03:14:18.532 - the concerns we've heard and the experiences we've heard from folks. I also know there's lots of cities 03:14:18.532 --> 03:14:24.242 - across the country that have longer running experience with permanent affordability and ownership models 03:14:24.242 --> 03:14:29.789 - than we do and that there's a variety of mechanisms to accomplish it and that we could probably learn 03:14:29.789 --> 03:14:35.934 - from them as well because this can be done successfully. I don't doubt that because lots of places are doing it. 03:14:36.098 --> 03:14:41.660 - The question is, what's the best mechanism? I am uncomfortable with the fact that we don't know what 03:14:41.660 --> 03:14:47.387 - the mechanism is going to be. I think, I know we're not discussing reasonable condition four right now, 03:14:47.387 --> 03:14:52.895 - but I think that reasonable condition does preserve flexibility as well. But unlike this reasonable 03:14:52.895 --> 03:14:58.732 - condition, which is just sort of leave it to the administration to report to us later, I think reasonable 03:14:58.732 --> 03:15:03.358 - condition four, by contrast, would actually, it names two mechanisms and if a third 03:15:03.554 --> 03:15:10.078 - flexible option is proposed, it would just require approval by the council, which I think is reasonable, 03:15:10.078 --> 03:15:16.601 - since we don't know what the mechanism is yet. I also do want to talk briefly about the fact that what's 03:15:16.601 --> 03:15:23.187 - proposed as permanently affordable deviates from what the UDO requires, because the UDO requires matching 03:15:23.187 --> 03:15:29.587 - the incentives level, 15%, and then doing more, either 10% more permanently affordable or reducing the 03:15:29.587 --> 03:15:30.270 - AMI level. 03:15:30.370 --> 03:15:35.740 - Mr. Rousseau mentioned this in his comments. It's on page 122 and 123 of the packet. For anybody who 03:15:35.740 --> 03:15:41.109 - wants to look, I asked a question to clarify, and the administration said, well, look, we can adjust 03:15:41.109 --> 03:15:46.798 - those PUD requirements from the UDO if forfeited by the city. In this case, specifically the city council, 03:15:46.798 --> 03:15:52.221 - because we're the approval entity. And they said, within this PUD, we're building in an adjustment to 03:15:52.221 --> 03:15:57.697 - the length of time for the affordability period for single-family residences, specifically to one-time 03:15:57.697 --> 03:15:58.494 - affordability. 03:15:58.914 --> 03:16:05.773 - And quote, the language in the UDO allows for an adjustment to the length of time for that affordability. 03:16:05.773 --> 03:16:12.309 - And I think the argument being made is that if we approve the PUD, we have agreed. We have agreed to 03:16:12.309 --> 03:16:18.845 - that adjustment that brings it to below the levels required by the UDO normally. And I just realized 03:16:18.845 --> 03:16:25.445 - how great of an irony that is, that we may not like doing less permanently affordable, but if we pass 03:16:25.445 --> 03:16:27.710 - the ordinance, we've agreed to it. 03:16:27.970 --> 03:16:34.226 - that there's echoes of that in reasonable conditions. And that if a petitioner doesn't withdraw the 03:16:34.226 --> 03:16:40.482 - petition and a council passes reasonable conditions, then they have agreed to them when we pass the 03:16:40.482 --> 03:16:46.863 - ordinance. Again, that's the legal interpretation and guidance we've had and used for the better part 03:16:46.863 --> 03:16:53.620 - of a decade without incident. So just recognizing that. And I think because the conflict between reasonable 03:16:53.620 --> 03:16:54.558 - condition five 03:16:54.690 --> 03:17:00.966 - or I'm not able to support five. But again, I do appreciate the sentiment and what's trying 03:17:00.966 --> 03:17:07.992 - to be accomplished. And I think reasonable condition four does also preserve flexibility in a way that 03:17:07.992 --> 03:17:14.881 - is broadly consistent with the aims, at least in my opinion, with the aims that reasonable condition 03:17:14.881 --> 03:17:21.771 - five has. So thank you. Thank you so much. All right. With that then, will the clerk please call the 03:17:21.771 --> 03:17:24.158 - roll on reasonable condition five? 03:17:32.418 --> 03:17:52.665 - Yes, councilmember Stasberg. No Piedmont Smith. No Zulik. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes Daley. Yes Rallo. No Ruff. 03:17:52.665 --> 03:18:01.342 - No Rosenberger. No clarity That motion fails 03:18:02.274 --> 03:18:16.306 - 6-3 Through six. Sorry. Mr. President. Yes, I would like to move That we postponed consideration of 03:18:16.306 --> 03:18:31.742 - ordinance twenty twenty six oh six until our April 1st meeting Okay for the reason that Well, just to explain 03:18:31.842 --> 03:18:40.677 - Because it seems to me that proceeding on three reasonable conditions three four seven through thirteen 03:18:40.677 --> 03:18:49.258 - is And of the opinion of corporate council tantamount to rejection of the petition And so we we have 03:18:49.258 --> 03:18:58.603 - conflicting legal judgment from the sponsors of the reasonable conditions And I think that we need resolution 03:18:58.603 --> 03:19:01.406 - of that before we can proceed to 03:19:01.602 --> 03:19:08.026 - consideration because I want to listen to them and make a decision based upon the merits and not on 03:19:08.026 --> 03:19:14.964 - Whether it disqualifies the an entire petition going forward. So That's my reason. Thank you. Councilmember 03:19:14.964 --> 03:19:17.726 - Rallo other discussion councilmember Zulek 03:19:18.882 --> 03:19:26.540 - Thank you. Earlier today, I heard someone say that we've been discussing Hopewell since 2017. So on 03:19:26.540 --> 03:19:33.509 - January 1st of 2017, I was 14 years old. Since then, I turned 16. I graduated high school. 03:19:33.509 --> 03:19:40.861 - I turned 18. I graduated college. I turned 21. I ran for office and won. Almost 10 years later, 03:19:40.861 --> 03:19:47.294 - I'm 23. I'm this council's vice president. And our city still has a housing crisis. 03:19:48.098 --> 03:19:54.543 - Out of the nine of us up here, I am the only one who does not own property. All of my eight colleagues 03:19:54.543 --> 03:20:01.050 - do, and my generation has no hope of following in their footsteps if we continue to let perfect prevent 03:20:01.050 --> 03:20:07.620 - good. So the people of this city deserve results, and that is why I will be voting against postponement. 03:20:07.620 --> 03:20:13.878 - Thank you, Council Member Zulek. Council Member Stasberg. I'm in favor of postponing right now, and 03:20:13.878 --> 03:20:16.318 - I just want to say something about the 03:20:16.514 --> 03:20:23.113 - Philosophical approach to this and I appreciate what council members just said and I appreciate that 03:20:23.113 --> 03:20:29.908 - we're in a housing crisis and I appreciate that We've been talking about this too long. What I disagree 03:20:29.908 --> 03:20:36.703 - with is that I don't think that it's better to do something than I mean It's not better if it's if it's 03:20:36.703 --> 03:20:39.774 - not good it is not better if it's not good and 03:20:40.258 --> 03:20:47.489 - And I am not convinced that it's good enough yet. I'm very concerned about this affordability issue. 03:20:47.489 --> 03:20:54.720 - And one of the philosophical, and I really don't appreciate the little comments that are coming from 03:20:54.720 --> 03:21:02.094 - the corner right now either. I think it shows a lack of respect. But I think that it also shows a real 03:21:02.094 --> 03:21:07.678 - difference in philosophy around affordability that I have with this petition. 03:21:08.546 --> 03:21:15.716 - During the presentation last week during it like within this packet. There's this real emphasis on building 03:21:15.716 --> 03:21:22.421 - equity About not wanting to limit the amount of equity that individual homebuyers can earn When they 03:21:22.421 --> 03:21:27.998 - purchase one of these properties so that 50% that they're saying is like affordable 03:21:28.162 --> 03:21:33.920 - the first time but might not be affordable the second time, well that is okay seemingly based on the 03:21:33.920 --> 03:21:40.077 - petition and based on the presentations that I've heard because those people that purchase those properties 03:21:40.077 --> 03:21:46.176 - are going to have built equity and built wealth and now they're going to be at an upper echelon of economy 03:21:46.176 --> 03:21:51.934 - and they deserve that. And I'm not saying that they deserve that, but I am saying that it should not 03:21:52.034 --> 03:21:58.862 - City government's use of resources to make sure that a few people get to gain lots of equity In a home 03:21:58.862 --> 03:22:05.557 - that they bought cheaply I think that it should be our responsibility to ensure that there is a much 03:22:05.557 --> 03:22:12.318 - as much affordability as possible for as many people as possible and we should not be in the business 03:22:12.318 --> 03:22:13.246 - as a city and 03:22:13.410 --> 03:22:19.438 - Trying to make sure that somebody goes, you know five paces up this up the economic scale Instead we 03:22:19.438 --> 03:22:25.525 - should really be trying to make sure everybody can at least get one or two up right or as many people 03:22:25.525 --> 03:22:31.732 - as possible Can get their needs met and that's why I think that we need greater permanent affordability 03:22:31.732 --> 03:22:37.700 - right now and hopeful and that's what this delay is about right now it is about whether or not this 03:22:37.700 --> 03:22:39.550 - property that the city owns is 03:22:40.322 --> 03:22:48.623 - is going to have houses on it that are going to be permanently affordable into the future for generations 03:22:48.623 --> 03:22:56.845 - of Bloomington residents, not just a few who happen to buy right now. And so that is why I am supportive 03:22:56.845 --> 03:23:04.519 - of this delay so that we can straighten this out and figure out how we can get the most permanent 03:23:04.519 --> 03:23:09.374 - affordability, the most affordability for the greatest number 03:23:10.018 --> 03:23:20.536 - Bloomington residents. Thank you. Thank you councilmember Stossberg. I guess clerk Bolden just to clarify 03:23:20.536 --> 03:23:30.757 - councilmember Rallo did you can you repeat your motion for me really quickly? Sure, I move to postpone 03:23:30.757 --> 03:23:39.390 - consideration of ordinance 2026 06 until April 1st regular session Any further comment 03:23:39.778 --> 03:23:46.045 - Was it just a repetition or was there? I just wanted to clarify, I misheard his motion, so I thought 03:23:46.045 --> 03:23:52.002 - he was saying till April 6th and that threw me a bit. Okay, thank you. Council Member Flaherty. 03:23:52.002 --> 03:23:58.269 - Thank you. I support the motion to postpone because we can't move forward in a productive way on the 03:23:58.269 --> 03:24:05.095 - remaining reasonable conditions when we have new legal guidance from the Corporation Council that contradicts 03:24:05.095 --> 03:24:08.446 - the legal guidance we've been following for a decade. 03:24:09.410 --> 03:24:14.817 - And I guess I'd just like to clarify now if we'll have a decision to make if we have contradictory legal 03:24:14.817 --> 03:24:20.017 - guidance and how we want to handle that. But I just want to be clear, I can't support this PUD as it 03:24:20.017 --> 03:24:25.424 - stands right now because it has substandard transportation infrastructure, in particular for pedestrians 03:24:25.424 --> 03:24:30.264 - in a way that I'm very confident we would not accept from another petitioner. It doesn't meet 03:24:30.264 --> 03:24:35.465 - the sustainability incentives section of the UDO, which I believe is needed and actually saves money 03:24:35.465 --> 03:24:36.958 - long-term, yes, incremental, 03:24:37.378 --> 03:24:44.480 - upfront cost increases, saving substantially on utility bills over time for generations. And it does 03:24:44.480 --> 03:24:51.722 - not meet EVO requirements on permanent affordability. And to be clear, yes, since 2017, it's now 2026, 03:24:51.722 --> 03:24:59.316 - the council taking some of its 90-day window to make sure we get this right within the purview or authority 03:24:59.316 --> 03:25:01.214 - is not the cause of delay. 03:25:01.634 --> 03:25:08.111 - and we shouldn't let anyone think that it is. I know the mayor's press release a few weeks ago tried 03:25:08.111 --> 03:25:14.717 - to pin a two week delay on the council as a source of housing affordability problems. I think that was 03:25:14.717 --> 03:25:21.130 - in poor form because it's just not accurate. So, I just wanted to clarify that we really do need to 03:25:21.130 --> 03:25:27.735 - resolve this reasonable conditions issue and that without the ability to consider them in the same way 03:25:27.735 --> 03:25:30.942 - we always have, I will not be supporting the PUD. 03:25:32.834 --> 03:25:40.696 - Thank You counselor Flaherty councilmember daily I'm not loan for making long speeches up here and I'm 03:25:40.696 --> 03:25:48.711 - not gonna break that Expectation tonight. I'm not in favor of postponing tonight for many of the reasons 03:25:48.711 --> 03:25:56.420 - that councilmember Zulik said but also just The longer we delay the the more issues we find the more 03:25:56.420 --> 03:25:59.550 - we nitpick and try to get to perfect and 03:25:59.714 --> 03:26:05.621 - I agree. This is a really big opportunity and we want to get it right But I also agree that the longer 03:26:05.621 --> 03:26:11.872 - we delay the more problematic It's probably going to be for all of us in the long run and the more expensive 03:26:11.872 --> 03:26:17.205 - the project is going to be which is going to create Even more debate and greater hardship on 03:26:17.205 --> 03:26:22.654 - the affordability issue. So those are my thoughts and why I do not think we should delay Daily 03:26:22.654 --> 03:26:24.030 - I'm councilmember Allah 03:26:24.930 --> 03:26:31.840 - Yeah, just to say that I want to focus on points of agreement. I think that there are some very wonderful 03:26:31.840 --> 03:26:38.685 - things about this petition. I'm disappointed that, and I agree with my colleagues, that these reasonable 03:26:38.685 --> 03:26:44.943 - conditions have been something that we have done in the past, and I think that this is somewhat 03:26:44.943 --> 03:26:51.006 - precedent-setting if we surrender that. Unfortunately, it comes at a time when we don't have 03:26:51.138 --> 03:26:57.388 - Council attorney to refer to so we have to get outside council. I'm hoping But I agree with the mayor 03:26:57.388 --> 03:27:03.516 - that I want affordability For as many residents as possible, but that means temporarily right if we 03:27:03.516 --> 03:27:09.705 - can maintain permanent affordability Then we're going to maximize the number of people that can live 03:27:09.705 --> 03:27:16.446 - in an affordable dwelling and other communities have done it but we've waited for this for over two years and 03:27:16.770 --> 03:27:23.538 - And so these arguments that council is the one that's holding it up and that we need to move on this 03:27:23.538 --> 03:27:30.372 - I'm baffled by it The council is not responsible for that. The council has only had this for a couple 03:27:30.372 --> 03:27:37.140 - of weeks. So I you know, maybe this is meant to as a means of some kind of coercion to Move quickly, 03:27:37.140 --> 03:27:44.176 - but I think that we have waited for this and therefore it's important and therefore we should be careful 03:27:44.176 --> 03:27:45.918 - because this is something 03:27:46.210 --> 03:27:52.745 - And by the way, if we can't live up to the spirit of the UDO, then how can we possibly expect private 03:27:52.745 --> 03:27:59.280 - developers to do it if we don't set the example? We own that property. We should be able to offer it, 03:27:59.280 --> 03:28:05.879 - it seems to me. And so I'm interested in the arguments of these reasonable conditions, and I'm looking 03:28:05.879 --> 03:28:12.350 - forward to hearing them, hopefully. Bye. Thank you. Thank you so much. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. 03:28:15.586 --> 03:28:25.439 - Yes, first of all, I want to go back to the common ground that I think all of us share. We want to use 03:28:25.439 --> 03:28:35.674 - this city land to benefit the community to the greatest extent possible. This is a very unusual situation. 03:28:35.674 --> 03:28:43.422 - The city owns the land. We don't have any bonds to pay back. We own it outright. 03:28:44.258 --> 03:28:52.537 - Given that we just have some different opinions on what is the best community use that we can get here. 03:28:52.537 --> 03:29:00.656 - I think we can get more permanently affordable units here. And I know that the mayor I've spoken with 03:29:00.656 --> 03:29:08.616 - her said that the 15 percent is a minimum and that they would really like to get more 30 percent or 03:29:08.616 --> 03:29:13.790 - so permanently affordable. And that's wonderful. And I hope that 03:29:13.954 --> 03:29:23.157 - That succeeds but if it's not in the PewDie then there's no legal commitment Now this idea that this 03:29:23.157 --> 03:29:32.360 - has been talked to death since 2017 is a bit Exaggerated the city didn't even own the property until 03:29:32.360 --> 03:29:41.472 - 2018 The hospital was still there until the end of 2021 Demolition took a whole year. I mean, let's 03:29:41.472 --> 03:29:43.294 - not exaggerate here 03:29:44.034 --> 03:29:51.835 - And yes, I agree, we were involved early in the process since last fall, since Flintlock was hired and 03:29:51.835 --> 03:29:59.484 - did a study and all this. But at that time, we had no reason to believe that our transportation plan 03:29:59.484 --> 03:30:07.209 - would not be followed, that our permanent affordability requirements in the UDO for PUDs would not be 03:30:07.209 --> 03:30:13.950 - met, and that our decades-long practice of adding reasonable conditions to PUD approvals 03:30:14.530 --> 03:30:24.842 - would be considered illegal. So don't put this on us. With all due respect, we are asserting our prerogative 03:30:24.842 --> 03:30:34.587 - and our legal right to try to make this project even better. So I'm opposed to voting on this tonight. 03:30:34.587 --> 03:30:43.102 - I don't feel comfortable doing that because of the legal questions that have been raised. 03:30:44.066 --> 03:30:51.224 - I would eventually like to vote on this, but I think we need more time. I mean, vote for this, but I 03:30:51.224 --> 03:30:58.524 - think we need more time. Thank you. Council Member Rosenberger. Thank you. I want to touch on a couple 03:30:58.524 --> 03:31:05.824 - of points that other council members have not yet, and I think it is mostly about reasonable condition 03:31:05.824 --> 03:31:09.438 - four. I mean, I support postponing this right now. 03:31:10.210 --> 03:31:18.188 - I would like to say a lot of council members tonight in their closing remarks have talked about needing 03:31:18.188 --> 03:31:25.552 - more permanent affordability in this PUD and that the UDO does require either 15% plus an extra 03:31:25.552 --> 03:31:33.529 - 10 permanently affordable or lowering the AMI 10% on that 15%. Many folks I think said they don't wanna 03:31:33.529 --> 03:31:40.126 - deviate from that part of the UDO. I really appreciate the administration saying that 03:31:41.122 --> 03:31:48.991 - they plan to make more affordable, permanently affordable in this PUD. But I would agree with council 03:31:48.991 --> 03:31:56.784 - member Piedmont Smith that then we needed to be part of this PUD. And I think that this postponement 03:31:56.784 --> 03:32:04.807 - for me is to figure out the legality of reasonable conditions. So I think in this week, we need to hire 03:32:04.807 --> 03:32:09.822 - an attorney that works in local government and regulatory law to 03:32:10.466 --> 03:32:17.272 - take a look at this for us. I also, though, think this gives us an opportunity to, I don't know, potentially 03:32:17.272 --> 03:32:23.640 - work with the administration on reasonable condition number four. I think, you know, I was the scribe 03:32:23.640 --> 03:32:29.509 - for that, but there were six council members who weighed in on it and edited and made changes 03:32:29.509 --> 03:32:33.630 - and suggestions. So I think it's very real that we want a written 03:32:34.594 --> 03:32:41.616 - commitment to more permanent affordability, and I think that would just go a long way. I emailed this 03:32:41.616 --> 03:32:48.500 - reasonable condition individually to everyone in an email, and whoever responded to me, I responded 03:32:48.500 --> 03:32:55.798 - back, and that is, just so you know, that's how it got done, individual conversations with my colleagues. 03:32:55.798 --> 03:33:01.374 - Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? I'll just make one brief one here that 03:33:02.818 --> 03:33:10.920 - Thank you all for for your work in patience and and you all know sort of the the place from which You 03:33:10.920 --> 03:33:19.101 - know my sort of starting point in all of this is that I am fully convinced that That we are all trying 03:33:19.101 --> 03:33:27.838 - to do what's best for the city in our at least as we are persuaded I'm a little concerned that that we're not 03:33:29.570 --> 03:33:37.694 - I think that some of our conversations today have not been tied to the appropriate antithesis. Namely, 03:33:37.694 --> 03:33:45.660 - I think that if the question on the table was whether we pass certain reasonable conditions, whether 03:33:45.660 --> 03:33:53.626 - the petitioner would withdraw, I don't know if that changes, for example, how we would judge each of 03:33:53.626 --> 03:33:58.910 - these petitions. So what I'm saying is we're having a conversation 03:33:59.042 --> 03:34:06.176 - right now about whether or not we can pass reasonable conditions. But had the conversation been simply 03:34:06.176 --> 03:34:12.478 - that, hey, if you do reasonable condition four, we're stopping it, would we have all said, 03:34:12.610 --> 03:34:18.920 - Well, stop it then or would we have had a different, you know more productive conversation? And so I'm 03:34:18.920 --> 03:34:25.169 - just a little concerned that and the reason why I don't want to postpone is because I don't think yet 03:34:25.169 --> 03:34:31.847 - in this in this motion to postpone that we've heard from the petitioner about You know what the implications 03:34:31.847 --> 03:34:34.910 - of postponement may be I don't I don't think that 03:34:35.106 --> 03:34:41.009 - that we've discussed things in the way that would allow us to weigh things equally, so I think that 03:34:41.009 --> 03:34:47.031 - at the moment we're basically just having somewhat of a theoretical conversation about things that we 03:34:47.031 --> 03:34:53.111 - value, and I think that that's really important. I do think that all of those values matter a lot, but 03:34:53.111 --> 03:34:54.174 - I also think that 03:34:54.498 --> 03:35:02.086 - you know, we're talking about a block within a larger unit as a sort of model for us to do other things. 03:35:02.086 --> 03:35:09.458 - And so I don't know if we came up, I think, outside of Councilmember Flaherty's comment with a clear, 03:35:09.458 --> 03:35:14.878 - you know, without this, I cannot support type of statement. And so I just, 03:35:14.978 --> 03:35:20.982 - Wonder if we could not postpone so that we could have a little bit of that conversation also note that 03:35:20.982 --> 03:35:26.810 - we haven't had public comment after making people sit until 10, which is also not our precedent the 03:35:26.810 --> 03:35:32.697 - last thing that I'll say is you know, I do think that this this question of Of whether or not we can 03:35:32.697 --> 03:35:38.526 - do reasonable conditions shows very clearly why we need our why we need our own lawyer but but also 03:35:39.106 --> 03:35:44.463 - You know a again sort of like what we're attaching on to You know, there is this conversation about 03:35:44.463 --> 03:35:49.981 - well There are certain things that whether or not they be reasonable whether or not be the appropriate 03:35:49.981 --> 03:35:55.284 - conditions that they could be agreements But again, we didn't give space to have that conversation 03:35:55.284 --> 03:35:59.998 - necessarily and I think that that's also a little bit a little bit concerning so I mean 03:36:00.194 --> 03:36:08.857 - My first point, please. Let's not postpone but My my I guess my second give some evidence for maybe 03:36:08.857 --> 03:36:17.867 - why we should but you know alas that that is My best best hopes at trying to convince us otherwise Okay 03:36:17.867 --> 03:36:26.963 - with no more time for comments will the clerk please call the roll on the motion to postpone until April 03:36:26.963 --> 03:36:29.822 - 1st Councilmember Piedmont Smith 03:36:30.786 --> 03:36:47.319 - Yes. Zulek. No. Asari. No. Daly. No. Rallo. Yes. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. 03:36:47.319 --> 03:37:00.286 - All right. That motion carries six three. That'll be postponed until April 1st. 03:37:00.674 --> 03:37:12.122 - Which is our next meeting next Wednesday All right moving on. Are there any motions? I Move that resolution 03:37:12.122 --> 03:37:22.722 - 2026-05 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second There's a motion in a 03:37:22.722 --> 03:37:30.142 - second Yeah, please call the roll Councilmember Zulek, yes, I'm sorry 03:37:30.818 --> 03:37:54.867 - No. Daily? Yes. Rollo? Yes. Ruff? Yes. Rosenbacher? Oh, okay. Clarity? Yes. Stossberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith? 03:37:54.867 --> 03:37:58.430 - Yes. Thank you. 03:38:03.490 --> 03:38:12.704 - Sorry, sorry that that motion carries. It was my I was supposed to know it's fine. I move that Yeah, 03:38:12.704 --> 03:38:22.282 - sorry. I move that resolution 2026. Oh five be Moved adopted second Sorry, there's a motion and a second 03:38:22.282 --> 03:38:29.854 - it's Yeah, go ahead councilmember because we're very sorry not to be adopted to be 03:38:30.274 --> 03:38:38.608 - Sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This was my my fault. I was I was distracted but there was a motion in 03:38:38.608 --> 03:38:47.025 - the second it passed 7-1 clerk Will you please read by title and synopsis? Okay Resolution 2026-05 a 03:38:47.025 --> 03:38:54.942 - resolution to initiate a proposal to amend title 20 the unified development order ordinance of 03:39:00.706 --> 03:39:06.227 - of the Bloomington Municipal Code in order to improve sustainability and housing affordability. The 03:39:06.227 --> 03:39:11.747 - synopsis is as follows. This resolution, sponsored by Council Member Flaherty, directs the Planning 03:39:11.747 --> 03:39:17.323 - Commission to prepare amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance regarding, one, a reduction of 03:39:17.323 --> 03:39:22.844 - minimum lot widths, lot areas, and building setback requirements to better align with Bloomington's 03:39:22.844 --> 03:39:28.585 - historic form and character, and, two, sustainability incentives and plan unit development requirements 03:39:28.585 --> 03:39:30.462 - for building electrification, and 03:39:30.786 --> 03:39:39.451 - Three, the elimination of minimum parking requirements to facilitate housing development and reduce 03:39:39.451 --> 03:39:48.549 - housing costs. That is all. Thank you. Now I move that resolution 2026-05 be adopted. Second. All right, 03:39:48.549 --> 03:39:57.993 - Council Member Flaherty had taken away. Thank you. I recognize it is 10-10. I wanted to, so we've introduced 03:39:57.993 --> 03:40:00.766 - the resolution, which is great. 03:40:00.898 --> 03:40:07.169 - And I guess I would be interested in what my colleagues think. Maybe their votes to introduce were a 03:40:07.169 --> 03:40:13.813 - signal that they want to move forward. But I guess if folks felt otherwise and actually wanted to postpone 03:40:13.813 --> 03:40:20.582 - on this to a future meeting, I'm supportive of that. So I didn't want to rush into it headlong. So actually, 03:40:20.582 --> 03:40:26.853 - if it's not out of order by President Saree, does it make sense to actually ask folks that question? 03:40:26.853 --> 03:40:30.206 - Or do you want me to just present? I can do that too. 03:40:30.402 --> 03:40:39.774 - That's a perfect question. So colleagues, are you OK? If you wanted to make a motion, I suppose, then 03:40:39.774 --> 03:40:49.330 - it could be a question. Does anybody want to make a motion so that we can discuss this question? I move 03:40:49.330 --> 03:40:58.334 - to postpone, I don't remember the number, the ordinance, the resolution being discussed. 2026.05. 03:41:00.546 --> 03:41:08.001 - 2026 05 I think we need to postpone to a date. Yes, and I Would move to postpone to April 1st resolution 03:41:08.001 --> 03:41:15.598 - 2026 05 second Okay, there's a motion to second any discussion Please councilmember Stossberg. Why exactly 03:41:15.598 --> 03:41:22.911 - would we postpone? I'm confused late We voted to move it forward to introduce. I'm well, I'm okay with 03:41:22.911 --> 03:41:30.366 - just going forward of the presentation I don't feel like I need to postpone it on this right now. Thanks 03:41:32.066 --> 03:41:42.360 - I'm also okay with postponement. I Don't think that we need to introduce resolution 20 2606 either I 03:41:42.360 --> 03:41:52.757 - think that both of these were coming were intended to come after we vote on Hopewell So that would be 03:41:52.757 --> 03:42:01.726 - my reasoning for postponing both of them but open to either pretty neutral I'm agnostic 03:42:02.594 --> 03:42:08.948 - Council member Flaherty. I'd also be happy to present and you know, at any point we could choose to 03:42:08.948 --> 03:42:15.430 - postpone to a second reading if we basically just like, feel like people need, like I've had at least 03:42:15.430 --> 03:42:21.911 - one colleague tell me that their time was primarily taken up by preparation for the Hopewell PUD, the 03:42:21.911 --> 03:42:28.520 - previous ordinance and would perhaps like more time on the resolution. I do think it stands alone while 03:42:28.520 --> 03:42:29.918 - it made sense to come 03:42:30.178 --> 03:42:36.017 - at the same time as and in conjunction with the Hopewell South PUD, in my opinion, for reasons I can 03:42:36.017 --> 03:42:41.857 - share. It does stand alone and we could at least have the presentation, but that may be postponed. I 03:42:41.857 --> 03:42:47.696 - think I'm anticipating we will ultimately need to postpone because I don't know if everybody will be 03:42:47.696 --> 03:42:53.709 - ready for final action. Thank you so much, Councilmember Flaherty. We're just trying to fix the screens 03:42:53.709 --> 03:42:54.750 - again, I'm sorry. 03:42:54.914 --> 03:43:01.843 - Oh, I have my hand up. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Because we couldn't, I actually could not see you. So 03:43:01.843 --> 03:43:09.119 - thank you for saying that. Yeah, that's what I thought. I would say, I think I agree with council member 03:43:09.119 --> 03:43:16.048 - Zulik. I think they, I anticipated them all getting discussed together. I also think is it possible 03:43:16.048 --> 03:43:19.166 - to do a presentation and then postpone? Yes. 03:43:21.922 --> 03:43:28.730 - Yeah, I mean, you'd have to withdraw the motion. Yeah, we'd have to withdraw the motion and then we 03:43:28.730 --> 03:43:35.675 - can, yeah. Now we can see you. I would like to withdraw my motion. Okay, the motion's been withdrawn. 03:43:35.675 --> 03:43:42.755 - Okay, unless there's other motions, Councilmember Flaherty, take it away. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. 03:43:42.755 --> 03:43:49.768 - So there is a presentation for this, which maybe staff that are supporting the Zoom portion can share. 03:43:49.768 --> 03:43:51.742 - It's also in the packet with 03:43:52.514 --> 03:43:59.906 - Yeah, I'll get into that momentarily. So while I corrected the ordinance number on the title slide of 03:43:59.906 --> 03:44:07.297 - the presentation, I did not correct it on subsequent slides, so forgive the typo. I guess high level, 03:44:07.297 --> 03:44:14.689 - I just want, beyond the synopsis that the clerk read, I wanted to share the high level context before 03:44:14.689 --> 03:44:20.414 - getting to the presentation itself. So first, just a logistical note, this is, 03:44:20.546 --> 03:44:30.388 - 98% consistent with the resolution 2025-05 that I had developed previously. That was developed actually 03:44:30.388 --> 03:44:39.851 - starting way back in 2023 with Director Robinson at the time, and then in conjunction with Director 03:44:39.851 --> 03:44:49.598 - Hittle throughout 2024 in a series of meetings about all of the substantive things in this resolution. 03:44:49.762 --> 03:44:56.796 - As you'll note, they are also mirrored, all of them, I believe, more or less, except for the sustainability 03:44:56.796 --> 03:45:03.375 - piece, in the Hopewell PUD. And so that's why I thought it was a good time to talk about it, because 03:45:03.375 --> 03:45:10.083 - maybe we were in a new place with respect to recognizing that these are important solutions to advance 03:45:10.083 --> 03:45:15.294 - housing attainability, affordability, and availability in Bloomington. I think, 03:45:15.426 --> 03:45:20.988 - There was a quote actually from Director Killian Hanson in the HOPE OPD materials that said, this model 03:45:20.988 --> 03:45:26.337 - creates affordability through design, not only regulation, the goal is not to ration affordability, 03:45:26.337 --> 03:45:31.685 - it's to produce it. And I think that's actually, it's really well put. I think with respect to this 03:45:31.685 --> 03:45:37.248 - resolution, that's the goal. These are systems level changes that are relatively minor and incremental, 03:45:37.248 --> 03:45:42.810 - and they are aimed at providing systems level solutions because they would apply throughout residential 03:45:42.810 --> 03:45:44.254 - Bloomington. So with that, 03:45:44.450 --> 03:45:50.473 - Just a summary at the high level. Next slide. Just to remind on process here, this resolution would 03:45:50.473 --> 03:45:56.617 - initiate a 90-day process for the planning commission with planning and transportation staff support, 03:45:56.617 --> 03:46:02.641 - no doubt, and maybe other staff support to recommend amendments to the UDO. So this resolution does 03:46:02.641 --> 03:46:08.905 - not itself create policy change. It directs a process to propose policy changes that this council would 03:46:08.905 --> 03:46:14.206 - ultimately consider and vote on based on the recommendation of the planning commission. 03:46:14.338 --> 03:46:20.478 - So again, as was covered in the synopsis, this involves basically some shifts to minimum lot areas and 03:46:20.478 --> 03:46:26.618 - lot widths, as well as potential changes to things that would be logical to change in conjunction with 03:46:26.618 --> 03:46:32.579 - that. It would add building electrification requirements to the sustainable development incentives, 03:46:32.579 --> 03:46:38.898 - as well as make clear that PUD proposals need to follow those and eliminate minimum parking requirements. 03:46:38.898 --> 03:46:41.342 - Next slide. So as far as process, again, 03:46:41.730 --> 03:46:48.255 - forget the 2025 references that really should say 2026. This is the statutory tool that we have by state 03:46:48.255 --> 03:46:54.780 - code to direct policy changes. So when we think there should be a change to the UDO, this is the process 03:46:54.780 --> 03:47:01.305 - we follow. Of course, there's also a process in which staff can initiate UDO changes. They also do that. 03:47:01.305 --> 03:47:07.581 - We've done both regularly for a long time, including during this term of council. So that was just a 03:47:07.581 --> 03:47:10.750 - few examples. As far as exactly what would happen, 03:47:11.266 --> 03:47:16.819 - This resolution gives a general policy direction, but it's not the policy itself that does need to be 03:47:16.819 --> 03:47:22.699 - developed. I would intend or hope to work with the administration, specifically planning and transportation 03:47:22.699 --> 03:47:28.633 - staff, to ensure alignment as that is developed. And then again, it would go through the planning commission 03:47:28.633 --> 03:47:34.403 - to the city council, but the planning commission and city council meetings or process would entail public 03:47:34.403 --> 03:47:35.710 - engagement and comment. 03:47:35.970 --> 03:47:43.611 - But we can certainly add additional public input on particular topics if we wanted to along the way. 03:47:43.611 --> 03:47:51.403 - So getting into the meat of it, we can go to the next slide. So the first section is about minimum lot 03:47:51.403 --> 03:47:59.346 - areas and lot widths and proposes to reduce them in R1, R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts broadly to match 03:47:59.346 --> 03:48:02.750 - the historical development patterns we have. 03:48:03.202 --> 03:48:09.174 - Uh, and so I'll get into a few actual examples of that looking at maps, but we have lots of, um, uh, 03:48:09.174 --> 03:48:15.264 - non-compliant lots right now. And, uh, actually allowing us to develop consistent with this historical 03:48:15.264 --> 03:48:21.413 - development patterns would open up a lot of development opportunities for small scale modest homes that 03:48:21.413 --> 03:48:27.444 - are going to be better at achieving market rate affordability, uh, just like, uh, the models, uh, for 03:48:27.444 --> 03:48:30.046 - the Hopewell South PUD are showing. So, um, 03:48:30.402 --> 03:48:36.043 - Again, the rationale is to add some gentle density with all the benefits that come with it, greater 03:48:36.043 --> 03:48:41.797 - affordability from modest home sizes, modest lot sizes, useless energy. When you have a smaller home, 03:48:41.797 --> 03:48:47.720 - when we're looking at infill, people are closer to amenities, reducing transportation needs and possibly 03:48:47.720 --> 03:48:53.136 - costs if they need fewer vehicles. So these are all good things, things that our goals support. 03:48:53.136 --> 03:48:58.833 - And so again, we have lots of nonconforming lots, especially in R3 and R4, maybe a little less so in 03:48:58.833 --> 03:48:59.454 - R2 and R1, 03:48:59.554 --> 03:49:05.822 - there's only a handful of lots total. So good form-based zoning would not generally set these kinds 03:49:05.822 --> 03:49:12.215 - of things. They might set maximum lot widths, but not have these like minimum lot sizes like we have. 03:49:12.215 --> 03:49:18.734 - And while we don't have a form-based code, we have some form-based elements. And I think we could still 03:49:18.734 --> 03:49:25.503 - add some of those to our current UDO and make meaningful progress. Again, section two, I'm kind of handling 03:49:25.503 --> 03:49:28.574 - both here at the same time, section one and two. 03:49:28.770 --> 03:49:35.316 - also invite consideration of potential changes that need to follow from minimum lot size and lot width. 03:49:35.316 --> 03:49:41.610 - So if you're allowing now, say, a 2,500 square foot lot, the setbacks that we have for, say, R4 may 03:49:41.610 --> 03:49:48.345 - not make sense anymore. And so those may be worth taking a look at. Same thing with the impervious surface 03:49:48.345 --> 03:49:53.758 - coverage maximums, the lot frontage requirements. We may want to consider things like 03:49:53.858 --> 03:50:00.426 - If you front on an improved alley, for instance, that is good enough because you could build an ADU 03:50:00.426 --> 03:50:07.059 - there. Why not a small scale home? And also the subdivision standards themselves, which would relate 03:50:07.059 --> 03:50:13.889 - to this. There are likely, again, lots of, definitely hundreds, probably thousands of legal preexisting 03:50:13.889 --> 03:50:20.456 - nonconforming lots. And that doesn't make a ton of sense either. Why don't we have zoning code that 03:50:20.456 --> 03:50:22.558 - actually reflects what we have? 03:50:23.426 --> 03:50:31.135 - So next slide, please. This is just a look at the R3 zoning district dimensional standards by way of 03:50:31.135 --> 03:50:38.921 - to illustrate by example. So 5,000 square foot minimum lot area and a 50 foot minimum lot width. Most 03:50:38.921 --> 03:50:46.706 - of our older gridded neighborhoods are R3 zone. And you see the setbacks there as well, the build two 03:50:46.706 --> 03:50:53.118 - lines and the various setbacks, including 25 feet rear setback, for instance, which 03:50:53.250 --> 03:51:00.282 - would probably be a problem if we had smaller lots. So next slide, please. This is a screenshot of a 03:51:00.282 --> 03:51:07.662 - small section of Prospect Hill, which is a neighborhood I've lived in. Actually, 509 there on Howe Street 03:51:07.662 --> 03:51:14.624 - I lived in in 2013 and 14. And I still live nearby. So I'm very familiar with these streets. And if 03:51:14.624 --> 03:51:20.542 - you look in particular, I'd like to direct your attention to between Howe and Smith, 03:51:20.770 --> 03:51:27.032 - House Street and Smith Avenue, those couple of blocks. And so the next slide we zoom in, so that was 03:51:27.032 --> 03:51:33.295 - kind of for context. Now we see just what we've got side by side. So you've got in the red lot sizes 03:51:33.295 --> 03:51:39.619 - that range from six to 8,000 square feet. So those comply with the, you know, they're conforming with 03:51:39.619 --> 03:51:46.068 - the 5,000 square foot minimum lot area and the 50 foot minimum lot width. Then if you look to the right 03:51:46.068 --> 03:51:50.718 - across that alley, you've got four homes on House Street and Smith Avenue. 03:51:51.010 --> 03:51:58.633 - that are nonconforming lots. They're in the range of 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. They're all single-family 03:51:58.633 --> 03:52:06.042 - homes, and they're smaller, obviously, because of the smaller lot. And this is a little bit of a unique 03:52:06.042 --> 03:52:12.382 - property because we've got one street backing up to another. That doesn't always happen. 03:52:12.994 --> 03:52:19.153 - But it does happen some, and again, if we look at frontage options like Alley's, I think that that'll 03:52:19.153 --> 03:52:25.432 - also expand options. So that's an example of some non-conforming lots. And then the third example there 03:52:25.432 --> 03:52:31.893 - in the yellow is actually a home with an ADU. And so if we made a change that allowed, say, either there's 03:52:31.893 --> 03:52:37.931 - no lot minimum or if there's a lot minimum that's more like 1,500 square feet or 2,000 square feet, 03:52:37.931 --> 03:52:42.942 - what could happen is any of those owners at 600, 606, 612 in their big red circle, 03:52:43.042 --> 03:52:49.861 - They could choose, if they wanted to, to subdivide their lot, sell it to somebody, develop it themselves, 03:52:49.861 --> 03:52:56.295 - whatever they wanna do, have another small home on another small lot. And that's three new modestly 03:52:56.295 --> 03:53:02.857 - priced market rate, relatively affordable homes in Bloomington that aren't allowed today. We see that 03:53:02.857 --> 03:53:09.355 - from the blue circle, what's possible historically. And then the yellow example too, I think in that 03:53:09.355 --> 03:53:13.022 - case, the ADU might've been added in a familial context, 03:53:13.282 --> 03:53:18.920 - it illustrates again that we can build something there now that's an ADU, but we can't do it as a separate 03:53:18.920 --> 03:53:24.190 - unit. And I think we've had, you know, some success with the ADUs, but it's been very slow and very 03:53:24.190 --> 03:53:29.617 - incremental. And the reasons for that are many, you know, we have a restriction that might affect land 03:53:29.617 --> 03:53:34.887 - alienability with ownership, but I think more to the point, it's probably financing. Like if that's 03:53:34.887 --> 03:53:39.998 - going to cost you $150, $200,000 to build, you're going to really want that ADU. And if instead, 03:53:40.226 --> 03:53:47.075 - you don't have to finance it because you're subdividing your lot and simply selling it to somebody. 03:53:47.075 --> 03:53:53.924 - It's just a wildly different prospect. And so next slide, please. I have one other example, drawing 03:53:53.924 --> 03:54:00.363 - on the South Dunn Street and unit development and looking at a few things here. And so again, 03:54:00.363 --> 03:54:07.486 - this is a PUD. So it didn't follow the district dimensional standards in the UDO, but it's got its own. 03:54:07.650 --> 03:54:14.994 - but it is surrounded by R3 zoning in South End of Bryant Park. And the lot areas kind of range from 03:54:14.994 --> 03:54:22.338 - about 3,000 to 5,000 square feet, depending. And the lot widths are about 30 to 50 feet. Again, all 03:54:22.338 --> 03:54:30.343 - of those are not allowed in the R3 zoning or the R4 zoning, I don't believe. And they have smaller setbacks. 03:54:30.343 --> 03:54:37.246 - It works very well. If folks have not been down that street, I encourage you to check it out. 03:54:37.442 --> 03:54:45.212 - It's maybe worked so well, it's a victim of its own success and it's not very affordable. Also the homes 03:54:45.212 --> 03:54:52.982 - aren't necessarily the most modestly sized with the exception of some of the ones that are pre-existing. 03:54:52.982 --> 03:55:00.678 - So the ones actually that front on Driscoll and Grimes in those circles on the right, you see 524, 505, 03:55:00.678 --> 03:55:06.302 - 506, those are pre-existing homes that I believe that are on those corners. 03:55:06.562 --> 03:55:12.910 - But that also has the upshot of making some of those lots even smaller. So 1201 and 1205 in the green 03:55:12.910 --> 03:55:19.134 - circle are quite a bit smaller, for instance, and 1301 in the blue circle. And those ones, relative 03:55:19.134 --> 03:55:25.483 - to their neighbors, are a little bit more affordable. So I still wouldn't call the South Sudan Street 03:55:25.483 --> 03:55:31.582 - development very affordable anymore. But again, it illustrates just adding housing supply through 03:55:31.906 --> 03:55:38.922 - gentle increases in density, infill that matches the historical development patterns of our neighborhoods. 03:55:38.922 --> 03:55:45.479 - And that's really all I have to kind of about the rationale piece on lot width and minimums, sorry, 03:55:45.479 --> 03:55:52.560 - lot widths and lot size minimums. Next section takes us to a, sorry, the next slide takes us to a different 03:55:52.560 --> 03:55:59.380 - substantive section, which would be around building electrification. So I mentioned this when we talked 03:55:59.380 --> 03:56:01.150 - about reasonable condition 03:56:01.410 --> 03:56:09.318 - Sorry, next slide, please. When we talked about reasonable condition six in the previous ordinance, 03:56:09.318 --> 03:56:17.858 - I talked about our climate action plan, actually EB4A2, and just how our community goals of decarbonization 03:56:17.858 --> 03:56:25.844 - require widespread building electrification. That's the path we're on. It's the only consistent path 03:56:25.844 --> 03:56:27.742 - with our climate goals. 03:56:28.162 --> 03:56:34.298 - Blue states have recognized this and have plans to do so. We don't have the ability to mandate these 03:56:34.298 --> 03:56:40.798 - kind of things, but we can use incentives just like we do with affordability and sustainability incentives 03:56:40.798 --> 03:56:47.177 - currently to encourage it. It's price competitive on the development side, so we're not driving up costs 03:56:47.177 --> 03:56:53.434 - on the front end. And we've seen large PUDs, like the Trinitas PUD, developed off of Arlington and the 03:56:53.434 --> 03:56:56.958 - Summit PUD doing either entirely electric or close to it. 03:56:57.186 --> 03:57:04.678 - And when you're using efficient equipment and pairing with building efficiency, which is part of the 03:57:04.678 --> 03:57:12.393 - current sustainable development incentives, you also are ensuring that the operating costs, the utility 03:57:12.393 --> 03:57:19.885 - bills are going to be affordable. So this would add a requirement that for options one or two in the 03:57:19.885 --> 03:57:27.006 - sustainable development incentives, we would include building electrification as a requirement. 03:57:27.106 --> 03:57:33.684 - And some benefits, I guess, in terms of indoor air quality and health outcomes. There's been a lot of 03:57:33.684 --> 03:57:40.262 - increased attention in recent years about the health hazard of fossil fuel appliances inside the home 03:57:40.262 --> 03:57:46.711 - as a major driver of childhood asthma, for instance, and other chemicals and pollutants in the home 03:57:46.711 --> 03:57:53.418 - that can cause respiratory problems and other issues. And so again, I referenced those voluntary recent 03:57:53.418 --> 03:57:56.062 - examples that demonstrate its viability. 03:57:56.578 --> 03:58:02.507 - And the next slide is kind of related, which is about planned unit development district standards. 03:58:02.507 --> 03:58:08.495 - Then again, the climate action plan specifically calls out that PUDs should require, that we should 03:58:08.495 --> 03:58:14.603 - seek to require electrification through PUDs. And the proposed change is that we would update the PUD 03:58:14.603 --> 03:58:20.951 - district standards to require alignment with the, sorry, there's a typo here. We could scratch affordable 03:58:20.951 --> 03:58:25.502 - housing section on that, at the top of that slide in a prior draft of this, 03:58:25.602 --> 03:58:32.997 - resolution there was a section on affordable housing incentives, but this is only sustainable development 03:58:32.997 --> 03:58:40.113 - incentives and it would just make sure that PUD districts, PUDs have to comply with them. The current 03:58:40.113 --> 03:58:47.228 - PUD qualifying standards on sustainability are quite vague and really not consistent with our climate 03:58:47.228 --> 03:58:52.670 - action plan. So looking to improve that. And I think that's it on that slide. 03:58:53.730 --> 03:59:00.740 - The next slide is the last kind of third bucket of substantive change here. And that would be to eliminate 03:59:00.740 --> 03:59:07.554 - minimum parking requirements citywide. And so minimum parking mandates often prevent housing from being 03:59:07.554 --> 03:59:14.303 - built. And so if you can't fit it on the lot, because you're looking at a small scale lot development, 03:59:14.303 --> 03:59:21.182 - you might not be able to build it at all. They tend to exacerbate sprawl and can increase housing costs. 03:59:21.730 --> 03:59:27.590 - Not a clarification. This does not propose changing maximum parking allowed. So this is more of a market 03:59:27.590 --> 03:59:33.338 - structure than the people building the homes can decide what their target market is, whether they need 03:59:33.338 --> 03:59:38.975 - parking or not, and whether or not there's available parking, for instance, on street. Or if they're 03:59:38.975 --> 03:59:43.774 - like, we're eating next to a transit stop or in a walkable area that doesn't need it. 03:59:44.130 --> 03:59:50.360 - And so we wouldn't affect what somebody is allowed to build. Everybody would be allowed to build what 03:59:50.360 --> 03:59:56.712 - they're allowed to build now. We would just stop requiring people to build parking when they don't want 03:59:56.712 --> 04:00:02.881 - to or when they can't in order to make the project work. So let's see. I just have a quote here from 04:00:02.881 --> 04:00:04.958 - Incremental Development Alliance. 04:00:05.090 --> 04:00:11.554 - which there was a training I saw in which the expert that was presenting and course instructor was just 04:00:11.554 --> 04:00:17.831 - instructing folks, small scale developers, like we're trying to encourage here in Bloomington how to 04:00:17.831 --> 04:00:24.419 - develop noting that parking requirements will kill your project faster than anything else. So just citing 04:00:24.419 --> 04:00:30.945 - those folks as experts on this issue. It undermines choice. We have over 4,000 households in Bloomington 04:00:30.945 --> 04:00:33.182 - do not have vehicles requiring that 04:00:33.474 --> 04:00:39.468 - all, virtually all housing has a place for vehicles, adds cost for a lot of folks who don't need it. 04:00:39.468 --> 04:00:45.522 - Also, 44% of Bloomington households are single-person households. A good local example of all this is 04:00:45.522 --> 04:00:51.517 - the bicycle apartments. I don't know if they're actually called that anymore, but there are a couple 04:00:51.517 --> 04:00:57.689 - of multifamily buildings on the southwest corner of 4th and Rodgers, right next to the IFL, across from 04:00:57.689 --> 04:01:00.894 - the Centerpoint building. There's no parking on site. 04:01:02.082 --> 04:01:08.075 - They've long been some of the more affordable market rental options in a walkable location in downtown 04:01:08.075 --> 04:01:14.010 - Bloomington. They've been quite successful. And so it's a really good example of this. So again, this 04:01:14.010 --> 04:01:20.062 - is broadly supported by urban planning, parking and economics, and urban sustainability policy experts. 04:01:20.062 --> 04:01:25.182 - I do have some examples of lots of cities around the country that have been doing this. 04:01:25.314 --> 04:01:33.081 - by no means be the first. And so here are a handful of them, including South Bend, I think is the only 04:01:33.081 --> 04:01:40.547 - other Indiana city so far. Lots of college towns you can see in there, Charlottesville, Corvallis, 04:01:40.547 --> 04:01:48.389 - Gainesville, Cambridge, you know, Burlington, I suppose, Ashland, Oregon and Bend are a little bit that 04:01:48.389 --> 04:01:50.878 - way. So lots of peer cities. And 04:01:52.162 --> 04:01:59.401 - you know, so this is not something new. And I guess I really wanted to be clear that this is not only 04:01:59.401 --> 04:02:06.994 - widely accepted as good policy, but it's actually been adopted by a lot of places too. And give me closing 04:02:06.994 --> 04:02:13.310 - thoughts in the next slide. Actually, one more thing on parking, which is the resolution 04:02:13.410 --> 04:02:19.209 - includes also a call for if there are other text changes that need to happen or changes to programs, 04:02:19.209 --> 04:02:25.295 - we should consider those. So I talked to a few colleagues about this, you know, previously, for instance, 04:02:25.295 --> 04:02:31.151 - we have neighborhood parking zones in some sections of the city. Most of those neighborhood zones are 04:02:31.151 --> 04:02:37.180 - actually like very underparked, like there's tons of vacant space and we wouldn't anticipate any impacts 04:02:37.180 --> 04:02:42.462 - there. There are a couple of zones that are more fully parked and we might have to consider 04:02:42.850 --> 04:02:48.151 - you know, the possibility of changes in those zones. Things we could look at are whether, you know, 04:02:48.151 --> 04:02:53.559 - a modest increase in price makes sense, whether or not we should stop doing annual visitor passes and 04:02:53.559 --> 04:02:58.860 - going towards more of a system of like, you can get 30 visitor day passes, you know, if you live in 04:02:58.860 --> 04:03:04.320 - the district, as opposed to just giving out optionally two passes for very low cost. And so, you know, 04:03:04.320 --> 04:03:09.728 - there's some things that we need to follow. And again, that's, as I emphasized at the beginning of my 04:03:09.728 --> 04:03:11.742 - presentation, that's really what the, 04:03:12.322 --> 04:03:17.817 - policy development stages about. This is just saying, look, directionally, this is something we want 04:03:17.817 --> 04:03:23.421 - to look at. We'd like to consider a proposal and the details of the policy really has to be developed. 04:03:23.421 --> 04:03:29.351 - So closing thoughts are really just that, you know, the broad goals here are to increase housing development 04:03:29.351 --> 04:03:35.063 - at a modest, more affordable scale, reduce climate pollution, enhance resilience and improve the overall 04:03:35.063 --> 04:03:39.198 - social, economic and environmental sustainability of our built environment. 04:03:39.650 --> 04:03:45.668 - all consistent with the existing character of Bloomington. So this is consistent with the affordability 04:03:45.668 --> 04:03:51.629 - changes proposed by the administration in its Hopewell South PUD, I guess proposed by the RDC actually 04:03:51.629 --> 04:03:57.532 - in its Hopewell South PUD. And I'm sure you all recognize that. This was informed by direct extensive 04:03:57.532 --> 04:04:03.550 - collaboration with city staff and multiple departments and across two administrations and also informed 04:04:03.550 --> 04:04:06.270 - by our comprehensive and climate action plans. 04:04:06.434 --> 04:04:12.066 - and input from the public policy advocates and policy experts. I've talked to lots of constituents about 04:04:12.066 --> 04:04:17.483 - this and also really appreciated the several sessions we had last year, further discussing tools and 04:04:17.483 --> 04:04:23.169 - options for affordability with members of the community. And so just finally reiterating, this resolution 04:04:23.169 --> 04:04:28.855 - is a step. It's the statutorily required action to initiate policy proposals consistent with those plans. 04:04:28.855 --> 04:04:34.755 - And it mirrors the process we've used recently for other UDO change proposals that the council was interested 04:04:34.755 --> 04:04:35.774 - in moving forward. 04:04:36.034 --> 04:04:42.085 - opportunities and requirements for additional outreach, engagement and collaboration remain. And we 04:04:42.085 --> 04:04:48.439 - will make the final decision later. And I'll just say if you have a discomfort with some aspect of this, 04:04:48.439 --> 04:04:54.672 - I will hold no grudges if you vote yes on the resolution and vote no on some aspect of a proposal that 04:04:54.672 --> 04:05:00.844 - comes in the future. That's what it's for. And so that I think is my full presentation. I am happy to 04:05:00.844 --> 04:05:03.870 - answer any questions or if we want to wrap up and 04:05:04.002 --> 04:05:12.037 - Discussion for a future meeting. That's great, too. Thank you Thank you so much councilman Flaherty 04:05:12.037 --> 04:05:20.153 - and particularly for putting so much effort and and time into that and the presentation Thank you so 04:05:20.153 --> 04:05:28.510 - much questions motions Please councilman Rallo, yes, I found that very informative. Thank you. I'd like 04:05:28.510 --> 04:05:32.126 - to move that resolution 20 2605 be postponed 04:05:33.314 --> 04:05:42.553 - for consideration to until April 1st Okay, there's a motion in a second any discussion Yes, it comes 04:05:42.553 --> 04:05:52.067 - with people I guess I don't see any reason why we can't Vote on it tonight. I don't think it would take 04:05:52.067 --> 04:06:00.574 - very long. Thank you Councilmember Stasberg, I'm prepared to support this tonight. Thanks. I 04:06:05.698 --> 04:06:16.023 - I've the reason I'm offering the motion is that I I honestly I support some aspects of this But I can't 04:06:16.023 --> 04:06:26.150 - fully support all of it and my attention has been primarily on Hopewell So I'm afraid I won't support 04:06:26.150 --> 04:06:35.582 - it, but I I find a lot of the aspects of it very positive. So That's Yeah, I could potentially 04:06:35.746 --> 04:06:41.890 - Be supportive of it. I like a lot about it, but I like if like councilman Barallo said just haven't 04:06:41.890 --> 04:06:48.218 - I really had a lot of time to To think about some aspects of it. So I I'd rather wait rather than have 04:06:48.218 --> 04:06:54.731 - to vote. No just because I'm not Haven't had time to really get totally squared with it yet The councilor 04:06:54.731 --> 04:07:00.936 - Flaherty Thank you, I would support postponing I appreciate that there's a lot we've been working on 04:07:00.936 --> 04:07:04.254 - and dealing with and resolutions we we often consider 04:07:04.418 --> 04:07:10.045 - You have less time because, well, we changed our rules around first reading for ordinances, but I recognize 04:07:10.045 --> 04:07:15.255 - this went out five days ago in its current form. And I have no problem postponing and would like to 04:07:15.255 --> 04:07:20.830 - give my, I would recommend we give the colleagues who would like more time that more that additional time. 04:07:21.282 --> 04:07:29.438 - Thank you so much. I'll just make a point, especially if it seems that we're gonna postpone. There were 04:07:29.438 --> 04:07:37.436 - a couple of questions raised by a resident, particularly noting that there's a change in Indiana code 04:07:37.436 --> 04:07:45.514 - around timelines, so that passed in July, changing the timelines for, and so this has the old language 04:07:45.514 --> 04:07:50.846 - of 90 days, so I think maybe considering amendment there, but then, 04:07:51.202 --> 04:07:57.767 - This the city resident also said brought brought up the question and I'd love again. This is another 04:07:57.767 --> 04:08:04.397 - example of why we need a lawyer Just any lawyer in the room, but would oh, I guess we have lawyers in 04:08:04.397 --> 04:08:11.028 - the room, but virtually but the person also raised the question of whether when we make these type of 04:08:11.028 --> 04:08:17.658 - Resolutions whether we should actually direct the exact amendments that we want to see or whether the 04:08:17.658 --> 04:08:21.168 - sort of broad Direction, you know is the appropriate? 04:08:21.168 --> 04:08:28.833 - So things for us to discuss should we postpone. And I've had a little bit of a conversation with Margie 04:08:28.833 --> 04:08:36.203 - Rice about that. And she seems to share both of those opinions. But she, again, didn't have time to 04:08:36.203 --> 04:08:38.782 - be here or present it in that way. 04:08:39.298 --> 04:08:46.645 - So yeah, so so just just something if we do postpone something that we probably should engage in so 04:08:46.645 --> 04:08:54.065 - well as I said that Margie walked in but hey Anyway, so if we don't if we postponed we might want to 04:08:54.065 --> 04:09:01.632 - think about that. All right any other comments All right. So there's a motion in a second to postpone. 04:09:01.632 --> 04:09:08.318 - Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember sorry Motion to postpone. Yes Daily yes 04:09:09.122 --> 04:09:21.089 - Rollo. Yes. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Clarity. Yes. Stasberg as requested by the sponsor. Yes. 04:09:21.089 --> 04:09:34.747 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. That motion carries 9 0. That's postponed until April 1st. Any motions. 04:09:34.747 --> 04:09:38.910 - Well I'd like to vote at 10 30. 04:09:39.298 --> 04:09:48.661 - It's root because we need a roll call vote to introduce anyway Yeah to know that that just requires 04:09:48.661 --> 04:09:58.024 - a two-thirds majority to introduce anything after 1030. Thank you Okay any motions All right, we'll 04:09:58.024 --> 04:10:04.766 - now move to a time of additional public comment if there are no motions 04:10:04.962 --> 04:10:10.810 - This is a time to comment on things that were not on the agenda. However, if anybody would move, I would 04:10:10.810 --> 04:10:16.379 - very much appreciate it if you allowed folks to comment on things that they might have sat here all 04:10:16.379 --> 04:10:22.116 - night to comment on and have not got a chance to do so. We do have a Zoom person with his hand raised. 04:10:22.116 --> 04:10:27.741 - Tremendous. We'll get to them in a second. Are there any motions in the room? Councilmember Zulek. I 04:10:27.741 --> 04:10:33.422 - move to suspend the rules and allow this time for general public comment to include anything that was 04:10:33.422 --> 04:10:34.814 - on the agenda given that 04:10:35.138 --> 04:10:42.676 - Public comment was not allowed second. There's a motion in a second Clerk, can you please call the roll 04:10:42.676 --> 04:10:50.504 - on the on the motion to suspend the rules? Clarification first, can we say Can we have a friendly amendment 04:10:50.504 --> 04:10:58.477 - on your motion? To include if it was not already offered for public comment because there was some reasonable 04:10:58.477 --> 04:11:02.174 - conditions for example. Yeah, sure I will amend my 04:11:02.914 --> 04:11:14.531 - Motion to exclude anything that was already offered public comment for a reasonable condition. Yes. 04:11:14.531 --> 04:11:26.962 - Thank you. All right. And we'll look for please call. Call the roll a moment capturing the motion. Council 04:11:26.962 --> 04:11:29.982 - member. That didn't work. 04:11:31.746 --> 04:11:48.824 - Councilmember daily. Yes. Yes. This is a precedent setting. Yes. It's true. Rosenberger Councilmember 04:11:48.824 --> 04:11:54.014 - Rosenberger we can't hear you. 04:11:57.218 --> 04:12:05.041 - Okay, she knows I'm gonna move ahead and we'll come back to you if we can count. I mean, yes, 04:12:05.041 --> 04:12:13.364 - I got it. Okay. Sorry Okay. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm very sorry Councilmember Flaherty Yes Stasberg Yes, 04:12:13.364 --> 04:12:21.854 - and I think that we've had this motion recently. So I don't think that's not Smith Oh, yes Zulek Yes, 04:12:21.854 --> 04:12:23.102 - I'm sorry. Yes 04:12:23.682 --> 04:12:33.061 - Okay, that carries nine. Oh So it's now time of public comment. You can comment on anything Other than 04:12:33.061 --> 04:12:42.440 - reasonable conditions. Is there anybody who would like to make public comment? The person on zoom That 04:12:42.440 --> 04:12:51.545 - person has taken his hand down. That's unfortunate Are there any other public commenters? All right 04:12:51.545 --> 04:12:52.638 - Seeing none 04:12:52.962 --> 04:12:59.813 - Last chance online. All right, we'll move to matters of council schedule. We'll be meeting on April 04:12:59.813 --> 04:13:07.075 - 1st, everyone. So there was a chance that we wouldn't, but we will be. Any other things, though? Meetings 04:13:07.075 --> 04:13:13.926 - coming up? Yes? Fiscal committee meeting Friday morning at 830. Oof. Hiring committee is meeting on 04:13:13.926 --> 04:13:21.050 - Thursday. Then we default to the Thursday meeting because we were going to meet on Wednesday, but alas. 04:13:21.050 --> 04:13:22.078 - Next Thursday. 04:13:22.274 --> 04:13:31.806 - Yes correct. Any other comments for council schedule. All right. With that count this meeting adjourned.