WEBVTT 00:00:00.162 --> 00:00:08.603 - I'd like to call this regular session of the Bloomington Common Council to order. Thank you for being 00:00:08.603 --> 00:00:16.878 - here. Will our Honorable Clerk please call the roll. Yes, Council Member Flaherty? Here. Stossberg? 00:00:16.878 --> 00:00:25.402 - Here. Piedmont-Smith? Here. Zulek? Here. Asari? Here. Daly? Yeah, here. Yeah, yeah. Rollo? Here. Ruff? 00:00:25.402 --> 00:00:29.374 - Here. And Rosenberger? Here. Thank you so much. 00:00:29.474 --> 00:00:35.691 - Tonight's agenda is posted on both of the doors. There's a handful of copies there if you'd like to 00:00:35.691 --> 00:00:42.157 - see it It's also posted online, but it includes approval of December 17th 2025 regular session minutes, 00:00:42.157 --> 00:00:48.871 - which have been amended It reports from council members the dr. Martin Luther King jr. Birthday celebration 00:00:48.871 --> 00:00:55.337 - commission and the committee on council processes as well as a report from the hiring committee There's 00:00:55.337 --> 00:00:59.440 - also three items of legislation for second reading ordinance 2020 00:00:59.440 --> 00:01:08.117 - 2020606 resolution 2020605 and resolution 2020606 There's no legislation for first reading and there'll 00:01:08.117 --> 00:01:16.711 - be two times for public comment for anybody who wishes To comment on things that are outside of things 00:01:16.711 --> 00:01:25.304 - that are on our agenda We'll now come to minutes for approval the December 17 2025 minutes as amended. 00:01:25.304 --> 00:01:27.390 - Are there any motions? I 00:01:28.386 --> 00:01:35.183 - I move that the minutes for December December 17th 2025 as amended be approved second All those in favor 00:01:35.183 --> 00:01:42.044 - signal by saying aye. Oh, sorry. Are there any corrections? Just a quick correction. They weren't amended 00:01:42.044 --> 00:01:48.646 - when you made the motion So they're just the minutes is resubmitted to you as resubmitted. Thank you. 00:01:48.646 --> 00:01:55.119 - Are there any other corrections? Okay motion in the second all those in favor signal saying aye All 00:01:55.119 --> 00:01:56.414 - right, any opposed? 00:01:57.122 --> 00:02:05.340 - The minutes are approved, and we'll now move on to reports, and we'll begin with reports from council 00:02:05.340 --> 00:02:13.799 - members. Does anybody have a report? Council member Stasberg. Is this when I'm supposed to do the budget 00:02:13.799 --> 00:02:22.258 - letter? Because are we still having two sections of council member report? I thought you'd do the budget 00:02:22.258 --> 00:02:26.206 - letter during committees, but your choice. Okay. 00:02:26.402 --> 00:02:33.556 - It really doesn't matter. I'll just go ahead and do it now since I already talked about it. So in the 00:02:33.556 --> 00:02:40.711 - first packet addendum that was sent out I think yesterday, there is the I will say final draft of the 00:02:40.711 --> 00:02:46.462 - letter to Mayor Thompson from the whole council about budget priorities for 2027. 00:02:46.946 --> 00:02:54.403 - Y'all gave me comments on it last week and then at fiscal committee on Friday. We also commented on 00:02:54.403 --> 00:03:01.935 - it So if there are no other concerns Or if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer those and 00:03:01.935 --> 00:03:09.541 - address those. Otherwise, I would love a motion to go ahead and Submit this to the administration Are 00:03:09.541 --> 00:03:15.358 - there any questions or comments for councilman Stasberg otherwise, we'll have 00:03:15.682 --> 00:03:25.412 - All right. Are there any motions? Go ahead I will make the motion to submit the letter of budget priorities 00:03:25.412 --> 00:03:34.602 - from the council to Mayor Thompson Fantastic. There's a motion in a second any discussion Seeing none 00:03:34.602 --> 00:03:44.062 - all those in favor of submitting the letter is written say aye any opposed that motion carries nine zero 00:03:44.354 --> 00:03:48.999 - All right, um any thank you so much councilman stossberg for for working on that. Did you have a report 00:03:48.999 --> 00:03:49.758 - further further? 00:03:50.146 --> 00:03:56.159 - I just want to mention for the public that I did write an open letter to the to the community around 00:03:56.159 --> 00:04:02.232 - around Hope Well, I submitted that I emailed it directly to multiple people I thought about trying to 00:04:02.232 --> 00:04:08.364 - get it in the packet, but I just did not have time to make it fully accessible So that was a thing but 00:04:08.364 --> 00:04:14.437 - it is Publicly linked and it's also on bloom docs and if anybody who has not read it is interested in 00:04:14.437 --> 00:04:17.950 - it Just let me know and I'll send it and then I do have my 00:04:18.370 --> 00:04:23.646 - Councilmember like individual meeting slots at two weeks actually on April 14th 00:04:23.810 --> 00:04:29.409 - But I think that this is our last council last regular session before those so if you're interested 00:04:29.409 --> 00:04:35.008 - in having a little one-on-one 15-minute meeting with me about anything at all You can find the link 00:04:35.008 --> 00:04:40.832 - to sign up for that on my public calendar And if you're not sure how that works if you email me or call 00:04:40.832 --> 00:04:46.543 - council office I would be happy to help you with that. So those that time I have set aside is between 00:04:46.543 --> 00:04:52.030 - 1130 and 1 on second Tuesdays right now So again, that's April 14th, and that's my report. Thanks 00:04:52.386 --> 00:05:02.285 - Thank you so much. Any other reports, colleagues? All right, seeing none, we'll now move on to a report 00:05:02.285 --> 00:05:11.898 - from the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday Celebration Commission. Doctor, take it away. Well, I'm 00:05:11.898 --> 00:05:18.846 - not a doctor, but I wish I were. Maybe one day. Thank you. Good evening. 00:05:18.946 --> 00:05:25.913 - I'm James Sanders, and pleased to present the 2025 Annual Report for the Martin Luther King Birthday 00:05:25.913 --> 00:05:33.019 - Celebration Commission. Today, we'll reflect on our accomplishments over the past year and share plans 00:05:33.019 --> 00:05:40.055 - for the future. Our commission consists of seven members who are focused on organizing and supporting 00:05:40.055 --> 00:05:47.229 - programs that commemorate the annual federal holiday, including the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday 00:05:47.229 --> 00:05:48.126 - Celebration, 00:05:48.354 --> 00:05:55.298 - the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Legacy Award, volunteer service initiatives such as A Day On, Not a Day 00:05:55.298 --> 00:06:02.242 - Off, and the 40 Days of Peace. Our charge is to promote and honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King 00:06:02.242 --> 00:06:09.321 - Jr. through activities that celebrate his birthday and promote diversity, inclusivity, and racial equity 00:06:09.321 --> 00:06:16.130 - within the community. This year, we have worked hard to produce our 32nd annual commemoration of Dr. 00:06:16.130 --> 00:06:17.950 - Martin Luther King Jr. Day 00:06:18.402 --> 00:06:26.392 - create engaging activities for children at major community events, and build strong partnerships with 00:06:26.392 --> 00:06:34.304 - new and established community partners by supporting their programs and events. In 2025, we achieved 00:06:34.304 --> 00:06:38.142 - several key milestones. For example, we produced 00:06:38.242 --> 00:06:45.685 - The 2025 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday celebration in collaboration with 16 local stakeholders, 00:06:45.685 --> 00:06:53.054 - welcoming over 200 attendees and collaborating with 16 local, I'm sorry, and are raising over $9,000 00:06:53.054 --> 00:07:00.788 - in sponsorships. We collaborated with Bloomington Volunteer Network to encourage community-wide volunteer 00:07:00.788 --> 00:07:08.158 - service during the 40 days of peace, which took place from January 21st through February 28th, 2025. 00:07:09.122 --> 00:07:16.787 - We created the Educational Black Inventors Trivia Game for all ages and shared it with the public at 00:07:16.787 --> 00:07:24.528 - 10 major community events. We marked Remembrance Day, the anniversary of Dr. King's assassination, by 00:07:24.528 --> 00:07:31.358 - reading Martin's big words to elementary school classes at Bloomington Montessori School. 00:07:31.714 --> 00:07:39.201 - These efforts have raised Bloomington's collective awareness of the impact of the civil rights movement 00:07:39.201 --> 00:07:46.472 - on our day-to-day lives, and we are proud of what we've accomplished. Looking forward ahead, we have 00:07:46.472 --> 00:07:53.887 - exciting plans. We aim to host, in collaboration with community partners, one to two programs per year 00:07:53.887 --> 00:07:57.630 - outside of our annual birthday commemoration event. 00:07:58.082 --> 00:08:05.992 - support the Monroe County NAACP's Freedom Schools Project, create original education materials examining 00:08:05.992 --> 00:08:14.279 - Dr. King's six principles of nonviolence and demonstrating how to apply their lessons in real-life scenarios. 00:08:14.279 --> 00:08:21.738 - Produced during 2026 and 2027, a six-part series of community conversations reflecting on historic 00:08:21.738 --> 00:08:27.614 - demonstrations of King's six principles of nonviolence from around the world. 00:08:27.810 --> 00:08:34.384 - We anticipate challenges such as decreases in annual programmatic sponsorship from local businesses 00:08:34.384 --> 00:08:41.155 - and individuals. However, we are optimistic about the opportunities they present. We see potential for 00:08:41.155 --> 00:08:47.729 - deeper connections with the Monroe County NAACP, the Neal Marshall Black Cultural Center, the Black 00:08:47.729 --> 00:08:51.870 - Humanities in the Midwest Project, and Resilience Productions. 00:08:55.010 --> 00:09:02.023 - We invite you all to join us at our next commission meeting on Wednesday, April 22nd, from 6 to 7 p.m. 00:09:02.023 --> 00:09:09.241 - in the Allison Conference Room at City Hall. Your involvement is vital to the success of our initiatives. 00:09:09.241 --> 00:09:16.594 - We currently have two vacant seats on the commission, so we also invite you to apply to join the commission 00:09:16.594 --> 00:09:19.454 - by visiting bloomington.in.gov slash MLK. 00:09:20.290 --> 00:09:29.172 - Please mark your calendars and be a part of promoting and honoring the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King 00:09:29.172 --> 00:09:38.139 - Jr. in Bloomington. And with that, I'll accept any questions that you have. Thank you so much. Are there 00:09:38.139 --> 00:09:41.982 - any questions from colleagues? Any comments? 00:09:43.522 --> 00:09:49.197 - I would just like to say that this year's celebration was fantastic and really the, I think you did 00:09:49.197 --> 00:09:54.986 - a fantastic job also of highlighting the diversity of voices and work that's been done throughout the 00:09:54.986 --> 00:10:00.662 - city. And I love the way that the celebration in particular is expanded beyond just the day, but of 00:10:00.662 --> 00:10:06.337 - service and other things, but really, I mean, the report showing that you're working all throughout 00:10:06.337 --> 00:10:12.183 - the year to keep true to that legacy. And we're just so grateful for the work that you do for the city 00:10:12.183 --> 00:10:13.488 - and the representation 00:10:13.488 --> 00:10:19.846 - That you do for the city. So so thank you very much councilmember daily Everything that councilmember 00:10:19.846 --> 00:10:26.329 - sorry said and I just want to say it is just such an infectiously joyful event that I always Love going 00:10:26.329 --> 00:10:32.624 - and celebrating So thank you for all of that. I know it's a lot of hard work. So, thank you What can 00:10:32.624 --> 00:10:39.294 - we do as a council to support you guys better? It's thank you for asking that I agree It was a magical day 00:10:39.394 --> 00:10:49.026 - This year, we had to plan around the IU bowl game, so not only did we get an early start, we got a late 00:10:49.026 --> 00:10:59.028 - happy ending, so that was great. The way you can support us really is by coming to our events and programs. 00:10:59.028 --> 00:11:02.270 - I know a number of you already do. 00:11:02.562 --> 00:11:10.112 - But for you all and the general public who don't normally attend our events, we will be glad to see 00:11:10.112 --> 00:11:15.774 - you Thank you so much, thank you any other questions a councilman Stasberg 00:11:16.226 --> 00:11:22.140 - Thank you, this isn't a question so much as I just wanted to highlight again those two vacancies because 00:11:22.140 --> 00:11:27.884 - I just peeked on onboard and there aren't actually any applications in for those vacancies to be able 00:11:27.884 --> 00:11:33.741 - to consider in terms of one of those appointments as a council appointment and one of them as a mayoral 00:11:33.741 --> 00:11:39.430 - appointment but I just really want to strongly encourage people to apply for those vacancies because 00:11:39.430 --> 00:11:43.710 - this is an important commission and I don't know Mr. Sanders if you want to 00:11:43.970 --> 00:11:50.165 - just tell the community a little bit about what is actually involved in serving on the committee, taking 00:11:50.165 --> 00:11:56.066 - this opportunity to be like, well, how many hours a month commitment is it or anything like that? I 00:11:56.066 --> 00:12:01.730 - kind of just want to give you that opportunity to convince people to come and join y'all. Well, 00:12:01.730 --> 00:12:07.926 - thank you. In the true spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, we would love the participants or any potential 00:12:07.926 --> 00:12:11.230 - participants to have a heart for service, first of all. 00:12:11.458 --> 00:12:19.653 - The commitment, I guess, per month is about a couple of hours. We, one, have our meeting, and then there 00:12:19.653 --> 00:12:27.614 - are things that we email and communicate back and forth on, especially during the time we're planning 00:12:27.614 --> 00:12:35.418 - our event. So me, I've been on the commission for a few years now, so I usually offer three hours a 00:12:35.418 --> 00:12:38.462 - month just for official things, but... 00:12:39.298 --> 00:12:46.922 - if, honestly, the hours are countless, depending on how much you'd like to be involved. And so, that's 00:12:46.922 --> 00:12:54.620 - where that spirit of service comes in, you know, with caring about the events and also the time between 00:12:54.620 --> 00:13:02.392 - the events. People who are familiar with the MLK Commission know that we have one flagship event a year, 00:13:02.392 --> 00:13:09.054 - usually, but as the years have progressed, we have gotten more into the 40 Days of Peace, 00:13:09.218 --> 00:13:16.666 - volunteering at the black market during black history month and also Juneteenth events and so like I 00:13:16.666 --> 00:13:24.262 - mentioned in the annual report We are just hoping to to build and foster those partnerships around the 00:13:24.262 --> 00:13:31.710 - community Great, thank you. I want to emphasize that's less than an hour a week on average So that's 00:13:31.710 --> 00:13:36.798 - a pretty low commitment if anybody's out there on the force apply. I 00:13:37.346 --> 00:13:45.728 - And in exchange if you sign up right now, we will keep this meeting short. We promise Moving on thank 00:13:45.728 --> 00:13:54.275 - you so very much we'll move to What is what is next council committees and please if we first will have 00:13:54.275 --> 00:14:02.575 - a report from the committee on council processes councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, thank you. Let me 00:14:02.575 --> 00:14:05.534 - just find my addendum here with the 00:14:07.266 --> 00:14:15.978 - Information there was an addendum that went out yesterday with a report from this committee that is 00:14:15.978 --> 00:14:24.863 - comprised of two parts First we have a document with our recommendations for a standard procedure now 00:14:24.863 --> 00:14:33.662 - that we passed ordinance 20 2605 which was to allow discussion at first reading So That is just kind 00:14:33.662 --> 00:14:35.230 - of a step-by-step 00:14:35.362 --> 00:14:42.700 - Of the procedure that we recommend the underlying assumptions are first of all that there will always 00:14:42.700 --> 00:14:50.253 - be a presentation of legislation at first reading And that there will be a discussion and public comment 00:14:50.253 --> 00:14:57.447 - as well at the first reading of legislation and our second assumption will be that once we agree on 00:14:57.447 --> 00:14:58.814 - this procedure and 00:14:59.586 --> 00:15:06.726 - From this point onward, we will have robust communication with the public and city staff about our new 00:15:06.726 --> 00:15:13.173 - procedures so that everybody understands that it's a change, that we will have presentation, 00:15:13.173 --> 00:15:20.245 - public comment, and discussion at first reading of legislation, not just at second reading as we have 00:15:20.245 --> 00:15:27.385 - so far. So I won't go through all of this, but I would open it up for feedback before I go on to point 00:15:27.385 --> 00:15:29.118 - number two of my report. 00:15:29.506 --> 00:15:37.663 - So hopefully my colleagues have had a chance to take a look at this And of course if there are other 00:15:37.663 --> 00:15:46.466 - members of the committee who want to chime in So let's first look at procedures for discussion of ordinances 00:15:46.466 --> 00:15:54.785 - at first reading Any feedback does this look good do we are we okay with what was proposed to the left 00:15:54.785 --> 00:15:56.158 - and to the right 00:15:57.474 --> 00:16:06.283 - I'll just say one, which I think we had a similar conversation when we passed legislation. I wonder 00:16:06.283 --> 00:16:15.268 - if we should assume that we are always going to read something on first introduction. I mean, I think 00:16:15.268 --> 00:16:16.766 - that the Council 00:16:16.898 --> 00:16:23.242 - Retains its its right to not and and I do think that that's important a like as as it is that you know 00:16:23.242 --> 00:16:29.648 - We don't have to hear something on the second time it's in front like we you know We get to choose when 00:16:29.648 --> 00:16:35.993 - when we hear things and I do agree though with the with the sense of setting a certain expectation You 00:16:35.993 --> 00:16:42.214 - know to the public but a but a you know, I I think that it's an important tool I'm here for you know 00:16:42.214 --> 00:16:44.062 - for for council to be able to 00:16:44.162 --> 00:16:50.437 - decide I mean otherwise otherwise that vote is is you know, it's somewhat irrelevant if if we're if 00:16:50.437 --> 00:16:56.900 - we're kind of gonna move with the inertia that a thing would be read, but that's a minor a minor thing 00:16:56.900 --> 00:17:03.175 - but So Yes, we would retain the right to either not introduce the item Are you also saying that you 00:17:03.175 --> 00:17:06.814 - could envision us introducing it but not discussing it? I 00:17:07.042 --> 00:17:14.002 - Yeah, for example or just or just reading it by its synopsis and moving on or you know, there's lots 00:17:14.002 --> 00:17:20.894 - of different things we could do but I'm just saying that you know, we I Don't know. I'm just saying 00:17:20.894 --> 00:17:28.199 - that that we shouldn't I don't I don't want to lock into a process of saying we you know, it's introduced 00:17:28.199 --> 00:17:35.297 - we read it and it happens I think is Yeah Councilor Sasberg so in terms of like posting this procedure 00:17:35.297 --> 00:17:36.606 - would you like the 00:17:36.738 --> 00:17:42.320 - committee to kind of make a note there of like well What would happen if the motion to introduce the 00:17:42.320 --> 00:17:48.399 - legislation? There was a no vote then what happens? What happens if on the motion to discuss the legislation? 00:17:48.399 --> 00:17:54.312 - There was a no vote. So are you saying like that that should be like written in? procedurally to Certainly 00:17:54.312 --> 00:18:00.446 - not my call. I'm just I was just I'm just reacting to you know, as as was asked for the feedback a you know, I 00:18:00.546 --> 00:18:07.206 - I don't feel very strongly about this. I'm just saying that we've had multiple times where that was 00:18:07.206 --> 00:18:13.866 - a tension point. I've said even when on the bad receiving end of that motion, I maintain that it is 00:18:13.866 --> 00:18:20.592 - something that we can do as a council. I think that it's worth just being clear that there's not the 00:18:20.592 --> 00:18:25.054 - assumption that everything that's put before us gets read and gets 00:18:25.282 --> 00:18:32.008 - Debated that way. I mean, I think I think it is a proper assumption to say that we intend to read most 00:18:32.008 --> 00:18:38.603 - things on first thing But you know just yeah, so just a little nuance there. But again, I don't feel 00:18:38.603 --> 00:18:45.264 - super strongly about them I think that that could maybe get added into one of the notes And then that 00:18:45.264 --> 00:18:52.382 - could yeah Okay. Thank you Any other thoughts or comments Okay, seeing none you want to move to the next one 00:18:54.018 --> 00:19:01.911 - Thank you. So the second part of my report from the committee on council processes is Proposal for a 00:19:01.911 --> 00:19:10.118 - new requirement that each piece of legislation whether it is an ordinance or a resolution have a council 00:19:10.118 --> 00:19:18.089 - member sponsor And on this one we do Request that a vote be taken so that the committee knows whether 00:19:18.089 --> 00:19:22.622 - there's a majority support for the concept so that we can 00:19:22.946 --> 00:19:30.736 - Move along to actually revising our code to require that So our reasoning for making this recommendation 00:19:30.736 --> 00:19:37.933 - is First of all, we think it would improve communication between council members and the mayor's 00:19:37.933 --> 00:19:45.353 - administration earlier since there would also there would always be a council member who would have 00:19:45.353 --> 00:19:50.398 - to sponsor legislation so they would have an earlier view of it and 00:19:50.786 --> 00:19:57.926 - It would help to ensure that the legislation is clear to a layperson and doesn't leave out crucial context 00:19:57.926 --> 00:20:04.599 - or information necessary for the council to make an informed decision on it. And it would also just 00:20:04.599 --> 00:20:11.272 - in in the broad context put council members in control of bringing legislation forward. So it would 00:20:11.272 --> 00:20:18.078 - be kind of a way for for us to control our calendar. Not that we would hold legislation back but that 00:20:18.498 --> 00:20:26.581 - a council member would have to Be ready to also move forward with it So we don't have you know the details 00:20:26.581 --> 00:20:34.211 - laid out yet We wanted to throw this out to see if there was general support for the idea So I'm I'm 00:20:34.211 --> 00:20:41.086 - open to two questions about it and then we could maybe have a motion Questions or thoughts 00:20:48.098 --> 00:20:56.318 - Again, I'm happy to share my night. I mean, yeah, let's try it out. Yeah, Councilor Morello. 00:21:17.826 --> 00:21:24.903 - think that We didn't specifically talk about that in my view it would be assumed that the council member 00:21:24.903 --> 00:21:32.047 - would support it and Not just put their name on something that they wouldn't vote for but council members 00:21:32.047 --> 00:21:38.787 - Nostra I think that we did talk about that and that one of the things that we talked about was each 00:21:38.787 --> 00:21:43.774 - department having kind of one two three kind of go-to list so if say like 00:21:43.906 --> 00:21:49.885 - Kind of like go to councilmember wasn't in support of it or maybe just wasn't available then they could 00:21:49.885 --> 00:21:55.633 - go to a second person so that then and and and Kind of like the the last fallback would be going to 00:21:55.633 --> 00:22:01.439 - council staff to be like hey I'm trying to do this thing like which councilmember can you connect me 00:22:01.439 --> 00:22:07.188 - with to make sure that that as Councilman Piedmont Smith said that we don't hold up legislation but 00:22:07.188 --> 00:22:08.510 - that we make sure that 00:22:08.674 --> 00:22:18.584 - I mean there there should be at least one councilmember on board with with anything that comes because 00:22:18.584 --> 00:22:28.494 - otherwise it's just like a moot point The person could just offer a caveat That you know, they believe 00:22:28.494 --> 00:22:35.998 - that it should be heard by the council, but not necessarily supportive Thanks 00:22:37.826 --> 00:22:44.220 - I also think, you know, I mean, you know, Councilmember Zulak could say, I will sponsor anything, right? 00:22:44.220 --> 00:22:50.431 - Like so, just as an example, I'm not saying that you would say that, but I'd just say, hey, you know, 00:22:50.431 --> 00:22:56.581 - anything you guys want, feel free to put me as a sponsor. So I guess the question really is whether, 00:22:56.581 --> 00:23:02.792 - you know, what we hope to achieve with the mechanism and whether the mechanism is designed to achieve 00:23:02.792 --> 00:23:06.750 - the thing that, you know, that we're sort of designing it to do. 00:23:07.810 --> 00:23:14.040 - Because maybe one way to think about it is currently those who attend the scheduling meeting essentially 00:23:14.040 --> 00:23:20.033 - sponsor everything that comes before us already. So just wondering, maybe you want to, I don't know. 00:23:20.033 --> 00:23:26.086 - I don't know what it is that we're trying to design this to do is the question, I think, building off 00:23:26.086 --> 00:23:32.138 - of. Yeah, go ahead. Well, I think one thing we wanted to ensure was that the work of sponsorship, not 00:23:32.138 --> 00:23:36.766 - that it's going to be a huge amount of extra work, but it is some extra work. 00:23:36.866 --> 00:23:43.540 - And that work should be spread out among council members. So we did we were concerned about you know, 00:23:43.540 --> 00:23:50.215 - just that happening saying oh Well, we'll just give everything to the council president and have that 00:23:50.215 --> 00:23:56.758 - person sponsor everything that's why we we had kind of a first draft idea of having this go-to list 00:23:56.758 --> 00:24:03.433 - of which department legislation for which department would go to which council members and that could 00:24:03.433 --> 00:24:05.854 - be related to their other roles like 00:24:06.690 --> 00:24:12.437 - I'm on the waste reduction board. So maybe anything having to do with sanitation could come through 00:24:12.437 --> 00:24:18.413 - me because that makes sense because I've dealt with a solid waste stuff. So, um, you know anything from 00:24:18.413 --> 00:24:24.447 - planning maybe could go through the council member who served on the planning commission. Um, we really, 00:24:24.447 --> 00:24:30.711 - uh, do intend to, to spread that work out and kind of, uh, one thing that council member Zulek had mentioned 00:24:30.711 --> 00:24:35.710 - that the Indiana general assembly actually has a limit on the number of bills, any one 00:24:36.162 --> 00:24:46.523 - Member can sponsor and so if we if we see that oh my gosh, they're always going to the same person And 00:24:46.523 --> 00:24:56.884 - if we find that's problematic, then we might consider those kind of limits as well To that I also want 00:24:56.884 --> 00:24:59.902 - to add if we all remember the 00:25:01.154 --> 00:25:08.098 - rate change not that one the rate change that came last year with CBU and that Part of my experience 00:25:08.098 --> 00:25:15.249 - with that one really felt like we were asking questions That because the folks at CBU like knew so much 00:25:15.249 --> 00:25:22.193 - of the inside baseball about some of those things But we didn't that then it's like we were bringing 00:25:22.193 --> 00:25:25.150 - up new things. So that's kind of what what 00:25:25.474 --> 00:25:31.126 - Number two here on the says is helping to ensure that legislation is clear to a layperson and doesn't 00:25:31.126 --> 00:25:36.944 - leave out crucial context which may be you know, I mean we Voted that down. I think it was totally voted 00:25:36.944 --> 00:25:42.706 - down as opposed to postponed indefinitely and so it's like that kind of thing that I'm kind of thinking 00:25:42.706 --> 00:25:48.414 - like okay, we can avoid that by having a Layperson council member for lack of a better word say, okay. 00:25:48.414 --> 00:25:54.398 - This is an interesting idea. But what about this that somebody who is You know in it all the time might not 00:25:54.626 --> 00:26:02.036 - think about needing somebody needing a resource for an explanation about All I was gonna say was we 00:26:02.036 --> 00:26:09.742 - brought it to the full council just to see what other council members were thinking and so I think that 00:26:09.742 --> 00:26:17.522 - We're not exactly defending like any specific piece of legislation, but we're more looking for feedback. 00:26:17.522 --> 00:26:20.190 - So I'll just put that out there and 00:26:24.098 --> 00:26:35.117 - So Normally, it's the the leadership the council that creates and regulates the schedule of the council 00:26:35.117 --> 00:26:46.347 - In coordination with the mayor's office and Kirk Bolton It will be then the duty of the council president 00:26:46.347 --> 00:26:53.022 - to find sponsors To find sponsors up to the administration and 00:26:54.050 --> 00:27:01.961 - I mean this probably goes back to what I was saying before that Normally sponsors are available for 00:27:01.961 --> 00:27:10.584 - for presentation Would they with the then fall on the sponsor council sponsor to be part of the presentation 00:27:10.584 --> 00:27:18.732 - of the legislation And see actually to that to that point I think that it makes a lot of sense to have 00:27:18.732 --> 00:27:19.998 - to actually tie 00:27:20.130 --> 00:27:25.640 - Council sponsorship to council support so that to your point about translating right that it's actually 00:27:25.640 --> 00:27:31.097 - you know There's a council member who is also going to be advocating for this and this isn't precludes 00:27:31.097 --> 00:27:36.501 - You know thing having three sponsors or four sponsors, right? Five I mean if we really know that that 00:27:36.501 --> 00:27:41.904 - probably would be difficult But you know them but you know, I think I think yeah I think generally we 00:27:41.904 --> 00:27:47.838 - should go in this direction and and see you know, right right right the legislation and and let's talk about it 00:27:49.154 --> 00:27:58.375 - Yeah, I just want to clarify We wanted the feedback so that we don't just have something that we Try 00:27:58.375 --> 00:28:07.504 - out for a couple meetings and then because this is a change in code. So so if the the feeling right 00:28:07.504 --> 00:28:16.542 - now is Not really but let's try it out then we'd rather know that now I also want to add to that I 00:28:17.186 --> 00:28:24.012 - Idea that I mean we put sponsor on here, but I think maybe it would be more appropriate to co-sponsor 00:28:24.012 --> 00:28:30.772 - Sure because because that does have to do with like presentation kind of stuff because you know Even 00:28:30.772 --> 00:28:37.532 - if you're a councilmember sponsor and even if like you can interpret some stuff like it's way better 00:28:37.532 --> 00:28:44.291 - for the actual staff involved with it to like talk about the whole thing so Maybe categorizing it as 00:28:44.291 --> 00:28:47.102 - a as a co-sponsor Would be better Awesome 00:28:47.682 --> 00:28:54.256 - All right. Anything else from council processes? Please go ahead. Well, I just wanted to note I I was 00:28:54.256 --> 00:29:00.829 - not envisioning that the sponsor would do the presentation. So I think that, you know, that's there's 00:29:00.829 --> 00:29:07.532 - some flexibility there if we want to involve the sponsor if the sponsor wants to be involved, we could, 00:29:07.532 --> 00:29:10.110 - you know, I think what we write in code 00:29:11.554 --> 00:29:20.926 - should not be highly detailed. And then I suppose the sponsor could decide whether they want to be part 00:29:20.926 --> 00:29:30.659 - of the presentation or not. That's my view. But at this time, unless there are other questions or comments, 00:29:30.659 --> 00:29:39.850 - I guess I would ask if there's a motion. What type of a motion are you looking for? The one that's in 00:29:39.850 --> 00:29:41.022 - my proposal. 00:29:47.554 --> 00:29:55.451 - I Mean I'm on the committee, but I'll go ahead and motion to That the committee on council processes 00:29:55.451 --> 00:30:03.114 - proceed with legislation to require councilmember sponsorship of all items of legislation Second, 00:30:03.114 --> 00:30:10.933 - all right. There's a motion in the second for them to continue this work all those in favor say aye 00:30:10.933 --> 00:30:15.390 - any opposed That motion carries eight one What would you 00:30:15.746 --> 00:30:24.260 - Did you want more discussion? I would have preferred a roll call, but I suppose it's clear Can I can 00:30:24.260 --> 00:30:32.942 - I do a roll call sure I don't know who actually said yes Yeah, but I don't know if everybody else said 00:30:32.942 --> 00:30:41.962 - yes, so I would like to roll call them. All right. Will the clerk please? do a roll call Yes councilmember 00:30:41.962 --> 00:30:45.502 - Flaherty, yes Stasburg yes Piedmont Smith 00:30:45.730 --> 00:30:56.666 - Yes, Zulik. Yes, sorry. Yes, Bailey. Yes, Rallo. No Right. Yes Rosenberger. Yes That motion carries 00:30:56.666 --> 00:31:03.774 - eight one All right. Excellent. Is that everything from special? 00:31:03.970 --> 00:31:13.314 - Thank you so much a really quick thing from hopefully quick from the hiring committee I hope you all 00:31:13.314 --> 00:31:22.566 - saw so we we we approved the Our draft of the job description and then submitted it to HR processes 00:31:22.566 --> 00:31:31.262 - They've sent it back with comments and so to to two matters for tonight is is both to approve 00:31:31.394 --> 00:31:38.144 - As amended or if you want if you want the hiring committee to continue to liaise with HR on anything 00:31:38.144 --> 00:31:44.828 - And then I have a second motion that I that I need but first first this question that everybody get 00:31:44.828 --> 00:31:50.910 - a chance to see the comments by HR and Were there any questions? Please councilman Sasberg 00:31:51.650 --> 00:31:58.722 - Verify that all of the changes were redlined because there were two of those job descriptions that actually 00:31:58.722 --> 00:32:05.336 - went out one in the Addendum yesterday and one in this afternoon And so I was trying to read through 00:32:05.336 --> 00:32:12.211 - those going like what are the changes the change the change in the second was was a very minor one There 00:32:12.211 --> 00:32:18.825 - was a note Justifying extensive note on the first one that had a justification that went beyond Sort 00:32:18.825 --> 00:32:21.182 - of explaining why is that a 12? and 00:32:21.314 --> 00:32:28.500 - The HR said that that was not not completely accurate and so they the second one just had the definition 00:32:28.500 --> 00:32:35.822 - to be just the accurate reason In the packet, can you see the the notes or can you only see the redlining? 00:32:35.822 --> 00:32:43.008 - I only see the redlining. Okay. I don't know if I'm just not I Only see redlining. I don't know if other 00:32:43.008 --> 00:32:49.851 - people also only see redlining or if that's me and my computer Could you only see the redlining and 00:32:49.851 --> 00:32:50.878 - not the notes? 00:32:53.730 --> 00:32:59.841 - Well, that's a problem. So let's I think we're going to have to delay this until Unless I mean I can 00:32:59.841 --> 00:33:05.891 - describe I can describe how about I can describe what the what the notes say because but you've did 00:33:05.891 --> 00:33:11.458 - not read it well in the Does it say something different than the memo from human resources? 00:33:11.458 --> 00:33:17.811 - Nothing is oh, yeah. No, it's in the memo. Sorry. Thank you The memo just says the pay grade will remain 00:33:17.811 --> 00:33:22.046 - at grade 12 as is consistent with the city attorney's pay correct and 00:33:22.274 --> 00:33:28.871 - So in terms of the redlining with those two actual things about that changed the red line is all the 00:33:28.871 --> 00:33:35.403 - same Okay, I was like I'm really different here. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flaherty From director 00:33:35.403 --> 00:33:42.196 - paycheck the section just referenced to the bullet said reference forthcoming about the State statutory 00:33:42.196 --> 00:33:48.793 - requirement that the council's attorney may not be compensated a higher rate than the city attorney. 00:33:48.793 --> 00:33:52.190 - And so I was curious if we have that reference also 00:33:53.058 --> 00:34:00.316 - You wanted to clarify the city attorney. Is that corporation council or is that a different role? That's 00:34:00.316 --> 00:34:07.297 - the Second so yeah Audrey's position. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, so I thought thank you Any any word on 00:34:07.297 --> 00:34:14.692 - the reference or is that just something and and now I'm realizing as we're saying as we're talking through 00:34:14.692 --> 00:34:20.222 - this that I have made a clerical error and and for for the public's benefit I'm 00:34:20.674 --> 00:34:27.967 - collating all of our documents to put in our packet, fairly bad at it. And then those are helpfully 00:34:27.967 --> 00:34:35.406 - being put out by the clerk. I was supposed to update the memo, not the letter. Nothing changed in the 00:34:35.406 --> 00:34:42.772 - actual description. The memo is where they changed that reference. They just took out that reference 00:34:42.772 --> 00:34:45.470 - and just said the first line. Sorry. 00:34:46.178 --> 00:34:54.245 - Oh, is Dr. Paycheck here? Thank you. Dr. Paycheck walked in just on time like an angel from heaven. 00:34:54.245 --> 00:35:02.473 - Will you come and tell them how bad I am and just make it better, please? I take full responsibility. 00:35:02.473 --> 00:35:10.781 - That's okay. Hi, everyone. Shar Paycheck, Human Resources Director. We had a revision to the memo, not 00:35:10.781 --> 00:35:12.798 - to your job description, 00:35:12.898 --> 00:35:21.607 - Just to the memo the memo had language that basically said the city attorney pay Could not be more than 00:35:21.607 --> 00:35:30.567 - the I think it's like the attorney and the legal's office But we wanted to make sure that we were accurate 00:35:30.567 --> 00:35:38.941 - in that language in the code the code actually says the appropriation for your staff cannot be more 00:35:38.941 --> 00:35:41.118 - than the appropriation of 00:35:41.314 --> 00:35:47.923 - for like positions in the legal office. So we just wanted to be a little bit more clear in the language 00:35:47.923 --> 00:35:54.468 - that we put in the memo. So that was really the only changes that we had to the memo. We didn't change 00:35:54.468 --> 00:36:00.886 - anything to your red line to your job description. You didn't have significant changes anyway. So we 00:36:00.886 --> 00:36:07.686 - just tweaked it a little bit as HR would normally do, but that's all we did. Everything else we understand 00:36:07.686 --> 00:36:08.766 - and we approved. 00:36:09.602 --> 00:36:17.618 - Thank you so much, do you know the code section by chance of the citation I'm just curious to actually 00:36:17.618 --> 00:36:25.401 - read it and see One more time. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. Do you have a citation for the state code that 00:36:25.401 --> 00:36:33.340 - you're referencing? One moment I Think I followed what you said. I just wanted to read it You want to 00:36:33.340 --> 00:36:34.974 - know the actual code 00:36:35.618 --> 00:36:46.887 - Is that what you're saying? Yes 36 for 9 so 36 for 624 attorneys and legal research assistants for the 00:36:46.887 --> 00:36:58.047 - council office 36 for 620 is it 36 for 6 for 624 Okay, the legislative body may hire or contract with 00:36:58.047 --> 00:37:03.518 - competent attorneys and legal research assistants 00:37:03.618 --> 00:37:11.147 - Terms it considers appropriate and then thirty six four nine explains appropriations for salaries of 00:37:11.147 --> 00:37:18.750 - attorneys and legal research assistants employed under this section may not exceed the Appropriations 00:37:18.750 --> 00:37:26.651 - for similar salaries and the budget of the City Department of Law. That's what we were writing to confirm 00:37:26.651 --> 00:37:31.198 - got it and the conclusion from HR is that this position is a 00:37:31.586 --> 00:37:41.443 - Similar to the city attorney position. Is that right? And not the corporation council position Definitely 00:37:41.443 --> 00:37:51.486 - not the corporation council position some similarities to The assistant city attorney I feel like that is a 00:37:52.450 --> 00:37:59.386 - Detailed discussion. I don't know if you want to go into the detail about some of the differences I 00:37:59.386 --> 00:38:06.600 - feel between those two positions I can also say that I feel like there can be some continued discussion 00:38:06.600 --> 00:38:13.814 - on the actual Responsibilities that are outlined in this city attorney job description But I understand 00:38:13.814 --> 00:38:20.542 - that this is the way the position has been filled with the last two incumbents I understand that 00:38:20.642 --> 00:38:27.986 - You need some support and that you're ready to move forward. So I understand that But I just want to 00:38:27.986 --> 00:38:35.331 - say I think that there is room for further discussion On the way that the job description is written 00:38:35.331 --> 00:38:42.893 - so that everybody feels like we are on the same page and aligned with the state code Got it. Thank you. 00:38:42.893 --> 00:38:46.238 - You're welcome Any other um consular Salzburg 00:38:46.562 --> 00:38:53.089 - Actually have two more. So one is you said in your memo. Thank you so much, by the way for being here 00:38:53.089 --> 00:38:59.744 - I appreciate it that you guys changed things systematically from essential and non-essential to primary 00:38:59.744 --> 00:39:06.399 - and secondary But in the job description, it does not look like the non-essential secondary got changed 00:39:06.399 --> 00:39:10.942 - to just secondary So was that just like an error that that didn't get? 00:39:11.618 --> 00:39:17.880 - Do you know what I'm talking does anybody else know what I'm talking about where you're talking about? 00:39:17.880 --> 00:39:24.325 - I just have to make sure I Think in our practice we changed it to primary and secondary because sometimes 00:39:24.325 --> 00:39:30.465 - we had a Misinterpretation that non-essential meant you don't really have to do those things and you 00:39:30.465 --> 00:39:34.174 - do Yeah, and so it should be primary and secondary. It's not 00:39:34.594 --> 00:39:40.263 - Okay, well it should be primary and secondary and so when it's posted it will be posted as primary and 00:39:40.263 --> 00:39:45.986 - secondary not essential and not I mean, that's fine I just figure there's a typo because yeah essential 00:39:45.986 --> 00:39:51.875 - secondary didn't get changed the secondary. Yes Sorry about that or non-essential secondary, but essential 00:39:51.875 --> 00:39:57.488 - primary did get changed to primary. So I was like wait Yes, sorry, and the other question that I have 00:39:57.488 --> 00:40:03.102 - is in your memo. It said that it needed to get That you recommended adding demonstrated ability to it 00:40:03.266 --> 00:40:09.353 - Effectively use Google workspace and Microsoft office including word processing spreadsheets presentations, 00:40:09.353 --> 00:40:15.214 - etc to support daily work functions And I didn't actually see that added So did that actually get added 00:40:15.214 --> 00:40:20.907 - somewhere and that I missed it or it like wasn't in a red line That's why I asked if everything that 00:40:20.907 --> 00:40:26.712 - had been changed was redlined because I didn't see it in a red line Without having the job description 00:40:26.712 --> 00:40:31.390 - in front of me. I'm sorry. I don't really recall I mean if you want it to add that 00:40:31.522 --> 00:40:38.615 - than it could be added. I'm happy to go back to talk to our talent manager to see if there was anything 00:40:38.615 --> 00:40:45.707 - that was missed. I'm hoping that that wouldn't be anything that would hold up you proceeding with this, 00:40:45.707 --> 00:40:50.686 - but if I can get some questions answered as quickly as possible, I will. 00:40:53.250 --> 00:40:58.897 - Don't want it to hold up getting an approval of some kind tonight So I think that we can make a motion 00:40:58.897 --> 00:41:03.940 - to make sure that that's added in if we as a group care about Making sure to kind of follow 00:41:03.940 --> 00:41:09.477 - the recommendations from HR around the job requirements The hiring committees meeting tomorrow so so 00:41:09.477 --> 00:41:15.015 - if you know if one of the things we can have on our agenda is to just make sure we you know Clean it 00:41:15.015 --> 00:41:20.606 - up, etc. And that they wrote in the memos while the process will involve, you know spell checking and 00:41:20.606 --> 00:41:21.374 - the like Yeah 00:41:22.754 --> 00:41:34.312 - Okay, are there any motions? No, please go ahead I moved to I Moved to approve the position description 00:41:34.312 --> 00:41:45.982 - for the council administrator attorney as amended second. There's a motion in a second any discussion. I 00:41:46.146 --> 00:41:52.641 - And please customer Sasberg I would have to vote no on that right now because as it's written It's not 00:41:52.641 --> 00:41:59.074 - right because non-essential secondary should be secondary and then the word stuff hasn't been written 00:41:59.074 --> 00:42:05.822 - in so yes, it's not as written can we either make a different motion or amend that motion to Maybe empower 00:42:05.822 --> 00:42:12.254 - the hiring committee to implement the changes as recommended to the to the job requirements by HR and 00:42:13.282 --> 00:42:24.079 - Include the red line and also the items notice to be different or something like that I Withdraw my 00:42:24.079 --> 00:42:34.876 - motion Do you want to go ahead and make sure you want me to make a motion instead? Okay. Okay, so I 00:42:34.876 --> 00:42:41.246 - would move that we That we empower the hiring committee to 00:42:43.618 --> 00:42:52.800 - What did I say before that we empower the hiring committee to make changes to the petition to the position 00:42:52.800 --> 00:43:01.381 - description as presented in the red line and as are reflected in the HR recommendations in the memo 00:43:01.381 --> 00:43:10.391 - There's a motion in a second any discussion All right seeing none all those in favor say aye Any opposed 00:43:10.391 --> 00:43:11.678 - any abstaining 00:43:11.842 --> 00:43:18.915 - That carries nine. Oh, thank you very much. Now the second thing a very brief thing and we needed a 00:43:18.915 --> 00:43:25.988 - motion we need to amend the emotion that we did last last meeting in terms of Deputizing the hiring 00:43:25.988 --> 00:43:33.698 - committee to engage with external council, etc because legal says that it needs to include figures including 00:43:33.698 --> 00:43:39.710 - hourly rates and an amount that the that were not to exceed in terms of spending and 00:43:39.842 --> 00:43:47.480 - And so I've asked a consumer daily to make that amended motion. That's okay with everyone I Move to 00:43:47.480 --> 00:43:55.424 - authorize the hiring committee to identify and contract in coordination with appropriate city processes 00:43:55.424 --> 00:44:01.534 - with external vendors professional service providers or temporary legal counsel 00:44:01.666 --> 00:44:10.055 - Necessary to ensure uninterrupted functioning of the council office and support recruitment efforts. 00:44:10.055 --> 00:44:18.609 - The results shall not exceed five thousand fifty thousand Dollars and we'll have a maximum hourly rate 00:44:18.609 --> 00:44:27.081 - of four hundred dollars second There's a motion and a second any discussion I'm councillor Stossberg. 00:44:27.081 --> 00:44:29.822 - Is that in the budget? Yes great 00:44:29.922 --> 00:44:37.055 - Is that maximum hourly rate of $400 comply with the? What? Director paycheck just mentioned. Yeah, we 00:44:37.055 --> 00:44:44.398 - looked at a broad range So this is both capturing hourly and what could be temp people and but we looked 00:44:44.398 --> 00:44:51.461 - at a broader range of You know different law firms that we've contracted with and you know the rates 00:44:51.461 --> 00:44:56.286 - range sort of dramatically and so just wanted to give space for that 00:44:56.482 --> 00:45:04.166 - depending on the type of needs that we might have. And then the 50K again is also, if we end up hiring 00:45:04.166 --> 00:45:11.626 - somebody for a sort of longer term temp position, we have 30K in our budget already, but then start 00:45:11.626 --> 00:45:19.235 - having salary savings from vacant staff positions. But then also just to trigger, if that goes on for 00:45:19.235 --> 00:45:25.054 - too long, that we have to come back to council and reauthorize that position. 00:45:25.922 --> 00:45:33.849 - I have one more question, or actually go ahead, I saw Council Member Rosemary. I was just gonna say, 00:45:33.849 --> 00:45:41.854 - I think 400 for billable hours can be kind of low, so if you all run into issues, I would be happy to 00:45:41.854 --> 00:45:49.702 - change it, because I just think it can be. And we looked at a broad range, and this fits within how 00:45:49.702 --> 00:45:52.606 - the city is contracted. Yes, please. 00:45:53.058 --> 00:45:59.137 - I guess my other question or kind of follow up to that without my having to do math or necessarily go 00:45:59.137 --> 00:46:05.335 - like well how many hours a week does that mean like How long do you think that? Maximum is gonna manage 00:46:05.335 --> 00:46:11.294 - to sustain did you like speak with like city legal at all in terms of that kind of like consulting? 00:46:11.294 --> 00:46:17.492 - Yeah, I think it was just enough of a runway and and again We have we'll have lots of different options 00:46:17.492 --> 00:46:22.558 - as we talked about the last the last meeting so I think it's really contingent on on 00:46:22.754 --> 00:46:29.103 - You know which path we pursue but we'll have a better sense after after the hiring committee makes make 00:46:29.103 --> 00:46:35.391 - some decision about direction Okay, thanks. Thank you so much. All right, there's a motion in a second 00:46:35.391 --> 00:46:41.617 - all those in favor signal saying aye any opposed Any abstaining that motion carries nine? Oh as well. 00:46:41.617 --> 00:46:47.966 - Thank you very much We'll now move to any appointments to boards and commissions. Do we have any? Sorry 00:46:48.258 --> 00:46:54.159 - I'm sorry. We now move to the most exciting part of today's agenda, which is public comment on things 00:46:54.159 --> 00:47:00.175 - that are not currently on the agenda. You'll have three minutes to speak from the public mic. If you're 00:47:00.175 --> 00:47:06.018 - willing to, please say your name for the record and most certainly sign in. For those of you online, 00:47:06.018 --> 00:47:11.861 - you can raise your hand and we'll acknowledge you. Same rules, three minutes, et cetera. I will play 00:47:11.861 --> 00:47:18.224 - music when that time is done. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to make public comment on things not on 00:47:18.224 --> 00:47:26.166 - Agenda take it away. I Think you should be an entertainment good Evening, my name is Claudia Brink. 00:47:26.166 --> 00:47:34.267 - I'm a longtime Bloomington resident. I'm also a pro bono consultant focused on affordable housing and 00:47:34.267 --> 00:47:42.209 - I want to talk about modular housing and I have five reasons for why I think modular housing should 00:47:42.209 --> 00:47:44.830 - be considered by the council and 00:47:45.922 --> 00:47:52.517 - But before I give you my five reasons, I want to say very clearly I have no personal or financial interest 00:47:52.517 --> 00:47:58.865 - in anything having to do with modular housing. Okay. All right. So the first reason is modular housing 00:47:58.865 --> 00:48:05.029 - is 15% less expensive than traditional stick-built housing. The second reason is that modular homes 00:48:05.029 --> 00:48:08.542 - can be built year-round in a climate-controlled factory. 00:48:09.026 --> 00:48:16.738 - The third reason is that modular housing conforms to all Indiana code requirements for stick-built housing 00:48:16.738 --> 00:48:23.946 - and actually they are more stable because they are built with two by six supports instead of two by 00:48:23.946 --> 00:48:31.226 - fours. Also in Bloomington, we have a local builder that is committed to affordable housing and they 00:48:31.226 --> 00:48:34.686 - have built over 96 modular homes in nine years. 00:48:34.946 --> 00:48:41.075 - the same vendor has also been constructing between 12 and 14 homes in the Arlington Commons Land Trust 00:48:41.075 --> 00:48:47.204 - and working with the Summit Hill Community Development Corporation already and The last reason why I'm 00:48:47.204 --> 00:48:53.333 - asking you to support modular housing conceptually is that it is better for the environment when their 00:48:53.333 --> 00:48:59.462 - Modular homes are built in a factory any waste material is not thrown out It is recycled into the next 00:48:59.462 --> 00:49:04.222 - house that is built. So it's very good for the environment. It's affordable and 00:49:04.386 --> 00:49:13.821 - It could be built much faster. It could be built all year round. Thank you very much Thank you next 00:49:13.821 --> 00:49:15.614 - person in chambers 00:49:39.490 --> 00:49:50.259 - Good evening, council members. My name is Joe Davis. I live at 530 South Washington Street between 2nd 00:49:50.259 --> 00:50:00.714 - Street and 1st. I discovered yesterday, after returning from running some errands, that the city of 00:50:00.714 --> 00:50:09.182 - Bloomington came in and took away from the front of my house my cooking firewood 00:50:09.570 --> 00:50:21.294 - and they removed the composted leaves that I used to mulch my engineered raised garden beds. I was set 00:50:21.294 --> 00:50:32.790 - up in front of my house with my computer, with my lawn chair, and my radio was on on my front porch, 00:50:32.790 --> 00:50:35.294 - and while I was gone, 00:50:35.842 --> 00:50:46.716 - the city employees through the Brighton Bloomington Project under the auspices of the Board of Public 00:50:46.716 --> 00:50:57.589 - Works, not the Board, of the Public Works had taken away my valuable property. It took me all of last 00:50:57.589 --> 00:51:00.574 - afternoon and much of today 00:51:01.570 --> 00:51:15.346 - to find out who was responsible and accountable, and that is Public Works, that is the city of Bloomington. 00:51:15.346 --> 00:51:28.102 - These items were very valuable to me. They constituted both real property and my personal, tangible 00:51:28.102 --> 00:51:30.398 - property as well. 00:51:31.746 --> 00:51:40.796 - They were taken away, I have found out that they are likely have been compromised at this point and 00:51:40.796 --> 00:51:49.846 - mixed with other composted debris. I asked the city of Bloomington to give me, I requested that the 00:51:49.846 --> 00:51:58.987 - city of Bloomington bring back my materials and that they do so as soon as possible because any time 00:51:58.987 --> 00:52:00.254 - that goes on, 00:52:00.354 --> 00:52:10.767 - is leading to the degradation and the compromise of my materials. I also stated that the city needed 00:52:10.767 --> 00:52:21.695 - to make me whole, and I wanted a public apology for taking away my property. And that if I didn't receive 00:52:21.695 --> 00:52:29.118 - this and some other compost or replacement materials, I would file with 00:52:29.506 --> 00:52:40.781 - Deputy Prosecutor Jeff Kerr to start criminal proceedings for trespass, theft or conversion and other 00:52:40.781 --> 00:52:51.946 - violations of my property rights. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you Is there anybody online 00:52:51.946 --> 00:52:58.910 - who has a comment? Okay person online and then we'll come back 00:52:59.266 --> 00:53:11.102 - in chambers Kevin Keough, do you hear me? Now we can go ahead miss Keough 00:53:11.810 --> 00:53:17.231 - At last Friday's Fiscal Committee meeting, it was announced that the external auditors and the State 00:53:17.231 --> 00:53:22.651 - Board of Accounts will be presenting on April 2nd, tomorrow, the audited financial report along with 00:53:22.651 --> 00:53:28.502 - the federal grants audit report. As you prepare for tomorrow's executive session with the external auditors, 00:53:28.502 --> 00:53:34.244 - I want to emphasize the importance of timely financial reporting. We are now 15 months past the 12-31-2024 00:53:34.244 --> 00:53:34.942 - fiscal year. 00:53:35.170 --> 00:53:40.610 - From a professional standpoint, timely financial information is essential for effective governance. 00:53:40.610 --> 00:53:46.158 - When financial data is significantly delayed, decisions about the city's future are based on outdated 00:53:46.158 --> 00:53:51.762 - information rather than current conditions. I encourage the members of the council to ask the auditors 00:53:51.762 --> 00:53:57.256 - a fundamental question. What factors contributed to the length of the audit cycle? Specifically, was 00:53:57.256 --> 00:54:03.185 - the timeline driven primarily by the auditor scheduling or by the timing and completeness of the information 00:54:03.185 --> 00:54:04.382 - provided by the city? 00:54:04.738 --> 00:54:10.276 - In the accounting profession, this is referred to as audit readiness, whether books are closed, 00:54:10.276 --> 00:54:16.160 - reconciliations completed, and supporting documentation available early in the process. Understanding 00:54:16.160 --> 00:54:21.929 - this distinction is key to identifying where improvements are needed. Also, please ask the auditor, 00:54:21.929 --> 00:54:27.525 - did the agreed upon audit fee need to be increased compared to the original contract, and if so, 00:54:27.525 --> 00:54:31.678 - how much, and what was the increase directly attributable to the delay? 00:54:32.322 --> 00:54:37.674 - I would encourage the Council to consider how the timing and consistency of financial reporting aligns 00:54:37.674 --> 00:54:43.130 - with the City required disclosures to current investors associated with the City's outstanding municipal 00:54:43.130 --> 00:54:48.742 - bonds. Ask the auditor about the impact bondholders who rely on timely and consistent financial information 00:54:48.742 --> 00:54:53.991 - and find that reporting is delayed or instances where previous issued figures require clarification. 00:54:53.991 --> 00:54:55.134 - Ask how those factors 00:54:55.202 --> 00:55:00.787 - are reflective in the City's federal required audit information filings and disclosures to investors. 00:55:00.787 --> 00:55:06.810 - This is not simply a compliance matter. It's about maintaining confidence in the City's financial stewardship 00:55:06.810 --> 00:55:12.450 - that allows the City to attract investors to fund the City's futures needs. Finally, I would encourage 00:55:12.450 --> 00:55:16.830 - the Council to consider how financial controls operate beyond the audit itself. 00:55:16.962 --> 00:55:22.852 - Recent public reporting indicates that a $95,000 contract was fully paid while certain deliverables 00:55:22.852 --> 00:55:29.213 - may still have been in progress months later. Situations like this raise important questions about contract 00:55:29.213 --> 00:55:34.750 - monitoring, payment authorization, and verification of performance prior to the disbursement. 00:55:35.202 --> 00:55:41.215 - I would encourage the council to use this upcoming audit discussion to better understand how these types 00:55:41.215 --> 00:55:47.399 - of transactions are reviewed, what controls are in place, and how exceptions, if they occur, are identified 00:55:47.399 --> 00:55:53.354 - and addressed. This is ultimately a governance question. Timely, accurate financial reporting supported 00:55:53.354 --> 00:55:59.195 - by strong underlying processes is foundational to transparency, accountability, and informed decision 00:55:59.195 --> 00:56:05.150 - making. And I hope that most of you council members are able to attend that executive session tomorrow. 00:56:05.378 --> 00:56:11.690 - Thank you so much. Look forward to also seeing the the annual comprehensive financial report actually 00:56:11.690 --> 00:56:18.001 - published on the city web page, too Looking forward to that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Keough 00:56:18.001 --> 00:56:24.313 - I'm back in the room. Mr. Rousseau. Hi Paul Rousseau Thank you for the time I routinely I'm routinely 00:56:24.313 --> 00:56:30.686 - unable to attend the meetings of the Transportation Committee because they meet on Monday evenings and 00:56:31.202 --> 00:56:37.304 - So I would like to make some comments here, especially while members of the executive branch are present. 00:56:37.304 --> 00:56:43.290 - Six months ago, a 10-year-old girl was struck by a motor vehicle as she tried to cross the intersection 00:56:43.290 --> 00:56:49.104 - at Smith Road and Morningside Drive. The driver was a young man who ran the stop sign because he was 00:56:49.104 --> 00:56:55.378 - preoccupied with his cell phone. The statement of the daughter's mother on Monday evening was heartbreaking. 00:56:55.378 --> 00:56:56.702 - She said, and I quote, 00:56:57.250 --> 00:57:03.409 - Immediately after the crash, sitting in the hospital ER, watching my daughter repeatedly vomit up the 00:57:03.409 --> 00:57:09.810 - blood she had swallowed from missing teeth that were knocked out on impact, I was overwhelmed with guilt. 00:57:09.810 --> 00:57:15.848 - I had failed to keep my daughter safe, end quote. But in fact, she had taken measures to ensure her 00:57:15.848 --> 00:57:21.887 - daughter's safety, and she had also wisely balanced safety with the need for her daughter to gain a 00:57:21.887 --> 00:57:26.174 - measure of independence, which is important for childhood development. 00:57:27.298 --> 00:57:33.390 - That is why her daughter was wearing a helmet as she bicycled a few blocks to her friend's house. Imagine 00:57:33.390 --> 00:57:39.194 - what would have happened otherwise. Head injuries can be easily fatal. The response of the committee 00:57:39.194 --> 00:57:45.056 - and city employees on Monday night was to discuss all the possible ways to make the intersection safe 00:57:45.056 --> 00:57:50.917 - with engineering improvements. About 16 years ago, the University of Utah published a study that they 00:57:50.917 --> 00:57:56.894 - conducted with a driving simulator, which is similar to the aircraft simulators used in pilot training. 00:57:58.466 --> 00:58:04.545 - A large group of volunteers were each tested with no impairments, tested while distracted by a cell 00:58:04.545 --> 00:58:10.867 - phone, and tested after drinking alcohol. The study found that even with hands-free technology, drivers 00:58:10.867 --> 00:58:16.946 - distracted by a phone conversation were identically impaired to those with a blood alcohol level at 00:58:16.946 --> 00:58:23.208 - the legal limit. Texting, which is arguably even worse, was not even part of the research, even though 00:58:23.208 --> 00:58:25.822 - that is what distracts most drivers today. 00:58:26.946 --> 00:58:34.174 - How do we change the behavior of those who drink and drive? Is roadway engineering our primary mechanism? 00:58:34.174 --> 00:58:41.469 - Of course not. We use enforcement, and the offending driver either changes behavior or loses the privilege 00:58:41.469 --> 00:58:48.424 - of driving. Where is the enforcement in Bloomington? Last night the police chief spoke about property 00:58:48.424 --> 00:58:55.038 - crimes, but he had nothing to say about the epidemic of moving violations by distracted drivers. 00:58:56.194 --> 00:59:06.087 - Motor vehicles injure, maim, and kill people. If we are serious about public safety, then we will allocate 00:59:06.087 --> 00:59:16.350 - more officers to traffic, and if necessary, fewer to property crimes. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Please. 00:59:29.122 --> 00:59:36.170 - Good evening. My name's Emily Niasse, and I wasn't expecting to come here tonight. I don't usually have 00:59:36.170 --> 00:59:43.151 - Wednesday evenings open. This is the first one, and I was planning to go home and read a book and have 00:59:43.151 --> 00:59:50.064 - something nice to eat and, you know, rest and stuff. But I stopped on the way. I got a ride over here 00:59:50.064 --> 00:59:56.909 - with, it's my fault the mayor was late. I was gonna say, it was my fault. She stopped to pick me up. 00:59:56.909 --> 00:59:57.790 - I'm limping. 00:59:57.890 --> 01:00:06.338 - I was on my way home to Trail View and we naturally ended up talking about where she was going, which 01:00:06.338 --> 01:00:14.621 - was to the city council meeting, and to talk about Hopewell. And I thought I'd take a minute to say 01:00:14.621 --> 01:00:22.987 - we built our house in Trail View neighborhood. We were one of the first two houses built in 2015. We 01:00:22.987 --> 01:00:25.886 - were women-built. Best party ever. 01:00:26.594 --> 01:00:35.432 - It's absolutely phenomenal. So I've been, we've been in our house for 16 years now in our affordable, 01:00:35.432 --> 01:00:44.096 - safe, accessible community. Now we have 34 homes in our neighborhood. And Hopewell, I hope, will be 01:00:44.096 --> 01:00:52.414 - very similar to a lot of the wonderful things about living in Trailview. It is, our houses are, 01:00:52.738 --> 01:01:01.981 - relatively small. They are close together. We know our neighbors very well. The pandemic tested that. 01:01:01.981 --> 01:01:11.043 - We rose to the test amazingly. We have beautiful gardens and safe places for children to play. When 01:01:11.043 --> 01:01:20.377 - there are traffic safety issues, we deal with them as a community, as there are, of course. And I hope 01:01:20.377 --> 01:01:21.918 - that as Hopewell 01:01:22.530 --> 01:01:32.140 - gets planned and pushed forward. I hadn't realized that the word affordable really had an option of 01:01:32.140 --> 01:01:42.134 - coming true here. I mean, Trailview is a habitat neighborhood. There are a lot of things that went into 01:01:42.134 --> 01:01:49.630 - making that affordable. But Hopewell could be truly affordable. But also that 01:01:50.338 --> 01:02:00.495 - in that planning, many things take over the process and that I hope in consideration will still be what 01:02:00.495 --> 01:02:10.261 - folks who need affordable housing need most. Of course, things need to meet code. Things need to be 01:02:10.261 --> 01:02:20.222 - legal and safe and well planned. But to stay affordable, take into consideration what they need first 01:02:21.762 --> 01:02:24.894 - for it to remain affordable, not get too expensive. 01:02:25.986 --> 01:02:33.128 - and that many other things are... That's your time. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to remind everybody 01:02:33.128 --> 01:02:39.934 - that during this session of public comment and the other one, please only talk about things that are 01:02:39.934 --> 01:02:46.806 - not on the agenda. It is your first time, though, so I receive your comments with such joy. You know, 01:02:46.806 --> 01:02:53.342 - it's an acquired habit for most of us. Anybody else have a comment for things not on the agenda? 01:02:55.522 --> 01:03:02.294 - Anyone online? There'll be plenty of opportunities. Anyone online? All right, thank you so much. 01:03:02.294 --> 01:03:09.694 - All right, we now move on, and there will be another time of public comment if you did not comment during 01:03:09.694 --> 01:03:16.746 - this section that you'll be able to comment at the end of the meeting. We'll move on to appointments 01:03:16.746 --> 01:03:19.678 - to board and commissions. Do we have any? 01:03:20.706 --> 01:03:27.544 - Police council members look no appointments, but we do have some removals Unfortunately the appointment 01:03:27.544 --> 01:03:34.185 - that we made last week for Kerry champion to the Historic Preservation Commission We heard back from 01:03:34.185 --> 01:03:40.827 - Kerry champion who said that they are no longer able to fulfill the time commitment for the Historic 01:03:40.827 --> 01:03:47.665 - Preservation Commission so I will and I guess I'll just do both at the same time drew Heron did receive 01:03:47.665 --> 01:03:50.558 - his final notice from deputy clerk Crossley 01:03:50.658 --> 01:03:58.495 - That he will be removed from the Historic Preservation Commission if we do not hear from him and we 01:03:58.495 --> 01:04:06.409 - did not hear from him Clerk Bolden. Do you have anything to add about Drew Heron? Just that a letter 01:04:06.409 --> 01:04:14.324 - was sent to him. He didn't respond by the due date which was actually oh Goodness the 31st yesterday 01:04:14.324 --> 01:04:17.694 - So yeah, thank you. And so with that I'm I 01:04:17.890 --> 01:04:23.980 - Move that we remove drew heron and carry champion from the Historic Preservation Commission happy to 01:04:23.980 --> 01:04:30.190 - answer any questions There's a motion in a second any discussion comes from Stossberg We actually have 01:04:30.190 --> 01:04:36.460 - to remove the person who we appointed last week who said that they can no longer do it. They can't just 01:04:36.460 --> 01:04:42.791 - resign Because I mean we don't usually actually officially remove anybody who resigns but we have people 01:04:42.791 --> 01:04:45.022 - who resign and leave empty seats and 01:04:47.714 --> 01:04:55.475 - Please come clerk clerk Bolden Do you want to complete the motion that you're voting on because Drew 01:04:55.475 --> 01:05:03.160 - Heron was not the person that you were discussing about removal You just you did both both of them. 01:05:03.160 --> 01:05:11.306 - Okay, then They didn't accept the appointment That you made last week, so we don't probably be the better 01:05:11.306 --> 01:05:13.150 - way to clarify I I mean 01:05:13.378 --> 01:05:18.944 - It doesn't seem like we need to remove them Okay in that case I withdraw my motion and I would like 01:05:18.944 --> 01:05:24.787 - to move that we remove true Heron from the Historic Preservation Commission There's a motion in a second 01:05:24.787 --> 01:05:30.409 - any discussion Seeing that all those in favor say aye any opposed any abstaining that motion carries 01:05:30.409 --> 01:05:36.141 - nine zero Thank you very much. Are there any other appointments boards and commissions? I believe not. 01:05:36.141 --> 01:05:41.150 - All right, we have no legislation for first reading anybody want to introduce something I 01:05:41.954 --> 01:05:49.699 - Great. We're moving now on to things for ledges legislation for Not first reading in this case second 01:05:49.699 --> 01:05:57.368 - reading. Are there any motions? I move that ordinance 2026-06 be introduced and read by the clerk by 01:05:57.368 --> 01:06:05.037 - title and synopsis only second There's a motion in a second. Is there any discussion? All right, all 01:06:05.037 --> 01:06:07.998 - those in favor say aye aye any opposed 01:06:08.994 --> 01:06:20.959 - And I'm assuming what I'm stating so that's a eight eight zero one it passes Oh flirty's gone to hey, 01:06:20.959 --> 01:06:27.646 - I'm not counting. Well seven seven one It doesn't matter 01:06:28.514 --> 01:06:34.676 - Yeah ordinance 2026 dash 06 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property 01:06:34.676 --> 01:06:40.780 - from residential urban lot r4 and residential multifamily rm within the transform redevelopment overlay 01:06:40.780 --> 01:06:46.825 - which is tro to plan unit development pud and to approve a district ordinance and preliminary plan the 01:06:46.825 --> 01:06:52.870 - synopsis is as follows This ordinance amends the zoning of the property from residential urban lot and 01:06:52.870 --> 01:06:58.270 - residential multifamily within the transform redevelopment overlay to plan unit development 01:07:00.514 --> 01:07:07.178 - Thank you very much. I move that ordinance 2026-06 be adopted. Second. All right, this ordinance is 01:07:07.178 --> 01:07:13.976 - before us again. We'll give a little bit of time if the petitioner had any sort of remaining thoughts 01:07:13.976 --> 01:07:20.640 - or things that they'd like to say. We'll have time for Councilmember questions and then we can move 01:07:20.640 --> 01:07:26.238 - to our continued discussion of reasonable conditions. Take it away, Mayor Thompson. 01:07:27.170 --> 01:07:37.514 - Awesome. I want to just say that I was not entirely late just because I was picking up Emily. I also 01:07:37.514 --> 01:07:45.502 - watched a rocket launch and it reminded me that we can do really hard things. 01:07:45.730 --> 01:07:56.047 - And I acknowledge that sometimes, hard things don't go well, and sometimes, we take the scenic route. 01:07:56.047 --> 01:08:06.668 - But I am excited to be talking about Hopewell again today. And we've... I have spent much of the weekend 01:08:06.668 --> 01:08:14.558 - talking one-on-one, two-on-one, et cetera, with various folks about Hopewell. 01:08:14.690 --> 01:08:21.977 - And hope while we really tried to do things differently and engage council early We had a meeting on 01:08:21.977 --> 01:08:28.615 - December 15th just to get input based on the map as it was looking at that point Along with 01:08:28.615 --> 01:08:35.902 - the considerations and at that point I invited council to remain engaged through Plan Commission and 01:08:36.066 --> 01:08:46.552 - because it does get to a point where it's expensive to change things and it causes great delays. We 01:08:46.552 --> 01:08:56.723 - really got almost no feedback at that point. And I fully respect the input of all of our elected 01:08:56.723 --> 01:09:01.022 - representatives of our city's residents. 01:09:01.442 --> 01:09:09.971 - And I join you in the spirit of moving Hopewell forward. And it's in that spirit that I want to issue 01:09:09.971 --> 01:09:18.417 - a challenge of my own this evening. I call on every council member and myself to conduct a series of 01:09:18.417 --> 01:09:27.030 - meetings throughout the month of April to pound out the final details of Hopewell's initial phase. Our 01:09:27.030 --> 01:09:29.790 - staff team will prioritize this. 01:09:30.402 --> 01:09:37.913 - And I would ask that you do the same. To maximize the input and ensure that we use our time allotted 01:09:37.913 --> 01:09:45.869 - with the urgency that this deserves. The urgency that is felt by people wanting to find attainable housing 01:09:45.869 --> 01:09:53.454 - here in our city. Including using your next deliberation session and any added meetings that might be 01:09:53.454 --> 01:09:59.998 - needed in order to hammer through all of these details. We remain open to collaboration 01:10:00.226 --> 01:10:09.968 - and to finding ways forward that meet the needs of our residents, both current and future. I believe 01:10:09.968 --> 01:10:20.289 - that if we do that over the next month, that we can, as one city, finalize a mutually agreed-upon strategy 01:10:20.289 --> 01:10:26.366 - at Council's first meeting in May. And to that end, I would... 01:10:26.530 --> 01:10:34.746 - Encourage you to use the balance of this meeting of the time that you had planned to spend at this meeting 01:10:34.746 --> 01:10:42.579 - proceeding through the discussion and Giving us something meaningful to take back to the RDC if there 01:10:42.579 --> 01:10:51.102 - are considerations that they need to make It's hard to get quorum there in response to things that the council 01:10:51.234 --> 01:11:02.355 - is requesting. And we have Allie Quinlan-Thurman on the line today. She is prepared to go through the 01:11:02.355 --> 01:11:13.694 - various reasonable conditions and offer some background and hopefully inform the discussion. Thank you. 01:11:17.570 --> 01:11:27.422 - Mayor Thompson, can I just clarify one thing? Sorry, thank you. So is, maybe this is not a necessary 01:11:27.422 --> 01:11:37.468 - clarification, just, I mean, I'm dense. Are you proposing that, are you asking us not to vote on this, 01:11:37.468 --> 01:11:45.662 - not to vote on this today? Unless you plan to vote without, unless you plan to vote 01:11:47.618 --> 01:11:55.437 - For the PUD in a way that does not materially change what has been submitted, I would ask you not to 01:11:55.437 --> 01:12:03.411 - vote on it, because we would need, especially given several reasonable conditions that are gonna cause 01:12:03.411 --> 01:12:11.307 - a change to the map and change to the cost of the homes, if those were to pass, we need to go back to 01:12:11.307 --> 01:12:16.958 - the drawing board and pencil things out, and we need to talk to the RDC. 01:12:18.210 --> 01:12:24.242 - Thank you so much. Any other council member questions? Here, Council Member Stosberg. I'm not sure if 01:12:24.242 --> 01:12:29.624 - this is a question for Mayor Thompson or a question for I think that we, the council, have 01:12:29.624 --> 01:12:35.597 - legal representation online right now, is that correct? Correct. I think our people from Clark Quinn 01:12:35.597 --> 01:12:41.512 - online, if you are, yep, they are as well. Hello. So if we could maybe stop that screen share, that 01:12:41.512 --> 01:12:46.302 - would be great. And I also want to mention that anything that, any presentations 01:12:46.498 --> 01:12:51.079 - Should have been submitted already to council and should have already been posted on board for the public 01:12:51.079 --> 01:12:53.758 - as well And I find it frustrating. This is the second meeting 01:12:53.826 --> 01:12:59.314 - That that had a presentation like this that then wasn't already in the packet and that's kind of a deviation 01:12:59.314 --> 01:13:04.349 - of procedure and I would appreciate it if We could actually manage to follow that council procedure 01:13:04.349 --> 01:13:09.434 - But getting back to the question that I have for legal the end of last meeting it was basically, you 01:13:09.434 --> 01:13:14.721 - know this legal dispute between whether the reasonable conditions were reasonable conditions and whether 01:13:14.721 --> 01:13:19.756 - we could pass them at all and I'm interested if our our Representation that we have contracted with 01:13:19.756 --> 01:13:23.582 - now could weigh in on that matter of these reasonable conditions. Thanks. I 01:13:25.474 --> 01:13:33.642 - Sure, and thank you. Just a brief introduction. My name is Clark Kirkman, and with me I have Kelly Shaw. 01:13:33.642 --> 01:13:41.732 - We're attorneys at the Clark Quinn law firm here in Indianapolis. I would like to thank President Asare 01:13:41.732 --> 01:13:49.278 - for inviting us to help out in this project. I'd also like to thank Margie Rice for working with 01:13:49.410 --> 01:13:58.182 - President Asare to contract with us on such short notice and to get that engagement signed. We were 01:13:58.182 --> 01:14:07.130 - asked to review what the scope of the council's authority is to impose or adopt reasonable conditions 01:14:07.130 --> 01:14:15.902 - when voting to adopt a plan unit development or PUD and what the potential limitations of that are. 01:14:16.098 --> 01:14:26.356 - I did submit a memorandum that I believe has been added to the packet for today's meeting. I won't go 01:14:26.356 --> 01:14:36.514 - into the whole memo as we've submitted, but our review of the relevant laws is that Section 1512 and 01:14:36.514 --> 01:14:44.158 - the 1500 series is what governs plan unit developments. Section 1512 is the 01:14:44.674 --> 01:14:55.470 - gives power to the legislative body expressly to allow adding reasonable conditions when adopting a 01:14:55.470 --> 01:15:06.265 - PUD ordinance. It's specific and distinct from the legislative body's ability to generally adopt or 01:15:06.265 --> 01:15:13.822 - reject a proposed rezone that's in the 600 series of the zoning laws. 01:15:14.146 --> 01:15:23.318 - The plan commission conducts the review of the PUD district ordinance in accordance with 1511 and then 01:15:23.318 --> 01:15:32.578 - that's then sent over legislative body in accordance with 1512. It's true that neither statute nor case 01:15:32.578 --> 01:15:40.414 - law really defines what might constitute a reasonable condition. And to the extent that 01:15:41.026 --> 01:15:48.564 - something might be reviewed later on. I think a court would review that under the general arbitrary 01:15:48.564 --> 01:15:56.555 - and capricious standard that's articulated in the Misty Woods case, which has been brought up, I believe, 01:15:56.555 --> 01:16:03.038 - at previous meetings. Speaking of Misty Woods, so that case has been submitted by the 01:16:03.266 --> 01:16:13.706 - the city on behalf of the RDC. The issue in the Misty Woods case had to do with whether the council 01:16:13.706 --> 01:16:24.355 - in that one actually voted to adopt a rezone, but it came out of the plan commission with some R1 and 01:16:24.355 --> 01:16:31.454 - some R2, and the council decided, well, we only want to go with R1. 01:16:31.586 --> 01:16:39.343 - and what the Court of Appeals said is that, well, that change in the zoning classification constituted 01:16:39.343 --> 01:16:47.176 - an amendment. Crown point, the Misty Woods case is distinguishable, we believe, from what we're dealing 01:16:47.176 --> 01:16:54.858 - with in this instance in that that case did not contemplate the 1500 series, did not contemplate plan 01:16:54.858 --> 01:16:59.678 - unit developments. It had to do with a general rezoning matter. 01:17:00.610 --> 01:17:08.007 - The only case that I'm aware of that talks about the 1500 series is the case way back from 2004 in the 01:17:08.007 --> 01:17:15.404 - Indian Supreme Court story in Bed and Breakfast, which really just talked about the difference between 01:17:15.404 --> 01:17:22.658 - a condition and a commitment in which a condition is something adopted by the legislative body, does 01:17:22.658 --> 01:17:30.270 - not have to be recorded, just has to be publicly available, whereas a commitment is entered into with the 01:17:30.658 --> 01:17:48.202 - property owner, it's added to the parcel and it runs with the land. Speaking of commitments, the IC 01:17:48.202 --> 01:17:56.798 - 36-7-4-1015 talks about them and subsection G of 01:17:56.994 --> 01:18:04.281 - 1015 states that the following, and this has to do with adopting commitments. It says the following 01:18:04.281 --> 01:18:11.642 - types of conditions as authorized by this chapter are not considered commitments and are not subject 01:18:11.642 --> 01:18:19.002 - to subsection B. Subsection, sub-area three of that says, a condition imposed upon approval relative 01:18:19.002 --> 01:18:26.654 - to any other development requirement that must be met before any other secondary approval may be granted 01:18:27.106 --> 01:18:36.796 - or building permit may be issued under this chapter. To the extent that there is anything in state statute 01:18:36.796 --> 01:18:46.395 - that defines what might be a reasonable condition in the 1500 series, I would submit that that statement, 01:18:46.395 --> 01:18:55.541 - any condition imposed upon an approval relative to any other development requirement would be a good 01:18:55.541 --> 01:18:56.990 - place to start. 01:18:58.338 --> 01:19:04.877 - And with that, I think Kelly and I are happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Councilmember 01:19:04.877 --> 01:19:11.226 - Flaherty? Thank you for sharing your legal opinion that the Misty Woods case is distinguishable and 01:19:11.226 --> 01:19:18.019 - that in the 1500 series, we would be looking at probably an arbitrary and capricious standard to determine 01:19:18.019 --> 01:19:24.685 - if reasonable conditions are in fact reasonable. Can you describe a little bit more what type of factors 01:19:24.685 --> 01:19:26.526 - would go into that analysis? 01:19:26.626 --> 01:19:37.080 - if a court were to assess a given reasonable condition? I think a court, as a gentleman, would look 01:19:37.080 --> 01:19:48.266 - at the overall goal of the project, whether the project, whether that condition would further the project. 01:19:48.266 --> 01:19:52.030 - There was a statement that the city 01:19:53.570 --> 01:20:01.303 - put in its memorandum. This comes from a Nebraska statute that says, you know, a reasonable condition 01:20:01.303 --> 01:20:08.959 - might be deemed necessary to ensure the planning and development is compatible with adjacent uses of 01:20:08.959 --> 01:20:16.844 - land, will not overburden public services and facilities, and will not be detrimental to public health, 01:20:16.844 --> 01:20:22.302 - safety, and welfare. Now, I'm not sure that that language is, you know, 01:20:22.978 --> 01:20:29.882 - Specifically applicable here, but that might frame some of the Factors you asked you ask about Just 01:20:29.882 --> 01:20:36.786 - a follow-up on that particular point would things like city policy documents city policies and city 01:20:36.786 --> 01:20:43.690 - code city plans things like that be relevant to what might be considered reasonable for the sake of 01:20:43.690 --> 01:20:50.663 - a reasonable condition Certainly ordinances on the books would be considered You know informative of 01:20:50.663 --> 01:20:52.734 - reasonable reason ability yes 01:20:56.322 --> 01:21:05.759 - Thanks Any other any other questions or comments Comes counselor Rallo and then I'm counselor daily 01:21:05.759 --> 01:21:15.762 - Yes, thank you. Just to be clear. So what we what was referenced last week the case of Crown Point versus 01:21:15.762 --> 01:21:26.142 - Missy Woods was is not applicable to a PUD because We're evaluating PUD You said it was a rezone a 600 series 01:21:26.786 --> 01:21:37.878 - So they're distinguishable in that regard. Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't say that it wouldn't bear on any 01:21:37.878 --> 01:21:48.971 - discussion at all. I mean, it does analyze zoning law. But what happened in the Misty Woods case did 01:21:48.971 --> 01:21:54.462 - not concern a PUD. It was a general rezoning from 01:21:54.626 --> 01:22:04.674 - from an agriculture used to R1 and R2, the council decided they didn't want any R2. They passed it saying, 01:22:04.674 --> 01:22:14.534 - well, we're going to make the whole thing R1. The court said, well, that's amending the zoning ordinance 01:22:14.534 --> 01:22:22.046 - as passed. If you review the entire Misty Woods case, you will not find mention 01:22:22.658 --> 01:22:36.896 - anywhere of the words reasonable conditions Thank you Any other questions or comments I Have a question 01:22:36.896 --> 01:22:51.134 - mr. Kirkman if Whether So because the petitioner here is the RDC and being represented by the mayor and 01:22:51.330 --> 01:22:58.988 - and city legal, what would the process of withdrawal look like? So, I mean, I know we've had some discussions 01:22:58.988 --> 01:23:06.088 - before about if we were to, for example, if we were to pass certain things, you know, they would have 01:23:06.088 --> 01:23:13.467 - a right to withdraw the petition rather than, for example, have it voted down or voted up with conditions 01:23:13.467 --> 01:23:19.454 - that they didn't want to accept. But yeah, how, in your opinion, would that even work 01:23:21.474 --> 01:23:31.172 - Well, I would... I mean, it is somewhat unique, and it might be something that would need further review. 01:23:31.172 --> 01:23:40.412 - I do think, yeah, the fact that the petitioner is also the person who would be signing the ordinance 01:23:40.412 --> 01:23:50.750 - makes things more complicated, and... yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments? 01:23:53.154 --> 01:23:59.542 - Please point of order. I guess are we what phase of Deliberations are we in we were about to have a 01:23:59.542 --> 01:24:06.505 - presentation from a further presentation from the petitioner Though I was unaware that they had a PowerPoint 01:24:06.505 --> 01:24:12.766 - But I don't know if Ali would like to present without the PowerPoint to give in the accessibility 01:24:12.930 --> 01:24:20.276 - Point-of-order this made and then and then we were going to move into discussion of the RC's got it. 01:24:20.276 --> 01:24:27.913 - Okay councilmember Sussberg asked that this happened and okay Yes, so so I think at this point and thank 01:24:27.913 --> 01:24:35.404 - you so much We may have further questions as we go on but thank you for for for answering this initial 01:24:35.404 --> 01:24:39.550 - round of them both of you and we'll move back I think if 01:24:40.034 --> 01:24:48.258 - Ali, our friends from Flintlock, if you're still there, if it's okay because of the rules about accessibility 01:24:48.258 --> 01:24:56.258 - that have been objected to, I think it sustains. We didn't receive the PowerPoint, so if you could present 01:24:56.258 --> 01:25:04.034 - without it, that would be most in line with our custom and rules. I'm happy to do so. We were receiving 01:25:04.034 --> 01:25:08.894 - questions from council members up until about an hour before the 01:25:08.994 --> 01:25:16.060 - the session so it would have been challenging to provide all of this in advance, but I'm also happy 01:25:16.060 --> 01:25:23.408 - to run through verbally if you don't mind not having graphics to explain some of the points. Thank you. 01:25:23.408 --> 01:25:30.474 - Thank you so much, Ms. Thurman. Yeah. As we adjust my screens over to do that. I was going to start 01:25:30.474 --> 01:25:37.822 - with talking through what we are really looking at tonight and some of the decisions before us tonight. 01:25:37.890 --> 01:25:45.604 - This is a fully vetted by city departments code compliant plan that has also gone through plan commission 01:25:45.604 --> 01:25:52.880 - and one round of conditions already. There was really extensive coordination as referenced earlier, 01:25:52.880 --> 01:26:00.157 - including engineering, fire, sanitation, and planning. A lot of what we wanted to talk about is the 01:26:00.157 --> 01:26:06.270 - trade-offs of what some of these potential changes would yield in the plan overall. 01:26:06.402 --> 01:26:12.403 - As we've heard about and I know we'll be talking about a lot today, the conditions also need to be tied 01:26:12.403 --> 01:26:15.230 - to project impacts, not to general policy goals. 01:26:15.298 --> 01:26:21.515 - I'll bring a little bit of information as well, just as somebody who works with cities a lot, working 01:26:21.515 --> 01:26:28.159 - through land use questions, who sat on permissions previously. The essential nexus and rough proportionality 01:26:28.159 --> 01:26:34.436 - and the arbitrary nature is something that we see a lot of cities talk a lot more about from a federal 01:26:34.436 --> 01:26:40.775 - level. The case law that we hear most frequently referenced, two cases that happened to rhyme, although 01:26:40.775 --> 01:26:44.798 - they were unrelated, Nolan and Dolan established the precedent of 01:26:45.154 --> 01:26:51.206 - Conditions have to be related directly to the impact of a project, the rational nexus of the reason 01:26:51.206 --> 01:26:57.319 - for the condition, and that also we need a rough proportionality of the cost of the condition has to 01:26:57.319 --> 01:27:01.374 - be directly related to the impact of the project itself on a city. 01:27:01.506 --> 01:27:07.596 - As we look at the conditions, I believe and I was going to recap briefly where I think we are. We were 01:27:07.596 --> 01:27:13.804 - receiving, again, feedback right before the meeting. Trying to get all on the same page of what we think 01:27:13.804 --> 01:27:19.717 - that we are, where we think we are on council conditions. My understanding is that our condition 1, 01:27:19.717 --> 01:27:25.747 - the use unit table adjustments has been approved by council and has no complaints from the applicant. 01:27:25.747 --> 01:27:29.886 - That condition 2, the phasing plan has been provided and is resolved. 01:27:30.434 --> 01:27:37.373 - Condition three, my understanding is, has been removed the ADU owner occupancy requirement. I believe 01:27:37.373 --> 01:27:44.379 - that RDC's attorney is going to speak to condition four, the permanent affordability at 50%. I believe 01:27:44.379 --> 01:27:51.998 - that our proposal would be the 25% that is required by the UDO, the 15% base and the 10% PUD added requirement. 01:27:53.058 --> 01:27:58.396 - Condition five's permanent affordability, my understanding has been removed. Condition six, 01:27:58.396 --> 01:28:04.430 - the sustainability, no gas allowed in the neighborhood that it has to be all electric. My understanding 01:28:04.430 --> 01:28:10.290 - is that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to that, but that the city would not be able to legally 01:28:10.290 --> 01:28:16.382 - require that. Condition seven, the sustainability requirement to meet lead silver or a similar proposal. 01:28:16.482 --> 01:28:21.608 - I think we can talk a little bit more about details there, but that we would propose meeting the model 01:28:21.608 --> 01:28:26.635 - energy code, which is in the UDO currently, that increasing the standards over those required in the 01:28:26.635 --> 01:28:31.960 - UDO would be an arbitrary exception because it's not required of other similar projects. And so we believe 01:28:31.960 --> 01:28:37.236 - this would be legally classified as an amendment that would require reworking the costs and affordability 01:28:37.236 --> 01:28:38.430 - metrics of the project. 01:28:39.522 --> 01:28:45.703 - Conditions 8, 9, 10, and 11 are something that might be helpful to referencing PUD exhibits to graphically 01:28:45.703 --> 01:28:51.595 - show, but the six-foot minimum sidewalk is not possible within the neighborhood without losing. We've 01:28:51.595 --> 01:28:57.486 - got a graphic that we can show you of if we have a 60-foot wide right of way, which is extending back 01:28:57.486 --> 01:29:02.974 - to a six-foot tree plot, which is condition 10, and a six-foot sidewalk, which is condition 8. 01:29:03.074 --> 01:29:10.182 - Because we can't widen into the building in Block 8 and we can't widen into existing homes in the southern 01:29:10.182 --> 01:29:17.090 - part of Block 10, we would need to take all of that extra space on both sides out of the edges of Block 01:29:17.090 --> 01:29:19.614 - 9. So we lose approximately 14 homes. 01:29:19.746 --> 01:29:24.547 - In condition eight, which I think is what Mayor Thompson is referencing, would require some redesign 01:29:24.547 --> 01:29:29.442 - and would likely need to come back through plan commission. It would have cost impacts that are pretty 01:29:29.442 --> 01:29:34.718 - significant as well as dimensional impacts that are very different than fire and engineering already reviewed. 01:29:34.882 --> 01:29:41.024 - The 10 foot minimum sidewalk condition in item condition nine is not possible without losing three accessible 01:29:41.024 --> 01:29:46.664 - units. Those could be converted to a non accessible unit, but the dimensions of the accessible units 01:29:46.664 --> 01:29:50.238 - would require that we would lose three of our accessible units. 01:29:50.338 --> 01:29:56.188 - And then sort of general conversation about, you know, anytime we're widening sidewalks, right? The 01:29:56.188 --> 01:30:02.097 - five foot sidewalk to a six foot sidewalk doesn't feel like a big change. It's only one more feet of 01:30:02.097 --> 01:30:07.947 - concrete. But it is a 20% increase in impervious area. And so it does have an impact and would need 01:30:07.947 --> 01:30:13.914 - recalculation for stormwater, you know, both runoff and then it coordinated stormwater area. And then 01:30:13.914 --> 01:30:16.254 - condition 11, we did want to bring some 01:30:16.418 --> 01:30:22.376 - concerns that the proposal to what to narrow the lanes to 12 feet. There's a 16 foot proposal and 12 01:30:22.376 --> 01:30:28.451 - foot proposal. Both of those violate fire code. They would require adding significant costs to require 01:30:28.451 --> 01:30:34.762 - fire sprinklers and so those are some numbers that I can run through in depth if that's helpful. Condition 01:30:34.762 --> 01:30:40.661 - 12, the Roger Street right of way widening would require demolition of the existing building and it 01:30:40.661 --> 01:30:44.318 - also would reduce parking and underground stormwater storage. 01:30:44.450 --> 01:30:52.138 - I think we had some concern that that would really be seen as a legal taking of that building. Condition 01:30:52.138 --> 01:30:59.606 - 13, we understand, is likely to violate state law and not be allowed. We were not planning to address 01:30:59.606 --> 01:31:07.294 - it. Running through, I think the things that might be most helpful to run through verbally are condition 01:31:07.294 --> 01:31:12.126 - for 50 percent of homes being required as permanently affordable, 01:31:12.642 --> 01:31:17.466 - That we really wanted to discuss with you guys that there are trade offs to each one of these decisions 01:31:17.466 --> 01:31:22.104 - right so that we the more requirements that we have the fewer homes that we can have and the higher 01:31:22.104 --> 01:31:23.774 - the costs are and so you know with. 01:31:23.874 --> 01:31:30.232 - With fewer homes, we end up with higher cost per homes. But we also want to talk about what a lot of 01:31:30.232 --> 01:31:36.780 - the proposal and what a lot of the changes in the PUD also are providing. As we talk about percentages, 01:31:36.780 --> 01:31:42.508 - we, by right, as an R4 neighborhood, have about 28 homes that we can put in. 15 percent of 01:31:42.508 --> 01:31:48.993 - 28 is significantly fewer permanently affordable homes than the 98 that can be provided in the current 01:31:48.993 --> 01:31:53.840 - proposal. Even the 25 percent permanently affordable of our larger number is 01:31:53.840 --> 01:31:59.355 - almost as many homes as could have been provided to begin with. And so, as there are really two ways 01:31:59.355 --> 01:32:05.089 - to approach affordability and homeownership, you know, permanently restricting a smaller number of units 01:32:05.089 --> 01:32:10.713 - or producing a larger number of homes that are attainable by design, we'd really like to propose doing 01:32:10.713 --> 01:32:14.590 - both, but proposing doing both within the statutes of the current UDO. 01:32:16.642 --> 01:32:22.731 - We also do support long-term affordability. The question is really how to do that in a way that preserves 01:32:22.731 --> 01:32:28.475 - both access and economic mobility. It's not a policy preference, but that we do with experience and 01:32:28.475 --> 01:32:34.564 - affordable homes have some concerns in the overall trade-offs that would be required to get to 50 percent 01:32:34.564 --> 01:32:40.710 - of the buy-write homes. Those have an impact on the long-term ability of the market rate homes to appraise 01:32:40.710 --> 01:32:43.582 - at normal values. They also likely have an impact 01:32:43.714 --> 01:32:51.214 - on nearby homes, appraisal values, and that a mixed income neighborhood long-term is always a good idea. 01:32:51.214 --> 01:32:58.713 - Percentages that are typically seen in those kinds of neighborhoods are more like a 25% advantage. Could 01:32:58.713 --> 01:33:05.927 - you slow down a little bit? I am not able to keep up with the speed of your presentation. Thank you. 01:33:05.927 --> 01:33:07.070 - Happy to do so. 01:33:09.922 --> 01:33:17.106 - We can switch into condition seven, which is our sustainability condition. Thank you. Thank you. Thank 01:33:17.106 --> 01:33:24.291 - you Yes, thank you. Thank you All let's be in order for a moment. I'll just clarify one thing that and 01:33:24.291 --> 01:33:31.544 - thank you so much miss Thurman for your patience and your thoroughness The we have a rule in this body. 01:33:31.544 --> 01:33:37.822 - I don't disagree that we should be showing the PowerPoint I don't disagree that that that 01:33:38.114 --> 01:33:44.718 - You know, we don't always need to be subject to rules. Somebody could motion to suspend a said rule 01:33:44.718 --> 01:33:51.387 - if you want. Nobody has. And so, at the moment, we are bound by those rules, and the person made the 01:33:51.387 --> 01:33:57.991 - right motion, saying, hey, you know, we didn't receive this before. That's the way that we operate. 01:33:57.991 --> 01:34:04.594 - And until others, they move otherwise, we won't do otherwise. And so, I may agree with you, but I'm 01:34:04.594 --> 01:34:08.094 - sorry that we have to sustain the position. I agree. 01:34:08.194 --> 01:34:15.928 - But you know unless my unless my you know Thank you Yes, yes, please Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 01:34:15.928 --> 01:34:23.662 - Thank you. Thank you. All right, miss miss Thurman if you could continue and it may be also useful as 01:34:23.662 --> 01:34:31.548 - as if to the council members when when we discuss the any of these reasonable conditions unless someone 01:34:31.548 --> 01:34:35.870 - wants to make other motions, you know, we may be able to 01:34:36.066 --> 01:34:42.431 - discuss a little bit more. I think the overarching point here is that there's some weight to each of 01:34:42.431 --> 01:34:48.859 - the conditions. I think we're following that much, I think not in the precise detail of each of them. 01:34:48.859 --> 01:34:55.288 - But if you could continue, please, that'd be wonderful. I'm so sorry and thank you for your patience. 01:34:55.288 --> 01:35:01.590 - Happy to do so and here to help. We really are grouping conditions eight, nine, and 10 together. If 01:35:01.590 --> 01:35:05.182 - that is a helpful way for everybody to think about them, 01:35:05.346 --> 01:35:12.893 - They work together as the whole site is really a Tetris block. Sidewalks as a six foot minimum generally, 01:35:12.893 --> 01:35:20.368 - eight feet we're serving as frontage, tree plots six feet wide. So those changes together are referenced 01:35:20.368 --> 01:35:27.488 - as being necessary to uphold the transportation plan. But we did work closely with staff during the 01:35:27.488 --> 01:35:29.054 - design phase of this. 01:35:29.282 --> 01:35:35.359 - with the realities of creating a compact walkable neighborhood. The plan prioritizes shorter blocks, 01:35:35.359 --> 01:35:41.557 - lower driving speeds, internal pedestrian spaces, and is within compliance of the transportation plan, 01:35:41.557 --> 01:35:47.635 - which was something that was heavily discussed throughout the design because the transportation plan 01:35:47.635 --> 01:35:54.073 - itself does anticipate flexibility in neighborhood street design. There are extensive charts of variations 01:35:54.073 --> 01:35:59.248 - within streets reflecting existing right-of-way, existing building, existing reasons, 01:35:59.248 --> 01:36:04.812 - that a street couldn't be the entire full section. It in no way anticipates that every street can be 01:36:04.812 --> 01:36:10.377 - made exactly to match. And as we've referenced previously, and I think shown previously, the section 01:36:10.377 --> 01:36:16.051 - of neighborhood residential streets, which is the one that applies most to these sections, states, and 01:36:16.051 --> 01:36:21.726 - I'll read quoting here, that many existing neighborhood residential streets are quite narrow in width. 01:36:21.986 --> 01:36:27.259 - In order to preserve neighborhood fabric, existing streets shall not be required to conform to these 01:36:27.259 --> 01:36:32.584 - cross-section standards. Priority for neighborhood residential streets is on maintaining calm streets 01:36:32.584 --> 01:36:37.909 - that create safe and comfortable environments for walking, even if there are no sidewalks. Further in 01:36:37.909 --> 01:36:43.547 - the transportation plan and the dimensions that are proposed in the PUD did come from specific coordination 01:36:43.547 --> 01:36:46.366 - with engineering and the transportation requirements. 01:36:46.498 --> 01:36:53.152 - The shared street typology that is referenced in Figure 15 provides for something very similar to the 01:36:53.152 --> 01:36:59.741 - lanes, a shared street with no centerline, 20 to 22 feet in width, with no dedicated bike facilities 01:36:59.741 --> 01:37:03.198 - and optional on-street parking and other facilities. 01:37:03.874 --> 01:37:10.660 - within descriptions of the pedestrian zone and the greenscape furnishing zones. Both of those reference 01:37:10.660 --> 01:37:17.316 - narrower widths are possible. The pedestrian zone section references that the ADA, the Americans with 01:37:17.316 --> 01:37:24.494 - Disabilities Act, requires a minimum four-foot pedestrian zone and that that can be applied using engineering 01:37:24.494 --> 01:37:31.149 - judgment and should account for a minimum one-foot shy distance from any barriers. The transportation 01:37:31.149 --> 01:37:33.694 - plan does anticipate up to a four-foot 01:37:33.858 --> 01:37:42.392 - Yes Comment on the floor. Yes, I move to suspend the rules and allow miss Thurman to present the slideshow 01:37:42.392 --> 01:37:50.606 - Second there's a motion in a second any discussion councilman Rostos Berg It's not a rule that you can 01:37:50.606 --> 01:37:55.870 - suspend it is part of our council procedure at this point that is 01:37:56.066 --> 01:38:01.072 - Presentations are supposed to get submitted by Monday before the meeting and I'm sorry if you all think 01:38:01.072 --> 01:38:06.271 - that I'm just being pissy About this but starting pretty darn soon It is actually going to be a requirement 01:38:06.271 --> 01:38:11.326 - that we can't show anything up there on that screen unless it has already been posted somewhere publicly 01:38:11.842 --> 01:38:18.341 - And I know that that has been made clear. I know that that's been made clear in our documentation from 01:38:18.341 --> 01:38:24.967 - our council attorney before she left what the procedures are. And the fact that our administration can't 01:38:24.967 --> 01:38:31.276 - manage to abide by our council procedures is one of the serious problems that I think we have right 01:38:31.276 --> 01:38:37.776 - now in this city. And there is a reason why we don't have any full-time council staff right now in our 01:38:37.776 --> 01:38:41.246 - office. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Slasberg. 01:38:42.402 --> 01:38:49.288 - Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember Flaherty, thank you We this has come up before 01:38:49.288 --> 01:38:56.041 - including when members of the public have wanted to share Materials that they sent in and we did not 01:38:56.041 --> 01:39:02.928 - allow them to I I am sympathetic to what I'm hearing but at the same time I think having special rules 01:39:02.928 --> 01:39:09.680 - for the mayor and not for other people is a problem I think actually this entire petition is kind of 01:39:09.680 --> 01:39:10.750 - like that. So I 01:39:10.978 --> 01:39:21.086 - I'm not going to support the motion. Thank you. Any other comments? I might just say that to me there's 01:39:21.086 --> 01:39:30.902 - a contextual argument, which is namely the content that we're receiving is very difficult to receive 01:39:30.902 --> 01:39:34.206 - without visual help. I think that 01:39:34.338 --> 01:39:42.371 - We could if, I mean, the mayor asked that we extend this to May 1st. I mean, if May 6th, I mean, we 01:39:42.371 --> 01:39:50.726 - could postpone and have the conversation in depth that way. But I do think that there is a context that 01:39:50.726 --> 01:39:59.081 - I think is beyond just the fact that it's the mayor. I don't think that we need to pigeonhole that into 01:39:59.081 --> 01:40:00.286 - this argument. 01:40:01.314 --> 01:40:12.571 - Order, please all right any other comments I Might have to use my gavel tonight how exciting okay, so 01:40:12.571 --> 01:40:20.958 - that's there's been a motion in a second Can we call for a roll call please 01:40:31.522 --> 01:40:50.974 - Yes Yes Yes Yes No No That motion carries five for 01:40:51.746 --> 01:41:00.496 - Sorry, okay, we need a two-thirds majority to suspend our rules, so I'm sorry that motion fails So miss 01:41:00.496 --> 01:41:09.498 - Thurman, please continue Please councilmember Stasberg, please suggest instead of having this presentation 01:41:09.498 --> 01:41:12.190 - right now where it feels like I 01:41:12.322 --> 01:41:18.121 - Miss Norman is is going through the reasonable conditions instead Maybe we can start with the sponsors 01:41:18.121 --> 01:41:23.975 - of the reasonable conditions and actually like introduce them one at a time in order to talk about them 01:41:23.975 --> 01:41:29.774 - or potentially have a motion to discuss the reasonable as opposed to like I move to adopt a reasonable 01:41:29.774 --> 01:41:35.460 - condition whatever say I move to discuss reasonable condition whatever and then we can talk about it 01:41:35.460 --> 01:41:37.374 - and maybe that will be easier for 01:41:37.602 --> 01:41:44.817 - for the public and for council members. Heard. I am in agreement. Let's do exactly that. So, Ms. Thurman, 01:41:44.817 --> 01:41:51.827 - on standby, we last left off. We have 13 reasonable conditions. Reasonable conditions. Please, Council 01:41:51.827 --> 01:41:58.157 - Member Flaherty. I generally agree that it would be productive to talk about them, you know, 01:41:58.157 --> 01:42:05.032 - and all that. I also have, like, general questions about the petition. Would we want to handle those 01:42:05.032 --> 01:42:07.550 - first? Questions for the petitioner? 01:42:07.714 --> 01:42:17.013 - or its representatives? I think seems appropriate. Okay. The first one is just a question for, I guess, 01:42:17.013 --> 01:42:25.954 - Corporation Council or whichever attorney is here representing the RDC, is the legal interpretation 01:42:25.954 --> 01:42:35.075 - of the, I guess, the RDC's representative that the council cannot pass reasonable conditions that you 01:42:35.075 --> 01:42:37.310 - don't agree to or at all 01:42:38.818 --> 01:42:48.929 - And who's the you know RDC? Thank you Dana Kerr as assistant city attorney assigned to the Redevelopment 01:42:48.929 --> 01:42:57.885 - Commission the legal department for the city and as a representative legal representative of 01:42:57.885 --> 01:43:08.382 - the Redevelopment Commission We do agree that reasonable conditions may be imposed by the council on the PUD 01:43:08.514 --> 01:43:16.676 - We do respectfully disagree with council's representation of what is an amendment and what is not an 01:43:16.676 --> 01:43:24.757 - amendment and so therefore what my Intention to do tonight is as we progress through the reasonable 01:43:24.757 --> 01:43:32.837 - conditions is to give a very short synopsis of my Legal opinion of each one not to go down a rabbit 01:43:32.837 --> 01:43:38.494 - hole on each one to argue but just so that we have on the record what 01:43:38.754 --> 01:43:48.979 - our legal position is on each one, so that, should that be necessary in the future, it is on the record. 01:43:48.979 --> 01:43:59.107 - But I believe that anything, and our legal department and our colleagues that we have contacted believe 01:43:59.107 --> 01:44:07.774 - that anything that changes the text, drawings, exhibits directly, altering the language, 01:44:07.906 --> 01:44:18.435 - adding additional requirements that are substantial things of that nature are amendments to the PUD 01:44:18.435 --> 01:44:28.963 - that are In permissible and the reasoning is that the PUD is the ordinance it's like what they were 01:44:28.963 --> 01:44:31.806 - talking about going from a 01:44:33.026 --> 01:44:41.443 - Going from the a1 to r1 and r2 and only going from an r1 What you do in a PUD is you're creating your 01:44:41.443 --> 01:44:49.694 - very own? ordinance zoning ordinance for just this Little 6.3 acre parcel you're creating your very 01:44:49.694 --> 01:44:57.946 - very own zoning ordinance So anytime you change that text or those drawings or those cross sections 01:44:57.946 --> 01:45:02.814 - You're changing that ordinance and so that's impermissible 01:45:03.458 --> 01:45:12.519 - To unilaterally do that. I'm not saying that it can't be done through a agreement by the petitioner, 01:45:12.519 --> 01:45:22.297 - but unfortunately the petitioner due to the circumstances that it's a Redevelopment Commission a five-member 01:45:22.297 --> 01:45:31.806 - Commission, you know can't be here in this kind of setting so my belief on steps forward could be that if 01:45:32.450 --> 01:45:40.843 - It's a reasonable condition and I believe a couple that passed were within that that realm then that 01:45:40.843 --> 01:45:49.154 - you have the power to do that the Redevelopment Commission can't say we like it or dislike it. It's 01:45:49.154 --> 01:45:57.630 - just what you impose but when you come to an amendment the redevelopment could have an opportunity if 01:45:57.890 --> 01:46:06.200 - Guess my suggestion would be that the council in those situations Proposed that there be an amendment 01:46:06.200 --> 01:46:14.509 - to the PUD and that that go back to the Redevelopment Commission who meets Monday night not that they 01:46:14.509 --> 01:46:22.819 - could get through it all on Monday night maybe but to let the redevelopment go back look through what 01:46:22.819 --> 01:46:26.974 - the amendment would be and actually vote on it and 01:46:27.522 --> 01:46:36.646 - and make a determination of what the As any petitioner would For instance in the misty woods case the 01:46:36.646 --> 01:46:45.770 - petitioner could have said in that first meeting No, I want r1 and r2 only and then so the council at 01:46:45.770 --> 01:46:53.374 - that point had the choice of either adopting as presenting giving both or denying it 01:46:54.146 --> 01:47:01.744 - so after it went to the Redevelopment Commission and they either Agreed to do the amendments or not 01:47:01.744 --> 01:47:09.493 - then it would come back to the council and the council would say okay Well, they agree with these but 01:47:09.493 --> 01:47:17.167 - they didn't those or they agreed to all of them So we're okay and you would be able to either accept 01:47:17.167 --> 01:47:20.510 - it or denied at that time so but again my I 01:47:21.122 --> 01:47:28.640 - I believe you have learned at council, when we spoke today, it was obvious that this isn't tested in 01:47:28.640 --> 01:47:36.457 - court. So there's not, we may be right, he may be right, I feel very strongly in my position. Reasonable 01:47:36.457 --> 01:47:43.901 - conditions are not defined, but amendment is very easily found in the dictionary, in the Black Laws 01:47:43.901 --> 01:47:50.526 - dictionary, in amending text and adding text of substance and deleting text of substance 01:47:50.626 --> 01:48:00.708 - Amendments and the PUD ordinance is the zoning ordinance for that particular Zone, so that's why I strongly 01:48:00.708 --> 01:48:10.604 - feel that that's what it is. So Anyway, so that's why I would like to with each one give my legal opinion 01:48:10.604 --> 01:48:19.006 - on behalf of the REC Thank you so much, mr. Kirkman and then and then councilman Flaherty 01:48:19.810 --> 01:48:30.401 - Yeah, I did just want to have a brief response to what Mr. Kerr just said. Talking about with the PUD, 01:48:30.401 --> 01:48:40.787 - we're creating our own small ordinance for the 6.3 acres. And if you change anything, then that's an 01:48:40.787 --> 01:48:49.630 - amendment. I would submit that that interpretation or that does not take into account 01:48:49.954 --> 01:49:02.309 - the express authority to adopt reasonable conditions in 1512, which is the PUD scope of authority, the 01:49:02.309 --> 01:49:14.783 - statutes that create the ability to create a PUD. It's different from amending a run-of-the-mill zoning 01:49:14.783 --> 01:49:18.142 - petition. Again, I cited in 01:49:18.242 --> 01:49:25.672 - earlier presentation that 1015 G3, which again states that it defines a condition imposed upon approval 01:49:25.672 --> 01:49:33.031 - relative to any other development requirement that must be met before any other secondary approval may 01:49:33.031 --> 01:49:40.318 - be granted or building permit may be issued under this chapter. Those are not considered commitments. 01:49:40.318 --> 01:49:46.462 - Those are considered conditions to the extent that there's a definition of reasonable 01:49:46.690 --> 01:49:56.663 - I think development requirement was used in Mr. Kerr's presentation there multiple times. I think that 01:49:56.663 --> 01:50:07.022 - we're trying to shrink what is able to be called a reasonable condition. Then one last thing, just briefly 01:50:07.022 --> 01:50:16.414 - with Ms. Thurman's presentation, multiple times there was some talk about takings and exactions. 01:50:16.898 --> 01:50:26.763 - suggest that what is actually on the table here is actually somewhat unique in that the city owns the 01:50:26.763 --> 01:50:36.821 - land. It's owned by the RDC. We're discussing what to do with this property and what to adopt on public 01:50:36.821 --> 01:50:46.686 - land. Takings, of course, are taking of private property for public purpose. I'm not sure that taking 01:50:47.010 --> 01:50:54.951 - law would actually apply in this specific context. Now, if we're talking about a PUD over some privately 01:50:54.951 --> 01:51:02.740 - owned land, it might be a different story, but in this case, this is entirely publicly owned land. I'm 01:51:02.740 --> 01:51:10.605 - not sure exactions and taking analysis really applies. Thank you so much. Council Member Flaherty, then 01:51:10.605 --> 01:51:15.294 - Stasberg. I defer to Stasberg. Okay, Council Member Stasberg. 01:51:16.610 --> 01:51:23.195 - kind of a follow-up sort of question and thought about this. Well, one thing, I don't want to spend 01:51:23.195 --> 01:51:30.110 - our time right now necessarily having this legal debate because it's pretty clear to me that our council 01:51:30.110 --> 01:51:36.827 - representation and the city representation differ on this subject. But there is clearly a way through 01:51:36.827 --> 01:51:43.412 - it in terms of approval by the RDC of anything specific if we need to get to that point. But one of 01:51:43.412 --> 01:51:46.046 - the things that I just want to bring up 01:51:46.146 --> 01:51:52.714 - Mr. Kerr in terms of like what you just said about the PUD and what you said was changes to text and 01:51:52.714 --> 01:51:59.672 - text amendments and a PUD is both a map amendment and a text amendment and The case that was cited earlier 01:51:59.672 --> 01:52:06.435 - my understanding, you know, so I'm not I'm not the lawyer, right? So I feel like I'm asking this partly 01:52:06.435 --> 01:52:13.134 - for all of you other people out there who are also not lawyers Okay, so the case cited earlier. It was 01:52:13.134 --> 01:52:14.174 - a map amendment 01:52:14.594 --> 01:52:20.881 - And so state law was saying, okay, council can't change a map amendment, can't amend a map amendment. 01:52:20.881 --> 01:52:27.352 - But state law does say that we can amend text amendments. So when we get things from the plan commission 01:52:27.352 --> 01:52:33.701 - that are text amendments, council can make actual changes to them, to the UDO, and can make amendments 01:52:33.701 --> 01:52:39.987 - to them. And that is part of how I'm viewing this reasonable condition thing, is that it would not be 01:52:39.987 --> 01:52:42.206 - okay if we wanted to change the map 01:52:42.370 --> 01:52:47.991 - but we're not changing the map. We are looking at the rules around the map and that is a text amendment. 01:52:47.991 --> 01:52:53.452 - So I guess I'm interested in hearing from both attorneys their thoughts on that kind of difference in 01:52:53.452 --> 01:52:58.805 - terms of this PUD being a text amendment and a map amendment versus other things that come from the 01:52:58.805 --> 01:53:01.214 - plan commission which are usually either or. 01:53:03.074 --> 01:53:11.565 - Section 1505 C states that the legislative body shall adopt and amend a PUD District ordinance in the 01:53:11.565 --> 01:53:20.139 - same manner as a zone map change So it's section 608 a zone map change not as own text change of 607.5 01:53:20.139 --> 01:53:28.630 - So it is a map change just like the Misty Woods case Where that amendment is not allowed unilaterally 01:53:28.630 --> 01:53:32.126 - and so what do our attorneys say to that? 01:53:33.314 --> 01:53:40.754 - So I would say that it's both. In this case, it's a map change and a text change. And we do believe 01:53:40.754 --> 01:53:48.416 - that the reasonable conditions come in the 1500 series, which is to do with both because this is a PUD 01:53:48.416 --> 01:53:56.153 - and it involves both. But it's different than just a map change, just a rezone, because the 1500 series 01:53:56.153 --> 01:54:00.766 - provides specifically that reasonable conditions are allowed. 01:54:03.042 --> 01:54:10.560 - Thank you customer Flaherty Thank you. So Mr. Kerr, you described a variety of things that you think 01:54:10.560 --> 01:54:18.153 - would not be valid reasonable conditions Are you aware that the City Council and previous mayors have 01:54:18.153 --> 01:54:25.597 - signed? Legislation consistently for the past at least four decades that have reasonable conditions 01:54:25.597 --> 01:54:32.222 - that would in your opinion not be valid reasonable conditions I have I understand that I 01:54:32.418 --> 01:54:40.073 - have not, in this limited time, have the opportunity to go back and read them. I do understand that 01:54:40.073 --> 01:54:47.804 - in the Summit case, the petitioner was here to agree to it, just like in the Misty Woods case in the 01:54:47.804 --> 01:54:55.842 - first hearing, the Misty Woods agreed to go ahead and just go with R1, and their attorney representative 01:54:55.842 --> 01:55:00.894 - told the council that they wouldn't show up to the second meeting 01:55:00.994 --> 01:55:09.250 - If they were just going to go ahead and just do the r1 and make no other changes They were okay with 01:55:09.250 --> 01:55:17.423 - that. So they acquiesced to doing that change I did not go through the others If they did it and it 01:55:17.423 --> 01:55:25.597 - was an amendment without the petitioner agreeing to it Then all I can say that it was incorrect. It 01:55:25.597 --> 01:55:30.910 - was contrary to the law. I'm Just sorry. That's my opinion on it 01:55:31.618 --> 01:55:42.283 - And I stand by my opinion. And I do believe there are reasonable conditions, things that help specify 01:55:42.283 --> 01:55:53.052 - and identify. For instance, there's the issue of affordability that's going around. And I had, because 01:55:53.052 --> 01:56:00.894 - I believe changing to 50% is a change in the text. It's changing 15 to 50. 01:56:00.994 --> 01:56:10.086 - I believe that is an amendment. And so I presented an option where it could be a reasonable condition 01:56:10.086 --> 01:56:19.089 - because it utilizes a part of the code, the PUD code that is the qualifying standards that adds that 01:56:19.089 --> 01:56:28.270 - additional 10% on. And since the PUD itself did not specify which manner they were using to reach that 01:56:28.270 --> 01:56:30.142 - qualifying standard, 01:56:30.274 --> 01:56:38.767 - Then the council has every right to impose on that PUD This is the way you're going to meet that standard 01:56:38.767 --> 01:56:46.940 - if you're going to get that extra ten percent And so that is a reasonable condition because it aligns 01:56:46.940 --> 01:56:55.353 - with the PUD ordinance and it was silent in the PUD and so I believe that that is a reasonable condition 01:56:55.353 --> 01:56:58.718 - that this council could say again whether 01:56:59.010 --> 01:57:07.797 - the RDC likes it or not, that the RDC must do for the PUD. So again, I don't want to get into legal 01:57:07.797 --> 01:57:16.848 - debate either. I know you guys don't. I just want the opportunity when these come up to state my legal 01:57:16.848 --> 01:57:25.898 - opinion so that we will have that preserved on the record. We appreciate you. Thank you. I just wanted 01:57:25.898 --> 01:57:28.798 - to clarify for the affordability 01:57:28.930 --> 01:57:38.762 - the affordable housing portion that Mr. Kerr just talked about. So I think we're in agreement that the 01:57:38.762 --> 01:57:48.690 - PUD itself actually does not clarify what standard affordable housing is going to be in the, I'm sorry, 01:57:48.690 --> 01:57:57.950 - is going to be required. And per the UDO, there are specific requirements for affordable housing 01:57:58.498 --> 01:58:06.782 - criteria that have to be in the PUD that are not there. And so I think we're in agreement with that. 01:58:06.782 --> 01:58:15.558 - I think what Mr. Kerr is suggesting as their amended reasonable condition is exactly what the requirements 01:58:15.558 --> 01:58:24.087 - are under the UDO. However, the reasonable condition that the council has proposed also is in line with 01:58:24.087 --> 01:58:27.614 - the UDO. It just exceeds the requirements. 01:58:27.746 --> 01:58:36.669 - it goes beyond what the UDO requires. So I just wanna clarify that both proposals are in line with the 01:58:36.669 --> 01:58:45.591 - UDO and one of the reasonable conditions for the PUD, the PUD affordable housing has to be adopted for 01:58:45.591 --> 01:58:54.600 - this PUD to be valid under the UDO. But I would argue that the council's proposal is just as reasonable 01:58:54.600 --> 01:58:56.766 - as Mr. Hurst's proposal. 01:58:57.282 --> 01:59:07.090 - Thank you so much. If I could and I try my best not to, you know, I just want to keep the bus running. 01:59:07.090 --> 01:59:13.374 - But I think the conversations that we're having are hindering the 01:59:13.474 --> 01:59:19.387 - useful conversations that we want to be having about the substance of the reasonable conditions and 01:59:19.387 --> 01:59:25.358 - indeed whether or not there are any effects of them. I think beyond the sort of semantics of the law 01:59:25.358 --> 01:59:31.507 - here, and I don't mean to be reductionist in saying that, I'm just saying that I think there's a couple 01:59:31.507 --> 01:59:37.538 - of things that are very clear, which is we have the right to make reasonable conditions, you have the 01:59:37.538 --> 01:59:41.854 - right to withdraw them and or take other types of actions afterward, but 01:59:41.954 --> 01:59:47.781 - We need to be able to weigh these reasonable conditions in relation to what it is that that the effects 01:59:47.781 --> 01:59:53.384 - are going to be and so can I can I ask that we move on to to either discussing them and or you know 01:59:53.384 --> 01:59:59.154 - taking taking what the mayor said and you know if we want to postpone this and and have a Conversation 01:59:59.154 --> 02:00:04.757 - in some different way like let's do that council members you look Thank you. I'm curious to what my 02:00:04.757 --> 02:00:06.270 - colleagues think about the 02:00:06.498 --> 02:00:13.577 - Using our April deliberation session to discuss this. I think that it would make more sense to go Reasonable 02:00:13.577 --> 02:00:20.720 - condition by reasonable condition in a deliberation session than it would to introduce them all independently 02:00:20.720 --> 02:00:27.344 - here, but I'm neutral I Think there is also the option of us discussing them prior to taking up votes 02:00:27.344 --> 02:00:34.163 - today as an example. I mean, so but yeah Other other thoughts or comments to what's been said councilman 02:00:34.163 --> 02:00:34.942 - Stasberg. I 02:00:36.066 --> 02:00:41.291 - I would prefer to discuss them tonight and that's why I was kind of like, you know We don't have to 02:00:41.291 --> 02:00:46.516 - necessarily introduce them to adopt we could introduce them to discuss And then I think it could be 02:00:46.516 --> 02:00:52.211 - a really similar discussion to like a deliberation session I think what were you supposed to do deliberation 02:00:52.211 --> 02:00:57.436 - session on sidewalks in April and I know that we could postpone that but I was also looking forward 02:00:57.436 --> 02:01:03.026 - to that so if we could do that tonight to get a feel of where to go between now and whichever next meeting 02:01:03.026 --> 02:01:05.534 - we discuss it would be great and I do have like 02:01:05.762 --> 02:01:11.729 - One other general question. That's not about a reasonable condition. That's also not about this topic 02:01:11.729 --> 02:01:17.696 - Okay, okay, please ask it and then it is sort of legal but it's not about this legal topic it's about 02:01:17.696 --> 02:01:23.955 - covenants and restrictions because last week councilmember rough kind of took off his reasonable condition 02:01:23.955 --> 02:01:29.980 - three because it was like well we we can put the ad ownership stuff under like a neighborhood covenant 02:01:29.980 --> 02:01:33.022 - or restriction and I guess I was wondering like the 02:01:33.154 --> 02:01:39.575 - Ordnance itself says that there doesn't need to be any kind of ownership requirement over ad use and 02:01:39.575 --> 02:01:45.996 - if you put something in a neighborhood covenant that says it does there does need to be that kind of 02:01:45.996 --> 02:01:52.735 - requirement like which of those two documents like rules that like our neighborhood covenants so powerful 02:01:52.735 --> 02:01:59.092 - that they can overrule zoning ordinances I Don't like whichever lawyer wants to answer that for me. 02:01:59.092 --> 02:02:02.398 - I'm good with That was withdrawn so I haven't spent 02:02:02.754 --> 02:02:09.477 - Anytime on it. I apologize. So I would need to go back and look at that I could probably do it quickly 02:02:09.477 --> 02:02:15.743 - and come back with that answer but Happy to let your counsel. Okay, does does Clark know Clark? 02:02:15.743 --> 02:02:22.531 - I'm sorry. I don't remember your last name. I certainly don't have a you know, a hundred percent answer 02:02:22.531 --> 02:02:29.058 - You know a covenant is You know, I mean something that a landowner accepts privately that runs with 02:02:29.058 --> 02:02:32.126 - the land You know, I mean there's there's like 02:02:32.546 --> 02:02:40.445 - legal nonconforming. I mean, there's all sorts of different things that can impact what is basically 02:02:40.445 --> 02:02:48.267 - on the ground legal, right? If a covenant was in place in 1955 and a zoning ordinance is plopped on 02:02:48.267 --> 02:02:56.166 - top of it, I think the covenant would control. If there's an existing zoning ordinance and something 02:02:56.166 --> 02:03:02.110 - were to be accepted by a property owner that is not in conformance with it, 02:03:02.210 --> 02:03:09.852 - Not sure it would have much legal effect Curious about the answer to that I was talking with councilmember 02:03:09.852 --> 02:03:17.280 - rough about that over the weekend and I I just I just don't want a colleague to like withdraw something 02:03:17.280 --> 02:03:18.494 - that matters and 02:03:18.786 --> 02:03:26.612 - To them if they don't know for sure whether or not it would have an effect. So that's all we don't we 02:03:26.612 --> 02:03:34.437 - don't need to continue Same effect either way, so let me look at that and get back to you on that one 02:03:34.437 --> 02:03:42.339 - But I will say for these others. I promise it'll be a very short quick paragraph Thank you. Okay would 02:03:42.339 --> 02:03:47.710 - so so we have adopted I'm sorry. Let me pull back up where we are and 02:03:48.162 --> 02:03:56.345 - We've adopted a reasonable condition one and two. Reasonable condition three was withdrawn to the point 02:03:56.345 --> 02:04:04.213 - just made and we're now on reasonable condition four. Though happy to do these in any order, but if 02:04:04.213 --> 02:04:12.081 - we wanted to stay with the same order, are there any motions or anything else? Councilman Stasberg. 02:04:12.081 --> 02:04:16.094 - Move to discuss reasonable condition four. Second. 02:04:16.482 --> 02:04:27.116 - There's a motion and a second any discussion all those in favor say aye any opposed any abstaining that 02:04:27.116 --> 02:04:37.545 - carries It carries things go ahead councilmember Rosenberg Did you say you want me to go you start go 02:04:37.545 --> 02:04:45.214 - ahead apparently supposed to start with this proposed reasonable condition 02:04:45.442 --> 02:04:52.472 - This essentially is the permanent affordability reasonable condition the original ordinance commits 02:04:52.472 --> 02:04:59.713 - 15% to permanently affordable and 50% to just generally affordable And the PUD requirements as already 02:04:59.713 --> 02:05:06.462 - mentioned actually require 25% at a minimum to be permanently affordable but the other piece of 02:05:06.626 --> 02:05:12.689 - So like the PUD like as it is right now is not in compliance with that and so that's where it's like, 02:05:12.689 --> 02:05:18.752 - okay either we need to get it into compliance or we need to as a council kind of accept an adjustment 02:05:18.752 --> 02:05:24.755 - to that compliance because there's a qualifier within the UDO to adjust it and so I'm personally not 02:05:24.755 --> 02:05:31.056 - interested in adjusting the permanent affordability part the other part of what the P the UDO says though 02:05:31.056 --> 02:05:35.454 - is that it has to be permanently affordable through deed restrictions and 02:05:35.714 --> 02:05:42.261 - As has been discussed as has been presented that deed restrictions might cause some problems with modern 02:05:42.261 --> 02:05:48.621 - banking and it reduces some flexibility and so the other part of Compliance with the UDO is that well 02:05:48.621 --> 02:05:54.918 - if it's not deed restrictions, then that's also an adjustment And so this reasonable condition goes. 02:05:54.918 --> 02:06:01.403 - Okay. Well, it could be deed restrictions or ground leases like the Community Land Trust I think summit 02:06:01.403 --> 02:06:03.710 - was mentioned earlier by somebody or 02:06:03.842 --> 02:06:11.265 - Number three says another legal mechanism for permanent affordability is subsequently approved by the 02:06:11.265 --> 02:06:18.761 - council in an amendment to the to the PUD like at a future time and in the spirit of The collaboration 02:06:18.761 --> 02:06:26.039 - and cooperation etc, etc I I think that you know in the press release earlier that in the week that 02:06:26.039 --> 02:06:32.734 - I signed on to you know, the the 50% is certainly has some flexibility there in terms of of 02:06:33.346 --> 02:06:34.142 - finding. 02:06:34.370 --> 02:06:41.567 - Point that we can all agree to and think is attainable and then I'm also willing to have further discussions, 02:06:41.567 --> 02:06:48.175 - you know Assuming that we postpone like full consideration of this until a next meeting or early May 02:06:48.175 --> 02:06:55.307 - is suggested about those other legal mechanisms and Potentially putting them in here with more specification 02:06:55.307 --> 02:07:02.111 - for approval But I just feel like I need a little bit more information about that especially since part 02:07:02.111 --> 02:07:04.336 - of what we would be doing here is 02:07:04.336 --> 02:07:12.705 - Like adjusting this requirement that has been in the utio. Thank you comes from sasper customer Rosenberger 02:07:12.705 --> 02:07:20.531 - Hi, thanks. I'll just do kind of a general add-on more at a higher just a broader level that Part of 02:07:20.531 --> 02:07:28.512 - the impetus of this as councilmember Stossberg says was to bring the PUD into compliance with the utio 02:07:28.512 --> 02:07:34.014 - requirements And then of course it did go farther with that 50% number 02:07:34.466 --> 02:07:42.135 - The original PUD did say 50% affordable housing. So one kind of take on that is we switched that to 02:07:42.135 --> 02:07:49.958 - permanently affordable housing and then another perspective is that this is a very unique opportunity 02:07:49.958 --> 02:07:57.627 - that we have that as the city we own the land and We can sell it we can give it away we can keep it 02:07:57.627 --> 02:08:00.158 - and it is something where we can 02:08:00.578 --> 02:08:07.574 - Require and provide more permanently affordable housing at lower AMIs and still make numbers work. And 02:08:07.574 --> 02:08:14.842 - so I Kind of saw it as an opportunity to do more where we might potentially not have that same opportunity 02:08:14.842 --> 02:08:21.770 - with a private developer so it's just kind of the spirit of the PUD and hope well in general and just 02:08:21.770 --> 02:08:29.310 - kind of like following a lot along the Spirit of why hope well was bought in the first place Thank you so much 02:08:29.538 --> 02:08:38.497 - Colleagues any questions for your colleagues, please councilmember Piedmont Smith I just didn't want 02:08:38.497 --> 02:08:48.077 - the the last paragraph of this Reasonable condition to be overlooked and that's so in addition to requiring 02:08:48.077 --> 02:08:57.214 - 50% of dwelling units to be permanently affordable Is it true this question for the sponsors that also 02:08:57.826 --> 02:09:07.719 - It takes that 50% says 15% Must be at Affordable for households earning at or below 90% area median 02:09:07.719 --> 02:09:17.017 - income and 35% Must be affordable for households earning at or below 120% area median income. 02:09:17.017 --> 02:09:26.910 - Is that right? That that's right. Do you want us to talk about that a little bit more? That's right 02:09:27.202 --> 02:09:38.094 - This is where so one of the reasons for the 90% is that The newer updated UDO has the 90% requirement 02:09:38.094 --> 02:09:49.734 - and so we were looking at that as something that while this PUD does not Need to do the updated requirements 02:09:49.734 --> 02:09:52.190 - They do exist and this 02:09:52.450 --> 02:10:02.787 - council did decide that 90% AMI was what we really needed in the city. So it made sense again that because 02:10:02.787 --> 02:10:12.544 - the city owns this land that we could do that and we could ask for it. And I would say another point 02:10:12.544 --> 02:10:22.398 - is that 120% of AMI versus 90%, it really is looking at pretty different income levels where 120% AMI 02:10:22.818 --> 02:10:31.189 - tend to buy on the open market currently. And so it's people who can potentially buy a home, but maybe 02:10:31.189 --> 02:10:39.560 - could use some assistance, but tend to opt for market rate instead of affordable. And so the 90% would 02:10:39.560 --> 02:10:48.175 - really get to some portion of the population of people who cannot buy a home without it being permanently 02:10:48.175 --> 02:10:49.150 - affordable. 02:10:49.986 --> 02:10:59.028 - Just some examples, I guess. I talked a little bit with Summit Hill Land Trust that said they can also 02:10:59.028 --> 02:11:07.807 - go up to 120% AMI there. The highest AMI they have sold to is 105%. And the lowest with subsidy is, 02:11:07.807 --> 02:11:16.850 - I think I would have to look at my notes, it's just on a different page, but about 48% AMI at the Land 02:11:16.850 --> 02:11:18.430 - Trust. Thank you. 02:11:19.458 --> 02:11:26.190 - Thank you, this question is also for the sponsors I'm just wondering if you've met with local lenders 02:11:26.190 --> 02:11:32.856 - and if you have a plan to circumvent their concerns on financing homes with deed restrictions Yes, I 02:11:32.856 --> 02:11:39.918 - talked to Summit Hill Land Trust today and they were very helpful this is about ground leases specifically 02:11:39.918 --> 02:11:44.670 - so we have two local lenders that are lending to projects like this and 02:11:45.794 --> 02:11:53.326 - Fifth Third Bank in German-American, I guess it's okay to say all that. And there's a national lender 02:11:53.326 --> 02:12:01.079 - that works with low-income communities, TOMO, T-O-M-O. This is a little more specific to the land trust, 02:12:01.079 --> 02:12:09.054 - but it was talked about that it can be difficult for banks to sell their mortgages on the secondary market. 02:12:09.698 --> 02:12:14.887 - At least with the land trust, it is certified by Fannie Mae, and those mortgages are being sold on the 02:12:14.887 --> 02:12:19.976 - second market. So Fifth Third has been selling them from the beginning, and German American recently 02:12:19.976 --> 02:12:22.142 - started selling theirs on the open market. 02:12:26.850 --> 02:12:31.587 - Can I can I add to that? To add to that answer I mean that's one of the reasons because you 02:12:31.587 --> 02:12:36.890 - asked specifically about deed restrictions And so one of the reasons why deed restrictions is on there 02:12:36.890 --> 02:12:42.141 - is because that's what's actually in our UDO right now So it's not like we're saying who we have this 02:12:42.141 --> 02:12:47.341 - preference for deed restrictions. We're saying this is what's currently in our standard So we should 02:12:47.341 --> 02:12:52.799 - allow this thing that's currently in our standard to be used as an option but we should also allow ground 02:12:52.799 --> 02:12:56.094 - leases and then number three were also open to other things and 02:12:56.930 --> 02:13:03.387 - And so all of those are encompassed. And yes, I have actually met with a local lender to talk through 02:13:03.387 --> 02:13:09.717 - some of these things. And I would say I still don't feel like I have a convincing argument for sure 02:13:09.717 --> 02:13:16.048 - that all of these other methods are absolutely going to work. I do think that the deed restrictions 02:13:16.048 --> 02:13:22.441 - have been problematic, which is why the original version of this number four, I was not a co-sponsor 02:13:22.441 --> 02:13:26.366 - on because I wanted this third other legal mechanisms option. 02:13:26.466 --> 02:13:34.555 - Because I think those other options are important. I just Want to explore them more temporarily explore 02:13:34.555 --> 02:13:42.333 - them more before I just say like yes go and do those things Okay follow-up question from councilman 02:13:42.333 --> 02:13:50.422 - Zulek, yes, I have a follow-up for the attorneys I'm just I'm not as familiar with lending or financing 02:13:50.422 --> 02:13:55.166 - as a home as I do not own one but I was just wondering if if 02:13:55.362 --> 02:14:04.705 - only allowing very specific lenders to help with home buying and homeownership, if that would hinder 02:14:04.705 --> 02:14:14.602 - anyone's ability to continue to engage with the free market. Anyone with a law degree that is representing 02:14:14.602 --> 02:14:23.390 - the city? Can you repeat that? I'm not sure if there's really a legal answer to your question. 02:14:26.306 --> 02:14:33.484 - I was just wondering if Hindering people who are buying homes with the deed restrictions to one or two 02:14:33.484 --> 02:14:40.522 - potential lenders If there are any legal issues with that because this would There are only a couple 02:14:40.522 --> 02:14:47.630 - as we just heard lenders who are willing to engage with this type of home buying And I'm sorry if I'm 02:14:47.630 --> 02:14:53.971 - not using the correct terms. I am truly doing my best I am just wondering if there are any 02:14:53.971 --> 02:14:56.062 - legal complications with that 02:14:59.266 --> 02:15:10.036 - I can't say for certain that there would be access to mortgages. I think that that's the world we live 02:15:10.036 --> 02:15:20.910 - in. It's something we can research if you'd like me to do further research on that. That would be great 02:15:20.910 --> 02:15:23.838 - because I don't want to box 02:15:24.034 --> 02:15:31.782 - Future home buyers into a situation where they can only work with one or two companies when there are 02:15:31.782 --> 02:15:39.681 - others available Thank you Thank you Does the so I appreciate the structure of the Reasonable condition 02:15:39.681 --> 02:15:47.429 - I guess in my mind whether we're doing permanent affordability or one-time affordability is basically 02:15:47.429 --> 02:15:53.278 - just a policy choice and whether we choose to leverage the land value or not 02:15:53.506 --> 02:15:59.164 - And I appreciate that there's, I guess, flexibility here of two options that we're aware of that are 02:15:59.164 --> 02:16:04.879 - used for permanent affordability and the possibility of a third, but if we don't know what it is yet, 02:16:04.879 --> 02:16:10.705 - respecting that we need to, you know, actually know what it is in order to be able to prove it, so that 02:16:10.705 --> 02:16:16.532 - needs to come back to us. I think I generally agree with that. My question actually is about the ground 02:16:16.532 --> 02:16:22.526 - lease approach, though, which is, does that require deed restrictions when you use a ground lease approach 02:16:22.658 --> 02:16:30.676 - to ensure a point in affordability or My gut is it would not but do we know the answer to that? I Don't 02:16:30.676 --> 02:16:38.539 - know the answer to that I I would think the same thing you are leasing the land and you're buying the 02:16:38.539 --> 02:16:46.402 - home with a mortgage I guess though because these are permanently affordable. There would still be an 02:16:46.402 --> 02:16:52.030 - income. Oh It's a crown the lease so income limitations for the AMI part 02:16:52.354 --> 02:16:59.269 - That's not exactly what you're asking. I mean it might be a qualification to be able to be eligible 02:16:59.269 --> 02:17:06.461 - to buy the home That's on the you know ground lease right but not a restriction of the mortgage itself. 02:17:06.461 --> 02:17:13.861 - I mean, I don't know I'm This is also a time for discussion. We and so we might want to talk about whether 02:17:13.861 --> 02:17:20.638 - we want to open this to other parties also, so Love love to hear from miss Thurman if available I 02:17:21.410 --> 02:17:30.325 - if anybody else had any comments, please feel free. Ms. Thurman, are you still there? I am. We'll have 02:17:30.325 --> 02:17:36.990 - a time for public comment as well. Thoughts on this one? I think our main... 02:17:37.442 --> 02:17:42.782 - questions on this one really had to do with the way that we are limiting, you know, that we have affordable 02:17:42.782 --> 02:17:47.726 - home buyers upfront and we are limiting a larger number of them being able to build equity in their 02:17:47.726 --> 02:17:52.769 - house and resell at market values. And so from a practical standpoint, I think, I think there's a lot 02:17:52.769 --> 02:17:55.390 - of really good questions that you guys are having of 02:17:55.490 --> 02:18:01.921 - What's the right mechanism? Can somebody get a mortgage for that house? Is it gonna work? And I do think 02:18:01.921 --> 02:18:08.106 - that that is something that I feel really comfortable the RDC has had very deep conversations about, 02:18:08.106 --> 02:18:14.353 - and that is not necessarily land use time that need to be tied up in the PUD. To your point, the city 02:18:14.353 --> 02:18:20.906 - is controlling that process. There are really aligned values in this is intended to be affordable housing. 02:18:20.906 --> 02:18:25.438 - The exact mechanism, a deed restriction is tricky, limiting the number of 02:18:25.538 --> 02:18:31.500 - Available ways that you can get a mortgage for a home does limit does create friction in the project 02:18:31.500 --> 02:18:37.639 - and limit some things for home buyers, but that there are mechanisms. That are practiced and will work, 02:18:37.639 --> 02:18:43.542 - so I think everybody is very much on the same page about the goals of that, but the 50% rather than 02:18:43.542 --> 02:18:45.726 - 25% I think does have some concerns. 02:18:46.242 --> 02:18:52.838 - In terms of what that will do overall to comps for resales that the, you know, at least half of the 02:18:52.838 --> 02:18:59.434 - homes will have at sale point a below market value sale and that that will likely negatively impact 02:18:59.434 --> 02:19:02.270 - the resale value of the market rate homes. 02:19:02.434 --> 02:19:07.869 - which will have negative impacts on affordable home buyers who've purchased as a qualified home buyer 02:19:07.869 --> 02:19:13.197 - upfront, but now can't sell their house at what would be considered market value, even if there are 02:19:13.197 --> 02:19:17.886 - not affordability limitations on that specific house. So I think there's some concerns. 02:19:18.434 --> 02:19:24.726 - About that, what the follow on impacts might be of a 50% permanently affordable, but there it does sound 02:19:24.726 --> 02:19:30.958 - like there's strong alignment of there are going to be ways to find mechanisms that work long term that 02:19:30.958 --> 02:19:34.494 - are flexible and that this project also has a lot of work. 02:19:34.594 --> 02:19:40.047 - with lenders. We've had a series of lender roundtables working through exactly how these will 02:19:40.047 --> 02:19:46.137 - be underwritten, what kinds of loans can be used. We heard really strongly from Plan Commission. There's 02:19:46.137 --> 02:19:52.170 - a banker on Plan Commission about the deed restriction as a concern for a typical mortgage from a local 02:19:52.170 --> 02:19:53.214 - or regional bank. 02:19:54.242 --> 02:20:02.584 - Thank you so much. I actually have a question, both for the sponsors and for you, Ms. Thurman. Maybe 02:20:02.584 --> 02:20:11.669 - first for you, which is, you know, this is not a new idea and obviously reflective of the actual requirements 02:20:11.669 --> 02:20:16.542 - in our code for PUDs, so that I think we've been clear on. 02:20:16.802 --> 02:20:24.981 - But in in your work in other places And then similarly here, I mean have like we're thinking about Because 02:20:24.981 --> 02:20:32.626 - it's not a new idea. We also have lots of natural experiments to see how this how this works. So so 02:20:32.626 --> 02:20:39.582 - What evidence do you have of the results of? deed restrictions for permanent affordability 02:20:42.146 --> 02:20:48.128 - As you're saying, it's not a new idea, but there's not a clear front-runner nationally yet as a mechanism 02:20:48.128 --> 02:20:54.110 - is going to be my short answer. There are a number of communities that have iterated on something someone 02:20:54.110 --> 02:20:59.809 - else has done previously with some changes. My feedback would be, I'm in a community that is working 02:20:59.809 --> 02:21:05.678 - on getting a community land trust set up that has thought a lot about it. I'm sitting on that committee 02:21:05.678 --> 02:21:09.854 - every week talking through exactly what the numbers are and how it works. 02:21:10.338 --> 02:21:17.108 - there are a lot of things that have been tried and there is not a single method or structure that I'm 02:21:17.108 --> 02:21:23.944 - aware of that has become a national front runner that is recognized as the answer. So it tends to have 02:21:23.944 --> 02:21:30.912 - a lot of complexity around both state law and your local banking environment, as well as the exact price 02:21:30.912 --> 02:21:38.014 - points and mechanisms and who you have to operate the program long-term. So finding qualified home buyers, 02:21:38.274 --> 02:21:45.522 - in a timely manner so that in an original affordable home buyer who has perhaps gotten a job in another 02:21:45.522 --> 02:21:52.560 - town, perhaps they're getting married, they're selling a house for a reasonable reason, they need to 02:21:52.560 --> 02:21:59.599 - be able to also trust that that resale process is going to be timely and not negatively impact their 02:21:59.599 --> 02:22:02.526 - own normal life function. That process of 02:22:02.754 --> 02:22:10.054 - what organization is running that transaction management, ensuring that the seller, that original affordable 02:22:10.054 --> 02:22:16.886 - home buyer, is selling the home in a timely manner to another qualified home buyer has typically been 02:22:16.886 --> 02:22:22.110 - the mechanism that is most challenging for communities to maintain long term. 02:22:22.210 --> 02:22:28.858 - And so that's, I think, where we've seen the most national experimentation, might be one word, around 02:22:28.858 --> 02:22:35.571 - finding the right mechanism that is simple, that lasts, that is easy to maintain 15, 20 years down the 02:22:35.571 --> 02:22:39.742 - road. And so some of the challenges around the deed restriction 02:22:40.066 --> 02:22:46.113 - both there are obvious banking challenges with that. One of the other challenges is it's not flexible. 02:22:46.113 --> 02:22:51.983 - Once it's been put onto the deed, it can't be removed. And so if the system 15 to 20 years down the 02:22:51.983 --> 02:22:57.912 - road is not working, you are locked into that deed restriction that is permanent. And thank you very 02:22:57.912 --> 02:23:03.959 - much. And also to the sponsors, that question as well, but then thinking specifically, I mean, we both 02:23:03.959 --> 02:23:07.070 - said we talked to Summit and I'm interested in like, 02:23:07.298 --> 02:23:14.775 - What's the market looking like in terms of Summit sales, resales? Are there empty lots? What's the market 02:23:14.775 --> 02:23:22.252 - signals that you're seeing from Summit? And also happy to hear from Director Killian Henson, for example, 02:23:22.252 --> 02:23:24.862 - or anybody else who would know that. 02:23:25.122 --> 02:23:30.405 - Councilmember Rosenberger should probably take most of that but what I wanted to add to that was I mean 02:23:30.405 --> 02:23:35.637 - part of what Ali just just said about like well There's not a clear national front-runner and we don't 02:23:35.637 --> 02:23:40.767 - really know and and that's one of the reasons why I don't want to bake something in here for sure in 02:23:40.767 --> 02:23:45.999 - that kind of way and why I have some of that reticence and and want to want to understand and research 02:23:45.999 --> 02:23:51.180 - that just a little bit more but councilmember Rosenberger was the one that did the most liaising with 02:23:51.180 --> 02:23:52.958 - summit land trust specifically and 02:23:54.658 --> 02:24:03.685 - And then I see I think mr. Ferrer. Well, let's let's hear from councilmember Rosenberger then then to 02:24:03.685 --> 02:24:12.800 - you that do you sorry? Okay, I the question is What we're proposing what's happening at the land trust 02:24:12.800 --> 02:24:22.270 - I mean, I do more than I could but I guess I had a conversation today so I can just relay some of that and 02:24:22.690 --> 02:24:29.877 - But of course, I mean Nate worked there. So he's got more intimate details My conversation today was 02:24:29.877 --> 02:24:36.992 - at seven affordable homes have sold there and some market, right? There's 29 lots left I don't know 02:24:36.992 --> 02:24:44.250 - what over what period of time I think it's been two years is where Nate could Talk about that to you. 02:24:44.250 --> 02:24:45.246 - That's a fair 02:24:48.098 --> 02:24:56.501 - I hope I have the right information to so Nathan for executive director of Summit Hill Community Development 02:24:56.501 --> 02:25:04.441 - Corporation and the Housing Authority So we set up started setting up the Land Trust about three years 02:25:04.441 --> 02:25:12.151 - ago had our first sale two years ago There are 12 homes built. There's two underway Of the 12 homes 02:25:12.151 --> 02:25:17.470 - built seven are through the Land Trust We use the ground lease model 02:25:17.634 --> 02:25:26.231 - We do not have covenants when we use a ground lease or deed restrictions The ground lease serves that 02:25:26.231 --> 02:25:34.659 - purpose We have struggled greatly with lenders. It's not a model. It's not a conventional model and 02:25:34.659 --> 02:25:43.088 - We're fairly conventional area so We have that's been a the bulk of our work is finding lenders who 02:25:43.088 --> 02:25:46.206 - will do the shared equity lending or 02:25:46.338 --> 02:25:53.886 - Allow the essentially provide a mortgage without the owner owning the land so 02:25:54.786 --> 02:26:00.667 - Then both to to ever it's everyone here and and then and then a broader question Do we have any evidence 02:26:00.667 --> 02:26:06.268 - to suggest that the mechanisms that we're proposing in this reasonable condition are? Substantially 02:26:06.268 --> 02:26:11.869 - going to change the outcomes of the market dynamics that we're already experiencing in other places 02:26:11.869 --> 02:26:17.583 - where we put it in place and then my follow-on question potentially from his Thurman is okay, so then 02:26:17.583 --> 02:26:23.352 - we all want permanent affordability I think that the moral argument is really clear and so what is the 02:26:23.352 --> 02:26:24.752 - best mechanism for us to 02:26:24.752 --> 02:26:31.869 - To achieve what it is that we want to do and so so so the first and then happy to hear the second idea 02:26:31.869 --> 02:26:39.056 - Sure, my mind just went blank there's a bunch of things running around in there So first question first 02:26:39.056 --> 02:26:46.035 - question again, sorry Do we have any evidence to suggest that doing this and hopeful is going to be? 02:26:46.035 --> 02:26:53.084 - Substantially different than doing it in another place in the city if we're struggling in Summit Hill 02:26:53.084 --> 02:26:53.982 - well first I 02:26:54.690 --> 02:27:02.865 - There have been struggles we are plugging away we're moving forward with this model what we're learning 02:27:02.865 --> 02:27:10.726 - is The land trust model is not right for every low to moderate income buyer So it's it's good for a 02:27:10.726 --> 02:27:19.294 - certain subset of buyers that are out there if we can help get them through the mortgage application process 02:27:19.650 --> 02:27:28.360 - Being lower income presents all kinds of challenges to getting a mortgage and sometimes just the timing 02:27:28.360 --> 02:27:36.736 - doesn't work out. So So that there's that piece I would say our land trust right now is serving the 02:27:36.736 --> 02:27:45.865 - population that is appropriate for the land trust model meaning I Don't know that we're ready as a community 02:27:45.865 --> 02:27:48.126 - to add more land trust and 02:27:48.546 --> 02:27:55.382 - Home sales essentially we're it's kind of saturated with what we're doing as we as our sales show So 02:27:55.382 --> 02:28:02.421 - that's not to say the land trust model is failing I think it's working and I think we're gonna continue 02:28:02.421 --> 02:28:09.189 - to plug ahead to add more right now Those units at Hopewell Would just delay people getting housing 02:28:09.189 --> 02:28:14.942 - am I am I right in saying and please if anybody I don't want to dominate because I I 02:28:15.138 --> 02:28:21.256 - I recognize the power dynamic of the fact that I get to choose myself to speak but I'm and so so then 02:28:21.256 --> 02:28:26.174 - right away to councilor councilmember Rallo Does the are you saying clearly that? 02:28:26.530 --> 02:28:31.443 - That the land trust model, but they've given a lot of different options here There's been a bunch of 02:28:31.443 --> 02:28:36.357 - terms included in that but exactly so I'm just trying to understand like your recommendation because 02:28:36.357 --> 02:28:41.464 - I mean because we're making an argument about like banks and lenders but there's also the broader market 02:28:41.464 --> 02:28:46.767 - in in Bloomington and and I'm just curious about your recommendation on this particular reasonable condition 02:28:46.767 --> 02:28:51.729 - and whether you would frame it in a different way because I think we've all said very clearly we want 02:28:51.729 --> 02:28:56.496 - a lot of permanent affordability we own this land that moral argument we've made but but like how 02:28:56.496 --> 02:29:02.431 - How we do it is the is the is the question that we're trying? I don't know if I can give you the answer 02:29:02.431 --> 02:29:08.139 - to how to do it, but I can tell you that You could tell us how not to do it is also helpful But the 02:29:08.139 --> 02:29:13.960 - land trust model comes with the problems we've been struggling with for the last three years So it is 02:29:13.960 --> 02:29:19.781 - going to be a slower model. It is going to mean people will not get housed as quickly there are other 02:29:19.781 --> 02:29:21.950 - models to consider and I think that's 02:29:22.434 --> 02:29:28.868 - What needs to be part of the conversation to ensure permanent affordability? First right refusal is 02:29:28.868 --> 02:29:35.301 - definitely a tool that can be implemented with different models to ensure But you also have to have 02:29:35.301 --> 02:29:42.250 - subsidy in place for to be able to buy those homes back. So There's a lot to think about a lot to consider. 02:29:42.250 --> 02:29:48.941 - Thank you so much. That's my role Just just a simple question. What's the duration of the of the ground 02:29:48.941 --> 02:29:52.286 - lease? What's our ground leases are 99 years I mean 02:29:52.994 --> 02:30:03.467 - Ground lease or land trust model is is meant to create Permanent affordability meaning there is a Mechanism 02:30:03.467 --> 02:30:11.710 - in there to retain subsidy that gets passed along for future buyers. Mm-hmm. So good 02:30:12.002 --> 02:30:18.725 - The first right of refusal is something that Habitat is using currently in Bloomington, along with a 02:30:18.725 --> 02:30:25.713 - silent second mortgage, and that has been an option that is the front runner. It's probably most similar 02:30:25.713 --> 02:30:32.436 - to Boulder Colorado's program, which has been established since 2008. It is a right of first refusal 02:30:32.436 --> 02:30:37.694 - or purchase option. There's a couple different legal ways that can get set up. 02:30:37.954 --> 02:30:44.485 - But when you purchase the house as an affordable home buyer, the first time you are functionally agreeing 02:30:44.485 --> 02:30:51.016 - contractually at that time to sell it back to an entity. So in this case, it is likely the RDC. Whitefish 02:30:51.016 --> 02:30:57.547 - Montana has a similar program that has multiple beneficiaries. And so they've included both their housing 02:30:57.547 --> 02:31:02.846 - authority and the city as beneficiaries of that right. And in some of those programs, 02:31:02.946 --> 02:31:09.359 - the resale price is pre-negotiated so you know that you will get some equity back and it's typically 02:31:09.359 --> 02:31:15.963 - at market rate that you know that the sale is at market rate or at a pre-negotiated annual appreciation 02:31:15.963 --> 02:31:22.566 - rate that would be below market rate so that if for instance housing prices have doubled you are making 02:31:22.566 --> 02:31:23.582 - some additional 02:31:24.066 --> 02:31:30.762 - equity at that resale and that you know the timing and the purchase price when you sell and it's typically 02:31:30.762 --> 02:31:37.083 - tied to how long you've owned the home. There is a lot of then sureness in that transaction that can 02:31:37.083 --> 02:31:43.341 - be really helpful to an affordable home buyer. Both of those programs do involve a deed restriction 02:31:43.341 --> 02:31:49.724 - because the deed is restricted to that first right of refusal continues to always default back to the 02:31:49.724 --> 02:31:52.478 - city. But it is one that if that expires or 02:31:52.802 --> 02:31:58.223 - It can functionally expire because you're just declining to buy it at some point. If 100 years down 02:31:58.223 --> 02:32:03.915 - the line, the city is just declining to buy it each time. It's functionally not stopping the transaction 02:32:03.915 --> 02:32:09.499 - of that home, but it does give the city an opportunity each time the property transacts for it to come 02:32:09.499 --> 02:32:14.974 - back into the program. A lot of those programs also don't actually purchase the home from the buyer. 02:32:15.618 --> 02:32:21.944 - from the original buyer, they find the new qualified affordable home buyer and then assign the contracts 02:32:21.944 --> 02:32:28.390 - to them at closing. The city is controlling the transaction, but they're never actually in the transaction 02:32:28.390 --> 02:32:34.414 - with money. That is the method that I think the most cities have started to move towards. There's a 02:32:34.414 --> 02:32:40.499 - number of towns in California that are using that model. Boulders is the oldest version of that that 02:32:40.499 --> 02:32:41.342 - I'm aware of. 02:32:41.410 --> 02:32:47.378 - Falls Church, Virginia does something really similar. And so that is the model that's been most discussed 02:32:47.378 --> 02:32:53.009 - at RDC. But I do think that some of the challenge that you guys are referencing here is it's really 02:32:53.009 --> 02:32:58.752 - tough to tie that mechanism when there is not one clear answer into the land use regulations in a way 02:32:58.752 --> 02:33:02.750 - that changing that program would require coming back to amend the PUD. 02:33:03.906 --> 02:33:12.460 - So I would just in reaction to all of that and and what what what I was getting at is that I think that 02:33:12.460 --> 02:33:20.768 - the 25% the ratios make a lot of sense from from four I think that the mechanisms that we originally 02:33:20.768 --> 02:33:25.374 - considered in five We have a lot of evidence that those 02:33:25.538 --> 02:33:32.725 - that those may be the better mechanisms, and I think giving sort of flexibility to how those mechanisms 02:33:32.725 --> 02:33:39.705 - are put in place might be wise. And so, I mean, I would think what I would love to see us do is some 02:33:39.705 --> 02:33:46.270 - combination of four and five, which states very clearly the minimum amount that we want, which 02:33:46.370 --> 02:33:52.615 - Said that however you wish but then that we have the right mechanisms in place to actually make this 02:33:52.615 --> 02:33:58.922 - make this doable I'm concerned about the feasibility with the evidence we have mounting evidence that 02:33:58.922 --> 02:34:05.291 - it's not going to be as feasible. I'm customer flirty than Zulik Doesn't Paragraph three in the second 02:34:05.291 --> 02:34:11.537 - part of about the legal instruments in RC for doesn't that wouldn't that include everything that was 02:34:11.537 --> 02:34:14.814 - in RC five it would just require that the petitioner 02:34:15.298 --> 02:34:20.661 - Know what it is. They're doing before we give final approval Rather than just asking them to tell us 02:34:20.661 --> 02:34:26.131 - later Which is more the structure RC five So I think my reading of RC four is that the flexibility had 02:34:26.131 --> 02:34:31.441 - already built in would include everything in RC five It's just the difference is whether or not the 02:34:31.441 --> 02:34:35.742 - council approves it since we don't know right now what the mechanism even is and 02:34:40.162 --> 02:34:45.280 - Point through this says or other legal mechanisms for permanent affordability is subsequently approved 02:34:45.280 --> 02:34:50.448 - by this council which would which would suggest that if they that if the Petitioner found that you know 02:34:50.448 --> 02:34:55.466 - deed restrictions and ground leases didn't work They would have to come back to us and say what we'd 02:34:55.466 --> 02:35:00.534 - like to do is do You know some affordability plan and we could then accept that right exactly, but we 02:35:00.534 --> 02:35:02.174 - could also reject it, right? Yes 02:35:02.306 --> 02:35:07.494 - And then it would default back to if so if they don't come up with a better option or if we do right 02:35:07.494 --> 02:35:12.632 - so so that That's my only would be my only concern. There is that you know, it subjects it again to 02:35:12.632 --> 02:35:17.871 - You know, you know I'm saying like like I like I just wonder if we want to pre-approve it as you know 02:35:17.871 --> 02:35:22.238 - We would like it to be this way. But yeah, so then sorry say that councilman Sasberg 02:35:22.338 --> 02:35:28.640 - If this and kind of in the spirit of like recognizing that part of what we're doing right now is discussing 02:35:28.640 --> 02:35:34.651 - the reasonable conditions So then we can move forward in the next couple of weeks to surely amend them 02:35:34.651 --> 02:35:40.603 - like the reasonable conditions to kind of reach some some cool middle ground that Works for everybody 02:35:40.603 --> 02:35:46.497 - in an idealistic consensus sort of way Yes, three is supposed to enable that but it does require the 02:35:46.497 --> 02:35:52.158 - coming back and so that's where I was like I could potentially compromise, you know depending on 02:35:52.610 --> 02:35:58.785 - What kind of evidence I I appreciate hearing that habitat is using right of first refusal and silence 02:35:58.785 --> 02:36:04.840 - second mortgages right now I appreciate You know that that list of other cities that are doing this 02:36:04.840 --> 02:36:10.894 - and that kind of information so then you know like like that's the kind of like research based sort 02:36:10.894 --> 02:36:13.982 - of stuff that I would have liked to see and then I 02:36:14.242 --> 02:36:21.892 - wouldn't object to putting specific methods on. But I think that just giving a free pass to every method 02:36:21.892 --> 02:36:29.834 - under the sun, I don't love that. But maybe adding a third line in that says this mechanism, this mechanism, 02:36:29.834 --> 02:36:37.484 - this mechanism, and then a fourth line or any others that have to come back might split that difference. 02:36:37.484 --> 02:36:41.054 - I don't know how my co-sponsor feels about that. 02:36:44.162 --> 02:36:52.624 - Think that I'm gonna pull it up I'm not bothered by number three. I think if there are more Terms around 02:36:52.624 --> 02:37:00.763 - here like permanent affordability Is like not defined in this reasonable condition and so, you know, 02:37:00.763 --> 02:37:09.064 - I tend to think we're looking at a hundred years We're looking far into the future somebody else might 02:37:09.064 --> 02:37:12.126 - think that means 15 years, right? and 02:37:12.226 --> 02:37:20.110 - Shared equity models might be 3% back to the homeowner. It might be, you know, 97% back to the homeowner 02:37:20.110 --> 02:37:27.694 - and we've lost affordability. So it's not just the mechanism, it is the details of how it's going to 02:37:27.694 --> 02:37:32.350 - be accomplished. But mechanism one and two aren't reversible. 02:37:33.122 --> 02:37:39.120 - right so so we can't we have to set on that track from the beginning and so and I think we've already 02:37:39.120 --> 02:37:45.060 - heard very clearly like the petitioners like we don't think one and two is gonna work and so so this 02:37:45.060 --> 02:37:50.999 - so that's what like, you know, so so don't we need to decide the mechanism that we'd like to produce 02:37:50.999 --> 02:37:57.056 - do you see what I'm saying or I Don't know why we need to decide the mechanism right now. Well, I want 02:37:57.056 --> 02:37:58.526 - to say if that's okay, I 02:37:59.458 --> 02:38:04.752 - Community land trust. I mean I had a conversation today with the community land trust and it didn't 02:38:04.752 --> 02:38:10.364 - go exactly the same way, right? It went that it was a rocky start I mean, I think this is what mr. Ferrer 02:38:10.364 --> 02:38:15.764 - was saying it was a rocky start and it's doing well now and it's it is selling homes and I understand 02:38:15.764 --> 02:38:21.694 - that We don't necessarily need more land trust homes and hopeful we don't necessarily need that because I think 02:38:22.242 --> 02:38:27.413 - We need different mechanisms around our city for permanently affordable places because people want different 02:38:27.413 --> 02:38:32.299 - things and can figure out different things Right that work for them Like some people don't some people 02:38:32.299 --> 02:38:37.137 - want to own the land and they don't want to rent the land and that's a real thing Here in the Midwest 02:38:37.137 --> 02:38:40.126 - and I think other places as well But I guess I just don't like 02:38:40.514 --> 02:38:45.854 - Repeat that like that's not working. That's not working It is in the UDO and it is just an option and 02:38:45.854 --> 02:38:51.247 - that they can do and like this would just be in the PUD That it can be done that way and we're talking 02:38:51.247 --> 02:38:56.535 - about something like what if we don't know if this is gonna work in 50 years Okay, well that is true 02:38:56.535 --> 02:39:01.875 - That maybe it will work in 50 years if it doesn't work now if a deed restriction isn't working now It 02:39:01.875 --> 02:39:07.582 - might work in 50 years or something like that, right? So this just gives basically the flexibility of all of 02:39:08.258 --> 02:39:15.812 - Types and I would say Like the administration doesn't have the mechanism figured out yet like that doesn't 02:39:15.812 --> 02:39:23.084 - you know, it's like working on where that might live and Who might have first right of refusal, right? 02:39:23.084 --> 02:39:30.568 - Like would it be the RDC or would the RDC sell the land, right? So it's a lot There are a lot of unknowns 02:39:30.568 --> 02:39:35.934 - still I think to just say Thank you go from here. Yeah council members look 02:39:36.642 --> 02:39:43.609 - Thank you. As suggested earlier, I'm happy to work with the sponsors of reasonable condition four to 02:39:43.609 --> 02:39:51.059 - work on something that works for all or most of council members, but I can't support a reasonable condition 02:39:51.059 --> 02:39:58.302 - that includes deed restrictions from all of the different feedback that we've just gotten. So thank you. 02:39:59.234 --> 02:40:06.224 - And then just a quick question, and then I'd love to go to public comment. Do you read, unless you guys 02:40:06.224 --> 02:40:12.946 - have more, unless there's an objection, I'd like to go to public comment. Do you all intend this to 02:40:12.946 --> 02:40:19.869 - be that, like, how do they decide and who decides whether it's one, two, or moving to three? The owner 02:40:19.869 --> 02:40:26.590 - of the land does. I mean, I think that that's one of the things I heard from them is that they want 02:40:26.882 --> 02:40:33.470 - As much flexibility as they can around and I mean what I heard mr. Ferrera say is that you know the 02:40:33.602 --> 02:40:38.895 - Bloomington can't necessarily support another land trust but I guess like a follow-up question that 02:40:38.895 --> 02:40:44.187 - I don't want answered right now but I just want to put out into the universe is well what if one or 02:40:44.187 --> 02:40:49.533 - two of these lots kind of became part of that land trust because you know I don't know for sure what 02:40:49.533 --> 02:40:54.984 - the design models are say for the houses in the land trust right now but some of these proposed houses 02:40:54.984 --> 02:41:00.701 - and hopeful like they're really tiny they're like tiny homes it might be attracting a different demographic 02:41:00.701 --> 02:41:03.294 - that would also qualify for the land trust thing 02:41:03.362 --> 02:41:09.506 - But but needs a different type of housing So like that's why and that's why with the deed restriction 02:41:09.506 --> 02:41:16.012 - like I don't want to take anything off the table For the the RDC the petitioner and you know, like figuring 02:41:16.012 --> 02:41:22.518 - all of that out So, you know down the road and also as councilmember Piedmont Smith not sorry councilmember 02:41:22.518 --> 02:41:24.446 - Rosenberger just said that like 02:41:24.642 --> 02:41:30.470 - You know, we don't know what's gonna work in 25 years or 30 years Maybe something different will work 02:41:30.470 --> 02:41:36.298 - and that's not about number three. That's about number two Maybe more banks will will do better about 02:41:36.298 --> 02:41:42.241 - lending related to ground leases and land trusts Maybe you know like like we don't really know we can't 02:41:42.241 --> 02:41:48.012 - see the future and so keeping that flexibility in for any of those I think is is valuable. Thank you 02:41:48.012 --> 02:41:53.726 - so much if there's no objection would love to go to public comment and on this reasonable condition 02:41:53.890 --> 02:42:02.244 - Seeing none, you are not public comment to you. We didn't call for you yet. You go sit down. I asked 02:42:02.244 --> 02:42:10.598 - for public comment. Mr. Kerr did say earlier that he'd like to give a legal response to each one. Is 02:42:10.598 --> 02:42:16.222 - everybody okay with Mr. Kerr giving his legal response to this one? 02:42:16.514 --> 02:42:23.098 - All right, seeing no, Mr. Kerr, go ahead and then we'll go to public comment. All right. Thank you. 02:42:23.098 --> 02:42:29.880 - Be ready. Dana Kerr, legal representative for the Redevelopment Commission Petitioner. We believe that 02:42:29.880 --> 02:42:36.464 - this is legally classified as an amendment as it specifically alters the text of the PUD ordinance. 02:42:36.464 --> 02:42:43.179 - Also legally classified as an amendment as it has a very significant impact on the PUD development as 02:42:43.179 --> 02:42:46.142 - achieving a 50% permanent affordability goal 02:42:46.242 --> 02:42:52.285 - would likely be impossible given the mix of housing type, fuel prices, and other escalating product 02:42:52.285 --> 02:42:58.448 - costs. While there is the idea of having a legislative prone affordability requirement in the future, 02:42:58.448 --> 02:43:04.491 - that does not exist at this time and cannot be imposed on the petitioner. If considered a condition 02:43:04.491 --> 02:43:10.533 - and not an amendment, it would be legally an unreasonable condition for the same reasons. Thank you 02:43:10.533 --> 02:43:11.198 - very much. 02:43:11.522 --> 02:43:20.996 - Thank you didn't expect you to say that but now we'll go to Anybody who'd like to make public comment 02:43:20.996 --> 02:43:30.656 - on reasonable condition for we Accept your comment at this time if you're online and would like to make 02:43:30.656 --> 02:43:39.294 - comment You can raise your hand and we'll acknowledge you shortly Hey everybody Steve Bishop 02:43:40.034 --> 02:43:48.562 - enjoying my civic participation tonight. If you all would indulge me really quick, anybody on the council 02:43:48.562 --> 02:43:53.630 - involved in real estate? Any of you with a lending background? 02:43:55.714 --> 02:44:01.921 - because I hear a lot of conjecture around both those topics and I don't see any experts on the panel 02:44:01.921 --> 02:44:08.190 - or any being convened to talk in front of you, which is a real concern because you're making a lot of 02:44:08.190 --> 02:44:14.643 - choices for people that also don't have those professionals, you know, either as a background or someone 02:44:14.643 --> 02:44:19.006 - they can lean on. The point of affordability that you keep focusing on 02:44:19.106 --> 02:44:25.150 - Really doesn't come into play at all. You all have the purview to help with attainability, which is 02:44:25.150 --> 02:44:31.556 - the purchase of that home You don't have anything to do with affordability because you don't have control 02:44:31.556 --> 02:44:37.841 - over taxes or insurance Indiana currently leads the country in foreclosures because people can't afford 02:44:37.841 --> 02:44:43.945 - their escrow accounts That's taxes and insurance. So unless you plan to cap those somewhere there is 02:44:43.945 --> 02:44:46.846 - no affordability permanence for any of this and 02:44:49.538 --> 02:45:00.635 - Thank you next comment or in in the house Me again Nate for executive director Housing Authority Not 02:45:00.635 --> 02:45:12.062 - fully sure what to say now, but I had prepared something so I'm gonna touch on some of it some of it so 02:45:12.226 --> 02:45:18.657 - So I we truly do appreciate the conversation about affordability as a land trust We're deeply committed 02:45:18.657 --> 02:45:24.902 - to permanent affordability and expanding access to homeownership We believe in our model and we know 02:45:24.902 --> 02:45:31.209 - that it's worked well for many buyers At the same time again, I may be repeating myself, but the land 02:45:31.209 --> 02:45:37.392 - trust is one of several long-term affordable ownership models I wanted to provide kind of an update 02:45:37.392 --> 02:45:39.742 - on that which I have already done and 02:45:40.066 --> 02:45:48.329 - but assisting buyers under 80% 80 AMI to qualify as Habitat knows and anybody else that's tried to help 02:45:48.329 --> 02:45:56.989 - low-income buyers Qualify for a mortgage comes with significant challenges and long timelines and complexity 02:45:56.989 --> 02:46:04.935 - so again, I want to reiterate how important flexibility around the affordability piece is obviously 02:46:04.935 --> 02:46:08.510 - we want affordability to be part of this but 02:46:08.834 --> 02:46:16.088 - Leaving it as flexible as possible is going to help your developer and whoever is carrying out this 02:46:16.088 --> 02:46:23.705 - programming around affordability To actually implement something that gets people how gets people housed 02:46:23.705 --> 02:46:26.462 - and doesn't delay this any further So 02:46:26.658 --> 02:46:33.030 - If we want to expand homeownership to low to modern income buyers, we need a broader range of entry 02:46:33.030 --> 02:46:39.720 - points That means smaller lots more attainable price points different ownership structures opportunities 02:46:39.720 --> 02:46:46.092 - for incremental development Hopewell South was perfectly designed for this We had heard about these 02:46:46.092 --> 02:46:52.655 - designers before They even came to town. They're doing this work across the country and they know what 02:46:52.655 --> 02:46:56.542 - they're talking about So I just wanted to express my support 02:46:57.538 --> 02:47:03.799 - This project really matters because it gives us a chance to test new approaches Expand access to ownership 02:47:03.799 --> 02:47:09.649 - and build a stronger pipeline for attainable housing It's not about replacing existing models. It's 02:47:09.649 --> 02:47:15.500 - about complementing them We're not going to figure out what works best in Bloomington unless we try 02:47:15.500 --> 02:47:21.468 - something I've had several conversations with with you all around affordability and and others in the 02:47:21.468 --> 02:47:24.862 - last few weeks or several of you not with all of you, but 02:47:25.218 --> 02:47:31.711 - If we push too far we were on the risk of making this project financially infeasible Or delay it to 02:47:31.711 --> 02:47:38.269 - the point that it doesn't move forward and it has to be abandoned And I would pose the question what 02:47:38.269 --> 02:47:45.022 - happens then does it get sold? Does it go market? I am sure there is a luxury Student housing developer 02:47:45.022 --> 02:47:51.516 - just waiting to get their hands on this property. I don't think any of us want want that that's not 02:47:51.516 --> 02:47:53.918 - to scare you into action, but I just 02:47:54.146 --> 02:48:03.596 - Want to make that point that this is the best option we've seen on the table. So please please support 02:48:03.596 --> 02:48:12.771 - it I'm out of time. Thank you Good evening, mr. President, this is Chris terms you from the Greater 02:48:12.771 --> 02:48:19.102 - Bloomington Chamber of Commerce I'm not in the mortgage industry nor 02:48:19.266 --> 02:48:26.412 - I'm in the real estate industry. That's why I listened to the previous two speakers is because they 02:48:26.412 --> 02:48:33.773 - know what they're talking about Know what you don't know and that's one of the caveats I sort of bring 02:48:33.773 --> 02:48:40.991 - is I can listen to them when we talk about Affordability mechanisms we all all in this with the same 02:48:40.991 --> 02:48:48.638 - goal. The questions are the tools and what we're looking at if I got my numbers, correct is a project that 02:48:48.994 --> 02:48:56.766 - Under r4 would have 28 homes and now going to have 98 homes. That's an average instead of 425 270 that's 02:48:56.766 --> 02:49:04.316 - not incremental that's transformational for working families This is just the first phase. Let's move 02:49:04.316 --> 02:49:11.792 - and just a density idea of building equity equity is not a bad term equity builds wealth This is not 02:49:11.792 --> 02:49:17.566 - the final say on hope. Well, this is just one neighborhood there is a sort of 02:49:17.794 --> 02:49:24.267 - Reputation perception about Bloomington that we struggle to get projects through the finish line that 02:49:24.267 --> 02:49:30.676 - we're stuck in process Revisions trying to solve everything at once. I think we've seen that tonight 02:49:30.676 --> 02:49:37.085 - We want to move this from concept to reality and this is just the first step This is just that South 02:49:37.085 --> 02:49:43.685 - neighborhood. We can do everything else with the lead certified the 12 foot sidewalks the modular homes 02:49:43.685 --> 02:49:44.446 - we can name 02:49:45.186 --> 02:49:51.065 - one of the streets, Misty Woods Boulevard. We can do all of those things in the future. You know, but 02:49:51.065 --> 02:49:56.943 - eventually, we just have to get something done, and going from zero to one is the hardest. Going from 02:49:56.943 --> 02:50:03.110 - one to two is a lot easier to make those changes, where it goes from concept to something that's tangible, 02:50:03.110 --> 02:50:09.103 - that's reality. I mean, I'm looking at, I think, nine Democrats and a lot of here in the room Democrats 02:50:09.103 --> 02:50:12.158 - or recovering Democrats that I think would know FDR. 02:50:12.898 --> 02:50:18.696 - New Deal which tried a lot of things nothing to fear but fear itself and a lot of them didn't work But 02:50:18.696 --> 02:50:24.493 - it moved forward with some ideas and if we have the housing crunch the housing crisis, we're not going 02:50:24.493 --> 02:50:29.278 - to fiddle for the next few sessions on some of these Concepts that we all agree upon 02:50:29.922 --> 02:50:35.884 - I would just hope that the council that are serious that really gets the answers and sort of Digest 02:50:35.884 --> 02:50:42.025 - some of the things that they're hearing tonight, which is sometimes not what you want to hear but when 02:50:42.025 --> 02:50:47.987 - you're not in the mortgage industry when you're not in real estate, this is when the time to listen 02:50:47.987 --> 02:50:54.366 - and sort of Re-evaluate some of those things. I thank everybody for their time tonight and I do appreciate 02:50:54.366 --> 02:50:58.718 - it Thank you Next person in chambers and then we'll move online. I think 02:50:59.106 --> 02:51:07.622 - In the spirit of naming things, we could probably go with P-U-D Pond. I think that might be a good idea. 02:51:07.622 --> 02:51:15.732 - But... um... so, all right. My name is Ben Berenko. I'm a freshman at IU. I'm majoring in political 02:51:15.732 --> 02:51:24.248 - science and media. As someone who's going to be a renter in this city, I think I'm pretty invested here, 02:51:24.248 --> 02:51:27.006 - and I want to kind of offer my... 02:51:27.170 --> 02:51:33.068 - my philosophical perspective, just a little bit on the timeline of this development. I won't really 02:51:33.068 --> 02:51:39.262 - speak to last week's postponement. I do really respect the Council's decision to want to get this right. 02:51:39.262 --> 02:51:45.219 - I think that's a very noble goal, but as I said, here to offer my perspective as someone who will be 02:51:45.219 --> 02:51:51.176 - a renter in this city for many years to come. I know I don't have to sell you guys on the importance 02:51:51.176 --> 02:51:56.190 - of affordable housing, but what good is housing if it never actually gets developed? 02:51:56.482 --> 02:52:03.010 - I understand that ensuring the permanent affordability of Hopewell is of the utmost importance However, 02:52:03.010 --> 02:52:09.350 - let's remember that time spent on the approval process is also time spent on the development process 02:52:09.350 --> 02:52:15.941 - Time that people in desperate need of affordable housing can't really afford to lose and time that could 02:52:15.941 --> 02:52:22.846 - be the difference in keeping a talented IU grad in Bloomington or losing them to a more affordable job market 02:52:23.362 --> 02:52:29.801 - After hearing and reading some of the comment from last meeting and some of the comment on reasonable 02:52:29.801 --> 02:52:36.177 - condition for I really do appreciate The measures of wanting to keep affordability the affordability 02:52:36.177 --> 02:52:42.553 - affordability measures flexible I think that's going to be a very good thing to keep in mind I think 02:52:42.553 --> 02:52:48.866 - anytime we're talking about housing development keeping our options open and things flexible really 02:52:48.866 --> 02:52:51.454 - does help with overall affordability but 02:52:51.650 --> 02:52:57.751 - I would really urge the council not to let in a perfect goal of perfection Stand in the way of a successful 02:52:57.751 --> 02:53:03.457 - efficient project that will give more folks a shot at affording a place to live and be a step in the 02:53:03.457 --> 02:53:09.220 - right direction on the city's path to sustainability and affordability Thank you Thank you, and we'll 02:53:09.220 --> 02:53:15.095 - move online. Is there anybody online with come? We'll come back to chambers. Don't worry anybody online 02:53:15.095 --> 02:53:18.654 - with a comment None. Okay again back to chambers miss Davis. I 02:53:24.194 --> 02:53:34.917 - My name is Joe Davis The Reasonable condition number four does not do enough to address affordability 02:53:34.917 --> 02:53:45.745 - The whole PUD process here has left out one major thing that makes property ownership and the building 02:53:45.745 --> 02:53:51.422 - of equity easier for those of low incomes the mayor's 02:53:51.554 --> 02:54:00.577 - Has a staff memorandum in the packet packet number three page 27 of 159 From March 2026 first 02:54:00.577 --> 02:54:10.367 - line affordability in owner occupied housing must be pursued without undermining the core function of 02:54:10.367 --> 02:54:17.278 - home ownership Which is building equity and long-term economic mobility 02:54:18.402 --> 02:54:28.571 - Well, 30 years ago, little over 30 years ago, the Indiana Log Cabin Rule was established, which essentially 02:54:28.571 --> 02:54:38.457 - says that any property owner in the entire state of Indiana can build their residence without a building 02:54:38.457 --> 02:54:47.966 - permit. This was upheld by Appellate Judge Friedlander, ruled in favor in Robinson v. Monroe County. 02:54:48.194 --> 02:54:58.627 - that owners of property can build without a permit, it also applies to accessory structures as well. 02:54:58.627 --> 02:55:01.726 - In the dicta of their ruling, 02:55:03.522 --> 02:55:09.969 - Building codes and ordinances may conceivably discourage or impede such individuals from building their 02:55:09.969 --> 02:55:16.540 - own houses. A private individual building his own house may not possess the skills necessary to construct 02:55:16.540 --> 02:55:22.739 - a building which complies with the technical specifications set out in the ordinances. In addition, 02:55:22.739 --> 02:55:29.000 - an individual may not be able to afford to hire professionals or others to build a house. Therefore, 02:55:29.000 --> 02:55:32.286 - exempting a person who wishes to build his own house 02:55:32.450 --> 02:55:41.531 - from the requirements imposed under IC 36783, subsection D, permits, allows that person to build a house 02:55:41.531 --> 02:55:50.612 - even though they may not possess the skills or equipment to comply with technical specifications, allows 02:55:50.612 --> 02:55:59.260 - him to do so even though he is not able to afford to pay others. With this in mind, we consider the 02:55:59.260 --> 02:56:00.990 - meaning of IC 36783 02:56:01.410 --> 02:56:08.739 - Three, subset, subsection D. We can conceive of only one purpose which could justify allowing a builder 02:56:08.739 --> 02:56:16.279 - to circumsident certain applicable building safety ordinances when he builds a house which he will occupy. 02:56:16.279 --> 02:56:23.325 - In its early stages, this country's frontier was moved westward by pioneers who moved onto the land 02:56:23.325 --> 02:56:30.654 - and built houses made from the materials at hand. And that's your time. Thank you, sir. Other comments? 02:56:38.018 --> 02:56:46.573 - Give you a warning a strong ideological opinion ahead I would like to respond to the staff memorandum 02:56:46.573 --> 02:56:55.043 - that was sent to you last month from the director of housing and Neighborhood development it appears 02:56:55.043 --> 02:56:58.398 - on page 27 the memo starts by asserting 02:56:58.754 --> 02:57:05.175 - As was just said the core function of homeownership equity, we'll give you back your time But I just 02:57:05.175 --> 02:57:11.596 - want to ask a clarifying question. Yeah, because because you know, we like rules Is this going to be 02:57:11.596 --> 02:57:17.953 - about reasonable condition for specifically? Yes. Okay, fantastic Can you give you can give him you 02:57:17.953 --> 02:57:24.883 - know some time because I've taken it from him, please Thank you. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. 02:57:24.883 --> 02:57:27.998 - Go ahead has not written down I strongly support 02:57:28.546 --> 02:57:36.224 - Amendment for as written 50% and I thank commissioners Rosen council members Rosenberger and Stossberg 02:57:36.224 --> 02:57:44.274 - for bringing it forward But the premise in the memo was that the core function of homeownership is building 02:57:44.274 --> 02:57:51.803 - Building equity With this premise the PUD is focused on market rate homeowner equity appreciation as 02:57:51.803 --> 02:57:56.126 - you've been discussing but I say the premise is false and 02:57:57.826 --> 02:58:05.234 - The core function of home ownership is stable housing, a situation in which no landlord can uproot your 02:58:05.234 --> 02:58:12.641 - life. The American psychologist Abraham Maslow famously described five levels of human needs. The first 02:58:12.641 --> 02:58:19.550 - level of this hierarchy contains physiological needs such as water, food, clothing, and shelter. 02:58:22.018 --> 02:58:29.206 - Meanwhile, the memo further states that real estate equity is, quote, one of the most reliable pathways 02:58:29.206 --> 02:58:36.739 - out of poverty, end quote. But nobody who is currently living in poverty will be buying a house at Hopewell. 02:58:36.739 --> 02:58:43.927 - Because this is a project for the aspiring middle class, not those in poverty. The notion that Hopewell 02:58:43.927 --> 02:58:48.350 - has anything to do with poverty reduction is frankly insulting. 02:58:50.914 --> 02:58:56.837 - The RDC is entirely financed by taxes, and I think public money in the form of taxation should be used 02:58:56.837 --> 02:59:02.702 - for the public good. By putting a top priority on private wealth accumulation for home buyers, we are 02:59:02.702 --> 02:59:08.624 - encouraged to view the cumulative effect of turning tax dollars into land grants as a public good. And 02:59:08.624 --> 02:59:14.719 - I can appreciate that argument because I believe that the redistribution of wealth has long been a proper 02:59:14.719 --> 02:59:18.974 - response to the intrinsic inequity of the capitalist system. But how long 02:59:19.778 --> 02:59:26.044 - can this process last? What remains when the source of financial distribution dries up or the beneficiaries 02:59:26.044 --> 02:59:31.847 - move away? If we want to prevent housing from being exploited as just another profitable commodity, 02:59:31.847 --> 02:59:37.707 - then we need to remove it from the ordinary marketplace. And I know a lot of people don't like that, 02:59:37.707 --> 02:59:43.393 - but that's my opinion. Community land trusts are an increasingly popular way to create affordable 02:59:43.393 --> 02:59:45.598 - owner-occupied housing in perpetuity. 02:59:46.306 --> 02:59:53.306 - In the United States, there were about 200 community land trusts 20 years ago, and now there are more 02:59:53.306 --> 03:00:00.168 - than 300. With the land trust model, the purchase price is automatically reduced by about one third 03:00:00.168 --> 03:00:07.168 - because the land is not included. Summit Hill uses partial ownership equity appreciation. That wasn't 03:00:07.168 --> 03:00:14.305 - mentioned. You're gonna be sorry if you give up the land. I have more, ran out of time. Thank you. Next 03:00:14.305 --> 03:00:15.678 - person in chambers. 03:00:20.322 --> 03:00:26.621 - It is good evening council members John zodi executive director of CDFI friendly Bloomington Just enlisting 03:00:26.621 --> 03:00:32.570 - to the discussion and I'll just ask the council to keep in mind The issue of risk mitigation right in 03:00:32.570 --> 03:00:38.461 - the lending community councilmember Zulek was asking you know about whether a deed restriction and a 03:00:38.461 --> 03:00:44.294 - reasonable condition could be supported and you know as most of you know, I used to be the director 03:00:44.294 --> 03:00:48.318 - of housing and neighborhood development for the city and worked with 03:00:48.418 --> 03:00:54.768 - folks and programs on homeownership, and then have since moved into the lending community and community 03:00:54.768 --> 03:01:01.057 - development lending, where every day it's my job to connect people with financing. A couple years ago, 03:01:01.057 --> 03:01:07.163 - the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released a study talking about credit access around the United 03:01:07.163 --> 03:01:13.269 - States. And the areas that struggle the most with access to credit are rural areas. And if you look 03:01:13.269 --> 03:01:17.726 - at college towns, they are skewed in a major way, and they haven't quite 03:01:18.210 --> 03:01:24.353 - put their finger on why that is, probably because there's the mass concentration of young people that 03:01:24.353 --> 03:01:30.616 - may have issues with debt, right? But the bottom line is, just ask the council to keep in mind the risk 03:01:30.616 --> 03:01:36.638 - that people face every day if they are trying to get credit and can't, they're trying to get a loan 03:01:36.638 --> 03:01:42.841 - and they can't, whether it's for a home or for a small business, sometimes that's the same person. And 03:01:42.841 --> 03:01:47.358 - they struggle throughout the cycle of their ownership, business ownership, 03:01:47.490 --> 03:01:53.329 - Whatever it may be and so I just asked us to keep in mind sort of the struggle that they go through 03:01:53.329 --> 03:01:59.226 - when you look at affordability periods Which can be different? Sometimes you see things on the other 03:01:59.226 --> 03:02:05.182 - side of that affordability period that you didn't anticipate I think councilmember Rosenberger stated 03:02:05.182 --> 03:02:11.079 - that you don't always know what's gonna happen in 25 50 years you have to do your best to make those 03:02:11.079 --> 03:02:14.174 - decisions I think that's what hope well is all about 03:02:14.690 --> 03:02:19.581 - Almost ten years ago. We had a vision as a community for what this was going to be What we wanted it 03:02:19.581 --> 03:02:24.714 - to be and the numbers have changed I talked to you some of you personally about what are those affordable 03:02:24.714 --> 03:02:29.847 - housing numbers going to be and hope and hope well Specifically councilmember Piedmont Smith and I talked 03:02:29.847 --> 03:02:34.738 - about it because she lives right down the street So things change and I think we just have to do our 03:02:34.738 --> 03:02:39.677 - best to keep our eye on those potential homeowners the risk that they face every day when they go out 03:02:39.677 --> 03:02:43.454 - to try to get access to financing and what communities like ours struggle and 03:02:43.778 --> 03:02:50.499 - that comes in and so that tells us that points me to say We need to do everything we can to keep our 03:02:50.499 --> 03:02:57.554 - options open and have as many options on the table to promote affordability And on these six acres across 03:02:57.554 --> 03:03:04.408 - the site to whatever extent you can So that people have that access and we're keeping our eye on those 03:03:04.408 --> 03:03:08.734 - individuals who need to be homeowners of all different types and 03:03:09.250 --> 03:03:17.695 - This isn't just a low-income problem with access to credit people struggle with it of all income levels 03:03:17.695 --> 03:03:26.222 - We've got to create the best option to keep that risk as low as possible for those people and our fellow 03:03:26.222 --> 03:03:34.342 - residents. Thanks a lot Thank you Is there anyone online? Okay to our commenter online Take it away 03:03:34.342 --> 03:03:37.022 - Thank you, it's a John Fernandez 03:03:37.954 --> 03:03:45.449 - I've been following this discussion and honestly I've been really reluctant to join it. The council 03:03:45.449 --> 03:03:53.168 - has been very supportive of the work that I've been doing at the mill and with the trades district and 03:03:53.168 --> 03:04:00.737 - I greatly appreciate the support you've given us. The work we do is at the intersection of community 03:04:00.737 --> 03:04:02.686 - and economic development. 03:04:03.042 --> 03:04:10.951 - We know from all the conversations we have with the talent we're trying to retain here or attract here 03:04:10.951 --> 03:04:18.707 - that attainable housing is a real issue. It's an impediment. And consequently, it stunts the ability 03:04:18.707 --> 03:04:26.539 - of the city to generate the growth in local option income tax that we desperately need to sustain and 03:04:26.539 --> 03:04:31.070 - improve the quality of services we deliver in Bloomington. 03:04:31.906 --> 03:04:41.474 - So this is a really important issue for the work we're doing. As I've listened to the discussion on 03:04:41.474 --> 03:04:51.138 - this particular reasonable condition, what I've heard is, on the one hand, just tremendous agreement 03:04:51.138 --> 03:05:01.758 - that there's things we can't absolutely know. We need to have flexibility. Some things may work. They may not. 03:05:02.146 --> 03:05:10.969 - None of us can actually foresee exactly what the market's going to do in the future, and we need to 03:05:10.969 --> 03:05:19.881 - be able to adjust. I totally agree with that. In a progressive community, you would think that there 03:05:19.881 --> 03:05:27.998 - would be support for innovation, for trying things, for piloting things, and testing ideas. 03:05:28.610 --> 03:05:35.818 - And we've all said everything I've heard from folks tonight is that we agree that we need flexibility, 03:05:35.818 --> 03:05:42.956 - but the big caveat is we need flexibility, but we want everything to come back to the city council in 03:05:42.956 --> 03:05:50.304 - the future for approval. And so it just seems like the real elephant in the room to me is it's not about 03:05:50.304 --> 03:05:58.142 - policy. It's not about aspirations or even shared ambitions for what we want from Hopewell. It's a trust issue. 03:05:59.522 --> 03:06:06.536 - And the work I've done with the council has been meaningful and very appreciative. People ask great 03:06:06.536 --> 03:06:13.690 - questions, they push us, and it's all right. The work I've done with the administration, particularly 03:06:13.690 --> 03:06:20.704 - with hand, has been phenomenal. We've got great professionals in that department that have a wealth 03:06:20.704 --> 03:06:27.998 - of experience in housing. Why can't we trust them to do their job? There's your reporting requirements, 03:06:28.130 --> 03:06:35.350 - There's ways to do kind of accountability, to see how things are going, but it would just be so much 03:06:35.350 --> 03:06:42.570 - smarter, in my opinion, to move forward and try some things and don't make everything conditioned on 03:06:42.570 --> 03:06:50.005 - coming back to the City Council. Thank you very much. Moving back to, oh, is there anybody else online? 03:06:50.005 --> 03:06:56.510 - Moving back to chambers, anybody else like to give a comment on reasonable condition four? 03:07:01.122 --> 03:07:08.883 - None and we'll come back to chambers. Is there any more discussion that you'd like to have or are there 03:07:08.883 --> 03:07:16.494 - any motions? Councilmember Stossberg, there's no more discussion. I would move to close discussion on 03:07:16.494 --> 03:07:24.180 - reasonable condition for Second, okay. Do we need to vote on that clerk Bolden? It's just close. Thank 03:07:24.180 --> 03:07:25.822 - you Okay any motions? 03:07:34.850 --> 03:07:40.474 - Talk about reasonable conditions. I Still the whole exercise still strikes me is irrelevant If if the 03:07:40.474 --> 03:07:46.154 - administration's position on all of them is that they're illegal There's no compromise that can be had 03:07:46.154 --> 03:07:51.723 - if that's the administration's position departing from four decades of at least of city practice and 03:07:51.723 --> 03:07:57.237 - legal guidance and contradicting our currently contracted council, so I just don't I can talk about 03:07:57.237 --> 03:08:01.758 - reasonable conditions when we talk about what the transportation plan requires or 03:08:01.890 --> 03:08:07.494 - why I think it's bad policy precedent to violate the transportation plan, violate city code, use a PUD 03:08:07.494 --> 03:08:13.044 - to make worse infrastructure than the UDA requires, which is the exact opposite of what a PUD is for. 03:08:13.044 --> 03:08:18.485 - We can talk about all that and what we can do, but what's the point if... I guess the idea that the 03:08:18.485 --> 03:08:23.926 - administration is saying all of this is illegal is completely counter to the opening remarks of the 03:08:23.926 --> 03:08:29.476 - mayor. You can't have both. We can't, you know, work on this together over the next few weeks to find 03:08:29.476 --> 03:08:31.870 - the compromise if they're saying everything 03:08:32.290 --> 03:08:40.099 - The council's bringing is illegal Like what's it seriously? What's the point? Yeah, thank you. I invite 03:08:40.099 --> 03:08:47.684 - the mayor to answer that question I invite anyone to weigh in on that. What are we doing? Why? Mayor 03:08:47.684 --> 03:08:55.268 - Thompson if you'd like to answer Sure, I think both things can be true we can work to collaborate on 03:08:55.268 --> 03:08:58.046 - agreements that the RDC may make and 03:08:58.530 --> 03:09:10.648 - and we're open to doing that. That is a different circumstance than the legality of counsel imposing 03:09:10.648 --> 03:09:23.127 - what our legal counsel has deemed non-reasonable conditions or amendments to what was certified by plan 03:09:23.127 --> 03:09:27.326 - commission. So both could be true. 03:09:27.906 --> 03:09:37.172 - I'll just say if you do continue talking about reasonable conditions, if it pleases the council, I would 03:09:37.172 --> 03:09:46.085 - suggest bringing any questions forward perhaps for Chief Kerr that you have tonight so we don't have 03:09:46.085 --> 03:09:55.086 - to ask him to come to repeated meetings. He's been sitting here for a while at the request of council 03:09:55.086 --> 03:09:57.822 - members to be present. Thanks. 03:10:00.642 --> 03:10:08.593 - I I guess in response to councilmember Flaherty of what is the point? I think at least part of the point 03:10:08.593 --> 03:10:16.392 - is just getting some of the Concerns about the language out of the way. So, you know and and also kind 03:10:16.392 --> 03:10:23.358 - of confirming support to you and in terms of what sounds like you know could end up being a 03:10:24.002 --> 03:10:30.237 - Potentially a legal challenge or also if the RDC has a meeting on Monday night potentially a hey RDC 03:10:30.237 --> 03:10:36.534 - like council seems primed to you know do this reasonable condition that we don't think is legal would 03:10:36.534 --> 03:10:42.770 - you think that was okay because like It's like it's like we're jumping Like we we don't have to make 03:10:42.770 --> 03:10:49.067 - this a legal battle if the petitioner agrees to the condition It would only be a legal battle if it's 03:10:49.067 --> 03:10:52.030 - something we want and the petitioner says no. I 03:10:53.474 --> 03:11:00.529 - Yeah, and I think expanding off of that in a way I I had seen this as an opportunity to As an exploration 03:11:00.529 --> 03:11:07.251 - in a way right to hear some legal responses to some of these reasonable conditions to hear From miss 03:11:07.251 --> 03:11:13.906 - Thurman, you know their take on how it affects the project so that then maybe that is sparking some 03:11:13.906 --> 03:11:20.628 - more conversation saying okay, maybe what's before us we can't do but these are the ways that we can 03:11:20.628 --> 03:11:22.558 - change it to actually make a 03:11:23.714 --> 03:11:32.307 - it doable in another form or to find a way to bring these compromises about. So that was my impression 03:11:32.307 --> 03:11:40.733 - of what this exercise was for right now. Kind of a way to see how we can move forward together. I'll 03:11:40.733 --> 03:11:45.822 - also just add one thing, which is that I'll add a point that 03:11:47.362 --> 03:11:52.505 - We don't all need to vote for this right? I mean and we also do have the option of voting it down. 03:11:52.505 --> 03:11:57.803 - So Again, and they also have the option of withdrawing and I think that part of this is to give space 03:11:57.803 --> 03:12:03.050 - for Full deliberation so that the RDC can decide whether it wants to move forward as it is RDC could 03:12:03.050 --> 03:12:08.452 - say you know what like council doesn't seem like they're gonna pass this and we'd rather just just Sell 03:12:08.452 --> 03:12:13.699 - the land and let it be 25 houses writer as somebody said, you know houses luxury student apartments, 03:12:13.699 --> 03:12:14.270 - I mean I I 03:12:14.530 --> 03:12:22.879 - I voted for this already three times. I think where I'm at, again, I agree with all of the... I agree 03:12:22.879 --> 03:12:31.392 - with the position from which we're arguing. I don't think that there's really... You know, I think that 03:12:31.392 --> 03:12:39.577 - the position of we're not allowed to do this is wrong, but I think that the... To me, at the end of 03:12:39.577 --> 03:12:41.214 - the day, it's like, 03:12:43.362 --> 03:12:51.729 - I would like there to be 98 houses in Hopewell. That is my position. I'd be very happy if we passed 03:12:51.729 --> 03:13:00.180 - permanent affordability and then just passed this tonight would be my current position. Anyways, but 03:13:00.180 --> 03:13:07.962 - I don't know. Just saying it in case anybody else would like to join me in making it happen. 03:13:07.962 --> 03:13:12.062 - Piedmont Smith, and then I saw a response there. 03:13:12.354 --> 03:13:21.248 - Along the same lines as what councilmember Flaherty was saying I think it it is important and not to 03:13:21.248 --> 03:13:30.406 - be glossed over that the administration's legal department Says that this common council is not allowed 03:13:30.406 --> 03:13:39.477 - to do something that we are Indeed legally allowed to do and have done for decades. I think that's not 03:13:39.477 --> 03:13:41.502 - a point I take lightly 03:13:42.306 --> 03:13:50.799 - I mean I I appreciate what the mayor said about you know, we could have some more discussion say sessions 03:13:50.799 --> 03:13:58.812 - in order to come to an understanding on this project and Like councilmember Asari. I want to see 98 03:13:58.812 --> 03:14:06.824 - units not 25 luxury units But you know somebody I think in during the public comment said this is a 03:14:06.824 --> 03:14:10.430 - matter of trust I think it was mr. Fernandez 03:14:11.874 --> 03:14:20.191 - Yeah, it's a matter of trust and I'm losing trust when the legal stance of this administration does 03:14:20.191 --> 03:14:28.508 - not match up with state code. It's very disturbing to me and it runs counter what the mayor started 03:14:28.508 --> 03:14:36.991 - this evening with about collaboration. I just can't, I mean, yes, I'm going to continue to engage and 03:14:36.991 --> 03:14:40.734 - try to get the best project possible and not 03:14:41.314 --> 03:14:47.655 - Say throw out my hands and say just build 25 million dollar homes But I don't want to lose sight of 03:14:47.655 --> 03:14:54.312 - this This is a problem and it's going to be a problem longer term if if we have a mayoral administration 03:14:54.312 --> 03:15:00.843 - that denies the legal rights and responsibilities of council I'm curious. Okay councilman further than 03:15:00.843 --> 03:15:07.690 - I had a question to go ahead. I Was gonna suggest I mean if we can keep talking about reasonable additions. 03:15:07.690 --> 03:15:09.022 - I'm happy to do that 03:15:09.506 --> 03:15:15.790 - I'm just, I do think the larger question is important. If we're collaborating, compromising, that's 03:15:15.790 --> 03:15:22.201 - a negotiation of sorts. And if one side of the negotiating parties, the other side says, you actually 03:15:22.201 --> 03:15:28.611 - can't do anything, though, there's no power in that negotiation. It's just, what do we, by our grace, 03:15:28.611 --> 03:15:34.895 - grant you with, if anything, or nothing at all, because you can't do anything. So it does matter in 03:15:34.895 --> 03:15:35.838 - the context of 03:15:36.034 --> 03:15:43.750 - I know we want to frame it as working together, collaboration, compromise, and that's great. I definitely 03:15:43.750 --> 03:15:51.102 - agree, but that hasn't always been in high supply. So I think it's relevant. But we can keep talking 03:15:51.102 --> 03:15:57.726 - about it. We can talk about RC11 next about if we want to draw on Chief Kerr's experience. 03:15:57.922 --> 03:16:06.573 - Well, I agree with my colleagues I think what we've we've been advised by our legal counsel is that 03:16:06.573 --> 03:16:15.570 - what we were doing is is legal and we've been doing it for some time and That is the PUD process allows 03:16:15.570 --> 03:16:24.481 - for the council to offer reason reasonable conditions I think that what I want to emphasize my comment 03:16:24.481 --> 03:16:27.422 - is that this is precedent-setting 03:16:27.554 --> 03:16:35.621 - So if we surrender that at this point Then it's probably going to affect future PUDs and I don't want 03:16:35.621 --> 03:16:43.530 - to do that. I think that this body has Positively affected PUDs in the past in a negotiated process 03:16:43.530 --> 03:16:51.755 - to improve PUDs for the public good and I think that that's been valuable. There's been many many cases 03:16:51.755 --> 03:16:57.054 - of that and so to to give that up to surrender that to the experts 03:16:57.250 --> 03:17:07.693 - Who don't necessarily haven't followed city code? Is something that I I'm not willing to do so I think 03:17:07.693 --> 03:17:18.237 - this debate is important because as much as we discuss it and we hear that You know objection that this 03:17:18.237 --> 03:17:20.670 - this can't be done Well 03:17:20.866 --> 03:17:27.504 - Reveals something I suppose and I think that process is important. So thank you and I really share I 03:17:27.504 --> 03:17:34.142 - share the the opinion first off that this conversation is critical for the precedent I also think as 03:17:34.142 --> 03:17:40.714 - we've established time and time again that it's that's very important that council be counsel Okay, 03:17:40.714 --> 03:17:46.366 - and so it's a no no debate on any of that for a moment though if we were to just just 03:17:47.842 --> 03:17:56.554 - set aside the very valid conversation about reasonable conditions, the precedent that sets, et cetera, 03:17:56.554 --> 03:18:05.181 - when just looking at the weight of the conditions and thinking about what we're willing to move. Just 03:18:05.181 --> 03:18:13.470 - think amongst ourselves, regardless of whatever negotiation you want to have with the petitioner, 03:18:13.890 --> 03:18:20.903 - You know what stage is you know are we okay with 85 homes are we okay like where where does where does 03:18:20.903 --> 03:18:27.917 - the cost? Start to affect our decision-making Or do we all feel? Some some some variation of look like 03:18:27.917 --> 03:18:34.590 - these are all the things we want and we don't really care what the what the impact is we'd rather 03:18:34.786 --> 03:18:41.667 - You know whatever number it ends up with and however much they cost with these outcomes Or is there 03:18:41.667 --> 03:18:48.547 - some line at which we'd change that opinion Councilman Stossberg Great question and that's one that 03:18:48.547 --> 03:18:55.428 - I've like kind of been thinking about a lot in terms of you know, like like what am I willing to to 03:18:55.428 --> 03:18:59.006 - compromise and that is part of where I want to like 03:18:59.138 --> 03:19:04.326 - Bring like the evidence I want to go. Okay, so, you know, there's a claim that narrowing the lanes would 03:19:04.326 --> 03:19:09.365 - Require sprinklers and sprinklers cost a lot But you know one side says well actually sprinklers cost 03:19:09.365 --> 03:19:14.504 - this much and that's not actually very much and the other side says Oh, well, they cost a lot more than 03:19:14.504 --> 03:19:19.544 - that But I don't actually have real numbers about how much sprinklers were cost and that is just like 03:19:19.544 --> 03:19:22.014 - an example of something where I don't feel like I 03:19:22.498 --> 03:19:28.025 - have enough information to even know where my line is because so many of these things it's like oh well 03:19:28.025 --> 03:19:33.499 - you know then we'd have to like like have to do this and do this so we can't possibly do that and it's 03:19:33.499 --> 03:19:38.494 - like well but what if we did and maybe that's part of what Ali's presentation was that didn't 03:19:38.562 --> 03:19:45.144 - Like get shown because it didn't get sent to council office by Monday noon. That's just so alley So, 03:19:45.144 --> 03:19:51.856 - you know like that is council office procedure that's been council office procedure for months at this 03:19:51.856 --> 03:19:58.633 - point and the every every department head every person who has who is in the city that is that has come 03:19:58.633 --> 03:20:01.566 - presented before should should know that and 03:20:02.242 --> 03:20:07.095 - But yeah, so I can't answer that question right now because I don't feel like I have enough information 03:20:07.095 --> 03:20:11.761 - about and part of that is because there has been the stall stalling on on the administration and to 03:20:11.761 --> 03:20:16.473 - just be like, no, you can't do that. That's illegal. We should have had this conversation last week. 03:20:16.473 --> 03:20:20.766 - Thank you. But instead it was oh everything's illegal. Sure. And okay, so so then just just 03:20:20.866 --> 03:20:26.803 - Just roughly by a show of hands, do you all feel the same way that Councilmember Stosberg does? And 03:20:26.803 --> 03:20:32.800 - I'm getting at the question that Councilmember Flaherty asked, a reasonable question. Do we all feel 03:20:32.800 --> 03:20:38.797 - roughly that way, that it's like, well, I can't come to a sense of where my line is because we don't 03:20:38.797 --> 03:20:44.853 - have enough evidence about the weight of these conditions? Just roughly speaking, you don't feel that 03:20:44.853 --> 03:20:49.662 - way. The rest of us feel somewhat like that, with different words or not at all? 03:20:50.082 --> 03:20:53.022 - Not at all. You do. OK. 03:20:53.858 --> 03:20:59.052 - The question is whether I mean because the question on the table is what's the purpose of this practice 03:20:59.052 --> 03:21:04.146 - right and and and a possible answer is that really what we want to do is get to the place where we're 03:21:04.146 --> 03:21:09.290 - where we're able to Substantively just deal with okay, and that that may be what we want to do for the 03:21:09.290 --> 03:21:14.485 - next few weeks And it may well be that there's support amongst council to say look like I'm not willing 03:21:14.485 --> 03:21:19.629 - to take that cost and you know And and so we can actually substantively have that conversation I think 03:21:19.629 --> 03:21:23.824 - is what's on the table. I think did somebody on that. Do you want to say something? 03:21:23.824 --> 03:21:39.593 - So I think We've always you know again 40 years of reasonable conditions and most of us up here think 03:21:39.593 --> 03:21:53.662 - that they are legal and reasonable and I think that what I would like to do is proceed and 03:21:54.722 --> 03:22:03.051 - Vote on them. I I don't see a reason to go offline and do this somewhere else in some other fashion 03:22:03.051 --> 03:22:11.379 - like We are legally allowed to impose reasonable conditions and written commitments and we can play 03:22:11.379 --> 03:22:20.041 - a hypothetical where if this is legal would you collaborate and if there's collaboration we collaborate 03:22:20.041 --> 03:22:21.790 - and if there isn't a 03:22:22.338 --> 03:22:26.927 - I'm good with the conditions as they are but but the hypothetical is is There's not a hypothetical. 03:22:26.927 --> 03:22:31.608 - It's it's if they withdraw Are we still happy to go for it with the with the reasonable conditions if 03:22:31.608 --> 03:22:36.334 - it results in less houses? Are we still a willing to go for with reasonable conditions if it means the 03:22:36.334 --> 03:22:40.969 - house is more expensive? Are we so right? That's the conversation we should be having not whether or 03:22:40.969 --> 03:22:45.696 - not we can make reasonable conditions And and the question is are we willing to have that conversation 03:22:45.696 --> 03:22:50.468 - tonight? Or do we need more time to have that conversation? And I think council members Sarsburg's made 03:22:50.468 --> 03:22:52.304 - the argument that we need more evidence 03:22:52.304 --> 03:22:58.206 - To support that conversation productively It if I could please clarify maybe my position and maybe part 03:22:58.206 --> 03:23:04.222 - of what councilmember Rosenberger just said to even though I'm jumping in front of councilmember Flaherty 03:23:04.222 --> 03:23:10.067 - is that By passing reasonable conditions or not passing reasonable conditions that could actually give 03:23:10.067 --> 03:23:11.486 - guidance around this and 03:23:11.714 --> 03:23:17.364 - Conversation it could give guidance to the RDC about discussing it It could give guidance to the petitioner 03:23:17.364 --> 03:23:22.595 - to go. Okay. Well if we expand, you know if we if we make the sidewalk with six and You know, we do 03:23:22.595 --> 03:23:28.036 - this thing then it's gonna mean this much concrete It's gonna be in this many fewer lots and and that's 03:23:28.036 --> 03:23:33.424 - what that means and and and then that can be brought back So I guess that's that's kind of meeting the 03:23:33.424 --> 03:23:38.708 - middle in some ways of going Okay, we're actually going to decide some of these things tonight about 03:23:38.708 --> 03:23:40.382 - what we as a body majority want 03:23:40.962 --> 03:23:46.567 - Because until we actually decide the thing we can't know what the impact is and it's honestly it's probably 03:23:46.567 --> 03:23:52.223 - like a pointless waste of time for the consultant our first staff to like like work up all the hypotheticals 03:23:52.223 --> 03:23:57.464 - of like well if if you make this than this and if you make this than this and I mean and I do have a 03:23:57.464 --> 03:24:02.758 - few hypotheticals, you know, like if we do this then I think that we should that we should change the 03:24:02.758 --> 03:24:06.494 - setback on Wiley is one of them, you know, and and so that's one of the 03:24:06.754 --> 03:24:12.153 - Ways that I feel like like like I don't want to vote on this as a whole package tonight no matter what 03:24:12.153 --> 03:24:17.552 - Because I think that there's some things that might follow from certain things passing that would make 03:24:17.552 --> 03:24:20.382 - sense and could actually help the project overall, so 03:24:20.770 --> 03:24:26.826 - But if our ambition is then to signal to the RDC so the RDC, which meets on Monday, can have an informed 03:24:26.826 --> 03:24:32.652 - conversation about how they want to proceed and give some type of response to the general direction, 03:24:32.652 --> 03:24:38.593 - I think that we've already done enough to give a general direction to RDC of, well, I mean, six of you 03:24:38.593 --> 03:24:44.822 - put out a letter that said very clearly your position on things as an example. I mean, so that's a majority 03:24:44.822 --> 03:24:45.918 - of council, right? 03:24:46.690 --> 03:24:52.566 - You know, you know, there's enough for them to respond to so so so if that's the point then I would 03:24:52.566 --> 03:24:58.501 - just suggest that we stop having this conversation but already see have the conversation and then we 03:24:58.501 --> 03:25:04.671 - continue after that so that we move from the you know, but Comes more flirty. I mean so I think It could 03:25:04.671 --> 03:25:10.430 - be productive to talk about some of the reasonable conditions and the details I think what's been 03:25:11.234 --> 03:25:16.585 - Challenge to that is this legal dispute normally because that's never been challenged before by any 03:25:16.585 --> 03:25:22.417 - corporation council When council members have a reasonable condition We actually get to engage substantively 03:25:22.417 --> 03:25:27.982 - on them with staff usually from the outset usually when we Send a reasonable condition or let them know 03:25:27.982 --> 03:25:33.601 - we're thinking about one You immediately end up having a conversation about its feasibility practicality 03:25:33.601 --> 03:25:36.062 - how it can how it can work staff might end up 03:25:36.322 --> 03:25:42.127 - You know not agreeing with it. We've certainly had that sometimes they do end up agreeing with it and 03:25:42.127 --> 03:25:47.875 - council can make an informed decision about what they want to do based on that and I think we've had 03:25:47.875 --> 03:25:53.794 - weeks of delay because the administration has not taken that past practice of engaging us on the actual 03:25:53.794 --> 03:25:59.485 - details And in particular planning and transportation staff They are the folks that do zoning code. 03:25:59.485 --> 03:26:02.558 - They've been largely absent from this process and and 03:26:03.362 --> 03:26:08.070 - You know, they had all sorts of recommendations in the first plan commission hearing for instance that 03:26:08.070 --> 03:26:12.641 - were not taken up Before the second plan commission hearing but the recommendations all disappeared 03:26:12.641 --> 03:26:17.257 - like that's interesting Some of those recommendations are consistent with the reasonable conditions. 03:26:17.257 --> 03:26:22.011 - I've brought We can talk about those we could talk about a 10-foot sidewalk on Rogers how that's what's 03:26:22.011 --> 03:26:26.673 - required in the transportation plan required with any subdivision This is a subdivision You know tree 03:26:26.673 --> 03:26:31.381 - plot sidewalks so we can talk about those things and I think it's probably productive to do so and I'm 03:26:31.381 --> 03:26:32.478 - happy to talk about the 03:26:32.610 --> 03:26:37.767 - RC 11 specifically right now about fire code and and lane widths at the mayor's suggestion because chief 03:26:37.767 --> 03:26:42.974 - Kerr is here with us and so yeah, I think we can have some productive conversation, but I Through through 03:26:42.974 --> 03:26:48.279 - this discussion of the last 20 minutes I think I'm realizing that the difficulty in getting the information 03:26:48.279 --> 03:26:53.289 - we need to make the informed choices Yeah, good point is what has gotten us here. And so maybe we can 03:26:53.289 --> 03:26:58.397 - have some of that conversation now. Yeah, fair point Okay, and and and then everybody feels comfortable 03:26:58.397 --> 03:26:59.134 - continuing and 03:26:59.714 --> 03:27:06.221 - With that in mind. Okay. And so please councilmember Zulek Given that it's 10 and the fire chief has 03:27:06.221 --> 03:27:12.921 - sat here for the past three and a half hours Can we discuss the reasonable conditions that would relate 03:27:12.921 --> 03:27:19.363 - to that's what was great. Great. Thank you. Okay, excellent Councilmember Flaherty. Yeah, I'm happy 03:27:19.363 --> 03:27:25.805 - to provide some context. So in general so RC I would say said sorry eight eight nine ten and eleven 03:27:25.805 --> 03:27:28.318 - eight nine concert sidewalk widths and 03:27:28.482 --> 03:27:35.722 - 10 concerns tree plots. There were a few misstatements from Ms. Thurman that were referring to a prior 03:27:35.722 --> 03:27:42.892 - version of reasonable conditions. I did update them based on some limited feedback for round two. And 03:27:42.892 --> 03:27:50.203 - then RC11 has to do with narrowing the lane or alleys width. And the broader goal of those collectively 03:27:50.203 --> 03:27:56.318 - is to follow the UDO requirements and follow the transportation plan for subdivisions. 03:27:56.770 --> 03:28:02.609 - when you make a subdivision in the UDO, you are required to follow the transportation plan. 03:28:02.609 --> 03:28:09.210 - The transportation plan has certain street design elements, like a tree plot, like a six-foot sidewalk. 03:28:09.210 --> 03:28:15.685 - We don't make substandard sidewalks that are monolithic anymore. We don't not include tree plots. And 03:28:15.685 --> 03:28:20.318 - I think the thing that does need to change about the transportation plan 03:28:20.514 --> 03:28:26.261 - and I will be getting to the fire piece. I'm just explaining the context. The thing that needs to change 03:28:26.261 --> 03:28:32.008 - about the transportation plan is the ability to modulate the right-of-way dedication to match the street 03:28:32.008 --> 03:28:37.755 - design elements, and in particular, whether or not you have parking, because that's actually an optional 03:28:37.755 --> 03:28:43.229 - piece to include, and so, we do need to improve that and have the ability to shift the right-of-way 03:28:43.229 --> 03:28:48.702 - dedication, but I think deviating from the transportation plan in that way is not justification for 03:28:48.802 --> 03:28:54.871 - not following the design standards around green infrastructure and pedestrian accessibility and safety. 03:28:54.871 --> 03:29:00.881 - And just quality. So at the outset, I was like, I want to follow the transportation plan. I think it's 03:29:00.881 --> 03:29:06.716 - a very, very bad precedent for the city to choose not to follow its own transportation plan and the 03:29:06.716 --> 03:29:12.785 - UDO subdivision standards when it wants to develop, but to require every other developer ever to follow 03:29:12.785 --> 03:29:16.286 - it. So starting with that premise in mind, I was looking at 03:29:16.482 --> 03:29:22.303 - trade-offs, essentially. You add a tree plot on Wiley where one is not planned. You make sidewalk width 03:29:22.303 --> 03:29:28.348 - 6 feet instead of 5 feet. And you lose about 7 feet in the north-south cross-section of Block 9. Obviously, 03:29:28.348 --> 03:29:34.225 - you can tell from the design, the intent is to maximize the number of homes, the number of lots. I think 03:29:34.225 --> 03:29:39.935 - that's great. Those are changes I have previously developed policy around in a former resolution, now 03:29:39.935 --> 03:29:41.054 - brought back again. 03:29:41.154 --> 03:29:46.445 - to apply system-wide as a market solution. So I support that. I'm in line with the mayor's goal. A lot 03:29:46.445 --> 03:29:52.045 - of homes, small homes, you know, modest homes. So the question then was, can we both meet the transportation 03:29:52.045 --> 03:29:57.439 - plan, which should have been a design constraint at the outset? We should have said, first things first, 03:29:57.439 --> 03:30:02.576 - we follow the UDO, we meet subdivision standards, we follow the transportation plan. And then, what 03:30:02.576 --> 03:30:07.816 - can we fit? Unfortunately, that's not the path that was taken. I imagine staff probably advocated for 03:30:07.816 --> 03:30:10.590 - that, because I know they know these plans well, too. 03:30:10.786 --> 03:30:16.676 - but that's not where we are. And so, trying to still accommodate all the lots that we have or that are 03:30:16.676 --> 03:30:22.509 - planned as the PUD was submitted, the obvious way to be able to do that is to figure out a way around 03:30:22.509 --> 03:30:28.399 - having very large alleys. 20-foot alleys are very large for the residential context. There'd be almost 03:30:28.399 --> 03:30:34.289 - no precedent of that in like, certainly in the older gridded part of Bloomington. And so, that was the 03:30:34.289 --> 03:30:40.350 - motivation of the RC number 11, which would initially, as proposed, would have narrowed lanes to 12 feet, 03:30:40.514 --> 03:30:47.052 - and then was increased to 15 feet here. The space you gain by doing that more than offsets the space 03:30:47.052 --> 03:30:53.655 - you lose from meeting the transportation plan on sidewalks and tree plot. The challenge you run into, 03:30:53.655 --> 03:31:00.258 - as noted, is that there is a fire code requirement for 20 feet of clearance. And so the questions are 03:31:00.258 --> 03:31:06.860 - really about is this necessary as a fire apparatus access road, which is a fire code requirement, and 03:31:06.860 --> 03:31:08.414 - are there exceptions to 03:31:08.706 --> 03:31:13.863 - the 20-foot clearance, and there are. And so, I, through legal research, identified some of those, talked 03:31:13.863 --> 03:31:18.728 - to our legal counsel about it, and submitted some questions to Chief Kerr just yesterday, because I 03:31:18.728 --> 03:31:23.642 - was still conducting this research to identify those exceptions. Chief Kerr did share one portion of 03:31:23.642 --> 03:31:28.945 - the fire code with me last week, which I appreciate, but there are other portions that name these exceptions 03:31:28.945 --> 03:31:33.810 - that I didn't know about until literally yesterday. So, there's an exception that you don't have to 03:31:33.810 --> 03:31:34.686 - meet the 20-width 03:31:34.786 --> 03:31:40.949 - 20-foot width requirement if you have automatic sprinkler systems installed. That's one thing. As I 03:31:40.949 --> 03:31:47.297 - understand it, again, I'll invite the chief to the podium here in a moment to give responses and weigh 03:31:47.297 --> 03:31:53.090 - in. Another exception, as I understand it, is, and again, I'd like correction on these if I'm 03:31:53.090 --> 03:31:59.376 - misunderstanding them. The next part, as I understand it, is the fire access road needs to get within 03:31:59.376 --> 03:32:03.998 - 150 feet of all of the exterior surfaces of a structure. That makes sense. 03:32:04.226 --> 03:32:10.536 - often a building that's taking up maybe half a block, and you need to be able to reach the back of it. 03:32:10.536 --> 03:32:16.172 - And so, in this case, I was wondering if the fire access roads of 1st Street, Wiley Street, 03:32:16.172 --> 03:32:21.748 - Jackson Street, and Fairview would all already be within 150 feet of all of the buildings, 03:32:21.748 --> 03:32:28.119 - in which case, the alleys would not need to function as fire access roads at all, because you'd already 03:32:28.119 --> 03:32:33.694 - have code-compliant fire access roads. So that's a second kind of possibility or question. 03:32:34.082 --> 03:32:40.416 - that might allow us to achieve the goal of reducing the lane size and maximizing space for developable 03:32:40.416 --> 03:32:46.750 - land. And the third question is another approach that would be for the east-west, and Block 9 is where 03:32:46.750 --> 03:32:52.961 - this is all the most relevant, by the way. So Block 8 actually could be more flexible. We could keep 03:32:52.961 --> 03:32:59.110 - the 20-foot width in Block 8. I don't think it's great urban form, but if that's the best solution, 03:32:59.110 --> 03:33:00.094 - we could do it. 03:33:00.418 --> 03:33:05.658 - I'm sorry, Block 10, I meant Block 10. The small block, the half block, the half block Block 10, we 03:33:05.658 --> 03:33:10.951 - could keep the 20-foot lane if that's necessary because it's not the same space constraints that I'm 03:33:10.951 --> 03:33:16.191 - describing by following the transportation plan in Block 9. So back to Block 9, the third option is 03:33:16.191 --> 03:33:21.640 - if there's an east-west pedestrian street frontage, if we actually made that something like the B line, 03:33:21.640 --> 03:33:26.880 - like a wide multi-use path, like the standards for a suburban connector street or something, that's 03:33:26.880 --> 03:33:27.614 - 12 feet wide. 03:33:27.874 --> 03:33:33.646 - wide enough, certainly, for a fire truck to drive on. We've used mountable curbs that are reinforced 03:33:33.646 --> 03:33:39.474 - in other contexts, and essentially, you would allow that as the fire access road. You would have fire 03:33:39.474 --> 03:33:45.360 - trucks be able to drive onto the central pedestrian plaza, and you would no longer be using the alleys 03:33:45.360 --> 03:33:51.075 - as the fire access road for the buildings that front on the central pedestrian path east-westbound. 03:33:51.075 --> 03:33:54.046 - So those are three creative solutions, all of which 03:33:54.370 --> 03:34:00.178 - have been used in Bloomington to some degree. South Dunn Street has PUD used the sprinklers to make 03:34:00.178 --> 03:34:05.987 - a narrower street front. We have, as I understand it, used... I spoke to Jason Moore, by the way. I 03:34:05.987 --> 03:34:11.853 - called former Fire Chief Jason Moore last night to talk about all this because he was Fire Chief for 03:34:11.853 --> 03:34:17.835 - eight years and knows a lot about it, so some of this is informed by his input as well. And we've used 03:34:17.835 --> 03:34:23.934 - the 150-foot rule, as I understand it, in the Kirkwood closure as part of the fire safety plan for that. 03:34:24.066 --> 03:34:29.566 - close Kirkwood and have bollards there. You know, all of the buildings are still within 150 feet of 03:34:29.566 --> 03:34:35.066 - a fire truck crossing the cross streets. And then, yeah, there's other examples where we don't have 03:34:35.066 --> 03:34:40.567 - the 20-foot clearance, like streets with a median, for instance, where we have mountable curbs that 03:34:40.567 --> 03:34:46.177 - allow for the fire apparatus mobility that's needed. And so, basically, I want to have a conversation 03:34:46.177 --> 03:34:50.302 - about those options. What's feasible, what's not, why, what the costs are, 03:34:50.594 --> 03:34:56.951 - Former Fire Chief Moore did quote to me last night, $1 to $2 a square foot for automatic sprinkler systems. 03:34:56.951 --> 03:35:02.896 - That's also the same figure I found from the National Sprinkler Safety Association, I think. I might 03:35:02.896 --> 03:35:08.782 - be getting the acronym wrong. I've also heard preliminary feedback from staff that they think those 03:35:08.782 --> 03:35:14.785 - numbers are all wrong and there's lots of requirements locally that make that not true. That might be 03:35:14.785 --> 03:35:20.318 - right. I don't know. We gotta talk about it. So those are three creative options all aimed at 03:35:20.930 --> 03:35:26.928 - letting us follow the transportation plan, subdivision requirements of the UDO without losing any lots. 03:35:26.928 --> 03:35:32.867 - So those are my twin goals. That was a lot of preliminary. So let's talk about it. Chief Kerr, I would 03:35:32.867 --> 03:35:39.096 - love to hear from you if you're willing to share. I'm happy to answer questions, too, if you have questions 03:35:39.096 --> 03:35:45.266 - for me. But I'd love to hear more about those three possibilities, the viability of them, cost associated, 03:35:45.266 --> 03:35:49.822 - challenges, those kind of things. Thank you so much. Chief Kerr, take it away. 03:35:50.050 --> 03:35:56.112 - Roger Kerr chief of fire department. You'll probably have to help me You'll have to go back to these 03:35:56.112 --> 03:36:02.293 - a little bit because I know there's three things and we had a email a little bit I think answered some 03:36:02.293 --> 03:36:08.475 - of them. The first one is with the Obviously the fire code is 20 foot wide. That's what it says. There 03:36:08.475 --> 03:36:14.537 - is some exceptions. You're correct the 150 feet If you go to I'll just be the first tell you I'm not 03:36:14.537 --> 03:36:19.038 - the code expert in my department so I've relied on my staff to help me and 03:36:19.170 --> 03:36:25.466 - work through this. The term, you know, 150 feet is not a straight line, as it says in the other parts 03:36:25.466 --> 03:36:31.762 - of that code that it's how you would lay out a hose. So you can't just draw a straight line. You have 03:36:31.762 --> 03:36:38.305 - to take into consideration you might have to go around a building, go around a fence, some of that stuff. 03:36:38.305 --> 03:36:44.478 - So that takes that into consideration as well. Also, the sprinkler thing, it says that to meet that 03:36:44.898 --> 03:36:50.585 - Specification it has to be a monitored system, which means then it has to be monitored. So you have 03:36:50.585 --> 03:36:56.385 - to have a dedicated alarm system with a Well, at least whether I understand it then with a phone line 03:36:56.385 --> 03:37:02.129 - and that kind of thing where it had to be monitored 24 7 the only drawback I do see that is once the 03:37:02.129 --> 03:37:08.043 - house is done And it becomes a private dwelling then we have no ability to make sure that that has that 03:37:08.043 --> 03:37:13.502 - that is maintained because we don't inspect private homes so once it got you know permitted and 03:37:14.018 --> 03:37:19.679 - We would have no way of knowing whether the sprinkler system was still functioning or not, because it's 03:37:19.679 --> 03:37:25.285 - not in our purview to go do. And then, help me on the third, if you would. The third was about whether 03:37:25.285 --> 03:37:30.891 - or not we could design the central pedestrian path essentially as like a street that's closed to cars, 03:37:30.891 --> 03:37:36.225 - or like the B-line. I've seen the fire trucks use the B-line from time to time, or at least once. 03:37:36.225 --> 03:37:41.885 - But yeah. Yeah. I think there's some options. There are some things that's happened before. I can think 03:37:41.885 --> 03:37:43.518 - back to out on the IU campus. 03:37:44.162 --> 03:37:50.279 - to get to one of their buildings, it had to be 20 foot wide. They didn't want it to be a 20 foot wide 03:37:50.279 --> 03:37:56.397 - sidewalk. So they made the sidewalk, I think it was 10, and then they put some permaville pavers that 03:37:56.397 --> 03:38:02.574 - would hold the weight of our apparatus off to the side that DeGrasse grew up through. So I think there 03:38:02.574 --> 03:38:08.631 - is some options that still allow us to get the access, but maybe doesn't make it look like it's a 20 03:38:08.631 --> 03:38:11.390 - foot wide road, I'll put it that way. Gotcha. 03:38:12.386 --> 03:38:17.825 - And as far as cost of sprinklers now, I have absolutely no idea what it costs to do. Yeah, maybe maybe 03:38:17.825 --> 03:38:23.582 - one follow up on the sprinklers and then to yeah I appreciate that. Yeah, if there's additional requirements 03:38:23.582 --> 03:38:28.863 - that adds cost of complexity on the sprinklers I am curious though about South Dunn streets PUD and 03:38:28.863 --> 03:38:34.144 - it seems like the same basic Question or situation did like code change or is there a sit? Is there 03:38:34.144 --> 03:38:39.425 - a difference there why they were able to do sprinklers or do they face the same challenges? And how 03:38:39.425 --> 03:38:40.798 - are they navigating them? 03:38:40.962 --> 03:38:46.523 - Yeah, I'd have to go back and look and see what the code was when that was done Obviously the state 03:38:46.523 --> 03:38:52.529 - code changes over time and I don't know what that was built under right off the top of my head and Compared 03:38:52.529 --> 03:38:58.312 - to what it is right now. We could go back and kind of do some research and find out there was something 03:38:58.312 --> 03:39:03.985 - different I Think off my top of my head down there The biggest thing is the way this you know way the 03:39:03.985 --> 03:39:06.654 - houses are most of them face Dunn Street and so 03:39:07.266 --> 03:39:12.377 - Difference and you know kind of where they empty out to so that most of the houses aren't 150 feet Deep 03:39:12.377 --> 03:39:17.291 - so you can get to them with the hose and so they they probably have more of a residential sprinkler 03:39:17.291 --> 03:39:22.205 - system Because they they fall within probably don't meet the hundred and fifty feet But I'd have to 03:39:22.205 --> 03:39:25.694 - go back and look and see what code was and tell you exactly. Thank you 03:39:28.962 --> 03:39:35.286 - The idea about the pedestrian path being converted and something big enough. So for it to be like official 03:39:35.286 --> 03:39:41.255 - There would have to be like 20 feet somehow still in terms of your like tires, etc And the IU solved 03:39:41.255 --> 03:39:47.343 - this by putting permeable pavers in that were strong enough, but grass could grow up So like it's like 03:39:47.343 --> 03:39:53.253 - so somebody like maybe like walking on that sidewalk wouldn't necessarily realize Correct that that 03:39:53.253 --> 03:39:54.494 - it was an extra wide 03:39:55.042 --> 03:40:00.435 - What it boils down to is that says it has to be for our biggest apparatus Which is our ladder truck 03:40:00.435 --> 03:40:05.936 - and so to set the ladder truck up the outriggers go out Between 18 and a half and 19 feet so you have 03:40:05.936 --> 03:40:11.652 - to have that much space and it has to say it can't sit on grass because it could you know or Dirt because 03:40:11.652 --> 03:40:17.045 - it could sink into it. So I'd have to go back and check with IU. I know it just in my mind That was 03:40:17.045 --> 03:40:22.654 - one of the conditions we did out there. I'm that they Made it so that our outriggers could still go out 03:40:22.818 --> 03:40:29.860 - It would still support the weight of our apparatus, but it doesn't it didn't appear to be a 20-foot 03:40:29.860 --> 03:40:37.113 - wide, you know paved a road Is it relevant at all that I don't know I'm assuming that ladder truck and 03:40:37.113 --> 03:40:44.860 - that need for outriggers has to do with going vertical. Yeah It seems to me like this residential development 03:40:44.860 --> 03:40:52.254 - would not probably require that type of Service. I know the code is about your biggest apparatus, right? 03:40:52.418 --> 03:40:57.817 - so from a clearance standpoint, but from a Practicality standpoint, I guess is that's probably fairly 03:40:57.817 --> 03:41:03.323 - accurate I mean a residential neighborhood obviously we don't set the ladder truck up as much Obviously 03:41:03.323 --> 03:41:08.616 - it becomes on what cut what size of houses in there and what kind of pitch on the roof would be You 03:41:08.616 --> 03:41:13.963 - know having done this it's not much fun to standing on a 1212 pitch roof and trying to cut a hole in 03:41:13.963 --> 03:41:17.086 - if it's on fire You know, you'd rather work off a platform 03:41:17.506 --> 03:41:23.465 - If their house is only one story tall is a whole difference than if it's a three-story house or something 03:41:23.465 --> 03:41:29.143 - So it there is some you know some give-and-take there, I think Thanks just as a follow-up to that is 03:41:29.143 --> 03:41:35.158 - there I mean is there give and take in the code or does the code strictly make you do the tallest Apparata 03:41:35.158 --> 03:41:41.117 - or the biggest apparatus or is it more like I mean, I guess you just said that you're not the code expert 03:41:41.117 --> 03:41:45.502 - I guess I just trying to figure I think the way I understand is it's a it's a 03:41:45.986 --> 03:41:52.167 - It's in fire code. We have the ability to make provisions in that at the local level Okay, okay. So 03:41:52.167 --> 03:41:58.409 - so we could at the local low like like you could you know get together and figure out okay What what 03:41:58.409 --> 03:42:04.837 - is the like tallest steepest roofed kind of thing and what kind of truck would we need? To handle that. 03:42:04.837 --> 03:42:11.141 - Yes, and that could so then there's some potential that we wouldn't actually need the full 20 feet is 03:42:11.141 --> 03:42:15.838 - that we could need less than that, but it depends on some more details that 03:42:16.898 --> 03:42:23.497 - Yeah, we have to work through the kind of house gonna be laid out. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks Council 03:42:23.497 --> 03:42:30.097 - just a quick quick question Would everybody anybody be opposed to us allowing our legal counsel that 03:42:30.097 --> 03:42:36.827 - we're paying hourly to go home now? Do you do you feel like you're going to need more legal questions? 03:42:36.827 --> 03:42:38.526 - Yes, any any opposition I 03:42:39.554 --> 03:42:50.575 - All right, grateful to the folks from Quinn and thank you. If there's any parting notes you'd like to 03:42:50.575 --> 03:43:01.379 - give us before you leave. No, I mean, I guess the one thing is I would just note that we did have a 03:43:01.379 --> 03:43:07.646 - substantive conversation with the city today and with the 03:43:08.098 --> 03:43:18.730 - on behalf of the RDC. I mean, I think that there's a difference on the line as far as what the reasonable 03:43:18.730 --> 03:43:29.061 - conditions are, but it's not that they don't believe that the council can impose reasonable conditions 03:43:29.061 --> 03:43:33.374 - at all. So some collaboration, I think, is 03:43:34.850 --> 03:43:41.464 - You know possible that to have with with the city before this is all said and done. And so I guess I 03:43:41.464 --> 03:43:48.208 - would encourage counselors in that regard Thank you very much that thank you miss Shah for being here. 03:43:48.208 --> 03:43:50.238 - Thank you both so much. Thanks 03:43:53.026 --> 03:43:58.530 - Okay back to the line of questioning. I'm so sorry. I'm councilman Flaherty. Go ahead One of the thing 03:43:58.530 --> 03:44:04.248 - I did want to mention also for my colleagues is that director waste and I had a conversation today because 03:44:04.248 --> 03:44:09.591 - this is also relevant to sanitation or could be and also for alley maintenance and and He said that 03:44:09.591 --> 03:44:15.042 - and as you probably noticed the in the site plans I think it's intended that trash collection will be 03:44:15.042 --> 03:44:18.622 - at designated sites and not be conducted on this on this alley and 03:44:18.882 --> 03:44:25.643 - And so he didn't anticipate sanitation vehicles using the alley, but they would be responsible 03:44:25.643 --> 03:44:33.472 - for maintaining it. So when it comes to access issues, I think we are talking primarily about fire apparatus, 03:44:33.472 --> 03:44:40.945 - which is also the driver from code anyway. I guess I'm curious to... I thought the most elegant solution 03:44:40.945 --> 03:44:48.702 - here probably would be to emphasize the central pedestrian corridor as more of a real plaza like the B line. 03:44:49.058 --> 03:44:54.961 - And I appreciate that there's other precedent in Bloomington with IU of figuring that out in a way that 03:44:54.961 --> 03:45:00.808 - isn't just 20 feet of pavement Do you have could you wait, you know, you said it seems like that could 03:45:00.808 --> 03:45:06.484 - be possible With the mountable curbs on like Jackson and Fairview that would definitely get you the 03:45:06.484 --> 03:45:12.330 - access, you know to all the homes At least in block 9 again, I think block 8 or yeah block 10 we could 03:45:12.330 --> 03:45:16.190 - end up leaving maybe the 20-foot alley if that's was necessary, but 03:45:17.058 --> 03:45:24.846 - Any additional thoughts or concerns or questions we would need to answer to see if that's actually feasible 03:45:24.846 --> 03:45:32.274 - Draw it out and see if we can get the 150 feet and all that, you know and see about it my only concern 03:45:32.274 --> 03:45:39.557 - I guess from from a point would be You know, whatever we do here some other ways to somebody else is 03:45:39.557 --> 03:45:45.470 - going to come back to my staff and go Well, you did it here. Can we please do it? 03:45:46.338 --> 03:45:51.881 - For me or for here and so just keep that in mind, you know We face that all the time and we'd like to 03:45:51.881 --> 03:45:57.533 - do this And we'd like to do that and sometimes our staff has to be the one that says sorry No, we don't 03:45:57.533 --> 03:46:02.968 - want that. So just be aware that if we give something here somebody's gonna ask us to give it again 03:46:02.968 --> 03:46:08.511 - Probably somewhere else. So it's just it makes it tough on staff to try to pick that You know to pick 03:46:08.511 --> 03:46:13.022 - out which when and when not to give that so just that's my only my only thing 100% 03:46:13.282 --> 03:46:19.383 - Question and then and then comes Morello and then we'll come back Thank you. Thank you for being here 03:46:19.383 --> 03:46:25.425 - and all your patience this evening. So You might not know the answer to this and this might actually 03:46:25.425 --> 03:46:31.407 - be a better question for miss Thurman who may also not know the answer to this but if we're talking 03:46:31.407 --> 03:46:37.867 - about like the mountable curbs How realistically how realistically feasible would that be? like financially 03:46:37.867 --> 03:46:40.798 - would that do you have any idea if that's like a 03:46:41.474 --> 03:46:49.009 - Putting a lot more money in it or if it's like no, it's just a little more, you know pavement reinforcement, 03:46:49.009 --> 03:46:56.267 - okay Miss Thurman I imagine miss Thurman has like a broader response to so maybe we can go to councilman 03:46:56.267 --> 03:47:03.594 - Rallo and then I know customer Flaherty had a handful more questions, but then we can go to councilmember 03:47:03.594 --> 03:47:11.198 - We'll go to councilmember Rallo to miss Thurman then back to councilmember Flaherty. Oh, you're done. Oh Okay 03:47:11.426 --> 03:47:19.561 - You said your end up it was I was admiring it If you'd like to offer a response, thank you chief Kerr 03:47:19.561 --> 03:47:27.777 - Thank you chief Kerr and I will I'll weigh in on a lot of the fire code specifics here as a person who 03:47:27.777 --> 03:47:33.918 - is deeply involved in fire code all day every day and I'll give the feedback 03:47:34.178 --> 03:47:40.767 - Fire code and fire access routes are one of the least flexible codes we've ever come across. Typically, 03:47:40.767 --> 03:47:47.292 - they're passed at the state level. So typically, the state fire marshal has to weigh in. There's often 03:47:47.292 --> 03:47:53.627 - local jurisdictional control that can make variations. Typically, those variations are only to make 03:47:53.627 --> 03:47:59.963 - things more strict based on specific fire safety concerns in a specific location. I have never seen 03:47:59.963 --> 03:48:04.144 - the 20-foot fire access route with 150-foot max pull varied in my 03:48:04.144 --> 03:48:09.565 - five year career. Never one time in any state have I ever seen anyone, a fire marshal sign off on that. 03:48:09.565 --> 03:48:14.777 - So if this is done here, it would be a national first that I think would get articles written about 03:48:14.777 --> 03:48:18.686 - it because it's considered among designers to be one of the least flexible 03:48:18.754 --> 03:48:25.272 - codes that you have to work around. The site really is designed around that. Part of the limitation 03:48:25.272 --> 03:48:31.855 - here is we're pretty set because the building in Block 8 and Jackson's tie into the north, and we're 03:48:31.855 --> 03:48:38.569 - pretty set on our existing Fairview line. The Block 9's dimensions are set, and the overall dimensions 03:48:38.569 --> 03:48:45.087 - of Block 9 are just north of 400 by just north of 400. There's not a way in short shorthand, even a 03:48:45.087 --> 03:48:46.782 - straight line pulled from 03:48:46.978 --> 03:48:53.672 - our outer boundaries of First, Jackson, Wiley, and Fairview is more than 150. We can't get 150-foot 03:48:53.672 --> 03:49:00.367 - pole from that outer range of roads, which means we need at least one fire access route through the 03:49:00.367 --> 03:49:07.262 - middle of the site. We also need car circulation somewhere within the middle of the site. The decision 03:49:07.262 --> 03:49:12.350 - was made early on to prioritize the central walk as a green infrastructure, 03:49:12.482 --> 03:49:19.188 - pedestrian way that rather than being a plaza, it was about water quality and planting and it was our 03:49:19.188 --> 03:49:25.894 - soft green infrastructure. A lot of the concerns about can we widen that sidewalk to eight feet or to 03:49:25.894 --> 03:49:32.665 - 10 feet or to 20 feet, we really negatively impact our green infrastructure and we will need to remove 03:49:32.665 --> 03:49:37.662 - to be able to put that somewhere else if we do add a lot more paving there. 03:49:37.762 --> 03:49:44.720 - The lanes themselves, right, so conceptually, yes, you could have one fire access route in the middle 03:49:44.720 --> 03:49:51.610 - instead of two that are split. But because we need to put infrastructure, water, sewer, underground, 03:49:51.610 --> 03:49:56.862 - electric into the lanes, the width of those lanes can't really get narrower. 03:49:57.058 --> 03:50:05.297 - patch feet by narrowing those because of infrastructure requirements. Because of turning radius needs 03:50:05.297 --> 03:50:13.697 - of the cars and the driveways, it can't really be narrower. Even if it's overall 16 feet, the driveways 03:50:13.697 --> 03:50:21.694 - are just extending to meet it. A lot of that width still ends up paved, is the short answer there. 03:50:21.986 --> 03:50:27.038 - make it narrower in pavement, but we wouldn't catch the hole. We wouldn't save all of that. We would 03:50:27.038 --> 03:50:31.390 - still have quite a bit of runoff and then we would lose our green infrastructure area. 03:50:31.490 --> 03:50:37.295 - We don't need a, so there are two different kinds of fire access routes as you guys are referencing 03:50:37.295 --> 03:50:43.101 - for two different heights of buildings. So a typical fire access route is 20 feet of paved drivable 03:50:43.101 --> 03:50:48.964 - width that can support a 75,000 pound vehicle. The outriggers are not required as part of that. That 03:50:48.964 --> 03:50:54.828 - fire code is actually based on being able to pass a second fire truck in an emergency and being able 03:50:54.828 --> 03:50:59.646 - to have access to all of the components on the side of the truck to be able to get 03:50:59.810 --> 03:51:06.309 - hoses out and ladders off and access the truck for response. The wider, if you have an eave over 30 03:51:06.309 --> 03:51:12.874 - feet, you have to have aerial access and an aerial access route is 26 feet wide. We're not providing 03:51:12.874 --> 03:51:19.373 - aerial access within the neighborhood. We have all of our eaves under 30 feet so that we don't need 03:51:19.373 --> 03:51:25.937 - that. But you are correct as well that if we can't get the fire access route, fire sprinklers are an 03:51:25.937 --> 03:51:28.862 - allowable backup to that that is approvable. 03:51:29.090 --> 03:51:35.229 - The Dunn Street project, the big difference in why were they able to make fire sprinklers work on Dunn 03:51:35.229 --> 03:51:40.831 - Street, but we're saying we can't make it work here. The Dunn Street houses, to my knowledge, 03:51:40.831 --> 03:51:46.910 - sold for $800,000 for an 1,800 square foot house. And so the cost increase of adding a fire sprinkler 03:51:46.978 --> 03:51:52.251 - was worth it at that price point. We are trying very hard to be at a different price point. To run you 03:51:52.251 --> 03:51:57.370 - through the costs as a person who puts a lot of sprinklers in buildings, I'm very familiar with all 03:51:57.370 --> 03:52:02.489 - of the different components required. That one to two dollar that gets quoted is from the sprinkler 03:52:02.489 --> 03:52:07.710 - lobby and so it gets it gets republished a lot. It's been given in a lot of presentations and so it's 03:52:07.710 --> 03:52:08.734 - in a lot of places. 03:52:08.994 --> 03:52:16.230 - That was in 2020 for the new 13R system, which is the smallest, easiest system that you can put in. 03:52:16.230 --> 03:52:23.466 - It's put in in duplexes and single family homes. That is just the pricing in 2020 for the pipes and 03:52:23.466 --> 03:52:31.063 - sprinkler heads, assuming a 2,000 to 2,500 square foot house. They were saying that your sprinkler heads 03:52:31.063 --> 03:52:37.214 - and pipes, just the materials, would be about $5,000 for a normal family size house. 03:52:37.410 --> 03:52:43.381 - So I think we can say too, if we take our smallest plan, there's a lot of the components that go into 03:52:43.381 --> 03:52:46.366 - fire sprinklers that are not sized with the house. 03:52:46.498 --> 03:52:52.661 - So you need a backflow prevention, an RPZ. That costs $700. It only comes in one size. You need one. 03:52:52.661 --> 03:52:58.946 - You have labor minimums that you can't get a plumber to come out for a $500 job. As anybody who's ever 03:52:58.946 --> 03:53:05.170 - needed a repair at their house can relate to something really small, there's a minimum service charge 03:53:05.170 --> 03:53:09.502 - to just get somebody to show up. And the same is true in construction. 03:53:09.698 --> 03:53:16.017 - You get design and permits and inspections. You typically need a separate meter, a separate water tap, 03:53:16.017 --> 03:53:22.153 - a separate trench because it has to have even the smallest one on domestic service requires its own 03:53:22.153 --> 03:53:28.411 - system. The smallest sprinkler system I've ever put into the cheapest system per unit that we've ever 03:53:28.411 --> 03:53:35.098 - put in in our firm is about $7,000 a unit with all of those things incorporated. Your labor, your materials, 03:53:35.098 --> 03:53:39.454 - all of your RPZ, your installation, inspections, it has to get tested. 03:53:40.034 --> 03:53:46.354 - And so in our smallest houses, even assuming that we got them, we got the cheapest version, you know, 03:53:46.354 --> 03:53:51.806 - we got great quantity pricing, everything went really well, because I'll also say we've 03:53:52.002 --> 03:53:58.417 - I've personally put some systems into buildings that were retrofits that were 20 to $30,000 per unit. 03:53:58.417 --> 03:54:04.832 - Even if we assume all the way at the cheapest version that all of them are the cheapest version, even 03:54:04.832 --> 03:54:11.184 - the bigger houses, we would end up with 700,000 to a million in extra construction costs to add fire 03:54:11.184 --> 03:54:17.662 - sprinklers because we have 98 units times $7,000. We're talking a lot of money to add fire sprinklers, 03:54:17.858 --> 03:54:23.838 - The thing that we also see, one of the other questions that I saw embedded in that e-mail was whether 03:54:23.838 --> 03:54:29.758 - or not there were insurance savings that were offset. Yes, we spend more on fire sprinklers, but our 03:54:29.758 --> 03:54:35.621 - homeowners getting lowered insurance rates long-term, is there some financial benefit there? We are 03:54:35.621 --> 03:54:41.483 - typically nationally seeing the opposite. Insurance companies are typically paying out more cost in 03:54:41.483 --> 03:54:44.766 - loss from sprinkler discharge than they are from fires. 03:54:44.898 --> 03:54:52.650 - We are typically seeing insurance rates be higher in buildings with fire sprinklers. We are seeing accidental 03:54:52.650 --> 03:55:00.190 - discharge from a head gets hit and it discharges and you're flooding a house with water. There's typically 03:55:00.190 --> 03:55:07.801 - a really expensive loss related to that. The thing that we're seeing more often, especially in all electric 03:55:07.801 --> 03:55:12.382 - buildings, is power goes out in a winter storm in a deep freeze. 03:55:12.482 --> 03:55:18.437 - you don't have heat in the building. Instead of just having plumbing at your kitchen sink and in a bathroom, 03:55:18.437 --> 03:55:24.010 - it's a couple walls, maybe one ceiling that need to be, if your pipes freeze, need to be taken out to 03:55:24.010 --> 03:55:24.830 - replace those. 03:55:25.026 --> 03:55:30.949 - You have now water pipes in every single wall and ceiling in your house. We are seeing complete loss 03:55:30.949 --> 03:55:36.932 - on buildings that are freezing due to power loss. We've had two buildings that we have worked on that 03:55:36.932 --> 03:55:43.148 - have within five years of new construction been gutted to the studs because of a fire sprinkler freezing. 03:55:43.148 --> 03:55:49.130 - There are a lot of insurance downsides to moving to fire sprinklers rather than providing fire access 03:55:49.130 --> 03:55:54.526 - routes. I can answer any other questions you might have about fire code or fire sprinklers. 03:55:54.626 --> 03:56:02.009 - To whatever detail level you would like me to Councilmember Stasberg There was a lot of information 03:56:02.009 --> 03:56:09.466 - there and I think sometimes and it might be easier to give smaller chunks of information at one time 03:56:09.466 --> 03:56:16.702 - instead of Putting it all out there in that way because right now the thing that I have to like I 03:56:16.866 --> 03:56:23.746 - latch on to in the end is that you just Gave a really big number for sprinklers assuming that every 03:56:23.746 --> 03:56:29.662 - single one of those 98 homes would need a sprinkler and that's just not accurate like 03:56:30.082 --> 03:56:36.158 - Every single every single one of those home 98 homes would not need a sprinkler system Councilmember 03:56:36.158 --> 03:56:42.175 - Flaherty it just said probably with this we could exclude that lane in block 10 Which means none of 03:56:42.175 --> 03:56:48.492 - those would need a sprinkler system. We have the hundred and fifty feet which means Actually note second 03:56:48.492 --> 03:56:54.508 - we have homes along Wiley Street and along 1st Street None of those would be a sprinkler would need 03:56:54.508 --> 03:56:55.230 - a sprinkler 03:56:55.554 --> 03:57:02.421 - Yes, and Jackson and Fairview and then we have the hundred and fifty feet Which means we're looking 03:57:02.421 --> 03:57:08.190 - at very few places. I think very few actually actual dwelling units that would need 03:57:08.354 --> 03:57:16.441 - sprinkler so I I'm a little bit frustrated by The way that was just presented. I think that it was kind 03:57:16.441 --> 03:57:24.606 - of a deceiving number to throw out there secondly I think that some of the things that you said it feels 03:57:24.606 --> 03:57:31.838 - like they were directly in conflict a conflict with what our chief of fire told us about his 03:57:32.002 --> 03:57:38.231 - Knowledge and understanding of fire code and the fire experience and the experience here in Bloomington, 03:57:38.231 --> 03:57:44.224 - Indiana And I'm looking at him right now trying to remember how long he's been a firefighter Or in a 03:57:44.224 --> 03:57:50.216 - position of authority in the Bloomington Fire Department, but it's been a long time So I respect his 03:57:50.216 --> 03:57:53.182 - experience in this town a whole lot. Thank you. I 03:58:04.770 --> 03:58:13.248 - Councilmember Flaherty. Yeah, I heard some contradictory information there and some assumptions that 03:58:13.248 --> 03:58:21.894 - I think are incorrect but you know, it doesn't I think it it's illustrative perhaps of the type of you 03:58:21.894 --> 03:58:30.624 - know Information how the information gathering is going I'll say I can't feel like I always I'm getting 03:58:30.624 --> 03:58:33.982 - Whatever I'll move on You know, I think 03:58:34.786 --> 03:58:40.017 - There are options. Some of them might require design changes, and nothing's, you know, this isn't fully 03:58:40.017 --> 03:58:45.199 - platted. There are other things that can change. I think those are trade-offs. Those are things we can 03:58:45.199 --> 03:58:50.279 - think about and do or not do. I think we all find it frustrating that things like the transportation 03:58:50.279 --> 03:58:55.309 - plan and the subdivision standards were not followed, and that has caused a lot of delay. I wish we 03:58:55.309 --> 03:59:00.340 - weren't here having these conversations. I would have approved it long ago if we would have met the 03:59:00.340 --> 03:59:03.710 - UDO and met the transportation plan. I would have had no problems. 03:59:03.938 --> 03:59:08.949 - But we haven't. In fact, the PUD, as submitted, still isn't code compliant, because it doesn't meet 03:59:08.949 --> 03:59:14.161 - the affordability requirements. That was never told to the Planning Commission. I was the one, and Hopi 03:59:14.161 --> 03:59:19.273 - independently, actually both of us, literally surfaced that through this process. So, like, let's not 03:59:19.273 --> 03:59:24.384 - pretend it came to us code compliant, which is another thing Ms. Thurman said in her opening remarks. 03:59:24.384 --> 03:59:29.747 - It's not true. So, you know, we can look at a redesign for using the Central Plaza as a, you know, 12-foot 03:59:29.747 --> 03:59:33.054 - paved, like, beeline trail-esque type of thing, a multi-use path. 03:59:33.250 --> 03:59:39.046 - It might entail some other design changes around green infrastructure. If that's too much going back 03:59:39.046 --> 03:59:44.841 - to the drawing board, I would say just where we can talk about then the trade-offs involved in, like 03:59:44.841 --> 03:59:50.694 - remember this was premised, the fire piece was premised by trying to make up for space you would lose 03:59:50.694 --> 03:59:56.719 - to following the transportation plan as a design constraint on the whole site with respect to pedestrian 03:59:56.719 --> 04:00:02.974 - infrastructure and tree plots. And so if we required a six-foot sidewalk minimum throughout the entire site, 04:00:03.138 --> 04:00:09.336 - and required tree plot on Wiley, since this is a subdivision, and that's what the UDO requires. 04:00:09.336 --> 04:00:16.116 - You know, I'm looking at the drawings. It seems to me like you could actually just do a slightly smaller 04:00:16.116 --> 04:00:22.701 - version from the catalog of any number of those homes that are on Wiley and Block 9. The trilliums in 04:00:22.701 --> 04:00:29.481 - combo might not be able to do all three, I'm not sure. It seems to me like maybe you lose one, two homes 04:00:29.481 --> 04:00:31.934 - by following the transportation plan. 04:00:32.898 --> 04:00:38.061 - And maybe they need to be different homes than the ones that are, you know, not the Sassafras but, 04:00:38.061 --> 04:00:43.590 - you know, a Winslow instead or so on. So if those are the better trade-offs and we don't want to revisit, 04:00:43.590 --> 04:00:49.014 - you know, we don't want to invite the complexity of the fire question or a redesign that involves using 04:00:49.014 --> 04:00:54.281 - the multi-use path as the fire access road, that's certainly something we can do. And we can move on 04:00:54.281 --> 04:00:59.966 - from the... I don't know, I guess the question is, do we have enough info that we want about the fire piece? 04:01:00.834 --> 04:01:09.559 - Thank you all so much. Ms. Thurman, a question for you. And first, I'll say apologies because, I mean, 04:01:09.559 --> 04:01:18.114 - frankly, we have a custom on this council that over many years has been established that we speak to 04:01:18.114 --> 04:01:27.262 - people in ways that we wouldn't particularly enjoy if we spoke to others. And so I'm very sorry about that. 04:01:28.578 --> 04:01:35.535 - And I do I do mean that that's it's if then I'll say exactly why if I had said to councilmember Stossberg 04:01:35.535 --> 04:01:42.229 - You know generally when I speak to people. This is how I would speak to them I don't think so, please 04:01:42.229 --> 04:01:48.923 - excuse our hostility. I do think that the questions are valid all the same but with that said despite 04:01:48.923 --> 04:01:51.614 - the fact that I play an expert on TV and 04:01:52.034 --> 04:01:59.006 - I have no idea what most of the things you said meant, and so... 04:01:59.266 --> 04:02:07.572 - Question about the question that Councilmember Flaherty has put forward, the core question of whether 04:02:07.572 --> 04:02:16.040 - or not when we change the width of the alleyways, whether that results, what is the cost of that? Aside 04:02:16.040 --> 04:02:24.428 - from the sprinkler question, the question of how many houses are built, does that pencil, and I wasn't 04:02:24.428 --> 04:02:29.232 - quite understanding the aerial and the we're fixed on nine 04:02:29.232 --> 04:02:36.089 - And I didn't quite get all of that, so can you help me understand just in very simple terms what the 04:02:36.089 --> 04:02:43.354 - effect of... whether or not his assertion that changing from one side to the other side, if those actually 04:02:43.354 --> 04:02:50.211 - are equal, and help me understand in a simple way that they are or they're not. I think the simplest 04:02:50.211 --> 04:02:56.254 - version of that question that I'm understanding is, if the lane is smaller, can we shift 04:02:57.186 --> 04:03:07.358 - things apart to get more space in the central street or to get additional width for sidewalks. 04:03:07.842 --> 04:03:13.523 - Let's touch at some point on the transportation plan. I know we keep saying out loud, this doesn't meet 04:03:13.523 --> 04:03:19.149 - the transportation plan. I would love to at some point have that discussion of it absolutely does. The 04:03:19.149 --> 04:03:24.666 - transportation plan has exact verbiage that this does meet. And I'd love to talk about that when you 04:03:24.666 --> 04:03:30.292 - guys are ready. But I think the first question is, do we get to six feet and six feet if we make those 04:03:30.292 --> 04:03:31.166 - lanes narrower? 04:03:31.234 --> 04:03:38.075 - And the short answer is no, because they have to be that width, even if we don't pave them for utilities, 04:03:38.075 --> 04:03:44.530 - is probably the shortest answer of that. And then I'll call out to you, the only place that we have 04:03:44.530 --> 04:03:51.048 - a monolithic sidewalk is on Wiley. And the reason that we have, we actually have, we are leaving the 04:03:51.048 --> 04:03:57.438 - space. Yep. All utilities, water, you mean, what do you mean specifically? Water, electric, sewer. 04:03:57.570 --> 04:04:03.913 - And they'll show up in our exhibits in your packet in our street sections, or at least they did in an 04:04:03.913 --> 04:04:10.257 - early version. They may have come out so that they weren't fixed that that's the only place they were 04:04:10.257 --> 04:04:16.476 - going, but we were showing how those work underneath that 20-foot alley. So those are serving those 04:04:16.476 --> 04:04:22.882 - homes in the middle section. And then the question that we could move some of the house designs around 04:04:22.882 --> 04:04:26.302 - as the other creative approach here, does that pencil? 04:04:27.362 --> 04:04:33.592 - we could rearrange house plans and we did, I think we did almost 15 versions of rearranging and tetracing 04:04:33.592 --> 04:04:39.646 - and how many units do we get and then what is that unit mix? That there's a goal as well, that there's 04:04:39.646 --> 04:04:45.641 - a percent of three beds and a percent of two beds and a percent of one beds and a full range of price 04:04:45.641 --> 04:04:48.638 - points. It absolutely could be rearranged further. 04:04:48.866 --> 04:04:55.924 - to move things around. But I think that the short answer is the width of the lane for infrastructure 04:04:55.924 --> 04:05:03.262 - reasons likely has to be what it is. And so narrowing the pavement is unlikely to help solve the overall 04:05:03.490 --> 04:05:11.382 - a Tetris geometry problem. Okay, and so am I correct in saying that it is possible to do this, but outside 04:05:11.382 --> 04:05:18.757 - of the sprinkler question, there would be some type of an implication for the number of houses that 04:05:18.757 --> 04:05:26.575 - can be built. Yes, and that we have a rough estimate. The lane shortening solves our north-south problem, 04:05:26.575 --> 04:05:30.558 - but our more pinched direction is actually east-west. 04:05:31.458 --> 04:05:37.963 - Can you explain that? Sorry, I don't understand that. So First Street is already built out and has quite 04:05:37.963 --> 04:05:44.529 - a bit of right of way. And so, you know, on our north block, and I think too, I'll ask as well, I believe 04:05:44.529 --> 04:05:51.034 - we could be looking at exhibits that are in the PUD as those are in your packet, which might be helpful. 04:05:51.034 --> 04:05:56.981 - So if we would like to look at graphics, I think things that are in the packet in the PUD might 04:05:56.981 --> 04:05:58.654 - be reasonable, but I'll... 04:05:59.394 --> 04:06:05.299 - I'll leave that to my colleagues to decide if it would be useful. Um, but Yeah councilmember Sasberg 04:06:05.299 --> 04:06:11.437 - I want to ask the the general question which I don't think that can get handled tonight, but the general 04:06:11.437 --> 04:06:17.401 - question is what's stopping those utilities from going in the green space in the middle as opposed to 04:06:17.401 --> 04:06:23.422 - in the lanes in terms of needing that kind of 20 feet of right-of-way and the second thing that I want 04:06:23.422 --> 04:06:28.158 - to make sure to put on people's radar which I kind of alluded to earlier is that 04:06:28.930 --> 04:06:38.417 - You know, this whole thing has zero-foot front setbacks for dwelling units, except for along Wiley. 04:06:38.417 --> 04:06:42.686 - And along Wiley, there is a 12-foot setback. 04:06:43.010 --> 04:06:49.622 - for a front setback. And I'll tell you, the reason for that is because at the Plan Commission in January, 04:06:49.622 --> 04:06:56.297 - it was a zero-foot setback. And I drove down Wiley and I went, oh my goodness, can you imagine the houses, 04:06:56.297 --> 04:07:02.784 - if anybody's familiar with it, are kind of typical like R3, R4 houses on the south side of Wiley. Road, 04:07:02.784 --> 04:07:09.147 - sidewalk, building, with no green space at all. And I was thinking to myself, there's no neighborhood 04:07:09.147 --> 04:07:10.270 - transition there. 04:07:10.434 --> 04:07:17.458 - that would put this very like, this appearance of real separation between these two sides of the street 04:07:17.458 --> 04:07:24.482 - when really we want them to be one neighborhood. And I said like, we need some kind of setback, there's 04:07:24.482 --> 04:07:28.062 - something. And what got added was a 12 foot setback. 04:07:28.194 --> 04:07:33.920 - I'm not attached to that 12 foot setback. We wanna make that a five foot setback and then put in a proper 04:07:33.920 --> 04:07:39.484 - sidewalk and a proper tree plot or whatever it needs to be like, that's fine, because that would still 04:07:39.484 --> 04:07:45.048 - meet my goal of that 12 foot setback of getting some separate, or getting some like unity neighborhood 04:07:45.048 --> 04:07:50.557 - transition between the houses that are existing and these new houses going in so that the whole place 04:07:50.557 --> 04:07:52.286 - can feel like one neighborhood. 04:07:52.578 --> 04:07:59.064 - because I think that that's really important and I think the visual effect is important in that. So 04:07:59.064 --> 04:08:05.614 - that's what I was referring to earlier, like hey, let's put that, a piece of this puzzle in terms of 04:08:05.614 --> 04:08:12.553 - Councilmember Flaherty's, I don't think that's so much number 11 as it is number, I can't remember anymore 04:08:12.553 --> 04:08:18.974 - which one addresses Wiley's monolithic sidewalk. But while we're talking about redesign. And then, 04:08:20.098 --> 04:08:26.369 - The other thing that I wanna just make sure to say in general about this conversation about 04:08:26.369 --> 04:08:33.186 - the infrastructure piece is that part of what I seem to hear is like, okay, so we can skimp on this 04:08:33.186 --> 04:08:40.208 - infrastructure of sidewalks and tree plots so that then we can make housing really affordable and lots 04:08:40.208 --> 04:08:47.706 - of it. So then I have to go, so are we okay with the poorer people living in a place with crappier sidewalks? 04:08:47.706 --> 04:08:49.342 - And that feels kind of, 04:08:49.538 --> 04:08:54.623 - Interesting and so then it's like okay like, you know, cuz then you're compromising something and I 04:08:54.623 --> 04:08:59.961 - just saw you know a member of our Administration go like this and it's like well, that's a real question 04:08:59.961 --> 04:09:05.097 - right now because you know It got described to me as the transportation plan is the gold standard So 04:09:05.097 --> 04:09:10.232 - are we okay with? Delegating certain parts of our population be like well You don't deserve the gold 04:09:10.232 --> 04:09:14.910 - standard because we need to make it cheap enough for you and so that's that compromise that 04:09:15.074 --> 04:09:22.769 - that Council Member Asari referred to earlier is like, what are we willing to kind of compromise and 04:09:22.769 --> 04:09:30.770 - do? And that's just, I'm not making a judgment on that right now. I'm just bringing it up as a question. 04:09:30.770 --> 04:09:38.922 - I'll answer that question since I think that's probably directed at me. We really intentionally preference 04:09:38.922 --> 04:09:43.646 - smaller sidewalks. And in all of our neighborhoods, not even, 04:09:43.746 --> 04:09:50.312 - not only affordable housing neighborhoods and so we we think that there has been broadly a real bloating 04:09:50.312 --> 04:09:56.940 - of rights of way generally and and there there's quite a bit of strong towns support to that that doesn't 04:09:56.940 --> 04:10:03.006 - always benefit places that you've got lots of historic neighborhoods that are the most expensive 04:10:03.394 --> 04:10:09.107 - houses in your town that have monolithic sidewalks, that have four-foot sidewalks. You've got incredibly 04:10:09.107 --> 04:10:14.547 - beautiful historic neighborhoods throughout America that are very high-end neighborhoods that are a 04:10:14.547 --> 04:10:20.260 - four-foot or five-foot sidewalk, and that that is preferential, that a six-foot tree plot and a six-foot 04:10:20.260 --> 04:10:24.286 - sidewalk tends to be a much more suburban subdivision greenfield pattern. 04:10:24.354 --> 04:10:30.347 - that is not common in a lot of our historic districts and that creates quite a bit of additional cost 04:10:30.347 --> 04:10:36.281 - on stormwater that a six foot sidewalk is 20 percent wider than a five foot sidewalk. Expanding that 04:10:36.281 --> 04:10:42.332 - over your entire town is a 20 percent increase in the amount of concrete that you need to maintain and 04:10:42.332 --> 04:10:48.325 - the amount of runoff that you need to manage without great benefits overall that are hugely impactful 04:10:48.325 --> 04:10:50.910 - to people's lives. That is really a design, 04:10:51.138 --> 04:10:58.173 - decision that we've made that is consistent throughout our work that is not tied to saying that we think 04:10:58.173 --> 04:11:04.873 - that the residents of this house don't deserve the best. We do our best to design really beautiful, 04:11:04.873 --> 04:11:11.909 - dignified housing with really great infrastructure and walkable communities at all price points. Council 04:11:11.909 --> 04:11:19.614 - Member Flaherty had a thing and then Council Member Aralo. That was really helpful because I think what's becoming 04:11:19.970 --> 04:11:25.229 - I'm aware of the clause clause being cited page 25 of the transportation plan to justify monolithic 04:11:25.229 --> 04:11:30.646 - sidewalks and to justify Sidewalks that are smaller width than we allow I've also talked to staff many 04:11:30.646 --> 04:11:36.063 - times about the transportation plan and that's not the correct interpretation I I want to hear it from 04:11:36.063 --> 04:11:41.427 - director Hiddle if we're going to talk about the transportation plan we're going to talk about Zoning 04:11:41.427 --> 04:11:46.686 - rules generally about how things are administered how the UDO works. We haven't heard from director 04:11:46.686 --> 04:11:47.422 - Hiddle once I 04:11:48.258 --> 04:11:54.352 - if we're gonna have a conversation about those things, that's the person to talk to. And I think what 04:11:54.352 --> 04:12:00.326 - was also helpful about that is that putting smaller sidewalks in all of their work, I assume that's 04:12:00.326 --> 04:12:06.300 - Flintlock Lab, we're actually hearing opinions that are an opinion about design that are counter to 04:12:06.300 --> 04:12:12.454 - the policies of the city of Bloomington. And I think that was so illustrative, or illuminating for me, 04:12:12.454 --> 04:12:17.054 - rather, that that's actually a lot of the source of the problem here is that 04:12:17.858 --> 04:12:22.868 - Our city plans and our city goals and the udr requirements and the recommendations of staff Weren't 04:12:22.868 --> 04:12:28.028 - followed and instead we followed the recommendations of a consultant, which is okay That's not I'm not 04:12:28.028 --> 04:12:33.088 - saying that you know We're not entitled to our opinions and and we can have those views but they are 04:12:33.088 --> 04:12:38.097 - counter to our city goals and policies and and code and And plans and that's I think actually where 04:12:38.097 --> 04:12:43.157 - we're running into so much trouble here. I the fire piece I think you know if it's too expensive and 04:12:43.157 --> 04:12:44.510 - too complicated. I think I 04:12:44.610 --> 04:12:50.186 - What I was saying is that we can do, we can meet code, we can meet the transportation plan on Wiley 04:12:50.186 --> 04:12:55.761 - Street. When you have a subdivision, you do need to meet the transportation plan facilities. That's 04:12:55.761 --> 04:13:01.560 - very clear in the UDO. That's very clear in the transportation plan. So we can do that on Wiley Street. 04:13:01.560 --> 04:13:07.247 - We can have a five-foot tree plot, a six-foot sidewalk. And I think you probably end up either losing 04:13:07.247 --> 04:13:12.990 - no homes or maybe two homes from what is planned right now. And you might have to switch the home type 04:13:13.986 --> 04:13:19.930 - in in a few of those lots Thank you, so so I don't know I mean I feel like we can move on from the fire 04:13:19.930 --> 04:13:25.818 - question personally, let's everybody anybody else feels like they want to we can talk about Additional 04:13:25.818 --> 04:13:31.590 - conditions or passing them or whatever we want to do. Yep. Thank you so much. Councilmember Flaherty 04:13:31.590 --> 04:13:37.535 - And it comes member Rosenberg. Oh, sorry comes member Rallo had already been called and then comes over 04:13:37.535 --> 04:13:43.422 - Rosenberg Go ahead. It's just a brief question. And that is that it sounds like from your presentation 04:13:43.842 --> 04:13:51.152 - that you decided to deviate from the transportation plan from the onset. Is that correct? This has been 04:13:51.152 --> 04:13:57.830 - something that we've discussed at length with planning and with transportation and with legal. 04:13:57.830 --> 04:14:04.930 - The transportation plan doesn't say you are allowed to maintain existing streets. The transportation 04:14:04.930 --> 04:14:07.390 - plan says very clearly on page 25, 04:14:07.618 --> 04:14:14.072 - that existing streets shall not be required to conform to these cross-sections. Yes, that is 04:14:14.072 --> 04:14:21.636 - being interpreted to mean the opposite of what it says, but that is legal past ordinance. Wiley is following 04:14:21.636 --> 04:14:28.784 - the transportation plan in not being required to match the new street section, which is being proposed 04:14:28.784 --> 04:14:36.002 - for tree preservation. There's an existing row of relatively nice trees along Wiley Street that provide 04:14:36.002 --> 04:14:37.598 - quite a green edge and 04:14:37.890 --> 04:14:43.738 - existing character to that street that those neighbors are used to. Keeping the sidewalk in place where 04:14:43.738 --> 04:14:49.531 - it is currently shown, which is in line with the transportation plan and with national best practices, 04:14:49.531 --> 04:14:55.435 - also maintains quite a bit of tree preservation. The added setback was added as part of plan commission, 04:14:55.435 --> 04:15:01.059 - but the homes were not moved. They were held at that line from the beginning design, promoting tree 04:15:01.059 --> 04:15:06.738 - preservation along Wiley to minimize impacts for the neighbors across the street as the construction 04:15:06.738 --> 04:15:07.582 - comes through. 04:15:07.682 --> 04:15:14.377 - I think it's also important to note that the city of Bloomington hired us because their current codes 04:15:14.377 --> 04:15:21.007 - and plans allowed for 28 homes. It was stated upfront that 28 homes at the price that 28 homes would 04:15:21.007 --> 04:15:27.702 - need to be charged was not a good fit for this neighborhood. The master plan that is shown originally 04:15:27.702 --> 04:15:34.463 - for Hopewell shows more density than R4 allowed. It was a goal upfront in hiring us that we were being 04:15:34.463 --> 04:15:35.710 - brought in to help 04:15:36.194 --> 04:15:43.481 - via PUD see what it would take to achieve the city's goals affordable housing wise within the codes. 04:15:43.481 --> 04:15:50.912 - And so yes, there was a decision upfront that the transportation plans statements of flexibility would 04:15:50.912 --> 04:15:57.694 - be followed. So it allows for a sidewalk down to four feet. It allows for a tree plot down to 04:15:57.826 --> 04:16:05.761 - five feet and so the transportation plans, specific standards were called out as being the thing that 04:16:05.761 --> 04:16:13.775 - the PUD with custom street sections would provide. You decided early on to reduce the public realm and 04:16:13.775 --> 04:16:19.454 - were you aware that there was a, that bicycles are allowed on sidewalks? 04:16:20.962 --> 04:16:28.046 - We did extensive kind of explorations early on and the city selected a site plan that had narrower site 04:16:28.046 --> 04:16:35.402 - Narrow our rights of way. We have early site plans that all incorporated 60-foot rights of way and bicycles 04:16:35.402 --> 04:16:42.622 - allowed on sidewalks because that is a safety concern that you know why we preference wider sidewalks and 04:16:43.458 --> 04:16:49.005 - The transportation plan calls out that sidewalks that are also bicycle lanes are required to be 10 feet. 04:16:49.005 --> 04:16:54.289 - In constrained blocks, they're allowed to be eight feet. But sidewalks that are intended to be used 04:16:54.289 --> 04:16:59.625 - for bicycles are required to be eight feet wide by the transportation plan in constrained situations 04:16:59.625 --> 04:17:04.961 - and 10 feet, generally. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'd love to hear from Director Hiddle, and then, 04:17:04.961 --> 04:17:10.244 - if no objection, we can move to public comment. And then, just as a suggestion, I mean, it might be 04:17:10.244 --> 04:17:10.878 - appropriate 04:17:11.010 --> 04:17:17.195 - Have a question for director Hittle for please. Yeah. Yeah, that's what we'll move to him and you can 04:17:17.195 --> 04:17:23.381 - ask him questions when he comes So so well, he might be able to answer it without like in his speech. 04:17:23.381 --> 04:17:29.445 - What's our councilmember? Sorry, thank you There's already been a handful of questions. So director 04:17:29.445 --> 04:17:35.570 - Hittle, please respond and then we can ask them some follow-up questions. Go ahead To respond to I'm 04:17:35.570 --> 04:17:38.238 - not sure if there's a particular element or 04:17:38.338 --> 04:17:50.823 - I guess I'll say That Ali is our designer and She is a Widely acclaimed designer. She's the person that 04:17:50.823 --> 04:18:02.948 - we've brought in to design this project projects rarely benefit from Democratic design. I think they 04:18:02.948 --> 04:18:07.390 - do best when you have someone who is 04:18:07.682 --> 04:18:15.170 - Again, widely acclaimed whose tops in her field literally at this time of time of development to let 04:18:15.170 --> 04:18:22.584 - her cook let her do her thing I think you put a certain measure of trust in somebody when you bring 04:18:22.584 --> 04:18:30.295 - them in to do that and you don't Arrange and try to micromanage that work I have to say I've never seen 04:18:30.295 --> 04:18:35.262 - this from a legislative body in my 20 years to have a City Council 04:18:35.554 --> 04:18:42.366 - argue about 12 inches here, 12 inches there, argue about what a PUD is. A PUD is a deviation from your 04:18:42.366 --> 04:18:48.980 - ordinance, a deviation from your subdivision regulations, a deviation from your zoning ordinance, a 04:18:48.980 --> 04:18:55.594 - deviation from your transportation plan. It's clearly the best route to take here, and it's the one 04:18:55.594 --> 04:19:02.671 - that we've taken. And I'm... this is a staggering conversation for me, the fact that, again, a legislative 04:19:02.671 --> 04:19:04.126 - body, a city council, 04:19:04.290 --> 04:19:11.774 - is is Meddling is the best word in something that they shouldn't be meddling in this is planned Commission 04:19:11.774 --> 04:19:19.118 - material if anything So that's that's my that's the crux of my response Is there anything more detailed? 04:19:19.118 --> 04:19:26.252 - I think the question that customer Flaherty had put forward was a was around them particularly around 04:19:26.252 --> 04:19:33.246 - the the transportation plan and the consideration of it am I am I recalling that correctly I'm just 04:19:33.890 --> 04:19:41.099 - I guess I'm curious is there any Do we allow less than a six-foot sidewalk for a subdivision anywhere 04:19:41.099 --> 04:19:47.601 - in the city of Bloomington? Can you name a precedent where we have allowed? Since we've had 04:19:47.601 --> 04:19:55.164 - the transportation plan in place Where we've had a subdivision and not required a tree plot and a six-foot 04:19:55.164 --> 04:20:02.302 - sidewalk. I don't recall offhand Okay, I don't recall Councilman Stossberg, did you have a question? 04:20:03.778 --> 04:20:11.003 - Well going back to the transportation plan which you know, uh, miss Thurman is quoting that That page 04:20:11.003 --> 04:20:18.087 - in terms of not requiring existing streets to conform But when we're redeveloping things we require 04:20:18.087 --> 04:20:25.312 - Things to confirm when we're when we're we Conform when we're redeveloping and right right now. We're 04:20:25.312 --> 04:20:32.254 - redeveloping one side of that street so I would think that that street would then be included and 04:20:32.450 --> 04:20:39.288 - The requirement to conform and I appreciate what you said. Well, it's a PD PD. It's like a deviation 04:20:39.288 --> 04:20:46.194 - So like it's all different anyway, but I'm just saying generally speaking if there's redevelopment on 04:20:46.194 --> 04:20:53.033 - one side of a non-conforming street Don't we make that conform? I Think page 25 grants license to go 04:20:53.033 --> 04:20:54.590 - in either direction. I 04:20:59.554 --> 04:21:05.255 - That's a novel legal interpretation of that clause in page 25 relative to how this has been administered 04:21:05.255 --> 04:21:11.010 - with other developers in the city of Bloomington Over that since the transportation plan has been passed. 04:21:11.010 --> 04:21:16.439 - I'm almost positive of that Can anyone tell me otherwise have we used that clause as a we allowed a 04:21:16.439 --> 04:21:22.085 - developer who's creating a subdivision or a rezone? Not to come into compliance with the transportation 04:21:22.085 --> 04:21:27.514 - plan on the basis of that clause in page 25 because the base that the original the original context 04:21:27.514 --> 04:21:28.926 - of that clause on page 25 04:21:29.154 --> 04:21:35.056 - was confusion among residents of older neighborhoods, or are you gonna come in and start taking land 04:21:35.056 --> 04:21:40.957 - in the near west side to widen the street to match this typology? And the answer was, of course, no, 04:21:40.957 --> 04:21:47.209 - that's not something the city's gonna proactively do. So that's the context and the origin of that clause, 04:21:47.209 --> 04:21:53.053 - why it's in there, how it's been interpreted and administered over time in the city of Bloomington, 04:21:53.053 --> 04:21:54.046 - to my knowledge. 04:21:54.338 --> 04:22:00.969 - So I guess I'm inviting is there an example of another developer who has leveraged that particular phrase? 04:22:00.969 --> 04:22:07.352 - To not come into compliance with the transportation plan when creating a subdivision a rezone. I'm not 04:22:07.352 --> 04:22:11.070 - aware of hand. Okay. Thank you Then I have a question I can 04:22:11.170 --> 04:22:16.868 - I don't want to call out the person's name, but I can definitively tell you of somebody who was required 04:22:16.868 --> 04:22:22.294 - in his historic district and remodel of his historic home to come into compliance with the sidewalk 04:22:22.294 --> 04:22:27.775 - and had to put in a six-foot sidewalk, even though there's four-foot sidewalks on either side of his 04:22:27.775 --> 04:22:33.310 - dwelling, and he was not at all happy about it. I think that he has spoken about it publicly, but I'm 04:22:33.310 --> 04:22:38.899 - not going to call out his name now. But I might email him and say, hey, this got brought up. So he had 04:22:38.899 --> 04:22:39.550 - to do that. 04:22:39.746 --> 04:22:48.293 - Historic neighborhood with his historic home to put in the bigger sidewalk Thank You director Hitto, 04:22:48.293 --> 04:22:57.262 - do you attend BZA meetings come again? Do you ever attend BZA meetings? Yes, do we ever accept? variances 04:22:57.262 --> 04:23:05.724 - of this sort in the BZA or have they ever come before the BZA I don't think that it would you don't 04:23:05.724 --> 04:23:09.278 - vary from it from the transportation plan 04:23:09.730 --> 04:23:20.690 - Thank you No, I don't I don't believe so, okay. Thank you All right, we'll go now unless there's anybody 04:23:20.690 --> 04:23:31.441 - else with questions for director Hiddle We'll go to a time of public comment on What number reasonable 04:23:31.441 --> 04:23:37.182 - condition is this on reasonable condition 11? and then 04:23:37.378 --> 04:23:49.067 - Maybe we'll have mercy. If anybody in the public or online would like to comment on reasonable condition 04:23:49.067 --> 04:24:00.421 - 11, you're welcome to do so. Anybody in chamber like to comment on reasonable condition 11? Hello. My 04:24:00.421 --> 04:24:06.878 - name is Joe Davis. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 04:24:09.634 --> 04:24:19.118 - I am offended by the executive branch Bullying us into thinking that they know best that we shouldn't 04:24:19.118 --> 04:24:28.416 - question their designers because of all the good words that they want Well in our community This is 04:24:28.416 --> 04:24:38.085 - unique. We need to address these issues clearly the City Council is the protector of the people in this 04:24:38.085 --> 04:24:39.294 - scenario and 04:24:39.714 --> 04:24:53.170 - You are protecting us from the overreach of the executive. If you allow a poor PUD that sets precedent 04:24:53.170 --> 04:25:06.233 - that makes it harder for people in the future to be able to have autonomy, flexibility, and all the 04:25:06.233 --> 04:25:09.630 - things that empower them, 04:25:11.010 --> 04:25:21.681 - then that's going down a road where we are only going to increase the idea and concept of victimhood. 04:25:21.681 --> 04:25:33.502 - And we will have even fewer people wanting to live in Bloomington, work in Bloomington, and be a Bloomingtonian. 04:25:34.530 --> 04:25:45.460 - We need to take the time to have the discussion and make sure that the people are allowed to have their 04:25:45.460 --> 04:25:55.970 - input. Overall, these proposals that have been put forth by the City Council have many blind spots. 04:25:55.970 --> 04:26:04.062 - We need to have more time for more public input so that we can truly come up 04:26:04.610 --> 04:26:19.901 - with something that serves the people. Of course, we need affordability. But we also, too, need to allow 04:26:19.901 --> 04:26:32.862 - homeowners the full rights of ownership, restrictive covenants, silent second mortgages, 04:26:33.858 --> 04:26:45.802 - They all end up encumbering the property. They all end up making those who have to live with those conditions 04:26:45.802 --> 04:26:56.878 - feel that they are less than. In this country, before we had the Civil War, slaves, black people were 04:26:56.878 --> 04:27:01.438 - only considered three-fifths of a person. 04:27:02.914 --> 04:27:15.120 - This PUD makes every homeowner only 3 fifths of a homeowner. It does not allow the full property rights 04:27:15.120 --> 04:27:25.918 - that people who are trying to build and establish equity need to have. Thank you very much. 04:27:26.850 --> 04:27:34.153 - reminder and please keep our comments to the reasonable condition 11 Anybody else in chambers like to 04:27:34.153 --> 04:27:41.527 - comment? Thank you, mr. President members of the council John zodi from CDFI friendly Bloomington look 04:27:41.527 --> 04:27:48.686 - the hours late and I just want to Maybe draw on what the question council members fastberg answered 04:27:48.686 --> 04:27:55.774 - about what? someone who's living in affordable housing might sort of deserve or entitled to with a 04:27:56.130 --> 04:28:04.259 - You know tree number of trees and things like that and I think You know as a regional community development 04:28:04.259 --> 04:28:12.387 - organization We're always trying to look for people out there who can crack the code who can get affordable 04:28:12.387 --> 04:28:20.215 - housing done and I think what what I've seen is The desire to make sure people Can find safe affordable 04:28:20.215 --> 04:28:25.182 - housing right and so if that means less trees in the tree plot or 04:28:25.602 --> 04:28:32.492 - Vinyl plank floor rather than a hardwood floor, you know I've been through modular housing that has 04:28:32.492 --> 04:28:39.658 - different fixtures that can save money but the margins are small and People are always trying to figure 04:28:39.658 --> 04:28:46.686 - out how to get this done and Bloomington is such a unique place not only in our region but in Indiana 04:28:46.686 --> 04:28:53.852 - were the only city that has the level of robust housing protections in place that it does were the only 04:28:53.852 --> 04:28:55.230 - city within an hour 04:28:55.650 --> 04:29:01.821 - That has the kind of incentives that we do to subsidize affordable housing quite honestly We're the 04:29:01.821 --> 04:29:08.362 - only community that has an active effort to get more landlords to accept vouchers An active funded effort 04:29:08.362 --> 04:29:14.718 - in the past to get more Affordable housing online and other communities are trying to do this and they 04:29:14.718 --> 04:29:20.766 - don't have as many resources as we do And so I think it's a reality Councilmember Stossburg and I 04:29:20.866 --> 04:29:27.508 - the observation because this is something we've got to talk about as we're talking about what is gonna 04:29:27.508 --> 04:29:34.086 - happen at Hopewell and how we actually have affordable housing there and I would just Continue to ask 04:29:34.086 --> 04:29:40.535 - the council to keep in mind what that means if we're asking local developers To come in and do this 04:29:40.535 --> 04:29:47.113 - work because I see it in projects every day The difficulty in putting together the financing the time 04:29:47.113 --> 04:29:49.886 - it takes the lending you got to go through 04:29:50.690 --> 04:29:56.657 - you know, like 60 to 90 days of underwriting for loans, and it just adds time. And so, when we think 04:29:56.657 --> 04:30:02.625 - about any requirements, I just ask us to keep in mind that homeowner, at the end of the day, there's 04:30:02.625 --> 04:30:08.711 - somebody waiting on that house and needs the assistance and the incentives that this community has the 04:30:08.711 --> 04:30:14.619 - ability to offer that others don't. And so, trying to keep all of those things in mind and the risk 04:30:14.619 --> 04:30:20.350 - that we're putting on them to kind of, quite honestly, create barriers, which isn't intentional. 04:30:20.482 --> 04:30:27.152 - No one on the council is trying to create barriers to someone owning a home, but the natural and the 04:30:27.152 --> 04:30:33.887 - frustration of all this, not you guys, but the frustration of trying to get the right pieces in place 04:30:33.887 --> 04:30:40.689 - to develop affordable housing is extremely difficult. I see it every day. I've got people who are just 04:30:40.689 --> 04:30:47.358 - right on the margin whether they can get a project to work. That's my time. Thank you for your time. 04:30:47.358 --> 04:30:50.462 - That's your time. Thank you. Next in chambers. 04:30:58.722 --> 04:31:05.823 - My name is Jeff Richardson and Yeah on on number 11 condition 11. I think it's a great discussion I'm 04:31:05.823 --> 04:31:12.854 - not happy how miss Thurman was treated, but I Definitely think it's a worthy discussion I'm reminded 04:31:12.854 --> 04:31:20.025 - I had a boss about 30 years ago and she's having some difficulties with her husband and he was talking 04:31:20.025 --> 04:31:25.246 - about the relationship the relationship and she families hey, I'm here and 04:31:26.018 --> 04:31:33.542 - We're we're here. We're the relationship where the two people involved and so I hear about you know 04:31:33.542 --> 04:31:41.067 - the relationship The mayor's right here. She's got five departments here. She just said she's gonna 04:31:41.067 --> 04:31:49.118 - work with you all of April all the way till the deadline if need be Let's model some great Behavior on how 04:31:50.242 --> 04:31:57.939 - Nine Democrats, progressive, smart, intelligent, thoughtful, forward-looking Democrats, can work with 04:31:57.939 --> 04:32:05.486 - a smart, thoughtful, forward-looking, creative mayor. Let's do this together. We have four counties 04:32:05.486 --> 04:32:13.183 - in this state that are Democratic, and in this county, we have a dysfunctional county government. The 04:32:13.183 --> 04:32:20.126 - perception is that we can't get along with each other. Let's use this opportunity, I credit 04:32:20.866 --> 04:32:28.295 - You folks, for putting forward what you want, you got it. Should she have done it before? Maybe. But 04:32:28.295 --> 04:32:35.724 - right now, let's seize the time, let's seize the moment, take advantage of these next 30 to 40 days, 04:32:35.724 --> 04:32:43.154 - and let's show people how we can get things done. This is the best city in the world. I've lived all 04:32:43.154 --> 04:32:49.406 - over the country. I love Bloomington. I love being here with every fiber in my body. 04:32:49.570 --> 04:32:59.569 - I want you all to succeed. I know we can do this. Everyone has housing as their top priority. Please 04:32:59.569 --> 04:33:08.973 - work together. Show Bloomington, show the state, show this country how we can get things done. 04:33:08.973 --> 04:33:17.982 - Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone online? Please, person online, take it away. 04:33:21.314 --> 04:33:28.919 - This is John Fernandez again, and I really hate to follow Jeff Richardson. But let me just say this, 04:33:28.919 --> 04:33:36.449 - I'm commenting now, not as the CEO of Amplified Bloomington, but more as a member of the BZA. And I 04:33:36.449 --> 04:33:44.205 - just want to say that, you know, I've been on the BZA for over a year. And I can just tell the council 04:33:44.205 --> 04:33:47.518 - that on a monthly basis, we grant variances 04:33:48.098 --> 04:33:57.098 - We grant variances because the UDO, the transportation plan, the climate plan, et cetera, et cetera, 04:33:57.098 --> 04:34:06.277 - often lead to impediments to some very common sense decisions on real world projects, not hypothetical 04:34:06.277 --> 04:34:15.811 - stuff that's in the UDO. We make adjustments as part of our normal processes because in certain instances, 04:34:15.811 --> 04:34:17.950 - our policies don't work 04:34:18.050 --> 04:34:26.081 - And that's what we do. And you can go back and you click the minutes of the BCA and the record, 04:34:26.081 --> 04:34:34.865 - but there's, you know, we have a wealth of data on where there are problems with the UDO. So this notion 04:34:34.865 --> 04:34:43.482 - that somehow we have to take like a strict constructionist approach to these policies and these codes, 04:34:43.482 --> 04:34:46.494 - it's just, it's not the real world. 04:34:47.298 --> 04:34:55.762 - And respectfully, I think that that is the whole point of a PUD, is that it's where a real project that's 04:34:55.762 --> 04:35:03.906 - trying to do something that's creative and different, and in many ways, almost retro in terms of kind 04:35:03.906 --> 04:35:11.891 - of neighborhoods that we actually want in Bloomington, require deviation from strict constructional 04:35:11.891 --> 04:35:14.366 - coaches to our existing codes. 04:35:14.882 --> 04:35:21.548 - I mean, at the end of the day, I mean, I've listened to this, you know, for a couple of meetings now. 04:35:21.548 --> 04:35:28.345 - And I think the fundamental question is, like, by right, if you want to take the strict constructionist 04:35:28.345 --> 04:35:35.077 - approach to the UDO and to the transportation plan and the climate change, et cetera, et cetera, we're 04:35:35.077 --> 04:35:41.678 - talking about, like, 20, what, 23, 28 units by right. And what's being proposed is a pretty creative 04:35:41.678 --> 04:35:42.462 - alternative 04:35:42.754 --> 04:35:50.357 - that gets you north of 90 houses, 90 homes. I'm just really kind of perplexed that we're having such 04:35:50.357 --> 04:35:58.563 - this intense debate about trying to do something. We're trying to fall back on, you know, process questions, 04:35:58.563 --> 04:36:06.166 - power questions, all these kinds of things. At the end of the day, it's really, do we want 28 units, 04:36:06.166 --> 04:36:12.414 - which is required, that can be built by right? Or do we want to do more than that? 04:36:13.186 --> 04:36:21.926 - And you know, it's just, I would hope that the council would just move forward and not delay this further. 04:36:21.926 --> 04:36:30.094 - I think there's been a ton of movement on issues about the percentage of units that are affordable. 04:36:30.094 --> 04:36:37.854 - Let's just get on with it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? Anybody else in chambers? 04:36:39.522 --> 04:36:54.384 - Seeing none we'll come back to to council any motions or comments Please councilmember Zulek Ordinance 04:36:54.384 --> 04:37:09.246 - 20 2606 to the May 6th regular session meeting There's a motion and a second is there any discussion I 04:37:11.874 --> 04:37:18.273 - Member Stossberg, I guess I just want to make a quick comment but not necessarily about this motion 04:37:18.273 --> 04:37:24.864 - and I don't know if then it's appropriate for me to make that or not a Comment so would it be I wonder 04:37:24.864 --> 04:37:31.455 - if the if the those who said would be willing to let us do maybe a round of quick sort of Comments and 04:37:31.455 --> 04:37:38.047 - then reintroduce the motion if unless there's objection Okay So well we can go to a round of comments. 04:37:38.047 --> 04:37:41.822 - Does the customer Stossberg would you like to start? First 04:37:42.978 --> 04:37:48.686 - I want to respond to a couple of things I guess kind of in closing for tonight. I do think that that 04:37:48.686 --> 04:37:54.337 - we're all kind of proceeding about this with like the the best thoughts in mind for Bloomington and 04:37:54.337 --> 04:38:00.158 - Once again, it's like yeah, it is really important to put that into perspective. I think it's a really 04:38:01.826 --> 04:38:07.396 - Almost like this like false concept that just because we're all Democrats mean that we always have to 04:38:07.396 --> 04:38:12.856 - agree and I think that it makes better government and better decisions when we actually have debate 04:38:12.856 --> 04:38:18.481 - when we actually have conversations when we actually share ideas and challenge each other on our ideas 04:38:18.481 --> 04:38:24.160 - and honestly, you know if if I at some point get challenged on an idea and I don't have a good response 04:38:24.160 --> 04:38:29.675 - then that's a moment that I have to really think rethink my idea and if any of us as people can't be 04:38:29.675 --> 04:38:30.494 - challenged and 04:38:30.850 --> 04:38:36.842 - and accept that we're being challenged and either have a Good justification and like this is where we 04:38:36.842 --> 04:38:42.951 - are and this is where we want to be Then we have to rethink our ideas and if we're unwilling to rethink 04:38:42.951 --> 04:38:48.942 - our ideas or if we frankly get offended or all angry and pissed off at like our idea being challenged 04:38:48.942 --> 04:38:55.110 - and now we have to rethink it like like just Sit down at that point like honestly like we are in a forum 04:38:55.110 --> 04:38:57.342 - where we're always trying to you know 04:38:57.442 --> 04:39:04.220 - Do the best thing and the best thing is going to be exchange of ideas secondly, I Have notes all over 04:39:04.220 --> 04:39:10.932 - by the way instead of all in one place and it's not like helpful to me I want to highlight something 04:39:10.932 --> 04:39:18.042 - and councilmember Flaherty said earlier in terms of that, you know difference of philosophy about approach 04:39:18.042 --> 04:39:22.494 - and and Director Hittle kind of said it that Ali was brought in to 04:39:22.594 --> 04:39:29.253 - I think I wrote this down right was brought in to design this project and projects rarely benefit from 04:39:29.253 --> 04:39:35.006 - Democratic design and that they just needed to let her cook and let her do her thing and 04:39:35.106 --> 04:39:40.271 - I think that that was said maybe in this context of council needs to you know, stop trying to bugger 04:39:40.271 --> 04:39:45.436 - But I think also that that's how our staff then thought about it So some of these questions that are 04:39:45.436 --> 04:39:50.549 - getting brought up in terms of like this is how this is the expectation that we have in Bloomington 04:39:50.549 --> 04:39:55.919 - This is the philosophy around prioritization of sidewalks and why you know, we have those wide sidewalks 04:39:55.919 --> 04:40:01.339 - I appreciate that councilmember Rallo brought up the bicycles on sidewalks as a thing because that that's 04:40:01.339 --> 04:40:05.072 - actually legal it doesn't have to be that the sidewalks are designed for 04:40:05.072 --> 04:40:11.066 - Bicycles there may just be bicycles on these sidewalks on these little four-foot sidewalks and that 04:40:11.066 --> 04:40:17.120 - could be potentially problematic and I think that those are things that locals know that Consultants 04:40:17.120 --> 04:40:23.174 - don't necessarily know and I think that that's one of those struggles with consultants no matter how 04:40:23.174 --> 04:40:29.288 - good a consultant is they're not from where it is that they're doing the consulting and no matter how 04:40:29.288 --> 04:40:30.846 - many times they visit and 04:40:30.946 --> 04:40:35.998 - Like there's always going to be those things and I think that that is you know It's like the pros and 04:40:35.998 --> 04:40:41.001 - cons of using consultants, right? And then I think the last thing I hope at least I'm gonna remember 04:40:41.001 --> 04:40:46.004 - is I want to talk about the BZA as some people kind of mentioned the BZA and Mr. Fernandez spoke and 04:40:46.004 --> 04:40:50.958 - I'm actually you know, we're doing this whole liaison thing now and I'm actually the liaison to the 04:40:50.958 --> 04:40:55.614 - BZA and I went to a BZA meeting recently and boy did they spend an awful lot of time debating 04:40:55.714 --> 04:41:02.249 - whether or not these variances should be granted. So if we wanna compare this PUD to like one giant 04:41:02.249 --> 04:41:08.785 - request for a variance, it is normal for those variances to be debated, to be discussed, to be like 04:41:08.785 --> 04:41:15.320 - figured out how they fit into the whole and all of those things. And if that's, I mean, that's what 04:41:15.320 --> 04:41:21.790 - we're doing right now, right? Is we are debating whether or not this like special request is gonna 04:41:21.890 --> 04:41:27.900 - Do-good things for Bloomington is reasonable like all of those pieces And so, you know anybody trying 04:41:27.900 --> 04:41:34.029 - to rush us as counsel through this process or be like, oh, well, you guys don't really deserve to think 04:41:34.029 --> 04:41:40.039 - about that It's like no our whole job as our elected officials is to try to take the the large 20,000 04:41:40.039 --> 04:41:45.931 - foot view all the way down to how wide are the sidewalks because the people who live here are going 04:41:45.931 --> 04:41:50.174 - to be our constituents and our residents one way or the other and their 04:41:50.594 --> 04:41:57.949 - Gonna come to us with those small complaints and they're gonna come to us with the big ones and it's 04:41:57.949 --> 04:42:05.376 - important right now That we try to think about all those. Thank you Thank You councilmember Stossberg 04:42:05.376 --> 04:42:12.730 - councilmember Flaherty, thank you We are making progress I think I mostly wanted to talk about where 04:42:12.730 --> 04:42:18.046 - I am and and how I can get to yes on the on the PUD and just a note to I 04:42:18.274 --> 04:42:24.295 - probably was speaking a bit frustratedly. If my tone came off as disrespectful to Ms. Thurmond, I do 04:42:24.295 --> 04:42:30.436 - want to apologize for that. I will say I did hear a number of things that were incorrect that she said 04:42:30.436 --> 04:42:36.397 - at different times tonight. Another small example, it's trivial, but it's an example, is that South 04:42:36.397 --> 04:42:42.419 - Dunn Street homes sold for $800,000. That's not true. They sold in the $200,000 range when they were 04:42:42.419 --> 04:42:47.486 - built. A couple of them might be $800,000 now, but that's a wildly inaccurate claim. 04:42:47.746 --> 04:42:53.399 - There was a lot of information coming at us. There were other things that were incorrect or really had 04:42:53.399 --> 04:42:58.943 - unfounded assumptions. And again, I don't mean that in any sort of disrespectful way, but I think it 04:42:58.943 --> 04:43:04.651 - is frustrating sometimes as a council member when you're trying to get the information you need to make 04:43:04.651 --> 04:43:10.305 - decisions and you can't rely on the accuracy of the information all the time. So that's where that was 04:43:10.305 --> 04:43:13.214 - coming from, I think, again, and frustration. But... 04:43:13.634 --> 04:43:19.820 - Again, respect the work that's gone into it, and her expertise, certainly, I do appreciate it, but I 04:43:19.820 --> 04:43:26.007 - think we just have some differences of opinion about priorities, and that's okay. As far as where we 04:43:26.007 --> 04:43:32.438 - are, it seems to me like unless we want to redesign and do the fire access road as a beeline-style thing 04:43:32.438 --> 04:43:38.563 - in the middle of Block 9, that it's maybe just too complicated and not feasible to adjust the alley 04:43:38.563 --> 04:43:42.238 - widths. I'm not wild about that. I think they're oversized. 04:43:42.498 --> 04:43:48.709 - The upshot of that is we can either allow monolithic sidewalks and make them smaller than what's allowed 04:43:48.709 --> 04:43:54.742 - in the transportation plan or that we've allowed other developers to ever do in this kind of context. 04:43:54.742 --> 04:44:00.775 - To me, I think that is a deal breaker. I think it's extremely bad governance and bad policy precedent 04:44:00.775 --> 04:44:01.662 - to use the PUD 04:44:02.050 --> 04:44:06.933 - to really subvert our plans, which is in fact the opposite of the express purpose of a PUD, which is 04:44:06.933 --> 04:44:12.154 - supposed to give considerable benefit above and beyond what code requires. So I'm just saying, I'm probably 04:44:12.154 --> 04:44:17.231 - a no vote on the PUD as a whole if we can't fix those things. Not because I don't want all this housing, 04:44:17.231 --> 04:44:22.162 - which by the way, the other resolution that's on our agenda that we won't hear tonight that I brought 04:44:22.162 --> 04:44:27.142 - a year ago after working with staff to develop it, and it was opposed by the mayor at that time, would 04:44:27.142 --> 04:44:30.526 - have done a lot of the things that would make this allowable by right 04:44:30.786 --> 04:44:35.724 - the resolution that Kate brought, sorry, Councilmember Rosenberger brought, would have done most of 04:44:35.724 --> 04:44:40.662 - the other things in this PUD that it would all be allowed by right. Really all that would have been 04:44:40.662 --> 04:44:45.600 - left to change is modulating right-of-way variability based on whether you're including parking and 04:44:45.600 --> 04:44:50.834 - allowing frontages. Actually, that might have already been addressed. Almost all of this would be allowed 04:44:50.834 --> 04:44:55.821 - citywide by right if the mayor had not opposed those resolutions a year ago. So that context matters 04:44:55.821 --> 04:44:59.870 - too. We are talking about this PUD, of course, but these market solutions matter. 04:45:00.226 --> 04:45:07.043 - they need to be applied at scale. I hope we'll get there. Back to this PUD, I think I could get on board 04:45:07.043 --> 04:45:13.535 - with a six-foot minimum sidewalk width along the streets, probably an eight-foot sidewalk width for 04:45:13.535 --> 04:45:20.286 - what is essentially a multi-use path, you know, a five-foot tree plot, anywhere that that is physically 04:45:20.286 --> 04:45:24.766 - possible. It might not be possible on the south side of block eight, 04:45:25.666 --> 04:45:31.280 - And a 10-foot sidewalk on Roger Street. I realize we don't actually need the 40 whatever feet of right-of-way 04:45:31.280 --> 04:45:36.485 - dedication on Rogers It can be probably the 31 or 32 feet that is envisioned but the 10-foot sidewalk 04:45:36.485 --> 04:45:41.690 - I think is important It's what we've built elsewhere already and hope well on Roger Street as well as 04:45:41.690 --> 04:45:46.947 - further south and Roger Street and it fits I have that in writing confirmed from the city engineer And 04:45:46.947 --> 04:45:52.254 - so there's no reason not to do that a five-foot sidewalk there would really really be substandard. So I 04:45:53.218 --> 04:45:59.874 - Oh, last point. I tried to ease up on the energy efficiency standards by saying you don't have to actually 04:45:59.874 --> 04:46:06.220 - get the certification, but just meet what it is. I'm not quite sure I heard this earlier tonight, but 04:46:06.220 --> 04:46:12.627 - I might have, which is actually that in the Sustainable Development Incentives, there's an option one, 04:46:12.627 --> 04:46:18.848 - sub-bullet five, which is about, I don't think it's quite as strict as LEED, but it is higher-level 04:46:18.848 --> 04:46:20.030 - energy efficiency. 04:46:20.130 --> 04:46:25.297 - a certain number of points into rating systems. And I think I could get on board with that, is the more 04:46:25.297 --> 04:46:30.464 - efficient code level that we're building to, as opposed to building to lead level. The electrification, 04:46:30.464 --> 04:46:35.631 - I think there's still a legal question about whether or not that's gonna run afoul of some of the state 04:46:35.631 --> 04:46:41.047 - preemption stuff. If we could do it as a written commitment, I think that'd be great, if we feel comfortable 04:46:41.047 --> 04:46:44.574 - with that legality. If not, I think it's probably okay to withdraw it. 04:46:44.706 --> 04:46:50.476 - because I think the stated intent is to develop the property as all electric efficient homes. And I 04:46:50.476 --> 04:46:56.477 - think that covers most all the things. Oh, the last one. Well, the short-term vacation rentals, I think 04:46:56.477 --> 04:47:02.363 - that can actually be accomplished via written commitment as well instead of reasonable conditions, so 04:47:02.363 --> 04:47:04.094 - let's work on how to do that. 04:47:04.194 --> 04:47:09.676 - I think we're on board with it and the permanent affordability is the last piece. We got to figure out 04:47:09.676 --> 04:47:15.264 - I think we made some progress. Oh, sorry. Yeah, okay Yes, I can stop I just wanted another three minutes 04:47:15.264 --> 04:47:20.693 - if you'd like them in a second, but too sorry It was just the spirit of like this is actually what it 04:47:20.693 --> 04:47:26.069 - will take for me to get this done in the next few weeks Yes, and thank you for that for me as a deal 04:47:26.069 --> 04:47:31.870 - breaker. Yeah Thank you. Thank you so much. That is a hundred percent agree. Very useful councilmember Daley 04:47:33.314 --> 04:47:40.739 - Thank you very much. I just want to make a simple plea right now. So as we move forward, I just want 04:47:40.739 --> 04:47:47.722 - to ask that we continue having these conversations, as we continue having these conversations, 04:47:47.722 --> 04:47:55.515 - that we please, please not jump to assume the worst intentions in each other. I appreciate Council Member 04:47:55.515 --> 04:48:00.734 - Flaherty's words of passion, or talking about how he spoke in passion. 04:48:01.026 --> 04:48:07.088 - You know, overall though, tonight I was sad and embarrassed and angry to hear this body make accusations 04:48:07.088 --> 04:48:13.381 - of speakers tonight. That called their professionalism and or intelligence and or motivations into question. 04:48:13.381 --> 04:48:19.155 - And we don't have to agree with what they are putting forth, but we do need to maintain decorum. We 04:48:19.155 --> 04:48:25.275 - don't allow people to speak to us like that. Every one of us clearly cares very deeply about this project 04:48:25.275 --> 04:48:26.718 - and we all want Hopewell 04:48:26.978 --> 04:48:32.529 - to be amazing because we all love this city and the people who call it home. So I just want to put that 04:48:32.529 --> 04:48:38.080 - forth in the way we are presenting ourselves and how we work. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge 04:48:38.080 --> 04:48:43.471 - the immense amount of work that my colleagues have put into shaping this vision. The level of detail 04:48:43.471 --> 04:48:48.702 - and the high standards being proposed come from a place of wanting the very best for Bloomington. 04:48:49.250 --> 04:48:55.908 - In a perfect world, every single one of these conditions would be a total slam dunk. We all want beautiful 04:48:55.908 --> 04:49:02.255 - architecture, perfect infrastructure, and top tier sustainability. I don't think anybody doesn't want 04:49:02.255 --> 04:49:08.478 - any of that. We need to keep in mind that the affordability and the attainability is the number one 04:49:08.478 --> 04:49:09.598 - goal here though. 04:49:09.858 --> 04:49:15.952 - I also want to acknowledge tonight that the administration has also made an effort this past week, and 04:49:15.952 --> 04:49:21.987 - it may not have leaned in enough to get us to where we want to be right now, but I do want us to keep 04:49:21.987 --> 04:49:28.140 - in mind that they did agree to three of the reasonable conditions last week, and Mayor Thompson started 04:49:28.140 --> 04:49:34.175 - the night with an offer to give us another month essentially of discussion, which I hope that we keep 04:49:34.175 --> 04:49:39.678 - having more of these. We keep up these discussions. And I don't see that offer as, you know, 04:49:40.130 --> 04:49:45.491 - Lucy putting the football out in front of Charlie Brown to just pull it away. I don't think there is 04:49:45.491 --> 04:49:50.906 - no, I don't think there's no room for further discussion if that offer is being made. So hopefully we 04:49:50.906 --> 04:49:56.214 - can come to some of those agreements like I had spoken earlier in the night about the whole purpose 04:49:56.214 --> 04:50:01.522 - of why we were continuing these conversations if we knew we weren't gonna vote on it. So that's it. 04:50:01.522 --> 04:50:07.202 - We still have a long road ahead of us and many more acres of hope well to develop and we can work together 04:50:07.202 --> 04:50:07.998 - to incorporate 04:50:08.098 --> 04:50:16.284 - more of these designs and infrastructure goals in the next phases as the project matures, I hope But 04:50:16.284 --> 04:50:24.470 - for tonight, let's not let the pursuit of a theoretical perfection turn us against one another Thank 04:50:24.470 --> 04:50:32.737 - you come from daily of other comments closing comments All right, all right seeing none are there any 04:50:32.737 --> 04:50:37.438 - motions Now councilman Zulek, thank you I move that right 04:50:37.634 --> 04:50:46.454 - Ordnance twenty twenty six oh six be postponed to our May 6th regular meeting second point of order 04:50:46.454 --> 04:50:55.275 - Roberts rule says that we have to go to the next regular session When we postpone to a certain date 04:50:55.275 --> 04:51:04.272 - we need to postpone to the next regular session I'll withdraw my motion and motion to table ordinance 04:51:04.272 --> 04:51:07.006 - twenty twenty six oh six until 04:51:07.490 --> 04:51:20.622 - Hey, could I ask the clerk to tell us what to do here because you are a certified Roberts person or 04:51:20.622 --> 04:51:35.198 - whatnot What's the best course of action? What is your goal to postpone or to not deal with it until May 6 and 04:51:36.002 --> 04:51:42.576 - Yeah, I mean it could be I don't I mean it could be on the 22nd and it still gives us time We have a 04:51:42.576 --> 04:51:49.150 - deliberation session next week. For example that we could Is it two weeks from now? So we have so we 04:51:49.150 --> 04:51:55.659 - have So we have a deliberation session on the 15th that we could use to talk about hopeful and then 04:51:55.659 --> 04:52:02.494 - we can schedule it for the 22nd all the same and and obviously then if we're still not ready we can just 04:52:02.722 --> 04:52:13.948 - from the outset, reschedule it to May 1st. Sure. Is there any reason, Mayor Thompson, was there like 04:52:13.948 --> 04:52:25.285 - a specific reason to say the May 4th? Sorry, I like Star Wars, sorry. I was encouraging us to use all 04:52:25.285 --> 04:52:30.398 - time between now and May 6th to discuss this. 04:52:30.658 --> 04:52:39.019 - To make a final decision by May 6th. Okay. Okay seems that we need plenty of time Okay, but that wouldn't 04:52:39.019 --> 04:52:47.065 - preclude also using also using April 22nd So let's let's maybe schedule it to April 22nd. Do you have 04:52:47.065 --> 04:52:55.742 - a deliberation session between now and then correct? Yes. Yes So yeah, so I withdraw any previous motion That 04:52:55.906 --> 04:53:04.640 - Ordinance 20 2606 be postponed to our next regular scheduled meeting on April 22nd There's a motion 04:53:04.640 --> 04:53:13.462 - in a second any discussion seeing none all those in favor, please say aye Any opposed any abstaining 04:53:13.462 --> 04:53:22.371 - that motion carries? Thank you very much We now have other things on the agenda are there any motions 04:53:22.371 --> 04:53:24.030 - noting the time of 04:53:28.194 --> 04:53:37.632 - You have to be more explicit, please Yeah, we can we can either motion to adjourn whatever you want 04:53:37.632 --> 04:53:47.448 - go go for it Say sorry, sorry, everyone's talking at the same time counselor clarity I Move we conclude 04:53:47.448 --> 04:53:56.414 - the portion of the meeting on second reading and move to the next portion of the agenda second 04:53:57.154 --> 04:54:03.732 - There's a motion and second all those in favor say aye aye any opposed any abstaining that motion carries 04:54:03.732 --> 04:54:09.938 - any other motions Okay, we're now at a final time of public comment For things that were not on the 04:54:09.938 --> 04:54:16.207 - agenda if anybody would like to make a comment at this moment And you'll have three minutes to do So 04:54:16.207 --> 04:54:22.475 - is there anybody in chambers who would like to make a public comment who did not comment previously? 04:54:22.475 --> 04:54:23.902 - Is there anyone online 04:54:25.442 --> 04:54:32.794 - Okay. Thank you very much. All right, that concludes our time for public comment Which leads us to a 04:54:32.794 --> 04:54:40.292 - time of council schedule. Is everybody okay? with us using our next deliberation session to deliberate 04:54:40.292 --> 04:54:47.790 - on Hopewell Any objections I'd like to leave that question up to councilmember Flaherty because he was 04:54:47.790 --> 04:54:52.958 - Scheduled in there. I'm comfortable with it using the time and and and 04:54:53.666 --> 04:54:59.591 - Another time and had we arranged though for others to be here just so that we I mean Is there any work 04:54:59.591 --> 04:55:05.516 - that we had gotten agreement that they were available? But I'm sure they won't and those all city city 04:55:05.516 --> 04:55:11.441 - staff like we don't have we don't have anything like that, right? No, we don't have anything like that 04:55:11.441 --> 04:55:17.423 - lined up I Think it will delay the opportunity for a delivery. I know we're queued up to like September 04:55:17.423 --> 04:55:20.990 - on public safety so I do think it will delay deliberations on 04:55:21.474 --> 04:55:28.812 - Challenge of sidewalk safety and accessibility or pedestrian safety and accessibility in the wake of 04:55:28.812 --> 04:55:36.294 - snow events to a point in time past which budget implications could be, you know meaningfully informed 04:55:36.294 --> 04:55:43.777 - but So it goes I'm okay fair point we could also push the public I mean we have multiple public safety 04:55:43.777 --> 04:55:49.662 - so we could do one public safety. Well, we have a deliberation session in May so 04:55:50.018 --> 04:55:55.400 - Basically, I'm fine not doing sidewalks, but okay safety implications, I mean member Stossberg then 04:55:55.400 --> 04:56:00.782 - councilmember Piedmont Smith I just wanted to point out that there are five Wednesdays in April and 04:56:00.782 --> 04:56:06.487 - we don't have a meeting scheduled at all right now for April 29th So I don't know if it's at all possible 04:56:06.487 --> 04:56:11.976 - to put April 29th on the calendar as another deliberation session about the sidewalks So that then we 04:56:11.976 --> 04:56:17.358 - could have that discussion before its budget, but we can't decide that tonight probably. Yeah, okay 04:56:17.358 --> 04:56:19.134 - I'm councilmember Piedmont Smith 04:56:20.866 --> 04:56:28.316 - I thought that the deliberation sessions about public safety were moved to September and October and 04:56:28.316 --> 04:56:35.765 - That being the case I believe that we could do sidewalks in May That's what she that's what she said 04:56:35.765 --> 04:56:43.731 - hey, okay Okay any other things so tomorrow we have a hiring committee this reminder to to to my colleagues 04:56:43.731 --> 04:56:47.198 - any other things for the good of the order and 04:56:48.642 --> 04:56:54.494 - All right, two wonderful residents. Thank you for being here. And this meeting is adjourned.