Welcome everyone to our April 22nd 2026 regularly scheduled council meeting May the clerk, please call
the roll Here Smith Zulek here. Sorry yet daily Rallo here rough here
Rosenberger here. Thank you. Thank you Now we will summarize the agenda so next we will do minutes of
approval Then we will have reports starting with council members Then we will have a report from chief
Decoff on flock then we will have reports from council committees and then we will have public comment and then
Legislation for first readings we have none tonight, but we have quite a lot for second readings and
resolution So buckle in everybody we have a resolution in support of County Council's counterparts Efforts
to keep the county's criminal justice buildings within city limits and close proximity to social services
We have a resolution of the Common Council of the city of Bloomington, Indiana approving certain matters
in connection with the formation of a certain economic development area It's kind of vague
We have an ordinance to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property from
residential urban lot are for and residential family are M within the transform redevelopment overlay
to plan unit development and to approve a unit Excuse me to approve a district ordinance and a preliminary
plan and the short version of that is hope well and
Then we will have a resolution to initiate a proposal to amend title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal
Code in order to improve sustainability and housing affordability. And finally, a resolution directing
the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department to develop a framework for long-term housing
affordability. After that, we will have additional public comment, general public comment for anything
that is not on the agenda, and we will
go over any council schedule comments and then we will adjourn so buckle up y'all cuz we are in for
a long night I'm so glad you decided to join us do I have any motions for minutes for approval which
we have none okay councilmember reports councilmember daily sorry a little flustered thank you um
Just wanted to address I was at the RDC meeting on Monday evening where they voted to for a resolution
to put the Bunger Robertson property up on for open up for bids for What is the word I'm looking for
sorry, this is why I shouldn't request for RFPs. Thank you very much sorry and
Despite several of us asking them not to as well as the CIB they voted to go ahead and open it up to
RFP's so This does not necessarily preclude the land swap that the CIB has proposed for the South property
on by Seminary Park But I was I was incredibly incredibly disappointed with that vote. I think
Even though and it was acknowledged that it's probably not a financial even trade I don't I don't Think
that it is a losing proposition I think it is actually a huge return on investment if we were to swap
those properties I think the Bunger-Roberson property is is ideal for the host hotel for the convention
center and we want this convention center it is in progress it is happening we want it to be a
Successful as possible and having the hotel right there is going to add to that and then keeping that
south property for the city For affordable housing right near Hopewell, which we're focusing on affordable
housing for it's a huge Opportunity and I feel like it's just a win-win all around so I know that I
am not the only council member that supports this land swap, but I really hope that the that the RDC
will reconsider the this proposal from the CIB and
Thank you. Thank you. Any other council reports. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. I have been in various
conferences and meetings the last few weeks so I just wanted to report out on those on March 25th. I
attended the first the first day of a two day program hosted by heading home.
called housing problem solving with the National Alliance to End Homelessness. So they had guest speakers
leading this. It was mainly for providers of services to unhoused people. And their approach is called
housing problem solving, which is a conversation-based approach focused on identifying solutions to
support people in resolving their own housing crisis
as quickly as possible by any needs available to them. So it's a very person-centered, empowering people
to think about solutions to their own problems. About 60 people participated, including people from
the city of Bloomington and both of our large townships. Secondly, I want to report I went to a national
conference, local progress conference in Seattle called Affordable Homes, Stable Communities.
Various tools for community stabilization and development were discussed in order to keep affordable
housing and develop affordable housing, including community development corporations. We visited El
Centro de la Raza, which has a great history in Seattle as a community organization and providing housing,
funding through local government bonds, CDBG funding, TIF funding.
community use of vacant buildings, and various forms of social housing. There was a lot of discussion
about how housing is a resource and a human right, and it should not be primarily an investment vehicle,
so decommodification of housing. In our capitalist society, this is very difficult, but communities
have gone the social housing route, and Seattle is a great example of that.
and also preserving existing housing through rehabilitation and eviction protections just cause requirements
for people to be evicted. Third, I went to the Heading Home Regional Housing Summit on April 14th here
in Bloomington. We heard some local success stories about small developers creating and funding affordable
housing. It was noted that scrappiness is one requirement for people trying to get
affordable housing funded. We learned about Streets to Home Indy, which is a collaboration between the
city of Indianapolis, philanthropic organizations, and faith communities to provide housing. Our keynote
speaker was Vu Lee, who's the founder of Nonprofit AF. And just a quote from him here, he used a lot
of humor in his talk, but also really pointedly looking at the systems that have failed people.
And he said we need to stop acting like we are begging for money and recognize that we are partnering
with foundations to fix problems that they are often complicit in creating. So really our systems are
broken and the social service agencies need to be considered partners with funders and not just people
begging and being subjected to all kinds of requirements. And at that
summit we also heard about community land trusts in Bloomington the Avalon Land Trust that Hugh Farrell
talked about and then the Summit Hill Community Development Corporation run by Ryan Still. I just my
last comment is about Donald Trump and his Iran war so it's not related to housing or to local stuff
but I just can't
let this bullshit go on without saying something about it. So Trump's war in Iran has accomplished nothing
except for death and economic havoc. There's no sign of a change in regime to benefit the freedom and
self-determination of the Iranian people. The best outcome we could possibly hope for is that Iran agrees
to intense limits and monitoring of their nuclear capabilities, an agreement the Obama administration
achieved in 2015 and Trump pulled out of during his first term.
So again, pointless actions by a blustering idiot. Finally, I will agree that I would like to see the
land swap with the CIB be pursued. I think this could be a win-win situation for our community. So I
hope that the RDC gives that serious consideration. I am disappointed at their vote on Monday.
I think the idea is not dead. However, and and can be brought forward with other proposals. That's it
Thank you other comments councilman Stasberg Thank you. I just want to report real quick from Plan Commission
The last plan Commission meeting the body recommended several UDO changes And those all came from the
planning department as part of their like annual updates there were several just kind of technical changes
that just corrected language and things and and
Clarified stuff and then there are a few more Substantial things and I assume that we'll be seeing actually
I think we have to see that sometime before summer recess In terms of state guidelines of when it needs
to come to us. So if anybody has any questions on that, you can let me know. Thanks Great. Thank you
other council comments councilmember Rosenberger. Hi. Thank you I just wanted to chime in on the RDC
meeting and the potential Hopefully still for a land swap
I think it's awesome that the CIB that the county transferred the seminary apartment properties to the
CIB. I think the tenants at seminary apartments really love where they live right next to the beeline
and right next to Kroger. It's honestly I think one of the most walkable locations in the city is especially
for folks who might not be able to afford cars. I think a land I'm hoping a land swap is still possible.
I think for sure for me I
Never thought of a land swap as being the whole Bunger Robertson property for the seminary apartments
properties. Those are very different price points. I think seminary apartments has not yet been appraised,
but it was bought for somewhere under three million, and then Bunger Robertson is somewhere between
seven and eight million.
Bunga Robertson is a huge block. It's almost an entire city block so that property can be subdivided
our UDO allows for subdivisions and so we can they already see I'm hoping could look at subdividing
that property so that it is an equitable swap for the seminary square apartments and then we could have
a hotel right where it needs to be
probably at that corner of college and third, and then we can keep, it's a 29 affordable units, naturally
occurring affordable units at seminary apartments. So I think that would be really awesome and I do
encourage the CIB and the RDC to keep talking and doing their very best.
I also just want to say this is one of my favorite weeks of the year. It's a little five week. Love
how people come into town. Love that there are just hundreds of students out there who have been training
all year and four years for these two very special days in April. And as the spiritual and motivational
coach of the Cutters, I would like to say God said, go Cutters. Everybody have a great and safe weekend.
Thank you. Are there any other council comments? Councilmember Rallo Comes to mind that I'm I too am
very supportive of this proposition to swap those properties because It seems to me the the outcome
could be very very good for the community could get the CIB what they they would like in terms of a
site for a hotel and
It isn't a one-to-one in terms of market value of the land, but I think we should keep in mind that
the administration was proposing to give the Bunger Robertson site away Totally so it seems that it
could be feasible But I will wait and see and suspend judgment until we find out more about about that
situation Thanks. Bye
Great, thank you. Anybody else? OK, I will take a stab at it.
Second, what a lot of my colleagues said about their support for a land swap to construct a convention
center hotel. I think we have the opportunity to do something really brave in our community and continue
moving this project along while simultaneously saving housing and one of our beloved nonprofits, My
Sister's Closet. I also just want to report out from a conversation that I had at the Capital Improvement
Board meeting this
Wednesday which is that some of the the hesitancy that I've heard at least on this project is that people
believe this is a building that won't be used well I'm happy to report back that in a lot of our downtown
Bloomington board meetings on which I sit as a member as a representative from council eight groups
have already booked out into 2027 in
January of which the new convention center will be ready. And so a lot of these people that are booking
the space are booking at sight unseen and before it's even ready. So I think when people think about
whether or not this building is going to be useful, if we already have people booking this place sight
unseen, imagine how excited people will be when they see the beautiful building that has been built.
I know that
The Arts Commission has done a lot of really great work on our 1% to the public arts. And I've seen
some of the designs. And nothing's been decided on, but everything looks very cool. So I'll just say
thank you to the Arts Commission. And thank you to the CIB, who's volunteered years of their time at
this point to this community project. And they've all been very, very lovely to work with. So thank you. OK.
Anything else for the good of the order before we move on? In that case, let's move on to reports from
the Office of the Mayor, City Clerk, City Offices, and City of Boards and Commission, which is our flock
report from Chief DeKoff. Please take the stand and do we have a presentation? Okay, no presentation.
Please state your name for the record and begin when you're ready. Thank you.
Good evening council. My name is Mike Decoff. I am the police chief for the city of Bloomington. I'm
here tonight to report on a memo that you received last week regarding flock public safety and its Use
within the Bloomington Police Department So first I want to start with license plate reader technology
has become a very effective and non intrusive tool available to modern law enforcement many departments
across the country and
have solved crimes who otherwise have gone unsolved thanks to this technology. The Bloomington Police
Department has taken deliberate steps to implement FLOC responsibly with strong policy, strict access
controls, and regular audits. Today I wanna walk you through what we have, how we use it, and how we
protect civil liberties in the process. So the equipment that the Bloomington Police Department has
is we have 11 permanently mounted LPR cameras,
Those are license plate reader cameras. They're placed on major red ways into and out of the city and
at key intersections They capture still photos of license plates on public roads only We have
four permanently mounted video cameras in the downtown area. They replaced some cameras Roughly a year
ago that had been there for many years that had worn out they are not monitored in real time, but they
record so that if there's an incident and we need to go back and see what happened, we're able to pull
up that video. A recent example is the IU National Championship celebration where we had approximately
5,000 people converge on Kirkwood and they helped us monitor the event and keep it safe. We also have
four mobile trailers that have video. Some of them have LPR technology and some of them have gunshot
detection technology. They are not permanent, they are deployed
When problems arise at different places around the city Those were purchased by the hand department
after apartment complex complaints that involve vandalism theft drug dealing and weapons calls We've
also used those in the downtown area in parking lots at nights and on weekends due to increased disturbances
that we have had in those areas and after several calls involving weapons
What LPR does and doesn't do. What LPR captures is a still photo of the rear of a vehicle and its license
plate as it travels on a public road. The photo and a time stamp and that's it, nothing more. LPR does
not collect vehicle registration, name, address. It's not linked. It doesn't do facial recognition.
It doesn't contain video footage. It doesn't collect demographic information or personal identifiers.
Or does it assign risk scores or crime predictions? This tool simply supports investigations and it
does not forecast behavior. On the privacy side, cameras are pointed only at public roadways. The same
observation that any officer or citizen could make that stands on a street.
There's no software that is used to create patterns or associations between individuals' activities,
and they're not placed near sensitive locations such as reproductive health facilities, churches, mosques,
or temples. Talk a little bit about the access, audits, and data protection. So access is limited to
sworn officers and data analysts within the Bloomington Police Department. All users must complete in-house
training on policy and usage before gaining access to the system.
Every search requires an active case or an event number and a stated reason why the search was made.
You cannot search just because. The system also employs a drop-down menu with pre-programmed reasons
for searches such as theft, weapons, different types of crimes that might occur. The system logs who
searched when the event number and why.
System audits are conducted every 60 days to ensure compliance. Data retention is currently set at 30
days, then permanently deleted unless entered as evidence in a criminal case. Policy violations are
subject to discipline up to and including termination. BPD does not participate in the national FLOC
network. Data is shared only with other Indiana law enforcement agencies. FLOC does not sell BPD data.
BPD owns 100% of the data collected.
I just want to highlight a couple of cases where we've had successes with the FLOC LPR technology. Within
the last year, there was a kidnapping where the subject vehicle was followed to the Kentucky state line
using the FLOC network. The victim, fortunately, was recovered safely after a pursuit and a crash of
that vehicle at the state line.
The technology was used to assist the Owen County Sheriff's Office in a homicide that they investigated.
The vehicle was located, later confirmed driven by the suspect, leading to an arrest. There was a sexual
assault case that was used where the suspect's vehicle was identified. A timeline was set up. We finally
found the vehicle, interviewed the owner of that vehicle, which they confessed to the crime and they
were later charged with rape.
Another homicide where there was a vague description of a vehicle. The data was analyzed over several
days and we were able to identify a suspect and make an arrest on a murder charge. Within the last couple
of months, there was a homicide in Westfield, Indiana. That vehicle was recovered in Bloomington and
helped them process that crime. And the most recent
The flock success story was just last night. There was a woman who was beaten in the head with a hammer
and stabbed. The suspect left. We were able to get flock information on that suspect vehicle and we
made an arrest this morning and charged that person with attempted homicide. Little bit about contracts.
The 11 LPR cameras and operating system
was signed in February of 2024 for $40,650. There's an annual renewal of $36,500. That renewal was not
signed this year, and that contract has been canceled. There are four downtown video cameras that was
signed in September of 2024. The initial amount was $15,000 a year, and then subsequent years were $12,000 a year.
And the four mobile trailers, there's a current agreement that was signed in October of 2025. And those
are roughly, I believe, 90,000 a year for two trailers each. All agreements were sole-sourced, approved
at the department level without border commission approval. The total program cost to date is $236,829.68.
In closing, I would like to say that
Flock is a powerful investigative tool. When it's used responsibly, it contributes to solving serious
crimes in our community. We have built in meaningful safeguards, we have strong policies, strong training,
strong audits, and we also restrict sharing. I will welcome any questions. As I stated earlier, the
Flock contracts were not renewed, and so the LPR
Contract actually ends at the end of this weekend I'll take any questions you might have. Thank you
questions Councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, thank you for the report Which contract was not renewed
because it seems like there are at least four different contracts here listed the license plate reader
contract expired and so that one has not been renewed and we are still
Working through the process of ending the other contracts, but the LPR system just ended so that that
will go away This weekend the other contracts we still have to terminate and that is a legal process
that I am NOT going to comment on I will let the attorneys talk about that Is it can anyone give an
estimate of when those can be Terminated and is there a possibility of just?
covering those cameras While we wait for the termination to take place Well, those are video cameras
that have been up for many years If that is the direction that we want to do and just do away with the
downtown video cameras But we are looking at replacing the flock cameras with other brands so that it's
not tied to the flock network
Thank you, Council Member Asari. Thank you so much, Chief DeKoff, and hi colleagues. I just had a question,
have a couple of questions, but because we're thinking about this in the broader sense, not just in
reaction to flux specifically.
But I'm interested on this, on the process of procurement. And particularly, you mentioned both in the
report and just now said again that I think the word was sole, this was a sole source purchase. And
could you explain a little bit
about why that's the type of purchase that doesn't need to come for board approval. And then the follow-up
question is what was the sort of formal justification, if you will, for sole source designation?
I'm Margie rice and the corporation council. I can address that question so Hello, so the issue of sole
source contracts is always brought to legal and the controller and it's generally when there's a unique
provider or a unique product you want that either has features or Capabilities that somebody else doesn't
provide so if an apartment wants to sole source something that
It does have to be verified by the controller Obviously legal talks about it as part of the contract
and so this I wasn't Necessarily involved in the departmental conversations about the options that they
were looking at but I know that this one did pass the test with a controller and
And what's the test when we talk about the test with the controller? What is that test? Generally, if
there are specific features that other vendors don't have, that there's something unique about this
product. And so that would have been a conversation between the department and the controller. And the
controller would have to essentially say, yeah, I agree with you, that this is a unique product, a unique
vendor, and there's nothing else out there. You can't send it out to bid and get 12 different options.
that meets the qualifications. So it means that we're buying a thing for one of the specific features
that it has that we're saying none of the others, we probably consider other vendors for LPRs, we say
none of them have this particular set or this particular feature. And this is a governance question,
I'm not interested, I'm not, what do you call it,
This is this isn't like to point fingers or anything. I'm just curious then does that get recorded like
what the purpose, you know, what was the the justification for This sole purpose purchase You know,
I I know that there is documentation in the controller's office about the the justification that's not
in my department So I'm not sure what that looks like for every single
contract, Julie Martintale in the controller's office is generally the person who looks at those and
reviews them, and we could certainly get you information about what that looked like for this one. Yeah,
and again, I'm more interested in the process if it's the controller who alone says, okay, yeah, I agree
with your assessment that this is a unique feature, therefore approved for purchase versus just trying
to think about when we should trigger
broader governance oversight and from from other bodies and when we when we look at these type
of Technologies that makes sense. We definitely want to pass the sniff test and are not just soul sourcing
everything because somebody likes a particular vendor Right. Excellent. I have some other questions,
but I'll let my colleagues go other first round councilmember Rallo Yeah, I happened I support the canceling
of the flock
contract It seems that there are numerous cases of abuse and misuse and privacy violations by flock
But apart from that you you obviously find it your department finds it a Useful tool there's no doubt
that it could be used in such a way My fear is that you know, where does it where does it stop? Do we
have these sort of
creeping network of surveillance that that Eventually is dispersed throughout the entire community that
is used You know, yes with restrictions those could go away in time, of course Is that the direction
that law enforcement is heading generally speaking not just the Bloomington Police Department, but is
that a Desired outcome. I don't think so. I understand your concerns. I
But at the time we were looking at this technology, it was not this council, it was the previous council,
encouraged me to look to technology to solve some of our staffing problems. So that's what we did.
And so, you know, I have concerns about some of this, that's why we tried to build in as many safeguards
as we can. You know, I'm not concerned about
our agency, but I understand the concerns about other agencies and how they use the data. And so I'm
just saying that it is a useful tool to help us solve violent crimes. And so if we don't have it, we'll
just resort back to the way we used to do things, and it will probably take us longer. There will probably
be some that we won't solve,
will do everything in our power to resolve cases that we're working on with the means that we have.
I don't dispute that it's a useful tool. I think that, you know, I understand. It's just the trade-off
in terms of surveillance, privacy, and so forth that I think is our concern. And I think it's a proven concern.
I think that we've seen the misuse around the country. And so it's alarming to me that it's been utilized
in ways that is above and beyond what you describe. But I look forward to talking to you. Sure, no,
like I said, I understand your concerns. I think we live in a world where technology is taking over.
I would bet that probably every person in this room has a cell phone. And the information that that
cell phone captures
is way more than a flat camera. That being said, we don't have access to everyone's cell phones. So
in a broader technology conversation, you're right. I mean, there are more and more cameras prevalent.
Indiana University probably has the largest supply of video cameras in the county.
Other places use LPR technology. But again, I understand that there are concerns about privacy and things
like that. We tried to use it very responsibly in a time when we were really understaffed. Our numbers
are coming back up. So that was an option that we had that we took advantage of.
Thank you You mentioned consideration of other services That would do some of these things. Can you
talk a little bit about how you're Assessing those other services that might kind of replace flock And
what you might be doing? So we haven't done anything yet. That is a conversation that I
Plan to have with the mayor's office and see what direction that she wants us to go and looking at other
technology options To see how we can use those to assist us when we do our jobs Others questions
Councilmember, sorry
Thank you so much, and again, thank you to Dukov and Margie. Didn't get a chance to say thank you before
you sat down. My next sort of queries were about sort of questions of effectiveness, particularly, because
I appreciate the cases that you highlighted, but I guess I'm curious about
how many cases, for example, in the last year, relied materially on flock data versus cases where it
was incidental, or maybe like a different way of asking that is thinking about what percentage of total
investigations involve LPR queries. So what I'm interested in is both whether you view
And I think I know the answer to this question, but you view LPR data as critical, i.e. we would not
have solved this thing were it not for LPR data. It's sort of question one. But then my follow-up is
that, are we now just routinely using LPR data in all investigations? And so when do you decide we're going to
to query the system for LPR for license plates in the course of investigation? So sort of three questions.
I'm sorry. I think most agencies use LPR data when they have no leads to follow up on. So some of those
cases that I mentioned where we had some successes in making arrests, those were cases where we had
no leads to follow up on.
Or we might have had something very, very vague or something like that where someone started querying
the system. And I just want to highlight there was a report that last year it said I think we used it
9,000 times. You have to keep in mind that every, we could have one query, the same query that's asked
25 times of the system, and it tracks each one. So it wasn't 9,000 separate cases that we used Flock
for, it was just 9,000 times it was queried for information. So it might have only been 500 cases, I
don't know. That type of information we hadn't kept, so your question about how many times it's been six,
I can't tell you that because that's not something that we tracked. I just know the serious violent
crimes that we've solved with it. And then is there some type of a process that the detectives would
go through to sort of trigger the use of any of this data? Or is it,
You know can they just in the courts of any investigation use it right dude is there is there some type
of thing that says okay now Now I do it and I need to go through some protocol of reporting that I'm
about to do it Or is it just a tool that's available to them like any other tool It's a tool that's
available like any other tool if there I mean I can't imagine they would query it if they do you know
they had a suspect already and they had a lot of information that's not something that they would do and
but it's used mostly when there aren't suspects or there isn't information that's readily available
right now that's gonna help us solve a violent crime. Okay, thank you so much, Chief. I have one more
set of questions, but I'll wait for Madam Chair to call.
Yes, absolutely what we've reached our report time, but I think this is a conversation that everyone
wants to have including our audience So if it is alright with everyone up here, I will extend the Report
time for another 20 minutes and we will reevaluate there Great and for the good of the order that would
be 727 so keep an eye on the clock other questions Councilmember Piedmont Smith
Yes, so the outside sharing of data from our flock cameras has been curtailed as of, what, April 15th?
Is that right? That was? Yes. I think that was the day, yeah. That day was the memo. It was last week.
But isn't it true that flock safety still has access to that data?
It's been turned off. We control that at the department level, and so we've turned all that off so they
don't have access to that. So the data that's collected by the ALPRs in the last week, isn't that data
stored by Flock Safety? I mean, isn't it part of the contract that they obtain that data
and make it available to BPD? The information that I have received is they do not have any more, the
data has been turned off, the stream has been turned off. And so nobody can access our data. Only we
can access it, nobody else can, so it's not being shared with anybody else. So when you access the data,
where do you access it from? We access it from Flock.
Okay, so it's data on the cloud. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It's data on the cloud like in an internet server.
Yes. Okay. And there have been problems with flock safety securing that data in the past. Yeah, that's
what people are saying. Okay. And then I just wanted to follow up on something I had mentioned in my
previous question. And especially since the
The end of contract only affects the ALPRs and not the other cameras. Can we physically turn off and
ensure they are off the other cameras whose contract has not expired yet? Yes, we can. And does Flock
have any power to go in and turn the back on? Because this has happened in other communities where like
Evansville, Illinois said,
We want you to turn the cameras off and that would be turned back on by flock If we decide to turn them
off, it would be hard for them to turn them on if we disconnect the power Okay, and that is that your
plan for the other cameras whose contract has not ended That is a conversation that the mayor and I
are going to have we've not had that conversation yet, but but yes She does not want us to continue
having any flock products. So that is that will happen
Okay. Can that happen before the contracts are actually terminated? It will happen before the con. Yeah,
we have to figure out the legal part of the contracts and how that's going to play out. But we can turn
those off, you know, when we want. Okay. I would love to get a commitment from the mayor to turning
them off as soon as possible. Thank you. Other questions?
Council Member Asari, did you have more questions? Yes, thank you. Just one last set and again thank
you all for your patience. A little bit interested in if we were to think about
transparency and public reporting, both, I guess, in terms of procurement, but certainly in terms of
use. I'm interested if the chief has any thoughts on what that might look like. So as we think about
any use in maybe a more expensive way, what would your opinion be on how
that type of public reporting and sort of transparency guidelines would work, should work. Yeah, so
I think we can research to see what other departments do. I'm sure there are other departments that
have public transparency portals. We can look at that. The only thing that I would want to look at more
closely is how we report data and we don't compromise
any of our criminal investigations that we're doing. And I'm sure there's a way to do that. I'm sure
we would not be the first agency to do a public transparency portal on data. So we would just look around
and see what everybody else is doing and figure out a good system that works for us. And then just to
bring the full loop, in terms of
In terms of officer use or detective use, and I know you said a baseline that's clearly reported. I
think you said that searches have to be tied to an event. I think you said that it's audited every 60
days. What are you looking for in the 60-day audits? Who conducts those audits? Are they internal, independent?
What sort of percentage of searches are reviewed when we do those audits? And then also, are you tracking,
because you talked about how improper use can result in anything up to firing, but how are you tracking
improper use?
Find out when sort of some type of unusual query behavior occurs or anything like that and have you
had to insert a last question. I know it's a barrel question. I'm sorry, but have you had to take any
disciplinary actions around around flock use so far? We have not had to take any disciplinary action.
There have been some training issues that were addressed with officers. So when we do an audit it we
basically get a report of every query that was done.
to the system with who did it, the dates, times, reasons. A lot of that information is, well, it's all
reviewed by one supervisor that writes a report that goes to his supervisor that is reviewed. And then,
again, any problems that are identified
So far, there have just been some minor training ones about filling out the reports the right way. And
even with those, there's only a couple usually with each audit that we find. And does that include external
queries? So even though you all say you have control over it, if somebody else has queried the data,
does that somehow get logged
Yeah, so if another agency queries it, we get that information and then we review the circumstances
of their inquiry and how they used it and if they followed the same protocols that we have in place
for our officers. And in the case that you have that sharing turned on,
does that querying happen automatically and it just gets logged or is there a you all decide whether
or not to share it type of stage that happens in between? So both. It depends on what type of query
it is. For instance, if we enter a like a amber alert or a silver alert or something like that where
we put in quite a bit of information and
someone would run, a plate would hit, and another agency would get notification, they would get more
information because we've already entered it into the National Crime Information Center database, which
is a national computer that tracks missing persons, all kinds of things related to the criminal justice
system. And so those types of queries, because it's something
a safety issue usually, they would get more information and that we would still get that information.
But if it's somebody that is inquiring about a specific vehicle, maybe being, if it's another agency
that's investigating something and that vehicle hits in Bloomington, then they would get a notification
that it hit in Bloomington and then they would reach out to us. And does that happen even with that
sharing feature turned off?
It doesn't happen with the sharing feature turned off. No outside agency gets any hits from anything
captured on a Bloomington LPR camera. Okay. And my final question, I promise I will sit down and not
speak again. So the county has ALPRs as well.
what's the process of sharing, not sharing, et cetera, with the sheriff's department, with
Indiana University, et cetera. We have turned off all sharing, so they receive no information from our
cameras. OK. Thank you so much. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Any other questions? OK.
Thank you, Chief Deakoff.
And then am I correct in assuming that there are people in the audience tonight who would like to speak
on a flock issue? Okay. At this point in time, I'm happy to entertain a motion to suspend the rules
and allow public comment for the flock report. Second. Okay, there's been a movement and a second. Will
the clerk please call the roll to suspend the rules to allow public comment for the flock report? Is
this debatable?
Is it a debatable motion? Can I? Point of information. I don't believe that it is. Oh, okay. Councillor
Allen. Okay. Apologies. It is not a debatable motion. That's okay. I just had a counter proposal. Okay.
Well, I think we have a motion on the table to suspend the rules and allow public comment.
For this moment in time and not there would be another period of general public comment. This would
just be for Council or excuse me comment on this report Sure How long would that period of public comment
be if we had the public comment right now as opposed to rolling public comment over into the public
comment period I believe councilmember Rallo made the motion. I
That's efficient. Okay, and maybe why don't we just roll it into normal public comment? Well Well, we
could do either but why don't we do 20 minutes limiting? I don't know three minutes per speaker like
that. Okay, and do you carry your second councilmember daily? Great in that case, will the clerk please
call the roll and
Stasberg. Yes, he months Smith Suleik. Yes, sorry Yes, daily. Yes Rallo. Yes Ruff Rosenberger Thank
you that passes nine
so if anyone who's interested in speaking on this flock report could gather at the microphone and Write
your name and when you get up to the mic, please state your name and then you'll each have three minutes
to speak It is currently 722 we will continue with public comment until 742 And can we get the timer
on the thank you, okay great, thank you I
Speaker number one, if you could state your name if you'd like. You have three minutes. Hello. Hey,
I'm Sam Dixon, a local worker here. I've been here in Bloomington for the past eight years. Firstly,
just thanks to the council for passing resolution 2026-04. I think that was an important moment that
brought us to today, having transparency for the community, transparency to the public about the use
of technologies like Flock.
kind of a big deal to have this after years of having struggles with FOIA requests for data on the system.
So I appreciate that action. I was at first pretty confused by the mayor's announcement about
the cancellation, but I'm happy that a lot of the questions I had about that were kind of worked out
in the question process just now here. One of those was,
when are we actually gonna have the cameras taken down? That is kinda my most principle concern because
if the contracts are expired or expiring and if we're making a commitment to move away from this technology,
what stops us from putting a black bag over it or just taking it down and putting it in a shed tomorrow?
And then, just to keep it brief, my follow-up to that would be in looking for
potential replacement vendors, potential technologies that do a similar thing but with less flagrant
risks. My suggestion to everyone, the police, the mayor, the council, would be just not to have a mass
surveillance system at all. So we don't need more cameras. We don't need to be watched at all times.
We don't need a continual expansion of the police state and the surveillance state. That doesn't help anybody.
And so I would ask that you consider that option and not consider it absolutely necessary that police
should be surveilling everybody at all times. So thank you.
Thank you. And then also if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand and we will get you. And there's
one speaker on Zoom? Okay, great. Speaker on Zoom, we will get to you after this next speaker in chambers.
You can go ahead and state your name and you'll have three minutes. Hi, my name is Chris Doran. I'm
a Bloomington resident. I would encourage, first of all, I'd like to thank the council and on behalf
of many of us who are working on this issue for
The resolution, clearly it seems there's good news from what the Chief DeKoff said, that essentially
the contracts are going to be canceled. I think I speak for many in this room, including some members
of council who do not trust the mayor on this issue. I don't understand if the contracts are gonna be
canceled, why it took from March 5th until now, but anyway, it still seems to be good news.
The police chief also, I've skipped over a few things. Mainly, the biggest issue is that Flock has control
of this data. He clearly was a little bit confused as to whether they did, whether they have control
during this time. We know that other municipalities have canceled contracts. Flock has ignored it. Flock,
they've taken down the cameras. Flock has put the cameras back up. They claim it's private property.
So clearly,
this corporation has way too much power. And also, goodness gracious, the bullshit of both the mayor
and the police chief and not recognizing SV-57, the state of Indiana passed a law saying that he,
the mayor, everyone in this room has to cooperate with federal law enforcement regarding immigration.
So these ludicrous statements in the mayor's report and in the chief,
Police Chief Deakoff's report essentially saying the information won't be shared that's only in Bloomington,
etc. That clearly is not true.
They don't have control of that. And so I speak of, I want to support my colleague Sam who just spoke
that essentially we don't want mass surveillance. This has been going on for a while. The resolution
was pretty clear about if there can't be acceptable alternatives. The concern is that the mayor and
the police department are just going to find another license plate reader, which is very concerning.
And yes, there are, you know, that's great. I would really encourage the council
to do a, I don't know if you have to do a Freedom of Information report, but I would bet about half
those reports that the mayor cited are bullshit, right? That the ALPR might have helped, but essentially
it wasn't the key deciding factor. And so if we're gonna have mass surveillance, why don't we have it
everywhere? Why don't we have it in all our homes? Why don't we have it on ourselves? And the statement
that our cell phones have as much
can have more information than our cell phones are not connected to a national database that can be
accessed by ICE. So this is one of the primary things I would encourage the governance that is going
to happen relative to this. No mass surveillance, no ALPR, license plate readers, and certainly none
that can be shared with the state of Indiana who we don't trust or the federal government we don't trust.
Thank you. Thank you.
Apologies, we are going to go to our Zoom commenter now. You will be unmuted or asked to unmute, and
then you'll have three minutes. Thank you. This is Kevin Keough. Talking about this, the first impression
I had is you would think the police department would have some technical expertise, especially for cyber
crimes. And I don't know exactly how their staff there, but you would think they would have some capacity there.
But talking about some of the best practices, one that really gets to me is the 60-day audits. To me,
that's a post-mortem. I would much rather hear that you have an intrusion detection system or intrusion
prevention system that was used. I would also hope there would be automated alerts. You're logging all
this, there's tools out there you can use to give alerts. It would be much better.
But the key is the technology is going to continue to progress. There are going to be good tools to
use, but with that comes the responsibility to use them correctly and use best practices. So I think
it'd be a great investment to have the personnel, the resources that are highly skilled in this area
that could promote the security and the privacy issues and would
be a great source for training within the department and also the entire community and the workforce
with the city. So I think there's a lot going on here. Technology, yes, is going to continue. It's going
to continue to creep into everything we do. But we need to do the best we can to secure what we can
and do it at a high level. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers, if you could state
your name for the record, you'll have three minutes. Yes.
I'm Bryce green. I am a Bloomington resident and have been for around 10 years I'd like to echo basically
everything everyone was saying up here about being against not just flock this company and its ills
But also it's the concept of mass surveillance in general. We don't need to be watched all the time
We don't need the technology that is watching people all the time and even if we did all you know believe
in the inherent goodness of the Bloomington Police Department like like people have said
Other agencies will have access to this regardless of whether or not you flick a setting on a given
piece of software. And I'd also like to point out a couple things that I think are pretty alarming that
other people have mentioned before is that the police chief doesn't seem to understand how the internet works.
or how data works in that when you give your data to a company to store so you can access it from a
portal that's on your computer, it means that the data is stored on someone else's computer. And that
someone else might not be as noble and gallant as the Bloomington Chief of Police. And so we can't trust
it. It's as simple as that.
And so I really wanna encourage the council to not only move forward with getting rid of flock as much
as possible, you all seem to be on board with that, but also to explore new ways or ordinances or decrees
that prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Because like Homie said, this technology
will progress. There's always gonna be a tool that is very useful to police people.
Like and it's gonna be sold and it's gonna be sold as you know a new way to prevent people from being
violently attacked that will always be the justification the question is whether or not Bloomington
should contribute to a generalized police state or should it be You know look at either look at other
models or lead by example one of these municipalities that is actively fighting against it, you know,
I don't invoke a
you know, Americanism a lot, but it seems to me a very American idea to be against the constant surveillance
of individuals. All right, I'll give the rest of my time back. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker in
chambers, please, if you could state your name. And you'll have three minutes. Hi, I'm Rebecca Stoops.
Lived in Bloomington my whole life.
Thank you for ending the Flock contract. That's really wonderful to hear. I hate being spied on. I don't
like the idea of being tracked every time I'm driving down Walnut Street. I'm frustrated to hear that
they're going to investigate partnering with a new company. Being in local government, you might not
be familiar with the corporate world nowadays. Things are changing fast.
Nowadays, companies break contracts and break laws as part of doing business. They build it into their
business model. It seems like it shouldn't happen. It does. It happens all the time. You shouldn't trust
private companies, third parties, with information as precious as where Bloomingtonians are going every
day. I want to remind you that
The surveillance data is designed to be sold and given away. Whether we tell them not to, they're very
likely doing it. We live under an unhinged dictator who, on a whim, could mandate the city to give all
of our location data, or mandate whatever company we partner with, or mandate their third party data
storage partner.
It's extremely messy. Once the data is out there, it's out. We're just giving it to them on a silver
platter. So please just cut it off. Stop spying. Stop building mass surveillance. Yeah, I think we can
get somewhere better with this. And thank you for listening to us. Thank you. Do we have any other comments on Zoom?
Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes if you could state your name. That'd be great Hi,
my name is Maria bull I've moved here for school and I'm staying for the summer and stuff like that
I just wanted to comment on the police chief's comment about our cell phones being giving the same amount
of data that flock uses or less or more than it I can like
There's a difference between a flock camera and my phone. I can turn my phone off. I can opt out of
this. Whereas with flock cameras, they're seeing you all the time and you can't really be like, hey,
I'm gonna turn this off and not be available to it. And then I wanted to comment on something that I
felt the other day before I was really getting into this and learning more about what the city of Bloomington
is doing with flock. But I saw a flock camera the other day and I was driving back from Indianapolis
and I was like,
Like a shiver of fear ran down my spine of like, unsettlement. I think an important part of this is
the psychological element of being watched all the time. You're fearful. You're like, what am I going
to do? Like, what are they seeing? You know, are they seeing my private conversations? That sort of
thing. There's just kind of an element of fear that I think is present that I think needs to be considered
and not inflicted upon the residents of Bloomington. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker in chambers, please.
state your name, and you'll have three minutes. Hi, my name is Kevin Ratcliffe. I was born in Bloomington,
lived here most of my life. I came to address the mayor and the police chief, and oh, well, it seems
they're gone. So I will yield my time to the gentleman behind me. OK, thank you.
Next speaker in chambers if you could state your name for the record, that'd be lovely and then you'll
have three minutes Hello, my name is seaforth breeze I've been a Bloomington resident for over ten years
somewhere in that range And yeah, I've come before the council before to speak on this issue as I'm
sure y'all remember I have a thought camera that's looking directly down onto my porch and
It does impact me on a daily basis in terms of exactly the point that one of the last speakers brought
up, which is just the psychological effect of always living with that. I mean, the exit to go to work
or even to leave the neighborhood that I live in is there as well. So I am always under surveillance
the moment I leave my house to the moment I get back to my house. I also wanted to speak though and stood up
on the point of the fact that this technology or this technique or this process being sort of like perceived
as uniquely valuable and therefore having to be implemented, right? Which is always brought up in questions
of security and of sort of policing this notion that you have this tool and there's this temptation
to use it, right?
When I was younger, I remember reading some of the Senate reports on enhanced interrogation techniques,
torture, that the United States did. And it was one of the things that was hammered so many times in
that report is the fact that the reason why folks felt it was necessary or the logic behind it was this
idea that it could provide something that couldn't be got any other way. And at the end of the day,
there were exactly two cases out of hundreds in which they got
unique, actionable information, and of those two cases, there was other intelligence that they had received
that got them there at the same time, effectively. So, whenever we have questions about implementing,
you know, sweeping security, sort of like surveillance, or of, you know, sort of like, I mean,
it's just, it's there, that temptation.
But we always have to remember that that temptation is not something that we can act upon because it
just puts us into situations like we are in right now with protesters having pressure applied upon them
and asylum seekers who are hiding right now in many states across the United States. And finally, on
the point of
the police chief saying that, oh, you know, I don't think we would move towards that direction of,
you know, expanding it to, you know, more streets or, you know, more invasive into more, you know, sort
of like public spaces. That is just not how it works. We've already made that choice to implement it
once, so that logic is obviously, you know, not holding so much water there. And then I think about
my current job where people talk about putting it in the buildings, not for the LOPs, but just cameras.
Thank you very much. That's your time Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes if you could
state your name, that'd be awesome Hi, Seth much Laura Bloomington residents. Thank you all very much
for your questions Particularly councilmember Piedmont Smith. I appreciate you really holding the chief
to task on how
cloud storage works. I'm gonna keep this really brief, because then we have a long night. I know that
all of you have received a report about the office, the legal department withholding information through
the public records request. If anybody has not read this report, it is on Bloom Docs, big ups to Dave
Askins. And the county, the city legal department lied to members of the public and withheld these contracts
saying they
blatantly did not exist in some cases for up to 15 months across multiple public record requests. And
so I would like to ask the council to please begin a formal investigation of the legal department,
particularly their public records request process, because they have been lying to the public.
Thank you. Next speaker. If you could state your name for the record, that would be awesome. You'll
have three minutes. Thank you.
Name is miles and I think that we've made just a small step in the right direction with cutting the
contract with a brand name of surveillance camera like flock safety and Maybe more important step would
be banning the a ALPR technology altogether The same
Circumstance happened in Denver, for example where the mayor was pressured to change from flock safety
to a different company called axon and I think it's very telling that the mayor and the chief of police
You know value their privacy they can leave not confront their constituents But but they couldn't care
less about their constituents privacy when ALPR cameras are spying on us every day and
So thank you. Thank you. And that. Go ahead. Take your name for the record please. Yes. My name is Haley
to Bloomington resident and I'll be just one more voice saying the things that have already been said.
But I just really appreciate
everyone sitting up here for their work and their tough questions, because as one of my colleagues alluded
to, it's been really hard to get answers about this stuff, which feels like a huge problem. So I celebrate
the chief's commitment to disabling all flock cameras. We will be holding them to it. But speaking more
generally about governance going forward, I think I stand with everyone here who says that
We want to limit mass surveillance wherever possible and not just replacing flock with another private
company that may have all of the same foibles. And at a bare minimum, if this level of data is going
to be collected on us, the public should have the ability to weigh in on whether
these tools are valuable to us. You know, there's pros and cons here, like we've all talked about, and
we have a right to the full accounting of pros and cons. That means we should have had access to these
contracts from the beginning. We should, you know, as the chief talks about how helpful these tools
have been to them, I would like to see that justified in clearance, right? So I think that, you know,
There should be data about how these tools are being used that the public should have a right to see.
And yeah, there should be a real conversation that we have a place in. And yeah, so just can't say it
enough. Transparency, super important here. And no more mass surveillance. Please and thank you. Thank
you very much.
Just I'll say thank you to all of our public commenters I know that this is a scary and difficult subject
for many of us and it is very very brave to get up in front of city and Government and say your piece
and so thank you very much I promise that this is not going to be the last time that council discusses
this issue moving on to council committees, it seems we have a committee report on from the committee
on council processes and
Councilmember Piedmont Smith take it away Yeah, this is brief So in the packet for today, there is a
document called procedures with discussion of ordinances at first reading So that is following through
on a vote that was taken in February by this council to allow discussion of legislation during first
reading and it normally When we have an ordinance at first reading
It is literally just read into the record, and there's no discussion, no questions, no presentation,
nothing. So now, going forward, we're going to have the ordinance read into the record, and then have
a presentation of the ordinance, have council member questions on the ordinance, have public comment
on the ordinance, and limited to 30 minutes. And then it'll be moved to a second reading, where there'll
be follow-up questions, not a whole repeat.
of what was at first reading, but follow-up questions, final public comment, and final vote,
in most cases, unless we move to third reading, which we can't. Anyway, it's not, you won't see that
in action tonight because we don't have any ordinances for first reading, but I just want to make sure
the public understands that this system is changing, so when we have an ordinance for first reading
from now on,
There will be a presentation and discussion of it. That's all. Great. Thank you so much. Now we will
be moving on to general comments from the public about anything that is not on the agenda. If you would
like to speak, please come up to the podium, sign in, and state your name for the public. You'll have
three minutes. If you're on Zoom and you'd like to speak, please raise your hand and we will come get
you. First commenter in chambers, please.
Hello, God bless America. Cool, okay. You know, if you leave here and you drive down Walnut Street,
say you're leaving here to take a virtual tour, go down Walnut Street to 1900 Block, you guys know where
the Herald Times is?
What is that in the road? That thing is about 15 feet wide and that thing has been like that for years
That is a that is a contractor to commit a bloomington. I know their name, but i'm not going to drag
them through the mud right now but you know You hit that thing it's it's bad You know, it's like you
you call the mayor's office sometimes to the client. Well, does anybody else complain? No, you know
But anyway, i'm gonna go off the rails you that for instance
if you go here to Third Street by the car wash, there's a problem over there, and there's a thing in
the road. And I asked the mayor, I said, this thing is horrendous. Has anybody called? Not a single
person. Why? Why don't people call when there's a problem with the road, right? I'm retired, I got lots
of time. I drive Bloomington Roads a lot. But you know, back down there, they should have to come in,
the developer,
But our contractor, you know not have to come in and fix that That's something that the street department
shouldn't have to do but they do fabulous Street Department does fabulous work. They got some great
workers Danny Bittner Joe Van Diemen or Ron Arthur All kinds of great guys there but you know Why should
they have to go back and fix that if you if you drive down through there and you hit that I guarantee
you're gonna say I think I know what he's talking about
And that thing's been like that. I'm not gonna call street department. That guy, them people should
have to come and fix that. That thing's horrendous. And when people run over stuff like that in the
road, it's a utility cut is what it is. They come in, cobbled it in, threw some cold mix on it, and left it.
That's unacceptable and they should have to be putting signs out by the road when they're doing them
work that jobs of their name of who they are that's doing that stuff and That's like over on 3rd Street
by the car wash They left a thing in the road about three feet wide about five feet long For a month
called him there. No one's called that in. Well, okay. I called street They come right up there and
fixed that man They was right on that
Thank you very much, that's your time. Don't forget your drink. Yes, okay, if the next speaker would
like to approach the podium, and you'll have three minutes, if you could state your name, that'd be
great. Hello, Bryce again. Talking this time about what you guys were talking about at the top of this
meeting, which is the land swap that's going on right now, or that we're trying to get going right now.
I'm sure you all know the details but one of the issues that came up at the RDC meeting this Monday
was the the City Council's letter of I believe May 24 requesting that the the property
I always call it across the street from Atlas, but the North property, property north of Convention
Center, that that property not be sold for less than its value, than the price that they paid for it.
Some of the RDC members were concerned that the land swap would go against that, but based on what I've
heard today, at least a number of you are in favor of that land swap, while also being a signatory to
that letter asking for
That the money to be recouped and so You know, I'm asking that if not in this setting here that your
position on the land swap specifically Be made clear. I mean if you want to put it in writing and like
a little resolution that would also be cool Is it like no? Well, we didn't want to impede any affordable
housing development, please Transfer the land. I think that would go a long way because and
This is also a time-sensitive thing. The leases for those tenants ends in July. And bureaucracy
is bureaucracy. It'll take a lot to get things settled, to get things through. The best hope for the
tenants to stay there is for the CIB, the board that currently owns that south property, to extend the leases.
Now, the only reason that they would do that, and they don't wanna be landlords, the only reason that
they would do that is if there was some sort of guarantee from the RDC that that property would then,
the RDC wouldn't, that they would do something with it. And the tenants and other organizers are putting
together a proposal, and there'll be emails going to all of you,
soon about presentation of that proposal and an event that'll try and enroll you in the community in
ensuring that that Seminary Point property remains affordable. Yeah, so I think that the more you can
say today in favor of that and saying that you are willing to
offloaded from the RDC's hands onto a either a nonprofit entity or a community land trust or a Cooperative
or what have you that would give the RDC? Good reason to go ahead with this transfer and would also
give the CIB good reason to extend the leases all those things are necessary for You know these people
to stay in affordable housing housing. Thank you. Thank you the next
Is there any speaker on zoom? Okay, great. We'll take the next person in chambers and then we'll go
to the speaker on zoom You'll have three minutes if you could state your name for the record,
that'd be great. Thank you. This is c4th again I'd like to extend appreciation for many of the council
members who Expressed a desire to keep the jail in or as close to the Bloomington City limits as possible
rather than to North Park
If I'm remembering correctly, there was a statement recently. I hate to interrupt you. This is on the
agenda, so you will have the opportunity to speak about this later. Absolutely. Thank you very much.
Sorry. I had another thing I was going to mention, but now I can't remember it. Thank you. Next speaker.
Oh, I'm sorry. On Zoom. If you could unmute yourself, you'll have three minutes.
Hi, my name is Sam, I live in Bloomington and have worked in the field of cybersecurity for about eight
years now. There's a lot of good discussion we had around data and trust. And I want to just make a
few points, give a few examples to make that a little bit more clear. When you're trusting a third party
that has control over the computers in which the data is stored.
You have to trust, at the end of the day, you have to trust them to guard that data properly. And there
are a number of ways that that can fail. The simplest is they break the law. They decide to show the
data that they said they weren't going to. Or there could be an insider that has access to the system,
either digitally or physically, that can get access to that data. It can be completely
Incidentally, there's a security vulnerability, and there are plenty of vendors with a bad record of
really simple vulnerabilities, some of which were mentioned today. Or they could be compelled either
by a rule order or by law or by a national security letter to give over that data. And so when we're
thinking about where we're storing data, I think that
Having the physical control of that is very important. And it kind of just got me thinking, what other
places are we, there are lots of sensitive data that we should be considering that in, not just the
FLOC and LPR that was mentioned earlier. And since I think it's a comment on that when I had my handrails,
I'll just say I'm in favor of no more mass surveillance. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers. Hello. My name is Zach Mueller. I've lived in Bloomington
for 20 years now, I think. I'm here to ask the council and the city's government to help me use the
property that I've recently purchased less freely.
My beloved and I recently purchased the house. It's on the northeast corner of the intersection
of Morningside Drive and Smith Road. This is the intersection where, six months ago, a child was struck
while on their bicycle, and I had to have their jaw wired shut while they were riding their bike because
a distracted driver didn't think that stopping was something they had to do. I came here to
the Transportation Committee meeting almost a month ago,
And I got to hear a lot of young people who got up and were doing the scary thing of talking to people
behind the dais there about their experience with
being Girl Scouts and having to go visit a friend in the hospital and how scary it was for them. And
I heard a lot of input from members of the city's workforce and our colleagues who've given their time
to the Transportation Committee talking about how we need to do something, and maybe we could roll that
intersection and gathering some data into a report that's already been done, I think, on South College
Mall Road. And that's great. I love data.
But I also know that it's been six months and there's a child that is still dealing with the trauma
of being struck on their bike. And there's also plenty of things that I'm sure can be done if our city
government wants to act in an agile way to, even while we gather that data, make life a little bit safer.
And I agree with Councilperson Rosenberger. It's little five. We want people to be doing bicycle stuff,
but we really want our whole community to be safe,
Here while they're on their bikes or pedestrians, you know not and not just on campus going to and from
Armstrong Stadium And that's one thing that like I believe that even though I don't ride my bike very
much Somebody should be able to and like I sat here and I don't love mass surveillance But I have I
have a camera that looks down so I can figure out where people are not stealing my packages that like
looks at my driveway and I can't see
I can't see the license plates, but I can see when people roll through a stop on my camera if I pull
it up. And I only have a half a minute left. But I sat here, and I counted six people at 6.30 on a Monday
that decided to roll through a stop sign. And so please help me use my property less safely, even if
it's putting in traffic stuff that only means I can only back out of my driveway one way. Please, please help.
Like there are Girl Scouts being struck on bicycles. Come on. Thank you very much. Next speaker, if
you would approach the podium, you'll have three minutes. Go ahead. Thank you. I'd like to thank you
for letting me have another chance at coming up. I wanted to express support for the land swap.
come to meetings here about sort of zoning and about Hopewell, about the prospect of affordable and
attainable housing in this community, and the fact that, you know, I have coworkers who have been pushed
out of Bloomington and now live in other communities, not in Monroe County, further afield, because
it's just more affordable for them, which takes away their tax money, takes away the, you know, money
they could have spent at local businesses, things like that.
And so I think that providing and, you know, more important than even the short term, but just maintaining
our stock of super affordable housing is just essential, right? Like, it's a great location. If it's
possible for us to make that swap happen, I can only see, you know, upsides, and it feels like the sore
thing that could also, you know,
be a good feather in the cap for Mayor Thompson in terms of she's under a lot of fire right now. And
I don't know if she's here in the upper gallery or behind me, but if she's looking for a good opportunity
to win some points, maybe she could put her weight behind that as well. But yeah.
I'm glad to hear that there seems to be support among the council for maintaining the Summit or Seminary
Point housing. I'm really glad to hear that, Isabel, that you've been going to all these different meetings
and sort of like conferences to get information on different ways that we could approach and tackle
this. But one of the things that came up in the Monroe
county council meeting that I went to recently was somebody brought up the fact that our super affordable
category is super pinched in Bloomington. And you can feel it, right? The way in which Hopewell is going
to provide a lot of good potential housing stock, which will be more affordable, but for any of the
folks living at Seminary Point or folks like them who are currently priced out of the community,
We are desperately missing that stock, so I hope that we can preserve it. I thank y'all for everything
you're doing to try and make that happen, and I surrender my time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next
speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes. Please state your name for the record. Thank you, Madam
President. This is Christopher Emge from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I want to thank
everybody who went to Let Connect last night at the Waldron Center. I want to thank Constellation Stage
and Screen for hosting us.
Fabulous venue fabulous event. I want to quickly invite you and the public here on an exciting event
We're here to launch the chamber Wednesday, May 6 from 530 to 730 at the International Art Project Foundation
will be kicking off Bloomington Rainbow Leadership Network an initiative of the chamber focused on
Connecting lgbtq AI professionals business owner and allies across Monroe County You know as chambers
been with us in the community for over 110 years we take the responsibility to evolve with the needs
of our workforce in our business community seriously and this Effort reflects that the strengthening
of connections expanding economic opportunity away. That's welcoming and inclusive and
We'll hear some brief remarks. Time to connect, of course. Food, drink, as only the Chamber can bring
you. We'll be glad to see members of this body and the public there before your regular session on Wednesday
the 6th. The other thing I wanted to offer in my final time is the equity issue on homeownership that
was brought up, and I've had multiple conversations with residents here in the community and the business
community as well.
I'm hearing consistent feedback that that conversation's been a little, I think the word is incomplete,
sort of framed the difference between purchase price and the sale price. The lived reality is much broader
than that. Real ownership costs, some risks, property taxes that rise with value, increasingly volatile
insurance costs, ongoing maintenance and upkeep, major capital investments root HVAC plumbing. So when
you factor those in, the picture changes.
Say you buy a house in Sunnyslope neighborhood for 118 in 2012. This may or may not be my residence.
And let's say next month, I sell that property for $240,000. On paper, you're going, wow, that's double?
But after you do the inflation, the interest I paid, the maintenance, the selling costs, the realtor
fees, all of that, it's a little bit more modest. Those major upgrades and all those things shrink that
Investments significantly my real return investment over that Over that time is 12 to 15 percent. So
that's 14 years. That's about 1% a year. That's that's a good investment I don't want to diminish
homeownership. It's been great But you know, we continue to have these discussions around equity and
affordability We need to encourage more complex view of home ownership where we haven't really had that
so because our goals long-term financial success of our residents the full cost structure matters just
not the entry
Thank you for your time tonight. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. And we have one more member, public
comment. Please approach the podium, state your name, and you'll have three minutes. Hi. Joshua Stockton.
One thing I noticed this past week, I like to visit the Monroe County Public Library.
But I've been accessing the Indiana Room, which is an amazing resource for government documents, state,
federal, and local. One thing I noticed this week is that there is no UDO document in that building.
There's everything else. There's the CBU reports. There's hand department, planning and transportation.
But there's no UDO. So there's no physical way to actually access it unless you go online.
However, I did ask the librarian there why, and essentially the answer I received was that it changes
so often that we can't keep track, and what's available online is not necessarily up to date in real
time, and so coordinating that and then accessing it
Has been made impossible if you don't have a computer I guess you can do that at the library But for
some people I would like to sit down and just be able to read it and look through it So I guess my question
is is is there in a way that we can coordinate that? With the Monroe County Public Library to get that
in there because that is a very important document Thank you
Thank you very much. That was enlightening. And if there is nobody else who is interested in public
comment, speak now or forever hold your peace until general public comment at the end of this meeting.
Is there anybody on Zoom? Great. In that case, that concludes reports for the evening. And now we'll
move on to appointments to boards and commissions. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith.
committee see I Would like to move appointment of Raynard cross to seat c2 of the Historic Preservation
Commission and appointment of Rebecca pain to seat c3 of the Commission on sustainability and resilience
Okay, great there's been a motion and a second will the clerk please call the roll or any questions
or comments first my apologies I
Great. Will the clerk please call the roll? Piedmont Smith. Yes Zulek. Yes Sorry, sorry, yes Daily Rallo Ruff. Yes
Rosenberger not in the room Flaherty Great, thank you with the vote of 8-0 that passes and now we are
moving on to legislation for second reading and Resolutions and I will be passing the gavel to councilmember
Rallo because councilmember Daly and I are Co sponsoring this resolution. I Move that resolution 2026-07
be read by title and synopsis only
second All in favor we have the I guess we need to call roll Will the clerk please call the roll on
the introduction of resolution 20 26 07 Yes, just for clarification who made the motion and second.
I wasn't thank you very much Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes, so like yes, sorry. I
Daily yes, Rallo. Yes rough. Yes clarity Yes, Stossburg, yes, thank you Okay, I can get started do we
need it to be Yes, I'm so sorry Will the clerk please? Please please read
Resolution twenty twenty six dash zero seven a resolution in support of County Council counterparts
efforts to keep the county's criminal justice buildings within city limits and close proximity to social
services The synopsis is as follows this resolution twenty twenty six
07 authored by council members Sydney Zulek and Courtney daily Supports the Monroe County Council's
decision not to fund acquisition of the North Park site for a new criminal justice center and reaffirms
the Bloomington Common Council's position that such facility should remain within city limits and near
social services This resolution expresses concern about access impacts on low-income residents if relocated
outside of the
The city and commits to working with county officials to support an expedited permitting process for
a justice center located within city limits Thank you, I move that 20 2607 be adopted second, okay.
Thank you Point of order, please I think the The synopsis that
The clerk read was actually the old synopsis and not the revised Slightly ever so slightly revised synopsis
that went with the slightly revised text. Is that possible? It is and if you'll give me just a moment,
I'll pull it up. I'm sorry You don't have to read it again. I think it just said it added me as a co-sponsor
and it said expedited permitting and zoning for the parcel Thank you for that and my apologies
Councilmember Zulek great. Thank you. So just very quickly this is in response to the county who will
be building or Potentially renovating but it is looking like they are going down the path of building
a new jail so for those of you who may not know the County has been under a settlement agreement with
the ACLU protect
pertaining to unconstitutional conditions in the jail since 2009 and Just recently the Monroe County
council members failed a resolution to fund the purchase of a property outside of city limits a property
called North Park a property which does not have access to public transportation or close proximity
to many social services and so
I believe those are some of the reasons that County Council decided to fail this property and this Resolution
I'm it's very short So I'm just going to read that the first the two sections be it resolved by the
Common Council of the city of Bloomington Monroe County, Indiana That section one the Common Council
stands with its County Council colleagues and their decision not to fund the purchase of the property
at North Park section 2 the Common Council will work with the County Council
Council and the county commissioners to support an expedited zoning and permitting process
for the construction of a new jail within city limits and close proximity to social services. Sorry.
I think I'm reading the wrong one too. Okay. Fabulous. Never mind. I was right. And that is what I have.
I think that
When we talk about the criminal justice system, it is already so inaccessible to so many people and
I think it would be a real shame if the county were to build a property or excuse me build a jail that
Further took away access from people who need it. Thank you councilmember daily any other thoughts Thank
you very much. I just wanted to expand on that a little bit more to explain
Thinking and our feelings on this You know, I've heard it argued that at this point because of the lawsuit
We have no choice but to accept the North Park location because we've run out of time And you know the
lawsuit I'm sorry, but frankly that's that's absurd. I don't think we need to settle Not not only we'll
doing that put us need my glasses put us right back in a predicament where we're unhappy with the results
and buyers remorse will set in and
And when residents can't get out to visit their family members in the jail, for example, because they
don't have transportation, or when it's difficult to connect our inmates with the services they need
because they're just too far away. And I am aware that one of the terrible difficulties with our current
jail is the overcrowding there. I agree that we need adequate space. But this planned expansion is not
a realistic need for our current incarceration needs.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with creating vastly more space than we currently need because, hey, that's
gotta be filled one way or another, so it will. I would much rather see us invest in preventative services
to keep our residents out of jail in the first place. Mental health support, addiction recovery programs,
even financial classes would be a much better use of these funds, especially when we are facing perilous
and unstable fiscal times ahead for the city
and the county. I think we need to be wise and make some wise choices with our spending here and preventative
is the best way. I would much prefer to see the county and the city work together to establish a new
location by revisiting the Thompson site or the Fullerton sites with expedited permitting in process.
If we work together we can create a right size jail that will serve the needs best for our community.
And I believe that the North Park location will not do that. Thank you.
I forgot I would like to say if if I'm asked personally I would be completely in favor of the Thompson
property out of the many prop out of the Several choices that we have in the county has in front of
them but I also encourage us to think outside of the box because it's entirely possible that the
Solution that is the best for our community has not been even been discussed yet the other the other
point that I want to make is When we look toward the future of criminal justice in our community our
goal should never be to maximize space The space will be filled if it is created How will we invest
in resources that reduce crimes instead of building bigger spaces to confine those that commit them?
that is how I ask all of us to move to a
As we move forward and I am and look forward to any discussion that we might have as a body. Thank you
Thank you councilmember Piedmont Smith do you have anything to add I Appreciate my colleagues for bringing
this forward. I kind of jumped on as a co-sponsor recently, but I wanted to just draw a through line
here to our letter from October 22nd 2025 and
that that unanimously was approved by council members that that asked county officials to not continue
with the purchase of the North Park site for a new jail and criminal justice center. So this is kind
of reiterating that in a more formal way as a resolution. And I agree with my colleagues that
This site is inappropriate for many reasons. One is the size that has been proposed of the jail to be
put on this site. If there are vacant beds, you know ICE is gonna come and knock on our door and say,
we've got some people to store. And I also agree with my two co-sponsors that this is not the best use
of taxpayer money. There is a property that is already
belongs to the county that was purchased for a juvenile justice center and that's the Thompson site
and even if it would require some Change in utility lines. I think it would still come to less money
than What it would cost at North Park And that is in my council district so I speak as somebody who
would have that pretty near my house I think that and nobody
Everybody thinks that a jail is not a good neighbor, but we have a jail a block away from here, and
people pass it every day and don't even realize it. And finally, I want to underline a point that was
already made, but bears repeating that we need to invest in prevention. And this $11.375 million purchase
of North Park is money that
that not available for prevention and that's just A misuse of public funds. Thank you Thank you. We'll
now go to questions from council for to for the sponsors guess Thank you, can you just clarify for me
the differences between the resolution that we've
officially introduced that was in the addendum versus the one that was in the packet was it just the
Councilmember Piedmont Smith mentioned in the introduction that the Synopsis was changed at her as a
co-sponsor and then the expedited zoning was mentioned in section 2. Were there any other changes? Yes
There were some changes to clarify that The the first whereas clause that the county government has
been under a settlement agreement I think the previous one just said there had been a threat of legal
action since 2009 But there's actually been the settlement agreement Try to remember now The the price
tag was mistakenly left off of the
Forth whereas clause so we put that in there. Oh, thank you Right and no guarantee we changed the wording
about the transportation Not being accessible at North Park. So I mean maybe in the future there'll
be public transportation Maybe the county will make some other arrangement, but there's no guarantee
of trust public transportation access out there And then just to clarify that
Either a jail or Justice Center at North Park one or both Would disproportionately impact low-income
residents Impact low-income presidents and then adding zoning as well as permitting as the things that
we would seek to expedite for an in-town option Okay, thank you Okay further questions from council
the sponsors Okay, seeing none we'll go to the public if the public would like to Have a comment on
resolution 20 26 07, please step up to the microphone Please state your name there. There probably is
a sign-up sheet I believe there if you would be so kind as to do that and do you have something to
Thank you and you have three minutes Good evening, my name is Seth muchler Bloomington resident grateful
to the come council for this resolution some of which I've actually Pre-written has already been addressed
by council members, which I'm very appreciative and
As you work with the county, I would ask you to consider being open to renovation of the existing facility.
I know many elected officials have said this is not an option, but please allow me to explain why I
and many others feel it's worth considering. The main arguments I've heard against renovation are prohibitive
cost, inability to increase bed count within the existing building, and a lack of programming space
within the existing facility.
Looking at cost first, let me remind you that the new construction cost we were given was the $225 million
cost of the original North Park facility. I've given you two renovation estimates from jail experts.
The first is from RQAW. They estimated renovation at $62 million with the estimated cost
of relocating inmates and services during the two-year renovation at about $16 million, so a total of
about $80 million. That same report stated that the construction of just a jail and sheriff's office
would be nearly $100 million, not including land purchase, which I know what we're talking about tonight,
or construction of courts, as is the current plan if at North Park. Renovation is just simply cheaper
than new construction. And the other estimate is from the Kinray study, which admittedly is from 2019,
but estimates renovation at a staggeringly low range between 22 and $56 million. So looking to bed count,
our current facility has 294 beds. The claim is right that we need the much larger facility with upwards
of 500 beds or more. So since 2020, we have not exceeded 233 average daily population. And in 2023,
we actually were under 200, 199 inmates on average per day.
Can you imagine, right, if we were to invent, instead of dumping money into a new jail, we invested
in services, treatment, prevention, like how low could we get those numbers? We don't need more beds,
we need to do the work to incarcerate fewer people. And finally, access to services, the other big,
in the jail, the other big thing. Services belong in the community, not in jail. When we intertwine
mental health and substance use services and incarceration, we intertwine those mental health and substance
use services and,
Excuse me. We intertwine mental health and substance use and criminality the 2024 jail annual report
states that quote the Monroe County Correctional Center is the largest mental health facility in Monroe
and surrounding counties That is a shameful statement and something we need to fix not double down on
and we know that treatment and services in the community are far more effective than in a carceral setting
Even if we decided we needed some treatment in the jail for the people who sort of must be there If
we implement the types of changes we're talking about to reduce capacity We could even take cell blocks
and convert them into programming spaces if we cut incarceration in half clears up a lot of square footage
So hopefully you see now why renovation is a viable option. There's no guarantee It's the option but
I would ask that as you work with the county that you put it into consideration. Thank you Thank you
for your comment and the materials you offered
Next speaker, please state your name and please sign in You have three minutes Yes, my name is Jeff
Richardson, I just want to acknowledge that this situation underscores failed leadership this is moving
on for over 16 years and
And it's not only a failure at the county level, but it really speaks to, I think, city-county cooperation.
We need to find a way that we can talk to each other more effectively, not just at meetings, but in
between meetings. And I think to characterize this as anything other than failed leadership is a mistake.
I don't have a position on Thompson versus Fullerton versus North Park. So I will say I have a very
close friend who works
who lives, I should say, in the Thompson area. She's part of the Habitat for Humanity neighborhood that's
ever growing. As you know, eventually there'll be 64 houses there. A lot of the folks there are not
enthused about the jail. They may be wrong about their thinking. They may need to be educated. But it's
not fair to say that low income people will embrace this facility because low income people have a need
to get to the jail.
when appropriate, so I think that's important. I'm also very distressed about how this is being framed
that somehow, not by this council, but by somehow the ACLU is the enemy. Somehow they've been rushing
us. In fact, one prominent official said, and suddenly the ACLU asked us to do X, and I said, suddenly,
after 16 years, you're using the word suddenly? It's really inappropriate, and it's,
a shame to frame the ACLU that is doing so much good work nationally as well as statewide as somehow
the oppressor in this particular context. And speaking of enemies, I'm reminded of the old pogo, this
is for old people, I've been around for a long time, but the old pogo cartoon that says we've met the
enemy and the enemy is us. And I feel sometimes we have to step back
and have a bit of introspection, self-reflection, and say not only what is the desired outcome, but
how could we, maybe we could have done something a little differently along this way. I know, Isabelle,
you tried to work with the county on this issue for years, and I'm not blaming anyone, but I am suggesting
that this is an opportunity for us to step back and say, can we lower the temperature? Can we stop the
finger pointing? In fact, we had more time
the county commissioners Screaming at Marta the sheriff and then we did dealing with this problem. Please
find a way that we can work together For the betterment of our community and to show people a model
behavior how we can work together and get things done Thank you Thank you for your comment, please Oh
Do we yes, let's go on to zoom
Thank you Friends colleagues and members of our community this isn't a matter of one county
body manufacturing pressure against another It's a matter of local government collaborating to confront
a dead jail. Could you please state your name before you continue? Yes
Would you please state your name and then please continue? My name is Commissioner Jody Madeira. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you. At this point, this resolution is rearranging deck chair. Let's speak plainly.
17 years after a lawsuit is too late to complain that you're being rushed into litigation. I was elected
in January, 2025 on the county level. No one's taking any responsibility for the 17 year delay.
Everyone involved could have done things differently, but there's been an entire lack of introspection
from those involved at that time. Well, now someone has to take responsibility. We're in a difficult
situation, most of itself inflicted. And right now there are serious human rights violations that outweigh
premature concerns about implementation in infrastructure.
Although it's framed as support for keeping the jail within city limits, this resolution's practical
effect is to urge the county to reject the one site ready to move forward. The city's memo implies we're
dealing with legalese and states that a lawsuit, though intimidating, isn't the end of this conversation.
This isn't caution or compromise. It's not simply a symbolic expression of preference about geography
or social equity. This is an invitation to continue down a path that sends the county off a cliff into
a lawsuit it can't defend,
And that's the part that the public deserves to hear clearly. You are pushing us through the courtroom
doors. So let's talk about the lawsuit. If the settlement agreement is dismissed, our constitutional
duty doesn't disappear. It just gets harder and more urgent. We had some leeway under the settlement
agreement. Without it, we'll have to run a constitutional jail. So in 2021, the jail transition team
produced some cost estimates.
There's a cost to remediate the current facility while awaiting a new jail for items not requiring more
space. That's between three and 11 million. We have to constitutionally classify prisoners for which
there is no space that necessitates setting entire groups like all women in the jail to other County
jails away from their families and communities and children at a cost of $75 per day per prisoner. That's
a very high human cost. And the transition team suggests 50 inmates as a starting point.
That's 1.36 million. We need another van for transport, 105,000, and six new jailers for 500,000 a year.
This isn't reform, it's failure. Then come legal fees, monitoring fees, compliance costs, and we still
end up at North Park. Litigation isn't a symbolic act of resistance, it's a cash burn. I understand
the concerns about North Park and the argument that services are concentrated closer to the city center.
I understand the concern about transportation. These are real issues, but they're solvable.
This issue destroys the public image of Monroe County and Bloomington, a democratic community publicly
divided. That's not the image of effective local government, and it's not the message we should be sending
to the rest of Indiana. It makes it look, frankly, like Democrats can't govern. So please, in conclusion,
don't pass a resolution that deepens the vision between local governments at the very moment unity is
most needed. No amount of rhetoric about principle changes the fact that this resolution points the
county down a dark, chaotic, and dangerous road. Thank you.
Commissioner Madeira, I allowed the commissioner to continue because I interrupted her So do is there
anyone else on zoom at this point one other let's go to The chambers and then we'll go back to zoom
in a moment Make sure you sign you probably already signed in but yes, I did earlier. Thanks. Oh
Hello, for the final time this evening, my name is C. Forth, and I wish to express support for this
resolution. A couple of years ago, I actually walked to the North Park location. I had become interested
in it and decided to just see what the experience would be like walking out there and then walking back.
you know, along the current sidewalks and infrastructure that is there. And it was a rather inhospitable
set of like trek to do to the nearest like bus stop, right? It is far from services. It is removed from
our community. I think it does create a
a situation in which folks could be released late in the evening, as many folks are from jails or at
odd hours, and then they're having to figure out how to get back into Bloomington. How do they get the
transportation? If we don't co-locate the jail with the courts and the sheriff, then you also introduce
the cost factor of busing those people around, which
could be a quite expensive thing over years for every single inmate. So, you know, we were talking about
the costs there just a moment ago of, you know, renovation versus locating at, like, Thompson. I think
that anything that puts it within the city right-sized for the needs of our community and not putting
us in a position where we're just
asking to fill it with more beds is the direction we need to take. I think it was Pierre Montsmith who
mentioned if the beds are there and we start seeing the federal government swing its weight around in
the same way that they have in Minnesota, that is an invitation to just
throw people into that jail. And there's also the question of protesters on campus, right? I might be
misremembering this, so I do apologize. But I seem to recall that many of the folks who were dragged
away during the encampment were taken to our jail. And it feels like that's just opening up a whole
can of worms for having all of those extra beds that are just
available to either be filled passively by the desire to make use of what is there or filled in moments
of, you know, the times we find ourselves in, frankly. Thank you for your time. I hope that we make
the right fiscal choice for our community because I do think at the end of the day there is also that
just base element. The price tag difference is just astronomical. Thank you. Thank you for your comment.
Let's go to Zoom.
Our next zoom participant if you would please state your name, you'll have three minutes Hi, this is
Julie Thomas Monroe County Commissioner and thank you for the opportunity to speak today We're grateful
and lucky that mr. Falk of the ACLU, Indiana agreed to extend the private settlement agreement on their
lawsuits against the board of commissioners and the sheriff until the end of May and by the way, we
have a great relationship with the sheriff and
If the private settlement agreement lapses at the end of May without meeting our obligations, the site
selected, funding identified, then we can be sued. It's not a suggestion, it is a real threat. A federal
judge can order any number of remedies, but let's be clear, this is a burden borne by all Monroe County
taxpayers, whether they live in the city or not. It is not a risk or a cost
that the commissioners are willing to accept when a good solution exists. Our bond council has advised
us to complete the bond process by July 2026. Any specific site has to be selected before that bond
can be initiated. North Park is shovel ready. With a purchase agreement and a bond, we can break ground
early next year and the facility can be operational early 2030. We have done our due diligence investigating
properties across the county. A few years ago,
We brought a petition before the city planning commission and city council to build the justice center
on Fullerton Pike. Both bodies rejected the petition. We spent nearly a year on that process. We stated
at that time that if Fullerton Pike was rejected by the city, the county would look outside city limits
for this facility. Thompson is in the city, yes, and the county owns it. But there are issues with the
property. The city planning commission and city council must approve a change to the plan unit development
We cannot proceed without that approval. It is a necessary public process that we respect and it cannot
be shortened nor avoided. That fact alone makes any project on Thompson impossible to complete either
by false deadline of May, the end of May of 2026 or the bond council's deadline of July of 2026.
In addition, there are other issues with the Thompson property that need to be resolved before we can
move forward. Cars features need to be studied and possibly remediated.
We have to remove a large amount of dirt. There's relocation of high voltage power lines that Duke says
will take at least a year and a half to complete. And a road needs to be completed from the
summit development. Even if everything went well, we would be years away from breaking ground on Thompson
and at a significant cost. Mr. Falk and the ACLU are focused on the jail, not a full justice center.
We intend to get the jail built as soon as possible.
That includes the jail, jail administrative offices, sheriff's office, and a few criminal courts. Once
we are able to, we intend to build the remainder of the justice center. Co-location reduces security
risks and overall costs in the long term. Yes, transit will be managed. As of 2029, county has to manage
transit, so it will be dealt with.
If you truly care about creating a jail facility as soon as possible, that can provide constitutional
care for people housed there. And if you understand the potential risks and cost of a lawsuit are enormous
and will impact every resident in Monroe County, I ask you to vote no or continue this motion indefinitely.
Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas.
Somebody left their phone up here. Welcome councilmember crossing. Yes. Thank you so much Jennifer cross
Lee Trying to lower it as much as I can here Monroe County Council Council president I just want to
thank all of you all for and the co-sponsors for even entertaining this Resolution writing whether it's
City County shouldn't be like a resolution sport and it's kind of weird that we have to Do something
like this, but yet here we are
The other thing that I wanted to say is to councilmember Piedmont Smith. I'm I should say let me back
up before I make the comment I'm not new to this. I'm true to this. I've been on County government since
December of 21 And this is the same conversation before stepping into my role that we have been having
and we continue to have councilmember Piedmont Smith was the
the city representative to one of the many acronym meetings that the county used to have, which is the
CJRC. You all repeatedly ask, how can we help? How can we do this? And yet, like a thief in the night,
those meetings kind of went away with no explanation. And so, yes, I understand that we are at a movement
right now. Other people should also have to answer, since they've been in their spots for as long as
they have, not me, why that
This has continued to continue to manifest year after year after year after year. In 2009, I actually
had one child. In 2026, that said child just turned 19 who was actually able to vote. And there's two
more people. So let that sit in. But at the end of the day,
The question that I have for you all is has anybody talked to you all about the you know We keep talking
about the cost has anybody talked about the cost to you of what it would take for public transit I would
think that that's something that we the county would have to talk to you in city probably I think the
answer to that would be no, but I think we need to have the conversation with you we should be out of
this mindset of
Approve it now ask questions later and that's kind of what we feel here on the County Council I am a
big girl literally and figuratively so I can do all the hard things and I am very much wanting to continue
to collaborate with you just like what was mentioned earlier today and
Yeah, we can lower the temperature as well But we have to have a common ground and you all need to be
included in that because I could tell you one thing We continue to go to North Park Everybody in here
can be looking into more taxing because that's is what is going to happen because that's how we're gonna
have to pay for that The only other thing that I will say is as I end and I only got a few seconds left
I would ask because it keeps being said that
Quinn Falk is telling us no we keep hearing that you all will have a 9 to 12 month process On that has
anybody talked to you all probably the answer is no I think we need to do that as I finish up here We
continue to protest no Kings in our community and no Kings I say we have no Queens in this conversation
and with that we continue to work together So with that I go what's left of my time and I thank you
Thank you council president crossly Let's go to back to zoom. Is there other no participants on zoom,
please step forward and Be sure to sign in state your name and you'll have three Rousseau I Have a very
good friend in another state whose son was
Convicted in the last year of a six to twelve month sentence in the county jail in another state He's
devastated and His mental health is really awful now, so I understand what the previous speaker said
about The car serial setting is one of the worst of all for mental health services because just being
there Puts you two or three steps down the ladder I
The thing that's keeping him sane is visits from his family, and I think that the North Park site strikes
me as about the worst case for making it difficult for the kind of visits that one needs when you're
in prison. I support the resolution wholeheartedly for all the reasons that are in it. I think it's
very well written, and I thank you very much for writing it.
Thank you mr. So Please state your name and I think you're signed in Hi, my name is Zach Mueller. Um,
just wanted to say that I really hadn't planned on talking about this but um You know, I just feel like
You know, I'm not an elected official. I'm not lawyer I've lived in the county for some time. Um, I
Actually think I've lived in the county longer than anybody who's currently on county council or county
the county commissioners Grouping maybe not We've had so long as a as a as a community right because
the county in the city I understand I'm talking before you our city representatives. Well, I've heard
you know from our some of our elected officials from the county I Get that we might
run into a lawsuit. We've known about this for how long? How all of a sudden is this the problem? I
reject patently that, oh no, now, whoa, I got you, it's all good. I reject now that the asteroid is
coming directly from Monroe County, and it's been shot from space by the ACLU at us, and a federal judge
is gonna be like,
and Roe County's gonna get it because they wanna get their jail situation right finally. I understand
that maybe we have been talking in circles for years and we need some kind of fix that works. I appreciate
the other member of the community who prepared materials and provided them to you, and I hope they're helpful.
I hope that that can help kind of foster a dialogue with our friends at the county if it is cheaper
to Like renovate the jail we have and have services centrally located then the county can Look at that
as savings. This is like when I go to
to buy something and I buy it on sale, I look at that as a savings because I didn't have to pay that
extra money because if I fix something, I don't have to buy a new one. Come on, man. I just don't see
why this is so... Yeah, we're all gonna have to pay more taxes. We already have to pay taxes. Let's
do something where people want the outcome. I don't know many people who are like, ooh yeah, let's build
a new jail if we can fix the one we have and it serves all the purposes we can. Maybe I'm wrong.
Again, I'm not running for office. So Thank you for introducing this legislation or this resolution
council people. I really appreciate it and There's 15 seconds for you Thank You mr. Miller Please state
your name and you have three minutes My name is Haley tokes and I just want to thank council for putting
this resolution forward I strongly support it I
For all the reasons mentioned, we don't need more beds. We need more services. And I understand that
we're under the gun here, but that doesn't make North Park a good decision. It's a very bad decision.
It's fiscally irresponsible. It's going to make people's lives worse. There's not a good reason to rush
into it. And I just think that Seth made so many fantastic points about why renovation is a really viable
option, that we should
Taking very seriously if we're in a rush. Why not go with the building. We already have Thank you Thank
you for your comment anyone else in the chambers Okay, anyone else on zoom in that case we're back to
counsel for any further questions Thank you, well I heard one of the
Commissioners make a comment about how this wouldn't be very Fiscally responsible and that we have to
answer to our taxpayers well this is a project that at the North Park property would cost every taxpayer
in this county five thousand dollars and
Now, I don't know about you, but $5,000 would cover over five months of my rent. Most probably a full
year of utilities, like $5,000 is nothing to sneeze at for anyone who has ever worried about money.
I would much rather, I'm happy to pay my taxes, but I would much rather those resources be going towards
prevention services and keeping people out of jail and in their own homes with
their families, thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Yes, oh, Council Member Asari. Council
President Asari. Thank you so much. Do you have a question or a comment? A question, if it's possible.
Yes. Will you allow it? And I don't know, is Director Hiddle in the room by chance? Yes, he is.
Would you allow me to ask a question of him? If you would allow to receive it. It's not of that complex
of a question. I just he is accommodating he's stepping to the microphone Thank you, I'm interested
in this I mean this this calls for the council approving a expedited permitting and land use process for
whatever property, I guess, in the broadest sense, as long as it fits the category of being in town.
And I'm trying to understand first, what does that actually mean in practice? Because obviously, I've
long advocated for us just generally having expedited processes for things.
Can you maybe give me some thought about the viability of an expedited process? And if so sort of like
what it means Well I think as you probably As you probably know we're nearing the end of an audit of
our permitting processes which in a very general sense is going to result in a much more expedited much
more efficient process but that will apply to
Anything that comes through as far as an application for land user development. I'm not sure if there's
specific language associated with this resolution that defines what an expedited process would be or
if it's just a Pat on the back to encourage something along those lines. So I know I'm not aware of
anything that
specifically tied with this resolution that would give us more guidance on that wanted to act in some
way, you know within a limited way about about the jail transaction or swapping of properties or building
out of The Thompson property or something like that Is there a way is there a mechanism available to
us as a city? specifically available to us as counsel or to your office where we can where we can
Actually commit to the statement that we're making in this resolution. Well, the statement doesn't have
any specificity at all So I'm not even sure we could certainly commit to Doing our best to expedite
a permit process I think there's probably the capability or I'm sure there's a capability in the department
to do that, you know if there were an emergency situation or something along those lines we could certainly
Focus our attention commit our resources to getting this particular thing done but The language as I
see it doesn't provide us anything more than that. I'm also happy to clarify Thank you, so when I was
originally writing this one of the
that I had discussed with my Monroe County Council colleagues was that there is this argument being
brought up against the Thompson property saying that the process for plan city planning would take too
long and so one of the reasons that I included that phrasing in the resolution is to basically just
to communicate a spirit of collaboration and that like we want to work on this with County and so there's
There wasn't meant to be anything binding
But I'm more meant like from the body as a whole to support, you know moving this through with Haste
yes Councilmember Azari, do you have anything else? Yeah, thank you so much councilmember Zulek. Yeah,
and I think that I I don't I don't question the the
I think the moral stance, I think it's exactly right and I support that wholeheartedly. I think the
question though here, given the exact context where the ACLU is looking for a clear signal, if this
is more than just
Well, we generally stand with you. I mean, if we're just standing with you, but we can't follow through
with the way that we're standing with them, don't we think that this language needs to be very specific
about how we would accomplish it, moving faster, what type of timelines can be committed to, et cetera?
But yeah, so some interested sort of in thoughts and thoughts there because otherwise my concern otherwise
sorry I'm turning this into a comment, but my concern otherwise is that You know we we we make a stance
that I mean otherwise means nothing and You know and I mean I I think if people were watching we're
watching you know the way that the city and and us as a council has moved on on
things around You know housing developments, etc. I don't know what confidence I would have in that
statement, you know without specifics Great unfortunately like the timing We had one council meeting
prior to an opportunity to speak on this and so I prioritized a Resolution that would get the majority
of support from council members especially given that we have six things on the
Agenda tonight. I was prioritizing just the city Reiterating its stance supporting our County Council
colleagues That's what I have Councilmember Piedmont Smith I would just say we don't know what the county
would ask of us as far as planning or
Permitting I mean we don't know exactly the details of that. So it would be hard for us to say exactly
what we would do To expedite it it's I think the best we can do at this point in time is to say that
we would do our best to You know work with the county to get If they were to select land within the
city limits to get the approvals that would be needed I think that's
Specific as we could be at this point Council member Stossberg I have a question and I'm not sure that
anybody can necessarily answer this and I'm trying to like do research on the fly about it, but I feel
like the the understanding that I just got online during the public comment from the county commissioners
was of the Thompson site is in part not shovel ready because it's not zoned properly for a jail and
but I think it actually is. And I guess I don't want to turn this into a comment at this point, but
can anybody actually answer the question publicly right now about whether, because it is part of a PUD
and it was, I mean, I'm trying to read an amended PUD from 2002 right now while I'm actually listening
to other things that are happening.
But it seems to say that jails are added as a conditional use to be reviewed by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. And so the argument of, oh, we can't get this done by May. We can't get this done by July might
actually not happen. So I don't know if, I mean, 2002 was well before the time of our planning professionals
in the room. So I don't know if anybody can answer that publicly or not.
Sponsors or director Hittle? Dude, can you answer publicly whether a jail is currently allowed as an
allowed use on the Thompson site on that PUD? Did not include locations Because we did not we honestly
City Council. We don't have enough research on the different properties in terms of viability for other
properties I think that's a conversation that we would need to have with the county
but I mean this body's been accused of overstepping before and so I Primarily wanted to make this about
this is how it's going to impact city residents. This is our request and Leave it kind of open apart
from that Director Hittle, would you like to yeah, I think it would we would have to scour the PUD language
to give you a
Full and concrete answer wouldn't take too long, but it would take longer than we have right now Probably
give you the answer tomorrow as to whether or not current zoning would allow it and what would need
to be done if it doesn't allow it Thank you, I actually also got a text from County Council President
Jennifer Crosley that said yes, it is currently zoned for jail. Thank you. Oh I need to say that louder.
I just got a text from Council President Jennifer Crosley saying it is currently
Zoned for a jail Great. Thank you other questions Councilmember sorry You still have I'd be if permitted
I'll make my comment my response then and then if permitted noting that Commissioner Thomas is still
on the line. So if you all wanted to wanted to hear from from from them, they're still here, but I believe
that Commissioner Thomas said that
you know, that the issue was both a road that overlaps with the summit PUD question, and that the thing
was about rezoning, or not rezoning, but allowing the justice center also to be built there in addition
to the jail itself. So I don't know if that is how I heard what was said, but she is still here if we
wanted to ask. Are you asking?
Are you posing a question? Yes. Yes, I am then I will If Commissioner Thomas would like to Affirm that
thing. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak again Yes Yes, I don't think this is directly relevant
to the resolution which does not mention the Thompson site I
Well, it doesn't mention the Thompson site, but it mentions, I mean, it's a site within the city, and
it's probably one of only a couple that are possible. We have a council colleague who would like just
a question answered about specifically what it would require. I think it's relevant. Commissioner Thomas?
Could you could you answer the question if you've heard it from Council President Asari On the road
access and yes, and whether the Justice Center would be co-located Right. The plan is always to build
a co-located Justice Center, but What's what's currently permitted is? Yes a jail facility is in the
PUD. However, the
There's also a requirement to build a very long roadway through the PUD that we would not be able to
do. And that city planning has said is not a big deal at this point because of summit's development.
And I believe we would have to get probably a height variance for the rest of the justice building,
not for the jail. The jail's gonna be one story, but for the remainder
of that justice building, we would probably need to also include a height variance. So there are, and
obviously we'd have to review the slopes because the state changed the law. We'd have to look at karst
and we'd have to do a tree canopy study. I forgot about that too. And those things we have to do no
matter what, but the PUD does have to be changed in order to not require us to build a multi tens of
millions of dollar road that won't actually work.
Thank you for your response councilmember. Sorry is that satisfactory? County council president Jennifer
cross Lee has something to yeah. Um, I
And I hope I'm not speaking out of term and I say this but a few years ago we had Been told with the
Thompson site as we were looking at the Thompson site a few different things and one was the roadway
Because there is the Adam Street and I believe there was strong road that was something that was needed
or that we needed to do and
And from my understanding and from conversations, that's something, once again, that we've heard from
city staff is that we can actually work with you all to get that done. So again, the question is, are
we wanting to work with you all, or are we just really wanting to just say, it's okay, we just will
go to North Park? Again, that's the thing here. And the other thing that I will say is,
In order I thought I made a mention of this too when we were saying this but the ACLU literally and
and it's no surprise since there was the memo that Council or County legal apparently put out to everybody
But the point of the matter is literally we've heard from mr. Falk himself That it doesn't matter if
you pass a resolution or whatever the case is
They need some timeline because it to me it sounds like they have no faith and my city council colleagues
and in the city staff And so I would humbly recommend that if you are going to say this instead of us
hearing the hearsay of well It's just going to take a nine month 12 month total process to Figure out
how we can really do that together. I don't know if that's
whatever we can do to put words to paper, whatever the case is. That's me, Jennifer Crossley. That would
be my humble ask, because we just need something. I would think that if we want to keep this in city
limits, that this is something that we want to have as a concrete, tangible thing that we can say, not
only are we just talking about this, but this is the action that is on the words that are on this paper.
Thank you.
and thanks to my colleagues for Allowing me in the spirit of communication collaboration as we've been
talking about to to have our colleagues in the county Be available to answer questions. So are there
any further questions? Comments yes, let's go to comment now Thank you very much. I want to first thank my
Co-sponsors on this for all the hard work that you've done and and really appreciate your dedication
The the fact of the matter is this North Park project is far far too expensive for our community The
commissioners continued with North Park after the October unanimous rejection of that location by the
County Council And that feels like being strong-armed into a location that nobody else wanted We're
saying that we want to work with the county and
But as County Council President Crossley pointed out, we haven't been reached out to or consulted on
those adjacent issues such as transportation and so on and so forth. So this resolution tonight before
us seeks to protect vulnerable members of our community. We hear a lot about how the current setting
of the jailhouse is inhumane and absolutely we need to fix that 100%. An incarcerated person does not
deserve to be treated inhumanely.
Part of the effects of North Park would be Potentially inhumane if their family can't get out to visit
them if they can't receive the services that they deserve And so we're also seeking to protect the taxpayers
of Bloomington From having to pay for this jail way out there. Thank you Other comment Consumers Nussmer
Thank you. I'll go ahead and and comment on this. I wasn't necessarily planning to comment on this but
You know, this is my third year on council and I get a little bit frustrated sometimes when things are
brought up from prior to This body is being here because there we are a body of nine and the majority
of us were not here when the
aforementioned change of zoning was denied and I would really like to be able to move forward from this
spot Together and I would have liked to have moved forward from the spot together, you know two or three
years ago but as has already been mentioned it, you know, we were not particularly consulted and A lot
of how I felt about it, you know as a new council member was well, there's there's a lot of stuff on
my plate that's you know,
Really on my plate in terms of this is what I need to make an actual decision about I'm just gonna kind
of you know, stay a little bit removed from from the county jail issue because I don't get to choose
that but as it is dragged on and on and on no no one is choosing that and the biggest choice that I
think was made was the County Council last year rejecting that North Park site and I think that they
rejected it for good reason and
That it's far, far out there. It's not centrally located. It's not convenient on a number of fronts.
And it would cost the taxpayers of this county a whole lot. And at this point in the financial picture,
it's just not reasonable. And I can appreciate this idea that, oh, but it's the only shovel-ready solution
right now. Well, you know what? I think that it is possible for us
to get together another solution that might include, as Council President Crosley mentioned, some written
documentation related to timelines, related to, you know, what exactly would be needed at the Thompson
property or another property, you know, that might make good sense in terms of where a jail might go.
And I'm totally on board with doing that.
Think that that those roadblocks Were bumps in the road. I think they're probably bumps in the road
when you're talking about zoning and when you're talking about changes like that
those can be overcome they can be overcome on timelines that are relatively predictable if Everybody
can commit to getting the materials together that would be needed to present Various bits of information
to the different bodies that would need to be presented as to the generalness of this resolution I think
that we can you know commit to supporting an expedited process. Oh, that's not the
It's not the amendment. I think it still says yep supporting an expedited zoning and permitting process
Because we still like I can support that expedited process But I can't necessarily control it right
depending on what exactly is needed whether it's something for the BCA whether it's something that goes
through planning Commission you know, we're
If we're on those bodies, we're only one of a number of people on those bodies We can't say how fast
it's going to go through but we can say hey Let's try to do this as quickly as we can and and let's
try to do this in a way that is responsible so I'm prepared to support this I don't want that that jail
at North Park and I Want to support our County Council colleagues who said that they did not want that
jail at North Park last year Thank you
Thank you councilman rough Up front I'll say of course, I'm not an expert or I have not spent extensive
time comparing the different costs costs of different options, but I do have some background and a college
degree that involved Natural resource management a lot of it was full-cost accounting and
I know full-cost accounting is difficult to do but I I just skeptical that if we really did full-cost
accounting That the renovation of the existing facility wouldn't be The best option and when I say full-cost
accounting I'm talking about externalities
And this applies to any new look at location that would be in the city anywhere else too as well as
North Park but external externalities like the accounting for the impact on Surrounding uses and surrounding
properties and surrounding properties wherever this would go to any place other than where it is now
where nobody really anymore has a right to make a complaint about a
tremendous change in their own property values or quality of life or or land use pressures around them
due to the current location so that's that's one example of full cost accounting accounting somehow
for the impact of Moving this and other people have talked about the external costs of on on families
on visitation on on inmates and
are deprived or of potential easier access by loved ones and family members and support and services
all those external costs the external externalities of the carbon footprint difference with all the
transportation that would occur and not just Moving inmates or inmates around various reasons but of
the visitations that occur all the services the carbon footprint of that
For a location that's remote and I'm not just talking north. I'm talking anywhere else other than where
it is now I just can't help believe that In what we know about the cost of new construction now in this
current world compared to renovation and I just I have a really hard time believing that I
If you really accounted for full costs all these costs that have been discussed here tonight by members
of the audience by council members That the the option with the least overall cost to society to our
community as a whole wouldn't be the existing location renovation the existing location and so when
I support this and
resolutions on which I'm going to and I think very much my colleagues who who brought it forward and
I think Sam a Wholeheartedly, but I don't want to my vote to be construed necessarily as well. Let's
just find a different location That's a new location. Even if it is in this city would be marginally
better Than the farther out it is right. It's gonna all those externalities are gonna increase the farther
we move it
Away from where it is now, but all of those costs will be greater Anywhere else it's moved So I just
wanted to make that clear that I wasn't advocating to go fishing around for another location I'm advocating
for full cost accounting of moving in anywhere other than renovating the existing site Thank you further
comment from council Council members are you
Thank you all and colleagues for drafting this. Thank you to our county colleagues for being here at
the meeting and for participating. I think obviously the moral stance that's being said here is clear.
And as well as the, I think, sort of strategic and economic arguments that are being made. And I mean,
I think they resonate with me. As I expressed in my questions, concerned about our ability to follow
through with what we're saying.
I wish, I don't know, by way maybe of just general suggestion, I think it interesting, and bear with
me, this will not be a long comment, but it's a two-sided comment, that we're in this small city and
wonderful small city and wonderful county,
that we as elected bodies basically have to talk at each other through process, that we get each other's
attention through writing resolutions and speaking in formal ways. And I just think it's interesting because
I don't know, in any other context, I just feel like there's a lot more simple ways to go about actually
solving the problem before us. And I think perhaps that's why it takes us 17 years to make particular
progress. And I think on the flip side, with respect to our commission and council colleagues in the
county, there hasn't been any specific ask of us
to which we can also act, right? If that makes sense, like with the exception of Council President Crossley,
you know, who said sort of in response to some of the things that I was saying, you know, you should
be specific in this language. I wonder,
But perhaps this is a sort of, you know, historian's fallacy. I do wonder, you know, what happens in
this process should the, if the county were to make a rezone request? I mean, that actually gives us
something to expedite. And, you know, then perhaps we, you know, can build specifics around that. So
I'm in a little bit of a betwixt place. I don't know if, I think I'll, you know, I'd like us to go beyond
this resolution and whether that means let's meet tomorrow. I mean, we can't. We have this 48-hour notice.
But maybe we need to put together a joint meeting and just actually figure out what we're going to do
and actually hammer out the real processes of how we can support, if at all. But I also think that we
shouldn't make the mistake of just
quickly moving over the significant risks and costs that have been brought up, I think, on all sides
of this argument.
Anyways, I don't know if that's itself actionable. Well, I guess it is. My call would be that after
we vote for this, that we move to either have some joint session or something that we actually can just
get around the table and figure out what needs to be done. Thank you again, though, for writing this.
Council Member Zulek.
My recollection is councilmember daily actually suggested a joint session on the jail with
county counterparts several weeks ago And so I will I'll just go on record and say I'm very in favor
of that County Council County commissioners We would love to host you to have a deliberation session
to hash out how we might be able to expedite the planning process Thank you Other comment before we
go to a vote
Okay, well just say that I really appreciate my colleagues for bringing this forward It as councilmember
sorry said Well, and actually as councilmember Stasberg stated that As I read it as I heard her say
She I would agree to expedite the process if required It of course adjusted doesn't fall to us and
But the resolution states that we're ready. We're ready to do that I think the council has been consistent
with wanting a central location. That's been clear for many years And to be fair the rejection of the
Fullerton site was not made by the majority of this council as it stands now, so I want to thank everyone
for their comment tonight as well We have another comment
Just to say I just want to reiterate that You know the reasons for having it centrally located for central
proximity to resources such as mental health addiction support services the economic impact of course
and but also Just preventing the social isolation of those incarcerated. I think is an important reason
to have it centrally located so
Councilman Rosenberger, do you want to have your say I just wanted to add something quickly because
I know we have a really long night. I Am really thank you to the all three co-sponsors for bringing
this I am in full support. I Used to talk about that's a lot last term, but it sort of lost traction
and I am so happy to see County councilmember Crossley here tonight and everyone on council up here
speaking in favor of keeping the jail and
Centrally located close to everything that it is close to right now and I would just like to add that
the Another property that I had always talked about is a county-owned property Across the beeline from
the Convention Center. So right now that is a surface
Lot and it seems like it might not be used for the Convention Center But also just a couple blocks from
transit and a couple a few blocks from where it is now in case it does need an entirely New location,
but I also appreciate looking at renovation costs because where it is now also is connected to a parking
garage That was built for this purpose. Thank you Thank you. If there are no other comments, then will
the clerk please call the roll on resolution 20 26 0 7
Councilmember Zulek. Yes, sorry Yes Daily Yes, Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes clarity Yes, Stossberg.
Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes Thank you. Thank you. That is unanimously adopted
Thank you resuming control Thank you, I I move that resolution 20 2608 be read by clerk by title and
synopsis only Okay, there's been a motion and a second would the clerk please call the roll and
Councilmember, sorry. Yes Bailey. Yes, Rallo. Yes, Ruff. Yes, there is some burger. Yes clarity Yes,
Stasburg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes, and Zulick. Yes. Thank you. Great. Thank you with a vote of nine.
Oh that passes And I move I move that
So sorry, please if the clerk could read by title in synopsis only that would be fabulous and also Yes
Resolution 2026-08 a resolution of the Common Council of the city of Bloomington, Indiana approving
certain matters in connection with the formation of a certain economic Development area that the synopsis
is as follows this resolution originated from the Bloomington rate redevelopment Commission to establish
the new summit of
district economic development area, the summit district EDA and a part of that area Shasta Meadows as
an allocation area having a residential housing program. Assuming the statutory process is completed,
this will establish what is commonly referred to as a residential tax increment financing area for the
Shasta Meadows allocation area. Allocation areas for the remainder of the summit district EDA will be
created as development plans for future advance.
I move that resolution 2026 dash 08 be adopted Thank you and thank you that's been motioned and seconded
whoever is here from the city to present on resolution 2026 oh eight, please approach the podium state
your name and go ahead and Thank you for being here Thank you
My name is Dana Kerr I'm assistant city attorney and I one of my assignments is with the Redevelopment
Commission and I'm here tonight to present to you the resolution that was read before you and what this
does is I'm sure you're all familiar with the summit PUD this would create a TIF district economic
development area the entire summit
PUD area, and that is made of five different neighborhoods, and the first neighborhood that's planned
for development is Shasta Meadows, and it would make it the first allocation area. Now, we have Justin
Chang from Reedy Financial who's gonna explain that a little bit, but to put this in some sort of a
context, there was discussion earlier that mentioned Adams Street, and Adams Street has a gap in it.
and that gap is located in the Summit PUD area. There's also plans for a road in the Summit PUD that
goes from Weimar to Adams Street, a connection there. So Adams, in this development, Adams would go
from Bloomfield Road all the way down to TAP, and you would have a connection over the Weimar, and as you
You probably all know Weimar Road has a one lane bridge on it on the southern portion and is in a flood
plain. So there's in the PIC development below there, there would be trying to work out construction
of Vanguard Way which would straighten out Weimar Road. So in addition to the construction of Vanguard
Way, Sudbury and Adams that would interconnect all of this area
there would be need to be intersections that would need upgrades. So that's a lot of infrastructure
that needs to be done. And that Sudbury road is very important because as part of that Sudbury project,
there is a donation of land for a fire station. So that would allow fire equipment to rapidly get to
the areas that they need to get to. And so that's a,
Another point of this So, you know, there's there's a strong need of infrastructure there again that
was mentioned earlier tonight and so one way to try to help facilitate that is the creation of a TIF
district and a Allocation area in Chastal Meadows is a residential area. So it would be a residential
allocation area. And so I'd like to invite Justin Chang from yes
from reading financial to kind of explain a little bit more about the financial aspects of that Good
evening, everyone. I'm Justin Chang 3d financial group It's good to see some of you all again about
a met a couple of you at the fiscal committee meeting about a month ago So it's great to see you all
again before I dive into
Areas specific details and what a residential tiff is. I'll just quickly go over. So what a traditional
what we call a commercial tiff is because really they're Very similar in most ways. There's just certain
nuances that makes them different so tiff allocation or a tiff stands for a tax increment financing
and tiff allocation area essentially a way for a city or city town or county to
capture on tax dollars that they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. And that's especially true for
a community like Bloomington where we have really low circuit breaker impact. In the state of Indiana,
what we have is called, we're in a levy-based state, so our levy is set, our tax levy, how much dollars
we can get is set by the state, and we cannot change that other than 4% or whatever percent the state
tells us every year. So even if we were to dump
a lot of assessed value into the city of Bloomington's base assessed values, tax levy would not change,
tax rates would just go down. So let's say $100 million gets thrown into the city, the city would not
get any benefits from the $100 million. What a TIF allocation allows for is for those dollars to be
set aside from the base into what is called a TIF area and the entire taxing district
Tax rate can be applied on those on those parcels and those dollars will be Funneled into the city's
RDC. So instead of the city and their underlying units getting zero to no benefit They're really the
only benefit would be circuit breaker reduction, which the city has None essentially the city can now
capture and utilize these dollars through the TIF allocation area controlled by the city's own RDC
Now, very important key detail here is that the RDC is not taking any money from the city or the underlying
taxing units. What's a very important piece to creating a TIF allocation area is called the BUT4 test,
which means BUT4, whatever is provided by the RDCs, this development will not happen. And like Dana
mentioned earlier, if not for the infrastructure and the potential fire station that we could
put in for this area, this development by the summit, this summit EDA would not have happened. So let's
say we didn't set up a TIF allocation area and then provide the infrastructure, this development would
not have happened anyways and all of these assessed values would not have came in. So these dollars
are only available to the city now because we are utilizing the TIF allocation area. Now, to go into
the difference between residential TIF and commercial TIF,
very similar in most ways. The way we collect dollars is the same. The way we, what we call neutralize
the AVs, how to determine what goes to base and what goes to the TIF incremental AV, that stays the
same. There's really three key differences. Number one is in a commercial TIF, a allocation area's expiration
date is 25 years from the issuance of a bond. Whereas in a residential TIF,
The expiration is 20 years from the issuance of a bond. So let's say we issue a bond on the TIF August
1st of 2026. This TIF will expire or go away in August 1st of 2046. I'm not saying we're issuing a bond,
just giving an example. Number two, there's just extra steps to a residential TIF. For example, we had
to do a notice to the HOA. That's just an extra notice that we have to provide for residential TIF.
Not for a commercial TIF and then finally the most important part a residential to residential TIF in
its name It allows that TIF area to collect on residential part Residential properties whereas the city's
current TIF allocation area if we think of the consolidated tap road Adam crossing those are traditional
allocation areas they cannot capture anything from residential residential parcels so any growth and
residential parcels in those areas is Given back to the base, but that will not be the case for this
Shasta Meadows Allocation area and so that is really the big difference here in this tip that we're
creating versus the previous tips that the city already has So there are there any questions for me
Any questions
Councilmember Stossberg Well, I have questions. I'm not sure if they're best for you or not. I'll start
with the one that you Actually, I'm gonna start further back in the beginning So is this TIF district
being created for all of summit or just for? the Shasta area because there's five different areas and
I feel like I'm a little confused and
Yes, so this resolution will create the summit EDA, which the difference between EDA and the TIF allocation
area is EDA is where we can spend the money on. So let's say the Shasta Meadows allocation area generates
$100,000. This $100,000 doesn't need to be spent in the Shasta Meadows allocation area. It could be
spent in the whole summit EDA to benefit that whole economic development area.
At the same time, we're also creating the Shassa Meadows allocation area to generate those TIF dollars,
but we're not creating the other allocation areas that will go into this economic development area.
I hope that's clear as mud. If that's not clear. Clear as mud, yeah. I could try explaining it again.
Well, so I'm just gonna rephrase and we can see if I actually understand. Yes. So we're creating
Okay, so the properties in Shasta Meadows the residential properties in Shasta Meadows their tax dollars
will go into this TIF, right and That money can be spent anywhere in any of the five areas to benefit
That but the other areas aren't gonna have the residential TIF Yes, I actually use this this scenario
last time we think of an EDA and an allocation area as a pizza
the entire pizza will be the economic development area, and that's where we can spend the TIF dollars
on. If we put a pepperoni on there, that will be the TIF allocation area, and we're only putting one
pepperoni in there right now. Every TIF dollar generated from that pepperoni can be spent on their entire
pizza. And throughout the next couple years, we'll put four more pepperonis on that pizza to create
the entire area. Okay, that was actually gonna be my next question, is whether there's...
As a vegetarian, I think that I have to comment on the pepperoni analogy. Maybe we can have peppers
or mushrooms instead. We'll put an entire onion on there if you like. All right. I'm just going to let
that go on. So there is the intention in future years to make the others into TIF allocation areas.
Yes, but not from my understanding is that not all of them will be residential allocation areas,
okay Okay, which might follow up on on one of the last things you said it was that one of the differences
is that in a residential TIF of course you can collect on Residential properties and commercial TIFs
can't collect on residential properties can residential TIFs collect on commercial properties Very good
question. And the answer is yes. I
So residential tip could collect on everything whereas commercial is only commercial not residential
Okay, but Shasta I can't remember it also like zoning allowances Shasta is gonna be like all residential,
right? Yeah, okay. I'm seeing nods from the people in the back. All right So are the other areas you're
intending to also do residential tips because the other ones are gonna be a combination of residential
Well, actually at least one of them has some combination of residential and commercial Or should I like
Wait on that and that's not really relevant to tonight Going to see as it develops out and the time
frame that develops out over what's going to be best It may be that within those five neighborhoods
We might even want to carve out a little smaller pieces where this little piece, you know This piece
will be the residential and this piece will be commercial to take advantage of that So we're not sure
exactly how the layout is going to look yet. We're not that far down the road. So that's why
We felt it would better to look at this one area that we know is going to be developed first and take
the other ones as they come to make sure that we don't Choose a path that doesn't end up being the right
one. So it's just keeping the flexibility there to Move as the development moves. Okay, great.
Thank you. I have other questions to you, but I'll let my colleagues go Councilmember Rallo I guess my
I have two questions. One is, besides road construction, could a fire station be funded? So statutorily,
yes. That was actually a change recently, two years ago, where fire and police capital operating can
be paid for by TIF dollars, yes. Does that include capital expenses? I mean, fire engines are very expensive,
for instance. Yes, that would include capital expenses as well.
And who is the discretion for spending the revenues from this? Tiff does it come to council that would
be the redevelopment Commission the redevelopment Commission has sole authority to To allocate the funds
for a particular purpose within the TIF. Is that right? I thought I came to council for some reason
so for Commission that controls the funds that is captured by
Okay, so it's going to be their decision about where what it's spent on they're going to be making decisions
of Infrastructure for this area. Yes, correct, which is how it's been done. Yes Okay, thank you councilmember
Flaherty Thank you
In short, I guess, are the TIF revenues intended to be spent primarily on developing like roads and
related infrastructure in the Summit PUD area and the EDA that's being created, is that right? There
is a statutory list of what can be done. The only discussions I have heard have been related
to infrastructure because that is,
significant need and I Not sure if there would be any excess money beyond infrastructure that's needed
because those are significant completing Vanguard there's going to have to be a significant bridge there
There's going this, you know Sudbury and Adams also has Some unique features that they have to cross
Then you have I believe it's at least five
Intersections that need to be upgraded for safety purposes in traffic flow purposes and so so that's
a lot of design work the RDC out of current funding sources has already earmarked five million dollars
to go towards design and
because there's no way to know how much cost there's going to be involved until they actually can get
out there and start designing the work. So we're moving forward on that. So doing the TIF will enable
there to be a generation of funds to where those who are most benefited from that infrastructure will be
that funds will be able to be generated from that area. Thank you. I have a few follow-ups if that's
okay. It's been a minute since we approved the summit PUD. Is the infrastructure that, so I'm trying
to just remember the full range of infrastructure that's anticipated to be built there. Is the intent
here to have the RDC pay for
all of or the vast majority of the public infrastructure in this summit PUD area, is that correct? No,
the intent is Sudbury and Adams. Those are the main city streets that are connecting the network together.
Those are the streets that are important to the RDC and important to that development of that area in
those, those,
Intersections are going to be very significant as well cost associated with them. So those
that infrastructure is really the focus that That we've you know been talking about The developer themselves
are going to build are still building a lot of the infrastructure there as well as that. Is that right?
What I'm understanding? Yes, so as far as any streets
You know where houses might be on the I guess they could be on the main streets, but any of the extra
streets or whatever That's not being considered Okay as part of part of that there's no design money
been set aside for any of those streets. It's only Sudbury Adams Vanguard and intersections
That's helpful. And just what I'm getting at here is I think our general policy for decades has been
when we have a large development like this, the developer pays the costs of the infrastructure. And
I was trying to suss out to what extent that's still happening, how much of a policy shift this is,
if any, or if we feel like the types of infrastructure we're going to be spending the money on here
are outside the scope of what a developer could reasonably be expected to contribute in bringing this
development to life.
Follow-up Comments based on that further Elaboration of like what my questions are trying to tease out
I welcome it, but I think your answers already have helped on that front. Thank you Councilmember Piedmont Smith I
On behalf of Summit Development, I think I can add a little clarity to that. The PUD, unlike most PUDs,
required that Sudbury and Adams be constructed before any other unit could be occupied. That's not typically
how development is done.
Block a road. We occupy some houses. We build a block a road, but in this PUD We required those two
infrastructures to be done first So when you approve the PUD it required a humongous outlay and I think
we had lots of discussion about that would require public Input in the form of dollars to pay for that
infrastructure Because we wanted it up front. We wanted those improvements to come ahead of the development
So I don't think this is really a change in policy. It's
Change in prior or it's a it's a way to get the priority of the city To fund that infrastructure that
isn't coming from the general budget but coming from the capturing of that Increment that helps Yes,
thank you and also to mr. Rollins question as well We say that the RDC determines what it would be spent
for in the event that there needs to be
Bonds issued to pay for infrastructure Those bonds would have to come to council We you know, the RDC
cannot issue bonds. So that would come to council to be able to do so Honestly in all likelihood to
pay for such large infrastructure It would likely have to be bonded that the RDC would not be able to
pay as they go along so to that extent
As far as tiff funds would be used. Yes that there would it would come to council So I wanted to clarify
that point Councilmember Piedmont Smith Yeah, first I just wanted to clarify what is this Vanguard Street
that you keep talking about I went back to the PUD plants and I didn't see any street with that name I
Vanguard has a little stub right now on the just off of tap road and if you would take Weamer Road straight
down from Bloomfield Road And then skip it Go through the fields then right there where it if you keep
that straight and maybe go a little bit to the west you'll see there's a little stub of a road right
there and that's called Vanguard Way, so
Vanguard way Would be in pick owns Public Investment Corp owns that property and so we the RDC is working
on trying to work out a memorandum of understanding where you know if we pay for the RDC pays for the
design that pick will donate the right-of-way to be able to put
Vanguard way and so that that jog that goes out and comes down It goes over the bridge on Weimar Could
be turned into a trail part of the trail system and Vanguard would be more of a straight north south
road So it straightens up Weimar Road It would really be helpful to have a map yes, I
Google Maps, okay. I have a, I'll look at it. I have another question, but should I wait? Okay. My other
question is about the estimated TIF revenues. So the development, it's estimated that development will
create over $477 million in new assessed value.
Do we have any sense of how much tiff revenue that would create? Like I guess it would be on an annual
basis. Um, it's not 477 million dollars from the PUD on the PUD. Is that where the estimate is from?
Would you know so um, if we're looking at just Shasta Meadows the allocation just the Shasta Meadows
allocation area not
the entire summit EDA, we were actually, we had a estimated increase of about $50 million, so 477, that
might be, I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the other allocation areas yet, that might be for the entire,
all five allocation areas, but if we're looking at $477,000, it really depends on what the breakdown
of one versus two percents are, but let's say we're in quote,
Worst-case in terms of revenue wise worst-case scenario. We're all looking at all one percents. That
would be four point seven and it was all two percent then we're looking at nine point four million dollars
a year plus but Pending with broad strokes and just thinking of numbers in my head as I'm seeing yours.
So I wouldn't quote me For the whole development once it's done with the four hundred seventy seven
million dollar Increased assessed value
That's not, so the 4.7 million is for the whole thing. Not just Shasta Meadow. Yes, so the 4.7 million
is based on the $477 million increase in assessed value that you sent. If we're looking,
Just Shasta Meadows we expect about four hundred and forty three thousand four hundred forty three thousand
dollars a year in tiff revenues And that's there's a breakdown of one and two percent. I don't have
that with me right now, but Just to clarify the difference between one and two percent one percent is
what we're thinking about as Residential homes, so that's your single-family home that you live in on
your own two percent. It would be
Well, number one would be agricultural land, but also if we look at apartments, apartments, they look
like residential, but they're technically 2% non-residential in terms of property taxes. And also if
you, let's say you buy a house, but you rent it out, that would also count as 2%. But $443,000 for Shasta
Meadows, there's a combination of both 1% and 2% within that. I just don't have that breakdown in front
of me. Thank you.
Questions Councilmember rough Two questions first of all on the Decision-making on the use of the tip
future tiff revenues You explained that anything this by any bond proposed bond bonding would you have
to come to council for approval but Let's just say
Down-the-road 10-15 years the TIF is kind of semi flush with funds and Would the would a future RDC
Be able to Use the funds allocate funds to the side streets or You know you said that right now the
plan is for the
The major road streets at the city and improvements that the city wanted to see mainly right but not
the residential smaller streets, etc, but in the future Would it be completely up to the RDC? To just
to what what it got spout on in the end it is but it also has to pass a but for test that but for the
spending of those funds in that particular way
the economic development would not happen so It's not supposed to replace private funds it's supposed
to be used in a way that encouraged the ability for private private funds to be used so okay, I'll just
say to that what we've seen that kind of Nebulance or fudgy argument where?
Well, yeah, we build the road and that will enable that into some construction or some economic activity
that Becomes then the but for right there, but you know, but my the question I really then wanted to
get at is The I'd like a little more elaboration on the state tax this current state of tax laws that
I'm understanding in the earlier part of the presentation That the way they worked now The amount of
additional revenue that the city would get If absent the this economic development area this this tip
Would be negligible
It would really manifest itself in the form of lower taxes for the average property owner the average
resident not in terms of a large amount of new additional revenue unless we do this which then allows
the city to capture Revenue that state law otherwise would have capped and said you don't get to collect
any more revenue as a result of this additional development
You just get to lower, your residents will enjoy lower taxes. If someone could talk about that a little
more. I'll try and then I'll let Justin, because I like the pizza analogy. Think about it that right
now, at some, there's a crust. And the crust is only worth so much all by itself. And so if you don't
do anything out there,
provide a way to get any toppings on there, to get any pizza sauce on there, nothing's going to happen,
and it's just going to stay a crust. It won't increase in assessed value, so it won't generate any more funds.
If you put mechanisms in there where you can get the pizza sauce and the mozzarella cheese and the vegetarian
toppings and all piled on there, now you've got a lot more assessed value and you've made that happen
by creating the TIF and using and capturing all those toppings and cheese and sauce. The value of all
of that, you're capturing those dollars and paying
that infrastructure that allowed you to get those but you wouldn't have got those had you not Created
the ability to to get those toppings in the first place But if you if we if you did though if the development
happened Absent the diff as a mechanism to capture increased assessed value
It wouldn't manifest itself that way to the community. It would be capped and we would Not really see
it see the benefits in terms of increased revenues to fund services right, but we would see it rather
in terms of lowered taxes because of the caps So you actually the scenario just pointed out it's actually
Monday we sent out what we call a tax impact statement and that statement essentially what it does is
point out that scenario that you just you just mentioned is what if this development was to happen without
Us putting that infrastructure. Let's say developer like okay We don't we'll put the infrastructure
ourself and will so do the development in the city So what if that was to happen? So the answer the
answer to what will happen in that scenario is yes, you we will see a tax rate decrease without
a whole lot of additional revenues to coming to the city, but You one key point I point out is that
the residents of in of Bloomington will see a see a decrease in their tax bill, but that's technically
not true because Most of the residents are already capped at one are at the 1% cap given our tax rate
is to add over two dollars for the most part most of us already capped so even if
The tax rate goes up or it goes down. It has to go down significantly For I'm I live in Bloomington.
So it'll affect my taxable as well It'll have to go the tax rate will have to go down significantly
for me to see a decrease in my property taxes Whereas for the summit fifty million dollars if we threw
fifteen million dollars into into the city's basis value that would not have an effect on the
on most residential parcels. The larger tax savings, if that was to happen, would actually be on the
3% commercial. So we're looking at the businesses. They would reach most of that tax savings. Can I
also just give you one quick? Jeff McKim, City Controller. I just want to make sure that in our kind
of discussion of the weeds here, we don't miss the major point that I think Dana and Justin are trying
to get at.
that with the TIF and with the constraints that Andy mentioned, which are absolutely true,
but with the TIF, we can actually bring in more revenue, more tax revenue for city infrastructure than
we could without the TIF. It's not simply a shift from city to TIF. It is literally we can bring in
more money because of the constraints and the way that Indiana property taxes work. Thank you.
Thank you. Council Member Flaherty. Thank you. And thank you, Comptroller McKim, for that follow-up
point. I do understand that. And I guess what I wanted to ask with greater specificity, because yes,
if we were going to build the infrastructure anyway, doing it this way makes sense relative to doing
it through, you know, general fund or other kind of non-TIF funding sources for the reasons you just
outlined. I understand that.
that assumes that we were intending to build this infrastructure. And I guess I kind of got at that
in my first question, but I wanted to ask just more clearly, because I can't find it, you know, the
materials right now, but when we approved the Summit PUD, was the plan at that time, and did the city
agree at that time that we were going to fund these streets? Or alternatively, was it planned at that
time that the developer was gonna, you know, pay for these streets? Do you know? Travis Wenzel with Summit.
First I would say with the previous administration and with this administration dating back to February
of 2022 when we brought this forward in original discussions, there was always the discussion
that significant public infrastructure, money would be necessary to build Sudbury and Adams and to improve
the intersections around that area that fail today
without any new development, significant public money would be required. The PUD specifically states
those roads need to come first and that the city understands that significant public money for those
infrastructures or those main roads would be required. That's in the PUD. It's always been discussed
as part of the process. That's why those roads are tied to be first.
All part of that original PUD and the original discussion with the previous administration as well as
this administration was That's that's what it was going to take to build that infrastructure that was
necessary Thank You mr. Bensel is anyone from the administration able to confirm the same that the PUD
materials themselves that we voted on in 2024 specified that the city was planning to pay for
this infrastructure and
I just don't recall, honestly. So I'm just trying to understand if this is consistent with,
because it feels, this is a unique context and it's a large area, but historically, if I'm not mistaken,
we have not spent public dollars on this type of thing. And so I'm trying to just be very clear if this
is a policy change that's being proposed relative to what was planned and communicated to the council,
when the PD was voted on in 2024, could someone from the administration speak to that, please?
Kerry Thompson, Mayor. It's my understanding that while there wasn't a tangible agreement to pay for
the infrastructure at that point, part of trying to get this done, because one of the conditions that
was put on this was to put
the significant roads in before the developer would have any income coming in to actually pay for them.
So part of the package that has been put together is this TIF package so that we can get them paid for.
We have a challenge in the community. We need housing, right? I think we all agree to that. And the
city has to use its best tools available to try to
leverage what we have to get the housing that we need. And infrastructure is inordinately expensive.
And so getting to a place where we can work out for 4,200 units, getting TIFF to come in and help pay
for that infrastructure that's gonna benefit the city is helpful. Thank you.
Other questions. Council Member Stosberg. Thank you. I have some other questions, but I also want to
address Council Member Flaherty's question because I don't recall that being a discussion at council
when we passed the summit PUD and I actually recall there being kind of the implication that the private
developer was gonna manage that
and I think that this is part of the private developer managing that and It feels like a surprise now,
which I don't really love but I wanted to Follow up a little bit on what councilmember Piedmont Smith
was asking Justin I think about the actual like dollar amounts because I think that those got a little bit
combined in my mind it says in the Redevelopment Commission Like purpose and introduction program that
the construction of the dwelling units So it's estimated that the development will create over four
hundred and seventy seven million in new assessed value but then in the fiscal impact statement
it seemed to imply that this TIF alone, just the Shasta Meadows, would have an increase in TIF revenue
collections by the 443,000 per year. And so I'm a little confused because I thought that you're basing
that 400 and some thousand off of just for the Shasta area, but the 477 million in assessed value
was off of the development for all of it. So can you clarify exactly how much this TIFF is worth just
the Shasta Meadows part, or do you not really know that? So when we came up with the estimates, it's
using what was provided on the PUD, which from what we saw, there wasn't a whole lot of
Specific details on the development itself How many bedrooms square footage so we use sort of what we've
seen in other communities with similar developments and use that as a Tool to come up with an assess
estimated assess value for the Shasta Meadows itself Not the entire summit EDA. So the four hundred
forty three thousand annual TIF revenues that would be looking at just the Shasta Meadows I'm using
our using our estimates
Okay, so is the four hundred and seventy seven thousand and new assessed about or four hundred and seventy
seven million and new assessed value Just set Shasta Meadows, or is it the whole thing? That's just
Shasta Meadows According to okay. Okay, that's not clear in that document Okay Thank you I Think I have we have
4,000 units, 477 million into 4,000, that would be very low value if you think about it, right? So the
assessed value of the entire, the new assessed value would be much higher than 477 million. 477 million
just would be the maximum assessed value that Shasta could potentially produce. If I can go back on
page A to the PUD,
It states the above schedule is necessary the above schedule which is talking about the number of units
over the 138 acres Necessary depends on the city of Bloomington support concerning utility capacity
and expansion as well as the developing fund sources including tax increment financing to support road
and related infrastructure Completion I think that's pretty specific in the PUD that was approved that
City was going to participate in utility capacity and developing funding sources including TIF to pay
for related roads and infrastructure Great, thank you. Yep any other council questions Councilmember
Piedmont Smith Yeah, I'm sorry to keep going back to this but Following up with what councilmember Stossberg asked so
If the total estimated new assessed value in Chasta Meadows four hundred seventy seven million dollars
then how come the estimated annual tiff revenue is only four hundred forty three thousand dollars.
So, I don't have the document in front of you that you're looking at. I believe the $444.7 million of
new potential is for the entire area. Then you talk about how much Shasta will generate over the 15-year
period of the TIF. So, it's not a direct
Don't I think we're getting way in the weeds of the analysis of what might happen with so many units
that might be built there does that make sense a Few minutes ago. You just said the four hundred seventy
seven million dollars in new assessed value is for the whole Four hundred forty seven billion or four
hundred seventy seven million. I don't have the document Four hundred seventy seven million. Okay four
hundred seventy seven million of what new assessed value new assessed value or market value
Assessed value Which would be the base don't I don't I think a new assess value Assessment being something
different than market. I think is referring to the entire EDA So so going back so 477 million dollars
will be for the entire EDA So all of those five allocate five or six allocation areas that you see in
front of you. That's four hundred seventy seven million
The $443,000 in TIF incremental revenue that the RDC will see every year, that's the estimated amount
for Shasta Meadows. But $447 million in newly assessed value, that's for all the allocation areas combined.
And that's where you got the minimum 4.7 million in TIF revenue per year. From the 477, you took 1%.
Yes, that's without me looking at the actual development itself or looking at any comparables. If it
were all 1%. Yes, correct, correct. That's what I understood like 10 minutes ago. Yes. And then you
said something different to me. Yeah. I'm sorry about that. Okay, other questions? Council Member Rallo.
Yes, just to remind me, I can't remember if maybe a planner would know,
The streets are are they city Bloomington streets? They're not the developer the infrastructure is is
Ours correct. Yes, Eric Grulick development services mayor So the majority of the streets at least all
the streets that are laid out in the transportation plans that being Sudbury and Adams would be public
in terms of streets within each
The sub area, you know, we didn't necessarily get to that level You know some of them were multifamily
don't have to be If some of them were single-family than those would have to be based on our current
subdivision requirements So I don't think that we got to that level beyond roads that are shown in the
transportation plan So but we're are we responsible for building the roads or is the developer? well, so
And I think as it's been discussed, you know with the PUD they were required to build Sudbury and Adams
with the first phase You know beyond that as each phase develops then those internal roads are built
when that particular phase develops So there was only the requirement for Sudbury and Adams to be done
before any or with the first phase Okay, do you happen to know if as we proceed there'll be a bond required
of the developer prior to
To the construction correct to make sure that it's completed as per you know Yes, so there will be a
bond for all public improvements sidewalks tree trees roads. Okay terrific. Thank you Other questions
councilmember Stasberg Kind of along that vein so when we have to when we're saying we're gonna build
say Adam Street or Vanguard does that include like
All of the sidewalks and all of that kind of stuff associated with that street or is it just the street
itself? Yeah, so that that would include all the infrastructure in that right away. So storm water sanitary
water curbs pedestrian facilities street trees Everything within that right away. Thank you and in terms
of What right now is kind of being agreed to in terms of what this TIF money is gonna pay for it's
I guess I'm wondering about the multi-use trail that's supposed to Attach this development essentially
to the beeline is that on the list of things that the TIF money is gonna pay for or is that something
that the developer has Yeah, I can't answer that I will have to let somebody else deal with that. I
don't think so that would be on the developer as I would expect
It's my understanding that by statute there's certain things that the TIF can pay for and those are
all public infrastructure curbs sidewalks roads water lines sewer lines that are public if they're privately
owned privately maintained where it comes on to an individual lot or services a specific lot that can't
be paid for a trail Probably could be paid for but we haven't designed it yet one of our
goals in this is to design the entire right of way so that we're not paying for a road to come back
and dig it up and put a sewer line down the middle of it or a water line down the middle of it later.
We're not building a road and then coming in later and trying to build a path. We're doing that all
together. So we're working with the city to design to their standards to the transportation plan within
that existing right of way so that we can get all that infrastructure in up front.
This is not the way we normally develop. This is the largest PUD ever approved We usually don't come
in and put all the major roads that connect it first, but we want to do that We want to do it, right?
So in this scenario Adams and Sudbury would be designed Fully will know exactly what they're going to
cost. They would be built full out by the time the first occupancy moves in so it wouldn't be
driving on pavement that isn't the top code. It wouldn't be later the sidewalks. That would all be there
ahead of time. Not the way we used to develop and not the way we typically develop. Then each one of
the five parcels, they will develop in a traditional sense. Might build two blocks of road, build houses
on it, build the next two blocks of road. That's a traditional way of development. But those major roads
would be conceptually designed and funded and built
prior to anyone occupying any of the dwellings. So I think what could be spent on is RDC, a statutory
regulator, what they can spend on. It's gotta be area-serving public infrastructure. Okay. I have one
more question that's different. Thank you. Just kind of as an interest, I mean, I think it's clear that
this TIF and this process would end up yielding money for
The RDC and thus the city but what does it do to other? Taxing entities that would generally get some
tax dollars from that I'm thinking specifically of schools for example that usually get a share of property
taxes So what would what would the impact be on those other entities? So we're going back to this is
assuming this development was to not if this development never happened without the infrastructure That's
very important to this whole but for test
this development only could happen because of the infrastructure that the RDC is providing. So that
was to happen, but we still tipped it anyways. Again, we're in such a low circuit breaker environment
that the only gain from the underlying units will be a reduction in circuit breaker, a slight increase in
in net levy, so we're looking at the school, for example, we're seeing absolute worst case scenario
for the schools, they would lose out on $16,000 a year in circuit breaker impact, but if we're looking
at a school specifically, since at least my district, Monroe Community Schools, they have a referendum,
and referendum can actually still capture antithesis value, so a school, for example, will actually
come out ahead
Because of the referendum tax rates, but that's going into a whole nother sidebar So without the referendum
though, they would lose $16,000 a year for just Shasta Meadows Yes in circuit breaker and reduction
in circuit breaker. It would be it would not be an increase in tax levy again It would just be a reduction
in their school circuit breaker. Yes Thank you other questions Councilmember Rallo
Yeah, I just want I forgot to ask is this This area lies within the unified TIF doesn't it the consolidated?
Yeah It is not it'll be a new that's why we're setting up a new EDA as well with it because it's not
currently with it It doesn't overlap at all. No, I'm not done I thought it was overlap. So it's it's
it's carving out a new area. There's part of it that I
Overlap but it's carving that out of the consolidated and there's a part of it that Isn't in any TIF
so it's creating a new area, but it's coming out Okay, I guess my question then is the area that is
part of the consolidated TIF is does this obviate revenues from that In other words do that does the
any commercial development there does it are we losing money for the consolidated TIF we are
Would possibly it would move money from the consolidated TIF but Monies can be used in anything that
would serve this EDA. So those extra areas outside of the infrastructure Areas the intersections and
things like that are outside the EDA, but they serve that EDA They're actually in the consolidated TIF,
but this money can be used for them. Okay, so it's a
It's a way to keep this area together And be able to create these allocation areas together in this
one package to Yeah to keep it a package deal and also want to make one thing clear the I mentioned
earlier that there is a mo you with the summit folks for design and that donation of rogue
the right-of-way There is no agreement regarding any payment towards infrastructure You know that we
needed to get through this tiff process Which includes after tonight should you pass this resolution?
It goes back to the RDC. The RDC will have a public hearing that's been noticed and
There would be a confirmatory resolution after the public hearing so there is nothing been promised
of anything to go towards infrastructure and for the Public Investment Corp property Working on an MOU
for design and right-of-way, but that's not done yet. There has not been any funds That has been promised
for anything at this point. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I
Okay, I think I understand. Oh, did mr. Vinson. Did you want it or Sure, if you want to add anything
I I Think so. No, but with with the current zoning that's in place with the PUD the type of commercial
development that's loud is neighborhood serving so the consolidated tip only captures commercial not
residential and
no commercial will come there because the only thing that's allowed is residential serving until we
have the residence. So by carving it out, it's not losing because it's never gonna happen. By carving
it out, you capture not only that commercial, this residential serving, but you could commercial capture
the residential around it. Okay, very good, thank you.
Just a quick follow-up on the two previous questions number one was on the impact on the schools So
I mentioned yes $16,000 circle breaker annual impact on the schools, but especially with a residential
TIF They bring in a lot of new residents and therefore a lot of new students We actually had a conversation
with the rural summit schools
Executive director last month and they see about four residential tips about 50% of that equates to
new students to the school to that area so we look at a I believe this area has four to let's just say
400 New units we're looking at 200 additional students and each additional students Generates about
seven thousand to eight thousand dollars to this school corporation. So we're looking at
That that number is way larger than the circuit breaker reduction in itself and to and just a follow-up
on the carve on the tiff overlapping we're not Creating two tips on one single parcel We're essentially
removing that parcel from the consolidated tiff and adding it to the new one So that parcel technically
is no longer part of the consolidated tiff. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you and councilmember Asari
Thank you. Maybe a question for the accountant. Just sort of three questions in sequence, and I'll just
ask them all in one go. But if I recall correctly, this was 4,000 or so units that was the sort of estimated
build out at summit.
and given SEA 1, where we're moving more of city finance to income tax, what is, I know we're discussing
here this sort of like exchange, I guess, between opportunity cost of funding
with public funds, though I agree with Mr. Vensel that this was actually talked at length during the
time that we passed the PUD. But that aside, have you all done calculations of how it would benefit
the city budget to have, I don't know, 4,000, let's just say it was 4,000, I mean, more likely it's
gonna be like eight, but 4,000 more adults
possibly living in the city. Does that have a positive impact on the city's budget in the context of SEA 1?
So the answer definitely is yes, because with SCA-1 local income tax is based on where the taxpayer
lives. So as more residents are in Bloomington City itself, that would increase the late distribution
to the city. We're talking when SCA-1 local income tax actually comes into effect. We're looking a few
years down the road, right? But the answer is for whether we have an actual specific dollar amount,
it's no. For one, we don't.
Like you mentioned, 4,000 to 8,000 units. We don't know what our tax rate is going to be in three years.
So we provide an estimate right now. It could potentially be drastically wrong just because there are
just so many moving pieces before we get to 2029. But would you agree with the assumption that even
if we think it unusual to spend money on public money on a PUD,
that this could be viewed as us investing to, investing to increase possibilities of city funds in the
future. So there is a return on investment. There could be a return on investment directly to the cities.
Yes? Yes, 100%. I think this is why we're seeing a lot of residential-related to allocation areas around
the state in general as well. It's because a lot of communities are trying to get as many people as
possible for live purposes.
So I'm sure that's one of the considerations. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Great. Let's move
to public comment. Would anyone in the public like to speak on this? If you're on Zoom, please raise
your hand. Great. You'll have three minutes. Please state your name and go ahead. Travis Fensel with
the Summit Development Group. We just are in favor of this. This has been a long process of us working
with the city
This administration previous administration to get here. This is a great opportunity to fund infrastructure
Bring residents to Bloomington, which has lots of benefits to us in many ways And we'd ask you to support
this resolution tonight and move this back to the RDC. Thank you Great. Thank you. Next speaker in chambers,
please. Please state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes Good evening again council.
My voice is calling
late Krista Ramsey from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and I want to my hats off
to councilmember sorry even No, we don't know where he is presently, but that was my point. I just wanted
to bring up which Was the investment that this is we need to increase our tax base that? 2029
Year of SP one is is looming where we're going to be income tax The lit is going to be that much more
important. So bringing people in is is vital to increasing that you know, who else could use people
MCC SC Dr. Winston the superintendent has been on the circuit speaking on their situation and the best
thing the the best remedy for what ails the schools is more students the one thing that that that mr.
Vince mentioned is
how long he's been working on this. February of 2022, that's... we're nearing five years. I don't believe
they've probably seen a check or anything, but a lot of work has gone into this, and I've,
over the past year, have heard, you know, I've gotten some calls on this, which made me worried, and
this residential TIF is a path forward. We've had regular TIFs, spider TIFs. Why not residential TIFs?
I know the RDC and the company's been contemplating that, and this is really a great way to,
Really enhance that revenue with very expensive infrastructure and this is public good infrastructure.
I don't we're kind of getting on a little bit of That subdivision roads, but that's where the petitioner
is going to take care of that So I you know and as far as the Sudbury Adams Road that was talked about
quite a bit I mean we've I mean Litigated this the summit PUD when it came before you quite a bit I
don't know how many times
We had that same presentation, but it was it was a couple times if you look at your notes, so I would
just Recommend passing this resolution. Let's send it back to the RDC and Move this process forward.
Thank you. Thank you next speaker in chambers, please
Good evening. I'm Julie how big with regional opportunity initiatives ROI We also would respectfully
ask for your approval this evening and just as a point of information So ROI is one of 15 regional ready
administrators so the state ready program and we of the 30 million dollar total Ready allocation we
got for ready 2.0 for the 10
Uplands regional counties we have obligated four million dollars towards about five hundred thousand
dollars in design and engineering costs and then 3.5 million of those ready funds would go towards the
sanitary sewer build out of the infrastructure so state dollars Will also be here to support some of
that important infrastructure work
So thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in chambers who would like to speak? Great. Please approach
the podium. You'll have three minutes. Is there anyone who's raising their hand on Zoom? Great.
Thank you. Paul Rousseau. Oh, my goodness. I remember the summit hearing two years ago, and I remember
a lot of talk about the costs of growth, but those would be taken care of by an increased taxation.
But now we're gonna use some of the taxation to build the roads, it doesn't seem right. I strongly encourage
you to postpone this until you're sure. If you're not sure about what was said and what was agreed to
two years ago, then I would suggest a postponement on this. Because it feels like a bait and switch
to me. I thought that the taxes would go to accommodate the growth. That's my only statement, thank you.
Thank you anyone else Great council comment or excuse me public comment has concluded on Resolution
20 2608 now we can go back to council comment Councilmember Rallo, thank you Well, I think mr. Rousseau is
Thank you for observing that and and insisting we be careful I actually I think that I'll go ahead and
support this. I think that this is one way of capturing taxes that is useful But I would say it comes
with a kind of a caveat and that is with the concurrency in mind that I think a number of us have talked
about in the past that is
to make sure that infrastructure is at least keeping pace with the development as it proceeds, if not
in place before. And frankly, we've needed a fire station on Tapp Road in that location since the 1990s.
In fact, it was in the 2002 growth policies plan. And it was never developed, and meanwhile,
housing has and and some commercial development has occurred there and Still the no-fire station and
I appreciate that. I'm happy that the developer donated land for that purpose. So So it's ready to go
and I would just implore that the RDC make that a primary priority as we as we go forward and
Just as the road infrastructure and all the other infrastructure that's that's needed for this development
that should be on the top of the list and That's all thanks. Thank you councilmember Flaherty Thank
you I'm sort of two minds one is I find mr. Russo's comments I'm sympathetic to them because I do feel
like I have open questions and
still about what was agreed to, what wasn't. I feel like I've gotten actually a range of answers to
those questions tonight, things that weren't promised, things that, you know, it wasn't promised, it
wasn't committed, this wasn't the understanding two years ago, but we think it's justified now,
and you know, that was sort of the thrust of the mayor's comments. I may well agree, like it might be
the right time to change policy course from what we've done historically and choose to make
public investments in infrastructure that we have traditionally required private developers to build.
I'm thinking of the PUD at the Trinitas built off of Arlington and 17th, it's quite large, there's a
lot of infrastructure there, thinking of Renwick, others, I'm not certain, but I think we've always
required developers of those PUDs and of other subdivisions to build
infrastructure like so that that is the long-standing policy the city of Bloomington I think and I think
this is a big policy change it matters not because you know it's a very easy argument to make that yes
this is a small investment we're gonna you know get all these TIF dollars we need all this you know
additional income tax revenue yes yes of course I get it but again it is a big policy shift we had those
policies of requiring developers to pay for infrastructure for a reason and
The fact that that wasn't front and center in this resolution, I guess, is frustrating and a little
bit of a struggle for me as well. When we have to really dig and work on the fly to try to
get the information we need to make a sound decision, that's challenging. So again, I'm a little bit
of two minds. I'd be fine with postponing to actually have more time to actually dig into some of those
questions that I feel like I had mixed
responses to and to examine more fully what our policy on this has been in the past, why we're changing
it now, what the justification for it is, do we plan to pay for the infrastructure for all future PUDs
and subdivisions, only really big ones, only when we think it's really important, like how are we gonna
make those decisions? Because those, what we're being asked tonight sort of begs all those questions
and there's really no discussion about any of it. So in that case, I'd be fine postponing, even if I
would ultimately probably
may support this, but if we vote tonight, I'll make a decision. So that's where I'm at. Thanks. Great.
Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. Yes, I think that I am ready to support
this tonight. This land has been surrounded by developments and yet has sat vacant for 30 years.
there are reasons for that because of the cost of the infrastructure needed to put this in. And I,
for one, think that we need this development. I mean, this is something that I discussed, that we all
discussed in depth two years ago when the PUD came forward. We need this housing.
And I really don't think it's going to be built and I didn't at the time think it would be built without
subsidies And I think that was pretty clear During the course of those discussions that the city would
need to provide some subsidies for this infrastructure. So I Appreciate what councilmember Flaherty
said that this you know, let's recognize this is a change in policy but I think for this property is
It's you know, there have been various proposals over the last 30 years and they just haven't haven't
panned out until we were willing to To you know give some indication that yes, the city is going to
help fund the infrastructure So I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you. Thank you other comments
councilmember Stasberg Yeah, I think that councilmember Piedmont Smith said
Something very similar to what I was gonna say in terms of I really appreciate councilmember Flaherty's
words and this idea of like is this a new precedent that we're setting and how are we gonna make this
decision but you know, I spent a lot of time with the summit PUD a few years ago and one of the huge
issues were these roads that you know develop this this was in a PUD before and development of that
PUD stopped as soon as the developer had to build these roads and I
At the time, I think that we all were like, well, it's really important that this go on. And I don't
think in the council format it was highly discussed that what that would mean is some kind of public
subsidy for those roads. I think that that was glossed over. For this body, perhaps that discussion
happened far more behind the scenes or
You know with the developer and other parties that was not council because councils and really have
to decide that until like now And then similarly we'll have to kind of have similar discussions again
when We're asked to approve a bond related to what it is that we're gonna pay for and that is one of
the reasons why I was asking some of those detailed You know questions about like how much money are
we actually expected to get from this TIF? to try to kind of
Preface that just a wee bit in terms of the bond That is going to come to us next but I am prepared
to support this tonight in large part because I do want this development to be able to proceed and it
can't proceed without these roads and these roads are Going to be a huge piece of connectivity For that
area, you know south southwest ish side so
I do also appreciate mr. Russo's words. So it I mean it does feel a little bit at least in this format
For this body as a bait and switch. I suspect that it was talked a lot more about Behind the scenes
a couple of years ago than it was spoken about with this body. Thanks Thank you. Anybody else? councilmember
Rosenberger I
I guess from the beginning I've been a little bit on the same in the same boat as councilmember Flair.
Do you just that usually when we have a resolution or something we get a memo with it. And so I mean
today with even a council created resolution we had a memo with that which I appreciated. So I think
there were so many questions today too because city legal
did not provide a memo, so hopefully in the future that would be great. I just spent a lot of time up
here combing through 2024 packets looking for what was actually said around the summit PUD back in the
day. And yeah, I think it just took a lot longer because the packet was pretty sparse about what was
actually going on here.
Because I'm if everyone is supporting this like I'm happy to get on board. I think it is unclear if
this was Agreed on or not even tonight the the developer said it is in the PUD Thank you for saying
that and the mayor said it is not in the PUD. So I That gave me pause as well. I would say But thanks.
Thanks for this. It is exciting to have the things move along and
Hopefully we can have a broader conversation about it later. Thanks Thank you. Anybody else? Councilmember
Ruff Yeah, overall, I mean I don't recall that well the earlier meetings where the Beauty was approved.
I know I voted against it at that time But I'm persuaded by the comments tonight and I think I recall
pretty well from that meeting that there was a good argument to
to be made that there was an indication of partnership understanding of partnership between the city
and the developers on developing infrastructure these roads I I Sense I had that's my sense So I Do
want to say one related thing
At this point in my life after being in this town over 60 years The it's been said tonight By more than
one individual You know, this will bring lots of residents of Bloomington which benefits benefits us
in so many ways We never ask ourselves where does that end what's the yield what's the ideal size for
Bloomington?
200,000 500,000 a million. Where does it stop? I can't see people who I often hear making this argument
ever coming to a point where they'd say oh, no, no, we don't we don't need anymore and I'm telling you
I've seen a lot of growth in this community over the last 60 some years and Not everything is good about
it. There are many downsides and there's a lot of people who
Just as many people who who don't want to see an expansion as do They're not generally speaking of a
having a strong voice strong economic influence or in prominent positions a lot of times but You know
The place sure as hell has grown
But wages are as much of a problem or more of a problem now than they were 40 years ago when RCA was
saying whatever I was here and I know that's not just a local problem, but Growth hasn't solved that
housing housing causes Even there aren't even as many good music venues in this town as I used to be
And there's certainly more crowds and just more and and that's not just
No, I don't know if we can talk about I don't know the stats well enough on On crime and other things
that come along with growing and growing growing into bigger city But I'm really tired of just this
denial that there are downsides and that there are a lot of people who don't agree with just the pursuit
of growing the community and that it automatically results in economic benefits I don't think is evidence,
you know big fast growing cities
Aren't places where a lot of people can be or want to be But again I voted against this PUD but I do
think a commitment or understanding there was that if it was approved the city would participate in
this infrastructure And that PUD has been approved Of course, so I'm going to go ahead and support this and
Thank you. Any other comments. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Just a second bite at the apple here it'll
be short. There are thousands of people who commute into Bloomington from surrounding counties every
day for work and giving them a place to live within Bloomington will benefit us. Any other comments.
Will the clerk please call the roll.
Councilmember daily. Yes Rollo. Yes Ruff. Yes Rosenbacher. Yes clarity Yes Stossburg. Yes Piedmont Smith.
Yes Zulik. Yes, and it's sorry Yes, great with a vote of 9o that passes I
Move that ordinance 2026-06 be read by clerk by title and synopsis only There's been a motion and a
second will the clerk please call the roll I'm sorry was distracted. What's the motion? The motion on
the table is to introduce a
by title and synopsis only ordinance twenty twenty six oh six Okay, yes Rough no Rosenberger no clarity
Yes Stossberg No Piedmont Smith yes
Was that a yes? Sorry, that was a yes. Thank you. Sorry about that. Zulek? Yes. Asari? Yes. Great. With
a vote of six. Oh, I'm so sorry. Daly? Go ahead. Where am I? I thought you went first. Yes. Great.
Thank you. With a vote of six, three, that passes. Is there anyone from the administration who would
like to speak?
on ordinance twenty twenty six oh six Any updates madam chair? Yes. I'm so sorry. There were several
other things that needed to happen. Yes. Thank you for that Take it away a councilman. I Move that 2026
dash 060 red no, it already passed. No, I know I was confirming I know
Apologies everyone. It is late been working for 15 hours at this point Will the clerk please read by
title and synopsis only? Absolutely ordinance 2026-06 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by
rezoning the 6.3 acre property from residential urban lot and residential multifamily within the transform
redevelopment overlay
to planned unit development and to approve a district ordinance and preliminary plan. The synopsis is
as follows. This ordinance amends the zoning of the property from residential urban lot and residential
multifamily within the transform redevelopment overlay to plan unit development. I move that ordinance
twenty twenty six oh six be adopted. Great.
Thank you now that that has officially been taken care of is there anyone from the administration who
would like to speak on this If okay if if the answer is no we can get started with reasonable conditions
Would anyone like to bring forward a reasonable condition to discuss? I Have a motion. Okay councilmember. Sorry. I
I'd like to move, but if you could give me a second to do it very correctly, I'm sorry. I'll just say
it this way. I'd like to move that we vote as one on every reasonable condition that we still have pending,
and that we vote to approve them.
Is that a motion that we can make counselor Allen? Yeah, I believe councilmember sorry is Trying to
make a motion to consider them as a whole which the board can do So if you would like to entertain
considering them as a whole in their present form as one discussion You can do that Thank you. Thank
you There's a motion on the floor to consider the reasonable the remaining reasonable conditions as
a whole is there a second?
separate the question if we get into an issue afterwards. I think we've discussed them just arguing
for the point here. Yes. Council member Flaherty. I'm not seconding the motion. I would support. The
reason why I didn't is because there are some reasonable conditions that are still in the packet that
I authored that I do not intend to move to adopt at all.
namely reasonable conditions seven and 11. And so we don't need to vote on those. I would be up for
voting on reasonable conditions eight, nine, 10 and 12 as collectively if folks were up for that. And
I think it could be relatively quick and we could always divide the question if needed. So I could make
that motion. I withdraw my motion and second council member Flaherty's motion.
Great, could you specify? I move adoption of reasonable conditions eight, nine, 10, and 12. Okay, is
there a second? Second. Great, thank you. Council Member Flaherty, would you like to take it away? Yes,
I'm glad to. So first, just a clarifying note, there was a packet of denim this afternoon that had a version
B and sorry, 8C and 9C and then updated the version 12. I think it was labeled 12C that probably, the
accounting got a little, as we had some good versions, you know, a little messy. So apologies for that.
But reasonable conditions eight, nine and 12 were in the packet addendum from this afternoon. Reasonable
condition 10 is unchanged from the packet addendum that went out yesterday. I will briefly cover each
of them and kind of where we landed and their impact.
Reasonable conditions eight and nine are about sidewalks. They are two paragraphs. So this is eight
and nine C. Paragraph eight says that the PUD standards and street sections will be updated to reflect
a six foot minimum sidewalk for all streets except Rogers and the lanes. And right of way dedication
will be increased as necessary to accommodate those changes. Additionally, what would be reasonable
condition nine is that the sidewalks bisecting block nine
in the East West and North South directions will be updated or reflect a minimum width of eight feet.
And that these sidewalks can be either within the public right of way or in a pedestrian and bicyclist
easement. And similarly, right of way dedication would be increased as necessary to accommodate the
change. This is based significantly on the conversations with the RDC last week. And I had, as noted
in the synopsis confirmation earlier this week from the planning director that
this change will not entail losing or forgoing any developable lots that are planned currently in the
PUD. Reasonable condition 10, I'll take questions on them at the end if that's all right. Reasonable
condition 10 is about tree plots. It says that all of the streets in the PUD need to include tree plots,
including the Wiley Street and Jackson Street cross-sections.
which would need to be updated to reflect a tree plot with a minimum width of five feet, which is consistent
with the transportation plan and the UDO. And there are specific allowances made for block eight, which
is the easternmost block on the north side of Wiley Street where the sidewalk may be basically a tree
plot. We may forego a tree plot as necessary to accommodate the sidewalk there because the existing
building gets pretty close to the street.
And again, right of way dedication as necessary to accommodate the changes. Finally, reasonable condition
12 is on Rogers Street. It would call for the same right of way dedication we have planned in the PUD
now, but updating the street cross section to show a five foot tree plot and 10 foot sidewalk, where
currently it shows a five foot tree plot and five foot sidewalk. The 10 foot sidewalk is what's required
of general urban streets, which is what Rogers is classified as, and it's what we built further to the
north in the PUD. Finally,
The update that went out this afternoon on that condition gives extra flexibility in the immediate proximity
to the stairwell of the existing building. Technically there is room for a 10 foot sidewalk and a five
foot tree plot, but there's some grading issues. And as they actually get into it, it was requested
to the city engineer that they have some flexibility to reduce the width of the tree plot or sidewalk
in that immediate vicinity if necessary. So those four conditions regarding sidewalks and tree plots,
essentially in the PUD updated to
fit with the requirements of the transportation plan and the UDO requirements for subdivisions and rezones.
I believe these were consistent with conversations we had last week. They've had been reviewed and vetted
by the planning director and the city engineer who both confirmed that these would not have negative
impacts on the number of planned lots for housing in this PUD. That's all covered in the synopsis for
these regional conditions.
I'll stop there. And, oh, just I mentioned that reasonable condition 11 was being withdrawn. That was
the one that was about lanes, which I was initially bringing with the intent of making sure we had enough
space to do this, but ultimately it wasn't needed. And for other reasons, it didn't make sense to persist
with that reasonable condition. So, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Council Member Rosari.
I move that we vote to approve
I forget the numbers all of these reasonable conditions on the basis that we've discussed them at length
and the and the changes reflect those discussions second The motion is already on the table what you're
doing is calling the question I call the question then Second which means nobody else can discuss anything That
There is a motion to call the question on the floor This is not debatable correct will the clerk please
call the roll That has to pass by two-thirds majority to right yes, it does Will the clerk please call the roll
Councilmember rough Motion to call the question To reasonable conditions to approve the package of reasonable
conditions to approve that reasonable conditions eight Yeah, the ones that Matt. Yes for councilmember
Flaherty worked so hard on that is the most compromised a lot on and I appreciate everything he did and
I will, I don't like this, but I like what he did and I'll vote yes for that reason. Point of order,
the motion, if I'm not mistaken, is whether or not we will have the vote on the merits of those reasonable
conditions. So this is just saying, are we ending debate, ending public comment, and then voting on
the merits? This is not itself the vote on the merits of the reasonable conditions, correct?
That is correct. Okay, just confirming, making sure we're all on the same page.
We're so confused. I think that I thought that right now we're voting on those reasonable conditions.
No, we we are voting to We're voting to vote. We're voting to call the question
A motion? I withdraw the motion. I withdraw the motion. I don't want to waste time. All I want is to
say we've already discussed these. So as quickly as we can, I think we should vote to approve them.
And then I'm going to make the same motion on every other reasonable condition that we have. I think
we should just approve them all and move on. But I'll withdraw the motion to avoid us having to discuss
procedures or to rob you from the opportunity to tell Councilmember Flaherty that he's awesome.
Great thank you council questions for councilmember flow actually first off. Does the petitioner have
any response to the updated? Reasonable conditions you can just shake your head if no We will interpret
that as you're cool with it though
Anna Killian Hansen Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development the one thing that I want to call
to your attention our consultant flagged that on the north pathway through the north-south trail that
runs through the middle of the PUD on block 9 if that council member Flaherty's Reasonable condition
is adopted Of course, it's a lot better than it was
We do end up losing three accessible parking lot parking spaces just FYI Not saying anything either
way, but just for your information. We are gonna lose three accessible parking spaces Thank
you councilmember, sorry Sorry, my hand was up by accident, okay councilmember Stasberg
This was discussed last time and the reasonable condition wasn't actually updated to it to reflect it
But there there I think is an issue with having a tree plot along Wiley Street because Wiley currently
has a 12 foot setback so I would like to Add an amendment to reasonable condition 10 be adding a number
four to say setbacks along Wiley in block 9 may be decreased as necessary and
Should say front setbacks Along Wiley in block 9 maybe decreased as necessary to accommodate the additional
right-of-way dedication And I'm sorry that We didn't manage to coordinate that earlier to put that in
there But I think that the intention with those setbacks was to give more space for
That side of Wiley between the street and where the houses start and the tree plot will do the same
thing as the setback would do but we need to give an allowance to The petitioner in order to reduce
that setback as part of this. So do I need to move to amend reasonable condition 10b? Attorney Allen
Yeah Councilmember Flaherty is that okay with you because that's your reasonable condition
Okay, so I would like to officially then move to amend reasonable condition 10b to include item number
four front setbacks along Wiley in block 9 May be decreased as necessary to accommodate the additional
right-of-way dedication Okay, there's
A motion and a second. Is this available as an amendment form in writing? I Think that we've amended
like this before and I was about to send I don't I don't know what we need to do to prepare that I Could
prepare it for you I mean if everybody's clear on the full text of what it is as amended and votes on
it It does need to be reduced to writing note. No doubt about that
But as long as everybody has notice about exactly what the text is going to be and how it's amended
and what you're voting on that we can Moralize that to writing as soon as possible Great. Thank you
in that case councilmember Stossberg. Could you please repeat the wording? Yep Front setbacks along
widely in block 9 may be decreased as necessary to accommodate the additional right-of-way dedication Great
Thank you. And just to make sure everybody's clear about that currently front setbacks along Wiley are
12 feet and Front setbacks anywhere else in the development are to zero feet Great. Thank you. Does
anyone have any questions about this amendment? Okay Seeing there is no council questions. Would anyone
like to speak? Would anyone from the public like to speak on the proposed amendment specifically?
Sorry, we'll get there Not seeing anyone in chambers is there anyone on zoom Okay, great in that case
any council comments on this amendment councilmember rough Just like to agree with councilmember sorry
that councilmember Flaherty was awesome on this Great. Thank you Anyone else
Sorry, we passed Bob. Great. Thank you Okay, and in that case, will the clerk please call the roll?
On amendment one for reasonable condition 10 be Councilmember Ruff. Yes Rosenberger. Yes clarity Yes Yes
Yes, sorry Yes Yes Yes Great. Thank you that passes 9. Oh and now we are back to reasonable conditions
8 9 10 and 12 Are there any more questions for councilmember Flaherty? Councilmember Piedmont Smith
This is a question for the petitioner
the Statement has been made by director of planning transportation that this change these changes will
not reduce the number of developable lots in Hopewell South Is it your contention that these changes
will decrease the number of units? And if so by how much oh I see Ali Thurman there Great. Hi guys.
I Thanks for your patience being with us late this evening. I
I can confirm that as far as we have reviewed, we think that we are good with the current conditions,
not removing any units. We think we may have a few units that we need to modify to be slightly different
units, but we think we can make that work. And I think as noted, we're gonna lose some accessible parking
spaces, and so we may need to do some work with engineering to see where those can be relocated, which
I think is something that we
We discussed, you know, it's that north south section. That's our only one we could narrow it at the
parking spaces. Um, we're, we're just very tight on those community parking spaces, which is one of
the places we're doing, um, our accessible spaces just for grading. Um, so that would be probably our
only comment, which I think, uh, Anna brought up. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions.
Okay, we will move now to public comment on reasonable conditions eight, nine, 10. Oh, sorry, Council
Member Flaherty. Did have a question or comment. So I appreciate that feedback that received from Director
Killian. That is not feedback I'd gotten before this moment. I am happy to amend reasonable condition
nine to add a sentence
that would allow for that narrowing for the purpose of accessible parking spaces. So I think I would
like to do that. So I move that we amend reasonable condition 9C to add the following sentence. The
sidewalk running north south may be narrowed as necessary to accommodate accessible parking spaces.
Council Member Flaherty, I believe you cut out. Would you please repeat that? Yes.
Yes, I move that we amend reasonable condition 9C to add the following sentence. The sidewalk running
north south may be narrowed as necessary to accommodate planned accessible parking spaces. Thank you.
There's a motion on the table. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion for amendment
two? Is there public comment on amendment two? This could be your time.
I am Kristen Weida. I am the CEO of Indiana Uplands Realtor Association And I just wanted to speak briefly
and very clearly about Hopewell and what your zoning and your amendment choices will actually produce
So if Hopewell is built under the current UDO requirements the site would support 29 homes because of
those requirements those homes are going to be large and costly with an average sale price and
of $700,000. If Hopewell is built under the proposed PUD without any of your amendments, the same land
would support 98 homes. Those homes are smaller, they're more efficient, and the average price of those
homes, $200,000. Nothing about the land changes. The difference is the rules.
Every additional requirement that you add to the development adds cost. The cost is passed directly
to the buyer, your constituent. Where requirements mean fewer homes and higher prices. So the choice
before you guys is simple. You can build 29 homes for $700,000 or you can build 98 homes
for $200,000. And I also want to address the conditions of requiring permanent affordability. While
affordability requirements are often well-intentioned, they can have unintended consequences because
those resale prices are capped. Homeowners will be unable to build meaningful equity
Even after years of mortgage payments and costly repairs, they may leave with very little money to put
into the next property. These homes can be harder to sell. They can be limiting families' ability to
move for jobs. Their health needs are changing circumstances. In practice, permanent affordability functions
much like long-term renting, restricting wealth building and mobility.
So the most effective way to help lower income starter families is not to lock them into permanent
restrictions, but to increase housing supply at all levels. So I urge you guys to accept the PUD as
proposed and give all your constituents a realistic chance to own a home and to build wealth for themselves
and future generations. Please do not add additional requirements that increase costs, that reduce supply,
and unintentionally harm the very families that these policies are meant to help.
The best path to affordability is allowing more homes to be built at all price points so families can
enter the markets they can move up over time and Share in the stability and opportunities that home
ownership provides Thank you very much would anyone else like to speak on amendment to Okay anyone on
zoom Great in that case we will go back to council comment on amendment to
Would anyone like to speak? Okay, in that case, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment two?
Sorry, Councilmember Rosenberger? Yes. Clarity? Yes. Stasberg? Yes.
Yes. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. With a vote of nine oh amendment
to passes and now we will come back to council questions for reasonable conditions eight nine ten and
twelve. Are there any more questions. Great. Then we will go to
public comment on reasonable conditions 8, 9, 10, and 12. Would anyone in public chambers like to speak?
Please approach the mic. You will have three minutes. And if you could state your name for the record,
that'd be great. Yes, Jeff Richardson. I just want to say that with you folks meeting with the redevelopment
commission was modeling the best kind of behavior. That was one of the best meetings I've attended ever.
And I've been to a lot of meetings. And I just want to compliment you and really demonstrates that working
together, you can accomplish great things.
I hope the county takes notice of that, but I just want to acknowledge this is why tonight it ran so
smoothly. It was beautiful. This is beautiful. Thank you. Thank you for the kind words. Would anyone
else like to speak on reasonable conditions? Eight, nine, 10 and 12. Anybody on zoom? Great. And we
will come back to council comment. Would anybody like to speak? Great. Oh, council member. Sorry.
Just thanking council member Flaherty and the entirety of the mayor's office, the administration for
working so diligently on these. Thank you also to Ali. But really for making it, I mean, we've worked
through these now, I think over almost
going on three months, two and a half months. And just, I just really wanted to, I mean, I think a lot
of work has gone into getting these right, getting these in a way that's acceptable without lowering
the number of houses. We've just made amendments even to deal with the issue of parking. So I just really
wanted to thank Council Member Flaherty and all of you for all of your contributions to this and looking
forward to voting for this.
Thank you, anybody else? Council Member Flaherty. Yes, also just briefly, thank you to city staff who
were able to give feedback on these, especially recently, we were able to work quickly through some
outstanding questions and get to, I think, a stronger place and mutually agreeable place, thanks.
Thank you, any other comments? Will the clerk please call the roll? Council Member Flaherty.
Yes Stasburg. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. With a vote
of nine oh reasonable conditions eight nine ten and twelve pass. Yay. Would anyone like to introduce
any other reasonable conditions.
Councilmember Stasberg, I guess I'll move reasonable condition number 14. Okay reasonable condition
Oh, and there's been a second. So reasonable condition has been moved and seconded with the clerk. Please
call the roll. Oh my bad Go ahead Councilmember Stasberg This this is a reasonable condition that is new
It was mentioned last week kind of in the context of Councilmember Flaherty removing any of the lane
narrowing from his consideration. One of the things that I had brought up at the Planning Commission
level was a concern with the speed of the lanes being high, especially given that there's no sidewalks,
that these lanes would be shared by multiple types of road users.
And that there would also be people pulling out of parking spaces and things like that, that there could
just be the potential offender benders. So reasonable condition number 14 requests the petitioner work
with planning and transportation and engineering to design the lanes with a target speed of 10 miles
an hour, utilizing design elements intended to create low speed, high comfort environment for vulnerable
I did consult with planning transportation department and engineering department about the wording of
this and they approved that wording Great does the petitioner have any response to reasonable condition
14? Fabulous council questions. I
Okay. Public comment on a reasonable condition 14. Anybody please approach the podium if you'd like
to speak. Please raise your hand on zoom if you'd like to speak. Looks like we got nothing.
Council comment. Would anybody like to share. Okay. Well in that case would the clerk please call the
roll on reasonable condition 14.
Sorry y'all councilmember Stasberg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes Zulik. Yes, I'm sorry Yes Nearly yeah.
Yes Rallo. Yes, rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes and flirty Yes
Sorry, I didn't hear that Yes, thank you yay with a vote of nine zero that passes would anyone else
like to introduce reason a reasonable condition I Move to introduce reasonable condition for Okay, reasonable
condition for has been moved to introduce is there a second Sorry, I didn't think it was the second
This it didn't get updated It's really hard to get around to talking to everyone about it. I mean obviously
we can all talk about it here We are still working on a definition of permanent affordability to add
into this reasonable condition Councilmember Piedmont Smith and I met yesterday about it and then asked
I don't interim attorney
Allen for some definitions. So we got some things today. Well I can we can I think follow anyone's lead.
It could kind of go the way it is. It could wait and get amended. It's just it's been a lot I guess.
Questions comments. I'll add to that as a sponsor that
We also met with director Killian Hansen last week to try to figure out wording around selling second
mortgages and some other stuff and that wording just Doesn't have finality yet So I I am not sure how
much it's worth talking about now versus I mean we're just gonna I think have to postpone the whole
ordinance for another meeting to finish off the permanent affordability so
Councilmember, sorry Question are we not comfortable in seeing particularly that we've just amended
a couple of things by Doing it and speaking Can we not are we not comfortable to arrive at that type
of a conclusion tonight? with reasonable condition for I'm not comfortable with that I've talked about
it a couple different times with councilmember Rosenberger after the last over the last few days and if we
didn't have language over the last few days, I don't think that we're going to suddenly appear with
language at 11.25 at night. I would also chime in. That question makes me laugh a little, because I
think you encouraged us to push it if we needed to. So I thought it was totally OK to say we can't get
it done. Of course, we'd do it in one. I'm just saying, if we have the language, we can also just do it.
Move that we postpone reasonable condition for until May 6 Okay, there's been a motion and a second
on the table to postpone reasonable condition for until May 6th Would the clerk please call the roll?
It's just a procedural motion to postpone Would anybody like to make a comment then
Great. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes Zulek no Sorry No Daily
yes Rallo yes
Yes Rosenberger. Yes clarity. Yes Stossburg. Yes Okay with the vote of seven to that passes So, I guess
ordinance 2026-06 will be continued in its entirety on mace We just continued
reasonable condition for with that motion. How would you suggest we vote on the entire thing that I
think I just have to move to continue ordinance twenty twenty six oh six to our next regular session
on May 6th. Okay. Council member Flaherty has his hand up. I was going to share a little bit more about
reasonable conditions for folks awareness. I think I anticipate there's a motion to postpone the adoption
of the ordinance until our next regular session. But
Just for clarity on a few things that are in the packet, reasonable conditions six, which we already
adopted. I anticipate bringing a motion to rescind reasonable conditions seven, which is about energy
efficiency. I anticipate not moving as I mentioned before. And in lieu of reasonable conditions six
and seven, I'm seeking a written commitment covering those topics of electrification and efficiency.
of which there was a draft in the most recent packet addendum that came out today. I would rather not
vote on that today though, since we are seemingly postponing until a future meeting because there was
still at least one substantive question I would like to dig into further in conjunction with staff or
in collaboration with staff. But I wanted folks to be aware of that additional context and anticipate
the procedural steps when we next take this up.
Thank you Well, I guess we have the full ordinance before us are there any other motions Councilmember
Stasberg Once again try to move to continue ordinance 2020 606 to our next regular session on May 6th
second Okay, there's been a motion and a second any comments councilmember Asari Just to two comments
on it. Um, one one is that
I assume that there's people in the room waiting. I can't see them, so maybe they're not. And who might
want to give public comment? So just that as a consideration. And then just to address the earlier comment,
and I know we already voted for it, but partially why I thought we could move forward with a reasonable
condition for or even without the reason that I
over this meeting came to the realization of it is because of the clause at the end of it that requires
the administration to come back. But I mean, if there's substantive things for reasonable condition
seven, I mean, I guess that gives a lot of reason not to. But yeah, but that was sort of my thinking
is that it's sort of the same function at the end of the day that way. So that was sort of why I moved
in that way, Councilmember Rosenberger. Yeah. Thank you.
Happen because I do see somebody in chambers who would like to make a comment great Let's go to public
comment if you'd like to speak on Ordinance 20 2606 as a whole, please approach the podium and state
your name. You'll have three minutes Thank you, thank you Paul Russo again I thought we'd be having
public comment on amendment for just really wanted to
what I wanted to talk about. No surprise, I'm here to talk about land trusts again. And what I would
really like to do is have a clerk distribute this if possible. You may have seen this by email, but
this is a much improved version. And what I would like to say is that... I'll abbreviate my comments
in the interest of time.
We've been told that the best method to create permanently affordable housing Is by using silent second
mortgages with first rights of refusal? That was told to you a week ago As I've demonstrated in this
chart before you such a method fails in fewer than ten years while in comparison a community land trust
would succeed under identical conditions and
If you have any questions about this, you have my email. We'll probably be talking with the director
of housing development about this as well. In my research about community land trusts over the last
month or so, I guess, including conversations with CLT executive directors, it has become clear to me
that Hopewell offers Bloomington a golden opportunity that is the envy of other similar cities.
The two largest obstacles to land trust homes are land acquisition and mortgage lending. And yet here
we have, what is it, 25 acres? And we paid, the city paid six, six and a half million for it I think.
And I think by today's prices it's probably worth 25 million. We own the land. That big hurdle is overcome.
And Summit Hill,
Community Development Corporation has been working with two local lenders now to secure loans for buyers
with incomes between 50 and 80% AMI, whereas hopeful homes would be easier to finance because the buyers
would have incomes between 80% and 120% AMI under a community land trust. Once you get something started
with some momentum, every time there's an opportunity for land to build a land trust,
If you're ready to go, you can jump on that opportunity. That's what all these other people have been
telling me when I have conversations with them. There are some land trusts that get started with one
parcel, and they don't have philanthropic money to expand their land holdings, and they just sit there
for five or 10 years not growing. But the ones that are a little bit bigger to start with, which is
what HOPE will allow you to do,
would allow you to rival other places, such as State College, Ithaca. I can go on and on. Thank you.
There are other college towns all over the place that have done this. And we're way behind. Thank you.
Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak?
Wendy goodlet CEO at Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County I sent an email today, but I want to read
some of the remarks from that for the public as the only developer slash builder offering affordable
homeownership opportunities for households between 35 and 80 percent AMI in our community I would like
to provide some insights regarding the challenges of creating affordability at the Hopewell South PUD
and beyond and
First, permanent affordability restrictions can lead to several unintended consequences, the greatest
of which is limiting the equity a household can realize. Given that home equity represents the largest
proportion of wealth for U.S. households and that U.S. homeowners have an average net wealth that is
400% greater than renters, we should allow homeowners at Hopewell the same opportunities as others in
our community to grow their equity.
The housing market in Bloomington is so supply-constrained that it is nearly impossible for an average
household, let alone a severely income-constrained household, to move out of a starter home. Locally,
80% of the homes built by Habitat and sold are still owned by Habitat family. Rarely does Habitat family's
household income improve to such a degree that they can afford a more expensive home.
This is mostly attributed to Monroe County housing costs far outpacing incomes Due to the investments
both public and private that are required to keep habitat houses affordable Habitat implements measures
to ensure that those dollars are not transferred to the homeowner should they decide to sell during
their during the term of their mortgage the tools to achieve this are a second mortgage a forgivable
second promissory note and a grant of right of first refusal
Utilizing these tools habitat has successfully purchased fixed up and resold 19 homes to a second qualified
habitat family Thus maintaining affordability for the next family This process also maintains the quality
of the home Which is something that will not automatically happen with a deed restriction in most cases
due to the lack of equity Deed restricted properties are in need of expensive repairs when they are
sold to the next buyer affordability necessitates
Prioritizing outcomes if you want the highest number of low-income earners to have access to homeownership
Then as decision makers you need to reduce the barriers to building affordable units From an affordability
standpoint more asphalt and concrete mean higher development costs, which then push up the price points
of houses. I Also talk about our energy efficiency Commission councilmember Flaherty I'd be happy to
talk to you about about that as well as
But the number one issue affecting affordability in Bloomington is lack of supply. It is imperative
that you make it easier to build housing of all types. This is the most effective way to ensure long-term
affordability. Increasing supply eases demand, which drives down costs. Please be thoughtful about the
consequences of your decisions regarding permanent affordability. Thank you. Thank you. Would anybody
else like to speak? Anybody on Zoom? Great.
We will come back to council comment. Are there any motions councilmember Stasberg? I'll move to postpone
consideration of ordinance 20 2606 until our next regular session on May 6th Okay, there's been a motion
in a second to postpone ordinance 20 2606 to our next regularly scheduled session on May 6th Is there
anyone who would like to discuss anything? Great, will the clerk please call the roll?
No. Sorry. No. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Clarity. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont
Smith. Yes.
Thank you with a vote of 7 to that passes an ordinance 20 2606 will be heard for I don't know fifth
or sixth time on May 6th, which is the day after election day. So don't forget to vote Okay, are there
any other motions on the floor There are two others but you don't have to
Just say there is a clerk's note that resolutions 20 2605 and 20 2606 will be referred to the next regular
session unless anyone is Feeling really passionate about introducing either of them going once Not if
they're not introduced If there's no
Objection I will move to additional public comment general public comment if you've already spoken in
a period of general public comment You may not speak but anyone who has spoken on a legislative related
Public comment you are more than welcome to speak during general public comment. Would anyone like to
approach the podium? anyone on zoom great
Going last time. Okay council or public comment has concluded last thing items on council schedule as
we said earlier the next regularly scheduled council meeting will be held on May 6th in council chambers
at 630 that is a Wednesday and there is a council hiring committee tomorrow at 530
In the allison conference room. So if you would like to watch us try to find new lawyers Please come
on down and hang out with us in allison conference room at city hall tomorrow Anything else councilmember
stossberg? There's a fiscal committee meeting on friday at 8 30 also in allison conference room And
it's also available on zoom if you want to zoom in in your pajamas Friday morning. Thank you fabulous
friday morning plans. Love it anybody else
Great I adjourn this meeting