- Hello everyone. Welcome to our regularly scheduled May 6th City Council meeting. Will the lovely and
- generous clerk please call the roll. Piedmont Smith. Zurich here. Sorry here. Daily here. Rollo here.
- Ruff here.
- Rosenberger here. Thank you Great At this time or is there any motion to change the agenda?
- I Thank you. I do have a motion. I move to hear Ordinance 2026-06 before we move to first readings second
- Okay there's been a motion and a second to hear ordinance twenty twenty six oh six first ahead of number
- six legislation for first readings on the agenda. Oh I guess nobody is online. So all in favor please
- say aye. All opposed. Same sign. Great. That passes.
- And then I will go through the agenda summation. First we have minutes for approval and then we'll go
- to reports from council members and then we have a report from Canopy Bloomington council committees.
- We will go to our first period of general public comment and then we have appointments to boards and
- commissions and then we'll start with ordinance twenty twenty six oh six in regard to what many people
- know as Hopewell.
- And then we will have our legislation for first ratings including ordinance twenty twenty six dash oh
- seven to amend title eight of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled historic preservation and protection
- and to establish a conservation district cottage Grove Conservation District ordinance twenty twenty
- six oh eight amending and providing technical corrections to title twenty
- ordinance twenty twenty six oh nine amending and providing technical corrections to chapter four ordinance
- twenty twenty six ten amending and providing technical corrections to chapter six and ordinance twenty
- twenty six eleven amending and providing technical corrections to chapter two then we will go to ordinate
- legislation for second readings and resolutions resolution to
- Directing the housing and neighborhood development department to develop a framework for long-term housing
- affordability resolution 20 2606 and then resolution 20 2605 a resolution to initiate a proposal to
- amend title 20 And finally, we will have additional public comment council schedule and then we will
- adjourn and that took a really long time I am so sorry about that. Please forgive me at this time. Are
- there any motions for minutes for approval?
- I move to approve the minutes for January 22nd 2025 Okay, there's been a motion in a second all those
- in favor, please say aye Thank you all those opposed Great that passes and now we will move on to reports
- from council members any council members who would like to make a report tonight Councilmember Rosenberger.
- Hi. Thank you. I wanted to say
- The city has some new LP eyes around town quite a few actually leading pedestrian intervals at stoplights.
- So this gives pedestrians a few seconds head start to get out on the crosswalks before any cars start
- turning right normally. So that's pretty neat and it's just a little upgrade in safety for all of our
- road users. So thank you to public works and engineering and planning and council for doing that.
- Thank you. Any other reports? OK. Moving on, we have a report from Canopy Bloomington. Please take your
- stage, and you'll begin when you're ready.
- Hi, everyone. I'm Eva Hartman. I'm the executive director of Canopy Bloomington. And sitting right behind
- me, we have Philippa Guthrie, who's the president of our board, Sarah Menci, who's the vice president
- of our board, and then John Vickers, who is our outgoing community engagement director. And, oh, there we go.
- I just want to show a quick video talking about our organization, what we've accomplished last year.
- I know that we had come to see a lot of you about a year ago to talk about who we are. And I just want
- to give a brief overview of that and then talk about what we've done so far. If you just click it, it
- should go. Yeah.
- We'll see if this works and if it doesn't. We can scratch the video if you want. Well, as they pull it up,
- Um, canopy Bloomington is a nonprofit in Bloomington and we focus on engaging with residents and building
- and caring for the urban forest here. Um, the video just would have gone over a few stats on what we've
- done in 2025, but I also have a backup plan. So if you pull back up the presentation, I have the numbers,
- um, and we can just go through those.
- So in 2025, I just wanted to report on our volunteers. We had 1,400 volunteer hours and 300 active volunteers
- with us in 2025. We worked with five different neighborhoods and attended 1,500 households, and most
- of that work was done by our community engagement director.
- All of those residents received information on how to receive free trees from our organization. And
- then we went ahead and we planted 256 trees last year. So we got a lot of trees in the grounds. Most
- of those went on private property. A few of those went in the right of way as we worked with the city.
- And then we also hosted 18 educational events. So
- In addition to planting all the trees, we want to inform residents about the benefits. They provide
- reasons that you want to keep larger trees in your home and in your yard, but also why you want to keep
- caring for the urban forest.
- So we do a bunch of different educational events. We do tree walks, where we walk people around parks
- and talk about the benefits and fun facts about trees. We have a book club. We have Trees 101, which
- is focused more on caring for younger trees, and a few other things there, but I'm going to skip over
- them for time's sake.
- This just goes a little bit into our 2025 tree plantings. So working with seven different neighborhoods,
- five different schools, two not-for-profits, and four individual plantings. One of the things we do,
- like I said, is plant on private property, but we also combine that with education. So we really like
- to work with schools. A lot of times we're working with Sycamore Land Trust. And then really anybody
- who requests trees from us, we try to make it work through grants and different donations.
- And something to note here is in 2025, we've planted 256 trees and this spring alone, we went ahead
- and planted 248 trees. So we are already at that number this year and we're hoping to double that in
- the fall. Thank you.
- Just talking about how we connect with the city. So we have our youth tree tender program that goes
- through parks and recreation We care for over 400 trees in the parks every single summer and we also
- give educational development to high school students we work with Sean and the sustainability and economic
- development office to do the cool corridor program so lining sidewalks with trees and
- We went ahead and we planted 66 trees last year. And this year we planted 59 more as part of the program.
- And then we're looking to do phase two starting this fall and planting them in the spring. So starting
- that outreach to residents. And then we also do different partner tree plantings and events. We had
- a block party at Butler Park last year. And then we also helped the city run the tree assistance program,
- mainly working with Haskell on that one.
- I just wanted to talk about this to highlight how important it is that we work together to grow the
- urban forest because there's a lot of demand for it in the city. And then just a few ways you guys can
- support us. So talking about our events in tree plantings, I know a few of you have come to our tree
- plantings and have talked there. And I think it really is a big benefit to the residents to hear from you guys.
- And then following us, interacting with our materials, sharing different events that we're putting on,
- and just supporting urban forestry programming. So I mean, we're here talking to you, but there are
- tons of different nonprofits that work in Bloomington, and a lot of them are focused on environmental
- efforts. And so just supporting them when you can. Thank you guys. Thank you very much. Are there any
- questions for our presenter?
- Council Member Asare. Thank you. I just had a really quick question, and thank you so much for the work
- that you do. Thank you. As many of our organizations are volunteer-led, and I know that we've launched
- this sort of 100,000-hour volunteer thing in the city. I'm curious about whether you feel like that's
- working well. I mean, very impressive numbers in terms of the amount of people who've come, and it's
- been really exciting to see your events firsthand. But I'm just curious if you're having any pain points
- in terms of getting volunteers.
- 10 times more, you know, and just in thinking sort of in a broader sense, reflecting on how we might
- better build pipelines of volunteers and support you in that way as well. Yeah, that's a great question.
- One of the things that we don't do is track where our volunteers come from all the time. So we know
- if we're working with student groups, they're coming from IU, and that seems to be like a big base for
- us. So I would say at least
- one or two student groups join us at every single planting. But I don't know how they hear about us.
- Sometimes it's through posters, sometimes it's through other clubs, but I also wonder if people hear
- about us or if student groups are using the Bloomington Volunteer Network. We do pretty well on getting
- enough volunteers for each of our plantings, but that doesn't mean that we can't always have more. And
- so we could always talk more about how
- We could maybe track how we're getting volunteers and how that could then like cycle into informing
- your question whether Thank you so much. Thank you guys Now we have council committee reports are there
- any Great moving right along to public comments if there's anyone who's come to speak for general public
- comment So things not on the agenda
- Please rise come to the podium state your name and you'll have three minutes And if you're on zoom,
- please raise your hand Hello, my name is Zach Mueller move that just a little bit Here again, unfortunately
- because I live at the intersection of Morningside Drive and Smith Road and
- That was a great presentation just now. Excellent work, we're glad for all the work you guys are doing.
- I was dividing my attention and I'm sorry for that. I wanted to pick like an arbitrary amount of time,
- like the length of a presentation just as an example here. We have a chronic problem with people who
- just do not even think about stopping at this stop sign. During the time that you were speaking, 23
- vehicles rolled through that stop sign. Not rolled, kind of like, oh, almost stop and then they go.
- did not observe the stop sign. I'm tired of hearing people screeching and yelling and seeing, there
- was only one pedestrian that was in the crosswalk when cars decided not to use the stop sign as a stop
- sign just now. Six months ago or more, a child was struck in the crosswalk. They had to have their jaw
- wired shut
- And more than a month ago, a whole troop of Girl Scouts, who were friends with this child, came here
- and spoke at the transportation committee meeting. They got up in front of the people who were here,
- said, you know, they were scared to do it. They did their civic duty. Yesterday, after I went and voted,
- I got home, and there was, you know, maybe we don't, maybe pedestrians not getting hit, maybe that's
- not gonna move the needle. How about the fact that I had to pick up a dead cat out of the middle of the,
- Crosswalk yesterday because somebody had blown through the stop sign going south on Smith Road And I
- couldn't call the city to do it because the city was closed yesterday And I think the city should have
- been closed yesterday So I walked the cat this poor cat who did nothing other than exist and people
- not wanting to stop at a stop sign because we can't make Enough of an impact to people to encourage
- them to stop I had to walk this poor cat up to the veterinary clinic right up the street asked them
- to scan for a microchip Poor little guy didn't have one
- All he wanted to do was be a little cat and he like yeah, I know cats in the street Oh, no, like it's
- it's a problem. Oh, no, sometimes animals get hit I bet that when we make our decisions about Hopewell
- and other designed
- Areas where we are going to build new housing. We're gonna do a really good job of making sure that
- people stop at stop signs We have appropriate enforcement of speed limits. I'm willing to say we have
- blue into police officer Thank you for your work here, sir You can park your car in my driveway anytime
- you want and if you give a thousand tickets, I will give you a high five I'll give me give you two and
- I'll give you a high five. I am so sick of this kids pedestrians cyclists animals
- They're all running the risk of getting turned into pancakes at this intersection. I would rather be
- anywhere right now than here. But I'm going to come back until somebody does something. Thank you.
- Thank you. Anyone else in chambers? Anyone on Zoom? Great. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm so sorry. Please
- approach the podium, state your name, and you'll have three minutes.
- to initiate the hustle. Hi, Paul Rousseau, Bloomington resident. In case you missed it, like I did,
- there was some very interesting news from Canada five weeks ago. The New Democratic Party, which is
- one of Canada's major parties, elected Avi Lewis to be their new leader. He happens to be the husband
- of Naomi Klein,
- the famous author. I thought his acceptance speech was inspiring, so I would like to share part of it
- as follows. In the last federal election, Canadians voted to say no to Trump and Trumpism. What they're
- getting instead is our government following the United States into future of wars, fossil fuels, austerity,
- and job killing generative AI. Our new Democratic Party has a different offer for this country.
- Our plan is to Trump-proof the economy by investing massively in Canadian economic independence using
- the unmatched power of public ownership to ensure the fundamentals of a good life. A network of public
- providers for food, phones, and internet, a public housing developer, and public construction companies
- to build millions of non-market homes, a 21st century electric grid, an EV bus revolution, and a heat
- pump in every home
- built with Canadian steel, creating tens of thousands of unionized jobs. Investing in the care economy
- as true nation building, the education, health care, elder care, and child care that holds our social
- fabric together, and finishing Tommy's dream, eyes, teeth, mental health, medicine. They are all part
- of your health. They all have to be part of our universal public health care system.
- If we want Canadians to feel more secure, then we have to invest in real security. Of course, we can
- already hear the howls from the establishment, but how will you pay for all this? Well, let's remind
- them that this country is awash in wealth. We can have nice things. Banks made $70 billion in profits
- last year alone. Oil companies are expecting a new windfall in the tens of billions. Grocery Baron Galen
- Weston alone is worth $20 billion.
- It is time, far past time, to properly tax the corporations and billionaires that have been riding a
- tidal wave of profits while the 99% have been suffering and struggling and use that money to directly
- improve the lives of Canadians. The money is there. The money is there, my friends. We need a government
- with the courage to go and get it for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in chambers?
- Anyone on Zoom. Great. Thank you. Now we'll move on to appointments to boards and commissions. Anyone.
- Well in that case then I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash six be read by title and synopsis
- only second. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor. Do we need to roll call. All those
- in favor please say aye aye. All those opposed. Great. Will the clerk please read by title and synopsis only.
- Ordinance 2026-06 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property from
- residential urban lot and residential multifamily within the transform redevelopment overlay to plan
- 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.
- Thank you very much. I move that ordinance 2026-6 be adopted. Second. Great. Thank you. So would anyone
- from the petitioner side like to give an update? No? OK. Would anyone like to move a reasonable condition
- forward? Councilmember?
- Madam chair, I would like I see councilman Stasberg's trade but I'd like I know we have maybe three
- or two and a half Proposals around Permanent affordability. I think that's reasonable condition for
- and What's the number of yours councilmember Piedmont Smith is it 17 now and and number seven sixteen and so
- I don't know how best to do it but maybe I mean I think we've talked about for them but I'd love to
- hear about 16. So it'd be maybe my motion. Madam Chair. Council member Piedmont Smith. I don't know
- if that was a motion but since council member Stossberg is not here yet she was also unaware of the
- change in the agenda and should be here soon. And since she's co-sponsor of one of these maybe we can address
- Condition number six. It was with it was adopted on March 25th but is now being withdrawn by would like
- to be withdrawn by the sponsor in favor of a written commitment. So I think we need to Revote or something
- Councilmember Flaherty sure and we reconsider a reasonable condition six Second, okay. There's been
- a motion in a second. All those in favor, please say aye aye All those opposed. No
- It's just a motion. I don't think we need to vote on the motion to reconsider. Well, we extradited it.
- I think did we accidentally just re-adopt it or affirm our adoption of it? The point is to vote no on
- reasonable condition six, to withdraw reasonable condition six. We just voted in favor to reconsider
- it. So now we can reconsider it. Gotcha.
- We are reconsidering reasonable condition six it is reconsidered because we adopted it already I don't
- really think of withdrawal as a motion but as applied to a motion reasonable condition six was about
- all electric construction the State of Indiana the General Assembly some years ago passed a law Banning
- regulation of electrification as a
- you know, an energy issue. That's pretty common for conservative states. And we talked about kind of
- the substance of this. The purpose of electrification is that it's the only compatible pathway with
- our climate goals. It is dramatically healthier for in-home equipment. So there's lots of reasons to
- do it. I think the general intent of the developer, the RDC, is to build all electric. Previously, the
- legal guidance I've gotten both from city attorneys or corporation counsel and from our own city council attorneys
- is that in the context of PUDs, incentives in the UDO, et cetera, that that's not the same thing as
- mandating in code that we do electrification. So in other words, in the universe of PUDs and incentives,
- this probably is legally okay based on the guidance we've gotten previously. That said, we thought it
- would be better as a written commitment than a reasonable condition because that is probably even further
- in the territory of safety in terms of
- legal compatibility with our General Assembly Law on on supporting fossil fuels so that's why we were
- withdrawing it because we have a written commitment instead that would address electrification and Efficiency
- instead of reasonable conditions. And so I think the unless folks have questions, which I'm happy to
- answer I think we would be voting no on I would recommend we vote no on reasonable condition six and
- that would Function to unadopt it Thank you
- Are there any questions for councilmember Flaherty. Great. Would anyone from the public like to speak
- on reasonable condition six. Any comments on zoom. Great. Any comments from council. Great. In that
- case will the clerk please call the roll on reasonable condition six.
- Just to clarify, since you made the motion to reconsider it and you all voted on that already, do I
- need a motion to actually un-adopt it or something like that? Or do you just want me to go ahead and
- call it without that motion? To be clear, it'd be nice to have a new motion to withdraw Reasonable Condition
- 6 formally seconded. Wouldn't it be a motion to adopt and then we just vote no? I think we've already
- done that. You've already done that, so you need to withdraw it. We've already adopted.
- Yeah, sorry. Sorry. That's my fault I thought the proper motion was to reconsider the question and then
- vote no on that question If the better motion is to vote to withdraw it I can do that instead So I move
- we withdraw reasonable condition six Thank you, there's been a motion in a second to withdraw a reasonable
- condition six will the clerk please call the roll Councilmember Flaherty, yes stuff
- Pibon Smith. Yes Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger. Yes. Thank you Oh
- Didn't know she was on okay and councilmember Stasberg Yes Thank you with a vote of nine zeroes
- That passes and reasonable condition six has been withdrawn from ordinance twenty twenty six Oh six
- councilmember Flaherty in the interest of time in the The coordination with councilman Stasberg as well.
- I could also move then written written commitment one, which I do think we still need to Would be if
- we need to formally adopt short So if they were second second There's
- So this is written commitment one. Let me find it in my packet. Sorry. Does anybody have a page number
- in the PDF offhand? It's just after the last reasonable condition.
- Written commitment number one, I'm just struggling with the bookmarks a little bit to pull it up. Is
- it the energy efficiency housing standards? It's page 21 in addendum one. Okay, thank you. Ah, I was
- looking in the packet, not the addendum. Okay. So this was predominantly written, I think maybe entirely
- written by Director Colleen Hansen.
- It addresses both the energy efficiency and Electrification components. It has two sentences or paragraphs.
- The first is about Designing the pre-approved plans that will go with the Hopewell PUD to achieve an
- energy performance equivalent of the home energy rating system Her score of 65 or better better being
- lower and the second is that construction document shall incorporate best practice air ceiling duct
- placement within condition space and
- and high-efficiency all-electric systems. And the building inspections shall confirm compliant installation
- to details. So fairly self-explanatory. The one thing I'll note here is that we did not... I'm supporting
- this written acknowledgement or written commitment, and I think we should approve it. I was a little
- dissatisfied with where we landed on the first paragraph. Basically, Indiana has...
- building energy code that is consistent with the 2018 set of international energy code standards. So
- they've been doing these standards for many decades now. They update them about every three years. States
- tend to adopt the newer versions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, blue states tend to adopt the latest versions
- more readily than red states. For a long time, ours were stuck in 2009 levels. And then Indiana did
- adopt 2018 levels. So when we think about
- energy efficiency performance that goes above and beyond existing requirements in Indiana code, basically
- what we're asking is we wanna do better than the 2018 code. The way the HERS rating system works as
- well as some other rating systems, they look at 2006 code levels as a baseline, that's a score of 100
- or equivalent to 100, and then each subsequent code has been getting better and better, so the scores
- have been getting lower and lower based on those codes. And the next step up from 2018 would be the
- 2021 level code.
- And all the information I could find about that suggested that a lower HERS score would have been more
- appropriate. I'm not certain that this paragraph of a HERS score of 65 does any better than baseline
- code, but I think the second paragraph does get at some of those practices that may or may not have
- been covered. I had some back and forth with Director Kellyanne Hansen about it. She has some background
- in this as well as a professional.
- I was not able to independently verify the information, which is what I was seeking to do. And some
- of the information I found suggested to me that a lower number there would have been more appropriate.
- I'm sharing that because it's just the truth. It's my own reservations and orientation to it. And I
- think what's also been revealed through this process is that we might want to consider updates to the
- incentive section of the UDO, which really relies much more on lead standards and equivalent versus
- thinking of energy code as, you know, trying to essentially have like a reach code where through incentives
- we would allow folks to do better than the base level code in Indiana. It became a bigger conversation
- that I thought we had time to really resolve. So, I just assented and here we are. So, that's it. Happy
- to answer questions if you have them and I hope you support the written commitment. Thank you. Council
- Member Asari.
- Just a point of information or a question. Do we have to adopt written commitments like at the same
- way we would with with regional conditions we vote for them or Are they are is there some implied like
- they've already done it we could ask attorney Allen State code in the 1500 series does give the council
- the ability to impose written commitments So that's I think the route we took here if there was a you know, I
- Written commitment like signed by the chair of the RDC or something that would come separately. Maybe
- we wouldn't need to vote on it. I don't know but One of the duties or not with the powers rather and
- given to the council in the relevant section of code is to impose written commitments Second Yeah, yeah
- the motion adopted on the table Are there any other council questions councilmember Rosenberger
- Thank you. I'm sorry. I just need a little clarification I think on okay. So number one that says our
- hers score of 65 or better Were you saying that? That is what is generally in our code and is how most
- buildings are already built so It's not in our code what dictates building energy standards is state code and
- The state code is consistent with the 2018 international code level. The information I could find seemed
- to indicate that that level of code, a 2018 level, would in most instances meet or exceed this 65 number.
- So what I was telling, yeah, I think you're getting the general idea that I couldn't find good information
- to verify that 65 would in fact be better than what code already requires. Nevertheless,
- I'm recommending we move forward because it gets a little complicated. The HERS rating scores are not
- actually the exact same thing as the energy rating index used to assess code compliance. They depart
- a little bit and so it's a little messy. I did talk to some folks from the Department of Energy who
- work in the building codes office but I wasn't able to get resolution on it before it was time for the
- meeting and again I think it's just
- Thanks follow-up. Yes, I remember at our Deliberation that you were talking about the Department of
- Energy scoring system as well. So You and director Killian Hansen, I guess went with hers When you said
- you I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm not sure. Sorry. I'm not sure the hers isn't an appropriate system I think
- that could be perfectly fine and a suitable one for this purpose It was more about the number and the
- difficulty of getting clear on that
- Okay, so yes, so the number seems low and then sorry you asked for some information that might show
- that number 65 was okay and I mean, I guess with the director did the director give you any information
- that this was a good number Based on her expertise, that's what she recommended also I welcome director
- can enhance into to share if she would like about about the the
- Her professional assessment that that's an appropriate number. I would say I couldn't find other information
- to verify that personally The energy code and hers ratings are calculated very differently differently
- hers ratings involve calculating air volume and the amount of air that is leaking to the outside of
- the building envelope or
- Ultimately how much efficiency that is being lost? Okay, so you can't just look at a model energy code
- and say oh you're gonna get 80 or you're gonna get 70 you're gonna get 60 it's all related to the building
- plan itself the type of insulation that goes into the home the efficiency of the equipment
- in the home, your duct ceiling, or how much air you're losing through your duct work. There's a lot
- that goes into it. So you are not going to be able to broadly say, by this score is going to automatically
- correlate with an energy code, period, not gonna happen. 65 is aggressive.
- Is going to cost money to get to a 65 I would say that the majority of the scores that I've seen through
- people that are trying to pursue efficiency and new construction are around 80 75
- I would say and I would encourage you to ask Wendy Goodlett who's here from habitat who they have been
- a long time User of the her score and I would say that hers is the most commonly used for any kind of
- residential construction Lead is the incorrect mechanism to use for efficiency ratings on single-family
- residential period the reason
- Initially councilmember Flaherty had indicated that he wanted a hers rating of 50 and this is a bit
- crass and it was discussed at the work session But I tried to put it in layman's terms essentially small
- homes are the hardest to deliver
- lower energy score and part of that is related to the amount of volume that is within the home. Let's
- look at the front door of the home. Every time that you open the front door, how much air is being lost
- to the outside of the building envelope? You have to make up for that air exchange by ductwork or
- It could be equipment, that kind of thing. In a 3,000 square foot home, that is much easier to account
- for. In fact, you would probably have enough room to put in a geothermal system that would likely be
- about $70,000. So we're adding a lot of costs to it. A lot of spray foam, a lot of other things to help
- seal that building envelope. Unfortunately, on a small home, it is incredibly difficult to deliver because
- of that air exchange.
- even the most energy efficient argon filled double low E glass windows have a really low R value. You
- also have very limited amount of duct work, so you're not gonna make up for it that way. And even to
- get to a 65, I have concerns because I have a feeling that we're gonna end up with a P-TAC system as
- the form of, which is, it's basically a ductless furnace that sits
- up on the ceiling or otherwise. I would say it's probably the most equivalent to a baseboard. But either
- way, those have a half-life of a normal furnace. So in these small homes that we're trying to deliver
- efficiency, we've now met that, okay, in probably 10 years, somebody's gonna have to replace the PTAC
- system. So again, it's all about cost. But what you're asking for is very difficult correlation.
- Further, the layman terms, it's essentially, if you were trying to get to a 50, it's the equivalent
- of a 500 pound person saying that they want to cut half their body weight, plausible. 100 pound person,
- not plausible. So I think you're looking for something that doesn't exist. What we're committing to is
- As much efficiency that is possible. We have to do the calculations. They have to take each individual
- plan They have to calculate the air volume look at the air exchanges and try to design it appropriately
- Thank you Did you want to go first or maybe just a point of clarification a couple the score I suggested
- based on the research I did was a hers at 54 and
- I was not suggesting that LEED be used. What I was indicating is that International Energy Conservation
- Code levels often use the Energy Ratings Index, or ERI, as a code compliance pathway, and the ERI and
- HERS are very closely related, but they depart in a few ways that made this a little bit of a complicated
- question to answer.
- I did ask folks at DOE for some examples of any jurisdictions that have used hers, and they gave some
- examples of municipalities in Massachusetts for their reach code that have had scores in the low 40s,
- for instance, for compliance. Massachusetts is much farther ahead of us than on energy efficiency. Generally,
- they have also a better base level code. So it's okay, we're not gonna solve it. We have some fundamental
- misunderstanding about some aspect of this.
- We can agree to disagree. I'm recommending we approve the written commitment written commitment as written
- by director Gillian Hanson. I Appreciate the efforts on it. It's just too much to resolve right now
- is my opinion Councilmember sorry I'm so sorry director Gillian Hanson to ask you a question after I'm
- sorry Just just a quick clarifying question Are you are?
- just making sure that I've understood correctly the written commitment as is. I understand that is adding
- some cost and so ideally you wouldn't want it, but are you, is the RDC and are you in your expertise,
- are you happy with where the written commitment is currently? I am, but I will say you guys all have
- really should have at least received a copy of a resolution that was passed on Monday night by the RDC.
- Part of that indicates that they're okay with some of these things provided that it doesn't Cost us
- too much to not hit some of the affordability goals So I can I don't have it right in front of me. Perhaps
- you do There is a section on the energy efficiency that they have in there. I'm okay with the 65 I think
- it's gonna be a lift especially for smaller homes and any energy rater will tell you that but
- It does add costs but it's as close as we're going to get to an agreement right now. And just just out
- of curiosity I mean with the with the difference between the small and large homes I mean do we think
- about adding you know something like the mean of like the averages so you know so I mean just thought
- thoughts on on that on either side.
- I think the other thing that I would like to bring up is that there is some software change that is
- occurring with hers ratings and energy efficiency rating systems all across the board that I Understand
- is coming in the next six months or so so pinning down a number at this time They may not be equivalent
- and we just have to understand that in the future 65 might mean something else But today's 65 was what
- I was targeting Just so that's in the record
- Great. Thank you. Any other questions? OK. I guess we can go to public comment on written acknowledgment
- number one. Is there anyone in chambers that would like to speak on written acknowledgment number one?
- Written commitment number one. On Zoom? Great. Thank you. We'll go back to comments. Any comments?
- Councilmember Flaherty just briefly to Say my orientation to energy efficiency and electrification generally
- is about creating affordable healthy homes Gas appliances cause childhood asthma and very high rates.
- They're unhealthy for all of us. We shouldn't want those appliances This is a health issue efficiency.
- Similarly, it lowers utility bills over time providing dramatic return on investment actually, even
- though it does increase upfront costs to a degree and so I just want to be or to my colleagues to
- think about costs in the context of this whole evening's discussion as investments in our community
- for more affordable homes long-term, things like permanent affordability, even infrastructure that,
- yes, costs money. Just like any sidewalk costs money, we could get rid of them all, but that'd be,
- I think, a bad idea because we're committed to certain levels of quality for our community. And I think
- efficiency and electrification should be some of those things, and the city's in a great position to
- lead on that front. So thanks for your consideration. Any other comments?
- In that case, will the clerk please call the roll on written condition one? It's councilmember Stasberg.
- Yes He'd not Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. I'm sorry Yes daily Yes, Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger.
- Yes Flaherty. Yes. Thank you. Thank you with the vote of nine Oh written commitment number one passes
- Would anyone like to introduce another reasonable condition and or make a different motion? Councilmember
- Stasberg We only have the affordability ones left right that is correct I kind of want to propose that
- we just discuss them as kind of a whole because honestly I was was reading all three of them going like
- okay I kind of like this from this one and this from this one and this from this one and I was hoping
- that there would be a little bit more time for me to think about how to put those together before we had to
- But yeah, so I guess that means that I would like to make a motion to discuss the three Affordability
- reasonable conditions second. Okay, there's been a motion in a second Would the clue all in favor, please
- say aye aye all opposed great, I guess we will Discuss all of the affordability conditions. Would anyone
- like to start? Oh and I
- I should probably give up the gavel to councilmember Daley since councilmember Asara and I are co-sponsoring
- one All right. Thank you very much Councilmember Stossberg, I'll just I'll just start because
- with councilmember Rosenberger we have four that is has been not changed a whole lot except strengthening
- the definition of permanent affordability and one of the reasons for that was that We we were not
- Provided the information in a timely enough way to change anything or add anything with silent seconds,
- etc Etc that we thought was convincing in apples to apples that made us feel comfortable about putting
- it in in time for the packet today so Yeah, and I would appreciate hearing from councilmember Piedmont
- Smith and council members you look and sorry about their thoughts on theirs to
- Councilmember Rosenberger want to chime in on Amendment or RC number 4b or I don't need to chime in
- right now. Okay Well, I would be happy to talk about number 16 Okay councilmember Piedmont Smith Thank
- you. Sorry. I forgot I was conducting the I did too The gavel is traveling tonight I
- So one thing that we heard from the RDC and from Director Killian Hanson is that it would be, the constraint
- of specifying the method by which permanent affordability will be achieved would be burdensome and may
- actually backfire and result in
- homes not being built. If so this I'm trying to pull it up. I'm sorry we have too many packet addenda
- here but this reasonable condition basically leaves it up to the RDC to decide how to maintain that
- permanent affordability. It also decreases the minimum number of units that will be permanently affordable.
- reasonable condition for B and reasonable condition 15 as well say that at least 50 percent of all dwelling
- units must have be designated permanently affordable. So my reasonable condition says that it shall
- be 35 percent of that 35 percent 15 percent should be affordable to households making 90 percent
- of the area median income and then 20 percent shall be affordable for households making no more than
- 120 percent of the area median income. There's also a slight change at least from a reasonable condition
- for B in the definition of permanent affordability there.
- Definition includes a period of no less than 99 years or the life of the building during which the affordably
- dedicated properties within the PUD will be restricted to being rented or sold at amounts determined
- for low or very low income households as defined by HUD average median income. But then it says eligibility will be
- to 90 percent and 120 percent AMI. Well that does not match what HUD has determined is low to very low
- income levels. So I took that part out. So what we were looking for is the 90 percent 15 percent of
- total units at affordable to people who make at or below 90 percent of the median income plus 20 percent
- of units for people who make at or below 120 percent of area median income and leaving it up to
- the RDC to determine the method. One final thing I think that's also different from 4b and I'm not sure
- if it's in 15. Where is it. Oh it says permanent affordability mechanisms shall be designed in such
- a manner that do not require additional public subsidy. I took that out. So
- There might be a time when we want to provide additional public subsidy to keep this housing affordable.
- It might be necessary. We don't know. So I took that requirement out. So that that's my reasonable condition
- in a nutshell in a big nutshell that took 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont Smith.
- Council Member Zulek or Sari, would either of you like to talk about yours? I'm happy to. I think in
- the broadest sense,
- was trying to capture two things. One was the desire that was presented by the RDC very clearly to add
- more mechanisms, particularly if we had a very high level of requirement that they needed more tools,
- and the toolbox was what was set at our roundtable, and so was trying to add all of those while maintaining
- the sort of numbers that were requested
- that were proposed by councilmember Stasberg and councilmember Yeah, I've just lost your last name it
- just left my head Rosenberger and While also wanting to have a little bit more flexibility I think sort
- of in all of the all of the things And so that that was in the large in the large sense what we were
- trying to do happy to talk through any any bit of it more specifically but
- personally, I I very much like I think the approach that Councilmember Piedmont Smith has taken I think
- that it sort of elegantly does what we were trying to do so sort of I would my personal preference would
- be that we Sort of move more in that direction, but I don't know if anything else you want to add I
- second the sentiment Councilmember Piedmont Smith
- Did you say Piedmont Smith. Sorry. OK. I forgot one other thing that my reasonable condition includes
- which I think in some way or another would have been accomplished with the other two as well. So part
- three says the petitioner should the petitioner shall report back to the Common Council every six months.
- From the date of passage ordinance twenty twenty six oh six for five years regarding the methods and
- progress on implementation of the PA requirements So we would get updates twice a year to see what methods
- they're using how it's going. Etc Councilmember Zulek Do the petitioners have any response to that?
- I just want to give the opportunity in case anyone would like to say something
- Anna Killian Hansen again. I Think that thank you Councilmember Piedmont Smith. I do think that that
- is more in line with what the RDC can do. I do also Want to draw attention back to the resolution that
- came from the RDC directly voted on unanimously well four to one at least
- That they are concerned about being able to deliver anything above and beyond or making commitments
- right now Without knowing the cost of infrastructure the cost to build gas prices are rising What happens
- if we can't build a unit for the what you want us to sell it for? We don't have bottomless amounts of
- money to be able to subsidize between the cost of build like for instance, let's say that
- Build is going to cost us fifty thousand dollars more just because lumber prices are going up gas prices
- are going up What is that dollar amount across the number of units? That's pretty significant. So You
- know could be millions of dollars that we would have to bring to the table just to get to your AMIs
- if if we can't build it for that cost if we can great we'd love to deliver even more affordability,
- but I just
- Want to make sure that you guys have heard that the RDC feels like they really can only commit to the
- 25% right now Of course, we would love to report back as we're able So not trying to muddy the waters
- just want to be perfectly clear with what they've authorized me to say Thank you Any questions from
- council members on councilmember Rosenberg I'm
- can be a question I don't know as one of the sponsors I just had some comments to I think the number
- 15 I think it looks really good and I just wanted to bring up some changes in it. Number two the unit
- mix just add some words that say the unit mix shall be generally proportionate to the extent practicable
- practicable.
- which can mean totally different things to different people. So months ago I did talk with Nate Ferreira
- who said unit mixes can be difficult to achieve. I think it's just in the realm of we don't want the
- tiniest things to be the only permanent affordable, right? We're just all saying we want some three
- bedrooms and two and ones and none's. Yeah.
- And I just know I think Councilmember Piedmont-Smith in the very beginning of this you had thought that
- was really important. So I just also wanted to flag it for you I think like months ago when we were
- talking about it. I do still appreciate the 50 percent rather than a 35 percent with a PUD. A PUD is
- amendable at any time and I think we won't be unhappy that we
- tried to get to 50% of permanent affordability in a PUD, and if it doesn't work, like it didn't work
- at the Rolato, it can be amended to something less. But for me, I still say let's go for the best we
- can. I think too, the petitioner has talked about making at least 71% affordable, so I don't think that
- this should be a sticking point. I'm sorry, one more thing. Oh, with some number 15,
- I think with a really good definition of permanent affordability I don't necessarily feel a need for
- the petitioner to come back with for a resolution. I know that was in our the original because the mechanism wasn't
- Really known and there wasn't a great definition of permanent affordability But I think with the definition
- and when it has to meet those requirements, it's not as important to me that they come back So, I mean
- I think the list also that you to put in here is totally okay But I don't also see a need for a list.
- I guess okay Councilmember Stasberg Yeah, I think I don't have a question so much either as I
- I guess some thoughts about the things that I liked about the other two Left 16 and 15. I think those
- are the right numbers So I also like sticking with the 50% and I appreciate what councilmember Rosenberger
- just said about that idea like we could amend it later if it really became Impossible to practically
- do that, but that shooting for that goal might be really appropriate I I appreciate that councilmember
- Piedmont Smith took out that low and
- Very low. I we weren't thinking about how that was defined by HUD But you know since that is
- very specifically defined by HUD. It should not have been in there To begin with and I think the rest
- of that definition coincides and is the same and I appreciate that councilmember Piedmont Smith says
- that it can be secured through any legal mechanism as opposed to the list because I feel like the list
- ends up being bulky and I know that the like
- the intention that was there, but I think it's just more succinct in Councilmember Piedmont-Smith, which
- is why I kind of started out by the saying, like, there's some of each that I like.
- I like that Councilmember Asari and Zulix has the public subsidy note in it because I think that that's
- important to kind of keep in mind and I appreciate that it does say we're feasible but that is also
- one of the reasons why I I also like the resolution of approval because resolutions don't actually have
- any legal teeth but I think what that would do is it brings it out into the public eye again to be like
- this is the plan that is happening with with
- money in terms of potential subsidies or not subsidies and Staff time and that kind of thing. So I appreciate
- that that is in there I'm not sure how I feel about the wording of that and I would need to have some
- understanding because It says the sale of any dwelling unit and I certainly would not want a resolution
- in front of us every time there was a sale but maybe
- on the initial like we are using this affordability mechanism to do these. And I'm not sure if that's
- totally clear in how this is phrased. But I like that. And let me see what else I highlighted. I already
- said the 50. And then I think
- I think that the unit mix from reasonable condition for and Functional equivalency is the same
- and councilmember Piedmont Smith's as it is a number four. Is that correct? Because I like that that
- phrasing I think though in 15 it's a little bit different So yeah, I don't I don't know if there's time
- right now to make a new reasonable condition number 17 or 18 or whatever we're on to combine
- Those those three things together and I don't know what anybody else thinks about that. But yeah, those
- are my thoughts on that President Asari Thanks The first the question and then and then some some comments
- we're at the last meeting we made some adjustments to reasonable conditions just vocally is that's that's
- okay, I mean granted not to 27 lines of reasonable conditions, but
- Is that okay? Attorney Allen as long as we're very clear about what the text is and what the wording
- is going to be from the alteration So whichever one we pick and the alteration of the wording so that
- it can be recorded and put with the minutes So that we're absolutely clear about what's accepted So
- a couple of things I don't know if I'll do these in the right order exactly but I as relates to the
- question of
- Proportional mix I was a little bit concerned. We were a little concerned about it being very restrictive
- And I think that that was something that came up during our roundtable as well that you know one of
- the tools on the table is is that mix I but I appreciate what Councilman Rosenberger said that you know,
- you don't want just all of the affordability to be in, you know efficiencies or something like that
- which but but I do think with
- many of the other reasonable conditions that we've made, I think you need to give somewhere, right?
- And so I'm concerned that, I mean, as I think has been repeated multiple times, you don't want to make
- this infeasible, sort of from go. And so that was sort of what we were trying to get at there. In terms,
- though, of the amendment, I wonder as well about taking sort of
- I wonder if we could take an opposite approach, which I'm just thinking about what Director Killian
- Henson just said, the way that it was said as well, and just thinking about the resolution from the
- RDC. Is there a way that we basically signal we'd like as much as possible? I think we all agree. They
- agree on paper. They like as much as possible as well. So the intention is to, once we do know the physical
- cost, et cetera, to sort of
- put in writing the amount or something like that, which a minimum of X with a sort of target of Y or
- something like that. I wonder how we feel about an approach of that nature. So basically coming back
- and saying, we won't accept anything lower than 30%, 25%, whatever the number is. And then we say, but
- we have a target of 50. And so come back to us when you actually know the cost and things and tell us
- how close you can get to that realistically and what the exchanges would be or something like that.
- good of the order putting it out there. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Before we head to public comment.
- Are there any questions right now? Oh, we're still in discussion. Yeah, we are. Pardon me. This isn't
- my day job. All right. Any other comments that are observations, queries, concerns, reactions,
- Interpretive dances councilmember Stossberg. So at this point should we be trying with attorney Allen
- to modify One of them because I mean I think that we could probably modify any of them We just have
- to be specific and then it's like which one might be easiest to modify Is that what we should be doing
- right now, I think that I think that's a reasonable thing and then we should move to adopt said amended
- condition and then we would Have the questions and discussion and public comment and then a vote is
- that is that what we should do? It sounds like that's where we're at Yes, we should get a reaction but
- councilmember Piedmont Smith had something to say first and then we'll hedge reaction well, I mean I
- think the the biggest point or the difference between reasonable condition and
- 15 and the other two is no 16 and the other two is the 35 percent versus 50 percent So I have no sense
- of what direction the majority of the people up here would go so I don't know how we would revise it
- to be Acceptable by a majority if we don't know what that majority would be Councilmember sorry, I would
- lean towards the third I mean they've said that they're their line is 25 and so right so so again, I
- think you know, we're
- I guess the question that we all maybe need to consider explicitly is whether we are content, especially
- at this point,
- Have the RDC withdrawal after you know, if they say look we did we don't we're not happy with this and
- we're gonna take it back, right? so so like I want to establish a Baseline that we're all comfortable
- with that. We all think is actually attainable So I mean what's closer to what they're asking for so
- I would lean towards the 35% Councilmember Flaherty Thanks Kind of others what two things one and
- I think all three of these resolutions, or reasonable conditions rather, have the 15% reserved at 90%
- AMI, and then a chunk at 120% AMI, which I think is important. It is now what's required for any new
- PUD. It was not at the moment this PUD was brought, but I think as we've discussed, it actually was
- meant to be in effect at that time, had the statutory timeline's been met. And so I think meeting that
- standard is important. That's central to me. The other is on this,
- right, like what we can achieve and there's some degree of uncertainty, it also seems like it's a function
- of what affordability mechanisms we use, which complicates things a little bit. In particular, leveraging
- the value of the land in the form of ground leases or something else gives us much greater opportunity
- to advance affordability than not. I know there are differences of opinion about operational complications
- that introduces,
- you know, and whether or not that's the right approach. I guess I'm just struggling a little bit with
- that aspect, this idea that we can or can't do something. I think baked into statements like that are
- probably unspoken assumptions about what mechanisms we're using, and we're kind of giving the flexibility
- to use any mechanism, but like the answer to the question that Cosmo Versaria was posing is in part
- a function of the mechanism chosen. And so I'm not quite sure how to deal with that, I guess.
- I wanted to, I guess,
- Express that that is something I'm grappling with I would lean toward something that looks like reasonable
- condition 15 and if if We have to revisit it we can but you know anyway Thank you, we're Director Killian
- Hanson. Were you waiting to I had said we would go to you next and we didn't and I'm so sorry were you
- waiting to speak and
- I would just like some clarity whether you guys are introducing the language about proportional units
- I mean if you guys looked at the exact the exhibits in the packet You would notice that some of the
- three bedrooms are around five targeted around five or six hundred thousand So those are gonna be the
- hardest ones to deliver at the AMIs that you're talking about So just so you know that's gonna be another
- subsidy that we're gonna have to come up with if we can which who knows at that point so
- Thank you. Councilmember Zulek, did you? No, you're done. Councilmember Stasberg. Just to that point
- that Dr. Killian Hansen brought up, I was thinking about changing that wording from must be proportionate
- to potentially in terms of amending what we have to create something new to be must be as proportionate
- as possible to the market rate units. I think that that makes it pretty strong, like we want it
- very proportional, but also maybe leaves the flexibility of space that might be necessary. So that would
- be my proposal to try to really maintain the proportionality, but give the flexibility. OK, thank you.
- Any other? Sounds to me like we need to pick which resolution we're essentially going to be amending,
- which is closest at this point. Reasonable condition, pardon me.
- I was actually honestly wondering whether it would be easier to modify reasonable condition Well, I
- think it depends on whether we're gonna do the 50% or the 35% I feel like it would be easier to add
- language than to take away language and for me personally, I feel like I want to add language from number
- 15 to one of the other two agreed and So yeah, and and I guess I would also be in favor of doing the
- 50 and kind of
- Setting that bar high and Encouraging then maybe as councilmember Flaherty said other techniques and
- not just relying on one Councilmember sorry I Lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. Oh, let me let me
- come back to her Well, then I'll make a comment right now. I I really like the idea that councilmember
- sorry I believe it was who said putting that range in there minimum of X
- Maximum or with a goal of X not a target of thank you. Not maximum. I I don't think we should set it
- at 50 right now I think that could cause greater problems or heartache down the road. So I think I like
- the idea of that target range For what it's worth anybody else Council members do look I second that
- but I also lean towards the 35% in favor of flexibility Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you
- Does anybody have, I think it seems to make the most sense to pick either 15 or 16. Oh, I'd like to
- recognize, thank you, I could not think of the word. Controller McKim, thank you. Thank you very much,
- Jeff McKim, and actually I'm speaking here as the treasurer of the Redevelopment Commission.
- The RDC is, I just want to make sure that everybody understands that the RDC's revenue
- comes almost entirely from tax increment financing revenues developed within our allocation areas. Several
- of those TIF districts began expiring in 2029, with others following from 2031 to 2040. This means that
- the RDC operates with a finite and declining revenue horizon.
- At the same time, the RDC is already responsible for substantial long-term obligations, including debt
- service on prior projects and major commitments already underway or planned. And those commitments together
- already bring the RDC close to its practical bonding capacity. So I just want to make sure that everyone
- understands that anything that, any requirements for
- a subsidy out of the RDC essentially come at the expense of potentially completing the project, of completing
- other future projects that have already been committed to. So I just want to make sure that everybody
- understands and thinks, understands that every additional requirement, say for
- 50% of permanent affordability does potentially have trade-offs and comes at the expense of other public
- projects We just we unfortunately the the TIF is not a bottomless Source of revenue and in fact, we're
- going to you know, we're going to see a decline over time. So thank you I just wanted to make that clear
- Thank You controller McKim. Does anybody have language right now that they would like to? I
- put forward for this new reasonable condition councilmember Piedmont Smith, I do not but I Would move
- for a five or ten minute recess so that we can get this language That was my backup plan. Yeah second.
- Okay, I move for a five minute Reese councilmember Stossberg I guess I just have a question of how we're
- gonna do this then and not have issues with Quorum stuff. So like who's gonna
- Be over there with Larry. I'm ending things right now Should maybe the sponsor so I assumed it was At
- least one representative from well one one condition to and Kate D or sorry councilmember Rosemary Do
- you want to go or you want me to go? Okay Yeah, if we're in a recess I move I move for a 10-minute recess Do we
- We don't have to just call a 10-minute recess? Sorry. I was just saying there was a... All right, there
- is a 10-minute recess. I'll see y'all soon. We're back in session. That's been our 11-minute break.
- I apologize. All right, do we have a working reasonable condition that we would like to discuss or propose? Ready.
- It looks like we do not. They do. OK. So that is being sent over to our counsel attorney Alan and then
- we can hear more about it and talk about it.
- I got nothing in the meantime. We're gonna try to speed the rest of this along. I know that this is
- taking a long time, and that's why we wanted to get it out of the way first. Yeah. So we're gonna try
- to wrap this up and then move on, because we've got a lot of stuff on our agenda tonight, and it's all
- very important, and we wanna make sure that we give everything really due diligence. Are we ready? I
- don't mean to rush you guys, but I mean to rush you guys. Yes, I shared the document with Attorney Allen.
- Do you want to just give them a quick overview while they put it up?
- Wants to talk so this is still reasonable condition 16. We're going out we need to change up there Okay,
- thank you. Who wants to introduce this and talk us through I? Will thank you councilmember Piedmont
- Smith All right, so we used reasonable condition 16 as the basis and then the changes are in red so we have
- Instead of 35% of dwelling units, we said at least 35% of dwelling units with a goal of 50% of all dwelling
- units. So we have the permanent affordability. And then in correlation with that, you'll see
- under eligibility, we have a minimum of 15% to be available for 90% AMI households and a minimum of
- 20% to be available for 120% AMI households. And then,
- The mix of units as far as the bedroom square footage et cetera must be as proportionate as possible
- to the market rate units. So allowing a little more flexibility there. And then we took a couple of
- things from a reasonable condition 15. So permanent affordability mechanisms should where feasible be
- structured to remain enforceable independent of ongoing public subsidy. So we're saying we would prefer
- not to have
- more public subsidy in the future, but if you have to, then you have to. And then number four, we want
- to know about the affordability instrument that they're going to use, that the petitioner's going to
- use, including how to keep it permanently affordable. So we're asking them to come back to the Common
- Council for approval. So those are the differences with, so the synopsis has not been updated.
- Yeah, ignore that So that is it and happy to Try to answer questions on this. All right. Thank you very
- much councilman Sorry council member Sussberg. I guess I want to ask attorney Alan the thing that we
- were trying to kind of figure out at the end was the
- The prior to recording the number four if you could scroll down to number four Where it says prior to
- recording of a new affordability instrument or the sale of any dwelling unit? I just I just want to
- make sure that the language matches the intent and so the intent is that They would come with a resolution
- detailing their affordability plan either when they
- develop a new one and are using a new one or the first sale of a property. And so it's like if they're,
- say, using silent second mortgages, then the first time they use a silent second mortgage, they come
- and they tell us all about silent second mortgages and we have a resolution that we approve of how they're
- doing this. But the second time they use a silent second mortgage, they don't have to do that.
- but if they use silent second mortgages for a few and then they're gonna do land leases for a few, then
- they come back with a land lease one as kind of a next or in the first one they could have a resolution
- that has a whole collection of things that they've already planned on and some specifics around that.
- So that's the intention of that piece and then that they need to do that with their affordability plan
- before anything gets sold.
- If the first sale is a market rate thing that doesn't count as affordability We would still want there
- to be kind of a known plan of how they're going to do the affordability Even before the first sale does
- that make sense and does that language actually say? What we're intending and is that what other people
- thought that we were intending as well? I'll just say briefly in the terms of the way I would read this
- I read this as saying this would be
- because of the or the sale of any dwelling unit with the PUD it would mean they would have to come before
- you for each sale and I think maybe if you wanted to have it just be the first one you might say prior
- to the first recording of a new affordability or the first sale of any dwelling unit within the PUD
- and then have some clarifying language but you know you could you could amend that as a
- Do I have to formally amend that right now did this did this get formally introduced has not been introduced
- We are discussing it, but it oh excellent worst Oh because we're still under the discussing the affordability
- things wonderful. So councilmember Piedmont Smith Oh good. Wonderful. You added that so she added or
- the first sale of Should it be a dwelling unit? instead of any dwelling unit, I Don't think there's
- a problem with any versus a
- Okay, I just don't want to because there'll be multiple dwelling units So it would still be the first
- sale of any dwelling or or yeah, you could say a dwelling unit within the PUD Let's take a dwelling
- unit Right now with the intention Attorney Allen in my opinion it does I don't know does the administration
- have a different opinion?
- and my colleagues was my Description of what I had intended for that Does in the language does that
- align with y'all's intention, especially I guess I'm looking at council members to look in a sorry Yes,
- okay. Yeah, and I think I think what what what this also? Enables again is you know is is them?
- When we get to the stage if it's not feasible while they still have to come back to us So it builds
- in that that that back-and-forth mechanism. So so I think I think it's good Yeah, and I also want to
- say that also builds in a public comment period related to that too because whenever we have resolutions
- There's an automatic public comment period associated with resolutions and that that was an important
- piece for me to have
- Okay, thank you. I actually wanted to get administration's reaction to this reasonable condition. So
- I have fair housing concerns about this because what is ultimately going to happen is When we're selling
- each model Each you know first first silent second mortgage We have to have a buyer
- to do the math, and so council will then be voting up or down on an individual buyer, essentially. Now,
- you all will say that you're voting on principal, but what happens is you have a personality tied to
- that, and so I have a fair housing concern about that. It just blows up fair housing, and furthermore,
- This is not really how real estate works. So if we're gonna say, you can buy this house, but we don't
- know how you can finance it yet until we get it approved by council, especially seeing that we, I think
- we've been in front of council with this project 32 hours already. It's not how real estate works. So
- I think we're gonna seriously handicap the neighborhood.
- Council member, sorry, yeah. Yeah, I think that's very helpful, Mayor Thompson. The intention here is
- more about the, it's not about saying every single time that there is a sale, you must come and get
- an approval. It's saying that we should have some agreement about how, about how permanent affordability
- is going to work, the combination of tools, because we've said, use all the tools that are permissible
- to you, but we wanna know what combination of tools are being used. I think that's really all we're
- trying to,
- Trigger here understood, but unless we do it ahead of time You're gonna get into a personality approval
- And the the combination that we may need to use for different home buyers could be different I see I
- see so because of their economics Etc and so you're you're going to just blow up fair housing. I
- Could you explain that? By the time that we can tell you the exact mix, so I may need Shared Equity
- and Second Soft combined, or I may need Land Trust and Second Soft combined, you're going to get several
- scenarios, and the first time we do any combo package, we have to come to you.
- in order to get to the combo package, we have to have somebody who is willing to buy the house who has
- a lender lined up, et cetera, et cetera. And then council essentially says yes or no, that will work
- or won't work. And because there's already a name tied to the property, you don't have fair housing
- anymore. I have a follow-up.
- I'd like you her from our counsel attorney Do you have a commentary on The mayor's position just in
- terms of the I think I think it's maybe talking past each other I don't disagree with the mayor's that
- if there was a requirement to have the specific individual Come before and that specific mix the the
- word this is going to turn on number four is the definition of implementation framework and so if by
- framework you mean
- In the general sense and this is how it seems to read to me Which is is the most general sense of the
- approaches which could just be as general as the administration being able to say In general, these
- are the the menu of tools that we are going to use in all house buyers without giving you a specific
- buyer by buyer Breakdown of who's going to buy what which we already have done so I mean you have the
- list already and it
- It was included in the PUD itself and it has been further expanded by your Requested reasonable conditions
- Councilmember Stossberg first of all, it would not be my intention with number four once again it goes
- back to like is it worded right for to have to come back with each of those combinations and
- Right, so if you'd say like, okay, we're gonna do silent seconds and we're gonna do shared equity and
- we're gonna do land leases, and if those three things are like, yeah, those all sound good, then if
- you have to combine somebody,
- there wouldn't be an intent in what I was thinking at least that you would have to come back and say,
- okay, then we're gonna combine these two as like an instrument. So I don't know if that phrasing has
- to be worded a little bit for that. To the second concern of why you already have a list, the reason
- why I haven't approved the list or liked the list is that I don't actually know how it's gonna work.
- And I actually, I mean, you've provided some numbers and I provided a memo back that was like, well,
- your math is a little bit wrong in this. So like, how is this gonna work?
- And I still haven't, I don't feel like I have a good answer of how this is gonna work without the increased
- public subsidy as time goes on. I don't feel like I know how this is going to be administrated.
- who is going to hold the silent seconds. I've gotten varying answers about the possibilities of who
- might hold the silent seconds, but I don't know who actually might hold the silent seconds, and that's
- the kind of information that I would expect to be presented with this kind of resolution, where you
- actually have some of the details ironed out, that there has been approach like, well, we're gonna do
- like this, this, this, like we have this plan on how this is gonna work, but you don't actually have
- any of the specifics nailed down, and that has been the entire problem for the last two months.
- So you can't sit here and say that, oh, well, we've given you all that. No, you've given us the concepts
- of all of it without any actual firm plans around it. And that's why I'm saying, hey, come back and
- actually tell us how you're going to do this, because you haven't actually done that. So I hear that
- you're frustrated and that the bulk of information that has been passed along may not be understood.
- but there has been quite extensive documentation. Our staff has worked tirelessly to answer all iterations
- of this financing. I will remind council that we are approving PUD land use, not financing for the land
- use. And while I appreciate that council has concerns about
- being on the hook for finances, et cetera, the administration and the RDC has not made a funding request
- to counsel. The mechanisms that have been provided will secure permanency and the affordability and
- self-sustain. And that's why we have a menu so that we can be flexible and work with individual buyers
- based on their needs.
- Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. If whoever is sharing the text could refresh I have proposed language
- that may clarify what we're actually seeking here. I did it in a suggesting mode so you should be able
- to see why is that not
- Can you make sure it shows suggestions. Here we go. Nothing like making sausage in public I guess while
- we're looking for that I just wanted to make sure that all council members got
- the second memo from Director Killian Hansen which was sent this afternoon. It did clarify some of the
- misperceptions in math. So I tried to clarify what we're actually after and hopefully this would
- Alleviate a concern about tying it to a specific buyer councilmember. Sorry has a question Mayor Thompson
- or director Henson Could you explain one thing because I think maybe this is where this is maybe maybe
- the the tension here Was the intention is the intention as described in the PUD to to
- fit a tool to an individual buyer each time that a sale happens? That's correct. How would you do that
- with something like a land trust? We don't intend to use a land trust. We understand you want it as
- part of the options, and certainly if the market changes, we could.
- We don't have any intention. We heard very clearly from Nate Ferreira, who directs our current land
- trust, that there are challenges there in our market and that by adding more land trust houses, we would
- then flood the market and thereby make the land trust that's already in existence harder to build.
- But I think what I'm, and again, if somebody can help me, because I'm clearly missing it, is like, how
- are you, so you have a place, and then you go, we have a buyer, and this buyer needs affordability,
- and we need X percent of these houses to be affordable. So I'm not understanding the mechanism by which
- those things are matched,
- and how that's not a housing fairness issue. I will narrate this for accessibility, but this is the
- best way I've ever been able to describe how these second softs work. And you can do it with various
- mechanisms. So we have the house, and some people can afford in
- their standard mortgage to build the house with the roof, okay? Others cannot without a second soft
- mortgage or we cannot guarantee permanent affordability without a second soft mortgage. And so the second
- soft covers the difference between this part of the house and this part.
- I can still write upside down too. But some people's second soft has to be this big and their house
- is this big. So we have to adapt. If you come in at 65% and we can make the math work to give you a
- second soft on whatever, a $100,000 house,
- Then that second soft is bigger, because we're protecting ourselves from the house flipping and you
- getting the full equity. We're tracking, okay. But if you make 80% and you're only buying an $80,000
- house, you may be able to do it just with like $15,000 of a second soft. Or you may need a combination.
- of different things. And so those combinations have to be decided at sale time. And we may use the same
- combination for many of the properties, in which case I understand we would only have to come back once.
- But my question to council, I guess, is why wouldn't you approve all of the affordability mechanisms
- now? You have them.
- Councilmember Flaherty, thank you. I think I agree with the mayor I I don't know if we need this section
- as long as we have good definitions of Permanent affordability and the legal requirement of its term.
- I think that was the issue that was animating the early discussions around affordability and why we
- wanted to have the financial mechanism because the financial mechanism is defined in code a couple of
- options we knew what those ones were and
- They are in code. If we're gonna suggest something different, we need to know what it is. And I think,
- yes, there were options given, but it was the, are we sure this is gonna match our expectations of permanent
- affordability, which are also things that were defined in code. So in the definitions in the UDO section,
- the 99-year requirement, that kind of thing, were spelled out. And so if we were getting rid of that,
- that was less clear. But I think reasonable condition 15
- accomplished that quite well and listed kind of a full menu of options that I think are satisfactory.
- So I, like reasonable, reasonable vision of 15 with section nine struck from it is attractive to me.
- I think that still reflects a 50% total number. Which I'm okay with and adjusting later. I think, I'll
- just reiterate the thing I said the last, you know, lastly.
- Confident we could get there if we were willing to leverage the value of the land I think there are
- ideological differences about whether that's the right path or whether we should do that Councilmember
- Rosenberger At the beginning of this conversation, I still think that what councilmember Flaherty just
- said I still agree with that that Reasonable condition 15. I think when we have the good definition
- of PA permanent affordability I don't feel a need that
- Anything needs to come back here for approval because it has to meet those requirements. And I so yes
- I would agree with the RC 15 and again still going for the 50 percent and adjusting it later on if necessary.
- All right. Any other comments. Council member Stossberg.
- Still have the outstanding question of where the actual money and that silent second is coming from
- like is the city subsidizing that in the beginning and then is it subsidizing it every time like like
- what's the staff plan around that, you know, I had a conversation with an RDC member who was discussing
- like the actual like mission statement of the RDC with me around the
- the the land swap stuff that they discussed on Monday and it was like well the RDC they're not landlords
- and while these sales would not be rentals it also demands significant staff time and so that is once
- again why it's like okay this this does concern me and I appreciate what councilmember Flaherty said
- and so if I don't
- I would not feel comfortable simply striking nine from number 15 unless we at the very least put in
- a reporting requirement. But I mean, I think that it matters how it is that these things are actually
- working and how much city money subsidy is going into it because ultimately, let's remember,
- we're subsidizing relatively few people
- and how much are we actually subsidizing those relatively few people with? And that, I mean, I appreciate
- once again that Habitat uses this. I think Habitat is a great organization, but I think that the mission
- statement of Habitat and the funds that they use is different than the city.
- And, you know, if Habitat needs to come up with more money for a silent second mortgage to bridge more
- of a gap with somebody, then they can have a fundraising campaign and work on coming up with more of
- that money. If the city has to, what do we just say, like, oh, sorry, we can't do that, or do we just,
- like, you know, pull some more tax dollars over? Like, those are the questions that I'm interested in
- right now, and we can say all we want. Like, oh, we're talking about land use, we're not talking about
- financing, but a PUD does have this permanent affordability piece in it, and we are the fiscal body.
- It's the responsibility of the petitioner at this point to be able to explain to us Well enough for
- us to understand and explain to the public well enough for the public to understand What their plans
- are with this city-owned property? Okay, I think we're getting kind of far off this topic again now
- councilmember
- Sorry. Sorry. So we have the mechanism to amend this in the future, I think, has been established. I
- think the question of, you know, sort of
- And I think now I'm more fully understanding the earlier comment that Councilmember Flaherty made about,
- you know, so much of this is actually about the mechanism that one chooses at the end of the day. And
- so I think that, you know, if we need space to be convinced of, you know, the appropriateness of that
- mechanism later and or to think, well, actually, it works very well. So we want a higher amount of these
- to be permanently affordable.
- I think that we have that on the table regardless of clause four is what I'm realizing. And so I would
- say just pertinent to this conversation, based on the way that they described it, four would be, is
- not what we're trying to achieve. But I think that what you're trying, what you just said, Council Member
- Stasberg, I share that desire. So I think that, but I think we have that mechanism regardless. Like
- I think that we can ask for that to happen at any point because
- We could make the amendment if necessary. So so so what I think we should strike we should just strike
- for because it's it's creating an issue and then we can actually introduce this and and discuss it Just
- because I don't think that I don't think that for changes substantially what it is that we're really
- trying to achieve here All right, with that being said when you said that we have the power to change
- this and this might be a question
- The attorney too. Did you mean like we could bring the PUD back to amend it? Like as counsel Or can
- only a petitioner bring a PUD back because I would think that only the petitioner would be able to bring
- the bring a PUD back for amendment
- Taken so I mean, but if we're setting here we say 35 to 50 and then we have the thing Don't we have
- that they have to report back every six months. I mean do we want just like some approval mechanism
- separate? rather than approving the whole the whole packet of I miss I'm just trying to understand like
- how how forward will work in practice if we're leaning mostly towards second, you know second soft mortgages,
- so Well, I think how forward work in practice if it was
- basically just seconds offs then you know, they would just come back once and talk about seconds offs
- and how seconds offs were gonna work and then that Would be like the end of of four Which is why there's
- still five in there. Yeah for just kind of generally reporting on how hopeful is going Yeah Councilmember
- Zulek does anyone else feel strongly about keeping or removing section four? Because I'm fine to remove
- it as well
- So did you were you asking to speak or were you acknowledging Sydney. I'm sorry. Council members. Well
- I think it's obvious since I'm the one in this document and I crossed it out. So yes I'm willing to
- get rid of number four because I think it's just confusing. All right. Thank you very much. I do we
- have a motion. Oh no. Council member Rosenberger I think we have to review this whole document. I mean
- number three I guess I would like to talk to whoever
- kind of wrote that. It's just in a legal document, there's really no reason to have a phrase that says
- we're feasible. It's just that nothing is enforceable in this. So if anyone really wanted something
- to be done, is this okay with what you wanted? It's just like there's nothing that's like legally clear
- or enforceable here. So I don't know whose this is, but that's my question about number three.
- This came from reasonable condition 15 I believe. Okay. So if we remove where feasible then we're saying
- there can't be any ongoing public subsidy. So it made it may not. It was to just say should.
- Is that what you mean. Council member sorry or shall. That's the difference. I think should would be
- should also doesn't mean anything. It's OK. That is not anything that is like legally enforceable in court.
- It's fine, but shall is meaningful, should, is if you prefer. Say shall then. Shall changes the meaning.
- Obviously, that's the intention, but wasn't part of the issue how this could have a negative impact.
- That's why it was where feasible. Well, then it adds the next sentence is then, however. Right.
- The use of it shall be permitted. The use of public subsidy to establish blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah.
- Shall be permitted. Yeah. We can. Yeah. I mean we can at this point. Yeah. At this point it's up to
- you. I'd like to move approval of reasonable condition 17 as on the screen. Second.
- All right. I have a motion in a second any questions about this questions from council members right
- now Councilmember Rallo Yes, I appreciate the work that's been done and the negotiation that's occurred
- I'm troubled just simply because when we look at maximizing affordable housing at Hopewell Which we
- should be focused on because we own the property. This is something that we is really a
- I think you know, it's it's gonna be bench. It's gonna set the standard We have a range of a Could you
- scroll up So that I can determine if yeah, it's still there so a minimum of 15% of total dwelling units
- shall be reserved for households earning at or below 90% so at or below
- below 90% still is Workforce housing if it's at the upper limit of that, so That is That's not necessarily
- low income Could be but it may not be and then we have 20% Be reserved for households earning at or
- below 120 percent AMI
- 120 percent AMI is really the the threshold between workforce housing and market rate So in other words,
- this is all going to sort of fit into workforce housing it seems to me that's what is Potentially probably
- going to happen. That's the probability Although it may trend toward market rate I would be much more
- comfortable with
- And I remember having this discussion with Mayor Thompson some weeks ago. Having a cutoff at 110% AMI.
- And I would like to know how my colleagues feel about that. Because that would at least be, we would
- be in the range of workforce housing and not trending toward market rate. I'll put that out there because
- I was very favorable to a 50%
- a hard 50% Of affordable units So perhaps perhaps the administration would like to Tell us if 110% am
- I fits within their Their conception of Point of point of order member. Oh, I believe we are on a
- Questions regarding reasonable condition 17. I just asked so my question was councilmember Rallo. Is
- this are you proposing an amendment to I'm taking the temperature of the room. I I'm going to propose
- an amendment if I think it's agreeable to my colleagues. I Mean I I Will propose the amendment then
- 110% so instead of 120 percent AMI
- 110 percent AMI to make sure that it's it's fully within the workforce housing bracket mayor Thompson
- so director Killian Hansen is pulling the numbers but hundred hundred twenty is Is not even close to
- market now in our 120 of median in Bloomington will not get you a market rate house but director Killian
- Hansen is pulling the numbers to see a
- If we can do it at 110 Any other questions councilmember Stossberg, I I would be okay leaving it at
- 120 because that's what's currently in the udio Councilmember, sorry I don't I don't know procedurally
- what the right thing to say is but Given I think we're very we're very close on this. I know director
- Killeen Henson is going to get numbers. Can can we
- Just table this to and now move on to the first reading things and come back to it I don't know how
- one does that like can we just pause for so you're here. Actually, I thought you had left the room So
- we had charts they break it down every 20% so 30% 50% 60% 80% Okay
- So we have the math up to one hundred and twenty percent. So basically what you're saying is that for
- one person household and a lot of these are one bedrooms the max purchase price for one hundred percent
- of the area median income would be two hundred and forty three thousand. The max purchase price of one
- hundred and twenty percent is two eighty six. Now
- I'd also like you to think about some of the documentation that was in your packet land trust house
- if the land is included 277 How many houses fall between these ranges? I just I appreciate where you
- guys are calm coming from and if it were up to me We would make them all 80% AMI
- But that means that the math has to work out. We have to know what the cost to build is We can't subsidize
- every single unit and to Hopi's point, you know at some point potentially the land will become part
- of the subsidy Maybe that's what gets rolled over into a down payment and closing cost assistance one
- time not repeatedly so
- We have to, I know what the goal is and it's admirable and it's the mission that I live every single
- day here while I work for this community to deliver affordable housing and to think otherwise is really
- offensive, to be perfectly honest with you. But look, we don't know the math. I would love to be able
- to do even lower, but until we know the math, we can't do it. So please let us come back to you once
- we know the numbers and tell you what we can deliver to you. Don't strap us with something that doesn't
- get built.
- Sorry director Killian Hansen, would you be okay with us passing this like this? I'm sorry say that
- again in its current form would is this something that you you all would be happy with us passing? Could
- you possibly scroll down and I would like to look at what you have potentially struck Yes with four struck
- And and let me just also say that if you guys are into affordable housing and you want us to deliver
- it Let us use every tool in the toolkit Thank you
- Hi Dana cool Kerr legal department and I'm the attorney assigned to the Redevelopment Commission and
- The Redevelopment Commission is only able tonight to speak in regards with its resolution And so also
- just for the record Anything that would pass tonight
- that changes the actual text of the PUD would be considered in my legal opinion to be an amendment outside
- of the purview of the common council and would not be a reasonable condition. So I would like that on
- the record. Thank you all so much. Okay thank you. Any other questions. I'm sorry I'm lost where we're
- at. Did you have a motion on the table.
- Attempted to make a motion. It wasn't seconded. I would draw my attempt. I think I'm satisfied Thank
- you. Any other questions about this reasonable condition 16 councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, if I could
- just ask Attorney Allen to give his legal opinion on whether this would be considered a reasonable condition
- I believe it would be considered a legal condition or a reasonable condition. Additionally, the consideration
- of PUDs is in a specific part of Indiana code, and that code specifically defines PUDs as a legislative
- function as part of the ordinance. And so even if it's a change, it doesn't necessarily change the outcome.
- And furthermore, there's nothing the RDC could potentially say to bind the council in this matter.
- Thank you. All right. Thank you. With that I think we will go to public comment on reasonable conditions
- 16 17. Thank you. Reasonable conditions 17. Is there anybody in the public who would like to speak on
- reasonable conditions 17. No. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You have three minutes.
- Good evening everybody John zodi and the executive director of CDFI friendly Bloomington. I want to
- be clear that The administration has not asked me to speak tonight, but I feel compelled to do so because
- I Just sitting here as a former city employee. I have to be mindful of What happens next right? So if
- the council passes something what? What are their directives that the administration needs to carry
- out and I do want to just
- Keep in mind when we talk about enforceability and the steps that staff would need to go through here,
- that that does put a certain administrative burden on the folks that work here at the city. As the mayor
- said earlier, we're talking about individual people looking at purchasing a home. Buyers vary.
- And as a result, subsidies will need to vary. And flexibility is critical when you're trying to help
- one person. There's one person in the hand department, at least that I know of right now, who does housing
- counseling, talks to people who are trying to get into a position to buy a home. And that one person
- has a lot on their plate. And the city, you know, the state,
- State legislature's not doing any favors to local government. And so we look at possible future constraints
- of staff Control arm and Kim was up here talking about future revenue constraints under the RDC the
- Potential that exists for this neighbor to be transformative is cannot be overstated we're talking about
- a small portion six acres 98 houses and
- a certain percentage of which we're talking about being in a certain range. I'm encouraging the council
- to keep ranges in mind, to keep flexibility in mind. We're talking about individuals. I talked to three
- lenders in the last couple of weeks. One is a community development finance institution, and two were
- traditional lenders. And I said, would you lend on homes that have deed restrictions? And they said,
- we'll have to see them. We need to see the restriction.
- You don't know a lot of this until you've got that buyer in place who's trying to get a mortgage or
- a developer trying to get a construction loan. And you don't know this until you know all the factors
- that are in place and what that capital stack, that stack of money that needs to come into place at
- the right time and all the right factors lining up. You don't know all that stuff until you have that
- person or that project in front of you. And then the lender has to take that in, ask for all the due
- diligence.
- That's needed to try to move that forward if possible. So it requires an incredible amount of administration
- time Both for people here and on the project side So as my time expires, I'll just encourage you to
- keep those ranges in mind keep enforceability in mind and Provide the administration and the staff the
- maximum amount of flexibility to get this project done. Thank you Thank you very much next public comment
- right here in the room in chambers
- Good evening. I'm Deborah Meyerson. I serve as president of the Redevelopment Commission aka the petitioner
- But I'm only representing myself this evening You do have the resolution that was adopted by the RDC
- on Monday evening to speak on behalf of the Redevelopment Commission I just wanted to add my personal
- comments to really encourage I really appreciate and I'm grateful for the dedication and thoughtfulness
- that council is bringing to the hopeful South PUD discussion and
- I just want to underscore it's so important to have the certainty of what tools are available and so
- provide the flexibility as Mr. Zodi commented. That's gonna be so important. We also need the time factor.
- The more things take longer time, even once the Hope LPD is passed, once we can build it, things that
- slow things down just make it harder
- to build and it takes more time. So just encourage thought for how to streamline things, how to make
- council's goals known as these regional conditions do, but to provide that flexibility so that the project
- can be built successfully. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Do we have any commenters
- on Zoom? No commenters on Zoom. Okay, back here in chambers, thank you.
- Good evening council, this is Chris Ramsey from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and I want
- to echo the sentiments of the two previous speakers who know housing far more than I do or the chamber
- does specifically. I'm speaking for the business community and the question tonight is whether Bloomington
- can still execute complex housing projects and I don't think the jury's in yet on that. We are in the
- weeds on that and the concern is not the goal. The concern is the feasibility of implementation
- the unintended consequences. So what's emerging is not like a disagreement on affordability goals, it's
- the disagreement on how much regulation conditions a project can absorb before affordability and feasibility
- start competing with each other. And I think that's where we're at now. If we're talking about reasonable,
- 35 is more reasonable than 50%. What's even more reasonable than 35 is 25% affordability and perpetuity.
- But the key I think we losing in a little bit is this is just 6.3 acres. This is just the south neighborhood.
- We have more to build and I would say less complicated early on the better and see how that works out.
- We're getting very much in the weeds. From the audience perspective, it's getting complex. We're getting
- into a lot of the finance and not just the land use. We need to make sure that
- Frankly that the requirements don't become too complex to execute and the end result is no project and
- no affordability We need housing at all price points. The process needs to move forward eventually Maybe
- it's not going to be exactly what you want for the particular PUD, but there's other PUDs to be had and
- Much of Bloomington's affordability, I think, of this framework is built around rental housing models,
- kind of lost in here, not permanently restricted owner-occupied housing, which is, again, much more
- restrictive and much needed in giving all the tools to the hand department, to the RDC, to make this
- happen. So I would encourage this body to move forward and not let perfection be the enemy here. Let's
- go toward good and make this a
- Reasonable condition we can all forward with and say we've completed a complex housing project. Thank
- you Thank you very much Looks like we might have another commenter in chambers here. Come on up to the
- microphone. You have three minutes Or so the dangers of speaking extemporaneously We cannot separate
- the issue of the PUD from affordability because affordability is what
- qualified this as a PUD in the first place. And it's rather tiresome to keep hearing that excuse. The
- only true permanently affordable mechanism is shared equity. Community land trust is the primary one
- used around the country. All the other mechanisms will require a continuous input, a continual input
- Every time there's a new buyer what I would predict will happen is that you will if you monitor it for
- five years Is that hardly anybody will sell the house and fuck their house in five years? And so everything
- will look fine until the first sale comes up and you find out it's no longer affordable for the next
- person That's the that's what happens with a fixed subsidy to use the mayor's Analogy with a roof. It's
- like you pay for the roof and then the house doubles in size and you still have that same size roof
- It just doesn't cover it
- It's just mathematics But I think what's going on here is that there's an there's an ideological difference
- as some of the council members have suggested There's an ideological opposition to allowing a homeowner
- to only get part of the equity accrual but in my mind, it's a fair balance between helping out a homeowner
- getting out of rent in particular and the best use of public dollars as again some of you have already
- said it's a matter of
- Helping a few a lot versus helping many a little bit less and As in public dollars, I would I would
- take the second choice It is exasperating to hear about how how the administration is warning against
- using a land trust, but actually while the land trust is what would
- automatically make all the homes under it more affordable. Because you're talking about the homeowner
- having to buy only the price of the house or the improvements on the land and not the land.
- So it automatically reduces the price by two thirds. Everything becomes more affordable. It's just that
- you don't get the equity accrual. How important is that equity accrual? Aren't we talking about permanent
- affordability? If you want certainty, I would say 50% must be in a land trust, period.
- I think right now, the mirror's just dug in our heels and just doesn't want it. Can you dig in your
- heels? I don't know. Thank you. Thank you. Did we have any other commenters on Zoom pop up? Nope, okay.
- Do we have one more commenter here in chambers? Steve Olin. I've been privy to
- many such difficult Decisions as you're making now Over the years and I've been familiar with some that
- happened before my time. I just want to point Once again to the garages at Morton Street and 7th Street
- when they were approved in the early aughts They were approved that the ordinance called for fees to
- increase every several years and for the council to pay attention to it and
- We didn't discover this and I didn't discover this is a council until 2015 something like that The fees
- had never been increased council made no effort to track the results of that ordinance after they adopted
- it In 20, I think it was 17 when the council first adopted Special conditions for the project that became
- with the building like urban station the buildings on South Walnut
- At the time the discourse was something like Well, this is the best we can do now and then within a
- few months within a year. We realized that That the city could have done better could have gotten more
- out of that developer but for the most part what I'm concerned about here is that Regardless of that
- I mean I I know that the buck stops with the electives in the room the mayor and the nine of you are
- the ones who
- have the ability to drive this discussion, driving this discussion, and you all as legislators have
- the right to fully understand the question at hand. And it's been a struggle sitting out here to fully
- understand the question. I don't know what the answers are. I do know that you're making a decision
- that will last a century. That you're making a decision that you may have trouble monitoring once it's made.
- And either if you can come up with some kind of a mechanism that allows you to, I mean it seemed like
- you're making an effort to do that with the checking in every six months for five years. This is a decision
- that's gonna last more than five years. So you're developing an entire neighborhood. A century from
- now people are gonna ask how it was built. And I'd ask you to keep that in mind and not be afraid to
- take the time you need to make the right decision, whatever that is. I'm agnostic on the actual solution.
- I just want to encourage you
- to make the right decision, even if it takes a little longer. It's not right for anyone to tell you
- that you should hurry up and decide already. I get that the moment is on you. I get that it's important.
- That's all the reason why you need to have the bravery to take the time you need to make the right decision,
- to fully understand what it is you're about to do. Thank you. Thank you very much.
- One last check, do we have anybody on Zoom? We do have someone on Zoom. Okay, another public commenter.
- Go ahead, you can unmute yourself and you have three minutes. Hi, this is Cody Toothman. I am an employee
- with the hand department who is also a housing counselor. I will have to say that I do agree with nearly
- everybody who's spoken this evening. There are many different
- advantages and downfalls you can have with any kind of mechanism for affordability, especially in the
- long term. However, in my duties as a housing counselor, the one thing that I definitely experience
- is that there is certainly not a one size fits all model that will encompass the needs of every family,
- which is why I'm definitely in support of a range of possibilities to determine that affordability and
- help carry it forward.
- In counseling everybody every day and seeing these changes, I do think it is important, at least to
- highlight the disadvantages that anything can have. And I believe that some of that information has
- been presented to the council as well.
- echoing everybody's point that came up here, I don't think there's any harm in viewing all of these
- options to see what we can do for people, to see how we can secure these things. And there is a way
- beyond a land trust to actually ensure that affordability can continue forward. So I do happen to disagree
- with that one point. But to that note,
- all of these things, even some of the models that have been presented have actually been engaged with
- land trusts throughout the country and some of which are becoming increasingly popular, whether it be
- index models for determining affordability or the like. So it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to
- be employed within a land trust though. So I would say to keep those things in mind with anything that
- we present forward and
- as we have more information as it moves forward to completion, then we can actually make better
- determinations once we know those things further. All right, thank you very much. I think that wraps
- it up for public commenters. Yes, okay, wonderful. So now we come back to council for council comment.
- We did question, yeah, thank you. Council comment, anybody have a comment on reasonable condition 17?
- All right council member Stossberg. So I've been thinking really hard about this affordability issue
- with this beauty for like a long time it feels like now. And I appreciate everybody who just commented
- in general on it. And I think honestly I have to vote no on this.
- reasonable condition partly because for is struck and I appreciate that for made things complex and
- I'm not sure that it was phrased perfectly but especially I mean we had a former member of City staff
- and the actually former hand director speak and then Hand employee speak and both of them talked about
- flexibility and both of them talked about The kind of
- intense part of of working with people and the staff time that takes and it takes incredible staff time
- and I feel like as part of the fiscal body like I'm really I really want this to be successful right
- and It makes me really uncomfortable to kind of be
- totally okaying something without having to come back in public at all to use these mechanisms because
- I know that the hand department is really stretched right now and we are asking the hand department
- to do a whole lot more. We're asking somebody to do a whole lot more. Maybe I should say somebody because
- we haven't actually been told who's gonna do it, but who else would do it besides the hand department?
- And I know that the administration has been working on various collaborative stuff with other community
- organizations in town, but nothing is actually finalized and firmed up. And so without that finalized
- and firmed up, I feel really financially insecure about, well, what kind of subsidy is going to be there
- in the future? Number three does talk about things should be independent of ongoing public subsidy.
- But, well, we can use them if we really have to, and I guess I think that ultimately in the future as
- these sales go on, depending on which mechanisms are used and how they're used, we're just going to
- have to subsidize more and more and more in one way or another, whether that's larger silent seconds
- or whether that's more staff members, and to guarantee that right now without
- any kind of specific ask to come back to council about, you know, council saying, yeah, let's do that.
- Because those things can get buried in budgets really easily. And so I, that's, yeah, I sadly am just
- gonna have to vote no on this reasonable condition, thanks. Council Member Zulek. Yeah, could you, anyone
- in this room who doesn't own property, could you please raise your hand? Right.
- So just to be clear, there are about five people in this room of 60 who do not own property. And I've
- heard a lot of people who own property say that there is no urgency. There is urgency for those of us
- who do not own. There is urgency.
- You might not see it, but it's there. It's across our community. It's the 850 people who pick up their
- mail at the Shalom Center. It's the people who sleep outside at night. It's the people who are nervous
- because they don't know if they have any resources to protect them when they're renting an apartment.
- Like, this is urgent. We need to vote on this tonight. It is embarrassing to do anything further. Any
- other comments? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith.
- Yeah, um, obviously I'm going to vote for this reasonable condition. Um, I do want to, uh, go back to
- just say, I think overall the Pewdie proposal is really good. It's a lot better than what could be built
- by right. Um, but I do, I do think I agree with Mr. Russo that, um, there seems to be an ideological
- block on the
- part of the mayor's administration against community land trusts or land leases, whereas that really
- seems to be the only way to not need further public subsidy down the road. So maybe it doesn't seem
- feasible now, but I encourage the administration, the RDC in hand, to keep that avenue open as an option
- in the future. All right. Thank you.
- Councilmember rough then councilmember Rosenberger then councilmember Flaherty. I'm lining you guys
- up and then councilmember. Sorry Remember your order. Thank you There's been a lot of discussion on
- the complexities of finance and regulations of construction and what the state will allow and won't
- and Complications at all facets of doing this project and of the council's
- role or roles that the council maybe practically can't play, though council has made many priorities
- clear, but we're often find ourselves feeling, or at least I speak for myself, feeling like, well, what
- can we really do? Well, one thing we can do, and Councilmember Zulik just talked about the urgency in
- the numbers of people.
- One thing we can do that doesn't mess with really the mechanisms or the financing tools are allowing
- the flexibility It's making the percentage going for the high percentage going for the high bar on percentage
- of units of affordable units, so I agree councilman Brazilic and I'm gonna I'm not gonna support this
- with a 35% one thing that
- I feel like can be Set clear is a high bar on on the the amount of affordability we're going to have
- in the in the project and Then fine let the tools the flexibility in the financing and all the other
- tools be at play but Unless it's a Commit to 50% and then if it doesn't work If that turns out to be
- problematic
- It can be changed later, but it would be The bodies represent the larger legislative body the handles
- pods PUDs and I just don't feel like the the council this one area where I Think it's hard to argue
- that We're meddling to
- to recognize the need in the community and say we need to go go we need to aim high as high as possible.
- So I'm probably going to vote no for that reason. Council member Rosenbacher did you want to make comment.
- Hi. Yes thank you. I just have a couple of notes trying to parse them out of my notes on the general PD.
- I think it is still worth saying land trusts are the most effective and successful method of permanent
- affordability comparing Arlington Road land trust with what might happen in a walkable neighborhood
- downtown is pretty different. It's unfortunate. I think tonight was the first night we've heard that
- they don't plan to use the land trust whatsoever in this PUD. Also I have said this often too but talking to the
- person running the land trust we have sold seven homes with as low as I think 37 percent am I which
- is very awesome and as high as one hundred and five percent am I because anyone over one hundred five
- percent am I has been buying market right.
- It's hard to support anything with 35 percent AMI or permanent affordability. A range is useless. I
- think we've heard multiple times in this discussion we all want 100 percent permanent affordability.
- So why not put that at the top of the range.
- Also this PD came to us with 15% permanent affordability, which was not even it was lower than what
- the UDO requires is lower than what our city code requires that we had to fight to get it up to 25%
- and it's taken almost all of these three months to get a reasonable condition that is now sitting at
- 35%. So I think I am
- a lot of an optimist and like to take advantage of opportunities. This is such a rare opportunity in
- some of the memos we got talking about we would never make a private developer do this. I think that
- is correct because this is a rare opportunity that we can create more permanently affordable homes than
- we would require of a private developer. And that's why I think the 50 percent is really important.
- I also think
- We aren't going to look back and regret 50 percent and say dang I wish we would have gone lower in the
- PUD. I'm basically the way I'm leaning on this is I think however it's like an interesting vote here
- that something needs to get approved but I don't necessarily know that this is it.
- Of course one of the reasons I ran for council in 2019 is because we freaking need more housing here
- like of all kinds we need more rentals we need housing rentals we need all kinds of housing sizes we
- need condos we need everything I mean mostly the missing middle that we've talked a ton about we need
- them at all the price points we need them at market rate we need them at permanently affordable. My
- other comments I think I will hold for the general PD discussion but I'm just going to see how things
- pan out on this one.
- Councilmember Flaherty Yeah, I'm also on the fence I tend to favor reasonable condition 15 with section
- 9 struck and would definitely vote for that Which was at the 50% level? Just wanted to comment briefly.
- I mean the It's what's become very clear among other things from this and the delays that have been
- involved in working through it is that when you try to do things that aren't in code and like it doesn't
- go well and
- this PUD literally is not code compliant still to this date. What they brought to us is not code compliant.
- And what's funny is that we're being told a reasonable condition is still, isn't even legally valid
- according to the city attorney, which flies in the face of all other legal advice we've gotten for a
- long, long time. So that's causing delays. That is causing all the delays. If they just would have met
- code on infrastructure, on affordability and all the things, we would have passed it in a meeting. So
- that's too bad.
- I really do have reservations about the unwillingness to use the value of the land in a land trust model
- to ensure permanent affordability because I think the devil's in the details there and it actually will
- lead to dramatically different fiscal picture and obligations into the future to maintain permanent
- affordability. But I'm not sure if we, what I'm worried will happen if we pass at the 50% level
- come back and change it if it's not feasible is that the administration, ostensibly the petitioner or
- RDC, will just come back and say it's not feasible because we don't want to use a land trust. If it's
- not feasible with the tools that we're willing to use is what I think the conversation is going to look
- like. Then we're back in the exact same place, which is that there seems to be an ideological difference
- between maybe a majority of council members and the mayor who's driving the bus here.
- Just don't I don't know where that leaves us. I really are it's something of an impasse on that particular
- issue So I truly don't know how many vote on this condition, but I know I would support 15 with section
- 9 removed to make it simpler. Thanks Councilmember sorry, thank you and and thank you to all all of
- all my colleagues You know, I think as as relates to You know what the what happens next question if
- If we pass something with 50%, I think regardless, they're going to come back and say that that's not
- gonna work at some point. The more than likely outcome is gonna be something like that and or that they
- withdraw it and we're just sort of back at the drawing board. You know,
- My thought is that in working together with the first of three hopeful things here, I think that yes,
- we want supply of housing. We want a diversity of housing. I think that those two things are being met
- in the foundational proposal. And I agree that we want more permanent affordable housing. And I think
- particularly because this
- Land that we own I think that that's what does make this distinct. I think the councilmember Rosenberger's
- point But but but I I really think that um, I think that we We should move forward on voting for this
- now We've given them tools to allow for multiple different iterations here. I mean we are talking about
- a long horizon and
- So the possibility of using, for example, a second soft mortgage or a silent mortgage on the
- first transaction and then converting that to a land trust or something like that. I think all of those
- things are possible within the framework that we've established here. So I just think that we're elevating
- the amount of permanent affordability
- I don't want to do that to the extent that we diminish supply or make the buildout phases take forever,
- for example. Not forever, but they could take a very long time. I think some of the examples that we're
- pulling on from land trust models, what we have in town, is that it's been quite a slow time to find
- buyers. For that, I really
- would hope that we could vote for this. I think if we vote for this, we can then vote for the whole
- PUD and move on with our lives. But yeah, and so yeah, that's none eloquent, but my thoughts on this.
- All right. Thank you, everyone. And so now, I think we can take a vote on reasonable condition 17.
- Okay, that's Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rollo.
- No. No. Rosenberger. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Flaherty. Yes.
- And Stasberg no All right, thank you very much that passes reasonable condition 17 6 to 3 My smart ring
- is incredibly concerned about my stress levels right now. So I'm gonna pass the gavel back over to Vice
- President Zulek Welcome are there any final comments on or final questions on the PUD as a whole?
- Great, we will go to public comments. If anyone would like to speak on the PUD as a whole, this will
- be the last opportunity tonight to speak on Hopewell. Please join us at the podium. Okay, none,
- any on Zoom? Okay, then thank you all for making that brief. We'll go back to council comment, final
- council comment. Council member Flaherty. I'll try to keep it brief. I spoke on some of these issues
- already, which is just that
- It took me a moment to realize, I think the structural challenge with all this was really that normally
- we rely heavily on staff to review and represent the city's interests, vis-a-vis a petitioner, and in
- this case, functionally, they were one and the same. The RDC and the reviewers, the people we rely on
- in staff, it was just one basic thing. Director Hittle at one point kind of referred to the RDC's hired
- support and said, you know, let her cook.
- And that to me was like the moment it all clicked. I was like, oh, right. They're just bringing the
- petition. And that's okay. It amplifies the role and the responsibility and the diligence required of
- counsel when that's the case, which I think is part of what was going on here the last two months. And
- then second, I think the fact that there were so many deviations from what our plans say, what code requires,
- what we would typically and always have required of other petitioners. So if those things had not been
- true, I think we would have very quickly gotten to resolution on this PUD as well. And so those are
- the two major structural things or substantive things that I wanted to reflect on and hope that we can
- try to avoid replicating in the future. It's also clear that some code updates on permanent affordability
- so that we just have that defined and clear would be very, very useful.
- So I hope we can do those things and and improve on this next time here at PD's I also hope we can adopt
- the policy changes to the UDO that Accomplish almost everything this PUD needed to needed the PUD to
- accomplish by making it just allowed instead So with that I I'm glad to support where we ultimately
- got on this beauty. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Councilmember Stasberg
- Appreciate councilmember Flaherty's words right now. I There were just so many pieces of struggle in
- getting where we are right now and I think that he highlighted where those were coming from and I also
- want to highlight the amount of misinformation and spin that has been put out around this PUD and how
- disappointing and frustrating that that has been and I think that that
- The misinformation especially is just absurd. And one of the things that I have not highlighted, but
- I will right now, is that this got spun as like, well, by right, you can only put 27 dwelling units
- on it, or 28, one of those figures. But actually, by right, duplexes are allowed in R4.
- and multifamily is a conditional use in R4 as R4 plexes and triplexes. And so some of this reasoning
- and just that spin and you know, I am not a politician. I mean, I'm sitting up here, I know, but I cringe
- at that. That is not like any word that I would ever use and part of that is because of the amount of spin that
- you know, we all know politicians put spin on things, right? And I really just, the spin makes me cringe.
- And I was telling this to a couple people, like, I am not good at spin because I just like my, like,
- about my RBF just gives me away. I'm like, no, this is not cool. And if there's anything that you know,
- I'm not gonna BS you around stuff. And if I feel a certain way, I'm just gonna say it. And that and
- spin are not really conducive to each other. But it's just really disappointing that the community heard
- so much spin around this in ways that were not productive toward
- an outcome that any of us wanted, any of the nine of us up here, any of the community members out there,
- any of the staff, any of the RDC. This was not productive use of our time. And the spin really helped
- make it even less productive. And I hope that there can be less spin and more accurate information in
- the future. Thank you. Anyone else?
- Councilmember Rosenberger. Thanks. Thank you a couple things to add to this Pudds are they can be hard
- right and they in the last administration we tried to change code to discourage Pudds and I kind of
- thought we were done doing Pudds and I hope that we are I hope there were some lessons learned from
- the petitioner that maybe
- Don't bring a PUD that's inferior to our code, at least. Changing the code would have been faster here,
- so I would love for everyone to work together. I know we have at least one resolution on the table that
- will get the ball rolling to have some discussions, to send it to Planning and Plan Commission to change
- our code so that what the petitioner wanted to do could get done, and other developers could do it too.
- There was a lot of spin, I guess that's a generous word, about this PUD. This PUD came to us I think
- at the end of February. That's 26 months after the administration started. We've had this PUD for then
- three months. It took 27 months
- Bring something and when it passed the planned Commission planned Commission said the City Council would
- fix it And so it didn't come to us ready. It came to us a mess and a miss and I think honestly we've
- done the best we could To get to a place that is passable. I think it is Neat to have little lots. I
- have been encouraging decreasing minimum lot sizes across our city Since I got here and before I got here
- I think that would be exciting if we actually do and let others do what the RDC is about to do. So I
- hope that this is, I guess, the beginning of a conversation. I don't think this PUD needs to be built
- and then studied. I think that we need to do the things that we want to do here.
- The petitioners consultant did say let us do this and then maybe code will change But I just very much
- disagreed with that that just kind of stuck with me that I wish we would have been an example of Working
- to change code and then or I wish the petitioner would have been an example of working to change code
- And then letting other people do it, too. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you to everyone
- up here and everywhere for working on this other comments councilman Rosario
- I just want to thank first and foremost the public and those of you who are here today. I know you want
- to talk about what we're about to talk about and we are going to give you a lot of time now because
- you've been patient. So we're so grateful, so very grateful for that. But of course also to the public
- who's been here now for two and a half months, you know, engaged
- even previously with so many of these conversations. Just so grateful for your patience and also your
- contributions, diligence, care about not just this process, but about the results. And I think that
- we've heard from people all across the city on all sides of all of these arguments that we've had. And
- I know that
- our processes sometimes and sort of the way that we have to make sausages. I mean, sausage making is
- kind of gross in reality, but the way that we have to go about it is very frustrating. I think it's
- frustrating to all of us as well. I think that we, in addition to the many powerful points that my colleague
- Council Member Flaherty raised, I think that this has also illustrated some strains that exist in some of just
- general processes. And I know that many of our residents, when we try to change our processes, get very
- frustrated that we spend all of this time trying to talk about how things are introduced and what motions
- we allow and all of those type of things. But I think it also showed a lot of pain there. But also,
- the last thing that I'll say is that in addition to supporting this, I want to thank all my colleagues
- because I think that, again,
- I think to the point that Councilmember Stasberg raised, you know, I think that we've had a lot of heated
- discussions, but I think it's notable that, you know, people have really put in a lot of time in studying
- and trying to come up with the best answers and trying to work with people across the city.
- So just again, thank you to all of you for working so hard on this as well. So very happy to be voting
- for it today. Anyone else? Councilmember Rallo.
- Thanks very briefly. I just want to say thanks to my colleagues and thanks the administration for working
- through this What turned out to be a very difficult? Pud but and I am somewhat disappointed This is
- clearly workforce housing and I think that we need to set the bar higher in the future But what I would
- like to do right now since as was brought up by my colleague councilmember Flaherty and
- corporate council Apparently continues to challenge our statutory ability to apply reasonable conditions
- to PUDs I am I think that this is a bad precedent if this continues so we had a determination by our
- Attorney our outside council that determined otherwise and
- It was given to all of us on council Under attorney-client privilege. I am one client of nine and so
- I would like to make a motion to submit that information from outside council to the minutes and I've
- discussed this with our city clerk Nicole Bolden she She's agreeable to this supportive of it and so
- I'd like to make the motion to submit that to the minutes for this meeting
- Second point of order There is a motion on the table legislation we need to do that first You're right
- councilmember Rollo, would you like to withdraw your motion? I would withdraw the motion and make it
- as soon as we dispose of the great Pud thank you. Is there a motion to approve the PUD with well, I
- think we have to do one with the reasonable conditions and
- pending approval of the RDC a Specific motion. I don't need to oh, okay in that case. Will the clerk
- please call the roll? Yes, councilmember Zulek, yes I'm sorry. Yes, daily. Yes Rollo. Yes rough. Yes
- Rosenberger
- Yes, clarity. Yes Stasburg Piedmont Smith. Yes Thank you with a vote of 9-0 that passes Legislation
- for a first reading I'd like to make my motion that I just described to submit a
- information provided by our outside council regarding our ability to Make reasonable conditions the
- PUDs second great. There's been a motion and a second any discussion Okay, well the clerk Councilmember
- Flaherty I guess I on the fly if Councillor Allen, do you have any
- Opinions about the downside risks of releasing attorney-client privileged information memos. They were
- provided to the council with respect to our legal authority I understand the motivation. I don't really
- just disagree with the the impulse but It's a decision. I don't take lightly. So I guess what I'm curious
- as a lawyer for your Assessment of any any risks or downsides to doing so I
- Think the largest downside is just know that you are completely waiving any privilege that you had in
- regard to this memo So the entire text of the memo is subject to public inspection. So Okay, thank you
- I I'm honestly just right I'm not sure I feel comfortable with that without like reading rereading the
- thing with that in mind like I don't remember What was said and that okay councilmembers are welcome
- to vote. No councilmember Stossberg. I
- Yeah, I was gonna ask a similar question of Attorney Allen so I agree with councilmember Flaherty that
- I don't feel comfortable with that without going back and like reviewing that Memo right now, but I
- would be very open to having that kind of on our agenda for our next meeting Councilmember Rallo, would
- you be interested in withdrawing to introduce it for next time so that council members can adequately
- review it? I
- Yes, I would be I would like a unanimous vote. So yes, this is you know public records request could
- Could get the information too, but I would like it in the minutes. So yes, I would draw it. Okay, great
- Thank you in that case. We'll move on to legislation for first readings. I Move that ordinance 2026-07
- be read by title and synopsis only Great there's been a motion and a second all those in favor, please say aye
- All those opposed will the clerk please read by title and synopsis only ordinance 2026 07 Yes ordinance
- 2026 dash 07 to amend title 8 of the blooming to municipal code entitled historic preservation and protection
- and to establish a conservation district cottage Grove Conservation District
- Synopsis is as follows this ordinance amends chapter eight point two zero of the Bloomington Municipal
- Code entitled list of designated historic and conservation districts in order to designate the cottage
- Grove Conservation District a neighborhood of 122 properties in the city of Bloomington Monroe County,
- Indiana as a conservation district Thank you, I'm not done sorry the majority of structures
- The majority of structures in the proposed district date from the years before and after World War I
- and are built in the folk Victorian and Queen Anne styles representative of this period in Bloomington's
- history. Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style with a conspicuous number of
- limestone Tudor revival houses.
- Many of the pre-war houses were built by employees of the showers brother furniture company and bear
- the hallmarks of carpenter built folk housing. Well, many of the larger post-war houses are associated
- with Bloomington's booming limestone industry. The neighborhood demonstrates a high degree of integrity
- and many notable houses. Great. Thank you. I moved to discuss ordinance 20, 26 dash zero seven. Second.
- Thank you. Do we have anyone from the administration who'd like to present on this today?
- Please don't we have to vote on the motion to discuss Would anyone like to discuss the motion on the
- table Okay, it needs a two-thirds majority one discussion point, okay It's allowed just please vote
- for it so that these wonderful people don't need to go home without us discussing it Will the clerk
- please call the roll?
- You can't just do this as a voice vote if you want. Okay, all in favor, please say aye aye aye all opposed
- great well Person who is here from the administration, please approach the podium state your name and
- give us your wonderful presentation Noah Sandweis historic preservation program manager Department of
- Housing and Neighborhood Development Clicker
- So there's a lot of information in your packet, so I'm going to keep this presentation sort of to a
- synopsis. Thank you for having me tonight, and thank you to everybody who showed up for this item. I
- want to start with giving a little background on the area that we're talking about. The so-called Cottage
- Grove Historic District was identified in early Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology surveys
- as an area eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places. Despite being labeled
- in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory as a historic district, the neighborhood has
- never been designated on the local, state, or national level. The area received local recognition for
- its architectural significance in 1974 when the 1852 Greek Revival Mansion of General Morton C. Hunter
- was demolished amidst much public outcry.
- Although only a couple of buildings from this era remain in the district, the neighborhood was recognized
- by state historians for the density and integrity of early 20th century houses. Aside from some mid-century
- infill, most of the houses in the proposed district date from the early 20th century. As of the current
- city survey of historic structures, 15 of the 122 houses in the proposed district are rated notable
- for their architectural significance, and one is rated outstanding.
- 90 of the remaining houses are contributing This would place the cottage Grove historic district among
- Bloomington's neighborhoods with the most consistent architectural significance The push to designate
- the conservation district in the cottage Grove neighborhood was initiated by a neighborhood residents
- in response to an increasing number of demolitions in the surrounding area Including the proposed demolition
- of 115 East 12th Street located within the proposed district
- Because of the historic significance of the house's association with a prominent local sculptor,
- Ivan Adams, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission nominated the property for designation
- to the Bloomington Common Council, and it was individually designated on December 17th, 2025. Meanwhile,
- a group of residents began seeking designation for the wider area, sending letters to property owners
- and hosting a series of three public meetings at the Monroe County Public Library
- to discuss the prospect of nominating a conservation district. On December 17th, 2025, petitioner Dr.
- John Butler submitted an application to the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission. The public
- hearing and the vote of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission on this matter was postponed
- until February 12th. A number of public comments were received both in the lead up to and during the
- meeting, some of which are included in your packet.
- According to the staff evaluation and Commission vote this area is eligible for local designation under
- three criteria First being criteria one for historic significance Category C for exemplifying the cultural
- political economic social or historical heritage of the community the cottage Grove neighborhood was
- largely built to provide housing for employees of the nearby showers furniture company and the limestone
- industry and
- which dominated the economy of turn of the century Bloomington. Like many Bloomington neighborhoods
- from this area, Cottage Grove was economically mixed. Most of these houses were associated with workers
- in these industries, and as will be explained further, material and architectural features in the built
- environment attest to the important role that these businesses played in the development of the area.
- Further, for architectural significance, criteria 2E and 2G.
- contains any architectural style, detail, or element in danger of being lost. The applicants list several
- unusual buildings and features, including Bloomington's only example of a brick, queen, and style house,
- and Bloomington's only example of a bungalow with a belvedere, an original feature that would stand
- out on any bungalow. Another particularly rare building type can be found at 217 East 10th Street in
- the form of a Civil War era hall and parlor house
- that faithfully displays Greek revival features popular in the early 1800s. Several similar examples
- can be found in Bloomington, but this farmhouse would rank among Bloomington's oldest extant buildings.
- The neighboring house at 221 East 10th Street is an example of another uncommon 19th century housing
- type, a double pen. Under criterion 2G, exemplifies the built environment in an era of history characterized
- by distinctive architectural style
- The bulk of this neighborhood is constituted of buildings that date from the years immediately before
- and after World War I. Pre-war houses, mostly working class, predominate in the eastern part of the
- district. Like in contemporary neighborhoods west of downtown, most of these are built in the folk Victorian
- or Queen Anne style. Many in the Gabledale form commonly associated with this period in Bloomington's history.
- Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style with a conspicuous number of limestone
- Tudor revival houses. Many of the pre-war houses were built by employees of the Showers Brothers Furniture
- Company and bear some of the hallmarks of the carpenter built folk housing, while many of the larger
- post-war houses are associated with the blooming limestone industry. In parts of this neighborhood,
- brick sidewalks and limestone retaining walls distinguish this early Bloomington neighborhood.
- So a little more information on what's being proposed here is the object up for discussion is a conservation
- district And this is slightly different from a historic district, which now makes up All the designated
- areas in Bloomington within the area of a conservation district Regulation is less stringent than in
- a historic district in a conservation district a certificate of appropriateness is required for the
- demolition of any building the moving of any building and
- or the construction of a new principal or accessory structure subject to view from a public way. At
- the end of a three-year period, the district shall become a historic district unless a majority of property
- owners in the district object to the commission in writing to the elevation of a historic district.
- Set objections must be received by the commission not earlier than 180 days or later than 60 days before
- the third anniversary of the adoption of the conservation district.
- In Bloomington it has been the practice of the city staff to notify all property owners prior to this
- deadline So to summarize Some of the significance of the area that we're looking at here the majority
- of the structures in this proposed district Date from the years before and after World War one and are
- mostly built up in the folk Victorian Queen Anne tutor revival and craftsman styles many of the pre-war
- houses were built by employees of the showers brothers furniture company and
- bearing hallmarks of their carpentry industry, while many of the post-war houses are more closely associated
- with the Bloomington limestone industry, which was then at its zenith. This neighborhood possesses one
- of the highest degrees of integrity and significance for its historic building structure in the city,
- and has long been recognized as possessing significant
- architectural and historical value Great, thank you very much. Are there any questions? Okay Councilmember
- Stossberg, I have questions if nobody else has questions. Oh, well, yeah So I guess I technically have
- have three things I
- You said that this is a conservation not a district not a historic district But that it would automatically
- roll into a historic district unless the majority of property owners Said don't do that Has it ever
- happened that a majority of property owners in Bloomington have said don't do that in Bloomington? It
- hasn't happened. This is something that I'm not sure why but it's a change that the state legislature
- made to the conservation district ordinance Say that again This is a change that
- The state legislature it hadn't made to the conservation ordinance a while back There have not been
- any examples in Bloomington of a conservation district that has stayed a conservation district past
- this point Okay, that that's I guess what I'm asking and I just want to make sure that everybody is
- like clear about that the other
- question I have if I can go on is how does the size of this district compared to other historic districts
- in terms of the hundred and twenty two homes and the It I'd say it looks a little smaller than average
- some of our larger historic districts have several hundred homes Great, thank you and then the third
- thing and I'm
- I don't know if you can totally answer this or not, but I appreciate that you had the whole like list
- of Owners and properties in the packet and then I of course did a little math about that because like
- that's what I do and I noticed that unless I miss Missed one There's only nine properties where the
- owners have the same address as the property which is about 7% 35 owners Have addresses outside of Bloomington
- Which is almost 29% and then there are 16 owners that have addresses out of state out of Indiana, which
- is about 13% So the question is How and I don't know that's why I was like, do you are you able to answer
- this question or not? Because the question is how What's the plan on involving all of the owners that
- do not live on the property? in the district with the decisions
- district standards or do we not have to approach that until it's a historic district but given that
- So many conservation districts roll into historic districts like what's the plan for that? and then
- you know in terms of what you've already done in terms of reaching out like like all of those all of
- those owners have already been reached out to how many have you heard from that kind of those kinds
- of statistics information sure, so letters were sent to the property owners and
- during the initial nomination process when the applicants were holding their public meetings, subsequently
- letters were sent prior to the historic preservation commission's vote, again after the vote and then
- once this meeting was scheduled. All of the letters that I've received in writing are included in your
- packet. I have received a couple more phone calls, mostly people
- inquiring about more information there were also several people who showed up to comment at the Historic
- Preservation Commission meeting where this item was brought up also in the future, you know, of course
- for when the district would be Potentially up for elevation to a historic district as well as as a courtesy when
- Matters that are going to affect You know local guidelines are brought up, you know further mailers
- can be sent out Okay, those are all my questions I guess I I would be interested in knowing for a second
- reading what percentage of those of property owners actually Contacted you in some way. I just have
- a lot of concerns So then I know that part of the part of the concern is that there are so many
- properties that are not being lived in by the owner and like I get that that's part of the issue, but
- I just want to make sure that we're Hearing from everybody about this. Thanks. Thank you councilmember
- Flaherty Yeah, thank you just covering a couple of questions Currently our demolition demolition delay
- Ordinance does that apply to all homes full stop or is it for certain designations contributing and
- and hire so yeah, so
- It doesn't apply in historic districts because they'll have their own standards about when a building
- can be demolished. Um, that's So I'm currently even under current conditions. So what it applies to
- our full demolition of contributing notable and outstanding buildings as well as In a few cases substantial
- alterations to notable or outstanding buildings, okay and notable and outstanding buildings are
- Do those have any protections by virtue of that designation at the state level? No, or that has to be
- made locally. It has to be made. Yeah got it Okay, and could you tell me more about the I had to step
- out for a moment So I apologize if I missed it but about the non-contributing structures, which are
- quite small number in the neighborhood or in the proposed district Just a little bit more about like
- why? They would be non-contributing is that they've been altered so materially over time even though
- they were built in the same period or were there a
- Is it because of past demos and they were built more recently? Just a bit more about those structures.
- It's a mix. So I think there's 15 or 16 non-contributing buildings in this area with 122 primary structures.
- I'd say out of those, most of them date from this area's period of significance but have been altered
- to the point where you can't tell what their original significance is
- There also is some later infill. Mm-hmm, got it. And then maybe last question. I think I'm generally
- supportive of where we're headed. The reservations I have had around historic districts and conservation
- districts I think are twofold. One is the democratic-ish process that leads to them I think is stacked
- in a kind of particular way that can
- that rubs, that I struggle with a bit. So there's that. And then the second is kind of what happens
- with things like those non-contributing homes or making alterations. I've just lived in historic districts
- most of my time in Bloomington, and I think they can be really terrific and really great for preserving
- kind of the overall district and preserving homes in a much wider swath. We don't have to consider them
- one at a time through demolition layer, things like that.
- but then at the same time you end up with these non contributing structures or maybe a structure that's
- contributing but Still has a bunch of features that maybe a porch or a you know something that like
- just really isn't Historically accurate or significant and then they end up facing these really high
- costs and burdens For a home that really doesn't maybe warrant strong protection, but nevertheless has
- gotten swept in with the district and
- How do you think about that challenge? And I know we've talked about it before with the HPC, but that's
- another concern I have, I guess, when we move forward with conservation districts that I just assume
- will become historic districts. Can that be dealt, is that dealt with most appropriately by the district
- standards themselves? So, yeah, by and large, non-contributing buildings in historic districts
- Treated with the same rules with which you would treat a new building when it comes to alterations just
- don't make it more non-conforming with the district and then the rules for demolition are much looser
- because one of the criteria for demolition in a historic district is considering Does this property
- contribute to what makes this building? Sorry, what makes this district historically significant? So
- that means that usually a property owner can get permission to
- from the Commission fairly easily to demolish a non-contributing building and that would also Apply
- to removing non-historic features Mm-hmm. Okay Images Claire. Sorry very last thing clarifying that
- last point because I've definitely had constituents Express concern or frustration to me over time who
- live in historic districts who have had denials from the HPC about
- their ability to alter things that are not of his historic character, that are not consistent with the
- neighborhood, that kind of thing. So it seems like it's burdensome even in those cases. So maybe that's,
- I guess I was seeking to clarify your last comments, which is that even when in the case of like a remodel
- or a modification, if the features we're talking about are not historically significant, that generally
- under the guidelines and under HPC's decision making,
- they should allow those types of alterations, is that right? Generally, and I guess sort of, I can only
- guess to what the specific comments you've received from constituents might be, but like I had mentioned,
- there are still guidelines that would pertain to new construction, and that's broadly speaking going
- to include alterations to non-contributing buildings with really the goal to
- Make them more non-contributing As in like if you construction must match or try to match the historical
- style as opposed to being a different style is that yes, okay, and There is a set of let's see what
- the numbers I think it's There's a set of Guidelines for that are actually included in state and local
- ordinances so a lot of historic districts will
- You know write their own guidelines about What they call for a new construction but really that the
- purpose of that should be to clarify What these points in the statute? Mean in the context
- of that neighborhood. Okay. Great. Thank you so much questions Great let's go to public comment Anyone
- who'd like to speak on this ordinance
- please approach the podium. You'll have three minutes and state your name if you'd be so willing. Welcome.
- Hello. Hi, my name is Dr. John Butler. I'm the person who sort of filed the first thing that set this
- all in motion. I think this is an excellent opportunity for you guys to protect this neighborhood, and
- I think it's an excellent idea for Bloomington for several reasons.
- Number one, this neighborhood has a clear cultural and historical significance. These buildings represent
- a collection of buildings that truly speak to Bloomington's history and to Bloomington's culture. And
- so to lose those would be unfortunate. These buildings are affordable housing.
- You guys have been talking all night about affordable housing If these get torn down, they're not going
- to be replaced by something more affordable. They're Organic they've grown up on their lots. Many of
- these are small lots My wife and I inherited a house in this neighborhood its lot size is I think 60 feet and
- 60 foot square, so it's a very small lot. Some of these are very modest houses There's also nicer houses.
- It's an it's an interesting egalitarian mix We don't build neighborhoods like this anymore. We tend
- to segregate people by class and by wealth and In the turn of the century That's something they just
- didn't do so that the owner of the factory and the workers of the factory lived cheek and jowl in the
- same neighborhood I think that's special
- I think it would be a shame if we lost that. I think it's a good idea environmentally. All these houses
- represent materials that have already been committed to housing. And if you tear them down, then to
- replace them, you have to get new materials. And when you do tear these houses down, the materials that
- are in them, they're not reused, they're destroyed, they're wasted, they're carted off in a dumpster.
- And this is hard, these houses are made with old growth,
- hardwood lumber that you just can't get anymore. So culturally, I think economically, environmentally,
- all these reasons are great reasons. But I think maybe perhaps the most important is that this neighborhood
- represents a collection of people who have chosen to live in downtown Bloomington and sort of living
- the very lives that you guys are trying to encourage with your Hope Well
- Development and it's already here and all you have to do is protect it So for all those reasons, I would
- like you to support this. Thank you very much Thank you and next speaker and if anyone has any comments
- on zoom, please feel free to raise your hand Elizabeth Cox ash I live in McDowell Gardens.
- This is Bloomington's very first historic conservation district a lot of these rules were written up by us and
- and we were 60% rental, 40% owner-occupied. This was 25 years ago, and we're arguing the same things
- that happened 25 years ago. The advantage of now is we have the historic concern,
- history of how these things are successful and how they protect these historic homes. These homes have
- the hardwoods of 160 years ago when Bloomington had hardwood. So when you're tearing down these things,
- you're tearing down all these things that were very valuable many years ago. Also, the cost of building
- these 100 years ago
- was much less, so therefore, that's what keeps them affordable, is because the labor costs were not
- the same 100 years ago than they are now. I wish we had the homes that are in this district
- in our neighborhood. We have much humbler homes.
- To let this conservation district go away and not approve would be really sad. This is what makes Bloomington
- look like Bloomington. Each community has certain homes that the builders have made them look
- As an example, up north, you get more of the German influence. So you get more of the beveled glass,
- and you also get the colored glass in the windows. Down here, you don't get that as much. So you need
- to keep these homes. You need to protect them. So please approve this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker,
- you'll have three minutes.
- Paul Ash, I'm also McDole. Anyhow, one of the things that we encountered was especially out of town
- investors, absentee landlords, and they swore, oh my, this historic district will ruin our property
- values. Well, look at what the property values were years ago in McDole.
- And look at what they are now So, you know What's going to happen is like my wife just said, you know,
- you're going to have a flip You're going to have an awful lot more owner occupants and they're going
- to be fixing up these cute little homes That's what happened in our neighborhood Thank you very much
- next speaker Hi, my name is Jordan Evans
- I'm here tonight on behalf of the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association, which I do serve as the president
- of. I do ask that you guys deny this. First off, the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association was never
- consulted on any of this. We found out about this through the mail and have adamantly gone against this
- since. The area that is sectioned out in their map is mostly the High Point neighborhood, which
- It did have its own neighborhood association, which should have been the one, in my opinion, to bring
- this in front of you. I also would like to kind of circle back to what you guys have spent a significant
- amount of time talking about tonight, and that's affordable housing. This neighborhood is close to campus,
- is, as Councilmember Stossberger said, 93% out-of-state owners, so that is mostly rentals.
- Our worry is that these restrictions for the buildings that have been there for over a hundred years
- Are going to make costs too high to keep those rents workable for anybody I do ask also that you
- consider the existing neighborhood associations, their boundaries, and their function, and keep that
- in mind when making this decision. The Old Northeast has been happy to be engaged. We are just yet to
- be engaged on this subject. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have anybody on Zoom? Great.
- We'll go to Zoom now. And if you'll be unmuted and you have three minutes, please state your name. Chris Sturbaum.
- You know, as council, you're allowed to consider affordability issues that the Historic Commission is
- not allowed to consider. And our experience has been, like in Prospect Hill, you can rent a two-bedroom.
- I know of four two-bedrooms that are renting for $800, which is $400 a bedroom. And nothing anybody
- builds is gonna come close to these kind of mom and pop prices that these
- old historic houses are renting for throughout the neighborhood. McDowell, I know there's a whole house
- for $800 plus utilities. It's a small house, but you're not gonna build anything like that. And these
- protections protect small houses, medium-sized houses, duplexes, they all function together. And the
- core neighborhood is really a beautiful form that's been imitated
- And once you wreck it, it's wrecked. And you know, it's interesting that none of these have ever been
- overturned. And people say, oh, that's because it's automatic. And no, it's because people end up supporting
- them that didn't support them when they started. I mean, they've had peaceful transitions because people
- end up going, there's nothing really wrong here. This is working. And you know, we've seen,
- Developments these days, people consider a house by the units they can make out of it, so they value
- the property as the land underneath it. Four-bedroom student apartments will generate $3,600 to $4,800
- a month, $900 to $1,200 a bed. And when you incentivize that kind of demolitions, you're going to make
- money by tearing these houses down.
- people who are opposed to this are really saying because those are great rentals throughout the neighborhood
- and they're affordable rentals, they're reasonable. But the incentive to make that much more money,
- as soon as you, when you don't protect that neighborhood, the value of the place is the dirt on that
- ground and the house scraped off it and something built that's gonna be renting for 1200 a bedroom.
- That isn't affordable. And I really hope you consider giving this a chance. And if, you know, if all
- those rental owners really hate it in the end, they'll be able to vote this down when it comes time.
- But this is going to be a really good thing for the neighborhood, for the people that care about the
- neighborhood, for the people that live in the neighborhood and all the renters in that neighborhood.
- Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next person in Zoom, if you could unmute yourself and state
- your name for the record, you'll have three minutes. If your hand is still raised and you'd still like
- to speak, please unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes for the
- Hi, did I get unmuted this time? Yes, go ahead. Oh good, thank you. My name is Jan Sorby and I want
- to encourage everybody to support this historic district. They're a group of really, really wonderful
- houses and in a lot of communities for a district to become a district, they often think of that as
- a community good.
- And they see it as a win-win for the entire city. And a lot of times it's because the link to our past,
- it's a tangible link. The architecture is there, it shows us how people live and how they worked. Very
- important. I mean, if we didn't have examples of that, would we ever appreciate living without
- air conditioning these days? You know, opening windows, cross ventilation,
- facing a house a certain way to get morning sun and afternoon shade. These are all very important items
- and things to think about when you're choosing to become a historic district is the embodiment that
- these houses present to future generations as well. It's a wonderful educational tool for people that
- are coming up now, kids. And also,
- I think it's really important to acknowledge the hard work these people have gone through because their
- affordable housing was being destroyed one by one. And when it came down to the integrity of
- their neighborhood, they were losing it. And the modest houses that younger people, maybe in their 30s,
- could buy and slowly fix up. And in terms of the bylaws that the,
- neighborhood has come up with. They're not onerous. They're not anything but a general way of fitting
- into the structures that are there so that doesn't detract from the consistency and the wholeness of
- this wonderful area. So I'm just here to encourage you to look at this benefit for the whole city. These
- houses are in a way
- what defines Bloomington is why people want to stay in Bloomington and why we have tourism that comes
- to Bloomington. If we become this vanilla city that is absolutely unidentifiable as any other city in
- the world, do you think we'll really keep our coolness? Do you think we'll really keep younger people
- starting out and wanting to stay in this town if it's nothing but a vanilla?
- city that has no character. So that's it. And please support these wonderful people. Thank you.
- Thank you. Do we have anyone else on Zoom? OK, we'll go to them after the next person in chambers. You
- can approach the podium and state your name, and you'll have three minutes. Hi. I'm Melody Barnett Duesner,
- and I serve on the Historic Preservation Commission. I'm a historian of American art at IU, and I
- Rent a house in Bryan Park. I was one of the five people who raised my hand when councilmember Zoellick
- asked who did not own property and I'm one of those people I absolutely love living in Bryan Park, which
- is also a very distinctive Bloomington neighborhood and also is not a historic district and I have been
- unable to make the leap from being a renter to an owner in a neighborhood that I love or
- Partly because I cannot compete with the people who will buy up small houses and tear them down in order
- to build something that they can sell for more. And so I want to just make a plug for affordability
- with these historic neighborhoods.
- And to also mention that there are a couple of practical concerns that I just want to remind everyone
- of. And one is, I guess, on the level of thinking about where we have flexibility and where we don't
- in terms of how the town is administered. We have a lot of flexibility in how each historic neighborhood
- decides to write their own guidelines or conservation district. They get to make those decisions.
- They do not take a one size fits all approach. They can adopt other guidelines that other neighborhoods
- have already put together or they can completely start from scratch. And so this is not a case where,
- say, Cottage Grove will need to follow the same guidelines as Elm Heights or something like that. But
- that's a place where we have a lot of flexibility. But an area where we don't have flexibility is in terms of
- unprotected neighborhoods that are not a conservation or historic district anyone can tear anything
- down at any time for any reason and I think that's one of the things that when people are sort of discussing
- properties for demolition delay at historic preservation people are shocked that
- you know, looking at us like, well, you've got to stop it. Like somebody wants to tear down this perfectly
- good house or historic house. We can't do anything about it. And in very, very rare cases, like the
- Ivan Adams house, we were able to bring one before you, but it's, it's so hard. And so I think people
- don't quite realize how unprotected a lot of homes are if there's not a conservation or historic district
- over the top of it.
- Um, so I strongly support the creation of this district and I would encourage you to do that too.
- Thank you. Thank you. And now we'll go to, do we still have a person with their hand raised on zoom?
- Great. Um, if you could unmute yourself, you'll have three minutes. My name is Michael Brahms. I apologize
- if there's background noise. Um, I live, uh, out of Lewington. It's late and where I had to step out
- of it's loud, but, uh,
- I am an out-of-state property owner. I've owned property in that neighborhood for over 25 years. I know
- one of the council members was curious about how out-of-town property owners would kind of be involved
- in the standards. I know from my personal experience, the Butler's and everyone involved have done a
- great job reaching out to me and making me aware where there's meetings and involving me to the extent
- I wanted to be involved.
- Um, and then, uh, I know as an out of town property owner that my renters finding value, uh, in actually
- the house, the houses, uh, in the neighborhood, as opposed to kind of more multifamily structures. A
- lot of times when I have renters, they're specifically looking for a house. Uh, if they didn't want
- to live in a house, they'd live, uh, downtown or somewhere else. And so.
- From my perspective, I do see value in preserving the neighborhood and hopefully having standards that
- will kind of preserve some of the qualities of the neighborhoods that my renters are looking for when
- they come to rent houses. Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers, if you
- could approach the podium, you'll have three minutes. Hi, Paul Russo.
- I know this neighborhood pretty well, because I go through it almost every day. And I'm going through
- it on bicycle, so I can see things really well. And oddly enough, today, I was right on the edge of
- this proposed district, right across the street from it, at 614 North Grant, a house that's being proposed
- for demolition. And just as I went by, one of the students walked out of the house. And I said, do you
- live here? And he said, yes. So we had a little chat.
- He and his three roommates are paying $550 a month in rent in a house that's built in 1910, but it's
- gonna get torn down because it's not inside the district. It's really interesting to me that this has
- come before you today on the same day you're talking about possibly implementing land trusts,
- because as I, I think I send information to all of you by email, and you'll notice that in
- the land trust in Madison and the land trust in State College, Pennsylvania, most of their homes were
- rehabilitation homes. And my understanding of how land trusts start to work when they get established
- is that they have a pool of money ready to go in case an opportunity comes up. And so if you combine
- land trusts with the historic preservation that slows things down, it's a perfect way to jump in and
- grab naturally occurring affordable housing
- own the land, rehabilitate the house, house doesn't get torn down, and the renter's like the guy who's
- gonna lose his house that I talked to today, doesn't lose his rent. I strongly support this application.
- It's a wonderful neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have
- three minutes. Hello, I'm Jenny Southern. I live in the Elm Heights neighborhood, and we have a historic district.
- Outside of her historic district we found out in the last couple of weeks that two houses are going
- to be torn down and you would think oh they're they're old ready houses or something like that. But
- no these are huge colonial style brick houses one I would say of notable character.
- It's on the corner of Atwater. You probably have walked past it or driven past it a million times. Behind
- Bear's Place at Atwater, and it used to be Jordan, it's now Eagleson. And then there's a second one
- behind it. Each one of these houses are in very good condition, lovely landscaping, and they've been
- run pretty much as rooming houses for the last 50 years that I know of. The rent in these houses are
- $400 to $500 per bedroom,
- Each house has 10 to 11 people in them. They are legal. They are grandfathered as they are. And yet
- they've been applied to be torn down. Um, I can also say that the Brian park neighborhood is also having
- several houses. I'm not sure it has been approved yet being torn down as we speak, uh, two of them and
- an empty lot to put up the new duplexes. Now I know we've all been promised that if we build enough rentals,
- that the rents will go down. That doesn't seem to be working. Not in this town, not the way they're
- done right now. When they do happen, they're at least $1,200. For the brand new ones, they're $1,200
- per bedroom. We sat for three hours listening about affordability and how we all wanted to buy houses
- of our own.
- I just wanted to say, you know, the rentals downtown are hard, hard to find an affordable one. You can
- find all the non affordable ones you could possibly desire. Uh, but the affordable ones are extremely
- rare. And yet we're talking about right in this couple of weeks, losing quite a few of them and every
- historic commission or historic meeting that I seem to go to,
- which I'm one of the people that has to go to those. I'm not on the commission, but I do represent my
- neighborhood sometimes has several somewhere in the downtown being torn down. Um, it's not working for
- us, but, um, maybe you can think of it and make it work in the future, but I encourage you to try to
- salvage more of these old neighborhoods for affordable living and encouraging families to buy homes.
- Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody on zoom?
- Great. Thank you. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes, please state your name Good evening.
- My name is Doug Horne. I'm a general partner in Stassi and horn which owns three buildings located within
- the section of Cottage Grove addition to the city of Bloomington that is included in the in this area
- being considered this evening and
- Only a third of the Cottage Grove addition is included with this grouping of houses in a number of different
- developments and additions to the city. My comments are focused mostly on the Cottage Grove addition
- to the city, which expands beyond this area to the east by two blocks.
- And I wanna begin by thanking each of you for your service to our city, your fine attention to the complex
- layers that seemingly are straightforward issue can present. We feel this historic conservancy request
- is one of such issues. You've been provided with exceptionally well-crafted historic analysis of the area.
- and been afforded a positive recommendation for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, but
- forgive me, but let me build on that analysis and add a few layers to the discussion that are beyond
- the purview of the HPC as they should be, instead leaving you to balance all issues as elected officials
- and make the best decisions for the whole of our community. In this limited time, I'd encourage you
- to consider the historical municipal planning
- that has provided vision for the future of this area for many decades under numerous administrations
- and associated planned commissions. Looking back in time as increased residential density in proximity
- to the university became a necessity, municipal planning identified certain areas including the central
- section of Cottage Grove addition, essentially a three block run of property between Grant and Dunn
- Street as appropriate for high density multifamily redevelopment.
- One of the key elements of this decision was the recognition that the cheaply built turn of the century
- spec homes had deteriorated significantly and outlived their physical and useful life. Many were initially
- built on piers without true foundation, central heating, or indoor plumbing, and a much different product
- than initially developed along North Washington and the west side, I'm sorry,
- North Washington and the west side of North Lincoln Street, which is the predominant features that appear
- in the reporting of this contrived neighborhood. The high density zoning allowed for the construction
- of multi-family apartment buildings, some on single lots, others on spanning multiple lots, but over
- the decades,
- Multiple master plans medium and high-density zoning continue to be expanded in the area until today
- We're recently enacted zoning of the entirety of this proposed. Thank you very much. That was your time
- If you'd like to you can send it to council at bloomington.in.gov to give your full report. Thank you
- Thank you Next speaker if you could approach the podium, you'll have three minutes. I
- My name is Karen Duffy and I serve on the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission First I want
- to thank you so much for taking our comments tonight we came not knowing whether This was going to happen
- or not and you've had a long difficult meeting already and I really appreciate your openness to addressing
- our concern to I'll just take a minute to
- Emphasize something because so many previous comments have have brought up and address so beautifully
- other issues just want to underscore something fundamental in the proposal that was forwarded to you
- and was clarified stated clearly by Mr. Sandweiss which is that this is
- This neighborhood has a really unusual number of highly rated houses and has been identified as a potential
- ideal neighborhood really for protection for decades. I was looking in 2004 publication of the inventory
- of houses in Bloomington and it was
- Stated right there. I mean I could read that as my statement tonight and what we said was still be true
- that it was going to be subject to the whims of the real estate market without protections, which it
- did not have at the time, but it was always waiting for people to organize a
- Support within the neighborhood there was no strong neighborhood association to put it through which
- often is the agency to do that but Mr. Butler has and his wife and Neighbors have have done this beautifully
- and worked very hard had open meetings. I attended several of them and garnered interest and support and
- So I think everything is in place. This seems to be their time. I hope you agree. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes. Hi my name is Amy Butler.
- My husband and I and neighbors have worked really hard on this. Sorry. This has been emotional. It's
- been a long hard process. We knocked on every door in the neighborhood. We sent multiple emails multiple
- We have met with multiple of you Thank you so much for your time to walk our neighborhood with us to
- see the wonderful houses that we have that we are trying to save We've heard crickets from quite quite
- a few of the larger Property under the property owners and that own multiple houses in our neighborhood
- we don't get any feedback from them, but
- Earlier old Northeast neighborhood Jordan Evans came up and said that we did not include him He actually
- in Doug horn day and they came to our first meeting at the library My husband and I also met with Doug
- horn for about seven hours We gave him, you know We were wanting to include some houses on 12th Street
- beyond grant and he didn't want us to do that. He wanted to keep our Being at grant so we stopped at
- grant, you know, we gave into that. Um, I
- We have talked to multiple small landlords that are supportive of us. We have multiple homeowners that
- live in their houses there that are supportive of us. I have a petition. We went around and
- got 84 signatures, 74 of which are students who live in the neighborhood who want to save these old
- houses because they think there was something worth saving. They'd like to come back in 20 years and
- say, hey, I lived in that house.
- We are definitely happy with people being able to add on to their houses. These are useful old houses.
- We can add on to them. We can. We're happy with accessory dwelling units. We have density. We're not
- against that. But you know this is an important neighborhood for Bloomington and there are people who
- care about it. And I really hope that you will consider voting for this vote for Cottage Grove is a
- vote for affordability.
- Any house that gets torn down, we don't get it back. But anything that replaces it, I guarantee you
- the rent is always higher in every single instance. And it will be 300 or more higher per month per
- bedroom. I will guarantee you that. But I please ask you to vote for Cottage Grove. It's an easy thing
- to do to save affordable housing if that's what you guys want to do for Bloomington, because that's
- what Bloomington really needs. Thank you.
- Thank you very much. Next speaker, and then if you could also sign in, which I'm so sorry to everyone,
- I keep forgetting to remind people. The pin is hard to see. And whenever you're ready, you'll have three
- minutes. My name is Jeremy Hackard, and I'm instantly regretting that I brought my notes on my phone.
- So bear with me. I'm currently serving as the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. I'm speaking
- to give my full support
- For this conservation district the HPC is limited in what we can Consider for designation. It has to
- be historically or architecturally significant Not everything that comes before the HPC can be saved
- nor should it be just because something old doesn't mean that it is significant even in historic districts
- just last our last meeting and Garden Hill we had a non-contributing building and
- that was asked for demolition and asked for a new building to be built in its place. We approved it
- because we could not make a legitimate argument that that house was historically significant. So just
- because a contributing building is in a district doesn't mean it's locked in place. But it does provide
- protections for those other buildings that are contributing, notable and outstanding. For me, when it
- comes to Cartridge Grove, the area clearly meets the architectural and historical significance requirements
- of our historic preservation ordinance, as noted very well in the staff report. One thing I wanted to
- add about the architectural significance, it will have more notable homes than Maple Heights,
- Garden Hill, and McDole, and have the same number as the near west side. So there is precedence for
- this. During the historic preservation commission meeting where this was discussed, we approved this
- seven nothing.
- During that discussion, Duncan Campbell, who served on our commission for decades, noted he thought
- it was one of the most thorough reports that he had seen on a conservation district proposal. I thoroughly
- agree with him. I only have two years of experience on the commission to judge that by, but in my opinion,
- it looks pretty good. I commend Amy Butler, John Butler, James Ford, and others for leading this effort.
- They put in the time and energy to reach out to their neighbors.
- Hold input meetings and work with city staff to make the conservation district proposal possible.
- Please vote. Yes on this proposal. Thank you Thank you very much. Anybody on zoom great. Thank you If
- you could sign in state your name and you'll have three minutes Good evening, my name is Eric host and
- I am currently the
- President of the Elm Heights neighborhood association and The president of the council of neighborhood
- associations, but I'm not here tonight To speak on behalf of either of those bodies. I am here to speak
- in support of this petition and also in support of historic districts and conservation districts I currently
- do not live in the historic district, but I have seen firsthand the
- Benefits of this process because it involves neighbors In discussions important discussions about their
- neighborhood I want to commend Amy Butler and John Butler and James Ford and all of their Neighbors
- for bringing this forward. It's been an impressive process They've invested time and effort
- And I think they've done a very good job and along with city staff. I want to give credit to Noah Sandweis
- and also the HPC. But in regards to historic districts and as they evolve over time, we're currently
- going through a guidelines revision process. And what we're finding is that there is a way to
- discuss and revise guidelines in support of the times as they change, and also the owners, the current
- owners of properties. So I expect that same process will occur in Cottage Grove, and in the time I have
- remaining, I also wanna address the affordability issue, because the most affordable homes are the homes
- that exist.
- for many reasons, not the homes that are constructed because it's very expensive to build. We also have
- a city where we have a majority of our residents are renting. And that has changed the dynamic of the
- housing market. So I would ask you to support this petition and to
- to continue to talk about affordability. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, if you could
- sign in, state your name, and you'll have three minutes. I think you know my name. Anyway,
- this is Christopher Emge from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, and I wanna say some great
- public comment tonight on Cottage Grove Conservation District, and the Chamber is agnostic to this particular
- petition, but I just wanna make sure we have some common ground here that
- These are not just preservation policies. It's a land use and redevelopment policy. And I think Council
- Member Flaherty sort of brought that up on some burdens and high costs that we should always have that
- sort of scope and make sure that a single demolition is not automatically leading to permanent expansion
- of regulatory across an entire neighborhood. I think Mr. Horn brought some interesting aspects of it.
- These homes are 115 years old.
- and not all homes are built to last that long and are they structurally sound? These are things that
- I think we need to make sure that certain demolitions and exterior modifications are not too burdensome.
- We are talking about a very high rental mixed owner occupied area with a lot of ramifications on certain
- feasibility and redeveloped flexibility as the university keeps growing.
- I understand the neighbors here and many of them speak very fondly of the neighborhood. I love those
- little houses there. I got a text from my wife who does as well and who rented one many years ago. So
- I want to say that preservation absolutely has value and neighborhood character matters, but there's
- just make sure a balance is happening and that this council, this body is asking the right questions.
- Thanks. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak?
- Approach the podium state your name for the record sign in and you'll have three minutes My name is
- Jerry Stasney I along with Doug Horn own multiple homes in this area I've worked in this area for 40 years I
- Of course, we had the old Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Association, which I was the president at
- some portion in time. We do believe in historic preservation. Janine Butler, Sandy Cole, Marge Hudgens,
- myself, and Doug worked with the university to preserve the homes on 8th Street. They were beautiful
- homes, architecturally. There are a lot of homes, however, in the old Northeast that are not quite of
- that stature.
- some of them do need to be taken down and new homes or new Apartments houses put up so that for the
- next 100 years We can have some a good product for the students to live in or anybody that's near the
- university Several years ago the old Northeast had a group of individuals that wanted to
- break away from the old Northeast and form what was called High Point. And most of the homes, I believe,
- that were shown on this evening were from that area. There are much nicer homes on North Washington,
- on North Lincoln, between 12th Street and 8th Street. There's some very nice homes. A lot of the other
- homes are just pretty much mixed, and a lot of them are in need of being torn down and newer homes being put up.
- And while people say that it's better to have older homes because they're inexpensively maintained,
- I would kind of disagree with that. We've remodeled many, many homes and have spent hundreds of thousands
- of dollars on restoring the homes. And what it does is it gives a home
- for students or whoever would like to live there, but it has new electricity, new plumbing,
- whatever it is. It's not cheap to do those types of things. So what I would say as far as this proposal
- is, would be to keep the preservation between Lincoln and Washington Street, which is high point. And
- understand, I've walked through this neighborhood and I saw folks walking through the neighborhood with
- their pencils and papers and going by homes, and I thought to myself, I can't tell you how many bags
- of trash, how many homes that I have painted, and how hard we have worked over the years to maintain
- this neighborhood. So while I appreciate the folks wanting to have a certain portion of the area considered
- historic, I think you ought to look at the neighborhood and say it's probably Washington Street and
- Lincoln from 12th to 8th.
- A lot of the other ones. Thank you very much. That is your time new ones, but thank you. That is your
- time. Thank you very much Would anybody like to make any final comment on ordinance 2026-07 Councilmember
- Flaherty I have some additional questions and to folks anticipated voting tonight or a second reading
- how to remind me I think that
- There have been multiple council members who have already indicated that they expect answers for questions
- that couldn't be answered tonight. I do think it would probably make sense to continue this vote until
- May 20th. Given that I think that at this point in time we should do final comment. If you have any
- other questions please submit them to Mr. Sandweis especially given that it's already 1030.
- Yeah, I'm happy to submit great additional questions in writing. Thank you. Does anyone have any problem
- with that or anything to add? Great, let's do final comment Any other comments councilmember Stasberg
- I was just gonna make a motion I would like to Move ordinance
- Gosh I lost track of what ordinance we were on ordinance twenty twenty six oh seven to our next regular
- session for a second reading on I do believe that that is the 20th of May Second there's been a motion
- and a second to continue discussion for May 20th. Will the clerk please call the roll.
- Councilmember, sorry. Yes. Daily. No. Rallo. No. Ruff. No. Rosenbacher. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stossberg.
- Yes. Piedmont-Smith. Yes. Zulek. No. What is the, is that? It's five four. Five four.
- Five four passes point of information. What's the motion to reconsider a vote. I'd like to change mine.
- You can move to reconsider a motion that we reconsider. Second. Okay. There's been a motion to reconsider
- the motion to postpone ordinance 20 26 7 to the next regularly scheduled council meeting.
- Councilmember Stasberg Just as a note to vote on something tonight. We have to be unanimous about whether
- or not we want to vote on it So I'm not sure that it would matter if we reconsider it because I suspect
- we wouldn't have unanimity on whether or not to vote on it Thank you for making that clarification.
- I withdraw my motion Great in that case the next time that we will hear ordinance 20 2607 will be on May 20th
- Thank you all very much for being here. Sorry about that. Okay. I move that ordinance 2026-08 be read
- by title and synopsis only. Second.
- Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Given that it is after 10.30, I am going to ask the clerk
- to call the roll. Can I comment before the vote? Is that okay? Since it's debatable. Just that I would,
- I similarly have noted the time and would prefer not to substantively discuss any additional legislation
- tonight, but I think
- by introducing the next four ordinances, the UDO technical corrections, and moving them then on to second
- reading, basically moving to introduce them but not discuss them tonight puts them all in second reading
- posture next regular session, which is procedurally more advantageous with respect to the flexibility
- of voting on things. So I think that's worthwhile to do, and so I hope my colleagues will join me in
- doing that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
- Sorry, I share councilmember Flaherty's position. I'm so just like to echo that great anyone else Great.
- Well the clerk that's member Stasberg I just want to know that we've had planning staff sitting over
- there for four hours right now So I don't know if that makes a difference in terms of allowing them
- to say whatever it is that they might want to say as part of this Well, the clerk please call the roll
- Councilmember daily, yes
- Rollo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stossberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, so like yes.
- I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you Great. Thank you. That passes and I know will the clerk piece read Ordinance
- 2026-0 a to amend and provide technical clarity
- corrections to title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Unified Development Ordinance. The
- synopsis is as follows. This ordinance contains technical corrections or clarifications in the U.D.O.
- including reference corrections removal of unnecessary wording and sinking references across the U.D.O.
- There are 22 amendments proposed. Thank you. I move that ordinance 20 26 0 9.
- be read by title and synopsis only. Is there a second second. Will the clerk please read. Excuse me.
- All in favor please say aye aye aye. All opposed. Will the clerk please read ordinance twenty twenty six dash
- 20-09 to amend provide technical corrections to chapter 4 development standards and incentives of title
- 20 of the blooming to municipal code Entitled unified development ordinance the synopsis is as follows
- This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to chapter 4 development standards and incentives.
- There are 70 amendments in this petition Thank you. I Move that ordinance 2026-10 be read by title and
- synopsis only second
- Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed. Great. Well, the clerk please read
- ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero ten to amend and provide technical corrections to chapter six
- administration and procedures of title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Unified Development
- Ordinance. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to chapter six.
- administration and procedures of the unified development ordinance. There are twenty seven amendments
- in this petition. Thank you. I move that ordinance 20 26 dash 11 be read by title and synopsis only
- second. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye aye. All opposed. Great.
- Well the clerk please read.
- Ordinance 2026-11, to amend and provide technical corrections to Chapter 2, Zoning Districts,
- Chapter 3, Use Regulations, Chapter 5, Subdivision Standards, and Chapter 7, Divisions of Title 20 of
- the Bloomington Municipal Code, entitled Unified Development Ordinance. The synopsis is as follows.
- This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to Chapter 2, Zoning Districts,
- Chapter 3, Use Regulations, Chapter 5,
- Subdivision standards chapter 7 definitions of the unified development ordinance. There are 28 amendments
- in this petition. Thank you. I know we're going to the second ratings now. I move that resolution 20
- 26 0 6 be read by title and synopsis only point of order.
- I don't think we need to introduce any of the second reading items, right? If we're not if if we're
- not planning to subsequently discuss them tonight, they would just Simply just appear again in that
- section. I withdraw my motion is that we have Substantively discussed I forget the number but 20 26.
- Oh, yeah. Yeah And I mean and yeah, so I'd be prepared to vote on it tonight without
- Much discussion if if if our colleagues felt the same way, but yeah, so just for the good of the order
- Got it when you would like to introduce either resolution Okay in that case we will move on to it would
- you I Guess I'm prior to making a motion to introduce resolution 2026 Oh five
- Which is the one I've sponsored I guess if folks are willing to Share share whether whether
- like councilmember. Sorry there they feel comfortable voting tonight with minimal Discussion because
- we've discussed it subsequently already. I think we could if folks were willing I'd be willing to take
- it up, but also don't want to give it short shrift. So Well, you we could make a motion to introduce
- and then just have a roll call vote. That's fine Okay
- Move we introduce resolution 26 20 2606 by title synopsis on oh Five oh five twenty six oh five apologies
- second. Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll? No offense no Flaherty
- Yes Stasberg I'm sorry. What are we motioning to introduce? I was out of the room when the motion was
- made Resolution. Oh, no Piedmont Smith Yes Zulik no, sorry. I'll also say no. Thank you daily Doesn't
- matter no Thank you. Thank you that fails would anyone else like to introduce anything?
- Great. We will move on to an additional section of public comment. If you would like to speak,
- please rise, sign in, and state your name for the record. Great. And if you have any comments on Zoom,
- please raise your hand. Is there anybody on Zoom? Great. Thank you. Jeff Richardson. I know tonight's
- earlier vote was a difficult one. It wears a lot of complexity.
- A lot of improvement that could be had in the process, but you made the decision. I'm so grateful and
- I want to thank you for doing your due diligence, doing your hard work and not kicking the can down
- the road. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak during
- this last period of general public comment on zoom?
- And we will go to our council schedule. I believe there is a committee on council process meeting next
- Thursday on May 21st at 4 p.m There our next regularly scheduled meeting is going to be held on May
- 20th at 6 30 p.m Where we will hear some of the other legislation we heard tonight again, and does anyone
- else have any council member Statsburg? there's a fiscal committee meeting on Friday morning at 830
- and we do have a deliberation session next week and
- On the 13th on councilmember Flaherty Pedestrians no removal. Is that right? Yeah pedestrian safety
- and accessibility Great Councilmember sorry, just I'm flagging and for everybody Following our resolution
- around the
- What was it about the jail have started some initial engagement with county council and mayor and county
- commissioners with the hope of sort of setting up a all hands meeting pending some pending some what
- do you call them contingencies that they need to figure out. And so that may be something that I'll
- reach out fairly soon about with them with a sort of
- Availability poll or something similar. So and also our job is posted if you know any lawyers who want
- to be municipal lawyers Thank You councilmember Rosenberger. Thank you. I just wanted to say Councilmember
- daily and I are working on a this is a she wasn't I'm saying this I am an ordinance to create a
- An amendment to title 15 to have carless or the or streets with no vehicular traffic This is in part
- to get Kirkwood a pedestrian zone kind of place for potentially this summer We will have it on the agenda
- I think for the 20th and I do want to try to connect with everybody in the next two weeks to potentially
- be have it queued up if people want to vote on it to vote on it at the first reading just because it
- is a long time coming and folks are waiting on it. Great. Thank you. Anyone else. Great. In that case
- we're adjourned. Thank you all.