WEBVTT 00:00:00.706 --> 00:00:14.720 - Hello everyone. Welcome to our regularly scheduled May 6th City Council meeting. Will the lovely and 00:00:14.720 --> 00:00:28.872 - generous clerk please call the roll. Piedmont Smith. Zurich here. Sorry here. Daily here. Rollo here. 00:00:28.872 --> 00:00:30.398 - Ruff here. 00:00:30.594 --> 00:00:42.324 - Rosenberger here. Thank you Great At this time or is there any motion to change the agenda? 00:00:42.324 --> 00:00:55.838 - I Thank you. I do have a motion. I move to hear Ordinance 2026-06 before we move to first readings second 00:00:56.642 --> 00:01:06.165 - Okay there's been a motion and a second to hear ordinance twenty twenty six oh six first ahead of number 00:01:06.165 --> 00:01:15.415 - six legislation for first readings on the agenda. Oh I guess nobody is online. So all in favor please 00:01:15.415 --> 00:01:20.222 - say aye. All opposed. Same sign. Great. That passes. 00:01:20.450 --> 00:01:26.671 - And then I will go through the agenda summation. First we have minutes for approval and then we'll go 00:01:26.671 --> 00:01:32.891 - to reports from council members and then we have a report from Canopy Bloomington council committees. 00:01:32.891 --> 00:01:39.051 - We will go to our first period of general public comment and then we have appointments to boards and 00:01:39.051 --> 00:01:45.332 - commissions and then we'll start with ordinance twenty twenty six oh six in regard to what many people 00:01:45.332 --> 00:01:46.430 - know as Hopewell. 00:01:46.626 --> 00:01:53.654 - And then we will have our legislation for first ratings including ordinance twenty twenty six dash oh 00:01:53.654 --> 00:02:01.027 - seven to amend title eight of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled historic preservation and protection 00:02:01.027 --> 00:02:07.987 - and to establish a conservation district cottage Grove Conservation District ordinance twenty twenty 00:02:07.987 --> 00:02:13.086 - six oh eight amending and providing technical corrections to title twenty 00:02:13.346 --> 00:02:20.175 - ordinance twenty twenty six oh nine amending and providing technical corrections to chapter four ordinance 00:02:20.175 --> 00:02:26.748 - twenty twenty six ten amending and providing technical corrections to chapter six and ordinance twenty 00:02:26.748 --> 00:02:33.513 - twenty six eleven amending and providing technical corrections to chapter two then we will go to ordinate 00:02:33.513 --> 00:02:37.470 - legislation for second readings and resolutions resolution to 00:02:37.570 --> 00:02:43.747 - Directing the housing and neighborhood development department to develop a framework for long-term housing 00:02:43.747 --> 00:02:49.520 - affordability resolution 20 2606 and then resolution 20 2605 a resolution to initiate a proposal to 00:02:49.520 --> 00:02:55.351 - amend title 20 And finally, we will have additional public comment council schedule and then we will 00:02:55.351 --> 00:03:01.298 - adjourn and that took a really long time I am so sorry about that. Please forgive me at this time. Are 00:03:01.298 --> 00:03:03.838 - there any motions for minutes for approval? 00:03:04.962 --> 00:03:13.605 - I move to approve the minutes for January 22nd 2025 Okay, there's been a motion in a second all those 00:03:13.605 --> 00:03:22.587 - in favor, please say aye Thank you all those opposed Great that passes and now we will move on to reports 00:03:22.587 --> 00:03:31.739 - from council members any council members who would like to make a report tonight Councilmember Rosenberger. 00:03:31.739 --> 00:03:34.366 - Hi. Thank you. I wanted to say 00:03:34.786 --> 00:03:42.169 - The city has some new LP eyes around town quite a few actually leading pedestrian intervals at stoplights. 00:03:42.169 --> 00:03:49.206 - So this gives pedestrians a few seconds head start to get out on the crosswalks before any cars start 00:03:49.206 --> 00:03:56.244 - turning right normally. So that's pretty neat and it's just a little upgrade in safety for all of our 00:03:56.244 --> 00:04:03.006 - road users. So thank you to public works and engineering and planning and council for doing that. 00:04:04.386 --> 00:04:14.978 - Thank you. Any other reports? OK. Moving on, we have a report from Canopy Bloomington. Please take your 00:04:14.978 --> 00:04:19.358 - stage, and you'll begin when you're ready. 00:04:21.890 --> 00:04:28.609 - Hi, everyone. I'm Eva Hartman. I'm the executive director of Canopy Bloomington. And sitting right behind 00:04:28.609 --> 00:04:35.074 - me, we have Philippa Guthrie, who's the president of our board, Sarah Menci, who's the vice president 00:04:35.074 --> 00:04:42.046 - of our board, and then John Vickers, who is our outgoing community engagement director. And, oh, there we go. 00:04:42.818 --> 00:04:51.222 - I just want to show a quick video talking about our organization, what we've accomplished last year. 00:04:51.222 --> 00:04:59.792 - 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 00:04:59.792 --> 00:05:08.279 - to give a brief overview of that and then talk about what we've done so far. If you just click it, it 00:05:08.279 --> 00:05:09.694 - should go. Yeah. 00:05:13.282 --> 00:05:42.334 - 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, 00:05:42.690 --> 00:05:48.907 - Um, canopy Bloomington is a nonprofit in Bloomington and we focus on engaging with residents and building 00:05:48.907 --> 00:05:55.008 - and caring for the urban forest here. Um, the video just would have gone over a few stats on what we've 00:05:55.008 --> 00:06:01.225 - done in 2025, but I also have a backup plan. So if you pull back up the presentation, I have the numbers, 00:06:01.225 --> 00:06:03.454 - um, and we can just go through those. 00:06:11.490 --> 00:06:20.204 - So in 2025, I just wanted to report on our volunteers. We had 1,400 volunteer hours and 300 active volunteers 00:06:20.204 --> 00:06:28.205 - with us in 2025. We worked with five different neighborhoods and attended 1,500 households, and most 00:06:28.205 --> 00:06:32.958 - of that work was done by our community engagement director. 00:06:33.666 --> 00:06:39.441 - All of those residents received information on how to receive free trees from our organization. And 00:06:39.441 --> 00:06:45.274 - then we went ahead and we planted 256 trees last year. So we got a lot of trees in the grounds. Most 00:06:45.274 --> 00:06:51.222 - of those went on private property. A few of those went in the right of way as we worked with the city. 00:06:51.222 --> 00:06:54.110 - And then we also hosted 18 educational events. So 00:06:54.242 --> 00:06:59.816 - In addition to planting all the trees, we want to inform residents about the benefits. They provide 00:06:59.816 --> 00:07:05.613 - reasons that you want to keep larger trees in your home and in your yard, but also why you want to keep 00:07:05.613 --> 00:07:07.230 - caring for the urban forest. 00:07:07.298 --> 00:07:13.196 - So we do a bunch of different educational events. We do tree walks, where we walk people around parks 00:07:13.196 --> 00:07:19.036 - and talk about the benefits and fun facts about trees. We have a book club. We have Trees 101, which 00:07:19.036 --> 00:07:24.934 - is focused more on caring for younger trees, and a few other things there, but I'm going to skip over 00:07:24.934 --> 00:07:26.206 - them for time's sake. 00:07:26.274 --> 00:07:32.093 - This just goes a little bit into our 2025 tree plantings. So working with seven different neighborhoods, 00:07:32.093 --> 00:07:37.690 - five different schools, two not-for-profits, and four individual plantings. One of the things we do, 00:07:37.690 --> 00:07:43.342 - like I said, is plant on private property, but we also combine that with education. So we really like 00:07:43.342 --> 00:07:48.939 - to work with schools. A lot of times we're working with Sycamore Land Trust. And then really anybody 00:07:48.939 --> 00:07:53.982 - who requests trees from us, we try to make it work through grants and different donations. 00:07:54.722 --> 00:08:02.360 - And something to note here is in 2025, we've planted 256 trees and this spring alone, we went ahead 00:08:02.360 --> 00:08:10.074 - and planted 248 trees. So we are already at that number this year and we're hoping to double that in 00:08:10.074 --> 00:08:11.678 - the fall. Thank you. 00:08:11.842 --> 00:08:18.298 - Just talking about how we connect with the city. So we have our youth tree tender program that goes 00:08:18.298 --> 00:08:24.818 - through parks and recreation We care for over 400 trees in the parks every single summer and we also 00:08:24.818 --> 00:08:31.726 - give educational development to high school students we work with Sean and the sustainability and economic 00:08:31.726 --> 00:08:37.278 - development office to do the cool corridor program so lining sidewalks with trees and 00:08:37.410 --> 00:08:43.821 - We went ahead and we planted 66 trees last year. And this year we planted 59 more as part of the program. 00:08:43.821 --> 00:08:50.051 - And then we're looking to do phase two starting this fall and planting them in the spring. So starting 00:08:50.051 --> 00:08:56.099 - that outreach to residents. And then we also do different partner tree plantings and events. We had 00:08:56.099 --> 00:09:02.510 - a block party at Butler Park last year. And then we also helped the city run the tree assistance program, 00:09:02.510 --> 00:09:04.990 - mainly working with Haskell on that one. 00:09:05.218 --> 00:09:11.132 - I just wanted to talk about this to highlight how important it is that we work together to grow the 00:09:11.132 --> 00:09:17.224 - urban forest because there's a lot of demand for it in the city. And then just a few ways you guys can 00:09:17.224 --> 00:09:23.198 - support us. So talking about our events in tree plantings, I know a few of you have come to our tree 00:09:23.198 --> 00:09:29.822 - plantings and have talked there. And I think it really is a big benefit to the residents to hear from you guys. 00:09:30.274 --> 00:09:37.115 - And then following us, interacting with our materials, sharing different events that we're putting on, 00:09:37.115 --> 00:09:43.756 - and just supporting urban forestry programming. So I mean, we're here talking to you, but there are 00:09:43.756 --> 00:09:50.530 - tons of different nonprofits that work in Bloomington, and a lot of them are focused on environmental 00:09:50.530 --> 00:09:57.304 - efforts. And so just supporting them when you can. Thank you guys. Thank you very much. Are there any 00:09:57.304 --> 00:09:59.230 - questions for our presenter? 00:10:00.066 --> 00:10:05.681 - Council Member Asare. Thank you. I just had a really quick question, and thank you so much for the work 00:10:05.681 --> 00:10:11.242 - that you do. Thank you. As many of our organizations are volunteer-led, and I know that we've launched 00:10:11.242 --> 00:10:16.749 - this sort of 100,000-hour volunteer thing in the city. I'm curious about whether you feel like that's 00:10:16.749 --> 00:10:22.202 - working well. I mean, very impressive numbers in terms of the amount of people who've come, and it's 00:10:22.202 --> 00:10:27.870 - been really exciting to see your events firsthand. But I'm just curious if you're having any pain points 00:10:27.870 --> 00:10:29.598 - in terms of getting volunteers. 00:10:29.698 --> 00:10:35.466 - 10 times more, you know, and just in thinking sort of in a broader sense, reflecting on how we might 00:10:35.466 --> 00:10:41.462 - better build pipelines of volunteers and support you in that way as well. Yeah, that's a great question. 00:10:41.462 --> 00:10:47.173 - One of the things that we don't do is track where our volunteers come from all the time. So we know 00:10:47.173 --> 00:10:53.055 - if we're working with student groups, they're coming from IU, and that seems to be like a big base for 00:10:53.055 --> 00:10:54.654 - us. So I would say at least 00:10:55.234 --> 00:11:01.207 - one or two student groups join us at every single planting. But I don't know how they hear about us. 00:11:01.207 --> 00:11:07.179 - Sometimes it's through posters, sometimes it's through other clubs, but I also wonder if people hear 00:11:07.179 --> 00:11:13.329 - about us or if student groups are using the Bloomington Volunteer Network. We do pretty well on getting 00:11:13.329 --> 00:11:19.420 - enough volunteers for each of our plantings, but that doesn't mean that we can't always have more. And 00:11:19.420 --> 00:11:21.726 - so we could always talk more about how 00:11:22.146 --> 00:11:30.474 - We could maybe track how we're getting volunteers and how that could then like cycle into informing 00:11:30.474 --> 00:11:39.135 - your question whether Thank you so much. Thank you guys Now we have council committee reports are there 00:11:39.135 --> 00:11:47.880 - any Great moving right along to public comments if there's anyone who's come to speak for general public 00:11:47.880 --> 00:11:50.878 - comment So things not on the agenda 00:11:51.010 --> 00:11:59.930 - Please rise come to the podium state your name and you'll have three minutes And if you're on zoom, 00:11:59.930 --> 00:12:09.564 - please raise your hand Hello, my name is Zach Mueller move that just a little bit Here again, unfortunately 00:12:09.564 --> 00:12:16.254 - because I live at the intersection of Morningside Drive and Smith Road and 00:12:16.386 --> 00:12:22.347 - That was a great presentation just now. Excellent work, we're glad for all the work you guys are doing. 00:12:22.347 --> 00:12:28.250 - I was dividing my attention and I'm sorry for that. I wanted to pick like an arbitrary amount of time, 00:12:28.250 --> 00:12:34.039 - like the length of a presentation just as an example here. We have a chronic problem with people who 00:12:34.039 --> 00:12:39.771 - just do not even think about stopping at this stop sign. During the time that you were speaking, 23 00:12:39.771 --> 00:12:45.502 - vehicles rolled through that stop sign. Not rolled, kind of like, oh, almost stop and then they go. 00:12:45.666 --> 00:12:54.185 - did not observe the stop sign. I'm tired of hearing people screeching and yelling and seeing, there 00:12:54.185 --> 00:13:02.959 - was only one pedestrian that was in the crosswalk when cars decided not to use the stop sign as a stop 00:13:02.959 --> 00:13:11.733 - sign just now. Six months ago or more, a child was struck in the crosswalk. They had to have their jaw 00:13:11.733 --> 00:13:12.670 - wired shut 00:13:13.474 --> 00:13:19.339 - And more than a month ago, a whole troop of Girl Scouts, who were friends with this child, came here 00:13:19.339 --> 00:13:25.203 - and spoke at the transportation committee meeting. They got up in front of the people who were here, 00:13:25.203 --> 00:13:31.300 - said, you know, they were scared to do it. They did their civic duty. Yesterday, after I went and voted, 00:13:31.300 --> 00:13:37.165 - I got home, and there was, you know, maybe we don't, maybe pedestrians not getting hit, maybe that's 00:13:37.165 --> 00:13:43.262 - not gonna move the needle. How about the fact that I had to pick up a dead cat out of the middle of the, 00:13:43.650 --> 00:13:48.595 - Crosswalk yesterday because somebody had blown through the stop sign going south on Smith Road And I 00:13:48.595 --> 00:13:53.639 - couldn't call the city to do it because the city was closed yesterday And I think the city should have 00:13:53.639 --> 00:13:58.535 - been closed yesterday So I walked the cat this poor cat who did nothing other than exist and people 00:13:58.535 --> 00:14:03.432 - not wanting to stop at a stop sign because we can't make Enough of an impact to people to encourage 00:14:03.432 --> 00:14:08.328 - them to stop I had to walk this poor cat up to the veterinary clinic right up the street asked them 00:14:08.328 --> 00:14:11.070 - to scan for a microchip Poor little guy didn't have one 00:14:12.258 --> 00:14:18.172 - 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 00:14:18.172 --> 00:14:24.144 - it's a problem. Oh, no, sometimes animals get hit I bet that when we make our decisions about Hopewell 00:14:24.144 --> 00:14:25.246 - and other designed 00:14:26.306 --> 00:14:32.040 - Areas where we are going to build new housing. We're gonna do a really good job of making sure that 00:14:32.040 --> 00:14:37.890 - people stop at stop signs We have appropriate enforcement of speed limits. I'm willing to say we have 00:14:37.890 --> 00:14:43.853 - blue into police officer Thank you for your work here, sir You can park your car in my driveway anytime 00:14:43.853 --> 00:14:49.760 - you want and if you give a thousand tickets, I will give you a high five I'll give me give you two and 00:14:49.760 --> 00:14:54.462 - I'll give you a high five. I am so sick of this kids pedestrians cyclists animals 00:14:54.818 --> 00:15:01.151 - They're all running the risk of getting turned into pancakes at this intersection. I would rather be 00:15:01.151 --> 00:15:07.359 - anywhere right now than here. But I'm going to come back until somebody does something. Thank you. 00:15:07.359 --> 00:15:13.943 - Thank you. Anyone else in chambers? Anyone on Zoom? Great. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm so sorry. Please 00:15:13.943 --> 00:15:18.270 - approach the podium, state your name, and you'll have three minutes. 00:15:25.666 --> 00:15:35.043 - to initiate the hustle. Hi, Paul Rousseau, Bloomington resident. In case you missed it, like I did, 00:15:35.043 --> 00:15:44.421 - there was some very interesting news from Canada five weeks ago. The New Democratic Party, which is 00:15:44.421 --> 00:15:53.986 - one of Canada's major parties, elected Avi Lewis to be their new leader. He happens to be the husband 00:15:53.986 --> 00:15:55.486 - of Naomi Klein, 00:15:56.034 --> 00:16:02.983 - the famous author. I thought his acceptance speech was inspiring, so I would like to share part of it 00:16:02.983 --> 00:16:10.068 - as follows. In the last federal election, Canadians voted to say no to Trump and Trumpism. What they're 00:16:10.068 --> 00:16:17.426 - getting instead is our government following the United States into future of wars, fossil fuels, austerity, 00:16:17.426 --> 00:16:23.966 - and job killing generative AI. Our new Democratic Party has a different offer for this country. 00:16:24.994 --> 00:16:31.863 - Our plan is to Trump-proof the economy by investing massively in Canadian economic independence using 00:16:31.863 --> 00:16:38.799 - the unmatched power of public ownership to ensure the fundamentals of a good life. A network of public 00:16:38.799 --> 00:16:45.802 - providers for food, phones, and internet, a public housing developer, and public construction companies 00:16:45.802 --> 00:16:52.671 - to build millions of non-market homes, a 21st century electric grid, an EV bus revolution, and a heat 00:16:52.671 --> 00:16:53.950 - pump in every home 00:16:55.042 --> 00:17:01.557 - built with Canadian steel, creating tens of thousands of unionized jobs. Investing in the care economy 00:17:01.557 --> 00:17:08.009 - as true nation building, the education, health care, elder care, and child care that holds our social 00:17:08.009 --> 00:17:14.461 - fabric together, and finishing Tommy's dream, eyes, teeth, mental health, medicine. They are all part 00:17:14.461 --> 00:17:19.838 - of your health. They all have to be part of our universal public health care system. 00:17:21.154 --> 00:17:27.522 - If we want Canadians to feel more secure, then we have to invest in real security. Of course, we can 00:17:27.522 --> 00:17:33.891 - already hear the howls from the establishment, but how will you pay for all this? Well, let's remind 00:17:33.891 --> 00:17:40.322 - them that this country is awash in wealth. We can have nice things. Banks made $70 billion in profits 00:17:40.322 --> 00:17:46.943 - last year alone. Oil companies are expecting a new windfall in the tens of billions. Grocery Baron Galen 00:17:46.943 --> 00:17:49.150 - Weston alone is worth $20 billion. 00:17:49.986 --> 00:17:56.961 - It is time, far past time, to properly tax the corporations and billionaires that have been riding a 00:17:56.961 --> 00:18:04.005 - tidal wave of profits while the 99% have been suffering and struggling and use that money to directly 00:18:04.005 --> 00:18:11.256 - improve the lives of Canadians. The money is there. The money is there, my friends. We need a government 00:18:11.256 --> 00:18:17.886 - with the courage to go and get it for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in chambers? 00:18:19.618 --> 00:18:31.358 - Anyone on Zoom. Great. Thank you. Now we'll move on to appointments to boards and commissions. Anyone. 00:18:43.522 --> 00:18:51.856 - Well in that case then I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash six be read by title and synopsis 00:18:51.856 --> 00:19:00.354 - only second. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor. Do we need to roll call. All those 00:19:00.354 --> 00:19:09.342 - in favor please say aye aye. All those opposed. Great. Will the clerk please read by title and synopsis only. 00:19:11.618 --> 00:19:17.548 - Ordinance 2026-06 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property from 00:19:17.548 --> 00:19:23.536 - residential urban lot and residential multifamily within the transform redevelopment overlay to plan 00:19:23.536 --> 00:19:29.644 - unit development and to approve a district ordinance and preliminary plan. The synopsis is as follows. 00:19:29.644 --> 00:19:35.811 - This ordinance amends the zoning of the property from residential urban lot and residential multifamily 00:19:35.811 --> 00:19:39.902 - within the transform redevelopment overlay to plan unit development. 00:19:41.986 --> 00:19:55.182 - Thank you very much. I move that ordinance 2026-6 be adopted. Second. Great. Thank you. So would anyone 00:19:55.182 --> 00:20:08.633 - from the petitioner side like to give an update? No? OK. Would anyone like to move a reasonable condition 00:20:08.633 --> 00:20:11.678 - forward? Councilmember? 00:20:11.906 --> 00:20:20.656 - Madam chair, I would like I see councilman Stasberg's trade but I'd like I know we have maybe three 00:20:20.656 --> 00:20:29.405 - or two and a half Proposals around Permanent affordability. I think that's reasonable condition for 00:20:29.405 --> 00:20:38.942 - and What's the number of yours councilmember Piedmont Smith is it 17 now and and number seven sixteen and so 00:20:39.458 --> 00:20:46.481 - 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 00:20:46.481 --> 00:20:53.505 - hear about 16. So it'd be maybe my motion. Madam Chair. Council member Piedmont Smith. I don't know 00:20:53.505 --> 00:21:00.528 - if that was a motion but since council member Stossberg is not here yet she was also unaware of the 00:21:00.528 --> 00:21:08.254 - change in the agenda and should be here soon. And since she's co-sponsor of one of these maybe we can address 00:21:08.482 --> 00:21:16.387 - Condition number six. It was with it was adopted on March 25th but is now being withdrawn by would like 00:21:16.387 --> 00:21:24.520 - to be withdrawn by the sponsor in favor of a written commitment. So I think we need to Revote or something 00:21:24.520 --> 00:21:32.121 - Councilmember Flaherty sure and we reconsider a reasonable condition six Second, okay. There's been 00:21:32.121 --> 00:21:38.430 - a motion in a second. All those in favor, please say aye aye All those opposed. No 00:21:38.626 --> 00:21:47.088 - It's just a motion. I don't think we need to vote on the motion to reconsider. Well, we extradited it. 00:21:47.088 --> 00:21:55.468 - I think did we accidentally just re-adopt it or affirm our adoption of it? The point is to vote no on 00:21:55.468 --> 00:22:03.766 - reasonable condition six, to withdraw reasonable condition six. We just voted in favor to reconsider 00:22:03.766 --> 00:22:07.134 - it. So now we can reconsider it. Gotcha. 00:22:08.194 --> 00:22:16.707 - We are reconsidering reasonable condition six it is reconsidered because we adopted it already I don't 00:22:16.707 --> 00:22:25.054 - really think of withdrawal as a motion but as applied to a motion reasonable condition six was about 00:22:25.054 --> 00:22:33.649 - all electric construction the State of Indiana the General Assembly some years ago passed a law Banning 00:22:33.649 --> 00:22:36.542 - regulation of electrification as a 00:22:37.666 --> 00:22:43.390 - you know, an energy issue. That's pretty common for conservative states. And we talked about kind of 00:22:43.390 --> 00:22:49.057 - the substance of this. The purpose of electrification is that it's the only compatible pathway with 00:22:49.057 --> 00:22:54.780 - our climate goals. It is dramatically healthier for in-home equipment. So there's lots of reasons to 00:22:54.780 --> 00:23:00.617 - do it. I think the general intent of the developer, the RDC, is to build all electric. Previously, the 00:23:00.617 --> 00:23:07.134 - legal guidance I've gotten both from city attorneys or corporation counsel and from our own city council attorneys 00:23:07.362 --> 00:23:13.966 - is that in the context of PUDs, incentives in the UDO, et cetera, that that's not the same thing as 00:23:13.966 --> 00:23:20.901 - mandating in code that we do electrification. So in other words, in the universe of PUDs and incentives, 00:23:20.901 --> 00:23:27.638 - this probably is legally okay based on the guidance we've gotten previously. That said, we thought it 00:23:27.638 --> 00:23:34.638 - would be better as a written commitment than a reasonable condition because that is probably even further 00:23:34.638 --> 00:23:37.214 - in the territory of safety in terms of 00:23:37.762 --> 00:23:44.403 - legal compatibility with our General Assembly Law on on supporting fossil fuels so that's why we were 00:23:44.403 --> 00:23:51.565 - withdrawing it because we have a written commitment instead that would address electrification and Efficiency 00:23:51.565 --> 00:23:58.141 - instead of reasonable conditions. And so I think the unless folks have questions, which I'm happy to 00:23:58.141 --> 00:24:04.717 - answer I think we would be voting no on I would recommend we vote no on reasonable condition six and 00:24:04.717 --> 00:24:07.582 - that would Function to unadopt it Thank you 00:24:08.194 --> 00:24:16.677 - Are there any questions for councilmember Flaherty. Great. Would anyone from the public like to speak 00:24:16.677 --> 00:24:24.993 - on reasonable condition six. Any comments on zoom. Great. Any comments from council. Great. In that 00:24:24.993 --> 00:24:30.814 - case will the clerk please call the roll on reasonable condition six. 00:24:31.394 --> 00:24:36.609 - Just to clarify, since you made the motion to reconsider it and you all voted on that already, do I 00:24:36.609 --> 00:24:41.877 - need a motion to actually un-adopt it or something like that? Or do you just want me to go ahead and 00:24:41.877 --> 00:24:47.561 - call it without that motion? To be clear, it'd be nice to have a new motion to withdraw Reasonable Condition 00:24:47.561 --> 00:24:52.881 - 6 formally seconded. Wouldn't it be a motion to adopt and then we just vote no? I think we've already 00:24:52.881 --> 00:24:57.470 - done that. You've already done that, so you need to withdraw it. We've already adopted. 00:24:57.890 --> 00:25:05.429 - Yeah, sorry. Sorry. That's my fault I thought the proper motion was to reconsider the question and then 00:25:05.429 --> 00:25:12.968 - vote no on that question If the better motion is to vote to withdraw it I can do that instead So I move 00:25:12.968 --> 00:25:20.725 - we withdraw reasonable condition six Thank you, there's been a motion in a second to withdraw a reasonable 00:25:20.725 --> 00:25:26.814 - condition six will the clerk please call the roll Councilmember Flaherty, yes stuff 00:25:28.322 --> 00:25:43.291 - Pibon Smith. Yes Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger. Yes. Thank you Oh 00:25:43.291 --> 00:25:57.662 - Didn't know she was on okay and councilmember Stasberg Yes Thank you with a vote of nine zeroes 00:25:57.986 --> 00:26:05.236 - That passes and reasonable condition six has been withdrawn from ordinance twenty twenty six Oh six 00:26:05.236 --> 00:26:12.849 - councilmember Flaherty in the interest of time in the The coordination with councilman Stasberg as well. 00:26:12.849 --> 00:26:20.171 - I could also move then written written commitment one, which I do think we still need to Would be if 00:26:20.171 --> 00:26:25.246 - we need to formally adopt short So if they were second second There's 00:26:25.922 --> 00:26:37.766 - So this is written commitment one. Let me find it in my packet. Sorry. Does anybody have a page number 00:26:37.766 --> 00:26:45.470 - in the PDF offhand? It's just after the last reasonable condition. 00:26:54.882 --> 00:27:03.540 - Written commitment number one, I'm just struggling with the bookmarks a little bit to pull it up. Is 00:27:03.540 --> 00:27:12.199 - it the energy efficiency housing standards? It's page 21 in addendum one. Okay, thank you. Ah, I was 00:27:12.199 --> 00:27:21.200 - looking in the packet, not the addendum. Okay. So this was predominantly written, I think maybe entirely 00:27:21.200 --> 00:27:24.286 - written by Director Colleen Hansen. 00:27:24.546 --> 00:27:31.712 - It addresses both the energy efficiency and Electrification components. It has two sentences or paragraphs. 00:27:31.712 --> 00:27:38.413 - The first is about Designing the pre-approved plans that will go with the Hopewell PUD to achieve an 00:27:38.413 --> 00:27:45.180 - energy performance equivalent of the home energy rating system Her score of 65 or better better being 00:27:45.180 --> 00:27:51.815 - lower and the second is that construction document shall incorporate best practice air ceiling duct 00:27:51.815 --> 00:27:54.270 - placement within condition space and 00:27:54.690 --> 00:28:02.025 - and high-efficiency all-electric systems. And the building inspections shall confirm compliant installation 00:28:02.025 --> 00:28:09.225 - to details. So fairly self-explanatory. The one thing I'll note here is that we did not... I'm supporting 00:28:09.225 --> 00:28:16.085 - this written acknowledgement or written commitment, and I think we should approve it. I was a little 00:28:16.085 --> 00:28:21.790 - dissatisfied with where we landed on the first paragraph. Basically, Indiana has... 00:28:22.402 --> 00:28:28.887 - building energy code that is consistent with the 2018 set of international energy code standards. So 00:28:28.887 --> 00:28:35.692 - they've been doing these standards for many decades now. They update them about every three years. States 00:28:35.692 --> 00:28:42.369 - tend to adopt the newer versions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, blue states tend to adopt the latest versions 00:28:42.369 --> 00:28:48.789 - more readily than red states. For a long time, ours were stuck in 2009 levels. And then Indiana did 00:28:48.789 --> 00:28:51.486 - adopt 2018 levels. So when we think about 00:28:51.842 --> 00:28:57.776 - energy efficiency performance that goes above and beyond existing requirements in Indiana code, basically 00:28:57.776 --> 00:29:03.373 - what we're asking is we wanna do better than the 2018 code. The way the HERS rating system works as 00:29:03.373 --> 00:29:09.083 - well as some other rating systems, they look at 2006 code levels as a baseline, that's a score of 100 00:29:09.083 --> 00:29:14.793 - or equivalent to 100, and then each subsequent code has been getting better and better, so the scores 00:29:14.793 --> 00:29:20.390 - have been getting lower and lower based on those codes. And the next step up from 2018 would be the 00:29:20.390 --> 00:29:21.342 - 2021 level code. 00:29:21.506 --> 00:29:27.525 - And all the information I could find about that suggested that a lower HERS score would have been more 00:29:27.525 --> 00:29:33.428 - appropriate. I'm not certain that this paragraph of a HERS score of 65 does any better than baseline 00:29:33.428 --> 00:29:39.272 - code, but I think the second paragraph does get at some of those practices that may or may not have 00:29:39.272 --> 00:29:45.409 - been covered. I had some back and forth with Director Kellyanne Hansen about it. She has some background 00:29:45.409 --> 00:29:47.454 - in this as well as a professional. 00:29:47.714 --> 00:29:53.397 - I was not able to independently verify the information, which is what I was seeking to do. And some 00:29:53.397 --> 00:29:59.251 - of the information I found suggested to me that a lower number there would have been more appropriate. 00:29:59.251 --> 00:30:04.934 - I'm sharing that because it's just the truth. It's my own reservations and orientation to it. And I 00:30:04.934 --> 00:30:10.731 - think what's also been revealed through this process is that we might want to consider updates to the 00:30:10.731 --> 00:30:16.414 - incentive section of the UDO, which really relies much more on lead standards and equivalent versus 00:30:16.514 --> 00:30:23.225 - thinking of energy code as, you know, trying to essentially have like a reach code where through incentives 00:30:23.225 --> 00:30:29.625 - we would allow folks to do better than the base level code in Indiana. It became a bigger conversation 00:30:29.625 --> 00:30:36.088 - that I thought we had time to really resolve. So, I just assented and here we are. So, that's it. Happy 00:30:36.088 --> 00:30:42.488 - to answer questions if you have them and I hope you support the written commitment. Thank you. Council 00:30:42.488 --> 00:30:43.358 - Member Asari. 00:30:43.458 --> 00:30:50.433 - Just a point of information or a question. Do we have to adopt written commitments like at the same 00:30:50.433 --> 00:30:57.616 - way we would with with regional conditions we vote for them or Are they are is there some implied like 00:30:57.616 --> 00:31:04.870 - they've already done it we could ask attorney Allen State code in the 1500 series does give the council 00:31:04.870 --> 00:31:12.542 - the ability to impose written commitments So that's I think the route we took here if there was a you know, I 00:31:13.282 --> 00:31:20.522 - Written commitment like signed by the chair of the RDC or something that would come separately. Maybe 00:31:20.522 --> 00:31:27.690 - we wouldn't need to vote on it. I don't know but One of the duties or not with the powers rather and 00:31:27.690 --> 00:31:35.072 - given to the council in the relevant section of code is to impose written commitments Second Yeah, yeah 00:31:35.072 --> 00:31:41.886 - the motion adopted on the table Are there any other council questions councilmember Rosenberger 00:31:42.082 --> 00:31:51.479 - Thank you. I'm sorry. I just need a little clarification I think on okay. So number one that says our 00:31:51.479 --> 00:32:00.968 - hers score of 65 or better Were you saying that? That is what is generally in our code and is how most 00:32:00.968 --> 00:32:11.102 - buildings are already built so It's not in our code what dictates building energy standards is state code and 00:32:11.298 --> 00:32:18.752 - The state code is consistent with the 2018 international code level. The information I could find seemed 00:32:18.752 --> 00:32:26.276 - to indicate that that level of code, a 2018 level, would in most instances meet or exceed this 65 number. 00:32:26.276 --> 00:32:33.872 - So what I was telling, yeah, I think you're getting the general idea that I couldn't find good information 00:32:33.872 --> 00:32:40.190 - to verify that 65 would in fact be better than what code already requires. Nevertheless, 00:32:41.666 --> 00:32:47.898 - I'm recommending we move forward because it gets a little complicated. The HERS rating scores are not 00:32:47.898 --> 00:32:54.068 - actually the exact same thing as the energy rating index used to assess code compliance. They depart 00:32:54.068 --> 00:33:00.178 - a little bit and so it's a little messy. I did talk to some folks from the Department of Energy who 00:33:00.178 --> 00:33:06.471 - work in the building codes office but I wasn't able to get resolution on it before it was time for the 00:33:06.471 --> 00:33:08.670 - meeting and again I think it's just 00:33:11.138 --> 00:33:17.113 - Thanks follow-up. Yes, I remember at our Deliberation that you were talking about the Department of 00:33:17.113 --> 00:33:23.327 - Energy scoring system as well. So You and director Killian Hansen, I guess went with hers When you said 00:33:23.327 --> 00:33:29.481 - you I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm not sure. Sorry. I'm not sure the hers isn't an appropriate system I think 00:33:29.481 --> 00:33:35.575 - that could be perfectly fine and a suitable one for this purpose It was more about the number and the 00:33:35.575 --> 00:33:37.726 - difficulty of getting clear on that 00:33:38.498 --> 00:33:45.938 - Okay, so yes, so the number seems low and then sorry you asked for some information that might show 00:33:45.938 --> 00:33:53.675 - that number 65 was okay and I mean, I guess with the director did the director give you any information 00:33:53.675 --> 00:34:01.413 - that this was a good number Based on her expertise, that's what she recommended also I welcome director 00:34:01.413 --> 00:34:06.174 - can enhance into to share if she would like about about the the 00:34:06.594 --> 00:34:15.711 - Her professional assessment that that's an appropriate number. I would say I couldn't find other information 00:34:15.711 --> 00:34:24.327 - to verify that personally The energy code and hers ratings are calculated very differently differently 00:34:24.327 --> 00:34:32.691 - hers ratings involve calculating air volume and the amount of air that is leaking to the outside of 00:34:32.691 --> 00:34:34.782 - the building envelope or 00:34:34.914 --> 00:34:42.107 - Ultimately how much efficiency that is being lost? Okay, so you can't just look at a model energy code 00:34:42.107 --> 00:34:49.579 - 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 00:34:49.579 --> 00:34:55.934 - plan itself the type of insulation that goes into the home the efficiency of the equipment 00:34:56.066 --> 00:35:02.975 - in the home, your duct ceiling, or how much air you're losing through your duct work. There's a lot 00:35:02.975 --> 00:35:10.368 - that goes into it. So you are not going to be able to broadly say, by this score is going to automatically 00:35:10.368 --> 00:35:15.550 - correlate with an energy code, period, not gonna happen. 65 is aggressive. 00:35:16.002 --> 00:35:23.816 - Is going to cost money to get to a 65 I would say that the majority of the scores that I've seen through 00:35:23.816 --> 00:35:29.918 - people that are trying to pursue efficiency and new construction are around 80 75 00:35:30.050 --> 00:35:37.360 - I would say and I would encourage you to ask Wendy Goodlett who's here from habitat who they have been 00:35:37.360 --> 00:35:44.600 - a long time User of the her score and I would say that hers is the most commonly used for any kind of 00:35:44.600 --> 00:35:51.981 - residential construction Lead is the incorrect mechanism to use for efficiency ratings on single-family 00:35:51.981 --> 00:35:54.110 - residential period the reason 00:35:54.370 --> 00:36:01.978 - Initially councilmember Flaherty had indicated that he wanted a hers rating of 50 and this is a bit 00:36:01.978 --> 00:36:09.967 - crass and it was discussed at the work session But I tried to put it in layman's terms essentially small 00:36:09.967 --> 00:36:12.478 - homes are the hardest to deliver 00:36:12.642 --> 00:36:19.061 - lower energy score and part of that is related to the amount of volume that is within the home. Let's 00:36:19.061 --> 00:36:25.606 - look at the front door of the home. Every time that you open the front door, how much air is being lost 00:36:25.606 --> 00:36:31.774 - to the outside of the building envelope? You have to make up for that air exchange by ductwork or 00:36:32.514 --> 00:36:38.705 - It could be equipment, that kind of thing. In a 3,000 square foot home, that is much easier to account 00:36:38.705 --> 00:36:44.776 - for. In fact, you would probably have enough room to put in a geothermal system that would likely be 00:36:44.776 --> 00:36:51.028 - 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 00:36:51.028 --> 00:36:57.460 - seal that building envelope. Unfortunately, on a small home, it is incredibly difficult to deliver because 00:36:57.460 --> 00:36:58.782 - of that air exchange. 00:36:58.914 --> 00:37:05.969 - even the most energy efficient argon filled double low E glass windows have a really low R value. You 00:37:05.969 --> 00:37:12.954 - also have very limited amount of duct work, so you're not gonna make up for it that way. And even to 00:37:12.954 --> 00:37:19.940 - get to a 65, I have concerns because I have a feeling that we're gonna end up with a P-TAC system as 00:37:19.940 --> 00:37:24.574 - the form of, which is, it's basically a ductless furnace that sits 00:37:24.898 --> 00:37:31.931 - up on the ceiling or otherwise. I would say it's probably the most equivalent to a baseboard. But either 00:37:31.931 --> 00:37:38.764 - way, those have a half-life of a normal furnace. So in these small homes that we're trying to deliver 00:37:38.764 --> 00:37:45.596 - efficiency, we've now met that, okay, in probably 10 years, somebody's gonna have to replace the PTAC 00:37:45.596 --> 00:37:52.094 - system. So again, it's all about cost. But what you're asking for is very difficult correlation. 00:37:52.290 --> 00:37:58.511 - Further, the layman terms, it's essentially, if you were trying to get to a 50, it's the equivalent 00:37:58.511 --> 00:38:04.982 - of a 500 pound person saying that they want to cut half their body weight, plausible. 100 pound person, 00:38:04.982 --> 00:38:11.390 - not plausible. So I think you're looking for something that doesn't exist. What we're committing to is 00:38:11.618 --> 00:38:19.378 - As much efficiency that is possible. We have to do the calculations. They have to take each individual 00:38:19.378 --> 00:38:27.212 - plan They have to calculate the air volume look at the air exchanges and try to design it appropriately 00:38:27.212 --> 00:38:35.123 - Thank you Did you want to go first or maybe just a point of clarification a couple the score I suggested 00:38:35.123 --> 00:38:38.814 - based on the research I did was a hers at 54 and 00:38:39.234 --> 00:38:46.861 - I was not suggesting that LEED be used. What I was indicating is that International Energy Conservation 00:38:46.861 --> 00:38:54.341 - Code levels often use the Energy Ratings Index, or ERI, as a code compliance pathway, and the ERI and 00:38:54.341 --> 00:39:02.115 - HERS are very closely related, but they depart in a few ways that made this a little bit of a complicated 00:39:02.115 --> 00:39:03.582 - question to answer. 00:39:03.810 --> 00:39:09.831 - I did ask folks at DOE for some examples of any jurisdictions that have used hers, and they gave some 00:39:09.831 --> 00:39:15.851 - examples of municipalities in Massachusetts for their reach code that have had scores in the low 40s, 00:39:15.851 --> 00:39:22.344 - for instance, for compliance. Massachusetts is much farther ahead of us than on energy efficiency. Generally, 00:39:22.344 --> 00:39:28.601 - they have also a better base level code. So it's okay, we're not gonna solve it. We have some fundamental 00:39:28.601 --> 00:39:31.198 - misunderstanding about some aspect of this. 00:39:31.362 --> 00:39:38.825 - We can agree to disagree. I'm recommending we approve the written commitment written commitment as written 00:39:38.825 --> 00:39:45.799 - by director Gillian Hanson. I Appreciate the efforts on it. It's just too much to resolve right now 00:39:45.799 --> 00:39:52.983 - is my opinion Councilmember sorry I'm so sorry director Gillian Hanson to ask you a question after I'm 00:39:52.983 --> 00:39:56.958 - sorry Just just a quick clarifying question Are you are? 00:39:57.538 --> 00:40:04.748 - just making sure that I've understood correctly the written commitment as is. I understand that is adding 00:40:04.748 --> 00:40:11.686 - some cost and so ideally you wouldn't want it, but are you, is the RDC and are you in your expertise, 00:40:11.686 --> 00:40:18.556 - are you happy with where the written commitment is currently? I am, but I will say you guys all have 00:40:18.556 --> 00:40:25.630 - really should have at least received a copy of a resolution that was passed on Monday night by the RDC. 00:40:25.730 --> 00:40:32.807 - Part of that indicates that they're okay with some of these things provided that it doesn't Cost us 00:40:32.807 --> 00:40:40.379 - too much to not hit some of the affordability goals So I can I don't have it right in front of me. Perhaps 00:40:40.379 --> 00:40:47.810 - you do There is a section on the energy efficiency that they have in there. I'm okay with the 65 I think 00:40:47.810 --> 00:40:54.462 - it's gonna be a lift especially for smaller homes and any energy rater will tell you that but 00:40:54.818 --> 00:41:00.784 - It does add costs but it's as close as we're going to get to an agreement right now. And just just out 00:41:00.784 --> 00:41:06.692 - of curiosity I mean with the with the difference between the small and large homes I mean do we think 00:41:06.692 --> 00:41:12.601 - about adding you know something like the mean of like the averages so you know so I mean just thought 00:41:12.601 --> 00:41:14.686 - thoughts on on that on either side. 00:41:17.506 --> 00:41:23.302 - I think the other thing that I would like to bring up is that there is some software change that is 00:41:23.302 --> 00:41:29.329 - occurring with hers ratings and energy efficiency rating systems all across the board that I Understand 00:41:29.329 --> 00:41:35.356 - is coming in the next six months or so so pinning down a number at this time They may not be equivalent 00:41:35.356 --> 00:41:41.326 - and we just have to understand that in the future 65 might mean something else But today's 65 was what 00:41:41.326 --> 00:41:43.934 - I was targeting Just so that's in the record 00:41:47.426 --> 00:41:56.793 - Great. Thank you. Any other questions? OK. I guess we can go to public comment on written acknowledgment 00:41:56.793 --> 00:42:05.982 - number one. Is there anyone in chambers that would like to speak on written acknowledgment number one? 00:42:05.982 --> 00:42:14.814 - Written commitment number one. On Zoom? Great. Thank you. We'll go back to comments. Any comments? 00:42:16.930 --> 00:42:23.217 - Councilmember Flaherty just briefly to Say my orientation to energy efficiency and electrification generally 00:42:23.217 --> 00:42:29.100 - is about creating affordable healthy homes Gas appliances cause childhood asthma and very high rates. 00:42:29.100 --> 00:42:35.041 - They're unhealthy for all of us. We shouldn't want those appliances This is a health issue efficiency. 00:42:35.041 --> 00:42:40.809 - Similarly, it lowers utility bills over time providing dramatic return on investment actually, even 00:42:40.809 --> 00:42:46.462 - though it does increase upfront costs to a degree and so I just want to be or to my colleagues to 00:42:46.690 --> 00:42:51.777 - think about costs in the context of this whole evening's discussion as investments in our community 00:42:51.777 --> 00:42:56.864 - for more affordable homes long-term, things like permanent affordability, even infrastructure that, 00:42:56.864 --> 00:43:01.901 - yes, costs money. Just like any sidewalk costs money, we could get rid of them all, but that'd be, 00:43:01.901 --> 00:43:07.191 - I think, a bad idea because we're committed to certain levels of quality for our community. And I think 00:43:07.191 --> 00:43:12.329 - efficiency and electrification should be some of those things, and the city's in a great position to 00:43:12.329 --> 00:43:16.094 - lead on that front. So thanks for your consideration. Any other comments? 00:43:18.370 --> 00:43:28.659 - In that case, will the clerk please call the roll on written condition one? It's councilmember Stasberg. 00:43:28.659 --> 00:43:38.163 - Yes He'd not Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. I'm sorry Yes daily Yes, Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. 00:43:38.163 --> 00:43:48.158 - Yes Flaherty. Yes. Thank you. Thank you with the vote of nine Oh written commitment number one passes 00:43:48.674 --> 00:43:54.731 - Would anyone like to introduce another reasonable condition and or make a different motion? Councilmember 00:43:54.731 --> 00:44:00.616 - Stasberg We only have the affordability ones left right that is correct I kind of want to propose that 00:44:00.616 --> 00:44:06.559 - we just discuss them as kind of a whole because honestly I was was reading all three of them going like 00:44:06.559 --> 00:44:12.387 - okay I kind of like this from this one and this from this one and this from this one and I was hoping 00:44:12.387 --> 00:44:18.558 - that there would be a little bit more time for me to think about how to put those together before we had to 00:44:18.914 --> 00:44:27.630 - But yeah, so I guess that means that I would like to make a motion to discuss the three Affordability 00:44:27.630 --> 00:44:36.687 - reasonable conditions second. Okay, there's been a motion in a second Would the clue all in favor, please 00:44:36.687 --> 00:44:45.659 - say aye aye all opposed great, I guess we will Discuss all of the affordability conditions. Would anyone 00:44:45.659 --> 00:44:47.710 - like to start? Oh and I 00:44:48.162 --> 00:44:55.557 - I should probably give up the gavel to councilmember Daley since councilmember Asara and I are co-sponsoring 00:44:55.557 --> 00:45:01.934 - one All right. Thank you very much Councilmember Stossberg, I'll just I'll just start because 00:45:01.934 --> 00:45:09.125 - with councilmember Rosenberger we have four that is has been not changed a whole lot except strengthening 00:45:09.125 --> 00:45:15.774 - the definition of permanent affordability and one of the reasons for that was that We we were not 00:45:16.418 --> 00:45:24.074 - Provided the information in a timely enough way to change anything or add anything with silent seconds, 00:45:24.074 --> 00:45:31.656 - etc Etc that we thought was convincing in apples to apples that made us feel comfortable about putting 00:45:31.656 --> 00:45:39.238 - it in in time for the packet today so Yeah, and I would appreciate hearing from councilmember Piedmont 00:45:39.238 --> 00:45:45.054 - Smith and council members you look and sorry about their thoughts on theirs to 00:45:50.306 --> 00:46:00.260 - Councilmember Rosenberger want to chime in on Amendment or RC number 4b or I don't need to chime in 00:46:00.260 --> 00:46:10.513 - right now. Okay Well, I would be happy to talk about number 16 Okay councilmember Piedmont Smith Thank 00:46:10.513 --> 00:46:18.974 - you. Sorry. I forgot I was conducting the I did too The gavel is traveling tonight I 00:46:19.938 --> 00:46:32.888 - So one thing that we heard from the RDC and from Director Killian Hanson is that it would be, the constraint 00:46:32.888 --> 00:46:45.124 - of specifying the method by which permanent affordability will be achieved would be burdensome and may 00:46:45.124 --> 00:46:48.926 - actually backfire and result in 00:46:49.090 --> 00:46:58.881 - homes not being built. If so this I'm trying to pull it up. I'm sorry we have too many packet addenda 00:46:58.881 --> 00:47:08.479 - here but this reasonable condition basically leaves it up to the RDC to decide how to maintain that 00:47:08.479 --> 00:47:18.846 - permanent affordability. It also decreases the minimum number of units that will be permanently affordable. 00:47:19.970 --> 00:47:30.393 - reasonable condition for B and reasonable condition 15 as well say that at least 50 percent of all dwelling 00:47:30.393 --> 00:47:40.044 - units must have be designated permanently affordable. So my reasonable condition says that it shall 00:47:40.044 --> 00:47:49.406 - be 35 percent of that 35 percent 15 percent should be affordable to households making 90 percent 00:47:49.826 --> 00:48:00.390 - of the area median income and then 20 percent shall be affordable for households making no more than 00:48:00.390 --> 00:48:11.372 - 120 percent of the area median income. There's also a slight change at least from a reasonable condition 00:48:11.372 --> 00:48:17.438 - for B in the definition of permanent affordability there. 00:48:17.826 --> 00:48:27.760 - Definition includes a period of no less than 99 years or the life of the building during which the affordably 00:48:27.760 --> 00:48:36.882 - dedicated properties within the PUD will be restricted to being rented or sold at amounts determined 00:48:36.882 --> 00:48:47.358 - for low or very low income households as defined by HUD average median income. But then it says eligibility will be 00:48:47.554 --> 00:48:54.977 - to 90 percent and 120 percent AMI. Well that does not match what HUD has determined is low to very low 00:48:54.977 --> 00:49:02.184 - income levels. So I took that part out. So what we were looking for is the 90 percent 15 percent of 00:49:02.184 --> 00:49:09.751 - total units at affordable to people who make at or below 90 percent of the median income plus 20 percent 00:49:09.751 --> 00:49:16.670 - of units for people who make at or below 120 percent of area median income and leaving it up to 00:49:17.666 --> 00:49:27.886 - the RDC to determine the method. One final thing I think that's also different from 4b and I'm not sure 00:49:27.886 --> 00:49:37.713 - if it's in 15. Where is it. Oh it says permanent affordability mechanisms shall be designed in such 00:49:37.713 --> 00:49:45.182 - a manner that do not require additional public subsidy. I took that out. So 00:49:46.594 --> 00:49:54.636 - There might be a time when we want to provide additional public subsidy to keep this housing affordable. 00:49:54.636 --> 00:50:02.984 - It might be necessary. We don't know. So I took that requirement out. So that that's my reasonable condition 00:50:02.984 --> 00:50:11.102 - in a nutshell in a big nutshell that took 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. 00:50:11.810 --> 00:50:18.671 - Council Member Zulek or Sari, would either of you like to talk about yours? I'm happy to. I think in 00:50:18.671 --> 00:50:20.030 - the broadest sense, 00:50:20.098 --> 00:50:28.842 - was trying to capture two things. One was the desire that was presented by the RDC very clearly to add 00:50:28.842 --> 00:50:37.500 - more mechanisms, particularly if we had a very high level of requirement that they needed more tools, 00:50:37.500 --> 00:50:46.668 - and the toolbox was what was set at our roundtable, and so was trying to add all of those while maintaining 00:50:46.668 --> 00:50:50.064 - the sort of numbers that were requested 00:50:50.064 --> 00:50:57.587 - that were proposed by councilmember Stasberg and councilmember Yeah, I've just lost your last name it 00:50:57.587 --> 00:51:05.257 - just left my head Rosenberger and While also wanting to have a little bit more flexibility I think sort 00:51:05.257 --> 00:51:12.706 - of in all of the all of the things And so that that was in the large in the large sense what we were 00:51:12.706 --> 00:51:18.238 - trying to do happy to talk through any any bit of it more specifically but 00:51:18.498 --> 00:51:26.256 - personally, I I very much like I think the approach that Councilmember Piedmont Smith has taken I think 00:51:26.256 --> 00:51:34.089 - that it sort of elegantly does what we were trying to do so sort of I would my personal preference would 00:51:34.089 --> 00:51:41.548 - be that we Sort of move more in that direction, but I don't know if anything else you want to add I 00:51:41.548 --> 00:51:45.278 - second the sentiment Councilmember Piedmont Smith 00:51:49.218 --> 00:51:56.524 - Did you say Piedmont Smith. Sorry. OK. I forgot one other thing that my reasonable condition includes 00:51:56.524 --> 00:52:03.830 - which I think in some way or another would have been accomplished with the other two as well. So part 00:52:03.830 --> 00:52:11.422 - three says the petitioner should the petitioner shall report back to the Common Council every six months. 00:52:11.554 --> 00:52:18.476 - From the date of passage ordinance twenty twenty six oh six for five years regarding the methods and 00:52:18.476 --> 00:52:25.810 - progress on implementation of the PA requirements So we would get updates twice a year to see what methods 00:52:25.810 --> 00:52:32.664 - they're using how it's going. Etc Councilmember Zulek Do the petitioners have any response to that? 00:52:32.664 --> 00:52:38.078 - I just want to give the opportunity in case anyone would like to say something 00:52:49.986 --> 00:52:58.239 - Anna Killian Hansen again. I Think that thank you Councilmember Piedmont Smith. I do think that that 00:52:58.239 --> 00:53:06.655 - is more in line with what the RDC can do. I do also Want to draw attention back to the resolution that 00:53:06.655 --> 00:53:12.702 - came from the RDC directly voted on unanimously well four to one at least 00:53:13.026 --> 00:53:20.374 - That they are concerned about being able to deliver anything above and beyond or making commitments 00:53:20.374 --> 00:53:28.162 - right now Without knowing the cost of infrastructure the cost to build gas prices are rising What happens 00:53:28.162 --> 00:53:35.657 - if we can't build a unit for the what you want us to sell it for? We don't have bottomless amounts of 00:53:35.657 --> 00:53:42.270 - money to be able to subsidize between the cost of build like for instance, let's say that 00:53:42.434 --> 00:53:49.097 - Build is going to cost us fifty thousand dollars more just because lumber prices are going up gas prices 00:53:49.097 --> 00:53:55.569 - are going up What is that dollar amount across the number of units? That's pretty significant. So You 00:53:55.569 --> 00:54:01.915 - know could be millions of dollars that we would have to bring to the table just to get to your AMIs 00:54:01.915 --> 00:54:08.260 - if if we can't build it for that cost if we can great we'd love to deliver even more affordability, 00:54:08.260 --> 00:54:08.958 - but I just 00:54:09.218 --> 00:54:16.879 - Want to make sure that you guys have heard that the RDC feels like they really can only commit to the 00:54:16.879 --> 00:54:24.541 - 25% right now Of course, we would love to report back as we're able So not trying to muddy the waters 00:54:24.541 --> 00:54:32.052 - just want to be perfectly clear with what they've authorized me to say Thank you Any questions from 00:54:32.052 --> 00:54:35.582 - council members on councilmember Rosenberg I'm 00:54:36.290 --> 00:54:45.542 - can be a question I don't know as one of the sponsors I just had some comments to I think the number 00:54:45.542 --> 00:54:54.885 - 15 I think it looks really good and I just wanted to bring up some changes in it. Number two the unit 00:54:54.885 --> 00:55:04.503 - mix just add some words that say the unit mix shall be generally proportionate to the extent practicable 00:55:04.503 --> 00:55:05.694 - practicable. 00:55:06.498 --> 00:55:15.070 - which can mean totally different things to different people. So months ago I did talk with Nate Ferreira 00:55:15.070 --> 00:55:23.315 - who said unit mixes can be difficult to achieve. I think it's just in the realm of we don't want the 00:55:23.315 --> 00:55:31.478 - tiniest things to be the only permanent affordable, right? We're just all saying we want some three 00:55:31.478 --> 00:55:35.070 - bedrooms and two and ones and none's. Yeah. 00:55:35.266 --> 00:55:42.374 - And I just know I think Councilmember Piedmont-Smith in the very beginning of this you had thought that 00:55:42.374 --> 00:55:49.209 - was really important. So I just also wanted to flag it for you I think like months ago when we were 00:55:49.209 --> 00:55:56.112 - talking about it. I do still appreciate the 50 percent rather than a 35 percent with a PUD. A PUD is 00:55:56.112 --> 00:56:00.350 - amendable at any time and I think we won't be unhappy that we 00:56:00.930 --> 00:56:08.418 - tried to get to 50% of permanent affordability in a PUD, and if it doesn't work, like it didn't work 00:56:08.418 --> 00:56:15.906 - at the Rolato, it can be amended to something less. But for me, I still say let's go for the best we 00:56:15.906 --> 00:56:23.616 - can. I think too, the petitioner has talked about making at least 71% affordable, so I don't think that 00:56:23.616 --> 00:56:29.918 - this should be a sticking point. I'm sorry, one more thing. Oh, with some number 15, 00:56:30.338 --> 00:56:39.570 - I think with a really good definition of permanent affordability I don't necessarily feel a need for 00:56:39.570 --> 00:56:50.174 - the petitioner to come back with for a resolution. I know that was in our the original because the mechanism wasn't 00:56:51.138 --> 00:56:58.168 - Really known and there wasn't a great definition of permanent affordability But I think with the definition 00:56:58.168 --> 00:57:04.872 - and when it has to meet those requirements, it's not as important to me that they come back So, I mean 00:57:04.872 --> 00:57:11.511 - 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. 00:57:11.511 --> 00:57:17.630 - I guess okay Councilmember Stasberg Yeah, I think I don't have a question so much either as I 00:57:18.754 --> 00:57:25.506 - I guess some thoughts about the things that I liked about the other two Left 16 and 15. I think those 00:57:25.506 --> 00:57:32.589 - are the right numbers So I also like sticking with the 50% and I appreciate what councilmember Rosenberger 00:57:32.589 --> 00:57:39.275 - just said about that idea like we could amend it later if it really became Impossible to practically 00:57:39.275 --> 00:57:46.093 - do that, but that shooting for that goal might be really appropriate I I appreciate that councilmember 00:57:46.093 --> 00:57:48.542 - Piedmont Smith took out that low and 00:57:48.802 --> 00:57:54.793 - Very low. I we weren't thinking about how that was defined by HUD But you know since that is 00:57:54.793 --> 00:58:01.365 - very specifically defined by HUD. It should not have been in there To begin with and I think the rest 00:58:01.365 --> 00:58:07.871 - of that definition coincides and is the same and I appreciate that councilmember Piedmont Smith says 00:58:07.871 --> 00:58:14.507 - that it can be secured through any legal mechanism as opposed to the list because I feel like the list 00:58:14.507 --> 00:58:17.406 - ends up being bulky and I know that the like 00:58:17.506 --> 00:58:21.770 - the intention that was there, but I think it's just more succinct in Councilmember Piedmont-Smith, which 00:58:21.770 --> 00:58:25.182 - is why I kind of started out by the saying, like, there's some of each that I like. 00:58:26.050 --> 00:58:32.763 - I like that Councilmember Asari and Zulix has the public subsidy note in it because I think that that's 00:58:32.763 --> 00:58:39.218 - important to kind of keep in mind and I appreciate that it does say we're feasible but that is also 00:58:39.218 --> 00:58:45.932 - one of the reasons why I I also like the resolution of approval because resolutions don't actually have 00:58:45.932 --> 00:58:52.645 - any legal teeth but I think what that would do is it brings it out into the public eye again to be like 00:58:52.645 --> 00:58:55.550 - this is the plan that is happening with with 00:58:55.874 --> 00:59:02.398 - money in terms of potential subsidies or not subsidies and Staff time and that kind of thing. So I appreciate 00:59:02.398 --> 00:59:08.447 - that that is in there I'm not sure how I feel about the wording of that and I would need to have some 00:59:08.447 --> 00:59:14.615 - understanding because It says the sale of any dwelling unit and I certainly would not want a resolution 00:59:14.615 --> 00:59:17.758 - in front of us every time there was a sale but maybe 00:59:18.082 --> 00:59:28.974 - on the initial like we are using this affordability mechanism to do these. And I'm not sure if that's 00:59:28.974 --> 00:59:40.186 - totally clear in how this is phrased. But I like that. And let me see what else I highlighted. I already 00:59:40.186 --> 00:59:43.390 - said the 50. And then I think 00:59:46.722 --> 00:59:53.281 - I think that the unit mix from reasonable condition for and Functional equivalency is the same 00:59:53.281 --> 01:00:00.253 - and councilmember Piedmont Smith's as it is a number four. Is that correct? Because I like that that 01:00:00.253 --> 01:00:07.433 - 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 01:00:07.433 --> 01:00:13.854 - right now to make a new reasonable condition number 17 or 18 or whatever we're on to combine 01:00:14.242 --> 01:00:21.148 - Those those three things together and I don't know what anybody else thinks about that. But yeah, those 01:00:21.148 --> 01:00:28.254 - are my thoughts on that President Asari Thanks The first the question and then and then some some comments 01:00:28.254 --> 01:00:35.293 - we're at the last meeting we made some adjustments to reasonable conditions just vocally is that's that's 01:00:35.293 --> 01:00:39.742 - okay, I mean granted not to 27 lines of reasonable conditions, but 01:00:40.866 --> 01:00:47.259 - Is that okay? Attorney Allen as long as we're very clear about what the text is and what the wording 01:00:47.259 --> 01:00:53.715 - is going to be from the alteration So whichever one we pick and the alteration of the wording so that 01:00:53.715 --> 01:01:00.045 - it can be recorded and put with the minutes So that we're absolutely clear about what's accepted So 01:01:00.045 --> 01:01:06.374 - a couple of things I don't know if I'll do these in the right order exactly but I as relates to the 01:01:06.374 --> 01:01:07.134 - question of 01:01:08.066 --> 01:01:14.188 - Proportional mix I was a little bit concerned. We were a little concerned about it being very restrictive 01:01:14.188 --> 01:01:19.963 - And I think that that was something that came up during our roundtable as well that you know one of 01:01:19.963 --> 01:01:26.026 - the tools on the table is is that mix I but I appreciate what Councilman Rosenberger said that you know, 01:01:26.026 --> 01:01:31.801 - you don't want just all of the affordability to be in, you know efficiencies or something like that 01:01:31.801 --> 01:01:33.534 - which but but I do think with 01:01:33.858 --> 01:01:40.489 - many of the other reasonable conditions that we've made, I think you need to give somewhere, right? 01:01:40.489 --> 01:01:47.319 - And so I'm concerned that, I mean, as I think has been repeated multiple times, you don't want to make 01:01:47.319 --> 01:01:54.282 - this infeasible, sort of from go. And so that was sort of what we were trying to get at there. In terms, 01:01:54.282 --> 01:01:58.526 - though, of the amendment, I wonder as well about taking sort of 01:01:58.882 --> 01:02:05.208 - I wonder if we could take an opposite approach, which I'm just thinking about what Director Killian 01:02:05.208 --> 01:02:11.534 - Henson just said, the way that it was said as well, and just thinking about the resolution from the 01:02:11.534 --> 01:02:18.050 - RDC. Is there a way that we basically signal we'd like as much as possible? I think we all agree. They 01:02:18.050 --> 01:02:24.883 - agree on paper. They like as much as possible as well. So the intention is to, once we do know the physical 01:02:24.883 --> 01:02:26.654 - cost, et cetera, to sort of 01:02:26.722 --> 01:02:32.490 - put in writing the amount or something like that, which a minimum of X with a sort of target of Y or 01:02:32.490 --> 01:02:38.259 - something like that. I wonder how we feel about an approach of that nature. So basically coming back 01:02:38.259 --> 01:02:44.141 - and saying, we won't accept anything lower than 30%, 25%, whatever the number is. And then we say, but 01:02:44.141 --> 01:02:49.967 - we have a target of 50. And so come back to us when you actually know the cost and things and tell us 01:02:49.967 --> 01:02:55.678 - how close you can get to that realistically and what the exchanges would be or something like that. 01:02:56.226 --> 01:03:05.415 - good of the order putting it out there. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Before we head to public comment. 01:03:05.415 --> 01:03:14.258 - Are there any questions right now? Oh, we're still in discussion. Yeah, we are. Pardon me. This isn't 01:03:14.258 --> 01:03:22.494 - my day job. All right. Any other comments that are observations, queries, concerns, reactions, 01:03:25.666 --> 01:03:32.919 - Interpretive dances councilmember Stossberg. So at this point should we be trying with attorney Allen 01:03:32.919 --> 01:03:40.030 - to modify One of them because I mean I think that we could probably modify any of them We just have 01:03:40.030 --> 01:03:47.355 - to be specific and then it's like which one might be easiest to modify Is that what we should be doing 01:03:47.355 --> 01:03:54.750 - right now, I think that I think that's a reasonable thing and then we should move to adopt said amended 01:03:55.266 --> 01:04:02.718 - condition and then we would Have the questions and discussion and public comment and then a vote is 01:04:02.718 --> 01:04:10.393 - that is that what we should do? It sounds like that's where we're at Yes, we should get a reaction but 01:04:10.393 --> 01:04:17.919 - councilmember Piedmont Smith had something to say first and then we'll hedge reaction well, I mean I 01:04:17.919 --> 01:04:23.806 - think the the biggest point or the difference between reasonable condition and 01:04:25.026 --> 01:04:32.098 - 15 and the other two is no 16 and the other two is the 35 percent versus 50 percent So I have no sense 01:04:32.098 --> 01:04:39.032 - of what direction the majority of the people up here would go so I don't know how we would revise it 01:04:39.032 --> 01:04:46.241 - to be Acceptable by a majority if we don't know what that majority would be Councilmember sorry, I would 01:04:46.241 --> 01:04:53.176 - lean towards the third I mean they've said that they're their line is 25 and so right so so again, I 01:04:53.176 --> 01:04:54.686 - think you know, we're 01:04:54.850 --> 01:05:11.367 - I guess the question that we all maybe need to consider explicitly is whether we are content, especially 01:05:11.367 --> 01:05:13.726 - at this point, 01:05:13.858 --> 01:05:20.596 - Have the RDC withdrawal after you know, if they say look we did we don't we're not happy with this and 01:05:20.596 --> 01:05:27.268 - we're gonna take it back, right? so so like I want to establish a Baseline that we're all comfortable 01:05:27.268 --> 01:05:33.875 - with that. We all think is actually attainable So I mean what's closer to what they're asking for so 01:05:33.875 --> 01:05:40.286 - I would lean towards the 35% Councilmember Flaherty Thanks Kind of others what two things one and 01:05:41.474 --> 01:05:47.559 - I think all three of these resolutions, or reasonable conditions rather, have the 15% reserved at 90% 01:05:47.559 --> 01:05:53.585 - AMI, and then a chunk at 120% AMI, which I think is important. It is now what's required for any new 01:05:53.585 --> 01:05:59.552 - PUD. It was not at the moment this PUD was brought, but I think as we've discussed, it actually was 01:05:59.552 --> 01:06:05.697 - meant to be in effect at that time, had the statutory timeline's been met. And so I think meeting that 01:06:05.697 --> 01:06:09.694 - standard is important. That's central to me. The other is on this, 01:06:09.794 --> 01:06:16.306 - right, like what we can achieve and there's some degree of uncertainty, it also seems like it's a function 01:06:16.306 --> 01:06:22.758 - of what affordability mechanisms we use, which complicates things a little bit. In particular, leveraging 01:06:22.758 --> 01:06:29.027 - the value of the land in the form of ground leases or something else gives us much greater opportunity 01:06:29.027 --> 01:06:35.539 - to advance affordability than not. I know there are differences of opinion about operational complications 01:06:35.539 --> 01:06:36.574 - that introduces, 01:06:36.802 --> 01:06:42.429 - you know, and whether or not that's the right approach. I guess I'm just struggling a little bit with 01:06:42.429 --> 01:06:48.057 - that aspect, this idea that we can or can't do something. I think baked into statements like that are 01:06:48.057 --> 01:06:53.905 - probably unspoken assumptions about what mechanisms we're using, and we're kind of giving the flexibility 01:06:53.905 --> 01:06:59.422 - to use any mechanism, but like the answer to the question that Cosmo Versaria was posing is in part 01:06:59.422 --> 01:07:04.608 - a function of the mechanism chosen. And so I'm not quite sure how to deal with that, I guess. 01:07:04.608 --> 01:07:05.822 - I wanted to, I guess, 01:07:06.946 --> 01:07:14.362 - Express that that is something I'm grappling with I would lean toward something that looks like reasonable 01:07:14.362 --> 01:07:21.708 - condition 15 and if if We have to revisit it we can but you know anyway Thank you, we're Director Killian 01:07:21.708 --> 01:07:28.847 - 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 01:07:28.847 --> 01:07:30.302 - waiting to speak and 01:07:31.010 --> 01:07:36.981 - I would just like some clarity whether you guys are introducing the language about proportional units 01:07:36.981 --> 01:07:42.835 - I mean if you guys looked at the exact the exhibits in the packet You would notice that some of the 01:07:42.835 --> 01:07:48.806 - three bedrooms are around five targeted around five or six hundred thousand So those are gonna be the 01:07:48.806 --> 01:07:55.012 - hardest ones to deliver at the AMIs that you're talking about So just so you know that's gonna be another 01:07:55.012 --> 01:08:00.222 - subsidy that we're gonna have to come up with if we can which who knows at that point so 01:08:01.794 --> 01:08:09.186 - Thank you. Councilmember Zulek, did you? No, you're done. Councilmember Stasberg. Just to that point 01:08:09.186 --> 01:08:16.944 - that Dr. Killian Hansen brought up, I was thinking about changing that wording from must be proportionate 01:08:16.944 --> 01:08:24.556 - to potentially in terms of amending what we have to create something new to be must be as proportionate 01:08:24.556 --> 01:08:31.582 - as possible to the market rate units. I think that that makes it pretty strong, like we want it 01:08:31.682 --> 01:08:39.879 - very proportional, but also maybe leaves the flexibility of space that might be necessary. So that would 01:08:39.879 --> 01:08:47.920 - be my proposal to try to really maintain the proportionality, but give the flexibility. OK, thank you. 01:08:47.920 --> 01:08:55.883 - Any other? Sounds to me like we need to pick which resolution we're essentially going to be amending, 01:08:55.883 --> 01:09:00.958 - which is closest at this point. Reasonable condition, pardon me. 01:09:03.298 --> 01:09:10.296 - I was actually honestly wondering whether it would be easier to modify reasonable condition Well, I 01:09:10.296 --> 01:09:17.294 - think it depends on whether we're gonna do the 50% or the 35% I feel like it would be easier to add 01:09:17.294 --> 01:09:24.712 - language than to take away language and for me personally, I feel like I want to add language from number 01:09:24.712 --> 01:09:31.780 - 15 to one of the other two agreed and So yeah, and and I guess I would also be in favor of doing the 01:09:31.780 --> 01:09:32.830 - 50 and kind of 01:09:33.090 --> 01:09:40.417 - Setting that bar high and Encouraging then maybe as councilmember Flaherty said other techniques and 01:09:40.417 --> 01:09:47.743 - not just relying on one Councilmember sorry I Lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. Oh, let me let me 01:09:47.743 --> 01:09:55.215 - come back to her Well, then I'll make a comment right now. I I really like the idea that councilmember 01:09:55.215 --> 01:10:00.510 - sorry I believe it was who said putting that range in there minimum of X 01:10:00.610 --> 01:10:07.916 - Maximum or with a goal of X not a target of thank you. Not maximum. I I don't think we should set it 01:10:07.916 --> 01:10:15.439 - at 50 right now I think that could cause greater problems or heartache down the road. So I think I like 01:10:15.439 --> 01:10:22.744 - the idea of that target range For what it's worth anybody else Council members do look I second that 01:10:22.744 --> 01:10:29.182 - but I also lean towards the 35% in favor of flexibility Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you 01:10:29.410 --> 01:10:36.661 - Does anybody have, I think it seems to make the most sense to pick either 15 or 16. Oh, I'd like to 01:10:36.661 --> 01:10:44.130 - recognize, thank you, I could not think of the word. Controller McKim, thank you. Thank you very much, 01:10:44.130 --> 01:10:50.873 - Jeff McKim, and actually I'm speaking here as the treasurer of the Redevelopment Commission. 01:10:50.873 --> 01:10:57.182 - The RDC is, I just want to make sure that everybody understands that the RDC's revenue 01:10:57.282 --> 01:11:05.395 - comes almost entirely from tax increment financing revenues developed within our allocation areas. Several 01:11:05.395 --> 01:11:13.281 - of those TIF districts began expiring in 2029, with others following from 2031 to 2040. This means that 01:11:13.281 --> 01:11:17.982 - the RDC operates with a finite and declining revenue horizon. 01:11:18.498 --> 01:11:25.294 - At the same time, the RDC is already responsible for substantial long-term obligations, including debt 01:11:25.294 --> 01:11:32.421 - service on prior projects and major commitments already underway or planned. And those commitments together 01:11:32.421 --> 01:11:39.349 - already bring the RDC close to its practical bonding capacity. So I just want to make sure that everyone 01:11:39.349 --> 01:11:42.846 - understands that anything that, any requirements for 01:11:42.978 --> 01:11:51.553 - a subsidy out of the RDC essentially come at the expense of potentially completing the project, of completing 01:11:51.553 --> 01:11:59.504 - other future projects that have already been committed to. So I just want to make sure that everybody 01:11:59.504 --> 01:12:05.662 - understands and thinks, understands that every additional requirement, say for 01:12:05.762 --> 01:12:12.846 - 50% of permanent affordability does potentially have trade-offs and comes at the expense of other public 01:12:12.846 --> 01:12:19.795 - projects We just we unfortunately the the TIF is not a bottomless Source of revenue and in fact, we're 01:12:19.795 --> 01:12:26.879 - going to you know, we're going to see a decline over time. So thank you I just wanted to make that clear 01:12:26.879 --> 01:12:33.086 - Thank You controller McKim. Does anybody have language right now that they would like to? I 01:12:33.986 --> 01:12:41.497 - put forward for this new reasonable condition councilmember Piedmont Smith, I do not but I Would move 01:12:41.497 --> 01:12:49.082 - for a five or ten minute recess so that we can get this language That was my backup plan. Yeah second. 01:12:49.082 --> 01:12:56.814 - Okay, I move for a five minute Reese councilmember Stossberg I guess I just have a question of how we're 01:12:56.814 --> 01:13:02.558 - gonna do this then and not have issues with Quorum stuff. So like who's gonna 01:13:02.658 --> 01:13:12.149 - Be over there with Larry. I'm ending things right now Should maybe the sponsor so I assumed it was At 01:13:12.149 --> 01:13:21.640 - least one representative from well one one condition to and Kate D or sorry councilmember Rosemary Do 01:13:21.640 --> 01:13:32.062 - 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 01:13:32.706 --> 01:13:41.802 - We don't have to just call a 10-minute recess? Sorry. I was just saying there was a... All right, there 01:13:41.802 --> 01:13:50.548 - is a 10-minute recess. I'll see y'all soon. We're back in session. That's been our 11-minute break. 01:13:50.548 --> 01:14:00.606 - I apologize. All right, do we have a working reasonable condition that we would like to discuss or propose? Ready. 01:14:01.474 --> 01:14:10.869 - It looks like we do not. They do. OK. So that is being sent over to our counsel attorney Alan and then 01:14:10.869 --> 01:14:14.974 - we can hear more about it and talk about it. 01:14:36.194 --> 01:14:41.718 - I got nothing in the meantime. We're gonna try to speed the rest of this along. I know that this is 01:14:41.718 --> 01:14:47.353 - taking a long time, and that's why we wanted to get it out of the way first. Yeah. So we're gonna try 01:14:47.353 --> 01:14:53.043 - to wrap this up and then move on, because we've got a lot of stuff on our agenda tonight, and it's all 01:14:53.043 --> 01:14:58.622 - very important, and we wanna make sure that we give everything really due diligence. Are we ready? I 01:14:58.622 --> 01:15:04.478 - don't mean to rush you guys, but I mean to rush you guys. Yes, I shared the document with Attorney Allen. 01:15:05.666 --> 01:15:08.958 - Do you want to just give them a quick overview while they put it up? 01:15:32.546 --> 01:15:42.142 - Wants to talk so this is still reasonable condition 16. We're going out we need to change up there Okay, 01:15:42.142 --> 01:15:51.280 - thank you. Who wants to introduce this and talk us through I? Will thank you councilmember Piedmont 01:15:51.280 --> 01:16:01.150 - Smith All right, so we used reasonable condition 16 as the basis and then the changes are in red so we have 01:16:01.314 --> 01:16:10.176 - Instead of 35% of dwelling units, we said at least 35% of dwelling units with a goal of 50% of all dwelling 01:16:10.176 --> 01:16:17.807 - units. So we have the permanent affordability. And then in correlation with that, you'll see 01:16:17.807 --> 01:16:26.013 - under eligibility, we have a minimum of 15% to be available for 90% AMI households and a minimum of 01:16:26.013 --> 01:16:30.526 - 20% to be available for 120% AMI households. And then, 01:16:30.722 --> 01:16:37.887 - The mix of units as far as the bedroom square footage et cetera must be as proportionate as possible 01:16:37.887 --> 01:16:44.981 - to the market rate units. So allowing a little more flexibility there. And then we took a couple of 01:16:44.981 --> 01:16:52.217 - things from a reasonable condition 15. So permanent affordability mechanisms should where feasible be 01:16:52.217 --> 01:16:59.595 - structured to remain enforceable independent of ongoing public subsidy. So we're saying we would prefer 01:16:59.595 --> 01:17:00.446 - not to have 01:17:00.706 --> 01:17:08.234 - more public subsidy in the future, but if you have to, then you have to. And then number four, we want 01:17:08.234 --> 01:17:15.616 - to know about the affordability instrument that they're going to use, that the petitioner's going to 01:17:15.616 --> 01:17:23.071 - use, including how to keep it permanently affordable. So we're asking them to come back to the Common 01:17:23.071 --> 01:17:30.014 - Council for approval. So those are the differences with, so the synopsis has not been updated. 01:17:31.362 --> 01:17:42.750 - Yeah, ignore that So that is it and happy to Try to answer questions on this. All right. Thank you very 01:17:42.750 --> 01:17:53.810 - much councilman Sorry council member Sussberg. I guess I want to ask attorney Alan the thing that we 01:17:53.810 --> 01:17:59.614 - were trying to kind of figure out at the end was the 01:18:00.610 --> 01:18:08.674 - The prior to recording the number four if you could scroll down to number four Where it says prior to 01:18:08.674 --> 01:18:16.580 - recording of a new affordability instrument or the sale of any dwelling unit? I just I just want to 01:18:16.580 --> 01:18:25.039 - make sure that the language matches the intent and so the intent is that They would come with a resolution 01:18:25.039 --> 01:18:29.150 - detailing their affordability plan either when they 01:18:29.410 --> 01:18:36.130 - 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, 01:18:36.130 --> 01:18:42.657 - say, using silent second mortgages, then the first time they use a silent second mortgage, they come 01:18:42.657 --> 01:18:49.571 - and they tell us all about silent second mortgages and we have a resolution that we approve of how they're 01:18:49.571 --> 01:18:55.710 - doing this. But the second time they use a silent second mortgage, they don't have to do that. 01:18:55.874 --> 01:19:02.801 - but if they use silent second mortgages for a few and then they're gonna do land leases for a few, then 01:19:02.801 --> 01:19:09.729 - they come back with a land lease one as kind of a next or in the first one they could have a resolution 01:19:09.729 --> 01:19:16.523 - that has a whole collection of things that they've already planned on and some specifics around that. 01:19:16.523 --> 01:19:23.384 - So that's the intention of that piece and then that they need to do that with their affordability plan 01:19:23.384 --> 01:19:25.182 - before anything gets sold. 01:19:25.314 --> 01:19:32.066 - If the first sale is a market rate thing that doesn't count as affordability We would still want there 01:19:32.066 --> 01:19:38.883 - to be kind of a known plan of how they're going to do the affordability Even before the first sale does 01:19:38.883 --> 01:19:45.701 - that make sense and does that language actually say? What we're intending and is that what other people 01:19:45.701 --> 01:19:52.518 - thought that we were intending as well? I'll just say briefly in the terms of the way I would read this 01:19:52.518 --> 01:19:54.878 - I read this as saying this would be 01:19:55.426 --> 01:20:02.089 - because of the or the sale of any dwelling unit with the PUD it would mean they would have to come before 01:20:02.089 --> 01:20:08.564 - you for each sale and I think maybe if you wanted to have it just be the first one you might say prior 01:20:08.564 --> 01:20:14.850 - to the first recording of a new affordability or the first sale of any dwelling unit within the PUD 01:20:14.850 --> 01:20:20.382 - and then have some clarifying language but you know you could you could amend that as a 01:20:20.866 --> 01:20:27.109 - Do I have to formally amend that right now did this did this get formally introduced has not been introduced 01:20:27.109 --> 01:20:33.410 - We are discussing it, but it oh excellent worst Oh because we're still under the discussing the affordability 01:20:33.410 --> 01:20:39.195 - things wonderful. So councilmember Piedmont Smith Oh good. Wonderful. You added that so she added or 01:20:39.195 --> 01:20:44.922 - the first sale of Should it be a dwelling unit? instead of any dwelling unit, I Don't think there's 01:20:44.922 --> 01:20:46.526 - a problem with any versus a 01:20:46.914 --> 01:20:54.781 - Okay, I just don't want to because there'll be multiple dwelling units So it would still be the first 01:20:54.781 --> 01:21:02.494 - sale of any dwelling or or yeah, you could say a dwelling unit within the PUD Let's take a dwelling 01:21:02.494 --> 01:21:10.825 - unit Right now with the intention Attorney Allen in my opinion it does I don't know does the administration 01:21:10.825 --> 01:21:12.830 - have a different opinion? 01:21:17.570 --> 01:21:25.067 - and my colleagues was my Description of what I had intended for that Does in the language does that 01:21:25.067 --> 01:21:32.865 - align with y'all's intention, especially I guess I'm looking at council members to look in a sorry Yes, 01:21:32.865 --> 01:21:40.062 - okay. Yeah, and I think I think what what what this also? Enables again is you know is is them? 01:21:41.506 --> 01:21:46.279 - When we get to the stage if it's not feasible while they still have to come back to us So it builds 01:21:46.279 --> 01:21:51.100 - in that that that back-and-forth mechanism. So so I think I think it's good Yeah, and I also want to 01:21:51.100 --> 01:21:56.111 - say that also builds in a public comment period related to that too because whenever we have resolutions 01:21:56.111 --> 01:22:00.980 - There's an automatic public comment period associated with resolutions and that that was an important 01:22:00.980 --> 01:22:01.982 - piece for me to have 01:22:03.138 --> 01:22:13.446 - Okay, thank you. I actually wanted to get administration's reaction to this reasonable condition. So 01:22:13.446 --> 01:22:24.161 - I have fair housing concerns about this because what is ultimately going to happen is When we're selling 01:22:24.161 --> 01:22:32.734 - each model Each you know first first silent second mortgage We have to have a buyer 01:22:33.346 --> 01:22:42.799 - to do the math, and so council will then be voting up or down on an individual buyer, essentially. Now, 01:22:42.799 --> 01:22:51.980 - you all will say that you're voting on principal, but what happens is you have a personality tied to 01:22:51.980 --> 01:23:01.342 - that, and so I have a fair housing concern about that. It just blows up fair housing, and furthermore, 01:23:01.826 --> 01:23:09.498 - This is not really how real estate works. So if we're gonna say, you can buy this house, but we don't 01:23:09.498 --> 01:23:17.319 - know how you can finance it yet until we get it approved by council, especially seeing that we, I think 01:23:17.319 --> 01:23:24.991 - we've been in front of council with this project 32 hours already. It's not how real estate works. So 01:23:24.991 --> 01:23:29.278 - I think we're gonna seriously handicap the neighborhood. 01:23:31.458 --> 01:23:37.325 - Council member, sorry, yeah. Yeah, I think that's very helpful, Mayor Thompson. The intention here is 01:23:37.325 --> 01:23:43.076 - more about the, it's not about saying every single time that there is a sale, you must come and get 01:23:43.076 --> 01:23:49.116 - an approval. It's saying that we should have some agreement about how, about how permanent affordability 01:23:49.116 --> 01:23:55.040 - is going to work, the combination of tools, because we've said, use all the tools that are permissible 01:23:55.040 --> 01:24:00.791 - to you, but we wanna know what combination of tools are being used. I think that's really all we're 01:24:00.791 --> 01:24:01.424 - trying to, 01:24:01.424 --> 01:24:09.319 - Trigger here understood, but unless we do it ahead of time You're gonna get into a personality approval 01:24:09.319 --> 01:24:16.986 - And the the combination that we may need to use for different home buyers could be different I see I 01:24:16.986 --> 01:24:24.350 - see so because of their economics Etc and so you're you're going to just blow up fair housing. I 01:24:26.498 --> 01:24:34.981 - Could you explain that? By the time that we can tell you the exact mix, so I may need Shared Equity 01:24:34.981 --> 01:24:43.888 - and Second Soft combined, or I may need Land Trust and Second Soft combined, you're going to get several 01:24:43.888 --> 01:24:50.590 - scenarios, and the first time we do any combo package, we have to come to you. 01:24:51.906 --> 01:25:01.021 - in order to get to the combo package, we have to have somebody who is willing to buy the house who has 01:25:01.021 --> 01:25:09.958 - a lender lined up, et cetera, et cetera. And then council essentially says yes or no, that will work 01:25:09.958 --> 01:25:18.808 - or won't work. And because there's already a name tied to the property, you don't have fair housing 01:25:18.808 --> 01:25:21.374 - anymore. I have a follow-up. 01:25:22.498 --> 01:25:29.539 - I'd like you her from our counsel attorney Do you have a commentary on The mayor's position just in 01:25:29.539 --> 01:25:36.790 - terms of the I think I think it's maybe talking past each other I don't disagree with the mayor's that 01:25:36.790 --> 01:25:43.901 - if there was a requirement to have the specific individual Come before and that specific mix the the 01:25:43.901 --> 01:25:51.012 - word this is going to turn on number four is the definition of implementation framework and so if by 01:25:51.012 --> 01:25:52.350 - framework you mean 01:25:52.514 --> 01:25:59.471 - In the general sense and this is how it seems to read to me Which is is the most general sense of the 01:25:59.471 --> 01:26:06.292 - approaches which could just be as general as the administration being able to say In general, these 01:26:06.292 --> 01:26:13.181 - are the the menu of tools that we are going to use in all house buyers without giving you a specific 01:26:13.181 --> 01:26:20.138 - buyer by buyer Breakdown of who's going to buy what which we already have done so I mean you have the 01:26:20.138 --> 01:26:21.502 - list already and it 01:26:21.602 --> 01:26:30.584 - It was included in the PUD itself and it has been further expanded by your Requested reasonable conditions 01:26:30.584 --> 01:26:39.231 - Councilmember Stossberg first of all, it would not be my intention with number four once again it goes 01:26:39.231 --> 01:26:47.038 - back to like is it worded right for to have to come back with each of those combinations and 01:26:47.138 --> 01:26:52.947 - Right, so if you'd say like, okay, we're gonna do silent seconds and we're gonna do shared equity and 01:26:52.947 --> 01:26:58.642 - we're gonna do land leases, and if those three things are like, yeah, those all sound good, then if 01:26:58.642 --> 01:27:00.350 - you have to combine somebody, 01:27:00.578 --> 01:27:05.800 - there wouldn't be an intent in what I was thinking at least that you would have to come back and say, 01:27:05.800 --> 01:27:10.970 - okay, then we're gonna combine these two as like an instrument. So I don't know if that phrasing has 01:27:10.970 --> 01:27:16.141 - to be worded a little bit for that. To the second concern of why you already have a list, the reason 01:27:16.141 --> 01:27:21.311 - why I haven't approved the list or liked the list is that I don't actually know how it's gonna work. 01:27:21.311 --> 01:27:26.482 - And I actually, I mean, you've provided some numbers and I provided a memo back that was like, well, 01:27:26.482 --> 01:27:30.270 - your math is a little bit wrong in this. So like, how is this gonna work? 01:27:30.402 --> 01:27:36.346 - And I still haven't, I don't feel like I have a good answer of how this is gonna work without the increased 01:27:36.346 --> 01:27:41.630 - public subsidy as time goes on. I don't feel like I know how this is going to be administrated. 01:27:41.698 --> 01:27:46.194 - who is going to hold the silent seconds. I've gotten varying answers about the possibilities of who 01:27:46.194 --> 01:27:50.826 - might hold the silent seconds, but I don't know who actually might hold the silent seconds, and that's 01:27:50.826 --> 01:27:55.322 - the kind of information that I would expect to be presented with this kind of resolution, where you 01:27:55.322 --> 01:27:59.908 - actually have some of the details ironed out, that there has been approach like, well, we're gonna do 01:27:59.908 --> 01:28:04.450 - like this, this, this, like we have this plan on how this is gonna work, but you don't actually have 01:28:04.450 --> 01:28:08.766 - any of the specifics nailed down, and that has been the entire problem for the last two months. 01:28:08.962 --> 01:28:16.655 - So you can't sit here and say that, oh, well, we've given you all that. No, you've given us the concepts 01:28:16.655 --> 01:28:23.982 - of all of it without any actual firm plans around it. And that's why I'm saying, hey, come back and 01:28:23.982 --> 01:28:31.382 - actually tell us how you're going to do this, because you haven't actually done that. So I hear that 01:28:31.382 --> 01:28:38.782 - you're frustrated and that the bulk of information that has been passed along may not be understood. 01:28:38.914 --> 01:28:49.841 - but there has been quite extensive documentation. Our staff has worked tirelessly to answer all iterations 01:28:49.841 --> 01:29:00.462 - of this financing. I will remind council that we are approving PUD land use, not financing for the land 01:29:00.462 --> 01:29:06.590 - use. And while I appreciate that council has concerns about 01:29:07.394 --> 01:29:16.393 - being on the hook for finances, et cetera, the administration and the RDC has not made a funding request 01:29:16.393 --> 01:29:24.964 - to counsel. The mechanisms that have been provided will secure permanency and the affordability and 01:29:24.964 --> 01:29:33.792 - self-sustain. And that's why we have a menu so that we can be flexible and work with individual buyers 01:29:33.792 --> 01:29:35.678 - based on their needs. 01:29:42.306 --> 01:29:53.781 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. If whoever is sharing the text could refresh I have proposed language 01:29:53.781 --> 01:30:05.037 - that may clarify what we're actually seeking here. I did it in a suggesting mode so you should be able 01:30:05.037 --> 01:30:07.550 - to see why is that not 01:30:13.378 --> 01:30:29.525 - Can you make sure it shows suggestions. Here we go. Nothing like making sausage in public I guess while 01:30:29.525 --> 01:30:41.790 - we're looking for that I just wanted to make sure that all council members got 01:30:41.986 --> 01:30:55.992 - the second memo from Director Killian Hansen which was sent this afternoon. It did clarify some of the 01:30:55.992 --> 01:31:09.182 - misperceptions in math. So I tried to clarify what we're actually after and hopefully this would 01:31:09.442 --> 01:31:18.271 - Alleviate a concern about tying it to a specific buyer councilmember. Sorry has a question Mayor Thompson 01:31:18.271 --> 01:31:26.851 - or director Henson Could you explain one thing because I think maybe this is where this is maybe maybe 01:31:26.851 --> 01:31:34.014 - the the tension here Was the intention is the intention as described in the PUD to to 01:31:34.178 --> 01:31:44.004 - fit a tool to an individual buyer each time that a sale happens? That's correct. How would you do that 01:31:44.004 --> 01:31:53.543 - with something like a land trust? We don't intend to use a land trust. We understand you want it as 01:31:53.543 --> 01:32:00.030 - part of the options, and certainly if the market changes, we could. 01:32:00.578 --> 01:32:07.703 - We don't have any intention. We heard very clearly from Nate Ferreira, who directs our current land 01:32:07.703 --> 01:32:15.184 - trust, that there are challenges there in our market and that by adding more land trust houses, we would 01:32:15.184 --> 01:32:22.238 - then flood the market and thereby make the land trust that's already in existence harder to build. 01:32:26.274 --> 01:32:35.062 - But I think what I'm, and again, if somebody can help me, because I'm clearly missing it, is like, how 01:32:35.062 --> 01:32:43.594 - are you, so you have a place, and then you go, we have a buyer, and this buyer needs affordability, 01:32:43.594 --> 01:32:52.468 - and we need X percent of these houses to be affordable. So I'm not understanding the mechanism by which 01:32:52.468 --> 01:32:54.686 - those things are matched, 01:32:55.074 --> 01:33:06.242 - and how that's not a housing fairness issue. I will narrate this for accessibility, but this is the 01:33:06.242 --> 01:33:17.522 - best way I've ever been able to describe how these second softs work. And you can do it with various 01:33:17.522 --> 01:33:24.670 - mechanisms. So we have the house, and some people can afford in 01:33:24.834 --> 01:33:34.387 - their standard mortgage to build the house with the roof, okay? Others cannot without a second soft 01:33:34.387 --> 01:33:44.513 - mortgage or we cannot guarantee permanent affordability without a second soft mortgage. And so the second 01:33:44.513 --> 01:33:51.486 - soft covers the difference between this part of the house and this part. 01:33:51.906 --> 01:34:03.625 - I can still write upside down too. But some people's second soft has to be this big and their house 01:34:03.625 --> 01:34:15.343 - 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 01:34:15.343 --> 01:34:20.382 - second soft on whatever, a $100,000 house, 01:34:21.218 --> 01:34:30.848 - Then that second soft is bigger, because we're protecting ourselves from the house flipping and you 01:34:30.848 --> 01:34:40.575 - getting the full equity. We're tracking, okay. But if you make 80% and you're only buying an $80,000 01:34:40.575 --> 01:34:50.590 - house, you may be able to do it just with like $15,000 of a second soft. Or you may need a combination. 01:34:50.914 --> 01:34:59.818 - of different things. And so those combinations have to be decided at sale time. And we may use the same 01:34:59.818 --> 01:35:08.807 - combination for many of the properties, in which case I understand we would only have to come back once. 01:35:08.807 --> 01:35:17.454 - But my question to council, I guess, is why wouldn't you approve all of the affordability mechanisms 01:35:17.454 --> 01:35:19.166 - now? You have them. 01:35:23.266 --> 01:35:29.455 - Councilmember Flaherty, thank you. I think I agree with the mayor I I don't know if we need this section 01:35:29.455 --> 01:35:35.467 - as long as we have good definitions of Permanent affordability and the legal requirement of its term. 01:35:35.467 --> 01:35:41.361 - I think that was the issue that was animating the early discussions around affordability and why we 01:35:41.361 --> 01:35:47.373 - wanted to have the financial mechanism because the financial mechanism is defined in code a couple of 01:35:47.373 --> 01:35:49.790 - options we knew what those ones were and 01:35:50.050 --> 01:35:56.109 - They are in code. If we're gonna suggest something different, we need to know what it is. And I think, 01:35:56.109 --> 01:36:02.521 - yes, there were options given, but it was the, are we sure this is gonna match our expectations of permanent 01:36:02.521 --> 01:36:08.757 - affordability, which are also things that were defined in code. So in the definitions in the UDO section, 01:36:08.757 --> 01:36:14.757 - the 99-year requirement, that kind of thing, were spelled out. And so if we were getting rid of that, 01:36:14.757 --> 01:36:18.110 - that was less clear. But I think reasonable condition 15 01:36:19.010 --> 01:36:25.724 - accomplished that quite well and listed kind of a full menu of options that I think are satisfactory. 01:36:25.724 --> 01:36:32.373 - So I, like reasonable, reasonable vision of 15 with section nine struck from it is attractive to me. 01:36:32.373 --> 01:36:39.152 - I think that still reflects a 50% total number. Which I'm okay with and adjusting later. I think, I'll 01:36:39.152 --> 01:36:43.102 - just reiterate the thing I said the last, you know, lastly. 01:36:43.650 --> 01:36:49.529 - Confident we could get there if we were willing to leverage the value of the land I think there are 01:36:49.529 --> 01:36:55.583 - ideological differences about whether that's the right path or whether we should do that Councilmember 01:36:55.583 --> 01:37:01.638 - Rosenberger At the beginning of this conversation, I still think that what councilmember Flaherty just 01:37:01.638 --> 01:37:07.517 - said I still agree with that that Reasonable condition 15. I think when we have the good definition 01:37:07.517 --> 01:37:10.750 - of PA permanent affordability I don't feel a need that 01:37:11.682 --> 01:37:21.011 - Anything needs to come back here for approval because it has to meet those requirements. And I so yes 01:37:21.011 --> 01:37:31.073 - I would agree with the RC 15 and again still going for the 50 percent and adjusting it later on if necessary. 01:37:31.073 --> 01:37:36.286 - All right. Any other comments. Council member Stossberg. 01:37:36.802 --> 01:37:42.894 - Still have the outstanding question of where the actual money and that silent second is coming from 01:37:42.894 --> 01:37:49.107 - like is the city subsidizing that in the beginning and then is it subsidizing it every time like like 01:37:49.107 --> 01:37:55.443 - what's the staff plan around that, you know, I had a conversation with an RDC member who was discussing 01:37:55.443 --> 01:37:59.646 - like the actual like mission statement of the RDC with me around the 01:37:59.746 --> 01:38:08.639 - the the land swap stuff that they discussed on Monday and it was like well the RDC they're not landlords 01:38:08.639 --> 01:38:17.279 - and while these sales would not be rentals it also demands significant staff time and so that is once 01:38:17.279 --> 01:38:25.833 - again why it's like okay this this does concern me and I appreciate what councilmember Flaherty said 01:38:25.833 --> 01:38:27.358 - and so if I don't 01:38:27.458 --> 01:38:36.398 - I would not feel comfortable simply striking nine from number 15 unless we at the very least put in 01:38:36.398 --> 01:38:45.516 - a reporting requirement. But I mean, I think that it matters how it is that these things are actually 01:38:45.516 --> 01:38:53.830 - working and how much city money subsidy is going into it because ultimately, let's remember, 01:38:53.830 --> 01:38:57.406 - we're subsidizing relatively few people 01:38:58.338 --> 01:39:05.945 - and how much are we actually subsidizing those relatively few people with? And that, I mean, I appreciate 01:39:05.945 --> 01:39:13.480 - once again that Habitat uses this. I think Habitat is a great organization, but I think that the mission 01:39:13.480 --> 01:39:19.006 - statement of Habitat and the funds that they use is different than the city. 01:39:19.170 --> 01:39:24.197 - And, you know, if Habitat needs to come up with more money for a silent second mortgage to bridge more 01:39:24.197 --> 01:39:29.126 - of a gap with somebody, then they can have a fundraising campaign and work on coming up with more of 01:39:29.126 --> 01:39:34.152 - that money. If the city has to, what do we just say, like, oh, sorry, we can't do that, or do we just, 01:39:34.152 --> 01:39:39.130 - like, you know, pull some more tax dollars over? Like, those are the questions that I'm interested in 01:39:39.130 --> 01:39:44.157 - right now, and we can say all we want. Like, oh, we're talking about land use, we're not talking about 01:39:44.157 --> 01:39:49.086 - financing, but a PUD does have this permanent affordability piece in it, and we are the fiscal body. 01:39:50.018 --> 01:39:57.666 - It's the responsibility of the petitioner at this point to be able to explain to us Well enough for 01:39:57.666 --> 01:40:05.391 - us to understand and explain to the public well enough for the public to understand What their plans 01:40:05.391 --> 01:40:13.039 - are with this city-owned property? Okay, I think we're getting kind of far off this topic again now 01:40:13.039 --> 01:40:14.110 - councilmember 01:40:14.242 --> 01:40:27.076 - Sorry. Sorry. So we have the mechanism to amend this in the future, I think, has been established. I 01:40:27.076 --> 01:40:32.286 - think the question of, you know, sort of 01:40:32.866 --> 01:40:38.949 - And I think now I'm more fully understanding the earlier comment that Councilmember Flaherty made about, 01:40:38.949 --> 01:40:44.859 - you know, so much of this is actually about the mechanism that one chooses at the end of the day. And 01:40:44.859 --> 01:40:50.769 - so I think that, you know, if we need space to be convinced of, you know, the appropriateness of that 01:40:50.769 --> 01:40:56.852 - mechanism later and or to think, well, actually, it works very well. So we want a higher amount of these 01:40:56.852 --> 01:40:58.590 - to be permanently affordable. 01:40:58.914 --> 01:41:05.387 - I think that we have that on the table regardless of clause four is what I'm realizing. And so I would 01:41:05.387 --> 01:41:11.671 - say just pertinent to this conversation, based on the way that they described it, four would be, is 01:41:11.671 --> 01:41:18.332 - not what we're trying to achieve. But I think that what you're trying, what you just said, Council Member 01:41:18.332 --> 01:41:24.616 - Stasberg, I share that desire. So I think that, but I think we have that mechanism regardless. Like 01:41:24.616 --> 01:41:28.638 - I think that we can ask for that to happen at any point because 01:41:28.770 --> 01:41:35.487 - We could make the amendment if necessary. So so so what I think we should strike we should just strike 01:41:35.487 --> 01:41:42.270 - for because it's it's creating an issue and then we can actually introduce this and and discuss it Just 01:41:42.270 --> 01:41:48.857 - because I don't think that I don't think that for changes substantially what it is that we're really 01:41:48.857 --> 01:41:55.509 - trying to achieve here All right, with that being said when you said that we have the power to change 01:41:55.509 --> 01:41:57.726 - this and this might be a question 01:41:57.954 --> 01:42:04.646 - The attorney too. Did you mean like we could bring the PUD back to amend it? Like as counsel Or can 01:42:04.646 --> 01:42:11.672 - only a petitioner bring a PUD back because I would think that only the petitioner would be able to bring 01:42:11.672 --> 01:42:14.014 - the bring a PUD back for amendment 01:42:16.002 --> 01:42:21.999 - 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 01:42:21.999 --> 01:42:27.997 - that they have to report back every six months. I mean do we want just like some approval mechanism 01:42:27.997 --> 01:42:34.234 - separate? rather than approving the whole the whole packet of I miss I'm just trying to understand like 01:42:34.234 --> 01:42:40.831 - how how forward will work in practice if we're leaning mostly towards second, you know second soft mortgages, 01:42:40.831 --> 01:42:44.190 - so Well, I think how forward work in practice if it was 01:42:44.354 --> 01:42:51.484 - basically just seconds offs then you know, they would just come back once and talk about seconds offs 01:42:51.484 --> 01:42:58.823 - and how seconds offs were gonna work and then that Would be like the end of of four Which is why there's 01:42:58.823 --> 01:43:06.232 - still five in there. Yeah for just kind of generally reporting on how hopeful is going Yeah Councilmember 01:43:06.232 --> 01:43:13.501 - Zulek does anyone else feel strongly about keeping or removing section four? Because I'm fine to remove 01:43:13.501 --> 01:43:14.270 - it as well 01:43:17.762 --> 01:43:23.901 - So did you were you asking to speak or were you acknowledging Sydney. I'm sorry. Council members. Well 01:43:23.901 --> 01:43:29.861 - I think it's obvious since I'm the one in this document and I crossed it out. So yes I'm willing to 01:43:29.861 --> 01:43:35.821 - get rid of number four because I think it's just confusing. All right. Thank you very much. I do we 01:43:35.821 --> 01:43:41.959 - have a motion. Oh no. Council member Rosenberger I think we have to review this whole document. I mean 01:43:41.959 --> 01:43:45.118 - number three I guess I would like to talk to whoever 01:43:45.250 --> 01:43:51.718 - kind of wrote that. It's just in a legal document, there's really no reason to have a phrase that says 01:43:51.718 --> 01:43:57.998 - we're feasible. It's just that nothing is enforceable in this. So if anyone really wanted something 01:43:57.998 --> 01:44:04.528 - to be done, is this okay with what you wanted? It's just like there's nothing that's like legally clear 01:44:04.528 --> 01:44:10.494 - or enforceable here. So I don't know whose this is, but that's my question about number three. 01:44:17.058 --> 01:44:32.040 - This came from reasonable condition 15 I believe. Okay. So if we remove where feasible then we're saying 01:44:32.040 --> 01:44:45.310 - there can't be any ongoing public subsidy. So it made it may not. It was to just say should. 01:44:45.634 --> 01:44:59.797 - Is that what you mean. Council member sorry or shall. That's the difference. I think should would be 01:44:59.797 --> 01:45:14.942 - should also doesn't mean anything. It's OK. That is not anything that is like legally enforceable in court. 01:45:16.130 --> 01:45:25.519 - It's fine, but shall is meaningful, should, is if you prefer. Say shall then. Shall changes the meaning. 01:45:25.519 --> 01:45:34.550 - Obviously, that's the intention, but wasn't part of the issue how this could have a negative impact. 01:45:34.550 --> 01:45:43.134 - That's why it was where feasible. Well, then it adds the next sentence is then, however. Right. 01:45:44.290 --> 01:45:54.159 - The use of it shall be permitted. The use of public subsidy to establish blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah. 01:45:54.159 --> 01:46:03.559 - Shall be permitted. Yeah. We can. Yeah. I mean we can at this point. Yeah. At this point it's up to 01:46:03.559 --> 01:46:11.454 - you. I'd like to move approval of reasonable condition 17 as on the screen. Second. 01:46:12.386 --> 01:46:20.033 - All right. I have a motion in a second any questions about this questions from council members right 01:46:20.033 --> 01:46:27.908 - now Councilmember Rallo Yes, I appreciate the work that's been done and the negotiation that's occurred 01:46:27.908 --> 01:46:35.479 - I'm troubled just simply because when we look at maximizing affordable housing at Hopewell Which we 01:46:35.479 --> 01:46:42.142 - should be focused on because we own the property. This is something that we is really a 01:46:42.274 --> 01:46:52.621 - 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 01:46:52.621 --> 01:47:03.069 - scroll up So that I can determine if yeah, it's still there so a minimum of 15% of total dwelling units 01:47:03.069 --> 01:47:10.302 - shall be reserved for households earning at or below 90% so at or below 01:47:10.434 --> 01:47:23.844 - below 90% still is Workforce housing if it's at the upper limit of that, so That is That's not necessarily 01:47:23.844 --> 01:47:36.377 - low income Could be but it may not be and then we have 20% Be reserved for households earning at or 01:47:36.377 --> 01:47:39.134 - below 120 percent AMI 01:47:39.906 --> 01:47:48.838 - 120 percent AMI is really the the threshold between workforce housing and market rate So in other words, 01:47:48.838 --> 01:47:57.939 - this is all going to sort of fit into workforce housing it seems to me that's what is Potentially probably 01:47:57.939 --> 01:48:06.616 - going to happen. That's the probability Although it may trend toward market rate I would be much more 01:48:06.616 --> 01:48:08.062 - comfortable with 01:48:08.834 --> 01:48:17.703 - And I remember having this discussion with Mayor Thompson some weeks ago. Having a cutoff at 110% AMI. 01:48:17.703 --> 01:48:26.400 - And I would like to know how my colleagues feel about that. Because that would at least be, we would 01:48:26.400 --> 01:48:35.527 - be in the range of workforce housing and not trending toward market rate. I'll put that out there because 01:48:35.527 --> 01:48:38.110 - I was very favorable to a 50% 01:48:38.850 --> 01:48:52.116 - a hard 50% Of affordable units So perhaps perhaps the administration would like to Tell us if 110% am 01:48:52.116 --> 01:49:04.862 - I fits within their Their conception of Point of point of order member. Oh, I believe we are on a 01:49:04.994 --> 01:49:13.580 - Questions regarding reasonable condition 17. I just asked so my question was councilmember Rallo. Is 01:49:13.580 --> 01:49:22.250 - this are you proposing an amendment to I'm taking the temperature of the room. I I'm going to propose 01:49:22.250 --> 01:49:30.751 - an amendment if I think it's agreeable to my colleagues. I Mean I I Will propose the amendment then 01:49:30.751 --> 01:49:33.726 - 110% so instead of 120 percent AMI 01:49:34.946 --> 01:49:43.194 - 110 percent AMI to make sure that it's it's fully within the workforce housing bracket mayor Thompson 01:49:43.194 --> 01:49:51.362 - so director Killian Hansen is pulling the numbers but hundred hundred twenty is Is not even close to 01:49:51.362 --> 01:49:59.852 - market now in our 120 of median in Bloomington will not get you a market rate house but director Killian 01:49:59.852 --> 01:50:03.006 - Hansen is pulling the numbers to see a 01:50:04.002 --> 01:50:11.614 - If we can do it at 110 Any other questions councilmember Stossberg, I I would be okay leaving it at 01:50:11.614 --> 01:50:19.455 - 120 because that's what's currently in the udio Councilmember, sorry I don't I don't know procedurally 01:50:19.455 --> 01:50:27.220 - what the right thing to say is but Given I think we're very we're very close on this. I know director 01:50:27.220 --> 01:50:31.102 - Killeen Henson is going to get numbers. Can can we 01:50:31.874 --> 01:50:40.711 - Just table this to and now move on to the first reading things and come back to it I don't know how 01:50:40.711 --> 01:50:49.725 - one does that like can we just pause for so you're here. Actually, I thought you had left the room So 01:50:49.725 --> 01:50:55.646 - we had charts they break it down every 20% so 30% 50% 60% 80% Okay 01:50:55.746 --> 01:51:02.800 - So we have the math up to one hundred and twenty percent. So basically what you're saying is that for 01:51:02.800 --> 01:51:09.993 - one person household and a lot of these are one bedrooms the max purchase price for one hundred percent 01:51:09.993 --> 01:51:17.116 - of the area median income would be two hundred and forty three thousand. The max purchase price of one 01:51:17.116 --> 01:51:20.574 - hundred and twenty percent is two eighty six. Now 01:51:20.674 --> 01:51:27.481 - I'd also like you to think about some of the documentation that was in your packet land trust house 01:51:27.481 --> 01:51:34.356 - if the land is included 277 How many houses fall between these ranges? I just I appreciate where you 01:51:34.356 --> 01:51:39.870 - guys are calm coming from and if it were up to me We would make them all 80% AMI 01:51:40.130 --> 01:51:46.162 - But that means that the math has to work out. We have to know what the cost to build is We can't subsidize 01:51:46.162 --> 01:51:51.799 - every single unit and to Hopi's point, you know at some point potentially the land will become part 01:51:51.799 --> 01:51:57.549 - of the subsidy Maybe that's what gets rolled over into a down payment and closing cost assistance one 01:51:57.549 --> 01:51:58.846 - time not repeatedly so 01:51:58.946 --> 01:52:04.526 - We have to, I know what the goal is and it's admirable and it's the mission that I live every single 01:52:04.526 --> 01:52:10.271 - day here while I work for this community to deliver affordable housing and to think otherwise is really 01:52:10.271 --> 01:52:15.906 - offensive, to be perfectly honest with you. But look, we don't know the math. I would love to be able 01:52:15.906 --> 01:52:21.485 - to do even lower, but until we know the math, we can't do it. So please let us come back to you once 01:52:21.485 --> 01:52:27.230 - we know the numbers and tell you what we can deliver to you. Don't strap us with something that doesn't 01:52:27.230 --> 01:52:27.838 - get built. 01:52:31.362 --> 01:52:40.848 - Sorry director Killian Hansen, would you be okay with us passing this like this? I'm sorry say that 01:52:40.848 --> 01:52:50.808 - again in its current form would is this something that you you all would be happy with us passing? Could 01:52:50.808 --> 01:53:00.958 - you possibly scroll down and I would like to look at what you have potentially struck Yes with four struck 01:53:01.090 --> 01:53:09.884 - And and let me just also say that if you guys are into affordable housing and you want us to deliver 01:53:09.884 --> 01:53:14.238 - it Let us use every tool in the toolkit Thank you 01:53:15.202 --> 01:53:25.805 - Hi Dana cool Kerr legal department and I'm the attorney assigned to the Redevelopment Commission and 01:53:25.805 --> 01:53:36.514 - The Redevelopment Commission is only able tonight to speak in regards with its resolution And so also 01:53:36.514 --> 01:53:42.078 - just for the record Anything that would pass tonight 01:53:42.242 --> 01:53:50.956 - that changes the actual text of the PUD would be considered in my legal opinion to be an amendment outside 01:53:50.956 --> 01:53:59.264 - of the purview of the common council and would not be a reasonable condition. So I would like that on 01:53:59.264 --> 01:54:07.652 - the record. Thank you all so much. Okay thank you. Any other questions. I'm sorry I'm lost where we're 01:54:07.652 --> 01:54:10.910 - at. Did you have a motion on the table. 01:54:11.394 --> 01:54:19.262 - Attempted to make a motion. It wasn't seconded. I would draw my attempt. I think I'm satisfied Thank 01:54:19.262 --> 01:54:27.442 - you. Any other questions about this reasonable condition 16 councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, if I could 01:54:27.442 --> 01:54:35.934 - just ask Attorney Allen to give his legal opinion on whether this would be considered a reasonable condition 01:54:39.074 --> 01:54:46.581 - I believe it would be considered a legal condition or a reasonable condition. Additionally, the consideration 01:54:46.581 --> 01:54:53.679 - of PUDs is in a specific part of Indiana code, and that code specifically defines PUDs as a legislative 01:54:53.679 --> 01:55:01.050 - function as part of the ordinance. And so even if it's a change, it doesn't necessarily change the outcome. 01:55:01.050 --> 01:55:07.806 - And furthermore, there's nothing the RDC could potentially say to bind the council in this matter. 01:55:10.114 --> 01:55:20.287 - Thank you. All right. Thank you. With that I think we will go to public comment on reasonable conditions 01:55:20.287 --> 01:55:30.170 - 16 17. Thank you. Reasonable conditions 17. Is there anybody in the public who would like to speak on 01:55:30.170 --> 01:55:37.534 - reasonable conditions 17. No. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You have three minutes. 01:55:37.730 --> 01:55:44.454 - Good evening everybody John zodi and the executive director of CDFI friendly Bloomington. I want to 01:55:44.454 --> 01:55:51.580 - be clear that The administration has not asked me to speak tonight, but I feel compelled to do so because 01:55:51.580 --> 01:55:58.438 - I Just sitting here as a former city employee. I have to be mindful of What happens next right? So if 01:55:58.438 --> 01:56:05.162 - the council passes something what? What are their directives that the administration needs to carry 01:56:05.162 --> 01:56:06.910 - out and I do want to just 01:56:07.746 --> 01:56:17.556 - Keep in mind when we talk about enforceability and the steps that staff would need to go through here, 01:56:17.556 --> 01:56:27.557 - that that does put a certain administrative burden on the folks that work here at the city. As the mayor 01:56:27.557 --> 01:56:36.606 - said earlier, we're talking about individual people looking at purchasing a home. Buyers vary. 01:56:36.866 --> 01:56:43.975 - And as a result, subsidies will need to vary. And flexibility is critical when you're trying to help 01:56:43.975 --> 01:56:51.507 - one person. There's one person in the hand department, at least that I know of right now, who does housing 01:56:51.507 --> 01:56:58.616 - counseling, talks to people who are trying to get into a position to buy a home. And that one person 01:56:58.616 --> 01:57:02.910 - has a lot on their plate. And the city, you know, the state, 01:57:03.074 --> 01:57:10.406 - State legislature's not doing any favors to local government. And so we look at possible future constraints 01:57:10.406 --> 01:57:17.194 - of staff Control arm and Kim was up here talking about future revenue constraints under the RDC the 01:57:17.194 --> 01:57:24.323 - Potential that exists for this neighbor to be transformative is cannot be overstated we're talking about 01:57:24.323 --> 01:57:27.038 - a small portion six acres 98 houses and 01:57:27.522 --> 01:57:33.008 - a certain percentage of which we're talking about being in a certain range. I'm encouraging the council 01:57:33.008 --> 01:57:38.495 - to keep ranges in mind, to keep flexibility in mind. We're talking about individuals. I talked to three 01:57:38.495 --> 01:57:43.876 - lenders in the last couple of weeks. One is a community development finance institution, and two were 01:57:43.876 --> 01:57:49.204 - traditional lenders. And I said, would you lend on homes that have deed restrictions? And they said, 01:57:49.204 --> 01:57:52.158 - we'll have to see them. We need to see the restriction. 01:57:52.450 --> 01:57:58.043 - You don't know a lot of this until you've got that buyer in place who's trying to get a mortgage or 01:57:58.043 --> 01:58:03.748 - a developer trying to get a construction loan. And you don't know this until you know all the factors 01:58:03.748 --> 01:58:09.341 - that are in place and what that capital stack, that stack of money that needs to come into place at 01:58:09.341 --> 01:58:15.046 - the right time and all the right factors lining up. You don't know all that stuff until you have that 01:58:15.046 --> 01:58:20.695 - person or that project in front of you. And then the lender has to take that in, ask for all the due 01:58:20.695 --> 01:58:21.310 - diligence. 01:58:21.442 --> 01:58:28.409 - That's needed to try to move that forward if possible. So it requires an incredible amount of administration 01:58:28.409 --> 01:58:34.801 - time Both for people here and on the project side So as my time expires, I'll just encourage you to 01:58:34.801 --> 01:58:41.385 - keep those ranges in mind keep enforceability in mind and Provide the administration and the staff the 01:58:41.385 --> 01:58:48.161 - maximum amount of flexibility to get this project done. Thank you Thank you very much next public comment 01:58:48.161 --> 01:58:50.398 - right here in the room in chambers 01:58:52.258 --> 01:58:58.809 - Good evening. I'm Deborah Meyerson. I serve as president of the Redevelopment Commission aka the petitioner 01:58:58.809 --> 01:59:04.936 - But I'm only representing myself this evening You do have the resolution that was adopted by the RDC 01:59:04.936 --> 01:59:11.123 - on Monday evening to speak on behalf of the Redevelopment Commission I just wanted to add my personal 01:59:11.123 --> 01:59:17.431 - comments to really encourage I really appreciate and I'm grateful for the dedication and thoughtfulness 01:59:17.431 --> 01:59:21.374 - that council is bringing to the hopeful South PUD discussion and 01:59:21.858 --> 01:59:30.128 - I just want to underscore it's so important to have the certainty of what tools are available and so 01:59:30.128 --> 01:59:38.889 - provide the flexibility as Mr. Zodi commented. That's gonna be so important. We also need the time factor. 01:59:38.889 --> 01:59:47.240 - The more things take longer time, even once the Hope LPD is passed, once we can build it, things that 01:59:47.240 --> 01:59:50.270 - slow things down just make it harder 01:59:50.626 --> 01:59:57.530 - to build and it takes more time. So just encourage thought for how to streamline things, how to make 01:59:57.530 --> 02:00:04.845 - council's goals known as these regional conditions do, but to provide that flexibility so that the project 02:00:04.845 --> 02:00:12.228 - can be built successfully. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Do we have any commenters 02:00:12.228 --> 02:00:17.150 - on Zoom? No commenters on Zoom. Okay, back here in chambers, thank you. 02:00:18.754 --> 02:00:24.397 - Good evening council, this is Chris Ramsey from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and I want 02:00:24.397 --> 02:00:30.040 - to echo the sentiments of the two previous speakers who know housing far more than I do or the chamber 02:00:30.040 --> 02:00:35.902 - does specifically. I'm speaking for the business community and the question tonight is whether Bloomington 02:00:35.902 --> 02:00:41.490 - can still execute complex housing projects and I don't think the jury's in yet on that. We are in the 02:00:41.490 --> 02:00:46.750 - weeds on that and the concern is not the goal. The concern is the feasibility of implementation 02:00:47.458 --> 02:00:54.168 - the unintended consequences. So what's emerging is not like a disagreement on affordability goals, it's 02:00:54.168 --> 02:01:01.200 - the disagreement on how much regulation conditions a project can absorb before affordability and feasibility 02:01:01.200 --> 02:01:08.104 - start competing with each other. And I think that's where we're at now. If we're talking about reasonable, 02:01:08.104 --> 02:01:14.878 - 35 is more reasonable than 50%. What's even more reasonable than 35 is 25% affordability and perpetuity. 02:01:15.394 --> 02:01:22.938 - But the key I think we losing in a little bit is this is just 6.3 acres. This is just the south neighborhood. 02:01:22.938 --> 02:01:30.002 - We have more to build and I would say less complicated early on the better and see how that works out. 02:01:30.002 --> 02:01:37.204 - We're getting very much in the weeds. From the audience perspective, it's getting complex. We're getting 02:01:37.204 --> 02:01:42.622 - into a lot of the finance and not just the land use. We need to make sure that 02:01:42.978 --> 02:01:49.273 - Frankly that the requirements don't become too complex to execute and the end result is no project and 02:01:49.273 --> 02:01:55.690 - no affordability We need housing at all price points. The process needs to move forward eventually Maybe 02:01:55.690 --> 02:02:02.046 - it's not going to be exactly what you want for the particular PUD, but there's other PUDs to be had and 02:02:03.362 --> 02:02:10.269 - Much of Bloomington's affordability, I think, of this framework is built around rental housing models, 02:02:10.269 --> 02:02:16.975 - kind of lost in here, not permanently restricted owner-occupied housing, which is, again, much more 02:02:16.975 --> 02:02:23.748 - restrictive and much needed in giving all the tools to the hand department, to the RDC, to make this 02:02:23.748 --> 02:02:30.655 - happen. So I would encourage this body to move forward and not let perfection be the enemy here. Let's 02:02:30.655 --> 02:02:32.734 - go toward good and make this a 02:02:33.026 --> 02:02:40.864 - Reasonable condition we can all forward with and say we've completed a complex housing project. Thank 02:02:40.864 --> 02:02:48.778 - you Thank you very much Looks like we might have another commenter in chambers here. Come on up to the 02:02:48.778 --> 02:02:56.539 - microphone. You have three minutes Or so the dangers of speaking extemporaneously We cannot separate 02:02:56.539 --> 02:03:01.918 - the issue of the PUD from affordability because affordability is what 02:03:02.050 --> 02:03:11.540 - qualified this as a PUD in the first place. And it's rather tiresome to keep hearing that excuse. The 02:03:11.540 --> 02:03:20.937 - only true permanently affordable mechanism is shared equity. Community land trust is the primary one 02:03:20.937 --> 02:03:30.334 - used around the country. All the other mechanisms will require a continuous input, a continual input 02:03:31.202 --> 02:03:36.855 - Every time there's a new buyer what I would predict will happen is that you will if you monitor it for 02:03:36.855 --> 02:03:42.782 - five years Is that hardly anybody will sell the house and fuck their house in five years? And so everything 02:03:42.782 --> 02:03:48.326 - will look fine until the first sale comes up and you find out it's no longer affordable for the next 02:03:48.326 --> 02:03:54.034 - person That's the that's what happens with a fixed subsidy to use the mayor's Analogy with a roof. It's 02:03:54.034 --> 02:03:59.522 - like you pay for the roof and then the house doubles in size and you still have that same size roof 02:03:59.522 --> 02:04:00.894 - It just doesn't cover it 02:04:01.090 --> 02:04:08.133 - It's just mathematics But I think what's going on here is that there's an there's an ideological difference 02:04:08.133 --> 02:04:14.916 - as some of the council members have suggested There's an ideological opposition to allowing a homeowner 02:04:14.916 --> 02:04:21.894 - to only get part of the equity accrual but in my mind, it's a fair balance between helping out a homeowner 02:04:21.894 --> 02:04:28.611 - getting out of rent in particular and the best use of public dollars as again some of you have already 02:04:28.611 --> 02:04:30.046 - said it's a matter of 02:04:31.778 --> 02:04:41.791 - Helping a few a lot versus helping many a little bit less and As in public dollars, I would I would 02:04:41.791 --> 02:04:52.005 - take the second choice It is exasperating to hear about how how the administration is warning against 02:04:52.005 --> 02:04:58.814 - using a land trust, but actually while the land trust is what would 02:04:59.138 --> 02:05:05.067 - automatically make all the homes under it more affordable. Because you're talking about the homeowner 02:05:05.067 --> 02:05:10.414 - having to buy only the price of the house or the improvements on the land and not the land. 02:05:10.414 --> 02:05:16.460 - So it automatically reduces the price by two thirds. Everything becomes more affordable. It's just that 02:05:16.460 --> 02:05:22.621 - you don't get the equity accrual. How important is that equity accrual? Aren't we talking about permanent 02:05:22.621 --> 02:05:27.678 - affordability? If you want certainty, I would say 50% must be in a land trust, period. 02:05:28.674 --> 02:05:39.166 - I think right now, the mirror's just dug in our heels and just doesn't want it. Can you dig in your 02:05:39.166 --> 02:05:50.077 - heels? I don't know. Thank you. Thank you. Did we have any other commenters on Zoom pop up? Nope, okay. 02:05:50.077 --> 02:05:58.366 - Do we have one more commenter here in chambers? Steve Olin. I've been privy to 02:05:58.658 --> 02:06:06.212 - many such difficult Decisions as you're making now Over the years and I've been familiar with some that 02:06:06.212 --> 02:06:13.766 - happened before my time. I just want to point Once again to the garages at Morton Street and 7th Street 02:06:13.766 --> 02:06:21.102 - when they were approved in the early aughts They were approved that the ordinance called for fees to 02:06:21.102 --> 02:06:26.622 - increase every several years and for the council to pay attention to it and 02:06:26.754 --> 02:06:34.834 - We didn't discover this and I didn't discover this is a council until 2015 something like that The fees 02:06:34.834 --> 02:06:43.069 - had never been increased council made no effort to track the results of that ordinance after they adopted 02:06:43.069 --> 02:06:51.305 - it In 20, I think it was 17 when the council first adopted Special conditions for the project that became 02:06:51.305 --> 02:06:56.510 - with the building like urban station the buildings on South Walnut 02:06:56.642 --> 02:07:03.623 - At the time the discourse was something like Well, this is the best we can do now and then within a 02:07:03.623 --> 02:07:10.813 - few months within a year. We realized that That the city could have done better could have gotten more 02:07:10.813 --> 02:07:17.864 - out of that developer but for the most part what I'm concerned about here is that Regardless of that 02:07:17.864 --> 02:07:24.914 - I mean I I know that the buck stops with the electives in the room the mayor and the nine of you are 02:07:24.914 --> 02:07:25.822 - the ones who 02:07:26.146 --> 02:07:33.329 - have the ability to drive this discussion, driving this discussion, and you all as legislators have 02:07:33.329 --> 02:07:40.728 - the right to fully understand the question at hand. And it's been a struggle sitting out here to fully 02:07:40.728 --> 02:07:47.912 - understand the question. I don't know what the answers are. I do know that you're making a decision 02:07:47.912 --> 02:07:55.742 - that will last a century. That you're making a decision that you may have trouble monitoring once it's made. 02:07:56.642 --> 02:08:02.201 - And either if you can come up with some kind of a mechanism that allows you to, I mean it seemed like 02:08:02.201 --> 02:08:08.087 - you're making an effort to do that with the checking in every six months for five years. This is a decision 02:08:08.087 --> 02:08:13.536 - that's gonna last more than five years. So you're developing an entire neighborhood. A century from 02:08:13.536 --> 02:08:19.041 - now people are gonna ask how it was built. And I'd ask you to keep that in mind and not be afraid to 02:08:19.041 --> 02:08:24.818 - take the time you need to make the right decision, whatever that is. I'm agnostic on the actual solution. 02:08:24.818 --> 02:08:26.398 - I just want to encourage you 02:08:26.786 --> 02:08:33.266 - to make the right decision, even if it takes a little longer. It's not right for anyone to tell you 02:08:33.266 --> 02:08:40.069 - that you should hurry up and decide already. I get that the moment is on you. I get that it's important. 02:08:40.069 --> 02:08:47.132 - That's all the reason why you need to have the bravery to take the time you need to make the right decision, 02:08:47.132 --> 02:08:52.510 - to fully understand what it is you're about to do. Thank you. Thank you very much. 02:08:52.674 --> 02:09:00.715 - One last check, do we have anybody on Zoom? We do have someone on Zoom. Okay, another public commenter. 02:09:00.715 --> 02:09:08.910 - Go ahead, you can unmute yourself and you have three minutes. Hi, this is Cody Toothman. I am an employee 02:09:08.910 --> 02:09:17.028 - with the hand department who is also a housing counselor. I will have to say that I do agree with nearly 02:09:17.028 --> 02:09:21.822 - everybody who's spoken this evening. There are many different 02:09:22.338 --> 02:09:29.326 - advantages and downfalls you can have with any kind of mechanism for affordability, especially in the 02:09:29.326 --> 02:09:36.177 - long term. However, in my duties as a housing counselor, the one thing that I definitely experience 02:09:36.177 --> 02:09:43.302 - is that there is certainly not a one size fits all model that will encompass the needs of every family, 02:09:43.302 --> 02:09:50.358 - which is why I'm definitely in support of a range of possibilities to determine that affordability and 02:09:50.358 --> 02:09:51.934 - help carry it forward. 02:09:52.418 --> 02:10:02.994 - In counseling everybody every day and seeing these changes, I do think it is important, at least to 02:10:02.994 --> 02:10:13.569 - highlight the disadvantages that anything can have. And I believe that some of that information has 02:10:13.569 --> 02:10:17.694 - been presented to the council as well. 02:10:20.226 --> 02:10:28.040 - echoing everybody's point that came up here, I don't think there's any harm in viewing all of these 02:10:28.040 --> 02:10:35.854 - options to see what we can do for people, to see how we can secure these things. And there is a way 02:10:35.854 --> 02:10:44.215 - beyond a land trust to actually ensure that affordability can continue forward. So I do happen to disagree 02:10:44.215 --> 02:10:47.262 - with that one point. But to that note, 02:10:47.426 --> 02:10:53.674 - all of these things, even some of the models that have been presented have actually been engaged with 02:10:53.674 --> 02:10:59.921 - land trusts throughout the country and some of which are becoming increasingly popular, whether it be 02:10:59.921 --> 02:11:06.169 - index models for determining affordability or the like. So it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to 02:11:06.169 --> 02:11:12.477 - be employed within a land trust though. So I would say to keep those things in mind with anything that 02:11:12.477 --> 02:11:13.886 - we present forward and 02:11:14.626 --> 02:11:21.342 - as we have more information as it moves forward to completion, then we can actually make better 02:11:21.342 --> 02:11:28.408 - determinations once we know those things further. All right, thank you very much. I think that wraps 02:11:28.408 --> 02:11:35.614 - it up for public commenters. Yes, okay, wonderful. So now we come back to council for council comment. 02:11:35.614 --> 02:11:42.750 - We did question, yeah, thank you. Council comment, anybody have a comment on reasonable condition 17? 02:11:48.290 --> 02:11:58.787 - All right council member Stossberg. So I've been thinking really hard about this affordability issue 02:11:58.787 --> 02:12:09.491 - with this beauty for like a long time it feels like now. And I appreciate everybody who just commented 02:12:09.491 --> 02:12:16.350 - in general on it. And I think honestly I have to vote no on this. 02:12:16.962 --> 02:12:24.457 - reasonable condition partly because for is struck and I appreciate that for made things complex and 02:12:24.457 --> 02:12:32.102 - I'm not sure that it was phrased perfectly but especially I mean we had a former member of City staff 02:12:32.102 --> 02:12:39.823 - and the actually former hand director speak and then Hand employee speak and both of them talked about 02:12:39.823 --> 02:12:43.870 - flexibility and both of them talked about The kind of 02:12:44.034 --> 02:12:51.754 - intense part of of working with people and the staff time that takes and it takes incredible staff time 02:12:51.754 --> 02:12:59.252 - and I feel like as part of the fiscal body like I'm really I really want this to be successful right 02:12:59.252 --> 02:13:03.038 - and It makes me really uncomfortable to kind of be 02:13:03.202 --> 02:13:08.385 - totally okaying something without having to come back in public at all to use these mechanisms because 02:13:08.385 --> 02:13:13.417 - I know that the hand department is really stretched right now and we are asking the hand department 02:13:13.417 --> 02:13:18.751 - to do a whole lot more. We're asking somebody to do a whole lot more. Maybe I should say somebody because 02:13:18.751 --> 02:13:23.934 - we haven't actually been told who's gonna do it, but who else would do it besides the hand department? 02:13:24.290 --> 02:13:30.670 - And I know that the administration has been working on various collaborative stuff with other community 02:13:30.670 --> 02:13:36.927 - organizations in town, but nothing is actually finalized and firmed up. And so without that finalized 02:13:36.927 --> 02:13:43.368 - and firmed up, I feel really financially insecure about, well, what kind of subsidy is going to be there 02:13:43.368 --> 02:13:49.502 - in the future? Number three does talk about things should be independent of ongoing public subsidy. 02:13:49.602 --> 02:13:55.786 - But, well, we can use them if we really have to, and I guess I think that ultimately in the future as 02:13:55.786 --> 02:14:01.849 - these sales go on, depending on which mechanisms are used and how they're used, we're just going to 02:14:01.849 --> 02:14:07.973 - have to subsidize more and more and more in one way or another, whether that's larger silent seconds 02:14:07.973 --> 02:14:12.702 - or whether that's more staff members, and to guarantee that right now without 02:14:12.834 --> 02:14:20.327 - any kind of specific ask to come back to council about, you know, council saying, yeah, let's do that. 02:14:20.327 --> 02:14:27.747 - Because those things can get buried in budgets really easily. And so I, that's, yeah, I sadly am just 02:14:27.747 --> 02:14:35.458 - gonna have to vote no on this reasonable condition, thanks. Council Member Zulek. Yeah, could you, anyone 02:14:35.458 --> 02:14:41.278 - in this room who doesn't own property, could you please raise your hand? Right. 02:14:41.762 --> 02:14:49.070 - So just to be clear, there are about five people in this room of 60 who do not own property. And I've 02:14:49.070 --> 02:14:56.378 - heard a lot of people who own property say that there is no urgency. There is urgency for those of us 02:14:56.378 --> 02:14:58.814 - who do not own. There is urgency. 02:14:59.074 --> 02:15:05.455 - You might not see it, but it's there. It's across our community. It's the 850 people who pick up their 02:15:05.455 --> 02:15:11.837 - mail at the Shalom Center. It's the people who sleep outside at night. It's the people who are nervous 02:15:11.837 --> 02:15:18.156 - because they don't know if they have any resources to protect them when they're renting an apartment. 02:15:18.156 --> 02:15:24.476 - Like, this is urgent. We need to vote on this tonight. It is embarrassing to do anything further. Any 02:15:24.476 --> 02:15:27.326 - other comments? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. 02:15:29.058 --> 02:15:37.883 - Yeah, um, obviously I'm going to vote for this reasonable condition. Um, I do want to, uh, go back to 02:15:37.883 --> 02:15:46.967 - just say, I think overall the Pewdie proposal is really good. It's a lot better than what could be built 02:15:46.967 --> 02:15:55.705 - by right. Um, but I do, I do think I agree with Mr. Russo that, um, there seems to be an ideological 02:15:55.705 --> 02:15:56.830 - block on the 02:15:57.122 --> 02:16:05.601 - part of the mayor's administration against community land trusts or land leases, whereas that really 02:16:05.601 --> 02:16:13.997 - seems to be the only way to not need further public subsidy down the road. So maybe it doesn't seem 02:16:13.997 --> 02:16:22.812 - feasible now, but I encourage the administration, the RDC in hand, to keep that avenue open as an option 02:16:22.812 --> 02:16:25.918 - in the future. All right. Thank you. 02:16:26.210 --> 02:16:34.060 - Councilmember rough then councilmember Rosenberger then councilmember Flaherty. I'm lining you guys 02:16:34.060 --> 02:16:41.909 - up and then councilmember. Sorry Remember your order. Thank you There's been a lot of discussion on 02:16:41.909 --> 02:16:49.759 - the complexities of finance and regulations of construction and what the state will allow and won't 02:16:49.759 --> 02:16:55.646 - and Complications at all facets of doing this project and of the council's 02:16:56.770 --> 02:17:05.378 - role or roles that the council maybe practically can't play, though council has made many priorities 02:17:05.378 --> 02:17:14.241 - clear, but we're often find ourselves feeling, or at least I speak for myself, feeling like, well, what 02:17:14.241 --> 02:17:22.934 - can we really do? Well, one thing we can do, and Councilmember Zulik just talked about the urgency in 02:17:22.934 --> 02:17:24.894 - the numbers of people. 02:17:25.346 --> 02:17:33.944 - One thing we can do that doesn't mess with really the mechanisms or the financing tools are allowing 02:17:33.944 --> 02:17:43.309 - the flexibility It's making the percentage going for the high percentage going for the high bar on percentage 02:17:43.309 --> 02:17:51.993 - of units of affordable units, so I agree councilman Brazilic and I'm gonna I'm not gonna support this 02:17:51.993 --> 02:17:54.206 - with a 35% one thing that 02:17:54.498 --> 02:18:03.864 - I feel like can be Set clear is a high bar on on the the amount of affordability we're going to have 02:18:03.864 --> 02:18:13.231 - in the in the project and Then fine let the tools the flexibility in the financing and all the other 02:18:13.231 --> 02:18:22.597 - 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 02:18:22.597 --> 02:18:23.710 - problematic 02:18:24.418 --> 02:18:36.747 - It can be changed later, but it would be The bodies represent the larger legislative body the handles 02:18:36.747 --> 02:18:48.834 - pods PUDs and I just don't feel like the the council this one area where I Think it's hard to argue 02:18:48.834 --> 02:18:51.614 - that We're meddling to 02:18:52.066 --> 02:19:01.233 - to recognize the need in the community and say we need to go go we need to aim high as high as possible. 02:19:01.233 --> 02:19:10.575 - So I'm probably going to vote no for that reason. Council member Rosenbacher did you want to make comment. 02:19:10.575 --> 02:19:19.742 - Hi. Yes thank you. I just have a couple of notes trying to parse them out of my notes on the general PD. 02:19:20.066 --> 02:19:27.013 - I think it is still worth saying land trusts are the most effective and successful method of permanent 02:19:27.013 --> 02:19:33.757 - affordability comparing Arlington Road land trust with what might happen in a walkable neighborhood 02:19:33.757 --> 02:19:40.569 - downtown is pretty different. It's unfortunate. I think tonight was the first night we've heard that 02:19:40.569 --> 02:19:48.190 - they don't plan to use the land trust whatsoever in this PUD. Also I have said this often too but talking to the 02:19:48.706 --> 02:19:55.797 - person running the land trust we have sold seven homes with as low as I think 37 percent am I which 02:19:55.797 --> 02:20:03.029 - is very awesome and as high as one hundred and five percent am I because anyone over one hundred five 02:20:03.029 --> 02:20:06.078 - percent am I has been buying market right. 02:20:09.026 --> 02:20:15.763 - It's hard to support anything with 35 percent AMI or permanent affordability. A range is useless. I 02:20:15.763 --> 02:20:22.567 - think we've heard multiple times in this discussion we all want 100 percent permanent affordability. 02:20:22.567 --> 02:20:25.598 - So why not put that at the top of the range. 02:20:26.754 --> 02:20:35.190 - Also this PD came to us with 15% permanent affordability, which was not even it was lower than what 02:20:35.190 --> 02:20:43.626 - the UDO requires is lower than what our city code requires that we had to fight to get it up to 25% 02:20:43.626 --> 02:20:52.146 - and it's taken almost all of these three months to get a reasonable condition that is now sitting at 02:20:52.146 --> 02:20:53.918 - 35%. So I think I am 02:20:54.242 --> 02:21:00.921 - a lot of an optimist and like to take advantage of opportunities. This is such a rare opportunity in 02:21:00.921 --> 02:21:07.600 - some of the memos we got talking about we would never make a private developer do this. I think that 02:21:07.600 --> 02:21:14.477 - is correct because this is a rare opportunity that we can create more permanently affordable homes than 02:21:14.477 --> 02:21:21.090 - we would require of a private developer. And that's why I think the 50 percent is really important. 02:21:21.090 --> 02:21:21.950 - I also think 02:21:22.114 --> 02:21:29.853 - We aren't going to look back and regret 50 percent and say dang I wish we would have gone lower in the 02:21:29.853 --> 02:21:37.442 - PUD. I'm basically the way I'm leaning on this is I think however it's like an interesting vote here 02:21:37.442 --> 02:21:43.678 - that something needs to get approved but I don't necessarily know that this is it. 02:21:44.866 --> 02:21:50.477 - Of course one of the reasons I ran for council in 2019 is because we freaking need more housing here 02:21:50.477 --> 02:21:56.088 - like of all kinds we need more rentals we need housing rentals we need all kinds of housing sizes we 02:21:56.088 --> 02:22:01.754 - need condos we need everything I mean mostly the missing middle that we've talked a ton about we need 02:22:01.754 --> 02:22:07.309 - them at all the price points we need them at market rate we need them at permanently affordable. My 02:22:07.309 --> 02:22:12.975 - other comments I think I will hold for the general PD discussion but I'm just going to see how things 02:22:12.975 --> 02:22:14.142 - pan out on this one. 02:22:16.994 --> 02:22:23.900 - Councilmember Flaherty Yeah, I'm also on the fence I tend to favor reasonable condition 15 with section 02:22:23.900 --> 02:22:30.805 - 9 struck and would definitely vote for that Which was at the 50% level? Just wanted to comment briefly. 02:22:30.805 --> 02:22:37.445 - I mean the It's what's become very clear among other things from this and the delays that have been 02:22:37.445 --> 02:22:44.417 - involved in working through it is that when you try to do things that aren't in code and like it doesn't 02:22:44.417 --> 02:22:45.214 - go well and 02:22:45.730 --> 02:22:51.513 - this PUD literally is not code compliant still to this date. What they brought to us is not code compliant. 02:22:51.513 --> 02:22:56.868 - And what's funny is that we're being told a reasonable condition is still, isn't even legally valid 02:22:56.868 --> 02:23:02.276 - according to the city attorney, which flies in the face of all other legal advice we've gotten for a 02:23:02.276 --> 02:23:07.791 - long, long time. So that's causing delays. That is causing all the delays. If they just would have met 02:23:07.791 --> 02:23:13.253 - code on infrastructure, on affordability and all the things, we would have passed it in a meeting. So 02:23:13.253 --> 02:23:14.110 - that's too bad. 02:23:14.274 --> 02:23:21.765 - I really do have reservations about the unwillingness to use the value of the land in a land trust model 02:23:21.765 --> 02:23:29.184 - to ensure permanent affordability because I think the devil's in the details there and it actually will 02:23:29.184 --> 02:23:36.318 - lead to dramatically different fiscal picture and obligations into the future to maintain permanent 02:23:36.318 --> 02:23:43.166 - affordability. But I'm not sure if we, what I'm worried will happen if we pass at the 50% level 02:23:43.554 --> 02:23:48.897 - come back and change it if it's not feasible is that the administration, ostensibly the petitioner or 02:23:48.897 --> 02:23:54.240 - RDC, will just come back and say it's not feasible because we don't want to use a land trust. If it's 02:23:54.240 --> 02:23:59.689 - not feasible with the tools that we're willing to use is what I think the conversation is going to look 02:23:59.689 --> 02:24:05.189 - like. Then we're back in the exact same place, which is that there seems to be an ideological difference 02:24:05.189 --> 02:24:09.694 - between maybe a majority of council members and the mayor who's driving the bus here. 02:24:10.626 --> 02:24:18.096 - Just don't I don't know where that leaves us. I really are it's something of an impasse on that particular 02:24:18.096 --> 02:24:25.357 - issue So I truly don't know how many vote on this condition, but I know I would support 15 with section 02:24:25.357 --> 02:24:32.339 - 9 removed to make it simpler. Thanks Councilmember sorry, thank you and and thank you to all all of 02:24:32.339 --> 02:24:39.390 - all my colleagues You know, I think as as relates to You know what the what happens next question if 02:24:39.650 --> 02:24:49.675 - If we pass something with 50%, I think regardless, they're going to come back and say that that's not 02:24:49.675 --> 02:24:59.897 - gonna work at some point. The more than likely outcome is gonna be something like that and or that they 02:24:59.897 --> 02:25:06.974 - withdraw it and we're just sort of back at the drawing board. You know, 02:25:07.586 --> 02:25:16.318 - My thought is that in working together with the first of three hopeful things here, I think that yes, 02:25:16.318 --> 02:25:25.136 - we want supply of housing. We want a diversity of housing. I think that those two things are being met 02:25:25.136 --> 02:25:33.868 - in the foundational proposal. And I agree that we want more permanent affordable housing. And I think 02:25:33.868 --> 02:25:36.094 - particularly because this 02:25:36.418 --> 02:25:45.585 - Land that we own I think that that's what does make this distinct. I think the councilmember Rosenberger's 02:25:45.585 --> 02:25:54.324 - point But but but I I really think that um, I think that we We should move forward on voting for this 02:25:54.324 --> 02:26:03.234 - now We've given them tools to allow for multiple different iterations here. I mean we are talking about 02:26:03.234 --> 02:26:04.862 - a long horizon and 02:26:04.994 --> 02:26:11.424 - So the possibility of using, for example, a second soft mortgage or a silent mortgage on the 02:26:11.424 --> 02:26:18.613 - first transaction and then converting that to a land trust or something like that. I think all of those 02:26:18.613 --> 02:26:26.011 - things are possible within the framework that we've established here. So I just think that we're elevating 02:26:26.011 --> 02:26:28.638 - the amount of permanent affordability 02:26:28.770 --> 02:26:35.653 - I don't want to do that to the extent that we diminish supply or make the buildout phases take forever, 02:26:35.653 --> 02:26:42.535 - for example. Not forever, but they could take a very long time. I think some of the examples that we're 02:26:42.535 --> 02:26:49.219 - pulling on from land trust models, what we have in town, is that it's been quite a slow time to find 02:26:49.219 --> 02:26:51.006 - buyers. For that, I really 02:26:51.330 --> 02:27:00.206 - would hope that we could vote for this. I think if we vote for this, we can then vote for the whole 02:27:00.206 --> 02:27:09.259 - PUD and move on with our lives. But yeah, and so yeah, that's none eloquent, but my thoughts on this. 02:27:09.259 --> 02:27:18.046 - All right. Thank you, everyone. And so now, I think we can take a vote on reasonable condition 17. 02:27:21.858 --> 02:27:38.387 - Okay, that's Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rollo. 02:27:38.387 --> 02:27:51.646 - No. No. Rosenberger. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Flaherty. Yes. 02:27:52.386 --> 02:28:01.433 - And Stasberg no All right, thank you very much that passes reasonable condition 17 6 to 3 My smart ring 02:28:01.433 --> 02:28:10.481 - is incredibly concerned about my stress levels right now. So I'm gonna pass the gavel back over to Vice 02:28:10.481 --> 02:28:19.006 - President Zulek Welcome are there any final comments on or final questions on the PUD as a whole? 02:28:21.442 --> 02:28:28.359 - Great, we will go to public comments. If anyone would like to speak on the PUD as a whole, this will 02:28:28.359 --> 02:28:34.934 - be the last opportunity tonight to speak on Hopewell. Please join us at the podium. Okay, none, 02:28:34.934 --> 02:28:41.851 - any on Zoom? Okay, then thank you all for making that brief. We'll go back to council comment, final 02:28:41.851 --> 02:28:48.768 - council comment. Council member Flaherty. I'll try to keep it brief. I spoke on some of these issues 02:28:48.768 --> 02:28:50.686 - already, which is just that 02:28:51.586 --> 02:28:58.021 - It took me a moment to realize, I think the structural challenge with all this was really that normally 02:28:58.021 --> 02:29:04.333 - we rely heavily on staff to review and represent the city's interests, vis-a-vis a petitioner, and in 02:29:04.333 --> 02:29:10.644 - this case, functionally, they were one and the same. The RDC and the reviewers, the people we rely on 02:29:10.644 --> 02:29:17.079 - in staff, it was just one basic thing. Director Hittle at one point kind of referred to the RDC's hired 02:29:17.079 --> 02:29:19.678 - support and said, you know, let her cook. 02:29:19.906 --> 02:29:26.374 - And that to me was like the moment it all clicked. I was like, oh, right. They're just bringing the 02:29:26.374 --> 02:29:32.972 - petition. And that's okay. It amplifies the role and the responsibility and the diligence required of 02:29:32.972 --> 02:29:39.635 - counsel when that's the case, which I think is part of what was going on here the last two months. And 02:29:39.635 --> 02:29:46.750 - then second, I think the fact that there were so many deviations from what our plans say, what code requires, 02:29:46.914 --> 02:29:53.260 - what we would typically and always have required of other petitioners. So if those things had not been 02:29:53.260 --> 02:29:59.421 - true, I think we would have very quickly gotten to resolution on this PUD as well. And so those are 02:29:59.421 --> 02:30:05.767 - the two major structural things or substantive things that I wanted to reflect on and hope that we can 02:30:05.767 --> 02:30:12.298 - try to avoid replicating in the future. It's also clear that some code updates on permanent affordability 02:30:12.298 --> 02:30:16.734 - so that we just have that defined and clear would be very, very useful. 02:30:17.090 --> 02:30:23.560 - 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 02:30:23.560 --> 02:30:29.783 - the policy changes to the UDO that Accomplish almost everything this PUD needed to needed the PUD to 02:30:29.783 --> 02:30:35.945 - accomplish by making it just allowed instead So with that I I'm glad to support where we ultimately 02:30:35.945 --> 02:30:41.182 - got on this beauty. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Councilmember Stasberg 02:30:45.826 --> 02:30:53.721 - Appreciate councilmember Flaherty's words right now. I There were just so many pieces of struggle in 02:30:53.721 --> 02:31:01.772 - getting where we are right now and I think that he highlighted where those were coming from and I also 02:31:01.772 --> 02:31:09.744 - want to highlight the amount of misinformation and spin that has been put out around this PUD and how 02:31:09.744 --> 02:31:15.294 - disappointing and frustrating that that has been and I think that that 02:31:16.450 --> 02:31:23.818 - The misinformation especially is just absurd. And one of the things that I have not highlighted, but 02:31:23.818 --> 02:31:31.114 - I will right now, is that this got spun as like, well, by right, you can only put 27 dwelling units 02:31:31.114 --> 02:31:37.534 - on it, or 28, one of those figures. But actually, by right, duplexes are allowed in R4. 02:31:38.018 --> 02:31:46.811 - and multifamily is a conditional use in R4 as R4 plexes and triplexes. And so some of this reasoning 02:31:46.811 --> 02:31:56.039 - and just that spin and you know, I am not a politician. I mean, I'm sitting up here, I know, but I cringe 02:31:56.039 --> 02:32:05.790 - 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 02:32:05.986 --> 02:32:13.882 - you know, we all know politicians put spin on things, right? And I really just, the spin makes me cringe. 02:32:13.882 --> 02:32:21.406 - And I was telling this to a couple people, like, I am not good at spin because I just like my, like, 02:32:21.666 --> 02:32:29.193 - about my RBF just gives me away. I'm like, no, this is not cool. And if there's anything that you know, 02:32:29.193 --> 02:32:36.430 - I'm not gonna BS you around stuff. And if I feel a certain way, I'm just gonna say it. And that and 02:32:36.430 --> 02:32:44.030 - spin are not really conducive to each other. But it's just really disappointing that the community heard 02:32:44.030 --> 02:32:48.734 - so much spin around this in ways that were not productive toward 02:32:49.026 --> 02:32:57.663 - an outcome that any of us wanted, any of the nine of us up here, any of the community members out there, 02:32:57.663 --> 02:33:06.054 - any of the staff, any of the RDC. This was not productive use of our time. And the spin really helped 02:33:06.054 --> 02:33:14.445 - make it even less productive. And I hope that there can be less spin and more accurate information in 02:33:14.445 --> 02:33:17.406 - the future. Thank you. Anyone else? 02:33:19.746 --> 02:33:28.841 - Councilmember Rosenberger. Thanks. Thank you a couple things to add to this Pudds are they can be hard 02:33:28.841 --> 02:33:37.672 - right and they in the last administration we tried to change code to discourage Pudds and I kind of 02:33:37.672 --> 02:33:46.502 - thought we were done doing Pudds and I hope that we are I hope there were some lessons learned from 02:33:46.502 --> 02:33:48.798 - the petitioner that maybe 02:33:48.962 --> 02:33:56.200 - Don't bring a PUD that's inferior to our code, at least. Changing the code would have been faster here, 02:33:56.200 --> 02:34:03.437 - so I would love for everyone to work together. I know we have at least one resolution on the table that 02:34:03.437 --> 02:34:10.744 - will get the ball rolling to have some discussions, to send it to Planning and Plan Commission to change 02:34:10.744 --> 02:34:17.982 - our code so that what the petitioner wanted to do could get done, and other developers could do it too. 02:34:20.706 --> 02:34:29.743 - There was a lot of spin, I guess that's a generous word, about this PUD. This PUD came to us I think 02:34:29.743 --> 02:34:38.959 - at the end of February. That's 26 months after the administration started. We've had this PUD for then 02:34:38.959 --> 02:34:41.822 - three months. It took 27 months 02:34:42.114 --> 02:34:49.720 - Bring something and when it passed the planned Commission planned Commission said the City Council would 02:34:49.720 --> 02:34:57.036 - 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 02:34:57.036 --> 02:35:04.352 - done the best we could To get to a place that is passable. I think it is Neat to have little lots. I 02:35:04.352 --> 02:35:12.030 - have been encouraging decreasing minimum lot sizes across our city Since I got here and before I got here 02:35:12.674 --> 02:35:20.855 - I think that would be exciting if we actually do and let others do what the RDC is about to do. So I 02:35:20.855 --> 02:35:29.117 - hope that this is, I guess, the beginning of a conversation. I don't think this PUD needs to be built 02:35:29.117 --> 02:35:35.678 - and then studied. I think that we need to do the things that we want to do here. 02:35:37.378 --> 02:35:43.604 - The petitioners consultant did say let us do this and then maybe code will change But I just very much 02:35:43.604 --> 02:35:49.950 - disagreed with that that just kind of stuck with me that I wish we would have been an example of Working 02:35:49.950 --> 02:35:56.115 - to change code and then or I wish the petitioner would have been an example of working to change code 02:35:56.115 --> 02:36:02.160 - And then letting other people do it, too. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you to everyone 02:36:02.160 --> 02:36:06.814 - up here and everywhere for working on this other comments councilman Rosario 02:36:07.490 --> 02:36:14.029 - I just want to thank first and foremost the public and those of you who are here today. I know you want 02:36:14.029 --> 02:36:20.316 - to talk about what we're about to talk about and we are going to give you a lot of time now because 02:36:20.316 --> 02:36:26.791 - you've been patient. So we're so grateful, so very grateful for that. But of course also to the public 02:36:26.791 --> 02:36:30.878 - who's been here now for two and a half months, you know, engaged 02:36:31.042 --> 02:36:39.103 - even previously with so many of these conversations. Just so grateful for your patience and also your 02:36:39.103 --> 02:36:47.006 - contributions, diligence, care about not just this process, but about the results. And I think that 02:36:47.006 --> 02:36:55.146 - we've heard from people all across the city on all sides of all of these arguments that we've had. And 02:36:55.146 --> 02:36:56.094 - I know that 02:36:56.194 --> 02:37:03.383 - our processes sometimes and sort of the way that we have to make sausages. I mean, sausage making is 02:37:03.383 --> 02:37:10.501 - kind of gross in reality, but the way that we have to go about it is very frustrating. I think it's 02:37:10.501 --> 02:37:18.259 - frustrating to all of us as well. I think that we, in addition to the many powerful points that my colleague 02:37:18.259 --> 02:37:26.160 - Council Member Flaherty raised, I think that this has also illustrated some strains that exist in some of just 02:37:26.160 --> 02:37:33.113 - general processes. And I know that many of our residents, when we try to change our processes, get very 02:37:33.113 --> 02:37:40.200 - frustrated that we spend all of this time trying to talk about how things are introduced and what motions 02:37:40.200 --> 02:37:46.885 - we allow and all of those type of things. But I think it also showed a lot of pain there. But also, 02:37:46.885 --> 02:37:53.771 - the last thing that I'll say is that in addition to supporting this, I want to thank all my colleagues 02:37:53.771 --> 02:37:55.710 - because I think that, again, 02:37:55.906 --> 02:38:02.562 - I think to the point that Councilmember Stasberg raised, you know, I think that we've had a lot of heated 02:38:02.562 --> 02:38:09.219 - discussions, but I think it's notable that, you know, people have really put in a lot of time in studying 02:38:09.219 --> 02:38:14.996 - and trying to come up with the best answers and trying to work with people across the city. 02:38:14.996 --> 02:38:21.464 - So just again, thank you to all of you for working so hard on this as well. So very happy to be voting 02:38:21.464 --> 02:38:24.478 - for it today. Anyone else? Councilmember Rallo. 02:38:24.770 --> 02:38:32.686 - Thanks very briefly. I just want to say thanks to my colleagues and thanks the administration for working 02:38:32.686 --> 02:38:40.155 - through this What turned out to be a very difficult? Pud but and I am somewhat disappointed This is 02:38:40.155 --> 02:38:47.922 - clearly workforce housing and I think that we need to set the bar higher in the future But what I would 02:38:47.922 --> 02:38:54.494 - like to do right now since as was brought up by my colleague councilmember Flaherty and 02:38:54.658 --> 02:39:05.573 - corporate council Apparently continues to challenge our statutory ability to apply reasonable conditions 02:39:05.573 --> 02:39:16.073 - to PUDs I am I think that this is a bad precedent if this continues so we had a determination by our 02:39:16.073 --> 02:39:22.206 - Attorney our outside council that determined otherwise and 02:39:22.946 --> 02:39:30.910 - It was given to all of us on council Under attorney-client privilege. I am one client of nine and so 02:39:30.910 --> 02:39:38.952 - I would like to make a motion to submit that information from outside council to the minutes and I've 02:39:38.952 --> 02:39:46.916 - discussed this with our city clerk Nicole Bolden she She's agreeable to this supportive of it and so 02:39:46.916 --> 02:39:52.830 - I'd like to make the motion to submit that to the minutes for this meeting 02:39:55.266 --> 02:40:03.564 - Second point of order There is a motion on the table legislation we need to do that first You're right 02:40:03.564 --> 02:40:11.701 - councilmember Rollo, would you like to withdraw your motion? I would withdraw the motion and make it 02:40:11.701 --> 02:40:19.757 - as soon as we dispose of the great Pud thank you. Is there a motion to approve the PUD with well, I 02:40:19.757 --> 02:40:24.510 - think we have to do one with the reasonable conditions and 02:40:24.642 --> 02:40:38.202 - pending approval of the RDC a Specific motion. I don't need to oh, okay in that case. Will the clerk 02:40:38.202 --> 02:40:51.763 - please call the roll? Yes, councilmember Zulek, yes I'm sorry. Yes, daily. Yes Rollo. Yes rough. Yes 02:40:51.763 --> 02:40:53.374 - Rosenberger 02:40:54.850 --> 02:41:10.035 - Yes, clarity. Yes Stasburg Piedmont Smith. Yes Thank you with a vote of 9-0 that passes Legislation 02:41:10.035 --> 02:41:22.334 - for a first reading I'd like to make my motion that I just described to submit a 02:41:22.466 --> 02:41:32.395 - information provided by our outside council regarding our ability to Make reasonable conditions the 02:41:32.395 --> 02:41:42.721 - PUDs second great. There's been a motion and a second any discussion Okay, well the clerk Councilmember 02:41:42.721 --> 02:41:49.374 - Flaherty I guess I on the fly if Councillor Allen, do you have any 02:41:49.922 --> 02:41:56.013 - Opinions about the downside risks of releasing attorney-client privileged information memos. They were 02:41:56.013 --> 02:42:02.163 - provided to the council with respect to our legal authority I understand the motivation. I don't really 02:42:02.163 --> 02:42:08.432 - just disagree with the the impulse but It's a decision. I don't take lightly. So I guess what I'm curious 02:42:08.432 --> 02:42:12.926 - as a lawyer for your Assessment of any any risks or downsides to doing so I 02:42:13.186 --> 02:42:18.679 - Think the largest downside is just know that you are completely waiving any privilege that you had in 02:42:18.679 --> 02:42:24.225 - regard to this memo So the entire text of the memo is subject to public inspection. So Okay, thank you 02:42:24.225 --> 02:42:29.771 - I I'm honestly just right I'm not sure I feel comfortable with that without like reading rereading the 02:42:29.771 --> 02:42:35.210 - thing with that in mind like I don't remember What was said and that okay councilmembers are welcome 02:42:35.210 --> 02:42:37.310 - to vote. No councilmember Stossberg. I 02:42:37.858 --> 02:42:44.590 - Yeah, I was gonna ask a similar question of Attorney Allen so I agree with councilmember Flaherty that 02:42:44.590 --> 02:42:51.125 - I don't feel comfortable with that without going back and like reviewing that Memo right now, but I 02:42:51.125 --> 02:42:57.922 - would be very open to having that kind of on our agenda for our next meeting Councilmember Rallo, would 02:42:57.922 --> 02:43:04.588 - you be interested in withdrawing to introduce it for next time so that council members can adequately 02:43:04.588 --> 02:43:05.438 - review it? I 02:43:06.306 --> 02:43:13.533 - Yes, I would be I would like a unanimous vote. So yes, this is you know public records request could 02:43:13.533 --> 02:43:20.974 - Could get the information too, but I would like it in the minutes. So yes, I would draw it. Okay, great 02:43:20.974 --> 02:43:28.344 - Thank you in that case. We'll move on to legislation for first readings. I Move that ordinance 2026-07 02:43:28.344 --> 02:43:36.286 - be read by title and synopsis only Great there's been a motion and a second all those in favor, please say aye 02:43:36.386 --> 02:43:46.174 - All those opposed will the clerk please read by title and synopsis only ordinance 2026 07 Yes ordinance 02:43:46.174 --> 02:43:56.527 - 2026 dash 07 to amend title 8 of the blooming to municipal code entitled historic preservation and protection 02:43:56.527 --> 02:44:03.774 - and to establish a conservation district cottage Grove Conservation District 02:44:03.874 --> 02:44:10.564 - Synopsis is as follows this ordinance amends chapter eight point two zero of the Bloomington Municipal 02:44:10.564 --> 02:44:17.253 - Code entitled list of designated historic and conservation districts in order to designate the cottage 02:44:17.253 --> 02:44:23.943 - Grove Conservation District a neighborhood of 122 properties in the city of Bloomington Monroe County, 02:44:23.943 --> 02:44:29.918 - Indiana as a conservation district Thank you, I'm not done sorry the majority of structures 02:44:33.090 --> 02:44:39.800 - The majority of structures in the proposed district date from the years before and after World War I 02:44:39.800 --> 02:44:46.776 - and are built in the folk Victorian and Queen Anne styles representative of this period in Bloomington's 02:44:46.776 --> 02:44:53.552 - history. Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style with a conspicuous number of 02:44:53.552 --> 02:44:55.678 - limestone Tudor revival houses. 02:44:55.778 --> 02:45:01.726 - Many of the pre-war houses were built by employees of the showers brother furniture company and bear 02:45:01.726 --> 02:45:07.792 - the hallmarks of carpenter built folk housing. Well, many of the larger post-war houses are associated 02:45:07.792 --> 02:45:13.917 - with Bloomington's booming limestone industry. The neighborhood demonstrates a high degree of integrity 02:45:13.917 --> 02:45:20.042 - and many notable houses. Great. Thank you. I moved to discuss ordinance 20, 26 dash zero seven. Second. 02:45:20.042 --> 02:45:25.342 - Thank you. Do we have anyone from the administration who'd like to present on this today? 02:45:26.530 --> 02:45:34.964 - Please don't we have to vote on the motion to discuss Would anyone like to discuss the motion on the 02:45:34.964 --> 02:45:43.314 - table Okay, it needs a two-thirds majority one discussion point, okay It's allowed just please vote 02:45:43.314 --> 02:45:51.665 - for it so that these wonderful people don't need to go home without us discussing it Will the clerk 02:45:51.665 --> 02:45:53.502 - please call the roll? 02:45:57.282 --> 02:46:05.812 - You can't just do this as a voice vote if you want. Okay, all in favor, please say aye aye aye all opposed 02:46:05.812 --> 02:46:13.943 - great well Person who is here from the administration, please approach the podium state your name and 02:46:13.943 --> 02:46:22.075 - give us your wonderful presentation Noah Sandweis historic preservation program manager Department of 02:46:22.075 --> 02:46:25.662 - Housing and Neighborhood Development Clicker 02:46:26.658 --> 02:46:32.806 - So there's a lot of information in your packet, so I'm going to keep this presentation sort of to a 02:46:32.806 --> 02:46:39.015 - synopsis. Thank you for having me tonight, and thank you to everybody who showed up for this item. I 02:46:39.015 --> 02:46:45.531 - want to start with giving a little background on the area that we're talking about. The so-called Cottage 02:46:45.531 --> 02:46:52.478 - Grove Historic District was identified in early Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology surveys 02:46:53.154 --> 02:46:59.936 - as an area eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places. Despite being labeled 02:46:59.936 --> 02:47:06.520 - in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory as a historic district, the neighborhood has 02:47:06.520 --> 02:47:13.235 - never been designated on the local, state, or national level. The area received local recognition for 02:47:13.235 --> 02:47:20.017 - its architectural significance in 1974 when the 1852 Greek Revival Mansion of General Morton C. Hunter 02:47:20.017 --> 02:47:22.782 - was demolished amidst much public outcry. 02:47:23.810 --> 02:47:30.202 - Although only a couple of buildings from this era remain in the district, the neighborhood was recognized 02:47:30.202 --> 02:47:36.715 - by state historians for the density and integrity of early 20th century houses. Aside from some mid-century 02:47:36.715 --> 02:47:42.987 - infill, most of the houses in the proposed district date from the early 20th century. As of the current 02:47:42.987 --> 02:47:49.017 - city survey of historic structures, 15 of the 122 houses in the proposed district are rated notable 02:47:49.017 --> 02:47:53.118 - for their architectural significance, and one is rated outstanding. 02:47:54.146 --> 02:48:00.247 - 90 of the remaining houses are contributing This would place the cottage Grove historic district among 02:48:00.247 --> 02:48:06.288 - Bloomington's neighborhoods with the most consistent architectural significance The push to designate 02:48:06.288 --> 02:48:12.329 - the conservation district in the cottage Grove neighborhood was initiated by a neighborhood residents 02:48:12.329 --> 02:48:18.785 - in response to an increasing number of demolitions in the surrounding area Including the proposed demolition 02:48:18.785 --> 02:48:22.398 - of 115 East 12th Street located within the proposed district 02:48:23.234 --> 02:48:28.681 - Because of the historic significance of the house's association with a prominent local sculptor, 02:48:28.681 --> 02:48:34.297 - Ivan Adams, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission nominated the property for designation 02:48:34.297 --> 02:48:40.193 - to the Bloomington Common Council, and it was individually designated on December 17th, 2025. Meanwhile, 02:48:40.193 --> 02:48:45.921 - a group of residents began seeking designation for the wider area, sending letters to property owners 02:48:45.921 --> 02:48:50.526 - and hosting a series of three public meetings at the Monroe County Public Library 02:48:51.042 --> 02:48:57.626 - to discuss the prospect of nominating a conservation district. On December 17th, 2025, petitioner Dr. 02:48:57.626 --> 02:49:04.146 - John Butler submitted an application to the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission. The public 02:49:04.146 --> 02:49:10.730 - hearing and the vote of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission on this matter was postponed 02:49:10.730 --> 02:49:17.249 - until February 12th. A number of public comments were received both in the lead up to and during the 02:49:17.249 --> 02:49:20.606 - meeting, some of which are included in your packet. 02:49:23.810 --> 02:49:30.790 - According to the staff evaluation and Commission vote this area is eligible for local designation under 02:49:30.790 --> 02:49:37.972 - three criteria First being criteria one for historic significance Category C for exemplifying the cultural 02:49:37.972 --> 02:49:44.750 - political economic social or historical heritage of the community the cottage Grove neighborhood was 02:49:44.750 --> 02:49:51.797 - largely built to provide housing for employees of the nearby showers furniture company and the limestone 02:49:51.797 --> 02:49:52.670 - industry and 02:49:53.154 --> 02:49:59.309 - which dominated the economy of turn of the century Bloomington. Like many Bloomington neighborhoods 02:49:59.309 --> 02:50:05.709 - from this area, Cottage Grove was economically mixed. Most of these houses were associated with workers 02:50:05.709 --> 02:50:12.110 - in these industries, and as will be explained further, material and architectural features in the built 02:50:12.110 --> 02:50:18.388 - environment attest to the important role that these businesses played in the development of the area. 02:50:18.388 --> 02:50:22.142 - Further, for architectural significance, criteria 2E and 2G. 02:50:22.306 --> 02:50:29.140 - contains any architectural style, detail, or element in danger of being lost. The applicants list several 02:50:29.140 --> 02:50:35.910 - unusual buildings and features, including Bloomington's only example of a brick, queen, and style house, 02:50:35.910 --> 02:50:42.358 - and Bloomington's only example of a bungalow with a belvedere, an original feature that would stand 02:50:42.358 --> 02:50:48.870 - out on any bungalow. Another particularly rare building type can be found at 217 East 10th Street in 02:50:48.870 --> 02:50:52.094 - the form of a Civil War era hall and parlor house 02:50:52.386 --> 02:50:58.892 - that faithfully displays Greek revival features popular in the early 1800s. Several similar examples 02:50:58.892 --> 02:51:05.592 - can be found in Bloomington, but this farmhouse would rank among Bloomington's oldest extant buildings. 02:51:05.592 --> 02:51:12.098 - The neighboring house at 221 East 10th Street is an example of another uncommon 19th century housing 02:51:12.098 --> 02:51:19.119 - type, a double pen. Under criterion 2G, exemplifies the built environment in an era of history characterized 02:51:19.119 --> 02:51:21.374 - by distinctive architectural style 02:51:22.178 --> 02:51:28.767 - The bulk of this neighborhood is constituted of buildings that date from the years immediately before 02:51:28.767 --> 02:51:35.227 - and after World War I. Pre-war houses, mostly working class, predominate in the eastern part of the 02:51:35.227 --> 02:51:42.268 - district. Like in contemporary neighborhoods west of downtown, most of these are built in the folk Victorian 02:51:42.268 --> 02:51:49.438 - or Queen Anne style. Many in the Gabledale form commonly associated with this period in Bloomington's history. 02:51:50.722 --> 02:51:56.076 - Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style with a conspicuous number of limestone 02:51:56.076 --> 02:52:01.637 - Tudor revival houses. Many of the pre-war houses were built by employees of the Showers Brothers Furniture 02:52:01.637 --> 02:52:06.887 - Company and bear some of the hallmarks of the carpenter built folk housing, while many of the larger 02:52:06.887 --> 02:52:12.084 - post-war houses are associated with the blooming limestone industry. In parts of this neighborhood, 02:52:12.084 --> 02:52:17.022 - brick sidewalks and limestone retaining walls distinguish this early Bloomington neighborhood. 02:52:19.010 --> 02:52:25.704 - So a little more information on what's being proposed here is the object up for discussion is a conservation 02:52:25.704 --> 02:52:32.091 - district And this is slightly different from a historic district, which now makes up All the designated 02:52:32.091 --> 02:52:38.294 - areas in Bloomington within the area of a conservation district Regulation is less stringent than in 02:52:38.294 --> 02:52:44.436 - a historic district in a conservation district a certificate of appropriateness is required for the 02:52:44.436 --> 02:52:47.998 - demolition of any building the moving of any building and 02:52:48.514 --> 02:52:54.361 - or the construction of a new principal or accessory structure subject to view from a public way. At 02:52:54.361 --> 02:53:00.676 - the end of a three-year period, the district shall become a historic district unless a majority of property 02:53:00.676 --> 02:53:06.523 - owners in the district object to the commission in writing to the elevation of a historic district. 02:53:06.523 --> 02:53:12.662 - Set objections must be received by the commission not earlier than 180 days or later than 60 days before 02:53:12.662 --> 02:53:16.638 - the third anniversary of the adoption of the conservation district. 02:53:17.634 --> 02:53:23.767 - In Bloomington it has been the practice of the city staff to notify all property owners prior to this 02:53:23.767 --> 02:53:29.899 - deadline So to summarize Some of the significance of the area that we're looking at here the majority 02:53:29.899 --> 02:53:36.092 - of the structures in this proposed district Date from the years before and after World War one and are 02:53:36.092 --> 02:53:42.345 - mostly built up in the folk Victorian Queen Anne tutor revival and craftsman styles many of the pre-war 02:53:42.345 --> 02:53:46.974 - houses were built by employees of the showers brothers furniture company and 02:53:47.490 --> 02:53:55.930 - bearing hallmarks of their carpentry industry, while many of the post-war houses are more closely associated 02:53:55.930 --> 02:54:03.905 - with the Bloomington limestone industry, which was then at its zenith. This neighborhood possesses one 02:54:03.905 --> 02:54:11.803 - of the highest degrees of integrity and significance for its historic building structure in the city, 02:54:11.803 --> 02:54:16.062 - and has long been recognized as possessing significant 02:54:16.258 --> 02:54:28.195 - architectural and historical value Great, thank you very much. Are there any questions? Okay Councilmember 02:54:28.195 --> 02:54:39.687 - Stossberg, I have questions if nobody else has questions. Oh, well, yeah So I guess I technically have 02:54:39.687 --> 02:54:41.918 - have three things I 02:54:42.946 --> 02:54:49.493 - You said that this is a conservation not a district not a historic district But that it would automatically 02:54:49.493 --> 02:54:55.554 - roll into a historic district unless the majority of property owners Said don't do that Has it ever 02:54:55.554 --> 02:55:01.737 - happened that a majority of property owners in Bloomington have said don't do that in Bloomington? It 02:55:01.737 --> 02:55:07.920 - hasn't happened. This is something that I'm not sure why but it's a change that the state legislature 02:55:07.920 --> 02:55:12.830 - made to the conservation district ordinance Say that again This is a change that 02:55:13.058 --> 02:55:19.919 - The state legislature it hadn't made to the conservation ordinance a while back There have not been 02:55:19.919 --> 02:55:26.781 - any examples in Bloomington of a conservation district that has stayed a conservation district past 02:55:26.781 --> 02:55:33.642 - this point Okay, that that's I guess what I'm asking and I just want to make sure that everybody is 02:55:33.642 --> 02:55:35.838 - like clear about that the other 02:55:36.482 --> 02:55:44.071 - question I have if I can go on is how does the size of this district compared to other historic districts 02:55:44.071 --> 02:55:51.445 - in terms of the hundred and twenty two homes and the It I'd say it looks a little smaller than average 02:55:51.445 --> 02:55:58.676 - some of our larger historic districts have several hundred homes Great, thank you and then the third 02:55:58.676 --> 02:55:59.678 - thing and I'm 02:55:59.842 --> 02:56:07.203 - I don't know if you can totally answer this or not, but I appreciate that you had the whole like list 02:56:07.203 --> 02:56:14.563 - of Owners and properties in the packet and then I of course did a little math about that because like 02:56:14.563 --> 02:56:21.780 - that's what I do and I noticed that unless I miss Missed one There's only nine properties where the 02:56:21.780 --> 02:56:29.790 - owners have the same address as the property which is about 7% 35 owners Have addresses outside of Bloomington 02:56:29.890 --> 02:56:37.200 - Which is almost 29% and then there are 16 owners that have addresses out of state out of Indiana, which 02:56:37.200 --> 02:56:44.650 - 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 02:56:44.650 --> 02:56:51.820 - this question or not? Because the question is how What's the plan on involving all of the owners that 02:56:51.820 --> 02:56:56.318 - do not live on the property? in the district with the decisions 02:56:57.218 --> 02:57:02.819 - district standards or do we not have to approach that until it's a historic district but given that 02:57:02.819 --> 02:57:08.420 - So many conservation districts roll into historic districts like what's the plan for that? and then 02:57:08.420 --> 02:57:14.077 - you know in terms of what you've already done in terms of reaching out like like all of those all of 02:57:14.077 --> 02:57:19.677 - those owners have already been reached out to how many have you heard from that kind of those kinds 02:57:19.677 --> 02:57:24.158 - of statistics information sure, so letters were sent to the property owners and 02:57:24.642 --> 02:57:33.124 - during the initial nomination process when the applicants were holding their public meetings, subsequently 02:57:33.124 --> 02:57:41.209 - letters were sent prior to the historic preservation commission's vote, again after the vote and then 02:57:41.209 --> 02:57:49.374 - once this meeting was scheduled. All of the letters that I've received in writing are included in your 02:57:49.374 --> 02:57:54.526 - packet. I have received a couple more phone calls, mostly people 02:57:54.626 --> 02:58:04.056 - inquiring about more information there were also several people who showed up to comment at the Historic 02:58:04.056 --> 02:58:13.306 - Preservation Commission meeting where this item was brought up also in the future, you know, of course 02:58:13.306 --> 02:58:23.454 - for when the district would be Potentially up for elevation to a historic district as well as as a courtesy when 02:58:24.386 --> 02:58:31.607 - Matters that are going to affect You know local guidelines are brought up, you know further mailers 02:58:31.607 --> 02:58:39.189 - can be sent out Okay, those are all my questions I guess I I would be interested in knowing for a second 02:58:39.189 --> 02:58:46.410 - reading what percentage of those of property owners actually Contacted you in some way. I just have 02:58:46.410 --> 02:58:53.342 - a lot of concerns So then I know that part of the part of the concern is that there are so many 02:58:53.698 --> 02:59:00.780 - properties that are not being lived in by the owner and like I get that that's part of the issue, but 02:59:00.780 --> 02:59:07.932 - I just want to make sure that we're Hearing from everybody about this. Thanks. Thank you councilmember 02:59:07.932 --> 02:59:15.084 - Flaherty Yeah, thank you just covering a couple of questions Currently our demolition demolition delay 02:59:15.084 --> 02:59:22.028 - Ordinance does that apply to all homes full stop or is it for certain designations contributing and 02:59:22.028 --> 02:59:23.486 - and hire so yeah, so 02:59:24.002 --> 02:59:30.690 - It doesn't apply in historic districts because they'll have their own standards about when a building 02:59:30.690 --> 02:59:37.246 - can be demolished. Um, that's So I'm currently even under current conditions. So what it applies to 02:59:37.246 --> 02:59:44.328 - our full demolition of contributing notable and outstanding buildings as well as In a few cases substantial 02:59:44.328 --> 02:59:50.622 - alterations to notable or outstanding buildings, okay and notable and outstanding buildings are 02:59:50.754 --> 02:59:56.133 - Do those have any protections by virtue of that designation at the state level? No, or that has to be 02:59:56.133 --> 03:00:01.511 - made locally. It has to be made. Yeah got it Okay, and could you tell me more about the I had to step 03:00:01.511 --> 03:00:06.785 - out for a moment So I apologize if I missed it but about the non-contributing structures, which are 03:00:06.785 --> 03:00:12.111 - quite small number in the neighborhood or in the proposed district Just a little bit more about like 03:00:12.111 --> 03:00:17.437 - why? They would be non-contributing is that they've been altered so materially over time even though 03:00:17.437 --> 03:00:20.126 - they were built in the same period or were there a 03:00:20.450 --> 03:00:28.414 - Is it because of past demos and they were built more recently? Just a bit more about those structures. 03:00:28.414 --> 03:00:36.842 - It's a mix. So I think there's 15 or 16 non-contributing buildings in this area with 122 primary structures. 03:00:36.842 --> 03:00:44.729 - I'd say out of those, most of them date from this area's period of significance but have been altered 03:00:44.729 --> 03:00:50.142 - to the point where you can't tell what their original significance is 03:00:50.594 --> 03:00:59.168 - There also is some later infill. Mm-hmm, got it. And then maybe last question. I think I'm generally 03:00:59.168 --> 03:01:08.081 - supportive of where we're headed. The reservations I have had around historic districts and conservation 03:01:08.081 --> 03:01:16.825 - districts I think are twofold. One is the democratic-ish process that leads to them I think is stacked 03:01:16.825 --> 03:01:19.966 - in a kind of particular way that can 03:01:20.130 --> 03:01:25.995 - that rubs, that I struggle with a bit. So there's that. And then the second is kind of what happens 03:01:25.995 --> 03:01:32.270 - with things like those non-contributing homes or making alterations. I've just lived in historic districts 03:01:32.270 --> 03:01:38.369 - most of my time in Bloomington, and I think they can be really terrific and really great for preserving 03:01:38.369 --> 03:01:44.468 - kind of the overall district and preserving homes in a much wider swath. We don't have to consider them 03:01:44.468 --> 03:01:47.870 - one at a time through demolition layer, things like that. 03:01:48.098 --> 03:01:54.104 - but then at the same time you end up with these non contributing structures or maybe a structure that's 03:01:54.104 --> 03:01:59.879 - contributing but Still has a bunch of features that maybe a porch or a you know something that like 03:01:59.879 --> 03:02:05.711 - just really isn't Historically accurate or significant and then they end up facing these really high 03:02:05.711 --> 03:02:11.660 - costs and burdens For a home that really doesn't maybe warrant strong protection, but nevertheless has 03:02:11.660 --> 03:02:13.854 - gotten swept in with the district and 03:02:14.306 --> 03:02:20.542 - How do you think about that challenge? And I know we've talked about it before with the HPC, but that's 03:02:20.542 --> 03:02:26.598 - another concern I have, I guess, when we move forward with conservation districts that I just assume 03:02:26.598 --> 03:02:32.894 - will become historic districts. Can that be dealt, is that dealt with most appropriately by the district 03:02:32.894 --> 03:02:38.590 - standards themselves? So, yeah, by and large, non-contributing buildings in historic districts 03:02:39.042 --> 03:02:45.541 - Treated with the same rules with which you would treat a new building when it comes to alterations just 03:02:45.541 --> 03:02:51.916 - don't make it more non-conforming with the district and then the rules for demolition are much looser 03:02:51.916 --> 03:02:58.165 - because one of the criteria for demolition in a historic district is considering Does this property 03:02:58.165 --> 03:03:04.477 - contribute to what makes this building? Sorry, what makes this district historically significant? So 03:03:04.477 --> 03:03:08.414 - that means that usually a property owner can get permission to 03:03:08.514 --> 03:03:16.115 - from the Commission fairly easily to demolish a non-contributing building and that would also Apply 03:03:16.115 --> 03:03:23.716 - to removing non-historic features Mm-hmm. Okay Images Claire. Sorry very last thing clarifying that 03:03:23.716 --> 03:03:31.545 - last point because I've definitely had constituents Express concern or frustration to me over time who 03:03:31.545 --> 03:03:36.638 - live in historic districts who have had denials from the HPC about 03:03:37.090 --> 03:03:43.033 - their ability to alter things that are not of his historic character, that are not consistent with the 03:03:43.033 --> 03:03:49.092 - neighborhood, that kind of thing. So it seems like it's burdensome even in those cases. So maybe that's, 03:03:49.092 --> 03:03:55.265 - I guess I was seeking to clarify your last comments, which is that even when in the case of like a remodel 03:03:55.265 --> 03:04:01.266 - or a modification, if the features we're talking about are not historically significant, that generally 03:04:01.266 --> 03:04:04.382 - under the guidelines and under HPC's decision making, 03:04:05.122 --> 03:04:12.926 - they should allow those types of alterations, is that right? Generally, and I guess sort of, I can only 03:04:12.926 --> 03:04:20.881 - guess to what the specific comments you've received from constituents might be, but like I had mentioned, 03:04:20.881 --> 03:04:28.460 - there are still guidelines that would pertain to new construction, and that's broadly speaking going 03:04:28.460 --> 03:04:34.238 - to include alterations to non-contributing buildings with really the goal to 03:04:34.594 --> 03:04:42.657 - Make them more non-contributing As in like if you construction must match or try to match the historical 03:04:42.657 --> 03:04:50.336 - style as opposed to being a different style is that yes, okay, and There is a set of let's see what 03:04:50.336 --> 03:04:58.245 - the numbers I think it's There's a set of Guidelines for that are actually included in state and local 03:04:58.245 --> 03:05:01.854 - ordinances so a lot of historic districts will 03:05:02.594 --> 03:05:10.602 - You know write their own guidelines about What they call for a new construction but really that the 03:05:10.602 --> 03:05:17.890 - purpose of that should be to clarify What these points in the statute? Mean in the context 03:05:17.890 --> 03:05:26.139 - of that neighborhood. Okay. Great. Thank you so much questions Great let's go to public comment Anyone 03:05:26.139 --> 03:05:29.182 - who'd like to speak on this ordinance 03:05:29.314 --> 03:05:37.684 - please approach the podium. You'll have three minutes and state your name if you'd be so willing. Welcome. 03:05:37.684 --> 03:05:45.662 - Hello. Hi, my name is Dr. John Butler. I'm the person who sort of filed the first thing that set this 03:05:45.662 --> 03:05:53.719 - all in motion. I think this is an excellent opportunity for you guys to protect this neighborhood, and 03:05:53.719 --> 03:05:59.038 - I think it's an excellent idea for Bloomington for several reasons. 03:05:59.266 --> 03:06:07.620 - Number one, this neighborhood has a clear cultural and historical significance. These buildings represent 03:06:07.620 --> 03:06:15.660 - a collection of buildings that truly speak to Bloomington's history and to Bloomington's culture. And 03:06:15.660 --> 03:06:21.886 - so to lose those would be unfortunate. These buildings are affordable housing. 03:06:22.082 --> 03:06:29.603 - You guys have been talking all night about affordable housing If these get torn down, they're not going 03:06:29.603 --> 03:06:36.907 - to be replaced by something more affordable. They're Organic they've grown up on their lots. Many of 03:06:36.907 --> 03:06:44.862 - these are small lots My wife and I inherited a house in this neighborhood its lot size is I think 60 feet and 03:06:45.282 --> 03:06:51.877 - 60 foot square, so it's a very small lot. Some of these are very modest houses There's also nicer houses. 03:06:51.877 --> 03:06:58.098 - It's an it's an interesting egalitarian mix We don't build neighborhoods like this anymore. We tend 03:06:58.098 --> 03:07:04.381 - to segregate people by class and by wealth and In the turn of the century That's something they just 03:07:04.381 --> 03:07:10.727 - didn't do so that the owner of the factory and the workers of the factory lived cheek and jowl in the 03:07:10.727 --> 03:07:13.278 - same neighborhood I think that's special 03:07:13.762 --> 03:07:20.403 - I think it would be a shame if we lost that. I think it's a good idea environmentally. All these houses 03:07:20.403 --> 03:07:26.788 - represent materials that have already been committed to housing. And if you tear them down, then to 03:07:26.788 --> 03:07:33.429 - replace them, you have to get new materials. And when you do tear these houses down, the materials that 03:07:33.429 --> 03:07:39.942 - are in them, they're not reused, they're destroyed, they're wasted, they're carted off in a dumpster. 03:07:39.942 --> 03:07:43.582 - And this is hard, these houses are made with old growth, 03:07:43.714 --> 03:07:51.452 - hardwood lumber that you just can't get anymore. So culturally, I think economically, environmentally, 03:07:51.452 --> 03:07:59.566 - all these reasons are great reasons. But I think maybe perhaps the most important is that this neighborhood 03:07:59.566 --> 03:08:07.154 - represents a collection of people who have chosen to live in downtown Bloomington and sort of living 03:08:07.154 --> 03:08:12.638 - the very lives that you guys are trying to encourage with your Hope Well 03:08:12.802 --> 03:08:20.052 - Development and it's already here and all you have to do is protect it So for all those reasons, I would 03:08:20.052 --> 03:08:27.234 - like you to support this. Thank you very much Thank you and next speaker and if anyone has any comments 03:08:27.234 --> 03:08:33.517 - on zoom, please feel free to raise your hand Elizabeth Cox ash I live in McDowell Gardens. 03:08:33.517 --> 03:08:41.182 - This is Bloomington's very first historic conservation district a lot of these rules were written up by us and 03:08:42.082 --> 03:08:53.365 - and we were 60% rental, 40% owner-occupied. This was 25 years ago, and we're arguing the same things 03:08:53.365 --> 03:09:02.526 - that happened 25 years ago. The advantage of now is we have the historic concern, 03:09:02.690 --> 03:09:11.880 - history of how these things are successful and how they protect these historic homes. These homes have 03:09:11.880 --> 03:09:21.159 - the hardwoods of 160 years ago when Bloomington had hardwood. So when you're tearing down these things, 03:09:21.159 --> 03:09:30.438 - you're tearing down all these things that were very valuable many years ago. Also, the cost of building 03:09:30.438 --> 03:09:32.222 - these 100 years ago 03:09:32.546 --> 03:09:43.724 - was much less, so therefore, that's what keeps them affordable, is because the labor costs were not 03:09:43.724 --> 03:09:54.009 - the same 100 years ago than they are now. I wish we had the homes that are in this district 03:09:54.009 --> 03:09:59.486 - in our neighborhood. We have much humbler homes. 03:10:00.610 --> 03:10:10.805 - To let this conservation district go away and not approve would be really sad. This is what makes Bloomington 03:10:10.805 --> 03:10:19.518 - look like Bloomington. Each community has certain homes that the builders have made them look 03:10:20.802 --> 03:10:28.914 - As an example, up north, you get more of the German influence. So you get more of the beveled glass, 03:10:28.914 --> 03:10:37.107 - and you also get the colored glass in the windows. Down here, you don't get that as much. So you need 03:10:37.107 --> 03:10:45.701 - to keep these homes. You need to protect them. So please approve this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, 03:10:45.701 --> 03:10:47.870 - you'll have three minutes. 03:10:48.162 --> 03:10:59.062 - Paul Ash, I'm also McDole. Anyhow, one of the things that we encountered was especially out of town 03:10:59.062 --> 03:11:09.961 - investors, absentee landlords, and they swore, oh my, this historic district will ruin our property 03:11:09.961 --> 03:11:17.918 - values. Well, look at what the property values were years ago in McDole. 03:11:18.178 --> 03:11:26.083 - And look at what they are now So, you know What's going to happen is like my wife just said, you know, 03:11:26.083 --> 03:11:33.835 - you're going to have a flip You're going to have an awful lot more owner occupants and they're going 03:11:33.835 --> 03:11:41.587 - to be fixing up these cute little homes That's what happened in our neighborhood Thank you very much 03:11:41.587 --> 03:11:44.734 - next speaker Hi, my name is Jordan Evans 03:11:45.250 --> 03:11:52.987 - I'm here tonight on behalf of the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association, which I do serve as the president 03:11:52.987 --> 03:12:00.294 - of. I do ask that you guys deny this. First off, the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association was never 03:12:00.294 --> 03:12:07.745 - consulted on any of this. We found out about this through the mail and have adamantly gone against this 03:12:07.745 --> 03:12:14.622 - since. The area that is sectioned out in their map is mostly the High Point neighborhood, which 03:12:14.882 --> 03:12:21.788 - It did have its own neighborhood association, which should have been the one, in my opinion, to bring 03:12:21.788 --> 03:12:28.897 - this in front of you. I also would like to kind of circle back to what you guys have spent a significant 03:12:28.897 --> 03:12:36.141 - amount of time talking about tonight, and that's affordable housing. This neighborhood is close to campus, 03:12:36.141 --> 03:12:42.302 - is, as Councilmember Stossberger said, 93% out-of-state owners, so that is mostly rentals. 03:12:43.074 --> 03:12:52.229 - Our worry is that these restrictions for the buildings that have been there for over a hundred years 03:12:52.229 --> 03:13:01.022 - Are going to make costs too high to keep those rents workable for anybody I do ask also that you 03:13:01.954 --> 03:13:08.894 - consider the existing neighborhood associations, their boundaries, and their function, and keep that 03:13:08.894 --> 03:13:15.903 - in mind when making this decision. The Old Northeast has been happy to be engaged. We are just yet to 03:13:15.903 --> 03:13:22.912 - be engaged on this subject. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have anybody on Zoom? Great. 03:13:22.912 --> 03:13:30.814 - We'll go to Zoom now. And if you'll be unmuted and you have three minutes, please state your name. Chris Sturbaum. 03:13:33.378 --> 03:13:41.327 - You know, as council, you're allowed to consider affordability issues that the Historic Commission is 03:13:41.327 --> 03:13:49.510 - not allowed to consider. And our experience has been, like in Prospect Hill, you can rent a two-bedroom. 03:13:49.510 --> 03:13:57.303 - I know of four two-bedrooms that are renting for $800, which is $400 a bedroom. And nothing anybody 03:13:57.303 --> 03:14:03.070 - builds is gonna come close to these kind of mom and pop prices that these 03:14:03.202 --> 03:14:11.516 - old historic houses are renting for throughout the neighborhood. McDowell, I know there's a whole house 03:14:11.516 --> 03:14:19.671 - for $800 plus utilities. It's a small house, but you're not gonna build anything like that. And these 03:14:19.671 --> 03:14:27.746 - protections protect small houses, medium-sized houses, duplexes, they all function together. And the 03:14:27.746 --> 03:14:33.022 - core neighborhood is really a beautiful form that's been imitated 03:14:33.794 --> 03:14:40.897 - And once you wreck it, it's wrecked. And you know, it's interesting that none of these have ever been 03:14:40.897 --> 03:14:48.487 - overturned. And people say, oh, that's because it's automatic. And no, it's because people end up supporting 03:14:48.487 --> 03:14:55.799 - them that didn't support them when they started. I mean, they've had peaceful transitions because people 03:14:55.799 --> 03:15:02.206 - end up going, there's nothing really wrong here. This is working. And you know, we've seen, 03:15:03.330 --> 03:15:12.007 - Developments these days, people consider a house by the units they can make out of it, so they value 03:15:12.007 --> 03:15:20.856 - the property as the land underneath it. Four-bedroom student apartments will generate $3,600 to $4,800 03:15:20.856 --> 03:15:29.705 - a month, $900 to $1,200 a bed. And when you incentivize that kind of demolitions, you're going to make 03:15:29.705 --> 03:15:32.798 - money by tearing these houses down. 03:15:33.442 --> 03:15:41.098 - people who are opposed to this are really saying because those are great rentals throughout the neighborhood 03:15:41.098 --> 03:15:48.121 - and they're affordable rentals, they're reasonable. But the incentive to make that much more money, 03:15:48.121 --> 03:15:55.215 - as soon as you, when you don't protect that neighborhood, the value of the place is the dirt on that 03:15:55.215 --> 03:16:02.238 - ground and the house scraped off it and something built that's gonna be renting for 1200 a bedroom. 03:16:03.202 --> 03:16:09.521 - That isn't affordable. And I really hope you consider giving this a chance. And if, you know, if all 03:16:09.521 --> 03:16:15.840 - those rental owners really hate it in the end, they'll be able to vote this down when it comes time. 03:16:15.840 --> 03:16:22.159 - But this is going to be a really good thing for the neighborhood, for the people that care about the 03:16:22.159 --> 03:16:28.478 - neighborhood, for the people that live in the neighborhood and all the renters in that neighborhood. 03:16:28.930 --> 03:16:38.851 - Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next person in Zoom, if you could unmute yourself and state 03:16:38.851 --> 03:16:48.868 - your name for the record, you'll have three minutes. If your hand is still raised and you'd still like 03:16:48.868 --> 03:16:55.774 - to speak, please unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes for the 03:16:57.346 --> 03:17:05.975 - Hi, did I get unmuted this time? Yes, go ahead. Oh good, thank you. My name is Jan Sorby and I want 03:17:05.975 --> 03:17:14.776 - to encourage everybody to support this historic district. They're a group of really, really wonderful 03:17:14.776 --> 03:17:23.405 - houses and in a lot of communities for a district to become a district, they often think of that as 03:17:23.405 --> 03:17:24.958 - a community good. 03:17:25.858 --> 03:17:33.828 - 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, 03:17:33.828 --> 03:17:41.722 - it's a tangible link. The architecture is there, it shows us how people live and how they worked. Very 03:17:41.722 --> 03:17:49.002 - important. I mean, if we didn't have examples of that, would we ever appreciate living without 03:17:49.002 --> 03:17:54.750 - air conditioning these days? You know, opening windows, cross ventilation, 03:17:55.074 --> 03:18:03.788 - facing a house a certain way to get morning sun and afternoon shade. These are all very important items 03:18:03.788 --> 03:18:12.167 - and things to think about when you're choosing to become a historic district is the embodiment that 03:18:12.167 --> 03:18:20.713 - these houses present to future generations as well. It's a wonderful educational tool for people that 03:18:20.713 --> 03:18:23.646 - are coming up now, kids. And also, 03:18:24.066 --> 03:18:32.408 - I think it's really important to acknowledge the hard work these people have gone through because their 03:18:32.408 --> 03:18:39.867 - affordable housing was being destroyed one by one. And when it came down to the integrity of 03:18:39.867 --> 03:18:48.208 - their neighborhood, they were losing it. And the modest houses that younger people, maybe in their 30s, 03:18:48.208 --> 03:18:53.502 - could buy and slowly fix up. And in terms of the bylaws that the, 03:18:53.826 --> 03:19:02.970 - neighborhood has come up with. They're not onerous. They're not anything but a general way of fitting 03:19:02.970 --> 03:19:12.024 - into the structures that are there so that doesn't detract from the consistency and the wholeness of 03:19:12.024 --> 03:19:21.437 - this wonderful area. So I'm just here to encourage you to look at this benefit for the whole city. These 03:19:21.437 --> 03:19:23.230 - houses are in a way 03:19:23.714 --> 03:19:31.110 - what defines Bloomington is why people want to stay in Bloomington and why we have tourism that comes 03:19:31.110 --> 03:19:38.506 - to Bloomington. If we become this vanilla city that is absolutely unidentifiable as any other city in 03:19:38.506 --> 03:19:45.903 - the world, do you think we'll really keep our coolness? Do you think we'll really keep younger people 03:19:45.903 --> 03:19:51.486 - starting out and wanting to stay in this town if it's nothing but a vanilla? 03:19:53.090 --> 03:19:59.810 - city that has no character. So that's it. And please support these wonderful people. Thank you. 03:19:59.810 --> 03:20:07.019 - Thank you. Do we have anyone else on Zoom? OK, we'll go to them after the next person in chambers. You 03:20:07.019 --> 03:20:14.578 - can approach the podium and state your name, and you'll have three minutes. Hi. I'm Melody Barnett Duesner, 03:20:14.578 --> 03:20:21.438 - and I serve on the Historic Preservation Commission. I'm a historian of American art at IU, and I 03:20:21.666 --> 03:20:29.273 - Rent a house in Bryan Park. I was one of the five people who raised my hand when councilmember Zoellick 03:20:29.273 --> 03:20:36.953 - asked who did not own property and I'm one of those people I absolutely love living in Bryan Park, which 03:20:36.953 --> 03:20:44.560 - is also a very distinctive Bloomington neighborhood and also is not a historic district and I have been 03:20:44.560 --> 03:20:51.070 - unable to make the leap from being a renter to an owner in a neighborhood that I love or 03:20:51.202 --> 03:20:58.550 - Partly because I cannot compete with the people who will buy up small houses and tear them down in order 03:20:58.550 --> 03:21:05.549 - to build something that they can sell for more. And so I want to just make a plug for affordability 03:21:05.549 --> 03:21:07.998 - with these historic neighborhoods. 03:21:08.482 --> 03:21:15.773 - And to also mention that there are a couple of practical concerns that I just want to remind everyone 03:21:15.773 --> 03:21:22.992 - of. And one is, I guess, on the level of thinking about where we have flexibility and where we don't 03:21:22.992 --> 03:21:30.497 - in terms of how the town is administered. We have a lot of flexibility in how each historic neighborhood 03:21:30.497 --> 03:21:37.502 - decides to write their own guidelines or conservation district. They get to make those decisions. 03:21:37.602 --> 03:21:44.934 - They do not take a one size fits all approach. They can adopt other guidelines that other neighborhoods 03:21:44.934 --> 03:21:52.125 - have already put together or they can completely start from scratch. And so this is not a case where, 03:21:52.125 --> 03:21:59.315 - say, Cottage Grove will need to follow the same guidelines as Elm Heights or something like that. But 03:21:59.315 --> 03:22:07.070 - that's a place where we have a lot of flexibility. But an area where we don't have flexibility is in terms of 03:22:07.938 --> 03:22:14.988 - unprotected neighborhoods that are not a conservation or historic district anyone can tear anything 03:22:14.988 --> 03:22:22.672 - down at any time for any reason and I think that's one of the things that when people are sort of discussing 03:22:22.672 --> 03:22:28.382 - properties for demolition delay at historic preservation people are shocked that 03:22:28.738 --> 03:22:35.207 - you know, looking at us like, well, you've got to stop it. Like somebody wants to tear down this perfectly 03:22:35.207 --> 03:22:41.253 - good house or historic house. We can't do anything about it. And in very, very rare cases, like the 03:22:41.253 --> 03:22:47.420 - Ivan Adams house, we were able to bring one before you, but it's, it's so hard. And so I think people 03:22:47.420 --> 03:22:53.829 - don't quite realize how unprotected a lot of homes are if there's not a conservation or historic district 03:22:53.829 --> 03:22:55.038 - over the top of it. 03:22:55.330 --> 03:23:01.681 - Um, so I strongly support the creation of this district and I would encourage you to do that too. 03:23:01.681 --> 03:23:08.227 - Thank you. Thank you. And now we'll go to, do we still have a person with their hand raised on zoom? 03:23:08.227 --> 03:23:15.162 - Great. Um, if you could unmute yourself, you'll have three minutes. My name is Michael Brahms. I apologize 03:23:15.162 --> 03:23:21.707 - if there's background noise. Um, I live, uh, out of Lewington. It's late and where I had to step out 03:23:21.707 --> 03:23:23.198 - of it's loud, but, uh, 03:23:23.298 --> 03:23:30.297 - I am an out-of-state property owner. I've owned property in that neighborhood for over 25 years. I know 03:23:30.297 --> 03:23:37.228 - one of the council members was curious about how out-of-town property owners would kind of be involved 03:23:37.228 --> 03:23:44.024 - in the standards. I know from my personal experience, the Butler's and everyone involved have done a 03:23:44.024 --> 03:23:50.956 - great job reaching out to me and making me aware where there's meetings and involving me to the extent 03:23:50.956 --> 03:23:52.638 - I wanted to be involved. 03:23:52.962 --> 03:24:00.665 - Um, and then, uh, I know as an out of town property owner that my renters finding value, uh, in actually 03:24:00.665 --> 03:24:08.074 - the house, the houses, uh, in the neighborhood, as opposed to kind of more multifamily structures. A 03:24:08.074 --> 03:24:15.411 - lot of times when I have renters, they're specifically looking for a house. Uh, if they didn't want 03:24:15.411 --> 03:24:20.766 - to live in a house, they'd live, uh, downtown or somewhere else. And so. 03:24:21.282 --> 03:24:29.298 - From my perspective, I do see value in preserving the neighborhood and hopefully having standards that 03:24:29.298 --> 03:24:37.236 - will kind of preserve some of the qualities of the neighborhoods that my renters are looking for when 03:24:37.236 --> 03:24:45.174 - they come to rent houses. Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers, if you 03:24:45.174 --> 03:24:50.622 - could approach the podium, you'll have three minutes. Hi, Paul Russo. 03:24:50.946 --> 03:24:57.396 - I know this neighborhood pretty well, because I go through it almost every day. And I'm going through 03:24:57.396 --> 03:25:03.720 - it on bicycle, so I can see things really well. And oddly enough, today, I was right on the edge of 03:25:03.720 --> 03:25:10.486 - this proposed district, right across the street from it, at 614 North Grant, a house that's being proposed 03:25:10.486 --> 03:25:16.999 - for demolition. And just as I went by, one of the students walked out of the house. And I said, do you 03:25:16.999 --> 03:25:20.414 - live here? And he said, yes. So we had a little chat. 03:25:20.546 --> 03:25:27.675 - He and his three roommates are paying $550 a month in rent in a house that's built in 1910, but it's 03:25:27.675 --> 03:25:34.875 - gonna get torn down because it's not inside the district. It's really interesting to me that this has 03:25:34.875 --> 03:25:41.511 - come before you today on the same day you're talking about possibly implementing land trusts, 03:25:41.511 --> 03:25:47.934 - because as I, I think I send information to all of you by email, and you'll notice that in 03:25:48.034 --> 03:25:54.358 - the land trust in Madison and the land trust in State College, Pennsylvania, most of their homes were 03:25:54.358 --> 03:26:00.682 - rehabilitation homes. And my understanding of how land trusts start to work when they get established 03:26:00.682 --> 03:26:06.944 - is that they have a pool of money ready to go in case an opportunity comes up. And so if you combine 03:26:06.944 --> 03:26:13.206 - land trusts with the historic preservation that slows things down, it's a perfect way to jump in and 03:26:13.206 --> 03:26:15.934 - grab naturally occurring affordable housing 03:26:17.058 --> 03:26:24.077 - own the land, rehabilitate the house, house doesn't get torn down, and the renter's like the guy who's 03:26:24.077 --> 03:26:31.231 - gonna lose his house that I talked to today, doesn't lose his rent. I strongly support this application. 03:26:31.231 --> 03:26:38.114 - It's a wonderful neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have 03:26:38.114 --> 03:26:45.950 - three minutes. Hello, I'm Jenny Southern. I live in the Elm Heights neighborhood, and we have a historic district. 03:26:46.306 --> 03:26:52.491 - Outside of her historic district we found out in the last couple of weeks that two houses are going 03:26:52.491 --> 03:26:58.675 - to be torn down and you would think oh they're they're old ready houses or something like that. But 03:26:58.675 --> 03:27:03.870 - no these are huge colonial style brick houses one I would say of notable character. 03:27:04.322 --> 03:27:11.511 - It's on the corner of Atwater. You probably have walked past it or driven past it a million times. Behind 03:27:11.511 --> 03:27:18.294 - Bear's Place at Atwater, and it used to be Jordan, it's now Eagleson. And then there's a second one 03:27:18.294 --> 03:27:25.144 - behind it. Each one of these houses are in very good condition, lovely landscaping, and they've been 03:27:25.144 --> 03:27:31.995 - run pretty much as rooming houses for the last 50 years that I know of. The rent in these houses are 03:27:31.995 --> 03:27:33.758 - $400 to $500 per bedroom, 03:27:33.922 --> 03:27:41.012 - Each house has 10 to 11 people in them. They are legal. They are grandfathered as they are. And yet 03:27:41.012 --> 03:27:48.456 - they've been applied to be torn down. Um, I can also say that the Brian park neighborhood is also having 03:27:48.456 --> 03:27:55.758 - several houses. I'm not sure it has been approved yet being torn down as we speak, uh, two of them and 03:27:55.758 --> 03:28:03.486 - an empty lot to put up the new duplexes. Now I know we've all been promised that if we build enough rentals, 03:28:04.802 --> 03:28:14.248 - that the rents will go down. That doesn't seem to be working. Not in this town, not the way they're 03:28:14.248 --> 03:28:23.789 - done right now. When they do happen, they're at least $1,200. For the brand new ones, they're $1,200 03:28:23.789 --> 03:28:33.424 - per bedroom. We sat for three hours listening about affordability and how we all wanted to buy houses 03:28:33.424 --> 03:28:34.558 - of our own. 03:28:34.690 --> 03:28:42.656 - I just wanted to say, you know, the rentals downtown are hard, hard to find an affordable one. You can 03:28:42.656 --> 03:28:50.546 - find all the non affordable ones you could possibly desire. Uh, but the affordable ones are extremely 03:28:50.546 --> 03:28:58.435 - rare. And yet we're talking about right in this couple of weeks, losing quite a few of them and every 03:28:58.435 --> 03:29:03.230 - historic commission or historic meeting that I seem to go to, 03:29:03.586 --> 03:29:10.127 - which I'm one of the people that has to go to those. I'm not on the commission, but I do represent my 03:29:10.127 --> 03:29:16.732 - neighborhood sometimes has several somewhere in the downtown being torn down. Um, it's not working for 03:29:16.732 --> 03:29:23.209 - us, but, um, maybe you can think of it and make it work in the future, but I encourage you to try to 03:29:23.209 --> 03:29:29.687 - salvage more of these old neighborhoods for affordable living and encouraging families to buy homes. 03:29:29.687 --> 03:29:33.406 - Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody on zoom? 03:29:34.146 --> 03:29:41.363 - Great. Thank you. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes, please state your name Good evening. 03:29:41.363 --> 03:29:48.446 - My name is Doug Horne. I'm a general partner in Stassi and horn which owns three buildings located within 03:29:48.446 --> 03:29:55.262 - the section of Cottage Grove addition to the city of Bloomington that is included in the in this area 03:29:55.262 --> 03:29:57.534 - being considered this evening and 03:29:57.762 --> 03:30:08.051 - Only a third of the Cottage Grove addition is included with this grouping of houses in a number of different 03:30:08.051 --> 03:30:17.584 - developments and additions to the city. My comments are focused mostly on the Cottage Grove addition 03:30:17.584 --> 03:30:24.286 - to the city, which expands beyond this area to the east by two blocks. 03:30:24.962 --> 03:30:33.612 - And I wanna begin by thanking each of you for your service to our city, your fine attention to the complex 03:30:33.612 --> 03:30:41.940 - layers that seemingly are straightforward issue can present. We feel this historic conservancy request 03:30:41.940 --> 03:30:50.590 - is one of such issues. You've been provided with exceptionally well-crafted historic analysis of the area. 03:30:50.786 --> 03:30:57.320 - and been afforded a positive recommendation for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, but 03:30:57.320 --> 03:31:03.791 - forgive me, but let me build on that analysis and add a few layers to the discussion that are beyond 03:31:03.791 --> 03:31:10.517 - the purview of the HPC as they should be, instead leaving you to balance all issues as elected officials 03:31:10.517 --> 03:31:16.923 - and make the best decisions for the whole of our community. In this limited time, I'd encourage you 03:31:16.923 --> 03:31:19.870 - to consider the historical municipal planning 03:31:20.002 --> 03:31:25.913 - that has provided vision for the future of this area for many decades under numerous administrations 03:31:25.913 --> 03:31:31.941 - and associated planned commissions. Looking back in time as increased residential density in proximity 03:31:31.941 --> 03:31:38.027 - to the university became a necessity, municipal planning identified certain areas including the central 03:31:38.027 --> 03:31:43.879 - section of Cottage Grove addition, essentially a three block run of property between Grant and Dunn 03:31:43.879 --> 03:31:47.742 - Street as appropriate for high density multifamily redevelopment. 03:31:47.906 --> 03:31:55.286 - One of the key elements of this decision was the recognition that the cheaply built turn of the century 03:31:55.286 --> 03:32:02.878 - spec homes had deteriorated significantly and outlived their physical and useful life. Many were initially 03:32:02.878 --> 03:32:10.399 - built on piers without true foundation, central heating, or indoor plumbing, and a much different product 03:32:10.399 --> 03:32:15.934 - than initially developed along North Washington and the west side, I'm sorry, 03:32:16.194 --> 03:32:23.630 - North Washington and the west side of North Lincoln Street, which is the predominant features that appear 03:32:23.630 --> 03:32:30.785 - in the reporting of this contrived neighborhood. The high density zoning allowed for the construction 03:32:30.785 --> 03:32:37.870 - of multi-family apartment buildings, some on single lots, others on spanning multiple lots, but over 03:32:37.870 --> 03:32:38.782 - the decades, 03:32:38.882 --> 03:32:46.077 - Multiple master plans medium and high-density zoning continue to be expanded in the area until today 03:32:46.077 --> 03:32:53.486 - We're recently enacted zoning of the entirety of this proposed. Thank you very much. That was your time 03:32:53.486 --> 03:33:00.752 - If you'd like to you can send it to council at bloomington.in.gov to give your full report. Thank you 03:33:00.752 --> 03:33:06.878 - Thank you Next speaker if you could approach the podium, you'll have three minutes. I 03:33:09.730 --> 03:33:18.148 - My name is Karen Duffy and I serve on the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission First I want 03:33:18.148 --> 03:33:27.071 - to thank you so much for taking our comments tonight we came not knowing whether This was going to happen 03:33:27.071 --> 03:33:36.078 - or not and you've had a long difficult meeting already and I really appreciate your openness to addressing 03:33:36.078 --> 03:33:39.614 - our concern to I'll just take a minute to 03:33:39.874 --> 03:33:50.021 - Emphasize something because so many previous comments have have brought up and address so beautifully 03:33:50.021 --> 03:34:00.068 - other issues just want to underscore something fundamental in the proposal that was forwarded to you 03:34:00.068 --> 03:34:07.230 - and was clarified stated clearly by Mr. Sandweiss which is that this is 03:34:07.554 --> 03:34:20.377 - This neighborhood has a really unusual number of highly rated houses and has been identified as a potential 03:34:20.377 --> 03:34:32.844 - ideal neighborhood really for protection for decades. I was looking in 2004 publication of the inventory 03:34:32.844 --> 03:34:37.118 - of houses in Bloomington and it was 03:34:37.282 --> 03:34:46.002 - Stated right there. I mean I could read that as my statement tonight and what we said was still be true 03:34:46.002 --> 03:34:54.470 - that it was going to be subject to the whims of the real estate market without protections, which it 03:34:54.470 --> 03:35:00.926 - did not have at the time, but it was always waiting for people to organize a 03:35:01.762 --> 03:35:10.246 - Support within the neighborhood there was no strong neighborhood association to put it through which 03:35:10.246 --> 03:35:19.402 - often is the agency to do that but Mr. Butler has and his wife and Neighbors have have done this beautifully 03:35:19.402 --> 03:35:28.222 - and worked very hard had open meetings. I attended several of them and garnered interest and support and 03:35:28.834 --> 03:35:35.933 - So I think everything is in place. This seems to be their time. I hope you agree. Thank you very much. 03:35:35.933 --> 03:35:42.825 - Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes. Hi my name is Amy Butler. 03:35:42.825 --> 03:35:49.785 - My husband and I and neighbors have worked really hard on this. Sorry. This has been emotional. It's 03:35:49.785 --> 03:35:57.022 - been a long hard process. We knocked on every door in the neighborhood. We sent multiple emails multiple 03:35:57.122 --> 03:36:03.816 - We have met with multiple of you Thank you so much for your time to walk our neighborhood with us to 03:36:03.816 --> 03:36:10.643 - see the wonderful houses that we have that we are trying to save We've heard crickets from quite quite 03:36:10.643 --> 03:36:17.536 - a few of the larger Property under the property owners and that own multiple houses in our neighborhood 03:36:17.536 --> 03:36:20.254 - we don't get any feedback from them, but 03:36:20.514 --> 03:36:26.767 - Earlier old Northeast neighborhood Jordan Evans came up and said that we did not include him He actually 03:36:26.767 --> 03:36:32.901 - in Doug horn day and they came to our first meeting at the library My husband and I also met with Doug 03:36:32.901 --> 03:36:39.034 - horn for about seven hours We gave him, you know We were wanting to include some houses on 12th Street 03:36:39.034 --> 03:36:45.049 - beyond grant and he didn't want us to do that. He wanted to keep our Being at grant so we stopped at 03:36:45.049 --> 03:36:47.550 - grant, you know, we gave into that. Um, I 03:36:48.962 --> 03:36:55.361 - We have talked to multiple small landlords that are supportive of us. We have multiple homeowners that 03:36:55.361 --> 03:37:01.077 - live in their houses there that are supportive of us. I have a petition. We went around and 03:37:01.077 --> 03:37:07.289 - got 84 signatures, 74 of which are students who live in the neighborhood who want to save these old 03:37:07.289 --> 03:37:13.564 - houses because they think there was something worth saving. They'd like to come back in 20 years and 03:37:13.564 --> 03:37:15.614 - say, hey, I lived in that house. 03:37:15.810 --> 03:37:22.777 - We are definitely happy with people being able to add on to their houses. These are useful old houses. 03:37:22.777 --> 03:37:29.608 - We can add on to them. We can. We're happy with accessory dwelling units. We have density. We're not 03:37:29.608 --> 03:37:36.507 - against that. But you know this is an important neighborhood for Bloomington and there are people who 03:37:36.507 --> 03:37:43.271 - care about it. And I really hope that you will consider voting for this vote for Cottage Grove is a 03:37:43.271 --> 03:37:44.894 - vote for affordability. 03:37:45.762 --> 03:37:52.442 - Any house that gets torn down, we don't get it back. But anything that replaces it, I guarantee you 03:37:52.442 --> 03:37:59.121 - the rent is always higher in every single instance. And it will be 300 or more higher per month per 03:37:59.121 --> 03:38:06.001 - bedroom. I will guarantee you that. But I please ask you to vote for Cottage Grove. It's an easy thing 03:38:06.001 --> 03:38:12.681 - to do to save affordable housing if that's what you guys want to do for Bloomington, because that's 03:38:12.681 --> 03:38:15.486 - what Bloomington really needs. Thank you. 03:38:16.162 --> 03:38:22.656 - Thank you very much. Next speaker, and then if you could also sign in, which I'm so sorry to everyone, 03:38:22.656 --> 03:38:29.275 - I keep forgetting to remind people. The pin is hard to see. And whenever you're ready, you'll have three 03:38:29.275 --> 03:38:35.706 - minutes. My name is Jeremy Hackard, and I'm instantly regretting that I brought my notes on my phone. 03:38:35.706 --> 03:38:42.389 - So bear with me. I'm currently serving as the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. I'm speaking 03:38:42.389 --> 03:38:43.902 - to give my full support 03:38:44.002 --> 03:38:50.994 - For this conservation district the HPC is limited in what we can Consider for designation. It has to 03:38:50.994 --> 03:38:57.986 - be historically or architecturally significant Not everything that comes before the HPC can be saved 03:38:57.986 --> 03:39:05.393 - nor should it be just because something old doesn't mean that it is significant even in historic districts 03:39:05.393 --> 03:39:11.070 - just last our last meeting and Garden Hill we had a non-contributing building and 03:39:11.234 --> 03:39:16.976 - that was asked for demolition and asked for a new building to be built in its place. We approved it 03:39:16.976 --> 03:39:22.833 - because we could not make a legitimate argument that that house was historically significant. So just 03:39:22.833 --> 03:39:28.804 - because a contributing building is in a district doesn't mean it's locked in place. But it does provide 03:39:28.804 --> 03:39:34.661 - protections for those other buildings that are contributing, notable and outstanding. For me, when it 03:39:34.661 --> 03:39:40.862 - comes to Cartridge Grove, the area clearly meets the architectural and historical significance requirements 03:39:41.410 --> 03:39:48.507 - of our historic preservation ordinance, as noted very well in the staff report. One thing I wanted to 03:39:48.507 --> 03:39:55.048 - add about the architectural significance, it will have more notable homes than Maple Heights, 03:39:55.048 --> 03:40:02.006 - Garden Hill, and McDole, and have the same number as the near west side. So there is precedence for 03:40:02.006 --> 03:40:09.034 - this. During the historic preservation commission meeting where this was discussed, we approved this 03:40:09.034 --> 03:40:10.078 - seven nothing. 03:40:11.266 --> 03:40:16.931 - During that discussion, Duncan Campbell, who served on our commission for decades, noted he thought 03:40:16.931 --> 03:40:22.993 - it was one of the most thorough reports that he had seen on a conservation district proposal. I thoroughly 03:40:22.993 --> 03:40:29.055 - agree with him. I only have two years of experience on the commission to judge that by, but in my opinion, 03:40:29.055 --> 03:40:35.004 - it looks pretty good. I commend Amy Butler, John Butler, James Ford, and others for leading this effort. 03:40:35.004 --> 03:40:38.686 - They put in the time and energy to reach out to their neighbors. 03:40:38.786 --> 03:40:47.092 - Hold input meetings and work with city staff to make the conservation district proposal possible. 03:40:47.092 --> 03:40:55.738 - Please vote. Yes on this proposal. Thank you Thank you very much. Anybody on zoom great. Thank you If 03:40:55.738 --> 03:41:04.468 - you could sign in state your name and you'll have three minutes Good evening, my name is Eric host and 03:41:04.468 --> 03:41:06.078 - I am currently the 03:41:06.626 --> 03:41:14.504 - President of the Elm Heights neighborhood association and The president of the council of neighborhood 03:41:14.504 --> 03:41:22.459 - associations, but I'm not here tonight To speak on behalf of either of those bodies. I am here to speak 03:41:22.459 --> 03:41:30.797 - in support of this petition and also in support of historic districts and conservation districts I currently 03:41:30.797 --> 03:41:35.998 - do not live in the historic district, but I have seen firsthand the 03:41:36.514 --> 03:41:46.350 - Benefits of this process because it involves neighbors In discussions important discussions about their 03:41:46.350 --> 03:41:55.809 - neighborhood I want to commend Amy Butler and John Butler and James Ford and all of their Neighbors 03:41:55.809 --> 03:42:04.510 - for bringing this forward. It's been an impressive process They've invested time and effort 03:42:05.154 --> 03:42:14.268 - And I think they've done a very good job and along with city staff. I want to give credit to Noah Sandweis 03:42:14.268 --> 03:42:22.871 - and also the HPC. But in regards to historic districts and as they evolve over time, we're currently 03:42:22.871 --> 03:42:30.878 - going through a guidelines revision process. And what we're finding is that there is a way to 03:42:34.146 --> 03:42:43.677 - discuss and revise guidelines in support of the times as they change, and also the owners, the current 03:42:43.677 --> 03:42:53.300 - owners of properties. So I expect that same process will occur in Cottage Grove, and in the time I have 03:42:53.300 --> 03:43:03.016 - remaining, I also wanna address the affordability issue, because the most affordable homes are the homes 03:43:03.016 --> 03:43:04.126 - that exist. 03:43:04.994 --> 03:43:15.403 - for many reasons, not the homes that are constructed because it's very expensive to build. We also have 03:43:15.403 --> 03:43:25.612 - a city where we have a majority of our residents are renting. And that has changed the dynamic of the 03:43:25.612 --> 03:43:32.318 - housing market. So I would ask you to support this petition and to 03:43:35.330 --> 03:43:40.689 - to continue to talk about affordability. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, if you could 03:43:40.689 --> 03:43:45.566 - sign in, state your name, and you'll have three minutes. I think you know my name. Anyway, 03:43:45.566 --> 03:43:51.033 - this is Christopher Emge from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, and I wanna say some great 03:43:51.033 --> 03:43:56.928 - public comment tonight on Cottage Grove Conservation District, and the Chamber is agnostic to this particular 03:43:56.928 --> 03:44:00.894 - petition, but I just wanna make sure we have some common ground here that 03:44:00.994 --> 03:44:07.440 - These are not just preservation policies. It's a land use and redevelopment policy. And I think Council 03:44:07.440 --> 03:44:13.823 - Member Flaherty sort of brought that up on some burdens and high costs that we should always have that 03:44:13.823 --> 03:44:20.331 - sort of scope and make sure that a single demolition is not automatically leading to permanent expansion 03:44:20.331 --> 03:44:26.653 - of regulatory across an entire neighborhood. I think Mr. Horn brought some interesting aspects of it. 03:44:26.653 --> 03:44:28.574 - These homes are 115 years old. 03:44:28.802 --> 03:44:35.686 - and not all homes are built to last that long and are they structurally sound? These are things that 03:44:35.686 --> 03:44:42.842 - I think we need to make sure that certain demolitions and exterior modifications are not too burdensome. 03:44:42.842 --> 03:44:49.999 - We are talking about a very high rental mixed owner occupied area with a lot of ramifications on certain 03:44:49.999 --> 03:44:54.974 - feasibility and redeveloped flexibility as the university keeps growing. 03:44:55.394 --> 03:45:01.733 - I understand the neighbors here and many of them speak very fondly of the neighborhood. I love those 03:45:01.733 --> 03:45:08.134 - little houses there. I got a text from my wife who does as well and who rented one many years ago. So 03:45:08.134 --> 03:45:14.473 - I want to say that preservation absolutely has value and neighborhood character matters, but there's 03:45:14.473 --> 03:45:20.875 - just make sure a balance is happening and that this council, this body is asking the right questions. 03:45:20.875 --> 03:45:24.766 - Thanks. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak? 03:45:27.330 --> 03:45:39.408 - Approach the podium state your name for the record sign in and you'll have three minutes My name is 03:45:39.408 --> 03:45:52.574 - Jerry Stasney I along with Doug Horn own multiple homes in this area I've worked in this area for 40 years I 03:45:53.666 --> 03:46:00.559 - Of course, we had the old Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Association, which I was the president at 03:46:00.559 --> 03:46:07.728 - some portion in time. We do believe in historic preservation. Janine Butler, Sandy Cole, Marge Hudgens, 03:46:07.728 --> 03:46:14.690 - myself, and Doug worked with the university to preserve the homes on 8th Street. They were beautiful 03:46:14.690 --> 03:46:21.721 - homes, architecturally. There are a lot of homes, however, in the old Northeast that are not quite of 03:46:21.721 --> 03:46:22.686 - that stature. 03:46:22.978 --> 03:46:32.599 - some of them do need to be taken down and new homes or new Apartments houses put up so that for the 03:46:32.599 --> 03:46:42.412 - next 100 years We can have some a good product for the students to live in or anybody that's near the 03:46:42.412 --> 03:46:50.974 - university Several years ago the old Northeast had a group of individuals that wanted to 03:46:51.106 --> 03:46:58.343 - break away from the old Northeast and form what was called High Point. And most of the homes, I believe, 03:46:58.343 --> 03:47:05.303 - that were shown on this evening were from that area. There are much nicer homes on North Washington, 03:47:05.303 --> 03:47:12.402 - on North Lincoln, between 12th Street and 8th Street. There's some very nice homes. A lot of the other 03:47:12.402 --> 03:47:20.190 - homes are just pretty much mixed, and a lot of them are in need of being torn down and newer homes being put up. 03:47:20.290 --> 03:47:27.902 - And while people say that it's better to have older homes because they're inexpensively maintained, 03:47:27.902 --> 03:47:35.970 - I would kind of disagree with that. We've remodeled many, many homes and have spent hundreds of thousands 03:47:35.970 --> 03:47:41.374 - of dollars on restoring the homes. And what it does is it gives a home 03:47:41.602 --> 03:47:47.921 - for students or whoever would like to live there, but it has new electricity, new plumbing, 03:47:47.921 --> 03:47:55.065 - whatever it is. It's not cheap to do those types of things. So what I would say as far as this proposal 03:47:55.065 --> 03:48:02.071 - is, would be to keep the preservation between Lincoln and Washington Street, which is high point. And 03:48:02.071 --> 03:48:09.214 - understand, I've walked through this neighborhood and I saw folks walking through the neighborhood with 03:48:09.442 --> 03:48:16.135 - their pencils and papers and going by homes, and I thought to myself, I can't tell you how many bags 03:48:16.135 --> 03:48:22.828 - of trash, how many homes that I have painted, and how hard we have worked over the years to maintain 03:48:22.828 --> 03:48:29.984 - this neighborhood. So while I appreciate the folks wanting to have a certain portion of the area considered 03:48:29.984 --> 03:48:36.611 - historic, I think you ought to look at the neighborhood and say it's probably Washington Street and 03:48:36.611 --> 03:48:38.334 - Lincoln from 12th to 8th. 03:48:38.594 --> 03:48:46.484 - A lot of the other ones. Thank you very much. That is your time new ones, but thank you. That is your 03:48:46.484 --> 03:48:54.683 - time. Thank you very much Would anybody like to make any final comment on ordinance 2026-07 Councilmember 03:48:54.683 --> 03:49:02.573 - Flaherty I have some additional questions and to folks anticipated voting tonight or a second reading 03:49:02.573 --> 03:49:04.894 - how to remind me I think that 03:49:05.410 --> 03:49:12.529 - There have been multiple council members who have already indicated that they expect answers for questions 03:49:12.529 --> 03:49:19.383 - that couldn't be answered tonight. I do think it would probably make sense to continue this vote until 03:49:19.383 --> 03:49:26.037 - May 20th. Given that I think that at this point in time we should do final comment. If you have any 03:49:26.037 --> 03:49:32.158 - other questions please submit them to Mr. Sandweis especially given that it's already 1030. 03:49:32.770 --> 03:49:42.611 - Yeah, I'm happy to submit great additional questions in writing. Thank you. Does anyone have any problem 03:49:42.611 --> 03:49:52.171 - with that or anything to add? Great, let's do final comment Any other comments councilmember Stasberg 03:49:52.171 --> 03:49:57.982 - I was just gonna make a motion I would like to Move ordinance 03:49:58.370 --> 03:50:05.794 - Gosh I lost track of what ordinance we were on ordinance twenty twenty six oh seven to our next regular 03:50:05.794 --> 03:50:13.147 - session for a second reading on I do believe that that is the 20th of May Second there's been a motion 03:50:13.147 --> 03:50:19.358 - and a second to continue discussion for May 20th. Will the clerk please call the roll. 03:50:32.994 --> 03:50:48.251 - Councilmember, sorry. Yes. Daily. No. Rallo. No. Ruff. No. Rosenbacher. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stossberg. 03:50:48.251 --> 03:51:00.990 - Yes. Piedmont-Smith. Yes. Zulek. No. What is the, is that? It's five four. Five four. 03:51:04.194 --> 03:51:14.365 - Five four passes point of information. What's the motion to reconsider a vote. I'd like to change mine. 03:51:14.365 --> 03:51:24.732 - You can move to reconsider a motion that we reconsider. Second. Okay. There's been a motion to reconsider 03:51:24.732 --> 03:51:33.534 - the motion to postpone ordinance 20 26 7 to the next regularly scheduled council meeting. 03:51:35.202 --> 03:51:42.534 - Councilmember Stasberg Just as a note to vote on something tonight. We have to be unanimous about whether 03:51:42.534 --> 03:51:49.728 - or not we want to vote on it So I'm not sure that it would matter if we reconsider it because I suspect 03:51:49.728 --> 03:51:56.645 - we wouldn't have unanimity on whether or not to vote on it Thank you for making that clarification. 03:51:56.645 --> 03:52:04.254 - I withdraw my motion Great in that case the next time that we will hear ordinance 20 2607 will be on May 20th 03:52:04.610 --> 03:52:25.728 - Thank you all very much for being here. Sorry about that. Okay. I move that ordinance 2026-08 be read 03:52:25.728 --> 03:52:33.182 - by title and synopsis only. Second. 03:52:33.314 --> 03:52:41.012 - Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Given that it is after 10.30, I am going to ask the clerk 03:52:41.012 --> 03:52:49.018 - to call the roll. Can I comment before the vote? Is that okay? Since it's debatable. Just that I would, 03:52:49.018 --> 03:52:57.101 - I similarly have noted the time and would prefer not to substantively discuss any additional legislation 03:52:57.101 --> 03:52:58.718 - tonight, but I think 03:52:59.714 --> 03:53:05.357 - by introducing the next four ordinances, the UDO technical corrections, and moving them then on to second 03:53:05.357 --> 03:53:10.946 - reading, basically moving to introduce them but not discuss them tonight puts them all in second reading 03:53:10.946 --> 03:53:16.376 - posture next regular session, which is procedurally more advantageous with respect to the flexibility 03:53:16.376 --> 03:53:21.752 - of voting on things. So I think that's worthwhile to do, and so I hope my colleagues will join me in 03:53:21.752 --> 03:53:24.254 - doing that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? 03:53:24.962 --> 03:53:32.091 - Sorry, I share councilmember Flaherty's position. I'm so just like to echo that great anyone else Great. 03:53:32.091 --> 03:53:38.949 - Well the clerk that's member Stasberg I just want to know that we've had planning staff sitting over 03:53:38.949 --> 03:53:45.739 - there for four hours right now So I don't know if that makes a difference in terms of allowing them 03:53:45.739 --> 03:53:52.733 - to say whatever it is that they might want to say as part of this Well, the clerk please call the roll 03:53:52.733 --> 03:53:54.430 - Councilmember daily, yes 03:53:55.778 --> 03:54:06.002 - Rollo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stossberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, so like yes. 03:54:06.002 --> 03:54:16.226 - I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you Great. Thank you. That passes and I know will the clerk piece read Ordinance 03:54:16.226 --> 03:54:20.990 - 2026-0 a to amend and provide technical clarity 03:54:22.402 --> 03:54:30.079 - corrections to title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Unified Development Ordinance. The 03:54:30.079 --> 03:54:37.756 - synopsis is as follows. This ordinance contains technical corrections or clarifications in the U.D.O. 03:54:37.756 --> 03:54:45.583 - including reference corrections removal of unnecessary wording and sinking references across the U.D.O. 03:54:45.583 --> 03:54:51.454 - There are 22 amendments proposed. Thank you. I move that ordinance 20 26 0 9. 03:54:51.618 --> 03:55:01.082 - be read by title and synopsis only. Is there a second second. Will the clerk please read. Excuse me. 03:55:01.082 --> 03:55:11.390 - All in favor please say aye aye aye. All opposed. Will the clerk please read ordinance twenty twenty six dash 03:55:11.746 --> 03:55:18.724 - 20-09 to amend provide technical corrections to chapter 4 development standards and incentives of title 03:55:18.724 --> 03:55:25.635 - 20 of the blooming to municipal code Entitled unified development ordinance the synopsis is as follows 03:55:25.635 --> 03:55:32.478 - This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to chapter 4 development standards and incentives. 03:55:32.478 --> 03:55:39.389 - There are 70 amendments in this petition Thank you. I Move that ordinance 2026-10 be read by title and 03:55:39.389 --> 03:55:40.798 - synopsis only second 03:55:41.602 --> 03:55:48.266 - Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed. Great. Well, the clerk please read 03:55:48.266 --> 03:55:54.929 - ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero ten to amend and provide technical corrections to chapter six 03:55:54.929 --> 03:56:01.926 - administration and procedures of title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Unified Development 03:56:01.926 --> 03:56:08.990 - Ordinance. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to chapter six. 03:56:09.090 --> 03:56:15.489 - administration and procedures of the unified development ordinance. There are twenty seven amendments 03:56:15.489 --> 03:56:21.763 - in this petition. Thank you. I move that ordinance 20 26 dash 11 be read by title and synopsis only 03:56:21.763 --> 03:56:28.225 - second. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye aye. All opposed. Great. 03:56:28.225 --> 03:56:29.982 - Well the clerk please read. 03:56:31.138 --> 03:56:37.096 - Ordinance 2026-11, to amend and provide technical corrections to Chapter 2, Zoning Districts, 03:56:37.096 --> 03:56:43.560 - Chapter 3, Use Regulations, Chapter 5, Subdivision Standards, and Chapter 7, Divisions of Title 20 of 03:56:43.560 --> 03:56:49.898 - the Bloomington Municipal Code, entitled Unified Development Ordinance. The synopsis is as follows. 03:56:49.898 --> 03:56:55.158 - This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to Chapter 2, Zoning Districts, 03:56:55.158 --> 03:56:57.630 - Chapter 3, Use Regulations, Chapter 5, 03:56:57.730 --> 03:57:08.621 - Subdivision standards chapter 7 definitions of the unified development ordinance. There are 28 amendments 03:57:08.621 --> 03:57:18.999 - in this petition. Thank you. I know we're going to the second ratings now. I move that resolution 20 03:57:18.999 --> 03:57:24.958 - 26 0 6 be read by title and synopsis only point of order. 03:57:25.218 --> 03:57:32.703 - I don't think we need to introduce any of the second reading items, right? If we're not if if we're 03:57:32.703 --> 03:57:40.188 - not planning to subsequently discuss them tonight, they would just Simply just appear again in that 03:57:40.188 --> 03:57:47.748 - section. I withdraw my motion is that we have Substantively discussed I forget the number but 20 26. 03:57:47.748 --> 03:57:54.110 - Oh, yeah. Yeah And I mean and yeah, so I'd be prepared to vote on it tonight without 03:57:54.466 --> 03:58:04.815 - Much discussion if if if our colleagues felt the same way, but yeah, so just for the good of the order 03:58:04.815 --> 03:58:15.265 - Got it when you would like to introduce either resolution Okay in that case we will move on to it would 03:58:15.265 --> 03:58:23.102 - you I Guess I'm prior to making a motion to introduce resolution 2026 Oh five 03:58:23.458 --> 03:58:29.169 - Which is the one I've sponsored I guess if folks are willing to Share share whether whether 03:58:29.169 --> 03:58:35.439 - like councilmember. Sorry there they feel comfortable voting tonight with minimal Discussion because 03:58:35.439 --> 03:58:41.832 - we've discussed it subsequently already. I think we could if folks were willing I'd be willing to take 03:58:41.832 --> 03:58:48.102 - it up, but also don't want to give it short shrift. So Well, you we could make a motion to introduce 03:58:48.102 --> 03:58:51.454 - and then just have a roll call vote. That's fine Okay 03:58:51.682 --> 03:59:08.310 - Move we introduce resolution 26 20 2606 by title synopsis on oh Five oh five twenty six oh five apologies 03:59:08.310 --> 03:59:20.702 - second. Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll? No offense no Flaherty 03:59:21.506 --> 03:59:31.688 - Yes Stasberg I'm sorry. What are we motioning to introduce? I was out of the room when the motion was 03:59:31.688 --> 03:59:41.870 - made Resolution. Oh, no Piedmont Smith Yes Zulik no, sorry. I'll also say no. Thank you daily Doesn't 03:59:41.870 --> 03:59:50.654 - matter no Thank you. Thank you that fails would anyone else like to introduce anything? 03:59:51.586 --> 03:59:58.709 - Great. We will move on to an additional section of public comment. If you would like to speak, 03:59:58.709 --> 04:00:06.432 - please rise, sign in, and state your name for the record. Great. And if you have any comments on Zoom, 04:00:06.432 --> 04:00:14.079 - please raise your hand. Is there anybody on Zoom? Great. Thank you. Jeff Richardson. I know tonight's 04:00:14.079 --> 04:00:18.878 - earlier vote was a difficult one. It wears a lot of complexity. 04:00:19.138 --> 04:00:25.362 - A lot of improvement that could be had in the process, but you made the decision. I'm so grateful and 04:00:25.362 --> 04:00:31.465 - I want to thank you for doing your due diligence, doing your hard work and not kicking the can down 04:00:31.465 --> 04:00:37.689 - the road. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak during 04:00:37.689 --> 04:00:40.862 - this last period of general public comment on zoom? 04:00:41.922 --> 04:00:48.470 - And we will go to our council schedule. I believe there is a committee on council process meeting next 04:00:48.470 --> 04:00:54.828 - Thursday on May 21st at 4 p.m There our next regularly scheduled meeting is going to be held on May 04:00:54.828 --> 04:01:01.567 - 20th at 6 30 p.m Where we will hear some of the other legislation we heard tonight again, and does anyone 04:01:01.567 --> 04:01:07.924 - else have any council member Statsburg? there's a fiscal committee meeting on Friday morning at 830 04:01:07.924 --> 04:01:11.230 - and we do have a deliberation session next week and 04:01:11.426 --> 04:01:21.688 - On the 13th on councilmember Flaherty Pedestrians no removal. Is that right? Yeah pedestrian safety 04:01:21.688 --> 04:01:32.565 - and accessibility Great Councilmember sorry, just I'm flagging and for everybody Following our resolution 04:01:32.565 --> 04:01:33.694 - around the 04:01:34.690 --> 04:01:42.251 - What was it about the jail have started some initial engagement with county council and mayor and county 04:01:42.251 --> 04:01:49.524 - commissioners with the hope of sort of setting up a all hands meeting pending some pending some what 04:01:49.524 --> 04:01:56.725 - do you call them contingencies that they need to figure out. And so that may be something that I'll 04:01:56.725 --> 04:02:00.542 - reach out fairly soon about with them with a sort of 04:02:00.738 --> 04:02:07.555 - Availability poll or something similar. So and also our job is posted if you know any lawyers who want 04:02:07.555 --> 04:02:14.636 - to be municipal lawyers Thank You councilmember Rosenberger. Thank you. I just wanted to say Councilmember 04:02:14.636 --> 04:02:20.990 - daily and I are working on a this is a she wasn't I'm saying this I am an ordinance to create a 04:02:21.730 --> 04:02:28.733 - An amendment to title 15 to have carless or the or streets with no vehicular traffic This is in part 04:02:28.733 --> 04:02:36.083 - to get Kirkwood a pedestrian zone kind of place for potentially this summer We will have it on the agenda 04:02:36.083 --> 04:02:43.363 - I think for the 20th and I do want to try to connect with everybody in the next two weeks to potentially 04:02:43.363 --> 04:02:50.366 - be have it queued up if people want to vote on it to vote on it at the first reading just because it 04:02:50.498 --> 04:02:56.195 - is a long time coming and folks are waiting on it. Great. Thank you. Anyone else. Great. In that case 04:02:56.195 --> 04:02:57.982 - we're adjourned. Thank you all.