I'm gonna call to order this meeting of the Bloomington City Council on Wednesday, July 22nd The agendas
are printed out on the clerk's desk and there are some posted on the doors We have fairly straightforward
meeting today First we'll have some minutes for approval I believe and then reports
I'm sorry. I always am I'm even reading it right here The first thing that will happen will be a roll
call and so in which case I'm well clerk Bolden, please call roll It's fine councilmember Flaherty Here
Stasberg here Piedmont Smith Zulik Asari here Daly here Rallo here rough Rosen barker here
Thank you. All right. So back to the agenda summation. Then we have one piece of legislation for first
reading and three pieces of legislation for second reading. There will be two times of public comment.
All right. So with that, let's go. If there are any minutes for approval, do we have any?
I don't think we did, right? Okay, we don't have any minutes for approval, so moving swiftly along.
Council members, any reports? Please, Council Member Stasberg.
Go ahead and say welcome back to our first meeting after recess I spent my recess traveling to a few
different places and it's one of those interesting things when you get out of Bloomington now I look
at lots of elements and pieces of the places where I was and sometimes that makes me go oh
wow, look at all the things Bloomington has. And sometimes it makes me go, oh, look at all the things
Bloomington doesn't have. But I mostly wanted to take a minute to celebrate some of the things that
we have in terms of our infrastructure. One of the places that I went to was Belize, and it was very,
very interesting. But there was also transportation infrastructure was not the same.
And it was really interesting, the elements that I thought to myself, oh, it would be like, we have
a lot better infrastructure in some of these ways.
in terms of our transportation infrastructure. And then in other ways, they had some sleeping policemen,
if you've ever been to Belize, maybe you've heard about the sleeping policemen, they are speed bumps
in the middle of 50 mile an hour roads. And you learn to expect them, you learn where they are, and
everybody just goes with it. And it is one of those interesting pieces of infrastructure that we wanna,
like, I hear lots of complaints about speed bumps, but it is,
definitely a tool that slows you down on Belizean highways when you are approaching a bus stop in the
middle of a 50 mile an hour road. And it can really be utilized as a tool and people just get used to
it. And so that's something that I want to kind of put out there is this general like things change
and things are different and there are many different ways to proceed and do things and do things well and
People are very, very adaptable, and success can look like a lot of different things. So that's my takeaway
from my nice, relaxing summer traveling. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Council Member
Pima-Smith. Yes. On a slightly less positive note, I did want to express my dismay that the
land swap seems to have not occurred that we were supporting for the College Square site that the RDC
owns and the Seminary Point site that the CIB owns with different dates for requests for proposals by
the two bodies. They seem to be going forward in
different directions and further away from any possibility of swapping land, which is unfortunate. So
that's all. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that up. Any other comments or reports? I'd like to make just two
brief ones. The first is in terms of things to be dismayed by. Many of you may be familiar with the
Bloomingtonian, which is a local news organization that recently had its page taken down by Facebook without
any sort of process was taken down by an AI bot. I'm particularly concerned about this, something I've
often spoken about, but you know, local media of any sort matters a lot and we live, luckily we have
people who have
you know, dedicated, I think, at a lot of cost of sweat and tears and often financial to themselves,
a lot of time to this community and making sure that we stay informed. Obviously, people like the B
Square Bulletin and the Bloomingtonian, I think, are pillars of how we stay informed as a community.
And so I was obviously dismayed that that happened. Very happy, though, that
I mean, luckily, Facebook seems to have responded now and reinstated their account, but it's still at
a state where they're not monetized now as an account. And so if any of you feel so compelled, it would
be wonderful if you can support the Blue Lintonian, if you care about that type of journalism that's
happening in the community. The second thing, I think similarly,
not a particularly happy thing to speak about, but there were recent reports of a potential hate crime
that happened at People's Market at their greenhouse just two days ago, or just yesterday, I'm sorry,
where I don't want to go into all of the details, but the simple fact of the matter is that somebody
was attacked based on their identity, and this is something that I think too often
we like to act like does not happen in a place like Bloomington. And we like to say, well, we're Bloomington.
If any of you ever watched the film about Matthew Shepard, one of the common threads that happened in
that film was that people in Laramie, Wyoming would say, well, this is Laramie. This type of thing doesn't
happen here. We're a very liberal community. I went to high school in Laramie, Wyoming, so I remember
this kind of vividly. But here in Bloomington, we have that same type
of approach a lot of the times when we talk about equity when we talk about what it really means to
be a resident in this town. It's too often that we think that we can rest on our liberal you know sort
of laurels and and forget the fact that the very reason why we still have work to do is that if
anyone is oppressed, then we all are. If anybody is under threat, then we all are. And so I just would
like to very clearly say that we're against all forms of violence, and that this type of violence needs
to be addressed the right way. Through economic means, it needs to be addressed very clearly with policy.
And also, again, if anybody is so inclined, the people's market would love your investment. And so if
you're able to invest in some way, shape, or form in making
is community safer, more accepting. It's just the sort of general call and plea. So again, thank you
all for all the work you do. Welcome back. I'm very excited for this portion of our term. Let us move
on then. We have reports from the mayor now in which there'll be a presentation of the 2026 Human Rights
Award. Who is doing said presentation?
There is no wrong side Perfect, thank you So good evening, my name is Emma Williams and I serve as the
chair of the Bloomington and Monroe County Human Rights Commission and
It's truly an honor to be here tonight, not only in my role as chair, but as a member of this community
that continues to show up for one another in really meaningful ways. On behalf of the Commission, it's
my honor to welcome and present this year's Human Rights Awards. The Commission exists to promote fairness,
dignity, and equal opportunity in our community, and tonight, we're going to recognize the people and
organizations who bring those values to life in really meaningful ways.
The human rights award was established in 1997 and it honors individuals and groups who have made significant
contributions to civil rights human relations and community here in Bloomington and Monroe County Each
year the nominees remind us that progress is built day by day through the commitment care and courage
of the people in this community It's a privilege to recognize two recipients this evening whose work
reflects exactly that first the 2026
Individual Human Rights Award is presented to Melanie Davis. Mel's work... Mell's work has been rooted
in advocacy, education, and a deep commitment to service.
As her nominator shared, she's dedicated her life to expanding opportunities for members of the LGBTQ
plus community to grow, thrive, and find safety, and build meaningful connections amongst our community.
Her impact can be seen across many spaces, from her work with Protect Our People, helping to ensure
access to resources for the transgender community, to her involvement with B-Town PFLAG, and her voice
on WFHB's Blooming Out Radio Program.
Most recently, Mel became the founding president of the Front Door LGBTIQ Center, which is working to
create a safe, sober, and family-friendly space for the LGBTIQ community here in Bloomington. Through
all her work, Mel has helped make Bloomington and Monroe County a more welcoming, inclusive,
and compassionate place for everyone. Her efforts remind us what it is and what it means to build community
with intention and care. Congratulations, Mel.
Next, the 2026 Organizational Human Rights Award is presented to Mother Hubbard's Cupboard. Mother Hubbard's
Cupboard works every day to increase access and nutrition
access to nutritious food in ways that cultivates dignity, agency, and community. Through their food
pantry, garden, and educational programs, they create a space where people are treated with respect
and where community is actively built. One nominator spoke about their personal experience receiving
resources, and they shared a simple but powerful truth. Access to food changes lives.
At its core, this work reflects the understanding that having enough to eat is not a privilege, it's
a basic human right. Mother Hubbard's Cupboard embodies that principle in action, ensuring that members
of our community are supported in meeting immediate needs, and they do so with dignity and empowerment.
So join me once again to congratulate Mother Hubbard's Cupboard.
Tonight's honorees remind us that human rights work can take the shape of many forms, advocacy, education,
service, and care, but at its core, it's about recognizing the inherent worth of every single person.
We're grateful for their contributions and for the example they set for all of us. Thank you. Thank
you so much. Fantastic. And we'll now move for any reports from council committees. Are there any? All right.
Moving on and congratulations again. Moving on to the first best part of the meeting, which is time
for public comment.
Rules are as they usually are. You have three minutes. Please remember to sign in. State your name or
alias for the record, if you will. People online, we'll start with people in the room. And then if you
are online, you can raise your hand and we'll acknowledge you for public comment. We'll start in the
room. And I see Commissioner Madeira here. So take it away.
Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to address the council on a matter of mutual interest to
the county and the city. So at a recent commissioner meeting, we identified time and space as key factors
of importance in selecting a jail location. So time, we must proceed as quickly as possible with the
construction of a jail facility and unnecessary delays are not acceptable. In space, we need to find
a buildable acres sufficient to build a jail facility.
Co location was strongly preferred and space for adequate external circulation So and there is a there
should be materials that are being distributed to so that I will not need to elaborate at great length
on these So the county considered the hopeful property in 2022-23 Although at the time we had a design
that was limited to only a jail. This was understandably problematic for the sheriff and
We approached the City Council at that time and requested consideration for the use of that part of
the Hopewell property for a jail facility. The Council declined to support the request at that time.
We recently reviewed our scoring matrix from years ago and Hopewell came up as a preferred site.
At this time, I'd like to turn the podium over to my colleague, Commissioner-President Julie Thomas.
Hello, everyone. Thank you.
So our architect experts at DLZ designed a combined justice facility. You'll see it on the paper that
was handed to you. Because the city has expressed an interest in assisting us, we are returning now
to repeat our request for consideration. It is close to downtown and center stone as well. There is
an important caveat, however.
we cannot utilize this site if it will require a full plan Commission and City Council review because
that would mean an additional minimum of Nine months of time that we really do not have so we do ask
for your support for this request to go before the city's redevelopment Commission and
If you support this we'd also ask for copies of the geotechnical studies of the property And we do ask
and request that you respond to our
As soon as you possibly can we would be open to considering purchase of the property Or potentially
to develop a land swap for the Thompson property, which is considerably more acreage But we'd obviously
would need our council approval on that So, please contact us via email if you have questions and or
to let us know hopefully that you support this plea Thank you so much for your time
That's that was great. Okay. Are there any other comments in the room? Mr. MG Hey, good evening council
happy townie summer This is Chris term G from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce Fresh from
the Sherwood Oaks 50th anniversary from the euro award-winning Parks Department a jewel in the city I want to
Recognize the city's comprehensive audit of the development review and permitting services conducted
by American Structure point plus welcome longtime chamber friend of and friend of the community. Mr
Lynn coin his new leadership role at the plan department and important juncture For several years the
chambers heard concerns of from our members about Bloomington's review and permitting process Those
concerns were never about avoiding rules
People wanted to understand what was expecting of them, a straight answer based on the code, and have
some sense of how long these things were actually going to last. The audit confirms those experiences
are real. It found excessive review time, poor coordination among departments, conflicting comments,
and inconsistent interpretations of that code. Perhaps most telling, it found culture of mistrust with
stakeholders describing reviewers as gatekeepers rather than collaborators.
That finding about culture is one that I would ask the council to just sit on for a little bit. The
report recommends helping applicants find a path to yes. Not by overlooking the code, but explaining
the requirements clearly and helping compliant projects move forward. The audit also provides useful
perspective on staffing, which we've heard from this chamber. Bloomington appears appropriately staffed.
The larger opportunity is not simply adding positions. It's improving coordination, accountability,
project ownership and consistency. For our members, these problems are especially visible in adaptive
reuse. A small business owner may see an older storefront and see an opportunity, but once the process
begins, that modest improvements can trigger substantial architectural, engineering, accessibility,
and construction costs. Consider the proposed emergency vet clinic on West Second Street.
Reusing that building produced roughly $130,000 to $150,000 for the exterior site alone. So that's parking,
sidewalks, ADA ramps, landscaping. That doesn't include the interior work or specialized equipment needed
in that veterinarian hospital. For a larger develop, those costs are manageable. For a small business,
six-figure costs can be death knell for a project, leaving a needed service unrealized and the existing
property vacant. We are grateful
For the City Commission this audit and made it public but a report alone will not change anyone's experience
Implementation will be the real measure of success We welcome Len coins leadership and see an opportunity
to build clear more collaborative system one that protects Bloomington standards while giving residents
and Businesses confidence they can navigate this process. I thank you for your time tonight, and I'm
just under Thank you We'll go online and then see mr. Rousseau here. But um, is there anybody online
with a comment?
All right, we'll come back to chambers, Mr. Rizzo. Good evening, I'll be very short. I look forward
to the conversation that is about to take place with the Bloomington Housing Authority, and I hope you
ask a lot of appropriate questions, because I'm confused. I haven't had time to pore over the documents.
I would like to know.
City is city money being used to Mr.. So just just though the rules of the house say that you can't
you can't comment during this period about a thing That's already on the agenda so right you are I've
completely forgotten. Please ask a lot of questions. Thank you
Hello, hi, I'm Megan Betts. I'm here with Mother Hubbard's Cupboard. And I'm so thankful to have extra
motivation to be here tonight. But while I was here, I didn't want to pass up on an opportunity to just
share a couple of summer invitations that we have over at Mother Hubbard's Cupboard. So I'm just going
to run through some upcoming program. As a reminder, every Tuesday from 4.30 to 5.30, we have Kids'
Garden, which is a drop-in opportunity
To bring the kids out, all ages, older kiddos get an opportunity to lead younger kids in the garden.
They'll tend to the space. They'll work on their observation skills. They'll connect with the space.
And over time, we really see kids take it on as a space that they have ownership of. So drop into Kids'
Garden. You don't have to be there for the whole time. Just come as it works. Wednesday, 430 to 530,
we have kids cook. So again, kids of all ages can drop into an opportunity to try out a recipe.
We try to keep those seasonal so things that are in the garden will make their way into the kitchen
and things that are in the pantry will also make their way into those recipes so that the pantry feels
like a more exciting place for families to shop from and have some ideas to take home. Those are open
to everyone, no registration required. But we do have a couple of free workshops each month on Tuesday
and Thursday evenings if you or anybody in your community are interested.
in learning about fermentation or sourdough baking, making your own homemade tortillas, then I encourage
you to check out our education page on our website and join in sharing and building your kitchen skills.
And then we also have garden work days. We've been monitoring excessive heat and air quality, but when
it works out from four to six on Thursday, we are in the garden together.
And the last Thursday of the month, those become dig and dine. So we spend some time in the garden and
then also share a meal together. So I encourage all of you to drop in, spend some time together, be
out in the garden while things are feeling really abundant, and just join in everything that we're up
to. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to make comments in chamber?
All right. Anybody online? We'll move along then. Are there any appointments to boards and commissions?
Seeing none, we will move along to legislation for first readings and any motions. I move that ordinance
2026-15 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second. There's a motion and
a second. Any discussion? All right. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Flaherty?
Yes. Sasseberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Ruff? Yes. Rosenberger?
Yes. Thank you. Will the clerk please read. Ordinance 2026-15, amending Title II of the Bloomington
Municipal Code regarding establishment of the Fire Merit Commission.
Councilsponsors councilmember Zulek the synopsis is as follows this ordinance amends title to of the
Bloomington Municipal Code to delineate the duties between the Bloomington Board of Public Safety and
the City of Bloomington Fire Merit Commission and to create a new chapter Which identifies the existence
of the statutorily created City of Bloomington Merit Fire Merit Commission? Thank you very much. I Move
for council to discuss legislation
All right. Remind me, we need to vote on that too. Okay, we need to vote on that and will the clerk
please call the roll. Council Member Stasberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo?
Yes. Ruff? Yes. Piedmont, or wow, Rosenberger? Yes. And Flaherty? Yes. Thank you. All right. Is there
somebody here to present on that? Are you here to present on it?
OK, no. No. Attorney Allen, was Councilmember Zulik supposed to present on this matter? I would have
expected the city legal department. I don't know if there's someone online who would like to present.
I can give a brief synopsis of the changes, if you would all like, since there appears to be nobody.
Is there somebody online? And if not, yes, absolutely, we'll go to you, sir. There's no one online?
Interesting. Okay. Well then Please take it away. I'm attorney Allen wonderful This this ordinance
essentially just it updates title to you as it said as we heard by the title So state code was changed
a few years ago to add in merit board systems as a default for police and fire and
The city of Bloomington had a split decision on the merit boards. The police department decided not
to adopt the merit board The merit board as part of their and to continue with the Board of Public Safety
as its oversight body They affirmatively did that as provided by state law. However, the fire department
did go with the merit system in accordance the
the Board of Public Safety no longer has that oversight over the fire department. It should be the new
merit board system. So what this ordinance essentially does is it updates existing language in Title
II to make it clear that the Board of Public Safety no longer has that oversight role over the fire
department and then it adds language to add that merit board consideration in accordance with Indiana
law and as the city decided for the merit board system for the fire department. Thank you very much.
Any questions or discussion?
Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. Hi there. My name is Wes Martin. I'm the president of Local
586 Political Action Committee. We are the local firefighters union, and I'm here to speak in support
of the ordinance. And yeah, just say that this is a system that we are excited to be a part of. I understand
that the police did not want to go ahead with this.
but it's something that our membership looks forward to and it's nice to have kind of additional oversight
over both promotions and disciplinary action within our department and to have some union buy-in in
that process. So again, Local 586 and our local firefighters union recommend passage of this ordinance.
I know this is first reading, but yeah, that's our position. Thank you very much. Are there any other
commenters in the chamber?
All right, moving online, is there anybody online who'd like to comment? Okay, well back to council,
any comments or questions or motions? Councilmember Slasberg. I'll just say that I'm supportive of this change.
reminding hopefully not necessarily my colleagues but the public that we discussed this probably about
a year ago at this point when it was first established and it feels just kind of like an oversight at
the time that it didn't get worked into code. I'm delighted to hear that the fire department union supports
this change because that says to me that it's been working well for the last year. So yeah, I don't
have any questions and I guess I'll move that
We move it to second reading at our meeting next week, right? Next week. Next week. Second. Second.
Second. OK. There's a motion and a second to move this to our July 29th meeting. Can the clerk please
call the roll?
Piedmont Smith. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty.
I'm sorry. I'd missed it. We didn't get Councilman Flaherty. Stasberg. Yes.
All right, so that'll be on the agenda for next week. We're now moved to second readings and resolutions.
I'll just make a quick procedural note here. If you note, we hadn't put item A on the agenda originally.
namely because right before winter break, we had a lot of feedback that continued to receive throughout
the time. We did not have time within the window to action all of that. And so I'm asking that we don't
introduce this and postpone it. But of course, that's to you all to decide. But all right, so if there's
any motions, 20, 26, 12.
move to I move Sorry, I forgot my words. I move that ordinance 2026-12 be introduced and read by the
clerk by title and synopsis only or We can say no Okay, I move that we postpone no, I
There's no second there was no second so I know I would like to hear from attorney Allen how we should
So if there's no second that it doesn't get introduced but so Potentially it just fails to be considered
at this meeting However, I mean the cleaner way is potentially to go ahead and read this on the agenda
and move to my understanding from Councilmember sorry, of course, I don't want to say anything different
President sorry, but if you wanted to reintroduce a new resolution The way to do this is be to table
this particular version of the resolution so that it could only be brought back up by a majority vote
of council But it wouldn't be necessarily postponed to a different time at this point That actually
is a better idea. So we don't to do lots of amendments So yes, do we in order to do that? Do we need
to introduce it so we can discuss it so we can have that motion? Yeah, I believe okay
So would you like to make the motion again I Move that ordinance 2026-12 be introduced in red by the
clerk by title and synopsis only Second there's motion a second. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Councilmember, sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes, Rallo. Yes, Ruff. Yes, Rosenberger. Yes, clarity Yes Stossburg.
Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes
All right, thank you very much. Will the clerk please read? Resolution 2026-12, establishing rules and
guidelines for alcohol permit districts. The synopsis is as follows. Resolution 2026-12 establishes
rules, procedures, and public interest guidelines for alcoholic beverage permits for which the City
of Bloomington has authority, discretion,
Influence to recommend support condition object to monitor or otherwise participate in the alcohol beverage
permitting process. I Move that ordinance 2026 dash 12 be adopted Second. All right, will the clerk
please call the roll? Oh, we don't need to sorry. Sorry. Sorry move that we withdraw Should we vote
for it? Somebody has to move to table and it can't be me
And it yeah, I'll go ahead and move Resolution 2026 12 be tabled indefinitely. I second Thank you very
much motion in a second. Will the clerk please call the roll unless sorry, is there any discussion?
All right, will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember daily Yes, Rallo
Yes, rough Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty Yes Stasburg, yes Piedmont Smith. Yes. Sorry. Yes Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. Any other motions. I Move that ordinate no resolution 2026-13 be read
by title and synopsis only motion and a second will the clerk be called the roll and
Member Rollo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stosberg. Yes. Piedmont-Smith. Yes. Asari.
Yes. Daly. Yes. Will the clerk please read. Resolution 2026-13 authorizing issuance of bonds for the BHA
For the BHA, council sponsor is Council Member Zulek. The synopsis is as follows. Resolution 2026-13
authorizes the Bloomington Housing Authority or BHA to issue up to $100 million in bonds to acquire
five properties from Hometown Group. The properties include 924 units of affordable housing for rent
at or below 100% of the area median income. The bonds will be issued at an interest rate not to exceed
9% and a term
to maturity of 45 years. This bond issuance is not an obligation of the city of Bloomington and does
not count against the city's bond limit. The bonds are to be repaid from revenue from the acquired properties
and any surplus revenue of the BHA. Thank you. I move that resolution 2026-13 be adopted. Second.
All right. Do we have someone here to present? I assume that fantastic.
Take it away. Good evening. My name is Nathan Ferrer. I'm the executive director of the Bloomington
Housing Authority. Thank you for having us tonight. We've got a great opportunity ahead of us and hoping
to answer your questions about that. With me is Chris Cashman from Ice Miller. They are representing
BHA as bond attorneys. And we did send a presentation
So Chris is gonna start us off. Thank you. Good evening, and thanks for including us on the agenda this
evening. We can wait for the presentation to be loaded. Also, even though we've prepared a presentation,
really, you know, feel free to hop in with questions any time, because we'd like to address your questions
more so than kind of force feed you this presentation. But we can go to the first slide, which is kind
of an overview of
The bonds initially and then we'll dive in a little bit deeper after you hear more about the project
But the authorities put together a nice Working group. So ice Miller our public finance team will serve
as bond council on the transaction the authorities Hired a financial advisor and call yours will serve
as an underwriter on this proposed project Should you vote to move the resolution forward? I
I think it's important to note, and we'll say it a few times just to drive the point home, that the
bonds would be secured by the revenues of the project and other surplus funds of the BHA. It will not
be an obligation of the city. Right now, the authority is working diligently to obtain a bond rating,
which will help market the bonds, and the bonds will be kind of offered on a limited public basis with
an offering document, so unlike maybe
Prior housing bonds that you've seen in the past these these bonds would be issued under the local housing
authority statute and Just to put the context as as to why we're here, you know before you with the
resolution That statute requires the fiscal body of the unit to approve the project So a little bit
different than perhaps you may be used to seeing with with other housing projects Let me go to the next
slide and talk about the properties if you're ready. I
That's right So the hometown group properties consist of five Apartment complexes around town. Those
are highlighted in the map Woodland Springs Basswood Northcrest Kingston Manor and Summit Point totally
924 units if you'll skip to the next one you'll see that these average rents if you're familiar with the
what the rents are right now. These are definitely in the more affordable range. There's a little more
detail. If you've heard anything about these properties, you may know that at least a couple of them
are fairly well run down. There's regular complaint calls about the quality and how they're managed
to hand and to the police department.
Excited about this project for a number of reasons first and foremost Preservation of workforce housing
of naturally occurring affordable rents are is our primary goal here We will put in you can skip to
the next one This will include nine million in capex for immediate repairs those will
focus on code violations resurfacing resurfacing interiors roof and exterior replacement at a couple
of the properties and additional repairs as needed to get them up to our standard. These apartments
will utilize am I's that are consistent with workforce housing. I didn't catch the whole description
but I want to clarify that
that 100% AMI was an average. That's what we're shooting for. We are usually in the business of creating
affordable housing, and this is workforce housing. So this is about preservation. I would say the next
primary reason we wanna do this is to create a pipeline for future LIHTC, low income housing tax credit
deals, or other deals that might use HUD tools as they become available.
To create deeper affordability much more like our rad properties at Crestmont and walnut woods and lastly
why this is really critical for us is our Our revenue from HUD has become less dependable we have faced
cuts in the form of no inflationary increase this year and
And a freeze on issuing any new vouchers. So that means when a voucher gets retired somebody doesn't
need anymore We are not issuing new ones since last July. So we're we're stuck in a pretty difficult
financial spot We estimate that bringing on these properties post construction will generate about a
million dollars of revenue per year and in the next five to ten years, we would put
Hopefully at least one of these in five years through a light tech or a rat like conversion so that
we can create deeper affordability. Yeah, I think that covers all my points. Next slide please. I'm
gonna leave this one to the bond lawyer. Thank you attorney Allen. So I think half of my colleagues
think visuals like this are helpful and I'm in the bucket that think these are a little bit of a head
scratcher.
To me this is meant to be kind of a flow of funds and how the project is going to be or would be financed
which is To show that we have our bond underwriter in the middle And they're gonna go out and market
the bonds and sell them to a bond invest investor those purchase proceeds Will flow to the project?
You know about eight or nine million will be used for capital expenditures there'll be some used for
cost of issuance and
And then the majority of the rest or the bulk of the funds would go to acquisition. The bottom part
of the graph or the picture here is meant to show that the property, that the actual rental income is
what secures the bonds. So as our tenants pay or as their subsidized rents pay, that flows through the
indenture and pays the bondholders with any surplus funds of the authority.
Should any surplus funds be needed and we can go to the next slide, please And this is meant to show
a timeline of kind of where we are in the process It's not really kind of like a hard delineated set
of buckets here So some of this overlaps, but I would say we're around step four. So The BHA has gone
to the EDC They've gone through the inducement process. So they've gone before their board for like
initial approvals as well and
And then they started putting together a working group including folks to market the bonds bond council
including ice Miller Financial advisors. We've started drafting documents for approval as well And now
we're here before you as the fiscal body For approval by resolution which is required by the Housing
Authority statute and then they'll go back before their board again next week and then you know
Once hopefully the resolution moves forward and receives your your up votes We'll go out and market
the bonds rate lock and then proceed to closing and there's still a lot of work left to do but you know,
we're pretty lucky in the city to have a housing authority like Bloomington's and They've done a lot
of great work so far to get to this point. So we can go to the next slide. I
And this is kind of driving some points that we already mentioned home a little bit more. But the bonds
will be issued pursuant to the local housing authority statute 36-7-1830. And they're payable solely
from project revenues and surplus funds of the BHA. They're not payable from taxes, and they're not
a general obligation of the city. And issuing these bonds will have no effect on the constitutional
debt limit or bank-qualified limit of the city.
We mentioned here that the City Council as Fiscal body of the unit is required to approve the project
by resolution and The interest is meant to be tax-exempt. So the holders of the bonds will receive tax-exempt
interest at the federal and state level And I think that's where we'll open it up to any questions that
we can address about
Fiscal body approval and anything regarding the project as well Thank you so much Councilmembers questions
Councilmember Pima Smith So a hundred million dollars, that's a lot of money what is the timeline for
repaying the bonds We're looking at eight years at the moment and The the model we have at the moment is
Includes potentially selling the properties at the end. We don't intend to do that. So as we As the
model gets more specific the bond payment may take longer The one that we're utilizing at the moment
is for eight years with a contemplated sale at the end Wait, you said you might sell the properties
at the end, but you don't know know what?
It the pro forma that we have contemplates a sale at the end. We don't intend to do that That is not
our intent. We will keep these and we will redevelop them But that'll impact how the the bonds get repaid
back paid back. So I actually I don't know how long it the sale is Yeah, so let me I think it's a little
bit longer maybe like a 10-year wham at the moment But
We can get some more specifics regarding the pricing as we get closer in time as well. But right now,
it's considered to be a 10-year term for the general revenue bonds. So you expect to earn back $100
million in 10 years? No. How does this work? How does the math work? Sorry. You want me to go?
So hometown group holds a $65 million, oh, sorry, hometown group holds a $65 million Fannie Mae loan.
We are working with Fannie Mae to assume that loan. So that's part of this as well. We do not intend
to pay this all back. Like I said, the pro forma we're contemplating just has a land sale as part of
the current model, which we will not do.
I can already see I've created more confusion. So next week, I will get a more detailed response about
how long it will take to pay back both the Fannie Mae and the bonds that will be paying back as part
of this project. OK, so you'll be assuming that debt. That is the goal is for us to assume.
Yeah, there's so there were the the goal the resolution is kind of set outside parameters as it stands
now We've we've tried to build in some optionality But the approach now the structure is contemplating
assuming about 65 million dollars of existing mortgage debt on the properties which would mean if if
that's the approach that
Ultimately, we end up executing on and it's still subject to Fannie approval because it's existing
outstanding Fannie debt Then the bond issuance is going to be far less than the hundred million. But
what we didn't want to do is is present you know a much smaller dollar amount and then and then if works
if the Existing mortgage loans were then ultimately paid off if we pivoted away from assuming the debt
and paying it off then we'd have to come back with a
kind of a larger bond issuance request. So as it stands now, what we're modeling is assuming the existing
debt and then a smaller bond issuance amount somewhere around, it depends on what the debt
service requirements can handle, but somewhere around 32 million of a bond issuance if we go the route
where the existing debt is assumed. And it's older debt.
No one can predict where you know interest rates are going but we do know where interest rates have
been right? So it's it could be potentially lower cost of debt because it's a little bit of a it was
you know issued a few years ago, so Maybe more favorable to the authority to proceed that way Yeah,
so to follow up on that a little bit so that hundred million dollars is kind of like the maximum
Possible and so you're asking us in terms of approval to approve the maximum potential But really you
expect the actual bond to be lower than that As long as we get Fannie approval and the execution goes
into place where the existing debt is assumed Then it would be a much smaller bond amount So so by the
existing debt being approved so that basically means like that
You get turned over as the mortgage payer so you don't have to pay that entire thing back at once You
just start paying those mortgages, right? And so then it's like BHA still owes that money, but it's
not in the form of a bond, right? So in another way of thinking about it is the project is assuming
you know 80 to 100 million of new debt or is incurring a hundred eighty million hundred eighty to a
hundred million of new debt and
It's either going to be all bond financed or it's going to be partially financed by assuming the existing
debt and then the Delta between that would be bond finance. So I think the existing debt somewhere around
65 million and maybe the purchase price, which is still perhaps being negotiated under PSA, but would
be something like 62 million for the properties. So sorry, 72 million for the properties assuming six and
So you know right now the seven million Delta would be would be debt finance and the the existing debt
would be assumed Okay And then the nine percent interest rate which also seems kind of high is that
also a maximum and what kind of interest? Yeah, would you actually expect? So right now we're much and
it is and just to reiterate the resolution is meant to kind of set outside parameters almost like you know
Bumpers at a bowling alley, right? So it's meant to be kind of the outside Parameters and we wouldn't
expect it to be around there. I think we're modeling Currently somewhere around in between 475 and 675
on on the bond piece, but it depends on pricing and and a few other Kind of to be finalized deal terms
Is that a fair assessment?
I appreciate that interest rate a little bit more. So I'm glad that we're not actually looking at 9%.
And then in the same with the 45-year term, it's kind of an outside parameter that's allowed by statute.
So we approve that. And we don't intend or expect to go there. Right now, we're modeling on the bond
piece with the loan assumption somewhere around a 10-year term. And then we can report back on the remaining
term of the existing loan.
that the housing authority can help gather that information prior to second reading. Council Member
Flaherty. Thank you. It was a helpful presentation about some of the multiple, I guess, dimensions of
the rationale for this proposal. Some understanding the context of the revenue creation in the context
of maybe eroding support from federal government.
the opportunity to convert some of these through LITECH or RAD in the future makes sense to me. I think
the first reason mentioned was kind of like stabilizing or helping, you know, preserve workforce housing
in the community. I guess maybe two questions related to that. Like one is, are these properties generally
or any of them in particular like at risk for losing that workforce housing now under existing conditions?
Like is it,
some window that the BHA is or there's some particular need the BHA is trying to address that that isn't
being addressed currently with current owners and Do you anticipate the rents will stay about the same
as what they are now or are you trying to deliver? More affordable rents than these properties have
right now Thanks so I'll try to answer all that and let me know if I didn't So yes, we know that at least
A couple of these properties are in very poor condition. We actually conduct inspections because we
have vouchers at several of these. And we've had to address many issues with the current landlord at
several of these properties. We know that two, Kingston Manor and Summit Point are at locations that
would be prime for redevelopment. Given their locations, we would assume those would be
demoed and redeveloped as student housing like what you've seen around town. Our goal here in terms
of preservation would be to do the needed fixes and then do a much larger rehab through the light tech
or rad in the five to 10 year range and save those properties
We project rents may go up modestly, but like it said in the introduction, we'd be targeting 100% average
with a ceiling of 140% AMI, which is typical for workforce housing. And then for our RADs, once they've
gone through a conversion, our RADs, the cap is 50% AMI, so we'll introduce those gradually as we're
successful with those applications and our
are ready to do those. So did that answer most of your questions? It did. Yeah. I do have one follow-up,
if that's OK. Sure. Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead. Thank you. Which is just, what do you think are the
most significant risks of this proposal? I mean, it's a pretty significant amount of debt. What could
go wrong? How are you anticipating that? What are the downside risks here? Absolutely. There is risk
here. To the BHA, these are
general revenue pledge bonds. What that means is anything that's already not tied up in a commitment.
So anything beyond what is owed to HUD or to our investors would be at risk here. We feel like developing
affordable housing, preserving affordable housing, addressing our housing shortage is a statutory
responsibility of the housing authority. So we see this risk as worthwhile. These types of deals have
been done before, mostly in larger places. So we're a little new in that we're a smaller housing authority,
smaller community attempting this, but there's no reason in my mind that we should not try this. So
I hope that answers your question.
Yeah, I think it does and it seems like like I suppose renting for more if you needed to or Selling
the properties would always be like there's back stops to the risk. It's not like the value of the you
know, the land Deteriorates entirely or something even if revenues don't match projections. Is that
part of your? Calculation I guess our analysis. Yeah I'll add just another piece that might help is
you know, another risk is that we can't fill these some of these have very
Vacancies, but we we believe the capex will do that We also do not have the capacity to asset manage
these or property manage these so we are going through an RFP process right now to address both of those
needs so we will be reliant on a larger property manager with More experience marketing this kind of
housing where whereas we're used to
working with a wait list and incredible demand for our units, that won't be the case here. So we're
bringing in some other experts to help us with that. Thank you so much. Yeah. Thank you. Any others?
Councilor Varela? Councilor Varela. I had a question related to, so logistically you're going to renovate
these properties and yet you're counting on rent. So you're going to be displacing people
or is there, could you describe a little bit about the process of how you're going to go about making
this capital investment while keeping people housed and the returns on rent that you'll require to service
the debt? So some of the renovations will not displace people. I'll give you one example. Woodland Springs
has staircases that are dangerous
That is not going to displace anyone. And many of the renovations are like that. So siding, air conditioning
units, where we can manage to keep people housed during those kind of renovations. I'll also add that
the vacancy rate on these is quite high. So being able to renovate some, we expect renovations to take
probably up to two years. So it's not going to be all at once. It's going to be doing pieces as we can
get to them.
This is something we do have experience with because we did it with our ads and we didn't displace anyone
so it's There's a clear path forward for us. I can certainly get more detail about that, but Sorry That's
adequate. I just wondered you know, you seem to have experience in this So I'm assured that you you've
been through it before so that's all I've got right now. Thanks
Okay, first of all, what is capex I'm sorry capital expenditures, so this would be renovation costs
Okay, thank you My question is about the actual language in the resolution Which is kind of legalese,
but it just doesn't make logical sense to me. It's um the second
paragraph after the whereas clauses where it says resolved further the series 2026 bonds shall be secured
by the general revenues of the authority and shall be payable from the proceeds of bonds to be issued
by the authority. So how can the bond funds be used to repay the bonds which. Yeah.
So not in their entirety. But there will likely be some bond proceeds used to fill up debt service reserve
funds or capitalize interest accounts. So like when they're going through the renovations to help have
a pool of money available to pay the bondholders during a certain kind of rehab or construction period.
And then depending on how pricing comes in and how the bonds are marketed, there'll be debt service reserves.
To fill up as well and some of that could be funded by bond proceeds Likely a lot of that will be funded
by project revenues as well. But again, it's kind of authorizing The the resolution is meant
to be authorizing the outside parameters to allow for maximum flexibility When the authority goes to
the market to market the bonds and the structure of the deal Well this sentence to me
The series 2026 bonds Shall be payable from the proceeds of the bonds Period. Yeah, so some bond proceeds
will be some stand in part but not not in total some bond proceeds will be used to to pay future interests
and and to fund debt service reserve funds that shouldn't be hit but for should there ever be project
revenue shortfalls, so
I understand that, but it says it shall be paid from the bond proceeds, period. Yeah. So that doesn't
make sense. Yeah. And in part, I think would have gone a long way there for us. So yeah, certainly happy
to make that revision on second reading. But hopefully, verbal explanation helped a little bit there.
But very good point.
Should have been in part. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you customer Rosenberger Hi, thank you couple questions
related first question is how are these properties selected? So we were approached by a developer broker who's
Applied to be our asset manager about this and they've been in touch with a number of property owners
in town This was the the deal that looked the most promising So it's hometown crew group had contemplated
selling these I think we're especially attractive to hometown group because there's not many other bodies
that could assume a Fannie Mae loan And do what we're doing to make this purchase happen So it was
purely through our brokers investigating what properties might be for sale, and all five of these are
owned by the same owner. Great, thanks. Follow-up to that is wild card a little bit, but can you speak
to why the Seminary Point properties most likely could not be considered or part of this purchase and bond?
I don't know if I can speak to that, but on a side note, we have been part of the conversation about
Seminary Point throughout, and that conversation is continuing. We have not contemplated attempting
to sell bonds to purchase any other properties beyond this deal, which this deal we've been contemplating
for about a year.
There have been a couple other potential deals that have come up, but those both sold quickly. And this
is the only one that's moving slowly enough that we could actually go through this process to potentially
use bonds to purchase it. I absolutely think we would consider selling bonds to purchase other properties
for the purpose of preserving or creating affordable housing. The timing of this is such that it just
this has been on our focus with the bond sale. So it's not something we wouldn't rule out. Awesome.
Thank you. And I totally understand that you got to move at the, you know, you got to find properties
that are moving at the snail pace of local government. So that makes sense. And very exciting to hear
that potentially seminary point properties could be in consideration for later. I love, I mean, a lot
of these properties, I think it's going to be great. It's adding a lot of housing units.
but the The seminary point is so wonderful because you don't need a car and like a lot of these properties
But thanks so much for answering. I think you're doing great Yeah, thank you others Councilman Rallo
Yeah, could you just state again? So a hometown is repairing and maintaining the properties but so could
you delve a little bit deeper into why BHA is planning to assume that liability and
Is it, I mean, what would happen if you did not do this? Is it just a matter of scale that it requires
this level, I suppose? Could you describe a little bit? I think the Fannie Mae is a pretty big factor.
That loan would not be assumable by just anyone. It may be the scale. I don't know what other offers
they've had, but they have been contemplating the sale for a year, so I'm guessing they haven't had many.
these If you're familiar with any of these properties, I would say two of them are in quite good shape
and Will not require a lot of work Three of them partly due to age and partly due to just neglect are
in very poor shape and it could be that the initial price tag that was contemplated or that they put out
Uh, for these apartment complexes was just too much for anybody to consider. Um, that has dropped by
about $10 million since we got involved and have kind of negotiated the sales price. So it could be
that if they went back to the public with a lower sales price, these would sell. But, um, like I said
before, I think at least two of these would quickly get demoed and redeveloped as student housing.
Thank you. I saw in that resolution that it's, and so this is kind of like a general BHA question.
It says, you know, it's in the first whereas clause, it specifically states these apartment complexes
and then says that they're within the incorporated area of Bloomington or within five miles thereof.
So I'm kind of assuming the BHA can like do stuff within five miles of Bloomington as part of like your
documentation and.
I don't know if you can speak to the statute some of our internal language some of our bylaws says strictly
Bloomington So but in terms of the state statute, yeah the state statute I think allows housing authorities
in certain situations to participate in projects within the five miles so to me that's a recitation
of statute and just saying we're checking the statutory box here with respect to an allowable project
for the Bloomington Housing Authority and
Okay, but in terms of the actual property is those are all within city limits because there's a couple
of them like where exactly is the border they are Woodland Springs part of Woodland Springs is in the
county. So it's split Yeah, and our intent would be to annex that into the into the city. Okay, great.
Great. Thank you. I
now to, oh, sorry, Casimir Pimo-Smith. I'm sorry, I'm still hung up on this language. So is there any
legal risk to leaving that one paragraph where it says the series 2026 bonds shall be secured by the
general revenues of the authority and shall be payable from the proceeds of bonds to be issued? Is that,
maybe I'm also asking,
Mr. Allen our counselor tree Is that okay to leave in there with the understanding that? Most of it
will be paid from revenues of the BHA and not from the bond itself I Think it's it's at the will of
the the body. I think it's okay. I also think it's okay to leave it out because Excuse me
What we're doing here is is fiscal body approval. So the the resolution to me isn't going to necessarily
Govern how the the the course of the project and how it's documented But it is going to check a diligence
box that we followed the Housing Authority statute and presented a resolution to the fiscal body for
its approval and
So I think it's okay to take it out if you're more comfortable we could also propose Some language for
your approval prior to to second reading. I'm assuming resolutions go for second reading, but it's also
okay, so Happy to to workshop some some language now with you then Mr. Allen, what do you think?
I know that we had that conversation earlier I think the statement as a whole is meant to cover again
the maximum parameters of the possible bond. And understanding that even if if there was any situation.
where the underwriters were confused about how the bond proceeds were going to be used at all. To understand
that there might be a reserve fund that's used to finance by certain proceeds of the bond, but also
includes that revenue piece. I think those have to be read together and not disjunctively in that particular
whereas clause. So read together conjunctively, I think it's fine to leave it. I am not concerned about
it at all. Also, I think to Chris's point as well is
The full parameters of the issuance are covered not only in the initiating resolution of the BHA, but
also the confirmatory resolution of the BHA, which is far more specific about the bond parameters. And
as we've just seen, because this is potentially going to be a placement, those parameters are going
to get further narrowed down as we go. We're just doing the broad overarching approval with the maximum
possible parameter. So from that standpoint,
My opinion would be to try to give as much flexibility as we can at this stage if you're all comfortable
with the project and the issuance and allow that process to work itself out Okay, well I won't try to
do an amendment on the fly then if If the legal advice is that this is sound the way it is Thank you
Thanks, sorry
It says here, so in the staff memo that was issued to us, it indicates that on May 19th, the BHA presented
to the Economic Development Commission, which indicated general support for the project and bonds. So
that wording general support leads me to think that maybe they had some concerns or reservations or
just deeper questions. Can you speak to anything that might have been other than like, yes? I didn't
hear that. I think general might have just
been too vague a word. If anything, I heard those members say, I heard expressed excitement, and this
is a bold direction, I think were some of the words I heard. So if anybody else wants to speak to that,
but I'm happy to just echo that. That's what happened. Awesome. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify.
If I wrote the language so I could tell you why I use the word generally, if you'd like. The reason
why I use generally is just because the EDC didn't formally vote on it. Since this isn't the normal
kind of rat process where they have a role to play, this is more of an advisory. It's just to say there
was no formal vote taken, but the room was very supportive of this. I'm sorry, I was in art form. Great,
I just wanted to hear what other bodies had in their opinions. So that's very helpful, thank you.
Thank you, just super fast.
When do you expect these purchases to happen? You said repairs would take up to two years, but when
are we actually going to take control of the properties? So the purchase agreement has to be executed,
I believe, by November. And there is still a lot of due diligence on these properties to be done. This
has been a very slow, tedious process. So I would expect those.
Renovations to begin immediately by the end of the year. So we're hopeful that the sale will take place
take place by November Okay, great. Thank you If I can add something to that just if this purchase falls
through We still have the ability potentially to utilize bonds to use this on other properties. So it's
it's a tool that with your approval will
will take forward. And if we're successful on this first purchase, it's certainly one we plan to use
again. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, we're going to move to a time of public comment.
Same rules as the first time, if you'd like to comment. And if you're online, there is a raise hand
function that would be very helpful if you'd let us know.
Hello council members I'm Mary Morgan I'm executive director of heading home of South Central Indiana
and I am a board member of the Bloomington Housing Authority. I just wanted to let you know that the
board gave its full threaded support for this project. You know it's a gutsy move. It's an area that
we have not explored before. It's a need.
And even though initially these will be workforce housing units, that's going to benefit our entire
community. I look forward to the longer term plan to turn these through RAD process into more affordable
units, but I think nonetheless it's needed. It's keeping these properties locally owned, which is huge.
And I think we're just grateful that we have someone with Nate's experience leading this effort. I feel
like it's a great opportunity for our community. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in council chambers
would like to make a comment here?
Good evening council Randy Cassidy. I'm speaking tonight as a citizen, but Understand the aspect of
the work for housing and the fact of what BHA is done with the rad and the thing It's an admirable thing
to do the one only question I have on this particular thing because it is a pass-through situation that
BHA would be responsible is is this going to end up being a tax? exempt properties when this is done
because my quick calculation and while trying to
Workforce housing, tax revenues and such, those five properties at the present moment are churning out
about $830,943 a year in property taxes. So that's the only question that I would have in regards to
it is how the replacement of that income might impact overall for the next few years in regards to it.
The workforce housing is extremely needed. BHA is extremely good at managing accordingly. And under
Nathan's leadership, they've done a great job.
the revenue replacement is my only question. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any others in council chambers?
All right, we'll move on. As the third is getting ready, anybody online? All right, we'll go to online
then for the moment. They should unmute you and we're welcoming your comments. Yeah, Kevin Keough.
Tonight's discussion I think highlights just how complex the $100 million proposal is, but complexity
shouldn't replace standard. I don't know how much financial due diligence has been done, but I agree
preserving 924 affordable housing units is a crucial goal. However, the council seems to be asked to
authorize up to $100 million in bond while effectively flying blind on three, I think three standard
items. The first is evaluation. I don't think I had
heard any discussion tonight about have these units been valued? I think I would be part of having an
independent appraiser or valuation study. I haven't heard that tonight. Second, the operating performance,
I'm just fabulous that there hasn't been, as part of the documentation, the performance. As an accountant
and a CPA and an auditor,
I would think that would be something we would want to look at and see and just really understand the
math. How is it working? Because I think there's been some questions tonight and some confusion. The
third is I think you really need an independent risk assessment. I know the team presenting the deal,
they're part of the transaction and are heavily invested in that. But I think the council needs an objective
third party financial advisor to make a really good risk assessment. I need the approval without these
I believe three basic disclosures. It is an oversight. It's not really oversight. It's a leap of faith.
It seems like you're being asked to take a leap of faith and then to basically fly blind. So again,
I think it should be part of this process. You actually know what the appraisal of these assets are.
I think you need multi-year operating performance.
Hopefully you go out at least 10 years, and I really think you need a really good independent
risk assessment. Good intentions do not pay off bonds. Sound math does. So I think you really need to
look at the numbers. So thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else online? Were you going to
comment, Mr. M.G.? Or was he just standing up earlier? Okay. Anybody else in council chambers?
All right going once okay, we'll come back to council members any comments or further questions Piedmont
Smith Yeah, I'd like to follow up and ask the question about the tax exempt status of the properties
once the sale goes through Any specific details I'll rely on Chris, but yes, these would be tax exempt
properties
That is part of what makes this a workable deal. Do you have a more specific? Any other questions? This
kind of follows up a little bit on some of what Mr. Keough was talking about with that kind of due diligence.
And it's probably most for the attorneys in the room in terms of this, because
these bonds aren't really being issued by the city of Bloomington, and it's not going against our bond
limits or anything like that. It's entirely the responsibility of the BHA. Why do we have to approve
them doing this? Because I'm kind of working on the assumption that the
BHA has done that due diligence, and that when this was presented to them with the full resolution that
has all of those details in it that is in our packet and that was referred to earlier, that initial
presentation was part of this. And that's the assumption that I've been working off of here. And so
it's kind of this weird question, like, why is council involved at all? And that goes, I'm assuming,
to state law. But does anybody know why that decision was made?
Your assumption is correct. It's statutory requirement, check, and balance. But just to reiterate, the
housing authorities hired CFX, which is a nationally renowned housing financial advisor who has,
you know, legally a fiduciary duty to the authority. And I know that the team is dug in quite deeply
on diligence, and it's still an ongoing process, like with any other real estate transaction. You know,
they're digging in deep on their diligence, that's for sure.
But yes, they have a financial advisor but the reason that we're bringing it to your attention other
than Good brother sister governance is is because of the statutory requirement that the fiscal body
of the unit approve such projects Mr. Allen, do you know like why this is part of that state statute
in terms of the
Overall, because we also don't approve like BHA budgets or anything like that during budget time, right?
That's right. Yeah, you do. You do hear the BHA. I think it's part of that.
kind of quasi relationship that the city of Bloomington has. I can't tell you why the general assembly
in their infinite wisdom included this particular oversight because it kind of, it does mirror though
other bonding authority. So there are independent entities obviously that have bonding authority in
which the city council provides some oversight. So I guess it's more of a mirror of that to make sure,
just like there's a requirement in the statute that a public hearing was held. So the notice, they already
published the notice in the paper and as part of the BHA board,
had to hold a public hearing. It's more just to make sure this is given wide public attention, that
the public has a chance to speak out about it, to learn about it and learn about the parameters and
give maximum opportunity to feel like there is actual representation before it's approved. Okay, thank you.
I have a quick follow-up question to a handful of both the comments and some things that other councilmembers
said, and I think I asked a similar question when we heard at the EDC, but just sort of wrapping maybe
some of this together. In terms of the risk, and Councilmember Flaherty aptly spoke about the backstops
that are available, I mean, one being selling of the properties, but because we're putting BHA
funds as the assurance for the bond are, in the worst case scenario, can there be downstream effects
on other BHA operating procedures? And then the question that Mr. Keough brought up, I mean, are we
fairly certain of the, if our main backstop is the ability to sell the property, do we have any concerns
about the liquidity of that property or our ability to sell it quickly? I should rather say that buildings
aren't liquid, right?
our ability to sell it quickly should things go south, given the sort of market that those properties
are already showing right now. And last question is, are we able to segregate the loan in a way where
you could sell off one property, or do they have to operate as a unit? I'll speak to the first part,
and then I'll ask Chris to speak to the loan. So that was a lot.
Back up and make sure I've got all that. So yes, general revenues are pledged as part of the assurance
of these bonds. I mentioned this before, but we have multiple entities that own the RADs, that own our
future light tech project, that own various projects. And in those investor partially owned properties,
there's a waterfall. So only the portion that reaches us is available.
as a pledge. So that means we have to meet the DCR that's required by the project before we even get
to the funds that might be pledged for this purpose. Obviously there are other funds that we have, so
Summit Hill and some funds that HUD has no jurisdiction over that would be pledged. Things that HUD
has responsibility for we also cannot
Pledge in this deal. So in terms of the greater risk I Part of our due diligence will be appraising
these properties So I think we'll get a better sense as we dive in how sellable these are if we had
to sell one quickly To to save ourselves in a bad situation but Can't speak to that quite yet. So in
terms of the
the loan and whether that's can be divided. Yeah, particularly the fan the Fannie Mae loan because the
way the way we were talking about it is that one of the reasons people didn't want to assume this property
we were thinking is because of the existence of that of that fairly large loan. Yeah, and I'll check
with Colliers and the diligence team on that specific question of because I don't want to misstate the
answer to that question of whether it's a
a mortgage loan secured by all properties or whether the properties could be separated out. But it is
an existing Fannie mortgage-backed security mortgage loan securing all of them. But I'll have to follow
up to determine whether the properties could be broken apart and how easily that could be done. Excellent.
Thank you. I forgot I was chairing. Any other questions? Councilmember Flaherty, thank you.
Thank you. Yeah, just a few more follow-ups. So assuming this is authorized, the Bloomington Housing
Authority Board would still have to make additional approvals subsequent to this, right? Correct, we
have our final resolution going to next Tuesday's BHA board meeting at 8.30. Got it, so you just mentioned
of the properties that it sounded like those have not been done, but you would do them. Is that correct?
And so is that, would that not proceed the forward's decision then? We are, so what the board is approving
is the limit of bonds that we could potentially sell. My understanding is these bonds still have to
be sold to somebody. So we have to,
there will be a process of convincing them that BHA is a good bet and that these properties are a good
purchase. So that's a long process. What you all are approving and what BHA is approving is what that
max limit of bonds might be. So. That's helpful. I guess to further clarify, before purchase of the
properties themselves, would those be approved by the board later down the line as a separate decision
then? Like this is about bond authorization.
purchase of the properties themselves would come later. Is that a safe assumption? Yes, a purchase of
this magnitude would require resolution of the board. Correct. Okay. Got it. Yeah. Okay. That answers
my questions. Thank you. There was one other part. So we are relying on our
broker, developer, and that partnership to do much of the due diligence. Once we have a property manager
on board, they will also participate in some of that. Thank you. And one final question from me.
because we're sort of setting the upward bounds of this, do you have an internal thought on particular
things that may make this not work? Do you guys already know? I mean, we say like 9%, for example, as
an interest rate, but do you already internally say, look, we can't go beyond eight? Is there certain
economics that don't make this work? In other words,
What I'm implying by the question is us passing this today, approving this today, we're not setting
you on a necessary path of going and purchasing this. We're just saying, generally speaking, here are
some things that we were concerned about. We want you to keep in mind while you go about this process.
So just talk us through a little bit about the continued thought process, the continued due diligence,
and the continued decision-making processes that will happen hereafter.
I mean, just like any property purchase, there's a long list of due diligence. So I don't know if I
can speak to specifics about a certain interest rate making a deal not work. But when we get to a final
pro forma, if it doesn't cash flow, obviously, there's no path forward. And if we're not generating
the kind of revenue that we expected, there's no path forward. I mean, that's one of the conditions
for this. So happy to share that as those come available.
Don't have specifics on that at the moment. So, yeah. Council members, any final comments or motions
for that matter? Council member Stasberg, then Piedmont Smith, then Rallo. I have a final comment. I
suppose we can call it. As was said, this is kind of a big move, kind of bold, kind of gutsy.
The word gutsy, I think, was used out there.
I think it's also kind of exciting to be going forth in this manner. And I guess I specifically want
to call out Kingston Manor because that is over in District 3, which is my district.
I live less than a mile, actually, from that complex. I knocked doors in that complex. I've been in
the common spaces. A couple people let me into their units, and it definitely needs a lot of improvements.
But the rents over there are very affordable, and that's something that has kept people there. It's
also an amazing location. You know, speaking to this idea of,
the return on investment of selling, tearing it down, and rebuilding some much more luxurious, expensive
apartments.
on a bus line, it's adjacent to the college mall area, which has a lot of shopping. It has a lot of
grocery and food options. It really is nicely placed. It's in a great school district. There are a lot
of families that live in that complex, and I'm really pleased that it's on this list, and I'm hoping that this
all will go through in terms of all those numbers working out so that the folks who live there can continue
to live in a place where they can afford their rent, but their hallways won't be musty and they won't
have some of those health and safety concerns that currently exist in that complex. So I'm really glad
that you guys are moving forth boldly in this manner and I hope that it works out.
in really positive ways for Bloomington. Thanks. Yes, I agree with my colleague. I think this is a bold
move and a positive direction for BHA. I understand these are not at the affordability level of the
current BHA properties, but they are an essential part of our housing ecosystem
and they are at levels that are much lower than the new student housing complexes that we see popping
up. So I think it is very important to preserve these and to improve the management of them through
this rehabilitation that you're planning to invest in. I was focusing on Basswood because that's in
my district.
And when I was campaigning, people would be like, oh, you're not going to Basswood, are you? You're
not going there alone, are you? I felt perfectly safe there. But it is run down. It does need investment.
And it does provide very, very badly needed housing for people who don't have a lot of money. So I think
Mr. Cassidy had a question.
Important point about the eight hundred thirty one thousand estimated property tax revenues from these
properties that Government would be losing But I think you know our portion of that the city's portion
of that I would consider a good investment in keeping this housing. So, thank you I Think it's been
covered pretty well
I have nothing more to add, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ruff, anything? I'll just add that
I think, oh, sorry, I'm sorry, Council Member, the whole room got excited that you raised your hand,
so Council Member Flaherty. Any order is fine with me. Yeah, I just wanted to briefly follow up. A,
I support this and appreciate the creative thinking and the efforts to do something different. I think
there's some advantages to it.
I think it is a little strange our approval. We're not really the primary fiscal oversight body for
BHA. I see our role here essentially as approving at a relatively high level conceptually, which is
I think what we're hopefully doing here today. And it was good to confirm and clarify the multiple steps
to follow from the board, which does have a more direct fiscal oversight role of the BHA.
First, in just authorizing the bonds for this purpose. And then second in approving large scale purchases
to follow, which is probably the stage at which we would have some of the additional due diligence steps
for their review that Mr. Kia was asking about. So I appreciated those questions. I also appreciated
the discussion and afforded afterwards. Thanks.
Thank you so much. Just echoing the comments, I love the fact that this is bold. My assessment of why
it's bold though is maybe different. I think that this is bold simply because we haven't done it before.
hope that as a city, generally, we can start adopting more of like, let's do stuff that we haven't done
before. But I think just pragmatically, it's shrewd, there's an opportunity to invest and provide value
to the people who live here. And I think that it's the type of philosophy that we should be adopting
for all of the type of goals that we're trying to achieve here. And so I just, I really applaud, yes,
the willingness to do something new,
And I'm excited for for what that can deliver. So needless to say I'm very supportive of this. So with
that being said If there's no other comments Will the clerk kindly read the roll now call the roll?
Sorry Yes Rosenberger yes clarity Yeah Stasberg yes Piedmont Smith. Yes
Sorry? Yes. Daily? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. I move that ordinance
2026-12 be read by title and synopsis only. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All right.
Will the clerk please call the roll? Rosenberger?
Yes. Clarity. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Asari. Yes. Daly. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes.
Thank you. Will the clerk please read. Ordinance 2026.
dash 12 to amend title 15 of the Bloomington municipal code entitled vehicles and traffic to seasonally
provide a carless Kirkwood council sponsors daily and Rosenberger the synopsis is as follows this ordinance
seeks to codify streets and alleys in Bloomington that disallow vehicular traffic Specifically this
ordinance codifies the seasonal carless schedule of specific blocks of Kirkwood Avenue. I
With this ordinance, businesses and residents can expect a permanent seasonal carless Kirkwood, allowing
businesses the predictability to invest in outdoor infrastructure for guests. The city administration
has provided valuable operational feedback in its 2026 memorandum identifying important challenges regarding
infrastructure, sanitation, public safety and accessibility that naturally arise as temporary programs
transition toward permanent city fixtures.
With that this ordinance aims to provide the necessary legal and budgetary certainty for the city to
move beyond Incomplete solutions and invest in more permanent infrastructure such as more ADA compliant
features and high quality seating recommended by staff I Move that ordinance 2026-12 be adopted second
Will the clerk please call the roll? Oh, sorry All right. Yay
Would somebody like to say something? Council member Rosa Parker. I'll start. Thank you. Okay, so I
do want to start by saying council member Daley and I are aware that this ordinance does not have enough
votes to override the mayor's veto. I find that pretty unfortunate for the city of Bloomington residents and
visitors. While we still have an ordinance in our books and our code that Kirkwood will be open to people
and closed to cars, April 2027 this ordinance sought to make that a more predictable occurrence and
we still have a lot on the book so it'll be interesting what we hear then. I'll talk more about that
later. What I do want to say is
this ordinance that tweaked really the original ordinance was really awesome to work on. Uh, I spent
a really long time, I think since, at least since I on city council have done something where people
have been so excited and come to help with so many ideas and so many stories either about what they've
experienced other places or what they've experienced on Kirkwood. And it just really was an awesome
experience to,
see Bloomington residents so enthused and so excited about something as neat as closing five blocks
in our city to cars. I made some bullet points that go a little deeper in that. You know, we've had,
I would say, a lot of public input. This today is our one to
three, four, fifth meeting this year on the topic. And we have been meeting on this topic for five years.
And those meetings have been fairly predictable because we have always had to pass the outdoor dining
program ordinance starting in COVID. So some fun people we heard from, parents with an odd
With a child with autism, he only spends time on Kirkwood when there aren't cars. People who bike to
work to IU who choose Kirkwood instead of the seven line when it doesn't have cars on it. People who
use mobility devices who feel safer and take more time shopping on streets without cars. We just simply
and in general heard from so many people who either experience Kirkwood car free as families or friends
or experience elder.
streets internationally car free and just like absolutely up their quality of time spent there. We also
heard from a church worried about parking, which is something we can solve. And we heard from advocates
of people with disabilities worried about people's access. I say advocates there because we also heard
from many people with disabilities who prefer a street
without cars. From the outdoor dining ordinance and this one, we worked with the Council for Community
Accessibility and we would and will continue to do so. Car Free Kirkwood, this ordinance specifically,
was unanimously recommended by the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability and Resilience and unanimously
positively recommended by the Transportation Commission. It was
a 5-4 vote here, and of course, the 2025 ordinance was a 9-0 vote. I think most council members at least
have talked about their vote changes, and I do want to acknowledge, of course, opinions change and years
change, so maybe to the best of our ability, we don't really go through that again. Public input, so
I came across
a chart from safety week that I did send to all of council members. This was something that really had,
well, it had never been shared with city council. And so during safety week, planning and transportation
staff tabled on Kirkwood for four days. This was in August during welcome week for IU. So students were
back or were coming back, parents and visitors were here, more families were here because the school
system was back in session and people were back at the grind after vacation.
I would say, you know, we have a lot of data on this. We've had a lot of meetings. The mayor had a listening
session. And to me, this is the very best data that we have because this is people, a random selection
of people experiencing a space and commenting on that space. I don't know why you guys are nodding down
there. I can't hear you. If we want to put this up, that would be good.
While that's happening, I will just say the fun fact of this is it was collected in August 2025 and
it was available and not used when ESD made the decision in 2026 to keep Kirkwood open to cars. That's
its own problem and can be talked about later. So in this survey or in this tabling of 271 people, 90%
of those of those who participated either
They got two little puff balls to put into jars any way they chose and so 90% of those puff balls went
into jars that either wanted Kirkwood permanently closed to cars and open to people or seasonally closed
to cars and open to people. 3% I guess didn't say anything which then I guess they just filled out their name and
then the other 10% weren't in favor of a closure. You know, I'm just kind of like taking the liberty
because I'm here to talk about other cool stuff. So I was looking up and speaking with the person in
Indiana who runs a creating places program because we hear a lot about how this
oh, this is done in other cities and other states, but it can't be done here. We've got state code.
We've got state legislation that's shrinking our budgets and everything like that. And I think in part,
that's why this Indiana program is so successful. It's crowdfunding. It doesn't have to use any municipal
dollars. It's $100,000. And cities across Indiana, some with Republican mayors and Republican city councils,
are doing awesome things to activate spaces
for people. So I looked up great things like Spark in Indianapolis now closes Monument Circle seasonally.
It has this past year, 61,000 people who went there. And of course, if you know Indianapolis, Monument
Circle is a big space where cars really come from all different directions. So it's a pretty high,
high task, I think, to get that coordinated.
Terre Haute revitalized streets with bike racks, seating, gateway signage. This took place under a Republican
mayor. Hey, do we say Monticello or Monticello here? I forget Monticello, I think. I don't know. Connected
its river to the downtown similar to Kirkwood. They were crowdfunding $50,000 and the public donated
$101,000, which is amazing. And I think it's just pointing to the fact that
people will show up and people want this and people will spend their own money on it. We have had some
projects here in Bloomington. Captain Janeway on the B line was the first project. The Southeast, the
Southeast YMCA also did a playground, a new playground with a creating places grant. Most recently,
Cicada Cinema did
this exact creating places grant. They were looking to raise $50,000. They raised $62,000 and then got
a matching grant of $50,000 from the state of Indiana. I point to that because that grant closed July
15th and so it really, it really I think hits home that people want places to gather and there is again
money in this community to help create those places. I speak to these projects and this grant because
one, many council members are worried about a budget and too many council members say it takes a lot
of money to pull this off. And these are all projects that are most of them are well under $100,000.
Most of them are on the 20 to $30,000 range. And then
The staff for this program did also price out the five blocks of Kirkwood as being a 30 to $40,000 project
to activate it. So I think it's important to, you know, not necessarily make believe things, but like
give experts a call and figure it out. That's all I want to say right now about it. Again, I understand
we don't have the votes. I do want to speak maybe potentially have a longer
final comment if we're not timing those. So I would like to ask for that and use my time from 78 other
meetings tonight. Thank you. Thank you so much, Council Member Rosenberger. Other comments? If any or
questions or anything else you'd like to do at this moment, I also would take any motions. Council Member
Piedmont-Smith.
So that was a lot from Councilmember Rosenberger. Thank you. A lot to process. I'm interested in these
crowdfunding. I couldn't really follow. So there's crowdfunding that has been used in Indiana cities
that the state matches for activation of public space is that
what you were talking about. Yes, so IHCDA, the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority,
has up to $100,000, well, up to $50,000 matching grant for nonprofits or municipalities in the state
of Indiana to activate spaces. It's been used for everything, right? Murals, public bathrooms, restoring
a train car on the South Moe Non-Freedom Trail, buying
flower pots to go on street lamps and watering them. Yeah. A removable screen for a street that gets
used for showing movies in a summer. It's the website is patronicity.com slash creating places. And
it's really awesome today. I scrolled through every single project and got really excited and obviously jealous.
Oh, so it's $50,000 match, right? So the municipality or the nonprofit raises that money. You cannot
donate to your own cause. So if the city were to apply for this, also it's very low barrier application.
It's just like a Kickstarter page that you fill out. The city could not fund it, but for example, the
chamber could or like DBI could be the sponsor and the city then, if it wanted, could put in $10,000
or something like that.
Anything else? Okay, I'll go to public comment if if anyone would like to comment on a reconsideration
of ordinance 2026 12 Take it away Or so just the heck what the heck I'm here I'm really appreciated
the comments by councilmember Rosenberger, and this is not the end well this issue will come back and
And this is just the beginning. We might not have the money to do it the way we want to do it, which
I think is the reason for some people reconsidering. But there will be another day. And I really appreciated
the conversations that the mayor initiated. That was a very good meeting, an hour and a half meeting
a few days before her veto. A lot of good input from people.
We need more of that. And I think she's on board with getting more input about that. So thanks, everybody
involved. Any other people would like to make public comment at this time? Is there anyone online?
All right. To the folks online, you should be able to unmute at this point. Are they unmuted?
Hello, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Council, Steve Volin. I just wanted to speak briefly
as a member of the Transportation Commission. I hate to correct Council member Rosenberger, but the
vote was not unanimous. It was five to one in favor. So I just wanted to mention that correction. I
also wanted to call attention to
the resolution that I brought in 2023 on a downtown circulator, the idea of a permanently running bus
that's circulating around downtown. I mentioned it now because I did the math on it. And if we had corrected
parking meter rates the way they should be corrected, at least a million dollars a year would have been generated
for the purpose of that circulator. The recent study from Walker parking, which we presented to you
in a couple of weeks, but it's still going through transportation commission does call for adjustment
of rates both up and down, but any change in rates is going to generate significant revenue
far more than would be needed to do any kind of activation on Kirkwood. If the council is concerned
about raising money, the money basically has always been there in the form of street meters. And that
money should always be devoted to either transportation related issues, preferably public transit, or
to fixing or improving transportation
infrastructure within the district where the money is generated. At least that's the philosophy of this
transportation commission member. So if money is an object, I would urge council to rethink their concern.
You're gonna be getting a package of parking meter rate reform in the next few months if there's almost
no question about it. It's just a matter of when and what the structure of that reform will be.
I wouldn't use that as a reason to begin planning for a more car-free Kirkwood. Thank you for your time,
and I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Next person online. Are they still there?
Do you have a moniker or something I can? It's the person with the screen name Buff Brown. Oh.
Buff Mr. Brown, Mr. Lawrence Brown, are you there? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yay. All right,
that took me a while.
All right, my name is Buff Brown. I have been a long-time advocate for bike, pet, and transit options
for decades in Bloomington, founder of a former group called BTOP, Bloomington Transportation Options
for People, that operated for 10 years with relatively good success from 2004 to 2014. I have also been
a professional transportation planner for 25 years, now retired.
I now live in Portland, Oregon for family reasons. I have now lived and advocated in five cities and
know how councils and mayor relationships work and how they fail as well. I have been following this
issue for years and have enjoyed the seasonal closure of Kirkwood and many visits back to Bloomington.
I have a few points to make. Number one, this will work in the early,
Earlier you start, the better. So vote yes. Use the 2027 planning process that you have planned to plan
for its growth, not its rebirth. For a council to make this happen, this is exactly how to do it. This
is the horse and not the cart. All data shows that this is what your community wanted. A public survey
at the safety week
Last year, a stakeholder business survey shows the majority of respondents want it as well. The 11-0
vote of the sustainability commission, the 5-1 vote by the transportation commission, and most of all,
a 5-4 vote by the council. Everything shows the community wants this, just not the mayor and some vocal
stakeholders. I worry about the following. One.
The vote is significantly about the power and authority of the legislative branch and the executive
branch. And I think voting no abrogates power from the council. Two, I hope that the council members
who I have worked with for years, whom I call the old guard, Ruff Rallo and Piedmont Smith, I feel are
becoming the establishment Democrats, those who tend to hold up
the status quo rather than take risks. So my conclusion, I'm asking you all to believe that your younger
council people are here to make a difference, to create new things and make them work at a risk admittedly
for their lives and their children's better lives. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Okay.
other person who is online. We welcome your comments. You should be able to speak now. Hello? Hello,
we can hear you. Okay, we can hear you. Well, one second. We could hear you, and now it sounds a little
bit muffled. We'll give you back your time, but
Are you able to adjust your microphone by chance? It's a little better, but you sound a little bit distant.
Thank you, and if it's possible to write out what you said, that would also help, because we
saw a transcription, couldn't exactly hear it, but it would be helpful just for confirmation if you
could type that in into the chat, if that's possible, and we'll very happily read that out loud.
Thank you. Okay, anybody else in chambers?
pending the last comment here, then we'll come back to council comment. Have they written it? They haven't?
Okay. Well, if they do, we'll stop and we'll read it. Okay. Fantastic. Back to council members. Council
Member Daley. Thank you very much. Yep. As co-sponsor of this ordinance, I just wanted to quickly jump
in and make my comment.
It has been a wild process working on this with councilmember Rosenberger, you know after the vote six
weeks ago You know, she and I have had multiple conversations and and some really great meetings Deciding
how we were going to move forward, especially once the mayor did veto it and we we did
come to an agreement early on that we were not going to work to overturn the veto. We were going to
press pause and we were going to continue working on it throughout the fall and the winter and get that
greater input and have more conversations and continue to keep developing it. And so we had decided
that was going to be the plan. But then over the past six weeks, we have had a lot of outreach from
a lot of invested community members.
business owners, we've had just so much positive reinforcement from members of the community who wanted
us to continue moving with this. So it is on the agenda for tonight. This is just part of our standard
procedural. I didn't realize that it was actually coming up on the agenda for tonight, so I was surprised
when I saw it. But all that being said, one more
we did talk about the budgeting and the money. There was money in, I don't think Council Member Rosenberger
said this, is that there was money in the budget for this year to put toward Kirkwood. And so we still
have that money budgeted. So there is still money set aside that we can be putting toward the adjustments
and the changes that we want to see to help make this more of how we envision a pedestrianized Kirkwood.
So we do have some of that money now that we can be thinking about. So I just wanted to put that out
there as well. But I don't expect that this is necessarily going to go anywhere tonight, but we are
going to continue to keep working on this. And because it, of course, is an ordinance that I co-sponsored,
I will be voting in favor of this tonight because I worked hard on this. And I think a lot of people
really do want to see this come forward too.
So thank you. Thank you, Council Member Flaherty. Thank you. I appreciate the arrival of the conversation
and that we're taking a vote on the veto. I know that the sponsors have suggested that based on their
conversation with council members, they don't expect the veto to be overridden tonight. I think that's
a disappointing outcome, in my opinion, if that's the case, but Council Member Rosemarie also noted
that we've had council members change their minds about this. Perhaps they will change their minds again.
Who knows?
I do want to cover some things. First, just as I'll always keep saying with this about messaging, this
is not a street closure. It is a street conversion. It is a temporary closure to motor vehicles and
a corresponding opening to pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users, pets, scooter users, skateboarders,
shoppers, diners, sporting events, celebrators, et cetera. It is a public space conversion in probably
the ideal place in Bloomington to do that.
It's just, it makes so much sense. I think that's why there's such broad public buy-in for it. We're
blessed with such a unique connector from the downtown and the courthouse square to Kirkwood. It's like
the perfect context for this. We could have done it probably a half a century ago. And no mayor or council
since has been able to figure this out. I'm sure plenty of people have thought about it. Maybe it'll
be ours. Maybe it'll be 20 years from now, who knows?
I do think, and hold out hope, that it will happen eventually when we have people with the right political
will and vision for this, even if that's not right now. I think it's been noted this has had broad policy
support from some of the bodies that we ask for their input on their area of expertise, in particular
here, sustainability and transportation. It's been noted that the Commission on Sustainability and Resilience
unanimously supported this with the resolution, and that the Transportation Commission
Well, had some questions and some healthy discussion, did ultimately support the proposal with a vote
of five to one. It was Bloomington Transit Director Connell, who was the no vote. And yeah, you know,
I think there was a recognition that the proposed staff findings that this didn't align with city goals
were incorrect in the commission's opinions. There was, you know, we were all aligned on that.
Also just noting the climate action plan says that we are supposed to determine appropriate locations
for car-free pedestrian zones in high density areas. This is the appropriate location. We're supposed
to establish an implementation based on the Kirkwood pilot project observations. And again, I think
that's what this sets the policy direction to do. Yes, there's work that would come yet or would come
following this, but it takes the commitment for us to then do that because otherwise every conversation about it
is plagued by uncertainty. Will we? Won't we? Is it going to happen next year, et cetera? Without policy
certainty, we can't take the next steps around budgeting, around design, around making sure it is accessible
and safe and equitable. And even the little kind of single issues that are unique to individual stakeholders,
like First Christian Church that emailed us earlier this week concerned most significantly about their
six angled parking spaces in the alley between Washington and Lincoln north of Kirkwood.
That's a valid concern. They have limited parking. I get it. I've walked that space. It seems to me
like 90 degree pull-in parking would be possible in that alley, even if tight. I asked them if they
have talked to planning and transportation staff or explored that possibility. I haven't heard back
yet. But the point more broadly is that these problems are solvable. Are there accessibility challenges
potentially? Yes. Can we solve them? Also, yes. Are there accessibility challenges with car history?
and safety challenges, yes. And those are hard to solve. I am concerned more broadly about some comments
I've heard, relatively limited, but over time, about that essentially conflate direct motor vehicle
access with accessibility for people with disabilities. Those are not the same thing. And to the extent
that we're working against pedestrian safety,
in the name of accessibility, but really you're just talking about car access. I think we're really
missing the picture. I think this does happen. But more broadly, people with disabilities actually have
the most to gain in a situation like this. About a third of people don't drive. That's about 10% of
adults who don't drive. But among the disability community, that is dramatically higher. I've seen numbers
cited around 60% of that population.
And car-heavy cities and places are more dangerous to disabled people. They are based on extensive research
and also expertise from accessibility advocates. So there's been studies that show vehicle pedestrian
deaths among wheelchair users is 36% higher than the overall population. Our own data show in our Safe
Streets for All action plan that Kirkwood Avenue from Walnut Street to India Avenue is part of the high-entry
network for vulnerable road users. It is a dangerous place to be a pedestrian.
or a wheelchair user or a bicyclist. That's the data. Those are the facts. The National League of Cities
also notes that pedestrian zones in cities result in a more accessible, efficient, and cleaner city
for all residents. That's their view. Also, there's a fair amount for disability advocates about this.
Anna Zeverts is a disability advocate and author of the book, When Driving is Not an Option. She is
a low vision person and a non-driver and also a leader in mobility equity.
She's worked with the National Safety Council's Mobility Safety Advisory Group and has lamented that
accessibility sometimes becomes a political football in the discussion of pedestrian zones
and how unfortunate that is. But the car-free zones, when designed properly with accessibility in mind,
provide far greater autonomy for disabled non-drivers than traditional vehicle-only spaces do. So again, I think
If we really prioritize accessibility and collaboration here, we can get that right. I have high confidence
in that. I think former council member Volin, transportation commissioner, commission chair Volin made
some great points about parking meter revenues in addition to, you know, budgeted funding that we have
for this that council member Daly noted. The last point I did want to reiterate is the broad public
support for this.
I think there's also some like sample bias selection, but you know, kind of like self selection bias
pieces. I would imagine that the folks, the mayor hears from our people who are opposed because they
know that she is supposed so they know that she is the receptive audience for their opposition. That's
probably I wasn't able to attend the listening session. I was out of town. But my guess is that it was,
you know, mostly that kind of kind of perspective there. She had already made the decision earlier in
the year. If you had a ladder early,
not to go through with the conversion this year, even though it was passed by ordinance last year by
this council. So she'd already made the decision. In my mind, the veto was a given, but I appreciate
that she did have a listening session prior to doing it. But again, she'd already made the decision
earlier in the year. The best data we have is what, well, the best data we now have, the best data that
the Mayor's administration had, but didn't share with us previously, was from pop-up events on Kirkwood.
asking people how they interact. This is, by the way, a good analog was Cascades, which we never did
convert to a non-car park space. But similarly, we asked people when they interacted with it, asked
hundreds of people during that trial what they preferred. And actually, the strong majority wasn't in
favor of converting that space. Obviously, we never did it. Similarly here, we asked people interacting
with Kirkwood, not to show up to a meeting like this, but we're just, what do you think? And that 90%
of the people wanted
some type of conversion of Kirkwood to a non car space in favor of being a public space for people.
That's pretty, pretty wild. Those are, those are very impressive numbers. And, and, you know, only 7%
favored no closure to cars at all. So that's quite striking. Again, I think it's the best data we have
on this. Also among council members, probably 90% of the emails we've received have been in support
and in favor of this.
It's hard to get perfect data. But if we really wanted to, we probably could through hiring a survey
firm or something. Lastly, I know there's been some discussion about, oh, we can continue the conversation
from here. Sure. We've kind of been down this path. Previously, I brought a UDO resolution a couple
of years ago. The mayor made some calls, got folks to vote no on introduction. That was disappointing.
Notionally, we were supposed to have a lot of collaboration that followed from that.
planning and transportation staff did conduct some sessions. We had a, you know, a deliberation session
with the council. It actually wasn't all that collaborative. Ultimately, there wasn't really any action.
So I brought back that resolution, the same resolution, and we passed it. So the track record there
isn't very good. Again, I think the mayor's made very clear that she is opposed to this. So I'm not
putting a lot of faith in, you know, collaboration to follow. I think it's up to the city council to
lead here.
The one other recent experience there was with the snow removal on sidewalks, which by the way is a
significant accessibility issue and a pedestrian safety issue. I led a deliberation session on that,
invited all of the relevant department heads from city staff and the mayor told them not to come because
they had been spending too much time on the Hopewell PUD process. So Tim Street showed up anyway, bless
him and thank you, but the others did not because that was the order from above.
Again, not a great track record on collaboration on things related to pedestrian safety, accessibility,
transportation sustainability. So it's up to us to lead. I hope we do. If we don't, hopefully the next
term, the council will or a mayor will. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any others? Well, I'll make my
quick plea for those of you still considering in hopes that two people will join us.
Just a handful of things. First, I'd like to add to the list that Councilmember Rosenberger started
off with in terms of the people that we've heard from. And one additional stakeholder that I think is
relevant to add here are those who spoke against closing Kirkwood, but for this reason. They made arguments
like, it would be awesome if
But...you all won't, right? Wouldn't it be cool if we had that? We would love to live in a city that,
but we're not that city. And I think that it's important for us to realize that that in itself is an
analysis of what people are thinking of their local government. That they don't think that we can deliver
or follow through with our own vision and our own plan.
And I'd like to echo what councilmember Flaherty has been saying throughout this process and so many
others This is a thing that's written fairly clearly in a bunch of city plans and again that that we've
got a lot of momentum around and every single time
We stopped short of doing something along these lines, and that does not breed confidence. It doesn't
breed confidence in those who would think to move here, doesn't breed confidence in those who would
invest, doesn't breed confidence in the local business community, and that has downstream effects on
other things that we do. The second thing that I'd like to note is we should remember why this was before
us in the first place.
In collaboration, we brought forth a piece of legislation that, again, within the whereas clauses and
within our debate and within the request that we received from significant stakeholders, our constituents,
was that we wanted to give some certainty, at least for a period of time, to downtown business. That's
what was requested. And then going into season two of what was supposed to be the full-throated,
properly backed version of this where people supposedly had already invested two days before we were
to continue with that. We're told that actually we're not going to do it this year. This echoes a lot
of other things where I think it's important for us to assert the fact
that we too are elected officials who represent the city of Bloomington. We too receive feedback. We
too have a responsibility to those who, to our constituents. And I think that it's not fair that we
would pass an ordinance that could immediately be just turned in another direction and not with appropriate
data points as well.
I think that we also need to note that there's this ongoing theme where we're talking about things like
economic development. And one of the areas that is throughout most arguments for economic development
in the city is that we must attract a different demographic or at least cultivate a particular demographic
to be in our city. And that includes making sure that we have more workforce, that we have more young people.
Realistically, I have advocated for this. I'm not saying that this is not a zero sum question. You don't
do that at the expense of people who are retirees. I think that we have to make the city great for everybody
who lives here. But the point here is that I do think, as it relates to economic development, that people
within that target demographic are remarkably excited about what a city looks like with a closed Kirkwood.
Students are excited about that. Alums are excited about that.
And so that does tie to a lot of other things that we're trying to do. Finally, I'll say that a lot
of problems were brought up, and I think that we have a, I don't know, a culture here of if we can state
a problem, and I guess I just throw a problem out there, and so because I've said it,
There it is. It's a problem. But all problems are opportunities for innovation. Every single thing that
was brought up, whether it's, well, what are we going to do about, that's the conversation that we should
be having. And we don't have that conversation until somebody brings forth some type of a piece
of legislation. We also brought up, and I think this is a really valid argument, which it's like, look,
at the end of the day, why are we investing in Kirkwood instead of, I think that's a
very strong argument. It's one that resonates a lot with me. But the reality is that we're now no closer
to doing that investment either. And so I'm concerned with the fact that we're just going to cycle around
having deliberation about what we might do. We're paying some consultants to come and tell us what we
already know about the street. And that path dependency matters an awful lot. And so to me, what was
really exciting about
putting forth this resolution, this ordinance, is that it addresses those issues of council's place
in governance, yes, but it also gives a clear mark. Now, we can amend. We can go back to it and say,
look, actually, as we started to do this design, we realized some things that we hadn't thought about.
But it gives us a direction to go towards, instead of just going around and around the mountain and
not coming to any type of real solution. So that's why I would urge you, I beg you, colleagues, please
join us, because again,
If this isn't working, we have a year, we have a whole year to design this right, to fund this right,
to put all of the efforts into making this work. And if not, then we can take it back. But not doing
anything, I don't think gets us any closer to the Bloomington that we're trying to become. So with that,
I'll pass to anybody else. Council Member Stossberg. Thank you.
I want to start by saying I appreciate the research country member Rosenberger dead on the grants and
and those options and the input from mr. Bowlin regarding using parking meter fees as a way to fund
this and I just appreciate that those thoughts and while the ultimate cost of activation and redesign
as a piece of my initial vote at this point I have
kind of a slightly different primary motivation driving it. I agree with nearly everything that Councilmember
Flaherty and Asari just said about the challenges with the mayor and the general importance of the power
of the legislative body. And that's like the most that's that's the thing that tempts me most right
now to change my vote. Honestly, is it's not about the issue. It's about saying like the majority of
us like thought this thing like figure it out. Right. But
What is still gonna end up being a no vote for me this evening is really feeling like the success of
this closure depends on this collaboration between council and the administration and city departments.
And without that buy-in from the administration and city departments, it won't be successful. And it's
really clear that we don't have that buy-in right now. And I appreciate that sentiment that we have
to force that to make it happen.
I'm not sure that that's the approach that, I'm just not on board with that approach at this point.
And maybe it's because I'm still relatively new here and I'm still, you know, I'm gonna give this chance
or maybe it's because I have just a more like ingrained sense of I would rather have this collaborative
consensus sort of thing as opposed to this adversarial debate.
Because despite how it might look sometimes, I would much rather have a nice collaborative conversation
that results in consensus than have to debate somebody in my soul. But I think that we can still give
it time. I don't think that this is an issue that is going to die. I said to somebody who emailed me
over the last couple of days, if
this ordinance looks slightly different than maybe I would support it if it wasn't five blocks, if it
was only one block, if we start with a smaller bite of the apple to figure out how to make this truly
successful in one block and then move it on to more block. And those, I think, are maybe some of the
conversations that Council Member Asari was just referring to in this idea. And I do think that those
can still happen, that those still need to happen even without this ordinance
forcing that 2027 hand, because ultimately, we do still have what otherwise was on the books last year
in terms of saying, hey, barring some real, you know, whatever thing, these should be closed. And that
is something to bring up again. So I am gonna continue the same vote that I did.
Last time, and if anybody is interested, I spoke extensively in the June meeting about that. And I also
have some of those same concerns still moving forward in terms of what it would mean to make this a
vibrant, successful pedestrian space and the real redesign and activation kind of potential. And if
anybody is interested in hearing those, I wrote out those comments. And I would be happy to send them
to you and just let me know.
I do want to thank everybody who's emailed and had conversations with me about this over the last several
weeks. I read them all, I swear, and I consider them. I did go to that meeting that the mayor had, and
there was a diverse set of folks there advocating for different things. The vision is really beautiful.
The vision is really really beautiful and creating that vision on Kirkwood or somewhere would be really
beneficial to Bloomington and hopefully we can make that happen. Thanks Yeah, I very good comments and
I want to say that I really appreciate the sponsors for bringing the ordinance forward Because we need
to have this discussion debate
So it's been very helpful. And I supported it last time because I wanted this to be taken seriously.
It has merit. I am aware of many streets that have been closed that have failed. Some have succeeded.
But I don't see it succeeding, especially in such an iconic, important public space as Kirkwood without
community buy-in. Gotta have people
All sorts of people come and have their say and envision what could be. Was it optimal last summer when
it was closed? I don't think so. I visited it several times. I found it rather trashed. It wasn't an
optimal place to be. We can close the street, sure, but we can't administrate the operation of the space.
So we need a collaborative approach, as Councilmember Stasberg says. So I would like to, and to tag
as a corollary, I think that that requires collaboration. I don't see an adversarial act of overriding
a veto as helpful in moving this forward. I didn't like the adversarial relationship in Hopewell,
We finally hammered out up. I think a better product in the end So it takes two obviously I do recognize
that the mayor issued a letter stating that She wanted the council administration to engage in a process
she said to envision what would be the best outcome for Kirkwood with community input I take her at
her word that that's what she intends to do and
We have the means to do it in deliberation sessions here, and we can have multiple deliberation sessions
to that end. I would say, I've detected we have divided opinions in the community. I don't think anybody
can say, yes, this is a no-brainer, the majority support this. I don't see it. In fact, I see a lot
of merchants very nervous about what the outcome might be,
And Mias may be being conservative, small c conservative, and just wanting to maintain what they can
predict. And I don't presume to know how to run those businesses, so I take it very seriously. So since
we have divided opinions, I think it's incumbent on us to have those deliberation sessions, bring in
all sorts of different considerations about
the businesses, the churches, the library, accessibility concerns, public safety, cleanliness, the design
of the street, how we can optimize it, and of course there's gonna be trade-offs, there's gonna
be opportunity costs and trade-offs to consider, and the expense involved, which is part of it too.
Regarding the poll, yes, I think that there is, as I said, this really deserves merit. I mean, it could
be an amazing space closed off
and it deserves to be done appropriately and right. And I don't want to just barrel through and say,
we're gonna close it, and you figure it out, I think we need to meet. I think that we, with
the administration, you know, during safety week, 271 respondents, yes, they responded at pop-up events
during welcome week. So that's probably a pretty selective and biased poll.
Yeah, I take it as information, but I can't say that's the community opinion. So we really need to drill
down on that. So I'm not going to attempt to overwrite the vote. I'm going to actually reverse my vote
this evening, but I'm going to go into this process expecting that we're gonna have a better Kirkwood
than we have now going forward, and I'm open to all sorts of different input on how we can maximize
pedestrian use of that space.
Yeah, speaking as one of the old fart farts no old guard Along along with Councilmember Pimo Smith's
who probably also rode her bike down here today and one of the old old guard who for the however many
thousandths of times I I rode my bike down to City Hall again and
Tonight and I'll write home again tonight Maybe on Kirkwood You know, I I feel like I Agree with a lot
of what I've agreed with some of what almost everyone said tonight on both sides of this But I particularly
agree with a lot of what Councilman Rallo said We don't know where the community is out on this and I
in the enthusiasm of a lot of supporters with this vision for this, I just feel like in that zeal and
enthusiasm, which I appreciate and I understand if this is something you really aspire and really think
is going to be such a game-changing quality of life amenity in Bloomington, I understand that excitement,
but I just feel a lot of it is exaggerated.
Like when we first all voted about for the season closure before like last year when we first did It
was a 90 voter or whoever was unanimous who all was here It's partly in part because since then I have
heard from a lot of businesses and residents in opposition They caused me to step back and reevaluate
I Sort of assumed there was just large wide-scale enthusiasm for the idea
Initially and I found that that's in my experience over the past several months. That's That's not the
case. You can't say that clearly I can't say there's dominant opposition either right But I think the
burden is on demonstration that it's very
Favored to make a change like this to brush forward of overturn To go against and not be collaborative
with the administration to take the step to do that and and We're not I'm not there You know and The
arguments have been made. I just want to make a few anecdotal points, you know again, I have been riding
my bike downtown in Bloomington for 55 years and
Literally used to ride in McCullough school as an elementary school kid I raised my two kids here riding
up and down Kirkwood coming to the farmers mark on a Saturday mornings zoom as young kids I have experience
here one of the notes we got tonight from one the supporters literally says I Love having a beeline
which means I can walk from my apartment to food truck Fridays at switchyard park Well, yeah, it makes
it a nice one, but you could walk there without the beeline. It's it's
It's this, again, it's an exaggerated enthusiasm that leads to statements that I don't think are helping
the careful consideration and weighing in all the costs. The sustainability argument. I've been thinking
long and hard about this and trying to research it a little bit.
I'm not sure I get or understand how this proposal automatically reduces a carbon footprint of Bloomington
and creates and is more sustainable. I mean, if people are riding their bikes or walking to Kirkwood
because it's safe, well, they're walking from all where they live and they're going where there's not
pedestrian
closed roads or roads that are closed to cars Traffic's moving over to set 4th Street where the restaurants
are people are walking all over 4th Street You're gonna have more traffic on a closed Kirkwood They're
gonna go to 7th Street 6th Street You know the assumption I'm trying to think about what is that that
automatically makes this a big sustainability Game-changer and I'm just not sure
I'm just not sure I get it. When I drive, I said I was gonna give some anecdotes. You know, when I ride
my bike down Crookwood on the closed, during closed periods, I actually feel it's not, it's less safe.
I'm dodging people that are unpredictably moving all over the street if I'm riding my bike down there.
Scooters, skateboarders, people walking, cars are much more predictable. When I ride down Crookwood
with their cars, I feel
Less safe and more likely that I'm gonna hurt somebody else When it is closed so there's just all these
assumptions that I'm not I'm skeptical of in a lot of ways and one of my one of my most honored new
urbanist planners and thinkers that I personally have known Was not in favor of this and said told me
that he watched Louisville
in their closed area, be hurt. The downtown businesses and the liveliness of the area be hurt by this,
by similar type of projects. So I'm more than willing to look at this and work at it. And seasonal closure,
or certainly event closures for big major events. And I'm totally open to that. And maybe it is a good thing.
The way to do it is take our time, be collaborative with the administration, because as has been pointed
out, they control the mechanisms, the machinery of implementing this and making it work and making it
good. So we've got to play ball together on this. And so I'm completely open to it, visiting the idea.
And I don't mean to be poo-pooing it, but I did want to counter
with some of my own personal experience. Some of the assumptions and enthusiasm that this is
just automatically just a fantastic thing that's just gonna rain down mainly primarily benefits to the
community. So thanks for indulging me for a few minutes. Appreciate it. Well, a lot of
Good points have been brought up by members of the public and by my colleagues. I spent the last three
weeks in Germany, where my parents are from, and where I spent a lot of time as a child. And the pedestrian
zones there are fabulous. Unless you try to bike through them, then really you have to dismount because
they are filled with people.
It's a little different in the United States, where cities were built for cars, including our city,
largely. Kirkwood is one of the widest streets we have. It's much wider than it needs to be for cars.
Anyway, so I can appreciate the vibrancy of a pedestrian zone, and I would love to see that on Kirkwood.
I think that most people can agree on that.
I appreciated what councilmember Volin said, councilmember, it's old habits, parking commissioner Volin
about using increased parking meter fees to implement the activation of a pedestrian zone on Kirkwood.
That is one of the several reasons why I think we should
take our time with this. If we can put through parking meter rate increases and tie the increased revenues
to Kirkwood activation, I think that would be a great way to move forward on this. I'm sorry, my thoughts
are a little jumbled because there's so many things to think about here.
We are facing reduced revenues as are all local governments in the state of Indiana thanks to the actions
of the Indiana General Assembly, the increased property tax deductions, and the mess of what has become
our local income tax structure.
We're going to have to cut something. We have grandiose visions. We want to do this and that and revitalize
South Wall. That is what I said a month ago. There are a lot of good ways to spend limited taxpayer
dollars. Something's got to give. We can't keep adding more programs. We're going to struggle to keep
up with funding the programs and projects we already have. So this is a reality.
I try to be bold. I praised BHA, we did tonight, for being bold and heading in a new direction. But
I also need to be a steward of taxpayer dollars and recognize our limits in that respect. And that is
a reason why I voted no on this and why I will not be changing my vote. I think that, you know,
the Suggestions from councilmember Rosenberger. Those are all great things that we can pursue. I mean
if there is a crowdfunding mechanism But this is going to take ongoing financial commitment ongoing
staffing storage of the the shade structures It's not of course one the first time we invest in
Permanent structures that that'll be the biggest investment, but there will be ongoing costs So even
a crowdfunding thing is not going to really carry us forward As far as what the public wants I I agree
with councilmember rough and councilmember Rallo's we don't really know I mean we got probably biased
input at the listening session that the mayor held because I
It was 48-hour advance notice on a Tuesday evening in the summer. And I think a lot of her friends were
there. But I also think we got the input on the planning and transportation safety survey
That's biased, too, because you're asking people who are enjoying a car-free Kirkwood whether they would
like a car-free Kirkwood. Well, they're going to say yes. They're out there enjoying it right now. You're
not asking the people who maybe didn't come because they couldn't drive or whatever other reasons. So
I'm sorry I'm a little disjointed here.
The last thing I want to say is that I agree that a collaborative approach with the administration and
with the community with Council on Community Accessibility with perhaps a consultant who has worked
with other cities that have thriving pedestrian zones. I think that's the way to go. And I do share
the hesitation that some in the community and maybe also on this body have as far as
Collaboration with this mayoral administration because that administration has fallen short on Collaborating
on other things. I mean they asked us to approve Hopewell, you know with a rubber stamp Which was not
particularly collaborative But I still I still think and I talked with the mayor briefly yesterday on
the phone. I think that collaboration is possible and should be the route that we pursue so I
That's it for me. Thank you. All right. Councilmember is embargo. You're going to redeem your time.
Go everybody grab a glass of wine or tea and settle in. Okay. It was a little long and then you know
you get all those comments to comments. All right. So councilmember is sorry and clarity went first.
And wow my comments were incredible. I want to say
Thank you, Council Members Asari and Flaherty. I want to live in a city where you two lead because I
teared up. I got excited. It made sense. You say, let's do it. Let's try it. You know, let's do our
goals. Let's do our plans. Like seriously, I just appreciate your comments so much. And I think so many
made sense that, um,
A lot of council members talked about this as some kind of potentially like dead end or a rushed start
when we have talked about this a lot as being the start that have a lot of notes about the mayor's failure
to collaborate with us. And I will bring those up in a minute, but like it is true that we have not
seen this mayor collaborate with us and
This was brought because the 2025 ordinance was unilaterally decided by the mayor to not open Kirkwood,
right? That was a little messed up the way I said it. The point of this was just to encourage and pressure
the mayor to work with this city council. I have a lot of confidence in my colleagues that the nine
of us can and do work really well together. And I think in a way, some of us had a rough start,
I truly value all of you and your opinions and your perspective and your experiences and your skills
and your talents and I would love to also say that about a mayor who works with their city council but
like so far this term two and a half years in like I can't say that and it does make me sad it's not
really a professional feeling but it does make me sad because hearing from
council members Asari and Flaherty, I really was, you know, again, excited that, heck yeah, we can do
this. Like it's true. And I think one council member mentioned, we put the start date as April, 2027,
and that maybe if things were a little different, they would vote for it. We can amend this forever.
It's our code to amend. We can shorten the months. We can shorten the streets. We can decide it actually
needs to wait until 2028 to start.
We can do that. Without this ordinance, we cannot do that. I think it's true that the momentum is now,
and I want to believe that we can keep the momentum. But a lot of times when we alienate the public
or, you know, like, don't listen, they stop showing up.
I used to speak, right, as a public commenter. And after a while, I felt insane. Like, how many times
can I come and talk about the 4th Street parking garage, right? Like, that was nuts. That was nuts.
I think there were three main fears about this. There was money. And I think we showed that this can
be funded for free. It can actually be activated space for free in Bloomington. And maybe that looks
like something a council member said. Maybe it's not all the blocks.
Accessibility can also be tackled. That was a fear. We've got awesome folks in our community to talk
to. We've got websites that are useful, as Councilmember Flaherty said. And the fear that I think is
the toughest to get by is the fear that the mayor won't play along. And some people call it buy-in,
I think, which is potentially nicer, or collaboration. But it's really hard that we have one person
who is in charge who you know well is an equal body of government that does not want this. If this wasn't
detailed we would be doing it so if we had a six vote we would be doing this and we've done it for years
already and you know some council members talked about last year not being successful. People down there
apparently thought it was. People down there said they would like to see this so
If there is trash, that's also an easy problem. We have public works. There was a project, a Creating
Places project that just bought extra trash cans. Again, I looked at all of them. So I really do,
you know, I think most of you are pretty set, but with the first two final comments, I just want to
say I really was like, can we just do this? And can we trust each other that we will amend this ordinance?
if and because we need to. And that we've had and we've asked the mayor to collaborate with us on multiple
occasions. Council member Flaherty talked about snow removal where she disallowed staff from coming
to that deliberation session. This ordinance was inspired by a lack of collaboration. Other council
members mentioned that. I have a list, but I don't want to go through all of them. I think the main
one is that the mayor brought a PUD
And we weren't first we weren't engaged with that from the start, which is like okay like you can do
that. But the mayor and her staff threatened to sue us for two weeks because we wanted to impose reasonable
conditions on the PD. That isn't even a lack of collaboration that is obstructing
City Council from doing its job. So I guess kudos to those who are still hoping that the mayor will
collaborate. I think that we can still follow the same timeline. Council Member Aralo, I think, talked
about deliberation sessions this year. Let's do it, right? Like, if you all don't want to pass this,
we don't have to. There is the ordinance that is in existence that says,
April 2027, of course, like we won't be a part of that decision, right? And okay, another council member
talked about the Kirkwood puffballs, okay. Also, everybody got two puffballs. So if they really used
to, it was 130 whatever people, okay. So I wanna correct that as well as the Transportation Commission.
We have no scientific data on this. We have no scientific data for anything in the city of Bloomington.
I worked at an evaluation.
social enterprise and it costs a lot of money to hire that and it takes a lot of time to do that. Here's
a little bit about what the internet says about how often and how long we study things. Studies stall
controversial decisions, they pacify those opposed, they defer accountability, they maintain the status
quo and they add costs to make projects financially unfeasible.
I am understanding this is a council that also wants to study things. And if one here would like to
stop studying things and start doing, I would like to partner with you and collaborate on some ordinances.
Someone mentioned 4th Street in Louisville. I am, you know, I was born in Southern Belle. I'm from there.
I've been there many times. The longest time I spent on 4th Street was a Congress for New Urbanism conference
because they booked up the hotels on 4th Street.
as an example of something cool cities do. And I think many council members are new urbanists, especially
the old guard. Someone talked about this being very adversarial. It doesn't have to be, and it's not
us making it. It's the mayor. We're not up here saying anything crazy or
Harsh, right? We're up here being like, let's go. I guess it takes two to tango, but I think we could
also just be talked to like regular people sometimes. Someone else used the word exaggerated. Someone
talked about, I don't want to bike there. This really isn't for biking. We do have streets and bike
lanes for that. This is social interaction, and most likely this would
be a dismount zone like the sidewalks of Kirkwood and the square. Kirkwood was platted literally 100
years ago before the automobile. So the width of it took pedestrians, it was about pedestrians and horses
and stuff. So it wasn't planned for cars. I think a council member talked about it being really wide.
Businesses being opposed, the ESD packet from 2026 had 20,
54 businesses surveyed, 26 strongly supported or supported, 20 opposed or strongly opposed, eight were
neutral, which means like they could be on either side, right? I mean, you can add it to either side,
but that means 32 are like, yay, okay. I think that's about it. I think it is a bummer. I think that,
I think I mostly hope this council, yes votes, no votes,
Really mean what you say they, you know, you're really interested in this and you want to do more work
on it. This has happened before. Last time, you know, we tried to make it legal to sleep in parks and
council members opposed said they were going to do something and You can see what's been done there.
I guess that's it. You know, thanks for entertaining me and letting me Yeah, do this. Nothing. Maybe
you really had a choice, but
I am disappointed, I would say, in my colleagues. And I would love to think more about a council that
leaves and has a vision than what we are now. Thanks. Thank you so much. Now, if there's no opposed,
I'd like to ask the clerk to call the roll, please. All right. Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Councilmember Flaherty? Yes.
Sasberg no Piedmont Smith. No, sorry. Yes daily. Yes Rallo no Rough no Rosenberger. Yes Thank you very
much. That motion does not carry
All right, we are now at the final period of additional public comment. If you did not comment at the
first one and would like to make a comment on something that is not on the agenda, now is your time
to do that. Is there anybody in chambers? Who would you like to make a comment on? Anybody online?
All right, move on to questions of council schedule.
Important. Yes, please I'll just say that we have a fiscal committee meeting on Friday at 830 in the
morning and as a reminder usually those are an hour this one's gonna be an hour and a half because Reedy
is coming to Talk about financial planning stuff. So thank you The committee on council processes will
meet tomorrow at 4 o'clock till 530 in the Allison conference room Thank you All right with that
We are adjourned. Thank you.