14th 2026 regular session of the Bloomington Common Council to order. Will the clerk please read the
roll? Stasberg here Piedmont Smith Zulek here. Sorry here daily here Rallo here rough Thank you
Excellent. This evening's agenda is posted on the doors also online, but it includes one resolution
regarding 2026 community development block grant funding, three ordinances including a salary ordinance
and two amendments to the UDO.
There's no legislation for first reading, and there will be two opportunities for public comment. At
this time, I'd like to move for the approval of our minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes?
Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? Is there a second? Second. All right. We don't have anybody
attending online. Can we approve the minutes by voice vote? Yes, but before you do so, I think
the second was Councilmember daily Okay, and the first was there by councilmember Zulik, okay All right
I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from September 3rd September 17th and September
24th All those in favor say aye aye any opposed? that motion carries Thank you very much
Moving on to reports, and we'll start with reports from council and council members. Does anybody have
a report? All right, council member Piedmont-Smith. Yeah, two things this evening. First of all, I'd
like to note the passing of Lee Williams, the founder of the Lotus World Music and Arts Festival. Lee was
a huge figure in the art scene since the early 90s. He was one of the co-founders of Lotus, and he served
as its director from 1995 till 2014, and as its artistic director through 2017. And he was really,
I mean, Lotus has been such a
a boon to the community, to those of us who live here, and also to many people who come from all over
the Midwest and the country to enjoy the international musical acts that participate in Lotus. And it's
thanks to his visionary leadership that that is possible and his legacy will live on as Lotus Festival
continues.
The second thing I wanted to mention is that on Monday is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. And as usual,
the city of Bloomington is going to have a celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday with a guest
speaker, Dr. Tracy Parker of UC Davis, who is going to speak on the theme of soul, spirit, and sacrifice
honoring the legacy of Coretta Scott King and the women who faced America to save the nation or the
United States. The presentation of the Martin Luther King Jr. Legacy Award will also take place. And
that celebration will start earlier than usual at 5.30 on Monday evening at the Buskirk Chumlee Theater
so that we can be finished in time to watch the college football championship at 7.30.
So that is my report Any other councilmembers have reports councilmember Stasberg I just wanted to give
everybody an update about Plan Commission We had our first Plan Commission meeting of the year on Monday
night. It was a very long meeting because there were three Petitions on it that all generated lots of
discussion and interest. So just wanted to give a short summary of those the first one
is the Trades District Hotel, and that was approved by Planning Commission with a set of conditions.
Basically, they were following the UDO, and the conditions just have to do with things that still have
to be ironed out and those last things. I did make sure, if you remember, we vacated part of the alley
for that hotel, kind of on the promise that there was then going to be an L-shaped alley, and so new
alley dedicated, new right-of-way dedicated.
is in the plan. The other two petitions were forwarded to second readings. One of them was about a new
subdivision off of Dunn Street that is being proposed kind of between Matlock Heights and Blue Ridge.
And that also generated a lot of public comment. And they're looking for a couple different waivers
and then several variance approvals from the BZA ultimately. So sort of an interesting petition.
And then the third thing that we talked about that also got forwarded was the Hopewell PUD. So y'all
heard about that already. It is like formatted a little bit differently. And staff had a lot of feedback
around how it was formatted. And so I expect a lot of that to change. But if anybody has any desire
to talk to me about either of those two that have been forwarded on to second petitions, let me know.
Thanks. Councilmember Ruff?
Announce that this Saturday this coming Saturday. What is the date to? the 17th of January councilman,
Raul, and I will be hosting our monthly constituent meeting and any constituent who's interested in
Joining us and discussing issues city issues that are on their mind can go to the city's website and
Find our the link directly to our our meeting on our virtual meeting. Thank you Any other council member reports
Seeing none am I correct attorney later that we do not have any mayoral or office presentations today
Excellent in that case we will move on to appointments to boards and commissions Council members may
bring forward any motions at this point point of order next thing on the agendas council committees
and then reports from the public
Sorry read this wrong So so sorry say that say that one more time well council committees first, which
I don't know that we have any and then Public comment. Yes, I have so so something for council committees.
I have a quick thing for council committees I need to change officially the chair positions for the
council committee on for budget and
and the Council Committee for Special Processes. I had mentioned at the last meeting that Councilmember
Piedmont-Smith was going to chair budget and that Councilmember Stosberg was going to chair the Committee
on Special Processes and I'm going to switch those appointments at the request of the Councilmembers.
And also just wanted to state for the record, because I didn't mention this when we made appointments at our
organizational meeting that we're discontinuing the Budget task force This year, so that's why we made
no appointments to the budget task force Anything else on council committees? To make for the citizen
committee members for Jack Hopkins social service grants I moved to appoint Katherine and Tia Moa and
to reappoint Cameron Greer and Eddie row Okay, there's a motion and a second to appoint three people
to the Jack Hopkins Commission committee Is there any discussion Is that in our packet somewhere and
I missed it Sorry, is that are there
Those names in our packet somewhere and I missed it. No Okay, can you I I missed I I missed the names
then could you yep Catherine and Tia Moa? Cameron Greer and Eddie Rue Is there any questions or discussion I
Seeing none, we have a motion and a second, so will the clerk please? Actually, we can also do this
by voice vote. So all those in favor, please signal by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Any abstentions?
That motion carries. Thank you very much. Are there any other motions for appointments? I believe none. Okay.
moving smoothly along.
That means, unless I'm incorrect, that we're now moving to a time of public comment. This is an opportunity
for members of the public to address the council on items not on our agenda. You'll have three minutes.
And if you wish, please state your name for the record if you want to say your name. But please do sign
in at the dais. Those of you online, you can raise your hand to signal that you want to comment. And
we will acknowledge you. So is there anybody in council chambers who
would like to make public comment at this point? Seeing none, is there anyone online? To the people
online then. My name is Kevin Keough.
I'm a lifelong resident of Bloomington and I come before you again tonight out of genuine concern for
transparency and accountability in our city government. Values that I believe most of you sincerely
support and values that are essential to public trust. At the last council meeting I spoke of the city's
fiscal year 2024 annual comprehensive financial report.
That report was due no later than September 30, 2025, and was later promised by December 31, 2025,
and yet, as of today, is still not public available. For residents who care about fiscal oversight,
this delay raises reasonable and legitimate questions. Since that meeting, I read, just today, a report
about the Board of Public Works adoption of a new special events policy, and it has further deepened
my concern.
During that meeting, a city official cited a very specific attendance figure for the 4th Street Festival,
1,700 attendees on Saturday and 1,600 on Sunday, based on data from a city's vendor, Placer.ai. These
numbers were used to counter public testimony and to support policy decisions affecting a long-standing
community event.
A reporter in the past has requested records supporting these figures from Placer AI. The city has responded
to that reporter that no records exist because the data is live and is not saved. Respectfully, that
explanation is troubling.
I want to be clear about the perspective I bring. I'm a certified information system security professional
with over 25 years of experience as an IT auditor. In my professional career, data that is relied upon
for decision-making, especially data cited in public forums, must be reproducible, retained, and subject
to review. If information cannot be produced, examined, or validated, it should not be used as a basis
for policy decisions.
If data is reliable enough to be cited publicly and used to justify changes to a long-standing community
tradition, then it should also be available for public scrutiny. Transparency is not optional. It is
foundational to good governance.
and are delayed, and when operational data is cited but cannot be produced, a pattern begins to emerge,
one that erodes public trust, even among residents who want to believe in the integrity of their local
government. I respectfully urge the Council and the city leadership to ensure that record-supporting
public decisions are preserved, disclosed as required by law,
and communicated clearly to the public. Bloomington's reputation for civic engagement and openness depends
on it. Thank you for your time and your service to the community. Also, thank you for keeping time,
even though the clock was not on. That was fantastic. Are there any other commenters online? Anyone
else in chambers who'd like to make a comment at this period? Seeing none, we are going to move on.
I'm sorry, I muted myself. We have no legislation for first reading. And so we are going to move straight
into legislation for second reading and resolutions. Do I have any motions? I move that resolution 2026-02
be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second. There's a motion and a second.
May the clerk please read. Oh, I'm sorry.
We're with the clerk. Can we do this by voice vote as well? I'm sorry novice here Thank you very much,
okay There's been a motion and a second I'm to introduce for this piece of legislation to be read by
title and synopsis all those in favor Please signal by saying aye aye any opposed any abstained that
motion carries. Will the clerk clerk, please read I
Resolution twenty twenty six dash zero two to approve recommendations for distribution of community
development block grant funds for twenty twenty six. The synopsis is as follows the city of Bloomington
is eligible for an estimated seven hundred seventy eight thousand two hundred ninety three dollars in
twenty twenty six community development block grant funds from the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This resolution outlines program recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Committee
and the Redevelopment Commission.
pursuant to federal regulations, CDBG allocations are made across the following general program areas,
social services programs, physical improvements, and administrative services. I move that resolution,
2026.02, be adopted. Second. Excellent. Is there anyone from the administration here to present on this
resolution? Hooray.
Kylian Hansen the director of housing and neighborhood development and I am joined this evening by our
dedicated and talented staff Matthew swimming our CDBG physical improvements program manager and Cody
Toothman our social services program manager and
Every year we come before you as part of our citizen participation plan to share the community development
block grants known as CDBG Recommendations from the citizen advisory committee, which is why we are
here tonight There we go
The Community Development Block Grant is a federal grant distributed via formula from HUD under Title
I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended to states and local governments. Recipients
use the grant funds to develop viable communities by helping to expand housing and economic development
opportunities principally for persons of low to moderate income. Next slide, please.
Since Bloomington's population is greater than 50,000, we are considered an entitlement community, meaning
we receive an annual allocation from HUD of these block grants. HUD determines the amount of each entitlement
grantee's annual funding allocation by a statutory dual formula, which uses several objective measures
of community needs, including the extent of poverty, population, housing overcrowding, age of housing,
and population growth,
In relation to other metropolitan areas there are other factors that contribute to determining the allocation
amount as well like the increase or decrease in the number of entitlement communities and past performance
of the allocation recipients despite CDBG success more than 1.1 billion dollars has been cut from the
program since 2001 and I have a feeling that we're not done with those cuts Next slide, please
had awards grants to entitlement community grantees to carry out a wide range of community development
activities directed towards revitalizing neighborhoods, economic development, and providing improved
community facilities and services. But all activities must meet a national objective.
activities must meet one of the following national objectives for the program benefit to low and moderate
income persons prevent or elimination of slums or blight and or urgent need which fulfill community
development needs that have a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate
threat to health or welfare of the community next slide, please
70% of CDBG funding allocations are federally required to meet the low to moderate income national objective
Benefit to low to moderate income individuals also known as low to mod is referred to as the primary
national objective because federal regulations require that percentage next slide, please
Projects can serve specific needs such as benefiting specific service areas where a population is more
than 51% low to moderate income Activities that provide benefits to specific groups of persons designated
as low to moderate income
Activities that are undertaken for the purpose of providing or improving permanent residential structures
which upon completion will be occupied by low to moderate income households Activities that are undertaken
for purpose of creating or retaining permanent jobs at least 51% of are obtained by low to moderate
income persons next slide, please
Statutory regulation requires that the allocations be divided into three categories 20% for administration
of the grant 15% for social services 65% for physical improvements next slide, please Overall in order
to achieve the national objectives the city allocates CDBG funds on an application basis each year and
sub recipients can apply for either physical improvement projects such as acquisition construction or
rehabilitation or public service funding such as child care youth services food assistance as You likely
know our head program year does not actually follow the calendar year In fact, we are still in the middle
of last year's program. We start our next program 2026 which you're actually approving on June 1 and
Applications are released in our portal called neighborly which is online and they start with initial
information so we can get a basic understanding of the intended project and make sure that it qualifies.
Every year we conduct mandatory training sessions to make sure that everybody is up to date and can
comply with the regulations And to be be able to answer any questions that people have the CAC or the
citizen advisory committees get organized and Review those applications and we have a public hearing
where all applicants present their projects
At that point the CAC gets together to provide scoring on the projects and then make their final recommendations
Once the recommendations are made, they go to the RDC for approval, and that again is part of the Citizen
Participation Plan for their involvement, and then finally we land with you guys here tonight. These
are all based on estimated allocations, as we won't actually know until this spring what they are, so
contingency language is included in our recommendations. Next slide, please.
The citizen advisory committee is made up of two subcommittees one for social services and one for physical
physical improvements Social service projects or are for programmatic needs where physical improvement
projects are for physical construction or even land acquisition The committees are made up
of a representative from the RDC and City Council and the remainder are mayoral appointments next slide, please
Each year, the hand department gives the CAC an estimated allocation based on the previous year's final
allocation with contingencies for more or less funding. Using last year's allocation of $778,293, which
breaks down to 20% for admin,
one hundred and fifty five thousand six hundred and fifty eight dollars and sixty cents social services
at fifteen percent, which is one hundred and sixteen thousand seven hundred and forty three dollars
and ninety five cents physical improvement projects sixty five percent at five hundred and five thousand
eight hundred and ninety dollars and forty five cents Next slide, please
Physical improvements, we had a lot of good projects again this year and I never envy the CAC for their
difficult job of figuring out the allocations for the projects. The projects were for 2026, gym improvements
and security access points added at Boys and Girls Club. Their request was for $169,000.
The allocation ended up being $127,580. We had a project for group home flooring at 1701 East Winslow
Road for life designs. They got an allocation of $19,420. We had a project for a new fire panel at 338
South Washington Street for Middleway House. Their allocation was $11,334.
We had a project for a build out of the basement area at the family shelter for New Hope for Families.
Their request was 60,000. They received an allocation of 53,000. There was a project at Reverend Butler
for redoing the playground and the courtyard. Their request was for 200,000 and they received an allocation
of 150,000.
And the last project was for my sister's closet, their new building at 1204 West Second Street. They're
gonna be doing major renovations there. They had requested 190,000 and received an allocation of $144,556.45.
Thank you. Oh, no, I'm not done.
But wait, there's more. The contingency language. We always have to do the contingency language because
stated earlier, we never know exactly what our allocation is going to be. The contingency language for
physical improvements is as follows. If CDBG funding for physical improvements exceeds $505,890.45,
the additional funding will be used to fully fund projects in this order.
First would be New Hope for Families. Second would be Summit Hill Community Development Corporation,
BHA. Third would be My Sister's Closet. And lastly would be Boys and Girls Club. If the CDBG funding
for physical improvements is less than $505,890.45, funding shall be reduced as follows.
The first 12,000 will be taken from Summit Hill Community Development Corporation, and anything over
that will be taken from My Sister's Closet. And now I'm done. Thank you. All right. Thank you. For the
social services projects for 2026, as you can see, it encompasses a lot of essentially child care, food,
and homelessness or homeless shelters, sorry So first on my list is community kitchen with their free
meals program receiving a full ask of 25,000 Next beacon ink the for the friends place emergency shelter
for 20,000 Hoosier Hills food bank for their food distribution program at 20,000 as well
Boys and Girls Club for the Ferguson Crestmont Center after-school child care and education programs
18,000 and new hope for families child care and early childhood education 18,000 And finally middle
way house for the new wings emergency shelter at fifteen thousand seven hundred forty four dollars Next
slide so for our contingencies as Matt was talking about I
What was decided on is that if the 2026 funding level is greater than the one hundred and sixteen thousand
seven hundred forty three dollars and ninety five cents the top six agencies will receive funding distributed
evenly with no award to exceed their initial request and no award may also go over $25,000 Let's see here
If the allocation is less than $116,743.95 and the amount is greater than $80,000 but less than $100,000,
then we'd use the following percentages to calculate the award for the top five recipients. Community
Kitchen would receive 22.5% of the total award that we are able to allocate. Beacon would receive 20%.
Hoosier Hills Food Bank, 20% as well.
Boys and Girls Club at eighteen point seven five percent and new hope for families at eighteen point
seven five percent If the amount is less than eighty thousand dollars We would fund the top five agencies
with no grant to go below fifteen thousand dollars any agency dropping below fifteen thousand would
be eliminated and the funds Redistributed to the others to achieve the minimum part of the reason for
that is because
The amount of administration it takes to manage these grants, as well as the audit requirements they
go through, does make it quite expensive. At a certain point, the dollar amount getting too low would
sadly just be almost a waste of their time in some respects. But on that, I'll take it back to Hannah.
Next slide, please. CDBG is a highly impactful program that allows us to craft locally driven solutions
to address urgent and important community development needs while relying on our community to guide
us. In Indiana, from 2005 to 2023, more than 31,000 jobs were created or retained, 25,000 low to moderate
income households were assisted,
853,000 people benefited from public improvements and 2.7 million people benefited by public service
Tonight as part of the final step step in our citizen participation plan We ask for your final confirmation
of projects for our 2026 program year starting on June 1. Thank you very much Thank you so much for
that presentation do any council members have questions Smith
Yes. Thank you to all three of you for your work on this and the presentation. The Citizens Advisory
Committee is pretty large for each program. Is that dictated by federal rules that it has to be that
size? No, it's localized. So we adopt a citizen participation plan. And I believe the last time that
it was updated was probably around 2023.
2022 2023, I believe so It's something that we adopt actually I Will say membership has been challenging
for the CAC we there have been years where we haven't really had enough people and it's usually a lot
of Calling folks to try and get them to apply so if there's anybody listening tonight that would like
to participate in this really good cause but
please sign up to do so. We could use as many folks to input as possible. So to follow up on that is
that's not something we can change at this point. We would have to wait or how did we change that locally
if we're having trouble recruiting.
That is very good good question. I think that it is something that we would we are able to change It's
not easily changed though. So we have to go through a process of having public hearings and making sure
that The community has a chance to weigh in on those participation plans. I mean, I think that they
really push towards as much transparency as possible to make sure that folks are really being involved
from our community and we're not making decisions in silos and
So I I note this Perennially, I suppose that CDBG funding has declined over the years and now it's really
in threat of being eliminated if the Trump administration would have their way Fortunately Congress
has resisted that however, it has been falling and I understand that
Probably the reconciliation between the house and Senate will cut it even further Just to give a perspective
when I joined the council about 20 years ago a little more We got a eight billion dollars was distributed
Today, it's a 3.3 billion. It's gonna be less than that back in 1980s. It was 20 billion nearly 20 billion
I guess my point is that
These are our tax dollars that we send to Washington. We're getting fewer and fewer back for low-income
earners basic needs in the community and We have some mechanisms to compensate one of them is Jack Hopkins
funding and so that's why perennially again, I try to advocate for more even though I understand that
we're under a crunch as well in terms of you know restrictions by state and
and so forth. I guess my question then is, how do you see compensating in the future for these cuts?
Jack Hopkins is one mechanism. Are there other things we can be doing to make up the difference? That's
a really good question, and I think that will boil down to
Each year's budget requests to be perfectly honest with you But I think that there are ways that we
can work smarter and not harder with our funds I think that there if we are able to collaborate on which
projects were funding and prioritize as a group not just with Jack Hopkins independently and
CDBG independently, but maybe Collaboratively so that we can meet everyone's community needs I mean,
I think that there are times when projects may be funded by multiple organizations and we don't necessarily know
About it. So I maybe a little bit more collaboration could help stretch the dollar a little bit further
would be my my hope but We haven't crossed that bridge and we haven't had to yet So I'm really actually
dreading the time when the CDBG may or may not get cut because look we have two to three times the funding
requests then funding and
So it is incredibly challenging and our social service agencies really rely heavily on this funding
every year but I also think that You know, we are restricted with our projects by big what what is applied
for? So if we have community needs that aren't getting applications then we really need to start working
smarter about how we're addressing them It's just my personal opinion Mine too. Thank you
I wanted to just bring this up to be cognizant of our situation and hopefully people across the political
spectrum will Contact the representatives and say this is unacceptable. This is our tax money There
are people in need. It's unconscionable that it continues to be cut Thank you Thank You council members
who look Thank you all so much for working on this. This is one that
I think we're all excited to hear about every year. Could you please speak to the timeline that recipient
should expect to receive their grants and what that timeline looks like in 2025 as well? Sure in in
2026 you mean or So for this upcoming year in this past year both of them, please It's always so challenging.
So we don't start our program year until June 1st
But we don't always get allocation recommendations from the federal government on time So we're required
to close out the previous program year and we can't start the new program year until they approve an
annual action plan So there are certain federally required steps that have to happen and sometimes there's
delays on those like the government shut down We did not have any allocation recommendations on time
this year. So everything was kind of pushed back and
Add in, if it's a physical improvement project, we have to do, and there's ground disturbing activity,
we have to do a pretty extensive environmental review. So that delays projects from starting. And so
there are just these steps that we have to take before we can actually execute agreements and get them
out the door. So this past program year, we also had some shutdown time as well, which we're not allowed
to execute agreements during a shutdown. So there's certain,
things that we can't do based on whatever the federal government is doing at the time. I'm a little
bit worried about the January shutdown as well. We're timed on how fast we spend our money and how quickly
these projects move, but we also have to meet these other federal requirements that slow them down.
So for instance, this past, the 2025 program year that we're in the middle of right now, agreements
just got executed. So a lot of them are just getting off the ground right now. So it's reimbursement only.
It's not like we just write a check to them. They have to turn in receipts. They have to be vetted.
They have to be vetted to make sure that they are qualified expenses as well. So there is a process.
So they don't actually get their money until they've gone through our claim cycle, which is every two
weeks. So we certainly try to get it out as fast as we can. But there's a lot of regulations to navigate.
Thank you. May I please ask a follow-up question? Thank you.
Beacon in particular. Let me know that they have not received their 2025 grants. Is that would that
be fall under that same? Project. Okay. Thank you. I think most of them have not They're just they and
as part of our citizen participation plan as well One of the slowdowns is that we have to wait for an
RDC meeting to approve those contracts before they can ever get executed as well so there's just kind
of a lot of hoops to jump through and as a matter of fact
There are projects from previous program years that haven't even started and that's not our fault It's
just the speed at which their projects are moving forward. So, okay. Thank you so much I'll let them
know they should expect to hear shortly soon at some point. Yeah. Okay. Thank you customer Flaherty
And I sent for the presentation I wanted to double check something which is that the 20% on
the administration is a cap but not a requirement right we could spend
Less or none that is a good question and I'm actually gonna defer to my colleagues on this one And just
to clarify my question isn't how much it costs us to run administration it's rather Do federal laws
require us to spend 20% of the funds on administration? It's a cap for sure Yeah, so on administration
if we should not
Expend the administrative part of it. It can turn into physical improvement money But you know just
like everything else there are lots of costs that go into the administration of this You know software
costs that we have and everything so we We rarely do not make it through our administrative money But
to answer your question. Yes, it could be turned into physical improvement money only Okay. Thank you
Social services funding is capped. They will not go above that percentage even though she they should
Other questions colleagues comes from Stasberg Straight of money also a reimbursement then It is based
on time. So we there's a whole federal system for tracking time and how we're doing that we have to
draw down money within a certain amount of time to have it apply towards our
Timesheets that kind of thing. So Yeah, there are a lot of regulations related to that And we also can
use the admin money for things like phase ones Just to help prop up those environmental concerns Great.
Thank you Any other questions Yes
Membership in on one of the citizens advisory committees actually require citizenship since it's called
citizens advisory committee Boy, that's I'm not sure about that. I don't I wouldn't think so And if
not, can we call it something else like residents advisory committee? Yeah, it is in that CPP that citizen
participation plan. So I
Personally would like to change the CPP hopefully in the next year one of the things that our current
CPP does not allow is that For instance when we put things out to public notice it won't allow us to
use a website or Use online. I think we're spending quite a bit of money for publishing fees, which
I think we could continue as well but there should be more than one mechanism that would count for a
Notification so there are just some things in that that need to be adjusted to be more with the times
in my opinion so when we're looking at that that would be the perfect time to kind of look at that verbiage
and I That hadn't clicked for me. So I apologize
So is that something that is periodically updated that citizens advisory plan or just something that
you're looking to update in the next year or two? Yeah, it doesn't have to be updated. My predecessor
had updated a couple things in there as well. And so we certainly can do that at any point. It's just
going to take a little bit of time because there are those public hearing requirements and they have
to review some of the language as well. OK, thank you.
Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, we'll now move to a period of public comment. If any member
of the public wishes to comment on resolution 2026.02, now is your time to do that. And I see some coming.
So this is a reminder, if you'd like to say your name, please do. And otherwise, please sign in. For
those of you online, please raise your hand.
Even councilmembers, my name is Terry Amsler. I wasn't planning to speak with you. I'll try to make
this brief. I speak as a resident of Bloomington. By her information only, I'll say I was part of the
CDBG CAC social services committee, just informationally. And I will say also I appreciate the support
of the staff
for all the work that goes into this work for these CAC-like work. Just random, this is a random thought.
It goes part to Council Member Rallo's concerns about the dollar amounts. And while I recognize the
concern with working better, working well, working collaboratively, there is this dollar amount itself,
what's happened over time. And so I would appreciate it within reason, within the world that we live
in, for the city to make statements about this back to decision makers who decide on the
matters about this issue and what it means for these dollar amounts to be reduced to the significant
degree that they are given the already limited amount, particularly because of my particular interest
in the social services side. Lastly, I swear, the issue of participation.
which was a comment about the numbers and so forth and so on. As you know, I have sometimes spoken before
about this whole question of the city's attention to public engagement and public participation. I would
just say that for myself, I've done this a couple times now. I got robbed once because I didn't see
the email about saying I wanted to re-up.
and it was too late to do it, so I waited, and the next administration, the mayor kindly appointed me
back again. So I think there's a fair amount of work yet to be done across city agencies, commissions,
and boards and related about participation and recruitment, if you will, and knowledge of community
participation and who participates. I think particularly speaking only for myself, for the Social Services
Committee of the CDBG Fund Development Committee,
The numbers there were really helpful to have a perspective across of these decisions that had to be
made about recommendations. It could be done more effectively and efficiently, yes. Could it be done
as well with a smaller number? Maybe not. So it goes back to what the old public engagement interests
and perspectives are and learnings by the city. Thinking back, finally I swear,
now really, to the city's comprehensive plan and what it says there about public engagement and how
very little attention is ever given to what it says and how we're doing. And I'm done. Thank you very much.
Councilmember daily, I just realized I was muted that whole time. Sorry You speak loud enough fortunately
Thank you Yes, so I was I was fortunate enough to serve on the social service side of the CDBG this
this term and I really enjoyed
It was very very different work than the way we approached the work in the Jack Hopkins Social Service
grant funding So it was really enlightening to be a part of both of those teams to see how this is done
It was also incredibly hard work and frustrating first. I want to I want to give a big shout out to
the staff Thank you so much for all of that hard work you do Cody I think you probably have the patience of
I don't even know what you had unbelievable patience with us, because I know we were all over the map
at times. So thank you very much. Mr. Ansler served with me. Thank you. That was really good work that
you did, too. But like I said, it's really frustrating, because there's not enough money to go around
for all of these requests. The social services were so low funded. We only get the 15% of that. And
it was not a lot of money to work with. And we had so many requests coming in.
for so much more than we had to give out. And many agencies, unfortunately, were excluded. And that
was not something that we took lightly. I just wanted to let any of the agencies who might be listening
know who did not receive any of the funding that it weighed heavily on us. And we really wished we could
have done more. But thank you for this opportunity to be able to serve and be part of this. Anybody
else with comment?
Councilman brother First I want to say thanks to mr. Amsler for Always being an advocate for public
engagement and also transparency and I agree with you that You know these sorts of things can be kind
of arcane or obscure over time and people don't necessarily follow what we're doing But it should be
we really shouldn't be talking about
the the erosion of Much needed funds for the for our community and the implications of that and this
takes the form as You know, you know, we know of incremental cuts over time so Perhaps this year the
federal government will only cut a couple hundred million from 3.3 to 3.1, but the trend has been a
reduction and
And and it's significant over time and it also should be reflected that We're getting less money simply
because even if it was frozen Inflation, of course will eat away at at those at that dollar amount.
So I Do I also want to thank staff director Killian Hansen for your work on this and I guess it's incumbent
on us to make this known
both to the public, I hope the press covers this, and also to our representatives, and it's probably
also incumbent on us to make sure that we try to fill the gap in the form of Jack Hopkins funding and
whatever other means that we have to do so, because the need remains or increases over time, and so
we have to do what we can
So that's all. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments? Excellent.
I would just like to say that I know we've had a lot of discussions and I think it might be useful for
all of us to continue to maybe work on this, but both the question of how do we share information better
between Jack Hopkins and CDBG. I know they're on different timelines, but maybe that actually might
help a little bit in sort of feeding information from CDBG into Jack Hopkins and vice versa. And then
similarly, if any of
my colleagues would like to think about, for example, writing a resolution that we can send once passed
to our members of Congress and Senate, sort of just showing the support to this and what it's done in
our community, I think, would be a welcome thing to do as a council. So if there's no motions and no
comments, I will ask the clerk to... Oh, can I do this one by a first vote? Let's call the roll then.
Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulik. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Bailey. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Thank you. That motion passes
8-0. Thank you very much for your time as tag teaming in WrestleMania 2026. We will now move on to Ordinance
2026-03. Are there any motions? I move that Ordinance 2026-03 be introduced and read by the clerk by
title and synopsis only. Second.
There's a motion in the second. Will the clerk please read? All right. Sorry all those in favor of reading
ordinance 20 2603 by title and synopsis, please signify by saying aye aye any opposed That motion carries.
Will the clerk please read? There we go ordinance 2026 that I'm gonna try this again ordinance 2026
Dash zero three to amend ordinance 20 2025-40 to fix the salaries of appointed officers non-union and
AFSCME employees For all the departments of the city of Bloomington Monroe County, Indiana for the year
2026 the synopsis is as follows ordinance 2026 Dash zero three amends ordinance 2025-40
Be 2026 appointed an AFSCME employee salary ordinance to align with the approved 2026 work agreement
between local 2487 CB ME AFSCME and the city of Bloomington and makes other amendments to formalize
the salary ordinance with city pay policy I Move ordinance 2026-03 be adopted second Thank you. I believe
we have dr. Pechak here to present on the ordinance
Yes, good evening. Shar Paycheck, Human Resources Director. Happy New Year, everybody. I am here to
present the salary ordinance amendments tonight, and these amendments align with the AFSCME, the newly
negotiated AFSCME work agreement. And I just want to take a moment to reiterate that this agreement
has already been voted on, and it was passed 82 to seven in December.
And I just want to stress this because I believe that the highlights that I will share tonight really
represent the voices of the union leadership being heard and the response from the administration. And
this was nine months of conversation with the negotiation team. And so it's interesting to me how you
can have nine months worth of meetings and then I can summarize everything in like one sheet of paper.
So I just want to stress that.
What you will see in the salary ordinance amendments is like some administrative cleanup. So there's
some language that we cleaned up, outdated language or language that we just basically just did not
use. For example, like gain sharing information. We don't have a policy. We don't have a procedure related
to that. So it was just lending itself to more confusion than it was clarity. So you'll see changes
like that.
We also addressed some of the concerns that we've heard since I started with some of the great designations
in the salary ordinance so there were you designations from the utilities employees those AFSCME positions
and so we clean those up so that we just had like more
more consistency more synergy across the different departments that have these employees represented
so that was a response to some of the Concerns that we've heard so we were able to manage and clean
those things up You will also see in this salary ordinance amendments some pay structure changes one
of the things that I definitely want to highlight is that we
Updated and enhanced the steps the step the longevity step progression for the AFSCME employees This
is an opportunity for basically for them to earn more money faster
And who doesn't want to do that? So that was a great recommendation that we have from our consultants
that worked on this project and We adopted it and we think it's a great thing because not only is it
a recruitment tool, but it is also a retention tool So again, it primarily will allow employees to earn
money faster. So that's a good thing you'll also see some adjustments related to premiums and allowance
and some additional training and professional development report
opportunities within the contract. Some of those increases include on-call pay,
tool allowances shoes and clothing allowances and also shift premiums so increases to basically address
Our our desire to be competitive and to actually respond to some of the requests that we received There's
also some incentives that are represented in this salary ordinance for ask me and that includes like
CDL incentives. So if the city needs additional CDL employees to address
Projects or just on-demand need we have additional employees that can earn a CDL and get some additional
compensation for that to help out with City operations and there are other Training and recertification
costs that are also included that I believe are going to be beneficial for ask me employees And so those
are the highlights related to that ask me agreement and
In addition the salary ordinance also includes information related to relocation Incentive and so that
is something that maybe existed in the city before I don't know it's new since I've been here But it's
an opportunity for us to have additional tools in our toolkit to recruit hard to feel safe
Positions specifically hard to fill positions and then we also have some clarity in here about a cap
at step three for great 14 positions Those are department heads and that is a compensation management
decision and it is considering budget constraints for our highest paid position, so I
I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. I have Deputy Mayor Knapp here, and City Attorney
Brittingham is here, and HR Assistant Director Kanye to help me address questions, depending on what
questions you have. Thank you so much. Are there any questions? All right, with that, if there's no
questions at this time, we'll go to a period of public comment. Same as last time.
Second verse, same as the first. If you would like to comment, please come to the microphone. If you're
online and would like to comment, please tell us so by raising your hand. Are there any commenters online?
Any commenters here? With no comment, I will move back to council. Are there any comments amongst council
members? Please, Council Member Piedmont-Smith.
Just thanks to everybody who was involved in this nine months of negotiations and discussions Also,
I'm pleased to see The relocation incentive be included in the ordinance It's always good to
be as transparent as possible about the tools that the city is willing to use for employment and I know
Relocation is very expensive and I'm glad that we have that option to get good folks here. Thanks. Thank you. I
appreciation to all of the folks on the negotiation team the AFSCME union leaders and all the city staff
I know that that was really hard work doing those negotiations I I heard about it from a distance and
I'm just really glad that that there was agreement reached that Everybody seems really happy with so.
Thank you All right, there are no more comments going once any others all right
Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Stasberg Piedmont Smith. Yes Zulick. Yes. Sorry.
Yes. Daily. Yes Rallo. Yes rough. Yes clarity Yes, thank you that passes with a vote of eight to zero.
Thank you very much Yeah, thank you for your continued support
We're now moving to the next thing. Are there any motions? To be introduced and read by the clerk by
title and synopsis only There's been a motion and a second all those in favor, please signal by saying
aye Any opposed? All right, will the clerk please read? Yes Ordinance 2026-02
To amend title 20 the unified development ordinance of the Bloomington Municipal Code regarding response
to resolution 2025-17 related to amending the eligibility subsection the qualifying standards for plan
unit development subsection and defined term section of title 20 the synopsis is as follows this ordinance
amends title 20 the unified development ordinance in the following manner
One, it reduces the area median income eligibility percentage requirements for incentives in 20.04.110C2.
Two, it revises the qualifying standards for plan unit developments in 20.02.050B3. And three, it eliminates
the definition of workforce housing from defined terms in 20.07.010, Title 20, the Unified Development
Ordinance.
2020 602 be adopted Wonderful. We have director Scanlon here to present take it away ma'am. Thank you.
Good evening Jackie Scanlon assistant director of planning and transportation We are looking at 20 2602
maybe here we go. I'm gonna see if this will work No, I don't think it's going to work. Oh did it no
Okay Okay. Thank you. At least it's gonna help me. Thank you miss Larner. Okay Ordinance 20 2602 is
in response to resolution 2025 17 as was said in the synopsis and there are three relevant sections
In that resolution that dictate what is in the ordinance? So I'm just gonna briefly go through
What those three are before I do that this petition was heard at the November 10th 2025 Plan Commission
hearing and The Plan Commission did vote to amend the petition in order to adjust percentages to whole
numbers that is reflected in the version you got and then
The Plan Commission voted to send the petition to the Common Council with a positive recommendation
So there are three items here That are discussed. The first is section 2 with an amendment to the section
of our unified development ordinance Which is Bloomington Municipal Code twenty point zero four point
one ten c2 with a very specific directive to include an AMI requirement within tier one and tier two
as follows and
Tier one to include at least some of the units priced below 90% of area median income
While using whole percentages, which the amendment corrected and then tier two to include at least some
units price below 70% of area median income again using whole percentages section three Calls for the
Planning Commission to prepare a proposal to amend the text of twenty point zero two point zero four
zero B three Qualifying standards for a plan unit development to adjust the minimum qualifying standards
for affordability so that such developments
using the plan unit development section will meet or exceed tier one affordability standards and Section
four required that we obviously make any other changes in the udio that are necessary to Achieve the
objectives in the sections above. Okay next page. So I'll show you I know it's kind of small and also
obviously you can find the udio online this is the text from 2004 110 c2 and
So 2004 once into 110 c2 has two sections a and b and so you can go to the next slide Lisa for section a
We this is where we are amending the to the 90% for tier 1 and the 90 and 70 For tier 2 so the way tier
2 has worked historically Half of the units have to be at or below one level and half of the units have
to be at or below another level So again, we changed that instead of half and half housing and neighborhood
development was finding that difficult So we changed those to full
percentages seven and eight and then we change the percentages of AMI to 90 and 70 to reflect more accurately
The numbers here in Monroe County so that we are capturing those that could benefit from this type of
incentive being used
You can go to the next slide, please. So then in the qualifying standards for PUD number three is the
one that is to be changed When residential dwelling units are proposed previously in a plan unit or
right now in a plan unit development a minimum of 15% of the total dwelling units must be permanently
income limited and then it
References earning less than 120 percent of HUD AMI which was used to be analogous to what our tier
one percentage was But because we're changing that instead the resolution dictated that we change this
language to match Tier one so you can go to the next slide, please. Oh I think you're stuck in the zoom
Yeah, there we go. Thank you So we changed the language to do just that so total dwelling number units
proposed must include at a minimum the percentage of permanently income limited units required in the
tier one section in a different part of the code So we added that reference directly and there's one
more We found as you know, the workforce housing definition is not used in the code and because it references
tier one and the 120% we next slide, please are proposing to remove that
The Plain Commission is and that's all I have I can answer any questions. Thank you so much. Um, are
there any questions? If there are none I Will go to public comment now is the time if any member of
the public wishes to comment on ordinance? 2020 602
You may do so at this time. Is there anybody in Council Chambers who would like to comment? Anyone online?
All right, we'll come back to Assistant Director Scanlon. And does anyone have any questions at this
time? All right, are there any comments? Council Member Slosberg.
I'll go ahead with a comment. I was the one that authored this resolution in the beginning and it's
been quite quite a journey and so I just want to thank the Planning department. I want to thank miss
Scanlon. I also want to thank the hand department and director Killian Hanson for helping Craft the
original resolution and come
There were several planning Commission meetings and etc. Etc. And so I just want to express
that appreciation. I'm really glad that this change is Officially happening. Thank you. Thank you others
All right, well the clerk please call the roll Councilmember Piedmont Smith Sorry, yes daily
Rallo yes rough. Yes clarity Stasberg That motion passes 8. Oh, thank you so very much. You'll have
one more item Introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only There is a motion in a second
all those in favor, please signify by saying aye any opposed
extensions seeing none Ordinance 2026-01 to amend title 20 the unified development ordinance of the
Bloomington Municipal Code regarding response to resolution 2025-12 related to amending the affordable
housing incentives and payment in lieu Provisions the synopsis is as follows ordinance 2026-01 amends
title 20 the unified development ordinance in the following manner
One, it increases the maximum impervious surface coverage allowance for single family detached and duplex
residential lots in the R1, R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts for owner occupancy projects using the affordable
housing incentives. Two, it increases the maximum impervious surface coverage allowance and decreases
the landscape area for projects that meet tier two affordability standards.
And three that increases the dollar amount of an eligibility for payments in lieu of providing housing
I Move that ordinance 2026 so one be adopted Fantastic to you again Jackie Scanlon assistant director
planning and transportation We are now looking at ordinance 2026 01 which is in response to resolution 2025 12
We can go to the next one All right, so similar to the previous ordinance we just discussed resolution
2025 12 specifically dictates sections to be amended And so there are two that were discussed in this
resolution So the first oh, I'm sorry. Let me tell you what playing commission said just a sec All right.
This petition was also heard at the November 10th
2025 Plan Commission hearing And they voted to amend the petition in order to add wording that requires
reference to the administrative manual which is included in what you received They had a harder time
with this one and they voted to send the petition to you with no recommendation Alright, so resolution
2025 12 Again, which this ordinance is based on Common Council directing the Plan Commission to prepare
a complete
proposal consistent with the resolution to amend the text of UDO twenty point zero four one ten c five
To assess the incentive structure and consider creating additional incentives for affordable housing
including but not limited to expected owner occupied unit development section to the council further
directs Plan Commission to prepare proposal to amend UDO twenty point zero four point one ten c seven
the payment in lieu section to assess the payment in lieu option and consider an increase
and the qualifying standard for developments utilizing a payment in lieu procedure. Next slide, please.
So we'll go over section one. This is a very specific section called affordable housing incentives That
includes an a and a B One is reduced bulk height requirements for developments occurring in the r1 r2
r3 and r4 zoning districts so we were tasked with looking at those and section B as well is applied to
Across the zoning districts and we looked at that section as well. Next slide, please Okay, so the first
set of amendments under a we clarified that The single-family referenced here was intended to be detached
single-family and put in the reference
After the zoning districts saying that are also intended for owner occupancy So again the following
dimensional standards shall apply to single-family detached and duplex residential lots in the r1 r2
r3 and r4 zoning districts that are also intended for owner occupancy that meet either of the criteria
and subsection 2 above and so what we did here was
We added an additional potential incentive, which is having the maximum impervious surface coverage
being increased to 80% So we can go to the next slide, please That does sound like a lot. So here is
a little visual that's kind of like maybe Trying to explain the justification for allowing that so if
you have, you know X number X number
Acres of land and you are in a zoning district that requires 60% of that to be set aside Then if we're
saying the smaller boxes on top of the black line on the left are the sizes of the houses that are being
built And the rest of it is being set aside to meet the 60% in a subdivision situation Then if all of
those houses are of similar size, you'll get six houses if you reduce the area
That has to be set aside for impervious surface coverage. You can greatly increase in this case double
The number of units that can be built This is also written as a may the maximum impervious surface coverage
may be increased to 80% So it is something that the Plan Commission they are the ones that would be
seeing petitions involving this potential incentive would have to weigh if they felt that
It would be beneficial in order to allow it to increase up to 80% for each particular petition
and additionally in a subdivision situation Those areas required for detention or retention are required
on their own common area lots and so those Would still be set aside to meet whatever the drainage needs
are of that subdivision I
We had another question about the language that are also intended for owner occupancy. As you know,
in Indiana, we cannot regulate who owns what, but because this is an incentive, if in order to use it,
you're opting in, it's not a requirement. So we, legal doesn't love when we talk about whether or not
something is owner occupied, so we've put it in in this manner, and we're thinking that it would most
likely be used
In such a way that the developer would they would know that that's what they were intending and then
they would Record some sort of zoning commitment to run with the land that we would have to obviously
come to an agreement with them in the plan commission about what intent means and how How long they
have to agree to that? So this is just kind of soft entry into including on our occupancy as something
that could
Give you greater incentives that you then you could get otherwise and what else was I gonna say about
that? One of the projects that we looked at was the matte press project on the beeline by hopscotch
And so the single family lots there are over 90% covered and so this would be
less than that. One of the things we also looked at was Trailview, which was a Habitat project up on
the beeline northwest of here. And most of those lots were about 60%. And so one of the things we kind
of talked about internally was, you know, if it was 80, those houses could just be bigger for more people
to be in. And also for someone like Habitat, who some has in the past talked about potentially moving
to a duplex model.
having 80 may be able to just allow a home for one one unit or two to just be larger and allow more
space living space as a lot of those houses for example have a lot of outdoor storage and That this
could potentially allow for those to be greater Okay
Yes, this is okay. So this is the other change in this section. Thank you So in the tier two projects,
we are also proposing an increase in impervious. So same argument as the one I just described And that
would just be an allowance of a 10% increase from whatever is allowed by the zoning district Okay,
next slide, okay
So the other objective of the resolution was to amend the payment in lieu section Next slide, please.
So this is what it is and we are only proposing an amendment to section a So the dollar this I'll go
ahead and read it out loud the dollar amount provided as a payment in lieu of providing housing must
be based on the minimum percentage of eligible Eligible units as described in the administrative manual
Payment in lieu option is only available in petitions for projects that contain more than 30 dwelling
units. So The department reading of the resolution was that the council was looking for less payment
in lieu and more units on site And so one way to do that is to limit who can do payment in lieu we have
heard numerous times from hand director Killian Hansen that they do not have good luck with large projects that have
units on site So we still want to leave obviously an option for them to be able to use payment in lieu
Even if we are limiting for the whole Scape of who can do it. We don't want to limit it for larger projects
Are less successful with having their own units. We have also heard her say that smaller projects usually
are successful with units on site And so we were trying to respond to the resolution here by in some
way kind of limiting the payment in lieu Availability that we thought the resolution was calling for next
Okay, so part of this is that the specifics live in the administrative manual So this is a red line
is in the packet of what the changes to the administrative manual would
The first is clarifying that the count we're using For percentages is units not beds because they didn't
used to match in the administrative manual and the unified development ordinance We would be proposing
to increase the eligible unit calculation to 30% of the total project dwelling units So if you're building
units on site, you have to set aside 15% of your units and
the percentages listed in whichever tier you're using if you don't want to build them on site and you
want to give us money instead then we want we want the equivalent of 30% of your units to be the base
for the calculation of what you are giving instead of giving units and So we are proposing 30% here
again clarifying that it's units and we are proposing this says that the current is 20% by
Excuse me 20,000 per unit, but it's actually 30,000 and we are proposing to increase that to 50,000
This number has been on the books since I believe 2021 So almost five years. It's only been increased
once last year it was not increased in the first year of the new administration and
and the old administration didn't increase it either. The intent, as you can read in the administrative
manual, is that it is to be revisited and increased every year. So Director Killian Hansen did increase
that last year to 30,000.
We are proposing to raise that to 50,000 and that would apply to units containing one to three bedrooms
and by suggestion of director Killian Hansen We also included that for units with four or five bedrooms
an additional $5,000 be required for each of the additional bedrooms over three And so that would be
a much more impactful amount In the payment in lieu amount than we currently receive there have been
questions when we have
Presented here before about what is the actual cost of the losing a unit for a lifetime? And are we
getting close to that cost? We probably aren't based on numbers that I've heard mr. Flaherty for Explain
here before and so we feel like moving from 30,000 to 50,000 is not inappropriate Considering we have
only upgraded at once in the last five years and considering the actual loss of
Money that the city the actual loss from losing the unit is probably far greater than we are capturing
here last slide, please Today while I was at my son's soccer practice I received an email potential
amendment. So I have not had time to look at it The idea is to address a difference of how the you do
treats multifamily and single-family units and
And that it's hard to do Permanent affordability in single-family. So This is the amendment Let's see
As most of you know The administration can't propose an amendment to something the Planning Commission
send you it sends you but the mayor would like counsel to consider an amendment to this legislation and then
Planning and council staff can work together to potentially create a proposal for the February 4th council
meeting One question we've had here many times that I do think needs to be addressed and I feel obligated
to say with my ICP is that I don't actually know if this amendment can be done because your resolutions
were so specific about which sections can be edited and that's an ongoing question that I think
Council Council and Administration Council will have to figure out. But I think the idea here is to
be more careful or thoughtful about single-family development and how our incentives affect those and
allow them to still be, you know, functional for their potential owners. And I can answer any questions.
Thank you so much. Council, are you okay?
Are there any questions amongst councilmembers? Councilmember Rallo Yeah, I like to ask a question about
the increase to 80% of impervious surface Which is pretty dramatic I can't see the table now But our
one had formerly 30% and it goes incrementally up. I think to 50 by four, right? So that's pretty dramatic
And you know, of course we have stormwater problems ubiquitously throughout the community It's something
that we're obviously trying to Compensate for for lack of attention to this in the past. So I'm quite
reticent to To make that leap of 80% So what would be a stormwater retention requirement for 80% coverage
of say an acre?
You said that they would have a retention pond of some kind but let's just imagine that you've got Like
successive rain events in the spring which we do it's almost monsoon all the times right you have rain
every day and every other day I mean is this something that Would be deployed to Realistically speaking
that it wouldn't overwhelm
Retention sure. I think it's a great question. Yeah. Sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. Go ahead Okay,
I I Think it's a good question in a subdivision situation where they're creating new lots My understanding
is that the city of Bloomington utilities typically uses the maximum of what could be built as the base
for figuring out what the detention requirement is I don't know that they always
Did that when they weren't sure what was going to be built there? But that has been I believe the process
for at least the last couple of years So basically when they're sizing the detention pond for a new
subdivision They will if they use these incentives and again, these are only for single-family and duplex
projects only in the r1 through r4 They would be using the assumption that 80% is covered in order to
size the appropriate detention so I think that in a subdivision situation that would be
Adequate because that is how they do it now, right? They size the detention based on how much is covered.
So even if less is covered they aren't You know, they aren't necessarily factoring in the open space
to decide what the detention is. It's just the coverage space I think the one where it may be more Maybe
more concerning to maybe it's like a one-off Project but you think about this
the affordability incentives it doesn't Really make a lot of sense for someone. It's not going to happen
really in a one-off situation because why Why are they? Needing incentives usually so that they can
get more units right so that the lots can be smaller and they can have put more in So we think that
we will mostly see this in subdivision situations Additionally, we don't really No one has we don't
see very many of these. I think we've seen one in the
The similar Similar regulations were in the old udio as well Not the previous surface, but the other
ones in this section related to setbacks and they just aren't typically widely used So yeah, we would
have expected in a subdivision situation where they were expecting to provide some probably high level
of low-income housing How did you land on 80% well
I looked at as I said, we've looked at some of the other projects in town I was looking mostly at the
affordable projects actually Which seemed to hover? The ones I looked at seemed to hover around 60 to
65 and then I was trying to look at the sizes of the actual houses there Compared to other
similar single-family housing. That's kind of how I got to 80 like if they were if they were grown or
What would still be a reasonable size coverage? How much would they actually be covering on those lots
for example in Trailview? we met with councilperson Piedmont Smith and That's when she she asked about
the mass map press project and then I thought oh, yeah I guess I should also be looking at market rate
in my mind. It was thinking of it as affordable and Yeah, the map press project covers quite a bit more
and obviously, you know had to work with city Bloomington utilities to figure out the detention at that
location and
I've got another question, but I can continue Okay. Well, is this one of the reasons it was punted to
us? And what what do you mean with our recommendation? So the plan commission said Sure council. Yes
What was what was the reason that's a great question? It was so long ago, but yes, I do believe this
was one I'm sorry. I should have reviewed that Yeah, there were just some questions like for example
you can see in the packet and
Plan Commissioner Holmes had an amendment to just only require pavement and loop for everything to just
switch and so there was some discussion about that, you know, how deep do we want to get into all of
these little incentives or Or do we just want to kind of scrap the on-site? incentives so I think it
was it's just a complicated issue and they couldn't come to an agreement and I believe I Don't believe
all nine were there
Appointed contention the the impervious surface. I Do believe eight. Yeah that the 80 was brought up.
It was not the only but yeah, it was discussed for sure Okay, thank you for that customer suspect Real
quick on that question because I'm the playing Commission representative in my memory the impervious
surface part was not the the problem it was the the payment in lieu of
issue that had the most conflict. But my question is, I guess my first question, I'm trying to go back
to it now. When you're talking about the tier two projects and the maximum impervious surface increase
Allowance by 10% and then it says may decrease the landscape area by 10% Does that mean you're actually
increasing by 20% like the same 10%? Yes, it's the same as two sides of one coin Okay, I just wanted
to make sure if that's what I thought but I wasn't sure and then the other question that I have can
I ask the second one is
Whether the proposed changes to the administrative manual have actually been changed in the administrative
manual because council of course doesn't do that That's just up to the hand director. So has that officially
been changed for 2026 at this point? No, so we're waiting till this goes through and We will change
it based on What happens here? Okay. Thank you Other questions
What I ask you you said that the the mayor and I saw the mayor come in right as you started had a proposed
amendment I'd be interested to hear maybe from the mayor about what what that amendment what what the
concern is trying to address so there Thompson Yes, thank you for your consideration the proposed amendment
and we are totally fine
doing this at a later time and tabling this discussion. But the proposed amendment seeks to make this
feasible for owner-occupied as well as rental. And what's happening in the finance community, what has
been happening for a long time, is when you put a deed restriction on something that says permanent
affordability, what the mortgage market does is say,
We're not lending on it and it suppresses the It suppresses the comps if you can get a mortgage on it
Frequently in my experience local lenders will not lend on it Because it's such a limited market that
you can sell to the amendment essentially
It gives flexibility so there's not a deed restriction and so that we can find other mechanisms to ensure
that the property stays affordable without limiting the mechanism by which we are ensuring affordability.
So, for instance, we could do a shared equity agreement with a second soft mortgage, et cetera, et cetera,
but we would need to set up some kind of infrastructure to do that if it is the intention of the plan
commission and the council
to in essence make these permanently affordable. So this amendment was seeking to be a happy medium
so that we could still get people who don't already have wealth into owner-occupied units. I also just
wanted to make a small correction to the record about the impervious surface on the Trailview neighborhood,
which I was the developer on and spent years
Looking at those potential plat maps We would not have increased square footage on those houses
My recollection is if we could have gotten up to 80% impervious on that we would have had six additional
units thereby reducing the total cost of land and infrastructure per unit quite significantly so
The more units you can get into a neighborhood, it directly affects the affordability of each of those
units, obviously. Thank you, Mayor Thompson. Yes. Any questions regarding, we should use different language
here, but the concern that the mayor has raised, if any. Please, Council Member Flaherty. Just to clarify
a question.
It was something was displayed on screen, but we don't have an amendment drafted or anything in our
packet, correct? That's that's why that's why I just said we should use different language Sort of proposed
change exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Okay, just confirming. Thank you Council member Sasberg. Yeah mayor Thompson
would you started out your sentence by? Saying that it makes this feasible for owner occupancy and I
was wondering what you meant by this because the
like whether it specifically meant the Affordable part that we're amending right now in terms of the
r1 through r4 with single-family and duplex or whether it meant the larger affordability incentive section
which also includes multifamily structures, yeah, so I
I am suggesting that in all of our ordinances, this is the one in front of us, that if we're talking
about affordability incentives, we need to have consideration for owner-occupied. And so my ask would
be change the language to accommodate owner-occupied. If we want people to actually be able to climb
out of poverty,
and end generational poverty, the way that we do that in this country frequently is through ownership.
And I believe it's what people need in our community. I don't know if it's a follow-up or a whole other
one, but just for clarification, since we don't have the amendment in front of us, and this might be
a question for Attorney Laener,
This amends a section of the UDO that is not currently being amended by this ordinance Received This
this language so we've not had a chance to really study it and this is a legal question That would need
to be answered
Will state that the Plan Commission Came up with this challenge on Monday night when considering One
of the projects in front of them on Monday night the affordability question in owner occupied came up
and And whether or not we could lend on it Because we're Puma Smith Yeah, so just to clarify I mean the
the ordinance in front of us tonight does have a section trying to incentivize owner-occupied affordable
housing. So what you're saying is there needs to be a better mechanism to ensure the affordability of
those units? Is that what I'm understanding? To ensure that you can actually build them in the first
place. If you can't lend on them, you can't build them. And what we're trying to do, obviously, everybody's
intent is to incentivize affordable housing
And so as a government we want to do that in a way that it can actually be accomplished and writing
into any any code Restrictions that end up making it impossible to develop that way does not achieve
the goal Mass a quick clarifying question mayor Thompson Maybe which sort of clarifies the questions
that have been asked
what is it in the amendment to the UDO, so not the proposed amendment, what is it in the language that
we're voting on today that presents the problem that you're seeing? Is this a thing that exists in the
UDO currently, or is it a change that we're voting on today that you think is going to lead to this
problem? It exists in the UDO today, and you are confirming it by changing
Part as well. So I am suggesting let's not continue to confirm a problem Thank You councilmember Zulik
I'm certainly not opposed to the change I'm mostly asking a question about is this feasible to do the
change today or is this something that we would need to hear for a third reading in order to make that
amendment correctly and
would be to have a third reading on this question on February 4th. The 90-day deadline expires after
February 4th. By our calculation, it's February 18th, so there is sufficient time for council staff
to review this and resolve any legal questions while also communicating with the planning department staff
Potentially with the legal department at the same time. This would provide an opportunity in the event
that a council member is interested in potentially sponsoring an amendment of this nature Thank you.
May I please ask a follow-up question? Mayor Thompson does that timeline work with you? It does I'm
not able to be here on February 4th, but I think it can be handled by staff. I mean, it's a we just
need to get the
Theory into practice so we can actually build affordable housing Thank you. That's my brother Your questions,
I'd like to make a motion It's a postponed consideration of Yes Councilmember Rallo, did you say if
there are no other questions? So I think I got a nod from the chairs I
You can to be clear you can make a motion any time you want But it's so if you want do you do you want
to make the motion debate if I make a motion and have a second? You can motion and we can discuss it
Well, mr. President if there are other questions, okay, let's let's respect your wishes other questions
Councilor Pima Smith Yeah regarding the payment in lieu revision
So am I, and I, this is probably for Ms. Scanlon. So do I understand correctly that the proposal that
would be in the administrative manual to increase the amount to $50,000 is not based on the actual value
of that the affordable housing would provide, that the lower
rates attached to the lease of the affordable housing over a period of 99 years. That was not considered
when coming up with the amount for payment in lieu. Is that correct? Correct. Because I understand and
I've had some back and forth conversations with Ms. Kellyanne Hansen about payment in lieu. And so I'm
I'm just wondering, I'm not fundamentally opposed to payment in lieu, but could we consider a more rational
mathematical basis for the amount? How would we do that? Whoever you'd like, yeah. But since this is
in the administrative manual, how would we go about doing that? Sure, I think we would have to probably rely on
Calculations done by the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department related to how much that particular
unit Loss is over time Sure if we if you do decide to postpone we can work on that before the February
hearing as well Yeah, I guess I'm just since it's administrative manual I'm just like
Do we have any impact on that since it's not in code? Sure. Yeah understanding that we then develop
or something That's a good question. I mean, yes, so the administration gets to set that number So ultimately
the way that we have done it since it was written five years ago the directors of
Hand and ESD have determined what that number is So yes, they would have to be on board with that but
we can work with director Killian Hansen director Cooper Smith and see it You know if there's a way
to present to you What that number would be and then a reasoning why or why not we would be changing
to that Okay. Thank you. You're welcome Other questions or motions
Postpone ordinance twenty twenty six oh one to our next meeting on February 4th Second I have a motion
and a second. I is this a debatable motion? Yes, it is. Okay any discussion? Please council member Sasberg
I just want to say that the purpose of my
Once again, this was my resolution in the beginning that led to this ordinance was to actually get more
affordable housing accomplished and I agree with the mayor that Lending can be a roadblock. I have some
hesitancy about whether putting an amendment into the
This like this kind of amendment into this ordinance is the right legal move But I'm really happy to
give it a couple weeks and have the attorneys figure that out and if it you know is decided I'm happy
to Help work on that and sponsor that amendment and if it's decided that that's not the way to go I'm
also happy to work on this through the Plan Commission with an entirely new modification to the udio
Thanks In terms of discussion, I'm here I might ask it's
It's totally up to you all, but I think it might be worth having public comment just because
we're considering amendments. I think our intention is clear to postpone. Whether or not we vote for
that is a different question, but I would ask that we rather have public comment and then postpone if
at all possible, but leave that to the motion maker. Motioner? Motioner? Oh, so you want me to withdraw,
so then we can have public comment and then I'll make the motion again.
That would be my preference, but I have no say in this matter. Just that's fine with me I'll withdraw
my motion so that we can have public comment and then I'll make it again Okay, so with that I might
like to move to a period of public comment on resolute an ordinance 20 20 2601 if you're wanting to
speak on this online also raise your hand and please sign in and state your name for the record if you're able to
Good evening. Mr. President. This is Christopher mg from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce
and I want to thank the mayor for stealing my thunder I was just about to bring up the deed restrictions
that was talked about the planned Commission meeting on Monday from Stephen Bishop the bish from First
Financial Bank on what that means as far as the lending market goes and What we have to do is make sure
the process works to achieve our goals and I originally
was going to talk about sort of adding from the last amendment with the PUDs and affordability of housing
and how I don't think that quite works. But I punted for this one just to bring up a couple things from
that same November plan commission meeting. Commissioner Holmes' amendment, which I was for, which was
kind of get rid of the units on site aspect. And while I think it's commendable and the intentions were
great, I think
The collection recovery the admin cost to do it was just not feasible to what the goal was so the payment
in lieu I think was just a much cleaner version and Miss Hanson made a great report I think sometime
last year and where those funds were being used and it just is a much cleaner fit and I think one thing
on these when we talk about affordability and we're talking about developers is Somewhat some flexibility
and not adding complication there was an interim report from IU on housing and how
Monroe County, which does include the the county government as well as ours a you know our Development
takes I believe it was 14 months compared to the rest of the state which is five so Complexity is our
enemy and to make sure that we are sort of streamlining the processes on
And then we want to get our goal. We want to make this more affordable and we do want to get owner-occupied
We want to build wealth and the best way to do that so I think it's just important to sort of look at
some of these things and Kind of look at some of the collateral damages that may be caused by the process
itself and so When we have some time between the the next meeting sort of look at some of these things
Because I think we're just sort of understanding like the deed restrictions
that I learned about on Monday, which I said that it's been talked about, but I had not really considered
that more. If you don't have a mortgage market, you don't have a market. And what then you're doing
is sort of making the process much more difficult for the developer and making it just harder to forget
our achievable goals, which goes to the point of just making sure when we've talked about
what that payment in lieu should be. Let's talk to developers. What kind of makes sense on that? Because
you're also not putting into that administrative cost that takes every year that we've heard about to
just make sure that there's compliance. And compliance costs money. That's why we tax some things that
are easier than other things. Like sales tax is easy to collect. There's other things with deductions
that are not. And I thank you for your time tonight.
Perfect other public comment Anyone online anybody else in chambers Fantastic coming back. I'm to counsel
and I'll hear any motions or I'll again move to postpone ordinance 20 2601 to our next regularly scheduled
meeting on February 4th There's a motion in a second any discussion
Seeing none will the clerk please? Sorry notice. I'm so sorry. I mean I said seeing that but I wasn't
looking to be Bang my gavel Well, just to say I I mean I appreciate the fact that streamlining is a
good is you know works and I'm interested in that proposal however
in the past we've had certain Objectives of streamlining for instance at the Blooming food site where
we gave up a PUD for negotiation of the previous administration Which rendered now the current at Latimer
Square apartments, which it has been a massive disappointment for a lot of people Yes, we got a lot
of apartments
student apartments, but we were what we were hoping for is a mixed-use development with Other housing
types and so forth which didn't manifest Because the promise was streamlining would be a process which
would you know Give us a good outcome. So anyway, just to say that I I look at that proposal with caution
put it that way Any other comments
I think in ideally specifically about the motion All right, I'm seeing none will the clerk or can we
do this by forcefully sad, please call the roll Okay, yes councilmember Zulek Sorry, yes daily Rallo,
yes rough Flaherty Stossberg Piedmont Smith
Motion passes 8-0 that will be postponed to our next meeting which is February 4th February 4th, and
thank you all so very much unless I'm ill-informed that concludes our period of legislation for second
reading and resolutions and
That means that we're moving on to our additional period of public comment If you did not comment the
first time and you have something you'd like to say This is your opportunity to do so to comment on
matters not on the agenda Is there anybody in the chamber that would like to comment on matters not
on the agenda? Anyone online please Take it away person online
Hello. We can hear you. Wonderful. Thank you. Hello, Council. This is Steve Olin. Thank you for hearing
me tonight. I'm sorry I can't be there in person, but I just wanted to say that too many of our local
giants like Charlotte Zitlow and Dan Combs are falling. I wanted to note the passing this week of yet
another Bloomington institution, Lee Williams. He was a promoter of live music at the now defunct clubs
Second Story and Jake's in the 80s and 90s.
According to the former Herald Times reporter and Lee's close friend, Andy Graham, Lee was responsible
for bringing a wide variety of seminal musicians to this Humbleburg often before they became stars.
Acts from K.D. Lang to Coco Taylor, from Robert Hitchcock to The Replacements, from John Lee Hooker
to John Prine. The first two acts he ever booked were Richard and Linda Thompson, followed by a novice
band called R.E.M.
As a DJ at the then new community radio station WFHB, I remember in 1994 being assigned to represent
the station to talk with him, Shahyar Dineshkar, and James Combs about the idea they were brainstorming.
A festival for musicians from all over the world. I soon got sucked into helping, along with 20 or so
other people, bring the festival to life. Eight artists at three venues on the 100 block of West 4th
Street on one night,
that October. The Lotus World Music and Arts Festival was such a big hit that it became an annual event
and Lee its executive director. Over the next 20 plus years, much of that time sharing office space
with Lotus, I got to watch Lee grow the festival into dozens of artists annually over four days all
over downtown Bloomington.
The testament to his stewardship of Lotus is the tremendous impact it's had on the life of Bloomington
to this day, both cultural and economic. By 2013, a proclamation naming it Lee Williams Day in Bloomington
said that he was doing economic development, bringing visitors from far-flung places who then became
ambassadors for Bloomington. None of it would have happened without his intellect, his music business
acumen, his impeccable taste in music,
his heart of gold, and his love for this community. I was proud to call him my friend, but I was one
of hundreds. My deepest condolences to his wife, Carol, and his family. The city this week is much poorer
for his loss. Around the same time as the beginning of Lotus, Lee also founded one of the first radio
shows on WFHB called The Old Changing Way, specializing in the Celtic and Anglophile music he loved
during his youth growing up in England.
other DJs continue it to this day. If you'd like to actively remember Lee Williams, you have but to
tune in during the same time slide it's had all this time, every Tuesday night from 9 to 11 PM.
Thank you. Thank you for those kind and moving words. Are there anyone else who would like to issue
public comment? No one online? Anyone in chamber? Hey, well,
That does that then moving on to Issues of council schedule colleagues. Are there anything that you
would like your colleagues to be aware of? Anything honorable clerk anything council schedule wise Council
committee meetings that are coming up Thank you so much for getting those on the calendar and communicating
with deputy clerk Crossley Promptly it has helped. Yes attorneys any
things for the agenda? Nope. All right. Well, if there's no objection, we are adjourned. All right.