Bloomington Regular Session

All right, good evening, everyone. I'll call the February 4th, 2026 regular session of the Bloomington Common Council to order. Will our honorable clerk please call the roll?

Stasberg.

Piedmont Smith.

here.

Zulek here. Sorry

Here.

bravo

here.

Ruff. Here. Rosenberger.

Thank you.

All right, this evening's agenda includes reports from council members. It is posted on the doors and online. If you'd like to see it in more detail, there's also a handful of copies on the clerk's desk, but the agenda includes reports from council members and city offices, including a report and discussion regarding the Kirkwood Outdoor Dining Program. There will be a special time during this report for public comment, separate from our two sessions of public comment that are usually on the agenda. We will also consider appointments to boards and commissions. We have two ordinances for first reading related to boards and commissions and ordinance procedures, and legislation for second reading, including a resolution to rename a council committee and an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance related to affordable housing incentives and payment and lieu provisions. So with that, I'm going to move to the section of approval of our minutes. We have minutes from August 6th, September 30th, and October 8th. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Fantastic! Hearing none, do I have a motion?

I move approval of minutes for August 6th September 30th and October 8 2025

Thank you very much. There is a motion and a second. Clerk, will you for us to accept

Ready? Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Asari. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff.

Yes. Stasberg? Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna move on to reports today. I'll try something a little different. I'm sorry to be unusual But I'll call for reports in two rounds if you have a general Report on your activities the things you've been doing throughout the last couple of weeks That'll be the first round second round of reports for council members if you have any statements Political statements or the like so we'll start general updates. Are there any updates? council members who lick

Hello. Thank you. I just want to remind all of my council colleagues that we are

Initiating our new council liaison program for all of our different boards and commissions effective January 1st So in your interview committees, everyone should be assigned two to three boards and commissions to serve as the as the council liaison And as a reminder, these are the following expectations for that role One every council member should reach out to the chairs and liaisons of their commission's staff liaisons At least three times per year and attend at least one meeting Interview committees will be responsible for discussing any resolutions or recommendations Passed by assigned boards and commissions and then council member liaisons should apprise board and commission chairs and staff liaisons of any relevant legislation being developed Or discussed by council and vice versa

Bonus points something that I have been doing is I have been going to coffee I've started going to coffee with different boards and commission members to better learn the one-on-one aspect of different commissioners experience working with the city of Bloomington and anything that they might be advocating for so

That is the expectations and your bonus points of the day. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other updates from councilmembers? Councilmember Stasberg.

Thank you.

Want to remind folks I'm doing something a little different with my constituent meetings this year And I'm scheduling one-on-one appointments with people during kind of pre scheduled time So my next right now they're second Tuesday's and there is a link on my public calendar that you can follow to schedule an appointment So mentioning that right now because the second Tuesday is next week So it's next week between 1130 and 1 and there are a couple appointment times that have been booked which I'm excited about And then there are still some openings So if anybody would like to have my undivided attention on any kind of an issue or concern My plan is to meet in the council office suite over on the other side and West showers for now But if you need an online link to meet online that also works And I guess the other update I'll give folks We had an MPO meeting last week and then I've also gotten a couple of constituent comments about Work that in dot is planning along 10th Street and especially the 10th and Pete Ellis intersection because in dot does have a bunch of trees marked That they expect are in the right-of-way and there is still kind of ongoing conversation right now Between and on the city about making sure that those are in the right-of-way But you can also submit a comment in dot if if you want to make a comment about those Trees getting taken down. Thanks

Tremendous any other updates from council members?

Seeing none, do any of you have any statements you'd wish to make?

and.

even if you set an update.

See, Council Member Piemann-Smith.

Yes, thank you. Just a short statement. There has been a petition as well as a protest on this matter, so I wanted to say for the record.

That I share the concern expressed in by the members of the public about the city of Bloomington using the company flock security.

for license plate cameras and other security cameras.

Uh, flock is not trustworthy.

So even if Mayor Thompson's administration tightens up the contract.

I don't trust Flock to follow it, nor to keep camera images and associated data safe.

In this national context of creeping fascism and increasing loss of personal liberties, I don't think the city should continue its contract with Flock.

Thank you, council member. Any other statements? Council member Stasberg.

Thank you.

I want to take a minute to I'm hoping that I'm gonna get through this statement by the way Because I have a feeling I wrote it and I was fine and saying it might be a little bit harder I just want to take a minute to give acknowledgement to the children and youth who are being caught in the middle of a Situation that no one and especially not children should be caught in If you haven't seen the photos of Liam Ramos and his bunny hat during the last two weeks I can't imagine what news you've been watching His story has been broadcast worldwide after he was used by ice as bait and then was taken into detention with his father And for context he's five

He's five years old and being used as a pawn by an agency of the United States federal government And he is not alone and that's the part that I really want to highlight because he got released But there are hundreds of children in ICE detention in very similar situations as he was Hundreds of children who the United States government is inflicting trauma upon Hundreds of children who are not being given adequate food water or medical care Recently there have been reports that there are measles cases in the Texas facility where Liam and his father were kept with hundreds of other Families the trauma being done to the children in this country is shameful It is shameful and it goes beyond the children that are in active or former detention It extends to the classmates of those children because suddenly their peer has disappeared It extends to the children riding the school buses that are being followed by ICE Agents who are waiting for those children to get off the bus or hunting their parents while they wait for their kids It extends to the older youth the almost adults who are walking out of their schools in protest sacrificing their day of education for a more important moment in history because someone has to stand up and our young people are Taking it into their own hands because they see how wrong this violence against our communities are

High school students across Indiana are walking out in protest and this includes our own high school students here in Bloomington South high school students had a protest outside their building North high school students walked the three miles from at the high school in the snow in the cold to get to that protest last Friday to join the community protest against ice and Our kids know what is happened that what is happening is wrong and the least then I can do is speak out from this seat here to acknowledge the trauma that's being imposed upon them and Salute our kids for standing strong and being resilient. Thank you

Thank you. Council Member Zulik.

I would also like to note the passing of Representative Lee Hamilton earlier today. For those of you who don't know, I graduated from the Hamilton Lugar School and Lee Hamilton is always someone that I wanted to grow up and be like. So I just want to acknowledge this community's loss and.

We've lost a lot of grades in the past couple of weeks, and so I just want to acknowledge that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others?

Going once.

Going twice. Okay. Fantastic. We'll now turn to the Office of the Mayor and we have today a presentation from the Economic and Sustainable Development Department, our mighty ESD, who are going to talk to us about Kirkwood plans for next year. Take it away.

Hi everyone Jane Cooper Smith director of economic and sustainable development to speak with you this evening about the 2026 outdoor dining Program and I'm here with a special projects manager Chas Mottinger

Yeah, to provide you this update. I want to frame Chaz's presentation with.

A bit of process information and positioning before passing to her for detail First off ESD is leading the communication efforts and the guides guidelines relating to outdoor dining However, this is very much a team effort public works legal police parks fire Engineering planning CFRD and office of the mayor have all been engaged in this process and together the city administration makes this recommendation

Further the initial approach to this program for 2026 based on communication between the legal teams was for ESD to simply update the 2026 guidelines for the Board of Public Works However, it has been determined that the more appropriate way forward is to activate section 7 of ordinance 2502 Which gives the city engineer the authority to temporarily or permanently suspend all or parts of the outdoor dining program So the city engineer will submit a statement to council and the Board of Public Works indicating temporary suspension of the Kirkwood closure Part of the outdoor dining program in 2026 and that may happen as early as tomorrow The city engineer was not able to be here for this presentation tonight, but I'm happy to communicate questions back to him or facilitate that While there are strong opinions and feelings about the correct way forward I want to highlight that there is truly a shared vision for Kirkwood This item tonight is potentially contentious because so many people care about it city planning and ESD will request funding as part of the 2027 budget cycle to begin a corridor study a request for proposals for a consultant for the corridor study Which will include an economic development component as well as planning component and we will begin that process in q4 2026 so it's becoming very much Close to being present tense which is exciting my colleagues and I look forward to beginning this collaborative process with the entire community So that we can begin taking the steps to make Kirkwood Avenue a place where form and function align and welcome all to the heart Of Bloomington with that. I'll pass to Chas so she can provide an overview of our work to prepare our recommendation for 2026

Thank you, Jane. Good evening, everyone. All right.

So over in the past several years our outdoor dining program has Evolved from an emergency pandemic response Into a shared community vision creating a vibrant space on kirkwood avenue the city's gateway from town to gown in the heart of bloomington

City staff have listened, learned, and experienced many lessons, and we have come to the conclusion that the current approach to seasonal closures has led to incomplete solutions.

After reviewing data community engagement departmental input and operational realities city staff recommends that in 2026 we keep Kirkwood Avenue open to vehicles year-round We enhance and expand the parklet program and we shift resources towards micro activation efforts that strengthen the entire Corridor and let's get into the why

Despite a 57% increase in event activity last year and 16 more program days, we still saw an 8% decline in average daily visits. This tells us that street closures alone are not enough to support consistent vibrancy and that thoughtful activation and infrastructure improvements have a greater impact.

Successes of the program have included that some restaurants and bars saw increased foot traffic in sales during closure during the closures

Many residents enjoyed the walkable, pedestrian-focused environment.

However, we also face significant and reoccurring challenges.

One is economic concerns some retailers and service businesses reported decreases in visits parking and delivery access became problematic

too.

infrastructure limitations.

Without permanent features such as shade, seating, hardscaping, and ADA-friendly services, blocks often felt empty.

Three, staff capacity and resources. We simply do not have the resources to continuously program and manage a fully closed Kirkwood.

Four are public safety concerns. Closed but unactivated streets invite crowd surges, unsafe behavior, and congestion across bollards and alleyways.

Five, accessibility challenges. Businesses and residents express frustrations with drop-off access, wheelchair routes, and delivery logistics.

These issues make the 2025 model unsustainable.

The 2025 model also brings additional costs an estimated 80,000 annual loss in parking revenue

Only $17,500 in revenue from program fees.

increased overtime for street and sanitation workers, additional trash and maintenance needs due to closed blocks.

We must shift to a more cost-effective model that still supports vibrancy.

For 2026, we are gonna focus on the following three initiatives. And we're really excited about them too, by the way. One is downtown activation. We're gonna continue major high quality festivals such as the Taste of Bloomington and Pride Fest. We're gonna continue major high quality festivals such as the Taste of Bloomington and Pride Fest.

With the Kirkwood Activation Coordinator Consultant that was funded from the 2026 budget, we're gonna add small-scale micro-events. Examples may include art crawls, coffee crawls, scavenger hunts, Instagram challenges, and other business-driven promotions.

These drive more long-term economic impact than closures alone.

Two, we're gonna focus on parklet improvements.

We're gonna require accessible platforms that are level to the sidewalk.

We're going to encourage more greenery, shade, and lighting.

We're also going to work on finding long-term solutions to replace orange jersey barriers in the future.

Finally, we're going to focus on the long-term planning. We're going to prepare for the 2027 Kirkwood corridor study And this includes as Jane mentioned a request for proposals in 2026 and securing funding in the 2027 budget cycle

We're going to use this study to create a comprehensive, community-driven vision for Kirkwood's future.

When we're looking at community engagement, feedback highlights include, businesses downtown and along Kirkwood are about evenly split between expanding closures and scaling back to parklets.

Residents generally support a pedestrian friendly Kirkwood, but they emphasize the need for more amenities and accessibility measures

Stakeholders such as Downtown Bloomington, Inc., the Chamber of Commerce, and Indiana University are supportive of a well-executed sustainable approach.

Downtown strategies the consultant developing the city's downtown action plan has found that effective major events and targeted micro programming drive more economic benefit than full street closures.

City staff connected with over 50 businesses, over 100 residents, and the work still continues.

The vision for Kirkwood is clear, a safe, inclusive, vibrant, and economically strong corridor that reflects Bloomington's identity. We just need a real plan to make it happen.

Seasonal closures provide value, but they expose limitations of temporary infrastructure and limited city resources. In 2026, our focus shifts towards better parklets, stronger activation, and long range planning that will allow Kirkwood to thrive year round.

We look forward to continuing the engagement with you council members and the community as we move into the next phase. Thank you. We're happy to answer questions.

Council members, if anyone has a question.

or discussion point is also Council Member Zulek.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I was just wondering, are there plans to close down Kirkwood during home games for IU football?

Um...

Not at this time, I think.

at this time. I think.

Director of Public Works, Adam Wason, might respond to your question. Thank you.

We have not considered whether or not we would close it for all the home football games or not at this time You know as we think about the micro engagements and the smaller scale events It could be possible, but we wouldn't plan just every weekend for football right now

Thank you.

Any other questions. Please.

you. Thank you for the presentation and also appreciate the conversations that we had with

Director Cooper Smith mentioned so

Ordnance 2020 502 was passed by the council. I think with the express intent of creating some multi-year certainty for Down for the whole community really but especially folks who make actual investments in their parklets and in other expansions that would might go into this what is the right-of-way for that for this or typically space dedicated to cars, so

Sharing that as context a director Cooper Smith mentioned that they're Activating section 7 of that ordinance which reads to start in cases of emergency Lack of participation or any other reason that may render the program impractical The Common Council authorizes the city engineer to permanently or temporarily suspend the program in part or in whole I guess first just a clarification with like

So I think I'm understanding that the administration is saying the city engineer has determined

one of these reasons to be true, which I guess I'm curious which it is. Is it an emergency? Is it lack of participation? Or is it impractical? And could you elaborate a bit on?

On that, please.

Yeah, I mean I so the memo hasn't been submitted yet, so it's not formalized But Margie's okay if I summarize where we're coming from. So I think we're looking more at the at the third

Item where it's rendered impractical. I mean this body knows better than anyone else that we're working with reduced resources Now i'm going forward. I think we also learned how much in 2025 how much

How many resources how much time is required to fully activate the corridor? the investments that we made

in the

Sorry the downtown strategies consultant. Those were actually paid with Creed funds. So We're doing what we can we have consultant funds that will go to these smaller activations and will request that funding again in 2027 but I think just if you need a single answer, it's generally related to that

But in the draft memo that I saw the engineer is pointing to the reasons outlined in the memo that was presented by ESD

which I think is multifactorial, so.

But it's not engineering reasons, right? Like they're not reasons of engineering design, safety, things like that.

but it's

The ordinance doesn't require engineering reasons it says or any other reason that renders the program impractical

Thanks for your interpretation.

Yeah. Thank you.

Sorry for interrupting.

Other questions? Also feel free to make comments.

Thank you. Do you have any data on how the Poplar's construction might have impacted Kirkwood activity last year?

We

don't have specific data related to poplars or the Beverly, I think is what it's called.

but we and our key lead on parking is not was not available for additional data today, but

Don't know if Adam wants to talk about that. I mean in 2025 we had other pressures on parking related to construction So I'm not sure if it's apples to apples But yeah, it's a good question. Thank you

Can I also add, I know that this year we do have a, there's construction that will also be going on that could potentially impact a Kirkwood closure in general just will impact downtown. So there's going to be a sidewalk maintenance project. Duke Energy is planning some major rerouting on one of their major lines that feeds into IU. And again, with the continued Beverly project and also the CVS project are better known as the 115 East Kirkwood project as well that.

These are all things to consider when we look at this, that they will impact people downtown.

Thank you.

Custom rules over. Go ahead.

Can you tell me why the administration decided to study this when last year we decided we would keep it open and I Think so many businesses on Kirkwood invested not in the Parkland but in their outdoor dining space Because we basically promised that we would keep it open for a number of years

I think.

The study which you put in air quotes is really just part of our due diligence diligence for working on the guidelines and the guideline updates

Yeah, I mean, I think it's that simple. Just, it's part of our practice.

Thank you.

If I can say...

So part of my job is to do the implementation of this program whether that's the Kirkwood closure or it's the parklets So I work with a lot of people as we mentioned before when we're doing this as a team effort It's literally everyone every department at the city and these problems have been brought up in the past Well a couple years, but really Especially think shout out to our wonderful She's been here year the public works special projects manager and Cassie

We've just been able to Understand better how this program works what the implementation Successes and challenges are so and thanks to also the council and when we presented before we've really had a better Understanding of what the city can and can't do. What are the actual operational?

realities so that goes into it talking with people constantly doing our due diligence as public servants and listening not to just the Largest voices are the loudest voices, but all the voices people still struggle with accessibility. They struggle with Deliveries they struggle with all these other things So we're looking at the full picture and these things just get brought to light And so we are listening to the community to our colleagues To people with these struggles and also with their successes with this program and that's it just gets brought up So for the past year since this happened unfortunately

You know, we have to deal with it when we hear these things.

Unless there's any objection from council members, I'd like to extend this time by 20 minutes. Is that okay?

Seeing none, Council Member Rosemargo, you want to continue?

Any other questions?

Go ahead.

For staff, it's sort of a procedural question To sort of preempt what?

May end up being a debate.

About whether we should allow during public comment general public comment for tonight

Comment on this item because it's technically on the agenda, even though it's not a legislative item of legislation My instinct is to During public comment or 20 or our general open public comment if there are people who want to comment towards this item My senses would be to allow that now I don't know if that would take a motion or suspension of the rules because technically it's on the agenda Even though some of the legislation like I said, but I anticipate

Thank you. Thank you.

Excellent excellent point. We included public comment on the agenda as a part of this great

Other points, and feel free, questions, comments. Otherwise, we can go to public comment if we'd like.

That's it. That's it.

Comment I I do find this concerning

If.

If the purpose of ordinance 2502 was simply if the administration reaches a different policy conclusion

for any reason they can go back on the ordinance then there was no purpose in passing it in the first place.

Um,

At least implicit in that to me in in in viewing the city engineer with authority and emergencies and other

Situations to suspend it. There's some presumption that it's not just the administration reached a different conclusion than the council

So that's just how I feel about it, I guess.

And, um...

Even if it doesn't violate the letter of the ordinance, it certainly violates the spirit, in my mind. And that's not the first time that's happened under the Mayor Thompson administration. And...

The type of pattern that emerges makes it hard to trust when we are developing legislation, we're passing budgets, those types of things. So to me, this is yet another data point on a larger picture, and it's disappointing.

And I, you know.

I appreciate the work that's gone into it. I appreciate the outreach. I appreciate.

Creative solutions that are being proposed to me. That's all both and though and it doesn't get around The problematic aspect with respect to the legislation the council passed last year. Thank you. Thank you

If you would go ahead.

We'll just piggyback on that, that I did meet with our.

Council attorneys about the legislation because I was very confused about This memo coming out with a recommendation to stop the outdoor dining program in Kirkwood and

The ordinance.

explicitly gives Authority to our city engineer and that is for the engineer to make

decisions based on his expertise. This decision is not based on.

any work that the engineer does and I Spoke to our city engineer last week and he had stayed out of this So he he knew a little bit about what was going on But was definitely not a part of this decision and this memo came out Much before he is now

Deciding that it is impractical and I think the ordinance is clear that in section I think three

City staff has the authority but not authority but city staff is tasked with writing the guidelines and the guidelines are to put into place How this program will be implemented?

and the

And

Doesn't give city staff the authority to Stop part of this program like that is the city engineer and like the intent if you watch the meeting from last year of that was for construction street closures because we had the Indiana Avenue Street closure last year and so

Am I am so disappointed that this is how this is going I I know I went to one meeting with city staff about this But found it

I found that the decision was already made before I even had my meeting which was also disappointing to me And I don't know if any kind of public outreach happened here or not I've really only heard about a few anecdotes about negative things that people think about this program when

I mostly hear positive things from members of our community.

So overall, I'm like, I'm.

so incredibly disappointed. It's really hard for me to even.

Talk about it.

Could I ask a question on that note? Do we receive more legislation at some point to confirm your intentions for this year? How do you view it as progressing from the meeting today?

the the legislation

The guidelines need to be updated via the Board of Public Works and it looks to me like via section 7 the engineer needs to notify council needs to notify businesses 14 days in advance of any suspension of the program and then council needs to Be reported to about the reasons within 45 days of that suspension

backing the frame up just a little bit I am just listening deeply to the feedback from council members Flaherty and Rosenberger and I think maybe what might help is just the the reason this is coming up is because this team feels so strongly that the implementation of the program Did not match the intent of the program. So I think that's why This is coming before you and it is not

intended to be underhanded and in fact The section 7 activation is really because it seems like that's more aligned with what the with the rule states So I don't know. I just wanted to offer that context and then just say I'm I'm hearing you

All right, if there's no other comments, Council Member Pima-Smith, do you have a comment? I'm sorry, I might have missed your hand if it went up.

In which case, I'll move to a session of public comment now, same general rules. If you can state your name at the microphone or some alias, that would be great. Make sure you sign in and you have three minutes. We'd love to hear from you.

Oh for those online if you're wanting to make public comment directly about the Kirkwood program You can raise your hand and we will acknowledge you in turn. We'll start in in council

Excuse me, is this for items on the agenda or not on the agenda?

on the agenda. This is specifically for this thing about Kirkwood, and then we're going to have a second session of public comment after this.

Okay, then it's not me. You're next.

I signed in first, right?

So, my name is Adam Martinez The packet states an 8% decrease in visits year-over-year I wonder how do we know that the street closure led to the decrease? The economy overall in 2025 was not great for reasons I won't get into is it possible that the decline could have been more significant had the street been open to cars

The closure of Kirkwood to vehicle traffic is a major reason that many residents myself included visit downtown in the summer When i'm sharing drinks with friends I want to hear their voices not the roar of internal combustion engines and the squeaking of un-lubricated brakes I want my lungs to be filled with the smells of tacos and teriyaki not gasoline fumes and microscopic bits of rubber from car tires

Understand the program has presented some logistical challenges But we should view this as an opportunity to improve it rather than justification to regress These problems are solvable. The city should look towards other successful efforts to pedestrian eyes There's a pike place in Seattle 34th Avenue in Queens They show that restricting private vehicle access is possible and it leads to communities that are more connected more vibrant and more economically productive

Kirkwood's pedestrian pedestrianization should be a starting point and not the end of the road

I ask the government to make an example of Bloomington to show our state and our country that we're not afraid of bold progressive action that improves the lives of our residents. Thank you.

But next in council chambers.

Hi, my name is Nathan Petrie and I didn't prepare anything I just came and you know wanted to listen to what you guys had to say and then would say something if I thought it necessary And I just wanted to you know start out by saying I only heard about this Two days ago. So to you know councilman Rosenberger's point. I Did not you know, I thought you know, oh Kirkwood's gonna be closed again this summer. Great. That's cool I liked it last summer and then you know I just saw on Facebook and I follow you know, all the pay all Bloomington's pages and just saw you know Oh, we're gonna close it. Here's why if you want to talk about it, you know You can come to the City Council meeting so in two days or you know one day I don't know if it was that long ago, but and then second point is I Drive for uber on the you know some nights and I'm sure you know, you guys would know that Kirkwood Kirkwood and done is a very very busy intersection and the street closure does nothing but help You know me when I'm dropping students off at the bars or you know residents off at the bars at that intersection Because right now it's open again and that stop sign is extremely busy and Students walking everywhere. You can't really tell when you can go and it was way simpler when it was just done And it's you know straight on so I just like to speak to the safety concern of you know Dropping people off at those bars and you know people patronizing those areas and that You know that could just use some work in general But straight speaking strictly to Kirkwood I would almost wonder if we could instead of doing a full closure do those partial closures like you guys were doing You know in the fall instead of the entire thing. So that would be another point I'd like to bring up Yeah, thank you

Thank you. Next in council chambers.

Bye.

My name is Matt Gleason. Um, I heard about this today as well and I feel strongly about it. So I'm gonna make some comments Um, I would like to challenge the idea that the economic decline was because of the closing Um, like adam said there's a lot of other factors Between 2024 and 2025 that led to decline in middle class spinning power that I would attribute that to

Um

Difficult access for door dash drivers and ride shares was cited as a reason for giving up on this program But I think we should be prioritizing pedestrian safety over those uses um I'd also question whether Opening and closing the corridor throughout the season would cause more strain on city resources to Bring out those bollards take them away over and over again

Limited infrastructure, including shade and tables, was cited as a reason to quit this program. But they were taken away due to undesired activity, is the quote. But I feel that using a lack of shade as anti-homeless architecture or hostile architecture is kind of a step backwards for Bloomington based on Bloomington's values.

Thank you very much.

And so my opinion I think keeping Kirkwood open to close to traffic open to pedestrians would be great for the city's public space is not many places that people can just exist or stay for free in the city and this is one of them and I think it should say that way. Thanks.

Thank you.

next in council chambers.

Hi My name is Greg Alexander What's killing Kirkwood is delivery drivers. It's not very subtle They're funneling money into dot-coms, you know, it's it's a Fee on top of what we're supposed to be paying to our restaurants They're making a mess of our traffic They are incentivizing people to eat far from their homes without thinking about it without being aware of it When we have so many people live downtown in so many restaurants downtown Allowing more drivers on Kirkwood will only hasten that decline Increasing car priority doesn't solve the problems that we have that's kind of

It's a really depressing thing to have to say still. But regarding the possibility of a Kirkwood corridor study, you guys need to understand the history of these corridor studies. This body authorized one in 2019, and it took four years, and then in 2023, the study finally was funded and completed. And that was now two years ago, a solid two years ago. And we haven't seen any fruit of that. In fact, we've doubled down on the expenditure at the same time as it's become really clear that the mayor is simply gonna decide based on her own opinions.

And you should be real skeptical about claims of a future Kirkwood corridor study. We've established a pattern of spending money

and then ignoring the consultants.

If the mayor is going to decide regardless of what the consultant says, we can save that money.

and if the mayor's gonna decide, regardless of what you guys say.

Why are you wasting my time?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Another in council chambers.

Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Bob Gasillo. I'm the president of Kirkwood Community Association.

And I want to start by saying how disappointed I am that I have to be here last year We worked with the city with Jane Cooper Smith and Kate Rosenberger To come up with an ordinance that everyone agreed was the best for Kirkwood

The whole premise behind it was so that we wouldn't be here every year talking about this issue, so that we as business owners could prepare, invest.

and provide a...

an outdoor environment for customers and the community.

Once again, we are here in February talking about whether we're going to keep this open or closed And I feel like it was disingenuous of the city administration to enter into that agreement last year Only to come here this year with engineering issues that they think they need to implement in order to close the city Or close the street We sent kca sent you a rebuttal to their memo We never received a memo from the city prior to this meeting We did receive a phone call last week on Thursday to talk about it I guess that was the way to be inclusive prior to this meeting But I don't feel like we're working well together

I think that if the city is going to close Kirkwood for construction issues and Sidewalks if we think about that for a moment, they're also talking about doing a study about closing Kirkwood to pedestrian

to vehicular traffic So do we want to invest money in fixing sidewalks changing them? Doing instruction on the street if in the two years We're going to close the street to vehicular traffic and take the sidewalks out and make them curbless um, so I kind of question the the reasoning behind closing the street and I don't really have much more to say except for the utter Disappointment and having to be here and spend more time talking about an issue that I thought was resolved. Thanks for your time

Thank you. We have another comment in council chambers and then we'll move to folks online.

Good evening.

The Kirkwood Community Association has been going for a long time.

It's a pretty amazing group.

We have representatives of the university.

We have representatives of the business community for the first time ever. We have a city council member attending.

We also have many people from the city of Bloomington attending.

I've been raving about the meetings, how effective they are.

They stopped being effective last week.

when we found out that city staff had sent a memo to the city council about not engaging in the program anymore.

No one talked to the major stakeholders.

This is the Kirkwood Community Association.

And we get here tonight.

about canceling the program to engineering. The engineer isn't here.

And there is no statement, but everybody else from the city is here.

This program is effective because.

of the businesses that represent Bloomington.

All of our restaurants that I consider institutions have activated the corridor.

They're all locally owned.

It's not chains, it's Lenny's, it's Nick's, it's the village deli.

It's uptown. It's farm.

Those are the ones that are invested in making Bloomington a better place, not just for pedestrians, but for the community. That's where we go to see our friends.

That's where we go to see the people in town we care about. That's where we go to ride our bike and wave as we're going by, as they're sitting out front of Knicks. We've had something so special.

And now we're going to put it on pause.

We're not gonna use our previous study about how to engage the corridor. We're gonna use taxpayer-funded study again that we'll have no results from in three or four years.

Independent restaurants are dying all over the country.

We've been very fortunate, but it's not gonna last. It's not luck, it's hard work and a commitment from the community. This administration has not made that commitment.

and the council did last year. And it's deeply upsetting that we have, I think we had a 9-0 vote last year.

And today the city comes and says, oh, due to engineering, which sounds made up when you have no statement and no engineer.

that we're gonna cancel this program. So.

On behalf of KCA thank a huge. Thank you to the council for your support. We do appreciate it and we realize you're powerless here

but we thank you for your support and we thank you for caring about the small businesses in Bloomington.

Thank you. Unless there's any objection, I'm gonna extend by 10 minutes. Is that okay?

All right. Any folks online wanting to make public comment, you can raise your hand and we will acknowledge you. Are there any folks online?

Who?

Attorney Bennett, will you say who, please?

Oh, sorry.

Is someone speaking?

We can hear you, albeit faintly.

Hello, I'm Colin Nielsen.

I've spoken before about this issue about permanently closing Kirkwood 2-vehicle traffic.

I just wanted to say that I think it is interesting that there was a decline in foot traffic despite the increase in events during 2025.

I would hesitate to, like, I think the administration could be making a mistake of...

I'm mistaking a hypothesis for a fact and kind of reaching a conclusion like immediately like

identifying one difference between 2024 and 2025 and then coming to the conclusion that that is the reason why there was a decline in foot traffic when there could be other possible reasons. I think it would be difficult for the city to try to identify all of those reasons. It could be general trends like was suggested by other speakers, general economic trends, but still I think this I think there without a doubt Kirkwood is more enjoyable to visit as a pedestrian when there is no vehicular traffic.

And I enjoy it, my friends enjoy it, and my family enjoy it when we make the visit.

And I think that it would be a shame to get rid of the.

corridor to get rid of the pedestrianization, at least up until a

study a corridor study could be completed because as has been pointed out these corridor studies take several years so I would hate to wait for up until like 2030 until something finally comes out and I think with the corridor study

There should eventually, I would hope that it would be able to identify an optimal solution for all these issues that the city, that the administration pointed out. But right now I think it would be beneficial to continue this program at least for another year to see if 2025's numbers were just a fluke, or if...

Um, oh yeah, so thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there other commenters online? All right, next person up

Thanks for the time Gail and Cassidy here, one of the owners of Uptown Cafe. So obviously a big participant in this program.

Um, and I, you know, I know this is, is tough for everyone. It's, it's hard to know what you want. It's, it's hard to, to change with anything.

And I definitely think it doesn't make sense necessarily on every block, but like this ordinance has been written, I think the city engineer should determine that based on whatever's going on in that specific season.

the time. I do think there's a lot of opportunity for Kirkwood in the future and I'm glad to know there's a quarter study. I'm just worried that like some other commenters have mentioned that this is ultimately just going to be a bunch of time and money with nowhere to go. I think we need this experience now.

To know what we want to do with this space in the future when we do have the ability to maybe make some infrastructure changes that could really make it a beautiful place. You know, Kirkwood is obviously a jewel in this town. And I just, I just think that that opportunity for a pedestrian friendly Kirkwood in the future is I'm optimistic about it if if we can accomplish it if we set deadlines and we we carve out

Budgets and we go into it with an attention that we actually want to make a change But I think too many times in the past has been the experience with this city, you know many administrations We've just kind of set these lofty goals, but they just end up being that and we never really try to tackle it. So You know, I think an infrastructure change to Kirkwood Maybe it doesn't mean a complete road closure, but it's some kind of conversion that is much more friendly to pedestrians safety

is at the forefront as well. And I'm just optimistic for that. So again, thank you for the time and appreciate your consideration.

Thank you so much. Do we have another commenter?

That's all the folks online. Is there anybody else in the room? Yeah, please.

and if anybody else you can anticipate and sign in ahead of time will save us all some time.

Hi, Talisha Coppock with downtown Bloomington Inc. And I really just wanted to take this opportunity to thank everybody who's been participating for five years on outdoor dining and the topic. There have been so many thoughts and city resources that have been put towards it, private resources that have been put towards it. So I think we're all working towards that vibrant downtown that's fun and safe and inviting. And it's frustrating for everybody all the way around, but I just want to say thank you because it's important. And that maybe there could be some type of compromise. I mean, I thought Galen's points were valid. And Bob had mentioned maybe earlier too, especially those 10 IU event dates that are significant dates, not as large as the IU celebrations for the national championship, but graduation and little 500 and some of those big weekends that.

Especially safety if that's like one of the issues in in that done Kirkwood area when it gets so crowded I'm not down there at 10 o'clock at night. So I don't know what it's like, but You know downtown's used so many different ways at different times of the day So it's it's worth listening to that and planning for it But just kudos to the city staff for cleaning, you know, Zack who goes out and picks up trash every single day The public works staff who are putting those bollards out and taking them back in So, you know, I think a lot of people are trying we're just trying to figure out what is going to work. But thank you

Thank you.

Good evening. This is Chris Ramsey from the greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I wasn't going to speak but I heard Galen's His public comment. I just want to echo those thoughts surgically on infrastructure the you know

Our conversation with the members and in our survey data was pretty split on this But one thing that that was kind of came across the board was the space has not been activated Consistently left to feel comfortable and economically productive We're just not quite there yet and it does work on certain blocks and it doesn't work on others So often it feels empty underused and uninviting on outside major events and a lot of Toward the east part of Kirkwood. There's just no shade. It's pretty brutal And so I was doing some problem-solving and and what how do we pay for this infrastructure and one? Idea I came up with was the city as it's moving towards selling the RDC property formerly known as Bunkern Robertson To possibly use those proceeds to invest directly

Permanent Kirkwood infrastructure. I mean that we've heard a lot of work that's gone into this I hate to see this just kind of wait five years or six years A lot of people's best effort is into this but it also needs infrastructure and it needs money where budgets are really tight So I just want to give that and I just would appreciate everybody involved from the city staff to the council on this I know this is a sort of a tough issue and we all have our heads Sort of in the right space for this and we all want what is best So I'm hopeful. Thank you for your time tonight

Thank you.

All right, going once for the last chance to make comments.

twice Anyone online all right back back to to council members. Do you have other questions or comments that we have about five more minutes here?

Thank you. I'll just take a quick comment Just a quick moment, I guess to also echo some of the public commenters and trying to find some kind of a compromise Echoing the concept that some of the blocks had more activation than others And I think the other thing that has happened over the last Five six years is that Bloomington as a community has started assuming that it is going to be closed and that You know not only adds that bit of stability to the business owners downtown Especially the restaurants and the street dining but also to the community in terms of knowing You know what route they need to go and it kind of struck me

Actually, just now, as I was listening to folks, I was driving downtown with my daughter the other day, can't remember where we're going anymore, but the route was gonna take us up Kirkwood, and she was like, oh, is Kirkwood open now?

Because she just assumed that it was still closed and had figured out other ways to move around and the going back and forth I guess makes me a little bit nervous and that part of what we did last year was try to give that stability of going Yes, it's it's going to be closed What's going to be closed exactly is going to be based on that participation, which means, you know at the staff level You're you're gonna make that decision at the staff level and I am a little bit disappointed this year that then at the staff level Even though there's participation in some of these blocks We're still going to close it and I or we're still not going to close it and I appreciate that There are some challenges related to having it closed, but I wish that we were Approaching those challenges a little bit differently than just deciding not to close it things

Customer PMAT Smith.

Yes, I want to start by thanking the ESD staff for their hard work. I did meet with Ms. Mollinger a couple of times and I think their memo makes good sense.

on the other hand.

And I think rereading Ordinance 2025-02.

I think the council made it very clear that we wanted to approve that, which was a revision of the original ordinance that came to us last year. And we wanted to approve it because we wanted to give the businesses some stability, at least for the foreseeable future to allow the investments that they made last year in the outdoor dining and to be able to plan ahead. And specifically now rereading section seven, where a discontinuation of the program.

Is done by the city engineer for engineering reasons is the implication that I'm reading in section seven.

Um.

I think, you know...

the administration may now be asking the engineer to come up with.

Some engineering reason, but obviously this is.

These are not engineering reasons, most of them, for not closing the street this year. And so I do feel like it's going against, if not the detailed words, but the spirit of Ordinance 2025-02. Thank you.

So I am, I hope that we can still change the direction here in order to.

Well, change the direction back to stay on course to really make this a street for pedestrians. And.

I also think, you know, I agree with the people who have brought up during public comment that, you know, corridor studies take a long time.

and then you have to have the money to implement what the study says.

It can be years before we're back on track, which I think is a track that we all agreed on at the outset, that it's good to have this be a pedestrian space. And that's in our transportation plan.

So I hope that we can come up with some other solutions for some of the difficulties the staff have raised.

and still close at least part of the street. Thank you.

Next one.

Thank you so much, anyone else?

Please, go ahead, and we'll move on.

I'll just add one thing. I think there were some comments and the memo definitely pointed to.

Blocks without shade. That's mostly the Monroe County Library block I think we take away some sidewalk there and so there aren't street trees like the other blocks But I do want to say so it's kind of the memo was saying there are blocks that are not hospitable, but I want to say

We didn't talk that much though, like Uptown and Nix and Village Deli and Farm.

Those blocks are great, and they feel so wonderful. And so we're focusing so much on this block with the library that.

No one is participating there, but the places where people are participating. It's super awesome And I think that's what people are saying here. So I just want to like make that point that those business owners really took it, you know upon themselves to take maximum space in the street and picnic tables and

Banners and lights and all the things and like it's very cool. You feel like you're in little Europe sometimes and that's really great So thanks for that

Thank you council member. Okay, we're at 730. So for the sake of time if it's okay with everyone We should move on but I think it's very clear that we want to continue having conversations and engagements on this And perhaps in one of our deliberation sessions We can think about action that council might want to take in the space seeing any objections any objections? All right, then I'll I will move on. Thank you so much to the mighty ESD for Well dealing with us we appreciate you so much All right, we are going to move on now to appointments to boards and commissions oh We have us. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. We have now a general session of public comments So if you want to make comment for things that are not on the agenda now is your opportunity to do so

Go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Susan Brackney.

All right.

When you ran for city council.

I'm guessing that you didn't expect that you'd be serving in the middle of an authoritarian takeover of our democracy.

but you are.

Fascism is here.

If you haven't already acknowledged this reality and considered what it may mean for you as a council.

and as individuals, I urge you, I urge you to do so.

I hope you'll meet with one another and with other local officials to plan for scenarios that could happen here as bad actors continue to try to consolidate their power from Fed to State to here.

for instance What if ice or DHS? Sends their masked squads to protect our polling places During the upcoming midterm elections will the BPD Iupd Monroe County Sheriff's Department

cooperate with the masked agents or will they protect us?

Have our law enforcement officials worked through these kinds of scenarios for themselves internally?

What about ice coming into area schools and businesses? No identification, no proper warrant signed by a judge.

Some folks at the state level appear to be fine with this.

Um...

They may even pass a law requiring schools to turn kids over to ICE. What do you do? Capitulate? Fight back?

If you fight back, what does that look like? What support do you need from the rest of us in order to fight back?

How about this one?

Thanks for watching!

The DOJ is being used to pursue political enemies and show free speech.

What will the local prosecutor do if pressured to bring charges against poll workers, local journalists, or opposition party leaders? What's the plan? Capitulate or fight back?

This last one is not simply a thought exercise. What about partnering with block security at a time when our first and fourth amendment rights are being trampled upon?

Why would we trust anyone at this point while our data are being weaponized and used against us?

This plays right into authoritarian rule and is simply a non-starter.

I'll leave you with this.

Where are your personal and professional red lines?

and what will you do if or when you're asked to cross them? We're counting on you to stand up and have courage in the face of fascism so that we can too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

and others in chambers.

I think he was here first.

Back for an encore. Thank you. Mr. President. This is Chris term G from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce tonight I'm be representing our 911 businesses

Um, let's talk about identity momentum and what happens when a city invests in its future with intention

Last month our community erupted when IU won a national championship out of nowhere, but that moment reeled something bigger than a trophy. It showed what Bloomington becomes when the whole city rallies, when pride turns into momentum, when our collective story lifts everyone.

It's not just about athletics, then. It's about what we're capable of when we choose growth over complacency.

Unity over drift purpose over futility as I was in my 18th interview on what the football Team success means the economy. I started thinking things a little bit bigger and wrote in our by our advocacy matters post I beg the question if we harness that same energy

The belief, the cohesion, the narrative power of IU football across everything we build here, what would happen?

I believe it's not just a good question, it's the right question at the right moment. Earlier tonight, I was at the exciting economic vehicle known as Amplify Bloomington, its kickoff, led by John Fernandez, and that message was sharp and it was urgent. Bloomington already has extraordinary assets, our job is to align them, invest in them.

But championships and branding don't sustain a city a city livability does.

This morning I was at Sunrise Rotary with Dr. Winston, the superintendent from MCCSC.

who shared a great example of some of that, which was that 2023 referendum that put $6.2 million in expanding early learning. That investment doubled pre-K access for families. That's just not just an education win, but that's an economic development one that we're investing in something that shows huge growth. It strengthens our workforce, supports families, and makes Bloomington competitive as a place to move, to stay.

Bloomington's not just a place to catch a game grab a beer. It's where we want to build careers race families Start a business put down our roots to fully recognize our future. We need to do three things We need to tell our story market who we become keep investing in these places in our talent the foundations that matter

make growth easier, streamline planning and permitting so private investing can and will happen. As we've heard, and I've talked about, our population has stagnated. Our revenue structure leans heavily on local income tax, which tends to function best when we have people live and work here.

Long-term stability depends on welcoming new residents, families, and employers. Simply put, now is the time. Now is the time to align this momentum, remove barriers, invite investment, and, Bill Bloomington, we know that is possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else in council chambers?

Hello. Sorry, it's me again. I'm Greg Alexander. I just want to express my dismay at the continuing state of the sidewalks now a week and a half after the snow stopped. I really think city staff needs to come before you and tell you if this system is working. The thing that really upsets me is department heads have come to you, but they told you it's working.

It's not working, having the property owners clear the sidewalk.

is not working. It's not working for the high injury network where people are still walking in the street even though drivers are completely back to normal. They're driving aggressively, they're driving fast, they're speeding.

It's not working at city-owned properties. The policy of having the property owner clear isn't working at city-owned properties. The city is one of the bad landowners who clear their sidewalks.

Mm.

When you fail to demand an honest and correct answer from the administration, you abandon democracy. You can't solve every problem, but you have given up on getting true answers.

That's, you're acting on behalf of the voters. You're making us give up on that, and I don't think we should give up on that, that basic standard of truth.

is important. Anyways.

Speaking of things, I also want staff to talk about. There was a transportation fatality downtown last October. Sorry, it took me so long to get here. Staff hasn't come here yet and said anything about it. It sounds like a very old man experienced pedal confusion in a rental car. He crashed into inside of a garage in a hotel downtown and one of the other passengers in his car died in that wreck.

You know, I know a lot of people just don't care about something like that. There's no alleged wrongdoing, no scandal, no drunk driving, no leaving the scene. You know, it's a single car crash, so it doesn't matter. I don't think that way at all.

I think that death matters. I think someone paid with their life to teach us a lesson and we have to listen I really think staff should come to you every time somebody dies in transportation

So the administration's convinced that bringing cars downtown, especially for tourists, is the solution to all of our economic problems. And I can't tell you what that's true or not, but they will suffer this kind of mishap. This happens, you know, and we know it happens. It's a cost. And you guys hear from a cohort that is convinced that as they age, the secret to mobility is gonna be their cars. And...

We all know eventually you have to take away grandpa's keys, like...

there's a huge consequence when you have someone who is losing their acuity, losing their reaction time, losing their awareness, and they're still driving. So those are costs that I think you guys need to be aware about, and you need to explicitly acknowledge. It doesn't tell you what you ought to do, but we need an accurate and honest accounting of where we're at.

Thanks.

Thank you. Do we have any comments online? All right.

Okay, first person, take it away.

Hello, am I live? Yes, you are. We can hear you.

Greg stole my thunder.

I would like to draw your attention to the recent down large snowstorm also.

Because I think one foot of snow exposed some glaring disparities in how the city treats different groups.

And by the way, my name is Paul Rousseau. I should have said that.

In my view, two classes of citizens emerged.

those who are transported through public space within private motor vehicles and those who are not.

Snow stopped falling shortly before sunset on Sunday.

The overwhelming majority of city streets were cleared by sunset on Monday. Parking lots were cleared in the first few days.

in sharp contrast.

Public sidewalks remained buried under packed snow and ice for several days.

As I speak, 11 days after the storm, there are still many sidewalks that were never touched.

and are simply treacherous for most people over 30 years of age.

I sent all of you in the council about an hour ago an email so you can see the pictures for yourself or at least a dozen of them.

that I took.

If Bloomington wants to claim to be a community, and particularly one that is equitable, this situation must change.

In my view, the city must become more responsive to the needs of pedestrians.

I would recommend.

greater flexibility to find new solutions in a world of increasingly unpredictable climate.

I see three areas of improvement that could be made, enforcement, education, and personnel, but I'm not an expert at all. I don't claim to be.

but we clearly need to come up with creative solutions.

First of all, I've been mostly impressed by the performance of the compliance officers with housing and neighborhood development. My impression is that they have been understandably overwhelmed by the failure of so many property owners to clear adjacent public sidewalks as required in city code.

It is probably no exaggeration to say that there are still thousands of cases, or there were still thousands of cases of noncompliance as late as last Thursday, which was four days after the storm.

but hand has only seven employees assigned to the problem and they don't work on weekends.

The process normally works like this. Each employee has about one hour per day to discover cases of non-compliance on their own. I was told that most cases are instead initiated by citizens who know about the YouReport system.

hand response to your reports within one or two days. The compliance officer then inspects sidewalks that were reported.

If a violation is verified, then the property owner is usually warned. This is usually two days after somebody in the public.

got out there and notified them. If the violation persists, more days go by until an officer again has time to inspect the site.

or until another report is received, then the compliance officer visits the site again and issues a ticket, finally.

for a mere $50.

To understand how ineffective this enforcement is considering for most properties, the cost of removing the snow would exceed $50 if someone had to be hired for the task.

That is your time, sir.

Sorry, Paul.

So as I mentioned last month, the fine schedule and the city code is out of date. With more time, I could have shared other ideas with regard to education and personnel flexibility.

I don't know.

Paul, thank you so much, that was your time, thank you.

Thank you. We have another commenter online.

You do. Good evening, President Asari and council members. My name is Vicki Venker. I am the mayor of Bloomington Sibling City, Palo Alto, California. We have a different system of government out here, so I'm also a member of our city council.

So it's been fascinating actually to listen in on this meeting. We have been debating closing streets and such. So I've been taking notes and learning a lot.

Anyway, I was last before you about four years ago, before I was on city council in the capacity as founder of Sibling Cities USA. And I was delighted that the council voted to enter a Sibling City relationship with Palo Alto. And as most of you know, the purpose of Sibling Cities is to bridge our nation's regional divides by community members in the two cities doing joint events. And we have done things that range from joint author talks to town halls to joint meetings of legal women voters, rotary, Kiwanis, et cetera.

I am also a graduate of IU, so I wanted to let you know that the most recent Sibling Cities event was a watch party for the College Football National Championship.

And so tonight, I joined your meeting to offer a giant congratulations from your friends in Palo Alto on being home to a national championship team that inspired a nation. And I will tell you that I actually put on my IU hat and my Rose Bowl t-shirt on the dais at the city council meeting the following Monday. So it's on video. You can see it if you want.

Also, I wanted to let you know that the Sibling Cities team is working on bringing a group of Paloaltans to visit Bloomington probably in October, but sometime in the fall. So I intend to come. There will be some rotary friends and more. The last delegation visit was a group from Bloomington coming out here, so it's our turn to travel. And I know you can't engage in colloquy with public commenters, so I'll look forward to following up with all of you offline, but I would love to see you then.

So congratulations again on the national championship.

Bloomington is a very special place, and I really look forward to being back there this fall. Thank you. Have a good evening.

Thank you so much and we look forward to receiving you. All right, we are now moving on to appointments to boards and commissions. If we could, we can just go team by team, list all of the people that you have, and then we can, if there's any discussion or questions, we can do that, and then make, hopefully, just one motion to save some time. So team A, I think Council Member Sosberg. Thank you.

Thank you. On behalf of Interview Committee Team A, I would like to move to make the following appointments for the Animal Control Commission to reappoint Sita Cohen to seat C1.

for the commission on the status of black males to reappoint Sidhu McLeod to seat C2.

for the Commission on Aging to reappoint Wendy Rubin to seat C1 and to appoint Stacey Bruce to seat C2.

for the Board of Zoning Appeals to reappoint Joe Throckmorton to seat C1.

for the Bloomington Monroe County Human Rights Commission to reappoint Kathleen Bensburg to seat C2, and for the Board of Housing Quality Appeals to reappoint Zoe Zollman to seat C2.

Thank you. Any questions or comments on TMA?

but please.

I think Team A also had one more appointment.

for the Commission on Aging.

Yes, that was Stacey Bruce. I mentioned her.

in my I didn't catch that one. Sorry. I did.

Thanks for watching!

I did.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Otherwise, yes, please. I do have a question.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you for watching!

committee tell me more about the Board of Zoning Appeals recommendation in particular was the proposed appointee

interviewed, and how did that go, and if so, and if not, any insights you could share from...

staff recommendation or anything like that.

Interviewed by us, but they were recommended by the staff to reappoint

Did the, um...

So.

I think it was last summer, actually beyond summer, there was a long period of time where there was a long period of time where there was a long period of time where there was a long period

Duplex that was proposed as a conditional use that was pending before the Board of Zoning Appeals for like many many meetings They had some forum issues, but it was also sort of held up on the basis of some

board members sort of.

Not agreeing with the staff recommendation, but also failing to come up with their own set of recommendations Led to like six months of delay for the home builder adds costs adds, you know, it kind of goes against I think What the udo says on?

Conditional use and so I I don't believe I'm mistaken. I think and this particular recommended Appointment was one of those people that was sort of preventing this or moving forward. That was a concern to me at the time

What did that come up at all in order to like the staff recommendation?

That did not come up.

Okay, I guess I'd like to request that we pull that particular recommendation for reappointment out for a separate vote

There's a motion to separate this to separate the question, I guess

Can we need to, did somebody second that motion?

Well, nobody seconded my original motion. So should I just make my original one again?

Well...

Most yeah, I mean because we because I asked that we do them sort of as a batch So but you can you remove that one? Are you okay to remove it and we can consider that separately?

Yeah, that's fine.

Then in which case, let's move on to group B. Do you want to introduce who's, go ahead Council Member Ruff.

The Digital Underground Advisory Committee reappoint Andy Koop to seat C2.

Commission on the status of women

To our point CC Swalling to seat C1, Kayla George to seat C2, and Petty Moon to seat C3.

For the dr. Martin Luther King jr. Birthday celebration Commission to reappoint James Sanders to cc2 For the community advisory on Public Safety Commission to appoint Michael Burton to cc2 to reappoint Sharon Wayne Shabam to see c3 and reappoint Karsha Nair to cc5

For the environmental commission to reappoint Mitchell Owen to cc3 and to reappoint Shannon gate to cc4 for the utility service board to reappoint megan parmenter to cc1

Okay.

Any questions or comments on that list?

Objections.

Thank you so much for joining us, and we'll see you next time.

Seeing none, team C.

on behalf of every community.

Thanks for watching!

I move for the Redevelopment Commission to reappoint Randy Cassidy to seat c1 and reapport reappoint Deborah Meyerson to seat c2 for the Commission on the Hispanic and Latina affairs to a point to Nora SAP to seat c1 and reappoint Maria Puskama to seat c4 for the Commission on Sustainability Appoint Christopher Miles to seat c4 and reappoint Zachary Emerson Ammerman excuse me to seat c5 and For the Commission on the status of children and youth to reappoint Joseph Sching to seat c2 and to appoint Triana Moten to seat c4

Any comments?

Questions?

Objections.

Okay, I'm seeing none other motion for the three lists that are without objection and then we can deal with the one with objection.

So moved.

Somebody needs to second.

Did somebody move that we adopt those three lists?

I move that all three interview committee recommendation, interview committee team recommendations be approved.

Second.

All right, there's a motion and a second. Will the clerk please call the roll.

One more time. Councilmember Stasberg. Piedmont Smith.

Yes. Zulek. Yes. Asari. Yes. Rallo.

Yes?

Yes.

Breath.

Yes.

Thanks for watching!

Rosenberger. Flaherty.

Yes.

That motion passes at nine. Oh, I'm sorry eight eight. No, sorry the One person the BZA appointment is there is there a motion there?

Please.

Right now but I have a comment. I just want to point out that when team a met we only had the one application for the bza

And I think that that was part of the other reason why we didn't interview. I just looked at on board right now. We Received a second application for that board three days after our last meeting So I'm gonna withhold that motion at the moment to recommend to my colleagues on TMA that given that Objection by a colleague that we should do additional due diligence, especially since we have additional applicant for that board

So I won't be making a motion with regard to that tonight.

I won't be making a motion with regard to that tonight

Great. Okay. So then we're all in agreement. Okay. I think we also have an HPC appointment.

I move that For the Historic Preservation Commission to appoint Jeff Golden to seat m4 Karen Duffy to seat m7 John Butler to seat m8 and Abby Hanson to seat m9

Is.

a second.

Second, thank you. I have a motion and a second and oh the comment from the clerk. Sorry. I've made a I made a mistake

No, no, just to clarify that you're not appointing you're approving the mayoral appointment

approving the mayoral right okay so can you

It was my fault for writing it that way in the memo, so I apologize.

finding it that way in the memo.

apologize, I Move that the Bloomington Common Council Approve the mayoral appointment recommendations to appoint Jeff Golden to seat M4 Karen Duffy to seat m7 John Butler to seat m8 and Abby Hanson to seat m9

All right, there's a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Comments. Go ahead.

I will just say that the outgoing chair Sam DeSolar was not reappointed and I would just like to thank him for his many, many years of service to the Historic Preservation Commission and say that I had a really, really lovely time working with him, especially when we were putting together the council HPC joint discussion meeting. So thank you to Sam for his service.

Thank you. Any others? All right. Will the clerk please call the roll on that motion?

Yes, and thank you. Council Member Piedmont-Smith.

Yes.

Zulek? Yes. Asari? Yes. Rallo? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Rough?

Yes.

Rosenberger.

Yes.

Flaherty.

Yes.

Stasberg yes

Thank you so much for joining us.

Fantastic. Yay. Oh, we did it now if unless I'm wrong, we are moving now to legislation for first readings Are there any motions?

President I would like to move that ordinance 2020604 be introduced and read by the clerk by titles

perhaps this only.

Thank you.

There's a motion and a second. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Zilak. Yes.

Asari? Yes. Peralo? Yes. Ruff?

Yes.

Yes.

You

Yes.

Rosenberger. Yes, Flaherty. Yes, Stasburg. Yes Piedmont Smith

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, that motion carries. Will the clerk please read?

Yes, Ordinance 2026-04 to amend Title 2 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Administration and Personnel to Consolidate and Amend Boards and Commissions Provisions in Chapters 2.02, 2.08, and 2.12. The synopsis is as follows.

This ordinance sponsored by council member Piedmont Smith consolidates title two provisions regarding boards commissions and councils into a single chapter adds code of conduct provisions and renames the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability to the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability and Resilience.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Our next ordinance.

Ordinance 20 26 0 5 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only

Thank you very much.

There's a motion and a second. Will the wonderful clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Asari.

Yes.

Rollo, Ruff, Rosenberger, Flaherty.

Yes.

Stasberg yes Piedmont Smith

Yes.

And Zulik. Yes.

Thank you, will the honorable clerk please read.

Ordinance 2026-05 to amend Title 2 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Administration and Personnel to allow discussion at first readings of ordinances and to clarify the ordinance and resolution readings provisions in Chapter 2.04. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance sponsored by Councilmember Zulek.

allows debate and amendment of ordinances at first readings. It also clarifies the readings and.

voting procedures for ordinances and resolutions.

Thank you very much. We're now moving on to legislation for second readings and resolutions.

Move that resolution 202603 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only

There is a motion and a second. Will the honorable clerk please read?

That's call, please. You know the thing where we say yes, and they'll call the roll

I'm there. Thank you. Councilmember Rallo.

Yes.

Breath.

Yes.

Rosenberger.

Yes.

Flaherty?

Yes.

Stasberg yes Piedmont Smith

Yes.

Zulek yes, and a sorry. Yes

Zulek?

Yes, well the now at this point what's already been read you've motioned wrong, you know

What?

Just to read it again, hey, read it.

Resolution 2026-03 to rename sidewalk standing committee of the Bloomington of the Common Council.

Sorry, the synopsis as follows this resolution sponsored by council members Piedmont Smith and Stasburg Renames the sidewalk standing committee to the pedestrian safety standing committee

Thank you.

That's usually my cue I'd like to move that resolution 20 26 0 3

All right, do we have someone presenting on this?

Council Member Stasbur, take it away.

Councilmember Piedmont Smith and I did not coordinate this earlier today but I think that this is relatively self-explanatory if you remember back to the Deliberation session we had last year. We talked about sidewalk committee and we talked about committees in general The sidewalk committee as it is currently known Has broadened its scope in recent years to not just fund sidewalks, but also Fund other pedestrian related projects. So this resolution aligns the what we're actually doing with What the the committee purpose etc is and so it's one of those moments where it's like well, I think that we should either align with what we're doing or we should go back to the original purpose and Focus more narrowly so it adds that focus of not just Sidewalk installation and improvement but also pedestrian access points traffic common and other safety improvements and then renames it as the pedestrian safety committee Which I do believe was one of the suggestions that was thrown out at our meeting last year Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Do you have anything to add?

No, I did not. Thank you. Great. Thanks. If anybody has any questions, let me know. Wonderful. Any questions?

Seeing none, we will move to a time of public comment. Does anyone in the public wish to comment on resolution?

Twenty twenty six oh three.

Anyone, is there anyone online?

Anyone in chambers? All right, we'll return to council. Any comments?

Seeing none, well, council members, that's pretty good.

Just comment I like to comment as a sponsor. I just want to thank my colleagues for their deliberation about This committee and committees in general that we did last year We did a lot of thought about that and I just am grateful for everybody's input I'm glad that we could kind of put the little bow of finish on this. So thanks

Thank you for your work. Will the clerk please call the roll on resolution 2026.03.

Yes, Councilmember Ruff.

Rosenberger? Yes. Flaherty? Yes. Stosberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith?

Yes.

Yes.

Zulik yes, I'm sorry

Yes, that motion carries 8-0. Rollo. Oh.

That motion.

Thank you so much.

Yes.

That motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. Next is ordinance 2026-01.

Move that ordinance 20 2601 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only

There's been a motion and a second. Will the clerk please call the roll.

Yes. Councilmember Flaherty.

Stasberg yes, Piedmont Smith

Yes.

Zulek yes, I'm sorry. Yes, bravo

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Rough? Yes. Rosenberger? Yes. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you. That motion carries. Do I have another motion?

Would you like me to introduce an amendment this time?

Would you like to? Oh, I'm sorry. That's right.

I'm sorry. That's right. I'm sorry.

It wasn't that big. You need to read. I'm sorry.

For the third time I move that ordinance 20 2601

We voted this, sorry, this is my fault. I'm doing a bad job. You were supposed to read by title and synopsis for the third time, and I'm sorry, that's what we voted on. Will the clerk please read?

Absolutely.

I'm sorry.

So that's good.

Ordinance 2026-01 to amend Title 20 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 Unified Development Ordinance in the following manner. One, it increases the maximum impervious surface coverage allowance for single-family 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 2 affordability standards. And three, increases the dollar amount of and eligibility for payments in lieu of providing housing. Ordinance 2026-01 to amend Title 20 Unified Development Ordinance of the Bloomington Municipal Code regarding response to Resolution 2025-12 related to amending the affordable Ordinance 2026-01 to amend Title 20 Unified Development Ordinance in the following

All right, I see that we have I'll make a motion for it to be adopted 2020601 to be adopted

Right now I see that we have This is the director of Scanlan here. We've heard this before but so if there's any updates that you'd like to give take it away

Assistant directors Jackie Scanlon from planning and transportation. I don't have anything to add from the last time We previewed this ordinance if you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them I guess I do have one thing one of the items that we discussed Potentially being able to bring here tonight was trying to determine what the total value loss of like financial loss of Having a unit in perpetuity or at 99 years be affordable as opposed to doing a payment in lieu

As you can imagine we've talked about before that's quite complicated. I think what we are going to have to do is we are going to Have a contract With an economic planning firm this year for a nexus study That's another portion of this part of the code related to commercial development and offsetting their kind of creation of the need for affordable Housing based on their kind of lower Income positions that they create that firm also does quite a bit of residential nexus study work So I think we will anticipate Working with them to see if we can have them use our local data to project out what that loss could be Otherwise, I think I'd mostly just be taking a shot in the dark I do think that based on as I mentioned before I'm pretty sure councilmember Flaherty has Talked about this in the past. And so I I think it is I think we agree that the 50,000 is probably quite a bit less than the overall loss

30.

That the city is losing by doing payment in lieu But other than that, I don't have anything that I think I was supposed to bring. So let me know if you have any questions. Thanks

Excellent. Thank you. Council Member Sosnick.

Thank you.

I just have kind of a clarification question I suppose because I've heard a lot in the last couple of weeks about the impervious surface coverage and we have actually a last-minute amendment related to that in terms of that increase, but I just want to clarify for Council and the public and myself that in terms of projects that would use these affordable housing Incentives they would still have to follow environmental requirements, right? So if there is like a karst feature on the property They can't like build on a karst property, even if that means that they can't cover the lot 80% If there's tree preservations, we have tree preservation rules. They still have to follow tree preservation rules they still would have to follow anything from CBU related to Like stormwater and all of that kind of stuff So those things combine like like this incentive doesn't like overrule the need to follow all of those other environmental standards Yes

All the other environmental standards are still in play and required to be met

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, I think we have an amendment.

Nope, sorry, please go ahead.

Please go ahead

Start a payment in lieu. I was trying to track for myself the historical evolution here, but I'm

In real time trying to catch up and maybe you can just help explain or remind explain for me Or I'm remind me of the the path we were on there. So

I have some of our past versions of the UDO saved in my console-related files, and I was looking at the version from 2019 or 20.

That really discouraged payment in lieu as a mechanism. I think primarily for reasons related to

trying to get afforded but both permanent affordability in units as opposed to dollars in the fund and Trying to get affordable housing interspersed with market rate housing including within the same development and so the sort of earlier version of the UDO had a very narrow set of circumstances in which payment in lieu of providing affordable housing on In unit or on-site could could be allowed and then I'm looking at what I think is the most the current version of the UDO and reviewing that provision And it seems like that's

changed quite a bit, right?

In fact, now it's just an option with no.

Discouragement relative to in unit affordability or in on-site affordability at all. Is that right? It's just like this is a thing you can do

Yes, that's correct.

Do you can you do you recall when we this was I think this came from staff was it last year the year before

Was it under this administration, I guess, or was that under the previous administration?

Um, hold on. Let's see. Payment of providing housing. I believe it was the previous administration.

Maybe 2024.

Maybe 2024. Yeah.

No, I think it was earlier than that, but let me check hold on

I feel like this ordinance...

I also have all the old UDOs as you can imagine.

Yes.

I think this ordinance is along with what we considered with the Rolado last year have both like brought into sharper focus the

implications of that policy choice several years ago and I think it's related to how I'm interpreting and thinking about this ordinance this before us today so that's why I'm trying to trace history there, but

Sure.

Hold on. I'm just trying to check quickly this will only take another

We don't need to date actually. I think just like talking through it and you confirming some of like those changes and sure

Okay.

Sure, so it changed. Let's see when the original rule was written the administration Very much said priority the administration at that time the Hamilton administration priority for units on site Second units off site third payment in lieu So the regulations that were written in the 2019 2020 version reflected that in the July 2021 version is Those are still There and then in the next version of the UDO, which is June 2022 they are gone so in June 2022, I think

Is when the previous administration decided to kind of open that possibility up

Mm-hmm.

Um.

Do you recall if that was coming and if you don't remember it no worries at all I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about the context of how we got to where we are now and what we're considering About payment in lieu now was that coming from the hand department or the planning department or more like the mayor's? Like office of the mayor. It's totally okay. Yeah

Okay, man.

Yeah, I don't recall specifically. I mean I think I want to say I think off the top of my head the change was because You know now it had been in place for a couple of years and we were starting to get some feedback

about how difficult it was possibly going to be in the student-focused larger developments to...

Like yeah that getting the units in those develops was maybe not actually The goal that maybe not actually the outcome that the goal is that that we were trying to reach

Okay, so to your best recollection, it wasn't about the difficulty of administration, like getting the units filled. It was more about maybe we don't want them in large student housing.

I do not think that that was something we were discussing heavily in 2022.

Okay, that's really helpful. Sorry. Thank you for bearing with me on that. Thanks

Thank you for bearing with us.

Council Member Piedmont-Smith.

Yes, thank you. I wanted to ask about the...

Uh...

of reduced bulk requirements, specifically the text that says.

that the dimensional standards apply in residential zoning districts that are also intended for owner occupancy in buildings that are intended for owner occupancy. How will we ensure that?

Like how can we make sure that these are owner occupants?

These are honorifics.

Like how do we know they're intended for own your occupancy and how do we?

kind of make sure that they end up owner occupied.

That's a great question. I think.

The idea would be that because this is like an opt-in program we're using the incentives Which you don't have to that if you would like to use them the you know decision-maker of your Of your site like the plan commission Would weigh whether or not? To let you use these incentives in part based on whether or not you're intending to have owner occupancy And one of the ways we could Try to ensure owner occupancy long-term is through zoning commitment I don't know exactly how that would be formulated, but that's something we would work on With legal if this were to be approved

So has city legal said that there's a pathway to do that?

Yes, I think as I stated last time they don't, you know, they don't love when we're talking about owner occupancy, even though this is a.

You know discretionary Program that you don't have to do but yes, they Signed off on that. They think we could figure this out

And again, it's included because that was part of the resolution initially from council So we didn't want to if we felt we could legally we didn't want to leave out any of the objectives from the resolution That you gave to the plan Commission So this was kind of the best way we felt we could include any potential owner occupancy at this point

Thank you very much.

and who follows up on zoning commitments like that.

the Planning and Transportation Department.

We would probably have to work in conjunction with hand, but I don't know, because if they're owner-occupied, that may just be something we would be monitoring. For example, when you all first approved ADU's zoning commitments, which are still required, were something that were being monitored annually to make sure that the owner was still living on site.

So they basically were recorded zoning commitment indicating that they would live in one or the other of the structures. And then that's something we can hold them to at any time.

So.

The planning transportation.

department does have the capacity and the structure to follow up on this kind of thing.

I think, I mean, we always need more capacity in our enforcement group, which is two people. But I think with the scale we're expecting with these incentives, which are not greatly used, we should be able to handle that, yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Rowland.

Yes, I had a question about process So it came to my attention that the environmental commission that normally weighs in on Topics like this It's somehow missed there

I don't know exactly what happened, but they weren't informed, I think. They weren't aware.

Yes, ECPC stopped meeting for a period of time and when this was formulated it was during that period of time So they have since met and then Actually, so ECPC. I'm not gonna say right environmental commission planning something They they make recommendations to that whole environmental commission who met today to discuss that. Yes

Okay, so this was just an interim glitch. Yes, they are.

Yes, they are back to regular meetings and being informed of projects and legislation on a regular basis. Yes

by the environmental planner and invited to comment. Okay, great.

Correct.

Do they have a statement on this piece of legislation?

today.

I believe they'll be speaking at public comment, yes.

I think they probably could. I don't know what your rules are about commission speaking, but they're intending to speak at public comment, I believe.

Introduce any other questions before otherwise, we'll introduce the amendment

I have a motion to go ahead, Councilmember Rosenberger.

I'm sorry. I wasn't here last time if this was already asked but

Last, when you did the presentation, you gave the example of the B-line houses, the, um...

Yes in that press project in that press Yes, and as a good example of where the homes were bigger than the percentage allowed, right?

of the Matt Press project.

But we can't build those in most we can't build those homes anyway because the lots are too small But we don't allow a lot size. We don't so we don't allow like these coveted

but we don't allow.

lot sizes in our city that were a small house or a bigger house.

on a lot makes sense because a lot is so little.

Correct. So this this section of the affordable housing incentives allows the minimum lot area and a subdivision to be reduced by 50% In one of the r1 through r4 districts so you can get smaller lots But yes, even if even if that equals out to the size of the matpress Lots, they are over 80 there. Most of them are over 90% So we would not be able to have the coverage that exists there

So we still just can't make, even with this.

ordinance we can't make the Amat press house in a neighborhood.

not without a plan unit development at this time.

which we are supposed to be decent. We're discouraging PUDs. We're supposed to.

door.

They should yes, we p planning developments are fine You know if the intent of that are actually mixed use and something you can't do in the code But I would say they are less common than they were probably at the time when that development was created

I mean, sometimes when we're doing UDO updates, we were like, we don't want to do PUDs anymore, our most major UDO update.

Look, we're not doing PUDs, we're doing code changes.

Yeah, we do both we do the annual update. We do have pd's obviously. Hope well is going to plan commission next week and Sudbury Summit pd came to you all now, you know 2024 or whenever that was but um

Mm-hmm.

But um.

Yes, they're definitely less common. I think the preference for us would be that the code just Outlined what we would like to see developed and people wouldn't have to do go through PUDs to develop

Thanks, that's so useful to hear that you that planning would rather not do PUDs So you would rather not do the Hopewell PUD and you would rather change the UDO

to have zones allow what is wanted in the Hopewell PUD.

I'm not speaking specifically about the Hopewell PUD, but yes, in PUDs in general, I think we would prefer to have the code by right design be what we wanna see developed.

I really agree.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions?

Okay, if none, if you wanna.

Yes, and thank you. I'd like to move amendment one

service.

second

And do you have a presentation on it?

I do. So.

Could staff put the amendment up?

Yes, so this follows on my concern maybe a few council members concern about the the incentive to increase impervious maximums to 80% across all residential zoning districts and Frankly, I found that a bridge too far in this ordinance. So and and practically speaking it's because Bloomington as we all know is beset with stormwater problems it's been a perpetual topic as long as I've been on the council and The this the primary purpose of this amendment is to try to Not make matters worse. I think it also sets a bad precedent to have an 80% impervious surface We spent millions of dollars in stormwater in the city millions of dollars on infrastructure We have decades to make up for it because of the build out in the 50s and the 60s and 70s Which lacked proper standards many neighborhoods don't have adequate stormwater and many people have problems with Their basements flooding and and and so forth

Also, we've worked hard on these standards that are in the present UDO climate models for the future indicate significantly wetter future for Bloomington and So all this said and I I do understand that we're

You know the aim is incentivizing affordable housing. So so this amendment

sponsored by myself and councilmember rough aims to strike a balance

Um.

So it increases incrementally from the current standards Which are Sorry

Currently for r1 is 30% r2 is 40% R3 is 45% and r4 is 50% maximum impervious surface coverage It raises our one from 30 to 40 percent

R2 from 40 to 50 percent are three from 45 to 60 percent and are four from 50 to 65 percent So I Think that if you do some arithmetic you can find that you know An increase of 10 percent for a quarter acre lot and r1 Would equal an additional 1100 square feet So I think that provides an incentive maintains up as an incentive without compromising our environmental code So comes member rough. Do you have anything to to add?

That I agree wholeheartedly that you know the intention is noble here, but

You know, I've been in Bloomington in my whole life and these stormwater problems issues just continue to to grow and I feel like you know to be able to address members of the community and say on one hand we're concerned about stormwater and The increasing stormwater problems that that people are experiencing Partly due to the development of the community partly due to the changes in climate and rainfall But yet also say we we approved, you know Doubling or you know of the impervious service allowances and these zones 80% in some zones coverage Is is too much. I know the current administration and past administrations also have been Working to develop longer-term strategy for ways to do stormwater management stormwater capture Around the community and whatever opportunities and places that it can be done on small scales with rain gardens Encouraging and helping to incentivize small rain garden project to bigger stormwater retention projects where there might be opportunities to do that and when that time Comes when more of that larger plan for a stormwater infrastructure is realized in the community down the road, then maybe I would be

More enthusiastic about supporting a more dramatic increase and allow it of impervious service But at this point with the communities the the instructors not there To in my view to responsibly increase to this extent and this so this amendment that customer Rallo developed and I agreed to co-sponsor I think Takes a step a significant step in the direction of having an incentive by allowing more impervious service, but Doesn't go to a point where I would feel uncomfortable supporting it

I would be uncruel supporting it in its original proposed form without the amendment. So Thanks councilman Barallo for For doing this and thanks for staff to staff for getting it put together quickly and and and put out. So, thank you

Excellent.

So thank you. Thank you. Do I have questions? Please.

Could you Explain why? Y'all chose 80% as a uniform amount across the four zones Whereas the base zoning district standards for those four zones are

Sort of tiered from smaller to larger. I think recognizing that the the r1 lots are quite a bit larger and so on so so you need less of a

large percentage.

To build a reasonable structure. So I guess like I was I'm surprised not to see the proposal from staff To be similarly tiered as the base zoning conditions and this amendment even if it would have been higher say 70 75 80 85 or something like that, but can you tell me more? Sure

Excuse me.

Well, I would say one thing that we were looking for there is ease of understanding for the public. The more complicated the regulations are, the less likely they are to use them. And one of the things we're trying to do with this is kind of make an opportunity.

Thank you very much.

For developers of traditional non affordable housing to maybe consider including affordable housing if they were able to

You know be able to have more lots or more units with this 80% combined with the other incentives in this section So the 50 and the 40 which again are across the four districts Even though each district has a different minimum lot size a lot with three yard setback We just set a standard for this particular incentive So just kind of following that pattern of setting one standard for all four I think that was done initially for ease of use And so we we just felt we followed that pattern

Okay.

Okay, so 80% service coverage for an r1 lot could like could be a pretty substantial I don't know. I should look calculated the square footage Like I guess are you comfortable with that outcome like do you feel like that's consistent with like the district intent and all that? like

Think the likelihood that someone uses these affordable housing incentives so that they can build a house that covers 80% of an r1 Lot is incredibly small like Inventismally small we don't have very many many of them are environmentally restricted I Don't we could exclude them or you could you could tier them as a councilperson Rollo has suggested you

I understand what you're saying. I don't think that in reality that is.

Sure, maybe R2 is a better example, because we have so few R1 lots. But I guess I'm trying to better understand, too, is the aim, like, is what you're trying to accomplish actually getting people to subdivide lots and then build? And that's why the 80% will make more sense, because when you subdivide something, because you can now subdivide to a much smaller minimum lot size as part of the incentive structure, that all of a sudden, what is a large R2 lot, where it would make no sense to have 80% impervious surface coverage if you divide it in half and you're building two houses, maybe it does make sense on these now quite small lots that would otherwise be nonconforming.

Yes, so I think that that we envision that they will be used with the other incentives. So 80% of a smaller lot It is a may as opposed to a shall as many of our regulations are I think the idea is leaving that up to the Planned Commission for example to see if that is appropriate

as many...

Is that incentive generating the type of development that the administration is looking for or is someone trying to use it?

to build a gigantic house in the R1. I think.

We would staff as well before it goes to the Plain Commission would be able to advise a petitioner on whether or not we thought that was

the design of the subdivision, for example, was reaching the goals of what these incentives are supposed to be doing.

We don't use these very much. We don't see them used very much. And so the idea, I think the main development pattern that we see the potential use of this in is what you're describing of like a smaller, a smallish subdivision where the lots will be quite small.

So the lots can be covered more for an appropriately sized house like for example I spoke about last time you like trail view the property that you Habitat for Humanity did on the beeline on the northwest northwest of town I mean they had to do that as a plan unit development. There were no options had these incentives existed at that time You heard mayor Thompson say they probably actually could have gotten more lots Than than they did and so I think it's those kind of developments that we're anticipating that this could be used for because they have to meet the tiers they have to put aside 15% of the units in perpetuity at low AMIs So I don't know that I

because they have.

Think.

I don't think that we think there is a lot of room for abuse here because of what they will have to be giving in order to get this.

Okay, so we're mostly into, I'm sorry, can I keep going? So we're mostly anticipating for it to, maybe multiple lots being subdivided and building, say.

two or more homes, one of which, minimum of 15% of which will need to be permanently affordable based on AMI levels. Is that anticipated?

Do we only really have the infrastructure?

Not physical but like a code infrastructure to support that for rental properties How would that work for ownership? I guess like would they have to work with a land trust or some other deed restriction on?

Like, yeah, is this possible with ownership as well?

Right, so.

Sure.

Thanks for watching!

I think...

It was spoken about a little bit at the last hearing. But yes, we may have to look into some sort of model like you're suggesting land trusts or potentially like a model like someone like Habitat uses to be able to make those permanently affordable while offering, you know, the ability for.

Owners of those houses to be able to accrue money as well over time So no, I don't think that has been we have not flushed that out So yes, I do think it's probably easier for rental at this point but it's something that we are exploring especially with the intention of owner occupancy included in the preamble for this section

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, Council Member Stasberg, then Rollo.

Staff because this incentive in general is as you just said generally going to be used for a subdivision Of more lots. Can you just explain to Council and to the public how? subdivision development works in terms of what process it goes through in terms of like what the requirements are and I guess one of the things that I'm thinking is the slideshow that you showed last time where there was the picture of the number of lots and and I Once again, I guess like my question earlier I want to give some assurance that that this doesn't mean that you know If you have this space that suddenly like 80% of the entire space is going to be covered with impervious surface That there's other considerations that go into subdivision development. So if you could just talk about those sure and how that works

So depending on the layout of the parcel that's being subdivided you may be required to be setting aside land for a new road for example You have to set aside land for Detention as well. And so that is in title 13, which is run by CBU And so as we spoke a little bit about last time There are requirements For detention based on potential development at the location when we don't know what the development is going to be specifically So any detention this is my understanding any detention designed for a subdivision For example is going to be designed for each of the lots assuming each lot is built at maximum capacity So maximum impervious surface coverage, so if there was conflict between How big the pond needed to be and how many lots they were trying to get

The pond would win out they as you mentioned with some of the other regulations This regulation does not supersede any other regulations. It's like a ceiling that they can reach and then if other regulations Decrease how many units they can get then that just happens that happens with all of our Regulations, they all have to be in play. So

There would be potential landscaping requirements as well if there was a street in there Obviously all the setbacks and some of those things are lowered in this section in this incentive section But for example if there was tree preservation required on the lot The regular calculation for tree preservation would be used nothing here supersedes that And that amount of land would have to be set aside whether or not, you know These incentives were used and so all of those things that right now affect how many lots can be created Outside of the specific dimensional standards regulations would still exist

Thank you and just kind of to follow up on that with maybe some like real numbers And I'm so sorry that I did not look up these before I started But maybe you can remember because you're kind of amazing in that way So in the couple years that I've been on planning commission We've maybe had at least two subdivisions that I can remember come through And so one of them Was on the east south side of town that long narrow lot Do you remember how many lots that got subdivided into you? That's a good question I'm not sure

in.

That's

Are you talking about the old Ivy Chase site?

I think so. Yeah. I would say me.

Five.

Bye.

And do you remember how many of those lots were actually buildable?

Right, so.

Because that's like the difference is it's saying like okay if we split it into 25 lots How many were we actually where the builders actually allowed to build on after the detention and the tree preservation and all that

Sure. So for example, we have a petition right now that Land Commission will continue to see on North Dunn that has a large portion of the west side of the property is set aside because of Environmental constraints and then there are lots within the other lots that also have environmental constraints and have been set aside So none of that would change you just may get more lots in between

The areas that have to be set aside for environmental reasons. We do not do very many subdivisions. I mean we're pretty

Large scale subdivisions. We do almost none. We've we did Kinzer Ridge on the north side. They had quite a few

Singles and so those were all set aside and those are going to be you know Those are intended to be kind of single-family starter homes

could we have got, we could have gotten more lots there. We only have so much raw land left, and so being able to kind of.

Build in more lots I think helps us reach some of our goals. I will note, I think I noted last time, and I heard from Director Zager after the last time I was here and she confirmed that yes, she discussed this proposal with Director Hiddle and that CBU does not have concerns related to storm water based on this proposal.

Okay, thank you.

You

So this is kind of curious to me

Can we put up the zoning map just so we for?

Um.

Illustrative illustrative purposes and because we were talking about our one district, which is the largest occupies the largest area of residential in the city, which is the yellow there And say we had a quarter quarter acre lot You know with the 80% provision, you know, we're talking about eight thousand seven hundred square feet

But you were saying that would never happen.

Are you talking about the yellow there on the...

Yeah.

That's our two.

Oh, R2. R1.

Our one is like at the very north end of town. There are a number of our one. Sorry

That's right.

Sorry. Okay, sorry.

There's almost, we don't have almost any R1.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm mistaken. So are too But but the point is is that if I mean some of these lots are larger But I'm just taking quarter acre as an example so

That would, 80% would be 8,700 square feet.

That would never happen in your mind There would be various restrictions, but what would the likely impact be?

What is the maximum that you would envision on such a lot?

for R2.

I guess I'm just.

On a quarter acre lot.

Yeah to me this is very reminiscent of kind of like the duplex conversation where like all of these areas are built out That's why you can see all like the little squiggly roads like they're all subdivisions that this

Body and others approved in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s There there aren't a bunch of empty lots there where people are going to tear down, you know Houses in park ridge so that they can build two and make one of them affordable like that's not that doesn't feel realistic So I don't think we'll see a lot of it They're just like I may try to make the argument with the plexus which we haven't seen any out there either and

I just so it's hard for me to answer that question because I again am envisioning I think the department is envisioning this regulation more with like little larger pockets that we have like potentially for example There are some lots on hillside near the near CBU that Were developed as a cottage development, which is fine. That's great. That's the only one we've ever done But if it could have been subdivided and gotten, you know more units where people could own that that may have been more beneficial

Guess we're putting in incentives right and I want to know like worst-case scenario in terms. Yeah, I mean I think you're

Yeah, I mean, I think you're right worse worst-case scenario is that 80% of that lot could be covered I mean that that is possible

I don't know Where I don't I'm not sure where those vacant lots exist That would be it would it couldn't be one-off because they have to make at least 15% You know at AMI below 90

Once we adopt this and we put it in code and people have that expectation, it's hard to reverse. I mean, people could, right? I mean.

Well, we come every year so if we saw that it was something was happening unintended we would we would bring it back I mean, I think we do try to bring them back to make them better like we did with the ad use as well

Isn't it better maybe to start off with an incentive? I mean, I'm suggesting my amendment.

to see if that is something that has a benign effect or is taken as an incentive instead of going for 80%, which I still think is a.

It sends a bad message, I mean, in my mind. I mean, we've been, we're working across purposes. We've been spending millions of dollars. I understand there's a new project.

that's coming, you know, in South Walnut potentially.

That's going to probably cost a lot of city funds what I mean, but we're we're going in the opposite direction here incentivizing impervious surface

So it's a couple of things. OK.

Okay.

If you want me we are responding to the resolution that this body wrote you all said you wanted us to try to incentivize Developers and then in other conversations, especially developers who don't do affordable housing to build affordable housing You have to make it worth it for as we hear people say and I mean, this is not my bailiwick But it has to be able to pencil out We have to be able to offer them something that they can't do now And so being able to get more houses in for example By using these incentives that would give us more units. I do also want to make clear

For anyone who's watching, I know there's some of you do watch It's not 80% across the board for these four districts It's 80% if you're building a single-family detached house or a duplex on a lot and in a project where you're setting aside 15% of the units that you're trying to build to be permanently affordable at or below 90% of Area median income it's very it's much more nuanced and smaller Than we are kind of like talking about we are not coming forward and saying we should cover 80% of the city with pavement or houses that it's

Isn't that and I do think I put a lot of credence in

Director Zager, you know weighing in and saying that that based on what they have looked at at CBU They do not think that this is going to have an effect on stormwater that they are concerned about

Thanks for watching!

Let's move to public comment unless someone has an urgent question Yes, and this is just public comment on this amendment. I know that we have something from the environmental commission So we'll start with the environmental commission if anybody else would like to make public comment on amendment 1 to ordinance 202601 now is your time to do so Mr. Caldey

Hi, my name is Matt Caldy and I'm speaking in my capacity as a member of the Bloomington Environmental Commission planning committee We were told that if we approved the memo as a commission that one member could be present to read it See you tonight. So that's what I'm gonna do Dear city of Bloomington Common Council the Bloomington Environmental Commission planning committee

Or e cpc has reviewed the department of planning and transportation's recommendations for amending the unified development ordinance Our commission appreciates the opportunity to provide input on these proposed changes We recognize the need for affordable housing in bloomington and strongly support incentives that allow developers and builders to include housing For a variety of bloomington residents

Proposed UDO amendments would allow for the following changes Just summarizes the r1 from 30 to 80 r2 40 to 80 345 to 80 and r4 50 to 80 percent maximum impervious surface However, the proposed increases and allowed impervious surface percentages are associated with potentially negative environmental impacts Our concerns fall into the categories of stormwater heat island effect and tree canopy cover and health

Regarding stormwater allowing more impervious surface increases multiple stormwater related risks a John Johns Hopkins study found that for every percentage point increase of roads parking lots and other impervious surfaces annual floods increase on an average of 3.3 percent

As noted in the city of Bloomington climate risk and vulnerability assessment, Indiana's projected to see a 25% increase in inland flooding by 2050 the potential increased risk of flooding would necessitate review of culvert maintenance and sizing stream banks and degradation and Corresponding pollutants if the stormwater management plan is not sufficient

regarding Heat Island within the expected

Within the expected change in maximum impervious surfaces, it's possible that the tree canopy and soil quality would also be reduced potentially increasing heat island and decreasing moisture levels urban heat. Sorry. Urban tree canopy is associated with reduced urban temperatures and therefore benefits both human health and reducing energy use in cities. More buildings roads and impervious surfaces increase how the sun's heat is absorbed and re-emitted while simultaneously preventing water from accessing and hydrating vegetation.

for retaining tree canopy and tree health.

Bloomington was recognized as Indiana's first tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation in 1984 and many citywide initiatives Demonstrate how Bloomington prioritizes its tree population trees contribute to carbon dioxide uptake air pollution removal and stormwater mitigation By allowing increased impervious surface percentages and immediate concern is how tree canopy will be affected 2016 study found that in urban area with 33 percent to sixty six percent impervious Surface cover trees were most likely to be in fair condition at above 65 percent impervious surface cover trees We're most likely to be in poor condition

As mentioned previously increased impervious surfaces may lead to lower moisture in soil reduced air quality and less healthy trees

and bless healthy trees.

your time.

a cycle that perpetuates the urban heat island effect.

I don't know.

Thanks, Tom.

Thank you.

Are there other public comments on the amendment is there anyone online? All right online commenter

All right. Hi, my name is Heidi Brown and I'm commenting as a citizen of the Bloomington community.

And I'd just like to bring to the council's attention that the comprehensive plan does mention impervious cover.

So as a goal for the city, the policy 3.2.1 states that.

The goal is to continue to limit the amount of impervious surface in new developments or public improvement projects and to also increase the infrastructure and reduce urban runoff.

So just knowing that that's in the comprehensive plan maybe can help guide some decision making. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other commenters?

Another online, take it away.

Hello, my name is Jamie Scholl and thanks for the opportunity to speak this evening.

I want to address an unintended consequence or there may be a few that we've already heard of the

Thanks for watching!

service allowances. This change being presented is a way to support housing affordability. However, the impervious coverage permanently removes land from food production, environmental function, and basically our communities resilience and those losses are not easily reversed.

Bloomington, like most cities, relies on a just-in-time food system, which we've seen a few times in recent memory to not meet community needs when under stress. Under normal conditions, grocery stores typically carry on only a few days of inventory. During these disruptions, the local food production becomes our critical buffer and is already integrated into our local food system through the Bloomington Farmstop Collective and Bethel Lane Farmstop and the farmers market.

What matters more right now is we're living in a time of economic uncertainty.

And the shifting world order we can't see things in

The bubble of Bloomington.

With rising inflation and growing concern about the purchasing power of households, people turn to sound money, and that's gold and silver, reflecting the fear about inflation. Access to land that can grow food is another form of real security, one that helps households offset rising grocery costs with nutrient-dense food.

This can be in row crops. This can be in agroforestry. This can manifest in different ways

There is also a public health dimension access to green productive land is associated with lower stress anxiety and depression And without that green space the heat island effect could increase which we've already heard about

We know that whenever temperatures rise, people become often more aggressive.

Increasing impervious surfaces removes both environmental and mental health benefits while also eliminating opportunities for supplemental income and meaningful work through urban agriculture, an activity supported by our city's comprehensive plan. When soil is sealed it is effectively lost to food production for

Even small increases when applied across neighborhoods could result in a significant cumulative loss. So I urge council to consider whether whatever proposal comes about.

meets our stated goals around sustainability, resilience, food security, and public health, and to explore all the various alternatives that allow for housing flexibility without permanently sacrificing the land that helps our community withstand future shocks.

Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any other comments?

And you want to comment as an individual now, rather than as a... Can I speak briefly as a citizen?

Could I speak briefly as a citizen and not as a member of the environmental sure just say say your name sure once again, Matt Caldy

Let's see.

I just want to express it personally. I feel I feel conflicted about the the proposed ordinance because I support affordable housing and you know density is also in an environmental issue. I just struggled with the The 80% let alone 90% if tier 2 incentives are met impervious surface coverage I don't I don't see that as being reasonable in most residential neighborhoods and and therefore Generally much prefer something along the lines of the proposed amendment tiered numbers I feel like this is geared at subdivisions in general and I don't think it'll come up all that often as being very narrow in scope, but

Again, just feel very very conflicted about the whole thing because I want to want to support More housing, but just want to make sure we're not putting ourselves and our citizens at risk. So thank you

Thank you.

I don't see any other comments. Are there anyone online? Fantastic. We'll come back

All right.

Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? Sorry. Please.

I was slowing the uptake on in favor.

Go ahead, please, in favor.

That's my favorite.

Yeah.

Thank you to the sponsors for bringing this. I'm going to vote for it.

I feel like the exercise we're kind of like lost in a corner of the UDO somewhere instead of like zooming out and talking about what can add housing to our community that is modest in scale, that might be owner-occupied, that might be more affordable than the housing we're seeing. These are things like smaller minimum lot sizes that are probably half the size of what the minimum lot sizes are right now. Good form-based zoning code doesn't even generally have minimum lot sizes. They focus on things like lot widths and build-to lines. Our code is, I would say, broken relative to the outcomes we say we want.

Um, I think...

While the intent of the resolutions that spurred this were positive, I feel like this question, including this amendment, is like...

Really really missing the forest for the trees and um

It's a little hard to fully conceptualize what exactly the 80%, up to 90% thing would look like in practice. Maybe nothing at all, maybe no one would use it. I was trying to tease that out with staff and that was helpful to engage, but.

Just think we're kind of off base fully and I think this makes more sense to support this amendment that tears the the Incentive if this ordinance passes In a way that more closely mirrors what the existing impervious service requirements are across those four districts So that's my

Awesome speech in favor.

Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm Council Member Piemont-Smith.

Thank you very much.

Uh, yes, I'm also in favor of this amendment. Um,

I'm not so concerned as the sponsors are about the stormwater implications of covering more of the surface with impermeable building.

because there is a CBU review that's part of approval of any development. And CBU Director Zager has said that she does not foresee a problem. But as the Environmental Commission has pointed out, there are many ecosystem services provided by GreenSpace other than the benefits for our stormwater system.

I mean, the tree cover, the mitigating the heat island effect, more absorption of carbon dioxide, and general livability. I think those are all things that should be considered before we allow more impermeable surface.

And I also sort of agree with council member Flaherty in that we are getting lost in some details that probably won't make a big dent either way because I doubt many people will take advantage of these incentives.

Um, but, uh,

I do think in this case, I would prefer to not allow 80% and have it tiered to the lot sizes in our different residential zoning districts. So I'm going to support the amendment.

Thank you.

Would anybody like to speak against the amendment?

Please, Council Member Stasberg.

Thank you.

I do disagree with this. I appreciate councilmember Flaherty's concept of it being tiered If it was tiered though I think it should be tiered the other way and I think that we need to get back to What this incentive is actually intended for which is subdivisions And if we think about the zoning map and thinking about where we have r3s and r4s There's not going to be new subdivisions and r3s and r4s. There just aren't there's no free land space in there So if we think about what is needed in r3s and r4s, it is something different. It's changing minimum lot sizes it's making some of those shifts, right, but

The art are twos especially like this is where we need to do this and from my seat on the planning commission There's been at least one subdivision that their initial proposal during a planning commission lunch was paired homes and Because they could not build the paired homes

By right and there was no additional incentive like this under the affordability incentive They instead did single-family homes. So instead of having some much more affordable paired homes on this property

Instead there are not affordable homes at all on it and it's actually right next to another Subdivision that does have paired homes and that makes absolutely no sense to me Okay, so so we can say like yeah, the the tiered thing is is Maybe maybe it would be better. Maybe it would be too complicated for builders and staff but the way that this amendment writes it it is no incentive at all and we're just back to Builders not using this at all and instead the few subdivisions that come through won't have any affordability in them unless That builder actually makes this choice to do basic designs to you know Whatever it is and and that build that's up on Kinza Ridge They said that it's going to be more affordable that they have some Starter homes starting at least when they presented it a year and a half ago in like the 280 range or something like that But that's like the starter and then every time you add anything on that like normal people want it like goes up to 400 like that

Maybe that feels affordable to some degree right now but it is not actually affordable and if that development could have actually taken advantage of this and and Made some of those lots up on Kendra Ridge smaller and put some paired homes on there And the paired homes could still have been a decent size for a family to live in

Then that could have extended affordability even more even if it meant that some of those lots had

More coverage and I I just I think that That we are maybe getting lost in the weeds a little bit because how much is this actually going to be taken? Advantage of probably not very much, but it's not even going to be improved at all

by changing it this drastically.

All right, thank you so much.

What do you want to do?

Well, I would just like to comment go ahead I'd like to just say let's vote okay one one last thing I mean, I've said a lot but

And then.

Let's look.

One

One last thing strikes me and that is the our code should be evident should be self-evident People should be able to read it and understand what it says What I'm very troubled by is that this 80% across the board

We don't know how it's going to be implemented. It's anyone's guess. I mean we've been told that it's going to be Radically less or less to some degree, but we don't know we don't know the number Shouldn't it be? specified in our code

As opposed to well, it's it could be 80% but it's likely to be less

I really find that troubling.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment? Okay, go ahead

If there's one thing I've learned in.

doing constituent services in the community over my terms on council, it's that it doesn't take much modification of a lot.

It's developed to create a big problem For a lot adjacent or downstream It doesn't take much at all. So even if this is something we're gonna say Well, it's probably not going to be used or that very many situations where it could be applied That would have a big impact in very many areas It could

where it could be done could have a tremendous negative impact on

Owners other homeowners in these areas and it doesn't take much of a change in the drainage and the amount of runoff from a from one property to really Suddenly where it never got in the basement before Suddenly is now causing a problem for someone else. So even at a low level of Utilization of this it's still I it's not worth the risk to me

Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 1 to Ordinance 20-26-01.

Council Member Stosberg.

Piedmont Smith.

Yes.

Zulek? No. Asari?

Yes.

Bravo.

Yes.

Yes.

Rough.

Yes.

Rosenberger.

Thank you so much for joining us.

clarity.

Yes.

Thank you. That motion carries 6-2. So we now go back to ordinance 2026.01 as amended. I'd like at this moment to have a time of public comment. Would anybody like to comment on the totality of ordinance 2026.01 as amended?

I see no one in chambers, do we have anyone online?

Wonderful, I'll come back to councilmembers. Do you have any comments on the full thing? I'm starting with councilmember Rosenberger

question mode

I mean, I will say...

I'm

I plan on voting no for this. I mean, I'll just say that I'm still asking questions, but

Think like what we need is an affordability feast and what this is is like putting a P on a plate and it's just like not going to get anything done

When we talk about our resolutions that we sent to Plan Commission and then these this is like what came out of them I think this is for planning staff, but

Why didn't we change minimum lot size to allow more affordability in our city?

Sorry, do you want me to say that again? No, okay.

I thought you're just like expounding. I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. I was questioning. I'm sorry. I thought it was comment because the resolution Dictated which sections we could make suggestions over

Awesome.

Oh, right, and so, and when we try to do that up here.

I was not one of them.

We didn't get that resolution introduced so we didn't this council did not allow for changing minimum lot size like I think this

I think this ordinance doesn't make sense, because we're not changing minimum lot size. Also, with Hopewell, the PUD,

One of the plans is to allow alley frontage, which I think would also increase affordability in our city Was that considered for this ordinance for a foot and it wasn't in one of the sections We were allowed to look at so something this council kind of has just like

Again, it wasn't.

quashed along the way. OK, so I just think, like I said, I just think we have so much to do, and this is so narrow, like you were saying, narrow earlier, I think.

I I mean, I don't like the payment in lieu. It's like it's missing a zero on the end of it I think to that and now I'm just on a comment. I think thank you very much. I think to

Mixed-income housing is what we really need in this city and we need to be encouraging that. I mean we said we're Prioritizing it but when we have a payment in lieu solo that is prioritizing Our affordable units being elsewhere. I'm just really not a fan of that I don't mind taking a look at impervious surface coverage But I think it has to also be done with minimum lot size since we can't even build

in our city the.

Matt press developments on the beeline or on South Dunn I don't think it makes sense to change impervious surface that much So for me, this is just totally missing the mark and I just don't want

I think we need to put more pressure and urgency on the administration to

do more and go bigger than this and that's why I'm voting no on it.

Thank you, councilmember Rallo and then councilmember Stasberg.

I've got a question, just briefly.

I believe that this administration has a commitment to affordability and you know, it's a difficult process The previous administration did they had certain tools? Miss gallon do you

We used to have a aggregate spread a spreadsheet of total units per year that we've added Do we still have that and are we keeping that to date? And can we see how many units we've been adding over over the past few years?

That's a great question when the Hamilton administration was in that was something that I administered for them but I Shared that with the new administration, but it is not something I have been asked to do So it's not up to date as far as I know but someone else may be that document is shared So someone else may be doing that

So you're not doing it, but someone may be. I don't know if anyone else.

I don't know if anyone else is, but I'm not.

So could, you know...

Well, it's under the purview of planning and transportation I assume or

I mean so the document that

Mean so the document that we that we maintained under the Hamilton administration was supposed to be it was keeping track of how many units Were approved so because most of our most of the approval bodies are ones we go to that's why I was doing it But I don't know, you know, I'm not sure if it's something similar is being done now

I think that would be useful for the council to have that data. So I'm I guess I'm making a request My colleagues would be interested too to just see where where we are, you know Where the trajectory was and then where we are since then and how many more affordable units? I assume, you know, we've even lost a few maybe the Renato development was in low payment was, you know surrendered Action of the council actually but it would just be good to have that number so we can be

Sure.

I'm happy to talk to director Hiddle about it. Yeah

Perfect, thank you.

Council Member Stasberg, then Council Member Piemont-Smith.

I'm trying really hard to not be frustrated about this right now But I as somebody who's been sitting on the Plan Commission for two years I'm really like making a study of our UDO for longer than that. It's really frustrating to me right now That it seems that there's a minimal understanding of of this entire section of the UDO and what it actually says

Appreciate councilmember Rosenberger's comments related to minimum lot sizes and we remember back to March last year I wanted to introduce that and I would like minimum lot sizes to change and I want to point out that within this Incentive if some if a builder uses this incentive then their minimum lot sizes get reduced by up to 50% their lot widths get reduced by up to 40% their side Setbacks and rear setbacks are reduced and all of those things go together And I feel like that entirely is getting missed that it's not just this one piece of impervious surface that changed It is the whole package

And I think that there is a real lack of understanding.

by the council as a whole right now what our development ordinance actually does.

And and that's just really kind of frustrating to me at this point and maybe it's just frustrating because I've been studying it for so long And I think even if I wasn't on the planning commission I would have been studying it because there's a few really important pieces of it that come before us like this change

and it is a complicated document and it does take work.

but all of us have that work capability in us.

So I guess that's a challenge. I will be voting in favor of this tonight, if only for the payment in lieu changes. Voting against it doesn't make any difference in terms of the dollar amount. Payment in lieu is allowed right now. Voting against this doesn't change the fact that it's allowed. We are not, as a council, allowed to actually set the number. That number is in here. It has an example of what the hand department expects to do this year. The hand department is the one that gets to actually set those details. The change that this does in terms of the payment in lieu is specifically says, hey, you need to do it based on the administrative manual.

Demands that payment in lieu only be done for large projects if there's only if there's more than 30 units You're allowed to choose payment in lieu if you're building a small development. You're not even allowed to you to choose payment in lieu

So I think that that's an important thing to point out. So I will be voting to support this even though I'm disappointed at how the impervious surface thing came out and I suspect that it will continue to be unused

Thank you, Council Member Piemont-Smith.

Yes.

I, uh...

I want to reflect on what Councilmember Rosenberger said, and I do agree that we need a much bigger of our UDO and

that our early discussions about the Hopewell PUD really point the way to what changes we should consider for the UDO as a whole.

But I take her comments as yes, and we can also approve this very incremental.

uh, ordinance that is before us to make these very small amendments that may move the needle a little bit and a little bit is better than nothing. So I will be supporting this. Thank you.

All right.

Council Member Flaherty.

With much respect to our Planning Commission representative, I've also spent many hundreds of hours on the UDO, and I do feel like I fully understand the implications of what we're deciding this evening, as well as the broader...

landscape that's needed. Earlier.

Stossberg you mentioned that there aren't opportunities to subdivide an R3 and R4 That's really not true There's actually many hundreds of opportunities to subdivide an R3 R4 if we reduce the lot size minimums Probably not through this affordability incentive though because one of the houses is already there, right? So yeah, okay got it. So not maybe opportunities to use the affordability set of but

hundreds, if not thousands, of

Backyards that can be turned into small-scale lots for small-scale development for ownership in Bloomington

It's a systems level solution as my colleague customer Rosenberger noted. I was brought before this council for introduction last year. It was not introduced Perhaps we will change that perhaps the administration will bring something in forthcoming changes that I hope we see some collaboration with council on I don't know

I think when I look at Resolution 2512...

One of the things it says is...

Any payment in lieu qualifying standard should exceed the requirements of actual creation of permanently affordable units and And that's what we've kind of dug into a little bit. It's going to be a little bit of a context specific inquiry It's always a little different But with the Rolada we actually had an opportunity to like ask questions about like what was the Delta between a market rate unit and Affordable unit how many units are there and we actually could run the numbers in that case anyway of what is the value? over a 100 year cycle of The subsidy essentially that's that increment incremental difference between the AMI level unit and the the market rate unit

You know and you can kind of game that out and and what it revealed is that the payment in lieu We're getting something like five to ten cents on the dollar maybe for compared to actual permanently affordable units going in in buildings and so I

It's a broader reflection that I think it was a mistake several years ago to move away from the fairly strict, narrow allowance of payment in lieu that we had in the initial UDO approval in 2019. I know this ordinance isn't affecting that one way or another, but I will note that, again, the whereas clause, as far as the council's intent, says that the payment in lieu qualifying standard should exceed the requirements of actual creation of permanently affordable units, and like, that's not at all the situation we're in. So I don't think what's being proposed, including what the hand department is proposing, which yes, an increase, that's good, relative to the status quo, but it still doesn't actually meet the intent expressed by the council in the resolution, and I think we need to go back to the drawing board on this, and a good number of other things. And while this might make a very small incremental improvement, I think.

My vote no of no tonight is just a reflection that like this is pretty broken. We really got to fix some things

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance 26.01 as amended.

Council Member Piedmont-Smith.

Yes.

Zulek yes, I'm sorry

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Bravo.

Yes.

Rough?

Yes.

Rezenberger? No.

Clarity?

No.

Thank you.

Stasberg? Yes.

That motion carries six to and is adopted. Um, thank you so much Thank you To the planning department for being here so late. All right, we now move to our final period of public comment If you have not commented in the other um in the other section of public comment You now may and um You have three minutes anyone in council chambers

Anyone online?

Seeing none, we'll move to council schedule.

Someone just joined, okay. Person who just joined, would you like to give public comment?

Um, yes, were you referring to Heidi Bowne?

I didn't hear what you asked, but I think the answer is yes.

And this is public comment regarding the impervious coverage issue still.

No, this is general public comment for things that were not on the agenda.

Oh, okay, so not an appropriate time to offer one more thought there.

No, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, if there's no other comments.

All right. We'll move to issues of council schedule. Attorney Lainer, are there any updates on schedule that are relevant to the body?

There had been some discussion about holding potentially an executive session on February 18th and I learned today that that no longer is possible so there won't be a notice to schedule that meeting at that point and we're looking at dates potentially in March

Excellent. Thank you very much. Any other updates to council schedule? Councillor Stasberg, then Zulik.

Just want to announce that there's a fiscal committee meeting on February 13th at 830 in the Allison conference room And it's also available by zoom. Thanks

Thank you. I just want to let all council members know that due to the Accessibility requirements changing it is a little bit more difficult for our staff members to prepare amendments Within 24 hours notice of a meeting and so we are asking that if you have an amendment Please let staff know by seven days after the first reading discussion And if there are two weeks between meetings if there's

if there's...

Yes, so for example, if there was a first reading introduced today on February 4th, the next council meeting is February 18th, so that would be two weeks in between. If that is the case, up to seven days after first reading, so that would be next Wednesday. If there's only one week in between two council meetings, please let staff know by Monday at noon.

before the council meeting. Thank you.

Right.

any questions comments anything we're missing

All right. If that's ev-

We are adjourned.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!