►
From YouTube: Bloomington City Council, May 12, 2021, Part 1
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
I'm
calling
today
special
session
to
order
today
is
may
12th,
and
this
is
a
continuation
of
our
meeting
on
last
thursday.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
C
D
A
A
E
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
before
we
get
started,
we'll
do
an
agenda
summation
and
first
we'll
or
I'm
sorry.
Second
after
that
is
conduct
of
deliberations,
and
I
just
want
to
remember
council
members
that
the
kind
of
deliberations
that
we
agreed
upon
is
that
public
comments
would
be
limited
to
three
minutes.
Each
council
member
debate
will
be
limited
to
three
minutes
each
and
if
this
meetings
are
still
in
process
at
11
p.m,
we
will
entertain
a
recess
to
schedule
continuation
of
the
special
session.
A
A
Going
on
through
the
agenda,
we
will
continue
with
ordinance
21-23
this
evening.
I
do
believe,
I'm
sorry.
According
to
21-23,
to
amend
title
20
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
of
the
bloomington
municipal
code
regarding
regulations
related
to
dwelling
duplex
dwelling
triplex
and
dwelling
fourplex
set
forth
in
bloomington
municipal
code,
20.03
and
20.04.
A
Then
we'll
move
on
to
ordnance
21-24
to
repeal
and
replace
the
official
zoning
map
within
the
title,
20
of
the
bloomington
municipal
code
entitled
united
development
coordinates.
Then
we'll
do
or
discuss
matters
dealing
with
council
schedule
and
then,
as
mentioned
earlier,
we
will
either
recess
or
adjourn.
A
I
would
as
another
reminder
from
our
previous
proceedings
on
ordinance
21-23.
We
had
amendment
1
and
it
failed
four
to
five
amendment
two
passed:
nine,
zero
and
amendment
three
past
seven
to
two,
and
I
do
believe
that
we
are
prepared
to
move
forward
with
amendment
four.
A
G
Yes,
mr
president,
actually
before
we
get
to
amendment
four,
I
wanted
to
move
that
the
regular
sessions
scheduled
for
august
4th
2021
begin
at
three
o'clock
p.m.
H
G
It's
okay
with
the
president.
Yes,
so,
as
a
lot
of
folks
are
aware
and
council
members
are
aware,
the
city
is
resuming
the
annexation
process
that
was
terminated
in
2017
through
action
of
the
general
assembly
at
the
indiana
state
house,
and
we
are
scheduled
to
hear
legislation
next
wednesday
may
19th
on
amended
fiscal
plans
for
each
of
the
areas
for
potential
annexation
in
a
public
hearing
as
part
of
the
process
on
the
annexation,
ordinances
will
be
held
via
zoom
on
august
4th
2021
at
our
regular
session.
G
Anticipating
that
there
may
be
a
number
of
members
of
the
public
who
would
wish
to
comment
at
that
public
meeting
and
planning
ahead
to
notice
the
meeting
properly.
We
thought
our
council
staff
suggested
that
we
make
a
motion
at
this
meeting
tonight
to
clarify
that
we
will
begin
to
begin
that
regular
session
on
august
4th
earlier
to
allow
adequate
time
to
hear
all
members
of
the.
A
Public
sorry
good
on
me
myself,
thank
you.
Is
it
proper
to
ask
for
any
questions
from
council
or
move
to
roll
call.
G
The
amendment
is
debatable
and
amendable
if
others
members
had
a
questions
are
concerned.
Yes,.
I
H
A
J
K
F
F
A
Thank
you
very
much.
That
motion
is
passed
9-0.
Thank
you,
council,
member
flaherty,
I'm
I'm
so
sorry
to
disturb
you,
council,
member
rollo.
You
may
now
proceed.
A
L
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Along
with
councilmember
rallo,
I
am
pleased
to
sponsor
amendment
4,
which
attempts
to
leverage
one
of
the
tools
in
the
city's
toolbox
to
offer
voluntary
participation
in
the
affordable
housing
incentive
program
to
bring
more
affordable
rental
rates
in
duplexes
that
will
develop
in
r1,
2
and
3.,
as
we
know,
or
as
we
all
should
be
aware
of.
By
now,
the
city
does
not
have
the
legal
authority
to
enact
legislation
related
to
rates
charged
for
housing
in
bloomington
inclusionary.
Zoning
law
is
prohibited
by
the
indiana
general
assembly.
L
We
do,
however,
have
leverage
power
through
voluntary
means
by
offering
bonus
incentives
for
affordability.
This
is
what
amendment
4
does.
It
offers
the
developers
of
a
duplex
the
option
to
increase
density
to
the
maximum
allowed
of
three
bedrooms
per
duplex
unit
if
they
voluntarily
offer
less
than
market
rates
for
those
units.
L
If
that
does
not
fit
their
market
plan
for
making
a
profit,
they
are
free
to
develop
a
duplex
at
a
slightly
smaller
scale
of
two
bedrooms
per
duplex
unit
and
charge.
What
they
want
at
market
rates
in
prime
locations
such
as
near
the
downtown
and
iu
market
rates,
will
be
a
factor
in
the
cost
of
these
emerging
duplexes
market
rents
will
not
achieve
the
intended
goal
of
mixing
incomes
and
advancing
equity
in
these
desirable
neighborhoods
without
public
sector
intervention.
L
L
Amendment
four
adds
a
third
tier
of
projects
that
would
qualify
for
incentives
under
the
affordable
housing
incentive
section
and
adds
a
third
tier
of
affordable
housing.
Incentives
for
projects
where
both
units
in
a
duplex
are
income
restricted
permanently
to
below.
120
percent
of
the
hud
ami
from
monroe
county
or
for
projects
where
one
unit
in
a
duplex
is
income
restricted
permanently
to
below
80
percent
of
the
hud
ami
from
monroe
county.
The
number
of
bedrooms
per
unit
may
be
increased
to
three
in
each
unit.
L
L
What
leverage
you
have
if
you
want
affordable
rents,
use
the
number
of
bedrooms
allowed
to
incentivize,
affordable
rents,
tighten
and
make
specific
tangible
requirements
such
as
parking
that
must
be
met
for
conditional
use,
recognize
that
in
a
national,
expensive
scarce
housing
market,
an
unfettered
market
will
produce
market
rate,
housing
and
rentals
to
get
the
type
of
housing
where
bloomington
wants
it.
In
addition
to
incentivizing
developers
to
provide
affordable
and
middle
income
housing,
the
city
will
have
to
enter
the
market
as
a
developer.
L
C
Thank
you,
councilmember
sandberg,
the
council.
The
comprehensive
plan
directs
us
to
consider
and
include
tools
and
zoning
and
development
review
to
increase
affordability
of
housing
in
the
community,
and
here
are
some
that
are
cited
for
consideration
and
in
support
of
amendment
four.
C
C
C
C
There
are
numerous
other
examples
in
the
comprehensive
plan,
so
I've
just
cited
some
in
support
of
amendment
four,
and
I
believe
that
will
include
conclude.
Our
introduction
is
that
true,
council
member
sandberg.
L
Yes,
it
is
I
I
just
do
want
to
iterate
that
this
only
pertains
to
r1,
r2
and
r3.
I
think
a
previous
copy
of
our
amendment
did
not
make
that
clear.
So
we
want
to
make
that
clear.
A
Very
much
do
we
have
any
questions
from
council.
Colleagues
of
the
authors
of
this
amendment,
council,
member
piedmont,
smith,.
K
Thank
you,
council,
member
sims,
scott
robinson,
director
of
planning
and
transportation.
I
first
want
to
thank
council,
member,
sandberg
and
rollo
for
introducing
this
amendment.
I
certainly
appreciate
the
idea
and
the
creativity
to
offer
an
incentive
for
affordable
housing.
As
everyone
knows,
this
is
a
very
important
issue
facing
bloomington
and
the
udo
does
have
voluntary
incentives.
K
Looking
at
the
merits
of
this
amendment,
only
staff
does
not
support
the
amendment.
Here
is
why
the
udo's,
affordable
housing
standards
are
based
on
incentives
where
a
maximum
of
85
percent
of
the
units
are
market
rate
and
a
minimum
of
15
percent
of
the
units
are
permanently
affordable
units.
The
trade-off
here
with
the
incentive
provides
a
means
to
increase
the
total
number
of
units
through
height
or
reduce
lot
size
and
setbacks
in
exchange
for
long-term
affordability,
the
theory
being
market
rate
units
subsidize
the
affordable
units,
I'm
cautiously
optimistic.
K
Our
incentives
have
established
the
right
criteria,
but
at
this
monday's
plan,
commission
meeting
trinitas
vendors
introduce
their
redevelopment
proposal
for
the
kmart
site.
It
has
proposed
340
units
906
bedrooms
at
this
time.
They
have
not
considered
either
the
affordable
housing
incentives
nor
the
sustainable
development
incentives.
K
K
Theoretically,
amendment
3,
it
was
just
a
past,
created
a
cap
and
buffer
in
theory.
If
this
was
such
a
good
idea,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
the
cap
and
buffer
may
hinder
future
affordable
units,
our
experience
with
low
income,
housing
tax
credit
projects,
the
request
for
information
for
the
corps,
administration,
building,
the
bloomington
housing
authority
and
other
housing
assistance
programs
through
hand
clearly
indicate
there
must
be
an
incentive,
and,
in
some
instance,
much
more
than
the
udo
may
offer
to
leverage
affordable
housing.
These
incentives
are
outside
the
udo.
K
I
asked
clarion
associates
the
consultant
who
assisted
us
with
the
udo
update
to
review
this
amendment.
They
provided
feedback
and
they
said
that
this
amendment
will
do
less
to
promote
both
the
variety
of
housing,
which
is
which
is
the
intent
of
the
duplex
amendment
and
to
create
affordable
units.
K
You
know,
I
think
again,
through
this
process,
there's
been
a
negotiated
compromise
to
reach
a
duplex
amendment
as
a
tool
that
will
slowly
broaden
bloomington's
housing
variety,
but
again
at
this
time.
I
I
don't
think
that
this
offers
any
incentive
for
affordability
and
staff
does
not
support
this
amendment.
I
would
like
to
give
ms
scanlon
an
opportunity
to
add
any
additional
comments
if
I
may,
but
thank
you.
N
Great,
thank
you
director,
robinson
yeah,
I'll,
just
reiterate,
planning
and
transportation
department
is
opposed
to
amendment
four,
as
we've
said
many
times
now.
The
purpose
of
adding
the
options
of
plexus
is
just
that
to
add
more
housing
type
options
for
people
living
in
bloomington.
N
This
amendment
was
written
under
the
assumption,
whether
intentional
or
not
that
the
duplex
units
will
be
rentals,
because
this
type
of
permanent
affordability
policy
alone
cannot
be
effectively
applied
to
home
ownership.
We
don't
want
these
units
to
be
limited
to
the
rental
option.
Only
the
amendment
ignores
a
large
swath
of
the
population,
who's
looking
for
missing
middle
housing
and
might
need
more
than
two
bedrooms.
The
amendment
excludes
many
families
with
children.
N
In
the
first
place,
investing
in
half
a
duplex
whose
sales
price
is
permanently
restricted
by
a
zoning
code
doesn't
make
sense,
even
if
it
did
we'd
be
telling
someone
who
barely
makes
or
is
below
our
area
median
income
that
sure
they
can
buy
property
in
our
neighborhoods,
but
they
can't
gain
the
equity
that
their
neighbors
can
permanent
affordability
with
no
companion
programming
won't
be
used
for
home
ownership.
It
will
be
used
for
rentals
if
anything
at
all.
This
is
similar,
as
director
robinson
said,
to
the
model
that
we
use
for
much
larger
scale
rental
developments.
N
Will
some
of
these
duplexes
end
up
being
rentals,
whether
they
are
affordable
or
not?
Yes,
we
also
need
to
leave
them
open
for
the
option
of
home
ownership
at
all
scales.
The
amendment
was
also
obviously
limits
the
ability
to
remodel
any
of
our
existing
units
that
have
two
bedrooms
or
more
on
each
side.
N
Echoing
director
robinson
council
has
already
voted
to
include
a
spacing
requirement.
It
also
has
a
time-based
requirement
and
they
have
included
an
annual
cap
of
15.
there's
also
dimensional
and
utility
restrictions
in
the
use,
specific
standards.
You
also
have
to
meet
with
your
neighborhood
association
and
go
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
for
approval.
There
are
12
430
parcels
in
the
proposed
r1,
r2
and
r3
zoning
districts.
There
is
a
maximum
of
15
duplex
approvals
a
year
allowed
under
the
current
draft.
N
That's
point
one
percent
of
the
parcels
in
these
districts
that
could
add
one
unit
over
what
people
typically
think
of
as
this
area,
which
is
single
family.
If
the
point
of
this
amendment
is
to
add
additional
regulations,
we
don't
need
it.
The
regulations
that
we
have
are
the
definition
of
incremental,
which
merriam-webster
defines
as
of
relating
to
being
or
occurring
in,
especially
small
increments.
N
If
the
point
of
this
amendment
is
to
increase
the
increase,
the
availability
of
affordable
housing,
it
isn't
going
to
do
that
either.
All
this
amendment
does,
whether
intentional
or
not,
is
further
limit
the
likelihood
that
duplexes
won't
be
built
and
because
of
that,
the
planning
transportation
department
does
oppose
the
amendment.
N
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
didn't
catch
her
in
times
I
was
miss
jacqueline
scanlan
of
planning
and
transportation.
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
ask
her
to
identify
herself
at
the
beginning,
so
thank
you.
Okay,
moving
back
to
council,
do
you
we
have
any
questions
for
the
authors
of
this
amendment
and
or
staff.
L
Well,
yes,
we
did,
I
mean
an
owner
who
wishes
to
convert
their
home
into
a
duplex?
Would
would
have
the
option
to
take
advantage
of
the
affordability
incentive
if
they
so
wished?.
M
But
how
would
they
guarantee
that
in
perpetuity
like,
I
just
don't
understand
how
that
would
work
and
who
would
track
that
that
in
perpetuity
they
would
have
to
rent
the
other
unit
or
sell
the
other
unit?
What
if
they
wanted
to
sell
the
other
half
of
their
duplex.
L
Until
and
of
course,
the
the
language
says
until
this
council
decides
to
make
a
change
here,
if
the
as
we're
approaching
much
of
what
we're
doing
here
with
respect
to
adding
duplexes
into
the
core,
I
think
we're
all
looking
at
this,
as
as
a
bit
of
an
experiment,
we're
not
100
sure
how
this
is
all
going
to
work
out.
We
just
felt
that
having
an
option
to
bring
in
lower
than
market
rates
for
duplexes
would
be
an
advantage
would
be
a
benefit
to
both.
C
Well,
I
I
just
want
to
remind
council
and
the
public
that
one
has
the
ability
to
plex
or
subdivide
your
home
and
it's
called
an
adu
and
it
that
applies
to
owner
occupancy,
so
that
option
already
exists.
M
That
is
the
size
of
the
adu
is
limited,
but
yeah.
Okay,.
L
And
then
it
would
need
to
be
deeded
as
two
separate
properties
to
sell
as
two
owner
occupied
units
is
what
we
have
been
informed
by
people
that
we
have
been
consulting
with
about
some
of
the
questions
that
we
anticipate
about.
You
know
how
various
considerations
will
be
will
be
met.
A
Here:
okay,
thank
you,
councilmember,
piedmont,
smith,
any
further
questions
from
council,
well,
council,
member
bowl
and
then
council,
member
smith
and
councilmember
smith.
I
will
remind
you,
I
can't
see
you
so
you'll,
be
after
council
member
voting.
Thank
you.
I
Yes,
I'd
like
to
ask
about
the
sponsors
have
have
either
of
you
consulted
with
anyone
who's
ever
built
a
house
or
a
duplex
in
bloomington.
When
creating
this
amendment.
L
Yes,
we
have
and
we're
hoping
that
many
of
them
are
on
the
the
call
here
today
and
we'll
also
be
able
to
participate
in
answering
some
of
these
questions
with
respect
to
many
of
them
feel
that
this
actually
does
allow
for
a
profit
to
be
made.
We're
not
attempting
to
with
this
proposal
to
limit
anyone's
ability
to
or
to
earn
income
off
of
converting
their
own
home
into
a
duplex
or
purchasing
a
a
home
for
the
purpose
of
converting
it
to
a
duplex.
L
I
Speaking
of
which,
just
to
be
clear,
councilman
rallo,
you
said
that
the
or
I'm
not
sure
which
of
you
was
who
said
that
this
provides
an
option,
but
I
mean
if
this
amendment
passes,
wouldn't
it
require
no
sorry,
it
would
be.
It
would
be
two
bedrooms
unless
they
okay,
I
follow
that
have
either
of
you
read
the
letter
from
dave
harstad
that
was
circular
this
afternoon.
L
Yes,
we
have-
and
we
actually
have
another
worked
up
pro
forma
from
how
this
particular
amendment
actually
could
be
profitable
for
someone
converting
a
home
into
a
duplex.
We
have
jan
sorby
on
the
line
here
tonight.
Who
could
speak
to
that?
We
also
have
kerry
thompson
on
the
line.
Who
can
speak
to
probably
questions
that
you
may
have
better
than
I
can?
Certainly,
but
yes,
we
have
been
consulting
with
a
lot
of
people
about
the
the
the
validity
of
this
amendment
and.
L
E
L
Well,
certainly,
we
we
respect
their
their
opposition
to
this
they've
certainly
provided
a
lot
of
information
that
we'll
all
take
into
consideration
as
tonight's
debate
continues,
but
once
again
this
is
not
a
new
program.
This
is
a
program
that
we
already
have
the
housing
incentive
program
that
has
worked
for
larger
apartment
complexes.
L
We
just
in
the
spirit
of
being
creative.
We
think
it's
time
to
try
to
use
this
tool
for
getting
more
leverage
for
affordable
housing
in
the
the
core
neighborhoods,
and
so
with
respect
to
everything
that
they
brought
forward.
We
would
just
like
to
counter
with
the
opportunity
to
have
a
public
discussion
on
why
not
use
tools
that
are
at
our
availability
to
do
our
level
best
to
bring
the
rents
down
in
in
some
of
these
newer,
newer
forms
of
housing
that
we
have
now
approved.
L
E
C
I'll
just
add
that
the
city
places
a
great
deal
of
emphasis
on
workforce
housing,
and
this
is
the
design
of
the
amendment.
You
know
I
mean
people
think
of
affordable,
as
section
eight.
This
is
this
is
not
this
is
this
is
affordable
for
workforce,
and
so
this
is
why
the
profit
possibility
is
still
there.
So
we
disagree
with
staff
regarding
that,
and
we
also
want
to
emphasize
that
this
is
one
tool.
This
is
not
an
exclusive
means.
C
L
And
again,
with
respect
to
us,
taking
a
look
at
this
in
six
months
and
reviewing
the
the
previous
amendment
that
we
passed
that
had
to
do
with
caps
and
and
spatial
requirements,
we
can
certainly
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
gather
more
data
if
this
serves
as
a
disincentive
or
if
this
is
certainly
not
a
disincentive.
L
Well,
then,
we
will
know
that
over
time
and
we
can
come
back
and
make
adjustments,
but
we
in
in
the
spirit
of
truly
providing
a
range
of
of
incomes
who
can
afford
to
rent
in
these
very
desirable
areas.
We
thought
it
was
worth
taking
the
the
chance
that
all
of
you
would
consider
both
the
pros
and
the
cons
and
and
decide.
This
might
be
a
good
thing
to
try.
L
We
already
have
this
program
in
place:
we're
not
inventing
a
new
program
to
provide
incentives
to
bring
those
rates
down
to
be
workforce
housing,
we're
not
talking
about
a
great
difference
in
perhaps
what
they
could
charge
at
the
market
rate,
but
enough
that
this
might
be
an
appealing
option
for
people
of
workforce
income.
Workforce
means
thank.
G
Sure,
following
up
on
on
the
reasoning
expressed
by
the
sponsors
that
we
already
have
this
program
in
place
and
they
think
it
makes
sense
to
apply
it
to
a
much
smaller
scale
than
what
the
program
allows
currently.
G
Would
the
amendment
sponsors
support
a
change
to
the
udo
to
set
a
two-bedroom
maximum
for
all
detached
single-family
homes,
with
the
option
to
have
more
than
two
bedrooms
for
a
detached
single
family
home?
Only
if
you
restrict
any
rental
or
future
sale
in
perpetuity
to
an
affordability
level
of
120
ami.
L
H
May
I
direct
a
question
to
ms
scanlon
or
mr
robinson
either
one
in
one
of
our
former
meetings
on
this
subject.
You
talked
about
owners
of
rental
properties
in
bloomington,
and
you
shared
a
percentage
of
rentals
that
are
owned
by
those
who
have
local,
bloomington
mailing
addresses
and
live
here,
and
you
differentiate.
What
was
that
percentage
again?
I.
N
Believe
it
was
about
67.
brian.
You
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
the
number,
what
the
number
was
that
was
total
and
then
the
number
of
that
was
total
and
then
the
ones
that
owned
between
one
and
five
was
slightly
lower.
N
No,
so
among
rental
properties
in
these
three
zoning
districts
for
the
address
is
listed
for
the
rental
properties.
A
certain
percentage,
roughly
67,
I
believe,
are
owned
by
people
whose
owner
address
is
bloomington
and
then
I
believe
it
was
somewhere
around.
50
percent
are
people
who
own
between
one
and
five
units,
so
small
scale.
Local
owners.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
I'll
ask
a
question
and
we'll
get
into
the
second
round.
I
think
what
I
just
heard
was:
one
of
the
sponsors
say
that
this
would
be
more
leverage
for
affordable
housing
in
the
core
neighborhoods,
and
I
also
thought
I
heard
that
this
is
not
for
section
eight
so
and
I'm
not
so
sure
what
that
means.
Does
that
mean
that's
not
for
some
of
the
lowest
level,
affordable
incomes
and
is
that
a
distinctive
disintervised
method
for
them.
L
Well,
president,
sims
in
researching
the
options
that
we
might
have
to
leverage
more
affordability
in
duplexes.
This
is
this
is
a
topic
that
we're
talking
about.
I
understand
from
our
legal
department
that
that
section
8
I
asked,
could
we
have
some?
You
know
something
in
the
udo
that
would
say
if
you're
going
to
do
a
duplex,
would
you
at
least
make
one
or
other
side
available
as
a
section
eight
that
is
part
of
what
is
presented
prevented
rather
by
the
indiana
general
assembly?
L
That
is
a
no
can
do
with
respect
to
inclusionary
zoning,
I
inquired
about
section
8..
So
this
was
our
attempt
using
the
120
ami
and
the
80
ami.
You
know,
120
being
more
considered
workforce
80
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
better
for
people
of
of
of
moderate
incomes
of
lower
moderate
incomes.
That
section
8
could
not
even
be
brought
into
this
equation
by
indiana
law.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
have
one
more
question.
If
I
may,
I
think
us
here
on
the
council
and
everyone's
pretty
much
aware
of
the
other
tools
that
were
mentioned
to
reach,
affordable
housing
or
more
affordable
housing.
A
L
Then,
as
time
went
on
and
and
that
assumption
was
challenged,
I
think
it
became
less
about
affordability
and
it
moved
into
other
things,
like
environmental
considerations
and
increasing
housing
stock,
just
in
general,
with
the
hope
that
that
would
drive
costs
down
at
some
future
point.
L
So
I
think
there
is
some
public
confusion
about
what
this
is
really
intended
to
do,
with
the
increased
density
in
already
dense
and
already
diversified
core
neighborhoods,
and
so
this
was
just
councilmember
rallos
in
my
earnest
attempt
to
because
we
we
are
very
much
in
favor
of
every
single
tool
in
our
toolbox
to
create
and
leverage
affordability.
L
It's
essential.
I
think
we
we
have
more
of
an
affordability
crisis
in
this
community
than
we
actually
do
a
housing
crisis
that
many
people
have
talked
about
here.
So
this
is
an
earnest
attempt
to
use
a
tool
in
our
toolbox
to
do
everything
we
possibly
can
to
maybe
allow
a
better
mix
of
incomes
that
would
be
able
to
afford
to
live
in
and
to
rent
duplexes
in
r1,
r2
and
r3.
L
M
The
council
member
sandberg
stressed
that
this
is
not
new,
that
we
already
have
affordability,
incentives
in
the
udo
to
apply
to
other
cases,
but
I
wanted
to
mention
a
couple
of
ways
in
which
this
is
very
different
and
and
just
get
some
feedback
from
the
sponsors
on
that.
M
First
of
all
this,
these
incentives
could
include
owner
owned,
owner-occupied
property
and
not
just
rental
property,
which
the
other,
the
other
incentives
are
are
just
about
rental
units
and
then
the
other
is
something
that
mr
robinson
mentioned,
that
in
the
the
case
of
the
other
incentives,
it's
15
of
units
expected
to
be
on
the
affordable
scale,
whereas
here
we're
asking
for
50
or
even
100
of
the
two
units.
So
in
in
that
respect,
I
see
this
as
very
different.
M
Could
you
address
those
two
differences
and
and
how
how
you
would
react
to
that?
Please.
L
Well,
clearly,
it
is
very
different
I
mean
is:
it
is
a
huge
difference
in
scale
from
a
large
multiplex
apartment,
building
to
what
we're
attempting
to
do
here
as
a
as
a
novel
entrance
into
core
neighborhoods,
adding
the
ability
to
convert
your
home
or
for
someone
else,
an
outside
investor,
to
take
a
single
family
home
and
convert
it
to
a
duplex
for
for
whatever
purposes
mostly,
we
anticipate,
they
will
be
rental
properties.
L
So,
of
course,
there's
a
difference
in
scale,
and
it's
interesting
that
we're
using
trinitas
as
the
example
I
you
know,
was
there
in
the
meeting
on
monday
and
heard
very
clearly
when
I
asked
the
petitioner
why
there
was
no
longer
any
affordability
component
to
the
project
and
of
course,
things
have
changed
in
the
three
years,
since
this
project
has
first
been
placed
on
the
table
for
consideration
and
in
large
part,
it
is
our
change
in
our
udo
and
they
have
decided
that
by
right
this.
L
This
is
not
a
pud
by
right,
they
can
build
what
they
want
to
build
and
they
don't
have
to
take
advantage
of
that.
Affordability,
incentive-
and
you
know
when
I
heard
that
my
my
heart
kind
of
fell
a
little
bit,
because
this
is
kind
of
what
happens
in
my
mind
when
you
deregulate,
when
you
you've
kind
of
removed
the
tools
that
you
have
to
do
anything
toward
affordability,
and
we
all
know
what
a
heavy
lift
that
is
and
for
them
now
to
say.
L
Well,
we
don't
have
to
because
we
can
do
the
project
we
want
to
do.
We
can
do
it
by
right.
We
really
don't
need
to
add
an
additional
floor
on
that
that
multi-family,
because
we
we
just
don't
want
that
incentive.
It's
not
worth
it
to
us,
and
I
think
these
are
some
of
the
problems
that
we're
trying
to
overcome
here
by
by
just
asserting
ourselves
in
the
public
sector
to
say
we
do
have
the
tool.
L
M
L
I
did
reach
out
to
john
zodie,
as
we
were
looking
into
you
know
all
the
pros
and
cons
and
and
and
and
working
through
some
of
this
he
he
was
tied
up
and
was
not
able
to
get
back
with
me
personally,
but
he
did
send
an
email,
so
I
know
that
they
have
also
staffed
this
with
the
planning
and
transportation
staff
with
mr
robertson
and
ms
scanlon.
They
they
may
have
some
concerns
about
how
how
to
adapt
this,
but
I
think
basically
it
is.
L
It
is
our
responsibility
on
this
council,
as
the
elected
body,
to
at
least
explore
the
possibilities
and
and
ask
them
to
adapt
their
current
formula
for
doing
the
workforce
housing
incentive
program
with
the
larger
multi
with
this
particular
element.
I
think
it's
something
I
would
expect
staff
to
be
willing
to
do
if
this
is
the
will
of
this
council
to
move
this
amendment
forward.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
so
the
trinitas
project
had
it
been
required
to
add
affordable
housing
at
15
percent
would
have
translated
to
roughly
52
units
or
136.
I
Affordable
bedrooms
have
that
that
would
they
would
have
had
to
build
how
many
units
or
bedrooms
do
you
imagine
will
be
built
as
a
result
of
amendment
four.
L
I
Okay,
well,
how
do
you
feel
about
the
data
collected
so
far
on
the
experiment?
That
is
the
adu
we
passed
that
four
years
ago.
Do
you
think
that
enough
have
been
built
too
many
been
built?
Not
enough
have
been
built?
What
do
you
think.
L
We
encourage
the
the
additions
of
adus.
We
think
that's
the
best
way
to
increase
density
in
r1,
r2
and
r3
in
terms
of
that
information.
Yes,
we
track
that
we
we
will
continue
to
track
that
and
encourage
that
as
a
way
for
homeowners
to
add
some
additional
income
to
their
mix.
I
Okay,
but
I
mean
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is:
do
you
think
that
the
result
from
the
ordinance
we
passed
resulted
in
adequate
numbers
for
adus.
L
I
think
some
will
say
not
and
one
of
the
things
we
may
examine
as
we
do
the
research
into
what
what
is
the
profitability
of
adus?
Is
it
just
too
expensive
to
add?
Why
are
people
not
taking
advantage
of
that?
I
think
that's
a
very
good
question.
I
do
not
have
the
answer
to
that
council
member
volun,
but
I
would
expect
that
over
time
we
will
all
track
these
trends
and
it
will
then
inform
our
decisions
going
forward.
L
C
Could
I
add
something
council
member
volunteer
just
that
you're
right?
We
have
the
expectation
that
trinitas
would
add,
affordable
housing,
they
will
not,
and
so
this
will
add
more
affordable
housing
than
trinitas,
which
is
zero.
So
this
is.
This
is
actually
a
means
to
do
it,
how
it
will
manifest
we'll
we'll
have
to
see
you
know
this
is
an
experiment
in
progress.
I
guess,
but
guaranteed
it'll
be
more
than
trinitized.
I
Well,
that's
obvious,
but
the
point
is
that
you
know:
if
we're
only
getting
volume
of
affordable
housing
from
the
largest
multi-family
projects
and
a
single
project
is
going
to
build
more
than
amendment
three
would
allow.
I
You
know
we've
we,
we
have
had
experience
in
the
past
with
large
multi-family
projects
that
have
built
or
donated
money
to
provide
substantially
more
housing
than
amendment
3
allows.
So
my
follow-up
question
to
staff
is,
if
I
have
it
correctly:
adus
were
originally
limited
to
30
units
and
that,
as
of
2021,
20
units
have
been
approved
or
built.
Is
that
correct.
N
I
N
N
I
know
sorry,
no
2019
2020.
N
I
did
that
earlier
today
it
was
changed
to
by
wright
and
then
recently
you
know
the
notice
requirement
was
removed.
So
originally
it
was
just
conditional
with
the
separation
and,
yes,
we
are
at
20
who
have
that
have
been.
N
Yes,
so
yes,
but
but
in
actuality,
it's
less
at
the
beginning
and
more
now.
H
Yes,
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
my
patient,
your
patience
with
my
questions
on
this.
So
just
so,
I
can
picture
this.
Let's
say
I
own
a
three
bedroom
home
in
some
neighborhood
and
my
elderly
parents
want
to
move
in,
and
I
want
to
plex
my
house
all
right.
The
affordability
incentives
are
not
particularly
important
to
me.
I
just
want
my
elderly
parents
to
have
a
unit
attached
to
my
home.
H
A
Okay,
see
none
councilman
repeat
mount
smith.
Sorry.
M
A
M
Minute
question,
so
I
wanted
to
ask
the
sponsors:
do
you
find
it
problematic
that
lower
income
owner
occupants
in
this
scenario
would
not
be
able
to
build
equity
through
home.
L
M
I
mean
if,
if
there
is
a
duplex
available,
either
through
somebody
creating
one
or
building
new
and
they
in
order
to
get
the
three
bedrooms
on
one
or
both
sides
of
the
duplex.
The
unit
that
is
for
sale
is
limited
in
afford.
It
must
be
maintained
as
affordable
in
perpetuity
and
then
a
family
buys
that
and
they
cannot
build
equity
because
they
cannot
sell
later
at
market
rate.
L
Right,
I
I
would
like
to
leave
this
question
up
and
I
really
wish
we
could
have
had
carrie
thompson
be
a
part
of
our
presentation,
because
I
think
she
can
speak
to
this,
probably
better
than
anyone.
She
does
have
some
clear
opinions
about
permanent
affordability
and
how
that
is
an
impairment
for
people
who
who
want
to
buy
a
home
and
want
to
have
equity
in
that
home,
and
so
that
is
a
very
legitimate
concern.
L
So
again
we
do
have
options
here
for
individuals
and
in
the
case
of
kind
of
these
exceptions
to
the
rules
you
know
I
would
I
would.
I
would
be
flexible
enough
to
to
grant
you
know
conditional
variances
on
things
that
don't
quite
fit
neatly
into
this
particular
amendment.
I
think
that's
what
the
bza
is
all
about
or
are
certainly
making
tweaks
along
the
way.
If
we
see
that
some
of
this
becomes
problematic
for
specific,
maybe
kind
of
unusual
requests
but
yeah.
L
I
hope
that
carrie
thompson
will
be
able
to
address
your
question
about
the
whole.
You
know
equity
issue.
N
May
I
respond
to
council
person,
piedmont
smith.
We
researched
this
question
as
well
with
the
current,
affordable
housing
staff
that
work
in
the
community
would
that
be
okay,
okay,.
N
So,
for
example,
the
model
of
habitat,
and
I'm
sure
mrs
thompson
will
correct
me
if
I
misrepresent
this
is
a
limited
number
of
years
that
the
mortgage
agreement
is
good
for
so
they
sell
a
property
to
a
family.
You
know
they
obviously
put
in
sweat,
equity
and
then,
if
the
family
goes
to
sell
that
property
in
most
cases,
habitat
buys
it
back
from
them
so
that
they
can
sell
it
at
market
and
make
equity
on
the
home.
N
Then
habitat
sells
it
to
another
family
at
a
limited
rate.
So,
obviously,
in
this
situation,
if
we
require
permanent
affordability
that
model
that
they
use,
they
won't
be
able
to
do
it,
so
they
won't
be
able
to
build
any
duplexes
in
these
districts
where
they
do
obviously
sometimes
build
housing.
There
are
options
for
permanent
affordability,
as
I
mentioned
in
my
in
my
little
introduction,
for
example,
shared
equity
models
related
to
land
trust,
but
that's
not
what
this
is.
N
So
this
will
not
get
at
those.
Additionally,
just
to
add,
we
can't
grant
variances
just
when
we
think
a
situation
or
a
person's
personal
characteristics
of
what's
going
on
at
their
house
is
okay.
It
could
be
an
adu
sue
sue
as
excuse
me,
as
council
persons,
scandilary
asked
you
could
do
an
adu.
Obviously,
then
your
mother
would
lose
the
opportunity
to
continue
to
gain
equity
because
you
can't
own
an
adu.
N
Only
the
person
owning
the
main
property
can
continue
to
generate
equity
in
an
adu
situation,
so
that
is
one
of
the
advantages,
obviously
to
duplexing,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
adus
are
size
limited
and
that
may
not
work
with
whatever
you
know.
Building
that
you
have
to
work
with.
Thank
you.
A
A
Please
indicate
your
intent
to
speak
publicly
by
using
the
raised
hand
function
in
zoom.
You
may
also
send
a
message
through
chat
to
our
meeting
host
requesting
to
be
allowed
to
make
public
comment.
Should
you
not
be
able
to
do
so
through
your
device?
A
Also,
if
there's
more
than
one
person
on
any
given
device,
we'd
appreciate
if
you
would
share
that
with
us,
so
that
we're
aware
of
it
and
have
an
opportunity
to
give
everyone
a
chance
to
speak
publicly,
and
I
think
that's
all.
R
S
Hey
thanks
so
much
I'm
a
obon
binder.
I
would
like
to
urge
the
council
to
please
vote
no
on
this
amendment.
I
really
don't
think
it's
being
introduced
in
good
faith
here
and
I
I
think
I
can
demonstrate
very
clearly
why
so,
first,
if,
if
it
were
being
introduced
in
good
faith,
it
would
have
been
introduced
a
while
ago,
it
would
have
been
introduced
first
instead
of
trying
to
ban
duplexes
completely.
But
that's
that's
not
what
happened.
S
Instead,
the
sponsors
attempted
to
ban
duplexes
completely
and
now
they're
falling
back
to
the
next
best
thing,
which
is
to
try
and
kill
duplexes
by
a
thousand
cuts.
You
know
they're
technically
allowed,
but
keep
piling
on
as
many
restrictions
as
possible.
It
kind
of
reminds
me
of
the
adu
situation
a
couple
of
years
ago.
S
The
second
is:
if
this
really
were-
and
I
think
council
member
member
flaherty
alluded
to
this
idea
earlier,
but
if,
if
this
were
actually
a
good
way
to
create
affordable
housing,
then
the
amendment
would
have
also
included
single-family
homes
as
well
as
duplexes.
S
If
this
is
such
a
good
idea,
then
the
the
amendment
sponsors
need
to
explain
in
detail
why
it
makes
sense
to
apply
this
restriction
to
duplexes,
but
not
to
single
family
homes.
I
mean
they're
similar
in
scale.
Similar
types
of
people
live
in
them.
Duplexes
and
single
family
homes
will
co-exist
in
the
same
neighborhoods.
So
what
is
the
difference?
Why
does
it
make
sense
for
the
two-bedroom
restriction
on
duplexes,
but
not
for
single-family
homes?
What
is
the
difference?
The
fact
of
the
matter
is,
there
is
no
difference.
S
T
T
One
of
the
reasons
that
works
so
well
for
larger
developments
is
that
they
are
only
required
to
have
15
or
7
7
and
a
half
percent
of
their
units
be
affordable
to
get
the
incentive,
so
most
of
their
units
are
still
lucrative
market
rate
units,
but
these
new
rules
for
duplexes
require
either
100
or
50
of
their
units
to
be
affordable.
This
isn't
going
to
work
while
duplex
development
is
competing
with
luxury
single-family
housing.
T
The
trouble
with
single-family
housing
when
prices
are
growing
so
quickly
is
that
it
incentivizes
developers
to
leave
lots
vacant
while
they
hold
out
for
the
highest
price.
Yes,
developers
are
making
money
either
way.
This
way
they
are
housing.
People
the
profit,
a
developer
can
make
from
a
modest
remodel
of
a
single-family
house
is
not
interesting
to
them.
It
is
irrelevant
compared
to
the
enormous
profit
they
can
make
from
remodeling
it
fully
into
a
luxury
house,
and
that
is
what
they
are
choosing
to
do
all
around
us,
but
a
duplex
incentivizes,
even
a
modest
remodel.
T
If
they
can
collect
rent
on
two
units,
they
can
profit,
even
if
each
of
those
units
is
too
small
to
be
considered
luxury.
Without
that
incentive,
the
modest
free
model
is
going
the
way
of
the
dodo
duplexes
make
for
relatively
low
market
rate
rents.
That's
the
magic
of
duplexes,
let's
not
screw
that
up
as
long
as
single-family
housing
is
allowed
to
accrue
market
rate
profits.
Amendment
4
will
just
discourage
any
developer
from
doing
anything
other
than
the
kind
of
luxury
single-family
remodel
that
we've
seen
so
much
of
lately.
T
U
U
I
I
think
trinitas
does
present
the
perfect
example
of
what
the
lack
of
oversight
involuntary
incentives
can
achieve,
which
is
zero
and
as
council
members,
rollo
and
sandberg
point
out
with
these
affordable
level
duplexes,
we
at
least
have
the
opportunity
to
produce
more
than
zero,
and
I
think
that
should
be
applauded.
U
Once
higher
discussion
came
out
about
the
lack
of
affordability
in
these
potential
duplexes
because
of
lack
of
afford
owner
occupancy
requirements
and
the
fact
that
they
would
be
built
at
market
rates,
with
no
incentives
that
it
became
clear
that
affordability
was
not
really
a
viable
topic
and
that
became
then
affordability
as
a
term
was
taken
off
the
table
by
the
administration
and
by
planning.
But
the
rest
of
us
are
still
talking
about
affordability,
and
I
think
that
is
important
in
our
neighborhood
of
prospect
hill.
Sorry,
my
name
is
richard
lewis.
U
I
probably
forgot
to
say
that
earlier
in
our
neighborhood
of
prospect,
hill
most
of
the
houses
around
us
are
single-story.
You
know
old,
queen
anne
cottages
or
or
early
craftsman
bungalows.
Our
our
house
has
only
two
bedrooms
in
it.
U
If
we
were
to
convert
to
a
duplex
chances
are
we
could
squeeze
another
bedroom
out
of
some
other
space
and
it
would
still
be
an
affordable
duplex
on
one
side,
you
know,
as
well
as
having
one
or
two
bedrooms
on
our
own
side,
so
I
think
this
could
actually
incentivize
homeowners
to
create
modest
duplexes
out
of
their
existing
homes,
so
that
we
are
still
encouraging
home
ownership
and
yet
also
increasing
options
for
for
renters
and
for
others
in
the
community.
We
do
have
a
long
term
stable
rental
market.
U
Here,
it's
not
just
student
rentals,
which
tend
to
gravitate
toward
the
market
rates.
My
husband
was
a
long
time
renter
in
this
town.
Before
we
were
able
to
buy
a
house
in
our
mid
40s,
he
rented
for
nearly
30
years,
and
he
is
one
of
those
that
is
looking
for,
affordable
rental
opportunities
in
the
core
neighborhoods
close
to
downtown
that's
walkable
for
him.
U
So
I
would
suggest
that
this
actually
fulfills
several
goals
and
since
planning
staff
started
saying
once
the
affordability
talk
was
dropped
on
the
part
of
the
administration.
That
duplexes
were
just
one
of
the
tools
in
our
toolbox.
I
would
agree,
and
now
they
could
become
an
affordable
tool
in
our
toolbox,
and
if
I
have
30
seconds
left,
I
will
say
I'm
getting
tired
of
people
impugning
motives.
The
proplex
people
continually
assault
folks
who
have
their
reservations,
and
once
we
start
talking
about
affordability,
they
say
well.
A
You're
welcome.
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
Who
do
we
have
next
miss
lacey,
but
before
we
do
that,
I'd
like
to
remind
the
public
that
these
are
public
comments
on
amendment
number,
four
of
ordinance
21-23,
and
I
would
also
ask
everyone
to
please
identify
yourself
when
you've
been
recognized
to
speak.
Thank
you
who
do
we
have
next
miss
lacy.
V
Hi
yeah,
my
name
is
sarah
k.
Helene.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
thanks
for
the
planning
department
for
pointing
out
that
covenants
on
affordable
housing
is
not
appealing
as
a
person
who
used
programs
for
affordable
housing.
V
When
discussing
this
issue,
the
classism
is
astonishing,
but
then
I
realized
that
we
as
a
community
have
been
living
with
a
poverty
rate
of
37
to
40
percent
for
children
under
five
for
at
a
minimum
for
the
last
seven
years,
a
community
who
doesn't
sound
the
alarm
bells
at
this
astonishing
rate
of
poverty
for
our
youngest
members
has
a
serious
problem
and
that
problem
is
classism.
V
This
classism
is
playing
itself
out
in
full
view
now,
but
will
it
even
matter
when
half
of
the
community
refuses
to
see
what
is
right
in
front
of
them
refuses
to
see
the
evidence
of
this
reality?
What
are
we
really
saying
when
big
developers
are
going
when
we
say
big
developers
are
going
to
destroy
our
neighborhoods?
The
big
developers
are
not
going
to
be
living
there
themselves
so
who
will
be
living
there?
Obviously,
in
this
community
it
will
be
students,
along
with
other
renters,
who
are
these
renters?
V
They
are
students,
they
are
the
students
that
pay
the
salaries
of
more
than
I
imagine
half
of
the
people
at
any
city
council
meeting.
They
are
also
local
professionals
who
run
our
non-profits,
who
are
staff
members
at
iu.
Work
at
our
library
serve
our
coffee
bag.
Our
groceries
put
out
our
fires,
teach
our
children
and
everything
else
that
is
good
about
this
community.
V
So
is
this
what
we
are
saying?
We
do
not
wish
to
intermingle
with
the
students
that
make
bloomington
different
from
every
small
town
in
southern
indiana,
the
students
that
pay
the
salaries
of
the
homeowners
in
our
core
neighborhoods,
the
person
who
serves
you
dinner
at
your
local
restaurant,
maybe
you're
thinking.
I
would
like
to
live
next
to
all
of
these
community
members
you're
thinking
of
the
other
kind,
the
kind
that
leave
needles
in
the
neighborhood,
the
kind
who
leave
cups
in
their
yard,
the
kind
who
make
a
lot
of
noise.
V
Well
guess
what
these
are,
the
same:
people,
the
same
students,
the
same
non-profit
professionals,
the
same
firefighters,
the
same
baristas,
the
same
grocery
store
employees,
the
same
renters
so
maybe
take
a
minute
to
think
about
who
is
going
to
be
living
next
to
you
and
who
you
are
claiming
is
going
to
destroy
your
neighborhood,
because
it
will
never
be
the
big
developer
and
it
will
always
be
a
person
who
makes
bloomington
special
and
unique.
Please
vote
no
on
amendment
4.
Thank
you.
A
J
I
comment
tonight
asking
that
council,
please
vote
against
amendment
4
for
several
reasons,
all
of
which
relate
to
the
fact
that
while
this
is
well-intentioned,
it
adds
yet
another
layer
of
complexity
that
will
likely
just
lead
to
fewer
homes
being
added
at
a
time
when,
when
more
homes
are
so
necessary.
J
I
think
most
reasonable
people
would
agree
that
it's
unfair,
that
someone
can
build
a
six
thousand
square
foot
detached
single
family
home
with
five
bedrooms
and
six
bathrooms
by
right
without
any
affordability
requirement.
But
someone
who
wants
to
convert
their
home
into
a
duplex
has
to
go
through
a
lot
of
hoops
and
then
can
still
only
have
two
bedrooms
aside
that
home
by
the
way
that
five
five
bedroom
six
bath
home,
it's
in
the
somax
neighborhood.
It
was
listed
at
1.2
million
dollars
and
sold
in
mid-march
for
1.7
million
dollars.
J
Again
we
allow
these
homes,
those
homes
and
many
other
single-family
super-sized
flips
buy
right,
but
not
more
naturally
affordable,
housing
types,
despite
being
in
the
middle
of
a
severe
housing
affordability
crisis.
J
There
is
no
free
lunch
when
it
comes
to
affordable
housing
and
there
are
much
better
ways
to
promote
affordable
housing
than
this
well-intentioned,
but
ineffective
amendment.
The
most
unaffordable
home
is
the
home.
That's
never
built
as
a
scarcity
of
homes
drives.
The
prices
and
rents
of
existing
homes
up
homes
that
don't
exist
also
cannot
be
subsidized
using
dow
payment
assistance,
programs,
direct
rental
subsidies
or
existing
rental
subsidies.
J
Like
section
8
housing
choice
vouchers,
it's
also
important
to
note
that,
while
I
agree
with
those
saying
we
should
use
more
public
money
for
programs
like
rental
subsidies
and
missing
middle
housing
down
payment
assistance,
those
actions
have
to
be
balanced
by
increases
in
the
supply
of
homes
across
market
segments.
Otherwise,
that
demand
side
assistance
will
just
continue.
Putting
upward
pressure
on
home
prices
and
rents
and
subsidies
also
require
tax
revenue
revenue.
J
W
Hi,
my
name
is
jessica
griffin.
I
like
to
ask
council
to
vote
no
on
this
amendment.
It
doesn't
really
seem
to
be
so
much
about
affordability,
so
much
as
it
is
about
just
further
restricting
for
further
putting
restrictions
on
duplexes
by
limiting
the
number
of
bedrooms,
I
don't
think
the
outcomes
are
really
going
to
be
what
we
expect
or
what
we
would
hope
for
with
this.
W
I
also
like
to
point
out
that,
at
least
in
quite
a
lot
of
lots
in
the
core
neighborhoods
walkable
neighborhoods,
the
lots
are
probably
small
enough
anyway,
that
you
wouldn't
may
not
put
to
more
than
two
bedrooms
on
each
side
of
a
duplex,
and
so
then
we
are
still
ending
up
with
not
having
affordable
units
in
these
areas
that
are
in
high
demand.
So
I
hope
that
council
can
vote
no
and
then
consider
some
other
affordable
options
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
X
X
While
I'm
sure
the
incentives
for
a
third
bedroom
are
well-intentioned,
they
are
misguided
on
several
fronts,
but
all
speak
to
two
financial
viability
and
administrative
burden
of
compliance.
This
amendment
is
not
financially
viable.
It
costs
more
to
build
a
third
bedroom,
but
with
the
income
targets,
the
unit
would
likely
have
to
rent
or
sell
at
the
same
or
probably
lower
price
than
a
two-bedroom
unit.
X
Y
Y
A
few
of
the
comp
plan
goals
that
were
cited
then
are
to
encourage
a
wide
range
of
housing
types
to
provide
a
more
diverse
mix
of
housing,
opportunities
and
household
income
levels,
preferably
within
neighborhoods
and
multi-family.
Housing
developments
continue
to
support
and
promote
affordable
housing
ownership
as
another
method
of
permanent
affordability
that
can
lead
to
that
can
help
to
raise
and
keep
residents
from
poverty
while
they
build
equity
and
security
in
the
local
community.
Y
Y
Y
Additionally,
many
people
who
work
in
the
not-for-profit
groups
retire
with
very
deficient
retirement
benefits
in
america.
This
may
be
you
I'm
talking
about.
Regardless
of
the
situation.
There
are
millions
of
reasons
for
giving
a
helping
hand
to
workforce
residents.
I
urge
you
to
vote
for
this
amendment.
I
hope
we
can
deliver
affordable
housing
to
all
the
people
we
have
heard
from,
and
maybe
this
amendment
can
serve
sincerely.
I
believe
this
as
a
start
in
healing
for
our
community.
Thank
you.
Y
Z
Yes,
hi
it's
peter
dorfman
from
the
near
west
side
once
again
we're
having
a
conversation
that
everyone
believes
is
about
housing,
but
it
isn't.
This
is
a
conversation
about
real
estate
and
the
real
estate
reality
is
and
when
I
say
the
real
estate
reality,
I
read
the
trade
press
of
the
real
estate
industry.
Z
Z
Nobody
in
the
real
estate
industry,
at
least
in
its
mainstream,
is
going
to
be
coming
to
bloomington
to
build
duplexes
for
sale
as
as
owner-occupied
units.
This
is
all
about
rentals,
and
I
I
I
think
when
we
talk
about
the
rental
affordability
in
bloomington
every
time
we
have
one
of
these
discussions
and
we
try
to
nail
down
what
the
intention
actually
is.
Z
Z
AA
Rents
would
still
be
what
the
market
would
bear.
Now,
with
amendment
four,
we
are
finally
discussing
real
ways
of
obtaining
affordability
and
inclusiveness
without
violating
indiana
state
law.
This
would
be
just
a
beginning.
Other
suggestions
made,
for
example,
by
kerry
thompson,
draft
comprehensive
implementation
for
city's
housing
study
from
220.
AA
It
also
included
the
village
center
plan
proposed
by
barry
clapper
and
jim
rosenberger
use.
The
down
payment
assistant
fund
from
housing
development
fund
cite
new
higher
density
developments
to
fit
our
growing
population,
promote
adus
throughout
the
city.
I
wholeheartedly
support
amendment
4
as
a
real
way
of
creating
all
the
things
that
this
community
wants
inclusivity,
equity
and
affordability,
while
in
some
small
way
protecting
the
corps
from
unbridled
upzoning
with
no
controls.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
your
comment
again,
I'd
like
to
remind
the
public
that
we
are
speaking
now
on
amendment
4
of
ordinance
21-23.
A
Please
identify
yourself
when
you've
been
recognized
to
speak.
If
you
wish
to
indicate
your
intent
to
speak,
you
can
use
the
raised
hand
function
in
zoom
or
you
can
send
our
meeting
host
a
note
through
be
a
chat
to
indicate
that
you
wish
to
speak
in
public
okay.
Thank
you,
miss
lacey.
Who
else
do
we
have.
AB
AB
But
I
would
absolutely
in
no
way
reject
it
because
of
some
potential
tweaking
of
it.
Its
intentions
are
exceptionally
good
and
it
it
tries
to
overcome
what
I
see
as
way
too
much
hypocrisy
on
the
part
of
people
in
the
planning,
commission,
department
and
administration.
AB
A
AC
Out
to
your
microphone,
thank
you.
I
would.
I
would
urge
you
to
please
vote
for
amendment
four.
You
know
supply
and
demand
really
doesn't
work
with
the
housing
market
in
bloomington,
for
as
long
as
I've
lived
here,
which
is
29
years.
When
I
came
here,
I
was
astonished
at
the
housing
crisis.
This
has
been
a
long-term
issue
in
bloomington
and
it
hasn't
really
been
dealt
with.
AC
AC
A
bit
of
personal
experience,
I
ran
a
small
department
at
iu
for
a
number
of
years.
I
am
retired
now,
so
I'm
not
in
charge
of
that.
But
when
I
did,
I
had
a
small
staff.
They
were
all
middle
level,
clerical
staff,
two
of
my
staff
lived
out
of
the
county
because
they
couldn't
afford
to
pay
bloomington
rents,
another
staff
member
lived
at
the
city
for
fringes
because
that's
what
is
affordable
to
him
and
his
family.
AC
I
truly
believe
that
we
have
more
of
an
affordability
crisis
here
than
not,
and
then
lastly,
I've
sat
on
the
bloomington
housing
authority
board.
First
for
two
terms
and
one
of
the
things
that
came
home
to
me,
there
is
how
difficult
it
is
for
families,
even
with
housing
vouchers,
to
find
something
that
they
can
afford
to
live
in.
AC
R
Next,
we
have
a
person
with
a
screen
named
tim
and
jenny
and
it's
not
clear
to
me
whether
it's
one
or
two
people
who
will
speak.
They
should
be
able
to
unmute.
AD
Hello
council:
this
is
jenny,
southern
I'm,
the
one
that
will
be
speaking.
I
thought
I
should
go
forward
and
support
amendment
four.
Why
I
support
amendment
four
is
because
it
kind
of
represents
my
house.
I
live
in
a
duplex.
I
live
in
the
core
neighborhood,
so
I'm
a
very
good
example
of
what
it
can
or
can't
do
we
rent
an
apartment
in
our
basement.
It
is
a
legal
duplex.
They
actually
even
have
a
different
house
numbers.
AD
AD
AD
It
also
helps
us
pay
insurance
for
our
home,
so
if
people
are
thinking
that
even
with
a
duplex
that
they're
going
to
make
a
lot
of
cash
and
be
homeowners
on
the
other
side,
this
is
not
true.
It
can
help
you
out,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
your
only
business.
It's
not
going
to
make
you
a
profit
now,
if
you
talk
about
two
families
living
in
my
home
and
owning
this
right
now,
I
believe,
that's
impossible.
AD
I
don't
think
I
could
sell
my
basement.
I
don't
think
I
could
sell
the
other
side
of
my
house
if
it
was
split
down
in
the
middle.
You
can't
do
that
legally
in
bloomington
in
the
neighborhoods,
it's
called
subdividing
and
you
can't
subdivide
your
lot
now.
Other
people
have
thought
of
this
already
and
found
a
cure
for
that.
AD
I
might
have
missed
that,
but
I
I
like
the
dream
of
two
home
owners
living
on
two
sides
of
the
duplex,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
that's
pie
in
the
sky,
unless
it's
a
dress
that
you
can
legally
subdivide,
otherwise
no
one
will
ever
be
able
to
sell
their
half
okay.
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
I
encourage
the
council
to
keep
looking
for
more
affordable
housing
options.
Thank
you.
R
AE
Sweet
okay,
so
the
first
thing
I
wanted
to
say
is
to
vote
no
to
this
amendment
for
and
also
I
want
to
reinforce
what
the
staff
has
already
said.
I
I
was
going
to
say
a
lot
of
stuff.
They
said
so
thank
you
for
saying
it
even
much
better.
I
also
want
to
address
this
affordability.
Word
affordability.
AE
I
mean
semantically,
it's
important
because
we
do
have
shortened
it
to
affordability,
the
thought,
but
it's
really
about
reducing
the
cost
of
housing
overall
by
generating
enough
housing
in
bloomington.
So
it's
not
about
creating
affordable
houses
in
specific
neighborhoods.
It's
it's
affordability
overall,
and
I
just
while
we
were
well,
you
guys
were
all
sharing
your
information.
I
did
some
quick
research
and
numbers
and
I
got
a
lot
of
numbers
in
front
of
me.
AE
So
the
last
time
I
looked
at
that
which
I
admit
is
now
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
the
median
income
in
bloomington
for
four
people
was
55
000.
AE
And
so,
when
you
talk
about
eighty
percent
of
that,
that
means
we're
talking
about
housing
for
a
household.
Now
that
has
a
median
income
of
forty
four
thousand
dollars
because
that's
eighty
percent
of
the
fifty
five
thousand
dollars.
AE
So,
first
of
all,
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
which
is
not
the
same
as
section
eight,
because
section
eight
is
a
lower
threshold
and
and
frankly
I
don't
have
that
information
in
front
of
me,
but
it's
lower
than
that.
AE
So
the
incentives
that
sandberg
and
rollo
are
talking
about
are
the
affordability
that
I
just
mentioned,
which
is
80
of
55
000
for
a
four
person.
So
let's
say,
and
then
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
adu
issue
in
that
regard,
because
an
adu
can't
be
more
than
104,
I'm
sorry
840
square
feet
and
it
can't
be
more
than
two
bedrooms.
AE
So
if
you
do
some
quick
math
to
build
an
adu
onto
your
house
right
now
at
175
dollars
per
square
foot,
which
is
the
going
square
foot
that
and
that
ends
up
costing
you
147
000.
AE
D
All
right,
thank
you.
My
name
is
dave
weaver
yeah
from
listening
to
the
the
amendment
and
thinking
about
what
it
has
in
it.
It
comes
across
really
as
lazy
as
it
is
disingenuous.
A
D
Well,
to
build
on
what
pam
was
saying:
the
whole
notion
of
buying
of
building
more
affordable
housing,
in
my
mind,
has
more
to
do
with
who
might
be
able
to
afford
something.
And
so
again,
if
you
build
out
a
build,
a
house,
a
2500
square
foot
structure
that
could
cost
you
400,
grand
but
and
one
family
might
be
able
to
afford
a
400
000
house.
D
But
if
you
talk
about
teachers
and
firefighters
and
staff
members
etc,
that's
probably
out
of
reach,
but
the
same
structure
with
the
same
square
footage
in
two
pieces
in
a
duplex,
each
half
would
be
roughly
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
that
is
well
within
the
reach
of
a
firefighter
or
a
teacher
or
a
couple
of
young
professors
etc.
So
to
me,
the
the
duplex
is
a
great
solution
to
the
home
ownership
issues
to
density
issues,
and
I
am
a
big
fan,
but
definitely
vote
no
on
amendment
4..
Thank
you.
R
Next,
we
have
chris
sterbaum
who,
who
has
asked
me
to
share
a
screen,
and
mr
sterbaum
should
be
able
to
unmute.
AF
Yes,
let's
just
get
to
the
picture,
what
the
picture
shows
is
really
how
do
chris
durbaum?
What
the
picture
shows
is
how
duplexing
really
happens
and
how
upzoning
really
happens
in
bloomington.
You
can't
build
new,
that's
not
going
to
happen,
you're,
not
going
to
add
giant
editions
on
the
side.
You'll
you'll
just
add
to
the
what
you've
got,
and
this
is.
This
is
an
example
in
green
acres,
and
this
is
what
we
can
expect
to
see
in
our
community.
Please
next
picture.
AF
AF
Here's
here's
one
for
five
thousand,
seven
hundred
fifty
dollars
a
month
next
picture.
Please
then
I
thought,
let's
think
about
what
five
thousand
a
month
actually
buys.
Now
you
can
go
through
these
pretty
fast
here's
an
apartment
in
new
york
that
you
can
get
for
five
thousand
a
month.
Really
nice
keep
going.
Please
636
square
foot,
here's
a
nice
condo
in
miami
beach
for
about
five
thousand
dollars.
AF
AF
AF
That
is
very,
very
profitable
and,
let's
be
honest,
social
equity
and
affordability
have
been
held
out
as
a
promise
from
the
beginning
of
this
upzoning
back
in
2019.
Could
we
just
leave
it
on
one
of
these
pictures?
Please
2019
people
were
yelling,
affordable,
affordable
and
we've
heard
from
tears.
We've
heard
cinnamon's
tearful
testimony,
but
they
still
believe
this
is
going
to
be
affordable.
AF
AF
AF
R
E
AG
I'm
sorry
if
I
can
go
not
right
now,
but.
AG
Q
Hi
everyone,
thanks
for
for
everything
that
you're
doing
and
everything
you're
trying
to
do,
and
I
think
by
now
you
know
me
that
I'm
kind
of
a
disambiguator
and
I
look
at
numbers
and
I
try
to
get
through
kind
of
the
talk
and
the
the
hoopla
that
surrounds
all
these
issues
and
in
some
of
the
data
that
I've
been
disambiguating.
Q
I
think
the
city
could
do
well
to
kind
of
encourage
the
university
to
either
provide
affordable
housing
to
some
of
its
employees
in
those
594
homes
surrounding
the
university
or
that
they
could
be
encouraged
to
sell
so
that
a
young
family
or
a
older
family
could
buy
something
and
contribute
to
the
tax
base.
I
know
that
people
on
the
city
council
have
regular
communications
with
people
at
the
university.
Q
Some
people
actually
work
there
and
the
mayor's
in
regular
communication
with
the
university,
but
we
have
quite
a
bit
of
university
sprawl
and
in
lieu
of
like
a
lot
of
the
discussions,
I
think
we
really
need
to
look
this
straight
in
the
eye
and
say
if
we
want
to
increase
the
property
tax
base.
Perhaps
the
university
either
needs
to
give
up
some
of
its
property
holdings
so
that
contributing
taxpayers
could
live
there
or
perhaps
it's
time
to
have
a
healthy
discussion
about
the
university
becoming
its
own
municipality.
R
AH
AH
Thank
you
so
again.
The
name
is
john
lawrence
from
bryant
park
in
order
to
address
the
the
idea
that
creating
a
duplex
sooner
if
it's
not
affordable,
using
this
amendment
for
and
by
the
way,
I
totally
support
amendment
form.
I
thought
I'd
go
through
this
pro
forma
months
ago,
when
duplexes
came
up,
my
wife
and
I
started
looking
at
the
house,
our
house,
that
we
live
in
and
brian
park
and
saying
well,
could
we
make
this
a
duplex,
not
that
we
wanted
to
make
it
a
duplex?
AH
But
if
we
could
do
our
house,
someone
else
could,
because
we
live
in
a
fairly
standard
sized
house.
So
we
started
in
our
minds
drawing
walls.
Where
would
the
kitchen
go?
Where
do
the
bathroom
go
and
it
was
fairly
easy,
and
so
we
talked
to
some
architect,
friends
and
we
came
up
with
a
financial
pro
forma
of
what
it
would
cost
and
here
on
the
screen
is
sort
of
what
we
came
up
with,
which
I
think
is
something
that
a
a
typical
person
and
a
neighbor
could
do.
So.
AH
AH
Five
thousand.
We
figure
maintenance
of
about
four
thousand
a
year
working
on
a
one
percent
idea
of
our
value
of
our
house
and
a
loan
payment
would
be
about
five
little
over
five
thousand
dollars
coming
up
to
a
little
over
fourteen
thousand
dollars.
So
using
the
two
affordable
scenarios
in
the
amendment,
the
first
one
is
scenario:
one
is
one
market
rate
unit
with
three
bedrooms
and
another.
AH
Eighty
percent,
hud
ami
based
on
750
bedroom
you've
got
27
000
a
year
for
the
market
rate
unit
and
18
000
for
the
80
hud
emi
coming
up
with
a
net
annual
income
of
thirty
thousand
nine
hundred
dollars
a
year.
If
you
do
scenario,
two
with
two
hundred
twenty
percent
hud
ami
units,
each
charging,
twenty
two
hundred
a
month
based
on
hud
scenarios,
you're
creating
twenty
six
thousand
four
hundred
dollars
per
unit
or
that's
52
000
per
year
for
a
net
annual
income
of
38
000.
AH
AG
AG
Let's
acknowledge
that
this
amendment
is
a
mitigation
step,
an
invitation
to
populations
currently
priced
out
of
our
core
neighborhoods
to
live
in
the
heart
of
our
city,
a
welcome
mat
for
those
who
feel
excluded.
It
is
not
an
answer
in
and
of
itself,
but
it
will
develop
some
inclusion
in
our
city's
core.
AG
AG
I
know
this
because
I
was
the
signator
and
accountable
party
for
those
for
20
years.
Second,
these
restrictions
do
not
restrict
sales
or
rental
prices,
and
a
developer
can
easily
secure
very
close
to
market
rate.
On
these
rentals.
I
would
agree
that
there
are
challenges
to
permanent
affordability
in
low-income
properties,
however,
for
home
ownership.
However,
these
are
workforce,
targeted
properties
at
a
higher
income
level
and
would
be
less
restricted.
AG
Next,
I'd
like
to
correct
the
analysis
of
an
elderly
couple
in
a
three-bedroom
home
that
wants
to
divide
it
that
would
be
allowable
in
a
two-bedroom
one-bedroom
duplex.
Finally,
these
units
will
make
a
profit.
Twenty
two
hundred
dollars
is
a
healthy
rent
and
it
will
rise
with
the
wages
in
bloomington.
AG
AI
Hey,
okay,
the
mayor
has
repeatedly
called
this
up
zoning
a
way
to
address
affordability.
He
did
this
in
his
asked
the
mayor
column
and
all
of
his
press
releases.
However,
when
it
was
shown,
this
argument
could
not
be
supported.
It
conveniently
shifted
to
the
need
for
density
to
eventually
create
more
affordable
housing
through
a
trickle-down
mechanism,
and
we
all
know
trickle-down
theories,
rare
rarely
work
think
reaganomics.
It
works
for
the
elite,
it
doesn't
trickle
down.
AI
AI
AI
What
would
do
that
is
to
keep
the
core
neighborhoods
as
they
are,
with
the
preferred
type
of
single-family
housing
which
no
matter
what
has
been
said
is
absolutely
the
preference
of
most
people,
but
that's
kind
of
water
under
the
bridge.
It's
too
it's
too
bad.
The
council
and
administration
have
now
removed
them
from
our
precious
and
limited,
affordable,
single
housing
stock,
but
it's
done,
but
this
amendment
can
at
least
start
to
work
to
leverage
getting
more
affordable
housing
into
our
core
neighborhoods.
AI
As
the
sponsors
say,
the
sponsors
say
it
is
but
one
tool,
but
we
should
embrace
it
as
the
the
duplex
owner
who
just
spoke.
A
few
speakers
back
told
us
through
her
experience
as
an
owner
of
one
of
these
units.
They
will
not
enable
home
ownership,
and
I
think
that
was
also
pointed
out
by
some
other
other
people,
like
chris
sterbaum,
really
what
happens
when
we
upzone,
and
it's
kind
of
it's
kind
of
strange,
that
out
of
the
blue.
AI
Now
we
had
home
ownership
being
voiced
as
a
real
concern
by
planning
tonight,
but
be
that
a
as
it
may.
We
all
know
that
ship
has
sailed.
These
will
not
be
owned,
they
will
be
rented,
so
we're
really
talking
about
rentals
and
and
a
way
to
make
them
more
affordable.
AI
And
so,
therefore,
I
would
just
like
to
encourage
you
all
to
please
support
this
amendment
and
vote
for
amendment
four.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments
before
we
go
to
our
next
person.
I
do
just
want
to
remind
the
public
that
you
can
use
the
raised
hand
function
in
zoom,
so
the
to
indicate
that
you
want
to
speak
publicly
or
you
may
send
a
message
through
the
chat
function
to
our
meeting
host.
If
your
intent
or
to
let
her
know
your
intent,
is
to
speak
publicly,
we
also
have
three
minutes
so
who
do
we
have
next
miss
lacey.
AJ
AJ
AK
Thank
you,
hello.
I
am
orien
day
and
I've
spoken
before
at
these
council
meetings
about
plexus.
AK
As
someone
who
is
currently
officially
homeless,
I
had
a
full-time
professional
staff
position
with
university,
where
I
could
barely
afford
rent
and
utilities
in
this
city
and
was
in
a
large
apartment
complex
that
is
old.
It
was
built
many
decades
ago
and
was
in
is
in
dire
need
of
renovations
when
that
is
the
only
option
that
is
available
to
me
as
a
single
person,
where
I
don't
have
friends
who
could
have
a
roommate
really,
what
is
facing
me
is
either
moving
away
or
finding
random
roommates.
AK
So
that's
sort
of
the
state
of
housing
options
that
I
faced
last
summer.
Also
in
the
middle
of
a
pandemic,
I
elected
to
put
all
of
my
things
in
storage
and
go
on
a
trip,
because
I
had
never
been
to
the
west
before
so.
One
can
say
I
had
a
benefit
from
being
homeless.
While
I
still
had
a
job
when
I
returned
to
bloomington.
AK
Of
course
nothing
had
changed
over
four
months,
because
this
is
a
very
long
process
not
just
for
debating
this,
but
for
having
more
options.
Plexus
are
not
something
that's
going
to
make
housing
affordable
overnight.
This
is
going
to
be
years
of
work
to
increase
the
housing
stock
available
in
bloomington.
It
is
not
going
to
benefit
me
in
any
near
term,
and
that's
one
of
the
main
reasons
why
I'm
looking
to
move
elsewhere.
So
there
is
something
of
a
brain
drain
in
bloomington.
AK
AK
AK
AL
Hello,
this
is
wendy
brisht
from
em
heights.
First
thing,
I'm
gonna
do
so
I
don't
run
out
of
time
is.
I
would
like
to
address
mr
sims
when
I
say
that
rental
costs
don't
go
down
with
more
rental
housing
supply.
This
is
something
I
learned
during
the
years
I
was
living
in
california.
AL
This
has
never
worked
and
they
never
have.
On
the
contrary,
did
rents
go
down
when
thousands
of
homes
were
dumped
on
the
market?
After
the
2008
crash
and
home
prices
were
cut
by
half
or
more
and
houses
were
sitting
empty?
No,
they
didn't.
They
went
up
all
over
the
country
because
when
investors
bought
up
the
homes
they
removed
the
competition
of
cheaper
mortgages
and
they
raised
the
rents,
the
more
housing
they
own
and
control
the
higher
the
rents
go
and
the
higher
the
rents
go.
The
higher
the
housing
prices
go,
the
tail
wags,
the
dog.
AL
There
is
an
epic
influx
of
rental
investors.
All
over
the
country.
Building
to
rent
a
mortgage
on
the
single-family
home
is
still
the
cheapest
housing
in
bloomington,
with
the
exception
of
small
rental
apartments.
Duplex
rental
bedrooms
are
every
bit
as
expensive
in
elm
heights
as
single
family
home
rental
bedrooms.
It
makes
no
difference
and
they're
all
inhabited
by
students
because
they're
so
expensive.
AL
I
I
I
don't
understand
why.
Council
members
say
they
want
more
expensive
rental
housing.
We
have
plenty
of
expensive
rental
housing.
We
have
rental
housing,
that's
not
renting.
Now,
because
it's
too
expensive
there
are
three
bedroom
multiplexes
renting
for
fifteen
hundred
dollars
down
in
the
south
side
of
town
and
they
can't
rent
them.
AL
They
say
that
market
forces
should
be
able
to
dictate
development,
but
mr
sturbaum
showed
you
the
results
of
that
in
my
neighborhood
so
so
to
to
to
you
know,
to
expect
any
of
this
to
be
affordable
without
any
without
amendment
four
is
is
just
not
is
not
right
and
to
expect
it
to
at
some
point
make
housing
costs
go
down
is
also
it's
not
logical,
duplexes.
I
just
want
to
say
this:
they
were
never
meant
to
be
put
into
single-family
neighborhoods.
AL
AL
AM
Hi,
my
name
is
barry
clapper
good
evening.
I
am
asking
you
to
support
amendment
number
four
this
evening.
I
think
that
this
amendment
represents
an
incredible
opportunity.
It
is
not
a
restriction.
AM
This
amendment
provides
a
real
incentive
for
a
real
level
of
affordability
that
we
currently
do
not
have
in
the
core
neighborhoods
or
or
that
we
have
very
little
of
I,
along
with
all
of
you,
have
listened
to
hours
and
hours
of
public
testimony
over
these
last
few
weeks,
and
I
have
been
struck
almost
to
a
person
that
for
about
the
public
concern
and
interest
to
increase
housing
opportunities
to
serve
middle
and
lower
markets.
This
has
been
a
unifying
theme
almost
to
a
person,
and
this
amendment
provides
an
answer.
AM
Density
has
real
value.
Rentals
in
core
neighborhoods
currently
are
money
making
machines
that's
the
way
it
is,
and
I
was
recently
made
aware
that
one
rental
company
in
elm
heights
alone
owns
almost
over
45
properties.
AM
It
represents
a
tremendous
number
of
properties
in
one
neighborhood
alone,
so
there
is
tremendous
market
pressure
to
acquire
these
properties
for
rental
use.
Remember
that
nearly
half
of
the
housing
stock
in
the
core
areas
are
already
rentals
by
allowing
more
density
through
duplexes
development
rights
are
effectively
being
doubled,
and
this
density
has
real
value.
This
amendment
attempts
to
provide
a
level
of
affordability
aimed
at
work,
work
force,
the
workforce
sector
in
particular,
and
it's
aiming
to
provide
a
balance
to
create
an
effective
incentive.
AM
Okay,
we're
not
100
sure
it's
going
to
work
perfectly,
but
it's
a
real
opportunity
to
try
this,
because
so
many
other
tools
are
not
available
to
us.
So
I'm
asking
you
to
support
this
amendment
right
now,
I
would
say
99
of
the
core
neighborhoods
are
built
out,
so
the
only
way
we're
getting
new
construction
is
that
we're
having
to
tear
down
existing
homes.
That
is
probably
not
going
to
happen
that
often
we're
talking
mainly
about
conversions.
AM
So
please
keep
that
in
mind.
I
just
want
to
turn
very
quickly
to
the
financial
feasibility
of
duplexes
and
core
neighborhoods.
That
was
provided
to
all
the
council
members
today,
just
to
say
that
that
of
course
was
aimed
at
new
construction,
which
I
think
is
very
unlikely
that
we'll
see
much
of
in
the
core
neighborhoods,
and
it
also
talked
about
a
60
to
80
percent
hud
ami,
which
is
not
what
this
amendment
is
targeting.
AM
It's
targeting
workforce
and
just
to
say
that
at
120
of
hud
m
ami
you,
the
allowable
rent,
would
be
almost
twenty
three
hundred
dollars
a
month.
That
is
over
two
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
a
bedroom.
If
we're
thinking
of
three
bedrooms-
and
that
was
what
was.
AM
P
F
F
I've
also
been
saying
that
I
think
that
if
you
want
there
to
be
affordable
housing,
you
should
be
building
or
subsidizing
or
making
affordable
housing
available,
not
by
somehow
trickling
up
or
filtering
down
or
whatever.
There
were
three
areas
that
some
of
us
were
hoping
might
be:
affordable,
be
built,
affordable,
one
was
the
kmart
site.
F
F
AN
Hello,
my
name
is
jamie
scholl
and
I'm
sorry.
I
wasn't
as
prepared
for
this
meeting
today,
because
I
had
a
very
like
late
work
day.
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
I
have
just
this
whole
thing
of
being
rental
or
not
rental.
Do
we
know
how
many
people
we
need
to
provide?
What
types
of
housing
for
and
doing
a
little
research
today
after
a
conference,
call
and
found
that
bozeman
montana
has
some
very
interesting
things
there?
They
also
have
a
university.
AN
They
have
an
entire
document
that
talks
about
community
housing,
resources
and
programs.
They
have
a
wonderful
website
as
a
part
of
their
the
city's
website.
It's
a
community
housing
fund.
It
is
a
document
and
ordinance
and
all
these
other
things
that
look
at
the
entire
city
and
plans.
From
that
perspective,
even
looking
at
you
know
of
some
years
out
and
with
people
retiring,
how
will
they
function
within
that?
AN
I'm
not
aware
that
our
city
has
anything
similar,
but
it
seems
like
in
this
type
of
discussion
that,
having
a
broader
viewpoint
of
being
able
to
meet
all
the
needs
and
have
them
clearly
defined
and
within
our
community
and
culture
that
we
would
have
a
better
way
to
meet
what
the
community
needs
are,
because
we
know
what
they
are.
I
also
have
become
aware
of.
AN
That
looks
to
be
ongoing
now.
So
that's
something
that,
if
we're
going
to
open
the
door
to
all
of
these
rental
properties,
which
is
what
it
looked
like
from
the
article
that
ann
arbor
had
been
looking
at,
then
we
should
also
consider
that
as
well,
because
we
need
to
protect
some
home
ownership
here.
Even
if
it's
a
condo
town
homes
townhomes
can
be
funded
through
hud.
R
We
have,
it
looks
like
we
presently
have
three
more
raised
hands,
starting
with
jeff
richardson,
who
should
be
able
to
unmute.
AO
Thank
you,
miss
lacy.
I
am
not
as
expert
as
many
of
the
speakers
who
spoke
tonight.
AO
I'm
I'm
just
in
awe
really
on
both
sides,
how
much
talent
we
have
and
how
much
knowledge
we
have
in
this
arena,
and
while
I
support
amendment
number
four
I
would
say
whatever
happens,
I
hope
that
the
council
can
see
and
and
appreciate
this
wealth
of
talent
we
have
and
try
to
bring
together
these
various
people
to,
and
experts
like
carrie
thompson
and
jan
sorby
and
barry
clapper
and
john
lawrence
and
the
and
the
list
goes
on
to
to
to
really
address
head
on
this
affordability
issue.
AO
I
learned
a
lot
what
the
possibilities
are
and
for
me
this
is
about
possibilities
what's
possible,
and
I
realize
that
some
people
think
well.
This
is
not
going
to
work
or
maybe
we
should
try
another
way,
but
the
worst
outcome
would
be.
Is
that
this
amendment
fails
and
then
we
say:
okay
check
the
box.
We
moved
on.
We
discussed
this
amendment
now
we'll
have
one
more
amendment
tonight
and
then
let's
get
the
cdo
behind
us
and
move
on.
That
would
be
the
worst
outcome.
AO
There
are
opportunities
that
I
think
should
spring
from
this
debate
and
especially
on
this
affordability
issue.
I
know
there
are
many
people
myself
included,
that
beyond
the
udo
would
like
to
be
actively
formally
officially
connected
with
this
affordability
issue.
AO
So
I'm
it's
a
plea
to
the
council
to
look
carefully
at
the
expertise,
the
passion
and
the
interest
in
dealing
with
this
issue
front
on,
and
I
hope
that
this
amendment
passes,
but
if
it
doesn't,
I
hope
it
will
be
a
catalyst
for
future
engagement,
future
discussions
and
future
action
on
the
affordability
front.
Thank
you
so
much.
O
When
we
started
arguing
about
this,
it
was
based
on
a
book
that
said:
single-family
housing
is
should
be
eliminated,
it's
racist,
we
shouldn't
do
it,
and
yet
we've
got
plenty
of
development,
that's
gone
on
with
great
big
houses
and
great
big
yards.
O
Let's,
let's
put
our
heads
together
and
heal
from
this
really
nasty
process.
There's
got
to
be
a
way.
This
amendment
is
one
more
effort
to
do
that
and
it
and
it
addresses
the
issue
of
affordability,
which
has
been
brought
up
again
and
again.
O
I
know
there
are
local
developers
and
realtors
who
will
help.
I
know
that
local
investors
might
help
and
we
have
to
give
them
a
chance
to
do
that.
We
know
that
supply
and
demand
doesn't
work
for
housing.
That's
not
peaches
and
the
house
houses
are
not
going
to
rot.
We
know
that
the
rents
haven't
gone
down.
We
know
that
the
sale
prices
have
not
gone
down
because
we've
built
more
houses
or
because
there
are
subdivisions
in
the
county
that
are
more
affordable.
O
We
know
that
the
core
neighborhoods
are
three
to
six
times
more
dense
than
surrounding
areas,
and
if
we
keep
putting
our
heads
together
and
actually
work
together,
I
think
that
there
could
be
all
kinds
of
solutions.
In
addition
to
this
amendment,
for
as
a
community
there's
got
to
be
a
way,
we
can
be
more
respectful
all
the
way
around.
O
Let's
find
out
what
that
is,
let's
figure
it
out.
Let's
come
up
with
more
ideas
to
house
more
people,
let's
increase
diversity,
like
I
have
said
three
times
now
on
my
block.
We
have
10
rentals
and
12
owner
occupied
and
it's
just
fine
and
I
have
no
idea
who's
a
student
and
who's
not
and
who's
a
worker
or
a
retired
person.
I
have
no
idea
who's
a
house
husband
and
it
doesn't
matter
as
long
as
we're
given
the
opportunity
to
treat
each
other
respectfully
and
affordability
helps
with
that.
It
brings
honor
to
us.