WEBVTT 00:00:00.194 --> 00:00:08.143 - Call this order, this meeting to order of the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability and Resilience at 6 p.m. 00:00:08.143 --> 00:00:15.241 - And we'll take the roll call. Tara Dunderdale. Here. Here. Justin Vassell, I'm here. Rebecca Payne. 00:00:15.241 --> 00:00:22.409 - Here. Here. Christopher Miles. Here. And just a reminder, you'll have to turn on your video as well. 00:00:22.409 --> 00:00:28.158 - I have to keep the video on? Just when you're responding or voting on something. 00:00:28.898 --> 00:00:38.521 - Okay, thank you. So you're here. We got you. You can go back on video mute for now. Thank you. Um, Zach 00:00:38.521 --> 00:00:47.775 - Ammerman? Here. Here. Councilmember Rowla? Here. Here. Quentin Gilley? Perfect. I'll circle back to 00:00:47.775 --> 00:00:58.046 - him. Alex York? Here. Here. Marie Allerstad? Here. Here. Diana Ogrodowsky? Here. Here. And Ross Carlson? Here. 00:00:58.434 --> 00:01:16.153 - And back to Quentin, Quentin Gilley. And I see your microphone. Okay, that sounds good. We got you. 00:01:16.153 --> 00:01:26.430 - Virtual soon to be present. Got it, perfect. Okay, great. 00:01:26.882 --> 00:01:32.601 - Well, everybody is here in one way or another, so that's great. OK, so we'll move to the approval of 00:01:32.601 --> 00:01:38.489 - the agenda. Are there any additions, corrections anyone wants to make to the agenda? Do we want to just 00:01:38.489 --> 00:01:44.208 - have a standing thing where we move the staff liaison report up, or we don't need to? We can do that 00:01:44.208 --> 00:01:49.984 - each time if we want. Until we change the bylaws, it has to get structured this way initially, but we 00:01:49.984 --> 00:01:55.703 - can always rearrange it here during the approval process. So we're welcome to. Did you have a report 00:01:55.703 --> 00:01:56.382 - from today? 00:01:56.706 --> 00:02:03.495 - Nothing super substantial. It'll take 30 seconds to say. Well, I'll leave it up to the group. We can 00:02:03.495 --> 00:02:10.216 - just leave it where it is then, I guess. Yeah. OK. I'm OK with that. Sounds good. OK. So hearing no 00:02:10.216 --> 00:02:17.206 - proposed changes, is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. And a second. OK. Perfect. 00:02:17.206 --> 00:02:24.129 - We'll go through a roll call vote since we have some virtual folks with us. So Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin, 00:02:24.129 --> 00:02:25.406 - yes. Rebecca? Yes. 00:02:25.698 --> 00:02:35.309 - Yes. Christopher? Yes. Yes. Zach? Yes. Yes. Councilmember Barallo? Yes. Yes. Quentin? Yes. Yes. Alex? 00:02:35.309 --> 00:02:44.919 - Yes. Yes. Maria? Yes. Yes. Diana? Yes. Yes. And Ross? Yes. Yes. All right. The agenda is approved. So 00:02:44.919 --> 00:02:54.718 - that brings us to the approval of the minutes for April 14th, 2026, which was our last regular meeting. 00:02:54.850 --> 00:03:04.238 - Are there any corrections to those minutes? Okay, not hearing any, is there a motion to approve the 00:03:04.238 --> 00:03:13.814 - minutes from April 14th? So moved. So moved in a second? Second. Perfect. All right, we'll go through 00:03:13.814 --> 00:03:23.390 - the roll call vote to approve the minutes from April 14th. Tara? Yes. Yes, Justin, yes. Rebecca? Yes. 00:03:23.714 --> 00:03:51.614 - Yes. Christopher. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 00:03:51.810 --> 00:03:58.263 - All right, the minutes are approved as circulated. And like I mentioned in my email, we had some notes 00:03:58.263 --> 00:04:04.716 - from our special session on the 28th, but they weren't properly formally minutes yet. So we'll approve 00:04:04.716 --> 00:04:11.107 - those that are next meeting. Oh, no, you're good. You're good. That was mostly on me for just blindly 00:04:11.107 --> 00:04:17.685 - sending it out. I have a list of students that spoke. If you need that, I can send that to you. Perfect. 00:04:17.685 --> 00:04:20.254 - OK, so that brings us to public comment. 00:04:20.610 --> 00:04:26.755 - Is there anyone in the public who would like to address the commission? We'll start here in the room 00:04:26.755 --> 00:04:32.961 - and then we'll go to Zoom if there's anyone there. Yeah, please introduce yourself to the commission. 00:04:32.961 --> 00:04:39.350 - Matthew Austin. So the comment I wanted to make is the resolution around glyphosate since I'm the author 00:04:39.350 --> 00:04:45.860 - of it and I'm no longer the commission. With everything we learned, either my, I would pull it off because 00:04:45.860 --> 00:04:46.590 - it doesn't, 00:04:46.914 --> 00:04:54.137 - With everything we learned, it doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to focus on paraquat and the 00:04:54.137 --> 00:05:01.432 - ball fields. So either postpone it indefinitely or just vote it down. I did send a resolution around 00:05:01.432 --> 00:05:09.233 - glyphosate and paraquat, and I'm gonna send that to MCIRS and all the others that were here that presented. 00:05:09.233 --> 00:05:13.278 - So that's one thing. And then two, Wonderlab has their, 00:05:13.602 --> 00:05:19.645 - beginning summer blast off May 21st from three to eight. They're gonna have food trucks there and Garden 00:05:19.645 --> 00:05:25.516 - Quest has a warm composting system there. They are also gonna start collecting, Wonder Lab is already 00:05:25.516 --> 00:05:31.559 - starting Bokashi and they're gonna start teaching Bokashi. In September, we're gonna be doing a training 00:05:31.559 --> 00:05:37.545 - around Bokashi food-based fermentation. Garden Quest just had one out at Will Detmer Community Gardens, 00:05:37.545 --> 00:05:43.070 - had I think 11 or 12 households and nine of them adopted or at least started the TRY IT program 00:05:43.266 --> 00:05:49.421 - around that food waste, and then there's a workshop on June 6th, July 12th, August 8th, I don't know 00:05:49.421 --> 00:05:55.820 - when the September one is, and October 11th. So I'd encourage anybody that wants to be responsible fully 00:05:55.820 --> 00:06:02.341 - for their food waste and to learn how to turn it into soil quickly to look on either Garden Quest website, 00:06:02.341 --> 00:06:08.253 - gardenquest.org, or the Community Orchards website. That's typically where they're gonna be. So, 00:06:08.253 --> 00:06:10.142 - thank you. Cool, nice. Thanks. 00:06:12.226 --> 00:06:19.087 - It's strange to see you on the other side of the room, but glad that you're here. Thank you for the 00:06:19.087 --> 00:06:25.947 - comment. Okay, moving to online. I don't see anyone online from the public, and there's nobody else 00:06:25.947 --> 00:06:33.357 - here in the room, so that will conclude the public comment portion. Okay, so that brings us to commissioner 00:06:33.357 --> 00:06:40.766 - reports. I didn't send around a chair's report. This time there's not a whole lot that's changed aside from 00:06:41.154 --> 00:06:48.381 - the org chart, so we have a new commissioner with us today, and that's Rebecca Payne. And so in a moment, 00:06:48.381 --> 00:06:55.745 - I'll ask her to just introduce herself and then say a few words. This is not technically her first meeting, 00:06:55.745 --> 00:07:02.564 - because technically the April 28th special session was, so that was an interesting way to just dive 00:07:02.564 --> 00:07:09.723 - right in. We don't usually meet in the big room, but that was exciting. But other than that, not a whole 00:07:09.723 --> 00:07:10.814 - lot of changes. 00:07:11.618 --> 00:07:17.179 - Yeah, I've got it on the agenda to chat a little bit about sort of like finding times to do like working 00:07:17.179 --> 00:07:22.475 - group types, or not working group, but like working session type stuff, kind of like we used to do, 00:07:22.475 --> 00:07:27.877 - trying to figure out what that might look like or whether there's a need for that or desire for that. 00:07:27.877 --> 00:07:33.438 - So normally that kind of thing would go maybe in the chair's report, but it's got its own section there. 00:07:33.438 --> 00:07:38.841 - So not a whole lot else to share at the moment. Does anyone have any questions for me? How many seats 00:07:38.841 --> 00:07:41.118 - are open right now? Two? Three, I believe. 00:07:47.458 --> 00:07:55.325 - Any other questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me allow Rebecca here to introduce herself as the commissioner. 00:07:55.325 --> 00:08:03.193 - Sure. Hey, everyone. Yep, I'm Rebecca Payne. I'm a Hoosier, trying to. Grew up in Indianapolis. Skipped 00:08:03.193 --> 00:08:10.985 - over to Colorado for two decades. Over there, I got my degree in urban and regional planning. And then 00:08:10.985 --> 00:08:15.902 - in 2019, moved back to Bloomington to care for my aging parents. 00:08:16.226 --> 00:08:23.073 - got a degree in public health. And so I have a huge interest in sort of the intersection of urban planning 00:08:23.073 --> 00:08:29.664 - and public health, especially as it relates to community wellness and vitality. And so this commission 00:08:29.664 --> 00:08:36.063 - is very appealing to me. I'm impressed with the work that I see that the initiatives and input that 00:08:36.063 --> 00:08:42.462 - I see has been given over time. So when I saw that there was a spot open, I thought, Hey, I'm gonna 00:08:43.426 --> 00:08:51.255 - see where it goes. So I'm really, really happy to be here and was very impressed with last month's special 00:08:51.255 --> 00:08:58.865 - meeting with the IU students. It was a very hard-caliber delivery. Welcome. Thank you. All right. Well, 00:08:58.865 --> 00:09:06.475 - that'll conclude it for my report, so I'll pass it over to Council Member Ralla for the council report. 00:09:06.475 --> 00:09:08.670 - Okay. A couple things. One is 00:09:08.866 --> 00:09:17.193 - the council unanimously approved the Hopewell development, Hopewell South, which is the 6.3 acres last 00:09:17.193 --> 00:09:25.035 - week. And we had a number of reasonable conditions, some involving streetscape, wider sidewalks, 00:09:25.035 --> 00:09:33.362 - tree plots, and so forth. The important thing about affordability is that of the 98 units, we required 00:09:33.362 --> 00:09:36.030 - 35% for permanent affordability. 00:09:36.802 --> 00:09:45.463 - 15% of those units are to be affordable for households earning at or below 90% of AMI, area of medium 00:09:45.463 --> 00:09:54.209 - income, and then 20% must be affordable to households at or below 120% AMI. So the council worked hard 00:09:54.209 --> 00:10:03.040 - to get to that point, and I think it was a worthwhile process. And some of us would have liked a higher 00:10:03.040 --> 00:10:05.502 - percentage of affordability, 00:10:06.114 --> 00:10:15.334 - I would have liked lower AMI. Maybe it's something to consider in further iterations of the remaining 00:10:15.334 --> 00:10:24.644 - 17, 18 acres of Hopewell that will be coming further on. So that's one thing. Another is that tomorrow 00:10:24.644 --> 00:10:34.136 - night is a deliberation session of the council and we'll be discussing snow on sidewalks and the removal 00:10:34.136 --> 00:10:35.582 - and it's been a 00:10:35.810 --> 00:10:43.114 - perpetual problem. And of course, for pedestrians, it's an obstacle after snowstorms that seems to be 00:10:43.114 --> 00:10:50.346 - continual. And so we need to think of ways in which we can make sure enforcement occurs or help with 00:10:50.346 --> 00:10:57.578 - people that have trouble with snow removal, et cetera. It's very important that the city remove snow 00:10:57.578 --> 00:11:05.598 - on the sidewalks that it controls. So that's part of the discussion. So I invite you to come tomorrow for that. 00:11:05.698 --> 00:11:17.539 - And then lastly, I've been mulling, actually actively working on an interest that I think you share, 00:11:17.539 --> 00:11:29.731 - which is AI and artificial intelligence. Just briefly, the county put a moratorium, planning commission 00:11:29.731 --> 00:11:35.358 - on the county put a moratorium on data centers. 00:11:35.906 --> 00:11:42.503 - for a year, and that expires in July of this year. I would like to encourage our county colleagues to 00:11:42.503 --> 00:11:49.164 - put a permanent moratorium on data centers, and this is happening around the country, and I think that 00:11:49.164 --> 00:11:55.761 - there's, without going into detail about the reasons why, you can probably find those out online, but 00:11:55.761 --> 00:12:02.228 - they use tremendous amounts of water for cooling because any sort of computational process produces 00:12:02.228 --> 00:12:03.198 - a lot of heat. 00:12:03.682 --> 00:12:11.318 - uses tremendous amounts of electricity, which drive up rates and so forth. And ironically, most of this 00:12:11.318 --> 00:12:18.660 - is going toward development of generative AI, LLMs, and eventually AGI, which is artificial general 00:12:18.660 --> 00:12:26.075 - intelligence, which is meant to replace people, which is a problem of its own. The second thing that 00:12:26.075 --> 00:12:32.830 - I'm working on is a resolution for moratorium to, we can't enforce it, but it's rhetorical. 00:12:33.058 --> 00:12:42.048 - a resolution to encourage our representatives at higher levels to adopt moratorium on AGI, artificial 00:12:42.048 --> 00:12:50.949 - general intelligence, which would replace people in every cognitive domain. So anything a person can 00:12:50.949 --> 00:12:59.762 - do cognitively, AGI would match or exceed the capability. And that's going to have a lot of effects 00:12:59.762 --> 00:13:02.142 - on, obviously, employment, 00:13:02.882 --> 00:13:09.746 - But it would likely lead to superintelligence. And there's a lot of warnings right now from AI experts 00:13:09.746 --> 00:13:16.543 - that once we achieve superintelligence of AI, it's anyone's guess what would happen. Because we would 00:13:16.543 --> 00:13:23.339 - be the second most intelligent species on the planet, in a sense, species, silicon-based species. But 00:13:23.339 --> 00:13:29.470 - in any case, it could likely compete with us. We would probably lose control of it and some 00:13:29.794 --> 00:13:38.185 - AI safety researchers warned that it could result in our extinction, simply because it would either 00:13:38.185 --> 00:13:46.407 - out-compete us, or it would see us as an enemy, an adversary. So, although it sounds like sci-fi, 00:13:46.407 --> 00:13:55.133 - I mean, this is a very real possibility, and the AI firms in Silicon Valley are racing toward AGI. It's 00:13:55.133 --> 00:13:58.238 - an explicitly theirs, and of course, 00:13:58.434 --> 00:14:05.815 - hundreds of billions of dollars are pouring in in investment capital to see that that happens. So maybe 00:14:05.815 --> 00:14:13.197 - it's a discussion for a further day. I would like to bring that resolution in June. Maybe, I'm thinking 00:14:13.197 --> 00:14:20.365 - of June 10th, so I don't know when our next meeting is. It's probably... June 9th. June 9th, so it's 00:14:20.365 --> 00:14:26.398 - April 4th. So maybe a few minutes I could have at that meeting if you're interested. 00:14:27.106 --> 00:14:35.238 - If it's to your liking, I could go through that resolution, maybe send it through email, like your comments 00:14:35.238 --> 00:14:43.144 - on it. And I think that's it. That's all I've got to report right now. Thanks. Alex? Do we know if there 00:14:43.144 --> 00:14:51.200 - have been any hyperscalers or anybody who have been interested in building a data center in Monroe County? 00:14:51.200 --> 00:14:56.094 - I haven't seen any overtures to the fact that they're popping up 00:14:56.322 --> 00:15:06.415 - Especially in Indianapolis area, and a number of counties here have been banning them. I think the mayor 00:15:06.415 --> 00:15:16.027 - in Indianapolis has encouraged them. I don't know about the source of this, but I think Monrovia is 00:15:16.027 --> 00:15:18.814 - totally getting scouted for. 00:15:19.042 --> 00:15:24.819 - Yeah, it's everywhere. Kind of between Monrovia and Marginsville, I think. There's one in Washington 00:15:24.819 --> 00:15:30.767 - and Indiana, too, that they were trying to build south of here. But none in Monroe County, though. Yet. 00:15:30.767 --> 00:15:36.544 - It's only a matter of time. There's no better view surrounding that. No sense in working on it until 00:15:36.544 --> 00:15:42.607 - the moratorium's over. You know, just as an aside, there's one in Louisiana that's the size of Manhattan. 00:15:42.607 --> 00:15:44.094 - It's developed by Meadow. 00:15:44.930 --> 00:15:50.456 - Yeah. I mean, the one that they're planning to do in Utah would use more power than the entire state 00:15:50.456 --> 00:15:56.200 - of Utah. Yeah. By, like, a set bite, anyway. Yeah. By a large margin, it's not. Yeah. Yeah. It's totally 00:15:56.200 --> 00:16:01.944 - reasonable. I have a different question. Is the deliberate obsession, does that include a public comment 00:16:01.944 --> 00:16:07.415 - period? I can't agree. We have some thoughts on that. I have thought. I was, before things happened 00:16:07.415 --> 00:16:13.050 - in my life, I had a resolution I was working on for this commission about snow on sidewalks. Oh, good. 00:16:13.050 --> 00:16:14.910 - And I have some thoughts on some. 00:16:16.002 --> 00:16:22.672 - ways I'd like to look at the data in the you report. Okay, so yeah, please come or zoom in or you know, 00:16:22.672 --> 00:16:29.278 - but I will. Yeah, I wasn't aware that Monroe County had a moratorium on that. It's something that just 00:16:29.278 --> 00:16:35.692 - didn't chat with people is something that we were sort of interested in looking at for a resolution 00:16:35.692 --> 00:16:42.170 - is to try to get ahead of any prospective data centers coming here and say maybe City Council should 00:16:42.170 --> 00:16:44.094 - pass something like that. But 00:16:44.290 --> 00:16:52.049 - So that's good news. I didn't know that Monroe County had done that. And yeah, it would be good to encourage 00:16:52.049 --> 00:16:59.453 - them to re-up it. Do you know how many, how long it was? You said it's expiring in July, but? Something 00:16:59.453 --> 00:17:06.643 - about, I think the date is July 26th, unfortunately. So yeah, it's coming soon. Yeah. Exploration on 00:17:06.643 --> 00:17:14.046 - that, but you know, some states like Michigan have banned the ability for counties to put in moratoria. 00:17:14.754 --> 00:17:24.045 - You can deny book data centers, but only as a zoning base. You can't proactively put a moratorium on 00:17:24.045 --> 00:17:33.335 - them, unfortunately. And by the way, something else, just quickly. In the big, beautiful bill, there 00:17:33.335 --> 00:17:42.718 - was provision that would have prevented any state or local authorities from prohibiting data centers. 00:17:43.362 --> 00:17:52.736 - And fortunately, that was carted out by the Senate with a vote of 99 to 1, which was bipartisan, 00:17:52.736 --> 00:18:02.496 - a good sign. So anyway, we have sympathies in some quarters. OK. I had a question about the Hopewell 00:18:02.496 --> 00:18:11.966 - stuff. Because I know one of the blockers for a period of time was this reasonable accommodations 00:18:12.738 --> 00:18:19.489 - for, is that what it's called, reasonable? Conditioned. Conditioned, yeah, thank you. Where did things 00:18:19.489 --> 00:18:26.437 - land on that? Because I know that there was some back and forth between what was allowed and what wasn't. 00:18:26.437 --> 00:18:33.123 - How did that end up? Yeah, so that was a dispute between the administration and the council that took 00:18:33.123 --> 00:18:40.136 - a couple meetings to resolve. It came at a bad time because we didn't have any council staff. Our attorney 00:18:40.136 --> 00:18:41.054 - had resigned. 00:18:41.282 --> 00:18:48.266 - We had to hire an outside council who affirmed that the council has that ability to have reasonable 00:18:48.266 --> 00:18:55.738 - conditions apply to PUDs, although the corporate council still maintains that it's not within our purview. 00:18:55.738 --> 00:19:02.722 - Just preposterous, I'm sorry. But as long as we've been in the council, we've been able to do that. 00:19:02.722 --> 00:19:09.915 - And in fact, I can point to a number of PUDs are in town where reasonable conditions have improved the 00:19:09.915 --> 00:19:11.102 - situation there. 00:19:11.810 --> 00:19:18.644 - dramatically. So I won't get into it now, but it was very clear to me, and I'm glad that we still have 00:19:18.644 --> 00:19:25.677 - that, because it would have been a terrible precedent had we said, okay, we're agreeable to no reasonable 00:19:25.677 --> 00:19:32.180 - condition. And it was only an out there down vote. Anyway, so that's, okay, that's what was left. 00:19:32.180 --> 00:19:37.886 - Thank you. Any other questions for Constable Rowland? All right. Thank you very much. 00:19:38.434 --> 00:19:43.997 - Okay, so that brings us to agenda item six, discussions not the subject of resolution. So first up is 00:19:43.997 --> 00:19:49.723 - the O'Neill Capstone presentation that we saw a couple weeks ago. I mostly just wanted to spend a little 00:19:49.723 --> 00:19:55.340 - time giving people the opportunity to kind of chat and reflect on how that went. I think it'd probably 00:19:55.340 --> 00:20:01.339 - be good to have a longer period of time for us to really brainstorm what we want to do with that information, 00:20:01.339 --> 00:20:07.065 - especially after people have had more time to maybe digest the materials. But I thought maybe an initial 00:20:07.065 --> 00:20:07.774 - conversation 00:20:07.906 --> 00:20:13.876 - just to start getting the ideas flowing. And then our next agenda item, we'll talk about, you know, 00:20:13.876 --> 00:20:19.966 - where we might have like these sorts of brainstorming sessions and things like this. So, I'll open it 00:20:19.966 --> 00:20:26.235 - up the floor now. If anyone wants to, it's just gonna be an open discussion between commissioners. Yeah. 00:20:26.235 --> 00:20:32.384 - I think, I mean, I thought it was like a fantastic session. I thought it was like a great partnership. 00:20:32.384 --> 00:20:36.862 - I think there was like a lot of really good information. And I think that, 00:20:37.122 --> 00:20:44.620 - it sounded like for, I can never turn off the teacher thing, like a good experience for the students. 00:20:44.620 --> 00:20:52.118 - One thing that I like kind of floated to Alex is putting together some kind of like guide or tool for 00:20:52.118 --> 00:20:59.542 - other commissions who might want to pursue similar partnerships. This one was driven largely by like 00:20:59.542 --> 00:21:05.790 - personal connections, but I currently work in the department at IU that includes the 00:21:06.050 --> 00:21:12.760 - community-engaged learning. And so I have some insights about what commissions need to commit to in 00:21:12.760 --> 00:21:19.805 - order to make sure that they are not blowing up somebody's school work. So that's something that I would 00:21:19.805 --> 00:21:26.716 - love to work on, some kind of tool to help other commissions. Because we have so many commissions, and 00:21:26.716 --> 00:21:34.029 - we have this rich resource. And it is hard for us to do everything that we want to do or research everything 00:21:34.029 --> 00:21:35.774 - that we want to research. 00:21:36.834 --> 00:21:41.383 - I thought the quality was great. I thought they did a great job presenting what they presented. The 00:21:41.383 --> 00:21:46.159 - information was dense and really well done. I don't really think they sufficiently answered the question 00:21:46.159 --> 00:21:50.707 - I most wanted them to answer, which was how to set up an SEU in Bloomington. And I don't think it's 00:21:50.707 --> 00:21:55.347 - illegal. Having looked at the law myself, I think it's difficult, but not illegal. And they presented 00:21:55.347 --> 00:22:00.032 - it as though it was impossible. And I would have liked to have seen them go a little bit more in depth 00:22:00.032 --> 00:22:04.990 - on ways we could get around it, even if it's hard. But I do think the quality was very high quality and very 00:22:05.378 --> 00:22:12.938 - in depth, and I learned a lot from it, that they didn't really answer the question I wanted them to 00:22:12.938 --> 00:22:20.423 - answer. Yeah. I do think that their alternative proposals were very interesting, and I think that, 00:22:20.423 --> 00:22:27.983 - you know, Justin, you're talking about more time to digest and think about next steps and things. I 00:22:27.983 --> 00:22:34.334 - do think that there are actionable items from what they proposed. I think that both 00:22:35.202 --> 00:22:43.585 - to the point of the SEU is not impossible, just potentially very difficult. And my takeaway from their 00:22:43.585 --> 00:22:51.969 - presentation was that a community solar system on existing property on Brownfield on something of that 00:22:51.969 --> 00:23:00.108 - nature would be the best thing that the city could do. And that engagement with Duke Energy is kind 00:23:00.108 --> 00:23:03.038 - of a very logical next step because 00:23:03.650 --> 00:23:11.163 - lots of what Bloomington can do farther from that type of angle involves engagement with Duke Energy. 00:23:11.163 --> 00:23:18.602 - And I don't know as a commissioner, like I'm happy to go to that engagement, but I don't really know 00:23:18.602 --> 00:23:26.042 - where I start crossing the lines between that should be staff led or like only staff and stepping on 00:23:26.042 --> 00:23:31.934 - toes or anything. But yeah, I do think that it is time to engage Duke, I think. 00:23:34.722 --> 00:23:41.122 - you're right on not being the pathway to doing something. I think that's really the question I was asked. 00:23:41.122 --> 00:23:47.159 - The only question I asked was, did you engage with Duke directly? And they said, no, it's something 00:23:47.159 --> 00:23:53.196 - they think we would do. But I think that the answer to whether or not this could be something would 00:23:53.196 --> 00:23:59.536 - be, it's all about building a relationship. If they have a need and we serve it, I think they help carve 00:23:59.536 --> 00:24:02.494 - out whatever legalities it is to make it happen. 00:24:02.786 --> 00:24:10.896 - Or they can stop it if we, you know, I think it's either way. Yeah, it would be good to know how much 00:24:10.896 --> 00:24:19.325 - and what Duke might be supportive of because that certainly would shape what we should recommend happens. 00:24:19.325 --> 00:24:27.435 - I don't think that with the current budget-constrained world that Bloomington is particularly looking 00:24:27.435 --> 00:24:32.126 - to also take on fighting Duke energy in legal battles, so. 00:24:34.722 --> 00:24:45.742 - If they thought that it was serious, then they'd probably talk to us. But yeah, I don't know how entertaining 00:24:45.742 --> 00:24:55.760 - they'd be with just sort of floating the idea out of them. We'll try, but. Other thoughts? Riffs on 00:24:55.760 --> 00:25:03.774 - those thoughts? Tara, to your point, my feedback from the SPIA representatives. 00:25:04.162 --> 00:25:10.213 - that they greatly enjoyed the experience, and they would love to do more of it. So I think your idea 00:25:10.213 --> 00:25:16.323 - of putting together that guidance is a good one. Yeah, I think so much of what we were able to do was 00:25:16.323 --> 00:25:22.433 - really reliant on your institutional knowledge there, and so whatever we can document. And then there 00:25:22.433 --> 00:25:28.784 - are some official channels that we can go through, whether it's through the engaged learning, but there's 00:25:28.784 --> 00:25:32.318 - also a government affairs person at IU who can connect us. 00:25:32.642 --> 00:25:40.359 - There are also other schools here. There's Ivy Tech, and there's also high schools and other ways to 00:25:40.359 --> 00:25:47.999 - engage with. There are other schools within IU. I think that SPIA probably aligns the best for city 00:25:47.999 --> 00:25:55.944 - commission work in general. I mean, we have an arts commission. We have commissions on aging. Depending 00:25:55.944 --> 00:26:01.598 - on what commissions want to do, there's all kinds of opportunities there. 00:26:02.018 --> 00:26:09.919 - the where do I start, and then making sure that the commission knows what they're signing on for in 00:26:09.919 --> 00:26:17.820 - terms of committing to supporting the students through the entirety of the project is important for 00:26:17.820 --> 00:26:25.720 - them to reflect on if they have capacity for that. Yeah, I like the idea of having a resource so we 00:26:25.720 --> 00:26:31.646 - can send other commissions and say, hey, here's the blueprint we followed. 00:26:31.938 --> 00:26:37.905 - This is a great experience for us and everyone involved. I think that would be really helpful. Yeah, 00:26:37.905 --> 00:26:43.990 - I think if we do feel like a near-term step would be engaging with Duke, we'd probably want to lay out 00:26:43.990 --> 00:26:50.075 - what exactly that might look like, what we'd want to get out of it, and then of course work with staff 00:26:50.075 --> 00:26:56.101 - to figure out what's the appropriate way to actually go about doing that. But yeah, I know the report 00:26:56.101 --> 00:26:58.110 - had a handful of recommendations. 00:26:58.498 --> 00:27:05.139 - Maybe there's some others that we can take up as well. We do have the full report available, which I'm 00:27:05.139 --> 00:27:11.651 - just realizing now hasn't been circulated to everybody yet. So we'll get that out, and then that can 00:27:11.651 --> 00:27:18.421 - get attached as a packet for maybe the 28th meeting that we had at the 28th. And there's also some other 00:27:18.421 --> 00:27:25.127 - supplementary materials there. There were some spreadsheets and stuff that they... They gave us digital 00:27:25.127 --> 00:27:28.222 - files for basically all of the tools they used. 00:27:28.898 --> 00:27:36.520 - For example, we should be able to go in and change some of the assumptions on the environmental 00:27:36.520 --> 00:27:45.174 - characteristics of a community solar program, assuming that you are using a brownfield instead of converting 00:27:45.174 --> 00:27:53.273 - existing productive natural land for a community solar program and see how that changes the emissions 00:27:53.273 --> 00:27:56.766 - and things. So we have a rich repository of 00:27:57.186 --> 00:28:03.077 - the resources that they use in case anybody wants to delve deeper into their analysis or take their 00:28:03.077 --> 00:28:09.085 - analysis and look at it from a different angle or anything. So Justin has all of that. Yeah, you sent 00:28:09.085 --> 00:28:15.212 - me the zip file there. They also gave us two flash drives with all of that on it. So if anybody's like, 00:28:15.212 --> 00:28:21.103 - I want that, I'm sure you could just probably have a flash drive to play with. I think it all needs 00:28:21.103 --> 00:28:23.518 - to go on onboard anyway, so it'll be all 00:28:23.810 --> 00:28:31.308 - I don't know what the best way to do that is for nested directories and Excel files and stuff, but maybe 00:28:31.308 --> 00:28:38.521 - just a zip file. But I'll send it all to you, and eventually you'll get up there. The rulemaking got 00:28:38.521 --> 00:28:46.020 - pushed back a year for the compliance, so there's a little time to make it accessible. Did it? Oh, yeah, 00:28:46.020 --> 00:28:50.590 - yeah. Well, I can say it in another thing, but if it's helpful. 00:28:50.850 --> 00:28:58.582 - Okay, yeah. Okay, awesome. I read the whole Federal Register announcement. That's good reading. I have 00:28:58.582 --> 00:29:06.239 - some insights or thoughts. Okay, awesome. Yeah, we'll circle back on that, but that's good news. That 00:29:06.239 --> 00:29:13.746 - makes things a little bit easier. Okay, awesome. Yeah, anything else about the capstone? Additional 00:29:13.746 --> 00:29:15.998 - thoughts? Secondary thoughts? 00:29:20.194 --> 00:29:26.301 - All right, well, why don't we chat a little bit about the potential need for additional commission time. 00:29:26.301 --> 00:29:32.350 - You know, last regular meeting was pretty jam-packed. And the good thing is we're getting lots of stuff 00:29:32.350 --> 00:29:38.399 - done. We've got lots of resolutions coming down the pipeline. The bad news is we only have so much time 00:29:38.399 --> 00:29:44.273 - to meet and to actually discuss those resolutions and pass them. And so it seems like there's a need 00:29:44.273 --> 00:29:48.926 - for more time to get together and work on these things, whether that is sort of 00:29:49.186 --> 00:29:54.570 - The working sessions like we used to do, which is very unstructured, kind of brainstorming, we just 00:29:54.570 --> 00:30:00.008 - pick a thing to work on or we just ad hoc it in the moment and just throw ideas around or maybe like 00:30:00.008 --> 00:30:05.769 - work on the wording of a particular resolution together or something more structured where maybe sometimes 00:30:05.769 --> 00:30:11.422 - we're doing two business meetings in a month instead of one when things are busy or something like that. 00:30:11.810 --> 00:30:17.767 - Of course, those sorts of things depend on everybody's availability and what they have going on in their 00:30:17.767 --> 00:30:23.611 - life. So I wanted to open up for discussion, spend some time brainstorming whether we want to add more 00:30:23.611 --> 00:30:29.739 - time for us to get together and chat about these things or not, if we just want to try to be more efficient 00:30:29.739 --> 00:30:35.469 - with the time that we have. And then we can chat a little bit too about what that might look like in 00:30:35.469 --> 00:30:41.086 - terms of staff availability, working around those constraints to find some networks for everybody. 00:30:41.186 --> 00:30:47.941 - Yeah. Go ahead. OK. Just to start off, from the perspective of staff, our encouragement is we definitely 00:30:47.941 --> 00:30:54.053 - want to support working groups through staff time, that we're there to support, make it happen 00:30:54.053 --> 00:31:00.551 - and everything. But just want to make sure that whatever kind of time we're setting has a deliberate 00:31:00.551 --> 00:31:07.049 - purpose. If there's a working group focusing on a specific topic or a specific type of task, I think 00:31:07.049 --> 00:31:11.166 - that would be most helpful. Just so we know, going into saying, 00:31:11.682 --> 00:31:18.999 - yes, let's dedicate this extra time and convene everybody or a portion of everybody that we kind of 00:31:18.999 --> 00:31:26.462 - know what that time is for going into it. I think just to help us keep structured. And yeah, and then 00:31:26.462 --> 00:31:34.364 - there's also options to individually work on things, which you have been doing. Two people can get together 00:31:34.364 --> 00:31:39.998 - to work on something that's perfectly okay and just kind of have a plan for, 00:31:40.866 --> 00:31:47.116 - set aside when we're coming back to the commission with ideas on what we want to work on. And I'm still 00:31:47.116 --> 00:31:53.307 - in support, super in support of having some time to prioritize what we want to work on as a commission 00:31:53.307 --> 00:31:59.377 - as well. We haven't really done the strategy session yet. I still think that will be really valuable 00:31:59.377 --> 00:32:05.447 - because, yeah, there only is so much time that we have in these meetings, and we recognize that. And 00:32:05.447 --> 00:32:07.550 - so to make the most of it, I think 00:32:07.714 --> 00:32:13.027 - strategic meeting would still be great, and I would support that, too. So anyway, that's just from my 00:32:13.027 --> 00:32:18.287 - perspective. Yeah. Thanks. This might not be popular. Maybe it isn't. I don't know. But I would like 00:32:18.287 --> 00:32:23.808 - to see us move to two meetings a month. Maybe we could do, like, every other month, one's an extra actual 00:32:23.808 --> 00:32:29.069 - business meeting, and the next month it's a working meeting, or something like that. I don't know. I 00:32:29.069 --> 00:32:34.329 - think we've got an ambitious agenda of stuff, and that is good. We should be doing that. And we just 00:32:34.329 --> 00:32:37.246 - don't have time to do it in an hour and a half a month. 00:32:37.602 --> 00:32:43.927 - right now. We need more time to work. I don't know exactly what that looks like. I would move to two 00:32:43.927 --> 00:32:50.253 - meetings a month, whether that means, again, two business meetings a month, and the next month we do 00:32:50.253 --> 00:32:56.515 - a business meeting and a working meeting, or I don't know exactly what that looks like, but I think 00:32:56.515 --> 00:33:02.841 - we need more time. I wonder if it's worth, whatever we kind of talk about it, finding out can we get 00:33:02.841 --> 00:33:06.974 - a quorum if we move to more meetings a month, regardless, because 00:33:07.202 --> 00:33:14.938 - I think I'm amenable to Tim, too. I think there's so much that I want to do. But it's hard when we haven't 00:33:14.938 --> 00:33:22.385 - had this issue as much. But I think the first six months I was on the commission, we had four meetings 00:33:22.385 --> 00:33:29.688 - canceled or something for quorum. So making sure that that is something that everybody can commit to 00:33:29.688 --> 00:33:36.990 - before we put the time on people's calendars. And one other thing that I mentioned this to Justin is 00:33:37.122 --> 00:33:45.302 - you know, we definitely get, in terms of using our time efficiently, we are somewhat bogged down in 00:33:45.302 --> 00:33:53.809 - that Robert's Rules of Order is like way too much rules for an organization like this, but we are bound 00:33:53.809 --> 00:34:01.988 - by statutes to use Robert's Rules of Orders. So we would have to make a resolution through Robert's 00:34:01.988 --> 00:34:04.606 - Rules of Order to the processes 00:34:05.186 --> 00:34:12.047 - There's like a, we would have to get counsel to change the law. The Committee on Counsel Processes is 00:34:12.047 --> 00:34:19.245 - the one I think you're talking about. Yeah, it's something we... Yeah, to adopt something like Rosenberg's 00:34:19.245 --> 00:34:26.039 - Rules of Order or something like a little bit more flexible for us, which also could be a benefit if 00:34:26.039 --> 00:34:30.142 - that's something that they're amenable to. There's also some 00:34:30.434 --> 00:34:38.106 - room in Robert's order for us to just suspend the rules at the beginning of our meetings as like a point 00:34:38.106 --> 00:34:43.806 - of practice, which could also be a way of freeing up some of the like this is 00:34:45.666 --> 00:34:52.359 - 13 people at a conference. We can't just suspend them all, but we can suspend them all. We can't, because 00:34:52.359 --> 00:34:58.863 - there's some things that we have to do the voice vote if there's people online. There's certain things 00:34:58.863 --> 00:35:05.177 - that we have to do for open door, but I think there's a lot that we could suspend to, which we kind 00:35:05.177 --> 00:35:11.807 - of unofficially do in a lot of ways anyway. I think most commissions do. They could use the time better, 00:35:11.807 --> 00:35:14.270 - regardless of how often we're meeting. 00:35:14.594 --> 00:35:24.667 - I'm not opposed to changing. I don't really mind, to be honest with you. I just wanted to get a sense. 00:35:24.667 --> 00:35:35.424 - You've mentioned agenda. You've mentioned strategic work group. What is in the pipeline? How much discussion? 00:35:35.424 --> 00:35:37.086 - How many topics? 00:35:37.634 --> 00:35:45.409 - Yeah, at the moment, I know there's a few resolutions that are in development that people are working 00:35:45.409 --> 00:35:53.413 - on. We had, you know, at our last business meeting, we had like four of them on the agenda or something, 00:35:53.413 --> 00:36:01.950 - I think, and it's, I've got four coming that aren't on it. So can you just bring, sorry for the basic question. 00:36:02.402 --> 00:36:08.232 - If I have an idea I'm really passionate about, can I just bring the resolution forward? Yes. Okay, so 00:36:08.232 --> 00:36:14.176 - it's unbridled. That's where I kind of think, you know, that strategic planning meeting would be really 00:36:14.176 --> 00:36:20.006 - helpful because we do only have so much time to work with within our set meetings. I don't think most 00:36:20.006 --> 00:36:25.721 - city staff are going to support doubling meetings that we have every month, and it isn't the bylaws 00:36:25.721 --> 00:36:27.550 - one meeting per month, but that 00:36:27.938 --> 00:36:33.057 - You know, we have a strategic meaning to like upfront, say, as a commission collectively, you know, 00:36:33.057 --> 00:36:38.177 - vote on a rank or, you know, something like that, like weigh what issues matter to you the most and 00:36:38.177 --> 00:36:43.347 - sort of set out to then, you know, individual commissioners maybe take it and work on those types of 00:36:43.347 --> 00:36:48.620 - things. You know, I think, you know, Zach, you've done some amazing work. You know, Matt really opened 00:36:48.620 --> 00:36:53.739 - up a great conversation that I think everyone learned a lot, but there was maybe some earlier steps 00:36:53.739 --> 00:36:57.374 - in the process of like, does the commission kind of as a whole want to 00:36:57.538 --> 00:37:03.220 - spend a lot of time on this subject matter? Or are there any questions that maybe should be addressed 00:37:03.220 --> 00:37:08.790 - before the resolution comes up? But that's all just kind of my opinion and perspective that I think 00:37:08.790 --> 00:37:14.695 - would be helpful for staff time to even be maybe more aware of what resolutions are coming up even before 00:37:14.695 --> 00:37:20.377 - they get presented at the initial meeting. Because we have things we need to review and look into and 00:37:20.377 --> 00:37:26.393 - recommend you all to talk to important other connected groups as well. So yeah, that's just my perspective. 00:37:26.393 --> 00:37:27.006 - Thank you. 00:37:27.362 --> 00:37:33.008 - I just want to second that the idea of doing like a strategy meeting, you know, we'll know what we're 00:37:33.008 --> 00:37:38.653 - talking about, you know, six, eight weeks ahead, you know, we're going to be talking about these cat. 00:37:38.653 --> 00:37:44.243 - These are the categories. These are general topics. We know what's coming down the road. Um, I think 00:37:44.243 --> 00:37:49.889 - that will go a long way to sort of planning out the year and the, the, we gain a lot of the time that 00:37:49.889 --> 00:37:54.206 - we might get from having like a second meeting, you know, we might go to, to, 00:37:54.626 --> 00:38:01.090 - forgo that just by the strategy meeting. If we were able to get that, I think. Is the primary concern 00:38:01.090 --> 00:38:07.872 - that we're going to have too many resolutions to get through in our meetings currently? For clarification. 00:38:07.872 --> 00:38:14.210 - I think at least that's kind of the- Upcoming, yeah. That's the bottleneck that we've hit recently. 00:38:14.210 --> 00:38:20.737 - And I think if we had working groups, too, we'd just foster more collaboration. We talked about having 00:38:20.737 --> 00:38:24.350 - a retreat or something. And currently, we don't have any 00:38:25.090 --> 00:38:31.693 - non-meeting working groups happening. So I think it is prohibitive to more collaboration and getting, 00:38:31.693 --> 00:38:38.231 - as Julie said, some of these earlier questions taken care of before we get into a meeting time where 00:38:38.231 --> 00:38:44.899 - time is limited and we're asking more background questions that probably could get solved in a working 00:38:44.899 --> 00:38:50.078 - group. Christopher has his hand up. Oh, thank you. Yeah, Christopher, go ahead. 00:38:52.674 --> 00:39:01.828 - Hey, so in terms of spending more time working as a commission, in terms of whether we're doing planning 00:39:01.828 --> 00:39:10.720 - meetings or multiple meetings a month, the question I would want to understand or answer that I think 00:39:10.720 --> 00:39:20.222 - would resolve those further questions for me would be basically the nature of the purpose of the commission. 00:39:20.866 --> 00:39:30.997 - If it's a sort of engine for resolutions, you know, I think that's... If we were going to do some genuine 00:39:30.997 --> 00:39:41.127 - strategizing in terms of what it is that the commission is set up to do and how it can most efficaciously 00:39:41.127 --> 00:39:50.302 - accomplish those goals, that would be of interest to me and worth time. But I think in terms of 00:39:50.434 --> 00:40:01.064 - just kind of generating resolutions, I feel less inclined in terms of efficacy, I guess, or sort of 00:40:01.064 --> 00:40:11.695 - in an advisory capacity. I'm not convinced that that's the most efficacious use of time. So I guess 00:40:11.695 --> 00:40:19.774 - what I'm saying is, yes, I would support sort of more time or more planning 00:40:20.098 --> 00:40:27.022 - It was along the lines of genuinely strategic planning in a kind of systematic or institutional sense. 00:40:27.022 --> 00:40:33.811 - Not just a matter of sort of organizing a busy docket, which it very much is, and I appreciate that. 00:40:33.811 --> 00:40:40.667 - That's what I wanted to share. Thank you. Yes, good points. Yeah, Tara. I will share that we tried to 00:40:40.667 --> 00:40:47.456 - do a planning meeting, and my impression of the interactions with the city was that the city was not 00:40:47.456 --> 00:40:50.078 - in good faith willing to support that. 00:40:50.338 --> 00:40:57.511 - We had, we got, Justin and I got communication from city legal that like we cannot, we have to consider, 00:40:57.511 --> 00:41:04.615 - like we can't plan a meeting and then say like the staff, like here's when our meeting is, please staff 00:41:04.615 --> 00:41:11.788 - it. But, or sorry, city legal, the city attorney said yes, you can do that. Like you schedule a meeting, 00:41:11.788 --> 00:41:18.755 - it's my responsibility to make sure it's that the city clerk and the deputy mayor said no, that's not 00:41:18.755 --> 00:41:20.190 - their reading of it. 00:41:20.610 --> 00:41:29.635 - The impression that I got in those interactions is that we do not actually have the flexibility to do 00:41:29.635 --> 00:41:38.482 - more than we're currently doing, and that we can talk about it, but I don't know that the city will 00:41:38.482 --> 00:41:47.330 - support it. I think the goal is that the staff and the commission are aligned in that, yes, we both 00:41:47.330 --> 00:41:49.630 - agree that we are able to 00:41:49.890 --> 00:41:55.906 - commit the time to specific meetings. And the amount of time, I think the initial idea of the strategic 00:41:55.906 --> 00:42:01.865 - retreat was kind of an all day thing, which was a bit much on staff, the staff. And so we came up with 00:42:01.865 --> 00:42:07.823 - kind of some ideas. And I think, you know, Sean and I contributed what times it would be available for 00:42:07.823 --> 00:42:13.781 - like a couple of two hour sessions, which was a lot more reasonable. But yeah, really the goal is just 00:42:13.781 --> 00:42:17.310 - collaborating and communicating as opposed to something like 00:42:17.826 --> 00:42:23.497 - we call this meeting staff, now you have to show up. We just want to have time. Which is what the city 00:42:23.497 --> 00:42:29.224 - attorney told us that we could do. But that was contradicted by communication from other administration 00:42:29.224 --> 00:42:34.785 - officials. And it definitely goes back to my point that I would just ask that any additional working 00:42:34.785 --> 00:42:40.291 - group meetings or meetings outside of the scope of the normal meeting has a focus, has a task, like 00:42:40.291 --> 00:42:43.870 - what is the purpose of it rather than just kind of free for all. 00:42:44.034 --> 00:42:50.918 - Yeah, right. In addition to being respectful of staff's time, I think that's just generally good for 00:42:50.918 --> 00:42:57.802 - productivity, right? Coming in with an idea and a purpose, yeah. Do we know if there's any update on 00:42:57.802 --> 00:43:04.890 - the onboarding or guidance documents that the city clerk told us that they were working on and the city 00:43:04.890 --> 00:43:11.843 - attorney? Because I think a big part of the limitation to working offline and working groups is like, 00:43:11.843 --> 00:43:13.342 - when I first came in, 00:43:14.082 --> 00:43:22.029 - I was told that if we cannot work, like when I was doing the working group for the report, I was told 00:43:22.029 --> 00:43:30.209 - that any time that we worked together, we had to do it in a public place, noticed with a virtual option. 00:43:30.209 --> 00:43:38.078 - And there were only three of us. But because it was a quorum of that committee, sorry, if any two of 00:43:38.078 --> 00:43:41.662 - us were together. And so it became impossible 00:43:42.338 --> 00:43:49.444 - for us to do that. And so clear guidance of like, when are we invited? Because now I'm hearing like, 00:43:49.444 --> 00:43:56.621 - yeah, two of you can go sit and work. And that's not the guidance that I've gotten before. So knowing 00:43:56.621 --> 00:44:03.727 - the parameters of our out of business meeting time would be really helpful. I think I've gotten like 00:44:03.727 --> 00:44:10.764 - 10 different answers in two years. There isn't a clear answer is the problem. In May, all staff are 00:44:10.764 --> 00:44:12.030 - being trained for 00:44:12.290 --> 00:44:18.603 - as liaisons, and then in June, like you all will be hearing about being invited to receive training, 00:44:18.603 --> 00:44:24.853 - and they will have new training available and developed for new commissioners as well. So yes, that 00:44:24.853 --> 00:44:31.104 - is actually coming. Yeah. And I think for that experience, the lesson that we learned there is that 00:44:31.104 --> 00:44:37.479 - if two commissioners randomly just get together and they say, hey, we both share this interest, let's 00:44:37.479 --> 00:44:40.542 - work on something, that's generally fine, unless 00:44:40.994 --> 00:44:47.374 - They both happen to sit on a particular subcommittee or an established working group that's an official 00:44:47.374 --> 00:44:53.692 - sub body of this body, and they constitute a quorum. Because then the open door law rules apply to any 00:44:53.692 --> 00:45:00.010 - subcommittee that gets officially. Because it's a quorum of that subcommittee? Exactly. And how do the 00:45:00.010 --> 00:45:06.696 - subcommittees? Or of a working group. We usually, I guess we would vote. In that case, we voted to establish 00:45:06.696 --> 00:45:10.622 - a specific ad hoc committee for that purpose. Or environmental. 00:45:10.914 --> 00:45:17.918 - just eliminated all of this. Yeah, because the city wasn't working with them on letting them meet. The 00:45:17.918 --> 00:45:24.922 - city is not a good faith ally on this, I'm sorry. The administration wasn't releasing her. That's been 00:45:24.922 --> 00:45:31.926 - my experience. I've gotten a lot of different answers and not a lot of answers to the actual questions 00:45:31.926 --> 00:45:38.590 - that I asked, but a lot of other words. Yeah, it has been confusing at times. I think in terms of 00:45:39.778 --> 00:45:45.386 - having a strategy meeting session, which originally started out as this idea of a retreat, just that 00:45:45.386 --> 00:45:51.049 - if we're really gonna think hard about what we wanna do over the next year, not just in terms of what 00:45:51.049 --> 00:45:56.713 - topics do we wanna focus on, but also some of the questions that have been brought up here that Chris 00:45:56.713 --> 00:46:02.376 - brought up. What's the best use of our time? Is it just doing resolutions? Is it other types of work? 00:46:02.376 --> 00:46:07.262 - How should we organize ourselves internally? Talk about rewriting the bylaws and stuff, 00:46:08.034 --> 00:46:14.224 - how we can suspend rules when we need to, and that sort of thing. Those are all things that take a while 00:46:14.224 --> 00:46:20.060 - to kind of get through and brainstorm. So that's where the idea of a retreat came from originally. 00:46:20.060 --> 00:46:26.014 - It's like, let's all just hang out for a day and kind of get it done. I think we can still achieve a 00:46:26.014 --> 00:46:32.380 - lot of those goals by having maybe a couple shorter sort of strategy sessions that aren't business meetings 00:46:32.380 --> 00:46:36.094 - like this, but do have a set agenda, do have a list of topics. 00:46:36.578 --> 00:46:42.120 - where we're going through and discussing this stuff. And it's sounding to me like the question of do 00:46:42.120 --> 00:46:47.717 - we need more meetings or not is maybe better answered after we've had a chance to have those strategy 00:46:47.717 --> 00:46:53.313 - sessions and really think about, okay, what is this commission doing? What direction is it going? Can 00:46:53.313 --> 00:46:59.294 - we just be more efficient and then we don't need the extra meetings or is this something that we truly need? 00:46:59.874 --> 00:47:10.124 - need at least one more one extra meeting to determine if there are more extra meetings. One or two extra 00:47:10.124 --> 00:47:19.984 - focused meetings. I just think that just reflecting on the conversation if if the commission desires 00:47:19.984 --> 00:47:28.574 - more meetings in the enabling language of the commission in the municipal code which is 00:47:29.474 --> 00:47:36.655 - 2.02.120, if anybody cares. It's section F, meetings. The commission shall meet one time each month, 00:47:36.655 --> 00:47:43.908 - every month of the year, unless it decides to cancel the meeting. So, you know, if you want to change 00:47:43.908 --> 00:47:51.018 - code, that would require, you know, to have additional meetings, that would require council action, 00:47:51.018 --> 00:47:58.270 - but we would want to obviously coordinate with the administration because this is, you know, requires 00:47:58.562 --> 00:48:06.011 - administration resources to have those units. So we wanted to talk to the mayor and work out something. 00:48:06.011 --> 00:48:13.602 - But if that's what you, I mean, I'm curious to know if that's what you're proposing. I think it's talking 00:48:13.602 --> 00:48:21.051 - about like special, like calling special sessions. Just special sessions. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And then code 00:48:21.051 --> 00:48:27.998 - does give us that. Yes. Option. So yeah, the chair or the commission itself can say sorry to me. 00:48:28.610 --> 00:48:34.012 - Yeah, I was just going to say, I guess we, you know, in that reading, where it says shall meet once 00:48:34.012 --> 00:48:39.415 - each month, that probably says we can't just schedule two business meetings on a regular basis, the 00:48:39.415 --> 00:48:44.979 - exception being if something was a special meeting, you know, then that would be permissible, I think. 00:48:44.979 --> 00:48:50.543 - But of course, we wouldn't want to regularly be calling special meetings as an order. So if we decided 00:48:50.543 --> 00:48:56.702 - we truly wanted more meetings, then I think we would have to advocate potentially for some sort of change to the, 00:48:56.898 --> 00:49:08.734 - code to accommodate that. So maybe that's not a direction we end up going. Maybe it's a work smarter, 00:49:08.734 --> 00:49:22.078 - not harder kind of situation. Other thoughts? Do we have a timeline for when we want to do the strategic planning? 00:49:22.722 --> 00:49:27.728 - Yeah, I wanted to do it a couple of months ago. I mean, mostly I've been the bottleneck because it's 00:49:27.728 --> 00:49:32.734 - really just trying to coordinate with staff to figure out exactly, you know, like what durations and 00:49:32.734 --> 00:49:37.889 - what dates would work. And they sent me back some dates that would work for them. And I think all those 00:49:37.889 --> 00:49:42.995 - dates have passed now. So we have to kind of restart them. And if we are getting concrete guidance and 00:49:42.995 --> 00:49:48.149 - training. I was going to say, I wonder if that's not a good time to just go ahead and plan around after 00:49:48.149 --> 00:49:51.966 - we all get trained. Yeah, I guess I'm saying, like, I would want to see what 00:49:52.194 --> 00:49:58.367 - the concrete guidance we're getting from the city is because then we have it in writing in a place that 00:49:58.367 --> 00:50:04.303 - everybody's seen. That's why I was asking. Yeah, before doing any extra. Because I don't want us to 00:50:04.303 --> 00:50:10.417 - mess a lot of time into something that then we get trained in the city legal set. Actually, that's not 00:50:10.417 --> 00:50:16.530 - what happened. That's a good point. And you said June was the time that commissions would probably get 00:50:16.530 --> 00:50:22.110 - that sort of training? So we'd be looking at a July potential strategic planning? I guess so. 00:50:22.306 --> 00:50:30.229 - I feel like that being strategic is that's how we get something done that's, you know, more effective 00:50:30.229 --> 00:50:38.152 - or, you know, that's going to make it make a difference sort of to Chris's point we could run through 00:50:38.152 --> 00:50:39.006 - a bunch of 00:50:39.778 --> 00:50:44.650 - different things, or we could focus on one or two things for the year. That's what I was going to say. 00:50:44.650 --> 00:50:49.665 - I think we need big focus areas, if that's the concern with the resolutions, which I feel like is similar 00:50:49.665 --> 00:50:54.584 - to what Christopher was kind of talking about. Yeah, and I'm thinking, too, like on a strategy session, 00:50:54.584 --> 00:50:59.551 - we can each get some homework, maybe. Let's see what the other commissions are trying to get done. Maybe 00:50:59.551 --> 00:51:04.376 - there's a way to look at that and say, OK, we could position ourselves to focus on these things. It's 00:51:04.376 --> 00:51:09.438 - going to align with these other groups, and we might actually get something bigger across the finish line. 00:51:09.634 --> 00:51:18.599 - Absolutely. Okay, so I think going forward we'll stand by for the moment and once we get some training 00:51:18.599 --> 00:51:27.389 - on the books and get that done then we'll start planning around a strategy session as soon as we can 00:51:27.389 --> 00:51:36.615 - after that. And then we can chat then about if we actually have a need for more meetings or not. Awesome. 00:51:36.615 --> 00:51:38.878 - Well thank you everybody. 00:51:39.042 --> 00:51:46.127 - before that for the input. That brings us on to resolutions for first reading. So we're pretty much 00:51:46.127 --> 00:51:53.212 - exactly on time right now, which is pretty great. So generally, we don't really discuss resolutions 00:51:53.212 --> 00:52:00.439 - at their first reading. We save that for the second reading. And so we usually just introduce them at 00:52:00.439 --> 00:52:03.486 - the first reading, and then we vote on it. 00:52:04.418 --> 00:52:11.787 - For those that aren't aware, we do have to have two readings for any resolution that we pass. That's 00:52:11.787 --> 00:52:19.082 - in our bylaws. And there is a way to sort of get around that in special cases if you need to really 00:52:19.082 --> 00:52:26.451 - get it done in one. That's not the case today. So we've got a resolution here authored by Zach about 00:52:26.451 --> 00:52:32.798 - concerning anticoagulant rodenticides and adhesive-based animal traps and their impact 00:52:32.930 --> 00:52:42.637 - on the biodiversity crisis. So I would entertain a motion to pass this for a second reading at our next 00:52:42.637 --> 00:52:52.531 - meeting. Resolution 2026-05. Perfect. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? Or questions 00:52:52.531 --> 00:52:56.638 - about the process would be appropriate too. 00:53:02.178 --> 00:53:07.876 - Yeah, and Zach did send around a memo to folks. I was going to say, does Zach want to say a couple words? 00:53:07.876 --> 00:53:13.413 - Yeah, do you have a couple words? I mean, just briefly, it would basically recommend that the city ban 00:53:13.413 --> 00:53:19.111 - stop the use of anticoagulant-renderedicides on city property or with city contractors. If you're unaware 00:53:19.111 --> 00:53:24.755 - of these, there's a whole memo that I wrote on here about the damage. They basically ricochet throughout 00:53:24.755 --> 00:53:28.894 - the entire ecosystem, hitting wildlife all over the place. They're horrible. 00:53:29.282 --> 00:53:34.002 - The city's somewhat limited by what we can do. So I try to suggest strategies of ways to get around 00:53:34.002 --> 00:53:38.722 - it. And then there's also a recommendation to ban outright ban glue traps, which I do think we'd be 00:53:38.722 --> 00:53:43.915 - able to do, which are also horribly inhumane and barbaric and awful. So look into it. I've always recommended 00:53:43.915 --> 00:53:48.682 - reading around there. We're at a three page memo. So four page memo. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Any 00:53:48.682 --> 00:53:52.222 - other questions about the process or anything before we move on to a vote? 00:53:55.618 --> 00:54:07.563 - All right, then we'll call the roll. This is to advance resolution 2026-05 to a second reading. Okay, 00:54:07.563 --> 00:54:19.391 - Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. Rebecca? Yes. Yes. Christopher? Yes. Yes. Zach? Yes. Yes. Councilmember 00:54:19.391 --> 00:54:25.598 - Rollin? Yes. Yes. Quintin? Yes. Yes. Alex? Yes. Yes. 00:54:25.986 --> 00:54:32.330 - Yes. Diana? Yes. Yes. And Ross? Yes. Yes. OK. It is unanimous. We will see this as a second reading 00:54:32.330 --> 00:54:39.182 - in our next business meeting. Thank you, Zach. All right. That brings us to resolutions for second reading. 00:54:39.182 --> 00:54:45.716 - So first up on the list is resolution 2026-03, concerning the pedestrianization of Kirkwood Avenue and 00:54:45.716 --> 00:54:52.060 - sustainable transportation. And Zach is the author and presenter of that as well. So do you want to 00:54:52.060 --> 00:54:55.486 - give an intro to what this is? And then we can. Yeah. 00:54:55.586 --> 00:55:00.815 - So as many of you are probably aware, the mayor decided to stop the pedestrian program at Kirkwood Avenue 00:55:00.815 --> 00:55:05.748 - this summer. I think it was a huge mistake. Basically, this would suggest or recommend to the mayor 00:55:05.748 --> 00:55:10.730 - and the city council a couple of different things. The whereas clauses all go through the background 00:55:10.730 --> 00:55:16.057 - on that. And then we have some findings, but the recommendations really meat of it. And the recommendations 00:55:16.057 --> 00:55:21.089 - go that, number one, they should at a minimum reverse the decision to not pedestrianize Kirkwood this 00:55:21.089 --> 00:55:24.542 - summer and go back to pedestrianizing at least during the seasonally. 00:55:24.738 --> 00:55:30.138 - Strongly consider more long term, a permanent year round closure of Kirkwood Avenue, at least from the 00:55:30.138 --> 00:55:35.538 - sample gates to Kirkwood. Study existing streets that are really successful in analog cities and other 00:55:35.538 --> 00:55:40.833 - other parts of the country. Prioritize investment in permanent street skate improvements rather than 00:55:40.833 --> 00:55:42.878 - just doing ad hoc things every season. 00:55:43.138 --> 00:55:47.229 - move administration of the pedestrian program from the Department of Economic and Sustainable Development 00:55:47.229 --> 00:55:51.089 - to planning and transportation, which is better equipped to handle this sort of thing. I also don't 00:55:51.089 --> 00:55:54.988 - think, I think it was a mistake to frame it as an economic development issue, which it has been from 00:55:54.988 --> 00:55:58.963 - the start. I think that was a mistake. It's not an economic development issue. It's a public space and 00:55:58.963 --> 00:56:02.978 - pedestrian and sustainable transportation issue. So the planning and transportation are better equipped 00:56:02.978 --> 00:56:03.518 - to handle it. 00:56:04.002 --> 00:56:09.497 - And that's the next one. And then after that, finally, repeal a specific section of the ordinance which 00:56:09.497 --> 00:56:14.834 - created the streetscape program, which allowed the city engineer to unilaterally just get rid of the 00:56:14.834 --> 00:56:20.381 - program and either just completely repeal it or replace it with something requiring the council to weigh 00:56:20.381 --> 00:56:25.771 - in before it's gotten rid of. And then also just the mayor repeatedly has framed the Kirkwood program 00:56:25.771 --> 00:56:31.266 - as one in terms of like parking revenue lost versus the fees that they gained from allowing restaurants 00:56:31.266 --> 00:56:32.798 - to park to be on the street. 00:56:32.994 --> 00:56:38.007 - And we're talking, I think I put it in here some ways, 0.0004% of the city's budget that we're talking 00:56:38.007 --> 00:56:43.068 - about. It's not a big revenue loss. Like, why are we framing it? That's a silly thing. Stop doing that. 00:56:43.068 --> 00:56:48.129 - And then finally, a statement of values, which I think sums up the entire thing. The commission affirms 00:56:48.129 --> 00:56:53.288 - that sustainable cities prioritize people over automobiles, especially in the most central public spaces, 00:56:53.288 --> 00:56:58.154 - and that Bloomington's identity as a walkable, bikeable community should be reflected in the design 00:56:58.154 --> 00:57:01.950 - of its most prominent and iconic pedestrian quarter. So that's in a nutshell. 00:57:02.466 --> 00:57:11.493 - Thank you. So before we discuss, do I have a motion to approve this? Second. Okay, perfect. That brings 00:57:11.493 --> 00:57:20.434 - us to discussion, debate. Just FYI, Zach, I understand my colleagues in the council are coming to you. 00:57:20.434 --> 00:57:29.374 - Do you know that they are going to be considering an ordinance to close Kirkway? Yes. And I think it's 00:57:30.018 --> 00:57:40.567 - Councilmember Rosenbarger and Councilmember Daley were co-sponsoring it. So this again goes to a very 00:57:40.567 --> 00:57:51.323 - core question, which is who has the authority to do this? And in my previous experience, it always came 00:57:51.323 --> 00:57:59.390 - to the council to adopt a policy regarding permanent alterations of roadways. 00:57:59.970 --> 00:58:07.581 - That has been in dispute, and the administration maintains that it's up to the city engineer. And we 00:58:07.581 --> 00:58:15.418 - now have an interim council attorney who's working on that. So I don't have anything to report in terms 00:58:15.418 --> 00:58:23.556 - of, you know, where that falls right now. But that's going to be a core, you know, part of this discussion. 00:58:23.556 --> 00:58:27.550 - And that's going to be on May 20th. I understand it. 00:58:28.098 --> 00:58:34.110 - So it's coming next next week. Yeah, actually. So this is very timely and I was planning. If this gets 00:58:34.110 --> 00:58:40.297 - approved, I was planning to ask to. I think we have to ask the Council actually have to vote to authorize 00:58:40.297 --> 00:58:46.309 - me to go to the Council meeting and speak on behalf of the Commission. But obviously that's contingent 00:58:46.309 --> 00:58:52.146 - on a passing. We'll discuss earlier. Procedural question. There's a draft. There's an amendment for 00:58:52.146 --> 00:58:55.998 - this that's also on offer. Are we right now? We're discussing the 00:58:56.962 --> 00:59:02.520 - The resolution, yeah, right now we're discussing the resolution without any amendments proposed. But 00:59:02.520 --> 00:59:08.023 - at any time, a commissioner could move to make an amendment. So that could happen right up front or 00:59:08.023 --> 00:59:13.692 - after some discussion. It's mostly up to you. I think we can generally discuss it, and then we'll move 00:59:13.692 --> 00:59:19.360 - to an end, and then we can discuss it down at the package. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I knew the 00:59:19.360 --> 00:59:24.478 - order that we were doing. Yeah. I love this. I'm highly supportive of it. I was thinking of. 00:59:24.706 --> 00:59:34.262 - something like this, and then you did it, and I went, great, I don't have to. Yeah, I do have a potential 00:59:34.262 --> 00:59:43.637 - in myself just to strengthen one of the whereas clauses for one of the lenses that I really viewed this 00:59:43.637 --> 00:59:52.382 - through. But yeah, I have been to multiple, I haven't been to the North Carolina City, but yeah. 00:59:52.546 --> 00:59:59.066 - I can't remember what that was. I've been to that one, but I've been to the other locations, and they 00:59:59.066 --> 01:00:05.522 - have fabulous boulevards that are core to their city that is just such an amazing place to be. And I 01:00:05.522 --> 01:00:12.042 - feel like this would only be beneficial in that way. I raised a question in the last business meeting 01:00:12.042 --> 01:00:18.945 - about this, and it's partially addressed in the amendment that was shared in the packet about accessibility 01:00:18.945 --> 01:00:21.566 - concerns, especially for people that are 01:00:21.922 --> 01:00:28.905 - trying to access public spaces like the library in there. And I think that I like the amendment that's 01:00:28.905 --> 01:00:36.227 - in the packet in sort of affirming the accessibility. Pedestrianization is at its core about accessibility. 01:00:36.227 --> 01:00:43.345 - I think anecdotally and observationally what I've seen, what creates a lot of the accessibility barriers 01:00:43.345 --> 01:00:50.260 - is like a lack of enforcement of the accessibility of the existing space. And I think that that's not 01:00:50.260 --> 01:00:51.006 - limited to 01:00:51.394 --> 01:00:58.725 - if Kirkwood is pedestrianized or not, I think that businesses right now block the sidewalk and it's 01:00:58.725 --> 01:01:06.350 - not accessible. So I think there's a question of enforcement from the city and seeing a commitment from 01:01:06.350 --> 01:01:13.828 - wanting to see maybe language in here or an amendment encouraging better, more consistent enforcement 01:01:13.828 --> 01:01:17.054 - and proactive enforcement of accessibility. 01:01:17.218 --> 01:01:23.345 - for these spaces to make sure that they are actually available to everyone. And I think knowing that 01:01:23.345 --> 01:01:29.593 - the council is also talking about snow removal and stuff, that's maybe something that's on their minds 01:01:29.593 --> 01:01:35.781 - already. So that's our concern. That's like my chief concern with proposing it. But I think if we can 01:01:35.781 --> 01:01:41.968 - talk about that language, I would love to see it. And then when we bring that up, which we can now if 01:01:41.968 --> 01:01:45.790 - you want, I'm happy to incorporate whatever language you want. 01:01:46.594 --> 01:01:55.993 - I don't think that's the words. So that May 20th meeting you referenced, is that when council's considering 01:01:55.993 --> 01:02:05.132 - this ordinance, this proposed ordinance, or just discussing the topic? That's a good question. I haven't 01:02:05.132 --> 01:02:14.183 - seen it, so it hasn't had a first reading yet. Now we could discuss it, because we've changed our rules 01:02:14.183 --> 01:02:16.446 - to hear it on that night. 01:02:16.546 --> 01:02:24.178 - So, but I'm not sure if that's the intent of the sponsors at this point. I assume that, you know, you 01:02:24.178 --> 01:02:31.660 - mentioned the fiscal impact of parking meter revenue. Probably the administration is probably going 01:02:31.660 --> 01:02:39.367 - to say that there's a fiscal impact regarding, you know, staffing and so forth. For sure. I don't have 01:02:39.367 --> 01:02:45.502 - a total picture of that yet. So I assume it's going to take a couple of meetings. 01:02:45.730 --> 01:02:55.353 - Does the city's measurement of the revenue from parking count the cost to enforce parking? I don't think 01:02:55.353 --> 01:03:04.609 - so. What they used was the $80,000 loss from the actual meter revenue. Because I know there are many 01:03:04.609 --> 01:03:12.766 - examples and I think Bloomington is probably among them where the cost to enforce meters 01:03:12.866 --> 01:03:20.141 - exceeds the revenue generated. Wouldn't surprise me because it's very cheap to park and load. Yeah. 01:03:20.141 --> 01:03:27.634 - I don't have an answer for that. That's a good question. And would that be before the concessionaires? 01:03:27.634 --> 01:03:34.327 - I'm not sure. Just like, are those not park mobile? I guess I don't know. Oh, I don't know. 01:03:34.327 --> 01:03:38.110 - Physical leaders. Yeah, they're both. They're both. 01:03:38.274 --> 01:03:44.249 - They're like Park Mobile. Park Mobile probably skips off of the $10,000. All I know is they had a total 01:03:44.249 --> 01:03:50.396 - that was $80,000 lost versus, I think, $17,000 in gains from the public space access. But that's literally 01:03:50.396 --> 01:03:56.142 - the difference. I measured it. It's 0.0004% of the city budget. We're talking pennies. That's not a 01:03:56.142 --> 01:04:02.117 - reason to cancel the entire program. It's silly. Nonsense. They were just grasping at reasons to cancel 01:04:02.117 --> 01:04:04.702 - it because they wanted to cancel it. Anyway. 01:04:04.866 --> 01:04:12.569 - Well, I think to your point, too, it's not an issue of money to you so much as it is an issue of priority. 01:04:12.569 --> 01:04:20.200 - Yeah. Well, should we move to amend, I guess? I move to amend. Perfect. There's a motion. Second. There's 01:04:20.200 --> 01:04:27.542 - a motion to amend and to amend as you provided, right? Yes. The amendment form. Yes. I think we could 01:04:27.542 --> 01:04:30.206 - pull that one up if that's possible. 01:04:31.746 --> 01:04:39.198 - What do you think? Should we look at the form, Zach, or the text itself? It's both, they're identical 01:04:39.198 --> 01:04:46.723 - so far. Maybe that's the form here is easier to see. Sorry, I'm taking notes at the same time. Minutes 01:04:46.723 --> 01:04:54.102 - at the same time. May I remember who to amend? Who? Did you? Second? Yes, me. Sorry. Sorry. Not used 01:04:54.102 --> 01:04:59.582 - to being secretary. Sorry. Thank you. No problem. OK. So should I explain? 01:05:00.162 --> 01:05:07.253 - Yes, please. Okay, yeah, so basically, most of the, several of these are just adding in footnotes that 01:05:07.253 --> 01:05:14.207 - got dropped inadvertently, so that's not really important. The main substantive one is one adding in 01:05:14.207 --> 01:05:21.367 - this line here at line 33. Sorry, there's no line numbers on this version of the draft. Oh, okay. Well, 01:05:21.367 --> 01:05:28.389 - it's there. I guess... If you just look at the... It's under when configured for auto-mobile traffic, 01:05:28.389 --> 01:05:30.110 - the next one after that. 01:05:30.594 --> 01:05:36.618 - at the bottom of page one. Just saying that accessible street design is a core component of exclusive 01:05:36.618 --> 01:05:43.113 - public space, and that pedestrianized streets, when you do it correctly, are accessible streets, essentially, 01:05:43.113 --> 01:05:49.078 - is what it comes down to. And that when you're actually expanding the pedestrian realm dramatically, 01:05:49.078 --> 01:05:55.161 - and not just reserving, literally, at most you can get maybe one fourth of the space on the street for 01:05:55.161 --> 01:06:00.062 - people versus cars on a regular configured street. This one, it's 100% for people, 01:06:00.162 --> 01:06:05.739 - that includes people with accessibility issues, that includes people with mobility issues. In the memo 01:06:05.739 --> 01:06:11.316 - I attached to this, it goes into my rationale behind it, they've done intense studies on accessibility 01:06:11.316 --> 01:06:16.785 - and pedestrian streets and they find that any, the vast majority, not the vast majority, the biggest 01:06:16.785 --> 01:06:22.254 - issues on pedestrianized streets for accessibility tend to be in places where they're having to, and 01:06:22.254 --> 01:06:28.318 - coming into conflict with cars. So on cross streets where they're not pedestrianized, that's where the biggest, 01:06:28.706 --> 01:06:34.491 - issues with accessibility are, and it's the cars themselves that often promote the accessibility issues. 01:06:34.491 --> 01:06:40.000 - There are other ones that are completely solvable, which are, the federal government has guidelines 01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:45.564 - on how to deal with these that are things like, hold on, what do they say? Detectable curb edges for 01:06:45.564 --> 01:06:51.239 - people that have vision issues, being able to figure out where the curb is, wayfinding for people that 01:06:51.239 --> 01:06:55.646 - have braille and things like that. Truncated domes. I'm sorry? Truncated domes. 01:06:55.778 --> 01:07:01.258 - What is it? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So like on maps and things, having things coming out so you can feel 01:07:01.258 --> 01:07:06.685 - where things are on a map, for example. What's another one? Oh, like having a texture of some sort on 01:07:06.685 --> 01:07:12.059 - the side of the road if the road is at the same level as the pedestrian area so that people can feel 01:07:12.059 --> 01:07:17.486 - when they're about to enter a place with cars and things like that. So these are all, there's federal 01:07:17.486 --> 01:07:22.807 - guidelines for all of this. There's solvable issues. And most of the conflicts that actually happen 01:07:22.807 --> 01:07:24.350 - come where cars are in play. 01:07:24.738 --> 01:07:29.733 - So it's just emphasizing that pedestrian streets really are accessible streets by design. It 01:07:29.733 --> 01:07:34.620 - is an accessibility thing. Yeah. I would go as far as saying that a pedestrian street will 01:07:34.620 --> 01:07:39.615 - drive accessibility by getting rid of the cars. Everything's going to start falling in place 01:07:39.615 --> 01:07:45.147 - for accessibility. For sure. And I also mentioned that a lot of people that have mobility issues don't 01:07:45.147 --> 01:07:50.518 - have cars. Disproportionately, people that are involuntary, car-free households are households that 01:07:50.518 --> 01:07:54.654 - have a high percentage of disabilities or accessibility issues of some sort. 01:07:54.914 --> 01:08:03.301 - It should be the center of civic life in Birmingham. Anyway, yes, so that's my spiel on the accessibility. 01:08:03.301 --> 01:08:11.452 - And then I also added something on the very one other substantive change, relatively minor, just adding 01:08:11.452 --> 01:08:19.447 - to the end of the study, these other streets and other cities example, just studying what they did on 01:08:19.447 --> 01:08:22.974 - accessibility that worked. Just adding that. 01:08:23.554 --> 01:08:31.120 - Safety is another huge one. When you have a place where there's a lot of pedestrians, you got vehicles. 01:08:31.120 --> 01:08:38.541 - I mean, I've looked at reports showing that walking around Bloomington is not as safe today as it was 01:08:38.541 --> 01:08:45.962 - 23 years ago. Even with all the new safety improvements, it's still not as good. So I think I support 01:08:45.962 --> 01:08:53.310 - everything you're saying on that. Okay, wonderful. Any other discussion and debate about the submit? 01:08:54.818 --> 01:09:02.005 - Did you have any? No, I'm looking at the language. I feel like it's covered and I feel like I can't, 01:09:02.005 --> 01:09:09.193 - I don't know that I could write the words to make the city follow their own laws. Yeah. Well, I read 01:09:09.193 --> 01:09:16.380 - it and I thought it was really excellent. So I appreciate the care that you took with it. Thanks. As 01:09:16.380 --> 01:09:23.710 - a former alternative modes transportation planner, I think you hit all the high marks for a compelling 01:09:24.514 --> 01:09:33.259 - What do we call these? Resolution. Resolution. I had a brain blip. So yeah, I was really excited to 01:09:33.259 --> 01:09:42.005 - see this personally and professionally. Cool. I think it's in the, it's Sample Gates to Walnut. Oh, 01:09:42.005 --> 01:09:50.750 - it's Sample Gates to the Courthouse Square. Yeah, yeah, Walnut, yeah. And I think there's been like 01:09:50.750 --> 01:09:52.062 - a break or two 01:09:52.258 --> 01:09:58.181 - I'm wearing there traditionally the way it's been the last couple of years. All the cross streets have 01:09:58.181 --> 01:10:04.219 - still been open historically. Yes. Yeah. Which that's, I think, a different resolution. But I hate that. 01:10:04.219 --> 01:10:10.372 - It's worse. Let's get it pedestrianized first. Let's have a real pedestrian. All right. So on the question 01:10:10.372 --> 01:10:15.662 - of the amendment, is there any other discussion on that or should we move on to a vote? OK. 01:10:15.662 --> 01:10:21.470 - Hearing none, we'll move on to a roll call vote. And this is to approve the amendment that Zach just 01:10:21.698 --> 01:10:34.823 - lay down here to resolution. So there's already been a motion in a second. All right, Tara? Yes. Yes. 01:10:34.823 --> 01:10:47.690 - Justin? Yes. Rebecca? Yes. Yes. Christopher? Yes. Yes. Zach? Yes. Yes. Councilor Morales? Yes. Yes. 01:10:47.690 --> 01:10:51.550 - Quentin? Yes. Yes. Alex? Yes. 01:10:51.682 --> 01:10:59.148 - Yes. Maria? Yes. Yes. Dana? Yes. Yes. And Ross? Yes. Yes. OK. The amendment passes unanimously. So that 01:10:59.148 --> 01:11:06.470 - brings us back to our discussion on the full resolution as amended. Are there any further discussions 01:11:06.470 --> 01:11:14.223 - on that resolution or additional amendments that anyone would like to make? I have one additional amendment 01:11:14.223 --> 01:11:19.966 - and maybe a second one. Anyway, let's start with my first additional amendment. 01:11:20.610 --> 01:11:33.923 - What would it be? One of the things about the pedestrianization and everything that the oscillation 01:11:33.923 --> 01:11:37.118 - that drives me crazy is 01:11:38.082 --> 01:11:44.742 - of lines 50 through 52, the statement is, whereas the current uncertainty regarding Kirkwood status 01:11:44.742 --> 01:11:51.936 - oscillating between pedestrian and automobile setups prevents businesses and the city from making long-term 01:11:51.936 --> 01:11:58.729 - investments in streetscape improvements. And I think this is very true, but for me, this is one of my 01:11:58.729 --> 01:12:04.990 - core complaints, that the city doesn't see this great additional revenue generation from this 01:12:05.186 --> 01:12:14.991 - because we can't do the right things with it. So I would just strengthen that and build it out a little 01:12:14.991 --> 01:12:25.079 - bit more. Do you have language? The city themselves understands the value of this because they're shutting 01:12:25.079 --> 01:12:33.470 - it down one night every month for families and children to enjoy. We're planning to do a 01:12:33.698 --> 01:12:41.053 - study in the corridor, or it starts with a study, right, but a study to see, to model that future solution 01:12:41.053 --> 01:12:47.926 - as discussed here. So, I can send this language to somebody if he's told to put it up on the screen 01:12:47.926 --> 01:12:55.213 - instead of just reading it, but whereas the seasonal oscillation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic 01:12:55.213 --> 01:13:00.574 - creates a structural barrier to realizing the full potential of the corridor, 01:13:00.738 --> 01:13:07.144 - stifling investments in features such as, but not limited to, fixed public art permanent commercial 01:13:07.144 --> 01:13:13.679 - kiosks, which could easily raise the tax base to fully replace lost parking revenue, expanded outdoor 01:13:13.679 --> 01:13:20.533 - dining structures, and resilient environmental features like bioswales, rain gardens, or general permeable 01:13:20.533 --> 01:13:27.068 - landscapes, which could be especially beneficial given Kirkwood's history of flooding. Yes. Seconded. 01:13:27.068 --> 01:13:29.438 - Semicolon and, right? Semicolon and. 01:13:29.602 --> 01:13:38.760 - Yes. Move to amend. Is he moving to amend? I move to add that. I move to replace the previous mentioned 01:13:38.760 --> 01:13:48.095 - three lines, lines 50 through 52 of that whereas clause with my amended whereas clause. And if we approve 01:13:48.095 --> 01:13:57.077 - this, that is a pretty substantial change. You will send me that identical text. Yes, I have it in an 01:13:57.077 --> 01:13:59.102 - email. Perfect. Saved. 01:13:59.618 --> 01:14:07.315 - Perfect. Okay. I support that. That's fantastic. Okay. So there was a second, was that? Yes. Perfect. 01:14:07.315 --> 01:14:14.861 - So there is a motion, a second. Is there any discussion about that amendment? I love it. Thumbs up. 01:14:14.861 --> 01:14:22.634 - Yeah, I like it too. So, all right. If there is no discussion, we'll move on to a vote for that. Okay. 01:14:22.634 --> 01:14:27.614 - Tara. Yes. Yes. Justin. Yes. Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Christopher. Yes. 01:14:28.034 --> 01:14:40.086 - yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 01:14:40.086 --> 01:14:52.137 - yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 01:14:52.137 --> 01:14:56.958 - yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 01:14:57.090 --> 01:15:05.336 - But Quentin, I know you and I have talked about your desire to have IU follow suit in some places and 01:15:05.336 --> 01:15:14.147 - do a little bit more road closures and things. Okay, I'm with you there. I wrote another, whereas successful 01:15:14.147 --> 01:15:15.198 - inflammation 01:15:15.650 --> 01:15:22.546 - That. Whereas successful implementation of such a change in our community could prove as a model for 01:15:22.546 --> 01:15:29.374 - Indiana University to take similar action in some of their core roadways where there is significant 01:15:29.374 --> 01:15:36.270 - pedestrian slash motor vehicle interface. Yes. Semicolon and. Second. Where would that go? I have no 01:15:36.270 --> 01:15:43.439 - idea. To the end. Before the last whereas clause so that we don't have to amend that one to be semicolon 01:15:43.439 --> 01:15:44.190 - and. What? 01:15:44.642 --> 01:15:52.765 - Can I ask a question on this? Absolutely. What is the appetite for having some sort of imagining there 01:15:52.765 --> 01:16:01.125 - was a like what we have the bus network right now, right? If there was a way to have something. Dedicated 01:16:01.125 --> 01:16:09.169 - for transportation to kind of move people, right? So I'm thinking like you have a football game. Like 01:16:09.169 --> 01:16:13.822 - you know they have. Maybe people want to park downtown and 01:16:14.018 --> 01:16:19.873 - and enjoy and spend some money after the game, dinner, whatever. If there was like a, you know, big 01:16:19.873 --> 01:16:25.787 - closed roads all the time with those, if you had a road that you could put people on like the things 01:16:25.787 --> 01:16:31.759 - they got at the state fair, those trackless trolleys. And if you could have a way, because those kind 01:16:31.759 --> 01:16:37.966 - of move in and out with people pretty well, have something like that, that could go up and down Kirkwood, 01:16:37.966 --> 01:16:40.542 - I think then you could move a lot of people 01:16:41.378 --> 01:16:48.543 - for events, and you tried out at events, but something like that, just if there was a space to have 01:16:48.543 --> 01:16:55.707 - some kind of transportation, pedestrian-centered transportation in that area. I mean, I don't think 01:16:55.707 --> 01:17:03.015 - this precludes that, like an ad hoc sort of, this is more for private vehicles, so I don't think this 01:17:03.015 --> 01:17:11.326 - would prevent that from happening. I think this kind of closure encourages that kind of creative approach to moving 01:17:11.426 --> 01:17:17.443 - large amounts of people around the city, both day to day and for big events. Yeah. I only ask because 01:17:17.443 --> 01:17:23.577 - I feel like if there was a way to have that language in there in some way, it might get people a little 01:17:23.577 --> 01:17:29.653 - bit more excited about it saying, hey, there's going to be, there might be some new way to bring a lot 01:17:29.653 --> 01:17:35.552 - more customers downtown that might not face the traffic otherwise. That might have to be a separate 01:17:35.552 --> 01:17:38.206 - amendment if we decide to add that language. 01:17:39.106 --> 01:17:45.151 - So Alex, you made a motion. I make a motion to adopt the whereas statement that I read about serving 01:17:45.151 --> 01:17:51.197 - as a model to IU. And that would be the second to last. As a quick, before I say that, should it say 01:17:51.197 --> 01:17:57.481 - Indiana University or Indiana University Bloomington? Indiana University Bloomington. Indiana University 01:17:57.481 --> 01:18:03.646 - Bloomington. And if there was a way to say that working to serve as a model and align with IU, I think 01:18:03.646 --> 01:18:08.734 - that would come off a little bit better, because IU's doing their own transportation 01:18:10.050 --> 01:18:22.937 - Model four and a line with? Okay, I might have to reread this one. Does that make sense? Because you're 01:18:22.937 --> 01:18:32.478 - thinking about a certain corridor, right? Is there any value in saying that? 01:18:32.930 --> 01:18:39.949 - I don't think it's just 10th Street. I think there's 10th, a bit of Phi, Eagleson, 7th, 3rd. I think 01:18:39.949 --> 01:18:47.246 - it could be pretty bad, too. And they have pedestrianized a big chunk of 7th. Yeah. And it's nice. Which 01:18:47.246 --> 01:18:54.195 - I was going to say, I think it's a work of art. I took my bike here, through that. The bike lane is 01:18:54.195 --> 01:19:01.214 - closed right now. I feel like if we just leave it out, don't specify it. Yeah. Pedestrianized bikes. 01:19:01.506 --> 01:19:07.914 - Should I propose we make this and then we just motion that we do this and then I get seconded and then 01:19:07.914 --> 01:19:14.135 - we would discuss the exact language and then we vote? God, I hate these rules. We already moved and 01:19:14.135 --> 01:19:20.418 - seconded, so we're discussing. Who seconded that, by the way? Okay. What's the current language that 01:19:20.418 --> 01:19:21.662 - you have right now? 01:19:21.858 --> 01:19:28.362 - Whereas, successful implementation of such a change in our community could prove as a model for and 01:19:28.362 --> 01:19:34.867 - align with Indiana University Bloomington to take similar action in some of their core roadways for 01:19:34.867 --> 01:19:40.916 - their significant pedestrian-motor vehicle interface. Seven colon and. I think that's great. 01:19:40.916 --> 01:19:47.420 - I like that. It still keeps the attention on Kirkwood, but also says that this should be after line 01:19:47.420 --> 01:19:51.518 - 76. Yes. And I know- This would be the second to last winner's 01:19:51.874 --> 01:19:58.776 - Yeah, and the align with is good, also front end to your point. I know talking to the city that like 01:19:58.776 --> 01:20:05.678 - Kirkwood in Indiana is a place of like, I think that's the place where the most pedestrians get hit. 01:20:05.678 --> 01:20:12.649 - Which I understand why it's very chaotic. But you know, that is a place that would probably be a city 01:20:12.649 --> 01:20:19.619 - university alignment to discuss what to do with that corridor. Exactly. It's also a very iconic spot, 01:20:19.619 --> 01:20:21.054 - so changing anything 01:20:21.410 --> 01:20:27.446 - Oh, yes. Yes. Is this state highway there? Because that'll complicate it. No. No, it's not. Thankfully. 01:20:27.446 --> 01:20:33.250 - OK. Ten days farther. Ten days state highway. There are lots of terrible, terrible intersections of 01:20:33.250 --> 01:20:39.112 - robots in this town that are state highway. And yes, that gets internalized. I have a map somewhere, 01:20:39.112 --> 01:20:45.090 - but most of the streets going through the university are our city streets. They're not the university. 01:20:45.090 --> 01:20:50.430 - Any other questions or discussions about the proposed amendment? No. Well, back in the day, 01:20:50.722 --> 01:20:57.378 - Kirkwood used to be open in the east of Sample Gaze. I don't know if anybody had that. I'm old enough 01:20:57.378 --> 01:21:03.904 - to remember that. If you watch Breaking Away, you can see the cars driving. And then the 7th Street 01:21:03.904 --> 01:21:10.625 - was closed by the university, you know, at the auditorium to Eagleton as well. So there is a precedent 01:21:10.625 --> 01:21:17.216 - for having a pedestrian. Grow it. Keep growing it. All right. Are we ready to move on to the vote on 01:21:17.216 --> 01:21:18.782 - the amendment? Yes. OK. 01:21:19.298 --> 01:21:28.666 - This is the vote to amend as Alex had read, and this will be the penultimate whereas clause. That's 01:21:28.666 --> 01:21:38.222 - my word of the day. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. Rebecca? Yes. Yes. Christopher? Yes. Yes. Zach? Yes. 01:21:38.222 --> 01:21:46.654 - Yes. Council Member Rowler? Yes. Yes. Quentin? Yes. Yes. Alex? Yes. Yes. Maria? Yes. Yes. 01:21:47.010 --> 01:21:53.491 - Diana? Yes. Yes. And Ross? Yes. Yes. All right, amendment is approved unanimously. Okay, so that brings 01:21:53.491 --> 01:21:59.910 - us back to our main discussion on the full resolution. Are there any further discussion or amendments? 01:21:59.910 --> 01:22:06.266 - Go team. What's that? He said go team. Good job. Well, I have one more comment. Sure. I'm not sure if 01:22:06.266 --> 01:22:13.246 - it warrants an amendment because I think it's already very strong, but just something that it made me think of. 01:22:13.570 --> 01:22:20.605 - is that the public works recently designated Kirkwood as one of only three festival footprints in the 01:22:20.605 --> 01:22:27.572 - city. And I mean, and the other ones, the trades district, and then also the square, which basically 01:22:27.572 --> 01:22:34.469 - is Kirkwood as well. So it could, I don't know if it's worth adding that as a whereas to strengthen 01:22:34.469 --> 01:22:41.022 - the argument that like, you know, if you're gonna say this space is specifically dedicated for 01:22:41.314 --> 01:22:49.579 - pedestrian activities of 1,000 people or more. Doesn't it make sense to permanently make it accessible? 01:22:49.579 --> 01:22:57.686 - You said it was Public Works Commission who did that? Public Works. That's a great idea. I would want 01:22:57.686 --> 01:23:05.633 - his opinion on that. I think it's a great idea. Other bodies have referred to this as their opinion 01:23:05.633 --> 01:23:08.574 - is adjacent to this, and it's great. 01:23:13.698 --> 01:23:21.524 - proposed language for that. So we could just say somewhere, whereas the Public Works Commission has 01:23:21.524 --> 01:23:29.507 - recently declared Kirkwood one of three official festival corridors for pedestrian activity? Festival 01:23:29.507 --> 01:23:37.646 - footprints. Festival footprints? For events anticipating 1,000 or more attendees. Okay. So let me write 01:23:37.646 --> 01:23:40.542 - that. So. It follows to. So whereas. 01:23:42.050 --> 01:23:49.989 - The Board of Public Works, that's the name, right? Can I interrupt you? The Queen of Borders is 724. 01:23:49.989 --> 01:23:58.242 - Yeah, yeah, okay. We were doing so good there. Would you have an extra 15 minutes if we needed it? Okay, 01:23:58.242 --> 01:24:06.574 - thanks. Okay, so whereas the Board of Public Works has recently designated Kirkwood Avenue as an official 01:24:06.574 --> 01:24:09.246 - festival footprint corridor? Yes. 01:24:13.506 --> 01:24:19.217 - And that means a place that is zoned to have a festival? Is that what that means? If there is basically 01:24:19.217 --> 01:24:24.707 - a public festival that's anticipated to have 1,000 or more attendees, it can only be held in one of 01:24:24.707 --> 01:24:30.308 - these. In one of those three places up there? Yeah. So the 4th Street Arts Festival will have to move 01:24:30.308 --> 01:24:35.909 - because it's no longer one of those. So I've got the link. The 4th Street Arts Festival gets to be at 01:24:35.909 --> 01:24:38.270 - this year on 4th Street and then it'll be. 01:24:38.850 --> 01:24:46.670 - I'm trying like a designation person. It's a designation person. So a language. Whereas the Board of 01:24:46.670 --> 01:24:54.413 - Public Works has recently designated Kirkwood Avenue as an official festival footprint corridor for 01:24:54.413 --> 01:25:02.310 - public events of 1,000 or more attendees. Where do we want to put it? After yours? I was going to say 01:25:02.310 --> 01:25:06.878 - shouldn't we say like just something more like showing the 01:25:07.554 --> 01:25:17.383 - community importance that this is a place to gather, yeah, further strengthening. The reason for the 01:25:17.383 --> 01:25:27.407 - policy was stated as public safety. Further illustrating the importance of the corridor for pedestrian 01:25:27.407 --> 01:25:35.582 - safety and celebration. Safety and celebration. How about celebration of community? 01:25:35.842 --> 01:25:45.289 - I moved to amend it to do what I just said. Where do we want to put it? Oh. Let's do right after the 01:25:45.289 --> 01:25:54.736 - one he just added. Okay. So this would then become the... Penalty. Penalty. Who seconded? I seconded 01:25:54.736 --> 01:26:01.470 - it. Okay. First secretary. And any discussion before we move to a vote? 01:26:02.402 --> 01:26:08.069 - Could you give us one more full reading of? Yeah. So whereas the Board of Public Works has recently 01:26:08.069 --> 01:26:13.735 - designated Kirkwood Avenue as an official festival footprint corridor for public events of 1,000 or 01:26:13.735 --> 01:26:19.742 - more attendees, further illustrating the importance of the corridor for pedestrian safety and celebration 01:26:19.742 --> 01:26:25.465 - of community. Semicolon and. Perfect. All right. Fast talking comes in hand. We'll move on to a vote 01:26:25.465 --> 01:26:31.358 - then for the amendment. Tara. Yes. Yes. Justin. Yes. Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Chris. Christopher. Sorry. Yes. 01:26:32.194 --> 01:26:42.372 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:26:42.372 --> 01:26:52.550 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:26:52.550 --> 01:26:59.166 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:26:59.842 --> 01:27:09.610 - So there's a motion to extend to 745. Is there a second? There's a second. All right. Then we'll vote 01:27:09.610 --> 01:27:20.145 - on that. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. Rebecca? Yes. Yes. Christopher? Yes. Yes. Zach? Yes. Yes. Councilmember 01:27:20.145 --> 01:27:28.094 - Borella? Yes. Yes. Quentin? Yes. Yes. Alex? Yes. Yes. Maria? Yes. Yes. Diana? Yes. 01:27:28.450 --> 01:27:38.816 - Yes, and Ross. Yes. Yes. All right. We are extended to 745. Thank you, everybody, for staying a little 01:27:38.816 --> 01:27:48.880 - bit later. OK, so we are back on the main resolution as amended. Is there any further discussion or 01:27:48.880 --> 01:27:56.126 - amendments? So I was thinking of no. At least we have the amendment on. 01:27:56.770 --> 01:28:07.735 - Is everyone ready to move on to a vote? Yes. Okay. All right. So this is to a vote to pass resolution 01:28:07.735 --> 01:28:18.807 - 2026, 2026-03 as amended. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. Rebecca? Yes. Yes. Christopher? Yes. Yes. Zach? 01:28:18.807 --> 01:28:26.654 - Yes. Yes. Councilmember Rowland? Yes. Yes. Quintin? Yes. Yes. Alex? Yes. 01:28:26.882 --> 01:28:33.551 - Yes, Maria? Yes. Yes, Diana? Yes. Yes, and Ross? Yes. Yes. All right, the resolution passes as amended. 01:28:33.551 --> 01:28:40.093 - Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you. Very well done. Thank you. Is this, I would like to, 01:28:40.093 --> 01:28:46.634 - I don't know how this works, but I think we have to vote for me, to authorize me to go speak in front 01:28:46.634 --> 01:28:53.496 - of the council, just to read the resolution, basically. Oh, yeah, that's a good point, yeah. So basically, 01:28:53.496 --> 01:28:56.574 - Zach wants to attend this May 20th meeting, and 01:28:56.674 --> 01:29:03.278 - speak as a member of the public, but also sort of speak on behalf of the commission as it relates to 01:29:03.278 --> 01:29:09.882 - this resolution. So basically staying within the lanes of what this resolution says. So I think it'd 01:29:09.882 --> 01:29:16.878 - be good if he's going to say that he's presenting this in sort of an informal way, I guess, to the council 01:29:16.878 --> 01:29:22.174 - on behalf of the commission, that we would have to vote to allow him to do that. 01:29:23.906 --> 01:29:34.077 - Yeah, I guess. A second. Perfect. There's a second. Great. Is there a discussion or questions about 01:29:34.077 --> 01:29:44.248 - what this entails? OK, perfect. We'll go through a vote then. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. Rebecca? 01:29:44.248 --> 01:29:52.894 - Yes. Yes. Christopher? Sorry, there's a lag. Yes. No worries. We got yes. Zach? Yes. 01:29:53.026 --> 01:29:59.178 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:29:59.178 --> 01:30:05.330 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:30:05.330 --> 01:30:11.481 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:30:11.481 --> 01:30:17.633 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:30:17.633 --> 01:30:20.094 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 01:30:20.194 --> 01:30:26.042 - in an email. That's perfect, yeah. Anyone who did amended text, please send it to me, otherwise I'll 01:30:26.042 --> 01:30:31.832 - have to go back to the recording and transcribe it all. Okay, that brings us to resolution 2026-04, 01:30:31.832 --> 01:30:37.912 - against the use of glyphosate in Bloomington's public spaces and environmental practices. Matt mentioned 01:30:37.912 --> 01:30:43.934 - during public comment that he would be fine if this didn't move forward based on the conversations that 01:30:43.934 --> 01:30:50.014 - we had last meeting and all that discussion. So I just want to note as a process, if we want to do that, 01:30:50.114 --> 01:30:55.081 - we could postpone indefinitely, which basically kills it. It doesn't mean we can never reconsider it. 01:30:55.081 --> 01:31:00.194 - If someone wanted to bring it back sometime, they could, but it would kill it indefinitely. But in order 01:31:00.194 --> 01:31:05.404 - to do that, we have to have someone make a motion and a second, and then we can make a motion to postpone. 01:31:05.404 --> 01:31:10.517 - Does that make sense? You have to approve it first. Yeah, vote to approve it, and then vote to postpone. 01:31:10.517 --> 01:31:15.727 - Of course, we also don't have to vote to postpone, but that's just an option. I want to make sure everyone 01:31:15.727 --> 01:31:16.798 - knows how that works. 01:31:17.474 --> 01:31:25.523 - So is there a motion to? I motion to consider resolution 2026-04. Perfect. Is there a second? All right, 01:31:25.523 --> 01:31:33.112 - there's a second. Are there any discussions or further motions? I move to postpone it, definitely. 01:31:33.112 --> 01:31:41.084 - I second. Did you want to discuss? I was just going to say one thing quick. That no matter what happens 01:31:41.084 --> 01:31:46.910 - with this, I do want to state that even after hearing from our experts last 01:31:47.010 --> 01:31:55.343 - month that I do have concerns about the use of glyphosate. I have concerns about the city use of some 01:31:55.343 --> 01:32:03.840 - of the other herbicides and fungicides that were provided in some of the emails that were lists of what 01:32:03.840 --> 01:32:12.254 - they do use. So I just would like to reiterate that no matter what happens today with this, I do think 01:32:12.254 --> 01:32:16.094 - there is merit. I also think there are merited 01:32:16.386 --> 01:32:24.035 - uses of glyphosate from the city, but it would take more than I think what was written in this to make 01:32:24.035 --> 01:32:31.611 - any full decision. Yeah, and I think that what came out of this process was like it's very clear that 01:32:31.611 --> 01:32:38.443 - the city, while the parks department does a reasonable job of being transparent about their 01:32:38.443 --> 01:32:44.830 - use of pesticides, that that is not necessarily true of all city departments that are 01:32:44.930 --> 01:32:52.271 - using pesticides and or, you know, departments might contract with groups that are using it and there's 01:32:52.271 --> 01:32:59.470 - potential for our commission to take up that issue and push for more transparency, more communication 01:32:59.470 --> 01:33:06.670 - from the city when they are using these tools. Yeah, I think we had a great discussion too. Yeah, and 01:33:06.670 --> 01:33:13.022 - I actually, I want to say I went into it thinking I was likely going to be opposed to it. 01:33:13.730 --> 01:33:19.131 - And I might be the only person to move this way. Actually, the more research I did, especially because 01:33:19.131 --> 01:33:24.637 - France has a similar thing, anyway, I actually came out a little bit more in favor of it than I thought. 01:33:24.637 --> 01:33:29.881 - I think it needs to be amended and changed. In its current form, I probably couldn't have voted for 01:33:29.881 --> 01:33:34.863 - it, but I think there's a version of it that I could have supported. Anyway. So, procedurally, 01:33:34.863 --> 01:33:39.582 - where are we? We're considering adoption. Okay, yeah, okay. And you did technically make, 01:33:39.714 --> 01:33:51.838 - I guess we're kind of in the discussion for that motion, right? The motion to amend it. Yeah, I guess 01:33:51.838 --> 01:34:04.080 - we technically are. Okay. So was it seconded? It was. Yeah, but I'm happy to pause for a moment. Well, 01:34:04.080 --> 01:34:08.478 - this discussion is valid for either. 01:34:08.706 --> 01:34:18.287 - I think, unless to postpone indefinitely is not debatable, but as the chair will say, I don't remember 01:34:18.287 --> 01:34:28.055 - right now, so it's okay. Any other further discussion before we move to a vote to postpone indefinitely? 01:34:28.055 --> 01:34:37.822 - Okay, then we'll take the vote to postpone indefinitely resolution 2026-03. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. 01:34:37.954 --> 01:34:47.840 - Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Christopher. Yes. Yes. Zach. Yes. Yes. Dave. Yes. Quentin. Yes. Yes. Alex. Yes, but 01:34:47.840 --> 01:34:55.326 - I think that you said to... You said 03 at 04. Oh, you're right. I apologize. 01:34:56.258 --> 01:35:03.076 - That's OK. Was anyone confused about what they were voting for? No. Has anyone changed their vote so 01:35:03.076 --> 01:35:10.366 - far? Just wanted to clarify for public. I was going to say something to you. I was talking about resolution 01:35:10.366 --> 01:35:17.252 - 2026-04. Thank you for that. And yes. Yes. OK. Maria? Yes. Yes. Diana? Yes. Postponed. Yes. And Ross? 01:35:17.252 --> 01:35:24.137 - Yes. Yes. All right. The resolution is postponed indefinitely. So that brings us to the staff liaison 01:35:24.137 --> 01:35:25.150 - report. Julie? 01:35:25.954 --> 01:35:32.542 - Yeah, well, we kind of touched on what I was going to bring up, and that there is training for staff 01:35:32.542 --> 01:35:39.586 - liaisons and training for commissioners expected, you know, some of these are to help coordinate processes, 01:35:39.586 --> 01:35:46.108 - bring processes in alignment with the accessibility laws, which, yes, while our compliance date has 01:35:46.108 --> 01:35:51.326 - been postponed a year, the city's goal is still to follow the compliance rules. 01:35:51.522 --> 01:35:58.597 - Yeah, I'll just be in probably more contact with more updates to how we should align our documents with 01:35:58.597 --> 01:36:05.672 - that and just anything that comes out of the trainings that we can all discuss more to understand maybe 01:36:05.672 --> 01:36:12.747 - on the same page about any new guidance or things that you've learned from the trainings. That's pretty 01:36:12.747 --> 01:36:19.618 - much an option that we can discuss in future meetings, just how it affects this commission. So yeah. 01:36:19.618 --> 01:36:20.638 - Perfect. Cool. 01:36:21.634 --> 01:36:30.462 - Any questions for Julie? All right. We've got a couple minutes left. That brings us to member announcements. 01:36:30.462 --> 01:36:39.128 - Any member announcements? There is a pedestrianization of Kirkwood tomorrow night in front of the library. 01:36:39.128 --> 01:36:47.389 - It's like a block party thing that is encouraging people to go to local businesses and get dinner and 01:36:47.389 --> 01:36:48.766 - sit in the park. 01:36:49.314 --> 01:36:56.434 - there will be a free Zumba class because I know the person who's teaching it. So you know lots of stuff 01:36:56.434 --> 01:37:03.622 - yeah and an opportunity to talk to people about wouldn't it be great if this was all the time as private 01:37:03.622 --> 01:37:10.536 - citizens. I know housing is a listed priority of the Commission so I just wanted to share that who's 01:37:10.536 --> 01:37:17.724 - your action is hosting several events they're sort of open to the community to discuss housing practices 01:37:17.724 --> 01:37:19.230 - locally and so if you 01:37:19.650 --> 01:37:28.441 - me to send that information out to anyone if anyone's interested in any of those community conversations. 01:37:28.441 --> 01:37:36.734 - They do some advocacy around housing. There is a similar event outside of Friendly Beasts on Friday 01:37:36.734 --> 01:37:44.529 - related to housing in Seminary Square. I'm sorry, what's the apartment there? Seminary Point. 01:37:44.529 --> 01:37:48.510 - Seminary Point, yeah. The housing that's slated 01:37:48.898 --> 01:37:56.573 - For a potential demolition, people are throwing a block party. There's going to be music and things 01:37:56.573 --> 01:38:04.479 - like that there. It's relevant to the sort of civic firmament of the moment, I guess. So I thought I'd 01:38:04.479 --> 01:38:12.462 - bring it up in a similar sense. It's connected to salient issues of the moment, I guess is what I would 01:38:12.462 --> 01:38:16.990 - say, without trying to endorse any particular perspective. 01:38:23.298 --> 01:38:31.421 - Just to say, I appreciate the memo, Zach, that you included in the packet about flock size chickens. 01:38:31.421 --> 01:38:39.624 - The delay has really been just a consequence of lack of council staff. So we've had to do things that 01:38:39.624 --> 01:38:47.747 - were prioritized. And so I intend to keep going on that probably later in the summer. It'll probably 01:38:47.747 --> 01:38:52.894 - happen. And I need to talk to Animal Care and Control about it. 01:38:52.994 --> 01:39:00.874 - whether it requires additional staff or if there's any consequences that would affect the recommendations. 01:39:00.874 --> 01:39:08.312 - Anecdotally, when I had my, this is me as a private citizen telling you this, I guess, well, I don't 01:39:08.312 --> 01:39:16.045 - remember enough, but I had my chicken coop inspected by animal control and the inspector said, you know, 01:39:16.045 --> 01:39:22.526 - the city's thinking about increasing the flock size. And he said, and I love that idea. 01:39:22.722 --> 01:39:29.565 - I mean, you should still have that conversation, but the animal care and control is aware of this as 01:39:29.565 --> 01:39:36.543 - an option. Yeah, just want to make sure that they're at peace with it, because the onus is on them for 01:39:36.543 --> 01:39:43.589 - enforcement. It's good to know, though, that there is at least one enforcement officer. And it's better 01:39:43.589 --> 01:39:50.432 - for the animals, for the sake of keeping them warmer. Yeah, well, that's true. The last thing is the 01:39:50.432 --> 01:39:52.126 - final considerations for 01:39:52.578 --> 01:40:01.684 - the Jack Hawkins social service funding. We're awarding a total of half a million dollars. 01:40:01.684 --> 01:40:11.891 - It's May 26th. This is for the committee, the council committee at 6 p.m. And so we'll make our final 01:40:11.891 --> 01:40:22.398 - considerations then. We have nearly $700,000 in requests. So it's always difficult to have that process. 01:40:22.722 --> 01:40:31.250 - not giving people fully what they asked for in many cases. But in any case, I think we're willing to 01:40:31.250 --> 01:40:39.526 - be funding nearly all of them. So cool. And to some degree. Thank you. Any other recommendations? 01:40:39.526 --> 01:40:48.054 - All right. New business. There's no new business. So that brings us to adjournment. So we'll adjourn 01:40:48.054 --> 01:40:50.334 - at 741. Thanks, everybody.