Go ahead and get started then. I'll call to order this meeting of the Bloomington Commission
on Sustainability and Resilience on Tuesday, September 8th at 6 p.m. And we'll call the roll. Commissioner
Dutterdale. Here. Commissioner Vassell, I'm here. Commissioner Payne. Here. Here. Commissioner Miles.
Open up my Zoom window. absent. Vice Chair Emmerman. Here. Councilmember Rallo.
Quiet, but he's here. He's got to come on. Yeah. Whether that's a sound issue in the room or the hearing?
Oh, yeah. You've got you. Very quiet. A little bit quiet, but we might be able to adjust that. But I've
got you marked down. OK. Commissioner York? Nope. Commissioner Arstad? Here. Here. Commissioner Ogrodowsky?
Here. Here. And Commissioner Carlson?
I am here. You're here. Excellent. Perfect. Well, we have a quorum. Happy Tuesday, everybody. We had
a nice break with the temperatures for like a couple of days, and now we're right back to it. But hopefully
everyone had a nice Labor Day weekend and got some time to enjoy the outdoors without immediately bursting
into flames. So OK, so let's do the approval of the agenda first. I do have one change that I want to make.
guest speaker here today to talk about retro cycle, that's item 6A. So I'll be asking to move that up
to after approval of the minutes and before public comment, just to be respectful of their time. Are
there any other changes to the agenda that anyone wants to offer? Okay. Then I'll make that motion to
make that change. And there's a second. And we'll go through a voice vote for that, or sorry, roll call
vote for that. Commissioner Dugdale. Yes.
Yes. Commissioner Vassel, yes. Commissioner Payne? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Miles is still absent at the
moment. Commissioner Amelman? Yes. Yes. Councilmember Rallo? Yes. Yes. Commissioner York is absent.
Commissioner Arstad? Yes. Commissioner Ogrodowsky? Yes. And Commissioner Carlson? Yes. Yes. Perfect.
I guess that was just a motion to, well,
I guess that was just a motion to amend, but did everyone understand that to be a motion to amend and
approve? Approve as amended. Okay. Wonderful. Okay. Can you tell me the amendment? Yes, it was to move
item 6A, retrocycle introduction after item three, approval of the minutes and before item four, public
comment. Thank you.
Okay, that brings us to approval of the minutes for July 14, 2026, our regular. Oh yeah. Thanks. Uh,
commission member, uh, commissioner York, are you present? We do not see you. Excellent. I see, I see
your background.
I don't know why you don't see me. Are you behind the chair? Do you have a little sliding thing on your
camera? You know what? That is exactly why you don't see me. I think he's behind the zipper. Yeah, there
we go. Easier. OK. Excellent. Welcome.
Okay, great. Uh, so approval of the minutes for July 14th, 2026. Um, are there any corrections that
anybody wants to make to those minutes? Okay. Is there a motion to approve? And a second. Second. Perfect.
All right. This is to approve the minutes from July 14th, 2026. Uh, commissioner Dunderdale.
Yes. Commissioner Vassel. Yes. Commissioner Payne. Yes. Yes. Uh, commissioner Ammerman. Yes. Yes. Council
member Rallo.
Yes. Yes. Commissioner York. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Arstad. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Ogrodowsky. Yes.
Yes. And Commissioner Carlson. Yes. Yes. OK. The minutes are approved. Great. And so that brings us
to 6A, Retrocycle Introduction. So let's see. Maybe feel free to grab this spot up here. And just before
we get started, I'll just
say a couple things here. So we're going to hear from Meredith Katz, who's the CEO and co-founder of
Retro Cycle, which is a Colorado-based company. She'll tell you more about it, so I'm not going to go
into that really, but it's ultimately sort of a reuse program for coffee cups, both hot and cold, that
they've been rolling out in different parts of Colorado, and it's been very successful.
Retro Cycle is interested in making Bloomington sort of the entryway into their Indiana rollout.
And so, you know, we had chatted a little bit about the company and the model and how it works. And
this seems like something that could be a really good like working group grants project for us. This
is a good kind of example of like a pilot program that could go on to get established and sort of sustained
in other ways and get started here. I think it's also a good opportunity for us to collaborate with other
groups that might have an interest in this, like the Environmental Commission, the Arts Commission,
Waste Management District, Monroe County, IU potentially. So those kind of things, we don't have to
make any decisions today about that sort of stuff. We don't have to really make a plan or anything like
that. We can discuss further at a future meeting. Today is mostly just to hear a little bit more about
the product, about the company.
and what it might look like here in Bloomington. And then we'll open it up to questions so people can
just get a more familiarity with it. With that, I'll pass it off to you, Meredith. Awesome. Thanks,
Justin. That was a great introduction. So I'm Meredith Katz. I actually graduated from IU well over
a decade ago. And I'm a proud user. And I'm the CEO of Rector Cycle, which is a 501c3 nonprofit.
based in Colorado and our mission is to create circular systems to replace disposable ones. Our goal
is that reuse becomes an everyday behavior of borrow and return and so simple and so easy that it feels
quite intuitive and what you see in front of you the Colorado Cup is our first
program that we have rolled out across now three municipalities across Colorado and expanding. We also
partner with local artists to design these cups to really localize the program, which is why you mentioned
the Arts Commission, Justin. So like I mentioned, the Colorado Cup is a statewide borrow and return
system for reusable to go cups. It's been launched in Breckenridge was our first town where there are
15,000 residents and 2 million visitors.
So we were tasked with making a reuse system so easy and effortless that people who were there for maybe
even 24 hours could engage with the system. The best way to explain it is, I think, with a story. I
was sitting in a cafe one Friday, and I saw this gentleman return a cup at the counter and walk out
with an ice cream cone. And I ran after him quite ungracefully to ask him about his experience with
the Colorado Cup.
and he introduced himself as Jake from Texas, and he landed in Breckenridge that Monday, and when his
first stop was at a cafe to get caffeinated, and the barista offered him, asked him a question of, would
you like that in a Colorado cup? Something he had never heard before. And the barista explained to him,
you would pay a $2.50 deposit, you can then take this cup with you, and you can either, you can bring
it back to any cafe, there's a QR on the cup that you can see,
and scan. And then you can trade it and swap out that cup as many times as you'd like for a clean cup
and a new drink. And when you're finally done with it, you can return it and you'll get a 250 discount
on anything at any cafe across the state of Colorado in the system. And so Jake thought that was pretty
cool. Brisa also mentioned that all the cafes wash the cups and then restock them. And so it's decentralized
washing. So
Jake opted in, he paid a 250 deposit, and on that Tuesday, when he got his coffee, he brought his cup
with him, and he swapped out his cup for a new cup. And on Wednesday, he did the same thing.
And on Thursday, he swapped out his cup again. And finally, that Friday, when I met him with his ice
cream cone melting, he returned his cup and he got a discount on an ice cream cone on his way to the
airport. And Jake from Texas saved six single-use cups that week.
And single use cups, coffee cups, make up over 40% of waste, about 40% of waste, 37% to be exact, of
Brigham Ridge's main street trash. And so RetroCycle, we partner with the municipality to roll out this
program in efforts that hopefully that will reduce the cost on all those pickups if we can
really significantly reduce the waste of downtown. So that's how it works for the customer. Something
so intuitive and easy that Jake
from Texas picked up on the system coming to Breckenridge in a matter of a few days. Now, how it works
for the cafes is it's not just a sustainability initiative, it's an economic one. Cafes purchase these
cups for $2.50, which is a higher sticker price than a single-use cup. However, they receive that $2.50
every time a customer borrows a cup, so it creates a break-even. And single-use coffee cups, they range
in price, but we're seeing the average around $0.30 today.
So every time that a customer opts in for a Colorado Cup, that cafe saves 30 cents, which is that adds
up to be quite a bit when you're doing 300 to 500 transactions a day on average. So that's how it works
for the cafes. How it works for the municipality and why I'm here do not talk about the Colorado Cup
but the Indiana Cup is that we ask the municipality and this is how it has worked in Colorado where
we've launched
to buy a starting case of cups for every cafe, because really the more expensive thing than dollars
for these cafes is the energy and attention. They are busy working early morning, baking typically tonight.
And so by just buying the starting cases of cups, it's not only an economic booster for that cafe, but
it allows them to focus on what's most important, which is setting up the system, training their staff,
And it's quite easy. It's just three buttons that are added to their POS. A Colorado cut borrow, or
I should say an Indiana cut borrow of 250, a discount for a return of 250, and a swap, which is $0.
We still track that. So the last thing I'll mention is how the program's going. Like I mentioned, we
launched about three months ago. Our participation rate is about 2%.
We had just started rolling out paid marketing efforts of ads and collaboration, collaborated municipal
efforts. So Instagram, Facebook posts, newsletters coming from the municipality to their various audiences
about the program and that's something that we provide as their partner. So we've eliminated over 750
single use cups. The return rate is something that I was really concerned about with launching this program.
I estimated about 10%. The return rate has been 40%. So the reordering time has actually been quite
elongated for these cafes. And for resorts and closed-loop systems, and I say this because it's in relation
to campus here at IU too, we're seeing over 75% return rates for resorts in Breckenridge.
The cup system really is a template for any city or town to use. And like I said, I'm a proud Hoosier.
And this system was actually built by IU students. When you scan this cup and you pull up the map, that
was all built by Luddy students. And so I didn't just go to IU. I'm not just from Indianapolis. The
first cafe that we tested was Bloomington Bagel on the map, not a cafe in Colorado.
which makes me really proud, makes people really proud to be here today to see about adopting a system
here. Justin, I shared the numbers with you. We can go over those if you want, but I'll pause here because
I want to leave space for commentary questions. Thank you. Yeah, wonderful. Thank you for being here.
Yeah, so as Meredith mentioned, she had sent some numbers about what it might look like in Bloomington
estimates and stuff in terms of how many
cafes and things like that and what the cost would be, you know, to get that kind of stood up. So that's
something I'll circulate to the group and we'll probably have a more detailed discussion about it at
a future meeting. But for now, let me open it up to the floor to commissioners who have questions. I
love it just off of that. Yeah, I think Bloomington would be such a good fit for it. And the IU system
in general.
especially because it's got that IU DNA built in. You said 2% participation. Does that mean 2% of the
state of Colorado? Or what is that 2%? Yeah, so out of all the to-go orders, drink orders at that goes
cafe, we collect the data. 2% of those to-go drink orders are ordered and are reusable. Gotcha. Our
goal is to get to 20%. So we've been iterating on the signage. Our goal is to get to 5% by the end of
the year. But ultimately, the goal is one in five cups.
is starting to be reusable. So we're really working on stair-stepping our way and iterating. Yeah. Great.
Thank you. Yes, of course. So out in Colorado, have you had any cafes that are chains? I'm trying to
think of an anonymous example of the university system would have multiple cafes, although they would
be one recipient or buyer.
So I'm not sure if you guys dealt with that or like? Yes, we have. Actually, we are about to onboard
our first cafe chain. It has five different locations. So we're going to be launching in Boulder, in
Boulder County, and working similarly at CU Boulder to hopefully work with students to implement that
system. And so we have a cafe chain of five locations there.
And so the next step, we have met with Starbucks. They are aware of the system. They are aware of the
program. We're a little small for them right now. But yes, Einstein, Kiribu Coffee, other chains. So
working on small chains right now. But yeah, and that actually makes it quite easier, I would say, if
there's one buyer and chains. It makes it quite simpler.
are you just visiting? I'm just visiting. You're just visiting. How long are you going to be here? I'm
here until the end of the day. Oh, the end of the day. I was going to suggest that you meet with the
Bloomington Urban Enterprise Association. They have funding. They work with small businesses, so they
may be interested in helping the commission. I'm not sure how much the cases cost or how many people
would be interested, but you might need additional funding. That's a great.
Enterprise Association. Okay, thank you. I can always get a contact and reach out. That's what I've
been doing with the sustainability department of IU and also the Kelly School of Business, the social
impact part of that school too. I look for student involvement to start that train early. Yeah, if possible.
Okay. Yeah, great. And I have met with a few cafes as well. I did go around.
I counted about 13 eligible cafes. We don't count diners, like Village Deli, for instance, is not a
cafe we would consider. Like where we focus primarily on cafes where they primarily are to go. Yeah.
And so what I sent to Justin includes about 10, a budget for around 10 cafes. Our goal is always to
get at least 50% saturation because then that creates the network effect. Yeah. What's the cost for
like a case?
An initial case, so the sizes vary. So the cups are $2 and the lids are $0.50. For the cold cups, we
have a cold cup that's clear. The case size is $180. So one case is $360. For the hot cups, the case
sizes are a little smaller. They're about $70. And so that's about $140. And so we recommend buying
two cases of hot, one case of cold, so the numbers are pretty similar. And then for the lids,
The hotlids come in a case of 144 to $72. And then for the cold cups, it's 180 for the lids. And so
that's $90. And that's all in the project plan that Justin sent. Yeah. And then the other thing is there
is a subscription fee of $45 a month for every cafe. I should mention that. It does cover shipping.
marketing materials in general. It goes into a general marketing fund where we promote those cafes.
So for instance, like the town of Breckenridge, you'll see they're promoting the cafes that are in it.
So they're getting free, they're getting marketing out of it. And they make that back fairly quickly
with the savings. Okay. And what other, so are you just in Breckenridge right now so far? Frisco and
Dillon, neighboring towns. And by the end of the year, we will be in Silverthorn, Vale, and Stinglet Springs.
that grant goes through that we've applied to with the state in full transparency, and also Boulder.
OK, that's cool. Commissioner York has a question. Go ahead. Mr. York. Yeah, I love this. I'd love to
talk about using some of our available grant funding to support this. I was wondering if it could potentially be
I haven't heard that name yet. The Indiana Cup and the B-Town Cup, I've heard. But I like Hoosier Cup,
too. Well, the particularly high school spirit, I think, right now is the success of all teams. I think
Hoosier Cup would go over really well. And then, I'm sorry if you said this and I missed it, but Ramo
can't see the Cubs crazy ball things. Is it obviously?
Yes, this is polypropylene number five. Mm-hmm. Durable for a thousand uses, yeah. Okay. Is the double
wall insulated? Do people still use a paper foam? No sleeve required. It is ridged. I don't know if
you can see that there's a texture. Yeah. When you rotate that, actually, I'm not going to use that.
The ridges show up.
No sleeve required. It is a little bit thicker, so if the beverage is, I mean, it's great for lattes.
If I get an Americano in this, I hold it a little bit more at the bottom, where it is a little more
insulated. And we chose to go with plastic for a few reasons. One is for the price. We do,
with our research, we show that people are more economically sensitive and material sensitive. And we
know that single-use cups do have a PET lining.
in there too, so there is plastic in those cups, and that makes it quite hard to recycle them. So that's
a big reason that the cost is the number one reason why we went with plastic. Yeah, I figured that all
makes sense.
It's not ideal in that sense. I understand that replacing a cup that is already lined with plastic.
So it's not worse in that sense. But if there were a non-plastic alternative, it could get away from
that. But then you've got other problems with cost or durability or something. So probably no perfect
solution. I'm really glad you brought that up, actually, because I'm also plastic sensitive. And so
I empathize with plastic.
with that too, and I have a stainless steel thermos that I bring around with me. Part of our 501C3 is
to continue research of what are the best materials for reusables. So we actually commissioned a study
with CU Boulder to compare a single-use cup with coffee to our cup. Unfortunately, it came back inconclusive.
So we're now in search of another lab to do that study because we want to fully understand what the
reusable impact is.
And so that is research that we are actively doing and can keep you in the loop on. But yes, it's, the
reason we went with Bully Proply number five is because that is the material that the German system
uses, ReCup, which has 20,000 cafes on that system. They have not done any testing like this. So I think
we're taking it kind of a step further that we know of, or that's been shared with us. And so, but,
Excellent question. We have looked into a stainless steel system. But first, we want to see how the
plastic system does and iron out the kinks of a reasonable system with a more economical material before
we add in a more expensive material and make that larger environmental impact that stainless steel does
with the manufacturing. Why don't you elaborate on that? I assume with stainless steel, just
Certainly. Yes, it has to be. And this is a little more thicker of a cup. And you can't see it, but
we can leave one behind so you can see it in the future. All right, any last questions? Yeah, go ahead.
Just clarifying, you said it's good for 1,000 uses? Yes. OK. That's impressive. It's good for 1,000
uses. Have you considered approaching IU for a partnership on the research aspect of this? I haven't,
actually. If you have a contact,
I would, for that research and lab research, I would love that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm in. That'd be
great. The sustainability office, if you're working with them, may also be able to connect you with
somebody who's working in material sciences or something like that. Excellent. Yes. Our next product
launch is a pizza box, a reusable pizza box. Oh, that's cool. So next time I'm in Bloomington, happy
to bring that by so you can check it out. Cool. Nice. All right. Anything else?
OK, perfect. Well, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll keep you posted.
Awesome. Thank you. I can leave one if you'd like to have it for discussion. Perfect. Awesome.
Thank you all. Thank you so much. Is that going to our official PCOS inventory? No, in the minute. Probably
should, yeah. Yeah, enter it into the record. No, like our boxes. No, I know. Yeah, yeah. We probably
should put it in there.
OK, wonderful. OK, so that brings us to public comment. And I am pleased to say that we've got a full
house here in the gallery. And I know we've got somebody online, so maybe we'll start out here in the
room. We usually set aside about 10 minutes for this, and we try to ask that everybody keeps their comments,
each person under three minutes. Is there anyone in the room who would like to make a public comment
today? Yeah, here on the end, you can come up so that you're closer to the mics.
Just introduce yourself quickly and then you'll have three minutes Hello, my name is Jordan Connor I
came to speak here this evening regarding the letter to the mayor's office concerning flock I came to
make public public comment because I believe flock and ALPRs pose a significant threat to the security
and safety of our community I Want to applaud the Commission on their work so far in advising the city
on the dangers of ALPRs and recommending their abandonment I
I'm frankly concerned at the lack of transparency from the mayor's office regarding the status of these
cameras and misleading phrasing from the mayor in the past about the status of the contracts. I'm glad
that the contracts reportedly won't be renewed. Even so, I regularly see the Flock Condor cameras around
Kirkwood and think to myself that I have no way of knowing if my gate data or other identifying information
about me is being transmitted to Flock or AWS servers and accessed without my consent.
In Dayton, Ohio, where my great uncle lives, and Evanston, Illinois, where I lived just a few years
ago, city officials covered their flock cameras with garbage bags to ensure the protection and privacy
of their citizens. To me, this is an option that solves a big problem, which is the fact that whether
the rest of the contracts actually get renewed or not, the cameras are up and have no indicators of
if and when they're recording. And they will likely stay that way for months unless the city takes action.
I would like to respectfully request that the commission consider adding language to the letter
that will be read later this evening, proposing an immediate solution to the specter of surveillance
still present on our streets. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Did I spell
your name correctly? C-O-N-N-E-R? O-R. O-R, OK. And is it Jordan, J-O-R-D-A-N? Yep. OK, thank you very
much. Oh, yeah, that might be it here. Anybody got a piece of paper? Maybe we can then sign it? Oh,
yes, that would be great. That's a good idea. Yeah. Thank you. Great. Yeah, just so that I can correctly
I think we'll just switch to online in case there's anyone online and then we'll come back to the room.
Is there anyone on Zoom who would like to make a public comment? Yes, good evening everyone. My name
is Jamie Schultz. Many of you know me from my time on this commission, my work in urban ag and local
food resilience.
I trust that the follow-up document I sent to city council and the administration has also made its
way to you and that you reviewed the more than 20 current threats to our local food system. I'm here
to ask this commission to draft a resolution formally recommending that the city funded food system
manager or a similar position. And separately, I'd like to ask you to encourage council to prioritize
considering the chicken flock ordinance modification
that came from this body to increase allowed block sizes. Both are concrete doable steps for local food
resilience. The world is changing quickly. Bloomington needs adaptation strategies as much as mitigation
strategies. Reducing emissions is essential, but it does not prepare us for a disrupted food supply.
We've already proven this role works. Bloomington funded a food systems coordinator once, and five years
later, the NonStop Selectives had helped launch on Kirkwood continues to thrive. On a personal note,
I stepped off this commission earlier this year, intending to continue supporting local food systems work.
I am doing so through the United Way Supported Blooming Zone Initiative. This month we will be getting
multi-port community education series to instruct community members on how to build a pantry and how
to prepare healthful meals from those staple foods. I'm looking at assisting in helping set up a template
for an ESD grant application for supporting decentralized neighborhood gardening and community seed
storage. Thank you, and I miss coming to these meetings if you don't know.
Thank you, Jamie. It's great to hear from you. I just wanted to provide one clarification. The city
didn't provide the funding for that food coordinator position. We received a grant. And when that grant
was expended, there was no longer any funding for the position. So just making that clarification, it
was funded through a grant. OK. All right. In the room, I see a hand up in the back.
We're talking about the same flock that's there in that case. Different flocks. More chickens. So hi,
I'm Ryan. I'm a proud member of the Bloomington Democratic Socialists of America and also the chair
of the Community Defense Committee, which many of us are here. The CDC, as we claim or are named, aims
to create real material protections for members of the community targeted by ICE.
One of the ways that we do that is by advocating for the removal of fascist infrastructure in the form
of mass surveillance. FLOC is one of the many tools that ICE uses to track immigrants and abduct them
when they are most vulnerable. Needless to say, mass surveillance, by definition, affects every living
person in the United States. I have flired a lot for FLOC protests that we've held, and 99% of people,
when asked about FLOC, say something to the extent of
Oh yeah, and then a swear word, and then the word flock, and it happens to alliterate quite nicely.
I won't say it here for obvious reasons. Flock is an extremely unpopular company among the working class,
which it was built to surveil. People care about their rights to privacy, and it's absurd that a system
that was essentially implemented overnight was done so without public comment.
It's also obvious why this was done, because anybody in their right mind who has done any degree of
research about FLOC would understand the risk that it poses and say, hell no. We have worked tirelessly
to understand the city's commitment to FLOC and demand more transparency from the mayor and police chief.
It's been a frustrating journey, to say the least, dare I say, maybe intentionally vague at times. We
thank you guys for drafting this letter.
and to the mayor's office as it demands answers to the questions that we've been asking for several
years now. And I also definitely second and back Jordan's comments about adopting some of the wording
that he listed. We look forward to a future where FLOC is bankrupt and out of our community, not just
the license plate readers, but also the video surveillance variants known as Condors.
and the trailer units as well. Needless to say, we don't want a replacement for them either.
Match Surveillance hides behind many brand names and none of them have a right or a place in Bloomington.
So thank you very much. Thank you. People are doing a great job staying in time. I'll give people like a
a little signal when you're getting like 30 seconds from your time. No, you're good. Very helpful. No,
you're great. I just realized I should be doing that next throughout. All right. Go right over here.
Welcome. Good evening. My name is Tom Westgard. I'm a resident of Monroe County just outside city limits.
First and above all, I'd like to thank you for your attention to this topic. In reading the letter,
I can see that we're fundamentally on the same side.
and it's gratifying to see. I'd like to say that FLOC fundamentally is an attack on the community by
forces that are attempting to exert force on the mass of us, a hostile party finding loopholes in the
legal system to take from us the privacy that we've come to take for granted, perhaps a little too
too easily. It makes us more vulnerable to these hostile forces. Many police have already been found
misusing them. As was mentioned earlier, ICE is using these things to come into our community. It is
extremely unsettling to me to imagine that my daily movements are being tracked and transmitted to a
corporate headquarters in California where they do God knows what with it. There are statements that
The data is deleted are clearly untrue because their salespeople are attempting to sell information
about long-term traffic movements to municipalities. So they're lying and defrauding the people, the
customers, such as the city of Bloomington. Since we are largely on the same page, what I'd ask you
to do is look forward
Flock is not the only company that's trying to do this. Cameras are not the only technology by which
this is being done. What this technology has exposed is a series of flaws in our governmental systems.
There's been a lack of accountability. We can't get Mayor Kerry to describe what's been done. She told
us that the
cameras were gone, well they're not gone. It's been deceitful and it shows that we don't have a government
that's accountable to us. There's been a lack of disclosure. The APRA and FOIA system is weak and we
shouldn't have to hunt this down. We shouldn't have to do this work. It simply shouldn't have been done
to us to begin with and the fact that we have to fight so hard to find out what's being done is offensive.
There was a lack of notice. Just all of a sudden, these cameras went up. Nobody told us. There was no
warning. If you're somebody who's fleeing a domestic violence situation, you suddenly see a camera on
a pole, what does that mean? You then have the work of figuring out what this means to you. And there's
been a lack of right to contest it. I actually do have a law degree. I was a litigator for 15 years.
It's incredibly expensive and difficult for a person who's been wronged by these systems to find their
way into the court system, figure out how that works, and contest the problems that are being done,
many of which, frankly, don't have a foothold in the law, even if you manage to get in. So I'm on my
way out. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for your attention, and you're working on the topic.
Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? Thank you so much. Anyone else in the room?
I'm not seeing anyone else online. So I think that wraps up that portion of the agenda. Thank you very
much, everybody, for coming in. Really appreciate you being here and for your time. Thank you. I got
that next. OK. Great. Thank you, Tara, for helping with that. OK, great. So that brings us to item 5A,
Commissioner Reports.
So just a couple things, just an update on the joint dark sky resolution with the EC. So we weren't
able to make that last meeting due to quorum issues. But that's been rescheduled for a week from today,
September 15th, at our usual time, 6 to 730 in council chambers next door here. From last time, there
was just a quorum issue on the EC side, kind of at the last minute. They have since had a meeting where they
change their quorum counting in their bylaws. So that hopefully shouldn't be an issue. We put out a
poll, and thanks to everyone who filled that out. So we think we've got good quorum for both commissions
expecting to be there. But because it is an important thing, if you know that you're not going to be
able to be there either at all or in person, please let me know. Just in case there is an issue there,
we can try to catch it early.
The agenda for that should go out tomorrow. I think it'll be identical to the one from before. And probably
the same with the packet, but if anyone has anything new for the packet that wasn't included in the
original one, let me know. But otherwise, it should all be the same materials.
And then the 2025 annual report, I know we're almost done with 2026, or at least we're getting into
the final stretch. But the 2025 annual report is pretty much done. So I'm going to circulate that to
everyone within the next week. And we'll do the spreadsheet comment matrix thing where you can make
comments and things like that and send it back to me. And then we can discuss at our next meeting any
changes that we want to make to that.
And I think that's all I have for the chair's report. Are there any questions? Awesome. Great, that
moves on to council report. Is there a report, Council Member Rallo? Yeah, I've got a few things to
add. One thing I'd like to say is that I totally support people who will make vlog cameras. Can you
hear me okay? Yeah, we just can't see you. There we go. No, we can't. Yeah.
Anyway, removal of flock cameras, very high priority for me if they still remain. And I think there's
a lot of probably unanimity on the council for that. And it just so happens that tomorrow there's a
deliberative session, community conversation on public safety tomorrow, which is Wednesday.
the 9th of September. And so it will be on topics like that. It will be on public safety generally,
but we will certainly be talking about surveillance cameras, I'm sure. I wanted to add that the topic
of the food policy or food systems coordinator came up during the budget. And although that was funded
on a grant, a number of us would like that to be a permanent position at the city.
So there may be a memo coming from several of us to the mayor to that effect. I wanted to mention that
another thing that might be of interest to the commissioners here is that during our budget hearings
it became known that when animal care and control budget came for review we talked about deer density
in the city and it turns out that there is
an extremely high gear density. There was a flyover that was conducted and a count done. Now it was
an extrapolation. They would fly in a vector and calculate how many deer on that basis. So it's not
an exact number, but they calculated it's between, it's on average about 90 deer per square mile.
So this is a real concern for a number of reasons. Public health is one here. Essentially a resource
for ticks. And there's a lot of different diseases. And furthermore, this has an effect on people's
gardening as well. So people have a hard time gardening and need fences if there's such high deer density.
So I wanted you all to know about that. And then lastly, I just wanted to mention that it's been a couple
months, but we have adopted the, council adopted the resolution for a moratorium on AGI ASI, which is
artificial general intelligence and artificial super intelligence. They're closely related because once
you reach AGI, artificial general intelligence, which is the capability of
AI to do any human cognitive task. That would reverse the self-development. That is the ability for
them to design their own code that they would soon become super intelligent. So that passed in June.
And it comes, I think, at a good time, because I'm sure a lot of you know, it's been a very active summer
for this topic. There were multiple escapes.
from Anthropaic and OpenAI, supposedly secure servers where these agents escaped, collaborated, formed
hierarchies, actually, as a swarm, and then strategically compromised vulnerabilities in several companies'
cybersecurity were able to gain access to these companies.
All of this happened just as OpenAI released the most powerful model, which is probably an early version
of AGI just last week called Astra. In any case, there is a bill now that was introduced by Senator
Sanders to put a moratorium on artificial super intelligence. And this is a really good development.
The problem is that there's about $400 million a year of lobbying effort from the frontier laboratories
to prevent any regulation. So just to conclude, I'm working with a group called the Safe AI Forever
Institute, which we're building on our success here in Bloomington and trying to convince other communities
to pass resolutions and potentially laws to ban
artificial superintelligence or artificial general intelligence in the communities. It put pressure
on the congressional record. So that's all I've got. Happy to take any questions or, as a matter of
fact, you adjusted. Thank you so much. Any questions for Councilmember Orell? Okay, excellent. Well,
thank you so much.
that brings us to item 6b, letter to the office of the mayor, update on the plot. So we have the letter
in the packet. So this is really a follow-on to the resolution 2026-02 that we passed earlier this year,
whenever that was, in March. And in that resolution we did a few things. We first found some findings about
you know, mass surveillance technologies and the impact those have, you know, in a democracy, especially
through the lens of sustainability. We made recommendations to the council that they, you know, develop
an ordinance to build rules around these sorts of technologies. They did pass a resolution shortly thereafter
or right around the same time on that. And so that was good to see.
And we also made some recommendations to the city administration, including disabling all the currently
deployed cameras, disclosing the locations, disclosing the data sharing agreements that are in effect,
and providing a full accounting of how that data has been used since deployment, and then making sure
that any future consideration of surveillance technology procurement, so whether that's Flock or some
other company,
that does something similar, includes notification to the relevant city boards and commissions and creates
an opportunity for the public to comment before contracts are actually signed and executed. So this
letter is an attempt to sort of get some more awareness of what the state of things are. I think,
you know, there were various questions that were raised by some of the public comment today that
match a lot of the questions that I have and I think a lot of commissioners have. What is the status
of the equipment? We think that some of the cameras have come down. Does that mean all of them have
come down? What about the mobile trailers and some of the other equipment? And so that's one of the
questions there. There's really a series of six questions here. Status of one of the particular agreements.
So at a previous meeting, we had kind of pulled, had a list of all the different contracts and stuff
that were there.
You know, one of them did seem like it was expiring around the time that the mayor's office announced
that they were going to not renew the contract, but there were some other contracts that we found that
seemed like they would still be enforced today. And so, you know, are there any agreements still in
effect is one of the questions that we have there. The relationship between the agreements, so if you
really dig into some of the language on there,
Recent contracts will say the language in this contract supersedes any other previously executed contract
between these parties. And so how does that relate to what's actually enforced now and what's not? Agreements
that are currently in effect. So if there are still cameras and equipment operating, then there must
still be some sort of relationship. What is still actually in effect right now, and in particular focusing
on these Condor
pan-tilt zoom cameras, which are a little bit different from the larger amount of, what are they, falcon?
I think they're called the falcon cameras. There's the falcon and the condor, I think. And then access
to the flock safety platform. So yeah, just because we don't have any cameras doesn't mean that we don't
have access to the
other cameras around us. So, you know, is there still, you know, access there to the FLOC safety platform?
And data disposition and replacement technology. So, yeah, so what's happened to the data that's already
been collected? Even if the cameras have come down, does FLOC still have that data? How can they use
it? You know, do we know or do we need to find that out?
you know, and has the city begun negotiating or looking to make agreements with, you know, other vendors
for similar sort of technology. So those are the questions in the letter. We'll go ahead and open it
up to the floor for commissioners to ask questions, make comments, make those changes. Oh, yeah. My
question is sort of procedural. Sure. We don't follow the same procedure for amending it, do we? Or
is it that we would for a resolution? I think we can follow the same.
because that's kind of the procedure for kind of amending anything on the agenda or whatever. But yeah,
but we don't have to do the two readings thing because it's really not a resolution. So yeah, for the
procedure side, I can make a motion to approve this letter to be the content of the letter and to be
transmitted. Is there a second? A second. Okay, great. So now we can enter discussion. If anyone has
amendments that they want to make or questions, comments, I'll open it up to the commissioners. Okay.
Someone else go, I'll write this down, and then I'll say my thing. I'll just say that I have no amendments.
I fully support it. I particularly like the second part of the last question of the one. Any equipment
remains installed or is in the city's possession. What is the anticipated timeline for its removal or
return, if I think I really like the answer to? And then I also like the last part of question six.
Has the city entered into or began negotiating an agreement with any vendor for other basically have
we started looking at other alternatives, and I would like to have an answer to that question too. And
I think the administration has been really intentionally vague on a lot of this, so I support it.
So I think we are going to need to make amendments just to the date. I don't know if the one in the
current packet has the updated dates, but it still has the dates related to our last business meeting.
Yeah, so the one in the packet for today should have an updated date on it. Yeah, September 8th. There's
also this highlighted bit. But it says that we considered it in our August meeting, I think.
Oh, no, it says we considered it at our September meeting, but then later we ask for the report by September
4th, which is past. That's a good catch. Yeah. So that's a piddly thing for me, but the... No,
that's a... I also really like the content of this letter. One thing that I would like to think about adding or
to have sent a follow-up that we get answers is, I would love to see a third party audit of how that
data was accessed when those cameras were operational and if they still have access to it,
how it's been used. I mean, there was this story about the Jackson County Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff,
what, accessed it 4,000 times or something like that, like was shocking someone using it. And I know
there's been public,
reports from the office of the mayor and the police department that they've accessed it something like
9,000 times, but not with it's just sort of vague. And that was the same issue in that Jackson County
was that he was just saying like related to an investigation. And I think that that needs to be done
by a third party, like that the city should contract with someone who does not work for the city or
the department or another
an external body to audit and publicly report on how that data was used. Because given how the lack
of transparency, I don't think that we use that for investigations. There's enough information, especially
when there's demonstrable evidence that that is not how it's being used, that it is being used across
the country for stalking individual residents. I'd like to propose an amendment.
but in section one, pursuant to Mr. Connor's comment about how other municipalities have placed garbage
bags or some kind of covering, I'd like to request that equipment that remains installed be covered
for the peace of mind of the community. Something about being made ineffective. Yeah. Especially because
it can be done
basically at a null cost. Yeah. It's literally a barbecue. Yeah. It's not like it's an expensive one.
Can I add another thing related to that also? I think related to the public comment is maybe we get
at this in the ask about the order forms and things, but the intent to contract with any other vendors.
and report on do they have intent to, like, you know, what is the intent, the long-term intent for this
type of technology, not just this brand. Right. And that would be, let's see. Six. Six, yeah. It's kind
of there, but maybe more explicit, you know. I think they have said they were going to, and that's what
the police chief said during his hearing, they were going to look at another alternative, explicitly
ask again. I don't think it would help. Well, I would say ask, and what is going to be the,
the RFP policy for that? Or, you know, how will, like, what will, yeah, what will the public be allowed
to weigh in on those vendors and. I see Council Member Rolando has his hand up, I guess. Yes,
thank you. Council Member Rolando. Oh, yeah. Just referring to Tara's question. The Jackson County Chair
of the WD that misused it for stalking. Well, I think any, any
he he he he he he he he he he he
recall the news article that I read, but I said, I think that that case was so egregious that it was
even internal, that they weren't even, that even the people doing the surveilling was like, this is
a bit much. I'm not sure from what I've read, too, if there wasn't other factors with that officer that
led to them looking into his behavior. Yeah. But no, it was not, I don't think that that one came from
a third party audit, but I think third party audits would probably expose that that is not
an outlier case. Yeah, and I think Monroe County, they said they were doing, it was like, Bloomington
Police said it was like, it was basically 25 a day that they were doing searches, which is insane. Like,
there's no way there's active investigations every single time. It's just not possible, so. There is
some subset of that data available online just because other municipalities have made their data, like
their searches,
There are metadata available through a public portal, which is an option that you can do. And they've
captured a bunch of searches from Bloomington there. So it's not a complete sample. We don't know what
proportion. It could be not representative at all. But there's several thousand rows or something like
that that you can download from one of the websites that has some of that. I know some of these things
have come out through those sort of public audits where they've
gone through information that's just been put out there and seen some patterns. But yeah, I know a lot
of them recently have been coming from these internal audits. OK, so we're putting together a little
list here of potential changes. We can make anything else that anyone wants to talk through before we
start to try to make some changes. Do we want to? I mean, I guess we have the minutes and the
from this meeting, but do we want to refer to the public support for the contents of this letter that
was expressed during public comment in our meeting? That's a good idea. Yeah. OK, so I've got the draft
pulled up on my computer. We can kind of talk through each. Oh, yeah. Oh, sorry, Alex. Sorry.
changed a lot of the tone of the emails. I don't disagree with the idea of any of them, but right now
this letter is very much so. And it doesn't take, it doesn't really dictate future direction in the
name. We've already done that. City Council has already done that. What is the status? So I do think
that that is
At least for what I suggested, I would want to phrase it as information. It's like, do you have intents
for an offer?
making this data public or doing some kind of audit, do you have intention to replace these with the
different vendors' same product? Have them go on the record and say, yes, we are going with Block's
competitor or whatever. I'm not necessarily saying go do this, because we have done that. Like Alex
said, we've said we don't want that.
But I would like them to answer to the public whether or not they plan to do that. Yeah, I think that
one I brought up about making this specific request then to take the action and cover would be one that
we would want to think about whether that fits into the tone of the request for information or whether
that should be a separate thing. Sure. I mean, could this be like a two-part thing where we can
plan to react if we get a response, then maybe we turn around and prepare something more of a direct,
a direction type thing. Yeah. Right. Yeah, that's part of the issue. It's hard to know where we would
make recommendations, because we just don't have enough information to really know what the current
state is. Yeah, so that's a good point, that this might be kind of like the first step in a multi-step process.
So what about the date that we were asking for a response? I mean, I think by our next meeting would
be logical. Yeah. I think that's why we requested it so that it be included in the packet of the next
meeting. Right. So the Friday before next meeting. Yeah, exactly. So our next meeting is on October
13th. So the 9th. So October 9th. Yeah. OK. That makes sense.
For Tara's suggestion, I think it would be really easy to incorporate that into question six with just
like a comma and a couple of words. At the end of. Okay, if you want to go ahead, go ahead. Wait, where
is this? Sorry, I'll write it down as I go. The end of question six. Okay.
Yeah. Essentially what I was going to say. Yeah. Does the city plan to has already entered into? That's
all I got. That's all. It's just adding between separately and has does the city plan to. Oh. Oh,
I see. Yeah. We're asking about intent. Yeah. I see.
I see. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Perfect. I think we could do something similar with Maria's on question
one. Let me think about this. Ask about their intention. Yeah. If it remains installed in the city's
possession, what is the anticipated timeline for removal or return?
We could just add another little question about, do you intend, has the possibility of physically covering
them been considered? Until removal. Prior to removal. Yeah. Ask whether they're considering that before
making their request to do so. That remains in place. Has the possibility of physically covering them
been envisaged? Considered. I would like to use the word envision.
is what everybody was saying. I think the issue of a third party audit and stuff is kind of a separate
resolution. But I think it's a bigger thing. Because I think I would also like to spend a little time
looking at what has already been said about the data and what's publicly available. Because I think
there's more there, there. Oh, preferable. And knowing how they respond to this could actually, I think,
be a better research. So has the city considered
physically covering any remaining cameras? Yeah, just at the end of that. That works, yes. Okay. Can
I ask if the bank has led to broader suggestions of not saying, have they considered covering it up,
of asking what are the city's plans? So for the equipment that remains, what are the city's plans to
block the functionality of that equipment until it is removed by covering it for us through other means?
That works. I like that.
Justin, can you send me the text of the changes when we... Yeah, I'm doing it like a track changes so
like we can, I can put it, I can share my screen for a second so people can see the changes and then
I'll send it over to you. Okay, for equipment that remains, what is the city's plan to cover or disable
them pending removal? Networks, yes.
Does that sound good, Alex? I was saying, what are the plans to block the functionality? Block
the functionality. Oh, OK. What? I think that that gets slightly broader. Yeah. You're very good at
putting it on the fly. I love just saying stuff, and then Alex makes it. The word whisperer.
It's a skill. Just so it doesn't happen during just email it to me now. OK.
Perfect, yes, that would be good. Okay, so we got that one. We sort of got the happy with like
not specifically calling out the bags or like the covers or something. Yeah, I think it's better actually.
Third party audit, we said maybe it would be a better separate resolution. And then mentioning public
comment support, is that something that? Probably go up near the
one of the first two paragraphs, I think. The commission respectfully requests responses to the following
comma, noting significant public support for these questions at our whatever meeting. Something like
that, maybe? We could also, in the second paragraph, the questions below are informed by contract documents
and by public comment. That's really good. That could work, yes. Received during the September 8th regular meeting.
The questions below are informed by public comment and contract documents the city released in response
to it. That's supportive to public comment. It's supportive. I just want to make it clear that we don't
have stuff. Right? OK. So I think that checks off everything on the list that I was kind of keeping
ad hoc here. Is there anything else that anyone wants to change or add here? OK.
this over to you, Sean. Thanks for doing this, Sean. Are we considering a single amendment for these
changes as written? If that's fine by everybody.
as he sent.
I just want to let everybody know that Jennifer Crossley, who works in Clark's office, she gave an event
to me today saying that there's another date for commissioner training. So if you haven't attended the
commissioner training yet, it's going to be Wednesday, September 30th in council chambers from 530 to
7. So if you have not attended that training, make sure that you do. And I'll send the information out
via email. Okay, I've got it.
Okay, so changes in green. And obviously, once we approve this, I would just fill in that little highlighted
bit. But yeah, so that's the first one.
I'm going to turn that into a question mark. Pretend there's a question mark there. I think it's does
the city plan to comma? Yeah. Other than that, I'm good.
Okay, any other comments about this before we vote on the amendment? We need a motion. I can see it
on zoom. Yeah, can you see the
The font is kind of hard to distinguish. Yeah, it's in light green are the changes. Oh, yeah.
Thank you. Regular meeting on October.
13th. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. So that will be October, I think I said 13th. 13th. Yes.
Wonderful. Listen, I hired an editor for my dissertation. Smart. OK. So everyone happy with that? We
can do a vote on this amendment. And then? Is there a motion?
I'll move to accept these amendments. Is there a second? Second. Wonderful. OK. This is to amend the
letter as was projected up on the screen. I'll just go first name this time. Tara. Yes. Justin. Yes.
Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Christopher. Oh, he's absent. Zach. Yes. Yes. Councilmember Rallo. Yes. Yes. Alex.
Yes. Yes, Maria.
Yes. Yes, Diana. Diana. Yes. Thank you. And Ross. Yes. OK, perfect. Any further amendments on the letter?
Nope. All right. We will move to a vote on the letter as amended. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. Rebecca? Yes. Yes.
Zach? Yes. Yes. Councilmember Varela? Yes. Yes. Alex? Yes. Yes. Maria? Yes. Yes. Diana? Yes. Yes.
And Ross? Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. That passes. I'll get that sent out right away. And that brings us
to another letter, this one to council. I'm going to hand it over to Zach to explain this one.
Yeah, so this is a letter to the City Council. The City Council is considering a slew of changes to
the UDO, most of which I'm broadly supportive of. But one of them in there that I don't really like
that much is one on, which would essentially allow... So the city has fairly limited tree protections,
which is the subject of the next resolution we're going to be talking about. And this change to the
UDO, which the city administration proposed would
place the smallest lots in the city, which is a new category of lots that are being created by this,
proposed by this UDU changes for 5,000 square feet or less on lots in R3 or R4, and it would essentially
eliminate all tree protections for those lots. Now, the rationale for this is that it's harder to build
on small lots, and so we need to make it easier to build on small lots, and I understand that. However,
there's already something in the code
that exists, which allows for a broad exemption to the most onerous part of the tree protections, which
is the requirement to retain a certain percentage of the canopy. That is already in the code, and it
already includes these lots. So basically what I'm saying is it's not needed, and that this is going
to contribute to sort of a death by 1,000 cuts reduction in the city's tree canopy over time, which
is already going down over time. And this is only going to accelerate it. So I'm suggesting in this
letter that A,
I'm asking that we oppose them adding this exemption that would again make the smallest lots in the
city entirely exempt from all of the city street protections. B, noting that there's already exemption
in the code for this and C, suggesting if they insist on putting this into the code that instead that
they make it more clear in than exemption that already exists that the smallest lots are exempt purely
from the canopy retention requirements and not the rest of the
tree protection requirements, which would include, for example, on a construction site you're required
to protect existing trees to not allow construction equipment to go over them and accidentally knock
them over. This would, if this were put as a proposed in the code today, if that went in there, that
would be out the window. They wouldn't have to do this on the smaller slots, for example. So I'm suggesting
that instead of, either that they
completely take this out of the slew of UDO changes, or if they want to keep it in there, just make
it clear that it's only about the canopy retention requirements and not about the other parts of the
cook. All right. Well, let's see. Let's do this formally. Is there a motion to approve this letter?
I move to approve the letter as I wrote it. Perfect. Is there a second? Yeah. Second. Excellent.
All right. Discussion, debate, questions, and then next.
The other thing that I paused for when reading in your proposal, like I think this is really good,
but I got, I could feel my zoning anxiety raise where it says, let's see, may reduce or waive
the requirements of table 04-8 where those standards would preclude the reasonable development of the lots.
I mean, I think... Where is that? Oh, sorry. That's in the smaller parcel. Yeah, it's in the smaller
parcel. Oh, in the proposed suggestion? Yeah, she proposed. I mean, I think rationally and intuitively,
we would know what might preclude development of all lots, but I feel like that might be Pandora's box.
So the way it's proposed now, it completely eliminates it entirely. What the intention there was to
do was to allow the Planning and Transportation Department to do it on a case-by-case basis to eliminate
the, to waive or loosen the canopy retention requirements. The way that section is written today is
that it allows them to instead replace the canopy retention requirements with you can keep one tree
or this line of trees, for example. But there's still a requirement that you have to keep a certain
amount of trees
on the lot, this would instead allow them to raise, to use their common sense on a case-by-case basis
and not make it automatic, if that makes sense. Yeah. How would that play out though? Sorry, I'm not
being difficult. I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of it. So would that have to go through
like a variance product?
My understanding is no, because the Planning and Transportation Department could just issue, say, for
this lot, which is less than this lot. So like their discretion? It's at their discretion, yeah. Okay.
It would be a case by case. What are other examples in the UDO where they might use their own discretion?
I mean, this already exists. It's just making it more clear that it's for the canopy retention requirements
entirely. Okay. Because right now it says they're allowed to replace the canopy retention requirements,
which say, for example, if you have a small lot, you have to keep
I can't remember exactly, 20%, 40% or whatever of the existing canopy. I think it's 90% actually for
the smallest lots. Well, on a teeny tiny lot, keeping 90% of the canopy, in some cases, is almost impossible.
So they're saying, instead of that, you have to keep an individual tree. And they're already allowed
to do this on a case-by-case basis with the Planning and Transportation Department. I'm saying, instead
of doing that, as currently written, yes. OK, that's encouraging. Because I just was worried that they would
you know, it would just open another Pandora's box related to discretion. I mean, that's already there.
I'm saying just make it more explicit that it takes out the canopy retention requirements entirely on
a case-by-case basis if the Planning and Transportation Department deems it necessary for that law,
rather than putting in a blanket just taking out, yeah, for all requirements, mainly because I'm about
to propose a whole bunch of other requirements of the code and a resolution I don't want them to, anyway.
Yeah, so. Yeah, okay, that clears it up. I appreciate hearing that.
Any other questions or discussion? What is the timeline for the UDO? The changes? The changes that they're
trying to make? I'm going to ask Councilman Barolo, but I think they're going to be, I'm imagining they
might be voting on it next council session. I think so. I think next Wednesday. Next week? Yeah.
I don't know. It's pretty broad. It's pretty sweeping. Yeah, it is. I have some problems with it, but are there
One of them was this, electric production. But I'm very wary of increasing land value relative to the
value of the home. In other words, if subdividing lots means that a developer would come in, tear down
an affordable house, and build two barge homes,
that would be unaffordable. I think that that presents a problem for me, but that's apart from this.
So it just suffice to say it could be two more meetings. Okay. All right, thank you. Dave, I have a
quick question. Do proposals to change the UDO, does it need to come from the Planning Commission? And
this did come from the Planning Commission. I don't know if it needs to or not, but yeah.
Mm-hm. Steve, I heard you. But is the council allowed to make amendments to? The question is, can council
change? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yes, we can. Yes. Because it may be reconciled with the planning commission.
They have to go back to them. OK. Depending on the major changes. But we're certainly, we have liberty
to amend the deal. So we could consider this directly.
But our chicken flock ordinance was a recommendation to amend the EVO. Yeah. And maybe that would have
to ultimately go through the planning commission before it gets to council, right? Since this is already
there with them. The way I understand it is council initiated a slew of changes, suggested them to the
planning commission. The planning commission considered it, amended, had a really long meeting that
kind of was a cluster. Anyway, and then it came back to the council.
This thing got added by the city staff without the council making the recommendation originally. So
this was kind of stuck in there at the planning commission stage. And I'm suggesting they take that
back out. Got it. Yeah. Got you. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. Are we ready to move
on to a vote? OK. This is to approve the letter as written. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin, yes. Rebecca? Yes.
Yes. Zach? Yes. Yes. Council Member Rallo? Yes. Alex? Yes. Yes. Maria? Yes. Yes. Diana? Yes. Yes.
And Ross? Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. I will work to get that sent out before like the day really kicks
off tomorrow. Okay. Since it's potentially time sensitive. Yeah. And hopefully it's something that could
be included in their
packet materials or something. I know there's usually a 10-day period to get those submitted, but we'll
see. OK, perfect. Thank you very much. That brings us to discussion D. Being cognizant of time here,
we're getting pretty close to the end. You've got a capstone project proposal in mind. We're not voting
on anything yet, so this was just meant to be kind of a quick introduction. You have a two-minute stump
speech you want to give on. Read the proposal, and we'll talk about it next meeting.
It sounds exciting. Yeah. I think it could be cool. It was really interesting. Yes. Yeah. I'm excited
to talk about it more. Oh, perfect. And the professor will be here at our next meeting, too, so make
sure you come prepared to discuss. Yeah. Excellent.
Thank you. It brings us to resolutions for first reading, resolution 2026-07, which is also about trees.
Zach, I'll hand it over to you for a quick introduction. We don't have to go in depth here because we're
not really debating, amending, or approving anything right now. We're just going to advance to a second
reading, and we'll have a bigger discussion at the end. Yes. Just briefly, this is a large slew of changes
that I'm suggesting to the city council. It would mainly be the UDO, but also the municipal code aimed
at protecting heritage and significant trees.
which are currently completely unprotected under the current city code. Heritage trees are mentioned
in the code, but they do not define what they are or provide any significant protection for them. This
would put us in line with the strongest cities in the country nationwide on protection for heritage
trees. That's the main thing. There's a whole bunch of other stuff in there. Please read it if you get
a chance before our next meeting. There's also a detailed memorandum that I went through complete with
custom maps that I made.
I also included in there all of the sections of the code that I'm suggesting that we suggest be changed
with the changes in context in there. Please just read that before our next meeting. Yeah, that's pretty
much the gist of it. Just briefly also, this was the very bottom of the packet. It might have gotten
lost. The very last page is a, I just want to let you know, I went through, I reached out to the Urban
Forester, went through multiple rounds of review with him.
supportive of this. He improved the resolution by working with them. He, on his own, took it to the
Tree Commission, which, what's the word, 100% support, unanimously voted to support this during meeting.
I went to their meeting, talked it through with them in detail. They had a lot of questions and comments,
and they were unanimous in their support. So there's a letter there from them as well. And I also reached
out to planning, the environmental planner,
who took it to the then director of the planning department, and they opted to not provide any comments.
So they were provided a chance. They're welcome to provide comments now if they would like to, but they
did not provide any comments, so. That's it. All right. Would you like to move that we advance this
to a second reading? I move that we advance this to a second reading. Is there a second? Second. Excellent.
OK. We'll go through any other quick questions. I know we'll talk about it more, but. There have been
four stories.
in the parks department. Yes, he's the one responsible. He's great. He's been a lot of social media
lately on there. They're great videos. Anyway, yeah. What was I going to say? Oh, he is responsible
for all the cities like trees in the public right of way. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. Just to add, I really
appreciate this. I've been aware of some developments when in particular where there were gigantic caliper trees.
And it was actually a condition of approval to preserve them. But then the developer came back to the
VCA and was able to get approval to cut them down. Yeah. And so all we can do is try to preserve these
magnificent trees. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, let's move on to a vote then to advance
to a second reading. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin? Yes. Rebecca? 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. 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. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
I just wanted to report about Project 46, the Southern Indiana Regional Climate Alliance. We had our
first retreat last week, and it was really fantastic. It was really well attended. There's a lot of
momentum, and we came out of that retreat with four focus areas, and we're going to be creating subcommittees
for each of these focus areas. So energy efficiency and renewable energy, flood and hazard mitigation,
waste reduction, and EV adoption.
And I also wanted to let everyone know that we have been awarded a $35,000 grant from the Indianapolis
Foundation for capacity building. So that's really exciting. For Project 46. For Project 46, yep. And
also the Indiana Energy Independence Fund joined as an official advisory committee member. So Project
46, we're out there. We're growing. That retreat was expertly organized by our consulting firm that
we hired out of Colorado. They're called Lotus Engineering and Sustainability.
And they are just excellent. So just a lot of momentum on Project 46. So we're still trying to get the
counties to join, Ross. So. I just talked on our council as well about it. Disgusted. You said renewable
energy, flood reduction, EV adoption. Waste reduction. Waste reduction. Thank you. So for the hazard
mitigation part of that, we're going to create a subcommittee for climate resilience hubs. And Bill
Brown will be leading that subcommittee.
So we're trying to find our partners and stakeholders and continue to grow. $35,000 grant? Yes. Have
you been in touch with the new Hoosier EVA group that Paul is starting with? Like I'm his last name
right now. Yeah, I haven't been in touch with him directly. Julie did meet with him and he has met or
will be meeting with our EV subcommittee, which is chaired by Stephanie Richards.
with the Narly Tree Sustainability Institute, she's an advisory committee member, and Patrick Foley
with Electron Charger. So hopefully there'll be some synergies there and can collaborate. Awesome. Yeah.
That's all I have. Now I have one more thing, I'm sorry. We have our launch date for our solar grants
for income qualified homeowners. We're launching September 28th.
Any resident who their household income is less than 80% AMI, they would qualify for a five kilowatt
installation. And that's the one that's like no grant. They don't have to put anything out by it? That's
awesome. They don't have to put anything out by it. Yeah. You said September 28th? Yeah. So we're going
to have a press release issue that day. I'm really trying to get the word out about that. That has to
be in the city. Within the city limits, yes. And that has to be a single family owner occupied home.
Remember announcements. Anyone have anything they want to announce to the group? Oh, sorry. Monroe County
Public Library is partnering with the city as Bee City USA to do a pollinator scavenger hunt. It's on
Monroe County from now until the beginning of November. And there's some activities and a little field
guide for identifying different kinds of native bees and pollinators that live in our community. And
it looks really fun. I'm going to do a pan girl's guess.
Anything else? There's a community event planned. The Trades District Block Party will be this month,
Saturday, September 26th, 4 to 7. That will feature kind of the first community showcase of planned
interventions in the Trades District, including gateway and public art projects. So it's a free event.
The community is invited to come out and see what is new in the Trades District and
to give their feedback on what's planned. Cool. Awesome. All right. Anyone else? We got 30 seconds left.
What other announcement? I've been participating in the 2026 cohort of the Bloomington Residence Academy
and have learned so much and enjoyed it a lot. Commissioner Obradosky is also a member of this cohort,
so I just want to put a shout out for that. Really recommend it.
Yeah, we've had some commissioners in the past do that and it's always, they're always like thrilled
with it. So that's awesome. What is it called? We'll be to Residence Academy. It's 11 weeks. We meet
on Thursdays and just kind of learn about different departments. That's cool. Awesome. Great. Well,
we're at 730. So that brings us to the end of the agenda. So we are adjourned at 730.