WEBVTT 00:00:03.778 --> 00:00:12.633 - All right. Good evening everybody. I'll call to order this joint session of the Bloomington Commission 00:00:12.633 --> 00:00:21.488 - on Sustainability and Resilience and Environmental Commission at 6 0 1 p.m. And we will start with the 00:00:21.488 --> 00:00:30.601 - roll call and we'll start with because Tara Dunderdale Justin Vassel. I'm here. Rebecca Payne Christopher 00:00:30.601 --> 00:00:33.438 - Miles absent Zach Ammerman here. 00:00:33.634 --> 00:00:46.160 - Here I'm Teresa Teresa Doru absent Ross Carlson here here Alex York here here Maria Arstead here here 00:00:46.160 --> 00:00:58.441 - and Anna Ogrodowsky here Wonderful Thank you the Environmental Commission and do roll call there so 00:00:58.441 --> 00:01:03.230 - Justin Justin at Meister Adam Martinez 00:01:04.514 --> 00:01:12.931 - Here Carl geyser here Mitchell Owens Carrie Albright. I'm here Heidi Brown Not here. Matt Caldy here. 00:01:12.931 --> 00:01:21.347 - Thank you All right, it appears that both commissions have a quorum so we'll go ahead and get started 00:01:21.347 --> 00:01:29.599 - just real quick before we do the approval the agenda. I just wanted to Say a couple notes about the 00:01:29.599 --> 00:01:34.302 - procedures for today. Hopefully everyone had a chance to 00:01:34.498 --> 00:01:41.386 - kind of take a look through these. But as you all know, we don't do these sorts of joint meetings very 00:01:41.386 --> 00:01:48.206 - often. And so we had to give it some thought as to how we're actually going to go about doing some of 00:01:48.206 --> 00:01:55.094 - these things. So I'll just point out a couple things here that I want to mention. So as far as motions 00:01:55.094 --> 00:01:56.030 - and votes go, 00:01:56.290 --> 00:02:02.009 - In the case that we do anything that is sort of a final action that, you know, a commission is like 00:02:02.009 --> 00:02:07.957 - approving something, you know, voting to accept an amendment or to adopt the resolution, something like 00:02:07.957 --> 00:02:13.733 - that, then we'll do separate roll call votes for both commissions. So each commission is essentially 00:02:13.733 --> 00:02:18.366 - approving things, you know, independently. We're just in the same room for that. 00:02:18.690 --> 00:02:24.977 - As far as meeting procedural stuff goes, things like making motions in seconds, the plan is to sort 00:02:24.977 --> 00:02:31.328 - of just do that as a whole body. Since neither commission's bylaws really have strict rules for that 00:02:31.328 --> 00:02:38.558 - and it all kind of falls under Robert's Rules of Order, we are one meeting in the eyes of Robert's Rules of Order. 00:02:38.690 --> 00:02:44.887 - We'll just kind of handle that as a joint body just to make things a little more simple. But at any 00:02:44.887 --> 00:02:51.518 - times if there's any questions about how the procedure works or anyone thinks we should be doing something 00:02:51.518 --> 00:02:57.963 - differently just chime in. We can kind of modify these things as we go as needed. So I'd ask if there's 00:02:57.963 --> 00:03:04.160 - any questions about the procedures for the meeting before we get started. OK. Yes. Is traditionally 00:03:04.160 --> 00:03:08.126 - you try to get the attention of the chair if you have something 00:03:09.026 --> 00:03:16.530 - Who do we try to get the attention of since there are two chairs? Oh good good point Yeah, whoever's 00:03:16.530 --> 00:03:24.033 - I mean you can just flag me down I guess unless I think later on will maybe for votes and stuff will 00:03:24.033 --> 00:03:31.463 - hand the proverbial and literal gavel to you to run those votes and so Then Carrie will be chairing 00:03:31.463 --> 00:03:37.406 - in those moments Great okay, so we'll move on to the approval of the agenda and 00:03:38.114 --> 00:03:44.237 - Is there a motion to approve the agenda. Let me pull it up on the screen. So moved. All right. There's 00:03:44.237 --> 00:03:50.181 - a motion. Is there a second second. Wonderful. All right. And then let's see is this a final action 00:03:50.181 --> 00:03:56.126 - or not. I don't think so. I think this is like a meeting level thing. So I think we can just and we 00:03:56.126 --> 00:03:57.790 - actually don't have anyone. 00:03:58.562 --> 00:04:05.544 - Online as far as commissioners are concerned so we can actually do like a voice vote for this sort of 00:04:05.544 --> 00:04:12.458 - stuff So so first I'll just ask if anyone has any changes to make to the agenda before we approve it 00:04:12.458 --> 00:04:19.440 - Okay, seeing none we'll do a voice vote so all those in favor of approving the agenda say aye aye All 00:04:19.440 --> 00:04:26.491 - opposed nay any abstentions Okay, the agenda is approved so that'll move us on to opening remarks from 00:04:26.491 --> 00:04:27.518 - the chairs and 00:04:27.650 --> 00:04:33.504 - So I've got a couple a Couple things and then I'll pass it on to Carrie and then we'll we'll get to 00:04:33.504 --> 00:04:39.591 - sort of the meat of the resolution here So good evening. Good evening everybody and thank you for being 00:04:39.591 --> 00:04:45.738 - here So on behalf of the Commission of unsustainability and resilience I want to welcome all the members 00:04:45.738 --> 00:04:51.006 - of the environmental commission and everyone who has joined us in the chambers and online 00:04:51.106 --> 00:04:56.857 - or anyone who will throughout the course of this meeting. I want to also extend my gratitude to the 00:04:56.857 --> 00:05:02.895 - wonderful staff from both commissions who have been instrumental in making this joint session a reality. 00:05:02.895 --> 00:05:08.645 - It is a bit of a logistical kind of mess to get two commissions to meet at the same time in a place 00:05:08.645 --> 00:05:14.568 - that we're not used to normally meeting. So just want to say thank you so much for all the help making 00:05:14.568 --> 00:05:16.926 - this happen. I'd also like to thank both 00:05:17.154 --> 00:05:21.829 - the members of both commissions who spent the last several months researching writing and rewriting 00:05:21.829 --> 00:05:26.831 - this resolution. It's been really great to see it come together. And finally I'd like to thank the members 00:05:26.831 --> 00:05:31.506 - of the public who have written into us to voice their support for this effort. It's really great to 00:05:31.506 --> 00:05:36.181 - see that that sort of engagement from the public and that sort of excitement for some of the things 00:05:36.181 --> 00:05:37.022 - that we're doing. 00:05:37.122 --> 00:05:42.134 - So before we take it up I just want to spend a few minutes reflecting on the relationship between our 00:05:42.134 --> 00:05:47.244 - two commissions which stretches back to the very first because meeting back in October 2005. So at that 00:05:47.244 --> 00:05:52.157 - time it was decided that while the two commissions have distinct missions and roles within the city 00:05:52.157 --> 00:05:57.120 - it was important for them to maintain a close and open relationship and to look for opportunities to 00:05:57.120 --> 00:05:59.134 - collaborate whenever priorities overlap. 00:05:59.906 --> 00:06:06.123 - So I went back through about two decades of BCOS minutes to see what that relationship actually looked 00:06:06.123 --> 00:06:12.280 - like. And I just want to highlight a couple of examples that I found. So over the years, BCOS and the 00:06:12.280 --> 00:06:18.558 - Environmental Commission have co-sponsored several public education efforts, including two joint energy 00:06:18.558 --> 00:06:24.715 - forums in 2006, which took place right here in council chambers. There were multiple shared Earth Day 00:06:24.715 --> 00:06:28.638 - tables, climate forums, and film screenings, just to name a few. 00:06:28.930 --> 00:06:34.531 - germane to tonight's meeting. We also have a rich history of joint committees and meetings which I was 00:06:34.531 --> 00:06:40.350 - sort of surprised to learn in the mid to late 2000s. We created a handful of joint committees that focused 00:06:40.350 --> 00:06:45.842 - on specific topics such as climate greenhouse gas emissions and education in the 2010s because had a 00:06:45.842 --> 00:06:51.606 - seat on the EC's planning committee. I didn't know that either. And we attended EC working group meetings 00:06:51.606 --> 00:06:55.902 - and the two commissions held at least one joint leadership meeting maybe more. 00:06:56.834 --> 00:07:02.024 - And then for the past 10 years or so the number of joint committees has decreased but our commissions 00:07:02.024 --> 00:07:07.264 - have remained engaged through meeting attendance and open lines of communication. So we've also joined 00:07:07.264 --> 00:07:12.861 - forces in other ways to advance shared goals throughout the year. Together we've met with several Bloomington 00:07:12.861 --> 00:07:17.694 - mayors over the years. We've drafted joint letters and collaborated on policy recommendations. 00:07:18.242 --> 00:07:24.058 - We've even coordinated our commission's reports in the past so that the cost is sustainability trends 00:07:24.058 --> 00:07:29.817 - assessment report and the EC's Bloomington environmental quality indicators report complemented each 00:07:29.817 --> 00:07:35.577 - other rather than avoiding duplicative work. So those are just some examples of how we work together 00:07:35.577 --> 00:07:36.318 - in the past. 00:07:37.122 --> 00:07:42.374 - We're different commissions. We have different missions and different areas of focus and those differences 00:07:42.374 --> 00:07:47.381 - benefit Bloomington and its residents by ensuring that important issues don't get left by the wayside 00:07:47.381 --> 00:07:52.387 - while also making effective use of limited resources. But in cases like tonight where our purviews do 00:07:52.387 --> 00:07:57.492 - overlap incredible things happen when we work together. So tonight's meeting is just the latest example 00:07:57.492 --> 00:08:02.744 - of that. So because looks forward to a continued productive relationship with the environmental commission 00:08:02.744 --> 00:08:06.622 - and I would love to see other commissions take a page from from this playbook. 00:08:06.722 --> 00:08:12.660 - So it's my hope that this meeting does not stay unique for long and that it can be a template rather 00:08:12.660 --> 00:08:18.833 - than an exception. So with that I will now pass it over to Chair Albright for her opening remarks. Thank 00:08:18.833 --> 00:08:24.829 - you Justin and thank you Commission on Sustainability and Resilience for joining us for being patient 00:08:24.829 --> 00:08:31.061 - as we get together and find a time that works for us all. But we really do appreciate the time and energy 00:08:31.061 --> 00:08:35.294 - you put into this too and I know it's it's additional effort but it's I 00:08:35.618 --> 00:08:40.739 - Clearly it is worth it for both of our commissions to be working together on this. Justin did an immense 00:08:40.739 --> 00:08:45.714 - amount of homework on the history of our two commissions, which I really appreciate. I know that over 00:08:45.714 --> 00:08:50.885 - the years we've worked together and we've also worked independently in ways that are intending to improve 00:08:50.885 --> 00:08:54.494 - our city. And I love that this is an opportunity for us to come together. 00:08:54.594 --> 00:09:00.260 - the environmental commission a couple years ago started talking about what it would look like to consider 00:09:00.260 --> 00:09:05.712 - sort of that dark sky status. Commissioner Adam Martinez brought it up as an early interest, and then 00:09:05.712 --> 00:09:11.111 - between him, Commissioner Caldy, and then having Carl Geiser join as well, it's something that we've 00:09:11.111 --> 00:09:16.510 - been able to start thinking about and researching more deeply. Then we started looking into what was 00:09:16.770 --> 00:09:22.150 - The practical logistics of making that happen, but you all bringing forth the push for a resolution 00:09:22.150 --> 00:09:27.906 - to really address it I think is the perfect way for our two commissions to work together. So it's exciting 00:09:27.906 --> 00:09:33.286 - to know that there's There's attention and effort from both sides and as Justin said, it's great to 00:09:33.286 --> 00:09:38.827 - be working together and I'm excited for this resolution but I'm also excited for ways that we can keep 00:09:38.827 --> 00:09:44.798 - complementing the skills of strengths the interests that both of our commissions have to find opportunities to 00:09:45.218 --> 00:09:50.214 - lift all of us in the work that we're trying to do as we're also working on our separate initiatives 00:09:50.214 --> 00:09:55.260 - by our commissions. So thanks for being here. Thanks for the for the staff as well for being here and 00:09:55.260 --> 00:10:00.504 - helping make this happen. But looking forward to the conversation about the resolution we're considering. 00:10:00.504 --> 00:10:05.550 - And as Justin said thank you to the public for expressing their thoughts input and ultimately support 00:10:05.550 --> 00:10:10.694 - of what we're talking about tonight. That's a huge part of why we do what we do. And so looking forward 00:10:10.694 --> 00:10:12.030 - to acknowledging that too. 00:10:14.370 --> 00:10:21.086 - Thank you very much, and well said. So that brings us to the opening remarks from the resolution authors. 00:10:21.086 --> 00:10:27.549 - I just wanted to give folks from each commission just a chance to kind of introduce the idea here and 00:10:27.549 --> 00:10:33.948 - offer any opening remarks before we sort of get into the actual debate and adoption section. So I'll 00:10:33.948 --> 00:10:40.918 - pass it over to Zach Omerman first for any opening remarks. Hello, everyone. So you all have had a memorandum 00:10:40.918 --> 00:10:43.262 - that I prepared pretty detailed with 00:10:43.426 --> 00:10:48.784 - the wrong date on there, which has been bothering me since I submitted it, but no worries. It basically 00:10:48.784 --> 00:10:54.091 - goes into detail about what this resolution would do and why I initially proposed it, so hopefully you 00:10:54.091 --> 00:10:59.450 - all have had a time, had the chance to read that. I'm not gonna go into it in depth. We've been talking 00:10:59.450 --> 00:11:04.705 - about this for months now, so I feel like everybody's pretty well aware of the main components of it, 00:11:04.705 --> 00:11:09.342 - but I'm just gonna briefly go through the list of what this would do in its current form. 00:11:09.570 --> 00:11:15.101 - Basically, this would fill several gaps in the city's lighting code that would with the goal being of 00:11:15.101 --> 00:11:20.578 - putting us on a Path to a potentially obtaining dark sky status. I have said from the very beginning 00:11:20.578 --> 00:11:26.001 - And I think several of the other co-sponsors and authors and things have said this as well that the 00:11:26.001 --> 00:11:31.966 - goal for us It's not really to get dark sky status It's to reduce light pollution meaningfully in Bloomington 00:11:31.966 --> 00:11:37.118 - because I think at least personally that we have a human right to see the night sky and we are 00:11:38.978 --> 00:11:44.124 - Okay, we are essentially the first couple of generations that has not that are Often not able to see 00:11:44.124 --> 00:11:49.320 - the Milky Way There are people that are being born right now and dying right now that have never seen 00:11:49.320 --> 00:11:54.618 - the Milky Way with their own eyes And I think that's a travesty So the goal here is to reduce our light 00:11:54.618 --> 00:12:00.121 - pollution so that people are able to see the night sky in the city of Bloomington so to do that I basically 00:12:00.121 --> 00:12:01.598 - just took the dark skies and 00:12:01.794 --> 00:12:06.835 - dark sky community standards for approval as a dark sky city, looked through the city code and found 00:12:06.835 --> 00:12:11.925 - some gaps. So what it would do is change color temperature standards. If you scroll, Jolie, would you 00:12:11.925 --> 00:12:16.966 - scroll down to the picture of the lamps with the, oh, there we go. Yeah, that. So basically what I'm 00:12:16.966 --> 00:12:22.057 - talking about there is reducing the color temperature to the left end of the spectrum rather than the 00:12:22.057 --> 00:12:24.702 - right end of the spectrum, which I think most people 00:12:25.282 --> 00:12:30.512 - Are actually pretty fond of the lights on the left end and most people hate the right the lights on 00:12:30.512 --> 00:12:35.899 - the far right end So I think that would be a very popular thing if you would scroll down again. I just 00:12:35.899 --> 00:12:41.338 - want to show you to Hit this this earth. These are three one one You report complaints for harsh bright 00:12:41.338 --> 00:12:47.038 - or glaring streetlights? Starting in around 2022 at some point in 2022. It's not clear when the city started 00:12:47.394 --> 00:12:52.348 - switching its streetlights to those sort of harsh blue lights on the far right end of the spectrum that 00:12:52.348 --> 00:12:57.111 - I was just showing you, and as you can see, right as they started doing that, complaints for lights 00:12:57.111 --> 00:13:02.018 - spiked to over 100 a year. In the decade previous to them doing that, the average number of complaints 00:13:02.018 --> 00:13:06.781 - per year was only 11, and now it's shot up to over 100. I just want to point out also that the 2026 00:13:06.781 --> 00:13:11.592 - figure there that is only 20 is only through April of this year, so I haven't checked it since then, 00:13:11.592 --> 00:13:16.499 - but presumably if it's on track for the previous couple of years, we're gonna be around 100 by the end 00:13:16.499 --> 00:13:17.118 - of the year. 00:13:17.250 --> 00:13:23.022 - So that's the first thing it does. The second, and this is something that I've known would be probably 00:13:23.022 --> 00:13:28.794 - the most controversial part of this from the beginning, is an immortization schedule for non-compliant 00:13:28.794 --> 00:13:34.734 - light fixtures. Basically, and that's a dark sky community requirement, and that is basically that within 00:13:34.734 --> 00:13:40.282 - 10 years, all lights have to be compliant with the city code on lighting. Restrictions on exterior 00:13:40.282 --> 00:13:45.438 - uplighting. Uplighting is just basically what it sounds like, shooting lights into the sky. 00:13:45.826 --> 00:13:51.919 - whether that's to light up a building, it's almost always for decorative purposes, and it has one of 00:13:51.919 --> 00:13:58.252 - the biggest impacts on light pollution. So that's another thing that it would basically ban in all cases 00:13:58.252 --> 00:14:04.405 - except for, I think, flags, which for political reasons I opted not to ban, or to propose banning. My 00:14:04.405 --> 00:14:10.498 - personal favorite part of all of this, and if I had to pick only one thing in the entire resolution, 00:14:10.498 --> 00:14:14.238 - would be a strong warrant requirement for new public lighting 00:14:14.370 --> 00:14:19.962 - Basically what that means is you have to have a good reason to put in a street light, A, and B, if the 00:14:19.962 --> 00:14:25.500 - street light is proposed near an environmentally sensitive area as defined elsewhere in the code, you 00:14:25.500 --> 00:14:31.146 - basically have to prove, you have to jump through a giant hoop to prove that lighting is the only thing 00:14:31.146 --> 00:14:36.739 - that can solve the problem and that there's nothing else that could solve whatever the problem is with 00:14:36.739 --> 00:14:40.702 - the goal of basically placing a pretty high hurdle for the city to cross 00:14:41.538 --> 00:14:46.205 - to install a street light, so they actually need a street light if they're gonna install one. And that's 00:14:46.205 --> 00:14:50.740 - my favorite thing, and if I had to pick one thing in the entire resolution to keep, that would be it. 00:14:50.740 --> 00:14:55.318 - Five, extension of light curfew to all mixed use and non-residential categories, and change to 10 p.m. 00:14:55.318 --> 00:14:59.808 - for all those that currently have an 11 p.m. curfew, I'm just gonna go quickly through the last few. 00:14:59.808 --> 00:15:04.342 - Stronger restrictions on illuminated signage and strengthening rules on light press trespass. I won't 00:15:04.342 --> 00:15:08.832 - go any more in detail, we can talk more in detail as we get to the actual resolution, but that's the 00:15:08.832 --> 00:15:09.854 - gist of it, thank you. 00:15:12.130 --> 00:15:18.577 - Great, thank you. Now I'll pass it over to Matt if you have any comments that you'd like to. Sure, 00:15:18.577 --> 00:15:25.285 - thank you. I have very little to add to what Zach said. I am excited for further conversation on this. 00:15:25.285 --> 00:15:31.862 - I mostly also just want to emphasize how much meaningfully reducing light pollution has an impact on 00:15:31.862 --> 00:15:38.440 - both humans and the environment, how unnecessary and excessive lighting leads to a tremendous number 00:15:38.440 --> 00:15:39.742 - of emissions, which 00:15:40.066 --> 00:15:47.697 - worsens climate change and also how all our nocturnal and creatures, insects, et cetera, being affected 00:15:47.697 --> 00:15:55.181 - and confused by our excessive lighting at night has effects all the way down the food web. It's very, 00:15:55.181 --> 00:16:02.078 - very harmful to so many aspects of our environment and I'm excited for any movement that will 00:16:02.078 --> 00:16:05.086 - help Bloomington improve in that regard. 00:16:05.186 --> 00:16:11.737 - So thank you again, Zach, for doing a lot of the legwork on the writing here. And I'm happy to have 00:16:11.737 --> 00:16:18.550 - been a part of this one. Thank you very much. All right. So that brings us to the public comment stage. 00:16:18.550 --> 00:16:25.100 - I don't see anyone in the room. I will note that we did receive a lot of letters from the public, a 00:16:25.100 --> 00:16:27.262 - lot of emails over the course of 00:16:27.522 --> 00:16:35.473 - about a month or so, I think 11 in total, and all of them were in support of the resolution, so it's 00:16:35.473 --> 00:16:42.558 - great to see. Is there anyone on Zoom? I can't, I didn't see it last time. Okay, perfect. 00:16:43.234 --> 00:16:49.906 - Well that takes us past the public comment portion. Great. So that brings us to the resolution itself 00:16:49.906 --> 00:16:56.578 - because resolution twenty twenty six dash zero six and EC resolution twenty twenty six dash zero one. 00:16:56.578 --> 00:17:03.446 - So what I'll do is I'll ask for a motion to adopt the resolution and then if there's a second then we'll 00:17:03.446 --> 00:17:09.987 - start our discussion. We can propose amendments that sort of thing. So is there a motion. So moved. 00:17:09.987 --> 00:17:12.734 - Wonderful. Is there a second. Second. OK. 00:17:14.018 --> 00:17:22.328 - All right we have a motion in a second. OK so I know we do have one proposed amendment on the docket 00:17:22.328 --> 00:17:30.884 - but I think to start I'll just open it up to the group if anyone wants to offer comments or we can just 00:17:30.884 --> 00:17:39.194 - jump straight into the resolution or to the amendment. I'm sorry if we want to kind of focus on that 00:17:39.194 --> 00:17:41.086 - first. Go ahead Maria. 00:17:43.426 --> 00:17:52.786 - So I have spent a lot of time looking over this resolution and trying to read and research as much as 00:17:52.786 --> 00:18:02.147 - I could about it. And my kind of the issue I keep coming up against is that this is making what seems 00:18:02.147 --> 00:18:07.102 - to be extensive recommendations to change the you do. 00:18:08.738 --> 00:18:16.559 - And for me personally I don't feel like I fully understand what the implications of all these changes 00:18:16.559 --> 00:18:24.532 - would be. I don't for instance I don't know really the difference between point five foot candles point 00:18:24.532 --> 00:18:32.200 - three foot candles you know what what that actually means. And I fear I fear the commissions may be 00:18:32.200 --> 00:18:37.950 - getting a little ahead of ourselves making these recommendations to change 00:18:38.210 --> 00:18:48.315 - the UDO before we first make the recommendations of gathering the baseline data that we would need to 00:18:48.315 --> 00:18:58.518 - then move forward. So the more I think about it, the more I would feel more comfortable voting to pass 00:18:58.518 --> 00:19:07.038 - a resolution that focuses more on the general recommendation section and specifically 00:19:08.066 --> 00:19:18.183 - General recommendations to a and to be conducting an inventory and then establishing the sky quality 00:19:18.183 --> 00:19:28.300 - measurement program. I believe those are actually more actionable recommendations that we would make 00:19:28.300 --> 00:19:34.110 - to the Common Council that really they have frankly more. 00:19:34.818 --> 00:19:42.378 - I think probably more of a chance of actually following through on whereas if we make all these 00:19:42.378 --> 00:19:50.410 - recommendations to change the UDO first as I said I'm not sure what the implications of all those are 00:19:50.410 --> 00:19:58.679 - so I would fear passing something that would have unintended consequences to economic development issues 00:19:58.679 --> 00:20:00.254 - which is one of the 00:20:01.250 --> 00:20:09.703 - one of the missions of our commission on sustainability is to address economic development within Bloomington 00:20:09.703 --> 00:20:17.695 - as well. But then also I fear that putting this slew of changes to the U.D.O. on the desk of the Common 00:20:17.695 --> 00:20:25.534 - Council might just have the effect of a voice crying out in the desert where it's you know so kind of 00:20:27.746 --> 00:20:36.768 - a lot that it ends up just sitting there and not moving forward because they do not have the baseline 00:20:36.768 --> 00:20:45.878 - data or the research to to really support like moving forward with just passing these recommendations. 00:20:45.878 --> 00:20:55.430 - So I think when when it comes to it I would probably make would like to see an amendment basically striking 00:20:55.430 --> 00:20:57.022 - the first part of 00:20:57.666 --> 00:21:07.674 - the recommendations, namely the UDO changes, and really just recommending first that the council enact 00:21:07.674 --> 00:21:17.390 - those kind of studies that we need to get the actual baseline data first. So those are my thoughts, 00:21:17.390 --> 00:21:26.718 - and I welcome conversation on those issues. And would you mind introducing yourself? I'm sorry. 00:21:26.914 --> 00:21:38.176 - Maria are sad on because sir Yeah, that's a good point I didn't even thought about that. Yeah, so Yeah, 00:21:38.176 --> 00:21:49.331 - first time you know folks talk to they can introduce themselves Okay, any other follow-up? Just at the 00:21:49.331 --> 00:21:56.478 - moment I'm commenting. Okay. Thank you I saw hands somewhere Okay 00:21:58.594 --> 00:22:06.381 - Okay, I disagree that, oh sorry, hi, I'm Tara Dunderdale, I'm the secretary for the Commission 00:22:06.381 --> 00:22:14.579 - on Sustainability and Resilience. I disagree that Common Council is in a better position to do this 00:22:14.579 --> 00:22:23.432 - research. I think that these advisory commissions exist for that purpose, to provide the necessary research 00:22:23.432 --> 00:22:28.350 - and expertise from across the commissioners so that council 00:22:28.546 --> 00:22:35.378 - have to be experts in all of the many many things that they have to make decisions about and that both 00:22:35.378 --> 00:22:42.012 - as highlighted by both chairs and the and the joint authors that there's there's actually extensive 00:22:42.012 --> 00:22:48.645 - research included in this packet and in the accompanying materials that have been made that are you 00:22:48.645 --> 00:22:54.814 - know available to us as well as counsel and that I think it is our job to make the strongest 00:22:55.618 --> 00:23:06.695 - Recommendations that we can and it is council's job to decide the implications of that and the how it 00:23:06.695 --> 00:23:17.881 - fits in with the rest of UDO But our job is to make a case for You know the the research that that our 00:23:17.881 --> 00:23:25.374 - teams have done And up was there a hand up on this side earlier Okay 00:23:25.922 --> 00:23:31.095 - So I imagine we'll get into this a little bit more when we bring up the amendment that I'm going to 00:23:31.095 --> 00:23:36.630 - propose. Basically, to kind of echo a little bit with, number one, I just want to say I really appreciated 00:23:36.630 --> 00:23:41.803 - your comments that you sent in. They were really detailed, thoughtful. I could tell that you really 00:23:41.803 --> 00:23:47.080 - engaged with it in depth, probably more so than most of the other members of the commission, I think. 00:23:47.080 --> 00:23:50.494 - So I really appreciate that, genuinely. I mean, it made me think. 00:23:51.010 --> 00:23:56.601 - Little bit more. So that's why I'm proposing this amendment, which I don't even know if I'm going to 00:23:56.601 --> 00:24:02.357 - support fully yet But it's I want it to be a topic of consideration of discussion We'll talk about that 00:24:02.357 --> 00:24:08.114 - more in detail when you get when we get to there but to the the rest the meat of the resolution to sort 00:24:08.114 --> 00:24:13.815 - of echo what Tara was saying I Think the Commission's job here is to provide a roadmap of How the city 00:24:13.815 --> 00:24:18.686 - gets to dark sky status. These are the things that would need to change in the code and 00:24:19.042 --> 00:24:23.937 - to get us to dark sky status. And you may not agree that we need to get to dark sky status, or that's 00:24:23.937 --> 00:24:28.976 - a good policy goal, and that's completely fine. Or that we need to do more research, or whatever, that's 00:24:28.976 --> 00:24:33.776 - completely fine. But this is the roadmap based on the research that all of us did that would get us 00:24:33.776 --> 00:24:38.719 - to dark sky status, and I view that as our goal. That is our job here, is to provide that roadmap, and 00:24:38.719 --> 00:24:43.662 - that's what this is. And so whether you disagree with parts of the policy recommendations or whatever, 00:24:43.662 --> 00:24:44.670 - that's totally fine. 00:24:45.890 --> 00:24:53.584 - To me, that's kind of separate a little bit from whether or not this is indeed the roadmap that would 00:24:53.584 --> 00:25:01.504 - get us to dark sky status. So yeah, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other 00:25:01.504 --> 00:25:08.519 - discussion? I actually really do. Oh, yeah. My name's Carl Geiser. I'm the vice president of 00:25:08.519 --> 00:25:10.782 - the Environmental Commission. 00:25:10.914 --> 00:25:17.951 - I do appreciate the comments about, you know, taking a cautious, you know, maybe stepwise approach to 00:25:17.951 --> 00:25:24.920 - this. I would just like to echo the idea that council are, they're very busy people, and it might be 00:25:24.920 --> 00:25:31.198 - helpful to have, like, the full complete picture of, like, the roadmap, as Zach mentioned. 00:25:31.618 --> 00:25:40.065 - I also think that if council wants to take a stepwise implementation of this, starting with studies, 00:25:40.065 --> 00:25:49.097 - that's very reasonable for them to take. But in my opinion, our position is advisory. And I think providing 00:25:49.097 --> 00:25:56.958 - them with more information rather than less is more beneficial in this case. Thank you. Alex? 00:25:59.618 --> 00:26:09.950 - My name's Alex York. I'm on the BCOS Commission. I think that it's an excellent point about the idea 00:26:09.950 --> 00:26:20.282 - of further study, but I wouldn't say that I would want to delay or diminish this recommendation post 00:26:20.282 --> 00:26:29.182 - further study. I would say that it could be a beneficial thing to pass recommendations 00:26:29.506 --> 00:26:36.238 - have City Council have the opportunity to do something and if they sit on it and don't do anything, 00:26:36.238 --> 00:26:43.171 - then maybe they need more information. If they try to do something and it ends up being that they also 00:26:43.171 --> 00:26:50.239 - don't really know what they're talking about, then we can supply more information. We could be proactive 00:26:50.239 --> 00:26:56.971 - and start that study, but I personally wouldn't want to delay for that. And I think that that's one 00:26:56.971 --> 00:26:58.654 - of the nice things about 00:26:59.234 --> 00:27:07.397 - municipal level government, and I am not a politician, so I can say this, that they can be more nimble. 00:27:07.397 --> 00:27:15.246 - The federal government would certainly, like at that large bureaucracy level, want to study things. 00:27:15.246 --> 00:27:23.173 - And at a city level, it's a little easier to try something, and if it doesn't work, find out that it 00:27:23.173 --> 00:27:28.510 - doesn't work and undo it. There's just fewer actors, less momentum, 00:27:28.834 --> 00:27:36.053 - both in less inertia, less inertia in getting going and less inertia in changing course. So I would 00:27:36.053 --> 00:27:43.561 - say that my view is that we should try that. I think it is an excellent point that could be a follow-up 00:27:43.561 --> 00:27:51.140 - of, you know, after adopting or not adopting this, either way, do we start, do we form some subcommittee 00:27:51.140 --> 00:27:57.854 - or something to start preparing some additional information that would be useful to counsel? 00:28:01.538 --> 00:28:09.217 - But yeah, Matt, go ahead. Yeah, Matt called the Environmental Commission. I also really appreciate the 00:28:09.217 --> 00:28:16.970 - remarks that were given about sort of taking our time and figuring it out. But I also want to emphasize 00:28:16.970 --> 00:28:24.425 - that the framework was kind of laid out by the foremost experts at Dark Sky. So even though I'm not 00:28:24.425 --> 00:28:31.134 - in it, I don't know a lot about foot candles either. And I don't know the UDO super well. 00:28:31.298 --> 00:28:38.223 - Read the parts that I'm really investigating at any given time. I think this is this is well reasoned 00:28:38.223 --> 00:28:45.080 - I'm also Pretty interested in the amendment because I feel like some of the language in this initial 00:28:45.080 --> 00:28:52.072 - one might be a little a little aspirational because again, it was sort of written with dark sky status 00:28:52.072 --> 00:28:59.065 - in mind when really that's gonna be Would be a huge lift here given all the all the circumstances, but 00:28:59.065 --> 00:29:00.830 - I do also appreciate that 00:29:01.442 --> 00:29:09.026 - The remarks about the general recommendations maybe being a great starting point. I would hate to lose 00:29:09.026 --> 00:29:16.463 - the UDO recommendations, but wouldn't be opposed in the slightest to switching the order if that was 00:29:16.463 --> 00:29:23.826 - at all preferred by people to put general recommendations as one and then the UDO changes as two. I 00:29:23.826 --> 00:29:29.054 - think it should still be included, could just be reordered. Thank you. 00:29:31.330 --> 00:29:38.148 - Any further discussion. Yeah Ross go ahead. Yeah. So if I may if you could introduce yourself. Oh yeah. 00:29:38.148 --> 00:29:44.244 - Ross Carlson be costs are a commissioner. I am the county liaison for Bloomington Commission 00:29:44.244 --> 00:29:50.800 - on Sustainability and Resiliency. I think we have a stated goal here and to reach that goal we have 00:29:50.800 --> 00:29:57.683 - proposed you do changes. I think an analog to other city commissions when they have goals have not shied 00:29:57.683 --> 00:30:00.830 - away from making you do recommendation changes. 00:30:01.026 --> 00:30:10.282 - to the commission. So the implications that other commissions have made for UDO changes may have reaches 00:30:10.282 --> 00:30:19.186 - beyond the specific goal that they're looking for at a certain project, but they have not shied away 00:30:19.186 --> 00:30:28.707 - from making those recommendations. So I acknowledge that there might be economic and development challenges 00:30:28.707 --> 00:30:30.558 - that come from this. 00:30:30.754 --> 00:30:40.134 - But I do think that it is within our purview to say if we would like to meet this goal, which is I think 00:30:40.134 --> 00:30:49.066 - why we're here, we have established that we would like to, or at least move towards that, that it's 00:30:49.066 --> 00:30:58.446 - not unreasonable or unique that we would request changes to the UDO. Any further comments or discussion? 00:30:58.446 --> 00:30:59.518 - Yeah, Tara. 00:31:02.018 --> 00:31:08.638 - Just in general if people are kind of out of comments we could move on to the amendment discussion, 00:31:08.638 --> 00:31:15.325 - but Yeah, please I just want to highlight one of the things in the public letters of support that we 00:31:15.325 --> 00:31:22.011 - received that I thought was really compelling in the One of the letters of support and we don't need 00:31:22.011 --> 00:31:24.990 - to scroll down to it, but it's in the packet 00:31:25.154 --> 00:31:33.175 - has the light pollution map and showing how our light pollution in Bloomington rivals Indianapolis was 00:31:33.175 --> 00:31:41.585 - very compelling to me, as already wanting less light pollution in our city, how much smaller our population 00:31:41.585 --> 00:31:49.839 - and footprint is, yet we are producing dense and intense light pollution that is affecting our community, 00:31:49.839 --> 00:31:52.798 - and not just affecting our community, 00:31:52.930 --> 00:32:00.352 - affecting communities as far as Martinsville and the surrounding area was so You know when we talk about 00:32:00.352 --> 00:32:07.562 - unimpact unintended consequences of actions, we are currently engaging in unintended consequences and 00:32:07.562 --> 00:32:15.055 - and Extended consequences and externalities for not just our city, but our county and and all of central, 00:32:15.055 --> 00:32:20.286 - Indiana and so this is a step towards undoing some of the ways that we're 00:32:20.706 --> 00:32:32.421 - harming our community and potentially repairing that. And with that can also come economic benefits 00:32:32.421 --> 00:32:44.487 - in addition to the health benefits and ecological benefits. Any further discussion. Yes. Councilmember 00:32:44.487 --> 00:32:50.462 - Rallo. Well I just want to say I really appreciate 00:32:50.658 --> 00:32:58.471 - the discussion I really appreciate these resolutions I I Respect and appreciate the caution Changing 00:32:58.471 --> 00:33:06.980 - the UDO is a serious thing. However, you are a body that it has experts and environment and on sustainability 00:33:06.980 --> 00:33:14.948 - and so Your expertise is something that we would draw on as council in making decisions about changing 00:33:14.948 --> 00:33:20.286 - that UDO I appreciate the hard work that's gone into this resolution 00:33:20.514 --> 00:33:28.628 - I happened to have met yesterday with at the invitation of Liz Irwin who was the government and community 00:33:28.628 --> 00:33:36.283 - relations manager with Duke Energy and it was a discussion that involved questions about permitting 00:33:36.283 --> 00:33:44.091 - and cyber security and and and various things rate rate increases and things like that, but I did ask 00:33:44.091 --> 00:33:48.990 - a question about about their policy on lights street lights and 00:33:49.154 --> 00:33:58.749 - And the fact that a lot of the lights have been trending blue has been quite seriously disrupting for 00:33:58.749 --> 00:34:08.438 - not only people and melatonin and sleeping, but also wildlife, particularly insects. And we know we're 00:34:08.438 --> 00:34:18.974 - in a biodiversity crisis, and there's problems with particularly birds crashing, those that are eating insects. 00:34:19.202 --> 00:34:27.303 - Of course insects are being you know, the whole trophic system is being disrupted by Insecticides and 00:34:27.303 --> 00:34:35.641 - then this is another another problem so with that being said I just wanted to say that I will be passing 00:34:35.641 --> 00:34:44.139 - this evening because as a representative that represents a lot of constituents in district four, I haven't 00:34:44.139 --> 00:34:45.886 - fully vetted this and 00:34:46.082 --> 00:34:52.829 - to those constituents or had public comments or and so I feel like I'm ill-equipped to just Be strident 00:34:52.829 --> 00:34:59.446 - and support this without gathering more information from the public who obviously will be affected by 00:34:59.446 --> 00:35:05.933 - this But I really do appreciate you Pushing this forward because I think it's a really important. I 00:35:05.933 --> 00:35:12.486 - think it's something that we need to Discuss as a community and take and take some steps to minimize 00:35:12.486 --> 00:35:14.302 - the damage that's occurring 00:35:14.466 --> 00:35:21.876 - To that end I did send I just got this late. Just literally 20 minutes before five It was a follow-up 00:35:21.876 --> 00:35:29.214 - by Liz Irwin and I sent it to Because there are commissioners and the chair I didn't have the emails 00:35:29.214 --> 00:35:36.769 - for the entire environmental commission. I sent it to you Commissioner chair Albright if you would pass 00:35:36.769 --> 00:35:42.654 - it on to your to your commissioner members, but she does go into some detail and 00:35:42.850 --> 00:35:51.864 - about how They have been reducing through attrition apparently the lighting street lighting from 4000 00:35:51.864 --> 00:36:01.407 - K to 3000 now I think that we really should think about aiming as the resolution says for 2200 or something 00:36:01.407 --> 00:36:10.686 - below 3000 because 3000 is better, but it's not ideal so that's that's for your consideration too, but I 00:36:10.786 --> 00:36:20.700 - I really appreciate this debate and I appreciate anything that comes of this evening and look forward 00:36:20.700 --> 00:36:30.613 - to engaging with my colleagues in the council to move something forward. Thanks. Thank you. Are there 00:36:30.613 --> 00:36:33.918 - any other comments or discussion? 00:36:34.242 --> 00:36:40.495 - Okay I'm not seeing any at the moment so I think what I would recommend if we want to consider the amendment 00:36:40.495 --> 00:36:46.289 - that's been included in the packet then we could kind of move on to that. We would need a motion and 00:36:46.289 --> 00:36:52.141 - a second in order to consider that and then we can discuss the amendment. So is there a motion to yes 00:36:52.141 --> 00:36:57.878 - move we consider the amendment. Wonderful. And a second. Okay perfect. All right. So that brings us 00:36:57.878 --> 00:37:02.238 - into discussion about the amendment. Oh yeah. Who seconded Alex. Thank you. 00:37:02.978 --> 00:37:11.252 - Yeah let me let me bring up the amendment text here. Regular resolution. Yeah and yeah just just to 00:37:11.252 --> 00:37:18.782 - point out that we also did sort of did do a call within because we did a call for you know 00:37:18.882 --> 00:37:26.207 - suggestions, feedback on this particular resolution, and so, you know, we did get some responses there 00:37:26.207 --> 00:37:33.462 - that we included in the packet, so very appreciative for those, and those were sort of used to guide, 00:37:33.462 --> 00:37:40.645 - you know, these amendments that you see before you now. So, I don't know, Zach, did you want to kick 00:37:40.645 --> 00:37:43.774 - us off and maybe talk about what's changed? 00:37:44.642 --> 00:37:51.556 - I wrote this in response to Commissioner Arstod wrote, like I said, some very detailed and really thoughtful 00:37:51.556 --> 00:37:57.900 - comments that made me think a lot. So I wanted to propose this amendment. Before I get into what it 00:37:57.900 --> 00:38:04.243 - does, right off the bat, I am not certain whether I will vote for this or not. I wanted to bring it 00:38:04.243 --> 00:38:10.587 - up to everybody here to see what everyone else thinks, and then we can decide together which way we 00:38:10.587 --> 00:38:13.822 - want to go. So like I said at the get-go, the goal 00:38:14.114 --> 00:38:20.376 - on this for me from the very beginning is to meaningfully reduce light pollution, and I frankly don't 00:38:20.376 --> 00:38:26.514 - really care that much about dark sky status, but that was a nice cherry on top that I thought would 00:38:26.514 --> 00:38:32.899 - get the city to care about it. However, part of me wonders whether, when I was writing this resolution, 00:38:32.899 --> 00:38:39.160 - I was somewhat surprised by how strict some of the dark sky status requirements are, but I went ahead 00:38:39.160 --> 00:38:42.782 - and wrote it anyway because my goal was, again, I thought, 00:38:42.946 --> 00:38:49.890 - to create a roadmap for the city to get dark sky status. Based on Commissioner Arstotz's comments though, 00:38:49.890 --> 00:38:56.637 - I somewhat wonder, and I don't know which way I'm gonna fall on this, but I wonder whether some of the 00:38:56.637 --> 00:39:03.450 - dark sky requirements might actually prevent us from meaningfully reducing light pollution because they 00:39:03.450 --> 00:39:10.394 - will see those and think we don't wanna do this and will drop the entire thing. And so part of me wonders 00:39:10.394 --> 00:39:11.966 - whether we go ahead and 00:39:12.802 --> 00:39:18.836 - reduce the most potentially problematic things now on our own, and we are the ones that decide which 00:39:18.836 --> 00:39:24.990 - ones get taken out, rather than letting it go to the city council and either sitting there and nothing 00:39:24.990 --> 00:39:31.382 - happens, or them taking out, watering it down way more than I want it to be watered down. And so basically 00:39:31.382 --> 00:39:37.536 - what this amendment does is it takes out, can you scroll down to section one, the first, basically the 00:39:37.536 --> 00:39:40.702 - main thing it does, yeah, the recommendations, yeah. 00:39:41.090 --> 00:39:47.987 - Right there, it takes out section 1A, which is the amortization requirement, which requires all lights 00:39:47.987 --> 00:39:55.085 - in the city within 10 years on both public and private property to be in conformity with the requirements 00:39:55.085 --> 00:40:01.781 - of the UDO within 10 years. That right there alone, getting rid of that, makes this a million times 00:40:01.781 --> 00:40:08.812 - easier, I think, to pass. I then went through and, but if we remove that, we would not be able to obtain 00:40:08.812 --> 00:40:09.950 - dark sky status. 00:40:10.850 --> 00:40:16.180 - So I went through and then removed all the places where it makes reference to dark sky status, A, 00:40:16.180 --> 00:40:21.945 - and then B, in a couple of places I made it clear that the requirements are primarily for public lighting 00:40:21.945 --> 00:40:27.710 - and less so for private lighting, although some things still require, still have requirements for private 00:40:27.710 --> 00:40:33.366 - lighting as well, but those are things that already exist for private lighting, they're just being made 00:40:33.366 --> 00:40:39.131 - slightly stricter in this resolution. Anything that was new for private lighting I made clear was talking 00:40:39.131 --> 00:40:40.382 - about public lighting, 00:40:41.346 --> 00:40:46.961 - and got rid of the amortization requirement. Those are the main things that it changes. So I'm curious 00:40:46.961 --> 00:40:52.575 - what people think about this. I genuinely don't know which way I'm gonna go. I wanna see what everyone 00:40:52.575 --> 00:40:58.353 - else thinks. And basically my heart still wants the original version, and if I were emperor of the world, 00:40:58.353 --> 00:41:03.968 - I would pass that one right now, but I'm not. And there are other people that might be mad about parts 00:41:03.968 --> 00:41:09.310 - of this that are in the city that might not like having to change their lights on their property. 00:41:09.634 --> 00:41:16.069 - The smart that my head is telling me that maybe this version is the better one. So I'm curious what 00:41:16.069 --> 00:41:22.568 - everyone else thinks. Thanks. Yeah go ahead. Matt Caldy I've actually gone grown really fond of this 00:41:22.568 --> 00:41:29.067 - amendment. When I first saw it I thought oh man are we going to water this thing down after all that 00:41:29.067 --> 00:41:35.759 - effort. But I actually think that all it does is makes it a little bit slower by removing you know that 00:41:35.759 --> 00:41:38.526 - hard deadline. I think it's actually still 00:41:38.850 --> 00:41:47.924 - a very strong resolution and also by removing the actual dark sky like attempts at getting accreditation 00:41:47.924 --> 00:41:56.652 - that makes it perhaps less of a burden for staff. I think just all around this would still very much 00:41:56.652 --> 00:42:05.380 - achieve our goals while not seeming as oppressive to people who maybe think there's a potential that 00:42:05.380 --> 00:42:07.454 - people are trying to go 00:42:07.682 --> 00:42:16.437 - go too far. I still think it's very strong, and I'm pretty fond of it. I'd have one slight amendment 00:42:16.437 --> 00:42:25.278 - to propose to this amendment later if it has the momentum. But that was my first comments. Thank you. 00:42:25.278 --> 00:42:32.126 - Thank you. Additional comments? Yeah, go ahead. Well, here's a thought I have. 00:42:32.930 --> 00:42:39.760 - Could we send the council both sections? I propose this because perhaps the council wants to take a 00:42:39.760 --> 00:42:46.589 - bold environmental stance and sees the economic value of pursuing dark sky status. We can advertise 00:42:46.589 --> 00:42:53.487 - that to businesses and to people across the country that this is a desirable place to live. But then 00:42:53.487 --> 00:42:58.814 - we could also provide, hey, if this is too onerous, how about this amendment? 00:42:59.010 --> 00:43:05.516 - So just a consideration that do we have to pick between these two would be my suggestion. I do want 00:43:05.516 --> 00:43:12.348 - to comment that yes, the council can water down the first stronger dark sky version. They can also water 00:43:12.348 --> 00:43:19.049 - down the amendment. So I'm not sure that that should be our consideration. I would rather that we give 00:43:19.049 --> 00:43:25.816 - council our best recommendation and then let them decide which path they might want to take. But that's 00:43:25.816 --> 00:43:28.158 - just kind of where my thoughts are. 00:43:30.722 --> 00:43:38.003 - Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Hi, I'm Christopher Miles. I'm on the Sustainability Commission. I guess 00:43:38.003 --> 00:43:45.285 - I have a couple of questions. I would echo what you said. My concern would be the commission can do 00:43:45.285 --> 00:43:52.930 - what it wants with the recommendation. My concern would be that we would be sort of removing. All right, 00:43:52.930 --> 00:43:58.974 - so concern number one, if you remove the certification, do you remove the backstop 00:43:59.330 --> 00:44:06.556 - standardization what's the metric what's the enforcement sort of mechanism if that's gone maybe you 00:44:06.556 --> 00:44:13.782 - know it's enumerated in the amendment sufficiently that if it were adopted as such it wouldn't be a 00:44:13.782 --> 00:44:21.297 - concern but that would be one question I had second hesitation would be that it's not clear to me based 00:44:21.297 --> 00:44:27.294 - on your comments Commissioner ours that that this would meet the concerns you have 00:44:27.586 --> 00:44:35.597 - in any meaningful way. So it seems to me that it might be losing, preemptively losing things in a way 00:44:35.597 --> 00:44:43.923 - that might not meet concerns that you or people who have similar concerns would have. So I can appreciate 00:44:43.923 --> 00:44:51.856 - the interest in making it palatable by thinking strategically about passability in a particular way. 00:44:51.856 --> 00:44:56.254 - And I don't think that's wrong, but I wonder, as a non, 00:44:56.482 --> 00:45:01.662 - not a professional politician anyway, what the correct forum for that would be. And I guess I'll leave 00:45:01.662 --> 00:45:06.692 - my comments there. Not to say I wouldn't necessarily oppose it, but yeah, those are the questions I 00:45:06.692 --> 00:45:11.722 - have. Yeah, Zach, did you want to just answer the question that was posed, and then we'll go to the 00:45:11.722 --> 00:45:17.153 - room after that? Yeah, just to answer your question on enforceability. So this gets rid of the amortization 00:45:17.153 --> 00:45:22.686 - requirement, which is the sort of ironclad part that says everything in the city must comply within 10 years. 00:45:22.978 --> 00:45:28.018 - the existing part of the code already says that anytime there's any substantial renovation, 00:45:28.018 --> 00:45:33.605 - you have to, I think it's 25% of the value of, I can't remember the exact figure, but there's already 00:45:33.605 --> 00:45:39.466 - a way that would slowly force things to comply with this over time. And a lot of it doesn't have anything, 00:45:39.466 --> 00:45:41.822 - like all of the stuff for public lighting, 00:45:41.922 --> 00:45:48.172 - is still in there, I didn't touch it. It's as strong as it was in the old one, including the part that 00:45:48.172 --> 00:45:54.362 - I was talking about, the public warrant for lighting, and the really strong warrant for lighting near 00:45:54.362 --> 00:46:00.612 - environmentally sensitive areas, color temperature, all of that for public lighting is still in there, 00:46:00.612 --> 00:46:06.862 - and that was the bulk of it anyway. Yeah, so just to answer your first question, thanks. Great, Maria. 00:46:06.862 --> 00:46:10.078 - First, just to say I do support the overall heart of 00:46:10.242 --> 00:46:22.934 - this resolution which is to minimize light pollution. Probably just to project my own action. I think 00:46:22.934 --> 00:46:35.376 - either version of this I will probably I'll probably vote no or abstain just from my own deficiency 00:46:35.376 --> 00:46:38.238 - of knowledge again not 00:46:38.434 --> 00:46:47.743 - not really understanding what the implications of the changes are. I think the the amendments I would 00:46:47.743 --> 00:46:56.962 - want to make to feel comfortable voting for this are so extensive that I would I would probably just 00:46:56.962 --> 00:47:06.910 - would rather like draft a new resolution for those recommendations. But I do appreciate the conversation and 00:47:07.906 --> 00:47:17.971 - But yeah, I would want to know more about kind of economic impact and just to understand this more, 00:47:17.971 --> 00:47:28.136 - to recommend these UDO changes. So just to be clear about my motivations. Thank you. Yeah, Carrie. I 00:47:28.136 --> 00:47:33.470 - think one thing that stands out to me as I'm reading 00:47:33.826 --> 00:47:41.368 - the resolution as it stands and then with the amendment in place is I certainly have concerns about 00:47:41.368 --> 00:47:48.985 - the consideration for budgeting and basically resources that will be needed to do some of the things 00:47:48.985 --> 00:47:57.055 - that are part of this resolution and so thinking about requesting that the city put forth public education 00:47:57.055 --> 00:48:03.390 - outreach I think is critically important but that is another ask of that department 00:48:03.618 --> 00:48:09.696 - going through the inventory we know is going to be a big lift. And I think that those are critical pieces 00:48:09.696 --> 00:48:15.601 - to a very, very important conversation that we're having. But I do think that the amendment is helpful 00:48:15.601 --> 00:48:21.507 - in removing some of those timelines that require it to fall within a certain time period so that these 00:48:21.507 --> 00:48:27.642 - departments or whomever can establish exactly how they're gonna make that happen. So I think that removing 00:48:27.642 --> 00:48:29.534 - the amendment while I appreciate 00:48:29.634 --> 00:48:37.108 - keeping our foot on the gas and going big, because this is what we are ultimately looking for, I do 00:48:37.108 --> 00:48:44.881 - think that lifting some of that timeline may open up some conversation around what will it logistically 00:48:44.881 --> 00:48:52.429 - take to make these following pieces fall into place. Yeah, Tara. To Commissioner Miles's point about 00:48:52.429 --> 00:48:58.558 - sort of the backstop of dark skies, and Commissioner Caldi also said that this is 00:48:59.010 --> 00:49:07.498 - Um, a lot of the choices in the, in these recommendations to the UDO are backed by this team of experts 00:49:07.498 --> 00:49:15.659 - that creates the standard. And I, and I agree that I think removing it does remove some of the, um, 00:49:15.659 --> 00:49:23.902 - credit, not credibility, but like the backbone of why these specific recommendations. And I, I think 00:49:23.902 --> 00:49:27.166 - that it is council's job to decide what 00:49:27.522 --> 00:49:35.645 - is within the budget and what is within the staffing capacity of the city. And it's our job to say this 00:49:35.645 --> 00:49:43.533 - is the best thing that you could do for the sustainability and resilience and environmental needs of 00:49:43.533 --> 00:49:51.422 - our community. And I think that is the original recommendations. And we know that the city also will 00:49:51.650 --> 00:49:58.312 - will comply with some of these kinds of national certifications. They just went through the Bee City 00:49:58.312 --> 00:50:05.107 - USA certification. The city is interested in those things capable of doing it and does a lot of public 00:50:05.107 --> 00:50:11.703 - outreach and communication when they do. I don't think it's I don't think it's I don't know. I want 00:50:11.703 --> 00:50:18.564 - to keep my foot on the gas. I want to say this is the best recommendation that we have as commissioners 00:50:18.564 --> 00:50:21.598 - and let the let the people who have to decide 00:50:21.794 --> 00:50:31.426 - how to actually make it happen. What's feasible there. Just to speak to that several of the recommendations 00:50:31.426 --> 00:50:40.344 - do exceed the dark sky community requirements and I'm not sure what the rationale for those are. So 00:50:40.344 --> 00:50:49.886 - I agree with if it if it were you know only like this meets dark side dark sky certification requirements. 00:50:50.498 --> 00:50:58.434 - That would be a different issue. But several of them go beyond that. And I'm not comfortable like why, 00:50:58.434 --> 00:51:06.139 - how far beyond. I just don't understand those, among other things. Yeah, Zach. So the areas where I 00:51:06.139 --> 00:51:14.846 - went beyond the dark sky standards were areas where I saw opportunities to do so that had a relatively low cost. 00:51:15.874 --> 00:51:21.138 - For example, to put the my favorite part of the entire resolution, which is the warrant for light public 00:51:21.138 --> 00:51:26.252 - lighting your environmentally sensitive areas goes beyond dark sky community standards and that is in 00:51:26.252 --> 00:51:31.265 - fact a Net gain in cost for the city because we're not going to be putting up lights where we don't 00:51:31.265 --> 00:51:36.529 - need to and we're not going to be Spending money on lights where we don't need them So that's an example 00:51:36.529 --> 00:51:41.192 - of an area where I went beyond where I saw an opportunity to actually save money or very low 00:51:41.192 --> 00:51:45.854 - cost significantly strengthen the the Recommendation so that's why I went beyond where I did 00:51:48.450 --> 00:51:55.622 - Further comments about the amendment? Yes, Matt. Yeah, I guess I just wanted to reiterate that I, 00:51:55.622 --> 00:52:02.940 - you know, as opposed to my initial knee jerk reaction to the amendment, I actually still think it's 00:52:02.940 --> 00:52:10.331 - very strong. It's sort of the equivalent of saying, you know, we're going to replace all gas powered 00:52:10.331 --> 00:52:15.454 - lawn equipment by such and such date, or we're going to replace it at 00:52:15.618 --> 00:52:22.639 - time of replacement. It still tries to accomplish everything that the original one does, but without 00:52:22.639 --> 00:52:29.729 - what might be a little bit of a burden of actually trying to meet the strict requirements of what for 00:52:29.729 --> 00:52:36.819 - our area is gonna be a somewhat aspirational program. And I, again, just kinda wanna maybe articulate 00:52:36.819 --> 00:52:43.006 - better than I did the first go around that there's, for example, I think it was in 2018, 00:52:43.138 --> 00:52:49.190 - the city adopted the mayor's monarch pledge and did everything it required but since then you know they've 00:52:49.190 --> 00:52:55.016 - kind of moved the goalposts a little bit required a little bit more each year reports done just things 00:52:55.016 --> 00:53:00.673 - that are going to be more time more effort whereas the city can continue to do everything that that 00:53:00.673 --> 00:53:06.442 - plan requires they can they can plant the pollinator plants they can use fewer pesticides and whatnot 00:53:06.442 --> 00:53:09.214 - but don't don't want to meet the limit like meet 00:53:09.346 --> 00:53:15.830 - the requirements of what the program asks every calendar year. So like I'm thrilled they wanted to do 00:53:15.830 --> 00:53:22.758 - be city. But at some point I think there's only going to be so much appetite for programs and certifications 00:53:22.758 --> 00:53:29.687 - that require like a lot of regular actions and check ins and reports. So I actually feel like this amendment 00:53:29.687 --> 00:53:36.043 - removing the dark sky requirement and just focusing on the light pollution itself is actually still 00:53:36.043 --> 00:53:38.014 - really strong and that's why I 00:53:38.562 --> 00:53:51.622 - will probably, I intend to support this amendment. Thanks. Thank you. Alex. I generally view myself 00:53:51.622 --> 00:54:05.335 - as a very practical person, so I like this amendment in that regards. I kind of, to counter Commissioner 00:54:05.335 --> 00:54:07.294 - Caldi's point, 00:54:07.394 --> 00:54:18.382 - I have seen the appetite when a city wants to do something that is such an aspirational goal to achieve 00:54:18.382 --> 00:54:29.476 - that status. And I think that that can really be, while it is a bigger ask, there might be more appetite 00:54:29.476 --> 00:54:35.710 - when you have that trophy at the end of you get something. 00:54:35.810 --> 00:54:45.722 - And I think that that really is something to consider. Kind of makes me really like the idea of recommending 00:54:45.722 --> 00:54:55.362 - both to say, hey, if the council feels that achieving dark sky status is a priority, here is your roadmap 00:54:55.362 --> 00:55:04.638 - to doing so. If the council doesn't feel like achieving dark sky status is a priority, but feels that 00:55:05.282 --> 00:55:13.544 - lowering light pollution is the priority. Well, here's maybe a more politically possible way to do that. 00:55:13.544 --> 00:55:21.492 - And that that gives them both options. Logistically, I don't know how we go about approving that and 00:55:21.492 --> 00:55:30.462 - everything, but I do like that idea, kind of putting the ball in their court and letting them make that decision. 00:55:34.722 --> 00:55:42.720 - One thing that came up in our first reading of this amendment in B-Crosser was that we are not unique, 00:55:42.720 --> 00:55:50.718 - but we are a jurisdiction that also has a large university that significantly contributes to both just 00:55:50.718 --> 00:55:58.716 - the square footage of our town, but also the light pollution in our town. And that if I understand how 00:55:58.716 --> 00:56:02.366 - the UDO works, we can't make them do anything. 00:56:02.786 --> 00:56:12.026 - And I wonder if there would be the political support from IU's astronomy department or other institutions 00:56:12.026 --> 00:56:20.918 - where for partnering on something that is aspirational and is, look, you get to tell people that this 00:56:20.918 --> 00:56:26.846 - is a reason to come here and a reason to give us money or whatever. 00:56:27.010 --> 00:56:34.247 - Their goals are, and I think particularly because we have the observatory and such a world-class astronomy 00:56:34.247 --> 00:56:41.079 - department here, I wonder if, I do like the recommendation of saying, like, here are the roadmaps. I 00:56:41.079 --> 00:56:47.910 - think it's logistically challenging to do it in an amendment in this meeting. But I would definitely 00:56:47.910 --> 00:56:55.486 - want to consider, regardless of the outcome here, maybe a future resolution or transmission to council on that. 00:56:55.650 --> 00:57:05.967 - But I do think that, again, the credibility of an important certification may actually help us gain 00:57:05.967 --> 00:57:16.489 - a partner in achieving this. Diana. I'm Diana B. Gosser, Commissioner. I just wanted to comment also. 00:57:16.489 --> 00:57:21.854 - I sort of agree with Alex here in that I think that 00:57:22.850 --> 00:57:30.095 - as a governing, or not a governing, but as a advising body, thank you. I think we have a responsibility 00:57:30.095 --> 00:57:37.131 - to sort of shoot for the moon in our recommendations, particularly with the best information that we 00:57:37.131 --> 00:57:44.585 - have available. And so I would be in support of either the amended or unamended version of this resolution 00:57:44.585 --> 00:57:46.814 - for that reason alone. However, 00:57:46.978 --> 00:57:54.850 - If we do follow through with the amendment, I would like to see some sort of mention of additional 00:57:54.850 --> 00:58:02.881 - information regarding dark sky status. Should it be something that's pursued later on on the line if 00:58:02.881 --> 00:58:10.832 - this is sort of a precursor to that? Alex. I would like to share for those who don't know that Dark 00:58:10.832 --> 00:58:16.478 - Skies is changing their certification methodology. And they have said, 00:58:17.762 --> 00:58:25.126 - Zach and I had a meeting with them. They told us that as long as we're making progress, that they're 00:58:25.126 --> 00:58:32.782 - very willing to be patient and we can be in their old certification process. But if we do not go through 00:58:32.782 --> 00:58:40.366 - with this in the very near future and start showing progress towards that Dark Sky certification, under 00:58:40.366 --> 00:58:46.782 - their new certification style, it will be performance based as opposed to policy based. 00:58:46.914 --> 00:58:55.345 - and just given our proximity to Indianapolis, we have no shot of getting dark sky certification. So 00:58:55.345 --> 00:59:03.945 - if we do want, if we think that dark sky certification is a goal, then we do need to take that action 00:59:03.945 --> 00:59:12.376 - more or less today and now. Having said that, they are exploring some lower level kind of like dark 00:59:12.376 --> 00:59:16.254 - sky ally certifications, you know, maybe like 00:59:16.962 --> 00:59:25.222 - gold, silver, bronze here, they had no idea. They were very clear this is still being completely workshopped. 00:59:25.222 --> 00:59:32.731 - But it could be that if we do the lower level ask today that there might be something that we could 00:59:32.731 --> 00:59:40.391 - still pursue in the future that isn't the full dark sky certification but is a dark sky friendly city 00:59:40.391 --> 00:59:46.398 - or something as opposed to a fully dark sky. So just some extra information for 00:59:46.530 --> 00:59:53.448 - those who were not aware. Any further comments on the amendment? Yes, Zach. So I brought this forward 00:59:53.448 --> 01:00:00.705 - because I wanted to hear what everyone else thought and hear everyone else be involved in this discussion. 01:00:00.705 --> 01:00:07.556 - I think I've got a good sense of where everyone is sitting now, most of you at least. So I just want 01:00:07.556 --> 01:00:14.406 - to say I'm going to vote no on this because I do think the Coke classic version of the resolution is 01:00:14.406 --> 01:00:15.966 - the better resolution. 01:00:16.386 --> 01:00:24.976 - But I just wanted to bring this forward as an option for people in case people were wavering at all 01:00:24.976 --> 01:00:33.652 - because I still wanted to get something passed. But I'm going to vote no on this amendment. Yes just 01:00:33.652 --> 01:00:42.329 - wanted to say that. Thank you. Further comment. OK. Not seeing any. There is one thing that I wanted 01:00:42.329 --> 01:00:46.366 - to point out before we vote on this amendment. 01:00:46.530 --> 01:00:55.400 - I said I think this entire paragraph a was struck in the amendment. So I think we'd need to update the 01:00:55.400 --> 01:01:04.185 - little indicators here. I mean to me that would be sort of just like an obvious thing that would come 01:01:04.185 --> 01:01:12.797 - with the amendment. But we could we could offer an amendment on the amendment to formally take care 01:01:12.797 --> 01:01:15.294 - of that. I think it's pretty 01:01:15.490 --> 01:01:21.935 - That that would need to be yeah, I'm not sure script would anybody object to us just Knowing that those 01:01:21.935 --> 01:01:28.195 - numbers those letters are gonna change without doing a formal amendment on the amendment The same is 01:01:28.195 --> 01:01:34.888 - true on another section later in general recommendations where D is struck But no, I think that's intuitive 01:01:34.888 --> 01:01:41.147 - and should be fine. Okay, perfect I'm not hearing any objections. So good. Okay any final discussion 01:01:41.147 --> 01:01:43.998 - before we move on to a vote on the amendment? 01:01:47.330 --> 01:02:01.561 - Okay, then we'll move to a vote. We'll do a roll call vote for each commission. I get myself situated 01:02:01.561 --> 01:02:16.350 - here. All right. So this is on the amendment. Tarter Dale. No, no. Thank you. Justin Vassel. I will. Yes. 01:02:16.610 --> 01:02:32.122 - Rebekah pain No, no Christopher miles No No, Zach Ammerman. No, no Council member Allah Abstain abstain 01:02:32.122 --> 01:02:46.142 - Ross Carlson. Yes. Yes, Alex York Yes, yes Maria Arstead Abstain abstain and Diana ogrodowski 01:02:47.458 --> 01:02:58.111 - No. No. OK. That is three yeses five nos and two abstentions. And so on the cost side the amendment 01:02:58.111 --> 01:03:09.404 - fails but it will move over to the easy side. Thank you. All right. We start with just a measure abstain. 01:03:09.404 --> 01:03:16.222 - Adam Martinez no Carl Geiser no Carrie Albright. I'm voting no. 01:03:17.506 --> 01:03:24.691 - Matt Caldy. Yes. All right. So we've got one yes three nos and an abstention. All right. Thank you. 01:03:24.691 --> 01:03:32.379 - The motion fails on the amendment. So that brings us back to the original resolution before any amendments 01:03:32.379 --> 01:03:39.851 - and that brings us back to general discussion. So are there any more comments or discussion that people 01:03:39.851 --> 01:03:42.366 - want to have about the resolution. 01:03:49.986 --> 01:03:58.873 - Okay, seeing none that means we can move on to the vote Sorry is there yeah Go ahead Alex. How about 01:03:58.873 --> 01:04:07.848 - people find something to discuss for three minutes and I'll have a new proposed amendment Are you are 01:04:07.848 --> 01:04:16.822 - you making a motion to recess for? three minutes Is that something I can do? Yes I Make a motion that 01:04:16.822 --> 01:04:19.902 - we take a recess for three minutes 01:04:20.194 --> 01:04:26.443 - I'll write that motion and there's a second. Okay, we could do a voice vote on this All those in favor 01:04:26.443 --> 01:04:32.753 - for recessing for three minutes say aye aye aye all opposed nay any abstentions Okay, we will come back 01:04:32.753 --> 01:04:37.182 - at seven. Oh eight. Well, it's at the right at the barter seven. Oh nine 01:05:23.682 --> 01:05:30.270 - talking about the 01:06:06.434 --> 01:06:14.700 - I am aware of a kind of longer-term defense innovation core idea. Is this something that you're discussing 01:06:14.700 --> 01:06:22.657 - on the council? There's a broad sort of collaborative idea that's been developing, as I understand it, 01:06:22.657 --> 01:06:30.460 - between different elements of IU, particularly my department of ethics. And you mentioned Mill would 01:06:30.460 --> 01:06:36.254 - be a part of this. John Fernandez, I think, is connected to this, or maybe 01:06:36.482 --> 01:07:04.574 - As you know, things are done in decades. 01:07:08.674 --> 01:07:15.440 - This one, as I understand it, has been underway for some time in different dimensions. The big, over 01:07:15.440 --> 01:07:22.139 - 100 million grant that went to IU for the AI development stuff is in partnership. So obviously some 01:07:22.139 --> 01:07:28.905 - of this is sort of like latent, like we want to strengthen these collaborations in general. But I do 01:07:28.905 --> 01:07:31.518 - think there's a larger strategic plan. 01:07:32.450 --> 01:08:00.286 - I think it serves both purposes. All of that, so I was curious if it sounds like, 01:08:00.386 --> 01:08:16.766 - All right, we'll come back now from our recess. Thank you everybody. Did I hear that there was a point of order? 01:08:17.698 --> 01:08:24.716 - Ah, thank you. Apologies for that. Okay. Welcome back everybody. So we're still in the discussion phase 01:08:24.716 --> 01:08:31.667 - for the resolution, but I think there might be another potential motion for an amendment. So I'm going 01:08:31.667 --> 01:08:38.618 - to pass it over to Alex. He's going to explain his thinking and we can go from there. Um, I still like 01:08:38.618 --> 01:08:45.502 - the idea of transmitting both to city council. So I am considering proposing an amendment to do that. 01:08:45.602 --> 01:08:55.411 - We kind of have two structural ways of doing this. One would be to have under God. So my first thought 01:08:55.411 --> 01:09:05.600 - was to propose a new amendment which is to adopt the amended version and then after in the amended version 01:09:05.600 --> 01:09:13.790 - in the general rec after section two general recommendations to have a section three. 01:09:14.018 --> 01:09:23.229 - Dark Sky certification recommendations and then have the original thing be subtext under Dark 01:09:23.229 --> 01:09:33.029 - Sky recommendations. That is somewhat confusing. We could also just try to pass it and like have it 01:09:33.029 --> 01:09:43.710 - say that the amended version is an attachment as exhibit A or something for an alternative, which I think is 01:09:43.842 --> 01:09:51.221 - maybe the easier but less elegant way of doing it. So yeah, food for thought. Zach, go ahead. Correct 01:09:51.221 --> 01:09:58.455 - me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think we can. We just voted down everything in this amendment. We 01:09:58.455 --> 01:10:05.689 - can't now attach this thing that we just voted down. Even if we're adding a few other things to it, 01:10:05.689 --> 01:10:08.510 - we just voted down everything in this. 01:10:08.642 --> 01:10:15.652 - Procedurally possible we can I think it is because it's separate But if if we want to be super sure 01:10:15.652 --> 01:10:22.802 - we can move to reconsider and that would be valid But it is a new amendment I think it would be fine. 01:10:22.802 --> 01:10:29.882 - I know Roberts rules absent any buddy that knows anything but more I Would just like to comment that 01:10:29.882 --> 01:10:37.033 - because we're doing all of this in a formal meeting which we would have to anyway This is all already 01:10:37.033 --> 01:10:38.014 - public record 01:10:38.274 --> 01:10:46.244 - All right, so we haven't had any sort of formal motion to introduce an amendment like this on either 01:10:46.244 --> 01:10:54.214 - pathway But I would certainly entertain that if somebody wanted to I move that we recommend adoption 01:10:54.214 --> 01:11:02.184 - of the resolution as presented and transmit the proposed amendment Attached as exhibit a to the City 01:11:02.184 --> 01:11:06.366 - Council as an alternative for its consideration Okay 01:11:06.594 --> 01:11:13.148 - So this is a motion to amend the resolution by referencing an exhibit a that would basically be an attachment 01:11:13.148 --> 01:11:18.748 - at the end which would be the The as of as would have been amended version of the resolution. 01:11:18.748 --> 01:11:25.064 - Is that correct? And yes, just to be clear the purpose of this is to give the city two different pathways 01:11:25.064 --> 01:11:31.081 - if they want to take them the harder one that results in dark sky certification or if they just want 01:11:31.081 --> 01:11:35.550 - to make general changes that would improve light pollution in the city and 01:11:37.282 --> 01:11:45.010 - Okay. So yeah go ahead. Would part of this amendment clarify the timeline for dark sky certification 01:11:45.010 --> 01:11:52.891 - as part of you know the pathway. I don't see why not. We can include that into the motion. Do you want 01:11:52.891 --> 01:12:00.695 - me to read state the motion. It just seems relevant to the sort of the cell of going the harder path. 01:12:00.695 --> 01:12:04.062 - And so I agree it might be worth including. 01:12:06.274 --> 01:12:16.295 - Yeah, I think that would have to be an amendment on the amendment at this point. Yeah. I'll retract 01:12:16.295 --> 01:12:26.616 - my motion. And then, OK, how do I phrase this? What are we looking for again? Sorry? It's an inclusion 01:12:26.616 --> 01:12:35.134 - of urgency due to structural changes at Dark Sky International classifying dark sky. 01:12:35.586 --> 01:12:44.483 - Okay, I move that we recommend adoption of the resolution is presented and transmit the proposed amendment 01:12:44.483 --> 01:12:53.131 - attaches exhibit a to the City Council as an alternative for consideration and As part of that adoption 01:12:53.131 --> 01:13:01.529 - of the resolution we include a timeline of urgency For certification of dark sky And what would that 01:13:01.529 --> 01:13:04.190 - look like like we would have to 01:13:04.930 --> 01:13:09.944 - Great language for that. If we were going to do this, I don't think we should. If we were going to do 01:13:09.944 --> 01:13:15.007 - this, we could just, after we vote on this resolution, we could say we're going to also pass a letter, 01:13:15.007 --> 01:13:20.020 - approve a letter, authorize the chair to send a letter to the extent that we just said, if you wanted 01:13:20.020 --> 01:13:25.034 - to. That might be easier. We wouldn't require a formal amendment to this. We could just pass a letter 01:13:25.034 --> 01:13:29.999 - after this, authorize our chairs to send with this information. I don't think we should do that, but 01:13:29.999 --> 01:13:32.702 - that would be an easier way to do it if you wanted to. 01:13:33.986 --> 01:13:40.865 - I would be perfectly fine with that. Okay, I would also be fine with that. I don't have a particular 01:13:40.865 --> 01:13:47.880 - care about how we do that. So I guess I'll retract my motion and then we're doing this as two separate 01:13:47.880 --> 01:13:54.759 - things. That would be my idea. We would pass the resolution as is unless somebody else wants another 01:13:54.759 --> 01:14:01.502 - amendment and then after we're done with this we can then vote on a motion, just a regular motion. 01:14:01.986 --> 01:14:08.340 - Authorize our chairs to send a letter to whatever effect that you would like Okay, would that be would 01:14:08.340 --> 01:14:14.632 - that could take care of your concern? Okay. Okay, then I'll go back to my original motion I move that 01:14:14.632 --> 01:14:20.924 - we recommend the adoption of the resolution as presented and Transmit the proposed amendment attaches 01:14:20.924 --> 01:14:27.154 - exhibit a to the City Council as an alternative for its consideration Okay, so this was the original 01:14:27.154 --> 01:14:31.102 - Proposed amendment that we would be attaching as exhibit a Okay 01:14:33.378 --> 01:14:41.831 - Does anybody have questions about that or comments? Is there any confusion? I Believe that if we're 01:14:41.831 --> 01:14:50.454 - going to provide something to City Council, we should be unified and if we are not we should Not just 01:14:50.454 --> 01:14:58.991 - throw everything at the wall and see what sticks I Second oh, sorry so I would rather if anything go 01:14:58.991 --> 01:15:01.950 - for the full dark skies and if the 01:15:02.882 --> 01:15:09.090 - Council is not satisfied with that. They can reduce things how they see fit Yeah, Zach go ahead yeah, 01:15:09.090 --> 01:15:15.237 - so I just to repeat what I said earlier, I think we just To me if we're going to amend it, we should 01:15:15.237 --> 01:15:21.445 - have amended it and we just voted not to amend it So I don't think we can throw lately like Ross just 01:15:21.445 --> 01:15:27.653 - said throw everything at the wall and just see what sticks I don't we just decided not to amend it so 01:15:27.653 --> 01:15:32.766 - I don't see why we would then include the thing that we just decided not to include 01:15:32.994 --> 01:15:42.611 - That's my two cents. Thanks. Oh, sorry. Yes. Is transmitting recommendations the only means of communication 01:15:42.611 --> 01:15:51.522 - that our councils or our commissions have with the council? Could we not communicate with them about 01:15:51.522 --> 01:15:59.198 - this in another way in terms of expressing those sort of options or paths as intended? 01:16:01.058 --> 01:16:07.995 - But we could we could we've done letters in the past. I think there was one one time where we just authorized 01:16:07.995 --> 01:16:14.302 - the chair to go to a city council meeting and explain hey because did this recently and here's some 01:16:14.302 --> 01:16:21.239 - background info like during public comment. Basically would that not be a viable path. Just in the resolution 01:16:21.239 --> 01:16:27.230 - now to authorize the authors to go to the council to speak on behalf of the resolution. Maria. 01:16:28.482 --> 01:16:36.535 - Could our ex officio council member make it known to the rest of the council that there is another version 01:16:36.535 --> 01:16:44.137 - existing with less teeth if they're interested. I mean procedurally I don't see why not. Yes I would 01:16:44.137 --> 01:16:51.889 - happily do that but I think that the chair of the commission or commissions would probably be the best 01:16:51.889 --> 01:16:57.534 - vehicle although I would certainly affirm that and you know maybe we could 01:16:58.562 --> 01:17:07.195 - During commissioner reports or reports from the mayor and City Commission's We could have a little question 01:17:07.195 --> 01:17:15.429 - answer period where this could be, you know We could talk about the deliberations a little bit and the 01:17:15.429 --> 01:17:22.704 - intention You know could be expressed there But I agree a letter would be a very very good 01:17:22.704 --> 01:17:24.862 - idea of communicating Alex 01:17:26.914 --> 01:17:36.003 - So one of the reasons that I see value in this is that I think that if this comes to council and council 01:17:36.003 --> 01:17:44.660 - likes it and council tries to go for it and it meets with significant public backlash that a future 01:17:44.660 --> 01:17:48.382 - attempt at a I guess if we go for the full 01:17:49.218 --> 01:17:57.521 - and it is met with a lot of backlash and it is clear that the political will of the community isn't 01:17:57.521 --> 01:18:06.239 - there and it gets pulled back, I think that then coming back with a not dark sky compliant version would 01:18:06.239 --> 01:18:14.625 - be again met with similar backlash. I think that this gives the council opportunity to, I think that 01:18:14.625 --> 01:18:18.942 - council should amend what we give them and not just 01:18:19.170 --> 01:18:26.963 - approve things like they should do their own due diligence. But I think this gives them options out 01:18:26.963 --> 01:18:35.068 - the gate to do what they think is best for the city and most likely to succeed. And therefore, it gives 01:18:35.068 --> 01:18:42.939 - it the best chance to just pass on the first try, which is its best chance to pass. Zach. So I fully 01:18:42.939 --> 01:18:45.822 - understand everything you're saying. 01:18:46.146 --> 01:18:53.438 - But everything you just said is an argument to pass the amendment and that we just discussed and voted 01:18:53.438 --> 01:19:00.730 - down. To me I don't. So I don't see why I feel like we're just redoing the amendment again essentially 01:19:00.730 --> 01:19:08.022 - is my thought anyway. I disagree because I think that if the council feels that the best chance if the 01:19:08.022 --> 01:19:14.110 - best thing for the city and the best chance is to do the full dark sky certification. 01:19:14.242 --> 01:19:20.855 - They still have that option and they have that recommendation and they have that clear language. They 01:19:20.855 --> 01:19:27.467 - have our blessing, our encouragement to do that. I kind of like the way that this has worked out more 01:19:27.467 --> 01:19:34.015 - where the non-DarkSky compliant version is an amendment as opposed to the thing that I had mentioned 01:19:34.015 --> 01:19:40.757 - where the non-DarkSky compliant version is the first text body because my preference would be that they 01:19:40.757 --> 01:19:43.934 - shoot for DarkSky compliance. But it gives them, 01:19:44.834 --> 01:19:52.478 - you know, our recommendation to do that still. And then also says, hey, if you just want Bloomington 01:19:52.478 --> 01:20:00.273 - to be darker and you don't think that dark sky certification is the best path, here is an alternative. 01:20:00.273 --> 01:20:08.068 - But it puts that in their hands and lets them make that decision. And it gives them more tools to work 01:20:08.068 --> 01:20:12.382 - with. Real quick, I just want to point out we're at 720, 01:20:13.058 --> 01:20:21.387 - One right now. So we'll have about nine minutes left in the meeting. So we will have to look at voting 01:20:21.387 --> 01:20:29.636 - soon. But target I think it's important. Like Diana said this is part of public record and council is 01:20:29.636 --> 01:20:37.804 - able to go and find the amended version if they decide that they want to to move forward with a less 01:20:37.804 --> 01:20:42.494 - aggressive or aspirational goal and that we did we should 01:20:42.978 --> 01:20:49.844 - move forward with the thing that we said we wanted to move forward with, or that the majority did. And 01:20:49.844 --> 01:20:56.777 - if they want to do the research to find it, it's a click away. We could also, in the transmittal emails 01:20:56.777 --> 01:21:03.844 - that we send, mention that we did entertain an amendment that would have sort of provided an alternative, 01:21:03.844 --> 01:21:10.710 - and that it's publicly available in the packet if council ever wants to take a look at that. Then they 01:21:10.710 --> 01:21:12.510 - know it's there, at least. 01:21:13.218 --> 01:21:19.943 - That's one option any further discussion on the proposed amendment I guess what I have what I have an 01:21:19.943 --> 01:21:26.931 - issue with with that Amendment is that the City Council does some digging and they found that we actually 01:21:26.931 --> 01:21:33.524 - voted it down So I'm not sure that that would actually induce them to want to pick it up again When 01:21:33.524 --> 01:21:40.117 - there's a record of us not wanting the amendment essentially in our meeting today And I don't think 01:21:40.117 --> 01:21:42.622 - that's necessarily true that we don't 01:21:43.234 --> 01:21:49.765 - We like the other version more or or I'm presuming maybe we hate that version too. But we like the other 01:21:49.765 --> 01:21:56.110 - version more. We don't dislike the amended version. We just want one version more than the other. And 01:21:56.110 --> 01:22:02.393 - I feel like if the city council goes digging they're going to get a misleading viewpoint. I guess is 01:22:02.393 --> 01:22:07.742 - my concern with that. All right. Any last minute discussion before we move to a vote. 01:22:11.906 --> 01:22:22.389 - OK we'll move on to a vote and just as a reminder this is a men proposed amendment to add a note at 01:22:22.389 --> 01:22:33.081 - the end that basically says you know see the attached exhibit a for a alternative version. OK. Targer 01:22:33.081 --> 01:22:40.734 - Dale no no Justin Vassel no Rebecca Payne no no Christopher Miles no no. 01:22:40.994 --> 01:22:51.578 - Zach Amaran no, no council member all Epstein Ross Carlson. No, no Alex York Yes, yes Maria Arstead 01:22:51.578 --> 01:23:02.480 - Epstein Epstein and Diana over dusky Epstein Epstein. All right, that is one in favor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Noes 01:23:02.480 --> 01:23:10.206 - and three abstentions. So the motion fails in the V cost side over to EC 01:23:10.754 --> 01:23:20.028 - All right for the Environmental Commission we've got Justin Mester abstain Adam Martinez no Carl Geithner 01:23:20.028 --> 01:23:29.565 - yes Carrie Albright I'm voting no Matt Caldy no All right, so we've got one yes three nos and one abstention 01:23:29.565 --> 01:23:37.790 - The motion fails that brings us back to the main resolution. Is there any further discussion? 01:23:43.586 --> 01:23:49.770 - Oh yes. Go ahead. Just in the general recommendations you know we talked about the budgetary aspects 01:23:49.770 --> 01:23:56.261 - of this moving forward. Just a question on you know the department wise is going to the city of Lamington 01:23:56.261 --> 01:24:02.812 - utilities. Was there a reason this is on utilities for this. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. 01:24:02.812 --> 01:24:08.935 - Good. In the general recommendations part a city of Lamington utilities conduct an inventory of all 01:24:08.935 --> 01:24:12.670 - city on. Yes. Is there a reason that's going to CBU and not. 01:24:12.834 --> 01:24:19.196 - public works or anything like that. It just seems most logical for the city of Bloomington utilities 01:24:19.196 --> 01:24:25.746 - to be doing it. Maybe that's not appropriate. I don't know. But yeah I would think there would probably 01:24:25.746 --> 01:24:32.360 - be a better avenue for that as far as lighting goes. OK. To my knowledge CBE doesn't do anything related 01:24:32.360 --> 01:24:38.721 - to street lighting. They handle the contracts for street lights. I found through public records they 01:24:38.721 --> 01:24:40.926 - had several records contracts with 01:24:41.442 --> 01:24:50.932 - CBU unless I'm mistaken it looks through several Let me see if I can find one One moment Is there anyone 01:24:50.932 --> 01:25:00.332 - who else is going to want to Discuss anything before we move on to a vote just pick you up. Okay, we'll 01:25:00.332 --> 01:25:09.822 - keep you in the queue Somebody else wants to go ahead. Okay, so we'll circle back to that answer. Thanks 01:25:11.938 --> 01:25:18.603 - We only got four minutes left councilmember Ralla, so just take 30 seconds. I just wanted to propose 01:25:18.603 --> 01:25:25.399 - that whatever happens Assuming this is adopted that Deliberation sessions at the council are held here 01:25:25.399 --> 01:25:32.130 - periodically and this is a good opportunity We invite staff City Commission's committee commissioners 01:25:32.130 --> 01:25:38.861 - in and the public to talk about things like this As a means of moving policies forward, so this would 01:25:38.861 --> 01:25:41.566 - be an ideal setting I think and I invite 01:25:41.730 --> 01:25:49.513 - I would be happy to sponsor this and I invite you to to attend sometime in the future near future Thank 01:25:49.513 --> 01:25:57.520 - you Zach, I can't find the contract I had but I I Don't think that changes the substance of the resolution 01:25:57.520 --> 01:26:05.078 - Whether it's CBU or I mean that can be Details like that if it needs to be corrected can be fixed at 01:26:05.078 --> 01:26:08.670 - the council level. Yeah, if it needs to yeah, I 01:26:09.954 --> 01:26:16.523 - And I can just chime in. The notes I have are Cheyenne Bolin and Chris Smith are responsible for maintenance, 01:26:16.523 --> 01:26:22.315 - repair, and planning for street lighting. So that would be Public Works. So you can update that. 01:26:22.315 --> 01:26:28.645 - All right. So I would suggest that we move on to the vote, unless there's any objections or more comments 01:26:28.645 --> 01:26:34.617 - or questions. OK. Seeing none, we'll start the roll call. Tara D'Andrea? Yes. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I 01:26:34.617 --> 01:26:39.454 - should say this is to adopt the resolution as originally included in the packet. 01:26:39.682 --> 01:26:51.049 - Justin Vassel. Yes. Rebecca Payne. Yes. Yes. Christopher Miles. Yay. Yay. Second. Right. Yes. Yes. 01:26:51.049 --> 01:27:02.876 - A customer. Barolo abstain abstain. Ross Carlson. Yes. Yes. Alex York. Yes. Yes. Maria Arstead. No no. 01:27:02.876 --> 01:27:06.206 - Diana O'Gradowski. Yes. Yes. 01:27:07.362 --> 01:27:14.942 - That's eight yeses, one no, and one abstention. The motion carries on the BCOS side. Over to EC. 01:27:14.942 --> 01:27:22.991 - All right. For our environmental commission, Justin Meister? Abstain. Adam Martinez? Yes. Carl Geiser? 01:27:22.991 --> 01:27:30.962 - Yes. Kerry Albright? I vote yes. Matt Caldy? Yes. All right. That's four yeses and one abstention, so 01:27:30.962 --> 01:27:36.510 - passes as well. Excellent. Very good. Well, the resolution is adopted. 01:27:36.642 --> 01:27:44.045 - Thank you everybody for this this was this was a fun meeting We have we have like 30 ish seconds left. 01:27:44.045 --> 01:27:51.664 - We had a closing remarks section Is there are there any closing remarks that anybody wants to make before 01:27:51.664 --> 01:27:58.995 - we adjourn? Yeah, go ahead I just wanted to think both Commission all members is a blast working with 01:27:58.995 --> 01:28:06.398 - you folks and thank you for the staff for taking the time today to have this extra meeting as well and 01:28:10.242 --> 01:28:20.314 - Any other closing remarks in the last 20 seconds? No, okay. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. 01:28:20.314 --> 01:28:30.784 - In a second? Second. All in favor of adjourning, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Abstentions? All right, 01:28:30.784 --> 01:28:35.870 - we are adjourned at 730 exactly. Thanks everybody.