All right. Good evening everybody. I'll call to order this joint session of the Bloomington Commission
on Sustainability and Resilience and Environmental Commission at 6 0 1 p.m. And we will start with the
roll call and we'll start with because Tara Dunderdale Justin Vassel. I'm here. Rebecca Payne Christopher
Miles absent Zach Ammerman here.
Here I'm Teresa Teresa Doru absent Ross Carlson here here Alex York here here Maria Arstead here here
and Anna Ogrodowsky here Wonderful Thank you the Environmental Commission and do roll call there so
Justin Justin at Meister Adam Martinez
Here Carl geyser here Mitchell Owens Carrie Albright. I'm here Heidi Brown Not here. Matt Caldy here.
Thank you All right, it appears that both commissions have a quorum so we'll go ahead and get started
just real quick before we do the approval the agenda. I just wanted to Say a couple notes about the
procedures for today. Hopefully everyone had a chance to
kind of take a look through these. But as you all know, we don't do these sorts of joint meetings very
often. And so we had to give it some thought as to how we're actually going to go about doing some of
these things. So I'll just point out a couple things here that I want to mention. So as far as motions
and votes go,
In the case that we do anything that is sort of a final action that, you know, a commission is like
approving something, you know, voting to accept an amendment or to adopt the resolution, something like
that, then we'll do separate roll call votes for both commissions. So each commission is essentially
approving things, you know, independently. We're just in the same room for that.
As far as meeting procedural stuff goes, things like making motions in seconds, the plan is to sort
of just do that as a whole body. Since neither commission's bylaws really have strict rules for that
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.
We'll just kind of handle that as a joint body just to make things a little more simple. But at any
times if there's any questions about how the procedure works or anyone thinks we should be doing something
differently just chime in. We can kind of modify these things as we go as needed. So I'd ask if there's
any questions about the procedures for the meeting before we get started. OK. Yes. Is traditionally
you try to get the attention of the chair if you have something
Who do we try to get the attention of since there are two chairs? Oh good good point Yeah, whoever's
I mean you can just flag me down I guess unless I think later on will maybe for votes and stuff will
hand the proverbial and literal gavel to you to run those votes and so Then Carrie will be chairing
in those moments Great okay, so we'll move on to the approval of the agenda and
Is there a motion to approve the agenda. Let me pull it up on the screen. So moved. All right. There's
a motion. Is there a second second. Wonderful. All right. And then let's see is this a final action
or not. I don't think so. I think this is like a meeting level thing. So I think we can just and we
actually don't have anyone.
Online as far as commissioners are concerned so we can actually do like a voice vote for this sort of
stuff So so first I'll just ask if anyone has any changes to make to the agenda before we approve it
Okay, seeing none we'll do a voice vote so all those in favor of approving the agenda say aye aye All
opposed nay any abstentions Okay, the agenda is approved so that'll move us on to opening remarks from
the chairs and
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
sort of the meat of the resolution here So good evening. Good evening everybody and thank you for being
here So on behalf of the Commission of unsustainability and resilience I want to welcome all the members
of the environmental commission and everyone who has joined us in the chambers and online
or anyone who will throughout the course of this meeting. I want to also extend my gratitude to the
wonderful staff from both commissions who have been instrumental in making this joint session a reality.
It is a bit of a logistical kind of mess to get two commissions to meet at the same time in a place
that we're not used to normally meeting. So just want to say thank you so much for all the help making
this happen. I'd also like to thank both
the members of both commissions who spent the last several months researching writing and rewriting
this resolution. It's been really great to see it come together. And finally I'd like to thank the members
of the public who have written into us to voice their support for this effort. It's really great to
see that that sort of engagement from the public and that sort of excitement for some of the things
that we're doing.
So before we take it up I just want to spend a few minutes reflecting on the relationship between our
two commissions which stretches back to the very first because meeting back in October 2005. So at that
time it was decided that while the two commissions have distinct missions and roles within the city
it was important for them to maintain a close and open relationship and to look for opportunities to
collaborate whenever priorities overlap.
So I went back through about two decades of BCOS minutes to see what that relationship actually looked
like. And I just want to highlight a couple of examples that I found. So over the years, BCOS and the
Environmental Commission have co-sponsored several public education efforts, including two joint energy
forums in 2006, which took place right here in council chambers. There were multiple shared Earth Day
tables, climate forums, and film screenings, just to name a few.
germane to tonight's meeting. We also have a rich history of joint committees and meetings which I was
sort of surprised to learn in the mid to late 2000s. We created a handful of joint committees that focused
on specific topics such as climate greenhouse gas emissions and education in the 2010s because had a
seat on the EC's planning committee. I didn't know that either. And we attended EC working group meetings
and the two commissions held at least one joint leadership meeting maybe more.
And then for the past 10 years or so the number of joint committees has decreased but our commissions
have remained engaged through meeting attendance and open lines of communication. So we've also joined
forces in other ways to advance shared goals throughout the year. Together we've met with several Bloomington
mayors over the years. We've drafted joint letters and collaborated on policy recommendations.
We've even coordinated our commission's reports in the past so that the cost is sustainability trends
assessment report and the EC's Bloomington environmental quality indicators report complemented each
other rather than avoiding duplicative work. So those are just some examples of how we work together
in the past.
We're different commissions. We have different missions and different areas of focus and those differences
benefit Bloomington and its residents by ensuring that important issues don't get left by the wayside
while also making effective use of limited resources. But in cases like tonight where our purviews do
overlap incredible things happen when we work together. So tonight's meeting is just the latest example
of that. So because looks forward to a continued productive relationship with the environmental commission
and I would love to see other commissions take a page from from this playbook.
So it's my hope that this meeting does not stay unique for long and that it can be a template rather
than an exception. So with that I will now pass it over to Chair Albright for her opening remarks. Thank
you Justin and thank you Commission on Sustainability and Resilience for joining us for being patient
as we get together and find a time that works for us all. But we really do appreciate the time and energy
you put into this too and I know it's it's additional effort but it's I
Clearly it is worth it for both of our commissions to be working together on this. Justin did an immense
amount of homework on the history of our two commissions, which I really appreciate. I know that over
the years we've worked together and we've also worked independently in ways that are intending to improve
our city. And I love that this is an opportunity for us to come together.
the environmental commission a couple years ago started talking about what it would look like to consider
sort of that dark sky status. Commissioner Adam Martinez brought it up as an early interest, and then
between him, Commissioner Caldy, and then having Carl Geiser join as well, it's something that we've
been able to start thinking about and researching more deeply. Then we started looking into what was
The practical logistics of making that happen, but you all bringing forth the push for a resolution
to really address it I think is the perfect way for our two commissions to work together. So it's exciting
to know that there's There's attention and effort from both sides and as Justin said, it's great to
be working together and I'm excited for this resolution but I'm also excited for ways that we can keep
complementing the skills of strengths the interests that both of our commissions have to find opportunities to
lift all of us in the work that we're trying to do as we're also working on our separate initiatives
by our commissions. So thanks for being here. Thanks for the for the staff as well for being here and
helping make this happen. But looking forward to the conversation about the resolution we're considering.
And as Justin said thank you to the public for expressing their thoughts input and ultimately support
of what we're talking about tonight. That's a huge part of why we do what we do. And so looking forward
to acknowledging that too.
Thank you very much, and well said. So that brings us to the opening remarks from the resolution authors.
I just wanted to give folks from each commission just a chance to kind of introduce the idea here and
offer any opening remarks before we sort of get into the actual debate and adoption section. So I'll
pass it over to Zach Omerman first for any opening remarks. Hello, everyone. So you all have had a memorandum
that I prepared pretty detailed with
the wrong date on there, which has been bothering me since I submitted it, but no worries. It basically
goes into detail about what this resolution would do and why I initially proposed it, so hopefully you
all have had a time, had the chance to read that. I'm not gonna go into it in depth. We've been talking
about this for months now, so I feel like everybody's pretty well aware of the main components of it,
but I'm just gonna briefly go through the list of what this would do in its current form.
Basically, this would fill several gaps in the city's lighting code that would with the goal being of
putting us on a Path to a potentially obtaining dark sky status. I have said from the very beginning
And I think several of the other co-sponsors and authors and things have said this as well that the
goal for us It's not really to get dark sky status It's to reduce light pollution meaningfully in Bloomington
because I think at least personally that we have a human right to see the night sky and we are
Okay, we are essentially the first couple of generations that has not that are Often not able to see
the Milky Way There are people that are being born right now and dying right now that have never seen
the Milky Way with their own eyes And I think that's a travesty So the goal here is to reduce our light
pollution so that people are able to see the night sky in the city of Bloomington so to do that I basically
just took the dark skies and
dark sky community standards for approval as a dark sky city, looked through the city code and found
some gaps. So what it would do is change color temperature standards. If you scroll, Jolie, would you
scroll down to the picture of the lamps with the, oh, there we go. Yeah, that. So basically what I'm
talking about there is reducing the color temperature to the left end of the spectrum rather than the
right end of the spectrum, which I think most people
Are actually pretty fond of the lights on the left end and most people hate the right the lights on
the far right end So I think that would be a very popular thing if you would scroll down again. I just
want to show you to Hit this this earth. These are three one one You report complaints for harsh bright
or glaring streetlights? Starting in around 2022 at some point in 2022. It's not clear when the city started
switching its streetlights to those sort of harsh blue lights on the far right end of the spectrum that
I was just showing you, and as you can see, right as they started doing that, complaints for lights
spiked to over 100 a year. In the decade previous to them doing that, the average number of complaints
per year was only 11, and now it's shot up to over 100. I just want to point out also that the 2026
figure there that is only 20 is only through April of this year, so I haven't checked it since then,
but presumably if it's on track for the previous couple of years, we're gonna be around 100 by the end
of the year.
So that's the first thing it does. The second, and this is something that I've known would be probably
the most controversial part of this from the beginning, is an immortization schedule for non-compliant
light fixtures. Basically, and that's a dark sky community requirement, and that is basically that within
10 years, all lights have to be compliant with the city code on lighting. Restrictions on exterior
uplighting. Uplighting is just basically what it sounds like, shooting lights into the sky.
whether that's to light up a building, it's almost always for decorative purposes, and it has one of
the biggest impacts on light pollution. So that's another thing that it would basically ban in all cases
except for, I think, flags, which for political reasons I opted not to ban, or to propose banning. My
personal favorite part of all of this, and if I had to pick only one thing in the entire resolution,
would be a strong warrant requirement for new public lighting
Basically what that means is you have to have a good reason to put in a street light, A, and B, if the
street light is proposed near an environmentally sensitive area as defined elsewhere in the code, you
basically have to prove, you have to jump through a giant hoop to prove that lighting is the only thing
that can solve the problem and that there's nothing else that could solve whatever the problem is with
the goal of basically placing a pretty high hurdle for the city to cross
to install a street light, so they actually need a street light if they're gonna install one. And that's
my favorite thing, and if I had to pick one thing in the entire resolution to keep, that would be it.
Five, extension of light curfew to all mixed use and non-residential categories, and change to 10 p.m.
for all those that currently have an 11 p.m. curfew, I'm just gonna go quickly through the last few.
Stronger restrictions on illuminated signage and strengthening rules on light press trespass. I won't
go any more in detail, we can talk more in detail as we get to the actual resolution, but that's the
gist of it, thank you.
Great, thank you. Now I'll pass it over to Matt if you have any comments that you'd like to. Sure,
thank you. I have very little to add to what Zach said. I am excited for further conversation on this.
I mostly also just want to emphasize how much meaningfully reducing light pollution has an impact on
both humans and the environment, how unnecessary and excessive lighting leads to a tremendous number
of emissions, which
worsens climate change and also how all our nocturnal and creatures, insects, et cetera, being affected
and confused by our excessive lighting at night has effects all the way down the food web. It's very,
very harmful to so many aspects of our environment and I'm excited for any movement that will
help Bloomington improve in that regard.
So thank you again, Zach, for doing a lot of the legwork on the writing here. And I'm happy to have
been a part of this one. Thank you very much. All right. So that brings us to the public comment stage.
I don't see anyone in the room. I will note that we did receive a lot of letters from the public, a
lot of emails over the course of
about a month or so, I think 11 in total, and all of them were in support of the resolution, so it's
great to see. Is there anyone on Zoom? I can't, I didn't see it last time. Okay, perfect.
Well that takes us past the public comment portion. Great. So that brings us to the resolution itself
because resolution twenty twenty six dash zero six and EC resolution twenty twenty six dash zero one.
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
start our discussion. We can propose amendments that sort of thing. So is there a motion. So moved.
Wonderful. Is there a second. Second. OK.
All right we have a motion in a second. OK so I know we do have one proposed amendment on the docket
but I think to start I'll just open it up to the group if anyone wants to offer comments or we can just
jump straight into the resolution or to the amendment. I'm sorry if we want to kind of focus on that
first. Go ahead Maria.
So I have spent a lot of time looking over this resolution and trying to read and research as much as
I could about it. And my kind of the issue I keep coming up against is that this is making what seems
to be extensive recommendations to change the you do.
And for me personally I don't feel like I fully understand what the implications of all these changes
would be. I don't for instance I don't know really the difference between point five foot candles point
three foot candles you know what what that actually means. And I fear I fear the commissions may be
getting a little ahead of ourselves making these recommendations to change
the UDO before we first make the recommendations of gathering the baseline data that we would need to
then move forward. So the more I think about it, the more I would feel more comfortable voting to pass
a resolution that focuses more on the general recommendation section and specifically
General recommendations to a and to be conducting an inventory and then establishing the sky quality
measurement program. I believe those are actually more actionable recommendations that we would make
to the Common Council that really they have frankly more.
I think probably more of a chance of actually following through on whereas if we make all these
recommendations to change the UDO first as I said I'm not sure what the implications of all those are
so I would fear passing something that would have unintended consequences to economic development issues
which is one of the
one of the missions of our commission on sustainability is to address economic development within Bloomington
as well. But then also I fear that putting this slew of changes to the U.D.O. on the desk of the Common
Council might just have the effect of a voice crying out in the desert where it's you know so kind of
a lot that it ends up just sitting there and not moving forward because they do not have the baseline
data or the research to to really support like moving forward with just passing these recommendations.
So I think when when it comes to it I would probably make would like to see an amendment basically striking
the first part of
the recommendations, namely the UDO changes, and really just recommending first that the council enact
those kind of studies that we need to get the actual baseline data first. So those are my thoughts,
and I welcome conversation on those issues. And would you mind introducing yourself? I'm sorry.
Maria are sad on because sir Yeah, that's a good point I didn't even thought about that. Yeah, so Yeah,
first time you know folks talk to they can introduce themselves Okay, any other follow-up? Just at the
moment I'm commenting. Okay. Thank you I saw hands somewhere Okay
Okay, I disagree that, oh sorry, hi, I'm Tara Dunderdale, I'm the secretary for the Commission
on Sustainability and Resilience. I disagree that Common Council is in a better position to do this
research. I think that these advisory commissions exist for that purpose, to provide the necessary research
and expertise from across the commissioners so that council
have to be experts in all of the many many things that they have to make decisions about and that both
as highlighted by both chairs and the and the joint authors that there's there's actually extensive
research included in this packet and in the accompanying materials that have been made that are you
know available to us as well as counsel and that I think it is our job to make the strongest
Recommendations that we can and it is council's job to decide the implications of that and the how it
fits in with the rest of UDO But our job is to make a case for You know the the research that that our
teams have done And up was there a hand up on this side earlier Okay
So I imagine we'll get into this a little bit more when we bring up the amendment that I'm going to
propose. Basically, to kind of echo a little bit with, number one, I just want to say I really appreciated
your comments that you sent in. They were really detailed, thoughtful. I could tell that you really
engaged with it in depth, probably more so than most of the other members of the commission, I think.
So I really appreciate that, genuinely. I mean, it made me think.
Little bit more. So that's why I'm proposing this amendment, which I don't even know if I'm going to
support fully yet But it's I want it to be a topic of consideration of discussion We'll talk about that
more in detail when you get when we get to there but to the the rest the meat of the resolution to sort
of echo what Tara was saying I Think the Commission's job here is to provide a roadmap of How the city
gets to dark sky status. These are the things that would need to change in the code and
to get us to dark sky status. And you may not agree that we need to get to dark sky status, or that's
a good policy goal, and that's completely fine. Or that we need to do more research, or whatever, that's
completely fine. But this is the roadmap based on the research that all of us did that would get us
to dark sky status, and I view that as our goal. That is our job here, is to provide that roadmap, and
that's what this is. And so whether you disagree with parts of the policy recommendations or whatever,
that's totally fine.
To me, that's kind of separate a little bit from whether or not this is indeed the roadmap that would
get us to dark sky status. So yeah, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other
discussion? I actually really do. Oh, yeah. My name's Carl Geiser. I'm the vice president of
the Environmental Commission.
I do appreciate the comments about, you know, taking a cautious, you know, maybe stepwise approach to
this. I would just like to echo the idea that council are, they're very busy people, and it might be
helpful to have, like, the full complete picture of, like, the roadmap, as Zach mentioned.
I also think that if council wants to take a stepwise implementation of this, starting with studies,
that's very reasonable for them to take. But in my opinion, our position is advisory. And I think providing
them with more information rather than less is more beneficial in this case. Thank you. Alex?
My name's Alex York. I'm on the BCOS Commission. I think that it's an excellent point about the idea
of further study, but I wouldn't say that I would want to delay or diminish this recommendation post
further study. I would say that it could be a beneficial thing to pass recommendations
have City Council have the opportunity to do something and if they sit on it and don't do anything,
then maybe they need more information. If they try to do something and it ends up being that they also
don't really know what they're talking about, then we can supply more information. We could be proactive
and start that study, but I personally wouldn't want to delay for that. And I think that that's one
of the nice things about
municipal level government, and I am not a politician, so I can say this, that they can be more nimble.
The federal government would certainly, like at that large bureaucracy level, want to study things.
And at a city level, it's a little easier to try something, and if it doesn't work, find out that it
doesn't work and undo it. There's just fewer actors, less momentum,
both in less inertia, less inertia in getting going and less inertia in changing course. So I would
say that my view is that we should try that. I think it is an excellent point that could be a follow-up
of, you know, after adopting or not adopting this, either way, do we start, do we form some subcommittee
or something to start preparing some additional information that would be useful to counsel?
But yeah, Matt, go ahead. Yeah, Matt called the Environmental Commission. I also really appreciate the
remarks that were given about sort of taking our time and figuring it out. But I also want to emphasize
that the framework was kind of laid out by the foremost experts at Dark Sky. So even though I'm not
in it, I don't know a lot about foot candles either. And I don't know the UDO super well.
Read the parts that I'm really investigating at any given time. I think this is this is well reasoned
I'm also Pretty interested in the amendment because I feel like some of the language in this initial
one might be a little a little aspirational because again, it was sort of written with dark sky status
in mind when really that's gonna be Would be a huge lift here given all the all the circumstances, but
I do also appreciate that
The remarks about the general recommendations maybe being a great starting point. I would hate to lose
the UDO recommendations, but wouldn't be opposed in the slightest to switching the order if that was
at all preferred by people to put general recommendations as one and then the UDO changes as two. I
think it should still be included, could just be reordered. Thank you.
Any further discussion. Yeah Ross go ahead. Yeah. So if I may if you could introduce yourself. Oh yeah.
Ross Carlson be costs are a commissioner. I am the county liaison for Bloomington Commission
on Sustainability and Resiliency. I think we have a stated goal here and to reach that goal we have
proposed you do changes. I think an analog to other city commissions when they have goals have not shied
away from making you do recommendation changes.
to the commission. So the implications that other commissions have made for UDO changes may have reaches
beyond the specific goal that they're looking for at a certain project, but they have not shied away
from making those recommendations. So I acknowledge that there might be economic and development challenges
that come from this.
But I do think that it is within our purview to say if we would like to meet this goal, which is I think
why we're here, we have established that we would like to, or at least move towards that, that it's
not unreasonable or unique that we would request changes to the UDO. Any further comments or discussion?
Yeah, Tara.
Just in general if people are kind of out of comments we could move on to the amendment discussion,
but Yeah, please I just want to highlight one of the things in the public letters of support that we
received that I thought was really compelling in the One of the letters of support and we don't need
to scroll down to it, but it's in the packet
has the light pollution map and showing how our light pollution in Bloomington rivals Indianapolis was
very compelling to me, as already wanting less light pollution in our city, how much smaller our population
and footprint is, yet we are producing dense and intense light pollution that is affecting our community,
and not just affecting our community,
affecting communities as far as Martinsville and the surrounding area was so You know when we talk about
unimpact unintended consequences of actions, we are currently engaging in unintended consequences and
and Extended consequences and externalities for not just our city, but our county and and all of central,
Indiana and so this is a step towards undoing some of the ways that we're
harming our community and potentially repairing that. And with that can also come economic benefits
in addition to the health benefits and ecological benefits. Any further discussion. Yes. Councilmember
Rallo. Well I just want to say I really appreciate
the discussion I really appreciate these resolutions I I Respect and appreciate the caution Changing
the UDO is a serious thing. However, you are a body that it has experts and environment and on sustainability
and so Your expertise is something that we would draw on as council in making decisions about changing
that UDO I appreciate the hard work that's gone into this resolution
I happened to have met yesterday with at the invitation of Liz Irwin who was the government and community
relations manager with Duke Energy and it was a discussion that involved questions about permitting
and cyber security and and and various things rate rate increases and things like that, but I did ask
a question about about their policy on lights street lights and
And the fact that a lot of the lights have been trending blue has been quite seriously disrupting for
not only people and melatonin and sleeping, but also wildlife, particularly insects. And we know we're
in a biodiversity crisis, and there's problems with particularly birds crashing, those that are eating insects.
Of course insects are being you know, the whole trophic system is being disrupted by Insecticides and
then this is another another problem so with that being said I just wanted to say that I will be passing
this evening because as a representative that represents a lot of constituents in district four, I haven't
fully vetted this and
to those constituents or had public comments or and so I feel like I'm ill-equipped to just Be strident
and support this without gathering more information from the public who obviously will be affected by
this But I really do appreciate you Pushing this forward because I think it's a really important. I
think it's something that we need to Discuss as a community and take and take some steps to minimize
the damage that's occurring
To that end I did send I just got this late. Just literally 20 minutes before five It was a follow-up
by Liz Irwin and I sent it to Because there are commissioners and the chair I didn't have the emails
for the entire environmental commission. I sent it to you Commissioner chair Albright if you would pass
it on to your to your commissioner members, but she does go into some detail and
about how They have been reducing through attrition apparently the lighting street lighting from 4000
K to 3000 now I think that we really should think about aiming as the resolution says for 2200 or something
below 3000 because 3000 is better, but it's not ideal so that's that's for your consideration too, but I
I really appreciate this debate and I appreciate anything that comes of this evening and look forward
to engaging with my colleagues in the council to move something forward. Thanks. Thank you. Are there
any other comments or discussion?
Okay I'm not seeing any at the moment so I think what I would recommend if we want to consider the amendment
that's been included in the packet then we could kind of move on to that. We would need a motion and
a second in order to consider that and then we can discuss the amendment. So is there a motion to yes
move we consider the amendment. Wonderful. And a second. Okay perfect. All right. So that brings us
into discussion about the amendment. Oh yeah. Who seconded Alex. Thank you.
Yeah let me let me bring up the amendment text here. Regular resolution. Yeah and yeah just just to
point out that we also did sort of did do a call within because we did a call for you know
suggestions, feedback on this particular resolution, and so, you know, we did get some responses there
that we included in the packet, so very appreciative for those, and those were sort of used to guide,
you know, these amendments that you see before you now. So, I don't know, Zach, did you want to kick
us off and maybe talk about what's changed?
I wrote this in response to Commissioner Arstod wrote, like I said, some very detailed and really thoughtful
comments that made me think a lot. So I wanted to propose this amendment. Before I get into what it
does, right off the bat, I am not certain whether I will vote for this or not. I wanted to bring it
up to everybody here to see what everyone else thinks, and then we can decide together which way we
want to go. So like I said at the get-go, the goal
on this for me from the very beginning is to meaningfully reduce light pollution, and I frankly don't
really care that much about dark sky status, but that was a nice cherry on top that I thought would
get the city to care about it. However, part of me wonders whether, when I was writing this resolution,
I was somewhat surprised by how strict some of the dark sky status requirements are, but I went ahead
and wrote it anyway because my goal was, again, I thought,
to create a roadmap for the city to get dark sky status. Based on Commissioner Arstotz's comments though,
I somewhat wonder, and I don't know which way I'm gonna fall on this, but I wonder whether some of the
dark sky requirements might actually prevent us from meaningfully reducing light pollution because they
will see those and think we don't wanna do this and will drop the entire thing. And so part of me wonders
whether we go ahead and
reduce the most potentially problematic things now on our own, and we are the ones that decide which
ones get taken out, rather than letting it go to the city council and either sitting there and nothing
happens, or them taking out, watering it down way more than I want it to be watered down. And so basically
what this amendment does is it takes out, can you scroll down to section one, the first, basically the
main thing it does, yeah, the recommendations, yeah.
Right there, it takes out section 1A, which is the amortization requirement, which requires all lights
in the city within 10 years on both public and private property to be in conformity with the requirements
of the UDO within 10 years. That right there alone, getting rid of that, makes this a million times
easier, I think, to pass. I then went through and, but if we remove that, we would not be able to obtain
dark sky status.
So I went through and then removed all the places where it makes reference to dark sky status, A,
and then B, in a couple of places I made it clear that the requirements are primarily for public lighting
and less so for private lighting, although some things still require, still have requirements for private
lighting as well, but those are things that already exist for private lighting, they're just being made
slightly stricter in this resolution. Anything that was new for private lighting I made clear was talking
about public lighting,
and got rid of the amortization requirement. Those are the main things that it changes. So I'm curious
what people think about this. I genuinely don't know which way I'm gonna go. I wanna see what everyone
else thinks. And basically my heart still wants the original version, and if I were emperor of the world,
I would pass that one right now, but I'm not. And there are other people that might be mad about parts
of this that are in the city that might not like having to change their lights on their property.
The smart that my head is telling me that maybe this version is the better one. So I'm curious what
everyone else thinks. Thanks. Yeah go ahead. Matt Caldy I've actually gone grown really fond of this
amendment. When I first saw it I thought oh man are we going to water this thing down after all that
effort. But I actually think that all it does is makes it a little bit slower by removing you know that
hard deadline. I think it's actually still
a very strong resolution and also by removing the actual dark sky like attempts at getting accreditation
that makes it perhaps less of a burden for staff. I think just all around this would still very much
achieve our goals while not seeming as oppressive to people who maybe think there's a potential that
people are trying to go
go too far. I still think it's very strong, and I'm pretty fond of it. I'd have one slight amendment
to propose to this amendment later if it has the momentum. But that was my first comments. Thank you.
Thank you. Additional comments? Yeah, go ahead. Well, here's a thought I have.
Could we send the council both sections? I propose this because perhaps the council wants to take a
bold environmental stance and sees the economic value of pursuing dark sky status. We can advertise
that to businesses and to people across the country that this is a desirable place to live. But then
we could also provide, hey, if this is too onerous, how about this amendment?
So just a consideration that do we have to pick between these two would be my suggestion. I do want
to comment that yes, the council can water down the first stronger dark sky version. They can also water
down the amendment. So I'm not sure that that should be our consideration. I would rather that we give
council our best recommendation and then let them decide which path they might want to take. But that's
just kind of where my thoughts are.
Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Hi, I'm Christopher Miles. I'm on the Sustainability Commission. I guess
I have a couple of questions. I would echo what you said. My concern would be the commission can do
what it wants with the recommendation. My concern would be that we would be sort of removing. All right,
so concern number one, if you remove the certification, do you remove the backstop
standardization what's the metric what's the enforcement sort of mechanism if that's gone maybe you
know it's enumerated in the amendment sufficiently that if it were adopted as such it wouldn't be a
concern but that would be one question I had second hesitation would be that it's not clear to me based
on your comments Commissioner ours that that this would meet the concerns you have
in any meaningful way. So it seems to me that it might be losing, preemptively losing things in a way
that might not meet concerns that you or people who have similar concerns would have. So I can appreciate
the interest in making it palatable by thinking strategically about passability in a particular way.
And I don't think that's wrong, but I wonder, as a non,
not a professional politician anyway, what the correct forum for that would be. And I guess I'll leave
my comments there. Not to say I wouldn't necessarily oppose it, but yeah, those are the questions I
have. Yeah, Zach, did you want to just answer the question that was posed, and then we'll go to the
room after that? Yeah, just to answer your question on enforceability. So this gets rid of the amortization
requirement, which is the sort of ironclad part that says everything in the city must comply within 10 years.
the existing part of the code already says that anytime there's any substantial renovation,
you have to, I think it's 25% of the value of, I can't remember the exact figure, but there's already
a way that would slowly force things to comply with this over time. And a lot of it doesn't have anything,
like all of the stuff for public lighting,
is still in there, I didn't touch it. It's as strong as it was in the old one, including the part that
I was talking about, the public warrant for lighting, and the really strong warrant for lighting near
environmentally sensitive areas, color temperature, all of that for public lighting is still in there,
and that was the bulk of it anyway. Yeah, so just to answer your first question, thanks. Great, Maria.
First, just to say I do support the overall heart of
this resolution which is to minimize light pollution. Probably just to project my own action. I think
either version of this I will probably I'll probably vote no or abstain just from my own deficiency
of knowledge again not
not really understanding what the implications of the changes are. I think the the amendments I would
want to make to feel comfortable voting for this are so extensive that I would I would probably just
would rather like draft a new resolution for those recommendations. But I do appreciate the conversation and
But yeah, I would want to know more about kind of economic impact and just to understand this more,
to recommend these UDO changes. So just to be clear about my motivations. Thank you. Yeah, Carrie. I
think one thing that stands out to me as I'm reading
the resolution as it stands and then with the amendment in place is I certainly have concerns about
the consideration for budgeting and basically resources that will be needed to do some of the things
that are part of this resolution and so thinking about requesting that the city put forth public education
outreach I think is critically important but that is another ask of that department
going through the inventory we know is going to be a big lift. And I think that those are critical pieces
to a very, very important conversation that we're having. But I do think that the amendment is helpful
in removing some of those timelines that require it to fall within a certain time period so that these
departments or whomever can establish exactly how they're gonna make that happen. So I think that removing
the amendment while I appreciate
keeping our foot on the gas and going big, because this is what we are ultimately looking for, I do
think that lifting some of that timeline may open up some conversation around what will it logistically
take to make these following pieces fall into place. Yeah, Tara. To Commissioner Miles's point about
sort of the backstop of dark skies, and Commissioner Caldi also said that this is
Um, a lot of the choices in the, in these recommendations to the UDO are backed by this team of experts
that creates the standard. And I, and I agree that I think removing it does remove some of the, um,
credit, not credibility, but like the backbone of why these specific recommendations. And I, I think
that it is council's job to decide what
is within the budget and what is within the staffing capacity of the city. And it's our job to say this
is the best thing that you could do for the sustainability and resilience and environmental needs of
our community. And I think that is the original recommendations. And we know that the city also will
will comply with some of these kinds of national certifications. They just went through the Bee City
USA certification. The city is interested in those things capable of doing it and does a lot of public
outreach and communication when they do. I don't think it's I don't think it's I don't know. I want
to keep my foot on the gas. I want to say this is the best recommendation that we have as commissioners
and let the let the people who have to decide
how to actually make it happen. What's feasible there. Just to speak to that several of the recommendations
do exceed the dark sky community requirements and I'm not sure what the rationale for those are. So
I agree with if it if it were you know only like this meets dark side dark sky certification requirements.
That would be a different issue. But several of them go beyond that. And I'm not comfortable like why,
how far beyond. I just don't understand those, among other things. Yeah, Zach. So the areas where I
went beyond the dark sky standards were areas where I saw opportunities to do so that had a relatively low cost.
For example, to put the my favorite part of the entire resolution, which is the warrant for light public
lighting your environmentally sensitive areas goes beyond dark sky community standards and that is in
fact a Net gain in cost for the city because we're not going to be putting up lights where we don't
need to and we're not going to be Spending money on lights where we don't need them So that's an example
of an area where I went beyond where I saw an opportunity to actually save money or very low
cost significantly strengthen the the Recommendation so that's why I went beyond where I did
Further comments about the amendment? Yes, Matt. Yeah, I guess I just wanted to reiterate that I,
you know, as opposed to my initial knee jerk reaction to the amendment, I actually still think it's
very strong. It's sort of the equivalent of saying, you know, we're going to replace all gas powered
lawn equipment by such and such date, or we're going to replace it at
time of replacement. It still tries to accomplish everything that the original one does, but without
what might be a little bit of a burden of actually trying to meet the strict requirements of what for
our area is gonna be a somewhat aspirational program. And I, again, just kinda wanna maybe articulate
better than I did the first go around that there's, for example, I think it was in 2018,
the city adopted the mayor's monarch pledge and did everything it required but since then you know they've
kind of moved the goalposts a little bit required a little bit more each year reports done just things
that are going to be more time more effort whereas the city can continue to do everything that that
plan requires they can they can plant the pollinator plants they can use fewer pesticides and whatnot
but don't don't want to meet the limit like meet
the requirements of what the program asks every calendar year. So like I'm thrilled they wanted to do
be city. But at some point I think there's only going to be so much appetite for programs and certifications
that require like a lot of regular actions and check ins and reports. So I actually feel like this amendment
removing the dark sky requirement and just focusing on the light pollution itself is actually still
really strong and that's why I
will probably, I intend to support this amendment. Thanks. Thank you. Alex. I generally view myself
as a very practical person, so I like this amendment in that regards. I kind of, to counter Commissioner
Caldi's point,
I have seen the appetite when a city wants to do something that is such an aspirational goal to achieve
that status. And I think that that can really be, while it is a bigger ask, there might be more appetite
when you have that trophy at the end of you get something.
And I think that that really is something to consider. Kind of makes me really like the idea of recommending
both to say, hey, if the council feels that achieving dark sky status is a priority, here is your roadmap
to doing so. If the council doesn't feel like achieving dark sky status is a priority, but feels that
lowering light pollution is the priority. Well, here's maybe a more politically possible way to do that.
And that that gives them both options. Logistically, I don't know how we go about approving that and
everything, but I do like that idea, kind of putting the ball in their court and letting them make that decision.
One thing that came up in our first reading of this amendment in B-Crosser was that we are not unique,
but we are a jurisdiction that also has a large university that significantly contributes to both just
the square footage of our town, but also the light pollution in our town. And that if I understand how
the UDO works, we can't make them do anything.
And I wonder if there would be the political support from IU's astronomy department or other institutions
where for partnering on something that is aspirational and is, look, you get to tell people that this
is a reason to come here and a reason to give us money or whatever.
Their goals are, and I think particularly because we have the observatory and such a world-class astronomy
department here, I wonder if, I do like the recommendation of saying, like, here are the roadmaps. I
think it's logistically challenging to do it in an amendment in this meeting. But I would definitely
want to consider, regardless of the outcome here, maybe a future resolution or transmission to council on that.
But I do think that, again, the credibility of an important certification may actually help us gain
a partner in achieving this. Diana. I'm Diana B. Gosser, Commissioner. I just wanted to comment also.
I sort of agree with Alex here in that I think that
as a governing, or not a governing, but as a advising body, thank you. I think we have a responsibility
to sort of shoot for the moon in our recommendations, particularly with the best information that we
have available. And so I would be in support of either the amended or unamended version of this resolution
for that reason alone. However,
If we do follow through with the amendment, I would like to see some sort of mention of additional
information regarding dark sky status. Should it be something that's pursued later on on the line if
this is sort of a precursor to that? Alex. I would like to share for those who don't know that Dark
Skies is changing their certification methodology. And they have said,
Zach and I had a meeting with them. They told us that as long as we're making progress, that they're
very willing to be patient and we can be in their old certification process. But if we do not go through
with this in the very near future and start showing progress towards that Dark Sky certification, under
their new certification style, it will be performance based as opposed to policy based.
and just given our proximity to Indianapolis, we have no shot of getting dark sky certification. So
if we do want, if we think that dark sky certification is a goal, then we do need to take that action
more or less today and now. Having said that, they are exploring some lower level kind of like dark
sky ally certifications, you know, maybe like
gold, silver, bronze here, they had no idea. They were very clear this is still being completely workshopped.
But it could be that if we do the lower level ask today that there might be something that we could
still pursue in the future that isn't the full dark sky certification but is a dark sky friendly city
or something as opposed to a fully dark sky. So just some extra information for
those who were not aware. Any further comments on the amendment? Yes, Zach. So I brought this forward
because I wanted to hear what everyone else thought and hear everyone else be involved in this discussion.
I think I've got a good sense of where everyone is sitting now, most of you at least. So I just want
to say I'm going to vote no on this because I do think the Coke classic version of the resolution is
the better resolution.
But I just wanted to bring this forward as an option for people in case people were wavering at all
because I still wanted to get something passed. But I'm going to vote no on this amendment. Yes just
wanted to say that. Thank you. Further comment. OK. Not seeing any. There is one thing that I wanted
to point out before we vote on this amendment.
I said I think this entire paragraph a was struck in the amendment. So I think we'd need to update the
little indicators here. I mean to me that would be sort of just like an obvious thing that would come
with the amendment. But we could we could offer an amendment on the amendment to formally take care
of that. I think it's pretty
That that would need to be yeah, I'm not sure script would anybody object to us just Knowing that those
numbers those letters are gonna change without doing a formal amendment on the amendment The same is
true on another section later in general recommendations where D is struck But no, I think that's intuitive
and should be fine. Okay, perfect I'm not hearing any objections. So good. Okay any final discussion
before we move on to a vote on the amendment?
Okay, then we'll move to a vote. We'll do a roll call vote for each commission. I get myself situated
here. All right. So this is on the amendment. Tarter Dale. No, no. Thank you. Justin Vassel. I will. Yes.
Rebekah pain No, no Christopher miles No No, Zach Ammerman. No, no Council member Allah Abstain abstain
Ross Carlson. Yes. Yes, Alex York Yes, yes Maria Arstead Abstain abstain and Diana ogrodowski
No. No. OK. That is three yeses five nos and two abstentions. And so on the cost side the amendment
fails but it will move over to the easy side. Thank you. All right. We start with just a measure abstain.
Adam Martinez no Carl Geiser no Carrie Albright. I'm voting no.
Matt Caldy. Yes. All right. So we've got one yes three nos and an abstention. All right. Thank you.
The motion fails on the amendment. So that brings us back to the original resolution before any amendments
and that brings us back to general discussion. So are there any more comments or discussion that people
want to have about the resolution.
Okay, seeing none that means we can move on to the vote Sorry is there yeah Go ahead Alex. How about
people find something to discuss for three minutes and I'll have a new proposed amendment Are you are
you making a motion to recess for? three minutes Is that something I can do? Yes I Make a motion that
we take a recess for three minutes
I'll write that motion and there's a second. Okay, we could do a voice vote on this All those in favor
for recessing for three minutes say aye aye aye all opposed nay any abstentions Okay, we will come back
at seven. Oh eight. Well, it's at the right at the barter seven. Oh nine
talking about the
I am aware of a kind of longer-term defense innovation core idea. Is this something that you're discussing
on the council? There's a broad sort of collaborative idea that's been developing, as I understand it,
between different elements of IU, particularly my department of ethics. And you mentioned Mill would
be a part of this. John Fernandez, I think, is connected to this, or maybe
As you know, things are done in decades.
This one, as I understand it, has been underway for some time in different dimensions. The big, over
100 million grant that went to IU for the AI development stuff is in partnership. So obviously some
of this is sort of like latent, like we want to strengthen these collaborations in general. But I do
think there's a larger strategic plan.
I think it serves both purposes. All of that, so I was curious if it sounds like,
All right, we'll come back now from our recess. Thank you everybody. Did I hear that there was a point of order?
Ah, thank you. Apologies for that. Okay. Welcome back everybody. So we're still in the discussion phase
for the resolution, but I think there might be another potential motion for an amendment. So I'm going
to pass it over to Alex. He's going to explain his thinking and we can go from there. Um, I still like
the idea of transmitting both to city council. So I am considering proposing an amendment to do that.
We kind of have two structural ways of doing this. One would be to have under God. So my first thought
was to propose a new amendment which is to adopt the amended version and then after in the amended version
in the general rec after section two general recommendations to have a section three.
Dark Sky certification recommendations and then have the original thing be subtext under Dark
Sky recommendations. That is somewhat confusing. We could also just try to pass it and like have it
say that the amended version is an attachment as exhibit A or something for an alternative, which I think is
maybe the easier but less elegant way of doing it. So yeah, food for thought. Zach, go ahead. Correct
me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think we can. We just voted down everything in this amendment. We
can't now attach this thing that we just voted down. Even if we're adding a few other things to it,
we just voted down everything in this.
Procedurally possible we can I think it is because it's separate But if if we want to be super sure
we can move to reconsider and that would be valid But it is a new amendment I think it would be fine.
I know Roberts rules absent any buddy that knows anything but more I Would just like to comment that
because we're doing all of this in a formal meeting which we would have to anyway This is all already
public record
All right, so we haven't had any sort of formal motion to introduce an amendment like this on either
pathway But I would certainly entertain that if somebody wanted to I move that we recommend adoption
of the resolution as presented and transmit the proposed amendment Attached as exhibit a to the City
Council as an alternative for its consideration Okay
So this is a motion to amend the resolution by referencing an exhibit a that would basically be an attachment
at the end which would be the The as of as would have been amended version of the resolution.
Is that correct? And yes, just to be clear the purpose of this is to give the city two different pathways
if they want to take them the harder one that results in dark sky certification or if they just want
to make general changes that would improve light pollution in the city and
Okay. So yeah go ahead. Would part of this amendment clarify the timeline for dark sky certification
as part of you know the pathway. I don't see why not. We can include that into the motion. Do you want
me to read state the motion. It just seems relevant to the sort of the cell of going the harder path.
And so I agree it might be worth including.
Yeah, I think that would have to be an amendment on the amendment at this point. Yeah. I'll retract
my motion. And then, OK, how do I phrase this? What are we looking for again? Sorry? It's an inclusion
of urgency due to structural changes at Dark Sky International classifying dark sky.
Okay, I move that we recommend adoption of the resolution is presented and transmit the proposed amendment
attaches exhibit a to the City Council as an alternative for consideration and As part of that adoption
of the resolution we include a timeline of urgency For certification of dark sky And what would that
look like like we would have to
Great language for that. If we were going to do this, I don't think we should. If we were going to do
this, we could just, after we vote on this resolution, we could say we're going to also pass a letter,
approve a letter, authorize the chair to send a letter to the extent that we just said, if you wanted
to. That might be easier. We wouldn't require a formal amendment to this. We could just pass a letter
after this, authorize our chairs to send with this information. I don't think we should do that, but
that would be an easier way to do it if you wanted to.
I would be perfectly fine with that. Okay, I would also be fine with that. I don't have a particular
care about how we do that. So I guess I'll retract my motion and then we're doing this as two separate
things. That would be my idea. We would pass the resolution as is unless somebody else wants another
amendment and then after we're done with this we can then vote on a motion, just a regular motion.
Authorize our chairs to send a letter to whatever effect that you would like Okay, would that be would
that could take care of your concern? Okay. Okay, then I'll go back to my original motion I move that
we recommend the adoption of the resolution as presented and Transmit the proposed amendment attaches
exhibit a to the City Council as an alternative for its consideration Okay, so this was the original
Proposed amendment that we would be attaching as exhibit a Okay
Does anybody have questions about that or comments? Is there any confusion? I Believe that if we're
going to provide something to City Council, we should be unified and if we are not we should Not just
throw everything at the wall and see what sticks I Second oh, sorry so I would rather if anything go
for the full dark skies and if the
Council is not satisfied with that. They can reduce things how they see fit Yeah, Zach go ahead yeah,
so I just to repeat what I said earlier, I think we just To me if we're going to amend it, we should
have amended it and we just voted not to amend it So I don't think we can throw lately like Ross just
said throw everything at the wall and just see what sticks I don't we just decided not to amend it so
I don't see why we would then include the thing that we just decided not to include
That's my two cents. Thanks. Oh, sorry. Yes. Is transmitting recommendations the only means of communication
that our councils or our commissions have with the council? Could we not communicate with them about
this in another way in terms of expressing those sort of options or paths as intended?
But we could we could we've done letters in the past. I think there was one one time where we just authorized
the chair to go to a city council meeting and explain hey because did this recently and here's some
background info like during public comment. Basically would that not be a viable path. Just in the resolution
now to authorize the authors to go to the council to speak on behalf of the resolution. Maria.
Could our ex officio council member make it known to the rest of the council that there is another version
existing with less teeth if they're interested. I mean procedurally I don't see why not. Yes I would
happily do that but I think that the chair of the commission or commissions would probably be the best
vehicle although I would certainly affirm that and you know maybe we could
During commissioner reports or reports from the mayor and City Commission's We could have a little question
answer period where this could be, you know We could talk about the deliberations a little bit and the
intention You know could be expressed there But I agree a letter would be a very very good
idea of communicating Alex
So one of the reasons that I see value in this is that I think that if this comes to council and council
likes it and council tries to go for it and it meets with significant public backlash that a future
attempt at a I guess if we go for the full
and it is met with a lot of backlash and it is clear that the political will of the community isn't
there and it gets pulled back, I think that then coming back with a not dark sky compliant version would
be again met with similar backlash. I think that this gives the council opportunity to, I think that
council should amend what we give them and not just
approve things like they should do their own due diligence. But I think this gives them options out
the gate to do what they think is best for the city and most likely to succeed. And therefore, it gives
it the best chance to just pass on the first try, which is its best chance to pass. Zach. So I fully
understand everything you're saying.
But everything you just said is an argument to pass the amendment and that we just discussed and voted
down. To me I don't. So I don't see why I feel like we're just redoing the amendment again essentially
is my thought anyway. I disagree because I think that if the council feels that the best chance if the
best thing for the city and the best chance is to do the full dark sky certification.
They still have that option and they have that recommendation and they have that clear language. They
have our blessing, our encouragement to do that. I kind of like the way that this has worked out more
where the non-DarkSky compliant version is an amendment as opposed to the thing that I had mentioned
where the non-DarkSky compliant version is the first text body because my preference would be that they
shoot for DarkSky compliance. But it gives them,
you know, our recommendation to do that still. And then also says, hey, if you just want Bloomington
to be darker and you don't think that dark sky certification is the best path, here is an alternative.
But it puts that in their hands and lets them make that decision. And it gives them more tools to work
with. Real quick, I just want to point out we're at 720,
One right now. So we'll have about nine minutes left in the meeting. So we will have to look at voting
soon. But target I think it's important. Like Diana said this is part of public record and council is
able to go and find the amended version if they decide that they want to to move forward with a less
aggressive or aspirational goal and that we did we should
move forward with the thing that we said we wanted to move forward with, or that the majority did. And
if they want to do the research to find it, it's a click away. We could also, in the transmittal emails
that we send, mention that we did entertain an amendment that would have sort of provided an alternative,
and that it's publicly available in the packet if council ever wants to take a look at that. Then they
know it's there, at least.
That's one option any further discussion on the proposed amendment I guess what I have what I have an
issue with with that Amendment is that the City Council does some digging and they found that we actually
voted it down So I'm not sure that that would actually induce them to want to pick it up again When
there's a record of us not wanting the amendment essentially in our meeting today And I don't think
that's necessarily true that we don't
We like the other version more or or I'm presuming maybe we hate that version too. But we like the other
version more. We don't dislike the amended version. We just want one version more than the other. And
I feel like if the city council goes digging they're going to get a misleading viewpoint. I guess is
my concern with that. All right. Any last minute discussion before we move to a vote.
OK we'll move on to a vote and just as a reminder this is a men proposed amendment to add a note at
the end that basically says you know see the attached exhibit a for a alternative version. OK. Targer
Dale no no Justin Vassel no Rebecca Payne no no Christopher Miles no no.
Zach Amaran no, no council member all Epstein Ross Carlson. No, no Alex York Yes, yes Maria Arstead
Epstein Epstein and Diana over dusky Epstein Epstein. All right, that is one in favor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Noes
and three abstentions. So the motion fails in the V cost side over to EC
All right for the Environmental Commission we've got Justin Mester abstain Adam Martinez no Carl Geithner
yes Carrie Albright I'm voting no Matt Caldy no All right, so we've got one yes three nos and one abstention
The motion fails that brings us back to the main resolution. Is there any further discussion?
Oh yes. Go ahead. Just in the general recommendations you know we talked about the budgetary aspects
of this moving forward. Just a question on you know the department wise is going to the city of Lamington
utilities. Was there a reason this is on utilities for this. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question.
Good. In the general recommendations part a city of Lamington utilities conduct an inventory of all
city on. Yes. Is there a reason that's going to CBU and not.
public works or anything like that. It just seems most logical for the city of Bloomington utilities
to be doing it. Maybe that's not appropriate. I don't know. But yeah I would think there would probably
be a better avenue for that as far as lighting goes. OK. To my knowledge CBE doesn't do anything related
to street lighting. They handle the contracts for street lights. I found through public records they
had several records contracts with
CBU unless I'm mistaken it looks through several Let me see if I can find one One moment Is there anyone
who else is going to want to Discuss anything before we move on to a vote just pick you up. Okay, we'll
keep you in the queue Somebody else wants to go ahead. Okay, so we'll circle back to that answer. Thanks
We only got four minutes left councilmember Ralla, so just take 30 seconds. I just wanted to propose
that whatever happens Assuming this is adopted that Deliberation sessions at the council are held here
periodically and this is a good opportunity We invite staff City Commission's committee commissioners
in and the public to talk about things like this As a means of moving policies forward, so this would
be an ideal setting I think and I invite
I would be happy to sponsor this and I invite you to to attend sometime in the future near future Thank
you Zach, I can't find the contract I had but I I Don't think that changes the substance of the resolution
Whether it's CBU or I mean that can be Details like that if it needs to be corrected can be fixed at
the council level. Yeah, if it needs to yeah, I
And I can just chime in. The notes I have are Cheyenne Bolin and Chris Smith are responsible for maintenance,
repair, and planning for street lighting. So that would be Public Works. So you can update that.
All right. So I would suggest that we move on to the vote, unless there's any objections or more comments
or questions. OK. Seeing none, we'll start the roll call. Tara D'Andrea? Yes. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I
should say this is to adopt the resolution as originally included in the packet.
Justin Vassel. Yes. Rebecca Payne. Yes. Yes. Christopher Miles. Yay. Yay. Second. Right. Yes. Yes.
A customer. Barolo abstain abstain. Ross Carlson. Yes. Yes. Alex York. Yes. Yes. Maria Arstead. No no.
Diana O'Gradowski. Yes. Yes.
That's eight yeses, one no, and one abstention. The motion carries on the BCOS side. Over to EC.
All right. For our environmental commission, Justin Meister? Abstain. Adam Martinez? Yes. Carl Geiser?
Yes. Kerry Albright? I vote yes. Matt Caldy? Yes. All right. That's four yeses and one abstention, so
passes as well. Excellent. Very good. Well, the resolution is adopted.
Thank you everybody for this this was this was a fun meeting We have we have like 30 ish seconds left.
We had a closing remarks section Is there are there any closing remarks that anybody wants to make before
we adjourn? Yeah, go ahead I just wanted to think both Commission all members is a blast working with
you folks and thank you for the staff for taking the time today to have this extra meeting as well and
Any other closing remarks in the last 20 seconds? No, okay. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved.
In a second? Second. All in favor of adjourning, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Abstentions? All right,
we are adjourned at 730 exactly. Thanks everybody.