WEBVTT

00:00:00.194 --> 00:00:07.552
- I'll call to order this meeting of the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability and Resilience at 6.01 p.m.

00:00:07.552 --> 00:00:14.637
- And we will go through the roll call. Tara Dundale. Here. Here. Justin Vassel. I'm here. Rebecca Payne.

00:00:14.637 --> 00:00:21.791
- Here. Here. Chris Smiles. Here. Here. Zach Ammerman. Here. Here. Dave Rollo. I'm here. Here. And Terese,

00:00:21.791 --> 00:00:28.808
- is it Dorow? Dorow. Dorow. Perfect. I'm here. Excellent. Welcome. Ross Carlson. Yeah, he was on, yeah,

00:00:28.808 --> 00:00:29.694
- there we go.

00:00:31.586 --> 00:00:45.542
- Perfect. Drive safe. Alex York. Also here. Wonderful. Drive safe. My babysitter was sick and canceled

00:00:45.542 --> 00:00:58.814
- and my next backup babysitter was late. I will be in person soon. All right. We'll see you soon.

00:00:58.914 --> 00:01:07.091
- Drive safe, cool sunglasses. That's the compliment going around today. And Diana Ogrodowsky. Not here.

00:01:07.091 --> 00:01:15.268
- Okay, perfect. We have quorum. So we'll go ahead and get started. Did you call my name? Oh, I'm sorry.

00:01:15.268 --> 00:01:23.445
- You did not, though. I did not. I apologize for that. Maria Arstead. Wonderful. Thank you for catching

00:01:23.445 --> 00:01:28.446
- me on that. I swear you're still on the commission. Thank you.

00:01:29.410 --> 00:01:35.647
- All right, well, it's mid-October. It is 86 degrees outside. So it's good to be in an air-conditioned

00:01:35.647 --> 00:01:42.067
- room. So let's start with the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes that anyone wants to suggest

00:01:42.067 --> 00:01:48.365
- for the agenda for today? OK, seeing none, is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. And there's

00:01:48.365 --> 00:01:54.601
- a second. Perfect. And we'll go through a roll call vote for this since we've got some people online.

00:01:54.601 --> 00:01:58.270
- Is this to approve the agenda? Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin, yes.

00:01:58.530 --> 00:02:07.573
- Rebecca? Yes. Yes. Christopher? Yes. Sorry, you? Chris or Christopher? It's true. You're an adventurer.

00:02:07.573 --> 00:02:16.442
- I know. And I feel like I do it inconsistently. It's fine. Zach? Yes. Yes. Councilmember Rallo? Here.

00:02:16.442 --> 00:02:25.398
- Or yes. Sorry. Yes. Sorry. I'm reading and speaking at once. Oh, and I'm getting a phone call. Terese?

00:02:25.398 --> 00:02:28.094
- Yes. Excuse me. Yes. Ross? Me.

00:02:29.762 --> 00:02:37.950
- Yes. Yes. Alex? Yes. Yes. Wonderful. Maria? Yes. Yes. And Diana is still not here. OK. The agenda is

00:02:37.950 --> 00:02:46.543
- approved. So that brings us to the approval of the minutes. We have two sets of minutes to approve today,

00:02:46.543 --> 00:02:54.731
- one from our last regular meeting on September 8, 2026, and then one from our joint meeting with the

00:02:54.731 --> 00:02:58.622
- Environmental Commission on September 15, 2026.

00:02:59.202 --> 00:03:07.539
- Maybe I'll open it up for just both of those sets of minutes if anyone has any corrections towards those.

00:03:07.539 --> 00:03:15.562
- And if so, we can handle them individually. Otherwise, maybe we could just pass them together. So any

00:03:15.562 --> 00:03:23.663
- corrections to either of those minutes? OK. I'm hearing none. So we can go on to evoke to approve both

00:03:23.663 --> 00:03:28.382
- sets of minutes as circulated. Tara? Yes. Yes. Justin, yes.

00:03:28.930 --> 00:03:43.854
- Rebecca? Yes. Yes. Chris? Yes. Yes. Zach? Yes. Yes. Councilor Verrallo is absent for this vote. Terese?

00:03:43.854 --> 00:03:48.446
- Yes. Yes. Ross? Yes. Yes. Alex?

00:03:55.298 --> 00:04:02.719
- He steps away. Maria? Yes. Yes. And Diana is here. OK. Wonderful. Both sets of minutes are approved

00:04:02.719 --> 00:04:10.215
- as circulated. We anxiously await Alex's arrival. Any moment now. Sorry. Does Councilmember O'Reilly

00:04:10.215 --> 00:04:17.933
- count as an abstention or just not present? I think just not present. Yeah. I think in effect, it works

00:04:17.933 --> 00:04:23.870
- the same way. But yeah, for record-keeping purposes, it's a good clarification.

00:04:24.706 --> 00:04:31.245
- Okay, great. That brings us to public comment. So we've got about 10 minutes set aside for this. We

00:04:31.245 --> 00:04:37.850
- try to limit it to three minutes per person. Is there anyone online or in the room? I'm sorry. Yeah,

00:04:37.850 --> 00:04:44.520
- no worries. Can you just tell me who did the motion and second for the? I do not recall. I should say

00:04:44.520 --> 00:04:48.574
- the names as they do it so that it's like more on the record.

00:04:48.738 --> 00:04:56.906
- Well, for the agenda, it was you and Gay in the midst. Was there actually one? I don't think there was

00:04:56.906 --> 00:05:05.551
- actually one. Was there not a motion? No, I think we just rolled right into it. Oh, jeez. OK. Retroactively,

00:05:05.551 --> 00:05:13.560
- is there a motion to approve this? Yes. OK, and is there a second? OK, and then a second. Wonderful.

00:05:13.560 --> 00:05:16.574
- Yeah, exactly. OK. Roberts rules-ish.

00:05:16.706 --> 00:05:26.202
- Okay, great. So that brings us to the public comment. Is there anyone online or in the room as a member

00:05:26.202 --> 00:05:35.972
- of the public who would like to comment? Yeah, there were some folks earlier but they were just interested

00:05:35.972 --> 00:05:37.342
- in the agenda.

00:05:37.442 --> 00:05:44.036
- He saw how disorganized we were. He nodded. I'm trying to keep us on our best. I'm just kidding. No,

00:05:44.036 --> 00:05:50.564
- that's on me. We're totally fine. OK. Well, seeing none, that brings us to Commissioner reports. So

00:05:50.564 --> 00:05:57.158
- we'll go into the chair's report. I actually put together some slides today, so they haven't been in

00:05:57.158 --> 00:06:03.752
- the packet yet. So I'll share my screen for them, and then I will email them to you right away after

00:06:03.752 --> 00:06:06.494
- the meeting so we can put those on board.

00:06:06.690 --> 00:06:14.009
- So let me switch over to those. It's been a while since I've done slides for these. So anyone who enjoyed

00:06:14.009 --> 00:06:21.122
- that, it's your lucky day. And anyone who did not, sorry. Let me see if I can full screen this. That's

00:06:21.122 --> 00:06:28.303
- pretty good. Yeah. Okay, awesome. Okay, so the org chart, which we haven't seen in a little while here,

00:06:28.303 --> 00:06:33.758
- but there's been some changes and stuff over time. So I figured it'd be a good

00:06:33.858 --> 00:06:39.394
- opportunity to get in front of people again. So currently, as of today, we've got three vacancies at

00:06:39.394 --> 00:06:45.204
- the moment. So you can see our quorum threshold up there is six out of 11. And we have a new commissioner

00:06:45.204 --> 00:06:51.234
- with us, Therese Doreau. Doreau? Doreau. Doreau. Thank you. And yes, normally when we have new commissioners,

00:06:51.234 --> 00:06:56.935
- we like to give them a chance to sort of introduce themselves to the group, say a little bit about your

00:06:56.935 --> 00:07:02.142
- background and maybe what your interests sustainability wise are. So I'll pass it over to you.

00:07:02.466 --> 00:07:08.215
- Hi, my name is Therese DeRoe. I work at Indiana University's Environmental Resilience Institute, and

00:07:08.215 --> 00:07:13.906
- I was appointed by the IU Director of Sustainability University-wide, who lives in Indianapolis. So

00:07:13.906 --> 00:07:19.655
- it's very convenient for me to be able to be here. I work at the Environmental Resilience Institute,

00:07:19.655 --> 00:07:25.745
- and I provide local governments with technical assistance on climate, energy, and sustainability projects.

00:07:25.745 --> 00:07:29.502
- All of those local governments in Indiana, if you can believe it.

00:07:29.634 --> 00:07:38.437
- Before that, I founded the sustainability office at the City of South Bend and also served on the Board

00:07:38.437 --> 00:07:46.901
- of Public Works for several years there. Welcome. I just want to make a quick note about terms that

00:07:46.901 --> 00:07:54.857
- are expiring in January, 2027. There's three of them as far as the currently filled seats go.

00:07:54.857 --> 00:07:57.566
- That's Tara, myself, and Diana.

00:07:57.858 --> 00:08:03.868
- Folks are still interested in continuing to serve beyond January, 2027 to start thinking about putting

00:08:03.868 --> 00:08:09.937
- in another application through onboard. I don't know if there's like a firm deadline there or anything.

00:08:09.937 --> 00:08:15.947
- I think we usually just kind of think around December-ish or something to get that in. But just wanted

00:08:15.947 --> 00:08:21.899
- to make sure it's on the radar for folks. Yeah. I haven't seen anything but maybe one application for

00:08:21.899 --> 00:08:25.342
- these vacancies, and I don't really know much about there.

00:08:25.474 --> 00:08:31.001
- qualifications that didn't have a resume or anything. So I just don't know where that one will go. But

00:08:31.001 --> 00:08:36.367
- there just hasn't really been much, many applications at all. OK. I was going to ask, so thank you.

00:08:36.367 --> 00:08:41.840
- Perfect. OK, news and updates. This is part of why I decided to do slides today. We can get a handful

00:08:41.840 --> 00:08:47.206
- of things on here. So I apologize if that's very difficult to read, but I will go through them kind

00:08:47.206 --> 00:08:52.894
- of one by one. If you have questions as we go through them, feel free to chime in. And then we can circle

00:08:52.894 --> 00:08:54.718
- back on anything at the end here.

00:08:54.914 --> 00:09:00.408
- but I'll try to be fairly quick with this. Okay, so the annual reports is now a pluralized thing because

00:09:00.408 --> 00:09:05.745
- we're coming up on the end of 2026, which means we'll have to put those reports together soon. I told

00:09:05.745 --> 00:09:11.187
- you I would get those to you before this meeting and give you all a chance to comment on it so we could

00:09:11.187 --> 00:09:16.472
- talk about it at this meeting for the 2025 report. Obviously, it's not on the agenda, so that didn't

00:09:16.472 --> 00:09:21.809
- quite happen. We had a pretty busy meeting and I didn't want to try to fit an entire annual report on

00:09:21.809 --> 00:09:23.326
- there as well. So that'll be

00:09:23.714 --> 00:09:29.910
- right away after this meeting that will go out later this week and give you a chance to provide comments

00:09:29.910 --> 00:09:36.284
- individually on that. And hopefully we can discuss it at our November meeting and then address any comments

00:09:36.284 --> 00:09:42.244
- that were received and vote to approve. And then the trip will be trying to fit that presentation on

00:09:42.244 --> 00:09:45.726
- council schedule in the last couple of months of the year.

00:09:46.530 --> 00:09:52.149
- And then, just to keep the momentum alive there, I plan to just roll right into the 2026 report and

00:09:52.149 --> 00:09:58.104
- try to get that done as soon as possible so it doesn't show up a year later. Okay, I just want to mention

00:09:58.104 --> 00:10:03.723
- officer elections, which are still a good ways away, I think like six months or something. Yeah, so

00:10:03.723 --> 00:10:09.342
- our March meeting in 2027 will be holding them. But I just want to kind of put it on people's radar

00:10:09.342 --> 00:10:11.870
- now. We've got four positions that we elect.

00:10:12.002 --> 00:10:17.852
- chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer. I'm just going to announce now that I'm not planning to

00:10:17.852 --> 00:10:23.818
- run for re-election for chair. So people should start thinking. Maybe they want to fill that role. And

00:10:23.818 --> 00:10:29.784
- if you think you might be interested, but you're not sure, I am happy to meet with people and chat and

00:10:29.784 --> 00:10:35.518
- talk about what it entails or what it could be and to work with anybody on that that's interested.

00:10:35.650 --> 00:10:41.984
- We don't normally have very hotly contested elections here, so I didn't even put a message to consider

00:10:41.984 --> 00:10:48.133
- running for office. But just consider volunteering. We need volunteers. OK. On the subject of flock

00:10:48.133 --> 00:10:54.467
- and mass surveillance type stuff, so at our last meeting, we approved a letter to the mayor requesting

00:10:54.467 --> 00:10:58.526
- information about the city's status on flock contracts and stuff.

00:10:58.594 --> 00:11:04.306
- We've got that as an individual agenda item, so we'll actually talk about that a little bit later. But

00:11:04.306 --> 00:11:09.851
- that letter went out to the mayor the day afterwards, and then we got a response on September 14th.

00:11:09.851 --> 00:11:15.008
- So both of those things are in the packet. And I just wanted to point out, and it's possible

00:11:15.008 --> 00:11:20.720
- that Councilmember Rallo will mention this in his report, is that tomorrow City Council is considering

00:11:20.720 --> 00:11:22.494
- an ordinance for first reading.

00:11:22.594 --> 00:11:28.894
- or I'm sorry, no, I think this is for second reading, actually, prohibiting the use of Flock automated

00:11:28.894 --> 00:11:35.500
- license plate reader technology. So it's related to the stuff that we've done here and definitely encourage

00:11:35.500 --> 00:11:41.800
- people to tune in. Flock, the specific brand? Yeah, I mean, the ordinance mentions Flock specifically,

00:11:41.800 --> 00:11:48.162
- but I think it also describes more general technology, surveillance technology of this type. So I think

00:11:48.162 --> 00:11:52.382
- they kind of cover all the bases there. I imagine that's going to be

00:11:52.674 --> 00:11:59.739
- late meeting so it should be a good time. I just want to mention for the proposed changes to the UDO

00:11:59.739 --> 00:12:06.734
- regarding forest and tree and forest preservation which is you know we approved a letter to council

00:12:06.734 --> 00:12:13.939
- at our last meeting making a recommendation about this so we sent that letter to council the following

00:12:13.939 --> 00:12:15.198
- day and then they

00:12:15.426 --> 00:12:21.380
- approved language there, I think, if my recollection is correct, they approved language there on September

00:12:21.380 --> 00:12:27.001
- 16th, which included an amendment to strike the thing that we were sort of talking about. So I think

00:12:27.001 --> 00:12:32.621
- this was like, essentially what ended up being passed was what we were hoping for in the end, right?

00:12:32.621 --> 00:12:38.186
- And I think you attended that meeting and actually pointed out like a typo or something that was in

00:12:38.186 --> 00:12:43.806
- the amended text. I had it in the wrong spot and I told them where it actually was. So that's great.

00:12:43.806 --> 00:12:45.086
- Thanks for doing that.

00:12:45.730 --> 00:12:52.587
- Yeah, so that's good news. I don't know if it was exactly our letter that necessarily prompted that

00:12:52.587 --> 00:12:59.719
- change to come into effect, but we sent a letter and then that change went through, so who knows. Okay,

00:12:59.719 --> 00:13:06.302
- so resolution 2026-06, which is the joint resolution on dark sky stuff that we did with the EC.

00:13:06.594 --> 00:13:12.589
- We obviously passed that on September 15th, I believe the meeting date was. I attended the September

00:13:12.589 --> 00:13:18.821
- 16th council meeting just because I wanted to make public comment about something else. And then Council

00:13:18.821 --> 00:13:24.816
- Member Aralo had mentioned that we had passed the joint resolution. And so I just decided to, during

00:13:24.816 --> 00:13:30.930
- public comment in general, just mention the fact that because NEC passed this and that we look forward

00:13:30.930 --> 00:13:35.678
- to sending them more information and working with them on that at a later date.

00:13:36.450 --> 00:13:43.250
- And so that resolution has been transmitted to all the recipients that were specified in the resolution.

00:13:43.250 --> 00:13:49.727
- And we did get a response from Deputy Mayor Knapp, and that's in the packet as well. So that's sort

00:13:49.727 --> 00:13:56.462
- of something we might want to follow up on another point. I don't think I have it on the agenda to talk

00:13:56.462 --> 00:14:03.004
- about today, but definitely read that. I want to mention RetroCycle. We had a presentation from them

00:14:03.004 --> 00:14:05.918
- at the last meeting about trying to do this.

00:14:06.274 --> 00:14:13.955
- Indiana Cup or Hoosier Cup, I think is the suggestion that Alex made. Following that presentation, Meredith

00:14:13.955 --> 00:14:21.778
- Katz reached back out to me with a project plan for what the specific numbers would look like in Bloomington.

00:14:21.778 --> 00:14:29.174
- I was remote for that. Do we have a copy of the cup? We do have a copy of the cup. It's with the B cost

00:14:29.174 --> 00:14:34.366
- supplies, the table runners and stuff that we have. We do have that cup.

00:14:34.466 --> 00:14:42.926
- Yes, I'd love to hold the cup. That can be arranged, yes. Ours was the Colorado Cup. I second that,

00:14:42.926 --> 00:14:51.640
- actually. Oh, yeah, it was the Colorado Cup. Structurally. That's true, yeah. That's going to make all

00:14:51.640 --> 00:15:00.862
- the difference. It will. It'll feel a little off, but it might feel a little better. Yeah, so on that point.

00:15:01.250 --> 00:15:06.294
- I think there's potential there for a pilot program here in Bloomington. And I think there's potential

00:15:06.294 --> 00:15:11.241
- for other groups that might be interested in it for us to do maybe some sort of cost sharing sort of

00:15:11.241 --> 00:15:16.236
- arrangement to get a pilot program going. So I'm planning to reach out to some other groups to see if

00:15:16.236 --> 00:15:21.280
- there's interest there. So if anyone else is interested in getting in on that and kind of helping with

00:15:21.280 --> 00:15:23.582
- that, let me know. I'd love to have some help.

00:15:23.778 --> 00:15:30.312
- I was thinking about this weekend and that some of the vendors at the farmer's market might be good

00:15:30.312 --> 00:15:36.846
- partners for it too, especially because we've been around farmer's market. And there's Brown County

00:15:36.846 --> 00:15:43.381
- Coffee, Saha Chai, Scholars, and Inkwell. Or no, maybe Scholars is not popular. Inkwell has coffee.

00:15:43.381 --> 00:15:50.111
- There's like four vendors that have hot beverages at the farmer's market all year. Yeah. That's a good

00:15:50.111 --> 00:15:53.182
- point. When do we need to decide on what we're

00:15:53.730 --> 00:15:58.300
- if we're giving them a grant or not, like soon, right? Well, I don't think we're going to fit it in

00:15:58.300 --> 00:16:03.098
- for 2026. We can't do it for this year. Because it would have to be before December. And there's nothing

00:16:03.098 --> 00:16:07.714
- else on the radar? I just don't like having $6,000 sitting there. It would actually have to be moved

00:16:07.714 --> 00:16:12.558
- before our December meeting by ESD. So it would be even like, yeah. Yeah. It would have to be encumbered,

00:16:12.558 --> 00:16:17.128
- right? I was going to bring that up. But yeah, basically, you'd have to vote on it the next meeting

00:16:17.128 --> 00:16:20.830
- from now in November in order to have time to approve it for spending this year.

00:16:21.570 --> 00:16:28.621
- And I think we'd have to get the proposal to them much sooner than that, so ESD can review, so legal

00:16:28.621 --> 00:16:36.020
- can review, and then we can vote. So I don't think we're going to fit it into this year. But maybe early,

00:16:36.020 --> 00:16:43.490
- one of the first things in 2026. I will say, in 2027, the budget line for this commission has been reduced

00:16:43.490 --> 00:16:49.982
- by quite a bit to $1,000 total, which is a lot different. I know that's not exciting enough.

00:16:50.082 --> 00:16:57.734
- but I wanted to give you that news as well. So that includes the administrative supplies type stuff

00:16:57.734 --> 00:17:05.539
- plus any project related stuff? Yeah, everything. Is that part of the overall budget? Part of the ESD

00:17:05.539 --> 00:17:13.268
- overall budget. Do you mean is that part of overall budget reductions? Yeah, if you had any specific

00:17:13.268 --> 00:17:19.390
- questions on that decision or why, I'd be happy to relay them or you can email.

00:17:19.554 --> 00:17:29.617
- Jane and Sean as well, but yeah. So if we did decide to try to get something to vote on for next meeting,

00:17:29.617 --> 00:17:38.542
- is the time between now and then not reasonable to have reviews and stuff done, do you think?

00:17:38.542 --> 00:17:48.510
- We'll try. Yeah. I don't like the idea of having $6,000 sitting there and then we're not using. I agree.

00:17:49.282 --> 00:17:55.980
- When was the last time we even did a grant? The canopy. Yeah, the working group grant was the canopy

00:17:55.980 --> 00:18:03.010
- last year. Do we lose the money if we don't spend it? I mean, we're going to, and they're going to reduce

00:18:03.010 --> 00:18:09.708
- our line item next year. But it also doesn't carry over. It goes into the general fund for the city.

00:18:09.708 --> 00:18:16.406
- It doesn't carry over for us. It doesn't carry over for us or anything. So yeah, so maybe, is anyone

00:18:16.406 --> 00:18:18.462
- interested on working on this?

00:18:18.786 --> 00:18:25.400
- And I don't mean is anyone volunteering to take the lead on it, but just we might need a couple people

00:18:25.400 --> 00:18:32.270
- to try to put stuff together on a short time scale. I'm very busy, but I can help if you need it, whatever

00:18:32.270 --> 00:18:38.691
- you need me to. I can help, yeah. OK, cool. I'll send out some emails. Alex, you had a comment? No,

00:18:38.691 --> 00:18:45.369
- I was interested. OK, perfect. OK, great. All right, I'll email you. We'll see what we can do. OK, this

00:18:45.369 --> 00:18:46.782
- is not really related

00:18:46.946 --> 00:18:52.600
- directly to our commission. But I just want people to be aware of it. It's kind of an interesting thing.

00:18:52.600 --> 00:18:57.985
- So the Environmental Commission, there's currently a proposed reduction in the number of seats that

00:18:57.985 --> 00:19:03.370
- they have on their commission. And I'm sure Councilmember Rollo could speak to us a little bit more

00:19:03.370 --> 00:19:08.379
- about the ordinance that's being proposed here. But basically, it would cut three seats from

00:19:08.379 --> 00:19:13.979
- the Environmental Commission, bring them down to nine total. And the rationale for that was really just

00:19:13.979 --> 00:19:16.510
- because there were some longstanding vacancies

00:19:16.930 --> 00:19:22.945
- for a while and for a while I was giving them problems with obtaining quorum they've since updated their

00:19:22.945 --> 00:19:29.132
- bylaws sort of the way that we have our bylaws so that you know it doesn't really matter how many vacancies

00:19:29.132 --> 00:19:35.089
- they are as long as they have a majority of the seated members they can still meet so that that problem

00:19:35.089 --> 00:19:41.047
- was solved but there's still been some long-standing vacancies there and so the idea was to try to make

00:19:41.047 --> 00:19:45.630
- things more efficient here instead of having all these vacancies so my personal

00:19:46.050 --> 00:19:53.033
- thought on this was that I don't think that's a good idea. Because I think there's more to be. The vacancies

00:19:53.033 --> 00:19:59.440
- is an issue. You do want to try to address that. And there are policy levers you can pull to try to

00:19:59.440 --> 00:20:05.910
- address that. But I was thinking just removing seats is probably the wrong policy lever to do there.

00:20:05.910 --> 00:20:12.765
- And we also have a handful of vacancies at the moment. Sometimes we go for stretches where we have various

00:20:12.765 --> 00:20:13.470
- vacancies.

00:20:14.018 --> 00:20:19.537
- I don't think reducing the number of members and B costs would be a good policy response to that. I

00:20:19.537 --> 00:20:25.166
- think it's something we should at least be aware of and be thinking about ways in which we can try to

00:20:25.166 --> 00:20:30.960
- encourage, try to get the word out there so that we can fill those vacancies, number one, but also think

00:20:30.960 --> 00:20:36.589
- about how do we think about how we're productive as a commission even when we do have vacancies? What

00:20:36.589 --> 00:20:42.494
- do we lose if we were to have fewer members? Because I think I crunched some numbers with onboard data and

00:20:42.946 --> 00:20:49.591
- If you look over the last decade, EC has, on any given month, on average, 10 filled seats. So by bringing

00:20:49.591 --> 00:20:55.923
- it down to nine, if you look the next decade ahead, best case scenario is on average they could have

00:20:55.923 --> 00:21:02.318
- nine commission members on any given month. That's the best case. It's probably going to be closer to

00:21:02.318 --> 00:21:08.963
- eight or something. So they're definitely going to lose capacity to do stuff. And they do a lot of stuff,

00:21:08.963 --> 00:21:12.286
- like a lot of angle programming and stuff like that.

00:21:12.802 --> 00:21:20.004
- So anyway, it caught my attention. I want to bring it to everyone else's attention just so you're tracking.

00:21:20.004 --> 00:21:26.940
- Tomorrow's council meeting is on the agenda. Yeah, the second reading is tomorrow. Is it likely to come

00:21:26.940 --> 00:21:33.942
- up with what else is on the agenda tomorrow? Yeah. There's a lot on the agenda, but I think it's certain

00:21:33.942 --> 00:21:40.478
- to come up because we've already discussed this. Okay. Shirley, do we have time that I could add?

00:21:40.642 --> 00:21:48.339
- Just a little bit. Okay. Well, my understanding is, so this is brought forward by Hope Stossberg, and

00:21:48.339 --> 00:21:56.111
- it is exactly the intent was to, because they have trouble getting quorum. There are a number of seats

00:21:56.111 --> 00:22:03.959
- that haven't been filled by the mayor going back to 2024. So my understanding is no one on the EC wants

00:22:03.959 --> 00:22:09.694
- a reduction. There was objection by a couple of us at the previous meeting,

00:22:10.018 --> 00:22:17.682
- I've been on the EC for eight years, and they're very active. I want to make sure that they continue

00:22:17.682 --> 00:22:25.271
- being active and have the number of people to allow them the freedom to be active. So I'm generally

00:22:25.271 --> 00:22:33.391
- not favorable to the reduction. However, there are 12 members now, and there was a point made that perhaps

00:22:33.391 --> 00:22:39.006
- we should reduce it by one seat, because then we would have an odd number

00:22:39.874 --> 00:22:47.167
- Maybe it's easier then to adopt certain policies and not have a tight vote. So I think that right now,

00:22:47.167 --> 00:22:54.531
- the debate is that staff, planning staff, where it's housed, the EC is housed, is favorable to reducing

00:22:54.531 --> 00:23:01.683
- it to nine. They may come and speak about that tomorrow. I don't know if the EC is going to turn out

00:23:01.683 --> 00:23:09.118
- or not. I was going to contact a couple of members tonight to see. But Hope Stosberg, who's the sponsor,

00:23:09.282 --> 00:23:16.422
- fine with 11. So we may well only reduce it by one seat and that would be a mayoral appointment. Are

00:23:16.422 --> 00:23:23.492
- there applications and the mayor is just not passing them? I'm not privy to the applications to the

00:23:23.492 --> 00:23:28.158
- mayor's... That would be the staff liaison would know that right?

00:23:28.546 --> 00:23:35.602
- Yeah, so I don't know if there aren't. I had an UC member recently reach out to me encouraging me to,

00:23:35.602 --> 00:23:42.935
- like, is there anyone you know who might want to apply? So I don't think they're sitting on applications.

00:23:42.935 --> 00:23:49.991
- But also, maybe they're sitting on applications, or they've gotten applicants and there weren't food,

00:23:49.991 --> 00:23:56.286
- or bars that were held for a long time. Well, and if they've had, I mean, it's a bit of a,

00:23:56.866 --> 00:24:02.781
- Self-fulfilling prophecy, right? If you don't meet, if you can't ever meet, then people drop off, and

00:24:02.781 --> 00:24:08.869
- nobody can. Nobody's like, why am I going to come to this meeting? I'm not going to commit to this thing

00:24:08.869 --> 00:24:14.900
- that is never going to happen. So they can have consistent meeting. They've changed their Bible. That's

00:24:14.900 --> 00:24:20.931
- what I mean. I say, now they're in a position to meet consistently and see if that is like, maybe let's

00:24:20.931 --> 00:24:23.134
- see if that policy lever works first.

00:24:23.234 --> 00:24:31.764
- before we take away public voice. My understanding, too, is that the staff, the planning and transportation

00:24:31.764 --> 00:24:40.216
- staff, feel that a lot of the duties of the EC are now within code. And so they don't need as many people.

00:24:40.216 --> 00:24:48.509
- And my view is that there should be an objective body to review development petitions. And the EC always

00:24:48.509 --> 00:24:49.694
- had that role.

00:24:49.954 --> 00:24:56.894
- And I would like that to continue. I'm not necessarily assured that a development petition is going

00:24:56.894 --> 00:25:04.112
- to be, I mean, I'm not necessarily speaking about the current staff. We could imagine an administration

00:25:04.112 --> 00:25:11.330
- that would be hostile to environment. And then you would, you know, so an objective body who would come

00:25:11.330 --> 00:25:17.854
- and write memos and say, we need to think about whatever, these cars features, this woodland,

00:25:19.458 --> 00:25:26.666
- setbacks, whatever it is. So anyway, so if you choose to come tomorrow night, it would be appreciated.

00:25:26.666 --> 00:25:33.734
- The idea that environmental concerns go away because you put it in code is slightly hilarious. Yeah.

00:25:33.734 --> 00:25:41.152
- It's fine. We fixed it. We wrote a law. Yeah. It's done. Yeah. So we'll see. Yeah, so I'm going to attend

00:25:41.152 --> 00:25:47.870
- that meeting. That's why I was at the previous one, doing public comment on that first reading.

00:25:48.546 --> 00:25:55.667
- And there were some EC members that did show up to that one, too, to kind of say they weren't comfortable

00:25:55.667 --> 00:26:02.519
- with that and they specifically requested more time to show that they can get those vacancies cleared

00:26:02.519 --> 00:26:09.237
- and get back up to a full staff. Yeah. Can members of the public, the same way we get letters, send

00:26:09.237 --> 00:26:12.798
- letters of support or not support to who does it go?

00:26:13.250 --> 00:26:20.246
- to council, just like to your council member or to the- Well, I would just say that generally to council.

00:26:20.246 --> 00:26:26.847
- Yeah, to the council. Yeah, love to have that. I think there is certain deadlines for things to get

00:26:26.847 --> 00:26:33.777
- included in the packet materials. I want to say for 10 days, but I don't know for letters to the public,

00:26:33.777 --> 00:26:40.642
- they might make some exceptions or something. Well, you could send an email tomorrow before the meeting

00:26:40.642 --> 00:26:42.622
- and we would, you know, okay.

00:26:45.474 --> 00:26:51.144
- Yeah, all right, well, stay tuned. Okay, so next bullet point here, these are just some future follow

00:26:51.144 --> 00:26:56.703
- ups, things that we've kind of passed or done, taken some action on before that we'll, you know, we

00:26:56.703 --> 00:27:02.540
- probably want to see through a little bit farther. So resolution 2025-01, it's been a little while since

00:27:02.540 --> 00:27:08.322
- we've done that one, but that was the chicken flock sizes where we're increasing the amount of chickens

00:27:08.322 --> 00:27:13.936
- people can keep. We were kind of just holding out on that for a little while until council could get

00:27:13.936 --> 00:27:15.326
- a sort of more permanent

00:27:15.426 --> 00:27:21.981
- a council counsel, a council attorney. So we might revisit that again soon to try to get that into an

00:27:21.981 --> 00:27:28.600
- ordinance form, which I think we actually already have like a draft ordinance kind of ready to go that

00:27:28.600 --> 00:27:35.219
- I think Zach you helped put together. So it's just kind of getting that ball rolling again. Resolution

00:27:35.219 --> 00:27:37.982
- 2026-06, which is the dark sky one we just

00:27:38.178 --> 00:27:44.077
- There's probably some follow-on steps we want to take with that. I'm guessing maybe some engagements

00:27:44.077 --> 00:27:50.034
- with Duke Energy, with members of council, with IU or other folks in town. So be thinking about that.

00:27:50.034 --> 00:27:55.875
- And if anyone knows what those next steps should be, then we can chat. Maybe this is a question for

00:27:55.875 --> 00:28:01.832
- Councilmember Arroyo. Am I correct that commissions can request some time at council meetings to give

00:28:01.832 --> 00:28:07.614
- a presentation? Sure. I would like to, not immediately, but sometime in the next couple of months,

00:28:07.746 --> 00:28:13.538
- request like a 10-minute, we can give a presentation on the resolution. I think that would be a good

00:28:13.538 --> 00:28:19.330
- idea. Just to brief, because it's a complicated multi-moving part thing, and I think that would be a

00:28:19.330 --> 00:28:25.121
- good idea. I agree with that. I think that would be the obvious next step. That's in the text of the

00:28:25.121 --> 00:28:30.913
- resolution, right? That's already for the sponsors. I think we'd be limited to 10 minutes, so that's

00:28:30.913 --> 00:28:35.902
- a good target. I think that would be fine. Yeah. Okay, cool. We can chat about timing.

00:28:36.098 --> 00:28:43.840
- stuff like that. Good. And then, yeah, I just want to put the O'Neill capstone that we had earlier this

00:28:43.840 --> 00:28:51.284
- year on sustainable energy utilities. I don't know if there's any next steps for that. But if there

00:28:51.284 --> 00:28:58.878
- are, we can pursue those. So just trying to keep some of those things on the radar so they don't kind

00:28:58.878 --> 00:29:02.302
- of disappear. A couple of back burner things.

00:29:02.754 --> 00:29:08.565
- especially when Jamie Scholl was a commissioner here, she wrote up a lot of sort of policy recommendations

00:29:08.565 --> 00:29:14.051
- and strategy stuff about resiliency and food systems and stuff like that. Might be something we want

00:29:14.051 --> 00:29:19.482
- to revisit sometime soon. Some of those things we've already like passed, like changing the name of

00:29:19.482 --> 00:29:25.185
- the commission and adding resiliency to our purpose and that sort of thing. But there's still some stuff

00:29:25.185 --> 00:29:30.942
- in there we could potentially pick out. So I just wanted to put that on there as if someone's looking for

00:29:31.426 --> 00:29:37.956
- for things to pick at. There's potentially some projects there. And then the bylaws refresh, which we've

00:29:37.956 --> 00:29:44.238
- kind of talked about here and there over the last couple of years or so. I know Zach and I have kind

00:29:44.238 --> 00:29:50.457
- of exchanged some ideas about what that could look like, but I'd like to kind of pick that up again

00:29:50.457 --> 00:29:54.686
- and do an overhaul on the bylaws here in the next six months or so.

00:29:54.978 --> 00:30:00.720
- And then a couple upcoming events that might be of interest. The next Green Drinks is on October 28th

00:30:00.720 --> 00:30:06.406
- at Upland Woodshop. And that's about encouraging news about climate change mitigation. That's coming

00:30:06.406 --> 00:30:12.204
- from a couple physicists in my old stomping grounds here at IU. So that should be an interesting talk.

00:30:12.204 --> 00:30:17.890
- And you probably got the email, but there's a boards and commissions appreciation event that they do

00:30:17.890 --> 00:30:23.294
- every year that the city puts on. That's on November 17th this year at the Waldron Arts Center.

00:30:23.522 --> 00:30:30.782
- So yeah, RSVP is requested there for that. So see the email and fill out the form there. But yeah, it's

00:30:30.782 --> 00:30:38.182
- a nice chance to go chat with some other commissions and have some hors d'oeuvres and that kind of thing.

00:30:38.182 --> 00:30:45.232
- Cool. OK, so that's it for general updates. I've got one more slide before the end of my report just

00:30:45.232 --> 00:30:52.702
- to kind of give you a preview of upcoming meetings and stuff. But any questions overall on that stuff? OK.

00:30:53.090 --> 00:30:59.883
- Okay so just to give a little preview on some stuff on the upcoming meetings like I said for November

00:30:59.883 --> 00:31:06.543
- 2025 annual report review and approval and we're expecting to have a guest from Hoosier EVA haven't

00:31:06.543 --> 00:31:13.336
- confirmed that yet so it's still still tentative but I'm thinking we'll probably have that there just

00:31:13.336 --> 00:31:20.862
- to give us an introduction to the organization. I'm hoping maybe in December we can have the first discussion on

00:31:20.962 --> 00:31:26.895
- on specifics for a bylaws refresh. And then in January, we would have another discussion on that. Our

00:31:26.895 --> 00:31:32.770
- bylaws say to amend the bylaws, you have to discuss it at regular meetings. February is maybe a good

00:31:32.770 --> 00:31:38.645
- time then to look at the 2026 annual report. I'm putting that up there right now to help keep myself

00:31:38.645 --> 00:31:44.461
- accountable. And then like I mentioned before, in March, we'll have officer elections. So just want

00:31:44.461 --> 00:31:46.846
- to make a note, if there's anything that

00:31:47.106 --> 00:31:52.935
- because we haven't talked about getting things on the agenda in a while. If you've got certain topics

00:31:52.935 --> 00:31:58.878
- you want to see the commission discuss or you've got a resolution idea or you want to maybe see a guest

00:31:58.878 --> 00:32:04.649
- speaker come in or something like that, just reach out to me and we can coordinate and try to figure

00:32:04.649 --> 00:32:10.878
- out where it would slot in well in the next couple of months. Any final questions before I finish my report?

00:32:13.410 --> 00:32:19.425
- Well, then I'll pass it over to Councilmember Rowland. Sorry, Justin. Yes. If your term ends at the

00:32:19.425 --> 00:32:25.560
- end of January, but our officer elections aren't until March, who is the chair in the interim? That's

00:32:25.560 --> 00:32:31.936
- a good question. So I am planning to at least stay on the commission. So I'm planning to put in a removal

00:32:31.936 --> 00:32:38.312
- from application. OK. So assuming that that does get renewed, it should be fine. If it doesn't and nobody

00:32:38.312 --> 00:32:42.462
- else gets appointed in my spot, we've got a couple of months before.

00:32:42.722 --> 00:32:50.023
- It totally rolls over. Or if they do appoint somebody else to take that spot, then it would default

00:32:50.023 --> 00:32:57.397
- to the vice chair. So that'd be Zach. Good question. OK, sorry. I just thought of the looking at the

00:32:57.397 --> 00:33:05.355
- dates. Yeah, it's a good question. It's always kind of wonky the way we have our elections kind of staggered

00:33:05.355 --> 00:33:12.510
- with the new people coming and going. Awesome. OK, well, I'll pass it over to Councilmember Ralla

00:33:12.642 --> 00:33:20.748
- This is your console report. I don't really have them very much. Did you already address just in the

00:33:20.748 --> 00:33:28.131
- APLR? I mentioned that it was coming up, but I didn't say a whole lot about it. Okay. Well,

00:33:28.131 --> 00:33:36.157
- this is sponsored. I just got a memo from Smith who is one of the co-sponsors of this. Essentially,

00:33:36.157 --> 00:33:41.534
- we had urged a number of us the cancellation of the flock cameras.

00:33:42.050 --> 00:33:50.002
- And then we found that from the police chief that they still had contracts with FLOC for four downtown

00:33:50.002 --> 00:33:57.723
- surveillance cameras. So this ordinance evolved from that. And it's a prohibition on the use of the

00:33:57.723 --> 00:34:05.598
- ALPR cameras in certain video surveillance technology. So that'll be heard tomorrow on which might be

00:34:05.598 --> 00:34:11.774
- of interest of, as you said, I think Justin, for the commission if you want to.

00:34:12.034 --> 00:34:20.519
- Zoom in, support it, or whatever you want to do. Because I know this commission has discussed it quite

00:34:20.519 --> 00:34:28.675
- a lot. We have final vote on the budget tomorrow and a number of other things. It's a busy agenda.

00:34:28.675 --> 00:34:36.913
- But that's, I think, the only thing relevant for the commission. The memo about the flock equipment

00:34:36.913 --> 00:34:40.702
- that was still up, when did you say that was?

00:34:41.890 --> 00:34:49.108
- When did the memo appear? It just came out. It was too late for the packet addendum. So it was just

00:34:49.108 --> 00:34:56.471
- sent to us. I can forward it to you all. Should I do that? If you're able to and you don't mind, that

00:34:56.471 --> 00:35:03.978
- would be great. Yes, I'll do that now. Okay. So there's still flock equipment up in some areas? Is that

00:35:03.978 --> 00:35:11.774
- what it's saying? Or that was- Four cameras that are still under contract. So the contract is not canceled.

00:35:11.906 --> 00:35:18.781
- And then I think the equipment, the other thing that our resolution was about is that there is still

00:35:18.781 --> 00:35:25.792
- equipment physically up, ostensibly not operational. OK. Yeah, I'm guessing those four cameras are the

00:35:25.792 --> 00:35:32.871
- PTZ Condor cameras, which are different from the other ALPR cameras. So yeah, OK, good to know, because

00:35:32.871 --> 00:35:39.678
- that was the question that we had. And we will circle back to that discussion here in a little bit.

00:35:40.258 --> 00:35:47.158
- Wonderful. Any other questions for Councilmember O'Rourke? Okay. Then we'll move on to our next agenda

00:35:47.158 --> 00:35:54.124
- item, which is a capstone project proposal. So I will pass it over to Zach. All right. We have a guest,

00:35:54.124 --> 00:36:00.890
- Albert. Is it okay if he comes up? Yes, please. Yeah, come up here, Albert. Yeah, maybe right there.

00:36:00.890 --> 00:36:07.722
- Yeah. I'm going to open the seat here. So I hope you all had a chance to read the proposal. I'm going

00:36:07.722 --> 00:36:09.598
- to assume you did for this.

00:36:09.922 --> 00:36:15.388
- Basically, this would be just kind of a repeat of what we did last year, last spring, where we asked

00:36:15.388 --> 00:36:20.854
- for the O'Neill School to do a capstone project for us. This one is special. It's focusing on social

00:36:20.854 --> 00:36:26.320
- housing. What I was particularly interested in is how we could repeat something that they've done in

00:36:26.320 --> 00:36:32.056
- Montgomery County, which is a really innovative program where they've managed to produce a lot of housing

00:36:32.056 --> 00:36:37.576
- units for a relatively modest sum of money and maintain public control of them. Anyway, it's a really

00:36:37.576 --> 00:36:38.334
- cool program.

00:36:38.626 --> 00:36:45.358
- asking for the class to take a look at that and what I'm particularly interested in, how different amounts

00:36:45.358 --> 00:36:51.902
- of money or slightly tweaking the parameters a little bit would give different outputs at the end, like

00:36:51.902 --> 00:36:58.445
- how many housing units we could get and how to maximize the number of affordable publicly owned housing

00:36:58.445 --> 00:37:04.800
- units by tweaking the parameters specific to Monroe County and Bloomington. So yeah, Alberto's here.

00:37:04.800 --> 00:37:06.750
- He would be leading the class.

00:37:07.810 --> 00:37:14.019
- Basically, just if you have any questions or comments or anything. What is your name? So I can put it

00:37:14.019 --> 00:37:20.167
- in a minute. Yeah, Elvira Sovertega. And the idea here, I think, so I'm going to ask that we vote to

00:37:20.167 --> 00:37:26.498
- confirm that we are committed for this, because we're committing ourselves to this project through May.

00:37:26.498 --> 00:37:32.706
- So I think it's a good idea for us to vote today to confirm that we're on board for that. And I think

00:37:32.706 --> 00:37:37.150
- the process-wise, the way this would work would be, I have this proposed

00:37:38.274 --> 00:37:43.874
- Proposal I guess I don't know is what it's called project proposal The idea here would be I think and

00:37:43.874 --> 00:37:49.475
- maybe you can correct me on this if I'm wrong But you would you would work with your students to come

00:37:49.475 --> 00:37:55.075
- up with sort of a proposed statement of work that you would use This is the basis for come back to us

00:37:55.075 --> 00:38:00.730
- with and then we would approve it again sometime in January Is that maybe yeah? Yeah, we need the last

00:38:00.730 --> 00:38:04.958
- project we approve the statement of work Okay, yeah early next year. Yeah so

00:38:05.250 --> 00:38:12.053
- The idea here is if you have any issues with what I have written here, now would be a good time to talk

00:38:12.053 --> 00:38:18.595
- about it. Or within the next couple of months, let me know so I can pass it on to Alberto. And then

00:38:18.595 --> 00:38:25.137
- he can use whatever that feedback is to inform the writing of the statement of work. And then we'll

00:38:25.137 --> 00:38:31.679
- go from there. So I moved here from Montgomery County. But one thing that I didn't see in this, but

00:38:31.679 --> 00:38:33.118
- I think is one of the

00:38:33.442 --> 00:38:41.287
- cornerstones of what has been really successful in Montgomery County is that because this housing policy

00:38:41.287 --> 00:38:49.431
- is integrated with their school districting policy as well. So this publicly owned but also their affordable

00:38:49.431 --> 00:38:57.201
- housing policy overall is integrated with their school policy where there are proportions of every area

00:38:57.201 --> 00:39:00.190
- of every community that are retained as

00:39:00.386 --> 00:39:08.235
- I forget if it's publicly owned. It's been a while since I've looked at this data. And that helps maintain

00:39:08.235 --> 00:39:16.084
- socioeconomic integration, especially in the elementary schools, which is more effective than even putting

00:39:16.084 --> 00:39:23.567
- more money into schools with higher populations of students living in poverty. So there's a cascading

00:39:23.567 --> 00:39:25.694
- impact of this mixed income.

00:39:25.890 --> 00:39:32.236
- that also benefits school policy, and that's one of the, that's kind of like a parallel policy thing

00:39:32.236 --> 00:39:38.646
- that goes on with this, but there's a ton of research in that, in that vein with regard to Montgomery

00:39:38.646 --> 00:39:45.055
- County and their housing policy and their affordable housing policy. Not necessarily specifically the

00:39:45.055 --> 00:39:51.150
- social housing, but that's the framework of the work. It has an impact on education. Yeah. Okay,

00:39:51.150 --> 00:39:55.486
- that's cool. I was the research assistant for one of the guys there.

00:39:56.130 --> 00:40:04.179
- get a lot of that research. But for his, I worked on his second book, not that book. Any other questions

00:40:04.179 --> 00:40:11.845
- or discussion, comments, thoughts? I have a question for you, actually. What class do you teach, or

00:40:11.845 --> 00:40:19.818
- what's the name of the class? It's a capstone course, so it's for master students at the O'Neill School

00:40:19.818 --> 00:40:22.654
- of Public and Environmental Affairs.

00:40:23.170 --> 00:40:30.074
- as part of their program, Nancy Capsum course, and it involves kind of doing something with the community,

00:40:30.074 --> 00:40:36.590
- the city, with the nonprofit, engaging in some project, and we're supposed to treat you all, whoever

00:40:36.590 --> 00:40:43.236
- the nonprofit is, as a client, so we take it very seriously, and essentially conduct a really rigorous

00:40:43.236 --> 00:40:50.462
- kind of research project. That's kind of the goal, the hope. Go ahead. What size are the student teams usually?

00:40:51.234 --> 00:40:57.310
- That will be a limitation for this capstone. So usually, they're between 10 and 15. For this specific

00:40:57.310 --> 00:41:03.446
- course, we started a new master's program. So there might be, we're hoping, at least five. There might

00:41:03.446 --> 00:41:09.403
- be five. I mean, there are going to be at least five, but we're hoping for a few more. So that will

00:41:09.403 --> 00:41:15.598
- definitely be a limitation in what we can provide. And the other thing is it needed to be quantifiable,

00:41:15.598 --> 00:41:18.398
- right? Is that what you're talking about? Yes.

00:41:19.042 --> 00:41:24.267
- One of the pieces of this, sorry, is one of the pieces is that we have to, for these specific master

00:41:24.267 --> 00:41:29.440
- students, there has to be a quantitative component. So it can't just be all surveys. There might be

00:41:29.440 --> 00:41:34.717
- some surveys that could be helpful, but they're just a part of the program. There has to be some kind

00:41:34.717 --> 00:41:40.046
- of data analysis or something. So that will be part of this project in some shape or form. And I don't

00:41:40.046 --> 00:41:45.426
- think that should be too hard because a lot of it revolves around public finance and how do we finance,

00:41:45.426 --> 00:41:48.478
- just exactly saying, how do we finance the social housing.

00:41:50.434 --> 00:41:57.510
- Yes. How are the other parameters for choosing topics like are there, you know, from a year to the next

00:41:57.510 --> 00:42:04.381
- something that you're looking to engage with or is it more like things that have to come up and feel

00:42:04.381 --> 00:42:06.558
- appropriate. To be frank, it's.

00:42:07.106 --> 00:42:11.950
- you know, the director of the Matching Forgiveness comes and says, Alberto, can you teach a capstone

00:42:11.950 --> 00:42:16.746
- course? And I say, sure. You know, I like doing research. That's what I do in my spare time, right?

00:42:16.746 --> 00:42:21.542
- Or part of my job is teaching research. And then I was in discussions with David Swindell, who runs

00:42:21.542 --> 00:42:26.722
- the Public Policy Institute in Indianapolis. And he has so many connections around Indiana and the country.

00:42:26.722 --> 00:42:31.998
- And I was in talks with him to see, because he gets requests all the time from localities all around Indiana.

00:42:32.354 --> 00:42:37.748
- But then Zach kind of reached out in some way to them and then I was like, oh, this sounds, I wasn't

00:42:37.748 --> 00:42:43.356
- aware of this program and this sounds fascinating. So I was like, sure, this sounds like a good project.

00:42:43.356 --> 00:42:48.858
- So yes, this is not something that I've been thinking about or anything. This is like literally me and

00:42:48.858 --> 00:42:54.412
- the students are supposed to do the work. So it's me kind of helping them and guiding them through this

00:42:54.412 --> 00:42:59.486
- process. There's four potential clients. There's an email inquiry process where you can submit

00:42:59.650 --> 00:43:15.587
- a request for a capstone course. Or you can just have graduated from the O'Neill School and reach out

00:43:15.587 --> 00:43:27.774
- to professors you know. Can we do a capstone course? However. I know you have

00:43:28.034 --> 00:43:33.661
- you and Alex's primary contacts, what, beyond sort of like the meeting's capacity do you need from the

00:43:33.661 --> 00:43:39.178
- rest of the commission? Any, or? I mean, if there's a, if something comes up and it's off and we end

00:43:39.178 --> 00:43:44.640
- up having to change the plan somehow, like we're not gonna be able to do exactly what we planned, I

00:43:44.640 --> 00:43:50.158
- will come back to you and tell you, ask for your input on what direction we should go, that would be

00:43:50.158 --> 00:43:55.620
- the main thing. I also said we can help facilitate, like if you need, if the class needs a contact,

00:43:55.620 --> 00:43:57.150
- you know, house it at hand,

00:43:57.282 --> 00:44:04.491
- department or something, or Bloomington Housing Authority, we could help put them in touch. But beyond

00:44:04.491 --> 00:44:11.700
- that, I don't anticipate a ton. Beyond the initial input that I'm hoping to get from you guys on which

00:44:11.700 --> 00:44:18.839
- direction we should go. And at some point, there will be a presentation. Yes. And hopefully, if other

00:44:18.839 --> 00:44:25.278
- people were there, that would be great as well. Yes. Great. Any other discussion? One more.

00:44:26.242 --> 00:44:32.340
- We're gonna vote on this tonight and hopefully commit to actually going all the way through to May.

00:44:32.340 --> 00:44:38.560
- I assume that won't be an issue, but when do you need to know if we have any changes to this? Bye. As

00:44:38.560 --> 00:44:44.902
- soon as possible. Because the statement of, that is the one thing with Capstone, it's like the semester

00:44:44.902 --> 00:44:51.122
- starts and students have other classes and things are kind of keep going and then before you know it,

00:44:51.122 --> 00:44:54.110
- it's February and we need the statement of work.

00:44:54.370 --> 00:45:00.168
- It's before January, basically. Yes. If you have any, I would ask if you have any changes, get them

00:45:00.168 --> 00:45:05.966
- to me by our next meeting. Any proposed changes, we can decide then and finalize it then. Does that

00:45:05.966 --> 00:45:12.054
- work for everybody? Should we just send directly to you? I think that works. Yeah. Okay. We're not doing

00:45:12.054 --> 00:45:17.910
- like a line item for resolution. Yeah. I think that's all right. Yeah. Then I'll summarize and bring

00:45:17.910 --> 00:45:22.142
- them to the next meeting. We can talk about it then. All right. Awesome.

00:45:23.938 --> 00:45:30.847
- Okay, so, and I, sorry if I just missed this as I was reading something. So you were going to be the,

00:45:30.847 --> 00:45:37.689
- so the BCCOS POC for this. With Alex's help, but maybe not probably yet. Okay, cool, yeah. So we can

00:45:37.689 --> 00:45:44.530
- move on to the vote if there's no further discussion. Yeah, can I just ask that maybe get people get

00:45:44.530 --> 00:45:51.710
- you before the notice date of the next meeting? Yeah, so one week before the next meeting. Yeah, so yeah.

00:45:52.162 --> 00:45:58.925
- So that anything can get into the packet. Yeah. Yeah, good. And so is the idea that if there were any

00:45:58.925 --> 00:46:06.020
- changes, we would vote on it? We can discuss it again. Yeah, if we need to vote, I guess. It's not subject

00:46:06.020 --> 00:46:12.784
- to revolution. Yeah, we can just discuss it in our next meeting, and I can adapt whatever needs to be

00:46:12.784 --> 00:46:15.038
- adapted based on that discussion.

00:46:15.266 --> 00:46:26.140
- Okay, so today we're basically voting to commit to this project. Knowing that this is the general scaffolding

00:46:26.140 --> 00:46:36.321
- of it, which might change a little bit. Yeah. Perfect. All right. Well, we can move on to a vote then.

00:46:36.321 --> 00:46:41.758
- Yes, thank you. Thank you, Ross. And there's a second.

00:46:41.986 --> 00:46:48.585
- Wonderful. All right, now we can vote for this project proposal. OK, Tara. Yes. Yes, Justin. We're all

00:46:48.585 --> 00:46:55.055
- in the room. Do we need to do a roll call vote? If people want to do a roll call vote for this, they

00:46:55.055 --> 00:47:01.718
- prefer a voice vote. I guess it's simple. Just making sure you weren't just still in. Yeah, it's a good

00:47:01.718 --> 00:47:08.445
- observation. Let's just voice vote as we go. OK, perfect. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed,

00:47:08.445 --> 00:47:09.854
- nay. Any abstentions?

00:47:10.722 --> 00:47:20.921
- All right, great. Proposal is approved. Thank you so much. Yes, thank you for coming. Thank you. You're

00:47:20.921 --> 00:47:30.728
- welcome to stay. OK, great. That brings us to agenda item 6B, which is Mayor Thompson's response to

00:47:30.728 --> 00:47:39.358
- our flock request for information that we approved last time. Scroll a little bit here.

00:47:41.762 --> 00:47:47.705
- Yeah, so we voted to approve this letter at the last meeting and then that went out the next day. And

00:47:47.705 --> 00:47:53.706
- then on September 14th, a few days later, we got back this response from the mayor. So she said, thank

00:47:53.706 --> 00:47:59.532
- you for forwarding the commission's letter. The administration is addressing this topic through our

00:47:59.532 --> 00:48:05.650
- ongoing collaboration with the common council and we will continue to move the work forward there. Thank

00:48:05.650 --> 00:48:10.078
- you for your continued service to the city. So I wanted to open this up and

00:48:10.626 --> 00:48:19.328
- give everyone an opportunity to discuss the response here. I think it's good that this was a prompt

00:48:19.328 --> 00:48:28.379
- response and it was personally addressed to us, so definitely appreciate that. I think it didn't answer

00:48:28.379 --> 00:48:37.342
- any of the questions that we had posed. We've posed six very specific questions. We also asked that if

00:48:37.666 --> 00:48:45.971
- the mayor could not answer any of those questions to maybe provide a rationale for that or the details.

00:48:45.971 --> 00:48:54.196
- He didn't get that. We also suggested that somebody from the administration could attend a meeting and

00:48:54.196 --> 00:49:02.820
- offer a briefing or discuss with us and no response to that either. I'm not aware of any recent discussions

00:49:02.820 --> 00:49:05.854
- that have happened at council between

00:49:05.954 --> 00:49:12.587
- the mayor's office and at common council meetings, aside from the ordinance that council is working

00:49:12.587 --> 00:49:19.221
- on. But as we just learned, there's still a contract in force, at least one, and there's still some

00:49:19.221 --> 00:49:25.987
- cameras up, which is exactly why we were asking these questions, to try to understand better what the

00:49:25.987 --> 00:49:32.222
- current state is. So I think we still have more questions than we have answers at this point.

00:49:32.994 --> 00:49:42.316
- So yeah, I don't think it really reflects the care that we put into putting that request together.

00:49:42.316 --> 00:49:52.579
- And yeah, so I want to open it up to the table just to get feedback, comments, views, suggestions. Question.

00:49:52.579 --> 00:49:59.358
- Yeah. What do we know the terms of the contract for the remaining four?

00:49:59.650 --> 00:50:04.940
- Yeah, I think that the copy of the contract that would apply there is public. And so in principle, I

00:50:04.940 --> 00:50:10.229
- think we know that. But I think we have to guess that that's the particular contract that's still in

00:50:10.229 --> 00:50:15.466
- force, because we were never told specifically which contracts were no longer in force. So we don't

00:50:15.466 --> 00:50:20.756
- know how long. I mean, we'd have to go reading. Yeah, I think we'd probably have a pretty good idea,

00:50:20.756 --> 00:50:26.255
- but we don't know for sure. And yeah, we definitely have to dig into that document. I just want to point

00:50:26.255 --> 00:50:28.350
- out that two days after this, the mayor

00:50:29.346 --> 00:50:34.169
- an interview with Indian Public Media said, the city has already decided to end our relationship with

00:50:34.169 --> 00:50:38.992
- Flock. That was an executive decision. We made it. I made the decision. We ended our LPR, our license

00:50:38.992 --> 00:50:43.957
- plate reader contracts back in the spring. There are other entities that may have Flock cameras in town,

00:50:43.957 --> 00:50:49.158
- which means that within city limits, you may still see Flock cameras. Those could be owned by the university.

00:50:49.158 --> 00:50:51.806
- Our LPRs are down. Are all down, she said. They're not.

00:50:52.450 --> 00:51:00.012
- Well, if it's if they're using the converse, that's not. It's misleading investors. Yeah. Well, the

00:51:00.012 --> 00:51:07.725
- question I would have about that has to do with claiming agency for the decision. I wonder if there's

00:51:07.725 --> 00:51:15.362
- a sort of narrow path for that to be true. But as we see in the letter that was transmitted, we have

00:51:15.362 --> 00:51:20.958
- different classes, 11 ALPRs for video cameras for mobile trailer systems.

00:51:21.378 --> 00:51:30.220
- My question is about, so the original terms of the original agreement were two years that we would still

00:51:30.220 --> 00:51:39.062
- be within, if I read the dates correctly. The council resolved to terminate the contract, but then there

00:51:39.062 --> 00:51:47.230
- was some foot dragging, it sounded like, from the administration, if I remember correctly, about

00:51:47.874 --> 00:51:56.595
- like being constrained by contract term limits or something like that, that there was some sort of wiggle

00:51:56.595 --> 00:52:05.069
- room in that. Are the four existing cameras, so A, under what circumstances were the ALPRs taken down?

00:52:05.069 --> 00:52:13.379
- Was that in response to the council, and people I know are very unclear on what's going on, what the

00:52:13.379 --> 00:52:17.246
- status of things is? And B, is there a second,

00:52:17.410 --> 00:52:23.436
- Agreement or is are the four existing cameras covered by the terms of the first agreement is you know,

00:52:23.436 --> 00:52:29.346
- like How could those still be up if they were covered by the terms of the original agreement and why

00:52:29.346 --> 00:52:35.430
- wouldn't we already have known about a second agreement if why wouldn't that have been divulged in sort

00:52:35.430 --> 00:52:41.632
- of like, you know, so to speak discovery When the council was addressing this problem back in the winter.

00:52:41.632 --> 00:52:44.382
- Does anyone know answers to those questions? I

00:52:47.234 --> 00:52:55.370
- And I think that the resolution did talk about the physically still existing cameras and the ongoing

00:52:55.370 --> 00:53:03.506
- contracts. But a lot of our questions were also around the data, the data access. Are you continuing

00:53:03.506 --> 00:53:12.126
- to partner with other entities that are using this data? Did you delete it? Did you verify it was deleted?

00:53:15.394 --> 00:53:23.731
- I don't know what ongoing collaboration with common council means, but I'm going to go out on a limb

00:53:23.731 --> 00:53:32.315
- and say, I don't know the answer to that question either. But what is the next available step? We can't

00:53:32.315 --> 00:53:40.816
- do anything. We're advisory. But what are the avenues available to get this information? Is it to send

00:53:40.816 --> 00:53:42.302
- a similar letter?

00:53:42.530 --> 00:53:49.154
- council and say, hey, the mayor's office says, you have this information. Is it a FOIA request on behalf

00:53:49.154 --> 00:53:55.526
- of the commission? Yeah. Are these contracts not publicly available information? Are they covered by

00:53:55.526 --> 00:54:02.086
- any kind of? They are. And I think most of them, most if not all of them, have been made public through

00:54:02.086 --> 00:54:08.458
- requests that various members of the community have been making. And this is part of what drove some

00:54:08.458 --> 00:54:11.486
- of these questions that we put into the letter.

00:54:11.714 --> 00:54:17.615
- was like, I've seen this contract. And I know it doesn't expire until, whatever, 2027 or something like

00:54:17.615 --> 00:54:23.346
- this. So when they were talking about how they reached the end of a contract and they let it expire,

00:54:23.346 --> 00:54:29.020
- I'm like, well, that one doesn't expire for quite a while. So what happened with that one? And that

00:54:29.020 --> 00:54:34.751
- was one of the big questions. So I'm guessing that's the one that's still in force, if there is only

00:54:34.751 --> 00:54:40.766
- one still in force. And I'd also be curious if down means they're off or they've been physically removed.

00:54:42.178 --> 00:54:48.144
- Yeah, the lay of the land would be a quite useful thing to have in relation to this, because otherwise

00:54:48.144 --> 00:54:54.457
- we're just saying random things in the dark while people who understand the actual organization of phenomena

00:54:54.457 --> 00:55:00.365
- around this continue doing whatever they want. I think we have to be informed in a concrete way about

00:55:00.365 --> 00:55:06.388
- these things. And I guess my question is, are there barriers to that, like legitimate barriers in terms

00:55:06.388 --> 00:55:08.126
- of things being confidential?

00:55:08.962 --> 00:55:16.962
- where I haven't done a lot of digging into public policy or these kinds of agreements, but I'd be happy

00:55:16.962 --> 00:55:24.808
- to try and do that if I can get pointed in the right direction. Could I just add that I sent everyone

00:55:24.808 --> 00:55:32.731
- the memo that I referred to before. This was dated October 12th, so yesterday from the sponsors. These

00:55:32.731 --> 00:55:38.654
- are good questions for tomorrow's meeting. But within the memo, it describes

00:55:39.074 --> 00:55:45.314
- on April 15th of this year, the mayor announced that the city had not renewed its contract for FLOC

00:55:45.314 --> 00:55:51.741
- ALPRs, which expired on March 5th. A report from Police Chief Mike Deakoff the same day explained that

00:55:51.741 --> 00:55:58.168
- the city still had contracts with FLOC for four downtown surveillance cameras and four mobile security

00:55:58.168 --> 00:56:04.470
- trailers. As of today, those contracts are still in effect, and the mayor's administration can still

00:56:04.470 --> 00:56:05.406
- legally engage

00:56:05.890 --> 00:56:14.611
- a different vendor to reinstate ALPRs in our community. I haven't seen those contracts, but apparently

00:56:14.611 --> 00:56:23.586
- the sponsors have. As you said, they're public, so we could have those to Murl's meeting. I could request

00:56:23.586 --> 00:56:32.222
- those. If you have any other questions, please let me know or other council members, so happy to ask.

00:56:32.866 --> 00:56:40.635
- This is just from a quick search, but data.bloomington.in.gov. If you just search for contracts in there,

00:56:40.635 --> 00:56:48.332
- they do have a data set that has all the city's contracts going back to 2018. And I just searched Flock,

00:56:48.332 --> 00:56:55.661
- and it comes up with the 2024 Flock agreement and then the 2025 addendum. So those two come up, and

00:56:55.661 --> 00:56:57.054
- then they're easy.

00:56:57.250 --> 00:57:03.357
- time just from this search. But yeah, I don't know what else exists. Well, they still have them. They

00:57:03.357 --> 00:57:09.523
- still have contracts that still say they haven't expired. Yeah. And I think there was another contract

00:57:09.523 --> 00:57:15.749
- or something that wasn't in that database originally that came out through a records request. And we've

00:57:15.749 --> 00:57:21.736
- had them in the packet before. So in the meeting where we passed the resolution on FLOC, I think it

00:57:21.736 --> 00:57:22.814
- was that meeting,

00:57:23.106 --> 00:57:30.695
- There was like a second packet, which was all just full of flock stuff. And all of the contracts are

00:57:30.695 --> 00:57:38.434
- in there. So go and look at those. We had also talked at the meeting where we heard this, where we did

00:57:38.434 --> 00:57:46.023
- the reading of this, about maybe a second resolution, or a request, or even our own research on what

00:57:46.023 --> 00:57:53.086
- is available in terms of what the data have been accessed. How the data have been accessed by

00:57:53.506 --> 00:58:00.508
- the city's police department. I do not have the capacity right now to do that, but if anybody wants

00:58:00.508 --> 00:58:07.510
- to, I can send you some of the research that I have. Because I think very shortly after we had that

00:58:07.510 --> 00:58:14.862
- meeting, there was like another, there was a, I forget the entity that did it, but there was a big study

00:58:14.862 --> 00:58:22.494
- that there was like, like the reasons, the like reasons column that police were using was like LOL. Like JK.

00:58:22.658 --> 00:58:29.728
- random string of letters, and then Flock changed it so that that wasn't an open text column anymore.

00:58:29.728 --> 00:58:37.007
- But they found something, and including in Indiana, there was a city entity in Indiana included in that

00:58:37.007 --> 00:58:44.287
- data set if I remember correctly. So I would love to move forward on that, but I can't do it right now.

00:58:44.287 --> 00:58:52.126
- But if anybody else wants it, I will give you whatever I have. Yeah, I think I remember too that there was some

00:58:53.282 --> 00:58:59.670
- Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it was mentioned that there was some sort of internal audit

00:58:59.670 --> 00:59:05.994
- that happened or that was going to happen. It says, okay, we're going to audit these things. But it

00:59:05.994 --> 00:59:12.318
- either wasn't made public or it's not intended to be made public or something along those lines. So

00:59:12.318 --> 00:59:18.769
- I don't know if something like that would be public access request sort of thing. I'll try to go back

00:59:18.769 --> 00:59:20.350
- through and see if I can

00:59:21.218 --> 00:59:27.759
- I might have just made that up in my head, so don't take my word for that. We definitely talked about

00:59:27.759 --> 00:59:34.364
- it, about an audit being a good idea. We had talked about the fact that it would be good to do a third

00:59:34.364 --> 00:59:41.098
- party audit. Yeah, maybe that's what I remember. But I remember something like that in maybe the initial

00:59:41.098 --> 00:59:47.511
- conversation. And then the initial briefing that council had, I think they said something about it.

00:59:47.511 --> 00:59:51.102
- Paid for by hand. I saw that too. It's like, what? Why?

00:59:51.458 --> 00:59:59.614
- That's unusual. Oh, yeah. You're talking about why did it go to hand? Yeah. Yeah. I think that was somewhat

00:59:59.614 --> 01:00:07.845
- a procedural thing. But also, I think they were placing one of the cameras near some particular neighborhood

01:00:07.845 --> 01:00:15.925
- or something. It caught my eye at first, too. And then as I dug into it deeper, I'm like, OK, that doesn't

01:00:15.925 --> 01:00:21.438
- seem too crazy. But yeah, it is kind of strange. Yeah. Do you feel like?

01:00:22.786 --> 01:00:32.633
- council has better grasp on what's going on here, or are you guys just as much in the dark as we are?

01:00:32.633 --> 01:00:42.674
- Well, frankly, I knew this ordinance was coming, which I'm supportive of. I didn't know that there were

01:00:42.674 --> 01:00:50.590
- still operational cameras, and I wasn't aware that the contract was still active.

01:00:51.394 --> 01:01:00.209
- I do have questions about that, but I guess there'll be representatives from the administration that

01:01:00.209 --> 01:01:08.937
- we can ask tomorrow at the meeting. So of course, we'll have public comments. And so if there's any

01:01:08.937 --> 01:01:17.927
- questions that evolve, feel free to ask them during public comments, and then we could entertain those

01:01:17.927 --> 01:01:20.894
- questions. Did we? Well, I guess.

01:01:22.402 --> 01:01:31.356
- Do we want to authorize a member of this commission who can be there tomorrow to provide public comment

01:01:31.356 --> 01:01:40.395
- on our letter and the mayor's response? Add the council. We could do that. I'm not volunteering. I can't

01:01:40.395 --> 01:01:49.263
- be there. But if there is somebody who could do it, we can, as a body, authorize. That's a great idea.

01:01:49.263 --> 01:01:52.190
- Do we have a volunteer? I cannot.

01:01:52.770 --> 01:02:00.121
- I'm not sure if I could. I might be able to make it, but I might not be able to state that point of

01:02:00.121 --> 01:02:07.766
- meaning. I'm also liminal in terms of my fillability then. We can authorize volunteering Justin to send

01:02:07.766 --> 01:02:15.264
- a letter with our comments to general thoughts and just trust you to express a little. I mean, we can

01:02:15.264 --> 01:02:16.734
- also just authorize

01:02:18.466 --> 01:02:27.762
- Justin to forward the response from the mayor's office to the council. Yeah. She says you're working

01:02:27.762 --> 01:02:37.058
- on this. What's the objective for tomorrow specifically? Do we want to nudge the mayor to respond or

01:02:37.058 --> 01:02:45.342
- do we want to point out that she didn't respond or do we want to circle back and be like,

01:02:45.954 --> 01:02:54.001
- I think pointing out that she didn't respond and simply saying, here's the mayor's response to our carefully

01:02:54.001 --> 01:03:01.754
- thought out letter, and we find it inadequate, period. And that there are still all of these outstanding

01:03:01.754 --> 01:03:09.284
- questions, which I think are in line with what council is proposing in this ordinance change, is that

01:03:09.284 --> 01:03:15.486
- these are systems that are not secure, that are contrary to a functional democracy.

01:03:15.586 --> 01:03:24.145
- And that was what we got in the public support of our letter as well. If you were to draft something,

01:03:24.145 --> 01:03:32.788
- I could read it into the record. OK. If no one else can come, I'd be happy to do that. OK. Well, yeah,

01:03:32.788 --> 01:03:41.430
- we could do that. Sorry, I didn't mean to make extra work for people that I can't follow up on. That's

01:03:41.430 --> 01:03:45.374
- all right. Well, you moved to authorize Justin

01:03:45.762 --> 01:03:52.211
- write a letter on our behalf, forwarding the mayor's response in our thoughts on its adequacy. All right.

01:03:52.211 --> 01:03:58.478
- Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. All right, it was seconded. So sorry to put this on you,

01:03:58.478 --> 01:04:04.988
- I guess. Oh, that's OK. Again, if it's something I could send out, and then if I can't be there, something

01:04:04.988 --> 01:04:08.030
- short could be read into the record or something.

01:04:08.962 --> 01:04:15.267
- Great. So what would we want this short letter to say? I mean, these would be attachments, I assume,

01:04:15.267 --> 01:04:21.697
- right? Like the first response in our initial letter. I think just attaching those two things and then

01:04:21.697 --> 01:04:28.439
- I would say, I think adding a qualitative statement on there that we find it inadequate would be sufficient

01:04:28.439 --> 01:04:34.744
- for me. I don't know. Something like if I were writing the letter, I like the way you opened up your

01:04:34.744 --> 01:04:37.054
- comments acknowledging prompt reply.

01:04:37.698 --> 01:04:46.318
- direct response, and then we'll go on to say, unfortunately, none of the questions we posed were answered,

01:04:46.318 --> 01:04:54.454
- neither in substance nor even kind of at all. And however you might want to diplomatically put that,

01:04:54.454 --> 01:05:02.510
- but expressing it clearly and saying, like, you can see the attached, sorry, what is it called when

01:05:02.510 --> 01:05:04.766
- you attach it? Not display.

01:05:07.106 --> 01:05:15.209
- Exhibits. For more information, I appreciate that. Just to add to the discussion that's going to be

01:05:15.209 --> 01:05:23.475
- happening on behalf of council, more information, more context, just to say, hey, we passed this back

01:05:23.475 --> 01:05:31.983
- then, we asked for clarification, we received none, and that seems to bear on the conversation happening

01:05:31.983 --> 01:05:36.926
- tonight. I think to your question also of what is the point,

01:05:37.250 --> 01:05:44.396
- I think that we're great, and everything we do is really important. There's not as many eyes on our

01:05:44.396 --> 01:05:51.686
- packets as there are on a council meeting about this, and so it's a way to get this response in front

01:05:51.686 --> 01:05:58.904
- of more of the public. I didn't mean to apply. No, no, no. I just realized I had a better answer for

01:05:58.904 --> 01:06:06.622
- that. I had a more- Yeah. Because we could go at it where we, yeah, we could take two tacks. My thought is,

01:06:06.754 --> 01:06:13.416
- I think that more of the public's eyes should see this response in contrast to how thorough our request

01:06:13.416 --> 01:06:19.822
- was. And I think, in the context, how reasonable it was in terms of public information for the work

01:06:19.822 --> 01:06:26.421
- of our commission. Maybe it would be useful. I should just write a couple of things down and send them

01:06:26.421 --> 01:06:33.019
- to you. I'm sorry. But maybe one thing that might be useful for framing this would be to say something

01:06:33.019 --> 01:06:36.094
- like, there has been substantial or significant

01:06:37.794 --> 01:06:43.805
- lack of clarity, public confusion about the status of the resolution that was passed last May. I've

01:06:43.805 --> 01:06:50.358
- talked personally with lots of people who have experienced what feel like contradictory kinds of information

01:06:50.358 --> 01:06:56.550
- around this or at least unclear kinds of information around what's going on. This is part of a broader

01:06:56.550 --> 01:07:03.102
- conversation. There are lots of other polities in the nation that are doing exactly the same thing that this

01:07:03.458 --> 01:07:10.929
- administration is currently doing. My home city did the bait and switch where they said, oh, sure, we'll

01:07:10.929 --> 01:07:18.472
- get rid of flock. Then started up with axion or whatever they're called. Therefore, seeing the procedure,

01:07:18.472 --> 01:07:25.658
- understanding what's been going on, I think adds context information that is useful for deliberation

01:07:25.658 --> 01:07:32.062
- with the council, something like that. I'll try and write something down if it's helpful.

01:07:32.162 --> 01:07:39.703
- Okay, so yeah, so including that context in there, and should I include a statement that's like, like

01:07:39.703 --> 01:07:47.318
- you had said, like, the commission finds this response inadequate? Should I put some sort of statement

01:07:47.318 --> 01:07:54.859
- in there, like this is what the commission thinks, or just lay it out context-wise like that? I would

01:07:54.859 --> 01:07:56.190
- be firing, but...

01:07:57.762 --> 01:08:02.727
- I think it's important to make it clear that nothing was answered. But I think doing that with,

01:08:02.727 --> 01:08:08.053
- you know, you can glove the iron a little bit. Yeah. Well, there's a, you know, this thing hasn't been

01:08:08.053 --> 01:08:13.225
- answered. Here's what happened. And then there's, here's what we think about it. Here's a statement

01:08:13.225 --> 01:08:18.448
- of what we think about it. So I want to put that out there because I don't want to make something up

01:08:18.448 --> 01:08:23.878
- on my own. It's like, here's, the commission finds this, blah, blah, when it wasn't supposed to. I would

01:08:23.878 --> 01:08:27.550
- say I find this inadequate. Have we taken that tone before with, like,

01:08:28.322 --> 01:08:36.495
- other correspondents or sort of stances? Not that I've been here, but I don't think I've had a response

01:08:36.495 --> 01:08:44.590
- to this in hours. So this is a new situation. I don't know. I would be fiery with it, but anyway, I'll

01:08:44.590 --> 01:08:52.685
- leave it at that. Yeah. I mean, given that what we're voting on now is authorizing Justin to write the

01:08:52.685 --> 01:08:57.950
- text of it independently of all of us, I think it would be fine to

01:08:58.114 --> 01:09:05.699
- say that we're authorizing him to write it as we said, this was what we asked for. This was the response.

01:09:05.699 --> 01:09:12.927
- And you'll note that none of the questions were answered. And these questions are still outstanding.

01:09:12.927 --> 01:09:20.083
- Yeah, that only is a disappointing response, but it's also left and right. It's a non-response. And

01:09:20.083 --> 01:09:27.454
- if we want to not put the qualitative opinion of the commission, because we don't really have the time

01:09:28.162 --> 01:09:34.679
- words meant that, I think that's fine. I'm happy to bring up a motion to specifically authorize you

01:09:34.679 --> 01:09:41.392
- to use the word inadequate. You don't need a separate motion for that. You can do that in this motion.

01:09:41.392 --> 01:09:48.170
- It's part of discussion. But you're advocating for specifically using that word? I don't think you have

01:09:48.170 --> 01:09:52.862
- to, but I am okay with it. I think there's lots of ways disappointing a

01:09:53.026 --> 01:10:02.005
- Disappointing response that did not answer any of our questions. I think is All of these things I think

01:10:02.005 --> 01:10:11.156
- are sufficient ways to kind of address it, but I would advocate for Saying something that directed clear.

01:10:11.156 --> 01:10:18.494
- I think it's a it's valid and legitimate to express that the the council is you know

01:10:18.594 --> 01:10:27.424
- Mispleased with the response in some way like this is not a response it If that's a gesture of respect

01:10:27.424 --> 01:10:36.596
- it is arguably a disrespectful gesture You know, I think express the layering lading it with some Negative

01:10:36.596 --> 01:10:43.454
- valence in that way is valid. However, you want to finesse that is good I think

01:10:46.082 --> 01:10:53.187
- Maybe I'm being like over cautious or something, but I feel like often raising hackles is not like the

01:10:53.187 --> 01:11:00.155
- best way to do stuff except for theater. To be fair, the audience for this is council, not marriage.

01:11:00.155 --> 01:11:07.122
- The audience of this is council and the public. Understood. Which I think underscores why we need to

01:11:07.122 --> 01:11:09.054
- be like, this is not really

01:11:09.570 --> 01:11:15.120
- I guess my thought. I'm not trying to be like tiptoe, I'm just saying like, it's sufficient to say,

01:11:15.120 --> 01:11:20.669
- here's what we sent, here's what we got. We've got no substantive advantages of any kind. So we are

01:11:20.669 --> 01:11:26.607
- submitting this to the public and to the council for consideration in relation to this. We are unsatisfied

01:11:26.607 --> 01:11:32.323
- by the response that we got. I don't care how it's worded personally. But that brings up a good point.

01:11:32.323 --> 01:11:38.372
- Are we just there to say that and that alone, or do we have some sort of follow-up? Is there any opportunity

01:11:38.372 --> 01:11:39.038
- to be like,

01:11:41.762 --> 01:11:49.538
- out, right, ask for her to answer the question. There is, within the work of our commission, we could

01:11:49.538 --> 01:11:57.162
- send her a letter every month for the rest of her term and say, we want you to do this. And she can

01:11:57.162 --> 01:12:04.786
- keep saying, no, we do whatever we want. But I think, given the urgent, the time that it's tomorrow

01:12:04.786 --> 01:12:11.038
- and that we don't know that any of us can be there, I also, so like, I, this, my,

01:12:11.554 --> 01:12:19.338
- The reason I suggested it is because I think getting more eyes on the mayor's flippancy with regard

01:12:19.338 --> 01:12:27.433
- to public transparency on this is a way to support the council's effort. Because the council is saying,

01:12:27.433 --> 01:12:35.294
- this lacks transparency. We don't know how these data are being used. These data are undermining our

01:12:35.294 --> 01:12:41.054
- democracy. And when we asked for more information about it, she said, no.

01:12:41.506 --> 01:12:48.816
- Yeah. Okay. I just, I just back to the objective. Like it's like, we're all good on, you know, raising

01:12:48.816 --> 01:12:56.054
- the fact that her response was not good enough, but then, and do we want to try to like use that time

01:12:56.054 --> 01:13:02.654
- to, I just don't, I guess I just don't like want to show up in front of council and be like,

01:13:03.106 --> 01:13:09.257
- We're bummed we got this bad response. It's because we can't be there. Nobody can be there to give public

01:13:09.257 --> 01:13:12.158
- comment. So it's an email. He's writing an email.

01:13:12.290 --> 01:13:18.542
- Dave's going to read it into this. But we can't write anything. I mean, I don't really know what I'm

01:13:18.542 --> 01:13:24.794
- suggesting here. I'm just thinking of like, be the problem solver, not the problem maker. I'm trying

01:13:24.794 --> 01:13:31.046
- to put an end on that. Yeah, we're unhappy with this response. And so here's what you can do to make

01:13:31.046 --> 01:13:37.359
- us feel better. But again, we're speaking to the council. Yeah, I think that some things we could say

01:13:37.359 --> 01:13:40.702
- is we're unhappy with this response. And we hope that

01:13:40.866 --> 01:13:49.279
- the mayor can address this clarity with the council. There you go. She did not address it with us. I

01:13:49.279 --> 01:13:57.692
- also think that we could say that in the letter to the council, we can maybe say something like, and

01:13:57.692 --> 01:14:06.105
- as you're doing this work, not just passing a resolution to ban these things, but also let's force a

01:14:06.105 --> 01:14:10.270
- third party audit on record access. That might be

01:14:10.466 --> 01:14:17.559
- Yeah. Too much. I would recommend not putting it just because that's not in the context of it. That's

01:14:17.559 --> 01:14:24.722
- not in the content of our existing letter. But where you were going originally with it, I liked. Yeah.

01:14:24.722 --> 01:14:32.094
- It's a good idea. I agree. Yeah. OK. I think I have a pretty good sense. It's going to be fairly concise,

01:14:32.094 --> 01:14:39.326
- professional, but firm, stating the context of what this is and why it's relevant to the issue at hand.

01:14:39.490 --> 01:14:46.867
- and throughout that expressing that this is inadequate. We got Stonewall. So I think it's reasonable

01:14:46.867 --> 01:14:54.099
- to say we put in a reasonable request for clarity about these things that there have been multiple

01:14:54.099 --> 01:15:01.403
- governmental requests or resolutions passed around and the response we got was a non-response. This

01:15:01.403 --> 01:15:06.078
- materially bears on the conversation happening and is relevant.

01:15:06.210 --> 01:15:12.514
- it's important for the public to know that the intergovernmental sort of conversations happening look

01:15:12.514 --> 01:15:19.004
- like this. So that's why I'm saying, like, that is itself a kind of performative thing in my mind. Like,

01:15:19.004 --> 01:15:25.185
- it's without having to be like, mm, you know, like. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And I might, so I'll draft

01:15:25.185 --> 01:15:31.490
- something up tonight. And Zach, I might send it to you in the morning for you to do a quick look over

01:15:31.490 --> 01:15:35.198
- and give me your thoughts. And then if it's all good, then.

01:15:35.426 --> 01:15:44.151
- I'll send it out so Dave has it. OK, good. Any other discussion before we move on to the vote? No, but

01:15:44.151 --> 01:15:52.961
- thanks for the email. I love writing a letter. OK, we'll move on to a vote. Do we want to do this voice

01:15:52.961 --> 01:16:01.602
- vote, or anyone specifically want to roll call it? All right, all those in favor of authorizing me to

01:16:01.602 --> 01:16:04.990
- send the letter that we just discussed.

01:16:05.442 --> 01:16:13.603
- We have an emotional discussion. Yep, this time we got it. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed,

01:16:13.603 --> 01:16:21.454
- nay. Any abstentions? I abstain. One abstention. Wonderful. Thank you. OK, the motion passes. Great.

01:16:21.454 --> 01:16:29.149
- Palo also. Not present. Yeah, but it was a voice vote, so it doesn't have to be explicitly stated,

01:16:29.149 --> 01:16:34.046
- I suppose. OK, great. Thank you everybody for that discussion.

01:16:34.146 --> 01:16:42.668
- So that brings us on to resolutions for second reading. We are running very close to the end here. I

01:16:42.668 --> 01:16:51.359
- think it's okay if we start discussing, we can finalize in our next meeting. That's okay. On the retro

01:16:51.359 --> 01:17:00.303
- cycle? No, sorry. This is the resolution 2026-07, enhancing the city's protection of significant heritage

01:17:00.303 --> 01:17:02.750
- trees. Did you have a staff?

01:17:02.914 --> 01:17:09.008
- I don't want to cut too far into that if you had stuff to report. I have maybe just one point

01:17:09.008 --> 01:17:15.491
- of clarification since I already covered the budget item. Okay. Retro cycle, I think is item 6C and

01:17:15.491 --> 01:17:21.974
- is on one agenda, but not on the other. Sorry. So I've got the packet up. This is kind of confusing

01:17:21.974 --> 01:17:27.614
- because the packet has its own table of contents, which is the 6C you're seeing there.

01:17:27.938 --> 01:17:35.688
- Never mind. I could see why that's confusing. It's like, I swear I saw that as a sixth C. Yeah. So we

01:17:35.688 --> 01:17:43.513
- could start talking about for a couple of minutes if we think that would be useful or we can just send

01:17:43.513 --> 01:17:51.567
- the rest to the November meeting. Do you have a preference either way? I'd rather buy it. I have thoughts

01:17:51.567 --> 01:17:53.694
- on how we end our meetings.

01:17:54.850 --> 01:18:00.556
- Well, it's on the agenda, so we can go there. No, we'll go to Stafford. Stafford. Oh, we'd have to go

01:18:00.556 --> 01:18:06.431
- there. Yeah. Huh? We'd have to vote to the agenda. Oh, OK. Well, let's just then vote then. That's fine.

01:18:06.431 --> 01:18:12.081
- We can just push it to the next meeting, if that's what everybody wants to do. Is there insufficient

01:18:12.081 --> 01:18:17.899
- time? Huh? Is there insufficient time to be meeting the leaders? For tonight, yeah. Yes. Can you remind

01:18:17.899 --> 01:18:23.102
- me what is the difference between this and the letter that we talked about at the beginning?

01:18:24.482 --> 01:18:29.675
- separate but related topics. The letter that we talked about was a specific change to the UDO that had

01:18:29.675 --> 01:18:34.717
- been inserted by the planning department into the suite of UDO changes. This is a broad overhaul of

01:18:34.717 --> 01:18:39.809
- how the city handles heritage trees, which currently doesn't do anything at all with heritage trees.

01:18:39.809 --> 01:18:45.255
- And this would propose an entire framework for it. So why don't we chat about this for a couple of minutes?

01:18:45.255 --> 01:18:50.650
- It's on the agenda, so we can chat about it. And we just don't have to make a motion to go to the approval

01:18:50.650 --> 01:18:54.078
- stage. We can push that on. I mean, there's not really enough time.

01:18:54.242 --> 01:19:02.187
- if we're going to end at 730. So I would rather we just move into the staff report, if that's okay.

01:19:02.187 --> 01:19:10.133
- If we're going to end at 730. Okay. Do we need to move to table it? To change the agenda. Yeah. Why

01:19:10.133 --> 01:19:18.237
- don't we just make a motion to table it until the next meeting and then they'll automatically send us

01:19:18.237 --> 01:19:22.686
- to the next agenda item. So is there a motion for that?

01:19:23.394 --> 01:19:30.051
- I motion that we table this discussion for the next meeting. OK, is there a second? I second. OK, there's

01:19:30.051 --> 01:19:36.707
- a second. Wonderful. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay? Nay. Any abstentions? I abstain.

01:19:36.707 --> 01:19:42.987
- OK, one abstention, one nay. OK, so the motion carries. That brings us to the staff liaison report.

01:19:42.987 --> 01:19:49.392
- Over to you, Julie. Great. Yeah, just one point I wanted to clarify. I know there was some discussion

01:19:49.392 --> 01:19:50.334
- around quorum.

01:19:50.530 --> 01:19:57.603
- around EC in the last special meeting. And I did get specific communication that just reaffirms that

01:19:57.603 --> 01:20:04.605
- the legal department is treating quorum the way it has always been treated on this commission. Your

01:20:04.605 --> 01:20:11.607
- bylaws have established the quorum. Nothing changes. I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the

01:20:11.607 --> 01:20:18.750
- same page with that, since there was maybe a little confusion with the EC last time. Is it total bond

01:20:18.914 --> 01:20:29.069
- Total appointed or total present? Total appointed filled seats. Yeah, not the total potential body size.

01:20:29.069 --> 01:20:38.740
- Total filled seats is how we calculate the core. And that's in the bylaws. Not in terms of butts in

01:20:38.740 --> 01:20:48.702
- seats at specific meetings. That's the state law. So we have to have, according to city ordinance, 50%

01:20:49.090 --> 01:20:58.758
- are total seats plus one for corn, or is it 50% for corn? I forget the exact one. Or whatever your bylaws

01:20:58.758 --> 01:21:07.879
- say. Our bylaws say 50% of our filled seats, but at least half of those have to be in the room. And

01:21:07.879 --> 01:21:17.091
- that's a state law. So was legal interpreting that for any commission, or just the ones that specify

01:21:17.091 --> 01:21:19.006
- that in your bylaws?

01:21:19.458 --> 01:21:25.647
- says, after their discussion, COREM was based on the number of currently appointed members not available

01:21:25.647 --> 01:21:31.601
- seats. This does not apply to statutory boards and commissions. If a board or commission has adopted

01:21:31.601 --> 01:21:37.613
- bylaws that define COREM differently, the bylaws prevail, as long as they do not allow for fewer than

01:21:37.613 --> 01:21:43.744
- a majority of currently appointed members to take official action. I'm reading an email I received from

01:21:43.744 --> 01:21:48.990
- Jennifer Crossley. It's just, I think, because it was just an internal legal department.

01:21:49.090 --> 01:21:58.195
- discussion that kind of affected the EC and if they had quorum last time or not. Yeah, so I hope that

01:21:58.195 --> 01:22:07.121
- helped. OK, awesome. Thanks for sharing. You're welcome. May I ask the follow up question about the

01:22:07.121 --> 01:22:17.118
- budget? Sure. I'm curious what expense item that $6,000 exists in. Yeah, so there is just a dedicated line item

01:22:17.474 --> 01:22:26.367
- in the ESD budget that is for working group grants for this commission this year in 2026. So it's money

01:22:26.367 --> 01:22:35.346
- that's meant to go out from this commission? It's money that goes out from ESD, but the commission votes

01:22:35.346 --> 01:22:44.324
- to decide on how it is spent. Basically, they present proposals for projects that advance sustainability

01:22:44.324 --> 01:22:46.462
- in the community in ESD.

01:22:46.594 --> 01:22:55.790
- But it's not specified to be supplies or the proportion we can use for supplies. That's what we did

01:22:55.790 --> 01:23:05.446
- last year to get our banner down. What is ESD? ESD, Economic and Sustainable Development, my department.

01:23:05.446 --> 01:23:14.366
- Which your department is seeing pretty significant changes in their budget overall, right? Yeah.

01:23:14.754 --> 01:23:21.850
- Just into next year from this year, sustainability hasn't seen anything like groundbreakingly major

01:23:21.850 --> 01:23:29.087
- changing. For contracts, the city of South Bend cut their budget, sustainability office budget by 70%

01:23:29.087 --> 01:23:36.396
- had to lay off. Yeah. Yeah. Like this ongoing budget, or this next budget cycle? Yeah. Well, the last,

01:23:36.396 --> 01:23:44.414
- they actually got on it early and took care of it the last budget cycle. So they cut some of their programs too.

01:23:45.730 --> 01:23:51.575
- This cut is not coming from the council, this is coming from the head of ESD. Is that correct? Okay.

01:23:51.575 --> 01:23:57.535
- Yeah, but we have seen some substantial changes in the department, but that's for sure. Question about

01:23:57.535 --> 01:24:03.322
- the remainder money. Is it technically feasible given two more meetings to spend it? Is it possible

01:24:03.322 --> 01:24:09.109
- to bring up something next meeting that is okayed in December? That's what we were talking about at

01:24:09.109 --> 01:24:12.350
- the beginning about the cut. We don't have to spend it.

01:24:12.450 --> 01:24:18.994
- but December, right? It just has to be kind of approved and committed. Allocated, okay. So it is technically

01:24:18.994 --> 01:24:25.237
- still possible for us to allocate this money. So I should go out. I've got some people I know who might

01:24:25.237 --> 01:24:31.240
- have projects that are viable candidates. Get them to write these up. Okay, cool. Basically, it's a

01:24:31.240 --> 01:24:37.424
- November meeting that we have determined is the last possible meeting to vote as a commission in order

01:24:37.424 --> 01:24:41.086
- to have enough time for the city to be able to approve that.

01:24:41.634 --> 01:24:50.812
- that proposal in the spending. So if there were a proposal for budget allocation, I should send that

01:24:50.812 --> 01:25:00.444
- to you by? The ASAP. Just go to them and review it before it comes before us. If ESD can review it first,

01:25:00.444 --> 01:25:09.530
- then higher chances. Because we could pass it and ESD could say no. Sure. Let's see what I can get.

01:25:09.530 --> 01:25:11.166
- I don't remember.

01:25:11.362 --> 01:25:20.192
- On that $6,000, was there a per-project limit? No. No. No, but I had some correspondence with Sean last

01:25:20.192 --> 01:25:29.362
- year, and she said that they should be at least $1,000 just in terms of the overhead required to administer

01:25:29.362 --> 01:25:38.107
- the projects, that less than $1,000 is. It's in our interest to try to fund one big thing than a bunch

01:25:38.107 --> 01:25:39.550
- of small things.

01:25:40.194 --> 01:25:48.070
- And why would we not do the cups? It's just a matter of if anybody has capacity to write the project

01:25:48.070 --> 01:25:55.868
- proposal in the next three weeks or less than that to get it. It was like $14,000. I mean, that was

01:25:55.868 --> 01:26:03.899
- just the presentation from the initial proposal from them. So I guess the amount of time to figure out

01:26:03.899 --> 01:26:08.734
- the entire funding source, the composition of funding sources

01:26:08.962 --> 01:26:14.439
- Probably skimmed it, but it seems scalable to me, like the number of locations that were served. I think

01:26:14.439 --> 01:26:19.864
- it could be scaled down. But yeah, we could put in the proposal, like we'd like to contribute this much

01:26:19.864 --> 01:26:25.237
- as a portion of the total amount. And then we're going to go try to find other partners that will cost

01:26:25.237 --> 01:26:30.662
- share and bring the rest of it. And this would be our contribution. So yeah, I'll start working on that

01:26:30.662 --> 01:26:35.930
- one. And I'll email a couple of you who expressed interest and worked on that. And we can try to get

01:26:35.930 --> 01:26:37.182
- something put together.

01:26:38.402 --> 01:26:45.162
- Does it have to be something that the commission does not administer, a program or a project? The commission

01:26:45.162 --> 01:26:51.798
- should work on it, right? But it doesn't have to be. It could be a partner. Right. It could be a community

01:26:51.798 --> 01:26:58.558
- partner nonprofit organization who substantially does the work with the commission's oversight and reporting

01:26:58.558 --> 01:27:04.884
- and agreements and just collaboration, for sure. But I mean, there's some types of projects that seem

01:27:04.884 --> 01:27:06.558
- like they would need to be

01:27:06.850 --> 01:27:14.181
- led by commission members, just depending on what it is. OK, thank you for the background. Yeah. OK,

01:27:14.181 --> 01:27:21.513
- yeah, any more questions? Yeah, any other questions on that? OK, excellent. Yeah, that's mainly what

01:27:21.513 --> 01:27:28.771
- I have. Other than that, I know Sean mentioned the solar grants for Income Qualified Homeowners. We

01:27:28.771 --> 01:27:36.030
- were talking about that earlier, too. We received quite a lot of applications. That's very popular.

01:27:36.258 --> 01:27:44.583
- program. Yeah, so that's encouraging. Yeah. Awesome. Okay. Well, that brings us to member announcements

01:27:44.583 --> 01:27:52.907
- with our last 45 seconds. Any member announcements? Anything anyone want to announce? If people haven't

01:27:52.907 --> 01:27:57.950
- gone to indianarenergiesavers.com, you should do that or .gov.

01:27:58.434 --> 01:28:06.427
- Whatever. Look at Indiana Energy Savers. It's the state program of the federal homes and hear projects.

01:28:06.427 --> 01:28:14.497
- I applied in April. I'm finally to the point where I can move forward. I'm discussing details with them.

01:28:14.497 --> 01:28:22.414
- But I'm going to get about $20,000 of free state funding for my house will probably be all electrified

01:28:22.414 --> 01:28:26.718
- by the end of the year. So yeah, people should do that.

01:28:27.234 --> 01:28:35.633
- I tried to do it last year, and the paperwork was so hard. It just petered out. It was like to get ready.

01:28:35.633 --> 01:28:43.636
- I think that they have gotten it a little easier, but they will help you. Oh, they didn't last year.

01:28:43.636 --> 01:28:50.846
- They will help you now. Now they will. I'll make a secret quick announcement if any of you

01:28:51.298 --> 01:28:57.910
- know and love an IU student. ERI is accepting student applications for the McCain Climate Fellowship

01:28:57.910 --> 01:29:04.457
- for next summer, which is a full-time work placement. But they're due November 1st. So if you go to

01:29:04.457 --> 01:29:10.807
- the ERI website, it will be front and center on the ERI website. Awesome. Yeah, thanks for that.

01:29:10.807 --> 01:29:17.550
- All right. Well, that brings us to the end of our time. So we will stand adjourned at 7.30 PM. Thanks,

01:29:17.550 --> 01:29:18.270
- everybody.