- Ready? OK. This meeting is called to order. This is the special hearing of the Board of Transportation
- Commission for June 8, 2026. Can we please have a call of the roll? Connell? Here. Binder? Here. Bowman?
- Here. Flaherty? Here. Davis? Here. Stossberg? Here. We have a quorum. We'll be hearing reports
- and communications from commissioners and staff.
- And the primary item on the agenda is case TCR 2612, Carlos Kirkwood regarding City Council Ordinance
- 2026-12 to amend Title 15 to limit vehicular travel on certain streets and alleys. We'll have discussion
- of topics not on the docket, general public comment on items not on the docket, and then we'll adjourn.
- Are there any reports from commissioners?
- Seeing none, any reports from staff? Seeing none, let's go straight to case TCR 2612, Carlos Kirkwood.
- I just want to point out here that we're going to hear a statement of the case and a report from staff.
- We'll hear a presentation by the appellant. We'll take first round questions for the staff and the appellant
- by commissioners.
- We'll go to public comment. We'll have second round questions, discussion of the case among commissioners,
- and then we'll contemplate motions from members of the board. So why don't we start now with the statement
- of the case and the report from staff. Mr. Seaworth, will you present? Yes, I will. Thank you. Thanks,
- commissioners, for this time and actually kind of appreciating this environment just to have a good
- discussion.
- and appreciates those that are in attendance to also participate and help in our dialogue. Just as a
- quick recap, at our last regular hearing, we had a discussion. Essentially, as a result of that discussion
- was a desire to forward or have this discussion here today about the Carlos Kirkwood Ordinance 2026-12
- from our city council members. I'm here presenting primarily because this is a Title 15 ordinance, a
- traffic regulation, and that's typically something that the engineering department helps facilitate.
- But just want to note that there are staff from multiple departments here to assist in the dialogue
- and questions. Staff from planning, public works, and ESD are here.
- I also know that the chair did ask to have a legal representative attendant, but they are just there
- workload in case couldn't manage it. And also just wanting to keep the discussion more focused on the
- substance rather than some of the legal terms, but happy to entertain questions on that front as well.
- So with that said, just really jumping into what is under consideration. So it is ordinance 2026-12.
- It's essentially an ordinance that establishes new sections of city code that don't currently exist
- in our Title 15, which is where our traffic regulations are. So think where stop signs and speed limits
- and parking regulations are. This would add a new chapter called Chapter 65, Streets and Alley's Closed
- to Vehicular Travel. And it identifies essentially two sections or more to it of facilities that would
- be closed to vehicular travel. The primary section that is
- has been discussed is Kirkwood essentially from Walnut to Indiana. It would be a seasonal closure from
- April 1st to November 15th and occur on an annual basis. It would be that full block, but minus all
- the intersecting streets would still intentionally remain open to traffic. Just clarifying that that
- section is slightly different than what we were provided at our last meeting where it was two and a
- half blocks, but I think from hearing from council, it is the desire to have all five blocks included.
- And then additionally, just to make sure everybody is aware that there is also an alley that's between
- Kirkwood and 4th, from South Walnut essentially to 100 feet east of Walnut Street. And that alley closure
- is listed as annual. And just to share, I know we've got a couple council members here, which is wonderful.
- I can only base this assessment based off what was in the ordinance.
- happy that they're here to help answer questions that I might be missing. And really before I really
- get into some of the meat, just kind of framing the section of city code that establishes this commission
- really gives the guidance and the expectation that this body reviews things like this before city council
- takes action. City council is an intentionally pausing any action on this until this group could meet.
- So very appreciative of that. And in the section of code here, it says that,
- that you shall review these and it really provides a good framework for what this evaluation should
- take into consideration and I'll get into the meat of these later on in the presentation. In the staff
- report, I'm not going to go much into it, but we did provide some parking data and some summaries of
- events and activations happening downtown.
- Because that has been asked for but also just wanting to note that data isn't significantly altering
- or impacting my presentation or the staff report tonight And then really too for framing just
- the conversation is for the Commission to take an official action It does take five members to vote
- in favor of any one thing So just for for everybody's awareness and that comes from the bylaws I
- So this, I'm going to have this map up for a little bit as I just talk a little bit, but it's a good
- just framing of the area that we're talking about. The alley in question is essentially circled in red,
- and then the five blocks. I've numbered them because sometimes people refer to them by their
- block addressing. That's what the addressing comes from. What is those five blocks? The 100, 200, 300,
- and 400, 500 blocks.
- And essentially just a background in case somebody doesn't know all of the details and I will go very,
- very quickly through this. But since COVID pandemic hit, the city starting in 2020 essentially created
- some economic development opportunities and public safety and health opportunities to create more public
- space and to support economic activity that essentially resulted in closing of Kirkwood to create more
- space for people to be out and about. That's effectively been in place
- since 2020. I will note that in 2024 that program is essentially paused because of a very major nearby
- construction project led by our utilities department that just impacted the network so greatly that
- Kirkwood was kept open through that construction season. Starting in last year in 2025, city council
- did approve an ordinance essentially trying to establish a long-standing reoccurring program that could
- be predictable for the community.
- that had a couple components within it. One was the parklet program, which is active and alive and doing
- really well and continues to grow and enhance as the years go on. And another part of that was the seasonal
- closures of Kirkwood. And so with that framing and all the prior closures of Kirkwood, essentially just
- a good reminder that the Board of Public Works plays a really key role in the program.
- per that ordinance, the Board of Public Works sets annual guidelines for how those things run. And...
- Can I actually just ask a point of clarification just to... Sure. As a term of our closure, I want to
- make sure we're distinguishing between two different things, one of which is a closure of the public
- right-of-way to the public for private use of some kind, either the city to implement a project, a private
- developer to develop a project, or so on, versus
- Changing what is allowed on a street. So conversion is a term I've heard used conversion from a car
- only street to a pedestrian or shared public space streak or if we're gonna say closure About a mode
- we should be specific. So we're not conflating this concept. So closure to cars For you know to be used
- for a different purpose a little bit framing, but I just I
- It's not just a framing thing, it's also like a distinction between two totally different concepts,
- so I wanted to make sure we weren't conflating them, give her answer for the public. That's okay. Okay,
- can we please have clarification on that? Yeah, I think just apologize if I am trying to go quick going
- from one meeting to another and not fully as prepared as I wish, but that is correct. The ordinance
- specifically does use the term closure, but it is closing the street or a facility
- basically a street or an alley to automobile traffic. So the road or facility could still be open to
- the public, but it would be closing it to vehicles. Does that satisfy your inquiry? Yes, and in particular,
- I just wanted to make sure we were distinguishing between that, maintaining the public right of way
- as a public space for use by some set of individuals, regardless of who that is or some particular set
- of uses, versus closing the public right of way
- for private use on a limited basis. And in particular, I think about Florida Public Works and things
- like that. So yes, I think that satisfies. I just really wanted to fill in the ink between those concepts.
- Please route all your points of inquiry through the chair. But thank you for that, and if you could
- please continue. Yeah, and just I know we'll probably have more discussion about that. I think the ordinance
- does specifically just talk about the closure of streets and alleys to vehicular traffic. It doesn't
- say for what purpose. It just closes them to vehicles.
- So I also just wanted to give a little context here of the alley. So the alley in question is something
- that was reviewed by the predecessors of this commission, the city's parking commission and traffic
- commission. Both did review this I believe back in 2024.
- Essentially this was a request by a nearby adjacent business and some of their concerns staff through
- that process did identify concerns with the crest, citing the comprehensive plans goals for utilizing
- alleys for deliveries and vehicle access.
- Noting the ongoing College and Walnut Corridor Sonny and wanting to see how that would play out. And
- then just a desire to evaluate other facilities like it before making any changes. That being said,
- the Traffic Commission and Parking Commission did support the closure. Just wanting to note that the
- Traffic Commission vote was an interesting case where there were seven members and only three voted
- for it because there were two that were abstained.
- That vote did pass. After that discussion, staff had notified the petitioner of a couple opportunities
- or ways they could pursue to follow through on closing that street or the alley to vehicles, either
- through an encroachment process. Ultimately, that was, I think, the preferred alternative, but that
- was not pursued. Specific to the Kirkwood closure, I'm trying to make sure.
- Just to note that this year, the city did temporarily suspend the seasonal Kirkwood closure to automobile
- traffic. That was presented on through a memo, a discussion at city council, and ultimately a memo that
- temporarily did suspend it for the calendar year. And that was all going through the Board of Public
- Works as well.
- So just going through some details of the ordinance, as I mentioned, it does add a new section of Title
- 15 while there is ongoing discussion of what should or shouldn't be in Title 15 between city legal and
- city administration and council staff. And also just wanting to highlight that recognizing this is a focus of
- closing a facility to automobile traffic only. The city has never treated anything like that as a traffic
- regulation, and the state code doesn't list closing a facility to automobiles as a traffic regulation.
- So there's numerous examples of the city of closing facilities in that nature, and it hasn't been going
- through this process, it went more through the Board of Public Works.
- and various processes identified in Title 12 of city code. If this ordinance got approved, it would
- essentially create confusion on which board or body needs to review those, or if multiple boards and
- bodies do, and if both ones have different opinions, how do we proceed? So that is one concern with
- the ordinance. Another is that while the ordinance does contemplate emergency situations, it allows
- the city engineer
- to temporarily suspend components of it for up to 90 days, but it doesn't really detail what an emergency
- situation is. So how would we deal with things like construction project, like it's occurring at 115
- East Kirkwood, or if there was an adjacent significant roadway network project that impacted the system
- at large, how could that be processed?
- And then there's also just routine maintenance activities that typically require vehicles to access.
- So whether somebody is needing work on the roof, a grease trap, things like that are just reoccurring
- things that we know will happen on Kirkwood on an annual basis. So just as some little details on those
- issues that cause some concern.
- On the alley, just wanting to also highlight while it calls an annual closure of it, what is an annual
- closure, an annually closure? Is it for the full year? Is it temporarily? It just was a minor detail
- there. Not a key part of what your review is, but just on the fiscal impact of something like this.
- If the alley was closed specifically, we don't have the infrastructure in place like we do with Kirkwood,
- with Ballard, so there would be a fiscal impact of installing something for the alley closure. Also
- wanting to highlight that while it's not a direct fiscal impact or it's a really hard to measure fiscal
- impact, staff time and resources used to facilitate something like this, just wanting to recognize that.
- So I'm gonna just, I'm gonna start to jump into the four criteria that this body is framed with evaluating
- requests like this. So the first one is, is this request consistent with the comprehensive plan or other
- applicable city adopted plans? So our city transportation plan is a part of our city comprehensive plan
- and the transportation plan specifically identifies Kirkwood, a very specific project on Kirkwood trying to,
- focus on improving it for pedestrians, but it calls it a shared street. Shared street is a street per
- the transportation plan that accommodates automobile traffic, it accommodates on-street parking, it
- identifies that project, it says it should have a detailed public engagement process. So those are things
- that are in our adopted plans that this ordinance essentially is taking us further
- It's not moving us in the direction of the transportation plan. And so essentially the conclusion or
- the finding here is that the ordinance is inconsistent with the vision of the transportation plan because
- it eliminates vehicles and parking from Kirkwood and it's not facilitated the design as identified in the plan.
- The second criteria you're asked to evaluate requests like this for is, is it consistent with best practices
- for eliminating transportation related fatalities and serious injuries within the city? So essentially
- here, it isn't going to significantly impact safety is essentially my conclusion. Kirkwood is a high
- priority corridor from a safety lens, closing the road segment.
- likely could decrease crashes on that road segment, but it likely could impact other things. And whenever
- you're changing patterns, either introducing it block by block or seasonally, there is additional other
- risks. But essentially saying here, we're not expected to significantly alter the crash risk with this
- ordinance. The third criteria is, is this ordinance consistent with advancing a sustainable transportation
- system and equitable access to all transportation facility users
- while prioritizing non-automobile modes. So this one is really a mixed bag. So clearly it is trying
- to prioritize non-automobile modes because we are seasonally removing automobiles from a facility like
- Kirkwood. However, when it comes to shared streets, it is very, our transportation plan and a lot of
- other guidance says,
- We need to be really consistent and intentional about engaging with members of our community that might
- have accessibility challenges. So essentially this proposal is consistent with some transportation goals,
- but inconsistent with others because we have heard some concerns about accessibility. The last criteria
- you're asked to evaluate these with is has the proposal adequately conducted public engagement
- and considered community-centric design tied to targeted outcomes. So as far as I am aware, there has
- not been specific public engagement tied to this ordinance. I want to also recognize though that there
- has been significant public dialogue about Kirkwood, about the seasonal program, but there has not been
- something targeted to this proposal specifically.
- and that this specific request really is just a traffic regulation. So what you are voting on tonight
- is essentially whether to close a street or not. It is not about activation. It is not about other things.
- It is purely just about closing something to automobile traffic. I am sorry, I've probably done that
- a lot. It's not intentional. And so as a result of that, it also doesn't really do any of that
- community-centric design that achieves what I think everybody really wants to see
- is a much more active space that is comfortable and desirable to be with improved shades, more activity
- and things like that. And so essentially concluding here that this proposal has not complied with this
- criteria. So staff recommends that the Transportation Commission adopt the proposed findings and forward
- the resolution to amend Title 15, establishing the new chapter 1565,
- with a negative recommendation to city council, and I am happy to answer any questions you have. Well,
- we also need to hear from the appellant, and the recommendation's already been made, so it's a little
- awkward, but we need to let the appellant make their case. So I'd like to invite council members Rosenberger
- and Daly to the table. If we only have one chair available, if a second one could be made available,
- that would be good. I will move my mic to accommodate them. We have one right here, sorry. This one.
- A microphone or a chair? All right.
- Well, they seem to have accommodated themselves. So with that, I will turn over the floor to Councilor
- Rosenbarger and Daly. Please proceed with your presentation. And do you have slides? Yes. Are the slides?
- You got them? I appreciate that. Oh, OK. If you could put their slides up. Does that work from there?
- While the slides are being prepared, would you like to make any kind of opening remarks? I can't say.
- OK. Give us a minute. I would like to make an opening remark that I forgot my notebook, so I'm taking
- any notes on my phone. And I apologize for that.
- I don't think we've ruled phone usage inappropriate for this body, so. I just want to say that's what's
- happening. OK. She's not texting. Yeah. OK. Do you want to just start? Yeah, we can get started. If
- you're concerned about the slides, yeah. Go ahead. We can read off our slides. We can just read off
- these, you know? Yeah. Thanks for having this special session. First of all, I know it's outside of
- the realm of the usual, and I appreciate you hearing this earlier.
- than what would have happened because of Council recess. And we appreciate everybody putting an extra
- meeting on your calendars. Yes. So like the last meeting with you all, I made a little roadmap. And
- part of it is similar because a lot of commissioners were missing from that meeting. So the first, the
- second slide talks a little bit about the roadmap. Where are we now? So going through the process to
- date, which is about three weeks later. And Director Seaborg went through.
- ordinance 2502 that created a car free Kirkwood and is currently codifying a seasonal annual Kirkwood
- conversion. So we don't need to I think spend time on that again this time. And then a little bit about
- what are we fixing or changing. So this is adding language to title 15 and further clarifying the intent
- of City Council to have certain blocks
- closed except in emergencies. And then in this presentation, we have real world examples, data from
- nearby and Bloomington goals and plans. So the process, really quickly, February, ESD and engineering
- decided the outdoor dining program would be postponed for 2026. In March, I started working on an initial
- draft to include
- Seasonal closure and title 15. I circulated that draft in April got responses from councilmember Daley
- and director Cooper Smith Councilmember Daley came on as a co-sponsor and we've been working since then
- together to make this ordinance and divide and conquer Talking to everyone and getting feedback in May
- we did a lot of that and then this has been on the council We I was at the May 18th
- Transpiration Commission meeting, and then this was on council's agenda May 20th and June 4th. So we
- have had conversations there where there are amendments that we would like to include for our council
- meeting on this Wednesday, June 10th, and then potentially more amendments after discussion with you
- all. I mean, we're just, I think, very open to making this work for as many folks as possible
- and compromising however that makes the most sense.
- So this was, again, I think Director Seabor mentioned this a little. We talked about it last time, 2502.
- The program could be postponed in cases of emergency, lack of participation, or any other reason that
- may render the program impractical. And then 2612 really changes that to in cases of emergency.
- And Director Seaborg did talk about what is an emergency and then what happens if there is an emergency
- but there needs to be some kind of portion of Kirkwood that might be open to cars for a period of time.
- And so that would happen by bringing that to city council and there could be a vote to open one of those
- blocks to vehicles for a period of time during the seasonal closure. Some council members were really
- in favor of this ordinance because
- they wanted a better engagement with the administration around the seasonal closure of Kirkwood. So
- this ordinance aims to make it predictable and also aims to make it a council and administration decision
- together. This is a little bit, I went through Director Seaborg's criteria and put in a little bit from
- our perspective.
- This ordinance is consistent with a lot of city goals and plans. And the first distinction I do want
- to make is this ordinance codifies to disallow vehicles during certain months and hours. The design
- charrette is important and we see the design charrette as a second step to the process of disallowing
- cars on Kirkwood. And probably not one design charrette. I know council members also want to do
- deliberation sessions after we're back from recess to have input from residents and businesses
- and stakeholders and work with right all of Bloomington to talk about what this vision is and what it
- looks like and get that designed as a community. So next slide. I will not get into all of these plans
- and goals that are stated in the
- in the transportation plan and in the comprehensive plan. I did not go through the climate action plan
- on this one, but here's a slew of goals in the comprehensive plan about transportation. 6.1.5 really
- gives me some goosebumps. Encourage the concept of streets is not merely for transportation, but as
- important public spaces where community thrives. So we have a lot from the comprehensive plan when we're
- looking at the transportation chapter. There's also a downtown chapter.
- that talks a lot about sustainability and creating opportunities for enhanced residential, retail, and
- restaurant presence that caters to diverse range of residents. So there's a lot in the downtown chapter.
- And then there is also a lot in the comprehensive plan about culture and identity. A lot about public
- space for culture. So support cultural spaces in all areas of Bloomington, especially village centers
- downtown and around IU.
- where they're publicly accessible to a broad and diverse range of people and other goals in culture.
- I also wanted to talk about third places and public spaces. So this is just a bit about public spaces
- and third spaces that really talks about the need for third spaces and their importance that they be
- shared, that they be open to everyone, and that mostly they are free.
- The Kirkwood Community Association wrote council a very good letter back in February that was and they
- were a major proponent of closing Kirkwood to cars specifically for the creation of third spaces. A
- lot of folks I have heard from to say they don't have a place for their families to go especially with
- young children and that they missed that opportunity on Kirkwood as a third space.
- Next slide, two more slides. I'm sorry, I didn't say next slide. I'm sorry about that. But it's, yeah,
- it's fine. And then the next one. Yeah, there we go. Thank you. All right. So we took a look at a couple
- comparable cities to Bloomington, Iowa City, State College, Pennsylvania, and Burlington, all college
- towns. The populations are somewhat within range. Burlington's a
- bit lower, median income and per capita so that we could get a really good grounding of where we were
- starting at. As we're looking at what these other cities and boroughs have done with their pedestrian
- malls. And so if you can go to the next slide, please. So taking a look at Iowa City, they're very similar
- to Bloomington in terms of their civic downtown core.
- pedestrian mall, they call it Ped Mall sometimes, goes right up against the university just as Kirkwood
- does. And so I collected in these next few slides maybe some of their stress points, their pain points,
- and how they solved them. These points were similar to what we're hearing in some of our feedback, some
- of the concerns about closing Kirkwood to vehicles. And so these are just some
- ways of showing that there are solutions to these. We don't have to copy what they did, but they were
- able to solve the criteria, these problems that we have identified as concerns as well. So they rely
- on their downtown district to kind of help with their pedestrian mall. And the takeaway for that is
- that it proves that a city of our comparable size can
- actually keep a pedestrian zone activated. They do theirs year round, and they make it a dual space.
- So it's transformable for all the population. Next slide. So with the concern of safety, what they did
- was they constructed a fire lane down the center of their pedestrian walkway.
- Again, I said these are just showing different solutions that when you put your mind to it, we can figure
- out how to make some of these work. Obviously our space is a little bit different, but what this did
- was it allowed for that emergency access lane right down the center. They were able to still keep the
- space looking like the third space and like an open park area for all.
- So it doesn't mean that we have to cause problems in areas of emergency services. Next slide, please.
- Moving on to State College, Pennsylvania. So they, for years, have also had a similar back and forth
- about what to do with Allen Street, their area that they wanted closed. There was a lot of back and
- forth, very similar to some of our feedback that they've got too.
- So I know that the city is planning on doing a study, a comprehensive study, Kirkwood study. What they
- did was they created the pilot program while the study was going on. And so this allowed them to gather
- better data with the foot traffic as the pedestrian area was closed off to cars so that they could get
- a better view on how
- it was being received and activated while the study was going on before they were committing to doing
- anything that was permanent. They had a better view on that. And next slide, please. So that was one
- thing that we have been advocating for is letting the closure of Kirkwood help dictate what the study
- would be looking at to help guide what that study should be seeing.
- are looking for, I should say. That would give absolute real data on what would be happening in terms
- of the closure. So that was one of the ways that we could use this to looking at the goals for doing
- the closures. And then finally, looking at Burlington, Vermont, now they have had their
- If you don't mind the next slide. Thanks. So this was the last smaller city that we looked at. It is
- part of a larger metropolitan area as well. So they did the micro retail strategy with vendors and permits
- and kept the space vibrant and dynamic. So you didn't have to rely solely on the
- the buildings as well. You could activate more foot traffic down there if you had other vendors,
- for example, you know, the hand carts or buskers out drawing more attention, likely, you know, helping
- the visitors head on into the retail stores that are there as they're exploring the space and making
- those impulse purchases. So that can help, you know, those permitting fees could help
- go toward the maintenance and help fill the space as well. So the next slide was their concern there
- was the deliveries and all the logistics around that. So what they did was they opened up a lane right
- down their street for just a small window of time, 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., so that they could get
- their deliveries, so that
- people could drive up and make it a little bit easier to get those heavy trucks down the center to the
- restaurants and to the retail stores. And then immediately at 10 AM, they made the cutoff. So it shows
- that we can still do both and figure out a way to make the retailers and the restaurants contented with
- getting their deliveries and with still being able to use that space freely without the worry of the
- delivery trucks.
- One of the next slide, please. Thank you. So I wanted to make a counterpoint to the study that was raised
- during our last council meeting where a statistic was shared that 89% of pedestrian malls have a failure
- rate and that most have been removed. However, what was left out of that statement is that 11% of the
- successful
- of the pedestrian malls were successful. And of those 11%, 80% are in areas with populations under 100,000.
- And we also met other indicators for success within that study, too, such as being in a university town,
- short length in terms of blocks. So most of those were around four blocks. There was one that was at
- eight blocks. So we are within a reasonable area of the block lengths.
- And then the other concern with that study is that it came from 2015. That was 11 years ago before the
- pandemic and a lot has changed in terms of activating outdoor spaces and communities wanting to take
- better advantage of outdoor spaces after the COVID pandemic. So it doesn't feel terribly relevant at
- this point. At our council meetings there was a lot of discussion about
- economic development and how this impacts businesses. So I did a little poking around to try to find
- data that supports the well-known phrase, the slower a wallet passes a threshold, the more likely it
- is to go in and spend money. So looking at walking and biking opportunities through the lens of economic
- development, and I know this is a transportation commission, but Chair Volin I think said at the last
- meeting that
- Economic development is a consideration in your commission. OK. So impulse spending, bicyclists and
- pedestrians make more frequent trips and find it easier to stop, probably because they're already moving
- slowly. Bicyclists and pedestrians tend to spend either the same amount or more than folks arriving
- by car. And data from a New York City
- study on Ninth Avenue redesign, they turned that into a pedestrian mall, had 49% surge in retail following
- protected bike lanes. Next slide. So this is just studies about recreational bicycling in Midwest states.
- Most of these were conducted in 2009. I think that was Minnesota and Vermont and then 10 and 11 and
- it just shows the contribution in terms of dollars to a state's economy that is labeled and tagged as
- coming from bicycle recreation. So it's a lot of the study said about food and drink and retail and just
- the secondary impact of saving people a lot of money in health benefits. So these range in states. 924
- million Wisconsin has a couple of big bike producers there. So they also have a lot of jobs for bikes,
- and that's a little different than what we're talking about. But 364 million in economic activity in
- Iowa, they have a street that Council Member Daly talked about in Iowa City.
- Next slide. Here's a little bit about different cities that have different takes on pedestrian zones.
- So Montreal has zones along 10 streets, and they are seasonal, ranging anywhere from a couple of blocks
- to 1.5 miles. And feedback from Montreal residents, 90% approval rating visitors and residents.
- Local businesses liked it an increase in foot traffic 17 to 86 percent based on where the street was.
- Chicago has been recently trying something new. They don't have as much going on around the magnificent
- mile or in the loop. So folks are spending more time out in in neighborhoods. And so.
- They have been doing Sundays on slate where they close, or state, sorry. So they closed state, sorry.
- Yeah, sorry. State. They closed state on Sundays and just some of the big takeaways they've had since
- 2023, more than a million attendees and two events had an economic impact of over $7.8 million. They're
- now looking at permanently bringing back pedestrian zones. It's just a little,
- Next slide is a snapshot on job creation. This is kind of out of the realm of what we're doing here.
- But just saying, money spent toward bike and ped projects have a higher rate of return for job creations
- than any other type of project, especially projects that are road only or car only. Next slide.
- So this is about our feedback so far. We, and I'm sorry, Director Seaboard did not mention this ahead
- of time, plan to remove, make an amendment to remove the alley section from the ordinance. Council members
- were more so on board with an effective start date of April 2027, so that gives the city and council,
- residents and stakeholders time to get things together, have engagement, and potentially start
- Um, what might be implementation in steps of like more temporary structures to more permanent structures
- deciding mostly decided on budget, I think. And then we talked about adding to our aware as clause that
- includes our 2027 budget priority list from city council that we created a few months ago and a very
- high priority was activating public spaces.
- The numbers are sort of the next steps. So codify this. Create a resolution requesting funding for the
- 2027 city budget. Planning and council will do deliberation sessions and surets. Redesign and open.
- And then, yep. Is that our last one? I think that's it. That was it. That's it. Yeah. So our next steps would be.
- Obviously, we need to submit amendments from the feedback that we've received. We want to take more
- feedback, of course, because as Councilmember Rosenberger stated, we are open to making this a conversation
- and trying to make it as acceptable to as many people as possible to get that investment and energy
- so that people are excited about it.
- And then holding a deliberation session in November to get more deeper feedback and make that plan with
- all stakeholders as well. That's it. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I have asked that the
- slides that have been shown today will be linked in the agenda for future reference. I also want to
- just clarify that yes, the remit of the
- commission is to consider economic issues as well as safety and travel issues regarding the public right
- of way. That's why parking meter deployment and pricing is part of our remit. So with that, I'm going
- to open the floor to questions from members of the commission. Are there any questions for other staff
- or the council members on this resolution?
- Who wants to start? I mean, I know I have plenty of questions, but I'm not going to go first. Mr. Flaherty.
- Well, the topic of public engagement came up, and I think one piece of the story here is that this is
- not a novel proposal, that it's not only related to ordinance 2502, but also past proposals led by the
- administration, brought through the council, at least
- four or five in my recollection, could council members speak a little bit to both the depth of public
- engagement and I guess the sentiment of that public engagement and the decisions that led to historically
- over the last five or six years, like on this general question of should we create periods of time where
- Kirkwood does not allow access to cars for the purpose of public space, economic development, et cetera.
- I'm just curious for your assessment of that public engagement, what it looked like, again, sentiment
- of that kind of thing over the last five, six years.
- I would say this started as the response to the pandemic and back in that time it had to come before
- council and I think council regular sessions are seen as one of the premier places for public comment
- slash public engagement. I don't know that I would distinguish a lot between public engagement and public
- comment per se. There are a lot of different ways to give feedback and council meetings I think are a very
- useful space for that where representatives are definitely taking public comment very seriously, taking
- notes back to city staff or creating legislation from it. So I think since this first started in the
- pandemic, there has been a lot of public engagement. And then throughout the years at city council,
- post pandemic, we have had conversations every year about the disallowing cars on Kirkwood for the seasonal closure.
- That's where I want to start. Do you? Yeah, I think we do hear a variety of feedback, of course. Everybody
- has some feelings about it. I don't hear from what I've heard in terms of conversations that I've had,
- public comment at the mic, as well as emails. I've not heard one overwhelming push one way or the other.
- When we did hear back in, I believe, February that Kirkwood was not going to be closed to cars this
- year, my first reaction was we wanted to plan a deliberation session to have a conversation before that
- was actually put through. Unfortunately, we did not have time to be able to do the deliberation session.
- I feel that would have been a great opportunity to have that conversation.
- in the public eye, as well as to hear some more input from the public as well about that. We have been
- speaking with department heads. I did have a brief phone call with the mayor in May. I know that they
- have great concerns about doing this. I'm hearing a lot of, we're putting the cart before the horse.
- That is intentional.
- On our part, we agree that we probably are putting the cart before the horse because we need to essentially
- light a fire under this. If we're going to make plans and have this be a successful project for the
- city, we want to have a reason to start making those plans and to start activating the space. So this
- is the first step in that. Anything you wanted to add? OK. Further questions from members? Ms. Davis.
- So conversations I've had with members of the Council for Community Accessibility, of which I'm the
- chair, focus a lot on the closure of the street to cars disproportionately affecting people who are
- blind. So we have members who take BT access transportation
- and BT Access allows someone who is blind to travel alone independently and be dropped off exactly in
- front of where they want to go. So with Kirkwood closed, the closest you can get is the intersection.
- And so the work around that didn't work very well
- for one of our members was the BT Access driver and our blind community member would have to be on the
- phone with each other while the BT Access driver watched her walk down the street and directed her.
- This, you know, this far forward that, you know, you're almost there, turn right, et cetera. And the
- whole principle
- of the ADA and disability inclusion is that you get to do things in the most integrated setting possible,
- and you get to do them without necessarily having to ask for help. So that's a real concern. And I saw
- in the Iowa City example, then it moved on to the next one a little bit too quickly, but it said something
- about ADA concerns, and I don't know what
- it is that they may have addressed. The slides accidentally closed. So I spent a lot of time in a lot
- of old cities in other countries and I have seen pedestrian
- mall's done really well with with access to not just emergency vehicles but also taxis and paratransit
- vehicles and the drivers of those vehicles have a key fob and there are I'm sure quite expensive electronic
- bollards that go up and down and of course
- those streets are also curbless. So as somebody with a mobility disability, I don't think it's fair
- to say that the outdoor dining program has been suspended. It hasn't been. The parklets are where the
- outdoor dining can happen. And now that the parklets are flush with the sidewalk, it means I can enjoy them.
- Dining in the street didn't do me any good. And so I'm not asking questions anymore, but I'm sorry.
- Yes. Is there a question that you'd like to? I want to know what you're thinking about in terms of these
- accessibility concerns. It's not an easy answer, but it is not. And that's why I did send an email to
- the council to request feedback.
- I did get one reply from somebody. That was the only response that I got. So obviously, we would want
- the council included in the deliberation session. We want that feedback. We welcome it. We want to work
- together to find solutions. I think so too. I mean, I think those are super valid concerns, right? And
- a lot of pedestrian zones or car-free zones
- are curb free. So it would be, I mean, a major overhaul of Kirkwood, but I think it has been talked
- about a lot to make everything one level. So folks with wheels can go anywhere and just like people
- walking, I think blind is difficult, right? And it's looking at what other cities are doing,
- like you said, with potential fobs. I mean, I've thought about the fob thing and I know it is expensive,
- but I know more and more cities are doing those kind of like
- gates in or bollards that move up and down for certain spaces that wouldn't have access in the other
- direction. So I think that our aim here is to codify this opportunity in our Bloomington code and then
- spend the months designing and discussing the options to create the best space
- that we have, because even though this is already codified in a different space, there are still concerns,
- right? Like, this should be happening every year already, and even then, like, these concerns are valid
- and things that we need to address. Thanks. Okay. Further questions? Yeah, well, I mean, we... Just
- to formally confirm, the mayor is formally opposed to this ordinance and to converting Kirkwood into
- a car-free space. I don't think it was stated, but I just wanted to confirm that's staff understanding.
- I think there's a memo in council's packet that states that generally the administration has concerns
- with the ordinance as presented. I think in there there's also statements talking about this administration's
- willingness to work with council on creating a different ordinance that could be mutually agreeable,
- but that the ordinance specifically for us does have concerns. I have one more point of clarification.
- Can you identify yourself? Yeah, Jane Cooper Smith, Director of Economic and Sustainable Development.
- Just for the record, the mayor
- in the administration do not, there's a shared vision for a future of Kirkwood that's a shared space
- that's activated in all the ways that are being discussed. And so I hesitate for the question to be
- simply black and white and say, the mayor opposes this, yes, the mayor opposes this. Because I think
- there's a lot of just shared goals, shared values.
- It's this current legislation that, and again, to Andrew's point, the position was we would prefer that
- this not go forward. If it's going to go forward, we'd like to collaborate on how it's implemented.
- I just want to get a clarification on Mr. Flaherty's question. Is it safe to say that while I accept
- the statement that the mayor and the administration have a certain opinion,
- But the staff report was created by staff, and it was not a report from the mayor's office. It's from
- staff of the commission. That's correct. And just speaking for myself, I have not specifically talked
- to the mayor about this. That's why I wanted to clarify that. Does that answer your question?
- I think so. Just for clarity, the memo says the administration does not support this ordinance. So we're
- crystal clear. OK. I have some questions, if nobody else has any first-round questions.
- May I ask just a clarifying point? Can you identify yourself first? Adam Wason, Home and Works Director
- for the City of Bloomington. You know, as we're having these deliberations, as Leslie's asking questions
- of the council members, are we also able to comment at that time about the questions, or is that? I'd
- like to try to, I mean, we're already sort of, there are no time limits here right now, and I'd like
- to get the meeting done by nine, but let's play it by ear. We're going to try to direct questions to
- the appropriate staff.
- But we're going to favor the staff of the commission since they're the ones we rely on for our meetings
- and our presentations. Okay. I do have some questions for our staff. You talked about, I'm trying to
- find page three of that memo. Just a second here so I can find it.
- You talked about two unique processes that would be created with this, I guess, one under Title 15 and
- one under Title 12. Part of my question is, for the first time I've asked the question, why do we have
- two separate titles regarding vehicles? But can you review the two different processes that you see and
- where the conflict would be. Yeah, so Title 12 is a section of city code that talks about our streets.
- Things in there are sidewalk maintenance. There's another section in Title 12 that talks specifically,
- probably the most related, is about sidewalk dining or merchandising. Much of what has been used before
- when we've talked about
- Kirkwood being closed to vehicles and promoting other uses would be things that more generally is in
- Title 12 because it's the talk of the use of the street, where Title 15 is a traffic regulation. It's
- a thing that you might get as a user of a facility like a ticket for. I sped, I blew through the stop
- sign, I parked illegally. You don't generally cite somebody for driving on a road close to traffic.
- It's more of a directive to close the road
- to staff or other facilities. I mean, if you had to, it would be a hell of a citation, wouldn't it,
- if you're driving? And so the potential overlap is understanding the intention here. But the ordinance
- specifically talks about closing a facility to automobile traffic. But every time a road is closed,
- generally, it's also closed to automobile traffic. So there would then be two distinct processes to
- getting that or confusion on which body or process plays. Off the cuff.
- as the Director of Engineering, do you have a preference for which title you would see such closures
- managed under and why? Yeah, I think certainly if Kirkwood or a facility like it is to be closed to
- automobile traffic, I think Title 12 is definitely the most appropriate space it would enable. So this
- ordinance specifically before you would just basically put bollards up to close the route.
- That's all that it is. I know we're talking about the dream and the vision of what it would be, but
- that's not the ordinance specifically before you. Title 12 would be more like defining, if it is closed,
- how is it used? What is allowed there? What are the fees or penalties for people not using it correctly?
- So I think Title 12 would certainly be the most, would be the optimal place to put, I think, what is
- generally being described here.
- I want to ask one more question before I go to second round. You talk about emergency situations. And
- can you define what an emergency situation is that would cause you as the city engineer to restore motor
- vehicle traffic or ban it? I mean, you talk about it being an issue for this ordinance, and I don't quite
- I'd like to expound upon it. And I think that actually the main concern for me on that is not necessarily
- what an emergency is, but it's non-emergency things that might necessitate automobile traffic. So like
- right now, there's a block of Kirkwood generally closed because we're rebuilding the sidewalks. That
- requires vehicles to deliver the materials and to do that work. There is a development taking place
- on another block that can have construction-related automobile traffic.
- So it'd be that I don't think would be an emergency situation. And so how would we enable that? I think
- I heard the desire would be for each of those would need council action. And it would just, that's more
- my concern than the emergency specifics, non-emergency situations. I want to redirect the same question
- to the sponsors of the ordinance. Can you talk about,
- staff's concern about the definition of emergency and how you thought about emergency override of this
- ordinance you're proposing. Yeah, I mean, we did imagine that it would be, you know, come before the
- city council and, you know, ask us to weigh in and then we could reopen the street to vehicles.
- in terms of what the emergency would be defined as. I don't think we had a definition. I think it was,
- did you have a definition in mind? I use it as like emergency orders that went into place for the seven
- line, 180 day orders, but limiting them to one 90 day order for things like construction also.
- So I mean, the emergency would be like, yes, typically how you already operate in emergencies.
- and not recreating the wheel on that. And anything other than an emergency would be a request to city
- council to allow cars for a given period of time. And that would be for like the major construction
- projects or public works projects. Can I ask a clarifying question there? Again, Adam Wason, public
- works director, are you insinuating that a construction project on Kirkwood would need to come to the
- city council for approval of construction of use
- use of the right-of-way for construction purposes? In order to open the road to vehicles. Okay. Similar
- clarifying question, actually. My interpretation was in the opposite, which is that, I'm sending these
- questions to determine, but like, what they're talking about is not, and the description of what's happening
- right now on the block between Dunn and Indiana, is not in fact like opening it to cars. It's closing
- it to everyone, which is why I was being so particular earlier.
- this evening about the difference between closing the street, closing the public right of way for the
- purpose of construction, sidewalks, et cetera, or right across from uptown, right? Closing a section
- of the street to permit private construction for a period of time. Those things are different because
- they're closing the public right of way altogether, as opposed to opening it to cars, which is what
- you're talking about requiring council approval. I just misunderstood, right? I mean, if it's just the
- public right of way that goes through, that's the Board of Public Works.
- That isn't us. We are just doing the disallowing of vehicle travel on these blocks of Kirkwood. So we
- are just excluding a mode of travel, whereas the construction on Kirkwood across from Uptown is excluding
- everyone but the construction workers. I think it was said making a public space private. That's not,
- we don't do that. I would also say we delegate, City Council delegates,
- the Board of Public Works authority to the Board of Public Works. So if anything ever happens that there
- needs to be changes in that, we could also change that authority of the Board of Public Works. But we're
- not trying to do that. Let's go to first round questions. Mr. Binder. I'd be interested in hearing from
- staff about in cases that maybe we can sort of look to as precedent here. And I'm thinking about.
- for example, Oddfellows Alley off of Kirkwood, or a couple of the other brick alleys, like, for example,
- between College and Morton and Sixth and Kirkwood. Those are de facto close to motor traffic, but they
- are public right of way. They are dedicated, maintained alleys. Are those codified anywhere, or are
- the status of those types of alleys codified anywhere
- currently and do you know offhand where and how? I think those are not codified certainly in Title 15
- as a traffic regulation. They're not in city code, but they are things that I would expect that the
- Board of Public Works would have approved either through encroachments or construction contracts or
- different things. So it is a public right away still under the authority of the Board of Public Works,
- but they're not codified and
- They've not had any issues without them being a traffic regulation. They're still, people don't drive
- down them. So I think that's maybe one of the primary concerns with this ordinance is it creates a traffic,
- it's fundamentally, I just don't think a traffic regulation. It's a use of a street. Did I answer your
- question? Yeah, I think so. I mean, it sounds like the short answer to my question is that it's just
- not codified anywhere.
- I don't think it's codified, but like the Oddfellas Alley, for example, I'm pretty sure there's a memorandum
- of understanding with the adjacent property owner that did some of those improvements. I don't know
- if that ever had vehicular traffic in the modern day, as narrow as it is between the buildings, but
- that was a partnership to beautify during a construction project and make the pavers nicer, things like that.
- In that instance, it's an MOU, an encroachment agreement through the Board of Public Works. Which other
- one, I was curious, which other alleys did you cite there? East, west, between Portland and... The jail
- waters one. Yeah, the jail waters one. Gosh, that one's a... That was a public right of way. Yeah, it
- still is. But I mean, cars, there's bollards there permanently. I don't believe so. No. On that, the
- cars can get in? No, there's a curb. There's a curb.
- If you're coming from the west to the east, there are no bollards that technically block it. There's
- a staircase. There's probably dumpsters. There's bollards on the east side to prevent a curve. So that's
- not a blocked off alley. No. No. There's a curb cut, but not right in front of it. Yeah. I believe there
- are bollards kind of mid-block on the south. On sort of the, yeah, yeah. You can see them on, yeah.
- I don't know if Councilman Freire wants to. Mid-alley from the west there. Yeah. So there is some.
- Blockage. It prevents through traffic, in other words, even though it doesn't block the alley, per se.
- I mean, it blocks part of the alley, I suppose. But that's not really part of my question. Because,
- I mean, there's also bollards that can be put up on Kirkwood, too. But I was just wondering if, I don't
- know if that one has been treated differently. First round questions from members who have not yet asked
- questions. Mr. Connell, Mr. Stasberg? First round questions? All right, let's go to second round questions.
- Further questions from members for other staff or presenters? Mr. Flaherty. So with respect to the findings,
- I think there's a degree of interpretation, and I'm curious to think about and deliberate a little bit
- about our respective alignment with the proposed findings. But broadly, the staff recommendation and
- position is that a proposal to convert
- Kirkwood into a car-free street, conflicts with the comprehensive plan, other applicable city adopted
- plans, doesn't have meaningful impacts on sustainability or traffic risk, like safety risk, et cetera.
- But until this year, the position of this administration, the mayor's administration, was to convert
- Kirkwood into a car-free street. So I'm having trouble squaring that. Like the current recommendation
- is this doesn't meet city plans.
- yet it's what this administration recommended last year and in previous years. Well not, well two years
- for the mayor. For this mayor, yeah. So I'm having trouble reconciling that. I'm curious how you all
- think about that. Would you just say that you all were in violation of the comprehensive plan of other
- plans a couple years ago and we didn't think about it very closely then? Or like what's the difference?
- I guess I'll start and I might pass it over to Jane a little bit here too but I think generally
- The framing here for this commission didn't exist prior. This is the first time the commission's evaluated
- something like this and has had these specific criteria. And I think it's interesting to think of like
- the comprehensive plan has very generalized goals. And I could might also ask planning at some point
- to weigh in here too, where the transportation plan kind of take that and made it and find it in more
- detail and has more specific things for each facility. So if it potentially were to become carless,
- permanently, not seasonally, like that would just have a very different design and all of that I think
- would be expected to be explored through a project that the administration intends to move forward in
- next year's budget and as a next year project by planning and ESD. But I think that's what I wanted
- to offer at least for maybe we haven't looked at things in this fashion previously. I don't know if
- you have anything to add.
- Yeah I just wanted I've been on this project for a number of years so in 2020 when it was initially
- implemented and then I was not here in 23 I may have been here in 22 when it was presented but in the
- in the early years of this program it really was tied to pandemic recovery and so it was a suspension
- of other priorities and goals in service of a greater good of keeping our community together keeping our
- businesses functioning and really creating some joy for the community. So that was really in the early
- phases. I, again, wasn't here in 2023. When I came back in 24, I believe that was the year it was closed
- for construction. And then in 25, we made a staff recommendation. And again, sorry for using the abbreviated
- language. I've been really trying in my writing to
- use the full like closed to vehicular traffic. So that's just being specific. So in 2025, we wanted
- to recommend that it be open. And then I can't remember where in the legislative process that flipped,
- but that was not received by council. And that was when I think Kate, you and sorry, council member
- Rosenbarger and maybe Asare wrote the 2025 ordinance.
- So your question was, did your opinion flip? Were you in violation of the comprehensive plan? I don't
- think that we were in violation of it. I think it was an emergency suspension, like many things during
- the pandemic. And I think that as the program has evolved and aged, we as a staff have come to understand
- how challenging it is to do this without the proper infrastructure. But again, what is encouraging is
- I don't hear
- I don't hear differing priorities. It feels like a two-sided issue when we're coming to the table and
- one side wants to recommend that it not be recommended and the other side wants it to be advanced.
- But really, if we can stay focused on the big picture goals, we are all on a team working on a really
- important project together. It's the current state that is the most challenging.
- It does. I had a follow up about city plans, but I can wait. Well, just about the, so it's comprehensive
- plan, but other relevant city plans too. And sustainability is something in the transportation commissions
- purview that was discussed at length when the commission was created, that safety might be the number
- one in focus thing, but there are other dimensions of the transportation system we need to be thinking
- about accessibility. Sustainability is certainly a significant one. And so I was curious about the climate
- action plan. You mentioned you all didn't,
- look particularly at that. But did staff look at that or think about the climate action plan and its
- relevance to the proposed findings? In the development of my staff report, I'll be honest in that I
- did not go in depth in reviewing the climate action plan. OK. If it's OK, I'll respond. So I'm economic
- and sustainable development, but I did not look at the climate action plan goals related to this. I
- know that because are, I don't know how we're abbreviating that.
- spoken, but they did make a resolution that I believe was forwarded to council earlier in May.
- They did, and I'll just say for the record that the Commission of Sustainability and is it Reliance?
- What's their? Resilience voted in favor of this ordinance and the Commissioner of Bloomington downtown,
- or DBI I think is what they're called now,
- forwarded a letter opposing the ordinance. So those are the only two public comments we've received
- on it. Did you want? If helpful, I can share a climate action plan recommendation that is relevant.
- It's not a question. It's just by way of clarification. If you want to redirect the question to the
- appellant, perhaps. Sure. Climate action plan action TL1A5 says determine appropriate locations for
- car free pedestrian zones and high density areas.
- establish implementation based on Kirkwood pilot project observations and recommendations. Do you feel
- like this ordinance is consistent with implementing based on the pilot car free zones in high pedestrian,
- car free pedestrian zones and high density areas? Yes. Yes. I would say I, there was a note in my slide.
- I don't know if I saw it, but I just felt like I had written down too many goals already that this ordinance,
- check the boxes of. So for the climate action plan, I was like, yes, of course. I mean, I could get
- in there and just get another slide in. But I was like, there's a lot of slides already. So I wasn't
- dissing it. I know that wasn't what you were implying. But I'm like, this is, of course, a step toward
- a more sustainable Bloomington. And that's very neat that there's actually a goal in there that is exactly
- what this would be. So thanks for that. Thank you. Further questions? Second round from members. Sorry
- to interrupt.
- I mean, first round and second round, there should be public comment. No, it's second round and then,
- oh, you're right. My apology. All right, well, I thought I was thinking two rounds of questions and
- then, I mean, we're still going to allow public comment. Let me just finish this. We're going to just
- go to second batch and then we'll have a second round of questions after public comment. Mr. Stosberg.
- Mr. Seaborg.
- You mentioned some plans for next year. Could you go into some more specifics about what those were?
- I believe so next year, and Director Cooper-Smith or Director Hiddle can expand on it. But next year,
- the Planning and Transportation Department and Department of Economics and Development will be leading
- a study of
- Kirkwood and more generally starting to think maybe about downtown too, because if you start talking
- about Kirkwood, you have to look at the adjacent network as well. But really, this would be, in my mind,
- first step of starting that process that the transportation plan suggests as a project.
- and would be the first step to enable the future design and other changes that everybody is talking
- about and desiring to help frame what that design would look like, start getting cost estimates, starting
- to prioritize funding applications and things like that. So that's the general intent. I know those
- other departments have already started to meet and discuss what that scope might look like with a desire
- to start consultant selection this calendar year so that next year come when the money is available,
- we're ready to get going right away.
- Other questions? I got one or two small ones. I wonder if we can get the picture of the high priority
- streets that Mr. Seabor presented in his slideshow back up. While that's coming, I'm going to ask, Mr.
- Seabor, you talked about in the memo that the formal public engagement wasn't conducted for this ordinance.
- But I wonder when you would have expected or how you would have expected such engagement to be done.
- I mean, the council doesn't allot itself money to conduct engagement that requires cooperation of the
- administration. If the administration had opposed the ordinance, why would the administration conduct
- formal public engagement on behalf of the ordinance?
- catch 22 here? I guess maybe it's a timing question. I think in my prior answer, basically I think the
- intent is to do that. It's just next year when we have the money and resources. I only just point out
- that because it has been conducted, it's as if you expected them to conduct it when they would have
- needed administrative help to do so. I don't know if that's a fair expectation. That's all.
- wanted to get that on the record. Secondly, in this diagram here, Kirkwood appears to be highest rated.
- It's marked as red. But you talked about how it's not expected to significantly alter injuries. But
- if it's a high priority, I don't understand. There seems to be a disconnect. I guess so this is a drawing
- coming straight from the city's Safe Streets for All action plan.
- And in that plan, it talks about what we can do to improve safety and address those types of crashes.
- And in that menu of options, there's an appendix that lists many options. Closing the street isn't one
- of the solutions to address it. Essentially, are we pushing the concern somewhere else? Are we introducing
- other patterns of behavior without design changes? Pedestrians might just start crossing outside of
- the crosswalks where they have certain legal protections. So I think
- Again, not saying that this will make safety more concerning. So I think just generally neutral on this.
- So I think that that's essentially what I'm trying to, I don't think it's a concern, but I also don't
- think it's a strong reason to vote for it as well. Okay. Last question is to both appellants
- and administration. When did each of you think that say the design charrette for
- a Carlos Kirkwood would be conducted. It sounds to me like you're talking about 2027 to implement in
- 2028, whereas it sounds like you're talking about designing in 2026 for a 2027 implementation. Can I
- hear from both sides on this, starting with the appellants? When did you expect the design work,
- the design changes that would be necessary to enable this vision to happen? I think initially my thought
- process was that it had started last year when we had passed, when the city council unanimously passed
- the ordinance for at least a three year closure. That was when I felt that the design phase was going
- to be implemented. So then when it did not open this year,
- now we're resetting. So at this point, yes, I think in 2026 for 2027. And how does the administration
- respond? Yes, and others. But a key part I think we're wrestling with here is what is design and maybe
- we're thinking about it in different ways. When I'm thinking design, I'm thinking, let's achieve what
- the transportation plan calls for and create that shared street environment. What I think
- If this ordinance were hypothetically approved and expected to be implemented, it's just putting up
- stops. That's not a design. It's just closing the road to traffic. So I guess I don't know if I'm really
- understanding the question on what you're expecting to have designed. Well, I mean, let's just go to
- brass tacks. When does the administration imagine that people could enjoy the Carlos Kirkwood we're
- all saying we'd like to see? So there's two different things we're talking about here. One is making
- the road carless.
- That's just putting up bollards and big signs, making it the place that everybody wants to
- be with activation, with streeteries, with buskers, with trees, with shade, with light. That's a multi-year
- project in millions of dollars. So I think just trying to understand what, those are two different things,
- I guess, just wanting to separate those out. Does that? It helps a little. And I'd just like to add, you know,
- When I think the design threat, the work that Jane's team would do with the planning team is that it's
- not just with the assumption that it's a carless Kirkwood. We're looking at the transportation plan
- as a shared street. And what does the long-term vision of a shared street really look like with all
- of these different factors? You know, I don't know anywhere that says in ordinance or in the transportation
- plan that this should be a carless street.
- I think our plan all along has been to design it to look at it from a design shred of what the transportation
- plan calls for which is a shared street which talks about all the things that Andrew was mentioning
- there with the buskers etc. And you know at some point I would like the opportunity just for a few comments
- so whenever that would be allowed just general comments I would like to make some. Yes.
- Right now it is in city code that Kirkwood should be carless on these blocks from April till November.
- I think it was in 2024 when I first anticipated a study when the street was again open to cars because
- I think the rationale from the administration has been we can't study it while there aren't cars there.
- It didn't happen in 2024. In 2025 it was car free again. And this year it is not car free and so far
- there have been
- no study. So what Councilmember Daley talked a lot about and what happens in other cities is pilot while
- you study. And we have talked about that too at council in like three of the last years. Shared Street
- also has different renditions. So a Shared Street can have all the modes on it.
- The picture that was up in Director Seaboard's slide is actually a picture of a complete street. So
- that is how most of our streets in Bloomington look, or how we want most of our streets to look. Sidewalks
- with people, and middle with cars. That's not what we're going for here. And shared can also be temporal
- sharing. So it can be seasonal, and it can be times during the day where cars are allowed, and then
- times during the day where no cars are allowed. So I don't think this misaligns with our transportation plan.
- I also think it's okay if we go above and beyond our transportation plan. A problem I'm seeing is, again,
- that Kirkwood should be closed to vehicles already from April to November, but the conversations that
- we keep having make it clear that this is never going to happen by the administration. And that is why
- we are sponsoring this ordinance to put into place what has been in place since 2020 during the pandemic
- and post pandemic, because people liked it so much.
- This is the last question before public comment Mr. Binder. I've heard from staff that the administration
- is interested in working with council on some version of this that everyone can agree on. I guess I'd
- be interested in understanding like your characterization of what the administration's efforts have
- been like concrete efforts like towards council so far in engaging them because I'm sort of interpreting
- this as like
- the council doesn't feel like they have a lot of options left to kind of keep this process moving forward.
- And I think you'd probably disagree with that, that there's other ways forward. So I guess I want to
- understand what those efforts have been up to this point. Would you like me to answer that? Okay. It's
- a general question. Yeah, I mean, and anyone can weigh in, but I think
- I'm reflecting both on this year and the previous years. And I think just this year with the process,
- which was led by ESD but involved all of our departments. And so the memo said ESD and engineering decided.
- And that was not factual. I mean, the memo was written and signed by all the staff. So it was a team
- conclusion that was drawn.
- no ego here like I'm really willing to own the parts of this process that didn't go well in our initial
- review and communication and report to council this year and I think that we had some teammates that
- were handling the council engagement and we kind of delegated that to a single person and that wasn't
- great like we should have I should have been talking to everyone we should have had our team talking
- to everyone and I think if we had done that we would have probably cracked
- this nut a little sooner and would have maybe prevented some of the potential whiplash that is happening
- now. So I think that they're, you know, in February when we presented to council from our perspective,
- we were doing really great council engagement. We've made two rounds and but unfortunately that's in
- hindsight. And when I've talked to people since then, they don't feel like they were consulted or
- or listen to. So now here we are where we've sort of just flipped it. And I understand Council Member
- Rosenberger's perspective that the council feels like this is never going to happen. And the staff feels
- like we have our eyes on the prize for 27. We have funding in the 27 budget that we will be coming to
- you all with.
- I don't know what the missed communication was. I never thought this was being studied in 2024 or 2025.
- I had hoped we would study it this year, and it was not possible because we had other major studies
- happening. So since budget cycle last year, I've known that this would be a 2027 phenomenon. And I am
- really motivated. We have had our first kickoff staff meeting to talk about that RFP. Our goal is to
- have the RFP written so that it can go out January.
- Well, it can go out before January. We want to sign a contract as soon as we can, January 1, if possible.
- So we're motivated, and that will involve deep engagement across the organization and the community.
- OK, it's time to go to public comment. We'll have one more round of questions after public comment.
- If there's anyone in the room who'd like to speak, could I ask you two to return to your seats? Which
- microphone? OK, no, you can stay there.
- The public mic, okay. So if members of the public would like to come to the mic, you two can stay here
- if you'd like. Please use the microphone here at this corner. If you are online, please raise your hand
- and zoom. You'll be recognized to speak. Who would like to speak on resolution TCR 26, what number is
- it, 12? 2612. If you're here for the public, please come to the microphone and speak.
- Is there a chair? If you could pull the chair up. Please say your name. You'll have three minutes. Sure.
- My name is Hillary Martel. My husband, Hartzell, and I own Hartzell's Ice Cream that is located at 107
- North Dunn. So I understand. I'm very passionate about this issue, as we've been business owners in
- Bloomington for well over 20 years.
- My main concern is how this affects the restriction of public parking. How many parking spaces between
- those five blocks, how many parking spaces are we losing on Kirkwood for this project or this closure?
- We can take your questions rhetorical and we can answer them afterwards. This is not a back and forth.
- Oh, sure. So I would like to know how many parking spaces are going to be taken with this. I had never
- heard of the alley
- closure. So I didn't know. My next question is, is the alleyway automatically included in the closure
- of Kirkwood or is that a separate ordinance? And then my other comment is, I'm downtown on Kirkwood
- and surrounding areas all hours a day, seven days a week. So I feel like I have seen traffic and lack
- of parking and all of that just as well as anyone else or even better.
- It is so frustrating when IU students are in town to find a parking spot downtown. I've even personally,
- which is sad to say, have stopped going to eat downtown in the middle of the day when IU is in session
- because it's really hard to find a parking space. When Seventh Street was closed or parking was taken
- away from Seventh Street, there's such a limited number of spaces. East Third Street has no parking,
- and then you have to take away this parking on Fifth Street, you took away the parking on Seventh Street.
- So it's already every other block
- don't have parking, as it is, and now you're going to take the main throwaway and take that parking
- away. As a grab-and-go business, parking is essential. We're a college town, so people don't come here
- on their bicycles. They're driving in cars from out of state. People talk about football games, student
- events, all of that stuff that happens within the university.
- take away those parking spaces we're really limiting and enabling them to utilize and attend and do
- business with our downtown businesses so I'm really very concerned about the number of parking spaces
- that this takes away and last summer I saw the block sit empty so I don't know that certainly didn't
- accomplish anything.
- And then also, I depend on those two IU lots that are across from Dunn. I depend on IU to provide my
- parking to operate my business, and I know that's available after five and all day on the weekends.
- I know the city has no control over my understanding over those parking lots. If those parking lots
- were to be taken away and utilized for something else by IU, I don't think my business could survive.
- I mean, there is so limited street parking within those couple blocks, especially Seventh Street was
- my saving grace. If I couldn't find a parking space downtown, Seventh Street was where I'm like, okay,
- I can find a parking space on Seventh, but now that parking does not exist either. So I mean, people
- that are coming in from out of town, I mean, I think it's great that a lot of people can ride their
- bikes, but that's just not the reality of the people and the customers we're getting. That's your time.
- Thank you so much. Is there a further public comment from people in the room or do we have any,
- Requests online? Mr. Romley? Yes, I have Zach Ammerman, who should be able to understand. Mr. Ammerman,
- please unmute, and you'll have three minutes. Hi there. Yeah, my name is Zach Ammerman. I am Vice Chair
- of the Commission on Sustainability and Resilience in New York. I just want to point out that we did
- pass a resolution unanimously in favor of essentially this ordinance.
- The main thing that we talked about is, at a minimum, reversing the decision by the city administration
- and continuing the closure of Kirkwood to vehicle traffic during summer months. We also said that we
- were strongly in favor of considering taking matters in favor of the permanent year-round closure of
- Kirkwood Avenue. On one variety of other things, we said studying many of the other streets that other
- people have mentioned, the ones that are successful in places like Burlington, Vermont, Carle Street,
- and Boulder, Colorado, Charlottesville, et cetera.
- And I know that I logged out a little bit late, but I saw a part of the city engineers presentation
- where they said that they didn't see any major sustainability impact to closing Kirkwood to cars. I
- just want to point out that the Commission on Sustainability disagrees. We voted unanimously that it
- would be a positive impact on sustainability. The rest of my statement is going to be my own personal
- statement, though. So I'm not speaking for the commission for the rest of my statement.
- I just wanna say the real issue here to me is political will and not the viability of a pedestrian model.
- Pedestrian streets fail when cities under invest or half commit or let car-centric thinking sabotage
- genuine implementation of a program. Many cities in the United States that are very comparable
- to Bloomington, despite what some officials have suggested in other public settings, have implemented
- very successful
- programs that are the center of those cities' civic life. Those cities are comparable and will maintain
- all of the most important respects. We could do the same thing here, it just takes political will to
- do so, which we are lacking in the city administration, and I'm hoping that the city council will build
- that gap. I also want to point out, or I guess, plea for the city to think outside of the car when it
- comes to decisions like this.
- Programs like this fail because people in the United States in particular have a hard time thinking
- outside of the car, and they think everything happens in a car, and it's called being car brained or
- having motor activity bias when you only think of things in terms of cars. We've got to stop that. And
- if we start getting more creative and copying what successful cities have done elsewhere in the United
- States and in Europe, or if you go to any city in Europe,
- Any town, no matter the size, they have a giant pedestrian border on the center that is the center of
- that city's public life. There is no reason we could not do the same thing here in Bloomington. We have
- everything that would create a recipe for our success to do that here. So I ask that you please vote
- in favor of this. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like
- to speak? Please come to the microphone here. State your name. You'll have three minutes. Nobody else
- in the room? Anybody left online? Yes.
- Mr. Brown, you should be able to unmute. Mr. Brown, please unmute. You'll have three minutes. OK. Can
- you hear me? Yeah, can you please state your name? Buff Brown. I'm chiming in here from Portland, Oregon.
- It is time to make Kirkwood car free. And ultimately, it should be permanent with an expansion plan.
- Passing this ordinance as written keeps the ball rolling. It keeps the momentum, as I heard Mr. Russo
- say in the last city council meeting.
- Not passing it will likely kill a great opportunity that has been tested without really investment in
- the space. Passing this will continue the momentum and encourage investment. I think we should honor
- the council for taking this on to continue a good thing that the mayor is not planning to continue.
- At the macro scale, the US has really gone the wrong way for the last 100 years, believing the car was
- the panacea for travel and
- And the nation continues that same philosophy with notable externalities that are harming cities, people,
- and the planet. Europe, on the other hand, did not go full in on the car. And in fact, over the last
- 40 to 50 years, governments have focused on walking, biking, and traffic safety, making their cities
- more livable, cutting their traffic fatality rates to 1 sixth of the US per capita, and significantly
- reducing emissions while improving public health
- travel equity. These car free spaces give people, families, and children a space to walk without the
- threat of death by car. This opportunity is very unique in the states and amazingly liberating to parents
- and kids alike. Virtually every city in Europe, big and small, have pedestrian only commercial areas.
- This is a natural growth for cities that are weaning from car dependence and all the associated
- sustainable externalities. It is the duty of the government and that includes the commission to design
- the city for the future and sometimes to buck the popular thinking when one, your constituents are thinking
- shorter term and two, when you know the status quo is not sustainable nor a real solution to real problems.
- So will this work economically? I believe that's a council question and I think it's not a transportation
- commission question.
- From the Transportation Commission's purview, the issue should be how does this work for moving people
- around the city safely. Certainly it makes this area safer and it is an important part of the weaning
- from car dependence. So I support you, I hope you support this pedestrian only car free zone and eventually
- go beyond that to make sure people have excellent transit bike and pedestrian access to this pedestrian
- area, which will require further effort.
- I thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there a further comment in the room on TCR 2612? Please come
- to the microphone. State your name. You'll have three minutes. Final call for commenters online. Mr.
- Obling? I have Paul Rousseau. Mr. Rousseau, please unmute. You'll have three minutes. Hello. I'd like
- to thank the council members for bringing this forward.
- Thank you for developing this ordinance to open Kirkwood Avenue to greater pedestrian use. I thought
- the slide presentation was very good. I really like the idea of learning from other college towns with
- populations of approximately 100,000 people, just like Bloomington. I like doing a pilot project and
- a study simultaneously. That's a good idea. Mainly, I just wanted to also address
- question that was brought forth by Commissioner Davis about ADA concerns. I have a solution for her.
- Bicycle taxis or what is also called pedicabs. I think that would fit in very well with this plan. And
- it might even be something that the city would want to license. Like I have two bicycle cab riders who
- are licensed and approved by the city. I've seen this in other cities. It works really well.
- Um, so it's, uh, for people with mobility access difficulties, they can just, um, typically like for
- a dollar or two, they get a ride on a pedicab. That's all we've got. Thank you very much. Thank you.
- With that, we'll come back to the commission for a final round of questions. Any member who would like
- to ask a question of either the palance or staff?
- if nobody else does. Let me ask a couple of questions, not too long. Can we clarify the term annual
- closure? Does it mean that we close for a certain period of time? I mean, I think there was some confusion
- about that phrase.
- I think the primary confusion was for the alley closure where it just says annually, but I think what
- I heard is there is likely anticipation that part of the ordinance is being removed, so it may not be
- relevant. Okay. That helps. Thank you. I wanted to know what staff thinks of the plan. I mean, businesses
- who have been supportive of closure
- invested in infrastructure and then this year there was no closure and that there's been some concern
- about the reliability of closure. Does staff have any concern about the ongoing sort of vacillation
- between closure and non-closure for the concern of businesses who would invest in Kirkwood?
- I think I definitely want to turn it over to Director Cooper-Smith. And I think generally they do want
- to have predictability is what we're hearing. That's the word I'm looking for you. But I think you could
- probably speak much more to it than I. Absolutely. They do want predictability. And I think businesses,
- when the street had been closed to vehicular traffic, businesses made investments in things like umbrellas
- and tables. For 2026, with the
- requirements for platforms for parklets, businesses really made significant investments. I've heard
- numbers around 10,000. I've heard a number for one that was much greater than that. But what we have
- found with these parklet platforms is that they're truly accessible. It doesn't mean that the tables
- are universally accessible that are sitting inside them, but a person would have no problem
- You know, there's just no change in height. So I'm concerned that if we shift gears, these expensive
- assets will not be able to be leveraged. I'm interested in understanding if there's a way that they
- may be whatever the outcome in 27 or
- you know, I just, I would like for there to be a way for those platforms to be used, both because they're
- a business investment and because they facilitate accessibility of the outdoor space. Thank you. My
- last question would be, um, I don't think I got a clear answer on this. If this ordinance were not to
- pass, would the administration still intend to implement any kind of Carlos Kirkwood plan in 2027 or
- would it be some later year in 2027?
- We will begin the corridor study for Kirkwood to examine a shared street structure, which,
- again, Councilmember Rosenberger pointed out what a complete street is. And we truly are interested
- in investigating something that would meet the most needs possible while driving a pedestrian-forward
- corridor that would also meet the other.
- other requirements. So that is happening in 2027, regardless of the outcome of this legislation.
- But I mean, if the legislation were not to pass, would there be a closure in 2027? I don't think that
- we can speak to that at this time. OK. I just don't. I don't. I mean, this is so hairy. OK. That's my
- question, Mr. Clarence. I just follow up on the same theme, which is just clarifying
- Director Coopersmith, you've noted a few times there's kind of shared vision or goals here. I'm not
- certain that's true. You know, we're speaking about the vision of the council or majority of the council
- and the mayor. And so without real clarity on exactly what those goals are, I'm not sure we can say
- that. And I'm trying to dig into that a little more. I think I heard from you and from two other directors
- sitting at our table that
- for all three of you, the vision is not to have car free zones, but to have a shared street that includes
- cars on the street year round. Is that not, am I mischaracterizing? I don't have a picture in my mind
- because I think we need to go through the study process. But when I see shared streets in other communities,
- I think they could be anything from a continued lane of traffic in the center that allows taxi, Uber access,
- business deliveries, maybe it's temporally shared as council member Rosenberger stated, or maybe there
- is a lane of active track. Like I think it is, we need to look at it and we need to not be limited by
- our own current assumptions about what is possible, whether it's your current assumptions or my current
- assumptions, and we need to crack it open and get excited about it and build that vision. And I might
- add in if planning
- staff wants to to add on anything feel free to as well. I think the the starting point generally is
- as we start a project of any nature as a city administration we tend to start wanting just to go to
- the community and start with a Blake slate. We don't have a design we want your feedback and have a
- series of meetings. I think a vision like what's in the transportation plan is always it's a really
- important reference point
- But a lot of our projects are not always perfectly implementing exactly what a transporter its parts
- of it. It's incremental And there's always the potential to amend those plans as well. So I think so
- that's that's maybe the reference point I don't think it necessarily has to be what the plan is but
- that that's kind of be a reference Is The difference between study and the design charrette process
- and implementation of
- I think we began the College and Walnut Corridor Study in 2023. It's now halfway through 2026. We still
- haven't heard really much of anything about it at the City Council. And so I don't think a design charrette
- in 2027 meaningfully advances this in the next several years, if you might guess, maybe 2030 and beyond.
- And I'm curious for if there's any sponsor response from council members or staff response with respect to
- what type of implementation timelines you envision for conversion of Kirkwood to a shared street, whatever
- that looks like. You may be right, it may be a 2029 or 2030. There are a lot of fiscal factors that
- we need to be thinking about here. A fully implemented, we've seen some rough numbers on what
- some really great pictures look like we're talking 20 30 million dollars. I'm going to take this as
- an opportunity to kind of include some of the comments I wanted to make. You know in some of the slides
- we saw tonight there are references to things like business improvement districts. I think that is going
- to be a wholly necessary concept to implement to make this anything successful if we were to do this
- long term. We've got budgetary concerns
- I have grave budgetary concerns as the Public Works Director for what we have coming next year and the
- year beyond from the impacts of SEA 1. We've talked about that with the council extensively.
- But the other, you know, so we know we've got some fiscal cliffs there where I think we're a $7 or $8
- million deficit this year depending on where things had next year. We'll be right there again if not
- for a couple more years. If we don't see some legislative changes to help
- us some relief there but beyond that from a public works perspective the fiscal concerns go you know
- we've you know the governor we've had the gas taxes suspended for 120 we'll have the gas taxes suspended
- for 120 days so far this year possibly beyond if the legislature were to take further action while there
- have been some insinuations that the state budget surplus will
- that shortfall to the local communities. Just for everybody's knowledge, the local road and street fund
- and the motor vehicle highway fund are funded through the gas taxes. If we have 120 day suspension of
- that and it is not directly made up in 2027 for next year with budget surpluses from state government,
- we have major, major impacts to our budgets and public works, particularly the street division and such.
- So when we're talking about
- about a project of this size and scope with the fiscal uncertainty we're currently in it just gives
- me great great pause to say you know is it the right time can we afford this and what how would we afford
- it and I honestly don't see a scenario where something like a business improvement district could would
- I don't think I don't see how the dream we all probably have could ever be implemented without a major
- funding source like that and I'll just also say that
- you know, when we're thinking about the short term, 2027, things like the bollards coming in and out
- every day to facilitate deliveries, things like that. There are some very practical concerns of it as
- well. So, you know, I do want us to make sure we're part of that conversation, but I also, these fiscal
- concerns and others, like, it's hard to predict that future right now. And I just have some real grave
- concerns, especially with public works budgets. So thank you.
- Do you have one last final follow-up? Yeah. Can I add one response to one of your questions, if I may?
- Sure. OK. I think it is really important. You pointed out the Kirkwood, or sorry, the College of Walnut
- Corridor Study, which is an enormous corridor. And Adam's points all stand regarding challenges with
- funding. However, we are working to get very creative and to tap into our resources at the federal and
- state level to understand what are the ways other communities are getting this done, because we're not
- the only ones in a pinch. So that is the other part of it.
- financial context. And then the only thing I might say is David or Mr. Roebling might not be excited
- for me to say this, but I personally think this is a smaller project than the entire College of Walnut
- Corridor. And so I think potentially this could be more realistic to advance at a better pace than that.
- But I'm not in charge of all of these things. I'm just along for the ride.
- Thank you. So finally, just with respect to, I think I heard that absent this current council ordinance
- being passed, the administration would not anticipate having a car-free Kirkwood next year. That's not
- what we said. Oh, no? No, I said we can't say at this time. I think it- You might have a car-free Kirkwood
- next year. I think that we- Even if the council doesn't pass this ordinance? I think we can't say what
- what way it would go in 2027. But I can guarantee you that there will be deeper conversation and full
- transparency before we would come before you with our ordinance to recommend. Maybe just to add more
- substance to that comment is the ordinance that council passed last year was suspended for this calendar year.
- it was not suspended beyond this calendar year. So it is possible. Last call for questions before we
- go to comment. All right. So let me frame the situation here. We need to move a positive, a neutral,
- or a negative recommendation or continue to another meeting. I don't think that lasts.
- One is an option here as this is going to be considered by council in two days time. I intend to deliver
- whatever decision we make tonight to council Wednesday personally, because there's very little time
- for us to prepare a memo. But I'd like to reflect our thoughts as well as possible. We can do this a
- couple of ways. We haven't talked about this before, but perhaps what we could do is vote. I mean, either
- somebody could make
- and then people could vote yes, no, or abstain, and that would reflect the same thing as everybody just
- sort of voting positive, negative, or neutral. But I don't think we have time to continue. With that,
- I want to open the floor to debate what do members think about what they've heard and what would they
- like to recommend.
- Is there any comment from members? So the staff recommended staff proposed a set of findings and they
- have a staff recommendation, which is that this commission adopt adopt those proposed findings and forward
- the resolution to the council with a negative recommendation. And so I guess we dealt with this a little
- bit with Indiana Avenue in our April meeting. What would the idea of even forwarding a positive
- recommendation on the ordinance entail if we don't
- like staff findings are contradictory to that recommendation. So can we make such a recommendation at
- all without adopting alternative findings? And related, how would we adopt these findings? What we did
- with Indian Avenue is said, actually unanimously, this commission rejects the proposed staff findings
- and we direct staff to go prepare alternative findings consistent with this motion. Well, the thing
- is that a motion needs to be made by a commissioner. Right.
- The commissioner can make the motion that staff proposes, but in the end, this is a recommendation by
- staff to us. It is up to us to make a decision. So consistent with our bylaws, we could make a positive
- recommendation on this ordinance without adopting findings? That is correct. Wait, I'm so sorry. You
- don't have to adopt the binding. You would want to adopt positive findings. Right, but that could be
- done at a high level. Yeah. Yeah, I suppose so. OK, thank you.
- I think Commissioner Stossberg and I, judging from his face, I think we're both a little confused about
- what that means. I don't know where you get that. I mean, ultimately, the recommendation comes from
- the commission, not from staff, even though we could adopt the staff's recommendation. You can't, yeah.
- So it's a recommendation that staff puts forward. You do not have to adopt that. You can propose your
- own findings, but if you were to send it with a positive recommendation, you would want to adopt different
- findings because staff wrote negative findings.
- Right. Okay, we don't have a lot of time to write findings. Right. This is what we're trying to get
- at. I suppose it could be done at a high level, but there's a structural issue here that sort of stacks
- the thing. Right. So I ask each of you, whoever wants to make a proposal, to frame it however you like.
- But please frame, give us a sense of your opinion. Let's start with anyone who would like to start.
- Let's see what the commission thinks.
- And the staff's not able to make a motion? That is correct. You can go home on your own motion.
- Commissioners. I'll go ahead and start and give you a sense of where I'm at. Please. Partly just some
- personal history. I lived in two cities that had pedestrian malls, one as a working from the corner
- from one and another as a business owner on the street. That was in Frankfort, Kentucky and Richmond,
- Indiana. And in both cases, they were one of the ones, the majority that failed.
- and they took them out and then the street was revitalized. Now, I appreciate the research that was
- done about the difference because I believe we have all the criteria to be in the minority of those
- that succeed. And I'm excited for something like to happen here. But have that history and also being
- one of those business owners, I'm interested in proceeding carefully here. I heard some other things
- tonight that potentially
- that this can be car free again next year because we were just at a temporary process. There is a vision
- for a shared street that's put forth. There are already plans for that happening. That addresses
- accessibility concerns. So I mean, I think where I'm at in summary is I would feel like, I think at
- best neutral on this or even negative knowing that
- I think the vision I have in mind will be realized through other mechanisms. Part of my work now is
- policy and procedures, so I share the staff's concern about Title 15 versus Title 12. I think some of
- the details about how we get there matters. I'm aligned in the big picture, I think, of a lot of us
- in the room are, but in my mind, this is not the specific ordinance, it's not the mechanism to get there.
- Thank you. Anyone else want to weigh in? Mr. Binder. I'll give it a shot. I agree with Commissioner
- Stotsberg in some respects in that I also don't think this is the ideal mechanism. However, looking
- at all the facts in front of the commission, I mean, I'm sort of seeing that the transportation plan
- outlined a vision for Kirkwood to be a shared street in 2019. And here we are seven years later, not
- really seeing a lot of material progress towards that. And the efforts that have been tried, like a
- seasonal kind of temporary closure, however you might want to characterize that as having to do more
- with the pandemic or not, that's been kind of stifled or kind of discouraged by
- you know, more recent actions from the administration for whatever reasons. And so I want to try to
- find a way forward here. And so I appreciate that council is trying to find a way forward and kind of
- light a fire under the administration and planning staff and engineering to make this happen and move
- forward with it. So I also agree it's probably not the ideal
- necessarily the ideal way to go and I think that Director Seaborg has some good points about procedurally
- and technically what belongs in which title of the ordinance but I think I am broadly in favor of this
- because I want to see some political will actualized and
- So that's sort of my feeling on it right now is that I don't think council wants to be in this position
- of approaching and engaging with the administration and staff this way. But I mean, it seems like they
- haven't been left with much of a choice. And it's a little troubling that there aren't more concrete
- plans envisioned or being presented by the administration for how to move this idea forward.
- except in cases like this where now they sort of are prompted to and feel like they kind of have to
- respond. So that's kind of my thinking about it right now. Thank you, Mr. Binder. Mr. Connell? Well,
- I share the concerns Commissioner Davis referenced earlier, the impacts on particularly BTX's clients.
- I think a streetless or carless turquid
- You know, done right would be fantastic for the community. And when I say done right, with the proper
- safeguards in place for us to continue to provide curb to curb service to those individuals that have
- mobility issues. So as it stands now, I can't support this. Further comments? Ms. Davis, Mr. Flaherty?
- I'm really enchanted by the idea that we could potentially someday have a lovely pedestrian mall in
- Bloomington. And I think we could pull it off. But it's also very clear to me that closing
- Kirkwood to traffic does not a lovely pedestrian mall create. I'm very much in favor of looking at ways
- that this can be accomplished over a longer period of time and accomplished really well so that it doesn't
- have to be ripped out in years to come. I appreciate that this could include as part of the study in 2027,
- perhaps closing again just certain blocks of Kirkwood, maybe even consulting with people with disabilities
- saying, where do you most need to go? And maybe we don't close the block with the library, or we don't
- close the other block, but we close enough blocks so that we can get a sense of how well this is working.
- So I am inclined to say no to doing it this way.
- But that's because I do have faith that this actually is getting somewhere. I think just high level,
- I think largely this is a political question. It's a question of political vision and resourcing. And
- I think it's quite clear that the mayor does not have a vision for a pedestrian-focused car-free Kirkwood,
- like some of our plans recommend.
- an emphasis of public space. So just from the council perspective, which I'm representing on this body,
- based on my experience over the last two and a half years, I think in the absence of something like
- this to create certainty and motivate real funding conversations, we're not going to see progress. That's
- just my honest take. And I think that's not really what this commission needs to decide also.
- Even the Title 12 versus 15 stuff, we have legal counsel who's advised that Title 15 is the place for
- this. I also had conversations about this with our prior legal counsel, who also advised Title 15 is
- the appropriate place. So I don't think we need to worry about those details, actually, at this commission
- level. I think our charge is really about, it's laid out in code, and it's about what, is the proposal
- consistent with a variety of plans and priorities and values?
- Looking at those is really how I tried to focus my thinking for the Transportation Commission. So looking
- at the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable city plans, the Climate Action Plan explicitly recommends
- this. And to have car-free zones, I think the Comprehensive Plan, you could probably kind of try to
- interpret it either way. We heard a number of goals presented by Councilmember Rosenberger about priority
- of public space, vitalization, or vital.
- sort of a vibrant revitalization, I don't know, of the downtown. And if you have a strict reading of
- how shared street is defined in the transportation plan, which is part of the comp plan, you could say,
- no, no, no, cars must be here because this is a shared street. So again, I don't think there's actually
- anything strong on that finding. The strongest direct thing we have is actually from the climate action
- plan when it comes to city plans. When it comes to safety, this is part of the high injury network.
- The number one way to increase safety of vulnerable road users is to separate them from cars. That's
- why we have protected bike lanes. That's why we have multi-use paths. That's why we have tree plots
- instead of monolithic sidewalks. And so the fact that closing a car to vehicular traffic might be a
- sort of outside the box thinking of how to separate vulnerable users from cars, but it is without question
- going to increase safety. And so I just really don't find the staff proposed finding on that one compelling.
- This idea of spillover effects is getting pretty iffy and theoretical and probably applies to almost
- any decision we would support to improve safety. On sustainability, again, quite clear that this is
- consistent with climate action plan, prioritizing non-automotive modes, seeking to get people out of
- cars, using other modes more. And then finally, the public engagement process, that's a bit of a tricky
- one, this idea of considering community-centric design.
- for the reasons that Commissioner Volna cited, which is that the councils, what public engagement looks
- like from the council-driven policy lens is very different than what it looks like from staff. Staff
- begins with a design process and lots of neighborhood, you know, organization meetings, things like
- that. Council doesn't have those resources. We've often fought for getting more resources to do those
- kind of things and don't have mayoral support to get staffing and pay people adequately to
- to be able to do that type of thing. So public engagement for us looks a lot different. It looks like
- at constituent meetings and input via email from constituents and public meetings. In particular, council
- regular sessions and deliberation sessions. And we've had those consistently for the last five years
- on this topic. And I think that has informed this proposal. It's also consistent with design charrette
- and other public engagement to follow. So they're not mutually exclusive. And so I don't see that as,
- really a place to say that this fails to meet the public engagement. We've actually conducted a lot
- of public engagement on it and are continuing to do so through the legislative process. So again, I
- don't think there's like a super strong position overall on these findings. I don't think it's the case
- that the criteria the Transportation Commission is supposed to use to guide this decision would clearly
- advise against
- this proposal, which is, I think, what's needed to actually forward a negative recommendation. So I
- would advise my colleagues that if you don't like this method or you don't agree with the political
- calculus, that certainty is needed in order to get the next steps and the funding and the commitment,
- that's not really the best basis maybe to vote on a negative recommendation, that maybe an abstention
- is more appropriate if you don't find the staff findings themselves compelling. Sorry, that was kind
- of long, but that's
- So I can't support adopting the proposed findings for the reasons I have outlined. Where that leaves
- us with a procedural question I guess depends on what motion somebody makes. Mr. Earnest. Okay.
- Thank you, all, for that input. My turn. First, I want to say I appreciate the thoroughness of the staff
- memo. It was really well done, including the links to past decisions of bodies, including our predecessor
- bodies. Secondly, I just
- In passing, but I think it's an important point to make, the use of the word vehicle in our code in
- this memo, the way we talk about it, is all too cavalier. At least the state statute, it defines vehicle
- very broadly. It includes scooters, wheelchairs, any kind of device that conveys people, things on tracks
- and rails. But we're very clearly talking here about automobiles.
- automobiles. There is a conversation to be had about e-bikes that are basically illegal. My 15-year-old
- nephew is riding an unlicensed e-bike that can go well over 28 miles an hour, and those are genuinely
- a hazard to public health, and apparently all of his friends are doing the same.
- It's a future problem we need to think about. I think when we talk about vehicle, we're talking about
- motor vehicles that can kill people, that can go at a high rate of speed and have a high rate of force.
- But it's ironic when I say that this ordinance may not be the ideal vehicle, forgive me, for what we're
- trying to do here. Nevertheless, it's what we have in front of us.
- Speaking of vehicles, to answer a question of a member of the public, per my count in 2018, there were
- 87 parking spaces on East Kirkwood. And those would be closed to some extent in order from 100 to 500
- blocks, 16, 16, 18, 23, and 14. And we can talk about that impact, I will say,
- that I steadfastly reject the idea that closing parking spaces is inherently a problem. What's really
- a problem, what we should all know is a problem, is that our parking spaces have not changed price since
- they were implemented in 2013, and that they are far less effective than they used to be, and that prices
- need to go up if we really want to control how people use parking, regardless of how many spaces are there.
- I want to point out that the comp plan and its subsidiary plans, including the transportation plan,
- they're not perfectly consistent internally. We knew that when we wrote it. It's hard to do a perfectly
- consistent. I mean, is there any document in American government that is perfectly consistent internally?
- Some of our founding documents are not.
- But a couple of goals stand out. Goal 615, streets as public spaces. This commission is empowered to
- think of a street as more than a right of way. And we have to think about that. We heard talk about
- the European idea of shared streets. I think of the piazza in Italy, the platia in Greece, where some
- of them do allow cars, some of them don't.
- but they are still considered public rights of way. Goal 6.4, we should prioritize the non-automotive.
- That's a clear goal in our plan. I've looked for it, and I would love Mr. Seaborg's help in finding
- it. I have looked at national statistics for people killed on the street in accidents.
- And you can find numbers for people killed by automobiles. But I have yet to actually find a definitive
- citation of people killed on the street by bikes or pedestrians. There's so few that they don't collect
- the statistic. So there's clearly a mandate to rethink the street. That's why we're here. I don't regret
- this conversation, and we need to keep having it.
- I also feel I want to chime in on what Mr. Sosberg said, because I'm ambivalent about pedestrian malls.
- I know from speaking to council members in Iowa City and in Charlottesville, both of them started their
- pedestrian malls in 1975. Both of them said that they're successful now, but they were failures for
- a decade. It took a full decade for those malls to succeed.
- for people before they caught on. I don't know what they did to make them succeed. I don't know what
- the city brought to it, but we know that it's a fraught question. So staff has reason for being concerned,
- but council has reason for pushing for it. I don't think the administration is dragging its
- feet intentionally. I think their reluctance on this is sincere. I also think they have to recognize
- that council is no less
- sincere in their efforts and even though the sides may ultimately be opposed. I think that the idea
- that this is not taking us in the direction of the transportation plan but further from it, that's one
- area where I disagree with Mr. Seaborg. I don't think it's true. I think that this does take us further
- in the direction. It may not do it at the rate that the administration would like
- It may not do it at the rate that the administration is capable of, would need to achieve in order to
- make it successful. So they have reason to be concerned, but I do think this is taking us, that a carless
- Kirkwood would take us in the direction of the transportation plan. I also have an issue with the idea
- that if we can't say that closure of the street wouldn't decrease crash risk,
- We shouldn't also say that closure is decreasing parking revenue. I think we're missing the point here.
- Both of those things are subsidiary to the major issue. Are we creating a public space or not? What
- I'd like to suggest is that we have a vote where each member says positive, neutral, or negative to
- this resolution
- But reminding everyone that it would take five votes for either a positive or a negative recommendation
- to be forwarded to council. But this is a way that you can signal your opinion. And I agree with Mr.
- Flaherty that I think if you agree with the principle, but you just simply disagree with this vehicle,
- forgive the term, vote neutral.
- And that I suspect ultimately we're going to have to forward neutral or no recommendation to council.
- But I think they're going to want to know how the vote went. So if it's 222 or 204, regardless, 402,
- there's not going to be a positive recommendation unless five members or a negative recommendation unless
- five members say so. And I think the simplest way to do this is just to add to vote positive, neutral,
- or negative to it.
- Are there any further comments from commissioners? Seeing none, can we please call the roll on TCR 2612?
- Again, please vote positive, neutral, or negative. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Somebody needs to make a motion.
- Well, to clarify, the resolution has a set of proposed findings and a recommendation. The proposed findings
- are that the council ordinance is inconsistent with these various criteria.
- and to forward a negative recommendation on the ordinance to council. And so adopting the resolution
- is basically to adopt the staff recommendation. Also, I've been hearing some conflation between Carlos
- Kirkwood and the ordinance. And I feel like it's worth pointing out that there's been some, much like
- we were trying to disambiguate between closure and restriction of traffic,
- that is also something that's being collapsed. You are both correct. Can we find some way to restate
- what, I mean, does everyone, does every member, does every member clear on what the resolution, because
- I actually don't have a link to the resolution itself, I just have- It's in the staff report. Okay,
- thank you. So if you scroll down to the very bottom. Okay, so let's just, let's just-
- Wouldn't the motions essentially be to adopt the staff findings and forward a negative recommendation
- or to advance no recommendation to the council and adopt no findings? That could be a motion. The planning
- commission does that, do they not? And then third, someone could propose that we find the proposed ordinance
- consistent with the commission's criteria for analysis and forward a positive recommendation.
- sort of crude, it's not adopting discrete findings, but that would be the third option. All right, well,
- somebody needs to make a motion. It can't be me. You can do this. You can do this. Mr. Sosberg, please
- make a motion. We adopt no findings and forward a neutral recommendation. Is there a second for this
- motion? Yes. We have a second.
- Does everyone understand the motion? Will the clerk please call the roll on TCR 2612, the motion to
- adopt no recommendation. Connell? Yes. Finder? No. Volen? No. clarity? No. Davis? Yes.
- Yes. Okay, so that motion is... We need a five person majority to pass to approve any motion. Once the
- second vote is no, I was enough. Okay, okay. I promise you we're going to reorganize our processes after
- this meeting, but until then, we do have to... So you're saying we need to forward some kind of motion
- that gets five votes? Yep. Oh boy. All right.
- So a neutral motion was rejected three to three. We need another motion. Well, actually, isn't failure
- to pass anything? Plan Commission is probably the better analog here. So what happens when Plan Commission
- can't agree and can't reach a majority? So in Plan Commission, they wouldn't make a motion to do no
- motion. No recommendation. They would try something and see if it works. Got it. They would try one
- or the other and it would fail.
- Just for the record, these motions were not my idea. I just wanted to say that. All right. We need a
- solution here. Meeting minutes will reflect it. All right. We need a solution here. We don't know how
- to proceed. We just need a motion in one direction or the other. Yeah, just pick a direction and vote.
- Somebody needs to make a motion, either positive or negative. Well, either to adopt this. How about
- somebody make a motion to adopt the stats recommendations? So moved.
- All right, so a yes vote would mean a negative recommendation to City Council. Does everyone understand
- that? All right, please call the roll. Wait, wait, wait. We need a second. We need a second on this
- motion from Mr. Connell. Mr. Stosberg seconds. Binder? No. Bolling? No. Laherty? No. Davis?
- Yes. That motion fails two to four. I'm running out of choices here, Mr. O. That's fine. Unless someone
- else wants to make another motion. You can adopt your own findings. Just pick any finding. You can pick
- any finding. All right. I'll make a motion, both might also fail.
- This is the last motion. I propose the commission reject staff's recommended findings, adopt new findings
- that the council ordinance is broadly consistent with the commission's criteria for analysis, and forward
- a positive recommendation on the ordinance to the city council. Does everyone understand the motion?
- Is there a second for the motion? Second. We have a motion and a second? So it's an overall finding
- that the ordinance is broadly consistent with our criteria.
- for review. Is there any debate on the motion? Clarifying questions. Will the clerk please call the
- roll on Mr. Flaherty's motion? Who was seconded? Mr. Blinder seconded it. Thank you. Bowman? Yes. Flaherty?
- Yes. Davis? Yes. Stossberg? Yes. Connell?
- Yes. By five to one vote, we have a motion that passes. We had no other. Is there a discussion of topics
- not on the docket? I don't know. We'll find out. Is there a general public comment on items not on the docket?
- These come to the podium. Is there anybody online who would like to speak to items that are not on the
- agenda? You can't do that at this point. I would like not to, but it's on the agenda. Sorry, bylaws
- dictate something. We don't propose new things after that. No, I'm saying general public comment. I'm
- just going to... They're not online. All right, thank you. With that, I want to thank everyone for coming
- to this special hearing. This meeting is adjourned.