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.