WEBVTT 00:00:00.482 --> 00:00:10.628 - Council to order will the honorable clerk, please read the roll Councilmember Flaherty here Stasburg 00:00:10.628 --> 00:00:19.870 - here Piedmont Smith here Zulek here. I'm sorry here daily. Yes Rallo here rough Rosenberger 00:00:20.738 --> 00:00:27.412 - Okay, this evening the agendas are posted on the wall, and the clerk prints out some if anybody would 00:00:27.412 --> 00:00:34.085 - like to read them. But our agenda includes approval of minutes from four prior meetings, reports from 00:00:34.085 --> 00:00:40.694 - council members and city offices, including a report from John Fernandez of Amplify Bloomington, and 00:00:40.694 --> 00:00:47.367 - appointments to boards and commissions. We'll also consider one ordinance for first reading to rezone 00:00:47.367 --> 00:00:50.704 - the place that's commonly referred to as Hopewell. 00:00:50.704 --> 00:00:58.247 - and under second readings will consider two ordinances amending provisions of title two regarding boards 00:00:58.247 --> 00:01:05.647 - and commissions and Another that is about ordinance procedures. Each of them have some amendments with 00:01:05.647 --> 00:01:13.478 - that and we'll move to The approval of our minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes is distributed? 00:01:13.478 --> 00:01:16.926 - Seeing none is there a motion to approve Second 00:01:17.090 --> 00:01:24.750 - There's a motion and a second to approve the minutes all in favor. Say aye Any opposed any abstaining 00:01:24.750 --> 00:01:32.786 - that motion carries eight zero Thank you very much. We'll now move to reports and we'll start with council 00:01:32.786 --> 00:01:38.494 - member reports Do any council members have a report? councilmember Stasberg 00:01:39.906 --> 00:01:45.755 - Do have a report this evening on Plan Commission last week Plan Commission had the second Hopewell PUD 00:01:45.755 --> 00:01:51.207 - hearing at this meeting on Monday February 9th The PUD was forwarded to counsel with a positive 00:01:51.207 --> 00:01:56.886 - recommendation At the time I did vote in the affirmative though. I regret that now the PUD document 00:01:56.886 --> 00:02:02.679 - itself had a number of problems with basic clarity and correctness I pointed most of those out during 00:02:02.679 --> 00:02:04.894 - the Plan Commission meeting itself and 00:02:05.026 --> 00:02:10.188 - And as a result, the Plan Commission added a condition to their approval that staff and the petitioner 00:02:10.188 --> 00:02:15.200 - had to work with me to clarify language and correct citations. There did not seem to be appetite to 00:02:15.200 --> 00:02:20.512 - continue the petition to another Plan Commission meeting requiring that the petitioner amend the language 00:02:20.512 --> 00:02:21.214 - at that time. 00:02:21.506 --> 00:02:26.920 - Plan Commission was going to vote to send it to council and I figured that condition would save some 00:02:26.920 --> 00:02:32.280 - amending at the council level if language was Improved before the petition ever got here and it was 00:02:32.280 --> 00:02:37.908 - for that reason that I supported it But to be clear this was not just a couple of commas or misspellings 00:02:37.908 --> 00:02:43.375 - I made 26 comments on an 11 page document pointing out incorrect references inconsistent requirements 00:02:43.375 --> 00:02:48.574 - and enforcing planning staff recommendations from January that were not included in February and 00:02:48.962 --> 00:02:54.583 - Was very clear during that meeting that mayor Thompson wanted to get this Document out of the Plan Commission 00:02:54.583 --> 00:02:59.694 - and to the council as soon as possible. I Started to regret my vote on Tuesday when I realized that 00:02:59.694 --> 00:03:04.855 - president Asari intended to include the hopeful PUD this evening for first reading When I spoke with 00:03:04.855 --> 00:03:10.017 - president Asari on Tuesday afternoon, February 10th He said that he wasn't going to hold anything up 00:03:10.017 --> 00:03:14.974 - and if it was ready to go then it was going to go the problem is that it was not ready to go and 00:03:15.234 --> 00:03:21.458 - The issue was not only related to that extra condition given by Plan Commission and the many modifications 00:03:21.458 --> 00:03:27.332 - needed to make that document more readable But the fact that per council policy Documents related to 00:03:27.332 --> 00:03:33.265 - legislation need to be sent to council office ten days in advance of the meeting or by noon on Monday 00:03:33.265 --> 00:03:38.558 - of the previous week which was the same day as the Plan Commission it's meeting itself and 00:03:38.754 --> 00:03:44.578 - I really support this policy. It's good policy. It's necessary policy. This policy gives our staff adequate 00:03:44.578 --> 00:03:50.295 - time to ensure that the legislation doesn't have obvious problems and for them to do any related research 00:03:50.295 --> 00:03:55.904 - that might be necessary for council consideration. This is policy that was not always strictly enforced 00:03:55.904 --> 00:04:01.513 - and I was very deliberate to enforce this last year when I was president and I enforced it for the good 00:04:01.513 --> 00:04:07.121 - of our staff and their management of workflow. And this policy is actually also stated in our city code 00:04:07.121 --> 00:04:08.254 - in section 2.04 270. 00:04:08.738 --> 00:04:15.122 - And that's the planning Commission summary from the week and I have comments about the introduction 00:04:15.122 --> 00:04:21.506 - of ordinance 20 2606 when that mentioned when that motion to introduce is made. Thank you Thank you 00:04:21.506 --> 00:04:28.145 - so much other reports Councilman Flaherty I Feel like I jumped the line, but I'll go with it Yeah, just 00:04:28.145 --> 00:04:34.592 - wanted to follow up on a few constituents who commented or residents who commented last last regular 00:04:34.592 --> 00:04:35.486 - session about 00:04:35.810 --> 00:04:42.955 - Challenges they experienced as pedestrians navigating our city in the wake of the very significant snowstorm 00:04:42.955 --> 00:04:49.642 - Just wanted to recognize that and thank them for commenting. This is not a new challenge for us It is 00:04:49.642 --> 00:04:56.459 - property owners responsibility to clear sidewalks in front of their business or home Compliance is very 00:04:56.459 --> 00:05:03.998 - spotty our ability to enforce that is also very spotty. I think it might warrant some legislative changes we could 00:05:04.482 --> 00:05:10.083 - consider escalating fines or different fines for commercial versus residential property, we could track 00:05:10.083 --> 00:05:15.737 - on a multi-year basis instead of saying every year it's like, oh, you get a warning and then a citation, 00:05:15.737 --> 00:05:21.284 - and then it melts, and so it's not even an issue anymore, and then you don't have to pay the $50 fine. 00:05:21.284 --> 00:05:26.993 - Even if you did have to pay the $50 fine, I don't think that's probably adequate to get people to comply. 00:05:26.993 --> 00:05:31.678 - We don't want to unduly penalize folks. We have programs and other things to help out. 00:05:31.970 --> 00:05:38.390 - But at the same time it is just objectively true that our pedestrian network for two weeks plus This 00:05:38.390 --> 00:05:45.000 - this last month was not safe and it was not accessible that is not meeting our goals You know as a city 00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:51.420 - including the goal to eliminate all pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries in our streets by the 00:05:51.420 --> 00:05:57.840 - year 2039 And I know we've made some progress on this front, too I know we've piloted some things in 00:05:57.840 --> 00:06:00.446 - downtown to have the city of Bloomington 00:06:00.546 --> 00:06:05.694 - Clear sidewalks. I think we were piloting something on South Kirkwood this year I do need to get in 00:06:05.694 --> 00:06:11.049 - touch with I think at least four department heads who are engaged in some aspect of Sidewalk management 00:06:11.049 --> 00:06:15.734 - in this regard to hear how it's going. What do they think? What are we succeeding at? What 00:06:15.734 --> 00:06:21.036 - are the opportunities for improvement? There's probably budgetary implications as well. We're entering 00:06:21.036 --> 00:06:26.339 - those kind of conversations quite soon as well the council's fiscal committee Which I joined this year 00:06:26.339 --> 00:06:28.862 - had its first meeting last week for instance and 00:06:29.122 --> 00:06:34.406 - So yeah, I just wanted to recognize all that. I think it's a perennial challenge. There aren't easy 00:06:34.406 --> 00:06:39.744 - solutions, but surely we can do better than we've been doing. And I guess the last thing is a few of 00:06:39.744 --> 00:06:45.345 - those residents who commented also noted about the challenges with compliance from governmental entities. 00:06:45.345 --> 00:06:50.735 - That should be... That one should not be an issue. I know the RDC-owned building at the former Bunger 00:06:50.735 --> 00:06:54.910 - Robertson site, fourth in college, did not clear its sidewalks for many weeks. 00:06:55.106 --> 00:07:00.370 - This was also true of the convention center for several days. That was true last year of the convention 00:07:00.370 --> 00:07:05.685 - center for several days This is over and over again. So we've got to find a way to do better And I think 00:07:05.685 --> 00:07:10.899 - it might warrant again legislation budget considerations possibly a deliberation session in the future 00:07:10.899 --> 00:07:16.062 - We talked about that last year. We didn't actually hold it. We probably should so thank you Thank you 00:07:16.062 --> 00:07:21.022 - so much. We'll go to council member Rallo. Then I think you have councilman Pema Smith after that 00:07:22.338 --> 00:07:30.072 - Thank you. Mr. President. I want to I share the sentiments of my colleague Councilmember Flaherty that 00:07:30.072 --> 00:07:37.655 - our pedestrian network needs to be Attended to in terms of its accessibility and I realized that the 00:07:37.655 --> 00:07:45.313 - storm was exceptional but it went several weeks without with sidewalks still being blocked and that's 00:07:45.313 --> 00:07:50.494 - in some cases the only means by which some people can get around and 00:07:50.786 --> 00:07:59.886 - Maybe the bus but oftentimes it forced people into the streets, which is unsafe and it's been said before 00:07:59.886 --> 00:08:08.472 - that our the penalty is Hasn't been increased for many years and just in that sense it's diminished 00:08:08.472 --> 00:08:17.057 - and its effect because of inflation so we should be looking for enforcement and to probably upgrade 00:08:17.057 --> 00:08:20.062 - the penalty for Sidewalks that are 00:08:20.194 --> 00:08:27.998 - Blocked by snow and I might add Blocked by and with the weather getting better We're going to have scooters 00:08:27.998 --> 00:08:35.296 - that are going to be parked on sidewalks and and blocking and blocking sidewalks as well I also just 00:08:35.296 --> 00:08:42.739 - wanted to announce that Councilmember Ruff and I have our monthly constituent meeting on this Saturday 00:08:42.739 --> 00:08:48.158 - this coming Saturday February 21st at 10 a.m. And you can find the link in 00:08:48.258 --> 00:08:58.738 - at the council website bloomington.in.gov slash council It's from 10 a.m. To 11 a.m. But we usually 00:08:58.738 --> 00:09:09.322 - go maybe almost two hours. So you're welcome to attend and You'll have a good time bring your coffee 00:09:09.322 --> 00:09:17.182 - and hope to see you there Thank you so much Yes, I wanted to mention since 00:09:18.370 --> 00:09:24.407 - I just realized I wanted to mention this because councilmember Rallo talked about scooters blocking 00:09:24.407 --> 00:09:30.625 - sidewalks which has been an ongoing problem. So I did want to mention that over the last year I've had 00:09:30.625 --> 00:09:35.998 - a few communications with Jeffrey Jackson in economic and sustainable development who is 00:09:36.450 --> 00:09:43.246 - person in charge of enforcing our scooter rules. And there will be legislation coming up in the coming 00:09:43.246 --> 00:09:49.843 - months about scooters. So if any colleagues have concerns or input, I'd be happy to take that input 00:09:49.843 --> 00:09:56.441 - or to include you in future email exchanges about that. I also want to highlight the upcoming Black 00:09:56.441 --> 00:10:03.039 - History Month events. We've had a couple of great events here in the city. And this Saturday, there 00:10:03.039 --> 00:10:06.206 - will be a poster board contest and a reception. 00:10:06.690 --> 00:10:14.283 - And this is for children and youth who have researched some aspect of black history and have prepared 00:10:14.283 --> 00:10:21.876 - posters and they will be on display here in City Hall. And that's Saturday. There's a reception at 12 00:10:21.876 --> 00:10:29.617 - noon and you can go around and look at all the work and then an awards program at one o'clock. And then 00:10:29.617 --> 00:10:35.870 - the Black History Month Gala is Saturday, February 28th, the last day of the month. 00:10:36.610 --> 00:10:44.950 - That starts at 6 p.m., and that's at One World at the Woolery Mill, and it is a ticketed event. So if 00:10:44.950 --> 00:10:53.617 - you would like to attend, please do go ahead and use Google to find Black History Month Gala Bloomington, 00:10:53.617 --> 00:11:03.102 - Indiana. It's at the BCT. Oh, you can buy tickets at the Bus Script Shumlee Theater website, my colleague tells me. 00:11:03.202 --> 00:11:11.865 - There you have it. So hope to see you at some of those events. Thank you Thank you any other reports 00:11:11.865 --> 00:11:20.614 - Back to you comes my brother Thank you something I just started paying attention to today and that is 00:11:20.614 --> 00:11:29.191 - that it seems that we are now gearing up for another war and Maybe this is just bluster but a third 00:11:29.191 --> 00:11:31.678 - of our Navy is now either in 00:11:31.874 --> 00:11:39.394 - in and around the Middle East and approaching there. Now, I'm old enough to remember several wars and 00:11:39.394 --> 00:11:46.767 - unnecessary wars that killed innocent people. And I also want to point out that money that goes for 00:11:46.767 --> 00:11:54.361 - warfare is money that is not spent here at home for people in need. We've been receiving less and less 00:11:54.361 --> 00:12:00.702 - money from the federal government. And so I just want to urge people to pay attention 00:12:01.026 --> 00:12:09.542 - to what's happening and maybe give voice. Contact your representative at higher offices and say, go 00:12:09.542 --> 00:12:18.398 - back to diplomacy. Go back to negotiations. Find a way in which you can avoid this conflict. Thank you. 00:12:19.874 --> 00:12:26.177 - Thank you so much. Okay, well that concludes council member reports. We'll now move to reports with 00:12:26.177 --> 00:12:32.542 - which we have two. The first one will be from our former mayor, John Fernandez, who's now the CEO of 00:12:32.542 --> 00:12:39.097 - Amplify Bloomington. Sir, you have some time, and then we'll hear from our clerk. Thank you for joining 00:12:39.097 --> 00:12:45.526 - us. All right. Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate the invitation. A couple of the members of 00:12:45.526 --> 00:12:49.118 - the council were able to join us on February 4th when we 00:12:49.218 --> 00:12:56.823 - Had our kickoff event for what's now amplified Bloomington It was really a tremendous turnout a lot 00:12:56.823 --> 00:13:04.809 - of energy behind what we're doing So I thought I would take up your president's invitation to come share 00:13:04.809 --> 00:13:12.414 - some additional thoughts with with all of you who couldn't attend So amplified Bloomington is a new 00:13:13.250 --> 00:13:21.119 - New civic alliance that we've morphed into and evolved into from the early days of the dimension mill 00:13:21.119 --> 00:13:28.911 - Why are we doing this? I think the important thing to focus on is the why? Bloomington like a lot of 00:13:28.911 --> 00:13:36.702 - cities our size face some significant headwinds we see meaningful loss of population particularly in 00:13:36.702 --> 00:13:42.334 - the 25 to 45 age cohort we have income disparities that continue to grow 00:13:42.434 --> 00:13:49.777 - Housing affordably affordability issues talent out migration Those are all challenges that we need to 00:13:49.777 --> 00:13:57.120 - address and at the same time with a lot more remote working and and quality life Migration trends. We 00:13:57.120 --> 00:14:04.967 - also have a huge opportunity and we think through stronger collaboration and better storytelling Bloomington 00:14:04.967 --> 00:14:10.366 - can position itself as a place where talent not only arrives but stays and 00:14:11.074 --> 00:14:18.342 - So what is Amplify Bloomington? It is a civic platform that connects the university's research engine, 00:14:18.342 --> 00:14:25.397 - the Mills entrepreneurial ecosystem, the trades district infrastructure, and Bloomington's cultural 00:14:25.397 --> 00:14:32.030 - vitality into one coordinated effort. And so our objectives are to unify that economic growth 00:14:32.258 --> 00:14:40.265 - and community development effort with cultural vitality, innovation, all under one inclusive and compelling 00:14:40.265 --> 00:14:47.753 - brand. The position of the Civic Alliance, we're positioning the Civic Alliance not as a traditional 00:14:47.753 --> 00:14:55.760 - economic development corporation, but as a new civic collaboration model, one that integrates institutions, 00:14:55.760 --> 00:15:01.246 - aligns our community efforts, and supports inclusive, sustainable growth. 00:15:02.050 --> 00:15:09.132 - Amplify Bloomington is not an initiative. It's not a replacement of the BDC. It's not simply a rebranding 00:15:09.132 --> 00:15:16.014 - of the mill. It's much, much more than that. And so we have three strategic pillars that we're focused 00:15:16.014 --> 00:15:22.962 - on. They'll sound familiar for those of you who've been involved with our work. Our first one is around 00:15:22.962 --> 00:15:29.777 - entrepreneurship growth. We want to strengthen founder pathways, investment networks, and early stage 00:15:29.777 --> 00:15:30.846 - company growth. 00:15:31.042 --> 00:15:37.553 - Second pillar is focus on strategic business attraction and the trades district development We think 00:15:37.553 --> 00:15:43.806 - that accelerating the transformation of the district by attracting high-value companies creating 00:15:43.906 --> 00:15:50.461 - you know, premier innovation hub will really be the kind of market signal we need to address some of 00:15:50.461 --> 00:15:57.211 - the issues that I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation. And our third pillar is on community 00:15:57.211 --> 00:16:04.155 - and cultural activation. We want to activate many of our target sector clusters, our membership, city-wide 00:16:04.155 --> 00:16:10.905 - programming that connects our entrepreneurship community with Bloomington's broader cultural ecosystem. 00:16:10.905 --> 00:16:13.566 - We certainly can't do this by ourselves. 00:16:13.730 --> 00:16:21.727 - We've had tremendous support from the city of Bloomington from Indiana University from the cook group 00:16:21.727 --> 00:16:29.567 - and many of our other Corporate partners. I want to say to the City Council Just extreme gratitude. 00:16:29.567 --> 00:16:33.566 - I mean you've been very supportive of the mill and 00:16:34.114 --> 00:16:39.619 - From its beginning you've been very helpful with us as we move forward with the forged development and 00:16:39.619 --> 00:16:45.337 - some of the other trades district initiatives We couldn't do this without your support And we look forward 00:16:45.337 --> 00:16:50.735 - to continuing to work with the city and all of our other partners as we build a really vibrant place 00:16:50.735 --> 00:16:56.132 - I mean our deal is we want people to build meaningful things in Bloomington that can be a company It 00:16:56.132 --> 00:17:01.744 - can be a life it can be all kinds of things and we're really super excited about the direction to travel 00:17:01.744 --> 00:17:03.454 - and I brought you some swag and 00:17:03.618 --> 00:17:13.069 - I mean, so with that, I really appreciate the opportunity to give you a quick intro. Thank you. Thank 00:17:13.069 --> 00:17:22.427 - you so much. Council members, anyone have a question? Or comments? All right. Seeing none, thank you 00:17:22.427 --> 00:17:30.302 - so much. Mayor Fernandez for that presentation. Next we'll hear from our city clerk. 00:17:32.738 --> 00:17:41.171 - Is it okay with you if I stay over here? Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Before I start, I wanna 00:17:41.171 --> 00:17:49.522 - say thank you to Council Member Piedmont-Smith for talking about Black History Month. I noted that it 00:17:49.522 --> 00:17:57.710 - wasn't discussed at our last council meeting and I was sad. And then this week, with the passing of 00:17:57.710 --> 00:18:02.622 - Reverend Jesse Jackson, I at least wanted to share with you 00:18:03.106 --> 00:18:09.290 - I was able to meet him three times. The first time was in 1988 when he was running for president. And 00:18:09.290 --> 00:18:15.413 - he stood in front of the room, and he did his fabulous call and response. But what stuck with me was 00:18:15.413 --> 00:18:21.476 - the moment when he said, I am somebody. You all have heard this, right? I am somebody. And you have 00:18:21.476 --> 00:18:27.539 - a room full of teenagers, yeah, I just dated myself, saying, I am somebody. I think part of being a 00:18:27.539 --> 00:18:31.358 - great person is showing others that they can be great as well. 00:18:32.706 --> 00:18:39.212 - And he did that. And for those of you who don't remember, he was here in Bloomington in 2010, and I 00:18:39.212 --> 00:18:45.784 - got to see him again at our MLK Day celebration. And I was able to see him for the last time in 2024 00:18:45.784 --> 00:18:52.355 - when we were in Chicago for the DNC meeting, and I got to thank him for everything he'd done for the 00:18:52.355 --> 00:18:59.056 - country. So in this month, for Black History Month, I would like to remember Reverend Jackson, who was 00:18:59.056 --> 00:18:59.902 - a great man, 00:19:00.162 --> 00:19:05.262 - who showed a room full of kids in Iowa City, Iowa that they could be somebody and could be great as 00:19:05.262 --> 00:19:10.362 - well. And I'm holding onto that a little bit more this week. That said, I wanted to give you a very 00:19:10.362 --> 00:19:15.513 - quick update on the clerk's office and what we're doing. If you all have any questions, I'll try and 00:19:15.513 --> 00:19:20.613 - answer them on the fly. If I can't answer them, Deputy Clerk Crossley will. And if she can't answer 00:19:20.613 --> 00:19:22.398 - them, well, we'll get back to you. 00:19:23.138 --> 00:19:30.020 - Um, so for parking ticket appeals, I talk about them generally during our budget time, but I did want 00:19:30.020 --> 00:19:37.104 - to give you a quick update that my computer just, uh, went to sleep. And, um, for 2025, about 13, almost 00:19:37.104 --> 00:19:43.919 - 14% of all citations written were appealed. That is running it about where we have been for the last 00:19:43.919 --> 00:19:48.574 - several years. When I first started with the city back in 2000, wow. 00:19:48.738 --> 00:19:54.719 - 2009, we were averaging at about 10% of all citations written. We've gone up since then for a variety 00:19:54.719 --> 00:20:00.700 - of reasons. One of them is user error. It's hard for people to always get it right when they're using 00:20:00.700 --> 00:20:06.916 - ParkMobile, or they just make simple mistakes. So just wanted to give you an update on that. I can answer 00:20:06.916 --> 00:20:12.838 - more questions about appeals if you need to. And then for boards and commissions, you will hear more 00:20:12.838 --> 00:20:17.822 - about this, I'm sure, and you'll be discussing parts of it. I'm not going to discuss 00:20:18.114 --> 00:20:24.466 - different aspects of it, but you have three appointments potentially pending this evening. And for team 00:20:24.466 --> 00:20:30.636 - A, you have three more appointments that you need to do. For team B, you have four more appointments 00:20:30.636 --> 00:20:36.866 - that you need to do. And for team C, you also have four more appointments that you need to do. Deputy 00:20:36.866 --> 00:20:42.974 - Clerk Crossley has been working very hard to communicate with all of you. I appreciate those of you 00:20:42.974 --> 00:20:44.318 - who respond promptly. 00:20:44.514 --> 00:20:51.446 - and that I have not had to call myself and say, hey, could you respond? So thank you for that as well. 00:20:51.446 --> 00:20:58.445 - And hopefully we can get that all done before the time expires where you have to make that appointment. 00:20:58.445 --> 00:21:05.378 - So that was all I have. If you have any questions, by all means ask them. And if not, thank you. Thank 00:21:05.378 --> 00:21:07.262 - you so much. Any questions? 00:21:08.482 --> 00:21:16.114 - I have a really brief one. People often ask about the use of the ParkMobile app and whether it's important 00:21:16.114 --> 00:21:23.317 - that they pick the exact zone that they're parked in or whether they can choose any zone. You may be 00:21:23.317 --> 00:21:30.449 - misinformed and I tell them it doesn't matter the zone you pick as long as you're using ParkMobile. 00:21:30.449 --> 00:21:35.870 - What does the clerk say? It does matter. It does matter. Elaborate, please. 00:21:35.970 --> 00:21:41.795 - There are different parking rules for the paid lots versus the street parking, so it's easier and better 00:21:41.795 --> 00:21:47.343 - if you actually are putting in the correct zone. Now if it's a difference of half a block away, no, 00:21:47.343 --> 00:21:53.002 - that probably won't make a big difference. The bigger issue is making sure that your license plate is 00:21:53.002 --> 00:21:55.998 - input correctly, which is where we see people do make 00:21:56.194 --> 00:22:02.301 - the biggest mistakes where they just transpose numbers, letters, or they pay for their partner's car 00:22:02.301 --> 00:22:08.770 - as opposed to their own or their mom's car because they just borrowed it for the day. So please be careful 00:22:08.770 --> 00:22:14.938 - when you do that. I feel targeted. Okay. We'll now move on to comments or reports from committees. Do 00:22:14.938 --> 00:22:17.598 - any of the council committees have reports? 00:22:18.978 --> 00:22:25.113 - Fantastic. Seeing none, we now move on to the greatest part of today's meeting, where our first session 00:22:25.113 --> 00:22:31.130 - of public comment. This is a time to make comments on things that are not on our agenda. If you will, 00:22:31.130 --> 00:22:37.146 - you have three minutes. If you could so kindly sign in, if you'd like to say your name, that would be 00:22:37.146 --> 00:22:43.045 - wonderful. For those online, you have a chance to raise your hand and we will acknowledge you. I'll 00:22:43.045 --> 00:22:48.944 - deal with the people in the room first and then we'll go to the folks online. There will be another 00:22:48.944 --> 00:22:56.657 - Section of public comment if you don't want to make a comment now But with that I will give it to the 00:22:56.657 --> 00:23:04.522 - first person standing here. Go ahead. Oh Thank you guys for your time, my name is Sam Bloomington local 00:23:04.522 --> 00:23:12.235 - been here for about eight years and I wanted to speak today to the public and to you counselors about 00:23:12.235 --> 00:23:17.982 - the issue of flock safety and our policing networks here in Bloomington and 00:23:18.114 --> 00:23:25.664 - We've been talking about this a lot lately. I'm sure everybody's familiar. But these cameras are placed 00:23:25.664 --> 00:23:33.069 - in 40-plus undisclosed locations around town, monitoring everybody's comings and goings. And I'd like 00:23:33.069 --> 00:23:40.473 - us to pause and think about the severe threat and danger that the existence of this technology poses. 00:23:40.473 --> 00:23:45.918 - So these cameras are not just taking video data right. They're AI-powered. 00:23:47.042 --> 00:23:52.741 - The video is getting uploaded straight to flocks clouds as it goes and predictive analytics are being 00:23:52.741 --> 00:23:58.384 - used to churn through that and make derivative data types like your habits, where do you shop, which 00:23:58.384 --> 00:24:03.971 - groger do you go to, where do you work, what's your commute, what are your relationships like, what 00:24:03.971 --> 00:24:09.837 - does your car look like, what is your license plate, what is your skin tone, they can capture your face, 00:24:09.837 --> 00:24:15.592 - that's been proven by independent research. So there's a tremendous penetration and scope of data here 00:24:15.592 --> 00:24:16.318 - that I think 00:24:16.642 --> 00:24:25.621 - so far has been implemented in town without adequate thought to what that means and the dangers it presents. 00:24:25.621 --> 00:24:34.353 - For one, this data has been shown countless times being used unlawfully by ICE, by fascist federal police 00:24:34.353 --> 00:24:43.332 - forces to track people, to track people trying to get abortions out of their home state. Police in Wisconsin 00:24:43.332 --> 00:24:46.462 - have used it to stalk ex-girlfriends. 00:24:46.562 --> 00:24:53.572 - don't need to harp about how ICE is murdering people in the streets. My ask for you, Council, is to 00:24:53.572 --> 00:25:00.793 - do something about this. I appreciate Councilor Asare's draft resolution speaking to the use of ALPRs, 00:25:00.793 --> 00:25:08.084 - automated license plate readers. I think it's a great start. I think it's important to outlay the terms 00:25:08.084 --> 00:25:14.814 - of the debate, the dangers, the risks at hand. I just think we need to go a lot further because 00:25:15.906 --> 00:25:22.498 - This is a threat to our lives when you think about who can use it I do not believe the mayor's line 00:25:22.498 --> 00:25:29.288 - that this is a purpose-driven limited-use tool because by definition is a general surveillance network 00:25:29.288 --> 00:25:36.011 - The data is live-streamed the cameras are independently powered and networked the public does not own 00:25:36.011 --> 00:25:42.801 - the data the public cannot access the data We don't know who can get it and it's been shown being used 00:25:42.801 --> 00:25:45.438 - in terrible ways So I'd ask you council 00:25:45.602 --> 00:25:51.777 - to go a step further and create an ordinance to ban the use of FLOC and similar fascist technologies 00:25:51.777 --> 00:25:57.891 - and help stand up for citizens here. I know the current contracts have terms in them that you can't 00:25:57.891 --> 00:26:04.006 - necessarily touch, but you can ban future use beyond those contracts and it takes an ordinance from 00:26:04.006 --> 00:26:10.120 - council. So please consider that. Thank you for your time. And that's your time. Thank you so much. 00:26:10.120 --> 00:26:12.382 - Thank you. Next in council chambers. 00:26:21.378 --> 00:26:28.498 - Mr. President council, this is Chris her energy from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and 00:26:28.498 --> 00:26:35.619 - membership organization with 911 businesses I represent 80% are small in nature Tonight I'm going to 00:26:35.619 --> 00:26:42.669 - talk about an issue. I have discussed a few times mostly anecdotal, but tonight I bring a letter an 00:26:42.669 --> 00:26:50.142 - exhibit from the Monroe County assessor Judy sharp that should concern every policymaker in this room and 00:26:51.106 --> 00:26:58.488 - from one of the most thoughtful and trusted public servants in this county. In it, she explains that 00:26:58.488 --> 00:27:05.797 - the properties along South Walnut Corridor from 2nd Street south to Hillside, her office has rolled 00:27:05.797 --> 00:27:13.252 - land values of 120 businesses back to 2024 levels for payable 2026 and will hold them flat into 2027. 00:27:13.252 --> 00:27:20.926 - In this letter, she calls it, at best, a Band-Aid. She references boarded up buildings, graffiti, trash, 00:27:21.282 --> 00:27:28.522 - empty lots. She acknowledges the connection between the health of businesses and the health of the market. 00:27:28.522 --> 00:27:35.559 - The assessor can adjust the values, but she cannot fix conditions. What is the market telling us? We've 00:27:35.559 --> 00:27:42.460 - already seen stall furniture, a 50-year-old multi-generation downtown business relocated and noted in 00:27:42.460 --> 00:27:50.174 - the HT cited persistent issues tied to street homelessness, property damage, block deliveries, biohazard cleanup, 00:27:50.498 --> 00:27:58.073 - customer fear, and mounting costs. On the same corridor, Tapper Bruce Architecture invested 8,000 in 00:27:58.073 --> 00:28:05.872 - fencing alone for repeated trespassing and syringe discovery. Comprehension financial consultants spent 00:28:05.872 --> 00:28:13.447 - thousands modifying landscape, capping utilities, mitigating risk with daily encounters of hazardous 00:28:13.447 --> 00:28:16.222 - waste. These are not one-time costs. 00:28:16.386 --> 00:28:22.951 - These are reoccurring operational burdens on our business community. There's fiscal consequences in 00:28:22.951 --> 00:28:29.581 - this. Land value rollback is not symbolic. It means assessed values have softened, market confidence 00:28:29.581 --> 00:28:36.343 - has weakened, future revenue to the city is constrained, all the while SB1 is already compressing what 00:28:36.343 --> 00:28:42.973 - local government can collect. Private business are absorbing these costs, and the tax base itself is 00:28:42.973 --> 00:28:44.286 - signaling distress. 00:28:45.122 --> 00:28:50.997 - When the assessor's office sees it, documents it, and adjusts it, the data is no longer anecdotal. The 00:28:50.997 --> 00:28:56.930 - corridor is losing value. The loss belongs to all of us. Three specific asks, formal engagement between 00:28:56.930 --> 00:29:03.090 - city leadership and the assessor's office to fully understand the corridor revenue implications. A focused, 00:29:03.090 --> 00:29:08.680 - measurable stabilization strategy for South Walnut. Not a task force, not a study, but actionable 00:29:08.680 --> 00:29:14.270 - accountability and recognition that this is not a business complaint issue. The assessor has done 00:29:14.530 --> 00:29:23.592 - what she can do, the market has responded. It's up to the policymakers in this room and city government 00:29:23.592 --> 00:29:32.393 - to do something. I'm going to leave the letter itself with staff tonight. I thank you for your time. 00:29:32.393 --> 00:29:41.542 - That's your time. Thank you very much. Are there other comments in the room? Please take it away. Hello, 00:29:41.542 --> 00:29:43.198 - I'm Paul Rousseau. 00:29:44.034 --> 00:29:51.863 - And I would first like to thank council members Flaherty and Rolo for your comments about the situation 00:29:51.863 --> 00:29:59.391 - of the sidewalks right after the storm As I told the mayor personally a few days ago. It felt to me 00:29:59.391 --> 00:30:07.144 - like a kick in the teeth because I normally bicycle and I was walking instead for two weeks and It was 00:30:07.144 --> 00:30:11.134 - it was brutal But I do recognize that the problem is 00:30:11.842 --> 00:30:17.871 - is unusual in that it's a severe problem that only appears like coming out of the closet every four 00:30:17.871 --> 00:30:24.080 - or five years. How often do we get these large snows? But it's not the first time, I don't think, that 00:30:24.080 --> 00:30:30.169 - Bloomington has had a large snow. And so I would think that here, a quarter of the way into the 21st 00:30:30.169 --> 00:30:36.559 - century, Bloomington would have figured this out, but apparently we haven't. Now, I mostly have questions 00:30:36.559 --> 00:30:40.478 - for you to consider, because I don't really know how to proceed. 00:30:40.770 --> 00:30:48.330 - I don't know how to suggest changes to the code to you, but I would ask these questions. Would a variable 00:30:48.330 --> 00:30:55.818 - fine schedule be legally possible? For example, larger fines for commercial properties and or properties 00:30:55.818 --> 00:31:03.093 - that have extensive sidewalks such as a large corner lot. And then meanwhile, smaller fines for those 00:31:03.093 --> 00:31:08.798 - who are residents and owner-occupied homes in contrast to the large properties. 00:31:09.154 --> 00:31:16.395 - I don't know. Because what we're after here really is, in a fine schedule, the idea is to change behavior. 00:31:16.395 --> 00:31:23.297 - And you want the fine to be appropriate to what the person can pay, obviously. And then also, from an 00:31:23.297 --> 00:31:30.403 - educational perspective, what can be done to educate the public better about the city ordinance? Because 00:31:30.403 --> 00:31:37.982 - I found that so many property owners didn't seem to even know about this, even if they'd been here for a while. 00:31:38.178 --> 00:31:45.780 - I'll also tell you two stories about this that illustrate the wide differences. In the You Report, I 00:31:45.780 --> 00:31:53.834 - found a story of a woman who was in her 80s who had a corner lot near Northwest Side, and she had shoveled 00:31:53.834 --> 00:32:01.060 - the entire thing herself right after the storm. And then the plows came along, and they covered 00:32:01.060 --> 00:32:07.006 - it completely. And so she was complaining, saying, do I have to do this again? 00:32:08.386 --> 00:32:15.117 - Meanwhile, there's a particular bad actor on the north side of town. I won't name their name. They have 00:32:15.117 --> 00:32:21.912 - a large corner lot, one corner of it being the entire block. And this is in a high student traffic area. 00:32:21.912 --> 00:32:28.383 - And the whole storm, and in two weeks, all the way until it melted, they just didn't care. And then 00:32:28.383 --> 00:32:34.920 - I heard from another landlord. That's because the landlord that wasn't complying with the law is out 00:32:34.920 --> 00:32:36.926 - of city. They don't live here. 00:32:38.210 --> 00:32:46.395 - But my time's up one final thing though is that the bicycle lanes also had a problem, but I'll address 00:32:46.395 --> 00:32:54.341 - that another day Thank you. Thank you so much other comments in the room Hello, my name is seaforth 00:32:54.341 --> 00:33:02.605 - breeze I've been a resident in Bloomington for a little over a decade now at this stage I wish to speak 00:33:02.605 --> 00:33:07.134 - about flock cameras. I'll keep my comment pretty brief I 00:33:08.386 --> 00:33:17.181 - The residence that I'm currently staying at, it's a rental, is directly in the line of sight just down 00:33:17.181 --> 00:33:26.146 - a hill from one of the cameras. Every single day, when I cycle to work, when I get in my car, all hours, 00:33:26.146 --> 00:33:34.684 - even when I'm on my patio, the camera is staring right down at me. To bring back one of the earlier 00:33:34.684 --> 00:33:37.502 - public comments, these companies 00:33:37.762 --> 00:33:45.132 - and it's not just flock but expanding beyond that to the security apparatus that is represented by these 00:33:45.132 --> 00:33:52.291 - companies, they are not accountable to the public in a meaningful way. They have been demonstrated on 00:33:52.291 --> 00:33:59.590 - numerous occasions now in cities as far-flung as like California, for example, to have ignored requests 00:33:59.590 --> 00:34:06.398 - from the municipalities that they contract with to keep the data contained to that municipality. 00:34:07.266 --> 00:34:18.227 - You know, I'm relatively young. I'm around 30ish and like seeing the expansion of this technology into 00:34:18.227 --> 00:34:29.081 - every part of my life, into every venue from my workplace, when I'm driving down the street, when I'm 00:34:29.081 --> 00:34:35.998 - going into the shops, when I am, I mean just everywhere. It is a 00:34:37.314 --> 00:34:46.353 - tech solution that does not have a horizon. And it justifies, you know, it's a response that is not 00:34:46.353 --> 00:34:55.211 - solving things. It is retroactively putting Band-Aids on some more structural concerns and needs. 00:34:55.211 --> 00:35:04.430 - I mean, for the street that I live on, if the concern is purely an aspect of, you know, traffic, sort 00:35:04.430 --> 00:35:06.238 - of like management, 00:35:07.138 --> 00:35:14.327 - it is a long straightaway with wide streets and it is a structural problem of the street that people 00:35:14.327 --> 00:35:21.659 - are driving the way that they are driving. And that there's plenty of turn offs on the street as well, 00:35:21.659 --> 00:35:29.133 - which means that there's constantly opportunities for people to slow down suddenly to turn into a place. 00:35:29.133 --> 00:35:35.326 - And so I see that as an aspect of this where it's very easy to implement these things. 00:35:36.002 --> 00:35:45.757 - in the hopes of solving more systemic issues, but all it ever creates is privacy, security, sort of 00:35:45.757 --> 00:35:56.000 - like liabilities. It is a sort of local sovereignty issue. Anyways, I cede my time. Thank you. Are there 00:35:56.000 --> 00:36:05.950 - any other comments in council chambers? Seeing none, I'll move online. Are there any comments online? 00:36:08.770 --> 00:36:15.790 - Jean Glaser. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Now we can. Yes. Brilliant. Thank you. Good evening. My 00:36:15.790 --> 00:36:22.879 - name is Moby Jean Glaser. I've lived in Bloomington for 17 years. I'm a parent and a trauma therapist. 00:36:22.879 --> 00:36:30.243 - I want to thank members of council who have made time to really listen in to their constituents on matters 00:36:30.243 --> 00:36:37.470 - of flock and who are working on a resolution that I understand will be introduced in March. I appreciate 00:36:37.666 --> 00:36:43.479 - appreciate the opportunity to be in dialogue with y'all and how responsive y'all have been. I want to 00:36:43.479 --> 00:36:49.179 - encourage all members of council to take every possible action available to them to end the current 00:36:49.179 --> 00:36:55.106 - contract with FLOC and to prevent any future contracts from being made. Right now, we need preventative 00:36:55.106 --> 00:37:00.862 - and proactive measures taken to ensure the safety of our community members. In a recent town hall, I 00:37:00.862 --> 00:37:02.686 - asked Mayor Thompson about FLOC 00:37:02.786 --> 00:37:07.704 - surveillance and its benefit risks to our community. And she said she did not believe this technology 00:37:07.704 --> 00:37:09.150 - is surveilling our community. 00:37:09.858 --> 00:37:15.406 - However, myself and many others strongly disagree with her. She spoke to the contract itself as a means 00:37:15.406 --> 00:37:20.794 - of creating safety and preventing abuse. Many folks feel we cannot trust Flock to keep our community 00:37:20.794 --> 00:37:26.289 - safe and believe there's too much potential for those in power to harm our community. This is informed 00:37:26.289 --> 00:37:31.837 - by what we are seeing nationally in regards to Flock data being used against protesters, by ICE to harm 00:37:31.837 --> 00:37:35.358 - community members, by a police officer to stalk a former partner, 00:37:35.522 --> 00:37:40.655 - by police officers to track community members accessing reproductive health care in other states. And 00:37:40.655 --> 00:37:45.838 - these are just a few documented examples. Considering the violent and oppressive nature of our current 00:37:45.838 --> 00:37:51.122 - federal and state governments and the legislation we are seeing proposed, especially at the state level, 00:37:51.122 --> 00:37:55.902 - the safest thing we can do locally in regards to Flock is to end the contract and remove Flock 00:37:56.002 --> 00:38:01.691 - fully from our community. The risk of maintaining a contract is too high. I encourage all members of 00:38:01.691 --> 00:38:07.436 - council to come together in this action as a means of preventing further harm in our community. Many, 00:38:07.436 --> 00:38:13.575 - many folks are speaking out against FLOC. Please listen to your constituents, collaborate with and represent 00:38:13.575 --> 00:38:19.038 - us. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. We have a second commenter online. Take it away. 00:38:24.546 --> 00:38:33.712 - Hello, this is Dave Burnworth, and I'm wanting to address the concerns about the flock cameras too. 00:38:33.712 --> 00:38:43.061 - I would encourage the City Council to strongly, strongly ask law enforcement how valuable they are in 00:38:43.061 --> 00:38:52.411 - solving crime. It's ludicrous to be able to just take another tool off the street to reduce crime and 00:38:52.411 --> 00:38:53.694 - solve crimes. 00:38:53.858 --> 00:39:03.521 - There's crimes going on all over the place. You're probably not even aware of them. I would just strongly, 00:39:03.521 --> 00:39:13.003 - strongly encourage you to talk to the police chief and other officers in BPD to get their feelings about 00:39:13.003 --> 00:39:18.782 - this. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any other commenters online? 00:39:19.778 --> 00:39:31.219 - Wonderful, let's move on then that ends our period of public comment. There will be another period of 00:39:31.219 --> 00:39:42.660 - public comment toward the end of The meeting we'll move on to appointments to boards and commissions. 00:39:42.660 --> 00:39:49.726 - Do we have any appointments? Councilman rattle Believe this is 00:39:50.402 --> 00:40:00.341 - What my colleague is looking for right now? I'd like to move that for the Arts Commission. We recommend 00:40:00.341 --> 00:40:09.994 - to re-empoint Gerard Pinochuk to seat c4 and a point Austin white to see seat c5 There's a motion in 00:40:09.994 --> 00:40:19.742 - a second any discussion Seeing none all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed any abstaining I 00:40:20.258 --> 00:40:31.725 - That motion carries nine zero. Congratulations to the appointments This is for I move that for the Commission 00:40:31.725 --> 00:40:42.253 - on the status of children and youth to appoint Andrea Alvarez deceit c1 There's a motion in a second 00:40:42.253 --> 00:40:49.342 - any discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye Any opposed 00:40:50.370 --> 00:40:58.820 - Abstaining that also passes nine zero any other appointments I'm forgetting that's everyone. Okay Fantastic. 00:40:58.820 --> 00:41:07.193 - This concludes appointments to boards and commissions That means that we're now at the time for legislation 00:41:07.193 --> 00:41:15.179 - for first readings. Are there any motions? Introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only 00:41:15.179 --> 00:41:18.590 - There's a motion in a second any discussion 00:41:19.906 --> 00:41:26.202 - Councilmember Stasberg, thank you ordinance twenty twenty six oh six submissions violated City Code 00:41:26.202 --> 00:41:32.686 - section two point oh four point two seventy Submissions did not get to council office staff until well 00:41:32.686 --> 00:41:39.234 - after the Monday February 9th deadline of ten days before This meeting and some arrived late on Friday, 00:41:39.234 --> 00:41:43.326 - February 13th after the meeting packet needed to be prepared and 00:41:43.554 --> 00:41:49.120 - This code is odd to interpret saying that the time frame may be extended by either the council as a 00:41:49.120 --> 00:41:54.853 - body or the president But extended usually means making it longer not shorter I do think the president 00:41:54.853 --> 00:42:00.474 - of council should have some discretion to be able to accept late submissions and urgent or emergency 00:42:00.474 --> 00:42:06.430 - situations but that discretion needs to be approached with caution and with council staff as a partner and 00:42:06.946 --> 00:42:12.268 - worked very deliberately and diligently last year as president enforcing that deadline with 00:42:12.268 --> 00:42:18.284 - the administration and supporting our office staff in Insisting that city departments follow the policy 00:42:18.284 --> 00:42:24.300 - and if they didn't then their legislation would not be on the agenda Because that is what the president 00:42:24.300 --> 00:42:25.630 - controls is the agenda 00:42:26.370 --> 00:42:32.326 - And this week our council president put the Hopewell PUD on our agenda for first reading, causing both 00:42:32.326 --> 00:42:38.166 - council staff and multiple city staff members to scramble last week to get these materials submitted 00:42:38.166 --> 00:42:44.237 - for the meeting tonight. I was left asking, what is the rush? And when I asked that question, the answer 00:42:44.237 --> 00:42:50.366 - I got was essentially that the mayor wanted to get it done. And I agree. I want to get going on Hopewell, 00:42:50.366 --> 00:42:53.662 - too. It's been way too long. We are in a housing crisis. 00:42:54.530 --> 00:43:00.811 - I do not want to get it going at the expense of council or city staff I don't want to do it at the expense 00:43:00.811 --> 00:43:06.799 - of considering a bad Document or at the expense of setting a precedent that the mayor has any control 00:43:06.799 --> 00:43:12.727 - over the council agenda So tonight I am going to vote no on this introduction of the hopeful PUD for 00:43:12.727 --> 00:43:18.715 - first reading Not because I don't think it's important not because I don't agree with the development 00:43:18.715 --> 00:43:23.998 - concepts within the plan not because I don't want to talk about it with my colleagues and 00:43:24.322 --> 00:43:30.452 - I'm voting no as a statement to President Asari that deadline policies matter and to not let outside 00:43:30.452 --> 00:43:36.826 - pressure overrule council process and I'm voting no as a statement to the mayor and the larger community 00:43:36.826 --> 00:43:43.199 - that it is council that sets the council agenda and that pressure from the administration for expediency 00:43:43.199 --> 00:43:49.329 - will not overrule the need for due process and proper consideration and I Invite my colleagues to do 00:43:49.329 --> 00:43:53.214 - the same. Thank you Thank you so much other comments a customer 00:43:54.370 --> 00:44:05.221 - I have a point of order. I Wondered if our council turning could offer her opinion on the process Is 00:44:05.221 --> 00:44:16.180 - it found lacking is there are we in maybe some sort of jeopardy in terms of process? As councilmember 00:44:16.180 --> 00:44:21.982 - Stossberg mentioned section two dot zero four dot 270 00:44:22.722 --> 00:44:34.064 - states that each ordinance or resolution and relevant documents must be filed at least 10 days before 00:44:34.064 --> 00:44:45.183 - the meeting with with council's office. That same provision also states that the president approves 00:44:45.183 --> 00:44:51.966 - the agenda and it has been the practice for the president to 00:44:52.098 --> 00:45:01.963 - determine what matters are placed on the agenda for first and second readings. There have been situations 00:45:01.963 --> 00:45:11.363 - where presidents have deviated from from this. I think that this BMC provision Bloomington Municipal 00:45:11.363 --> 00:45:19.646 - Code provision and some of these deviations are factors for council members to consider. 00:45:20.290 --> 00:45:28.838 - Deciding how to vote with respect to this matter tonight Did you want to continue councilmember I'm 00:45:28.838 --> 00:45:37.557 - ruminating on Our council attorney just said I I don't know It seems like it is within the discretion 00:45:37.557 --> 00:45:46.447 - or has been within the discretion of the president of the council But this is a practice that we should 00:45:46.447 --> 00:45:48.926 - I mean, this is an important 00:45:49.730 --> 00:46:01.078 - matter support an ordinance So I'm in a quandary here perhaps Council President do you have a response 00:46:01.078 --> 00:46:12.537 - to councilmember Stasberg's? objection to introducing Not currently are there other comments Councilman 00:46:12.537 --> 00:46:18.046 - Flaherty Thank you This is is interesting I think 00:46:18.754 --> 00:46:25.146 - I don't have any specific knowledge, but it is a little bit concerning to hear my colleague council 00:46:25.146 --> 00:46:31.922 - member Stossberg note that Some of the challenges coming from The the mayor's administration with respect 00:46:31.922 --> 00:46:38.378 - to either having a document that was ready or or you know working to cure Okay, my apologies find it 00:46:38.378 --> 00:46:44.834 - a bit concerning even though I'm specific knowledge about it that there were errors that need fixing 00:46:44.834 --> 00:46:48.158 - that apparently haven't been fixed and there wasn't 00:46:48.354 --> 00:46:54.374 - time to work on those. I also am concerned generally about our council staff and their ability to comply 00:46:54.374 --> 00:47:00.164 - with new accessibility requirements, put together packets in time, have adequate time to balance all 00:47:00.164 --> 00:47:06.126 - the work to work on research, legal research questions and legislation that council members are looking 00:47:06.126 --> 00:47:12.089 - to develop, which sometimes does get delayed and sometimes significantly because the day-to-day demands 00:47:12.089 --> 00:47:16.446 - and requirements on our staff are significant. We are quite small and lean. 00:47:17.026 --> 00:47:23.631 - in that regard. So that is also, I think, weighing in favor of honoring what's in city code, which is 00:47:23.631 --> 00:47:30.106 - a third factor here, which is BMC 2.0, 4.270. Strict reading of it, I would say actually the 10-day 00:47:30.106 --> 00:47:36.710 - requirement is there. I read the word extended as you can go longer but not shorter, but I agree that 00:47:36.710 --> 00:47:43.509 - past practice has not been completely consistent on that point. I'm not sure if that justifies deviating 00:47:43.509 --> 00:47:47.006 - from code where it's been referenced and invoked as a 00:47:47.522 --> 00:47:53.120 - Rationale, you know for for not Not introducing at this time. I think we could warrant a code change 00:47:53.120 --> 00:47:58.884 - this could warrant a code change to give that flexibility more clearly if we want it and just one other 00:47:58.884 --> 00:48:04.427 - note which is that I've pondered the the possibility of a code change that require a council member 00:48:04.427 --> 00:48:10.081 - sponsor for all legislation and I think that could have helped in this situation and others we've had 00:48:10.081 --> 00:48:15.623 - recently where probably I'm guessing things that come from the Planning Commission would presumably 00:48:15.623 --> 00:48:16.510 - be sponsored by 00:48:16.610 --> 00:48:23.603 - The council's appoint appointee to the Planning Commission typically and that might have helped us Resolve 00:48:23.603 --> 00:48:30.400 - this so I think I'm also gonna vote no on introduction tonight, but I want to Echo what council members 00:48:30.400 --> 00:48:37.066 - offers to us work said which is that? How we develop Hopewell matters, we will have this conversation 00:48:37.066 --> 00:48:44.190 - and we'll have it soon but On balance, I think it can wait to follow the the appropriate process in code and 00:48:44.386 --> 00:48:55.763 - You know with those other factors being considered. So that's it. Thank you Thank you so much councilmember 00:48:55.763 --> 00:49:07.035 - Pema Smith Yeah, I Also Concerned about how this PUD proposal was rushed We did not have the full proposal 00:49:07.035 --> 00:49:13.566 - until Monday and that was without any memo or analysis by the 00:49:13.730 --> 00:49:23.781 - Our attorneys on the council attorneys because they did not have time to provide that And it's a very 00:49:23.781 --> 00:49:33.734 - complex document it was very hard to parse and It's If I go back to the Plan Commission meeting When 00:49:33.734 --> 00:49:42.110 - it was approved one of the conditions of approval as councilmember Stasberg said was 00:49:42.210 --> 00:49:50.449 - that the staff and petitioner would work with her to clarify the points that were unclear and make the 00:49:50.449 --> 00:49:58.688 - corrections. Why is that her job? I mean, it shouldn't be up to a plan commissioner and certainly not, 00:49:58.688 --> 00:50:07.407 - I mean, any plan commissioner to fix errors that have come about because of the speed with which legislation 00:50:07.407 --> 00:50:11.326 - or planning documents have been brought forward. 00:50:12.226 --> 00:50:20.010 - I just I resent that this came through to the Planning Commission in a state that was really not fully 00:50:20.010 --> 00:50:28.096 - baked. And I like Councilmember Stossberg I think it's a good project but I think we are not doing anybody 00:50:28.096 --> 00:50:35.654 - a favor by rushing it. There might be legal implications. I don't even know if they can just say oh 00:50:35.654 --> 00:50:41.246 - we're going to make corrections and that the Planning Commission can just 00:50:41.410 --> 00:50:49.196 - blanket approve future corrections to a document that we then vote on. And in the case of PUDs, I'm 00:50:49.196 --> 00:50:57.060 - not even clear if we're allowed to make amendments. I mean, there are a lot of legal questions here, 00:50:57.060 --> 00:51:05.314 - and we could be in real trouble if we push this through without investigating them. And just to piggyback 00:51:05.314 --> 00:51:10.686 - on something that Council Member Flaherty brought up, maybe I should 00:51:11.330 --> 00:51:17.600 - separate this from what council member Flaherty said in case it's misinterpretation. But we do have 00:51:17.600 --> 00:51:24.121 - a lot of legislative initiatives among the nine of us up here. There are initiatives that you know I've 00:51:24.121 --> 00:51:30.517 - been investigating for two years and I have put them on the back burner because our staff do not have 00:51:30.517 --> 00:51:36.975 - the bandwidth to help write those ordinances. And now suddenly the mayor is storming in saying we have 00:51:36.975 --> 00:51:39.358 - to have this now even though it's not 00:51:40.418 --> 00:51:50.415 - properly vetted and properly written. So I want to assert the council's authority here and say, look, 00:51:50.415 --> 00:52:00.019 - we have our rules. This is a very complex piece of legislation, and you didn't meet the deadline. 00:52:00.019 --> 00:52:09.918 - I really, having been president and then vice president the two prior years, I've seen the toll that 00:52:10.594 --> 00:52:18.744 - the amount of work and the timeline stress puts on our staff. We have lost staff because of this. And 00:52:18.744 --> 00:52:26.734 - I want to assert that we need to respect the deadlines and there are reasons for those deadlines so 00:52:26.734 --> 00:52:34.964 - that staff can properly vet and present legislation and that we also have time to read the legislation 00:52:34.964 --> 00:52:39.678 - and ask our questions and get our legal concerns answered. 00:52:40.226 --> 00:52:49.067 - So, no, I don't think this is ready for first reading. Thank you so much. Other comments? Councilmember 00:52:49.067 --> 00:52:57.654 - Rallo. Well, I appreciate this input. I think my colleagues make a compelling case that unless there 00:52:57.654 --> 00:53:06.750 - is an equally compelling reason that we should introduce this this evening, it is a complicated ordinance. 00:53:07.266 --> 00:53:16.651 - It doesn't need to be complicated in the process. And so I'll be voting against introduction And I appreciate 00:53:16.651 --> 00:53:25.269 - the input from from everyone. Thanks Thank you so much councilmember Rosenberger I agree with almost 00:53:25.269 --> 00:53:33.886 - everything my colleagues have said and I'd love the idea of having a sponsor because I think also it 00:53:33.886 --> 00:53:37.214 - can be tricky to put all the decisions 00:53:37.346 --> 00:53:43.411 - schedule on the president and I think that it helps Divide that out a little bit if there's a sponsor 00:53:43.411 --> 00:53:49.536 - because you know, I don't I don't think it's like a blame situation or anything I just think like it's 00:53:49.536 --> 00:53:56.076 - all very hard to manage. I really appreciate our staff Working on a process and procedures to make everything 00:53:56.076 --> 00:54:02.498 - in the council office I think more efficient and not as chaotic like we're always scrambling for everything 00:54:02.498 --> 00:54:03.390 - and so I think 00:54:03.618 --> 00:54:10.062 - being able to follow that process is really huge for us and our staff. I agree too with council member 00:54:10.062 --> 00:54:16.319 - Piedmont Smith. I have a list of legislation that I haven't been able to get done for one reason or 00:54:16.319 --> 00:54:22.638 - another changing staff urgent needs, right? And I think there can be gray areas on this despite like 00:54:22.638 --> 00:54:28.958 - the code saying 10 days, but in this case, we didn't even have materials ready for the packet. So we 00:54:28.958 --> 00:54:30.334 - didn't get this until 00:54:30.434 --> 00:54:37.025 - Monday and it is a very hefty piece of legislation. It would be different if this was something like 00:54:37.025 --> 00:54:43.943 - a salary adjustment for an employee in in City Hall. Right. And I think there are or if it's an amendment 00:54:43.943 --> 00:54:50.599 - to something that's very minor the day before a meeting I think those things can be different. But in 00:54:50.599 --> 00:54:57.125 - this case it's publicly noted that this wasn't ready to even be a plan commission. And then to have 00:54:57.125 --> 00:55:00.062 - it here I think is a very inefficient way to 00:55:00.258 --> 00:55:12.945 - Do government so I will be voting no Any other comments Okay, will the clerk please read the role I 00:55:12.945 --> 00:55:26.267 - guess I mean they've already said how they'll vote but please let's do a roll call If you will so kindly 00:55:26.267 --> 00:55:29.566 - Councilmember Flaherty no 00:55:31.586 --> 00:55:43.584 - Stossberg no Piedmont Smith Zulek. Yes, sorry. Yes daily Rallo no rough Rosenberger no That motion that 00:55:43.584 --> 00:55:54.544 - fails 7-2 Thank you very much. Well, we'll now be moving on to legislation for second readings 00:55:54.544 --> 00:55:59.390 - and resolutions. Are there any motions? I 00:56:02.594 --> 00:56:10.758 - Be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only please There is a motion a second any 00:56:10.758 --> 00:56:19.003 - discussion Seeing none all those in favor say aye All those opposed that motion carries nine. Oh Will 00:56:19.003 --> 00:56:20.862 - the clerk kindly read? 00:56:32.642 --> 00:56:42.348 - Go ahead. Yeah, sorry. Um, ordinance 2026-04 to amend title two of the Bloomington municipal code entitled 00:56:42.348 --> 00:56:51.420 - administration and personnel to consolidate and amend boards and commissions provisions in chapters 00:56:51.420 --> 00:56:56.318 - 2.02, 2.08 and 2.12. The synopsis is as follows. This 00:56:57.410 --> 00:57:05.675 - Ordinance sponsored by councilmember Piedmont Smith consolidates title two provisions regarding boards 00:57:05.675 --> 00:57:14.260 - Commissions and councils into a single chapter adds code of conduct provisions and renames the Bloomington 00:57:14.260 --> 00:57:23.006 - Commission on sustainability to the Bloomington Commission on sustainability and resilience I feel Thank you 00:57:23.522 --> 00:57:33.176 - I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash oh four be adopted. Second. All right. Council member Pema 00:57:33.176 --> 00:57:42.922 - Smith did you want to present on it. Yes. Thank you. Council staff. Could you show the document I shared 00:57:42.922 --> 00:57:45.150 - earlier this afternoon. 00:57:45.378 --> 00:57:53.133 - To clarify the changes, it was kind of difficult to see in the council packet because we moved so much 00:57:53.133 --> 00:58:00.888 - text that it looked like we changed everything, but actually we were just moving some things. So while 00:58:00.888 --> 00:58:08.719 - that gets up, I'll just walk you through it. So this ordinance seeks to accomplish the following goals. 00:58:08.719 --> 00:58:14.366 - First of all, moving text from Bloomington Municipal Code 2.08.020 to 2.02 00:58:14.690 --> 00:58:20.794 - Currently the provisions that apply to the city's volunteer boards and commissions are situated 00:58:20.794 --> 00:58:27.406 - in Bloomington Municipal Code 2.08 executive branch although these bodies are not part of the executive 00:58:27.406 --> 00:58:34.018 - branch. There are also currently two chapters of BMC Title 2 that are very similar. There's 2.02 called 00:58:34.018 --> 00:58:39.422 - Boards and Commissions and then there's 2.12 called Boards Commissions and Councils. 00:58:40.130 --> 00:58:48.241 - So this ordinance moves the general provisions from 2.08 in the executive branch to 2.02 under a new 00:58:48.241 --> 00:58:56.834 - subheading called general provisions. And that was something that was approved by the committee on council 00:58:56.834 --> 00:59:05.427 - processes. So we're just moving text out of the executive branch into this heading boards and commissions. 00:59:05.427 --> 00:59:08.158 - And then addressing chapter 2.12. 00:59:08.610 --> 00:59:16.259 - Okay so let me just go to the screen here. So in the general provision section that we're adding under 00:59:16.259 --> 00:59:23.833 - the heading boards and commissions the only thing we're really changing is numbers three and four. We 00:59:23.833 --> 00:59:31.334 - are referencing a code of conduct which deputy clerk Jennifer Crossley has been working on. And then 00:59:31.334 --> 00:59:36.606 - as a removal for cause we are citing that code of conduct which is not 00:59:36.898 --> 00:59:44.642 - The code itself is not going to be in our Bloomington Municipal Code, but the code of conduct will be 00:59:44.642 --> 00:59:52.538 - something kept by the clerk's office and every appointee to a board or commission will be asked to sign 00:59:52.538 --> 01:00:00.510 - it. So those are really the only two substantive changes as far as the text regarding general provisions 01:00:00.510 --> 01:00:04.990 - for boards and commissions. So this ordinance also deletes 01:00:05.922 --> 01:00:15.009 - BMC chapter 2.12 moves all of that under 2.02. So we don't have these two different areas that say board 01:00:15.009 --> 01:00:24.010 - and commissions, we just have them all together. And then the last change is bringing forward a request 01:00:24.010 --> 01:00:32.318 - from the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability to add resilience to the name of that entity. 01:00:33.058 --> 01:00:40.329 - So they passed a resolution on November 18th recommending to the Common Council that the name be changed 01:00:40.329 --> 01:00:47.947 - to Bloomington Commission on Sustainability and Resilience. And that does match the charge of that commission 01:00:47.947 --> 01:00:55.079 - as we revised it recently that they do study and advise on the resilience of the community in the face 01:00:55.079 --> 01:00:58.334 - of climate change and not just sustainability. 01:00:59.202 --> 01:01:07.241 - So that is the last change that this ordinance would bring about I'm happy to answer any questions Are 01:01:07.241 --> 01:01:15.202 - there any questions? All right seeing none question go ahead Stoss work. Thank you. I have a question 01:01:15.202 --> 01:01:23.007 - about the code of conduct So I don't know if clerk Crosley might be the best one to answer that but 01:01:23.007 --> 01:01:26.910 - how is that created? I guess and who gets to like 01:01:27.586 --> 01:01:34.062 - that and make changes to it or and that kind of thing because if council is like Enforcing it like how 01:01:34.062 --> 01:01:40.790 - is that going into effect? Is that through the clerk's office? Is that through cooperation with? Committee 01:01:40.790 --> 01:01:42.110 - on council processes 01:01:44.226 --> 01:01:51.099 - Deputy clerk crossly here. Um, so yes, so to kind of give a brief overview on how this has happened 01:01:51.099 --> 01:01:58.041 - Actually to kind of give a brief history. I think councilmember Barallo when he was on the committee 01:01:58.041 --> 01:02:05.051 - on council processes I brought this up and This was something that had been worked on since last year 01:02:05.051 --> 01:02:12.061 - I also want to at Beaver missed if I didn't give a special special. Thank you to the legal department 01:02:12.061 --> 01:02:14.192 - in particular Miss Anna Holmes 01:02:14.192 --> 01:02:22.343 - and Miss Audrey Brennan ham for their work with me we've been doing this in tandem and so we looked 01:02:22.343 --> 01:02:30.494 - at this because obviously there's a Need for it and it was brought up a while ago But this also was 01:02:30.494 --> 01:02:38.238 - brought forth to the committee on council processes last year and in December I believe it was 01:02:38.946 --> 01:02:47.420 - like talked about and discussed. And so this had been shown with the committee. And at the time, back 01:02:47.420 --> 01:02:56.226 - in December of 25, the committee decided that that is something that's going to be in the clerk's office. 01:02:56.226 --> 01:03:04.700 - And so it's presented to you all. But the committee also gave feedback on that as well. So there were 01:03:04.700 --> 01:03:07.358 - a few suggestions, if you will, 01:03:07.458 --> 01:03:14.865 - The code of conduct and so I took that back to legal we worked on it and then brought it forth again 01:03:14.865 --> 01:03:22.200 - to the CCP meeting and There were no further objections back in December so That's kind of where we 01:03:22.200 --> 01:03:29.534 - are with that and then the process in order to roll this out is to number one we are in the process 01:03:29.534 --> 01:03:31.294 - of still trying to do a 01:03:32.162 --> 01:03:38.469 - staff liaison training. So this is something that's gonna be implemented with staff that has any kind 01:03:38.469 --> 01:03:44.837 - of hands related to boards and commissions. And then once we go through that staff training, hopefully 01:03:44.837 --> 01:03:51.206 - here soon, then it will go to all board and commissioners. And this is gonna be something that is done 01:03:51.206 --> 01:03:57.698 - annually. So if there is any discrepancies or anything that has been violated by way of code of conduct, 01:03:57.698 --> 01:04:01.470 - everybody should be on the same page in a court to know that 01:04:01.602 --> 01:04:08.394 - This is what you sign and if there has to be dismissals for any reason It allows it by the code of conduct 01:04:08.394 --> 01:04:14.869 - Great. Thank you I just kind of wanted a summary of how that was working and so then in the future it 01:04:14.869 --> 01:04:21.344 - would be like Considered to be modified like once a year or something like that if there was anything 01:04:21.344 --> 01:04:27.945 - that needed to be changed or added and coordination with Committee on council processes and the clerk's 01:04:27.945 --> 01:04:29.342 - office and legal well 01:04:29.442 --> 01:04:36.231 - Right now it's so as Councilmember Piedmont Smith I mentioned this is just reference again. I just want 01:04:36.231 --> 01:04:42.759 - to stress that again. This is referencing code and it won't be You know codified into code. It just 01:04:42.759 --> 01:04:47.198 - references that this is happening. So we feel pretty confident that 01:04:48.066 --> 01:04:55.979 - It's, you know, as it stands right now, it's pretty good. I'm sure if there is any other things that 01:04:55.979 --> 01:05:03.970 - happen later on down the road that needs to be revisited, I think that's something that we could take 01:05:03.970 --> 01:05:12.039 - to the CCP and bring forth of that. And I'm gonna look at the clerk because she just looked at me. The 01:05:12.039 --> 01:05:15.486 - power of a look. I just wanna clarify that, 01:05:15.714 --> 01:05:20.756 - The code of conduct falls underneath Deputy Clerk Crossley's role as being in charge of boards 01:05:20.756 --> 01:05:26.169 - and commissions. And that was something that the council actually asked her to handle moving forward. 01:05:26.169 --> 01:05:31.529 - This is a living document that lives in the clerk's office and is under the clerk's control as such. 01:05:31.529 --> 01:05:36.943 - It's not something that would necessarily have to come to the council processes committee but we will 01:05:36.943 --> 01:05:42.462 - always be open to input from any council members regardless of whether they're on the committee or not. 01:05:43.938 --> 01:05:52.922 - Thank you. I was just curious about the process understood any other questions Seeing none Okay seen 01:05:52.922 --> 01:06:01.906 - and there's amendment all its minds all passed to councilmember daily to chair the meeting Would you 01:06:01.906 --> 01:06:11.246 - like to introduce your amendment councilmember sorry, yeah, do I have to motion to introduce it or okay, 01:06:11.246 --> 01:06:13.470 - I'd like to move that we 01:06:14.210 --> 01:06:31.386 - Introduce amendment one second. All right, we got a motion and a second. Do we vote on that? Okay, so 01:06:31.386 --> 01:06:39.806 - so so super super simple this one and you know, I 01:06:40.066 --> 01:06:47.275 - I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I for some time had thought about the parallelism 01:06:47.275 --> 01:06:54.485 - within our code that Mayoral appointments it says very clearly are they serve at the pleasure of the 01:06:54.485 --> 01:07:01.694 - mayor and then we say but council appointments You know need to have some reason to not serve and so 01:07:01.694 --> 01:07:09.118 - I thought that it would be nice to have that parallel structure and so the amendment simply changes the 01:07:09.250 --> 01:07:15.458 - Statement that says that people can remove for cause and just replaces it with the same structure that 01:07:15.458 --> 01:07:21.546 - code has for the mayor saying that People serve people appointed by council serve at the pleasure of 01:07:21.546 --> 01:07:27.573 - council That's it All right. Thank you. Any questions councilmember Flaherty. Thank you. Thank you. 01:07:27.573 --> 01:07:33.118 - Councilmember Stossberg president not Stossberg. Sorry. Sorry. That's true a lot of stories 01:07:34.050 --> 01:07:41.637 - Thank you, Councilmember Daley, and thank you, President Asari. I had a question about the amendment, 01:07:41.637 --> 01:07:49.075 - which is, so the text that's being struck out or proposed to be amended says, except for appointees 01:07:49.075 --> 01:07:56.737 - who serve at the pleasure of the mayor. And I had always interpreted that slash thought that that only 01:07:56.737 --> 01:08:03.134 - describes some mayoral appointees. In other words, there are other mayoral appointees 01:08:03.842 --> 01:08:10.343 - who can only be removed for cause. And often that's specified in the state statute. Or not often. I 01:08:10.343 --> 01:08:17.104 - think that's specified in the state statute in some cases. I recall a plan commission discussion around 01:08:17.104 --> 01:08:23.671 - this at some point. I think my recollection is the CIB actually only has for cause removal. And so I 01:08:23.671 --> 01:08:26.206 - guess I'm seeking clarification there. 01:08:27.202 --> 01:08:35.009 - Is it true that all mayoral appointees serve at the pleasure of the mayor or is it just Some and the 01:08:35.009 --> 01:08:43.203 - way that's constructed is only referring to those ones for removal Council attorney I do not know Offhand 01:08:43.203 --> 01:08:51.011 - which mayoral appointments might have statutory implications however, the fact that this language is 01:08:51.011 --> 01:08:56.190 - in the Bloomington Municipal Code wouldn't Trump in my opinion and 01:08:56.578 --> 01:09:03.818 - Any state statute that required some type of for cause removal Thank you though as constructed now that 01:09:03.818 --> 01:09:10.779 - except for appointees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor That's not saying I Guess the way it's 01:09:10.779 --> 01:09:18.089 - constructed. It's not actually applying to all mayoral appointees. It's only it's saying it only applies 01:09:18.089 --> 01:09:24.702 - to those that Legally serve at the pleasure of the mayor in other words if there's a statutory 01:09:25.314 --> 01:09:33.788 - Reason that they can only remove her cause that that clause would not apply to those people. Does that 01:09:33.788 --> 01:09:42.098 - make sense? Yes, I will add though also that the legal department reviewed this language and The the 01:09:42.098 --> 01:09:51.148 - strikes and edits with respect to the mayoral Appointees were approved by the legal department the amendment. 01:09:51.148 --> 01:09:52.958 - Yes Yes, but no, okay 01:09:54.882 --> 01:10:06.238 - Great. Thank you. Any other questions on Amendment 1? Yes, Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. So do I understand 01:10:06.238 --> 01:10:17.068 - this correctly that it would only take a majority of council members to remove any board or commission 01:10:17.068 --> 01:10:22.430 - member that we have appointed for any reason? Yes. 01:10:28.514 --> 01:10:36.034 - Questions Councilmember Flaherty Quickly googled it and it says for instance planning commission members 01:10:36.034 --> 01:10:43.483 - under IC 36 7 4 to 18 Must be removed for cause by the appointing authority So I do it seems like there 01:10:43.483 --> 01:10:51.146 - are instances in which we can't remove For any reason both the mayor and the council. I don't know offhand 01:10:51.146 --> 01:10:57.950 - what all those are, but I'm a little worried about the construction of this implying or giving 01:10:58.562 --> 01:11:05.218 - a future council member who reads it, the wrong impression about what's possible. Yeah, I think that's 01:11:05.218 --> 01:11:11.874 - really fair. I think, yeah, because particularly things like, I imagine public safety falls under that 01:11:11.874 --> 01:11:18.530 - category as well, right? So we can revisit this later, I think, is, I mean, I do think that it's worth 01:11:18.530 --> 01:11:25.380 - us thinking about, in many ways, we're addressing the, partially addressing the pain point by introducing 01:11:25.380 --> 01:11:28.030 - the rule book, the, what do you call it, 01:11:28.258 --> 01:11:36.004 - Code of conduct, sorry. Like I said, I think there's some strangeness in the code that seems to suggest 01:11:36.004 --> 01:11:43.675 - that the mayor has the ability to remove people, put people on. This conversation that we had recently 01:11:43.675 --> 01:11:46.654 - about the BZA, this sort of thing about 01:11:47.394 --> 01:11:53.949 - To what extent is council's will going to be enforced by the person who we appoint there and whether 01:11:53.949 --> 01:12:00.569 - we want some strength in doing that or whether we say, well, we have a year, we need to wait until we 01:12:00.569 --> 01:12:07.189 - reappoint or something like that. That's the mechanism here that I'm trying to get at that I do think 01:12:07.189 --> 01:12:12.446 - that council should be able to say this is the thing that we want to see happen. 01:12:12.706 --> 01:12:18.279 - you know, and have some teeth to appointments to the extent they want to. And then I think to the concern 01:12:18.279 --> 01:12:23.588 - that is implied by what Councilmember Piedmont-Smith said, you know, my thinking, I did debate about 01:12:23.588 --> 01:12:29.108 - whether or not you want it to be like unanimous or two-thirds or something like that to remove somebody. 01:12:29.108 --> 01:12:34.576 - Certainly if we revisited, like if we voted this down and revisited, I think, you know, might be a good 01:12:34.576 --> 01:12:39.991 - idea, but my sense is that, you know, to get a majority of council members to want to remove somebody, 01:12:39.991 --> 01:12:42.672 - we would probably want to cause in the first place 01:12:42.672 --> 01:12:48.103 - You know, I don't think we just I don't I don't like them, you know I didn't like what they were wearing 01:12:48.103 --> 01:12:53.585 - or something like that, right? Like, you know, so so I think that there's a little bit of self-governance 01:12:53.585 --> 01:12:59.068 - that will be there But I do think setting the setting the precedent that we appoint people and the people 01:12:59.068 --> 01:13:04.757 - that we appoint serve at our pleasure Just sort of feel felt appropriate given how those certain appointments 01:13:04.757 --> 01:13:09.981 - that the mayor makes them are dealt with All right, thank you for that any other questions before we 01:13:09.981 --> 01:13:11.326 - move on to public comment 01:13:11.842 --> 01:13:21.643 - on Amendment 1. All right. I don't see any. So do we have any members of the public who would like to 01:13:21.643 --> 01:13:31.541 - make a comment on Amendment 1 for this ordinance, 2020604? I don't see anybody in the audience rushing 01:13:31.541 --> 01:13:41.534 - to the microphone. Anybody online? No. No. OK. So no comments from the public on Amendment 1. Any last? 01:13:42.242 --> 01:13:49.354 - comments from council before we move to a vote. Council Member Flaherty. Thank you. I appreciate that 01:13:49.354 --> 01:13:56.465 - conversation. And what Council Member Sarri said in response in particular is an interesting question 01:13:56.465 --> 01:14:03.437 - of to what degree should the council's priorities influence its appointees. I think it's actually a 01:14:03.437 --> 01:14:10.409 - pretty tricky question at times. I think my hunch is that the statutory requirements that folks can 01:14:10.409 --> 01:14:12.222 - only be removed for cause 01:14:12.450 --> 01:14:19.845 - is to grant them a degree of independence. And the Board of Zoning Appeals, for instance, is a quasi-judicial 01:14:19.845 --> 01:14:26.703 - body that has a set of responsibilities, and there's probably some risk of undue counsel influence in 01:14:26.703 --> 01:14:33.493 - some cases. I'm also, though, intrigued by the notion of kind of a parallel approach to the mayor if 01:14:33.493 --> 01:14:39.678 - there are counsel appointees that are not statutorily required to be removed by cause only. 01:14:39.842 --> 01:14:46.305 - I would be open to the possibility of Essentially saying in those situations they might be different 01:14:46.305 --> 01:14:52.832 - and we might want the ability for the council to Have a little bit more of a direct line and and with 01:14:52.832 --> 01:14:59.551 - those appointees in the same way I think the mayor does with with Those appointees of hers that do serve 01:14:59.551 --> 01:15:06.078 - at her pleasure So I think it's worthy of revisiting. I can't support the amendment tonight But thank 01:15:06.078 --> 01:15:09.214 - you for bringing it Councilmember Piedmont Smith 01:15:13.090 --> 01:15:22.362 - Yes, it makes me a little uneasy to say that the council can remove somebody without cause. I mean, 01:15:22.362 --> 01:15:31.820 - cause is kind of a hazy term, but there is legal precedent to say what is just cause and what is not. 01:15:31.820 --> 01:15:41.278 - I mean, we can say, we doubt that five of us would agree to remove somebody for some flippant reason, 01:15:41.410 --> 01:15:51.297 - You never know, and you never know who's going to be sitting up here. I consider council appointees 01:15:51.297 --> 01:16:01.282 - not really an extension of the council's will so much as an opportunity for people in the public who 01:16:01.282 --> 01:16:11.070 - have certain interests and expertise to serve the community by their service on those commissions. 01:16:11.426 --> 01:16:18.432 - Those so it does worry me that that we would be giving a blank check to counsel to remove somebody. 01:16:18.432 --> 01:16:25.579 - I also don't like the fact that in some cases the mayor has a blank check to remove somebody. So just 01:16:25.579 --> 01:16:32.866 - because I don't like that doesn't mean we should make the same mistake with counsel appointees. So I'll 01:16:32.866 --> 01:16:37.630 - be voting no. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Smith. 01:16:37.762 --> 01:16:44.474 - Councilmember Zulek and then councilmember sorry. Yes. Thank you I will speak in favor of this amendment 01:16:44.474 --> 01:16:50.866 - just as chair of one of the interview committees and having gotten a couple different opportunities 01:16:50.866 --> 01:16:57.642 - to understand the Engagement between commissioners and staff liaisons. We have had multiple circumstances 01:16:57.642 --> 01:17:04.098 - even in the past year of the way that our council representatives have been interacting with members 01:17:04.098 --> 01:17:07.614 - of the public and staff is completely unacceptable and 01:17:08.066 --> 01:17:16.519 - This would be one of the ways in which we could remove a commissioner for behavior that is just not 01:17:16.519 --> 01:17:25.056 - what we would want to see represented by or in representation of the city council. So I will be. Yes 01:17:25.056 --> 01:17:33.677 - we do have the code of conduct but I do still believe that this is unnecessary measure. So thank you. 01:17:33.677 --> 01:17:36.382 - Thank you. And president sorry. 01:17:36.514 --> 01:17:42.063 - Yeah, I was gonna say I actually think I agree with councilman Flaherty I think that I do think this 01:17:42.063 --> 01:17:47.722 - may be something to revisit particularly again for the parallelism maybe we take the the same position 01:17:47.722 --> 01:17:53.326 - that councilman Piedmont Smith is has put forward which is actually maybe taking out of code the fact 01:17:53.326 --> 01:17:59.315 - that some folks serve at the pleasure of the mayor right I mean But I think it's an interesting conversation 01:17:59.315 --> 01:18:00.414 - to continue to have 01:18:01.122 --> 01:18:09.977 - I was going to say something about the code of conduct and like trying to understand. I mean, this sort 01:18:09.977 --> 01:18:17.470 - of came out of a discussion with our staff and City Legal where the question of sort of 01:18:18.082 --> 01:18:24.708 - this word is going to be too strong, but litigation around what for cause means here and whether or 01:18:24.708 --> 01:18:31.600 - not we've created a strong enough document in the Code of Conduct, I think is sort of what we're trying 01:18:31.600 --> 01:18:38.293 - to get at. Again, I don't think we have some rush to deal with this. We can revisit. So I'd be happy 01:18:38.293 --> 01:18:45.118 - unless there seems like some overwhelming excitement to do this. Very happy to withdraw the amendment. 01:18:45.346 --> 01:18:55.444 - Seeing no one a lot of trepidation so I Would I would be favorable if you withdrew it? I was gonna say 01:18:55.444 --> 01:19:05.445 - if there was excitement excitement I'll withdraw I'll withdraw the amendment so that we don't have to 01:19:05.445 --> 01:19:12.798 - take too much time here You are making a motion to withdraw your amendment 01:19:13.154 --> 01:19:20.182 - Do I need to do that? No. You can just withdraw. I just say I withdraw. It's gone. I give this back 01:19:20.182 --> 01:19:27.351 - to you. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. OK. We'll now go then to public comment on the proposal 01:19:27.351 --> 01:19:34.871 - as was. Does anybody want to make public comment on this change to Title II around boards and commissions? 01:19:34.871 --> 01:19:42.462 - From the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I'm agnostic that would be the Chamber's agnostic on this 01:19:42.818 --> 01:19:48.451 - Particular ordinance, but I wanted to say that you know, but council processes the committee on We've 01:19:48.451 --> 01:19:53.643 - been very supportive of that in that process and one of the things they were looking into Was 01:19:53.643 --> 01:19:59.166 - the consolidation of boards and commissions the Novak report and that's one thing that this doesn't 01:19:59.166 --> 01:20:04.744 - do and we're looking for some teeth in that that's been a priority of the chamber that we've had the 01:20:04.744 --> 01:20:10.046 - last few years that we look forward to I know we've seen that with the Transportation Committee 01:20:10.178 --> 01:20:16.013 - But that I think that was more staff driven than it was council processes driven. So I want to make 01:20:16.013 --> 01:20:22.082 - sure that the council Committee on that is continuing to look into that and making sure that the boards 01:20:22.082 --> 01:20:27.975 - and commissions are Serving its purpose. Are we getting something for those? It's not just lip gloss 01:20:27.975 --> 01:20:33.869 - That we're doing that, you know, we're having some substantive Recommendations and getting something 01:20:33.869 --> 01:20:36.670 - that this it's not an event planners its actual 01:20:36.770 --> 01:20:46.023 - Recommendations from from the public. So just I always want to continue that work Appreciate your time 01:20:46.023 --> 01:20:55.726 - tonight. Thank you Thank you. Are there any other comments in the room? Seeing none, are there any comments 01:20:55.726 --> 01:21:04.350 - online? Yes, there is one wonderful. Take it away person online No, this is Jamie show I was on 01:21:04.642 --> 01:21:13.096 - what's known as BCOS, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability, and put forth the resolution for 01:21:13.096 --> 01:21:21.466 - the name change to include resilience, because that is something that that commission does. Now, in 01:21:21.466 --> 01:21:30.004 - the previous commenter, he'd mentioned to combine these commissions and to look into that. One of the 01:21:30.004 --> 01:21:33.854 - things that had been suggested in that report 01:21:34.370 --> 01:21:43.829 - was that the environmental commission and the commission on sustainability be combined. However, anyone 01:21:43.829 --> 01:21:53.379 - who knows much of the history of the formation of BCOS would realize that they serve different purposes. 01:21:53.379 --> 01:22:03.838 - One of the reasons I put forth the name change to include the word resilience was to help set the commission apart 01:22:03.938 --> 01:22:11.889 - more clearly in the duties that it was to perform. I just wanted to make everyone aware of that because 01:22:11.889 --> 01:22:19.917 - there are many commissioners that come onto these commissions that do not have the history and knowledge 01:22:19.917 --> 01:22:27.639 - and some of the words and how things were phrased in the past do not always mesh with how things are 01:22:27.639 --> 01:22:30.238 - seen in the future or like today. 01:22:30.466 --> 01:22:38.277 - So I just wanted to put that out there and thank you all for looking into all the things for the commissions 01:22:38.277 --> 01:22:45.802 - and have a good evening, thanks. Thank you. Are there any other commenters online? Wonderful, all right, 01:22:45.802 --> 01:22:53.183 - we'll come back to council chambers. Are there any final comments before we put this to a vote? Please 01:22:53.183 --> 01:22:56.766 - Council Member Pima-Smith. Yes, I just wanted to, 01:22:57.474 --> 01:23:07.399 - Reply to what Mr. MG was saying about, you know, making sure we really incorporate the board and commission 01:23:07.399 --> 01:23:16.589 - work into governance. And I think that the creation of council member liaisons that are assigned to 01:23:16.589 --> 01:23:26.974 - certain boards and commissions will work towards that end to really incorporate the value of the commission work 01:23:27.106 --> 01:23:35.214 - More closely into what we do overall as a city both Here on the council and also different commissions 01:23:35.214 --> 01:23:43.557 - working together on common goals I think we've taken a good step in creating those councilmember liaisons 01:23:43.557 --> 01:23:51.665 - I in the last month I've attended meetings of two commissions that I never attended before and I think 01:23:51.665 --> 01:23:53.790 - you know just having those 01:23:54.018 --> 01:24:02.188 - connections with council members will be a big improvement in Really making the best use of our commissions 01:24:02.188 --> 01:24:09.905 - to work on common goals and of course as sponsor of this legislation, I hope to gain your support and 01:24:09.905 --> 01:24:18.302 - This this is the result of work of the committee on council processes, which I continue to chair and I welcome 01:24:18.434 --> 01:24:25.692 - You know councilmember is sorry or others who have input into maybe future amendments to these sections 01:24:25.692 --> 01:24:32.671 - of our municipal code to reach out to me and and let the Committee on council processes perhaps vet 01:24:32.671 --> 01:24:39.859 - those changes. Thank you Excellent. Thank you so much. Any other final comments at councilmember Rallo 01:24:39.859 --> 01:24:46.908 - Yes, I first I'd like to thank my colleague councilmember be not people on Smith Smith for doing the 01:24:46.908 --> 01:24:48.094 - work on this and 01:24:48.866 --> 01:24:58.509 - and I also wanted to comment actually give credit to Jamie Scholl for her work on the name change for 01:24:58.509 --> 01:25:08.530 - the Commission on sustainability to become the Commission on sustainability and resilience The resolution 01:25:08.530 --> 01:25:18.078 - that was that that she crafted With some input from the Commission Justin vassal chair. It's on page 01:25:18.178 --> 01:25:27.937 - Page 57 of our packet and it's very short and succinct Document and it speaks well to the necessity 01:25:27.937 --> 01:25:37.988 - for that change mostly about If if we recognize we're on a sustainable trajectory and we have affected 01:25:37.988 --> 01:25:47.454 - conditions for instance climate being one then it's incumbent on us to consider how we adapt and 01:25:47.650 --> 01:25:55.267 - So this is about adaptation. And I think that this particular commission is very well suited to advise 01:25:55.267 --> 01:26:02.957 - city government, council, mayor, departments, and the community at large on ways in which we can adapt. 01:26:02.957 --> 01:26:10.426 - And there are examples given in that resolution. And by the way, the resolution was accepted. It was 01:26:10.426 --> 01:26:13.310 - passed nine to zero. It was unanimous. 01:26:14.146 --> 01:26:20.481 - Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much any other closing comments, please comes from Stasberg Thank 01:26:20.481 --> 01:26:26.754 - you. I just wanted to say thank you to clerk Crosley in the clerk's office for Working on that code 01:26:26.754 --> 01:26:33.465 - of conduct even even before I took office. There was kind of this question and some concerns about Removal 01:26:33.465 --> 01:26:39.738 - for cause and that concept and so I feel like this has been kind of a long time coming and I'm glad 01:26:39.738 --> 01:26:42.686 - that it sounds like that code of conduct isn't 01:26:43.234 --> 01:26:49.633 - quite in final form yet, but it's in final form enough that we can add reference to it into our code 01:26:49.633 --> 01:26:55.524 - and start going through that in action process. So thank you very much for all of that work. 01:26:55.524 --> 01:26:59.262 - That's all. Thanks. Thank you so much. Any other comments? 01:27:00.162 --> 01:27:06.054 - All right, well, I'll make one quick comment, which is to the people of Bloomington, there are open 01:27:06.054 --> 01:27:11.946 - commission seats. Go to what's the website? Onboard something, something. If you just look on board 01:27:11.946 --> 01:27:17.898 - Bloomington something, you will find it. And I hope you all apply. We want you all on our boards and 01:27:17.898 --> 01:27:23.908 - commissions. Thank you very much. OK, with that being said, do we have to do a roll call vote, or can 01:27:23.908 --> 01:27:25.086 - we do a voice vote? 01:27:25.410 --> 01:27:34.173 - With us all here. It has to be a roll call in which case will the clerk please call the roll? Yes, and 01:27:34.173 --> 01:27:42.681 - with your permission, I'll say it's bloomington.in.gov Thank you very much. Of course councilmember 01:27:42.681 --> 01:27:51.870 - Stasper. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes Rallo. Yes, rough Rosenberger. Yes clarity. Yes, I 01:27:52.418 --> 01:27:59.518 - That motion passes nine zero, hooray. Now moving on to the next thing on our agenda. Are there any motions? 01:27:59.518 --> 01:28:06.223 - I move that ordinance 2026-05 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second. 01:28:06.223 --> 01:28:13.257 - There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All against? 01:28:13.257 --> 01:28:16.478 - That motion carries. Will the clerk please read? 01:28:17.474 --> 01:28:24.020 - Ordinance 2026-05 to amend Title 2 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Administration and Personnel 01:28:24.020 --> 01:28:30.443 - to allow discussion at first readings of ordinances and to clarify the ordinance and resolution readings 01:28:30.443 --> 01:28:36.560 - provisions in Chapter 2.04. Synopsis is as follows. This ordinance sponsored by Councilmember Zulek 01:28:36.560 --> 01:28:42.861 - allows debate and amendment of ordinances at first readings. It also clarifies the readings and voting 01:28:42.861 --> 01:28:46.654 - procedures for ordinances and resolutions. Thank you so much. 01:28:48.290 --> 01:28:54.227 - 2005 be adopted All right. Um councilman, would you like to present on it? Yes. Thank you I believe 01:28:54.227 --> 01:29:00.165 - there are several amendments that might drastically change the language So I will just give you all 01:29:00.165 --> 01:29:06.221 - a brief overview of what this legislation is for under this Ordinance any ordinance may be debated or 01:29:06.221 --> 01:29:12.574 - amended at first reading and subsequent meetings the big change being we do not currently debate and amend 01:29:12.706 --> 01:29:18.849 - Ordinances at their first reading the only circumstances under which a final vote could be taken on 01:29:18.849 --> 01:29:25.177 - first reading is if all present council members consent to proceed to a vote and two-thirds of council 01:29:25.177 --> 01:29:31.443 - members vote in favor of the ordinance and Just so everyone is aware this change or an exception does 01:29:31.443 --> 01:29:36.542 - not apply to zoning changes as dictated by state law Happy to answer any questions 01:29:43.458 --> 01:29:51.880 - Members Lasberg I Have a few questions, but I'll start with what would the Procedure be for this because 01:29:51.880 --> 01:30:00.141 - right now when we're when we need to discuss something We motion for it to be adopted So would we have 01:30:00.141 --> 01:30:08.242 - to like would there be a motion for it to be adopted? In order to discuss it and if there's a motion 01:30:08.242 --> 01:30:13.054 - to be adopted then How do we? Because because then you said 01:30:13.154 --> 01:30:19.903 - That we couldn't actually take a vote unless everybody there wanted to take a vote So then would there 01:30:19.903 --> 01:30:26.455 - have to be like an extra motion in there? To actually vote on the adoption like how does this work? 01:30:26.455 --> 01:30:33.269 - So that that part of the code is per state law And which we can't supersede but I believe that it would 01:30:33.269 --> 01:30:39.821 - be a simple motion of I move that we continue the discussion to this next Council meeting I believe 01:30:39.821 --> 01:30:41.918 - is how we would handle that but 01:30:42.018 --> 01:30:49.581 - Curious too. So there would be a motion to adopt then as well as a motion to introduce at first reading 01:30:49.581 --> 01:30:57.072 - Yes, I believe that is correct. Does that sound correct attorney laner? As Robert's rules of order are 01:30:57.072 --> 01:31:04.490 - referenced in the code there would need to be a motion to adopt a main motion in order to support the 01:31:04.490 --> 01:31:11.326 - discussion there there was some and I don't want to speak on behalf of the the committee, but 01:31:11.938 --> 01:31:27.235 - There was some support maybe for having a period of presentations from staff at first readings, potentially 01:31:27.235 --> 01:31:37.150 - discussion or questions by council members during first readings too. 01:31:37.570 --> 01:31:46.283 - There was a motion to adopt then I think there would need to be a motion to postpone the question unless 01:31:46.283 --> 01:31:54.996 - it was voted on postponed to a date certain That brings up another question go ahead councilman Stasberg 01:31:54.996 --> 01:32:03.294 - Have you checked in with the administration around staff time and staff presenting at first reading 01:32:03.294 --> 01:32:05.534 - and how that impacts staff 01:32:05.730 --> 01:32:13.221 - who might have to be present for late night meetings that are outside their normal working hours. We 01:32:13.221 --> 01:32:20.712 - spoke about it in our scheduling meetings and nobody raised an issue. Let me back up. We spoke about 01:32:20.712 --> 01:32:28.277 - this in our scheduling meetings with Deputy Mayor Knapp and legal and a couple other members from the 01:32:28.277 --> 01:32:33.246 - mayor's administration. So I they are aware that this is going on. 01:32:33.346 --> 01:32:41.442 - and no issues were raised to either of us that I'm aware of. This wasn't addressed to me, but can I 01:32:41.442 --> 01:32:49.862 - also opine on it? I mean, I guess I can just by choice. But I think one of the benefits that staff sees 01:32:49.862 --> 01:32:55.934 - in us being able to discuss things, well, two things first. In a second, I 01:32:56.514 --> 01:33:02.753 - One of the questions that you ask, I think, is more clearly addressed in an amendment that I'm going 01:33:02.753 --> 01:33:08.930 - to offer, which is important. But staff, from my perspective and from the conversations I have with 01:33:08.930 --> 01:33:15.293 - them. Point of order right now, if I can, President Nasari? Yes. I was asking questions of the sponsor 01:33:15.293 --> 01:33:21.717 - at the moment. Oh, OK. Fine. And I'm not sure that that's. Fantastic. I'll make a general comment later 01:33:21.717 --> 01:33:25.918 - then. Does anybody else have a question? Attorney Lanier, go ahead. 01:33:27.330 --> 01:33:36.278 - Council member Stossberg I wanted to add to to your question that attorney Anna Holmes from the legal 01:33:36.278 --> 01:33:45.839 - department participated in some of the CCP committee on council processes meetings where this was discussed. 01:33:45.839 --> 01:33:53.822 - So I think there's awareness on on the part of the legal department in the administration. 01:33:55.618 --> 01:34:02.648 - Thank you so much attorney later. Are there others questions for the sponsor? All right seeing none 01:34:02.648 --> 01:34:09.889 - There there is a handful of amendments. Do you have a question? Go ahead councilmember Stossberg would 01:34:09.889 --> 01:34:16.989 - there be public comment allowed then as well as Tends to be the case we have and that was that was a 01:34:16.989 --> 01:34:24.862 - question for the sponsor if we're having Discussion is first reading is their public comment allowed. Thank you 01:34:26.786 --> 01:34:34.396 - This a little bit. I believe we did plan on doing public comment. There are a couple different ways 01:34:34.396 --> 01:34:42.311 - that we could do it but I Think if someone takes the time to show up to a City Council meeting and it's 01:34:42.311 --> 01:34:50.150 - on the agenda They should have the opportunity to speak on it Are there any other questions Councilman 01:34:50.150 --> 01:34:55.934 - flirty I'm sort of channeling conversation that did happen in the committee 01:34:56.514 --> 01:35:03.103 - of which I used to be a member, but I'm no longer a member. And I think it comes down mostly to how 01:35:03.103 --> 01:35:09.693 - we operationalize this, not necessarily the code provisions, but I just did want to ask also about, 01:35:09.693 --> 01:35:16.217 - have you all thought about ways to kind of signal to staff, to the public, maybe with time limits, 01:35:16.217 --> 01:35:22.938 - or if, let's say, there's four things we're having on first reading that night, and maybe only two of 01:35:22.938 --> 01:35:25.310 - them we actually intend to discuss, 01:35:25.602 --> 01:35:32.656 - like noting that in the packet in some way. I'm just trying to think about giving enough. We're adding 01:35:32.656 --> 01:35:39.846 - flexibility and that may come at the cost of certainty or clarity for folks and basically how to balance 01:35:39.846 --> 01:35:46.078 - that. So any thoughts? One of the things that we get caught up in a lot is that when we do 01:35:46.178 --> 01:35:53.152 - try to do an amendment at second reading where maybe not as prepared on the fly. And so one of the reasons 01:35:53.152 --> 01:35:59.930 - that we wanted to discuss things at first reading is to give ourselves an opportunity to kind of extend 01:35:59.930 --> 01:36:06.512 - that timeline, especially given all of the accessibility things that are coming up. And so we'd like 01:36:06.512 --> 01:36:13.095 - to be able to address that. I think to answer your question, making very, very clear expectations on 01:36:13.095 --> 01:36:16.158 - how long the presentation should be and, like, 01:36:16.450 --> 01:36:26.173 - just clarifying this is how it's going to go, whether or not we say all presentations are five minutes, 01:36:26.173 --> 01:36:35.895 - all presentations are 10 minutes. I think specifying our expectations would help a lot with that. Other 01:36:35.895 --> 01:36:41.598 - questions? All right. Seeing none, there are two amendments. 01:36:42.050 --> 01:36:53.063 - Councilmember Zulek has asked that I introduce mine first. So I'll pass over to councilmember Daley 01:36:53.063 --> 01:37:04.075 - and Can I can I move that we introduce amendment to to the floor second Attorney Lane, are you able 01:37:04.075 --> 01:37:11.454 - to put put that up by chance if you have it if if not amendment to 01:37:14.690 --> 01:37:26.269 - does a couple of things. The first thing that it aims to do is change this, maybe don't need to characterize 01:37:26.269 --> 01:37:37.211 - it, but antiquated, I don't know, position that we put the clerk in, that the clerk is to read things. 01:37:37.211 --> 01:37:41.566 - So it allows for council members to read 01:37:41.762 --> 01:37:51.421 - Things so and so I've included 2.04 280 as part of the considerations of what's of what we're changing 01:37:51.421 --> 01:38:00.986 - Here and so striking the first that section that sort of talks about how the clerk Reads those things 01:38:00.986 --> 01:38:10.550 - and making that a little clearer and then trying to address the question that councilmember Stossberg 01:38:10.550 --> 01:38:11.582 - brought up 01:38:11.906 --> 01:38:25.695 - I outline some clear procedures for sort of how a first reading goes. And then I've replaced section 01:38:25.695 --> 01:38:33.886 - 2.04310 with the reference to Indiana code and sort of what 01:38:34.466 --> 01:38:43.322 - what it would mean to adopt a resolution and what limits are placed on, I mean, I'm sorry, an ordinance 01:38:43.322 --> 01:38:51.837 - on first reading and what limits are placed on that. So that is the goal of this amendment. It was, 01:38:51.837 --> 01:39:00.437 - you'll note it's a reflection of something that Mr. Askins had sent around as a suggestion with some 01:39:00.437 --> 01:39:01.374 - cleaned up 01:39:01.538 --> 01:39:12.042 - elements of state code references And some Titan language to take out redundancies as well. So that 01:39:12.042 --> 01:39:23.282 - is the proposal here Thank you for that any questions from council for amendment to Councilmember Piedmont 01:39:23.282 --> 01:39:29.374 - Smith Yeah, I have a couple of questions first of all the 01:39:30.210 --> 01:39:38.535 - I'm looking at attachment A that went along with the amendment. Why was section B of 2.04.280 deleted? 01:39:38.535 --> 01:39:46.860 - The one that says the edited synopsis shall be read whenever legislation accompanies it is introduced, 01:39:46.860 --> 01:39:55.185 - first to second reading, it will become part of the official record but not have legal effect of being 01:39:55.185 --> 01:39:58.014 - part of legislation. Why was that? 01:39:58.242 --> 01:40:09.638 - And just because of the ongoing reference to first and second reading, it's like we don't define what 01:40:09.638 --> 01:40:21.145 - reading is. We state it in this one place. And so it just felt like a nice cleanup of code. OK. So has 01:40:21.145 --> 01:40:25.726 - it removed any mention of readings? Yes. 01:40:30.562 --> 01:40:38.299 - Another question I have, if I may or should I wait, is whether you have spoken with Clerk Bolden about 01:40:38.299 --> 01:40:46.112 - this, since it does take away a duty of the clerk to read by title and synopsis? Yes. Can you elaborate 01:40:46.112 --> 01:40:53.699 - as to what she said, or shall we just go to her directly? The clerk said thank you, but if the clerk 01:40:53.699 --> 01:40:59.934 - would like to say that now, you're welcome to, or differ from what I say you said. 01:41:02.690 --> 01:41:10.095 - As long as, I'm sorry, just as long as, is this question referred to the clerk at this point? I think 01:41:10.095 --> 01:41:17.428 - the question's referred to you, so you can answer. Yes, thank you. As I said earlier, yes, I did say 01:41:17.428 --> 01:41:24.905 - thank you. And from a personal perspective, yes, that's fine. I don't have any objection to not having 01:41:24.905 --> 01:41:31.294 - to read some rather lengthy synopses that are not so plain language as they hope to be. 01:41:32.354 --> 01:41:40.095 - I always worry about when we start removing duties from future clerks not so much from a personal perspective 01:41:40.095 --> 01:41:47.132 - but I don't know that this is something that 50 years from now a city clerk is going to say darn at 01:41:47.132 --> 01:41:54.450 - all. Why am I not reading the synopsis for this piece of legislation like they used to do 60 years ago. 01:41:54.450 --> 01:41:57.406 - So that's where I am and I will note that 01:41:57.666 --> 01:42:03.508 - Striking this doesn't mean that we couldn't ask the clerk to read I mean we could make a motion that 01:42:03.508 --> 01:42:09.524 - the clerk read the clerk could read I mean, there's nothing precluding that it's just saying that we're 01:42:09.524 --> 01:42:15.482 - not going to require by code That that the clerk be the person who reads and to that I again say thank 01:42:15.482 --> 01:42:21.267 - you Okay, so there's nothing in state code that says the clerk is supposed to have that function no 01:42:21.267 --> 01:42:25.374 - No, sorry. I didn't understand. That was what you were asking before I 01:42:25.986 --> 01:42:32.729 - Just want to make sure it's a follow-up question. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm Any other questions for president 01:42:32.729 --> 01:42:39.098 - sorry on amendment to councilmember Stossberg? Thank you. I I feel like there's this implication here 01:42:39.098 --> 01:42:45.466 - under your a during the meeting when an ordinance or resolution is reached on the City Council agenda 01:42:45.466 --> 01:42:51.960 - the presiding officer shall announce the item and read aloud its title and synopsis and after it's been 01:42:51.960 --> 01:42:54.270 - announced as spelled out which is be 01:42:54.370 --> 01:43:01.849 - then it's before the council for consideration. That reads as to eliminate a vote for first reading. 01:43:01.849 --> 01:43:09.327 - And I want to note tonight that we actually voted no on something for first reading tonight. So does 01:43:09.327 --> 01:43:16.880 - this in fact eliminate a vote for first reading? No. Well, two things. One, I mean, maybe it's a moot 01:43:16.880 --> 01:43:22.878 - point, but you can dispose of things all the same. Any type of procedural motion 01:43:23.170 --> 01:43:29.806 - is, would be valid at this point. So after it's read, you could say, actually, we don't ever want to 01:43:29.806 --> 01:43:36.573 - read this, and we could push it off. One could motion that we vote for it that night, and then there's 01:43:36.573 --> 01:43:43.143 - the procedures to do that. So this just opens it up to real procedure, and not creating this, like, 01:43:43.143 --> 01:43:50.238 - reflection of Bloomington custom. This is actually reflective of Robert's rules. We're just sort of saying, 01:43:50.402 --> 01:43:58.889 - Once it's read it's before us and then we do what we want to do with it But tonight we didn't even want 01:43:58.889 --> 01:44:07.458 - it read well, I mean So you're eliminating a vote that council would normally take to introduce an item. 01:44:07.458 --> 01:44:11.294 - Well, I don't know. I don't know if it kind of 01:44:11.362 --> 01:44:18.086 - It kind of was read, because I read it in the synopsis. And in past councils, when you would read, you 01:44:18.086 --> 01:44:24.615 - would just go down and read the thing. You would read the thing by title. So this notion of reading 01:44:24.615 --> 01:44:31.274 - doesn't really mean all that much. What we're talking about is whether or not it's considered. And so 01:44:31.274 --> 01:44:37.998 - when it's before us, you can dispose it. So tonight, you could have said, if this passed, I would have 01:44:37.998 --> 01:44:41.328 - read this thing about Hopewell, whatever, and then 01:44:41.328 --> 01:44:48.405 - you would have said, hey, I motion that we table this until our March 4th meeting. That's what would 01:44:48.405 --> 01:44:55.762 - have happened. Nothing else would have changed. But then at March 4th, then it would have been at second 01:44:55.762 --> 01:45:02.839 - reading. And on the second reading, you could say, I move that we table this to the 17th of January. 01:45:02.839 --> 01:45:09.845 - There's no constraint here on your action or your ability to postpone something, if that's what you 01:45:09.845 --> 01:45:10.686 - want to do. 01:45:10.818 --> 01:45:19.072 - We could you could postpone it for three meetings like it. This is not precluding you from this. 01:45:19.072 --> 01:45:27.837 - In fact, it's empowering you to do it so If you're a member of the public right now, and you're coming 01:45:27.837 --> 01:45:36.432 - to a meeting You don't know at this point whether or not it's going to be discussed or considered or 01:45:36.432 --> 01:45:39.070 - eliminated or anything because 01:45:39.298 --> 01:45:45.312 - Everything is on the table. So if you're a member of the public now you're having to Pay attention to 01:45:45.312 --> 01:45:51.503 - twice as many things now. We're having different. How is that different than now? I might ask Well right 01:45:51.503 --> 01:45:57.575 - now it's that people coming know that on first reading we're not going to discuss it Okay, and so they 01:45:57.575 --> 01:46:03.530 - know that there's the stability of like, okay, it's up for first reading I I'm not gonna worry about 01:46:03.530 --> 01:46:08.542 - this meeting I'm gonna worry about the next one if they want to make a comment on it 01:46:09.762 --> 01:46:17.358 - But if this goes through, there would be no certainty. Is that correct? I feel like we discussed a thing 01:46:17.358 --> 01:46:20.830 - today that was on our agenda for first reading. 01:46:22.722 --> 01:46:28.638 - And people if they came to hear us do that first reading I think that more people would engage I think 01:46:28.638 --> 01:46:34.440 - that you would get more comments from from council members. I think that you'd be able to think more 01:46:34.440 --> 01:46:40.126 - actively about amendments I think that we'd be able to get feedback from the public more actively. 01:46:40.290 --> 01:46:46.622 - so that we don't have situations where when we come to second reading, it's like, oh, this is the first 01:46:46.622 --> 01:46:52.832 - time that we're really thinking about this. We get a lot of opportunities to engage. And importantly, 01:46:52.832 --> 01:46:58.981 - it gives the public more opportunity to engage with things. And my theory of change is that the more 01:46:58.981 --> 01:47:03.486 - time that we have to deliberate on things, the better outcomes we'll see. 01:47:09.026 --> 01:47:20.233 - No more questions on amendment to all right anybody in chambers Would anybody like to make a comment 01:47:20.233 --> 01:47:31.773 - on amendment to We have one approaching the podium, thank you, please remember to sign in Paul Rousseau 01:47:31.773 --> 01:47:36.766 - My understanding is well my understanding is 01:47:36.962 --> 01:47:46.342 - I'm sorry if this is wrong, but my understanding is that the council is empowered to Change its agenda 01:47:46.342 --> 01:47:56.085 - at the beginning of a meeting and Now you are proposing to allow you to pass an ordinance on first reading 01:47:56.085 --> 01:48:04.190 - So maybe I have that wrong, but my understanding is that you could change the agenda and 01:48:04.450 --> 01:48:13.667 - Introduce an ordinance and pass it and the public would never know in advance So if I'm wrong, 01:48:13.667 --> 01:48:23.370 - that's good, but that's my impression right now and I'm Expressing concern about transparency and I 01:48:23.370 --> 01:48:34.334 - suppose what I'm saying is similar to what councilmember Stasburg just said Thank you Any further public comment 01:48:34.498 --> 01:48:41.832 - I see one approaching the podium. Good evening, Councillor Dave Askins with the B Square Bulletin. 01:48:41.832 --> 01:48:49.537 - I think Mr. Rousseau is exactly right. You could do that now. So this legislation does not change that. 01:48:49.537 --> 01:48:57.167 - You could absolutely add an item to your agenda at the start, and then that item could be an ordinance 01:48:57.167 --> 01:49:03.390 - that you then decide unanimously to consider, and then to pass on a two-thirds vote 01:49:04.034 --> 01:49:11.325 - the same day at the same meeting. So I think it's a legitimate point, but you could do that already. 01:49:11.325 --> 01:49:18.543 - Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else in chambers who would like to make a comment on Amendment 01:49:18.543 --> 01:49:25.545 - 2 for Ordinance 2026-05? I don't see anybody in chambers running to the podium. Any online? Yes, 01:49:25.545 --> 01:49:32.907 - there is one. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. Please go ahead whenever you're ready. Yes. My name is 01:49:32.907 --> 01:49:33.918 - Kevin Keough. 01:49:34.498 --> 01:49:40.897 - I'm a Bloomington resident and I'm speaking in support of allowing discussion and debate along with 01:49:40.897 --> 01:49:47.808 - public comment at the first reading. Last May 7th, 2025, during the first reading of a $10 million transfer 01:49:47.808 --> 01:49:54.335 - from the Food and Beverage Tax Fund to the CIB, I believed incorrectly that there would be discussion 01:49:54.335 --> 01:50:00.734 - at that first reading. That was frustrating enough, but what made it even worse was that the former 01:50:00.734 --> 01:50:01.438 - controller 01:50:01.794 --> 01:50:09.115 - ultimately pulled the resolution from the May 21st, 2025 meeting. So not only was there confusion about 01:50:09.115 --> 01:50:16.224 - debate, there was no debate at all. At that time, the fiscal impact statement showed a $19.9 million 01:50:16.224 --> 01:50:23.474 - fund balance and $10 million appropriation alongside bond proceeds issued going along the monthly tax. 01:50:23.474 --> 01:50:29.950 - Many of us struggled to reconcile the timing and the structure of this transfer. Meanwhile, 01:50:30.530 --> 01:50:38.490 - A reporting that was in late April and early May of 2025 showed the Redevelopment Commission authorizing 01:50:38.490 --> 01:50:46.525 - due diligence on the Bunger and Robertson property as the host hotel site. Fast forward, and now February 01:50:46.525 --> 01:50:54.333 - 2026, no land, no deal. But when $10 million in public funds is being transferred and the key elements 01:50:54.333 --> 01:50:58.654 - like land control, project coordinations are unresolved, 01:50:59.106 --> 01:51:05.818 - Early and transparent discussion is critical when resolutions are not properly vetted. Agenda items 01:51:05.818 --> 01:51:13.133 - are kept silent or resolutions are pulled. It creates confusion and erodes public trust. Allowing discussion 01:51:13.133 --> 01:51:19.912 - at first reading strengthens governance. It allows questions to be raised on the record early before 01:51:19.912 --> 01:51:25.214 - misunderstandings grow. For that reason, I support this resolution. Thank you. 01:51:29.218 --> 01:51:39.599 - Thank you very much. Are there any other commenters online? No, all right. No more zoom commenters. 01:51:39.599 --> 01:51:50.084 - No more in chambers any Comments here in council. Yes councilmember Rallo May ask a question It's an 01:51:50.084 --> 01:51:57.662 - interesting discussion So I agree with mr. Kehoe that just commented and 01:51:58.210 --> 01:52:06.987 - That there's a there's a real benefit and utility in having discussion at first reading We used to have 01:52:06.987 --> 01:52:15.596 - a long long time ago In the archaeological record of the council we had such a thing as the regularly 01:52:15.596 --> 01:52:24.120 - scheduled committee the whole which would allow discussion With no risk of adoption but all this has 01:52:24.120 --> 01:52:25.470 - changed now and 01:52:25.602 --> 01:52:35.850 - And I'm in agreement with Mr. Askins that we already have the power potentially to adopt in first reading. 01:52:35.850 --> 01:52:45.810 - So this doesn't fundamentally change that much. However, you know, it is a good point that Mr. Rousseau 01:52:45.810 --> 01:52:54.142 - brings up that, and that my council colleague Stasberg brings up that this power could 01:52:54.306 --> 01:53:04.905 - exclude the public from having Notice I suppose that they're going to have to be attentive to what's 01:53:04.905 --> 01:53:15.399 - on the schedule for first reading in any case Is that my I meant to ask a question council attorney 01:53:15.399 --> 01:53:22.430 - is that am I? Have I stated it correctly? Thank you Piedmont Smith 01:53:23.810 --> 01:53:34.482 - I also have a question So with this amendment With this amendment there is no Am I understanding correctly 01:53:34.482 --> 01:53:44.556 - that there's no assumption that every ordinance shall be given two readings because that language is 01:53:44.556 --> 01:53:50.142 - deleted No, I don't think that's correct because really 01:53:50.946 --> 01:53:59.913 - The only thing that we're addressing here is removing the explicit prohibition within Bloomington code 01:53:59.913 --> 01:54:08.794 - to allow us to discuss the thing. In terms of whether we can pass it, nothing changed. That's already 01:54:08.794 --> 01:54:16.542 - a clear state law, right? We can today pass something on first reading by the rules that 01:54:16.802 --> 01:54:24.979 - have been outlined, I think, a little bit more clearly here than at the very bottom, if you could, than 01:54:24.979 --> 01:54:32.998 - we have currently in Bloomington Municipal Code. Oh, okay, it went away. And so really the only thing 01:54:32.998 --> 01:54:40.939 - that we're trying to structure is, are we allowed to talk about things during the first reading? And 01:54:40.939 --> 01:54:45.342 - the answer, we want to be, yes. And so I'm just trying, 01:54:45.506 --> 01:54:52.678 - With the amendment just to give a little bit more Expectations for maybe how that might go to deal with 01:54:52.678 --> 01:54:59.643 - the very first question that councilmember Stasberg asked on when when councilmember Zulek made made 01:54:59.643 --> 01:55:06.953 - their presentation It's This is empowering. It's I mean there's it gives people an opportunity to comment 01:55:06.953 --> 01:55:13.022 - earlier in the process again to address what councilmember Rallo was saying as well and 01:55:14.434 --> 01:55:21.274 - I think that currently, we could have something on our agenda for second reading, ask no questions, 01:55:21.274 --> 01:55:28.456 - have no debate, and still pass it. This does give an opportunity for people to contribute to the process 01:55:28.456 --> 01:55:35.295 - earlier on. Again, for us to have discussions, both with staff, with each other, so we all can live 01:55:35.295 --> 01:55:41.246 - in the same reality. It's, I think, really useful and do more of our work in the open. 01:55:43.682 --> 01:55:50.002 - Councilmember Flaherty I'm Broadly supportive of the ordinance and discussing things at first reading 01:55:50.002 --> 01:55:56.385 - and all that the question is specifically to the amendment I'm still wrapping my head around a process 01:55:56.385 --> 01:56:02.209 - point a little bit, which is that? No motion is made When we get to the things and read them, 01:56:02.209 --> 01:56:08.901 - is that right? So no motion has been made me just sort of right or into right so from a Roberts perspective 01:56:08.901 --> 01:56:11.070 - I'm like not an understanding like 01:56:11.362 --> 01:56:18.331 - You can't move to table an item or postpone to a date certain if there's not a main motion upon which 01:56:18.331 --> 01:56:25.163 - to make that subsidiary motion. So you can't move to postpone something to the next regular session 01:56:25.163 --> 01:56:32.269 - if it hasn't been introduced in the first place. So that's the piece I'm struggling with understanding, 01:56:32.269 --> 01:56:37.598 - I guess. And maybe a weakness, but I think the assumption that I make is that 01:56:38.114 --> 01:56:44.981 - When it is it's here on our agenda. It's it's already I mean it's before us to be considered and then 01:56:44.981 --> 01:56:52.386 - whether what we want to do is dispose of it fine we want to move it like it's already like the the additional 01:56:52.386 --> 01:56:59.186 - sense of Let this now be before us like once it was on our agenda. It is before us hmm Okay, yes, so 01:56:59.186 --> 01:57:03.966 - a question for me from like a procedural legitimacy standpoint of that 01:57:04.194 --> 01:57:13.565 - But I do understand what you're saying. Thank you Any other comments or last questions councilmember 01:57:13.565 --> 01:57:22.843 - Stossberg I have a I have a comment Once again speaking trying to narrow this just to the amendment 01:57:22.843 --> 01:57:26.462 - itself which as councilmember Flaherty 01:57:26.562 --> 01:57:32.795 - Just stated it it eliminates that need for emotion as I asked earlier it eliminates that need for emotion 01:57:32.795 --> 01:57:38.733 - or introduction what councilmember sorry just said is that Like he's starting with the assumption of 01:57:38.733 --> 01:57:44.672 - going well if it's on the agenda then it's been introduced and I'm gonna go back to something I said 01:57:44.672 --> 01:57:50.611 - earlier, which is that the president Fixes the agenda that's like one of the responsibilities of the 01:57:50.611 --> 01:57:55.550 - president to set the agenda and if then the president is also introducing something 01:57:55.650 --> 01:58:02.262 - then I think that that yields too much power, essentially, to one person, the president, to add it to 01:58:02.262 --> 01:58:08.874 - the agenda and then to introduce it and say it's going to be considered. Because lots of other places 01:58:08.874 --> 01:58:15.486 - in our code, it gives power to the body as a whole, whether or not we're going to consider something. 01:58:16.290 --> 01:58:23.231 - To have the president put it on the agenda and then to have the president read it aloud introducing 01:58:23.231 --> 01:58:30.241 - it without any kind of motion on council of council I Dislike that from a procedural standpoint from 01:58:30.241 --> 01:58:37.321 - the fact that like as a body I mean the president is the president but they don't have any more power 01:58:37.321 --> 01:58:42.110 - really more than any other council member does we each should have a 01:58:42.242 --> 01:58:48.145 - You know, we're all an equal vote but doing it this way. I think it gives the president kind of Additional 01:58:48.145 --> 01:58:53.828 - power in a way that makes me kind of deeply uncomfortable and especially given tonight where where you 01:58:53.828 --> 01:58:59.510 - know, the majority of us said no We're not gonna gonna introduce this thing because of a procedure for 01:58:59.510 --> 01:59:05.248 - how it was placed onto the agenda in the first place and that part of code which specifically says like 01:59:05.248 --> 01:59:06.462 - council as a body and 01:59:06.946 --> 01:59:13.043 - Can can change something about that that deadline for submissions? And so what we did as a body tonight 01:59:13.043 --> 01:59:18.905 - was change something about that deadline for submissions Like I mean really we enforced what was in 01:59:18.905 --> 01:59:24.826 - code about it But you know, we called it out and we said that's problematic And so I think as a body 01:59:24.826 --> 01:59:30.747 - we should still be able to call out things like that So I will be voting against this amendment this 01:59:30.747 --> 01:59:34.558 - evening. Thank you Councilmember sorry, I don't think that again 01:59:34.786 --> 01:59:44.686 - that something is read in this room doesn't have any significance that it's when we make some type of 01:59:44.686 --> 01:59:54.974 - an action for that thing that thing has significance. And so the sort of idea that the president, I mean, 01:59:55.138 --> 02:00:02.792 - I don't really care who reads the thing, but I do have issues with the clerk reading it because 02:00:02.792 --> 02:00:10.764 - of colonialism. But the idea that it being read now suddenly, we're now forced to do something that 02:00:10.764 --> 02:00:18.976 - we weren't forced to do before, I just don't understand because we have the opportunity to do anything 02:00:18.976 --> 02:00:24.318 - that you would have done anyways with this. The main thing is that 02:00:24.642 --> 02:00:30.727 - it gets us quicker to the discussion, so that we're not having to spend all this time in procedure. 02:00:30.727 --> 02:00:36.994 - Which again, I mean, if you all like, it's fine, but it's like, that's the main thing. I don't see the 02:00:36.994 --> 02:00:43.140 - weight in saying that, okay, now here's this thing, what do you all wanna do with it? The person who 02:00:43.140 --> 02:00:49.408 - said what do you all wanna do with it does not have more power than the people who get to do something 02:00:49.408 --> 02:00:51.294 - with it. So, just saying that. 02:00:54.146 --> 02:01:03.207 - Thank you councilmember Piedmont Smith Allow me to ask a question, you know, we're actually in comments, 02:01:03.207 --> 02:01:11.837 - but yes, go ahead Sorry, this is a very different way for my old brain to think about this after 15 02:01:11.837 --> 02:01:20.466 - years of doing it one way so After the item has been announced and read by the presiding officer it 02:01:20.466 --> 02:01:21.502 - says in the 02:01:21.634 --> 02:01:30.815 - amendment the ordinance or resolution is before the council for consideration. But under Roberts don't 02:01:30.815 --> 02:01:40.264 - you need a motion to adopt before something is before a body for consideration. Does you know the answer. 02:01:40.264 --> 02:01:49.712 - Yes or maybe our attorney knows the answer. Yes I believe there would need to be a motion to adopt first. 02:01:49.712 --> 02:01:50.782 - So is this. 02:01:51.202 --> 02:02:02.076 - So I question the language here that it's before the council for consideration just after having been 02:02:02.076 --> 02:02:12.737 - read. I'm sorry. So so right now when when we do first readings we make a motion that it be read by 02:02:12.737 --> 02:02:17.534 - title and synopsis right. That does nothing. 02:02:17.858 --> 02:02:25.934 - That's so at the beginning at the beginning of a meeting now if I were to during summation of our schedule 02:02:25.934 --> 02:02:33.784 - Read the thing by title and has it been read? Is it being considered what's happening to to that thing? 02:02:33.784 --> 02:02:41.482 - I'm just saying it's on it's on the agenda, right? the motion to adopt is Customarily what we do here 02:02:41.482 --> 02:02:47.294 - to signal that we can now discuss whether or not we're going to adopt it and 02:02:50.754 --> 02:02:59.512 - Here, we're just saying that once it's here, we have an opportunity that we can choose to act on or 02:02:59.512 --> 02:03:08.271 - not to discuss it if we want to. That's what we're saying. We're just getting to the point of where 02:03:08.271 --> 02:03:11.774 - council can take some type of an action 02:03:11.906 --> 02:03:21.926 - just a little bit faster. That's really the thing. They're removing a little bit of the ceremony of 02:03:21.926 --> 02:03:32.447 - this to get to the meat of the action is what we're trying to do. Thank you. Thank you for the question. 02:03:32.447 --> 02:03:37.758 - Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Ruff? 02:03:40.130 --> 02:03:51.548 - Councilmember sorry's recent comments Made councilmember Stossberg feel any different about This legislation 02:03:51.548 --> 02:04:02.548 - but specifically when when councilman Stossberg gave the example what we did earlier tonight where seven 02:04:02.548 --> 02:04:08.414 - to vote and not adopt China's reduce would still happen 02:04:10.178 --> 02:04:18.804 - I was just wondering if his customer Stossberg wanted to elaborate or to follow up Anything councilmember, 02:04:18.804 --> 02:04:27.107 - sorry, I said has changed my mind well If it if it made you feel any Maybe not necessarily all the way 02:04:27.107 --> 02:04:35.491 - change your mind made you feel a little differently or a little better about Or a little less like this 02:04:35.491 --> 02:04:39.038 - is a little less risky No, honestly, I mean 02:04:41.378 --> 02:04:49.092 - I think that there's some real, I have real concerns with, like, generally speaking, amending code in 02:04:49.092 --> 02:04:56.881 - haphazard ways. And, I mean, I recall several discussions where there were comments about how long our 02:04:56.881 --> 02:05:05.048 - meetings are and our meetings are too long. Well, this is gonna make meetings a whole lot longer, honestly, 02:05:05.048 --> 02:05:06.334 - because there's, 02:05:08.514 --> 02:05:15.529 - Give the amendment. I mean, I'm trying to stick with the amendment But like there there'll be this this 02:05:15.529 --> 02:05:22.274 - whole unknown about well the president read it the presiding officer read it now What do we do? And 02:05:22.274 --> 02:05:29.154 - I paused there long for a reason because I can just imagine what okay now what do we do and and yeah, 02:05:29.154 --> 02:05:36.574 - like maybe you could have like a whole new routine but I mean and and if and if It is not spelled out in here 02:05:37.218 --> 02:05:44.643 - Don't think in the amendment anywhere about two readings for ordinances But I think that that is something 02:05:44.643 --> 02:05:51.720 - that's generally spelled out in state code, right? And so simply reading it is introducing it for the 02:05:51.720 --> 02:05:59.006 - first time Then in a night like tonight, even if we didn't want to dispose of it, you know, like like it 02:05:59.266 --> 02:06:05.342 - It just necessitates a whole lot more steps. I don't think that it makes it simpler. I think it makes 02:06:05.342 --> 02:06:11.537 - it more complicated I think that it takes away power from the body in a way that makes me uncomfortable 02:06:11.537 --> 02:06:17.553 - and I I also Have some of those same concerns that councilmember Flaherty brought up in terms of you 02:06:17.553 --> 02:06:23.569 - know Is that before for consideration and in terms of the clerk not reading it? I don't see anywhere 02:06:23.569 --> 02:06:28.990 - where code actually says the clerk has to read it we motioned for the clerk to read it and 02:06:29.922 --> 02:06:36.234 - But I think that we could motion for anybody to read it. I Mean pointed out to me if it says somewhere 02:06:36.234 --> 02:06:42.363 - in code that it does say in code somewhere that the clerk has to read it 2.04 point three zero zero 02:06:42.363 --> 02:06:48.491 - be at the reading of an ordinance the synopsis shall be read and the clerk shall read the ordinance 02:06:48.491 --> 02:06:54.742 - by title only provided there's unanimous consent, but that is still crossed off in the regular in the 02:06:54.742 --> 02:06:58.174 - ordinance itself, not just in this amendment, right and 02:06:59.618 --> 02:07:06.458 - is it I'm having to switch between way too many screens to go between the amendment and Yeah, so even 02:07:06.458 --> 02:07:13.165 - in the original ordinance not just in the amendment that is taken out. Oh No, there it is. The city 02:07:13.165 --> 02:07:20.005 - clerk shall read it. Okay, I Still think that there's another way to do that if that is a concern and 02:07:20.005 --> 02:07:27.248 - I I just I know Short answer. I think councilmember Ruff is that no it hasn't changed my mind or alleviated 02:07:27.248 --> 02:07:28.254 - my concerns. I 02:07:31.586 --> 02:07:39.097 - Councilman brazilic comment or question, please. Thank you Well, I guess I have a comment and then a 02:07:39.097 --> 02:07:46.607 - is that correct counsel attorney later that kind of question my understanding of this legislation is 02:07:46.607 --> 02:07:54.490 - that when we get to a portion of the agenda the president would then read that line item and the synopsis 02:07:54.490 --> 02:07:58.654 - out and then we would still be under obligation for the 02:07:58.754 --> 02:08:08.012 - Mentor and or whoever to motion to adopt and we would still need a second counsel attorney liner. Is 02:08:08.012 --> 02:08:17.729 - that correct? Yeah, I think that's something to to be determined right now there's also the motion Really 02:08:17.729 --> 02:08:27.262 - to introduce and read as well. I don't know that that's any place in the Bloomington Municipal Code and 02:08:27.362 --> 02:08:37.439 - It's not an Indiana state law either. So you know maybe this is part of a practice that that council 02:08:37.439 --> 02:08:48.015 - would want to continue as a part of this. Understood. I will conclude my comment by saying I will support 02:08:48.015 --> 02:08:55.198 - this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Any council member Flaherty. Yes. 02:08:56.002 --> 02:09:02.047 - Going on this bit so back to the point about procedural kind of like Legitimacy around like having a 02:09:02.047 --> 02:09:08.152 - main motion with which to then do something with postponed to a later date indefinitely, etc The main 02:09:08.152 --> 02:09:14.257 - motion could maybe be the motion to adopt rather than the motion to introduce and are we saying? That 02:09:14.257 --> 02:09:20.362 - will read the thing and to move any farther than like just reading it Requires a motion to adopt like 02:09:20.362 --> 02:09:25.150 - we cannot have a staff presentation without a motion to adopt. We cannot have a 02:09:26.210 --> 02:09:33.505 - discussion debate questions public comment without a motion to adopt is that consistent with Both our 02:09:33.505 --> 02:09:40.944 - attorneys understanding as well as what the sponsors and the sponsor and the amendment of the amendment 02:09:40.944 --> 02:09:48.168 - intends I Defer to councilmember Asari on on this type of procedural question Because he drafted the 02:09:48.168 --> 02:09:55.678 - amendment so I don't know that these are purely legal questions. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's fair. Thank you. I 02:09:55.906 --> 02:10:05.051 - I wouldn't. So the second part of your question about whether or not we require a motion to adopt in 02:10:05.051 --> 02:10:14.014 - order to move on to all of the things that we would usually do. No, I don't think so. I think that 02:10:14.114 --> 02:10:20.215 - That and that that does actually that disconnecting of those two things is useful that it's like we 02:10:20.215 --> 02:10:26.316 - can discuss a thing without having any intention to adopt a thing And but again, it's not it's it's 02:10:26.316 --> 02:10:32.783 - not assuming that anything will take place other than The thing gets read. That's all the only assumption 02:10:32.783 --> 02:10:39.067 - now. I take councilmember Stossberg's point I mean we could amend this amendment and actually just say 02:10:39.067 --> 02:10:43.582 - that there has to be a motion for it to be read I mean, I think that that 02:10:43.778 --> 02:10:52.420 - You know adds again unnecessary element of but it's a small element. I mean the the the point here is 02:10:52.420 --> 02:11:01.317 - that the only assumption that is made about what council is going to do is that the things on the agenda 02:11:01.317 --> 02:11:10.382 - will be read and that's it. And then we will do what we want to do with it thereafter. Any other comments. 02:11:10.382 --> 02:11:12.670 - Councilmember Rosenberger. 02:11:13.506 --> 02:11:24.135 - That's wrapping my mind around it. Where I am, I know this about the amendment, okay. I like the ordinance. 02:11:24.135 --> 02:11:34.173 - I think though, I know this has been kind of asked, but how would tonight's meeting happened with the 02:11:34.173 --> 02:11:42.046 - PUD if we don't vote on introduction? That's a question for you too. Thank you. 02:11:42.402 --> 02:11:47.500 - I think the way that it would go would have been like this. We would have got to it and I would have 02:11:47.500 --> 02:11:52.598 - said now we have ordinance 2026 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a six point 02:11:52.598 --> 02:11:57.796 - three acre property from residential urban lot and residential multifamily. And then I would have said 02:11:57.796 --> 02:12:02.238 - is there any motion and then you all would have gone. We moved to for example postpone. 02:12:04.418 --> 02:12:10.251 - And then we would have said there's a motion, is there a second? Somebody would have gone second. Then 02:12:10.251 --> 02:12:16.028 - we said discussion, and then you all would have been like, I hate council members, sorry. And I would 02:12:16.028 --> 02:12:21.861 - have been like, ah, I'm sorry. And then after all that, the same thing would have taken place. You all 02:12:21.861 --> 02:12:27.637 - would have voted, and then we would have moved on. So nothing would have changed, except for we would 02:12:27.637 --> 02:12:31.262 - have got to that point just a little bit faster, just a little. 02:12:34.658 --> 02:12:41.572 - I think a little bit of my hesitancy in this amendment is that I think this council already has like 02:12:41.572 --> 02:12:48.555 - kind of predetermined that we're going to introduce for the most part. Right. Like twice in this term 02:12:48.555 --> 02:12:55.469 - has something not been introduced. Right. And I think it is a very effective tool for the council as 02:12:55.469 --> 02:13:02.383 - a whole to use for legislation that isn't ready. I mean because the beauty two people thought it was 02:13:02.383 --> 02:13:04.574 - ready seven thought it was not. 02:13:05.794 --> 02:13:14.709 - I think it feels harder to I guess I think it feels a little harder for someone to make the move to 02:13:14.709 --> 02:13:23.980 - say like I don't want to motion to adopt this. But probably you might say to me it's the same as saying 02:13:23.980 --> 02:13:27.902 - I don't want to introduce it. Is that. Yes. 02:13:28.770 --> 02:13:34.835 - I guess I just want to make sure I just feel like actually I actually have a question that for counsel 02:13:34.835 --> 02:13:40.724 - attorney Lainer that might clarify a little bit of this tension if is there is there a procedure by 02:13:40.724 --> 02:13:46.731 - which let's let's say that something was on our agenda and we don't necessarily want to vote it down, 02:13:46.731 --> 02:13:47.614 - but we want to 02:13:47.842 --> 02:13:55.230 - We don't want to vote on the thing. We want it to be reintroduced. So with a PUD as an example, we say, 02:13:55.230 --> 02:14:02.476 - look, we're not going to vote for this as it is on us. Can we send it back to someone before it comes 02:14:02.476 --> 02:14:09.580 - back to us? Is that an action that we can take, or does that trigger some type of inability to make 02:14:09.580 --> 02:14:12.990 - amendments, as an example? So in your scenario, 02:14:13.986 --> 02:14:22.855 - Or using today's scenario, right? Does us not introducing the thing fundamentally change how we can 02:14:22.855 --> 02:14:31.902 - interact with it between now and March 4th? Is that thing going to be different the next time that it 02:14:31.902 --> 02:14:41.037 - gets scheduled? I think as president, you would have the ability to put the matter on the agenda again 02:14:41.037 --> 02:14:43.166 - at an upcoming meeting. 02:14:43.330 --> 02:14:49.647 - Do the same process and do the same process, right? But so but but does that give does that give us 02:14:49.647 --> 02:14:56.153 - as a body any new? Abilities that we wouldn't have had like it was is that indistinguishable? From had 02:14:56.153 --> 02:15:02.596 - we had we have just said we don't want to do second reading because we could have motion to say let's 02:15:02.596 --> 02:15:09.165 - reschedule second reading to the time when we'll have second reading and assume and presumably You know 02:15:09.165 --> 02:15:12.702 - the end of March Could does what we did today have any? 02:15:12.866 --> 02:15:21.864 - different impact than, for example, just rescheduling a thing? Postponing a second reading? Yes. No, 02:15:21.864 --> 02:15:31.040 - I think that they're similar. So that's my argument, Councilmember Rosenberger, is that it's symbolic. 02:15:31.040 --> 02:15:40.216 - Like, it's great. Like, yay. But it didn't actually do. There was no difference from, well, let me say 02:15:40.216 --> 02:15:41.374 - it this way. 02:15:41.762 --> 02:15:48.750 - We could have taken a lot of other procedural motions that would have done the exact same thing given 02:15:48.750 --> 02:15:55.806 - us more time Pushed it off. Whatever we wanted to do, you know Said things about councilmember. Sorry, 02:15:55.806 --> 02:16:02.793 - whatever all of that would have been the same and this preserves our ability to that in fact, I think 02:16:02.793 --> 02:16:09.918 - Puts that in the forefront so we don't just go through it's like yes, we read or we don't read Okay, so 02:16:10.850 --> 02:16:17.845 - how I was talking about, like, I think, you know, this body tends to say, like, well, the people are 02:16:17.845 --> 02:16:24.772 - here, so we wanna hear from everybody. So then, if people are here at first reading, and we want to 02:16:24.772 --> 02:16:31.767 - table something, but we're like, well, staff is here, and 10 people are here, then I think it's much 02:16:31.767 --> 02:16:38.901 - less likely that we will vote not to introduce or not to adopt than we would if we were, like, because 02:16:38.901 --> 02:16:40.702 - tonight, nobody was here, 02:16:40.834 --> 02:16:47.320 - Left because they knew that we weren't talking about it So I do also just want to be clear that like 02:16:47.320 --> 02:16:53.871 - I think this is a good idea But the motion to introduce feels important to me Councilmember Stossberg 02:16:53.871 --> 02:17:00.486 - and then councilmember Piedmont Smith If I could because I think that there really is a difference and 02:17:00.486 --> 02:17:07.614 - I think that it does change it and one of the ways that it changes it is that once something is introduced and 02:17:07.746 --> 02:17:13.178 - It cannot be changed except by an amendment what we did tonight by not introducing it means that it 02:17:13.178 --> 02:17:18.883 - could potentially come back differently and I think that there is potentially a legal question out there 02:17:18.883 --> 02:17:24.478 - that Does it need to be presented exactly the way it was presented a plan commission like mess-ups and 02:17:24.478 --> 02:17:29.965 - all? Because I've been wondering that over the last week You know and I and our staff has not even I 02:17:29.965 --> 02:17:31.486 - don't think had the time to 02:17:31.586 --> 02:17:37.265 - to, like, I have not wanted to engage them in that question because it's a legal research question that 02:17:37.265 --> 02:17:43.054 - I knew that they did not have the time for because of how it was pushed through. So it does fundamentally 02:17:43.054 --> 02:17:48.788 - change it because once you've introduced it, you are stuck with it exactly like that unless you actually 02:17:48.788 --> 02:17:54.248 - have an amendment. And then you have to go through the whole amendment process, which is a process. 02:17:54.248 --> 02:17:59.709 - And secondly, it changes it because it's had the first reading, which means that the next time it's 02:17:59.709 --> 02:18:01.566 - read, it could be second reading. 02:18:02.242 --> 02:18:10.405 - and it could just get barreled on through. And that is exactly what I wanted to prevent tonight, was 02:18:10.405 --> 02:18:18.568 - something getting pushed on through with the speed of lightning. So I think that it is a substantive 02:18:18.568 --> 02:18:26.812 - change and difference. I have a question. Sorry to keep on with the questions, but this is a question 02:18:26.812 --> 02:18:31.742 - for somebody who has a good understanding of Robert's rules. 02:18:32.642 --> 02:18:40.738 - So council member sorry council president sorry said we don't have to have a motion to adopt an item 02:18:40.738 --> 02:18:48.995 - of legislation in order to discuss that item of legislation. Is that correct. Because I thought we did 02:18:48.995 --> 02:18:57.172 - have to have such a motion. I think there would need to be a motion to adopt some type of main motion 02:18:57.172 --> 02:19:02.142 - then that would support the discussion. OK. So once something 02:19:02.306 --> 02:19:10.116 - if this amendment and then the ordinance is passed, if both are passed, so something is on the agenda, 02:19:10.116 --> 02:19:17.849 - the presiding officer reads it, there would have to be some kind of motion, either a motion to adopt, 02:19:17.849 --> 02:19:25.507 - a motion to postpone, motion to table indefinitely, something before we could proceed to do anything 02:19:25.507 --> 02:19:29.374 - else. Is that correct? Yes, I believe that's true. 02:19:31.362 --> 02:19:38.609 - Well, then so I'll have a question then Would would it be possible to then say motion to discuss would 02:19:38.609 --> 02:19:45.645 - that be? Doable I Mean we're not you know, it feels like we're coming down to semantics right here. 02:19:45.645 --> 02:19:52.962 - Like we're arguing about Finding a different word for the same exact thing. I think we're getting stuck 02:19:52.962 --> 02:19:59.998 - on a this issue So anyway, my suggestion would be motion to discuss. I don't know if that's allowed 02:20:01.218 --> 02:20:15.015 - Yeah, and as a suggestion, maybe it would help to lay Amendment 2 on the table and discuss Amendment 02:20:15.015 --> 02:20:28.675 - 1. Amendments 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, so I think there's the option of adopting Amendment 2 02:20:28.675 --> 02:20:31.134 - or Amendment 1 or 02:20:31.362 --> 02:20:41.900 - or none of them. But you might want to discuss Amendment 1 before making a decision with respect to 02:20:41.900 --> 02:20:52.860 - Amendment 2. Just a suggestion. We can discuss Amendment 1 but in terms of that language and the right. 02:20:52.860 --> 02:20:59.710 - But I'm just putting it out there that like it will be the same. 02:20:59.938 --> 02:21:11.068 - that specific portion that we're talking about is the same in my amendment. So I would, yeah. I mean, 02:21:11.068 --> 02:21:23.070 - the substance is slightly different, but that is pretty similar. All right. Any comments, questions, motions? 02:21:27.842 --> 02:21:38.625 - I think we've reached the end of the conversation on this one. So with that being said Would the clerk 02:21:38.625 --> 02:21:49.827 - please call the roll on amendment 2 for ordinance? 2026-05 I believe this one is no because of colonialism 02:21:49.827 --> 02:21:56.318 - I was joking Councilmember Piedmont Smith no Zulek Sorry, yes 02:21:56.770 --> 02:22:10.493 - Yes, Rallo. Yes rough Yes Rosenberger no clarity no Stossberg Sorry, no Something So did that yes five 02:22:10.493 --> 02:22:22.750 - four passed five four. Okay. Thank you. I got turned around which one it is and it was with 02:22:22.850 --> 02:22:31.429 - Thank you, okay that amendment carries five four we are now back to public comment for the For what's 02:22:31.429 --> 02:22:40.260 - the what is the number here? 2026 oh five as amended We'll now go to a time of public comment if anybody 02:22:40.260 --> 02:22:48.923 - would like to make comment on the Most on the ordinance as amended you now have Time to do so you have 02:22:48.923 --> 02:22:50.942 - three minutes as before 02:22:51.490 --> 02:22:59.398 - Write your name say your name and We will recognize you moving to count in chambers first I see two 02:22:59.398 --> 02:23:07.781 - here and then we'll go online Good evening Dave Askins with the Beescar Bulletin I just wanted to address 02:23:07.781 --> 02:23:15.848 - what I think is a legitimate concern about say what could have happened tonight to have done the will 02:23:15.848 --> 02:23:20.830 - of the council and I think the will of the council was twofold 02:23:21.250 --> 02:23:28.605 - Well is to send a message to two people one to the mayor and two to the council president We didn't 02:23:28.605 --> 02:23:35.959 - want this on the agenda. So how do you send that message if this? Passes and I think the way you do 02:23:35.959 --> 02:23:43.535 - it is you recognize that there's many main motions That can come after it's announced and one of those 02:23:43.535 --> 02:23:48.830 - motions could be or could have been tonight I Move that we not consider 02:23:49.314 --> 02:23:57.888 - this legislation to have been introduced. So you've declared this has not been introduced, which means 02:23:57.888 --> 02:24:06.295 - that it can't be adopted to meetings after its next actual introduction, right? So just, I mean, the 02:24:06.295 --> 02:24:14.703 - fact that you've considered it tonight, or this is hypothetical, if it had come before you and you'd 02:24:14.703 --> 02:24:19.198 - said, okay, we don't like this, but that still counts 02:24:19.490 --> 02:24:25.848 - as an introduction, because it was read. I think any reasonable person would say, well, yeah, that's 02:24:25.848 --> 02:24:32.269 - how you guys do that. But if you explicitly say, we move to consider this not having been introduced, 02:24:32.269 --> 02:24:38.563 - well then, even if it's on the agenda the next time, and then the time, well, I think I've made the 02:24:38.563 --> 02:24:44.984 - point. I think you have the flexibility to have made the point that you want to make tonight, even in 02:24:44.984 --> 02:24:46.558 - this new scheme. Thanks. 02:24:52.034 --> 02:24:58.906 - Hey, I'm Greg Alexander. I just wanted to say I'm appreciative of this effort and thank you for all 02:24:58.906 --> 02:25:05.778 - having it I do see steady stream of people standing where I'm standing confused by this issue and I 02:25:05.778 --> 02:25:13.062 - think it'll really move things along. Thank you All right, anyone else in council chambers See one person 02:25:13.062 --> 02:25:19.934 - coming people online. You can get ready if you have a comment Mr. So take it away If I think I'm of 02:25:20.066 --> 02:25:27.448 - Reasonable intelligence so if I'm confused or probably other people confused it seems to me that the 02:25:27.448 --> 02:25:35.122 - way if this passes and Then the situation that occurred tonight happened Two people could simultaneously 02:25:35.122 --> 02:25:42.650 - raise their hands quickly one person wants to Make a motion to have not considered the other one wants 02:25:42.650 --> 02:25:49.374 - to make a motion that has considered and who would be the person recognizing the hand first 02:25:50.402 --> 02:26:07.604 - It would be the president. It's not a good look. Thanks. Anyone online? Wonderful. Good evening. Jamie 02:26:07.604 --> 02:26:19.294 - Scholl here again. I've been started attending council meetings about 02:26:19.586 --> 02:26:27.647 - 15 years ago and I've seen the discussion or heard the discussions and sometimes was in the room there 02:26:27.647 --> 02:26:35.552 - when they took place of changing things and it's again talking about changing. There's been a lot of 02:26:35.552 --> 02:26:43.456 - this is just a stepping back and looking because I don't attend every meeting live. There's a lot of 02:26:43.456 --> 02:26:46.430 - time spent on figuring out processes. 02:26:46.626 --> 02:26:54.325 - And it seems like there's a lot more time spent now than there was when there was committee of the whole. 02:26:54.325 --> 02:27:01.879 - And as a member of the public who has been involved in advocacy for quite a long time, I find this very 02:27:01.879 --> 02:27:09.433 - confusing and do miss the conversations that did happen previously. Granted, I'm in the public. I don't 02:27:09.433 --> 02:27:16.478 - know what goes on behind the scenes and how difficult that is for staff and for council members. 02:27:16.578 --> 02:27:27.296 - But I just thought I would put that out there giving some perspective from the public. Thanks. Thank 02:27:27.296 --> 02:27:38.013 - you so much. Second person online. Yeah, this is Kevin Keough again. I just want to reiterate what I 02:27:38.013 --> 02:27:46.078 - talked about earlier that May 2025, May 7th, that resolution was not ready. 02:27:46.594 --> 02:27:55.461 - It was a lot of questions about just the math. And the thing is, it was out there. And the fact that 02:27:55.461 --> 02:28:04.327 - you couldn't even talk about it at that first reading. And even tonight, the whole beginning of this 02:28:04.327 --> 02:28:13.281 - meeting, the discussion about the PUD, obviously it could be done better. My hope is that there would 02:28:13.281 --> 02:28:14.686 - be debate about 02:28:14.914 --> 02:28:23.328 - what the substantive issues are and what we are trying to accomplish. That issue a year ago, it's still 02:28:23.328 --> 02:28:31.498 - festering because it's specifically about that host hotel and the negotiations about how to get that 02:28:31.498 --> 02:28:39.993 - host hotel going and how are they gonna finance that whole project. And it's a year later and it's still 02:28:39.993 --> 02:28:44.766 - not resolved. A lot of good discussion could have happened 02:28:44.962 --> 02:28:52.871 - than a year ago. And now we're in the situation with this PUD, something that needs to be efficiently 02:28:52.871 --> 02:29:00.857 - and effectively dealt with. At the same time, it needs to be transparent. And that's the other problem 02:29:00.857 --> 02:29:08.688 - I'm seeing. The public needs to be aware of these complex issues and how they're being addressed and 02:29:08.688 --> 02:29:14.270 - how they're being planned out. And so anyway, that's my point and yeah, 02:29:14.434 --> 02:29:22.094 - I know you guys are frustrated. I just want to say that the public shares in your frustration. 02:29:22.094 --> 02:29:30.158 - Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any other commenters online? No. Thank you so much. Anybody 02:29:30.158 --> 02:29:37.980 - else in the room? Seeing none, we'll come back to council for any comments or further questions. 02:29:37.980 --> 02:29:44.350 - Councilmember Stosberg. Now I'm certainly opposed to the ordinance as a whole. 02:29:44.546 --> 02:29:52.175 - I think that we've potentially talked about it enough, but I think that there are some real potential 02:29:52.175 --> 02:30:00.478 - procedural gaps. I think that there's some real problems with the fact that we just eliminated first readings. 02:30:00.898 --> 02:30:06.560 - Just something is going to be read into the record without any vote or consideration of whether or not 02:30:06.560 --> 02:30:12.331 - it should be read into the record and then we are stuck with it that way unless it gets formally amended 02:30:12.331 --> 02:30:18.158 - even if it's a problematic piece of legislation and I'll just go back to that and say I think that that's 02:30:18.158 --> 02:30:23.710 - incredibly problematic. I think that it makes it much more confusing for the public in terms of what 02:30:23.810 --> 02:30:30.330 - Procedure it is that they're going to follow because the way this is spelled out right now is there's 02:30:30.330 --> 02:30:36.722 - no actual guarantee that the public would be able to have public comment during this period because 02:30:36.722 --> 02:30:43.689 - it all depends on what motion it is that some councilmember decides to do and so it does not add consistency 02:30:43.689 --> 02:30:50.081 - for the public it adds incredible inconsistency to the public it this does not feel well planned or 02:30:50.081 --> 02:30:52.126 - organized at this point and I I 02:30:53.218 --> 02:31:00.545 - Once again, if we're gonna change procedure like fine, but we actually have to change to something as 02:31:00.545 --> 02:31:08.232 - opposed to just going Oh anything will go We can just do whatever because then whatever might not actually 02:31:08.232 --> 02:31:15.559 - be particularly inclusive at all and it might actually End up being being less transparent less clear 02:31:15.559 --> 02:31:23.102 - and People might not know what on earth they're doing. So I will be a no vote on this tonight. Thank you 02:31:24.514 --> 02:31:32.833 - Thank you so much. Are there other comments? Councilmember Rosenberger. I am bummed about the losing 02:31:32.833 --> 02:31:41.069 - the motion to introduce. I think we would still be talking about the PUD tonight. I mean without it 02:31:41.069 --> 02:31:49.470 - now it looks like we could move into a staff presentation without anyone in council saying otherwise. 02:31:49.470 --> 02:31:53.918 - I would like to I guess just urge you as president to 02:31:54.018 --> 02:32:05.701 - Please follow the procedures with the 10-day documents to our staff before a meeting Thank you so much 02:32:05.701 --> 02:32:17.157 - other comments, please councilmember people Smith I Think that increased flexibility for the council 02:32:17.157 --> 02:32:22.942 - means increased confusion for the public Thank you 02:32:23.810 --> 02:32:34.179 - Any other comments councilmember? Well My primary interest in this was to allow some discussion debate 02:32:34.179 --> 02:32:44.648 - in the first reading which formerly happened in the committee of the whole process which was a anathema 02:32:44.648 --> 02:32:52.702 - to certain members of the council and in terms of its legitimacy, I suppose and 02:32:52.802 --> 02:33:02.766 - I think if I was reading it correctly, however it it did provide a discussion without risk of adoption 02:33:02.766 --> 02:33:12.536 - I suppose a lot of the Trepidation on the part of my colleagues notably councilmember Stasberg is an 02:33:12.536 --> 02:33:21.822 - abuse of this So I'm I'm sort of on the fence in right right now and this just simply because I 02:33:22.370 --> 02:33:31.164 - I would like this council not to be divided in its proceed in its discussion or its determination of 02:33:31.164 --> 02:33:40.654 - procedure and There's a deep divide in this right now, you know so If anyone has anything else to illuminate 02:33:40.654 --> 02:33:48.926 - Please Proceed thanks Councilmember Zulek and then councilmember flirty. Yes. Thank you. Um, I 02:33:49.058 --> 02:33:56.121 - I'm plan on supporting this. All I will say is I think there is a line between open dialogue and being 02:33:56.121 --> 02:34:03.253 - disrespectful and I just encourage everyone to Remember that like we're all doing what we think is best 02:34:03.253 --> 02:34:10.110 - for the city of Bloomington and sometimes that looks different But we are still all doing our best. 02:34:10.110 --> 02:34:17.036 - So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flaherty Thanks, I think I will support the ordinance because 02:34:17.036 --> 02:34:18.750 - I support the concept of 02:34:18.946 --> 02:34:24.670 - The ordinance as a whole I am concerned about what follows from the amendment the past I believe 02:34:24.670 --> 02:34:30.748 - councilmember sorry did did say that no no motion to adopt would be required to move into presentation 02:34:30.748 --> 02:34:36.707 - from staff etc So I think tonight we would have heard a presentation on the PUD. I think that's what 02:34:36.707 --> 02:34:42.785 - would have happened I don't think it would have been in order for someone to Make a motion to postpone 02:34:42.785 --> 02:34:47.742 - because that's a subsidiary motion to a main motion and there is no main motion and 02:34:48.226 --> 02:34:54.531 - Anticipated now to move into substantive discussion of the ordinance. Yeah So I'm just legitimately 02:34:54.531 --> 02:35:00.961 - still confused from a procedural perspective of like how this will function like how Is it just we're 02:35:00.961 --> 02:35:07.266 - gonna discuss it for a while and then when the council president says it's over it's over and we'll 02:35:07.266 --> 02:35:13.634 - Do it again another time when there's a motion to adopt or are we actually gonna make that motion to 02:35:13.634 --> 02:35:18.110 - adopt every single time? if we are like including a first reading then 02:35:18.690 --> 02:35:24.375 - Kind of there's there's no way to Accomplish what we did tonight because a vote a no vote on that motion 02:35:24.375 --> 02:35:29.952 - to adopt would mean that it is that it fails So it's I do feel like we've lost something with the with 02:35:29.952 --> 02:35:35.257 - the loss of a motion to introduce Still sorting it out. I mean, I'm like pretty from a procedural 02:35:35.257 --> 02:35:40.672 - perspective. That's it Like I said, I'm gonna vote for the ordinance. We're gonna try it out We can 02:35:40.672 --> 02:35:46.140 - make adjustments in the future if we need to I want to do some more reading of Rosa procedure to dig 02:35:46.140 --> 02:35:48.414 - further into some of those questions also 02:35:48.930 --> 02:35:56.278 - Thank you. Um, I see a couple comments. Um, uh, so we'll first go did council at the end council member 02:35:56.278 --> 02:36:03.413 - rosemary. Do you have a hand up or are you? Okay, sorry council member Thank you, I just want to say 02:36:03.413 --> 02:36:10.620 - I I am excited to vote for this I have I think many of you have heard me long Bemoan the fact that we 02:36:10.620 --> 02:36:17.685 - don't have a longer runway for discussion on a lot of these topics And I I think that this can only 02:36:17.685 --> 02:36:18.462 - be helpful 02:36:18.562 --> 02:36:26.186 - and be more enlightening and greater opportunity to draw the public into the conversations. 02:36:26.186 --> 02:36:34.804 - So this is, in my opinion, a good move and all it's doing is just giving us greater runway for learning 02:36:34.804 --> 02:36:43.256 - about these, sometimes the thornier topics and having a better understanding and grasp of them. Thank 02:36:43.256 --> 02:36:46.654 - you so much. Council Member Rosenbacher. 02:36:47.490 --> 02:36:54.913 - question and it might not be relevant but it's about when can we bring a vote back like tonight like 02:36:54.913 --> 02:37:02.410 - I just I mean I don't know if anyone would even want to but you know how sometimes you can say I want 02:37:02.410 --> 02:37:06.526 - to I miss voted and I want to vote a free vote you know 02:37:08.674 --> 02:37:14.892 - There's a so there's a provision in title two that says that I am and clerk can correct me or attorney 02:37:14.892 --> 02:37:21.290 - later can correct me that says that Votes can be revisited or something. It says something to that extent 02:37:21.290 --> 02:37:27.810 - But I can't remember if it people who had voted no or people who voted yes who can initiate it or something 02:37:27.810 --> 02:37:33.906 - to that extent It's one of the yes, it's something like that. I think it's entitled to somewhere but 02:37:33.906 --> 02:37:38.494 - I do just we can well that's getting looked up I do plan to support this as 02:37:38.594 --> 02:37:45.051 - It is because I feel like I started this term saying I'm up for trying new things, you know? And I do 02:37:45.051 --> 02:37:51.381 - want to be supportive of that. But I agree with a lot of people up here that not having a motion to 02:37:51.381 --> 02:37:57.964 - introduce is getting us into sticky situations. And one public commenter said, we can do it a different 02:37:57.964 --> 02:38:04.421 - way. Just do this, do that. But that is incredibly hard, like I talked about before, especially if we 02:38:04.421 --> 02:38:07.966 - roll right into presentations that everyone here thinks 02:38:08.290 --> 02:38:14.849 - It's just anticipating that that is going to be what we're doing. Yeah. Other comments? I was going 02:38:14.849 --> 02:38:21.408 - to make a couple of comments. I think first off, I agree with most of the things said, particularly 02:38:21.408 --> 02:38:28.098 - the concerns first off around the president reading it. I'll be completely honest. When I was writing 02:38:28.098 --> 02:38:34.526 - that, I wasn't thinking about the fact that I am president. But it does become, I think, a little 02:38:34.690 --> 02:38:40.908 - interesting, right? And I think Mr. Rousseau raised an interesting point about if I then get to decide 02:38:40.908 --> 02:38:47.066 - who gets to talk next and know who's for it. I do think that's something we should maybe address here 02:38:47.066 --> 02:38:53.405 - in the future. I also think that that overlaps with the question of doing council sponsors, for example. 02:38:53.405 --> 02:38:59.563 - So I think what we might do is if there's interest, I mean, it's something we could think about doing 02:38:59.563 --> 02:39:01.918 - is introduce those Title II changes to 02:39:02.050 --> 02:39:08.285 - require that everything has a council sponsor. And here you could say the council sponsor would be the 02:39:08.285 --> 02:39:14.581 - person to read it. Secondly, I think I've talked a lot, wrote legislation last year to this extent that 02:39:14.581 --> 02:39:20.817 - was never put on the agenda, but around removing a lot of the procedural things that we've put in code 02:39:20.817 --> 02:39:26.931 - and making a rule book for ourselves. And one of the ways that we could address some of the concerns 02:39:26.931 --> 02:39:32.016 - here is by coming up with some norms. We could say, for example, that we don't want 02:39:32.016 --> 02:39:38.213 - to have presentations the first day or that there's some mechanism that we could use to call for when 02:39:38.213 --> 02:39:44.470 - we're gonna have presentations and when not. I also think that we should come up with some rules about 02:39:44.470 --> 02:39:51.092 - how we do public comment in first session. Is it just gonna be general public comment? Is there a particular 02:39:51.092 --> 02:39:57.593 - way that we'd like public comment to be done during the first time that something is discussed in council? 02:39:57.593 --> 02:39:59.294 - Again, though, I think that 02:39:59.458 --> 02:40:06.576 - This is taking a step in order to be able to start to address those things. I mean, yeah. So I'll just 02:40:06.576 --> 02:40:13.418 - say that I do think that it puts, again, an opportunity for us to bring some other things forward, 02:40:13.418 --> 02:40:20.675 - I think, to fix it. And I will also say, to Councilman Rosenberger's point, I do think one of the things 02:40:20.675 --> 02:40:27.102 - also that's been illustrated in this conversation is why maybe past councils, we should ask, 02:40:27.426 --> 02:40:33.172 - councilmember Rallo if you remember but why past councils have Outlined what motions are appropriate 02:40:33.172 --> 02:40:39.088 - at certain times right so that we don't spend all of this time discussing whether or not Can we do that 02:40:39.088 --> 02:40:44.947 - motion is that allowed is this the type of thing? So, you know, we'll be able to you know, see see how 02:40:44.947 --> 02:40:50.636 - this goes But assuming that it passes but with that if there's no other comments Okay councilmember 02:40:50.636 --> 02:40:53.822 - Rallo then councilmember Stasberg like to make a motion 02:40:55.170 --> 02:41:07.112 - I would like as a as a vote in the majority for amendment to I'd like to move reconsideration of amendment 02:41:07.112 --> 02:41:19.166 - to Is this is this how it works come council attorney MC right now and this is in section two zero four dot 02:41:19.298 --> 02:41:27.048 - 460 motion to reconsider when any question has been decided in the affirmative or negative any member 02:41:27.048 --> 02:41:34.646 - voting with the majority May move a reconsideration of the vote before adjournment Concurrence of a 02:41:34.646 --> 02:41:42.395 - majority of the members present shall be sufficient to order reconsideration of a vote If a motion to 02:41:42.395 --> 02:41:46.878 - reconsider is defeated it shall not again be entertained I 02:41:51.682 --> 02:42:01.772 - Okay, so councilmember Rallo We need to establish concurrence of a majority of members, I believe right 02:42:01.772 --> 02:42:11.572 - it's more than just a second that's required correct. Yes There's a motion so are people in favor of 02:42:11.572 --> 02:42:21.662 - a reconsideration of the vote to adopt amendment to to ordinance 20 2605 All those in favor say aye aye 02:42:22.274 --> 02:42:32.890 - All those opposed, say aye. Aye. So that motion carries 7-2. So we will now reconsider it. Now, in terms 02:42:32.890 --> 02:42:43.101 - of unusual things, this is fun. Yes. Bolden is shaking her head about the vote. It was a voice vote. 02:42:43.101 --> 02:42:51.998 - Oh, should we do a? The ayes have it. OK, fantastic. Oh, the ayes have it. Sorry, yeah. 02:42:52.194 --> 02:42:59.456 - Question now procedurally do we now get to what do we do? We we just revote or is it just open again 02:42:59.456 --> 02:43:06.647 - for discussion attorney later? I would recon go through the process of reconsidering and discussing 02:43:06.647 --> 02:43:13.909 - it So so we're back on it. If anybody has a comment you can make it now. Otherwise, we'll reconsider 02:43:13.909 --> 02:43:19.230 - the vote Councilmember Zulek and then I'm sorry clerk Bolden. Go ahead. I 02:43:22.338 --> 02:43:33.938 - Request a brief recess a brief recess. Yes, please. Okay, there's been a request for a recess. Is there 02:43:33.938 --> 02:43:45.649 - anybody opposed? Okay, we'll take a five-minute recess sufficient. Okay, we'll take a five-minute recess 02:43:45.649 --> 02:43:50.334 - back at 920 Daily No Rough no Rosenberger 02:43:51.810 --> 02:44:02.497 - Stossberg no and Piedmont Smith All right, the noes have it so now we're back to the main issue the 02:44:02.497 --> 02:44:13.397 - main Ordinance 20 2605 that has not been amended Would we like to go to publish would anybody like to 02:44:13.397 --> 02:44:18.206 - make a public comment on ordinance 20 2605 I 02:44:20.354 --> 02:44:29.344 - Is there anyone online who'd like to make a public comment on 2026 oh five All right, no there's no 02:44:29.344 --> 02:44:38.694 - no fantastic we're back to we're back to council would anyone like to make final comments Councilmember 02:44:38.694 --> 02:44:47.774 - Stossberg, thank you I do think that this is much better without the amendment on it, but I still am 02:44:47.874 --> 02:44:54.013 - Concerned that it is You know, I asked questions about things like are we gonna allow public comment? 02:44:54.013 --> 02:45:00.031 - How is that gonna work? Are we gonna have staff presentations? How is that gonna work and You know, 02:45:00.031 --> 02:45:06.411 - once again, I'm also like I'm okay with the with the idea of changing things But I feel like it's putting 02:45:06.411 --> 02:45:12.430 - the cart a little before the horse council members already mentioned title to stuff that he had put 02:45:12.430 --> 02:45:17.726 - together last year that never got put on the agenda and to be clear about that that was 02:45:18.562 --> 02:45:23.936 - I really don't think that you can just cross things out without also saying what you're gonna do instead 02:45:23.936 --> 02:45:29.361 - like you need to have a plan of what is going to happen if you're going to get rid of what used to happen 02:45:29.361 --> 02:45:34.479 - and That was that issue last year. It's like, okay, like yeah I think that we could maybe move some 02:45:34.479 --> 02:45:39.648 - of these rules out of title to you and put them into some kind of administrative manual but then you 02:45:39.648 --> 02:45:44.971 - have to write the administrative manual and I think that that administrative manual needs to be written 02:45:44.971 --> 02:45:45.534 - before and 02:45:45.794 --> 02:45:51.295 - Get rid of the things in title two. So this is one of those situations It's like yeah, am I am I generally 02:45:51.295 --> 02:45:56.643 - okay with the idea of having discussion at first reading? Yeah, do I think that there's the possibility 02:45:56.643 --> 02:46:01.887 - that it could make meetings last a whole lot longer also? Yeah Because I think that there's this, you 02:46:01.887 --> 02:46:07.080 - know and having been on Plan Commission, you know when we have two hearings for something that might 02:46:07.080 --> 02:46:10.782 - be particularly controversial and then it might get sent to council and 02:46:10.882 --> 02:46:16.904 - And what you have is you have the same people giving public comment at both of the planned Commission 02:46:16.904 --> 02:46:23.162 - hearings and then coming to council and now we're having a fourth meeting and I'm not trying to eliminate 02:46:23.162 --> 02:46:29.183 - public comment at all, but you get the same comments over and over from the same people and that just 02:46:29.183 --> 02:46:35.205 - ends up being tedious and not Helpful necessarily when you have that kind of repetition. So do I have 02:46:35.205 --> 02:46:38.334 - a problem having public comment at first reading? No 02:46:38.434 --> 02:46:46.040 - But I have a concern about having too much duplicative public comment that isn't a good use of anybody's 02:46:46.040 --> 02:46:53.573 - time, including the person who's coming to comment. Because as council members, I listen the first time 02:46:53.573 --> 02:47:00.382 - you say it. I don't need to hear it three or four times. I hear it the first time. I promise. 02:47:00.898 --> 02:47:07.543 - Okay, doesn't mean I agree with you, but I hear it and I listen and I consider it. So I have a concern 02:47:07.543 --> 02:47:14.252 - about that. I similarly have a concern about having lengthy debates like we had tonight more than once. 02:47:14.252 --> 02:47:20.832 - And I think that without some kind of procedure in place, I think that this is a little bit bulky. So 02:47:20.832 --> 02:47:27.283 - I feel like I could support it if some of those other questions were already answered, or if it had 02:47:27.283 --> 02:47:28.638 - something in it like 02:47:28.802 --> 02:47:33.321 - It's going to you know we're going to give ourselves a few months to figure those things out because 02:47:33.321 --> 02:47:37.839 - I'll tell you it's going to take some time to figure those things out next regular scheduled meeting 02:47:37.839 --> 02:47:42.358 - is in two weeks if we pass this then at that meeting in two weeks we're going to have to we're going 02:47:42.358 --> 02:47:45.982 - to have to have some of these things sorted out and we just went through a whole 02:47:46.242 --> 02:47:52.037 - Kind of discussion about how busy our council staff are how busy we are as council members So if those 02:47:52.037 --> 02:47:57.945 - questions aren't fleshed out already are those gonna be fleshed out in the next two weeks So that that's 02:47:57.945 --> 02:48:04.022 - why I'm gonna be voting no on it Even though I do think that it's better as it is and I'm overall generally 02:48:04.022 --> 02:48:09.649 - like okay with this idea of like discussing at first readings But I don't think that there's enough 02:48:09.649 --> 02:48:15.838 - clarity I also I'll come back to the clarity for the public as well in terms of what they're walking into and 02:48:15.938 --> 02:48:21.182 - And I do think that it's better because at least it does say right up front, you know, we're going to 02:48:21.182 --> 02:48:26.529 - be given these two readings still for the public. So hopefully they realize like, okay, they might talk 02:48:26.529 --> 02:48:31.722 - about it the first reading, but they're not going to act on it at the first reading unless something 02:48:31.722 --> 02:48:36.863 - really unusual happens. But I think that it does give the public less certainty and more confusion. 02:48:36.863 --> 02:48:42.055 - So that's why I'm not going to be supporting this tonight. Thanks. Awesome. Thank you. Are there any 02:48:42.055 --> 02:48:42.878 - other comments? 02:48:43.714 --> 02:48:49.403 - Council Member Rosenberger. Hey, thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to council leadership for 02:48:49.403 --> 02:48:55.035 - bringing this ordinance. It feels like it did take a while to get it ready. A lot of nuts and bolts 02:48:55.035 --> 02:49:00.667 - in there. I am excited to try it and president sorry what you said a few minutes ago about we could 02:49:00.667 --> 02:49:06.412 - do this or we could do that or you know those were exciting to me about we could say presentations or 02:49:06.412 --> 02:49:12.382 - no presentations or only questions or you know I like all of that possibility. So I'm excited. Thank you. 02:49:13.026 --> 02:49:20.418 - Thank you so much councilmember Piedmont Smith Yeah, I'm in favor of this legislation this is something 02:49:20.418 --> 02:49:27.525 - that we talked about on the committee and council processes and We didn't delve too deeply into the 02:49:27.525 --> 02:49:35.130 - logistics of you know, would we have time limits would we have public comment? We did you know acknowledge 02:49:35.130 --> 02:49:42.238 - that those things would have to be worked out, but we did not make any firm recommendations on them 02:49:42.370 --> 02:49:52.719 - I think that those are questions that do need to be worked out and we don't need to create an administrative 02:49:52.719 --> 02:50:01.550 - manual that has everything we need in it right away. We could start with this and say, okay, 02:50:01.550 --> 02:50:11.614 - chapter one, how do we handle legislation at first reading and how is that different from second reading? 02:50:11.874 --> 02:50:18.842 - That's something that leadership could work on. That's something that the committee for council processes 02:50:18.842 --> 02:50:25.481 - could work on. I do agree with council member Stossberg that it's important to for all of us and the 02:50:25.481 --> 02:50:32.384 - public to have an understanding on how first readings will be run so that people know how to participate 02:50:32.384 --> 02:50:38.957 - and that so that city staff know what to prepare so that we don't sit here until midnight for first 02:50:38.957 --> 02:50:40.798 - reading and second reading. 02:50:41.218 --> 02:50:49.185 - But I I think that we can work those things out and I'm happy to Help work those things out as well. 02:50:49.185 --> 02:50:57.072 - Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments? Councilmember Allah Just to say Case in 02:50:57.072 --> 02:51:05.039 - point I appreciate the deliberation discussions evening or else I would not have reversed my vote on 02:51:05.039 --> 02:51:10.718 - amendment to I think that this idea of a discussion on first reading is 02:51:12.162 --> 02:51:23.491 - can have a real benefit, because it is a way to get acquainted with matters that you might not, you 02:51:23.491 --> 02:51:35.047 - might be assured that you understand, but perhaps you don't. But it is, in that sense, very much like 02:51:35.047 --> 02:51:41.278 - the old way we used to do it. So I think that this is, 02:51:41.442 --> 02:51:53.153 - will be a better likelihood of being a benefit than having an adverse outcome. So I'll be supporting 02:51:53.153 --> 02:52:04.749 - it. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments? All right, seeing none. Clerk, will you please 02:52:04.749 --> 02:52:11.358 - call the roll? Yes. Councilmember Asari. Yes. Daly. Yes. 02:52:11.682 --> 02:52:23.156 - Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stasberg no Piedmont Smith. Yes Zulek. Yes Fantastic 02:52:23.156 --> 02:52:34.846 - that motion carries eight one. Thank you so much that concludes the time of legislation for second readings 02:52:35.138 --> 02:52:40.601 - We now move to the second best part, which is the second best time of public comment. Thank you all 02:52:40.601 --> 02:52:46.118 - for being here this long. If you have another public, not another, you can only comment once. But if 02:52:46.118 --> 02:52:51.908 - you have public comment and you did not make a public comment during the first session of public comment, 02:52:51.908 --> 02:52:57.371 - now is your chance. You have three minutes. If you could kindly sign in and state your name for the 02:52:57.371 --> 02:53:02.998 - record or an alias, that seems great. And folks online, same thing. We'll acknowledge you next. People 02:53:02.998 --> 02:53:04.254 - in the room, go ahead. 02:53:04.994 --> 02:53:11.183 - Hello, my name is Greg Alexander. I'm gonna go a little bit off of my usual beat I usually come to you 02:53:11.183 --> 02:53:17.552 - and talk about transportation policy and how urgent that is and how Ineffective the processes that happen 02:53:17.552 --> 02:53:23.621 - in this room are Today, I'm gonna try to confront one of the challenges you face in getting anything 02:53:23.621 --> 02:53:29.689 - done I'm just gonna put the punchline at the top You need to debate disband economic and sustainable 02:53:29.689 --> 02:53:33.054 - development. I know It's nothing about the people there 02:53:33.154 --> 02:53:38.016 - I've had people that I liked and people I didn't like and it's been the exact same behavior across two 02:53:38.016 --> 02:53:42.973 - administrations It's just structurally a bad department. You all know my beef. It's a pro car department 02:53:42.973 --> 02:53:47.789 - in City Hall Of course, I'm opposed they think of cars as a fundamental tool for economic development 02:53:47.789 --> 02:53:52.745 - You know, that's not what the planners say, but that's what they say. They cheerlead for parking garages 02:53:52.745 --> 02:53:56.286 - deep down they don't believe that cyclists and pedestrians spend money and 02:53:56.450 --> 02:54:02.006 - They think that I'm less of a human being than other people, and I can tell that. I assume you guys 02:54:02.006 --> 02:54:07.729 - can tell that, but I don't like it because of that, so that's just me. I think you ought to care about 02:54:07.729 --> 02:54:13.285 - why they act that way. I'm just gonna be very direct. This is the Department of Mayoral misconduct. 02:54:13.285 --> 02:54:18.897 - The mayor meets with a stakeholder behind closed doors and works out a deal, and then uses the staff 02:54:18.897 --> 02:54:24.620 - at ESD to sell that deal to you guys. This is, they've run this game, I've watched it happen 10 times. 02:54:24.620 --> 02:54:26.398 - It's always ground zero if the, 02:54:26.498 --> 02:54:32.607 - the administration is going to ignore or violate the law, you're gonna see ESD there, I'm sorry. This 02:54:32.607 --> 02:54:38.956 - is a department with no clear directive. They have no area where they have actual authority or expertise. 02:54:38.956 --> 02:54:45.005 - It always overlaps with other departments inexorably because of how it's designed, but it's insular. 02:54:45.005 --> 02:54:51.114 - They don't talk to other departments. They don't talk to subject matter experts, and they don't honor 02:54:51.114 --> 02:54:53.630 - the planning documents that you all pass. 02:54:54.562 --> 02:54:59.871 - They also ignore the ordinances that this body passes. We all saw that two weeks ago. It's a department 02:54:59.871 --> 02:55:05.181 - that we don't need. So I know how I sound. You're not going to cancel a million dollar department. It's 02:55:05.181 --> 02:55:10.337 - a big business. It's a number of staff members just because I said so. I mean, right? Obviously. I'm 02:55:10.337 --> 02:55:15.442 - here to ask you to do something I hope you can do. Next time standing at this podium, it's going to 02:55:15.442 --> 02:55:18.046 - be the director of ESD and one of their sidekicks. 02:55:18.402 --> 02:55:25.511 - Ask yourself, should I be hearing from another department head? Should I be hearing from a subject matter 02:55:25.511 --> 02:55:32.218 - expert? Is there somebody else that should also be here? Use your own judgment. Just think about it 02:55:32.218 --> 02:55:39.327 - for yourself. But you have to be paying attention to this. Every time they're here, it should be somebody 02:55:39.327 --> 02:55:42.814 - else. Thank you. Go ahead. My name is Matt Gleason. 02:55:43.330 --> 02:55:49.887 - I came to discuss the Hopewell South rezone and I didn't realize that first readings meant no Council 02:55:49.887 --> 02:55:56.829 - discussion and no public comment So I was gonna just end up listening but the discussion about how readings 02:55:56.829 --> 02:56:03.257 - happen and so on Are you gonna are you going to comment on Hopewell weekend? Can you stop this time 02:56:03.257 --> 02:56:09.750 - just for a second because because if it's about hopeful it was on our agenda, so They'll be upset if 02:56:09.750 --> 02:56:11.678 - you if you talk about it Okay 02:56:13.794 --> 02:56:26.546 - Discussion of things on the agenda at general public comment There's a motion in a second to allow for 02:56:26.546 --> 02:56:39.422 - this comment or to comment on the hopeful PUD is is Councilmember Stasberg has a comment General public 02:56:40.034 --> 02:56:47.771 - Items on the agenda, but councilmember is sorry just rephrase that to say specifically this commenter. 02:56:47.771 --> 02:56:55.359 - Oh, yeah Is that is that was people all times or just now? I Will withdraw my motion and make a more 02:56:55.359 --> 02:57:02.946 - specific motion that we suspend the rules to allow public comment for items that were on the agenda, 02:57:02.946 --> 02:57:09.406 - but not discussed Or introduced if you will this evening There's a motion in a second 02:57:09.602 --> 02:57:17.604 - Any other comments? All right, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay, 02:57:17.604 --> 02:57:25.376 - sir, please take it away. Comment on whatever you'd like. Okay, thanks. Please, if you could restart 02:57:25.376 --> 02:57:33.070 - their time at three minutes, I'm sorry to have interrupted. Well, thanks. So, I wanted to generally 02:57:33.070 --> 02:57:34.686 - voice my support for 02:57:34.978 --> 02:57:41.782 - Up zoning if you will will South to provide space for more dense more affordable housing And I know 02:57:41.782 --> 02:57:49.130 - it wasn't read but I want to voice my hope that the new iteration of the zoning code has less architectural 02:57:49.130 --> 02:57:56.070 - requirements that Add a cost burden to specifically multifamily units that the previous Code for hope 02:57:56.070 --> 02:58:03.486 - will does include those architectural cost burdens only on multifamily units. So that is something I've been 02:58:04.450 --> 02:58:11.409 - Want to see kind of moved away from But talking about the procedural thing. I do think there is a lot 02:58:11.409 --> 02:58:18.436 - of value in Discussion, you know public comment and city discussion on a first reading because there's 02:58:18.436 --> 02:58:25.394 - the sort of life cycle of an ordinance Where we have a first reading and it enters consciousness, but 02:58:25.394 --> 02:58:32.421 - it's not discussed and we have a second reading where it can simultaneously be discussed for the first 02:58:32.421 --> 02:58:33.854 - time and voted on so 02:58:34.338 --> 02:58:42.018 - Having the first reading maybe not have a vote or maybe only a two-thirds vote gives a period of time 02:58:42.018 --> 02:58:49.773 - where public comment can be integrated at a low opportunity cost to time to pass or implement whatever 02:58:49.773 --> 02:58:57.453 - legislation and Besides that I would love to hear about future plans for the rest of Hopewell as well 02:58:57.453 --> 02:59:03.326 - as the various city corridors and studies that have been done and kind of not 02:59:03.938 --> 02:59:11.742 - Happened to anything. I know that isn't a City Council role, but Thanks Thank you so much. Mr. Gleason 02:59:11.742 --> 02:59:19.470 - any other commenters in the room. I think everyone's commented at this point Anyone online? Thank you 02:59:19.470 --> 02:59:27.274 - Thank you so much. Okay, we move to matters of council schedule Are there any things that people would 02:59:27.274 --> 02:59:33.790 - like to announce about upcoming council schedule? Please councilmember Piedmont Smith 02:59:34.914 --> 02:59:41.219 - Councilmember Stossberg should go first because I have to confirm my okay councilmember Stossberg Okay, 02:59:41.219 --> 02:59:47.343 - I just wanted to announce because this is the last regular session before it happens Friday February 02:59:47.343 --> 02:59:49.950 - 27th at 830 there will be a fiscal meeting 02:59:50.210 --> 02:59:57.238 - Special Fiscal Committee meeting and the Fiscal Committee decided at least for the next few meetings 02:59:57.238 --> 03:00:04.265 - We're gonna have them every other Friday So there's also one scheduled for the 13th of March also at 03:00:04.265 --> 03:00:11.223 - 830 in the morning So those are gonna be every other Friday at 830 I'm assuming that that continues 03:00:11.223 --> 03:00:17.694 - to be the best time for all members present. Thank you so much any others with notes, please 03:00:18.882 --> 03:00:26.947 - Council processes will also meet on Friday, February 27th at 12 o'clock to 1 30 in the awesome conference 03:00:26.947 --> 03:00:30.142 - room Okay, thank you councillors task for 03:00:30.594 --> 03:00:37.164 - To make sure Council members on behalf of the fiscal committee I sent you an email about survey to finish 03:00:37.164 --> 03:00:43.487 - the deliberation session stuff that we started in December Thank You council members who look you did 03:00:43.487 --> 03:00:49.809 - fill it out a couple of you filled it out Most of you haven't filled it out, but I need that data for 03:00:49.809 --> 03:00:56.069 - the meeting that we're having next Friday So if you could fill that out ASAP, that would be great So 03:00:56.069 --> 03:01:00.222 - then I can get you the second form that is needed for that process 03:01:00.386 --> 03:01:09.075 - Thank you. Thank you councilmember Flaherty I Think the deadline was today, but it might have been oh 03:01:09.075 --> 03:01:15.550 - it was tomorrow great but as soon as possible would be great so that then I 03:01:16.258 --> 03:01:25.167 - Thank you so much. Thank you. Also just as a reminder The city is holding its second meeting Negotiate 03:01:25.167 --> 03:01:34.336 - of the round of negotiations with the police union One councilmember can attend as anybody want to attend 03:01:34.336 --> 03:01:40.478 - That's I'm sorry the Wednesday. I'm sorry Tuesday 24th from 2 to 5 p.m 03:01:41.474 --> 03:01:48.184 - No one? Okay, thank you. Yeah, two to five if you're able to. Okay, the only other thing, just a reminder 03:01:48.184 --> 03:01:54.641 - that we have a form if you're interested in scheduling a deliberation session. So just fill that out. 03:01:54.641 --> 03:02:01.098 - Also Council Member Daley will be following up if anybody has ideas about deliberation sessions. Does 03:02:01.098 --> 03:02:08.062 - that seem like everything? Seemed like everything? Okay, fantastic, we did it. See you guys later, adjourned.