Council to order will the honorable clerk, please read the roll Councilmember Flaherty here Stasburg
here Piedmont Smith here Zulek here. I'm sorry here daily. Yes Rallo here rough Rosenberger
Okay, this evening the agendas are posted on the wall, and the clerk prints out some if anybody would
like to read them. But our agenda includes approval of minutes from four prior meetings, reports from
council members and city offices, including a report from John Fernandez of Amplify Bloomington, and
appointments to boards and commissions. We'll also consider one ordinance for first reading to rezone
the place that's commonly referred to as Hopewell.
and under second readings will consider two ordinances amending provisions of title two regarding boards
and commissions and Another that is about ordinance procedures. Each of them have some amendments with
that and we'll move to The approval of our minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes is distributed?
Seeing none is there a motion to approve Second
There's a motion and a second to approve the minutes all in favor. Say aye Any opposed any abstaining
that motion carries eight zero Thank you very much. We'll now move to reports and we'll start with council
member reports Do any council members have a report? councilmember Stasberg
Do have a report this evening on Plan Commission last week Plan Commission had the second Hopewell PUD
hearing at this meeting on Monday February 9th The PUD was forwarded to counsel with a positive
recommendation At the time I did vote in the affirmative though. I regret that now the PUD document
itself had a number of problems with basic clarity and correctness I pointed most of those out during
the Plan Commission meeting itself and
And as a result, the Plan Commission added a condition to their approval that staff and the petitioner
had to work with me to clarify language and correct citations. There did not seem to be appetite to
continue the petition to another Plan Commission meeting requiring that the petitioner amend the language
at that time.
Plan Commission was going to vote to send it to council and I figured that condition would save some
amending at the council level if language was Improved before the petition ever got here and it was
for that reason that I supported it But to be clear this was not just a couple of commas or misspellings
I made 26 comments on an 11 page document pointing out incorrect references inconsistent requirements
and enforcing planning staff recommendations from January that were not included in February and
Was very clear during that meeting that mayor Thompson wanted to get this Document out of the Plan Commission
and to the council as soon as possible. I Started to regret my vote on Tuesday when I realized that
president Asari intended to include the hopeful PUD this evening for first reading When I spoke with
president Asari on Tuesday afternoon, February 10th He said that he wasn't going to hold anything up
and if it was ready to go then it was going to go the problem is that it was not ready to go and
The issue was not only related to that extra condition given by Plan Commission and the many modifications
needed to make that document more readable But the fact that per council policy Documents related to
legislation need to be sent to council office ten days in advance of the meeting or by noon on Monday
of the previous week which was the same day as the Plan Commission it's meeting itself and
I really support this policy. It's good policy. It's necessary policy. This policy gives our staff adequate
time to ensure that the legislation doesn't have obvious problems and for them to do any related research
that might be necessary for council consideration. This is policy that was not always strictly enforced
and I was very deliberate to enforce this last year when I was president and I enforced it for the good
of our staff and their management of workflow. And this policy is actually also stated in our city code
in section 2.04 270.
And that's the planning Commission summary from the week and I have comments about the introduction
of ordinance 20 2606 when that mentioned when that motion to introduce is made. Thank you Thank you
so much other reports Councilman Flaherty I Feel like I jumped the line, but I'll go with it Yeah, just
wanted to follow up on a few constituents who commented or residents who commented last last regular
session about
Challenges they experienced as pedestrians navigating our city in the wake of the very significant snowstorm
Just wanted to recognize that and thank them for commenting. This is not a new challenge for us It is
property owners responsibility to clear sidewalks in front of their business or home Compliance is very
spotty our ability to enforce that is also very spotty. I think it might warrant some legislative changes we could
consider escalating fines or different fines for commercial versus residential property, we could track
on a multi-year basis instead of saying every year it's like, oh, you get a warning and then a citation,
and then it melts, and so it's not even an issue anymore, and then you don't have to pay the $50 fine.
Even if you did have to pay the $50 fine, I don't think that's probably adequate to get people to comply.
We don't want to unduly penalize folks. We have programs and other things to help out.
But at the same time it is just objectively true that our pedestrian network for two weeks plus This
this last month was not safe and it was not accessible that is not meeting our goals You know as a city
including the goal to eliminate all pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries in our streets by the
year 2039 And I know we've made some progress on this front, too I know we've piloted some things in
downtown to have the city of Bloomington
Clear sidewalks. I think we were piloting something on South Kirkwood this year I do need to get in
touch with I think at least four department heads who are engaged in some aspect of Sidewalk management
in this regard to hear how it's going. What do they think? What are we succeeding at? What
are the opportunities for improvement? There's probably budgetary implications as well. We're entering
those kind of conversations quite soon as well the council's fiscal committee Which I joined this year
had its first meeting last week for instance and
So yeah, I just wanted to recognize all that. I think it's a perennial challenge. There aren't easy
solutions, but surely we can do better than we've been doing. And I guess the last thing is a few of
those residents who commented also noted about the challenges with compliance from governmental entities.
That should be... That one should not be an issue. I know the RDC-owned building at the former Bunger
Robertson site, fourth in college, did not clear its sidewalks for many weeks.
This was also true of the convention center for several days. That was true last year of the convention
center for several days This is over and over again. So we've got to find a way to do better And I think
it might warrant again legislation budget considerations possibly a deliberation session in the future
We talked about that last year. We didn't actually hold it. We probably should so thank you Thank you
so much. We'll go to council member Rallo. Then I think you have councilman Pema Smith after that
Thank you. Mr. President. I want to I share the sentiments of my colleague Councilmember Flaherty that
our pedestrian network needs to be Attended to in terms of its accessibility and I realized that the
storm was exceptional but it went several weeks without with sidewalks still being blocked and that's
in some cases the only means by which some people can get around and
Maybe the bus but oftentimes it forced people into the streets, which is unsafe and it's been said before
that our the penalty is Hasn't been increased for many years and just in that sense it's diminished
and its effect because of inflation so we should be looking for enforcement and to probably upgrade
the penalty for Sidewalks that are
Blocked by snow and I might add Blocked by and with the weather getting better We're going to have scooters
that are going to be parked on sidewalks and and blocking and blocking sidewalks as well I also just
wanted to announce that Councilmember Ruff and I have our monthly constituent meeting on this Saturday
this coming Saturday February 21st at 10 a.m. And you can find the link in
at the council website bloomington.in.gov slash council It's from 10 a.m. To 11 a.m. But we usually
go maybe almost two hours. So you're welcome to attend and You'll have a good time bring your coffee
and hope to see you there Thank you so much Yes, I wanted to mention since
I just realized I wanted to mention this because councilmember Rallo talked about scooters blocking
sidewalks which has been an ongoing problem. So I did want to mention that over the last year I've had
a few communications with Jeffrey Jackson in economic and sustainable development who is
person in charge of enforcing our scooter rules. And there will be legislation coming up in the coming
months about scooters. So if any colleagues have concerns or input, I'd be happy to take that input
or to include you in future email exchanges about that. I also want to highlight the upcoming Black
History Month events. We've had a couple of great events here in the city. And this Saturday, there
will be a poster board contest and a reception.
And this is for children and youth who have researched some aspect of black history and have prepared
posters and they will be on display here in City Hall. And that's Saturday. There's a reception at 12
noon and you can go around and look at all the work and then an awards program at one o'clock. And then
the Black History Month Gala is Saturday, February 28th, the last day of the month.
That starts at 6 p.m., and that's at One World at the Woolery Mill, and it is a ticketed event. So if
you would like to attend, please do go ahead and use Google to find Black History Month Gala Bloomington,
Indiana. It's at the BCT. Oh, you can buy tickets at the Bus Script Shumlee Theater website, my colleague tells me.
There you have it. So hope to see you at some of those events. Thank you Thank you any other reports
Back to you comes my brother Thank you something I just started paying attention to today and that is
that it seems that we are now gearing up for another war and Maybe this is just bluster but a third
of our Navy is now either in
in and around the Middle East and approaching there. Now, I'm old enough to remember several wars and
unnecessary wars that killed innocent people. And I also want to point out that money that goes for
warfare is money that is not spent here at home for people in need. We've been receiving less and less
money from the federal government. And so I just want to urge people to pay attention
to what's happening and maybe give voice. Contact your representative at higher offices and say, go
back to diplomacy. Go back to negotiations. Find a way in which you can avoid this conflict. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Okay, well that concludes council member reports. We'll now move to reports with
which we have two. The first one will be from our former mayor, John Fernandez, who's now the CEO of
Amplify Bloomington. Sir, you have some time, and then we'll hear from our clerk. Thank you for joining
us. All right. Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate the invitation. A couple of the members of
the council were able to join us on February 4th when we
Had our kickoff event for what's now amplified Bloomington It was really a tremendous turnout a lot
of energy behind what we're doing So I thought I would take up your president's invitation to come share
some additional thoughts with with all of you who couldn't attend So amplified Bloomington is a new
New civic alliance that we've morphed into and evolved into from the early days of the dimension mill
Why are we doing this? I think the important thing to focus on is the why? Bloomington like a lot of
cities our size face some significant headwinds we see meaningful loss of population particularly in
the 25 to 45 age cohort we have income disparities that continue to grow
Housing affordably affordability issues talent out migration Those are all challenges that we need to
address and at the same time with a lot more remote working and and quality life Migration trends. We
also have a huge opportunity and we think through stronger collaboration and better storytelling Bloomington
can position itself as a place where talent not only arrives but stays and
So what is Amplify Bloomington? It is a civic platform that connects the university's research engine,
the Mills entrepreneurial ecosystem, the trades district infrastructure, and Bloomington's cultural
vitality into one coordinated effort. And so our objectives are to unify that economic growth
and community development effort with cultural vitality, innovation, all under one inclusive and compelling
brand. The position of the Civic Alliance, we're positioning the Civic Alliance not as a traditional
economic development corporation, but as a new civic collaboration model, one that integrates institutions,
aligns our community efforts, and supports inclusive, sustainable growth.
Amplify Bloomington is not an initiative. It's not a replacement of the BDC. It's not simply a rebranding
of the mill. It's much, much more than that. And so we have three strategic pillars that we're focused
on. They'll sound familiar for those of you who've been involved with our work. Our first one is around
entrepreneurship growth. We want to strengthen founder pathways, investment networks, and early stage
company growth.
Second pillar is focus on strategic business attraction and the trades district development We think
that accelerating the transformation of the district by attracting high-value companies creating
you know, premier innovation hub will really be the kind of market signal we need to address some of
the issues that I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation. And our third pillar is on community
and cultural activation. We want to activate many of our target sector clusters, our membership, city-wide
programming that connects our entrepreneurship community with Bloomington's broader cultural ecosystem.
We certainly can't do this by ourselves.
We've had tremendous support from the city of Bloomington from Indiana University from the cook group
and many of our other Corporate partners. I want to say to the City Council Just extreme gratitude.
I mean you've been very supportive of the mill and
From its beginning you've been very helpful with us as we move forward with the forged development and
some of the other trades district initiatives We couldn't do this without your support And we look forward
to continuing to work with the city and all of our other partners as we build a really vibrant place
I mean our deal is we want people to build meaningful things in Bloomington that can be a company It
can be a life it can be all kinds of things and we're really super excited about the direction to travel
and I brought you some swag and
I mean, so with that, I really appreciate the opportunity to give you a quick intro. Thank you. Thank
you so much. Council members, anyone have a question? Or comments? All right. Seeing none, thank you
so much. Mayor Fernandez for that presentation. Next we'll hear from our city clerk.
Is it okay with you if I stay over here? Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Before I start, I wanna
say thank you to Council Member Piedmont-Smith for talking about Black History Month. I noted that it
wasn't discussed at our last council meeting and I was sad. And then this week, with the passing of
Reverend Jesse Jackson, I at least wanted to share with you
I was able to meet him three times. The first time was in 1988 when he was running for president. And
he stood in front of the room, and he did his fabulous call and response. But what stuck with me was
the moment when he said, I am somebody. You all have heard this, right? I am somebody. And you have
a room full of teenagers, yeah, I just dated myself, saying, I am somebody. I think part of being a
great person is showing others that they can be great as well.
And he did that. And for those of you who don't remember, he was here in Bloomington in 2010, and I
got to see him again at our MLK Day celebration. And I was able to see him for the last time in 2024
when we were in Chicago for the DNC meeting, and I got to thank him for everything he'd done for the
country. So in this month, for Black History Month, I would like to remember Reverend Jackson, who was
a great man,
who showed a room full of kids in Iowa City, Iowa that they could be somebody and could be great as
well. And I'm holding onto that a little bit more this week. That said, I wanted to give you a very
quick update on the clerk's office and what we're doing. If you all have any questions, I'll try and
answer them on the fly. If I can't answer them, Deputy Clerk Crossley will. And if she can't answer
them, well, we'll get back to you.
Um, so for parking ticket appeals, I talk about them generally during our budget time, but I did want
to give you a quick update that my computer just, uh, went to sleep. And, um, for 2025, about 13, almost
14% of all citations written were appealed. That is running it about where we have been for the last
several years. When I first started with the city back in 2000, wow.
2009, we were averaging at about 10% of all citations written. We've gone up since then for a variety
of reasons. One of them is user error. It's hard for people to always get it right when they're using
ParkMobile, or they just make simple mistakes. So just wanted to give you an update on that. I can answer
more questions about appeals if you need to. And then for boards and commissions, you will hear more
about this, I'm sure, and you'll be discussing parts of it. I'm not going to discuss
different aspects of it, but you have three appointments potentially pending this evening. And for team
A, you have three more appointments that you need to do. For team B, you have four more appointments
that you need to do. And for team C, you also have four more appointments that you need to do. Deputy
Clerk Crossley has been working very hard to communicate with all of you. I appreciate those of you
who respond promptly.
and that I have not had to call myself and say, hey, could you respond? So thank you for that as well.
And hopefully we can get that all done before the time expires where you have to make that appointment.
So that was all I have. If you have any questions, by all means ask them. And if not, thank you. Thank
you so much. Any questions?
I have a really brief one. People often ask about the use of the ParkMobile app and whether it's important
that they pick the exact zone that they're parked in or whether they can choose any zone. You may be
misinformed and I tell them it doesn't matter the zone you pick as long as you're using ParkMobile.
What does the clerk say? It does matter. It does matter. Elaborate, please.
There are different parking rules for the paid lots versus the street parking, so it's easier and better
if you actually are putting in the correct zone. Now if it's a difference of half a block away, no,
that probably won't make a big difference. The bigger issue is making sure that your license plate is
input correctly, which is where we see people do make
the biggest mistakes where they just transpose numbers, letters, or they pay for their partner's car
as opposed to their own or their mom's car because they just borrowed it for the day. So please be careful
when you do that. I feel targeted. Okay. We'll now move on to comments or reports from committees. Do
any of the council committees have reports?
Fantastic. Seeing none, we now move on to the greatest part of today's meeting, where our first session
of public comment. This is a time to make comments on things that are not on our agenda. If you will,
you have three minutes. If you could so kindly sign in, if you'd like to say your name, that would be
wonderful. For those online, you have a chance to raise your hand and we will acknowledge you. I'll
deal with the people in the room first and then we'll go to the folks online. There will be another
Section of public comment if you don't want to make a comment now But with that I will give it to the
first person standing here. Go ahead. Oh Thank you guys for your time, my name is Sam Bloomington local
been here for about eight years and I wanted to speak today to the public and to you counselors about
the issue of flock safety and our policing networks here in Bloomington and
We've been talking about this a lot lately. I'm sure everybody's familiar. But these cameras are placed
in 40-plus undisclosed locations around town, monitoring everybody's comings and goings. And I'd like
us to pause and think about the severe threat and danger that the existence of this technology poses.
So these cameras are not just taking video data right. They're AI-powered.
The video is getting uploaded straight to flocks clouds as it goes and predictive analytics are being
used to churn through that and make derivative data types like your habits, where do you shop, which
groger do you go to, where do you work, what's your commute, what are your relationships like, what
does your car look like, what is your license plate, what is your skin tone, they can capture your face,
that's been proven by independent research. So there's a tremendous penetration and scope of data here
that I think
so far has been implemented in town without adequate thought to what that means and the dangers it presents.
For one, this data has been shown countless times being used unlawfully by ICE, by fascist federal police
forces to track people, to track people trying to get abortions out of their home state. Police in Wisconsin
have used it to stalk ex-girlfriends.
don't need to harp about how ICE is murdering people in the streets. My ask for you, Council, is to
do something about this. I appreciate Councilor Asare's draft resolution speaking to the use of ALPRs,
automated license plate readers. I think it's a great start. I think it's important to outlay the terms
of the debate, the dangers, the risks at hand. I just think we need to go a lot further because
This is a threat to our lives when you think about who can use it I do not believe the mayor's line
that this is a purpose-driven limited-use tool because by definition is a general surveillance network
The data is live-streamed the cameras are independently powered and networked the public does not own
the data the public cannot access the data We don't know who can get it and it's been shown being used
in terrible ways So I'd ask you council
to go a step further and create an ordinance to ban the use of FLOC and similar fascist technologies
and help stand up for citizens here. I know the current contracts have terms in them that you can't
necessarily touch, but you can ban future use beyond those contracts and it takes an ordinance from
council. So please consider that. Thank you for your time. And that's your time. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next in council chambers.
Mr. President council, this is Chris her energy from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and
membership organization with 911 businesses I represent 80% are small in nature Tonight I'm going to
talk about an issue. I have discussed a few times mostly anecdotal, but tonight I bring a letter an
exhibit from the Monroe County assessor Judy sharp that should concern every policymaker in this room and
from one of the most thoughtful and trusted public servants in this county. In it, she explains that
the properties along South Walnut Corridor from 2nd Street south to Hillside, her office has rolled
land values of 120 businesses back to 2024 levels for payable 2026 and will hold them flat into 2027.
In this letter, she calls it, at best, a Band-Aid. She references boarded up buildings, graffiti, trash,
empty lots. She acknowledges the connection between the health of businesses and the health of the market.
The assessor can adjust the values, but she cannot fix conditions. What is the market telling us? We've
already seen stall furniture, a 50-year-old multi-generation downtown business relocated and noted in
the HT cited persistent issues tied to street homelessness, property damage, block deliveries, biohazard cleanup,
customer fear, and mounting costs. On the same corridor, Tapper Bruce Architecture invested 8,000 in
fencing alone for repeated trespassing and syringe discovery. Comprehension financial consultants spent
thousands modifying landscape, capping utilities, mitigating risk with daily encounters of hazardous
waste. These are not one-time costs.
These are reoccurring operational burdens on our business community. There's fiscal consequences in
this. Land value rollback is not symbolic. It means assessed values have softened, market confidence
has weakened, future revenue to the city is constrained, all the while SB1 is already compressing what
local government can collect. Private business are absorbing these costs, and the tax base itself is
signaling distress.
When the assessor's office sees it, documents it, and adjusts it, the data is no longer anecdotal. The
corridor is losing value. The loss belongs to all of us. Three specific asks, formal engagement between
city leadership and the assessor's office to fully understand the corridor revenue implications. A focused,
measurable stabilization strategy for South Walnut. Not a task force, not a study, but actionable
accountability and recognition that this is not a business complaint issue. The assessor has done
what she can do, the market has responded. It's up to the policymakers in this room and city government
to do something. I'm going to leave the letter itself with staff tonight. I thank you for your time.
That's your time. Thank you very much. Are there other comments in the room? Please take it away. Hello,
I'm Paul Rousseau.
And I would first like to thank council members Flaherty and Rolo for your comments about the situation
of the sidewalks right after the storm As I told the mayor personally a few days ago. It felt to me
like a kick in the teeth because I normally bicycle and I was walking instead for two weeks and It was
it was brutal But I do recognize that the problem is
is unusual in that it's a severe problem that only appears like coming out of the closet every four
or five years. How often do we get these large snows? But it's not the first time, I don't think, that
Bloomington has had a large snow. And so I would think that here, a quarter of the way into the 21st
century, Bloomington would have figured this out, but apparently we haven't. Now, I mostly have questions
for you to consider, because I don't really know how to proceed.
I don't know how to suggest changes to the code to you, but I would ask these questions. Would a variable
fine schedule be legally possible? For example, larger fines for commercial properties and or properties
that have extensive sidewalks such as a large corner lot. And then meanwhile, smaller fines for those
who are residents and owner-occupied homes in contrast to the large properties.
I don't know. Because what we're after here really is, in a fine schedule, the idea is to change behavior.
And you want the fine to be appropriate to what the person can pay, obviously. And then also, from an
educational perspective, what can be done to educate the public better about the city ordinance? Because
I found that so many property owners didn't seem to even know about this, even if they'd been here for a while.
I'll also tell you two stories about this that illustrate the wide differences. In the You Report, I
found a story of a woman who was in her 80s who had a corner lot near Northwest Side, and she had shoveled
the entire thing herself right after the storm. And then the plows came along, and they covered
it completely. And so she was complaining, saying, do I have to do this again?
Meanwhile, there's a particular bad actor on the north side of town. I won't name their name. They have
a large corner lot, one corner of it being the entire block. And this is in a high student traffic area.
And the whole storm, and in two weeks, all the way until it melted, they just didn't care. And then
I heard from another landlord. That's because the landlord that wasn't complying with the law is out
of city. They don't live here.
But my time's up one final thing though is that the bicycle lanes also had a problem, but I'll address
that another day Thank you. Thank you so much other comments in the room Hello, my name is seaforth
breeze I've been a resident in Bloomington for a little over a decade now at this stage I wish to speak
about flock cameras. I'll keep my comment pretty brief I
The residence that I'm currently staying at, it's a rental, is directly in the line of sight just down
a hill from one of the cameras. Every single day, when I cycle to work, when I get in my car, all hours,
even when I'm on my patio, the camera is staring right down at me. To bring back one of the earlier
public comments, these companies
and it's not just flock but expanding beyond that to the security apparatus that is represented by these
companies, they are not accountable to the public in a meaningful way. They have been demonstrated on
numerous occasions now in cities as far-flung as like California, for example, to have ignored requests
from the municipalities that they contract with to keep the data contained to that municipality.
You know, I'm relatively young. I'm around 30ish and like seeing the expansion of this technology into
every part of my life, into every venue from my workplace, when I'm driving down the street, when I'm
going into the shops, when I am, I mean just everywhere. It is a
tech solution that does not have a horizon. And it justifies, you know, it's a response that is not
solving things. It is retroactively putting Band-Aids on some more structural concerns and needs.
I mean, for the street that I live on, if the concern is purely an aspect of, you know, traffic, sort
of like management,
it is a long straightaway with wide streets and it is a structural problem of the street that people
are driving the way that they are driving. And that there's plenty of turn offs on the street as well,
which means that there's constantly opportunities for people to slow down suddenly to turn into a place.
And so I see that as an aspect of this where it's very easy to implement these things.
in the hopes of solving more systemic issues, but all it ever creates is privacy, security, sort of
like liabilities. It is a sort of local sovereignty issue. Anyways, I cede my time. Thank you. Are there
any other comments in council chambers? Seeing none, I'll move online. Are there any comments online?
Jean Glaser. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Now we can. Yes. Brilliant. Thank you. Good evening. My
name is Moby Jean Glaser. I've lived in Bloomington for 17 years. I'm a parent and a trauma therapist.
I want to thank members of council who have made time to really listen in to their constituents on matters
of flock and who are working on a resolution that I understand will be introduced in March. I appreciate
appreciate the opportunity to be in dialogue with y'all and how responsive y'all have been. I want to
encourage all members of council to take every possible action available to them to end the current
contract with FLOC and to prevent any future contracts from being made. Right now, we need preventative
and proactive measures taken to ensure the safety of our community members. In a recent town hall, I
asked Mayor Thompson about FLOC
surveillance and its benefit risks to our community. And she said she did not believe this technology
is surveilling our community.
However, myself and many others strongly disagree with her. She spoke to the contract itself as a means
of creating safety and preventing abuse. Many folks feel we cannot trust Flock to keep our community
safe and believe there's too much potential for those in power to harm our community. This is informed
by what we are seeing nationally in regards to Flock data being used against protesters, by ICE to harm
community members, by a police officer to stalk a former partner,
by police officers to track community members accessing reproductive health care in other states. And
these are just a few documented examples. Considering the violent and oppressive nature of our current
federal and state governments and the legislation we are seeing proposed, especially at the state level,
the safest thing we can do locally in regards to Flock is to end the contract and remove Flock
fully from our community. The risk of maintaining a contract is too high. I encourage all members of
council to come together in this action as a means of preventing further harm in our community. Many,
many folks are speaking out against FLOC. Please listen to your constituents, collaborate with and represent
us. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. We have a second commenter online. Take it away.
Hello, this is Dave Burnworth, and I'm wanting to address the concerns about the flock cameras too.
I would encourage the City Council to strongly, strongly ask law enforcement how valuable they are in
solving crime. It's ludicrous to be able to just take another tool off the street to reduce crime and
solve crimes.
There's crimes going on all over the place. You're probably not even aware of them. I would just strongly,
strongly encourage you to talk to the police chief and other officers in BPD to get their feelings about
this. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any other commenters online?
Wonderful, let's move on then that ends our period of public comment. There will be another period of
public comment toward the end of The meeting we'll move on to appointments to boards and commissions.
Do we have any appointments? Councilman rattle Believe this is
What my colleague is looking for right now? I'd like to move that for the Arts Commission. We recommend
to re-empoint Gerard Pinochuk to seat c4 and a point Austin white to see seat c5 There's a motion in
a second any discussion Seeing none all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed any abstaining I
That motion carries nine zero. Congratulations to the appointments This is for I move that for the Commission
on the status of children and youth to appoint Andrea Alvarez deceit c1 There's a motion in a second
any discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye Any opposed
Abstaining that also passes nine zero any other appointments I'm forgetting that's everyone. Okay Fantastic.
This concludes appointments to boards and commissions That means that we're now at the time for legislation
for first readings. Are there any motions? Introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only
There's a motion in a second any discussion
Councilmember Stasberg, thank you ordinance twenty twenty six oh six submissions violated City Code
section two point oh four point two seventy Submissions did not get to council office staff until well
after the Monday February 9th deadline of ten days before This meeting and some arrived late on Friday,
February 13th after the meeting packet needed to be prepared and
This code is odd to interpret saying that the time frame may be extended by either the council as a
body or the president But extended usually means making it longer not shorter I do think the president
of council should have some discretion to be able to accept late submissions and urgent or emergency
situations but that discretion needs to be approached with caution and with council staff as a partner and
worked very deliberately and diligently last year as president enforcing that deadline with
the administration and supporting our office staff in Insisting that city departments follow the policy
and if they didn't then their legislation would not be on the agenda Because that is what the president
controls is the agenda
And this week our council president put the Hopewell PUD on our agenda for first reading, causing both
council staff and multiple city staff members to scramble last week to get these materials submitted
for the meeting tonight. I was left asking, what is the rush? And when I asked that question, the answer
I got was essentially that the mayor wanted to get it done. And I agree. I want to get going on Hopewell,
too. It's been way too long. We are in a housing crisis.
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
of considering a bad Document or at the expense of setting a precedent that the mayor has any control
over the council agenda So tonight I am going to vote no on this introduction of the hopeful PUD for
first reading Not because I don't think it's important not because I don't agree with the development
concepts within the plan not because I don't want to talk about it with my colleagues and
I'm voting no as a statement to President Asari that deadline policies matter and to not let outside
pressure overrule council process and I'm voting no as a statement to the mayor and the larger community
that it is council that sets the council agenda and that pressure from the administration for expediency
will not overrule the need for due process and proper consideration and I Invite my colleagues to do
the same. Thank you Thank you so much other comments a customer
I have a point of order. I Wondered if our council turning could offer her opinion on the process Is
it found lacking is there are we in maybe some sort of jeopardy in terms of process? As councilmember
Stossberg mentioned section two dot zero four dot 270
states that each ordinance or resolution and relevant documents must be filed at least 10 days before
the meeting with with council's office. That same provision also states that the president approves
the agenda and it has been the practice for the president to
determine what matters are placed on the agenda for first and second readings. There have been situations
where presidents have deviated from from this. I think that this BMC provision Bloomington Municipal
Code provision and some of these deviations are factors for council members to consider.
Deciding how to vote with respect to this matter tonight Did you want to continue councilmember I'm
ruminating on Our council attorney just said I I don't know It seems like it is within the discretion
or has been within the discretion of the president of the council But this is a practice that we should
I mean, this is an important
matter support an ordinance So I'm in a quandary here perhaps Council President do you have a response
to councilmember Stasberg's? objection to introducing Not currently are there other comments Councilman
Flaherty Thank you This is is interesting I think
I don't have any specific knowledge, but it is a little bit concerning to hear my colleague council
member Stossberg note that Some of the challenges coming from The the mayor's administration with respect
to either having a document that was ready or or you know working to cure Okay, my apologies find it
a bit concerning even though I'm specific knowledge about it that there were errors that need fixing
that apparently haven't been fixed and there wasn't
time to work on those. I also am concerned generally about our council staff and their ability to comply
with new accessibility requirements, put together packets in time, have adequate time to balance all
the work to work on research, legal research questions and legislation that council members are looking
to develop, which sometimes does get delayed and sometimes significantly because the day-to-day demands
and requirements on our staff are significant. We are quite small and lean.
in that regard. So that is also, I think, weighing in favor of honoring what's in city code, which is
a third factor here, which is BMC 2.0, 4.270. Strict reading of it, I would say actually the 10-day
requirement is there. I read the word extended as you can go longer but not shorter, but I agree that
past practice has not been completely consistent on that point. I'm not sure if that justifies deviating
from code where it's been referenced and invoked as a
Rationale, you know for for not Not introducing at this time. I think we could warrant a code change
this could warrant a code change to give that flexibility more clearly if we want it and just one other
note which is that I've pondered the the possibility of a code change that require a council member
sponsor for all legislation and I think that could have helped in this situation and others we've had
recently where probably I'm guessing things that come from the Planning Commission would presumably
be sponsored by
The council's appoint appointee to the Planning Commission typically and that might have helped us Resolve
this so I think I'm also gonna vote no on introduction tonight, but I want to Echo what council members
offers to us work said which is that? How we develop Hopewell matters, we will have this conversation
and we'll have it soon but On balance, I think it can wait to follow the the appropriate process in code and
You know with those other factors being considered. So that's it. Thank you Thank you so much councilmember
Pema Smith Yeah, I Also Concerned about how this PUD proposal was rushed We did not have the full proposal
until Monday and that was without any memo or analysis by the
Our attorneys on the council attorneys because they did not have time to provide that And it's a very
complex document it was very hard to parse and It's If I go back to the Plan Commission meeting When
it was approved one of the conditions of approval as councilmember Stasberg said was
that the staff and petitioner would work with her to clarify the points that were unclear and make the
corrections. Why is that her job? I mean, it shouldn't be up to a plan commissioner and certainly not,
I mean, any plan commissioner to fix errors that have come about because of the speed with which legislation
or planning documents have been brought forward.
I just I resent that this came through to the Planning Commission in a state that was really not fully
baked. And I like Councilmember Stossberg I think it's a good project but I think we are not doing anybody
a favor by rushing it. There might be legal implications. I don't even know if they can just say oh
we're going to make corrections and that the Planning Commission can just
blanket approve future corrections to a document that we then vote on. And in the case of PUDs, I'm
not even clear if we're allowed to make amendments. I mean, there are a lot of legal questions here,
and we could be in real trouble if we push this through without investigating them. And just to piggyback
on something that Council Member Flaherty brought up, maybe I should
separate this from what council member Flaherty said in case it's misinterpretation. But we do have
a lot of legislative initiatives among the nine of us up here. There are initiatives that you know I've
been investigating for two years and I have put them on the back burner because our staff do not have
the bandwidth to help write those ordinances. And now suddenly the mayor is storming in saying we have
to have this now even though it's not
properly vetted and properly written. So I want to assert the council's authority here and say, look,
we have our rules. This is a very complex piece of legislation, and you didn't meet the deadline.
I really, having been president and then vice president the two prior years, I've seen the toll that
the amount of work and the timeline stress puts on our staff. We have lost staff because of this. And
I want to assert that we need to respect the deadlines and there are reasons for those deadlines so
that staff can properly vet and present legislation and that we also have time to read the legislation
and ask our questions and get our legal concerns answered.
So, no, I don't think this is ready for first reading. Thank you so much. Other comments? Councilmember
Rallo. Well, I appreciate this input. I think my colleagues make a compelling case that unless there
is an equally compelling reason that we should introduce this this evening, it is a complicated ordinance.
It doesn't need to be complicated in the process. And so I'll be voting against introduction And I appreciate
the input from from everyone. Thanks Thank you so much councilmember Rosenberger I agree with almost
everything my colleagues have said and I'd love the idea of having a sponsor because I think also it
can be tricky to put all the decisions
schedule on the president and I think that it helps Divide that out a little bit if there's a sponsor
because you know, I don't I don't think it's like a blame situation or anything I just think like it's
all very hard to manage. I really appreciate our staff Working on a process and procedures to make everything
in the council office I think more efficient and not as chaotic like we're always scrambling for everything
and so I think
being able to follow that process is really huge for us and our staff. I agree too with council member
Piedmont Smith. I have a list of legislation that I haven't been able to get done for one reason or
another changing staff urgent needs, right? And I think there can be gray areas on this despite like
the code saying 10 days, but in this case, we didn't even have materials ready for the packet. So we
didn't get this until
Monday and it is a very hefty piece of legislation. It would be different if this was something like
a salary adjustment for an employee in in City Hall. Right. And I think there are or if it's an amendment
to something that's very minor the day before a meeting I think those things can be different. But in
this case it's publicly noted that this wasn't ready to even be a plan commission. And then to have
it here I think is a very inefficient way to
Do government so I will be voting no Any other comments Okay, will the clerk please read the role I
guess I mean they've already said how they'll vote but please let's do a roll call If you will so kindly
Councilmember Flaherty no
Stossberg no Piedmont Smith Zulek. Yes, sorry. Yes daily Rallo no rough Rosenberger no That motion that
fails 7-2 Thank you very much. Well, we'll now be moving on to legislation for second readings
and resolutions. Are there any motions? I
Be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only please There is a motion a second any
discussion Seeing none all those in favor say aye All those opposed that motion carries nine. Oh Will
the clerk kindly read?
Go ahead. Yeah, sorry. Um, ordinance 2026-04 to amend title two of the Bloomington municipal code entitled
administration and personnel to consolidate and amend boards and commissions provisions in chapters
2.02, 2.08 and 2.12. The synopsis is as follows. This
Ordinance sponsored by councilmember Piedmont Smith consolidates title two provisions regarding boards
Commissions and councils into a single chapter adds code of conduct provisions and renames the Bloomington
Commission on sustainability to the Bloomington Commission on sustainability and resilience I feel Thank you
I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash oh four be adopted. Second. All right. Council member Pema
Smith did you want to present on it. Yes. Thank you. Council staff. Could you show the document I shared
earlier this afternoon.
To clarify the changes, it was kind of difficult to see in the council packet because we moved so much
text that it looked like we changed everything, but actually we were just moving some things. So while
that gets up, I'll just walk you through it. So this ordinance seeks to accomplish the following goals.
First of all, moving text from Bloomington Municipal Code 2.08.020 to 2.02
Currently the provisions that apply to the city's volunteer boards and commissions are situated
in Bloomington Municipal Code 2.08 executive branch although these bodies are not part of the executive
branch. There are also currently two chapters of BMC Title 2 that are very similar. There's 2.02 called
Boards and Commissions and then there's 2.12 called Boards Commissions and Councils.
So this ordinance moves the general provisions from 2.08 in the executive branch to 2.02 under a new
subheading called general provisions. And that was something that was approved by the committee on council
processes. So we're just moving text out of the executive branch into this heading boards and commissions.
And then addressing chapter 2.12.
Okay so let me just go to the screen here. So in the general provision section that we're adding under
the heading boards and commissions the only thing we're really changing is numbers three and four. We
are referencing a code of conduct which deputy clerk Jennifer Crossley has been working on. And then
as a removal for cause we are citing that code of conduct which is not
The code itself is not going to be in our Bloomington Municipal Code, but the code of conduct will be
something kept by the clerk's office and every appointee to a board or commission will be asked to sign
it. So those are really the only two substantive changes as far as the text regarding general provisions
for boards and commissions. So this ordinance also deletes
BMC chapter 2.12 moves all of that under 2.02. So we don't have these two different areas that say board
and commissions, we just have them all together. And then the last change is bringing forward a request
from the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability to add resilience to the name of that entity.
So they passed a resolution on November 18th recommending to the Common Council that the name be changed
to Bloomington Commission on Sustainability and Resilience. And that does match the charge of that commission
as we revised it recently that they do study and advise on the resilience of the community in the face
of climate change and not just sustainability.
So that is the last change that this ordinance would bring about I'm happy to answer any questions Are
there any questions? All right seeing none question go ahead Stoss work. Thank you. I have a question
about the code of conduct So I don't know if clerk Crosley might be the best one to answer that but
how is that created? I guess and who gets to like
that and make changes to it or and that kind of thing because if council is like Enforcing it like how
is that going into effect? Is that through the clerk's office? Is that through cooperation with? Committee
on council processes
Deputy clerk crossly here. Um, so yes, so to kind of give a brief overview on how this has happened
Actually to kind of give a brief history. I think councilmember Barallo when he was on the committee
on council processes I brought this up and This was something that had been worked on since last year
I also want to at Beaver missed if I didn't give a special special. Thank you to the legal department
in particular Miss Anna Holmes
and Miss Audrey Brennan ham for their work with me we've been doing this in tandem and so we looked
at this because obviously there's a Need for it and it was brought up a while ago But this also was
brought forth to the committee on council processes last year and in December I believe it was
like talked about and discussed. And so this had been shown with the committee. And at the time, back
in December of 25, the committee decided that that is something that's going to be in the clerk's office.
And so it's presented to you all. But the committee also gave feedback on that as well. So there were
a few suggestions, if you will,
The code of conduct and so I took that back to legal we worked on it and then brought it forth again
to the CCP meeting and There were no further objections back in December so That's kind of where we
are with that and then the process in order to roll this out is to number one we are in the process
of still trying to do a
staff liaison training. So this is something that's gonna be implemented with staff that has any kind
of hands related to boards and commissions. And then once we go through that staff training, hopefully
here soon, then it will go to all board and commissioners. And this is gonna be something that is done
annually. So if there is any discrepancies or anything that has been violated by way of code of conduct,
everybody should be on the same page in a court to know that
This is what you sign and if there has to be dismissals for any reason It allows it by the code of conduct
Great. Thank you I just kind of wanted a summary of how that was working and so then in the future it
would be like Considered to be modified like once a year or something like that if there was anything
that needed to be changed or added and coordination with Committee on council processes and the clerk's
office and legal well
Right now it's so as Councilmember Piedmont Smith I mentioned this is just reference again. I just want
to stress that again. This is referencing code and it won't be You know codified into code. It just
references that this is happening. So we feel pretty confident that
It's, you know, as it stands right now, it's pretty good. I'm sure if there is any other things that
happen later on down the road that needs to be revisited, I think that's something that we could take
to the CCP and bring forth of that. And I'm gonna look at the clerk because she just looked at me. The
power of a look. I just wanna clarify that,
The code of conduct falls underneath Deputy Clerk Crossley's role as being in charge of boards
and commissions. And that was something that the council actually asked her to handle moving forward.
This is a living document that lives in the clerk's office and is under the clerk's control as such.
It's not something that would necessarily have to come to the council processes committee but we will
always be open to input from any council members regardless of whether they're on the committee or not.
Thank you. I was just curious about the process understood any other questions Seeing none Okay seen
and there's amendment all its minds all passed to councilmember daily to chair the meeting Would you
like to introduce your amendment councilmember sorry, yeah, do I have to motion to introduce it or okay,
I'd like to move that we
Introduce amendment one second. All right, we got a motion and a second. Do we vote on that? Okay, so
so so super super simple this one and you know, I
I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I for some time had thought about the parallelism
within our code that Mayoral appointments it says very clearly are they serve at the pleasure of the
mayor and then we say but council appointments You know need to have some reason to not serve and so
I thought that it would be nice to have that parallel structure and so the amendment simply changes the
Statement that says that people can remove for cause and just replaces it with the same structure that
code has for the mayor saying that People serve people appointed by council serve at the pleasure of
council That's it All right. Thank you. Any questions councilmember Flaherty. Thank you. Thank you.
Councilmember Stossberg president not Stossberg. Sorry. Sorry. That's true a lot of stories
Thank you, Councilmember Daley, and thank you, President Asari. I had a question about the amendment,
which is, so the text that's being struck out or proposed to be amended says, except for appointees
who serve at the pleasure of the mayor. And I had always interpreted that slash thought that that only
describes some mayoral appointees. In other words, there are other mayoral appointees
who can only be removed for cause. And often that's specified in the state statute. Or not often. I
think that's specified in the state statute in some cases. I recall a plan commission discussion around
this at some point. I think my recollection is the CIB actually only has for cause removal. And so I
guess I'm seeking clarification there.
Is it true that all mayoral appointees serve at the pleasure of the mayor or is it just Some and the
way that's constructed is only referring to those ones for removal Council attorney I do not know Offhand
which mayoral appointments might have statutory implications however, the fact that this language is
in the Bloomington Municipal Code wouldn't Trump in my opinion and
Any state statute that required some type of for cause removal Thank you though as constructed now that
except for appointees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor That's not saying I Guess the way it's
constructed. It's not actually applying to all mayoral appointees. It's only it's saying it only applies
to those that Legally serve at the pleasure of the mayor in other words if there's a statutory
Reason that they can only remove her cause that that clause would not apply to those people. Does that
make sense? Yes, I will add though also that the legal department reviewed this language and The the
strikes and edits with respect to the mayoral Appointees were approved by the legal department the amendment.
Yes Yes, but no, okay
Great. Thank you. Any other questions on Amendment 1? Yes, Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. So do I understand
this correctly that it would only take a majority of council members to remove any board or commission
member that we have appointed for any reason? Yes.
Questions Councilmember Flaherty Quickly googled it and it says for instance planning commission members
under IC 36 7 4 to 18 Must be removed for cause by the appointing authority So I do it seems like there
are instances in which we can't remove For any reason both the mayor and the council. I don't know offhand
what all those are, but I'm a little worried about the construction of this implying or giving
a future council member who reads it, the wrong impression about what's possible. Yeah, I think that's
really fair. I think, yeah, because particularly things like, I imagine public safety falls under that
category as well, right? So we can revisit this later, I think, is, I mean, I do think that it's worth
us thinking about, in many ways, we're addressing the, partially addressing the pain point by introducing
the rule book, the, what do you call it,
Code of conduct, sorry. Like I said, I think there's some strangeness in the code that seems to suggest
that the mayor has the ability to remove people, put people on. This conversation that we had recently
about the BZA, this sort of thing about
To what extent is council's will going to be enforced by the person who we appoint there and whether
we want some strength in doing that or whether we say, well, we have a year, we need to wait until we
reappoint or something like that. That's the mechanism here that I'm trying to get at that I do think
that council should be able to say this is the thing that we want to see happen.
you know, and have some teeth to appointments to the extent they want to. And then I think to the concern
that is implied by what Councilmember Piedmont-Smith said, you know, my thinking, I did debate about
whether or not you want it to be like unanimous or two-thirds or something like that to remove somebody.
Certainly if we revisited, like if we voted this down and revisited, I think, you know, might be a good
idea, but my sense is that, you know, to get a majority of council members to want to remove somebody,
we would probably want to cause in the first place
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
or something like that, right? Like, you know, so so I think that there's a little bit of self-governance
that will be there But I do think setting the setting the precedent that we appoint people and the people
that we appoint serve at our pleasure Just sort of feel felt appropriate given how those certain appointments
that the mayor makes them are dealt with All right, thank you for that any other questions before we
move on to public comment
on Amendment 1. All right. I don't see any. So do we have any members of the public who would like to
make a comment on Amendment 1 for this ordinance, 2020604? I don't see anybody in the audience rushing
to the microphone. Anybody online? No. No. OK. So no comments from the public on Amendment 1. Any last?
comments from council before we move to a vote. Council Member Flaherty. Thank you. I appreciate that
conversation. And what Council Member Sarri said in response in particular is an interesting question
of to what degree should the council's priorities influence its appointees. I think it's actually a
pretty tricky question at times. I think my hunch is that the statutory requirements that folks can
only be removed for cause
is to grant them a degree of independence. And the Board of Zoning Appeals, for instance, is a quasi-judicial
body that has a set of responsibilities, and there's probably some risk of undue counsel influence in
some cases. I'm also, though, intrigued by the notion of kind of a parallel approach to the mayor if
there are counsel appointees that are not statutorily required to be removed by cause only.
I would be open to the possibility of Essentially saying in those situations they might be different
and we might want the ability for the council to Have a little bit more of a direct line and and with
those appointees in the same way I think the mayor does with with Those appointees of hers that do serve
at her pleasure So I think it's worthy of revisiting. I can't support the amendment tonight But thank
you for bringing it Councilmember Piedmont Smith
Yes, it makes me a little uneasy to say that the council can remove somebody without cause. I mean,
cause is kind of a hazy term, but there is legal precedent to say what is just cause and what is not.
I mean, we can say, we doubt that five of us would agree to remove somebody for some flippant reason,
You never know, and you never know who's going to be sitting up here. I consider council appointees
not really an extension of the council's will so much as an opportunity for people in the public who
have certain interests and expertise to serve the community by their service on those commissions.
Those so it does worry me that that we would be giving a blank check to counsel to remove somebody.
I also don't like the fact that in some cases the mayor has a blank check to remove somebody. So just
because I don't like that doesn't mean we should make the same mistake with counsel appointees. So I'll
be voting no. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Smith.
Councilmember Zulek and then councilmember sorry. Yes. Thank you I will speak in favor of this amendment
just as chair of one of the interview committees and having gotten a couple different opportunities
to understand the Engagement between commissioners and staff liaisons. We have had multiple circumstances
even in the past year of the way that our council representatives have been interacting with members
of the public and staff is completely unacceptable and
This would be one of the ways in which we could remove a commissioner for behavior that is just not
what we would want to see represented by or in representation of the city council. So I will be. Yes
we do have the code of conduct but I do still believe that this is unnecessary measure. So thank you.
Thank you. And president sorry.
Yeah, I was gonna say I actually think I agree with councilman Flaherty I think that I do think this
may be something to revisit particularly again for the parallelism maybe we take the the same position
that councilman Piedmont Smith is has put forward which is actually maybe taking out of code the fact
that some folks serve at the pleasure of the mayor right I mean But I think it's an interesting conversation
to continue to have
I was going to say something about the code of conduct and like trying to understand. I mean, this sort
of came out of a discussion with our staff and City Legal where the question of sort of
this word is going to be too strong, but litigation around what for cause means here and whether or
not we've created a strong enough document in the Code of Conduct, I think is sort of what we're trying
to get at. Again, I don't think we have some rush to deal with this. We can revisit. So I'd be happy
unless there seems like some overwhelming excitement to do this. Very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Seeing no one a lot of trepidation so I Would I would be favorable if you withdrew it? I was gonna say
if there was excitement excitement I'll withdraw I'll withdraw the amendment so that we don't have to
take too much time here You are making a motion to withdraw your amendment
Do I need to do that? No. You can just withdraw. I just say I withdraw. It's gone. I give this back
to you. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. OK. We'll now go then to public comment on the proposal
as was. Does anybody want to make public comment on this change to Title II around boards and commissions?
From the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I'm agnostic that would be the Chamber's agnostic on this
Particular ordinance, but I wanted to say that you know, but council processes the committee on We've
been very supportive of that in that process and one of the things they were looking into Was
the consolidation of boards and commissions the Novak report and that's one thing that this doesn't
do and we're looking for some teeth in that that's been a priority of the chamber that we've had the
last few years that we look forward to I know we've seen that with the Transportation Committee
But that I think that was more staff driven than it was council processes driven. So I want to make
sure that the council Committee on that is continuing to look into that and making sure that the boards
and commissions are Serving its purpose. Are we getting something for those? It's not just lip gloss
That we're doing that, you know, we're having some substantive Recommendations and getting something
that this it's not an event planners its actual
Recommendations from from the public. So just I always want to continue that work Appreciate your time
tonight. Thank you Thank you. Are there any other comments in the room? Seeing none, are there any comments
online? Yes, there is one wonderful. Take it away person online No, this is Jamie show I was on
what's known as BCOS, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability, and put forth the resolution for
the name change to include resilience, because that is something that that commission does. Now, in
the previous commenter, he'd mentioned to combine these commissions and to look into that. One of the
things that had been suggested in that report
was that the environmental commission and the commission on sustainability be combined. However, anyone
who knows much of the history of the formation of BCOS would realize that they serve different purposes.
One of the reasons I put forth the name change to include the word resilience was to help set the commission apart
more clearly in the duties that it was to perform. I just wanted to make everyone aware of that because
there are many commissioners that come onto these commissions that do not have the history and knowledge
and some of the words and how things were phrased in the past do not always mesh with how things are
seen in the future or like today.
So I just wanted to put that out there and thank you all for looking into all the things for the commissions
and have a good evening, thanks. Thank you. Are there any other commenters online? Wonderful, all right,
we'll come back to council chambers. Are there any final comments before we put this to a vote? Please
Council Member Pima-Smith. Yes, I just wanted to,
Reply to what Mr. MG was saying about, you know, making sure we really incorporate the board and commission
work into governance. And I think that the creation of council member liaisons that are assigned to
certain boards and commissions will work towards that end to really incorporate the value of the commission work
More closely into what we do overall as a city both Here on the council and also different commissions
working together on common goals I think we've taken a good step in creating those councilmember liaisons
I in the last month I've attended meetings of two commissions that I never attended before and I think
you know just having those
connections with council members will be a big improvement in Really making the best use of our commissions
to work on common goals and of course as sponsor of this legislation, I hope to gain your support and
This this is the result of work of the committee on council processes, which I continue to chair and I welcome
You know councilmember is sorry or others who have input into maybe future amendments to these sections
of our municipal code to reach out to me and and let the Committee on council processes perhaps vet
those changes. Thank you Excellent. Thank you so much. Any other final comments at councilmember Rallo
Yes, I first I'd like to thank my colleague councilmember be not people on Smith Smith for doing the
work on this and
and I also wanted to comment actually give credit to Jamie Scholl for her work on the name change for
the Commission on sustainability to become the Commission on sustainability and resilience The resolution
that was that that she crafted With some input from the Commission Justin vassal chair. It's on page
Page 57 of our packet and it's very short and succinct Document and it speaks well to the necessity
for that change mostly about If if we recognize we're on a sustainable trajectory and we have affected
conditions for instance climate being one then it's incumbent on us to consider how we adapt and
So this is about adaptation. And I think that this particular commission is very well suited to advise
city government, council, mayor, departments, and the community at large on ways in which we can adapt.
And there are examples given in that resolution. And by the way, the resolution was accepted. It was
passed nine to zero. It was unanimous.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much any other closing comments, please comes from Stasberg Thank
you. I just wanted to say thank you to clerk Crosley in the clerk's office for Working on that code
of conduct even even before I took office. There was kind of this question and some concerns about Removal
for cause and that concept and so I feel like this has been kind of a long time coming and I'm glad
that it sounds like that code of conduct isn't
quite in final form yet, but it's in final form enough that we can add reference to it into our code
and start going through that in action process. So thank you very much for all of that work.
That's all. Thanks. Thank you so much. Any other comments?
All right, well, I'll make one quick comment, which is to the people of Bloomington, there are open
commission seats. Go to what's the website? Onboard something, something. If you just look on board
Bloomington something, you will find it. And I hope you all apply. We want you all on our boards and
commissions. Thank you very much. OK, with that being said, do we have to do a roll call vote, or can
we do a voice vote?
With us all here. It has to be a roll call in which case will the clerk please call the roll? Yes, and
with your permission, I'll say it's bloomington.in.gov Thank you very much. Of course councilmember
Stasper. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes Rallo. Yes, rough Rosenberger. Yes clarity. Yes, I
That motion passes nine zero, hooray. Now moving on to the next thing on our agenda. Are there any motions?
I move that ordinance 2026-05 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second.
There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All against?
That motion carries. Will the clerk please read?
Ordinance 2026-05 to amend Title 2 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Administration and Personnel
to allow discussion at first readings of ordinances and to clarify the ordinance and resolution readings
provisions in Chapter 2.04. Synopsis is as follows. This ordinance sponsored by Councilmember Zulek
allows debate and amendment of ordinances at first readings. It also clarifies the readings and voting
procedures for ordinances and resolutions. Thank you so much.
2005 be adopted All right. Um councilman, would you like to present on it? Yes. Thank you I believe
there are several amendments that might drastically change the language So I will just give you all
a brief overview of what this legislation is for under this Ordinance any ordinance may be debated or
amended at first reading and subsequent meetings the big change being we do not currently debate and amend
Ordinances at their first reading the only circumstances under which a final vote could be taken on
first reading is if all present council members consent to proceed to a vote and two-thirds of council
members vote in favor of the ordinance and Just so everyone is aware this change or an exception does
not apply to zoning changes as dictated by state law Happy to answer any questions
Members Lasberg I Have a few questions, but I'll start with what would the Procedure be for this because
right now when we're when we need to discuss something We motion for it to be adopted So would we have
to like would there be a motion for it to be adopted? In order to discuss it and if there's a motion
to be adopted then How do we? Because because then you said
That we couldn't actually take a vote unless everybody there wanted to take a vote So then would there
have to be like an extra motion in there? To actually vote on the adoption like how does this work?
So that that part of the code is per state law And which we can't supersede but I believe that it would
be a simple motion of I move that we continue the discussion to this next Council meeting I believe
is how we would handle that but
Curious too. So there would be a motion to adopt then as well as a motion to introduce at first reading
Yes, I believe that is correct. Does that sound correct attorney laner? As Robert's rules of order are
referenced in the code there would need to be a motion to adopt a main motion in order to support the
discussion there there was some and I don't want to speak on behalf of the the committee, but
There was some support maybe for having a period of presentations from staff at first readings, potentially
discussion or questions by council members during first readings too.
There was a motion to adopt then I think there would need to be a motion to postpone the question unless
it was voted on postponed to a date certain That brings up another question go ahead councilman Stasberg
Have you checked in with the administration around staff time and staff presenting at first reading
and how that impacts staff
who might have to be present for late night meetings that are outside their normal working hours. We
spoke about it in our scheduling meetings and nobody raised an issue. Let me back up. We spoke about
this in our scheduling meetings with Deputy Mayor Knapp and legal and a couple other members from the
mayor's administration. So I they are aware that this is going on.
and no issues were raised to either of us that I'm aware of. This wasn't addressed to me, but can I
also opine on it? I mean, I guess I can just by choice. But I think one of the benefits that staff sees
in us being able to discuss things, well, two things first. In a second, I
One of the questions that you ask, I think, is more clearly addressed in an amendment that I'm going
to offer, which is important. But staff, from my perspective and from the conversations I have with
them. Point of order right now, if I can, President Nasari? Yes. I was asking questions of the sponsor
at the moment. Oh, OK. Fine. And I'm not sure that that's. Fantastic. I'll make a general comment later
then. Does anybody else have a question? Attorney Lanier, go ahead.
Council member Stossberg I wanted to add to to your question that attorney Anna Holmes from the legal
department participated in some of the CCP committee on council processes meetings where this was discussed.
So I think there's awareness on on the part of the legal department in the administration.
Thank you so much attorney later. Are there others questions for the sponsor? All right seeing none
There there is a handful of amendments. Do you have a question? Go ahead councilmember Stossberg would
there be public comment allowed then as well as Tends to be the case we have and that was that was a
question for the sponsor if we're having Discussion is first reading is their public comment allowed. Thank you
This a little bit. I believe we did plan on doing public comment. There are a couple different ways
that we could do it but I Think if someone takes the time to show up to a City Council meeting and it's
on the agenda They should have the opportunity to speak on it Are there any other questions Councilman
flirty I'm sort of channeling conversation that did happen in the committee
of which I used to be a member, but I'm no longer a member. And I think it comes down mostly to how
we operationalize this, not necessarily the code provisions, but I just did want to ask also about,
have you all thought about ways to kind of signal to staff, to the public, maybe with time limits,
or if, let's say, there's four things we're having on first reading that night, and maybe only two of
them we actually intend to discuss,
like noting that in the packet in some way. I'm just trying to think about giving enough. We're adding
flexibility and that may come at the cost of certainty or clarity for folks and basically how to balance
that. So any thoughts? One of the things that we get caught up in a lot is that when we do
try to do an amendment at second reading where maybe not as prepared on the fly. And so one of the reasons
that we wanted to discuss things at first reading is to give ourselves an opportunity to kind of extend
that timeline, especially given all of the accessibility things that are coming up. And so we'd like
to be able to address that. I think to answer your question, making very, very clear expectations on
how long the presentation should be and, like,
just clarifying this is how it's going to go, whether or not we say all presentations are five minutes,
all presentations are 10 minutes. I think specifying our expectations would help a lot with that. Other
questions? All right. Seeing none, there are two amendments.
Councilmember Zulek has asked that I introduce mine first. So I'll pass over to councilmember Daley
and Can I can I move that we introduce amendment to to the floor second Attorney Lane, are you able
to put put that up by chance if you have it if if not amendment to
does a couple of things. The first thing that it aims to do is change this, maybe don't need to characterize
it, but antiquated, I don't know, position that we put the clerk in, that the clerk is to read things.
So it allows for council members to read
Things so and so I've included 2.04 280 as part of the considerations of what's of what we're changing
Here and so striking the first that section that sort of talks about how the clerk Reads those things
and making that a little clearer and then trying to address the question that councilmember Stossberg
brought up
I outline some clear procedures for sort of how a first reading goes. And then I've replaced section
2.04310 with the reference to Indiana code and sort of what
what it would mean to adopt a resolution and what limits are placed on, I mean, I'm sorry, an ordinance
on first reading and what limits are placed on that. So that is the goal of this amendment. It was,
you'll note it's a reflection of something that Mr. Askins had sent around as a suggestion with some
cleaned up
elements of state code references And some Titan language to take out redundancies as well. So that
is the proposal here Thank you for that any questions from council for amendment to Councilmember Piedmont
Smith Yeah, I have a couple of questions first of all the
I'm looking at attachment A that went along with the amendment. Why was section B of 2.04.280 deleted?
The one that says the edited synopsis shall be read whenever legislation accompanies it is introduced,
first to second reading, it will become part of the official record but not have legal effect of being
part of legislation. Why was that?
And just because of the ongoing reference to first and second reading, it's like we don't define what
reading is. We state it in this one place. And so it just felt like a nice cleanup of code. OK. So has
it removed any mention of readings? Yes.
Another question I have, if I may or should I wait, is whether you have spoken with Clerk Bolden about
this, since it does take away a duty of the clerk to read by title and synopsis? Yes. Can you elaborate
as to what she said, or shall we just go to her directly? The clerk said thank you, but if the clerk
would like to say that now, you're welcome to, or differ from what I say you said.
As long as, I'm sorry, just as long as, is this question referred to the clerk at this point? I think
the question's referred to you, so you can answer. Yes, thank you. As I said earlier, yes, I did say
thank you. And from a personal perspective, yes, that's fine. I don't have any objection to not having
to read some rather lengthy synopses that are not so plain language as they hope to be.
I always worry about when we start removing duties from future clerks not so much from a personal perspective
but I don't know that this is something that 50 years from now a city clerk is going to say darn at
all. Why am I not reading the synopsis for this piece of legislation like they used to do 60 years ago.
So that's where I am and I will note that
Striking this doesn't mean that we couldn't ask the clerk to read I mean we could make a motion that
the clerk read the clerk could read I mean, there's nothing precluding that it's just saying that we're
not going to require by code That that the clerk be the person who reads and to that I again say thank
you Okay, so there's nothing in state code that says the clerk is supposed to have that function no
No, sorry. I didn't understand. That was what you were asking before I
Just want to make sure it's a follow-up question. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm Any other questions for president
sorry on amendment to councilmember Stossberg? Thank you. I I feel like there's this implication here
under your a during the meeting when an ordinance or resolution is reached on the City Council agenda
the presiding officer shall announce the item and read aloud its title and synopsis and after it's been
announced as spelled out which is be
then it's before the council for consideration. That reads as to eliminate a vote for first reading.
And I want to note tonight that we actually voted no on something for first reading tonight. So does
this in fact eliminate a vote for first reading? No. Well, two things. One, I mean, maybe it's a moot
point, but you can dispose of things all the same. Any type of procedural motion
is, would be valid at this point. So after it's read, you could say, actually, we don't ever want to
read this, and we could push it off. One could motion that we vote for it that night, and then there's
the procedures to do that. So this just opens it up to real procedure, and not creating this, like,
reflection of Bloomington custom. This is actually reflective of Robert's rules. We're just sort of saying,
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
it read well, I mean So you're eliminating a vote that council would normally take to introduce an item.
Well, I don't know. I don't know if it kind of
It kind of was read, because I read it in the synopsis. And in past councils, when you would read, you
would just go down and read the thing. You would read the thing by title. So this notion of reading
doesn't really mean all that much. What we're talking about is whether or not it's considered. And so
when it's before us, you can dispose it. So tonight, you could have said, if this passed, I would have
read this thing about Hopewell, whatever, and then
you would have said, hey, I motion that we table this until our March 4th meeting. That's what would
have happened. Nothing else would have changed. But then at March 4th, then it would have been at second
reading. And on the second reading, you could say, I move that we table this to the 17th of January.
There's no constraint here on your action or your ability to postpone something, if that's what you
want to do.
We could you could postpone it for three meetings like it. This is not precluding you from this.
In fact, it's empowering you to do it so If you're a member of the public right now, and you're coming
to a meeting You don't know at this point whether or not it's going to be discussed or considered or
eliminated or anything because
Everything is on the table. So if you're a member of the public now you're having to Pay attention to
twice as many things now. We're having different. How is that different than now? I might ask Well right
now it's that people coming know that on first reading we're not going to discuss it Okay, and so they
know that there's the stability of like, okay, it's up for first reading I I'm not gonna worry about
this meeting I'm gonna worry about the next one if they want to make a comment on it
But if this goes through, there would be no certainty. Is that correct? I feel like we discussed a thing
today that was on our agenda for first reading.
And people if they came to hear us do that first reading I think that more people would engage I think
that you would get more comments from from council members. I think that you'd be able to think more
actively about amendments I think that we'd be able to get feedback from the public more actively.
so that we don't have situations where when we come to second reading, it's like, oh, this is the first
time that we're really thinking about this. We get a lot of opportunities to engage. And importantly,
it gives the public more opportunity to engage with things. And my theory of change is that the more
time that we have to deliberate on things, the better outcomes we'll see.
No more questions on amendment to all right anybody in chambers Would anybody like to make a comment
on amendment to We have one approaching the podium, thank you, please remember to sign in Paul Rousseau
My understanding is well my understanding is
I'm sorry if this is wrong, but my understanding is that the council is empowered to Change its agenda
at the beginning of a meeting and Now you are proposing to allow you to pass an ordinance on first reading
So maybe I have that wrong, but my understanding is that you could change the agenda and
Introduce an ordinance and pass it and the public would never know in advance So if I'm wrong,
that's good, but that's my impression right now and I'm Expressing concern about transparency and I
suppose what I'm saying is similar to what councilmember Stasburg just said Thank you Any further public comment
I see one approaching the podium. Good evening, Councillor Dave Askins with the B Square Bulletin.
I think Mr. Rousseau is exactly right. You could do that now. So this legislation does not change that.
You could absolutely add an item to your agenda at the start, and then that item could be an ordinance
that you then decide unanimously to consider, and then to pass on a two-thirds vote
the same day at the same meeting. So I think it's a legitimate point, but you could do that already.
Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else in chambers who would like to make a comment on Amendment
2 for Ordinance 2026-05? I don't see anybody in chambers running to the podium. Any online? Yes,
there is one. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. Please go ahead whenever you're ready. Yes. My name is
Kevin Keough.
I'm a Bloomington resident and I'm speaking in support of allowing discussion and debate along with
public comment at the first reading. Last May 7th, 2025, during the first reading of a $10 million transfer
from the Food and Beverage Tax Fund to the CIB, I believed incorrectly that there would be discussion
at that first reading. That was frustrating enough, but what made it even worse was that the former
controller
ultimately pulled the resolution from the May 21st, 2025 meeting. So not only was there confusion about
debate, there was no debate at all. At that time, the fiscal impact statement showed a $19.9 million
fund balance and $10 million appropriation alongside bond proceeds issued going along the monthly tax.
Many of us struggled to reconcile the timing and the structure of this transfer. Meanwhile,
A reporting that was in late April and early May of 2025 showed the Redevelopment Commission authorizing
due diligence on the Bunger and Robertson property as the host hotel site. Fast forward, and now February
2026, no land, no deal. But when $10 million in public funds is being transferred and the key elements
like land control, project coordinations are unresolved,
Early and transparent discussion is critical when resolutions are not properly vetted. Agenda items
are kept silent or resolutions are pulled. It creates confusion and erodes public trust. Allowing discussion
at first reading strengthens governance. It allows questions to be raised on the record early before
misunderstandings grow. For that reason, I support this resolution. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any other commenters online? No, all right. No more zoom commenters.
No more in chambers any Comments here in council. Yes councilmember Rallo May ask a question It's an
interesting discussion So I agree with mr. Kehoe that just commented and
That there's a there's a real benefit and utility in having discussion at first reading We used to have
a long long time ago In the archaeological record of the council we had such a thing as the regularly
scheduled committee the whole which would allow discussion With no risk of adoption but all this has
changed now and
And I'm in agreement with Mr. Askins that we already have the power potentially to adopt in first reading.
So this doesn't fundamentally change that much. However, you know, it is a good point that Mr. Rousseau
brings up that, and that my council colleague Stasberg brings up that this power could
exclude the public from having Notice I suppose that they're going to have to be attentive to what's
on the schedule for first reading in any case Is that my I meant to ask a question council attorney
is that am I? Have I stated it correctly? Thank you Piedmont Smith
I also have a question So with this amendment With this amendment there is no Am I understanding correctly
that there's no assumption that every ordinance shall be given two readings because that language is
deleted No, I don't think that's correct because really
The only thing that we're addressing here is removing the explicit prohibition within Bloomington code
to allow us to discuss the thing. In terms of whether we can pass it, nothing changed. That's already
a clear state law, right? We can today pass something on first reading by the rules that
have been outlined, I think, a little bit more clearly here than at the very bottom, if you could, than
we have currently in Bloomington Municipal Code. Oh, okay, it went away. And so really the only thing
that we're trying to structure is, are we allowed to talk about things during the first reading? And
the answer, we want to be, yes. And so I'm just trying,
With the amendment just to give a little bit more Expectations for maybe how that might go to deal with
the very first question that councilmember Stasberg asked on when when councilmember Zulek made made
their presentation It's This is empowering. It's I mean there's it gives people an opportunity to comment
earlier in the process again to address what councilmember Rallo was saying as well and
I think that currently, we could have something on our agenda for second reading, ask no questions,
have no debate, and still pass it. This does give an opportunity for people to contribute to the process
earlier on. Again, for us to have discussions, both with staff, with each other, so we all can live
in the same reality. It's, I think, really useful and do more of our work in the open.
Councilmember Flaherty I'm Broadly supportive of the ordinance and discussing things at first reading
and all that the question is specifically to the amendment I'm still wrapping my head around a process
point a little bit, which is that? No motion is made When we get to the things and read them,
is that right? So no motion has been made me just sort of right or into right so from a Roberts perspective
I'm like not an understanding like
You can't move to table an item or postpone to a date certain if there's not a main motion upon which
to make that subsidiary motion. So you can't move to postpone something to the next regular session
if it hasn't been introduced in the first place. So that's the piece I'm struggling with understanding,
I guess. And maybe a weakness, but I think the assumption that I make is that
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
whether what we want to do is dispose of it fine we want to move it like it's already like the the additional
sense of Let this now be before us like once it was on our agenda. It is before us hmm Okay, yes, so
a question for me from like a procedural legitimacy standpoint of that
But I do understand what you're saying. Thank you Any other comments or last questions councilmember
Stossberg I have a I have a comment Once again speaking trying to narrow this just to the amendment
itself which as councilmember Flaherty
Just stated it it eliminates that need for emotion as I asked earlier it eliminates that need for emotion
or introduction what councilmember sorry just said is that Like he's starting with the assumption of
going well if it's on the agenda then it's been introduced and I'm gonna go back to something I said
earlier, which is that the president Fixes the agenda that's like one of the responsibilities of the
president to set the agenda and if then the president is also introducing something
then I think that that yields too much power, essentially, to one person, the president, to add it to
the agenda and then to introduce it and say it's going to be considered. Because lots of other places
in our code, it gives power to the body as a whole, whether or not we're going to consider something.
To have the president put it on the agenda and then to have the president read it aloud introducing
it without any kind of motion on council of council I Dislike that from a procedural standpoint from
the fact that like as a body I mean the president is the president but they don't have any more power
really more than any other council member does we each should have a
You know, we're all an equal vote but doing it this way. I think it gives the president kind of Additional
power in a way that makes me kind of deeply uncomfortable and especially given tonight where where you
know, the majority of us said no We're not gonna gonna introduce this thing because of a procedure for
how it was placed onto the agenda in the first place and that part of code which specifically says like
council as a body and
Can can change something about that that deadline for submissions? And so what we did as a body tonight
was change something about that deadline for submissions Like I mean really we enforced what was in
code about it But you know, we called it out and we said that's problematic And so I think as a body
we should still be able to call out things like that So I will be voting against this amendment this
evening. Thank you Councilmember sorry, I don't think that again
that something is read in this room doesn't have any significance that it's when we make some type of
an action for that thing that thing has significance. And so the sort of idea that the president, I mean,
I don't really care who reads the thing, but I do have issues with the clerk reading it because
of colonialism. But the idea that it being read now suddenly, we're now forced to do something that
we weren't forced to do before, I just don't understand because we have the opportunity to do anything
that you would have done anyways with this. The main thing is that
it gets us quicker to the discussion, so that we're not having to spend all this time in procedure.
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
weight in saying that, okay, now here's this thing, what do you all wanna do with it? The person who
said what do you all wanna do with it does not have more power than the people who get to do something
with it. So, just saying that.
Thank you councilmember Piedmont Smith Allow me to ask a question, you know, we're actually in comments,
but yes, go ahead Sorry, this is a very different way for my old brain to think about this after 15
years of doing it one way so After the item has been announced and read by the presiding officer it
says in the
amendment the ordinance or resolution is before the council for consideration. But under Roberts don't
you need a motion to adopt before something is before a body for consideration. Does you know the answer.
Yes or maybe our attorney knows the answer. Yes I believe there would need to be a motion to adopt first.
So is this.
So I question the language here that it's before the council for consideration just after having been
read. I'm sorry. So so right now when when we do first readings we make a motion that it be read by
title and synopsis right. That does nothing.
That's so at the beginning at the beginning of a meeting now if I were to during summation of our schedule
Read the thing by title and has it been read? Is it being considered what's happening to to that thing?
I'm just saying it's on it's on the agenda, right? the motion to adopt is Customarily what we do here
to signal that we can now discuss whether or not we're going to adopt it and
Here, we're just saying that once it's here, we have an opportunity that we can choose to act on or
not to discuss it if we want to. That's what we're saying. We're just getting to the point of where
council can take some type of an action
just a little bit faster. That's really the thing. They're removing a little bit of the ceremony of
this to get to the meat of the action is what we're trying to do. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Ruff?
Councilmember sorry's recent comments Made councilmember Stossberg feel any different about This legislation
but specifically when when councilman Stossberg gave the example what we did earlier tonight where seven
to vote and not adopt China's reduce would still happen
I was just wondering if his customer Stossberg wanted to elaborate or to follow up Anything councilmember,
sorry, I said has changed my mind well If it if it made you feel any Maybe not necessarily all the way
change your mind made you feel a little differently or a little better about Or a little less like this
is a little less risky No, honestly, I mean
I think that there's some real, I have real concerns with, like, generally speaking, amending code in
haphazard ways. And, I mean, I recall several discussions where there were comments about how long our
meetings are and our meetings are too long. Well, this is gonna make meetings a whole lot longer, honestly,
because there's,
Give the amendment. I mean, I'm trying to stick with the amendment But like there there'll be this this
whole unknown about well the president read it the presiding officer read it now What do we do? And
I paused there long for a reason because I can just imagine what okay now what do we do and and yeah,
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
Don't think in the amendment anywhere about two readings for ordinances But I think that that is something
that's generally spelled out in state code, right? And so simply reading it is introducing it for the
first time Then in a night like tonight, even if we didn't want to dispose of it, you know, like like it
It just necessitates a whole lot more steps. I don't think that it makes it simpler. I think it makes
it more complicated I think that it takes away power from the body in a way that makes me uncomfortable
and I I also Have some of those same concerns that councilmember Flaherty brought up in terms of you
know Is that before for consideration and in terms of the clerk not reading it? I don't see anywhere
where code actually says the clerk has to read it we motioned for the clerk to read it and
But I think that we could motion for anybody to read it. I Mean pointed out to me if it says somewhere
in code that it does say in code somewhere that the clerk has to read it 2.04 point three zero zero
be at the reading of an ordinance the synopsis shall be read and the clerk shall read the ordinance
by title only provided there's unanimous consent, but that is still crossed off in the regular in the
ordinance itself, not just in this amendment, right and
is it I'm having to switch between way too many screens to go between the amendment and Yeah, so even
in the original ordinance not just in the amendment that is taken out. Oh No, there it is. The city
clerk shall read it. Okay, I Still think that there's another way to do that if that is a concern and
I I just I know Short answer. I think councilmember Ruff is that no it hasn't changed my mind or alleviated
my concerns. I
Councilman brazilic comment or question, please. Thank you Well, I guess I have a comment and then a
is that correct counsel attorney later that kind of question my understanding of this legislation is
that when we get to a portion of the agenda the president would then read that line item and the synopsis
out and then we would still be under obligation for the
Mentor and or whoever to motion to adopt and we would still need a second counsel attorney liner. Is
that correct? Yeah, I think that's something to to be determined right now there's also the motion Really
to introduce and read as well. I don't know that that's any place in the Bloomington Municipal Code and
It's not an Indiana state law either. So you know maybe this is part of a practice that that council
would want to continue as a part of this. Understood. I will conclude my comment by saying I will support
this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Any council member Flaherty. Yes.
Going on this bit so back to the point about procedural kind of like Legitimacy around like having a
main motion with which to then do something with postponed to a later date indefinitely, etc The main
motion could maybe be the motion to adopt rather than the motion to introduce and are we saying? That
will read the thing and to move any farther than like just reading it Requires a motion to adopt like
we cannot have a staff presentation without a motion to adopt. We cannot have a
discussion debate questions public comment without a motion to adopt is that consistent with Both our
attorneys understanding as well as what the sponsors and the sponsor and the amendment of the amendment
intends I Defer to councilmember Asari on on this type of procedural question Because he drafted the
amendment so I don't know that these are purely legal questions. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's fair. Thank you. I
I wouldn't. So the second part of your question about whether or not we require a motion to adopt in
order to move on to all of the things that we would usually do. No, I don't think so. I think that
That and that that does actually that disconnecting of those two things is useful that it's like we
can discuss a thing without having any intention to adopt a thing And but again, it's not it's it's
not assuming that anything will take place other than The thing gets read. That's all the only assumption
now. I take councilmember Stossberg's point I mean we could amend this amendment and actually just say
that there has to be a motion for it to be read I mean, I think that that
You know adds again unnecessary element of but it's a small element. I mean the the the point here is
that the only assumption that is made about what council is going to do is that the things on the agenda
will be read and that's it. And then we will do what we want to do with it thereafter. Any other comments.
Councilmember Rosenberger.
That's wrapping my mind around it. Where I am, I know this about the amendment, okay. I like the ordinance.
I think though, I know this has been kind of asked, but how would tonight's meeting happened with the
PUD if we don't vote on introduction? That's a question for you too. Thank you.
I think the way that it would go would have been like this. We would have got to it and I would have
said now we have ordinance 2026 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a six point
three acre property from residential urban lot and residential multifamily. And then I would have said
is there any motion and then you all would have gone. We moved to for example postpone.
And then we would have said there's a motion, is there a second? Somebody would have gone second. Then
we said discussion, and then you all would have been like, I hate council members, sorry. And I would
have been like, ah, I'm sorry. And then after all that, the same thing would have taken place. You all
would have voted, and then we would have moved on. So nothing would have changed, except for we would
have got to that point just a little bit faster, just a little.
I think a little bit of my hesitancy in this amendment is that I think this council already has like
kind of predetermined that we're going to introduce for the most part. Right. Like twice in this term
has something not been introduced. Right. And I think it is a very effective tool for the council as
a whole to use for legislation that isn't ready. I mean because the beauty two people thought it was
ready seven thought it was not.
I think it feels harder to I guess I think it feels a little harder for someone to make the move to
say like I don't want to motion to adopt this. But probably you might say to me it's the same as saying
I don't want to introduce it. Is that. Yes.
I guess I just want to make sure I just feel like actually I actually have a question that for counsel
attorney Lainer that might clarify a little bit of this tension if is there is there a procedure by
which let's let's say that something was on our agenda and we don't necessarily want to vote it down,
but we want to
We don't want to vote on the thing. We want it to be reintroduced. So with a PUD as an example, we say,
look, we're not going to vote for this as it is on us. Can we send it back to someone before it comes
back to us? Is that an action that we can take, or does that trigger some type of inability to make
amendments, as an example? So in your scenario,
Or using today's scenario, right? Does us not introducing the thing fundamentally change how we can
interact with it between now and March 4th? Is that thing going to be different the next time that it
gets scheduled? I think as president, you would have the ability to put the matter on the agenda again
at an upcoming meeting.
Do the same process and do the same process, right? But so but but does that give does that give us
as a body any new? Abilities that we wouldn't have had like it was is that indistinguishable? From had
we had we have just said we don't want to do second reading because we could have motion to say let's
reschedule second reading to the time when we'll have second reading and assume and presumably You know
the end of March Could does what we did today have any?
different impact than, for example, just rescheduling a thing? Postponing a second reading? Yes. No,
I think that they're similar. So that's my argument, Councilmember Rosenberger, is that it's symbolic.
Like, it's great. Like, yay. But it didn't actually do. There was no difference from, well, let me say
it this way.
We could have taken a lot of other procedural motions that would have done the exact same thing given
us more time Pushed it off. Whatever we wanted to do, you know Said things about councilmember. Sorry,
whatever all of that would have been the same and this preserves our ability to that in fact, I think
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
how I was talking about, like, I think, you know, this body tends to say, like, well, the people are
here, so we wanna hear from everybody. So then, if people are here at first reading, and we want to
table something, but we're like, well, staff is here, and 10 people are here, then I think it's much
less likely that we will vote not to introduce or not to adopt than we would if we were, like, because
tonight, nobody was here,
Left because they knew that we weren't talking about it So I do also just want to be clear that like
I think this is a good idea But the motion to introduce feels important to me Councilmember Stossberg
and then councilmember Piedmont Smith If I could because I think that there really is a difference and
I think that it does change it and one of the ways that it changes it is that once something is introduced and
It cannot be changed except by an amendment what we did tonight by not introducing it means that it
could potentially come back differently and I think that there is potentially a legal question out there
that Does it need to be presented exactly the way it was presented a plan commission like mess-ups and
all? Because I've been wondering that over the last week You know and I and our staff has not even I
don't think had the time to
to, like, I have not wanted to engage them in that question because it's a legal research question that
I knew that they did not have the time for because of how it was pushed through. So it does fundamentally
change it because once you've introduced it, you are stuck with it exactly like that unless you actually
have an amendment. And then you have to go through the whole amendment process, which is a process.
And secondly, it changes it because it's had the first reading, which means that the next time it's
read, it could be second reading.
and it could just get barreled on through. And that is exactly what I wanted to prevent tonight, was
something getting pushed on through with the speed of lightning. So I think that it is a substantive
change and difference. I have a question. Sorry to keep on with the questions, but this is a question
for somebody who has a good understanding of Robert's rules.
So council member sorry council president sorry said we don't have to have a motion to adopt an item
of legislation in order to discuss that item of legislation. Is that correct. Because I thought we did
have to have such a motion. I think there would need to be a motion to adopt some type of main motion
then that would support the discussion. OK. So once something
if this amendment and then the ordinance is passed, if both are passed, so something is on the agenda,
the presiding officer reads it, there would have to be some kind of motion, either a motion to adopt,
a motion to postpone, motion to table indefinitely, something before we could proceed to do anything
else. Is that correct? Yes, I believe that's true.
Well, then so I'll have a question then Would would it be possible to then say motion to discuss would
that be? Doable I Mean we're not you know, it feels like we're coming down to semantics right here.
Like we're arguing about Finding a different word for the same exact thing. I think we're getting stuck
on a this issue So anyway, my suggestion would be motion to discuss. I don't know if that's allowed
Yeah, and as a suggestion, maybe it would help to lay Amendment 2 on the table and discuss Amendment
1. Amendments 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, so I think there's the option of adopting Amendment 2
or Amendment 1 or
or none of them. But you might want to discuss Amendment 1 before making a decision with respect to
Amendment 2. Just a suggestion. We can discuss Amendment 1 but in terms of that language and the right.
But I'm just putting it out there that like it will be the same.
that specific portion that we're talking about is the same in my amendment. So I would, yeah. I mean,
the substance is slightly different, but that is pretty similar. All right. Any comments, questions, motions?
I think we've reached the end of the conversation on this one. So with that being said Would the clerk
please call the roll on amendment 2 for ordinance? 2026-05 I believe this one is no because of colonialism
I was joking Councilmember Piedmont Smith no Zulek Sorry, yes
Yes, Rallo. Yes rough Yes Rosenberger no clarity no Stossberg Sorry, no Something So did that yes five
four passed five four. Okay. Thank you. I got turned around which one it is and it was with
Thank you, okay that amendment carries five four we are now back to public comment for the For what's
the what is the number here? 2026 oh five as amended We'll now go to a time of public comment if anybody
would like to make comment on the Most on the ordinance as amended you now have Time to do so you have
three minutes as before
Write your name say your name and We will recognize you moving to count in chambers first I see two
here and then we'll go online Good evening Dave Askins with the Beescar Bulletin I just wanted to address
what I think is a legitimate concern about say what could have happened tonight to have done the will
of the council and I think the will of the council was twofold
Well is to send a message to two people one to the mayor and two to the council president We didn't
want this on the agenda. So how do you send that message if this? Passes and I think the way you do
it is you recognize that there's many main motions That can come after it's announced and one of those
motions could be or could have been tonight I Move that we not consider
this legislation to have been introduced. So you've declared this has not been introduced, which means
that it can't be adopted to meetings after its next actual introduction, right? So just, I mean, the
fact that you've considered it tonight, or this is hypothetical, if it had come before you and you'd
said, okay, we don't like this, but that still counts
as an introduction, because it was read. I think any reasonable person would say, well, yeah, that's
how you guys do that. But if you explicitly say, we move to consider this not having been introduced,
well then, even if it's on the agenda the next time, and then the time, well, I think I've made the
point. I think you have the flexibility to have made the point that you want to make tonight, even in
this new scheme. Thanks.
Hey, I'm Greg Alexander. I just wanted to say I'm appreciative of this effort and thank you for all
having it I do see steady stream of people standing where I'm standing confused by this issue and I
think it'll really move things along. Thank you All right, anyone else in council chambers See one person
coming people online. You can get ready if you have a comment Mr. So take it away If I think I'm of
Reasonable intelligence so if I'm confused or probably other people confused it seems to me that the
way if this passes and Then the situation that occurred tonight happened Two people could simultaneously
raise their hands quickly one person wants to Make a motion to have not considered the other one wants
to make a motion that has considered and who would be the person recognizing the hand first
It would be the president. It's not a good look. Thanks. Anyone online? Wonderful. Good evening. Jamie
Scholl here again. I've been started attending council meetings about
15 years ago and I've seen the discussion or heard the discussions and sometimes was in the room there
when they took place of changing things and it's again talking about changing. There's been a lot of
this is just a stepping back and looking because I don't attend every meeting live. There's a lot of
time spent on figuring out processes.
And it seems like there's a lot more time spent now than there was when there was committee of the whole.
And as a member of the public who has been involved in advocacy for quite a long time, I find this very
confusing and do miss the conversations that did happen previously. Granted, I'm in the public. I don't
know what goes on behind the scenes and how difficult that is for staff and for council members.
But I just thought I would put that out there giving some perspective from the public. Thanks. Thank
you so much. Second person online. Yeah, this is Kevin Keough again. I just want to reiterate what I
talked about earlier that May 2025, May 7th, that resolution was not ready.
It was a lot of questions about just the math. And the thing is, it was out there. And the fact that
you couldn't even talk about it at that first reading. And even tonight, the whole beginning of this
meeting, the discussion about the PUD, obviously it could be done better. My hope is that there would
be debate about
what the substantive issues are and what we are trying to accomplish. That issue a year ago, it's still
festering because it's specifically about that host hotel and the negotiations about how to get that
host hotel going and how are they gonna finance that whole project. And it's a year later and it's still
not resolved. A lot of good discussion could have happened
than a year ago. And now we're in the situation with this PUD, something that needs to be efficiently
and effectively dealt with. At the same time, it needs to be transparent. And that's the other problem
I'm seeing. The public needs to be aware of these complex issues and how they're being addressed and
how they're being planned out. And so anyway, that's my point and yeah,
I know you guys are frustrated. I just want to say that the public shares in your frustration.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any other commenters online? No. Thank you so much. Anybody
else in the room? Seeing none, we'll come back to council for any comments or further questions.
Councilmember Stosberg. Now I'm certainly opposed to the ordinance as a whole.
I think that we've potentially talked about it enough, but I think that there are some real potential
procedural gaps. I think that there's some real problems with the fact that we just eliminated first readings.
Just something is going to be read into the record without any vote or consideration of whether or not
it should be read into the record and then we are stuck with it that way unless it gets formally amended
even if it's a problematic piece of legislation and I'll just go back to that and say I think that that's
incredibly problematic. I think that it makes it much more confusing for the public in terms of what
Procedure it is that they're going to follow because the way this is spelled out right now is there's
no actual guarantee that the public would be able to have public comment during this period because
it all depends on what motion it is that some councilmember decides to do and so it does not add consistency
for the public it adds incredible inconsistency to the public it this does not feel well planned or
organized at this point and I I
Once again, if we're gonna change procedure like fine, but we actually have to change to something as
opposed to just going Oh anything will go We can just do whatever because then whatever might not actually
be particularly inclusive at all and it might actually End up being being less transparent less clear
and People might not know what on earth they're doing. So I will be a no vote on this tonight. Thank you
Thank you so much. Are there other comments? Councilmember Rosenberger. I am bummed about the losing
the motion to introduce. I think we would still be talking about the PUD tonight. I mean without it
now it looks like we could move into a staff presentation without anyone in council saying otherwise.
I would like to I guess just urge you as president to
Please follow the procedures with the 10-day documents to our staff before a meeting Thank you so much
other comments, please councilmember people Smith I Think that increased flexibility for the council
means increased confusion for the public Thank you
Any other comments councilmember? Well My primary interest in this was to allow some discussion debate
in the first reading which formerly happened in the committee of the whole process which was a anathema
to certain members of the council and in terms of its legitimacy, I suppose and
I think if I was reading it correctly, however it it did provide a discussion without risk of adoption
I suppose a lot of the Trepidation on the part of my colleagues notably councilmember Stasberg is an
abuse of this So I'm I'm sort of on the fence in right right now and this just simply because I
I would like this council not to be divided in its proceed in its discussion or its determination of
procedure and There's a deep divide in this right now, you know so If anyone has anything else to illuminate
Please Proceed thanks Councilmember Zulek and then councilmember flirty. Yes. Thank you. Um, I
I'm plan on supporting this. All I will say is I think there is a line between open dialogue and being
disrespectful and I just encourage everyone to Remember that like we're all doing what we think is best
for the city of Bloomington and sometimes that looks different But we are still all doing our best.
So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flaherty Thanks, I think I will support the ordinance because
I support the concept of
The ordinance as a whole I am concerned about what follows from the amendment the past I believe
councilmember sorry did did say that no no motion to adopt would be required to move into presentation
from staff etc So I think tonight we would have heard a presentation on the PUD. I think that's what
would have happened I don't think it would have been in order for someone to Make a motion to postpone
because that's a subsidiary motion to a main motion and there is no main motion and
Anticipated now to move into substantive discussion of the ordinance. Yeah So I'm just legitimately
still confused from a procedural perspective of like how this will function like how Is it just we're
gonna discuss it for a while and then when the council president says it's over it's over and we'll
Do it again another time when there's a motion to adopt or are we actually gonna make that motion to
adopt every single time? if we are like including a first reading then
Kind of there's there's no way to Accomplish what we did tonight because a vote a no vote on that motion
to adopt would mean that it is that it fails So it's I do feel like we've lost something with the with
the loss of a motion to introduce Still sorting it out. I mean, I'm like pretty from a procedural
perspective. That's it Like I said, I'm gonna vote for the ordinance. We're gonna try it out We can
make adjustments in the future if we need to I want to do some more reading of Rosa procedure to dig
further into some of those questions also
Thank you. Um, I see a couple comments. Um, uh, so we'll first go did council at the end council member
rosemary. Do you have a hand up or are you? Okay, sorry council member Thank you, I just want to say
I I am excited to vote for this I have I think many of you have heard me long Bemoan the fact that we
don't have a longer runway for discussion on a lot of these topics And I I think that this can only
be helpful
and be more enlightening and greater opportunity to draw the public into the conversations.
So this is, in my opinion, a good move and all it's doing is just giving us greater runway for learning
about these, sometimes the thornier topics and having a better understanding and grasp of them. Thank
you so much. Council Member Rosenbacher.
question and it might not be relevant but it's about when can we bring a vote back like tonight like
I just I mean I don't know if anyone would even want to but you know how sometimes you can say I want
to I miss voted and I want to vote a free vote you know
There's a so there's a provision in title two that says that I am and clerk can correct me or attorney
later can correct me that says that Votes can be revisited or something. It says something to that extent
But I can't remember if it people who had voted no or people who voted yes who can initiate it or something
to that extent It's one of the yes, it's something like that. I think it's entitled to somewhere but
I do just we can well that's getting looked up I do plan to support this as
It is because I feel like I started this term saying I'm up for trying new things, you know? And I do
want to be supportive of that. But I agree with a lot of people up here that not having a motion to
introduce is getting us into sticky situations. And one public commenter said, we can do it a different
way. Just do this, do that. But that is incredibly hard, like I talked about before, especially if we
roll right into presentations that everyone here thinks
It's just anticipating that that is going to be what we're doing. Yeah. Other comments? I was going
to make a couple of comments. I think first off, I agree with most of the things said, particularly
the concerns first off around the president reading it. I'll be completely honest. When I was writing
that, I wasn't thinking about the fact that I am president. But it does become, I think, a little
interesting, right? And I think Mr. Rousseau raised an interesting point about if I then get to decide
who gets to talk next and know who's for it. I do think that's something we should maybe address here
in the future. I also think that that overlaps with the question of doing council sponsors, for example.
So I think what we might do is if there's interest, I mean, it's something we could think about doing
is introduce those Title II changes to
require that everything has a council sponsor. And here you could say the council sponsor would be the
person to read it. Secondly, I think I've talked a lot, wrote legislation last year to this extent that
was never put on the agenda, but around removing a lot of the procedural things that we've put in code
and making a rule book for ourselves. And one of the ways that we could address some of the concerns
here is by coming up with some norms. We could say, for example, that we don't want
to have presentations the first day or that there's some mechanism that we could use to call for when
we're gonna have presentations and when not. I also think that we should come up with some rules about
how we do public comment in first session. Is it just gonna be general public comment? Is there a particular
way that we'd like public comment to be done during the first time that something is discussed in council?
Again, though, I think that
This is taking a step in order to be able to start to address those things. I mean, yeah. So I'll just
say that I do think that it puts, again, an opportunity for us to bring some other things forward,
I think, to fix it. And I will also say, to Councilman Rosenberger's point, I do think one of the things
also that's been illustrated in this conversation is why maybe past councils, we should ask,
councilmember Rallo if you remember but why past councils have Outlined what motions are appropriate
at certain times right so that we don't spend all of this time discussing whether or not Can we do that
motion is that allowed is this the type of thing? So, you know, we'll be able to you know, see see how
this goes But assuming that it passes but with that if there's no other comments Okay councilmember
Rallo then councilmember Stasberg like to make a motion
I would like as a as a vote in the majority for amendment to I'd like to move reconsideration of amendment
to Is this is this how it works come council attorney MC right now and this is in section two zero four dot
460 motion to reconsider when any question has been decided in the affirmative or negative any member
voting with the majority May move a reconsideration of the vote before adjournment Concurrence of a
majority of the members present shall be sufficient to order reconsideration of a vote If a motion to
reconsider is defeated it shall not again be entertained I
Okay, so councilmember Rallo We need to establish concurrence of a majority of members, I believe right
it's more than just a second that's required correct. Yes There's a motion so are people in favor of
a reconsideration of the vote to adopt amendment to to ordinance 20 2605 All those in favor say aye aye
All those opposed, say aye. Aye. So that motion carries 7-2. So we will now reconsider it. Now, in terms
of unusual things, this is fun. Yes. Bolden is shaking her head about the vote. It was a voice vote.
Oh, should we do a? The ayes have it. OK, fantastic. Oh, the ayes have it. Sorry, yeah.
Question now procedurally do we now get to what do we do? We we just revote or is it just open again
for discussion attorney later? I would recon go through the process of reconsidering and discussing
it So so we're back on it. If anybody has a comment you can make it now. Otherwise, we'll reconsider
the vote Councilmember Zulek and then I'm sorry clerk Bolden. Go ahead. I
Request a brief recess a brief recess. Yes, please. Okay, there's been a request for a recess. Is there
anybody opposed? Okay, we'll take a five-minute recess sufficient. Okay, we'll take a five-minute recess
back at 920 Daily No Rough no Rosenberger
Stossberg no and Piedmont Smith All right, the noes have it so now we're back to the main issue the
main Ordinance 20 2605 that has not been amended Would we like to go to publish would anybody like to
make a public comment on ordinance 20 2605 I
Is there anyone online who'd like to make a public comment on 2026 oh five All right, no there's no
no fantastic we're back to we're back to council would anyone like to make final comments Councilmember
Stossberg, thank you I do think that this is much better without the amendment on it, but I still am
Concerned that it is You know, I asked questions about things like are we gonna allow public comment?
How is that gonna work? Are we gonna have staff presentations? How is that gonna work and You know,
once again, I'm also like I'm okay with the with the idea of changing things But I feel like it's putting
the cart a little before the horse council members already mentioned title to stuff that he had put
together last year that never got put on the agenda and to be clear about that that was
I really don't think that you can just cross things out without also saying what you're gonna do instead
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
and That was that issue last year. It's like, okay, like yeah I think that we could maybe move some
of these rules out of title to you and put them into some kind of administrative manual but then you
have to write the administrative manual and I think that that administrative manual needs to be written
before and
Get rid of the things in title two. So this is one of those situations It's like yeah, am I am I generally
okay with the idea of having discussion at first reading? Yeah, do I think that there's the possibility
that it could make meetings last a whole lot longer also? Yeah Because I think that there's this, you
know and having been on Plan Commission, you know when we have two hearings for something that might
be particularly controversial and then it might get sent to council and
And what you have is you have the same people giving public comment at both of the planned Commission
hearings and then coming to council and now we're having a fourth meeting and I'm not trying to eliminate
public comment at all, but you get the same comments over and over from the same people and that just
ends up being tedious and not Helpful necessarily when you have that kind of repetition. So do I have
a problem having public comment at first reading? No
But I have a concern about having too much duplicative public comment that isn't a good use of anybody's
time, including the person who's coming to comment. Because as council members, I listen the first time
you say it. I don't need to hear it three or four times. I hear it the first time. I promise.
Okay, doesn't mean I agree with you, but I hear it and I listen and I consider it. So I have a concern
about that. I similarly have a concern about having lengthy debates like we had tonight more than once.
And I think that without some kind of procedure in place, I think that this is a little bit bulky. So
I feel like I could support it if some of those other questions were already answered, or if it had
something in it like
It's going to you know we're going to give ourselves a few months to figure those things out because
I'll tell you it's going to take some time to figure those things out next regular scheduled meeting
is in two weeks if we pass this then at that meeting in two weeks we're going to have to we're going
to have to have some of these things sorted out and we just went through a whole
Kind of discussion about how busy our council staff are how busy we are as council members So if those
questions aren't fleshed out already are those gonna be fleshed out in the next two weeks So that that's
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
like okay with this idea of like discussing at first readings But I don't think that there's enough
clarity I also I'll come back to the clarity for the public as well in terms of what they're walking into and
And I do think that it's better because at least it does say right up front, you know, we're going to
be given these two readings still for the public. So hopefully they realize like, okay, they might talk
about it the first reading, but they're not going to act on it at the first reading unless something
really unusual happens. But I think that it does give the public less certainty and more confusion.
So that's why I'm not going to be supporting this tonight. Thanks. Awesome. Thank you. Are there any
other comments?
Council Member Rosenberger. Hey, thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to council leadership for
bringing this ordinance. It feels like it did take a while to get it ready. A lot of nuts and bolts
in there. I am excited to try it and president sorry what you said a few minutes ago about we could
do this or we could do that or you know those were exciting to me about we could say presentations or
no presentations or only questions or you know I like all of that possibility. So I'm excited. Thank you.
Thank you so much councilmember Piedmont Smith Yeah, I'm in favor of this legislation this is something
that we talked about on the committee and council processes and We didn't delve too deeply into the
logistics of you know, would we have time limits would we have public comment? We did you know acknowledge
that those things would have to be worked out, but we did not make any firm recommendations on them
I think that those are questions that do need to be worked out and we don't need to create an administrative
manual that has everything we need in it right away. We could start with this and say, okay,
chapter one, how do we handle legislation at first reading and how is that different from second reading?
That's something that leadership could work on. That's something that the committee for council processes
could work on. I do agree with council member Stossberg that it's important to for all of us and the
public to have an understanding on how first readings will be run so that people know how to participate
and that so that city staff know what to prepare so that we don't sit here until midnight for first
reading and second reading.
But I I think that we can work those things out and I'm happy to Help work those things out as well.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments? Councilmember Allah Just to say Case in
point I appreciate the deliberation discussions evening or else I would not have reversed my vote on
amendment to I think that this idea of a discussion on first reading is
can have a real benefit, because it is a way to get acquainted with matters that you might not, you
might be assured that you understand, but perhaps you don't. But it is, in that sense, very much like
the old way we used to do it. So I think that this is,
will be a better likelihood of being a benefit than having an adverse outcome. So I'll be supporting
it. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments? All right, seeing none. Clerk, will you please
call the roll? Yes. Councilmember Asari. Yes. Daly. Yes.
Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stasberg no Piedmont Smith. Yes Zulek. Yes Fantastic
that motion carries eight one. Thank you so much that concludes the time of legislation for second readings
We now move to the second best part, which is the second best time of public comment. Thank you all
for being here this long. If you have another public, not another, you can only comment once. But if
you have public comment and you did not make a public comment during the first session of public comment,
now is your chance. You have three minutes. If you could kindly sign in and state your name for the
record or an alias, that seems great. And folks online, same thing. We'll acknowledge you next. People
in the room, go ahead.
Hello, my name is Greg Alexander. I'm gonna go a little bit off of my usual beat I usually come to you
and talk about transportation policy and how urgent that is and how Ineffective the processes that happen
in this room are Today, I'm gonna try to confront one of the challenges you face in getting anything
done I'm just gonna put the punchline at the top You need to debate disband economic and sustainable
development. I know It's nothing about the people there
I've had people that I liked and people I didn't like and it's been the exact same behavior across two
administrations It's just structurally a bad department. You all know my beef. It's a pro car department
in City Hall Of course, I'm opposed they think of cars as a fundamental tool for economic development
You know, that's not what the planners say, but that's what they say. They cheerlead for parking garages
deep down they don't believe that cyclists and pedestrians spend money and
They think that I'm less of a human being than other people, and I can tell that. I assume you guys
can tell that, but I don't like it because of that, so that's just me. I think you ought to care about
why they act that way. I'm just gonna be very direct. This is the Department of Mayoral misconduct.
The mayor meets with a stakeholder behind closed doors and works out a deal, and then uses the staff
at ESD to sell that deal to you guys. This is, they've run this game, I've watched it happen 10 times.
It's always ground zero if the,
the administration is going to ignore or violate the law, you're gonna see ESD there, I'm sorry. This
is a department with no clear directive. They have no area where they have actual authority or expertise.
It always overlaps with other departments inexorably because of how it's designed, but it's insular.
They don't talk to other departments. They don't talk to subject matter experts, and they don't honor
the planning documents that you all pass.
They also ignore the ordinances that this body passes. We all saw that two weeks ago. It's a department
that we don't need. So I know how I sound. You're not going to cancel a million dollar department. It's
a big business. It's a number of staff members just because I said so. I mean, right? Obviously. I'm
here to ask you to do something I hope you can do. Next time standing at this podium, it's going to
be the director of ESD and one of their sidekicks.
Ask yourself, should I be hearing from another department head? Should I be hearing from a subject matter
expert? Is there somebody else that should also be here? Use your own judgment. Just think about it
for yourself. But you have to be paying attention to this. Every time they're here, it should be somebody
else. Thank you. Go ahead. My name is Matt Gleason.
I came to discuss the Hopewell South rezone and I didn't realize that first readings meant no Council
discussion and no public comment So I was gonna just end up listening but the discussion about how readings
happen and so on Are you gonna are you going to comment on Hopewell weekend? Can you stop this time
just for a second because because if it's about hopeful it was on our agenda, so They'll be upset if
you if you talk about it Okay
Discussion of things on the agenda at general public comment There's a motion in a second to allow for
this comment or to comment on the hopeful PUD is is Councilmember Stasberg has a comment General public
Items on the agenda, but councilmember is sorry just rephrase that to say specifically this commenter.
Oh, yeah Is that is that was people all times or just now? I Will withdraw my motion and make a more
specific motion that we suspend the rules to allow public comment for items that were on the agenda,
but not discussed Or introduced if you will this evening There's a motion in a second
Any other comments? All right, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay,
sir, please take it away. Comment on whatever you'd like. Okay, thanks. Please, if you could restart
their time at three minutes, I'm sorry to have interrupted. Well, thanks. So, I wanted to generally
voice my support for
Up zoning if you will will South to provide space for more dense more affordable housing And I know
it wasn't read but I want to voice my hope that the new iteration of the zoning code has less architectural
requirements that Add a cost burden to specifically multifamily units that the previous Code for hope
will does include those architectural cost burdens only on multifamily units. So that is something I've been
Want to see kind of moved away from But talking about the procedural thing. I do think there is a lot
of value in Discussion, you know public comment and city discussion on a first reading because there's
the sort of life cycle of an ordinance Where we have a first reading and it enters consciousness, but
it's not discussed and we have a second reading where it can simultaneously be discussed for the first
time and voted on so
Having the first reading maybe not have a vote or maybe only a two-thirds vote gives a period of time
where public comment can be integrated at a low opportunity cost to time to pass or implement whatever
legislation and Besides that I would love to hear about future plans for the rest of Hopewell as well
as the various city corridors and studies that have been done and kind of not
Happened to anything. I know that isn't a City Council role, but Thanks Thank you so much. Mr. Gleason
any other commenters in the room. I think everyone's commented at this point Anyone online? Thank you
Thank you so much. Okay, we move to matters of council schedule Are there any things that people would
like to announce about upcoming council schedule? Please councilmember Piedmont Smith
Councilmember Stossberg should go first because I have to confirm my okay councilmember Stossberg Okay,
I just wanted to announce because this is the last regular session before it happens Friday February
27th at 830 there will be a fiscal meeting
Special Fiscal Committee meeting and the Fiscal Committee decided at least for the next few meetings
We're gonna have them every other Friday So there's also one scheduled for the 13th of March also at
830 in the morning So those are gonna be every other Friday at 830 I'm assuming that that continues
to be the best time for all members present. Thank you so much any others with notes, please
Council processes will also meet on Friday, February 27th at 12 o'clock to 1 30 in the awesome conference
room Okay, thank you councillors task for
To make sure Council members on behalf of the fiscal committee I sent you an email about survey to finish
the deliberation session stuff that we started in December Thank You council members who look you did
fill it out a couple of you filled it out Most of you haven't filled it out, but I need that data for
the meeting that we're having next Friday So if you could fill that out ASAP, that would be great So
then I can get you the second form that is needed for that process
Thank you. Thank you councilmember Flaherty I Think the deadline was today, but it might have been oh
it was tomorrow great but as soon as possible would be great so that then I
Thank you so much. Thank you. Also just as a reminder The city is holding its second meeting Negotiate
of the round of negotiations with the police union One councilmember can attend as anybody want to attend
That's I'm sorry the Wednesday. I'm sorry Tuesday 24th from 2 to 5 p.m
No one? Okay, thank you. Yeah, two to five if you're able to. Okay, the only other thing, just a reminder
that we have a form if you're interested in scheduling a deliberation session. So just fill that out.
Also Council Member Daley will be following up if anybody has ideas about deliberation sessions. Does
that seem like everything? Seemed like everything? Okay, fantastic, we did it. See you guys later, adjourned.