I'm gonna call to order our March 4th meeting of the Common Council for 2026. Will the clerk please
call the roll? Councilman Flaherty here Stasburg here Piedmont Smith Zulek present. Sorry here Daley
here Rallo here Ruff here Rosenberger here
Okay, the agenda is posted online and on the doors, but this evening's agenda includes approval of minutes
from five meetings held in 2025. Under reports, we'll hear from council members first and also from
city offices where we'll have a report, long-awaited report from our new city controller, Jeff McKim,
and also a report from our planning director, David Hittle, regarding House Enrolled Act
1001 under legislation. We have one ordinance for first reading concerning a proposed rezoning a PUD
and then we also have a First reading of a resolution which proposes transparency requirements around
flock cameras one important note if you've been to a council meeting before
At our last meeting, our last regular session we made new legislation that allows us to discuss
legislation during first reading, and so the PUD is a first reading tonight. In the past, we wouldn't
have discussed something during first reading. We intend to discuss that. We may discuss that should
the council decide to, and we've come up with some basic rules. This is the first time that we're doing
first reading discussions, so we're
kind of trying to feel this out. We're going to run it the way that we essentially that we usually run
second readings and that council will
receive a presentation from the city staff. We'll ask some questions. After that, there will be a period
of public comment on the PUD. We've limited that time of public comment to 30 minutes. Now, that can
be extended, so the council may choose to extend that, but it might just stop at 30 minutes. And then
thereafter, there will be some sort of
time for closing comments. The council can at that time either choose to make some type of a vote on
the thing or to delay it for another time. All of those things are possibilities and is to the full
body to decide. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith, is there anything I missed out on the rules that we've
proposed for first readings?
Thank you very much then. Okay. So so with that we have minutes for approval We have those four Four
five set of minutes. Are there any amendments to the minutes? Please councilmember Stossberg I just
remembered that I messaged the clerk a couple of notes about those but I don't think that I
Updated minutes wherever sent out. Did anybody see any updated minutes? I don't think so Okay, what
would the clerk prefer me to do right now about those? the the two things were in the Meeting date of
December 3rd there. I thought maybe it would be useful to have an explanation of why a motion ended
up failing and
with five yeses and two nos. I think it was after 1030, so we needed a two-thirds majority. And then
I think there's a typo in the minutes from December 10th. Clerk Williamson, do you? Yeah, so we did
fix the typo, and Chief Deputy Clerk McDowell did add in that note. I am actually talking with her right
now about the minutes. I don't believe she sent them out as revised. She says they can be pulled from
the agenda if you would prefer to do that.
Okay, I mean if she fixed them and they were you know It was clarity so so I'm fine if they're fixed
and those were the only two things fixed but if we would prefer to Move those two sets of minutes to
next month like whatever That's the third and the third and the tenth, okay, we can resubmit them also
putting that as an option as well that I
So we can either vote vote to get them adopted as as amended or we can just move them off makes no real
difference Okay, okay in which case any other any other corrections to the minutes Please councilmember
Piedmont Smith, I don't have a correction, but so should we amend the motion and say We have we don't
have a motion yet. Oh, we don't It makes it a lot easier any other corrections to the minutes I
Okay, seeing none, are there any motions? Yeah, thanks. I move to, I'm sorry, point of clarification.
Did we decide to pull those December ones or are we going to re-submit? She said she doesn't matter.
We're approving all of them. I move to approve the minutes from July 30th, November 5th, December 3rd,
December 10th, and December 15th as amended. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor
say aye. Aye. Aye.
Abstaining that motion carries nine zero will now move to a time of reports This is Limited each section
of this is limited to 20 minutes and we'll start with councilmember reports as as I've been doing we'll
do it in two things So if you could first do a report and then if you have a general statement, you're
welcome to give it We'll start off with reports as anybody have a report Councilman Pema Smith
Yes, I am the new council liaison to the Redevelopment Commission. So I just want to report that at
Monday's meeting They did pass a resolution designated designating at the summit district as an economic
development area, which is the first step towards Creating a residential TIF for that area to provide
funding for infrastructure Thank you very much. Any other reports? Councilmember Stossberg
Yeah, I guess I'll give a short report on the MPO, Metropolitan Planning Organization.
There's kind of some interesting conversations happening there right now about the founding documents
and whether the organizational structure that was decided on in the early 80s is still the
best organizational structure to move forward with. So that will be an interesting conversation moving
forward. And I somehow became vice chair of that organization, for lack of anybody else volunteering,
because that's apparently how my life goes. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any other reports?
All right, we'll move on if anyone has a statement or something you'd like to read anybody with a statement
Okay counselor Stossberg I'll go for that too. I just I think I have two things maybe that count in
the statements. I'm not really sure So first I want to send a sincere. Thank you to counsel attorney
later and deputy attorney Bennett This is their their last official council meeting with us
And I just want to thank the two of you for your work and contributions to counsel while you guys were
here I've really enjoyed working with you and I've really valued Your guidance and your legal advice
that you've given me. So thank you very much for your service and Then the second thing I wanted to
notes was constituent meetings. Is this the time for constituent meetings or is reports the time for
consistent work?
Okay, so I've been doing that new thing with constituent meetings where basically I'm having like kind
of open office hours by appointment so that is coming up next week on Tuesday between the hours of
Excuse me 1130 and one and if you want to make an appointment with me during that time The link to do
that is on my public calendar. This worked really well last month It was actually really interesting
having a kind of individual conversations and I feel like those Can be more meaningful to have one-on-one
conversations with folks about things that they want to talk about So if you want to sign up for that,
let me know right now Those are generally second Tuesdays like next week Tuesday the 10th. So thank
you very much
Awesome. Thank you so much. Any other statements councilmember daily? Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to
say a big thank you and congratulations to the city of Bloomington and especially the community Family
Resource Department for their wonderful black history month gala that they threw Saturday night. It
was a beautiful event It was so much fun It's one of my favorite events all year where we get to dress
up and be all Fancy and have fun with each other and dance any good food but also to celebrate all of
the award recipients which was just really heartwarming and just so beautiful to see so I
Big congratulations for yet another wonderful event. Can't wait to see you at next year's and I encourage
everybody here to join next year. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other statements. Council member
Smith. My March constituent meeting as usual on the second Saturday. So that'll be March 14th at 11 a.m.
It's via zoom. You can go to the city council website to sign up for that. Thank you. Any others.
All right. I have a very brief one. I don't tend to give statements during meetings, but I will give
one tonight. And I just want to take a moment to say something about, I guess, the nature of this body
and the responsibility that we share in the
of public life, I think especially when issues like some of the things that we're going to talk about
today are important and deeply felt, and I think we will disagree. And if you watch this council, we
disagree often. It's not only inevitable, but I think that it is healthy, and I hope that you would
all agree with me that it is healthy for the people that you've elected to disagree. This council was
designed that way. There are nine of us here because a city as vibrant and as thoughtful as Bloomington
deserves many voices,
many perspectives and many approaches to the challenges that we face together. But even when we disagree,
and to be clear, we disagree a lot, I think two things have always been true. And sometimes I think
we maybe remember this, but we don't always, I don't know, say it enough. But two things have always
been true in my experience serving alongside my colleagues who I respect is that, first, I have never
a day that I've served on this council doubted that the other members of this council that you elected
deeply care about Bloomington and that they want the best for this community and that even when we have
differences of opinions that we might differ on how we want to achieve that goal we might vote differently
we may advocate advocate passionately for different solutions I've never questioned the sincerity or
commitment that each of us brings to this work secondly
We all need each other. So we can't operate alone. We're not nine individuals operating in isolation,
but we're one body. And the work of this council only succeeds when we listen, deliberate, persuade,
and sometimes compromise. Democracy, especially at the local level, which is, I think, right now so
under attack across this
country is not the triumph of one voice over another, but it's the difficult and ongoing practice of
governing together. And so that does not mean that everything's going to be unanimous.
Lot of things will not be and I don't think that they should be I think healthy institutions make room
for disagreement They make room for debate and this is why nine people were elected to serve you But
disagreement amongst us should never be mistaken for indifference to the city that we all serve and
it should never be framed as a failure of good faith and so I want to say just to the public as well
as other elected officials in the room that
This chamber belongs to all of you that it's natural for us to feel strongly about the issues that come
before this council that Passion for our community is a good thing. But as we engage these difficult
questions together I really just hope that we can do so in the spirit that reflects what's best about
Bloomington that we speak with conviction But also with grace that we argue our positions not to question
each other's love for the city not to question each other's resolve But that we remember that our goal
is simply not to win arguments, but to build a future deserving of this community
And so we deserve nothing less than our ambition and also nothing less than our grace So that is my
statement for this evening that being said let us move on then for to Come comments and reports from
the city offices. We have a report from first from Jeff McKim our Wonderful controller. Thank you. Mr. McKim
Really Okay, I think now it works good evening council members Jeff McKim City Controller I appreciate
the opportunity to provide an update on the city's 2024 annual comprehensive financial report or a CFR
and the accompanying audits Let me begin with the most important point
The audits are active and progressing. The auditors are not currently waiting on any deliverables from
the city. We are responding to requests from the auditors in real time and additional testing requests
may continue as the audit moves forward normally if belatedly. Just to give you a sense of the kinds
of requests we're receiving, the most recent request that came in yesterday
was for photographic documentation of the security surrounding a fire suppression system that had been
purchased and installed with community development block grants for Centerstone. Hand staff had to obtain
access to the Centerstone building and go over and take pictures of the locked doors that protected
the fire system. I really appreciated their willingness to jump into action when we received the request
so we could get it to the auditors in a timely manner.
But in any case, to understand where we are on the schedule, it helps to revisit briefly how we got
here. Prior to 2018, Bloomington was subjected only to a regulatory or cash basis audit. That framework
focused primarily on cash inflows and outflows at the fund level, what we received, what we spent, and
whether expenditures complied with statutory authority.
The audited report at that time was only 35 pages, and that audit matches the way that Indiana units
of government and almost all units of government everywhere are managed. In 2017, the General Assembly
amended state law to require larger local governments that issue bonds to prepare financial statements
under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAP. Bloomington falls within that category, and
once a unit begins GAP reporting, it must continue in future years.
Gap reporting is substantially more comprehensive. It requires government-wide financial statements
that incorporate long-term assets and liabilities, including capital assets, bonded debt, pensions,
leases, and other post-employment benefits. Revenues and expenses are recorded when earned or incurred,
not simply when cash changes hands.
The result is a much more complete picture of fiscal sustainability, but also a significantly more complex
reporting process that differs from the day-to-day systems that local governments use to manage budgets
and finances. Just to compare, our financial statement that's being audited right now is 197 pages as
opposed to the 35 pages of the regulatory basis audit.
Implementing gap reporting required structural and operational adjustments. Capital asset reporting
has been the most significant lift as it requires coordination across multiple departments and reconciliation
of historical project balances. In addition, new accounting standards for leases and subscription-based
IT arrangements added further reporting complexity.
The period from 2020 through 2022 also coincided with pandemic related disruptions and two successive
auditor transitions, which didn't always go smoothly. Each transition required rebuilding institutional
knowledge, which extended issuance timelines. It is also fair to say that not all delays can be attributed
to external factors. Even the recent transition in the controller's office created additional delay
in the 2024 cycle.
My top priority since taking this position in January has been to regain momentum and ensure that this
audit is wrapped up as quickly and accurately as possible. This administration took office in 2024 to
find that the 2021 audit had only been completed a few weeks before, in December of 2023. Since then,
we've made measurable progress. The 2022 audit issued October 2024, and the 2023 audit issued July of 2025.
Steady movement towards restoring a sustainable annual cadence. As to where we stand today, three parties
are involved in this process. The city, our compiling CPA firm that converts our financial data into
GAP format, and the audit firm engaged by the State Board of Accounts. There's continuous communication
among all three, as well as with our liaison at the State Board of Accounts. One key lesson from prior
cycles is that responsiveness and early preparation directly affect the timeline.
Where the city has been slower to provide information, the overall schedule is extended. This is an
area within our control and we are managing it accordingly. Providing timely responses to audit requests
is my top priority and that of my team in the office of the controller. At the same time, we're implementing
process improvements, particularly around capital asset tracking and earlier end year preparation so
that the 2025 cycle begins from a position of strength rather than catch up.
While prior cycles have experienced delay for a variety of reasons, the responsibility for restoring
a sustainable reporting cadence now rests with this office. Our objective is straightforward. Complete
the 2024 audit as soon as practicable and restore the city to issuance of the 2025 report by the September
2026 deadline. Timely and accurate financial reporting is fundamental to market credibility, bond pricing,
and public trust. We're focused on meeting that standard.
Appreciate the opportunity to provide this update and I'm happy to try to answer any questions Thank
You controller McKim questions We have none thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you All
right, we'll now hear a report from director David Hittle of the planning and transportation department
director Hittle take it away, sir. I
Good evening, David Hittle director of the Department of Planning and Transportation here to talk a
bit about Really two things one follows the other. The first is house bill 1001 which has completed
its trip through the state legislature and I think has a an impact on how we do zoning and planning
here in Bloomington and then I'll follow that up with a discussion of how we move forward with something
we've been talking about for a while, which is UDO amendments having to do with housing attainability.
So first about HB 1001
So this was really the state's first major foray into the world of state-level Preemptive land use and
development regulation other states coastal states and blue states in particular have been doing this
for a while and and mostly in the realm of housing of taking away obstacles to housing and making it
easier a few municipalities to build
greater diversity of housing So Indiana's attempt if it had been approved in its initial form It would
have allowed for Duplexes by right in all residential districts It would have allowed for at least one
accessory dwelling unit on lots in all residential districts and it would have stripped away the current
owner occupancy requirement and
It would have prohibited all off-street parking regulations, both minimums and maximums. It would have
eliminated or reduced most residential setback requirements and lot dimension minimums. It would have
allowed by right for development of affordable housing on property used for religious purposes, which
is a very broad statement, but that's all the language that occurred in the bill itself. And that's
kind of a copy-paste idea from other states that have put that practice in place.
And it would have eliminated most design and architectural standards So after two months of amendment
pretty much all that fell by the wayside and what remains is requirement for one public hearing in 2026
The purpose of which is to evaluate the zoning and subdivision ordinances to determine if they adequately
promote housing developments and that in that hearing What shall be considered is density adu requirements?
The potential reuse of vacant commercial buildings for residential use design standards lot size requirements
off-street parking height limits and permit streamlining Following that meeting we are to report to
the LSA or the Legislative Services Agency Minutes from that hearing and then any resulting changes
made to the UDO. There's no teeth There's no stick or carrot attached to that requirement. It's assumed
among other planners and the places where we chatter
Those carrots and sticks might be brought to bear next year. But for now, it's just language What it
also did HB 1001 I should say did it's still on the governor's desk. It's been approved by the Senate
in the house It is expected to be signed by the governor, but hasn't yet it changed the way that fees
are in a modest way the way that fees are tabulated for applications and
Changes to building code and stormwater code and one of the disappointments it removed two Elements
of building code that would have been changed to one of them would have allowed for single staircase
construction which has been being done in a lot of other cities and that makes it takes the cost of
building small apartments down about 12% and then it also changed modifications to elevator requirements and
The final thing it does is it requires that we report as a city on progress toward? housing goals So
we we need to establish those goals and then in that report we indicate how many housing units have
been approved denied any Explain any discrepancies and data talk about average and medium home sell
prices and year-over-year changes same with rent And then we
Submit all that to the IH CDA, which is the Indiana Housing Community Development Authority and they'll
compile and publish a report again No sticks no carrots attached with any of this language. It's assumed
that the state will examine that idea next year None of this is a bad idea though. I think the reporting
is a good thing. It's being done in a number of other states I think with differing levels of success
because it's hard to enforce but but it's not a bad thing to get in the habit of
So with HB 1001 settled And the state legislative session over for the year I think it's time to discuss
moving forward with what we've been talking about for a while, which again would be UDO changes relative
to housing attainability Changes that can make housing attainability something more within reach for
more people in Bloomington and what we propose is to put together a working group consisting of city
staff of city councillors and of plan commissioners and
To construct draft language that we then take back out to the public something we've been doing for
the past year Probably for three or four different open houses or public meetings And then bring back
Come midsummer roughly summer to the Plan Commission and ultimately to the council So with that president
Asari we would suggest that if I could reach out to you in the coming days and and talk about participation
of council on that working group
Then that's something that we would move forward with Awesome. Thank you so much director Hittle questions
comments, please and councilmember rough Mr. Hittle, I was just wondering If you'd elaborate on on why
because I sense there's some kind of a message you're trying to hoping to convey why you've Emphasized
or it felt compelled to list
the components that were stripped out of HB 1001 before there was a final product. And you did a pretty
careful list of everything that was originally there and that was taken out. And I'm just wondering
if there was a real intention to convey something to the council and the public by listing its original content
Hidden message the things that I listed are things that we've talked about locally for a while And I
think another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the states that have been successful and I use
that word in a qualified sense because process wise I don't like the idea of the state telling a locality
what to do in terms of zoning but
Where it's been done in other places, you know it sometimes it is helpful to allow for new types of
housing to be built So you kind of there's there's a plus and a minus to it But in other states where
they are moving forward and now kind of once they get the taste of blood They they come forward every
year with a new amendment a preemptive land use and development amendment most of them having to do
with housing but but
Those that are coming forward typically involve just those eight to ten to twelve things that I've that
I mentioned there so again, no hidden message, but but they're they're all it's kind of the the the
top twelve of Housing reform components if you will, thank you. Thank you Councilmember flirty Maybe
worth noting that our own adopted plans have a lot of those components, too
Thank you for the update Do you have a date? Let's say month or something by which you anticipate working
through the process and bringing Proposed you do amendments to the Planning Commission for its consideration
and thank you for laying out that process Yeah, we want to probably the very beginning of April have
the first meeting of that internal working group and then our
Timeline for the rest of the process would have public meetings in May and July We would bring the the
basket of amendments to the Plan Commission in July and August and then to the council in August or
September Okay. Thank you Councilmember Pema Smith Yes, thank you for your report so I heard two two
things that actually did make it into House bill and
2001 Did you say that each city must hold a hearing this year about the various issues considered That
were not passed in the bill or is it just that each city has to report on Housing development approvals
and denials. It's both there is a requirement that in calendar year 2026 every jurisdiction so that's
town cities in counties and
a meeting and in that public meeting they they Explicitly examine their zoning ordinance and its ability
or inability to Help provide new housing and there are a number of specific kind of the same list that
we just talked about Specific elements that need to be reported on From that meeting so that meeting
generates minutes and a report to the state following that every year thereafter
Every municipality town city county is required to provide a housing report card essentially to the
state that talks about housing starts Land use petitions that could lead to more housing than either
approved or denied and and You know there it looks like the the language is gearing Towns up to say
prove it to us that you're trying to build more housing Again, no sticks. No carrots yet, but we'll
see what those turn out to be
Thank you customer Stasberg How do you envision or maybe you haven't really thought about it yet that
public hearing like is that something that's gonna be like a standalone kind of meeting is that gonna
be incorporated into like a plan Commission meeting like is there any guidance or requirements or Like
how how is that gonna work? That that that one calendar year 2026 public hearing. Yeah, I
There's not much guidance. Let me see, I did take... The language states that the hearing must be public
and its purpose is to evaluate zoning and subdivision ordinances to determine if they adequately promote
housing development.
They shall consider these various things. I guess there's not much more than that. Like a lot of this
language, we're sort of left wanting what it is that they desire, what it is we must do to satisfy the
requirement. My sense is that meeting could be, it could be a regularly scheduled meeting of the council.
It could be perhaps a purposeful proprietary meeting that's scheduled for that. But you know, we're
kind of left to wonder.
I think it could also be a meeting at which we're considering amendments and things of that nature.
Before that, though, before anything's filed as far as UDO amendments, we want to have the working group
do its work and then produce language that we can take back out to the public. Probably meetings at
the library branches, things like that, taking it on the road outside of this building because I think
that outreach that we've done this year has been successful and get feedback.
Whatever public meetings were talking about nobody's surprised by anything Thank you Councilmember Rallo
So the one concern is that it Essentially it threatens home rule to some extent potentially and the
other is that it's an unfunded Mandated reporting that is going to further burden on your department and
What are the penalties for not reporting is there any So you'll let us know about further Work that's
needed by your department and potential effect on budget. Yeah, it doesn't look to be terribly Dramatic
as far as new work for our department because we're at the beginning of the year and we're going to
be reporting on calendar year 2026 it's essentially just making sure that
You know, we have a spreadsheet that's accounting for for again Housing denials housing approvals. They're
also asking us to keep track of time spent its work, but it's it's not going to be taxing I think I'm
I don't know much about it, but are there any is are there any targets specific to say efficiency standards
or our sustainability and so forth as turn in terms of obstacles to You know
Potential housing Targets that were given by this no nothing at all. Okay, nothing at all. Okay. Good.
Thanks All right seeing no more questions Director Hittle, thank you so much. Thank you time.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you All right. Do we have any additional? comments or I'm sorry reports
from council committees and
Seeing none and we'll now move to the best first part of the meeting which is time for public comment
This is a time to Oh missing something. Never mind. Sorry. Go ahead Reports or or appointments appointments
what that comes next I thought that came first That comes next
I'm so sorry. Don't worry, don't worry. Okay, so back to what we're doing now. Now is the time for public
comment for things that are not on the agenda. You have three minutes to comment from the public mic.
We ask if you kindly sign in. If you would like to make a comment, there will be another section of
public comment at the end of the meeting. You can only comment in one of these two sections again for
things that are not on the agenda. If you can
sign in and state your name or your alias for the record. That would be great. And we'll start with
people in the room, and then we'll move online. So with that, is there anyone in the room who would
like to make a public comment on things not currently on the agenda? Excellent. Is there anyone online? Yes.
Person online, take it away. Hi, this is Paul Russo. I would like to let people know that the Transportation
Department is beginning its fourth round of public outreach on the Indiana Avenue Safety Improvements
Project that concerns the stretch of Indiana Avenue at the west edge of the IU campus, such as Sample Gates.
As a transit bicyclist, my initial reaction to the plan is unfortunately quite negative. The city seems
to be doubling down on its expensive mistake that was made on 7th Street because two-way bicycle lanes
are not the best practice. One-way bicycle lanes are intrinsically safer because they conform to expectations
of motor vehicle drivers. At one point, the plan features a disappearing and then reappearing bicycle
lane. At another point, there would be two
two-way serpentine path that crosses from one side of the street to the other while yielding to motor
vehicles and the intersections of Indiana at 7th and 10th are similarly ill-conceived. My view is that
this would be an expensive engineering project that would make the area worse for bicycling not better.
I bring all this up because to anyone who's listening, I encourage you to join me in asking this. Why
does the city continue to regard expensive engineering as the best tool or even the only tool in its toolbox?
for attaining safe transit for bicyclists and pedestrians. How much would it cost, for example, to hire
two or three extra police officers dedicated to the enforcement of dangerous moving violations by motor
vehicle drivers? How much would it cost the city to hire a public relations expert to educate the public
about how to share public space with bicyclists and pedestrians? These questions keep me up at night.
Thank you.
Thank You mr. Rousseau any other commenters online Thank you so much, all right, well now move Appointments
to boards and commissions. Do we have any? Like to move that For on behalf of committee team a that
we reappoint Joe Throckmorton Joe Throckmorton to seat see one and
the BZA and Katarina coke to seat c3 of the Bloomington Urban Enterprise Association Okay, those were
those were not your committees, but we That's fine so so are there any First is there a second? Okay,
so there's a there's a there's a second any comments or questions Ideally to the folks on the committee,
please come some of clarity
Yes, thank you just a comment because I had brought up previously when mr. Throckmorton was recommended
for reappointment to the BZA some concerns about Issues we'd had with the BZA as a body in recent years
with respect to major delays on approving conditional use petitions specifically for duplexes And my
recollection was that that our appointee had some involvement in that and and I the committee took it
back and and
engaged in more diligence around that question, which I really appreciate. So thank you for doing that.
Also, thank you to Mr. Throckmorton for his service. I think he's been a very good BZA member, generally
speaking. This is just an area of concern because it's really the core at which David Hittle was just
sharing remarks about preemption issues to try to allow housing to move forward by setting regulations
and letting people follow them. And I think, in general, we should change the conditional use requirement
for duplexes and get rid of it. But even where we have it,
We need to make sure that we're not creating undue delays unnecessarily So what happens with the conditional
use is we have use specific standards in code and the BZA is meant to make findings about those staff
usually propose findings And in particular at the first meeting this was heard if a majority of the
members had voted to agree with staffs findings They could have approved a petition and meeting one
instead only two of the five members
voted, were willing to vote that way that night, and it ended up being delayed for six months. There
were quorum issues, there were lots of other things. It entails additional cost, delay in housing,
et cetera. So it's one instance, but it's, I think, reflective of a broader issue. And I think, I hope
it's helped bring some attention to it as something that, you know, when the BZA is considering the
findings proposed by staff, if they disagree with those findings, they need to bring different findings
to vote on and decide if they're gonna do something different. And that's not what happened.
And so, it really seemed like an unacceptable delay in my mind. I hope something was learned from it.
I'm gonna support the appointment, and I just hope that our folks serving on the BZA really keep that
in mind, that that type of delay really isn't acceptable. One last note on it, which is that it came
up in the diligence, you know, should we have gone to Mr. Throckmorton and kind of raised this? I even
thought about that at the time, and I chose not to, because the BZA is an independent quasi-judicial body,
I do think they should have that independence to make judgments as they see fit I didn't feel it was
appropriate to for the council to kind of Say this is what we think there are bodies we make appointments
to where that is probably more appropriate I think the CIB for instance is one of them But BZA less
so so I just wanted to address that as well. So again, thank you to all for looking into this I do appreciate
it. Thanks Thank you so much any other comments or questions
Okay, seeing none, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of these two appointments, please
say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Anyone abstaining? That motion passes nine, zero. Are there any other
appointments? Councilman Ref, any other appointments? There was a pregnant pause, I felt like. Yeah,
go ahead. Do we have any? No, I think that's all of them, okay? We have more? Go ahead, then.
I guess I'll do it interview committee team B would like to recommend for the environmental Commission
appointment Carl Geyser to seat c1 and Justin Meister to seat c6 and Then also for the utility service
board to appoint Graham McKean to seat c3. Are there any comments or questions? Sorry, thank you motion
in the second any comments or questions here Okay, seeing none all those in favor say aye I
Any opposed say aye Any abstaining that passes nine zero as well General comment there are a lot of
open positions throughout the year to serve on boards and commissions We would love all of the many
of you who are here to apply for them so that you can help govern the city Thank you very much any other
Appointments to boards and commissions. I believe that's all of them now Congratulations, we did it. All right
We are now moving to legislation for first readings. Are there any motions? I move that ordinance 2026-06
be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second. There's a motion and a second.
Is there any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?
Nope, we can do a voice vote? Oh, we can do a voice vote? Yeah! Okay, well in which case, for the motion
and the second to have the clerk read by synopsis and title, please signify yes by saying aye. All those
in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Anyone abstaining? That carries nine zero. Clerk, will you please read?
Ordinance 2026-06.
to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property from residential urban
lot r4 and residential multifamily rm within the transform right development overlay tro to planned
unit development pud and to prove a district ordinance and preliminary plan the synopsis reads this
ordinance amends the zoning of the property from residential urban lot r4
and residential multifamily RM within the transform redevelopment overlay TRO to planned unit development
PUD. Thank you. Are there any other motions? I move to discuss this legislation. There's a motion and
a second. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that motion carries
9-0. Who is here on behalf of the mayor? Please welcome our mayor.
to give the presentation. Oh, you got applause. We resent it. I'm joking, I'm joking, I'm joking. I
welcome you, council. Good evening, everyone. The Hopewell neighborhood which you're considering this
evening is a tremendous step forward in creating a Bloomington that our workforce can actually afford
to live in.
For more than three decades, Bloomington has been the least affordable place to live in the state of
Indiana. Solving affordability for our community has no one simple answer, but is instead a combination
of factors, only some of which are under the control of the city government. Land use planning and zoning,
however, is a major obstacle in Bloomington.
With the opportunity to design an entire neighborhood within walking distance of every service of family
needs, our team, in partnership with Flintlock Labs, has created a design for nearly 100 homes. The
neighborhood does three things. It provides the most affordable new homeownership options in the county.
With starting prices anticipated at $83,500, we have hit a target that no one else has been able to
meet. Second, we're providing a design that serves as a living model of what a few instrumental UDO
changes can do for housing in our community. This will be a warm, welcoming, and beautiful neighborhood
that's pedestrian friendly,
and makes excellent use of land and resources, showing the community what's possible when we work creatively
to design spaces that welcome more of our community. Third, it gets our smaller local builders back
to building in Bloomington. Our zoning code and the financing behind creating units has far too long
given the advantage to large scale private equity funded apartments that are not targeted to our workforce.
Are not created by our local builders in an economy that is dependent on gaining more housing Our local
skilled trades trades labor is shrinking and this provides a space to get our builders back to the table
building locally Time is of the essence the community started envisioning what they wanted in Hopewell
in 2017 City Council is not the final step in the approval process for this PUD and
In fact, it is only midway. If you approve this development tonight, we still wouldn't be able to break
ground on homes until the fall. If this state step takes longer, we will miss the entire building season
and these homes realistically will increase in costs by five to 10%. The homeowners won't get more house
or better features. They will simply be investing in our city process.
Let's get Hopewell right, but let's make sure that we don't needlessly add process that doesn't,
in the end, improve the product. That is cost our residents don't deserve to bear. We finally have a
viable project that is also financially attainable for our community members. Hopewell will not solve
our housing challenge in the city, but carried out well and used as a model for future incremental
development and UDO changes
It will be a significant domino that can move us forward as a city. Thank you for your consideration
this evening. I'm going to turn it over to Ali from Flintlock lab. Thank you, mayor Thompson. Is Ali
here or online? I was on that. Okay. Fantastic. Hi guys. I am able to screen share if that's okay. Okay.
That is showing on my end. If you guys can see that.
So, as the mayor referenced, we're working on, we're a small team of architects and landscape architects.
We're based in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and hopefully you guys were able to join us for our city council
working session. So, some of this may be repeat. We work with a national nonprofit called the Incremental
Development Alliance that trains small locals and is a part of the partnership of this project.
So we're doing everything from design of the neighborhood design of the homes pre permitting of those
homes, and then training of locals to build them both capacity building for general development of homes
by locals in in town as well as the construction of these homes themselves. We're also joined by a partner
who is based out of Atlanta.
we've got a really broad team that does small development ourselves, right? So we, we understand how
hard it is to get this kind of housing that is what we really need and what most communities are struggling
to provide on the ground. We understand how many regulations stand in the way of that. One thing that
we talk about a lot is who we, you know, demographically, statistically your housing is really different
than it was when a lot of, um, you know, current building codes, current,
construction financing tools, current housing system, ecosystem tools were built. The household size
in America used to be around four people. It's getting really small. The most common household type
number of people in a house is two adults, no kids. Our second most common household type is one person
living alone. So that means about three quarters of our households are one or two people typically sleeping
in one bedroom at night.
The flip side of that is our houses are really large. And even the new best zoning codes tend to have
lot sizes and tend to have minimum lot frontages that sometimes can be a challenge with that. So one
of the things that we're looking at calibrating and testing through this PUD would then be potential
ordinance changes generally is reducing those somewhat so that we can provide more individual household units
for those small households, typically on smaller lot sizes, which then gets us to more affordable price points.
This really helps support too, the costs that we see in terms of both physical and service infrastructure
by the city. Typically, what we describe as what we're trying to achieve here is housing choice, that
you can find the kind of house that you need at a price point that you can afford in a neighborhood
that you like anywhere in town throughout your life cycle. That does mean that there should be some
homes that you can raise small children in, you should have some big family houses.
Typically, statistically, not a lot of them, but a couple. There are a few in this neighborhood. You
also need a wide variety of household sizes and arrangements to provide for those smaller households
that are really underserved generally within the market.
This works significantly better than only being able to provide slightly larger houses on larger lots
with larger backyards and using green infrastructure practices and working really closely with the city,
we're able to provide all of the stormwater requirements within smaller green space footprints so that
we can provide more diverse housing at better price points and in a walkable neighborhood format. We
also want to
recognize as the mayor reference that there are a lot of deadbolts on the door to getting the housing
ecosystem that we need. Zoning is one. We've already made a huge step in Bloomington and passing a new
UDO. It is really common within cities that have done so to find a couple of things that do need some
calibration. Likely once that first round of calibration is done, it would not be unusual to now that
some new things have been legalized, to find some things that no one was aware was a problem because
they weren't trying to do projects
the impact of that. So that process is really normal.
Subdivision codes is another place that we see presenting a lot of challenges in a lot of communities
in being able to provide attainable housing that's really geared around homeownership. Building and
fire code is another thing that is a state level requirement that a lot of municipalities nationally
are really working together through their municipal leagues to support state level changes to those
building and fire codes to make sure that we can have practical solutions that are both safe and affordable.
stormwater and financing rules tend to not be very flexible. And so we have to also work around the
fact that not each one of these deadbolts is something that through a PUD can be addressed. And so sometimes
we have to come up with creative solutions to work around things that are not flexible. The way that
the construction will be financed, the way financing will work for future buyers, those are federal
statutes that really are not flexible at all. So as we look at Bloomington's both affordability challenges,
we also notice that there is
Especially compared to peer cities. I'm in a peer city. I'm in a fellow college town, almost exactly
the same population, almost the same student population, same karst landscape. And we also struggle
with providing enough owner occupied housing in a market that is really geared and influenced by that
large student population.
Also as referenced, the Hopewell master plan has been long in the process and even in the original master
plans for, so we're down in blocks eight, nine, and 10. There were originally more creative household
layouts and lot layouts, homes fronting onto greens, envisioned in that original master plan and desired
by citizens. So high level, what is this PUD trying to achieve? We're trying to get to a mix of housing
types of price points.
We're trying to get to a full pre-permitted set of home designs that streamlines our permitting,
reduce costs, and gets people in homes faster. That also simplifies our zoning somewhat as we are permitting
a set of houses, not necessarily a set of architectural standards. We're going to be able to see exactly
what the products are within the PUD itself, which is a way that a lot of cities are starting to move
on these kinds of projects. This builds opportunities for local builders. They will be
coached and trained through process. Some of them may already be really established and may need less
of that support. For those more experienced small developers and locals, this will be a really turnkey
shovel-ready project that lets them do what they're best at without getting bogged down in process.
We're bringing a lot of the efficiencies of larger scale development to local developers.
We're also working with the RDC and the City Attorney on legal frameworks to support permanent affordability
as well as blended market rate homes. And we had a lot of great commentary from Plan Commission about
the best ways to do that that work within some of those inflexible federal finance rules. So we are
working through that framework now to ensure that these are both affordable at beginning sale and long term.
There's ongoing community outreach and developer training as part of this program, as well as focus
groups. And we are kind of in our overall program schedule. We are working through this PUD and platting
process. So if approved, the civil engineering team on this will work through preliminary plat to plat
lots. We would have an initial phase that we are working on that is
is R4 compliant. Several homes, it would be able to come vertical more quickly. And some of those lots
would be duplexes now, could be split later if the PUD is approved. And then horizontal development
would occur all in one phase with then home construction phased in once the horizontal infrastructure is in.
And we ran through some case studies as well as part of this program showing some general ideas of the
way that some of these ideas could be brought into the rest of the city. One thing that Bloomington
has that is an enormous asset we don't see a lot is quite a few platted, unbuilt alleys. We often call
these paper alleys, right? They exist on paper but not on site often.
One thing that we have seen cities do previously is allow alleys in my hometown, currently allows this,
you can use an alley as street frontage. One of the other things that's really specific to Bloomington's
pattern is you have very deep lots. We've got really good build out at the street, which means as you
drive around a neighborhood, it doesn't feel like there's anywhere to infill develop.
And in a lot of really successful college towns like Austin, Texas, you see a lot of those old homes
being torn down. That is an enormous challenge for us, both from an architectural standpoint, from a
character standpoint, but also from an affordability standpoint. The most affordable house is often
an existing house. So there's an opportunity here with allowing alleys as frontage, which is something
that we're testing within the PUD, to create rear lots that can be platted separately, can
be sold separately, and can which
can functionally double our amount of homes that we can produce in a block while preserving the homes
at the street. And so this is the kind of idea we were trying to test on a smaller scale to then be
able to be vetted before being brought citywide. So what are some of the other things that we're asking
for in the PUD to achieve this?
We're trying out smaller streets, so smaller rights-of-way that still meet all of the standards of fire
code and fire access and ADA, but do sit within a narrower street frontage, which is picking up some
additional lots and is, in our opinion, really aligned with the transportation plans, respecting of
existing street rights-of-way.
And this is something that we work on a lot. You know, one of the things that cities struggle with is
that streets sometimes show up on the books as an asset, but they are really a liability. There's something
that we have to pay for or we're not be able to get tax revenue from. The more additional right of way
that we have that we are not putting into productive use, the harder that is from an overall balance
sheet and buildable thriving place standpoint. So we're seeing lots of communities move to smaller rights
of way, especially in their walkable communities, keeping traffic slower.
We're working on diverse housing frontages here. So houses that like some of these built examples of
our work front onto green spaces front onto small streets or front in some cases on only onto trails.
We're also working on reintroducing several housing types and sets of density. So the pre-approved plans
are intended to be able to be rolled out in the future city-wide. And so they provide some good models
of specific building details and separation details, fire code, you know, compliance, separation between
townhouses, fire rated EADS. The typical home builders often are not gonna run into, but by vetting
those through pre-approved programs often can get to a workforce training standpoint of comfort with
those details that works really well
in the field. This can be a way to reintroduce a good diversity of housing types, building types that
are compliant with all of our details in an easier way that makes for faster uptake. So site plan and
review, we ran through a few different variations of our, we've got our parcel A planning area, which
is block 10, parcel A on block nine, parcel B, which is a slightly different set of standards, we're
preserving an existing building on parcel B. Under
The current R4 zoning, which is our most intensive single-family zoning, which we can actually build
up to, I believe, a fourplex per each lot, we're able to get 28 home lots under those current standards.
A lot of that is based on, we've got a lot of lot depth. That means that even though our lot minimum
is able to be smaller because of the lot frontage, we've got to comply with both. So we end up with
larger lots than the lot area minimum might suggest in a lot of these cases.
So we also had some early variations with, you know, full 60 foot rights of way and a little bit more
single family focus and trying to find the right balance between those rights of way width.
engineering standards, fire standards, and our trash truck turning radii, we ended up with a blend of
really small multifamily buildings, lots of single families, some duplexes, some townhouses, a really
good variety in size, and ended up with around 98 homes. From an accessibility standpoint, this site
is a little limited by its topography. We have more or less a ridge line,
up along this section, crossing Fairview. And so this is our most level section. So you'll notice we're
clustering our accessible homes, which will, we've got three different standards of accessible homes,
universal design, which is compliant with city code, FHA compliant units, which is also called an ANSI
type B unit.
And then full ADA compliant units, which are the kind of standards you would see in a nursing home or
a hotel. That's the most stringent standard. And so we've got three different kinds of those units that
are really clustered in locations that they can be provided with a zero step entry based on topography.
So 30% of our units, almost 29% of them meet universal design standards exceeding that 20% minimum standard.
And half of those universal design homes are an ANSI standard rather than they'll kind of lower the
minimum universal design standards. So we've had some good detail conversations with our local accessibility
groups to get some feedback of specific priorities that are high priority to include even in those universal
design homes when the full
full standards can't necessarily be met for some, you know, often grading reason. As a little bit of
a background, because we've had a lot of conversation about accessibility on this, just to make sure
everybody's a little bit on the same page, the ADA or ANSI Type A, that most, you know, kind of stringent
set of standards, the largest items that it requires are, you know, the things that do increase the
size of the home.
Our bathroom requirements, we've got to get a full five foot turnaround within the bathroom. There is
also a full five foot six open space around the toilet. Those two components are larger than we would
typically see in a residential bathroom. And so you really do have to start the home design from a bathrooms
and kitchen standpoint. And the hallways end up wider too. Do you need to have a five foot wide hallway
instead of a more typical, you know, slightly over three foot hallway?
Fair Housing Act is what is required anytime we have a building that has more than four units in it.
All of the ground floor units are required to be fair housing. So these are more common in residential
units and often if you hear someone say it's an accessible unit, this is typically the standard that
they're referencing. These are also called ANSI type B units.
and they have a larger area in the bathroom than a typical bathroom might, but much smaller,
as you can tell, than an ADA bathroom. There are approaches that are required, but not full turnarounds.
So again, there's kind of our ANSI A, ANSI B, and then the ANSI C type. Nobody really uses much. So
looking at examples,
of what that looks like on the ground, right? So we've got to get a two-bedroom, one-story unit in,
it's about 900 square feet. For reference to a two-bedroom fair housing unit, it can be about 10% smaller.
So they're not dramatically different, but typically, you know, if we're looking at universal design,
we can get almost a full three-bedroom in the square footage that we can get an ADA unit. So there's
a little variety and some costs and, you know,
priority choices that will be made I think through some of the development of exactly which house goes
on which lot and it sounds like as we develop the house plans themselves in detail that there's some
good flexibility to make sure that we are meeting some of those accessibility goals in more specifics.
Examples of the units that are shown in the plan here, we've got a two-bedroom accessible unit that
is one story that's called the eGrit.
We have a one-bedroom accessible unit that is called the Gardena, and then our full ADA one-bedroom
is called the B-Bomb. And there's a single one of those in one place, and then there's a duplex in another location.
One central design feature of the site itself is that we have both a pedestrian network, which we're
showing in the green, which is used as a primary frontage for all of these central houses. The front
door and front porch point to that direction. And then we've got our car circulation in blue. So we
also have traditional street frontage towards First Street and towards Wiley. Wiley is provided with
a larger setback than the other streets so that we can preserve some existing trees along Wiley and
preserve more of the character that it currently has.
From a phasing standpoint, although all the horizontal infrastructure will be installed at once, we
anticipate that there will be a first phase that is done with a larger setback on these few lots in
R4 zoning. And then the rest of Block 10 would be the next phase that goes vertical. We would likely
start along First Street for a third phase and build out along Wiley for the fourth phase. The fifth
phase is then the redevelopment of the building on Block 8.
From a grading and infrastructure standpoint, we're looking at a comprehensive stormwater design for
both parts in which the residential sections are handling more water quality and the commercial section
is handling more water quantity. And so there are not intended to be any changes to stormwater code
or standards within the PUD. These will meet typical city standards. Fire and trash collection will
occur at the
pink drop off points. The fire radius works within the lanes, which are classified as a custom street
type. Alley's are allowed under Bloomington code to be blocked for some amount of time by private use.
These are fire access routes and so they do need to remain clear. So they've been classified as lanes,
which is a custom street type. They are functioning 20 feet alleys that are intended to be rear service
kind of access to the homes.
So we've got a couple of custom street sections in here. The typical street section within the transportation
plan for Rogers is slightly too wide to work with the existing building. And so there's a custom street
section that has been vetted by engineering that's in there. First Street is intended to remain as existing
and has been recently improved. Jackson Street was temporarily in some of the early phases considered
more of a lane. It was not a main access. It doesn't connect all the way through. It is a dead end.
It's preferred by probably the future
public safety user of Block 8 to be lower traffic and so it is intended to be not quite as high traffic
as Fairview is and so it has a little bit narrower street section and a little bit more casual detailing
on that. Fairview Street is currently only 16 feet wide. It is being widened to a 48 foot wide right
of way with parking on one side.
Wiley is intended to remain as it is. It has a historic character that's continuous along Wiley. And
so it's intended to remain as is. And then you can see our lanes there, a 20 foot total width. And then
some examples of the units, size, scale. And then we've got units that we can run through if there are
questions. And then I believe that these are included in your packet as well. And they're organized
by sale price. I'm here for any questions that you guys may have.
Excellent. Thank you so much council members questions If you have any sorry councilmember Puma Smith
Normally we would have a presentation from planning staff. Is that not envisioned this evening? Mayor
Thompson or Director Hiddle, would would you like to add anything? I
Thank you Eric Grulick development services manager, so I'm happy, you know Ali kind of gave a great
overview of the project as a whole I can certainly go into some of the specific district ordinance standards
You know kind of the process that went through to how we got here So I'm kind of open to what would
be most beneficial to the council and
You know like second certainly steps through some of the specifics of the district ordinance if that's
something that would be beneficial Otherwise, you know the petitioner did a great job with the overview.
So I don't really have a lot to add That's not in the packet So with that, thank you council members
any questions Councilor Puma Smith I
My first question is why is the final plan approval being delegated to staff and not going back to the
Plan Commission? And given that this is the first condition of approval If we approve this when and
how will the public have a further opportunity to provide input as Details of this project really come
together Yep, great question so
You know one of the things that we're trying to do with this is look at ways that we can streamline
the overall process So the next public hearing for this will be the primary plat So that does have to
be heard by the Planning Commission or Platte committee certainly most likely that will be the Planning
Commission So they will hear the primary plat for this and they did delegate You know one of the requests
from the petitioner was to delegate final plan approval to staff so that was something that the Planning
Commission did go along with you know the
Items that we typically look at in terms of you know, should final plan be delegated to staff are you
know? What are the unresolved issues, you know? What are maybe the conditions of approval that had further
review that was necessary as part of that with this particular PUD, you know There aren't those elements,
you know, there aren't a lot of unknowns that we're still trying to figure out at this point You know,
there's not not a lot of things that would
You know necessarily a warrant a public hearing that would be changing from what's presented Tonight
or with the beauty as it stands right now So the next public hearing would be for the primary plat and
that would be at the planning commission Thank you Other questions Thank you, so I have several different
things that I want to pursue but for the first one I
I guess I'll preface by saying that one of the things that I've been trying to do all along in this
is align the picture with the words on the page in terms of what we're allowing in the PUD. So in terms
of the use table and in terms of, and this will be a question ultimately I promise, the petitioner's
statement, which among other things, and the presentation itself,
says that the PUD seeks to demonstrate smaller lots, context-based frontage, and simplified subdivision
processes can expand homeownership opportunities without compromising neighborhood form or environmental
performance. And the use table itself doesn't seem to align very well with that stated mission in terms
of allowing group living, which would kind of by definition need to be larger.
larger houses, larger properties in general, especially the way that group living ends up being defined.
Single-room occupancy, same kind of concept. Some of the community and cultural facilities that are
allowed are under conditional uses. Libraries, museums, that kind of thing. There's also no minimum
parking or anything like that, which also doesn't align well with
the community and cultural facilities, commercial uses, et cetera. So in light of terms of state law
not allowing us to amend the PUD and only allowing us to make reasonable conditions about it, would
the petitioner be open to a reasonable condition around aligning the use table with the actual stated
intent of the project?
One downside of not being in the room is Anna may want to speak to this as well, but I know one discussion
that we have had as we moved from planning commission into this meeting.
is that we had included all uses that are currently legally allowed within R4. The UDO goes to great
lengths to be really flexible about use. But because there are lots of uses allowed in R4, because we
had not previously suggested changing those to Plan Commission, we did not feel comfortable making any
edits to those in between Plan Commission and City Council as those were as requested in Plan Commission
converted into a use unit table. We are relatively neutral as to which uses,
This is obviously intended as a residential home ownership focus project, both maintaining flexibility
in the future is really high value, but there are certainly some uses allowed in R4 that we would be
very surprised if are ever desired in this zone or ever really practically used in this zone. So very
open to council recommendations and thoughts on any uses that as a condition of approval would wanna
be struck from that use unit table as it is, it's very broad, but it is,
R4s use unit table, which needed to be modified to add multifamily buildings. We have a couple of four
plexes and up to 12 plexes. So still very small multifamily buildings, but those would not have been
allowed under typical R4 uses. And so those are really the only changes. It's legalizing the building
types that you're seeing here within the planning areas. So if modifications to that are desired, that
is certainly up to the city.
Okay, thank you. Would Director Killian-Hanson like to add to that on behalf of the petitioner? Okay,
I see a shaking of the head back there. But it sounds like the essential answer was yes, that the petitioner
would consider that kind of condition. And I guess then the question kind of goes back to Mike
The question kind of goes back to my colleagues, whether that kind of condition would also be something
that they were interested in, because I'm certainly interested in pursuing that. Thank you. Other questions?
Councilmember Flaherty. Thank you. I think this was covered implicitly probably through the presentation,
but just to put a finer point on it for myself and for the public, why did the administration choose
to propose a planned unit development
for this block and a half instead of either using existing zoning districts from the UDO, there are
many, or if none of those districts was good enough considering the possibility of amending the UDO
such that we would have a district that would be good enough to satisfy the administration's interests
for this site.
So just asking yeah, but basically it's a strategy choice, right? So why PUD instead of either existing
zoning districts or zoning code changes to existing districts? Just looking to hear more. Thank you
In order to do the The changes that we needed in order to I mean essentially drive the house costs down
We would need not only changes to the UDO, but also changes to the transportation plan, which would
be onerous and would take a very long time. And so instead, we decided to proceed with PUD since we
are urgently in need of housing now. It is our intent to proceed as we have been discussing
with UDO changes in the future that that lead to this kind of attainable housing in the meantime, it
serves as a living model to the community of what this kind of land use can do Thank you if I follow
up just Would you or someone be on your staff be able to cover more specifically the transportation
plan amendments that would have been required to do what you all would like to do I'm just That's the question
Yeah, thanks. I can't remember the various transportation plan needed changes off the top of my head,
but they had to do with street wits and they were calling for, Ali, do you remember the changes? Yeah,
the lanes needed to be a custom street section type and a lot of the background, and there was a lot
of internal discussion about whether a PUD made sense or whether ordinance changes made sense,
Some of the background on this, too, is there was a known set of ordinance changes coming through. It
has been discussed really broadly. But that's on a different timeline than this project was. And so
part of the idea behind the PUD was that this was going to be an opportunity to test some things. In
the meantime, while that timeline for UDO changes remains the same during that intermittent time, some
of these things could be tested and then vetted before pulled out citywide. So some of these changes
did feel, I think, to city staff like they were going to be some
that they would want to test on a smaller scale and so the PUD gave an opportunity in this timeline
to test some of those ideas but the lanes needed to be made a custom street type. First Street as it's
currently built doesn't match the transportation plan exactly, neither does Wiley or Rogers and so each
one of those needed to be a custom street section which is not currently legally allowed within the
transportation plan unless you're doing a PUD and so
a general later recommendation might be building in a little bit more flexibility on existing streets
within the transportation plan. But this was an opportunity to test what would some of those changes
need to be to get there to streamline the process. But the custom street sections was a big part of
the final decision to move forward with a PUD. Thank you. Other questions?
Feel free to ask them all your questions if you'd like. Oh, I don't know if you want. I don't know if
you realize what you're asking there or offering. I have several. So looking at the common area and
walkways that bisect the development, who is going to maintain those?
There's an HOA that is part of the PUD documents as a commitment to an HOA that will perform all of
the common landscape maintenance. And the cost of the HOA has been incorporated in the housing affordability
metrics. And so all the housing affordability, the percent AMI calculations, those are all calculated
utilizing the understanding that there will be an HOA fee and then those fees are estimated within overall
affordability as well. Okay, great.
And you mentioned in your presentation that you're looking at how affordability will be guaranteed long
term. Can you speak a little bit more to that. And I guess my main question and maybe this is also for
city staff is how do we know that you can actually follow through with the commitments of more affordable
homeownership opportunities.
going into the future, not just the first owners. There are commitments within the PUD language itself.
So those are legally binding to the percentage of homes that are affordable specific AMI levels. And
so the PUD itself bakes those guarantees in both in terms of upfront sale,
affordability and long-term sale affordability. The exact mechanism of that is still in debate. Planned
commission had some really valid concerns that deed restrictions are specifically called out in some
places as a requirement of the method to provide that. That has in some jurisdictions caused some conflict
with the way appraisals work for mortgages, which can make the mortgage less attainable for somebody
purchasing an affordable home. There are some good calibrations that are
The thing that is still being worked through is those calibrations of the exact mechanism But the PUD
itself has a baked-in guarantee which is legally binding in terms of affordability Shall I go on I see
another hand so You have a follow-up go ahead go ahead Stasper I have a follow-up about the affordability
things that was kind of the second like grouping of
Stuff that I wanted to make sure to talk about tonight So, of course I guess there's there's like two
pieces of this question one is kind of what Councilmember Piedmont Smith just said in terms of how How
are you actually ensuring these are going to be affordable long-term? What's the mechanism and I and
I wonder if I'm interested in director Kelly and Hanson following up on this because as the
RDC Representative like I guess I'm just interested in that
that process and how the RDC is going to Ensure that in terms of the first time buyer and then subsequent
buyers because these need to be permanently affordable
Yes, we are agreeing to what is in our code at this time, despite there are some issues with it. So
I do just want to back up about affordability, because I do think that there are some things that are
maybe misunderstood and give kind of a 10,000 foot view, if you don't mind a few words. I cannot talk.
I'm sorry. Our current development code relies heavily on deed restrictions to create the affordability
and for sale housing. While that approach can work in rental housing, it often conflicts with the way
that homeownership is actually financed. Most homeowners rely on conventional mortgage that must meet
standards of the national secondary mortgage market.
Institutions like Fannie Mae Freddie Mac These mortgages require homes to have clear marketable title
and predictable resale rights when deed restrictions cap resale prices required government approvals
of buyers or restrict financing lenders can no longer guarantee that the mortgage will meet those standards
in Many cases they cannot issue the loan that leads to a simple but critical truth
A policy that makes homes technically affordable but impossible to finance does not create home ownership.
It prevents it.
If our goal is to help residents build wealth through ownership, we need tools that work within the
mortgage system, not against it. Cities across the country use approaches that maintain affordability
without undermining financing. Some of those mechanisms include silent second mortgages, a second loan
that fills the gap between what a household can afford and the cost of the home. We use it in many of
our programs currently, so it's not new to us.
It has no monthly payments and is repaid upon refinance allowing the city to recycle the subsidy There's
also shared equity agreements. The homeowner keeps the most appreciation while a portion returns back
to the city to support the next homebuyer So it's not exactly tied to each specific home though It could
be but it would be a rolling basis in could in some instances again We're working through a lot of this
process. There's also a right of first offer so what that means is that it allows the city or an
Nonprofit to preserve the affordability when needed without permanently restricting the deed. So these
tools are often used and they're refinanceable they're marketable and accessible to ordinary homebuyers,
but you know Fundamentally, I think that we need to talk about the fact that homeownership and affordability
is is essentially a supply and demand issue so we should not be focusing only on
One or two or six units we need to be talking about the entire market and what that implication is so
I'm happy to get into that a little bit more But you know, we need units of all types at all price points
It helps relieve pressure on the existing housing market But as far as structural ideas of how we might
achieve that silent seconds Shared equity models it could be a right of first or
Offer but again, we are committing to what our code says at this time The nice thing about the RDC owning
this is that we can control how these are sold who they're sold to what kind of units they are As opposed
to just turning it over to another developer So we're making that commitment the zoning approval is
not tied to the specific mechanism in which we are ensuring that Your follow-up go ahead Sure that that
totally answered my
the intent of my question was to actually learn more about how the RDC was doing that. But I'm just
going to take your last statement there. So essentially, the RDC is going to pick and choose who gets
to buy these.
We have a statutory offering process that we have to follow and so we will make the commitment to provide
the affordable units and they will be present in fact If you read the PUD language, you would see that
more than 50% are at 100% of the area median income where the PUD or the UDO currently only requires
15% Right. Okay
So essentially, because you have that statutory requirement around how your offerings work, that's part
of ensuring this, because then your offerings can require buyers to check certain boxes. Correct. OK.
And then I guess my other follow-up around affordability was related more to the actual costs themselves
and this idea that
And I have read lots of constituent comments around this idea that they're being made affordable by
making them smaller. And I appreciate that one of the arguments here in general for this kind of development
is that family size has shrunk and our housing stock has not. And so a piece of affordability is size.
But I guess I just want to talk about that, like affordability
per square foot affordability in general and like I just kind of tried to like run these things through
mortgage Calculators a little bit and going like okay some of these things which seem really affordable
You know and and they would maybe have a decent mortgage payment at the end after somebody's saved $36,000
for their 20% down payment. So is is that a piece of your
Calculus in terms of how these offerings are going to go in terms of that down payment potentially assistance
that gets that mortgage payment ultimately to that Like AMI affordability range. Do you know what I
mean by that question? You'll connect me kind of I don't quite understand your question when we're committing
to a certain AMI we are committing to the income and the payments and you know looking at the entire
financial picture, but So
So like I guess I just want to know if that's like based on the sale price based on the estimated mortgage
payment How does how does the like a down payment fit into that because one of the other real struggles?
Especially for first-time homebuyers is saving that significant chunk of money in the beginning. So
the Just to be clear we're doing land use tonight and and we have committed to the affordability guidelines we
don't know which mechanism is gonna work best for our local lenders, but part of the next steps in the
process is to do a lender's workshop and to put lots of these pieces together. So maybe the reason that
you're not getting the answer that you want is because we haven't nailed down all of these things, but
the cost of the house will be tied to what the house costs
To build and of course down payment is is Associated with the cost of that house. We do have down payment
assistance programs within the city So all of these pieces are part of the housing puzzle Thank you
Allie did you want to jump in on that? Yeah
quick comments. I think the first one is the way that we calculated it. So federal standards on defining
AMI are going to say that you can't spend any more than 30% of your gross income monthly on all housing
costs. And so the AMI assumptions are both taking into account the mortgage payment and estimated property
taxes at current rates and estimated utility taxes at that square footage and things like the HOA payment.
And so the
stated percentage of AMI that they are affordable to is tied to that full cost of housing relative to,
yes, which does relate to the sale cost of the house. There are mortgage down payment assistance programs
that are being explored as part of this. And then the overall long-term affordability will relate to
what kind of a mortgage the buyer qualifies for. So if they qualify for an FHA mortgage or a VA mortgage,
their down payment might be as small as 3%,
We have for now estimated affordability based on a 20% down payment, which is a large, you know, an
average size payment for normal affordability in terms of, you know, market standard. But that is something
that will be calibrated as we work through the project. And then kind of a comment to,
questions a few minutes ago, it is also typical that we would have some sort of buyer qualification
for the formal affordable units. And so that process working through RDC is going to be really normal.
So that you don't end up with an affordable unit that's being purchased by somebody that makes 400%
AMI. Typically, those are a qualified home buyer, which is income-based for the affordable program.
That is normal within these kinds of situations. All right.
That's anybody on the left with questions. There's a motion in the public to move on I acknowledge it.
Thank you I Mean we're moving really fast for us to be clear Anybody on the left with questions, please
councilmember rough I'm just I mean, I'm not real good. I have no expertise at I
you know, finance, real estate financing. But I'm having trouble understanding, please help me, please
help me. Once a home is sold, what is gonna prevent those homes from then sort of latching or following
the rest of the real estate upward pressure in the community and then those houses
Becoming unaffordable down the road and if we have the income level restrictions Applied still in the
future, but we haven't capped the ability of those houses to increase in value Faster than area medium
income goes up Then it seems like we're gonna be losing them over time Yeah, and so
Are you done with your question? Yeah, that's kind of so that's why we need to get creative about the
way that we're structuring the the financing packages Because what the city has been doing is a deed
restriction That means that the home cannot be sold to somebody who's outside of this income level but
that also means that there are no conventional mortgages available to them and so Then they get locked
into that house. They can't sell it and
Can probably never buy it because we're not a mortgager And so instead if you look at a creative option,
so if if I bought a home and and I and The city has first right of offer We would also likely have a
shared equity agreement so if the market says that my Home is increased 20% in value We would share
that equity with that
owner and we may have a first right of offering which means we can come in and buy it and subsidize
with our equity the the next selling of that house and so in these ways you're not suppressing the market
you let the market do what the markets going to do but you still have homes that are available for people
at less cost okay thank you thank you any other questions
Councilmember Flaherty More questions a fair number. Thank you I'm also happy at any moment to consider
postponement to our next regular session because I think there may be reasonable conditions involved
in what comes next and lots of questions and we have another item that many people in the public are
here for So at any point if the president would like to entertain that or someone wants to make a motion
I just wanted to say that I guess
One question is about our climate action plan that calls for establishing policies or ordinances supporting
all electric buildings. It's basically the only climate goal, Bloomington climate goal compatible building
style. So I didn't see that in the district standards, but is there or would there be a requirement
for all electric buildings? That's it, that's the question. Thank you.
I don't know that we have discussed that but it's very easy to do electric in residential And it was
brought up during design and calibration of the street sections that that was an expectation that we
would likely see that we likely did not need to accommodate gas lines within The lane structure as the
city was not anticipating that that would be needed if this was an all-electric neighborhood So it has
it has been discussed and there is an anticipation that that is likely a coming code change
With the petitioners support a reasonable condition to that effect to make it part of the district standards
Yes, thank you Councilmember daily Public comment, please There's a motion in the second all those in
favor of moving to public comment say aye aye anyone opposed no anyone abstaining I
That motion carries 8-1. We'll now move to a time of public comment. We've minimized this to 30 minutes.
Again, that can be extended. What I ask you to do, because there's quite a few people wanting to comment
on this, there's a sign-in sheet there so that we save some time. Sign in and then pass it on so that
people behind you can comment. I also just general timekeeping, because it's only 30 minutes and there's
so many of you and you have three minutes to comment, that's 10 comments. So if you're gonna say something
that somebody in front of you said, yield the time so that we can hear from as many people as possible.
All right, first commenter, take it away.
Thank you. My name is Erin Reynolds and Island. I'm the housing solutions director with heading home
of South Central Indiana. I like some of us are not real estate experts but I do work with within the
homeless response system and affordable housing is a lot of what we talk about in our field. So I wanted
to thank you for the opportunity. I'm excited to see that the city is taking a step in rezoning and
just you know
in the right direction when it comes to affordable housing. So centering kind of who is all impacted
by this choice and everything is our community. In addition to the system improvement work I do with
my team in our region's homeless response system, I also supervise six street outreach case managers
who work in
Or with the unsheltered population and three case managers who work with individuals and families to
divert them from homelessness So whether my staff are in the streets and camps doing outreach or preventing
people from becoming own house My case managers run into the same problem, which is affordability forgetting
from getting people to from the streets to a home We're struggling to find places that don't
Require three times the income or income. That's three times the rent and for people struggling to maintain
their housing We're seeing how deeply cost burden they are and how deeply or how thinly they are spread
just trying to stay afloat So I wanted to take a moment to discuss the importance of affordable housing
and impacts it has on the broader community because the decisions that you guys are making and the questions
you're asking are really important and
Affordable housing is just super necessity. So whether it's intended to be owner or renter occupied
it makes a difference Housing costs are the primary driver of homelessness and hopeful has
a great opportunity to make an impact in our field When housing is affordable people are less likely
likely to become homeless and when they do they have a greater chance to rapidly be rehoused in our
community single adults in our region region 10
took them an average of 169 days to find housing again. When housing is affordable, people can better
manage their other expenses. They can take care of things like childcare, healthcare, and food. They're
less likely to spiral deeper into poverty and can work to attain broader goals than just surviving.
When we succeed in preventing someone's homelessness, we celebrate for the moment, but you know, they're
not out of the woods and we have to really take that into consideration. So, unaffordable housing means
our neighbors will always be trying to catch up.
And lastly when affordable or when housing is affordable people have a higher likelihood of breaking
out of generational poverty through living in mixed incomes neighbor mixed income neighborhoods Where
they have the opportunity for economic mobility and stability? Our case managers are struggling to find
affordable family style houses and families are having to result to using smaller bedrooms and Being
in resulting in areas like
Living in areas where they're not and that's your time feeling sorry. Thank you. Thank you for taking
the consideration Hi, thank you for offering public comment, I'm Anna green longtime resident of Bloomington.
I'm very interested in the housing I want to applaud the city for partnering with nationally
Known and recognized organizations who have been having success with incremental development I think
that's the thing that I'm most excited about is that These organizations that the city is partnering
with they're further down the road than we are and so they've they've already Sort of given us an opportunity
to look ahead and maybe avoid some pitfalls that we might have
Otherwise find ourselves in my specific interest in this is that I am one of the properties who might
benefit from the city kind of losing a fear of more dense
housing of more dense development downtown. So I have nearly one acre of property in Grandview Hills
neighborhood on the east side, walking distance to the mall, on a bus line, walking distance to campus.
I am an empty nester with a four bedroom, two and a half bath house that I cannot afford to downsize
from. So what would be great is if I could turn it into a quad, sell three units, and keep my own. I
have been talking, I've been
I've been picking the brains of David Hittle and his staff. I've been picking the brains of folks at
Habitat for Humanity. I've talked to Hopi. I really feel like at my property in particular, it won't
change that much from the street side. Most of my property backs up to the railroad tracks and to a
commercial residential, meadow woods, senior living facility.
I think Hopewell is super exciting because here is this enormous property to be developed with intention,
with support from national organizations who have been experimenting and succeeding. And if we can do
that and kind of give ourselves an opportunity to reduce the fear about this kind of development, which
let's not kid ourselves, this is absolutely urgent and critical to have more dense development
Sprawling is not working housing is a critical urgent need right now. So I will contribute three more
units To the city of Bloomington three more affordable units if this kind of zoning is allowed to move
forward Thank you. Thank you Take it away Good evening, Chris Smith. I'm here in support of Hopewell,
but I want to tell you a little story I bought a lot in Kirkwood in 2021 from my wife and I's retirement home and
We started permitting in 2022. It took us a year and thirty thousand dollars to get a permit
for a single-family house We're zoned MN. There's a historic overlay plus the Kirkwood overlay. There's
neighborhood board approval historic preservation coa Then we wanted to change our wrap on our house
from a manufactured stone to a limestone had to modified my coa and had to bring a sample of limestone
and to get it approved and
Which shocked me because I thought limestone was limestone We had to have multiple right away permits
excavation right away Kirkwood right away Jackson Street right away Retaining wall permits every time
we poured concrete. I had to get a street closure permit But it had to be an exact day in time and had
to give them two weeks notice So I put in a request for five closings over two months and they said
no you have to be this exact so we just started pouring early in the morning and
I had to do a driveway bond a homeowner sign off a sewer and water application hook-on fee plus a letter
from CBO given to you guys saying they're the sewer provider which was shocking a perpetual pedestrian
easement a six-foot sidewalk I'm in a historic district. I tried to get a variance from a sidewalk down
Jackson Street was an 18-foot unimproved road I got denied the variance and told at the meeting. Oh,
by the way, it's six foot So I poured it and the next day I called planning and said I can't put my
street trees in I
So concrete in our neighborhood is obviously more important than street trees, and I really wanted street
trees. I got a grass violation notice during construction, because I forgot to weed it around a stop
sign. I got a erosion control violation when there wasn't erosion off-site. I got called in on it. I
had to hire an architect, have multiple meetings. I had to have a street tree plan, even though I couldn't
plan them. I had to have a site plan. And finally, I got a building permit. It took a year and $30,000.
We need this, specifically so you can have pre-approved plans so people don't have to go through that.
We had the ability to pull it off. I'm a civil engineer, I've been on the planning staff here, the planning
commission here off and on for the last 15 years and it was still that hard. Please make this easier.
And modifications that you aren't gonna do it. It needs to be thrown out and redone as form-based code.
Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Michael Ginda. I am here to speak about Hopewell. In
terms of affordability and from the perspective of a workforce
I'm a member of the workforce. I work at IU. I've been here for I think 12 years now. I came as a student,
so I've been through a lot of the housing issues that are being discussed today. One of the things I've
been most concerned about with the Flintlock proposal in the PUD is the fact that the model is really
tied to sort of this model buyer. You have to have 20% down in the proposal, which cuts out sort of
costs like PMI. And I know that the representative from Flintlock said HOA fees are
are being considered in the affordability equation, but when you look at the actual model, I think it's
page 183, it's actually all zeroed out. So I believe it's because they don't really know what those
costs are gonna be. There's not really a framework for what that HOA would actually be. And particularly
the condominium units within the Faulkner design and the trillium units and things like that, they're
going to have to require shared maintenance and governance for those types of units,
Would make me believe that the condos in the Faulkner are actually going to be end up being apartments
Or other units that are not going to be actually affordable even though they fall within the income
guidelines I think there's a idea that you're going to have first-time homebuyers like myself with 20%
down immediately without significant assistance from the hand programs which are really generous and
But I think the terms of the other prospect of this is that equity sharing really is a sort of secondary
tax on the person who needs assistance and is asking for help for buying. I'm not saying it's a bad
model, but I think the conditions on affordability, being hinging on those programs, really speaks to
sort of the idea of attainability rather than affordability. And I don't believe that the mortgages
as outlined here for relative to space, it's cheaper for me to rent
when I've looked at the numbers for myself. I'd save about $33,000 over seven years by when I run the
numbers and run my calculations through the Fannie and Freddie savings, renting versus buying calculators.
So I would really would like to also then point out that we need to have a way to evaluate the success
of this pilot. I work in research, I do model evaluation. This is an overfit model for affordability.
And so I would like to challenge the council to provide
or means for independent evaluation of the success of affordability for workforce housing,
for ADA compliance, for other people that are going to be potentially buying into this development.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening City Council. My name is Markay Winston and I'm here tonight to express my support for
community efforts that expand access to safe affordable and high quality housing for families and members
of our local workforce including educators and School employees who meet the needs of our community's
children each and every day as superintendent of the Monroe County Community School Corporation I see
firsthand how housing stability and affordability directly impact student success and
Housing affordability also plays a vital role in our ability to attract and retain talented school employees.
Teachers, instructional assistants, bus drivers, custodians, and support staff are essential to the
success of our schools and ultimately to our children. I wholeheartedly support efforts to enhance affordable
housing opportunities in our beloved community. What our city is building is not just a neighborhood.
It is a vital part of the package that makes Bloomington a place where families want to put down roots.
Public schools are both a reflection of and a contributor to the health of a community. Strong housing
opportunities help stabilize enrollment. Affordable housing is a school issue. One way in which it is
a school issue is in determining what level of mortgage a first year or early career teacher can actually
afford within our community.
MCCSE offers the most competitive starting teacher salaries in Indiana were actually number two out
of approximately 290 school corporations Yet we have lost many talented candidates because they could
not find housing that they could afford within our community Every one of those losses is a loss for
our students Increasing housing options in our community with a mix of housing types and price points
will be attractive to future educators who want to join MCCSE and
The connection, it runs deeper than simply hiring. When families can afford to live in Bloomington,
they enroll their children in our schools. As a public school corporation, the state funding that we
receive that supports instruction is based on the number of students that we serve. Every new family
that enrolls directly strengthens our classrooms. Student enrollment growth is critical to our future.
Affordable housing is exactly the kind of investment that supports great schools The families we welcome
to our community will diversify our workforce fill our classrooms and strengthen our education Our schools
and our housing are not separate investments. There are two critical pieces of Bloomington's economic
future I believe diverse housing options and a robust education system together can attract new families and
We have welcoming neighborhoods paired with schools rich in musical, visual, and performing arts, STEAM
programs, numerous college and career pathway opportunities, early learning, and a wide variety of academic
and extracurricular programs. Safe and attainable housing, strong schools, and economic vitality are
deeply interconnected. And the music starts playing. That's your time. Thank you. Thank you.
I'm Paul ash the McDowell Gardens Neighborhood Association did meet finally and We did discuss this
plan unit development and while we have reservations about overflow parking and congestion in general
We already have that now we we have a more compact urban form and we're quite dense and this is a bit
denser, but we have our minds open to
these innovations. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening, council. My name is Eric Spoonmore.
I serve as president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I'm here tonight to respectfully
urge you to unanimously approve the Hopewell PUD. This vote is about more than a single development proposal.
It's about whether we are ready to move from debate to action on the most pressing issue facing Bloomington,
which is housing. For too long, our community has been caught in procedural back and forth over the
Hopewell site. Meanwhile, housing costs continue to rise. Young professionals struggle to find attainable
options. Families are stretched thin. Employers, both small businesses and major institutions,
are competing for talent in an environment where the availability and affordability of housing often
determines whether someone can say yes or no to a job in Bloomington. From the perspective of the business
community, the housing shortage is not abstract. It directly affects workforce recruitment, employee
retention, and whether entrepreneurs choose to start and grow their businesses here. Ultimately, it
affects the long-term economic vitality
of our city. Hopewell also represents something important from a development standpoint. For years,
our members have told us that Bloomington's unified development ordinance can be difficult for smaller
local builders to navigate because of its long, complex, and uncertainty associated with it. The Hopewell
framework moves key decisions to the front end, creating clearer development parameters and
a more predictable path forward. That matters because it opens the door for local developers.
not just large national firms to help build this neighborhood and invest in Bloomington's future. It
also offers a model as you continue conversations about meaningful UDO reform, which we very much appreciate.
No single project will solve our housing challenges, but Hopewell is a meaningful step forward. It adds
needed supply in a strategic location and signals that Bloomington is serious about creating more housing
options for people at different income levels
in life stages. A unanimous vote tonight would send a powerful message that our elected officials recognize
the urgency of this moment and are prepared to work together to address it. The voters in the business
community are ready to see progress, collaboration, and action from you all. On behalf of the chamber
and our members, I respectfully ask for your unanimous support
Hope well PUD. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry if I can just make a brief interruption I just want to make a
Blanket comment to all of the commentaries to please remember if you are willing and able to sign in
the reason why this Why we ask this is because the clerk's office does record your name and whether
or not you support a legislation So it's another way to make sure that your voice is included in the
record as well It's not a requirement But we appreciate if you do it make sure that we have you done
correctly and your name is spelled correctly as well Thank you so much clerk Williamson Members of the
City Council Thank you for lending us your ear tonight
My name is Don Weiler. I'm a long-time Bloomington resident. And for context, my home is adjacent to
Hopewell on 2nd Street. It's hard to get unanimous agreement on any one thing these days. I think, however,
you would be hard pressed to find anybody that says that I really don't want housing to be affordable.
For years, Bloomington has said that we want the folks who work in our restaurants
and our shops and our hotels, our teachers, our firefighters, our nurses, to be able to live in the
city that they serve. Every day, they contribute to the life and energy of Bloomington, and yet, many
of them cannot afford to live in the community where they spend their working days. They commute in,
they serve our city, and then they have to leave.
because housing inside the city simply isn't within reach. There's many factors that influence the cost
of housing that we can't control locally. Interest rates, the price of materials, national economics.
But there are things we can control. Our UDO and our permitting processes significantly affect how possible
it is to build in Bloomington.
I'm thankful for the recognition by Mr. Hiddle and the Planning Department to recognize this and for
the efforts that they're taking to address this on a longer time frame. The Hopewell PUD is important,
not only because it adds housing in a walkable part of our city, but because it serves as a proof of
concept. It demonstrates the thoughtful and deliberate flexibility that is necessary
if we truly want to create more attainable housing within the city limits. This PUD is not perfect.
Mistakes will be made, and critics will have plenty to point at. But perfection is not the goal. Action
is the goal. Just as Julia Child didn't perfect Beef Wellington on her first try, first time ever,
The ideas in this PUD will improve with each iteration. Bloomington is strongest when people from every
walk of life can live here, work here, and participate in our community. Tonight, you have an opportunity
to demonstrate your commitment to that future. I respectfully encourage you to unanimously move Hopewell
and Bloomington forward. Thank you for listening.
My name is Matt Gleason. I'd like to say that Hopewell South overall looks good. It seems to be a large
improvement over the TRO overlay district that's currently on the map has a number of problems. The
details are very well considered from multiple perspectives and they match a lot of housing policies
that have worked in other similar cities to us. I want to say that there is kind of a large focus on
ownership in this.
Hopefully the next plats that are done after this maybe provide for renters a little more We've seen
multiple housing booms and busts in my lifetime. So it isn't the be-all-end-all I appreciate that this
PUD can be a model for future you do changes But I also hope that people don't kind of rest any similar
changes in the you do on this in terms of its success or speed something I'd like to ask City Council
and the admin and
Consider for future PUDs Especially in the hopeful area would be social or public housing that can provide
for the essential workers of the town And give them a you know a good quality of life in a home They
can afford and that also checks market rates by virtue of being a cheaper alternative. Thanks
Good evening, everybody. My name is Nathan Ferrer. I'm the executive director of the Housing Authority
and our nonprofit affiliate Summit Hill Community Development Corporation Representing a nonprofit affordable
housing developer. I strongly support the Hopewell planned unit development This innovative approach
includes many of the strategies that we've been pushing for years that includes mixed income smaller
lots pre-approved plans
varied housing types reduce setbacks roads that prioritize people over cars and as well as permanent
affordability These lead to reduced infrastructure and construction costs, which means greater affordability
Long-term these will mean an increased tax base and more efficient community service of this land I
agree that the PUD may have been misused in the past and that it should be used sparingly and
But this development reflects exactly why the PUD mechanism was created to allow for thoughtful, innovative
community design. We at Summit Hill CDC are already working on another remarkably similar plan that
we hope to roll out by the end of this year. Part of my request is that you help pave the path for that
by approving this PUD.
We all understand that Bloomington faces a housing crisis and there's growing alignment within our community
About what needs to happen to address that? The hopeful South beauty is a large step in the right direction
I ask that you treat this request with the urgency that it deserves and hold a vote tonight Don't delay
any longer And thank you for your service. Thank you
This time just to make sure that everyone gets included. We have about five minutes left to public comment
I would like to move at this time that we extend public comment by 15 minutes There's a motion in a
second all those in favor signal by saying aye aye anyone opposed All right, that carries. We have 15
more minutes and note that there's also people online. So, you know Take it away. Mr. Zodi
council for consideration of the PUD for typical south. Oakwell is one of the most exciting transformational
projects our community has ever seen, if not the most. Since its inception, there have been common goals,
a forefront driven by the original master plan that many of us contributed to and talked about and had
a lot of community input. These goals include maximizing the housing yield and a wide range of price points,
options for rental housing and the ownership of the range of housing types. Making sure this new neighborhood
remains aligned with the unique character of Wilmington and the neighborhoods around the site. And I
was glad to hear from Mr. Ash earlier and get to know him. In order to do all of this, the consideration
of PDD to maximize the capacity of the housing is critical. As someone who served in the last administration
and worked intimately on the overall project,
My major question and consideration along the way was always about the number of housing units that
are possible on the site, and especially with these six acres. I remember being in staff meetings and
people sketching out how many houses could be fit on these six acres. What can we do with the current
zoning laws? And to see this idea and this concept take off, like a shot, with the initial important
work the Rosso administration is doing,
to redesign this is really exciting. It is a natural, necessary step in the process to see and talk
about process. And this is the next natural chapter of what is happening at the Hopewell Project. It
does require a shift in many years of policy, but it certainly seems well worth it. And all along the
way, always thinking about what's realistic, do the numbers work, and can, let me tell you this,
live, work, and stay here, and put housing for their families. So as a community health partner, CAEHG
stands ready to help with this conversation. There are creative tools out there to help with mortgage
financing for people who may not be able to afford that 100%. We may need to avoid mortgage insurance.
And it was talked about earlier by a speaker. This is an opportunity, and I've heard it tonight, to
help the police to do what it does very well, which is try new things.
That's your time sir. Thank you.
There we go. My name is Tina Peterson, president and CEO of the Community Foundation of Bloomington
and Monroe County and also of regional opportunity initiatives to see three organizations focused on
ensuring that people and communities thrive.
At the risk of dating myself, but to add context, I want you to know that I served on the committee
established by Mayor Cruzan several mayors ago, almost 14 years ago, that first looked at the potential
of what today we call the Hopewell site to bring much needed value to our community. Over the last few
months, the community foundation has been engaging with stakeholders across our community to better
understand our challenges and our opportunities.
From everyone on everyone's list of our challenges in this community is housing. It's consistent person
after person Organization after organization that housing is what constrains us most significantly in
this community We are looking for right housing that will allow individuals that live and work here
to thrive regardless of income level and
Housing that will allow new employees to call our community home housing will ensure that that will
ensure that tax revenue stays here in our community and Housing that will help to reverse population
decline in our community The housing studies that ROI has conducted regularly in our region enumerate
housing needs at every price point
whether rentals or owner-occupied, and speak to the importance of providing missing middle housing for
those seeking attainable, walkable, low-maintenance living options that primarily benefit young
professionals, first-time home buyers, downsizers, I think that's a word, and working-class families.
In our work, we've had the opportunity to work with entities focused on making housing more attainable
and affordable and buildable.
Through strategies like those proposed for the PD PUD we are here to discuss tonight. It's housing that
serves populations We need to attract and retain and that is by design by design buildable by homegrown
developers This community needs housing that both Needs the housing that both the seat the Community
Foundation and ROI have been investing We are willing to do our part where we need everyone else to
do their part as well. I
It would seem that we are moving in the right direction and on the right path, but quite honestly, it's
a path that we've been on for way too long. I started these conversations with people 14 years ago right
on a committee. These conversations about Hopewell, even if it wasn't named that then, are
no less significant today than they were then and that's unfortunate.
We need we need to think differently and to innovate. I ask you this evening to signal your
shared understanding Of that urgency and support the Peter. Thank you so much Good evening council,
my name is Clark Greiner I am the interim CEO for the Bloomington Economic Development Corporation and
I urge you to
Support the Hopewell South PUD this evening the BDC believes in doing so will enhance the attainable
housing Presently, there's a gap in our housing stock of the community Hopewell PUD will offer several
strategies begin to cover the gap and make attainable housing much more of a reality and
First, I'm here to express the support of the BEDC for the passage of this. We believe that the project
represents a transformative opportunity for the community and our local industries and the broader regional
economy. The Hopewell Project offers a diverse type of housing, such as tiny housing, ADU's, single-family housing,
And from a business retention expansion and attraction perspective, housing is really where our jobs
sleep and are a vital component and necessary to retain and attract the workforce, but to also bring
the employers into our community. One of the big concerns that we have and we hear oftentimes is that
We need to bring good paying jobs in our communities. Housing is a key component of that. The availability
workforce is also a key element. The BEDC led initiatives and attainable housing is a very important
component. And housing availability and price is a question that is frequently asked by visiting CEOs
and existing CEOs and their site selection professionals when they're making a location selection.
The Hopewell PUD pre-approved designs will begin to address the administrative cost to build and develop
attainable housing in Bloomington. And according to the National Home Builders Association, 23.8% of
the final price of a house is attributable to regulation. Expedite development processes offer predictable
for professional builders and families, and the need for housing to help keep the cost lower
and workers in our community. Given Bloomington's annexation challenges, the PUD encourages density
by offering small footprints on smaller lots, which attract and are very attractive for first-time home
buyers, and it helps keep costs low. The BEDC recognizes the Hopewell Initiative aligns with our strategic
priorities, such as job creation for business attraction, retention, and expansion, and it's important
to mention that the CEOs, again,
and their senior leadership team take a lot of interest in housing. When we go on tours and take these
site visits, that's one of the primary questions that they ask. They say show us where affordable housing
is for our workforce. So we respectfully request a favorable consideration for this initiative and stand
ready to assist in any way to advance its success. So thank you for your leadership and your attention
to this very important economic development opportunity for Bloomington and our region. Thank you so much.
Take it away. Good evening. My name is Ron Walker. I'm president of CFC properties and workforce housing
LLC, both of which are cook group companies. And with me tonight is Dan Peterson, vice president of
industry and government affairs for cook. We're here on behalf of cook to express our strong support
for the establishment of the Hopewell South PUD. We're not simply in support of it. We're excited about Hopewell.
We've been following the proceedings, have participated in meetings and discussions, and we're eager
to see the development of owner-occupied housing at the former hospital site. Recently, in a small group
session with nonprofit leaders, the question was asked about what are some of the bright spots in Bloomington
right now? What are some of the great opportunities ahead of us? For us, the answer is Hopewell. How
fortunate we are, how fortunate you are, to have this opportunity to redevelop
Hospital into a new residential neighborhood focused on owner occupied housing To build homes that can
be purchased at different price points to feature small lots traditional street grid layout walkable
connectivity This is what Bloomington needs. This is what our community has been asking for and what
a great opportunity you have in front of you tonight at cook we know the real challenges housing challenges and
Exist in our region we hear it from our employees We hear it from those who we are recruiting for careers
with cook That's why a few years ago. We committed to building houses We build houses we offer them
to our employees first at our cost It's a zero profit program from cook. We use all local contractors
our primary builder authentic homes is here tonight and
We sold our 30th home about two weeks ago in Spencer, and we plan to build many more. I can tell you
from doing this, timing and timelines are extremely important. There's plenty of time to work out details
here, but we have to move on this now. The housing challenge in Bloomington is real. We should all feel
a big sense of urgency to address it.
And you have the chance to do that tonight. That's why we asked the council to address this housing
challenge directly To not delay and to support the Hopewell South PUD rezoned by voting. Yes unanimously
tonight Thank you for your time. Thank you Howdy I'm Greg Alexander I have a few criticisms of this
specific design. The density is really good, right? I
but the lane concept is bad. If we have to amend the transportation plan in order to have dense housing,
if we need to invent a new street type that's 20 feet wide that doesn't have sidewalks, we should be
hearing from a planner. It's just a street with no sidewalks, by the way. That's what it is. There's
an emphasis on parking. 100% impervious coverage that pushes all the green space into an HOA is bad.
An HOA is bad. It's a barrier to affordability.
The dreams of how this is going to be financed and built, I don't think they're realistic. Overspecifying
individual designs instead of making good zoning code that anybody can use is bad. Using a PUD is bad.
PUDs politicize housing. We all saw that last week or two weeks ago when the mayor excoriated you in
a press release because you didn't bend your rules. Like, PUDs are a slow process. Fundamentally, this
isn't about getting housing built. This is about assigning blame for the fact that housing isn't being built.
The case for this PUD is that it is an experiment. There's no experiment. We know these houses are gonna
be extremely desirable, and the people who live there are gonna be so happy to live in them. But is
this gonna lead to anything? Is this gonna convince people? You know that's not true. You know the moment
you put zoning on your agenda,
Which if it's going to be in September, oh my God, right? If you're going to have a line out the door
like this line is going to look like nothing and you're going to be hearing from a bunch of old people
who don't think young people deserve housing. You're going to be hearing from a bunch of people who
hate housing in general hate all the new development. You'll be hearing shearing and jeering from the
audience. It will be people will be attacking you.
every time you go outside, are costing you about this. You don't want that result, but if you're gonna
build housing, if you're gonna actually do zoning code that's more than just one and a half blocks at
a time, you're going to endure that process. And I think you're doing this one and a half blocks instead
of enduring that process. That's my fear here. The thing is, the people who hate all new development
are a tiny minority in this town. And you guys were elected to do a job.
passing piecemeal PUDs will not do that job. It will just lead to more PUDs. PUDs require that our certified
planning staff has to put political concerns above their job. That's bad development policy. That's
not a good way to address affordable housing. It's corruption, and I'm saying that formally. Like, the
mayor is pushing on you to do this well faster than your usual process because she's using the slowest
possible way to do it.
the one where she gets to decide zoning law for every block and a half in the city. That's ridiculous.
We need good zoning code for the entire city, and we shouldn't make it dependent upon who has a good
relationship with the mayor. It should be open to everybody that owns property and everybody that wants
to develop. Thank you. Thank you. Take it away. Hi, I'm Jen Mayer, and I
Respectfully, we all like affordable housing like I get it I'm wondering if we could go on to the reason
that the the flock cameras the part that was buried in this meeting and is the very last thing we're
talking about I would respectfully ask if we could get to that in a timely manner We all know we want
affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you Thank you All right More you go ahead. Go ahead
I didn't see you there, go ahead. So a lot has been said about the buzzword of the year, affordability,
but right across the street from Hopewell are the Seminary Point apartments, and they're the most affordable
apartments in the area. People are living in them right now, and every single one of those people was
told a couple weeks ago that they will be forced out of their homes in July. I understand these buildings
are owned by the county, something to do with their disastrous convention center, but the buildings
and the people living in them are in this city,
right across the street from Hopewell, and they are my friends, and they will not be able to afford
what you are making. Why are you letting the county destroy meaningfully affordable housing in Bloomington?
And if you don't like that framing, which is fair, I understand, it's incendiary. What will you do to
get the seminary point leases renewed, empower these tenants to decide their own futures, and stop the
county from destroying the affordable housing we already have? Thank you. Thank you.
I'm Jack Baker resident of the McDole historic neighborhood district. I've been a I'm a Bloomington
I type in here for 57 years. I love Bloomington Over the years. I've served on numerous City Commission
says give back for what the city has given me and
During my tenure on the Plan Commission under the Hamilton administration, I gave a newspaper interview.
I was asked by the Herald Telephone what I thought should be done with the now Hopewell property. I
said it should become a neighborhood like those north and south of Prospect Hill and McDowell Gardens.
It should all be single-family housing. That was anathema to the administration. It said that my idea
was crazy and unworkable.
multiple large multi-story buildings with townhouses to buy or apartments to rent and construction by
one or two large out-of-town developers. As a gesture to the neighborhood, it allocated one small section
on the south boundary across from McDowell for a few single-family homes. After many years have passed,
a new idea has developed under the Thompson administration.
section dedicated to single-family housing in the same small area With the difference of zoning in place
and a pick list of housing types and by right building It offers the density of cities demand ease of
obtaining building permission relatively low buy-in and the opportunity for local contractor participation,
I hope you'll pass it I believe it will prove the best pattern for development and hope well and
I don't know if mayor Thompson plans to develop this pattern more widely and hope well, but I will encourage
her to What would be more appropriate than extending the fabric of Bloomington community across? Hope
well creating an exciting new neighborhood of single-family homes nestled among traditional neighborhoods
of the city Thank you Thank you Good evening, my name is Jason Bell. I'm the executive director of the
Builders Association and
I wrote a whole bunch up, but I think most of it's been covered tonight. So I just wanted to say that,
you know, we all know the challenges that the community faces with housing. Housing costs are on the
rise. Construction costs remain high. Financing is complex. Families struggling to find attainable,
family-friendly housing. Hopewell, I think, is a direct answer to that, those concerns. I get phone
calls every day. I literally...
At least every day if not twice three times a day from people in the community that work here, but they
can't live here This is this is the answer the building association supports the mayor supports this
This is what we need for our community. Thank you for your time Thank you. We have time for one more
comment Ready I'm gonna
Try to keep this pretty short and simple. I've worked with Cook, or my company's worked with Cook, as
well as we've right now currently working with Chris Smith over at Harmon Farms. And we talk about this
word affordable, okay? I'm gonna tell you what it means to me. It means the average working family can
afford this house. In working with both of those, we have created those. I know that with Cook,
Most of those homes were around $60,000 below market value that they were being sold at. In Harmon Farms,
we just sold a house for $290,000. Two bedroom, two bath, two car garage. It's something people can
afford that are in the working class.
When I look through some of the pricing that I've seen in some of this, they seem to be covering a wide
variety. It seems to be realistic with their numbers when I look at it. I say, yes, I think it can be
built for that. That can really happen. And I'm excited to find something that would reach out to the
people that are working, that are paying taxes, that are doing things in this community, that are the
vibrant part of the community.
Actually have an opportunity to find a place here that's affordable to live. I think that Like any project
it's going to have great things. It's going to have not so great things but overall I believe it's a
good thing that the mayor is trying to do here to put some affordable housing in the middle of downtown
Bloomington
Thank you so much, unless there's any motions that should conclude our time of public comment.
I hope he's, Councillor Satsburg, sorry. I do have a motion, but it's nonrelated to public comment.
Should I go ahead?
And I'm so let me just make a quick comment then I'm sorry for the people online and we'd set the time
for 30 minutes Folks extended it. There's no motion on the floor to extend it. I cannot make motions.
So I would like to move to postpone further consideration of ordinance 20 2606 to our next regular session
on March 25th There's a motion in a second any discussion Please councilmember Piedmont Smith
Yes, while I am generally favorable of this proposal and I hear the overwhelming support for it, I think
there are still some critical details that are not clear. And there have already been two reasonable
conditions that have been mentioned by colleagues, and there may be others that we might want to impose
in order to make this a better project. And certainly there are a lot of things that
I don't quite understand how they're going to work once this is built. So we really do need to take
our time with this. We normally would do two readings. And so it would be highly unusual to pass this
on the first reading, which is tonight. So I would encourage my colleagues to have another meeting.
Where we could between now and then get some of our questions answered and bring forward some reasonable
conditions. Thank you Thank You customer sasper I guess I'll go ahead and explain the reasoning for
my motion to especially because there are so many public commenters who encouraged us to just vote on
this tonight I I guess I first want to say I'm a little frustrated That we were we started out this
presentation being threatened with greater costs in order
Unless we unless we vote tonight because this councilmember Piedmont Smith said it is unusual for us
to only deal with the PUD in one reading I appreciate that there are lots of steps to a PUD but the
petitioner knew this when they began going down this road and Council is one of the steps and I consider
it a responsibility of council to and a responsibility of myself as a council member and
Do my due diligence on this and it is doing a disservice to this community if as a council representative
I do not Ensure that that this is the the best way to do things Okay, and and you know, we have a lot
of people here clearly is one of the earlier commenters said that that are here about flock and this
idea of Trusting the government to do the best thing and if this was a private petitioner, I
I don't think anybody would have been standing up at that mic today saying hurry up and push it through.
And the only reason why people were is because well, it's like our local government and we trust them,
right? And it's not that I'm doubting my trust in our administration, in the staff that have worked
on this project, in the RDC, but I think that as another branch of the government,
I mean, I think that we have to do extra diligence to cross our T's and dot our eyes because we are
monitoring ourselves right now and there have been lots of recent examples not local examples per se
but at state and federal levels we're monitoring ourselves in terms of government is not working out
very well and so the least I can do is make sure that the documentation matches the intent of the project and
That moving forward regardless of who is in the seats of the administration The the project is going
to move forward as intended in terms of affordability in terms of Building structures in terms of how
it's supposed to serve Bloomington the people who live here and the people who want to live here. Thank
you Thank You councilmember Rallo Thank you
I generally support this petition and I appreciate the work that's been done, but I also support the
postponement to consider reasonable conditions I I Will suspend judgment on those specifics until until
my colleagues bring forward But I respect their ability to do it and I'm a little bit puzzled by the
assertion that we should simply approve this without a modest process of a couple weeks, which is standard
practice and
And we've been waiting, by the way, for this for a couple of years. So we're not to blame in terms of
delay. This has been going on for some time. It's not our fault. It just landed in our lab. So it's
an important PUD. It's permanent. It's permanent. And it's significant. And it's vital for our community.
And it deserves due consideration. Thanks. Thank you so much. Other comments?
Okay. Um, seeing none. Um, all those in favor, uh, sorry, sorry. Where, where's there? It came as you
know, as a, as an angel from the sky. There's no pending motion on, on the floor right now to postpone.
So I think there was a motion motion to postpone in a second.
Know but the the motion to postpone typically is made when there is a main motion. So Yes, I mean what
one alternative at this point would be to make a motion to move ordinance 2026-06 to to second reading
or there may be other motions that may be appropriate to Thank you so much, Lisa
Please come councilmember Sasberg knowing that then I will withdraw my motion and instead make a motion
to move ordinance 20 2606 to second reading at our next regular session on March 25th Just does that
meet the qualification attorney later, I think that works. Thank you All right. There's a motion to
move to March 25th. Are there any comments on?
I'll just make one that I think at some point it was mentioned that Ali is not able to attend at the
25th, that I hear that correctly was this, and that's correct. Okay, so I mean that consideration, and
I don't know if it's appropriate to ask questions at this time. So just that, I mean maybe just something
for us to consider is that whether we want to postpone, yeah, so.
Think usually we only postpone things for one meeting and then if it needs to be postponed the next
time then we should Advertise that we're not going to talk about it that we're going to postpone it
But given the number of public commenters tonight and that nobody got there on zoom. We might just want
to hear public comment even if There are questions that would remain unanswered By Ali's absence. I
also though think that if we manage to submit a
Questions prior than perhaps staff that are available on that day would be able to pass forward answers
Any other questions or comments Any other questions or comments All right seeing no questions or comments
we will move to a vote so all those in favor of
Okay, it's been requested that we do a roll call will the clerk please and call the roll Yes, Stalzberg,
yes Piedmont Smith. Yes, do you look? No, I'm sorry. No daily. No Rallo. Yes, rough. Yes, Rosenberger. Yes. Oh
That motion carries six three. So we will discuss this again on our March 25th meeting. Thank you all
very much for your time. All right, we will now move on to items for second reading and resolutions.
Are there any motions? 2026-04 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only please.
There's a motion and a second all those in favor say aye aye any opposed will the clerk please read
Resolution 2026-04 a resolution establishing immediate transparency limits and a public review process
for automated license plate reader technology in Bloomington the synopsis reads
This resolution sponsored by council member sorry requires the chief of police and office of the mayor
to brief the common council on the city of Bloomington's automated license plate reader a LPR program
with specified information provided in plain language writing. It also calls on the office of the mayor
to impose immediate pause on any expansion of the LPR program until the briefing is completed.
Finally this resolution states the common council's intent to consider adoption of an ordinance to establish
durable rules governing acquisition and use of a LPR technology by the city of Bloomington Thank you
very much and because I wrote this I will hand the gavel over to councilmember daily I move resolution
2026-04 be adopted second All right, you're in charge sorry to interrupt all right
Thank you very much. I don't need to hold this. Would you like to present as the resolution sponsor?
Yeah, just super quickly. I wrote a bit about this in our last packet, so I don't think any of this
needs to take too much time so we can go to public comment and wrap up. But I think I'd like to just
frame the purpose and the approach of this resolution.
For those who wouldn't be familiar, ALPR systems I think are becoming increasingly common across the
country, often deployed with what people would say are legitimate goals, which is like things like recovering
stolen vehicles, assisting in
Missing-person cases generating leads and serious crimes helping public safety agencies operate more
efficiently and yada yada And I think that those are real public goods and they deserve to be acknowledged
But the central question before us is not whether public safety matters Of course, it does think the
question is how we pursue it what capabilities we build and
what risks we accept, what limits we place on ourselves when technology expands the reach of institutional
power. I think generally that we should avoid a common trap in technology, which is this sort of idea
that any potential benefit, no matter how small, is sufficient justification for something. When we're
dealing with tools that collect large amounts of data of any sort, or particularly location-linked
information about residents and visitors, many of whom are not suspective of wrongdoing, it might help
sometimes cannot be our governing
standard. Benefits should be demonstrated, not presumed, and they should decisively outweigh the civil
liberties, security, and governance risks that are created by the system itself. So the resolution before
you tonight is intended as a first step toward responsible governance in this space. It does three things.
First, it establishes a shared premise.
that technologies capable of collecting large volumes of location-based data require a higher level
of transparency and democratic oversight than ordinary municipal tools.
It initiates a structured process of inquiry. It asks for a public briefing and written material so
that the council and the community can understand the program as it exists today, its scope, its cost,
its retention policies, its access controls, its auditing practices, and its data sharing pathways.
In other words, the due diligence required to make informed decisions in daylight. I will note here
that several members of the public submitted to us a sort of shared, a joint written report noting multiple times
where they have sought information under the Freedom of Information Act and that that's been obscured
or not accessible to them in certain cases. And third, it signals the council's intent to develop durable
and enforceable rules governing ALPR and similar technologies in Bloomington, rules that would apply
regardless of vendor. Now this point I think is quite important. I know that right now the sort of reaction
is to a particular vendor and I have particular thoughts about the particular
particular vendor, but we need to think in a broader sense that it's not just maybe a concern with this
vendor, but about the use and governance of this technology in Bloomington sort of at all. And so to
me, the deeper question is whether institutions are prepared to govern technologies that will only become
more powerful and more common over time. And so I think
That's this is sort of the the first motion. I mean sort of first step here And it's a spirit in which
this resolution was drafted and I look forward to the discussion All right, thank you very much before
we move to questions do we want to introduce amendment one first up because it was just a Small part
that kind of plays into the rest of it doesn't make a huge change But I think an important one. So before
we move to discussion Councilmember Piedmont Smith, would you like to introduce your amendment? I
Yes, I'd like to introduce amendment one to resolution 20 2604 Amendment one just gives a six-week deadline
for the mayor's administration to Give us the public briefing that is outlined in the resolution Thank
you any questions about amendment one councilmember Stossberg
I think this is a question for President Asari about Amendment 1. Because of spring break, our next
regular session is already like three weeks away. So in terms of space on the future agendas to present,
does that six-week time framework? Yes. Great. Thanks. Wonderful. Thanks. Any other questions on Amendment
1 only? No? Seeing none. All right. We can then move to public comment.
just the amendment giving us the six-week timeframe for the Response from the administration. So would
anybody like to speak from the public on it? Just amendment one only you'll have an opportunity to speak
on the broader resolution in just a moment Amendment one. Yes. Okay. Come on to the podium. Thank you.
You have three minutes, please state your name and take it away My name is Robert home
I think amendment one makes eminent sense I think any deadline is better than no deadline And I certainly
leave it to the judgment of the council and the and the administration what deadline is appropriate.
Thank you Short and sweet. Thank you any other comments in chambers Anybody online looking to make it
a comment on amendment one All right, no, thank you very much I
Any councilmember comment before we move to a vote on amendment one? Councilmember Stossberg I'll also
echo the public commenter and I appreciate councilmember Piedmont Smith putting putting a deadline on
it. It's good idea. Thank you Any other any other comments All right, can we just do a voice vote on
this one or do we have to do roll call Roll call roll call. All right. I
Clerk Williamson, would you mind taking role, please? Oh, oh We don't either yeah Councilmember Sarsburg.
Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes daily. Yes Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger Flaherty
And that passes eight to zero Rosenberger councilmember Rosenberger was out of the room. All right.
Thank you. So now we're moving back to The broader resolution as a whole resolution 2026 dash Oh for
any councilmember questions for councilmember, sorry We're speechless No questions. Oh I would like
to hear from the public. So well then any questions
Okay. Well then, perfect. Ladies and gentlemen, the moment you've all been waiting for. It is my distinct
pleasure to introduce public comment on resolution 2026-04. Please come up to the microphone in an orderly
fashion. No pushing, no shoving, no name calling. Be kind to your neighbor. Remember to sign in, state
your name, and you have three minutes. Do we have 30 minutes set aside for this? Do we know? We don't
have anything.
You guys are good. All right, thank you, whenever you're ready. All right, thank you for your time.
Hello, I'm Sam Dixon, a local worker here. Just had some comments about the flock issue in general and
about the resolution. First of all, thank you, Council, for bringing this forward. I think it brings
transparency that has been direly lacking with the application of this technology for a considerable
amount of time. I appreciate the deadline being added.
it's a good first step towards understanding where we even at. The public has not been able to access
the contracts. The public has been received with obfuscation and stonewalling by the mayor. And generally,
we don't get a sense of trust. Do you really think we would expect a contract, a piece of paper, to
protect us from unlawful actors like ICE? These fascists are shredding up
other pieces of paper like the Constitution. They are destroying our rights. I do not feel safe with
the presence of flock in town. I think that's a very common viewpoint. As a person of color, I know
this is used to track me, to assess political dissidents, to clamp down on our civil liberties. I think
it's terrible. So I think step one, we need to cut the contracts. I know that's not up to you, counsel.
That's up to the mayor.
Step two, we need to ban flock and similar technologies. I would like to see us go there. I would like
to see us go further and to see a binding ordinance, which I appreciate. I feel that there's an effort
from the council and from the public in that direction. Just a couple more things, details. About the
rolling 30-day retention period of video, this is one of the obfuscations that we get from the mayor's
office commonly. Oh, we don't save the data, it's 30 days, and then it's deleted.
Technically, that's true. That's because of storage capacity. Video data is extremely large and difficult
to store. There is no limit on what is scraped through the video data through AI programs. There is
no limit to what the AI can turn out of said video data. They can profile many things about you. That's
derivative data that's way easier to store. Who knows where that's being used? Flock is simply a purveyor
of this data to whomever
is a high bidder or whomever is cozying up to the Trump regime and it's an easy cash grab for fascist
dollars. So I think we need to march towards banning the technology in general. The existence of this
technology is a threat to our safety. This type of data should not be taken at all. It cannot be entrusted
with law enforcement and it cannot be entrusted with our leaders at many levels. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next member of the public, please sign in and state your name. You have three minutes.
Really close. Oh, there we go. My name is Susan Brackney.
Appreciate your willingness to consider putting limits and public review on a LPRs in Bloomington License
plate reading is one level of invasiveness If you look into what the condor pan tilt zoom cameras are
able to do It will curl your hair. I think there are a couple in that contract. Where is the mayor?
I wish she had stayed for this. I hope you're around I
This is important. This issue is bigger than just that camera. Focusing on Bloomington's use of one
system or one company in isolation is not enough. If you use flux technology alongside facial recognition
software, you've got yourself a live real-time dragnet. City councils like you in New Orleans, Austin,
and San Francisco
put laws in place to ban the use of facial recognition software by the police. And in New York, the
city police leadership barred officers from using facial recognition programs, too. And in each of those
cases, they all found workarounds, like asking buddies in different jurisdictions to run facial recognition
searches for them. So that's not helpful.
The advancement of these technologies has far outpaced our ability to establish proper guardrails and
protections If our experience is anything like that of those other municipalities Flock security could
end up costing the city millions of dollars in legal fees Because it could be argued that combining
these technologies in these ways violates our rights
Under the Constitution and I know that these cases have been going to court. So that's another thing
to think about Thanks again for being thoughtful about this very important issue appreciate it Next
member, please sign in and state your name for the podium you have Yeah, you know what? I'm trying to
say you have three minutes. Thank you testing
My name is Joffrey Livingston. I am a resident and I work here in Bloomington. I want to reiterate that
transparency about these contracts should be a given. Transparency should be an inherent part of the
relationship between people and government. And there will be many criticisms levied against FLOC and
ALPRs in general tonight.
But I think the reality is that we must, and once again, I also want to reiterate that the council does
not make this decision. The mayor who was present in this room and is no longer present in this room
for just this item alone is the one who makes this decision. But we must divest from this contract.
Fundamentally, this is about our city.
and its compliance with increasingly militant, increasingly weaponized technology and its use against
citizens. From 2024 and now forward, our history as a city and further will be marked by collective
resistance to American imperialism and the tech billionaires that fund it. Bloomington is historically
a progressive cultured town full of art, ideas, community,
life, but now our country is at war again, and we are good at football. So that means, among other things,
an increase of military training, increasing military facilities being built to train, all of this down
a funnel that who knows where we'll go, but this is just one small part of that siphon that
can suck all the life out of our city and distract from the rights of our people that we should be focusing
on. The contract belongs in the shredder, and Mayor Thompson belongs in this room. Thank you. All right,
thank you very much. Just one quick note, while our commenters are speaking, please do try to refrain
from reacting during their comments, because you do take away from their time, and that might be a little
unfair to them, no matter how much you agree. I appreciate that. We're actually going to move to check
on Zoom quickly to see if we have any Zoom commenters waiting. We have one waiting. Perfect. OK,
thank you. Go ahead whenever you're ready. Please remember to state your name if you feel comfortable.
Hey. My name is Pat Wall. I'm a Bloomington resident. And I don't have that much to say, because I'm
on Zoom. I'm not in the room. It's a little different.
But this technology is just so cartoonishly evil on its face. Like this is exactly the technology that
we all know is bad. When we think about a totalitarian society, we see it in our science fiction movies,
whatever. This is that technology. And so I know why the mayor had to leave. It's because she is back
at home twirling her mustache.
and tying up James Bond over a shark tank, because that's the kind of people that use this technology,
and yeah, that's what I got to say. Thanks. All right, thank you. Next commenter in the room,
thank you. Try now? Okay, wonderful, thank you.
Could I have my time reset? Thank you Hello, my name is Sarah Owen I am the community engagement coordinator
for the Exodus refugee immigration office here in Bloomington Exodus is here tonight to make clear to
the City Council and to the mayor that we are asking for the flock contract to be terminated in full and
With regard to this ongoing discussion about the contract, we ask you to consider everyone's investment
in the matter. Firstly, Flock is a private company selling you a product so they can make a profit,
and that is the extent of their interest in this matter. The language on their website is simply a matter of PR.
They state that FLOC does not share data with ICE. That does not mean that ICE or the federal government
does not have access to that data. In fact, there is already a clear and established pattern that that
is happening across the country and following these comments today, Exodus will be providing documentation
of that pattern to the council. The BPD is tasked with public safety and therefore advocates for the
use of FLOC cameras for the sake of investigating crimes. However, we respectfully contend that they
may not be considering the larger ramifications.
To be clear, we empathize with the objectives of maintaining public safety, but the more that our city
invests in data collection, allies with profit-driven companies, and fails to take a firm stand on our
community's basic rights, the less likely our immigrant community will feel safe to utilize police for
when they themselves are victims of a crime. In essence, continued use of tools such as the flock cameras
erodes trust between immigrants in the community and public safety officials.
Meanwhile, Exodus and organizations like us, we are your frontline experts on how legislative decisions
at the federal, state, and local levels are impacting Bloomington's immigrant community. Your experts
in immigration are telling you that these cameras pose a direct threat to the safety of our immigrant
neighbors.
The people in power at the federal level have already demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the law
and civil liberties and have shown that they will not hesitate to run roughshod over people's privacy
for the sake of scoring political points with their base. Furthermore, they have shown unfettered hostility
towards the targeting of immigrants and people of color, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.
Flock cameras were initially installed in the summer and fall of 2024 and we implore the City Council
and the mayor to consider how different the landscape is now, barely a year and a half later. For any
public official who believes that there is a safe or secure way to continue this contract with Flock,
we will not accept passive wording or language about compromise to sue the conscience of our community.
We do not believe that such measures will meaningfully protect our immigrant neighbors.
With the passing of SB 76 expected to enter into state law by the end of this week, what are you going
to do, not if, but when, the state comes to collect flock data to track down the next five-year-old
child and place them in a detention center, or perhaps the child's father, whom they may never see again?
Please don't look away at what is happening in this country. Protect immigrants and protect our community
with clear, decisive action, and eliminate this contract.
Thank you very much. Next speaker at the podium. You have three minutes. Hello, my name is Niyasika
Swamy, and I'm here to ask you to divest from this FLOC contract. Some things that I have read on the
ACLU website is that they have been collaborating or coordinating with ICE.
Also, some other concerns from the Electronic Frontier Foundation is that these kinds of systems enables
surveillance of protesters, which is our right, according to the Constitution, that this regime, the
current regime, is trying to clamp down on our peaceful protest.
That also allows for biased policing and discriminatory searches, weaponizing surveillance
against reproductive rights by monitoring license plates and their travel, where they're going. This
company also has in the works, they have drones available on their website.
and we know what drones are doing right now over in the Middle East and potential for hacking from,
you know, bad characters, international, you know, other countries. Also, I just want to remind everyone
that something that Ben Franklin said, one who gives up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of
safety deserves neither.
And from what I see that what's going on in our country right now, I don't think it's the working people
that need to be surveilled. I am abiding by the Constitution. And I think the surveillers, who's going
to be surveilling them? And who's going to be keeping up with what they're doing with our personal
information? We already know.
that Elon Musk and his little doggie boys went in, they have all of our information, our social security
information, everything they know. They know everything about us. Even they're turning over voting rolls
to DC. So and then now we're gonna have them monitoring what we're talking about on the streets. And
my coming and going, if I'm going around Bloomington,
We don't need to be surveilled. We're not the ones that need to be surveilled. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Next speaker, please go ahead. You have three minutes whenever you're ready.
Maybe now. Hey Okay, no problem. My name is Robert Holm Thank you to the council members, especially
council members. Sorry for introducing this measure and council member Piedmont Smith for the amendment I
I'd like to echo the sentiments that are in both the preamble of the measure and which Council Member
Saray shared with us verbally. I particularly think that the standard that the benefits, although they
may be real, should decisively outweigh the cost to civil liberties, especially privacy, is
a very appropriate standard, and I do not believe that it is met in this case. If I had one particular
suggestion,
for the measure, although I would be happy to see it adopted with or without this. Some of the particulars
which the city and BPD are asked to report on in, I believe, section four, such as the retention period
of the data and the access controls to the data, I would love to see the city and BPD required to report
on that distinctly for how those apply to the city and its agencies, including BPD, how that applies to FLOC,
and how that applies to Flock's other customers because I think it exposes some of the concerns that
have been expressed by the other commenters if we had to provide separate answers for, for instance,
you know, the city retains our data for so long, Flock retains our data according to what they say for
so long, and Flock's other customers who may have access to that data retain it who can say how long.
What access controls are being put in place by the city versus by Flock
versus by anyone else who may legally or through hacking have access to that data. I think that clarifying
that in that way, it could be very insightful. I also appreciate what council members are, I said, that
it's important not to lose sight of crafting durable rules for ALPR and FLOC's other technologies such
as facial recognition in general due to
the specifics of one vendor and one current situation, but I do think that it's important to consider
the urgency of the current situation as well. With that in mind, I would ask the council members to
please vote in favor of this measure, to please continue to pursue this issue diligently, and say that
I personally would be very happy with both a termination of our contract with FLOC specifically, and
with very stringent measures or an outright ban on technologies like this in general going forward.
Thank you very much. Next public commenter, please remember to sign in and state your name, and you
have three minutes. Okay. Hi, my name's Kevin Pence. I live and work in Bloomington. I'm here in support
of this resolution. However, I want to be known that these proposals for simple transparency and mild
restrictions are just scratching the surface. These contracts with FLOC must end immediately. I'd like
to give you all a clear picture of the type of company the city of Bloomington, Monroe County, and IU
are all partnering with.
At the end of this last year, a YouTuber by the name of Ben Jordan and a team of technology researchers
discovered, among other things, that 60 flock condor cameras were streaming directly to the open internet.
This admin portal required absolutely no credentials to be accessed. It was not hacked. There was not
a vulnerability exposed. The portal was open for anyone and everyone to see. There you could find all
60 cameras worth of live feeds as well as the past 30 days worth of 24-7 video recording. This vulnerability just
Was just one egregious example among many that flock failed to discover until the public pointed it
out in December of last year a PR style email went to the Bloomington Police Department from Garrett
Langley the founder and CEO of flock safety starting off with Flock has never been hacked ever Quote
the email then goes on to claim that concerned citizens are using public record requests as quote a
weapon against law enforcement
It's all nonsense to deflect from their negligence and lack of any accountability I don't trust flock
safety or any tech bro company for that matter with this type of AI enhanced searchable database of
our whereabouts There's there be these the mere existence of these cameras in an is an encroachment
and an imminent threat to our civil liberties and That is only exacerbated by the passing of Senate
bill 76 or
The implementation of government surveillance in Bloomington is step one of compliance with fascism
in advance, which is why the city should end these contracts right now. Thanks. Thank you very much.
Do we have any commenters on Zoom? I'm just going to quickly check before we move on. Is there anybody
waiting on Zoom to comment? Yes, there are two commenters. OK, we'll go to one comment on Zoom, and
then we'll come back to hearing chambers. Thank you for your patience.
All right, on Zoom, whenever you're ready, go right ahead. Hi, can you all hear me? You're good to go.
Hi, my name is Kathleen Paquette. I am a longtime resident of Bloomington. A lot of people are bringing
up a lot of really good points about flock, so I won't belabor them. But I would like to just share
a personal story. I live on a block where there is a flock camera. For the last approximately year,
this camera
has watched my comings and goings every single day. It has tracked the license plates of all of the
vehicles I share with my family. It knows what my dog looks like. We're living in a time where our current
administration has declared anti-fascists as domestic terrorists. As someone who's involved in activism,
particularly comfortable with having my cars and my face and my daily whereabouts tracked and logged
by a company with very little accountability over who has jurisdiction to that information. There are
so many really, really good, really important arguments about collaboration with ICE, but none of our
rights matter right now.
And for our city to be allowing the placement of these cameras that just continue to watch us every
single day in our current climate is just so scary. And I think it should be scary for all of us.
That said, I really appreciate this resolution. I really appreciate the work that you are all doing
right now. And I hope that the mayor is listening and I hope that we can keep this moving forward and
just completely cut this contract. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Coming back to here in chambers, next speaker. You may begin whenever you're ready.
You've got three minutes. Good evening, council members. I'm Liliana Young, House District 61 candidate
and a proud city commissioner. When it comes to issues of surveillance and data gathering, there is
no reason why the city never gave its residents an opportunity to weigh in on this before such a program
was put in place. It is the lowest
possible standard the city could achieve. But here we are now living in a Bloomington directly tied
to the expansion of the surveillance state, directly tied to the scraping and selling of personal data,
directly tied to the aiding and abetting of agencies like ICE, which have brought nothing but pain and
death to communities across this nation.
So since we weren't given an opportunity to weigh in on this ahead of time, I hope you are hearing us
tonight that we do not want these systems in our city, that we don't believe the benefits outweigh the
costs, and putting limitations in place simply isn't enough. Ultimately, the contract must be cut. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Coming back here in chambers, you have three minutes. You may start when you're
ready. Thank you. Hello, my name is Sereza Knox. I'm a local drag performer here in Bloomington. I came
here five years ago loving this city. The fact that Flock is here has made me hate it. And where's the
mayor for us to ask our questions? She left the room the second that this was brought up because she
is the one that signed that contract.
She is the one that allowed a dangerous tracking system into our city to keep paying attention to everybody
who has done nothing wrong. We are here to live. We are here to work. We are here to love and have our
families. And we are being stripped away from them. Mothers, fathers, children, grandparents, the elderly,
ripped away from their families, their homes, their schools.
And we are sitting here debating about whether or not this contract should be here. It should have never
been allowed to begin with. And the biggest question I have is whenever FLOC is gone and the next company
just like it comes in, is that one also going to be allowed in? And then all of us have to come back
to this room and tell every single member of this city's government that we don't want it here.
that we never wanted it here, but nobody cared what we thought to start. I am telling you now, whether
you cared before or whether you still don't now, if it becomes your family, is that the time that you
care? When it becomes your friend, is that the time that you care?
Because if you do have the passion and the care and the love for this city that you spoke about at the
beginning of this entire, what, three-hour meeting, then you would push Flock out and you never would
have signed that contract. And the mayor would have never left this room the second that it came up.
Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll have one more here in chambers and then we'll go back to Zoom
after this next speaker.
You have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Ryan. I am a researcher at IU I just if it's
okay, I can anybody who supports canceling this contract raise their hand Okay, that's kind of what
I thought I think that's what we all thought So I was hoping that mayor Thompson would be here to hear
this but if she wants to expedite the Hopewell neighborhood then maybe she should just Cancel this flock
contract so we don't waste time
Discussing something that's objectively a violation of our privacy I think that she wants a legacy to
leave which is admirable and maybe her legacy could be the mayor that said no to bringing fascism into
Bloomington and Let's just one last thing. I want to say a little joke maybe but I think that in the
context of this federal administration
we can draw our own conclusions from flock. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it's
literally called flock, maybe it's a fascist duck. So, thank you. All right, thank you very much.
We'll go to, I believe we have at least one more commenter on Zoom. Yeah? Paul Russo, I'm going to allow
you to repeat yourself. Thank you. You have three minutes.
Hello. Paul Rousseau, Bloomington resident. I support a complete prohibition on all ALPR technology
in Bloomington. My only contribution to the discussion is to remind or inform everyone that anyone who
uses a cell phone is already under surveillance by the US security state. Edward Snowden explained to
everyone in 2013 that the National Security Agency has a policy that was summed up by the phrase
Collected all and by all they mean all the metadata So these license plate readers would simply augment
what has already been going on Thank you Thank you very much we'll come back here in chambers next speaker
you may step up to the podium Make sure you do sign in and you have three minutes. I signed in You're
amazing Excellent. Oh, my name is price. I'm gonna keep it short because I I think you all know what
of people here think, you know, flock is bad. If you want to fight fascism, you don't want to give fascism
the infrastructure to exist. But of course, I also want to note that this mandated inquiry, this mandated
period of information from the mayor is not enough. I think the city council should do a lot more in
using its statutory power to ban something like this from ever becoming an option in this town.
That's it, thank you.
Thank you very much. Next speaker here in chambers. You may step up and begin whenever you're ready.
Hi, my name is Daisy Dinn. I agree with the stuff that all the people who spoke before me said. We don't
need a tool of tracking our movements. This surveillance technology is, we don't need that. And it's
not secure. We know that
Okay, the cops shouldn't have access to this data, but no one else should have access to the data either.
And it's not just the cops, it's ICE, it's, yeah, all sorts of independent and institutionalized forms
of fascism that have access to this data. Yeah, and we really should be encouraging the mayor, yeah,
to not be doing stuff like this.
So whatever power that the City Council has I say yeah use it. Thank you Thank you very much next speaker
here in chambers you may step up you have three minutes Hi, my name is Graham Baker. This is my first
year in Bloomington and I've already seen just how amazing this community is and the
The prospect of these automated license plate identification cameras, it really scares me, and I think
it should scare all of you. I'm sure it does scare a lot of people here. I mean, of course, the ties
to ICE are incredibly terrifying. Giving them this much information about everyone in our community, I mean,
I'm scared. I'm scared for me. I'm scared for my friends of color. I'm scared for my friends that are
international students. And I'm scared for all of the people that have lived here for years. I also
wanted to address... I can understand from a certain angle why this might seem appealing. I mean, crime
is always something to be worked. The prospect of being able to decrease crime like this can sound very
enticing, but when it comes at the cost of
All of these eyes in in the city that that's not a cost that we should be willing to pay I support and
I think I know I'm far from the only one that supports any and every step that can be taken to cancel
contracts with flock and Prevents any of this technology from existing in Bloomington Even if you think
this isn't something that will affect you and it absolutely will even if you're not concerned about
your privacy What happens if?
you're living your life, and the sorts of things that you're doing, like the places you're going, are
starting to be considered suspicious. Even if you are innocent, if you've done nothing wrong, what if
you're driving to a protest, or even through an area where a protest was committed? What if you're going
to see... I'm sorry. Any... Yes.
very easy for all of this data about you to be collected, and the fact that your license plate could
even be misidentified, you could be painted as guilty of something you didn't do because the system
didn't flag you correctly. This could happen to anyone here. I'm really passionate about this issue
to the point I walked more than 40 minutes during a thunderstorm to come to this meeting, and I'm sure
I'm not the only one,
I think that just speaks volumes to how important it is that we really and truly try and get FLOC and
any other automated license plate identification out of this community. Thank you so much.
It wasn't on that time. You have three minutes, thank you. Okay, thank you. My name is Olivia Soto.
I'm a sophomore at IU, and I'm originally from Fort Wayne, so, you know, love Indiana. And I really
appreciate, you know, your attention and this long meeting and just being here and everybody else being
here. I was in the hallway for a little bit, so I don't know exactly if this topic was brought up, but
the one thing that does concern me with any surveillance, like mass surveillance cameras,
is who runs them. And as we've seen with the Epstein files, you know, there are people that exist who
look for very horrific material and of children of people and try to get their hands in every single
large corporation. So just like, you know, Elon Musk, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, they're all,
you know, billionaires are very high up people.
And who's to say that the CEO or the owners of these large surveillance companies are not also involved
in that community of people who look for these horrific things of children and young people, especially
as a female student at IU. It just concerns me that these companies could be affiliated with people
like Epstein. So that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Do we have anybody waiting on Zoom? We do. We have four hands raised right now. OK, great. We'll take
one more from Zoom at the moment, and then we'll come back here in chambers. So on Zoom, you are free
to unmute yourself. And you have three minutes. Hi, everyone. Hope you can hear me. My name is Paul Meyer.
I'm not gonna speak about the impact on minorities or constitutional and civil rights violations caused
by the cameras. I think because those points have been made and will probably be made by others. Instead,
I wanna focus on how these cameras affect people who don't worry about mass surveillance or immigration
or otherwise support their use for law enforcement. Mainly, these cameras are incredibly and demonstrably
insecure. As a previous commenter mentioned, you can find videos online that not only show their security flaws,
but that give instructions on how to access them. There is no two factor authentication in most of these
cameras that have been tested, meaning they have less security than your personal email. So what does
this mean? Anyone with basic technical ability who can follow instructions can access information such
as live camera feeds, historical data tied to vehicle and in some cases face identity, and no information
about government departments that use the system such as tracking every police squad car. This means
that such access could get
anyone the ability to stalk others, including those they know personally or in public life. It could
also allow them to target police officers or simply avoid areas where patrols may be active. Flock has
been documented being unresponsive to providing security patches when vulnerabilities have been identified,
suggesting that they are in the business of information brokering rather than security. So I would ask
that you look into these known issues yourself, consider the risks associated with this wanton mass
surveillance,
and gauge the level of accountability that this government holds when it's wielded against its citizens.
Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll come back here in chambers. We're going to start doing in every
other for now since we have a line on zoom as well now. So you may go next. You have three minutes.
Would I be able to have my time you said okay. Thank you. So yes, my name is Nicholas Heller and I know
this Meeting isn't necessarily about flock. It's about Was it a RPLs in general? and I know that
it is possible that we could use a company that uses this technology perfectly and ethically and honestly.
But as we've seen, people get greedy and it doesn't always work that way. But even if it was used in
a perfectly ethical way, I just don't think that the potential for it to be used badly significantly
outweighs the potential dangers like yes,
Being able to find stolen cars or keep people accountable for traffic violations could be helpful, but
it's not worth it in the long run. I also wanted to talk about the potential effects on the broader
United States and world. I know some of these systems use AI, and
Data centers for AI have a significant pull on electricity and water in the cities that they are in,
which causes a lot of price raising for electricity and water for homes around there. And it sometimes
steals water so people can't even, you know,
get a proper flow through their faucet. And I just think that it's important to note that the decisions
we make in Bloomington could have an effect on the broader community and humanity as a whole, and I
think that's important to note. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll move to our next commenter on
Zoom, please.
Name's Eric. I just thought I would share my experience with a flop camera. I was driving back home
to Bloomington a few months back from northern Indiana, and I was flagged by a flop camera with an errant
report on it due to a clerical error stating that I had no license and that I never had a license actually,
it seemed to say. But as a result, I was pulled over by no less than four state troopers with no violent
history. I have no record of violence.
So you can imagine how this might turn out for a targeted individual. After about 25 minutes, they did
let me go. They let me go because I had a passenger who they said had no problem with their license.
So they let her drive, but they told me that they would arrest me the next day in Bloomington if my
story of having a license ended up not being true. So anyway, that is my story. Take it as you will.
Thank you for sharing next commenter here in chambers. You can go whenever you're ready. You have three
minutes My name is Matt Gleason. I Wanted to start by saying there's no privacy preserving way to do
mass public surveillance but if the city wanted a Way to do that. I feel that the city should have taken
the responsibility for Conducting it in-house with their own cameras their own servers and put the power to
of the system and the responsibility to steward the data and the surveillance in the same hands with
stricter you know and accountability to the city and citizens and City Council as far as data use data
retention and what is done with it. I know there's an argument for these things for use to gather evidence
for use in criminal cases but I feel that if we wanted that power we should
do the work to produce that power of sales rather than outsourcing it to a company that cannot be trusted
to protect our privacy and be accountable to us. Thank you very much. We'll go back to our next commenter
on Zoom, please. Hi. This is Casey Green. I know several of you, you've heard me comment in the past.
I'd like to come from a different perspective, which is that I think this is a good first bare minimum
step and the impacts could not be, you know, overestimated. But I'd like to introduce the question of
what requires us to use the cameras? Like, let's say we can't cancel the contract because city council
can't have that impact.
It feels like we're in a sunk cost bias situation here. I would rather pay for cameras that we require
to be dismantled and stored in a storage unit than deployed. Is there something in the contract that
requires us to deploy the cameras? And if there is, that begs a very different question. So I would
say I would fully support this.
But I would also support us being more creative. And if the mayor would like to continue paying for
cameras that we have dismantled and stored, then let her account for that expenditure herself. All right.
Thank you very much. Next speaker here in chambers. You have three minutes. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Allie Sigelnik. I live and teach and study in Bloomington.
I do really appreciate the resolution once again as that first step towards transparency And given that
the mayor left I want to talk to you as the council more generally about surveillance And I also do
want to take a few seconds of my time to remind all of us that if the mayor did leave because she didn't
want to Listen to us talk about it while it is unfortunate. That doesn't mean we don't have power That
means we have so much power together that she can't even look at us talk Anyway
Not only do we need transparency, we need to divest from flock entirely and think critically
about surveillance at large. As Council person Azari opened up discussion of this resolution with ALPR
and other forms of surveillance
are most often they're advocated with in terms of public safety. And I want to remind all of you that
every time public safety gets brought up as an argument, we need to be really critical of safety for
who and who is supposedly being safer, who is being protected by this.
We know very well that when it comes to flock and many many other surveillance and policing measures,
they do not increase safety They actually increase harm and violence to many and practically all of
us And the only effect on safety in a positive way in quotes is the feelings of safety for the most
marginalized among us
And then the most direct harm and violence comes on the most marginalized, specifically with flock,
as always, black, brown, trans, disabled, immigrants, and more, and all of the many people in our very
town that occupy multiple of those categories all receive the most harm and are already affected by
the flock cameras and the other forms of surveillance we use. So while I appreciate
I appreciate as well that the resolution applies to more vendors than flock because as other people
have pointed out Other companies other programs while they may not be as cartoon cartoonishly evil as
flock They still have the ability to do very similar things and lead us to very similar scary places
So since again since the mayor is no longer in the room with us and all of you are I urge you as council
members to take any hesitancy towards flock specifically towards the specific use of cameras and apply
it to not just new forms of surveillance but the forms of surveillance that have become very normalized
to us as Various studies individual accounts and time and time again It has been proven that those do
not increase safety for the majority of us and actually increase harm
So again, thank you so much. Thank you very much. We're going to move back on over to Zoom for our next
Zoom commenter. Hi, my name is Lindsay Badger. I've lived in Bloomington for 20 years and raised kids here.
I appreciate the resolution and I also want to figure out how the city can follow with the most immediate
and simple direct action to actually terminate the contract. And we have precedent for this. Our community's
desire for the flop contract to end is not unique. We have seen similar contracts end around the country
and in our neighboring states. The town of Evansville near Chicago
had a community response with pressure like this, broke their contract, issued a cease and desist to
FLOC, and interestingly, FLOC reinstated cameras after the contract was canceled without the city's
approval. Evanston as a city then put black bags and tape over FLOC cameras throughout the city, and
this feels like a measure we could take with immediacy. Thank you. All right, thank you very much.
Speaker here in chambers you have three minutes. Thank you Hi, my name is Omar white Long-time Bloomington
resident. I want to echo everything that everyone said here. I don't support flock I don't think we
should think we should cut this contract. I appreciate that the resolution is more wide-ranging than
just flock because
another vendor could come by with something similar, and I think that this is something that does need
to be handled at a wider level. However, also I think there is urgency to get transparency on this contract
and frankly to cancel it. There's so many different reasons to not support this contract that people
have talked about. I agree with all those. One I want to reiterate is the insecurity
of Flock, these cameras have been shown to be hackable, to be insecure, to be available on the open
internet. I'm a software engineer in my day job, for whatever that's worth, I find that appalling, that's
like basic, it seems like Flock is not doing basic due diligence with their products to develop them
in a way that would be secure, regardless of the privacy violations, which are egregious, but the fact
that some guy was able to go with some security researchers and access these cameras, I believe somewhere
in Atlanta,
on the open internet, that's appalling. Come on, no basic security whatsoever. Ben Jordan was the YouTuber
who's put out a video where he worked with these security researchers to find these exploits. I would
encourage you all to go look for it. If you haven't heard about it or seen it already and watch it,
it is very egregious how insecure Flock is in addition to the privacy implications, which I think are
also egregious.
Thank you Thank you very much. We'll move back on over to our next speaker on zoom. Okay, wonderful.
Thank you. Whenever you are ready Nicole Myers you can unmute yourself and speak now Hi, I'm Nicole
I just wanted to say thanks to all the council for staying for this even though the mayor left I think
a lot of us came
mostly to talk to her. It feels like a lot of preaching to the choir. So I really appreciate that everyone
stayed so long to hear their constituents speak. I appreciate the things that some of the council members
have put out publicly about FLOC to help educate everyone and give your opinion about it. I appreciate
what the council president said about, you can't misuse data that doesn't exist. So just the more data
we're collecting on our community, the more likely we are to have it misused in the future.
And also just, I've talked to a lot of my neighbors about FLOC in general to make sure they know what's
going on, people of all sides of the political spectrum, and nobody wants it here. So that's all I have.
All right, thank you very much.
Next speaker here in chambers. Oh, yeah, that's not going to work. There's the smaller microphone. Give
it a try. You can try to pull the other one down. No, go ahead and try the other one. I'm sorry. It's
got to happen. OK, hi. My name is Kylie. I'm a professor here at IU. I'm a grad student. I don't have tenure.
You know, I teach a lot of feminist philosophies in my class. And flock really just fundamentally does
not align with any of the sort of things that I teach in my class. And unfortunately, repetition is
a really important part of learning. So I am going to repeat some of the sentiments that have already
been shared more than once tonight. I would also just like to say there's several students sort of teaching
this course.
We've sort of discussed the topic of discussing ICE. And I know Flock says that they have no sort of
ties to ICE. But if we use our critical thinking skills and rubber brains together, we can sort of connect
the dots there. And it's really alarming when professors and faculty members are afraid to broach a
topic out of fear of losing their job or being penalized for a topic that is
very incredibly important. I use a lot of feminist literature in my class. We talk a lot about Audre
Lorde, so I just wanted to share a quote from her. When we speak, we are afraid our worlds will not
be heard nor welcomed, but when we are silent, we are still afraid so it is better to speak.
You can see I'm shaking a little bit up here. I didn't plan on speaking, but this is a very, very important
issue to me. This is my first time ever coming to city council meeting. I've taught two classes today.
I've attended two classes. I'm tired as shit. It's 946. We talk about reproductive justice on Wednesday.
ICE and FLOG, these are very, very much tied to reproductive justice issues.
Directly tied to forced separation from children and their families. There's limited health care in
these ICE detention centers. There's a lack of conformed intent and historically tied to forced sterilization
and it's not going to take long if it hasn't already happened now. Flock and other mass surveillance
make it easier for ICE to abduct people off the streets. The mayor met privately with Flock. Again,
not here, but can meet privately with Flock.
Very interesting, but has not publicly committed to end Bloomington's policies. And their $250,000 contract
for already over 40 cameras. ICE relies on mass surveillance like FLOC with and without a warrant to
attack poor and immigrant communities. The only way to ensure ICE cannot access their surveillance data
is to stop collecting it all together. Thank you, this is bullshit, good night.
Thank you very much. We'll move back over to Zoom. Do we have another commenter? We are no longer anybody
in line on Zoom, so we'll go back here into chambers. Thank you very much for your patience. Very good.
Hello, my name is Seaforth. I'm a... We need the microphone on for Zoom attendees to hear.
Is there a happy middle ground we can find with the microphone height? Yes, you're good. Go ahead. Hello,
my name is Seaforth. I'm a long-time Bloomington resident. I've already spoken before the council before
at a previous meeting about one of the flaw cameras being directly over my front porch, and y'all had
mentioned in that meeting that y'all remember our points. And so I'd like to focus on a slightly different
one, which is to
circle background to our earlier discussion about Hopewell Commons, about accessibility, and about the
fact that we have a real struggle right now in our community of folks leaving it. And the reason why
I want to tie it to Flock is the idea that this security theater, this apparatus, it has
a tie-in impact to forcing people away. When folks look at Indiana or Bloomington as a specific location
to move to or to stay in during these trying times that we are going through right now, this is an aspect
of that that they look at. We can get everything else right in our community, and I've been to a couple
of different meetings now trying to give input on
the zoning or on the transit corridors, like the idea of changing college and Walnut, and those steps,
those things make an impact in bringing folks into our community, right? But if we fail on an aspect
like flock, that erases everything, right? The idea that you can have folks who would otherwise be looking
to be here,
But when they realize that, oh, I looked up Bloomington, Indiana, and in the news cycle is some abusive
flock that comes up, like many of these other communities are having right now, like mentioning Atlanta,
Georgia, or some of these smaller communities, where local officers have used flock to track ex-girlfriends.
When somebody looks up a community,
and they see that the surveillance technology is present and that it is being misused or that it is
being used exactly as intended by the folks who own these companies, which is to roll out operations
like ICE is doing, like it has a downward impact. It permanently affixes in the minds of people that
this city has compromised essential values
of freedom. And so when I think about IU as an example, where they are constantly in the news cycle
for steps they are taking to curtail academic freedom, or of calling in state troopers to drag people
out, or having drones over protesters following them to their cars. That is all people think about IU.
Thank you. Thank you. All right, next speaker here at the podium. Go ahead, you have three minutes.
All right. I got inspired by a bunch of these folks. Wonderful. Oh, I'm sorry. I just got inspired by
a bunch of these folks here to speak up about what's going on. Oh, I forgot to say my name. My name's
Akhil, and I'm a student here. And I just want to ask you something. What kind of precedent are you
trying to set here? And so far, what I've seen,
that the mayor not being here sets a precedence the precedence of cowardice it sets a precedence of
Capitulation to capital it shows that you don't that you just don't care about the civil liberties of
like the residents here and as The blue dot one of the few blue counties in this state I think that
it's your responsibility to show that you y'all have a spine and
that y'all are willing to stand up to civil injustices, to this Trump administration, to fascism. So
I just wanted to say, what do you think you should do to show that you have a spine? And I want you
to just think about that and to please, I implore you to be a role model to other counties in this area
and in other states
to fight back against these civil injustices. Thanks. Thank you very much. Do we have anybody waiting
on Zoom? Anybody else raise their hand on Zoom? All right, we'll take it back here to chambers. You
have three minutes. Thank you. Hi. My name is Dean Bolstridge. I am a freshman here at IU, and I've
been here for pretty much my entire life. And I would just like to reiterate a lot of the stuff that
we've already heard.
urge you to take as much action as you can as with the motions that you have already put in place with
the the transparency the urging of transparency with these cameras is very valuable as well as as the
president has stated about how it is important to properly implement technology like this
I would like to urge the importance of taking as much action as possible right now, as all of that would
be very valuable if they were not already here. The cameras are already in Bloomington, and as we've
heard from that Zoom caller, are already taking negative effects. And I just think that that is really
horrible that we were not able to take this along
egregious process to properly implement things as We should be able to and Yeah, I urge you to take
as much action as possible and In your power and I'm really really sad to see that the mayor is not
here to hear all of this. Thank you All right, thank you very much next speaker here in chambers, please
step up you have three minutes Thank you very much
Hello everyone, my name is Benjamin Arrington and I'm serving running to serve as your next prosecuting
attorney for Monroe County Benjamin Franklin as I'm fond of the name Once said that those who are Those
who would give up their essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety
And when I think of flock cameras and I think about every time you step out of your house and you drive
your car, you're being supervised, we need to say no to flock. I wanna thank the council for staying
late to listen to all of these public comments and I wanna thank all of the people who are here to support
their voice and to let the elected officials know that you care and you're here to speak.
So power to the people. Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you for everyone. And let's be a bright
star to be a blue dot in our red desert. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Did we have another
speaker here in chambers? No? Doesn't look like it. OK. Anybody on Zoom with their hand raised? Have
we reached the end of the line? Any last takers? It's OK. All right.
So we're done with public comment. Thank you all very very much for sharing your insights and your passion
I Know we really appreciated hearing from all of you. So thank you very much. So now we're going to
move to Councilmember comment councilmember Zulek question All right. Do we have a second? Second.
All right. We have a motion to call to question. Is this debatable? I think not
So I guess we take a vote on this now right if we call to question we just vote Clerk Williamson, would
you mind calling the roll? Yes, sorry, yes daily
Yes Rallo Point of order this is a Calling the question without debate on the resolution Right, we're
voting whether or not we're gonna vote right now, okay. All right. I appreciate the clarification then so
Call to question councilmember. Sorry seconded it. So we're voting on calling to question Call the question
then we have to vote Do I never write to that's what call the question is It's not debatable yes for
the yes, I support the resolution That's
May I change my vote then? So what are we voting on? I think there was a motion to call the question
and that's being voted on at this point. I moved to call the question. We're voting on calling the question.
Madam Clerk, may I change my vote then?
I've never experienced that. So I don't know enough to say no. Can we just restart the vote? Yeah, I
think that would be the best option. Yes, let's restart the vote. Thank you. We did that the other week
where some members changed their mind and we re-voted. So let's start the vote from the beginning again.
Councilmember Stossberg. Can I just clarify, because I think that there's some confusion up here. I
believe that we need a two-thirds majority to call the question. Is that correct, Council-Attorney Layner?
Roberts for this Because I mean it's basically saying we're stopping debate and we're gonna vote on
the ordinance right now without any time for councilmember comment So that's what we're voting on if
we vote. Yes, then we're not gonna have any councilmember comment
Any further discussion we're just going to vote on the actual resolution and if we vote no Then we want
to have some kind of a comment. It is a two-thirds vote required to adopt Thank you. And so it's a two-thirds
majority needs to approve Voting right now without additional opportunity for councilmember comment
So we asked what happens if it doesn't pass
Then then we can have debate like we could have closing councilmember comments, for example, okay So
on the table we have call to question, so we're going to vote on that now That is what we're voting
on whether or not we're going to vote Thank you. All right councilmember P. Monsmith. No Zulik. Yes.
Sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes, brah. No rough. No Rosenberger. Yes
Yes Salzburg no So it fails five to four if I have that correct so then we Move to bait final comments.
I'm going to enforce our rule that we never enforce which is we have seven minutes total if that's If
we're ready for that we have do we have a seven-minute timer I
Five and then two five and then two for follow-ups. So it's a seven total councilmember Stossberg. I
just really I wanted to have an opportunity to comment because I feel like that gives respect to the
many many people who
came out and commented. So I at least wanted to say thank you all for coming out and commenting and
expressing to us your thoughts on that. And second, I wanted to take just a minute to talk a very short
minute about my personal evolution on how I feel about FLOC. Because six, seven months ago, I really
appreciate how several commenters kind of had that
That you know in my mind it became a scale of benefit on one side and consequence on the other so six
seven months ago I was like, well, I think the benefits are there and then that slowly started to shift
and and it has shifted most dramatically recently with I think it's SB 76 requiring local law enforcements
to cooperate with with federal immigration officers and and if
I had confidence that our federal immigration officers were actually acting as responsible law enforcement
officers who were protecting the rights of individuals, then maybe that would be okay, but I don't have
confidence in that right now.
Benefit consequence shift has you know been slowly changing But that was one thing that it just kind
of pretty immediately like pushed me over the edge because we can't share it if we don't have it and
it makes everybody less safe, so I appreciate getting the chance to say that because you know I've responded
to a couple emails that a couple of things because I'm liking I'm I'm learning about this issue and
I feel about it is shifting and I feel like that that has been a dramatic like few months of change
and evolution in terms of understanding security issues I love that our software developer over there
pointing out security issues because I Also have lived. I've been married to a software developer for
20 years So that is just a regular thing And so I just I really appreciate everybody coming out and
and sharing their viewpoint. So thank you very much Thank you
Thanks, I appreciate everyone staying in the late hour and I really appreciate you all speaking out
in support of civil liberties So many good comments this evening had it quite an impact on me actually
Remembering such things as the Patriot Act which this council opposed back in 2003 and just this steadily
normalization of government secrecy erosion free speech dissenters being targeted all that contextually
is important and
So we're essentially living in a society where total surveillance is the goal and It is real that is
the hallmark of the totalitarian state So to whatever extent we can push back we have to do it I Don't
want to live in a digital panopticon. I don't think anyone should So I appreciate this council resolution my
Our council president sorry his resolution very well thought out wonder if it goes far enough I think
that the case has been made tonight that we don't need this we don't need flock cameras and we should
think of defunding it and So that's what I look to is the next step. Thank you Any other council comment
down this end councilmember Rosenberger
I don't always tend to talk a lot because I think we have all been here a really long time So it gets
harder to find it useful in the end. I Love what a lot of you said and I agree that this next step needs
to be an ordinance and not just a resolution we have a long list is getting longer of a history with
this administration that
Doesn't necessarily do what council intends we have ordinances that aren't really getting followed already
So I think a resolution is a great first step and it's clear that this is what the community wants and
we should just push it forward to make it More real. Thank you. Thank you any other council member comments
council member Stossberg
I'm sorry. This is my second two minutes But I feel like I would be remiss to also add something that
I didn't hear tonight that I want to make sure that I Go on the record as supporting and what I didn't
hear was residents saying we're scared that our police department is misusing this data because I'm
did I hear that a little bit I I feel
some trust in our police department that they are not misusing this data in terms of the procedures
and protocols that they have to go through within their department in order to get it and that's the
part that is you know, but like I said the consequence of having to cooperate of not having secure cameras
like outweighs that but I just wanted to like I support our officers in their intentions around this
technology that is problematic any other council comments
Councilmember Flaherty and then councilmember Piedmont Smith right after that Yeah, just briefly also
to say thank you to folks for speaking up for being here for emailing us contacting us I think reiterating
this is a step. It's a next step in the development of durable rules that can be well crafted Information
gathering is part of that. I think it's really important for us to that step and especially do it formally with
Request the information from the mayor formally from the police chief formally, which are their statutory
obligation to provide to us As when we request that information in fact in my six years of service I
think this is the first time we've gone through the step of using a resolution to formally
request information Because the structure and the details of it are important in that way. So I don't
think that's the end I think it's the next step in the process to developing local rules, which are
the council's responsibility And a legislative purview. So, thank you
I really appreciate everybody staying late and sharing, especially your personal experiences and your
different perspectives on the flock cameras. I have already come out publicly a month ago against the
flock contract. I'll just read a couple paragraphs from my letter to Mayor Thompson on February 12th.
As local elected officials, we have many responsibilities, including to uphold the civil rights of all residents
hold criminals to account, and support an environment in which people feel secure. Meanwhile, we live
in a country where Department of Homeland Security agents and agencies have both individually
and systematically violated free speech rights, used violence to intimidate and kill protesters out
of all proportion to threats to their own safety, ignored legal due process, and sown fear throughout
hundreds of neighborhoods. It is in this context that I write to you regarding the city's contracts
with Flock Safety,
For automatic license plate readers and other security camera systems, collecting license plate data
and or other individually identifiable data puts our residents at risk, since there's no way we can
guarantee that data collected by a third party will not be misused, nor can we guarantee that the security
of this data won't be compromised. FLOC safety in particular has a poor record in these areas. And then
I give various examples, some of them that were mentioned tonight, where FLOC has been
bad actor So I I mean I agree I agree with my colleagues that we need more information about our contract
in particular I'm very skeptical that that will change my mind as far as my opinion That we need to
end the contract But I do appreciate councilmember. I'm sorry writing a very
Well thought out resolution as a first step and and we will have further steps after this. Thank you
All right, thank you very much now we're gonna move over to councilmember rough has a quick something
I just want to say not only did I really appreciate hearing all the comments from the public I also
enjoyed hearing the comments at the end of the meeting here from my colleagues and
this resolution and about what we might do next and I will always just for future reference I will always
vote for more opportunities for councilmembers to make comments if they have something to say and I
want to thank councilmember sorry and councilmember Smith, but councilmember sorry has some real expertise
and background in this general area of technology use of it and misuse of it and
So when I when he very early on Made it clear that he was taking interest in in taking an action for
the council or sponsoring an action or council I had a lot of confidence in in what he would he would
do and what we'll do next. So, thank you
Thank you all so much council members and to the public for being here, for staying here. Again, we
moved pretty quick, generally speaking, but thankful for your patience here.
One thing that I'll note is, I think, the broader context, I think, in which all of this is happening.
I think there were a couple of comments that noted, for example, that we live in a society where me
having access to your telephone number, I can violate a lot more of your privacy than I might be able
to with an ALPR system. Okay, so we're talking, we're not overreacting here to one type of technology,
but to me, there's a broader question here, which is,
Right now...
We're also living in a time where there's something like 300 new AI apps coming onto the market, like
commercial market, every single day at the moment. And cities really cannot keep pace with the pace
of change in technology. And I think what concerns me as using Flock as a case study here is that we
sort of slid into a relationship with a company where it was just sort of like, well, they're the only
one to do it, I guess, because they were the first one that said hi, right, which is sort of
I met my wife when I was 15. She was the first girlfriend I had, because she was the first person that
spoke to me. And we've been together ever since. But living in a time where you just slide into fairly
serious commitments that then increase. It starts with one, and then two, and then you have 40, without
us ever thinking about that. And so I think Linus's law says that if there's
a lot of eyeballs, then every bug will be shallow. And so I really think that what we need to do as
a university town with so much expertise, with so much interest is to create the mechanisms by which
all types of engagements that we may do as a city, not just
right now, but for the next 10, 20, 30 years, that it gives us as a community the opportunity to govern,
the opportunity to speak, because ultimately that's what local government is about. And so, again, thank
you for demonstrating all of that today. This is, you know, nerdy and fun. But more importantly,
it's about, you know, critical issues about what it means to be an American in a digital society, what
it means to be a resident in the United States in a digital society. So just so, so grateful for all
of your earnest participation
today. Thank you. Well it's practically impossible to follow up what President Asari said and sound
any better than him but I just wanted to just I'll take a brief moment then too and just say I'm really
really grateful to all of you.
For being here, for speaking so passionately, each and every single one of you said something that spoke
to my heart and that I agreed with, and I found common sense in everything. It's very, very scary for
us as a body to sit up here in front of a big angry crowd. Whether you're here because you agree with
us or not, it's still scary. So I really appreciate you guys coming out and sharing your hearts with
us, and I am looking forward to this just being the first step.
Because I think we can move on to bigger and better things and we're gonna we're gonna all band together
and make this world better So thank you with that. Let's move to a vote on resolution 20 2604. Thank
you Councilmember Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes, Rallo. Yes rough. Yes, Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes
Stalsberg yes, you don't miss yes That passes unanimously nine to zero gavel back to president. Sorry. Thank you
All right, two more things to go, y'all. We have one more additional period of public comment. And so
this is a maximum of 25 minutes allotted. If you have not commented in the first section, which I don't
think anybody did, but if you'd like to comment on things that were not on the agenda, now is your chance.
Again, please sign in, say your name or alias, and we will recognize you. Is there anybody in chambers
who would like to give a comment on something not on the agenda? Seeing none, is there anyone online? No.
There is no one online, then we move ahead to issues of council schedule. A very quick thing, so on
March 11th, everyone, is our deliberation session. I'm asking...
Please tell me your opinions here if we can do a special session just a 30-minute special session To
act on some deliberations by the hiring committee At six o'clock. So just appending a special session
to our Session is that okay? with Please that councilmember Rosenberg I guess I just don't ever think it
30-minute meeting is okay. I mean we have to be here at 630 So then we have to kind of leave at 620.
I do think 530 is better Okay, I I'm not opposed to that if Does anybody feel the same? Councilman Rizouk
has trouble getting maybe we may 545 with that suffice The day before right, okay
Okay, so 545 Anybody opposed Okay, everybody. So we'll we'll I'll work with the clerk and council staff and
the waning moments to get that scheduled. But I'm so, so very grateful. And again, echoing the comments
of Council Member Stosberg earlier, we are so very grateful for Attorney Lehner and Attorney Bennett.
This is their last public meeting with us. Thank you for your service to the council. Thank you to your
service to the city of Bloomington. And we hope that you continue to be vibrant participants. We'll look
for you on the online comments. But we're so very grateful for everything that you've done. So everybody,
please join me in applauding. With that, any other issues of council schedule? Seeing none, we are adjourned.