WEBVTT 00:00:00.450 --> 00:00:11.283 - I would like to call this meeting of the Common Council on whatever day it is, this August 5th, to order. 00:00:11.283 --> 00:00:21.708 - Will the clerk please call the roll? Yes, Council Member Stosberg? Here. Piedmont Smith? Here. Zulek? 00:00:21.708 --> 00:00:28.862 - Here. Asari? Here. Daly? Here. Rallo? Here. I'm sorry, I didn't hear. 00:00:31.842 --> 00:00:41.097 - Okay, we'll come back to you when you get your sound fixed rough here Rosenberger here Flaherty is absent 00:00:41.097 --> 00:00:47.646 - and back to councilmember rough or Rallo. Did we get your sound? Thank you 00:00:48.226 --> 00:00:55.475 - Excellent the agendas are posted there on the clerk's desk on the front doors as well today We that's 00:00:55.475 --> 00:01:02.652 - a fairly straightforward meeting. We have a handful of reports I'm including a report from the mayor 00:01:02.652 --> 00:01:10.043 - a report from council committees and then some issues related to appointments to boards and commissions 00:01:10.043 --> 00:01:17.150 - and we have one in one item for first reading which will we will possibly discuss today and we have 00:01:17.282 --> 00:01:26.325 - three items for second reading two ordinances and one resolution. There'll be two times of public comment. 00:01:26.325 --> 00:01:34.945 - And so we eagerly look forward to all of that. So with that do yes please. I move to amend the agenda 00:01:34.945 --> 00:01:43.988 - to move any reports about hiring which is currently added to number five to move that to council committee 00:01:43.988 --> 00:01:46.270 - reports under number four. 00:01:49.666 --> 00:02:03.891 - Sure. Second. All right. There's a motion in a second. Any discussion. All right. Will clerk Colleen 00:02:03.891 --> 00:02:19.102 - please call the roll. Clerk Williamson. Thank you. Notice. Here. Yes. I was like what am I doing. Yes. Yes. 00:02:19.234 --> 00:02:30.336 - Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rough. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Okay. That that carries. So we'll 00:02:30.336 --> 00:02:41.544 - be moving items relevant to hiring from item five into the item for seat. Any other motions. Okay. Seeing 00:02:41.544 --> 00:02:46.302 - none or do any council members have reports. 00:02:49.154 --> 00:02:50.782 - Councilmember Stasberg. 00:02:51.522 --> 00:02:57.946 - Yes sorry I I don't feel as organized tonight as I usually feel but I did want to make sure to announce 00:02:57.946 --> 00:03:04.308 - again that this Saturday I will be at the farmers market between 9 and 11 at the den booth in case any 00:03:04.308 --> 00:03:10.732 - constituents or any other residents of Bloomington want to come and chat with me about anything at all. 00:03:10.732 --> 00:03:17.032 - I would love for you to stop by. There's always lots of things going on with city business. So I hope 00:03:17.032 --> 00:03:20.862 - to have some great conversations on Saturday morning. Thanks. 00:03:23.746 --> 00:03:30.440 - Councilmember Zulik then Piedmont Smith. Thank you I have spent quite a bit of time on constituent services 00:03:30.440 --> 00:03:36.701 - related to parking this week There has been a change in distribution of neighborhood parking permits 00:03:36.701 --> 00:03:43.271 - to include only residents living in a single-family unit Apparently the Bloomington Municipal Code limits 00:03:43.271 --> 00:03:49.593 - eligibility to residents of a single household attached dwelling however in years past parking passes 00:03:49.593 --> 00:03:53.374 - were distributed to residents and multifamily residences and 00:03:54.210 --> 00:03:59.808 - along with single family. This change in enforcement came from the surge in newly constructed homes, 00:03:59.808 --> 00:04:05.406 - so they have opted to audit each property sent in to check the registration status of said property. 00:04:05.954 --> 00:04:11.039 - I've heard from several tenants, property owners, property management companies that this enforcement 00:04:11.039 --> 00:04:16.323 - change took them by complete surprise and that they were expecting to be able to receive the same parking 00:04:16.323 --> 00:04:21.409 - permits that they had in years past. And I believe as a local government, we do have a responsibility 00:04:21.409 --> 00:04:26.543 - to this community to inform people of decisions that will impact them with enough time to come up with 00:04:26.543 --> 00:04:31.828 - a new plan. The time to discover that you can't receive a parking pass should not be the week that you're 00:04:31.828 --> 00:04:33.822 - trying to move into your new apartment. 00:04:34.594 --> 00:04:41.791 - Single-family homes are also more likely than other residences to come with parking already simultaneously 00:04:41.791 --> 00:04:49.189 - the notion that only single-family home Residents are eligible for neighborhood parking permits is Unsettling 00:04:49.189 --> 00:04:56.184 - to me the government should not be in a position to dictate who does and doesn't get to own a car based 00:04:56.184 --> 00:04:58.942 - on the type of residents they live in so 00:04:59.970 --> 00:05:05.644 - I'm going to continue to collect information on this and I hope to identify a solution for our residents 00:05:05.644 --> 00:05:11.265 - in this but also work with city staff to establish better procedures for communicating big changes like 00:05:11.265 --> 00:05:16.777 - this within our community. It's not always about what we do but how we do it. And so I also just want 00:05:16.777 --> 00:05:22.181 - to say I look forward to hearing the presentation tonight. And that concludes my report. Thank you. 00:05:22.181 --> 00:05:27.639 - Thank you so much. Councilmember Smith. Yes. A couple of things. First of all I will have my monthly 00:05:27.639 --> 00:05:28.990 - constituent meeting this 00:05:29.122 --> 00:05:36.875 - Saturday at 11 on zoom so after you stop by and talk to councilmember Stossberg at the market you can 00:05:36.875 --> 00:05:44.552 - hop on zoom and talk with me of course we are different districts, but I Always encourage especially 00:05:44.552 --> 00:05:52.306 - district one residents to come to my meeting, but everybody's welcome The link is on the City Council 00:05:52.306 --> 00:05:54.206 - website I also wanted to 00:05:57.442 --> 00:06:05.233 - talk about a couple of things from the redevelopment commission meeting that was held on Monday. So 00:06:05.233 --> 00:06:13.258 - I'm the city council liaison to the redevelopment commission. I was at the meeting on Monday where two 00:06:13.258 --> 00:06:21.204 - things of interest happened. First of all they voted to establish a new Hopewell economic development 00:06:21.204 --> 00:06:26.814 - area which will then come to the council for approval that then enables 00:06:27.394 --> 00:06:35.855 - funding mechanisms like residential TIF. It's similar to when the Summit District and Shasta Meadows 00:06:35.855 --> 00:06:44.484 - came before us in April that we approved that designation as an economic development area for building 00:06:44.484 --> 00:06:52.944 - housing there. So that should be coming to us soon. And then secondly, two proposals for the College 00:06:52.944 --> 00:06:56.798 - Square site were presented on Monday evening. 00:06:57.154 --> 00:07:08.218 - One of them seems to be a total non-starter because it depends on the CIB to participate and the CIB 00:07:08.218 --> 00:07:19.392 - has already gone a different direction with their convention center hotel and therefore this proposal 00:07:19.392 --> 00:07:26.622 - by Concord Hospitality which depends on getting land from the CIB 00:07:26.882 --> 00:07:38.014 - really is just not feasible. The other proposal from Dora Hospitality would be, which is the group that 00:07:38.014 --> 00:07:48.931 - was selected by the CIB for the Convention Center Hotel, proposes another hotel, boutique hotel, plus 00:07:48.931 --> 00:07:53.534 - 80 to 100 units of housing at market rate. 00:07:54.242 --> 00:08:01.672 - So there I failed to see the public benefit and they would only pay eventually four million dollars 00:08:01.672 --> 00:08:09.398 - for a property that costs the city seven million dollars. So I was disappointed that these are not good 00:08:09.398 --> 00:08:16.977 - proposals and hopefully the RDC will carefully consider the option of doing a new call for proposals. 00:08:16.977 --> 00:08:22.846 - So that is my report. Thank you so much. Any other council member Rosenberger. 00:08:23.202 --> 00:08:31.195 - Hi, thanks. I just thought after councilmember Zulix I would add a little bit about cars somewhere at 00:08:31.195 --> 00:08:39.579 - the city. We have a data point that House owner occupied households have more cars than rental households. 00:08:39.579 --> 00:08:47.885 - Thank you. Any others. All right. Seeing none. We'll now move on to reports from the office of the mayor. 00:08:47.885 --> 00:08:51.646 - Oh Councilmember Smith. I'm sorry. I'd like to. 00:08:51.746 --> 00:08:58.715 - make a motion before we move into the other reports. I would like to move that we make an exception 00:08:58.715 --> 00:09:05.893 - to our usual processes and allow allow the period of open public comment under 4 D of the agenda allow 00:09:05.893 --> 00:09:13.141 - individuals to comment on the parking study even though it is on our agenda. Normally we wouldn't allow 00:09:13.141 --> 00:09:15.998 - that because it's on the agenda. Second. 00:09:16.386 --> 00:09:25.310 - Thank you. Motion and a second. Any discussion. Can we have a friendly amendment to also allow members 00:09:25.310 --> 00:09:34.408 - of the public to comment on the other report from the mayor's office. The community survey report. Sure. 00:09:34.408 --> 00:09:43.938 - OK thank you. Any other discussion. All right. Seeing none will the court please call the roll. Councilmember 00:09:43.938 --> 00:09:45.758 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. 00:09:46.338 --> 00:09:55.546 - Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Rough. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Thank you. Excellent. 00:09:55.546 --> 00:10:04.586 - So that means that during the time of public comment you can feel free to comment on the following reports 00:10:04.586 --> 00:10:06.782 - that we're about to hear. 00:10:07.426 --> 00:10:16.280 - About the community survey and the other on parking rates. So with that we welcome a mayor Carrie Thompson 00:10:16.280 --> 00:10:24.554 - To the podium say your name, please for the record sign in that type of stuff I am Carrie Thompson. 00:10:24.554 --> 00:10:32.912 - I am mayor here in Bloomington and I am going to Get back to presenting general reports once a month 00:10:32.912 --> 00:10:33.822 - to council 00:10:33.922 --> 00:10:40.658 - because I think it's a good way to keep you all in the loop on general city business that doesn't float 00:10:40.658 --> 00:10:47.264 - up onto your agenda and just keep the lines of collaboration and communication wide open. It gives us 00:10:47.264 --> 00:10:52.510 - all a really useful line of sight to the broader work that we're doing together. 00:10:52.674 --> 00:11:00.487 - And the first two things that I want to highlight tonight are that we reached two really important 00:11:00.487 --> 00:11:08.931 - Accreditations over the past couple of weeks first since 2023 our Public Works Department has been working 00:11:08.931 --> 00:11:15.166 - on getting a hundred percent rate of full compliance on accreditation and they 00:11:15.266 --> 00:11:25.435 - achieved that and it was a lot of work to get there and so I know we have Director Wason with us tonight 00:11:25.435 --> 00:11:29.406 - and congratulations on that achievement. 00:11:30.018 --> 00:11:38.476 - And then we also have Chief DeKoff with us tonight, and the police department was once again awarded 00:11:38.476 --> 00:11:47.186 - Tier 1 accreditation. This is the third time that they have reached Tier 1 CALEA accreditation. So it's 00:11:47.186 --> 00:11:53.886 - a huge deal. Only about 5% of police departments get this certification, and it 00:11:54.146 --> 00:12:02.036 - It shows how exemplary our police department is. And on top of that, they're increasing traffic enforcement 00:12:02.036 --> 00:12:09.562 - these days ahead of the start of school, helping to get all of those safe routes to school even safer. 00:12:09.562 --> 00:12:13.726 - So thank you, Chief DeKoff, for your leadership on that. 00:12:15.266 --> 00:12:22.856 - I also wanted to give an update quickly on Showers West. We have now reached agreement with all of the 00:12:22.856 --> 00:12:30.373 - remaining tenants, and so there's a plan for them to depart. We currently have, obviously, the common 00:12:30.373 --> 00:12:32.510 - council over in Showers West 00:12:32.674 --> 00:12:42.079 - Engineering and the fire headquarters our administration headquarters are there and we are in the process 00:12:42.079 --> 00:12:50.951 - of Assessing what other city departments will go there it is the the bond restricts us from renting 00:12:50.951 --> 00:12:59.646 - to private lessees and so we had to Stop doing that. We were out of compliance with that bond and 00:13:00.130 --> 00:13:09.823 - And we also have no further bond to spend over there. But Showers West still needs improvements before 00:13:09.823 --> 00:13:19.327 - future offices can be inhabited. Needs over a million dollars of HVAC updates and a lot of wiring to 00:13:19.327 --> 00:13:28.926 - get Wi-Fi, et cetera, in there. We are looking at best uses for that in terms of departments that are 00:13:29.666 --> 00:13:37.325 - sort of cubby hold right now and making sure that we get a good plan together. You'll be hearing more 00:13:37.325 --> 00:13:44.835 - about that over the coming couple of months. But we did expend that public safety bond in the order 00:13:44.835 --> 00:13:52.344 - that was prioritized when it was approved. And that prioritized the fire expenditures first. And so 00:13:52.344 --> 00:13:59.102 - all of those have been expended and that did take the balance of that public safety bond. 00:13:59.714 --> 00:14:08.916 - And ending on another good note, Ready 2.0, we were awarded a combined $7 million grant in Ready 2.0 00:14:08.916 --> 00:14:18.026 - grant funding, $4 million in matching financial and in-kind support from IU and project partners to 00:14:18.026 --> 00:14:26.590 - do creative, affordable artist studios in the Showers Admin Building, not to be confused with 00:14:27.266 --> 00:14:34.612 - This showers building showers north or showers west. This is a building just north of 10th and Morton. 00:14:34.612 --> 00:14:41.744 - And we're really excited about this because it is a great investment in the creative economy that's 00:14:41.744 --> 00:14:48.876 - really starting to boom in Bloomington. So we're bringing more arts activity to Switchyard Park and 00:14:48.876 --> 00:14:50.302 - this incubator will 00:14:50.562 --> 00:14:56.885 - Provide business training regional connections and new professional opportunities and is Jane Cooper 00:14:56.885 --> 00:15:03.208 - Smith still here Jane worked really hard on that. So Thanks to Jane and Paige. That's all I have for 00:15:03.208 --> 00:15:09.281 - you Thank you very much council members any questions for for mayor Thompson, please customer P. 00:15:09.281 --> 00:15:15.542 - Mutsbeth Yes, thank you for this good news about the ready grant. You said there were seven million 00:15:15.542 --> 00:15:16.606 - dollars total in 00:15:16.994 --> 00:15:23.388 - And then you talked about $4 million in matching financial and in-kind support for the Showers Admin 00:15:23.388 --> 00:15:29.783 - Building. What's the other $3 million? $3 million is the grant, and $4 million is the match. It more 00:15:29.783 --> 00:15:36.114 - than matches the $3 million that's coming in. OK. So it's also for the Showers Admin Building. It's 00:15:36.114 --> 00:15:42.445 - all for that arts project, yes. OK. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much, 00:15:42.445 --> 00:15:43.838 - Ms. Thompson. Thanks. 00:15:46.306 --> 00:15:56.030 - Our next presentation is on the community survey results. Director Molina, hello. Passing to you. 00:15:59.586 --> 00:16:07.207 - Cesar de Molina communications director city of Bloomington good evening council members so since 2017 00:16:07.207 --> 00:16:14.680 - the city has partnered with an independent research firm to conduct a biannual community-wide survey 00:16:14.680 --> 00:16:22.153 - so we punted our 2025 scheduled survey to 2026 just given the hefty amount of public engagement that 00:16:22.153 --> 00:16:29.552 - was happening last year with efforts like hands consolidated plan we had our city in place branding 00:16:29.552 --> 00:16:37.584 - initiative and parks and rec master planning which included a community wide survey specifically to 00:16:37.584 --> 00:16:45.696 - parks and administered by equity who is here to present on the results tonight. So please join me in 00:16:45.696 --> 00:16:54.048 - welcoming Jeff Anderson who is the president. Good evening. Can you hear me OK. Yes we can. Great. Well 00:16:54.048 --> 00:16:57.502 - thank you for the opportunity to share the 00:16:57.634 --> 00:17:05.233 - community survey results with the council members and with staff and public. I'm gonna run through very 00:17:05.233 --> 00:17:12.979 - quickly how the survey was conducted and then I'll move into some of the key findings. The community-wide 00:17:12.979 --> 00:17:15.902 - survey included from a random sample of 00:17:16.226 --> 00:17:24.291 - Bloomington residents responses from 561. This was a little bit above our target, which I believe was 00:17:24.291 --> 00:17:32.276 - around 520 or 530. Dates of data collection were from roughly mid February through mid April. And we 00:17:32.276 --> 00:17:39.550 - recruited the participants who were again randomly selected and invited them to participate 00:17:39.714 --> 00:17:47.179 - through email invitations with direct links to the surveys, as well as for those for whom we didn't 00:17:47.179 --> 00:17:54.644 - have an email, sending a postcard or printed mail questionnaire with a prepaid return envelope that 00:17:54.644 --> 00:17:58.302 - they could fill out and send to us. All forms of 00:17:58.498 --> 00:18:05.968 - Outreach included three options in which someone could respond. They could reply online through a URL 00:18:05.968 --> 00:18:13.584 - or a QR code on the mailed invitations. They could complete the printed survey and 41 people chose that 00:18:13.584 --> 00:18:21.128 - option. And we gave everybody a toll free phone number that they could call and complete a survey with 00:18:21.128 --> 00:18:24.350 - one of our actual interviewers, not a robo, 00:18:24.706 --> 00:18:33.243 - not AI, but an actual interviewer, but nobody chose that option. The vast majority chose to complete 00:18:33.243 --> 00:18:41.695 - it online. We then compared our respondent sample of 561 respondents to census data for Bloomington 00:18:41.695 --> 00:18:50.654 - and weighted the respondent sample to align with census figures for region, gender, age, race, ethnicity. 00:18:50.786 --> 00:18:57.819 - whether they own or rent their home and whether or not they have children under the age of 18. These 00:18:57.819 --> 00:19:04.853 - were awaited slightly because the vast majority of respondents are year round Bloomington residents, 00:19:04.853 --> 00:19:11.956 - relatively few IU students completed the survey. And the maximum margin of error for a sample of this 00:19:11.956 --> 00:19:19.268 - size is 4.1%. Everything I'm sharing in the presentation tonight is in the full report and that includes 00:19:19.268 --> 00:19:20.382 - the demographic 00:19:20.514 --> 00:19:28.817 - profile of our survey respondents, as well as the regional distribution and the region definition that 00:19:28.817 --> 00:19:37.039 - we used for our analysis. One of the key questions starting out at the beginning of the survey was to 00:19:37.039 --> 00:19:45.181 - understand how likely a Bloomington resident would be to recommend Bloomington as a place to move or 00:19:45.181 --> 00:19:49.534 - live if somebody asked or was interested in doing so. 00:19:49.890 --> 00:19:57.764 - just under three quarters, 72%, or at least slightly, if not very, or extremely likely to recommend 00:19:57.764 --> 00:20:05.717 - living in Bloomington, much higher than the 18% who gave a low rating below a neutral midpoint score 00:20:05.717 --> 00:20:13.591 - of five. And then the remaining 10% were in that neutral category. And what this distribution means 00:20:13.591 --> 00:20:16.190 - is that for every one person who 00:20:16.546 --> 00:20:24.134 - said they were unlikely to recommend Bloomington as a place to live. You had four people who gave the 00:20:24.134 --> 00:20:32.020 - opposite opinion and said they'd be likely to recommend it. This is a different scale, but we got similar 00:20:32.020 --> 00:20:39.906 - results as in the 2023 survey in which 74% in that survey said they were combined either very or somewhat 00:20:39.906 --> 00:20:43.774 - likely to recommend Bloomington as a place to live. 00:20:45.058 --> 00:20:51.543 - One of the things that we did in this year's survey was make use of open-ended questions. So while there 00:20:51.543 --> 00:20:57.720 - were certain metrics and topics that the city was certainly interested in understanding, we felt it 00:20:57.720 --> 00:21:03.896 - was important to also allow residents to tell us in their own words, what they value and appreciate 00:21:03.896 --> 00:21:10.196 - most about living in Bloomington. And they could give us multiple things. If they mentioned 10 things 00:21:10.196 --> 00:21:13.470 - that they like about living in Bloomington, we coded 00:21:13.762 --> 00:21:21.376 - each of those 10 responses so that we could quantify the results. And you can see the top answers here. 00:21:21.376 --> 00:21:29.355 - The color coding, it shows the groupings by different characteristics. So you can see that the top responses 00:21:29.355 --> 00:21:36.090 - cover a range of attributes that they appreciate or value most about living in Bloomington. 00:21:36.090 --> 00:21:40.190 - The top response, they like the variety of restaurants. 00:21:40.546 --> 00:21:48.259 - The parks, open space, outdoor recreational opportunities was mentioned by 24% as was the ease of getting 00:21:48.259 --> 00:21:55.535 - around either by bike or public transportation or just walking. And likewise, 24% like that they're 00:21:55.535 --> 00:22:02.957 - in a college town that offers sports and cultural activities and young people, as well as the size at 00:22:02.957 --> 00:22:08.414 - 21% with many saying that Bloomington has a small town feel, but has a lot 00:22:08.706 --> 00:22:17.354 - to offer in terms of activities. And you can see the remaining responses here. The full report includes 00:22:17.354 --> 00:22:25.753 - some of those verbatim comments to help clarify those answers. We followed up by asking on the other 00:22:25.753 --> 00:22:29.246 - side what they don't like about living in 00:22:29.410 --> 00:22:37.672 - in Bloomington or what improvements they'd like to see within the city. And again, these are grouped 00:22:37.672 --> 00:22:46.342 - by similar categories, but you can see in this question by far the number one response was about concerns 00:22:46.342 --> 00:22:54.931 - about the lack of affordable housing and how expensive housing has become within the city. 19% expressed 00:22:54.931 --> 00:22:56.158 - concerns about 00:22:56.418 --> 00:23:04.811 - the unhoused population within Bloomington, and then a number of various city services rounded out the 00:23:04.811 --> 00:23:12.959 - top five or six responses, mostly around the condition of streets and sidewalks. Again, echoing the 00:23:12.959 --> 00:23:21.841 - need for more services for less advantaged or homeless population traffic safety, and then more transparency 00:23:21.841 --> 00:23:26.078 - or responsiveness from local government. And again, 00:23:26.338 --> 00:23:36.129 - the full report has verbatim responses. On a series of overall attributes, more specific to that likelihood 00:23:36.129 --> 00:23:45.375 - to recommend, we asked about one satisfaction with these categories that you see here. And as you can 00:23:45.375 --> 00:23:52.990 - see, the vast majority, 67% or more are satisfied with the overall quality of life. 00:23:53.186 --> 00:24:00.853 - the ability to find entertainment and things to do within Bloomington and rating the city as a place 00:24:00.853 --> 00:24:08.521 - to raise a family. Roughly half, a little over the half also gave positive responses for Bloomington 00:24:08.521 --> 00:24:14.366 - as a place to work and retire. The attribute that received the lowest rating 00:24:14.530 --> 00:24:23.499 - is rating Bloomington as a place to start or grow a business. About equal thirds either were dissatisfied, 00:24:23.499 --> 00:24:32.049 - neutral, or satisfied to some level on that attribute. If you look to the far right, however, you can 00:24:32.049 --> 00:24:40.766 - see that 39% weren't familiar enough to rate this attribute. They just weren't familiar or aware enough 00:24:41.026 --> 00:24:48.967 - as to the business environment within Bloomington for a new enterprise. So those satisfaction scores 00:24:48.967 --> 00:24:57.223 - are only based on the 61% who could give a rating. It's important to call out the people who just aren't 00:24:57.223 --> 00:25:02.334 - familiar in those scores. With regard to public services by far, 00:25:02.498 --> 00:25:10.403 - Those that received the highest levels of satisfaction are fire protection, sanitation and curbside 00:25:10.403 --> 00:25:18.467 - collection, followed by police protection and public safety. And then roughly half echoing support or 00:25:18.467 --> 00:25:26.688 - satisfaction with the upkeep in public places, quality of drinking water, snow removal, and storm water 00:25:26.688 --> 00:25:28.190 - management. Again, 00:25:28.642 --> 00:25:34.947 - item that received the lowest satisfaction scores were the physical condition of streets and sidewalks, 00:25:34.947 --> 00:25:39.070 - which echoes one of the top open-ended improvements that residents. 00:25:39.234 --> 00:25:45.846 - cited earlier. And then when we asked about their top two priorities, so beyond their satisfaction, 00:25:45.846 --> 00:25:52.590 - what are they, what are they most concerned about? You can see that three really rose to the top. One 00:25:52.590 --> 00:25:59.466 - of those, the quality of drinking water, which receives somewhat lower scores, police protection, which 00:25:59.466 --> 00:26:05.086 - had a fairly high level of satisfaction. And then again, the one that had the lowest 00:26:05.890 --> 00:26:12.528 - overall ratings, physical condition of streets and sidewalks as the top two priorities that came up 00:26:12.528 --> 00:26:19.366 - most often. For anybody who said these were priorities, but also gave dissatisfaction scores, we asked 00:26:19.366 --> 00:26:26.203 - follow-up questions about what their specific concerns or issues are with those. So those who are most 00:26:26.203 --> 00:26:32.974 - concerned about the quality of drinking water most often cite either their experience with tasting or 00:26:32.974 --> 00:26:34.302 - smelling the water, 00:26:34.498 --> 00:26:41.820 - but also 34% responding to things that they've heard or rumors that they've heard of different conditions 00:26:41.820 --> 00:26:48.797 - of the drinking water. Not so much their direct experience, but some of the information that they've 00:26:48.797 --> 00:26:56.050 - heard. Regarding the lower satisfaction scores, not very many low scores for people who said that police 00:26:56.050 --> 00:27:02.750 - protection and public safety is a top concern, but those who are less satisfied most often cited 00:27:02.882 --> 00:27:10.336 - Seeing illegal drug use out in public, general concerns with the unhoused population, support for the 00:27:10.336 --> 00:27:18.228 - local police, feeling the local police are doing a good job, and then just general safety or crime concerns 00:27:18.228 --> 00:27:25.608 - overall. And then finally, for the physical conditions that are priorities and getting lower scores, 00:27:25.608 --> 00:27:31.454 - it's largely around potholes or uneven street conditions followed by sidewalks. 00:27:31.650 --> 00:27:40.255 - mentioned about half as often as the streets. With regard to various city features, you get very high 00:27:40.255 --> 00:27:49.450 - ratings for the parks, trails, outdoor recreational opportunities. Almost all respondents, 85% are satisfied 00:27:49.450 --> 00:27:57.886 - with those options. Almost as many with the cultural and entertainment environment in the city, 76% 00:27:58.114 --> 00:28:06.403 - are satisfied with overall personal safety. You get slightly lower who are completely satisfied, more 00:28:06.403 --> 00:28:14.937 - who are in that somewhat satisfied range. And what this is telling us is that while people have concerns 00:28:14.937 --> 00:28:23.876 - about safety, their own experience has been pretty satisfactory in general. And then the remaining attributes 00:28:23.876 --> 00:28:26.558 - that you can see there round out 00:28:27.458 --> 00:28:35.937 - the other conditions that we mentioned, again, with availability of affordable housing being the biggest 00:28:35.937 --> 00:28:44.013 - negative that they're seeing regarding life in Bloomington with a majority 76% who are dissatisfied 00:28:44.013 --> 00:28:52.734 - with affordable housing. And then the top priorities that they would like the city to take on in addressing 00:28:52.734 --> 00:28:56.126 - those concerns, not surprisingly removing 00:28:56.290 --> 00:29:04.651 - barriers to develop more affordable housing rounds out the top tier followed by attracting employers 00:29:04.651 --> 00:29:13.425 - or those offering better paying jobs and doing more to attract younger adults and families to Bloomington 00:29:13.425 --> 00:29:21.952 - and more support for small businesses and startups. So largely around housing and some of the economic 00:29:21.952 --> 00:29:24.766 - and cultural options in the city. 00:29:26.274 --> 00:29:32.850 - Satisfaction scores with transportation and mobility are generally very favorable, especially the ease 00:29:32.850 --> 00:29:39.426 - of getting around by car and bicycle. You have just over half who are satisfied with those. People are 00:29:39.426 --> 00:29:46.002 - a little more divided on the ease of using public transportation. But again, to the far right, you can 00:29:46.002 --> 00:29:52.450 - see that 31% are really familiar with and probably not using public transportation. So they couldn't 00:29:52.450 --> 00:29:54.046 - really offer a response. 00:29:54.370 --> 00:30:01.767 - somewhat divided responses on the availability of downtown parking. And we added questions this year 00:30:01.767 --> 00:30:09.530 - about the ease of getting around for those with special needs and the availability of accessible downtown 00:30:09.530 --> 00:30:17.000 - parking for that population. Lower scores, but again, about half on the far right are just simply not 00:30:17.000 --> 00:30:23.006 - familiar with those conditions for that population and couldn't offer a response. 00:30:24.898 --> 00:30:33.034 - With regards to the top priorities for streets and sidewalks and infrastructure, again, road repair, 00:30:33.034 --> 00:30:41.251 - repaving, pothole issues came up as the top response, sidewalk repair ranked second. And then further 00:30:41.251 --> 00:30:49.548 - down, you can see connecting sidewalks with new sections, seldom a number one priority, but oftentimes 00:30:49.548 --> 00:30:54.462 - a secondary priority behind road repair and sidewalk repair. 00:30:54.594 --> 00:31:03.182 - more paths and trails for walking and hiking rounded out the top four. In terms of engagement with the 00:31:03.182 --> 00:31:11.603 - community, at least 50, at least half, 52% said that they had recently contacted a city staff member 00:31:11.603 --> 00:31:20.357 - or department about an issue or topic or question. About a quarter had viewed or attended a city council 00:31:20.357 --> 00:31:22.942 - meeting or department meeting. 00:31:23.042 --> 00:31:31.711 - and the 9% had participated in or attended a city-sponsored public comment event. Consistently, homeowners 00:31:31.711 --> 00:31:40.055 - were more likely to take part in these types of engagement than renters, not surprisingly. As well as- 00:31:40.055 --> 00:31:45.726 - Thanks so much, Mr. Anderson. I want to give plenty of time for both. 00:31:45.890 --> 00:31:53.289 - plenty of public comment and maybe we'll have some responses and also lots of time for council members 00:31:53.289 --> 00:32:00.617 - ask questions and certainly for everybody this is in our packet so so we can read it but I'm gonna if 00:32:00.617 --> 00:32:08.016 - it's okay with unless there's any objection I'm gonna extend this portion which is mayoral reports for 00:32:08.016 --> 00:32:09.022 - an additional 00:32:10.722 --> 00:32:16.619 - 20 minutes and unless there's any objections, but we I'm sure we have a lot of questions So I'll hand 00:32:16.619 --> 00:32:22.459 - over to any council members with questions. I have questions as well So customer Stossberg first and 00:32:22.459 --> 00:32:28.240 - ask all your questions then we can we can carry on Okay, thank you Thank you so much for being here 00:32:28.240 --> 00:32:34.195 - by the way and and talking us through this a little bit I had some kind of questions about the initial 00:32:34.195 --> 00:32:37.086 - survey itself in terms of you said there were 569 00:32:37.282 --> 00:32:44.940 - responses. I was wondering how many invitations were actually sent out. You said that you got emails 00:32:44.940 --> 00:32:52.446 - from a third party database, and I'm curious what third party you used for that. You said that you 00:32:52.834 --> 00:33:00.751 - kind of compared to census data and then weighted the responses, but I guess I see a lot of differences 00:33:00.751 --> 00:33:08.441 - in the percentages of various respondents compared to our census data. So I'm just gonna point out a 00:33:08.441 --> 00:33:16.053 - few of those so then you can use that, like where I'm coming from and my concern with that in order 00:33:16.053 --> 00:33:18.718 - to address my other questions. So, 00:33:19.490 --> 00:33:27.998 - Trying to find it on my thing. So for example Under the whether you rent or own your current residents 00:33:27.998 --> 00:33:36.589 - the survey has owners representing 53 percent and renters 47 percent of respondents but our census says 00:33:36.589 --> 00:33:42.206 - that we're about 34 percent ownership and that also compares to the 00:33:42.338 --> 00:33:50.837 - 2023 survey where we had 64 percent people who rented respond and 36 percent owner And then similarly 00:33:50.837 --> 00:33:59.752 - on the single-family. Sorry on question 26. What best describes your home or current residents? 61 percent 00:33:59.752 --> 00:34:05.918 - of respondents said they live in single-family homes whereas according to 00:34:07.394 --> 00:34:14.339 - The community survey, actually only about 34% of Bloomingtonians live in single-family homes. And similarly, 00:34:14.339 --> 00:34:20.837 - our last community survey, those numbers were actually practically flipped in that 61% of respondents 00:34:20.837 --> 00:34:27.272 - were from multi-family homes and only 36 were from single-family homes. So I have some real concerns 00:34:27.272 --> 00:34:33.707 - about some of these numbers as compared to census data. And so I guess I want you to convince me why 00:34:33.707 --> 00:34:36.574 - this is valid in terms of your process given 00:34:36.674 --> 00:34:42.715 - And I guess the last thing that I have in terms of that is that map that I don't think that you showed 00:34:42.715 --> 00:34:48.579 - up there in that presentation, which seems to show that there are a whole lot more respondents from 00:34:48.579 --> 00:34:54.503 - the south side of Bloomington as opposed to the north side of Bloomington, and similarly, hardly any 00:34:54.503 --> 00:35:00.368 - respondents that consider themselves full or part-time students. And we know that we have more than 00:35:00.368 --> 00:35:05.470 - 50% of our population are IU students. So convince me that this is valid data. Thanks. 00:35:06.594 --> 00:35:15.936 - Absolutely, so the goal of the survey was, again, given that we wanted this to be more of a resident 00:35:15.936 --> 00:35:25.185 - survey, we targeted those who are more likely to be year-round residents and less students, because 00:35:25.185 --> 00:35:33.694 - the opinions from the students, while important, were recognizing that many of them are not 00:35:33.954 --> 00:35:42.042 - Long-term residents haven't been in Bloomington very long, won't be in Bloomington very long. So we 00:35:42.042 --> 00:35:50.373 - were designing our sample to be more representative of year-round residents outside of the significant 00:35:50.373 --> 00:35:58.866 - IU population. Since those residents are obviously taxpayers are probably more engaged in the community, 00:35:58.866 --> 00:36:02.910 - more familiar with city services and city issues. 00:36:03.298 --> 00:36:10.797 - than the IU population. So the reason, the difference in what you called out from census data versus 00:36:10.797 --> 00:36:18.815 - our sample is taking that into account, given that many of the IU students are going to live in multifamily 00:36:18.815 --> 00:36:26.313 - homes and not single family homes. Many of them are gonna be, much more of them are gonna be renters 00:36:26.313 --> 00:36:32.030 - as opposed to homeowners and so on. So our weighting is directed more toward 00:36:32.194 --> 00:36:40.305 - Again, year round, more permanent residents in Bloomington and less on the student population. That's 00:36:40.305 --> 00:36:48.416 - also why the regional differences showed fewer respondents up in the North area around the IU campus, 00:36:48.416 --> 00:36:57.003 - because again, we were focusing more for the purposes of this survey on the permanent year round residents. 00:36:57.003 --> 00:37:01.854 - Okay, thank you. Is this the time that I can make a comment? 00:37:02.210 --> 00:37:10.589 - As somebody who represents district three, which is a huge part of campus and is Represents a lot of 00:37:10.589 --> 00:37:18.885 - students. I find that pretty disappointing Students are not necessarily permanent residents, but in 00:37:18.885 --> 00:37:27.181 - my opinion student individual students may change but student needs stay fairly consistent and so I 00:37:27.181 --> 00:37:30.334 - think that it does our population and 00:37:30.530 --> 00:37:36.748 - My constituents in particular and I mean all of us have student constituents and I think it does them 00:37:36.748 --> 00:37:42.845 - a disservice to have deliberately excluded them from this community survey because this is not then 00:37:42.845 --> 00:37:49.246 - a community survey of Bloomington, Indiana. It is a community survey of a subset of Bloomington, Indiana 00:37:49.246 --> 00:37:55.525 - and I think that that's pretty appalling things. I know that this is not to the survey creator because 00:37:55.525 --> 00:38:00.158 - you clearly did what you were asked to do by the administration, thank you. 00:38:01.570 --> 00:38:11.760 - Well put. Thank you. Council members look I second council member Stossberg's comment as someone who 00:38:11.760 --> 00:38:22.152 - was very recently a student herself but also represents 10,000 plus young people. That is a stunningly 00:38:22.152 --> 00:38:29.214 - insulting answer. And I I'm interested in how this firm was chosen if 00:38:30.626 --> 00:38:42.334 - Director Dimalina would be able to speak on that. I think this can be. Hi. 00:38:42.530 --> 00:38:48.778 - Communications director Desiree de Molina city of Bloomington. I think this can be a conversation with 00:38:48.778 --> 00:38:55.087 - Jeff and I in 2023 we did receive a lot of feedback in response to the community survey that was issued 00:38:55.087 --> 00:39:01.153 - out in terms of things like You know the the questions and the questionnaire and some critiques and 00:39:01.153 --> 00:39:07.279 - residents feeling that the questions were lengthy and maybe did not capture some of the concerns and 00:39:07.279 --> 00:39:12.496 - considerations for the larger Community and we're pretty targeted. So I don't know if 00:39:12.496 --> 00:39:23.319 - I don't know if Jeff has anything that he would particularly like to add to this conversation. We've 00:39:23.319 --> 00:39:34.570 - also recently conducted surveys in other communities with a large student population. Our recommendation 00:39:34.570 --> 00:39:41.214 - at the beginning of this was to take the approach that again, 00:39:41.506 --> 00:39:49.964 - from those who are most engaged with the community that it should focus primarily on permanent and year 00:39:49.964 --> 00:39:58.422 - round residents. When we've conducted surveys with student populations, we get a very low response rate 00:39:58.422 --> 00:40:06.554 - either because they're not familiar with the community or they're just not as interested. And those 00:40:06.554 --> 00:40:09.726 - who do respond oftentimes just provide 00:40:09.826 --> 00:40:15.294 - unfamiliar responses they can't rate things they're not familiar with Point of clarification. I'm sorry. 00:40:15.294 --> 00:40:20.813 - Thank you for that response. But my question was actually how did the city decide on this firm to conduct 00:40:20.813 --> 00:40:21.438 - the survey? 00:40:27.394 --> 00:40:33.747 - Cesar de Molina communications director. So again we looked at some of the critiques that we had received 00:40:33.747 --> 00:40:39.920 - from residents from the twenty twenty three survey including length question clarity and the city also 00:40:39.920 --> 00:40:45.913 - looked at the response rate from the previous surveys which was incredibly low and I believe speaks 00:40:45.913 --> 00:40:51.906 - to what Jeff was getting at about you know the engagement and the level of involvement in responses 00:40:51.906 --> 00:40:57.360 - and the depth of the level of in responses. So we were just evaluating our options we knew 00:40:57.360 --> 00:41:03.822 - Parks and Rec had previously worked with equity to issue their master plan survey And so knowing this 00:41:03.822 --> 00:41:10.727 - partnership and their experience being generally positive we opted to go with a known entity And collaborate 00:41:10.727 --> 00:41:17.189 - collaborate with them on this initiative. So there was not an RFP that was sent out for this No, this 00:41:17.189 --> 00:41:20.990 - was a professional services agreement Understood. Thank you 00:41:21.090 --> 00:41:26.591 - We did shop around however. Thank you. Thank you so much to save time. Yes I have a quick follow up 00:41:26.591 --> 00:41:32.091 - about response rates and thank you both so much for being here and your patience. Could you tell us 00:41:32.091 --> 00:41:38.032 - a little bit about how many unique residents or households were invited to participate how many invitations 00:41:38.032 --> 00:41:41.662 - were successfully delivered and what was the final response rate. 00:41:42.722 --> 00:41:51.824 - The final response rate was about four to 5%. It's at the low end or kind of at the mid to low end of 00:41:51.824 --> 00:42:00.927 - response rates. Again, there were some students that were included in the sample, which could address 00:42:00.927 --> 00:42:04.318 - or explain why the response rate was, 00:42:05.474 --> 00:42:14.858 - was lower than expected, but we sent out invitations either by email or by postcard to I think close 00:42:14.858 --> 00:42:24.799 - to seven or 8,000 randomly selected residents in the city. And do you feel like that, in your professional 00:42:24.799 --> 00:42:34.462 - opinion, is that response rate both statistically valid and how are we to infer this as a policy making 00:42:34.626 --> 00:42:41.898 - body in the, in the city. Like how, how, how should we be interpreting these, this data? Again, the 00:42:41.898 --> 00:42:49.242 - people who generally respond are those who are more engaged and more informed versus those who don't 00:42:49.242 --> 00:42:56.877 - respond. One of the reasons why we do the waiting is to make sure that any non-response issues or biases 00:42:56.877 --> 00:42:59.422 - are at least somewhat addressed to 00:42:59.618 --> 00:43:08.139 - Reach a more representative sample of the of the target population that we're looking for. I can't remember 00:43:08.139 --> 00:43:16.028 - if you had another question or not. Well I think possibly the follow up for me is is I mean I guess 00:43:16.028 --> 00:43:24.155 - pointedly is is what population does this survey actually represent. Again it represents primarily the 00:43:24.155 --> 00:43:26.206 - year round more permanent 00:43:26.562 --> 00:43:33.905 - resident population of within the city of Bloomington. So compared to census data, this population is 00:43:33.905 --> 00:43:41.824 - gonna be again, more year round residents. They're gonna be older. They're going to be longer term residents. 00:43:41.824 --> 00:43:49.095 - They're more likely to be homeowners as opposed to renters or single family residents, as opposed to 00:43:49.095 --> 00:43:54.782 - multifamily dwelling residents. All of the things that we pointed out earlier. 00:43:54.914 --> 00:44:03.034 - So would you agree then that I mean as they've my colleagues have obviously pointed out the the purposeful 00:44:03.034 --> 00:44:10.623 - under representation of students or the designing away or adjustment away from students I think was 00:44:10.623 --> 00:44:18.287 - the word used. Do we have we adequately framed for renters. We've got a significant we've got a good 00:44:18.287 --> 00:44:19.198 - represented 00:44:19.362 --> 00:44:27.202 - representation of renters, 47% of our respondents were our renters, 53% are homeowners. The other thing 00:44:27.202 --> 00:44:34.741 - that the other risk with including students is with such a large student population, their response 00:44:34.741 --> 00:44:42.733 - rates are among the lowest in community-wide surveys. And as a result, if you've got a student population 00:44:42.733 --> 00:44:48.990 - that represents half of the overall population and you're having to wait responses 00:44:49.154 --> 00:44:58.766 - that are 2% 3% of your respondent sample to now look like half. You start invalidating any 00:44:58.766 --> 00:45:09.645 - kind of statistical confidence testing by having a few dozen student respondents represent nearly half 00:45:09.645 --> 00:45:13.342 - of the overall sample. It's not by 00:45:13.506 --> 00:45:20.374 - By any means it's not a good best practice. Right. Right. Well that makes sense. Thank you so much. 00:45:20.374 --> 00:45:27.242 - Councilmember Rosenberger. Hi. Thank you. I have some questions about the community survey over the 00:45:27.242 --> 00:45:34.315 - years. Is it possible to get some of the copies of those critiques from the twenty twenty three survey 00:45:34.315 --> 00:45:37.406 - sent to us or were those critiques by email. 00:45:43.842 --> 00:45:50.091 - Our friend Dave Askins with the B square bulletin actually took it upon himself to solicit some reader 00:45:50.091 --> 00:45:56.400 - feedback from the questionnaire that was provided in years past and so we looked at that very seriously 00:45:56.400 --> 00:46:02.770 - and saw an opportunity based on again the low response rate from previous years and some of the feedback 00:46:02.770 --> 00:46:09.200 - on The questionnaire both with recommendations for new questions and the way the phrasing and the content 00:46:09.200 --> 00:46:13.022 - of previous surveys have been But yes, I'm happy to share that 00:46:13.634 --> 00:46:22.225 - Thanks and then one of the valuable parts of a community survey over time is the continuance of asking 00:46:22.225 --> 00:46:30.649 - the same questions. It sounds like though there were many changes. So do you know how many questions 00:46:30.649 --> 00:46:35.486 - were the exact same so that we can track those over time. 00:46:35.618 --> 00:46:42.683 - I don't know an exact number. However, I can say that Jeff and his team and I collaborated He had all 00:46:42.683 --> 00:46:49.886 - the access to previous surveys We know that we are looking for year-over-year data improvements trends, 00:46:49.886 --> 00:46:54.942 - you know storylines However, you know with the feedback that we received 00:46:55.394 --> 00:47:02.748 - We moved into a different direction, but Jeff was aware as we designed this survey of the previous questions 00:47:02.748 --> 00:47:09.496 - and taking into some of those responses from residents about how things were phrased or Just simply 00:47:09.496 --> 00:47:16.310 - priorities that they felt were not being captured in the questions previously asked Okay, thank you. 00:47:16.310 --> 00:47:23.260 - I would love to know that the questions that were deleted or removed versus the questions that we keep 00:47:23.260 --> 00:47:24.542 - because I do think 00:47:24.674 --> 00:47:33.723 - At least it's important to see that change over time but I mean I am also on the page with my colleagues 00:47:33.723 --> 00:47:42.427 - that this appears to be a survey that we can use the results as unfortunately mostly the people that 00:47:42.427 --> 00:47:51.045 - tend to show up at public meetings so more longer term homeowners of an older variety. I can I just 00:47:51.045 --> 00:47:52.510 - do a comment or. 00:47:54.050 --> 00:48:03.404 - I used to work in evaluation and It's super hard to get scientifically valid data and I would say anytime 00:48:03.404 --> 00:48:12.671 - we're collecting Survey or a public engagement from this community. It's absolutely never scientifically 00:48:12.671 --> 00:48:18.142 - valid It takes a ton of work. So I used to do I coached organ 00:48:19.554 --> 00:48:25.813 - housing organization nonprofits across the country to collect data on how people felt about 00:48:25.813 --> 00:48:32.617 - their neighborhood, which is very similar to what this is about the city and We had to get 80 to 90 00:48:32.617 --> 00:48:39.693 - percent response rate from a random sample based off of the census and it was really hard Organizations 00:48:39.693 --> 00:48:46.565 - that primarily worked in socioeconomic neighborhoods that were well off had a very had an easier job 00:48:46.565 --> 00:48:49.150 - collecting survey data because people 00:48:49.314 --> 00:48:55.541 - wanted to participate. Organizations that worked in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods had a really hard 00:48:55.541 --> 00:49:01.827 - time getting responses because people were afraid to answer their doors. But we also had to train people 00:49:01.827 --> 00:49:08.233 - and volunteers to go door to door, to do phone calls, to do events, to mail gift cards. Getting a response 00:49:08.233 --> 00:49:14.400 - rate, it's like 4% to 5% to me is incredibly low. And I think that most years that this happened, it's 00:49:14.400 --> 00:49:17.214 - also unfortunate that this was delayed a year. 00:49:17.762 --> 00:49:25.200 - There's a lot of delay here. I Think I don't know if the other surveys were done like this Does anybody 00:49:25.200 --> 00:49:32.351 - up here know if we've always waited it to ignore half of our population? I mean it makes sense that 00:49:32.351 --> 00:49:38.430 - it's a lot harder sometimes to get responses from different types of households, but 00:49:39.330 --> 00:49:44.393 - Those are the ones that we really need. So I think I don't know. I just find this pretty unfortunate 00:49:44.393 --> 00:49:49.606 - and maybe we aren't paying enough also for our community survey to like put the time and effort in into 00:49:49.606 --> 00:49:54.769 - this kind of data collection and we could potentially look into that in the future, I think. Thank you 00:49:54.769 --> 00:49:56.574 - so much. Any other council members? 00:49:57.570 --> 00:50:03.961 - I just had one last question because I think the big sort of headline, one of at least the headline 00:50:03.961 --> 00:50:10.543 - arguments here is that 72% of residents would recommend or had very positive views of Bloomington. And 00:50:10.543 --> 00:50:17.190 - I was interested in the distribution of those scores because we counted everybody above a five. I think 00:50:17.190 --> 00:50:22.430 - unless I misread it, everybody that had a six or above is having a positive view. 00:50:22.498 --> 00:50:28.683 - And so I was just if we could talk through that a little bit and what I'm trying to get at in all of 00:50:28.683 --> 00:50:34.807 - my questioning is you know what's the so what for council and the city you know what are the things 00:50:34.807 --> 00:50:41.054 - that we're claiming that that should inform our behaviors actions decisions especially as we're going 00:50:41.054 --> 00:50:47.178 - into budget here and what things are just you know I mean what are the things here that are that we 00:50:47.178 --> 00:50:51.710 - should what would you recommend that we glean from from this information. 00:50:57.122 --> 00:51:05.480 - If you're asking me, I assume. Yes, sir. Sorry. That's OK. That's OK. Just want to make I don't want 00:51:05.480 --> 00:51:14.004 - to talk over somebody else's response. Again, we this is a similar question that has been asked in the 00:51:14.004 --> 00:51:18.142 - past, but in the past, it showed just the overall 00:51:18.338 --> 00:51:25.338 - likely scores at 74%. There was no distinction between people who were a little likely or somewhat likely 00:51:25.338 --> 00:51:32.008 - or extremely likely. So while we kept the question the same, we changed the metrics so that we could 00:51:32.008 --> 00:51:39.074 - get an understanding of that variation in terms of intensity behind that likelihood to recommend. Overall, 00:51:39.074 --> 00:51:42.046 - the score is good with about three quarters. 00:51:42.626 --> 00:51:51.316 - likely to recommend Bloomington, but that 18% is a significant number. And while residents for the most 00:51:51.316 --> 00:51:56.830 - part, and on most of the attributes that we tested are satisfied, 00:51:56.930 --> 00:52:04.496 - having almost one in five who are dissatisfied and were unlikely to recommend Bloomington as a place 00:52:04.496 --> 00:52:11.987 - to live is certainly noteworthy. The full report tracks where these lower scores tend to come from. 00:52:11.987 --> 00:52:19.778 - And again, they're largely around the two biggest issues regarding the lack of affordable housing. It's 00:52:19.778 --> 00:52:25.246 - hard to recommend somebody moving to an area where it's hard to purchase 00:52:25.378 --> 00:52:34.189 - a home or afford a high rent. And then the second thing was the impressions or concerns that residents 00:52:34.189 --> 00:52:42.742 - have of the city, given the visibility of the in-house population and how comfortable new residents 00:52:42.742 --> 00:52:51.895 - may feel or not feel regarding those two issues. So yes, there's good news here, but that 18% is obviously 00:52:51.895 --> 00:52:54.718 - something to be concerned about. 00:52:55.682 --> 00:53:02.533 - Thank you so much and thank you for for being patient with all of our many questions Okay, one one last 00:53:02.533 --> 00:53:09.253 - question to councilmember Pema Smith and then we'll move on to the next report but okay to so one one 00:53:09.253 --> 00:53:15.840 - to customer Pema Smith and Okay, we have councilmember Pema Smith councilmember rough then Stasburg 00:53:15.840 --> 00:53:22.494 - will will close us out. Go ahead so first of all the part of your slideshow that has the actual data 00:53:23.106 --> 00:53:31.775 - I don't know, it starts maybe with slide 70. Well, no, that's this page number in our packet. But where 00:53:31.775 --> 00:53:40.527 - it has the tables of data, those are images. So that's not accessible to people who have machine readers 00:53:40.527 --> 00:53:49.113 - to help them look at documents? Is that available in an accessible format? I'd have to look into that. 00:53:49.113 --> 00:53:52.030 - I'm not sure how we would do that. 00:53:52.962 --> 00:54:03.185 - But that's something we can certainly look into. OK. And just addressing the mayor's office that should 00:54:03.185 --> 00:54:13.309 - be provided in all cases. So I'm disappointed that a lot of this is not actually readable to a segment 00:54:13.309 --> 00:54:21.566 - of our population. And then in there I see that there are there are some questions. 00:54:21.858 --> 00:54:29.761 - that talk about rank the top strategy you think the city should prioritize to improve our community. 00:54:29.761 --> 00:54:37.821 - And I'm wondering who came up with a wording on some of these because the top one is removing barriers 00:54:37.821 --> 00:54:46.037 - to developing affordable housing which implies that we don't have affordable housing because of barriers 00:54:46.037 --> 00:54:51.358 - that the city has put in place. So it's kind of a leading question. 00:54:51.618 --> 00:54:59.972 - I mean I agree that we can probably do more for affordable housing but so could a lot of other entities. 00:54:59.972 --> 00:55:08.325 - So I wonder who came up with those that phrasing you know for for the priorities that you wanted ranked. 00:55:08.325 --> 00:55:16.361 - This this wording was developed jointly with our team and with the city. And again it's all of these 00:55:16.361 --> 00:55:21.214 - are put in the context of not what the issue is or but more. 00:55:21.346 --> 00:55:36.863 - What types of actions or strategies the city could could do to address the top issues that people have. 00:55:36.863 --> 00:55:49.246 - All right. Thank you. And this was implied by the order but I'm extending time by. 00:55:50.082 --> 00:55:58.514 - We're a deficit of five minutes, but extending time for another five minutes It might be pretty quick 00:55:58.514 --> 00:56:06.947 - the questions that asked about Was this how do you feel about this Bloomington is a place to start or 00:56:06.947 --> 00:56:15.214 - grow a business The questions related to general sense of safety And then the percentage breakdowns 00:56:15.214 --> 00:56:19.678 - was there any I Mean, what is it? How does that come? 00:56:20.162 --> 00:56:26.803 - It seems like it doesn't tell us a lot, and we should know how people respond to those questions in 00:56:26.803 --> 00:56:33.643 - comparable cities. Is Bloomington feeling less safe than our comparable cities? Do citizens feel safe? 00:56:33.643 --> 00:56:40.284 - Or does everybody just kind of everywhere feel like, well, we've got these problems are everywhere? 00:56:40.284 --> 00:56:47.058 - Are these issues, are the concerns, are our satisfaction levels similar? So that's something I'd like 00:56:47.058 --> 00:56:50.046 - to know. Is there any pool or any comparison 00:56:50.306 --> 00:56:57.778 - All these questions do people really feel it's less safe or harder to do business here than comparable 00:56:57.778 --> 00:57:05.032 - cities or assisted-general trends second question I had the only other one really was Councilmember 00:57:05.032 --> 00:57:12.286 - council president, sorry, there's talking about that that question about Would you recommend moving 00:57:12.286 --> 00:57:13.374 - to Bloomington 00:57:14.050 --> 00:57:23.194 - I'm interested in that question itself. That question, to me, is kind of an odd question. We have all 00:57:23.194 --> 00:57:32.159 - these indicators that are somewhat precise about your satisfaction, quality of life in Bloomington, 00:57:32.159 --> 00:57:42.558 - safety, all these things. But then to just say, would you recommend? Is that meant to be a summary question of, OK, 00:57:42.850 --> 00:57:50.445 - If we can extrapolate by your answer from that, that overall your sense of Bloomington is good or bad. 00:57:50.445 --> 00:57:57.892 - Because what is the point of that question, really? I mean, if someone asks me these questions about 00:57:57.892 --> 00:58:05.634 - whether I feel safe at night, whether I feel safe in day, whether I'm happy with it, how do I feel about 00:58:05.634 --> 00:58:11.902 - the infrastructure, the streets, the puddles, when someone says to a question to me, 00:58:13.282 --> 00:58:20.557 - Would you recommend it. I said well you know I must have nice to have some of my family that I don't 00:58:20.557 --> 00:58:28.120 - see as much here. My friends what I want my buddy Jim Howe to move here and we could fish together more. 00:58:28.120 --> 00:58:35.323 - You know it's just it's it's just an odd to me question. And what the point of that question was if 00:58:35.323 --> 00:58:41.950 - someone could respond what the idea is that just an indicator sort of an overall summary of 00:58:42.786 --> 00:58:49.555 - But we already had the quality of life question. So it seems I Don't know. Those are my two questions. 00:58:49.555 --> 00:58:56.192 - This can we get comparator city? Data or is it available or has this firm done has the firm done the 00:58:56.192 --> 00:59:02.960 - similar? Questionnaires and surveys and other cities that we can compare to comparable cities and then 00:59:02.960 --> 00:59:09.860 - this whole question about the moving to Bloomington being our sort of a main question So with your first 00:59:09.860 --> 00:59:10.846 - question about 00:59:11.234 --> 00:59:20.170 - relevant comparisons to other cities. Our firm does not have enough data because Bloomington is fairly 00:59:20.170 --> 00:59:28.933 - unique compared to a lot of cities of similar size, especially given the presence of the university. 00:59:28.933 --> 00:59:37.609 - So we don't have those types of benchmark comparisons. I know that in the past comparisons may have 00:59:37.609 --> 00:59:39.518 - been made, but again, 00:59:40.482 --> 00:59:49.206 - A lot of firms provide national comparisons without taking into account what's unique about the city 00:59:49.206 --> 00:59:57.498 - of interest, in this case, Bloomington. So comparing yourself to, you know, an industrial city, 00:59:57.498 --> 01:00:06.136 - a post-industrial city in the Northeast versus a high-tech city of a similar size, you know, out by 01:00:06.136 --> 01:00:07.518 - Silicon Valley, 01:00:07.618 --> 01:00:14.895 - whatever, they might be similar in size, but they're very different in terms of composition, the issues, 01:00:14.895 --> 01:00:21.964 - the concerns, the assets and so on. So it would have to be comparisons to cities of similar size that 01:00:21.964 --> 01:00:28.478 - represent the makeup of Bloomington. With regard to the overall question, we always start at, 01:00:28.610 --> 01:00:36.439 - a survey with an overall metric just to get people's general sense. Sometimes it's satisfaction, sometimes 01:00:36.439 --> 01:00:44.195 - it's likelihood to recommend. This likelihood to recommend question and the question about the attributes 01:00:44.195 --> 01:00:51.731 - again were questions that were asked in the previous waves and were identified as key metrics from the 01:00:51.731 --> 01:00:58.462 - previous community wide surveys for the city of Bloomington that were asked be kept so that 01:00:58.690 --> 01:01:07.545 - Um, those comparisons, um, can be looked at over time. And for the most part, um, the percent satisfied 01:01:07.545 --> 01:01:16.315 - total percent satisfied on this score and the total percent likely to recommend are usually within two 01:01:16.315 --> 01:01:24.830 - or three percentage points of the 2023 survey that was done for the city of Bloomington. Thank you. 01:01:27.138 --> 01:01:33.007 - I have more of a statement. Is that OK, President Asari? All right. This is, I suppose, mostly to my 01:01:33.007 --> 01:01:38.875 - constituents, but in general to Bloomington and I suppose to my colleagues as well at this point. So 01:01:38.875 --> 01:01:45.092 - as an elected official, I walk an interesting line when considering who I serve and how I manage competing 01:01:45.092 --> 01:01:51.077 - interests. As I said, District 3 includes a significant amount of IU's campus, including fraternities, 01:01:51.077 --> 01:01:56.190 - sororities, dorms, and majority student multifamily developments. I also serve several. 01:01:56.322 --> 01:02:01.728 - Neighborhoods with primarily single-family homes and multifamily housing that houses more permanent 01:02:01.728 --> 01:02:07.459 - residents including low-income folks Having looked at voting data the precincts that include large number 01:02:07.459 --> 01:02:13.082 - of students do not vote in high numbers The district three voting results tend to follow how the single 01:02:13.082 --> 01:02:18.542 - home at the single-family home neighborhoods vote and if I remember my numbers correctly in the 2023 01:02:18.542 --> 01:02:24.003 - primary when I was chosen as a Democratic nominee there were fewer than 30 people who voted in those 01:02:24.003 --> 01:02:25.246 - high student areas and 01:02:26.114 --> 01:02:32.699 - If I take any of the survey data into consideration What it feels like I am doing is catering only to 01:02:32.699 --> 01:02:39.220 - the residents who decided the vote Not all of the needs of district 3 or of the city Because someone 01:02:39.220 --> 01:02:45.934 - doesn't tend to vote or doesn't get as involved does not mean that I don't also serve those populations 01:02:45.934 --> 01:02:52.584 - I do what it means is that I Is that in order to figure out what is needed to serve those populations? 01:02:52.584 --> 01:02:55.102 - I have to do more work. It's harder. I 01:02:55.330 --> 01:03:01.154 - It's harder to figure out what those populations need, but it is still my responsibility to do that 01:03:01.154 --> 01:03:07.095 - And I hope that my colleagues share that sentiment I really appreciate Councilmember Asari's question 01:03:07.095 --> 01:03:12.919 - earlier of so what from this survey because a piece of my so what has to be That a large portion of 01:03:12.919 --> 01:03:18.860 - who I serve has been deliberately excluded from this survey Making it irresponsible of me to put that 01:03:18.860 --> 01:03:22.238 - much stock into any of the resulting data. Thank you well 01:03:24.962 --> 01:03:33.846 - Councilmember Zulek. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'll make it quick Well, I just I keep hearing 01:03:33.846 --> 01:03:43.082 - that we're in a time where we are not in a financial situation of abundance and for me to have conducted 01:03:43.082 --> 01:03:52.230 - a survey that shuts out about 50% of our residents the majority of whom are in councilmember Stasberg's 01:03:52.230 --> 01:03:53.374 - and mine and 01:03:53.666 --> 01:04:01.248 - my district I can't see how this was a responsible use of taxpayer money especially when I keep hearing 01:04:01.248 --> 01:04:09.121 - that we're what was it trying to do less with less. Also this community has a crisis in workforce retention 01:04:09.121 --> 01:04:16.776 - and yet we have just eliminated 40000 potential future long term residents from participating in shaping 01:04:16.776 --> 01:04:18.526 - the future of our city. 01:04:19.586 --> 01:04:31.987 - I don't know why any young person would want to stay here when we're so blatantly disrespectful towards 01:04:31.987 --> 01:04:34.014 - them. Thank you. 01:04:34.178 --> 01:04:41.640 - for your participation here. Mr. Anderson, thank you for your patience with us, for enduring a council 01:04:41.640 --> 01:04:49.175 - meeting. We'll look forward to seeing you next year. And thank you, Director Molina, for the time. When 01:04:49.175 --> 01:04:57.072 - I move on, I'm going to extend this portion by another 20 minutes. Luckily, we have a fairly short otherwise 01:04:57.072 --> 01:04:58.014 - meeting, so. 01:04:58.402 --> 01:05:05.864 - Notes notes note to self always schedule many things on the no, but jokes. Anyways, I'm gonna do this 01:05:05.864 --> 01:05:13.692 - and we have the parking rate study next so Sorry councilman Rallo, yes point of order just Are we allowing 01:05:13.692 --> 01:05:21.227 - public comments on the we will yes Yes, and there was a motion early on to allow public comment during 01:05:21.227 --> 01:05:27.518 - the general public comment session for all of these reports Yes, very good. Thank you 01:05:28.706 --> 01:05:36.146 - Okay with that, thank you very much. We will invite the parking rate study And comprehensive review. 01:05:36.146 --> 01:05:43.659 - I think we have parking services and Walker consultants here. Thank you Good evening council. My name 01:05:43.659 --> 01:05:51.394 - is Michelle wall. I'm the parking service director for the city in March of 2025 the city engaged Walker 01:05:51.394 --> 01:05:58.686 - parking consultants to conduct a parking rate study and comprehensive review of all things parking 01:05:59.458 --> 01:06:05.638 - Over the course of more than a year Walker studied existing conditions of both on street and off street 01:06:05.638 --> 01:06:12.174 - parking conducted benchmarking with comparable communities explored a variety of parking rates and strategies 01:06:12.174 --> 01:06:18.116 - and evaluated options for upgrading the city's parking technology and to support future operations. 01:06:18.116 --> 01:06:24.118 - Parking services received the final report in June of twenty twenty six and it has since been shared 01:06:24.118 --> 01:06:29.406 - with the council for a review. This evening we are pleased to welcome Lauren Sturdevant. 01:06:29.794 --> 01:06:40.270 - planner and John Martin senior consultants from Walker parking and they're here to present the key findings 01:06:40.270 --> 01:06:49.484 - in their study and share their recommendations for the future of Bloomington Parking Services. 01:06:49.484 --> 01:06:57.438 - Thank you. Hello. Good evening. My name is Lauren start event and I'm joined with 01:06:57.634 --> 01:07:06.172 - John Martin's with Walker consultants we are based out of the Indianapolis office and we have completed 01:07:06.172 --> 01:07:14.874 - our parking rate study and comprehensive review for downtown Bloomington we reviewed rates and technology 01:07:14.874 --> 01:07:23.166 - mostly to Look at downtown's parking and how to inform policies to better utilize the parking system 01:07:25.762 --> 01:07:34.372 - Our recommendations were informed by what we heard through stakeholder meetings a community survey based 01:07:34.372 --> 01:07:42.572 - on parking downtown what the data showed from city data and best practices from industry standards. 01:07:42.572 --> 01:07:50.854 - Our key findings are that on street rates have are very low and outdated they have not been adjusted 01:07:50.854 --> 01:07:53.150 - since the implementation of 01:07:53.314 --> 01:08:00.641 - Parking and off-street rates are also low Parking technology is outdated and at the end of its life 01:08:00.641 --> 01:08:08.335 - There's an opportunity for better communication with the public in regards to the parking system There's 01:08:08.335 --> 01:08:16.249 - also opportunity for financial sustainability within the parking system and there's a need for transparency 01:08:16.249 --> 01:08:21.598 - as it relates to how the funds are being used for the parking assets and 01:08:26.370 --> 01:08:33.527 - John Martin's Walker consultants, so we didn't tag team here and I was gonna go through we broke down 01:08:33.527 --> 01:08:40.613 - the recommendations, so We broke them into two four major Buckets if you will the organization which 01:08:40.613 --> 01:08:47.770 - they're listed here and we're gonna go. I'm gonna just briefly touch on these the policies Technology 01:08:47.770 --> 01:08:54.014 - and communications and within each there are three main recommendations the first is the 01:08:54.306 --> 01:09:03.626 - Centralize the appeal process and put it into the parking service services division The second is establish 01:09:03.626 --> 01:09:12.256 - clear parking service mission statement And the third on organizational recommendations is to adopt 01:09:12.256 --> 01:09:21.059 - a data-driven Decision approach make that data available to the public and key performance indicators 01:09:21.059 --> 01:09:22.526 - that are tracked 01:09:22.754 --> 01:09:29.169 - You can have the same ones over and over make that available and track so everyone can see what's going 01:09:29.169 --> 01:09:35.338 - on. Be very transparent for policy recommendations. We looked at this is the map on the right is is 01:09:35.338 --> 01:09:41.630 - data from paid parking at the meters. OK so that is specifically at the meters. Those are that's what 01:09:41.630 --> 01:09:47.799 - those all those little dots represent the core area. We recommend that as a kind of a zone based is 01:09:47.799 --> 01:09:51.870 - what we call it in the industry. That core area is basically from 01:09:52.002 --> 01:09:57.350 - third to seventh street. That's the highest activity and that would be the higher demand. Make that 01:09:57.350 --> 01:10:02.699 - a higher rate. The areas to the north and south, they'd be a slightly lower rate. Doesn't aren't as 01:10:02.699 --> 01:10:08.154 - used as much. They're still used, but not as much. And I think this is a kind of an industry standard 01:10:08.154 --> 01:10:13.823 - practice where you see that, you know, Hey, we have this availability in this area. Let's get more people 01:10:13.823 --> 01:10:17.086 - to park there and you can kind of modify that with the rate. 01:10:18.146 --> 01:10:23.873 - So we also provided adjustment rates increases on rates. That was one of the issues that we saw they 01:10:23.873 --> 01:10:29.883 - haven't been raised in the on stream has been raised since their first instituted and then in the evening 01:10:29.883 --> 01:10:35.950 - it goes till nine o'clock now for on stream for enforcement. We suggest instead of going till nine o'clock 01:10:35.950 --> 01:10:41.904 - go to eight o'clock. And the theory there is that we're trying to get that evening activity people going 01:10:41.904 --> 01:10:46.270 - out to eat. I think by eight o'clock we've captured what we want to capture. 01:10:47.010 --> 01:10:53.385 - I think that's an opportunity. So from a technology standpoint, we touched on this. So the on-street 01:10:53.385 --> 01:10:59.697 - the technology you have is past its prime. It is it is time to replace it. So for on-street meters, 01:10:59.697 --> 01:11:06.262 - you have single space meters. We recommend a kiosk. And I know that's something that the city's looking 01:11:06.262 --> 01:11:12.574 - at as far as hey, let's get some opinion. It reduces street clutter and it gives the opportunity to 01:11:12.574 --> 01:11:14.846 - go to pay by plate. So when I park, 01:11:15.042 --> 01:11:21.228 - If I do park mobile I'm already putting my using my plate number now at these meters I would if I would 01:11:21.228 --> 01:11:27.235 - choose to use a physical meter I put my plate number and that makes it some advantages. So one I can 01:11:27.235 --> 01:11:33.243 - if I'm the user I can go to a different area and it already shows me paying so I'm taking my parking 01:11:33.243 --> 01:11:39.488 - with me and not like a single space. And with that the second one would be to use a mobile license plate 01:11:39.488 --> 01:11:42.462 - recognition system specific to parking that would 01:11:42.978 --> 01:11:49.325 - Track to see okay. Did this plate did they pay the meter? Did they pay park mobile? Are they a permit 01:11:49.325 --> 01:11:55.547 - holder does all three and it tells you on the computer Hey, they don't show up. You need to see and 01:11:55.547 --> 01:12:01.955 - if right a citation, okay So this that is definitely a best practices. It's in the industry That's one 01:12:01.955 --> 01:12:08.240 - of the recommendations and it's it makes it more efficient and then the off-street parking equipment 01:12:08.240 --> 01:12:11.102 - that is not going to be supported anymore and 01:12:11.362 --> 01:12:19.238 - That needs to get replaced. There's a limited lifespan. Once the manufacturer doesn't support it you're 01:12:19.238 --> 01:12:26.888 - kind of based on what's out there and available for communications and wayfinding. We recommend that 01:12:26.888 --> 01:12:30.750 - when we looked at the parking some of it you have. 01:12:31.234 --> 01:12:36.500 - When I look at this I look at when you think about parking, what do you see this the standard P? 01:12:36.500 --> 01:12:42.146 - You know, it's usually in a circle. Maybe not but usually you see it as oh, I know that's parking Yeah, 01:12:42.146 --> 01:12:47.846 - I know that anywhere but for for Boomington you have some of that but some of the signs are Flat against 01:12:47.846 --> 01:12:53.330 - the building or the garage. Let's put them on a blade sign If you can light it up, maybe a look make 01:12:53.330 --> 01:12:58.270 - a little bigger that's that's kind of what we're talking about here and then as far as the 01:12:58.434 --> 01:13:05.252 - Second one is to just develop ongoing parking communications marketing to improve websites get the word 01:13:05.252 --> 01:13:12.202 - out different marketing tactics so people understand the system you guys have a really really good system 01:13:12.202 --> 01:13:18.954 - with the park mobile people that know it use it people that maybe don't maybe they just need some more 01:13:18.954 --> 01:13:21.118 - education on it right. And then. 01:13:22.018 --> 01:13:28.293 - You have some places where you can walk and see signage and maps about parking not about parking but 01:13:28.293 --> 01:13:34.692 - about the downtown We were embraced him improve on that to help get the word out The next step slides. 01:13:34.692 --> 01:13:41.216 - It's really up to you guys Okay, so we put together a report with our recommendations And I know there's 01:13:41.216 --> 01:13:47.553 - ongoing process to get the word out people so people can understand and give some feedback That we're 01:13:47.553 --> 01:13:50.846 - trying to go quick so be respectful of your time and 01:13:53.026 --> 01:14:03.180 - Thank you very, very much. Yes. Thank you. These are kind of comments. They're more comments I think. 01:14:03.180 --> 01:14:13.733 - But first of all for the zone pricing I do want to recognize that former city council member Steve Bowlin 01:14:13.733 --> 01:14:19.806 - who is also chair of our transportation commission currently 01:14:19.938 --> 01:14:28.539 - Recommended zone pricing years ago. So I don't know why we had to wait for a study to be done to say 01:14:28.539 --> 01:14:37.055 - that's a good idea Secondly, I am concerned about the recommendation To get rid of To use automatic 01:14:37.055 --> 01:14:42.846 - license plate readers because they have been misused they are often 01:14:42.946 --> 01:14:50.354 - Data access data and send data to a cloud-based system that it's very difficult to secure So the only 01:14:50.354 --> 01:14:57.763 - way I would support that would be as if it's a closed system and we use a company that has no ties to 01:14:57.763 --> 01:15:05.534 - law enforcement So we need to be very careful with that kind of technology Thank you councilmember problem 01:15:08.802 --> 01:15:15.916 - Yes, how do you determine that the parking technology is at the end of its life? I Mean they seem to 01:15:15.916 --> 01:15:22.960 - be working. Do you have a record a repair record that? We can refer to yes, I would and I would say 01:15:22.960 --> 01:15:30.004 - that just just say y'all know I've been in the parking for over 30 years I've been at Walker for 23 01:15:30.004 --> 01:15:36.414 - years. I was here for the study way back when Walker did it before he had paid parking and 01:15:36.738 --> 01:15:42.989 - But I will say that that the meters have gone through several generations the current meters that are 01:15:42.989 --> 01:15:49.240 - out there the IPS meters and they have had to have a major upgrade because the communications package 01:15:49.240 --> 01:15:55.674 - would no longer communicate and that probably would have been a good time to replace them all with fresh 01:15:55.674 --> 01:15:57.758 - to look at that. But at the time. 01:15:58.018 --> 01:16:03.953 - Let's just get through, we've got to get this fixed. All cities that had those meters had to go through 01:16:03.953 --> 01:16:10.059 - that. And just the functionality, we did look at the maintenance and talk about the number of single-space 01:16:10.059 --> 01:16:15.879 - meters and devices that you have to maintain. It's over, it's near 1,400-something, 1,453. It's a lot 01:16:15.879 --> 01:16:21.871 - of hardware, and it's kind of like your computer, right? So I have a computer, a cell phone. Cell phone, 01:16:21.871 --> 01:16:27.806 - better example. These things only last so long, and then you start having issues. These have a battery. 01:16:27.970 --> 01:16:34.683 - those IPS meters. So you have to replace a lot more batteries. You have to go out to leaders much more 01:16:34.683 --> 01:16:41.330 - often to try to fix that's the IPS meters. And then the off street the manufacturer literally has put 01:16:41.330 --> 01:16:48.173 - out they have a new line and they say hey it's a big change and we're not going to support this anymore. 01:16:48.173 --> 01:16:54.430 - So there are any community or airports municipalities that have that system for the off street. 01:16:54.946 --> 01:17:03.988 - They have to replace it and they have to do it fast because there's a limited time before it's, they're 01:17:03.988 --> 01:17:12.682 - not gonna make spare parts and they're not gonna update the software. Okay, that's very convincing. 01:17:12.682 --> 01:17:21.984 - When it comes to capital investments, I'm very much about asking questions about durability and longevity. 01:17:21.984 --> 01:17:24.158 - So I need to learn more. 01:17:24.258 --> 01:17:31.464 - Can you speak about the kiosks a little bit? Does that still allow coin payment or is that exclusively? 01:17:31.464 --> 01:17:38.602 - Card readers. Yes, we recommend the ones that are on display. They would take still take coins because 01:17:38.602 --> 01:17:45.808 - we did hear in the survey that there's a percentage that still want to pay with coins and So take coins 01:17:45.808 --> 01:17:49.342 - and credit card and we recommended the credit card 01:17:49.762 --> 01:17:56.432 - be upgraded to the chip payment. That's what we recommended with a tap to pay. It's much more secure. 01:17:56.432 --> 01:18:03.037 - It's going to be payment card industry standard, reduce some of the requirements that you have as an 01:18:03.037 --> 01:18:09.772 - acceptor of credit cards as far as PCI compliance. So that was one of our recommendations. I know that 01:18:09.772 --> 01:18:16.311 - they do cost a little more money when you look at a credit card reader, but I think if you guys pay 01:18:16.311 --> 01:18:19.646 - with a credit card, the tap to pay is pretty easy. 01:18:19.778 --> 01:18:30.609 - It's pretty quick. It does add some convenience. So So you could pay with credit card coin at the physical 01:18:30.609 --> 01:18:40.732 - meter Just like you do now Great. Thank you That's my sister Thank you. I had a couple of questions 01:18:40.732 --> 01:18:43.870 - partly about that the zone map 01:18:44.002 --> 01:18:51.570 - that you included there in terms of the key had the number of transactions per day with you know the 01:18:51.570 --> 01:18:59.587 - spots around the courthouse having the most transactions per day. We hear a lot about the need for parking 01:18:59.587 --> 01:19:07.154 - on Kirkwood but but along Kirkwood does not seem to have as many transactions per day. And I guess I 01:19:07.154 --> 01:19:10.526 - have a kind of a comment around that. Sorry. 01:19:11.746 --> 01:19:18.197 - There used to be, and you mentioned this in your study somewhere, I was trying to find what page, but 01:19:18.197 --> 01:19:24.774 - it's gone, that there used to be a two hour limit on the amount of time that you could park down there. 01:19:24.774 --> 01:19:30.782 - And I feel like I still see the signs for that with some of the coinage on some of the meters. 01:19:30.882 --> 01:19:37.005 - But if you use park mobile, you can just extend that time and extend that time and you can essentially 01:19:37.005 --> 01:19:43.247 - park in the same spot all day and just even like never even go back to your car because you can remotely 01:19:43.247 --> 01:19:49.310 - extend the time. So I guess it's kind of this two part question of do you think that there's actually 01:19:49.506 --> 01:19:57.328 - A lot of that going on along Kirkwood with people just parking for extended periods of time and then 01:19:57.328 --> 01:20:05.460 - not getting that turnover that we might want to see there and then is there consideration and this might 01:20:05.460 --> 01:20:13.282 - be for our staff of Reimplementing that two-hour time window in at least some of the zones including 01:20:13.282 --> 01:20:18.238 - on the park mobile app so that people You know have to actually 01:20:18.818 --> 01:20:24.980 - get their car out of there so that other people can park. Yeah. So there's one thing that they discuss. 01:20:24.980 --> 01:20:31.201 - We do not have a two hour time limit on Kirkwood. I think the data is different because we have Kirkwood 01:20:31.201 --> 01:20:37.363 - either closed or parklets on Kirkwood. So that could be your little bit of your discrepancy that you're 01:20:37.363 --> 01:20:43.584 - seeing of the amount of money that's made. We currently again just to interrupt you. It's not the amount 01:20:43.584 --> 01:20:48.798 - of money it's the transactions per day. So the map shows how many transactions per day. 01:20:49.314 --> 01:20:54.818 - there are on the different meters. And so I assume that means the different users, not necessarily how 01:20:54.818 --> 01:21:00.216 - much money we're making from it, but how many different vehicles are parked in the spaces. We looked 01:21:00.216 --> 01:21:05.667 - at it both ways, but the answer is this. The IPS meter is single space, and we can have the data, and 01:21:05.667 --> 01:21:11.065 - this is the data that was used, if you physically paid the meter. So we're trying to figure out, the 01:21:11.065 --> 01:21:16.729 - answer we're trying to figure out there is, where do we need physical meters? If you pay with ParkMobile, 01:21:16.729 --> 01:21:18.974 - that transaction is not going to show up. 01:21:19.682 --> 01:21:25.868 - Now there is a ton of data, but there are and there are a lot of zones, right? But if you look at the 01:21:25.868 --> 01:21:32.236 - zones Like we parked when we parked today We looked just looked at it said hello. Well, this zone number 01:21:32.236 --> 01:21:38.604 - covers this block face and this block face So you can't really take you could take that and assume well, 01:21:38.604 --> 01:21:44.062 - that's where they paid but interesting here if you use park mobile app in Bloomington and 01:21:44.450 --> 01:21:51.152 - I can put any zone number and park anywhere in the city. And the idea there is for convenience. So I 01:21:51.152 --> 01:21:57.921 - could park here and I could go to another zone. I will tell you this when we came twice, twice during 01:21:57.921 --> 01:22:04.822 - our trips here, we came more than once, but we parked and paid with the park mobile down by the square. 01:22:04.822 --> 01:22:11.458 - We moved over here and parked. And then this trip we parked at the square and paid. We paid for the 01:22:11.458 --> 01:22:14.046 - rest of the time till nine o'clock and 01:22:14.690 --> 01:22:20.585 - Then we moved and parked over by the garage at Michelle's office, the parking division. And then we 01:22:20.585 --> 01:22:26.656 - parked right, right out here. So if you were to just look at the park mobile data, you'd say, Oh, well 01:22:26.656 --> 01:22:32.609 - you parked right here for all those time because that zone number, but we've already parked in three 01:22:32.609 --> 01:22:34.142 - zones in our little trip. 01:22:34.946 --> 01:22:42.258 - So there's not really a way to figure that out So, do you know at all in terms of that turnover of spots 01:22:42.258 --> 01:22:49.501 - which seems to be like the goal right is is turning over spots so that people aren't You know searching 01:22:49.501 --> 01:22:56.465 - everywhere for parking and we don't have people like just like parking all day long all the time so 01:22:56.465 --> 01:22:58.206 - is there any way to like 01:22:58.370 --> 01:23:04.982 - Sorry, anecdotal data like I'm kind of looking at if you look at the data and try to incorporate the 01:23:04.982 --> 01:23:11.660 - park mobile data into that It's kind of like hmm Maybe maybe they parked for the whole they were here 01:23:11.660 --> 01:23:18.468 - the whole time that may not have been when we do a turnover study if that was one of the tasks we would 01:23:18.468 --> 01:23:23.902 - we would go and get the license check the license plate every hour on the hour and 01:23:24.130 --> 01:23:29.844 - Over a period of time and then go back and see which cars stayed and how long that's it That's how we 01:23:29.844 --> 01:23:35.559 - would do a turnover study specific to that that wasn't in the task It's definitely a good information 01:23:35.559 --> 01:23:41.217 - to know but just looking at the data because the options you have with park mobile It's not going to 01:23:41.217 --> 01:23:46.987 - be even even that we're only talking about people that actually paid the meter. So anybody that didn't 01:23:46.987 --> 01:23:53.150 - pay the meter They're not there either. So there is limitations and I think it's important to understand that 01:23:53.378 --> 01:23:58.965 - When you have this kind of data how you use it. So a lot of parking studies you have physical counts 01:23:58.965 --> 01:24:04.607 - You you go out and physically count it and that the parking does do physical counts twice twice a day 01:24:04.607 --> 01:24:10.138 - at all the off-street Locations and they have and so they did provide that day So we could at least 01:24:10.138 --> 01:24:15.669 - get a snapshot of what that was. They do it. I guess I just want to consider I'm sorry to interrupt 01:24:15.669 --> 01:24:19.486 - you but it's just been a long report time I just want us to consider 01:24:19.650 --> 01:24:27.857 - Implementing some kind of a parking limit to encourage turnover, especially in our our high User areas 01:24:27.857 --> 01:24:35.904 - and those places that people want to go. Thanks Councilmember Rosenberger. Hi. Thank you. Thanks for 01:24:35.904 --> 01:24:44.350 - being here. I love talking about parking, too Do you make recommend recommendations on the hourly rate? I 01:24:45.122 --> 01:24:52.386 - that would you suggest an hourly rate? The report has it, and we broke it down for the next 10 years. 01:24:52.386 --> 01:24:59.650 - So initially, we understand it hasn't changed in a long time. So you have a couple of strategies. You 01:24:59.650 --> 01:25:06.913 - could just say, let's just pull off the Band-Aid, and we're going to double the rate. We're not going 01:25:06.913 --> 01:25:14.462 - to go there. We're going to say, hey, I think the core would go up $0.50, and then the lower demand areas 01:25:14.562 --> 01:25:19.982 - 25 cents an hour and this is per hour. So it's not it's not a it's not let go. This is terrible I will 01:25:19.982 --> 01:25:25.244 - say years ago we did a recommendation in Cincinnati and we said It was a dollar an hour and we said 01:25:25.244 --> 01:25:30.664 - two dollars an hour, but do it over the next five years And the council said we're just gonna go right 01:25:30.664 --> 01:25:36.032 - to two dollars. They did but they didn't have the technology They only took coins at the single space 01:25:36.032 --> 01:25:41.346 - meters and they had to go Empty some of them like two or three times a day because they were filling 01:25:41.346 --> 01:25:44.030 - up so that that didn't work out well, but you know 01:25:44.130 --> 01:25:50.769 - That's why we said incrementally adjusted. I think it's about every two or three years. I think it's 01:25:50.769 --> 01:25:57.475 - every three years And we we put a table in there in the report to show that thank you. I know we have 01:25:57.475 --> 01:26:04.180 - the report It's just that it's nice when somebody else talks about raising rates and what those rates 01:26:04.180 --> 01:26:10.622 - are and not just up here saying the numbers Do can you talk about dynamic parking? pricing and if 01:26:11.234 --> 01:26:17.316 - Just kind of what you see in the industry and if you like that at all or don't like it. Sure. I will 01:26:17.316 --> 01:26:23.338 - say this dynamic pricing is where you base it on demand where and it is tricky. What I have seen at 01:26:23.338 --> 01:26:29.420 - work is and I've seen this in ordinances of the first one was in California. They put it actually in 01:26:29.420 --> 01:26:35.442 - the ordinance and they said we're only going to adjust rates and by a certain amount and I think it 01:26:35.442 --> 01:26:37.790 - was a quarter and it would be based on 01:26:38.146 --> 01:26:43.840 - when they, they would physically go out and do occupancy accounts for on street during certain times, 01:26:43.840 --> 01:26:49.589 - you know, certain times of every quarter. And based on that, if demand was low, they might lower them, 01:26:49.589 --> 01:26:55.338 - but they, they had a limit, they'd lower it. And if it was, uh, above a certain amount, I think it was 01:26:55.338 --> 01:26:59.134 - 85%, that would go up. Now it can get confusing when you say, well, 01:27:00.130 --> 01:27:07.272 - This block face is going up this block places now. So you kind of have to watch that. So it is not a 01:27:07.272 --> 01:27:14.909 - it does sound good. And they did a big study years ago in San Francisco and it was very expensive. Millions 01:27:14.909 --> 01:27:20.990 - of dollars. But they had a grant. So and the technology is what they used to do that. 01:27:21.378 --> 01:27:27.132 - And I've also seen it I think in L.A. they did it but they did it like in zone so like its zone this 01:27:27.132 --> 01:27:32.943 - zone is going to be this it's higher further away it's going to be lower and they had options to make 01:27:32.943 --> 01:27:38.925 - adjustments based on occupancy but it was you know it's not like you can't you don't want to do it every 01:27:38.925 --> 01:27:44.735 - you know every month and it's kind of a regular basis but not you know oh now it's this now it's that 01:27:44.735 --> 01:27:50.432 - kind of thing. So that San Francisco study I read that a few years ago and that is kind of the most 01:27:50.432 --> 01:27:51.230 - recent study. 01:27:51.458 --> 01:27:58.695 - It that was just a really big one and from that a lot of lessons learned. So yeah, I Guess just a couple 01:27:58.695 --> 01:28:05.793 - more little things like the timeline for replacement and if you would think like we do have areas that 01:28:05.793 --> 01:28:12.823 - are much more parked than others and Would it make sense, you know to keep some meters or do you have 01:28:12.823 --> 01:28:19.646 - to change the whole system at once? so that the streets that are less parked maybe keep meters and 01:28:21.026 --> 01:28:26.972 - You know, I think when you make a technology change, and you know, if it's on street or off street, 01:28:26.972 --> 01:28:33.156 - it's a little different. So on street, right now you have all the meters in place. It's working. You're 01:28:33.156 --> 01:28:39.220 - paying a fee. And if you said, well, let's do the core area first, and then we'll look at the further 01:28:39.220 --> 01:28:45.404 - outs, that might be a way. But from a pricing perspective, the vendors are going to give the best price 01:28:45.404 --> 01:28:49.150 - when you have, you know, all this is what we want all at once. 01:28:49.282 --> 01:28:56.239 - And we're going to phase it in and you're going to be maintaining two systems. So yeah. And the last 01:28:56.239 --> 01:29:03.746 - question are you a Donald Trump fan too. Yeah I do have I do have the book. So yeah thank you. And certainly 01:29:03.746 --> 01:29:10.014 - that. Yeah that's someone that we do talk about. So I think he makes a lot of good points. 01:29:10.530 --> 01:29:19.037 - So some of my kind of wonder about you know, I just I don't take a half hour to find a place to park 01:29:19.037 --> 01:29:27.629 - usually Thank you, thank you so much I know the clerk has a few comments would like to add and so I'd 01:29:27.629 --> 01:29:35.294 - love to recognize the clerk at this moment Well, how many minutes do you need clerk Bolton 01:29:35.426 --> 01:29:44.839 - I would say no more than 45 to 50 minutes. You said 45? I did. I would like to extend this by three 01:29:44.839 --> 01:29:54.440 - minutes. No. We'll extend this indefinitely. Please don't. We'll extend another 10 minutes. Go ahead. 01:29:54.440 --> 01:30:03.006 - Hang on. I just wanted to make sure I got note of that for our minutes also. So I send out 01:30:03.106 --> 01:30:08.236 - an addendum in your packet. I'm sure all of you had copious amounts of free time to read through it. 01:30:08.236 --> 01:30:13.418 - I had some comments about the study. I wanted to hit on a few points now that I've actually heard the 01:30:13.418 --> 01:30:18.599 - presentation. First off, with the first recommendation in particular is pretty much what I'm going to 01:30:18.599 --> 01:30:23.730 - be talking about. I'm not going to talk about the other recommendations, but I did want to highlight 01:30:23.730 --> 01:30:28.606 - a few points. The reason parking ticket appeals are in the clerk's office as opposed to parking 01:30:28.706 --> 01:30:35.655 - is because the late Dan Combs actually sued the city over his parking citations. And that's when we 01:30:35.655 --> 01:30:42.952 - actually got a judicial order to move them out of parking because, well, we didn't want to have somebody 01:30:42.952 --> 01:30:50.040 - be the judge, jury, and executioner when it relates to parking. So that's a very short version of it. 01:30:50.040 --> 01:30:57.406 - But the study didn't really address that. That was one of the concerns. I also read through the study and 01:30:57.986 --> 01:31:04.992 - noticed that there were several errors, generalities, misstatements, and wanted to highlight those and 01:31:04.992 --> 01:31:12.270 - say, rather than accept recommendation number one immediately or when next presented with some legislation 01:31:12.270 --> 01:31:19.276 - related to it, I would ask that the council ask for additional information and more data. A lot of the 01:31:19.276 --> 01:31:24.446 - data that was available was not actually asked for or used, so for example, 01:31:24.834 --> 01:31:32.451 - The report talked about the appeal rate and two to four weeks, which is what we put on the website and 01:31:32.451 --> 01:31:40.067 - which is what we tell people when they call. Our average for the last two years for turnaround was 3.4 01:31:40.067 --> 01:31:47.610 - days. The mean is three. So when we're looking at data, if you're getting a report that says it's two 01:31:47.610 --> 01:31:52.638 - to four weeks, that's wrong. But that is what is stated. Similarly, 01:31:52.994 --> 01:31:58.843 - When we're talking about the increase in appeals over years, one of the things that drives appeals is 01:31:58.843 --> 01:32:04.920 - the number of citations being issued. I've said that to you for, well, all 10 years that I've been clerk, 01:32:04.920 --> 01:32:10.654 - but it is something that I have seen for the last 17 years I've been with this organization. One of 01:32:10.654 --> 01:32:16.560 - the things that we also look at though is why appeals go up. So we look at changes in legislation over 01:32:16.560 --> 01:32:21.950 - the years. We look at enforcement changes. We also look at transaction rates. So when we see, 01:32:22.178 --> 01:32:29.381 - park mobile transactions go up over 500% over the last few years, the fact that we only see appeals 01:32:29.381 --> 01:32:36.584 - go up by an additional 2% per year, that's something that we will look at. When we look at the fact 01:32:36.584 --> 01:32:44.075 - that most of the appeals coming in are over the web as opposed to in person, when we look at why people 01:32:44.075 --> 01:32:50.558 - are appealing tickets, over 40% of the tickets appealed are related to park mobile usage. 01:32:51.010 --> 01:32:57.456 - frequently user error. People just use the wrong license plate. And sometimes officer error, although 01:32:57.456 --> 01:33:04.091 - very small amount. So I don't want to say it's all their fault. That's not what I'm saying at all. Very, 01:33:04.091 --> 01:33:10.537 - very, very small amount. But regardless, there are lots of reasons why it happens. I don't think that 01:33:10.537 --> 01:33:17.045 - moving something before you understand the core reasons for the issues is a good choice or necessarily 01:33:17.045 --> 01:33:18.878 - good for the public benefit. 01:33:19.842 --> 01:33:26.594 - So looking at something like this, you can move appeals, but you don't necessarily know why they're 01:33:26.594 --> 01:33:33.413 - happening. And will the people who are viewing them actually dig into the core reasons and keep that 01:33:33.413 --> 01:33:40.368 - data, which is something that we do on a regular basis. So I don't want to take up all the time. We're 01:33:40.368 --> 01:33:47.390 - running very, very late this evening. But I did want to say that the clerk's office, our subject matter 01:33:47.522 --> 01:33:55.494 - experts in parking as well with 17 years of experience at the top of the office, law degrees, and familiarity 01:33:55.494 --> 01:34:02.886 - and usage with the Bloomington Municipal Code, the Indiana State Code, case law, and the MUTCD. So to 01:34:02.886 --> 01:34:10.278 - say otherwise and to make broad statements that do not actually correspond with the data collected by 01:34:10.278 --> 01:34:15.134 - the study is inaccurate and not helpful to you. Thank you so much. 01:34:16.226 --> 01:34:24.788 - A follow-up question, Council Member Zulik. Thank you, Clerk Bolden. Were you consulted at all throughout 01:34:24.788 --> 01:34:33.189 - this study, or was your office? We had a, I think it was about a one-hour conversation during the start 01:34:33.189 --> 01:34:41.590 - of their study, which I viewed as more of an introductory session, and we had no further conversations. 01:34:41.590 --> 01:34:45.790 - And I will add, I did want to provide some feedback 01:34:46.306 --> 01:34:52.068 - When I heard a brief report at the Transportation Committee and asked if I could get the link to provide 01:34:52.068 --> 01:34:57.555 - feedback to the Walker study but that was not provided to me. Understood. Thank you. Thank you very 01:34:57.555 --> 01:35:03.262 - much. Attorney Allen is this a report that we need to. We don't vote on their action in any way we just 01:35:03.262 --> 01:35:04.798 - received and say thank you. 01:35:05.250 --> 01:35:11.623 - Wonderful. Okay. So with that we are so grateful for the time that you spent working with the city. 01:35:11.623 --> 01:35:17.996 - I think we're surely going to have lots of more questions as we start thinking about implementation 01:35:17.996 --> 01:35:24.751 - here. I know a lot of residents are really interested also in the outcomes here. But thank you to parking 01:35:24.751 --> 01:35:28.830 - for the work that you do. I know just because of time I'll ask. 01:35:29.090 --> 01:35:35.118 - when hopefully a former council member or Commissioner Volin might speak for a while and I can be a 01:35:35.118 --> 01:35:41.266 - little flexible with your time when you speak at the public mic if necessary, but it would be nice to 01:35:41.266 --> 01:35:47.294 - hear what the Transportation Commission has said about this too. Okay, but with that, let's move on 01:35:47.294 --> 01:35:52.478 - if that is okay. We have a report from the fiscal committee. Council Member Stasberg. 01:35:53.314 --> 01:36:02.057 - Thank you so much. I joined the Zoom, and I am going to share my screen and hope that that is successful, 01:36:02.057 --> 01:36:10.635 - because I think that it will be helpful when going over this. Hopefully you can read that. This is also 01:36:10.635 --> 01:36:19.130 - in the packet, and it is, I think, in the second addendum. So I wanted to kind of give this report for 01:36:19.130 --> 01:36:20.862 - a couple of reasons. 01:36:21.122 --> 01:36:30.868 - First off, let me find my actual report that I wrote so that then I Don't go too off script. Oh No Yeah, 01:36:30.868 --> 01:36:40.243 - there it is, okay, so This report from the special fiscal committee and I wanted to give this report 01:36:40.243 --> 01:36:46.462 - to the whole council for a couple reasons one is that you know, we 01:36:47.266 --> 01:36:53.387 - Revenue streams are changing pretty significantly by the state and I wanted to kind of keep everybody 01:36:53.387 --> 01:36:59.388 - in the loop about that because that is kind of barreling down in some ways and secondly Even though 01:36:59.388 --> 01:37:05.448 - we discussed this at fiscal committee a couple of weeks ago There are some pretty significant things 01:37:05.448 --> 01:37:11.509 - that Reedy shared that I think our community needs to know and so I wanted to highlight some of this 01:37:11.509 --> 01:37:16.670 - information at a larger forum with more of the public who tends to do this so That is 01:37:17.090 --> 01:37:27.645 - The primary thing so I am going to refresh this isn't on the shared screen but. Yeah I will just do 01:37:27.645 --> 01:37:33.662 - it with the shared screen so let me get that back there. 01:37:34.882 --> 01:37:41.204 - So we have a few different options right in terms of of the broad overview of what they're what the 01:37:41.204 --> 01:37:47.652 - state has said to you is the state is cutting property taxes in terms of property tax revenue streams 01:37:47.652 --> 01:37:53.974 - and they're they're saying okay municipalities can make it up with local income tax revenue streams 01:37:53.974 --> 01:38:00.296 - and so the special fiscal committee is getting a variety of kind of estimates in different ways and 01:38:00.296 --> 01:38:01.118 - to different 01:38:01.602 --> 01:38:09.138 - specificities. So the first one that I wanted to go over, and I tried to put this in the report pretty 01:38:09.138 --> 01:38:16.820 - detailed, so you can give me feedback about how successful I was at that. So this particular spreadsheet 01:38:16.820 --> 01:38:18.942 - comes from AIM, which is the 01:38:19.266 --> 01:38:27.220 - Indiana municipalities organization, so they have been kind of plugging numbers in to kind of give all 01:38:27.220 --> 01:38:35.096 - counties some kind of idea of what might be coming. So this is a theoretical what if, right, based on 01:38:35.096 --> 01:38:38.494 - population, AGI, current lit revenue, okay. 01:38:38.658 --> 01:38:46.400 - And then how much property tax loss were expected which means that this total revenue That's kind of 01:38:46.400 --> 01:38:54.141 - like how much revenue would have to be made up with some other method So this particular spreadsheet 01:38:54.141 --> 01:39:01.883 - says okay if we do one of our options Which is to have a completely separate rate for the county and 01:39:01.883 --> 01:39:06.942 - for the city? What would happen to our? To our revenues, okay, so 01:39:07.234 --> 01:39:16.025 - In this particular instance, we are, I don't know if I can make this any bigger. I think I can. 01:39:16.025 --> 01:39:25.365 - There we go. We are maximizing as a city the lit percentage that we're allowed to do. So that's 1.2%. 01:39:25.365 --> 01:39:35.255 - And if we maximize that percentage, we still end up about $13 million less than what we would have received 01:39:35.255 --> 01:39:37.086 - if this law had not 01:39:37.250 --> 01:39:44.188 - Put into effect Ellisville I want to point out is sort of in a similar situation. Ellisville is that 01:39:44.188 --> 01:39:51.263 - next line down? So if they do this 1.2 individual city Lit percentage they are also about four hundred 01:39:51.263 --> 01:39:58.132 - and seventy one thousand dollars in the hole, which is not as much as Bloomington, but that's still 01:39:58.132 --> 01:40:03.902 - 15% less You know, they have a much smaller budget to begin with so that is the the 01:40:04.578 --> 01:40:12.512 - spreadsheet that I wanted to point out because we have two options here essentially cities municipalities 01:40:12.512 --> 01:40:19.998 - above 3,500 can set our own rates or We can basically let the county set rates for us and then that 01:40:19.998 --> 01:40:27.483 - county rate would be spread through the entire population Okay, and so the next sheet is what would 01:40:27.483 --> 01:40:33.022 - happen if the county just set a 1% rate okay, so if the county across the 01:40:33.474 --> 01:40:41.024 - Both Ellitsville and Bloomington set that 1% rate all of a sudden. We are not in the hole anymore where 01:40:41.024 --> 01:40:48.357 - with just a 1% weight rate where we're maintaining expected revenues and Ellitsville and Steinsville 01:40:48.357 --> 01:40:56.125 - are actually getting higher than expected revenues. I do want to point out that in both of these scenarios 01:40:56.125 --> 01:41:02.078 - There's this big 1.4 million dollar deficit down here and that is the library and 01:41:02.626 --> 01:41:10.805 - Okay, so members of the public the library is capped at this point oh five percent lit rate and that 01:41:10.805 --> 01:41:18.984 - is capped by state law and That is the maximum lit rate that can get put on on our libraries. And so 01:41:18.984 --> 01:41:27.730 - that is going to put them in significant Significantly less revenue than they otherwise would have expected 01:41:27.730 --> 01:41:28.702 - to be in So 01:41:29.378 --> 01:41:35.380 - Those are the two from aim now as the city of Bloomington We've also been receiving reports from Reedy 01:41:35.380 --> 01:41:41.265 - financial who is one of our financial partners who helps deal with the long-term Finances and I also 01:41:41.265 --> 01:41:47.326 - see city controller McKim over there. So hopefully he'll jump up if I say anything like too wrong Okay, 01:41:47.326 --> 01:41:53.211 - so this next sheet I'm gonna make it a little bit smaller so that I can actually see it a little bit 01:41:53.211 --> 01:41:55.134 - better is what would happen with 01:41:55.522 --> 01:42:02.966 - Bloomington civil city because of course readies focus just on Bloomington stuff right and not so much 01:42:02.966 --> 01:42:10.915 - the rest of the county if The county once again, this is opting into the county because we already discovered 01:42:10.915 --> 01:42:18.214 - from the aim sheet that if we do our own rate We are in a severe We get severely less than we expect 01:42:18.214 --> 01:42:24.574 - So if the county adopts the maximum rates, that's what this one is. Okay, so this sheet 01:42:25.186 --> 01:42:32.367 - These sheets are super confusing by the way, and if anybody out there is like oh my gosh councilmember 01:42:32.367 --> 01:42:39.478 - Stossberg I really appreciate what you had to say, but I had no idea you don't give me a call Send me 01:42:39.478 --> 01:42:46.658 - an email come to the farmers market on Saturday, okay So this is putting a maximum of that 1.2 percent 01:42:46.658 --> 01:42:51.678 - Lit on the the entire county and it is also Maxing out all of the other 01:42:51.778 --> 01:43:01.819 - lit services, so maxing out other county lit at 1.2%, okay? And it's maxing out townships and the library 01:43:01.819 --> 01:43:11.576 - at that .05% and also I think transit at that .05% that state law allows for those things. And if that 01:43:11.576 --> 01:43:20.670 - happens, we end up actually in quite a surplus. Everybody ends up in quite a surplus if we just 01:43:20.898 --> 01:43:28.340 - put a really high income tax on everybody, right? Which I'm not suggesting is a good plan, just to be 01:43:28.340 --> 01:43:35.710 - clear. These are all what if kinds of spreadsheets, okay? And so basically almost everything through 01:43:35.710 --> 01:43:43.079 - here comes out with a surplus, except for some of the townships. Some of the townships get a surplus 01:43:43.079 --> 01:43:46.654 - with that .05%, and some of them are in deficit. 01:43:47.138 --> 01:43:55.868 - And so once again, for community members, these state changes are really messing things around. And 01:43:55.868 --> 01:44:04.597 - the highlighted portions here, I'm going to shrink this again a little bit, are the schools and the 01:44:04.597 --> 01:44:13.501 - public library. So MCCSE, $17 million, almost $18 million less than they would expect to receive. And 01:44:13.501 --> 01:44:16.382 - they have no way to increase any 01:44:17.058 --> 01:44:24.399 - Other tax dollars, they've got no recourse. RBB, four and a half million. And these are reading estimates. 01:44:24.399 --> 01:44:31.465 - The library is down there at 1.5 million. I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the Monroe County 01:44:31.465 --> 01:44:38.325 - Solid Waste Management District, which has a slightly less than expected as well. These are numbers 01:44:38.325 --> 01:44:45.323 - that we can't necessarily change as a city, but as a community, we need to be super aware of, because 01:44:45.323 --> 01:44:47.038 - even at the maximum lit, 01:44:47.618 --> 01:44:54.483 - when there's all kinds of surpluses happening, the schools are in real trouble. So that is number three. 01:44:54.483 --> 01:45:01.413 - If anybody's following along with my written report, this is sheet number three. Now we have sheet number 01:45:01.413 --> 01:45:08.082 - four. And so this is where Reedy sent, hey, we don't actually need a surplus. If we just had the same 01:45:08.082 --> 01:45:10.174 - amount as maybe we would expect 01:45:10.402 --> 01:45:16.455 - have had without this law like that could work right so that's what this spreadsheet is and so what 01:45:16.455 --> 01:45:22.811 - this does is it puts that municipal services rated right about one one point oh three percent once again 01:45:22.811 --> 01:45:28.864 - the county you know putting that on everybody and and that is very similar to the aim projection of 01:45:28.864 --> 01:45:30.014 - of the one percent 01:45:30.146 --> 01:45:37.669 - Okay The county services lit rate at point eight seven oh six, right? So the county rate also doesn't 01:45:37.669 --> 01:45:45.266 - have to be maxed out And then the fire EMS rate of the point Two eight oh six. I didn't talk about the 01:45:45.266 --> 01:45:52.937 - fire EMS rate, but that is an additional Rate that could be utilized in different ways. The county sets 01:45:52.937 --> 01:45:58.174 - that as well and so if all those things go together we can end up with 01:45:58.338 --> 01:46:06.659 - With neither a surplus nor a deficit just a nice little even keel These next to Ellisville and Steinsville 01:46:06.659 --> 01:46:14.435 - with the Reedy estimate also have a little bit of surplus Of course, the schools are still in heavy 01:46:14.435 --> 01:46:22.523 - deficit as is the library And the solid waste district now in this particular sheet Reedy did something 01:46:22.523 --> 01:46:26.878 - different with the townships instead of allocating this 01:46:27.778 --> 01:46:35.132 - 0.05 percent non municipal lit type to the townships They allocated township money from the fire EMS 01:46:35.132 --> 01:46:42.486 - rate and my understanding of that is that the state law is still so fuzzy that That fire EMS rate is 01:46:42.486 --> 01:46:50.059 - super flexible in terms of what the county wants to do with it So really just gave an example here that 01:46:50.059 --> 01:46:53.918 - I think based on how the law is written right now is 01:46:54.018 --> 01:47:00.168 - The county could choose to fund townships out of that and that way the townships would not necessarily 01:47:00.168 --> 01:47:06.438 - like they would all they there's zeros all down here at the end so they're all kind of being made whole. 01:47:06.438 --> 01:47:12.409 - OK so they don't have either that surplus or a deficit. They're all kind of equal. I know this is a 01:47:12.409 --> 01:47:18.499 - lot of information. I'm really sorry. It really just bundles along all of our all of our reports that 01:47:18.499 --> 01:47:20.350 - we just had from the mayor to. 01:47:20.642 --> 01:47:27.368 - So that was sheet number four. And number five is maybe most interesting for residents to hear, and 01:47:27.368 --> 01:47:34.162 - also maybe important for us as representatives to be able to communicate with our residents, because 01:47:34.162 --> 01:47:41.023 - what it shows is an estimate. So based on sheet number four, that break-even impact rate, which makes 01:47:41.023 --> 01:47:46.942 - Bloomington whole, which kind of sets everybody in the local government up pretty well, 01:47:47.074 --> 01:47:54.078 - what is gonna happen for an individual person and how much tax they pay. This sheet specifically only 01:47:54.078 --> 01:48:00.944 - applies to homeowners and it uses of course a whole bunch of averages of means in terms of property 01:48:00.944 --> 01:48:07.811 - tax paid and salaries like mean salary and it does this based on townships. So what this is telling 01:48:07.811 --> 01:48:14.334 - us is that if you live in Bean Blossom Township, actually I'll do Bloomington Township because 01:48:14.594 --> 01:48:23.830 - We're in Bloomington. So if you live in, we'll do the Bloomington city, Bloomington township, and your 01:48:23.830 --> 01:48:33.065 - mean net property tax is the $3,207.22. This is how much it would be on the old system is 3,800 or so. 01:48:33.065 --> 01:48:42.301 - You would be saving about $600 on your property tax bill, but your income is $85,000 on, it's the mean 01:48:42.301 --> 01:48:44.094 - income, so how much 01:48:44.706 --> 01:48:51.155 - Additional local income tax would you have to pay for that? Okay, you'd have to pay a little bit more 01:48:51.155 --> 01:48:57.731 - two hundred and sixty five dollars in local income tax. So overall you're Saving six hundred and thirty 01:48:57.731 --> 01:49:04.369 - seven dollars on your property tax. You're paying two hundred and sixty five dollars more for your local 01:49:04.369 --> 01:49:10.755 - income tax So per year you're getting about three hundred and seventy two dollars more right in your 01:49:10.755 --> 01:49:13.790 - pocket That's that's tax that you're not paying 01:49:14.050 --> 01:49:22.098 - If you're in Bloomington Township, that's what this last column is. I want you to notice Steinsville 01:49:22.098 --> 01:49:30.306 - right here Okay, if you live in Steinsville, it actually projects that you are going to pay more Okay, 01:49:30.306 --> 01:49:38.673 - that your property tax savings are only $24 but you would end up paying 238 more dollars in local income 01:49:38.673 --> 01:49:43.454 - tax that if and then the average across the whole county is 01:49:43.810 --> 01:49:51.076 - across the whole county, it's $353.80 that people are more in their pocket. And that's per year. That 01:49:51.076 --> 01:49:58.627 - is literally less than I spent last week at the grocery store, per year. And in terms of that $17 million 01:49:58.627 --> 01:50:05.822 - that the school system is losing, I just want to make sure that we're putting that into perspective. 01:50:07.106 --> 01:50:14.885 - So that is why I wanted to include this chart, which is also from Reedy. And as I said in my memo, this 01:50:14.885 --> 01:50:22.589 - is a great example of regressive taxation where the folks out in Steinsville who's, you know, they pay 01:50:22.589 --> 01:50:30.068 - the least in property tax right now, which means that their property values are the lowest and they 01:50:30.068 --> 01:50:35.902 - have the lowest median household income and they are gonna end up paying more 01:50:36.002 --> 01:50:44.728 - under this plan, whereas these folks that have some of the highest household incomes, I think that's 01:50:44.728 --> 01:50:53.627 - the, yep, $122,000 in Salt Creek Township are gonna be reaping the benefits of $623.59 roughly, right? 01:50:53.627 --> 01:51:01.662 - These are, to some degree, estimates, right, based on the data that is in the public system. 01:51:02.626 --> 01:51:10.911 - That is what we have been doing at fiscal committee recently is learning and understanding the impacts 01:51:10.911 --> 01:51:19.034 - of this bill and how that might mean that we need to to function in the future. Any questions. Thank 01:51:19.034 --> 01:51:25.630 - you for that. Has county council given any indication on what they plan on doing. 01:51:26.338 --> 01:51:32.750 - Yeah, so part of the changes that the state made this year and the state could still make changes in 01:51:32.750 --> 01:51:39.353 - their legislative session next year, by the way So if you're a community member who's like, oh my gosh, 01:51:39.353 --> 01:51:45.702 - this is terrible contact your state reps, right? And encourage that so last year what the state did 01:51:45.702 --> 01:51:50.590 - is that they wanted to create the must committee so it's it's in my it's the 01:51:51.106 --> 01:51:58.429 - Oh, it's a task force that I'm not going to... Anyway, it's a task force that includes a county council 01:51:58.429 --> 01:52:01.246 - representative and the fiscal officers. 01:52:01.442 --> 01:52:08.213 - from each of the districts and so I have met with County Council President Crosley and Vice President 01:52:08.213 --> 01:52:15.182 - Iverson who is also chair of their financial committee and so it is my understanding that because County 01:52:15.182 --> 01:52:21.953 - Council has to call the must and so it's my understanding that President Crosley is planning on doing 01:52:21.953 --> 01:52:26.334 - that and I've also I'm also trying to connect with some folks and 01:52:26.658 --> 01:52:32.609 - You know in our surround other county officials that are elected just to do that and the most process 01:52:32.609 --> 01:52:38.559 - is really important and there's definitely you know gonna be some These are not all the sheets by the 01:52:38.559 --> 01:52:44.626 - way that we got shared that got shared with us there are some additional pieces of information and some 01:52:44.626 --> 01:52:50.110 - additional theories like all of these kind of work underneath what the law says right now and 01:52:50.210 --> 01:52:57.049 - Since there's the possibility they could change the law, there are potentially other financial scenarios 01:52:57.049 --> 01:53:03.171 - that could also work well. And so part of what MUST needs to do is give a recommendation. But 01:53:03.171 --> 01:53:09.684 - the recommendation has to be unanimous. And part of documenting that process and giving that report 01:53:09.684 --> 01:53:16.263 - to the state, it's like, how is this process working? Could the officials actually reach a unanimous 01:53:16.263 --> 01:53:19.454 - opinion about what to do based on current law if 01:53:19.778 --> 01:53:26.268 - You know, we were allowed to do something different than could it be unanimous? And so there's some 01:53:26.268 --> 01:53:32.953 - there's some possibility with that. But yeah, great Thank you. Sure other questions I Hope this wasn't 01:53:32.953 --> 01:53:39.767 - too much because we're all okay. I see him there. Okay. No, okay All right. Thank you so much. Constable 01:53:39.767 --> 01:53:46.452 - Stossberg for your leadership on this committee and for that very informative Presentation. Thank you. 01:53:46.452 --> 01:53:49.502 - Yeah, and and do please let me know if and any 01:53:49.794 --> 01:53:54.679 - Any residents out there to you because I've I've really been kind of delving deep to try to understand 01:53:54.679 --> 01:53:59.516 - it And I don't think that I necessarily explained all of it super well right now, but I think you did 01:53:59.516 --> 01:54:00.702 - Thank you for doing that 01:54:00.770 --> 01:54:08.866 - All right. That has to be some type of a record. We will move on now to public comment. So we have a 01:54:08.866 --> 01:54:17.123 - period of public comment. And again, you may make comment on any of the last two hours of reports that 01:54:17.123 --> 01:54:22.494 - you've heard, if you can remember any of them. So with that, we'll 01:54:23.042 --> 01:54:30.295 - If you, as people are walking up, if you're in council chambers, just remember to say your name or alias 01:54:30.295 --> 01:54:37.547 - for the record, please, and write it down, most importantly. And folks online, there's a button to raise 01:54:37.547 --> 01:54:44.592 - your hand. We'll start in council chambers with the tall man. Hello, Steve Volin. Before I talk about 01:54:44.592 --> 01:54:50.878 - the Transportation Commission, I just wanted to thank Councilman Brasulik and Stasberg for 01:54:51.170 --> 01:54:59.435 - Their advocacy for students, the census in 1790 has counted people in only one way where they have their 01:54:59.435 --> 01:55:07.385 - so-called usual residents, not their so-called permanent residents. One of the most toxic phrases in 01:55:07.385 --> 01:55:15.729 - representing young people is the phrase permanent address. It's a misnomer. The census considers students 01:55:15.729 --> 01:55:18.878 - to be resident where they go to school. 01:55:19.842 --> 01:55:27.158 - If they are people and they're here they count and they are citizens of this city. So I wanted to say 01:55:27.158 --> 01:55:34.689 - thank you for that advocacy But I did want to speak in my role as chair of the Transportation Commission 01:55:34.689 --> 01:55:42.005 - We did receive the parking report Back in I want to say it was June But it wasn't complete. It was we 01:55:42.005 --> 01:55:48.030 - were told was a final draft. We didn't get the final draft until the August meeting 01:55:48.194 --> 01:55:56.482 - And so I've asked the commission to review the report thoroughly and at our set we do actually it was 01:55:56.482 --> 01:56:04.608 - our July meeting. We don't have a meeting in August because of budgets. So at the September meeting 01:56:04.608 --> 01:56:05.502 - we will be 01:56:05.634 --> 01:56:12.036 - taking a vote on our opinions of the recommendations in the report. So rather than talk any more about 01:56:12.036 --> 01:56:18.314 - the recommendations are going to let that process play out. But commissioners are going to be taking 01:56:18.314 --> 01:56:24.965 - those recommendations up and we will get back to you at the end of September. And if there's any questions 01:56:24.965 --> 01:56:31.181 - happy to answer them I will say briefly that there's a lot of good recommendations of report. There 01:56:31.181 --> 01:56:34.910 - are some I personally disagree with. It's not much point in 01:56:35.138 --> 01:56:42.201 - Bringing those up now but there is going to your attention will be needed very soon because there's 01:56:42.201 --> 01:56:49.264 - a lot of change that need to be made to parking. You've heard a preview some of them tonight and as 01:56:49.264 --> 01:56:56.680 - at least one member has said some of these changes are way overdue. Thank you. Thank you. Next commentor 01:56:56.680 --> 01:56:57.598 - in chambers. 01:57:01.474 --> 01:57:07.715 - Evening council members. How are you? Terry Amsler and my wife and I live in Bloomington and I pretty 01:57:07.715 --> 01:57:14.262 - much only pay parking meters with coins I realized come to think of it. It's another discussion or briefly 01:57:14.262 --> 01:57:20.564 - community survey very briefly. It's a great idea to do this It's very important. Actually, I love your 01:57:20.564 --> 01:57:23.134 - questions in your comments. I wonder this 01:57:23.266 --> 01:57:30.378 - question of the random sample versus the open participation thing, which I won't repeat what I've heard 01:57:30.378 --> 01:57:37.216 - and which I mostly agree with, but I think saying what, when this report is provided, I don't think 01:57:37.216 --> 01:57:44.533 - it's on the website yet, at least I didn't see it, but I may not have seen it, found it tonight or earlier 01:57:44.533 --> 01:57:49.662 - today, but I'm wondering how the data from the open participation shows up 01:57:50.402 --> 01:57:56.823 - I was unclear about that. I probably just was said and I didn't hear it clearly, but I was confused 01:57:56.823 --> 01:58:03.757 - about that. The other thing I think while there are choice making trade offs with all survey methodologies. 01:58:03.757 --> 01:58:09.728 - Yes. Amen. Forever. The same time, how you present that information publicly and what it is, 01:58:09.728 --> 01:58:16.342 - what it says, what it means, what it doesn't mean challenges is important. It's good public engagement 01:58:16.342 --> 01:58:18.910 - if it's authentic and honest and clear. 01:58:19.458 --> 01:58:26.622 - So I just recommend that as you describe it, as you present it to people, you account not as something's 01:58:26.622 --> 01:58:33.308 - evil necessarily, but what it is, what it's not, what it means. Now the only other thing I'd say, 01:58:33.308 --> 01:58:40.199 - I think, if I, tell me when it's time to go and I'll leave. The one, because these things tend, it's 01:58:40.199 --> 01:58:47.022 - a danger of all consultant public sector entity work. Everybody wants to look good. Hey, why should 01:58:47.022 --> 01:58:49.342 - a little government be different? 01:58:49.666 --> 01:58:55.670 - Anybody else, I suppose. But it's important, I think, to look at this. So what's not the good news? 01:58:55.670 --> 01:59:01.734 - There's some good news. But I would encourage the council of the city to look at what's not the good 01:59:01.734 --> 01:59:08.219 - news only. I think it makes me think you're going to do the council is doing some sort of more deliberative 01:59:08.219 --> 01:59:14.223 - session later in the year around public safety or some such, I think. And I'm not directly involved 01:59:14.223 --> 01:59:19.326 - in anything. But something like that, I think. But there's information in the survey 01:59:19.842 --> 01:59:27.038 - which suggests some framing of some questions, maybe, perhaps, not to privilege the survey. The other 01:59:27.038 --> 01:59:34.305 - thing I note, lastly, just about, one of the things it says around the engagement, people that weren't 01:59:34.305 --> 01:59:41.360 - engaged, it says 50% of respondents, I assume, on the random sample, I assume, since that's showing 01:59:41.360 --> 01:59:47.710 - up that I can see, lack awareness of engagement channels and opportunities. And 39% said, 01:59:48.130 --> 01:59:54.633 - They don't think their impact matters, their input matters. I'm not saying they're 100% correct, that's 01:59:54.633 --> 02:00:00.886 - another, but there's information for the committee on council processes and others and it's time to 02:00:00.886 --> 02:00:07.265 - go. So I'll leave it at that and thank you very much, always a pleasure to see you. Thank you so very 02:00:07.265 --> 02:00:12.830 - much. Is there anybody online? Okay, person online, we look forward to hearing from you. 02:00:14.242 --> 02:00:20.841 - Hey, good evening, President Asare. I'm Christopher M. G. with the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. 02:00:20.841 --> 02:00:27.073 - Double housekeeping. Next Tuesday evening, your chamber is hosting Women Excel Bloomington, presented 02:00:27.073 --> 02:00:33.366 - by Old National Bank at Ivy Tech. The evening event celebrates local women whose leadership strengthen 02:00:33.366 --> 02:00:39.721 - our business and our community. A good reminder that strong-ended institutions depend on people willing 02:00:39.721 --> 02:00:43.998 - to lead. I wrote a piece on advocacy matters about the parking study. 02:00:44.386 --> 02:00:51.069 - I have not looked at the community survey, but kind of going on Council Member Stasberg fiscal committee 02:00:51.069 --> 02:00:56.861 - report, I have looked at the budget as presented by the mayor, and the chamber appreciates 02:00:56.861 --> 02:01:03.353 - her administration's 2027 from the perspective of protecting essential services, maintaining existing 02:01:03.353 --> 02:01:10.227 - assets, and avoiding new full-time position. That's discipline we definitely welcome. General fund pictures 02:01:10.227 --> 02:01:13.918 - improved, but the long-term challenges definitely remain. 02:01:14.370 --> 02:01:19.957 - Revenue will tighten. We just heard why. Personnel costs will keep rising. Did anybody look at the health 02:01:19.957 --> 02:01:25.491 - care costs? Ouch. The full impact of the state tax changes are still ahead, shifting expenses to another 02:01:25.491 --> 02:01:31.078 - fund, drawing on reserves, bonding capital work, all pretty reasonably, but none creates lasting savings. 02:01:31.078 --> 02:01:36.190 - I'm going to encourage, the Chamber's going to encourage the fiscal committee to use the process 02:01:36.322 --> 02:01:41.753 - to look at ways to permanently lower costs of doing business without weakening core services. That means 02:01:41.753 --> 02:01:47.184 - serious inventory of authorized and vacant positions, contracts, subscriptions, consultants, facilities, 02:01:47.184 --> 02:01:51.891 - vehicles and equipment, all that other stuff. It also means identifying the functions that 02:01:51.891 --> 02:01:57.581 - can be consolidated, work can be brought in-house, property or equipment that no longer is needed, technology 02:01:57.581 --> 02:02:02.909 - investments that deliver real measurable savings rather than simply adding another system to maintain. 02:02:02.909 --> 02:02:04.926 - This is not for across the board cuts. 02:02:05.410 --> 02:02:11.406 - Deferred maintenance, then public safety, staffing, and outdated systems all cause taxpayers more down 02:02:11.406 --> 02:02:17.460 - the road. There should be no kicking the can. This all calls for a clear multi-year plan that separates 02:02:17.460 --> 02:02:23.281 - simple fixes from reoccurring savings. Bloomington still has time to make thoughtful choices before 02:02:23.281 --> 02:02:29.219 - revenue pressures intensify. The budget process should be the beginning of that conversation, not the 02:02:29.219 --> 02:02:31.198 - end of it. The Chamber encourages 02:02:31.298 --> 02:02:36.810 - the full council, particularly its fiscal committee, to carry this work forward. You have priorities, 02:02:36.810 --> 02:02:42.267 - but let's look at also ways we can sort of streamline some things, some cuts. These are much harder, 02:02:42.267 --> 02:02:48.049 - and I get that. But as we've looked at, times are difficult, and we're gonna have to kind of come together 02:02:48.049 --> 02:02:53.615 - with some real solutions, both as a county, as a city, as we move forward. I look forward as a chamber 02:02:53.615 --> 02:02:58.046 - of commerce to working with this body in that process. I thank you for your time. 02:02:59.138 --> 02:03:05.701 - Thank you very much. Are there any other commenters online? All right, two more. Wonderful. Person two. 02:03:05.701 --> 02:03:12.265 - We look forward to hearing from you. Good evening. This is Paul Rousseau. I would like to comment about 02:03:12.265 --> 02:03:18.955 - the 2026 community survey. I acknowledge the hard work of those who created the survey, and I acknowledge 02:03:18.955 --> 02:03:24.382 - the reasoning of Mr. Andreessen with regard to why the survey excluded most students. 02:03:25.954 --> 02:03:33.349 - But it seems to me that capturing the views of IU students is necessary despite the difficulty. Regarding 02:03:33.349 --> 02:03:40.534 - whether student residents are as fully engaged with government services as permanent residents, please 02:03:40.534 --> 02:03:47.719 - recall the tragedy of Nathaniel Stratton, an IU student who was 20 years old. On September 18th, 2022, 02:03:47.719 --> 02:03:54.696 - Nathan was killed by a high-speed motor vehicle while riding a scooter in the bicycle lane on North 02:03:54.696 --> 02:03:55.742 - Walnut Street. 02:03:56.290 --> 02:04:02.889 - The driver was so drunk that she dragged his scooter under her car for at least a quarter mile. Nathan 02:04:02.889 --> 02:04:09.873 - and his family and friends were obviously negatively impacted by one, the public safety failure to intercept 02:04:09.873 --> 02:04:16.408 - impaired drivers. Two, the condition of sidewalks that Nathan chose not to use that night. And three, 02:04:16.408 --> 02:04:22.174 - the safety of bicycle lanes that are protected by nothing more than a painted white line. 02:04:24.962 --> 02:04:32.505 - Are IU students more likely than permanent residents to extensively use public sidewalks? Are IU students 02:04:32.505 --> 02:04:40.120 - more likely to be on the streets at an hour when there are impaired drivers at night? I think so. Finally, 02:04:40.120 --> 02:04:47.236 - I was struck by the juxtaposition of two of the survey results. On page 52, 53% of respondents were 02:04:47.236 --> 02:04:53.854 - satisfied or completely satisfied with, quote, ease of getting around by bicycle, end quote. 02:04:54.978 --> 02:05:01.838 - which included the safety of bicycling. But how many of those respondents actually routinely ride a 02:05:01.838 --> 02:05:08.972 - bicycle as a means of transit? On page 57, the survey shows that 11% of respondents ranked more bicycle 02:05:08.972 --> 02:05:15.626 - lanes that are physically protected from motor vehicles as their top priority for infrastructure 02:05:15.626 --> 02:05:20.702 - improvements. Are those the people who actually ride a bicycle every day? 02:05:22.306 --> 02:05:30.776 - So for future surveys, I would strongly recommend that respondents indicate how often they use various 02:05:30.776 --> 02:05:39.493 - forms of mobility in public space. Thanks for the opportunity for feedback. Thank you so much, Mr. Russo. 02:05:39.493 --> 02:05:48.127 - We have another person online. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. It's Kevin Keough. Yeah, I was disappointed 02:05:48.127 --> 02:05:50.430 - and confused by the survey. 02:05:50.914 --> 02:05:56.717 - It mentioned that there was a random sample, but I've been an accountant and auditor for many years, 02:05:56.717 --> 02:06:02.636 - and I've done samples. I just don't know how you get there, how you can call that a random sample, and 02:06:02.636 --> 02:06:08.611 - how you can come up with an error rate. It seems to me that was really a targeted sample, and hopefully 02:06:08.611 --> 02:06:14.644 - we can get agreement on that. In auditing, we call that a judgmental sample, where you just judgmentally 02:06:14.644 --> 02:06:15.966 - select who you want to 02:06:16.098 --> 02:06:24.144 - to have the sample with. I also did a calculation of sample size you would need for the city of Bloomington, 02:06:24.144 --> 02:06:31.674 - 85,000, a sample of 380. I know it's difficult, but if you focused on those 380 and get a true random 02:06:31.674 --> 02:06:39.130 - sample, you can make some statistical judgments and the data really would be of a higher quality and 02:06:39.130 --> 02:06:40.606 - a higher integrity. 02:06:40.866 --> 02:06:46.764 - But all I can say is, you know, you've got a survey of 600 residents out of 85,000. You know how much 02:06:46.764 --> 02:06:52.546 - you can say about. On parking, I think you should look at it strategically, and you need to look at 02:06:52.546 --> 02:06:58.328 - parking and public transportation strategically. And I think they, there's a lot of synergy between 02:06:58.328 --> 02:07:04.226 - the two, because I think if you look at this way, I think the objective would be really to discourage 02:07:04.226 --> 02:07:09.950 - local residents from parking downtown much. But when they need to, you want to make it affordable. 02:07:10.530 --> 02:07:17.422 - But you want to encourage public transportation. And I really encourage you to look at making it free 02:07:17.422 --> 02:07:24.247 - for all residents of Bloomington. I think it would make sense to have free public transportation for 02:07:24.247 --> 02:07:31.072 - all residents of Bloomington. But the thing is, for out of town, if you're not a local resident, you 02:07:31.072 --> 02:07:37.964 - have to charge what the market will bear. And really enforce it, especially when there's high density 02:07:37.964 --> 02:07:40.126 - football games, special events, 02:07:40.802 --> 02:07:47.971 - where you really focus on the numbers and the congestion and try to control it. So anyway, those are 02:07:47.971 --> 02:07:55.139 - my comments tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mr. Keough. Is there anybody else online? 02:07:55.139 --> 02:08:02.308 - Anybody else in chambers? All right, we made it through the marathon of reports. That was wonderful. 02:08:02.308 --> 02:08:09.406 - Congratulations. We'll now move on to some issues related to boards and commissions. Are there any? 02:08:09.538 --> 02:08:18.706 - Excuse me. Yes, mr. Chair Under council committee reports was there a report from the hiring committee? 02:08:18.706 --> 02:08:27.521 - Thank you Nothing specific. No, I think did you want to give a report? I don't know. I just I think 02:08:27.521 --> 02:08:37.130 - the agenda I think we're okay Thank you, thank you. Okay. We have some issues around boards and commissions. 02:08:37.130 --> 02:08:39.422 - Are there any motions? No 02:08:40.162 --> 02:08:48.882 - No. Okay. Got it. Okay, we will move on now to legislation for first readings. I move that ordinance 02:08:48.882 --> 02:08:57.775 - twenty twenty six dash eighteen be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second. 02:08:57.775 --> 02:09:06.409 - There is a motion to second any discussion. All right. Well the clerk please call the roll. Council 02:09:06.409 --> 02:09:08.222 - member Zillick. Yes. 02:09:09.346 --> 02:09:19.742 - Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. And Piedmont Smith. 02:09:19.742 --> 02:09:30.137 - Yes. Thank you very much. Will the clerk please read your thing ordinance twenty twenty six. We try 02:09:30.137 --> 02:09:37.310 - that again. I'm so sorry. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash eighteen. 02:09:37.570 --> 02:09:44.020 - adopting guidelines and requiring formal written commitments as a condition of eligibility for on premises 02:09:44.020 --> 02:09:49.806 - alcoholic beverage permits within eligibility statutory districts councilmember council sponsor 02:09:49.806 --> 02:09:56.196 - is councilmember sorry the synopsis is as follows this ordinance establishes guidelines for any applicant 02:09:56.196 --> 02:09:58.366 - to eligible alcohol permit programs 02:10:00.450 --> 02:10:07.382 - found in Indiana code seven point one three twenty including those eligible licenses within the city's 02:10:07.382 --> 02:10:14.718 - existing downtown redevelopment district and historic different district. This ordinance requires applicants 02:10:14.718 --> 02:10:21.785 - to enter into a formal written commitment pursuant to Indiana code seven point one three dash dash three 02:10:21.785 --> 02:10:29.054 - dash 19 dash 17 as a condition of eligibility. Thank you. I move to discuss ordinance 20 26 dash 18 second. 02:10:29.666 --> 02:10:40.498 - Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Will the clerk please call the roll. No. Nope. Yeah. 02:10:40.498 --> 02:10:52.357 - Yes we do. Yes. Will the clerk please call the roll. Council member sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. 02:10:52.357 --> 02:10:59.198 - Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Stasburg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. 02:10:59.426 --> 02:11:03.582 - Yes. And Zulik. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That passes. 02:11:04.066 --> 02:11:12.374 - Okay, I'll just I'll be very brief have a few introductory remarks and then a wonderful colleague Jane 02:11:12.374 --> 02:11:20.441 - Coorsmith and I hope we'll have a few comments and then This is coming now in a slightly new form I 02:11:20.441 --> 02:11:28.910 - mean a completely new form from the resolution that was presented a few weeks ago in hopes of reflecting 02:11:28.910 --> 02:11:30.846 - immediately some of the 02:11:31.202 --> 02:11:41.167 - Complexities that council members brought up in streamlining some of these processes while also taking 02:11:41.167 --> 02:11:47.262 - advantage of just already moving to the step of establishing a 02:11:47.906 --> 02:11:54.287 - a clear process by which and transparent process for businesses who may be seeking certain additional 02:11:54.287 --> 02:12:00.981 - on premise alcoholic beverage permits permits within eligible statutory districts. You'll see this clearly 02:12:00.981 --> 02:12:07.425 - in the document but just for perhaps more so for the public under state law. Bloomington currently has 02:12:07.425 --> 02:12:13.681 - two such areas and the courthouse square historic district and the downtown redevelopment district. 02:12:13.681 --> 02:12:17.872 - And so although the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission retains 02:12:17.872 --> 02:12:23.599 - final authority to issue these permits the city has an important role in reviewing applications and 02:12:23.599 --> 02:12:29.498 - determining which establishments should be eligible so the purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that 02:12:29.498 --> 02:12:35.740 - these limited permits advance genuine economic development support restaurant oriented businesses contribute 02:12:35.740 --> 02:12:41.582 - positively to the vitality and character of downtown Bloomington and we also seek to create a process 02:12:41.582 --> 02:12:47.824 - that's very consistent transparent with where successful applicants can make formal written commitments as a 02:12:47.824 --> 02:12:51.934 - condition of receiving and retaining city report support. 02:12:52.418 --> 02:12:58.242 - As we continue considering the ordinance, we will have a little bit of a gap, obviously, between first 02:12:58.242 --> 02:13:04.009 - reading and second. And we're already reviewing several questions raised by local property owners and 02:13:04.009 --> 02:13:09.889 - potential applicants. These include whether the definition of a restaurant should be clarified. I think 02:13:09.889 --> 02:13:15.712 - I'm very open to changing that to make it perhaps a little bit more broad. Whether local ownership and 02:13:15.712 --> 02:13:21.762 - proprietor requirements are sufficiently flexible for a context where, for example, locally owned property 02:13:21.762 --> 02:13:22.384 - is seeking 02:13:22.384 --> 02:13:28.518 - an outside restaurant operator within their premise, whether the fixed time of midnight closing may 02:13:28.518 --> 02:13:34.774 - unintentionally exclude otherwise desirable concepts, including things like late night dining, music, 02:13:34.774 --> 02:13:40.969 - entertainment-oriented establishments, et cetera. And we're also considering the implications of the 02:13:40.969 --> 02:13:43.422 - living wage provisions and how we might 02:13:43.906 --> 02:13:49.480 - work those through, particularly with tipped employees, whether the application process should allow 02:13:49.480 --> 02:13:55.164 - a staged or conditional approval when a property owner is restoring a significant or blighted property 02:13:55.164 --> 02:14:00.848 - but has not yet secured the final operator, and whether we should more clearly define what constitutes 02:14:00.848 --> 02:14:06.753 - material change requiring further review. So obviously not reasons to abandon the framework. We're working 02:14:06.753 --> 02:14:12.327 - on this being iterative. All questions about how to make this work as effectively as possible. But I 02:14:12.327 --> 02:14:13.872 - think what's most important 02:14:13.872 --> 02:14:20.164 - about all of this is that we're establishing a framework that we can continue to improve upon, also 02:14:20.164 --> 02:14:26.770 - bringing attention to the fact that this is something that business owners, Jane and I have been working 02:14:26.770 --> 02:14:33.250 - on this for over a year, now really engaging with the businesses downtown of trying to figure out ways 02:14:33.250 --> 02:14:39.731 - to improve opportunities for investment in Bloomington, opportunities for restaurateurs and others who 02:14:39.731 --> 02:14:40.926 - are trying to make 02:14:41.122 --> 02:14:47.966 - Bloomington keep Bloomington the vibrant place that it is. And so really particularly interested in 02:14:47.966 --> 02:14:54.809 - protecting the public interest without unnecessarily limiting sort of strong hyper strong concepts. 02:14:54.809 --> 02:15:01.789 - But looking forward to hearing from colleagues administration local businesses and whoever else might 02:15:01.789 --> 02:15:08.701 - want to comment on this. So with that I'll pass over to my partner over here and then back to you. I 02:15:08.701 --> 02:15:10.686 - have to lower the mic after. 02:15:12.866 --> 02:15:18.066 - transportation commissioner Jane Cooper Smith director of economic and sustainable development Thanks 02:15:18.066 --> 02:15:22.654 - councilmember Asari for teeing this up. So well, I'll just offer some high-level comments 02:15:23.426 --> 02:15:29.242 - More framing the why for the public. I think the council is pretty familiar with these programs already 02:15:29.242 --> 02:15:34.890 - The state of Indiana has leveraged three-way alcohol permits to spur economic development across the 02:15:34.890 --> 02:15:40.539 - state by providing exceptions to the state's permit quota system cities like West Lafayette Columbus 02:15:40.539 --> 02:15:46.523 - and Ellisville have benefited from the riverfront district program cities like Valparaiso Valpo Evansville 02:15:46.523 --> 02:15:49.822 - and Crown Point have historic district permit programs and 02:15:49.954 --> 02:15:56.679 - The state has also created additional permits in communities like Carmel, Fishers, Westfield, and others. 02:15:56.679 --> 02:16:03.277 - And on February 24th, 2026, Governor Braun signed into law Senate Bill 89, which granted two additional 02:16:03.277 --> 02:16:09.749 - three-way alcohol permits to Bloomington. It also awarded on that day three to Lafayette, two to West 02:16:09.749 --> 02:16:16.283 - Lafayette, two to Delphi with a population of 2,961, eight to Michigan City, and three to Shererville. 02:16:16.283 --> 02:16:19.646 - The quota system assigns permits by population size, 02:16:19.778 --> 02:16:27.319 - New permits will be particularly impactful for Bloomington which houses more people. How do I want to 02:16:27.319 --> 02:16:34.785 - say this given our previous conversation. So I was going to say it houses more people than permanent 02:16:34.785 --> 02:16:38.334 - residents. I think I could say it that way but. 02:16:41.186 --> 02:16:46.071 - But if we're just back reflecting on that. But no, so if they're counted in the census, then they're 02:16:46.071 --> 02:16:51.101 - counted in our population and they're counted in our quota system. So just erase that. Anyway, there'll 02:16:51.101 --> 02:16:55.937 - be particular impact for Bloomington, which welcomes millions of visitors annually. This means that 02:16:55.937 --> 02:17:00.774 - the demand for service greatly exceeds the supply, which has driven cost for quota permits north of 02:17:00.774 --> 02:17:05.804 - $250,000 and has made it exceedingly difficult for new restaurants to open or stay open in Bloomington. 02:17:05.804 --> 02:17:10.302 - Restaurants are either cost burdened if they buy one of the permits off the secondary market 02:17:10.402 --> 02:17:16.225 - or their revenue is constrained if they operate solely with the more affordable beer and wine licenses. 02:17:16.225 --> 02:17:21.991 - Creating these new opportunities with state supported programs will allow more activity in Bloomington 02:17:21.991 --> 02:17:27.198 - and will allow us to once again become the dining destination that we have been in the past. 02:17:27.938 --> 02:17:34.209 - One point worth noting, these new permits are different from the quota permits. The quota permits are 02:17:34.209 --> 02:17:40.050 - long-term assets for business owners. So those can be leveraged for debt, and they can be sold 02:17:40.050 --> 02:17:46.321 - or transferred. So when a business buys a quota permit, it's theirs. These permits are not able to be 02:17:46.321 --> 02:17:52.654 - sold or transferred. The historic and riverfront permits renew annually, so the businesses are allowed 02:17:52.654 --> 02:17:56.958 - to use the permits, but they can't do anything with them as an asset. 02:17:57.250 --> 02:18:02.863 - Permits are owned and held by the business, but they must be returned to the state if the business ceases 02:18:02.863 --> 02:18:08.317 - operations and With that I'll just say I'm grateful for councilmember asari's leadership on this issue 02:18:08.317 --> 02:18:13.717 - and want to communicate to the council and the public that This is a measure twice cut once moment by 02:18:13.717 --> 02:18:19.436 - hearing this legislation for first reading you will receive invaluable feedback from the business community 02:18:19.436 --> 02:18:24.996 - and the public which will help Us make sure that this program meets its intended goals. Thank you. Thank 02:18:24.996 --> 02:18:25.790 - you so much. I 02:18:28.514 --> 02:18:37.087 - Thank you Council comments and or questions councilmember Stasberg Thank you. I Just want to say generally 02:18:37.087 --> 02:18:45.340 - that like I like this version a whole lot more than the one that we saw Earlier, so thank you guys And 02:18:45.340 --> 02:18:46.782 - I don't think any 02:18:46.978 --> 02:18:52.868 - I think mostly I have comments because council members are you started out this by like several things 02:18:52.868 --> 02:18:58.758 - that you guys were still looking at and Investigating I think most of the things that I kind of looked 02:18:58.758 --> 02:19:05.048 - at I was like ooh Might fall in that category. So first of all Exhibit a is missing The map of the courthouse 02:19:05.048 --> 02:19:11.167 - square historic district has a label but no actual map. So if we could make sure that Is it in an addendum 02:19:11.167 --> 02:19:16.542 - somewhere? Anyway, if we could make sure that gets in the packet next week, that'd be awesome 02:19:16.642 --> 02:19:23.550 - and I Was wondering about the restaurant requirement requiring at least 60% of gross retail income because 02:19:23.550 --> 02:19:30.199 - I recall a conversation that I had last year when we were looking at stadium district stuff about some 02:19:30.199 --> 02:19:36.719 - concern in terms of the differential between like how much food costs and how much alcohol costs and 02:19:36.719 --> 02:19:43.175 - So I just want to make sure that that number gets looked at to make sure to not exclude some really 02:19:43.175 --> 02:19:45.886 - great businesses that we should have that 02:19:46.242 --> 02:19:52.628 - We shouldn't be excluded automatically for that. I also in terms of the living wage compliance I was 02:19:52.628 --> 02:19:59.457 - a little concerned about the phrase to the extent applicable because it sounded like kind of a big loophole 02:19:59.457 --> 02:20:05.970 - and wondering what would be considered okay to not follow the living wage. So it sounded like you were 02:20:05.970 --> 02:20:12.609 - already like looking at that some. So if we could make sure that that is maybe more defined or something 02:20:12.609 --> 02:20:15.454 - like that for next time that would be great. 02:20:16.226 --> 02:20:23.750 - Number 11 good standing with the city. What does good standing mean? And I think that that Spelling 02:20:23.750 --> 02:20:31.350 - that out might be Helpful and those were my comments. Thanks And it's like like I said, like I don't 02:20:31.350 --> 02:20:39.175 - need answers right now because it sounds like you're working on so just adding those to the list That'd 02:20:39.175 --> 02:20:43.614 - be great. Thanks I'm so sorry Councilmember Piedmont Smith 02:20:44.962 --> 02:20:54.021 - Yes I too appreciate this form of letting the city council weigh in and support certain applications. 02:20:54.021 --> 02:21:03.436 - I appreciate this format of that as opposed to the resolution that we had earlier. This makes more sense. 02:21:03.436 --> 02:21:12.318 - So thank you for that. And I would say that some of the evaluation criteria are still rather vague. 02:21:13.346 --> 02:21:21.778 - Like what is the contribution to the beauty and vitality of downtown riverfront or district. 02:21:21.778 --> 02:21:31.208 - I'm not sure. That's pretty subjective. And then workforce practices. I'm not sure what is meant there. 02:21:31.208 --> 02:21:40.275 - So those are two I would ask for clarification. Thank you. Gosh. Councilmember Rosenberger I forgot 02:21:40.275 --> 02:21:41.726 - it was you. OK. 02:21:41.826 --> 02:21:49.321 - I thanks for bringing this and I'm excited about having fewer barriers to new restaurants and bars. 02:21:49.321 --> 02:21:56.891 - For that reason I know we're talking we're going to maybe look at that restaurant requirement like I 02:21:56.891 --> 02:22:04.611 - am not a fan of it at all. I know that I have heard from some existing bar owners that they don't like 02:22:04.611 --> 02:22:08.958 - they want it because they don't want just more bars here. 02:22:09.410 --> 02:22:16.766 - which I don't think is a compelling reason that a bar owner doesn't want it. But I just think that we're 02:22:16.766 --> 02:22:24.192 - trying to like lessen the cost of entering the hospitality market basically and then we're kind of saying 02:22:24.192 --> 02:22:28.606 - except now you also if you want to serve cocktails you have to 02:22:28.802 --> 02:22:35.840 - open a restaurant that is 150 to like $500,000. And I think still in Bloomington, there are things that 02:22:35.840 --> 02:22:43.081 - we could have here that we don't have like a jazz bar or a wine bar or like a place that is like container 02:22:43.081 --> 02:22:49.849 - restaurants and cocktails where like sometimes it doesn't make a lot of sense to have like a lot of 02:22:49.849 --> 02:22:52.894 - restaurants in those like beer garden areas. 02:22:53.154 --> 02:22:59.928 - Competing against each other and you need like fewer restaurants and maybe like more alcohol or drink 02:22:59.928 --> 02:23:06.702 - options. So I just think Well, I also think with Bloomington kind of creating new hubs that we should 02:23:06.702 --> 02:23:13.343 - have bar only Options in places like the Gateway like Gateway North and things so that people don't 02:23:13.343 --> 02:23:15.070 - always have to travel and 02:23:15.682 --> 02:23:23.266 - far distances and we have a lot of housing up there in density. So I like the idea of looking at letting 02:23:23.266 --> 02:23:30.706 - the market decide what gets started and what is kept instead of saying like it has to be a restaurant. 02:23:30.706 --> 02:23:37.712 - Thank you so much. Thank you. My response. Can I just can respond. Please. It wasn't a question. 02:23:37.712 --> 02:23:39.518 - I love that. I note that 02:23:40.194 --> 02:23:47.619 - This that entered the discussion when we were talking about stadium district and there was concerns 02:23:47.619 --> 02:23:55.267 - from residents about a proliferation of bars. Right. And particularly because 50 percent of our of our 02:23:55.267 --> 02:24:02.840 - almost permanent residents are students. But particularly because of that I think that there there is 02:24:02.840 --> 02:24:05.662 - a desire a little bit not to you know 02:24:06.018 --> 02:24:11.452 - shape the market entirely but to at least consider that if you see within the written agreements it's 02:24:11.452 --> 02:24:16.780 - not like that's a you know it has to be that case so you know certainly you know and we're in and I 02:24:16.780 --> 02:24:20.190 - think importantly the shift from last round of feedback here is 02:24:20.290 --> 02:24:26.174 - you know, allowing ESD to execute on some of those judgments. And so depending on, you know, because 02:24:26.174 --> 02:24:32.000 - you could imagine that these things change as things go developing. And so I think the idea here is 02:24:32.000 --> 02:24:37.885 - to say, hey, here's some things you might want to consider and that we want you to keep in mind. But 02:24:37.885 --> 02:24:43.070 - recognizing that the market is going to change, needs might change, you know, et cetera. 02:24:43.138 --> 02:24:49.783 - But I agree with you. The goal is not sort of anti-competitive or protectionism here. But it is, I think, 02:24:49.783 --> 02:24:56.240 - a lot of residents are concerned that if we are to establish a downtown district. I mean, I'm speaking 02:24:56.240 --> 02:25:02.697 - as a teetotaler myself. But if you're going to establish a downtown district, that we're going to have 02:25:02.697 --> 02:25:09.092 - this proliferation of bars. And the goal is to say that that's not the goal of being able to do this. 02:25:09.092 --> 02:25:13.104 - It's to make viable restaurants and other types of hospitality. 02:25:13.104 --> 02:25:19.570 - think a little bit of attention there in the sense that You know, I don't see it as written as like 02:25:19.570 --> 02:25:26.037 - must be this way Just I see it as things to consider within establishing the Redmond agreement, but 02:25:26.037 --> 02:25:32.503 - we love more thoughts on that Thank You councilmember Rosenberger. Okay. I just thought it was sort 02:25:32.503 --> 02:25:36.318 - of like in the requirements of I mean, it's like I my my I 02:25:37.442 --> 02:25:44.243 - packet scrolled without me like making it you know. So I lost it. I guess I think too. I mean we're 02:25:44.243 --> 02:25:51.044 - not set on what it is right now. Right. Like oh here we go because it's the third requirement 60. I 02:25:51.044 --> 02:25:57.981 - mean 60 percent I think means that it is a restaurant and it's not just serving food on the side. And 02:25:57.981 --> 02:26:03.422 - I think the hard work owner said like they wouldn't qualify. And like that is a 02:26:04.034 --> 02:26:12.090 - It's almost the only place in Bloomington right now that allows children where you order at a bar. So 02:26:12.090 --> 02:26:20.383 - I just think the 60% is too much. And I think, too, it's not just about, I mean, I think the open market 02:26:20.383 --> 02:26:28.756 - really should decide. But I think, too, it's like we are leaving out humans if we're saying you basically 02:26:28.756 --> 02:26:31.678 - have to go buy food when you go out. 02:26:31.778 --> 02:26:40.764 - versus like or feel awkward not buying food. And I do think we don't have a lot of places for older 02:26:40.764 --> 02:26:50.289 - people. And all I'm saying is that I think we could also move that away from minimum eligibility criteria 02:26:50.289 --> 02:26:59.454 - to somewhere else. Right. So so that it's yeah that's. Other questions or comments or comments. Nope. 02:26:59.938 --> 02:27:06.144 - Okay, then we will move to public comment. If you are in chambers, please rise and approach the podium. 02:27:06.144 --> 02:27:12.110 - If you are on Zoom, please raise your hand and we will come get you. When you get to the podium, if 02:27:12.110 --> 02:27:18.197 - you could sign in and state your name or alias for the record, that would be much appreciated. You'll 02:27:18.197 --> 02:27:19.390 - have three minutes. 02:27:32.898 --> 02:27:39.487 - Good evening. My name is Galen Cassidy. I'm one of the co-owners of Uptown Cafe I'm here to strongly 02:27:39.487 --> 02:27:46.076 - support this ordinance right now as we've all stated before a three-way liquor permit in Bloomington 02:27:46.076 --> 02:27:52.992 - routinely sells for 250,000 To 300,000 that price is a massive barrier especially for young professionals 02:27:52.992 --> 02:27:59.646 - in the next generation of independent restaurant owners Who simply cannot raise that kind of capital? 02:28:00.482 --> 02:28:06.836 - The current methodology of allocating permits does not fit the unique nature of Bloomington and its 02:28:06.836 --> 02:28:13.254 - demands and has led to one of the highest medium prices of any community in the state This ordinance 02:28:13.254 --> 02:28:19.671 - ordinance creates a clear path for lower cost special permits at 25 to 40,000 and that lower barrier 02:28:19.671 --> 02:28:26.025 - gives talented young operators a realistic chance to open here we need that pipeline of new locally 02:28:26.025 --> 02:28:27.614 - rooted entrepreneurs and 02:28:28.450 --> 02:28:35.101 - I also want to address something directly. You'll probably hear, if you haven't already, from some existing 02:28:35.101 --> 02:28:41.752 - permit holders that may oppose measures like this, because new, more affordable permits reduce the scarcity 02:28:41.752 --> 02:28:48.218 - value of the license they already hold. I'm just going to say, frankly, I think that kind of gatekeeping 02:28:48.218 --> 02:28:50.558 - is selfish as a permit holder myself. 02:28:51.202 --> 02:28:57.227 - These permits should serve the public interest in long-term vitality of the Bloomington's food and beverage 02:28:57.227 --> 02:29:03.197 - community not protect the private investment returns of a limited group of current owners These guidelines 02:29:03.197 --> 02:29:08.831 - do this the right way. They prioritize real restaurants with strong food sales favor local ownership 02:29:08.831 --> 02:29:14.522 - and Require written commitments so the city can keep things accountable These permits remain a public 02:29:14.522 --> 02:29:19.710 - economic development tool rather than a private investment that are protected and flipped so 02:29:19.874 --> 02:29:26.143 - Again, I urge you to pass this ordinance and I appreciate you hearing me. Thank you. Thank you very 02:29:26.143 --> 02:29:32.475 - much. Is there anyone else in chambers? Okay. Anyone on zoom? Okay, great. We will get to zoom after 02:29:32.475 --> 02:29:38.869 - this next person in chambers. Good evening council is rainy Cassidy the local citizen here and taking 02:29:38.869 --> 02:29:45.138 - into consideration the timing of this ordinance. It couldn't get better if you were at the taste of 02:29:45.138 --> 02:29:47.646 - Bloomington on Saturday. It implemented 02:29:47.906 --> 02:29:55.262 - when we were when we had the taste and the way it worked that we saw the independence the unique restaurants 02:29:55.262 --> 02:30:02.145 - and the quality and diversity of our community when we look at this liquor license as they say it and 02:30:02.145 --> 02:30:09.163 - putting it in the control of the city council the local residents and the people that are going to grow 02:30:09.163 --> 02:30:15.911 - things that will start that generation that keep the vibrancy that we've had over the years there's 02:30:15.911 --> 02:30:17.598 - details to be worked out 02:30:17.858 --> 02:30:23.815 - but through the work of ESD, the council and the discussions, it seems as though after reading it and 02:30:23.815 --> 02:30:29.656 - the districts that we're now on the right path to continue to keep that independence, diversity and 02:30:29.656 --> 02:30:35.964 - quality of culture and food that helps bring us all together. So I would highly encourage that you continue 02:30:35.964 --> 02:30:41.980 - on and move this forward so we can keep what we've grown for the years and what'll come in the future. 02:30:41.980 --> 02:30:42.622 - Thank you. 02:30:43.266 --> 02:30:48.356 - Thank you very much. And now we'll go to the commenter on Zoom. You should be able to unmute relatively 02:30:48.356 --> 02:30:53.447 - shortly. You'll have three minutes. Please state your name for the record. Thank you. Hey, good evening 02:30:53.447 --> 02:30:58.390 - again, Council. It's Chris Turingi from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I first want to 02:30:58.390 --> 02:31:03.480 - commend the work of President Sarre, Director Coopersmith on the work they've been doing the past year, 02:31:03.480 --> 02:31:05.438 - the improvements they've made recently. 02:31:05.538 --> 02:31:11.541 - I also want to echo the sentiments of Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Cassidy on their public comments. The chamber 02:31:11.541 --> 02:31:17.659 - strongly supports additional alcohol permit opportunities as an economic driver and a very cheap economic 02:31:17.659 --> 02:31:23.662 - driver. These permits can lower the real barriers for economic independence, fill vacant spaces, create 02:31:23.662 --> 02:31:29.434 - places that better serve residents and visitors. And much like Councilmember Rosenberger, I sort of 02:31:29.434 --> 02:31:34.686 - see that we have relatively few small adult-earning gathering places where people can meet 02:31:35.010 --> 02:31:40.327 - drink over conversation without being full service restaurants or brewery or a late night bar. Not every 02:31:40.327 --> 02:31:45.441 - neighborhood gather needs to have a large volume of food and alcohol that value. Let's remember that 02:31:45.441 --> 02:31:50.555 - smaller, well-run establishment can still add vitality and create the kind of social space that many 02:31:50.555 --> 02:31:55.771 - adults in this community say is missing. We understand the council wants safeguards, the chamber wants 02:31:55.771 --> 02:32:01.240 - safeguards. These permits should support active business, not speculation, remain tied to the establishment 02:32:01.240 --> 02:32:04.126 - intended to serve, and not be warehoused or transferred. 02:32:04.290 --> 02:32:09.945 - The key is making these clear and easy to administer. We encourage the council to avoid any compliance 02:32:09.945 --> 02:32:15.490 - system going around revenue calculations, repeated access to business records or routine appearances 02:32:15.490 --> 02:32:21.035 - before council. It creates real costs for city staff and we should be lowering the amount of work of 02:32:21.035 --> 02:32:21.694 - city staff. 02:32:22.114 --> 02:32:27.948 - and business owners. The city needs to administer this program with a limited staff capacity. Simpler 02:32:27.948 --> 02:32:33.724 - standard would require operational kitchen, maybe without food available while having food available 02:32:33.724 --> 02:32:39.673 - while alcohol is served, if we want to require that food portion of it. That reduces the administrative 02:32:39.673 --> 02:32:45.621 - burden while still supporting responsible service, allowing different models to really succeed in that. 02:32:45.621 --> 02:32:50.654 - I'm also going to flag the provision that has been mentioned by council members, sorry, 02:32:50.786 --> 02:32:57.125 - and that is that this be a vehicle for expanded wage mandate. Traditional living wage calculation doesn't 02:32:57.125 --> 02:33:03.106 - reflect tip service work functions and applying that through this process could quietly price these 02:33:03.106 --> 02:33:09.147 - small businesses out and have unintended consequences. And we've seen a business try this before. So 02:33:09.147 --> 02:33:15.486 - a few additional considerations. Local ownership should be encouraged without hard residency requirement. 02:33:16.034 --> 02:33:21.462 - Routine change of the menu, staffing hours should be handled administratively rather than should go 02:33:21.462 --> 02:33:26.945 - to council review. Let me look. Anyway, yeah, I think that's everything. The chamber supports moving 02:33:26.945 --> 02:33:32.536 - forward this. This is exciting. We ask the council preserve safeguards against speculation and misuse, 02:33:32.536 --> 02:33:38.236 - but having predictable, affordable, and workable for small business that's meant to support. And I thank 02:33:38.236 --> 02:33:43.881 - you for your time tonight. Great, and we thank you for yours. Thank you. Are there any motions at this? 02:33:43.881 --> 02:33:44.478 - I'm sorry. 02:33:44.770 --> 02:33:53.949 - Would anyone else like to speak during public comment? Please raise your hand or hold your piece Anyone 02:33:53.949 --> 02:34:03.217 - on zoom Okay at this point I will entertain a motion I move I move to send ordinance 2026-18 to a second 02:34:03.217 --> 02:34:12.926 - reading on September 2nd Second right. That's our next regular. Is that the next regular session? Yeah second 02:34:13.378 --> 02:34:24.006 - Yes because there's budget there's been a motion in a second to postpone this ordinance until our next 02:34:24.006 --> 02:34:34.841 - regularly scheduled meeting on September 2nd. Will the clerk please call the roll. Council member Daley. 02:34:34.841 --> 02:34:42.270 - Yes. Rallo yes. Yes. Rosenberger yes. Stasberg yes. Piedmont Smith yes. 02:34:42.690 --> 02:34:50.634 - Yes, sorry. Yes. Thank you. Thank you and that passes and That concludes my chair responsibilities Right 02:34:50.634 --> 02:34:58.880 - moving on to legislation for a second reading your resolutions. Are there any motions? I move that ordinance 02:34:58.880 --> 02:35:06.597 - 20 26-16 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second motion in a second any 02:35:06.597 --> 02:35:11.742 - discussion Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Rallo 02:35:12.738 --> 02:35:22.204 - Yes. Rough. Yes. Don't know what's happening there. Okay. Rosenberger. Yes. Stasburg. Yes. 02:35:22.204 --> 02:35:32.190 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. And daily. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Please read. 02:35:32.994 --> 02:35:40.523 - Ordinance 2026-16 to amend an ordinance fixing the salaries of officers and employees of the police 02:35:40.523 --> 02:35:48.429 - and fire departments for the city of Bloomington, Indiana for the year 2026. The synopsis is as follows. 02:35:48.429 --> 02:35:56.109 - Ordinance 2026 amends ordinance 2025-38 by adding a lieutenant position within the police department. 02:35:56.109 --> 02:36:00.702 - I move that ordinance 2026-16 be adopted. Second. All right. 02:36:00.834 --> 02:36:07.826 - We have already heard this presentation, right? But did Director Paycheck, did you want to add anything, 02:36:07.826 --> 02:36:14.485 - answers? I also see that Chief DeKoff has waited very patiently all night here. So if you'd like to 02:36:14.485 --> 02:36:21.344 - just answer the question that we asked, and then there may be a handful of follow-ups, and then we can 02:36:21.344 --> 02:36:28.469 - move on. There were some amendments that were submitted for typos. I believe Council Member Piedmont-Smith 02:36:28.469 --> 02:36:30.334 - were going to sponsor them. 02:36:30.466 --> 02:36:39.042 - Good point. Do you want to introduce those at this point. Yes I only have one for each ordinance so 02:36:39.042 --> 02:36:47.703 - I will introduce amendment one to ordinance twenty twenty six sixteen second and these were sent out 02:36:47.703 --> 02:36:56.279 - in addendum three to our council packet at six twenty nine p.m. today. So sorry about that but they 02:36:56.279 --> 02:36:59.966 - really are just correcting some typos. So. 02:37:00.290 --> 02:37:09.950 - This amendment updates proposed ordinance 20 26 16 to correct typos and inadvertently transposed numbers. 02:37:09.950 --> 02:37:19.155 - And I will mention that. So the ordinance in our packet for this week was already corrected. So this 02:37:19.155 --> 02:37:25.534 - is but it needed to be done as an amendment. So this is an amendment. 02:37:27.010 --> 02:37:37.158 - to the language that was in your packet last week. So just to clarify for staff, department heads for 02:37:37.158 --> 02:37:48.003 - future, if there's, if an ordinance has already been discussed once, then rather than submit a new ordinance 02:37:48.003 --> 02:37:55.166 - with the corrections amendment needs to be prepared. Thanks. Thank you. 02:37:58.018 --> 02:38:07.585 - questions on the amendment all right motions ah Before that any public comment on this amendment No 02:38:07.585 --> 02:38:17.343 - one I'm so surprised anyone online like to make a comment on this amendment Fantastic back to council 02:38:17.343 --> 02:38:26.718 - motions So no, we have them already will the clerk we call the roll. Sorry Councilmember Ruff Yes 02:38:27.586 --> 02:38:42.704 - Rosenberger. Yes Stasberg. Yes. Well I'm reading through the red line right now. I'm trusting. He bought 02:38:42.704 --> 02:38:53.790 - Smith. Yes. So like. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. And Rallo. Yes. Thank you. 02:38:54.114 --> 02:39:01.582 - All right. Thank you very much. Are there any other amendments to to the proposed legislation? I don't 02:39:01.582 --> 02:39:08.904 - believe so. All right. Well so with that as amended and questions pending to you director. Thank you 02:39:08.904 --> 02:39:16.154 - again. Councilmember Piedmont Smith shard paycheck director of human resources. We like you said we 02:39:16.154 --> 02:39:21.374 - you heard the presentation related to this last week. I just wanted to. 02:39:21.698 --> 02:39:28.760 - Recap that council had a couple questions my takeaways for this. You wanted some further explanation 02:39:28.760 --> 02:39:36.241 - of the long term fiscal implications for this request for public safety. You also wanted some confirmation 02:39:36.241 --> 02:39:43.443 - around how many sergeants there are now and how many are being proposed. You had questions on if there 02:39:43.443 --> 02:39:47.358 - were similar sized apartments that were structured like 02:39:47.618 --> 02:39:56.460 - our police department here at the city of Bloomington as far as like number of staff and responsibilities 02:39:56.460 --> 02:40:03.550 - and you also had some questions around how this shift in workload from the requested 02:40:03.714 --> 02:40:13.666 - change in lieutenants and sergeants would affect some of the staff stressors that you have heard comment 02:40:13.666 --> 02:40:23.429 - on before and so I have my colleagues here controller McKim who will affirm Strategy for the long-term 02:40:23.429 --> 02:40:28.926 - fiscal implications and then we also have chief executive 02:40:29.026 --> 02:40:35.764 - Decoff here who will follow Controller McKim to answer questions that you have about the structure of 02:40:35.764 --> 02:40:42.501 - the police department Thank you very much controller McKim Thank you very much. Good evening council. 02:40:42.501 --> 02:40:49.107 - I don't think the strategy will be very exciting here I'm just going to kind of reiterate the facts 02:40:49.107 --> 02:40:52.542 - here and then hand things over to Chief Decoff, but 02:40:52.610 --> 02:40:58.725 - First as councilmember Stasberg pointed out at the last meeting there is an error in the current salary 02:40:58.725 --> 02:41:04.604 - ordinance and that it indicates that there are 13 sergeants when in reality there are and have been 02:41:04.604 --> 02:41:10.484 - 14 sergeants in the appropriated budget for 2026 and this error in fact appears to go back at least 02:41:10.484 --> 02:41:16.364 - several previous salary ordinances as well. The current version of the salary ordinance that you're 02:41:16.364 --> 02:41:22.302 - being presented though clarifies the proposed number of each rank 13 sergeants and five lieutenants. 02:41:22.594 --> 02:41:30.876 - This proposal eliminates one sergeant position and creates one lieutenant position. The estimated cost 02:41:30.876 --> 02:41:38.917 - of this change in salaries and benefits is $19,969 for a full year and prorated to about $76.80 for 02:41:38.917 --> 02:41:40.766 - the rest of this year. 02:41:40.866 --> 02:41:47.132 - The cost for 2026 will be absorbed through unspent appropriations in the ones category and the removal 02:41:47.132 --> 02:41:53.276 - of one sergeant position and creation of an additional lieutenant position has already been included 02:41:53.276 --> 02:41:59.360 - in the police budget submission for 2027 that You'll be considering very soon So I will hand things 02:41:59.360 --> 02:42:05.687 - over here to chief deep cough who can kind of address the concerns and comments raised last week during 02:42:05.687 --> 02:42:06.782 - the first reading 02:42:12.578 --> 02:42:22.020 - Good evening council. Mike Decoff police chief for the city of Bloomington. I was asked to address kind 02:42:22.020 --> 02:42:31.553 - of the need for this position. So we currently have an administrative sergeant and all they do is manage 02:42:31.553 --> 02:42:41.630 - our training. We have a pretty streamlined staff starting probably 35 years ago. The chief at the time started 02:42:41.794 --> 02:42:48.062 - Eliminating some of the administrative positions that were had for instance. We had two deputy chiefs. 02:42:48.062 --> 02:42:54.329 - We had captains on every shift And what happened in that time since now we have we've pretty much kept 02:42:54.329 --> 02:43:00.415 - it streamlined I have one deputy chief I have two captains ones over the administrative part of the 02:43:00.415 --> 02:43:06.500 - department ones over the operations to part of the department and then we have lieutenants that run 02:43:06.500 --> 02:43:10.942 - each shift and we have a lieutenant that runs the detective division and 02:43:11.586 --> 02:43:20.340 - those lieutenants have sergeants under them and the way our Staffing and shift schedules work. There 02:43:20.340 --> 02:43:29.180 - are three rotations of officers on each shift So there's a sergeant over each rotation that allows us 02:43:29.180 --> 02:43:38.021 - if there would be some type of emergency or like little 500 scheduling what we do is we we operate by 02:43:38.021 --> 02:43:38.974 - squads and 02:43:39.394 --> 02:43:47.889 - which are a rotation and then there is a supervisor over that squad. So that helps us maintain supervisory 02:43:47.889 --> 02:43:55.987 - control over what our people are doing. It helps us comply with national CALEA standards and the span 02:43:55.987 --> 02:44:03.927 - of control that supervisors have. This new position that we want to do is we're basically replacing 02:44:03.927 --> 02:44:09.246 - a sergeant with a lieutenant because lieutenant has more authority 02:44:09.442 --> 02:44:18.431 - has More ability to direct operations than a sergeant does and we we're looking to actually expand what 02:44:18.431 --> 02:44:27.334 - that position does because We struggle right now on special projects to have to have oversight of over 02:44:27.334 --> 02:44:36.583 - those We don't have the personnel to help us research different things and this new role this new position 02:44:36.583 --> 02:44:37.534 - we believe 02:44:37.730 --> 02:44:45.931 - will be very instrumental in not only managing training, but will also help with those projects and 02:44:45.931 --> 02:44:53.475 - help us do research and look into other types of things that we could do differently at the 02:44:53.475 --> 02:45:01.840 - police department. Thank you so much, Chief Dieckhoff. Any further questions? Councilmember Stosberg. 02:45:01.840 --> 02:45:07.006 - This might be for the controller. What is the implication that 02:45:07.330 --> 02:45:15.180 - however many years the Documents have just been wrong about the number of sergeants that we have I Can 02:45:15.180 --> 02:45:23.031 - probably answer that it's it's not been filled So it's just kind of been on the books, but we've never 02:45:23.031 --> 02:45:30.729 - had 14 Sergeants, okay. How has it actually been on the books if it's not in this ordinance? I Can't 02:45:30.729 --> 02:45:35.454 - answer that I guess that's why I figured the controller these 02:45:36.418 --> 02:45:44.646 - I mean, I wasn't here, so I can't answer as to why it came that way. But that is the number of sergeant 02:45:44.646 --> 02:45:52.794 - positions that you as a body have appropriated in the police budget over the years. So there are lines 02:45:52.794 --> 02:45:55.326 - in the budget for 14 sergeants. 02:45:55.458 --> 02:46:02.503 - You all have appropriated funding and maybe previous councils of appropriated funding for 14 sergeants, 02:46:02.503 --> 02:46:09.887 - but somehow there was just a disconnect between the salary ordinance document and The budget as appropriated 02:46:09.887 --> 02:46:16.933 - so so basically somewhere along the way The 98,000 and some was multiplied by 14 instead of 13 and this 02:46:16.933 --> 02:46:19.710 - just wasn't updated and nobody caught it 02:46:21.794 --> 02:46:28.884 - Director paycheck just said she and I both been kind of looking at previous it's been at least ten years 02:46:28.884 --> 02:46:35.772 - So yes at some point possibly that happened. I mean, I'm sure it's not the only Time in which various 02:46:35.772 --> 02:46:42.794 - documents disagree, but yeah Thank you. Thanks so much for looking into that clearly. We didn't realize 02:46:42.794 --> 02:46:46.846 - it either because we never filled it so Any other questions 02:46:48.098 --> 02:46:56.367 - I was gonna say councilmember Allen Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to point out something on the amendment 02:46:56.367 --> 02:47:04.249 - really quickly There was there was a carryover of the redline edit, but without the strikethrough. So 02:47:04.249 --> 02:47:09.118 - I apologize for that on section 3 of the amendment just to for 02:47:09.922 --> 02:47:16.892 - To create to remove any ambiguity ambiguity the amount equal to should be eighty nine thousand six hundred 02:47:16.892 --> 02:47:23.798 - and twenty six and then as follows equal to again eighty nine thousand six hundred and twenty six instead 02:47:23.798 --> 02:47:30.703 - of What it is now, which is eighty nine to six six six to six, which is incorrect So that is a correction 02:47:30.703 --> 02:47:33.374 - on paragraph three to the amendment just 02:47:34.274 --> 02:47:41.256 - The red line version that was attached to the amendment which is essentially what council was basing 02:47:41.256 --> 02:47:48.377 - their motion off of is correct and shows the proper red lines it just didn't didn't transfer over with 02:47:48.377 --> 02:47:55.567 - the redacted part. Thank you. My apologies for the air. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Others 02:47:55.567 --> 02:48:03.102 - comments questions. If not happy to go to public comment let's go to public comment. Anyone like to comment. 02:48:05.794 --> 02:48:13.766 - All right online. OK. Coming back to you. Are there any motions or final comments. I just wanted to 02:48:13.766 --> 02:48:22.137 - say thank you to director paycheck for not only answering our questions but citing your sources bringing 02:48:22.137 --> 02:48:29.790 - them actually in with you. That was pretty awesome above and beyond. So thank you to everybody. 02:48:37.026 --> 02:48:44.457 - Oh, thanks. I always forget that I'm sorry every week will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember 02:48:44.457 --> 02:48:51.464 - Rosenberger. Yes, Stasberg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes, Miss Oelick. Yes. Sorry. Yes, Daly Rallo Yes, 02:48:51.464 --> 02:48:58.754 - and rough. Yes. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you for your patience Thank you for being here. We'll move 02:48:58.754 --> 02:49:06.398 - on I move that ordinance 2026 dash 17 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second 02:49:06.978 --> 02:49:19.393 - Motion in a second any discussion. Will the clerk please read call the roll? Councilmember Sasberg Yes 02:49:19.393 --> 02:49:30.965 - Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, Bailey. Yes, Rallo Yes, Ruff. Yes Rosenberger. 02:49:30.965 --> 02:49:36.510 - Yes Thank you. Will the clerk please read Yes 02:49:36.834 --> 02:49:43.283 - Ordinance twenty twenty six dash seventeen to amend the twenty twenty six salary ordinance of appointed 02:49:43.283 --> 02:49:49.484 - officers non union and AFSCME employees for all departments of the city of Bloomington Indiana. The 02:49:49.484 --> 02:49:55.809 - synopsis as follows ordinance twenty twenty six dash seventeen amends the twenty twenty six appointed 02:49:55.809 --> 02:50:02.196 - and AFSCME employee salary ordinance to incorporate updates to certain civil city positions. Thank you 02:50:02.196 --> 02:50:02.878 - very much. 02:50:03.458 --> 02:50:11.530 - I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash seventeen be adopted. Second. All right. Back to you director 02:50:11.530 --> 02:50:19.150 - paycheck. We had questions. You can answer them. Should I move amendment one. Yes please. Bless you. 02:50:19.150 --> 02:50:27.147 - I move amendment one to ordinance twenty twenty six dash seventeen. Second. So again this is a correction 02:50:27.147 --> 02:50:32.126 - of typos and one misplaced job title that was in the wrong chart. 02:50:33.314 --> 02:50:45.142 - And again, it's a correction to the text that was in our July 29th packet. Questions on the amendment. 02:50:45.142 --> 02:50:56.741 - All right. Public comment on the amendment. Anyone online. OK. Back to council. Comments. All right. 02:50:56.741 --> 02:51:00.990 - Will the court please call the roll. 02:51:01.986 --> 02:51:15.072 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you 02:51:15.072 --> 02:51:28.677 - very much. As amended to you. Thank you. You heard this presentation last week. I most of your questions 02:51:28.677 --> 02:51:30.750 - were related to 02:51:30.850 --> 02:51:38.875 - The timing of this request being so close to budget presentations and also some questions about long-term 02:51:38.875 --> 02:51:46.824 - fiscal impact. I just want to reiterate that These are not new requests These are concerns that probably 02:51:46.824 --> 02:51:54.622 - came up over a year ago and this is just the first time that department has have had an opportunity to 02:51:55.010 --> 02:52:04.044 - Make-request we are trying to put our operations first and our employees our personnel first and these 02:52:04.044 --> 02:52:12.814 - requests are us advocating to prioritize our operations in a way that we would be willing to Adjust 02:52:12.814 --> 02:52:20.094 - or reallocate funding that is in other categories again in order to prioritize our 02:52:20.226 --> 02:52:27.602 - personnel and our operations and so I would just ask you to consider as the three department heads that 02:52:27.602 --> 02:52:34.835 - are represented in this salary ordinance amendment that you just Trust and consider that we have been 02:52:34.835 --> 02:52:42.211 - thinking about this for a while now And these are the requests that we have in front of you So I wanted 02:52:42.211 --> 02:52:49.374 - to address timing and if you had some more questions about long-term fiscal impact I don't know what 02:52:49.698 --> 02:52:57.970 - More controller McKim can help explain but he is here if you have some additional questions. And again 02:52:57.970 --> 02:53:06.323 - last week your questions were very specifically related to timing and long term fiscal impact. So we'll 02:53:06.323 --> 02:53:09.054 - take any questions that you have. 02:53:16.418 --> 02:53:23.436 - Thank you, Council. Yeah, so I wanted to address the fiscal impact in a little more detail of both the 02:53:23.436 --> 02:53:30.249 - changes proposed for human resources, in particular the reclassification from a grade five to grade 02:53:30.249 --> 02:53:36.585 - seven, and then also the reclassification from a grade eight to grade nine for public works. 02:53:36.585 --> 02:53:43.262 - So first of all, the fiscal impact of the HR changes. As Director Paycheck has already discussed, 02:53:43.522 --> 02:53:51.572 - These changes allow some tasks to be performed in-house rather than by outside consultants. The cost 02:53:51.572 --> 02:53:59.623 - of the upgrade consists of the difference between grade five to grade seven of $22,299 in salary and 02:53:59.623 --> 02:54:06.398 - benefits for a full year, which comes out to 85.76, 85.76 for the rest of this year. 02:54:06.530 --> 02:54:12.828 - Now, what about the savings? Where does the fiscal impact come? The savings will show up in 2026 in 02:54:12.828 --> 02:54:19.189 - reversions to category three. In other words, the department will be using fewer consultants because 02:54:19.189 --> 02:54:24.542 - they'll be doing the work in-house. Those reversions will come into the ED lit fund. 02:54:24.642 --> 02:54:33.948 - and will be much more than the 8577 cost of the upgrade. And in 2027, the category three expenses have 02:54:33.948 --> 02:54:43.435 - already been reduced in their proposed budget by $41,000. So again, that $41,000 reduction in consulting 02:54:43.435 --> 02:54:51.838 - in the category threes more than makes up for the approximately $22,000 cost of the upgrade. 02:54:51.970 --> 02:54:55.902 - We probably will because the savings are in category three. 02:54:55.970 --> 02:55:03.029 - rather than category one, we probably will at the end of the year need to come for a transfer once we 02:55:03.029 --> 02:55:10.434 - do the end of the year appropriations and transfers, but it will just be a transfer because the reversions 02:55:10.434 --> 02:55:17.493 - will more than cover that position. In public works, so the difference between a grade nine and grade 02:55:17.493 --> 02:55:24.760 - eight is $11,168 in salary and benefits for a full year. For the rest of this year, that would be around 02:55:24.760 --> 02:55:25.936 - $42.95. However, 02:55:25.936 --> 02:55:33.543 - These costs are, again, being directly offset by reductions in the services category through gained 02:55:33.543 --> 02:55:41.151 - efficiencies. So in particular, currently the center stone contract for Brighton B-Town is budgeted 02:55:41.151 --> 02:55:44.574 - in an ED-lit facilities budget for $381,000. 02:55:44.770 --> 02:55:51.912 - However, due to operational efficiencies the program is showing savings of over seventy six thousand 02:55:51.912 --> 02:55:59.267 - dollars to date in this year And so at the end of this year that money will revert back to ed lit Again 02:55:59.267 --> 02:56:06.621 - a transfer from category three to category one might be need to be done but the savings of that seventy 02:56:06.621 --> 02:56:09.662 - six thousand dollars will be well over the 02:56:09.794 --> 02:56:18.201 - 4200 dollars that'll be that'll be needed Further and so that's 26. Let's talk about Next year 27 these 02:56:18.201 --> 02:56:25.638 - savings can't carry through to future years. So in 2027 the centerstone contract because of 02:56:25.638 --> 02:56:34.206 - these efficiencies is they are reducing the request from 381 thousand dollars to 350 thousand dollars and 02:56:34.306 --> 02:56:40.645 - So that represents $31,000 in savings. And again, this will more than cover the estimated difference 02:56:40.645 --> 02:56:47.109 - in salary of the special projects and operations manager. So these changes and the savings through the 02:56:47.109 --> 02:56:53.447 - reduced category three requests in the general funds public works admin budget are already reflected 02:56:53.447 --> 02:56:59.849 - in the 2027 proposed budget. So the fiscal impact of this change is better than neutral as well, both 02:56:59.849 --> 02:57:03.614 - for the rest of this year and for the upcoming budget year. 02:57:04.354 --> 02:57:13.720 - So I'm happy to answer any other questions about that. And I'm not sure if Director Wason is available 02:57:13.720 --> 02:57:22.904 - online to answer any questions. I think he was intending to be. Well, are there any other questions? 02:57:22.904 --> 02:57:32.542 - OK. Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. Anyone like to comment? Anyone online? Oh, yeah. Back to us. 02:57:32.674 --> 02:57:39.035 - Any comments, please? Yes, just real quick. I work closely with the downtown specialists and the special 02:57:39.035 --> 02:57:45.638 - projects and operation manager miss Cassie Wernie on a lot of downtown projects and the downtown specialists 02:57:45.638 --> 02:57:50.302 - do functionally report to miss Wernie, but feedback that I've gotten is that 02:57:50.562 --> 02:57:56.785 - Oftentimes they run into confusion with other departments on who is responsible for what due to the 02:57:56.785 --> 02:58:03.069 - inconsistencies between reality and the organizational chart So I really believe that this ordinance 02:58:03.069 --> 02:58:09.790 - as it relates to public works in particular will allow for stronger accountability and clearer expectations 02:58:09.790 --> 02:58:16.012 - amongst city staff Excellent. Thank you so much. I'm councilman Stasberg. Thank you. I just want to 02:58:16.012 --> 02:58:18.750 - thank controller McKim for giving us such a 02:58:19.746 --> 02:58:25.425 - specific and detailed fiscal impact report about that and talking about the 2027 and those kinds of 02:58:25.425 --> 02:58:31.445 - savings and I kind of feel like these two ordinances were just a great example of the How the discussions 02:58:31.445 --> 02:58:37.351 - that at first reading are supposed to work in terms of bringing up these questions and then coming back 02:58:37.351 --> 02:58:43.201 - Both of you director paycheck as well with very solid Responses to what it was that we were interested 02:58:43.201 --> 02:58:48.766 - in hearing and that also extends to chief decaf he left but Anyway, thank you all so much so much 02:58:49.474 --> 02:58:58.811 - Yeah. Ditto. Thank you so much. Please. Councilmember Rosenberger. Hi. Was anyone in charge of the council 02:58:58.811 --> 02:59:07.711 - office notified of the opportunity to do this regrading. And if so who would it have been. That would 02:59:07.711 --> 02:59:16.874 - have been me. And I do not specifically remember including the council office. And I apologize for that. 02:59:16.874 --> 02:59:18.270 - Sometimes that. 02:59:18.626 --> 02:59:29.194 - Happens and I need to be more consistent with making sure that I share information with the council 02:59:29.194 --> 02:59:40.184 - and also with the clerk Because you have more discretion in some of the Processes that you have related 02:59:40.184 --> 02:59:44.094 - to your personnel. I oftentimes just 02:59:44.642 --> 02:59:52.182 - assume that because you have more discretion than a department head that you have other avenues and 02:59:52.182 --> 03:00:00.175 - other options. And so I apologize. I actually ask myself that same question. Did I share this information 03:00:00.175 --> 03:00:07.716 - with the council and with the clerk. And honestly I don't think I did. I don't remember doing that. 03:00:07.716 --> 03:00:11.486 - So I apologize. Thanks for your honesty there. I. 03:00:12.194 --> 03:00:20.625 - Do you find that unfortunate since we have worked with you about changing the grade of our attorney 03:00:20.625 --> 03:00:29.731 - positions because we have a hard time with our hiring. Yeah that just feels like a real missed opportunity. 03:00:29.731 --> 03:00:38.078 - You're correct. I apologize for that. Thank you. Any other comments. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. 03:00:39.970 --> 03:00:48.502 - Yes well I appreciate Dr. Paychecks honesty I am dismayed by this news and by her assertion that we 03:00:48.502 --> 03:00:57.034 - have more flexibility in our staff grades because two years ago when there was a reconsideration of 03:00:57.034 --> 03:01:05.822 - all the whole compensation framework we had very little leeway and I was council president at the time 03:01:05.822 --> 03:01:06.846 - and despite 03:01:07.042 --> 03:01:14.496 - bringing real world experience to bear on the pay grades and not being sufficient and commensurate with 03:01:14.496 --> 03:01:22.022 - the work that our staff does and being told that in the future we would have to stay with the low grades 03:01:22.022 --> 03:01:29.762 - as they are and then we were told in the future we'd have an opportunity to revisit, I find it particularly 03:01:29.762 --> 03:01:34.206 - galling that this opportunity was not shared with our office. 03:01:35.362 --> 03:01:45.142 - I remember those conversations and this was a as council member Rosenberger said this was a 03:01:45.142 --> 03:01:55.772 - missed opportunity. Thank you so much director paycheck. Clerk Bolden. Sorry for interjecting but I 03:01:55.772 --> 03:02:04.382 - do believe that there were some emails sent in April about updates and staffing. 03:02:04.802 --> 03:02:13.930 - from the HR department to the clerk and council office. This could have been an oversight and at the 03:02:13.930 --> 03:02:23.419 - time we did not have I mean we had some staffing challenges at the time so it's hard to know where those 03:02:23.419 --> 03:02:32.457 - emails went and hopefully we could just move forward from here to consider those positions and I do 03:02:32.457 --> 03:02:34.174 - recall that former 03:02:34.530 --> 03:02:42.906 - Council Administrator, Attorney Laener, did significant work with rewriting the job description and 03:02:42.906 --> 03:02:51.450 - having it regraded for our office researcher. So there is at least some of that work that was done by 03:02:51.450 --> 03:02:59.827 - Attorney Laener, and hopefully we can consider revisiting the other roles in our office in the next 03:02:59.827 --> 03:03:04.350 - few months. Thanks. Thank you all so much. All right. 03:03:04.642 --> 03:03:20.674 - Clerk will you please cover up. Yes. Councilmember Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. 03:03:20.674 --> 03:03:28.766 - Rosenberger. No. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. 03:03:35.266 --> 03:03:46.429 - I'm sorry. I have a job. Yes we will move on. Thank you. That passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 03:03:46.429 --> 03:03:57.917 - We'll move on if you have any other motions. Move that resolution 20 26 dash 14 be read by title synopsis 03:03:57.917 --> 03:04:04.094 - only please. Second motion and a second. Any discussion. 03:04:04.994 --> 03:04:12.964 - All right. Will the clerk please call the roll. Councilmember sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. 03:04:12.964 --> 03:04:21.620 - Did he say yes. I didn't I didn't hear anything. I'm sorry. Remember Rallo. Oh thank you. Yes. Ruff. 03:04:21.620 --> 03:04:30.276 - Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. And Zulek. Yes. Thank you. Will the clerk 03:04:30.276 --> 03:04:31.390 - please read. 03:04:33.506 --> 03:04:40.550 - Resolution 2026-14, approval of amended legal representation agreement for common council. Council sponsor 03:04:40.550 --> 03:04:47.529 - is council member Asari and the synopsis is as follows. Resolution 2026-14 approves the amended agreement 03:04:47.529 --> 03:04:54.178 - for legal services to provide additional time for the common council to receive legal representation 03:04:54.178 --> 03:04:59.774 - on an as needed basis. This resolution also sets a maximum amount for the agreement, 03:04:59.874 --> 03:05:08.551 - That is not to exceed the salary for the vacant deputy attorney deputy administrator position. Thank 03:05:08.551 --> 03:05:17.142 - you very much. I move that resolution 20 26 dash 14 be adopted. Second. OK. Councilmember sorry. OK 03:05:17.142 --> 03:05:25.820 - so super briefly. This is just a an amendment to previous resolution that established our ability to 03:05:25.820 --> 03:05:29.342 - enter into a part time contract with our 03:05:29.730 --> 03:05:39.944 - our wonderful, amazing current interim attorney, Alan. As we all know, that we're coming to the end 03:05:39.944 --> 03:05:50.770 - of the process of hiring or appointing a new counsel attorney. And we foresee having some overlap between 03:05:50.770 --> 03:05:58.430 - the excellent consulting services that we've received and the new attorney 03:05:58.690 --> 03:06:07.483 - I mean, surely at the discretion of counsel and the discretion of this new attorney. So this is just 03:06:07.483 --> 03:06:16.364 - allowing us to continue that while setting. I think the original framework had a not to exceed amount 03:06:16.364 --> 03:06:25.157 - that is, through budget and all of those things, is going to be difficult here. So just pegging that 03:06:25.157 --> 03:06:28.030 - to that second attorney position 03:06:28.162 --> 03:06:34.557 - I don't know if it's strange to ask you to add anything to this, but Attorney Allen, is there anything 03:06:34.557 --> 03:06:40.951 - that I'm missing in the basic overview here? The only other thing is originally that I pledged to work 03:06:40.951 --> 03:06:47.346 - a guaranteed minimum number of hours, and so to just allow the flexibility for counsel's needs for the 03:06:47.346 --> 03:06:53.803 - overlap, we took away that minimum, essentially, so there's not a minimum of 15 hours. It could be just 03:06:53.803 --> 03:06:56.286 - as counsel needs it. You may need zero. 03:06:58.594 --> 03:07:08.433 - Any questions or comments happy to questions Councilmember Piedmont Smith and then Stossberg How much 03:07:08.433 --> 03:07:18.465 - have we paid for this contract so far The controller just left I Don't know off the very top of my head 03:07:18.465 --> 03:07:24.446 - but I can I can find out if you give me a few a few moments I 03:07:28.482 --> 03:07:35.102 - Thank you. Maybe a colleague can go ahead. Okay. Councilmember Stosberg. Well, I kind of had a similar 03:07:35.102 --> 03:07:41.659 - question. I actually messaged councilmember sorry about this over the weekend in terms of section two 03:07:41.659 --> 03:07:48.215 - which has the not to exceed the full salary of 85,440 and kind of asking shouldn't that not to exceed 03:07:48.215 --> 03:07:54.835 - be lower than that because we did have somebody in this position for the first two months of this year 03:07:54.835 --> 03:07:57.342 - and so shouldn't it be a not to exceed 03:07:57.474 --> 03:08:05.177 - You know however much you know like that eighty five thousand minus what was already spent in January 03:08:05.177 --> 03:08:11.294 - and February minus however much we've already spent for attorney Allen services. 03:08:11.490 --> 03:08:20.015 - Yes. And so I thought about that. The thinking here is that we also haven't been spending on the other 03:08:20.015 --> 03:08:28.374 - line one with the main attorney or the lead attorney position, transferring here from our consulting 03:08:28.374 --> 03:08:36.733 - line that we had budgeted X for. I think it's $30,000, something like that, and transferring back to 03:08:36.733 --> 03:08:37.726 - a line one. 03:08:38.018 --> 03:08:43.640 - We have lots we have lots of savings in that area because we haven't had both of the positions filled. 03:08:43.640 --> 03:08:48.990 - In fact all three of the positions haven't been filled right. So so this is this is a nom I mean. 03:08:49.250 --> 03:08:55.394 - you know whatever the amount is here it's it's just pegging it to the fact that we're about to hire 03:08:55.394 --> 03:09:01.661 - we hope I'm someone in the in the lead position and just sort of saying this is where we expect it to 03:09:01.661 --> 03:09:07.867 - be you know no more than but again we've taken out the minimum minimum service hours in the original 03:09:07.867 --> 03:09:12.414 - contract so you know I think that this is a this is an appropriate range. 03:09:15.586 --> 03:09:22.343 - I'm also curious on the question that comes from repeat month Smith answered so I don't know if you've 03:09:22.343 --> 03:09:28.902 - been able to determine I have the amount if you'd like The amount total that's been invoiced so far 03:09:28.902 --> 03:09:35.593 - is close to the 55 it's forty nine thousand three hundred and ninety dollars Thank you Can you repeat 03:09:35.593 --> 03:09:40.382 - that I'm sorry It's forty nine thousand three hundred and ninety dollars 03:09:44.834 --> 03:09:53.541 - Are there any other questions? Okay. In that case, we'll go to public comment. Would anyone in chambers 03:09:53.541 --> 03:10:01.912 - like to speak? Okay. Would anyone on Zoom have their hand raised? Okay. Thank you. We'll go back to 03:10:01.912 --> 03:10:10.452 - council comment. President Isara. So I just have a real brief comment, and this is, I mean, something 03:10:10.452 --> 03:10:12.126 - that we brought up. 03:10:13.410 --> 03:10:22.391 - I think it's important for us to think about this in a way as like a mirror. I mean, when we started 03:10:22.391 --> 03:10:31.994 - the hiring committee and part of our charge was to get temporary cover, one of the things that we discussed 03:10:31.994 --> 03:10:40.886 - was like, okay, where do we need a lawyer? And I think that this does give, I think, ample evidence 03:10:40.886 --> 03:10:42.398 - of the fact that 03:10:42.626 --> 03:10:49.812 - You know there are a lot of processes that we do in council that I think we need to think very carefully 03:10:49.812 --> 03:10:56.792 - about right like I mean you know sort of paying a lawyer to attend a meeting for example is something 03:10:56.792 --> 03:11:03.294 - we should we should be considering like how we as especially as we're thinking about you know. 03:11:03.586 --> 03:11:09.602 - how we continue to staff the office and other changes that we might want to make. But again, a lot of 03:11:09.602 --> 03:11:15.618 - that is on us. And I think a lot of it's like habit that we've talked about in the past, that there's 03:11:15.618 --> 03:11:21.752 - just a lot of spaces where we have legal representation where we may not need it. And obviously, paying 03:11:21.752 --> 03:11:23.934 - for legal representation by the hour 03:11:24.642 --> 03:11:30.900 - points that out. And I'm sorry that I have to say this while Attorney Allen is here, but it's obviously 03:11:30.900 --> 03:11:36.917 - no knock on Attorney Allen. I wish I could just spend all day with Attorney Allen. But the point is 03:11:36.917 --> 03:11:42.393 - I think that we often hide because we have these full-time positions. I think that some of 03:11:42.393 --> 03:11:48.470 - those inefficiencies are sort of hidden in our own system because people are here. And so I think as 03:11:48.470 --> 03:11:54.608 - we're thinking about restaffing and all of these things, and all of us have expressed those concerns, 03:11:54.608 --> 03:12:00.412 - about staff load time et cetera. You know I think this is a really good opportunity for us to think 03:12:00.412 --> 03:12:06.389 - about in a mirror. You know you can quantify the spaces where that's happening. So you know I do think 03:12:06.389 --> 03:12:12.367 - it sounds like a staggering number. We are a you know we have a lot of activity and there's been a lot 03:12:12.367 --> 03:12:14.398 - to cover in a short time including 03:12:14.850 --> 03:12:21.122 - long meetings with county and all types of other things that you know, but Anyways, i'm just i'm just 03:12:21.122 --> 03:12:27.456 - saying that both to thank attorney allen for his service but also for us to I think we do need to it's 03:12:27.456 --> 03:12:33.667 - part of the reason why we're introducing this because we do need to sort of bring this the reins and 03:12:33.667 --> 03:12:39.939 - a bit here, so Sorry, that was a long speech councilmember piedmont smith Yeah, first of all i'd like 03:12:39.939 --> 03:12:43.998 - to thank mr. Allen for all of his help in the last several months 03:12:44.130 --> 03:12:52.710 - And we are very fortunate that he was available and willing to take on this temporary position since 03:12:52.710 --> 03:13:02.055 - he has so much experience with the city. And I think we've all benefited from that. And I want to acknowledge 03:13:02.055 --> 03:13:10.721 - also that he had a totally unexpected task this summer when the the joint city county subcommittee on 03:13:10.721 --> 03:13:13.694 - the jail location started meeting. 03:13:13.794 --> 03:13:22.867 - So I really appreciate all of his help. And I also agree with council member sorry that this kind of 03:13:22.867 --> 03:13:31.940 - underlines for us that we you know we're paying legal rates for some work that somebody doesn't need 03:13:31.940 --> 03:13:40.923 - a JD for to do. So we might think about as we move forward in reorganizing our office you know what 03:13:40.923 --> 03:13:42.270 - maybe could be 03:13:42.754 --> 03:13:54.544 - done by somebody who is more interested and more inclined towards just administration and office systems 03:13:54.544 --> 03:14:05.885 - organization as opposed to somebody who is really has the experience and qualifications of a lawyer. 03:14:05.885 --> 03:14:12.510 - So anyway thank you Mr. Allen. Council member Rosenberger. 03:14:12.898 --> 03:14:21.447 - I thank you. I think we talk about this a lot reexamining the roles and responsibilities of the staff 03:14:21.447 --> 03:14:29.828 - we have and what that might look like going forward. I know there is a little talk of not having or 03:14:29.828 --> 03:14:38.460 - do we need an attorney at our meetings. I think maybe oddly unfortunately we do that. We've definitely 03:14:38.460 --> 03:14:39.550 - had a lot of 03:14:39.714 --> 03:14:46.964 - I don't know how to say it nicely adversarial conversations here where we need someone with legal expertise 03:14:46.964 --> 03:14:53.811 - to defend I think the role and authority of council in Bloomington. I think it still would be nice to 03:14:53.811 --> 03:14:58.846 - look at how other cities divide their work that I think they more loosely. 03:14:59.202 --> 03:15:05.628 - have roles that aren't specifically defined in state code that we could look at as well. I think also 03:15:05.628 --> 03:15:11.929 - like where does packet production reside is an important question. It is a it is a document of city 03:15:11.929 --> 03:15:18.607 - council which is not necessarily the role of city council to put it together. I think it will be exciting 03:15:18.607 --> 03:15:21.694 - to move forward but I just want to say like I do 03:15:22.242 --> 03:15:29.773 - think you're needed here, not that anyone says you're not. I really appreciate you being here. And your 03:15:29.773 --> 03:15:37.015 - legal expertise and your historical institutional knowledge is impeccable. So I would love to be in 03:15:37.015 --> 03:15:44.401 - those conversations moving forward, of course. And I think our executive sessions are really nice for 03:15:44.401 --> 03:15:50.846 - that. Thanks. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Stasberg. Thank you. I first want to also. 03:15:51.074 --> 03:15:59.140 - say a huge thank you to Attorney Allen. I think that his service has been exemplary. And then I also 03:15:59.140 --> 03:16:07.844 - want to speak to this point of what tasks we're having our staff do, kind of from the different perspective, 03:16:07.844 --> 03:16:16.069 - that at the start of this year, I had a list of legislative initiatives that I wanted to get done. And 03:16:16.069 --> 03:16:20.062 - I have had to back burner basically all of those. 03:16:20.194 --> 03:16:28.371 - Attorney Allen has been able to find time to do some research for me. But I know he has a really limited 03:16:28.371 --> 03:16:36.159 - time to be able to devote to some of the actual work that we're supposed to be doing right now. And 03:16:36.159 --> 03:16:43.947 - so it has been invaluable having him. But I also just want to say we absolutely need an attorney to 03:16:43.947 --> 03:16:48.542 - be able to do legal, give us legal advice, legal guidance, 03:16:48.834 --> 03:16:56.850 - navigation of state law and how we can Impact the city in the ways that that we want to impact the city 03:16:56.850 --> 03:17:04.635 - that the city needs to be impacted and That that's just really important and those are things that I 03:17:04.635 --> 03:17:12.343 - know that attorney Allen has tried to work on with me in amongst doing all the meeting coverage and 03:17:12.343 --> 03:17:17.662 - all the packet coverage and all of those things that Have to be done 03:17:17.858 --> 03:17:27.440 - And it means that some of that other more discretionary stuff got, at least for me, deprioritized this 03:17:27.440 --> 03:17:37.115 - year. So thank you. Thank you, Attorney Allen. I second all the nice things said about Counsel Attorney 03:17:37.115 --> 03:17:45.022 - Allen. Does anyone have any other comments? OK. Will the clerk please call the roll? 03:17:47.522 --> 03:18:01.568 - Councilmember daily. Yes Rallo Councilmember Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger. Yes Stasburg. Yes Piedmont 03:18:01.568 --> 03:18:12.446 - Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Thank you Thank you that passes and I will 03:18:12.834 --> 03:18:22.412 - Power right back over the president. I'm sorry Wow. Thanks. Oh my gosh Okay, we now come to a final 03:18:22.412 --> 03:18:31.990 - time of public comment. Is there anybody who'd like to make public comment? Anyone online Anyone in 03:18:31.990 --> 03:18:42.622 - the room well Things of council schedule we have another executive session Scheduled for next Tuesday at 6 p.m 03:18:43.010 --> 03:18:49.365 - 6 o'clock I believe and We do not have a council meeting next week any other But then we have budget 03:18:49.365 --> 03:18:56.034 - session right after that and we will be meeting on Mondays and Wednesdays, correct? Do our meeting change 03:18:56.034 --> 03:19:02.640 - time does to 530 so Monday and Wednesday 530 for both of those meetings two weeks from now. I'm customer 03:19:02.640 --> 03:19:08.994 - Stasberg There's a fiscal committee meeting this Friday at 830 in the morning and Allison conference 03:19:08.994 --> 03:19:12.958 - room and we'll be discussing elected official salary and stuff 03:19:13.122 --> 03:19:19.171 - Thanks. Clerk. Just a reminder, because I know there are a lot of committee meetings that you all are 03:19:19.171 --> 03:19:25.457 - trying to schedule. And if your schedule changes for some reason, please notify us as quickly as possible 03:19:25.457 --> 03:19:31.565 - so that we can make sure you have a quorum going to the committee meetings and we don't have to cancel 03:19:31.565 --> 03:19:37.614 - anything. Interview committee, a meeting tomorrow as well. Just a reminder. Anything else? With that, 03:19:37.614 --> 03:19:38.622 - boom, adjourned.