WEBVTT 00:00:00.002 --> 00:00:12.470 - Of Dewey. One two three four five. Yeah we have we have enough. This regular session of the Bloomington 00:00:12.470 --> 00:00:24.939 - Common Council. Will the clerk please call the roll. Council member Stasberg here. Oh sorry about that. 00:00:24.939 --> 00:00:29.854 - Piedmont Smith. Yeah. Zulek here. Sorry. 00:00:30.498 --> 00:00:43.614 - Yes here. Daily here. Rallo here. Ruff Rosenberger here. And Flaherty. Not yet. OK. 00:00:45.282 --> 00:00:53.034 - All right, the agenda should be posted there. The honorable clerk also prints out a handful if you need 00:00:53.034 --> 00:01:00.936 - them. They're also posted online. We have a fairly packed agenda today. And so after we'll have a handful 00:01:00.936 --> 00:01:08.390 - of minutes possibly for approval, I don't know, and then we have reports from council members, from 00:01:08.390 --> 00:01:15.248 - city offices, and from council committees, and then we'll have a moment for public comment. 00:01:15.248 --> 00:01:22.750 - We also have some appointments to boards and commissions and some other matters and then we have one, two. 00:01:22.818 --> 00:01:30.123 - three things for first reading and one two three four things for second reading and resolutions and 00:01:30.123 --> 00:01:37.575 - then finally there'll be a second period of Public comment. I'm making one slight amendment to to the 00:01:37.575 --> 00:01:44.953 - agenda Is that mayor Thompson is not going to be speaking today? And so apologies for that. She just 00:01:44.953 --> 00:01:52.478 - got tied up in something else and just said notice so other are there any other amendments or motions? 00:01:52.802 --> 00:02:03.219 - I move to allow public comment after presentation from city offices. Second there's a motion and a second. 00:02:03.219 --> 00:02:13.637 - Any discussion. Can we be more specific about time periods for that like as a public comment for a certain 00:02:13.637 --> 00:02:22.302 - period of time or three minute public comment. Yeah sorry I move to allow three minutes. 00:02:22.402 --> 00:02:32.361 - per speaker for public comment. I think it's standard time just on the reports. Yes. Second. OK. There's 00:02:32.361 --> 00:02:42.416 - a motion to second any further discussion. All right. Will the clerk please call the roll. Council member 00:02:42.416 --> 00:02:51.806 - Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. 00:02:53.122 --> 00:03:01.607 - Rosenberger. Yes. All right. The measure carries. So the this thing in front of me agenda is has been 00:03:01.607 --> 00:03:10.009 - amended. So with that we'll go to do we have any minutes for approval. No no minutes for approval in 00:03:10.009 --> 00:03:18.411 - which case we will go to reports. Do any of my colleagues have any reports or statements. Councilman 00:03:18.411 --> 00:03:19.326 - Stossberg. 00:03:20.418 --> 00:03:28.472 - Thank you. I just wanted to give the report that today was the project 46 kind of like a quarterly meeting 00:03:28.472 --> 00:03:36.073 - and retreat. So I went over to Columbus Indiana for that and met with the project 46 team. And we we 00:03:36.073 --> 00:03:44.353 - generally the purpose of that was to talk about priority goals for project 46. And so we did after discussion 00:03:44.353 --> 00:03:46.686 - and various collective kind of 00:03:46.850 --> 00:03:54.518 - voting the top priorities based on that dot voting were floodplain and hazard mitigation Talking about 00:03:54.518 --> 00:04:02.111 - renewable energy and energy efficiency and then waste issues of of waste And so then there's like sub 00:04:02.111 --> 00:04:09.555 - tasks under that and there will I believe be committees formed related to that next time we meet So 00:04:09.555 --> 00:04:16.478 - if anybody is interested in hearing a little bit more about that, please let me know. Thanks 00:04:17.762 --> 00:04:26.347 - Thank you so much. Any other comes with Pima Smith. Yes I wanted to announce a couple of things. One 00:04:26.347 --> 00:04:34.848 - is that we have a city council deliberation session next week September 9th. I want to mention that 00:04:34.848 --> 00:04:43.518 - at the start of this meeting rather than waiting till the end because people may not be here by then. 00:04:43.874 --> 00:04:51.556 - We welcome the public to join us for a conversation about what is public safety and what makes you feel 00:04:51.556 --> 00:04:59.460 - safe in public, what makes you feel less safe. We will have that next week from 630 to 830 here in council 00:04:59.460 --> 00:05:06.921 - chambers. And we hope you can attend. There will also be a group in Spanish. And if I spoke Spanish, 00:05:06.921 --> 00:05:12.830 - I would say that in Spanish. Maybe our council president can invite in Spanish. 00:05:13.442 --> 00:05:22.227 - The other thing I want to say is that we have that I will have my constituent meeting for constituents 00:05:22.227 --> 00:05:30.841 - of District 1 and anybody else who would like to join via zoom on Saturday September 12th at 11 a.m. 00:05:30.841 --> 00:05:39.541 - And that link is on the city council web page. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other comments or or 00:05:39.541 --> 00:05:43.294 - announcements or reports. Councilman Rallo. 00:05:44.546 --> 00:05:54.769 - Yeah, I think this is worth mentioning. I occasionally mention AI advances. And there was the famous 00:05:54.769 --> 00:06:04.891 - one a few weeks ago, which was the open AI model that escaped containment and then attacked hugging 00:06:04.891 --> 00:06:11.166 - phase, which is a depository for huge amounts of information. 00:06:11.586 --> 00:06:20.556 - Cyber information and managed to penetrate it and I just want to draw people's attention to a forensic 00:06:20.556 --> 00:06:29.526 - study that was conducted by a group called meter and In association with redwood research and it turns 00:06:29.526 --> 00:06:38.409 - out it wasn't a single agent. It was a multitude of agents. So this is becoming more and more I think 00:06:38.409 --> 00:06:41.022 - alarming as we're seeing is a 00:06:41.538 --> 00:06:49.886 - There were 1,200 total agents that was turned a swarm that assisted each other, cooperated, assisted 00:06:49.886 --> 00:06:57.408 - each other in escaping containment, cooperated, strategized, schemed, broke into different 00:06:57.408 --> 00:07:05.756 - groups, coordinated each other on various attacks related to not only infiltrating Hugging Face, but 00:07:05.756 --> 00:07:10.302 - other companies. And it was not noticed for many days. 00:07:10.594 --> 00:07:18.829 - So people are just now sort of reckoning with the impact and the severity of this operation conducted 00:07:18.829 --> 00:07:27.065 - by rogue agents. And this is happening even as the frontier labs continue their research to make more 00:07:27.065 --> 00:07:35.542 - advanced models of greater capacity, greater intelligence, which is doubling in its capacity every three 00:07:35.542 --> 00:07:39.902 - to four months. Just bringing that to your attention. 00:07:40.002 --> 00:07:50.202 - So I would recommend reading the report by Meader and Redwood Research about this incident. Thank you. 00:07:50.202 --> 00:08:00.104 - Thank you very much. Any other reports or comments? Online, either of you? Okay. Thank you both all 00:08:00.104 --> 00:08:03.966 - so much. We'll move on then to report. 00:08:04.130 --> 00:08:10.654 - from Bloomington City on place and branding. And I'll welcome Director Dimalina here. 00:08:22.914 --> 00:08:28.762 - I know you all have a hefty agenda. So I'll rush through my intro remarks real quick. Desiree de Molina 00:08:28.762 --> 00:08:34.441 - communications director for the city of Bloomington. Good evening council members. So while the memo 00:08:34.441 --> 00:08:40.064 - submitted to council provided a much fuller account of the purpose the process and the path forward 00:08:40.064 --> 00:08:45.800 - for this Bloomington branding project for the benefit of the record and for the public I just kind of 00:08:45.800 --> 00:08:49.342 - want to briefly set the stage here. So in 2016 the city's wage 00:08:50.114 --> 00:08:56.748 - Growth Task Force identified blooming branding Bloomington as a strategy to strengthen our communities 00:08:56.748 --> 00:09:03.447 - competitiveness and economic positioning. Nearly a decade later council approved funding for this unmet 00:09:03.447 --> 00:09:09.952 - recommendation. So thank you. And the city partnered with civic brand to begin the work and the work 00:09:09.952 --> 00:09:14.654 - is about opportunity and how we create more opportunity for more people. 00:09:15.074 --> 00:09:21.568 - more businesses, and more community partners, and then in turn, how that spurs and supports better jobs, 00:09:21.568 --> 00:09:27.877 - better wages, and a stronger local economy. While this condensed presentation could in no way capture 00:09:27.877 --> 00:09:34.186 - the multiple sessions of outreach, conversations, and research that produced a very detailed 117-page 00:09:34.186 --> 00:09:40.990 - findings report, one interviewee put it like this, Bloomington doesn't know what it looks like in the mirror. 00:09:41.986 --> 00:09:47.761 - Of course, no single phrase, idea, or image would ever capture all that Bloomington is entirely. And 00:09:47.761 --> 00:09:53.478 - that's not really what a brand aims to do. What this work gives us is a way to identify what is the 00:09:53.478 --> 00:09:59.310 - most distinctive and meaningful about Bloomington, build a clear position around those strengths, and 00:09:59.310 --> 00:10:05.085 - use it to support our economic future in a thriving community. And now we get to see what that looks 00:10:05.085 --> 00:10:10.974 - like. So I'm very happy to welcome Ryan Short, CEO and co-founder of Civic Brand, back to Bloomington. 00:10:16.610 --> 00:10:24.807 - Thank you Desiree. Good evening council. My name is Ryan short one of the founders of civic brand. And 00:10:24.807 --> 00:10:33.242 - as of this month our firm has been doing this work for 18 years. We work with all kinds of places whether 00:10:33.242 --> 00:10:41.598 - it's municipalities DMOs economic development downtowns. And I think this is my clicker. And one of the. 00:10:41.794 --> 00:10:49.157 - really interesting things, in my opinion, about place branding is how different and complex municipality, 00:10:49.157 --> 00:10:56.660 - even within place branding, municipality branding is compared to tourism, economic development in downtown. 00:10:56.660 --> 00:11:03.953 - And it kind of short circuits a lot of folks' mind when you think about that, because when we say brand, 00:11:03.953 --> 00:11:10.622 - a lot of times we immediately go to logo. And when we say logo, we immediately go to marketing. 00:11:11.266 --> 00:11:17.409 - A company rebrands. That typically just means they got a new logo. And they typically did that because 00:11:17.409 --> 00:11:23.432 - they are trying to adjust their positioning so they can sell more stuff. And that makes sense to us, 00:11:23.432 --> 00:11:29.515 - to everybody, when you're talking about tourism, when you're talking about economic development, even 00:11:29.515 --> 00:11:35.777 - in downtown. Because those are DMOs, destination marketing organizations. They're tasked with marketing. 00:11:35.777 --> 00:11:40.190 - So even if we have a definition of brand that is logo, that is marketing, 00:11:40.610 --> 00:11:46.966 - That makes sense there. But a municipality is not a DMO. This is not a marketing organization. This 00:11:46.966 --> 00:11:53.704 - is an organization that is tasked with really important things, safety, health, infrastructure, improving 00:11:53.704 --> 00:12:00.632 - people's lives, and making decisions on a day-to-day basis, hundreds, thousands of decisions on a day-to-day 00:12:00.632 --> 00:12:06.988 - basis that makes a real impact in people's lives. So when you start talking about things like logos 00:12:06.988 --> 00:12:09.086 - and marketing, that doesn't even 00:12:09.826 --> 00:12:16.529 - makes sense of why are we even doing this? Why are we even having this conversation? And we told staff 00:12:16.529 --> 00:12:23.167 - before we kicked off this project a year and a half ago, just like we tell every client, we'll get to 00:12:23.167 --> 00:12:29.675 - the end of this project. And even if we can guarantee we 1,000% nail it, we will get some feedback. 00:12:29.675 --> 00:12:36.638 - We will get some criticism. Why are we doing this? Why did we spend $95,000 on a logo? Why did we do this? 00:12:36.866 --> 00:12:42.836 - My nephew has Photoshop. He could have done this for cheaper. Why didn't we have a design contest? We 00:12:42.836 --> 00:12:48.690 - literally verbatim said all the comments everyone's here has read and seen. And we will continue to 00:12:48.690 --> 00:12:55.070 - tell those our clients the same thing. And that's because those people are right. If the city of Bloomington 00:12:55.070 --> 00:13:01.274 - actually did spend $95,000 for a logo, I would be right there with you and say, that's insane. But that's 00:13:01.274 --> 00:13:06.718 - not what a brand is. That's not what we were tasked with. That's not what the 116 page audit 00:13:06.882 --> 00:13:14.230 - That's not what the 50-page implementation plan suggests. There is a visual identity component. It's 00:13:14.230 --> 00:13:21.577 - a small piece of that. We're going to talk about that. But place branding, what it is, is going back 00:13:21.577 --> 00:13:29.070 - to those decisions that people make every day. It's not about selling Bloomington to an outsider. It's 00:13:29.070 --> 00:13:33.726 - not about an outside audience. It's about an internal audience. 00:13:34.402 --> 00:13:39.662 - It's actually probably more about council and staff and leadership and arming them with making choices. 00:13:39.662 --> 00:13:44.721 - How do we, we're all doing the best we can to make choices, decisions every single day. But even if 00:13:44.721 --> 00:13:49.880 - you're making the right choices, if we're all making choices in different directions, the sum doesn't 00:13:49.880 --> 00:13:54.938 - add up to greater than the part. So we're kind of just aimlessly drifting. And that's the challenge 00:13:54.938 --> 00:14:00.148 - with a lot of cities. And what a brand does is it creates a shared vision, a shared north star of this 00:14:00.148 --> 00:14:01.918 - is what we're all trying to solve. 00:14:02.658 --> 00:14:08.901 - so that at every level of staff, council, budget, policy decision, all of those decisions can slightly 00:14:08.901 --> 00:14:15.144 - align towards one shared direction. And so diving into the process, this is kind of an outline of that 00:14:15.144 --> 00:14:21.265 - year and a half process. I'm really just gonna focus on that first column for a minute. The research 00:14:21.265 --> 00:14:27.447 - and public engagement phase. 50% of the project, 50% of the budget goes into that phase. Our team was 00:14:27.447 --> 00:14:32.478 - out here for two different site visits. There's a stakeholder committee made up of 00:14:32.706 --> 00:14:37.749 - community partners faith leaders business owners different people that represent different parts of 00:14:37.749 --> 00:14:42.892 - the community that we met with throughout the process. There was a community survey there were pop up 00:14:42.892 --> 00:14:48.087 - events because we don't expect people to come take our survey come to City Hall we need to go out into 00:14:48.087 --> 00:14:53.583 - the community meet with them. So we were at festivals farmers markets talking to people trying to understand 00:14:53.583 --> 00:14:57.214 - what is Bloomington. What does it mean to you. What are the challenges. 00:14:57.442 --> 00:15:03.144 - and being really honest and having some hard conversations about what Bloomington is and where it falls 00:15:03.144 --> 00:15:09.011 - short and what the opportunities are. We met with many of the council members at the start of the project. 00:15:09.011 --> 00:15:14.658 - We met with a few of the council members at the end of the project. We had community focus groups with 00:15:14.658 --> 00:15:20.305 - business leaders, IU students, residents, people of different ages, backgrounds, heard a lot of really 00:15:20.305 --> 00:15:22.334 - interesting insights and viewpoints. 00:15:23.042 --> 00:15:29.654 - the online survey, and then of course our firm does our research looking at how are you communicating 00:15:29.654 --> 00:15:36.266 - out there, what's being said out there, and looking at other competing communities, and all of that's 00:15:36.266 --> 00:15:42.878 - what culminated in that 117 page brand audit. Of that 117 pages, there's really four focus areas that 00:15:42.878 --> 00:15:49.814 - we think the brand should keep in mind and address. One is protect and amplify Bloomington's one-of-a-kind 00:15:49.814 --> 00:15:52.990 - character, keep and attract young professionals, 00:15:54.274 --> 00:16:02.639 - bridge the town and gown divide and allied and community decision makers and build momentum that outlives 00:16:02.639 --> 00:16:10.530 - any mayor council or moment in time. And so some of those tough conversations that we heard is that 00:16:10.530 --> 00:16:17.790 - a lot of people feel like their potential is locked limited or undiscovered in Bloomington. 00:16:18.466 --> 00:16:24.442 - For every person that we talked to that went on and on about how Bloomington has everything they need 00:16:24.442 --> 00:16:30.419 - and it's the greatest place, we heard from a young professional that thought, I love Bloomington, but 00:16:30.419 --> 00:16:36.278 - I think I'm going to have to leave to get the career that I want or to find a partner. We talked to 00:16:36.278 --> 00:16:42.547 - young people of color that said, I don't feel like I belong here at times, whether that's meeting friends, 00:16:42.547 --> 00:16:46.238 - social groups, or even finding a place to get their hair done. 00:16:48.674 --> 00:16:56.155 - We talked to students at IU that said they went to a university that is in Bloomington, but there's 00:16:56.155 --> 00:17:03.786 - times where they don't feel like they're part of Bloomington. And so that feedback and that statement 00:17:03.786 --> 00:17:11.790 - we saw as the real challenge and the opportunity for the city government. And the switch is that potential 00:17:11.790 --> 00:17:14.334 - isn't unlocked by a city's scale. 00:17:15.842 --> 00:17:22.887 - If you're not finding your people if you're not finding your place it doesn't just mean you move to 00:17:22.887 --> 00:17:29.932 - a bigger city because potential is unlocked by yourself and the environment and the people who help 00:17:29.932 --> 00:17:37.118 - you grow and the city government as an organization plays a pretty big role in doing that and helping 00:17:37.118 --> 00:17:44.727 - unlock that potential. And so the whole brand strategy really gets condensed down to this idea of unlocking 00:17:44.727 --> 00:17:45.502 - potential. 00:17:46.754 --> 00:17:54.342 - And the way that a brand is truly used as that decision-making filter for council, for staff, for community 00:17:54.342 --> 00:18:01.507 - partners and organizations that are tasked with shaping the environment is to just ask yourself, does 00:18:01.507 --> 00:18:09.165 - this decision, whatever it is that you're making at the moment, help unlock potential? And that's ultimately 00:18:09.165 --> 00:18:16.542 - what a brand is. It's that guiding North Star decision-making filter. And I know me personally, when I'm 00:18:16.738 --> 00:18:22.110 - thinking about something and I'm having to make a hard decision, I'll often go like this. I'll kind 00:18:22.110 --> 00:18:27.643 - of like just fiddle with my ring. It's kind of a subconscious thing. I'm not really even sure what I'm 00:18:27.643 --> 00:18:33.230 - thinking about. But I think that's my personal equivalent of whatever my brand is. What am I? I'm about 00:18:33.230 --> 00:18:38.763 - to make a decision. I'm doing something. I'm thinking about it. Maybe I'm a little nervous. And I kind 00:18:38.763 --> 00:18:44.404 - of pause for a half second, fiddle with my ring, and then move forward. And that's what the brand should 00:18:44.404 --> 00:18:45.854 - be for counsel, for staff, 00:18:45.954 --> 00:18:52.318 - for organizations, before you pass a budget, before you pass an amendment, before you do a project, 00:18:52.318 --> 00:18:58.682 - does this unlock potential for this resident, this person, this student? And then move forward. And 00:18:58.682 --> 00:19:05.237 - if the hundreds and thousands of decisions that people make on behalf of the community go through that 00:19:05.237 --> 00:19:11.664 - filter, you will positively impact people's lives in your community. And I can guarantee you the ROI 00:19:11.664 --> 00:19:14.846 - of that is going to be a lot higher than $95,000. 00:19:17.026 --> 00:19:23.988 - And so my ring is not my logo, it's not my brand, but it is kind of a reminder of that. And that's ultimately 00:19:23.988 --> 00:19:30.380 - what a visual identity is. It's just simply a simple visual reminder of what are you all about? It's 00:19:30.380 --> 00:19:36.836 - not trying to communicate to an outside world, an outside audience in cell and say this is what I am. 00:19:36.836 --> 00:19:43.038 - It's for you, it's for internal to shape decisions. And so a visual identity that's gonna do that 00:19:44.802 --> 00:19:50.011 - Again this isn't an external marketing this isn't advertising this is internal. What we think it needs 00:19:50.011 --> 00:19:55.321 - city needs to communicate to be able to do that is it needs to be bold because to truly unlock potential 00:19:55.321 --> 00:20:00.378 - and make some of the hard choices and commitments that that takes is bold. It needs to be stable to 00:20:00.378 --> 00:20:05.485 - attract those jobs the people that are going to invest in a community a city government has to prove 00:20:05.485 --> 00:20:10.846 - that it is stable and show that it is stable and it's going to take everybody it has to be collaborative. 00:20:11.746 --> 00:20:18.489 - So when we started looking to design marks, that was kind of our benchmark. It needs to be bold, stable, 00:20:18.489 --> 00:20:25.360 - and collaborative. And to us, that was more important to unlock potential than to visibly show Bloomington 00:20:25.360 --> 00:20:31.782 - with the courthouse or some aesthetic element. But it was to speak this, because again, this is the 00:20:31.782 --> 00:20:38.268 - internal city government organizational brand. And so this is the system that we developed. We think 00:20:38.268 --> 00:20:38.974 - it's bold. 00:20:40.194 --> 00:20:46.714 - There's some critiques obviously all the B. It looks like a whatever it looks like a bank maybe a but 00:20:46.714 --> 00:20:53.362 - whatever you want to say but we think it's bold. We think it communicates stability. We think the color 00:20:53.362 --> 00:20:59.818 - palette very strategically is collaborative in our engagement. We heard a lot that you know what the 00:20:59.818 --> 00:21:06.210 - city government needs to be all blue in distance from IU. I use red we're blue. That doesn't bridge 00:21:06.210 --> 00:21:09.598 - the town and gown divide neither does going all red. 00:21:09.890 --> 00:21:16.074 - Right? The town does not need to be overly catering to IU, and it doesn't need a distance from IU. It 00:21:16.074 --> 00:21:22.136 - needs to work together. Politically, it's not about left, right, young, old. And we think the color 00:21:22.136 --> 00:21:28.199 - palette also does that. It's a very traditional color palette. It doesn't get much more classic and 00:21:28.199 --> 00:21:34.383 - traditional than red and blue. But we do think that with the pink and the brighter blue that it feels 00:21:34.383 --> 00:21:35.838 - fresh, it feels modern, 00:21:36.674 --> 00:21:42.446 - It doesn't just feel old timey so we feel like we can bring a lot of people along with that. We also 00:21:42.446 --> 00:21:48.561 - understand and there's a 50 page implementation plan that is very detailed is about phased implementation. 00:21:48.561 --> 00:21:54.390 - And when we met with some of the council members we met with Sydney one of the comments that she made 00:21:54.390 --> 00:22:00.105 - before we started the presentation was are we changing the logo because you know we don't have much 00:22:00.105 --> 00:22:02.334 - budget to implement this. And we said. 00:22:03.714 --> 00:22:09.768 - We completely understand that that 50 page implementation plan talks a lot about phased implementation 00:22:09.768 --> 00:22:15.880 - plan, implementing things at natural replacement cycles so there is no added cost, and also recognizing 00:22:15.880 --> 00:22:21.817 - that if you do evolve to this mark in this symbol, the current mark is also gonna live along side by 00:22:21.817 --> 00:22:27.694 - side. So we need to think about how do these marks work together? Because there will be times for a 00:22:27.694 --> 00:22:33.278 - long time where potentially these things coexist. And so what we wanted to add was showing how 00:22:33.666 --> 00:22:40.594 - This whole system, the whole brand strategy, unlocking potential, bold, stable, collaborative, works 00:22:40.594 --> 00:22:47.796 - with the existing icon. Because the icon is not the brand. The icon is the story, the message, the color 00:22:47.796 --> 00:22:55.136 - palette, the visual identity, the reminder of everything. And so if you went this far, you can communicate 00:22:55.136 --> 00:23:01.995 - that. If you went all the way to the B, icon within that, we think it goes a little bit further, we 00:23:01.995 --> 00:23:03.230 - think it works in 00:23:03.650 --> 00:23:08.845 - Some more modern cases when that original icon was created, which I think it's a great mark, but it 00:23:08.845 --> 00:23:14.299 - didn't exist at a time when there were social media avatars, favicons, different digital instances where 00:23:14.299 --> 00:23:19.650 - certain weights and line art might need to be considered. But we think it's strong. It works. And it's 00:23:19.650 --> 00:23:24.845 - going to have to work. It doesn't matter. No one's throwing this out. They're going to have to live 00:23:24.845 --> 00:23:27.390 - side by side over time for some period at least. 00:23:30.242 --> 00:23:34.896 - Next couple slides are just some mock-ups and inspiration of that unlocking potential. Again, that's 00:23:34.896 --> 00:23:39.504 - like an internal mantra. You may never say unlocking potential. You may never type those words, but 00:23:39.504 --> 00:23:44.250 - it should inspire messaging, thoughts, and ideas. Our approach is that that's a lot more powerful than 00:23:44.250 --> 00:23:48.949 - simply a tagline that you just repeat the same words over and over. Instead, it's a jumping off point 00:23:48.949 --> 00:23:53.603 - to say a lot of different things, but just how could we say that? This is just one example. The city 00:23:53.603 --> 00:23:55.262 - that opens doors, maybe this is on. 00:23:55.650 --> 00:24:01.099 - you know, some housing in front of some affordable housing project, and it's a construction fencing, 00:24:01.099 --> 00:24:06.063 - right, just an example. Also part of it is a word mark, and this isn't just a font where we 00:24:06.063 --> 00:24:11.620 - typed Bloomington, this is a custom word mark that was created that all of the lines across there have 00:24:11.620 --> 00:24:17.393 - a similar curve and shape. We think it feels very classic and traditional, like it could have been created 00:24:17.393 --> 00:24:23.166 - a long time ago, but at the same time feels modern and fresh with some nuances that feels current as well. 00:24:25.378 --> 00:24:34.081 - Some more mockups there showing the system and applications. Same thing in a transition period or with 00:24:34.081 --> 00:24:42.699 - this kind of combo of what you have now. Again, the B isn't the brand because the brand works with or 00:24:42.699 --> 00:24:51.149 - without that. It's the story, it's the strategy, it's the reminder. It also needs to work alongside 00:24:51.149 --> 00:24:54.782 - other community partners that are actively 00:24:54.914 --> 00:25:00.616 - Promoting and talking about Bloomington as well. So this is just showing if there was an event Maybe 00:25:00.616 --> 00:25:06.262 - that was sponsored by the city and visit Bloomington. So their marks out there your marks out there 00:25:06.262 --> 00:25:12.077 - Different different goals but can work together Again just some mock-ups The other council member that 00:25:12.077 --> 00:25:17.779 - we met with at the end this project with Isabel and she had some some good input and feedback for us 00:25:17.779 --> 00:25:20.094 - on some of the messaging that we had and 00:25:20.930 --> 00:25:26.397 - that riffed off of the unlocking potential, so we tweaked the message there. We had a slightly different 00:25:26.397 --> 00:25:31.707 - version of that, and so this one is now where potential meets opportunity. Again, just another simple 00:25:31.707 --> 00:25:37.018 - example. You may never use that exact phrase, but it's an example of how unlocking potential can find 00:25:37.018 --> 00:25:42.432 - its way in a different messaging. And so this is the closing slide. Happy to answer questions, but just 00:25:42.432 --> 00:25:46.910 - to reiterate the things, the brand is a mindset for decision-making. It's not a logo. 00:25:49.250 --> 00:25:55.940 - It was informed by deep engagement from a variety of stakeholders and the 50 page implementation plan 00:25:55.940 --> 00:26:02.826 - is all about measured strategic responsible rollout that includes natural replacement cycles. And here's 00:26:02.826 --> 00:26:10.041 - the thing is with the city with FOIA requests Freedom of Information Act that's really great for transparency 00:26:10.041 --> 00:26:16.862 - but it does oftentimes undercut you right with being strategic about rollouts because this is day zero. 00:26:17.378 --> 00:26:23.732 - This brand has never been implemented anywhere. But it's already out there, because it gets screenshotted, 00:26:23.732 --> 00:26:29.729 - put out there. So it doesn't matter if the implementation plan says, countless times, earn the brand 00:26:29.729 --> 00:26:35.727 - before you put it out there. It doesn't matter if the implementation plan says, slow rollout, phased 00:26:35.727 --> 00:26:41.665 - implementation. Because somebody will go to page 20, screenshot just the bee on a white background, 00:26:41.665 --> 00:26:45.406 - and say, that's what we paid for. It's not accurate. I get it. 00:26:48.578 --> 00:26:54.274 - That was the brand strategy. So happy to answer any questions, but I appreciate your time. Thank you 00:26:54.274 --> 00:27:00.307 - so much. First, I guess we'll have council members, and then as we said, we have a time for public comment 00:27:00.307 --> 00:27:06.059 - thereafter. Thank you. I'm sure they'll have lots of questions. So I'm council member Rallo, and then 00:27:06.059 --> 00:27:11.698 - I'm going to go council member Buma-Smith, then council member Daley, then council member Zulek. So 00:27:11.698 --> 00:27:16.830 - I don't have to call on you. You take your time. Pass on when you're ready. OK, thank you. 00:27:17.058 --> 00:27:25.698 - I've got a couple of questions. Thanks for your presentation. But one thing you say is that the visual 00:27:25.698 --> 00:27:34.255 - identity, what we are about, or the branding is not the logo. But nearly every page of the report has 00:27:34.255 --> 00:27:42.728 - the logo. So I think it can't help but be the logo. Well, the brand isn't the logo. The logo is part 00:27:42.728 --> 00:27:43.902 - of the brand. 00:27:44.386 --> 00:27:54.576 - Okay, so what some of the criticism I get are things like They're they've been underwhelmed People have 00:27:54.576 --> 00:28:04.569 - said Look, there are a lot of cities Counties that begin with B and they happen to have a big B. Okay 00:28:04.569 --> 00:28:11.134 - as a logo It seems ordinary It is It's generic. It's corporate and 00:28:11.810 --> 00:28:21.130 - So they got me thinking and I started looking at brands and Larry, could you just pull up a couple? 00:28:21.130 --> 00:28:30.916 - So I well, you know the visuals of course important so just could you just display the Bloomington brand 00:28:30.916 --> 00:28:40.702 - and Maybe just a couple So there's Okay, there's the Bloomington brand and then there's a company called 00:28:41.186 --> 00:28:49.836 - Brandykes or brand X. It's a it's a It's a marketing company and it's got essentially the same thing, 00:28:49.836 --> 00:28:58.570 - but it's got gray tones instead of blue or red or whatever And then let's just this is for time. Let's 00:28:58.570 --> 00:29:07.220 - just go to the there's a generic brand. That's Got a name. It's called It's called elastic beats logo 00:29:07.220 --> 00:29:10.782 - black and white and there there's that so 00:29:11.138 --> 00:29:19.279 - struck me when I did a search that Indeed, this seems generic and what I appreciated and I'm glad you 00:29:19.279 --> 00:29:27.660 - mentioned that the seal You know it actually communicates something that government has a central focus, 00:29:27.660 --> 00:29:35.882 - right? There are arrows pointing inward to To a space that is occupied presumably by all interests The 00:29:35.882 --> 00:29:40.990 - B stands for Bloomington. Okay, but Is this I mean I'm a little 00:29:41.090 --> 00:29:47.513 - I trend toward what people's critique, that this is a generic brand. And can you convince me that it's 00:29:47.513 --> 00:29:53.749 - otherwise? How is this Bloomington? How would this communicate? This is uniquely Bloomington. Yeah. 00:29:53.749 --> 00:30:00.234 - First, any letter that you create an icon with, you can reverse Google Image Search anything, and it'll 00:30:00.234 --> 00:30:06.595 - find similar things, right? There's only so many ways you can make it be, right? You're going to find 00:30:06.595 --> 00:30:09.214 - things with every letter of the alphabet. 00:30:11.490 --> 00:30:18.747 - The goal of the bee is not to represent Bloomington. It's not to show somebody in Chicago or New York 00:30:18.747 --> 00:30:25.862 - this and they feel Bloomington. Because again, this is day zero. It means nothing. The Nike swoosh, 00:30:25.862 --> 00:30:33.047 - super random shape on day zero meant nothing until they put it on shoes and implemented it and lived 00:30:33.047 --> 00:30:39.166 - it and now it means something. And so yeah, any shape that I make, a dot, a squiggle, 00:30:39.362 --> 00:30:45.130 - means nothing is generic, is simple. Until you get to this situation like Pavlov's dog where you ring 00:30:45.130 --> 00:30:50.897 - a bell and the dog gets fed, there becomes association. The bell now means dinner. A bell didn't mean 00:30:50.897 --> 00:30:56.609 - dinner before. And so the only way that that would not ever be generic, it's always gonna be generic 00:30:56.609 --> 00:31:02.602 - on day one. It's certainly gonna be generic on day zero, and it would be the implementation and unlocking 00:31:02.602 --> 00:31:08.766 - potential and living the brand over and over. And every time people see that, they feel unlocking potential. 00:31:09.154 --> 00:31:14.502 - And over time, emotion would get infused into that. There is some other meaning that's in the brand 00:31:14.502 --> 00:31:19.957 - guidelines behind that that speaks to that. Creative collisions is one of the brand principles in the 00:31:19.957 --> 00:31:25.358 - brand strategy. That speaks to two things coming together to create something better. And so whether 00:31:25.358 --> 00:31:30.706 - that's people on the left, people on the right, an urban environment surrounded by national forests 00:31:30.706 --> 00:31:36.375 - like you have, all these things coming together, students, counties, there is symbolism. There is meaning 00:31:36.375 --> 00:31:38.942 - in that. But again, it has zero meaning on day. 00:31:39.106 --> 00:31:48.272 - one. So can I convince you. Probably not. But I think the community could convince you over time if 00:31:48.272 --> 00:31:57.530 - given a chance. Let's let's pass on and then you can go on. I'll be allowed to make comments at this 00:31:57.530 --> 00:32:06.696 - point. Just questions. Let's for now just come to do questions and then I don't have any questions. 00:32:06.696 --> 00:32:08.254 - Thank you. Mike. 00:32:08.514 --> 00:32:18.715 - Questions are for director of communications day Molina if that's okay. Thank you Was there an RFP or 00:32:18.715 --> 00:32:29.417 - RFQ issued for this project no, we we discovered civic brand and their work with high point North Carolina 00:32:29.417 --> 00:32:37.918 - and Really quite surprised that there was an agency in a firm that worked across the 00:32:38.018 --> 00:32:47.124 - country with different municipalities and districts and specialized in city and place branding so after 00:32:47.124 --> 00:32:55.968 - exploring The high points work and their brand efforts and what that meant and how that impacted the 00:32:55.968 --> 00:33:02.622 - community Really pursued looking into partnering with civic brand Thank you 00:33:05.474 --> 00:33:13.288 - Elaborate a little bit more on why local firms were overlooked for this project So With this if it was 00:33:13.288 --> 00:33:21.101 - just a logo. Yes, absolutely an exploration of You know, how can we partner with our community to find 00:33:21.101 --> 00:33:28.915 - an agency that will produce a logo for the city of Bloomington? but as Ryan just presented as the memo 00:33:28.915 --> 00:33:33.694 - states as the implementation and branding guidelines provide a 00:33:33.858 --> 00:33:40.086 - This project was so much more robust in terms of community outreach and engagement than just a logo. 00:33:40.086 --> 00:33:46.252 - So somebody with the expertise and the wisdom that can learn from different cities and destinations 00:33:46.252 --> 00:33:52.480 - from across the country and take those lessons and see how they might fit or not fit within the city 00:33:52.480 --> 00:33:59.139 - of Bloomington based on the feedback over many seasons and months that they heard was really an opportunity 00:33:59.139 --> 00:34:02.654 - for us to learn about maybe some of our own blind spots. 00:34:05.250 --> 00:34:12.971 - Thank you. I'll have more questions later. You're so welcome. Thank you. Anyone else with questions? 00:34:12.971 --> 00:34:20.616 - I'm customary Stasberg. Oh, I'm sorry also I'm going to extend this time for 730. Okay Thank you. I 00:34:20.616 --> 00:34:24.286 - think this is probably mostly a question. Um, I 00:34:24.674 --> 00:34:31.012 - Our administration as well, but I guess I'm just wondering if you could give us a little bit more information 00:34:31.012 --> 00:34:37.005 - about how you expect the rollout to actually go and how you're actually gonna use this I Guess I I feel 00:34:37.005 --> 00:34:42.882 - like when I when I read it I saw lots of like this could be like this and like this and like yes, sir 00:34:42.882 --> 00:34:48.702 - So I just want a little bit more point of order. Yes member Stasburg is still speaking. Thank you. I 00:34:51.170 --> 00:34:56.638 - Yeah, there are certainly a ton of recommendations in that implementation guide and again, this is 00:34:57.506 --> 00:35:03.486 - There is no mandate of overnight change, right? Like, this is really a opportunity to get staff buy-in, 00:35:03.486 --> 00:35:09.409 - to have conversations about our operating philosophy, our principles, acknowledge our bottlenecks. For 00:35:09.409 --> 00:35:15.160 - instance, we had our public information officers meeting this afternoon, and we were talking about, 00:35:15.160 --> 00:35:21.025 - you know, sometimes a resident calls the city, right? And they call the department where they are not 00:35:21.025 --> 00:35:26.718 - getting the answer that they believe that they could receive from the department that they called. 00:35:26.818 --> 00:35:33.409 - I don't know, let me transfer you or let me find that answer. And we were talking a lot about customer 00:35:33.409 --> 00:35:39.936 - experience, right? And in this PIO discussion, we realized, okay, we have a problem to solve. We have 00:35:39.936 --> 00:35:46.655 - a process to solve. And we all looked at it because the PIOs have received a preview and an introduction 00:35:46.655 --> 00:35:53.054 - to the brand and the brand guidelines of, okay, how can we look at what we have in front of us in a 00:35:53.054 --> 00:35:54.846 - way that unlocks potential? 00:35:55.010 --> 00:36:01.968 - Again, there's no overnight mandate. There's no timeline for this project, but it's really an opportunity 00:36:01.968 --> 00:36:08.532 - for city staff to evaluate what is going on internally and identify some key performance indicators 00:36:08.532 --> 00:36:15.228 - and and challenges that we need to address within our own systems that we can unlock more opportunity 00:36:15.228 --> 00:36:19.166 - for our residents our businesses our community partners, so 00:36:19.394 --> 00:36:26.959 - Yeah, there's a lot of information in that implementation guide. I can't stand here and really answer 00:36:26.959 --> 00:36:34.449 - the question of what we're gonna attack or address first because I don't know. But I guess that's my 00:36:34.449 --> 00:36:41.866 - response. Thank you. So what are we looking at in terms of, speaking of KPIs, how will we know that 00:36:41.866 --> 00:36:48.318 - this branding is successful and that it has been a hit and done what we want it to do? 00:36:48.450 --> 00:36:54.045 - What are we gonna be looking for for that? Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of different metrics that are 00:36:54.045 --> 00:36:59.694 - outlined in there. I think one of the challenges with an implementation plan like this is there's not 00:36:59.694 --> 00:37:05.234 - an implementation budget, right? So it's not saying do this in Q1, do this in Q2, and let's measure 00:37:05.234 --> 00:37:10.883 - it and see how we did. Some of those things you won't ever implement, some of those things you might, 00:37:10.883 --> 00:37:16.478 - some of those things are mindsets that you guys could instantly implement right now. We like to take 00:37:17.858 --> 00:37:24.372 - You know one our firm everything that we do centers around this idea of a triple bottom line. So for 00:37:24.372 --> 00:37:30.951 - those that aren't familiar that you know typically success is measured in profit or economic metrics. 00:37:30.951 --> 00:37:37.466 - We think that's OK for companies not acceptable for places and cities and triple bottom line says we 00:37:37.466 --> 00:37:44.109 - measure success not just by profit but by people profit and planet. And I wrote a book last year about 00:37:44.109 --> 00:37:46.302 - civic branding place branding and 00:37:46.626 --> 00:37:52.946 - And that we shift the planet piece to place because place captures the environmental aspects that planet 00:37:52.946 --> 00:37:59.086 - is trying to capture, but it also captures the built environment as well, the architecture character. 00:37:59.086 --> 00:38:05.467 - So we recommend KPIs through each of those people, profit, and place. And we really focus on action-based 00:38:05.467 --> 00:38:06.430 - metrics, right? 00:38:07.586 --> 00:38:13.479 - how many more opportunities were created within those things. So there is, I don't have the implementation 00:38:13.479 --> 00:38:19.153 - plan in front of me to say these are the exact KPIs. You guys might be able to even pull it up on your 00:38:19.153 --> 00:38:24.936 - laptop, but there's recommendations of things to measure, but even measuring certain things, some things 00:38:24.936 --> 00:38:30.609 - you have to go get the data, that costs money, that's a project. But we recommend action-based metrics 00:38:30.609 --> 00:38:36.062 - because not everything is in your control, right? So if you had an environmental KPI, for example, 00:38:36.290 --> 00:38:41.940 - Bloomington could be doing everything right But as we know the environment's impacted by other cities 00:38:41.940 --> 00:38:47.534 - and other states and other countries and so we can't just measure How hot it is outside to determine 00:38:47.534 --> 00:38:53.240 - how we're moving the needle on that? We have to look at what efforts and actions are we taking towards 00:38:53.240 --> 00:38:58.779 - that so We recommend action-based metrics across the triple bottom line is kind of the broad answer 00:38:58.779 --> 00:39:04.318 - But there are more specific answers in the implementation guide Thank You Councilmember Rosenberger 00:39:08.162 --> 00:39:17.539 - Thank you. I just have a few quick questions. Thank you for being here. How does this marry with our 00:39:17.539 --> 00:39:27.102 - city plans and goals. So I guess I'm having a hard time understanding like does this unlock potential. 00:39:27.102 --> 00:39:34.622 - What is like what's potential when we're going for like zero traffic fatalities. 00:39:35.234 --> 00:39:41.295 - Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions that like I guess I don't understand how they work together Yeah, 00:39:41.295 --> 00:39:47.772 - I mean so a city is gonna have a lot of different departments it's gonna have a lot of different initiatives 00:39:47.772 --> 00:39:54.070 - and I think that's one of the challenges of a city and kind of back to that like shared North Star shared 00:39:54.070 --> 00:40:00.072 - vision is without a brand without a vision We can be trying over here trying to make improvements on 00:40:00.072 --> 00:40:03.102 - walkability over here. We're trying to do this and 00:40:03.458 --> 00:40:11.173 - And we can be moving the needle on those individual things, but collectively we just don't feel like 00:40:11.173 --> 00:40:19.271 - we're truly making progress. And so I think a brand does start to align those projects. How do we unlock, 00:40:19.271 --> 00:40:27.139 - I don't know the projects that you listed off, but I know what zero traffic fatalities looks like. And 00:40:27.139 --> 00:40:31.646 - obviously that's a good goal, but how is that connected to 00:40:33.186 --> 00:40:38.423 - You know traffic engineering. How is that related to the beeline parks and rec? They're all just different 00:40:38.423 --> 00:40:43.415 - different plans that are coming at things from different They're kind of touching the elephant at all 00:40:43.415 --> 00:40:48.358 - different places and the goal of the brand There is a communications aspect but it is to align those 00:40:48.358 --> 00:40:53.350 - and I think if you took that unlocking Potential into those different pieces of the plans those plans 00:40:53.350 --> 00:40:58.439 - still address their separate focused areas But I do think they can start to align and work towards some 00:40:58.439 --> 00:41:02.942 - shared vision so I don't know I'd have to like know exactly a little bit or about what your 00:41:03.938 --> 00:41:11.625 - truly asking other than just how does it align projects? Oh, right. I mean, it's just because, right, 00:41:11.625 --> 00:41:19.538 - we are guided by a comprehensive plan to get our city to certain space and I just don't know how this... 00:41:19.538 --> 00:41:27.150 - I plan on using the comprehensive plan as I have for six and a half years and plan to keep doing. So 00:41:27.150 --> 00:41:32.350 - I don't see it as like my test of like, is this unlocking potential? 00:41:33.186 --> 00:41:38.367 - So a comprehensive plan is actually a better example. So I'm glad you said that. A comprehensive plan, 00:41:38.367 --> 00:41:43.699 - a lot of communities use that as that is our vision. That is where we're headed. However, a comprehensive 00:41:43.699 --> 00:41:48.780 - plan, when you break it all down at the end of the day, ultimately is a future land use map. That is 00:41:48.780 --> 00:41:54.112 - like the core component of a comprehensive plan. And so if we are just focusing the future of Bloomington 00:41:54.112 --> 00:41:59.243 - and the goal of Bloomington is shaped by a document that's primarily designed to be a future land use 00:41:59.243 --> 00:42:02.814 - map, there's going to be a lot of things that slip through the cracks. 00:42:03.458 --> 00:42:10.760 - And so I think the brand should influence the future land use map and the comp plan. And it comes back 00:42:10.760 --> 00:42:17.849 - to that. So yes, the comp plan is guiding policy, directing staff. But there's just a human element 00:42:17.849 --> 00:42:25.151 - that is often not captured in a comprehensive plan. So the brand doesn't replace a comp plan. It's not 00:42:25.151 --> 00:42:32.382 - better than a comp plan. But it is different. OK. I don't know that I agree with that, which is fine. 00:42:32.578 --> 00:42:39.339 - I also just think there's a question. Okay, like, I guess I read this, you know, in the in the in your 00:42:39.339 --> 00:42:45.903 - in the packet. This is to help attract businesses. I kind of feel like we mostly attract businesses 00:42:45.903 --> 00:42:52.598 - like big business with tax abatements. So like, what, what is the, how is this attracting business in 00:42:52.598 --> 00:42:55.486 - ways that we mostly just do it financially. 00:42:58.338 --> 00:43:04.511 - I think if your goal is to attract business with like incentives and traditional economic development 00:43:04.511 --> 00:43:10.563 - like that, that's not local first. That's not how I would, the sole way that I, that's a tactic for 00:43:10.563 --> 00:43:16.977 - economic development. But how are you unlocking the potential for a business owner? How are you retaining 00:43:16.977 --> 00:43:23.090 - students? How are you retaining talent? That's also economic development. If that talent is here and 00:43:23.090 --> 00:43:27.326 - stays, if that, I don't know if I'm doing that by touching that cord. 00:43:29.762 --> 00:43:35.546 - Sorry, the screen flickered and threw me off for a second. The goal of this project, the recommendation 00:43:35.546 --> 00:43:41.163 - 10 years ago came from an economic development component, and that was a key piece of this. But this 00:43:41.163 --> 00:43:46.836 - is a lot bigger than that. It's not just, we think this visual identity will attract businesses here. 00:43:46.836 --> 00:43:52.564 - That's crazy. We would never suggest that. But we think if you can do these small micro decisions that 00:43:52.564 --> 00:43:58.014 - improve people's lives, we think you're going to keep a lot of talented people in this community. 00:43:58.754 --> 00:44:04.948 - And those are the same talented people that would critique the logo, say it looks dumb. That's great. 00:44:04.948 --> 00:44:11.021 - That's fine. Our entire process is designed to eliminate personal taste. It's not about do you like 00:44:11.021 --> 00:44:17.093 - it. It's does this speak to the strategy and can this harm staff? And so I think it's a much bigger 00:44:17.093 --> 00:44:23.166 - picture look at economic development than an advertising campaign to try to recruit businesses here 00:44:24.322 --> 00:44:32.107 - When the talent doesn't feel like they belong, and the talent doesn't feel like they can stay, the businesses 00:44:32.107 --> 00:44:39.466 - aren't coming if they are not here. Thank you. Thank you so much. I have a question, and then I'll pass 00:44:39.466 --> 00:44:45.694 - over to you. A couple of questions. And first, thank you for being here, and thank you. 00:44:45.826 --> 00:44:52.879 - Just generally, a couple of logistics first. Have we received the full report? Maybe I'm not a good 00:44:52.879 --> 00:44:59.933 - reader. I think we got the 50-page rollout plan, but I don't think we have the findings. Did we get 00:44:59.933 --> 00:45:07.198 - the findings, anybody? The brand audit? Yeah, did we get the brand audit? I don't think we did, right? 00:45:08.130 --> 00:45:14.064 - We have those. I'm happy to provide them. They were not included in the packet. There's an audit, and 00:45:14.064 --> 00:45:19.881 - there is individual survey responses. So I'm more than delighted to share it. It's robust. OK, yes, 00:45:19.881 --> 00:45:25.872 - yeah, because that, I think, is critical. The second question sort of just generally is, so we haven't 00:45:25.872 --> 00:45:31.166 - seen the audit, but we have seen, I think, what you're referring to as the 50-page rollout 00:45:31.298 --> 00:45:38.111 - plan or something, who is the audience of that 50-page deck? Yeah, so there's three pieces, ultimate 00:45:38.111 --> 00:45:45.194 - document deliverables, the audit we just spoke about. There's the brand guidelines, which that is really 00:45:45.194 --> 00:45:52.210 - just staff communications, the POI departments of here's how you use the visual identities. That's very 00:45:52.210 --> 00:45:59.158 - basic, like graphic design standards. This is the exact color of blue. Then there's the implementation 00:45:59.158 --> 00:46:01.182 - plan. That is also for staff. 00:46:01.346 --> 00:46:07.831 - Okay, so the whole the audience is the audience internal government. Yes, okay, and then when we've 00:46:07.831 --> 00:46:14.510 - been thinking about the method so You did two site visits. How long were you here on both site visits? 00:46:14.510 --> 00:46:21.124 - I think it was actually three because I think our team technically split the sun. You're here now And 00:46:21.124 --> 00:46:25.534 - I'm here now, which is a separate visit I think I don't know it was 00:46:26.306 --> 00:46:32.747 - three to four days per trip, so about probably eight days on the ground. And then those in-person trips 00:46:32.747 --> 00:46:39.001 - bookended some really robust virtual engagement that happened between those. How many in the virtual 00:46:39.001 --> 00:46:45.504 - engagements, how many people did you actually speak to? I don't have that number off the top of my head. 00:46:45.504 --> 00:46:51.945 - I do think it's captured in the audit, because we have here's the survey results, here's how many focus 00:46:51.945 --> 00:46:54.174 - groups, here's how many interviews. 00:46:54.626 --> 00:46:59.885 - I don't know that at the pop-ups. What was the methodological approach to choosing who you spoke to? 00:46:59.885 --> 00:47:05.301 - Yeah, so at first, we were looking at different stakeholder groups. We want to talk to business owners. 00:47:05.301 --> 00:47:10.717 - We would start to hear things. Oh, we need to talk to students, right? So we were identifying different 00:47:10.717 --> 00:47:15.976 - groups and demographics that we felt like we needed to hear from. Also, as we did the online survey, 00:47:15.976 --> 00:47:21.183 - we're always paying attention to not just who are we hearing from, but who are we not hearing from. 00:47:21.183 --> 00:47:23.006 - And then going to that and saying, 00:47:23.330 --> 00:47:28.846 - hey, we're not really getting responses from students, for example. Let's do a focus group. And so we'd 00:47:28.846 --> 00:47:34.149 - work with staff of, can you help us pull together a focus group of students? I do just want to tack 00:47:34.149 --> 00:47:39.718 - on, and this is addressed in the memo. There were also several focus groups that were open to the public 00:47:39.718 --> 00:47:45.287 - so anybody could attend. And those were publicized across our newsletter, our city website, social media 00:47:45.287 --> 00:47:48.734 - channels, and things like that. So there wasn't any exclusivity. 00:47:48.834 --> 00:47:55.957 - Okay, and at what point, don't answer this question, it's a rhetorical one, at what point did we determine 00:47:55.957 --> 00:48:02.747 - that our farmers know how to quote Camus, for example? The mayor quotes Camus all the time. The mayor 00:48:02.747 --> 00:48:09.604 - does, I'd love to hear. Anyways, I can tell you my favorite Camus quotes in a second. But importantly, 00:48:09.604 --> 00:48:11.934 - is the work done? The scope of the 00:48:12.066 --> 00:48:17.830 - project is done. Yes. So if we were to ask for edits, additions, like at this point, there's nothing 00:48:17.830 --> 00:48:23.309 - else in our engagement with Civic brand. So if we were like, actually, we don't like this work, 00:48:23.309 --> 00:48:29.187 - at this point, it's been accepted and paid for, correct? It has been paid for. And if there were edits 00:48:29.187 --> 00:48:35.008 - or suggestions, it depends on what they are. We're not going to play hardball with Scope or anything. 00:48:35.008 --> 00:48:38.718 - But if it's go back to the drawing board and start over, if it's 00:48:38.818 --> 00:48:43.964 - Whatever then yeah, that would be an additional scope. I guess the question is like within the within 00:48:43.964 --> 00:48:49.161 - the contract MOU that we have with you Is there scope for revision still or is that all closed? That's 00:48:49.161 --> 00:48:54.206 - that's the question There isn't but it depends, you know what they are. We'd be happy to talk about 00:48:54.206 --> 00:48:59.806 - them Okay, and then two very last quick questions. I'm getting it back at what councilmember Rosenberger asked 00:49:00.162 --> 00:49:07.702 - This all starts with a statement about one report that was done whenever 10 years ago or something like 00:49:07.702 --> 00:49:15.242 - that, that was about wage growth. And I guess it's sort of a two-pronged question. One is that how many 00:49:15.242 --> 00:49:22.637 - of the other recommendations within that report have we acted on? And then number two is like, what's 00:49:22.637 --> 00:49:28.510 - the actual theory of change here? So how does brand marking lead to wage growth? 00:49:29.506 --> 00:49:35.390 - So I think I apologize. I do not obviously have the report in front of me, but I believe there were 00:49:35.390 --> 00:49:41.391 - six recommendations When we looked at them and what was unmet this one was You know what the city had 00:49:41.391 --> 00:49:47.393 - the most scope and control over there were some recommendations about health care and education which 00:49:47.393 --> 00:49:51.806 - are obviously national problems and challenges that we have to address and 00:49:51.970 --> 00:49:59.933 - The mill was one of the the things that were birthed from that wage growth finding plan And then I believe 00:49:59.933 --> 00:50:07.449 - some work that's being done with regional opportunity initiatives as another Jane will Everyone Jane 00:50:07.449 --> 00:50:15.486 - Cooper Smith director of economic and sustainable development. So the primary recommendations 1 2 3 4 5 and 00:50:15.810 --> 00:50:21.475 - I think actually most of them have been implemented. So branding Bloomington was the first one that 00:50:21.475 --> 00:50:27.311 - didn't happen in the previous administration But it was identified because we knew that if we couldn't 00:50:27.311 --> 00:50:32.636 - tell our story as a community We could not market our community to other employers or talent. 00:50:32.636 --> 00:50:38.358 - So Councilmember Rosenberger made a comment about attracting employers with abatements, but actually 00:50:38.358 --> 00:50:39.038 - the primary 00:50:39.906 --> 00:50:45.350 - The primary we drive primary way we drive attraction is through quality of place initiatives. So quality 00:50:45.350 --> 00:50:50.743 - of place initiatives attract Workforce and workforce attracts employers. It used to be decades ago that 00:50:50.743 --> 00:50:56.343 - employees would go wherever the jobs were but that's not the case anymore So what we've done in Bloomington 00:50:56.343 --> 00:51:01.528 - is we've made a really beautiful community with lots of assets that we don't know how to talk about 00:51:01.528 --> 00:51:05.054 - so back in 2016 they had already identified that we had this gap in 00:51:05.346 --> 00:51:10.992 - Our communication and our way of talking about Bloomington. So that's why it was recommended number 00:51:10.992 --> 00:51:17.145 - to create an innovation culture So this is why we've been investing so significantly in the trades district, 00:51:17.145 --> 00:51:23.016 - which has been incredibly successful and There were questions about KPIs during my council presentation 00:51:23.016 --> 00:51:29.114 - and I think It would be great to share some of those successes and numbers with you in more detail creating 00:51:29.114 --> 00:51:33.630 - quarterly business slash academic stakeholder gatherings these were created and 00:51:33.762 --> 00:51:40.663 - It was called the Lido meetup that was organized by the mill. They happen now in different ways but 00:51:40.663 --> 00:51:47.840 - that original Lido meetup that had town and gown economic development orgs some employers present those 00:51:47.840 --> 00:51:54.880 - those have been paused because I think that they were not they were helpful for relationship building 00:51:54.880 --> 00:51:57.502 - but they weren't purposeful enough to 00:51:58.242 --> 00:52:03.219 - Require the time skills skills gap training to match Bloomington's existing labor pool with high demand 00:52:03.219 --> 00:52:08.196 - high wage local jobs Well, we knocked this out of the park during the pandemic frankly And then we have 00:52:08.196 --> 00:52:12.981 - really great resources through work one and the state's workforce development programs and Ivy Tech 00:52:12.981 --> 00:52:17.863 - and all the training that they do Ivy Tech does custom training for employers that are looking at our 00:52:17.863 --> 00:52:20.734 - markets So that one's definitely been done and then finally 00:52:20.930 --> 00:52:27.072 - Solving the problem of smaller fast growth companies inability to compete for labor on benefits could 00:52:27.072 --> 00:52:33.213 - be a marquee recruiting tool for our local economy. So basically saying you've got a startup you need 00:52:33.213 --> 00:52:39.234 - to attract high quality professional employees but you can't insure them. What are you going to do. 00:52:39.234 --> 00:52:40.318 - This has not been 00:52:40.898 --> 00:52:46.969 - Truly completed but there are several programs that I know I've been discussing with employers like 00:52:46.969 --> 00:52:52.918 - you Sarah's the chambers made great progress. They are going to be able to offer their membership 00:52:52.918 --> 00:52:59.110 - participation in a chamber back to health care plan. So I think we're doing great. And so this really 00:52:59.110 --> 00:53:00.446 - is the cherry on top. 00:53:00.642 --> 00:53:07.064 - Thank you. Thank you very much director Cooper Smith. All right. Um, I know some wanted also comments 00:53:07.064 --> 00:53:13.549 - at this point that we we have some time so Dave and then we'll I'm sorry councilmember Harlow come and 00:53:13.549 --> 00:53:19.846 - then we'll go down the line here I still have a couple questions. Go ahead. Take your liberty. Okay 00:53:19.846 --> 00:53:24.190 - director Marlena, could I ask you questions on in your memorandum of 00:53:24.386 --> 00:53:31.123 - It says on page 4 the city seal is established separately by ordinance and is not part of the visual 00:53:31.123 --> 00:53:38.059 - identity update So I take that to mean what it well, I'm asking what's the role of the council on this? 00:53:38.059 --> 00:53:44.996 - Is this is the implementation? Solely the role of the administration at this point. Do does the council 00:53:44.996 --> 00:53:49.598 - have any say in in the acceptance of well, of course of the report I 00:53:49.826 --> 00:53:56.605 - Yeah well of course we're one team here working on behalf of the city I'll address the seal real quick 00:53:56.605 --> 00:54:03.319 - that was part of the discussion right and because this project is so much more than a logo we weren't 00:54:03.319 --> 00:54:10.033 - looking at replacing the seal it was really how do we create this the structure for city and internal 00:54:10.033 --> 00:54:11.678 - use so to earn the brand 00:54:12.194 --> 00:54:20.000 - More important than replacing visuals. So and can you clarify your question about it? Is the council 00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:27.883 - responsible and for the visual identity? update the logo in other words, do we have a say in it or is 00:54:27.883 --> 00:54:36.075 - this solely an administrative decision to accept this and then as a follow-up Well, go ahead So we looked 00:54:36.075 --> 00:54:40.094 - at what has to identify yourself. I'm sorry. I just 00:54:40.258 --> 00:54:46.253 - Gretchen app deputy mayor. So we looked at what happened in the past and the last time when Tim mayors 00:54:46.253 --> 00:54:52.364 - Logo was adopted you guys passed a resolution and it's my understanding that the mayor talked to council 00:54:52.364 --> 00:54:58.243 - president and inquired Do you want a resolution on this and and the direction she got and this is my 00:54:58.243 --> 00:55:04.179 - understanding. So again Telephone may be at play here. I'm sure President sorry can clarify what that 00:55:04.179 --> 00:55:10.174 - conversation was about but but the mayor interpreted the conversation as a resolution is not needed so 00:55:10.338 --> 00:55:16.598 - We inquired, we know that it would require a change to the ordinance to change the seal. As Civic Brand 00:55:16.598 --> 00:55:22.678 - discussed, we would be replacing things as they come up. There are some things. Parks makes t-shirts 00:55:22.678 --> 00:55:28.938 - every year. There's a chance. If somebody runs out of pens, there's a chance. But the logos in the seal 00:55:28.938 --> 00:55:35.138 - would live side by side for some time. So if you hate it, the mark, as I think Civic Brand showed, the 00:55:35.138 --> 00:55:37.726 - B is not the most important piece of this. 00:55:38.082 --> 00:55:44.241 - I think designed by committee is always a mistake but you can add more people in and what you get is 00:55:44.241 --> 00:55:50.340 - pleasing to no one. But you know we brought this to you to show it to you. We inquired we looked at 00:55:50.340 --> 00:55:56.621 - the past history. I think you know we don't want to do anything that rocks the boat and makes everyone 00:55:56.621 --> 00:56:02.963 - unhappy. But at the same time you know we invested in this for a reason. And the reason is wage growth. 00:56:02.963 --> 00:56:06.622 - I want to keep reminding us that the reason is wage growth. 00:56:06.754 --> 00:56:12.290 - Which we all know is a problem and we can decide that we don't want to do this because we don't think 00:56:12.290 --> 00:56:17.718 - it has an impact It was recommended, you know councilmember Rosenberger asked. How does this fit in 00:56:17.718 --> 00:56:23.254 - with our plans? This was an item in a plan that was left undone We wanted to check it off the list So 00:56:23.254 --> 00:56:28.790 - we're open to your feedback and comments and you know, we can adjust as needed but something needs to 00:56:28.790 --> 00:56:34.218 - be done So we just got out of budget and I'm wondering about the cost of implementation Do you have 00:56:34.218 --> 00:56:36.606 - a do you have anything in mind and does it? 00:56:36.706 --> 00:56:42.987 - Is it contained within, say, a line item of the 2027 budget? The only line item in the 2027 budget that 00:56:42.987 --> 00:56:49.207 - specifically has money for branding that would not have been in there otherwise was the $10,000 in the 00:56:49.207 --> 00:56:55.548 - office of the mayor's budget, which was completely a contingency. For example, let's say that you wanted 00:56:55.548 --> 00:57:01.708 - to update the seal, and we said, yes, now we need to update that item. If there was a design that was 00:57:01.708 --> 00:57:05.150 - needed that was beyond the technical skill of our staff, 00:57:05.250 --> 00:57:10.528 - Something we wanted to have some money available for that but you could take that away and it would 00:57:10.528 --> 00:57:15.807 - be fine because we're not as I said We're not planning on saying everybody go out and throw out all 00:57:15.807 --> 00:57:21.138 - your business cards throw out all your existing stuff We're replacing it all at once. It's replacing 00:57:21.138 --> 00:57:26.575 - it as it comes up and would have been replaced. Anyway, that's the goal Quick question don't want this 00:57:26.575 --> 00:57:31.853 - to have a fiscal impact. Yeah, I used to farm and I never heard people talk about but it might have 00:57:31.853 --> 00:57:34.334 - happened at the farmers market but in any case 00:57:34.626 --> 00:57:43.140 - A lot of people ask about, actually I gave up existentialism when I became a farmer and became a faith-based 00:57:43.140 --> 00:57:51.108 - person. But a lot of questions I get are, we're a town that's identified, a city identified community 00:57:51.108 --> 00:57:59.153 - as a community of cultural creatives that know Bloomington, many of whom have lived their entire lives 00:57:59.153 --> 00:58:02.590 - here. Why was this not, why did we farm out 00:58:03.042 --> 00:58:08.999 - for this, no offense to, you know, it's a civic brand, I know you've done it elsewhere, but Bloomington 00:58:08.999 --> 00:58:14.785 - seems to be well placed to develop its own identity and not have someone come in and say, here is... 00:58:14.785 --> 00:58:20.571 - I've worked with many of the branding firms in Bloomington, I've also worked with national agencies, 00:58:20.571 --> 00:58:26.299 - I've worked in, I've done branding work with, you know, multi-million dollar companies for decades, 00:58:26.299 --> 00:58:30.366 - and there is a lot of local talent that could design a beautiful logo. 00:58:30.882 --> 00:58:36.391 - But what we're looking for is not a beautiful logo. It's great. I love the logo. I think it is beautiful. 00:58:36.391 --> 00:58:41.589 - But what we were looking for. I'm talking about the report too, because people know Bloomington and 00:58:41.589 --> 00:58:46.838 - they would have a lot. They do. But what they don't know and what they don't have experience with is 00:58:46.838 --> 00:58:52.400 - developing a municipal branding package for the purpose of economic development with dozens of communities 00:58:52.400 --> 00:58:56.350 - across the nation. That's the experience. If you were getting surgery done, 00:58:56.642 --> 00:59:01.954 - And someone said to you, there are lots of great surgeons in Bloomington, but none of those surgeons 00:59:01.954 --> 00:59:07.319 - had done the surgery you needed 1,000 times. You would want to go to Indianapolis and get someone who 00:59:07.319 --> 00:59:12.789 - had done that surgery 1,000 times. So the greatest predictor of success for an employee, for an agency, 00:59:12.789 --> 00:59:18.259 - is how many times have you done this before? How many times have you been successful before? So I think 00:59:18.259 --> 00:59:23.572 - for that matter, Stephen Lucas's wife, Danielle Lucas, who used to live in Bloomington, was a superb 00:59:23.572 --> 00:59:25.886 - branding designer. I loved Danielle's work. 00:59:26.178 --> 00:59:31.664 - but she doesn't have experience with the particular issues around municipal branding and developing 00:59:31.664 --> 00:59:37.150 - a brand for the purpose of economic development and wage growth. So that's the specific expertise I 00:59:37.150 --> 00:59:42.745 - see. Two super quick things I'll just add, because we get that in every community. And I'll say first 00:59:42.745 --> 00:59:48.231 - that I am the biggest homer for Support Local. I'm probably the only person that I know that's ever 00:59:48.231 --> 00:59:53.662 - not ordered from Amazon. It's banned from our company, because our whole mission is Support Local. 00:59:54.402 --> 00:59:59.652 - There's two things that I would like to say. One, there's a phrase that I love that says, you can't 00:59:59.652 --> 01:00:05.217 - see your label from inside the jar. That outside perspective, if you took a great brand designer, there's 01:00:05.217 --> 01:00:10.520 - probably great brand designers in this room that could design a logo and we could all vote on it and 01:00:10.520 --> 01:00:16.032 - like it more, right? But the great brand designer that lives here that loves Bloomington, are they gonna 01:00:16.032 --> 01:00:21.387 - do the work to surface the challenges that we surface of, you know what, there's a lot of people that 01:00:21.387 --> 01:00:22.910 - this is why they're leaving. 01:00:23.522 --> 01:00:28.645 - And so I think there is value in outside perspective. And then the other thing, the reason it comes 01:00:28.645 --> 01:00:34.075 - down to support locals so often is we could have taken that $95,000. And even if you could find somebody, 01:00:34.075 --> 01:00:39.300 - one firm that could do public engagement, research, data, design, implementation, understands public, 01:00:39.300 --> 01:00:44.475 - private, all of those things, even if you have that, you could take that fee and give it to one firm 01:00:44.475 --> 01:00:49.854 - and it benefits one firm. Or you can hire whoever you think is the best at that. And that should benefit 01:00:49.854 --> 01:00:50.622 - every company. 01:00:51.650 --> 01:00:57.262 - And every resident, it's not a company. And so I just think it's a really short-term play to go, we 01:00:57.262 --> 01:01:03.155 - have this money. We'll just give it to one local thing. I think supporting locals is amazing. This isn't 01:01:03.155 --> 01:01:09.160 - an anti-local thing. This project should benefit every local brand designer, every company, if implemented 01:01:09.160 --> 01:01:14.996 - and done right. And it tees up a lot of implementation work at the local level. New websites, different 01:01:14.996 --> 01:01:19.486 - things that if you do choose to implement, use local implementation. Thank you. 01:01:21.378 --> 01:01:28.602 - Do you want to extend the time again I Will stand the time for ten minutes for council comments and 01:01:28.602 --> 01:01:35.970 - then we'll go to public comment Okay, I'll try to make this fast It's kind of questions and I'll make 01:01:35.970 --> 01:01:43.266 - it in a form of a comment though and then maybe you guys can like send me an email back or something 01:01:43.266 --> 01:01:46.878 - because I'm frankly a little confused now after I 01:01:46.978 --> 01:01:54.485 - hearing several things which I feel like are a little contradictory that we are using this for internal 01:01:54.485 --> 01:02:01.920 - use but the seal won't change. Right. And I feel like the seal is the thing that's used internally and 01:02:01.920 --> 01:02:04.158 - similarly the whole purpose of 01:02:04.258 --> 01:02:09.113 - Economic development and wage growth, but if we only use it internally, then how is that part of our 01:02:09.113 --> 01:02:13.969 - purpose? So I don't need you to answer this right now because we only know but we only have ten more 01:02:13.969 --> 01:02:18.873 - minutes right now So I would like to respect my colleagues and respect everybody else in this room is 01:02:18.873 --> 01:02:22.430 - here for other things besides this business tonight So I would appreciate 01:02:22.530 --> 01:02:29.928 - hearing back about how exactly we're thinking about this in terms of this B logo versus our traditional 01:02:29.928 --> 01:02:37.112 - city seal that we've had for a number of years, which I do think just screams Bloomington to anybody 01:02:37.112 --> 01:02:43.230 - who is from Bloomington. You see that and you know that that has to do with the city. 01:02:43.810 --> 01:02:51.210 - And so that's where it's like OK so if we're trying to be recognizable in terms of the city maybe as 01:02:51.210 --> 01:02:58.684 - an organization OK then you see that logo anyway up that's the city as an organization. You threw one 01:02:58.684 --> 01:03:02.494 - up there with the with the B with like the the the. 01:03:02.850 --> 01:03:09.138 - Bloomington tourism, you know, and it's like I see the Bloomington tourism one and I go oh, yeah That's 01:03:09.138 --> 01:03:15.305 - that's the tourism bureau like that. That's who that is who's doing this program and we're doing this 01:03:15.305 --> 01:03:21.834 - thing and so how exactly is the is our city seal gonna be different and how is it gonna be used differently 01:03:21.834 --> 01:03:27.940 - or is it not gonna be used differently than the be and I I guess I I feel like that needs to be made 01:03:27.940 --> 01:03:30.782 - a little bit clearer because a lot of what the 01:03:30.946 --> 01:03:37.211 - The materials is you know, it's it's putting this new logo on trucks. It's putting this new logo as 01:03:37.211 --> 01:03:43.475 - part of our our fire logo It's you know, it's it's incorporating that everywhere where we currently 01:03:43.475 --> 01:03:50.366 - have the city seal except apparently for what up here because the thing that's up here can only be changed by 01:03:50.562 --> 01:03:58.120 - by code, the thing that's right there can only be changed by code, but we can put whatever we want on 01:03:58.120 --> 01:04:05.677 - our trucks. So then we're gonna have two different competing images and I don't think that that makes 01:04:05.677 --> 01:04:13.383 - sense at all. And so I guess I'm just a little bit uncertain as to how this really defines Bloomington. 01:04:13.383 --> 01:04:17.310 - Similarly, if I can find my comments, oh no I can't. 01:04:18.146 --> 01:04:25.431 - I do appreciate the concept that the branding is more than just the logo. I get that, it's more than 01:04:25.431 --> 01:04:32.860 - just the logo. And I also think that I can appreciate to some degree that even though a B is basic and 01:04:32.860 --> 01:04:40.217 - it's just like the letter that starts with Bloomington, if you don't know anything about Bloomington, 01:04:40.217 --> 01:04:47.646 - our city logo means absolutely nothing. It's just like a weird snowflake, right? But once you're here, 01:04:48.258 --> 01:04:55.109 - It like keeps you, okay? And so that's why I'm confused right now about this this using this be for 01:04:55.109 --> 01:05:02.372 - internal use and yet trying to attract economic development with it and and I appreciate these two things 01:05:02.372 --> 01:05:09.292 - potentially being able to sit side by side with slightly different uses But I think that there needs 01:05:09.292 --> 01:05:14.910 - to be some thought maybe more thought put in to how they can sit side by side and 01:05:15.010 --> 01:05:23.239 - opposed to I feel like them sitting side-by-side right now is a thought and a reaction to the Multiple 01:05:23.239 --> 01:05:31.708 - negative comments about the be I mean the original slideshow that we got put in our packet didn't include 01:05:31.708 --> 01:05:39.937 - any of the City seal, you know on those same colored backgrounds that seems like it got added in after 01:05:39.937 --> 01:05:42.334 - after the the fur of stuff so 01:05:42.978 --> 01:05:49.611 - I hope that I gave enough time to my colleagues. Thank you. Yeah I will be brief because I already regret 01:05:49.611 --> 01:05:56.494 - the 45 minutes we've spent on this. But going back further I regret having voted for the budget appropriation 01:05:56.494 --> 01:06:03.002 - which funded this ninety five thousand dollar payment for this work. I don't want to. It's not personal 01:06:03.002 --> 01:06:09.823 - at all. It's not about civic brand. It's not about any one person but I just don't think this was worthwhile 01:06:09.823 --> 01:06:11.262 - in any way whatsoever. 01:06:15.458 --> 01:06:20.805 - Councilman Zulik and then councilmember Rosenberger. Thank you This is the third presentation that we've 01:06:20.805 --> 01:06:25.644 - heard in the last few regularly scheduled council meetings where we've outsourced work instead 01:06:25.644 --> 01:06:30.736 - of recirculating money in our community by choosing local partners and Listening to feedback that I 01:06:30.736 --> 01:06:36.135 - feel our constituents have already given It feels a little bit less like we're using this plan to support 01:06:36.135 --> 01:06:41.329 - local and a little bit more like we'll take anyone but the people who live and work here I just don't 01:06:41.329 --> 01:06:43.774 - understand why we don't trust our own people to 01:06:43.906 --> 01:06:51.637 - know who we are because I think that we do. I think Bloomingtonians are incredibly smart, versatile, 01:06:51.637 --> 01:06:59.750 - brilliant people. And I don't think we need anyone else to tell us who we are. Certainly not for $95,000. 01:06:59.750 --> 01:07:07.710 - So I really appreciate Civic Brand taking the time to talk with me. It's really not about the firm that 01:07:07.710 --> 01:07:13.374 - we picked and much more about how we prioritize local work. So thank you. 01:07:14.338 --> 01:07:21.985 - Hey, thanks. I just wanted to say first, trying to go fast, but I'm not. So if this is also meant to 01:07:21.985 --> 01:07:30.011 - be accessible and easy for everyone to use, if there's any time to rethink anything, having a custom-made 01:07:30.011 --> 01:07:37.582 - font that other folks can't use seems very difficult to me. Just the thing, people did love Avatar. 01:07:37.582 --> 01:07:38.718 - That's a joke. 01:07:38.914 --> 01:07:46.056 - The other thing is I definitely understand quality of life is why people live places. It's why I really 01:07:46.056 --> 01:07:52.992 - support missing middle housing and walkable areas areas because people want that. And then I guess I 01:07:52.992 --> 01:08:00.065 - just want to say publicly that this was not an initiative of the city council. And a lot of people are 01:08:00.065 --> 01:08:07.550 - saying we the city. But I just want to say like this council had nothing to do with this project. That's it. 01:08:09.090 --> 01:08:17.524 - Thank you. Anyone to my left councilmember rough Nothing against the the firm or the initiative of the 01:08:17.524 --> 01:08:25.794 - city's Department behind this or the Wage Growth Task Force from years ago six points, but You know, 01:08:25.794 --> 01:08:34.392 - there's been some comments tonight that all health care education. These are different kinds of problems 01:08:34.392 --> 01:08:36.030 - and wage growth and 01:08:38.434 --> 01:08:47.964 - Wage growth is as much of a national social and global certainly national socio-economic problems any 01:08:47.964 --> 01:08:57.401 - of these others and I Just I don't I Don't see the linkage here and this idea I just feels like like 01:08:57.401 --> 01:09:07.678 - any product that you design a Campaign around that product to sell it commercial product this just feels like 01:09:09.154 --> 01:09:16.561 - It's selling Bloomington and selling I Know this is gonna be unpopular with a lot of people and people 01:09:16.561 --> 01:09:23.824 - will disagree but the problem one of the main problems is is selling Bloomington to out to investors 01:09:23.824 --> 01:09:31.016 - outside to you know predatory equity firms looking to get in and extract as much wealth as they can 01:09:31.016 --> 01:09:39.070 - in any way they can and so, you know, I know this it was said this is not really about selling Bloomington, but 01:09:40.610 --> 01:09:48.350 - very much like that and We don't need to sell Bloomington the selling of Bloomington to me is is part 01:09:48.350 --> 01:09:56.696 - of the problem and this just feels I I don't I'm not buying in At all, but it's from this larger perspective. 01:09:56.696 --> 01:10:04.436 - I don't fault, you know the companies I I feel like it's done good work and I don't agree necessarily 01:10:04.436 --> 01:10:10.430 - that it's just this I understand that there's an artistic element to this this 01:10:10.626 --> 01:10:17.348 - The be itself, you know, I read the report, you know the two different shapes coming together 01:10:17.348 --> 01:10:24.570 - in a communication point and that they actually meet and there's a potential symbolizing the sharing 01:10:24.570 --> 01:10:31.721 - and of That and yet the shapes themselves are firm solid signaling a solid foundation and strength, 01:10:31.721 --> 01:10:38.014 - you know, I see that I appreciate all that right so I don't think it's meaningless, but 01:10:38.754 --> 01:10:49.190 - I just think the meaning is wrong So, thank you councilmember Rallo Yeah, just briefly Well, I think 01:10:49.190 --> 01:10:59.936 - that this whole process has shown me that there is a communication problem and I think that The message 01:10:59.936 --> 01:11:07.582 - has is flat as far as I can tell from feedback from people I've spoken to 01:11:07.938 --> 01:11:15.646 - I think mostly because we've just started budget We have budget constraints We are drawing down reserves 01:11:15.646 --> 01:11:22.986 - We're not keeping pace with Jack Hopkins funding social service funding relative to inflation Which 01:11:22.986 --> 01:11:30.327 - I brought up We're looking to raise taxes in various ways. We're looking to raise water rates We're 01:11:30.327 --> 01:11:37.374 - looking to raise parking fees and people are scrutinizing discretionary funding or spending and 01:11:37.858 --> 01:11:44.954 - And so it comes at a time when people are, I think, they're limiting their budget right now, and they 01:11:44.954 --> 01:11:52.120 - wonder what they're getting. And unfortunately, probably in less lean times, this would have been seen 01:11:52.120 --> 01:11:59.146 - as, well, it's an interesting experiment. But I think that people are very critical of it right now. 01:11:59.146 --> 01:12:06.590 - And I would probably advise that in terms of implementation, I think the city see all functions very well. 01:12:06.978 --> 01:12:14.293 - That's not to say there might not be good things in the report that we can draw on. But this is here 01:12:14.293 --> 01:12:22.043 - we are. Thanks. All right. I'm just going to extend for one 20 seconds and say this that to put a positive 01:12:22.043 --> 01:12:29.431 - spin on all of this. You know I think one thing that's been accomplished is that you brought a lot of 01:12:29.431 --> 01:12:33.342 - unity to all of us because you know we don't like it. 01:12:33.474 --> 01:12:40.365 - But I say all that, though, to say that I think the important thing to underline is something that you 01:12:40.365 --> 01:12:47.121 - did say. I don't think that we need to receive this as something that's finished, but rather I think 01:12:47.121 --> 01:12:53.945 - a provocative way of starting a process that hopefully will lead to in the long term better outcomes. 01:12:53.945 --> 01:12:57.758 - I would love to see, for example, locally sourced brands 01:12:57.826 --> 01:13:04.274 - put into some of the color schemes, some of the ideas here, some of the strategies, great. I think we're 01:13:04.274 --> 01:13:10.537 - also rolling this out the wrong way, but whatever. I think ultimately, thank you for the provocation, 01:13:10.537 --> 01:13:16.862 - the quality of work. But yes, I think it's fairly clear where we all stand. We'd love to hear from the 01:13:16.862 --> 01:13:23.064 - public, so we'll have 20 minutes of public comment. And also, I will say, you forgot to say how mean 01:13:23.064 --> 01:13:27.792 - the city council is. We are mean, so I'm joking. Okay, but we'll open up to, 01:13:27.792 --> 01:13:35.437 - Public comment anybody if you'd like to public comment you have three minutes state your name alias, 01:13:35.437 --> 01:13:43.386 - whatever you'd like quote Camus and And then we will move on Good evening Dave Askins with the b-squared 01:13:43.386 --> 01:13:51.031 - bulletin I'm going to follow up on a question that councilmember Asari asked which was has this been 01:13:51.031 --> 01:13:56.254 - paid for I? Could have answered that It was paid for it was paid for 01:13:56.482 --> 01:14:04.514 - $95,000 of final payment in November of 2025. So it was completely paid for last year, around nine months 01:14:04.514 --> 01:14:12.395 - ago. And so the question I have is, why are we only now seeing the deliverable? And one possible answer 01:14:12.395 --> 01:14:20.048 - that could be given in some hypothetical city would be, oh, well, nobody asked to see it. And that's 01:14:20.048 --> 01:14:26.110 - why we didn't reveal it, if somebody had only asked. Well, I asked in February. 01:14:27.362 --> 01:14:35.012 - with a formal records request under Indiana's records law. And what was produced was only a partial 01:14:35.012 --> 01:14:42.662 - set of deliverables. The city claimed at that time that the other deliverables hadn't been provided 01:14:42.662 --> 01:14:50.465 - yet. So in July, I ask again, nothing had been provided since February. So my question for you as the 01:14:50.465 --> 01:14:56.126 - fiscal body, why don't you care more about the fact that $95,000 got paid 01:14:56.866 --> 01:15:05.511 - And we did not have the deliverables according to the city's version of events until only very recently. 01:15:05.511 --> 01:15:13.908 - I wish you would ask that question. Thanks. Thank you. Next in chambers. Good evening council members 01:15:13.908 --> 01:15:22.223 - for the record. My name is Lilliana young. When I think of Bloomington I think of the people I think 01:15:22.223 --> 01:15:23.870 - of the communities. 01:15:24.002 --> 01:15:31.915 - that make up our culture. And I think of the city policies that work in tandem with those things. This 01:15:31.915 --> 01:15:39.827 - is the city where I found love, where I found my people, where I found myself. And when I look at that 01:15:39.827 --> 01:15:48.047 - seal, I see a flower, which is perfect because it reminds me that Bloomington is where my life has bloomed 01:15:48.047 --> 01:15:53.886 - and life blooms for everyone. But moving beyond the visual element of this, 01:15:54.530 --> 01:16:02.787 - Anybody who's paying attention knows that Bloomington as a city is facing down the barrel of a budgetary 01:16:02.787 --> 01:16:10.808 - crisis and $95,000 is a significant amount of money for a city to waste and this entire project reeks 01:16:10.808 --> 01:16:18.750 - to me of a waste and vanity and I don't believe it should have ever been on the board to begin with. 01:16:18.978 --> 01:16:26.174 - It could have been reinvested in the city in so many better ways that actually improve the quality of 01:16:26.174 --> 01:16:33.582 - life for people. Road repair, beautification of parks, any other kind of infrastructure you can imagine. 01:16:33.582 --> 01:16:40.637 - But we threw it away on a logo chasing project. Since the money has already been spent and we can't 01:16:40.637 --> 01:16:46.846 - do anything about that, I will at least ask the council if you have any power over this 01:16:46.978 --> 01:16:56.357 - to reject the implementation of this brand because it is an insult. Thank you. Thank you. Next in chambers. 01:16:56.357 --> 01:17:05.649 - Hi, I'm Rowan Morse. I'm a lifelong Blumentonian. I was born and raised here. My grandfather, Tom Coleman, 01:17:05.649 --> 01:17:11.294 - he was the one who created the Bloomington Transit logo, the BT. 01:17:11.618 --> 01:17:18.497 - As a whole family of graphic designers, I just gotta say this new one is just really not it. It does 01:17:18.497 --> 01:17:25.511 - not feel like Bloomington. The one, as Liliana said right before me, it feels like home. It feels like 01:17:25.511 --> 01:17:32.731 - something that's comforting and that I've known my entire life. This new one, as Rollo, you've presented, 01:17:32.731 --> 01:17:37.566 - there's a bunch of them. I spent a couple of minutes and I printed out 01:17:37.794 --> 01:17:47.022 - eight different versions of pretty much the same exact logo. And any graphic designer should double 01:17:47.022 --> 01:17:56.526 - check that it's not a logo that is already well known or that you might have any competition with. And 01:17:56.526 --> 01:18:07.230 - I think just the lack of, I think effort, the lack of care that they've shown in just putting into making a logo or 01:18:07.682 --> 01:18:14.240 - Interacting with the community to have them work on a logo has shown that they don't really care about 01:18:14.240 --> 01:18:21.116 - us Like I you know Frankly like have you guys gotten anything of what that was supposed to be any? Tangible 01:18:21.116 --> 01:18:27.483 - thing that we are supposed to do that makes our city better. I got Zero and I mean that was a whole 01:18:27.483 --> 01:18:33.022 - presentation where that should have been sold and I don't think any of that was sold I 01:18:33.506 --> 01:18:40.606 - And so I just I'd say we've spent ninety five thousand dollars on this already and I'd really implore 01:18:40.606 --> 01:18:47.359 - you just don't spend any more money Wasting time on something that truly nobody wants Thank you. 01:18:47.359 --> 01:18:54.389 - Thank you. We have in chambers and then right after we'll go online Hello, my name is Zach Mueller I 01:18:54.389 --> 01:19:01.629 - Am not a lifelong Bloomingtonian, but I've been here for most of my adult life I've lived here 20 years 01:19:01.629 --> 01:19:03.230 - off and on so and also 01:19:03.778 --> 01:19:10.631 - I am not a farmer. I cannot quote Camus. I am not a PhD. I do not own a bakery. I just have a BA, and 01:19:10.631 --> 01:19:17.618 - I'm more of like a Homer Simpson quota myself. And one thing that Homer Simpson said is people can come 01:19:17.618 --> 01:19:24.940 - up with statistics for anything. 14% of people know that. So with all of this said, I do want to acknowledge 01:19:24.940 --> 01:19:31.390 - that it is tough to come up with something that anybody likes. And I want to give credit to the 01:19:31.778 --> 01:19:38.632 - Anybody who says that anything made by committee ultimately gets watered down, or however one wants 01:19:38.632 --> 01:19:45.211 - to characterize that to a certain degree, I would say that there's probably some merit to that. 01:19:45.211 --> 01:19:52.339 - That said, I mean, I gotta be honest, when I first read about this, my first thought was, man, I looked 01:19:52.339 --> 01:19:58.782 - at the language that surrounded a lot of the rollout, and I said, man, if I were to print off 01:19:58.882 --> 01:20:06.276 - buzzword bingo card for my friends, who many of them, respectfully, have gone to the mountains and are 01:20:06.276 --> 01:20:13.743 - now working in places further out west. I was like, man, if my buddy Tim could see this, he would roll. 01:20:13.743 --> 01:20:20.922 - And I gotta be honest, this kind of branding may really be working in a lot of places. I'm not here 01:20:20.922 --> 01:20:27.742 - to debate that. I am not a branding expert. What I am is just like somebody who's sitting here 01:20:27.906 --> 01:20:34.753 - And we have deliverables that are gonna be actionable. And what else do we have here? We've got some 01:20:34.753 --> 01:20:41.667 - implementation that's gonna happen. And then, let me just pull this up. Oh, and then we're gonna show 01:20:41.667 --> 01:20:48.853 - but not tell how to soft launch the brand. That feels really weird to me about telling our Bloomingtonian 01:20:48.853 --> 01:20:55.632 - colleagues, we're just gonna make this change and you're gonna find out about it in bits and pieces 01:20:55.632 --> 01:20:57.598 - after we've made a decision. 01:20:58.498 --> 01:21:04.666 - I like transparency. I just do. And like saying, because a top-down grand reveal can trigger resident 01:21:04.666 --> 01:21:10.956 - skepticism and feel like a superficial fresh coat of paint, the city of Bloomington should not formally 01:21:10.956 --> 01:21:17.003 - announce the brand. Instead, the brand should be soft launched through a show-don't-tell framework. 01:21:17.003 --> 01:21:23.413 - I don't like that. I don't like that. And I don't think that most Bloomingtonians would like that either. 01:21:23.413 --> 01:21:26.558 - Like about anything. Not this. Changing the budget. 01:21:26.658 --> 01:21:32.000 - Spending $95,000 and us only finding out about it. Thanks to the good work of local media. Thank you 01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:37.343 - for your help with that, sir I've just got 15 seconds left and I don't like again the money is spent 01:21:37.343 --> 01:21:42.685 - Thank everyone for their work There are plenty of people here in Bloomington who could spend four or 01:21:42.685 --> 01:21:47.975 - five days at a time going to other Communities and finding out what worked for them and then coming 01:21:47.975 --> 01:21:50.302 - back here knowing their identity. That's it 01:21:51.906 --> 01:21:59.864 - Peckable timing. Folks online? All right. Pass to you two online. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, 01:21:59.864 --> 01:22:08.057 - we can. Good evening. My name is Eric Ose. Thank you for allowing me to offer public input this evening. 01:22:08.057 --> 01:22:15.937 - While final payment occurred in November of 2025, two public record requests followed and two public 01:22:15.937 --> 01:22:19.838 - record requests followed. Materials were delayed. 01:22:20.098 --> 01:22:27.333 - And we learned this evening that significant deliverables remain unpublished. I echo Mr. Askin's sincere 01:22:27.333 --> 01:22:34.224 - request that council immediately explore and ensure all public records are being released in timely 01:22:34.224 --> 01:22:41.184 - and complete form and are openly accessible by all members of the general public. Evidence indicates 01:22:41.184 --> 01:22:48.075 - they are not. My comments can address only and be informed by the subset of information that's been 01:22:48.075 --> 01:22:49.246 - released so far. 01:22:49.954 --> 01:22:56.860 - Given that this contract, $95,000, was an economic development initiative, it is worth asking whether 01:22:56.860 --> 01:23:03.834 - hiring an outside marketing consultant addresses our community's core needs in infrastructure, housing 01:23:03.834 --> 01:23:10.604 - affordability, and basic city services. Moreover, the provocative report reveals critical technical 01:23:10.604 --> 01:23:17.578 - emissions. While it vaguely advises staff to consider accessibility standards, it provides no concrete 01:23:17.578 --> 01:23:18.526 - ADA protocols 01:23:18.690 --> 01:23:25.654 - nothing regarding digital content specifications or actionable accessibility standards, and I'll just 01:23:25.654 --> 01:23:32.618 - say that a fundamental municipal framework that admits attention to comprehensive accessibility fails 01:23:32.618 --> 01:23:39.718 - the entire community. Procedurally, the report describes an administrative soft rollout that is already 01:23:39.718 --> 01:23:47.774 - underway across departments and digital platforms prior to formal legislative review. I'm just flabbergasted by that. 01:23:48.322 --> 01:23:54.933 - It should be seen as a huge gap and that rolling out a marketing framework as an established reality 01:23:54.933 --> 01:24:01.610 - without public vetting or council oversight erodes civic trust. I respectfully ask the council review 01:24:01.610 --> 01:24:08.156 - the city's public record processes along with this contracts execution and please pause any ongoing 01:24:08.156 --> 01:24:09.662 - administrative rollout 01:24:10.082 --> 01:24:19.985 - verify that all materials have been released for access by council and the public, and ensure municipal 01:24:19.985 --> 01:24:29.126 - resources target measurable public outcomes rather than top-down branding exercises. Thank you. 01:24:29.126 --> 01:24:37.982 - Thank you. We have another commenter online. You want? We can hear you now. Can you hear me? 01:24:38.178 --> 01:24:48.122 - Oh, we heard you and now then you've changed your voice. Yes, we can hear you. I did, I did. This is 01:24:48.122 --> 01:24:58.854 - actually not John Lawrence, but it's Jan Sorby. And I just wanted to say as a designer, I was a professional 01:24:58.854 --> 01:25:07.518 - designer before I retired. And I just have to say the old logo was so well thought out. 01:25:07.938 --> 01:25:15.733 - Tom Coleman was the chair of my department when I was a graduate student. And what I see in the old 01:25:15.733 --> 01:25:23.527 - one is I see all these different pieces, almost like a patchwork quilt coming together and making a 01:25:23.527 --> 01:25:31.478 - whole, which is our community. We are all so different and yet we all have this goal of making things 01:25:31.478 --> 01:25:37.246 - whole. And so I just wanted to add my two cents saying that I think this, 01:25:37.730 --> 01:25:45.889 - New identity says nothing. If you turn it on its side, it looks like two birds pecking at each other. 01:25:45.889 --> 01:25:54.047 - I don't think that's the image we exactly want. But I just gobsmacked at the amount of money we spent 01:25:54.047 --> 01:26:00.766 - on it. At least it's not as bad as Indiana University, who spent a quarter million. 01:26:00.962 --> 01:26:08.884 - on a logo to just change the color, one shade on the color scale. So we're not that bad, but I would 01:26:08.884 --> 01:26:16.884 - really, really encourage you all to think about exactly what this does say about our city. And I kind 01:26:16.884 --> 01:26:24.728 - of like all the different kinds of people and groups and ideas and thoughts coming together to make 01:26:24.728 --> 01:26:30.846 - a tapestry of that flower blooming. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. 01:26:30.978 --> 01:26:38.127 - Is there anybody else in council chambers who'd like to make comment? Anybody else online? All right, 01:26:38.127 --> 01:26:45.556 - one more person online. Hi, my name is Jamie Schull. I really didn't plan on commenting. I came to listen 01:26:45.556 --> 01:26:52.775 - to something else on the agenda later. But I am a townie, and I left to study graphic design or visual 01:26:52.775 --> 01:27:00.414 - communication design in Miami, Florida. So my beginning career was actually in the arts, and I still utilize 01:27:00.770 --> 01:27:11.452 - branding in creating my own brands. When I saw the brand that, thank you, Dave Askins for putting that 01:27:11.452 --> 01:27:22.029 - online, I was really quite appalled. And then when looking at all the colors and secondary colors, it 01:27:22.029 --> 01:27:27.422 - reminded me of a preschool. Maybe. It was so close. 01:27:28.034 --> 01:27:36.114 - That's not exactly where color schemes are actually going right now. So besides all of those other things 01:27:36.114 --> 01:27:43.813 - in the design, I'm really hoping that we don't use this and it would be a lesson that we should keep 01:27:43.813 --> 01:27:51.435 - Blooming to Money local and trust our own people. We have amazing talented artists here. Why are we 01:27:51.435 --> 01:27:52.350 - hiring some 01:27:52.546 --> 01:28:01.402 - somebody else in sending that money outside. I really don't know. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank 01:28:01.402 --> 01:28:10.344 - you very much for the opportunity. Thank you. OK, folks, next person online. Hi, this is Paul Rousseau. 01:28:10.344 --> 01:28:19.114 - I'll just briefly say that I strongly dislike the new branding logo. I think it's awful. I appreciate 01:28:19.114 --> 01:28:20.318 - the comments. 01:28:20.706 --> 01:28:28.303 - of the speaker two speakers ago about the beauty of the existing one. And I think that the 01:28:28.303 --> 01:28:36.734 - lack of transparency in this process is awful. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? Anyone else 01:28:36.734 --> 01:28:42.494 - in chambers? OK. Thank you so much for the time. And let us move on. 01:28:44.770 --> 01:28:52.022 - You sorry reports from council committees. I have a motion. I hope from councilmember Daley I moved 01:28:52.022 --> 01:28:59.419 - to adopt the recommendation of the hiring committee and hire Jake Rossman for the position of council 01:28:59.419 --> 01:29:06.816 - administrator attorney with a compensation package that includes a yearly salary of 101 thousand four 01:29:06.816 --> 01:29:14.430 - hundred eleven dollars and other benefits including vision vacation, etc Of all full-time city employees 01:29:15.714 --> 01:29:23.806 - Okay, there's a motion in a second any discussion Councilmember Stossberg did it say in your motion? 01:29:23.806 --> 01:29:31.978 - His his first date of service to us. Like when is he starting? Does it need to need to I know does it 01:29:31.978 --> 01:29:40.071 - need to attorney I guess the question that I have is If we could maybe talk about the official start 01:29:40.071 --> 01:29:44.958 - date here as part of this approval. That'd be great. I think 01:29:45.634 --> 01:29:52.562 - I think assuming that we vote for this and we're all okay with it, the goal is to get the person to 01:29:52.562 --> 01:29:59.697 - start as soon as possible. We already mentioned his name, but to get Attorney Rossman to start as soon 01:29:59.697 --> 01:30:06.694 - as possible, of course, is working, has a caseload that needs to be, what do you call it, completed. 01:30:06.694 --> 01:30:09.534 - I think the goal is as soon as possible. 01:30:09.890 --> 01:30:16.894 - Do you know what that means in terms of I think the current in talking I think the the assuming that 01:30:16.894 --> 01:30:24.315 - background checks all those things go well. The target was October October 12 I think if I'm not mistaken. 01:30:24.315 --> 01:30:31.805 - OK thanks. Thank you. Since excuse me I'm sorry since it is going to be contingent on other H.R. activities 01:30:31.805 --> 01:30:38.046 - what I would suggest is maybe someone could offer an amendment to the motion and just say 01:30:38.146 --> 01:30:47.635 - contingent upon approval of the Human Resources Department background check and then upon negotiated 01:30:47.635 --> 01:30:56.372 - start date. I would like to make that amendment as I eloquently would have said. Second. Any 01:30:56.372 --> 01:31:03.230 - other discussion. Okay. Seeing none. Can the clerk please call the roll. 01:31:13.186 --> 01:31:23.709 - Councilmember Stasberg? Yes. Piedmont Smith? Yes. Zulek? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Ruff? 01:31:23.709 --> 01:31:34.027 - Yes. Rosenberger? Yes. Flaherty? Yes. Excellent. Thank you so much. We'll move on to public. Oh, and 01:31:34.027 --> 01:31:42.302 - I'll just make a comment that I'd like, we're going to keep the hiring committee 01:31:42.594 --> 01:31:52.527 - as a committee just in case we need any other tasks. And so those of you who have been appointed are 01:31:52.527 --> 01:32:02.362 - still appointed going on to public safety. I'll pass on to Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Thank you. 01:32:02.362 --> 01:32:09.246 - The Public Safety Local Income Tax Committee met on what did we need. 01:32:10.786 --> 01:32:20.490 - I don't even have that in the report do I. Well met in August and we had an extensive report from a 01:32:20.490 --> 01:32:30.485 - controller city controller Jeff McKim about the status of our public safety local income tax fund. The 01:32:30.485 --> 01:32:40.286 - primary purpose and the first purpose of the fund is to fund our public safety answering point PSAP. 01:32:40.642 --> 01:32:51.440 - Also known as central dispatch or what you get when you call 9-1-1. So that's the main reason for the 01:32:51.440 --> 01:33:02.978 - PS let's tax after that is funded then the remainder can go to the municipalities and the county government. 01:33:02.978 --> 01:33:07.742 - So Mr. McKim's report showed us that the the 01:33:08.674 --> 01:33:18.100 - uh, expected revenues from the PS lit, um, PSAP rate. So the part of the PS lit that pays for that central 01:33:18.100 --> 01:33:27.085 - dispatch is, uh, expected to be way below, um, what the actual budget for our central dispatch is for 01:33:27.085 --> 01:33:36.158 - next year as proposed. So the policy, the dispatch policy board approved a PSAP budget of $4,808, 541. 01:33:37.090 --> 01:33:48.034 - $4,808,541. And if we left the PSAP rate the same, we could expect to get only about $3 million, leaving 01:33:48.034 --> 01:33:59.187 - a large funding gap. And we got ourselves into this position largely because we had been spending reserves 01:33:59.187 --> 01:34:04.190 - in recent years instead of increasing the rate. 01:34:05.634 --> 01:34:14.891 - So in order to make up for this funding gap and also in advance of the large uncertainty of what will 01:34:14.891 --> 01:34:24.147 - happen after January 1st of twenty twenty nine when the PS lit goes away disappears we don't have it. 01:34:24.147 --> 01:34:33.767 - We voted to increase the rate in order to both fund make up that funding gap to fund our central dispatch 01:34:33.767 --> 01:34:35.582 - and create a buffer 01:34:36.258 --> 01:34:44.646 - a buffer of funds of reserves so that in twenty twenty nine we may we have that buffer because we don't 01:34:44.646 --> 01:34:52.954 - know how our funding is going to go after that. So the recommendation of the committee was to increase 01:34:52.954 --> 01:35:01.342 - the piece app rate from zero point zero six three one percent to the maximum of zero point one percent. 01:35:02.658 --> 01:35:10.194 - And then the piece app is a subset of the P.S. lit and then the whole P.S. lit rate would increase from 01:35:10.194 --> 01:35:18.021 - zero point two five percent to zero point two eight six nine percent which would hold the level of revenues 01:35:18.021 --> 01:35:25.919 - that the municipalities get after that central dispatch funding about the same. So that's the recommendation 01:35:25.919 --> 01:35:31.934 - that will be coming forward from the P.S. committee and we'll see legislation soon 01:35:32.194 --> 01:35:41.074 - to officially vote upon that recommendation Any question any questions Thank you, so thank you for this 01:35:41.074 --> 01:35:49.613 - report and for that explanation um so y'all discovered in your meeting that the the remaining point 01:35:49.613 --> 01:35:59.006 - one eight six nine percent that's for other public safety purposes will be sufficient for budgetary needs and 01:36:00.098 --> 01:36:08.964 - Because all of the increases going to the dispatch. Yes the numbers that and I do want to thank Comptroller 01:36:08.964 --> 01:36:17.420 - McCann for crunching those numbers for us. But yes those should remain at a pretty constant amount for 01:36:17.420 --> 01:36:23.166 - next year compared with this year if we enact those rates. OK thanks. 01:36:25.410 --> 01:36:33.877 - a quick question. So we did get multiple communications from Mr. Keough, and I know that he showed up 01:36:33.877 --> 01:36:42.592 - at the meetings also to make the general comment, but it seems that what was being implied in the email, 01:36:42.592 --> 01:36:50.893 - and I'm sure he might be here for public comment later, but was that the balances may not have been 01:36:50.893 --> 01:36:51.806 - consistent 01:36:51.970 --> 01:37:00.905 - So like how like that he had low confidence of the actual number or something like that. I was struggling 01:37:00.905 --> 01:37:08.745 - a little bit to track. And did you all deal with that question at all or maybe a controller. 01:37:08.745 --> 01:37:17.680 - But Kim did he. Mr. Keough did give public comment at the PSLIT meeting. I think his main concern stemmed 01:37:17.680 --> 01:37:21.726 - from under the previous mayoral administration. 01:37:22.210 --> 01:37:30.368 - The PSAP portion was not held separate from the rest of the PS lit revenues. And so they were just like 01:37:30.368 --> 01:37:38.213 - internal records kept but it was not officially separated. And so he had some concerns whether when 01:37:38.213 --> 01:37:46.371 - we created the separate PSAP fund which we did as a council last year whether the total money that went 01:37:46.371 --> 01:37:48.254 - into that was accurate. 01:37:48.738 --> 01:37:54.739 - And I believe 2.4 million dollars was was the figure. I don't recall. But I believe controller McKim 01:37:54.739 --> 01:38:00.859 - did. I think he did address that during our meeting and he certainly has addressed that via email. OK. 01:38:00.859 --> 01:38:07.157 - Since our meeting. OK. Excellent. Excellent. And I guess we can we can discuss that more when we actually 01:38:07.157 --> 01:38:09.534 - have the fantastic. Any other comments. 01:38:10.594 --> 01:38:16.658 - Or questions, I'm sorry. OK, fantastic. Let's move along. Best part of the meeting, we have our first 01:38:16.658 --> 01:38:22.781 - session of public comment. I'm sorry that it's taken us so long to get here. If you would like to make 01:38:22.781 --> 01:38:28.845 - a public comment on anything that is not on the agenda, now is your time. And I will just remind you, 01:38:28.845 --> 01:38:34.789 - this is of anything that is not on the agenda. Same rules, state your name, something like that for 01:38:34.789 --> 01:38:40.318 - the record. And you have three minutes. Go ahead. Start in chambers. Hi there. Zach Mueller. 01:38:40.482 --> 01:38:48.081 - Bloomington resident. I live over in district 3 over off of Smith Road We have now moved from just children 01:38:48.081 --> 01:38:55.469 - being hit on bicycles in the In that intersection of Morningside Drive and Smith Road to also now people 01:38:55.469 --> 01:39:02.505 - running over street signs, too in the last six months they have run over a stop sign and now a bike 01:39:02.505 --> 01:39:10.174 - a bike pathway sign which was extra super duper ironic to me that this happened in the last couple weeks, so 01:39:11.298 --> 01:39:17.066 - Do something anything Animals, you know wildlife domestic animals getting hit and rode all the time 01:39:17.066 --> 01:39:22.833 - Please anything like rumble strips at this point. We hear the trains going by anyway So anybody who 01:39:22.833 --> 01:39:28.716 - complains but oh my god, like there's gonna be some bumps We hear all the time because there's rumble 01:39:28.716 --> 01:39:34.830 - strips Like we literally hear freight trains screaming through blowing their horns at one in the morning. 01:39:34.830 --> 01:39:37.022 - It doesn't matter Please do something 01:39:37.378 --> 01:39:43.259 - Whatever you can do. My neighbors and I are all gonna come to the next transportation meeting where 01:39:43.259 --> 01:39:49.376 - I'm sure everybody will be very concerned and then nothing is gonna happen. Please do something. Please 01:39:49.376 --> 01:39:55.668 - talk to the mayor's office. Please do something. Don't wait until somebody at four in the morning, because 01:39:55.668 --> 01:40:01.726 - I have my ring camera and I saw, runs a stop sign and plows down a street sign that's up in the little 01:40:01.726 --> 01:40:06.078 - grass area at four in the morning. Don't wait to do that. Why do we wait? 01:40:07.042 --> 01:40:12.458 - I'll keep coming. I'll keep coming here. I don't want to. I'd rather be at home not talking about things 01:40:12.458 --> 01:40:17.720 - that I'm not allowed to talk about anymore because the public comment is over, but it was stupid. And 01:40:17.720 --> 01:40:22.878 - also this, which is also stupid that I have to keep coming here. My neighbors, like I'm right there 01:40:22.878 --> 01:40:28.242 - on the corner. I will do this because all of my neighbors want things to happen, but a lot of them have 01:40:28.242 --> 01:40:33.452 - kids. I don't have kids. I wouldn't let my kids ride a bike if I had kids because it is dangerous at 01:40:33.452 --> 01:40:36.702 - that intersection. Seriously, one time in the last six months, 01:40:36.962 --> 01:40:43.276 - We've had police officers that would do some traffic enforcement, and that was on a Saturday at midday. 01:40:43.276 --> 01:40:49.711 - Send someone out there, give $95,000 to overtime for the police department so that they can have officers 01:40:49.711 --> 01:40:55.842 - sitting at that intersection giving actual tickets. Do it in the middle of rush hour. Why do it when 01:40:55.842 --> 01:41:02.156 - there's very few people? We are about to have football season. There's going to be so many people. This 01:41:02.156 --> 01:41:04.766 - is a major thoroughfare between 3rd Street 01:41:05.218 --> 01:41:10.696 - and 10th Street. There are gonna be so many more new people in this city. They're gonna be trying to 01:41:10.696 --> 01:41:16.337 - go from one part of town to another, going to the football game or away, and it is gonna become so much 01:41:16.337 --> 01:41:21.761 - more dangerous. The intersection is Morningside Drive and Smith Road. That is the main thoroughfare 01:41:21.761 --> 01:41:27.184 - between 10th Street and 3rd Street. If you wanna go from one side to the other, that is how you go. 01:41:27.184 --> 01:41:32.988 - People treat it like it is one of those stop signs. It has the white around the outside, so it's optional, 01:41:32.988 --> 01:41:34.398 - and it is so infuriating. 01:41:34.818 --> 01:41:42.162 - And I will see you guys the next time that nothing happens. See you later. Thank you. We'll continue 01:41:42.162 --> 01:41:50.014 - in chambers and then we'll go online. OK. Hi I'm Amber core and I'm speaking for Bloomington homes for all. 01:41:50.690 --> 01:41:58.851 - I'm asking this council to send a letter to the Redevelopment Commission recommending that any sale 01:41:58.851 --> 01:42:07.256 - of College Square be conditioned on binding recorded affordability commitments. The RDC is negotiating 01:42:07.256 --> 01:42:15.499 - to sell College Square for four million down from a seven point five nine million appraisal plus the 01:42:15.499 --> 01:42:18.110 - five million in TIF allocation. 01:42:18.658 --> 01:42:27.382 - That's roughly eight point six million in public value going towards a private development project that 01:42:27.382 --> 01:42:36.022 - as proposed has an unnecessary second hotel in addition to the CIB approved Dora host hotel along with 01:42:36.022 --> 01:42:39.294 - up to 100 market rate apartment units. 01:42:39.458 --> 01:42:47.939 - We're asking the council's letter to recommend that any purchase agreement on College Square require 01:42:47.939 --> 01:42:56.589 - as enforceable conditions of the sale no fewer than 50 rental units at or below 50 percent a.m. I plus 01:42:56.589 --> 01:43:05.406 - ten thousand square feet of commercial space at half market rate for local small business and nonprofit. 01:43:05.922 --> 01:43:14.451 - We're asking that it be backed by a recorded covenant and that public money involves be paid out in 01:43:14.451 --> 01:43:23.321 - phase tiered or phase tied to construction milestones Private developers should not receive Bloomington 01:43:23.321 --> 01:43:32.191 - public land discounts and TIF subsidies without directly investing in sustainable and affordable social 01:43:32.191 --> 01:43:33.470 - infrastructure 01:43:33.890 --> 01:43:41.013 - Homes for all would like to set the precedence with the RDC college square sale And we're asking for 01:43:41.013 --> 01:43:48.136 - this letter to be sent before the RDC votes on a purchase agreement Thank you. Thank you so much and 01:43:48.136 --> 01:43:55.259 - we'll go online and then we'll come to you. Mr. MG Okay, we'll come back here So soon a good evening 01:43:55.259 --> 01:44:00.830 - council. This is Chris term G from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce 01:44:01.058 --> 01:44:08.010 - I really appreciate councilmember Piedmont and Smith's update on the public safety public safety local 01:44:08.010 --> 01:44:14.827 - income tax committee and I'm just a point of clarity if we had the if the vote on the recommendation 01:44:14.827 --> 01:44:21.847 - if she could Provide where that aligned with the other members that would be I think helpful We do need 01:44:21.847 --> 01:44:28.596 - to sort of look at that. I think we when we saw the public safety Presentation the last week or the 01:44:28.596 --> 01:44:29.406 - week before 01:44:29.634 --> 01:44:37.220 - Dispatch had quite a few openings and this is one of the areas where it does need some help So I think 01:44:37.220 --> 01:44:44.659 - this does fall into very much public interest. I appreciate your time tonight. Thanks Thank you very 01:44:44.659 --> 01:44:52.171 - much Is there anybody in chamber else anybody online? All right zooming along we will go appointments 01:44:52.171 --> 01:44:56.222 - to boards and commissions. Are there any motions? Sure 01:44:58.434 --> 01:45:07.497 - On behalf of interview committee B I would like to recommend for the mark dr. Martin Luther King jr. 01:45:07.497 --> 01:45:16.560 - Birthday Celebration Commission the appointment of Jatana Ayala Ruiz to seat c1 Second motion in the 01:45:16.560 --> 01:45:25.534 - second any discussion are there any other appointments because I'm we can combine those motions and 01:45:26.658 --> 01:45:41.709 - Okay. With that will the clerk be called the roll. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. 01:45:41.709 --> 01:45:55.614 - Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Clarity. Yes. Stasper. Yes. Thank you. 01:45:56.898 --> 01:46:06.786 - Okay we're now moving to item 5 B and another motion please. Council member P. Smith on behalf of interview 01:46:06.786 --> 01:46:16.126 - committee C. I would like to move that Jose Fuentes a member of the commission on Hispanic and Latina 01:46:16.126 --> 01:46:26.014 - affairs be notified that at our next regular session we will vote on his removal due to lack of attendance. 01:46:26.242 --> 01:46:40.195 - of the commission's meeting second He has he has not attended several meetings this year I don't if 01:46:40.195 --> 01:46:53.310 - Deputy clerk Crossley wants to provide the detail if she's ready to do so He has not attended 01:46:53.634 --> 01:47:06.420 - Any meeting since February of this year and code specifies that if you miss three in a row That is cause 01:47:06.420 --> 01:47:17.502 - for removal Yes councilmember Stasberg has he been contacted and just like ghosted us or I 01:47:17.602 --> 01:47:26.260 - Okay. Yes. So I reached out to him and had a conversation. He acknowledges that he missed it. He acknowledges 01:47:26.260 --> 01:47:34.130 - that he also did not let the staff liaison know and he knows that this is also something that would 01:47:34.130 --> 01:47:42.237 - be brought forth to counsel this evening. So does this fall into the we just don't do this very often. 01:47:42.237 --> 01:47:47.038 - So the procedure is we have this motion as kind of an alert. 01:47:47.682 --> 01:47:58.450 - That it's going to happen and then he'll get sent a letter that this official thing happened. Right. 01:47:58.450 --> 01:48:09.325 - Is that how this works. Yes. OK. Thanks. Sorry. Any other comments. If not will the clerk please call 01:48:09.325 --> 01:48:17.534 - the roll. Try that again. Council member Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. 01:48:17.826 --> 01:48:27.746 - Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. And Piedmont Smith. Yes. Thank you. 01:48:27.746 --> 01:48:38.459 - We're now moving on to item five B. I mean this is the consideration of his of a commission of the Historic 01:48:38.459 --> 01:48:45.502 - Preservation Commission appointment removal. Well I would love before. 01:48:45.634 --> 01:48:52.632 - Anything else happens. I'll pass over to attorney Allen and to give a little bit of context And with 01:48:52.632 --> 01:48:59.838 - with sort of what the course of action here here is etc Yeah, so beyond excessive absenteeism I'll just 01:48:59.838 --> 01:49:06.836 - say generally commissioners that are appointed by council can only be removed for cause in this case 01:49:06.836 --> 01:49:13.972 - a notice was sent to mr. Brainard cross of the Historic Preservation Commission that the council would 01:49:13.972 --> 01:49:15.358 - take up that matter 01:49:15.714 --> 01:49:23.970 - He was given an opportunity to submit materials he did so those materials are ample and there are quite 01:49:23.970 --> 01:49:32.862 - a few of them. It also deals with video and recorded meetings over the course of at least two meetings in July. 01:49:32.962 --> 01:49:38.995 - the council has several options in terms of the action it could take at this point if the council feels 01:49:38.995 --> 01:49:44.912 - like it has Sufficiently reviewed all of the evidence and is ready to take action Of course, it could 01:49:44.912 --> 01:49:50.829 - vote and find that this is for cause and in order to find For cause a few things have to be satisfied 01:49:50.829 --> 01:49:56.687 - just to be clear and for communication to the public One there does have to be a preservation of mr. 01:49:56.687 --> 01:50:00.574 - Cross's due process rights since it is for cause so he has to have 01:50:00.738 --> 01:50:07.208 - Notice, have to have notice of what the alleged violation is for, what the rules that would have applied 01:50:07.208 --> 01:50:13.617 - to him for, the date and the time at which a decision would be made and also an opportunity, obviously, 01:50:13.617 --> 01:50:19.779 - to respond. That, for the most part, did happen. I think that that's under contention by Mr. Cross, 01:50:19.779 --> 01:50:25.694 - whether that was sufficient, but it did happen in terms of a notice that went out. Secondarily, 01:50:25.858 --> 01:50:33.511 - When you finding whether to find for cause it does have to be related to mr. Cross's ability to serve 01:50:33.511 --> 01:50:41.014 - on the Historic Preservation Commission Given the complexity of these particular issues in the past 01:50:41.014 --> 01:50:44.990 - council has offered to recommend this to a committee 01:50:45.122 --> 01:50:50.891 - and specifically the Committee on Council Processes to hear evidence and to review these things. That 01:50:50.891 --> 01:50:57.056 - is one option that the council has, so it could recommend it to a committee if it wanted to have a committee 01:50:57.056 --> 01:51:02.712 - recommendation and have somebody that reviewed the evidence. Additionally, the council could, if it 01:51:02.712 --> 01:51:08.595 - feels like it needs more time to review the evidence, postpone this to a future meeting as long as it's 01:51:08.595 --> 01:51:09.726 - publicly announced. 01:51:09.890 --> 01:51:16.037 - My recommendation would be one of those two things I think given the amount of materials to ensure that 01:51:16.037 --> 01:51:22.126 - it is fully heard and Contemplated that that's that's the best course of action. However, you know the 01:51:22.126 --> 01:51:28.214 - discretion is a council I can't tell you all what what you have Read and understood as long as we make 01:51:28.214 --> 01:51:34.480 - specific findings on the record I'm happy to take questions about that but that and I'll just note really 01:51:34.480 --> 01:51:37.790 - quickly the council has not necessary has not adopted a 01:51:38.242 --> 01:51:46.007 - Formal procedures for this that that is however, these procedures are dictated by Indiana common law 01:51:46.007 --> 01:51:54.232 - and the council's own regulations that require the four-cause removal Thank you so much, sir Any questions 01:51:54.232 --> 01:52:02.228 - or are there any motions or comments? Yeah, please the council members look um, I've asked HPC attorney 01:52:02.228 --> 01:52:06.302 - Anna Holmes here to answer any factual questions but 01:52:08.226 --> 01:52:17.786 - to answer any factual questions. So if anyone has any questions, she is here. And thank you so much, 01:52:17.786 --> 01:52:28.102 - Attorney Holmes, for being here. Are there any questions or motions? Happy to entertain either. Or comments? 01:52:28.102 --> 01:52:37.662 - Please, Councilmember Daly. Sorry. Thank you. I actually have a question for Council Attorney Allen. 01:52:38.306 --> 01:52:46.634 - The four cause there needs to be the specific reasons That are met. What are the specific reasons that 01:52:46.634 --> 01:52:54.558 - are? Enumerated here against mr. Cross Yeah, there were there were some of the primary ones is so 01:52:54.754 --> 01:53:01.528 - under for cause under the municipal code the council has specifically referred to a code of conduct 01:53:01.528 --> 01:53:08.642 - that applies to all boards and commissioners that is kept by the clerk's office and that code of conduct 01:53:08.642 --> 01:53:15.416 - applies to Certain behavior treatment decorum in meetings. There are several factors to that. There 01:53:15.416 --> 01:53:21.310 - are four factors I can read them off if you prefer more specificity of that Those were 01:53:21.410 --> 01:53:28.212 - violated or thought to be violated at least that's the Allegation here is that those were violated the 01:53:28.212 --> 01:53:34.948 - code of conduct was violated in two particular meetings those occurring on July 9th and at the end of 01:53:34.948 --> 01:53:41.882 - July as well Secondarily there was Messages sent to all commission members asking for immediate response 01:53:41.882 --> 01:53:49.278 - that has a potential of violating the open-door law That is one of the other allegations that was made and then 01:53:49.858 --> 01:53:56.400 - Finally it is there and this kind of goes hand-in-hand with the code of conduct There's a requirement 01:53:56.400 --> 01:54:03.135 - to be able to do the business of the Commission and to respect the time of the public and the Commission 01:54:03.135 --> 01:54:09.614 - significant amount of time was being taken to delay the action of the Commission and also of staff's 01:54:09.614 --> 01:54:16.220 - time over the course of that period and that was inhibiting potentially the business of the Commission 01:54:16.220 --> 01:54:17.054 - and and also 01:54:17.250 --> 01:54:27.618 - posed a risk of having Several of the commissioners resign as a result of what was happening in the 01:54:27.618 --> 01:54:38.193 - meetings Thank you for that clarification for everybody's edification Any other comments or questions 01:54:38.193 --> 01:54:44.414 - or motions Councilmember Rallo and then councilmember daily 01:54:45.602 --> 01:54:58.628 - When does the Historic Preservation Commission next meet. Next Thursday I think it's. Excuse me. 01:54:58.628 --> 01:55:05.342 - I'm sorry. It's Thursday September 10th at 5 p.m. 01:55:08.706 --> 01:55:15.291 - I just want to clarify another option for council that I failed to mention. I'm sorry. You could also 01:55:15.291 --> 01:55:21.424 - let this pass by and take no action on it. I don't mean to foreclose any of your many options. 01:55:21.424 --> 01:55:27.879 - Be transparent. I move to postpone this consideration to our next regular session September 16th so 01:55:27.879 --> 01:55:34.206 - that the full council can review evidence and have a more well informed discussion at that point. 01:55:38.370 --> 01:55:46.943 - Okay, there's a motion in a second any discussion I'm councilman Stossberg. I guess I kind of have a 01:55:46.943 --> 01:55:55.771 - question to my colleagues. I did do some Research into this the last few days and I guess I'm wondering 01:55:55.771 --> 01:56:04.429 - Which of my colleagues would like that more time I guess and maybe that'll be clear with this vote of 01:56:04.429 --> 01:56:07.230 - a yes or a no So so could I just 01:56:07.394 --> 01:56:17.431 - sort of informally ask how many of you need more time? Do you need more time? Just show of hands. Okay, 01:56:17.431 --> 01:56:27.372 - and folks online as well, so yeah. So that's the motion. Any other discussion? I forgot I was chairing 01:56:27.372 --> 01:56:30.750 - the meeting. Any other discussion? 01:56:32.866 --> 01:56:44.868 - Okay I'm seeing none. Can the clerk please call the roll on the motion to postpone this decision to 01:56:44.868 --> 01:56:57.829 - the next meeting. Council member sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. 01:56:57.829 --> 01:57:02.750 - Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. 01:57:03.170 --> 01:57:13.357 - Yes. All right. Thank you very much. And so we will pick that back up at our following meeting. Apologies 01:57:13.357 --> 01:57:23.064 - if you were here for that. Moving on to legislation for first readings are there any motions. I move 01:57:23.064 --> 01:57:28.350 - that the clerk sorry suddenly forgot my words. I move. 01:57:28.482 --> 01:57:40.924 - that appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six oh one be introduced and read by the clerk by title and 01:57:40.924 --> 01:57:53.728 - synopsis only second motion and a second. Seeing no comments will the clerk please call the roll. Council 01:57:53.728 --> 01:57:55.902 - member Daley yes. 01:58:01.314 --> 01:58:10.616 - Yes, sorry about that rough. Yes Flaherty Yes, Stasberg. Yes, you want Smith Nope Zulig. Yes, 01:58:10.616 --> 01:58:20.611 - and it's sorry. Yes. Will the clerk please? Oh, I'm sorry. Did I skip you councilmember Rosenberger? 01:58:20.611 --> 01:58:26.846 - Sorry, I'm sorry that carries the will the clerk please read I 01:58:37.122 --> 01:58:43.548 - Appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero one approval of additional appropriation for the 01:58:43.548 --> 01:58:50.166 - Department of Public Works Council sponsor is not necessary for this one and the synopsis is as follows 01:58:50.166 --> 01:58:56.719 - Appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero one appropriates funds from the parking meter fund 01:58:56.719 --> 01:59:03.146 - for parking parking a lot resurfacing project Thank you very much I move to discuss ordinance twenty 01:59:03.146 --> 01:59:05.182 - twenty six dash eighteen Twenty 01:59:05.506 --> 01:59:15.866 - Appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero one apologies. Thank you. Second motion in a second. 01:59:15.866 --> 01:59:25.734 - Will the clerk please call the roll on discussing this legislation. Councilmember Rallo. Yes. Ruff. 01:59:25.734 --> 01:59:34.910 - Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. 01:59:35.042 --> 01:59:41.698 - Thank you very much Who is here to talk about this? Thank you, sir. Take it away Good evening council 01:59:41.698 --> 01:59:48.224 - members Adam Wason public works director for the city of Bloomington always an honor to be in front 01:59:48.224 --> 01:59:54.815 - of you So this hopefully will be a pretty simple request in 2025 budget We had appropriated money to 01:59:54.815 --> 02:00:01.405 - resurface the downtown parking lots 1 3 & 5 otherwise known as the buzz Kirk lot or maybe the uptown 02:00:01.405 --> 02:00:03.102 - lot or the library lot or 02:00:03.682 --> 02:00:09.142 - So we had awarded that contract or that project through a low bidding process to Riverside paving and 02:00:09.142 --> 02:00:14.656 - contracting And we did that at the end of 2025 for the amount of with the low bid in the amount of one 02:00:14.656 --> 02:00:20.063 - hundred and thirty four thousand one hundred and thirty nine dollars Unfortunately as we were trying 02:00:20.063 --> 02:00:25.417 - to work through the project scheduling for this project the contractor backed out and stated they'd 02:00:25.417 --> 02:00:28.254 - no longer were interested in performing the work but 02:00:28.962 --> 02:00:35.273 - which left us in quite the bind as we were hoping to get this work done before the summer construction 02:00:35.273 --> 02:00:41.522 - season ended with them backing out and the project already being awarded D.C. construction. We are in 02:00:41.522 --> 02:00:48.446 - the position where we need to ask for that money to now be reappropriated. So it was twenty twenty five dollars. 02:00:49.154 --> 02:00:55.001 - That were appropriated as part of the budget with them backing out we do need to come to you and request 02:00:55.001 --> 02:01:00.848 - a reappropriation of those funds to then or the project to the secondary bidder which is DC construction 02:01:00.848 --> 02:01:06.473 - we would like to do this as quickly as possible so I am asking if it is possible for you to consider 02:01:06.473 --> 02:01:11.262 - this vote in one evening tonight you are allowed to do that under state statute we're 02:01:11.778 --> 02:01:17.883 - getting towards the point in construction season we're trying to fit this in yet before the end of before 02:01:17.883 --> 02:01:23.872 - we finish that up and the contractor could actually come during fall break. So this is an appropriation 02:01:23.872 --> 02:01:29.804 - request in the amount of one hundred and thirty nine thousand one hundred and thirty nine dollars. And 02:01:29.804 --> 02:01:35.621 - I'm happy to answer questions as well as I've got our city controller Jeff McKim here and some legal 02:01:35.621 --> 02:01:37.118 - staff as well. Thank you. 02:01:37.442 --> 02:01:43.392 - Thank you so much. A quick point of information, Attorney Allen, are the folks online able to vote on 02:01:43.392 --> 02:01:49.342 - an ordinance, an appropriation ordinance? Since it's an appropriation ordinance, no, they wouldn't be 02:01:49.342 --> 02:01:55.409 - eligible to vote on it. Okay, but could they vote on the procedure for us to vote on it because we need 02:01:55.409 --> 02:02:01.242 - three-fourths of the body to say yes, correct? We need unanimous consent. It has to be unanimous in 02:02:01.242 --> 02:02:07.134 - order to consider it. Can they vote on the procedure? Typically, there can't be a part of the debate 02:02:07.234 --> 02:02:13.953 - Regarding it either so it'd be need to be unanimous of the members who can participate and since they're 02:02:13.953 --> 02:02:20.352 - unanimous of the members that can participate or unanimous vote So is that everybody or is that and 02:02:20.352 --> 02:02:26.943 - we can come back to that question, but just I mean it is relevant to Director Wayson's point here, but 02:02:26.943 --> 02:02:33.982 - okay Sorry for the procedural thing Go council member Stasberg. So I just want to make sure that I understand 02:02:33.982 --> 02:02:35.390 - what happened. So the 02:02:36.706 --> 02:02:43.787 - I'm gonna try to like dumb this down, right? So there was some money that is like 2025 money that we 02:02:43.787 --> 02:02:50.869 - put in a special pot and said we're gonna use this for paving but now the special pot that we put it 02:02:50.869 --> 02:02:57.950 - in is like gone and so now but that money is still like there right, but the but the pot is gone and 02:02:58.050 --> 02:03:03.751 - That's the where we were gonna pay is gone. So now the money is like free floating still somewhere in 02:03:03.751 --> 02:03:09.619 - the general fund And so you're saying that now we need to put it in a 2026 pot Is that what's happening? 02:03:09.619 --> 02:03:15.264 - Like the money is there and it never got spent, right? But it's in a 2025 pot and now we need to put 02:03:15.264 --> 02:03:20.854 - in a 2026 pot and send it to somebody else Sorry one I'll also answer that but one quick Correction 02:03:20.854 --> 02:03:24.766 - you said the general fund. This is actually in the parking meter fund 02:03:24.898 --> 02:03:31.448 - Okay, so the general fund is not involved in this at all. The term you're looking for is encumbrance, 02:03:31.448 --> 02:03:38.382 - right? So the 2025 is a simple term. Yeah That encumbrance lapsed when the contract doubt died essentially, 02:03:38.382 --> 02:03:45.317 - but the money is still there in the parking meter fund So it's like the same money. It's like not different 02:03:45.317 --> 02:03:51.803 - money It's just saying we're gonna use it in 2026 not 2025 just and then and then the excess over is 02:03:51.803 --> 02:03:52.830 - just like other 02:03:52.994 --> 02:04:01.943 - funds that were budgeted already in 2026 that just haven't been spent and Existing appropriations exactly. 02:04:01.943 --> 02:04:10.558 - Yep Any other questions comments motions councilman Rallo I Had a procedural question, but I asked mr. 02:04:10.558 --> 02:04:18.253 - Allen about it and it just has to do with Whether council members can even attend a meeting 02:04:18.253 --> 02:04:21.598 - or an appropriation ordinances voted on 02:04:22.338 --> 02:04:33.866 - But remotely and what's the answer. I think we're getting a determination soon. I think I mean surely 02:04:33.866 --> 02:04:45.281 - surely surely. I was precluded from attending a meeting where I apologize. And so just thank you all 02:04:45.281 --> 02:04:52.062 - for the grace of allowing me just a moment to look this up. 02:04:52.226 --> 02:04:58.268 - Under Indiana Code 514, 1.5, 3.5, actually among the things that are excluded, since this is just an 02:04:58.268 --> 02:05:04.310 - additional appropriation of money that already exists, it's neither adopting a budget, a referendum, 02:05:04.310 --> 02:05:10.711 - or increasing any penalty or fee or a tax, and therefore there is no problem with the hybrid participation 02:05:10.711 --> 02:05:16.694 - in electronic meetings, so they are full participants and they can vote. I apologize for the error. 02:05:16.694 --> 02:05:17.950 - Thank you very much. 02:05:18.082 --> 02:05:29.076 - We may not vote for it. OK, any other questions, motions? I'll just say that I'd be happy to vote for 02:05:29.076 --> 02:05:40.286 - this today. Can we not beat it to death then? Anyone? Is anybody else? OK, could we have a motion then? 02:05:40.286 --> 02:05:46.430 - I'll entertain it. I move that the council votes on this 02:05:46.626 --> 02:05:56.439 - What would be the right motion to adopt? Wait, I think that we have to have a special other emotion 02:05:56.439 --> 02:06:06.349 - and I I'll try to find it real fast. It was somewhere in our CCP paperwork stuff from From from Lisa 02:06:06.349 --> 02:06:14.494 - Yeah, Tony Allen, I mean just so just so that we do this correctly, I mean we want 02:06:15.234 --> 02:06:22.519 - So there does need to be a special motion the motion would be a motion to a Motion to proceed to a vote 02:06:22.519 --> 02:06:29.944 - after first reading and so it's very simply that and then it needs to be unanimous consent to be a pretty 02:06:29.944 --> 02:06:37.089 - I Move to proceed to a vote after first reading Second motion in a second. Will the clerk please call 02:06:37.089 --> 02:06:44.094 - the roll on the motion to proceed to first reading I'm sorry to vote after first reading. Thank you 02:06:46.626 --> 02:06:59.560 - Yes, just to clarify who did the second All right, and then moving on for the votes councilmember Ruff. 02:06:59.560 --> 02:07:12.120 - Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty Yes Stossburg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. 02:07:12.120 --> 02:07:14.110 - Yes, Rallo. Yes 02:07:14.402 --> 02:07:20.999 - Okay that carries do I have a motion then to adopt I move to adopt appropriation ordinance twenty twenty 02:07:20.999 --> 02:07:27.470 - six dash zero one second motion and a second will the clerk please call the roll. Oh wait have we gone 02:07:27.470 --> 02:07:33.753 - to public. We have to go to public comment. I'm sorry. So it is now on the table to be adopted. I'd 02:07:33.753 --> 02:07:40.350 - love to go to public comment if anybody has public comment on this. Thank you so much. Councilman Smith. 02:07:40.482 --> 02:07:51.837 - Anybody in chambers have public comment on appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six oh one seeing none 02:07:51.837 --> 02:08:03.192 - anyone online Give them a moment No, still no. Okay, fantastic in which case Will the clerk please call 02:08:03.192 --> 02:08:10.398 - the roll? Councilmember Rosenberger No Flaherty Yeah Stasberg yes 02:08:11.202 --> 02:08:18.120 - Edmund Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Rough. Yes. Thank you. Thank you 02:08:18.120 --> 02:08:25.452 - very much. And Councilmember Rosenberger no pressure but would you like to say why no or because I didn't 02:08:25.452 --> 02:08:32.647 - give space for public comment I mean for comment before we voted. I know you did it and I was like it's 02:08:32.647 --> 02:08:39.979 - OK but I would just rather use parking meter funds for other things and do this out of like a resurfacing 02:08:39.979 --> 02:08:41.086 - budget instead. 02:08:42.466 --> 02:08:50.506 - Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you Director Wason. We're moving on. Are there any motions. 02:08:50.506 --> 02:08:58.237 - I move that ordinance 20 26 dash 19 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. 02:08:58.237 --> 02:09:06.586 - Second motion and a second. Any discussion. Seeing none. Will the clerk please call the roll. Councilmember 02:09:06.586 --> 02:09:10.142 - Flaherty yes Stasberg yes Piedmont Smith yes. 02:09:12.482 --> 02:09:23.216 - The leg. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Rough. Yes. Burger. Did you hear the last one. 02:09:23.216 --> 02:09:34.503 - I did not. But was rough the last one. I'm the last one. I'm a yes. Thank you. That carries. Will the 02:09:34.503 --> 02:09:36.606 - clerk please read. 02:09:37.922 --> 02:09:43.703 - Ordinance twenty twenty six dash nineteen amending title two to align job titles with the collective 02:09:43.703 --> 02:09:49.770 - bargaining agreement with the Don Owens Memorial Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police council sponsors. 02:09:49.770 --> 02:09:55.666 - Councilmember Rallo the synopsis is as follows this ordinance amends section two point three two point 02:09:55.666 --> 02:10:01.504 - zero two zero a one of the Bloomington Municipal Code and replaces the title of senior police officer 02:10:01.504 --> 02:10:06.942 - with officer first class and the previous officer first class title with officer second class. 02:10:08.738 --> 02:10:18.612 - Thank you very much. I move to discuss ordinance twenty twenty six dash 19 second. Will the clerk please 02:10:18.612 --> 02:10:28.298 - call the roll. Council member Stossberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. 02:10:28.298 --> 02:10:36.574 - Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. 02:10:36.674 --> 02:10:51.636 - Who's is there someone presenting. Thank you very much. Welcome. Welcome. Good evening members of council 02:10:51.636 --> 02:11:03.070 - and Edina Casamania and I'm assistant city attorney for the city of Bloomington. 02:11:03.874 --> 02:11:11.722 - I'm here tonight to present a proposed ordinance that updates our municipal code to reflect the collective 02:11:11.722 --> 02:11:19.496 - bargaining agreement between with the Fraternal Order of Police the Don Owens Memorial Lodge 88 Fraternal 02:11:19.496 --> 02:11:27.124 - Order of Police. So this is pretty simple change small change to align our code with the new collective 02:11:27.124 --> 02:11:32.478 - bargaining agreement. This ordinance proposes to title changes the first 02:11:32.866 --> 02:11:43.153 - Title change will be of senior police officer updated to that officer first class the second The previous 02:11:43.153 --> 02:11:53.440 - officer first class will then shift to officer second class This amendment explicitly names the Fraternal 02:11:53.440 --> 02:11:59.166 - Order of Police as the exclusive bargaining representative 02:11:59.298 --> 02:12:05.892 - for a unit that includes officer first class sergeants with no supervisory duties and officers second 02:12:05.892 --> 02:12:12.615 - class. The update ensures that our city code accurately reflects our union agreements and supports fair 02:12:12.615 --> 02:12:19.209 - structured compensation for our officers moving forward into our 20 27 and beyond. And so it's pretty 02:12:19.209 --> 02:12:25.933 - within the packet you have the memo that is detailed a little more. If you have any questions I'm happy 02:12:25.933 --> 02:12:27.678 - to answer those questions. 02:12:32.098 --> 02:12:41.063 - Thank you. Any questions. Yes. The anticipated fiscal impact is four hundred fifty thousand dollars 02:12:41.063 --> 02:12:50.297 - in additional per contributions over the life of the bargaining agreement. Has one fourth of that been 02:12:50.297 --> 02:12:59.262 - budgeted for twenty twenty seven. You repeat the question again. Can you repeat that question. Has. 02:12:59.458 --> 02:13:08.009 - the appropriate amount in additional perf funds perf Contributions been budgeted in next year's budget 02:13:08.009 --> 02:13:16.311 - Jeff mckim Yes, the short answer is yes, the collective bargaining unit or agreement has been fully 02:13:16.311 --> 02:13:24.862 - Instantiated in the budget proposal Thank you, and then I have one other question if I may yes, please 02:13:25.538 --> 02:13:33.319 - So in one of the whereas clauses it says the Board of Public Safety Received a memo outlining the components 02:13:33.319 --> 02:13:40.529 - of the collective bargaining agreements and the amendment to title two It just said they received it 02:13:40.529 --> 02:13:47.739 - Did they have to vote on it or they just got it as an FYI? It was more of an FYI the Board of Public 02:13:47.739 --> 02:13:54.878 - Safety had a chance to see it and know what was going to be coming forward on May 12th 2026 so they 02:13:55.906 --> 02:14:04.640 - They did not vote on it, but they had a chance to see. Okay. So there's no requirement for them to write. 02:14:04.640 --> 02:14:13.209 - There's no requirement for them to vote. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Other questions 02:14:13.209 --> 02:14:21.530 - online. Any questions. Would I'm comfortable as sponsor like to say anything. I have nothing to add. 02:14:21.530 --> 02:14:24.414 - Okay. I support this. And motions. 02:14:25.282 --> 02:14:32.986 - Speaking for myself also happy to vote on this today Point of I Don't know clarity, I guess can we vote 02:14:32.986 --> 02:14:40.467 - on this before we actually vote on the bargaining agreement resolution. It's good question I'll make 02:14:40.467 --> 02:14:48.319 - a motion. But wait, can we get an answer to can we get an answer to the yeah to the point of information? 02:14:48.319 --> 02:14:51.134 - Yes Yes, can can we um, yeah and like 02:14:52.130 --> 02:14:57.616 - phasing this like it's on the agenda now but does this have to go with something else or is this sort 02:14:57.616 --> 02:15:03.264 - of anticipatory because it doesn't bind us to voting on the next thing though does it? It's anticipatory 02:15:03.264 --> 02:15:08.912 - the other thing is if for some reason you were to decide not to pass the collective bargaining agreement 02:15:08.912 --> 02:15:14.291 - which included this language then the ordinance would be of no effect necessarily and so that's the 02:15:14.291 --> 02:15:15.582 - risk that you would run 02:15:16.034 --> 02:15:24.614 - And also the would you say and maybe this is a question for controller McKim the the fiscal impact is 02:15:24.614 --> 02:15:33.698 - it appropriately attached to this or is it really the fiscal impact of the collective bargaining agreement? 02:15:33.698 --> 02:15:42.193 - The fiscal impact that was included in this particular piece of legislation is specifically included 02:15:42.193 --> 02:15:45.726 - is specific to this legislation it is not 02:15:46.146 --> 02:15:52.229 - The there's a separate fiscal impact. However, I will say that the overall collective bargaining unit 02:15:52.229 --> 02:15:58.313 - There are collective bargaining agreement fiscal impact does include this amount It's the full amount 02:15:58.313 --> 02:16:04.277 - of the contract suit I'm saying not totally could you explain explain explain the mechanism? I mean 02:16:04.277 --> 02:16:05.470 - the short answer is 02:16:05.538 --> 02:16:12.719 - This the fiscal impact for this particular piece of legislation is appropriately attached to this legislation 02:16:12.719 --> 02:16:19.836 - What I mean to say is that by changing title to no money is going to leave city coffers until the collective 02:16:19.836 --> 02:16:26.364 - bargaining agreement is is is Adapted it's correct, right? So so so the the fiscal impact is not of 02:16:26.364 --> 02:16:32.958 - us changing the language in title to it is of the Reason why we might need to change the language in 02:16:32.958 --> 02:16:35.504 - title to that's that's what I'm asking 02:16:35.504 --> 02:16:45.510 - Right. OK. So if we vote today we are not you know committing to anything. We're just making space so 02:16:45.510 --> 02:16:55.516 - that it's easier to to do that when time comes. Should we need to. So that's why I'm happy to vote on 02:16:55.516 --> 02:17:01.598 - it. But oh but I'll accept any motions or we can move on. Oh. 02:17:02.146 --> 02:17:23.977 - Public comment does anybody would like to give public comment at this time? Please mr. Post Well, we 02:17:23.977 --> 02:17:31.326 - lost our pen I'm here It's hidden 02:17:37.218 --> 02:17:44.013 - We've got it. We'll keep it all official here Okay Good evening council members Paul post president 02:17:44.013 --> 02:17:51.147 - FOP lodge 88 I represent the men and women of the BPD's collective bargaining unit Thank you for hearing 02:17:51.147 --> 02:17:58.281 - this matter tonight We appreciate mayor Thompson and her administration and working with us much earlier 02:17:58.281 --> 02:18:02.494 - this year in our bargaining sessions toward the next contract 02:18:03.138 --> 02:18:08.064 - This proposed language change the ordinance is a creative solution to help position ourselves in the 02:18:08.064 --> 02:18:13.088 - environment the financial environment we see going forward. We hope that this will keep us competitive 02:18:13.088 --> 02:18:17.965 - in terms of our peer rankings on the certified salary list for years to come as well as help retain 02:18:17.965 --> 02:18:23.281 - experienced officers for a few more years of service to the city. The proposed language change the ordinance 02:18:23.281 --> 02:18:28.256 - was considered by the members of the bargaining unit earlier this year who voted positively to accept 02:18:28.256 --> 02:18:31.134 - the changes as a necessary component of the next contract. 02:18:32.002 --> 02:18:38.246 - We stand in support of the amendment to Title 2 and ask for your support as well. Thank you. Thank you 02:18:38.246 --> 02:18:44.489 - very much. Anybody else in in council chambers would like to make a comment. Anyone online. All right. 02:18:44.489 --> 02:18:48.126 - We'll come back to council. Any comments motions otherwise. 02:19:04.418 --> 02:19:16.968 - Move to vote on ordinance 20 26-19 after first reading second There's a motion a second any discussion. 02:19:16.968 --> 02:19:29.397 - I Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Piedmont Smith Zulik yes, sorry. Yes, daily. Yes, 02:19:29.397 --> 02:19:33.982 - Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger Yes 02:19:34.434 --> 02:20:00.407 - Clarity yes Stossberg yes I move to adopt ordinance twenty twenty six dash eighteen second Councilmember 02:20:00.407 --> 02:20:03.870 - Zoellick yes. 02:20:05.410 --> 02:20:15.323 - I'm sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. 02:20:15.323 --> 02:20:25.336 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Thank you. That carries. Thank you very much. We'll now move to the next thing. 02:20:25.336 --> 02:20:34.654 - I move that ordinance 2026-20 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. 02:20:35.522 --> 02:20:46.437 - Second motion a second. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember, sorry. Yes Daley. Yes, Rallo. 02:20:46.437 --> 02:20:56.425 - Yes, Ruff. Yes, Rosenbacher. Yeah clarity Yeah Stasberg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes and Zulik. Yes. 02:20:56.425 --> 02:21:01.470 - Thank you. Thank you. Will the clerk please read 02:21:05.026 --> 02:21:11.462 - Ordinance 2026 dash 20 amending title 20 of the Bloomington municipal code to improve sustainability 02:21:11.462 --> 02:21:18.344 - and housing affordability pursuant to council resolution 2026 dash oh five council sponsor is Councilmember 02:21:18.344 --> 02:21:20.702 - clarity. The synopsis is as follows. 02:21:20.802 --> 02:21:27.654 - This ordinance contains amendments to the unified development ordinance per directives outlined in resolution 02:21:27.654 --> 02:21:34.319 - twenty twenty six dash zero five a resolution to initiate a proposal to amend title 20 unified development 02:21:34.319 --> 02:21:40.922 - ordinance of the Bloomington Municipal Code in order to improve sustainability and housing affordability. 02:21:40.922 --> 02:21:47.774 - I move to discuss ordinance twenty twenty six dash 20 second motion a second with the clerk we call the roll. 02:21:50.306 --> 02:21:59.897 - Yes. Councilmember Daley. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. 02:21:59.897 --> 02:22:09.489 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. Councilmember Flaherty would you like to start 02:22:09.489 --> 02:22:15.262 - off or is there do you have somebody else presenting as well. 02:22:16.290 --> 02:22:22.294 - I'm happy to start. I assume that the Planning and Transportation staff, who are the folks who assisted 02:22:22.294 --> 02:22:28.067 - the Planning Commission in developing these recommendations, will probably present. So yeah, just a 02:22:28.067 --> 02:22:33.956 - reminder that this came by way of direction from the council with a 9-0 vote on resolution 2026-05 in 02:22:33.956 --> 02:22:39.844 - May of this year. I think it was May 20th. And I'll just say thank you also to staff for meeting this 02:22:39.844 --> 02:22:45.502 - statutory and ordinance or resolution deadlines on getting this back to us in less than 120 days. 02:22:45.762 --> 02:22:51.227 - That's appreciated. So yeah, look forward to digging in. I definitely have some questions myself, 02:22:51.227 --> 02:22:56.859 - you know, based on the details that evolved from staff and planning commission discussion. But yeah, 02:22:56.859 --> 02:23:02.436 - I'll turn it over to planning and transportation staff at this time. Fantastic. Director Grulick or 02:23:02.436 --> 02:23:05.726 - Director Coyne? Okay, fantastic. Mr. Grulick, to you, sir. 02:23:10.914 --> 02:23:19.087 - Thank you Eric really development services manager. So I'm here tonight to present The proposed changes 02:23:19.087 --> 02:23:27.574 - that were directed to staff from this resolution So as as has been noted the City Council directed planning 02:23:27.574 --> 02:23:35.589 - staff to bring forward changes to the unified development ordinance to reflect certain directives and 02:23:35.589 --> 02:23:38.654 - initiatives within that resolution and 02:23:40.034 --> 02:23:48.254 - Give a minute. I think there's a slight lag There we go So the City Council gave directive to the Planning 02:23:48.254 --> 02:23:56.398 - Commission to bring forward certain changes to the unified development ordinance looking at very specific 02:23:56.398 --> 02:24:04.080 - elements within the UDO So it's important to note that while we did certainly make these changes in 02:24:04.080 --> 02:24:07.998 - accordance with the resolution this also serves to 02:24:08.098 --> 02:24:14.541 - Fulfill requirements from a recent house bill that directed local governments to look at aspects of 02:24:14.541 --> 02:24:21.048 - their unified development ordinance That can be adjusted to increase housing within the community So 02:24:21.048 --> 02:24:27.942 - this resolution accomplishes many goals Certainly bring us into compliance with that with having a hearing 02:24:27.942 --> 02:24:34.513 - as well as changes that we will have to document with a reporting requirement to the state at the end 02:24:34.513 --> 02:24:36.446 - of the year so the resolution 02:24:36.930 --> 02:24:44.120 - Just real briefly Directed the Planning Commission staff to bring forward changes looking at minimum 02:24:44.120 --> 02:24:51.310 - lot width and lot area requirements within residential zones as well as within other mixed-use zones 02:24:51.310 --> 02:24:58.927 - Also directed us to consider reductions and setback requirements Look at all terrain subdivision standards 02:24:58.927 --> 02:25:02.558 - impervious surface coverage lot frontage standards 02:25:02.658 --> 02:25:11.081 - In order to improve housing attainability within the community Also directed us to bring forward language 02:25:11.081 --> 02:25:19.028 - regarding certain electrification components with incentives and including that within planned unit 02:25:19.028 --> 02:25:27.451 - development qualifying standards and then lastly directed us to bring forward amendment to remove parking 02:25:27.451 --> 02:25:29.438 - minimums in all zones by 02:25:29.634 --> 02:25:36.950 - So to that end we looked at the unified development ordinance and the resolution language to see what 02:25:36.950 --> 02:25:44.267 - Adjustments could be made So as I mentioned we looked at a lot width standards lot area standards and 02:25:44.267 --> 02:25:51.655 - are proposing changes across the board in all of the residential zoning districts So you can see those 02:25:51.655 --> 02:25:53.950 - on the screen and in the packet 02:25:54.050 --> 02:26:01.598 - So all kind of you can see the numbers and then I'll kind of go through a little bit with some illustrations 02:26:01.598 --> 02:26:08.937 - of how we got to these numbers So as I mentioned we did propose and the Plaint Commission brought forward 02:26:08.937 --> 02:26:15.862 - this language as well Reducing lot area lot width standards across the board also adjusting setback 02:26:15.862 --> 02:26:21.886 - standards So we are introducing a build to range within the r3 and r4 and RM districts 02:26:21.986 --> 02:26:29.459 - That is to give a little bit more flexibility for front yard setbacks for buildings Allowing for buildings 02:26:29.459 --> 02:26:36.094 - to be even closer in a lot of situations to improve and increase develop ability of properties 02:26:36.194 --> 02:26:43.277 - We are proposing to Adjust the side yard building setback standards. So in all of the districts we are 02:26:43.277 --> 02:26:50.499 - getting rid of the additional setback requirement that was present for second stir second story portions 02:26:50.499 --> 02:26:57.513 - of a house within the r2 district we are Decreasing the side yard setback for requirement from 8 feet 02:26:57.513 --> 02:27:01.502 - to 6 feet the r3 district side yard setback standards are 02:27:01.602 --> 02:27:08.706 - Staying at four feet and then the are four district. We are proposing to go down to zero feet We're 02:27:08.706 --> 02:27:15.811 - also proposing to decrease the rear yard setback requirement in these districts as well as increase 02:27:15.811 --> 02:27:23.128 - the impervious surface coverage Allowance within these districts as well the Plain Commission did also 02:27:23.128 --> 02:27:28.030 - extend the impervious surface coverage increase to the MM and MN and 02:27:28.226 --> 02:27:35.208 - district as there are a lot of lots that are Occupied with single-family residences or present in some 02:27:35.208 --> 02:27:42.055 - areas of the city that have been developed with single-family Residences and so this gives a greater 02:27:42.055 --> 02:27:49.104 - allowance for use of those properties So some of the language within the resolution directed us to look 02:27:49.104 --> 02:27:56.222 - at two specific planned unit developments that it had been approved within the past 10 or 15 years or so 02:27:56.322 --> 02:28:03.772 - One of those was the South Dunn Street PUD That is by Hillside and Henderson and then the second PUD 02:28:03.772 --> 02:28:10.558 - was a PUD that was done on the corner of Dodds and Morton about ten years ago or so ish and 02:28:10.786 --> 02:28:17.983 - Both of these developments had very narrow lots and reduced lot sizes. So the South Dunn Street PUD 02:28:17.983 --> 02:28:25.396 - had lot widths that were about 40 feet wide and 4,500 square feet. But they also featured several lots 02:28:25.396 --> 02:28:32.593 - that were on corners that I'm going to call half lots. And I'll show you in just a minute how these 02:28:32.593 --> 02:28:39.934 - half lots are very indicative of a lot of situations that we see in the community where you have lots 02:28:40.034 --> 02:28:47.945 - That are about 40 or 50 feet wide and can be about 2,500 square feet So those lots were present in the 02:28:47.945 --> 02:28:55.703 - Dunn Street PUD and then the other PUD that we were directed to look at was the PUD that I mentioned 02:28:55.703 --> 02:29:00.158 - on Dodds and Morton so these lots were 28 feet wide had a 02:29:00.674 --> 02:29:07.652 - Lot size of about thirty nine hundred square feet had certainly reduced side yard setbacks and impervious 02:29:07.652 --> 02:29:14.498 - surface coverage so the resolution directed us to look at those two PUDs as kind of a role a role model 02:29:14.498 --> 02:29:21.279 - of what development standards could look like So as I mentioned with those half lots in the South Dunn 02:29:21.279 --> 02:29:28.125 - Street PUD We also looked at and found and we encountered this very frequently within the city for lots 02:29:28.125 --> 02:29:29.310 - that were created 02:29:29.442 --> 02:29:36.284 - Prior to the the 73 subdivision code that had minimum lot size and lot width requirements We saw a lot 02:29:36.284 --> 02:29:42.992 - of situations within the community where you had properties that had been platted as a typical 50 or 02:29:42.992 --> 02:29:49.901 - 60 foot wide lot 130 or so ish feet deep that had been subdivided at time to create lots or a half that 02:29:49.901 --> 02:29:53.886 - size so you can see here an example that is very common and 02:29:54.434 --> 02:30:00.023 - Some of the older neighborhoods where you had a lot you have a lot that was created. There's about 40 02:30:00.023 --> 02:30:05.557 - or 50 feet wide about 2,500 square feet So you can see certainly the prevalence of reduced side yard 02:30:05.557 --> 02:30:11.200 - setbacks And then the need to increase the allowable impervious surface coverage to allow for the type 02:30:11.200 --> 02:30:16.789 - of lot Development that you see here. So again, just kind of a little bit different view of that same 02:30:16.789 --> 02:30:20.350 - situation where you've got these lots That have been cut in half 02:30:20.482 --> 02:30:27.345 - That are about that that 2500 square foot lot size. So that's how we came up with the numbers for the 02:30:27.345 --> 02:30:34.410 - proposed Minimal lot size in the r3 and r4 district to kind of replicate and mimic this historic pattern 02:30:34.410 --> 02:30:41.206 - that we have seen In some of the neighborhoods within Bloomington So one of the other key components 02:30:41.206 --> 02:30:47.934 - that staff looked at with the resolution was one of the goals to allow for the creation of lots and 02:30:48.546 --> 02:30:54.868 - That alter one of the current standards within the unified development ordinance that all lots have 02:30:54.868 --> 02:31:01.442 - to front on a public street And those lots have to meet the minimum lot width and lot area requirements 02:31:01.442 --> 02:31:07.764 - of the district So we've certainly seen a lot of situations in Bloomington where you have lots That 02:31:07.764 --> 02:31:14.149 - are very deep or you have very large backyards of lots that are underutilized With this we we looked 02:31:14.149 --> 02:31:17.310 - at the possibility of allowing lots to be created 02:31:17.410 --> 02:31:23.895 - just off of an alley. One of the challenges that we encountered as we worked through this language was 02:31:23.895 --> 02:31:29.751 - making sure that we were meeting fire code requirements so that fire trucks could adequately 02:31:29.751 --> 02:31:33.214 - serve properties, as that is obviously very important. 02:31:33.378 --> 02:31:38.979 - and so we came up language that was was heavily discussed and vetted with the fire department as well 02:31:38.979 --> 02:31:44.579 - as engineering department Street department and all of the city departments to make sure that what we 02:31:44.579 --> 02:31:50.070 - were coming forward with was something that worked for a variety of city departments So we have two 02:31:50.070 --> 02:31:55.726 - different Allowances that are being introduced in this language one of those and I have a graphic here 02:31:55.726 --> 02:31:58.142 - that will kind of show that in a second and 02:31:58.786 --> 02:32:05.114 - Allows for a lot to be created that doesn't meet that typical lot width on the street standard So it 02:32:05.114 --> 02:32:11.442 - allows for a lot to be created that doesn't exceed six feet in width But provides that there is a no 02:32:11.442 --> 02:32:17.833 - build easement That is planted along that six foot stretch that gets back to where that new house was 02:32:17.833 --> 02:32:24.161 - being is being constructed and then also additional language that says that no portion of that house 02:32:24.161 --> 02:32:25.790 - may be more than 150 feet 02:32:26.082 --> 02:32:33.206 - From the street. So again that is to address fire code requirements Outlining that they're able to get 02:32:33.206 --> 02:32:40.262 - to all portions of a house Since we are looking at creating a situation where a house would be placed 02:32:40.262 --> 02:32:47.248 - behind another house And couldn't easily be seen from the street So the second standard here that we 02:32:47.248 --> 02:32:54.718 - are proposing to incorporate deals with a situation where you know, you have a lot that is much deeper than 02:32:54.882 --> 02:33:00.470 - That that the house would be more than 150 feet from the street And so in that case in order to meet 02:33:00.470 --> 02:33:06.113 - fire code requirements, they would want a 20 foot wide fire road Moving down the side of the property 02:33:06.113 --> 02:33:11.646 - to get to the back side of that lot where the house would be So I'll show just kind of real quickly 02:33:11.646 --> 02:33:17.676 - what those two scenarios would look like so this situation here would be the first one that I was describing 02:33:17.676 --> 02:33:20.830 - we're a six foot no build easement would be required and 02:33:20.930 --> 02:33:26.935 - And this would allow for a portion of the back of a property to be subdivided off and utilized So while 02:33:26.935 --> 02:33:33.056 - this particular example here does have an alley on the back. The alley is not a factor in this particular 02:33:33.056 --> 02:33:38.889 - scenario It's just simply showing that a six-foot no-build easement would be required along The side 02:33:38.889 --> 02:33:44.894 - of the property where you're getting access and then would allow for that lot to be created in the back 02:33:46.402 --> 02:33:52.399 - And then the second scenario here that I was describing dealt with the situation where you have a lot 02:33:52.399 --> 02:33:58.455 - that greatly exceeds that 150 foot distance And so in order to for fire department to be able to serve 02:33:58.455 --> 02:34:04.629 - that new lot in that house in the back You would have a 20 foot wide fire access road that would provide 02:34:04.629 --> 02:34:11.038 - service to that that new house in the back so those are the two scenarios that we are proposing to allow and 02:34:11.234 --> 02:34:17.733 - with the the changes to the subdivision code so we are removing the the four to one depth the width 02:34:17.733 --> 02:34:24.426 - ratio that also has been Challenging in the past for the creation of these lots. So we're hopeful that 02:34:24.426 --> 02:34:31.055 - you know these state these these alterations that we are proposing with the setbacks minimum lot area 02:34:31.055 --> 02:34:37.553 - minimum lot width and then a lot frontage requirements will allow for new lots to be created within 02:34:37.553 --> 02:34:38.398 - the city and 02:34:38.658 --> 02:34:44.225 - You know, certainly in terms of the new loss being created, we don't we don't expect that this will 02:34:44.225 --> 02:34:49.958 - solve all the problems. But with all of these amendments, you know, we're looking to adjust the needle 02:34:49.958 --> 02:34:55.914 - a little bit to allow situations where more lots could be created. Obviously, it's situational and depends 02:34:55.914 --> 02:35:01.982 - on where existing houses are in a lot. But it does give an allowance where there is where there is none now. 02:35:02.594 --> 02:35:11.347 - So the next section of the resolution dealt with kind of three components or two components one of those 02:35:11.347 --> 02:35:20.016 - was a Request to add language dealing with electricity and other non or other renewable energy sources, 02:35:20.016 --> 02:35:27.518 - so we did bring forward language regarding that and then the second component to this was 02:35:27.682 --> 02:35:34.063 - adding this requirement within the qualifying standards for PDs and then also adding it within 02:35:34.063 --> 02:35:40.848 - the Sustainable development incentive language as well as a requirement for projects that are coming 02:35:40.848 --> 02:35:47.901 - forward using the sustainable development incentives So we included language from that that was slightly 02:35:47.901 --> 02:35:53.342 - modified from the Planning Commission, but that is in the the current packet and 02:35:53.762 --> 02:36:00.851 - And then the last standard that was in the resolution Was to bring forward a amendment to eliminate 02:36:00.851 --> 02:36:08.225 - minimum parking requirements in all zones So we did bring forward language striking the minimum parking 02:36:08.225 --> 02:36:15.385 - requirements for vehicles The Plain Commission did feel that in order to be fully compliant with the 02:36:15.385 --> 02:36:20.702 - resolution that directed us to remove all parking minimums They also added 02:36:20.994 --> 02:36:28.032 - Eliminating bicycle parking minimum requirements as well. So that was added at the Planning Commission 02:36:28.032 --> 02:36:35.003 - stage So with that the Planning Commission did vote at the August hearing to forward this to you with 02:36:35.003 --> 02:36:40.606 - a 6-2 favorable Recommendation and so with that I'm happy to answer any questions 02:36:41.858 --> 02:36:50.730 - Fantastic. Um, thank you very much. I am very happy that the sort of Potential of the resolution has 02:36:50.730 --> 02:36:59.603 - met the opportunity of the ordinance see what I did there. No, okay. We'll go to councilmember Rallo 02:36:59.603 --> 02:37:08.387 - first Thank you, mr. Gerlich I had a question about This has come up in the past impervious surface 02:37:08.387 --> 02:37:11.198 - coverage maximum in the various 02:37:11.298 --> 02:37:22.785 - Residential districts are one or two or three or four RM Etc and it goes up to This is on page. I don't 02:37:22.785 --> 02:37:33.830 - know what this is. It's on I see it's on page 103 No 104 I'm not sure that's relevant to the actual 02:37:33.830 --> 02:37:40.126 - packet. It's probably It's probably the the code, right? 02:37:40.866 --> 02:37:49.940 - But do you see where I'm talking about we're under other standards So it changes are two to from 40 02:37:49.940 --> 02:37:59.105 - to 60 are three from 45 to 70 are four from 50 to 80, etc so in coming up with those numbers and I'm 02:37:59.105 --> 02:38:08.542 - just wondering about like aggregate impact of this have you done, you know an analysis where this would 02:38:10.242 --> 02:38:16.638 - Where this would occur relative have you talked to utilities first of all has utilities weighed in and 02:38:16.638 --> 02:38:22.847 - said because We just heard doing budget they're gonna spend five hundred thousand or they intend to 02:38:22.847 --> 02:38:29.180 - spend five hundred thousand dollars on a plan for an artificial wetland in part to control stormwater 02:38:29.180 --> 02:38:35.514 - Right. So we're we're doing something to mitigate stormwater Impervious surface increasing impervious 02:38:35.514 --> 02:38:38.494 - surface is increasing stormwater runoff, right? 02:38:38.626 --> 02:38:44.995 - Yes, sorry working. Are we working cross-purposes here? So yes, we did communicate with utilities department 02:38:44.995 --> 02:38:50.897 - and their director their director did indicate that you know She did not have any concerns with this 02:38:50.897 --> 02:38:57.033 - impervious surface increase You know as I mentioned, you know, we're seeing adding we're proposing these 02:38:57.033 --> 02:39:01.182 - changes to hope to have small incremental additions to your houses and 02:39:01.314 --> 02:39:07.336 - Better utilization of lots so the the impervious surface coverage for the r3 and the the r4 district, 02:39:07.336 --> 02:39:13.593 - you know As I mentioned here, that's that's really essential if you want to allow for those those smaller 02:39:13.593 --> 02:39:19.792 - lots You know those 50 by 50 lots that you know to apply the same 40 percent Impervious surface coverage 02:39:19.792 --> 02:39:24.574 - would severely limit what you could do on those lots. So if we want to still see 02:39:24.642 --> 02:39:29.888 - You know an average size a house of you know, a thousand square foot footprint or something of that 02:39:29.888 --> 02:39:35.134 - effect You know, you're going to have to relieve those impervious surface coverage numbers in order 02:39:35.134 --> 02:39:40.853 - to allow for that to actually happen So the two kind of have to go hand-in-hand but to answer your question. 02:39:40.853 --> 02:39:46.099 - Yes, we did talk to utilities department You know, certainly they are aware of the stormwater needs 02:39:46.099 --> 02:39:51.660 - within the community and are working on various projects to try to address that but she was not concerned 02:39:51.660 --> 02:39:53.758 - with This increase that we're proposing 02:39:54.594 --> 02:40:01.618 - Okay, what what I really like to see is I mean we live in the age of AI, right? I should be able to 02:40:01.618 --> 02:40:08.852 - ask Gemini Given a hundred lots that could be essentially subdivided I mean, I assume we're doing this 02:40:08.852 --> 02:40:16.016 - in order to have an impact of some kind and so Okay, we should be able to anticipate what that impact 02:40:16.016 --> 02:40:20.862 - is for a period of time how many how many lots would be affected and 02:40:21.090 --> 02:40:27.226 - What's the total surface area? What would be the runoff impact and then? Compare it to what we're going 02:40:27.226 --> 02:40:33.303 - to mitigate that should be an analysis that we could ask for Yeah, so certainly you have two scenarios 02:40:33.303 --> 02:40:39.380 - there one where you've got the currently built environment within neighborhoods of Bloomington and you 02:40:39.380 --> 02:40:43.038 - have somebody that wants to do an addition to their house and 02:40:43.138 --> 02:40:48.920 - You know, so it's it's a negligible increase on that particular property You know where they're adding 02:40:48.920 --> 02:40:54.534 - on to the back of their house and they're you know adding another 15% onto that particular lot, you 02:40:54.534 --> 02:41:00.484 - know You're in a built environment where you've got streets. You've got certain stormwater infrastructure 02:41:00.484 --> 02:41:01.214 - and so these 02:41:02.210 --> 02:41:07.206 - Random also might call them, you know utilization where people are adding onto their houses You know 02:41:07.206 --> 02:41:12.202 - certainly one scenario and then you've got the different scenario where you've got a vacant piece of 02:41:12.202 --> 02:41:17.248 - ground that is being developed With a brand new subdivision that would be utilizing these Reduced lot 02:41:17.248 --> 02:41:22.441 - sizes that are currently under place and so the stormwater system within that subdivision would be built 02:41:22.441 --> 02:41:23.134 - to handle all 02:41:23.298 --> 02:41:29.371 - What this impervious surface coverage would foresee as you know kind of the I'll say worst-case scenario 02:41:29.371 --> 02:41:35.386 - of you know Every single lot is built to that maximum pervious surface coverage What are the stormwater 02:41:35.386 --> 02:41:41.170 - detention facilities that are needed within that subdivision to handle that capacity? so stormwater 02:41:41.170 --> 02:41:47.069 - would be addressed in those situations more obviously more heavily with a brand new subdivision where 02:41:47.069 --> 02:41:51.870 - it would be designed from the scratch to meet all those needs but the You know the 02:41:52.290 --> 02:41:57.625 - Incorporation of individual lots scattered throughout the city that might utilize this impact You know 02:41:57.625 --> 02:42:03.063 - would disperse that enough that it's not all of a sudden one neighborhood where there's a great increase 02:42:03.063 --> 02:42:08.605 - You know, it's just very similar to you know, the amount of building permits that we see now for additions 02:42:08.605 --> 02:42:13.836 - and remodels You know, we don't expect that to go up substantially but you know as I mentioned these 02:42:13.836 --> 02:42:16.478 - are necessary if you want to get a smaller lot and 02:42:16.578 --> 02:42:23.036 - The backside of a property somehow and allow that to have a reasonable house in there, you know You've 02:42:23.036 --> 02:42:29.681 - got to give on some of these now I get it and I understand trade-offs I guess I'd like maybe some numbers 02:42:29.681 --> 02:42:36.202 - like you know a scenario Painting a scenario given this what's the impact because stormwater mitigation 02:42:36.202 --> 02:42:42.910 - is expensive You know, I mean just to plan for this thing is half a million dollars comes from a rough-ass 02:42:43.106 --> 02:42:49.988 - What would we anticipate the number wasn't given but it was certainly in the multi millions So anyway, 02:42:49.988 --> 02:42:56.869 - thank you for yeah, I can try to see maybe what kind of Objective data we can come up with for you And 02:42:56.869 --> 02:43:03.617 - I'll just I'm just sort of maybe set scope a little bit. I don't think Some people already expressed 02:43:03.617 --> 02:43:10.566 - they do not want to vote on this tonight. So So we will be doing at least a second reading. So anything 02:43:10.566 --> 02:43:11.902 - you can't answer is 02:43:12.034 --> 02:43:18.905 - collect for next time. And so I'll go to Council Member Flaherty, please, and then we'll come back to 02:43:18.905 --> 02:43:25.708 - Council Member Sosberg. Thanks. I had a couple questions related to the impervious surface thing and 02:43:25.708 --> 02:43:32.714 - also the minimums. So highlighted in the slides were a portion of the resolution that said, in addition 02:43:32.714 --> 02:43:35.678 - to R1 through R4, staff could look at other 02:43:35.906 --> 02:43:42.812 - You know, zoning districts, and you all did, you looked at the other residential ones as well, and were 02:43:42.812 --> 02:43:49.983 - proposing changes. In fact, most of, I think, the residential multifamily high-density, you know, mixed-use 02:43:49.983 --> 02:43:57.088 - ones, you're actually proposing to eliminate lot size, lot area minimums, and lot width minimums entirely. 02:43:57.088 --> 02:43:59.678 - And so, first question, I guess, yeah. 02:43:59.778 --> 02:44:05.824 - couple of questions. One is just why that approach with those lots eliminated entirely and instead of 02:44:05.824 --> 02:44:12.166 - having a minimum area just relying on basic market dynamics and the setback requirements to set functional 02:44:12.166 --> 02:44:18.094 - limits versus the R1 through R4 where you've kept minimum areas and minimum widths but just reduced 02:44:18.094 --> 02:44:24.554 - them from what they were. Could you tell me a little bit more about that rationale about those two different 02:44:24.554 --> 02:44:27.518 - approaches? Yeah, absolutely. So when you look at 02:44:27.810 --> 02:44:33.959 - development within Bloomington 90 percent of what we see is redevelopment of existing properties you 02:44:33.959 --> 02:44:40.048 - know we don't have a lot of green space that's just sitting there that that nothing has happened on 02:44:40.048 --> 02:44:41.022 - that people are 02:44:41.218 --> 02:44:47.072 - Creating new lots within so, you know other than the summit PUD there. There just aren't a lot of green 02:44:47.072 --> 02:44:52.757 - space areas So, you know, we're not seeing people coming in and subdividing properties that are that 02:44:52.757 --> 02:44:58.723 - they are zoned that are zoned for RH They're coming in and they're developing properties that are already 02:44:58.723 --> 02:45:02.494 - zone that and they want to do a variety of housing within there so 02:45:02.722 --> 02:45:08.969 - Having this minimum lot size for the RH, you know is something honestly that we have not really utilized 02:45:08.969 --> 02:45:15.157 - We have not seen a subdivision come in for new lots in the RH district. I'm going to say maybe 20 years 02:45:15.157 --> 02:45:21.106 - and so we really felt like if we if we want to give the the greatest open possibility of what maybe 02:45:21.106 --> 02:45:27.294 - small lots might look like, you know, they within an RH district they want to create a 20 by 20 lot and 02:45:27.586 --> 02:45:33.397 - Or less than that and sell that for tiny homes or whatever there might be down the line, you know Why 02:45:33.397 --> 02:45:39.265 - why would we risk have a restriction for a lot size where you know? We don't really care how many lots 02:45:39.265 --> 02:45:45.133 - you have on this particular property because it's zoned multifamily. We don't regulate density So what 02:45:45.133 --> 02:45:49.918 - what are we accomplishing with a minimum lot size in the the RH or the RM district? 02:45:52.674 --> 02:45:58.822 - Interesting. So having very tiny lots in like a mixed use medium scale, which is what I think most of 02:45:58.822 --> 02:46:05.031 - Hopewell is zoned, for instance, is you're expressing that that would be okay. So a 20 foot by 20 foot 02:46:05.031 --> 02:46:11.480 - lot for a tiny home, but a 20 foot by 20 foot lot in R3 or R4, which say Prospect Hill or McDowell Gardens 02:46:11.480 --> 02:46:17.086 - adjacent to the Hopewell would not be okay because you've kept that larger minimum lot size. 02:46:17.346 --> 02:46:24.535 - Yes, I think certainly as a part of a lot of council members are realizing or understand, there can 02:46:24.535 --> 02:46:32.011 - be a large feeling of a huge dramatic shift in the established neighborhoods if we say we want to allow 02:46:32.011 --> 02:46:35.390 - lots that are 20 by 20 or something like that. 02:46:35.458 --> 02:46:40.897 - So with this resolution we're trying to balance, you know as I was pointing out with the examples of 02:46:40.897 --> 02:46:46.335 - you know This is how we came up with a 2500 square foot lot because you see lots like this right now 02:46:46.335 --> 02:46:51.882 - within the neighborhoods And so we're looking to accomplish something that you can see very frequently 02:46:51.882 --> 02:46:57.266 - You know, you can't really make that argument that you know You see 20 by 20 lots within these core 02:46:57.266 --> 02:47:02.705 - neighborhoods now and so that that felt like something that was a hard correlation to make that this 02:47:02.705 --> 02:47:05.182 - is a Situation you're gonna already encounter 02:47:06.626 --> 02:47:14.353 - Okay, I have additional questions, but I can hold if we've got other people Any other questions from 02:47:14.353 --> 02:47:22.693 - council members councilmember Stossberg? Thank you. Um, so One of the things that was done For my colleagues 02:47:22.693 --> 02:47:27.742 - to know this particular plan Commission meeting was very long and 02:47:27.842 --> 02:47:36.407 - and so one of the things that ended up being added on at the plan Commission meeting was the change 02:47:36.407 --> 02:47:45.314 - in impervious surface in the mixed-use districts and mm MN and mm and I guess I would like Your opinion 02:47:45.314 --> 02:47:54.478 - mr. Grulick on the fact that what then ended up happening was so it's like 70% impervious surface coverage 02:47:54.478 --> 02:47:55.934 - maximum across a 02:47:56.450 --> 02:48:03.357 - most of our districts except for the court the MC and the MI and I mean the MH is in there too, but 02:48:03.357 --> 02:48:10.541 - we don't really have any image anymore, right? So that one just doesn't really matter but is there like 02:48:10.541 --> 02:48:17.586 - a reason that you can think of that we should Keep the MC and the MI at 60% as opposed to moving that 02:48:17.586 --> 02:48:22.974 - also to 70% for the impervious surface coverage and all those M districts and 02:48:23.586 --> 02:48:31.276 - Sure, um, so as you as you certainly recall, you know the inclusion of the MM and the MN district was 02:48:31.276 --> 02:48:39.042 - not something that staff initially brought forward that was something that the Plaint Commission added 02:48:39.042 --> 02:48:46.656 - you know internally, I think our concern with impervious surface coverage in the mixed-use districts 02:48:46.656 --> 02:48:51.934 - and oftentimes what we we seem to run into are scenarios where people 02:48:52.482 --> 02:48:59.094 - design a property using these standards and so they fill it with building and parking areas and then 02:48:59.094 --> 02:49:05.838 - they're out of room for landscaping or Yeah, that's that's oftentimes a situation that we run into and 02:49:05.838 --> 02:49:12.450 - so Allowing that impervious surface coverage in and of itself May not be the most terrible thing but 02:49:12.450 --> 02:49:15.134 - it starts, you know that a lot of the MM 02:49:15.234 --> 02:49:20.898 - Properties more specifically and MC are very large properties. So, you know you kind of go back to what 02:49:20.898 --> 02:49:26.345 - was the reason what is one of the goals that we even had in previous surface coverage to begin with 02:49:26.345 --> 02:49:31.900 - It was to also ensure that you had certain green space within a community, you know on properties You 02:49:31.900 --> 02:49:37.837 - have room for landscaping, but also you have room for habitat and just general green spaces in the community 02:49:37.837 --> 02:49:38.654 - as a whole and 02:49:38.754 --> 02:49:44.744 - And so, you know at some point you you and certainly this is a very cognitive decision that the council 02:49:44.744 --> 02:49:50.848 - can make if They feel like the greater impervious surface coverage allowance should be something extended 02:49:50.848 --> 02:49:56.723 - to the other districts You know, you certainly have that power to do that. But I just want to be sure 02:49:56.723 --> 02:50:02.770 - to point out that that there does come a certain downside to that impervious surface coverage and seeing 02:50:02.770 --> 02:50:08.702 - somebody fully realize that on a property and and most mm properties a lot of times are very large and 02:50:08.802 --> 02:50:16.808 - So so it can result in a loss of green space in the community as a whole So, I don't know if that completely 02:50:16.808 --> 02:50:24.153 - answers your question. Yes, you could certainly extend it to the MC district But you know there are 02:50:24.153 --> 02:50:32.232 - just obviously downsides to to that as those can be very large properties so as staff person and professional 02:50:32.232 --> 02:50:35.390 - in this field Would you rather? revert the 02:50:35.586 --> 02:50:42.548 - and MN back to the 60% impervious surface coverage and 40% landscaped area as opposed to change it like 02:50:42.548 --> 02:50:49.442 - Increase it to the 70% as was done in the Plan Commission I mean, I think the difference is very small 02:50:49.442 --> 02:50:56.203 - obviously 60 to 70% So we're not talking about a huge impact but also I guess maybe a separate point 02:50:56.203 --> 02:51:03.031 - is like we had not really run into this problem of the impervious surface coverage being the limiting 02:51:03.031 --> 02:51:05.374 - factor in development of MM and MC 02:51:05.474 --> 02:51:12.253 - Zoned property certainly does certainly play a role But that that is usually not been the challenge 02:51:12.253 --> 02:51:19.235 - that we have encountered So when we approach the resolution and the directives were in there certainly 02:51:19.235 --> 02:51:26.218 - within the the r1 r2 r3 and r4 and the RM state districts You know, we see we see where the boundaries 02:51:26.218 --> 02:51:33.065 - are keeping development at bay But we're not really seeing the impervious surface playing that large 02:51:33.065 --> 02:51:35.166 - of a role in the MM and MC But 02:51:35.650 --> 02:51:43.903 - Like I said that that was not something where we had seen the problems that we were coming forward from 02:51:43.903 --> 02:51:52.156 - a staff of we need to fix this But it is a negligible difference Okay, and then similar to that. I mean 02:51:52.156 --> 02:52:00.330 - the proposal ups the impervious surface and the are for an RM and well to 80% in those two and So what 02:52:00.330 --> 02:52:03.742 - you just said was that like well in those? 02:52:04.450 --> 02:52:11.135 - You know MMS and MNs and those places like one of the reasons is you want to make sure that we don't 02:52:11.135 --> 02:52:17.754 - lose too much green space and I guess I'm a little concerned with moving that up to 80% is going to 02:52:17.754 --> 02:52:22.718 - lose so has the potential of losing too much, especially maybe in the RM's 02:52:23.074 --> 02:52:29.678 - But the are forced to honestly just in terms of where some of those are. Yeah I was just going to say 02:52:29.678 --> 02:52:36.283 - you know if you look at a zoning map of where are for is there is not a lot of ground that is that is 02:52:36.283 --> 02:52:42.822 - zoned for that within the community. You know there are isolated corridors or intersections or along 02:52:42.822 --> 02:52:49.427 - major roads where the are for district is. Certainly you've got a lot of are for that was utilized in 02:52:49.427 --> 02:52:50.398 - the summit PD. 02:52:50.722 --> 02:52:57.410 - So that that might be a little bit different. But you know the R4 and the impervious surface cover. 02:52:57.410 --> 02:53:04.365 - Yes it is great. But those are already built out areas. So this is just utilizing or giving the ability 02:53:04.365 --> 02:53:11.186 - to better utilize those properties now. And I can certainly have a map perhaps next time of where our 02:53:11.186 --> 02:53:16.670 - four zone properties are if that would be helpful. Yeah I'll look at that too. I. 02:53:19.586 --> 02:53:26.013 - Just I think want to state for my colleagues that I have the intention of an amendment that retains 02:53:26.013 --> 02:53:32.826 - minimum bicycle parking Since we don't actually have like comment as part of this period So I'm certainly 02:53:32.826 --> 02:53:39.446 - not ready to vote on it tonight because that is certainly an amendment that I said actually at the end 02:53:39.446 --> 02:53:46.388 - of the Planning Commission meeting That I would end up having for this at this level. Thanks We do actually 02:53:46.388 --> 02:53:48.766 - have comment First readings just FYI 02:53:49.666 --> 02:54:00.590 - That's cool. Come council member suspect. Could you repeat that your intention? What what's the amendment 02:54:00.590 --> 02:54:11.308 - that you were to retain the minimum bicycle parking, okay Any other first-round questions councilmember 02:54:11.308 --> 02:54:18.110 - Piedmont Smith You in addition to reducing the front setbacks and 02:54:18.306 --> 02:54:26.169 - Side yard setbacks and all those reductions Allowing more buildable space you also added an exemption 02:54:26.169 --> 02:54:33.879 - from tree preservation requirements for existing lots Less than 5,000 square feet in r3 and r4. Can 02:54:33.879 --> 02:54:42.204 - you talk more about that where in? The code is that and why did you add that? So that language is currently 02:54:42.204 --> 02:54:47.678 - in the tree preservation standards in chapter 4 so that's where the in 02:54:47.810 --> 02:54:53.534 - Yeah, so that's that's where the tree preservation standards are so we're adding language in 02:54:53.534 --> 02:54:59.751 - the applicability section of that to exempt lots under that size from those requirements because and 02:54:59.751 --> 02:55:06.398 - we've certainly seen certain instance instances where variances have been sought because on lots that small 02:55:07.330 --> 02:55:13.588 - The presence of those substantially hinders the ability to develop those lots You know, we're already 02:55:13.588 --> 02:55:20.214 - talking about small lots as they are So, you know, you've got four trees that are on there which constitute 02:55:20.214 --> 02:55:26.534 - closed canopy Most of the time you have to save almost all of those and so just their presence hinders 02:55:26.534 --> 02:55:33.037 - that so again This is this is a big picture Trade-off of you know, if we want to have more housing within 02:55:33.037 --> 02:55:36.350 - the community, you know, there there might be certain 02:55:36.738 --> 02:55:43.055 - Adjustments that have to be made to accommodate that and so that's that that is a trade-off but we do 02:55:43.055 --> 02:55:49.496 - certainly see and you know as you can maybe kind of see in I Stopped sharing here But you know in those 02:55:49.496 --> 02:55:55.937 - exhibits where you've got half lots that are very small to begin with you know if you want to see those 02:55:55.937 --> 02:56:02.750 - fully built out and utilize with you know a house that's a thousand or 1200 or 1400 square foot footprint and 02:56:02.914 --> 02:56:09.599 - You know that that is resulting in a high utilization of that property. So it's just you're not going 02:56:09.599 --> 02:56:16.414 - to be able to preserve trees and use a lot At a small lot in that situation. So that was something that 02:56:16.414 --> 02:56:23.230 - we were proposing to help Remove one of the barriers to develop ability for these smaller lots So since 02:56:23.230 --> 02:56:29.915 - I I was unable to track this into the actual text of the UDO What are the tree preservation standards 02:56:29.915 --> 02:56:31.422 - that you're exempting? 02:56:32.226 --> 02:56:39.803 - So the tree the tree preservation standards deal with how much of a lot is currently covered So it's 02:56:39.803 --> 02:56:47.305 - a it's a percentage and it's a graduated scale there So the more of a property that is covered with 02:56:47.305 --> 02:56:54.957 - trees, you know, the the preservation requirement is a little bit less It's about 50% and then as the 02:56:54.957 --> 02:56:58.558 - tree coverage requirement or as a tree coverage 02:56:58.754 --> 02:57:04.249 - Presence on a property goes down where you only have a small portion of it that's covered you have to 02:57:04.249 --> 02:57:09.745 - save a higher percentage of that So, you know if you're in eighty to ninety percent or I'm sorry, you 02:57:09.745 --> 02:57:15.187 - know ten percent or less coverage You've got to save ninety percent of that And so you've got you've 02:57:15.187 --> 02:57:20.628 - got two different goals that are somewhat working against each other here where you know You want to 02:57:20.628 --> 02:57:26.016 - have smaller lots you want to have houses on those with reduced setbacks but you know that that may 02:57:26.016 --> 02:57:26.878 - not allow for a 02:57:27.202 --> 02:57:32.989 - the trees to be covered on that, or the tree preservation to be met on that lot, because the presence 02:57:32.989 --> 02:57:38.832 - of those trees prevents anything from being happening there without a variance. And so this is a known 02:57:38.832 --> 02:57:44.959 - situation. So in any situation where you know you're going to have a conflict, rather than forcing somebody 02:57:44.959 --> 02:57:50.689 - into a variance situation that is known ahead of time and predicted, build in something in your code 02:57:50.689 --> 02:57:56.702 - to give an adjustment for that situation. Because this is not going to be uncommon. We're saying that we, 02:57:56.834 --> 02:58:03.717 - Want these half lots, you know these 40 by 40 lots So we know that there will be very likely Challenges 02:58:03.717 --> 02:58:10.335 - with meeting both standards, you know, I'll certainly say there were some members of the public You 02:58:10.335 --> 02:58:17.218 - know that spoke in favor of this as they've encountered the tree preservation standards certainly being 02:58:17.218 --> 02:58:22.910 - a challenge to being met on development of small lots, what is the current process of 02:58:23.234 --> 02:58:29.068 - a variance of that does that just go to the hearing officer or So it can go to the hearing officer or 02:58:29.068 --> 02:58:34.845 - the Board of Zoning Appeals You know one of the the most challenging components with the variance is 02:58:34.845 --> 02:58:40.622 - the evaluation of the three criteria And the third one that there is some peculiar condition about a 02:58:40.622 --> 02:58:46.342 - property that presents a hardship. That's always the hard one to meet So, you know in that argument 02:58:46.342 --> 02:58:47.486 - you would be saying 02:58:47.874 --> 02:58:53.169 - The lot is so encumbered with tree preservation that it's undevelopable without the granting of the 02:58:53.169 --> 02:58:58.463 - variance. That's it. That's a known problem in that we know that right now that these lots are very 02:58:58.463 --> 02:59:04.128 - small. If there are trees on there that have to be preserved per the UDO they're already going to encumber 02:59:04.128 --> 02:59:09.423 - their property and present a hardship. So rather than forcing somebody down in the variance process 02:59:09.423 --> 02:59:14.770 - knowing that there will be that hardship ahead of time why not just build that into the code to deal 02:59:14.770 --> 02:59:16.094 - with that situation now. 02:59:17.186 --> 02:59:24.132 - Understand what you're saying for me. It's kind of a hardship to lose trees sure It's a trade-off This 02:59:24.132 --> 02:59:31.011 - is again just what staff is proposing to bring forward the council can certainly modify this they can 02:59:31.011 --> 02:59:37.823 - strike any aspect that they don't want But you know, I just want to make sure to point out, you know 02:59:37.823 --> 02:59:44.702 - both sides Okay, thank you. I have other questions, but I'll wait other questions councilmember rough 02:59:47.138 --> 02:59:55.466 - Real quick, Mr. Green, if if and I know realize there may be practical impossibilities or certainly 02:59:55.466 --> 03:00:03.794 - substantial substantial practical issues, but Would the state law do you know would state any state 03:00:03.794 --> 03:00:12.456 - statute preclude requiring individual lot Stormwater tension of any kind an individual residential lot. 03:00:12.456 --> 03:00:15.454 - I mean, I understand maybe dramatic 03:00:16.482 --> 03:00:24.484 - Practical issues and in their hardship in what you just talked about three preservation, etc But just 03:00:24.484 --> 03:00:32.408 - for the record just for the way, I'm gonna be thinking about this So storm what there are stormwater 03:00:32.408 --> 03:00:40.254 - detention requirements that that apply for subdivisions There are not and and I'm speaking with 85% 03:00:40.770 --> 03:00:47.823 - Depth of knowledge of CBU's requirements, you know, there are not stormwater detention Requirements 03:00:47.823 --> 03:00:54.876 - for single-family lots when they develop we typically see when there is a a Lot within the city now 03:00:54.876 --> 03:01:01.929 - an existing infill lot that is being subdivided CBU has not typically required stormwater detention 03:01:01.929 --> 03:01:09.758 - on those on that two lot subdivision or three lot it's situational certainly, you know, there is a scale where 03:01:09.922 --> 03:01:16.464 - You know, you're creating eight lots or something where there is a detention need or requirement, but 03:01:16.464 --> 03:01:23.134 - that would be for CBU to better answer than me So but my question was was not really that it was simply 03:01:23.134 --> 03:01:29.740 - do you know If the state law would preclude that I I don't have an answer making a requirement whether 03:01:29.740 --> 03:01:36.217 - it's CBU or Whoever would be responsible. I don't have a great answer, but we can look into that but 03:01:36.217 --> 03:01:38.526 - for next time Okay. Okay. Thank you 03:01:40.290 --> 03:01:46.938 - Other questions. Council member Stossberg while we're talking about the tree preservation thing, I feel 03:01:46.938 --> 03:01:53.394 - like I remember there being an edit on this or an amendment on this at the planning commission level 03:01:53.394 --> 03:02:00.170 - to but maybe that was only talked about and wasn't actually done. Do you remember what I'm talking about? 03:02:00.170 --> 03:02:06.562 - I thought that the Chris Smith increased it to six thousand feet. There was discussion on that, but 03:02:06.562 --> 03:02:09.694 - that was not in the final motion from Mr. Smith. 03:02:10.210 --> 03:02:23.553 - Thanks He ended up withdrawing that one and then just came back with the impervious surface coverage 03:02:23.553 --> 03:02:38.878 - Other questions councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes going back to the fire access for lots that are subdivided and one 03:02:39.010 --> 03:02:49.717 - building is behind the other building. So in the first image you saw that was kind of like that flag 03:02:49.717 --> 03:03:00.742 - shaped lot. I think I understand better about that. That was the six foot no build easement right. Yes. 03:03:00.742 --> 03:03:03.710 - So when it says in the text 03:03:04.482 --> 03:03:11.782 - The building must be accessed from an existing lot of record with a six foot no build easement. You're 03:03:11.782 --> 03:03:18.870 - talking about six feet wide from the street to the second house. Yes. So showing that exhibit here. 03:03:18.870 --> 03:03:25.957 - So the intention for that is to make sure that there are no obstacles or encumbrances or structures 03:03:25.957 --> 03:03:33.328 - within that six foot zone so that the fire department could get from the street to that that house that 03:03:33.328 --> 03:03:34.462 - is in the back. 03:03:36.002 --> 03:03:41.902 - It's six feet. So is this just so that Firefighters and their hose can get yes from the street back 03:03:41.902 --> 03:03:47.803 - there. Yes, because it's 150 feet. That's the length of them So that's yeah, so the 150 foot is the 03:03:47.803 --> 03:03:54.116 - the pole length for the hose. That's the maximum So that's six foot was something that the fire department 03:03:54.116 --> 03:04:00.135 - said was essential To make sure that their staff can get from where the truck is parked on the street 03:04:00.135 --> 03:04:03.262 - to the structure so an easement just means you can't 03:04:03.426 --> 03:04:09.477 - Build anything on there. Can you also not put trees on there? It just says a no build, you know, we 03:04:09.477 --> 03:04:15.649 - we did not get into the specificity of the language regarding landscaping What is commonly understood 03:04:15.649 --> 03:04:21.820 - under no build easement I guess it you know, so we don't see is not a building So yeah, so, you know, 03:04:21.820 --> 03:04:27.932 - obviously fences and structures sheds and whatnot would be that you know we could work with the fire 03:04:27.932 --> 03:04:30.110 - department to see if they felt like 03:04:30.370 --> 03:04:37.217 - Landscaping would be something to be need to be addressed Obviously, that's a challenge because we would 03:04:37.217 --> 03:04:44.063 - we would never see you know Nobody comes to us for a permit to put in shrubs or trees on a single family 03:04:44.063 --> 03:04:50.714 - So we have we can certainly put the language there You know might be might be hard obviously to track 03:04:50.714 --> 03:04:57.365 - and enforce since we're not involved with that, you know No, I wasn't suggesting that I would suggest 03:04:57.365 --> 03:04:59.582 - That we add the word wide so okay 03:04:59.938 --> 03:05:08.181 - From an existing lot of record with a six foot no build easement from the new lot to the street. I mean 03:05:08.181 --> 03:05:16.266 - to me it makes much more sense to say a six foot wide no build easement so that it's not somehow like 03:05:16.266 --> 03:05:24.827 - oh well sure you can go six feet into my property with your hose but then I have a shed you know. Certainly 03:05:24.827 --> 03:05:29.662 - that does help clarify that. OK. Thank you. Other questions. 03:05:31.778 --> 03:05:41.611 - Okay and we are still in first reading so we will go to council comment prior to public comment. Yes 03:05:41.611 --> 03:05:51.737 - council comment. Anybody. Councilmember Piedmont Smith in addition to the amendment that council member 03:05:51.737 --> 03:06:01.278 - Stossberg mentioned about putting back in the minimum bike parking which I would totally support. 03:06:01.986 --> 03:06:18.728 - I Am Right now I'm not feeling supportive of the Getting rid of minimum car parking requirements It's 03:06:18.728 --> 03:06:31.038 - I've seen in my district repeatedly that this is problematic when a Either 03:06:31.170 --> 03:06:40.579 - Single family home is rented to multiple adults or as I've seen repeatedly a single family home is converted 03:06:40.579 --> 03:06:49.211 - into a duplex that they're. Unfortunately the result is not that people don't have cars and instead 03:06:49.211 --> 03:06:58.103 - ride their bikes but the result is that there are more cars and those cars are taking advantage of the 03:06:58.103 --> 03:07:00.606 - public right of way to park. 03:07:01.218 --> 03:07:08.959 - And what we've seen with the mess of the neighborhood parking zones and the confusion about grandfathering 03:07:08.959 --> 03:07:16.193 - people who live in multifamily homes to allow them to have those parking permits that initially the 03:07:16.193 --> 03:07:23.572 - parking enforcement or the parking division was going to actually enforce our current code which said 03:07:23.572 --> 03:07:27.262 - they can't have them unless they're single family. 03:07:27.810 --> 03:07:34.393 - So that caused a lot of consternation among people who live in multifamily homes or rent them out. What 03:07:34.393 --> 03:07:40.849 - I'm getting at is that we have a limited right of way on street parking. It's not an unlimited public 03:07:40.849 --> 03:07:47.369 - resource. And if we're going to allow more density, which I'm in favor of, I think that the people who 03:07:47.369 --> 03:07:54.142 - build that more density need to take some responsibility themselves for providing the more parking because 03:07:54.142 --> 03:07:56.990 - we're just running out of on street parking. 03:07:57.346 --> 03:08:04.464 - in certain neighborhoods. And a lot of the neighborhoods in my district are older neighborhoods. They 03:08:04.464 --> 03:08:11.164 - have very narrow streets. They have kind of uneven width of streets from one block to the next. 03:08:11.164 --> 03:08:18.213 - And saying, oh, you don't have to put in any parking is like giving away our public right of way and 03:08:18.213 --> 03:08:25.192 - saying, we're going to provide your parking for you. It's not a matter of let the market do what it 03:08:25.192 --> 03:08:27.006 - will because people don't 03:08:27.906 --> 03:08:35.000 - You know developers don't want to pay to put in their own parking and they are but they're taking an 03:08:35.000 --> 03:08:42.164 - asset away from others in their neighborhood by using that on-street parking. I'm sorry I'm not being 03:08:42.164 --> 03:08:49.188 - very eloquent but I definitely have a problem with getting rid of the minimum parking requirements. 03:08:49.188 --> 03:08:54.526 - So I'll be looking into an amendment on that topic. Councilmember Flaherty. 03:08:56.930 --> 03:09:03.416 - I'm also looking at a few amendments would support the minimum bike parking one. The intent of the resolution 03:09:03.416 --> 03:09:09.608 - was not to eliminate minimum bike parking, but, you know, in precise language, fair enough. Also looking 03:09:09.608 --> 03:09:15.504 - at maybe a couple of other amendments, one to just slightly reduce the minimum lot areas and widths 03:09:15.504 --> 03:09:21.578 - in R3 and R4. I think that I found a good number of lots, don't need to get into it today, but I found 03:09:21.578 --> 03:09:26.590 - a good number of existing lots that are actually smaller than the proposed minimums. 03:09:26.754 --> 03:09:33.316 - that have terrific small homes on them that we wouldn't want to prevent being built, I think, so I can 03:09:33.316 --> 03:09:39.750 - make a few amendments for that. I'd be interested, I think maybe Council Member Stosberg is as well, 03:09:39.750 --> 03:09:46.185 - to revisit or look closely at the changes that came in the Plan Commission around impervious surface 03:09:46.185 --> 03:09:52.619 - with some of the other R and M zoning districts. The rationale in the resolution for Plan Commission 03:09:52.619 --> 03:09:55.422 - and staff looking at the impervious surface 03:09:55.714 --> 03:10:01.232 - you know, minimums and potentially adjusting them was precisely because when you make very small lots, 03:10:01.232 --> 03:10:06.911 - you may need to make those adjustments. Changing it to, you know, increasing the imperfect surface amount 03:10:06.911 --> 03:10:12.429 - to 80% in residential multifamily, like that doesn't follow the same logic. There might be a different 03:10:12.429 --> 03:10:17.840 - rationale for that that people on the Planning Commission had in mind, but it's really not something 03:10:17.840 --> 03:10:23.198 - that the resolution was intending to direct. And so I think those changes on the kind of larger lot 03:10:23.490 --> 03:10:30.386 - higher density zones may not be warranted. Additionally, I just wanted to note that we had a packet 03:10:30.386 --> 03:10:37.350 - addendum with legal memo from Council Attorney Allen that addressed the legality of incentives as an 03:10:37.350 --> 03:10:44.384 - optional path for prioritizing electrification, very similar to housing affordability incentives that 03:10:44.384 --> 03:10:50.590 - are not mandates or requirements. So just drawing my colleagues attention to that because 03:10:51.042 --> 03:10:57.904 - City Legal did have a memo suggesting that some aspects of the proposed changes in this ordinance wouldn't 03:10:57.904 --> 03:11:04.831 - pass. Legal Master, our council's opinion is the opposite. Also, of note, Corporation Council Rice actually 03:11:04.831 --> 03:11:11.244 - had the opposite opinion that City Legal currently holds, which he went in briefly some months ago. 03:11:11.244 --> 03:11:17.401 - Let's see. On the parking front, I respect and appreciate the thoughts shared by Council Member 03:11:17.401 --> 03:11:20.030 - Piedmont-Smith. I will try to bring more 03:11:20.322 --> 03:11:26.444 - research and data to the conversation when we talk about this at the next regular session about why 03:11:26.444 --> 03:11:32.566 - and how minimum parking requirements both prevent housing from being built and increase the cost of 03:11:32.566 --> 03:11:39.116 - housing. My general view is that when you have parking challenges, you regulate it through parking policy, 03:11:39.116 --> 03:11:40.830 - not through housing policy. 03:11:41.506 --> 03:11:47.672 - The public right-of-way, you're right, nobody is entitled to use the public right-of-way to store private 03:11:47.672 --> 03:11:53.606 - vehicles. We do tend to use the public right-of-way streets as storage spaces for private vehicles in 03:11:53.606 --> 03:11:59.773 - all sorts of ways. But the way to regulate that is through the neighborhood parking zones, their pricing, 03:11:59.773 --> 03:12:05.764 - whether or not we're giving away unlimited guest passes to folks with no regulation for a nominal fee. 03:12:05.764 --> 03:12:10.302 - We can actually manage appropriately all those things through parking policy. 03:12:10.530 --> 03:12:15.980 - But I think undermining the development of housing out of an unwillingness to, I guess, pursue the parking 03:12:15.980 --> 03:12:21.227 - policy route seems unsound to me. Moreover, I think when it comes to accessing the public right of way 03:12:21.227 --> 03:12:26.372 - within a zone, within a neighborhood, everybody in the neighborhood should have equal rights to that 03:12:26.372 --> 03:12:31.670 - space, actually. I think it's fine to have a neighborhood zone and say, yes, just people who live here, 03:12:31.670 --> 03:12:33.758 - not people who live elsewhere, can park. 03:12:33.858 --> 03:12:39.688 - In the area, but I've always found it a little strange that since 2018 we've said only people in detached 03:12:39.688 --> 03:12:45.464 - single family homes can store their private cars on the street everyone else too bad. I don't appreciate 03:12:45.464 --> 03:12:51.129 - that kind of I guess just discrimination in our neighborhoods against some residents. So I would favor 03:12:51.129 --> 03:12:53.054 - and moving away from that as well. 03:12:54.242 --> 03:12:58.907 - So yeah, I will try to bring some more information to the meeting next time and send to my colleagues 03:12:58.907 --> 03:13:03.755 - in advance because there's many hundreds of communities around the country and a lot of academic research 03:13:03.755 --> 03:13:08.375 - and empirical research that has been done on the problems with minimum parking requirements in terms 03:13:08.375 --> 03:13:13.086 - of, again, preventing housing from being built and increasing housing costs. Lastly, just to thank you 03:13:13.086 --> 03:13:17.751 - again to city staff. I think your work on this has been really, really good. I do have more questions 03:13:17.751 --> 03:13:22.553 - that I'll need to follow up with the planning department about. They didn't need to take up time tonight 03:13:22.553 --> 03:13:23.422 - asking. Thank you. 03:13:23.810 --> 03:13:32.523 - Other comments? Okay. Let's go to public comment. If you'd like to speak on this ordinance, please approach 03:13:32.523 --> 03:13:39.865 - the podium. You'll have three minutes, and please state your name or alias for the record. 03:13:39.865 --> 03:13:48.417 - And sign in. Sorry. Good evening again, Council. This is Chris Rumge from the Greater Bloomington Chamber 03:13:48.417 --> 03:13:51.806 - of Commerce. Over 920 members now with 80 03:13:51.970 --> 03:13:58.157 - percent or more that are nonprofit or small business I Want to say I strongly support the ordinance 03:13:58.157 --> 03:14:04.468 - before you tonight It gives more flexibility reduces unnecessary development costs makes it easier to 03:14:04.468 --> 03:14:10.779 - build housing and reinvest in Bloomington support the broader development reforms of reduced setbacks 03:14:10.779 --> 03:14:17.461 - smaller lots greater infill flexibility fewer barriers to housing and investment and increase the allowance 03:14:17.461 --> 03:14:19.070 - from previous surface and 03:14:19.170 --> 03:14:25.683 - These are just tools. We're working on the margins here in Bloomington just to make it a little easier. 03:14:25.683 --> 03:14:31.946 - We don't have this undeveloped land, so we shouldn't overstate what this is going to produce. And I 03:14:31.946 --> 03:14:38.334 - worry a little bit that we're going to amend this to the point of watering it down to where it's kind 03:14:38.334 --> 03:14:44.660 - of meaningless. I think if you look at the PUD electrification, I don't know if sustainability goals 03:14:44.660 --> 03:14:47.102 - really belongs in this particular one. 03:14:47.202 --> 03:14:53.128 - Didn't come across as an incentive to me. It seemed more punitive in nature because we don't like PUDs 03:14:53.128 --> 03:14:59.168 - I also thought that you know the business community eliminating the parking minimums. I'm going to agree 03:14:59.168 --> 03:15:05.151 - with Councilmember Flaherty on that it lets business and property owners determine that sort of parking 03:15:05.151 --> 03:15:11.135 - needs And what sort of infrastructure is needed in that? And I think it should include bicycles I think 03:15:11.135 --> 03:15:16.830 - what what we're trying to do is make this a little easier where I've seen businesses pay firsthand 03:15:17.058 --> 03:15:22.454 - For requirement infrastructure that may be used a handful of times a year. That's just not cost-effective 03:15:22.454 --> 03:15:27.646 - We can't we can't legislate our way to change people's behavior quite like that and The less land and 03:15:27.646 --> 03:15:32.787 - money devoted to requirements that may not serve the project is really in our best interest But I do 03:15:32.787 --> 03:15:37.877 - want to say this does a lot of good and my compliments to the staff on this and the plan commission 03:15:37.877 --> 03:15:43.018 - there I don't know a lot of the others Commissions in this state, but we have a really good one that 03:15:43.018 --> 03:15:43.934 - really had a good 03:15:44.194 --> 03:15:49.938 - Robust conversation about this. So overall I like the direction Bloomington is going Setting reasonable 03:15:49.938 --> 03:15:55.571 - rules giving property owners flexibility ruling costs that don't solve clear problems So we encourage 03:15:55.571 --> 03:16:01.094 - you to preserve these reforms while addressing the PUD provision And also just not throwing out the 03:16:01.094 --> 03:16:06.782 - baby with the bathwater there might not this is not going to be perfect if not everything that we Want 03:16:06.782 --> 03:16:07.390 - is in this 03:16:07.650 --> 03:16:14.137 - Chambers would still support this because it goes and it moves in the right direction might encourage 03:16:14.137 --> 03:16:18.462 - the council to have that same mentality as well Thank you Thank you 03:16:32.610 --> 03:16:40.578 - Hello, my name is seaforth breeze they them pronouns. I'd like to express my support for this proposal 03:16:40.578 --> 03:16:48.391 - I've been trying to follow this as best as I can through some of the public engagement sessions that 03:16:48.391 --> 03:16:56.204 - y'all hosted and Like I think that this is moving us in the right direction in a lot of ways I think 03:16:56.204 --> 03:17:02.238 - that the minimum parking requirements I would respectfully disagree that with 03:17:02.882 --> 03:17:12.071 - Council Member Piano Montes-Smith, sorry. I think that for some of the reasons that were just stated, 03:17:12.071 --> 03:17:21.260 - both by council members and by Chamber of Commerce, that it presents this stumbling block, especially 03:17:21.260 --> 03:17:30.360 - for smaller developers and for individual households that are looking to make this change. That is a 03:17:30.360 --> 03:17:32.702 - substantial upfront cost. 03:17:32.898 --> 03:17:39.346 - that has to be absorbed to find that parking on that lot, right? And then when we're already having 03:17:39.346 --> 03:17:45.794 - the like six foot sort of right of way, or not using the right terminology, but when you're already 03:17:45.794 --> 03:17:52.307 - eating up a lot of that property for the fire department to get access and you're juggling all these 03:17:52.307 --> 03:17:58.755 - other things, I think that is probably a step in the right, a wrong direction. I think that minimum 03:17:58.755 --> 03:18:02.366 - parking requirements should be removed in this context. 03:18:02.530 --> 03:18:10.306 - I think when it comes to the stormwater sort of retention and handling that, it might be interesting 03:18:10.306 --> 03:18:18.159 - to try to look at neighborhood approaches that have been done in other cities, like with greenscaping 03:18:18.159 --> 03:18:26.089 - and green infrastructure, where they move a lot of the handling of stormwater to the properties along, 03:18:26.089 --> 03:18:29.246 - the green spaces that are by the street. 03:18:29.506 --> 03:18:36.622 - and allowing that to absorb it. I think that that might be a more productive way of handling that than 03:18:36.622 --> 03:18:43.531 - shying away from the impervious surface requirement. I think for many of the reasons that were laid 03:18:43.531 --> 03:18:50.440 - out, that is a significant stumbling block on such a small property. So is it better to handle that 03:18:50.440 --> 03:18:57.418 - there or is it better to handle that at the community neighborhood level where we look at when we're 03:18:57.418 --> 03:18:59.422 - resurfacing roads how we can 03:18:59.522 --> 03:19:06.896 - allow water to flow into catchments and things like that. And then finally, for the tree coverage, 03:19:06.896 --> 03:19:14.494 - or no, I'm gonna adjust the bike parking. I think the bike parking minimums is actually a really good 03:19:14.494 --> 03:19:22.166 - idea to reintroduce. Unlike the car parking requirement, which could be a very substantial investment, 03:19:22.166 --> 03:19:27.902 - both for the driveways and for other sort of infrastructure, putting in bike 03:19:28.034 --> 03:19:36.084 - Parking is very affordable and much easier to include. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have 03:19:36.084 --> 03:19:43.660 - any commenters on Zoom? Okay, let's go online and then we will come back to chambers. Hi there, 03:19:43.660 --> 03:19:51.631 - Zach Emmerman. Just wanted to say I'm broadly supportive of this. I think reducing lot, allowing for 03:19:51.631 --> 03:19:54.078 - smaller lots is a great thing. 03:19:55.202 --> 03:20:01.307 - removing car parking minimums is another no-brainer, I think to me. I think all of those are great things. 03:20:01.307 --> 03:20:07.299 - I would ask that you please add back in the bike parking minimums. So all of that I'm broadly supportive 03:20:07.299 --> 03:20:13.404 - of, but the reason I wanted to talk was actually about the tree protection section. As far as I understand 03:20:13.404 --> 03:20:19.338 - the way that this proposal was written, it would basically remove all tree protection from the smallest 03:20:19.338 --> 03:20:24.702 - lots at all. It's not just the canopy retention requirements, although that's the bulk of it. 03:20:24.834 --> 03:20:30.778 - It's all tree protection in the UDO is now would be gone for the smallest lots. The bulk of that is 03:20:30.778 --> 03:20:36.960 - canopy retention, but there is already an exemption in the existing code under, I think it's subsection 03:20:36.960 --> 03:20:43.082 - four, for small parcels less than two acres, which is roughly 87,000 square feet, much larger than the 03:20:43.082 --> 03:20:49.264 - current, than the exempt, the 5,000 square feet. So there already is a variance allowed under the code. 03:20:49.264 --> 03:20:51.998 - And just anecdotally, I live near Bryan Park, 03:20:52.450 --> 03:20:57.688 - There's a house going in on the west side of, just to the west of Bryant Park on Henderson, on a very 03:20:57.688 --> 03:21:02.824 - small lot size. I don't know exactly what the, I didn't get a tape measure out of measure, but it's 03:21:02.824 --> 03:21:08.011 - a small lot size where they took down two trees, two large trees, to put in what's gonna be probably 03:21:08.011 --> 03:21:13.300 - a very nice house. Now I'm all, I'm very supportive of putting one more house thing in. I think that's 03:21:13.300 --> 03:21:18.641 - great. And I don't know the details of this specific lot, but the point of that is that they're already 03:21:18.641 --> 03:21:20.798 - able to take down trees to build, to put, 03:21:21.154 --> 03:21:27.305 - housing on small lots. Clearly, they already have the tools for that. The subsection four already includes 03:21:27.305 --> 03:21:33.053 - the minimum. I don't think we should be adding in a blanket exception that would eliminate all tree 03:21:33.053 --> 03:21:38.917 - protection for the smallest lots. I think that's going to introduce the sort of thing as like a death 03:21:38.917 --> 03:21:44.838 - by 1,000 cuts that's slowly reducing our canopy over time. Yes, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. 03:21:44.838 --> 03:21:45.470 - Thank you. 03:21:46.082 --> 03:21:55.485 - We'll go back to chambers if you could sign in and state your name for the record. That would be wonderful 03:21:55.485 --> 03:22:04.801 - You'll have three minutes I'm Amber core. I'm with Bloomington homes for all we're a group of Bloomington 03:22:04.801 --> 03:22:13.150 - residents who work on affordable housing and we believe housing is a right not a commodity and 03:22:13.634 --> 03:22:21.194 - We ask you to vote yes on this ordinance. Right now the zoning code makes it hard to build anything 03:22:21.194 --> 03:22:28.830 - except large expensive lots. This ordinance cuts minimum lot sizes significantly and totally removes 03:22:28.830 --> 03:22:36.769 - the minimum lot size in two districts entirely. A parcel that could only ever hold one large house could 03:22:36.769 --> 03:22:42.590 - now hold three or four smaller ones. The new ordinance lets a property owner 03:22:42.882 --> 03:22:51.103 - add a second home behind an existing home without the need of a new public street allowing 03:22:51.103 --> 03:23:00.137 - for multi-generational co-land ownership. That's more units being added without the city needing to 03:23:00.137 --> 03:23:08.990 - build new infrastructure. I also want to highlight the rewritten single-family attachment changes 03:23:09.090 --> 03:23:17.521 - letting townhouses and row houses be sold as individual condo units, not just built as rentals. This 03:23:17.521 --> 03:23:26.537 - opens the door to home ownership at a price point a lot more of our neighbors can actually afford. Allowing 03:23:26.537 --> 03:23:35.302 - four units per structure means more of those ownership opportunities are available to more working class 03:23:35.302 --> 03:23:38.558 - people. Yet none of these zoning codes 03:23:38.658 --> 03:23:49.165 - changes changes Sorry changes the Need to preserve the affordable housing that's already standing like 03:23:49.165 --> 03:23:59.876 - the housing Bloomington Homes for all is fighting for at Seminary Point if this council is serious about 03:23:59.876 --> 03:24:06.302 - affordability You must protect the housing that already exists 03:24:06.690 --> 03:24:15.117 - while simultaneously changing the zoning codes that block the progress of new affordable housing development. 03:24:15.117 --> 03:24:23.160 - When you vote yes on this ordinance, please don't think of this as a close and final effort on improving 03:24:23.160 --> 03:24:30.974 - local affordable housing policy. Pairing zoning reform with improving tenant rights is critical work. 03:24:31.682 --> 03:24:38.988 - Because loosening the rules on new construction does nothing for tenants who are already at risk of 03:24:38.988 --> 03:24:46.585 - displacement. Bloomington Homes for All is already doing that tenant advocacy work and we will continue 03:24:46.585 --> 03:24:54.110 - to do so with the support of this council. Thank you. Thank you. Go to the next person on Zoom please. 03:24:58.466 --> 03:25:05.786 - Harry Bennett, Operations Director for Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County. We support many of the 03:25:05.786 --> 03:25:13.033 - proposed amendments. Reducing minimum lot sizes, widths and setbacks, increasing impervious surface 03:25:13.033 --> 03:25:20.788 - coverage, eliminating minimum parking requirements should all enable more homes to be built in residential 03:25:20.788 --> 03:25:27.166 - zones. Bloomington needs more of all types of homes to accommodate full-time residency. 03:25:27.266 --> 03:25:34.789 - people who want to live in Bloomington for the long term. That means a variety of starter family, empty 03:25:34.789 --> 03:25:42.096 - nester and retiree homes for all income levels. In addition to these helpful changes, we're offering 03:25:42.096 --> 03:25:48.751 - a few recommendations for your consideration. One proposed amendment that causes us concern 03:25:48.751 --> 03:25:55.262 - is the requirement that planned unit developments meet sustainable development standards. 03:25:55.618 --> 03:26:03.442 - Currently sustainable development standards are established as incentives, voluntary adoption of standards 03:26:03.442 --> 03:26:10.973 - that allow developers to benefit from incentives to increase density and lower unit costs. Making this 03:26:10.973 --> 03:26:18.359 - sustainable development standards a requirement for PUDs would prevent affordable housing developers 03:26:18.359 --> 03:26:24.574 - like Habitat from using PUDs to develop neighborhoods. Habitat is the only developer 03:26:24.674 --> 03:26:31.549 - and Bloomington building neighborhoods and selling single family homes to low income residents. Both 03:26:31.549 --> 03:26:38.356 - of the neighborhoods that we've developed in Bloomington Trail View and Osage Place are PUDs. These 03:26:38.356 --> 03:26:45.776 - are important tools for affordable housing because they give upfront certainty about development parameters. 03:26:45.776 --> 03:26:51.358 - And that provides us clarity in determining our project scope costs and schedule. 03:26:52.162 --> 03:26:58.895 - Sustainability is critically important to Habitat. Our homes exceed state building code standards and 03:26:58.895 --> 03:27:05.629 - that includes the Indiana energy code. Yet we benefit from flexibility to pursue grants and donations 03:27:05.629 --> 03:27:12.230 - consistent with various interests. For example, right now we're able to install solar panels on the 03:27:12.230 --> 03:27:19.162 - homes that we're building in Osage Place. This was through a generous grant from the city of Bloomington 03:27:19.162 --> 03:27:21.406 - and also funding that we received 03:27:21.602 --> 03:27:29.157 - a cool corporation and a local donor. But when that funding is exhausted, we might not be able to afford 03:27:29.157 --> 03:27:36.351 - to install solar panels. At that time though, we may benefit from other funding that is to put in a 03:27:36.351 --> 03:27:44.050 - vehicle charging stations or maybe to use low building emitting materials. As you consider this provision, 03:27:44.050 --> 03:27:49.662 - please take care to avoid negative impacts to low income housing developments 03:27:49.762 --> 03:27:57.424 - that may not be able to afford to meet all of the sustainable development standards all the time. Thank 03:27:57.424 --> 03:28:04.939 - you very much. Thank you. Testing. Great. We'll come back to chambers. Please state your name. You'll 03:28:04.939 --> 03:28:08.254 - have three minutes and sign in if you could. 03:28:20.226 --> 03:28:31.485 - My name is Kathy Berry and I have been, I guess to paraphrase others, I have been broadly not supportive 03:28:31.485 --> 03:28:42.530 - of this ordinance. I have a couple questions, how tiny is affordable? Is tiny affordable? And how much 03:28:42.530 --> 03:28:49.822 - infill do you need? I feel like the trends that this ordinance will 03:28:50.210 --> 03:28:58.177 - encourage are already happening and to, to codify or to take away sort of the brakes on, on 03:28:58.177 --> 03:29:07.010 - infill development could actually have an effect of causing the tear down of older houses. Right now, 03:29:07.010 --> 03:29:16.276 - Bloomington does have a mix of houses. Um, I am a dedicated reader of the reports in the B square bulletin 03:29:16.276 --> 03:29:19.134 - and the Herald time of housings, 03:29:19.234 --> 03:29:31.503 - the recent sales of houses and how much they cost. This month, a 1,390 square foot unit in an established 03:29:31.503 --> 03:29:43.077 - older condo development sold for $165,000. An 894 square foot fully remodeled older home on a roomy 03:29:43.077 --> 03:29:48.286 - lot, a lot that has what would be considered 03:29:48.546 --> 03:29:57.878 - you know, prime subdividing, sold for $230,000. Both of these are homes that I've walked past many times. 03:29:57.878 --> 03:30:06.770 - They're near where I live. Also, a new home right now, a 920 square foot single family, single story 03:30:06.770 --> 03:30:14.430 - home with covered front porch and a back deck is currently being offered for $420,000. 03:30:14.690 --> 03:30:23.246 - And again, I wrote the addresses here if anybody wants to know, I'm not going to call out where people 03:30:23.246 --> 03:30:31.552 - live because that's their choice. So I think that we have options to make these kind of changes now 03:30:31.552 --> 03:30:39.609 - with the code the way it is and that these kind of developments will occur naturally. Thank you. 03:30:39.609 --> 03:30:44.510 - Thank you. Now we'll go to Zoom. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. 03:30:45.794 --> 03:30:54.563 - Hi, this is Paul Russo. I strongly oppose the UDO changes. An assumption I heard in the presentation 03:30:54.563 --> 03:31:03.331 - from Mr. Grulick is that land without buildings or built infrastructure, such as large backyards, is 03:31:03.331 --> 03:31:12.100 - necessarily land that is underutilized. Why would utility require construction? When land is used to 03:31:12.100 --> 03:31:15.486 - grow food, is that land underutilized? 03:31:17.058 --> 03:31:25.798 - When land is used to contribute to the urban forest, is that land underutilized? When land is used as 03:31:25.798 --> 03:31:34.795 - permeable mitigation against storms and floods, is that land underutilized? Increasing density is growth 03:31:34.795 --> 03:31:44.478 - by means other than sprawl, but it's still growth. I would like to point out the lack of any substantial program 03:31:44.962 --> 03:31:52.775 - to increase the proportion of residents whose primary means of moving through public space is walking 03:31:52.775 --> 03:32:00.742 - or bicycling. In such a setting, growth means more cars, more trucks, more congested fossil fuel trips, 03:32:00.742 --> 03:32:08.938 - more impatient entitled drivers, and more life-changing injuries and death for pedestrians and bicyclists. 03:32:08.938 --> 03:32:13.534 - The quest to increase density appears to be based on a myth 03:32:14.146 --> 03:32:20.655 - that higher density will necessarily transform Bloomington to a place that is better for walking and 03:32:20.655 --> 03:32:27.293 - bicycling. We're inviting more people who have no intention of not driving. These UDO changes have the 03:32:27.293 --> 03:32:33.866 - cart before the horse. We're not going to get any closer to a sustainable village by first increasing 03:32:33.866 --> 03:32:40.375 - the population. If people want to live in a city with a greater population, why don't they just move 03:32:40.375 --> 03:32:41.342 - to Fort Wayne? 03:32:42.850 --> 03:32:49.476 - Why does Bloomington need to grow? Who benefits from growth? Are children more likely to walk to school 03:32:49.476 --> 03:32:56.038 - if we increase motor vehicle traffic? Will the typical Bloomington streetscape be improved by a higher 03:32:56.038 --> 03:33:02.663 - density of motor vehicles? Who would benefit from increasing the size of Bloomington? How many of these 03:33:02.663 --> 03:33:09.225 - people actually live in Bloomington? So what are we doing here? Did the citizens of Bloomington demand 03:33:09.225 --> 03:33:11.646 - more growth when they were last asked 03:33:12.098 --> 03:33:21.254 - a decade ago. Were the citizens emphatic about the need for more motor vehicles? Will the new Bloomington 03:33:21.254 --> 03:33:30.065 - branding logo be a stylized hubcap? Thank you. Thank you. There's another next person on Zoom. You'll 03:33:30.065 --> 03:33:38.184 - be able to unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes. Please state your name. Thank you. Hi. 03:33:38.184 --> 03:33:41.726 - Thank you. This is Jan Sorby calling in. 03:33:42.498 --> 03:33:51.014 - I want to say the idea of splitting quarter lots has long been a great idea. I think that's just a wonderful 03:33:51.014 --> 03:33:59.062 - way to get more density and get more density that's rather invisible if it's part of your neighborhood 03:33:59.062 --> 03:34:07.110 - historic pattern. So I wanted to say that. And Mark Cornett actually did a great study. I think it was 03:34:07.110 --> 03:34:10.782 - in north, on the west side might have been the 03:34:11.138 --> 03:34:22.216 - I can't remember which neighborhood it was. But he slid the lots on just the corners and he increased 03:34:22.216 --> 03:34:33.077 - the potential growth density by hundreds of lots. I think that's great. However, I have to say that 03:34:33.077 --> 03:34:35.358 - this is a huge step. 03:34:35.746 --> 03:34:43.355 - It's a huge change to our UDO. It hasn't been 10 years since we adopted the current UDO. It hasn't had 03:34:43.355 --> 03:34:50.891 - time to even see how it's going to work out. It's also a very broad brush application. And I think we 03:34:50.891 --> 03:34:58.278 - need to look more critically at our different neighborhoods, the different structures, and see what 03:34:58.278 --> 03:35:02.046 - we've got there before we make these huge changes. 03:35:02.274 --> 03:35:10.430 - I will say my neighborhood has very, very, very few storm sewers on the interior of the entire neighborhood. 03:35:10.430 --> 03:35:18.063 - We have had neighbors, one of the last great big floods and storms we had, we had neighbors that live 03:35:18.063 --> 03:35:25.246 - right on the creeks that goes through Bryant Park and all of their basements filled with water. 03:35:25.602 --> 03:35:33.752 - and ruined their furnaces. And I would have to talk to them, but there's very little that they could 03:35:33.752 --> 03:35:42.063 - do about getting any remuneration for that. Also, we have to remember that there was a person who died 03:35:42.063 --> 03:35:50.617 - when he got swept away a few years ago between Walnut and College. And that is in part because the Bryant 03:35:50.617 --> 03:35:54.974 - Park neighborhood has no way of handling storm water. 03:35:55.234 --> 03:36:02.911 - And until we get some stormwater capability in this neighborhood, I really think that this is a very, 03:36:02.911 --> 03:36:10.738 - very bad idea. I think that we have to be careful. We have to do small steps rather than this big brush 03:36:10.738 --> 03:36:18.264 - application. Each neighborhood has different capabilities. Each neighborhood has different kinds of 03:36:18.264 --> 03:36:23.006 - streets. Each neighborhood has different kinds of limitations. 03:36:23.170 --> 03:36:30.904 - And the one thing I'll come back to is I think splitting the corner lots is a terrific idea. It's what 03:36:30.904 --> 03:36:38.863 - has been done for a long time. And I welcome that addition. But boy, stormwater mitigation with increased 03:36:38.863 --> 03:36:46.446 - impervious surface and a couple of that with global warming. Thank you very much. That is your time. 03:36:46.446 --> 03:36:53.054 - Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else on Zoom? Is there anybody else in chambers? 03:36:53.890 --> 03:37:04.182 - Okey dokey. Do we have any motions. I would like to make a motion to move ordinance twenty twenty six 03:37:04.182 --> 03:37:14.575 - dash twenty to a second reading on our next regular meeting at September 16th. Second. Okay. There has 03:37:14.575 --> 03:37:23.454 - been a motion and a second. Could the clerk please call the roll. Council member Rallo. 03:37:24.354 --> 03:37:38.697 - Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. 03:37:38.697 --> 03:37:42.558 - Yes. Daily. Yes. Thank you. 03:37:43.618 --> 03:37:52.444 - Thank you. We will continue that on September 16th and that concludes our Legislation for first reading 03:37:52.444 --> 03:38:01.015 - and now we're moving to legislation for second readings and resolutions councilmember Piedmont Smith 03:38:01.015 --> 03:38:09.840 - Yes, I move that we alter the agenda to discuss resolution 20 26-17 Before the other three items second 03:38:09.840 --> 03:38:11.198 - second readings 03:38:12.770 --> 03:38:20.408 - Okay, there's been a motion and a second to discuss resolution 2026 dash 17 before the rest of the second 03:38:20.408 --> 03:38:27.830 - readings which would put our order in D ABC And there's been a second is there any discussion just the 03:38:27.830 --> 03:38:35.251 - reason to do it is because we need this for next week So we don't want to get to the 1030 rule without 03:38:35.251 --> 03:38:38.494 - passing it. It should be very fast everybody 03:38:39.490 --> 03:38:48.846 - Councilmember Stossberg, I would kind of like to do a friendly amendment on this to have it in the order 03:38:48.846 --> 03:38:58.292 - of D BC a because I think that C and B are also going to be quicker and that a is going to be the longest 03:38:58.292 --> 03:39:08.094 - one I don't know if that's a friendly amendment Yes, I'll accept that as a friendly amendment and I'll second 03:39:09.218 --> 03:39:26.915 - Okey-dokey, so the proposed order is now DBC a Is there any more comments Okay, well the clerk please 03:39:26.915 --> 03:39:38.366 - call the roll Council member breath Yes Rosenberger yes clarity I 03:39:39.554 --> 03:39:58.718 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. That passes. Are there any other motions. 03:40:04.258 --> 03:40:14.807 - I move that resolution twenty twenty six dash seventeen be introduced and read by the clerk by title 03:40:14.807 --> 03:40:25.669 - and synopsis only second. OK. There's been a motion and a second. Any discussion. Will the clerk please 03:40:25.669 --> 03:40:33.502 - call the roll. Councilmember Rosenberger. Yes clarity. Yes Sasseberg. Yes. 03:40:34.210 --> 03:40:49.679 - announcement. Yes. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. And rough. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very 03:40:49.679 --> 03:40:56.958 - much. Oh I'm sorry. Well the clerk please read. 03:40:58.338 --> 03:41:05.976 - Resolution 2026 dash 17 approval of agreement with Community Justice and mediation center CJM to facilitate 03:41:05.976 --> 03:41:11.422 - deliberation sessions on public safety count council sponsor Piedmont Smith. 03:41:11.682 --> 03:41:18.921 - The synopsis is as follows resolution 20 26 17 approves an agreement between the Common Council and 03:41:18.921 --> 03:41:26.160 - the Community Justice and Mediation Center to plan facilitate and report on community conversations 03:41:26.160 --> 03:41:33.761 - on public safety which are to be held as part of the Common Council's deliberation sessions on September 03:41:33.761 --> 03:41:40.638 - 9th and October 21st. Thank you very much. I move that resolution 20 26 17 be adopted. Second. 03:41:41.442 --> 03:41:51.085 - Okay. All right. Thank you for hearing this. This is the result of discussions that I've had with Wyatt 03:41:51.085 --> 03:42:00.913 - Lawson the director of C jam as well as with council members Zulek and Stasberg. Together we are planning 03:42:00.913 --> 03:42:11.390 - the deliberation sessions. The first will be next Wednesday as I mentioned at the start of this meeting tonight. 03:42:11.554 --> 03:42:19.977 - So you see the details here it's basically laying out very clearly what C jam will do as part of facilitating 03:42:19.977 --> 03:42:27.711 - these sessions and then what's the responsibility of council members and we've been working together 03:42:27.711 --> 03:42:35.598 - and have another meeting scheduled before next week and it's been going very well. So hopefully we can 03:42:35.598 --> 03:42:40.958 - move ahead with the agreement to pay them any questions from council. 03:42:43.266 --> 03:42:50.615 - Okay, we will go to public comment. Is there anybody in chambers who would like to speak on this? Is 03:42:50.615 --> 03:42:58.037 - there anybody online? Okay, give it one more minute no takers, okay in that case we will come back to 03:42:58.037 --> 03:43:04.731 - council comment any comments Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Oh, I just want to thank CJM for 03:43:04.731 --> 03:43:11.934 - their collaboration and I think they are giving us a discount so Look forward to working with them 03:43:12.322 --> 03:43:21.822 - Much-appreciated councilmember Stasberg. Sorry. This is a question. Can you just clarify which budget 03:43:21.822 --> 03:43:31.323 - line this is coming out of? I think that attorney Alan may be able to clarify that Okay, thanks great 03:43:31.323 --> 03:43:37.470 - any other comments Okey-dokey will the clerk please call the roll 03:43:42.050 --> 03:43:56.163 - Councilmember Flaherty Yes Stasberg yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes, sorry. Yes, daily. Yes, Rallo. 03:43:56.163 --> 03:44:08.126 - Yes rough. Yes and Rosenberger Yes, thank you. That passes unanimously moving on to be a 03:44:11.874 --> 03:44:21.292 - I move that resolution twenty twenty six dash fifteen be read by the clerk by title and synopsis only 03:44:21.292 --> 03:44:30.617 - second Great. There's been a motion in a second. Could the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember 03:44:30.617 --> 03:44:40.958 - Stasberg Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes, Rallo. Yes, rough. Yes, Rosenberger. Yes 03:44:41.442 --> 03:44:50.035 - Clarity. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Will the clerk please read Resolution 2026 dash 15 approval of collective 03:44:50.035 --> 03:44:57.925 - bargaining agreement with Don Owens Memorial Lodge 88 Fraternal Order of Police. The council sponsor 03:44:57.925 --> 03:45:00.894 - is Rallo. The synopsis is as follows. 03:45:01.122 --> 03:45:10.132 - This resolution approves and authorizes the execution of a four year collective bargaining agreement 03:45:10.132 --> 03:45:19.766 - between the city of Bloomington and the Don Owens Memorial Lodge 88 Fraternal Order of Police Incorporated. 03:45:19.766 --> 03:45:28.954 - Thank you very much. I move that resolution 20 26 15 be adopted. Second. Thank you. If whoever is here 03:45:28.954 --> 03:45:31.006 - to present please yes. 03:45:33.570 --> 03:45:41.051 - Deputy mayor and with apologies to my friends in ESD in the public. Thank you for moving this a little 03:45:41.051 --> 03:45:49.041 - earlier so we began our negotiations with the Fraternal Order of Police Union in spring had a very successful 03:45:49.041 --> 03:45:56.958 - and and efficient bargaining session and just to recap some of the the substantial changes from the memo and 03:45:57.122 --> 03:46:03.224 - This is a four year contract that locks in a three percent cost of living adjustment for each year of 03:46:03.224 --> 03:46:09.327 - that contract. It increases the maximum longevity pay for 20 plus years of service from five thousand 03:46:09.327 --> 03:46:15.429 - to twelve thousand five hundred which is on par with the longevity schedule in the fire contract that 03:46:15.429 --> 03:46:16.446 - already existed. 03:46:17.154 --> 03:46:25.053 - And the schedule was adjusted to rather than give us steady increase to give some more substantial increases 03:46:25.053 --> 03:46:32.373 - at five, 10, and 15 years to encourage retention. It also includes some changes to the titles as you 03:46:32.373 --> 03:46:33.822 - saw in the earlier. 03:46:33.986 --> 03:46:40.781 - Legislation and that does require as you saw that will have a fiscal impact for the city of Wilmington 03:46:40.781 --> 03:46:47.707 - But it also increases the amount of retirement pay that the state contributes That is that is the reason 03:46:47.707 --> 03:46:54.370 - why we made that change it we pay a little bit more and the state also pays more so it increases the 03:46:54.370 --> 03:47:01.758 - benefits to our Officers at a cost that is shared with the state we also made some changes to specialty pay and 03:47:01.858 --> 03:47:10.525 - And the changes are largely made to encourage officers to get the specialties that we most need and 03:47:10.525 --> 03:47:19.279 - to ensure that folks retain those and some of the high stress ones and add some new specialties that 03:47:19.279 --> 03:47:20.926 - we need as a just. 03:47:21.218 --> 03:47:27.307 - That you may be interested in the chief of police retains the right to say, you know Who is eligible 03:47:27.307 --> 03:47:33.697 - for which specialty pay? So if you're concerned about costs that is controlled already through management 03:47:33.697 --> 03:47:39.846 - supervision there is a budget and that budget is controlled by the chief making those assignments and 03:47:39.846 --> 03:47:46.176 - finally the other most significant change was we made some changes to bereavement leave and compensatory 03:47:46.176 --> 03:47:48.286 - time to Patrol and detectives work 03:47:48.418 --> 03:47:53.970 - A work week means different hours for them. So in our previous contract, we talked about a week off 03:47:53.970 --> 03:47:59.522 - for bereavement leave. If you're talking about patrol, what that meant was they would have 40 hours 03:47:59.522 --> 03:48:05.296 - off, and then they would have to come back to work during their work week. And we wanted to ensure that 03:48:05.296 --> 03:48:11.070 - they had the full work week off, which is the intent of the policy, and the same for compensatory time. 03:48:11.554 --> 03:48:18.636 - to reflect the actual work week that they work based on the actual hours instead of standard hours. 03:48:18.636 --> 03:48:25.151 - So those are the majority of the changes. And I'm happy to entertain any questions. And Mr. 03:48:25.151 --> 03:48:32.515 - Post is here, who is the president of the union. And I also want to thank our other members of the team 03:48:32.515 --> 03:48:39.880 - who participated, Ms. Kamasian, Kasmanian, sorry, and Adina, Corporation Council, the director of Human 03:48:39.880 --> 03:48:41.438 - Resources and others. 03:48:42.658 --> 03:48:50.202 - Thank you very much. Council President sorry. Thank you so much. Two super quick questions. The first 03:48:50.202 --> 03:48:57.745 - one is what was the vote. The union vote. Thank you. It was 44 to 16. OK. And then and then the other 03:48:57.745 --> 03:48:59.742 - thing that and this is it. 03:48:59.938 --> 03:49:08.506 - I don't expect to necessarily deal with this here, but then thinking long term, I know going into the 03:49:08.506 --> 03:49:16.990 - negotiations, one of the things that a lot of the union had talked about, and I think something that 03:49:16.990 --> 03:49:25.390 - many of us here share, was concerns about sort of lifestyle support, not just bereavement, but just 03:49:25.390 --> 03:49:29.086 - sort of mental health and just sort of like 03:49:29.186 --> 03:49:35.274 - quality of workplace, you know type type things have we addressed any of those in any substantial way 03:49:35.274 --> 03:49:41.242 - and and I'm not saying it particularly well, but You know just yeah So the the department does have 03:49:41.242 --> 03:49:47.449 - quite a lot of resources in that regard and certainly the chief could speak to that Better than I could 03:49:47.449 --> 03:49:48.702 - it was not a request 03:49:48.994 --> 03:49:54.708 - This contract there were a few things that we talked about and went back and forth on that Ultimately, 03:49:54.708 --> 03:49:59.757 - we determined if we did them it might not have the outcome we hoped for it might have some 03:49:59.757 --> 03:50:05.638 - other repercussions But it is a concern and I would just reiterate that the number one way we can support 03:50:05.638 --> 03:50:11.186 - our officers in their mental health is to become fully staffed so we appreciate all of your support 03:50:11.186 --> 03:50:16.900 - with the previous contract and keeping our our our officers that the Salary and the benefits and these 03:50:16.900 --> 03:50:18.398 - things contain the context 03:50:18.786 --> 03:50:25.353 - Yeah, and I'm just just saying so I won't make any more comment but just saying that that's something 03:50:25.353 --> 03:50:31.791 - you know very very happy to work on and support if there's things we can do around the edges to you 03:50:31.791 --> 03:50:38.680 - know, just improve the lifestyle of our of our You know aside from benefits and pay just much appreciated. 03:50:38.680 --> 03:50:45.118 - Thank you Thank you Councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, I saw that there were there were 60 votes and 03:50:45.538 --> 03:50:55.329 - How many people were eligible to vote it seems like a low number to me given we have 95 police officers 03:50:55.329 --> 03:51:04.931 - That's a great question. I don't know the answer to that. Mr. Post Post president FOP 88 that was the 03:51:04.931 --> 03:51:13.310 - total that there are 60 members that were currently eligible at the time of the vote and 03:51:13.698 --> 03:51:22.350 - To participate we made sure to try to give everyone an opportunity We had voting over several days in 03:51:22.350 --> 03:51:30.833 - order to do that. So that was the total amount. Yes Thank you Other questions Okay, we will move on 03:51:30.833 --> 03:51:37.534 - to public comment anybody in chambers Come on up, please state your name again 03:51:37.890 --> 03:51:43.533 - Post president FOP 88 again, we wanted to say thank you to the administration to Deputy Mayor Knapp 03:51:43.533 --> 03:51:49.345 - for her team We had a very smooth contract negotiation this time. We all appreciated the like she said 03:51:49.345 --> 03:51:55.101 - the efficiency And getting it done much earlier in the year and gave our members an answer to some of 03:51:55.101 --> 03:52:00.913 - the questions that they had going forward especially with the Kind of the financial situation everyone 03:52:00.913 --> 03:52:03.678 - finds themselves in you know from the state down 03:52:03.778 --> 03:52:10.686 - This really helped throughout this year of them having some knowledge about what the next four years 03:52:10.686 --> 03:52:17.525 - are gonna look like in their world So again, thank you Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in 03:52:17.525 --> 03:52:24.432 - chambers that would like to speak? Okay, anybody on zoom Okay, coming back to council comment. Would 03:52:24.432 --> 03:52:29.630 - anybody like to make a comment? Okay, will the clerk please call the roll I 03:52:32.450 --> 03:52:45.614 - Yes. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. 03:52:45.614 --> 03:53:01.438 - Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. That passes unanimously and 03:53:01.570 --> 03:53:10.016 - I will entertain other motions I Move that resolution 2026-16 be read by clerk by title and synopsis 03:53:10.016 --> 03:53:18.797 - only second There's been a motion in a second. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Zulek. 03:53:18.797 --> 03:53:27.326 - Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes, Rallo. Yes rough I'm sorry. I Didn't I didn't catch you on that one? 03:53:27.326 --> 03:53:31.006 - But you said I'm sorry you said I'm sorry I 03:53:31.298 --> 03:53:40.670 - I'm seriously confused. When I called your name, I didn't actually hear your response. Yes. Thank you. 03:53:40.670 --> 03:53:49.860 - Rosenberger? Yes. Flaherty? Yes. Stosberg? Yes. Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. 03:53:49.860 --> 03:53:58.686 - And will the clerk please call or, sorry, will the clerk please read by title and synopsis only? 03:54:00.194 --> 03:54:06.975 - Resolution twenty twenty six dash sixteen approval of collective bargaining agreement with the Bloomington 03:54:06.975 --> 03:54:13.312 - Metropolitan Firefighters Local 586 council sponsors councilmember Rallo The synopsis is as follows 03:54:13.312 --> 03:54:19.649 - this resolution approves and authorizes the execution of a two-year collective bargaining agreement 03:54:19.649 --> 03:54:25.986 - between the city of Bloomington and the Bloomington Metropolitan Firefighters Local 586 I Move that 03:54:25.986 --> 03:54:29.662 - we adopt resolution twenty twenty six dash sixteen second 03:54:30.498 --> 03:54:38.638 - Okay Deputy Mayor nap welcome back me again Okay, so the main changes in this contract at first this 03:54:38.638 --> 03:54:46.939 - is a two-year contract the contract we were Negotiating had also been a two-year contract. And so this 03:54:46.939 --> 03:54:56.126 - is repeating a two-year contract It includes a 3% cost of living for each year of that contract it also increases 03:54:56.834 --> 03:55:04.361 - adds some logistics and training officer appointments, increases union time off from seven days to 10 03:55:04.361 --> 03:55:11.813 - days, holiday pay increases from $100 to $300. The most substantial change in this contract, though, 03:55:11.813 --> 03:55:19.414 - is actually the addition of retirement, some special considerations for retirement. So for the benefit 03:55:19.414 --> 03:55:25.022 - of the public, firefighters tend to need to retire long before the Medicare 03:55:25.602 --> 03:55:32.248 - Eligibility begins and so there is a period of usually somewhere around 10 years that needs to be covered 03:55:32.248 --> 03:55:38.580 - They do have Cobra options through the city of Bloomington Our insurance is excellent and it is also 03:55:38.580 --> 03:55:45.037 - very expensive and so it's cost prohibitive for someone to retire and then pay the 14,000 some dollars 03:55:45.037 --> 03:55:51.620 - a year for that insurance coverage so these are some provisions that were made to improve that situation 03:55:51.620 --> 03:55:55.006 - and ensure that our firefighters who have given their 03:55:55.426 --> 03:56:01.932 - Bodies to this service are taken care of one is a subsidy to that retiree insurance in the form of a 03:56:01.932 --> 03:56:08.632 - $5,000 contribution for a maximum of ten years or until the member is eligible for Medicare And if they 03:56:08.632 --> 03:56:15.203 - must also retain continuous coverage So you can't opt out of the city's insurance retire and then opt 03:56:15.203 --> 03:56:19.390 - back in you have to be continuously enrolled when you retire and 03:56:20.002 --> 03:56:27.411 - It also creates a new program. It's called a post-employment health care plan, a PEHP. This is something 03:56:27.411 --> 03:56:34.537 - many fire departments use in which the city will deposit $150 quarterly per member. And then members 03:56:34.537 --> 03:56:41.593 - can ask the city to also add funds in the equivalent of vacation time. So essentially they can say, 03:56:41.593 --> 03:56:48.649 - rather than take this vacation time, I'd like to put it in my PEHP. It gives them some control over 03:56:48.649 --> 03:56:49.566 - those funds. 03:56:50.274 --> 03:56:51.550 - And... 03:56:53.026 --> 03:56:59.122 - There were some other minor changes made, but those are really the big ones. The retirement insurance 03:56:59.122 --> 03:57:05.277 - and creating this PEHP program, which has been a long-standing request of the union, is what we've got 03:57:05.277 --> 03:57:11.731 - going here. And thanks again to our bargaining team. I neglected to mention that Chief DeKoff was obviously 03:57:11.731 --> 03:57:17.946 - part of the FOP bargaining team, so I will not omit this time that Chief Kerr and Max Litwin were also, 03:57:17.946 --> 03:57:21.054 - Deputy Chief were also part of that, along with our 03:57:21.154 --> 03:57:32.409 - union members and Margie and and Adina from legal and Director paycheck dr. Paycheck from human resources 03:57:32.409 --> 03:57:43.239 - Great. Thank you very much questions Okay Oh councilmember Piedmont Smith I have pretty much the same 03:57:43.239 --> 03:57:47.486 - question as for the last agreement so I 03:57:47.714 --> 03:58:00.266 - There was a vote of 88 to 13. So what is that? 101 It's does that represent all the eligible voters? 03:58:00.266 --> 03:58:12.817 - I will defer that to President Jordan, Canada Jordan Canada president local 586 that number includes 03:58:12.817 --> 03:58:16.670 - all but three firefighters and 03:58:17.058 --> 03:58:26.370 - Who are not members. OK so all of the members voted except for three. Oh OK. So there are one hundred 03:58:26.370 --> 03:58:35.682 - and three or one hundred and four total firefighters who are unionized. Thank you so much. Thank you. 03:58:35.682 --> 03:58:45.086 - Council member sorry. And do we have any indication of the 13 or so who voted against the reasons why. 03:58:46.658 --> 03:58:56.977 - No we don't get a report on that and I don't believe that the process includes it I know that of course 03:58:56.977 --> 03:59:06.998 - there are always members who want more base pay and Thank you Okay, we'll go to public comment would 03:59:06.998 --> 03:59:14.142 - anyone in the public like to speak about this I'm sorry Anybody on zoom 03:59:15.906 --> 03:59:23.527 - Okay great. We will come back to council comment and maybe a question council member Stossberg. Sorry 03:59:23.527 --> 03:59:30.999 - I was just a little slow on this question update this time. Is there a reason why the fire contract 03:59:30.999 --> 03:59:38.770 - is two years and the police contract is four years. They requested it and we don't object. Okay thanks. 03:59:38.770 --> 03:59:41.086 - Okay. Anybody on anybody else. 03:59:44.546 --> 03:59:59.350 - In that case will the clerk please call the roll. Council member is sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. 03:59:59.350 --> 04:00:12.446 - Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. 04:00:13.090 --> 04:00:22.777 - Thank you. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Congratulations. Are there any other motions? I move 04:00:22.777 --> 04:00:32.658 - that ordinance 2026 dash 18 be read by the clerk by title and synopsis. Second. There's been a motion 04:00:32.658 --> 04:00:37.502 - in a second. Will the clerk please call the roll. 04:00:42.210 --> 04:00:53.607 - Councilmember daily. Yes, Rallo. Yes, rough Rosenberger. Yes, clarity. Yes, Stossberg. Yes, 04:00:53.607 --> 04:01:06.118 - Piedmont Smith. No. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That passes eight one. Who is here 04:01:06.118 --> 04:01:10.206 - to present council member sorry. 04:01:11.138 --> 04:01:20.085 - Oh, I'm so sorry. Go ahead councilmember daily We did oh I'm sorry clerk Bolden. Will you please read 04:01:20.085 --> 04:01:29.471 - by title and synopsis? Yes ordinance 20 26-18 adopting guidelines and requiring formal written Commitments 04:01:29.471 --> 04:01:37.278 - as a condition of eligibility for on-premises alcoholic beverage permits within eligible 04:01:37.378 --> 04:01:45.012 - Statutory districts council member sponsor is a sorry the synopsis is as follows This ordinance establishes 04:01:45.012 --> 04:01:52.292 - guidelines for any applicant to eligible alcohol permit programs found in Indiana code seven one seven 04:01:52.292 --> 04:01:53.918 - point one three twenty 04:01:54.754 --> 04:02:02.501 - Including those eligible licenses within the city's existing downtown redevelopment district and historic 04:02:02.501 --> 04:02:10.249 - district This ordinance requires applicants to enter into a formal written commitment pursuant to Indiana 04:02:10.249 --> 04:02:18.215 - code seven point one three Nineteen seventeen as a condition of eligibility Thank you. I Move that ordinance 04:02:18.215 --> 04:02:24.574 - twenty twenty six dash eighteen be adopted second Okay councilmember, sorry, would you 04:02:25.538 --> 04:02:35.069 - like to present an amendment. I'm sorry I wasn't on speaker. We've talked about this now several times 04:02:35.069 --> 04:02:44.692 - and would love to introduce Amendment 1 if that unless there's an objection. Okay. Amendment 1 and I'll 04:02:44.692 --> 04:02:54.686 - move very quickly over it. I think. Oh sorry. I'd like to. Is there a second second. Thank you. Okay great. 04:02:55.202 --> 04:03:03.277 - Amendment one is is just a response to Discussions that we've had already around this ordinance and 04:03:03.277 --> 04:03:11.998 - particularly reflecting sort of question and suggestions was raised by council members and stakeholders and 04:03:12.194 --> 04:03:18.615 - Happy to go over it in detail, but sort of at a high level, remove several city created barriers from 04:03:18.615 --> 04:03:25.037 - minimum eligibility and sort of move those into general considerations, particularly dealing with the 04:03:25.037 --> 04:03:31.521 - sort of 60% food sales requirement, the 50% local ownership requirement, the Indiana formation, Monroe 04:03:31.521 --> 04:03:38.194 - County office requirement, and the 260 day minimum operating requirements. So sort of all of those things 04:03:38.194 --> 04:03:42.160 - are just sort of moved into general considerations that can be 04:03:42.160 --> 04:03:49.058 - part of the written agreement but but we just wanted to sort of bring this down to the core while leaving 04:03:49.058 --> 04:03:55.890 - it as sufficiently broad to accommodate other types of districts that might exist. So trying to be light 04:03:55.890 --> 04:04:02.397 - touch about this in response to the comments that you've given before and happy to answer any other 04:04:02.397 --> 04:04:08.254 - questions or if Director Cooper Smith would like to say anything. Otherwise that's a man. 04:04:08.866 --> 04:04:19.699 - Great are there any questions on amendment one councilmember be another amendment to you I would like 04:04:19.699 --> 04:04:30.321 - to offer an amendment to amendment one second Is it written So I sent this to attorney Alan earlier 04:04:30.321 --> 04:04:37.118 - so that it could be displayed The there are certain sections of 04:04:37.250 --> 04:04:45.137 - Amendment one that contradicts Indiana code which states in part except as provided in section 16.3 04:04:45.137 --> 04:04:53.339 - of this chapter the commission may issue to the city of Bloomington not more than two three-way permits 04:04:53.339 --> 04:05:02.014 - the following apply to a permit issued under the subsection an applicant for a permit must be a proprietor of 04:05:02.338 --> 04:05:10.385 - an owner or lessee or both of a restaurant located within an economic development area, an area needing 04:05:10.385 --> 04:05:18.433 - redevelopment or redevelopment district as established. So, um, taking out the requirements about being 04:05:18.433 --> 04:05:26.557 - a restaurant, um, I think is, is kind of confusing and misleading. Of course, Indiana code would prevail 04:05:26.557 --> 04:05:27.486 - anyway. Um, 04:05:28.002 --> 04:05:37.030 - Because there's it always does and there's always a section in our ordinances that says you know if 04:05:37.030 --> 04:05:46.239 - any part of this is superseded or is not deemed appropriate then all the other sections will still be 04:05:46.239 --> 04:05:55.267 - applied. However I think it's much clearer to just take out to rest reinstate the sentences about a 04:05:55.267 --> 04:05:56.350 - restaurant. 04:05:56.962 --> 04:06:05.865 - because that is actually required by Indiana code. That's what this does. Mr. Allen can you display 04:06:05.865 --> 04:06:14.856 - the amendment to the amendment please. Jane Cooper Smith economic and sustainable development. And I 04:06:14.856 --> 04:06:24.382 - just wanted to offer a little context on how the phrase restaurant works related to this state statute and 04:06:25.218 --> 04:06:33.119 - how we think about restaurants locally so I think about restaurants as the places that I go to buy food 04:06:33.119 --> 04:06:40.867 - and eat but for the purposes of the ATC all bars are our food service establishments and are referred 04:06:40.867 --> 04:06:48.768 - to as restaurants in the code so I'm just sharing that context to highlight that whether it's that that 04:06:48.768 --> 04:06:53.022 - that the state code sees all bars as restaurants that's 04:06:53.154 --> 04:07:03.173 - That's your face is how I feel about this also. I did move it and it was seconded. Councilmember sorry 04:07:03.173 --> 04:07:12.998 - this and would love to tell you just guidance on this. I mean I think I was slightly over correcting 04:07:12.998 --> 04:07:22.142 - on the on the amendment. So you know so I'm not opposed to this. I think the only question is 04:07:22.466 --> 04:07:28.602 - We are trying to write this so it refers both to the two existing districts and also any other existing 04:07:28.602 --> 04:07:34.855 - districts that may exist in the future the two existing districts do have the Restriction for restaurants 04:07:34.855 --> 04:07:41.168 - Others do not and you can imagine another one in the future not having that restrictions like a rear-front 04:07:41.168 --> 04:07:47.067 - district doesn't have that restriction that it be a restaurant to my understanding I might be wrong 04:07:47.067 --> 04:07:50.430 - and so I think that's sort of the goal of keeping it and 04:07:50.882 --> 04:07:57.906 - not specific to restaurants but just saying a business and then there's the prior thing in the amendment 04:07:57.906 --> 04:08:04.929 - language that says that restaurant where necessary basically so but would love attorney Allen's thoughts 04:08:04.929 --> 04:08:11.819 - just I mean whether this restricts us in any way to make it impossible for us to apply to other things 04:08:11.819 --> 04:08:18.910 - or whether it's whether it makes no difference either way the way the the guidelines were already written 04:08:19.042 --> 04:08:24.535 - There's several mentions of restaurant already in the guidelines besides these sections that are going 04:08:24.535 --> 04:08:30.134 - to be deleted by this particular amendment. So I think it's fairly clear that it applies to restaurants. 04:08:30.134 --> 04:08:35.466 - Also the basis of the guidelines is that to be an applicant in the first place you have to meet the 04:08:35.466 --> 04:08:40.799 - criteria under the specific areas of Indiana code which for the two existing districts the historic 04:08:40.799 --> 04:08:46.718 - courthouse district and the downtown redevelopment district means that you have to be a restaurant as defined. 04:08:46.850 --> 04:08:52.708 - Indiana code which has a there are requirements for restaurants I mean minimum square footage how big 04:08:52.708 --> 04:08:58.566 - the seating is and things like that But Jane is essentially correct as well Also, there are instances 04:08:58.566 --> 04:09:04.367 - that don't necessarily reflect restaurant for future things But you would also have to develop those 04:09:04.367 --> 04:09:10.283 - districts and so you'll have an opportunity Potentially to pass legislation to develop those districts 04:09:10.283 --> 04:09:16.026 - and you could always amend this Or lay an addendum over top of it specific to that that district so 04:09:16.026 --> 04:09:16.830 - I don't think 04:09:17.090 --> 04:09:24.501 - Either way, I don't think this amendment hurts anything. I don't think that it necessarily Is going 04:09:24.501 --> 04:09:31.987 - to change anything either way to be frank. Thank you councilmember Rosenberger We don't have this in 04:09:31.987 --> 04:09:39.694 - the packet. Is that right? That's correct. It's being shared on the screen right now and I can we can't 04:09:39.694 --> 04:09:46.142 - always see it. Okay It's hard I'm just trying to read it if that's okay my question is 04:09:46.306 --> 04:09:52.857 - though, like, I mean, all of our bars are restaurants where you have to serve food or have food, 04:09:52.857 --> 04:09:59.746 - you know, able to serve, right? So our bars have, like, soup or hot pockets or things. Like, I, we're 04:09:59.746 --> 04:10:06.770 - not talking about making anything, like, a percentage again, though, right? That's correct. And I don't 04:10:06.770 --> 04:10:13.726 - mean to speak for you, but that's correct. It's just justifying, like, bringing back the, like, I had, 04:10:13.826 --> 04:10:19.763 - just deleted all the language that said restaurant and turned it into business in every instance. And 04:10:19.763 --> 04:10:25.701 - so this is just bringing back the language of restaurant in there to align it with code, to be clear. 04:10:25.701 --> 04:10:31.289 - I mean, it's, yeah. Got it. OK, thanks. Yeah, but there's nothing. The part about the 60% food, 04:10:31.289 --> 04:10:37.518 - for example, that was sort of a more restricted way in the first draft is not in there anymore, regardless 04:10:37.518 --> 04:10:40.894 - of the two amendments. Right, right. Got that. Thank you. 04:10:42.210 --> 04:10:51.442 - Other questions on amendment one amendment to sorry amendment one to amendment one Okay, great we'll 04:10:51.442 --> 04:11:01.039 - go to public comment on amendment on the amendment to amendment one Would anybody like to speak? Anybody 04:11:01.039 --> 04:11:10.271 - on zoom Great. Thank you. We'll come back to public or council comment on amendment to amendment one 04:11:10.271 --> 04:11:12.190 - Thank You councillor 04:11:12.898 --> 04:11:28.041 - Happy to vote on it. Great. Well the clerk please call the roll. Councilmember Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. 04:11:28.041 --> 04:11:40.958 - Rosenberger. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. He wants me. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. 04:11:41.410 --> 04:11:50.872 - Thank you amendment to the amendment one passes and now we'll discuss amendment one Any council member 04:11:50.872 --> 04:11:59.875 - questions council member Stasberg Can you tell me why you got rid of the local ownership? Related 04:11:59.875 --> 04:12:05.662 - requirements. Yeah, this was a little investment related stuff 04:12:05.826 --> 04:12:14.178 - This was just brought up by several commentators, both by email and stakeholders that we met with, that 04:12:14.178 --> 04:12:17.150 - the realities of ownership are often 04:12:17.410 --> 04:12:23.414 - I mean, far more complex than sort of, do you live here, do you not live here? Of course, this still 04:12:23.414 --> 04:12:29.477 - is within the things that ESD can consider in recognizing this, and I think that as we've stated both 04:12:29.477 --> 04:12:35.481 - in the whereas clauses and in our much discussion here, I think that that's still the intention, but 04:12:35.481 --> 04:12:36.670 - it's just not being 04:12:37.250 --> 04:12:44.235 - super restrictive where we don't need to be Because if you say exactly 50% and then it's like okay, 04:12:44.235 --> 04:12:51.290 - but what if the operators here and you know There's the owner moves out of town like there's just so 04:12:51.290 --> 04:12:58.415 - many sort of variations to what? Locally owned like really means and so I think that's that's was was 04:12:58.415 --> 04:13:05.470 - the idea there Other questions Councilmember Piedmont Smith Why was the reference to the living wage 04:13:05.470 --> 04:13:06.238 - ordinance? 04:13:06.818 --> 04:13:14.387 - Yeah this was just a just a legal recommendation. Not that we're not going to consider that but we don't 04:13:14.387 --> 04:13:21.812 - have we cannot put that in a requirement because they're private businesses. So we can we can use that 04:13:21.812 --> 04:13:29.886 - as our criteria to saying like well we're going to assume it. We will give these to people who are paying well. 04:13:30.210 --> 04:13:35.890 - like as an example, but we cannot say, you know, you must do it this way or that way. I think is that 04:13:35.890 --> 04:13:41.459 - the best way of describing it, Attorney Allen? Yeah, I think that's right. So it was to also avoid, 04:13:41.459 --> 04:13:47.028 - essentially avoid confusion because we had a reference in there, but as situated right now, the way 04:13:47.028 --> 04:13:52.875 - the living wage ordinance is worded, none of these would apply. The living wage ordinance wouldn't apply 04:13:52.875 --> 04:13:53.822 - to any of these. 04:13:53.922 --> 04:14:01.255 - And so it would create a certain amount of confusion and also potentially just just a lot of headache 04:14:01.255 --> 04:14:08.660 - for staff in terms of a minute and many administering it. However you know if council wanted to change 04:14:08.660 --> 04:14:15.849 - the living wage ordinance in the future that's an option to make sure it applies to these things to 04:14:15.849 --> 04:14:23.326 - apply them. So under criteria it doesn't have like living wage or anything it says workforce practices. 04:14:23.682 --> 04:14:32.725 - Could that include consideration of the pay? Correct. We could include consideration of pay. We could 04:14:32.725 --> 04:14:41.679 - include that they have happy workers. We could include any of those things. But again, the goal here 04:14:41.679 --> 04:14:42.654 - is to give 04:14:43.394 --> 04:14:49.884 - ESD particularly the tools to use these available permits for economic development along the lines of 04:14:49.884 --> 04:14:56.375 - our existing goals and strategies as a city so But I but I do think I think future work would be good 04:14:56.375 --> 04:15:02.802 - to update I know this is you know work that councilmember rough did so long ago But I think would be 04:15:02.802 --> 04:15:09.165 - great to think about adjusting that and we can amend it to apply to these cases if that's what we'd 04:15:09.165 --> 04:15:11.774 - like to do Thank you any other questions 04:15:13.794 --> 04:15:20.960 - Okay, we'll go to public comment on amendment one as amended would anyone in chambers like to speak 04:15:20.960 --> 04:15:28.270 - Okay, anybody on zoom, okay, please state your name. You'll have three minutes A good evening council 04:15:28.270 --> 04:15:35.508 - to Christopher MG from the great beyond Supporting this amendment and the great work of president is 04:15:35.508 --> 04:15:42.818 - sorry on it I think as a stakeholder the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce Has been listened to 04:15:42.818 --> 04:15:43.678 - and this is 04:15:44.002 --> 04:15:51.113 - Cleans this piece of legislation up quite a bit. I think it streamlines it Makes it less complicated 04:15:51.113 --> 04:15:58.365 - appreciate the work of Council Larry Allen on this we're gonna miss him when he leaves he's added some 04:15:58.365 --> 04:16:05.617 - Press of input as well. So I just want to say we support this amendment. It improves good legislations 04:16:05.617 --> 04:16:10.686 - and it makes it very good. Thank you Thank you very much. Anybody else? 04:16:12.802 --> 04:16:21.886 - Okay, great we will come back to council comment on amendment one as amended Councilmember Rallo, could 04:16:21.886 --> 04:16:30.796 - I ask a question? Could I ask the ESD director to comment on the 50%? Eliminating the local ownership 04:16:30.796 --> 04:16:40.142 - component of the permitting sure I mean suppose I mean do we run the risk of competition basically pushing 04:16:40.142 --> 04:16:42.238 - out local ownership and 04:16:42.402 --> 04:16:49.919 - Yeah, I'm not I'm never sure how to thread the needle on these things this you know, I recommended the 04:16:49.919 --> 04:16:57.362 - local ownership requirement To councilmember Asari's point there was a lot of feedback on a number of 04:16:57.362 --> 04:17:05.098 - issues this included so I think that there are ways in the review process that we can ensure that there's 04:17:05.098 --> 04:17:10.206 - major local impacts and that we're prioritizing our local players and 04:17:10.850 --> 04:17:18.705 - But I think it just won't be through this 50% requirement Okay name, could you tell us those ways we 04:17:18.705 --> 04:17:26.794 - prioritize sure well, I think we could I Don't know ask about that in the in the and forgive me I would 04:17:26.794 --> 04:17:35.582 - request all of your patience I'm a morning person and it's very far past my bedtime. So just establishing that I 04:17:36.802 --> 04:17:43.796 - We're just here to unlock your evening potential But this program is absolutely unlocking potential 04:17:43.796 --> 04:17:50.929 - for our community it's doing it you guys are doing it even if you don't want to do it you're doing it 04:17:50.929 --> 04:17:57.993 - So could I say one other thing? This is in the context of what? my colleague said earlier comes from 04:17:57.993 --> 04:18:03.518 - a rough in that we are a community where there's a lot of money to be made and 04:18:03.970 --> 04:18:13.547 - either in speculating and housing which we've seen and You know through rentals and things like that 04:18:13.547 --> 04:18:23.408 - and Predatory Investors who may see this market as vulnerable without some local ownership requirements 04:18:23.408 --> 04:18:32.606 - Are you in agreement or is this something we don't need to worry about? Sure keep an eye on sure 04:18:32.866 --> 04:18:39.291 - Sorry, you finished I just well I think just to be a little more specific kind of imagining a model 04:18:39.291 --> 04:18:45.844 - to unpack councilmember Asari's example like It capital structures can be complex and so there may be 04:18:45.844 --> 04:18:52.333 - a local entrepreneur say a creative Who wants to open a new establishment? But perhaps two-thirds of 04:18:52.333 --> 04:18:56.894 - their investors are from out of town. Would they then be disqualified? 04:18:57.058 --> 04:19:03.607 - Opening a project even though maybe it's farm to table and local growers would benefit so I think we 04:19:03.607 --> 04:19:10.351 - can see a lot of community benefit Even if there's outside ownership, but I would personally prioritize 04:19:10.351 --> 04:19:17.094 - local ownership every single time if I have the ability to do that This is this sets it at zero. I mean 04:19:17.094 --> 04:19:23.643 - if we're two-thirds Well, I don't know Yeah, so so so to to two important comments there and comment 04:19:23.643 --> 04:19:26.302 - number one is that this actually the the 04:19:26.402 --> 04:19:32.769 - desire to remove this came from local stakeholders. So this wasn't we weren't being lobbied from outside. 04:19:32.769 --> 04:19:38.775 - I mean this was literally Ron Walker who was like this is going to make a little bit complicated to 04:19:38.775 --> 04:19:45.022 - you know to figure out like you know how do I how do we move things. But it is still in the thing which 04:19:45.022 --> 04:19:51.149 - is within the within the considerations local ownership structure is one of the things that should be 04:19:51.149 --> 04:19:56.254 - considered. We just if we set it up as like it has to be 50 percent it makes it just 04:19:56.418 --> 04:20:03.633 - Difficult to administer and and just a little bit more difficult to you know to to continue like so 04:20:03.633 --> 04:20:11.208 - it presents just some challenges But I but a hundred percent agree like the the goal here I mean, that's 04:20:11.208 --> 04:20:18.423 - why we both wanted it in the original thing. But again local stakeholders were the ones asking That 04:20:18.423 --> 04:20:25.566 - this that this was made difficult Could I also respond with a process answer? So I would I plan on 04:20:27.010 --> 04:20:33.900 - So the application process would go live the application will reflect the criteria and the guidelines 04:20:33.900 --> 04:20:41.262 - and then we'll have an application cycle and I My plan is to treat this almost like a grant review committee 04:20:41.262 --> 04:20:48.017 - because I think these are really precious resources I think it's a huge deal that we're considering 04:20:48.017 --> 04:20:53.150 - bringing these into our market. And so I would want a panel of reviewers to 04:20:53.602 --> 04:21:00.663 - Review the applications and complete complete scoring rubrics and have this be evaluated together And 04:21:00.663 --> 04:21:07.723 - I don't know who exactly I want to have on that panel, but I would certainly want there to be council 04:21:07.723 --> 04:21:14.715 - representation on it So I'm just sharing that to say that this These considerations will have oxygen 04:21:14.715 --> 04:21:21.706 - and airtime As long as your est directory. Yeah fair You know, I have no doubt that you committed to 04:21:21.706 --> 04:21:22.814 - that What's up? 04:21:24.034 --> 04:21:32.550 - Yeah, okay So that I I'm troubled by this just simply because you know, I used to farm I used to sell 04:21:32.550 --> 04:21:41.317 - products and There was no you know, there was there was lip service to buying local, right? There wasn't 04:21:41.317 --> 04:21:50.502 - any fair point and I always came it up short. Yeah Yeah, I think this is gonna sink it for me that particular 04:21:50.502 --> 04:21:53.758 - That's a good point Any final comments 04:21:54.082 --> 04:22:01.943 - Councilmember Stasberg I'm with councilmember Rallo right now. I'm I'm uncomfortable with with completely 04:22:01.943 --> 04:22:09.729 - removing the local and also the percentage of food sales versus other sales I I think that sixty percent 04:22:09.729 --> 04:22:17.145 - may you know, like there was a discussion about that Is that the right number and I'm not sure that 04:22:17.145 --> 04:22:22.558 - that's the right number But I think it completely eliminating the number 04:22:22.658 --> 04:22:32.881 - Kind of de-emphasizes part of the purpose and point which was to not just give this to bars and and 04:22:32.881 --> 04:22:40.446 - I think that I Think that unless it's actually part of the guidelines and 04:22:40.578 --> 04:22:47.691 - Then it's not going to be sustaining through time. And so I think that it's really important that whatever 04:22:47.691 --> 04:22:54.538 - we do we manage to make it both flexible but also sustain the vision that we have for it through time. 04:22:54.538 --> 04:23:01.253 - And so I don't feel like that that does this. So I'll also be voting no on the amendment. Thank you. 04:23:01.253 --> 04:23:04.510 - I would be I would be happy to I just think the. 04:23:04.994 --> 04:23:11.136 - I mean I would be happy to scratch the this part from from the amendment and then I mean very easy to 04:23:11.136 --> 04:23:17.399 - do and then we could issue guidance about like what does that mean in particular instances and we could 04:23:17.399 --> 04:23:23.421 - do that via resolution for example right because so that if depending on what my colleagues want to 04:23:23.421 --> 04:23:29.804 - do I'd be very happy to do that if Attorney Allen thinks that that's feasible and possible. Councilmember 04:23:29.804 --> 04:23:32.574 - Rosenberger has her hand up. Please go ahead. 04:23:33.154 --> 04:23:41.677 - I wanted to come on a couple things. I do think keeping this as flexible as possible is a good way to 04:23:41.677 --> 04:23:50.366 - start. It can always be changed. I think I'm mostly looking at you, Council Member Stossberg and Rallo. 04:23:50.366 --> 04:23:58.722 - I just think right now, to me, the point of this is taking away a major barrier to any kind of food 04:23:58.722 --> 04:24:00.894 - or alcohol establishment. 04:24:01.282 --> 04:24:08.135 - existing in Bloomington, you can't really run a successful restaurant without alcohol. You can run a 04:24:08.135 --> 04:24:15.056 - successful bar. But like I talked about last time, like we don't have, we have like restaurants or we 04:24:15.056 --> 04:24:21.842 - have college bars for the most part. And like, so we're missing this entire middle like, like world 04:24:21.842 --> 04:24:28.899 - to hang out in because of our rules right now that you either have to pay $250,000 for a liquor license 04:24:28.899 --> 04:24:31.070 - or you have to pay $250,000 for 04:24:31.394 --> 04:24:37.859 - commercial kitchen. So I like that we're flexible and nimble on the food serving part of it because 04:24:37.859 --> 04:24:44.454 - even if you had to do 30% food, you're looking at a commercial kitchen and you also won't survive. So 04:24:44.454 --> 04:24:51.308 - I think that's really cool. And I did want to give one fun example. I used to live in multifamily housing 04:24:51.308 --> 04:24:53.118 - in Detroit and my neighbors 04:24:53.250 --> 04:25:00.387 - They created a perfume line and then they opened a bar that married different scents with different 04:25:00.387 --> 04:25:07.809 - cocktails. And it was a super big hit and super cool in downtown Detroit. And like right now, that kind 04:25:07.809 --> 04:25:15.302 - of thing isn't possible here. But it will be with this. So I don't know, I'm happy to change it as well. 04:25:15.302 --> 04:25:19.870 - If not the food part, but the local ownership, but I also think 04:25:20.098 --> 04:25:26.609 - Director Cooper Smith made a lot of good points. It's like where are we drawing this line and what if 04:25:26.609 --> 04:25:33.119 - like the major owner is in Bloomington but the funders are from someplace else or vice versa. I think 04:25:33.119 --> 04:25:39.757 - you get into murky waters there. So kind of I like the idea of like setting it and seeing what happens. 04:25:39.757 --> 04:25:45.502 - That's it. Thank you. Would anyone like to make an amendment to Amendment 1 at this time. 04:25:48.130 --> 04:25:54.074 - Tony Allen, is it, would it be possible to sort of do this by, would I need to write it and send it 04:25:54.074 --> 04:26:00.256 - as an amendment as such? If you give me, you can make it orally so this is, but I can put it in writing 04:26:00.256 --> 04:26:06.319 - so that we can display it. Well it would just be, because it would just be scratching one line of the 04:26:06.319 --> 04:26:10.718 - amendment, right, instead of. So it would be removing possibly a deletion 04:26:10.818 --> 04:26:17.330 - But the question is, do you want the amendment to be local ownership 50% or do you want it to be something 04:26:17.330 --> 04:26:23.904 - else or do you just want it? Yeah, because I think the issue is less than 50% and more what local ownership 04:26:23.904 --> 04:26:30.355 - means. And so I think we could give clarity afterwards on what do we mean by local ownership or something 04:26:30.355 --> 04:26:36.502 - like that. Director Cooper-Smith, what do you two think? Can I just repeat to make sure I understand 04:26:36.502 --> 04:26:40.702 - what's being considered? So you're suggesting that by scrapping that 04:26:40.802 --> 04:26:46.644 - Amendment you could later define local ownership so we could it could be referenced in this legislation 04:26:46.644 --> 04:26:52.541 - but defined later in a separate piece But are you retaining the previous recommendation for a percentage 04:26:52.541 --> 04:26:58.158 - of sales to define a restaurant? No, no, they're just talking about the local ownership question So 04:26:58.158 --> 04:27:03.326 - so scratching the part of my amendment which deletes that language in the original draft. I 04:27:03.746 --> 04:27:12.713 - just scratch that line from the current amendment so that it retains that we want 50 percent ownership 04:27:12.713 --> 04:27:21.767 - stake in and to be a local I Don't have any issues with that if that's if that's okay with you attorney 04:27:21.767 --> 04:27:30.647 - I just have to pull it up and can tell you exactly the line Would that would that work for councilman 04:27:30.647 --> 04:27:33.694 - Rallo I Don't I don't know if that 04:27:33.794 --> 04:27:41.437 - would work for me, honestly. I would have to think far too much about that in terms of keeping that 04:27:41.437 --> 04:27:49.156 - percentage in as a strict percentage. And so that's where, like, to completely remove the concept of 04:27:49.156 --> 04:27:56.799 - local ownership from minimum eligibility requirements is, I mean, it's the same thing as my concern 04:27:56.799 --> 04:28:03.678 - with the restaurant with at least 60% that I wasn't sure if 60% was the right percentage. 04:28:03.778 --> 04:28:12.877 - I'm uncomfortable, you know not having something in there that emphasizes the importance of Of some 04:28:12.877 --> 04:28:22.250 - kind of a food option and then similarly with the local ownership, you know, maybe 50% isn't the right 04:28:22.250 --> 04:28:32.350 - percentage but I think that there needs to maintain that emphasis that you know, we're trying to support local 04:28:32.802 --> 04:28:41.208 - entrepreneurial ship with these With these kind of special licenses I apologize. Is it okay if I yeah, 04:28:41.208 --> 04:28:50.023 - okay, so I think that if you are interested in You know supporting true restaurants with a with significant 04:28:50.023 --> 04:28:58.348 - food service what we've heard the business the feedback we've received from the community is that the 04:28:58.348 --> 04:29:01.694 - percentage of sales is not going to be a 04:29:02.466 --> 04:29:09.408 - Super great metric for doing that because depending on the operation The alcohol sales may still dwarf 04:29:09.408 --> 04:29:16.485 - the food sales So one of the examples given was for a brewery that has high-priced beer and lower-priced 04:29:16.485 --> 04:29:23.293 - pizza But they're moving a large volume of food But it's just imbalanced and so we were entertaining 04:29:23.293 --> 04:29:30.033 - other there are other ways that are simpler to define a restaurant and that would also take ESD out 04:29:30.033 --> 04:29:32.190 - of cumbersome annual compliance 04:29:32.290 --> 04:29:40.046 - We would do compliance, but we wouldn't want to review sales records if possible, right? so what were 04:29:40.046 --> 04:29:47.726 - those ways that you guys have figured out to Define that better because that's what I think would be 04:29:47.726 --> 04:29:56.318 - nice to have in here. Well, this is why I think we ended up wanting to de-emphasize it in the criteria and place 04:29:56.866 --> 04:30:03.879 - Emphasis on it in the guidelines in the review. We talked about whether it could be defined through 04:30:03.879 --> 04:30:11.524 - the types of kitchen equipment that are on site But honestly, we didn't like legal review didn't necessarily 04:30:11.524 --> 04:30:18.607 - endorse that as a as a way to do it So I don't think that we had a good answer. And so we thought it 04:30:18.607 --> 04:30:23.166 - should be taken out of the concrete I moved into the qualitative 04:30:27.170 --> 04:30:37.556 - open to facilitating that some other way. Thank you. Council member sorry I have nothing to say. I'm 04:30:37.556 --> 04:30:48.663 - happy to either either introduce this or not but I think we should vote. Okay. If there's no other comments 04:30:48.663 --> 04:30:56.478 - there's a revised amendment. Okay. That reinserts the 50 percent ownership. 04:30:56.898 --> 04:31:05.661 - I mean and again, would you like to introduce this as an amendment? By me by me by voice members, sorry 04:31:05.661 --> 04:31:14.762 - We could go I mean that I just think this was the original draft language that's what that is what director 04:31:14.762 --> 04:31:23.273 - Cooper Smith and I had originally sort of conceived in our first drafting of this so I'm comfortable 04:31:23.273 --> 04:31:24.958 - leaving that in and 04:31:25.282 --> 04:31:31.885 - We can always like like Councilmember Rosenberg says we can always go back and change it. Okay. Would 04:31:31.885 --> 04:31:38.358 - someone like to introduce I would like to introduce the amendment to thank you. So you can see what 04:31:38.358 --> 04:31:44.961 - it says. Great. For the Second Amendment to Amendment 1. Does anybody have any questions. Okay. We'll 04:31:44.961 --> 04:31:51.499 - go to public comment on the Second Amendment to Amendment 1. Would anybody like to speak. Thank you. 04:31:51.499 --> 04:31:53.182 - Is there anybody on zoom. 04:31:56.482 --> 04:32:08.862 - Would someone like to speak in chambers? You know, I'm Galen Cassidy here I think that this origin as 04:32:08.862 --> 04:32:21.121 - it was originally laid out and there is appropriate is my opinion in terms of the percentage of food 04:32:21.121 --> 04:32:26.462 - sales, I do think that the industry and the 04:32:26.562 --> 04:32:34.071 - the hospitality industry, restaurant, and bars has a little bit more nuance than what was formally required 04:32:34.071 --> 04:32:41.094 - in some of the original logic behind those food requirements. I think this town in general wanted to 04:32:41.094 --> 04:32:48.255 - get away from just a bunch of sports bars. But I agree with what some of the council members have said 04:32:48.255 --> 04:32:53.470 - about some cool, innovative concepts that maybe aren't super food-focused. 04:32:53.666 --> 04:33:04.063 - The craft brewery scene in particular is it is a great example. So I support this but probably would 04:33:04.063 --> 04:33:14.356 - support also leaving the The food requirement percentage out of it. So, thank you Okay, any council 04:33:14.356 --> 04:33:21.150 - comments The clerk is not in the room so we can't call the roll I 04:33:30.786 --> 04:33:49.701 - Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 2 to Amendment 1. Councilmember Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. 04:33:49.701 --> 04:34:00.510 - Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. 04:34:01.154 --> 04:34:10.366 - Daily. Yes. Bravo. Yes. Thank you. That passes. And now we'll go back to Amendment 1 as amended as amended 04:34:10.366 --> 04:34:19.406 - twice as amended. Are there any questions about Amendment 1. OK. We'll go to public comment on Amendment 04:34:19.406 --> 04:34:28.187 - 1 as amended twice. Does anybody in chambers like to speak. Anybody on Zoom. Great. You'll have three 04:34:28.187 --> 04:34:30.942 - minutes please state your name. 04:34:33.154 --> 04:34:39.434 - Good evening again council Chris room drink great building a chamber of commerce For those of us home. 04:34:39.434 --> 04:34:45.776 - Could you give a recap of where we're at? What was added and what wasn't in this amendment just because 04:34:45.776 --> 04:34:51.873 - I think we just added the 50% We kept that in there from the original resolution and We took it out 04:34:51.873 --> 04:34:57.970 - and we put it back in but the food is still out if that's if I'm got my scorekeeping at home and on 04:34:57.970 --> 04:35:00.958 - that level I think this is still big improvement 04:35:01.410 --> 04:35:07.995 - And again, I'm going to say this. We want to make this less complicated the better. We don't want to 04:35:07.995 --> 04:35:14.514 - be looking at entrepreneurs and business owner books. And I think we've we've accomplished that. So 04:35:14.514 --> 04:35:20.708 - my hats off again to President sorry for the work he's done and Director Cooper Smith as well. 04:35:20.708 --> 04:35:27.357 - Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else on zoom in chambers. Great. We will go back to council comment for 04:35:27.357 --> 04:35:30.878 - amendment one as amended. Would anyone like to speak. 04:35:31.938 --> 04:35:39.199 - Councilmember Stasberg, I just want to say I I'm gonna vote no on this because of the the food and restaurant 04:35:39.199 --> 04:35:45.800 - thing But I I also want to say that I don't feel as though I had the time to really understand this 04:35:45.800 --> 04:35:52.731 - very well we This was sent out to us last night pretty late. And then today I was basically in Columbus, 04:35:52.731 --> 04:35:59.134 - Indiana all day at a workshop and I was trying to read this during my like lunch ten minutes, so 04:35:59.234 --> 04:36:06.928 - I am a little bit challenged right now because I feel like there's more in here that has been changed 04:36:06.928 --> 04:36:14.472 - that I didn't actually get a chance to really look at and understand and digest. So the things that 04:36:14.472 --> 04:36:22.166 - I pulled out, I'm glad that the local ownership emphasis went back in. I think that that does improve 04:36:22.166 --> 04:36:29.182 - things to some degree, but I think that the restaurant thing needs to have better, something 04:36:29.538 --> 04:36:39.751 - different and and better with it and I am I'm I'm just concerned that I Don't otherwise feel as prepared 04:36:39.751 --> 04:36:49.574 - as I should be because of when this was received. Thanks other council comments Okay, will the clerk 04:36:49.574 --> 04:36:58.814 - please call the roll on amendment one as amended by one and two Councilmember Rosenberger, yes 04:37:00.514 --> 04:37:13.373 - Sosberg no Piedmont Smith. Yes Zulek. Yes, sorry. Yes, daily. Yes Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Thank you. Thank 04:37:13.373 --> 04:37:26.109 - you that passes seven one Now we are back to the original ordinance as amended would anybody on council 04:37:26.109 --> 04:37:28.926 - like to ask a question 04:37:32.258 --> 04:37:42.813 - Okay, let's go to public comment if you would like to speak on Ordinance 20 26-18 as amended, please 04:37:42.813 --> 04:37:53.472 - approach the podium And if you're on zoom raise your hand we'll get to you Gail and Cassidy again, so 04:37:53.472 --> 04:38:01.310 - I think I've made my opinions clear on this just appreciate from the staff 04:38:01.730 --> 04:38:08.223 - You council members for hearing this out and a lot of you may not realize this but This a version of 04:38:08.223 --> 04:38:14.653 - this ordinance is over 20 years in the making And it's been a long long time and I can't say enough 04:38:14.653 --> 04:38:21.210 - about a lot of the things that have been mentioned about encouraging economic growth and giving a low 04:38:21.210 --> 04:38:27.639 - barrier to entry for a lot of young entrepreneurs that we're trying to attract to this community to 04:38:27.639 --> 04:38:29.118 - start some really cool 04:38:29.218 --> 04:38:35.157 - restaurant or bar concepts or otherwise and Just appreciate all your times the the Late nights 04:38:35.157 --> 04:38:41.533 - and everything. So thank you for everything. Appreciate it. Thank you very much Is there anybody else 04:38:41.533 --> 04:38:47.847 - in chambers who would like to speak on this? Is there anybody on zoom? Great, please state your name 04:38:47.847 --> 04:38:54.286 - and you'll have three minutes Thank you again, Christopher mg greater Bloomington chamber of commerce. 04:38:54.286 --> 04:38:58.974 - I want to echo mr. Cassidy's words which were exactly mine, but I think we 04:38:59.618 --> 04:39:05.469 - have to realize why this is such an important tool. We want to keep it predictable, these permits, so 04:39:05.469 --> 04:39:11.377 - they can capture new investment, fill in some difficult properties, create new business that otherwise 04:39:11.377 --> 04:39:17.687 - might not happen, and this is a vehicle to do that. We're hoping that these applications have big investment, 04:39:17.687 --> 04:39:20.670 - and what's causing the big investment is, oh, these 04:39:20.802 --> 04:39:28.887 - Sort of streamline cheaper liquor permits that allow that to happen when in our community does not happen 04:39:28.887 --> 04:39:36.666 - $250,000 that's a barrier. And so this is really taking that out and seeing what we can uncover based 04:39:36.666 --> 04:39:44.598 - on that So appreciate all the work of everybody involved We support this. Thank you Thank you. Is there 04:39:44.598 --> 04:39:49.022 - anyone else on zoom? One last call for chambers. Oh Is it 04:39:51.842 --> 04:40:00.276 - Um, we'll go back to council comment. Would anyone like to speak on any final comments? Oh, council 04:40:00.276 --> 04:40:08.711 - member Rosenberger. Yep. Just a quick final comment. I, um, I think what Mr. MG just said, I wanted 04:40:08.711 --> 04:40:17.229 - to echo that a little bit that or, and also Mr. Cassidy that this is a 20 year thing and I thank you 04:40:17.229 --> 04:40:21.278 - to staff and council members for working on it. 04:40:21.506 --> 04:40:27.384 - I'm my tiny pessimistic view is that or that, you know, I just kind of want to say people are always 04:40:27.384 --> 04:40:33.204 - saying Bloomington is so ahead of the game and all that stuff like my hometown, New Albany did this 04:40:33.204 --> 04:40:39.024 - 20 years ago. And it's totally changed the downtown and that made it cool for people. We don't have 04:40:39.024 --> 04:40:45.076 - that problem exactly, but it was like just all good things and no bad things, which is really exciting. 04:40:45.076 --> 04:40:49.150 - And so the next thing to me in our year is New Albany recently became 04:40:49.890 --> 04:40:57.372 - Adora district where you can carry alcohol around Outside all the way from downtown to the river, which 04:40:57.372 --> 04:41:04.783 - doesn't mean a lot to some people But it's just an idea that we had with Kirkwood being open to humans 04:41:04.783 --> 04:41:12.265 - and we could potentially do that again here after this Thanks Thank you. Any final comments Great. Will 04:41:12.265 --> 04:41:16.222 - the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Stasberg 04:41:24.642 --> 04:41:42.078 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. That passes. 04:41:42.658 --> 04:41:50.247 - Wonderful. All right, well, this leads us to the last item. Where is the agenda? The last thing on our 04:41:50.247 --> 04:41:57.688 - agenda, we have one last time of public comment. You get the privilege of giving a public comment at 04:41:57.688 --> 04:42:05.645 - 11, 15 at night on your, you know, surely it's on someone's to-do list. Anyone, public comment on anything? 04:42:05.645 --> 04:42:06.750 - Anyone online? 04:42:07.746 --> 04:42:14.891 - Which case I'd like to read some Camus quotes. No. All right. So going back to council schedule or other 04:42:14.891 --> 04:42:21.764 - than obviously next week we have the Council deliberation session Councilmember Stossberg, there's a 04:42:21.764 --> 04:42:28.841 - fiscal committee meeting this Friday at 830 and Allison conference room. You can also access it online. 04:42:28.841 --> 04:42:30.270 - Thank you tremendous 04:42:30.402 --> 04:42:37.690 - I I don't know the date yet, but I'll work with clerk and council staff on thinking about we need to 04:42:37.690 --> 04:42:45.195 - do I Don't if appropriate, I think an executive session For for initial onboarding of our new candidate 04:42:45.195 --> 04:42:52.628 - those things and if it's appropriate, I don't know if it is But anyways, we might hear about that Kate 04:42:52.628 --> 04:42:56.958 - Councilmember Rosenberger. Sorry question pedestrian safety 04:42:57.282 --> 04:43:06.268 - Committee is working on meeting and if you all remember when we passed our 2026 funding recommendations 04:43:06.268 --> 04:43:14.909 - We asked planning staff to come back mid-year to give a report and I wanted to ask if council wants 04:43:14.909 --> 04:43:23.809 - that report only in writing or if they would like a presentation and a report Thoughts Writing is fine 04:43:23.809 --> 04:43:26.142 - with me writing is fine. I 04:43:26.306 --> 04:43:33.063 - with us and we can ask you questions on a written report, I'm sure. OK, great. Thanks. Excellent. 04:43:33.063 --> 04:43:34.718 - With that, adjournment.