WEBVTT 00:00:00.130 --> 00:00:07.880 - We are doing second readings of our budget ordinances, and we have a first reading of the budget ordinance. 00:00:07.880 --> 00:00:15.199 - There'll be opportunities for public comment during each of the ordinances, including whether there's 00:00:15.199 --> 00:00:22.590 - any amendments. You'll also get opportunities to comment on that, both in person and online. Are there 00:00:22.590 --> 00:00:24.958 - any motions before we get going? 00:00:27.842 --> 00:00:38.109 - I'm so sorry Yes, I move that we amend the agenda to put item 4b before item 4a second motion in a second 00:00:38.109 --> 00:00:48.376 - all those in favor I Any opposed thank you very much. So item 4b, which is the Bloomington Transit Budget 00:00:48.376 --> 00:00:56.318 - will go first and then and then we'll proceed with a C D then E any other motions 00:00:57.698 --> 00:01:06.083 - All right, would anybody like to make a comment or any other such thing at this moment? All right, seeing 00:01:06.083 --> 00:01:13.518 - none, then we will proceed with legislation for first readings. Are there any motions? I move 00:01:13.518 --> 00:01:21.744 - that appropriation ordinance 2026-04 be read by title and synopsis only by the clerk. Second. All those 00:01:21.744 --> 00:01:26.174 - in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Will the clerk please read? 00:01:27.298 --> 00:01:32.311 - Appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero for an ordinance adopting a budget for the operations 00:01:32.311 --> 00:01:37.134 - maintenance debt service and capital improvements for the water and wastewater utility departments of 00:01:37.134 --> 00:01:41.532 - the city of Bloomington Indiana for the year twenty twenty seven. The synopsis is as follows 00:01:41.532 --> 00:01:46.308 - this appropriation ordinance approved by the utility service board in July of twenty twenty six sets 00:01:46.308 --> 00:01:48.862 - the water wastewater budgets for twenty twenty seven. 00:01:57.090 --> 00:02:05.609 - Okay any other motions seeing none we'll move on to legislation for second reading Excuse me point at 00:02:05.609 --> 00:02:14.127 - point of order. So is there nobody here from utilities to so that we can have a discussion tonight on 00:02:14.127 --> 00:02:16.382 - since his first reading or 00:02:21.890 --> 00:02:27.948 - Yes, I believe director Zager is online and available for questions if council has any questions I just 00:02:27.948 --> 00:02:33.889 - did just want to clarify that this is the first reading for the Water and wastewater utilities budget 00:02:33.889 --> 00:02:39.715 - and this budget is not connected with the state process that we're going through for the civil city 00:02:39.715 --> 00:02:45.714 - of her Bloomington transit But I believe that there are utilities folks online available for questions 00:02:45.714 --> 00:02:50.782 - of council council has any Excellent. So then in which case are there any motions? Yes 00:02:51.170 --> 00:02:59.272 - Move to discuss appropriation ordinance 20 2604 second Second motion in the second all those in favor 00:02:59.272 --> 00:03:07.215 - of discussing I any opposed All right Will the clerk please read up? Sorry that is before us. So So 00:03:07.215 --> 00:03:15.555 - with that Director Zager if you would like to take it away we get these computers on as well Don't worry 00:03:15.555 --> 00:03:20.638 - if not, don't worry. We can always turn around But take it away 00:03:21.122 --> 00:03:29.753 - Director Zee if you're there. Yeah I'm just bringing our appropriation ordinance for our budget for 00:03:29.753 --> 00:03:38.902 - the year 20 27 which you saw a presentation during the budget presentations. This is just the legislation 00:03:38.902 --> 00:03:47.620 - reflective of that. All right. Thank you so much. Are there any questions. Council member Stossberg. 00:03:47.620 --> 00:03:49.950 - So just for clarification. 00:03:50.082 --> 00:03:57.786 - This ordinance is just what was presented during budget hearings. There's nothing different about what 00:03:57.786 --> 00:04:05.265 - is here this evening versus what we heard during budget presentations No, great. Thank you customer 00:04:05.265 --> 00:04:12.894 - Puma Smith Can you explain what the depreciation fund is for both the water and then the wastewater I 00:04:15.330 --> 00:04:25.985 - Yeah the depreciation fund those are depreciating assets. And that is just reflective of the value of 00:04:25.985 --> 00:04:36.640 - those depreciating assets. OK can you explain it to me like I'm 12. So yeah yeah. So we have you know 00:04:36.640 --> 00:04:45.310 - all of our our trucks and our equipment just like your car loses value every year. 00:04:45.762 --> 00:04:58.802 - And so that line is reflective of that for all of our assets. Does that help make sense of that? Well, 00:04:58.802 --> 00:05:11.461 - if something is depreciating, it's decreasing in value. So why do we have $4.9 million appropriated 00:05:11.461 --> 00:05:15.006 - from the depreciation fund? 00:05:17.506 --> 00:05:27.939 - Let me, sorry. Like where does that money come from? Because things depreciate, they become less valuable. 00:05:27.939 --> 00:05:37.787 - So where does this 4.9 million come from? That is a good question. I will get back to you on that. I 00:05:37.787 --> 00:05:46.270 - apologize that I don't have the explanation for depreciation in front of me right now. 00:05:47.202 --> 00:05:54.936 - but I can get back to you on that. Controlling McCam is approaching the podium. I did not help formulate 00:05:54.936 --> 00:06:02.597 - this budget, but I can tell you that in general, a depreciation fund for a utility would be essentially 00:06:02.597 --> 00:06:10.405 - a fund that would house resources that would be used to repair or maintain depreciating assets. So that's 00:06:10.405 --> 00:06:14.014 - why there's actually a positive number in there. 00:06:17.826 --> 00:06:26.652 - Okay. So maintenance and replacement of depreciating assets usually essentially. Yes. Okay. Well director 00:06:26.652 --> 00:06:35.311 - Zager if you could research that and get back to us I'd appreciate it. Absolutely. Mr. McCain any other 00:06:35.311 --> 00:06:43.138 - questions. All right. Seeing none we'll go to public comment if anybody would like to comment 00:06:43.138 --> 00:06:46.302 - on appropriation ordinance 20 26 0 4. 00:06:47.714 --> 00:06:56.825 - Anyone in chambers. Surprise. Anyone online. Surprise. So let's come back to council. Would you like 00:06:56.825 --> 00:07:06.747 - to make any comments. Councilman Smith. I'll just say for the benefit of the public we also have a stormwater 00:07:06.747 --> 00:07:16.670 - utility but that budget is included with the wastewater. Excellent. Any other comments. Councilman Stossberg. 00:07:16.670 --> 00:07:17.662 - Thank you. 00:07:17.986 --> 00:07:25.923 - I'll just thank the utility folks directors acre and whoever else is online for being there to be available 00:07:25.923 --> 00:07:33.712 - in case we need them. Thank you All right with that then we'll move on to legislation for second readings 00:07:33.712 --> 00:07:41.208 - we'll be discussing this Don't we need to recommend it first? Yeah. Yeah, actually motions. Are there 00:07:41.208 --> 00:07:43.486 - any motions? Thank you. I move 00:07:43.618 --> 00:07:51.973 - to send appropriation ordinance 2026-03 to the next Regular session on October 14th Oh for can you amend 00:07:51.973 --> 00:08:00.327 - can you amend your motion to be the correct ordinance? Oh my gosh. Yes. Sorry. I amend my motion I meant 00:08:00.327 --> 00:08:08.364 - to say appropriation ordinance 2026-04 to our next regular session on October 14th second motion and 00:08:08.364 --> 00:08:10.910 - second all of those in favor of 00:08:12.194 --> 00:08:20.190 - Thank you very much. This will be discussed at our next regular session moving on to legislation for 00:08:20.190 --> 00:08:28.502 - second readings I Move that Appropriation ordinance 2026-03 be introduced and read by the clerk by title 00:08:28.502 --> 00:08:36.735 - and synopsis only Motion in a second any discussion all those in favor No, we motioned to move oh three 00:08:36.735 --> 00:08:39.902 - before oh two and then all said yes Yes 00:08:40.034 --> 00:08:52.358 - Alright, so the motion is to read 20 2603 by title and synopsis all those in favor Any opposed all right, 00:08:52.358 --> 00:09:05.032 - and will the clerk please read It's 20 26-03 in ordinance for appropriation and tax rates of for Bloomington 00:09:05.032 --> 00:09:09.566 - Transit Corporation for 2027 Thank you 00:09:11.522 --> 00:09:19.912 - I move that appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash three be adopted. Second. All right. Would 00:09:19.912 --> 00:09:28.138 - you all like to add anything since last week. Just introduce yourself sir. Yes thank you. I'm James 00:09:28.138 --> 00:09:36.446 - McClary chairman of the board of limited transit. I would like to introduce our new general manager. 00:09:36.578 --> 00:09:44.873 - He started action yesterday and we've got him fully engaged Nick Good evening council. It's nice to 00:09:44.873 --> 00:09:53.749 - be here. Nice to meet everyone and I'm looking forward to Working hard for Bloomington transit. Wonderful. 00:09:53.749 --> 00:10:01.630 - Thank you so much and welcome Nick last name stand-off er Good to meet you director center for 00:10:05.154 --> 00:10:12.824 - All right. Anything else. I believe we had four questions. Is that correct. I think we had four questions 00:10:12.824 --> 00:10:20.566 - from council at the last hearing and I think we've responded to all of them. And I don't know if everybody 00:10:20.566 --> 00:10:27.874 - is comfortable with our answers but we gave answers to all of them. So thank you. Thank you so much. 00:10:27.874 --> 00:10:33.662 - Council members first. Happy with answers. All right. Any other questions then. 00:10:36.962 --> 00:10:44.865 - Councilman Smith. So in a packet of denim today we received a presentation of your budget proposal. 00:10:44.865 --> 00:10:52.847 - I didn't have time to look at it. Was there any change from last time. OK. So I wasn't for sure what 00:10:52.847 --> 00:11:00.987 - we did at this meeting the third means I don't normally come to this meeting. So I reached out in case 00:11:00.987 --> 00:11:03.358 - we need to do a presentation. 00:11:03.778 --> 00:11:11.029 - Never spend no changes since the September meeting. So I just kind of prepared something real fast if 00:11:11.029 --> 00:11:18.281 - I needed to present something So there's no changes now Okay. Thank you. Ms. Browning That was Krista 00:11:18.281 --> 00:11:25.461 - Browning for the record. Thank you. Sorry Okay, any other questions? All right. We'll move to public 00:11:25.461 --> 00:11:32.286 - comment. Does anyone is there anyone who'd wish to comment on ordinance? 2020 603 Anyone online 00:11:34.338 --> 00:11:46.939 - All right, coming back to council, any comments here? Seeing none, I'll just make one, which is, well, 00:11:46.939 --> 00:11:59.785 - I'll save this joke for later, but I think obviously, thank you BT, one of the highlights of Bloomington 00:11:59.785 --> 00:12:02.110 - is that we have a, 00:12:02.210 --> 00:12:09.498 - a relatively strong public transit. We know that given the, you know, fiscal constraints, especially 00:12:09.498 --> 00:12:16.787 - with the end of ed lit funds, both going to you but generally that fund ending, you know, as well as 00:12:16.787 --> 00:12:24.436 - just general pressures in the space that we're facing, you know, hard times ahead and I, you know, really 00:12:24.436 --> 00:12:25.374 - look forward 00:12:25.442 --> 00:12:31.660 - over the next year, working together, try to figure out what that looks like and how we can best support 00:12:31.660 --> 00:12:37.938 - that to make sure that we continue to maintain a really strong public transit, especially if those things 00:12:37.938 --> 00:12:43.978 - involve combining with IU, whatever those type of things, conversations that need to start happening, 00:12:43.978 --> 00:12:50.078 - and hopefully we can start having those conversations now, rather than, I don't know, a year from now. 00:12:50.078 --> 00:12:55.408 - And so, very much thanking you all for the work and welcome to our new director and thank 00:12:55.408 --> 00:13:00.888 - Thank you to the amazing board members who continue to serve the city and many of whom who served the 00:13:00.888 --> 00:13:06.529 - city for almost as long as I've been alive. So Thank you all very much for that. So with that Oh council 00:13:06.529 --> 00:13:11.901 - member Stossberg. Go ahead. Sorry. Yes I just wanted to mention because I had a couple of questions 00:13:11.901 --> 00:13:17.327 - last time and I just wanted to mention that those did get answered to me by email and just say those 00:13:17.327 --> 00:13:19.422 - out loud one of my questions was about 00:13:19.522 --> 00:13:26.885 - The reference to health insurance for BT increasing by so much and whether or not the city insurance 00:13:26.885 --> 00:13:34.905 - could cover BT and that answer is no That's just not not possible and then the other one was about increasing 00:13:34.905 --> 00:13:42.487 - fares and the conclusion is that increasing fares is going to decrease ridership and disproportionately 00:13:42.487 --> 00:13:48.830 - Affect lower-income folks. So the decision at this point is to not increase fares, but 00:13:49.058 --> 00:13:58.111 - And I just wanted to put that on the record somewhere. Thank you so much customer be much with And and 00:13:58.111 --> 00:14:07.428 - the answers to my questions were sent via email and they're were included in our packet in case anybody's 00:14:07.428 --> 00:14:16.569 - wondering Thank you so much. All right with that Will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance? 2020 00:14:16.569 --> 00:14:18.942 - 603 Councilmember Flaherty 00:14:19.234 --> 00:14:28.756 - Yes, Stossburg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes, daily. Yes, rough Thank you. Thank 00:14:28.756 --> 00:14:39.126 - you very much. Have a wonderful year All right any motions Thank you. Thank you all I move that appropriation 00:14:39.126 --> 00:14:47.422 - ordinance 20 2602 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second 00:14:47.554 --> 00:14:53.490 - There's a motion to second all those in favor any opposed Appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six 00:14:53.490 --> 00:14:59.664 - dash zero two and ordinance for appropriations and tax rates establishing the twenty twenty seven civil 00:14:59.664 --> 00:15:05.779 - city budget for the city of Bloomington the synopsis is as follows an appropriation ordinance adopting 00:15:05.779 --> 00:15:11.715 - the city's annual budget and establishing the necessary tax rates tax levies and Appropriations for 00:15:11.715 --> 00:15:16.702 - the city's obligations for the fiscal year ending December 31st twenty twenty seven 00:15:18.082 --> 00:15:25.054 - Thank you very much. I move that appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero to be adopted. 00:15:25.054 --> 00:15:32.026 - Second. OK. Fantastic. Before sort of searches how would you all. I mean we have lots of amendments 00:15:32.026 --> 00:15:39.138 - there's response from the mayor to a lot of proposed things. How would you all like to structure this 00:15:39.138 --> 00:15:46.180 - part of the conversation best if you have any opinions. Otherwise I'm happy to just say what I think 00:15:46.180 --> 00:15:48.062 - is best. And any thoughts. 00:15:48.258 --> 00:15:50.014 - or strong thoughts here. 00:15:50.242 --> 00:15:55.740 - Let's hear what you think is best. OK. Well, what I would suggest that we do is maybe first we can either 00:15:55.740 --> 00:16:00.927 - if any council members have any particular things they'd like to say, it would be a good time to do 00:16:00.927 --> 00:16:06.321 - it. You can do that any time you want. I will happily engage with that. I think it would be very useful 00:16:06.321 --> 00:16:11.560 - to hear from the office of the mayor that wrote a very useful memo to some of the conversations that 00:16:11.560 --> 00:16:16.954 - we've had and some of the pending questions. And then I think it will be good for us to then go through 00:16:16.954 --> 00:16:20.222 - amendments as the sponsors may wish to introduce those or not. 00:16:21.314 --> 00:16:28.445 - Seem appropriate because we're pretty much Smith It may be more efficient to Since the the mayor's office 00:16:28.445 --> 00:16:35.441 - both had an introduction I think they're welcome to speak on first, but they also had specific feedback 00:16:35.441 --> 00:16:42.168 - on So maybe when we get to so those reactions could be when we when and if we introduce those Yeah, 00:16:42.168 --> 00:16:48.962 - I think that's a great point. Thank you. Thank you for saying that does seem good for everybody Does 00:16:48.962 --> 00:16:50.846 - that seem good for you all? 00:16:51.938 --> 00:16:59.191 - All right. Well great then any would you like to say anything as we open up anyone sitting in the beautiful 00:16:59.191 --> 00:17:06.042 - corner over there? No. All right, then we'll come to you councilmember Stossberg. I'll move amendment 00:17:06.042 --> 00:17:12.825 - one to Appropriation Ordinance twenty twenty six oh two second All right, go for it You want to tell 00:17:12.825 --> 00:17:19.676 - us a bit about it? Amendment one is the one that reduces the sanitation subsidy from 1.6 million down 00:17:19.676 --> 00:17:21.086 - to 1 million pending 00:17:22.498 --> 00:17:29.844 - The fiscal committee got a presentation from sanitation regarding increased rates. And so there is an 00:17:29.844 --> 00:17:35.966 - assumption that that increased rates would would mean that less subsidy is required. 00:17:36.354 --> 00:17:42.928 - This does not guarantee in any way for the public that your rates would increase because we've always 00:17:42.928 --> 00:17:49.760 - come back next year for an additional appropriation for that six hundred thousand dollars if the increase 00:17:49.760 --> 00:17:56.270 - fails at the council level. But I think that it's a good preemptive step because we don't know right 00:17:56.270 --> 00:18:03.166 - now what's going to happen with that increase. Yeah. Thank you so much. Any questions or further comments. 00:18:07.746 --> 00:18:16.533 - member Zulek Just read for the Public record the administration's position as they support it and they'll 00:18:16.533 --> 00:18:24.822 - bring new rates to counsel in the fall Okay Thank you very much any other comments All right, would 00:18:24.822 --> 00:18:33.194 - you all like to add anything? Okay, fantastic Let's go then to public comment. Would anybody like to 00:18:33.194 --> 00:18:36.510 - comment on amendment one? Anyone online 00:18:38.274 --> 00:18:49.603 - All right. We'll come back to counsel. Any comments here. All right. Fantastic. Will the clerk please 00:18:49.603 --> 00:18:59.710 - call the roll on amendment one. Let's try that again. Sorry. Council member Stasberg. Yes. 00:18:59.710 --> 00:19:07.262 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Ruff. Yes. 00:19:07.554 --> 00:19:20.035 - Yes, thank you. Thank you very much that carries I'd like to move that we introduce amendment three 00:19:20.035 --> 00:19:31.518 - Yeah, amendment three Second I don't think you can second if you're gonna second Councilman 00:19:31.650 --> 00:19:38.937 - President Asari, would you like to tell us about Amendment 3? So first, I'm not introducing Amendment 00:19:38.937 --> 00:19:46.653 - 2 after our work session. I think that was a fairly good answer about what that $600,000 was for. Amendment 00:19:46.653 --> 00:19:54.012 - 3 removes funding for corridor and sub-area and other planning studies. Again, I think we talked about 00:19:54.012 --> 00:19:59.870 - this in depth about sort of my thinking around this amendment specifically, but I 00:20:00.642 --> 00:20:09.115 - would like us to have very clearly scoped out studies with clear sense of what we're going to do with 00:20:09.115 --> 00:20:17.838 - them would prefer fun plans than studies. And so generally speaking my position has not changed on that. 00:20:17.838 --> 00:20:26.394 - So that's what Amendment 3 does. All right. Does anybody have any questions for President Asari or for 00:20:26.394 --> 00:20:28.222 - the administration or 00:20:28.450 --> 00:20:35.915 - I invite you to come up and make a comment. Yes. Thank you. If you have any thing that you would like 00:20:35.915 --> 00:20:43.306 - to say Good evening. I'm Lynn coin. I'm the interim director of planning and transportation pleasure 00:20:43.306 --> 00:20:50.697 - to be here this evening. I We gave you a detailed response to the budget so I won't belabor that and 00:20:50.697 --> 00:20:54.942 - go through it I'm going to assume everybody reviewed that 00:20:55.106 --> 00:21:02.728 - Think the key points to remember are one. This is a precursor the study is a precursor to Gateway to 00:21:02.728 --> 00:21:10.425 - other funding and projects down the road as we mentioned in the response the timeline is very far out 00:21:10.425 --> 00:21:18.499 - and everything begins with a study such as what we're proposing so Would very much appreciate you allowing 00:21:18.499 --> 00:21:22.046 - us to go forward with this as it's scoped into 00:21:22.274 --> 00:21:30.227 - It's scoped generally at this point because we do not know Until the study is done where the specifics 00:21:30.227 --> 00:21:38.103 - will lead and that then leads to applications for funding it leads to engineering design And so forth 00:21:38.103 --> 00:21:45.979 - our follow-on events to this. So this is the precursor event without this that doesn't happen Okay in 00:21:45.979 --> 00:21:48.990 - addition It wasn't in the memo but the 00:21:49.634 --> 00:21:58.598 - This is part part of this responds to the safe streets for all grant the 1.44 million dollar grant that 00:21:58.598 --> 00:22:08.078 - was awarded the city earlier and the transportation portions of this study Will be eligible for reimbursement 00:22:08.078 --> 00:22:16.094 - under that grant as an example if 50% of this grant is allocated to transportation work then 00:22:16.418 --> 00:22:23.214 - We could submit for an 80 percent reimbursement of that portion of the grant. So the cost likely will 00:22:23.214 --> 00:22:30.077 - not be two sixty five in the end depending on how much reimbursement we can get for the transportation 00:22:30.077 --> 00:22:36.873 - portions of the study. Again I won't go over all the details of our response. I'll spare you that but 00:22:36.873 --> 00:22:42.270 - I'd be glad to answer questions if you had any. Does anybody have any questions. 00:22:44.514 --> 00:22:53.366 - Councilmember Stossberg and then councilmember Piedmont Smith what happens to your process if this Amendment 00:22:53.366 --> 00:23:01.487 - passes and these studies are defunded Well the process stops We'll continue with studies we have in 00:23:01.487 --> 00:23:08.958 - progress and then we'll have to regroup and figure out what we can do with what we have and 00:23:09.698 --> 00:23:15.791 - Take it from there the last study for example on downtown land use was in 2008 18 years ago and one 00:23:15.791 --> 00:23:22.127 - of the things we really want to get going under the comprehensive plan is a re-evaluation of that given 00:23:22.127 --> 00:23:28.524 - the Convention Center everything that's going on downtown plus the land south of Second Street The Clear 00:23:28.524 --> 00:23:34.616 - Creek corridor study that's going on. Those are also very important components. So there's the land 00:23:34.616 --> 00:23:35.774 - use component that 00:23:36.226 --> 00:23:44.283 - Will back off there's a transportation component. There's the economic development and vitality component 00:23:44.283 --> 00:23:51.884 - these just Will get put off. But what's the consequence of those things? stopping like or being put 00:23:51.884 --> 00:23:59.789 - off like what is the well We will not be able to adapt to changing conditions Okay, which is what we're 00:23:59.789 --> 00:24:03.742 - trying to anticipate. Let's talk for a moment about 00:24:04.674 --> 00:24:11.546 - The land immediately south of second Street down Walnut Street is part of the downtown zone. It's a 00:24:11.546 --> 00:24:18.555 - gateway downtown zone. It has very restrictive zoning. We have properties that are Increasingly going 00:24:18.555 --> 00:24:25.426 - unused and vacant. We need to find a way to revitalize that and part of that could be an adjunct to 00:24:25.426 --> 00:24:33.054 - this for example plus the downtown the square the coming College walnut study the impact of that and so on and 00:24:34.882 --> 00:24:45.874 - We just have to go back and regroup see what we can do to move those along. So OK. Thank you. Sure. 00:24:45.874 --> 00:24:57.415 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. So in the memorandum from the administration regarding this amendment 00:24:57.415 --> 00:25:04.670 - talks about the downtown corridor stay including Kirkwood Avenue. 00:25:04.834 --> 00:25:14.084 - This is a question for the mayor Since it's only tangentially related to planning and transportation 00:25:14.084 --> 00:25:23.701 - But prior to the study of the Kirkwood corridor and As as called for in the transportation plan to think 00:25:23.701 --> 00:25:31.486 - about how to convert it to a shared street What is the administration's position on? 00:25:31.618 --> 00:25:40.292 - having Kirkwood seasonally close to vehicular traffic next year? Well, our position remains the same, 00:25:40.292 --> 00:25:48.881 - that we need a study to figure out exactly the right way forward with Kirkwood and how we can design 00:25:48.881 --> 00:25:57.896 - it to be the street that we envision that really maximizes safety and business and vibrancy for downtown. 00:25:57.896 --> 00:26:00.702 - But the plan was, if you recall, 00:26:00.802 --> 00:26:08.394 - that we would put the RFP out for this corridor study so that we could get moving on that in good time. 00:26:08.394 --> 00:26:16.060 - So we had anticipated putting that RFP out this fall so that we could get the plan done early next year. 00:26:16.060 --> 00:26:23.506 - And just to connect the dots here, I think Council Member Stossberg asked what happens if we don't go 00:26:23.506 --> 00:26:29.054 - forward with these plans. If you don't go forward with the plans, we can't, 00:26:29.634 --> 00:26:38.245 - Complete the work that is in things like our transportation plan We we fall behind on that if we don't 00:26:38.245 --> 00:26:46.857 - complete these plans. We also can't apply for funding so these various safe streets for all grants the 00:26:46.857 --> 00:26:55.134 - the the corridor improvement plans and the grants that we get from federal transportation they all 00:26:55.266 --> 00:27:03.036 - are contingent upon having these plans done well in advance and having the community commit to the planning 00:27:03.036 --> 00:27:10.375 - process and having it signed off on. So it is not the case that we can wait for the grant to come out 00:27:10.375 --> 00:27:17.858 - and then do the plan. We have to have a plan in place so that we can apply for these grants. So we lose 00:27:17.858 --> 00:27:22.750 - out on funding if we say no to plans is the long and short of this. 00:27:24.482 --> 00:27:31.888 - Specific to Kirkwood you're saying that this bigger Kirkwood corridor study which is only funded for 00:27:31.888 --> 00:27:39.294 - 30% of the design is Needs to be done before we consider a seasonal opening of Kirkwood next year Is 00:27:39.294 --> 00:27:47.140 - that what I'm that was part of the plan? Yes to to get this done and get it moving so that we can consider 00:27:47.140 --> 00:27:52.126 - carefully what it's going to take to close Kirkwood if we do it and 00:27:54.466 --> 00:28:05.477 - All right, thank you. Any other questions? I have one or two clarification questions. So we talk, 00:28:05.477 --> 00:28:16.825 - you know, I understand we have to have a plan set to be able to apply for the funding. Could we have 00:28:16.825 --> 00:28:18.398 - theoretically 00:28:18.530 --> 00:28:25.495 - I'm not talking about any particular project but theoretically could we have a plan for something without 00:28:25.495 --> 00:28:32.198 - having done a study first do we have to show a study that has crafted that plan or Dictated that plan 00:28:32.198 --> 00:28:38.834 - as a general rule to apply for the federal funding. They have very specific requirements You have to 00:28:38.834 --> 00:28:46.654 - have as I listed in the memorandum your study problem your study objectives conditions assessment alternative analysis 00:28:46.850 --> 00:28:53.582 - Transportation project a basis for quantitative marriage determine how the alternatives work. It's It 00:28:53.582 --> 00:29:00.315 - is an analysis. It's an analytical plan of current conditions and what you intend to do in the future 00:29:00.315 --> 00:29:06.981 - it is and It takes a lot of time and expertise and a consultant to get that done so that it's in the 00:29:06.981 --> 00:29:13.648 - drawer and ready to go Not only for funding but actually for our own activities internally so but it 00:29:13.648 --> 00:29:16.222 - is a critical precursor to the funding 00:29:16.418 --> 00:29:22.788 - Okay, so you couldn't just say this is what we want to do I cannot give you a one-pager of this would 00:29:22.788 --> 00:29:29.034 - be really good if we could do this right and hand it to the federal government It's competitive and 00:29:29.034 --> 00:29:35.279 - we wouldn't make it and I I think so my sense is some of the frustration around the studies is that 00:29:35.279 --> 00:29:41.650 - we hear about several studies and Then nothing seems to happen from them, you know, we hear that, you 00:29:41.650 --> 00:29:46.334 - know college and walnut is being studied Indiana is being studied and then 00:29:46.466 --> 00:29:52.778 - A long time will pass and we don't hear anything. What is the shelf life for these studies? Like, 00:29:52.778 --> 00:29:59.219 - you know, how long can those be good to then later come back and be like, oh, here's the grant. Now 00:29:59.219 --> 00:30:05.789 - we can implement it. That depends on the funding situation. How long is the shelf life? You'd hope in 00:30:05.789 --> 00:30:12.230 - your analysis that it is a long shelf life, that it is a good plan. It's a durable plan and it will 00:30:12.230 --> 00:30:16.030 - stay in place as you seek funding as it becomes available. 00:30:16.514 --> 00:30:23.701 - The city doesn't have the funding to do the entire project It depends on federal support state support 00:30:23.701 --> 00:30:30.889 - and that is situational. Some of them have five-year lead times The tip for example is a two-year lead 00:30:30.889 --> 00:30:38.076 - time. So It is constantly in use as those funding cycles present themselves to us So how long it takes 00:30:38.076 --> 00:30:45.054 - a lot of that is outside our control. It depends on funding availability from the state and federal 00:30:45.054 --> 00:30:45.822 - government 00:30:47.394 --> 00:30:55.181 - Thank you, and we hope we're there when that happens. That's the point of all this understood. Thank 00:30:55.181 --> 00:31:02.892 - you So I think the the sequence of the study that planning does and then and sometimes some of that 00:31:02.892 --> 00:31:10.679 - work is done in-house and sometimes when it's complicated it requires external expertise and then it 00:31:10.679 --> 00:31:17.310 - moves on to engineering for design so a study is typically only 30% of design because 00:31:17.602 --> 00:31:23.734 - they're not doing the actual technical design. They're saying 30% of this is what you should be doing 00:31:23.734 --> 00:31:29.986 - in general. And then engineering flushes that work out. That work also takes time. So for example, with 00:31:29.986 --> 00:31:36.179 - Indiana Avenue, if planning had been able to arrive at a consensus that pleased everyone, or even most 00:31:36.179 --> 00:31:42.191 - of the people, or even some of the people, none of the design satisfied anyone, the next step would 00:31:42.191 --> 00:31:45.918 - have been for it to go to engineering for design. By the time 00:31:46.146 --> 00:31:52.835 - Completed the design then it would be eligible for funding that is a multi-year process It just doesn't 00:31:52.835 --> 00:31:59.332 - go fast one of the questions I asked planning recently that might be of interest to you was When you 00:31:59.332 --> 00:32:05.828 - have a project like the college and walnut study very big study and at the end of it we found out it 00:32:05.828 --> 00:32:10.974 - has 120 million dollar price tag, which is a very large number now we can still 00:32:11.394 --> 00:32:16.915 - Execute pieces of that and apply for funding using that plan, but 120 million dollars is a lot So the 00:32:16.915 --> 00:32:22.435 - question I had for planning was when we hire a consultant, how do we both? Leave room for imagination 00:32:22.435 --> 00:32:27.901 - and creativity show us what we could do with downtown show us. What are the options for Kirkwood but 00:32:27.901 --> 00:32:33.422 - also not Put ourselves on a path to getting another hundred and twenty million dollar plan if we were 00:32:33.422 --> 00:32:38.942 - designing a house the first thing our architect would ask is what's your budget, but we don't want to 00:32:38.942 --> 00:32:39.646 - restrict and 00:32:40.130 --> 00:32:45.957 - We want to see all the ideas. So there's a balance there. And it is frustrating that things take a long 00:32:45.957 --> 00:32:51.727 - time. But that is the process. And I was sharing with Councilmember Piedmont-Smith earlier that I hear 00:32:51.727 --> 00:32:57.666 - in council meetings every year the question for the planning director, why isn't there any implementation 00:32:57.666 --> 00:33:03.492 - money in your budget? Where's the implementation money? It's because planning isn't the department that 00:33:03.492 --> 00:33:07.134 - does the implementation. That's engineering. They do the design. 00:33:07.266 --> 00:33:14.589 - issue the RFP supervise the construction. So plannings implementation would be more like quick studies 00:33:14.589 --> 00:33:21.770 - with temporary measures to see will this work if we put it in concrete. Does this is this having the 00:33:21.770 --> 00:33:28.880 - effect that we want it. So just a little extra context. Thank you. Any other questions second round 00:33:28.880 --> 00:33:30.942 - other first round questions. 00:33:33.666 --> 00:33:40.073 - I'll have one quick second round question, then, since nobody else has a question. This is for President 00:33:40.073 --> 00:33:46.174 - Asari. How did you come up with this number for this? It's just the total number. The total number. 00:33:46.174 --> 00:33:52.764 - Yeah, it's all of the studies. Got it. And also, I mean, I probably should have said this at the beginning, 00:33:52.764 --> 00:33:58.988 - but we talked about this in other ways. I think that an extent of this, and I think we're having that 00:33:58.988 --> 00:34:03.198 - conversation now, which is very useful, is whether or not we want to 00:34:03.330 --> 00:34:11.706 - have sort of studies commissioned, like just as a standard protocol in practice, whether we would like 00:34:11.706 --> 00:34:20.245 - those type of things to have to come to council on a individual basis or not. I'm putting that out there 00:34:20.245 --> 00:34:27.646 - as a discussion point rather than as a position point. And again, I think as I said in the 00:34:27.874 --> 00:34:33.856 - As I said in our working session, I think that perhaps this is somewhat influenced by some recency bias 00:34:33.856 --> 00:34:39.780 - where we funded a thing and then got a thing back where we're sort of like that isn't necessarily what 00:34:39.780 --> 00:34:45.646 - we would have funded had we have had more influence on it or something like that. And so I think sort 00:34:45.646 --> 00:34:51.455 - of that's the approach here of saying, are these appropriate? I think the conversation is spot on in 00:34:51.455 --> 00:34:52.318 - the sense that 00:34:52.418 --> 00:34:58.117 - Look I mean there's there's three distinct studies that are that are being put here. One of them not 00:34:58.117 --> 00:35:04.042 - totally scoped out two of which are somewhat scoped out. So I mean sort of depending on what the feeling 00:35:04.042 --> 00:35:09.684 - on councils but I but I don't I don't think of the things that we've proposed. I mean I don't. Yeah 00:35:09.684 --> 00:35:14.142 - I mean I'm happy to happy to not waste time and move on. All right. Thank you. 00:35:14.466 --> 00:35:22.159 - We'll move to public comment now anybody in chambers or online like to make public comment on amendment 00:35:22.159 --> 00:35:29.557 - 2 For appropriation ordinance 2026 dash amendment 3. Yeah, forgive me amendment 3 for appropriation 00:35:29.557 --> 00:35:36.954 - ordinance 2026-02 Nobody online. I don't see anybody Trampling each other to come to the podium All 00:35:36.954 --> 00:35:43.390 - right. We'll come back here for council comment before we take a vote on amendment 3 I 00:35:43.714 --> 00:35:50.064 - Whose hand is that I'm sorry Councilmember Stossberg. Thank you. I'm not in favor of this particular 00:35:50.064 --> 00:35:56.477 - amendment I don't have any I don't think that it's good use of council time to approve these sorts of 00:35:56.477 --> 00:36:01.758 - things as they come I think that it's really important to keep in mind the the long 00:36:02.082 --> 00:36:08.495 - Picture in planning and land use and that doesn't just have to do with transportation corridors Even 00:36:08.495 --> 00:36:15.352 - though a lot of them have talked about transportation corridors It also has to do with economic development 00:36:15.352 --> 00:36:21.892 - related stuff and just what are we going to do with? the land that we have In terms of within the city 00:36:21.892 --> 00:36:28.495 - of Bloomington what what kind of initiatives should we have? What kind of zoning should be in different 00:36:28.495 --> 00:36:30.654 - places? There's lots of potential 00:36:30.754 --> 00:36:39.347 - Study kind of stuff and I think that recently some things that have been highly cited have been safe 00:36:39.347 --> 00:36:48.025 - streets for all plan and the changes that we as council said that we wanted to get to zero fatalities 00:36:48.025 --> 00:36:57.044 - and serious injury crashes and in order to do that we need to have studies to To make that work possible. 00:36:57.044 --> 00:37:00.702 - And so I think that it would just not be a 00:37:00.930 --> 00:37:12.539 - Beneficial thing for the city to to cut off these studies. So that's it. Thank you Thank you any other 00:37:12.539 --> 00:37:24.035 - comments on amendment three All right, seeing none will clerk please call the roll on amendment three 00:37:24.035 --> 00:37:30.910 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith No Zulik No Sorry also no daily 00:37:31.170 --> 00:37:42.965 - No breath yes clarity no Stasburg no All right that amendment fails something to two one two three five 00:37:42.965 --> 00:37:54.420 - to two One to one. Oh, sorry. Yes six six six one Oh, I have to do it the other way one six I Didn't 00:37:54.420 --> 00:37:59.070 - have training for this job, please. Okay 00:37:59.458 --> 00:38:07.545 - Apologies great. Thank you moving on to amendment for also councilmember. Sorry, would you like to present? 00:38:07.545 --> 00:38:15.258 - Oh, I'm sorry. I Don't want to move it. Yeah Can we move amendment? This is some of some of the simple 00:38:15.258 --> 00:38:22.895 - ones like amendment 14 I would propose we do amendment 14 instead of amendment What's the next one of 00:38:22.895 --> 00:38:28.062 - mine amendment five? Thoughts that's yours councilman Piedmont Smith 00:38:29.186 --> 00:38:37.504 - I mean I suppose I can move your amendment but you know so I'd move that we put forward amendment. Well 00:38:37.504 --> 00:38:42.782 - actually I'll put forward Amendment 5 if there's a second second. 00:38:43.298 --> 00:38:51.419 - It will not waste time on this because I think you know we can consider at the same time amendment 5 00:38:51.419 --> 00:38:59.862 - and amendment 14 Within the response given by the mayor's office to amendment 5 they make a counteroffer 00:38:59.862 --> 00:39:04.606 - I think reasonable so I'm happy to amend this amendment to 00:39:04.706 --> 00:39:14.060 - counteroffer which Keeps the money for leadership development cuts the the branding money while retaining 00:39:14.060 --> 00:39:23.150 - some of the money for promotion of business I Would happy to do this or would happy to take number 14. 00:39:23.150 --> 00:39:32.063 - So just sort of maybe we could have a discussion on which is better Councilmember Stasberg, I have a 00:39:32.063 --> 00:39:34.622 - clarification about this one 00:39:35.234 --> 00:39:52.688 - So let me find the clarification exactly in Amendment 5 it states that that $10,000 for branding is 00:39:52.688 --> 00:40:02.462 - in oh Geez oh my gosh, I can't even find it. Okay, yeah 00:40:02.562 --> 00:40:10.694 - In one in in councilmember Piedmont Smith's it has the ten thousand dollars for branding in a different 00:40:10.694 --> 00:40:18.748 - line than in councilmember Asari's ten thousand dollars for branding so councilmember Piedmont Smith's 00:40:18.748 --> 00:40:26.567 - takes that out of management fees consultants and considers that branding and councilmember Asari's 00:40:26.567 --> 00:40:32.510 - takes it out of I put a note about this somewhere and I'm trying to find it 00:40:32.802 --> 00:40:41.802 - Other services and charges so I would like clarification about exactly where that 10,000 for branding 00:40:41.802 --> 00:40:50.713 - is There it is. Yeah, because the office of the mayor Respond this is it the count the office of the 00:40:50.713 --> 00:40:58.654 - mayor's memo responds to councilmember Asari's amendment on line item 2 as as taking that 00:41:01.346 --> 00:41:10.304 - Talks about that that is the leadership retreat and then the 10,000 for branding out of the other services 00:41:10.304 --> 00:41:18.677 - and charges but But councilmember Piedmont Smith has the branding out of consultants and workshops, 00:41:18.677 --> 00:41:23.198 - so where exactly is should the branding come out of I 00:41:30.210 --> 00:41:38.036 - is in other services and charges the leadership development it the amendment is correct in stating that 00:41:38.036 --> 00:41:46.088 - leadership development is under consultants and Branding support is under under other services and charges 00:41:46.088 --> 00:41:53.614 - Okay, so that means that councilmember Piedmont Smith's Amendment number 14 which the synopsis says 00:41:53.614 --> 00:41:58.430 - it's taking it out taking ten thousand dollars out for branding 00:41:58.530 --> 00:42:05.564 - but the line item that it refers to is Taking it out of management fees and consultants and it's actually 00:42:05.564 --> 00:42:12.332 - should be taken out of other services. That's correct So that means that amendment 14 is actually not 00:42:12.332 --> 00:42:19.166 - correct The proofreader yeah, yeah, I mean this but but point is if we adopt 14 We'd just have to edit 00:42:19.166 --> 00:42:25.470 - it or we can edit this one. However, we see fit what I mean again, I think we have to clear up 00:42:25.666 --> 00:42:32.567 - Approaches one is just limited to branding. The other one is sort of across the board Neither of these 00:42:32.567 --> 00:42:39.334 - are probably worth us spending too much time on it's not a big move the needle thing So so I'm yeah, 00:42:39.334 --> 00:42:46.101 - so I'm very I'm very happy to just do 14 if it makes it if it makes it simpler But we'd have to Well 00:42:46.101 --> 00:42:53.002 - right now we've moved us amendment five. Yes. Yes But I'm happy to withdraw that and move on if that's 00:42:53.002 --> 00:42:54.878 - what everybody would prefer 00:42:57.858 --> 00:43:06.609 - I would have to see in writing for Amendment 5 what the new deductions are because right now I would 00:43:06.609 --> 00:43:15.794 - have to switch back and forth between two documents to figure it out and maybe it's we need the amendment 00:43:15.794 --> 00:43:24.718 - to be in writing anyway. So maybe it's easier to to do a minute 14 first because that's one correction 00:43:24.718 --> 00:43:25.758 - whereas the 00:43:26.530 --> 00:43:36.084 - Changes to amendment five are multiple But we have the amendment five on the table so it would have 00:43:36.084 --> 00:43:46.116 - to be withdrawn This is a question for the office of the mayor it says in your response to Councilmember 00:43:46.116 --> 00:43:54.046 - sorry's third point with the promotion of business and cutting that to zero that's 00:43:54.786 --> 00:44:02.558 - That particular line is used for boarding Commission reception and state of the city public events, 00:44:02.558 --> 00:44:10.640 - but There has not been any funding in that line since 2023 and We have had those events Since that time 00:44:10.640 --> 00:44:18.567 - so what line were those events actually being taken out of? So I don't have the notes on where it was 00:44:18.567 --> 00:44:24.318 - in the 2025 budget, but I know that controller McClellan in the worksheet 00:44:24.802 --> 00:44:31.375 - That we use a separate worksheet outside of to go over drafts of what the budget could include It was 00:44:31.375 --> 00:44:37.884 - included in the mayor's promotion of business and that is a confusing title for a line. That's where 00:44:37.884 --> 00:44:44.651 - she felt it belonged But There was It did not get entered into new world. So when it doesn't get entered 00:44:44.651 --> 00:44:51.159 - in a new world, it's not going to pop up on The sheet so for this year, for example, we have to draw 00:44:51.159 --> 00:44:52.126 - on other funds 00:44:52.290 --> 00:44:58.504 - From the mayor's office and move things around to be able to cover those costs because we do want to 00:44:58.504 --> 00:45:04.779 - keep putting on those events So it was just an error that it wasn't included last year Previously, it 00:45:04.779 --> 00:45:11.055 - might have been included under Another line. I'd have to look that up historically, but it's the same 00:45:11.055 --> 00:45:17.146 - it's the same amount and Essentially, it's paying for you know renting a facility AV sign language 00:45:17.146 --> 00:45:19.422 - interpretation for state of the city 00:45:20.066 --> 00:45:27.219 - and food and beverage which in city events is tricky to pay for and can only be done in certain circumstances 00:45:27.219 --> 00:45:33.852 - and that's where controller McClellan wanted to take that out of Ultimately was the mayor's promotion 00:45:33.852 --> 00:45:40.485 - of business. So that money was actually spent last year it just wasn't allocated to that line because 00:45:40.485 --> 00:45:47.118 - of an error even though it was in our worksheet and Was expected to be included So it would have been 00:45:47.118 --> 00:45:48.158 - I don't know if 00:45:48.514 --> 00:45:55.950 - It was included in the final tallies or not but it didn't get transferred over from the worksheet into 00:45:55.950 --> 00:46:03.459 - New World with a manual entry. Well I guess I just feel like it's interesting that that line is getting 00:46:03.459 --> 00:46:10.896 - funded for the first time in several years and trying to figure out since we've had those things where 00:46:10.896 --> 00:46:16.094 - the actual reduction is going to come or if it is going to come and so. 00:46:16.674 --> 00:46:22.674 - The reduction would come from the proposed budget that we sent in which included Funds to cover what 00:46:22.674 --> 00:46:28.851 - has been historically the cost of those two events plus an extra seven hundred and seventy five dollars 00:46:28.851 --> 00:46:34.910 - in case some other Public event came up where we needed to provide interpretation or rent a facility. 00:46:34.910 --> 00:46:41.088 - No, I mean I mean that we've had those events and so Those events have been paid for yes somewhere from 00:46:41.088 --> 00:46:45.662 - the office of the mayor So I'm trying to figure out where they have actually 00:46:46.082 --> 00:46:51.686 - Paid for because it's not as though I mean we paid for them. So there's there's you give me money for 00:46:51.686 --> 00:46:57.345 - them somewhere in the budget So I'm trying to go. Okay, like which lines would they have been paid for 00:46:57.345 --> 00:47:02.949 - that should now be lower? Because I are now being paid for out of this mayor's promotion of business. 00:47:02.949 --> 00:47:08.773 - That's what I'm trying to figure out Let me let me dig into that a little bit and I can get you an answer 00:47:08.773 --> 00:47:14.377 - But the short answer is in the 2026 budget it would not have been in there at all due to the error so 00:47:14.377 --> 00:47:15.806 - we we have to essentially 00:47:16.162 --> 00:47:22.438 - borrow money as we do at the end of the year when one line runs over within a category from another 00:47:22.438 --> 00:47:28.839 - category and cut costs somewhere else to cover that for this year. But I can look up for you where it 00:47:28.839 --> 00:47:35.303 - was in 2025 and in 2024. That is a recurring call. So it lives somewhere. I just don't know the answer 00:47:35.303 --> 00:47:42.206 - off the top of my head. That would be very helpful. Thank you. All right. Any other questions on Amendment 5. 00:47:43.522 --> 00:47:49.074 - This is five right and just for the sake of I mean thinking about how to how to go through this because 00:47:49.074 --> 00:47:54.520 - I think we have a couple others where we might want to make some like line item changes to them might 00:47:54.520 --> 00:47:59.912 - I suggest for the good of the order that what we do is you know we can sort of talk through them now 00:47:59.912 --> 00:48:05.304 - say we're say where we're at then recess for like 10 minutes very so that we can then go through and 00:48:05.304 --> 00:48:10.856 - actually make the the line item edits before voting on on on the amendment. So I mean just just as just 00:48:10.856 --> 00:48:11.870 - as one suggestion. 00:48:13.730 --> 00:48:20.131 - But I'm not in charge. Well, I was going to say so I think we can finish discussing this do public comment 00:48:20.131 --> 00:48:26.293 - comment and then set this one aside and keep moving on. So if there's any questions we'll do that now. 00:48:26.293 --> 00:48:32.335 - I see somebody. Yes. Go ahead. Sorry. It would have been in other services and charges and in twenty 00:48:32.335 --> 00:48:38.377 - twenty six controller McClellan for the twenty twenty six budget controller McClellan wanted to move 00:48:38.377 --> 00:48:43.582 - it back into mayor's promotion of business which she felt was a more appropriate line. 00:48:43.682 --> 00:48:49.884 - And then it didn't get entered. So other services and charges is where it would have lived in the past. 00:48:49.884 --> 00:48:55.908 - Thank you. Council member Stasberg. So in twenty twenty five those events came out of other services 00:48:55.908 --> 00:49:02.050 - and charges. Yes I guess I'm kind of mystified by that because the actual amount in twenty twenty five 00:49:02.050 --> 00:49:08.193 - in our budget book is listed as four thousand eight hundred and twenty dollars. And that's that sounds 00:49:08.193 --> 00:49:12.606 - that sounds correct. Okay. That's about the total of those two events for 00:49:12.962 --> 00:49:22.257 - all the AV and translation and services and Okay locations and stuff Okay, if there are no other questions 00:49:22.257 --> 00:49:31.466 - then we'll We'll flip it on over to councilman sasper. Sorry. I have another one then so Right now though 00:49:31.466 --> 00:49:39.806 - the in the 2027 budget proposal the other services and charges a sixty six thousand budgeted so 00:49:40.610 --> 00:49:46.804 - What is that supposed to include again because I mean councilmember Asari's amendment just takes it 00:49:46.804 --> 00:49:53.493 - down ten thousand dollars for the branding. But what is the rest of the fifty six thousand dollars supposed 00:49:53.493 --> 00:49:54.174 - to be for. 00:50:17.922 --> 00:50:26.288 - For the benefit of the public the deputy mayor is trying to look that up for me right now so why don't 00:50:26.288 --> 00:50:34.491 - we go ahead and move to public comments and We hope that we can get that answer. Is there any public 00:50:34.491 --> 00:50:42.775 - comment on amendment five? Online or in chambers No, all right No comment among council, I'm assuming 00:50:42.775 --> 00:50:47.486 - council member Stossberg I Mean I I have comments on this 00:50:47.650 --> 00:50:56.554 - I'll say I'm in favor of reducing the branding by 10,000 and I am OK with putting money into the mayor's 00:50:56.554 --> 00:51:05.204 - promotion of business if it's specifically just to fund these two events. But there needs to be a cut 00:51:05.204 --> 00:51:10.462 - to where they were previously being funded and right now that 00:51:10.594 --> 00:51:17.185 - Isn't what the budget looks like and here Deputy Marinap can maybe tell me what the fifty six thousand 00:51:17.185 --> 00:51:24.032 - dollars is supposed to be so I'm not seeing fifty six thousand I'm seeing sixteen thousand and ten dollars 00:51:24.032 --> 00:51:30.751 - that was in our worksheet the ten thousand of that was for the branding five thousand was for the winter 00:51:30.751 --> 00:51:36.702 - shelter support there's three hundred dollars for the host well the Hopewell website hosting 00:51:36.994 --> 00:51:43.490 - Three hundred and sixty dollars for public engagement AV that would be at town halls for example and 00:51:43.490 --> 00:51:49.922 - three hundred fifty dollars for actually a state of the city interpretation lives in other services 00:51:49.922 --> 00:51:55.582 - and charges so I'm not sure where fifty six thousand dollars is coming from. That's not 00:51:56.450 --> 00:52:06.634 - in the 2027 Budget that got presented to us during budget week. So it's the Wednesday, August 26th in 00:52:06.634 --> 00:52:16.818 - the office of the mayor General fund with your expenses it has line 53 990 other services and charges 00:52:16.818 --> 00:52:22.110 - as sixty six thousand ten dollars and that is in the 00:52:24.610 --> 00:52:31.208 - So maybe there was a typo somewhere but that is what we have been given. It's not a typo. Sorry. I had 00:52:31.208 --> 00:52:37.807 - forgotten that there was a change we made after the worksheet. That is where the 50,000 of that is the 00:52:37.807 --> 00:52:44.726 - emergency management consultant that we had treated as a temporary employee and then turned to a contractor 00:52:44.726 --> 00:52:51.580 - for a host of reasons that we did explain in the budget. That's where the big money comes from. Apologies. 00:52:51.580 --> 00:52:53.374 - Okay. Thank you. All right. 00:52:53.634 --> 00:53:02.706 - so with that any other comments or questions before we Set this one aside and move on to another amendment. 00:53:02.706 --> 00:53:11.274 - I Withdraw this this amendment at the moment. All right. Thank you That point of point of order do we 00:53:11.274 --> 00:53:20.094 - want to withdraw it or do we want to table it? Good point. Um, I Would like to table it. I would I moved 00:53:20.094 --> 00:53:22.110 - to table amendment five 00:53:24.866 --> 00:53:35.392 - That needs a second. Thank you All right, so that would bring us to amendment six President sorry, do 00:53:35.392 --> 00:53:45.918 - you want to bring that's okay. I hear you take your time So I move to introduce six with haste second 00:53:46.242 --> 00:53:54.241 - This one I'll just note was reducing travel budgets across the board The the mayor says that that they 00:53:54.241 --> 00:54:02.084 - they think they can cut by 35,000 That seems appropriate. I would just note though with amendment 16 00:54:02.084 --> 00:54:09.927 - I think some of these might be wrapped up into amendment 16 and where we sort of land on that so I'm 00:54:09.927 --> 00:54:16.062 - very happy to You know table this one for now as well Table or table introduce 00:54:16.994 --> 00:54:25.575 - Well, I mean We've introduced it but I'm just saying that they if there's the action that we can take 00:54:25.575 --> 00:54:33.988 - on this is either vote for it as is and or Talk through the 35,000 counter offer I think regardless 00:54:33.988 --> 00:54:42.568 - that will take a little bit, you know of Rewriting and thinking where where that counter offer exists 00:54:42.568 --> 00:54:46.270 - And then I'm saying because of amendment 16 00:54:46.370 --> 00:54:53.594 - This might be a moot point. So Okay So unless anybody has any questions right now, I think maybe we 00:54:53.594 --> 00:55:01.179 - can table this one as per councilmember Asari's suggestion, but councilmember Stossberg, I would suggest 00:55:01.179 --> 00:55:08.620 - that we go through the process of public comment, etc Oh, yes, we table things so that then absolutely 00:55:08.620 --> 00:55:14.110 - take it up from the table. We don't at that point have to do public comment 00:55:17.570 --> 00:55:26.044 - Okay, so without no more questions right now on this one, we'll go ahead to public comment anybody in 00:55:26.044 --> 00:55:35.016 - chambers or Online have burning thoughts to share on amendment six. They do not. Oh, yes. I do see somebody 00:55:35.016 --> 00:55:43.573 - approaching the podium. Thank you please sign in and State your name for the record and you have three 00:55:43.573 --> 00:55:46.398 - minutes My name is Iris bull I am 00:55:46.722 --> 00:55:52.504 - member of staff, but I'm just here for myself tonight. I think that pushing the city to improve its 00:55:52.504 --> 00:55:58.287 - preparation and documentation of the city's budget and staff's appropriation requests is undeniably 00:55:58.287 --> 00:56:04.242 - the right thing to do because it improves transparency, accountability, and stability to the provision 00:56:04.242 --> 00:56:10.256 - of municipal services. But as council members have publicly reviewed budget appropriations for the next 00:56:10.256 --> 00:56:15.518 - year, you have failed to distinguish between the expenses that we can attribute to postage 00:56:15.778 --> 00:56:21.865 - The ones we can associate with needless bureaucratic process and I think in doing so you've proposed 00:56:21.865 --> 00:56:27.952 - amendments that will require more of the very thing I think a lot of people actually kind of despise 00:56:27.952 --> 00:56:34.040 - and that's political theater and On this item. I really just want to sort of speak from the heart it 00:56:34.040 --> 00:56:40.127 - is so petty to remove the travel budget because it is one of the easiest ways to invest in staff and 00:56:40.127 --> 00:56:41.694 - improve city services and 00:56:44.674 --> 00:56:50.684 - I think if you want a leaner government, you need to start by looking at processes and asking people 00:56:50.684 --> 00:56:56.633 - to document their workflows so that people can understand why things are taking so long. Why are so 00:56:56.633 --> 00:57:02.643 - many people involved in a specific process? You need to be thinking about the kind of average labor, 00:57:02.643 --> 00:57:08.831 - the average amount of labor involved in every little thing that we're doing. On the staff side, we have 00:57:08.831 --> 00:57:11.806 - to justify every single dollar that we spend with 00:57:12.002 --> 00:57:18.216 - painstaking detail and redundancy. And it's honestly really wild that so much of this process right 00:57:18.216 --> 00:57:24.679 - now is being drafted and it's not even available for staff to review and publish. I'm only here because 00:57:24.679 --> 00:57:31.328 - I'm upset. But I'm not the only one who's been paying attention this week and has been totally demoralized 00:57:31.328 --> 00:57:37.729 - by the process. And that is also taking up staff time because instead of talking about our work, we're 00:57:37.729 --> 00:57:41.022 - talking about how bummed out we are. And that sucks. 00:57:41.410 --> 00:57:48.433 - So I just hope that in the future, when we're talking about things that have some real gravity, like 00:57:48.433 --> 00:57:55.457 - dissolving departments and firing people, that there's some amount of empathy and seriousness to the 00:57:55.457 --> 00:58:02.619 - conversation. Because over here, we're trying really, really hard to provide the absolute best service 00:58:02.619 --> 00:58:07.070 - with what are often substandard accommodations for some people. 00:58:07.618 --> 00:58:16.224 - The appearance that like this is easy for people to come up with an honest number is It's just really 00:58:16.224 --> 00:58:24.998 - difficult. That's why it's called a budget and Why it's not always spent down every year, but sometimes 00:58:24.998 --> 00:58:33.519 - it is because things are hard to predict That's it Thank you very much any other comment in the room 00:58:33.519 --> 00:58:35.038 - or online No Okay 00:58:35.266 --> 00:58:41.881 - last comments among council members councilmember Stossberg Thank you. I'm not in support of this one 00:58:41.881 --> 00:58:48.431 - I generally don't like the idea of making everybody split or like cut things by a certain percentage 00:58:48.431 --> 00:58:55.436 - because I think that it doesn't take into account the Uniqueness that goes along with different departments 00:58:55.436 --> 00:59:02.505 - and different needs and and different costs related to that I also want to really thank our public commenter 00:59:02.505 --> 00:59:04.126 - for speaking tonight and 00:59:05.730 --> 00:59:12.778 - Think mostly like apologize to city staff for some of this conversation and some of the ways that these 00:59:12.778 --> 00:59:19.691 - potential amendments have been approached because you know and I felt like that last Wednesday during 00:59:19.691 --> 00:59:26.875 - the work session when we're talking about about staff and positions and staff are really really important 00:59:26.875 --> 00:59:34.398 - because they actually make everything run and I I just I'm I'm not in I'm not in support of this one Thank you 00:59:36.770 --> 00:59:45.271 - Councilmember, sorry. Yeah also note. I think I think that I mean first off I think that that's a very 00:59:45.271 --> 00:59:54.019 - persuasive argument and and and frankly Yes, I I share a council member Stasberg's view of the discomfort 00:59:54.019 --> 01:00:03.262 - of a lot of these conversations I also though would like to highlight something that that this was the clearest 01:00:03.394 --> 01:00:10.323 - Argument for an outcome that is associated with a line of funding and that then it seems petty I know 01:00:10.323 --> 01:00:16.030 - I agree I think a lot of this seems really petty and also later I'll say this clear 01:00:16.130 --> 01:00:22.503 - I don't think, and as I've said at the work session, I don't think that it's council's appropriate role 01:00:22.503 --> 01:00:28.816 - to be micromanaging decisions at a city level. We're supposed to be like the board of directors of the 01:00:28.816 --> 01:00:35.067 - city, not the executive branch. I get that. I think that on the other hand, we've been trying to have 01:00:35.067 --> 01:00:40.766 - a lot of these type of conversations about the long-term strength and viability of the city. 01:00:40.962 --> 01:00:46.343 - We can't all get together and discuss these things behind closed doors. So the way that we have to have 01:00:46.343 --> 01:00:51.725 - these conversations is to put them onto some paper. And when you say these things in any other setting, 01:00:51.725 --> 01:00:56.899 - people don't take you seriously until you put it on paper. And so I think I agree. I totally agree. 01:00:56.899 --> 01:00:58.814 - I find this very persuasive, though. 01:00:58.978 --> 01:01:05.151 - One thing I'd really like to underline is that we've had a lot of opportunities for somebody to simply 01:01:05.151 --> 01:01:11.324 - say, you know what? Travel is about this outcome. And you're the first person to say that. And so this 01:01:11.324 --> 01:01:17.437 - is the type of thing that I've been trying to surface throughout this budget process. I will note the 01:01:17.437 --> 01:01:23.550 - clerk also said something similar about their travel budget specifically. But you've talked about the 01:01:23.550 --> 01:01:28.944 - budget for travel overall. And so I really share that view. And so I'm happy to withdraw. 01:01:28.944 --> 01:01:38.791 - this one but again, it's you know up to the rest of you Yes, I'm opposed to cutting travel I think it's 01:01:38.791 --> 01:01:48.544 - it's a way to invest in our employees to have them communicate with other professionals in their field 01:01:48.544 --> 01:01:57.918 - to have them learn more in advance in their departments and I so I I plan to vote against this and 01:01:59.010 --> 01:02:09.583 - Because I'm happy to I'm happy to move to withdraw amendment 6. Yes Is there a second second, okay I 01:02:09.583 --> 01:02:20.157 - was just being extra cautious. All right. Thank you. So that then moves us on to amendment 7 I'm not 01:02:20.157 --> 01:02:24.030 - gonna introduce amendment 7. Okay, I 01:02:24.450 --> 01:02:33.696 - I think we have an we have an updated amendment from Councilmember Piemont Smith. I Don't know if you 01:02:33.696 --> 01:02:42.943 - could I don't know what number it is, but I think it replaces my number eight amendment 18 Mr. Allen, 01:02:42.943 --> 01:02:46.750 - can you display this amendment, please? I 01:02:50.786 --> 01:02:59.681 - It was an amendment to reduce the risk management budget to remove the appropriation for a telemetric 01:02:59.681 --> 01:03:08.750 - surveillance contract for city owned vehicles. I'm sorry. What amendment number is this. It's up there. 01:03:08.750 --> 01:03:17.471 - It's a new one. It's not in the packet. OK. So it would reduce the appropriation in risk management 01:03:17.471 --> 01:03:18.430 - 5 3 9 9 0. 01:03:18.626 --> 01:03:28.411 - by two hundred seventy two thousand dollars which is the estimated cost of the contract for telemetric 01:03:28.411 --> 01:03:38.005 - surveillance in city owned vehicles and my reasoning. Oh well is there a second second. My reasoning 01:03:38.005 --> 01:03:46.270 - is that this is surveillance and I think even if it could possibly reduce some risk in 01:03:47.042 --> 01:03:54.524 - by addressing unsafe driving practices. I think that comes at a greater risk of invasion of privacy 01:03:54.524 --> 01:04:02.156 - of individuals who are using city vehicles who might you know make a stop somewhere on their way back 01:04:02.156 --> 01:04:09.863 - to City Hall or on their way to a meeting or something. And then all of a sudden we know exactly where 01:04:09.863 --> 01:04:15.774 - they are and what they're doing. And I think that's problematic. So that's it. 01:04:17.282 --> 01:04:24.041 - Thank you any questions for councilmember Piedmont Smith councilmember Stasberg. I think that this is 01:04:24.041 --> 01:04:30.933 - for the administration actually Can can one of you explain exactly? Again, I remember I'm hearing about 01:04:30.933 --> 01:04:37.626 - the sum during budget hearings, but can you explain exactly what these cameras? Do you or what these 01:04:37.626 --> 01:04:44.253 - systems do? I'll take a stab at it and then public works director Adam waste may also want to speak 01:04:44.253 --> 01:04:47.102 - to it. I'm Margie rice corporation council 01:04:47.490 --> 01:04:55.229 - the software monitor speed has cameras to look for Drivers if they're on their cell phones, which is 01:04:55.229 --> 01:05:02.892 - obviously against the law It checks for rolling stops. We thought it was a good idea. We have had a 01:05:02.892 --> 01:05:10.631 - couple years ago. We had a pretty We had a decent increase in accidents and our premiums went up and 01:05:10.631 --> 01:05:14.462 - this was a way we thought would be a good idea to 01:05:15.298 --> 01:05:23.915 - Monitor speed another and driver and attention To address for example, we had a large excavator on a 01:05:23.915 --> 01:05:32.618 - trailer that tipped over speed to the According to the driver was not a factor But you've got a giant 01:05:32.618 --> 01:05:41.236 - truck pulling a trailer with a large excavator on it going into roundabout. We suspected speed was a 01:05:41.236 --> 01:05:43.710 - factor excavator was totaled 01:05:43.842 --> 01:05:50.348 - very expensive accident speed would have it would have been nice to know whether speed was a factor 01:05:50.348 --> 01:05:57.244 - or not. Not so that we can punish drivers but so that we can educate and train accordingly keeping people 01:05:57.244 --> 01:06:03.750 - safe keeping our equipment safe. Our goal here is not to violate anyone's rights but I can tell you 01:06:03.750 --> 01:06:09.150 - that we do allow our policies employees to make de minimis stops and you know grab 01:06:09.410 --> 01:06:17.573 - a drink or whatever. But I will point out that that would not be a violation legally a violation of 01:06:17.573 --> 01:06:26.062 - employee rights because they are being paid on their driving a city vehicle. They're being paid so they 01:06:26.062 --> 01:06:34.307 - should be doing work. And it's not as if we are so strict that we don't allow reasonable stops while 01:06:34.307 --> 01:06:38.878 - driving. So but if there is an employee who takes a big 01:06:39.010 --> 01:06:46.539 - Long furlough and doesn't report it on their time card. That would be an issue and I suppose maybe you 01:06:46.539 --> 01:06:54.140 - could tell it with this this but again, I think of that as accountability and certainly employees don't 01:06:54.140 --> 01:07:01.596 - have a right to You know do whatever they want when they're on the clock As a follow-up to that since 01:07:01.596 --> 01:07:05.470 - it was my original question Do they record location? 01:07:07.362 --> 01:07:14.533 - They would record Yeah, there would be telemetric somewhere there where they're going patterns driving 01:07:14.533 --> 01:07:21.634 - patterns. Okay, so like The supervisor at any time could say like where is truck number 12? You know, 01:07:21.634 --> 01:07:28.735 - I'm gonna let Adam interest that Good evening council members Adam waste and public works director So 01:07:28.735 --> 01:07:36.254 - there was a lot of different systems that can be used for these different programs think of this from maybe 01:07:36.706 --> 01:07:42.461 - From a public works perspective and from a general perspective, you know, it does track locations and 01:07:42.461 --> 01:07:48.668 - things what we're really looking to as well is Sanitation routes, so where's the truck at during a sanitation 01:07:48.668 --> 01:07:54.592 - route? Where's the truck at during snowplow? So while they're piling snow, so there are other advantages 01:07:54.592 --> 01:08:00.234 - to this as well Some of those can be public facing as well depending on which systems you go with I 01:08:00.234 --> 01:08:03.902 - Hope that answers your question. Thank you that answered mine. I 01:08:05.826 --> 01:08:12.078 - Any other questions? Council member, sorry. I don't know who this is best for, but the actual line figure 01:08:12.078 --> 01:08:18.330 - is quite a high one. I mean, I know we have a huge amount of cars in the fleet and all types of vehicles. 01:08:18.330 --> 01:08:24.346 - Can you speak directly to the ROI? I mean, because the, I mean, we gave sort of one example of a time 01:08:24.346 --> 01:08:30.362 - when it would have been useful, but yeah, like how do we, how do the people of Bloomington make their 01:08:30.362 --> 01:08:31.070 - money back? 01:08:31.266 --> 01:08:37.098 - In this day and age of high fuel prices fuel fuel monitoring. So if you're seeing excessive speeds or 01:08:37.098 --> 01:08:42.930 - excessive braking, you're gonna be using higher amounts of fuel You with sanitation in particular you 01:08:42.930 --> 01:08:48.876 - some of the programs offer Turn-by-turn route management things like that. So there are definitely some 01:08:48.876 --> 01:08:52.478 - areas and I could I could provide other examples if you'd like 01:08:52.706 --> 01:09:00.176 - OK, so it's actually more the active routing, like the sort of software part. That's an added benefit 01:09:00.176 --> 01:09:07.646 - to the things like Margie talked about from a risk management perspective. Speeds, braking distances, 01:09:07.646 --> 01:09:15.483 - rolling stops, all of those sorts of things are also part of packages that are offered as well. So there's 01:09:15.483 --> 01:09:18.046 - that risk management side as well. 01:09:18.178 --> 01:09:29.089 - OK, so I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but would you say that spending, I think it's $272,000 01:09:29.089 --> 01:09:39.893 - will result in greater than or equal to $272,000 of investment? There's a very large range of greater 01:09:39.893 --> 01:09:47.838 - than, right? And so I'm just trying to understand here, because, you know, 01:09:47.970 --> 01:09:53.707 - Get it. It's like I get I get the values. There's always values, you know, we could do this. There's 01:09:53.707 --> 01:09:59.388 - gain points I get it. I'm just trying to say like We're living in a time where we're saying that we 01:09:59.388 --> 01:10:05.579 - have to do less with less where we have all these pressures Why is this a thing that we need to be investing 01:10:05.579 --> 01:10:11.544 - in now? Yeah, so a couple points here we've been looking at this for several years and over with several 01:10:11.544 --> 01:10:17.054 - different vendors and So the cost range here is pretty significant it's it's case by case and so 01:10:17.218 --> 01:10:23.985 - The hope is that the two hundred and seventy some thousand dollar expenditure would result in zero accidents 01:10:23.985 --> 01:10:30.256 - or result in such a significant reduction that our insurance premiums go down citywide on top of the 01:10:30.256 --> 01:10:36.774 - other actual routing type benefits of fuel savings etc. So whether or not in any given year you're going 01:10:36.774 --> 01:10:38.078 - to see a two hundred 01:10:38.274 --> 01:10:43.761 - over a quarter-million-dollar benefit. But the point is, you see a possibility of a large swing here, 01:10:43.761 --> 01:10:49.249 - right? Yes. So that there is a possibility that we actually see long-term savings with this. Is there 01:10:49.249 --> 01:10:54.952 - a maintenance cost of having these? So are we locking ourselves in every single year to spending $250,000 01:10:54.952 --> 01:11:00.493 - to continue to do this? So there's always going to be some type of subscription. Most all of the firms 01:11:00.493 --> 01:11:06.249 - that are offering these types of products are going to have some type of subscription fee into the future, 01:11:06.249 --> 01:11:08.240 - but it all, again, all depends on... 01:11:08.240 --> 01:11:14.647 - breakdown, so what's the cost? Roughly speaking, I don't need exacts, but I'm just trying to get a sense 01:11:14.647 --> 01:11:20.871 - of what proportion of this is buying something new versus what proportion of this is paying for a new 01:11:20.871 --> 01:11:27.095 - service. We can follow up. And a follow up question, sorry. Are we covering the whole fleet with this 01:11:27.095 --> 01:11:33.441 - amount? Not necessarily. And so let me do this. Let us kind of regroup on our end to try to answer that 01:11:33.441 --> 01:11:36.126 - in a more substantial way for you to really 01:11:36.418 --> 01:11:42.367 - Like I said different vendors offer different aspects of different programs and such and how they do 01:11:42.367 --> 01:11:48.257 - it some are more upfront costs Some are more ongoing. So let us do a little more and we'll get back 01:11:48.257 --> 01:11:52.734 - to you. Okay. Thank you so much Any other questions Councilmember Stossberg 01:11:53.890 --> 01:12:00.747 - I have a round two hypothetical. So in the incident that you mentioned where you suspected that speed 01:12:00.747 --> 01:12:07.536 - might have been an issue, but there was no way for you to, say, prove that with this kind of system, 01:12:07.536 --> 01:12:14.326 - then you would be able to prove that. So then you could say, oh, this employee was driving too fast, 01:12:14.326 --> 01:12:18.494 - and that's why this happened. What would happen then to that? 01:12:18.690 --> 01:12:26.040 - employee potentially and Similarly, I mean does that mean our insurance doesn't cover it does that mean 01:12:26.040 --> 01:12:33.319 - some kind of other insurance covers it like is that I Mean, I mean because it's not like this software 01:12:33.319 --> 01:12:40.527 - is limiting speed It's still up to the driver to drive safely Let me take a stab at that and I'll let 01:12:40.527 --> 01:12:44.414 - Margie answer more of the like legal side of it, but I 01:12:44.642 --> 01:12:51.481 - It's gonna monitor that monitor that speed at real time. So if the driver is exceeding the speed limit, 01:12:51.481 --> 01:12:58.056 - you can set the parameters for notification it's gonna pop up on your you know with either a verbal 01:12:58.056 --> 01:13:04.961 - or Most likely some type of a verbal your speed is over the speed limit. Please slow down type of thing, 01:13:04.961 --> 01:13:11.602 - you know, so there are components of the system that in real time inform the driver of what Improper 01:13:11.602 --> 01:13:13.246 - driving was taking place 01:13:13.346 --> 01:13:18.810 - If you roll through a stop sign with some of these systems, it will let you know right then and there 01:13:18.810 --> 01:13:24.327 - you have rolled through a stop sign. It will log that in the system. The supervisor would get a report 01:13:24.327 --> 01:13:29.845 - in terms of just from a public works perspective. Again, we're not looking at this from a disciplinary 01:13:29.845 --> 01:13:35.362 - perspective. It's more of a record keeping or a tracking mechanism to help us improve driver behaviors 01:13:35.362 --> 01:13:39.326 - across the hundreds and hundreds of vehicles we have out there every day. 01:13:39.458 --> 01:13:46.211 - You know in terms of looking at it from disciplinary perspective that's not the original intent If an 01:13:46.211 --> 01:13:53.295 - extreme if an accident occurred and there were extreme speeds, of course We'd take that into consideration 01:13:53.295 --> 01:13:59.982 - through our accident review committee and other things And I can tell you that our insurance company 01:13:59.982 --> 01:14:03.358 - is recommending this purchase they think that it's 01:14:03.746 --> 01:14:09.508 - One they like the fact that we have a risk management division that's not something that every municipality 01:14:09.508 --> 01:14:14.949 - has they have encouraged us to review accidents on a weekly basis which we are doing as Adam said the 01:14:14.949 --> 01:14:20.391 - software can alert a driver that they're speeding they may not be you know they may be distracted not 01:14:20.391 --> 01:14:25.885 - paying attention it can stop in there that could stop an accident. We are hoping to keep our employees 01:14:25.885 --> 01:14:28.126 - safe and keep the public safe and if this 01:14:28.226 --> 01:14:34.955 - would prevent an accident it would be well worth the you know two hundred seventy two thousand dollars. 01:14:34.955 --> 01:14:41.489 - I think if it prevents an employee or a member of the public from being injured there are costs that 01:14:41.489 --> 01:14:48.089 - are not exactly dollar you know a specific dollar amount that you can put on an injury to an employee 01:14:48.089 --> 01:14:54.947 - or to a member of the public. I think it's a good idea. I think it's it could result in reduced premiums. 01:14:54.947 --> 01:14:57.470 - It could result in reduced. Adam said. 01:14:57.602 --> 01:15:04.755 - gasoline costs you know vehicle and damage. So we would be watching and seeing what kind of benefit 01:15:04.755 --> 01:15:12.051 - we get on this. It's hard to say right now what the return on investment would be until we get it and 01:15:12.051 --> 01:15:19.275 - use it. But I think it's a and again remember that this was 270 two thousand dollars that was in the 01:15:19.275 --> 01:15:27.358 - legal services O3 and I transferred it to record masking to transfer it to risk for this. It's not new money but 01:15:27.554 --> 01:15:34.166 - You know it's ultimately up to the council whether you want to appropriate this or not. We'd like to 01:15:34.166 --> 01:15:41.040 - try it. Our insurance company would like us to try it. We wouldn't probably start by putting it on every 01:15:41.040 --> 01:15:47.783 - single vehicle. I think Public Works is really interested in it. We would do utilities. We may not put 01:15:47.783 --> 01:15:54.656 - it on police and fire because they already you know have ways to sort of you know for example if they're 01:15:54.656 --> 01:15:57.406 - going to a crime scene you know they have 01:15:57.666 --> 01:16:04.038 - Dashcam that gets turned on so I mean there we'll look at how we deploy but again, we haven't we haven't 01:16:04.038 --> 01:16:10.289 - we've tested some but we haven't picked a vendor yet and And Adam sat through a lot of interviews with 01:16:10.289 --> 01:16:16.358 - different companies. So I think he's got a pretty good handle on it Thank you All right. Thank you. 01:16:16.358 --> 01:16:22.548 - If there are no other are there any other questions? right, we'll move to public comment then anybody 01:16:22.548 --> 01:16:24.126 - in chambers or online and 01:16:28.194 --> 01:16:38.965 - OK so moving on any last council member comments. Council member Piedmont Smith and then council member 01:16:38.965 --> 01:16:50.254 - Stossberg. Yeah I just think here again like with LPR it's trusting a third party vendor to keep information 01:16:50.254 --> 01:16:53.982 - secure and not share it improperly. 01:16:54.306 --> 01:17:02.610 - ACLU, at least in one state, has come out in opposition to the telemetric systems and has encouraged 01:17:02.610 --> 01:17:10.914 - that employees have an option to opt out of them. It's just another data collection point that could 01:17:10.914 --> 01:17:19.218 - be misused. And so I am, of course, in favor of the amendment that I'm bringing. And I hope for your 01:17:19.218 --> 01:17:20.862 - support. Thank you. 01:17:23.106 --> 01:17:34.193 - Councilman Stossberg was next and then president. Sorry I Appreciate councilmember Piedmont Smith bringing 01:17:34.193 --> 01:17:44.763 - this forward. I appreciate her Priority and attention to privacy in the situation. I do disagree with 01:17:44.763 --> 01:17:52.638 - her. I do think that This expense Has some potential for improving I'll say 01:17:52.770 --> 01:18:00.792 - City driver behavior and I mean I'm sure I'm not the only person who has seen city vehicles speed through 01:18:00.792 --> 01:18:08.512 - my neighborhood and roll through stop signs and It is especially frustrating when there's a city logo 01:18:08.512 --> 01:18:16.080 - on the side of a vehicle that you're going. Oh my gosh Why are they driving like that? Like I mean, 01:18:16.080 --> 01:18:20.318 - come on who's who's had a police officer tailgate them? 01:18:20.546 --> 01:18:28.033 - Like not necessarily targeting Bloomington police right but just like in general a police officer tailgum 01:18:28.033 --> 01:18:35.167 - or a police officer speed and just be like seriously like your lights aren't on what is the rush and 01:18:35.167 --> 01:18:42.230 - it's really frustrating from like a resident point of view to see that kind of behavior and I think 01:18:42.230 --> 01:18:49.505 - that this is a way to potentially improve driver safety and as long in my opinion as the employees are 01:18:49.505 --> 01:18:50.494 - aware of this 01:18:51.234 --> 01:19:01.803 - I think that The privacy issue is is Manageable okay, and that's also coming from you know the perspective 01:19:01.803 --> 01:19:12.076 - of somebody who has a lot of familiarity with remote work and there are a lot There's a lot of watching 01:19:12.076 --> 01:19:16.126 - happening with some remote work for some 01:19:16.418 --> 01:19:23.590 - industries thinking about tech industries where their computers record every single keystroke that they 01:19:23.590 --> 01:19:30.762 - do remotely and That you know all of those things are happening, and I think that this is a much milder 01:19:30.762 --> 01:19:37.935 - Sort of thing to have this kind of onboard system it also reminds me honestly of several safety related 01:19:37.935 --> 01:19:39.038 - systems that my 01:19:39.362 --> 01:19:46.470 - fancy new car has that my less fancy old car doesn't have. And we certainly can't afford to upgrade 01:19:46.470 --> 01:19:53.648 - all of the cars to have the little alert that goes on when you're too close to the side of the road, 01:19:53.648 --> 01:20:00.827 - that little lane thing, right? Or that little, oh, the car in front of you stopped, you better beep, 01:20:00.827 --> 01:20:08.574 - beep, beep, start braking. And it sounds like some of these systems have that capability as well in terms of 01:20:08.674 --> 01:20:15.314 - Not even necessarily distraction, but sometimes when you're driving, there's a lot of inputs I'm teaching 01:20:15.314 --> 01:20:21.577 - a 15 year old to drive right now and there are a lot of things that have to be paid attention to at 01:20:21.577 --> 01:20:28.091 - the same time and I think that one of the advantages of technology is that that technology can can help 01:20:28.091 --> 01:20:34.355 - us change our focus when we need to so I Will be voting no on this amendment That's a member sorry, 01:20:34.355 --> 01:20:36.798 - did you have comment no anybody else I 01:20:38.402 --> 01:20:49.178 - All right. Well then I think we're ready to vote on this one. Will clerk please call the roll on Amendment 01:20:49.178 --> 01:20:58.644 - 18. Council member Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. No. Ruff. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. No. 01:20:58.644 --> 01:21:05.694 - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Thank you. All right. So that passes six to two. 01:21:06.690 --> 01:21:16.445 - Why can't I get my numbers right tonight? I'm not I'm not the math teacher here Okay, that means we 01:21:16.445 --> 01:21:26.200 - are actually gonna go ahead move on to amendment 10 who would like to Possibly motion for amendment 01:21:26.200 --> 01:21:36.638 - 10. I'd like to introduce amendment 10 Second all right. Thank you. Who would like to talk about it? Sorry 01:21:36.738 --> 01:21:49.054 - This is many of us, yes? Yes, okay. This one maybe we can spend a bit more time on. At the top level, this 01:21:49.474 --> 01:21:57.048 - Reduces, but I think that that's Maybe let's use a different word holds the housing development fund 01:21:57.048 --> 01:22:04.771 - appropriation for programs Until we can have a conversation about exactly how we're going to use this. 01:22:04.771 --> 01:22:12.795 - We talked about this in depth During the working session. So I'll just add a few things before I'm passing 01:22:12.795 --> 01:22:18.494 - to my colleagues here I Don't think any single one of us on on this body is 01:22:18.594 --> 01:22:26.139 - is against, in any form, spending this fund. I've even said out loud I'd be happy for us to spend all 01:22:26.139 --> 01:22:32.574 - of the money in this fund if indeed we were doing it to significantly move the needle. 01:22:32.930 --> 01:22:38.596 - Throughout this week and the last week ever since proposing this, there's been a lot of outreach, including 01:22:38.596 --> 01:22:44.366 - by affected stakeholders. And the question that I've asked every single time when they say it's irresponsible 01:22:44.366 --> 01:22:49.717 - to cut this fund is I go, do you think that this fund works the best that it can? And the response is 01:22:49.717 --> 01:22:54.963 - always no. So I find it quite fascinating that we have this path dependency where we're like, well, 01:22:54.963 --> 01:23:00.366 - we have to fund this thing so that we can keep doing what we're doing. But even the people who benefit 01:23:00.366 --> 01:23:01.310 - from it are like, 01:23:01.794 --> 01:23:08.549 - This isn't the way we should be using it. And so I think that we should be we we should hold This one 01:23:08.549 --> 01:23:15.172 - not not with the objective of holding it throughout the year Just with the objective of us having a 01:23:15.172 --> 01:23:22.390 - conversation about how do we best? Use this I also would be totally on board with us I think both councilman 01:23:22.390 --> 01:23:26.430 - Piedmont Smith and I and again not to make you uncomfortable 01:23:26.498 --> 01:23:32.560 - Sort of you know, I'm just repeating something you have said but both of us have said throughout the 01:23:32.560 --> 01:23:38.622 - last three years certainly I have nothing against even deficit spending or using for that matter are 01:23:38.622 --> 01:23:45.104 - considerable reserves When it's targeted at something that's an investment and I think that that Affordable 01:23:45.104 --> 01:23:51.406 - housing is one such thing and so I would be interested even in exploring opportunities to put more money 01:23:51.406 --> 01:23:52.606 - into this fund, etc 01:23:52.706 --> 01:23:58.669 - Exploring what's viable to really make this, you know, be able to be something that we can ideally knock 01:23:58.669 --> 01:24:04.519 - it out of the park. And concerned that at the moment we basically are doing a sort of first come first 01:24:04.519 --> 01:24:10.312 - serve. At least that's how it's been explained to us multiple times. And so this is trying to surface 01:24:10.312 --> 01:24:15.991 - a broader conversation. You know, this I think is sort of the way that I'm approaching this one. So 01:24:15.991 --> 01:24:22.238 - happy to pass over to Councilmember Piedmont Smith or Councilmember Stossberg who I think also proposed this. 01:24:26.370 --> 01:24:35.991 - Yes, I think councilmember Osar I put it well in that Our goal is not to prevent appropriations from 01:24:35.991 --> 01:24:45.708 - this fund but to have a conversation with the administration to Talk about our long-term strategy for 01:24:45.708 --> 01:24:55.806 - use of this money and How the requests that have come in factor into that strategy to Also recognize that 01:24:56.130 --> 01:25:04.704 - I think there's less than $6 million total in this fund. It's a limited amount of money, which I don't 01:25:04.704 --> 01:25:13.195 - think is going to be replenished at the rate that we're spending it. And so we really need to be very 01:25:13.195 --> 01:25:21.603 - careful as to how it's spent and have a plan in place. And it does, as Council Member Asari said, it 01:25:21.603 --> 01:25:23.934 - does not feel like the most 01:25:25.602 --> 01:25:34.551 - Strategic use of the fund is currently being implemented since it's a first-come first-serve kind of 01:25:34.551 --> 01:25:44.120 - thing so I think we really just want to have a conversation and Come to an understanding about the strategy 01:25:44.120 --> 01:25:52.094 - for the best use of this limited money And I think just wanting to address one particular 01:25:52.226 --> 01:25:57.797 - that's in the response from the office of the mayor, specifically from hand, I'm sorry, it's that, and 01:25:57.797 --> 01:26:03.206 - so saying this for us to hopefully have a conversation, my intention if we are to move forward with 01:26:03.206 --> 01:26:08.724 - this is not that every single time they want to go about one of these things and they come back to us 01:26:08.724 --> 01:26:14.187 - and say, okay, we have one project, can we use a little bit of this money? But it's rather for us to 01:26:14.187 --> 01:26:19.758 - have the conversation once and have it for all, right? Like let's have that conversation, let's decide 01:26:19.758 --> 01:26:22.192 - the strategy that we're gonna be using here, 01:26:22.192 --> 01:26:32.556 - And then like I said, I'd even be interested in figuring out ways to put more funding in this if relevant 01:26:32.556 --> 01:26:42.723 - or interested All right, thank you does anybody from the administration want to speak on this one Kerry 01:26:42.723 --> 01:26:44.190 - Thompson mayor 01:26:44.930 --> 01:26:52.602 - Think we're more than happy always to have a conversation about how to do things better There is some 01:26:52.602 --> 01:27:00.876 - strategy in how this funding is deployed and I think it's different There's a the question that is reportedly 01:27:00.876 --> 01:27:08.623 - being asked to people who are receiving the funds is is there a better way to use this or are we doing 01:27:08.623 --> 01:27:10.654 - the the best we can do and 01:27:11.074 --> 01:27:19.166 - I don't think we're doing the best we can do. We can certainly look at how to do that. That doesn't 01:27:19.166 --> 01:27:27.583 - mean we're doing a terrible job either. And so I think our administration's been really open to working 01:27:27.583 --> 01:27:35.756 - with council on various things. The challenge with having to come back for appropriations for any of 01:27:35.756 --> 01:27:40.126 - this is that if a need comes up or there's a project, 01:27:40.834 --> 01:27:48.799 - What happens if this hasn't been decided is that that project becomes the measuring stick for the entire 01:27:48.799 --> 01:27:56.460 - fund instead of actually talking about the process. And what we have seen time and again through the 01:27:56.460 --> 01:28:04.274 - planning process, through funding processes that work in a case-by-case basis like this is that we end 01:28:04.274 --> 01:28:10.494 - up not getting the housing built or we end up increasing the cost of the housing. 01:28:11.042 --> 01:28:18.237 - That's not what any of us want. We all want to do better with the money that we have, but adding layers 01:28:18.237 --> 01:28:25.224 - and layers of red tape to getting it done doesn't seem like the most practical solution. So I'm just 01:28:25.224 --> 01:28:32.765 - wondering if there's a counter proposal for working together in a time-bound way to come up with a strategy, 01:28:32.765 --> 01:28:39.614 - leave the money there, so we don't have to go to three council hearings with all of the staff that 01:28:40.674 --> 01:28:50.976 - Already are going to a lot of Plant Commission Council and RDC meetings So that we can get them doing 01:28:50.976 --> 01:29:01.380 - work rather than going to meetings Thank you any other any questions now Chris gamma lodge a logistics 01:29:01.380 --> 01:29:09.662 - question to the controller sure Control with him. Would it be possible to include 01:29:09.890 --> 01:29:16.506 - a additional appropriation for a fund like this in the slot that we already have at the end of the year 01:29:16.506 --> 01:29:22.932 - for sort of the cleanup appropriation where we do fund transfers and the like. Can we can we do that 01:29:22.932 --> 01:29:29.421 - or does it have to wait until the actual calendar year if we were to make an appropriation outside of 01:29:29.421 --> 01:29:31.838 - budget time. Yeah the short answer is 01:29:32.354 --> 01:29:38.185 - If we did the additional appropriation at the end of this year, it would expire on December 31st. 01:29:38.185 --> 01:29:44.374 - Got it. Got it. It's a good idea. OK. OK. So so so so so the earliest if we were on any of these things 01:29:44.374 --> 01:29:50.502 - that if we wanted to do an additional appropriation would have to happen at our after our January 15th 01:29:50.502 --> 01:29:56.512 - meeting after our after we received our budget order from the DLGF, which would probably be in early 01:29:56.512 --> 01:30:02.046 - January. OK. OK. Thank you. So that's that's useful to know. All right. Any other questions? 01:30:04.098 --> 01:30:11.766 - None we'll go to public comment Nobody online nobody in chambers, okay, we'll come back to council comment 01:30:11.766 --> 01:30:19.147 - Councilmember Stossberg and then councilmember Piedmont Smith and then councilmember. Sorry Thank you. 01:30:19.147 --> 01:30:26.456 - So My name was mentioned earlier, but I did not end up being an official sponsor of this which is why 01:30:26.456 --> 01:30:31.902 - I did not speak earlier but this was also something that I wanted to do and 01:30:33.410 --> 01:30:39.924 - I'm supportive of this amendment I'm supportive of it in a different read for a different reason though 01:30:39.924 --> 01:30:46.188 - than what was already expressed What was expressed was this idea of strategy? We need to figure out 01:30:46.188 --> 01:30:52.576 - some kind of joint strategy to approach this I'm interested in public transparency and accountability 01:30:52.576 --> 01:30:58.840 - and the mayor's memo actually made this even more important to me because it lists several projects 01:30:58.840 --> 01:31:02.974 - that requested more than a million dollars in city assistance and 01:31:03.394 --> 01:31:11.074 - We have an entire another ordinance from several years ago that says City Council needs to approve expenses 01:31:11.074 --> 01:31:18.469 - over a hundred thousand dollars in capital investment and yet we don't want to have Some kind of public 01:31:18.469 --> 01:31:25.723 - hearing when the city asks when the city has asked for more than a million dollars in assistance That 01:31:25.723 --> 01:31:33.118 - is absurd and to diminish the value of something like that coming before this body is a diminishment of 01:31:33.282 --> 01:31:40.740 - this body's importance as the fiscal officer we are the fiscal body of this city and You considered 01:31:40.740 --> 01:31:48.346 - us with projects that might be over a million dollars in city assistance to just be layers and layers 01:31:48.346 --> 01:31:55.953 - of red tape Earlier in this memo. It's a burden to have to come before City Council and it's not that 01:31:55.953 --> 01:32:02.590 - you're just disrespecting the nine of us up here as individuals as elected officials and 01:32:03.170 --> 01:32:10.259 - as a body, but it also feels like blatant disrespect to the residents of this city who have taxpayers. 01:32:10.259 --> 01:32:17.279 - And it's blatant disrespect when instead of listening to council member comment or to public comment, 01:32:17.279 --> 01:32:24.162 - instead you walk out of the room. And for those of you not in this room, Mayor Thompson just walked 01:32:24.162 --> 01:32:30.494 - out of the room instead of listening. I consider that blatant disrespect to the fiscal body 01:32:30.754 --> 01:32:36.704 - Consider it blatantly disrespectful to the residents of this city who pay taxes, you know to get money 01:32:36.704 --> 01:32:42.539 - into this fund There has to be an approval of the affordability Incentives for planning projects for 01:32:42.539 --> 01:32:48.431 - large planning projects for them to take advantage of affordability incentives Plan Commission has to 01:32:48.431 --> 01:32:49.182 - approve that 01:32:49.858 --> 01:32:56.513 - Has to approve these payments in lieu that go into this fund that is a public process And yet no public 01:32:56.513 --> 01:33:03.040 - process should be needed for requests more than a million dollars in city assistance that come out of 01:33:03.040 --> 01:33:09.631 - this It absolutely should be and as for the timeline issue if these projects take years to potentially 01:33:09.631 --> 01:33:16.158 - come Then you know what there is time to come before council and say yeah, so we have this project it 01:33:16.322 --> 01:33:22.719 - Might still be somewhere in the middle, but we would like to support it with a million dollars And if 01:33:22.719 --> 01:33:29.178 - that project somehow doesn't end up coming to fruition then that will revert back into the fund We can 01:33:29.178 --> 01:33:35.889 - have legislation that says that and then it does not lengthen the timeline So this is just full of excuses 01:33:35.889 --> 01:33:42.599 - about why they cannot come before City Council why they cannot come before the public and defend expending 01:33:42.599 --> 01:33:44.606 - more than a million dollars and 01:33:44.802 --> 01:33:55.847 - City assets to various personal projects. Thank you Councilmember Piedmont Smith Well, actually I was 01:33:55.847 --> 01:34:07.216 - Also wondering how this corresponds with resolution 2018 no ordinance 2018-10 I don't know the ordinance 01:34:07.216 --> 01:34:12.414 - we passed in December of 2018 that said all the 01:34:13.602 --> 01:34:21.091 - capital at all expenditures of one hundred thousand dollars or more must be itemized in the budget or 01:34:21.091 --> 01:34:28.801 - must come back to the council for approval. And I'm wondering how this blanket approval of three million 01:34:28.801 --> 01:34:36.364 - dollars would be following municipal code if in our code it says that such items must be listed in the 01:34:36.364 --> 01:34:40.990 - budget. I don't know if attorney Allen has a response to that. 01:34:47.618 --> 01:34:55.184 - reviewing the ordinance which I believe is 2018 10. Thank you. I'm happy to respond to it. Just give 01:34:55.184 --> 01:34:59.678 - me just a moment just to fully read it and I can thank you. 01:35:43.490 --> 01:35:49.470 - My apologies for the delay. Thank you for the moment. Just look at the ordinance. 01:35:49.698 --> 01:35:55.113 - 1810 did a few different things. So one of the things that it did is allowed Council to have oversight 01:35:55.113 --> 01:36:00.370 - over intrafund transfers that also involved a hundred thousand dollar limit So anytime that there's 01:36:00.370 --> 01:36:05.680 - a transfer between category one fund or category three funds Additionally, there was a capital funds 01:36:05.680 --> 01:36:10.990 - expenditure of over a hundred thousand dollars that it required review now that it does specify that 01:36:10.990 --> 01:36:16.299 - those capital reviews that are over a hundred thousand dollars or anything that's not in the capital 01:36:16.299 --> 01:36:19.664 - improvement plan and those relate to direct capital expenditure 01:36:19.664 --> 01:36:24.941 - of the city so they wouldn't necessarily relate to potential funding of other organizations or anything 01:36:24.941 --> 01:36:30.117 - that's non capital spending. That would be my understanding and if the administration has a different 01:36:30.117 --> 01:36:35.192 - different stance I'd be happy to hear that. So I don't think that these these types of expenditures 01:36:35.192 --> 01:36:40.317 - out of the housing fund which may go directly to a developer or to another organization qualify as a 01:36:40.317 --> 01:36:45.442 - capital expenditure of the city exactly as much as they are like a grant or another services type of 01:36:45.442 --> 01:36:48.030 - funding from the city to a different organization. 01:36:50.210 --> 01:37:00.673 - Thank you. That said I agree with Councilmember Stossberg that in addition to kind of forcing a conversation 01:37:00.673 --> 01:37:10.367 - about the best strategy for the use of these limited funds it would also add a layer of transparency 01:37:10.367 --> 01:37:18.718 - for the public to see how the city is using the money that has come in from developers 01:37:19.138 --> 01:37:26.761 - And I think that that's an important part of this as well, especially with the dollar amounts that we've 01:37:26.761 --> 01:37:34.384 - seen go out of this fund More a sort of question for colleagues about how you envision then so so should 01:37:34.384 --> 01:37:40.990 - we Should we should we adopt this amendment? What do you how do you envision that going? I 01:37:41.730 --> 01:37:48.943 - Because I because I because I would not want sort of like a lot of like I would that wouldn't be my 01:37:48.943 --> 01:37:56.372 - my objective here, right? So I'm just interested sort of if you all have some thought on you know What 01:37:56.372 --> 01:38:03.873 - our timeline would be how we would approach it how you know, how do we actually get to a better outcome 01:38:03.873 --> 01:38:11.230 - here? I Think that probably there should be legislation similar to that one from 2018 that requires a 01:38:11.394 --> 01:38:18.707 - any kind of Private equity assistance over a certain dollar amount to have to come through council and 01:38:18.707 --> 01:38:26.092 - I don't know what that dollar amount might be but I mean We give grants all the time and of course Jack 01:38:26.092 --> 01:38:32.766 - Hopkins comes through here because it's council money and then there's smaller grants that go 01:38:33.026 --> 01:38:39.238 - various places that are within hand right and I certainly would not want to and like ESD has a bunch 01:38:39.238 --> 01:38:45.449 - of grants there's climate grants like I don't want to get in the middle of any of those grants right 01:38:45.449 --> 01:38:51.907 - because those are small dollar amounts but like over some kind of dollar amount it needs to come through 01:38:51.907 --> 01:38:58.303 - council in my opinion and so then that would you know manage that to some degree in terms of my concern 01:38:58.303 --> 01:39:00.702 - with transparency and making sure that 01:39:01.954 --> 01:39:07.471 - The residents know where this money is going that we know where this money is going that you know five 01:39:07.471 --> 01:39:13.202 - years from now somebody is not going to have to comb through records to figure out that oh we supplemented 01:39:13.202 --> 01:39:16.094 - union at Crescent to the tune of two million dollars. 01:39:17.250 --> 01:39:25.673 - I mean, we shouldn't have to wonder about that. It should be somewhere in the public record. Thank you. 01:39:25.673 --> 01:39:33.934 - My thinking, though, is that we can take those actions regardless of what we do with this fund, which 01:39:33.934 --> 01:39:37.822 - I think is a needful and separate conversation. 01:39:37.954 --> 01:39:43.523 - a strategy component of saying, hey, we want to withdraw this fund to have further conversations. Now, 01:39:43.523 --> 01:39:49.147 - I fully appreciate your point though, because I think your point would be, and correct me if I'm wrong, 01:39:49.147 --> 01:39:50.174 - is that you're not 01:39:50.338 --> 01:40:00.521 - comfortable releasing the funds until we've taken that action of oversight. Am I correct? Okay. Whereas 01:40:00.521 --> 01:40:10.997 - my argument is that, and I don't think these are in dichotomy, but I really want us to have a conversation 01:40:10.997 --> 01:40:16.382 - about how are we going to really employ this to get it 01:40:16.546 --> 01:40:26.721 - to a higher level, a better, I'm trying to bias myself away from using the word outcome. But how are 01:40:26.721 --> 01:40:37.299 - we going to get to a better end result for residents? So how might we contribute to that part that isn't 01:40:37.299 --> 01:40:46.366 - a worse outcome? Well, what I heard the mayor say was that they have a big plan of intent 01:40:46.626 --> 01:40:52.194 - You could say not sure that they've necessarily shared it with counsel. So, you know, I mean if that's 01:40:52.194 --> 01:40:57.763 - what you're asking in terms of that kind of larger conversation of what should this money be used for? 01:40:57.763 --> 01:41:03.439 - Is that what you're asking? Are you asking? Yeah, I guess I guess to make sure that this doesn't because 01:41:03.439 --> 01:41:07.710 - I mean there's there's a fail state here where we withhold this money and then 01:41:07.874 --> 01:41:14.532 - do nothing about this until we basically are like, hey, it's in your court. You engage with us now, 01:41:14.532 --> 01:41:21.324 - right? And then we make it very difficult to engage with us. And you know what I'm saying? That would 01:41:21.324 --> 01:41:28.248 - be like the worst, maybe a worse outcome than the outcome we're discussing, whereas the pain point that 01:41:28.248 --> 01:41:34.174 - you've identified, we can act on regardless. And so that's, right? Well, to my end, I'm, 01:41:37.602 --> 01:41:45.738 - I mean, to some degree, I'm willing to say trust that, you know, just thinking about this project list 01:41:45.738 --> 01:41:53.794 - that got included in the memo, one, two, three, four, five, there's five different project lists. I'm 01:41:53.794 --> 01:42:01.693 - pretty happy to trust the hands department when they say, okay, we wanna fund two of these, they're 01:42:01.693 --> 01:42:02.878 - the best ones. 01:42:03.586 --> 01:42:08.750 - They're the best ones for the overall state. It's going to total this much amount of money. And for 01:42:08.750 --> 01:42:14.275 - them to come with that appropriation with what's the project about, what's it going to do for Bloomington, 01:42:14.275 --> 01:42:19.542 - why they chose this as the best one, that's the discussion that I want to make sure we have before we 01:42:19.542 --> 01:42:24.706 - appropriate the money. And that is a different discussion, I think, than what you and Councilmember 01:42:24.706 --> 01:42:30.127 - Piedmont-Smith were saying in terms of being able to have eyes on and being involved in the conversation 01:42:30.127 --> 01:42:32.606 - of actually choosing the two that are the best. 01:42:32.706 --> 01:42:39.290 - I'm fine with trusting staff and the professionals in that field to choose which two are the best. But 01:42:39.290 --> 01:42:46.257 - then I want them to come and defend, to explain their choice, defend their choice, allow us to ask questions 01:42:46.257 --> 01:42:52.713 - about their choice, allow the public to see and be involved in all of those conversations, hopefully 01:42:52.713 --> 01:42:59.169 - without eye rolling happening by any of us. And then for us to be able to make that decision. That's 01:42:59.169 --> 01:43:01.982 - public transparency. That's accountability. 01:43:02.626 --> 01:43:08.628 - That's doing that's that's making these big decisions about millions of dollars In front of everybody, 01:43:08.628 --> 01:43:14.920 - which is what we're supposed to do, right? So so then wondering because your original I think your original 01:43:14.920 --> 01:43:20.747 - amendment Wasn't as wasn't holding the whole fun back. I think you if I'm remembering correctly was 01:43:20.747 --> 01:43:25.758 - it? Yo, yo, okay. Sorry. Sorry was comfortable appearance with so just thinking about 01:43:25.890 --> 01:43:31.411 - You know if the if cutting the difference here is that you is that you appropriate a million dollars 01:43:31.411 --> 01:43:37.151 - or something like that rather than three and no I I sent a message to the hand department asking because 01:43:37.151 --> 01:43:42.673 - last year when they when we appropriated money from this account for them one of the things that was 01:43:42.673 --> 01:43:48.413 - mentioned was kind of the the potential that they were using some of that fund for smaller grant amounts 01:43:48.413 --> 01:43:54.590 - that might end up being more personal like I mean it's one thing to discuss a million dollar appropriation for a 01:43:54.754 --> 01:44:01.120 - Corporation, you know a development company to build 216 multifamily units, right? It's another thing 01:44:01.120 --> 01:44:07.423 - to discuss, you know Individuals getting some sort of rental assistance like that that does not need 01:44:07.423 --> 01:44:13.789 - to be public So, you know if they want to come and say like hey we have this this program XYZ that we 01:44:13.789 --> 01:44:20.155 - want to give rental assistance we want to do this that and the other thing which is kind of what they 01:44:20.155 --> 01:44:21.278 - did last year and 01:44:21.346 --> 01:44:27.054 - With the money from this program. I'm good with that kind of proposal too in terms of using this money 01:44:27.054 --> 01:44:32.763 - to more directly You know fund those sorts of things I know that we you know, we have various the hand 01:44:32.763 --> 01:44:38.471 - department does various grant kind of stuff But I did not get any response to that email Asking if any 01:44:38.471 --> 01:44:44.014 - of this money was being reserved for any of those programs at all because I was open to leaving any 01:44:44.014 --> 01:44:50.110 - money in here that was going to be devoted to those sorts of programs but but since I didn't get a response I 01:44:50.434 --> 01:44:56.974 - Just had to assume. All right, none of it's being used for that. So just cut the whole thing 01:44:56.974 --> 01:45:04.006 - Okay Councilmember Piedmont Smith Well, just to also address councilmember Asari's question I think 01:45:04.006 --> 01:45:11.319 - that before the end of this calendar year, we should have a discussion with the administration and with 01:45:11.319 --> 01:45:16.382 - hand about use of this fund I don't think you know we can prejudge from 01:45:17.538 --> 01:45:24.899 - the format or the outcome of that discussion but I think it needs to be had and I think it needs to 01:45:24.899 --> 01:45:32.259 - be had soon. So I would say you know by mid December let's let's have that discussion so that if we 01:45:32.259 --> 01:45:39.767 - come to some agreement and appropriation can be sought in January. All right. Any. OK. I think we are 01:45:39.767 --> 01:45:45.214 - ready to council member Flaherty just briefly. I support this and support 01:45:45.634 --> 01:45:52.376 - Aligned substantively with what most of what I've heard. I think for me the strongest motivating factor 01:45:52.376 --> 01:45:59.247 - is Kind of over a certain level or threshold. I think a public process and accountability the opportunity 01:45:59.247 --> 01:46:05.924 - for questions, etc is Worth the trade-offs that involves. Thanks All right, thank you and I think with 01:46:05.924 --> 01:46:12.990 - that we're ready to take a vote on amendment Number ten will clerk, please call the roll councilmember Asari 01:46:15.938 --> 01:46:27.194 - Yes. Daily. No. Ruff. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Thank you. 01:46:27.194 --> 01:46:38.560 - All right. That passes six to one. And I believe the next amendment I closed it out. Are we moving on 01:46:38.560 --> 01:46:42.238 - to 11. Oh sorry. My place. Okay. 01:46:46.626 --> 01:46:54.255 - I'm not going to advance number 11. I can make a comment about 11 and why I'm not advancing it. Just 01:46:54.255 --> 01:47:01.808 - had very good conversations with Director Tim Street about sort of this printing budget, which they 01:47:01.808 --> 01:47:09.588 - agree it's a lot, but it's sort of the best method they have right now to engage with the public. One, 01:47:09.588 --> 01:47:10.494 - two, three. 01:47:10.690 --> 01:47:19.416 - OK. And they are piloting throughout this year already. And as you saw in the response, what it might 01:47:19.416 --> 01:47:28.227 - look like to lower costs there. I think that this surfaced sort of the right type of conversation. And 01:47:28.227 --> 01:47:36.781 - so I'm happy to not move this one forward. But if somebody else would like to, I'm happy to second. 01:47:36.781 --> 01:47:39.262 - But yeah. OK. OK. Thank you. 01:47:40.162 --> 01:47:49.245 - Amendment number 12. I think there's a motion to recess. Is that did I hear correctly? No, I wasn't 01:47:49.245 --> 01:47:58.783 - making a motion. I was responding to a face. Oh, okay I think I'm the next one I moved that we introduce 01:47:58.783 --> 01:48:01.054 - some amendment 12 Second 01:48:01.858 --> 01:48:09.832 - This one much like the last one holds the two million five hundred placeholder for the parking meter 01:48:09.832 --> 01:48:18.517 - fund again same same idea. Oh Okay, we're still fine same Same idea here is that I mean we haven't identified 01:48:18.517 --> 01:48:22.622 - exactly what we want to do how we want to do it and 01:48:22.754 --> 01:48:30.363 - I think the important thing to note though about the parking meter fund is that it would be possible 01:48:30.363 --> 01:48:37.822 - to look at this one through the lens of us just, you know, withholding money that must be spent on 01:48:38.210 --> 01:48:45.114 - the thing that is planned for it here, but there are a lot of different things that we're able to spend 01:48:45.114 --> 01:48:52.151 - this fund on. So this is actually sort of like a choice here, and so I think it would be good to continue 01:48:52.151 --> 01:48:59.454 - to have that engaged conversation about what we plan to do, how we plan on implementing it, but obviously I'm 01:48:59.842 --> 01:49:05.880 - Generally supportive of implementing what came out of the parking of the parking plan or parking study 01:49:05.880 --> 01:49:11.918 - or whatever it was And also to be consistent with why I said before I think that we should fund things 01:49:11.918 --> 01:49:17.956 - after we've studied them But I just think that it's still sort of a placeholder. So until we have some 01:49:17.956 --> 01:49:23.349 - clarity come back to them All right, thank you any questions on oh I'm sorry. Yes. Does any 01:49:23.349 --> 01:49:25.342 - of the co-sponsors want to speak? 01:49:25.794 --> 01:49:34.456 - Yeah, I just want to say that this also falls under public transparency for me that There's not a specific 01:49:34.456 --> 01:49:39.070 - vendor right now identified. There's not even a specific 01:49:39.202 --> 01:49:45.187 - You know, there's a lot of questions about like meters versus not meters individual meters versus group 01:49:45.187 --> 01:49:50.941 - meters like like there's a lot of questions like that and so I think that it's useful to be have to 01:49:50.941 --> 01:49:56.695 - come back to counsel for that appropriation when those decisions have actually been made and I know 01:49:56.695 --> 01:50:02.507 - it's one of those things like yeah, you can have another information session, but there are a lot of 01:50:02.507 --> 01:50:03.198 - meetings on 01:50:03.458 --> 01:50:10.222 - There are a lot of meetings in this city. There's a lot of different groups that have a lot of different 01:50:10.222 --> 01:50:16.857 - meetings and there are some people that just follow council or just follow one thing or another thing. 01:50:16.857 --> 01:50:23.298 - And I think that especially with large expenditures and we are the fiscal body we should be able to 01:50:23.298 --> 01:50:29.804 - be a body that people like oh city's gonna spend millions of dollars on something. Let's see what it 01:50:29.804 --> 01:50:32.574 - is. So that's why I wanted to wanted to to 01:50:33.314 --> 01:50:41.236 - Reduce this line so that then the additional appropriation would have to be sought after. Thank you 01:50:41.236 --> 01:50:49.237 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith Yeah, I second what my two co-sponsors said and I also want to add that 01:50:49.237 --> 01:50:57.238 - one of the recommendations of the Walker parking study is to use automatic license plate readers for 01:50:57.238 --> 01:51:01.278 - parking enforcement, which I think comes with some 01:51:02.146 --> 01:51:08.737 - privacy concerns and surveillance concerns. And so I think that definitely should come back to council. 01:51:08.737 --> 01:51:15.075 - So that's just an added reason for this amendment. All right. Thank you. Anybody have any questions 01:51:15.075 --> 01:51:21.603 - for the sponsors or for the administration. Would the administration like to comment on this amendment 01:51:21.603 --> 01:51:28.257 - or no. OK. So any questions then I see no questions. OK. We'll go to public comment. Anybody in chambers 01:51:28.257 --> 01:51:31.870 - or online. Nobody online. I see no movement in chambers. 01:51:32.002 --> 01:51:40.386 - We'll come back here for comment. Any council member comments before we move to a vote on Amendment 01:51:40.386 --> 01:51:48.938 - 12 and no. All right. So with that will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 12. And thank you 01:51:48.938 --> 01:51:57.322 - all very much for being so speedy on this one. Council member Daley. Oh yes. Ruff yes clarity. Yes. 01:51:57.322 --> 01:52:01.598 - Sasberg yes. Piedmont Smith yes. Zulek yes. Sorry. 01:52:02.210 --> 01:52:10.314 - Yes Passes unanimously. Thank you Councilmember Zulik, do you have any thoughts on amendment 13? I will 01:52:10.314 --> 01:52:18.262 - not be introducing it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much Councilmember Piedmont Smith, do you have 01:52:18.262 --> 01:52:26.211 - any thoughts on amendment 14? Yes, thank you No, we did not we've not officially discussed it because 01:52:26.211 --> 01:52:31.198 - it I'd like to move amendment 14 the revised amendment 14 which 01:52:31.778 --> 01:52:39.770 - Attorney Alan, can you please put that on the screen? Yeah, amendment 1 to amendment 14 First we have 01:52:39.770 --> 01:52:47.919 - can we just move do it and we just move this as amendment 14 revised Yeah, I was just trying to provide 01:52:47.919 --> 01:52:55.911 - some transparency since it was included in the packet if you'd like to call it revised I mean as long 01:52:55.911 --> 01:53:00.926 - as we're pointing out what the revisions are and how it changed 01:53:02.402 --> 01:53:09.334 - Okay if you could please display it I will point out what the revision was and I second a second. 01:53:09.334 --> 01:53:16.831 - Thank you. All right. Council member Pete Smith. So this this amendment reduces the office of the mayor's 01:53:16.831 --> 01:53:24.116 - budget by ten thousand dollars which was reserved to implement branding initiatives and the correction 01:53:24.116 --> 01:53:30.270 - between what was in the packet and what is on the screen currently is that the account 01:53:30.946 --> 01:53:38.578 - The correct account is five three nine nine zero It's called technically it's called account even though 01:53:38.578 --> 01:53:45.846 - we know it as line item Just to be extra confusing But yes that number five three nine nine zero is 01:53:45.846 --> 01:53:53.259 - the correct number and the previous number five three one seven zero is incorrect So that's just been 01:53:53.259 --> 01:53:56.094 - corrected in the text of the amendment 01:53:57.282 --> 01:54:04.874 - And I'm bringing forward this amendment because I feel like the whole branding initiative was kind of 01:54:04.874 --> 01:54:11.275 - a waste of time and I don't want to throw good money after bad. Thank you. All right. 01:54:11.275 --> 01:54:19.314 - Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Any questions on Amendment 14 is revised. All right. No questions. 01:54:19.314 --> 01:54:25.566 - We will move on to public comment. Anybody in chambers or online would like to make 01:54:25.826 --> 01:54:33.219 - public comment nobody online has Volunteered a question. Nobody in chambers is moving. We'll come back 01:54:33.219 --> 01:54:40.612 - here any council comments before we move to a vote Councilmember, sorry, I'm happy to support this and 01:54:40.612 --> 01:54:47.862 - and not move forward with the one that's I think we should just do this one All right, thank you any 01:54:47.862 --> 01:54:55.614 - other comments All right, I don't see any other comments so will clerk please call the roll on amendment 14 01:54:56.322 --> 01:55:06.159 - Councilmember Ruff. Yes Flaherty Stasberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes, sorry. Yes, Bailey. 01:55:06.159 --> 01:55:16.190 - Yes, 14 passes unanimously. Thank you everybody Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Do you have any thoughts 01:55:16.190 --> 01:55:25.150 - on amendment 15? Sure, I move amendment 15 to Appropriation Ordinance 20 2602. Sorry second 01:55:25.986 --> 01:55:33.364 - All right. Thank you very much. This amendment reduces the Department of Economic and Sustainability's 01:55:33.364 --> 01:55:40.814 - budget in the amount related to the grade nine salary and benefits of the transportation demand manager 01:55:40.814 --> 01:55:47.977 - position. So this is a position that is currently not filled and when it was filled for a few years 01:55:47.977 --> 01:55:54.782 - it didn't seem to accomplish very much. So I send in the interest of tightening belts I think. 01:55:55.586 --> 01:56:03.887 - We can do without it. Thank you All right, thanks very much any questions Councilmember Stossberg and 01:56:03.887 --> 01:56:12.026 - then councilmember Flaherty have there been similar reductions from the other category one expenses 01:56:12.026 --> 01:56:20.409 - for this position like insurance and FICA and perf and all of those sorts of things or was it just the 01:56:20.409 --> 01:56:24.478 - salary that was taken off and Does category three 01:56:24.770 --> 01:56:32.891 - allow those other or sorry does number three allow those other things to be changed. What's the I believe 01:56:32.891 --> 01:56:40.859 - so. Yes I believe that's why number three was added by our wise counsel Mr. Allen. Yeah that's correct. 01:56:40.859 --> 01:56:47.294 - So in discussions with the controller Mr. Kim can speak to this as well. Those are. 01:56:47.906 --> 01:56:54.118 - Very specific line items for the benefits of each employee and we didn't know what those totals were 01:56:54.118 --> 01:57:00.392 - So that's exactly what section 3 does is allow the controller to adjust appropriately So that if this 01:57:00.392 --> 01:57:06.604 - position is removed all those will be reduced accordingly is my understanding Yes, and I'd just like 01:57:06.604 --> 01:57:13.000 - to confirm that we will reduce all the appropriate benefit lines if you vote to eliminate this position 01:57:13.000 --> 01:57:14.046 - Great. Thank you 01:57:17.218 --> 01:57:24.150 - Question. Oh, yes councilmember Flaherty. Yeah, just curious. I'm in Any follow-up you had with the 01:57:24.150 --> 01:57:31.291 - administration or just your own thinking? Is it just that this money will then go? Back to the general 01:57:31.291 --> 01:57:38.570 - fund and just reduce the overall expenditure. Did you consider options for how the money could be better 01:57:38.570 --> 01:57:45.502 - spent for similar purposes? Thank you for asking Yes, I personally would like to see the money used 01:57:46.626 --> 01:57:55.617 - Better implement our climate action plan particularly in the realm of food security and our local food 01:57:55.617 --> 01:58:04.347 - system However, I this is not a venue where I can dictate that but that was my idea and that's what 01:58:04.347 --> 01:58:13.251 - I've talked with director Cooper Smith about So we'll see Thanks any other questions for amendment 15 01:58:13.251 --> 01:58:15.870 - Okay, no questions that I see 01:58:16.418 --> 01:58:22.972 - Any public comment here either in chambers or online? Nobody online, but I do see somebody making their 01:58:22.972 --> 01:58:27.006 - way to the podium. Thank you very much. You have three minutes. 01:58:27.362 --> 01:58:32.786 - I'm not gonna need all three minutes. My name is Iris Bowl again. I just think it's interesting that 01:58:32.786 --> 01:58:38.157 - this position is being cut I think it's out of convenience and not in the spirit of actually trying 01:58:38.157 --> 01:58:43.688 - to understand how transportation modes could be better utilized around town our east-west corridor for 01:58:43.688 --> 01:58:49.220 - bicyclists and scooters is terrible and I just generally think that this role offered a lot of promise 01:58:49.220 --> 01:58:49.918 - and a lot of 01:58:50.114 --> 01:58:56.463 - A lot of effort went into making it it's very hard to create jobs at the city And I think it's a shame 01:58:56.463 --> 01:59:03.060 - that out of a matter of convenience because the position is not filled that for example The Transportation 01:59:03.060 --> 01:59:09.286 - Commission is not being given an opportunity to talk about this particular item. Thank you Thank you 01:59:09.286 --> 01:59:15.450 - very much last check for anybody online looking to make comment Nope, I don't see anybody else here 01:59:15.450 --> 01:59:16.190 - in chambers 01:59:16.930 --> 01:59:24.663 - So we'll come back here for council comment. Any last comments before we move to a vote on this council 01:59:24.663 --> 01:59:32.173 - member sorry does raise an interesting thought that we hadn't at least I hadn't considered but maybe 01:59:32.173 --> 01:59:39.906 - both a question for attorney Allen and controller. Kim is it possible to essentially like I mean defund 01:59:39.906 --> 01:59:40.798 - a position. 01:59:41.410 --> 01:59:47.574 - keep the position as a line that could be revived so that you don't have to go through the whole process 01:59:47.574 --> 01:59:53.620 - of creating a new position? Because I mean, it is a good point that it, you know, I don't know if it's 01:59:53.620 --> 01:59:59.314 - like very hard, except for the fact you have to like talk to us, but you know, but you're right. 01:59:59.314 --> 02:00:05.302 - So yeah, so what are your? Absolutely. You can keep the position alive. You can keep it in the salary 02:00:05.302 --> 02:00:09.822 - ordinance. It still exists in the system. You could fund it at a later time. 02:00:10.178 --> 02:00:16.373 - Right. So OK. That's interesting. So I hadn't thought about that with with position so we could so but 02:00:16.373 --> 02:00:22.448 - that would look like us defunding it in the salary ordinance and not defunding it in this ordinance. 02:00:22.448 --> 02:00:28.523 - It's actually the reverse would be true. Okay. Defunding in this ordinance and then there is a later 02:00:28.523 --> 02:00:34.537 - amendment for the salary ordinance specific for this position and then that would just would not be 02:00:34.537 --> 02:00:39.710 - passed. So it would remain in the salary ordinance but there'd be no funding in this. 02:00:39.938 --> 02:00:48.959 - Interesting Thanks, I support this amendment I appreciate our member the public and Engineering department 02:00:48.959 --> 02:00:57.559 - who commented I would not characterize this as a cut of convenience because it's unfilled. I actually 02:00:57.559 --> 02:01:05.822 - do think it's a position that was never really Supported or empowered to thrive in particular the 02:01:06.050 --> 02:01:12.766 - primary lever of transportation and management, or one of the primary levers is parking pricing. That's 02:01:12.766 --> 02:01:19.289 - not something that was ever authorized for this position to lead policy on. It's genesis, I was part 02:01:19.289 --> 02:01:25.876 - of that, not as a member of the council, but as a member of the public, engaging quite a lot with the 02:01:25.876 --> 02:01:32.592 - city's $50 million of appropriations for parking garages, with an eye to trying to manage demand better 02:01:32.592 --> 02:01:34.142 - before building bigger. 02:01:34.274 --> 02:01:40.437 - at a higher cost, of course. So it was a bit of a concession that I mentioned previously when we talked 02:01:40.437 --> 02:01:46.482 - about this, a bit of a, I don't know what the word I'm looking for is, I don't know, like not helpful 02:01:46.482 --> 02:01:52.645 - because the position was created after we overbuilt supply. So you really needed to manage demand first 02:01:52.645 --> 02:01:58.689 - before we overbuilt supply. In any case, the position did exist and did some good things for a while, 02:01:58.689 --> 02:02:03.134 - but I just don't think it's actually really achieved the vision of what we 02:02:03.234 --> 02:02:08.452 - You know had in mind there and so I would support spending the money on Similar things to accomplish 02:02:08.452 --> 02:02:13.826 - more in our transportation system consistent with our current city goals and efforts I think that could 02:02:13.826 --> 02:02:18.992 - be through a position. I did ask questions about that through our you know council question process 02:02:18.992 --> 02:02:24.159 - Probably that would be a planning position though could maybe an engineering position. I don't know 02:02:24.159 --> 02:02:29.429 - I think it could also be expenditures, you know, notably we had 10 or 11 applicants this year for the 02:02:29.429 --> 02:02:31.134 - neighborhood traffic calming and 02:02:31.362 --> 02:02:37.389 - I think we fund that at a $50,000 level which is adequate for one project a year. This is a this is 02:02:37.389 --> 02:02:43.416 - consistent year-over-year as well. We have many Residents looking to make looking to address unsafe 02:02:43.416 --> 02:02:49.504 - conditions in their streets that generally support mode shift By by creating the safe conditions for 02:02:49.504 --> 02:02:56.254 - for using modes other than vehicles for transportation So that would be another consideration we could you know 02:02:57.506 --> 02:03:02.823 - triple the amount of that funding and actually fund several of our neighborhood projects, maybe make 02:03:02.823 --> 02:03:08.193 - a dent more over time rather than having the same people come over and over going through the process 02:03:08.193 --> 02:03:13.721 - of contacting council members to get their letters of support, all these things that they do in a really 02:03:13.721 --> 02:03:19.302 - well-designed process. But when it's one in 10 that get funded, clearly we're not meeting the need there. 02:03:19.302 --> 02:03:23.198 - So I would really like to see this amount of cost savings get reallocated 02:03:23.394 --> 02:03:30.785 - In a similar for a similar set of goals and I think again that could be personnel that could be You 02:03:30.785 --> 02:03:38.324 - know programs and capital Those are my two cents. Thanks Thank you councilmember Stossberg, I'm gonna 02:03:38.324 --> 02:03:45.789 - very simply say I agree with him And I pointed at councilmember Flaherty for those who can't see me. 02:03:45.789 --> 02:03:52.958 - Thanks Short and sweet. Thank you. Anybody else with comment? All right, so we will move to vote 02:03:54.018 --> 02:04:03.876 - Walton I was gonna call you councilmember Bolden clerk Bolden. Would you please call the roll? 02:04:03.876 --> 02:04:14.357 - Thank you. Yes councilmember Flaherty. Yes Stasburg. Yes Yes Yes, sorry, yes Yes, yes Thank you that 02:04:14.357 --> 02:04:20.894 - passes unanimously Okay, that was amendment 15 I know we had a 02:04:21.538 --> 02:04:29.176 - Some additional in our packets. Do we have a 16? Yes, I'm I would like to introduce amendment 16. Okay. 02:04:29.176 --> 02:04:36.666 - Thank you Do I have a second for amendment 16 second super thank you. Can you please talk to us about 02:04:36.666 --> 02:04:44.304 - it? Okay This one and if you'll forgive me I'd like to take just a little bit of time and talking about 02:04:44.304 --> 02:04:46.654 - really the approach behind this 02:04:47.618 --> 02:04:54.466 - I think it's very clear and worth repeating again and again that our that both SEA one and our local 02:04:54.466 --> 02:05:01.382 - economic conditions do not support the current trajectory of the city's operating budget. We'll stop. 02:05:01.382 --> 02:05:08.636 - I think the proposed general budget spends approximately five point four million dollars for seven million 02:05:08.636 --> 02:05:12.094 - dollars more than projected revenue. We know this. 02:05:12.226 --> 02:05:20.962 - And we also know that we have considerable reserves, which I think that we've spent several years opining 02:05:20.962 --> 02:05:29.450 - on but Reserves do not make recurring operating deficits sustainable. And so if we use reserves to pay 02:05:29.450 --> 02:05:30.686 - recurring cost 02:05:30.786 --> 02:05:37.088 - Those costs return year after year and the revenue does not. And so eventually those reserves are going 02:05:37.088 --> 02:05:43.269 - to be smaller and the structural problem will remain. So deficit spending as I've said multiple times 02:05:43.269 --> 02:05:49.511 - I think is justifiable when we're making a deliberate investment with a clear return. That return does 02:05:49.511 --> 02:05:56.056 - not have to be financial. It may be things like safer streets stronger infrastructure more housing reducing 02:05:56.056 --> 02:05:59.934 - homelessness better public health lower future costs et cetera. 02:06:00.482 --> 02:06:06.887 - I think, and again, I'm trying to bias myself away from using the language that I think has grown tired 02:06:06.887 --> 02:06:13.108 - because I've said it too much and easy then to say that I'm just being theoretical. But I think that 02:06:13.108 --> 02:06:16.126 - we should be able to say what results we expect. 02:06:16.226 --> 02:06:22.857 - From our spending we should know the baseline the target the responsible official and how we're going 02:06:22.857 --> 02:06:29.619 - to determine whether that investment worked And so to me this sort of proposed deficit is not presented 02:06:29.619 --> 02:06:36.185 - as a defined investment strategy And if you all remember you won't because you know, we say a lot of 02:06:36.185 --> 02:06:38.526 - things and from this from this dais 02:06:38.626 --> 02:06:46.114 - But last year when I voted for the budget, I said that I'm voting for this budget, however, I do not 02:06:46.114 --> 02:06:53.676 - think that we should be spending money this way. I said, I don't think that you deficit spend without 02:06:53.676 --> 02:07:01.089 - a clear idea about investment, with a clear investment strategy. And so to me, again, and generally 02:07:01.089 --> 02:07:05.982 - in our budget and despite sort of our efforts here, I still think 02:07:06.082 --> 02:07:12.246 - That we're in that type of situation and so this matters to me a lot because we have I think is all 02:07:12.246 --> 02:07:18.780 - of us share a lot of unmet needs and in the city and We need infrastructure and investment and affordable 02:07:18.780 --> 02:07:25.067 - housing and effective public safety and parks and transit and climate action and cetera, etc, etc And 02:07:25.067 --> 02:07:31.231 - if we want to invest in those priorities, we have to examine our existing commitments with the same 02:07:31.231 --> 02:07:33.758 - seriousness we apply to new requests now 02:07:34.242 --> 02:07:42.647 - All of this I arrive at amendment 16 through and also what the public commenters noted how difficult 02:07:42.647 --> 02:07:48.638 - it is for us as a council to be nitpicking at things within the budget. 02:07:49.346 --> 02:07:55.174 - I noticed while writing all of these amendments, and those of you who wrote them, I mean, we had this 02:07:55.174 --> 02:08:01.059 - conversation on the amendment you just did, how difficult it even was to pinpoint, okay, this account, 02:08:01.059 --> 02:08:06.886 - actually this line, adding up things together. And as I was working on my multitude of amendments, it 02:08:06.886 --> 02:08:12.600 - sort of occurred to me that I'm like, this is quite fascinating. I am sitting here as an individual 02:08:12.600 --> 02:08:18.942 - person with the sole support of a half-time person, and I get 40 people responding back to me in the response, 02:08:19.170 --> 02:08:25.890 - of whether or not what I've proposed is appropriate, responsible, whether I identified the right accounts, 02:08:25.890 --> 02:08:32.296 - whether yada yada yada. So it makes very clear that our job, right, is not to redesign departments or 02:08:32.296 --> 02:08:39.079 - choose individual employees from the dais. You know, we don't manage the daily work. We don't have complete 02:08:39.079 --> 02:08:45.422 - knowledge of every workload, dependency, legal obligation, you know, et cetera. And nor should we, I 02:08:45.422 --> 02:08:47.934 - think very clearly. I think we are not, 02:08:48.066 --> 02:08:54.449 - You know, I mean as I've said throughout tonight like we're not the executive branch and so our role 02:08:54.449 --> 02:09:00.831 - though However, very clearly I think as councilmember Flaherty has said time and time again Our role 02:09:00.831 --> 02:09:07.277 - is to establish the fiscal boundaries and public priorities So with that said this amendment asks the 02:09:07.277 --> 02:09:13.470 - administration to do that work within those boundaries it recommends that the reductions and I've 02:09:13.570 --> 02:09:21.090 - put here reductions of $2.5 million that they actually focus on long-term savings and in places where 02:09:21.090 --> 02:09:28.979 - ideally that reduction wouldn't cause sort of unacceptable harm. I think it recommends that the reductions 02:09:28.979 --> 02:09:36.351 - focus on recurring long-term savings, recommends that the departments share responsibility in rough 02:09:36.351 --> 02:09:43.134 - proportion to the share of general fund spending, but I think that's just a recommendation. 02:09:44.002 --> 02:09:50.500 - To put this sort of in perspective, I think a $2.5 million reduction in addition to a handful of the 02:09:50.500 --> 02:09:57.320 - smaller reductions that we made will put our deficit at about $2.97 million. And with the sort of vacancy 02:09:57.320 --> 02:10:03.753 - rates and underspending and the padding, et cetera, will do fairly well to bring us into a close to 02:10:03.753 --> 02:10:10.316 - balanced budget. And so to me, this is not about cutting the budget for the sake of cutting. It's not 02:10:10.316 --> 02:10:13.790 - an argument that government should always be smaller. 02:10:13.858 --> 02:10:22.221 - I think that a city can spend less and still spend badly. And I think we can also spend more and materially 02:10:22.221 --> 02:10:30.351 - improve people's lives. And so to me, fundamentally, the question is what our spending is accomplishing. 02:10:30.351 --> 02:10:37.784 - And trying our best to ask these questions, I think, has been very, very difficult. And anyway, 02:10:37.784 --> 02:10:43.824 - so with that, I'm asking us as the fiscal body to sort of force some choices. 02:10:43.824 --> 02:10:53.241 - And I think I'll end I'll end there I asked for your support on amendment 16 Thank you any questions 02:10:53.241 --> 02:11:02.752 - for councilmember sorry councilmember Stasberg Well, I have two questions and neither of them are for 02:11:02.752 --> 02:11:04.990 - councilmember. Sorry. I 02:11:05.154 --> 02:11:11.270 - One of them is definitely for Controller McKim, if I could ask that one first. And so I know that I've 02:11:11.270 --> 02:11:17.684 - discussed this with Controller McKim before, and I know I discussed this, or I asked this question multiple 02:11:17.684 --> 02:11:23.800 - times of Controller McClellan before that, and I wish that I could have prepped you for this question, 02:11:23.800 --> 02:11:29.917 - because you might have appreciated that. But the question is, what is the best practice for the amount 02:11:29.917 --> 02:11:34.430 - of reserves to have, and how do our reserves compare to that best practice? 02:11:36.642 --> 02:11:48.580 - I will say that literally this morning I added, I wrote a section for our financial policies manual 02:11:48.580 --> 02:11:51.326 - on financial reserves. 02:11:51.618 --> 02:11:59.205 - But I have not yet gotten to the point of actually calculating the correct percentage, the correct amount. 02:11:59.205 --> 02:12:06.580 - So yeah, I'm just not there yet. We'll probably have, it is definitely a best practice to have a policy 02:12:06.580 --> 02:12:14.380 - on reserves, on level of reserves. And we will definitely have one by the end of the year. But unfortunately, 02:12:14.380 --> 02:12:19.486 - I just don't, I don't have that information yet. I will say that as we, 02:12:19.746 --> 02:12:26.974 - As we provided in the budget book the the reserves are definitely substantial And you know certainly 02:12:26.974 --> 02:12:34.131 - would accommodate The small deficit that we've already that we've already proposed and which you've 02:12:34.131 --> 02:12:41.430 - actually already trimmed down tonight also but that the it's enough to accommodate that if we were to 02:12:41.430 --> 02:12:49.374 - even see a deficit which there's a good chance that we would not actually see by the end of the year a deficit 02:12:49.538 --> 02:12:57.822 - That so I'm sorry. I I tend to like to use that when I was at the county I would use 30% as a as just 02:12:57.822 --> 02:13:06.024 - kind of a rough best practice but And we're certainly above that well above that How far above that? 02:13:06.024 --> 02:13:14.470 - I mean I think last time I asked this question of Jessica McClellan and it and it's been I mean clearly 02:13:14.470 --> 02:13:16.094 - a while it at least 02:13:16.322 --> 02:13:22.089 - Maybe a year maybe since last budget time and I think our reserves were about 50 percent Is that about 02:13:22.089 --> 02:13:27.744 - that that sounds about right? I mean there's an it should be in the packet It's actually if we go to 02:13:27.744 --> 02:13:33.847 - the 4b the statement 4b and just look at the operating budget As a percentage of the budget or the operating 02:13:33.847 --> 02:13:39.614 - balance as a percentage of the budget we can calculate that out Okay, thank you. Um, I'll save my next 02:13:39.614 --> 02:13:42.302 - question unless you all want me to do it now. I 02:13:48.578 --> 02:13:57.104 - Sorry, I was gonna ask if there were any other questions. Yes, I was moving on to other first round 02:13:57.104 --> 02:14:06.483 - questions. Sorry. I appreciate the help. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. Yes. I want to ask the administration, 02:14:06.483 --> 02:14:15.179 - whoever wants to answer, how feasible is it for you all to come up with these cuts in the by the debt 02:14:15.179 --> 02:14:18.334 - and still meet the deadline? I mean, 02:14:19.074 --> 02:14:27.991 - Since it's not it's not just up to the controller right it'll have to be a discussion is it is it feasible 02:14:27.991 --> 02:14:36.407 - to even do that and still meet the budget deadline. I can let the controller answer with the details 02:14:36.407 --> 02:14:44.741 - but I want to. Two point five million dollars is significant. I want to acknowledge first that with 02:14:44.741 --> 02:14:48.574 - the you know this is the last year that we're 02:14:48.834 --> 02:14:57.207 - paying the Bloomington Transit subsidy and combined Combining that with our share of the election funding. 02:14:57.207 --> 02:15:05.345 - We're pretty much even spent I mean even budget so we'll probably be Even spend by the end of the year. 02:15:05.345 --> 02:15:13.326 - So I want to acknowledge that publicly again and Reducing two point five million dollars. I know it's 02:15:13.326 --> 02:15:17.630 - been suggested in writing and elsewhere that we reduce 02:15:17.954 --> 02:15:29.232 - staffing I Want to be very clear that I am serious about running Incredibly efficient government and 02:15:29.232 --> 02:15:40.398 - a fair government and My team has put in a lot of work to get the morale around City Hall higher we 02:15:40.398 --> 02:15:45.758 - just won best places to work in Bloomington and 02:15:46.978 --> 02:15:57.091 - That was a milestone that I can assure you we would not have reached without a lot of very intentional 02:15:57.091 --> 02:16:07.302 - work. And just the conversation in the documents and in these hearings, even if one's direct department 02:16:07.302 --> 02:16:15.550 - was not addressed, there is now fear in every department. Are they coming after us? 02:16:17.058 --> 02:16:24.795 - So, I am open, and in fact, we already had intended, guided by some of our professional services, to 02:16:24.795 --> 02:16:32.610 - start looking at how to do some realignment. Now that doesn't mean cutting positions necessarily, and 02:16:32.610 --> 02:16:40.883 - I don't even know that there's gonna be cost savings. But we do have departments that are doing overlapping 02:16:40.883 --> 02:16:44.254 - work, we have departments that are too big, 02:16:44.802 --> 02:16:52.362 - various other things that are happening, and I mean too big in terms of they're doing too many things 02:16:52.362 --> 02:17:00.218 - all under one umbrella, not that we have too many people in them. Asking us to cut 2.5 million especially 02:17:00.218 --> 02:17:08.223 - from staffing at this point would mean that we would go into the year with, we would have to make decisions 02:17:08.223 --> 02:17:11.262 - that haven't been thought out, honestly. 02:17:11.426 --> 02:17:21.302 - and I can say that it would cause harm to our city services a Restructuring of any kind causes a lot 02:17:21.302 --> 02:17:31.276 - of fear in staff Even when the outcomes can be better for everyone so it's just it's a anxiety ridden 02:17:31.276 --> 02:17:37.534 - process and I wouldn't want to do it in a matter of a month and 02:17:38.338 --> 02:17:46.267 - We would have to have cuts made so that we didn't have positions in place by January 1st that I mean 02:17:46.267 --> 02:17:54.196 - If the appropriations not there that that is what we'd be asking for. This is at least six months of 02:17:54.196 --> 02:18:02.281 - work to do that so That's my comment on the high level. I want to make another comment that is related 02:18:02.281 --> 02:18:07.070 - but you know the structure of council meetings are such that 02:18:07.394 --> 02:18:17.483 - We can't always have a response. I did leave the room during Council Member Stossberg's comments. We 02:18:17.483 --> 02:18:27.473 - have gotten to a point that the cabinet and other staff and even members of the public expect to be 02:18:27.473 --> 02:18:33.566 - demeaned when we come to this podium. That's not acceptable. 02:18:36.226 --> 02:18:45.003 - There's not a structure that people can respond. I told myself that I was gonna let our cabinet know 02:18:45.003 --> 02:18:53.867 - that when they're called names or when somebody is speaking down to them in a demeaning way anywhere, 02:18:53.867 --> 02:19:02.557 - if they're not in a position to say something, they can leave. And I was reminded that if we leave, 02:19:02.557 --> 02:19:05.598 - we don't get the city's work done. 02:19:07.490 --> 02:19:17.666 - So the highest priority for me isn't really budget related. The highest priority for me is how we work 02:19:17.666 --> 02:19:28.237 - together. And I have been told by members of our staff, by members of your staff, that it can be a hostile 02:19:28.237 --> 02:19:36.734 - work environment. That's not a city I wanna be part of. And I think we can do better. 02:19:37.474 --> 02:19:45.836 - So, as we move forward through the budget process, I know that we have work to do on how we outline 02:19:45.836 --> 02:19:54.868 - outcomes. I know we have a president of our country that speaks to his staff and the public in unacceptable 02:19:54.868 --> 02:20:03.398 - ways. I want us to do better in Bloomington. And I want us to have a respectful discourse that honors 02:20:03.398 --> 02:20:06.910 - people's dignity, even if we don't agree. 02:20:07.458 --> 02:20:21.976 - So I'll let controller McKim address the details of what a 2.5 million dollar cut might look like and 02:20:21.976 --> 02:20:29.662 - how we What what complications that causes? Thank you 02:20:30.178 --> 02:20:36.948 - Of course, I don't have the ability to set these priorities. I've just run running calculations, but 02:20:36.948 --> 02:20:39.294 - I did take the 2.5 million dollars 02:20:39.426 --> 02:20:47.698 - And as the amendment indicated that it should be allocated roughly according to the proportion that 02:20:47.698 --> 02:20:56.384 - that department has in the general fund budget, I just calculated it exactly, so exactly proportionally, 02:20:56.384 --> 02:21:04.656 - just to see how that would come out. And what that would look like is a cut of 765,000 from police, 02:21:04.656 --> 02:21:08.958 - 718,000 from the fire department, 183,000 from ITS, 02:21:09.058 --> 02:21:18.963 - 137,000 from public works 120,000 from planning Da da da da. I mean, I don't need to read them all 33,000 02:21:18.963 --> 02:21:28.307 - from the council budget 56,000 from facilities maintenance, etc. So those are really large cuts and 02:21:28.307 --> 02:21:37.278 - definitely not cuts that we would be capable of producing within a week and implementing within 02:21:37.826 --> 02:21:47.076 - Couple of months as the mayor just indicated but at least I think that gives you some idea of the kind 02:21:47.076 --> 02:21:55.608 - of magnitude Of what those cuts would look like if they were out allocate proportionally Thank 02:21:55.608 --> 02:22:04.588 - you councilmember, sorry, thank you so much both for for all of the comments, I think the We're not 02:22:04.588 --> 02:22:06.654 - addressing the the the 02:22:06.914 --> 02:22:14.074 - core of it, which is whether our current spending under our current circumstances is sustainable. And 02:22:14.074 --> 02:22:21.164 - so let me just ask that directly. Is the way that we're currently spending sustainable? I believe in 02:22:21.164 --> 02:22:28.325 - this budget we brought ourselves down to a sustainable level. So we could just continue with a budget 02:22:28.325 --> 02:22:32.958 - like this? Especially if we did not continue with the BT funding. 02:22:33.058 --> 02:22:39.359 - After this year or found some other funding source of which through the must process there is actually 02:22:39.359 --> 02:22:45.721 - other another Kind of path to getting BT fund and even with Edie lit going away, right? Okay, what what 02:22:45.721 --> 02:22:52.022 - replaces Edie lit in that in that sense? Then the the the six million that we're spending on Edie lit. 02:22:52.022 --> 02:22:58.384 - Where does that come from in the future? Specifically for BT or just overall for you know, just overall 02:22:58.384 --> 02:23:02.238 - because the because the BT is one one portion of it all of the 02:23:02.466 --> 02:23:08.494 - all of the LITs will get, the different LITs, the ED LIT, the certified shares, and the public safety 02:23:08.494 --> 02:23:14.699 - LIT, will all get collapsed into one municipal services LIT if the county council decides to adopt them. 02:23:14.699 --> 02:23:20.727 - So there's still, yeah, there's still a lot of, the county council could decide to adopt a much lower 02:23:20.727 --> 02:23:26.933 - amount, and we would have to make some pretty dramatic cuts. So no, there's absolutely, there are plenty 02:23:26.933 --> 02:23:31.838 - of things that could happen that would make us have to adopt fairly dramatic cuts. 02:23:32.322 --> 02:23:41.034 - Thank you Thank you any other questions Councilmember Flaherty, I'm curious for the sponsors perspective 02:23:41.034 --> 02:23:49.746 - on the opportunity of Eliminating general fund Support for for sanitation services, which I've generally 02:23:49.746 --> 02:23:58.043 - held the view should be covered by The rates that the folks receiving that service pay this came to 02:23:58.043 --> 02:24:01.694 - the fiscal committee a couple weeks ago and 02:24:01.826 --> 02:24:11.710 - and I believe after many years of talking about the the administration and public works carbon is planning 02:24:11.710 --> 02:24:21.503 - to bring a Proposal to phase that over three years. I think it is like 1.6 million in this year's budget. 02:24:21.503 --> 02:24:27.230 - Oh Did we yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah Yes, I guess I'm I 02:24:27.842 --> 02:24:34.327 - The magnitude we're talking about, even with the full elimination of phase period of time, it's like 02:24:34.327 --> 02:24:40.812 - $4 a month for the smallest cart size and maybe $11 a month for the largest. This is in a context in 02:24:40.812 --> 02:24:47.747 - which we already have well below market rate service for sanitation. And not to make light of what somebody 02:24:47.747 --> 02:24:54.232 - on a fixed income might feel for another $11 a month, but we do also have an integrated billing with 02:24:54.232 --> 02:24:56.094 - CBU, which serves everybody. 02:24:56.226 --> 02:25:03.814 - And you know specific assistance programs identified people that do struggle with with paying their 02:25:03.814 --> 02:25:11.553 - bills and so I Said at the fiscal committee meeting. I was comfortable with phasing that you know All 02:25:11.553 --> 02:25:19.748 - at once basically and I'm curious for your perspective on That as an option to meet this proposed reduction 02:25:19.748 --> 02:25:26.046 - in part No, I think that that's that I think it would make a lot of sense you know 02:25:26.562 --> 02:25:32.525 - I think we also could explore like whether it's rates or whether it just makes sense for the city not 02:25:32.525 --> 02:25:38.722 - to be collecting at all. Somebody privatizing it is also something worth exploring. I would fall probably 02:25:38.722 --> 02:25:44.510 - more on the rate side than the other. But again I think it is a conversation that we have to have. 02:25:45.058 --> 02:25:50.441 - alongside a lot of these other conversations, right? And so, you know, I don't think that, I mean, that 02:25:50.441 --> 02:25:55.668 - is one way, I guess, that you could get very close to the sort of target figure that I've said here. 02:25:55.668 --> 02:26:00.895 - I'd also be happy to reduce this number to think of something that makes more sense. I struggled for 02:26:00.895 --> 02:26:06.433 - quite a while to think, like, what really is it? And then based on the other amendments that I was putting 02:26:06.433 --> 02:26:09.694 - forward that I didn't put forward, I was like, okay, you know, 02:26:10.370 --> 02:26:18.257 - this is roughly where I was at. But yeah, I think that that is a conversation that we have to have amongst 02:26:18.257 --> 02:26:25.701 - many other conversations about where we're spending money. Now, I have to trail what I'm saying here 02:26:25.701 --> 02:26:33.441 - with what I said at the beginning of the budget process and really going back to last year is that every 02:26:33.441 --> 02:26:40.222 - single time we propose almost anything, if we say we want to open Kirkwood for pedestrians, 02:26:40.354 --> 02:26:46.721 - the retort is, we can't afford it. If we say we want some new, no matter what it is, and then we act 02:26:46.721 --> 02:26:53.214 - like each of those things is like some shiny, oh, that's like a fun, unnecessary thing. But it's like, 02:26:53.214 --> 02:26:59.581 - no, it's actually just a choice that we're making with other things, but we never surface what we're 02:26:59.581 --> 02:27:06.011 - making the choice with. And so even now, we're saying, look, there's no way we could cut anymore from 02:27:06.011 --> 02:27:10.046 - this budget. We're at zero. But even, there's a bunch of things 02:27:10.210 --> 02:27:16.801 - When we said we'll we'll cut this with people said, okay, we could cut it a little bit more, right? 02:27:16.801 --> 02:27:23.657 - so so I just and and if if we had moved in the direction that That of actually creating a budget system 02:27:23.657 --> 02:27:30.248 - that would allow this type of dialogue This wouldn't be a hard wouldn't be as hard of a discussion, 02:27:30.248 --> 02:27:36.510 - right? So so that's what we need to surface here as well. So Thank you councilmember Stossberg 02:27:37.666 --> 02:27:44.733 - I just want as a follow-up on that to note that the Sanitation subsidy is actually coming out of Edie 02:27:44.733 --> 02:27:51.939 - lit this year not out of the general fund and this amendment actually cuts the general fund which means 02:27:51.939 --> 02:27:59.006 - that if that million dollars was part of that there would have to be a whole lot of gymnastics behind 02:27:59.006 --> 02:28:06.142 - the scene to cut things out of the general fund and then and then reality sounds like a mess to me and 02:28:08.450 --> 02:28:14.223 - Yes, but I think just to highlight though what councilman Flaherty said, you know phased approach, 02:28:14.223 --> 02:28:20.287 - you know, you don't it would make more sense and I think the same if we're looking at You know any type 02:28:20.287 --> 02:28:26.293 - of restructuring I get it a phased approach I talked about for example, you know funding things at six 02:28:26.293 --> 02:28:32.299 - months or nine months, right? So that so that we force those conversations about Restructuring I think 02:28:32.299 --> 02:28:37.022 - is also a possibility of ways to to look at some of this too Any other questions 02:28:38.594 --> 02:28:46.996 - on to public comment anybody in chambers or online would if you would like to make comment on amendment 02:28:46.996 --> 02:28:55.318 - 17 are you sure it's 16 16 I lied great we have a public comment or online you can unmute yourself and 02:28:55.318 --> 02:29:03.801 - please state your name and you have three minutes you hear me yes okay Kevin Keough I'm speaking tonight 02:29:03.801 --> 02:29:05.982 - in support of amendment 16 02:29:06.466 --> 02:29:12.698 - Targeting 2.5 million in cuts signals necessary structural fiscal discipline as the city prepares for 02:29:12.698 --> 02:29:19.113 - flattening property taxes and shifting state income tax allocations. At the same time, I want to address 02:29:19.113 --> 02:29:25.405 - three key observations from tonight's meeting. The comments from the city employee about staff morale, 02:29:25.405 --> 02:29:31.332 - the council members concerned about open reviews adding red tape, and the glaring lack of public 02:29:31.332 --> 02:29:33.470 - participation in the room tonight. 02:29:33.986 --> 02:29:40.277 - When you look at a handful of public comments offered on a multi-million dollar budget, it's clear the 02:29:40.277 --> 02:29:46.873 - public is largely checked out. This is not because citizens do not care about local taxes or city services, 02:29:46.873 --> 02:29:53.408 - but because an opaque budget presentation. It's very hard to understand the budget, and to make meaningful 02:29:53.408 --> 02:29:59.577 - engagement, it's almost impossible. Public meetings, public comment, and fiscal transparency are not 02:29:59.577 --> 02:30:03.486 - red tape. They are fundamental pillars of the local government. 02:30:04.194 --> 02:30:10.821 - I also urge, as I have in the past, the long-term solution is adopting formal government financial officers 02:30:10.821 --> 02:30:17.449 - association presentation standards. These are the best practice. It's important to emphasize that preparing 02:30:17.449 --> 02:30:23.094 - a GFOA compliant budget document is fundamentally the responsibility of the administration, 02:30:23.094 --> 02:30:29.783 - not the council. The executive branch builds and presents the budget, the council's roles, policy direction, 02:30:29.783 --> 02:30:33.342 - and oversight. Look at communities like Fishers, Indiana, 02:30:33.506 --> 02:30:40.580 - where the administration produces a modern GFOA budget document that bridges the gap between municipal 02:30:40.580 --> 02:30:47.860 - finance and the public. Bloomington can, and should, they can do even better. At the core, GFOA standards 02:30:47.860 --> 02:30:55.003 - are specifically designed to demystify complex municipal budgets. They translate thousand lines of line 02:30:55.003 --> 02:31:02.558 - items into clear strategic goals, program-based outcomes, and multi-year financial forecasts into the future. 02:31:02.882 --> 02:31:09.472 - When the administration delivers a budget built on these standards, it provides true accessible transparency 02:31:09.472 --> 02:31:15.881 - without administrative friction, enabling strategic belt tightening that protects core services, respects 02:31:15.881 --> 02:31:22.047 - city employees, and actively re-engages the public. I support Amendment 16 as an essential first step 02:31:22.047 --> 02:31:28.637 - towards spending discipline, and I urge the council to direct the administration to adopt the GFOA budgeting 02:31:28.637 --> 02:31:30.814 - standard to give our city a clearer 02:31:31.010 --> 02:31:36.606 - more accessible budget process moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else would like 02:31:36.606 --> 02:31:42.093 - to make public comment? I see somebody in chambers approaching the podium. Thank you. You have three 02:31:42.093 --> 02:31:47.525 - minutes. I didn't want to make three comments tonight. My name is Iris Bull again. I think that the 02:31:47.525 --> 02:31:53.012 - number of people in the room is not representative of being checked out. I think it's representative 02:31:53.012 --> 02:31:55.294 - of the government working to some degree. 02:31:55.458 --> 02:32:01.666 - People show up when infrastructure breaks down. I think that proposing cuts without having a clear plan 02:32:01.666 --> 02:32:07.934 - for where they're specifically going to come from and which steps you specifically want to fire, I think 02:32:07.934 --> 02:32:14.143 - it's reckless. And I think it's unnecessary. This is like a manufactured hostage situation. If it feels 02:32:14.143 --> 02:32:20.232 - like the only way to have a conversation, it's creating a conversation that no one wants to have with 02:32:20.232 --> 02:32:25.246 - you. That's just not how you talk to adults with any modicum of respect. That's it. 02:32:27.394 --> 02:32:42.946 - Thank you very much. Any other public commenters. We do have another one online. Awesome. You can unmute 02:32:42.946 --> 02:32:53.758 - yourself and you have three minutes. Thank you. Yeah. Hello. Do we have. 02:32:55.330 --> 02:33:03.572 - Okay, I think you're still muted. Can you unmute yourself and you have three minutes? I hear him. Oh, 02:33:03.572 --> 02:33:11.734 - hi. Go ahead. Yeah, you must still have me on. This is Kevin. I know Eric's raised his hand. Somehow 02:33:11.734 --> 02:33:20.461 - he hasn't been officially. All righty. Thanks, Mr. Keogh. Eric says he's unmuted, so it has to be something 02:33:20.461 --> 02:33:23.774 - technical and working in the background. 02:33:24.450 --> 02:33:32.753 - You might want to attend to that. Well, OK. If it's not working, do you want to try maybe putting your 02:33:32.753 --> 02:33:40.815 - comments in the chat, and we can read them for you? I'm sorry, I don't know what the- Participation 02:33:40.815 --> 02:33:44.926 - indicator is muted or not, because- Oh, you're on. 02:33:45.282 --> 02:33:52.241 - You're on. Hello. Hi. We can hear you. Awesome. Thank you. So that was a problem. That was a problem 02:33:52.241 --> 02:33:59.201 - on your end. I did not change anything. Good evening. My name's Eric Ost. And I want to echo many of 02:33:59.201 --> 02:34:06.436 - the things that folks have said tonight. I appreciate that there is a good degree of importance in these 02:34:06.436 --> 02:34:10.846 - conversations. How we spend money not only reflects priorities, 02:34:11.010 --> 02:34:19.744 - But to some extent, priorities are opinions. But it also enables government to work. And I think that 02:34:19.744 --> 02:34:28.221 - using adversarial language or taking an adversarial position, as I've heard some comments tonight, 02:34:28.221 --> 02:34:37.383 - is not, I mean, sure, we can feel different ways. But anyway, to more of the part of the matter, I support 02:34:37.383 --> 02:34:40.894 - incenting and prioritizing conversation. 02:34:42.434 --> 02:34:52.606 - The council is the fiscal body. It oversees how things are spent. And it's important for the executive 02:34:52.606 --> 02:35:02.679 - branch to engage with the legislative branch. I know that people are busy, but that's part of the way 02:35:02.679 --> 02:35:09.790 - government is structured. And it's a necessary element. So I do support 02:35:10.146 --> 02:35:18.468 - To the degree that the legislative branch can incent and prioritize greater degree of conversation about 02:35:18.468 --> 02:35:26.552 - expenditures, you need to use those tools. I spent the day today looking at data and I wanna bring to 02:35:26.552 --> 02:35:34.636 - the floor a concern I've raised many times over the years is that we seem to be stepping backwards in 02:35:34.636 --> 02:35:39.550 - terms of transparency. Public records are no longer published 02:35:39.714 --> 02:35:46.783 - released public records are no longer published for the members general members of the community to 02:35:46.783 --> 02:35:53.852 - see accident data which used to be published is now withheld intentionally withheld under a premise 02:35:53.852 --> 02:36:01.274 - and hypothesis that I believe does not stand. So I asked the legislative branch to be attentive to these 02:36:01.274 --> 02:36:08.414 - things and to the extent that you need to pass revisions to the Bloomington municipal code to direct 02:36:08.514 --> 02:36:16.250 - the executive branch to do certain things in certain ways, I suggest and request that you do so. So 02:36:16.250 --> 02:36:24.528 - here is to collaboration and a better future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other commenters online? 02:36:24.528 --> 02:36:32.496 - No. Okay. Thanks for everybody to everybody who commented tonight. Any council comments before we move 02:36:32.496 --> 02:36:34.430 - to vote on amendment 16? 02:36:36.322 --> 02:36:42.632 - Councilmember Stossberg and then councilmember Piedmont Smith Thank you, I'm not in support of this 02:36:42.632 --> 02:36:49.447 - amendment The two well the second question that I didn't ask I didn't ask it because councilmember Piedmont 02:36:49.447 --> 02:36:56.199 - Smith asked it or Essentially asked the same thing which was about how much time it would take to actually 02:36:56.199 --> 02:37:02.572 - make these changes First off in terms of spending down our reserves. We've been trying to spend down 02:37:02.572 --> 02:37:03.582 - reserves like I 02:37:03.810 --> 02:37:10.081 - for three years everything that I heard in all of the Fiscal related meetings that I was in was we have 02:37:10.081 --> 02:37:16.111 - more reserves than we actually need and we're trying to spend down reserves and when you When I was 02:37:16.111 --> 02:37:22.262 - looking back and I didn't do it in preparation for this meeting But you know, I've done it relatively 02:37:22.262 --> 02:37:27.870 - recently when I was looking back at actual expenditures for past years and whether or not we 02:37:28.098 --> 02:37:36.218 - actually deficit spent there were at least a couple years where we didn't and then our reserves actually 02:37:36.218 --> 02:37:44.492 - grew when we were trying to reduce them and I Think that it's responsible governance to have some reserves 02:37:44.492 --> 02:37:52.225 - to have some money in our pocket just in case but we don't need to have so much money in our pocket 02:37:52.225 --> 02:37:56.478 - just in case that we are withholding city services and 02:37:57.058 --> 02:38:03.563 - I think that Additional cuts would be doing that in terms of this kind of broad-based thing, but also 02:38:03.563 --> 02:38:10.324 - this Well, actually mostly I guess this like broad-based thing. It's I Don't think that that is necessary 02:38:10.324 --> 02:38:16.893 - this year. I appreciate the argument that we have to think about tightening our belts Well, everything 02:38:16.893 --> 02:38:23.271 - I've heard about preparation for this budget is that we have already tightened our belts is that we 02:38:23.271 --> 02:38:25.822 - left things many things pretty flat and 02:38:27.042 --> 02:38:34.047 - So that we could prepare for this future where our revenues are a little bit less certain and then the 02:38:34.047 --> 02:38:41.120 - other reason why I'm voting no is that the time and feasibility I Absolutely agree with everything that 02:38:41.120 --> 02:38:48.057 - the mayor said is that what they would have to do to make this happen in the next one two Three weeks 02:38:48.057 --> 02:38:54.654 - at the most would not be well thought out would not be a good long-term plan and would be really 02:38:54.754 --> 02:39:01.174 - Challenging on staff because it's not as though the controller himself can just make all these cuts 02:39:01.174 --> 02:39:07.979 - It would take every single department head and half of every department head staff to be able to identify 02:39:07.979 --> 02:39:14.463 - Those kinds of numbers and that I think that that's unnecessary to put our staff through that in the 02:39:14.463 --> 02:39:21.269 - next one to three weeks So I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you Thank you, so councilmember 02:39:21.269 --> 02:39:24.286 - Piedmont Smith and then councilmember Flaherty 02:39:26.370 --> 02:39:35.643 - Well I will just agree with everything councilmember Stossberg said and suggest that an amendment such 02:39:35.643 --> 02:39:43.385 - as this or an idea such as this really should have come a lot earlier in the process. 02:39:43.385 --> 02:39:52.477 - Thank you. Councilmember thank you. This is really interesting. I very much appreciate councilmember 02:39:52.477 --> 02:39:55.358 - sorry for bringing this and the 02:39:55.938 --> 02:40:02.192 - Thoughts you shared behind it You're right that you know through your experience this budget process 02:40:02.192 --> 02:40:08.569 - you're noting that that it's it's very difficult for council members to understand Specific line items 02:40:08.569 --> 02:40:14.884 - and things to cut there might be things we identify but it's it the administration ready is in a much 02:40:14.884 --> 02:40:21.200 - better position on that front We're also hearing and I think I get it and I agree to some extent that 02:40:21.200 --> 02:40:25.534 - you know the current time frames available are simply impractical and 02:40:25.858 --> 02:40:31.701 - But let's run the counter hypothetical. So you come six months ago to say, I want to see 2.5 million 02:40:31.701 --> 02:40:37.603 - reduced from the plan that isn't yet produced. And they say, that's meaningless. We're going to bring 02:40:37.603 --> 02:40:43.388 - you the budget that we think is the right one for the city. We're essentially being told there's no 02:40:43.388 --> 02:40:49.231 - right time for the council to weigh in on something like this. And it is a matter of trade-offs. And 02:40:49.231 --> 02:40:55.422 - when we talk about council priorities and things, we want to see improvement on things like, I don't know, 02:40:55.906 --> 02:41:00.759 - Utter failure to clear pedestrian infrastructure of snow and ice for the safety and accessibility of 02:41:00.759 --> 02:41:05.708 - our residents that was noted in the council You know set of priorities and we didn't actually make any 02:41:05.708 --> 02:41:10.560 - meaningful improvements in this budget proposal on that on that priority front I Guess we could have 02:41:10.560 --> 02:41:15.509 - said, you know in August. Hey, this is like quickly like this isn't good enough and we need to see you 02:41:15.509 --> 02:41:20.458 - know a $500,000 plan to do better like meaningfully better on that front and you need to cut that from 02:41:20.458 --> 02:41:24.638 - somewhere else to make a budget neutral That's not an amendment yet. It's just an idea 02:41:24.930 --> 02:41:31.900 - And so therefore, it's not binding and the likely outcome is actually gonna be like, well no, we don't 02:41:31.900 --> 02:41:38.668 - think that's the right thing. All I'm getting at is that like, I don't know, I think I'm in support 02:41:38.668 --> 02:41:45.503 - of this amendment. And I recognize its limitations and its challenges and problems. But the opposite 02:41:45.503 --> 02:41:52.338 - conclusion to me is essentially conceding that our hands are tied on doing anything meaningful about 02:41:52.338 --> 02:41:53.150 - the budget. 02:41:53.250 --> 02:42:00.526 - You know ever and I you know, I Don't I don't think that's an acceptable outcome or conclusion either. 02:42:00.526 --> 02:42:07.731 - So again, I recognize this isn't a optimal by any means Even so I think there are ways to go about it 02:42:07.731 --> 02:42:15.218 - and do it that actually don't have to involve cutting staff necessarily and or if they do involve cutting 02:42:15.218 --> 02:42:22.494 - staff It might force conversations around optimal staffing that you know again shouldn't be rushed but 02:42:22.914 --> 02:42:31.357 - Conversations we need to have so I think I'll vote for it. Thank you Thank you any other comments from 02:42:31.357 --> 02:42:39.636 - council before we move to a vote on amendment 16 councilmember Ruff Councilmember sorry doesn't need 02:42:39.636 --> 02:42:47.998 - me defending him. So that's not what I'm doing here when I say this but There was a comment made that 02:42:47.998 --> 02:42:52.670 - this was reckless and When councilmember was sorry began 02:42:53.250 --> 02:42:59.712 - Presented the amendments and open the amendment is there any cotton it's open in comment explained it 02:42:59.712 --> 02:43:06.047 - the thoughtful a very thoughtful approach which is well if we're going to say Council members don't 02:43:06.047 --> 02:43:12.446 - really have the staff help the expertise the experience to make specific decisions about budget cuts 02:43:12.446 --> 02:43:19.351 - and all these technical all these areas Well, but yet we're the fiscal body with the ultimate responsibility 02:43:19.351 --> 02:43:21.822 - for the physical decision. Well that's 02:43:22.210 --> 02:43:29.684 - Totally logical and rational and thoughtful approach to then say okay those with the expertise and the 02:43:29.684 --> 02:43:37.521 - time and the staffing and the full-time jobs to do it Present us with something that reaches that addresses 02:43:37.521 --> 02:43:44.923 - our concern or in this case councilmembers So far specific concern a proposal about a budget that was 02:43:44.923 --> 02:43:51.454 - not sustainable. That's totally logical. There's nothing reckless about that approach and 02:43:53.026 --> 02:44:02.902 - But I will say privatization I saw that come up at one point that would come up of city work city jobs 02:44:02.902 --> 02:44:12.778 - is generally always going to be a non-starter for me as savings tend to come in the form of worse jobs 02:44:12.778 --> 02:44:22.654 - and benefits and wages and working conditions and quality of services delivered. But finally you know. 02:44:22.946 --> 02:44:33.153 - One of the public speakers said something about priorities or just opinions. And yeah there's a certain 02:44:33.153 --> 02:44:43.557 - legitimacy to that. If I say the subsidy the subsidy to sanitation is a totally different kind of subsidy 02:44:43.557 --> 02:44:51.998 - than the subsidy to bicyclists of which I am one of eight hundred thousand dollar and 02:44:52.578 --> 02:45:01.519 - You know curb sets of bump outs and curbs and etc. To me those are entirely different one in the case 02:45:01.519 --> 02:45:10.547 - of the sanitation services subsidy. If you take that away it's made up in the form of almost just call 02:45:10.547 --> 02:45:19.838 - it a tax as it's as the cost is picked up by those who received that fundamental service which is most of 02:45:20.258 --> 02:45:32.219 - significant majority probably of the citizens as opposed to some expenditures which address or go towards 02:45:32.219 --> 02:45:44.180 - supporting a much smaller slice of the community in terms of users. So I don't think that all, I strongly 02:45:44.180 --> 02:45:49.822 - disagree. While I acknowledge that priorities are 02:45:49.986 --> 02:45:59.547 - to a certain extent opinions I think we could get majority agreement from citizens about what is more 02:45:59.547 --> 02:46:09.577 - or less a fundamental basic city service that will is simply lifted onto their pushed onto their shoulders 02:46:09.577 --> 02:46:19.326 - when a subsidy like sanitation fee is reduced or removed or shifted compared to some other expenditures 02:46:19.682 --> 02:46:28.317 - which are much more of a choice. Anyway thanks for giving me a moment to to just say what I had to say. 02:46:28.317 --> 02:46:36.952 - I know I haven't said much tonight but I've been thinking through everything very carefully. Thank you. 02:46:36.952 --> 02:46:43.678 - Any last comments before we move to vote for amendment 16. Council member sorry. 02:46:44.130 --> 02:46:50.500 - I just piggyback on just the last part of Councilmember Ruff's comments there. You know and again if 02:46:50.500 --> 02:46:57.122 - you know if we think about this process I think one of the positive externalities of us this year trying 02:46:57.122 --> 02:47:03.554 - to be as involved as possible and looking into all of these issues of budgets that has surfaced a lot 02:47:03.554 --> 02:47:06.014 - of very interesting conversations that 02:47:06.850 --> 02:47:13.848 - hopefully continue sort of throughout. Echoing what Councilmember Flaherty so eloquently said, the reality, 02:47:13.848 --> 02:47:20.911 - I think it's easy to frame this as though we're sort of like today waking up and being like, let's transform 02:47:20.911 --> 02:47:27.585 - the budget or something. The reality is that we've been fairly consistent in saying most of the things 02:47:27.585 --> 02:47:34.194 - that we've said throughout this time for the last several years. And also, I don't think that this is 02:47:34.194 --> 02:47:35.166 - something that 02:47:35.778 --> 02:47:43.682 - is in any way adversarial or you know like nobody has to be wrong in order for us to do better. And 02:47:43.682 --> 02:47:52.297 - so so but going back to what Councilmember Ruff said to tie sort of my approach and thinking here completely 02:47:52.297 --> 02:48:00.202 - together the conversations that we have to have continually are how do we do best by the people who 02:48:00.202 --> 02:48:01.150 - fund all of 02:48:01.282 --> 02:48:07.613 - of these activities and who are the beneficiaries of all of these activities and how do we do that in 02:48:07.613 --> 02:48:14.069 - the most equitable way but how do we do it in a way that's deserving of them and and that's what drives 02:48:14.069 --> 02:48:20.648 - all of these conversations and I think it's really easy for us and we've seen it you know we start having 02:48:20.648 --> 02:48:27.041 - conversations about you know whether it's our own salaries or whether it's positions that exist in the 02:48:27.041 --> 02:48:31.262 - city and and we start looking internally as though this city exists 02:48:31.586 --> 02:48:39.006 - for us right like it exists for the people who are employed here but we all are here to serve the 02:48:39.074 --> 02:48:45.231 - people of this city in the best way possible. That's the guiding point. Again, when I said, for example, 02:48:45.231 --> 02:48:51.389 - talking about sanitation, it's just a conversation that we should have. How do we give the best possible 02:48:51.389 --> 02:48:57.488 - service to the people of the city? I wasn't making any deeper value statements about my political views 02:48:57.488 --> 02:49:03.352 - or anything, but I'm just saying that is what should drive so many of our conversations, and I hope 02:49:03.352 --> 02:49:09.040 - that we can continue to do so. I really appreciate all my colleagues. I think we do keep that at 02:49:09.040 --> 02:49:16.706 - for a front of our minds, even though our format sometimes make it seem like that's not the case, if 02:49:16.706 --> 02:49:24.751 - that makes sense, right? Because our format is of necessity sort of, I don't know, episodic and sometimes 02:49:24.751 --> 02:49:32.569 - tense. But anyways, with that, I will be voting for this. Let's see how it goes. All right. Thank you. 02:49:32.569 --> 02:49:37.502 - And with that, can, Clerk, please call the roll on Amendment 16. 02:49:38.594 --> 02:49:53.086 - Councilmember Stossberg no Edmont Smith no Zulik No, I'm sorry. Yes, daily. No rough No Clarity yes 02:49:53.086 --> 02:50:08.158 - All right, that amendment fails two to five Thank you. All right. I'm assuming there is an amendment on 02:50:08.322 --> 02:50:17.988 - 17 somewhere since we had an amendment 18. I can't find it There is no amendment 17 Super Okay, fantastic. 02:50:17.988 --> 02:50:27.292 - So we are done with all the amendments. No, we are not Are there any other amendments that I've missed 02:50:27.292 --> 02:50:36.958 - Councilmember Stossberg, I think for the sake of Order I'm gonna move to take amendment 5 off the table. I 02:50:38.018 --> 02:50:44.675 - Okay, so I'm doing that for the point of order because I think that we need to dispose of it in one 02:50:44.675 --> 02:50:51.400 - way or another whether we vote on it or Because we we passed councilmember Piedmont Smith's that was 02:50:51.400 --> 02:50:58.190 - similar or whether the original mover of said amendment Re-withdraw it right I had that we were gonna 02:50:58.190 --> 02:51:04.848 - come back to it take a recess and possibly rewrite it Okay, so we are not doing that. So I have the 02:51:04.848 --> 02:51:06.046 - second the motion 02:51:06.178 --> 02:51:12.795 - Okay, super. Thank you. So we need to vote on that now so to withdraw Amendment five since it had been 02:51:12.795 --> 02:51:18.898 - brought up we didn't know well Whoever sponsored whoever moved at the first time which I think 02:51:18.898 --> 02:51:25.708 - was councilmember Sorry could withdraw it or we could just vote on it and vote it down. I withdraw motion 02:51:25.708 --> 02:51:30.398 - amendment Five great, but we still need to vote on it. No to withdraw. I 02:51:32.546 --> 02:51:38.980 - You actually could just let it die if you want you don't you don't even have to address it at this point 02:51:38.980 --> 02:51:45.231 - Okay, I withdraw my motion to withdraw just Amendment five is dead Thank you. Okay, so that's it with 02:51:45.231 --> 02:51:49.214 - amendments. Then we are done. We're ready to move on to the full 02:51:49.730 --> 02:51:59.164 - Appropriation ordinance 2026-02 and I'm gonna pass this back over to president. Sorry a point of information 02:51:59.164 --> 02:52:08.251 - here Controller you had said that you would you didn't want us to vote on it if we make amendments today 02:52:08.251 --> 02:52:17.339 - Do you still hold that view? Yes, we will need to but what I would ask is that you continue this meeting 02:52:17.339 --> 02:52:19.070 - to the the 14th and 02:52:19.202 --> 02:52:27.957 - This will give us the opportunity to take all of the the amendments that you have passed to enter them 02:52:27.957 --> 02:52:36.711 - into our financial system and then enter them into Gateway and to produce a final form for which you'd 02:52:36.711 --> 02:52:45.296 - be able to vote on on at the next meeting Any motions, yep, I move to I motion to move appropriation 02:52:45.296 --> 02:52:47.166 - ordinance 2026-02 and 02:52:47.490 --> 02:52:54.360 - to our next regular session of October 14th. Second. Motion and second any discussion. Council member 02:52:54.360 --> 02:53:01.095 - Stossberg. I'm just wondering if it's worth having any final comments on this tonight or whether we 02:53:01.095 --> 02:53:08.167 - should just save final comments on all of this for next week. I'm just kind of thinking about the length 02:53:08.167 --> 02:53:12.478 - of next week's meeting. Does anybody have any thoughts on that. 02:53:12.770 --> 02:53:20.994 - I'm happy to have final comments right now. Anybody would let's do final comments right now anyone comments 02:53:20.994 --> 02:53:28.761 - start with customer Sasper I'll just say that that I I appreciate that we've I'll say spent more time 02:53:28.761 --> 02:53:36.603 - talking about the budget this year I think then we have the last two years combined because I do think 02:53:36.603 --> 02:53:40.030 - that that's important to do I I do I think I 02:53:40.450 --> 02:53:48.940 - Echo our public commenters one of our public commenters mentions that Some of this was maybe not the 02:53:48.940 --> 02:53:57.430 - best way to bring it up and not the best way to initiate a conversation about certain things and I I 02:53:57.430 --> 02:54:06.088 - agree with that in some respects that it Was not necessarily adversarial but I think that it puts city 02:54:06.088 --> 02:54:08.862 - staff in a really weird spot and 02:54:09.378 --> 02:54:18.651 - to have us talking about them in the way, like on paper, in the way that the amendments happen, right? 02:54:18.651 --> 02:54:28.104 - Is it saying, well, we're just putting it all on paper. And if we want to tone police me, which I really 02:54:28.104 --> 02:54:37.107 - don't appreciate in general, and generally speaking, I think is really inappropriate, then we could 02:54:37.107 --> 02:54:39.358 - say a lot about the tone 02:54:39.618 --> 02:54:48.991 - Some memos and some things that get written, you know, and it's like oh, well, okay Let's let's just 02:54:48.991 --> 02:54:58.363 - consider that right now and I think that That happens across the board and I Guess that's all I have 02:54:58.363 --> 02:55:07.550 - to say about it as it doesn't have to be adversarial. It's not necessarily adversarial but there's 02:55:07.842 --> 02:55:15.508 - tone that happens on paper, just like there's tone that happens when people speak, and sometimes tone 02:55:15.508 --> 02:55:23.174 - means one thing, and sometimes tone means another thing, but to express frustration from this dais is 02:55:23.174 --> 02:55:30.915 - not inappropriate. And in fact, I had a constituent ask me about a week and a half, two weeks ago, how 02:55:30.915 --> 02:55:34.974 - do you even stay calm up there? So whatever she sees, 02:55:35.618 --> 02:55:42.257 - She's like, wow, she actually does stay calm in the face of all this. Am I passionate about some things? 02:55:42.257 --> 02:55:48.833 - Yeah, I sure am. And one of the things that I'm passionate about was one of the other things our public 02:55:48.833 --> 02:55:55.219 - commenter said, which is transparency. And if you notice, nearly everything that I voted for tonight 02:55:55.219 --> 02:56:02.174 - in terms of amendments was about transparency. It was about putting our residents first in this whole process 02:56:02.370 --> 02:56:10.264 - As councilmember Asari said remembering that we all work for them not just the seven plus two that are 02:56:10.264 --> 02:56:17.928 - absent up here and The other elected officials in the room, but every single city staffer works for 02:56:17.928 --> 02:56:25.746 - the residents and I think our city staff generally do a really great job doing their jobs and working 02:56:25.746 --> 02:56:29.118 - for the residents and figuring that out and 02:56:29.282 --> 02:56:37.665 - Serving them in the ways that they need to be served at all different levels. And so once again, I'm 02:56:37.665 --> 02:56:46.214 - going to apologize to staff who felt like their jobs were uncertain Because that is never the way that 02:56:46.214 --> 02:56:54.514 - our staff should end up feeling Especially during this kind of time. So thank you very much Sharing 02:56:54.514 --> 02:56:57.502 - again, I'm sorry Any other comments 02:56:59.202 --> 02:57:04.816 - Councilmember flirty. Thank you I've appreciated the discussion we've had tonight Unfortunately, I am 02:57:04.816 --> 02:57:10.376 - NOT available for next week's meeting so I won't be here to take a vote on the civil city budget But 02:57:10.376 --> 02:57:15.880 - that'll be ill material I think because my vote would have been no and I will talk about that for a 02:57:15.880 --> 02:57:21.439 - moment now I also voted no on the civil city budget last year and mean for that to be interpreted as 02:57:21.439 --> 02:57:27.329 - just broad dissatisfaction with mayor Thompson's administration and how she's leading the city's executive 02:57:27.329 --> 02:57:27.934 - branch and 02:57:28.226 --> 02:57:33.682 - My lack of buy-in and some of her priorities and some in some cases how she directs her staff to spend 02:57:33.682 --> 02:57:38.979 - their time and the city's money There are some specific issues that I think of as like foundational 02:57:38.979 --> 02:57:44.382 - problems in in the executive branch governance right now that I I would like like into something like 02:57:44.382 --> 02:57:49.997 - a floor or a threshold of good governance that I need to see met in order to give me the basic confidence 02:57:49.997 --> 02:57:52.222 - to support a budget request like this and 02:57:52.674 --> 02:57:57.824 - And at a certain point when we've raised these foundational issues and they've not been addressed or 02:57:57.824 --> 02:58:03.026 - the administration refuses to address them, the budget is one of only a few accountability mechanisms 02:58:03.026 --> 02:58:08.329 - we have depending on the item. Sometimes legal action is another accountability mechanism. None of them 02:58:08.329 --> 02:58:13.632 - are ideal. They're clunky accountability mechanisms. They nevertheless are that. And I did have remarks 02:58:13.632 --> 02:58:19.190 - written up for some of the specific issues and instances which I could get into. I'm not sure how productive 02:58:19.190 --> 02:58:22.046 - that is or the appetite for that right now. So I won't. 02:58:22.146 --> 02:58:30.340 - unless unless you really want to hear but All right I'll try not to believe I'll try to belabor it too 02:58:30.340 --> 02:58:38.613 - much. No, I mean I'm quite serious about this and it isn't and I don't mean it by any way of disrespect 02:58:38.613 --> 02:58:46.728 - to the mayor and anybody on their staff, but I've been quite upset and concerned about what I believe 02:58:46.728 --> 02:58:48.478 - is the violation of a 02:58:48.674 --> 02:58:54.417 - some of our local laws, so specifically Bloomington Municipal Code 15.08.040, which allows the city 02:58:54.417 --> 02:59:00.562 - engineer to make temporary experimental or emergency traffic regulations. Those regulations aren't allowed 02:59:00.562 --> 02:59:06.535 - to extend past 180 days by the letter of city code, yet the administration has chosen to largely forego 02:59:06.535 --> 02:59:12.336 - updating Title 15 in order to issue repeated orders for the same thing over and over. I think it's a 02:59:12.336 --> 02:59:18.366 - clear violation of the law. It's been raised repeatedly with, I would say, increasing urgency and still, 02:59:18.690 --> 02:59:25.831 - and including in the budget context by me, and still explicitly asked if they'll stop violating this 02:59:25.831 --> 02:59:33.184 - law in 2027, they don't agree to do so. To me, that's a rule of law issue that goes beyond the specific 02:59:33.184 --> 02:59:40.466 - code provision in question. Again, this is one accountability mechanism, one of three that I can think 02:59:40.466 --> 02:59:46.334 - of for this issue, and it's a floor for me. It's a minimum expectation. Second, on 02:59:46.594 --> 02:59:53.997 - You know, I mentioned snow removal earlier. To me, that was a real failing. One of the things that is 02:59:53.997 --> 03:00:01.400 - a top priority for me is the safety and accessibility of our public infrastructure for all residents. 03:00:01.400 --> 03:00:08.803 - Snow is tricky. I don't feel like there was a meaningful effort to improve that issue in this budget. 03:00:08.803 --> 03:00:14.174 - And I'm especially dissatisfied with the enforcement efforts of the city. 03:00:14.402 --> 03:00:19.872 - You know a really striking example of this is the college square property the city's redevelopment Commission 03:00:19.872 --> 03:00:24.994 - owns in our major snow events the last two years at least That property has been in violation The hand 03:00:24.994 --> 03:00:30.067 - director has said it was the responsibility of the construction manager Weddle Brothers construction. 03:00:30.067 --> 03:00:35.089 - I just find that wholly inadequate It was in violation for two weeks. We were the property owner the 03:00:35.089 --> 03:00:40.112 - city government You tell me we can't get our contractor to do to fix the thing I think their overall 03:00:40.112 --> 03:00:44.190 - approach to issuing warnings before fines is fundamentally misplaced and does not 03:00:44.354 --> 03:00:50.570 - The enforcement as a tool to get compliance on that front is just fundamentally failing, and I'm not 03:00:50.570 --> 03:00:56.970 - seeing the serious recognition of that problem. And it is legitimately a safety life and death problem. 03:00:56.970 --> 03:01:03.370 - It forces people into the dangerous streets under dangerous street conditions. And probably the biggest 03:01:03.370 --> 03:01:09.586 - public safety issue in our city is the deaths and severe injuries on our streets. Which brings me to 03:01:09.586 --> 03:01:14.078 - the last issue, which is about follow-through on commitments and funding 03:01:14.242 --> 03:01:20.007 - previously made to the council. In particular, I've been quite disappointed that what we negotiated 03:01:20.007 --> 03:01:25.946 - during the 2024 budget cycle in the form of a bond ordinance was the Indiana Avenue Safety Improvement 03:01:25.946 --> 03:01:31.827 - Project. That was part of an extensive budget negotiation. And over the past several years, staff has 03:01:31.827 --> 03:01:37.362 - had a lot of wide-ranging public engagement on that project. They developed a design that would 03:01:37.362 --> 03:01:43.646 - unquestionably increase safety for vulnerable street users. However, a few individuals at Indiana University 03:01:43.778 --> 03:01:48.937 - Oppose the project and prefer to car centric design that would largely replicate existing conditions 03:01:48.937 --> 03:01:54.199 - that are again objectively unsafe documented where we had residents die and be severely injured That's 03:01:54.199 --> 03:01:59.307 - based on prior primarily closed-door meetings staff ultimately end up recommending a subpar concept 03:01:59.307 --> 03:02:04.467 - to the Transportation Commission Which the Commission unanimously rejected is inconsistent with city 03:02:04.467 --> 03:02:09.677 - code and the goals of the safe streets for all action plan We directed staff to bring back a proposal 03:02:09.677 --> 03:02:13.662 - consistent with city code consistent with the the goals of the city and staff 03:02:13.954 --> 03:02:19.257 - just went radio silent, didn't tell us anything about it, didn't bring anything back or say anything 03:02:19.257 --> 03:02:24.717 - for six months until I asked about it, at which point they said they're not gonna pursue it, and hadn't 03:02:24.717 --> 03:02:30.282 - even talked to IU following the commission's vote, hadn't even talked to IU, but they're not gonna pursue 03:02:30.282 --> 03:02:35.532 - the project anymore with a sort of hand-wavy answer about, oh, it's gonna be incorporated into this 03:02:35.532 --> 03:02:40.887 - downtown kind of transportation study. That whole process on so many levels is just, again, a failure 03:02:40.887 --> 03:02:42.462 - of governance, in my opinion, 03:02:42.594 --> 03:02:48.067 - It's a failure to follow through on the commitments made to council. And at that time, I asked what 03:02:48.067 --> 03:02:53.649 - happens if conditions change. We were assured by the controller that the administration would come to 03:02:53.649 --> 03:02:59.286 - the council to work together to figure out what to do. That's not what has happened. Additionally, the 03:02:59.286 --> 03:03:04.759 - fact that because we can't get buy-in from a stakeholder or two who are deemed to be more important 03:03:04.759 --> 03:03:10.560 - than everyone else, we can't move forward on the project is just fundamentally unacceptable to me. Again, 03:03:10.560 --> 03:03:11.326 - it's a floor. 03:03:11.426 --> 03:03:17.611 - of what I expect of government. These things are all tied to the budget. They're tied to the appropriations 03:03:17.611 --> 03:03:23.797 - we're making. And again, when you're left with minimal recourse on accountability, I'm choosing to exercise 03:03:23.797 --> 03:03:29.066 - my vote here as a signal of accountability. So those are three specific things that I think 03:03:29.066 --> 03:03:34.793 - are representative of broader categories of things that I am dissatisfied with this administration. 03:03:34.793 --> 03:03:41.150 - And you can probably expect the same from me next year if we don't see market improvement across those things. 03:03:41.378 --> 03:03:48.060 - What my vote would be next week. Thank you again. No disrespect. It's my perspective I do appreciate 03:03:48.060 --> 03:03:55.138 - that the many good things the staff are doing There's lots that I agree with the things that my colleagues 03:03:55.138 --> 03:04:01.886 - are bringing to through the budget process tonight that I supported I appreciate that effort as well. 03:04:01.886 --> 03:04:08.567 - So, thank you Councilman Flaherty any other comments Okay, and with that I think the motion is still 03:04:08.567 --> 03:04:09.758 - on the table so I 03:04:10.210 --> 03:04:17.260 - I forget what it was to table. That's a procedural thing to move. Yeah, that's a procedural thing. We 03:04:17.260 --> 03:04:24.171 - can do voice vote. Yes. Okay. Fantastic. All those in favor then of moving this to our next regular 03:04:24.171 --> 03:04:31.082 - session on October 14th, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you so much. That will be read 03:04:31.082 --> 03:04:37.994 - on October. I mean, that will be next read on October 14th. Thank you all very much. Let's move on. 03:04:37.994 --> 03:04:39.998 - Are there any other motions? 03:04:40.130 --> 03:04:49.573 - I move that ordinance 2026-25 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second 03:04:49.573 --> 03:04:59.678 - motion and second all those in favor say aye Any opposed? All right. Will the clerk please read? Ordinance 03:04:59.678 --> 03:05:05.438 - 2026-25 and ordinance fixing the salaries of officers of the 03:05:05.602 --> 03:05:12.304 - the police and fire departments for the city of Bloomington Indiana for the year 20 27. The synopsis 03:05:12.304 --> 03:05:19.073 - is as follows. This ordinance sets the minimum and maximum salary rates for all sworn fire and police 03:05:19.073 --> 03:05:26.174 - personnel for the 20 for that for the year 20 27 in accordance with council approved collective bargaining 03:05:26.174 --> 03:05:32.478 - agreements. Thank you very much. I move that ordinance 20 26 25 be adopted. Second. Wonderful. 03:05:32.578 --> 03:05:40.734 - Anyone to present on this? I guess we've already talked about it, but any additions to this one Councilmember 03:05:40.734 --> 03:05:48.149 - Stasberg, I would like to move amendment one to ordinance 20 26 25. Okay So I think though director 03:05:48.149 --> 03:05:55.118 - paycheck was gonna say a few words. So is that okay? Can we? Did you want to speak before no, 03:05:55.118 --> 03:06:02.014 - thank you. Sure paycheck resources director. I'll answer any questions. Okay. Yeah Fantastic 03:06:02.274 --> 03:06:09.659 - Amendment one take it away Amendment one just add some clarifying language in a couple of places Under 03:06:09.659 --> 03:06:16.901 - training it clarifies the 100 hours per 20 hours of training The language aligns with the collective 03:06:16.901 --> 03:06:24.429 - bargaining agreement and then the clothing allotment adds a per year after that which is like the intent 03:06:24.429 --> 03:06:29.950 - and is what is there and the per year was just absent that's all it does and 03:06:31.554 --> 03:06:40.014 - Wonderful. Any comments or questions on this one? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment on Amendment 03:06:40.014 --> 03:06:48.474 - 1. Would anybody like to comment on Amendment 1? Anyone online? Fantastic. Coming back to council, any 03:06:48.474 --> 03:06:56.852 - final comments on Amendment 1? Thank you for your work, Councilmember Stosberg. Will the clerk please 03:06:56.852 --> 03:07:01.534 - call the roll? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Zulek? 03:07:01.634 --> 03:07:10.728 - Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rough. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasburg. Yes. Excellent. That passes. We're 03:07:10.728 --> 03:07:19.912 - now on the ordinance as amended. Any other motions. All right. Seeing none any questions. Seeing none 03:07:19.912 --> 03:07:29.726 - we'll go to public comment as anyone would anyone like to make public comment on this portion of the budget. 03:07:32.002 --> 03:07:41.074 - Anyone online seeing none. We'll come back to counsel any final comments All right, will the clerk please 03:07:41.074 --> 03:07:49.975 - call the roll on ordinance 2026 25 Councilmember Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes rough. Yes clarity. 03:07:49.975 --> 03:07:59.646 - Yes Stasburg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes Thank you. Thank you very much. That carries. Are there any other motions? 03:08:01.698 --> 03:08:08.895 - I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty six be read by the clerk by title and synopsis only 03:08:08.895 --> 03:08:16.231 - second motion in a second any discussion all those in favor say aye aye any opposed will the clerk please 03:08:16.231 --> 03:08:23.429 - read Ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty six in ordinance to fix the salaries of appointed officers 03:08:23.429 --> 03:08:27.166 - down union and AFSCME employees for all the cities of 03:08:27.586 --> 03:08:33.581 - For all the departments of the city of Bloomington Monroe County Indiana for the year twenty twenty 03:08:33.581 --> 03:08:39.636 - seven the synopsis is as follows ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty six sets the maximum twenty 03:08:39.636 --> 03:08:45.751 - twenty seven salary for all appointed officers non-union and AFSCME employees for all the departments 03:08:45.751 --> 03:08:51.746 - of the city of Bloomington Indiana. Thank you so much. I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash 03:08:51.746 --> 03:08:56.542 - twenty six be adopted. Second. All right. Are there any amendments any motions. 03:08:57.890 --> 03:09:07.344 - Councilmember Piedmont Smith I move amendment 1 to ordinance 20 26-26 Second amendment 1 is on the table. 03:09:07.344 --> 03:09:16.798 - Go for it this amendment Revises section 1 of the ordinance to eliminate the vacant transportation demand 03:09:16.798 --> 03:09:25.182 - manager position from the ESD department Any questions for the sponsor Councilmember Stasberg 03:09:25.378 --> 03:09:32.367 - Earlier in the evening. There was a discussion about the idea of Defunding it but keeping it in here 03:09:32.367 --> 03:09:39.426 - so that then it would be like easier to recreate later if we ever wanted to What are your thoughts on 03:09:39.426 --> 03:09:46.484 - that? My thoughts on that are that If we have this position, it should not be an ESD So I would still 03:09:46.484 --> 03:09:52.574 - take it out of the ordinance and if we want to revisit transportation demand management 03:09:53.314 --> 03:10:00.507 - It should probably be in the Department of Planning and Transportation. Thank you. Thank you very much. 03:10:00.507 --> 03:10:07.423 - Any other questions or comments. Seeing none we'll move now to time of public comment. Would anyone 03:10:07.423 --> 03:10:14.616 - like to make a public comment on this amendment. Anyone online. Seeing none we'll come back to counsel. 03:10:14.616 --> 03:10:18.558 - Any final comments. Thank you very much. Will the clerk. 03:10:18.786 --> 03:10:25.401 - Councilmember Stasberg sorry, it went so fast I agree with councilmember Piedmont Smith that that eliminating 03:10:25.401 --> 03:10:31.655 - it from ESD is the right thing to do Because I don't think it ever should have been an ESD in the first 03:10:31.655 --> 03:10:37.970 - place. It should have been somewhere else and I think that I really appreciated councilmember Flaherty's 03:10:37.970 --> 03:10:44.344 - comments on other Planning transportation related things that this money could be potentially reallocated 03:10:44.344 --> 03:10:48.734 - for though. I also appreciate the idea of reallocating that money toward 03:10:49.026 --> 03:10:55.746 - implementation of our climate action plan which are two things that may be sort of related but also 03:10:55.746 --> 03:11:02.600 - maybe aren't so I hope that there is a broader conversation about that in the next several months and 03:11:02.600 --> 03:11:09.589 - also understanding that that that's a hundred and some thousand dollars that is no longer in our budget 03:11:09.589 --> 03:11:16.443 - that could potentially be reallocated at some point in 2027 for some additional project. Thank you so 03:11:16.443 --> 03:11:18.526 - very much. Any other comments? 03:11:19.010 --> 03:11:29.091 - Seeing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on this amendment? Councilmember sorry. Yes Daily. 03:11:29.091 --> 03:11:39.373 - Yes, rough. Yes 30. Yes, Stasburg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes, that amendment carries Let's 03:11:39.373 --> 03:11:46.430 - go back to ordinance 20 26 26 nice as amended any Any other questions 03:11:51.362 --> 03:12:06.112 - I don't think so. No. Yeah. OK. I can talk about this amendment. I think that we and maybe. So my intention 03:12:06.112 --> 03:12:20.862 - here was that our our our incoming attorney based on how we we have room in our budget and salary to adjust 03:12:21.122 --> 03:12:27.300 - the other position. And so this was the attempt to do that now. This is not the right place to do this, 03:12:27.300 --> 03:12:33.715 - nor the right mechanism to do this. I think we would have to take different type of action in collaboration 03:12:33.715 --> 03:12:39.774 - with HR. So I'm not going to introduce it, if that's OK. But I think it's a broader conversation that 03:12:39.774 --> 03:12:45.714 - we should have, as I've been saying. Sort of the refrain for today speaks a lot, I guess. But yeah, 03:12:45.714 --> 03:12:48.446 - so something for us to revisit is sort of the 03:12:49.090 --> 03:12:58.244 - That's second our second Lord position. Okay, so any other motions amendments questions Seeing none. 03:12:58.244 --> 03:13:07.852 - We'll go to public comment on ordinance 2026 2026 26 Anyone online seeing then we'll come back to council 03:13:07.852 --> 03:13:17.278 - any final comments or No, well the clerk, please call the roll. Oh councilman Sasberg. No, go ahead. Oh 03:13:17.474 --> 03:13:25.455 - It's fine. I was just gonna thank our staff again. That's all because this is like the ordinance that 03:13:25.455 --> 03:13:33.592 - actually sets their salaries for 2026 So thank you our staff for all the work that they do. Thanks Will 03:13:33.592 --> 03:13:41.729 - the clerk please call the roll councilmember Daley Yes, rough. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stasburg. Yes Piedmont 03:13:41.729 --> 03:13:44.702 - Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. I 03:13:45.314 --> 03:13:55.825 - Thank you that carries and yay any other motions Yeah I move that Ordinance 20 26-28 be introduced and 03:13:55.825 --> 03:14:06.439 - read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second There's a motion to second any discussion All those 03:14:06.439 --> 03:14:12.766 - in favor say aye aye any opposed will the clerk please read I 03:14:17.730 --> 03:14:25.974 - Ordinance 2026-28 in an ordinance to fix the salaries of appointed deputies and employees of the Bloomington 03:14:25.974 --> 03:14:33.537 - City Clerk for the city of Bloomington Monroe County, Indiana for the year 2027. The synopsis is as 03:14:33.537 --> 03:14:41.630 - follows. This salary ordinance establishes the 2027 maximum salaries for Bloomington City Clerk employees. 03:14:41.630 --> 03:14:42.462 - Thank you. 03:14:42.882 --> 03:14:51.090 - Any motion I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty eight be adopted second. All right. Clerk 03:14:51.090 --> 03:14:59.142 - would you like to say anything. I am here to answer any questions and record your votes. Council would 03:14:59.142 --> 03:15:07.193 - you like to ask any questions. Council member Stasberg is that in turn hourly rate based on the living 03:15:07.193 --> 03:15:11.102 - wage ordinance. Yes. Thanks. Any other questions. 03:15:13.122 --> 03:15:21.252 - Seeing none any motions Seeing none. We'll go to public comment. Is there anyone who wishes to comment 03:15:21.252 --> 03:15:29.540 - on the clerks? I mean originates 20 26 28 Anyone online coming back to council any final comments, maybe 03:15:29.540 --> 03:15:37.434 - your last chance I'd be remiss if I thanked all of the city staff and didn't specifically thank the 03:15:37.434 --> 03:15:43.038 - clerk staff as well because the clerk staff do a tremendous amount for 03:15:43.202 --> 03:15:50.847 - City and keeping all of our meetings in order and all of those things. So thank you to those staff members 03:15:50.847 --> 03:15:58.421 - as well Because I'm in the in the sort of vibe of losing battles another conversation that I've continued 03:15:58.421 --> 03:16:05.851 - to have throughout the year is the importance of us really thinking about both the structure of council 03:16:05.851 --> 03:16:11.710 - staff and the structure of the clerk staff, I think that there's ways that we can 03:16:11.906 --> 03:16:22.069 - really harmonize and bring better outcomes to all of this. I hope one day that we will all join together 03:16:22.069 --> 03:16:30.974 - in this wonderful, glorious paradise. Okay, with that, will the clerk please call the roll. 03:16:31.938 --> 03:16:42.199 - I mean I have much broader things that you know, you know, you wouldn't like them Okay councilmember 03:16:42.199 --> 03:16:52.358 - rough Thank you Flaherty, yes Stasburg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Azulik. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes daily 03:16:52.358 --> 03:16:57.438 - Yes, thank you all very much. All right now we're 03:17:02.082 --> 03:17:09.243 - or any well wishes. Well, I hope you all get home safely and whatnot. Have a wonderful evening. This 03:17:09.243 --> 03:17:10.590 - is adjourned. Bow.