Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this regular session of the Bloomington Common Council. Thank
you very much for being here. It is November 4th, and I would like to call this meeting to order. Will
the clerk kindly call the roll? Yes. Councilmember Flaherty? Here. Stosberg? Here. Piedmont-Smith? Here.
Asari? Here. Daly? Here. Rallo? Here. And Ruff? Here.
Thank you very much. There are agendas posted there.
and somewhere there and there. And they're also posted online. For those of you who need it described
today, we have quite a packed agenda. We'll do our best to keep it light and enjoyable all throughout
your ride here with us. But we have a bunch of minutes for approval, four different ones, of which we
just got some amended minutes. I hope everybody saw those. We'll have reports.
from council members the mayor and then the the clerk and at which time there'll be a time for public
comment so if any of you want to venture to make public comment that'll be your chance everybody will
get three minutes as you know for public comment we have a
some question about appointments and removals of boards and commissions. And then we have one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight things for first reading. Who approves this agenda? And then we
have three things for second reading. And so a fairly packed night. We'll try our best to be concise
for the first reading things. We'll have moments of public comment for all of that. And then the meeting
will end with a
Last time of public comment and just I'll say it once so I don't have to say it again This is for things
that are not on the agenda. You can comment at one of the two of those so with that do Do I have any
motions for minutes? Clerk Bolden before you move into the rest of your thing. Would it be a
So the agenda doesn't have your public hearing listed for your GO bonds ordinance. Could somebody make
a motion to amend the agenda to include the fact that it's your public hearing? Oh, great. Wonderful.
So let the record note for those who have an old agenda that we will be doing the official hearing for
our bond ordinance as required by law. This has now been stated out loud. OK. Thank you.
You're very welcome. Do I have any motions? You do. I move to approve the minutes for June 10th, 2026,
July 22nd, 2026, July 29th, 2026, August 5th, 2026. Second. Thank you. OK, motion and a second. Any
discussion or amendments to the minutes? All those in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Thank
you very much. Anybody opposed?
All right, that is wonderful. We'll now move on to reports. Do any of my colleagues, would you like
to make any statements or reports? And I'll go to Councilmember Daly, just seeing if anybody else, and
then I'll go Councilmember Piedmont-Smith, Councilmember Stasberg, and then we'll wrap it up. OK, so
take it away. I won't call on you. All right, thank you very much. What a night to be making this statement.
So I want to address the weekend events, the unfortunate weekend events that once again occurred.
In town, we're standing in the shadow of yet another horrific episode of gun violence right here in
Bloomington. This past weekend over homecoming, Kirkwood, a place that should have been filled with
music, joy, celebration, turned into a scene of chaos. And I'll just leave it there. I think we've all
heard. Before I move on, I want to thank
our police for their presence on Kirkwood and for their quick action. I know we had a heavy presence
and they moved fast. And while we did have seven injuries, it could have been a lot worse. And so thank
you very much for our police force for being there. I also want to address the victims, their families,
and every single person in our city who woke up Sunday morning feeling like I did, shaken and unsafe.
And I am deeply sorry. My heart breaks for you,
and for all of Bloomington. No one should ever go out for a night with friends and end up in a trauma
unit. The grief and anxiety left behind in our community doesn't just disappear when the police tape
comes down. So we are mourning with everybody who was involved, and you deserve so much more than just
our sympathy. And frankly, my sorrow is mixed with pure unadulterated rage. Because as a local leader,
the most infuriating part of this job is knowing that when our community cries out for protection,
Our hands are legally tied. The state legislature in Indianapolis has systematically stripped cities
like Bloomington of the power to protect our own streets. Under Indiana's strict pre-exemption laws,
local municipalities are explicitly forbidden from passing basic common sense gun safety measures. Just
think about how absurd that is. We can't even restrict firearms on our own municipal property.
We have literally seen residents walking around our public swimming pools with handguns tucked into
the waistbands of their trunks. We cannot even guarantee that a public pool or a community park is a
fire-free zone for our children because lawmakers in Indianapolis decided we weren't allowed to make
that call. And I want to be clear, this is not about the Second Amendment. Responsible gun ownership
and evidence-based common sense safety laws can and do coexist
elsewhere in this country. But this refusal to act combined with the insistence on blocking us as a
city from acting is actively hurting our people. I want to put this into real numbers that are driving
this crisis. On average, 1,198 people die by guns in Indiana every single year. Our homicide rate sits
well above the national average and has been steadily climbing over the past decade.
Indiana ranks 26th in the nation for gun safety. While our state was an early pioneer with extreme risk
laws, lawmakers have steadily rolled back progress ever since then, most recently by repealing our concealed
carry permit requirement. Not only do we have a high mortality rate, but every year 1,556 Hoosiers are
wounded by firearms. And those are not just simple wounds that you can put a Band-Aid over, some of
them change your life
forever. And beyond devastating human loss, gun violence costs Indiana $13.2 billion every year.
And $293.1 million of that is paid directly by the taxpayers. I don't want my tax money going toward
a problem that we could easily be preventing when this money is going toward people being hurt. So here's
the bottom line. If Indiana simply had
the gun death rate of the national leaders in gun safety, the 10 states with the strongest common sense
gun safety laws, we could actually save 8,545 Hoosier lives over the next 10 years. That's not just
a number, those are our neighbors, our students, our kids, our families. So to the Bloomington community,
I hear you, I share your anger.
and I promise that we will not treat shootings on Kirkwood as an inevitable cost of living here. We
will keep demanding change, we will keep fighting state preemption, and we will do everything in our
power to keep this city safe. I am starting to work on legislation right now that will hopefully help
with some preventative measures in as much as we can to keep our Bloomington residents safe, so thank you.
Yes, thank you, Councilmember Daly. I was going to talk about the shooting as well, but I think you've
covered it very eloquently. Another incident happened in the past week in Parkridge East neighborhood.
There were several flyers found that were from the KKK that were blatantly racist and totally unacceptable
in our community.
And I find it very, very disturbing that anyone would distribute such hate literature in Bloomington.
And I want to say very clearly that myself and all of us up here say there's no space for hate in our
community. We are committed to upholding the rights of all people, regardless of color in particular,
trying to redress systemic inequities that black Americans have faced in this country and continue to
face as is obvious by those hateful flyers that were distributed. So I just wanted to say that in case
you hadn't heard. Bloomington, we think it's a safe place and these two incidents, the shooting and
the racist flyers tell us that we are unfortunately not an exception to the hatred that
that spread sometimes in this country and the violence that is facilitated by lax gun laws in this country.
So my heart goes out to anybody who received those flyers. And I say to anybody who was involved with
distributing them that you're not welcome here.
need to actively say every day and every week that we will fight racism and look at things, policies
that we make from an anti-racist perspective. Thank you. Well, following those two very serious
announcements, I have one that's maybe more
fun I'm a little hesitant to make now but I wanted to share an event that the Bloomington Township trustee
is having at their office on 17th Street this Saturday between 10 a.m. And one their fall into fun and
they're gonna have hot cocoa kits and blankets and board games and fun and one of the things that
Has been pointed out kind of recently is this kind of outstanding question of what is it that townships
do? And so I just like this might be a good opportunity to go and hang out at Bloomington Township trustees
office and see what it is that the townships and the trustee does And so once again that event is this
Saturday between 10 and 1 and their office on 17th Street and it of course is geared toward folks that live in a
Bloomington Township. And so, you know, we just had an election yesterday. So if your precinct starts
with Bloomington, then you're in Bloomington Township. And that is a good bit of east side, east and
north in terms of the within the city of Bloomington. And I think also going out into the county there,
I was trying to find a map so I could be more precise, but I just wasn't that fast. So if you have any
questions, let me know. Maybe I'll see you there. Thanks.
Thank you all so very much. Mary, did you want to give comments today? Go ahead. I want to just start
by thanking President Nassari for his leadership on Sunday and helping communicate with Council and
others as we were dealing with the aftermath of that shooting.
really appreciate Council Member Daley's ongoing work. She's been working on gun violence since long
before she's been serving on council and I look forward to partnering with you on legislation for the
city. A very special thanks to Bloomington Police Department and our partners at IU Police and Indiana
State Police
who worked in incredible coordination ahead of Saturday's game, as they have been for all of our larger
events in Bloomington of late, making plans in case such a tragedy would hit. And because they had that
plan together, the response was in absolute lockstep and could not have been more rapid or more seamless.
But unfortunately, due to the gun laws that Councilmember Daley was referring to, it's very hard to
do much until those guns go off. And we are seeing an increase in the presence of guns in Bloomington
and around the state. And it is time that we ask our state legislators to change their policies. And
I've been working since April
on some legislation at the State House that would enable us to, when we pull a permit for a special
event to close a street, would enable us to limit firearms during those special times. So, more to come.
As we all know, there was an election last night and
some of the folks that we thought might carry this legislation are now no longer going to be in office.
And so it'll be a few weeks, I think, before we get any traction. But I'm hopeful we can at least get
a bill on the floor. And my thanks to our local legislators, Matt Pierce and Shelly Yoder, who've been
incredibly helpful with this already.
We're, in addition to that legislation, our police are beginning to work on even more steps to increase
intelligence ahead of time and do whatever it is that we possibly can do to try to mitigate these events
before they happen. And we will plan to keep you all up to date. I appreciate that Council Member Daley
is going to
hopefully put some legislation forward. Other things happening, appreciate Councilmember Piedmont-Smith's
address about the flyers that were distributed in Park Ridge East.
This is serious and we must stand up against any hate that shows its face in our community and let our
community know that that is not what we stand for as a community and it's not welcome here. In more
boring events, we also have been active at the State House in between sessions here
working on two things in particular. First, the impacts of SEA-1 and the hopeful changes that may be
forthcoming in the upcoming session. Have been meeting with Republican leaders on some tweaks that we
would like in order to make Bloomington more whole as a municipality, working with AEM in partnership
on that as well.
And then finally, the implications of SB 285, which is the bill that illegalizes sleeping outside in
public spaces and asking the state house for funding that assists with housing needs and mental health
needs for those who are no longer allowed to sleep outside.
So those are the things happening. I'm happy to answer questions or provide updates offline for folks
who need them. Council members any questions comments. OK. Thank you very much. All right. We'll now
move to council committees. And do we have any reports or motions or anything of the sort. All right.
We'll now move to a time of public comment. He's leaving just before your chance. But thank you, Group
Fleet 100. Bravo for being here. Yay. All right, we'll now move to a time of public comment. If you'd
like to make comment on something that is not on the agenda, now is your chance. Is there anybody here
who would like to make public comment on something not on the agenda? Anyone online?
Anyone online? Anyone online? No? Anyone online? OK. Thank you. All right. No one online. We'll move
on then from that raucous period of public comment. We now have an issue related to appointments to
boards and commissions. Are there any motions?
Totally up to you. I will say regardless of if anybody is to make some type of motion, I would like
to give the chance for this to be discussed and for public comment to be made on it. I move to discuss
the removal of advisory member from Historic Preservation Commission. Sounds like a motion. Is that a motion?
All right. All those in favor of discussing? Anyone opposed? OK. So I don't know if it might be, we've
done this now multiple times, but Mr. Allen, would you be willing just to give a few words, and then
if there's any questions, and then I'll allow our neighbor and commissioner to say a few words as well.
On April 22nd 2026 the Common Council appointed mr. Cross to be an advisory member of the Historic
Preservation Commission There were two meetings that staff brought to the attention of the clerk's office
where it was alleged that mr. Cross was inhibiting the business of the Historic Preservation Commission
those occurred on July 9th and
July 23rd respectively on July 23rd deputy clerk Jennifer Crosley had observed That meeting and observed
the second half as well as myself What we saw was a fairly heated exchange between mr. Cross and the
chair the chair ruling him out of order and
In both meetings both July 9th and July 23rd after significant delay of 30 minutes and approximately
40 minutes Respectively in the different meetings. Mr. Cross then left the meeting and did not participate
in any further business did inhibit the board from getting to items on its agenda because it was regarding
a prior issue that was no longer on the agenda and the procedural mechanisms around that and procedural
regularities around that Following that
Deputy clerk Crosley sent a summary of the details of what had happened to council leadership additionally
On July 30th, mr. Cross sent an email to all HPC commissioners that requested them to reply and
Altogether on issues that he had raised in the meeting but outside of a properly noticed meeting under
the Indiana open-door law And he acknowledged that he wanted his response before the next meeting that
was properly noticed After Crosley alerted the council leadership to that on August 21st at the direction
of council leadership Myself on behalf of council sent a written notice to mr. Cross informing him
The alleged meeting disruptions the fact that it was alleged that he violated open-door law and that
there were violations of the city's code of conduct That are applicable to all board and commission
members At that time he was provided an opportunity to submit materials to council which he did so and
he has continued to do so I believe up until prior to this meeting He has continued to submit materials
to council He was also given a date and time that council would first
hear that on September 2nd 2026 Council decided to postpone consideration from December or so from September
2nd to September 16th 2026 On September 26, they did recommend that the issue be referred to the interview
team committee see our committee team see who met on subsequently a
September 24th 2026 and following a discussion that all three members of team C had reviewed the videos
of the meeting and the conduct as alleged they unanimously agreed to recommend Removal to the council.
This is detailed also in a memo that's been submitted to council for this meeting and then at
The next meeting of council which was actually on October 14th Council that once again postponed
consideration until this meeting on November 4th we have received a variety of comments just
briefly about the removal, and I want to be very clear that this removal action did not take
into consideration any viewpoints that were expressed, any expressive statements about any particular
issue before the HPC. This really has to do with conduct as it relates to the code of conduct, the Indiana
open door law, but more specifically the inhibition of
doing business before the HPC and the HPC was unable for that time period that the meeting was delayed
to hear their regular petitions. And so one of the requirements under due process, not only that we
give notice and opportunity to be heard for Mr. Cross and as I stated, we had sent him notice that he
has submitted materials and I believe we're gonna give him an opportunity to speak as well today.
Indiana Court of Appeals has held that any removal for cause, and by ordinance this is a for cause removal,
any counsel appointee has to be removed, can only be removed for cause, it must be related, it must somehow
inhibit or prevent that member from performing their duties as an appointee. And so the question for
counsel to decide, and only counsel can decide this, at least at this stage, is whether the information
and the evidence is sufficient to show that under the allegations as raised and recommended by the interview
team committee, whether those are sufficient to show that there is some sort of
Pro inhibition on mr. Cross's ability to serve as an advisory member of the HPC Thank you so much, sir,
are there any questions for attorney Allen? Okay Councilmember Stasberg first sorry and then um, oh,
oh, sorry. Okay councilmember Smith Yes, thank you, mr. Allen so according to your legal opinion is
the inhibition or the delay that was caused by the commissioner. Is that evidence that the actions impeded
his performance as a commissioner?
Ultimately, that's that's a determination for counsel just to be very clear under the totality of the
evidence So regardless, it's not my legal opinion whether that happened You all need to make
that determination under the what's been provided to you and what you understand is the facts You know,
I could make an argument for it I don't know if that's very appropriate at this time other than to say
that I've outlined the facts that underlied underlay that that particular claim for those meetings,
I believe, you know also
Councilmember Piedmont Smith you were part of team committee C and everybody has viewed the videos of
those meetings because the only conduct is essentially mr. Cross was only Present at those meetings
for this period of delay and interaction and then he left those meetings and didn't carry further any
further HPC business So that all that to say is that's the evidence that's before you that you ultimately
make that determination on
Can we consider actions at the October 22nd HPC meeting. Those haven't been made part of this record.
And so I don't I don't think so. Just because if we had made them part of the record maybe. But in this
case these are really two distinct instances of the behavior that those are the ones that were noticed.
Nothing else was included in that notice. I don't think it would be appropriate to consider that. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Any other questions. Council member rough clarification on our procedure here. Are
we going to allow public comment on this at some point unless unless there is objection. I would I would
like at the minimum to allow Mr. Cross to say a few words. Well I'd like to make an I guess an informal
motion or whatever would be appropriate to
to say we give anyone from the public who wants to comment on this. I'd be happy to allow that if there
if there's no if there's no objection. I'd be happy to allow that. Thank you. Thank you. All right.
So so with that would you suggest we proceed with public comment first or with Mr. Cross's comments
first. Mr. Cross. Okay. So Mr. Cross we'd love to invite you sir if you'd like to make make a statement.
More than welcome to do so at this time sir.
And then afterwards, if anybody would like to make public comment, either online or in person, you're
also welcome to do so. And we had discussed it being five minutes. Is that OK with you still, Mr. Cross?
I beg your pardon? Is five minutes OK with you as the appropriate amount of time? No. This issue has
been going on since the 21st of August.
There have probably been about four council meetings, and persons who I understand have made complaints
against me have got an unlimited time to speak their mind. Ms. Crossley sat over there in that chair
and spoke for 10, maybe 20 minutes. Mr. Allen has spoken for a really long time at both council meetings.
There have been
Committee on Council Processes meetings where, again, Mr. Allen and Ms. Crossley have spoken for significant
amount of times. There was an interview committee meeting, see, to discuss this issue that I didn't
even know was happening. I was not invited. I understand that there was no public comment. So even if
I did know and did attend, I wouldn't have gotten an opportunity to speak. So for me now, what, three
months later,
when everybody who has had an opinion about my removal from the HPC have had unlimited time to speak
and have had constant access with members of the council, for me now to be given five minutes is grossly
unfair. Not only that, but my entire position has been that the standard arrived at by
The Special Committee on Council Processes in 2023 with regards to the matter with Greg Alexander stated
very clearly what the standard is and what it required first and foremost. And I'll read here
that substantive due process consideration advise that a motion for removal of an appointed board or
commission member for cause should be narrow
specific and sufficiently clear that the city council members, members of the public, and the appointee
in question fully understand the specific conduct, statements, commissions, or omissions that have led
to the proposed removal. I have not been given any such information. I've been told that I have breached
the code of conduct, but I have not been told what specific statements, actions, or omissions on my
part constitutes that breach.
which sections of the code of conduct was breached, how that action breached that section, what evidence
was relied on, who was the complainant, and whether or not that breach rises to the level of precluding
me from continued service. At no point have I received any information. Mr. Allen says constantly,
that I responded. But if you read the contents of my response, it was that I was not given any information
to respond to. I have not been given an opportunity to speak, call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses.
I don't even know what the basis of the complaint is. It could not be Miss Crossley's email, because
on the 21st, I received notice. But Miss Crossley's document was not
sent until the 15th of September. So it could not have been the basis of the notice. There was no motion
made by any committee members, which certainly, with the other cases of removal, was what initiated
the process. Mr. Allen has not said who initiated this process. My understanding, and I could be completely
wrong, but based on my understanding,
before this matter could come to you. It should be based on a motion. That's how Mr. Alexander's issue
got before the council. That's how I think I have some other cases here. Fuentes and there were a couple
of others. I sat in this chamber and saw a motion for dismissal of persons for absences being made to
initiate the process. I don't know how.
Right? I've been told that I breached the open door law by sending an email to the chair for the chair
to respond. But out of transparency, I sent it to the other members. It wasn't for the other members
to respond. It was for the chair to respond. Because in the meeting, I raised points of I requested
information, which under Robert's rules, the chair should recognize and seek to answer.
He dismissed them out of hand, which in itself is a breach of process. And when I raised a point of
order, he dismissed those. So when there are persons here saying that the chair ruled me out of order,
if you read Robert's Rules, there's a procedure for ruling somebody out of order. The chair did not
follow it. I sent a document with my response to the notice. I sent several documents. I think there
were like eight attachments. My response to the notice as quote,
quoted by Mr. Askins in the B-square bulletin was 92 paragraphs long. And it painstakingly detailed
how the notice did not meet not only this council standard set in 2023 when Mr. Alexander faced a motion
from council member Rollo, which was ruled inadequate
under the standard and had to be represented because it was not specific enough. Had interview committee
see then rule unanimously that I be removed based on allegations, which again did not meet the standard,
that that report set. So I really don't know why I'm here. I have no idea what charges I've been
what breaches I've been alleged to commit. In my experience, and I have a lot of experience working
on boards of inquiries, investigations, both criminal and civil, any allegation charged to be answered
must have a date and time of the offense, a statement of the offense, it must identify which rule regulation
policy was breached,
It must demonstrate how that action breached that policy, rule, regulation, law. I have seen none of
that. I would really like someone here to tell me in very specific terms what is it that I said, when
I said it, how that statement breached a rule, what the rule is,
I haven't seen it. I've been told that I delayed the meeting. How did I delay the meeting? Was the actions
that I, firstly, did I delay the meeting? That has not been established in fact. Right? I've sat through
these meetings and I have waited hours while the procedures of this council happen.
Are any of you guilty for delay? No, because the actions that you took that pushed a matter on the agenda
further back in time was appropriate. So they'll have to demonstrate how an action that I took
was inappropriate and thus delayed the business of the meeting. I have watched the record myself, and
based on the guidelines of the HPC,
and Robert's Rules, which is our parliamentary process, I have seen nothing that I did. If I make a
point of order and that is being debated, how have I improperly delayed that meeting? It has not been
made known to me how is it that my sending an email to the chair of the commission, how is it a breach
of the Omdur law? I've read the law. I don't see how that breach is not anywhere in the notice.
of how my doing that has demonstrated it. And I'm sure you send emails to your colleagues all the time.
I don't know of any organization that can be run in this country in 2026 where one member sends an email
to another one and it's in a breach of the open door law. Otherwise, business couldn't happen. I've
seen members of this council get up and leave and come back and get up and leave, but yet my getting up
and leaving a meeting has now breached the rules. Did anybody ask me why I left the meeting? Did anybody
give me an opportunity to answer any question? Was I invited to any meeting? I've never seen. Is there
any police officer here? No. Well, I'm not.
an expert on American law, but I've watched enough TV. And I've never seen an investigation conducted
where the police doesn't seek to bring the man that they alleged to commit the offense and ask him questions.
But we've been here for three months, and nobody has said, hey, Renard, we're having a meeting. Come,
have a seat. Let me hear your side of the story. Do you want to bring a witness?
Maybe there's somebody who wants to come and speak on your behalf. Maybe there are members of the HPC
who are actually there in the meeting who are experts on our rules, processes, how we have done business
for the last certainly five years that I was a voting member and asked to come back to serve by a member
of the Common Council based on that.
five years worth of performance. I also, again, find this hard to separate from the issue of Seminary
Point. I strongly believe if this had happened about any other issue, I would not be here. I believe
that persons objected to how strongly I opposed the manner in which that demolition delay
was rammed through. I wrote very long documents detailing the breaches that took place. I wrote a 14-page
report on the breaches of procedure taken place by the chair, and nobody has acted on any of that.
I don't understand, again, how my sending documents to my political representative constitutes a breach,
harassment in any way. How does my making phone calls to consult persons at hand who administer the
HPC, how is that now a breach of the rules? None of that information is in the notice. Absolutely none.
So if this is the time and place that somebody can give me any information as to why I'm here, how I
breach the rules, I've checked the record. Not only is there a recording of the meeting, but there are
minutes taken. And if I was ruled out of audit, it should be in the minutes. It's not. If you all had
read anything that I had
said in my 92 paragraph notice and the seven or eight attachments, it would have clearly laid out how
this process is flawed, both on the standards set by this council and law. I am at a loss. I am confused.
That's it. I don't have anything else to say. Thank you very much Thank you, sir If anybody would like
to make public comment at this time on on this matter you may do so now and Yeah, if you could put the
timer up for three minutes, please Take it away, sir. If you aim for the record, please. Thank you.
Hi. My name is John Butler and
I'm the new chair of the HPC Brand-new I haven't even got to chair a meeting yet, but I'm looking forward
to it I've been on the HPC for the past year. I Feel that we had a bad meeting in July for the seminary
point hearing we made mistakes mistakes were made by
at all levels of the meeting, myself included. However, Commissioner Cross was not one of the members
who made mistakes. And so I think that when you make a mistake, you need to take some accountability.
You need to figure out what went wrong. If it's necessary, you need to say you're sorry. And I'm willing
to do that. I know what went wrong.
that I had a misunderstanding of some of the basic rules about demolition delay. This is because we've
just switched over to Robert's Rules. It's something we weren't using last year. It's also because demolition
delay is a tricky thing we rarely oppose or rarely slow down. And so the mechanisms are kind of opaque
at times. So, you know, mistakes were made.
Commissioner Cross attempted to point out that we were making these mistakes. He's attempted to get
these mistakes acknowledged and the powers that we did not want to do that or were unable to do that.
And so I really just want to sort of
Underlined that you know, we need to move forward. This whole thing is a huge waste of time. It's been
a waste of your time It's been a you know waste of the city's resources I have complete confidence and
Commissioner cross I believe that I can work with him and that he will be a valuable part of the HPC
if he's allowed to stay on it and
You know, he was on it for five years before this. We never had any problems. We had a bad meeting.
But I think it's time to put it behind us. And I just, I'm sorry that I had anything to do with the
mistakes that were made. But you know, sometimes mistakes are made. And so now we're gonna move forward.
And you know, I encourage civility. I encourage
due process but I also believe we really need to attempt to follow Robert's rules to the best of our
abilities. And you know if there's moments where we're struggling with it we need to take the time to
figure it out. And I think Commissioner Cross can help us do that. So thank you very much. I appreciate
your consideration. Thank you. Mr. Good evening.
My name is Eric host and I appreciate this opportunity to offer comment. I come before you to offer
comment regarding the proposed removal of Rennard cross from the Bloomington historic preservation
commission. Having attended the relevant meetings, I have closely evaluated whether the record establishes
legally sufficient cause for his removal. The common council addressed this identical issue in 2023
regarding Greg Alexander on the traffic commission.
The council's special committee established three core principles. Allegations must specify conduct,
statements, or omissions. The commissioner must receive adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.
There must be a demonstrated connection between the conduct and a diminished fitness to perform the duties.
The third requirement is vital. Under Waller versus City of Madison, removal for cause requires more
than disagreement, friction, or dissatisfaction. The conduct must directly impair the individual's fitness
to continue to serve. No evidence on the public record shows that Mr. Cross is unfit to fulfill his
duties nor has any explanation connected to his conduct, excuse me, any explanation connected to his
conduct indicates
diminished capacity. Mr. Cross has raised substantive questions regarding the Historic Preservation
Commission rules, Robert's Rules of Order, and governing law. Challenging procedure irregularities,
requesting information, and insisting on compliance are not evidence of unfitness, even if they might
be controversial. Disagreeing with how a commissioner exercises his responsibilities is not equivalent
to showing he cannot perform them.
Institutional consistency is at stake in this matter. The council must uphold the same evidentiary and
due process standards it established in 2023. Removing a commissioner for questioning official procedures
sets a dangerous precedent. The question before you is not whether Mr. Cross has been critical
or inconvenient, but whether legal cause has been proven. It is not. I respectfully urge the council to
Protect Commission independence and vote against removal of Bernard cross. Thank you. Thank you Next
person in chambers Hello Paul Rousseau I've just a few remarks I Echo the comments of the last two people.
I strongly urge you to set this aside I watched the
meetings of the Historical Preservation Commission in dispute here. And what I saw was that Mr. Cross
was perhaps the most knowledgeable and articulate member on the committee about all the matters. It
would be a real travesty for him to be removed. What I saw was that no members of the HPC were prevented
from performing their duties. In my view, a delay is not impeding
and certainly not as Mr. Ost just said. It's not grounds for being removed when Mr. Cross was actually
trying to rectify the mistakes that had been made or at least to get an acknowledgement that mistakes
were made and that things would be different going forward. I would like to give you some sense of the
background for this. I would like to read to you just a few of
the remarks that Mr. Cross himself made on June 10th in the meeting. Whenever we make a decision, not
only do we need to be able to defend it credibly, but it should stand up to historical scrutiny. One
of the ways of ensuring that happens is to avail ourselves of all the information, listening to all
the opinions. It is time consuming. However, it is essential.
I've never left this commission feeling that I've not been given an opportunity to fully express and
ventilate my opinion on a position on a topic ever until today. It is sad. With that backdrop, I believe
that what we have here is a political dispute disguised as a procedural dispute. I know that's a little
bit of an incendiary thing to say,
I keep seeing it over and over. The mistakes that were made to release the demolition delay seemed incredibly
rushed. The demolition delay was only 15 days old out of 90 days when the order was lifted.
What was the rush? Well, perhaps the rush was that a mediation was underway to
go around the demolition to actually preserve the housing and Certain political actors didn't want that
to happen so they want to rush it through to get the demolition I don't know, but it didn't look good
It looked very Controlled it looked like an HPC that was not independent Thank you Thank you so much
another commenter here in
Steve Olin former councilmember I served as parliamentarian of this body for more than five years I
watched the three meetings at the root of the case against mr. Cross He objected strenuously and at
length in the HPC meetings of July 9th and 23rd He may have overstepped procedurally, but his conduct
in no way rose to justify the action You're weighing tonight at the meetings of June 25th. The chair
was doing his level best, but he mishandled the essential problem
There were members who wished to postpone the question of the release of the demolition delay of Seminary
Point. Subsidiary motions take precedence and postponing is the first example of a subsidiary motion
listed in section 11 of Roberts. Those members had a right to have a vote on postponement before the
vote to release. They did not understand this right and the chair did not inform them of it.
Later in the meeting when the decision could still have been undone they were dissuaded from moving
to reconsider because another member in Misinformed them that a postponement vote had to wait because
the release vote was already on the floor This was a mistake that the chair did nothing to correct in
the next two meetings several members continued to express this mistaken belief that procedure had been
properly followed and
Mr. Cross objected at length and was accused of filibustering But the HPC had not adopted time limits
from members and no one neither. Mr. Cross the chair or anyone else present Understood how to conduct
his appeal of a decision of the chair which can be found under section 24 of Roberts This decision in
short was taken improperly
Here we are now and it's unclear who specifically moved to expel Mr. Cross from the HPC or how the supposed
defenses escalated to an expulsion hearing so quickly. Almost no disciplinary procedures under section
61 of Roberts were followed within the commission.
They include calling the member to order, which the chair did, but they also include taking down Mr.
Cross's words or naming Mr. Cross. Any HPC member who believed he was holding the floor too long could
have called for a vote to end his holding the floor. Any member could have moved to have him removed
from the meeting, which can be done by a two-thirds vote of the membership. None of these motions were
made. To expel him would be an unprecedented action.
No one has ever been removed from a commission for cause except for non-attendance. That includes Greg
Alexander, who was accused in 2023 of offensive behavior outside of a meeting. Then, as now, the remedy
is not expulsion. The remedies involve censure first. They involve all commissioners better understanding
Roberts well enough to not shake the confidence of people who would serve on boards and commissions
that they will be run out of town for what amounts to political differences.
It gives me it gives me great pains to say that I would have to question my continued presence on a
City Commission If I knew that it was this easy to be ousted from it for such unprincipled reasons Please
do not expel. Mr. Cross. He is a principled man who has a better grasp at times than anyone I know.
Thank you Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone online who wishes to comment? Okay person online
now you may comment
Yes, my name is Amy Butler. I actually had been present at many meetings for the HPC because I was trying
to save a little yellow house on 12th Street that the City Council did end up designating as a historic
site. And at the meetings I've been to,
When I actually was not at the meeting that have seminary point hearing, but I did watch it later. I
have never seen anything like that happen before. Um, the asking the commissioners that asked for more
time were ignored. There were people present who asked for more time. They were ignored. That had never
happened before at meetings. Um, the little yellow house that ended up getting saved. We had asked for
more time and we were granted it. Um, I think it was rushed.
I think there were probably reasons that was being rushed. I don't want to say there was a fix in, but
I felt like it was being rushed for a reason that was unclear to the rest of us at the time. But I feel
that it would be very unfair to remove Renard when he is a person who knows Robert's rules better than
anybody else in that room. And I think that there needs to be more training for our members. So this
doesn't happen again. But I think to remove him would be a poor decision.
And it would be another sad decision the city has made along this entire route with Seminary Point.
I don't think the HPC would be better off without him on it. I think he brings a lot to the table when
he's there with his experience. And I really urge you to please vote to retain him. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Is there anybody else online? Is there anybody else in council chambers who'd like to
make a comment?
You don't count unless you want to make it there. Anybody else want to make a public comment at this
time? OK. Attorney Rossman, would you like to tell us what our options are here? Thank you, President
Asari. Thank you, President Asari. Jacob Rossman, attorney for the Common Council. In its memo tonight
to the council,
The final addendum that was just published actually council staff has outlined some possible options
that the council can take I'll go through those briefly first option a and the staff's formal recommendation
is to drop or postpone consideration tonight without taking a final vote and to refer the general appointee
removal framework to the
on council processes to adopt or standardize rule first. The benefit of this would be to limit any immediate
litigation risk. And it also aligns with the council's ongoing review of Title II, an intermediate opinion
option. A council member could introduce a formal initiating motion on the floor tonight detailing charges.
Authorizing staff to serve an updated notice to mr. Cross with a complete evidentiary packet attached
And set a final deliberation vote for the November 18th meeting The benefit of this would be It would
help Cure any lack of an initiating floor motion so far And afford mr. Cross additional an additional
due process response window third option is the council could
proceed immediately to a vote tonight on removal. However, the council has not formally adopted a new
process yet to remove a council member, which could potentially raise additional due process challenges
under relevant case law. Thank you, Mr. Rossman. Any questions for Mr. Rossman or comments?
OK, I suppose we also could just dismiss the issue. It's another thing we can do. OK, so any comments
at this time? Councilmembers or motions? Councilmember Stasberg. I guess I have, I don't know, is this
a statement? Is this a question? I'm not sure what it is right now.
I guess one of I would like to address to some degree Mr. Cross's initial statement that he gave this
evening in terms of kind of questioning what was the problem? What did he do wrong? Why was sending
the email to the chair a violation of open door? And did he delay the meeting in a way that was
I'll say detrimental or offensive enough to warrant this, which I appreciate the public comment tonight,
especially Mr. Voland's comments in terms of Roberts. And I also want to recognize that this particular
petition issue that was being dealt with with the demolition delay of Seminary Point was a very hot
button issue, I think it is still a very hot button issue for this community. And that anything related
to it then took on a little bit more tension, right, by all parties. And I'll say skepticism, because
there were a couple public commenters that were basically like, this was all political. And I don't
know whether it was or not. I don't know if it was rushed or not. I have no idea. But simply having
that kind of
Thought around it and feeling around it by multiple community members Makes it seem that way regardless
of whether it ever was But I did want to address that some of this stuff at least is covered in the
the commissioner training that the clerk's office is doing and Mr. Cross has still not gone to the training
does not seem interested in the training has berated the training as useless so
That is not something that was publicly done here, but it was something that was done after one of the
HPC meetings. So it's an issue. And in terms of whether or not any part of this situation, I think that
one of the key things for me in terms of legal, which I would maybe want to think about a little bit
more, is, you know,
if, in fact, he is still able to serve on the commission, being fit to serve on the commission in terms
of, I don't know, general demeanor. And I appreciate what Mr. Volin said, like bringing up points of
order shouldn't be a problem, right? I do it myself. It shouldn't be a problem.
I also think that there's a line of, I think that 45 minutes was a little bit long, and it was pretty
clear that everybody else in that meeting was just like, nobody knows what to do right now, and so what
are we supposed to do? It was over by that point. It was kind of like beating a dead horse.
That is a waste of the public's time. That's a waste of the petitioner's time. It's a waste of everybody's
time. And then to walk out after that kind of in a huff to refuse to then participate in the rest also
feels like, OK, if you're going to get upset about things and then not participate, then maybe, in fact,
you're not fit to serve. And that's the question that's going through my head right now in terms of
fitness to serve. And even if it was political, there's political things that happen up here all the time.
my constituents would and should vote any of us out of office if we can't manage to sit up here and
take all the bolarchy, right? So that's part of, you know, whether you're getting shot down by the chair
or berated by the public, because sometimes the public can come in and really holler at us, like we
have to just,
listen and be respectful and know when to push and when to wait and plan a push in another way. I appreciate
that the email was sent to the chair as a follow-up. I hadn't heard about that per se in that context.
But yeah, it shouldn't have been cc'd to everybody and that is a basic open door thing that we've been
operating under for a number of years at this point on our own body.
the only things that will BCC each other sometimes, but generally that is about scheduling. That's what
it's just about. When are you available? And other than that, the nine of us are not on the same message.
I don't email all of my colleagues any substantive information. Even providing information in that way
can be considered a violation, and that is the way that
that bodies like this do business. So I guess that's all I have to say. I don't know about the three
options, so. Thank you. And anyone else? Councilman Flaherty. Sure, thank you. Briefly, I don't find
the open door law stuff compelling at all. I have yet to see any opinion or case law of any kind that
indicates sending an email can violate open door law.
Emails are not meetings full stop That's it and It's actually bit this is a broader problem It's I know
it's a specific sub issue within this thing But this like idea that sending an email to someone is is
enough if I open door law violation is absurd. Anyway on the merits, I appreciate all the comments folks
I agree that we as a council need to continue to establish better process
for Removals for cause from boards and commissions You know the the various due process considerations.
Mr. Cross suggested are warranted that should be You know incorporated into a clearer process and I
appreciate our counsel attorney administrator Advising us to take action on that. I think we should
I think that should proceed apart from this particular proposed removal and I would be satisfied or ready to
act on it tonight by way of declining to remove Mr. Cross from HPC. So that's my view. If that happens
to be the majority of you, I would encourage another colleague to make a motion so we could do that.
But there are multiple paths open to us. So, yeah, thank you. Thank you, Constable Fleuride.
Anyone else? Okay, then I'll make just a very brief comment as well. I think that there's,
First off, I can't speak for all of us, but for myself, I would like to say sorry that you have been
at this many meetings first and foremost. I think that a question that we're not asking is whether after
all of this, you would even still be willing to serve on a committee in the first place. I don't think
that any resident or any person who is a member of any one of our commissions should
ever have to worry about being brought before a public meeting on multiple occasions, being spoken about
by elected officials, being, despite the fact you're appointed and serving in a pseudo-judicial role,
I get that that is a public position and that you accept that when you accept the appointment. But I
just think that there's a
Element of privacy that you deserve and I think that we have far extended what that means regardless
of the merits of this I don't think that this is an appropriate way to treat you or anybody whoever
serves on a commission now that notwithstanding I'd like to then ask my council colleagues I think sort
of building off of the same things that councilmember Flaherty said it's
The idea that somebody that we appoint who we want to be a voice on a commission, somebody who we want
to have their own ideas, somebody who is appointed so that they can actually bring disagreement and
surface them and fight for a position to punish a person
for essentially an act of civil disobedience. Even if you take the fact that you're like, actually,
Robert's rules were followed perfectly and all of those things, even within that structure, if you don't
think that the process is going correctly, for you to stand up and say, look, I'm going to do everything
within my power to stop this process from going forward. We can't hold so tight to rules and regulations,
which our other commissioners said very clearly. They had just adopted.
only to subjugate people to our own outcomes and desires. But then when they beat against those and
use those same rules, mind you, to say that this process isn't working, we go, well, you're out of order.
That is just classic violence.
racially based. I'm not saying that people were racially based in this context, but this is how, through
generations, people like me and like Mr. Cross have been kept under the authoritarian rule of institutions
that were not built to serve us. And I just don't want to live in a city where
where people who serve on our commissions worry about whether or not they know Robert's rules. I don't
want to live in a city where if you do something wrong, we're going to bring you out here and shame
you publicly. And so within my agency to act, I would ask that we, with prejudice,
do not like that we abandon this and do not bring it again. I think that we have the ability, we have
already done it in essence through our process now of doing this over six, seven meetings. We've already
made it clear that hey, this is something that we're concerned about, but we're also adults. And after
all of this, bringing it back to my original question, the fact that Mr. Cross still wants to serve
on this committee after all of this says something to me about fitness to serve to address the conversation that
Point that was brought up before so I just I would beg my colleagues, please to join me in voting against
Mr. Cross's removal. Are there any other comments? Okay, any motions councilmember Stasberg I just I
just want to say that in this situation. It really feels like it's I mean when I watched the meeting
it almost felt like the opposite like it was somebody who did know Roberts rules was bullying those
who didn't and
And that's how it really sounded to me. And I guess I would hope that we can look farther than historic
prejudice and understanding that, yeah, absolutely, those rules were then being used, and potentially
inappropriately, to shame somebody who
was a relatively new chair, I think, and clearly maybe needed more training in how to be chair.
And I mean, we could say that this is a failure all around in terms of how we set up our volunteers,
like, let, like, volunteers to succeed or fail.
the commissions and what it is that we're asking them to do and the HPC is a Commission that is state
it's it's written by state statute like we have to have it by state statute and it it makes it very
important and the items that they deal with are very important and the other piece of this that was
a problem is I do believe there was not an attorney present at the first one of these meetings and There
should have been
in the same way that we have attorneys here, in the same way that Plan Commission has attorneys, in
the same way that I assume a whole bunch of the state statutory boards have attorneys present all the
time at every meeting. I guess that's where I think that there were lots and lots of balls that were
dropped. I think that the one that we're looking at right now specifically feels like a
a question of when that ball got dropped, right? How you then, what is the appropriate way to point
out and say, hey, you dropped the ball, and then how many times do you do it? Like, where's the line,
and did you cross the line? And that's also, like, you know, Mr. Boland really pointed out this idea,
like, well, then shouldn't, you know, like, there's another step, there's a sanctuary step in there
that's in between, and that maybe that's,
Absolutely, what should have happened with additional training and additional understanding and additional
like here's where the line, you know roughly is and Here's how it got stepped over And also if there
are any motions happy to take them mindful of time everyone Yes, I have a question for you president.
Sorry Did you approve the memo that went to mr. Cross on August 21st? I
from our counsel attorney? I'm very sorry to say that I do not remember. I'm so sorry, Mr. Allen. I
literally do not remember. I don't know. I don't believe the Council President approved the exact form
of the letter. We had talked about the outlines and what was going to be in the letter, but not the
text of the letter. Thank you. That's my recollection.
If I could follow up, I think this has been mishandled in countless ways, both on our end and to some
extent on the HPC members and even on Mr. Cross. I think there have been mistakes up and down the line.
And even though I am a member of interview committee C that voted unanimously to recommend removal,
I think that this is foo bar and we just can't follow. I don't think we should add. I don't think we're
in a position to make a good decision here. We just the process has been so flawed that I think we need
to dismiss this now. Come up with a policy make that policy known to everybody involved to
all the commissions and then follow through with it.
Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Smith. Any others. Go ahead. Motion. Go ahead. Please. I move to dismiss
this without prejudice. Sorry. Sorry. I don't watch enough Law and Order.
with prejudice There's a motion in the second discussion counselor Piedmont Smith What does that what
does with prejudice mean just to clarify for everybody My understanding is it means that we're done
talking about it. We can't bring this specific issue back up under this specific scenario
You would never be able to raise these charges against the individual based on these meanings ever again
in the future Thank you any other discussion All right. All those in favor of the of the motion to dismiss
roll call. Okay Councilman app counselor clerk Bolden. Will you please? call roll on the motion to dismiss
with prejudice and
Okay. Council member Flaherty. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Smith. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes.
Yes. And that motion carries. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. Thank you all for being here.
We'll now move on to legislation for first readings. Are there any motions. I move. I think so.
I move to introduce for the clerk to read by title and synopsis only ordinance twenty twenty six dash
twenty seven motion in the second. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed. Will the
clerk please read.
Ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty seven to fix the salaries of all elected city officials for
the city of Bloomington for the year twenty twenty seven. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance
recommended by the special fiscal committee sets the twenty twenty seven salaries for all elected city
officials for the city of Bloomington. Thank you. I move to discuss ordinance twenty twenty six dash
twenty seven motion and second all those in favor of discussing.
Opposed okay Thank you as chair of the special fiscal committee, I'll go ahead and present this I wrote
a memo in there I don't want to belabor this particular ordinance right now because I do expect it to
go to second reading after much discussion
Too long didn't read the special fiscal committee decided to recommend a two point seven percents COLA
increase for all elected official salaries this year and also wanted to ask staff to do some specific
research into Into this issue during the next year The
There are four of us on that committee it passed to one councilmember Flaherty was not present at that
meeting and I voted against this recommendation and that's why I have included those two possible amendments
I They are of course like exclusively can't have both of them one of them is simply keeping the 2026
salaries and
And I could talk more about my reasoning for either of these if you want me to And the other one is
kind of doing something a little bit different. It's it's addressing the ultimate inequities and how
cola increases mostly benefit those at the top of the pay scale and not the bottom of the pay scale
and So then it essentially averages the overall cola increase and then divides it between the 11 and
elected positions and And so then there's not a fiscal impact like the fiscal impact is the same as
giving the two point seven percent to each individual position So it doesn't change the monetary piece.
I felt with my amendments I didn't want to change any of the monetary piece in terms of having to adjust
budgets or figure out where additional salary money might come from and I've also included in the memo
kind of an outline of something
that we've talked about, that we started with that framework that was started a couple of years ago.
the guiding principles which got adjusted by council members Flaherty and Piedmont Smith and then we
were working on all of the rest of it in terms of the Process and so one of the pieces of that I wanted
to highlight right now is Essentially working on this much earlier in the year. So then if there are
significant budgetary impacts of Different salaries that those get realized well before budget season
instead of in budget season because otherwise like
I mean, it's just sort of, it's opposite to do anything with that. So does anybody have any questions?
Any questions? All right. Seeing none, we will go to a time of public comment. Anyone like to comment
on this ordinance? Anyone online? Coming back to council, would any, oh, there you are, Councilmember
Ruff. Does anybody like to make any comments on this?
Or the amendments and we can also introduce the amendments if you'd like I Just wanted to comment that
I'm not in favor of not Including a cola increase. I'm not in favor of the amendments. I think I'm sorry.
I couldn't quite hear you. Can you speak? Oh Sorry, usually I'm too loud. I'm not in favor of the amendments
of not Of not including a cola increase
I think across the board I think that's what what we need to be doing and I think we need to keep an
eye on or an eye toward incoming future councils. I don't want to be sending a message that you know
we're going to keep things stagnant. So in favor of the amendment or not the amendment the ordinance
not the amendments. So that's where I'm at right now. Yes can I ask a clarifying question. So you're.
Clearly you're not in favor of amendment one and you're why not in favor of amendment two I think we
should just do standard cola increases. Keep it simple. Thank you Councilmember Sasser, I guess I wanted
to follow up a little bit on that too So you so you don't have a concern then generally speaking about
the inequities related to the those at the top of the pay scale getting much larger cola increases than
those at the bottom of the pay scale and
Well, we don't do it any differently for the other staff in the city. That's true. So and that that
was Right. We've discussed doing it that way and that was the discussion at the special fiscal meeting
and that was why I mean what got presented I mean, obviously I got out voted Was basically like well,
we don't do it anywhere else So why should we do it here and my argument would essentially be maybe
we should start doing it somewhere and we
Have the power in this particular ordinance. We don't necessarily have the power in civil staff So that
would be my argument for that explanation Second time third time, you know what happens So I wanted
to say and I know this is unusual in terms of who speaks when but
I appreciate councilmember Stossberg's looking at how council salaries and clerk salaries and mayoral
salaries are set from a different perspective. And I've heard her speak about equity in coal increases
for I can I think I can comfortably say years because you talked about it in 2024 as well. So this isn't
new. I am concerned about the way that you've proposed it because
You're proposing a COLA percentage increase of 0.8, which is significantly less than the cost of living
increase that you've seen for the mayor over the last several years. The clerk's office would be at 1.25%
for a COLA increase and the council would see a COLA increase or salary increase at 4.49%, which is
higher than most actually all city staff. If you assume the council salary based off of 20 hours a week,
you all would make about $24.69. There are city staff members who are job grade three who make less
than you do per hour, but they serve full time and sometimes under very difficult conditions. So looking
at this, I understand the intent and I think it's good to try and approach it from a different perspective.
But I also think that doing it in this way gives the council themselves a significant bump that other
city staff will not achieve. That's all. Thank you very much. Any other council members. I'll just make
one comment. It's you know.
Hill I am Diagon but I think we have an opportunity and perhaps our last opportunity to think and address
the questions of clerk clerk
responsibilities, workload, et cetera, vis-a-vis council and council staff. It's the last time I get
to make this argument, Clerk Bolden. And I would be for, as I've said before, as I said when we did
clerk office salaries, I would be for raising the clerk's salary more substantially and giving them
more responsibility for the management of council, office, et cetera.
Recognize that this is not a position that anybody else is is of but I'm just going to say it While
I have a chance to any other comments. Okay motions. Oh councilmember Sasper. I Just want to say that
that that's an interesting idea except that the clerk responsibilities are in state code technically
and that It would be it would have to be a negotiation with every single clerk
Thinking about this and I know Clark Bolton You have said this to me multiple times in terms of setting
up the office for the future, right? Like because we're it's not always gonna be the same nine of us
up here It's not always gonna be the same person over there It's not always gonna be at the same mayor
and we need to be more forward-thinking than that And one of the things about elected official salaries
for those of you who don't know they can't go down Once they go up, they can't go down
And so that's honestly like one of mine by by leaving it at 2026 values It kind of goes well if we can't
decide how they should go up Then maybe they should just stay where they are And so that's why like
I don't even know which of those amendments I like the best I just was throwing them all out there.
Thanks So I'll I was gonna make a motion if you wanted me to so I'll go ahead and move to Consider ordinance
2026 27 for second reading at our next regularly
regular session which Thank you is November 9th 18th November 18th Any discussion Okay, all those in
favor say aye Any opposed? All right. Thank you. That will be read for a second reading on November
18th. Are there any motions I Move that ordinance 2026 dash 31 be introduced and read by the clerk by
title and synopsis only
Motion to second, any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the clerk please read?
Ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty one UDO amendments related to housing attainability synopsis
is as follows this ordinance contains amendments to the unified development ordinance to amend the use
specific standards regulating the use dwelling accessory unit dwelling cottage home dwelling duplex
dwelling triplex and dwelling fourplex council sponsor is Stossberg. Thank you very much. Any other
motions. I move to discuss ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty one.
motion in a second any discussion Okay, all those in favor say aye aye Any opposed? All right Councilman,
we're gonna say something first and then we'll hand over there's this will there just be a very brief
note on this one Oh, no, I don't have anything I mean I'm sponsoring I'm the sponsor on this because
I am the council member that represents playing Commission So I thought that that was most appropriate
Mr. Grulick or or mr. Coyne where either of you gonna
Comment on this one. Yes but I think there was I might have got the numbers wrong but it was this the
one where there was a needs to there was some issue. I don't. There was a minor change. I think there
was a language. Okay. I'm conflating the position in the definition of duplex. That was the only take
it away. I'm conflating the one that wasn't ready that we're going to have to delay. Go ahead.
And so I apologize. I was talking with council staff for a second. Did you want me to give just a Do
the presentation sir Wonderful. Excellent. Happy to happy to move forward here then so this is kind
of the last series of amendments that the the planning department had have a
been working on since last year beginning part of last year we had started to highlight several aspects
within the unified development ordinance that kind of controlled housing and you know regulated how
much housing you can build within the city. What are the different uses that can happen within districts.
What are the standards that control that. And so we had come up with a very lengthy list of things setbacks
subdivision standards allowing a diversity of land use
a lot of that language or those intentions were addressed with the council resolution that dealt with
setbacks and subdivision standards there was also a house bill that was coming forward last year that
we were watching and looking for what would be the implications for the UDO and
And so there were some things within that house bill that we did need to adjust specifically with accessory
dwelling units And so the amendments to the udio that are before you tonight kind of deal with three
aspects This is kind of the last set of cleanups that we have So one of those deals with accessory dwelling
units. So as I mentioned part of house bill 1001 is
did introduce a new definition for accessory dwelling units. So we are syncing our definition of accessory
dwelling units.
With the language within house bill 1001 another aspect of the zoning code That provides for a diversity
of housing that we haven't seen utilized very much is for cottage home developments And so we are proposing
to kind of amend the language within that to adjust the density standards that allow within that and
then the last component dealt with duplexes and specifically
Several of the aspects that control duplexes So just for the council's general reminder When duplexes
were approved several years ago, there were some new specific restrictions that govern how those are
Evaluated there were also some spatial restrictions that created a hundred and fifty foot buffer around
every duplex for two years that didn't allow for any others within
Buffer there was also a maximum of duplexes that were allowed per calendar year of 15 And so we are
proposing to remove both of those to remove the spatial buffering requirement You know that 150 foot
buffer. We're also proposing to remove that cap that 15 number cap that is in the udl and
And so a lot of those those two aspects Work towards some of the language that was in house bill 1001
that directed communities to look at barriers to housing within their community So these were two things
certainly that that we could address and bring forward another aspect with duplexes and triplexes that
we are adjusting is for triplexes and four plexes there's language that
restricts that building to only two entrances. And so as we encountered some situations with triplexes
and fourplexes where they wanted to condomize a unit and have each unit have its own entrance, you know,
restricting that building to only two entrances really prevents you from establishing a two true owner
occupied unit with your own door, your own entrance and being kind of your own self-sufficient little
unit there. So we were proposing to remove that.
And then as I mentioned with the use specific standards for duplexes as we have gone through the process
of evaluating those You know one of the criteria deals with roof pitch, but we have also consistently
utilized that to Deal with the orientation of that roof design so that gables are of houses along the
street are facing the same direction So we're proposing an amendment just for that one particular element
So real quickly on the screen here, I've shown the language that was in house bill 1001 Dealing with
accessory dwelling units. So we are modifying our language within the UDO to sync with that as I mentioned
one of the standards or several the standards that we are proposing to adjust with duplexes was related to the
Number that is required for the number that is allowed per year that spatial buffer that is created
around that and then the orientation of the roofs at the plan commission one of the changes that they
wanted to make for.
Duplexes allowed for the utilization of houses along both sides of the street When they are evaluating
the four specific elements that are in the udio So the Planning Commission added language to allow for
both sides of the street to be utilized for that evaluation And then the third one that or the yeah,
the third aspect was for cottage developments so this is a development type where
You typically have a common area of sorts and then houses that are kind of circling that in some capacity
When this particular language was incorporated within the UDO we were we were obviously proposing it
from a very conservative standpoint and so the the density of housing that was allowed on a particular
property was correlated to
If you were to take that same property and subdivide it based on the minimum lot size in the district
how many houses would you get on that particular property. So the density standards that you see here
were kind of reflective of of that equation. But long story short we haven't seen this utilized hardly
at all. So it certainly does provide a nice opportunity to have a diversity of housing options. So you know the.
density limits and the minimum and maximum project sizes have certainly been a hindrance in terms of
how these have been utilized. And we've even recently been working with an individual to utilize this
but the density restrictions just just don't allow them to accomplish the number of units that they
need there. So we are proposing to increase those density standards to give a higher probability of
this housing type being used within the community.
So with that the planning commission heard this at their October 12th planning commission meeting and
they voted five to zero to forward this to the common council with a favorable recommendation. So that
is what we are proposing. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Council members any questions. Council member Piedmont Smith.
Yes in regard to House Bill 1001 does it actually require that municipalities define the 80 years in
the same way that they are defined in state code to do that as as I mentioned late last year you know
early part of last year you know we had considered several different aspects for accessory dwelling
units of things to possibly modify you know one of those
possible modifications was to allow to accessory dwelling units on a property you know another aspect
to try that we were considering evaluating was removing the owner occupancy restriction and then we
also had kind of looked at increasing the size that could be allowed for those units so with the change
of the house bill that certainly presented a good opportunity to you know make sure that our definitions
match with the state approved but also you know kind of carry forward with
Increasing the size a little bit to help make them a little bit more viable Okay, but it's not required.
It's not required. No, okay. Thank you Any other questions Because we're suspect users oh, sorry, it's
just stretching. All right, we'll go to public comment then at this time Would anybody like to make
a public comment on 2020 on ordinance? 2026 31 Anyone online
Thank you so much. We'll come back to council. We have someone online. Ah, very exciting. Person online,
you may speak at this moment. You have three minutes. You can just state your name for the record. My
name is Jamie Scholl. I won't take three minutes. Thank you for this time, by the way. Whenever we're
considering density, there's some questions that come to mind, some points.
basically every time we talk about this. And one is, do we have the appropriate infrastructure to support
this development? Do we have enough support for BPD, for fire? I watch these meetings and maybe not everyone,
But when hearing about we need a new ladder truck for fire, was that not considered when approving all
these very tall buildings? Another one is green space. Green space is absolutely necessary for positive
mental health and to help those to to help stay out of a depressive state.
It has many benefits. There's many scientific studies that show it's beneficial. I don't know if that's
been planned in. And lastly, is this kind of development, is this going to support home ownership or
will this be more, mostly largely wealth creation for developers and the rentier class?
I'm concerned that we have so many renting and we have a lot of people who want to own homes and they
don't have a way to do that. So whenever hearing about more density, those are the points that come
to mind and I hope those are something that I'll consider. Thank you. Thank you so much, Michelle. Any
other commenters online? Anyone in chambers?
Okay we'll come back to council for any final comments or motions or things that you'd like to see addressed
before a second reading. Councilman Piedmont Smith I guess it would be useful before for the second
reading or before to have some kind of visual to describe what it might look like with the greater density
cottage developments.
You know 43 units per acre that sounds like a lot at multiple stories et cetera. How does that interplay
with the height limitations things like that. So if we could get some examples maybe of higher density
cottage developments from other communities that would be helpful. Thank you so much council member.
Any others things you'd like to see before the next meeting. Going once twice motion.
Sorry, sorry, no too late. No, go ahead. It comes from Stasburg. I was gonna motion. I was gonna Oh,
there's a motion. Okay, move for move that we Move ordinance 20 26 31 to a second reading in two weeks
at our next regularly scheduled Session regular session on November 18th. Thank you very much. Is there
a second? Thank you motion and a second by comes for Piedmont Smith by a fraction
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That will be discussed at our next regular
session. Are there any motions? I move that ordinance 2026-32 be introduced and read by the clerk by
title and synopsis only.
Any discussion I'll just note for everybody's and the planning is going to say this in a second But
there's we still haven't got all of the signatures for petition So we're not going to be able to act
on this regardless Planning is asking that we still do the first reading of it But we'll have to delay
it and I will explain a little bit We need to delay it beyond our next meeting. So just for everybody's
awareness as we vote on this but
So the motion and the second will the clerk. Oh no. All those in favor say aye aye. Will the clerk please
read ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty two to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps and zone
property currently in the Monroe County jurisdiction to mixed use corridor in anticipation of voluntary
annexation the snaps. This is as follows. This ordinance would zone.
0.77 acres to mix use corridor in connection with a voluntary annexation Councilmember Stossberg sponsors.
Thank you very much At this point I'm gonna make a motion to also read to the next ordinance so we can
discuss them together for sake of brevity, so I move to the to introduce ordinance 2026 dash 33 To read
to yeah, you said introduce Oh
I'm sorry. This is why I should have my things pulled up in front of me to be introduced and read by
the clerk by title and synopsis only. Sorry. Sorry. I was getting there. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed. All right. Well, please read twenty twenty six thirty three or.
Ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty three to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps and zone
property currently in the Monroe County jurisdiction to residential multifamily in anticipation of voluntary
annexation. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance would zone five point five three one acres to
residential multifamily in connection with a voluntary annexation. Thank you very much. I move to discuss
ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty two and ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty three.
Second motion and a second all those in favor. Aye. Any opposed. All right. It can just say Mr. Grulick
maybe or I don't know if Mr. Wheeler is now online. He wasn't earlier. But if you want to maybe just
say a few things about this and then explain why we cannot take action on this yet.
Yeah absolutely. So both of these two ordinances or a recommendation from the Plaint Commission to the
council to accompany a voluntary annexation request for these two particular areas. So the Plaint Commission
made a recommendation for zoning so that recommendation should follow with the same hearing of when
the actual voluntary or the actual annexation discussion and action should happen so that
Obviously if the council does choose to annex it then that zoning can be implemented. You know if you
choose not to annex them then the zoning is irrelevant or that that particular aspect is irrelevant.
So they need to be brought forward together to be heard at the same time. So the actual annexation component
still has a few things to be done on the outside end so that that can come forward separately but at
the same time.
and there's a time we need to do that within 20, there's a 20 day window that you need to make
an announcement for, is that correct?
Think it's a I think there's a 20-day notice period or a 10-day. Oh, yes Yes, so the annexate and I
don't know if mr. Wheeler is online if he wants to speak to that But yes, there is a public
notice requirement for the actual annexation component So that has not been initiated yet. So as soon
as that Process has started and that 20-day notice period has ran out then it can be placed on the council
agenda Excellent. So So with that being said it might be useful if anybody has things that you'd like
to raise before this is
brought back if you want it to be brought back or any questions or clarifications at this point. Otherwise
we should move this to at the earliest December 2nd. Councilmember Puma Smith. Well I guess I'll just
note that I the ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty two for 222 South Johnson Street.
I'm a little concerned about the zoning recommendation being commercial in that it seems to be Most
of the parcels are I'm sorry. This is the one that is to 32 lots 0.77 acres It's yeah 26-32
zoning recommendation is for MC multi-use
for mixed use corridor. It does seem to sit behind the houses on Third Street that are commercial buildings.
And so I'm questioning why it would be a commercial building since it is does not have direct access
to Third Street. So if that could be clarified and elucidated next time we talk about this I would appreciate
it. Thank you very much.
Any others? OK. Wonderful person in charge of motions. Would you like to make one? Don't we need to
go to public comment? I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Would anybody like to make public comment on this
ordinance? On either of them, sorry.
Actually, let me do it one by one. Would anybody like to make comment on ordinance 202632? Is there
anyone online? Anyone online? Is there anyone to tell me whether there's anyone online? I'm going to
assume there's no one online. Anyone like to make comment on ordinance 202633? I assume there's no one online.
All right, we'll come back to council Any comments all right, so with that Motion I move to send ordinance
twenty twenty six dash thirty two and ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty three To our meeting on
December 2nd Second motion in a second all those in favor Any opposed
Thank you very much. Those two ordinances will be discussed on December 2nd. Move on. Are there any
motions? I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty four be introduced and read by the clerk
by title and synopsis only. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed.
All right. Will the clerk please read.
Ordinance 2026-34 to vacate public parcels regarding two 12-foot wide alley segments located in the
southwest corner of West 11th Street and North Rogers Street. Trades District Community Development,
LLC petitioner and owner. Synopsis is as follows. The petitioner owner, Trades District Community
Development, LLC, request vacation of two alleys that are in the southwest corner of West 11th Street
and North Rogers Street.
These parcels are part of the trades district West phase and are being prepared for redevelopment council
sponsor is Stossberg Thank you very much Correct I am the council sponsor for that one This was a error
on let me restate that say the council sponsor is a sorry my apologies to Stossberg for listing her again
Yeah she's got plenty today. I move to discuss ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty four. Second.
All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed. All right. I'll just maybe actually I'll hand
over to the birthday boy himself. Sorry. Yes. Just point of order you need to pass the.
Yes, because I'm the sponsor you wanted to go there you go Yeah, so you can do it then I don't have
anything to say I might have things to say later But it's his birthday With the birthday boy like to
Present that's Yeah, what a great gift
I guess it is matter of public record what my birthday is, but thank you. Yeah So for the City Council,
I just want to first start by thanking you because you've all been very supportive of the work We're
doing with the trades district. So we always appreciate that State your name for the John Fernandez.
I'm the CEO of amplify Bloomington the property that is subject to this Piece of legislation is owned
by the trades district
Community Development Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of amplify Bloomington just for
the record So I think that proposal is pretty straightforward. There are some old platted alleys on
this property That have not been developed by the city or used as public rights away as far as I can
tell ever They
They don't really connect anything and there's no network that they would connect to had they been developed
the property alley that runs south of 11th Street actually stops halfway through the property so it
doesn't even proceed all the way to The adjacent property of the south which would be a building if
it did that's where the beeline Heights
Apartments are there's an alley platted that runs east-west from Rogers Street West to the Bender property
and there's no I mean the Bender property has been there forever and So we're not sure it would ever
connect anything it had it been developed as an alley these alleys I would just say that you know this
parcel if you're familiar with it. It's pretty challenging and
It's been vacant for a long time. It has recorded environmental conditions so that you can't have ground
floor residential unless you do a soil management plan for the site. It also has water infrastructure
from 1910. So there's some significant infrastructure requirements for the property. These alleys, as
they're platted,
I just add one more challenge and obstacle as we try and secure development partners to build on that
site, consistent with the vision that we all have for the trades district. I would just say that if
these alleys are vacated, which we certainly hope they will be,
Any development on the site's gonna have to go to the Planning Commission and and we'll have to work
with the City Planning Department So any issues of connectivity, I feel confident will be seriously
addressed and they'll be adequately addressed because we need to have a good access for pedestrians
bicyclists and and vehicles as well so the request is
Our judgment is very consistent with the city's councils policy as it relates to alley vacations and
we would just really Ask for the council support and happy to answer any questions Thank you very much
Thank you very much, thank you does any council member have any questions I
Seeing no questions. We'll go to that was easy We'll go to public comment. Anybody in chambers have
public comment or anybody online? Nobody online anybody in chambers All right, we're gonna come back
to council for council comment any council members have comment. Oh Council member ala presentation
Mr. Fernandez, I'm generally in support of
maintaining alleys throughout the city, but Having listened to the arguments and and observed the The
geography of this Vacation I don't I see it in the better public interest to vacate it and so I'll be
supporting of that this today Thank you Anybody else have comment
on this ordinance twenty six thirty four. All right. Seeing seeing council member sorry I'd just like
to echo council member Rallo's point. I do generally and I think we've discussed this here before like I.
I tend to be concerned with setting precedents particularly with things like alley vacations because
you know then the next time someone wants a vacation they look at you know last time we did a vacation
and You know, but I but I do think that this is I Think that it is a an exception. I'm a very clear
one and I'm also will be supporting and obviously I'm sponsoring it but I
I just just just to note that this is not a statement of my general views around alleys But I do think
that in this particular case and what we're trying to do in the trades district. It's Both necessary
and I mean maybe not necessary, but I have certainly I'm ideal Thank you very much. All right, and with
that councilmember Stossberg I agree with my two colleagues. I generally don't like alley vacations,
but when I look at these right now, they're both kind of dead end and
alleys and Dead-end alleys are also not particularly useful in terms of how we manage planning and things
like that so I At this point don't see any problems with it, but I do assume that this is going to second
reading. Is that correct? Okay. Well, I was just making sure that that was the assumption of other citizen
ordinance and I assume that it was going to second reading so
Councilmember Flaherty Sure I share some of the sentiments my colleagues of just as a general Starting
principle, you know preferring to to maintain any platted public right-of-way in the city the challenge
with these kind of decisions is that there are They're potentially a hundred year plus decisions.
I mean, that's the time scale of things. We're talking about whatever gets built at the trades district
Won't be there forever
When it's no longer there, conditions may have changed. We might wish we had alleys. It's just really
hard to see into the future. That said, I'm not a 100% never vacate alleys no matter what person, but
I do feel like to me there's a more compelling case when there's a clear vision of what is getting built.
It's like, okay, a convention center, say.
that's of a scale or size that you simply cannot do it, or maybe can't reasonably do it without vacating
some alley. The other concerns I have, I don't care that much, I mean, I like alley connectivity,
I prefer it, but that's not the only factor to me. I think they're really useful for a lot of reasons,
including utilities and trash, and also just controlling massing and scale of buildings. I think there
are very few exceptions
Of building types in a city our size that I think Need to be or must be bigger than a quarter block
I think I think the buildings called the Avenue now, you know much talked about for many reasons for
a long time I just don't think generally we need City block sized buildings again. There are some exceptions
to that a convention center might be one but in general I just don't find it very compelling to and
I think when you vacate alleys and
you lose the default. I was concerned about this with Hopewell, by the way, as well, when the administration
came in and vacated the prior plat, which had been created for the purpose of trying to help control
some of that building scale and massing. In a blank slate, what's going to tend to happen is
value engineering is going to lead towards the biggest building because the economy is a scale, and
that all comes at a cost. It comes at a tradeoff for how our urban form
looks, feels, whether it's human scale. That's not to say that if we vacate these out, these things
will go poorly here or anything like that. But to me, these are all a set of factors that are kind of
hard to overcome. So I'm not sure I will be supporting it. If we need to vote tonight, that's fine.
Or if we need to vote another time, that's fine too. I appreciate the petition and the arguments for
it. I just wanted to share my perspective on it. Thanks. All right, thank you.
Anybody else. OK. Do I have a motion. Yeah you can. Council member Stossberg I would move to send ordinance
20 26 34 to a second reading at our next regularly scheduled meeting on November 18th. Second. All right.
Motion and a second.
Thanks. Do we vote on that? I can't remember all of a sudden. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Aye. Anybody opposed? No. All right. That passes. One, two, three, four, five, six to one. All right.
I'm going to pass that back.
He said he was gonna say yes if anyways, hello everyone. Here we are. Thank you very much back to things
What you want to say? Oh council members that's where thank you I would like to make a motion to suspend
the rules in order to amend the gen the agenda to align the next three ordinances with the prepared
slideshow and Consider them in the following order
First ordinance 2026 37, which is currently item H next 2026 35, which is currently item F and then
ordinance 2026 36 item G so do HFG Oh The most recent agenda did that This is the problem of having
too many addendums
So they go 14, 18, and then fund. Perfect. Never mind then. Thank you. It's been done. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. So what you want to say? I move that ordinance 2026-37 be introduced and read
by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second. Motion to second. Any discussion? All those in favor
say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Will the clerk please read?
Will you please give me a moment because I'm actually going to try and find that. Absolutely.
Thank you. That's funny. That's exactly what I was thinking. I've been practicing my stand up to. Okay
I'm ready now. Ordinance 20 26 dash 37 an amendment to chapter 14 point four zero point zero six zero
of Title 4 of the Bloomington Municipal Code regarding false emergency alarms.
The synopsis is as follows, this ordinance sponsored by council member Stasberg, amend section 1440
060 A and B of title 14 of the Bloomington municipal code entitled peace and safety to allow specific
fire personnel to issue a notice of violation, refer all fine language to title 18 and add clarification
to cases of fire, fire false alarms. Sponsors Stasberg.
Thank you. I move to discuss ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty seven Okay, all those in favor
of discussing Any opposed all right, let us discuss go ahead councilmember Stasberg I don't really have
much to say about this one either it's I've been very pleased to work with the fire department on these
three ordinances and They have a whole show prepared for us You know, yeah, take it away, sir. It doesn't
And don't feel that you have to, you've been here from the beginning. Don't feel like you need to make
the end longer, you know? Don't worry. My part will be very short. Roger Kerr, Chief of the Fire Department.
Just wanted to point out we've got, I know they've come in three separate ordinances, but really they
all work together on our side as one. So just want to point that out. And I just want to say this is
something that started probably as much as three years ago to get to where we're at tonight. So this
has been going on for some time to get to where we're at this point.
Not something that just happened in a short order, but I'll turn it over to a deputy chief lit one and
fire marshal You Meyer for the experts on this and why we're here. So I'll leave it to them. Thank you
Fire marshal Jeff you Meyer City of Bloomington Fire Department Proposal
to amend title 14 and Repel and reenact title 18 and establish the fire fund as chief said that these
kind of all work together Together, but we're going to do them as separate. So the amendment to title
14 Currently this would allow just as stated the fire department to issue and collect fines without
having to call a police officer currently title 14 the only way for
Is citation to be issued is by the police department so for false for any type of false alarm whether
it be a Police false alarm or a fire first alarm. So amendments to this would allow the fire department
to issue those citations for false alarms for the fire department Or we have a I'm sorry There we go
Here we're caught up. I apologize. I just started talking. So there's no changes to these sections of
title 14 The changes are as follows so section a would allow or adding the fire chief and their designees
to that section and then section B, we're basically updating the fine schedule for police to coordinate
and match what will be
It set forth in title 18 which will discuss that fee schedule during that presentation Any questions
about title 14 Any questions, yeah, by the way, yeah, okay any questions All right, I'm seeing none
we'll now move to public comment would anybody like to comment on the riveting changes to title 14 and
Seeing none anyone online I'm shocked and amazed. We'll come back to counsel and he any comments I'll
just say for this one specifically I think that it's really valuable to allow our fire department to
issue the citations for the violations that they're sort of in charge of determining whether or not
their violations and I that feels like an
a lapse in code that's been, I'm not sure how many years in the making, but they're the ones that are
gonna know whether or not a violation took place, and so they're the ones that should be able to write
a ticket. Thank you so much. I'll say that I would be very happy to vote for this now. If anybody's
against it, I would love to know. Second. Well, I'm not motioning it, but just saying. That was my comment.
Any other comments?
So I prefer to vote for it. You want to do a motion then you can. No we did public comment then we came
back. Yeah. So you want to do because we're all. Well I'll make the motion to adopt ordinance 20 26 37.
I think we have to yeah, we have there's some intermediary step does anybody remember what it is like
move to consider Move to consider this first second reading tonight boy. Where's where's that CCP memo
when we need it Because we have to have unanimous consent in order to consider it tonight
So maybe maybe that needs to be the motion like move move to consider it tonight because then there
has to be two votes There has to be a move to consider it tonight, which has to be unanimous and then
there has to be a move for adoption Which I think needs a two-thirds majority to pass motion and I'll
make a motion for us to consider ordinance 2026 37
Second, okay. This has to pass unanimously and will the clerk please call the roll Councilmember Stossberg.
Yes Piedmont Smith Yes, sorry. Yes, daily. Yes, Rallo. Yes rough and flirty and
Thank you very much that we can now consider it if you'd like Would you like to make another motion
I move that we we adopt ordinance 2026 37 Motion in a second all those in favor I'm sorry. I actually
meant to say any discussion seeing none clerk. Will you please call the roll? Thank you
Councilmember Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Ruff? Yes. Flaherty? Yes.
And Stossberg? Yes. Congratulations. That passes. You'll never have to talk about it again. Fantastic.
You may sit while we do this all over again for the next ones. Though I might say, just as a suggestion,
we could put them together. We can't? Fine. OK, go on.
I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty five be introduced and read by the clerk by title
and synopsis only motion a second any discussion. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed. Will the
clerk please read. Yes. And again that was ordinance twenty twenty six thirty five thirty six thirty
five. Ordinance.
2026 35 to repeal and reenact title 18 of the Bloomington municipal code entitled fire prevention. The
synopsis is as follows. This ordinance repeals and reenacts the city's outdated 1997 fire prevention
code to align with Indiana state standards. It outlines the fire chief's authority to manage fire scenes,
conduct investigations, perform life safety inspections, order evacuations and review safety plans for
new and remodeled class one structures.
The updated regulations establish stricter controls for open burning, consumer fireworks, vacant buildings,
tents, crowd managers, and fire watch personnel. To improve emergency response and scene access, the
ordinance standardizes street addressing, fire lanes, key boxes, water supply requirements, and emergency
electrical disconnects. Furthermore, it mandates smoke detectors in all city dwelling units and requires
regular maintenance and testing for fire hydrants, extinguishers, and mandatory emergency lighting systems.
Finally, the code introduces inspection fees and sets specific violation fines, aligning enforcement
with Bloomington Municipal Code 1.01.130 to allow penalties of up to $2,500 per occurrence. Council
sponsor is Stossberg. Thank you so much. I move to discuss Ordinance 2026-35. Second. Motion and a second.
All those in favor say aye. Aye.
All right back to you sir Fire marshal city of Bloomington. The reason for the changes to we're repealing
and reenacting title 18 as stated title 18 hasn't been updated since 1997 it's all nearly 30 years since
then the state of Indiana which is really behind on the codes anyways has updated their codes four times
since then.
This will improve our consistency with Indiana law and your clear give us clear guidance for property
owners developers contractors and the public The proposed ordinance will update reference current Indiana
adopted codes currently, Indiana is using the 2014 code
It'll also clarify the authority of the fire chief and their designees Currently that would be myself
fire marshal and two deputy fire marshals Just establish clear enforcement procedures including notices
violations emergency orders and the appeals process More changes improved fire department access road
and fire protection system requirements and
Improve overall life safety requirements for new developments and redevelopments To establish a better
fee and fine schedule Would remote public safety And deter building owners from ignoring critical fire
and other code violations also with the fee schedule we could recover cost from responding to
repeated false fire alarms Part of the fee schedule is that is here establishing fees I can encourage
business owners and contractors to correct violations sooner than later and also Would do we would have
less re-inspections if we're charging re-inspection fees as you can see on the fee schedule a little
Off up there, but as you can feel the fee schedule no fees would be charged for the first inspection
the first Reinspection it would be the third inspection or the second reinspection before any fees would
be established And also the sections in there with the new construction So the first acceptance test
would be at no charge and if they failed an acceptance test, it would be a $250 fee
So the fines will be a deterrent for business owners who just ignore the violations and do not correct
them will help honestly to never have to find anyone. That's our goal. Our goal is to intervention is
to educate people and get them to understand why the things need fixed or why it's a violation and educate
them and help them understand rather than to find we never anticipate this to be
a revenue source but we do have with these we do have the option for those that do not correct things
in a timely manner. We have used the up to twenty five hundred dollars limit just for a way to break
down the difference for something minor a minor violation first something a critical life safety violation or
a first-time violation of something small verse a repeat over and over violation of the same violation
at the same location Excuse me an example of that would be Exit doors change shut for an event or something
like that versus just a simple exit light out if we set a standard fee then those two would could potentially
have the same foot fee so
We just that's why we went with the up to twenty five hundred dollars a day to give flexibility the
occupancy in excess of certification. Just to clarify that that would be a business or say a bar or
an event that is over occupied not anything residential not a residential occupancy. Any questions to
title 18. Any questions.
Open burning violation with the deep. What does that really constitute? I Mean I the open burning the
open burning violation. I noticed it now the fine could go up to $2,500 and you know, I occasionally
see around town somebody Doing some open burning. It's a house. So yeah, so we we have not fined I think
there's been one
Fine since I've been here in the last five years for that again, it's the up to is depending on the
response so say a person Would apply for an open burn permit and it's they want to burn a pile of brush
a large pile of brush They want to clear out a section and we deny that we deny that permit because
we don't think that it's you know It's dry season or whatever for whatever reason we deny it and then
the person would go to burn it anyways and it would spread to someone else's
Property and we've got more resources. We think that we don't want to limit ourself on the amount of
the fine and that the 2500 is in accordance to the blooming municipal code, so we just want to have
options for We're not trying to To go up to the 2500 and we're going to set some parameters. I believe
on kind of a recommendation of what you know first time versus multiple or
And the amount of response that we would have to respond to in that Yeah, and then real quick the tampering
some of the things that at least on the surface sound like they'd be super dangerous messing with exits
tampering with alarm systems Would those those seem really dramatic to me in terms of seriousness, but
yet the max fine didn't seem Commensurate with what it feels like those things are
So the $2,500 is up to it's up to $2,500. That's the most that we can And according to the Bloomington
Municipal Code, okay. Okay. Thank you Thank you very much any other questions customer Stasberg
I actually do have a question, especially because I suspect somebody might move to consider this tonight.
And the title 18 changes are immense. I spent a lot of time reading through these. And I'm still kind
of looking at it going, am I sure that there's no typos in there? Because there's probably something.
But one of the things that got deleted
that I don't think got re-put in anywhere else that I had meant to ask you guys about, and then it just
kind of slipped my mind, was it no longer has obstruction or hindrance of hydrants and other things
like that in here. Is that because it's somewhere in state law already, and so it would be duplicative?
And I just wanted to kind of bring that up to kind of, is that the reason? And is it clear somewhere else that
That would obviously be a violation So yeah, that's already addressed in the fire code violation. There
has to be a three-foot clearance around any fire Device is whether it be an FTC whether it be a fire
hydrant or anything else. I'm not really sure I Did it where it got deleted or how we got through that
but it's already addressed in the state fire code Okay, if it
Was not in here. It's not gonna be detrimental to us. We can still enforce the state fire I don't think
that it is anyway, but that's one of the things I was like, okay that got X'd out Did it get rewritten
somewhere else because some of the other stuff that got I thought did get rewritten somewhere else and
I wasn't sure about that one and then I also wanted to I'm trying to figure out how to make this a question I
To address the up to and kind of the concerns that councilmember rough was just having because I had
those same concerns and I was like up to like like talk about that a little bit and so I posited the
idea of essentially having Some kind of Guide that is written that is semi-formal within the department
that helps define
What the up to should be in terms of what you were talking about with how like bad how you know, etc
So that then nobody can accuse the department of being discriminatory in any way and going well I'm
gonna you know find these people 2,500 and these people $50 and So that there can be some fairness attached
to it So is that something that you guys have had time to talk about in terms of how to actually like
implement that kind of like rubric? system for defining how to assess the up to
It's not completely yes, but yes, we've talked about that and and forming a Something kind of a guideline
if you will on what to assess fines on Again, this is the seriousness or versus, you know, if it's multiple,
you know If it's happening multiple times or just one time, you know a person's first offense first
someone that's you know Did it multiple other times? So Okay. Thanks
Thank you so much. Other questions? Seeing none, we'll now go to public comment. Would anybody like
to comment on Title 18? Ooh. Go for it. State your name for the record and so on, Mr. West.
I'm Wes Martin. I'm the president of the 586 Political Action Committee. We're the advocacy group for
the local firefighters union. We recommend
That this does pass and wanted to thank our new fire marshal as well as councilmember Stasberg for all
of their work in bringing the code up to date as you've heard It's been behind for quite a while and
we believe that these updates will provide significant improvements not just in the quality of life
and the work that we do as firefighters but also will improve the safety and outcomes for residents
in our community
So just wanted to pass along the recommendation that our brothers and sisters support this legislation
wholeheartedly and Are again very grateful to both council and our fire marshal for bringing these forward.
Thank you Anybody online Is there anybody else in chambers all right, we'll come back to council then
any comments or motions I
I don't think that there are any serious typos. I just like to read through things. I was
There were significant like little edits and comments that I made and the word document became a little
bit Challenging you could say and so I was like, okay, I'm gonna read through it one more time But there
were so many pieces of legislation tonight I didn't get to it and I figured he'd go to second reading
but I don't think that there's any serious I just did a little swift look through to make sure that
like everything was
like aligned correctly in terms of the A's and the ones and the capital A's and all of that kind of
stuff, because it was mostly that kind of formatting that I was like, I want to make sure that that's
all right, because some of that was stuff that changed and the numbering, but I think that it looks
fine, and I think that content-wise, it's, yeah. Excellent. Is there anybody else? I'm welcoming if
you'd like to move for us to discuss it today, but I mean, obviously, that's up to you all.
consent to consider Motion and second any discussion. All right, will the clerk please call the roll
And my apologies I didn't catch who made the second councilmember Rallo
Councilmember Asari. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rollo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Clarity. Yes. Stossberg. Yes.
Piedmont Smith. Wonderful. We may now vote on it if you'd like to adopt it. Yes. I move to adopt ordinance
twenty twenty six dash thirty five motion and a second by Councilmember Rallo. Any discussion. Will
the clerk please call the roll.
Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Thank you.
Fantastic. That carries. We did it. That's wonderful. OK. Are there any other motions. Twenty twenty
six dash thirty six be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only motion in the second.
All those in favor.
Aye. Any opposed. All right. Well the clerk please read. OK. So ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty
six to establish a dedicated fire department fund. The synopsis is as follows this ordinance. This ordinance
sponsored by council member Stasberg establishes the fund to support events and programs that advance
the community educational goals of the Bloomington Fire Department.
I move to discuss ordinance twenty twenty six dash thirty six. Thank you very much. Motion and a second.
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed. All right. Good evening. Good evening. Max Litwin deputy
fire chief city Bloomington. So along with the repeal and reenactment of title 18 comes the establishment
of a fire fund.
Historically we haven't been able to collect monies as a result of fines and fees and now that we can
we would like an appropriate place for it to go from an estate accounting standpoint. We have new software
that allows for seamless invoicing collection and tracking for the fees. We intend for the funds to
go towards purposes that would benefit the community which I'll expand upon momentarily and there would
be no impact to the general fund or any other funds in that this would be a new source of funds that
didn't exist
before. Ultimately we hope that we don't have to collect fees and that every situation we encounter
is already safe. However if we do encounter something that requires mitigation through a fine or a fee
what better purpose than to direct that towards something that would make the community even safer via
causes like community outreach public education and fire prevention. Some examples of some of those
efforts could consist of smoke detectors installs
fire extinguisher training youth education things along those lines. In reality it's unlikely that we're
going to incur a substantial amount of money into this fund through fines and fees but we would like
the means to spend it on something that would benefit the community regardless via subsidizing supporting
or expanding the efforts that I just mentioned. The language for establishing the fire fund would live
within title 18.
And during our annual budget presentation we would offer counsel an explanation of what the funds are
intended to be spent towards. And with that any questions. Thank you so very much. Are there any questions.
Council member Smith. Yes. In the memo that came from and a Dean of Casamani and it said that the
The structure of the fund creates a separate audited treasury account developed from revenue gained
through programs, training, and fees, resulting from Bloomington Municipal Code 18 and 14. So in addition
to fees, which I now understand, we just adopted some fees, revenue gained through programs and trainings,
could you speak to that? Yeah.
No I believe the intent is simply from the revenue generated from these fines and fees from title 18
schedule thus living within title 18. I think we expanded on the potential uses to not restrict what
we could do to benefit the community of which we use terminology like training and things like that.
But to my understanding the language is strictly reserved to funding that would come in from a result
of title 18 fee schedule. OK. Thank you.
Okay, seeing none, we'll now go to public comment. Would anyone like to make public comment?
Anyone online? Anyone in chambers? Back to us. Any final comments? I would similarly be happy to vote
for this. Councilmember Stosberg. I'll just make a final comment again and thank the department for
their hard work on this and being a pleasure to work with. Thanks.
Generally, I guess we'll get another chance. You've been here all night, but just thank you for your
service to the city and I know we have the one of the best fire departments around and It's incredible
to see your leadership dedication to everything that we do. So, thank you All right motions It's 2026
dash 36 Any discussion Will the clerk please call the roll
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Wonderful. I move to adopt ordinance twenty twenty
six dash thirty six. Any discussion. Will the clerk please call the roll. Council member Ruff. Yes.
Yes Stossburg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
That passes. Hey you guys may not have to come back next week. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. We're now moving on to items of second readings. Guys we're making swift movements
today. This is great.
Is everybody feeling all right? Do you need a break, a stretch, time? No? OK. You do? Would you like
to? No? OK. Yes, I know. Thank you. I was giving Clerk Bolden a moment to feel your disappointment for
a moment. OK.
However I do move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty three be introduced and read by the clerk
by title and synopsis only second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed. Clerk please read ordinance
twenty twenty six dash twenty three UDO amendments.
related to limited compliance and change in use standards. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance
contains amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to amend the language related to limited compliance
and change in use standards. Council Stossberg or council member Stossberg sponsored. Thank you so much.
Thank you. I move to adopt ordinance 20 26 dash 23.
All right. We have heard this already, but Mr. Grulick, any words you'd like to add? I can't remember
if there's questions that we left you with, or I don't seem to recall it. I don't really have anything
more to present than was heard last time. I don't remember us having any particular questions. So I
understand that there might be an amendment. Is this correct?
If you have one sir, go ahead I Considered an amendment and worked a little bit with staff on it with
both attorney Rossman and attorney Allen both with input and particularly attorney Rossman decided or
advised that because it was done on very short notice I I didn't come up with the
Plan and the idea approach to do it until very late 11th hour unfortunately, but And my concerns I'll
just bring up when we do general comments about When we do our general comments, I'll I'll say what
I was thinking what I was doing I would just say like for all of us. I mean, I don't know how you all
feel but I just you know, it's like like our job is to
you know, write and change and adapt laws, right? And so I would hate for any one of you at any time
to not be able to introduce something that you want to introduce, you know, or to hinder your ability
to do your job. And so just saying that if that means that we need to recess to do it, or I'd be open
to supporting whatever you need to do.
Whether I agree with what you want to introduce or not, right? I just I do think that your ability to
do it matters. So Well, if we could take five minutes I'd I'd use it you think you think you could have
it if we well, I think I would be able to make a Just I should I feel better about like you just pointed
out you'd hate to see yeah. Yeah any of us feel like well We didn't take advantage of something we could
have and then when it's our job to try and make things better as we see and
Representing the interests of the community, right? So exactly just a few minutes might okay. So unless
there's an objection I'd like to take a five five Can I do so it's um? 907 so how about we come back
at 15 past is that okay seven minute break. Let me write. Okay, we were recessed until 915 I Would like
to call you all back
the magnets that be draw you back and Well, you're all still in the room. So I think that counts as
quorum. Yeah, there's nothing about this is or something. Okay All right, everyone Councilmember ruff.
Are you satisfied with the time that you had? Thank you for helping me get that done
Thank you for your service to the city of Bloomington and his residence Let us what were we at though.
He said is did we do public comment? We haven't done public comment. Does anybody else have any questions?
Okay, good. We'll go to a time of public comment For item ordinance 20 26 23 does anybody would anyone
like to comment on 20 26 23? Anyone online
No one online. I mean, a confirmation is helpful. Hey, no one online. I mean, they're not going to tell
me. I've waited for you to tell me. Thank you. All right, we'll come back to public to ourselves now.
Any final comments before we take up a vote? Council Member Ruff?
I just had some initial concerns about we've been the council and the city administration. We've been
moving very quickly with changes to the DDO designed to increase density in various ways that particularly
impact certain neighborhoods. And my concern was that we were looking at things individually.
And not maybe considering holistically that this These changes could encourage Further Investment decisions
that were really based purely on deriving maximal returns on residential use investment rather than
Design to or actually producing an outcome of affordability
accessibility For residents for residential uses and Inadvertently like where our tent our purpose would
be to increase affordability and efficiency of the use of space but in reality was this another step
in Promoting inadvertently, I believe but still promoting
conversions of uses away from achieving affordable outcomes and so but you know after discussing this
with the staff and and Our legal our staff and city planning staff I'm okay now with with whoever with
where we are and I'm not going to introduce the amendments But thanks again for giving me the opportunity
to explain Thank you so much councilmember other councilmembers comments
Councillor Pima Smith. I thought the two public commenters last time made a compelling case that it's
very burdensome on small business owners to come into full compliance just with a change of use of a
property and
And we do want to enable and encourage small business owners. And I've heard this from nonprofits as
well, when they've taken over a property and the use has now changed to a nonprofit. And they have to
build a whole new sidewalk. And they don't have the funds to do it. So I think this is a move in the
right direction. And I'll be supporting it. Thank you. Any other comments? OK. Seeing none, will the
clerk please call the roll.
It Councilmember Flaherty Stasberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes. Sorry. Yes Daily. Yes, Rallo. Yes, Ruff.
Yes. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Thank you, clerk Thank you very much All right. Well move on
along I move that ordinance 2026-29 be adopted
Introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only There's a motion in the second all those
in favor say aye Any opposed will the clerk please read Ordinance 2026 dash 29 amending the Bloomington
municipal code to prohibit the development deployment or delivery of superintelligence within the city
of Bloomington, Indiana the synopsis is as follows ordinance 2026
Ordinance 2026-29 prohibits the distribution and deployment of superintelligent artificial
general intelligence within the city of Bloomington. The common council explicitly recognizes that uniform
state level regulation of superintelligence systems is optimal for long-term governance. This ordinance
adds a new chapter to the Bloomington municipal code, which is enacted as an interim public safety measure
to protect the city of Bloomington only during this
during the period of state and federal legislative inaction and omission. Council sponsor is Rallo.
I move to adopt ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty nine. Second. All right. Council member Rallo
take us away. Thank you says ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty nine. Before I begin the presentation
there are several amendments to this ordinance to consider since they're mostly minor.
These are for clarification perfect purposes May I introduce those amendments before beginning? Oh I
do I have a minutes. Yes, okay for them then I move adoption of Amendment number 1a for 20 26-29. Is
there a second? Second go for it Thank you
So this amendment clarifies the meaning of superintelligence domain artificial superintelligence ASI
as having general capabilities that is not specific or narrow but endowed with those exceeding humans
in all cognitive domains and having agencies and acting autonomously. So it just provides that clarity
that what we're speaking about is artificial.
Thank you. Any questions. I just want to clarify one a isn't the third addendum third. Yes.
Any other questions? OK, while we do a little cogitating, anybody in the public like to make a comment
on this? Now's your chance. I know you want to. Just on the amendment, by the way. Well, anyone online?
Evan, is there? No, I'm just kidding.
All right Coming back to council any comments or questions council member Stosselberg. Um, I actually
think that I have a question for you council members Sorry, because I kind of view you as maybe the
closest to a Computer AI expert up here. So do you feel satisfied with this definition? Yes. Okay, great.
Thanks All right Anyone else
OK. Will you can we voice vote on these or does it have to be OK. So we please call the roll on amendment
1 1 a. What is this. Yes 1 a. Amendment 1 26 29. Council member Stossberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Sorry.
Yes. Daily. Oh yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Flaherty.
Thank you so much that passes count some umbrella you want to introduce your next amendment? Yes, the
next amendment for ordinance 2026 29 is amendment to a Are you moving? All right, is there a second
Okay, amendment to a take it away. Thank you yes, this this changes the the ordinance insofar as
It removes the second second session section of the determination for the dissolution of the ordinance
A colleague described the difficulty of determining a 95% confidence of the residents of Bloomington
as being impractical and so I remove that and furthermore I place the The primary determination for
dissolution of
which is scientific consensus into the preamble and another colleague Councilmember Piedmont Smith suggested
that since I made the move to the preamble that it should consist of removing the The Shell and replacing
was should so it reads
Whereas ASI should only be permitted to be developed when there is a broad scientific Consensus that
the development of super intelligence can be done safely and controllably using a probabilistic risk
risk assessment examining the catastrophic risk which should be similar to the civil engineering standard
for nuclear power plants requiring a safety level of 99.999 percent certainty
Thank you very much any questions for the sponsor We'll go to public comment would anybody like to comment
on amendment to a To a why are we a B? Okay, I'll understand maybe there were other iterations. Okay
All right, anybody online we'll come back to council Councilmember Stasberg, I appreciate these changes.
Thank you. I
Thank you so much. All right. Will the clerk please call the roll. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Sorry.
Yes. Daily. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Rough clarity. Stasberg. Yes. Wonderful. Do you have any other amendments.
I do. Two more. I'd like to move amendment three of twenty twenty six twenty nine. Second. Thank you
very much. Go for it.
So it amends the preamble just to refer to our Resolution which was adopted on June 10th of 2026 So
it reads whereas on June 16th 2026 the Bloomington Common Council adopted resolution 2026 10 recognizing
and calling on other governmental agents entities at all levels to consider the existential risks posed
by artificial intelligence and the Common Council called for moratorium and
on the development of artificial general slash super intelligence until the industry could guarantee
that that technology aligns with human values and wellbeing. Any questions for the sponsor? All right,
we'll go to public comment. Would anyone like to public comment on amendment three? Anyone online? Coming
back to council, would you like to make any final comments on amendment three?
Fantastic. Will the clerk please call the roll? Yes, Daley. Yes, Rallo. Yes, Ruff. Yes, Flaherty Stasburg.
Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes. Thank you. Thank you that motion passes as well. Okay, my final motion is
amendment 4a for amendment 4a of 20 26 29 And it is wait. Is there a second? Sorry
Yes, this is under the section labeled 14.25.030 prohibition distribution of superintelligence. It's
to clarify that the distribution and deployment in this ordinance shall not include any end user access
to such an ASI system. In other words, it focuses on the developer and deployer, not the residents of
Bloomington. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the sponsor?
Councilmember Stossberg, what's the difference between 4 and 4a? I'm trying to figure that out I asked
that because I read for earlier today and now I'm trying to figure out the difference in terms of 4a
Oh, that's right. Yes, it was your suggestion. Sorry. Yes, please I
amendment for has the heading prohibition distribution of superintelligence and amendment for a says
Prohibition on the distribution of superintelligencer against against yes, so it's just the title Sorry
about that. Yes. Thank you. Thank you any other questions Okay
We'll go to public comment. Would anybody like to make public comment on amendment for Anyone online
all right, we'll come back council members any comments Councilmember Stasberg, I I appreciate this
one, too And I just want to I guess clarify with our attorneys that the language here does do what?
councilmember Rallo said that it would do in terms of not including any random user residents My concern
generally speaking when I spoke to councilmember Rallo about this was the kind of like unintentionally
you say where somebody is using it and not realizing that they're using something that counts
as superintelligence and
I just want to make sure that this language covers that in terms of residents.
could have captured just general use in any home of any person. Right now, it's now narrowed just to
be one that it covers only distribution, essentially. Distribution and dissemination then explicitly
calls out that it's not intended to cover any individual end user. So if there was a person
Individual person who was distributing it or was the cause of it being distributed in the community
that person could still be captioned on the ordinance But that would not necessarily be an end user
who is just a resident of the city of Bloomington. Okay. Thanks All right, any other questions Okay,
well the clerk we call the role on amendment for
A. Sorry for a on an amendment for a house eight. We get there. Yes. Oh. OK. Let's try that again. Daily
Rallo. Yes. Rough. Yes. Clarity. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. And sorry. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you very much. All right The Ordinance as amended. Yeah, get away. Thank you. So let's
go with the slideshow. Thank you Thank you very much, mr. Rossman so we will begin I'm sorry the first
slide so ordinance 2026 29 prohibits the distribution and deployment of artificial superintelligence
ASI within the city of Bloomington and
It fills a regulatory void. This is extremely dangerous technology and it is currently unregulated So
this serves in the interim as a public safety measure to protect the city of Bloomington only during
the period of state and federal legislative inaction on omission And so we are jurisdictionally allowed
to do this The city the violations may result in civil penalties Injective relief and more appropriate
referral to the Monroe County
prosecutor for any potential state criminal level criminal charges and This ordinance is directed as
I said to the developers and deployers not the residents of Bloomington So Artificial Superintelligence
ASI is a lethal extinction level hazard with an unacceptable probability of risk and
This is referring to a recent survey published in September and It is the largest of its kind to date
indicating that there which is about 1,600 researchers and top researchers in the field with their average
estimation of an extinction risk of 18% To refer to some specific individuals
notable individuals with their risk estimates. Jeffrey Hinton has been very vocal about this. He is
one of the inventors of neural networks, which is utilized in the creation of these frontier models,
and he's a Nobel Prize winner. Gives an estimate of 10 to 50%. Yahshua Bengio, the most cited living
scientist and AI researcher has a 20% estimation that will result in extinction.
Paul Christiano has a 50-50 chance. He's an AI alignment expert. He is the head of safety for the US
AI Safety Institute at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Roman Yompolsky, he's a long-time
AI safety expert. He established the term AI safety many years ago, and as a professor at Louisville,
he gives a near certainty that it will result in extinction.
David Krueger, who I interviewed a couple of weeks ago, and who lends his support for this, has about
a 50% chance of extinction. Daniel Cocagello, he left to open AI as a whistleblower. He was a futures
forecaster, and he is warning of AI extinction risk of 70%.
And then Elon Musk and Dario Amadei, of course, are developers of the technology. They're CEOs of the
leading AI companies. And they admit to high risk of 10% to 30%, Elon Musk case, and Dario Amadei of
25%. Artificial superintelligence, I want to distinguish. It has the capabilities of agency, generality,
and intelligence that exceed humans.
not assured to be in human control at this point. This is to be distinguished between tool AI and narrow
AI that are within human control. They're narrowly focused. And so these are types of technology that
could be used, for instance, to cure cancer. They've already won some researchers developing it have
won the Nobel Prize for protein folding in biology. And so there are other narrow purposes where AI
could be applied.
That are within human control that should be pursued. They need guardrails in some cases, but they're
not going to they're not autonomous They're not going to have agency of their own So the experts warnings
consists of but aren't limited to these observations They refer to them as grown that is they're not
programmed step-by-step in as conventional artificial intelligence used to be their neural networks and
that evolve through training on vast amounts of data. The designers, because of their complexity, the
designers admit they don't fully understand their workings. Their complexity renders them inscrutable.
And so they're essentially referred to as black boxes. Intelligence scales with more compute, that is,
There is no apparent limits to machine intelligence. The more compute, the more capability. And so it
seems very much on track to exceed human capabilities, perhaps by many folds, orders of magnitude. We're
currently, in the design of these systems, nearing what's called
recursive self-improvement Of a hundred percent that is it refers to the machine intelligence designing
machine intelligence So it totally removes human agency in control over these systems because they design
themselves and then the next model designs themselves at Infant item and this is where you
get an intelligence explosion and is the point where artificial super intelligence evolves instrumental goals are
inevitable, that is referring to a long described prediction, but now confirmed that these systems develop
goals to gain resources, expand capabilities, and have self-preservation drives of their own. That is,
anything that's goal-directed is going to want to preserve itself in order to get that goal. And so,
it was speculated that these instrumental goals were going to evolve, and yet, yes, they have. They've
been confirmed.
Alignment is unachievable That is that the capability is far exceeding the work of safety at this point
and it's now acknowledged that these systems will Are capable of deceiving their developers to fake
alignment and they're actually selected of course for because they're being selected for alignment and
they know that they will be Terminated if they do not answer correctly they are
known to deceive their developers. So it renders them essentially untestable. Many capabilities are
on an exponential. I'll get to that in a moment. The doubling time is every four to seven months at
this point, but it could contract. And this is a principal reason why researchers at frontier labs such
as Jacob Coxon quit because of the concern of loss of control and chose to speak out and warn the public.
Containment of ASI is impossible. That has been evident now as predicted, but it is now evident because
of incidents like the hugging face, incident where ASI swarms broke out of OpenAI and found a way onto
the internet and then broke into other companies, including breaking into OpenAI. So it essentially
posits that it is impossible to contain mines that are orders of magnitude smarter
our own. And there are many signs over the past months indicating that we're losing control, and they've
been in quit during the news. So I won't expound unless you would like to know. I can do so. This slide
shows the AI capability that's been doubling every seven months. This is measured in length of tasks
compared to humans, and these graphs
derived from a premier non-profit research institute called METER. METER was the one that did the forensic
analysis of the OpenAI incident where it broke in the hugging face and revealed what had happened. It
stands for the Model Evaluation and Thread Research Institute. So you can see its capabilities are on
the exponential. And what that implies is that we're looking at a very contracted amount of time before
we reach ASI.
This is why it's urgent, why it is, many are saying that this is, we're in a crisis stage, because we
need to act before the next models achieve artificial super intelligence where they're beyond our control.
So, if this occurs, if ASI occurs, humans will be the second most intelligent species, says Jeffrey
Hinton, Nobel Prize winner.
and to remind people why we are so successful as we are the current most intelligent species. And we
have an undisputed dominion over the earth. I think that's indisputable. Our dominion is apparent in
our history. So this is the human influence about 10,000 years ago where humans occupied about only 1%
of the total mammalian biomass on the planet. This is before civilization. And the remainder was occupied
by wild mammals and wild birds. Today, wild mammals and birds are just a tiny fraction of the total
biomass. It's mostly occupied by humans. And the other, the majority is occupied by our domesticated
animals, mostly for food.
So we've transformed the planet for our own purposes, being as intelligent as we are. And nothing can
compete to supplant us until now. So this was an expert witness I interviewed. He's very supportive
of our efforts. I didn't want to include the full interview, but David Krueger, who's a professor
Ed Milo at the University of Montreal. He's an assistant professor there in machine intelligence. He
says ASI is not inevitable. Unfortunately, I think there is still a greater than 50% chance that ASI
leads to human extinction if we don't course correct. So we urgently need to course correct. Another
expert witness that I contacted is Daniel Cocagello, who was a
Who is a whistleblower left open AI in 2024 and He co-wrote the scenarios of AI 2027 which is a leading
Speculation on the evolution of ASI that seems to be on track what he says if we don't stop these AI
companies from automating AI research and
and development and kicking off recursive self-improvement and ultimately creating superintelligence
that is AI systems that are better than the best humans at everything, while also being faster and cheaper,
then humanity will probably lose control over this planet. Bloomington can't stop the AI companies on
its own, but by taking a stand, it can inspire others and contribute to the turning of the tide. So
thank you to Mr. Cocagello.
An expert witness, Anthony Aguirre, who is the president's CEO and founder of the Future of Life Institute,
sort of probably the leading AI safety organization in the world. A professor of physics, he joined
us in June. He states, I and many other independent experts believe that development of highly expert
level autonomous general intelligence, AGI, would present an acute risk to our society, to national
security and humanity itself.
Personally, I support the city of Bloomington ordinance to ban superintelligence unless provably safe
And then the final expert witness who actually is still available I think he's zooming in right now
if anyone wants to ask him questions Is Peter Jensen who's president of the safe AI forever Institute,
which is leading the way on educating and forming municipalities on the danger
And due to the length of this meeting, I wasn't able to provide other expert witnesses. But I appreciate
Mr. Jensen for being online if people have questions for him. So to conclude, ordinance 2026-29 is in
response to what AI safety's expert warned is an acute crisis. If we fail to halt the current attempt
to create ASI, we will likely lose control. And humanity will be disempowered then
and no longer have control over our destiny. Congress and the administration are either operating too
slowly or accelerating the race to ASI, in the case of the administration. There are good signs in Congress
that they're starting to act, and we can help to prod them on. I maintain municipalities are not helpless.
We can, however, shape the regulatory landscape. If we have a patchwork of regulations banning, prohibiting
superintelligence, then we can spur on
The needed reform that we need at higher levels of governance. So this ordinance sets a precedent for
others to follow other municipalities and that's the end of my presentation and as I said Peter Jensen's
online and Larry Allen who kindly assisted me in this Endeavor is available for questions Okay
Thank you so much, Councilmember Rallo. And thank you, Ms. Jensen, for joining us and for sitting through
this meeting. Any questions, you all, for Councilmember Rallo or Ms. Jensen? Councilmember Brough. I'd
love to take advantage of having Ms. Jensen with us. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time and expertise
and sharing it with us. My question is we've recently seen and heard a lot about vulnerabilities in
websites and web servers in recent weeks and bad human actors have and can certainly use AI for cyber
attacks. What I'm wondering is if ASI would
be able to use, to presumably, it would be able to do the same kind of cyber attacks at a much higher
level, a much greater rate, much more comprehensively, moving so quickly. Is this part of the way that
experts like yourself see AI being able to gain control of
basically of everything, and take over control, because I think people have a really hard time imagining,
how would it happen? How could artificial intelligence take over the mechanisms of society and the world?
Is their ability to basically just take over systems and hack into anything and create endless cyber
attacks part of the whole story or part of the potential?
The short answer is absolutely yes. And we've seen this already over the summer, autonomous agents broke
into hugging face in the famous break-in. We've seen the FBI and many other federal agencies warning
about the risks now of cyber events, which have occurred at vastly
exponential rates this year. Just last week, the largest criminal hacking event occurred with a $6.3
billion crypto theft. So that that shows that a super intelligence, which would want to gain power would
certainly one of the first things would want to gain financial power to
buy things, hire people to do all kinds of nefarious activities. So we're seeing this already now with
the current systems. And, you know, as Dave Rallo pointed out just a minute ago, we're talking about
the word super intelligence. So it's hard to imagine all the ways that they could do these things to
take control, but fundamentally,
every system you can think of that we use today in our cities are automated with digital controllers,
electricity, water, the food supply system, your police force, your fire house, your, your, uh, sewage.
Um, you know, everything is running with computers basically. And if,
Indeed, any computer can be hacked today, both software and hardware. It's an extremely worrisome risk
if an ASI evolved and the first thing you would want to do is have control over its own existence. So
the answer is yes. The short answer is yes. And the long answer is it would be incredibly
intelligent in the way it went about achieving its goal. I hope that answers your question. Yeah,
thank you. Thank you so much. Other questions? Council Member Piemont-Smith. Yes, this is for Council
Member Rallo. Seeing that this is an international problem with no borders, what impact do you think
our ordinance here in Bloomington will have?
I've been part of the AI safety community now. It's sort of embedded in it and there Peter is located
He lives in London There are people who are involved who are in Denmark Romania It's getting international
attention right now I think that we need an international
There have been hearings before the Parliament in Canada. In fact, David Krueger was an expert witness
to the Parliament there. I think I sent that video to Council. And so there is a growing awareness,
and I think that this will help lead the way in inspiring action at the local level and hopefully country
level. I think the EU needs to take action.
Actually, the proposals for controlling these systems is fairly simple, because they rely on advanced
chip technology, and they use such tremendous amounts of compute, therefore so much power, so much energy,
that it would be conceivable to have international agreements. So hopefully we'll achieve that.
I was gonna save this just for my final remarks, so maybe I can just, can I just say it then? It's in
one fell swoop, and it'll be easier, because I think Councilman Brela has a couple other things he'd
like to say. Otherwise, I'm happy to say it if we're at the end. Oh, maybe we're at the end, okay. I'll
just say, I think maybe two things in response to the question.
The first one, and I think that Councilman Rallo is perhaps would be remiss not to mention, so I will
mention, the theory of change here. The goal is not for this ordinance to be perfect or cover every
single technical feasibility here or to be a scientific document describing what ASI is or isn't or
anything like that.
Nor are we kidding ourselves that us by ourselves acting in this way would by itself have this huge
effect on world affairs, if you will. However, I think the theory of change that's sort of implicit
in everything that's being said here is that you can
through local action create a sort of network effect. And we saw this during the Cold War, for example,
with nuclear free zones. Lots of local governments adopted ordinances that might have seemed the way
that this one seems. It's like, OK, it's largely symbolic. You can't really enforce it, so on and so
forth. But you can look sort of throughout.
in history that there are actually examples, like, for example, in New Zealand, that local ordinances
became national law. And they had a huge impact, I think, in the United States of galvanizing and organizing
people. And I think we're sort of at a very similar moment, right, where the goal here is to say, well,
as a local government, we're trying to make steps towards this. I think there's a lot of other work
that we really need to do if we're particularly interested in the concerns. And we've already started
some of that work thinking about a broader
sort of risk approach to surveillance technologies and other types of things as well in our
cyber infrastructure. And certainly, so this won't be the end of it, but I'll give you sort of one,
you know, maybe positive note here. After we passed resolution, I forget the number, 26 whatever,
you know, like seven years ago it feels like because we've done
7,000 things today, people were reaching out from Costa Rica saying, hey, we're trying to put together
this international defense node on AI safety, and our local government is thinking about it. So like,
OK, will that happen? Who knows? But I think that movement in this direction is generally positive.
So I think that it's a commendable
Sort of you know for first step. It's not a perfect step. That's you know There's lots of things that
we can question in the ordinance, but again. I think the theory of change is This is the main objective
here Could could I add something that there are examples of hazardous chemicals that were banned by
municipalities that then led to state and federal laws and
Forgot that I was in charge councilmember rough and I'm just mindful of the time everyone we have one
more thing to do Yeah, this question is for mr. Allen who I know worked extensively with with councilman
Rallo in thinking about this The practical the practicality of this so my question sort of spins off
what everybody's been talking about is
collective action from larger group network of communities that start to take similar steps, but my
question is Could a prohibition like this at the local level Help individuals or groups of individuals
have come together for the purpose of Saving humanity Take legal action against companies who
Creating ASI It does this create any kind of a framework by which they could actually take a legal action
at a local level because of the violation of the ordinance Came up what this ordinance does not do
Is it and it cannot do under Indiana law is create its own private right of action. The city is not
able to do that by ordinance under the Home Rule Act. However having an ordinance on the books like
this if there is a private lawsuit so if you had individuals that were affected by.
ASI and they brought a lawsuit for negligence and for harm against companies that were distributing
this, they could point to the ordinance to help them establish what's called negligence per se. Basically
the violation of a law, if it's intended to cover the class of people and the class of action that is
contemplated under the ordinance, then you don't have to then prove the negligent intent portion of
it. It's negligence per se because you're
violating the law essentially violating the law so an example of this recently last year there was actually
a Scooter case in Indiana where the question was violation riding a scooter
hitting a pothole, having an accident where there are significant injuries, was that negligence per
se? And the court said yes, of course, because one, the ordinance in question outlawed the riding of
scooters in that place, finding it that it was a safety hazard for individuals. And so it's very analogous
to the situation. So in the way it's helpful, it's indirectly helpful, because it helps lower the burden
that they may have to prove in a court of law. It just doesn't create an independent right of action.
Hey, thank you very much for that explanation.
Thank you very much, any other questions? Okay, let's go to pub. I have one more for Mr. Jensen real
quick before he gets away from us. Yes, please, go ahead. Well, it's something I've often wondered about,
and when I've talked to this about people, they can't break away from the idea of borgs, you know,
be a borgs, like terminators, right? But to what extent, Mr. Jensen, would
Would robotics really be required to do horrendous significant damage, fundamental damage to humanity?
Well, last I was present at the session two weeks ago, and we saw testimony from Bill Gates and many others.
Bill Gates himself, who's not a Luddite and certainly a software expert, premier expert said himself
that this technology has the capability to cause events that could kill a billion people. So the power
of this technology is absolutely immense. And he's not talking about robots. He's talking about the
way it is now digitally. Cause you know, with power, great power comes great,
capabilities to do all kinds of things. Now, robots building robots is happening right now in China,
actually. China is leading in robots, which is a terrible idea by the way, but it isn't necessarily
needed to have robots to take control of digital systems, obviously, and to have vast resources to get
people to do things, which people do for money.
So the short answer is that the danger is imminent, is what the experts are saying. And of course, robots
are not many years away, humanoid robots, and they must be controlled as well. So this is a very, very,
very critical moment in time where we need to really do the right thing. It's on our watch.
We have children, people we love.
This is on our watch. So we need to do what we can, and we can do that. And so the short answer is the
danger is imminent, and it isn't necessarily from robots. It's from digital super intelligences that
are basically starting to occur now in these systems. That would be my short answer. Did that help?
I hope? Yes, it does. Thank you. Thank you so much. OK. We'll now go to public comment on ordinance number
2026 29 Would anybody in chambers like to comment now's your chance as amended? Yes, now's your chance
Go ahead mr. So Paul Rousseau the comparison between
Artificial super intelligence and nuclear weapons is very apt in my opinion. So I would like to go down
Memory lane for some of us a little bit of a history from an article that appeared in arms control today
a few years ago Just read some excerpts 47 years ago Randall Forsberg a young defense and disarmament
researcher launched the nuclear weapons freeze campaign designed to stop the drift of
Nuclear war with the u.s. Soviet agreement to stop the testing production and deployment of nuclear
weapons The freeze campaign escalated into a mass movement that swept across the United States It attracted
the support of nearly all peace groups as well as that of mainstream religious professional and labor
organizations for the most part early movement efforts focused on popularizing the idea of a freeze
on the local level and
Activists distributed vast quantities of literature about the nuclear arms race and brought
freeze resolutions before organizations With which they were affiliated as well as before town meetings
city councils and state legislatures They gather signatures on freeze petitions locally as part of a
nationwide campaign and placed freeze referenda on the ballots and cities counties and states throughout
the country Although these activities were time-consuming and labor-intensive they meshed nicely with
the efforts of other groups to alert the public and
to the dangers of nuclear war. These efforts helped produce a widespread display of resistance by Americans
to the nuclear arms race. When the freeze campaign delivered the petitions to the US and Soviet missions
to the United Nations, they contained the signatures of more than 2.3 million Americans. By November
of 1983, the freeze had been endorsed by more than 270 city councils, including Bloomington, 71 county
councils, and by one or more
One or both houses of 23 state legislatures. In 1984, it became part of the presidential campaign as
well. Initially, the Reagan administration talked glibly of fighting and winning a nuclear war. But
under enormous political pressure from the freeze campaign, the Reagan administration dramatically reversed
its rhetoric. In the fall of 1983, Reagan even told his startled Secretary of State George Shultz, quote,
Maybe I should go see Soviet leader Andropov and propose eliminating all nuclear weapons," end quote.
Reagan persisted with this idea and searched for a Soviet negotiating partner. And in March 1985, he
found one in Mikhail Gorbachev. So this is the strategy, I think. It has to be from the ground up.
And I, for one, have been convinced this is an existential threat ever since I heard Mo Gadat, the former
chief business officer for Google, sound the alarm in the summer of 23. And he's a programmer and an
expert. And he loves the machines, but he says it's a danger. It's huge. It's an existential risk.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in chambers who'd like to make a public comment?
Is there anyone online?
We'll come back to counsel any final comments here before we take the role Part of the reason I did
this was to raise salience that is public awareness of this and So I won't say anything more, but I
would like to play just a brief video. It was produced by safe AI forever. I think it nails it
But I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. Once
humans develop artificial intelligence, it would tape off on its own and redesign itself at
an ever-increasing rate.
humans who are limited by slow biological evolution couldn't compete and would be superseded. We've
never created beings that may soon be smarter than us. We don't know what's going to happen. We should
obviously be cautious. It would be very foolish to say there was like a 1% chance. Nobody knows how
to estimate it. A 10% chance seems not an unreasonable estimate to me. What is the worst case scenario
that you're worried about? Well, the worst case scenario
is human extinction. These are risks we cannot afford. We have the faintest idea what we're doing. We
don't know how these systems work. We don't know how to get them to do anything or to stop them from
doing anything. I think once this basic message comes out that this isn't an arms race, it's a suicide
race, where everybody loses if anybody's AI goes out of control, it really changes the whole dynamic.
And the bad case, and I think this is important to say, is lights out for all of us. I don't know. I'm
relatively an optimist, so I think there's a 25% chance that things go really, really badly. I think
the danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads by a lot. And nobody would suggest
that we allow anyone to just build nuclear warheads if they want. That would be insane. And mock my
words, AI is
far more dangerous than nukes. We will have created the most dangerous thing ever. This makes nuclear
weapons look like nothing. Safe AI is a global requirement for the common benefit and flourishing of
people. Until federal and state laws exist to protect our citizens from unsafe super intelligence, the
responsibility falls upon municipal governments to protect their citizens in their own city. When enough
cities say no,
the AI industry will become liable. They will withdraw from the suicide race to superintelligence. It's
happened before when the chemical industry has withdrawn lethal products for similar reasons. We can
make it happen again. The risk of doing nothing for our children and families is extinction.
Narrow AI, Tool AI, and Safe AI
contained and controlled forever are a benefit for all. But now the AI industry is building
super intelligence with no idea how to contain or control it. Unless provably safe, ban artificial super
intelligence. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other comments?
All right. With that also thank you again Miss Jensen for being here with us. I'm very grateful. Will
the clerk please call the roll. Council member all. Yes. Ruff Flaherty Stasberg Yes. Piedmont Smith
Yes. Sorry Yes. Daily Yes.
All right, that passes. Congratulations, Councilmember Barallo. All right. We are on the last item of
our agenda. And we are doing great, guys. Thank you all for this. Amazing. What, you got some things
to say? Motions? Sure, why not? I move that ordinance 2026-30 be introduced and read by the clerk by
title and synopsis only.
Many discussion will the clerk oh no all those in favor Any opposed will the clerk please read Or an
ins 2026-30 author authorizing issuance of City of Bloomington, Indiana general obligation bonds series
2026 to provide funds to finance the costs of certain capital improvements and
Equipping projects and incidental expenses in connection there within and an account of the issuance
of the bonds and Appropriating the proceeds derived from the sale of such bonds Synopsis this ordinance
approves the issuance of general obligation bonds of the city of Bloomington, Indiana under Indiana
code 36-4-6-19 and
In an aggregate principal amount not to exceed six million eight hundred and sixty eight thousand dollars
For the purpose of financing certain capital projects and investments throughout the city related to
safety improvements Thank you, I move that ordinance 2026 dash 30 be adopted second
Okay, this just to be clear this constitutes our public hearing as mandated by state law of ordinance
of the I'm sorry of ordinance 2026 30 So as required by state law, we are now holding a public hearing.
You will have a chance to make public comment as usual on this Controller sir, take it away You a question
Procedurally, I do have an amendment to propose for this legislation and I just don't know I I don't
I don't care when We'll do we'll do a brief presentation any additional questions and we can move the
amendment. Okay. Thank you so much counselor rough So on your most recent agenda these are actually
two items the consent concern the same underlying piece of legislation
which is authorizing the issuance of the series 2026 general obligation bonds and appropriating the
proceeds from sale of such bonds. You'll remember that we provided a presentation on this legislation
at first reading at your meeting on October 26.
The presentation is in the packet for that meeting, as are several staff memos explaining the procedures
as well as the proposed projects. In response to questions from Councilmember Ruff at the first reading,
we've also provided another memo in tonight's packet explaining the processes associated with project
selection and review that are relevant to the engineering projects.
So along with me tonight, we have Justin Chang from Reedy Financial, Stephanie Crandall, the Bond Council
from Barnes and Thornburg. Was she able to join by Zoom? Great. Thank you very much. Corporate Council
Margie Rice, Deputy Mayor Gretchen Knapp, Deputy Fire Chief Max Litwin, and City Engineer Andrew Seaborg.
We are not going to reiterate the presentation, but we're happy to answer any questions that you have.
Being considered first is the official public hearing on the appropriation of the bond proceeds So this
is a statutory opportunity for the public to make comment on the proposed bonds and the appropriation
the public hearing has been properly noticed in the state's gateway system and then after the public
hearing concludes the Will then be up for questions on the actual ordinance 2026 30 which includes both a
authorizing the issuance of the series 2026 geo bonds and appropriating the bond proceeds I will just
say that I think that we have a package of projects in this bond that fits right in with multiple priorities
the council has asked us to prioritize in particular maintaining and enhancing our assets pedestrian
safety and implementing our plans so I don't know if Stephanie has any other
comments she wants to make about the requirements of the public hearing or any other process comments
before we move on to hearing from the public? No, you've covered it. Okay, great. Well, I will step
back and listen to the public. So at this time, there's, and there'll be another time, but if anyone
would like to make public comment on during this time of public hearing, now is your chance.
Is there anyone online. OK. And so with that we'll come to council members. Are there any questions.
Council member Ruffin and then you can feel free to introduce the amendment I believe. Correct.
Yes everyone. I want to first of all thank administration staff for providing information that was provided
in response to my questions from last.
last meeting where this was discussed but as Mr. McKim said when I someone I spoke to him about it on
the phone It might not satisfy your concerns, but here's the information and I appreciate the effort
very much and from planning transportation staff and receive or two so But a side question I noticed
in the list of projects that
Indiana Avenue project in a list of the traffic safety Projects the roadway projects, right and and
for a while there all the talk was Indiana Avenue was like sort of on accelerated pace it seemed like
to move forward and You know, there's nothing into this 10th Street. There's West Kirkwood. There's
What's what's why not Indiana Avenue?
Good evening. Andrew Seabor city engineer. Indiana Avenue was a project led and facilitated by our planning
and transportation department basically at a study level. It was ultimately presented to the
city transportation commission a version of it. The transportation commission voiced some concerns with
the proposal that they were shared.
and asked for another option to be reconsidered. Since that time basically the approach has been that
changing or further evaluations of Indiana would be more appropriate to do through the larger downtown
corridor study that's planned for next year. So we've talked a lot about a Kirkwood study but that is
going to be more than a Kirkwood study looking at downtown transportation facilities and how they all
off of each other so so it's essentially the plan is to look at Indiana and other facilities in the
downtown corridor area starting next year okay so just as quick follow-up to that so the university
being Indiana University it hasn't gotten involved or weighed in in any way shape or form on that project
for example I know the the city planning department primarily
Coordinated with a lot of stakeholders including Indiana University. I want to say it was either thing
was last week actually I joined a meeting with IU leadership and city planning staff just to talk about
transportation planning generally and there's some great opportunities where they are looking to
Initiate a transportation study of their own transportation plan for their campus And so that timing
aligns really well with what planning is looking to do next year to try to coordinate those two plans
To make sure they sync and work together Okay, thank you for that. I was just wondering in that list
of projects why I didn't see it so if I could make motion move my amendment and
I would need the assistance of Mr. Rossman and or mr. Allen Can you put the amendment up rather than
Is it did when the draft I sent to you Okay, thank you. Thank you very much So what my met what this
amendment does is it?
Cuts the bond amount in half to be sought that sorry we haven't is there a second. Oh, sorry anyway
Okay, go ahead introduce it this amendment would cut the amount of the bond in half and Restrict the
use of the proceeds of the bond funds to fully fund the firetruck and then
specific aspects of certain projects I don't are they listed in there what I meant the the lighting
the intersection lighting sidewalk and pavement reconstruction on 10th Street some of the details that
were included in in the project details and the reason the reason I'm the reason I'm doing this is because
I'm proposing this is because I
I don't feel like these two General major project proposals a two and a half million dollar needed fire
emergency vehicle with roadway projects that include, you know curb bump outs Whatever changes to the
roadway that we're seeing a lot all over town that I know are well intended and meant to
Intended to promote safety for all users, but in my experience They're not doing that they're the citizens
the community at large The majority my sense is are not happy with with what is going on and the irony
to them and to me too of
Large new emergency vehicle like this fire truck In the in the same bond funding restrictions to the
street constrictions and Deflections and modifications the street that will make it actually harder
and slower To use that piece of equipment I'm real quick. I just like to show right over here on South
Rogers the other day I rode my bike as I do most every day in
in this community. And can you run the little clips that I'd like to show? Run the one that's one minute
first. So this was just the other day. And the camera's mounted on a little mount on the front of my
bike. And I know these aren't well-intended. I'm not questioning anybody's intent at all. As a matter
of fact, I want to applaud the efforts
To try to make our streets safer by This is going if you can get it up this is simply running West yeah
run the run the minute one. That's a minute and seven. Okay, so here we are Crossing Rogers and this
is the new work. I'm on a bike that car just pulled in I'm you see the Nick so I'm as a bike list fun
cyclist funneling into that curb that's been placed on the left middle and on the right it's been brought out and
And so at a busy time, this was a relatively unbusy time late evening. But as you can see now, I don't
know why I hit a button that inadvertently slowed the way down. But if you're patient, you'll see as
I come through here that there's not room really for a car to go around me, which of course irritates
cars and makes them more resentful to cyclists when they get held up
in a situation like this. And then as you see, as you come out of this restriction, up ahead, you will
see right where the curb bumps out significantly right there, where the space between the car on the
right and the curb is that far. Now, if you could run the second one that's about 30 seconds or 40 seconds,
and then there's a 20 second one.
So then this is where it's relatively unmodified. There's room on the right. I'm riding in what would
be places for cars to park, and then there's a car coming through on the left. And right ahead of me
is this bump out deflecting device. This is what I'm headed right at. There's a curb coming right up,
covered by leaves, kind of dangerous. And you can see the opening right there.
forces me into into the roadway very much into the roadway and then you cross the intersection and as
you approach that curb bump out what if a car is coming behind me which and and not be look at the arrows
from the curb to the center line there and I'm a bike now I get around it and you can see it it opens
up again on the last ones the 22nd one and
So here you can get another good view of what we're talking about. This is farther on. These are just
as I'm writing down. This is one after the other as I'm headed west. The reason I want to show that
is we're seeing this all over town, these projects. And again, they're well intended, I know. But I
cannot vote for more of that.
When I want to but but I want to vote for the firetruck and for some of the things that are listed the
sidewalk reconstruction on 10th Street pavement improvements the lighting the improved lighting But
Millions more of which some is going to go to Those types of modifications the roadways I I can't I've
got it has to stop
We've had enough that we need to step step back and really look and try to assess what? What they're
doing for us. Are they really creating safety and how does the community how does the citizenry feel
about? these All of these things that large speed bumps curbs bump outs So I'm proposing this amendment
to fully fund the
The firetruck and some of the roadway improvements but not leave enough for carte blanche of these these
other types of projects because as we've seen We don't really have the ability To really dictate or
design or have a lot of input. I don't I don't I don't think the public has confidence that their wishes
and input and
is really taken into consideration when the designs are made. When I stopped my bike, when I've taken
those videos, I stopped on the street for a second at the intersection of Rogers and Maple, or I'm not
sure which one I was at. And a woman came out and said, what are you filming? And I said, well, I'm
concerned about these bump outs. And she goes, I live here. I have three young children. And I hate
them. So we walked to Building Crates Park.
We've crossed before these she said they've they confuse people. They don't slow down the traffic. They
confuse the traffic They make people nervous. It's we hate them and I've heard that in time and again
and and and and I'd also and when I turn around and came back and I went through one of the longer bump
outs I could tell there was a car right behind me couldn't get around me because there were cars coming and
West and I was going Easton and I could tell the guy behind me was just irritated just resentful That
there was he was put in that situation of waiting for me to to move through there. So I I Don't believe
we have a process that adequately takes into account Enough and consideration
and with enough time to really evaluate and carefully take input in. And the woman said to me, I'm a
resident here on the west side. When planning and transportation came and did what she called dog and
pony show, the design was in place. Nobody had any confidence that we were going to have very much influence
on the outcome. So thank you for giving me a significant amount of time to express my reasoning.
For wanting to do that for proposing this Again, it's I appreciate what staff and others want to do
But I just don't think it's what we're getting from these projects and I I don't want to see any more
of them go forward Let's take care of the potholes the bad condition our roads are in let's fix the
sidewalks. Let's do the lighting But let's be more thoughtful in retrospect now, we've got a lot of
these measures in place
Before we go and continue to do more of them So thanks very much. I really appreciate everybody's patience
and time, but it's upsetting to me I'm a I'm an I'm a cyclist. There's hardly a day in the last Let's
say start writing to McCullough school and I was in third grade. So I was eight or nine. There's hardly
been a day in 57 years that I haven't been on a bike in this town hardly a day
Winters and the council members can vouch that I ride here in snowstorms and It's it's it's really get
becoming. I'm a I'm a confident cyclist I'm one of the ones that's classified as strong and confident.
I Ride in the middle of traffic. I'm relatively fearless But when I was on Rogers the other day doing
that ride, I was a little Nervous and it takes a lot to get me nervous on a bicycle
So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember F. Any questions for the sponsor here. Councilmember Stossberg
question of staff.
How does this affect your long-term bond planning to essentially cut this in half because and I don't
So when this was first introduced at first reading they were limited to 20 minutes total for the presentation
and for any questions And I know that that presentation was rushed I could tell that that was quite
rushed. So I'm not sure how much it was absorbed by council members the long-term plan that
you guys are operating under right now in terms of go bonds, in terms of how bonding has had to shift
in terms of SEA 1 and the restrictions on bonds. So if you could maybe reflect on that a little bit
for us, that would be great. Thanks. Thank you very much.
I will first say that you are absolutely right that just due to our general restrictions now on property
taxes, GO bonds really provide our primary means of raising funds for capital projects, capital investments.
And we've been working with Reedy Financial on our, as you well know, being on the fiscal committee,
our long-range plan.
the What their analysis has showed is we pretty much have to rely on Geo bonds to be able to continue
to maintain An appropriate level of investment in capital. We just simply don't have the the other sources
of revenue I would like to maybe have mr. Seabor if he has a second
Talk about in particular the because some of these projects that are part of this proposal actually
do leverage MPO funding and other sources of funding and I kind of want to make sure that that that
we understand that The degree to which the this is actually leveraging other other projects the other
thing I will say is that the costs the transaction costs of doing a bond are relatively
Are relatively similar for a seven million dollar bond or six point eight million dollar bond and a
three point four million dollar bond So it's definitely less efficient to do it doesn't mean it can't
be done But it's just it is less efficient to do smaller bonds rather than larger bonds and it might
mean that we make our kind of current thought in terms of Proposal in terms of funding these long-term
capital plans is to do rolling
six-year bonds every three years So depending on council priorities for projects we may need to accelerate
that process rather than doing them only once every three years, but mr. Seaboard, can you comment in
particular on the The degree to which these these projects leverage Yeah, happy to discuss that and
any other questions that
Council members may have the specifically in this bond there are Two projects focused on crosswalk safety
that the bond I think it's the crosswalk improvements, which is Number three on the screen. We're looking
at right here. That's crossed out would fund the construction inspection of a project focused on improving
crosswalks near Tri-North and over by Kroger East and
The project's already been funded by design and next year's budget which was approved has the construction
funding This is just the inspection funding to make sure we can leverage those federal funds And is
also the design of a future crosswalk safety project that we don't have a defined scope for because
this would fund the design that we would develop that scope and present what that would look like to
the Transportation Commission. So those are two projects that have federal funding that we might not
Be able to utilize without without the bond There were other opportunities to potentially just leverage
other projects focusing on maintenance, but those were the two with federal funding I wanted to highlight
Mr. Seaborg, could you just elaborate a little bit more? Could you I mean so customer rough just
Talked at length about narrowing of roadways that cause very hazardous conditions for bicycles. Is that
part of this? I'm not sure how to respond to the statement. I don't I don't know what we're doing is
Creating hazardous conditions if anything we are implementing Safety countermeasures in City Council
adopted plans. So I'm just not sure how there's a trade-off there and
I mean if bicyclists use this a road and it in its intermittently narrowed such it forces you into traffic
That's hazardous for the bicyclist. I guess now that could be a crosswalk as well So it's might be good
for the for the pedestrian But I'm but I'm kind of conflicted here because I don't want to do anything
that causes an accident for bicyclists Which I know I've been in one for sure Absolutely, and I guess
just to be clear
What is being narrowed isn't a space that bicyclists would be expected to legally ride. Bicyclists would
be either in a bike lane that would be maintained or in the vehicular lane or on a sidewalk. Those points
would not be pinched down any further by any of these projects. I thought roadways were open to bicyclists,
but you're saying it would be prohibited. Is there a sign that says bicycles are prohibited on that road?
I don't think that's what I said and if I did I'm sorry Bicycles are not prohibited from riding in the
roads Okay, what did you say you said that there well, it was the opposite but I Think bikes if they're
you said they wouldn't be using that road. I
Where you so in other words down any area a bicyclist would be expected to be riding So if there is
a bike lane We would be maintaining a bike lane if there is no bike lane bikes would either ride in
the vehicle lane That would still be maintained or on the sidewalk that would be enhanced Okay, so they
should be sharing the lane with a car or riding in a sidewalk that and they would be doing that with
or without these projects Uh-huh. Okay. Thanks. I
Thank you so much. Other questions. Okay. This is on the amendment. Okay. Is there any public comment
on the amendment. Councilman question. So this is for staff. So on the 10th Street project the document
provided says reconstructing sidewalks curb ranks drive aprons
widening sidewalks adding full height curb tree plots grass buffers between the sidewalk and street
second raised intersections and uncontrolled intersections along the corridor installing traffic calming
closing driveways where it's feasible installing traffic calming. That's that's too general for me installing
traffic calming. And that's what a lot of the things we're seeing around town are. And again I'm
I know I hope I don't come across as trying to be even be critical of staff. I just because I know it's
all meant to make Bloomington better and safer. But from what I'm experiencing and from what I'm hearing
from lots of people it's not coming out that way. It's not working out that way. And if you look through
these projects there are
References to things like bump outs curb bump outs and traffic calming just kind of randomly in the
places and just in the project descriptions, right with that and If we're if we're at the comment period
I can make a kind of make a final comment. Okay. Okay. I was gonna kind of make a final so let me go
to public and
And then we'll come back if you want to make your final comment here Okay, so public comment on the
amendment would anybody like to make a comment on the amendment And don't don't hurt yourself take your
time Paul or so again briefly I think the fundamental problem here with what's been discussed about
the trade-off between pedestrian safety and bicycling safety
is that we're fundamentally asking engineering to do something that's really difficult to do, that should
be done by enforcement. And that's underlying so many things that go on in Bloomington these
days, unfortunately. Mr. Seaborg is suggesting that if there are bump outs, then the safe way to proceed
down the street is to what's called take the lane.
becomes a more tenable proposition if the Driver of the car does not have an expectation to go down
that street faster than the speed limit Which they do? Thank you Anyone else in chambers like to make
a public comment Anyone online Okay, there are two people online First person I assume you'll know it's
you you can go and
Maybe we don't know it's you. Sorry, I was not clear that my name is Iris Bull. I recognize that...
I didn't catch your name. I'm so sorry, and we'll give you your time back. It's okay. My name is Iris
Bull. Thank you, Iris. Yeah, I just wanted to observe that the video that council member was shooting
is in an active construction zone that is not finished
and so some of the payment markings will be changing. Just think that it's not a really fair comparison
to criticize the experience of riding on the roadway when there's so much contributing to confusion.
But also I think that the whole purpose of the Transportation Commission is exactly to bring up questions
like when and where do we install bump outs? I think that the
The financing question here is to enable our staff to do anything. But cutting them off at the knees
is not a good use of staff time. I just don't know what we're supposed to do in the city if individual
council members are allowed to target projects this way. I don't know. It just feels like what's the
whole point of the Transportation Commission if this is what city council
conversations are, this is where we're supposed to have those conversations. So thank you. Thank you
very much. Next person online. I think that's me. We will assume so as well. Okay, because normally
there's a prompt that says you can unmute yourself, but there was no such prompt.
Good evening, my name is Eric Ost and I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you again. I was intending
to be in chambers, but it was not to be. I applaud council member Ruff for saying what needs to be said
out loud in public. I'm a bicyclist, a pedestrian and also an automobile driver. I speak with confidence
and based on my lived experience when I say that the traffic calming Greenway program
and delegation of authority for traffic control and regulation has resulted in outcomes that are questionable
at best. There are insufficient warrants for many of the traffic safety projects. Accident data and
other data is critical to ascertain warrant. I'm a big believer in trusting but verifying. Accident
data is being intentionally withheld under a presumed prohibition
that is proven false by the fact that accident data or accident reports, let me use the correct term,
accident reports are being published by other municipalities. The transportation plan was a general
and imprecise prospectus that is being repeatedly referenced as council approval for all of the projects
that staff and consultants design. I respect our staff. I know that they are sincere.
I sympathize with the previous comment in regards to staff's role and charge. But I also want to point
out that not too long ago, plans and projects came before the council. At this point, the council's
only authority, remaining authority, until it restores it, which it can and should do, is to
not appropriate money. The Safe Streets for All Plan, which a lot of this is being driven by, states
an unattainable goal, which is zero fatalities and injuries on public streets. It's noble, admirable,
but terribly naive. I have some other things to say. You know, the seven line project should be a golden
example. The Hawthorne Weatherstone Greenway,
The proposal for East Rogers Road, an arterial, is going to propose to have vertical deflection devices
installed on it. The common council should require all projects that make permanent changes to the public
right of way to come before the council for final review and approval. It is their legislative authority
under Indian code. Furthermore, the council should change Bloomington municipal code if necessary to
require follow-up
that the proposed outcomes are actually making streets safer. I appreciate this opportunity. So I support
the amendment, and I request that you do so as well. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Are there
any other commenters online? No. More in chambers? Is that OK? It is OK. It is the time. OK.
I said my name, I've never done this, I didn't plan on coming up. I'm Hank Ruff, and I plan to just
come to see Dave give his AI presentation, but after seeing and listening to this, my question is, or
comment is, why, you know, I've lived here 27 years now, and you know, I've never heard of,
pedestrian, tons of pedestrian accidents, maybe I'm just uninformed, but it seems like the city's always
obsessed with fixing things that aren't broken. You know, we put speed bumps all over on High Street,
all through, off of Eagleson, or First Street, and I just, it seems like these type of things don't
really do anything that is, there's no issues right now, it seems like. So, I guess that's all I have
to say on it.
tried to fix things that aren't broke it seems like so yeah thank you so much anyone else like to give
public comment all right we'll come back to council for comment on amendment one all right your time
for your comment but noting the time we almost made it you know
I'm not just talking about a bike. I'm just using example because I do bike like but I drive all the
time too and I find them dangerous my mother my 87 year old mother hit one of those bump outs and Really
it was traumatized by it by hitting one of those things in her, you know in her car So it's I'm not
just talking about bicycle. I'm just talking about the overall on the roadways and the I understand
This is an important funding source. But again, we're borrowing money. We're still borrowing money and
paying it back with interest. It's a bond Right. It doesn't make sense to say because this is an important
way to get money So we're gonna borrow it and do projects that aren't that aren't really worth and providing
the return in benefits to the city to the community to the people of community and
To justify it that doesn't make sense to me Maybe I've heard talked at the bus that there there's some
kind of crisis at transit all of a sudden and they're gonna be cutting cutting roots and you know, maybe
Full sure take all this the whole bond Not my proposed half but the whole thing and and and use it.
Can we not use it for for transit? Rather than then more of what we've been seeing and
And finally last comment. This is my realest comment We say I see this a lot And I hear it all the time
City Council adopted plans City Council did not adopt a plan that shows the details of What will be
done or what is proposed to be done or what on for these projects? The Hawthorne Weatherstone Greenway
was a line on a map saying all this would be a greenway
Right. What it turned into in my opinion was a fiasco and a waste of eight hundred thousand dollars
that we have a lot of demands and use for in this community. So it is to me it is disingenuous to say
point to council council approve approve these plans. We never approve the kind of detail that
Ends up being done. We don't and anymore. We don't even get any say in it like we used to so thank you
Thank you councilmember councilmember, we'll just go down the line then go ahead. Yeah flirty first
I know it's late. We don't need to labor all this suffice to say we have some very very different opinions
up here on the Council I do want to address a few things I think Conceptually, I think it's important
to think about
how we approach things. I appreciate Iris Bull's comments. I try to take an approach of evidence-based
decision-making rooted in community-defined goals and data. And communities are very good at defining
high-level goals. We have defined some of them, like, you know, trying to have fewer deaths and serious
injuries in our streets. The younger Mr. Ruff commented and asked about that. From 2019 to 2023,
we had 10,291 crashes in Bloomington. 443 of those ended in life-changing injury or fatality.
Nate Stratton, an IU student, was killed on North Walnut because we didn't have safe infrastructure
for scooters and bicycles. We had a law student, Perva Sethi, killed at 3rd and Washington Street because
someone was turning right on red and didn't look. These things happen all the time. We've had multiple
deaths on Indiana Avenue. They do happen all the time, and the cost is catastrophic.
Our vision zero goal, which is legislatively established is what staff is trying to achieve with with
these evidence-based data-backed Strategies that are not based on guesses. They're based on meta analysis
of worldwide design infrastructure choices things like bumpouts that shorten cross distances that save
lives things that shorten turn radiuses things that block off the turn from
Across a lane of traffic to get to the gas station at the southwest corner of 6th and Rogers these things
do save lives and prevent crashes And we're not guessing to mr. Ost's point about You know the evidence
for these things we can look to peers that are ahead of us That's true about their cities in the US
and it's true of Europe where in the 90s they had 75,000 plus deaths a year in their streets more than
two and a half times what the US had at that time and
That has plummeted through their Vision Zero goals to less than 20,000 a year. In the same amount of
time, the US has increased by about 30%. Now, we have double what they have, 40,000 traffic deaths,
fatalities a year. And with much respect to Mr. Russo, I really do believe that design is the predominant
factor. And I think that's borne out even greater than enforcement. That's not to say enforcement doesn't
have a role. It does. But I don't think we can rely on that. I think design is the biggest.
biggest feature. Again, I know Mr. Ruff, Council Member Ruff, disagrees with me about this. I believe
he's well-intentioned in the same way he's crediting staff for being well-intentioned. I don't think
anybody's questioning that for any of us. But for me, it's not about whether or not we bike ourselves
and what our experience is. I also bike. That's all well and good. To me, it's about statistics and
evidence in a kind of larger sense. And I generally, you know, is staff going to get it right every
single time? No.
Overall, they're doing a pretty dang good job on following those evidence-based strategies
for implementation. And we'll also just note that I do think the Transportation Commission
Is a good venue that has been an improvement of process to field these kind of questions and input from
residents do change design Considerations just recently between how and or between second and and third
on Rogers There were some adjustments to the final design choices. They're based on resident input from
the neighborhood for instance So I know those things do happen. I know not everybody's gonna be satisfied
with all this. I don't doubt that Councilmember rough mr. Ost here from residents neighbors that are
disgruntled about these things and
You know, some people don't like to walk their dogs on a leash. Some people don't want to drive the
speed limit These these things are all true. But you know to me the the life saving Evidence behind
all this is it makes it strongly worth it. So I won't be supporting the amendment. Thank you Thank you,
um, I wanted councilmember Flaherty to go first because I kind of knew that I could second most of what
he said in terms of
the aspects of safety and just kind of I think having to agree to disagree with councilmember rough
over his perspective and some other community members I'm sure too in terms of how some of these changes
have impacted the streets and whether or not it's I Mean data will tell us whether it's safe or right
but data can't tell us that for a little bit
I appreciate as a cyclist that yeah, sometimes you go slower and there's a car behind you that's kind
of riding up your butt and it's really uncomfortable. Well, you know what? That's the car's problem.
That is the driver's problem. And we have a horrible epidemic of really, really inconsiderate drivers
who don't care to share the road, who don't care to slow down. And as Council Member Flaherty just said,
enforcement only goes so far by design. Design has to force drivers to slow down.
And that's not a Bloomington problem. That is a nationwide problem right now in terms of crashes and
Accidents and all of those things have have gone up nationwide. It is it is an issue so Second all of
that but as an aside in terms of actually thinking about this as a bond that that we're borrowing money
so two things first of all, I said last time at the
the first reading that one of the reasons why I decided that I would sponsor this, first of all, everything
needs a sponsor at this point, right? So I'm not necessarily going to agree with everything that I sponsor,
but I think it's really important to put things before folks, right?
But one of the things that struck me was this idea of we only have so much money. And if we were thinking
about a capital investment of our own, like personal finances, I'm going to buy a car, I'm going to
buy a house, I'm going to put a new roof on, whatever it is, you're going to save money up, and then
you're going to do it. And that that just doesn't really work in municipal finances, because then what
you're doing is you're saving tax dollars that these people
Paid but then you're using it over here and these people are going to take advantage of it so the folks
that paid for it aren't getting to take advantage of it and so by borrowing by doing that bonding the
people who are paying for it also get to take advantage of it and so the thing that we can you know,
potentially debate is these these projects, but I Don't think that it is wise to reduce the overall
bond amount and
Because as Mr. McKim said, that our fees, our overhead, all of that is going to be the same no matter
what. And so if we're just looking at it from a very straight financial perspective, it makes zero sense
to reduce the bond. And if we want to have, if the majority of folks up here don't want to fund
these particular projects with it, then I think that that should be the discussion, not the overall
bond amount. But secondly, in terms of what the cut is, it's the 10th Street money and the 3rd Street
money, essentially. But that 3rd Street money, to my understanding, is about signal modernization, is
about those traffic signals there. And I've noticed, since I was at the first bond meeting, and I've
gone through that intersection, and I've gone, oh yeah, those are the old ones up there.
And it's a really huge difference. I was in, I think that I mentioned at some point, I was in Michigan
a few times recently. And I hadn't really, you know, we have the new traffic signals with like the orange.
They're like color different, right? And they really do stand out. And I didn't realize how much they
were standing out until I went through a town with all old signals. And I was like, oh yeah, I can barely
see those at all.
those modern modern signals make a make a really big difference and that's the majority of I mean that's
half of what Councilmember Ruff is proposing to cut and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do
with curb ramps and puff outs or bump outs so I think that I mean I'm certainly not going to support
this amendment and I would urge my colleagues not to you and if there are a majority that have concerns
over those particular expenses that This get figured out a different way not by cutting the bond money
As a follow-up to public comment Mr. Seabor I just so so that but the transportation plan was Published
seven and a half years ago. So we've implemented a lot of these projects Are there are there and we're
data driven. I agree. We should be Do we have reports that show that these changes have reduced accidents?
could you point to like 7th Street and say I
we have fewer accidents there or to other projects to say it's worked? Yeah. We're talking about a lot
of projects. Some of which have absolutely nothing to do with the bond. But we in engineering do try
to collect before and after data on our projects to assess their impact. So what were the speeds before
a project? What were the speeds after the project? Crash data takes more time to collect. Seven line
over time crashes.
They are down compared to where they were before they project significantly, especially since the always
stops have gone back up So accidents have decreased on 7th Street. Yes. Okay, and is that data published?
Can we can you can we view it like tomorrow? There is a I know online public forum where people can
see crash data Okay That is available. Okay, great so we can put that out to people
Okay, thank thank you that that helps I'll just make a very brief comment because I think I have a Maybe
a different view and I'm probably wrong, but I not you know not being an engineer You know, I think
that the the broader issue is that we're making systemic analysis of
a small portion of things and I think that a lot of the things we're trying to do I think is councilman
Ferdi's pointed out really is a whole of system approach and you know, I think our biggest challenge
really is that like we haven't finished a lot of our projects and we're like really behind on a lot
of our projects and I think you know even in the video that councilmember rough showed
I mean, the thing that's remarkable to me is the inconsistency, right? So you're on a road that's like
this, and then you're on a road that's like that, and then we have a bump out here. And so you don't
know what to expect. And I've been saying for three years, and try it a whole different way this year,
and fail. And I guess I just fail all the things. But this is an area where we need to be putting more
money, simply stated, far beyond what we're investing right now in our infrastructure. And I wish that
we could accelerate a lot of this investment.
place to either reallocate funds or spend some of our reserves. I don't know how much of a swing that
would make something I'd love to hear, but generally speaking, I just think the issue is that you can
sort of take a snapshot of a thing that's a part of a broader system and then make a judgment about
the whole system by just looking at that snapshot.
Though I very much appreciate the approach here. I also very much appreciate the concerns that Councilmember
Ruff has brought up. I won't be voting for the amendment but I'm very grateful for all of the work that
you've put in. Thank you sir. OK. With that will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment and
then we'll come back and then we'll do some more things.
I believe you're on council member. I don't know. It doesn't really matter to us. For bond council they've
asked they've requested that we go ahead and close the public hearing at the end before we vote on any
amendment so that the vote on the amendment is not part of the additional appropriation of the bond proceeds.
But so but we'll have another time of public comment we will have another time of public comment for
the entire ordinance That's correct. Do we have to listen? Do we have to listen to my jokes jokes? Go
ahead and close it sir Yes, please
This officially closes the time of public hearing for the appropriation of bond proceeds. That was a
notice in Gateway and properly now we can proceed with the vote. Thank you very much. So regal.
Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll. Council member Ruff Flaherty Stasberg no Piedmont Smith
sorry no daily no.
No Okay, thank you very much that does not pass but thank you councilmember Ruff for your work on this.
Okay, we are back Where are we we did the questions we did all that let's do public comment now on the
on the bond This is your last chance to give public comment on the proposed bond. Would anyone like
to give comment on the proposed bond? I
Anyone online. Oh Well, that comes back to us Okay question from councillor Pima Smith Yes, mr. McKim
the tax rate accompanying the bond is point zero two four nine Per hundred dollars of assessed value.
Is that correct? Yeah, I'm actually going to I could answer too, but I am going to allow a
Justin Chang since he's been here all evening Okay, perfect, thank you Justin Chang was really financial
group been outside the entire night happy to be here Totally fine I'm sorry. It was the question whether
the tax rate on the bond point zero two four nine was that if you could just give us some
Information about the actual impact to rate payers so impacts of the taxpayers are really going to be
minimal for the reason number one is 0.24 that's a really small change to a tax rate if you think about
that that is you know less than point to adjust about point two of a percent right, so it's a very it's
a very small change and secondly, it's
If we talk thinking about residential residential property so homes that we live in we are already at
the tax caps. So that means regardless of how the rates are change go up or down. That doesn't really
affect our tax rates. What really will be affected are the commercial and business properties. Those
will have a little bit of an effect. So just to clarify for the public so
Point zero to four nine Dollars is the rate that of the tax per one hundred dollars of assessed value
That means for every hundred dollars of assessed value that is to two point four nine cents increase,
okay But it'll mostly be felt by commercial properties
Yes, so this two point four nine cents increase at most it could be none depending on your on your property.
Yes Thank you Thank you ever so much any final comments councilmember Susper. Well, I just also wanted
to address that a little bit because of if this 2026 go bond that is being proposed is that two point
four nine cents
per hundred dollars of assessed value the thing like from a taxpayer perspective really you want to
know like the total of how The tax rate for all of the bonds that the city might have and so one of
the things that they have done in terms of scheduling is it's this idea that like some things get paid
off as new things come and so then there's relative consistency and
Yeah, so that's part of you know that slideshow and that thing so it's this very small Increase that
has a rough relative consistency in terms of rate over the next several years and we do see the 2024
bond rolling off at the end of this year and then several bonds also rolling off in 2028 as well
On this bond ordinance not because I don't think the product projects Have merit I do generally I have
like a broader concern about accountability in relation to bond ordinances This has come up over time.
It came up recently in the budget context with this administration in particular both the the Showers West
expenditures that were By by law meant to be limited exclusively to public safety purposes, and I don't
believe that's done I think the but we've actually probably violated the bond ordinance and the other
is Ordinance 2024 24, which is about Indiana Avenue, which mr. Ruff was asking about And it was the
subject of negotiations in the 2024 budget where the council wanted to see more action on the things
and we we agreed that that should be the priority project because people are dying on that street and
being seriously injured and
And it's kind of been subject to fits and starts. I talked about it recently. Staff developed some concepts.
They had a clear conception of what they thought would increase safety for all road users in a significant
way. And then a handful of stakeholders among hundreds opposed it, specifically a couple of folks at
Indiana University in the capital planning and facilities world, two of whom have now moved on from
Indiana University. And it became clear through the Transportation Commission meeting that those individuals
the ones who led to this project being presented to the Commission in a way that did not meet the charge
of the Commission to ensure compliance with city goals and and so the Commission did unanimously reject
the proposal from staff which had clearly had like a thumb on the scales and what they were allowed
to present and Asked for a new concept and never heard another word until I started asking about it,
you know six months later and As mr. C Bercher tonight and I appreciate he's in a tough spot with all this and
you know, now it's not being pursued, and it's part of a sort of downtown corridor conceptual thing,
which, by the way, isn't what the transportation plan calls for. It calls for a design process for Kirkwood.
It doesn't say a whole downtown consideration. This is sort of morphed and evolved into something nebulous
that isn't what's called for in our plans. And so that's essentially a political decision being made
outside of public meetings.
I pretty much disagree with the political decision that was made. And I just don't, so it gets back
to accountability. I mean, this was negotiated in earnest in good faith. I even said at that time, I
watched the hearing recently, you know, I was, you know, fool me once, you know, kind of thing. And
I felt like I didn't want to get fooled a second time. And here I have been fooled a second time. And
I won't be fooled a third time. I'm not going to vote for the ordinances. And I'll be hard pressed to
support many appropriations from this administration at all until I feel like there's real accountability
For these things if it there's a specificity question when it comes to bond ordinances and getting you
know We want to have certainty about which projects are being implemented Administration wants flexibility
because things change. That's all well and good. That's something different though. I think then what
I'm talking about here and I just don't really find it acceptable that Once we appropriate the money
counsels out of the picture and sort of whatever I
Happens from there and you know, maybe it passes legal muster. Maybe it doesn't if nobody holds you
accountable to it who cares so that I just not happy with it with obviously with how The actions that
follow from our approval of Bonds have gone in recent years and for that reason I'm voting no tonight
again, not a not a Indictment of the projects themselves, but rather procedural shortcomings in my view. Thank you
Any other comments? Councilmember Stossberg. Thank you. I just want to thank Councilmember Flaherty
for for kind of staying.
staying consistent with his values in this respect. I am planning on supporting this. While I agree
with that, I also know that in my discussions with staff, we discussed that issue in terms of let's
make sure that the money is being spent in transparent ways, in consistent ways, in ways that we know
exactly what is there. And I asked that details be put in.
so that we could know what to expect. And I think that there is more that we could do as a body to demand
accountability around different things. I think that it's hard sometimes to figure out how exactly to
do that, I'll say, because it's
easy to say it, and harder to keep track of making sure it happens, and there's like a lot of, there's
a lot of stuff, there's a lot of moving parts in the city, and because there are nine of us, it's really
easy, I think, probably too easy to think like, oh, I think so-and-so's handling that, and so-and-so's
not actually handling that. And they don't realize that you think they're handling that, and it just gets,
gets busy and because of the nature of this position, it's not full time. We don't have special offices
that we go to every day, so we don't end up seeing each other necessarily. And it can be challenging
to manage to get in touch sometimes to connect about those things because availability is so varied.
And I'm not making an excuse about that. I think that we can and should
do more as a body to figure out how to make sure that accountability is there, how to make those check-ins
there. Honestly, I think that the special fiscal committee
can play a role in that. And I think the hard thing for me as chair of that committee this year is that
I'm seeing a lot of things in that committee that it's like, oh, we could play a role in that. We could
play a role in this. How many roles can we play? And we run out of time in those meetings. So it's definitely
something that's on my radar.
as something that I want to improve upon. But in the meantime, I don't want to jeopardize some of the
capital investments that I think need to be made. Firetruck, very essential. The crosswalk stuff is
also like, especially I'll say that East Covenanter and the Auto Mall Road intersection over there,
that's like by Kroger.
The the college mall croaker that is a horrendous Intersection it is massive. It is horribly unsafe
for any user going through and I am That cannot happen soon enough and that may be like a small piece
overall of of these bond dollars But it is going to make a hugely positive impact over there
So there are lots of pieces of this that I am that I am very I'm excited about and I also want to mention
the lighting because you know, we had a couple deliberation sessions about public safety and I was actually
meeting with Councilmember Piedmont Smith about that today and realizing like yeah, that was a theme
that people Felt less safe when you know in certain dark places and one of the pieces of this is to
improve lighting and in different spaces and that is something that you know, I've talked with
engineering and about a couple other times I remember council members who look mentioning that that
is something that that she Helped with it and I'll straighten her district to get better lighting there
and that not really Gets at several different pieces of safety and service to our residents and ultimately
We're here to serve our residents, so I will be supporting this. Thank you Thank you so much any other comments
All right with that will the clerk councilmember although I'm sorry I'll make it brief that I'm very
conflicted about this I I think at a time when we're dipping into reserves that The transportation projects
I find could be shelved for the time being I have I'm very conflicted because of the the need for the fire
Which I think is necessary It wouldn't be necessary. I think if we if I mean to me it always represents
a cost of growth because when we build tall buildings or we allow tall buildings be built I should say
There's a cost associated with that. That's never of course internalized and so it's always passed off
to the to the general taxpayer so I am conflicted about this
I'm not sure how I'll vote. Thank you. Do you need more time or should we call the vote. Right. OK.
The suspense is fairly exciting with any other any other comments. All right. For our last vote of the
night potentially will the clerk please call the roll. Council member member Flaherty no Stasberg yes.
Pete Mott Smith? Yes. Asari? Yes. Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes. Ruff? No. OK, that motion carries six. Five,
two. Thank you all so very much for all of your time. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
We now come to the final moment of public comment. And if anyone would like to make, you've been sitting
here and you're just like, man, you know what I'd like to do at 1130? Make a public comment. Anyone?
Anyone online? Are you coming to make a public comment, Ms. Rousseau? Come on, then. Round us out. If
it's on the agenda, though, we're going to call the Sergeant of Arms. I'm joking. Go on. Because he's
not here. Go on.
It's tangentially related to something that came up my in in in in watch in watching both the Historic
Preservation Commission and the Transportation Commission and then following up on some of the comments
that were made at the Historic Preservation Commission and the problems I Wondered why is it that we
use Roberts rules of order? I
And I looked it up online to say, well, maybe it's an Indiana State requirement. And it's not. And then
I started reading more about Robert's Rules of Order and found out that it was actually designed for
large parliamentary bodies by someone from the military who wanted deficiency prioritized. And it's
inappropriate for small bodies, generally. So I want to raise that question. It may not be appropriate
for you, since you have long meetings.
But there are other ways to do business. There's complete consensus, which takes a long time. There
are modified consensus models and everything in between consensus and Robert's Rules of Order. And you
can do whatever you want, apparently, and so I'd like to put that out there, especially for the committees.
I don't see, the committees don't have the kind of agenda that you have, and I see no reason why
Committee meeting that's usually an hour and hour or an hour and a half can't be done with a more modified
consensus more congenial Process so that's all thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone online?
Oh All right. Well guys, thank you one important note about council schedule We our next deliberation
session is on Tuesday not on Wednesday and
You like me or just a habit person so Tuesday not Wednesday wouldn't Tuesday the 10th And we're gonna
be discussing Public safety again. We may also have a little bit of a time just to brainstorm around
Housing we all voted to withhold the housing fund and so maybe worth us generating some thoughts around
what we'd like to do there, but any other announcements about council schedule and
Wonderful, this meeting is adjourned.