Okay, so we have all the commissioners who were going to be present tonight here. So we'll start with calling role as the first item. Coppock. Here. Connell. Here. Bowling. Here. Drummy. Here. Davis. Here. Stossburg. Here. Okay, next item on the agenda is election of officers.
 that will be handled by a city engineer, Andrew Seaborg. Good evening, commissioners, as your next item of business, I just request that you make appointments for chair and vice chair of this commission. I'll take any nominations. I nominate Steve Volin as chair. I'll second that.
 nomination. Okay, I'll call a roll. Connell. Yes. Bowlin. Sure. I assume that's a yes. Yes. Okay. Drummy. Yes. Davis. Yes.
 Yeah, that was sorry. We heard your yes. Give me give us one second. Actually, I'll finish calling roll Stossburg. Yes. Copic. Yes. Okay, that passes. And I'll hand it off to Mr. Bowlin, but give us one split second to figure out what happened with the audio there. Of course. Well, we did hear her. I don't know what speaker was coming from, but thank you all. I hope I'll serve you well. Is that did you say something, Ms. Davis?
 Okay, all right. We now go to election of vice chair. Are there any nominations? I would like to somebody want it. I'll nominate the Mark Stossberg. There a second off second that any other nominations? Being none, can we have a roll call on Mark Stossberg is vice chair?
 Yes. Drumming. Yes. Davis. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. Coppock. Yes. And Connell. Thank you. Thank you. That is 6-0. And Mr. Stossburg, my condolences. I mean, welcome to being vice chair. All right.
 Normally, an agenda needs to be recited before the meeting, but we had to elect officers, so I will just briefly go over the agenda. We will hear an approval of minutes. We'll hear reports and communications, including a report on conflict of interest forms, a Title 15 update from staff, a report on North Walnut Street and Blue Ridge, and the new e-scooter slash e-bike license application from BIRD.
 I'd also like to insert into there an opportunity for commissioners to make a report, which is where that should fall. In cases we'll be hearing, case one will be about rules and procedures amendments. Case two will be about the commission's calendar. Case three will be about North Indiana Avenue and East 13th Street's intersection. Case four will be
 North Woodland Avenue and the East 13th Street intersection. There are no transportation inquiries on the agenda. We will follow that with discussion, staff proposals, and general public comment. And finally, we will adjourn. So we now go to approval of minutes. I see that there's one set of minutes. We've had one meeting and the minutes are ready. Would someone like to move the approval of those minutes?
 the minutes. Second. Motion to second. Are there any observations, additions, corrections to the minutes? From online, no. To my left. My right. I did notice that maybe Mr. Sosberg's name might have been misspelled once or twice in them, but it's a no big deal. Yeah, let's check it. Seeing no other corrections.
 Because we have a member online, we have to have a roll call vote. We'll have a roll call vote on approval of minutes. Volin. Yes. Drummy. Yes. Davis. Yes. Dasper. Yes. Coppock. Coppock. Stain. And Connell. Yes.
 The vote is five zero one. Is that right? All right. Okay. Uh, let's now go to reports and communications. Um, I would like to hear from commissioners, uh, if they have any brief reports, um, before we go to the reports from staff, if that's okay. All right. Are there any commissioners who would like to make a report on items that are not on the agenda online in my left?
 right. Okay, I would like to just say briefly, we received the resignation of Barbara McKinney, who was appointed to this commission by the council on Saturday. We regret that she doesn't feel she has the time to to take part in this. We wish her well. But that means that with the essential of Mr. Coppock from Public Works, we are now back to seven
 members. There are two vacancies on the commission. The only other thing I wanted to say is that, well, no, actually I said it last month, so I'm fine. That's all I had to, I just wanted to make note of the fact that we have lost a member already. Let's now go to discussion of conflict of interest forms, Mr. Seaborg.
 Yes, thank you. And just following up on the resignation of Barbara McKinney, it's just a reminder too for the community members to take the opportunity if you are interested in serving on this commission to apply online. We do have two vacancies. One is mayoral appointed and one is council appointed. And so with that, just a very quick transition. I think a very quick report in your packet is a short memo from our legal department.
 And essentially the key thing I want to point out is a conflict of interest questionnaire. Typically as a commissioner on other commissions, it's annual practice that every January commissions are asked to submit and complete this questionnaire and just submit it to the staff of that commission. Since this is where a new commission, we're kind of a little behind, but I would expect come early next year, this just becomes an annual thing. But if you could,
 In the packet, I think legal acts for it within two weeks, but just in advance of next meeting, submit it to myself, Iris and Ryan, or one of us, we'll all communicate. Communication is a little confusing. Some of the materials say that reach out to legal, but in coordinating with legal, they suggested it be us as the staff of the commission. So if you have any questions about that, happy to field them. And of course, legal is also available if there are questions.
 Are there questions for the conflict of interest form? To my right, to my left, online? Yes, Ms. Davis. Yeah, my company did just receive a small grant from the city. I won't directly benefit, but I'm curious
 if that's an issue when I fill out the conflict of interest form. Sorry, and it's not my company, it's the company I work for. Okay. What do you say to that? My initial reaction is I don't think so, but I would just encourage you to submit the form with that type of information and we'll share it with our legal, but I would expect something that to be okay unless this commission was involved in something with that.
 I'd like to ask a follow-up question to hers. So she got a grant or her company got a grant, but I mean, the commission has a wide-ranging portfolio. Maybe at worst, she might have to recuse herself from a particular decision and not the entirety of the commission. I would suspect that is correct. Again, once we get these forms, we'll verify with our legal department, but that is what I would expect. Okay.
 We just call staff to ask advice about how to fill out the form if we don't know. Absolutely. Okay. Maybe you could consult with Ms. Davis. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments about, um, conflict of interest forms? Thank you. All right. Let's go on now to, uh, title 15 update and a hundred and eighty eight hundred and eighty day orders.
 Mr. Seaborg. Yes, thank you. And I mostly put it in this report wanting to give the commission an update on our 180-day orders. But I felt with this being a new commission, I should also introduce what is Title 15 and why these exist. That was exactly what I was going to ask you to do. Thank you for doing that. Great. So Title 15 is the city code that deals with vehicles and traffic. It establishes things like where stop signs are, what the speed limits of our roads are, how you shall park, or what parking fees and fines exist.
 It really supplements a lot of traffic code that is set by state code and these are all listed in my staff report.
 And so this commission is really focused on three things. I think per the code is one is to review transportation projects. One is to review this part of city code, things that deal with vehicles and traffic. And another is to look at our title 12, which deals with roads and streets. And so title 15 is going to be one of those big buckets that you get involved in reviewing.
 With that said, I also do want to give like a little early preview that there are some outstanding questions about title 15 is set by city council and is city code. And, and so what I described is that our city council has typically a
 seen ordinances that establish things like where parking is allowed and where it is not allowed. But there are some outstanding questions on if that does belong in Title 15. And so as that question is further explored, we will certainly keep this commission up to date. So that's a very quick preview of what Title 15 is. And so 180-day orders is essentially a part of city code that enables my position
 to make temporary or experimental changes to traffic.
 regulations that otherwise have traditionally been approved by City Council and put in city code. Per the name, they're intended to last up to 180 days. And so they are temporary. But that said, I also want to admit sometimes that they have been extended. But in theory, the idea is that City Council should be taking action on these before they expire. That's been the standard practice. So in the past, I have provided updates on 180 day orders at the
 traffic commission meetings. And so because we haven't had a transportation commission this year until really recently, there is a list I wanted just to go through and just to share. And in the future, I would expect to give shorter reports on just any new ones that may have been issued.
 And so very quickly to go through these, the first 180-day order that I have issued this year was regarding four always stop intersections on 7th Street. This was part of just staff monitoring crash data and so really in response to some increase in crashes as a result of removing always stop with the seven line project. So that went into effect in March. The next
 188 order was regarding some parking changes next to Mills Pool. This was essentially a request from city staff that managed the pool from Park and Rec with coordination with other city departments. It's been in place so far this year with the pool season and has been very effective and we're not aware of any issues with, but it just created some loading zones, helped limit how long people park there and improve circulation in a cul-de-sac there.
 The next 188 orders of 25-03 is really a follow-up to the Kirkwood Street closures that tend to happen in the summer. And so because of the closures and based on patterns of deliveries and drop-offs, we proactively installed four additional loading zones in close proximity to Kirkwood.
 So those are listed in the 180-year order, really to support the passenger pick-up and drop-off and things like food deliveries and so on. So moving on to the next 180-year order, 25-04. This is really a part of the city's Hopewell East infrastructure project, really the area bound by 1st Street, the B Line, 2nd Street, and Rogers.
 that project installed and created new roads that didn't exist. So everything that those roads now created required some installation of stop signs and parking regulations. So the intersection at the center of that project is controlled by always stops. So that's identified there. The intersections on the outside of the project, we created new intersections that are controlled by stop signs. So those are in there. And then some parking regulations within that project. So that's really dealing with that project.
 Moving on to 180.Order 25-05. This was a result of our first street reconstruction project just on the south side of that Hopewell East. That project really created a small new on-street parking section just for a couple spaces and so that was the intent of this. But as we were reviewing the code we actually realized
 The code didn't accurately reflect a part of the road of First Street that parking is not currently allowed, so we're just cleaning it up a little bit too. Getting close, just two more. 180 order 25-06 essentially involves some changing of on-street parking on North Park Ridge Road.
 We're essentially swapping which side of the road has on-street parking. This is really a follow-up to a previously completed greenway project where the city installed a bulb out on one side of the road and so really maximizing use of the space of the road by switching the side of the road with parking. We're also putting it where there's less driveway conflict so you can actually have more on-street parking and also less impacts to potential site distance obstructions at those driveways. So that's what that order is addressing.
 And then finally, the last one is 25-07. This is essentially the conversion of the intersection of Longview and Concord from an all-way stop intersection to a one-way stop-controlled intersection. The City has an active greenway project on Longview, and through that process realized that all-way stop wasn't needed, and this was a way to help promote Longview as a through route.
 This order was issued last month with an intention that the stop signs were going to change last month, but due to some construction challenges and procurement, that the change is now in effect, but it wasn't until last week that that happened. So I just went through a lot. I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission has. Thanks for the presentation. Are there questions about Mr. Seaborg's report, 180-day orders, Mr. Drummey?
 So at the end of the 180 days, assuming City Council does nothing, do these changes get undone or do you decide to extend them or how does that work? Yeah, I think if we aren't able to take these to City Council before they expire in all odds, I will just renew them and extend them for another 180 days.
 Um, and until we answer that bigger picture question of what should city council be looking at, there is a fair chance we may be extending some of these just depending on that timing. Did I answer your question? You did, although you created another one. Okay. Um, so maybe you're not ready to discuss this because you alluded to that earlier, but so is city council evaluating whether or not these should be city council decisions?
 versus your office's decisions? Yeah, I think, um, good question. I think there's ongoing discussion is my understanding between the city administration's legal department and city council's legal staff. Um, just assessing, um, practice and what some of the state code statutes on the topic address. Um, I do expect as there are some, um, answers to those, those will come forward, um, to this commission and ultimately to city council as well.
 Mm hmm. Questions on my right. Questions online. Do you have any questions, Miss Davis? Um, I want to follow up on Mr Johnny's question. Um, so just so we're perfectly clear, um, uh, this new commission, what is staff's vision for how this commission should consider the 180 day order?
 Like, what do you think should be our role with respect to them? Yeah, I think a lot of these 188 orders that I just went through, I think traditionally would have been presented to a commission. But because we were in this gap of not having a commission, they may come as somewhat of a surprise.
 But going forward, I would expect them generally to be things that maybe the commission has voted on, but we don't want to wait for one reason or another for city council to be able to. That being said, there's always emergencies, there's always unexpected things, but generally the odds are this commission will weigh on a topic before that order is issued. Okay, so did you have a question? Mr. Sosberg? In voting, we're voting in advisory capacity to advise you
 and you may heed the advice or not. That is correct. Right now, but that's an excellent question. So the next question I have is, so some of the options open to you are yes, to have the city council continue to put, to require these to be in title 15. Another, well, we should talk about that question first. So for many years council heard what,
 we would call omnibus public works ordinances. They come 50, 60 section ordinances would come from public works with a variety of stop signs that had been changed over the year by 90 day or 180 day orders. Um, and I remember that council talked about it, seeming a little onerous, like these are, these seem trivial. Couldn't they be administerial administrative? Um, and I suppose that that is something that you're considering, right?
 Yeah, I think that very much relates. I think they're different questions, but they all relate. Because another option would be instead of, I mean, if they're not comfortable taking it out of code, maybe they would delegate the decision to a lesser body. This commission would be the logical one. And so that you could just come to the commission to get a stop sign change. There's still a public hearing, but it doesn't need to go to the council.
 Is that an option that you're considering as well? I think something like that is an option. I do want to be clear that a lot of this is very much a legal analysis and determination of what is permitted by state code. And I am not an attorney. So I'm leaning a lot on our city legal department. But a part of the question is, is that city council's decision to make or not? And I don't have the clear answer. I see. Two more questions. One is,
 Is there a member of City Legal that is assigned to transportation issues? Can we expect them to visit upon invitation? There is an attorney that is assigned to deal with things like Title 15, and as we have this type of topic fully presented for this commission, I would fully expect them to be here. Can I ask who that is? Alex Pratt has typically been our attorney assisting with Title 15.
 And I think I've forgotten my last question, but it was relevant. Oh, are you going to bring these 780 orders to us for our opinion, for approval? Because I appreciate the acknowledgement that they exist. Do you plan to bring them at a future meeting?
 Honestly, I don't think we will just because they are already in place and some of them deal with projects that have had significant input. Some of them haven't. But because they're there and we don't like changing traffic, odds are we will not. So they are effectively... I mean, did City Council approve them? If it's City Council's decision. Okay, so they have yet to go to City Council.
 Correct. All right. But can we expect that there will be the next hundred need to order you file will come to us first. I think odds are that is what will be the case that it will be something that maybe you hear tonight hypothetically.
 you were asking about 180 day orders. And if you, depending on the legal question, I could see there being particular interest in the stop sign discussion on seventh street. So I just want to say that one is a little unique. Um, so there is more potential that that one could be something. But at least for now, we know that you can simply continue them until we can get them on the agenda eventually if need to. Correct. Very good. Any other questions? Cause I like to ask questions. Any other questions online?
 Seeing none, thank you for the report. Let's move on now to the next item. The corner of North Walnut Street and Blue Ridge. What is this about? Yes, so this is really a follow-up from prior discussions that our City Traffic Commission had.
 and which are not even in recorded minutes because the commission was disbanded before those minutes were approved. But towards the end of the traffic commission's life, they did hear a traffic inquiry from the Blue Ridge neighborhood. The Blue Ridge neighborhood basically had a petition, if I'm remembering correctly, with a number of signatures asking, noting concerns about the challenges of turning into and out of the neighborhood, speeding vehicles, crashes or near misses.
 And that this was an idea that the Traffic Commission heard and realized and encouraged staff to follow up and continue to investigate. So we would have typically provided the Traffic Commission an update. There was no commission. And so anyways, this is the status.
 Since that meeting happened, staff was busy in the background evaluating, doing line of sight issues, looking at crash patterns, collecting traffic data, doing warrant analysis of things like traffic signals. And as we were going about that, we also realized that there was a need to resurface North Walnut Street from the bypass to old 37.
 Um, and so this was a great opportunity to take a needed maintenance project and potentially incorporate some, uh, improvements based on our traffic analysis. Um, so in, in short, by chance, the city has a project in about to get ready actually for construction to resurface that section of Walnut street.
 It'll include curb ramp improvements, curb repair, guardrail repair, and removal of access pavements and changes to pavement markings and signs. And so the big change that I think relates to the neighborhood's request is our ability to add left turn lanes into their neighborhood. And so that does address a very specific request of theirs. And in order to do that,
 As you're going south into town and up the hill, there has been at the road expands to be two lanes. And then it goes back down and merges down to one lane to create room for that left turn lane. We're essentially getting rid of the passing lane. And so creating that space for left turns. And we are also
 away from that spot, actually doing a little bit of removal of asphalt to make it so it's just one continuous lane in both directions. Through our analysis, that should be plenty of capacity to manage demand out there. And so our hope is that by removing that second lane that enabled people to pass, we're going to actually also help lower or address those super high end speeders.
 So we'll have some traffic calming impact. So this project is actually getting ready for construction probably the next week or so you'll start to see advanced construction signs and then likely sometime in August construction is going to start and should be wrapped up this year.
 I do want to say since that traffic commission meeting occurred there has been some email correspondence between city staff and the neighborhoods they're aware of some of these changes. And just to quickly address some some questions that that we have heard.
 I essentially already touched on that we did do some analysis of sight lines, collected traffic volume count data, and looked at crash data. These are things that we're going to monitor after the project's done. We're going to see if traffic patterns changed, how our speeds changed. We will monitor crash data, but that does take some time to get meaningful amount of crash data to assess the effectiveness.
 There were also some questions about what a white line means on the edge of the road. So when there is like a bike lane, if there is a solid white line, can you cross it or what can you do? Can you pass in that? And so just to clarify, when there is a white solid line for something like a bike lane, you can't use that as a vehicle and ability to, it's not a passing lane, but you are able to cross it when you're turning into a driveway or turning into an intersection.
 Um, but that, that is not a space to pass. Um, and I think I addressed some of those questions I received and I will stop talking and see what questions you have that I can help out with. Thanks for the presentation. Are there questions on this report to my right, my left online?
 Okay, just a procedural question. So we're just receiving knowledge that you're doing this. Is this an example of a project that might come to us for approval in the future? I think if this commission had been meeting continuously from what was a traffic commission, I think ideally we would have heard the traffic inquiry. The commission asked staff to further evaluate
 We would come back and present our findings and potential next steps. And then we would be implementing them because we had that gap in time and an opportunity. We took it. And so this is more a report, but in the future, I would hope this commission is kept up to date before the project is moving forward. And would you care? Oh, Mr. Rebling.
 I just want to add on to that. That's exactly right. This was a traffic inquiry, which would now be a transportation inquiry. And I just want to note for the record, the original traffic inquirer is present. I know that's not normally part of this portion of the agenda, but we do have a member of the public who came specifically for this item if you're interested in having public comment for this item. I see. Well, because this is an item that would be voted on by a commission that was in existence longer than we have been,
 I think it would be appropriate to hear it, even though we don't have any direct influence over it. So recognizing that there's a member of the public online, let's go to public comment on this report. Oh, it's not online. He's here present in the room. Even better. Hold on. You will have to read public comment. So I have some notes for you. I'll be right there. Oh, I see. OK. Well, we can do that while he's speaking, right? Like an introduction.
 Oh, I see. Very good. Thank you. We have an interim statement to make before public comment. Please direct all comments and inquiries, address them to the chair, not to any other member of the commission or to the public. There is no direct dialogue between members of the public and the commission or staff shall not be permitted. Direct dialogue shall not be permitted during the public comment period.
 Uh, each speaker shall comply with the time limits established by the commission and disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to audible expressions of support or opposition. For example, applause, booing or hissing demonstrations or interruptions is strictly prohibited and may result in removal from the meeting. Awful lot of preface to introduce your public comment. Please give your name for the record. My name is James Ferguson. I'm from blue bridge. Uh, we, uh, presented to the.
 I guess it was the Traffic Commission, that petition with 119 signatures of concerned citizens in our neighborhood and patients of the local chiropractic practice across the street from us. I want to first thank the engineering department for the
 changes that they have designed and accepted. Although I would like to ask a couple of questions about that, if that's possible. You can ask them rhetorically and if a commissioner wants to take the questions, OK, can. Right. The left-hand lanes in the center lane are wonderful. Thank you very much. But there are two aspects that are, well, three actually.
 three aspects that are still a major concern of ours. One is the censored traffic light. I understand that was next. I'm not sure what the criteria required for that are, but maybe the council couldn't enlighten us. The second item would be the shared right turn lane heading north
 off of North Walnut Street that would pass into what is currently exclusively a bike lane. And I will point out, whether it be legal or not, citizens are using this as a safe turn lane simply because the speeding going north on North Walnut Street is excessive. I mean, literally, they are on your tail. And multiple times, you're getting road rage and honking
 very aggressively at that point. So I would hope and suggest that the council will look at the possibility of making that a shared turn lane bike lane as well as having the left turn into the visitor center. The other aspect, the other issue would be behind the turn lane coming from the north going south,
 that is the left turn lane going into Blue Ridge, they've narrowed that section of the middle lane, what is currently the middle lane, and put that turn lane in there. But somehow there's been an exclusion of a left turn lane into the chiropractic center, which has
 reported multiple issues with people trying to make a left turn into their parking lot because again, the traffic moving north is moving at a very high rate of speed and there is no designated turn lane there. So again, I would ask the council to consider updating these designs partially at least to include these two extra turn lanes in those areas.
 Thank you. That's your time is up. We appreciate your comments. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other public comments? We have two members online, Chris Stirbaum. I will ask you to unmute. While Chris is unmuting, if anyone else would like to be noticed online, please raise your hand or make a comment to the co-host. Thank you. You'll have three minutes. Please state your name. Chris Stirbaum. Good evening.
 I tried to speak earlier, but I wasn't recognized. So my question has to do with what you were covering before this issue started. It has to do with the advisory role of this commission. And the ordinance is kind of unclear about that. It says the powers on powers and duties in 2504. The powers and duties shall include, but are not limited to,
 plans, consultant reports, activities, programs, and projects. And it says when necessary, the commission's powers are when necessary to approve. And it says approve transportation related studies, plans, consultant reports, activities, approve programs, approve projects. That doesn't sound advisory. If you're approving them,
 Are you the final answer in some of these issues? And I also think it's still an interesting jump ball if this goes back to council or if this goes to the administration. So I don't know the answers to those, but I'm raising the question, why does it say this commission may approve programs and projects when it is an advisory commission? Thank you.
 Thank you. Are there further public comment? Carol Canfield, you can unmute. Please state your name. You'll have three minutes. Yes, this is Carol Canfield. I'm a resident in Blue Ridge. Can you hear me okay? We can hear you loud and clear. Great, thank you. Two concerns.
 I still don't see it being addressed how we are supposed to safely get out of Blue Ridge onto North Walnut heading south. We want to make that left turn on North Walnut. How do we do that? And especially, how do we merge back into the other traffic? That's one question. Another question is, traffic is crammed on game days and event days in town.
 It's crammed on North Walnut. It's an issue to get out on it anyway. If we're reducing this to one lane, how much more crammed is that gonna get? And it's gonna extend it way back. I mean, you already have a good mile of traffic just trying to move on two lanes. How do we fix this? Thank you. Thank you. Is there any further public comment on the report?
 about the intersection of Blue Ridge and North Walnut. I have Paul Rousseau online. You should be able to unmute now. Please state your name. We'll have three minutes. Hi, this is Paul Rousseau. Can you hear me? Loud and clear. Great. In support of the two residents of Blue Ridge who just spoke, I would simply add that there's an epidemic of speeding in Bloomington. And as much as I appreciate the folks in engineering,
 I think Bloomington seems to have developed a habit, for lack of a better word, of almost total reliance on engineering solutions. But this is a behavioral issue. And whether it's the council or the mayor's office, somebody's got to direct more enforcement of speed limits. And that's gonna help a lot of things. But right now it's a huge problem.
 That's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comment either in the room or online? Please come to the podium, state your name and sign in if you're in the room. Is there anybody else online while we're waiting? Okay.
 Hi, my name is David Hoff, a longtime Bloomington resident and former member of a traffic commission antecedent to this commission. I came with a question, but I'll try to state it rhetorically, as you suggested, and if it's a follow up to some of the things that Chris Sturbaum had said. But I'll preface it with a comment, and that is this. On the traffic commission, when it existed, we were frequently presented with infrastructure programs to look at, but they had already
 basically been in final form, that is to say all the decisions had been made, we saw the final product. There was very little opportunity for the Traffic Commission to make any suggestions or have any suggestions taken into account. The only exception that I can think of were a few tweaks of signage, for example. So it was not that we had any input into the formation or decisions concerning infrastructure programs, rather than
 rather that we were simply informed what decisions had been made. I was going to state it as a question concerning this commission's role. Chris Sturbaum brought it up to some extent. The question of approving I thought had been resolved in the December council meeting, but I could be wrong on that and somebody else will know that better than I would. That to have approval would have required a change in the code concerning imposition on the city council's
 responsibilities and rights versus those of the mayor, but that's something that I suggested you could look at more in a more definitive way. I'll just end with the instead of asking it as a question, a hope
 that this commission will be involved in infrastructure projects from the very inception to be able to at least comment on them, to make suggestions, and to be informed all the way through to the final step, rather than simply being informed at the very end of the process what decisions city employees have made. I believe that there are projects that have been completed in the last 10 years or so that one could point to. It would have come out much better
 And it had a wider view of people making comments on their design. OK, thank you. Thank you. Sir, I think they wanted your attention. If there are no other public comments, we'll come back to the commission. I just want to point out a couple of things. Number one, this is not the council or a council. This is just a commission.
 Don't be distracted by people you've seen here. Secondly, I appreciate the comments by former Councilmember Stirbaum and Mr. Hoff, former Commissioner, Traffic Commissioner Hoff. These are questions that we're trying to answer, and we are in early days, so early that we actually don't have rules to handle this yet. We're about to discuss a new set of bylaws, but I can tell you right now that even those bylaws don't contemplate all the questions that were raised here.
 The best I can say to those who've spoken to this is that we are actively trying to evolve the commission to have practical rules. And I'm glad to see City Engineer Andrew Seaborg nodding along with me. With respect to the comments made about Blue Ridge, is there any commissioner who would like to ask a follow-up question about the report from Mr. Seaborg based on public comment?
 My left. Online, Ms. Davis. My right. Please use your mic. And also, can I just tell everybody, the closer you can get to the microphone, the better. Many of you are soft spoken. We all need to be able to hear. Please go ahead. With the proposed changes, once they're in place, will you continue to monitor the intersection for the potential of a light at some point in time?
 Yeah, I think as we complete projects, it's our department's intent as much as we can to collect before and after data to measure the success of our projects. And so with something like this,
 I intend that we will collect updated traffic counts and speeds on both Walnut and on Blue Ridge to assess have we changed speeds? Have we changed traffic volumes, especially on Blue Ridge? Are we making it? Do we see more people coming in or coming out of Blue Ridge? That'd be an interesting question. But one of the questions I heard
 wasn't specifically asked here is how do we assess traffic signal warrants? Some of the primary criteria we look at are traffic volumes. There's minimum traffic volume thresholds. And so that's a reason we do the counts. And so as we do updated counts, that's an easy assessment for us. And another common thing we look at is crash history and if there are crashes that could be mitigated. And so that's something we will monitor as well. So yes. Thank you.
 Any further questions from commissioners? Seeing none, thank you for the report, Mr. Seaborg. We're going to move to the last item under reports and communications. This is about Byrd's new e-scooter e-bike license application. Here to present is Transportation Demand Manager Jeffrey Jackson. Mr. Jackson, hello.
 Good afternoon. I appreciate your time today. Because I haven't met all of you, I've been asked to give a little background. I'm originally from Indiana. I graduated in 1985. I was a major in transportation. I worked for four different transit authorities in Florida in the 80s and 90s, the last being the Commuter Railroad that runs from West Palm to Miami. I was the executive director there.
 Following 15 years, I was the COO of American Heritage Railways. We had six passenger excursion trains throughout the United States. I also did a stint at the Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority in Indianapolis, which is also the TDM for that area. And my daughter and I moved here in 2021 when she decided to go to school at IU. I like to think I had something to do with that.
 And at that time, the city was advertising this transportation demand management position, which I applied for, and I will have been here four years in November. I oversee the TDM plan that was written in May of 2020. We branded that as Go Bloomington. At some point, if the commission would like, I can come back and give you an update on what Go Bloomington's all about. I also oversee our e-bike voucher program.
 and licensing the e-bike, e-scooter operators. I'd failed to say, but I'm in the Economic and Sustainable Development Department, which handles the licensing for most business activities here in Bloomington. The item on the agenda before you is to review burbs,
 e-scooter e-bike application. Their current license expires September 24, 2025. We've only had one application from an industry operator. That's been BIRD. And ultimately, this is presented to the Board of Public Works for formal approval where they pass a resolution formally licensing BIRD.
 But with the forming of this new commission, I wanted to make sure that we have you in the loop so you understand what the status is of our licensing for micromobility needs. And I'll just add one thing, and that is that staff has been discussing for over a year the idea of amending ordinance 1909, which currently provides for licensing requirements for
 Micromobility operators. Staff's goal is to competitively select an e-scooter, e-bike operator in the future through an RFP process so we could have some guarantee that we'll have one operator and that we'll be able to have them involved in a multi-year contract so that we can commit to them and they can commit to providing resources long-term versus just a 12-month license.
 Um, be happy to answer any other questions or any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Jackson for the report and for introducing yourself to us. Uh, we're all still in the learning phase. Uh, are there questions about the, um, license application for Mr. Jackson? We'll start online. Ms. Davis, do you have any questions? Okay. If you do just giving it the high sign to my left. Any questions for Mr. Jackson? Mr. Drummey.
 Miss Jackson, I'm Brian Drumme. This may not be in your, you may not know the answer, but with regards to these scooters and bikes, are they able to geofence them in a way that keeps them from riding on the sidewalks? They do have the capability of geofencing. An example of that now is the corrals in the downtown area or geofence where they're required to deploy their vehicles there. The goal is to have the users
 end their trip there as well. So I'm not a geofence expert. I couldn't tell you right now if they can geofence every sidewalk in town, but I can get you that answer. May I comment? Yeah, Mr. Stosberg. I work in, I write software like that. There's a challenge in making the geofences that precise because the sidewalks are right next to the road. It would work better to say you can't do it in this area.
 It's going to be really hard to say you can do it here and not six feet over there. Yeah. When users enter their app to use a ride a vehicle, it says that you shouldn't be riding on the sidewalks. Kirkwood and the square sidewalks are specifically, are locations where you're not allowed to ride your bike. It's a dismount zone.
 And I know there's some instances where you may not have a choice, but to be on the sidewalk, but by and large that we promote that they don't ride them on sidewalks. Mr. Jimmy, does that answer your question? It does. OK. Further questions from Mr. Jackson? No? OK. Just to give us a sense overall of where this application fits in.
 The city has been experiencing rental scooters since about 2017, 2018, I think. And there used to be multiple companies, but now only one company, you're saying, has applied. And that's Bird. Correct. And is there an upper limit on how many scooters can be operating in the city altogether? My understanding, the way the ordinance is written currently, that we review applications submitted.
 So in theory, we could have other operators apply for a license. We previously had VO and Lime involved. Both VOs did not deploy their vehicles again in the spring of 2024. They determined that their business model wasn't working here with multiple operators.
 Lime submitted an application last year But we rejected it because they wanted to change our indemnification cities indemnification language and wasn't prepared to pay the licensing fee You know on the side they told me that we ever go through an RFP. They also Provide a proposal but as long as there's more than one operator in Bloomington they just don't feel like there's enough market to to benefit them profit profit wise and
 So then just to fully understand what you seem to be going for, what you're suggesting is that ultimately staff would like to change ordinance to an RFP means a competition and one company gets it and they're the ones who are allowed to operate for that period of time. That's correct. What are the benefits of that besides? Well, what are the benefits of that? Well, the city has a you report program where any resident
 I guess you don't have to be a resident. Anybody can file a complaint. E-scooters and e-bikes, e-scooters particularly, we've gotten a lot of complaints over the years. And by having three operators or multiple operators, there's always some miscommunication about whose equipment it is and the other operators. When we had three, they kind of pointed their fingers at each other, claiming it wasn't their equipment. So that's been a lot easier for staff to deal with one operator.
 And they've been very, very responsive. And on the flip side, from a business standpoint, if other companies, part of the reason they haven't applied this go around is because they don't want to be one of multiple operators. Most of these operators are in large urbanized areas. And major urbanized areas can support more than one operator. But Bloomington, it appears, was not able to do that based on the fact that they're not applying.
 I have been told that they want to submit a proposal once that RFP is drafted. Again, ordinance 1909 requires a licensing approach after an application. Legal department here has suggested that we would have to amend the code to do that. The goal was to do that by this time last year. We would hope to have had that done by now. I've had meetings with the three attorneys involved from the city and we're going to hope
 we're going to get it done before this time next year when verge license expires. Okay. Well, thank you. And should finally, should we assume that the amendment to ordinance 1909, uh, you'll bring it to the transportation committee. Absolutely. Um, and just for your, your information, um, the transportation demand management plan was done by an outside consultant in 2020. Uh, so that may have 2020. So that plan is five years old.
 I'm currently working on an update to that plan, an amendment action plan. We've yet to title it yet. And that plan might, based on recommendations, might spin off some policy changes, parking code changes possibly as an example. So we really would love to get the input of this commission on any of those kinds of policy changes and any safety things as well.
 We've had some issues with safety with e-scooters in town, which is why they have limited hours seasonally. E-bikes can operate 24-7. They seem to have a better track record from a safety standpoint. We have an ongoing issue with e-scooters just being parked wherever, dropped in people's yards, in public right of way, on sidewalks. Right now, the ordinance says that the city may cite the operator for
 parking them where they're not supposed to or the city may impound them. Ultimately, we may have to make its choice as whether or not we will cite them for those two cases or if we'll continue to be flexible with that. That's a long answer. Yes, we'll bring that back. It's the right answer for our first substantive meeting. So we appreciate the presentation. Thank you so much. Thank you.
 Okay, that ends our reports and communications. We now go to cases, petitions, resolutions, and so on. We don't really have a procedure for introducing them, so I'll just, since I'm sponsoring the first one, I'll move, well, I'm gonna have to pass the gavel to the vice chair, since I'm the sponsor of this resolution, and I'll move
 TCR 2501, I need a second. Second. You're the chair, you can't second it. Somebody else besides the chair has to second. I'll second. Thank you. All right, so just to be as brief as possible to present this, after our first meeting where we installed basically interim rules and procedures, I went on a
 Well, you can see I have a stack of Robert's Rules of Order here with me. I went on a bit of a tear and basically tried to keep everything that was in the proposed interim rules and procedures, but reorganize it to make it more coherent. So what you have before you in the packet is a seven-page set of rules and procedures that have been renamed bylaws.
 Um, I did that because, um, according to Robert's, um, uh, rules and procedures just talk about what happens in a meeting, but, uh, city ordinance is silent on some issues that the commission needs to decide for itself. And Robert says that those are properly put in a document called bylaws. So for example, uh, what constitutes quorum? Uh, let me find my memo here.
 Uh, just a second. So, um, it talks about what rules can be suspended by the commission. Like right now, the interim rules say that any five members can suspend any rule of the commission. You don't want to be able to suspend the rule that says how you can vote or, um, uh, you know, like maybe a simple majority, uh, or how a simple majority could change rules that should be changed by a supermajority.
 So generally stuff like that unclear language I tried to address. You'll find if you look at the original rules and procedures and what I'm proposing here that there's very little that's taken out. What it has been is reorganized
 duplicate language removed, and the result is about 200 words shorter than the original proposal, which I'm perversely proud of. But it creates a preamble that defines the term commission in the document, the term staff. It defines the types of meetings that are unique to this new commission that staff has been trying to develop. There's a new Article 7 that
 the limits of comment, not just for the public, but for everyone. There's a new Article 8 that is very basic. It just calls for a manual of reference documents that are important to the commission to be compiled and made available to commissioners by staff. And it separates into a new final Article 9, the limits, the ability of the bylaws to be amended or
 suspended. So I hope you all have had a chance to see it. You'll see also that there's been extensive written conversation about these bylaws via email. I believe that staff has included them in that discussion in the packet. And so
 I'd like to answer questions about the bylaws first, and then have amendments entertained. There have been seven amendments filed, five on behalf of staff by Commissioner Stossberg, and then I wrote two that I submitted this morning. And to that end, I just want to say before we talk about the bylaws, let alone the amendments, that it's not an emergency to correct everything now. We can hear some or
 many of the amendments at later meetings. My goal is simply to be started as soon as possible with clear rules of order. We already had to struggle today because there were some unclear, we're still not clear on how the commission should act. So having said all that, I'm happy to answer questions about the bylaws proposal.
 actually, I think you should go to staff for their opinion on the bylaws. Thank you. Staff. Thank you. So, we included in the packet some general responses to, sorry, I'll get better about that eventually, I promise. Some general responses to the proposed amendment. We worked with Councilmember Volin. We're excited about many of the changes. We think that most of this is in the right direction. We're a little
 a big concern. One minor concern is about case numbers, just because the internal process isn't finalized yet. So we're worried about how the computers will essentially work with the proposed one. And we don't want to lock us into something we don't know will work long term. And then generally, we have some concerns about limiting commission member time and staff response time. The proposal would have three minute windows for commission or comment.
 which would include staff response. And the kind of extreme version of this that you might be familiar with is the United States House of Representative, where they're reclaiming their time from staff responding. That isn't really the goal of this commission. It's to hear everything that has to be said. So if you all have questions, we want staff to be able to respond. But we also want you all to be able to ask all the questions
 required to get something through. A case in point this evening with just the reports and commissions, there was already
 we would have already gone over some of the new rules and we just want to be cautious of implementing those before we see a problem arise. If this is something we're absolutely supportive of, we're concerned about not only your all's time and staff's time, but particularly the public's time. So we are fully cognizant of that and would like to see something if it becomes a problem, but we don't believe it's a problem yet. And we would hope that the commission would wait to find out essentially and allow for
 kind of an open conversation similar to what's already been taking place tonight and that can answer any questions. Thank you. Comments from commissioners? I have a comment. You kind of talked in generalities about staff time and commissioners time. Could you do just a
 brief detail of what the change is, I mean, for people listening or people in the audience. To whom are you directing the question? I'm directing it to the staff. Staff's happy to answer. But the proposal would be three minutes per question period, two question periods per, sorry, two questions per period per commissioner. I may be using too many confusing words there. Sorry about that. There's two separate periods where
 commissioner questions can happen and within that there are two set times that each commissioner can ask questions in the current limit the proposal it would be three minutes per set time within the two periods so six minutes total between periods 12 minutes grand total at the end and again that would include staff response time or any other time
 to assemble a question or what have you. So it's three minutes per question, two questions per period, two periods. Thank you. Further questions? Online? No questions?
 Yeah, moving on to the amendments. I don't have the latest end of my laptop. OK. It's a little awkward for me to be. I think staff maybe would. Yeah. I am strong with dead battery on my laptop, so I don't have the latest end. Why don't you just borrow mine? Or he's got yours. I didn't know yet. That did not occur to me to do that. Yeah.
 While we're waiting for that to boot up, Mr. Drummey, could you read the First Amendment? I had submitted some amendments on behalf of the staff, which I believe made it into the packet. It's on page 96 of the packet. That would be it.
 Yes, go ahead, please. So amendment number one to resolution TR2501, staff currently uses a different numbering system and are working to incorporate future cases into the EPL permitting software. This amendment provides flexibility to use systems that work with the existing technology and processes.
 I don't think we need to read the entire resolution. It's in writing. You can just discuss it. So discussion on this amendment. Staff first. Staff had commented on this tape. Well, OK, if I can respond to it then. So this amendment basically in the
 bylaws rewrite that I'm proposing. I propose a very specific numbering scheme. This is not particularly important. I recognize staff's, you know, desire to be compatible with the software they use to track things. I have no objection to this amendment, which would just sort of simplify the language that I put in the bylaws rewrite. So, you know,
 I still would prefer a numbering scheme that's more easily sortable, but we can talk about that offline. I have no objection to this amendment. Yeah, looks like I'm back online here. Okay, should I move on to the second amendment? Well, no, you should discuss each amendment and vote on it. Thank you.
 need some training as a vice chair clearly part of getting off the ground here. I'll be working on that. Um, so yes, just to make sure I understand the process. So these are these are amendments to the proposal you put forward. You could call them. I mean, unfortunately, staff, I mean, I see this as an overhaul replacement of the bylaws and staff called it an amendment. So technically these are sub amendments. They're amendments to
 the resolution and we would vote on them and if And if the amendment was successful, then it would change your proposal correct and then we'll eventually vote on your that is correct. Yes I'm sorry. Was there a question or was this roll call?
 We should we should have public comment on. OK, so I stepped out for a second, so I OK. OK, so this is Amendment 1 case numbers. Is there any public comment on the case numbers amendment? If there is anyone online who would like to speak to Amendment 1, please raise your hand and I will call on you. I'm not seeing anyone online, right?
 Shall we take it to a vote then? All right. So a vote yes is to vote to change the case number that aligns with the staff's goal. We'll take a, please call the roll. Davis. I think yes. I want to do the thing that's most helpful to continuing our
 process and not hindering it. Thank you. Stossburg. Yes. Coppock. Yes. Connell. Yes. Boland. Yes. Drummey. Yes. 6-0. Thank you. Amendment passes. Moving on to the second amendment. This second amendment is time limits on presentations. This is what the staff also spoke
 The original text had the initial presentation of CAS's cases by staff during planning sessions shall not exceed 20 minutes. The amendment proposes suspending that and allowing staff to not be limited.
 this amendment. Is there a comment from staff? Yes, thank you. So this one is interesting. We haven't had this type of meeting yet. We will next month or excuse me next or in September. This is for the what is going to be called the planning sessions. These are the steering committee portion so it's slightly less formal ideally than this. So
 The proposal on time limits is, we understand again the purpose behind that. We are worried that that's not the format that every meeting will hold. Many of these meetings will be an informal discussion between the staff, any consultants and the commission. And so it would be difficult to not only limit the time to 20 minutes, but also just the structure. Many of the steering committee meetings that I've been in in the past have open questions
 the Commission can interrupt at any time or the steering committee can interrupt at any time to get clarification or what have you. It's not a formal presentation and 20 minutes may be not long enough. I think most of those steering committee meeting minutes will be about 45 minutes to an hour tops for the whole thing. So 20 minutes and then I'm not sure what would happen after that. We might be rushed.
 That's, that's what staff is concerned there. Uh, we would like to see those meetings happen before we put a time limit on those. Thank you. Um, commissioner's questions or comments. Uh, I recognize people. Thanks. Okay. Um, this was an interesting, uh, change to the proposal, um, because it brought up sort of a bigger question. Um, this is a new commission.
 and is proposing a new type of meeting structure. And I've been puzzling about it for a while, like what are these transportation planning sessions about? And when Mr. Roebling talked about, I mean, I'm still struggling with the concept of the steering committee, but apparently when major transportation projects come forward, the state requires a steering committee to be formed to
 oversee that project. Is that the right way to characterize it? It's often never the state. It is occasionally the federal government for grant programs. But it is a general practice in planning circles. Either way, it's sort of above our, like it comes from above that requirement. But the key word there is committee. And just last night trying to grasp this, I realized that we were missing the opportunity.
 All the current bylaws say is that initial presentations of cases by staff during those new planning sessions shall not exceed 20 minutes. That was the issue that we're fussing over. Now, staff is concerned about that limit, which I get. And so they've written an amendment that
 that says during these planning sessions, the commission shall suspend formal procedure under Robert's Rules of Order in favor of a conversational approach. And that triggered a realization in me is that that is literally the part of Robert's that is described in the section on committees, and that we don't really need to invent a new definition here. Essentially,
 transportation planning sessions are going to be committee meetings, committees of the whole of the Transportation Commission. And Roberts has relaxed rules for committees. So we might as well just treat the transportation planning session as a committee meeting, which allows for exactly what staff wants. Now, what I've done is I would propose a change to the amendment that says,
 Planning sessions, which will often serve under statute as steering committees for certain projects, shall be conducted like committees as described in Roberts to allow a conversational approach toward planning matters. Then I kept the initial sentence. However, initial presentations of cases by staff during planning sessions shall not exceed 20 minutes.
 I still believe that because there's plenty of room for conversation afterwards, that staff should strive to stick to a 20-minute limit for the initial presentation. But because we're going to be essentially operating under committee rules, it allows for conversation. It allows for back and forth. It allows for interrupting. And so it's not as strict a meeting format. And if that's the kind of thing that staff would find
 I'm trying to do is to try to ride herd on time. And I want to believe, I want to believe Mr. Robling when he says that meetings won't last more than an hour. But if we have any kind of public comment, if there's any kind of controversy, then we need to make sure we have some rule. And in general, I'm trying to err in favor of more rules, which we can suspend rather than fewer rules
 which when we really need them, we don't have them. And they don't happen often. But when there's a controversial issue, when these chambers are full of people because they're all here for an issue, we're going to want to have those rules. It's better to suspend them, which we can do liberally, than to not have them when we need them. So that's the general operation I'm going by. And that's the language that I would recommend to replace this amendment with. But I would love staff's feedback on it.
 So Commissioner Voland, to clarify, you're recommending a no vote, but what replacement language or are you proposing an amendment to the amendment? Unfortunately, for me to have this language change, it would require amending the amendment. Yes. And I'm sorry to have you all dive down into so deeply into the rules, but that's what would it require. But I first I'd like to get feedback from staff on the idea.
 Thank you. So the we're still hung up on the 20 minute limit. I just if if there's a concern about the time we would rather it be to limit the meeting to an hour rather than to limit the staff.
 presentation to 20 minutes, just because that probably isn't how most of them will be structured. It won't be a formal presentation. It will generally be a call and response type from the get-go, and you'll never know when the staff timer started, because immediately we'll be asking you questions. The College of Walnut Steering Committee, the very first thing we did was an exercise in talking about what you like about certain streets in Bloomington,
 And so the staff presentation, technically slideshow started, but the meeting slides or the meeting presentation happened throughout the one hour meeting. And so if staff would be more comfortable setting an hour time limit for the entirety of the meeting rather than 20 minutes for a presentation, which we don't know how long will be. I mean, I would for the sake of time and.
 stress here if staff wouldn't mind if we just withdrew this amendment until next month, we can always amend it at the next meeting because it's complicated and I feel like we can come to a solution here. So there's a proposal on the table too. I have not yet made a proposal to amend the amendment. A comment from other staff members. Other commissioners, thank you.
 And online. From the public, if there is anyone who would like to speak on Amendment 2, please raise your hand and I will call on you or in in chambers if you come up to the podium. I'm not seeing anyone online. As the person who submitted this amendment, I've learned more. Now there's some other options. During this as a committee.
 for example, a committee meeting, which already has different rules. And there are some other options for addressing this. I will withdraw this amendment so that we may come back at a future meeting with some better alternative rather than going through the amendment of amendment process here. So any objection to the withdrawal? Thank you. With that, we'll move on to
 Amendment three, which also addresses time limits. Here says the current text proposed by Commissioner Boland has that any speaker, including commissioners recognized by the chair, shall be limited to three minutes. The amended text says any speaker from the public recognized by the chair shall be limited to three minutes, but commissioners and staff shall not be subject to time limits.
 To start with comments, the staff will have an opportunity to comment on this. You have an opportunity to comment on the second amendment related. Third amendment three, this is suspending the three minute time limit for staff and commissioners. Sorry, was that to staff? Sorry, we had an internal discussion.
 apologize for that. Yes, we're just you have an opportunity to comment on amendment three on the agenda. Thank you. I kind of kind of already address this. So I'll keep it brief. But we're concerned that not only will questions be technical, but responses will be technical. I work very closely with engineers who are very concise, generally, and I have seen them fail to meet a three minute response limit with no problem. So when
 answers get technical, they tend to take time. And and so we're concerned that not only will the three minutes limit the number of questions, essentially it could turn into a one question or two question per comment period per commissioner. And we don't believe that's enough. We would much rather have all the questions that could possibly come up be addressed. I'll point out that there is a hard stop at 9 30 currently and proposed. So if
 there is concerns about that we could work on that timing and staff also will help set the agenda in a way that we won't overburden it if we expect a large turnout. This commission also has the ability to call additional meetings in the year with the staff's assistance. So if we know something comes up that is going to have a lot of public comment and things like that we can certainly bring that
 into a special off schedule meeting. And so we think there will be plenty of time and we would hope that there would be plenty of time to answer any and all questions. And we worry that this three minute limit will hamper the ability to respond. Thank you. Thank you. Questions or comments from commissioners? My only comment would be,
 I'm mindful of the, it was previously brought up with regards to the other discussions, but I'm all for rules, but at the same time, maybe see, I'm kind of more of a, let's see how things go and see if we need to make a rule. And it does seem, I'm a person that lives in a world where there are time limits on everything I do, and it's nice not to have time limits sometimes, unless it becomes a problem. And then I think we should make a rule at that point. Thank you.
 much from other commissioners and online? From the public? I'd like to address it. So I come from the opposite world that Mr. Drummond comes from. Some of you may remember the record nine-hour meeting held in these held online in 2021 about homelessness at the City Council. I've been through many seven-hour meetings there and I found that
 without when when even elected officials like council members have the discretion they will always choose to continue a meeting rather than to end it at a certain time and then schedule another one for later and it's weird how it works but that's how it works and I after that marathon meeting which was frankly inhumane
 I authored an ordinance that limited meetings to midnight. So I had the same impulse that staff did that we should at least have a cap on the meeting as a whole. And that's a good thing that we definitely agree on. But it's also like public time is valuable and everyone has an obligation to try to keep the meeting as brief as possible because we all have things to do. And so when we had city budgets,
 before 2019 or so when then Deputy Mayor Mick Renison rode herd on department heads, they would come and present budgets that could be 45 minutes long. And oftentimes the department heads reading slides for 45 minutes. I'm not looking at Mr. Connell intentionally. I'm sure that his budgets were always very
 compact, but before him that was possible. In fact, I think Mr. May did go pretty long sometimes. And even then Deputy Mayor Renison said, you know, we maybe don't need to go this long. People should try to tighten it up. So in general, I'm looking for limits on everybody that we can suspend rather than not have them and people get used to
 going as long as they want. Now, what we don't know yet is just how full our agendas are going to be. Staff is very hopeful and anticipating that they won't be that long. I'm not that hopeful. And I also question sort of what items staff will want to sacrifice when one item goes much longer than anybody expected. So in general, I think everyone wishes they had more time to persuade other people.
 everyone behaves better when they know they have limits. So also, there's a certain, I mean, one of the issues we have is with any group of the public that sees that they only get to speak for three minutes, but we get to speak as long as we want. And it's a sign of respect to all comers if we were to limit ourselves to three minute bites in the same way.
 I think you'd be surprised how much can be answered in that as long as everyone's conscious that they only have so much time to respond. So for those reasons, I don't support this amendment. I don't think we should adopt it, but we can always revisit it. I'm not really that worried about it. I think so far there's no controversy yet. I am desperately trying to plan for the day when there is controversy, because until you've been through it, you think, ah, this is not going to be a problem.
 So I'd rather have us have the tools and suspend them than not have the tools when we really need them. So for that reason, I don't think we should let people have unlimited time. Thank you. I would just concur with Mr. Voland. Thank you. Other comments from commissioners online? I would agree as well.
 We really should hear from the public before we make comments, but we can have debate afterwards. I don't know. Yeah. Any comment from the public on this question of time limits? And online? If you are online and would like to speak to Amendment 3, please raise your hand. Not seeing anyone. Do we vote or do we have further discussion?
 Okay. So final discussion from commissioners before we vote. Well commented. All right. Question. Would this be something that would be subject to the three minute limit? When you say this, what do you mean? The comment period for the final comment period for this amendment. Yeah. So every time I start talking or I can only speak twice in a
 Okay, I hear you. It's confusing. Uh, uh, members of the public get to speak once for three minutes. Commissioners had the privilege of speaking twice to an issue after all the questions have been done and all the public comment has been heard. They get, uh, Robert's talks about discussion being two bites of the apple. You get, you don't get three, you don't get 10. You get at least you get a chance to comment. And if somebody says something that you object to a chance to rebut them.
 two comments, three minutes each. That's what our rules that we're discussing tonight are calling for. Again, the new rules would also allow a two thirds vote to suspend the rules for discussion so that people could speak for a third round if it was clearly necessary. But generally speaking, we're trying to limit commissioners as well. Thank you.
 Are we ready for a vote? Again, a vote yes is to not have time limits and a vote no is the original language with the three minute time limits. Can you call the roll for a vote? Stasberg. Yes. Coppock. Connell. No. Bolden. No. Drummy. Yes.
 Davis. I'd like to abstain. That vote fails three, two, one. Two yes, three no, one abstain. Sorry. Yeah, I got it backwards. You got it. Two, three, one. Thank you. And just to clarify, point of order, five votes are required to pass any amendment. Is that right? Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on to amendment four regarding staff recognition.
 The current text allows staff to speak outside of presentation periods at the discretion of the chair or the discretion of the commissioner during question periods during which they shall be subject to the commissioner's time limit, which would be the three minutes. The amended text removes the time restriction. It adds without time restrictions to allow for adequate technical discussion expert consultation. So this is another amendment
 to remove a time restriction for staff. Staff, would you like to comment on this to start with? This is similar to the first one. We have the same objection. Again, oftentimes staff in their most distinct form is going to be incapable of meeting this time limit.
 If you think about something like the seven line project, which changed multiple sections of not only the Bloomington Municipal Code, but also had design multiple design questions that could come up. To answer any one of those questions might take 90 seconds to three minutes easily, let alone all of the questions. So this would
 We would like to have staff at least be immune from the three minutes. If council members want to count their three minutes for themselves, that's fine. We think their questions could fit in that, but the responses shouldn't count against that so that the commission member isn't cycling through an answer they want, asking to reclaim their time from staff when the staff is just trying to give a technical response. We think that is gonna be problematic for larger projects that come up.
 Thank you. So I'm I'm a little more sympathetic to this one, even though I recommended in my memo that we not adopt it. I just want to call attention to what the procedure will be for cases under these bylaws. There will be will hear presentation, then there will be the first round of Q and a and every member will get two chances to ask questions. Then we go to public comment that will come back for a second round. And if I
 know the bylaws clearly, there's not a limit on the number of questions that can be asked in the second round. We just want to get the public comment before everyone has exhausted all their questions. And for a complicated issue, let's hear from a couple of questions from members, go to the public, and then come back. So there should be adequate time in the second round for commissioners to ask questions often enough that staff can
 can answer all the questions they need to. Now, having said that, I hear the concern about this part during Q&A. Maybe three minutes isn't enough to respond. I still think that we should err on the side of limits. But I'm not as strongly opposed to this. I just don't want to get it. I don't want to see us going off for an hour of discussion
 Again, every person who comes this meeting, commissioners, staff, the public should all be conscious collectively that the meeting belongs to everyone. And we're trying to limit the amount of time we're asking everyone to pay attention. So that's the objective I'm trying to fill by trying to limit time. So I don't really support this, but I'm not as strongly against it as I was the first one. Thank you. Comments from commissioners will start online.
 questions or questions. Um, in person. Yeah. In terms of, can you see, can you walk me through the process of, um, if somebody needs more time, do you, do you as chair decide that does, do they request it? Do we, is it a boat? How does that work?
 So the current text says staff may be recognized to speak outside of presentation periods at the discretion of the chair or the discretion of a commissioner during question periods. The operative phrase here is discretion, the discretion of the chair. If there's no objection, the chair could easily, I mean, what we probably should do is ride in the ability to suspend the rules without objection.
 Like if it's clear that everybody gets that we're on a roll and the question's being answered and we don't want to interrupt them, we should write in that unless somebody objects, the chair can unilaterally allow somebody to continue. The point is to make sure that the commission has control of the meeting. So the key word is we can use discretion and I trust commissioners to use discretion. I trust staff.
 to use discretion. I just want to make sure that we're at least advertising to the world that we're trying to limit the meetings. We're trying to get this done expediently. So I think that discretion as listed in here enables this. I'm happy to work up extra language to give staff what they're looking for, but that still allows us to retain that ability to reign in the meeting.
 That's why I'd like to rewrite it. Not approve this amendment, but come back with something that will meet, that will get the staff the goal that they're trying to achieve. Are you proposing the amendment be withdrawn? Right, but technically when you put an amendment forward, it belongs to the body until the body collectively decides to withdraw it. So I would urge you all not to see a no vote as the end of the matter. I think that it's a pretty readily fixable thing based on what I just said.
 that we can give staff the discretion that they need. It's just that it should come from the commission. It should not be at the discretion of staff or any individual unless it's delegated to, unless the commission delegates it to the chair and staff agrees with it. Okay. Final comments from... We have to go to public. Ah, yes. Comments from the public on this staff recognition amendment four.
 If anyone online would like to speak to amendment four, raise your hand and I will call on you. I'm not seeing anyone online. Thank you. Back to commissioners for final comment before vote. All right, we're ready for a vote. As a reminder, the current text subjects staff members to the commissioners time limit for responses and
 the amendment to remove the time limit. As Steve mentioned, a no vote could also work towards amended language in the future. Can you call the roll?
 back. No. No. Okay. No. No. No. Sorry. Was that a no? No. Davis? No. And Stossberg? No.
 move on to Amendment 5 then. Posting of meeting rules. The original text says it shall be the responsibility of a secretary to publish the rules of conduct and comment during a commission meeting and the amended text says the chair shall recite a synopsis of the public comment rules prior to every comment period. Staff, would you like to comment?
 Sure, thank you. So this one is a little bit more ticky tacky. It's just, we would like the, and I realize we've failed to this when we switched the gavel over, but we would like to have public the rules read
 before every public comment on cases and resolutions, just so that everyone is clear on what the public comment rules are. We realized that the opposed, excuse me, the proposed language is slightly more onerous. So we would like to submit an abridged version that the chair could read. But this language wouldn't require it. And we would like that it be required and not just up to the discretion of the chair, just so that we can keep meetings moving along public comment wise.
 Thank you. Back to commission members for comment or question or questions. Question. So this, that would be read once during the course of the meeting before public comment or before each public comment. Yeah. It would be before each public comment item. Yes. So potentially more than once. Yeah. Oh, sorry.
 You know not before each public individual comment made by the public just before they after you go to the public. While the people were lining up to speak at the podium, the chair could just quickly read the rules. Thank you. With the text has written apply to every as we do these amendments every public comment period. That is an interesting question. I believe the answer would yes.
 Yes, that is unintentional. I think we would say before each item. So if we want to amend that language in the future, so it would be the staff's preference would be ahead of each case. Public comment for each case. You could do that. The first public comment for each case. Questions, I'll just comment later. OK, comments from.
 other comments from commissioners before we go to the public online davis public anyone online wish to comment if you are online and you would like to speak to this amendment please raise your hand i'm not seeing any hands uh back to commissioners for final comment or vote voting okay we all heard the um
 document that I was asked to read before the first public comment period. Uh, it did seem a little clunky and long. I don't think we should have to read that before every period. I understand what staff's trying to do and I don't object to this amendment. Um, but I definitely think we need to boil this down to a sentence or two. Um, it's much the same as what Mr. Robling is already doing now before, uh,
 uh, asking members of the public, uh, to comment who are online. Um, so I think it's just, uh, I agree that it's ticky tacky. Um, but I don't have an objection to it as long as we make this shorter. And to clarify, it looks like this, this wording is not in the, uh, it's not part of the amendment. I think that is the, uh, currently existing bylaws that we adopted in the first meeting of the rules and procedures that, that this proposal is
 is redoing so we can vote yes for this and then the wording could be that's correct reviewed at a later date yeah that's why I don't object to it okay so it seems to me that this almost conflicts with what we I mean if the whole goal is to try to make these meetings as efficient as possible I mean like for example
 when going through these rule changes and there's probably not gonna be public comment, there could be, but it seems like they have to read that every time as opposed to something we know is a hot button public issue where the chair is gonna know to, I just think it, once again, it's one of the things, if it becomes a problem and we're never reading the rules and people are getting sideways because of it, then we can amend the rule then. But I think to bake into our meetings, five minutes of reading that is a complete waste of time.
 And I think it has to be read once, at least in every meeting. It seems like that makes complete and fair sense. Otherwise, I think it should be read when we know we're going to need it. Thank you, Commissioner Boland. I'd actually like to direct that question to staff. I think Mr. Jami makes a good point. The change here is that the language of the bylaws proposal that I put forward says the chair may recite a synopsis of these rules
 prior to public comment periods, plural, your change says the chair shall recite a synopsis of the public comment rules prior to every public comment period. Was that your intent, to have these rules read before every public comment period? Yes, the intent was to have a synopsis long-term, a synopsis read before every public comment period, just so that it was always clear what the rules were
 prior to public comment. I understand the concern about time, but it's a rule that is often ignored immediately upon public comment. So reiterating, staff does not believe is an issue, just to make the rules very clear. So in short, I'll say that I support this amendment.
 but I also support one third the length of this thing that I read tonight. I think that we can boil it down to language that's very tight, but that will still allow us to remind the audience who's breaking the rule, listen, stop directing comments to individuals. You direct the comment to the chair. You've got three minutes. The people will, I'm okay with it. Commissioner Coppock.
 I guess my take would be that some people may come in later in the meeting. And so it would probably help out if you had a very short sentence or two to inform them what the rules were. Thank you. Just a thought, but couldn't the chair remind people when they start, if they were going off track, then make the announcement on an as needed basis as opposed to every multiple times throughout the course of the meeting.
 That's a really great question. The problem is that what you want to do is not make anybody feel like they're being singled out. And I've had that experience as a chair, where they feel like they've been singled out for less time, or they've been interrupted, or what have you. So when you state the, I mean, I take staff's point and Mr. Jummey's point, but when you stated in advance, nobody can say, it's like pointing to a sign.
 Can't you read? Like we didn't make this up for you. So I get why staff wants to do it, but I think we can make it tight. Okay. We're ready for a vote. Check. Davis. Yes. All right. Let's do a roll call vote. Okay. Connell. Vote on amendment five amendment vote on amendment five. Yes. Yes.
 Yes. Drumming. No. Davis. Yes. Stausburg. Yes. Copic. Yes. Five to one. Okay, that brings us to the list of the amendments, I believe. Well, there's two. You said two more you submitted. I submitted two. So. Oh, sorry.
 Sorry, just because no one was looking. Sorry to interrupt. If I could have a clarification title or excuse me, Amendment 2 would still leave the 20 minute restriction going forward. Just I don't know. It wasn't exactly clear to staff what happened. We know that the amendment to the amendment was withdrawn and then we missed what happened. So we were hoping that we could clarify that and have a vote on the original Amendment 2 that was called
 to question. So that is maybe confusing. I can do a better job of explaining it.
 I'm trying to remember what happened now. Amendment 2 was the limit on steering committee, the steering committee 20-minute rule. There was an amendment to the amendment that was submitted in the packet by Mr. Volen, and that was removed by Mr. Volen. And then it seemed like the commission wanted to remove the limit and then come back to assess it later. But then the second, the actual Amendment 2 that was originally proposed, there was no resolution.
 understanding is as amendment two was withdrawn then the language we would be voting on later would be the language and the bylaws proposed by Commissioner Volk. I believe that Mr. Sossberg withdrew amendment two. Okay so just to clarify there will still be the 20-minute limit on steering committee or planning session meeting minutes because it's that the reason we were confused is it didn't seem like that was the direction of the Commission so if you're all clear we're all clear.
 Yeah, we're for the moment. We probably have to have another fix the next meeting of this stuff. Thank you. I'm just trying to get through it personally. All right. Commissioner Voland, do you have? OK, yeah, I'd like to move Amendment 6. This inserts a new section in the bylaws that clarifies the definition of the packet. So it says, all written materials germane to the items on the agenda and approved by staff.
 Hereafter known as packet materials shall be assembled by staff into a packet and PDF or similar electronic form and published through the city's normal communications channels within seven days of the meeting to which the packet pertains. So that's
 the procedure we set up here, I'm just codifying it. It continues, the deadline for the submission of packet materials shall be two business days before the packet must be released. For this meeting, the deadline was July 10th. That was two business days before the packet deadline of the 14th at 5.30, which is about when the packet was released. Finally, it says, any packet materials submitted after the deadline
 For example, amendments to proposals in the packet, which must be in writing, shall be released in a subsequent packet or multiple packets if necessary. Subsequent packets shall be appended to the original packet upon the conclusion of the meeting. So this is taken from my experience watching city council where they put out an initial packet and then supplements come in or new material comes in. They don't update the existing packet. They just issue a second one.
 And I'm a little frustrated by the way that ITS manages files there. Often when you go online to find the packet, the main packet is numbered as packet two. So that's something we can go gripe about to ITS. But this simply codifies the process for the packet. And because I believe that staff
 Reopen the packet this week and added stuff to it. I think that might be a problem because some people have downloaded it from a week ago and then they're not ready for the meeting because there's a new The packet that they know is changed. It's not a big deal. But it is good to sort of, I think, codify the process for developing the packet. I'd love to hear staff's take on this.
 Yeah, thank you. So we talked about this internally a lot. The proposed of.
 way of amending the packet is the least clean version. As Mr. Volin pointed out, Commissioner Volin pointed out, it is numbered awkwardly. It is very confusing. No one looks up old packets more than staff. And I can tell you that I spend hours of my life every year determining which packet is the one that has the thing I'm looking for. And we think assembling into a nice clean packet with a staff memo showing what is in there is actually the cleanest
 Most orderly way if you it'll maintain the same link so any commission and commission member or Member of the public can just refresh the link to know that they have the most recent version They don't they don't have to go and find an amendment to iris will send an email follow-up Notifying that has been updated we That is we find
 the most suitable for both staff and for commissioners. It is not the way, for example, that Common Council works or the Board of Public Works, but it is the way that the Board of Zoning Appeals and Plan Commission work. And I have never heard a complaint from Plan Commission members, but I have heard observations from staff and from members of the public of the way that the
 board of public works, agendas are updated. So that's our point. If you all want to approve this, we won't object completely, but we do find it to be the most difficult way to keep things orderly. Thank you. Mr. Rollin. I would like to respond. Can I add one small, as someone who puts these packets together, there are a number of technical
 obstacles to making packets screen reader accessible and that often is a process that has multiple passes. I've read this packet and assembled this packet more than anyone in the Commission and I can tell you that I miss things every single time. If I had to update the packet only once that would mean that
 the vast majority of improvements would simply not have made it into the packet because I would not have had the opportunity to go back and review. So there is actually a function that serves the public in making sure that up until the moment we have the meeting, there's only one draft. And then after the meeting, once we've published everything, there is a utility to perhaps
 creating an appendix of materials that were provided at the meeting itself. But knowing that what was presented at the meeting was just the packet, and not potentially packet one or three or whatever it was. I think that's my note on that. And especially when it comes to things like bookmarking, there's lots of small little minutiae that I have to do manually. And I would prefer, for example, if everyone got their materials in a timely fashion,
 But I know that practically speaking, it's better if that's a horizon and something that we strive for. But I think codifying it in the rules this way perhaps hamstrings people in a way that is not accommodating to the larger goals of the commission. If I can respond. Commissioner Volin. So I am happy to strike the final two sentences of this.
 amendment that would, I think, get what staff would like to do. The concern I have is about public records. So the minute a packet is issued, it's a public record. And if you are changing the public record that was initially published, you open yourself up to accusations of
 dropping something or hiding something. Like it's unlikely. It may never have happened to you. But I mean, I think that was the logic behind why council issued separate packets. Once it's published, it's out there in the public. Maybe we have a policy of issuing versions of the packet and we keep the other ones
 online but we don't change them so that at least there's that public record isn't changed i think that's my concern is that any packet issued for the commission is a public record and you know what what's your take on that um as a government employee everything on my computer is public record so i'm not allowed to delete previous versions of commission materials because the department is is
 we're staffing the commission, by extension, everything that we're creating in service of the commission is already being archived in triplicate. And so if there's any way I could try to, you know, I guess my point being no one is deleting anything, even when what gets posted to
 posted to onboard. If it only appears as one file, I promise you that's not the way that it is. It's just for the purposes of trying to keep things clear and organized, that would be our preference. But understand if anyone submitted a public records request for previous versions of the packet or draft versions of the packet, that would be easily remedied. I have no objection. I'm happy to strike the last two sentences of the amendment that would
 achieve staff's goal. I still think that it's worth talking with legal about this at some point, because I think how public records are presented also makes a difference. It's not just, it's not enough to say that they're possessed. The way that they're released might, I mean, I just don't know enough to answer that, but I'm happy to
 to present the amendment without, I'll take out the sentences that go as follows. Any packet materials submitted after the deadline shall be released in a subsequent packet or multiple packets if necessary. That should be stricken. Subsequent packets shall be appended to the original packet. That will be stricken as well. So, you know, if that's okay with everybody. Yes. Can you read the,
 Again, the remaining amendment just says it creates a new section 3D. All written materials germane to the items on the agenda and approved by staff hereafter known as packet materials shall be assembled by staff into a packet in PDF or similar electronic form and published through the City's normal communications channels within seven days of the meeting to which the packet pertains. The deadline for the submission of packet materials shall be two business days before the packet must be released. Thank you.
 other commissioner comments a question um that's for the staff those okay let me give them a is this in the current but no i believe this was a late breaking okay that's my point it's in the latest version of the packet is in an email i thought i was gonna read made my point for me um looking at the
 received an email from iris that's what i'm looking for 30 was that 4 30 today was it in the 4 30 pm i don't know i have to ask them staff we have a question for you when you're ready commissioner drumming my question um it's probably specific to iris is it's
 that were deletion of those last two sentences, does that solve your issues or is it a broader issue? The striking of the last two sentences goes a long way in terms of serving staff goals. I do have other concerns about codifying administrative procedures. I think that there are potentially some extenuating circumstances that may simply inhibit our ability to publish it
 exactly within seven days. If one of us gets sick, there's no enforcement mechanism for a rule like this. There's no prescriptive outcome. And I think a rule like that, it's like a red flag. It's not necessarily the best thing. But I understand the spirit of the rule. I think that that's part of a longer conversation to have and something that I'm still personally wrestling with. Because I want to be able to meet everyone's needs.
 I'm not always going to be here. And so I think it's, you know, trying to be cognizant of someone with a different capacity to meet the commission's needs is worth considering. I can respond. Commissioner Bowling. I think that in response to Commissioner Drummy's question, the possible impact of not being able to meet this rule would be that
 a meeting is insufficiently noticed and therefore has to be postponed. And I agree that this might pose a problem. The seven day deadline was something that staff asked for. They wanted at least seven days before the packet to go out at least seven days for the meeting. And the staff asked for at least two business days
 I mean, I was sort of thinking that this was what staff wanted. And I just wanted to get the definition of packet in the bylaws. So perhaps staff could respond. I actually have a counterpoint is in the next resolution, you will be voting on the meeting and deadline schedule. And that is something
 we can update every year. It will update every year. And it has the packet submission deadline in it already prescribed. And so if we're striking the last two sentences, I'm not actually sure what this language will do, because in the meeting schedule, you will be adopting a packet submission deadline. Thank you. Commissioner Rowland? No, I'm this way. Other commissioners?
 comments from the public. If you are online and would like to speak, please raise your hand and I will call on you. Ms. Davis. Thank you. Oh, oh, sorry. I there's no one online. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Back to commissioners for final comment before a vote.
 Let's take the roll call vote then please. Bowlin. Yeah. Sorry. Drumming. No. Davis. I'm sorry. I need a refresher on what yes means here.
 Yes, is to accept Amendment 6 that creates a new section 3D called packet that just defines what the packet is. It does not. I've removed the language that requires subsequent or multiple packets. Yes. OK. Yes. Stasberg? No. Copic? No. Connell? No.
 Uh that motion fails two to uh four. Thank you. I'd like to move amendment seven. Um you're recognized. This is the final amendment. Uh this is creates uh it renames and adds to uh section four C on the presentation of cases. Uh so it uh under presentation of cases now it says it takes the whole paragraph that was
 called scheduling of cases and makes it a subpoint of that. Then it creates a new subsection called departmental position. If staff did not originate a petition or resolution, any staff memo regarding that case, staff, this is a typo, any staff memo regarding that case shall be descriptive only.
 The opinions and recommendations of the staff on the case hereafter known as the departmental position shall be published as a separate document that follows the case's other materials. So the point being staff, this is the complicated part. It took me a long time thinking about this because we went back and forth a lot in developing the bylaws. My thought here is that staff is at once the ministerial body responsible for doing the basic
 organizing of this commission, but staff also is a policymaking. I guess I can call you a body, a group. It's up to the engineering department, the planning department to develop policy for the city that they then bring to various bodies up to it, including the city council and
 As far back as 20 years ago, when I was in my first term on council, I remember both council members and members of the public objecting to the things that planning staff were saying about any given case before the council. Sometimes it depends on who agreed with whom. Either way, they would accuse staff of something dark,
 malfeasance or you're cheating or you're putting your thumb on the scale. And that's never been staff's goal. But I think that part of that confusion comes from the fact that staff is both administering this body and trying to set policy. So sometimes staff is going to be trying to persuade us to set policy, but we also depend on staff to
 to do the basics of managing the roll call and the whatever. So my thought here was if staff were to break, what they would normally have is a memo for, this is by the way, for a petition or resolution that they did not originate. When it comes to something that staff originates, it's very natural for them to put the recommendation in. They're the ones proposing it. But when it comes to a third party, a petitioner or a member proposing a resolution, it would be better
 if staff's opinion was separated out to a separate document. So there's really no change. It's just instead of one memo, there'd be two. And that second memo describing the position of the department would go after the presentation of the document. So that's the idea here. And I welcome questions on it. I think it's important, but I'd love to talk about it. Thank you. We'll start with the opportunity for the staff to comment.
 Do you have an opportunity to comment on this? Thank you. Yes, we are largely in support of this that we as long as staff is still capable of replying because we will be replying to all items brought before this commission. I think that's fine. Clarifying that it should go after makes perfect sense to us. We just didn't have a formal process and to be honest, didn't think it through. We probably would have done it differently.
 in the future, we were just kind of going ad hoc. So we're appreciative of this and understand the logic behind it. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioners, questions or comments? Ms. Davis? Commissioner Davis? We'll move to the public in person. If you are online and would like to speak to this, please raise your hand.
 seeing anyone. Thank you. Back to commissioners for opportunity for final comment for vote. Commissioner Volin. Yeah we're blowing through this real quick. I just want to say again the more I thought about the more I realized that this is as much I mean I I it may not seem like it at first but it's in a way it it serves staff
 to do this because I don't like it when members of the public accuse staff of somehow cheating or putting their thumb on the scale because they have these two roles. But it took this debate to realize that that was the issue all along. And I hope that this will set a precedent actually for other bodies. If staff just aggregates out their qualified opinion on a given proposal, it removes another way that
 uh, people who are objecting for the sake of remonstration, uh, have to criticize staff. So I think it's a good thing. It doesn't take away any, it just, it just moves it to it. It lets the proposer of a petition or resolution present their thing first and then staff response. So that's the idea. I think we're ready to move to a roll call vote. Please call the roll. Okay. Bowling. Yes. Drumming. Yes. Davis.
 Yes. Stausburg. Yes. Coppock. Yes. Connell. Yes. 6-0. Thank you. If I understand Robert Trulls here, we now have to return back to the original proposal to replace the bylaws with Steve Olin. I'll speak for 10 seconds. These bylaws largely
 reorganize the initial bylaws presented by staff in June, which we adopted on an interim basis with some questions. I think it does a pretty thorough job. I think it'll serve us well. I urge everyone to get to know the rules. And I just want to say, I think that things we talked about tonight, there are probably a couple of smaller fixes in the future.
 Um, and I'm eager to work with staff to fix the things we couldn't fix tonight. Thank you. Comments from commissioners for staff opportunity to comment on bylaws as amended. Uh, we are by and large supportive, uh, except for the amendments that we post. Thank you. Uh, commissioners comment on bylaws as amended or questions. Commissioner Davis.
 Members of the public, comment or questions on bylaws as amended? Anyone online? If you are online, raise your hand and we will call on you. Not seeing any. Okay, back to commissioners for opportunity for final comment before vote on bylaws as amended.
 Okay, none. Let's move to the roll call vote on bylaws as amended. Drummy. Yes. Davis. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Coppock. Yes. Connell. Yes. Boland. Yes. Six zero. Thank you all for your patience. I appreciate it. I'll take the
 Thank you to Vice Chair Stossberg for handling that. Let's go now to TCR 2502, the 2025 Transportation Commission calendar. Mr. What's your name? I'm still blank. Mr. Raubling, please. Irish people will actually present this one, but thank you.
 present a brief summary of the schedule. This is just a draft, a proposed draft that reflects an effort to anticipate staff workload and to coordinate space logistics for our preferred meeting location, council chambers. It's intended to guide the regular hearings as well as planning sessions. We have two pages included here. One is specific to the schedule.
 The second page is specific to the agenda request and packet material deadlines. We have, in addition on the second page, provided a hyperlink and a QR code to a Google form which we have created for the benefit of Staff and Commission member use only to submit agenda item requests.
 Okay, is that the conclusion of the presentation? Yeah, I welcome any questions. Are there any questions for staff on TCR 2502? To my left. To my right. Online. Ms. Davis, are you there? Have we lost? We may have lost Ms. Davis. You have not lost me. No questions.
 All right, let's go to the public for comment on TCR 2502, the Transportation Commission's calendar. If you would like to make public comment on this resolution, raise your hand and I will call on you if you're online. Wait five seconds. Not seeing anyone online. All right, back to the commission for questions or comment.
 Seeing none, we'll have a roll call vote on TCR 2502. Davis. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Coppock. Yes. Connell. Yes. Vollen. Yes. Trummey. Yes. 6-0. That passes 6-0. We go on now to TCR 2503.
 North Indiana Avenue and East 13th Street intersection. Here to present is whom? Mike Stewart. I am transportation engineering analyst out of the engineering department. Thank you, and thank you for speaking directly into that mic. I love being able to hear people. I will try to keep that in mind, but I tend to drift, so no promises. So yeah, since we haven't done this before, I'm not exactly sure
 what format to actually follow, but I'll just start off by saying in traffic engineering, we look to the manual for uniform traffic control devices and guidance on where certain traffic signs, regulatory warning signs, et cetera, will go. And in that MUTCD, it does give guidelines on where we would potentially place all waste stops.
 As part of our general day-to-day operations, staff has identified a potential all-way stop at the intersection of East 13th Street and North Indiana Avenue after noticing a number of basically crashes that could be corrected by the presence of an all-way stop. This intersection is currently only stop-controlled on 13th Street, with North Indiana being free-flow.
 So I guess to step back a little bit, one of the criteria is if there are five or more crashes that could be corrected by an always stop within a one-year period, that is one of the guidelines where we should consider an always stop. Once we identified this pattern at this intersection, we did a further traffic study where we looked into
 traffic volumes and line of sight. What we did find is traffic volumes also meet the guidelines for the threshold for an all-way stop. While not optimal, the line of sight was within guidelines. However, it would be better to have a little bit better sight distance there.
 long story short and sorry for rambling is uh staff did identify that this would be a likely candidate uh for improvements with an always stop and uh with that i'm happy to answer any questions that you have thanks for the presentation are there any questions on tcr 2503 from members okay mr coppock um do you think there's any sight distance problem with seeing the stop sign if you're northbound on indiana yeah
 Great question. So we measured it. We don't believe there actually will be. However, understanding that the overpass is there for the railroad, we do intend to have a stop ahead sign placed essentially to the south of that intersection before you get to that overpass. So in between 12th and 13th, just so we want it to be very visible, very
 you know, very aware for everybody on the road. Further questions from members? Online, Ms. Davis, if you have any question, speak up to my left. Seeing none, we'll go to the public. Is there a member of the public who would like to speak to TCR 2503, the intersection of Indiana and 13th?
 If you are online and would like to speak to this resolution, please raise your hand, and I will call on you. Not seeing any. OK, we'll come back to the commission for discussion, unless people have questions. I was just going to say, is there any narrowing of the intersection in its future?
 As far as I'm aware, there are no current projected projects at that intersection. So as part of this, there wouldn't be any narrowing. This would essentially be adding in the always stop. And we've also identified that crossing 13th Street would be a good candidate for crosswalks. So it may not go up day one with the stop signs, however we've. Wait, you mean crossing 13th or Indiana? Indiana, thank you.
 Because 13th has crosswalks, but Indiana doesn't. Yes, correct. OK. So once we have the always stop, it'll be more comfortable, hopefully, for pedestrians to cross. Do you normally only do things like bump outs or neck downs opportunistically when there's some other project happening there? Or would you, I mean, is that a potential solution to slowing traffic down here as well?
 Well, I also want to clarify the purpose of this isn't to slow down traffic. That may be an added benefit, but this isn't part of a traffic calming project. Due to the this isn't a complete answer, but due to intersection constraints, particularly with the overpass, there really isn't much room to narrow the lanes beyond how things already are. We're already
 question how we're going to fit in the stop sign when you have that monolithic sidewalk, and it's just a little bit difficult of an intersection. So while it may be great to want to get some of those traffic calming benefits, this may not be the practical approach here. Just to be clear, the vote here is to agree with and recommend the changes proposed in this resolution. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Any further questions or final comment?
 I have a question. And this relates back to a different issue or previous issue. But would this ever be an example of where you might use a 180-day order just to see how that goes? Or is it not? Or once it gets to this stage, you've already decided either you tried that or you have moved past that. Yeah. So Andrew Siebert briefly mentioned this before. With some of these things, an always stop would be a good example.
 The consistency is very important. We don't want to put in a stop sign and then remove a stop sign because that, as you can imagine, may lead to disaster. So while we may use a 180 day order to have it installed and actually have it as part of quote unquote code, it wouldn't be with the intent for us to remove it after 180 days.
 discussion. Seeing none, we'll go to a roll call vote on TCR 2503. Sorry about that. Copic. Yes.
 Yes. Bowlin. Yes. Drummey. Yes. Davis. Yes. And Stossberg. Yes. That passes 6-0. Let's now move to our last case for the evening, TCR 2504, the intersection of North Woodlawn and East 13th Street. Are we getting the same presenter?
 Yes, thank you. Mike Stewart again. So as you said, this is essentially a similar request for an always stop now at the intersection of North Woodlawn Avenue and East 13th Street. As with the previous recommendation, we again staff noticed a recurrence of crashes at this intersection that could potentially be. Be resolved with the presence of an always stop. As with before,
 conducted a traffic investigation at this intersection. What we did find was the traffic volumes did not quite meet the threshold as a separate criteria for an always stop. However, we did not conduct a pedestrian count just due to logistics. And given its proximity to the university, we do expect that pedestrians may tip the scales to overcome that volume threshold.
 And I guess the other kind of highlight that we notice at this intersection is to the south of the intersection. I believe it's about 150 feet, maybe even further. I think it says 175 feet is the railroad crossing at grade. We did have one of our on-call engineering consultants just run through the numbers based off traffic volumes and there should be no issue with queuing over the railroad tracks once this always stop is
 if this all-way stop were installed. So I think with that, yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thanks for the presentation. Are there questions for staff on TCR 2504? You said that one of the thresholds you look at is traffic count and also on the previous intersection you mentioned crash count.
 Were the crash count numbers at this intersection sufficient to justify the project? Yes, yes, they meant that it was, I should know it off the top of my head, but it was either five or six within that one year period that would have been correct or could have been correctable by the presence of an all-way stop. Are those crash numbers weighted for less traffic?
 Or the fact that there's enough crashes there and less traffic suggests it's a slightly more dangerous intersection. Yeah, it's just complete number of crashes. Volume doesn't come into play on that. And even, I guess, just a little bit more clarification since this is a new commission. The NUTCD gives guidelines. It doesn't give rules on necessarily when something like this should be installed. So there is always for always stops the engineering judgment where
 You know, we weigh these different factors. The MUTCD just gives us what our priority factor should be. Thank you. Further questions on TCR 2504? Mr. Sosbert? More of a meta comment on related to the public comment we had earlier. This is an area where we have an opportunity to clean up our language with using language of approval versus recommending
 giving a positive recommendation of advisory. So that's something we can work on. I don't understand. What are you saying? We had a public comment that the description of this group used the word approving, where other times this group has been described as an advisory group. And as we vote on things, that's an important distinction to use the language that matches what we're doing.
 I see. I'm happy to address that in comments, but I'm not sure I agree with the public who say that, so. Further questions from members before we go to the public for comment on 2504? Seeing none, let's go to the public. If there's a member of the public who'd like to speak to this issue, please come to the podium. If you are online, please raise your hand, Mr. Robling.
 not seeing any members online. Last chance to respond to TCR 2504. So now we'll come back to the Commission for discussion. Are there any comments online? Ms. Davis? To my left? To my right?
 Okay, then I'll just say, I'll respond now to your observation. Unless the state in the case of say Plan Commission or BZA or the city has delegated the authority to create or change ordinance,
 which I don't even think the council can delegate the ability to change ordinance. By definition, every commission in the city is a recommending body. I think even the plan commission, there's some statutory things plan commission can do. So the idea that somehow we're just an advisory commission kind of misses the point. Everyone is just, every other commission is just an advisory commission. The recommendation of this commission will carry weight, that is the intent
 that staff had in developing it. They wanted it to be one that everyone took seriously. I think we all take that charge seriously. So if it helps people, I guess we can define what advisory means or what a recommendation means. But as far as I'm concerned, staff is asking us to endorse this resolution
 I think we all understand that's what our charge is to be. And that doesn't mean we change law. It simply means they have vetted it through a body that is focused on this issue. And I don't know, Mr. Rowling, can you help me here? Yeah. What you said is accurate. I just want to, for point of clarification, I don't know why this isn't sharing properly. But you'll find in your packet that the actual language is staff recommends that the transportation adopt the proposed findings and forward
 to the common council a positive recommendation for installation of an always stop at the intersection of East 13th and Woodlawn.
 Avenue, Northwood Lawn. So that's the language that the body should be. They're looking at the four. We didn't really discuss it. Maybe that's something we should talk about in the future. But Mr. Adling is exactly right. What we're supposed to be doing is advancing a recommendation. According to the bylaws we just adopted, we're supposed to adopt a positive recommendation. We could also choose to adopt no recommendation, a negative recommendation, or to continue it to another meeting. But I believe that
 So somebody needs to make a motion, we should have done it with the previous one, to adopt a positive recommendation for TCR 2504. Would you like to do the honors? Yes. I make a motion to adopt with a positive recommendation. Let's have Hunter get a second. Second. We have a second. Can we have a roll call vote on the motion to adopt a positive recommendation for TCR 2504? We're going to figure it out eventually, folks. We're getting there. Connor.
 Yes. Bowling. Yes. Drumming. Yes. Davis. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Coppock. Yes. 6-0. That passes 6-0.
 Thank you for the presentation that ends our cases for the evening. Let's get through the rest of this now. There are no transportation inquiries on the agenda. We now get to discussion staff proposals general public comment. This is not a well defined section of our agenda yet. So I'm going to just say
 If there's any general topic that we have not yet talked about on tonight's agenda that's not on tonight's agenda, this is a chance for any commissioner to raise it. This includes potential topics for future meetings. I've got a couple. This includes proposals from staff and this includes an opportunity for the public to comment generally on an item that on anything that was not on tonight's agenda. So why don't we start with general public comment first. If there is
 someone who would like to speak to an issue that was not on the agenda because remember the general public please come to the podium now or raise your hand in zoom mr rubbling if you would make the request there anyone who'd like to speak please come to the podium and uh and state your name and please my name is james ferguson and um i'm not sure if the
 because we discussed the Blue Ridge project. But again, I wanted to, I've been on conversation with people, I wanted to, I don't know if it's request the commission to review and possibly take a second look at the other two turn lane proposals that were in our original
 presentation. The one, the right hand turn lane off of northbound North Walnut and the left hand bound turn lane into the chiropractic office. As those two, because of the speeds in the region are still a very important aspect for our community and hopefully
 Uh, we can still work on the light too. Those two or those two issues, especially at the light is still on our agenda. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. So any other public comment either in chambers or online, uh, of general nature. If so, please raise your hand and zoom.
 Seeing none, we come back to the commission for a discussion. All right, let's go to staff proposals. Are there any proposals that staff is intending to add to a future agenda? Mr. Seaborg? Good evening again, Andrew Seaborg, City Engineer. Over the past few weeks, we've been just
 Gradually getting brain dumping and meeting with various departments across the city that may have transportation related issues, giving them a reminder that this commission exists is new and that our expectation of what comes to this body. And as a result, we have a long list of potential topics to bring to this commission. And so just just noting that we're still
 two months out from our next commission meeting, but just to maybe give a preview of things that are on my mind that I anticipate may be on that next meeting are just general topics around parking. So some smaller parking inquiries and traffic related evaluations. I'm expecting also a status update on the parking study that is ongoing.
 There's a chance that we will have an update on this year's resident led traffic calming projects. That may be coming. Also just some city projects that are underway and in development that haven't had a commission before to present to. So some updates there. We do have a number of, or a pair of at least public inquiries that we do want to bring forward. So we may try bringing one at a time. So we will try to bring some of those forward. And then the last, and this,
 List could grow too, but it's a long list, but signal timing. So city council, maybe more than a year ago has asked us as a part of an effort as we retime our city signals to establish criteria to prioritize pedestrians and how we time our signals. And so wanting to give an update in September before we start to implement changes throughout the city. So that's just an early preview of things just for the next meeting that are on our draft list right now.
 Thank you. Are there any questions for staff about proposals that they're planning to bring? Looking to my left, my right. Okay, Ms. Davis says no. Are there any other items that, I've got a few, but are there any items that members would like to see added to future agendas? No? Ms. Davis?
 You don't have to, you know, it's not speak once or hold your piece. We can do this every month. It's just this is the opportunity to do that. Mr. Robling. Yeah, so that was a comprehensive list. It was everything I had except one thing. Planning, the Planning and Transportation Department will be hosting Safety Week. We did it last year. It was in a different month. We're going to try April or August this year. So
 That was originally we were originally trying planning to host a meeting out in the wild, which we are allowed to do, but we aren't allowed to do because we need to have somebody record it because there's a commission member on the body. So instead, we're going to do offer stroll and discuss opportunity with.
 just portions of the body. So expect an email. That way we don't hit the quorum rule. It'll still be open to the public and function similarly, but it won't be an actual meeting.
 And so we are hoping to do one on Rogers Madison Kinzer, which is a corridor study that will begin soon, potentially one on College and Walnut, which is a quarter study we're doing right now, but more likely one on Indiana. There is a project that we haven't updated you on yet, but will. So it would be nice to we've we're pretty far into the process on Indiana Safety Improvement Project. And then there is a 10th Street Safety Improvement Project. So we'll have four options if
 If you're interested in joining any of those, they'll also be open to the public in general, but any less than quorum of you are welcome to come to one of those. That's August 18th through the 22nd, so mark your calendars. We'll send out some invites to get an idea, a headcount of who would be available when.
 Are you trying to tell the members of this commission that we're expected to start showing up at public events and and paying attention to all the transportation related activities that you're conducting? Staff would think that would be really neat of you if you did. Figured.
 Okay, here's some items that I'd like to think about. I'm interested in Blue Ridge's petition, and I wonder, first of all, if the Blue Ridge petition is an example of a transportation inquiry as staff conceives it, so we could schedule that for a hearing at the next transportation planning session. Is that the kind of thing that we'll find favor, staff?
 Any issues? I'm looking at Mr. Rowling and I'm confused. I don't know if I understood the question. OK, so the question is, isn't this a good example of what staff has in mind by a transportation inquiry? I think potentially, but I think
 Do you want to take a stab at it first? I would say yes. This was a traffic inquiry previously for the Traffic Commission. It was after staff saw the writing on the wall that the Transportation Commission would come online. We started to implement these to try to feel out what it might look like for this commission. So we've already done that. What?
 what's a traffic inquiry. So similar to a transportation inquiry. So we've done that, we've done the study and we found what to change based on the inquiry that was originally proposed. So they've already done a traffic inquiry. So I'm not sure what a transportation inquiry would bring up again, just because we've already vetted all of the things brought it forward in the- Well, if I understand it correctly, they're saying, the public is saying, whatever it is you had in mind,
 uh, may not be adequate that they're calling for some kind of a signal there. Meanwhile, we had a testimony from a former traffic commissioner saying that they weren't able to approve their final minutes. Uh, and I was thinking we could add that to the agenda. We could approve their minutes for them. So at least that record would be done, but, um, it sort of seems like this would be a good opportunity for the commission to explore, to practice doing a transportation inquiry.
 I guess a quick response I have is that those questions were raised today, but they weren't raised for staff to answer. And so I'm just hesitant to bring that topic back again when we have other items that haven't been discussed at all publicly at a commission meeting. OK. Well, anyway, I, for one, am interested in the possibility of making this an inquiry. But I'm happy to talk about it with staff later. I'd also like to.
 ask the administration to get that last seat filled as quickly as possible. Council is going to have to fill the seat that was vacated by Ms. McKinney. I think we would be, if you didn't already say it in your report just now, if we could get a comprehensive list of all the corridor studies being done in the city, like a master list, that might be a useful thing for review.
 I also want to talk with staff at some point about the possibility of standing reports from certain people like Mr. Jackson. Maybe they report us every so often because they're doing work that's strictly related to the commission. Finally, I wanted to bring up an issue. On the way here, I noted that the convention center is about to go under construction. And there was a very frequent former traffic commissioner who would come to council and object to the way that
 Uh, streets would not get blocked off, but sidewalks would. And I know that the sidewalk on North Walnut Street actually would be South Walnut. It's just at the corner of third is blocked off from this. It looks like the sidewalk will be blocked off, but there are two lanes of traffic. Um, and I question whether they needed to block off the entire lane and not provide a separate side sidewalk area on the West side.
 of Walnut Street. So I wonder if we can look into that. It's going to take a couple of months for the next meeting. But I'm curious if there's any comment now that staff has about it, I'd like to know what's up with that. Yeah, I can quickly respond to the Convention Center project that's just getting underway. Sidewalk closure was approved along Walnut Third Street and College frontage.
 But along with that sidewalk closure was the requirement to provide a pedestrian facility on that same side. That's what I meant. So that is I think in place now. I haven't seen it specifically, but they are putting that in place. So the reason I bring it up is because what I saw was concrete block blocking off the entire lane and the sidewalk and no accommodation for pedestrians. And I wondered if there's somebody who knows about it. I think the concrete barricades were there to provide a space for pedestrians to
 walk and I'm going to invite to it that will be great so we don't have to add it to another agenda. I have a little bit of background on that so they are they've been in the process of creating additional detectable warning ramps and basically constructing this diversion over I mean honestly the past week but the intention is that this all will be a open diversion that
 pedestrians will be walking through. So what you're seeing now is still kind of the work in progress as they basically needed to build infrastructure to have this diversion present. So one or two weeks of a sidewalk closure to ultimately keep it open for the duration of the project. Ironic, but I accept that. All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate knowing that. Any other items anybody wants to see on future agendas?
 Seeing none, let's go to our schedule. So we are not meeting in August because we couldn't secure a room. That is correct. Uh, council budget will be taking place in this room during this time. Got it. All right then. So our next meeting is going to be what date? September 21st, five 30 in this room. Oh, excuse me. Not 21st. 15th, September 15th at five 30 in council chambers of city hall.
 and the packet goes out a week before that, the deadline to submit to the packet is what day? The packet deadline is the ninth and the packet will go out on the, oh wait, that's not right. Yeah, thank you. We did just approve the challenge. Sorry, this is why I write things down because I can't remember. On the fourth maybe? I believe that the packet submission deadline will be
 September 4th at 3 p.m. All right. So you all know what's expected of you. Any last words? I'll take a motion for adjournment. Motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. We're adjourned.