WEBVTT 00:00:00.514 --> 00:00:06.995 - Good evening. My name is Liz Vital. I'm the chair of the Collaborative Justice Project Working Subcommittee 00:00:06.995 --> 00:00:13.236 - Group. And I'd like to introduce myself, Liz Vital, county council member, Mayor Carrie Thompson, Karen 00:00:13.236 --> 00:00:19.237 - Renbeck, representing the Public Defender's Office, and April Wilson, representing the Prosecutor's 00:00:19.237 --> 00:00:25.417 - Office with us this evening. We may be having one more come. I didn't hear she wasn't coming, so maybe 00:00:25.417 --> 00:00:30.398 - we'll have a special one here shortly. But we have a quorum. So I'd like to begin. 00:00:30.690 --> 00:00:38.020 - So we talked about adopting an amended agenda. Did you want to go through that again? So there was an 00:00:38.020 --> 00:00:45.566 - agenda published for this meeting, but I'm recommending to committee members to adopt an amended agenda, 00:00:45.566 --> 00:00:52.897 - which adds a discussion or an update on what County Council did last night at their meeting that adds 00:00:52.897 --> 00:00:58.718 - that amends the election of a chair, vice chair to just the election of a chair. 00:00:59.138 --> 00:01:06.575 - And then to have a discussion about scheduling a future meetings, meeting procedures, including whether 00:01:06.575 --> 00:01:13.797 - the committee wants to adopt an electronic attendance policy. So should we have a motion and approve 00:01:13.797 --> 00:01:20.947 - that or? That's my recommendation. OK, who wants to make a motion to approve this adopted agenda? I 00:01:20.947 --> 00:01:28.670 - move approval of the adopted agenda. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Can we do a voice vote? 00:01:28.930 --> 00:01:36.862 - Yes. All those in favor. Hi. All right. So we've adopted the amended agenda. So the update on the county 00:01:36.862 --> 00:01:44.870 - council action. Did you want to do that as well. So last night the county council met and they considered 00:01:44.870 --> 00:01:53.406 - resolution 202625 which was to ratify the actions that were taken on June 11th to form the working subcommittee. 00:01:53.506 --> 00:02:00.738 - During that conversation, they did vote to make amendments to the resolution specifically regarding 00:02:00.738 --> 00:02:07.970 - composition of membership. So originally there was eight members appointed to the committee and now 00:02:07.970 --> 00:02:15.202 - there are six members appointed which consists of a representative from the board of commissioners, 00:02:15.202 --> 00:02:21.566 - the mayor or the city of Bloomington, the mayor of city of Bloomington or her designee, 00:02:21.698 --> 00:02:30.228 - A county council member Bloomington common council member member of the prosecutor's office and a member 00:02:30.228 --> 00:02:39.082 - of the public defender's office and. Then. The sheriff and the representative the judges are still included, 00:02:39.082 --> 00:02:47.774 - but they've been moved to ex officio status and the. Resolution indicates that the designation of them of. 00:02:48.578 --> 00:02:54.682 - their status as ex officio members is based on communication from each of the identified entities that 00:02:54.682 --> 00:03:00.668 - we received that indicates those entities will not be participating at this time. But it also leaves 00:03:00.668 --> 00:03:06.772 - open for the option for if for some reason they would like to participate in future meetings, they are 00:03:06.772 --> 00:03:12.757 - allowed to do so. And then language was added in regarding the duties of the working subcommittee to 00:03:12.757 --> 00:03:17.854 - clarify that the committee is to evaluate three or four properties within city limits 00:03:17.954 --> 00:03:23.914 - previously there was not the within city limits language in there, and recommend one location back to 00:03:23.914 --> 00:03:29.990 - the larger group that met on June 11th, and that the collaborative justice project working subcommittee 00:03:29.990 --> 00:03:36.008 - shall focus, their focus shall be on location only. And then there was language, sorry, council member 00:03:36.008 --> 00:03:41.967 - Feidl, one more thing. And then there was language added that the county council members should serve 00:03:41.967 --> 00:03:47.518 - as the chair and will be responsible for working with county staff on the creation of agendas. 00:03:49.506 --> 00:03:57.149 - Any questions from the committee? All right. So I see next on the amended agenda, we probably thought 00:03:57.149 --> 00:04:04.642 - about electing a vice chair. Would we have someone that is willing to serve in that role? I'm happy 00:04:04.642 --> 00:04:12.209 - to, but what are the responsibilities? Well, I think you'd show up if I can't. And do. At least. And 00:04:12.209 --> 00:04:18.878 - then I don't know about anything else. Why would I want to be there if you're not there? 00:04:20.418 --> 00:04:30.922 - So can she motion herself? I don't know. You can motion yourself. I motion myself to be vice chair. 00:04:30.922 --> 00:04:41.636 - All right. Is there a second? A second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. So now we're doing schedule of 00:04:41.636 --> 00:04:43.422 - future meetings. 00:04:43.522 --> 00:04:49.553 - We had talked about having maybe submission of agenda items, because I think there might have been some 00:04:49.553 --> 00:04:55.410 - discussion from others about getting things on the agenda. And so I think we need to have things put 00:04:55.410 --> 00:05:01.498 - on the agenda if we're going to call this a public meeting so the public knows what we're talking about. 00:05:01.498 --> 00:05:07.297 - Can you speak close? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're sitting too far away. I am too far. I've done this 00:05:07.297 --> 00:05:13.502 - before. Thank you. I play that game pretty well. OK, so we talked about having submission of agenda items. 00:05:13.602 --> 00:05:20.266 - so that we can and the public then can know what it is we'll be talking about at any meeting that we 00:05:20.266 --> 00:05:27.127 - have with this working group. So shall we vote on doing that? Or is that just something that? President 00:05:27.127 --> 00:05:33.725 - Feidl. I'm sorry? President Feidl, I actually have a suggestion if I could. OK. I'm not sure if you 00:05:33.725 --> 00:05:40.389 - want me to do it now because we've come up with scheduling. It's regarding next steps. And I've come 00:05:40.389 --> 00:05:43.358 - with a proposal on how to meet our deadline. 00:05:43.810 --> 00:05:49.482 - I wasn't sure if you'd like me to, now since we're talking about the agenda. Well, we have number 10 00:05:49.482 --> 00:05:55.155 - on my revised agenda, but the next steps is number six on the original agenda, and it's still number 00:05:55.155 --> 00:06:00.939 - 10 on mine, so the next steps is there. I just wanted to make sure it was okay for me to share it now, 00:06:00.939 --> 00:06:06.612 - or if you wanted me to wait, I'm happy to. I'll take advice, so do you think we should wait or do it 00:06:06.612 --> 00:06:12.284 - now? I think that's at your discretion. I think we'll wait, but thank you, okay? I won't forget you, 00:06:12.284 --> 00:06:12.958 - believe me. 00:06:13.378 --> 00:06:19.477 - Okay. So then, so then submission of agenda items, do we think then collectively as a group that we 00:06:19.477 --> 00:06:26.063 - will want to have people want what they want on to talk about on the agenda? Is that important to everyone? 00:06:26.063 --> 00:06:32.527 - I think for me, I think it is makes running the meeting a little easier and the expectations are a little 00:06:32.527 --> 00:06:38.687 - easier. So for instance, if you have something under that next steps, we that would have been on the 00:06:38.687 --> 00:06:42.590 - agenda if we had some sort of guideline like that, right? Yeah. 00:06:43.138 --> 00:06:50.986 - So can we agree? Do we need a motion to agree that we're going to submit items for each agenda? Well, 00:06:50.986 --> 00:06:58.680 - if I may interject, I think more importantly to identify the procedure for doing so. So I think our 00:06:58.680 --> 00:07:06.450 - recommendation is if you have an agenda item that you would like, you would email your corresponding 00:07:06.450 --> 00:07:12.990 - attorney and then we would collaborate and put together an agenda. How's that sound? 00:07:13.090 --> 00:07:20.948 - request that it be 48 hours before the meeting 48 hours before the meeting all right that clarifier 00:07:20.948 --> 00:07:28.806 - okay email the proper legal so if your city city if your county your county right and then 48 hours 00:07:28.806 --> 00:07:36.822 - in advance all right and then is that it for that then um i guess there was an idea do you want to go 00:07:36.822 --> 00:07:42.558 - ahead and try to figure out the schedule for future meetings or yes okay 00:07:42.658 --> 00:07:52.769 - That was later. That's later. Somebody. That was good. That was Michelle. I was talking out loud. Sorry. 00:07:52.769 --> 00:08:02.688 - Sorry. Your microphone works. Can I make a motion or whatever is needed to hear April's plan proposal? 00:08:02.688 --> 00:08:12.510 - Because I think if if a process is going to impact our schedule, we ought to talk about that process. 00:08:12.802 --> 00:08:20.472 - Um, and, and it's at least important for me and, uh, perhaps I assume for everyone here that we figure 00:08:20.472 --> 00:08:27.993 - out the schedule very soon so that we can all do our best to make these meetings. I'm going to be in 00:08:27.993 --> 00:08:35.887 - the middle of that. What are the rest of you think? Okay. So where would we put, where are you suggesting 00:08:35.887 --> 00:08:38.270 - we put April in now? All right. 00:08:39.170 --> 00:08:45.139 - Is that okay? You think or shall we talk about public comment at meetings first and then we're capable 00:08:45.139 --> 00:08:51.051 - in. Okay, so I'm trying to take notes here. I'm not sure what we're doing. So I thought we were still 00:08:51.051 --> 00:08:57.020 - on submitting items. So I think this is broadly covered under scheduling future meetings. And so since 00:08:57.020 --> 00:09:02.873 - the plan may impact the schedule of future meetings, that's why I think they say it's included under 00:09:02.873 --> 00:09:04.670 - item number five. That's fine. 00:09:05.794 --> 00:09:12.624 - So we can include to have a different agenda than everyone else, right? Which maybe I am not following 00:09:12.624 --> 00:09:19.388 - it. It's because we amended it at the beginning of the meeting. I can print a whole bunch of admitted 00:09:19.388 --> 00:09:26.020 - agendas real quick or throw it up on a screen or something. Thank you so much. Print them off. I'll 00:09:26.020 --> 00:09:33.049 - run into the counselor. OK, so we're on five scheduling of future meetings. Great and then we just talked 00:09:33.049 --> 00:09:34.110 - about submitted 00:09:34.210 --> 00:09:40.933 - submission of agenda items do we need a motion to make that happen or we agreed enough to make that 00:09:40.933 --> 00:09:47.991 - happen i think you're good we're good okay so then now i think we're gonna hear from april is that right 00:09:47.991 --> 00:09:55.050 - that's okay i think that's fine thank you um i thought it might be easier i actually emailed miss turner 00:09:55.050 --> 00:09:56.798 - king uh a copy of what it 00:09:57.186 --> 00:10:05.516 - Thank you, Michelle. I just emailed Ms. Turner King a digital copy, and I have paper copies with me. 00:10:05.516 --> 00:10:13.928 - So that way, anyone watching online can see it. OK. So I'm going to pass out a copy. If I may, do you 00:10:13.928 --> 00:10:22.753 - want me to display this? I wouldn't mind. I was worried that I wouldn't be able to share that effectively. 00:10:22.753 --> 00:10:25.310 - Then I have one other handout. 00:10:41.282 --> 00:10:47.180 - to acknowledge that since we have such a truncated schedule and hoping to accomplish the task that's 00:10:47.180 --> 00:10:53.078 - been given, I was proposing a process which is results to scheduling. So one of the documents I gave 00:10:53.078 --> 00:10:59.150 - you was proposed process. With the truncated schedule, I think one of the things we should do is create 00:10:59.150 --> 00:11:04.990 - a site evaluation metrics, identify properties, apply the site evaluation metrics to the identified 00:11:04.990 --> 00:11:10.654 - properties, discuss our findings and make recommendations. I recognize we only have three weeks. 00:11:10.850 --> 00:11:25.138 - That's why you have a calendar which is included as well. Can I have permission to share? TSD did you 00:11:25.138 --> 00:11:40.126 - hear the request? Thank you TSD. We got it. From watching prior meetings, I wasn't precisely clear on what 00:11:40.322 --> 00:11:46.001 - The return date is, they just said one month. The next county council meeting that I think would be 00:11:46.001 --> 00:11:51.964 - around that time would be July 14th. So that's why I've put that on the calendar. Ms. Turner King, there 00:11:51.964 --> 00:11:57.699 - are two tabs on that Excel spreadsheet. There's one for a calendar and process. If we could click on 00:11:57.699 --> 00:12:03.548 - that one, if you wouldn't mind. So this is the calendar. That's why I picked July 14th as our deadline 00:12:03.548 --> 00:12:06.558 - and trying to reach that deadline with this process. 00:12:06.722 --> 00:12:13.671 - It seems like we would have to have multiple meetings. I just put some meetings on a calendar. Obviously, 00:12:13.671 --> 00:12:20.423 - I haven't checked with anyone's schedule, so I understand that they might have to be moved. I did take 00:12:20.423 --> 00:12:27.110 - a look at the Nathalie room, which is why I put it on the 9th instead of the 8th in July. But my hope 00:12:27.110 --> 00:12:33.665 - was that in order to meet these deadlines, we could use this process and this pacing so that way we 00:12:33.665 --> 00:12:36.222 - can stay on task and hopefully achieve 00:12:36.962 --> 00:12:45.014 - asking us to do. When I talk about the site evaluation metrics, that's the third and the other tab. 00:12:45.014 --> 00:12:53.146 - Site evaluation metrics, what I did is I tried to use, I watched the meeting from June 11th with the 00:12:53.146 --> 00:13:01.198 - county council and the city council and Commissioner Madeira in that talked about six factors and I 00:13:01.198 --> 00:13:03.614 - tried to use that as a basis. 00:13:03.906 --> 00:13:10.356 - Site profile, she actually said site control, so it's a little bit different and I fleshed it out. It's 00:13:10.356 --> 00:13:16.930 - not precisely how she worded it, so I wanna be clear that I've taken some liberties with it. But I wanted 00:13:16.930 --> 00:13:23.689 - to find concrete questions so we could gather the facts that we needed to be able to have a more methodical, 00:13:23.689 --> 00:13:29.891 - transparent and comprehensive conversation in front of the community that also included their input 00:13:29.891 --> 00:13:33.054 - and from the perspective of a metric, so separate, 00:13:33.410 --> 00:13:39.066 - I know there's a lot of positions and feelings about it, and I understand that, but I was hoping we 00:13:39.066 --> 00:13:44.891 - get facts and be able to base the decision off of that approach. The metrics I've come up with is just 00:13:44.891 --> 00:13:50.660 - a start. I am sure that there are many people who have some other input. I do think it's important to 00:13:50.660 --> 00:13:56.655 - start with screening questions. So I did include two, is the property in a floodway? Is the owner willing 00:13:56.655 --> 00:14:02.423 - to sell the property? I won't get any more into the subject of it, because I know we're talking about 00:14:02.423 --> 00:14:03.102 - scheduling. 00:14:03.330 --> 00:14:12.111 - but that's why I wanted to bring up this approach to see what everyone thought of it. Does anyone from 00:14:12.111 --> 00:14:20.807 - the committee have anything to add to what it is April's presented here? I like the approach. I would 00:14:20.807 --> 00:14:29.758 - add a couple other locations. Thompson's not on the printout. It is on the site, the one that's elected. 00:14:31.874 --> 00:14:41.234 - I would still add some other locations. So thank you. I'm really appreciative of the approach. And I 00:14:41.234 --> 00:14:50.594 - think when evaluating sites, having a rubric that we can all work with makes a lot of sense. I would 00:14:50.594 --> 00:14:57.822 - just like an overnight to review the criteria and add to it or comment on it. 00:14:57.954 --> 00:15:03.905 - really appreciative of the work that went into this and the thinking through the timeline, because I 00:15:03.905 --> 00:15:09.915 - think this is the best approach that we can probably hope for in order to make a sound recommendation 00:15:09.915 --> 00:15:16.042 - based on where we are right now. Yeah, so can we all think about what it is that's being presented here 00:15:16.042 --> 00:15:20.638 - and come next time with any additions or corrections? Would that be suitable? 00:15:20.930 --> 00:15:28.094 - My calendar actually includes that, which might help with the agendas. So what I was proposing for today, 00:15:28.094 --> 00:15:34.852 - we had so little time, I wanted to make sure we came prepared. So what I was proposing for today is 00:15:34.852 --> 00:15:41.880 - that we start talking about the site evaluation metrics, that we open it to public comment this evening 00:15:41.880 --> 00:15:48.030 - to see if anyone who's came today has additional metrics. That's the sole purpose of that. 00:15:48.226 --> 00:15:53.604 - then identify properties, which it sounds like Council Member Zulik has some additional ones to add, 00:15:53.604 --> 00:15:58.929 - and then invite the community members to submit additional metrics before the next meeting. So that 00:15:58.929 --> 00:16:04.308 - I thought would give us all time to process and look through it, because I know I've given you a lot 00:16:04.308 --> 00:16:09.792 - of information. And then at our next meeting, we will have an opportunity to incorporate those metrics 00:16:09.792 --> 00:16:15.543 - from the public and committee members, finalize those metrics, and then start our site evaluation, applying 00:16:15.543 --> 00:16:18.046 - it essentially to the properties that we have. 00:16:21.378 --> 00:16:29.675 - I would suggest that members of the committee submit suggested additions by email ahead of time so that 00:16:29.675 --> 00:16:37.732 - we get to a near final, at least something that we can all look at and the public can look at before 00:16:37.732 --> 00:16:45.789 - our next meeting. So maybe giving us until Friday to review those and comment on them so that we can 00:16:45.789 --> 00:16:51.294 - post that with the next meeting. And where did those suggestions go? 00:16:52.610 --> 00:17:00.769 - who's going to collect the suggestions. I thought you were sending submissions to your, Molly, do you 00:17:00.769 --> 00:17:08.928 - want to collect? I can collect, but I will preference this that we are all at conference the next two 00:17:08.928 --> 00:17:16.926 - days. And so I will attempt to collect and work on this at conference, but I also am at conference. 00:17:16.926 --> 00:17:19.326 - So I'm happy to collect them. 00:17:20.930 --> 00:17:26.964 - I don't know if this is appropriate in this context, but if this is a Google Sheet as it appears to 00:17:26.964 --> 00:17:32.998 - be, could we just add them into the Google Sheet? No. We're slowly getting into an open door thing, 00:17:32.998 --> 00:17:39.092 - I think, there. OK. So what we could do? I'll have my computer at conference tomorrow. I'm perfectly 00:17:39.092 --> 00:17:45.126 - fine multitasking. Send away. What we can do for open door law, you just can't simultaneously edit. 00:17:45.126 --> 00:17:47.902 - So if you want to send them to us, which pick 00:17:48.002 --> 00:17:53.021 - Pick your favorite attorney. I'll feel a little left out if you don't pick me at least once. But what 00:17:53.021 --> 00:17:57.991 - we'll do is we'll create a read-only document. So as they're submitted to us, we can put them on the 00:17:57.991 --> 00:18:03.108 - read-only document so that you'll have access to it. You'll be able to see that document, but you won't 00:18:03.108 --> 00:18:08.127 - be able to live edit with each other to consult. So that helps with the violation. I think Larry just 00:18:08.127 --> 00:18:10.046 - volunteered to take all your comments. 00:18:10.274 --> 00:18:17.173 - Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Larry. And this document is just the collection of any of the committees 00:18:17.173 --> 00:18:23.875 - or the public's recommendations for metrics? Okay. Great. And then so at the next meeting, will it be 00:18:23.875 --> 00:18:30.446 - okay to discuss those at that point? Is that what? Yeah, we should have them ready to discuss them, 00:18:30.446 --> 00:18:37.214 - yeah. And how will the public submit them? Do we have a single contact that we can have? We're working 00:18:37.214 --> 00:18:38.462 - on that right now. 00:18:38.754 --> 00:18:45.343 - Just consult on that try to create a single contact for public submissions and then what I would suggest 00:18:45.343 --> 00:18:51.744 - if and this is just a friendly suggestion no It's not bound by law We would create a separate tab for 00:18:51.744 --> 00:18:58.082 - all the public comment so that your comments would be on one read-only tab The public comments would 00:18:58.082 --> 00:19:04.419 - be on another read-only tab and then in the meetings you could choose to merge those as you reviewed 00:19:04.419 --> 00:19:06.302 - them Everybody good with that 00:19:07.810 --> 00:19:15.680 - And so I think my question based on this conversation is, are you okay adopting the proposed schedule 00:19:15.680 --> 00:19:23.627 - as displayed on the screen and prepared by Ms. Wilson? Do you want me to? It has you meeting on Monday 00:19:23.627 --> 00:19:31.496 - the 29th at 6 p.m., July 1st at 6 p.m., Monday the 6th at 6 p.m., Thursday the 9th, and then again on 00:19:31.496 --> 00:19:34.814 - Monday the 13th. Let me check my schedule. 00:19:35.138 --> 00:19:43.704 - So I'm going to have a conflict on Monday the 13th. Can move. I think I can move things to be here for 00:19:43.704 --> 00:19:52.186 - all of those. The only thing I would add on this calendar is I think the recommendation is to be made 00:19:52.186 --> 00:19:56.926 - but to the larger group of the city and county councils. 00:19:57.026 --> 00:20:03.054 - or the group that met on June 11th and not the County Council meeting. So I don't know when you would 00:20:03.054 --> 00:20:09.081 - like when that larger group would schedule to hear the recommendation. Well, the deadline of the 14th 00:20:09.081 --> 00:20:15.168 - is not presenting to County Council at the County Council meeting. Right. Since we just agreed to have 00:20:15.168 --> 00:20:21.077 - it done by July 13th, as I remember. And then the larger group would have to find a time they could 00:20:21.077 --> 00:20:25.982 - schedule a meeting. Yes. Since the 14th isn't then when we be sending it and maybe 00:20:26.786 --> 00:20:37.534 - Thompson is not available on the 13th. Would you be available on the 15th? There's a council meeting, 00:20:37.534 --> 00:20:48.599 - a city council meeting. Is the only time this group can meet after 5 p.m.? No, I can make anything work. 00:20:48.599 --> 00:20:54.078 - It just depends, yeah. But it depends on every day. 00:20:55.394 --> 00:21:04.553 - Does after five work for most folks? You and mayor, depending. Just on the 13th, I could just propose 00:21:04.553 --> 00:21:13.712 - an alternative of a noon meeting. Oh, I see. Make a new meeting work. I could make a new meeting work 00:21:13.712 --> 00:21:23.230 - on the 13th. I could make it work. Is this room available? Let me check. Thanks. Thank you. Make it work. 00:21:40.802 --> 00:21:50.497 - Yes, the meeting is this room is available at noon on the 13th. We just switched that. All right. So 00:21:50.497 --> 00:22:00.287 - does that firm up the 24th, the 29th, the first, the sixth and the ninth and the 13th at noon. I move 00:22:00.287 --> 00:22:10.654 - that we adopt the agenda as amended and changing only the noon 13th. Everything else stays the same, right? 00:22:11.330 --> 00:22:18.678 - second. All those in favor? Aye. We have our meeting schedule. Six times is from what I see. Okay so 00:22:18.678 --> 00:22:25.953 - looking at the agenda we scheduled future meetings we've dealt with the submission of agenda items. 00:22:25.953 --> 00:22:33.301 - The next item on there is how you would like to deal with public comment. Do you want to have public 00:22:33.301 --> 00:22:41.086 - comment every meeting? Do you want to have public comment just at the meeting on the 13th? Any preference? 00:22:42.882 --> 00:22:48.833 - Well, we are making public comment available through email, a dedicated email, as I'm hearing, right? 00:22:48.833 --> 00:22:54.668 - So there's that. Those are just from the metrics. That was just for the metrics. I think what we'll 00:22:54.668 --> 00:23:00.736 - probably end up doing is we'll have something posted. I can't guarantee it'll be an email. We'll figure 00:23:00.736 --> 00:23:06.570 - out the mechanism. But there'll be a way for the public to chime in or whatever we're going to call 00:23:06.570 --> 00:23:11.646 - that, right? Yeah, if the suggestion is we could have one part of the submission to be 00:23:12.194 --> 00:23:17.834 - the metrics themselves, and then another is just general public comment on the process. We could set 00:23:17.834 --> 00:23:23.474 - that up, certainly, if that's your preference. And that's the good preference. It certainly would be 00:23:23.474 --> 00:23:28.891 - my preference. I don't know. That certainly would make the meetings a little bit more efficient. 00:23:28.891 --> 00:23:34.586 - I think so, yes. Does that make sense? Anybody want to motion that? I'll just throw out that we could 00:23:34.586 --> 00:23:40.282 - also do public comment on one or two meetings, just so that people who prefer to come speak in person 00:23:40.282 --> 00:23:41.790 - have that opportunity. OK. 00:23:42.082 --> 00:23:50.480 - So pick a meeting, what do you think? I would say July 6th because it's in the middle of site evaluations 00:23:50.480 --> 00:23:58.561 - and nothing is firmly set in stone. Perhaps the 29th and the 6th just because there's the solidifying 00:23:58.561 --> 00:24:06.722 - of the metrics and then the site evaluations. I think there are two different thought processes there. 00:24:06.722 --> 00:24:12.030 - 29th and 6th? Is that right? Yep. And is there a motion? So moved. 00:24:12.738 --> 00:24:22.350 - second. All in favor. I have a I and I have a question. Are we going to set parameters for that public 00:24:22.350 --> 00:24:31.868 - comment? It can. It would be certainly that would be our recommendation to have rules and time limits 00:24:31.868 --> 00:24:36.254 - that the committee would set. I think prior to 00:24:36.962 --> 00:24:43.993 - your next meeting, what we could have drafted for you is a standard draft of public comment rules based 00:24:43.993 --> 00:24:51.023 - on some combination of what both councils have adopted already. So that way we're going off pretty well 00:24:51.023 --> 00:24:57.783 - trod rules that the public's familiar with. Those will typically be time limits, topics, et cetera. 00:24:57.783 --> 00:25:02.110 - Just note that we will have public comment at our next meeting. 00:25:02.498 --> 00:25:09.699 - and we will have that policy ready for you to adopt at that meeting. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Attorney 00:25:09.699 --> 00:25:16.560 - Allen, when we have the opportunity to publicize that, can we do that as well, just so the public is 00:25:16.560 --> 00:25:23.693 - prepared to make their speeches? Yes, one of our goals here, to the extent possible, this meeting, maybe 00:25:23.693 --> 00:25:31.166 - notwithstanding, is to have a packet prepared ahead of the meeting for you all so that you can react to that. 00:25:31.426 --> 00:25:39.596 - have that published also for the public to understand what's going to be talked about to the extent 00:25:39.596 --> 00:25:48.093 - possible. Right. So we finished with a public comment topic. Yes. I guess I will just throw out an idea 00:25:48.093 --> 00:25:56.753 - perhaps to be considered later that we do a at the culmination of our process, we schedule one additional 00:25:56.753 --> 00:26:01.246 - meeting that is just for comprehensive public comment. 00:26:01.922 --> 00:26:09.724 - So that the public can watch the entire process and then we listen to. Reactions before we take it to 00:26:09.724 --> 00:26:17.756 - the whole group. I don't know if it's worth doing that or not, but. So are you suggesting the 9th? Would 00:26:17.756 --> 00:26:25.559 - you want to add another meeting for that? I was suggesting if we're not going to have if if we're not 00:26:25.559 --> 00:26:31.678 - needing to. Present anything that we we schedule something, even if we do it on 00:26:32.066 --> 00:26:39.912 - to the public. I'm a little lost. Can you just help me here? What is the plan here? We would do when, 00:26:39.912 --> 00:26:47.143 - when? We would do a full public listening session. In addition to what's here? Correct. Okay, 00:26:47.143 --> 00:26:54.912 - thank you. That's what I was confused. After all the meetings on April's calendar? Yes. Do you think 00:26:54.912 --> 00:26:57.758 - about making that meeting on Friday? 00:26:59.138 --> 00:27:05.095 - Because then we would have completed the site evaluations. Will that work? And then we have to make 00:27:05.095 --> 00:27:11.052 - a recommendation the next time. So then it allows us to really listen to what they say, go back and 00:27:11.052 --> 00:27:17.069 - look at the information we have, and then be able to make a recommendation, including public comment 00:27:17.069 --> 00:27:23.324 - and our evaluations. So what time are you thinking on the 10th? I guess I would defer to everyone else's 00:27:23.324 --> 00:27:28.030 - schedule. Well, my only comment is a lot of the people who might want to speak 00:27:29.378 --> 00:27:38.488 - probably would not be able to attend a Friday meeting, whether it be at night or during the day. That's 00:27:38.488 --> 00:27:47.510 - just my concern, especially, is there are a lot of people who are going to be directly impacted by the 00:27:47.510 --> 00:27:56.269 - new location who are at work. Kate, do you think would be better? It might be worth doing, could we 00:27:56.269 --> 00:27:57.758 - do an hour after 00:27:58.338 --> 00:28:05.317 - Thursday, yeah, the ninth. On the ninth? Yeah, we're here anyway, right? Yeah, it's already fresh on 00:28:05.317 --> 00:28:12.227 - our minds. Has everybody got a little more time on Thursday the ninth available? So we'd have a six 00:28:12.227 --> 00:28:19.551 - to seven and then a seven to eight, right? As long as this room is available past that time. Yeah, that's 00:28:19.551 --> 00:28:26.876 - the question. Is this room available after seven or after? I'm guessing it is, but. On July ninth? Ninth, 00:28:26.876 --> 00:28:27.774 - uh-huh. Yes. 00:28:28.130 --> 00:28:35.512 - like the room is available. Yes. All right. Thank you. We're going to schedule that in. Would that take 00:28:35.512 --> 00:28:42.611 - care of the public comment, your concern there? Thank you. Everybody else OK with that? Yes. OK. So 00:28:42.611 --> 00:28:50.064 - we have one more, a little longer meeting on the 9th then. All right. Anything else about public comment 00:28:50.064 --> 00:28:57.162 - before we move on? Mm-hmm. Then electronic attendance policy, it was suggested we talk about that a 00:28:57.162 --> 00:28:58.014 - little bit. 00:28:58.946 --> 00:29:05.962 - So the question that I posed to the committee is, do you want to adopt an electronic attendance policy? 00:29:05.962 --> 00:29:12.911 - If you want to allow members to attend electronically by statute, you have to adopt the policy. If you 00:29:12.911 --> 00:29:19.792 - do not adopt a policy, that just means if a member can't come and they join on Zoom, they will not be 00:29:19.792 --> 00:29:27.550 - participating in the meeting. Are we thinking? I would move that we adopt an electronic attendance policy. Second. 00:29:28.386 --> 00:29:34.430 - But let me just clarify, do we not still need four in person for the quorum? You would still need four 00:29:34.430 --> 00:29:40.592 - in person. So no. Attend electronically and count that as a quorum, right? There are five of us. I know, 00:29:40.592 --> 00:29:46.518 - but if we have two that happen to say that they want to attend electronically, that's just not going 00:29:46.518 --> 00:29:52.797 - to work. So only one of us. Only one can attend electronically. The commissioner haven't appointed someone 00:29:52.797 --> 00:29:56.670 - yet, though, too. So we will have six, essentially. That's right. 00:29:57.186 --> 00:30:03.538 - It's really just if someone's sick or something last minute but still wants to attend. I think it makes 00:30:03.538 --> 00:30:09.828 - sense. So how would that policy be? Do you think you have any guidance on that for us? I can draft it. 00:30:09.828 --> 00:30:16.119 - I can include language that only one member would be allowed to attend virtually. I would also suggest 00:30:16.119 --> 00:30:20.638 - that we include language that if a member does intend to attend virtually 00:30:21.250 --> 00:30:29.800 - that they give 48 hours notice because then we will be able to identify any quorum issues. And maybe 00:30:29.800 --> 00:30:38.434 - a substitute, right? Attendee. They can always send a proxy, right? Right, OK. Right, would that make 00:30:38.434 --> 00:30:47.237 - sense for the electronics changes? OK, so we'll see something next time. Is that right? Yes, thank you. 00:30:47.237 --> 00:30:49.438 - Alright, so now we're on. 00:30:49.762 --> 00:30:56.202 - Number seven, where it talks about in the new revised agenda, but it's basically the phase one and two 00:30:56.202 --> 00:31:02.455 - and three of the property search that we have done all along. So I think there's some division over 00:31:02.455 --> 00:31:09.020 - there who's gonna take what? So there's three of them over there. I'll let that figure that out. I guess 00:31:09.020 --> 00:31:15.711 - if you guys don't mind. I can start and I'll just briefly run through kind of the property search history. 00:31:15.711 --> 00:31:18.462 - And again, some of this was five years ago. 00:31:18.594 --> 00:31:24.882 - I might not remember all the details. But the first round was when we had Sheriff Swain. And Sheriff 00:31:24.882 --> 00:31:31.108 - Swain had a request that we look close to the I-69 corridor so that they could transport inmates to 00:31:31.108 --> 00:31:37.521 - the medical facilities in Indianapolis if there was an event that was needed. And I think you guys all 00:31:37.521 --> 00:31:44.245 - received some material about this. It's in the packet. So we basically looked at and we called one property 00:31:44.245 --> 00:31:47.358 - north, which is a property off Vernal Pike, which 00:31:47.874 --> 00:31:53.264 - also was in round two and then we looked at Fullerton Pike and we looked at a property further south 00:31:53.264 --> 00:31:58.707 - the one further south they can get a lot of traction because it's so far south but there was a lot of 00:31:58.707 --> 00:32:04.097 - back and forth at least the initial meeting between the Fullerton Pike site and the Vernal Pike site 00:32:04.097 --> 00:32:09.593 - we reached out to the owner of Vernal Pike and they weren't interested in selling at that time so that 00:32:09.593 --> 00:32:15.143 - kind of eliminated that so that's how we got to Fullerton we went through the city council process city 00:32:15.143 --> 00:32:17.278 - council rejected it so then we went the 00:32:17.762 --> 00:32:25.625 - phase two. And phase two, we looked at, I'm going to say four, but it's really six sites. The first 00:32:25.625 --> 00:32:34.118 - is there was a site right next to where the Fullerton site was in the county just south of Monroe Hospital. 00:32:34.118 --> 00:32:42.060 - Right off the bat, we looked at that. It was too small to be able to do a co-located facility there. 00:32:42.060 --> 00:32:47.486 - And then our second site was Hopewell, which was clearly the closest 00:32:47.586 --> 00:32:54.926 - to downtown, the old IU Health slash Wilmington hospital site. We reached out to the people in the city 00:32:54.926 --> 00:33:02.196 - and the city indicated that they weren't interested in utilizing that site. I mean, I think one of the 00:33:02.196 --> 00:33:09.324 - questions is, is that answer still the same or has that changed? The third, and I'm going to call it 00:33:09.324 --> 00:33:16.382 - the power line site, out of deference to committee members, we looked at that and really, you know, 00:33:16.674 --> 00:33:22.445 - Do we have an address for that site? I would really like to just call it the address. I guess one of 00:33:22.445 --> 00:33:28.272 - the issues with that site is that there's no real road infrastructure that leads to it. So I think if 00:33:28.272 --> 00:33:33.986 - you look on the GIS, it's just called a site off Rogers Road. OK, well, that's the only one we have 00:33:33.986 --> 00:33:39.985 - that we ever considered off Rogers. Is that correct? Is that the only one we ever considered off Rogers? 00:33:39.985 --> 00:33:43.870 - Seriously, I think yes. OK, so can we call it the Rogers Road site? 00:33:45.282 --> 00:33:51.194 - We could, you could, whatever you, whatever the committee wants to call it, we'll call it that. 00:33:51.194 --> 00:33:57.414 - All right. But my notes say power line, so it might be power line for the night and we can rename it 00:33:57.414 --> 00:34:03.696 - after. Okay. But really, and I don't think, there were a few issues that needed to be addressed. Yes. 00:34:03.696 --> 00:34:10.347 - I think that the one that really was the one that caused us all to quit looking at it was when we discussed 00:34:10.347 --> 00:34:12.318 - it with Duke Energy, that they, 00:34:12.514 --> 00:34:19.063 - needed time and quite a bit of time too to two years to move the power lines before we could begin the 00:34:19.063 --> 00:34:25.549 - construction and that was an issue and then I also think we knew that they were going to have another 00:34:25.549 --> 00:34:32.161 - issue but we never got to it because of the two year with looking at the infrastructure making the road 00:34:32.161 --> 00:34:38.519 - infrastructure making sure it was adequate to have serve a co-located facility right I that process 00:34:38.519 --> 00:34:42.398 - we never got going although we knew we were going to have to 00:34:42.882 --> 00:34:50.795 - And then the fourth was the North Park property. I said six because when we initially looked at North 00:34:50.795 --> 00:34:59.095 - Park, we were looking at a different portion of North Park. We were looking kind of more North, Northwest, 00:34:59.095 --> 00:35:07.008 - kind of where that, if you drive on 46, there's a stubbed out at 46 that is not used. We were kind of 00:35:07.008 --> 00:35:10.654 - looking in that area of North Park and I think 00:35:12.034 --> 00:35:18.589 - when we went through the process, and that had some ravine and those kind of issues with it. But when 00:35:18.589 --> 00:35:25.080 - we talked about North Park that went to the county council, we're talking about one that's much more 00:35:25.080 --> 00:35:31.764 - central to that area and right off of what was Curry Pike, now Hunter Valley Road. So we looked at both 00:35:31.764 --> 00:35:38.319 - of those. And then finally, we looked at the vernal site again. When I said before, we looked at kind 00:35:38.319 --> 00:35:41.982 - of an extended version because at that point, the cellar 00:35:42.946 --> 00:35:49.805 - indicated yeah we're willing to sell now and so we looked at that again there were a variety of issues 00:35:49.805 --> 00:35:56.598 - with that mostly dealing with co-location because we did not feel that we could co-locate that or the 00:35:56.598 --> 00:36:03.390 - facilities would allow for the transportation of inmates from the jail side to the court side without 00:36:03.390 --> 00:36:10.782 - going outside or really doing some strange things. So that's kind of the round one and round two and I'm gonna 00:36:10.914 --> 00:36:18.684 - turn over round three to my colleague. Any questions, though? I'm more than happy to. Just to be clear, 00:36:18.684 --> 00:36:26.155 - on that vernal site, the transfer of prisoners was insurmountable, according to the design experts. 00:36:26.155 --> 00:36:33.626 - Am I remembering also there were karst issues at that site? I think the karst issues as well in the 00:36:33.626 --> 00:36:40.574 - slope. I mean, I guess at that point in time, and I want to be clear, at that point in time, 00:36:40.866 --> 00:36:47.540 - we still had different rules when it came to slopes and what we could do with planning wise with slopes. 00:36:47.540 --> 00:36:53.959 - And if they moved it to 25, I'm not sure that would look the same, right? I just don't know, because 00:36:53.959 --> 00:37:00.378 - we were looking at slopes when they hit 15. And now if the rules change to 25, I don't know. But the 00:37:00.378 --> 00:37:06.989 - engineering group is the ones. And I think we could probably provide you with some pictures of how they 00:37:06.989 --> 00:37:09.086 - had everything crammed in there. 00:37:09.250 --> 00:37:16.615 - and all that kind of stuff if you guys need it. I don't know if that was provided or not, but certainly 00:37:16.615 --> 00:37:24.334 - that. Carst topography was also a major issue there. Carst topography is a major issue pretty much anywhere. 00:37:24.334 --> 00:37:31.486 - I mean, yes. So that's why I was clarifying. There was some karst, but I think the slope was kind of 00:37:31.486 --> 00:37:35.806 - the bigger because it was carved up pretty well. OK, thanks. 00:37:37.794 --> 00:37:44.686 - So I think that take just summary takes us up to roughly October of 2025. At that point, the council, 00:37:44.686 --> 00:37:51.577 - we've already voted. We've already talked about North Park. So DLC, which was the engineering company 00:37:51.577 --> 00:37:58.334 - was requested to identify properties downtown on the outskirts and on the outskirts of Bloomington. 00:37:58.658 --> 00:38:06.199 - within your packet there are six properties including a property south of the post office the bloomington 00:38:06.199 --> 00:38:13.385 - transit garage uh tap road south a tap road north uh the ht building and the fell iron bender lumber 00:38:13.385 --> 00:38:20.642 - property um considerations that were taken into account when looking at those properties were was the 00:38:20.642 --> 00:38:28.254 - property large enough to accommodate future expansion or co-location because as depicted in the packet the 00:38:28.354 --> 00:38:35.489 - only a footprint of a jail was placed on that property so the in the packet it does not have a co-location. 00:38:35.489 --> 00:38:42.228 - Then we looked at was the property located within a floodplain floodway or the floodway fringe and is 00:38:42.228 --> 00:38:49.033 - the property set for sale by the owners and based on those three questions all six of those properties 00:38:49.033 --> 00:38:51.742 - were not found viable. And in the packet 00:38:52.226 --> 00:39:01.147 - if you look on the side of each property, there's notes that the engineering company put regards to 00:39:01.147 --> 00:39:10.871 - why that property could slightly be problematic. That brings us to now, if anyone has questions. A question. 00:39:10.871 --> 00:39:20.862 - Thank you for that. I've heard from multiple people that the site, that there's a site that's directly attached 00:39:21.090 --> 00:39:31.117 - or near the Zitlow building, that is a potential, but I'm curious if anyone knows more about that. Are 00:39:31.117 --> 00:39:40.267 - you talking about the Currie building? It might be. Is it to the west of the Zitlow building, 00:39:40.267 --> 00:39:43.966 - do you know? Yeah. To the west. Yeah. 00:39:44.546 --> 00:39:51.631 - several buildings that are near this little building. And one of them is Curry and Curry is actually 00:39:51.631 --> 00:39:58.787 - I included it. I'm glad you brought it up. Someone had mentioned Curry to me, so I included it on the 00:39:58.787 --> 00:40:05.802 - list. So that's where that market is. Thank you so much. It was discussed in our first in the large 00:40:05.802 --> 00:40:12.958 - group meeting that we had and with potential of needing some historic facade preservation, et cetera. 00:40:19.170 --> 00:40:26.775 - we're throwing that one in there now, right? Yeah. Okay. Oh, I think that concludes the historical review 00:40:26.775 --> 00:40:34.380 - of the county's property search. And so if there's no questions, and I think we can move on to the review 00:40:34.380 --> 00:40:41.770 - of the zoning PD process. And since this is preliminary, I'll keep this fairly short, but it is a good 00:40:41.770 --> 00:40:47.294 - segue into that process. So whether you're talking about the Curry building, 00:40:47.682 --> 00:40:54.393 - Or the Roger Street property, both of those would require for instance re zones within the city. The 00:40:54.393 --> 00:41:01.037 - exception is the Thompson property did include as part of the PD for inclusion of a jail, but there 00:41:01.037 --> 00:41:02.366 - were very specific. 00:41:02.562 --> 00:41:07.690 - metrics. So if you do go outside of the specific metrics that are approved in the PUD, you would just 00:41:07.690 --> 00:41:12.819 - have to amend the PUD, which essentially goes through the exact same process as a rezone process. And 00:41:12.819 --> 00:41:17.998 - the thing to keep in mind is that does come with timelines, timelines that are statutorily set, notice 00:41:17.998 --> 00:41:23.226 - timelines, but they're not insurmountable by any means. It just is something that we would need to line 00:41:23.226 --> 00:41:28.405 - up as you discuss these properties. One of the things I think we would want to present you with is how 00:41:28.405 --> 00:41:32.528 - to meet those deadlines and what the fastest possible route for consideration is. 00:41:32.528 --> 00:41:38.061 - Because you have to give notice obviously to all the neighboring landowners at least 21 days before 00:41:38.061 --> 00:41:44.093 - any hearing It would go before the Plan Commission and then it would get finally approved by the Bloomington 00:41:44.093 --> 00:41:50.069 - City Council for those changes So that is a little bit of a deeper process as we narrow down the properties 00:41:50.069 --> 00:41:55.934 - and even with the list of properties as you add to them what we will try to do is have current zoning and 00:41:57.538 --> 00:42:03.622 - It would take to change it and what that process would look like so have those links so you all can 00:42:03.622 --> 00:42:09.766 - have full information if you want more detail about that, which I assume you absolutely don't at the 00:42:09.766 --> 00:42:16.397 - moment. Then i'm happy to answer those questions. Larry forgive me curry and which other property definitely 00:42:16.397 --> 00:42:17.310 - needed rezone. 00:42:17.858 --> 00:42:23.525 - Curry is the biggest one that we talked about recently. It has another, potentially if the facade is 00:42:23.525 --> 00:42:29.249 - historic designation, you would also need some sort of historic preservation commission review. Those 00:42:29.249 --> 00:42:34.916 - can happen in parallel though, so they don't necessarily ruin each other's timelines, both come with 00:42:34.916 --> 00:42:40.639 - public notice. Thank you. I'll reach out to the chair of the historic preservation commission to talk 00:42:40.639 --> 00:42:44.062 - about what kind of timeline it would look like on their end. 00:42:45.282 --> 00:42:51.339 - I think the other property that Mr. Allen was identifying was the power line property. Yes, on off of 00:42:51.339 --> 00:42:57.514 - Roger Street. That's the one that's subject to a PD already that is allowed jails allowed, but was very 00:42:57.514 --> 00:43:03.512 - specific metrics. And I guess I would just chime in that. I'm not sure if we look at anywhere in the 00:43:03.512 --> 00:43:09.747 - city. Any of the any of the properties you see are not going to require a rezone. I don't you guys could 00:43:09.747 --> 00:43:12.894 - potentially come up with one, but it's very limited. 00:43:13.058 --> 00:43:20.184 - on what would be zoned in an area where you would not need a rezone and you would just have to go through 00:43:20.184 --> 00:43:26.974 - the BZA process. I think that's likely right. There's a lot of mixed use zoning within the city that 00:43:26.974 --> 00:43:34.302 - allows as a not a by right use, but certainly as a conditional use for approval for that type of industrial. 00:43:36.162 --> 00:43:42.842 - That is incredibly helpful because it brings me to one of the questions that I had. One of the categories 00:43:42.842 --> 00:43:49.459 - that Commissioner Medeo talked about was legal permissibility and several questions listed that I listed 00:43:49.459 --> 00:43:55.950 - regarding the site evaluation metric. So when you get to specific property, what is the most effective 00:43:55.950 --> 00:44:01.054 - way for us to evaluate a set to understand what the zoning requirements will be? 00:44:01.154 --> 00:44:06.666 - in one of these meetings so the public's aware of what the requirements and we are. Do we need to invite 00:44:06.666 --> 00:44:12.388 - someone who's the representative from the historical or can you explain it to us during one of the meetings? 00:44:12.388 --> 00:44:13.438 - How does that work? 00:44:13.986 --> 00:44:19.252 - I think that would be my primary role here. Otherwise, I'm pretty useless for the meeting. No, it's 00:44:19.252 --> 00:44:24.519 - to have that information for you all for each property. So the thing is just having a definite list 00:44:24.519 --> 00:44:29.996 - of properties so that we have that list. I certainly can walk through. If we do need to bring an expert 00:44:29.996 --> 00:44:35.315 - in, we will absolutely do that at the request of the commission. If you want to hear from a historic 00:44:35.315 --> 00:44:40.634 - preservation director, we can do that as well. But in terms of the general rules, what they're zoned 00:44:40.634 --> 00:44:43.952 - as, whether it's historically protected, that's information we 00:44:43.952 --> 00:44:51.477 - can have for you and the general way of changing that. And as we narrow in a property, we may get more 00:44:51.477 --> 00:44:59.002 - granular in terms of what that includes. Thank you. Is that to move on? Does that conclude your? Well, 00:44:59.002 --> 00:45:06.674 - I have, unless there are other questions. So next I see is the process to identify additional properties 00:45:06.674 --> 00:45:08.062 - for consideration. 00:45:09.090 --> 00:45:15.943 - Correct. And so I think this is a recommendation from all of the attorneys on how to identify properties 00:45:15.943 --> 00:45:22.535 - that haven't previously been considered. Typically, we discuss properties in executive sessions. And 00:45:22.535 --> 00:45:29.257 - so I think it is our recommendation if you are proposing some new property that you would, in the same 00:45:29.257 --> 00:45:35.979 - way you submit agenda items, send it to your corresponding attorney. And then we can determine if that 00:45:35.979 --> 00:45:38.590 - property is appropriate for discussion. 00:45:38.786 --> 00:45:45.534 - outside of an executive session. Can I just add just a little bit in terms of. 00:45:45.634 --> 00:45:51.133 - one of the things I think that is a misnomer just for the public, not really for anybody on this commission. 00:45:51.133 --> 00:45:56.379 - Sometimes I think we're meeting an executive session to keep things from the public. That's not exactly 00:45:56.379 --> 00:46:01.626 - the purpose of this. I think you all are aware, but for the public's knowledge, any time a governmental 00:46:01.626 --> 00:46:06.873 - entity is considering buying a property, it really invites speculation on that property. It can inflate 00:46:06.873 --> 00:46:11.968 - the values. It can make it very difficult for development and to get things going. And so one of the 00:46:11.968 --> 00:46:15.600 - reasons why we use executive sessions and the reason why it's statutory 00:46:15.600 --> 00:46:24.009 - So that we can have a conversation consider it that it to the extent necessary of course no property 00:46:24.009 --> 00:46:32.502 - can possibly be purchased or approved without a public meeting so I just want to make that very clear 00:46:32.502 --> 00:46:34.750 - there's no scenario where. 00:46:34.882 --> 00:46:41.088 - We talk about something in executive session and it stays secret behind closed doors through the very 00:46:41.088 --> 00:46:47.477 - end. It does come out into the public. It's just in that initial vetting process to keep this affordable 00:46:47.477 --> 00:46:53.623 - and economical for the public. And it should be noted that this group does not have the authority to 00:46:53.623 --> 00:46:59.829 - actually approve a property anyway. This group is just making a recommendation to the actual decision 00:46:59.829 --> 00:47:03.358 - makers. That's right. Thank you for that reclarification. 00:47:04.770 --> 00:47:12.791 - All right. Do we need a motion for that? Pardon me? Do we need a motion for? I think it was just a briefing. 00:47:12.791 --> 00:47:20.150 - I don't know that we do need a motion. For the process to identify additional properties? We need a 00:47:20.150 --> 00:47:27.583 - motion for? No, we're just asking as just a matter of course, just send those to us directly. Right. 00:47:27.583 --> 00:47:31.998 - OK. The next steps and goal for the next meeting maybe? So. 00:47:35.682 --> 00:47:43.630 - I think this is where we talk a lot less and we look to the committee for guidance on what the next 00:47:43.630 --> 00:47:51.657 - meeting looks like. So I was, can I? Yes, go ahead. So one of the things I was hoping we could do is 00:47:51.657 --> 00:48:00.241 - maybe add some names of properties already. I know that Ms. Rendon caught that it didn't include Fullerton. 00:48:00.241 --> 00:48:05.566 - So I need to add that one as well. But it might be helpful to just 00:48:05.762 --> 00:48:11.964 - go through some of the metrics that exist now and see if the public has any they want. I think the next 00:48:11.964 --> 00:48:17.928 - meeting is when we're going to try to incorporate them and finalize. So I wasn't sure if you wanted 00:48:17.928 --> 00:48:24.130 - to include any discussion or go over what we have now. What does the committee think? I need to depart, 00:48:24.130 --> 00:48:30.452 - but you will still have quorum without me. Do you have any final thoughts on this issue before you leave? 00:48:30.452 --> 00:48:34.686 - Just that I think that we already discussed the process for submitting 00:48:36.674 --> 00:48:44.785 - properties that have been examined and can just go on this list and those that have not been publicly 00:48:44.785 --> 00:48:52.896 - vetted yet. So I feel like we've done that and can have a list before the next meeting. Anything else 00:48:52.896 --> 00:49:00.927 - we're missing here? And then the goal for next meeting, is that different than anything we've talked 00:49:00.927 --> 00:49:03.710 - about or we're pretty set on that? 00:49:08.290 --> 00:49:14.376 - I think we're set. Suggesting metrics and identifying properties. Suggesting metrics and identifying 00:49:14.376 --> 00:49:20.462 - properties. Suggesting metrics and identifying properties are kind of the two main things, right? We 00:49:20.462 --> 00:49:26.548 - hear it over there, suggesting metrics and identifying properties are the two things at least on the 00:49:26.548 --> 00:49:32.634 - next meeting. That is the goals identified on Ms. Wilson's calendar. Say that again, I'm sorry. That 00:49:32.634 --> 00:49:37.214 - is the goals that are identified on Ms. Wilson's calendar. Okay, thank you. 00:49:37.890 --> 00:49:45.705 - and public comment. Public comment to follow the meeting, is that correct for the 29th? That was for 00:49:45.705 --> 00:49:53.598 - the 29th. The 29th is going to incorporate. The 9th will be the 7 o'clock public comment time period. 00:49:53.598 --> 00:50:01.877 - Yes. All right. So what do we have left? Are we going to adjourn early? We scheduled an hour. Does anybody 00:50:01.877 --> 00:50:07.294 - else over there have anything? No other questions? No final comments? 00:50:08.994 --> 00:50:13.229 - All right, if I call it adjourned, I think we're adjourned. Thank you for all coming. Thank you for 00:50:13.229 --> 00:50:13.822 - your service.