Good evening. My name is Liz Vital. I'm the chair of the Collaborative Justice Project Working Subcommittee
Group. And I'd like to introduce myself, Liz Vital, county council member, Mayor Carrie Thompson, Karen
Renbeck, representing the Public Defender's Office, and April Wilson, representing the Prosecutor's
Office with us this evening. We may be having one more come. I didn't hear she wasn't coming, so maybe
we'll have a special one here shortly. But we have a quorum. So I'd like to begin.
So we talked about adopting an amended agenda. Did you want to go through that again? So there was an
agenda published for this meeting, but I'm recommending to committee members to adopt an amended agenda,
which adds a discussion or an update on what County Council did last night at their meeting that adds
that amends the election of a chair, vice chair to just the election of a chair.
And then to have a discussion about scheduling a future meetings, meeting procedures, including whether
the committee wants to adopt an electronic attendance policy. So should we have a motion and approve
that or? That's my recommendation. OK, who wants to make a motion to approve this adopted agenda? I
move approval of the adopted agenda. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Can we do a voice vote?
Yes. All those in favor. Hi. All right. So we've adopted the amended agenda. So the update on the county
council action. Did you want to do that as well. So last night the county council met and they considered
resolution 202625 which was to ratify the actions that were taken on June 11th to form the working subcommittee.
During that conversation, they did vote to make amendments to the resolution specifically regarding
composition of membership. So originally there was eight members appointed to the committee and now
there are six members appointed which consists of a representative from the board of commissioners,
the mayor or the city of Bloomington, the mayor of city of Bloomington or her designee,
A county council member Bloomington common council member member of the prosecutor's office and a member
of the public defender's office and. Then. The sheriff and the representative the judges are still included,
but they've been moved to ex officio status and the. Resolution indicates that the designation of them of.
their status as ex officio members is based on communication from each of the identified entities that
we received that indicates those entities will not be participating at this time. But it also leaves
open for the option for if for some reason they would like to participate in future meetings, they are
allowed to do so. And then language was added in regarding the duties of the working subcommittee to
clarify that the committee is to evaluate three or four properties within city limits
previously there was not the within city limits language in there, and recommend one location back to
the larger group that met on June 11th, and that the collaborative justice project working subcommittee
shall focus, their focus shall be on location only. And then there was language, sorry, council member
Feidl, one more thing. And then there was language added that the county council members should serve
as the chair and will be responsible for working with county staff on the creation of agendas.
Any questions from the committee? All right. So I see next on the amended agenda, we probably thought
about electing a vice chair. Would we have someone that is willing to serve in that role? I'm happy
to, but what are the responsibilities? Well, I think you'd show up if I can't. And do. At least. And
then I don't know about anything else. Why would I want to be there if you're not there?
So can she motion herself? I don't know. You can motion yourself. I motion myself to be vice chair.
All right. Is there a second? A second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. So now we're doing schedule of
future meetings.
We had talked about having maybe submission of agenda items, because I think there might have been some
discussion from others about getting things on the agenda. And so I think we need to have things put
on the agenda if we're going to call this a public meeting so the public knows what we're talking about.
Can you speak close? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're sitting too far away. I am too far. I've done this
before. Thank you. I play that game pretty well. OK, so we talked about having submission of agenda items.
so that we can and the public then can know what it is we'll be talking about at any meeting that we
have with this working group. So shall we vote on doing that? Or is that just something that? President
Feidl. I'm sorry? President Feidl, I actually have a suggestion if I could. OK. I'm not sure if you
want me to do it now because we've come up with scheduling. It's regarding next steps. And I've come
with a proposal on how to meet our deadline.
I wasn't sure if you'd like me to, now since we're talking about the agenda. Well, we have number 10
on my revised agenda, but the next steps is number six on the original agenda, and it's still number
10 on mine, so the next steps is there. I just wanted to make sure it was okay for me to share it now,
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
now? I think that's at your discretion. I think we'll wait, but thank you, okay? I won't forget you,
believe me.
Okay. So then, so then submission of agenda items, do we think then collectively as a group that we
will want to have people want what they want on to talk about on the agenda? Is that important to everyone?
I think for me, I think it is makes running the meeting a little easier and the expectations are a little
easier. So for instance, if you have something under that next steps, we that would have been on the
agenda if we had some sort of guideline like that, right? Yeah.
So can we agree? Do we need a motion to agree that we're going to submit items for each agenda? Well,
if I may interject, I think more importantly to identify the procedure for doing so. So I think our
recommendation is if you have an agenda item that you would like, you would email your corresponding
attorney and then we would collaborate and put together an agenda. How's that sound?
request that it be 48 hours before the meeting 48 hours before the meeting all right that clarifier
okay email the proper legal so if your city city if your county your county right and then 48 hours
in advance all right and then is that it for that then um i guess there was an idea do you want to go
ahead and try to figure out the schedule for future meetings or yes okay
That was later. That's later. Somebody. That was good. That was Michelle. I was talking out loud. Sorry.
Sorry. Your microphone works. Can I make a motion or whatever is needed to hear April's plan proposal?
Because I think if if a process is going to impact our schedule, we ought to talk about that process.
Um, and, and it's at least important for me and, uh, perhaps I assume for everyone here that we figure
out the schedule very soon so that we can all do our best to make these meetings. I'm going to be in
the middle of that. What are the rest of you think? Okay. So where would we put, where are you suggesting
we put April in now? All right.
Is that okay? You think or shall we talk about public comment at meetings first and then we're capable
in. Okay, so I'm trying to take notes here. I'm not sure what we're doing. So I thought we were still
on submitting items. So I think this is broadly covered under scheduling future meetings. And so since
the plan may impact the schedule of future meetings, that's why I think they say it's included under
item number five. That's fine.
So we can include to have a different agenda than everyone else, right? Which maybe I am not following
it. It's because we amended it at the beginning of the meeting. I can print a whole bunch of admitted
agendas real quick or throw it up on a screen or something. Thank you so much. Print them off. I'll
run into the counselor. OK, so we're on five scheduling of future meetings. Great and then we just talked
about submitted
submission of agenda items do we need a motion to make that happen or we agreed enough to make that
happen i think you're good we're good okay so then now i think we're gonna hear from april is that right
that's okay i think that's fine thank you um i thought it might be easier i actually emailed miss turner
king uh a copy of what it
Thank you, Michelle. I just emailed Ms. Turner King a digital copy, and I have paper copies with me.
So that way, anyone watching online can see it. OK. So I'm going to pass out a copy. If I may, do you
want me to display this? I wouldn't mind. I was worried that I wouldn't be able to share that effectively.
Then I have one other handout.
to acknowledge that since we have such a truncated schedule and hoping to accomplish the task that's
been given, I was proposing a process which is results to scheduling. So one of the documents I gave
you was proposed process. With the truncated schedule, I think one of the things we should do is create
a site evaluation metrics, identify properties, apply the site evaluation metrics to the identified
properties, discuss our findings and make recommendations. I recognize we only have three weeks.
That's why you have a calendar which is included as well. Can I have permission to share? TSD did you
hear the request? Thank you TSD. We got it. From watching prior meetings, I wasn't precisely clear on what
The return date is, they just said one month. The next county council meeting that I think would be
around that time would be July 14th. So that's why I've put that on the calendar. Ms. Turner King, there
are two tabs on that Excel spreadsheet. There's one for a calendar and process. If we could click on
that one, if you wouldn't mind. So this is the calendar. That's why I picked July 14th as our deadline
and trying to reach that deadline with this process.
It seems like we would have to have multiple meetings. I just put some meetings on a calendar. Obviously,
I haven't checked with anyone's schedule, so I understand that they might have to be moved. I did take
a look at the Nathalie room, which is why I put it on the 9th instead of the 8th in July. But my hope
was that in order to meet these deadlines, we could use this process and this pacing so that way we
can stay on task and hopefully achieve
asking us to do. When I talk about the site evaluation metrics, that's the third and the other tab.
Site evaluation metrics, what I did is I tried to use, I watched the meeting from June 11th with the
county council and the city council and Commissioner Madeira in that talked about six factors and I
tried to use that as a basis.
Site profile, she actually said site control, so it's a little bit different and I fleshed it out. It's
not precisely how she worded it, so I wanna be clear that I've taken some liberties with it. But I wanted
to find concrete questions so we could gather the facts that we needed to be able to have a more methodical,
transparent and comprehensive conversation in front of the community that also included their input
and from the perspective of a metric, so separate,
I know there's a lot of positions and feelings about it, and I understand that, but I was hoping we
get facts and be able to base the decision off of that approach. The metrics I've come up with is just
a start. I am sure that there are many people who have some other input. I do think it's important to
start with screening questions. So I did include two, is the property in a floodway? Is the owner willing
to sell the property? I won't get any more into the subject of it, because I know we're talking about
scheduling.
but that's why I wanted to bring up this approach to see what everyone thought of it. Does anyone from
the committee have anything to add to what it is April's presented here? I like the approach. I would
add a couple other locations. Thompson's not on the printout. It is on the site, the one that's elected.
I would still add some other locations. So thank you. I'm really appreciative of the approach. And I
think when evaluating sites, having a rubric that we can all work with makes a lot of sense. I would
just like an overnight to review the criteria and add to it or comment on it.
really appreciative of the work that went into this and the thinking through the timeline, because I
think this is the best approach that we can probably hope for in order to make a sound recommendation
based on where we are right now. Yeah, so can we all think about what it is that's being presented here
and come next time with any additions or corrections? Would that be suitable?
My calendar actually includes that, which might help with the agendas. So what I was proposing for today,
we had so little time, I wanted to make sure we came prepared. So what I was proposing for today is
that we start talking about the site evaluation metrics, that we open it to public comment this evening
to see if anyone who's came today has additional metrics. That's the sole purpose of that.
then identify properties, which it sounds like Council Member Zulik has some additional ones to add,
and then invite the community members to submit additional metrics before the next meeting. So that
I thought would give us all time to process and look through it, because I know I've given you a lot
of information. And then at our next meeting, we will have an opportunity to incorporate those metrics
from the public and committee members, finalize those metrics, and then start our site evaluation, applying
it essentially to the properties that we have.
I would suggest that members of the committee submit suggested additions by email ahead of time so that
we get to a near final, at least something that we can all look at and the public can look at before
our next meeting. So maybe giving us until Friday to review those and comment on them so that we can
post that with the next meeting. And where did those suggestions go?
who's going to collect the suggestions. I thought you were sending submissions to your, Molly, do you
want to collect? I can collect, but I will preference this that we are all at conference the next two
days. And so I will attempt to collect and work on this at conference, but I also am at conference.
So I'm happy to collect them.
I don't know if this is appropriate in this context, but if this is a Google Sheet as it appears to
be, could we just add them into the Google Sheet? No. We're slowly getting into an open door thing,
I think, there. OK. So what we could do? I'll have my computer at conference tomorrow. I'm perfectly
fine multitasking. Send away. What we can do for open door law, you just can't simultaneously edit.
So if you want to send them to us, which pick
Pick your favorite attorney. I'll feel a little left out if you don't pick me at least once. But what
we'll do is we'll create a read-only document. So as they're submitted to us, we can put them on the
read-only document so that you'll have access to it. You'll be able to see that document, but you won't
be able to live edit with each other to consult. So that helps with the violation. I think Larry just
volunteered to take all your comments.
Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Larry. And this document is just the collection of any of the committees
or the public's recommendations for metrics? Okay. Great. And then so at the next meeting, will it be
okay to discuss those at that point? Is that what? Yeah, we should have them ready to discuss them,
yeah. And how will the public submit them? Do we have a single contact that we can have? We're working
on that right now.
Just consult on that try to create a single contact for public submissions and then what I would suggest
if and this is just a friendly suggestion no It's not bound by law We would create a separate tab for
all the public comment so that your comments would be on one read-only tab The public comments would
be on another read-only tab and then in the meetings you could choose to merge those as you reviewed
them Everybody good with that
And so I think my question based on this conversation is, are you okay adopting the proposed schedule
as displayed on the screen and prepared by Ms. Wilson? Do you want me to? It has you meeting on Monday
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
Monday the 13th. Let me check my schedule.
So I'm going to have a conflict on Monday the 13th. Can move. I think I can move things to be here for
all of those. The only thing I would add on this calendar is I think the recommendation is to be made
but to the larger group of the city and county councils.
or the group that met on June 11th and not the County Council meeting. So I don't know when you would
like when that larger group would schedule to hear the recommendation. Well, the deadline of the 14th
is not presenting to County Council at the County Council meeting. Right. Since we just agreed to have
it done by July 13th, as I remember. And then the larger group would have to find a time they could
schedule a meeting. Yes. Since the 14th isn't then when we be sending it and maybe
Thompson is not available on the 13th. Would you be available on the 15th? There's a council meeting,
a city council meeting. Is the only time this group can meet after 5 p.m.? No, I can make anything work.
It just depends, yeah. But it depends on every day.
Does after five work for most folks? You and mayor, depending. Just on the 13th, I could just propose
an alternative of a noon meeting. Oh, I see. Make a new meeting work. I could make a new meeting work
on the 13th. I could make it work. Is this room available? Let me check. Thanks. Thank you. Make it work.
Yes, the meeting is this room is available at noon on the 13th. We just switched that. All right. So
does that firm up the 24th, the 29th, the first, the sixth and the ninth and the 13th at noon. I move
that we adopt the agenda as amended and changing only the noon 13th. Everything else stays the same, right?
second. All those in favor? Aye. We have our meeting schedule. Six times is from what I see. Okay so
looking at the agenda we scheduled future meetings we've dealt with the submission of agenda items.
The next item on there is how you would like to deal with public comment. Do you want to have public
comment every meeting? Do you want to have public comment just at the meeting on the 13th? Any preference?
Well, we are making public comment available through email, a dedicated email, as I'm hearing, right?
So there's that. Those are just from the metrics. That was just for the metrics. I think what we'll
probably end up doing is we'll have something posted. I can't guarantee it'll be an email. We'll figure
out the mechanism. But there'll be a way for the public to chime in or whatever we're going to call
that, right? Yeah, if the suggestion is we could have one part of the submission to be
the metrics themselves, and then another is just general public comment on the process. We could set
that up, certainly, if that's your preference. And that's the good preference. It certainly would be
my preference. I don't know. That certainly would make the meetings a little bit more efficient.
I think so, yes. Does that make sense? Anybody want to motion that? I'll just throw out that we could
also do public comment on one or two meetings, just so that people who prefer to come speak in person
have that opportunity. OK.
So pick a meeting, what do you think? I would say July 6th because it's in the middle of site evaluations
and nothing is firmly set in stone. Perhaps the 29th and the 6th just because there's the solidifying
of the metrics and then the site evaluations. I think there are two different thought processes there.
29th and 6th? Is that right? Yep. And is there a motion? So moved.
second. All in favor. I have a I and I have a question. Are we going to set parameters for that public
comment? It can. It would be certainly that would be our recommendation to have rules and time limits
that the committee would set. I think prior to
your next meeting, what we could have drafted for you is a standard draft of public comment rules based
on some combination of what both councils have adopted already. So that way we're going off pretty well
trod rules that the public's familiar with. Those will typically be time limits, topics, et cetera.
Just note that we will have public comment at our next meeting.
and we will have that policy ready for you to adopt at that meeting. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Attorney
Allen, when we have the opportunity to publicize that, can we do that as well, just so the public is
prepared to make their speeches? Yes, one of our goals here, to the extent possible, this meeting, maybe
notwithstanding, is to have a packet prepared ahead of the meeting for you all so that you can react to that.
have that published also for the public to understand what's going to be talked about to the extent
possible. Right. So we finished with a public comment topic. Yes. I guess I will just throw out an idea
perhaps to be considered later that we do a at the culmination of our process, we schedule one additional
meeting that is just for comprehensive public comment.
So that the public can watch the entire process and then we listen to. Reactions before we take it to
the whole group. I don't know if it's worth doing that or not, but. So are you suggesting the 9th? Would
you want to add another meeting for that? I was suggesting if we're not going to have if if we're not
needing to. Present anything that we we schedule something, even if we do it on
to the public. I'm a little lost. Can you just help me here? What is the plan here? We would do when,
when? We would do a full public listening session. In addition to what's here? Correct. Okay,
thank you. That's what I was confused. After all the meetings on April's calendar? Yes. Do you think
about making that meeting on Friday?
Because then we would have completed the site evaluations. Will that work? And then we have to make
a recommendation the next time. So then it allows us to really listen to what they say, go back and
look at the information we have, and then be able to make a recommendation, including public comment
and our evaluations. So what time are you thinking on the 10th? I guess I would defer to everyone else's
schedule. Well, my only comment is a lot of the people who might want to speak
probably would not be able to attend a Friday meeting, whether it be at night or during the day. That's
just my concern, especially, is there are a lot of people who are going to be directly impacted by the
new location who are at work. Kate, do you think would be better? It might be worth doing, could we
do an hour after
Thursday, yeah, the ninth. On the ninth? Yeah, we're here anyway, right? Yeah, it's already fresh on
our minds. Has everybody got a little more time on Thursday the ninth available? So we'd have a six
to seven and then a seven to eight, right? As long as this room is available past that time. Yeah, that's
the question. Is this room available after seven or after? I'm guessing it is, but. On July ninth? Ninth,
uh-huh. Yes.
like the room is available. Yes. All right. Thank you. We're going to schedule that in. Would that take
care of the public comment, your concern there? Thank you. Everybody else OK with that? Yes. OK. So
we have one more, a little longer meeting on the 9th then. All right. Anything else about public comment
before we move on? Mm-hmm. Then electronic attendance policy, it was suggested we talk about that a
little bit.
So the question that I posed to the committee is, do you want to adopt an electronic attendance policy?
If you want to allow members to attend electronically by statute, you have to adopt the policy. If you
do not adopt a policy, that just means if a member can't come and they join on Zoom, they will not be
participating in the meeting. Are we thinking? I would move that we adopt an electronic attendance policy. Second.
But let me just clarify, do we not still need four in person for the quorum? You would still need four
in person. So no. Attend electronically and count that as a quorum, right? There are five of us. I know,
but if we have two that happen to say that they want to attend electronically, that's just not going
to work. So only one of us. Only one can attend electronically. The commissioner haven't appointed someone
yet, though, too. So we will have six, essentially. That's right.
It's really just if someone's sick or something last minute but still wants to attend. I think it makes
sense. So how would that policy be? Do you think you have any guidance on that for us? I can draft it.
I can include language that only one member would be allowed to attend virtually. I would also suggest
that we include language that if a member does intend to attend virtually
that they give 48 hours notice because then we will be able to identify any quorum issues. And maybe
a substitute, right? Attendee. They can always send a proxy, right? Right, OK. Right, would that make
sense for the electronics changes? OK, so we'll see something next time. Is that right? Yes, thank you.
Alright, so now we're on.
Number seven, where it talks about in the new revised agenda, but it's basically the phase one and two
and three of the property search that we have done all along. So I think there's some division over
there who's gonna take what? So there's three of them over there. I'll let that figure that out. I guess
if you guys don't mind. I can start and I'll just briefly run through kind of the property search history.
And again, some of this was five years ago.
I might not remember all the details. But the first round was when we had Sheriff Swain. And Sheriff
Swain had a request that we look close to the I-69 corridor so that they could transport inmates to
the medical facilities in Indianapolis if there was an event that was needed. And I think you guys all
received some material about this. It's in the packet. So we basically looked at and we called one property
north, which is a property off Vernal Pike, which
also was in round two and then we looked at Fullerton Pike and we looked at a property further south
the one further south they can get a lot of traction because it's so far south but there was a lot of
back and forth at least the initial meeting between the Fullerton Pike site and the Vernal Pike site
we reached out to the owner of Vernal Pike and they weren't interested in selling at that time so that
kind of eliminated that so that's how we got to Fullerton we went through the city council process city
council rejected it so then we went the
phase two. And phase two, we looked at, I'm going to say four, but it's really six sites. The first
is there was a site right next to where the Fullerton site was in the county just south of Monroe Hospital.
Right off the bat, we looked at that. It was too small to be able to do a co-located facility there.
And then our second site was Hopewell, which was clearly the closest
to downtown, the old IU Health slash Wilmington hospital site. We reached out to the people in the city
and the city indicated that they weren't interested in utilizing that site. I mean, I think one of the
questions is, is that answer still the same or has that changed? The third, and I'm going to call it
the power line site, out of deference to committee members, we looked at that and really, you know,
Do we have an address for that site? I would really like to just call it the address. I guess one of
the issues with that site is that there's no real road infrastructure that leads to it. So I think if
you look on the GIS, it's just called a site off Rogers Road. OK, well, that's the only one we have
that we ever considered off Rogers. Is that correct? Is that the only one we ever considered off Rogers?
Seriously, I think yes. OK, so can we call it the Rogers Road site?
We could, you could, whatever you, whatever the committee wants to call it, we'll call it that.
All right. But my notes say power line, so it might be power line for the night and we can rename it
after. Okay. But really, and I don't think, there were a few issues that needed to be addressed. Yes.
I think that the one that really was the one that caused us all to quit looking at it was when we discussed
it with Duke Energy, that they,
needed time and quite a bit of time too to two years to move the power lines before we could begin the
construction and that was an issue and then I also think we knew that they were going to have another
issue but we never got to it because of the two year with looking at the infrastructure making the road
infrastructure making sure it was adequate to have serve a co-located facility right I that process
we never got going although we knew we were going to have to
And then the fourth was the North Park property. I said six because when we initially looked at North
Park, we were looking at a different portion of North Park. We were looking kind of more North, Northwest,
kind of where that, if you drive on 46, there's a stubbed out at 46 that is not used. We were kind of
looking in that area of North Park and I think
when we went through the process, and that had some ravine and those kind of issues with it. But when
we talked about North Park that went to the county council, we're talking about one that's much more
central to that area and right off of what was Curry Pike, now Hunter Valley Road. So we looked at both
of those. And then finally, we looked at the vernal site again. When I said before, we looked at kind
of an extended version because at that point, the cellar
indicated yeah we're willing to sell now and so we looked at that again there were a variety of issues
with that mostly dealing with co-location because we did not feel that we could co-locate that or the
facilities would allow for the transportation of inmates from the jail side to the court side without
going outside or really doing some strange things. So that's kind of the round one and round two and I'm gonna
turn over round three to my colleague. Any questions, though? I'm more than happy to. Just to be clear,
on that vernal site, the transfer of prisoners was insurmountable, according to the design experts.
Am I remembering also there were karst issues at that site? I think the karst issues as well in the
slope. I mean, I guess at that point in time, and I want to be clear, at that point in time,
we still had different rules when it came to slopes and what we could do with planning wise with slopes.
And if they moved it to 25, I'm not sure that would look the same, right? I just don't know, because
we were looking at slopes when they hit 15. And now if the rules change to 25, I don't know. But the
engineering group is the ones. And I think we could probably provide you with some pictures of how they
had everything crammed in there.
and all that kind of stuff if you guys need it. I don't know if that was provided or not, but certainly
that. Carst topography was also a major issue there. Carst topography is a major issue pretty much anywhere.
I mean, yes. So that's why I was clarifying. There was some karst, but I think the slope was kind of
the bigger because it was carved up pretty well. OK, thanks.
So I think that take just summary takes us up to roughly October of 2025. At that point, the council,
we've already voted. We've already talked about North Park. So DLC, which was the engineering company
was requested to identify properties downtown on the outskirts and on the outskirts of Bloomington.
within your packet there are six properties including a property south of the post office the bloomington
transit garage uh tap road south a tap road north uh the ht building and the fell iron bender lumber
property um considerations that were taken into account when looking at those properties were was the
property large enough to accommodate future expansion or co-location because as depicted in the packet the
only a footprint of a jail was placed on that property so the in the packet it does not have a co-location.
Then we looked at was the property located within a floodplain floodway or the floodway fringe and is
the property set for sale by the owners and based on those three questions all six of those properties
were not found viable. And in the packet
if you look on the side of each property, there's notes that the engineering company put regards to
why that property could slightly be problematic. That brings us to now, if anyone has questions. A question.
Thank you for that. I've heard from multiple people that the site, that there's a site that's directly attached
or near the Zitlow building, that is a potential, but I'm curious if anyone knows more about that. Are
you talking about the Currie building? It might be. Is it to the west of the Zitlow building,
do you know? Yeah. To the west. Yeah.
several buildings that are near this little building. And one of them is Curry and Curry is actually
I included it. I'm glad you brought it up. Someone had mentioned Curry to me, so I included it on the
list. So that's where that market is. Thank you so much. It was discussed in our first in the large
group meeting that we had and with potential of needing some historic facade preservation, et cetera.
we're throwing that one in there now, right? Yeah. Okay. Oh, I think that concludes the historical review
of the county's property search. And so if there's no questions, and I think we can move on to the review
of the zoning PD process. And since this is preliminary, I'll keep this fairly short, but it is a good
segue into that process. So whether you're talking about the Curry building,
Or the Roger Street property, both of those would require for instance re zones within the city. The
exception is the Thompson property did include as part of the PD for inclusion of a jail, but there
were very specific.
metrics. So if you do go outside of the specific metrics that are approved in the PUD, you would just
have to amend the PUD, which essentially goes through the exact same process as a rezone process. And
the thing to keep in mind is that does come with timelines, timelines that are statutorily set, notice
timelines, but they're not insurmountable by any means. It just is something that we would need to line
up as you discuss these properties. One of the things I think we would want to present you with is how
to meet those deadlines and what the fastest possible route for consideration is.
Because you have to give notice obviously to all the neighboring landowners at least 21 days before
any hearing It would go before the Plan Commission and then it would get finally approved by the Bloomington
City Council for those changes So that is a little bit of a deeper process as we narrow down the properties
and even with the list of properties as you add to them what we will try to do is have current zoning and
It would take to change it and what that process would look like so have those links so you all can
have full information if you want more detail about that, which I assume you absolutely don't at the
moment. Then i'm happy to answer those questions. Larry forgive me curry and which other property definitely
needed rezone.
Curry is the biggest one that we talked about recently. It has another, potentially if the facade is
historic designation, you would also need some sort of historic preservation commission review. Those
can happen in parallel though, so they don't necessarily ruin each other's timelines, both come with
public notice. Thank you. I'll reach out to the chair of the historic preservation commission to talk
about what kind of timeline it would look like on their end.
I think the other property that Mr. Allen was identifying was the power line property. Yes, on off of
Roger Street. That's the one that's subject to a PD already that is allowed jails allowed, but was very
specific metrics. And I guess I would just chime in that. I'm not sure if we look at anywhere in the
city. Any of the any of the properties you see are not going to require a rezone. I don't you guys could
potentially come up with one, but it's very limited.
on what would be zoned in an area where you would not need a rezone and you would just have to go through
the BZA process. I think that's likely right. There's a lot of mixed use zoning within the city that
allows as a not a by right use, but certainly as a conditional use for approval for that type of industrial.
That is incredibly helpful because it brings me to one of the questions that I had. One of the categories
that Commissioner Medeo talked about was legal permissibility and several questions listed that I listed
regarding the site evaluation metric. So when you get to specific property, what is the most effective
way for us to evaluate a set to understand what the zoning requirements will be?
in one of these meetings so the public's aware of what the requirements and we are. Do we need to invite
someone who's the representative from the historical or can you explain it to us during one of the meetings?
How does that work?
I think that would be my primary role here. Otherwise, I'm pretty useless for the meeting. No, it's
to have that information for you all for each property. So the thing is just having a definite list
of properties so that we have that list. I certainly can walk through. If we do need to bring an expert
in, we will absolutely do that at the request of the commission. If you want to hear from a historic
preservation director, we can do that as well. But in terms of the general rules, what they're zoned
as, whether it's historically protected, that's information we
can have for you and the general way of changing that. And as we narrow in a property, we may get more
granular in terms of what that includes. Thank you. Is that to move on? Does that conclude your? Well,
I have, unless there are other questions. So next I see is the process to identify additional properties
for consideration.
Correct. And so I think this is a recommendation from all of the attorneys on how to identify properties
that haven't previously been considered. Typically, we discuss properties in executive sessions. And
so I think it is our recommendation if you are proposing some new property that you would, in the same
way you submit agenda items, send it to your corresponding attorney. And then we can determine if that
property is appropriate for discussion.
outside of an executive session. Can I just add just a little bit in terms of.
one of the things I think that is a misnomer just for the public, not really for anybody on this commission.
Sometimes I think we're meeting an executive session to keep things from the public. That's not exactly
the purpose of this. I think you all are aware, but for the public's knowledge, any time a governmental
entity is considering buying a property, it really invites speculation on that property. It can inflate
the values. It can make it very difficult for development and to get things going. And so one of the
reasons why we use executive sessions and the reason why it's statutory
So that we can have a conversation consider it that it to the extent necessary of course no property
can possibly be purchased or approved without a public meeting so I just want to make that very clear
there's no scenario where.
We talk about something in executive session and it stays secret behind closed doors through the very
end. It does come out into the public. It's just in that initial vetting process to keep this affordable
and economical for the public. And it should be noted that this group does not have the authority to
actually approve a property anyway. This group is just making a recommendation to the actual decision
makers. That's right. Thank you for that reclarification.
All right. Do we need a motion for that? Pardon me? Do we need a motion for? I think it was just a briefing.
I don't know that we do need a motion. For the process to identify additional properties? We need a
motion for? No, we're just asking as just a matter of course, just send those to us directly. Right.
OK. The next steps and goal for the next meeting maybe? So.
I think this is where we talk a lot less and we look to the committee for guidance on what the next
meeting looks like. So I was, can I? Yes, go ahead. So one of the things I was hoping we could do is
maybe add some names of properties already. I know that Ms. Rendon caught that it didn't include Fullerton.
So I need to add that one as well. But it might be helpful to just
go through some of the metrics that exist now and see if the public has any they want. I think the next
meeting is when we're going to try to incorporate them and finalize. So I wasn't sure if you wanted
to include any discussion or go over what we have now. What does the committee think? I need to depart,
but you will still have quorum without me. Do you have any final thoughts on this issue before you leave?
Just that I think that we already discussed the process for submitting
properties that have been examined and can just go on this list and those that have not been publicly
vetted yet. So I feel like we've done that and can have a list before the next meeting. Anything else
we're missing here? And then the goal for next meeting, is that different than anything we've talked
about or we're pretty set on that?
I think we're set. Suggesting metrics and identifying properties. Suggesting metrics and identifying
properties. Suggesting metrics and identifying properties are kind of the two main things, right? We
hear it over there, suggesting metrics and identifying properties are the two things at least on the
next meeting. That is the goals identified on Ms. Wilson's calendar. Say that again, I'm sorry. That
is the goals that are identified on Ms. Wilson's calendar. Okay, thank you.
and public comment. Public comment to follow the meeting, is that correct for the 29th? That was for
the 29th. The 29th is going to incorporate. The 9th will be the 7 o'clock public comment time period.
Yes. All right. So what do we have left? Are we going to adjourn early? We scheduled an hour. Does anybody
else over there have anything? No other questions? No final comments?
All right, if I call it adjourned, I think we're adjourned. Thank you for all coming. Thank you for
your service.