Bloomington Regular Session

And counsel to order will the honorable clerk, please read the role

Please read.

Councilmember Flaherty here Stasberg here Piedmont Smith here Zulek

I'm sorry here daily. Yes, we're all oh

Thank you very much.

Rough?

Rosenberger.

Okay, this evening the agendas are posted on the wall and the clerk prints out some, if anybody would like to read them. But our agenda includes approval of minutes from four prior meetings, reports from council members and city offices, including a report from John Fernandez of Amplify Bloomington, and appointments to boards and commissions. We'll also consider one ordinance for first reading to rezone the place that's commonly referred to as Hopewell, and under second readings we'll consider two ordinances, amending provisions of title two regarding boards and commissions, and another that is about ordinance procedures. Each of them have some amendments. With that, we'll move to the approval of our minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes as distributed?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

There's a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Any abstaining? That motion carries, eight, zero.

Thank you very much. We'll now move to reports, and we'll start with council member reports. Do any council members have a report? Council member Stasberg.

I do have a report this evening on plan commission last week plan commission had the second Hope well PUD hearing at this meeting on Monday February 9th The PUD was forwarded to counsel with a positive recommendation at the time I did vote in the affirmative though I regret that now the PUD document itself had a number of problems with basic clarity and correctness I pointed most of those out during the plan commission meeting itself and as a result the plan commission added a condition To their approval that staff and the petitioner had to work with me to clarify language and correct citations

There did not seem to be appetite to continue the petition to another plan commission meeting requiring that the petitioner amend the language at that time Plan commission was going to vote to send it to council and I figured that condition would save some amending at the council level if language Was improved before the petition ever got here and it was for that reason that I supported it But to be clear this was not just a couple of commas or misspellings I made 26 comments on an 11 page document pointing out incorrect references Inconsistent requirements and enforcing planning staff recommendations from January that were not included in February

Was very clear during that meeting that mayor Thompson wanted to get this Document out of the Plan Commission and to the council as soon as possible. I Started to regret my vote on Tuesday when I realized that president Asari intended to include the Hopewell PUD this evening for first reading

When I spoke with President Assari on Tuesday afternoon, February 10th, he said that he wasn't going to hold anything up, and if it was ready to go, then it was going to go.

The problem is that it was not ready to go.

The issue was not only related to that extra condition given by plan commission and the many modifications needed to make that document more readable But the fact that per council policy Documents related to legislation need to be sent to council office ten days in advance of the meeting We're by noon on Monday of the previous week, which was the same day as the plan commission. It's meeting itself and I really support this policy. It's good policy It's necessary policy this policy gives our staff adequate time to ensure that the legislation doesn't have obvious problems And for them to do any related research that might be necessary for council consideration This is policy that was not always strictly enforced and I was very deliberate to enforce this last year when I was president and I enforced it for the good of our staff and their management of workflow and this policy is actually also stated in our city code in section 2.0 for 270 and That's the plan Commission summary from the week and I have comments about the introduction of ordinance 2026-06 when that mentioned when that motion to introduce is made. Thank you

Thank you so much. Other reports?

Council Member Flaherty.

I feel like I jumped the line, but I'll go with it. Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on a few constituents who commented, or residents who commented last regular session about challenges they experienced as pedestrians navigating our city in the wake of the very significant snowstorm. Just wanted to recognize that and thank them for commenting.

This is not a new challenge for us.

It is property owners responsibility to clear sidewalks in front of their business or home.

Compliance is very spotty our ability to enforce. Um, that is also very spotty. I think it might warrant some legislative changes we could consider escalating fines or different fines for Commercial versus residential property we could track on a multi-year basis instead of saying

Every year it's like, oh you get a warning and then a citation and then it melts and so like it's not even an issue anymore And then you don't have to pay the $50 fine. Even if you do had to pay the did have to pay the $50 fine It's like you you know, it's I don't think that's probably adequate to get people to comply We don't want to unduly penalize folks. We have programs and other things to help out But at the same time it is just objectively true that our pedestrian network for two weeks plus This this last month Was not safe and it was not accessible that is not meeting our goals

you know, as a city, including the goal to eliminate all pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries in our streets by the year 2039.

I'm

And I know we've made some progress on this front, too. I know we've piloted some things in downtown to have the city of Bloomington clear sidewalks. I think we were piloting something on South Kirkwood this year. I do need to get in touch with, I think, at least four department heads who are engaged in some aspect of sidewalk management in this regard to hear how it's going. What do they think? What are we succeeding at? What are the opportunities for improvement? There's probably budgetary implications as well. We're entering those kind of conversations quite soon as well. The Council's Fiscal Committee, which I joined this year, had its first meeting last week, for instance. So yeah, I just wanted to recognize all that. I think it's a perennial challenge. There aren't easy solutions, but surely we can do better than we've been doing. And I guess the last thing is a few of those residents who commented also noted about the challenges with compliance from governmental entities. That should be, that one should not be an issue. I know the RDC-owned building at the former Bunger Robertson site, forth in college, did not clear its sidewalks for many weeks. This was also true of the Convention Center for several days. That was true last year of the Convention Center for several days. This is over and over again. So we've got to find a way to do better. And I think it might warrant, again, legislation, budget considerations, possibly a deliberation session in the future. We talked about that last year. We didn't actually hold it. We probably should. So thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll go to Council Member Rallo, then I think you have, Council Member Pima-Smith after that.

Thank you. Mr. President. I want to I share the sentiments of my colleague Councilmember Flaherty that our pedestrian network needs to be Attended to in terms of its Accessibility and I realized that the storm was exceptional, but it went several weeks without with sidewalks still being blocked and That's in some cases the only means by which some people can get around maybe the bus oftentimes it forced people into the streets, which is unsafe and It's been said before that our the penalty is

Hasn't been increased for many years and just in that sense It's diminished and it's effect because of inflation. So we should be looking for enforcement and to probably upgrade the penalty for Sidewalks that are blocked by snow and I might add Blocked by and with the weather getting better We're going to have scooters that are going to be parked on sidewalks and and blocking and blocking sidewalks as well I also just wanted to announce that Councilmember ruff and I have our monthly constituent meeting on this Saturday this coming Saturday February 21st at 10 a.m. And You can find the link at the council website Bloomington that I n gov slash council It's from 10 a.m. To 11 a.m. But we usually go maybe almost two hours. So you're welcome to attend and You'll have a good time bring your coffee

and hope to see you there.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for watching!

Yes, I wanted to mention since, well, I just realized, I wanted to mention this because Councilmember Rallo talked about scooters blocking sidewalks, which has been an ongoing problem. So I did want to mention that...

Over the last year I've had a few communications with Jeffrey Jackson in economic and sustainable development who is the person in charge of enforcing our scooter rules and there will be legislation coming up in the coming months about scooters. So if any colleagues have concerns or input, I'd be happy to...

take that input or to include you in future email exchanges about that. I also want to highlight the upcoming Black History Month events. We've had a couple of great events here in the city and this Saturday there will be a poster board contest and reception. And this is for children and youth who have researched some aspect of black history and have prepared posters and they will be on display here in City Hall. And that's Saturday.

there's a reception at 12 noon and you can go around and look at all the work and then

And then the Black History Month Gala is Saturday, February 28th, the last day of the month.

That starts at 6 p.m. And that's at One World at the Woolery Mill. And it is a ticketed event. So if you have.

would like to attend, please do go ahead and use Google to find Black History Month. Gala, Bloomington, Indiana.

It's at the BCT.

Oh, you can buy tickets at the Buscrop-Shonley Theatre website, my colleague tells me, so there you have it. So, hope to see you at some of those events. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other reports?

Back to you, Councilman Rutherford.

Thank you. Something I just started paying attention to today, and that is that it seems that we are now gearing up for another war. And maybe this is just bluster, but a third of our Navy is now either in or around the Middle East and approaching there. Now, I'm old enough to remember several wars and unnecessary wars that killed innocent people. And I also want to point out that money that goes for warfare is money that is not spent here at home for people in need. We've been receiving less and less money from the federal government. And so I just want to urge people to pay attention to what's happening and maybe give voice. Contact your representative at higher offices and say, go back to diplomacy. Go back to negotiations. Find a way in which you can avoid this conflict.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, well that concludes council member reports. We'll now move to reports with which we have two. The first one will be from our former mayor, John Fernandez, who's now the CEO of Amplify Bloomington.

you have some time, and then we'll hear from our clerk. Thank you for joining us.

Right.

Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate the invitation.

Couple of the members of the council were able to join us on February 4th when we had our kickoff event for what's now Amplified Bloomington. I was really a tremendous turnout a lot of energy behind what we're doing So I thought I would take up your president's invitation to come Share some additional thoughts with with all of you who couldn't attend so amplified Bloomington

Is a new

New civic alliance that we've morphed into and evolved into from the early days of the dimension mill Why are we doing this? I think the important thing to focus on is the why? Bloomington like a lot of cities our size face some significant headwinds. We see meaningful loss of population particularly in the 25 to 45 age cohort

We have income disparities that continue to grow.

housing affordability issues, talent out migration, those are all challenges that we need to address. And at the same time with a lot more remote working and quality of life migration trends, we also have a huge opportunity.

and we think through stronger collaboration and better storytelling, Bloomington can position itself as a place where talent not only arrives, but stays.

So what is Amplify Bloomington? It is a civic platform that connects the university's research engine, the Mills entrepreneurial ecosystem, the trades district infrastructure, and Bloomington's cultural vitality into one coordinated effort.

And so our objectives are to unify that economic growth and community development effort with cultural vitality, innovation, all under one inclusive and compelling brand.

of the position of the civic.

alliance we're positioning the civic alliance not as a traditional economic development corporation but as a new civic collaboration model one that integrates institutions aligns our community efforts and supports inclusive sustainable growth

Amplified Bloomington is not an initiative. It's not a replacement of the BDC. It's not simply a rebranding of the mill. It's much, much more than that.

And so we have three strategic pillars that we're focused on. They'll sound familiar for those of you who've been involved with our work. Our first one is around entrepreneurship growth. We want to strengthen founder pathways, investment networks, and early stage company growth. Our second pillar is focused on strategic business attraction and the trades district development. And so we have three strategic pillars Our third pillar is focused on strategic business attraction

We think that accelerating the transformation of the district.

by attracting high-value companies, creating a premier innovation hub will really be the kind of market signal we need to address some of the issues that I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation. And our third pillar is on community and cultural activation. We wanna activate many of our target sector clusters, our membership, city-wide programming that connects our entrepreneurship community with Bloomington's broader cultural ecosystem.

We certainly can't do this by ourselves. We've had tremendous support from the City of Bloomington.

from Indiana University, from the Cook Group, and many of our other.

Corporate partners. I want to say to the City Council

Um,

just extreme gratitude. I mean, you've been very supportive of the mill.

From its beginning. You've been very helpful with us as we move forward with the forged development and some of the other trades district initiatives We couldn't do this without your support And we look forward to continuing to work with the city and all of our other partners as we build a really vibrant place I mean our deal is we want people to build meaningful things in Bloomington that can be a company It can be a life it can be all kinds of things and we're really super excited about the direction of travel And I brought you some swag. I mean

So with that, I'd really appreciate the opportunity to give you a quick intro.

Thank you.

Thank you so much council members anyone have a question

or comments.

All right. Seeing none. Thank you so much. Mayor Fernandez for that presentation. Next we'll hear from our city clerk.

Is it okay with you if I stay over here? Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Before I start, I want to say thank you to Councilmember Piedmont-Smith for talking about Black History Month. I noted that it wasn't discussed at our last council meeting.

Um

That was sad.

And then this week with the passing of Reverend Jesse Jackson.

I at least wanted to share with you. I was able to meet him three times. The first time was in 1988 when he was running for president.

and he stood in front of the room, and he did his fabulous call and response, but what stuck with me was the moment when he said, I am somebody. You all have heard this, right? I am somebody. And you have a room full of teenagers, yeah, I just dated myself, saying, I am somebody.

I think part of being a great person is showing others that they can be great as well.

and he did that.

And for those of you who don't remember, he was here in Bloomington in 2010, and I got to see him again at our MLK Day celebration.

and I was able to see him for the last time in 2024.

when we were in Chicago for the DNC meeting and I got to thank him for everything he'd done for the country.

So in this month, for Black History Month, I would like to remember Reverend Jackson.

It was a great man who showed a room full of kids in Iowa City, Iowa that they could be somebody and could be great as well.

and I'm holding onto that a little bit more this week.

That said, I wanted to give you a very quick update on the clerk's office and what we're doing. If you all have any questions, I'll try and answer them on the fly. If I can't answer them.

Deputy Clerk Crossley will and if she can't answer them well, we'll get back to you

So for parking ticket appeals, I talk about them generally during our budget time, but I did wanna give you a quick update that my computer just went to sleep. And for 2025, about 13, almost 14% of all citations written were appealed.

That is.

running it about where we have been for the last several years when I first started with the city back in

Wow, 2009. We were averaging at about 10% of all citations written. We've gone up since then for a variety of reasons. One of them is user error.

It's hard for people to always get it right when they're using ParkMobile.

or they just make simple mistakes. So just wanted to give you an update on that. I can answer more questions about appeals if you need to.

And then for boards and commissions, you will hear more about this, I'm sure, and you'll be discussing parts of it. I'm not going to discuss different aspects of it, but.

You have three appointments potentially pending this evening. And for team A, you have three more appointments that you need to do. For team B, you have four more appointments that you need to do. And for team C, you also have four more appointments that you need to do.

Deputy Clerk Crossley has been working very hard to communicate with all of you. I appreciate those of you who respond promptly.

and that I have not had to call myself and say, hey, could you respond? So thank you for that as well. And hopefully we can get that all done before the time expires where you have to make that appointment.

So that was all I have. If you have any questions, by all means, ask them. And if not, thank you.

Thank you so much. Any questions?

I have a really brief one that people often ask about the use of the park mobile app and whether it's important that they pick the exact zone that they're parked in or whether they can choose any zone. I may be misinformed and I tell them it doesn't matter the zone you pick as long as you're using park mobile. What does the clerk say?

um...

It does matter.

It does matter. Elaborate, please. There are different parking rules for the paid lots versus the street parking, so it's easier and better if you actually are.

Please.

putting in the correct zone. Now, if it's a difference of half a block away, no, that probably won't make a big difference. The bigger issue is making sure that your license plate is input correctly, which is where we see people do make the biggest mistakes where they just transpose numbers, letters, or they pay for their partner's car as opposed to their own or their mom's car because they just borrowed it for the day. So please be careful when you do that.

I feel targeted. Well, now.

Um, we'll now, um, move on.

To comments from our reports from committees or do any of the committees council committees have reports?

Fantastic. Seeing none, we now move on to the greatest part of today's meeting, where our first session of public comment. This is a time to make comments on things that are not on our agenda. If you will, you have three minutes. If you could so kindly sign in. If you'd like to say your name, that would be wonderful. For those online, you had a chance to raise your hand, and we will acknowledge you. I'll deal with the people in the room first, and then we'll go to the folks online. There will be another section of public comment if you don't want to make a comment now. But with that, I will give it to the first person standing here.

Go ahead.

Hello.

Thank you guys for your time. My name is Sam.

Bloomington local open here for about eight years and I wanted to speak today

To the public and to you counselors about the issue of flock safety in our policing networks here in Bloomington We've been talking about this a lot lately. I'm sure everybody's familiar but

These cameras are placed in 40 plus undisclosed locations around town, monitoring everybody's comings and goings. And I'd like us to pause and think about the severe threat and danger that the existence of this technology poses. So these cameras are not just taking video data, right? They're AI powered. So let's take a look at some of the footage. So let's take a look at some of the footage. So let's take a look at some of the footage.

The video is getting uploaded straight to Fox clouds as it goes, and predictive analytics are being used to churn through that and make derivative data types, like your habits. Where do you shop? Which groger do you go to? Where do you work? What's your commute? What are your relationships like? What does your car look like? What is your license plate? What is your skin tone? They can capture your face. That's been proven by independent research.

So there's a tremendous penetration and scope of data here that I think so far has been.

implemented in town without adequate thought to what that means and the dangers it presents. For one, this data has been shown countless times being used unlawfully by ICE, by fascist federal police forces to track people, to track people trying to get abortions out of their home state. Police in Wisconsin have used it to stalk ex-girlfriends. Don't need to harp about how ICE is murdering people in the streets.

My ask for you, Council, is to do something about this. I appreciate Councilor Asare's draft resolution speaking to the use of ALPRs, automated license plate readers. I think it's a great start. I think it's important to outlay the terms of the debate, the dangers, the risks at hand. I just think we need to go a lot further, because.

This is a threat to our lives when you think about who can use it. I do not believe the mayor's line that this is a purpose-driven, limited-use tool because by definition is a general surveillance network. The data is live-streamed. The cameras are independently powered and networked. The public does not own the data. The public cannot access the data.

We don't know who can get it, and it's been shown being used in terrible ways. So I'd ask you, Council, to go a step further and create an ordinance to ban the use of FLOC and similar fascist technologies and help stand up for citizens here. I know the current contracts have terms in them that you can't necessarily touch.

but you can ban future use beyond those contracts and it takes an ordinance from council. So please consider that.

That's your time. Thank you so much. Thank you next in council chambers

Good evening. Mr. President counsel. This is Chris Terenji from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and membership organization with 911 businesses I represent 80% are small in nature Tonight I'm going to talk about an issue. I have discussed a few times Mostly anecdotal but tonight I bring a letter an exhibit From the Monroe County Assessor Judy Sharp That should concern every policymaker in this room

from one of the most thoughtful and trusted public servants in this county.

In it she explains that the properties along South Walnut Corridor

From 2nd Street, South to Hillside, her office has rolled

land values of 120 businesses back to 2024 levels for payable 2026 and will hold them flat into 2027. In this letter, she calls it, at best, a Band-Aid. She references boarded-up buildings, graffiti, trash, empty lots. She acknowledges the connection between the health of businesses and the health of the market.

The assessor can adjust values, but she cannot fix conditions.

What is the market telling us?

We've already seen stall furniture, a 50-year-old multi-generation downtown business relocated and noted in the HT cited persistent issues tied to street homelessness, property damage, block deliveries, biohazard cleanup, customer fear, and mounting costs. On the same corridor, Tapper Bruce Architecture invested 8,000 in fencing alone and for repeated trespassing and syringe discovery.

Comprehension financial consultant spent thousands modifying landscape

Capping utilities, mitigating risk with daily encounters of hazardous waste.

These are not one-time costs. These are reoccurring operational burdens on our business community. There's fiscal consequences in this. Land value rollback is not symbolic. It means assessed values have softened, market incompetence has weakened, future revenue to the city is constrained, all the while SB1 is already compressing what local government can collect. Private business are absorbing these costs and the tax base itself is signaling distress.

When the assessor's office sees it, documents it and adjusts it, the data is no longer anecdotal. The corridor is losing value, the loss belongs to all of us. Three specific asks, formal engagement between city leadership and the assessor's office to fully understand the corridor revenue implications.

a focus measurable stabilization strategy for South Walnut. Not a task force, not a study, but actionable.

accountability and recognition that this is not a business complaint issue.

Assessor has done what she can do the market has responded It's up to the policymakers in this room and city government to do something. I'm going to leave

the letter itself with staff tonight. I thank you for your time.

That's your time. Thank you very much.

Are there other comments in the room?

Please take it away.

I'm Paul Rousseau And I would first like to thank council members Flaherty and Rolo for your comments about the situation of the sidewalks right after the storm

As I told the mayor personally a few days ago, it felt to me like a kick in the teeth because I normally bicycle and I was walking instead for two weeks and it was brutal.

But I do recognize that the problem is unusual and that it's a severe problem that only appears

like coming out of the closet every four or five years, how often do we get these large snows? But it's not the first time, I don't think.

Bloomington has had a large snow. And so I would think that here on.

A quarter of the way into the 21st century Bloomington would have figured this out, but apparently we haven't

Now, I mostly have questions for you to consider because I don't really know how to proceed. I don't know how to suggest changes to the code to you, but I would ask these questions. Would a variable find schedule be legally possible?

For example, larger fines for commercial properties and or properties that have extensive sidewalks such as a large corner lot. And then meanwhile, smaller fines for those who are residents and owner-occupied homes in contrast to the large properties. I don't know. Because what we're after here really is...

In a fine schedule the idea is to change behavior, and if you want the fine to be appropriate to what the person can pay obviously

And then also on an edge from an educational perspective what can be done to educate the public better about the city ordinance because I found That so many property owners didn't seem to even know about this even if even if they'd been here for a while

I'll also tell you two stories about this that illustrate the wide differences in the

You report I found a story of a woman who was in her 80s who had a corner lot near Northwest side

and she had shoveled the entire thing herself.

right after the storm, and then the plows came along.

and they covered it completely. And so she was complaining, saying, do I have to do this again?

Meanwhile, there's a particular.

Bad actor on the north side of town. I won't name their name. They have a large corner lot

One corner of it being the entire block and this is an in a high student traffic area and the whole storm and in two weeks all the way until melted they just

didn't care.

And then I heard from another landlord that's because this the landlord that wasn't complying with the law is out of city They don't live here

But my time's up.

One final thing though is that the bicycle lanes also had a problem, but I'll address that another day. Thank you. Thank you so much

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments in the room?

Hello, my name is Seaforth Breeze. I've been a resident in Bloomington for a little over a decade now at this stage. I wish to speak about flock cameras. I'll keep my comment pretty brief.

Um.

The residence that I'm currently staying at, it's a rental, is directly in the line of sight, just down a hill from one of the cameras. Every single day, when I cycle to work, when I get in my car.

all hours, even when I'm on my patio, the camera is staring right down at me.

To bring back one of the earlier public comments, these companies, and it's not just FLOC, but expanding beyond that to the security apparatus that is represented by these companies, they are not accountable to the public in a meaningful way. They have been demonstrated on numerous occasions now in cities as far flung as like California, for example, to have ignored requests from the municipalities that they contract with to keep the data contained to that municipality.

You know, I'm relatively young, I'm around 30ish, and like, seeing the expansion of this technology into every part of my life, into every venue, from my workplace, when I'm driving down the street, when I'm going into shops, when I am, I mean, just everywhere. It is a tech solution that does not have a horizon. And it justifies, you know, it's a response that is not solving things. It is retroactively putting Band-Aids on some more structural concerns and needs. I mean, for the street that I live on, if the concern is purely an aspect of, you know, traffic, sort of like, management, it is a long, straightaway, with, you know, wide streets, and like, it is a structural problem of the street that people are driving the way that they are driving. And that, you know, there's plenty of turn-offs on the street as well, which means that there's constantly opportunities for people to slow down suddenly, to turn into a place. And so, like, I see that as an aspect of this, where it's very easy to implement these things in the hopes of solving more systemic issues. But all it ever creates is, you know, privacy, security, you know, sort of like liabilities. It is a, you know, sort of local sovereignty issue. Anyways, I cede my time.

Thank you. Are there any other comments in council chambers?

Seeing none, I'll move online. Are there any comments online?

Thanks for watching!

change

Glacier.

Thank you.

So, can you hear me okay?

Now we can, yes.

Brilliant. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Moby Jean Glaser. I've lived in Bloomington for 17 years. I'm a parent.

and a trauma therapist. I want to thank members of council who have made time to really listen in to their constituents on matters of flock and who are working on a resolution that I understand will be introduced in March. I appreciate the opportunity to be in dialogue with y'all and how responsive y'all have been.

I want to encourage all members of council to take every possible action available to them to end the current contract with FLOC and to prevent any future contracts from being made. Right now we need preventative and proactive measures taken to ensure the safety of our community members. In a recent town hall, I asked Mayor Thompson about FLOC surveillance and its benefit risks to our community. And she said she did not believe this technology is surveilling our community.

However, myself and many others strongly disagree with her. She spoke to the contract itself as a means of creating safety and preventing abuse. Many folks feel we cannot trust FLOC to keep our community safe and believe there's too much potential for those in power to harm our community. This is informed by what we are seeing nationally in regards to FLOC data being used against protestors, by ICE to harm community members, by a police officer to stalk a former partner, by police officers to track community members accessing reproductive health care in other states. And these are just a few documented examples. Considering the violent and oppressive nature of our current federal and state governments and the legislation we are seeing proposed, especially at the state level, the safest thing we can do locally in regards to FLOC is to end the contract and remove FLOC fully from our community. The risk of maintaining a contract is too high. I encourage all members of council to come together in this action as a means of preventing further harm in our community. Many, many folks are speaking out against FLOC. Please listen to your constituents collaborate with and represent us. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. We have a second commenter online. Take it away.

Hello, this is Dave Burnworth, and I'm wanting to address the concerns about the flock cameras, too. I would encourage the City Council to strongly, strongly ask law enforcement how valuable they are in solving crime.

It's it's ludicrous to be able to

just take another tool off the street.

to.

reduce crime and solve crimes. There's crimes going on all over the place.

you're probably not even aware of them.

I would just strongly, strongly encourage you to talk to the police chief and other officers in BPD to get their feelings about this.

Thanks.

Thank you. Are there any other commenters online?

Wonderful. Let's move on then. That ends our period of public comment. There will be another period of public comment toward the end of the meeting. We'll move on to appointments to boards and commissions. Do we have any appointments?

none.

them.

You do?

Yes, we do, right?

Can't remember the rest of it.

I believe this is.

What my colleague is looking for right now I'd like to move that for the Arts Commission. We recommend to re-empoint Gerard Pinochuk to seat c4 and a point Austin white to see seat c5

There's a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Seeing none all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed

Any abstaining?

That motion carries nine zero congratulations to the appointments

and this is.

behalf of team C by the way I forgot to mention thank you this is for I move that for the Commission on the status of children and youth to appoint Andrea Alvarez to seat C1.

Second.

There's a motion and a second, any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Any post?

any abstaining. That also passes 9-0. Any other appointments?

I'm forgetting. That's everyone. OK.

Fantastic, this concludes appointments to boards and commissions. That means that we're now at the time for legislation for first readings. Are there any motions?

I move that ordinance 2026-6 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only. Second.

There's a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Council Member Stosberg.

Thank you ordinance 2026 oh six submissions violated city code section 2.0 for point two seventy Submissions did not get to council office staff until well after the Monday February 9th deadline of ten days before This meeting and some arrived late on Friday, February 13th after the meeting packet needed to be prepared

This code is odd to interpret saying that the time frame may be extended by either the council as a body or the president But extended usually means making it longer not shorter I do think the president of council should have some discretion to be able to accept late submissions and urgent or emergency situations But that discretion needs to be approached with caution and with council staff as a partner

I worked very deliberately and diligently last year as president enforcing that deadline with the administration and supporting our office staff in insisting that city departments follow the policy. And if they didn't, then their legislation would not be on the agenda because that is what the president controls, is the agenda.

This week our council president put the hope opud on our agenda for first reason for first reading causing both council staff and multiple City staff members to scramble last week to get these materials submitted for the meeting tonight

I was left asking what is the rush and when I asked that question the answer I got was essentially that the mayor wanted to get it done

And I agree, I want to get going on Hopewell, too. It's been way too long. We are in a housing crisis.

I do not want to get it going at the expense of council or city staff I don't want to do it at the expense of considering a bad Document or at the expense of setting a precedent that the mayor has any control over the council agenda

So tonight I am going to vote no on this introduction of the hopeful PUD for first reading Not because I don't think it's important not because I don't agree with the development concepts within the plan Not because I don't want to talk about it with my colleagues I'm voting no as a statement to president Asari that deadline policies matter and to not let outside pressure overrule council process And I'm voting no as a statement to the mayor and the larger community That it is council that sets the council agenda and that pressure from the administration for expediency will not overrule the need for due process and proper consideration

and I invite my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any other comments?

once.

Thanks for watching!

that comes from a real.

I have a point of order. I wondered if our council turning could offer her opinion on

Is it found lacking is there are we in maybe some sort of jeopardy in terms of process

This council member Stossberg mentioned section 2.04.270 states that each ordinance or resolution and relevant documents must be filed at least 10 days before the meeting with.

with council's office. That same provision also states that the president approves the agenda and it has been the practice for the president to determine what matters are placed on the agenda for first and second readings. There have been situations where presidents have deviated from this. I think that this BMC provision, Bloomington Municipal Code provision and some of these deviations are factors for council members to consider in deciding how to vote with respect to this matter tonight.

Did you want to continue Council Member Rowley?

I'm ruminating on our council attorney just said I I don't know it seems like it It is within the discretion or has been within the discretion of the president of the council But this is a practice that we should I mean this is an important Matter it's important ordinance So I'm in a quandary here perhaps Council president do you have a response to councilmember Stasberg's objection to introducing?

Not currently. Are there other comments?

Council Member Flaherty.

Thank you.

This is interesting. I think first, I don't have any specific knowledge, but it is a little bit concerning to hear my colleague Council Member Stossberg note that some of the challenges coming from.

the the mayor's administration with respect to either having a document that was ready or or you know

Working to cure

Okay, my apologies find it a bit concerning even though I have specific knowledge about it that there were errors that need fixing that apparently Haven't been fixed and there wasn't time to work on those. I also am concerned generally about our council staff and their ability to

Comply with new accessibility requirements put together packets in time

Have adequate time to balance all the work to work on research legal research questions and legislation that council members are looking to develop which sometimes does get delayed and sometimes significantly because the Day-to-day demands and requirements on our staff are significant. We are quite small and lean in that regard so that is also I think weighing in favor of honoring what's in city code, which is a third factor here, which is BMC 2.0 4.2 70

strict reading of it, I would say actually the 10-day requirement.

Is there I read the word extended as you can go longer, but not shorter But I agree that past practice has not been completely consistent on that point. I'm not sure if that justifies

Deviating from code where it's been referenced and invoked as a as a rationale, you know for not

not introducing at this time. I think we could warrant a code change, this could warrant a code change to give that flexibility more clearly if we want it. And just one other note, which is that.

I've pondered the the possibility of a code change that would require a councilmember sponsor for all legislation And I think that could have helped in this situation and others we've had recently Where probably I'm guessing things that come from the planning commission would presumably be sponsored by The council's appoint appointee to the planning commission typically and that might have helped us resolve this so I think I'm also gonna vote no on introduction tonight, but I want to Echo what council members offers to us work said which is that? How we develop Hopewell matters, we will have this conversation and we'll have it soon but On balance, I think it can wait to follow the the appropriate process in code and You know with those other factors being considered, so that's it. Thank you

Thank you so much, Council Member Pima-Smith.

Um, yeah, I, uh, am also, um, concerned about how this PUD proposal was rushed. Um, we did not have the full proposal until

Monday, and that was without any memo or analysis by our attorneys, the counsel attorneys, because they did not have time to provide that.

And it's a very complex document. It was very hard to parse.

And it's

If I go back to the plan commission meeting when it was approved, what are the conditions of approval as council member Stossberg said?

was that the staff and petitioner would work with her.

to clarify the points that were unclear and make the corrections.

Why is that her job?

I mean...

It shouldn't be up to a plan commissioner.

And certainly not, I mean, any planning commissioner.

to fix errors that have come about because of the speed with which legislation or planning documents have been brought forward.

I just...

I resent that this came through to the Planning Commission in a state that was really not

Fully baked.

And I like council member Stossberg I think it's a good project but I think we are not doing anybody a favor by rushing it. There might be legal implications. I don't even know if they can just say oh we're going to make corrections and that the plan commission can just blanket approve.

uh... future corrections to a document that we then vote on and in the case of PUDs, I'm not even clear if we're allowed to make amendments I mean there are a lot of legal questions here and we could be in real trouble if we push this through without investigating them.

Um.

And just to piggyback on something that Councilmember Flaherty brought up.

We and.

Maybe I should.

Separate this from what Councilmember Flaherty said in case it's misinterpretation. But we do have a lot of legislative initiatives among the nine of us up here. There are initiatives that you know I've been investigating for two years and I have put them on the back burner because our staff do not have the bandwidth to help write those ordinances. And now suddenly the mayor is storming in saying we have to have this now.

even though it's not.

properly vetted and properly written.

So I want to assert the council's authority here and say, look.

Um, you know.

We have our rules, this is a very complex piece of legislation, and you didn't meet the deadline.

I really, having been president and then vice president the two prior years, I've seen the toll that.

the amount of work and the timeline stress puts on our staff. We have lost staff because of this.

And I want to assert that.

We need to respect the deadlines and there are reasons for those deadlines so that staff can properly vet and present legislation.

and that we also have time to read the legislation and ask our questions and get our legal concerns answered.

So no, I don't think this is ready for first reading.

Thank you so much. Other comments?

Council Member Rutherford.

Well, I appreciate this input I Think my colleagues make a compelling case That unless there is an equally compelling reason that we should Hear introduce this this evening. It is a complicated ordinance it doesn't need to be complicated in the process and So I I'll be voting against introduction And I appreciate the input from from everyone. Thanks

Thank you so much, Council Member Rosenberger.

Thank you, I would like to weigh in. I agree with almost everything my colleagues have said and I'd love the idea of having a sponsor because I think also it can be tricky to put.

all of the decisions of schedule on the president, and I think that it helps.

Divide that out a little bit if there's a sponsor because you know, I don't I don't think it's like a blame situation or anything I just think like it's all very hard to manage. I really appreciate our staff Working on a process and procedures to make everything in the council office I think more efficient and not as chaotic like we're always scrambling for everything And so I think being able to follow that process is really huge for us and our staff

I agree too with Council Member Piedmont-Smith. I have a list of legislation that I haven't been able to get done for one reason or another, changing staff, urgent needs, right? And I think there can be gray areas on this, despite like the code saying 10 days, but.

In this case, we didn't even have materials ready for the packet. So we didn't get this until Monday. And it is a very hefty piece of legislation. It would be different if this was something like a salary adjustment for.

An employee in in City Hall, right? And I think there are or if it's an amendment to something that's very minor the day before a Meeting, I think those things can be different. But in this case

It's publicly noted that this wasn't ready to even be a plan commission and then to have it here I think is a very inefficient way to do government. So I will be voting no

Any other comments?

Okay, will the clerk please read the roll? I guess, I mean, they've already said how they'll vote, but please, let's do a roll call.

if you will, so kindly.

Councilmember Flaherty.

No.

Stossberg no Piedmont Smith

No.

Zulek, yes, sorry. Yes daily

Yes.

Thanks for watching!

Yes.

Thanks for watching!

No.

Rollo?

No.

Ruff. No. Rosenberger. No.

That motion that fails, seven, two. Thank you very much. We'll now be moving on to legislation for second readings and resolutions. Are there any motions?

For be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only please

There is a motion to second. Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, that motion carries, and I know.

Will the clerk kindly read?

Go ahead.

Yeah, sorry. Ordinance 2026-04 to amend Title II of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Administration and Personnel to consolidate and amend boards and commissions provisions in chapters 2.02, 2.08, and 2.12. The synopsis is as follows. This.

Ordinance sponsored by councilmember Piedmont Smith consolidates title two provisions regarding boards Commissions and councils into a single chapter adds code of conduct provisions and renames the Bloomington Commission on sustainability to the Bloomington Commission on sustainability and resilience I feel

Thank you.

I move that ordinance 2026-04 be adopted second

All right, Council Member Piemont-Spath, did you wanna present on it?

Yes, thank you.

Council staff, could you show the?

document I shared earlier this afternoon.

Just to clarify the changes it was kind of difficult to see in the council packet because we moved so much text that it looked like we changed everything but actually we're just moving some things.

So while that gets up, I'll just...

walk you through it so

This ordinance seeks to accomplish the following goals. First of all, moving text from Bloomington Municipal Code 2.08.020 to 2.02.050.

Currently the provisions that apply to the city's volunteer boards and commissions are situated in Bloomington Municipal Code 2.08 executive branch although these bodies are not part of the executive branch.

There are also currently two chapters of BMC Title II that are very similar. There's 2.02 called Boards and Commissions and then there's 2.12 called Boards, Commissions and Councils.

So this ordinance moves the general provisions from two point oh eight in the executive branch to two point oh two under a new subheading called general provisions.

Um.

And that was something that was approved by the Committee on Council Processes. So we're just moving text out of the executive branch.

into this heading boards and commissions.

And then addressing Chapter 2.12.

So, okay, so let me just go to the screen here.

So in the general provisions section that we're adding under the heading boards and commissions the only thing we're really changing is numbers three and four.

We are referencing a code of conduct which Deputy Clerk Jennifer Crossley has been working on.

And then as a removal for cause, we are citing that code of conduct.

which is not, the code itself is not going to be.

in our Bloomington Municipal Code, but the code of conduct will be something kept by the clerk's office and every appointee to a board or commission will be asked to sign it.

So those are really the only two substantive changes as far as the text regarding general provisions for bores and commissions.

So this ordinance also deletes.

BMC Chapter 2.12.

Moves all of that under two point.

Oh, too.

So we don't have these two different areas that say board and commissions. We just have them all together.

And then the last change is bringing forward Request from the Bloomington Commission on sustainability

to add resilience to the name of that entity.

So they passed a resolution on November 18th recommending to the Common Council that the name be changed to Bloomington Commission on Sustainability and Resilience. And that does match the charge of that commission as we revised it recently that they do.

study and advise on the resilience of the community in the face of climate change and not just sustainability.

So that is the last change that this ordinance would bring about.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions?

All right, seeing none, question? Go ahead, Council Member Stossberg.

Thank you. I have a question about the code of conduct, so I don't know if Clerk Crossley might be the best one to answer that, but how is that created, I guess, and who gets

Like do that and make changes to it or and that kind of thing because if council is like Enforcing it like how is that going into effect? Is that through the clerk's office? Is that through cooperation with? committee on council processes

So deputy clerk crossly here So yes, so to kind of give a brief overview on how this has happened Actually to kind of give a brief history I think councilmember Arlo when he was on the committee on council processes. I brought this up And this was something that had been worked on since last year I also want to I'd be remiss if I didn't give a special special Thank you to the legal department in particular Miss Anna Holmes and miss Audrey Brennan ham for their work with me We've been doing this in tandem. And so we looked at this because obviously there's A need for it and it was brought up a while ago But this also was brought forth to the committee on council processes last year and in December, I believe it was Like talked about and discussed and so this had been shown with the the committee And at the time and back in December of 25 the committee decided that that is something that's going to live Or be in the clerk's office. And so it's you know presented to you all and but the committee Also gave feedback on that as well. So any there were a few

suggestions, if you will, for the code of conduct. And so I took that back to legal. We worked on it and then brought it forth again to the CCP meeting. And there were no further objections back in December. So that's kind of where we are with that. And then the process, in order to roll this out, is to, number one, we are in the process of still trying to do.

Staff liaison training. So this is something that's going to be implemented with staff for that has any kind of hands related to boards and commissions And then once we go through that staff training, hopefully here soon Then it will go to all board and commissioners and this is going to be something that is done annually So if there is any discrepancies or anything that has been Violated by way of code of conduct. Everybody should be on the same page in a court To know that this is what you signed and if there has to be dismissals for any reason Um, it allows it by the code of conduct

Great, thank you. I just kind of wanted a summary of how that was working. And so then in the future, it would be considered to be modified once a year or something like that if there was anything that needed to be changed or added in coordination with.

Yeah. And cool.

committee on

the Committee on Council Processes and the clerk's office and legal.

Well, right now, as Councilmember Piedmont-Smith had mentioned, I just want to stress that again that this is referencing code and it won't be codified into code. It just references that this is happening. And so, we feel pretty confident that...

It's you know as it stands right now. It's pretty good I'm sure if there is any other things that happen later on down the road Um that needs to be revisited. I think that's something that we could take to the ccp and bring forth Of that and i'm gonna look at the clerk because she just looked at me

The power of a look. I just want to clarify that the code of conduct falls underneath Deputy Clerk Crossley's role as being in charge of boards and commissions, and that was something that the council actually asked her to handle moving forward. This is a living document that lives in the clerk's office and is under the clerk's control as such.

Have a look.

It's not something that would necessarily have to come to the council processes committee but we will always be open to input from any council members regardless of whether they're on the committee or not.

Okay, thank you. I was just curious about the process.

Understood.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, there's amendment, it's mine, so I'll pass to Council Member Daley to chair the meeting.

All right, thank you. Would you like to introduce your amendment, council member Asari?

Yeah, do I have to motion to introduce it? Or OK, I'd like to move that we introduce amendment one.

Second.

All right. We got a motion and a second. Do we vote on that?

I don't know, you're the parliamentarian, I don't know. Yeah, I know.

I don't know.

Yeah.

I know, I'm looking at it right now.

I'm looking at it right now.

There's

That's perfect for it.

for the discussion at this point. OK. OK.

So do we have any? Oh, no.

Okay, so super simple this one and you know, I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I for some time had thought about the parallelism within our code that mayoral appointments it says very clearly are they serve at the pleasure of the mayor and then we say but council appointments.

You know need to have some reason to not serve and so I thought that it would be nice to have that parallel Structure and so the amendment simply changes the the Statement that says that people can remove for cause and just replaces it with the same structure that code has for the mayor saying that People serve that people appointed by council serve at the pleasure of council

That's it.

All right, thank you any questions councilmember Flaherty. Thank you

Thank you. Thank you Council Member Stosberg present or not Stosberg. Sorry. Sorry. That's right

Thank you, Councilmember Daley, and thank you, President Asari.

I had a question about the amendment which is so the text that's being struck out or proposed to be amended says except for appointees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor and I had always Interpreted that thought that it only that that only describes some mayoral appointees. In other words, there are other mayoral appointees

Who can only be removed for cause and often that's specified in the state statute Or not often. I think that's specified in the state statute in some cases like I recall like a plan Commission discussion around this at some point I think the My recollection is the the CIB actually only has for cause removal And and so point of clear. I guess I'm seeking clarification there

Is it true that all mayoral appointees serve at the pleasure of the mayor or is it just some and the way that's constructed is only referring to those ones for removal?

That's it.

Thanks for watching!

Councilor Trenny, I do.

I don't know.

I don't know offhand which mayoral appointments might have statutory implications.

I don't know.

However, the fact that this language is in the Bloomington Municipal Code wouldn't trump, in my opinion, any state statute that required some type of forecause.

removal.

Thank you. Though as constructed now, except for appointees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor, that's not saying...

Uh...

I guess the way it's constructed, it's not actually applying to all mayoral appointees. It's saying it only applies to those that legally serve at the pleasure of the mayor. In other words, if there's a statutory reason that they can only remove for cause, that clause would not apply to those people. Does that make sense?

Yes, I will add though also that the legal department reviewed this language

Mm-hmm.

And the strikes and edits with respect to the mayoral appointees were approved by the legal department.

The amendment.

Yes.

Yes, but no, okay

Yes.

Great. Thank you.

questions on amendment one.

Yes, Council Member Piedmont-Smith.

So.

Do I understand this correctly, that...

It would only take a majority of council members to remove any board or commission member that we have appointed for any reason.

Yes.

Any other questions?

Council Member Flaherty.

Quickly googled it and it says, for instance, planning commission members under IC 3674218 must be removed for cause by the appointing authority.

So I do it seems like there are instances in which we can't remove For any reason both the mayor and the council. I don't know offhand what all those are But I'm a little worried about the construction of this implying or giving

A future council member who reads it, the wrong impression about what's possible.

Future cuts member who reads it the wrong impression about

Yeah, I think that's really fair. I think, yeah, because particularly things like, I imagine public safety falls under that category as well, So.

We can revisit this later, I think, is, I mean, I do think that it's worth us thinking about, in many ways, we're addressing the, partially addressing the pain point by introducing the rule book, the, what do you call it? The code of conduct, sorry. So, I mean, so I'm, like I said, I think there's some strangeness, right, in the code that seems to suggest that some mayor, you know, that the mayor has the ability to remove people, put people on. This conversation that we had recently about the BZA, right, this sort of thing about, like, to what extent is council's, you know, will going to be enforced by the person who we appoint there, and whether we want some strength in doing that, or whether we say, well, you know, we have a year, we need to wait until we reappoint, or something like that. So that's sort of the mechanism here that I'm trying to get at, that I do think that council should be able to say, this is the thing that we want to see happen. And, you know, and have some teeth to appointments to the extent that we want to. And then I think to the concern that is implied by what council member Piemont-Smith said, you know, my thinking, I did debate about whether or not you want it to be, like, unanimous, or two thirds, or something like that, to remove somebody. Certainly if we revisited, like if we voted this down and revisited, I think, you know, it might be a good idea, but my sense is that, you know, to get a majority of council members to want to remove somebody, we would probably want to cause in the first place. You know, I don't think we just, I don't like them, you know, I didn't like what they were wearing, or something like that, right? Like, you know, so I think that there's a little bit of self-governance that will be there, but I do think setting the precedent that we appoint people, and the people that we appoint serve at our pleasure, just sort of felt appropriate, given how those certain appointments that the mayor makes are dealt with.

All right, thank you for that. Any other questions before we move on to public comment? On amendment one.

All right, I don't see any. So do we have any members of the public who would like to make a comment on amendment one for this ordinance, 2026-04? I don't see anybody in the audience rushing to the microphone. Anybody online?

No, no. Okay, so no comments from the public on amendment one. Any last comments from council before we move to a vote?

Council Member Flaherty.

Thank you. I appreciate that conversation. And what Councilmember Sarri said in response in particular is an interesting question of to what degree should the council's priorities influence its appointees. I think it's actually a pretty tricky question at times. I think my hunch is that the statutory requirements that folks can only be removed for cause is to grant them a degree of independence. And the Board of Zoning Appeals, for instance, is a quasi-judicial body that has a set of responsibilities. And there is probably some risk of undue.

council influence in some cases. I'm also, though, intrigued by the notion of kind of a parallel approach to the mayor if there are council appointees.

that are not statutorily required to be removed by cause only, I would be open to the possibility of. Um.

Essentially saying in those situations They might be different and we might want the ability for the council to have a little bit more of a direct line And and and with those appointees in the same way I think the mayor does with with those appointees of hers that do serve at her pleasure So I think it's worthy of revisiting. I can't support the amendment tonight But thank you for bringing it

Council Member Piedmont-Smith.

Um.

Yes, I it makes me a little uneasy to say that the council can remove somebody for.

without cause, I mean cause is kind of.

Uh...

a hazy term, but there is legal precedent to say what is just cause and what is not.

I mean, we can say, you know...

We doubt that.

Five of us would.

agree to remove somebody from some flippant reason, but you never know, and you never know who's gonna be sitting up here.

Um.

I, you know, I consider council appointees.

not really an extension of the council's will, so much as an opportunity for people in the public who have certain interests and expertise to serve the community by their service on those commissions.

Um, so.

Oh

So it does worry me that we would be giving a blank check to counsel to remove somebody. I also don't like.

The fact that in some cases the mayor has a blank check to remove somebody. So just because I don't like that doesn't mean we should make the same mistake with council appointees. So I'll be voting no. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Council Member Piedmont-Smith, Council Member Zulek, and then Council Member Asari. Yes, thank you.

I will speak in favor of this amendment just as chair of one of the interview committees and having gotten a couple different opportunities to understand the Engagement between commissioners and staff liaisons. We have had multiple circumstances even in the past year of the way that our council representatives have been interacting with members of the public and staff is completely unacceptable and This would be one of the ways in which we could

remove a commissioner for.

behavior that is just not what we would want to see represented by or in representation of the City Council. So I will be yes we do have the code of conduct but I do still believe that this is.

Unnecessary measure, so thank you.

Thank you, and President Assari.

Yeah, I was gonna say I actually think I agree with councilman Flaherty I think that I do think this is maybe something to revisit particularly again for the parallelism. Maybe we take the Same position that councilman Piedmont Smith is has put forward which is actually maybe taking out of code the fact that Some folks serve at the pleasure of the mayor, right? I mean, but I I think it's an interesting conversation and to continue to have

I was gonna say something about the code of conduct and like trying to understand. I mean, this sort of came out of a discussion with our staff and city legal where.

the question of sort of, this word is going to be too strong, but like litigation around what for cause means here and whether or not we've created a strong enough document in the Code of Conduct, I think is sort of what we're trying to get at. Again, I don't think we have some rush to deal with this, we can revisit. So I'd be happy unless there seems like some overwhelming excitement to do this, very happy to withdraw the amendment. Seeing no one, okay. Council Member Raleigh.

Councilmember Rallo.

I have a lot of trepidation, so I would, I would.

A lot of tripping.

I would be favorable if you withdrew it.

I was going to say if there was excitement, I'll withdraw the amendment so that we don't have to take too much time here.

you are making a motion to withdraw your amendment.

Do I need to do that? No, I just say it's gone.

need to do that? No. You just withdraw. I just say I withdraw. It's gone. Yeah. I give this back to you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we'll now go then to public comment on the on the proposal as as was Does anybody want to make public comment on this change to title two around boards and commissions?

from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I'm agnostic, that would be the Chamber's agnostic on this particular ordinance, but I wanted to say that the council processes, the committee on, we've been very supportive of that in that process, and one of the things they were looking into was the consolidation of boards and commissions, the Novak report, and that's one thing that this doesn't do, and we're looking for some teeth in that, that's been a priority of the Chamber that we've had the last few years that we look forward to. I know we've seen that with the Transportation Committee, but I think that was more staff-driven than it was council processes-driven, so I want to make sure that the council committee on that is continuing to look into that and making sure that the boards and commissions are serving its purpose. Are we getting something for those? It's not just lip gloss that we're doing, that we're having some substantive recommendations and getting something at this. It's not an event planner, it's actual recommendations from the public, so I just want to continue that work. I appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other comments in the room?

Seeing none, are there any comments online?

Yes, there is one.

Wonderful. Take it away, person online.

Hello, this is Jamie Scholl. I was on what's known as VGOSS, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability, and put forth the resolution for the name change to include resilience because that is something that that commission does.

Now, um.

In the previous commenter, he'd mentioned to combine.

these commissions and to look into that.

one of the things that had been suggested in that report.

Was that the Environmental Commission?

and the Commission on Sustainability be combined.

However...

anyone who knows much of the history.

of the formation of BCOS would realize that

They serve different purposes. One of the reasons I put forth the name change to include the word resilience was to help set the commission apart more clearly in the duties that it was to perform.

I just wanted to make everyone aware of that because there are many commissioners that come onto these commissions that do not have the history and knowledge and some of the words and how things were phrased in the past do not

always mesh with how things are seen in the future, or like today. So I just wanted to put that out there and thank you all for looking into all the things for the commissions and have a good evening. Thanks.

Thank you. Are there any other commenters online?

Wonderful. All right. We'll come back to council chambers. Are there any final comments before we put this to a vote?

Please Council Member Pima-Smith.

to reply to what Mr. M.G. was saying about, you know, making sure we really

incorporate the board and commission work into governance.

And I think that...

The creation of council member liaisons that are assigned to certain boards and commissions will work towards that end to really incorporate the value of the commission work.

More closely into what we do overall as a city both

here on the council and also different commissions working together on common goals.

I think we've taken a good step in creating those councilmember liaisons I in the last month I've attended meetings of two commissions that I never attended before

And I think, you know, just having those connections with council members will be a big improvement in really making the best use of our commissions to work on common goals. And of course, as sponsor of this legislation, I hope to gain your support. And this is the result of work of the Committee on Council Processes, which I continue to chair.

And I welcome you know council member sorry or others who have input into maybe future amendments to these sections of our municipal code to reach out to me and let the committee perhaps vet those changes. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Any other final comments? Council Member Romo.

Yes, I first I'd like to thank my colleague councilmember Piedmont Smith Smith for doing the work on this ordinance and I also wanted to comment actually give credit to Jamie Scholl for her work on the name change for the Commission on sustainability To become the Commission on sustainability and resilience The resolution that was that that she crafted With some input from the Commission trust and vassal chair It's on page 57 of our packet and it's very short and succinct Document and it speaks well to the necessity for that change mostly about If if we recognize we're on an unsustainable trajectory and we have affected Conditions for instance climate being one then it's incumbent on us to consider how we adapt So this is about adaptation And I think that this particular Commission is very well suited to advise City government council mayor Departments in the community at large on ways in which we can adapt and there are examples given in that Resolution and by the way, the resolution was accepted. It was passed nine to zeros unanimous

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other closing comments?

Please, Council Member Stasberg.

Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to Clerk Crosley and the Clerk's Office for working on that code of conduct. Even before I took office, there was kind of this question and some concerns about removal for cause and that concept, and so I feel like this has been kind of a long time coming, and I'm glad that it sounds like that code of conduct isn't quite in final form yet, but it's in final form enough that we can add reference to it into our code and start going through that in-action process, so thank you very much for all of that work.

That's all. Thanks.

Thank you so much. Any other comments?

All right. Well, I'll make one quick comment, which is to the people of Bloomington, there are open commission seats. Go to what's the...

website on board something something you just look on on board Bloomington something you will find it and I hope you all apply we want you all on our boards and commissions thank you very much okay let's um with that being said it do we have to do a roll call vote or can we do a voice vote with us all here it has to be a roll call in which case will the clerk please call the roll

Yes. And with your permission I'll say it's bloomington.in.gov.

Thank you very much.

Of course. Councilmember Stosbert.

Yes.

Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Asari. Yes. Daly. Yes. Rallo. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Rosenberger. Yes. Flaherty.

Yes.

Thanks for watching!

Yes.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Have a great day.

Thank you very much. Bye.

Yes.

Yes.

That motion passes, nine zero, hooray. Now moving on to the next thing on our agenda. Are there any motions?

I move that ordinance 2026-05 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only.

There's a motion and a second, any discussion?

second. Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye. All against. That motion carries. Will the clerk please read.

Ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero five to amend title two of the blooming to municipal code entitled administration and personnel To allow discussion at first readings of ordinances and to clarify the ordinance and resolution readings provisions in chapter two point zero four Synopsis is as follows this ordinance sponsored by councilmember Zulek allows debate and amendment of ordinances at first readings It also clarifies the readings and voting procedures for ordinances and resolutions

Thank you so much.

Starshow 5 be adopted.

All right, Council Member Zulek, would you like to present on it?

Yes, thank you. I believe there are several amendments that might drastically change the language. So I will just give you all a brief overview of what this legislation is for under this ordinance. Any ordinance may be debated or amended at first reading and subsequent meetings. The big change being we do not currently debate and amend ordinances at their first reading. The only circumstances under which a final vote could be taken on first reading is if all Councilmembers consent to proceed to a vote and two-thirds of Councilmembers vote in favor of the ordinance and just so everyone is aware this Change or an exception does not apply to zoning changes as dictated by state law. Happy to answer any questions.

Council Member Slasberg.

I have a few questions, but I'll start with what would the procedure be for this because right now when we're when we need to discuss something, we motion for it to be adopted. So would we have to like would there be a motion for it to be adopted?

in order to discuss it. And if there's a motion to be adopted, then.

How do we? Because because then you said that we couldn't actually take a vote unless everybody there wanted to take a vote So then would there have to be like an extra motion in there?

to actually vote on the adoption? Like, how does this work?

So that that part of the code is per state law And which we can't supersede but I believe that it would be a simple motion of I move that we continue the discussion to this next council meeting I believe is how we would handle that but

Curious to so there would be a motion to adopt then as well as a motion to introduce at first reading

too.

Yes, I believe that is correct. Does that sound correct, attorney Liener?

as Robert's rules of order are referenced in the code, there would need to be a motion to adopt a main motion in order to support the discussion. There was some, and I don't wanna speak on behalf of the committee, but.

Um, there was some support maybe for having, um, a period of, um, like presentations from staff, uh, at first readings, um, potentially discussion or questions by, by council members during first readings to, um, so if there was a motion to adopt, then I think there would need to be a motion to postpone the question unless it was voted on, postponed to, um, a date certain.

Mm-hmm.

That brings up another question.

Go ahead, Council Member Stasberg.

Have you checked in with the administration around staff time and staff presenting at first reading and how that impacts

staff who might have to be present for late night meetings that are outside their normal

We spoke about it in our scheduling meetings and.

Nobody raised an issue Let me back up. We spoke about this in our scheduling meetings with deputy mayor Knapp and legal and a couple other members from the mayor's administration, so I They are aware that this is going on and no issues were raised to either of us that I'm aware of

This wasn't addressed to me, but can I also opine on it? I mean, I guess I can just by choice, but the...

I think one of the benefits that staff sees in us being able to discuss things, well, two things first. In a second, one of the questions that you ask, I think is more clearly addressed in an amendment that I'm going to offer, which is important. But staff, from my perspective, and from the conversations I have with them.

Point of order. Yes right now if I can yeah, sorry Yeah, I was asking questions of the sponsor. Oh, okay the moment and and I'm not sure that

Yes.

Yes. Yes. President Masari. Yes.

moment.

Fantastic I'll make a general comment But later then does anybody else have have a question attorney laner go ahead

Councilmember Stossberg, I wanted to add to to your question that

Attorney Anna Holmes from the legal department participated in some of the CCP committee on council processes meetings where this was discussed. So I think there's awareness on the part of the legal department and the administration.

Thank you so much, attorney Lainer. Are there other questions for the sponsor?

Thank you so much.

All right, seeing none, there is a handful of amendments. Do you have a question? Go ahead, Council Member Stasberg. Would there be public comment?

allowed them as well.

well.

as tends to be the case we have a man that was.

That was that was a question for the sponsor if we're having Reading is their public comment allowed

if we're having discussion as first reading.

Thank you.

This a little bit. I believe we did plan on doing public comment. There are a couple different ways that we could do it but

I think if someone takes the time to show up to a city council meeting and it's on the agenda they should have the opportunity to speak on it.

Are there any other questions?

questions.

Council member Flaherty.

I'm sort of channeling conversation that did happen in the committee, of which I used to be a member, but I'm no longer a member. And I think it comes down mostly to how we operationalize this, not necessarily the code provisions, but I just did want to ask also about...

Have you all thought about

ways to kind of signal to staff, to the public, maybe with time limits, or if, let's say, there's four things we're having on first reading that night, and maybe only two of them we actually intend to discuss, like noting that in the packet in some way. I'm just trying to think about giving enough, we're adding flexibility.

And that may come at the cost of certainty or clarity for folks and basically how to balance that. So any thoughts?

that one of the things that we get caught up in a lot is that when we do try to do an amendment at second reading, we're maybe not as prepared on the fly. And so one of the reasons that we wanted to discuss things at first reading is to give ourselves an opportunity to kind of extend that timeline, especially given all of the accessibility things that are coming up. And so we'd like to be able to address that. I think to answer your question, making very, very clear expectations on how long the presentation should be and just clarifying this is how.

it's going to go, whether or not we say, all presentations are five minutes, all presentations are 10 minutes. I think.

specifying our expectations would help a lot with that.

Any other questions?

questions.

Right seeing none there are two amendments Councilmember Zula cuz I said I introduced mine first. So I'll pass over to councilmember daily and Can I can I move that we introduce amendment to them to the floor

Yeah.

Second.

and online.

Super.

Attorney Lane, are you able to put that up by chance if you have it, if not?

Does a couple of things the first thing that it aims to do is

change this, maybe don't need to characterize it, but antiquated, I don't know, position that we put the clerk in, that the clerk is to read things. So it allows for council members to read things. So I've included 2.04 to 80 as part of the considerations of what we're changing.

Here and so striking the first that section that sort of talks about how the clerk Reads those things and making that a little clearer And then trying to address the question that councilmember Stossberg brought up Outline some clear procedures for sort of how how we how a first reading goes

and then have replaced section 2.04310 with the reference to Indiana code and sort of what it would mean to adopt a resolution and what limits are placed on, I mean, I'm sorry, an ordinance on first reading and what limits are placed on that. So that is the goal of this amendment. It was, you'll note, it's a reflection of something that Mr. Askins had sent around as a suggestion with some cleaned up elements of state code references and some Titan language to take out redundancies as well. So that is the proposal here.

Thank you for that. Any questions from council for amendment two?

Councilmember Piedmont-Smith.

Yeah, I have a couple of questions. First of all, the.

I'm looking at attachment A that...

uh... went along with the amendment

The why was section B of 2.04.280 deleted, the one that says the edited synopsis shall

See you next time.

It is introduced for first and second reading. It will become part of the official record but not have legal effect of being part of legislation. Why was that?

And just because of the ongoing reference to first and second reading, it's like we don't define what reading is. We state it in this one place. And so it just felt like a nice cleanup of code. And so it just felt like a nice cleanup of code.

OK. So has it removed any mention of readings.

Yes.

Okay. Another question I have, if I may, or should I wait?

Um.

is whether you have spoken with Clerk Bolden about this since it does take away a duty of the clerk to read by title and synopsis.

Yes.

Can you elaborate as to what she said or shall we just go to her directly?

The clerk said thank you, but if the clerk would like to say that now, you're welcome to or defer from what I say you said.

Thanks for watching!

As long as, I'm sorry, just as long as, is this question referred to the clerk at this point? I think the question's referred to you, so you can answer.

as long as.

You can answer.

As I said earlier, yes, I did say thank you and I From a personal perspective. Yes, that's fine I I don't have any objection to not having to read some rather lengthy synopsis that are not so plain language as they hope to be but

I always worry about when we start removing duties from future clerks not so much from a personal perspective but I don't know that this is something that 50 years from now a city clerk is going to say darn it all. Why am I not reading the synopsis for this piece of legislation like they used to 60 years ago.

That's where I am.

I will note that striking this doesn't mean that we couldn't ask the clerk to read I mean we could make a motion that the clerk read the clerk could read I mean, there's nothing precluding that it's just saying that we're not going to require by code That that the clerk be the person who reads

And to that I again say thank you.

Okay, so there's nothing in state code that says the clerk is supposed to.

have that function.

No.

No. No. Okay.

Sorry, I didn't understand that was what you were asking before.

Well, that was...

I just wanted to make sure. It's a follow-up question.

OK.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Any other questions for president? Sorry on amendment to councilmember Stossberg

Thank you. I I feel like there's this implication here under your a during the meeting when an ordinance or resolution is reached on the City Council agenda the presiding officer shall announce the item and read aloud its title and Synopsis and after it's been announced as spelled out which is B then it's before the council for consideration

That's all for now, thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next one.

Reads as to eliminate a vote for first reading and I want to note tonight that we actually voted no on something for first reading tonight So does this in fact eliminate a vote for first reading?

No, well two things one the I mean, maybe it's a moot point but the You can dispose of things all the same there any type of procedural motion is would be valid at this point So after it's read you could say actually we don't ever want to read this and we could We could push it off one could motion that we vote for it that night and then there's the procedures to do that So this just opens it up to real procedure and not creating this like reflection of Bloomington custom, this is actually reflective of Robert's rules. We're just sort of say once once it's read it's before us and then we do what we want to do with it

But but tonight we didn't even want it read

Well, I mean, it wouldn't have. And so it wasn't red.

So it wasn't red so you're eliminating a vote that council would normally take to introduce an item

Well...

Well, I don't know if it kind of was read, because I read it in the synopsis. And in past councils, when you would just go down and read the thing, you would read the thing by title. So this notion of reading doesn't really mean all that much. What we're talking about is whether or not it's considered. And so when it's before us, you can dispose it. So tonight, you could have said, if this passed right, I would have read, OK, this thing about Hopewell, whatever. And then you would have said, hey, I motion that we table this until our March 4th meeting.

That's what would have happened. Nothing else would have changed.

but then at March 4th, then it would have been at second reading.

And on the second reading, you could say I moved that we table this to the 17th of January. There's no constraint here on your action or your ability to postpone something if that's what you want to do. You could postpone it for three meetings. This is not precluding you from doing this. In fact, it's empowering you to do it.

So if you're a member of the public right now, and you're coming to a meeting You don't know at this point whether or not it's going to be discussed or considered or eliminated or Anything because everything is on the table. So if you're a member of the public now you're having to

Mm-hmm.

Pay attention to twice as many things. Now we're having.

How is that different than now, I might ask?

Well, right now, people coming know that on first reading, we're not going to discuss it.

OK.

And so they know that there's like stability of like, okay, it's up for first reading. I I'm not gonna worry about this meeting I'm gonna worry about the next one if they want to make a comment on it

Thank you very much. Thank you.

But if this goes through, there would be like no certainty is that.

I feel like we discussed a thing today that was on our agenda for first reading.

Correct.

and people, if they came to hear us do that first reading, I think that more people would engage. I think that you would get more comments from council members. I think that you'd be able to think more actively about amendments. I think that we'd be able to get feedback from the public more actively, so that we don't have situations where when we come to second reading, it's like, oh, this is the first time that we're really thinking about this. We get a lot of opportunities to engage, and importantly, it gives the public more opportunity to engage with things. And my theory of change is that the more time that we have to deliberate on things, the better outcomes we'll see.

Any other questions on amendment two?

No more questions on amendment two. All right, anybody in chambers?

Would anybody like to make a comment on amendment to?

We have one approaching the podium. Thank you. Please remember to sign in.

Paul Rousseau.

My understanding is, well, my understanding, and I'm sorry if this is wrong, but my understanding is that.

The council is empowered to.

change its agenda at the beginning of a meeting.

and now you're proposing to allow you to pass an ordinance on first reading

Maybe I have that wrong, but my understanding is that you could change the agenda to introduce an ordinance and pass it and the public Would never know in advance

So if I'm wrong, that's good. But that's my impression right now, and I'm.

expressing concern about transparency and I suppose what I'm saying is similar to what councilmember Stasberg just said

Thank you.

Any further public comment? I see one approaching the podium.

Good evening council Dave Askins with the B square Bulletin. I think mr. Rousseau is exactly right You could do that now So this legislation Does not change that you could absolutely add an item to your agenda at the start and then That item could be an ordinance that you then decide unanimously to consider and then to pass on our two-thirds vote The same day at the same meeting. So I think it's a legitimate point But you could do that already. Thanks

Thank you very much. Anybody else in chambers who would like to make a comment on amendment two for ordinance 2026-05?

I don't see any chambers running to the podium. Any online?

All right. Wonderful. Thank you. Please go ahead whenever you're ready.

Yes, my name is Kevin Kehoe. I'm a Bloomington resident and I'm speaking in support of allowing discussion and debate along with public comment at the first reading. Last May 7th, 2025, during the first reading of a 10 million dollar transfer from the Food and Beverage tax fund to the CIB.

I believed incorrectly that there would be discussion at that first reading. That was frustrating enough, but what made it even worse was that the former controller ultimately pulled the resolution from the May 21, 2025 meeting. So not only was there confusion about the debate.

There was no debate at all.

At that time, the fiscal impact statement showed a $19.9 million fund balance and $10 million appropriation alongside bond proceeds issued going along the monthly tax. Many of us struggled to reconcile the timing and the structure of this transfer.

Reporting and that was in late April and early May of 2025 showed the redevelopment commission authorizing due diligence on the Bunger and Robertson property as the host hotel site. Fast forward and now February 2026, no land, no deal.

But when $10 million in public funds is being transferred, and the key elements like land control, project coordinations are unresolved, early and transparent discussion is critical when resolutions are not properly vetted. $10 million in public funds is being transferred,

agenda items are kept silence or resolutions are pulled, it creates confusion and it erodes public trust. Allowing discussion at first reading strengthens governance. It allows questions to be raised on the record.

early before misunderstandings grow. For that reason, I support this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other commenters online?

No. All right, no more Zoom commenters, no more in chambers. Any comments here in council? Yes, Council Member Rallo.

Let me ask a question.

Um.

Interesting discussion So I agree with mr. Kehoe that just commented That there's a there's a real benefit in utility and having discussion at first reading We used to have long long time ago In the archaeological record of the council. We had such a thing as the regularly scheduled committee the whole which would allow discussion

with no risk of adoption.

But all this has changed now and I'm in agreement with mr. Askins that we already have the power Potentially to adopt in first reading. So this doesn't doesn't fundamentally change that much however You know it is it is a good point that mr. Rousseau brings up that and at my comment my my council colleague Stasburg brings up that This power could exclude the public from having

Notice I suppose that they're going to have to be attentive to what's on the schedule for first reading in any case

Is that my I meant to ask a question council attorney is that am I?

Have I stated it correctly?

That's a correct statement, okay

Okay, all right. Thank you

Member Piedmont-Smith.

Piedmont Smith.

Yes, I also have a question. So with this amendment of

With this amendment, there is no.

Am I understanding correctly that there's no assumption that every ordinance shall be given two readings? Because that language is deleted.

Is that correct?

No, I don't think that's correct because really, the only thing that we're addressing here is removing the explicit prohibition within Bloomington code to allow us to discuss the thing. In terms of whether we can pass it, nothing changed. That's already a clear state law, right? We can today pass something on first reading by the rules that have been outlined, I think, a little bit more clearly here than at the very bottom, if you could, than we have currently in Bloomington municipal code. Oh, okay, it went away. And so really, the only thing that we're trying to structure is, are we allowed to talk about things during the first reading?

The answer we want to be yes, and and so I'm just trying with the amendment just to give a little bit more Expectations for maybe how that might go to deal with the very first question that councilmember Stasberg asked on when When councilmember Zulek made made their presentation it's This is empowering. It's I mean there's it gives people an opportunity to comment earlier in the process Again to address what councilmember Rallo was saying as well

I think that currently we could have something on our agenda for second reading, ask no questions, have no debate, and still pass it. And so this does give an opportunity for people to contribute to the process earlier on. And again, for us to have discussions, both with staff, with each other, so we all can sort of live in the same reality. Like it's, I think, really useful, right? And do more of our work in the open, so.

Councilmember Flaherty.

I said it.

and just to be clear, I'm.

Broadly supportive of the ordinance and discussing things at first reading and all that the question is specifically to the amendment I'm still wrapping my head around a process point a little bit, which is that?

No motion is made when we get to the things and read them. Is that right? So no motion has been made me just sort of Right or into right so from a Roberts perspective I'm like not understanding like you can't move to table an item or postpone to a date certain if there's not a main motion

Upon which to make that subsidiary motion. So you can't move to postpone something to the next regular session If it hasn't been introduced in the first place, so that's the piece I'm struggling with understanding I guess

Right and and and this this you know, and maybe maybe a maybe a weakness But I'm I think that I think the assumption that I make is that When it is it's here on our agenda. It's it's already I mean It's before us to be considered and then whether what we want to do is dispose of it fine We want to move it like it's already like the the additional sense of let this now be before us like once It was on our agenda. It is before us

Mm.

Okay. Yeah, still a question for me from, like, a procedural legitimacy standpoint of that perspective, but I do understand what you're saying. Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other comments or last questions? Council Member Stossberg.

I'm

I have a I have a comment Once again speaking trying to narrow this just to the amendment itself Which as councilmember Flaherty just stated it it eliminates that need for emotion as I asked earlier It eliminates that need for emotion or introduction what councilmember sorry just said is that

Like, he's starting with the assumption of going, well, if it's on the agenda, then it's been introduced. And I'm gonna go back to something I said earlier, which is that the president.

Fixes the agenda that's like one of the responsibilities of the president to set the agenda and if then the president is also Introducing something then I think that that gives I think that that yields too much Power essentially to one person the president to to add it to the agenda and then to introduce it and and say It's gonna be considered because lots of other places in our code Like it gives power to the to the body as a whole whether or not we're going to consider something

To have the president put it on the agenda and then to have the president read it aloud Introducing it without any kind of motion on counsel of counsel. I

Dislike that from a procedural standpoint from the fact that like as a body I mean the president is the president, but they don't have any more power really More than any other council member does we each should have you know, we're all in equal vote but doing it this way, I think it gives the president kind of Additional power in a way that makes me kind of deeply uncomfortable and especially given tonight where where you know The majority of us said no we're not gonna gonna introduce this thing because of a procedure for how it was placed onto the agenda in the first place and That part of code which specifically says like council as a body

Can can change something about that that deadline for submissions? And so what we did as a body tonight was change something about that deadline for submissions Like I mean really we enforced what was in code about it But you know we called it out and we said that's problematic And so I think as a body we should still be able to call out things like that So I will be voting against this amendment this evening. Thank you

Council member, sorry.

I don't think that, again, that something is red in this room doesn't have any, you know. I don't think that, again, that something is red in this room doesn't have any, you know.

significance, that it's when we make some type of an action for that thing, that thing has significance. And so the sort of idea that the president, I mean, I don't really care who reads the thing, but it's like the president, I mean, I do have issues with the clerk reading it because of colonialism. But the idea that it being read now suddenly, we're forced, we're now forced to do something that we weren't forced to do before. I just don't understand because we have the opportunity to do anything that you would have done anyways with this. The main thing is that it gets us quicker to the discussion so that we're not having to spend all this time in procedure. Which again, I mean, if you all like, it's fine, but it's like, that's the main thing. I don't see the weight in saying that, okay, now here's this thing, what do you all wanna do with it? The person who said, what do you all wanna do with it does not have more power than the people who get to do something with it. So just saying that, but.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Piedmont-Smith.

Allow me to ask a question.

Allow me to answer.

I know we're actually in comments, but...

Yes, go ahead.

Sorry, this is a very different way for my old brain to think about this after 15 years of doing it one way.

So.

After the item has been announced and read by the presiding officer it says in the amendment the ordinance or resolution is before the council for consideration.

But under Roberts, don't you need a motion to adopt before something is before a body for consideration.

does.

Do you know the answer? Yes. Or maybe our attorney knows the answer.

Yes, I believe there would need to be a motion to adopt first.

So is this so I question the language here that it's before the council for consideration just after having been read.

Councilmember sorry

So right now, when we do first readings, we make a motion that it be read by title and synopsis, right?

reading.

That does nothing. So at the beginning of a meeting now, if I were to, during summation of our schedule, read the thing by title, has it been read?

Is it being considered? What's happening to that thing? I'm just saying it's on the agenda, right?

The Motion to Adopt.

is customarily what we do here to signal that we can now discuss whether or not we're going to adopt it.

Here, we're just saying that once, once, it's here.

we have an opportunity that we can choose to act on or not to discuss it if we want to. That's all, that's what we're saying. And so we're just getting to the point of where council can take some type of an action just a little bit faster. Like that's really the thing. Like they're removing a little bit of the ceremony of this to get to the meat of the action is what we're trying to do.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Any other comments or questions? Council Member Ruff.

I was wondering if Councilmember Sari's recent comments.

Made councilmember Sasberg feel any different about

This legislation, but specifically when when councilman stuff so we gave the example of what we did earlier tonight where 72 vote to not adopt Introduce would still happen

I was just wondering if Councilmember Stosberg wanted to elaborate or to follow up.

If anything, council member Asari has said, it's changed my mind.

What?

if it made you feel any.

Maybe not all the way change your mind made you feel a little differently or a little better about

or a little less, like this is a little less risky.

No, honestly. I mean, I.

I think that there's some real, I have real concerns with like generally speaking of amending code in haphazard ways.

Ends.

I mean...

I recall several discussions where there were comments about how long our meetings are and our meetings are too long. Well, this is going to make meetings a whole lot longer.

Honestly because there's

The give the amendment. I mean, I'm trying to stick with the amendment But like there there'll be this this whole unknown about well the president read it the presiding officer read it now What do we do?

And I paused there long for a reason, because I can just imagine, OK, now what do we do? And yeah, maybe you could have a whole new routine. But I mean, and if. And if.

It is not spelled out in here.

I don't think in the amendment anywhere about two readings for ordinances, but I think that that is something that's generally spelled out in state code Right and so simply reading it

is introducing it for the first time.

In a night like tonight, even if we didn't want to dispose of it, you know, like like it it just necessitates a whole lot more steps I don't think that it makes it simpler. I think it makes it more complicated I think that it takes away power from the body in a way that makes me uncomfortable and I I also Have some of those same concerns that councilmember Flaherty brought up in terms of you know Is that before for consideration and in terms of the clerk not reading it? I don't see anywhere where code actually says the clerk has to read it

We motioned for the clerk to read it.

but I think that we could motion for anybody to read it.

I mean, point it out to me if it says somewhere in code that it does say in code somewhere that the clerk has to read it.

uh...

4.300 be at the reading of an ordinance the synopsis shall be read and the clerk shall read the ordinance by title only Provided there's unanimous consent

Oh, there's the clerk.

But that is still crossed off in the regular, in the ordinance itself, not just in this amendment, right?

Is it I'm having to switch between way too many screens to go between the amendment and

Yeah, so even in the original ordinance, not just in the amendment, that is taken out.

No, there it is. The city clerk shall read it. Okay

I still think that there's another way to do that if that is a concern and I I just I know Short answer. I think councilmember Ruff is that no it hasn't changed my mind or alleviated my concerns

Council Member Zulek, comment or question, please. Thank you.

Actually, well, I guess I have a comment and then a is that correct counsel attorney later that kind of question

Um, my understanding of this legislation is that when we get to a

portion of the agenda, the president would then read that.

line item and the synopsis out, and then we would still be under obligation for the parliamentarian or whoever to motion to adopt, and we would still need a second. Council Attorney Lanner, is that correct?

Yeah, I think that's something to be determined. Right now, there's also the motion.

really to introduce and read as well.

I don't know that that's any place in the Bloomington Municipal Code.

And it's not an Indiana state law.

either. So, you know, maybe this is part of a practice that, that council would want to

that continue as a part of this.

Understood. I will conclude my comment by saying I will support this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Any Council Member Flaherty? Yes.

Keep going on this bit. So back to the point about procedural kind of like legitimacy around like having a main motion with which to then do something with, postpone to a later date, indefinitely, et cetera. The main motion could maybe be the motion to adopt rather than the motion to introduce. And are we saying that we'll read the thing and to move any farther than like just reading it requires a motion to adopt? Like we cannot have a staff presentation without a motion to adopt. We cannot have discussion, debate, questions, public comment without a motion to adopt.

Is that?

consistent with.

both our attorney's understanding as well as what the sponsor of the amendment intends.

I defer to councilmember Asari on on this type of procedural question because he drafted the

I don't know that these are purely legal questions.

Yeah, that's fair, thank you. I wouldn't, so to the second part of your question about whether or not we require a motion to adopt in order to move on to all of the things that we would usually do, no, I don't think so. I think that actually that disconnecting of those two things is useful, that it's like we can discuss a thing without having any intention to adopt a thing, but again it's not, it's not assuming that anything will take place other than.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

the thing gets read. That's the only assumption. Now, I take Council Member Stasberg's point. I mean, we could amend this amendment and actually just say that there has to be a motion for it to be read. I mean, I think that that, you know, adds, again, a necessary element of, but it's a small element. But yeah, I mean, the point here is that the only assumption that is made about what council is going to do is that the things on the agenda will be read.

And that's it, and then we will do what we want to do with it thereafter.

Any other comments? Council Member Rosenberger.

this wrapping my mind around it I where I am I know this about the amendment okay I like the ordinance I think though

I mean, I know this has been kind of asked, but like, how would tonight's?

Meeting happened with the PUD if we don't vote on introduction

Question for you.

Thank you. I think the way that it would go would have been like this We would have got to it and I would have said now we have ordinance 2026 to amend the city of bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property from residential urban lot and residential multifamily And then I would have said is there any motion and then you all would have gone we moved to for example postpone

And then we would have said, there's a motion. Is there a second? Somebody would have gone, second. And we said, discussion. And then you all would have been like, I hate council members, sorry. And I would have been like, ah, I'm sorry. And then after all that, right, the same thing would have taken place. You all would have voted, and then we would have moved on.

All right, thank you.

So.

Nothing would have changed except for we would have got to that point just a little bit faster, just a little.

Okay, I thank you. I think a little bit of my hesitancy in this amendment is that I think this council already has like

It's a kind of predetermined that we're gonna introduce for the most part right like twice in this term has something not been introduced Right, and I think it is a very effective tool for the council as a whole to use for legislation that isn't ready I mean because the beauty

Thank you for watching!

right, like twice as.

Right.

Two people thought it was ready, seven thought it was not.

I think it feels harder to.

Um.

I guess I think it feels a little harder for someone to make the move to say, like, I don't want to.

Motion to adopt this but probably you might say to me it's the same as saying I don't want to introduce it

Is that?

Yes.

I guess I just want to make sure. I just feel like.

Well, actually, I actually have a question that for council attorney Lainer that might clarify a little bit of this tension. If is there is there a procedure by which let's let's say that something was on our agenda and we don't necessarily want to vote it down but we want to like we just we don't want to vote on the thing we want it to be reintroduced. So with a PUD as an example we say look we're not going to vote for this as it is on us. Can we send it back to someone before it comes back to us like is that an action that we can that we can take or or does that trigger some type of you know our inability to make amendments as an example.

So in your scenario.

or using today's scenario, right? Does us not introducing the thing fundamentally change how we can interact with it between now and March 4th? Is that thing going to be different the next time that it gets scheduled?

this.

I think as president, you would have the ability to put the matter on the agenda again at an upcoming meeting.

and do the same process and do the same process.

And do the same process right but so but but does that give does that give us as a body any new? abilities that we wouldn't have had like it was is that Indistinguishable from had we had we have just said we don't want to do second reading because we could have motioned to say Let's reschedule second reading to the time when we'll have second reading and assume and presumably You know the end of March Does what we did today have any? Different impact then for example just rescheduling a thing

postponing a second reading.

A second reading?

No, I think that they're similar.

So that's my argument, Council Member Rosenberger, is that it's symbolic. It's great, yay. But it didn't actually do. There was no difference from, well, let me say it this way. We could have taken a lot of other procedural motions that would have done the exact same thing, given us more time, pushed it off, whatever we wanted to do, said things about Council Member Sari, whatever. All of that would have been the same. And this preserves our ability to do that. In fact, I think, puts that in the forefront. So we don't just go through. It's like, yes, we read it, we don't read it.

Can I just follow up on that? Is that okay? Oh, thank you. Yes.

Okay, so how I was talking about, like, I think, you know, this body tends to say, like, well, the people are here, so we want to hear from everybody. So then if people are here at first reading.

and we want to table something, but we're like, well, staff is here and 10 people are here, then I think it's much less likely that we will.

though not to introduce or not to adopt, than we would if we were, because tonight nobody was here and left because they knew that we weren't talking about it. So I do also just want to be clear that I think this is a good idea, but the motion to introduce feels important to me.

Thank you. Thank you.

Council Member Stossberg and then Council Member Piedmont-Smith.

I was like...

But if I could because I think that there really is a difference and I think that it does change it and one of the Ways that it changes it is that once something is introduced Then it cannot be changed except by an amendment what we did tonight by not introducing it Means that it could potentially come back differently and I think that there is potentially a legal question out there that Does it need to be presented exactly the way it was presented a plan commission like mess-ups and all?

because I've been wondering that over the last week.

You know and I and our staff has not even I don't think had the time to Like I have not wanted to engage them in that question because it's a legal research question that I knew that they did not Have the time for it because of how it was pushed through so it it does Fundamentally change it because once you've introduced it you are stuck with it exactly like that Unless you actually have an amendment

Then and then you have to go through the whole amendment process which is a process and secondly it changes it because it's had the first Reading which means that the next time it's read. It could be second reading

and it could just get barreled on through.

And that is exactly what I wanted to prevent tonight.

was something getting pushed on through with the speed of lightning. So I think that it is a substantive change and difference.

I'm

I have a question. Sorry to keep on with the questions, but.

This is a question for somebody who has a good understanding of Robert's rules.

So.

Councilmember Sari, Council President Sari said.

We don't have to have a motion to adopt an item of legislation in order to discuss that item of legislation. Is that correct? Because I thought we did have to have such a motion.

I think there would need to be a motion to adopt some type of main motion then that would support the discussion.

Okay. So once something if this amendment and then the ordinance is passed.

if both are passed, so something is on the agenda, the presiding officer reads it, there would have to be some kind of motion, either a motion to adopt, a motion to postpone.

motion to table indefinitely some something before we could proceed to.

do anything else. Is that correct?

Yes, I believe that's.

true.

I, well, then.

So I'll have a question then would would it be possible to then say motion to discuss would that be?

doable.

I mean, we're not, you know, it feels like we're coming down to semantics right here, like we're arguing about.

finding a different word for the same exact thing. I think we're getting stuck on this issue. So anyway, my suggestion would be motion to discuss. I don't know if that's allowable.

My suggestion.

Yeah, and as a suggestion, maybe it would help to lay amendment two on on the table and discuss amendment one.

Um.

Amendments one and two are mutually exclusive. So I think There's the option of adopting amendment

two or amendment one or or none of them.

But you might want to discuss amendment one before making a decision with respect to amendment two

Just a suggestion.

We can discuss amendment one, but in terms of that language and the.

virgin end.

and then the two first things.

Right, but I'm just putting it out there that like, it will be the same. That specific portion that we're talking about is the same in my amendment, so I've

I mean, the substance is slightly different, but that is pretty similar.

All right.

Any comments, questions, motions?

All right.

I think we've reached the end of the conversation on this one. So with that being said, would the clerk please call the roll on amendment two for ordinance 2026-05. I believe this one is.

No, because of colonialism.

Councilmember Piedmont Smith

I'm sorry.

No.

Zulek? Yes.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Thanks for watching!

Daly? Yes. Rallo? Yes.

Yes.

Breath.

Yes.

Rosenberger? No.

Plarity.

Nope.

Stasberg.

Oh, sorry, no.

Something

So did that.

Yes, 5-4.

Passed 5-4. OK, thank you. I got turned around, which one it is. And it was with pleasure I turned this back over to you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that amendment carries five four we are now back to public comment for the For what's the what is the number here? 2026-05 as amended We'll now go to a time of public comment if anybody would like to make comment on the The ordinance as amended you now have time to do so you have three minutes as before Write your name say your name

And

We will recognize you moving to count in chambers first. I see two here and then we'll go online.

Good evening, Dave Askins with the Beescar Bulletin. I just wanted to address what I think is a legitimate concern about, say, what could have happened tonight to have done the will of the council.

I think the will of the council was Twofold well is to send a message to two people one to the mayor and two to the council president We didn't want this on the agenda. So how do you send that message if this? Passes and I think the way you do it is you recognize that there's many main motions that can come After it's announced and one of those motions could be or could have been tonight

I move that we not consider this legislation to have been introduced.

So you've declared this has not been introduced, which means that it can't be adopted.

two meetings after its next actual introduction.

Right? So, just, I mean the fact that you've considered it tonight, or, I mean this is hypothetical. If it had come before you and you'd said, okay, we don't like this, but that still counts as an introduction, because it was read. I think any reasonable person would say, well yeah, that's how you guys do that. But if you explicitly say, we move to consider this not having been introduced, well then, even if it's on the agenda the next time, and then the time.

Well, I think...

I think I've made the point. I think you have the flexibility to have made the point that you wanna make tonight, even in this new scheme. Thanks.

Hey, I'm Greg Alexander. I just wanted to say I'm appreciative of this effort, and thank you for all having it. I do see steady stream of people standing where I'm standing, confused by this issue, and I think it'll really move things along. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in council chambers?

See one person coming, people online, you can get ready if you have a comment. Ms. Rousseau, take it away.

All right.

Um.

If you have any questions or other problems, please post them in the comments below.

I think I'm of reasonable intelligence, so if I'm confused, there are probably other people confused. It seems to me that the way, if this passes...

And then the situation that occurred tonight happened.

Two people could simultaneously raise their hands quickly. One person wants to.

make a motion to have not considered, and the other one wants to make a motion that has considered, and who would be the person recognizing the hand first? It would be the president.

It's not a good look.

Thanks.

anyone online.

Wonderful.

Good evening, Jamie Scholl here again.

I've been started attending council meetings about 15 years ago and I've seen the discussion or heard the Discussions and sometimes was in the room there when they took place of changing things and it's again

talking about changing.

There's been a lot of, this is just stepping back and looking because I don't attend every meeting live.

Um

There's a lot of time spent on figuring out processes, and it seems like there's a lot more time spent now than there was when there was Committee of the Whole.

And as a member of the public who has been involved in advocacy.

for quite a long time.

I find this very confusing and do miss the conversations that did happen previously.

Granted, I'm in the public. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes and how difficult that is For staff and for council members But I just thought I would put that out there giving some perspective from from the public. Thanks

Thank you so much. Second person online.

Yeah, this is Kevin Keough again. I just want to reiterate what I talked about earlier, that May 2025, May 7th, that resolution was not ready.

It was a lot of questions about just the math.

And the thing is, it was out there.

and the fact that you couldn't even talk about it at that first reading. And even tonight, you know, the...

the whole beginning of this meeting discussion about the PUD.

Obviously, it could be done better.

My hope is that there would be...

debate about what the substantive issues are.

and what we are trying to accomplish. That issue a year ago was, it's still, it's.

It's still...

festering you know because it's specifically about that host hotel and the negotiations about how to get that host hotel going and how are they going to finance that whole project and it's a year later and it's still not resolved.

A lot of good discussion could have happened then.

a year ago. And now we're in the situation with this PUD, something that needs to be efficiently and effectively dealt with. At the same time, it needs to be transparent. And that's the other...

problem I'm seeing the public needs to be aware of these complex issues and how they're being addressed and how they're being planned out and so anyway that's my my point and yeah I know you guys are frustrated I just want to say that the public shares in your frustration Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any other commenters online?

No.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room?

Seeing none, we'll come back to council for any comments or further questions.

Council Member Stasberg.

And now I'm certainly opposed to the ordinance as a whole. I.

I think that we've potentially talked about it enough, but I think that there are some real potential procedural gaps I think that there's some real problems with the fact that we just eliminated first readings and Just something is going to be read into the record without any vote or consideration of whether or not it should be read into the record and then we are stuck with it that way unless it gets formally amended even if it's Problematic piece of legislation and I'll just go back to that and say I think that that's incredibly problematic I think that it makes it much more confusing for the public in terms of what procedure it is that they're going to follow because The way this is spelled out right now is there's no actual guarantee that the public would be able to have public comment During this period because it all depends on what motion it is that some council member decides to do and so it does not add Inconsistency for the public it adds incredible inconsistency to the public it this does not feel

well-planned or organized at this point, and I...

I think.

Once again, if we're gonna change procedure like fine, but we actually have to change to something as opposed to just going Oh anything will go We can just do whatever because then whatever might not actually be particularly inclusive at all and it might actually

end up being less transparent, less clear, and people might not know what on earth they're doing. So I will be a no vote on this tonight. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there other comments? Council Member Rosenberger.

I am bummed about losing the motion to introduce. I think we would still be talking about the PUD tonight.

I mean without it now it looks like we could move into a staff presentation without anyone in council saying otherwise.

Mm-hmm.

I would like to I guess just urge you as president to please follow the procedures with the 10-day Documents to our staff before a meeting

Thank you so much. Other comments?

Thank you.

Please council member Piedmont-Smith.

I think that increased flexibility for the council means increased confusion for the public

Thank you.

Any other comments? Councilmember Aurello.

Um, well, um...

My primary interest in this was to allow some discussion debate in the first reading which formerly happened in the committee of the whole process which was a Anathema to certain members of the council and in terms of its legitimacy I suppose I think if I was reading it correctly, however it it did provide a Discussion with that risk of adoption. I suppose a lot of the Trepidation on the part of my colleagues notably councilmember Stasberg is an abuse of this So I'm I'm sort of on the fence in right right now in this just simply because I Would like this council not to be divided in its proceed in its discussion or its determination of procedure There's a deep divide in this right now you know so If anyone has anything else to illuminate

Not a-

Please.

Proceed thanks councilmember Zulek and then councilmember Flaherty

Thank you. I plan on supporting this all I will say is I think there is a line

between open dialogue and being disrespectful. And I just encourage everyone to remember that we're all doing what we think is best for the city of Bloomington, and sometimes that looks different, but we are still all doing our best. So, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Flaherty.

Thanks, I think I will support the ordinance because I support the concept of the ordinance as a whole I am Concerned about what follows from the amendment the past

Um.

Believe councilmember sorry did did say that no no motion to adopt would be required to move into presentation from staff, etc So I think tonight we would have heard a presentation on the PUD. I think that's what would have happened

Um.

I don't think it would have been in order for someone to...

make a motion to postpone because that's a subsidiary motion to a main motion and there is no main motion anticipated now to move into substantive discussion of the ordinance.

him.

So I'm just legitimately still confused from a procedural perspective of like how this will function like how

Is it just we're gonna discuss it for a while and then when the council president says it's over it's over and we'll do it Again another time when there's a motion to adopt or are we actually gonna make that motion to adopt every single time?

If we are, like including at first reading, then.

I...

Kind of there's there's no way to accomplish what we did tonight because a vote a no vote on that motion to adopt would mean That it is that it fails So it's I do feel like we've lost something with the with the loss of a motion to introduce Still sorting it out. I mean, I'm like pretty from a procedural perspective. That's it. Like I said, I'm gonna vote for the ordinance We're gonna try it out. We can make adjustments in the future if we need to I want to do some more reading of Rosa procedure to

dig further into some of those questions also.

Thank you.

I see a couple of comments, so we'll first go to council.

And Councilman Rosenberg, do you have your hand up or?

No, you don't. Okay, sorry. Councilmember Daley.

Thank you. I just want to say I am excited to vote for this. I think many of you have heard me long.

Thank you, I just.

bemoan the fact that we don't have a longer runway for discussion on a lot of these topics.

and I think that this can only be helpful and be more enlightening and greater opportunity to draw the public into the conversations. So this is, in my opinion, a good move, and all it's doing is just giving us greater runway for learning about these.

you know, sometimes the thornier topics and having a better understanding and grasp of them.

Thank you so much, Council Member Rosenberger.

Question and it might not be relevant, but it's about

When can we bring a vote back like tonight like.

I just, I mean, I don't know if anyone would even want to, but you know how sometimes you can say I want to, I miss voted and I want to vote, re-vote, you know?

I mean, I don't.

There's a provision in Title II that says that, and clerk can correct me or attorney liner can correct me, that says that votes can be revisited or something. It says something to that extent, but I can't remember if it people who had voted no or people who voted yes who can initiate it or something to that extent.

It's one of, yes, it's something like that.

I think it's entitled to somewhere.

But I do just we can well that's getting looked up. I do plan to support this as it is because I Feel like I started this term saying I'm up for trying new things, you know

And I do want to be supportive of that, but I agree with a lot of people up here that not having a motion to introduce is getting us into sticky situations and one public commenter said we can do it a different way. Just do this. Do that. But that is incredibly hard. Like I talked about before, especially if we roll right into presentations that everyone here thinks it's just like anticipating that that is going to be what we're doing.

Yeah.

Other comments? I was going to make a couple of comments. I think the first off, I agree with most of the things said, particularly the concerns first off around the president reading it. I'll be completely honest. When I was writing that, I wasn't thinking about the fact that I am president. But it does become, I think, a little interesting. And I think Mr. Rousseau raised an interesting point about if I then get to decide who gets to talk next and know who's for it, I do think that's something we should maybe address here in the future. I also think that that overlaps with the question of doing council sponsors, for example. So I think what we might do is, if there's interest, I mean, it's something we could think about doing is introduce those Title II changes to require that everything has a council sponsor. And here you could say the council sponsor would be the person to read it. Secondly, I think I've talked a lot, wrote legislation last year to this extent that was never put on the agenda around removing a lot of the procedural things that we've put in code and making a rule book for ourselves. And one of the ways that we could address some of the concerns here is by coming up with some norms. We could say, for example, that we don't want to have presentations the first day, or that there's some mechanism that we could use to call for when we're going to have presentations and when not.

I also think that we should come up with some rules about how we do public comment in first session. Like, is it just gonna be general public comment? Is there a particular way that we'd like public comment to be done during the sort of first time that something is discussed in council? Again, though, I think that this is taking a step in order to be able to start to address those things. I mean.

Yeah, so so so I'll just I'll just I'll just say that I I do think that it puts again an opportunity for us to bring Some other things forward I think to fix it But and I will also say to councilman Rosenberger's point I do think one of the things also that's been illustrated in this conversation is why maybe past councils that we should ask Councilmember Rallo if you remember but why past councils have Outlined what motions are appropriate at certain times, right? So that we don't spend all of this time discussing whether or not can we do that motion is that allowed? Is this the type of thing? So, you know, we'll be able to you know, see see how this goes But assuming that it passes but um with that if there's no other comments Okay councilmember Rallo then councilmember Stasberg

I'd like to make a motion.

I would like as a as a vote in the majority for amendment to I'd like to move reconsideration of

And the two.

Is this how it works, council attorney?

MC right now and this is in section two dot zero four dot 460 motion to reconsider When any question has been decided in the affirmative or negative any member voting with the majority May move a reconsideration of the vote before adjournment

Concurrence of a majority of the members present shall be sufficient to order reconsideration of a vote.

If a motion to reconsider is defeated, it shall not again be entertained.

Okay. So council member Rallo second.

Order we need to establish concurrence of a majority of members. I believe right. It's more than just a second. That's required, correct

Point of order.

Yes.

There's a motion. So are people in favor of a reconsideration of the vote to adopt Amendment 2 to Ordinance 2026.05?

All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, say aye.

aye. So that motion carries 7-2. So we will now reconsider. Now in terms of unusual things, this is fun.

Holden is shaking her head about the vote.

Thank you. Please.

It was a voice vote.

Should we do should we do a okay fantastic. Oh the eyes have it. Sorry. Yeah Question now procedurally do we now get to what do we do? We we just revote or is it just open again for discussion attorney later

I would go through the process of reconsidering and discussing it.

Okay.

So we're back on it. If anybody has a comment, you can make it now. Otherwise, we'll reconsider the vote.

Council Member Zulek and then, I'm sorry, Clerk Bolden. Go ahead.

request a brief.

test.

a brief recess.

A brief recess? Yes please.

Okay, there's been a request for a recess. Is there anybody opposed?

Okay, we'll take a five minute recess. Sufficient. Okay, we'll take a five minute recess back at 9.20.

daily.

No.

Rough.

No.

Rosenberger.

clarity.

No.

Stasberg no and Piedmont Smith

All right. The noes have it. So now we're back to the main issue, the main ordinance twenty twenty six oh five that has not been amended.

Would we like to go to publish would anybody like to make a public comment on ordinance 2026 oh five

Is there anyone online who'd like to make a public comment on 2026-05?

All right. No, there is? No. No? Fantastic. We're back to council. Would anyone like to make final comments?

Council Member Stasberg.

Thank you.

I do think that this is much better without the amendment on it, but I still am concerned that it is You know, I asked questions about things like are we gonna allow public comment? How is that gonna work? Are we gonna have staff presentations? How is that gonna work? And You know, once again, I'm also like I'm okay with the with the idea of changing things But I feel like it's putting the cart a little before the horse council members Mentioned title to stuff that he had put together last year that never got put on the agenda and to be clear about that that was

I really don't think that you can just cross things out without also saying what you're gonna do instead. Like you need to have a plan of what is going to happen if you're going to get rid of what used to happen. And that was that issue last year, it's like okay, like yeah, I think that we could maybe move some of these rules out of Title II and put them into some kind of administrative manual, but then you have to write the administrative manual. And I think that that administrative manual needs to be written before you get rid of the things in Title II. So this is one of those situations, it's like yeah, am I generally okay with the idea of having discussion at first reading? Yeah, do I think that there's the possibility that it could make meetings last a whole lot longer? Also, yeah.

Because I think that there's this, you know and having been on Plan Commission, you know when we have two hearings for something that might be particularly controversial and then it might get sent to council and What you have is you have the same people giving public comment at both of the Plan Commission hearings and then coming to council and now we're having a fourth meeting and I'm not Trying to eliminate public comment at all but you get the same comments over and over from the same people and that just ends up being tedious and not

Helpful necessarily when you have that kind of repetition. So do I have a problem having public comment at first reading? No, but I have a concern about having too much duplicative Public comment that isn't a good use of anybody's time including the person who's coming to comment because as Council members like weed I listen the first time you say it

Right, I don't need to hear it three or four times, like I hear it the first time, I promise. Okay, doesn't mean I agree with you, but I hear it and I listen and I consider it. So I have a concern about that. I similarly have a concern about having lengthy debates like we had tonight more than once.

And I think that without some kind of procedure in place, I think that this is a little bit bulky. So I feel like I could support it if some of those other questions were already answered or if it had something in it, like we're gonna give ourselves a few months to figure those things out. Because I'll tell you, it's gonna take some time to figure those things out. Next regular scheduled meeting is in two weeks. If we pass this, then at that meeting in two weeks, we're gonna have to have some of these things sorted out. And we just went through a whole kind of discussion about how busy our council staff are, how busy we are as council members. So if those questions aren't fleshed out already, are those gonna be fleshed out in the next two weeks? So that's why I'm gonna be voting no on it, even though I do think that it's better as it is, and I'm overall generally okay with this idea of discussing it first readings. But I don't think that there's enough clarity. I also, I'll come back to the clarity for the public as well in terms of what they're walking into. And I do think that it's better, because at least it does say right up front, we're gonna be giving these two readings still for the public. So hopefully they realize like, okay, they might talk about it at the first reading, but they're not gonna act on it at the first reading unless something really unusual happens. But I think that it does give the public less certainty and more confusion. So that's why I'm not gonna be supporting this tonight. Thanks.

Awesome. Thank you. Are there any other comments?

Councilmember Rosenberger.

Hey thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to council leadership for bringing this ordinance. It feels like it did take a while to get it ready. A lot of nuts and bolts in there. I am excited to try it and president sorry what you said a few minutes ago about we could do this or we could do that or you know those were exciting to me about we could say presentations or no presentations or only questions or you know I like all of that possibility. So I'm excited. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Piedmont-Smith.

Yeah I'm in favor of this legislation. This is something that we talked about on the committee and council processes and we didn't delve too deeply into the logistics of you know would we have time limits would we have public comment.

We did acknowledge that those things would have to be worked out, but we did not make

Any firm recommendations on them? I I think that

those are questions that do need to be worked out, and we don't need to create an administrative manual that has everything we need in it right away.

we could start with this and say, OK, Chapter 1, how do we handle legislation at first reading? And how is that different from second reading? And that's something that leadership could work on. That's something that the Committee for Council Processes could work on.

I do agree with councilmember Stossberg that it's important to for all of us and the public to have an understanding on how first readings will be run so that people know how to participate and that so that city staff know what to prepare so that we don't sit here until midnight for first reading and second reading but I I think that we can work those things out and I'm happy to.

help work those things out as well. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any other comments? Council Member Barallo.

Just to say I'm case in point. I appreciate the deliberation discussion this evening or else I would not have reversed my vote on amendment to I think that this idea of a discussion on first reading is

can have a Real benefit because it is a way to get acquainted with matters that you might not you might be assured that you understand, but perhaps you don't and But it is in that sense Very much like the old way we used to do it So I think that this is has will be a great better likelihood of being a benefit than a having an adverse Outcome, so I'll be supporting it

Thank you so much. Are there any other comments?

Alright, seeing none.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Yes. Councilmember Asari.

Yes.

daily.

Yes.

Rollo, yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty

Yes.

rest.

Yes.

Yes.

Stasberg.

No.

Piedmont Smith.

Yes.

Zulek. Yes.

Fantastic that motion carries eight one. Thank you so much that concludes the time of legislation for Second readings we now move to the second best part, which is the second best time of public comment Thank you all for being here this long if you have another public not another you can only comment once but if you have public comment that and you did not make a Public comment during the first session of public comment now is your chance You have three minutes if you could kindly sign in and state your name for the record or an alias. That seems great And folks online same thing will acknowledge you next people in the room. Go ahead

Hello, my name is Greg Alexander. I'm gonna go a little bit off of my usual beat. I usually come to you and talk about transportation policy and how urgent that is and how ineffective the processes that happen in this room are. Today I'm gonna try to confront one of the challenges you face in getting anything done. I'm just gonna put the punchline at the top.

You need to disband economic and sustainable development. I know. It's nothing about the people there. I've had people there I liked and people I didn't like, and it's been the exact same behavior across two administrations. It's just structurally a bad department. You all know my beef. It's a pro-car department in City Hall. Of course, I'm opposed. They think of cars as a fundamental tool for economic development. You know, that's not what the planners say, but that's what they say. They cheerlead for parking garages. Deep down, they don't believe that cyclists and pedestrians spend money, and they think that I'm less of a human being than other people, and I can tell that. I assume you guys can tell that, but I don't like it because of that. So that's just me.

I think you ought to care about why they act that way. I'm just going to be very direct.

This is the Department of Mayoral misconduct. The mayor meets with a stakeholder behind closed doors and works out a deal and then uses the staff at ESD to sell that deal to you guys. This is, they've run this game, I've watched it happen 10 times. It's always ground zero if the administrator, if the administration is going to ignore or violate the law, you're gonna see ESD there. I'm sorry.

This is a department with no clear directive. They have no area where they have actual authority or expertise. It always overlaps with other departments, inexorably because of how it's designed. But it's insular. They don't talk to other departments. They don't talk to subject matter experts, and they don't honor the planning documents that you all pass.

They also ignore the organizers that this body passes. We all saw that two weeks ago. It's a department that we don't need.

So I know how I sound, you know, you're not gonna cancel a million dollar apartment. It's a big business, you know, it's a number of staff members, just because I said so, I mean, right, like, obviously. I'm here to ask you to do something I hope you can do. Next time, standing at this podium, it's gonna be the director of ESD and one of their sidekicks. Ask yourself, should I be hearing from another department head? Should I be hearing from a subject matter expert? Is there somebody else that should also be here? Use your own judgment, just think about it for yourself. But you have to be paying attention to this. Every time they're here, it should be somebody else. Thank you.

Coherent.

My name is Matt Gleason.

Came to discuss the Hopewell South rezone and I didn't realize that first readings meant no Council discussion and no public comment So I was gonna just end up listening but the discussion about how readings happen and so on

Are you going to comment on Hopeful Weekend? Can you stop this time just for a second? Because if it's about Hopeful, it was on our agenda, so they'll be upset if you talk about it.

Okay.

sorry as that's that is

Discussion of things on the agenda at general public comment

There's a motion and a second to allow for this commenter to comment on the Hopewell PUD. Council Member Stasberg has a comment.

I have a question the council members who look sad to allow

Public general public comment for items on the agenda, but councilmember. Sorry. Just rephrase that to say specifically this commenter

Oh, yeah. Is that all people all times or just now?

Is that all people?

With draw my motion and make a more specific motion that we suspend the rules to allow Public comment for items that were on the agenda, but not discussed

or introduced, if you will.

this evening.

There's a motion and a second. Any other comments? All right. All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

I...

All those opposed?

Okay, sir, please take it away. Comment on whatever you'd like. All right, thanks. Please, if you could restart their time at three minutes. I'm sorry to have interrupted.

them.

Thanks.

So I wanted to generally voice my support for upzoning, if you will, Hopewell South to provide space for more dense, more affordable housing. And I know it wasn't read, but I want to voice my hope that the new iteration of the zoning code has less architectural requirements that add a cost burden to specifically multifamily units that the previous code for Hopewell does include those architectural cost burdens only on multifamily units. So that is something I want to see kind of moved away from. But talking about the procedural thing, I do think there is a lot of value in discussion, public comment and city discussion on a first reading because there's this sort of life cycle of an ordinance where we have a first reading and it enters consciousness, but it's not discussed. Then we have a second reading where it can simultaneously be discussed for the first time and voted on. So having the first reading maybe not have a vote or maybe only a two thirds vote gives a period of time where public comment can be integrated at a low opportunity cost to time to pass or implement whatever legislation.

And besides that, I would love to hear about future plans for the rest of Hopewell.

Well as there's a various city corridors and studies that have been done and kind of not Happened to anything. I know that isn't a city council role, but Thanks

Thank you so much, Mr. Gleason. Any other commenters in the room? I think everyone's commented at this point. Anyone online? Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, we move to matters of council schedule. Are there any things that people would like to announce about upcoming council schedule?

Thanks for watching!

Please, Council Member Piotrowski.

I'm on Smith.

Council member Stossberg should go first because I have to confirm my date.

Okay, Councilmember Stasberg.

Okay, I just wanted to announce because this is the last regular session before it happens Friday February 27th at 830 There will be a fiscal a special fiscal committee meeting and the fiscal committee decided at least for the next few meetings We're gonna have them every other Friday So there's also one scheduled for the 13th of March also at 830 in the morning So those are gonna be every other Friday at 830 Assuming that that continues to be the best time for all members present

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Excellent, thank you so much. Any others with notes, please, Council Member Pima-Smith.

Council processes will also meet on Friday February 27th at 12 o'clock to 1 30 in the awesome conference room

Okay, thank you, Council Member Stasberg.

To make sure Council members on behalf of the fiscal committee I sent you an email about a survey to finish the deliberation session stuff that we started in December Thank you council members who look you did fill it out a couple of you filled it out Most of you haven't filled it out, but I need that data for the meeting that we're having next Friday So if you could fill that out ASAP, that would be great So then I can get you the second form that is needed for that process Thank you

Thank you, Councilmember Flaherty.

Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next one.

That's what could share a deadline that that's I see an email. I think the deadline

I think the deadline was today, but it might have been tomorrow. Oh, it was tomorrow great But as soon as possible would be great so that then I can

and tomorrow.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Also, just as a reminder,

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The city is holding its second meeting of the round of negotiations with the police union. One council member can attend. Does anybody want to attend?

That's, I'm sorry, Wednesday, I'm sorry, Tuesday 24th from 2 to 5 p.m.

No one? Okay. Thank you. Yeah, two to five if you're able to. Okay. The only other thing, just a reminder that we have a form if you're interested in scheduling a deliberation session. So just fill that out. Also council member Daly will be following up if anybody has ideas about deliberation sessions. That seem like everything? Seem like everything?

Okay, fantastic, we did it. See you guys later, adjourned.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!