[0:00] - We are doing second readings of our budget ordinances, and we have a first reading of the budget ordinance.

[0:07] - There'll be opportunities for public comment during each of the ordinances, including whether there's

[0:15] - any amendments. You'll also get opportunities to comment on that, both in person and online. Are there

[0:22] - any motions before we get going?

[0:27] - I'm so sorry Yes, I move that we amend the agenda to put item 4b before item 4a second motion in a second

[0:38] - all those in favor I Any opposed thank you very much. So item 4b, which is the Bloomington Transit Budget

[0:48] - will go first and then and then we'll proceed with a C D then E any other motions

[0:57] - All right, would anybody like to make a comment or any other such thing at this moment? All right, seeing

[1:06] - none, then we will proceed with legislation for first readings. Are there any motions? I move

[1:13] - that appropriation ordinance 2026-04 be read by title and synopsis only by the clerk. Second. All those

[1:21] - in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Will the clerk please read?

[1:27] - Appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero for an ordinance adopting a budget for the operations

[1:32] - maintenance debt service and capital improvements for the water and wastewater utility departments of

[1:37] - the city of Bloomington Indiana for the year twenty twenty seven. The synopsis is as follows

[1:41] - this appropriation ordinance approved by the utility service board in July of twenty twenty six sets

[1:46] - the water wastewater budgets for twenty twenty seven.

[1:57] - Okay any other motions seeing none we'll move on to legislation for second reading Excuse me point at

[2:05] - point of order. So is there nobody here from utilities to so that we can have a discussion tonight on

[2:14] - since his first reading or

[2:21] - Yes, I believe director Zager is online and available for questions if council has any questions I just

[2:27] - did just want to clarify that this is the first reading for the Water and wastewater utilities budget

[2:33] - and this budget is not connected with the state process that we're going through for the civil city

[2:39] - of her Bloomington transit But I believe that there are utilities folks online available for questions

[2:45] - of council council has any Excellent. So then in which case are there any motions? Yes

[2:51] - Move to discuss appropriation ordinance 20 2604 second Second motion in the second all those in favor

[2:59] - of discussing I any opposed All right Will the clerk please read up? Sorry that is before us. So So

[3:07] - with that Director Zager if you would like to take it away we get these computers on as well Don't worry

[3:15] - if not, don't worry. We can always turn around But take it away

[3:21] - Director Zee if you're there. Yeah I'm just bringing our appropriation ordinance for our budget for

[3:29] - the year 20 27 which you saw a presentation during the budget presentations. This is just the legislation

[3:38] - reflective of that. All right. Thank you so much. Are there any questions. Council member Stossberg.

[3:47] - So just for clarification.

[3:50] - This ordinance is just what was presented during budget hearings. There's nothing different about what

[3:57] - is here this evening versus what we heard during budget presentations No, great. Thank you customer

[4:05] - Puma Smith Can you explain what the depreciation fund is for both the water and then the wastewater I

[4:15] - Yeah the depreciation fund those are depreciating assets. And that is just reflective of the value of

[4:25] - those depreciating assets. OK can you explain it to me like I'm 12. So yeah yeah. So we have you know

[4:36] - all of our our trucks and our equipment just like your car loses value every year.

[4:45] - And so that line is reflective of that for all of our assets. Does that help make sense of that? Well,

[4:58] - if something is depreciating, it's decreasing in value. So why do we have $4.9 million appropriated

[5:11] - from the depreciation fund?

[5:17] - Let me, sorry. Like where does that money come from? Because things depreciate, they become less valuable.

[5:27] - So where does this 4.9 million come from? That is a good question. I will get back to you on that. I

[5:37] - apologize that I don't have the explanation for depreciation in front of me right now.

[5:47] - but I can get back to you on that. Controlling McCam is approaching the podium. I did not help formulate

[5:54] - this budget, but I can tell you that in general, a depreciation fund for a utility would be essentially

[6:02] - a fund that would house resources that would be used to repair or maintain depreciating assets. So that's

[6:10] - why there's actually a positive number in there.

[6:17] - Okay. So maintenance and replacement of depreciating assets usually essentially. Yes. Okay. Well director

[6:26] - Zager if you could research that and get back to us I'd appreciate it. Absolutely. Mr. McCain any other

[6:35] - questions. All right. Seeing none we'll go to public comment if anybody would like to comment

[6:43] - on appropriation ordinance 20 26 0 4.

[6:47] - Anyone in chambers. Surprise. Anyone online. Surprise. So let's come back to council. Would you like

[6:56] - to make any comments. Councilman Smith. I'll just say for the benefit of the public we also have a stormwater

[7:06] - utility but that budget is included with the wastewater. Excellent. Any other comments. Councilman Stossberg.

[7:16] - Thank you.

[7:17] - I'll just thank the utility folks directors acre and whoever else is online for being there to be available

[7:25] - in case we need them. Thank you All right with that then we'll move on to legislation for second readings

[7:33] - we'll be discussing this Don't we need to recommend it first? Yeah. Yeah, actually motions. Are there

[7:41] - any motions? Thank you. I move

[7:43] - to send appropriation ordinance 2026-03 to the next Regular session on October 14th Oh for can you amend

[7:51] - can you amend your motion to be the correct ordinance? Oh my gosh. Yes. Sorry. I amend my motion I meant

[8:00] - to say appropriation ordinance 2026-04 to our next regular session on October 14th second motion and

[8:08] - second all of those in favor of

[8:12] - Thank you very much. This will be discussed at our next regular session moving on to legislation for

[8:20] - second readings I Move that Appropriation ordinance 2026-03 be introduced and read by the clerk by title

[8:28] - and synopsis only Motion in a second any discussion all those in favor No, we motioned to move oh three

[8:36] - before oh two and then all said yes Yes

[8:40] - Alright, so the motion is to read 20 2603 by title and synopsis all those in favor Any opposed all right,

[8:52] - and will the clerk please read It's 20 26-03 in ordinance for appropriation and tax rates of for Bloomington

[9:05] - Transit Corporation for 2027 Thank you

[9:11] - I move that appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash three be adopted. Second. All right. Would

[9:19] - you all like to add anything since last week. Just introduce yourself sir. Yes thank you. I'm James

[9:28] - McClary chairman of the board of limited transit. I would like to introduce our new general manager.

[9:36] - He started action yesterday and we've got him fully engaged Nick Good evening council. It's nice to

[9:44] - be here. Nice to meet everyone and I'm looking forward to Working hard for Bloomington transit. Wonderful.

[9:53] - Thank you so much and welcome Nick last name stand-off er Good to meet you director center for

[10:05] - All right. Anything else. I believe we had four questions. Is that correct. I think we had four questions

[10:12] - from council at the last hearing and I think we've responded to all of them. And I don't know if everybody

[10:20] - is comfortable with our answers but we gave answers to all of them. So thank you. Thank you so much.

[10:27] - Council members first. Happy with answers. All right. Any other questions then.

[10:36] - Councilman Smith. So in a packet of denim today we received a presentation of your budget proposal.

[10:44] - I didn't have time to look at it. Was there any change from last time. OK. So I wasn't for sure what

[10:52] - we did at this meeting the third means I don't normally come to this meeting. So I reached out in case

[11:00] - we need to do a presentation.

[11:03] - Never spend no changes since the September meeting. So I just kind of prepared something real fast if

[11:11] - I needed to present something So there's no changes now Okay. Thank you. Ms. Browning That was Krista

[11:18] - Browning for the record. Thank you. Sorry Okay, any other questions? All right. We'll move to public

[11:25] - comment. Does anyone is there anyone who'd wish to comment on ordinance? 2020 603 Anyone online

[11:34] - All right, coming back to council, any comments here? Seeing none, I'll just make one, which is, well,

[11:46] - I'll save this joke for later, but I think obviously, thank you BT, one of the highlights of Bloomington

[11:59] - is that we have a,

[12:02] - a relatively strong public transit. We know that given the, you know, fiscal constraints, especially

[12:09] - with the end of ed lit funds, both going to you but generally that fund ending, you know, as well as

[12:16] - just general pressures in the space that we're facing, you know, hard times ahead and I, you know, really

[12:24] - look forward

[12:25] - over the next year, working together, try to figure out what that looks like and how we can best support

[12:31] - that to make sure that we continue to maintain a really strong public transit, especially if those things

[12:37] - involve combining with IU, whatever those type of things, conversations that need to start happening,

[12:43] - and hopefully we can start having those conversations now, rather than, I don't know, a year from now.

[12:50] - And so, very much thanking you all for the work and welcome to our new director and thank

[12:55] - Thank you to the amazing board members who continue to serve the city and many of whom who served the

[13:00] - city for almost as long as I've been alive. So Thank you all very much for that. So with that Oh council

[13:06] - member Stossberg. Go ahead. Sorry. Yes I just wanted to mention because I had a couple of questions

[13:11] - last time and I just wanted to mention that those did get answered to me by email and just say those

[13:17] - out loud one of my questions was about

[13:19] - The reference to health insurance for BT increasing by so much and whether or not the city insurance

[13:26] - could cover BT and that answer is no That's just not not possible and then the other one was about increasing

[13:34] - fares and the conclusion is that increasing fares is going to decrease ridership and disproportionately

[13:42] - Affect lower-income folks. So the decision at this point is to not increase fares, but

[13:49] - And I just wanted to put that on the record somewhere. Thank you so much customer be much with And and

[13:58] - the answers to my questions were sent via email and they're were included in our packet in case anybody's

[14:07] - wondering Thank you so much. All right with that Will the clerk please call the roll on ordinance? 2020

[14:16] - 603 Councilmember Flaherty

[14:19] - Yes, Stossburg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes, daily. Yes, rough Thank you. Thank

[14:28] - you very much. Have a wonderful year All right any motions Thank you. Thank you all I move that appropriation

[14:39] - ordinance 20 2602 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second

[14:47] - There's a motion to second all those in favor any opposed Appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six

[14:53] - dash zero two and ordinance for appropriations and tax rates establishing the twenty twenty seven civil

[14:59] - city budget for the city of Bloomington the synopsis is as follows an appropriation ordinance adopting

[15:05] - the city's annual budget and establishing the necessary tax rates tax levies and Appropriations for

[15:11] - the city's obligations for the fiscal year ending December 31st twenty twenty seven

[15:18] - Thank you very much. I move that appropriation ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero to be adopted.

[15:25] - Second. OK. Fantastic. Before sort of searches how would you all. I mean we have lots of amendments

[15:32] - there's response from the mayor to a lot of proposed things. How would you all like to structure this

[15:39] - part of the conversation best if you have any opinions. Otherwise I'm happy to just say what I think

[15:46] - is best. And any thoughts.

[15:48] - or strong thoughts here.

[15:50] - Let's hear what you think is best. OK. Well, what I would suggest that we do is maybe first we can either

[15:55] - if any council members have any particular things they'd like to say, it would be a good time to do

[16:00] - it. You can do that any time you want. I will happily engage with that. I think it would be very useful

[16:06] - to hear from the office of the mayor that wrote a very useful memo to some of the conversations that

[16:11] - we've had and some of the pending questions. And then I think it will be good for us to then go through

[16:16] - amendments as the sponsors may wish to introduce those or not.

[16:21] - Seem appropriate because we're pretty much Smith It may be more efficient to Since the the mayor's office

[16:28] - both had an introduction I think they're welcome to speak on first, but they also had specific feedback

[16:35] - on So maybe when we get to so those reactions could be when we when and if we introduce those Yeah,

[16:42] - I think that's a great point. Thank you. Thank you for saying that does seem good for everybody Does

[16:48] - that seem good for you all?

[16:51] - All right. Well great then any would you like to say anything as we open up anyone sitting in the beautiful

[16:59] - corner over there? No. All right, then we'll come to you councilmember Stossberg. I'll move amendment

[17:06] - one to Appropriation Ordinance twenty twenty six oh two second All right, go for it You want to tell

[17:12] - us a bit about it? Amendment one is the one that reduces the sanitation subsidy from 1.6 million down

[17:19] - to 1 million pending

[17:22] - The fiscal committee got a presentation from sanitation regarding increased rates. And so there is an

[17:29] - assumption that that increased rates would would mean that less subsidy is required.

[17:36] - This does not guarantee in any way for the public that your rates would increase because we've always

[17:42] - come back next year for an additional appropriation for that six hundred thousand dollars if the increase

[17:49] - fails at the council level. But I think that it's a good preemptive step because we don't know right

[17:56] - now what's going to happen with that increase. Yeah. Thank you so much. Any questions or further comments.

[18:07] - member Zulek Just read for the Public record the administration's position as they support it and they'll

[18:16] - bring new rates to counsel in the fall Okay Thank you very much any other comments All right, would

[18:24] - you all like to add anything? Okay, fantastic Let's go then to public comment. Would anybody like to

[18:33] - comment on amendment one? Anyone online

[18:38] - All right. We'll come back to counsel. Any comments here. All right. Fantastic. Will the clerk please

[18:49] - call the roll on amendment one. Let's try that again. Sorry. Council member Stasberg. Yes.

[18:59] - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Ruff. Yes.

[19:07] - Yes, thank you. Thank you very much that carries I'd like to move that we introduce amendment three

[19:20] - Yeah, amendment three Second I don't think you can second if you're gonna second Councilman

[19:31] - President Asari, would you like to tell us about Amendment 3? So first, I'm not introducing Amendment

[19:38] - 2 after our work session. I think that was a fairly good answer about what that $600,000 was for. Amendment

[19:46] - 3 removes funding for corridor and sub-area and other planning studies. Again, I think we talked about

[19:54] - this in depth about sort of my thinking around this amendment specifically, but I

[20:00] - would like us to have very clearly scoped out studies with clear sense of what we're going to do with

[20:09] - them would prefer fun plans than studies. And so generally speaking my position has not changed on that.

[20:17] - So that's what Amendment 3 does. All right. Does anybody have any questions for President Asari or for

[20:26] - the administration or

[20:28] - I invite you to come up and make a comment. Yes. Thank you. If you have any thing that you would like

[20:35] - to say Good evening. I'm Lynn coin. I'm the interim director of planning and transportation pleasure

[20:43] - to be here this evening. I We gave you a detailed response to the budget so I won't belabor that and

[20:50] - go through it I'm going to assume everybody reviewed that

[20:55] - Think the key points to remember are one. This is a precursor the study is a precursor to Gateway to

[21:02] - other funding and projects down the road as we mentioned in the response the timeline is very far out

[21:10] - and everything begins with a study such as what we're proposing so Would very much appreciate you allowing

[21:18] - us to go forward with this as it's scoped into

[21:22] - It's scoped generally at this point because we do not know Until the study is done where the specifics

[21:30] - will lead and that then leads to applications for funding it leads to engineering design And so forth

[21:38] - our follow-on events to this. So this is the precursor event without this that doesn't happen Okay in

[21:45] - addition It wasn't in the memo but the

[21:49] - This is part part of this responds to the safe streets for all grant the 1.44 million dollar grant that

[21:58] - was awarded the city earlier and the transportation portions of this study Will be eligible for reimbursement

[22:08] - under that grant as an example if 50% of this grant is allocated to transportation work then

[22:16] - We could submit for an 80 percent reimbursement of that portion of the grant. So the cost likely will

[22:23] - not be two sixty five in the end depending on how much reimbursement we can get for the transportation

[22:30] - portions of the study. Again I won't go over all the details of our response. I'll spare you that but

[22:36] - I'd be glad to answer questions if you had any. Does anybody have any questions.

[22:44] - Councilmember Stossberg and then councilmember Piedmont Smith what happens to your process if this Amendment

[22:53] - passes and these studies are defunded Well the process stops We'll continue with studies we have in

[23:01] - progress and then we'll have to regroup and figure out what we can do with what we have and

[23:09] - Take it from there the last study for example on downtown land use was in 2008 18 years ago and one

[23:15] - of the things we really want to get going under the comprehensive plan is a re-evaluation of that given

[23:22] - the Convention Center everything that's going on downtown plus the land south of Second Street The Clear

[23:28] - Creek corridor study that's going on. Those are also very important components. So there's the land

[23:34] - use component that

[23:36] - Will back off there's a transportation component. There's the economic development and vitality component

[23:44] - these just Will get put off. But what's the consequence of those things? stopping like or being put

[23:51] - off like what is the well We will not be able to adapt to changing conditions Okay, which is what we're

[23:59] - trying to anticipate. Let's talk for a moment about

[24:04] - The land immediately south of second Street down Walnut Street is part of the downtown zone. It's a

[24:11] - gateway downtown zone. It has very restrictive zoning. We have properties that are Increasingly going

[24:18] - unused and vacant. We need to find a way to revitalize that and part of that could be an adjunct to

[24:25] - this for example plus the downtown the square the coming College walnut study the impact of that and so on and

[24:34] - We just have to go back and regroup see what we can do to move those along. So OK. Thank you. Sure.

[24:45] - Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. So in the memorandum from the administration regarding this amendment

[24:57] - talks about the downtown corridor stay including Kirkwood Avenue.

[25:04] - This is a question for the mayor Since it's only tangentially related to planning and transportation

[25:14] - But prior to the study of the Kirkwood corridor and As as called for in the transportation plan to think

[25:23] - about how to convert it to a shared street What is the administration's position on?

[25:31] - having Kirkwood seasonally close to vehicular traffic next year? Well, our position remains the same,

[25:40] - that we need a study to figure out exactly the right way forward with Kirkwood and how we can design

[25:48] - it to be the street that we envision that really maximizes safety and business and vibrancy for downtown.

[25:57] - But the plan was, if you recall,

[26:00] - that we would put the RFP out for this corridor study so that we could get moving on that in good time.

[26:08] - So we had anticipated putting that RFP out this fall so that we could get the plan done early next year.

[26:16] - And just to connect the dots here, I think Council Member Stossberg asked what happens if we don't go

[26:23] - forward with these plans. If you don't go forward with the plans, we can't,

[26:29] - Complete the work that is in things like our transportation plan We we fall behind on that if we don't

[26:38] - complete these plans. We also can't apply for funding so these various safe streets for all grants the

[26:46] - the the corridor improvement plans and the grants that we get from federal transportation they all

[26:55] - are contingent upon having these plans done well in advance and having the community commit to the planning

[27:03] - process and having it signed off on. So it is not the case that we can wait for the grant to come out

[27:10] - and then do the plan. We have to have a plan in place so that we can apply for these grants. So we lose

[27:17] - out on funding if we say no to plans is the long and short of this.

[27:24] - Specific to Kirkwood you're saying that this bigger Kirkwood corridor study which is only funded for

[27:31] - 30% of the design is Needs to be done before we consider a seasonal opening of Kirkwood next year Is

[27:39] - that what I'm that was part of the plan? Yes to to get this done and get it moving so that we can consider

[27:47] - carefully what it's going to take to close Kirkwood if we do it and

[27:54] - All right, thank you. Any other questions? I have one or two clarification questions. So we talk,

[28:05] - you know, I understand we have to have a plan set to be able to apply for the funding. Could we have

[28:16] - theoretically

[28:18] - I'm not talking about any particular project but theoretically could we have a plan for something without

[28:25] - having done a study first do we have to show a study that has crafted that plan or Dictated that plan

[28:32] - as a general rule to apply for the federal funding. They have very specific requirements You have to

[28:38] - have as I listed in the memorandum your study problem your study objectives conditions assessment alternative analysis

[28:46] - Transportation project a basis for quantitative marriage determine how the alternatives work. It's It

[28:53] - is an analysis. It's an analytical plan of current conditions and what you intend to do in the future

[29:00] - it is and It takes a lot of time and expertise and a consultant to get that done so that it's in the

[29:06] - drawer and ready to go Not only for funding but actually for our own activities internally so but it

[29:13] - is a critical precursor to the funding

[29:16] - Okay, so you couldn't just say this is what we want to do I cannot give you a one-pager of this would

[29:22] - be really good if we could do this right and hand it to the federal government It's competitive and

[29:29] - we wouldn't make it and I I think so my sense is some of the frustration around the studies is that

[29:35] - we hear about several studies and Then nothing seems to happen from them, you know, we hear that, you

[29:41] - know college and walnut is being studied Indiana is being studied and then

[29:46] - A long time will pass and we don't hear anything. What is the shelf life for these studies? Like,

[29:52] - you know, how long can those be good to then later come back and be like, oh, here's the grant. Now

[29:59] - we can implement it. That depends on the funding situation. How long is the shelf life? You'd hope in

[30:05] - your analysis that it is a long shelf life, that it is a good plan. It's a durable plan and it will

[30:12] - stay in place as you seek funding as it becomes available.

[30:16] - The city doesn't have the funding to do the entire project It depends on federal support state support

[30:23] - and that is situational. Some of them have five-year lead times The tip for example is a two-year lead

[30:30] - time. So It is constantly in use as those funding cycles present themselves to us So how long it takes

[30:38] - a lot of that is outside our control. It depends on funding availability from the state and federal

[30:45] - government

[30:47] - Thank you, and we hope we're there when that happens. That's the point of all this understood. Thank

[30:55] - you So I think the the sequence of the study that planning does and then and sometimes some of that

[31:02] - work is done in-house and sometimes when it's complicated it requires external expertise and then it

[31:10] - moves on to engineering for design so a study is typically only 30% of design because

[31:17] - they're not doing the actual technical design. They're saying 30% of this is what you should be doing

[31:23] - in general. And then engineering flushes that work out. That work also takes time. So for example, with

[31:29] - Indiana Avenue, if planning had been able to arrive at a consensus that pleased everyone, or even most

[31:36] - of the people, or even some of the people, none of the design satisfied anyone, the next step would

[31:42] - have been for it to go to engineering for design. By the time

[31:46] - Completed the design then it would be eligible for funding that is a multi-year process It just doesn't

[31:52] - go fast one of the questions I asked planning recently that might be of interest to you was When you

[31:59] - have a project like the college and walnut study very big study and at the end of it we found out it

[32:05] - has 120 million dollar price tag, which is a very large number now we can still

[32:11] - Execute pieces of that and apply for funding using that plan, but 120 million dollars is a lot So the

[32:16] - question I had for planning was when we hire a consultant, how do we both? Leave room for imagination

[32:22] - and creativity show us what we could do with downtown show us. What are the options for Kirkwood but

[32:27] - also not Put ourselves on a path to getting another hundred and twenty million dollar plan if we were

[32:33] - designing a house the first thing our architect would ask is what's your budget, but we don't want to

[32:38] - restrict and

[32:40] - We want to see all the ideas. So there's a balance there. And it is frustrating that things take a long

[32:45] - time. But that is the process. And I was sharing with Councilmember Piedmont-Smith earlier that I hear

[32:51] - in council meetings every year the question for the planning director, why isn't there any implementation

[32:57] - money in your budget? Where's the implementation money? It's because planning isn't the department that

[33:03] - does the implementation. That's engineering. They do the design.

[33:07] - issue the RFP supervise the construction. So plannings implementation would be more like quick studies

[33:14] - with temporary measures to see will this work if we put it in concrete. Does this is this having the

[33:21] - effect that we want it. So just a little extra context. Thank you. Any other questions second round

[33:28] - other first round questions.

[33:33] - I'll have one quick second round question, then, since nobody else has a question. This is for President

[33:40] - Asari. How did you come up with this number for this? It's just the total number. The total number.

[33:46] - Yeah, it's all of the studies. Got it. And also, I mean, I probably should have said this at the beginning,

[33:52] - but we talked about this in other ways. I think that an extent of this, and I think we're having that

[33:58] - conversation now, which is very useful, is whether or not we want to

[34:03] - have sort of studies commissioned, like just as a standard protocol in practice, whether we would like

[34:11] - those type of things to have to come to council on a individual basis or not. I'm putting that out there

[34:20] - as a discussion point rather than as a position point. And again, I think as I said in the

[34:27] - As I said in our working session, I think that perhaps this is somewhat influenced by some recency bias

[34:33] - where we funded a thing and then got a thing back where we're sort of like that isn't necessarily what

[34:39] - we would have funded had we have had more influence on it or something like that. And so I think sort

[34:45] - of that's the approach here of saying, are these appropriate? I think the conversation is spot on in

[34:51] - the sense that

[34:52] - Look I mean there's there's three distinct studies that are that are being put here. One of them not

[34:58] - totally scoped out two of which are somewhat scoped out. So I mean sort of depending on what the feeling

[35:04] - on councils but I but I don't I don't think of the things that we've proposed. I mean I don't. Yeah

[35:09] - I mean I'm happy to happy to not waste time and move on. All right. Thank you.

[35:14] - We'll move to public comment now anybody in chambers or online like to make public comment on amendment

[35:22] - 2 For appropriation ordinance 2026 dash amendment 3. Yeah, forgive me amendment 3 for appropriation

[35:29] - ordinance 2026-02 Nobody online. I don't see anybody Trampling each other to come to the podium All

[35:36] - right. We'll come back here for council comment before we take a vote on amendment 3 I

[35:43] - Whose hand is that I'm sorry Councilmember Stossberg. Thank you. I'm not in favor of this particular

[35:50] - amendment I don't have any I don't think that it's good use of council time to approve these sorts of

[35:56] - things as they come I think that it's really important to keep in mind the the long

[36:02] - Picture in planning and land use and that doesn't just have to do with transportation corridors Even

[36:08] - though a lot of them have talked about transportation corridors It also has to do with economic development

[36:15] - related stuff and just what are we going to do with? the land that we have In terms of within the city

[36:21] - of Bloomington what what kind of initiatives should we have? What kind of zoning should be in different

[36:28] - places? There's lots of potential

[36:30] - Study kind of stuff and I think that recently some things that have been highly cited have been safe

[36:39] - streets for all plan and the changes that we as council said that we wanted to get to zero fatalities

[36:48] - and serious injury crashes and in order to do that we need to have studies to To make that work possible.

[36:57] - And so I think that it would just not be a

[37:00] - Beneficial thing for the city to to cut off these studies. So that's it. Thank you Thank you any other

[37:12] - comments on amendment three All right, seeing none will clerk please call the roll on amendment three

[37:24] - Councilmember Piedmont Smith No Zulik No Sorry also no daily

[37:31] - No breath yes clarity no Stasburg no All right that amendment fails something to two one two three five

[37:42] - to two One to one. Oh, sorry. Yes six six six one Oh, I have to do it the other way one six I Didn't

[37:54] - have training for this job, please. Okay

[37:59] - Apologies great. Thank you moving on to amendment for also councilmember. Sorry, would you like to present?

[38:07] - Oh, I'm sorry. I Don't want to move it. Yeah Can we move amendment? This is some of some of the simple

[38:15] - ones like amendment 14 I would propose we do amendment 14 instead of amendment What's the next one of

[38:22] - mine amendment five? Thoughts that's yours councilman Piedmont Smith

[38:29] - I mean I suppose I can move your amendment but you know so I'd move that we put forward amendment. Well

[38:37] - actually I'll put forward Amendment 5 if there's a second second.

[38:43] - It will not waste time on this because I think you know we can consider at the same time amendment 5

[38:51] - and amendment 14 Within the response given by the mayor's office to amendment 5 they make a counteroffer

[38:59] - I think reasonable so I'm happy to amend this amendment to

[39:04] - counteroffer which Keeps the money for leadership development cuts the the branding money while retaining

[39:14] - some of the money for promotion of business I Would happy to do this or would happy to take number 14.

[39:23] - So just sort of maybe we could have a discussion on which is better Councilmember Stasberg, I have a

[39:32] - clarification about this one

[39:35] - So let me find the clarification exactly in Amendment 5 it states that that $10,000 for branding is

[39:52] - in oh Geez oh my gosh, I can't even find it. Okay, yeah

[40:02] - In one in in councilmember Piedmont Smith's it has the ten thousand dollars for branding in a different

[40:10] - line than in councilmember Asari's ten thousand dollars for branding so councilmember Piedmont Smith's

[40:18] - takes that out of management fees consultants and considers that branding and councilmember Asari's

[40:26] - takes it out of I put a note about this somewhere and I'm trying to find it

[40:32] - Other services and charges so I would like clarification about exactly where that 10,000 for branding

[40:41] - is There it is. Yeah, because the office of the mayor Respond this is it the count the office of the

[40:50] - mayor's memo responds to councilmember Asari's amendment on line item 2 as as taking that

[41:01] - Talks about that that is the leadership retreat and then the 10,000 for branding out of the other services

[41:10] - and charges but But councilmember Piedmont Smith has the branding out of consultants and workshops,

[41:18] - so where exactly is should the branding come out of I

[41:30] - is in other services and charges the leadership development it the amendment is correct in stating that

[41:38] - leadership development is under consultants and Branding support is under under other services and charges

[41:46] - Okay, so that means that councilmember Piedmont Smith's Amendment number 14 which the synopsis says

[41:53] - it's taking it out taking ten thousand dollars out for branding

[41:58] - but the line item that it refers to is Taking it out of management fees and consultants and it's actually

[42:05] - should be taken out of other services. That's correct So that means that amendment 14 is actually not

[42:12] - correct The proofreader yeah, yeah, I mean this but but point is if we adopt 14 We'd just have to edit

[42:19] - it or we can edit this one. However, we see fit what I mean again, I think we have to clear up

[42:25] - Approaches one is just limited to branding. The other one is sort of across the board Neither of these

[42:32] - are probably worth us spending too much time on it's not a big move the needle thing So so I'm yeah,

[42:39] - so I'm very I'm very happy to just do 14 if it makes it if it makes it simpler But we'd have to Well

[42:46] - right now we've moved us amendment five. Yes. Yes But I'm happy to withdraw that and move on if that's

[42:53] - what everybody would prefer

[42:57] - I would have to see in writing for Amendment 5 what the new deductions are because right now I would

[43:06] - have to switch back and forth between two documents to figure it out and maybe it's we need the amendment

[43:15] - to be in writing anyway. So maybe it's easier to to do a minute 14 first because that's one correction

[43:24] - whereas the

[43:26] - Changes to amendment five are multiple But we have the amendment five on the table so it would have

[43:36] - to be withdrawn This is a question for the office of the mayor it says in your response to Councilmember

[43:46] - sorry's third point with the promotion of business and cutting that to zero that's

[43:54] - That particular line is used for boarding Commission reception and state of the city public events,

[44:02] - but There has not been any funding in that line since 2023 and We have had those events Since that time

[44:10] - so what line were those events actually being taken out of? So I don't have the notes on where it was

[44:18] - in the 2025 budget, but I know that controller McClellan in the worksheet

[44:24] - That we use a separate worksheet outside of to go over drafts of what the budget could include It was

[44:31] - included in the mayor's promotion of business and that is a confusing title for a line. That's where

[44:37] - she felt it belonged But There was It did not get entered into new world. So when it doesn't get entered

[44:44] - in a new world, it's not going to pop up on The sheet so for this year, for example, we have to draw

[44:51] - on other funds

[44:52] - From the mayor's office and move things around to be able to cover those costs because we do want to

[44:58] - keep putting on those events So it was just an error that it wasn't included last year Previously, it

[45:04] - might have been included under Another line. I'd have to look that up historically, but it's the same

[45:11] - it's the same amount and Essentially, it's paying for you know renting a facility AV sign language

[45:17] - interpretation for state of the city

[45:20] - and food and beverage which in city events is tricky to pay for and can only be done in certain circumstances

[45:27] - and that's where controller McClellan wanted to take that out of Ultimately was the mayor's promotion

[45:33] - of business. So that money was actually spent last year it just wasn't allocated to that line because

[45:40] - of an error even though it was in our worksheet and Was expected to be included So it would have been

[45:47] - I don't know if

[45:48] - It was included in the final tallies or not but it didn't get transferred over from the worksheet into

[45:55] - New World with a manual entry. Well I guess I just feel like it's interesting that that line is getting

[46:03] - funded for the first time in several years and trying to figure out since we've had those things where

[46:10] - the actual reduction is going to come or if it is going to come and so.

[46:16] - The reduction would come from the proposed budget that we sent in which included Funds to cover what

[46:22] - has been historically the cost of those two events plus an extra seven hundred and seventy five dollars

[46:28] - in case some other Public event came up where we needed to provide interpretation or rent a facility.

[46:34] - No, I mean I mean that we've had those events and so Those events have been paid for yes somewhere from

[46:41] - the office of the mayor So I'm trying to figure out where they have actually

[46:46] - Paid for because it's not as though I mean we paid for them. So there's there's you give me money for

[46:51] - them somewhere in the budget So I'm trying to go. Okay, like which lines would they have been paid for

[46:57] - that should now be lower? Because I are now being paid for out of this mayor's promotion of business.

[47:02] - That's what I'm trying to figure out Let me let me dig into that a little bit and I can get you an answer

[47:08] - But the short answer is in the 2026 budget it would not have been in there at all due to the error so

[47:14] - we we have to essentially

[47:16] - borrow money as we do at the end of the year when one line runs over within a category from another

[47:22] - category and cut costs somewhere else to cover that for this year. But I can look up for you where it

[47:28] - was in 2025 and in 2024. That is a recurring call. So it lives somewhere. I just don't know the answer

[47:35] - off the top of my head. That would be very helpful. Thank you. All right. Any other questions on Amendment 5.

[47:43] - This is five right and just for the sake of I mean thinking about how to how to go through this because

[47:49] - I think we have a couple others where we might want to make some like line item changes to them might

[47:54] - I suggest for the good of the order that what we do is you know we can sort of talk through them now

[47:59] - say we're say where we're at then recess for like 10 minutes very so that we can then go through and

[48:05] - actually make the the line item edits before voting on on on the amendment. So I mean just just as just

[48:10] - as one suggestion.

[48:13] - But I'm not in charge. Well, I was going to say so I think we can finish discussing this do public comment

[48:20] - comment and then set this one aside and keep moving on. So if there's any questions we'll do that now.

[48:26] - I see somebody. Yes. Go ahead. Sorry. It would have been in other services and charges and in twenty

[48:32] - twenty six controller McClellan for the twenty twenty six budget controller McClellan wanted to move

[48:38] - it back into mayor's promotion of business which she felt was a more appropriate line.

[48:43] - And then it didn't get entered. So other services and charges is where it would have lived in the past.

[48:49] - Thank you. Council member Stasberg. So in twenty twenty five those events came out of other services

[48:55] - and charges. Yes I guess I'm kind of mystified by that because the actual amount in twenty twenty five

[49:02] - in our budget book is listed as four thousand eight hundred and twenty dollars. And that's that sounds

[49:08] - that sounds correct. Okay. That's about the total of those two events for

[49:12] - all the AV and translation and services and Okay locations and stuff Okay, if there are no other questions

[49:22] - then we'll We'll flip it on over to councilman sasper. Sorry. I have another one then so Right now though

[49:31] - the in the 2027 budget proposal the other services and charges a sixty six thousand budgeted so

[49:40] - What is that supposed to include again because I mean councilmember Asari's amendment just takes it

[49:46] - down ten thousand dollars for the branding. But what is the rest of the fifty six thousand dollars supposed

[49:53] - to be for.

[50:17] - For the benefit of the public the deputy mayor is trying to look that up for me right now so why don't

[50:26] - we go ahead and move to public comments and We hope that we can get that answer. Is there any public

[50:34] - comment on amendment five? Online or in chambers No, all right No comment among council, I'm assuming

[50:42] - council member Stossberg I Mean I I have comments on this

[50:47] - I'll say I'm in favor of reducing the branding by 10,000 and I am OK with putting money into the mayor's

[50:56] - promotion of business if it's specifically just to fund these two events. But there needs to be a cut

[51:05] - to where they were previously being funded and right now that

[51:10] - Isn't what the budget looks like and here Deputy Marinap can maybe tell me what the fifty six thousand

[51:17] - dollars is supposed to be so I'm not seeing fifty six thousand I'm seeing sixteen thousand and ten dollars

[51:24] - that was in our worksheet the ten thousand of that was for the branding five thousand was for the winter

[51:30] - shelter support there's three hundred dollars for the host well the Hopewell website hosting

[51:36] - Three hundred and sixty dollars for public engagement AV that would be at town halls for example and

[51:43] - three hundred fifty dollars for actually a state of the city interpretation lives in other services

[51:49] - and charges so I'm not sure where fifty six thousand dollars is coming from. That's not

[51:56] - in the 2027 Budget that got presented to us during budget week. So it's the Wednesday, August 26th in

[52:06] - the office of the mayor General fund with your expenses it has line 53 990 other services and charges

[52:16] - as sixty six thousand ten dollars and that is in the

[52:24] - So maybe there was a typo somewhere but that is what we have been given. It's not a typo. Sorry. I had

[52:31] - forgotten that there was a change we made after the worksheet. That is where the 50,000 of that is the

[52:37] - emergency management consultant that we had treated as a temporary employee and then turned to a contractor

[52:44] - for a host of reasons that we did explain in the budget. That's where the big money comes from. Apologies.

[52:51] - Okay. Thank you. All right.

[52:53] - so with that any other comments or questions before we Set this one aside and move on to another amendment.

[53:02] - I Withdraw this this amendment at the moment. All right. Thank you That point of point of order do we

[53:11] - want to withdraw it or do we want to table it? Good point. Um, I Would like to table it. I would I moved

[53:20] - to table amendment five

[53:24] - That needs a second. Thank you All right, so that would bring us to amendment six President sorry, do

[53:35] - you want to bring that's okay. I hear you take your time So I move to introduce six with haste second

[53:46] - This one I'll just note was reducing travel budgets across the board The the mayor says that that they

[53:54] - they think they can cut by 35,000 That seems appropriate. I would just note though with amendment 16

[54:02] - I think some of these might be wrapped up into amendment 16 and where we sort of land on that so I'm

[54:09] - very happy to You know table this one for now as well Table or table introduce

[54:16] - Well, I mean We've introduced it but I'm just saying that they if there's the action that we can take

[54:25] - on this is either vote for it as is and or Talk through the 35,000 counter offer I think regardless

[54:33] - that will take a little bit, you know of Rewriting and thinking where where that counter offer exists

[54:42] - And then I'm saying because of amendment 16

[54:46] - This might be a moot point. So Okay So unless anybody has any questions right now, I think maybe we

[54:53] - can table this one as per councilmember Asari's suggestion, but councilmember Stossberg, I would suggest

[55:01] - that we go through the process of public comment, etc Oh, yes, we table things so that then absolutely

[55:08] - take it up from the table. We don't at that point have to do public comment

[55:17] - Okay, so without no more questions right now on this one, we'll go ahead to public comment anybody in

[55:26] - chambers or Online have burning thoughts to share on amendment six. They do not. Oh, yes. I do see somebody

[55:35] - approaching the podium. Thank you please sign in and State your name for the record and you have three

[55:43] - minutes My name is Iris bull I am

[55:46] - member of staff, but I'm just here for myself tonight. I think that pushing the city to improve its

[55:52] - preparation and documentation of the city's budget and staff's appropriation requests is undeniably

[55:58] - the right thing to do because it improves transparency, accountability, and stability to the provision

[56:04] - of municipal services. But as council members have publicly reviewed budget appropriations for the next

[56:10] - year, you have failed to distinguish between the expenses that we can attribute to postage

[56:15] - The ones we can associate with needless bureaucratic process and I think in doing so you've proposed

[56:21] - amendments that will require more of the very thing I think a lot of people actually kind of despise

[56:27] - and that's political theater and On this item. I really just want to sort of speak from the heart it

[56:34] - is so petty to remove the travel budget because it is one of the easiest ways to invest in staff and

[56:40] - improve city services and

[56:44] - I think if you want a leaner government, you need to start by looking at processes and asking people

[56:50] - to document their workflows so that people can understand why things are taking so long. Why are so

[56:56] - many people involved in a specific process? You need to be thinking about the kind of average labor,

[57:02] - the average amount of labor involved in every little thing that we're doing. On the staff side, we have

[57:08] - to justify every single dollar that we spend with

[57:12] - painstaking detail and redundancy. And it's honestly really wild that so much of this process right

[57:18] - now is being drafted and it's not even available for staff to review and publish. I'm only here because

[57:24] - I'm upset. But I'm not the only one who's been paying attention this week and has been totally demoralized

[57:31] - by the process. And that is also taking up staff time because instead of talking about our work, we're

[57:37] - talking about how bummed out we are. And that sucks.

[57:41] - So I just hope that in the future, when we're talking about things that have some real gravity, like

[57:48] - dissolving departments and firing people, that there's some amount of empathy and seriousness to the

[57:55] - conversation. Because over here, we're trying really, really hard to provide the absolute best service

[58:02] - with what are often substandard accommodations for some people.

[58:07] - The appearance that like this is easy for people to come up with an honest number is It's just really

[58:16] - difficult. That's why it's called a budget and Why it's not always spent down every year, but sometimes

[58:24] - it is because things are hard to predict That's it Thank you very much any other comment in the room

[58:33] - or online No Okay

[58:35] - last comments among council members councilmember Stossberg Thank you. I'm not in support of this one

[58:41] - I generally don't like the idea of making everybody split or like cut things by a certain percentage

[58:48] - because I think that it doesn't take into account the Uniqueness that goes along with different departments

[58:55] - and different needs and and different costs related to that I also want to really thank our public commenter

[59:02] - for speaking tonight and

[59:05] - Think mostly like apologize to city staff for some of this conversation and some of the ways that these

[59:12] - potential amendments have been approached because you know and I felt like that last Wednesday during

[59:19] - the work session when we're talking about about staff and positions and staff are really really important

[59:26] - because they actually make everything run and I I just I'm I'm not in I'm not in support of this one Thank you

[59:36] - Councilmember, sorry. Yeah also note. I think I think that I mean first off I think that that's a very

[59:45] - persuasive argument and and and frankly Yes, I I share a council member Stasberg's view of the discomfort

[59:54] - of a lot of these conversations I also though would like to highlight something that that this was the clearest

[1:00:03] - Argument for an outcome that is associated with a line of funding and that then it seems petty I know

[1:00:10] - I agree I think a lot of this seems really petty and also later I'll say this clear

[1:00:16] - I don't think, and as I've said at the work session, I don't think that it's council's appropriate role

[1:00:22] - to be micromanaging decisions at a city level. We're supposed to be like the board of directors of the

[1:00:28] - city, not the executive branch. I get that. I think that on the other hand, we've been trying to have

[1:00:35] - a lot of these type of conversations about the long-term strength and viability of the city.

[1:00:40] - We can't all get together and discuss these things behind closed doors. So the way that we have to have

[1:00:46] - these conversations is to put them onto some paper. And when you say these things in any other setting,

[1:00:51] - people don't take you seriously until you put it on paper. And so I think I agree. I totally agree.

[1:00:56] - I find this very persuasive, though.

[1:00:58] - One thing I'd really like to underline is that we've had a lot of opportunities for somebody to simply

[1:01:05] - say, you know what? Travel is about this outcome. And you're the first person to say that. And so this

[1:01:11] - is the type of thing that I've been trying to surface throughout this budget process. I will note the

[1:01:17] - clerk also said something similar about their travel budget specifically. But you've talked about the

[1:01:23] - budget for travel overall. And so I really share that view. And so I'm happy to withdraw.

[1:01:28] - this one but again, it's you know up to the rest of you Yes, I'm opposed to cutting travel I think it's

[1:01:38] - it's a way to invest in our employees to have them communicate with other professionals in their field

[1:01:48] - to have them learn more in advance in their departments and I so I I plan to vote against this and

[1:01:59] - Because I'm happy to I'm happy to move to withdraw amendment 6. Yes Is there a second second, okay I

[1:02:09] - was just being extra cautious. All right. Thank you. So that then moves us on to amendment 7 I'm not

[1:02:20] - gonna introduce amendment 7. Okay, I

[1:02:24] - I think we have an we have an updated amendment from Councilmember Piemont Smith. I Don't know if you

[1:02:33] - could I don't know what number it is, but I think it replaces my number eight amendment 18 Mr. Allen,

[1:02:42] - can you display this amendment, please? I

[1:02:50] - It was an amendment to reduce the risk management budget to remove the appropriation for a telemetric

[1:02:59] - surveillance contract for city owned vehicles. I'm sorry. What amendment number is this. It's up there.

[1:03:08] - It's a new one. It's not in the packet. OK. So it would reduce the appropriation in risk management

[1:03:17] - 5 3 9 9 0.

[1:03:18] - by two hundred seventy two thousand dollars which is the estimated cost of the contract for telemetric

[1:03:28] - surveillance in city owned vehicles and my reasoning. Oh well is there a second second. My reasoning

[1:03:38] - is that this is surveillance and I think even if it could possibly reduce some risk in

[1:03:47] - by addressing unsafe driving practices. I think that comes at a greater risk of invasion of privacy

[1:03:54] - of individuals who are using city vehicles who might you know make a stop somewhere on their way back

[1:04:02] - to City Hall or on their way to a meeting or something. And then all of a sudden we know exactly where

[1:04:09] - they are and what they're doing. And I think that's problematic. So that's it.

[1:04:17] - Thank you any questions for councilmember Piedmont Smith councilmember Stasberg. I think that this is

[1:04:24] - for the administration actually Can can one of you explain exactly? Again, I remember I'm hearing about

[1:04:30] - the sum during budget hearings, but can you explain exactly what these cameras? Do you or what these

[1:04:37] - systems do? I'll take a stab at it and then public works director Adam waste may also want to speak

[1:04:44] - to it. I'm Margie rice corporation council

[1:04:47] - the software monitor speed has cameras to look for Drivers if they're on their cell phones, which is

[1:04:55] - obviously against the law It checks for rolling stops. We thought it was a good idea. We have had a

[1:05:02] - couple years ago. We had a pretty We had a decent increase in accidents and our premiums went up and

[1:05:10] - this was a way we thought would be a good idea to

[1:05:15] - Monitor speed another and driver and attention To address for example, we had a large excavator on a

[1:05:23] - trailer that tipped over speed to the According to the driver was not a factor But you've got a giant

[1:05:32] - truck pulling a trailer with a large excavator on it going into roundabout. We suspected speed was a

[1:05:41] - factor excavator was totaled

[1:05:43] - very expensive accident speed would have it would have been nice to know whether speed was a factor

[1:05:50] - or not. Not so that we can punish drivers but so that we can educate and train accordingly keeping people

[1:05:57] - safe keeping our equipment safe. Our goal here is not to violate anyone's rights but I can tell you

[1:06:03] - that we do allow our policies employees to make de minimis stops and you know grab

[1:06:09] - a drink or whatever. But I will point out that that would not be a violation legally a violation of

[1:06:17] - employee rights because they are being paid on their driving a city vehicle. They're being paid so they

[1:06:26] - should be doing work. And it's not as if we are so strict that we don't allow reasonable stops while

[1:06:34] - driving. So but if there is an employee who takes a big

[1:06:39] - Long furlough and doesn't report it on their time card. That would be an issue and I suppose maybe you

[1:06:46] - could tell it with this this but again, I think of that as accountability and certainly employees don't

[1:06:54] - have a right to You know do whatever they want when they're on the clock As a follow-up to that since

[1:07:01] - it was my original question Do they record location?

[1:07:07] - They would record Yeah, there would be telemetric somewhere there where they're going patterns driving

[1:07:14] - patterns. Okay, so like The supervisor at any time could say like where is truck number 12? You know,

[1:07:21] - I'm gonna let Adam interest that Good evening council members Adam waste and public works director So

[1:07:28] - there was a lot of different systems that can be used for these different programs think of this from maybe

[1:07:36] - From a public works perspective and from a general perspective, you know, it does track locations and

[1:07:42] - things what we're really looking to as well is Sanitation routes, so where's the truck at during a sanitation

[1:07:48] - route? Where's the truck at during snowplow? So while they're piling snow, so there are other advantages

[1:07:54] - to this as well Some of those can be public facing as well depending on which systems you go with I

[1:08:00] - Hope that answers your question. Thank you that answered mine. I

[1:08:05] - Any other questions? Council member, sorry. I don't know who this is best for, but the actual line figure

[1:08:12] - is quite a high one. I mean, I know we have a huge amount of cars in the fleet and all types of vehicles.

[1:08:18] - Can you speak directly to the ROI? I mean, because the, I mean, we gave sort of one example of a time

[1:08:24] - when it would have been useful, but yeah, like how do we, how do the people of Bloomington make their

[1:08:30] - money back?

[1:08:31] - In this day and age of high fuel prices fuel fuel monitoring. So if you're seeing excessive speeds or

[1:08:37] - excessive braking, you're gonna be using higher amounts of fuel You with sanitation in particular you

[1:08:42] - some of the programs offer Turn-by-turn route management things like that. So there are definitely some

[1:08:48] - areas and I could I could provide other examples if you'd like

[1:08:52] - OK, so it's actually more the active routing, like the sort of software part. That's an added benefit

[1:09:00] - to the things like Margie talked about from a risk management perspective. Speeds, braking distances,

[1:09:07] - rolling stops, all of those sorts of things are also part of packages that are offered as well. So there's

[1:09:15] - that risk management side as well.

[1:09:18] - OK, so I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but would you say that spending, I think it's $272,000

[1:09:29] - will result in greater than or equal to $272,000 of investment? There's a very large range of greater

[1:09:39] - than, right? And so I'm just trying to understand here, because, you know,

[1:09:47] - Get it. It's like I get I get the values. There's always values, you know, we could do this. There's

[1:09:53] - gain points I get it. I'm just trying to say like We're living in a time where we're saying that we

[1:09:59] - have to do less with less where we have all these pressures Why is this a thing that we need to be investing

[1:10:05] - in now? Yeah, so a couple points here we've been looking at this for several years and over with several

[1:10:11] - different vendors and So the cost range here is pretty significant it's it's case by case and so

[1:10:17] - The hope is that the two hundred and seventy some thousand dollar expenditure would result in zero accidents

[1:10:23] - or result in such a significant reduction that our insurance premiums go down citywide on top of the

[1:10:30] - other actual routing type benefits of fuel savings etc. So whether or not in any given year you're going

[1:10:36] - to see a two hundred

[1:10:38] - over a quarter-million-dollar benefit. But the point is, you see a possibility of a large swing here,

[1:10:43] - right? Yes. So that there is a possibility that we actually see long-term savings with this. Is there

[1:10:49] - a maintenance cost of having these? So are we locking ourselves in every single year to spending $250,000

[1:10:54] - to continue to do this? So there's always going to be some type of subscription. Most all of the firms

[1:11:00] - that are offering these types of products are going to have some type of subscription fee into the future,

[1:11:06] - but it all, again, all depends on...

[1:11:08] - breakdown, so what's the cost? Roughly speaking, I don't need exacts, but I'm just trying to get a sense

[1:11:14] - of what proportion of this is buying something new versus what proportion of this is paying for a new

[1:11:20] - service. We can follow up. And a follow up question, sorry. Are we covering the whole fleet with this

[1:11:27] - amount? Not necessarily. And so let me do this. Let us kind of regroup on our end to try to answer that

[1:11:33] - in a more substantial way for you to really

[1:11:36] - Like I said different vendors offer different aspects of different programs and such and how they do

[1:11:42] - it some are more upfront costs Some are more ongoing. So let us do a little more and we'll get back

[1:11:48] - to you. Okay. Thank you so much Any other questions Councilmember Stossberg

[1:11:53] - I have a round two hypothetical. So in the incident that you mentioned where you suspected that speed

[1:12:00] - might have been an issue, but there was no way for you to, say, prove that with this kind of system,

[1:12:07] - then you would be able to prove that. So then you could say, oh, this employee was driving too fast,

[1:12:14] - and that's why this happened. What would happen then to that?

[1:12:18] - employee potentially and Similarly, I mean does that mean our insurance doesn't cover it does that mean

[1:12:26] - some kind of other insurance covers it like is that I Mean, I mean because it's not like this software

[1:12:33] - is limiting speed It's still up to the driver to drive safely Let me take a stab at that and I'll let

[1:12:40] - Margie answer more of the like legal side of it, but I

[1:12:44] - It's gonna monitor that monitor that speed at real time. So if the driver is exceeding the speed limit,

[1:12:51] - you can set the parameters for notification it's gonna pop up on your you know with either a verbal

[1:12:58] - or Most likely some type of a verbal your speed is over the speed limit. Please slow down type of thing,

[1:13:04] - you know, so there are components of the system that in real time inform the driver of what Improper

[1:13:11] - driving was taking place

[1:13:13] - If you roll through a stop sign with some of these systems, it will let you know right then and there

[1:13:18] - you have rolled through a stop sign. It will log that in the system. The supervisor would get a report

[1:13:24] - in terms of just from a public works perspective. Again, we're not looking at this from a disciplinary

[1:13:29] - perspective. It's more of a record keeping or a tracking mechanism to help us improve driver behaviors

[1:13:35] - across the hundreds and hundreds of vehicles we have out there every day.

[1:13:39] - You know in terms of looking at it from disciplinary perspective that's not the original intent If an

[1:13:46] - extreme if an accident occurred and there were extreme speeds, of course We'd take that into consideration

[1:13:53] - through our accident review committee and other things And I can tell you that our insurance company

[1:13:59] - is recommending this purchase they think that it's

[1:14:03] - One they like the fact that we have a risk management division that's not something that every municipality

[1:14:09] - has they have encouraged us to review accidents on a weekly basis which we are doing as Adam said the

[1:14:14] - software can alert a driver that they're speeding they may not be you know they may be distracted not

[1:14:20] - paying attention it can stop in there that could stop an accident. We are hoping to keep our employees

[1:14:25] - safe and keep the public safe and if this

[1:14:28] - would prevent an accident it would be well worth the you know two hundred seventy two thousand dollars.

[1:14:34] - I think if it prevents an employee or a member of the public from being injured there are costs that

[1:14:41] - are not exactly dollar you know a specific dollar amount that you can put on an injury to an employee

[1:14:48] - or to a member of the public. I think it's a good idea. I think it's it could result in reduced premiums.

[1:14:54] - It could result in reduced. Adam said.

[1:14:57] - gasoline costs you know vehicle and damage. So we would be watching and seeing what kind of benefit

[1:15:04] - we get on this. It's hard to say right now what the return on investment would be until we get it and

[1:15:12] - use it. But I think it's a and again remember that this was 270 two thousand dollars that was in the

[1:15:19] - legal services O3 and I transferred it to record masking to transfer it to risk for this. It's not new money but

[1:15:27] - You know it's ultimately up to the council whether you want to appropriate this or not. We'd like to

[1:15:34] - try it. Our insurance company would like us to try it. We wouldn't probably start by putting it on every

[1:15:41] - single vehicle. I think Public Works is really interested in it. We would do utilities. We may not put

[1:15:47] - it on police and fire because they already you know have ways to sort of you know for example if they're

[1:15:54] - going to a crime scene you know they have

[1:15:57] - Dashcam that gets turned on so I mean there we'll look at how we deploy but again, we haven't we haven't

[1:16:04] - we've tested some but we haven't picked a vendor yet and And Adam sat through a lot of interviews with

[1:16:10] - different companies. So I think he's got a pretty good handle on it Thank you All right. Thank you.

[1:16:16] - If there are no other are there any other questions? right, we'll move to public comment then anybody

[1:16:22] - in chambers or online and

[1:16:28] - OK so moving on any last council member comments. Council member Piedmont Smith and then council member

[1:16:38] - Stossberg. Yeah I just think here again like with LPR it's trusting a third party vendor to keep information

[1:16:50] - secure and not share it improperly.

[1:16:54] - ACLU, at least in one state, has come out in opposition to the telemetric systems and has encouraged

[1:17:02] - that employees have an option to opt out of them. It's just another data collection point that could

[1:17:10] - be misused. And so I am, of course, in favor of the amendment that I'm bringing. And I hope for your

[1:17:19] - support. Thank you.

[1:17:23] - Councilman Stossberg was next and then president. Sorry I Appreciate councilmember Piedmont Smith bringing

[1:17:34] - this forward. I appreciate her Priority and attention to privacy in the situation. I do disagree with

[1:17:44] - her. I do think that This expense Has some potential for improving I'll say

[1:17:52] - City driver behavior and I mean I'm sure I'm not the only person who has seen city vehicles speed through

[1:18:00] - my neighborhood and roll through stop signs and It is especially frustrating when there's a city logo

[1:18:08] - on the side of a vehicle that you're going. Oh my gosh Why are they driving like that? Like I mean,

[1:18:16] - come on who's who's had a police officer tailgate them?

[1:18:20] - Like not necessarily targeting Bloomington police right but just like in general a police officer tailgum

[1:18:28] - or a police officer speed and just be like seriously like your lights aren't on what is the rush and

[1:18:35] - it's really frustrating from like a resident point of view to see that kind of behavior and I think

[1:18:42] - that this is a way to potentially improve driver safety and as long in my opinion as the employees are

[1:18:49] - aware of this

[1:18:51] - I think that The privacy issue is is Manageable okay, and that's also coming from you know the perspective

[1:19:01] - of somebody who has a lot of familiarity with remote work and there are a lot There's a lot of watching

[1:19:12] - happening with some remote work for some

[1:19:16] - industries thinking about tech industries where their computers record every single keystroke that they

[1:19:23] - do remotely and That you know all of those things are happening, and I think that this is a much milder

[1:19:30] - Sort of thing to have this kind of onboard system it also reminds me honestly of several safety related

[1:19:37] - systems that my

[1:19:39] - fancy new car has that my less fancy old car doesn't have. And we certainly can't afford to upgrade

[1:19:46] - all of the cars to have the little alert that goes on when you're too close to the side of the road,

[1:19:53] - that little lane thing, right? Or that little, oh, the car in front of you stopped, you better beep,

[1:20:00] - beep, beep, start braking. And it sounds like some of these systems have that capability as well in terms of

[1:20:08] - Not even necessarily distraction, but sometimes when you're driving, there's a lot of inputs I'm teaching

[1:20:15] - a 15 year old to drive right now and there are a lot of things that have to be paid attention to at

[1:20:21] - the same time and I think that one of the advantages of technology is that that technology can can help

[1:20:28] - us change our focus when we need to so I Will be voting no on this amendment That's a member sorry,

[1:20:34] - did you have comment no anybody else I

[1:20:38] - All right. Well then I think we're ready to vote on this one. Will clerk please call the roll on Amendment

[1:20:49] - 18. Council member Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. No. Ruff. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. No.

[1:20:58] - Piedmont Smith. Yes. Thank you. All right. So that passes six to two.

[1:21:06] - Why can't I get my numbers right tonight? I'm not I'm not the math teacher here Okay, that means we

[1:21:16] - are actually gonna go ahead move on to amendment 10 who would like to Possibly motion for amendment

[1:21:26] - 10. I'd like to introduce amendment 10 Second all right. Thank you. Who would like to talk about it? Sorry

[1:21:36] - This is many of us, yes? Yes, okay. This one maybe we can spend a bit more time on. At the top level, this

[1:21:49] - Reduces, but I think that that's Maybe let's use a different word holds the housing development fund

[1:21:57] - appropriation for programs Until we can have a conversation about exactly how we're going to use this.

[1:22:04] - We talked about this in depth During the working session. So I'll just add a few things before I'm passing

[1:22:12] - to my colleagues here I Don't think any single one of us on on this body is

[1:22:18] - is against, in any form, spending this fund. I've even said out loud I'd be happy for us to spend all

[1:22:26] - of the money in this fund if indeed we were doing it to significantly move the needle.

[1:22:32] - Throughout this week and the last week ever since proposing this, there's been a lot of outreach, including

[1:22:38] - by affected stakeholders. And the question that I've asked every single time when they say it's irresponsible

[1:22:44] - to cut this fund is I go, do you think that this fund works the best that it can? And the response is

[1:22:49] - always no. So I find it quite fascinating that we have this path dependency where we're like, well,

[1:22:54] - we have to fund this thing so that we can keep doing what we're doing. But even the people who benefit

[1:23:00] - from it are like,

[1:23:01] - This isn't the way we should be using it. And so I think that we should be we we should hold This one

[1:23:08] - not not with the objective of holding it throughout the year Just with the objective of us having a

[1:23:15] - conversation about how do we best? Use this I also would be totally on board with us I think both councilman

[1:23:22] - Piedmont Smith and I and again not to make you uncomfortable

[1:23:26] - Sort of you know, I'm just repeating something you have said but both of us have said throughout the

[1:23:32] - last three years certainly I have nothing against even deficit spending or using for that matter are

[1:23:38] - considerable reserves When it's targeted at something that's an investment and I think that that Affordable

[1:23:45] - housing is one such thing and so I would be interested even in exploring opportunities to put more money

[1:23:51] - into this fund, etc

[1:23:52] - Exploring what's viable to really make this, you know, be able to be something that we can ideally knock

[1:23:58] - it out of the park. And concerned that at the moment we basically are doing a sort of first come first

[1:24:04] - serve. At least that's how it's been explained to us multiple times. And so this is trying to surface

[1:24:10] - a broader conversation. You know, this I think is sort of the way that I'm approaching this one. So

[1:24:15] - happy to pass over to Councilmember Piedmont Smith or Councilmember Stossberg who I think also proposed this.

[1:24:26] - Yes, I think councilmember Osar I put it well in that Our goal is not to prevent appropriations from

[1:24:35] - this fund but to have a conversation with the administration to Talk about our long-term strategy for

[1:24:45] - use of this money and How the requests that have come in factor into that strategy to Also recognize that

[1:24:56] - I think there's less than $6 million total in this fund. It's a limited amount of money, which I don't

[1:25:04] - think is going to be replenished at the rate that we're spending it. And so we really need to be very

[1:25:13] - careful as to how it's spent and have a plan in place. And it does, as Council Member Asari said, it

[1:25:21] - does not feel like the most

[1:25:25] - Strategic use of the fund is currently being implemented since it's a first-come first-serve kind of

[1:25:34] - thing so I think we really just want to have a conversation and Come to an understanding about the strategy

[1:25:44] - for the best use of this limited money And I think just wanting to address one particular

[1:25:52] - that's in the response from the office of the mayor, specifically from hand, I'm sorry, it's that, and

[1:25:57] - so saying this for us to hopefully have a conversation, my intention if we are to move forward with

[1:26:03] - this is not that every single time they want to go about one of these things and they come back to us

[1:26:08] - and say, okay, we have one project, can we use a little bit of this money? But it's rather for us to

[1:26:14] - have the conversation once and have it for all, right? Like let's have that conversation, let's decide

[1:26:19] - the strategy that we're gonna be using here,

[1:26:22] - And then like I said, I'd even be interested in figuring out ways to put more funding in this if relevant

[1:26:32] - or interested All right, thank you does anybody from the administration want to speak on this one Kerry

[1:26:42] - Thompson mayor

[1:26:44] - Think we're more than happy always to have a conversation about how to do things better There is some

[1:26:52] - strategy in how this funding is deployed and I think it's different There's a the question that is reportedly

[1:27:00] - being asked to people who are receiving the funds is is there a better way to use this or are we doing

[1:27:08] - the the best we can do and

[1:27:11] - I don't think we're doing the best we can do. We can certainly look at how to do that. That doesn't

[1:27:19] - mean we're doing a terrible job either. And so I think our administration's been really open to working

[1:27:27] - with council on various things. The challenge with having to come back for appropriations for any of

[1:27:35] - this is that if a need comes up or there's a project,

[1:27:40] - What happens if this hasn't been decided is that that project becomes the measuring stick for the entire

[1:27:48] - fund instead of actually talking about the process. And what we have seen time and again through the

[1:27:56] - planning process, through funding processes that work in a case-by-case basis like this is that we end

[1:28:04] - up not getting the housing built or we end up increasing the cost of the housing.

[1:28:11] - That's not what any of us want. We all want to do better with the money that we have, but adding layers

[1:28:18] - and layers of red tape to getting it done doesn't seem like the most practical solution. So I'm just

[1:28:25] - wondering if there's a counter proposal for working together in a time-bound way to come up with a strategy,

[1:28:32] - leave the money there, so we don't have to go to three council hearings with all of the staff that

[1:28:40] - Already are going to a lot of Plant Commission Council and RDC meetings So that we can get them doing

[1:28:50] - work rather than going to meetings Thank you any other any questions now Chris gamma lodge a logistics

[1:29:01] - question to the controller sure Control with him. Would it be possible to include

[1:29:09] - a additional appropriation for a fund like this in the slot that we already have at the end of the year

[1:29:16] - for sort of the cleanup appropriation where we do fund transfers and the like. Can we can we do that

[1:29:22] - or does it have to wait until the actual calendar year if we were to make an appropriation outside of

[1:29:29] - budget time. Yeah the short answer is

[1:29:32] - If we did the additional appropriation at the end of this year, it would expire on December 31st.

[1:29:38] - Got it. Got it. It's a good idea. OK. OK. So so so so so the earliest if we were on any of these things

[1:29:44] - that if we wanted to do an additional appropriation would have to happen at our after our January 15th

[1:29:50] - meeting after our after we received our budget order from the DLGF, which would probably be in early

[1:29:56] - January. OK. OK. Thank you. So that's that's useful to know. All right. Any other questions?

[1:30:04] - None we'll go to public comment Nobody online nobody in chambers, okay, we'll come back to council comment

[1:30:11] - Councilmember Stossberg and then councilmember Piedmont Smith and then councilmember. Sorry Thank you.

[1:30:19] - So My name was mentioned earlier, but I did not end up being an official sponsor of this which is why

[1:30:26] - I did not speak earlier but this was also something that I wanted to do and

[1:30:33] - I'm supportive of this amendment I'm supportive of it in a different read for a different reason though

[1:30:39] - than what was already expressed What was expressed was this idea of strategy? We need to figure out

[1:30:46] - some kind of joint strategy to approach this I'm interested in public transparency and accountability

[1:30:52] - and the mayor's memo actually made this even more important to me because it lists several projects

[1:30:58] - that requested more than a million dollars in city assistance and

[1:31:03] - We have an entire another ordinance from several years ago that says City Council needs to approve expenses

[1:31:11] - over a hundred thousand dollars in capital investment and yet we don't want to have Some kind of public

[1:31:18] - hearing when the city asks when the city has asked for more than a million dollars in assistance That

[1:31:25] - is absurd and to diminish the value of something like that coming before this body is a diminishment of

[1:31:33] - this body's importance as the fiscal officer we are the fiscal body of this city and You considered

[1:31:40] - us with projects that might be over a million dollars in city assistance to just be layers and layers

[1:31:48] - of red tape Earlier in this memo. It's a burden to have to come before City Council and it's not that

[1:31:55] - you're just disrespecting the nine of us up here as individuals as elected officials and

[1:32:03] - as a body, but it also feels like blatant disrespect to the residents of this city who have taxpayers.

[1:32:10] - And it's blatant disrespect when instead of listening to council member comment or to public comment,

[1:32:17] - instead you walk out of the room. And for those of you not in this room, Mayor Thompson just walked

[1:32:24] - out of the room instead of listening. I consider that blatant disrespect to the fiscal body

[1:32:30] - Consider it blatantly disrespectful to the residents of this city who pay taxes, you know to get money

[1:32:36] - into this fund There has to be an approval of the affordability Incentives for planning projects for

[1:32:42] - large planning projects for them to take advantage of affordability incentives Plan Commission has to

[1:32:48] - approve that

[1:32:49] - Has to approve these payments in lieu that go into this fund that is a public process And yet no public

[1:32:56] - process should be needed for requests more than a million dollars in city assistance that come out of

[1:33:03] - this It absolutely should be and as for the timeline issue if these projects take years to potentially

[1:33:09] - come Then you know what there is time to come before council and say yeah, so we have this project it

[1:33:16] - Might still be somewhere in the middle, but we would like to support it with a million dollars And if

[1:33:22] - that project somehow doesn't end up coming to fruition then that will revert back into the fund We can

[1:33:29] - have legislation that says that and then it does not lengthen the timeline So this is just full of excuses

[1:33:35] - about why they cannot come before City Council why they cannot come before the public and defend expending

[1:33:42] - more than a million dollars and

[1:33:44] - City assets to various personal projects. Thank you Councilmember Piedmont Smith Well, actually I was

[1:33:55] - Also wondering how this corresponds with resolution 2018 no ordinance 2018-10 I don't know the ordinance

[1:34:07] - we passed in December of 2018 that said all the

[1:34:13] - capital at all expenditures of one hundred thousand dollars or more must be itemized in the budget or

[1:34:21] - must come back to the council for approval. And I'm wondering how this blanket approval of three million

[1:34:28] - dollars would be following municipal code if in our code it says that such items must be listed in the

[1:34:36] - budget. I don't know if attorney Allen has a response to that.

[1:34:47] - reviewing the ordinance which I believe is 2018 10. Thank you. I'm happy to respond to it. Just give

[1:34:55] - me just a moment just to fully read it and I can thank you.

[1:35:43] - My apologies for the delay. Thank you for the moment. Just look at the ordinance.

[1:35:49] - 1810 did a few different things. So one of the things that it did is allowed Council to have oversight

[1:35:55] - over intrafund transfers that also involved a hundred thousand dollar limit So anytime that there's

[1:36:00] - a transfer between category one fund or category three funds Additionally, there was a capital funds

[1:36:05] - expenditure of over a hundred thousand dollars that it required review now that it does specify that

[1:36:10] - those capital reviews that are over a hundred thousand dollars or anything that's not in the capital

[1:36:16] - improvement plan and those relate to direct capital expenditure

[1:36:19] - of the city so they wouldn't necessarily relate to potential funding of other organizations or anything

[1:36:24] - that's non capital spending. That would be my understanding and if the administration has a different

[1:36:30] - different stance I'd be happy to hear that. So I don't think that these these types of expenditures

[1:36:35] - out of the housing fund which may go directly to a developer or to another organization qualify as a

[1:36:40] - capital expenditure of the city exactly as much as they are like a grant or another services type of

[1:36:45] - funding from the city to a different organization.

[1:36:50] - Thank you. That said I agree with Councilmember Stossberg that in addition to kind of forcing a conversation

[1:37:00] - about the best strategy for the use of these limited funds it would also add a layer of transparency

[1:37:10] - for the public to see how the city is using the money that has come in from developers

[1:37:19] - And I think that that's an important part of this as well, especially with the dollar amounts that we've

[1:37:26] - seen go out of this fund More a sort of question for colleagues about how you envision then so so should

[1:37:34] - we Should we should we adopt this amendment? What do you how do you envision that going? I

[1:37:41] - Because I because I because I would not want sort of like a lot of like I would that wouldn't be my

[1:37:48] - my objective here, right? So I'm just interested sort of if you all have some thought on you know What

[1:37:56] - our timeline would be how we would approach it how you know, how do we actually get to a better outcome

[1:38:03] - here? I Think that probably there should be legislation similar to that one from 2018 that requires a

[1:38:11] - any kind of Private equity assistance over a certain dollar amount to have to come through council and

[1:38:18] - I don't know what that dollar amount might be but I mean We give grants all the time and of course Jack

[1:38:26] - Hopkins comes through here because it's council money and then there's smaller grants that go

[1:38:33] - various places that are within hand right and I certainly would not want to and like ESD has a bunch

[1:38:39] - of grants there's climate grants like I don't want to get in the middle of any of those grants right

[1:38:45] - because those are small dollar amounts but like over some kind of dollar amount it needs to come through

[1:38:51] - council in my opinion and so then that would you know manage that to some degree in terms of my concern

[1:38:58] - with transparency and making sure that

[1:39:01] - The residents know where this money is going that we know where this money is going that you know five

[1:39:07] - years from now somebody is not going to have to comb through records to figure out that oh we supplemented

[1:39:13] - union at Crescent to the tune of two million dollars.

[1:39:17] - I mean, we shouldn't have to wonder about that. It should be somewhere in the public record. Thank you.

[1:39:25] - My thinking, though, is that we can take those actions regardless of what we do with this fund, which

[1:39:33] - I think is a needful and separate conversation.

[1:39:37] - a strategy component of saying, hey, we want to withdraw this fund to have further conversations. Now,

[1:39:43] - I fully appreciate your point though, because I think your point would be, and correct me if I'm wrong,

[1:39:49] - is that you're not

[1:39:50] - comfortable releasing the funds until we've taken that action of oversight. Am I correct? Okay. Whereas

[1:40:00] - my argument is that, and I don't think these are in dichotomy, but I really want us to have a conversation

[1:40:10] - about how are we going to really employ this to get it

[1:40:16] - to a higher level, a better, I'm trying to bias myself away from using the word outcome. But how are

[1:40:26] - we going to get to a better end result for residents? So how might we contribute to that part that isn't

[1:40:37] - a worse outcome? Well, what I heard the mayor say was that they have a big plan of intent

[1:40:46] - You could say not sure that they've necessarily shared it with counsel. So, you know, I mean if that's

[1:40:52] - what you're asking in terms of that kind of larger conversation of what should this money be used for?

[1:40:57] - Is that what you're asking? Are you asking? Yeah, I guess I guess to make sure that this doesn't because

[1:41:03] - I mean there's there's a fail state here where we withhold this money and then

[1:41:07] - do nothing about this until we basically are like, hey, it's in your court. You engage with us now,

[1:41:14] - right? And then we make it very difficult to engage with us. And you know what I'm saying? That would

[1:41:21] - be like the worst, maybe a worse outcome than the outcome we're discussing, whereas the pain point that

[1:41:28] - you've identified, we can act on regardless. And so that's, right? Well, to my end, I'm,

[1:41:37] - I mean, to some degree, I'm willing to say trust that, you know, just thinking about this project list

[1:41:45] - that got included in the memo, one, two, three, four, five, there's five different project lists. I'm

[1:41:53] - pretty happy to trust the hands department when they say, okay, we wanna fund two of these, they're

[1:42:01] - the best ones.

[1:42:03] - They're the best ones for the overall state. It's going to total this much amount of money. And for

[1:42:08] - them to come with that appropriation with what's the project about, what's it going to do for Bloomington,

[1:42:14] - why they chose this as the best one, that's the discussion that I want to make sure we have before we

[1:42:19] - appropriate the money. And that is a different discussion, I think, than what you and Councilmember

[1:42:24] - Piedmont-Smith were saying in terms of being able to have eyes on and being involved in the conversation

[1:42:30] - of actually choosing the two that are the best.

[1:42:32] - I'm fine with trusting staff and the professionals in that field to choose which two are the best. But

[1:42:39] - then I want them to come and defend, to explain their choice, defend their choice, allow us to ask questions

[1:42:46] - about their choice, allow the public to see and be involved in all of those conversations, hopefully

[1:42:52] - without eye rolling happening by any of us. And then for us to be able to make that decision. That's

[1:42:59] - public transparency. That's accountability.

[1:43:02] - That's doing that's that's making these big decisions about millions of dollars In front of everybody,

[1:43:08] - which is what we're supposed to do, right? So so then wondering because your original I think your original

[1:43:14] - amendment Wasn't as wasn't holding the whole fun back. I think you if I'm remembering correctly was

[1:43:20] - it? Yo, yo, okay. Sorry. Sorry was comfortable appearance with so just thinking about

[1:43:25] - You know if the if cutting the difference here is that you is that you appropriate a million dollars

[1:43:31] - or something like that rather than three and no I I sent a message to the hand department asking because

[1:43:37] - last year when they when we appropriated money from this account for them one of the things that was

[1:43:42] - mentioned was kind of the the potential that they were using some of that fund for smaller grant amounts

[1:43:48] - that might end up being more personal like I mean it's one thing to discuss a million dollar appropriation for a

[1:43:54] - Corporation, you know a development company to build 216 multifamily units, right? It's another thing

[1:44:01] - to discuss, you know Individuals getting some sort of rental assistance like that that does not need

[1:44:07] - to be public So, you know if they want to come and say like hey we have this this program XYZ that we

[1:44:13] - want to give rental assistance we want to do this that and the other thing which is kind of what they

[1:44:20] - did last year and

[1:44:21] - With the money from this program. I'm good with that kind of proposal too in terms of using this money

[1:44:27] - to more directly You know fund those sorts of things I know that we you know, we have various the hand

[1:44:32] - department does various grant kind of stuff But I did not get any response to that email Asking if any

[1:44:38] - of this money was being reserved for any of those programs at all because I was open to leaving any

[1:44:44] - money in here that was going to be devoted to those sorts of programs but but since I didn't get a response I

[1:44:50] - Just had to assume. All right, none of it's being used for that. So just cut the whole thing

[1:44:56] - Okay Councilmember Piedmont Smith Well, just to also address councilmember Asari's question I think

[1:45:04] - that before the end of this calendar year, we should have a discussion with the administration and with

[1:45:11] - hand about use of this fund I don't think you know we can prejudge from

[1:45:17] - the format or the outcome of that discussion but I think it needs to be had and I think it needs to

[1:45:24] - be had soon. So I would say you know by mid December let's let's have that discussion so that if we

[1:45:32] - come to some agreement and appropriation can be sought in January. All right. Any. OK. I think we are

[1:45:39] - ready to council member Flaherty just briefly. I support this and support

[1:45:45] - Aligned substantively with what most of what I've heard. I think for me the strongest motivating factor

[1:45:52] - is Kind of over a certain level or threshold. I think a public process and accountability the opportunity

[1:45:59] - for questions, etc is Worth the trade-offs that involves. Thanks All right, thank you and I think with

[1:46:05] - that we're ready to take a vote on amendment Number ten will clerk, please call the roll councilmember Asari

[1:46:15] - Yes. Daily. No. Ruff. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Thank you.

[1:46:27] - All right. That passes six to one. And I believe the next amendment I closed it out. Are we moving on

[1:46:38] - to 11. Oh sorry. My place. Okay.

[1:46:46] - I'm not going to advance number 11. I can make a comment about 11 and why I'm not advancing it. Just

[1:46:54] - had very good conversations with Director Tim Street about sort of this printing budget, which they

[1:47:01] - agree it's a lot, but it's sort of the best method they have right now to engage with the public. One,

[1:47:09] - two, three.

[1:47:10] - OK. And they are piloting throughout this year already. And as you saw in the response, what it might

[1:47:19] - look like to lower costs there. I think that this surfaced sort of the right type of conversation. And

[1:47:28] - so I'm happy to not move this one forward. But if somebody else would like to, I'm happy to second.

[1:47:36] - But yeah. OK. OK. Thank you.

[1:47:40] - Amendment number 12. I think there's a motion to recess. Is that did I hear correctly? No, I wasn't

[1:47:49] - making a motion. I was responding to a face. Oh, okay I think I'm the next one I moved that we introduce

[1:47:58] - some amendment 12 Second

[1:48:01] - This one much like the last one holds the two million five hundred placeholder for the parking meter

[1:48:09] - fund again same same idea. Oh Okay, we're still fine same Same idea here is that I mean we haven't identified

[1:48:18] - exactly what we want to do how we want to do it and

[1:48:22] - I think the important thing to note though about the parking meter fund is that it would be possible

[1:48:30] - to look at this one through the lens of us just, you know, withholding money that must be spent on

[1:48:38] - the thing that is planned for it here, but there are a lot of different things that we're able to spend

[1:48:45] - this fund on. So this is actually sort of like a choice here, and so I think it would be good to continue

[1:48:52] - to have that engaged conversation about what we plan to do, how we plan on implementing it, but obviously I'm

[1:48:59] - Generally supportive of implementing what came out of the parking of the parking plan or parking study

[1:49:05] - or whatever it was And also to be consistent with why I said before I think that we should fund things

[1:49:11] - after we've studied them But I just think that it's still sort of a placeholder. So until we have some

[1:49:17] - clarity come back to them All right, thank you any questions on oh I'm sorry. Yes. Does any

[1:49:23] - of the co-sponsors want to speak?

[1:49:25] - Yeah, I just want to say that this also falls under public transparency for me that There's not a specific

[1:49:34] - vendor right now identified. There's not even a specific

[1:49:39] - You know, there's a lot of questions about like meters versus not meters individual meters versus group

[1:49:45] - meters like like there's a lot of questions like that and so I think that it's useful to be have to

[1:49:50] - come back to counsel for that appropriation when those decisions have actually been made and I know

[1:49:56] - it's one of those things like yeah, you can have another information session, but there are a lot of

[1:50:02] - meetings on

[1:50:03] - There are a lot of meetings in this city. There's a lot of different groups that have a lot of different

[1:50:10] - meetings and there are some people that just follow council or just follow one thing or another thing.

[1:50:16] - And I think that especially with large expenditures and we are the fiscal body we should be able to

[1:50:23] - be a body that people like oh city's gonna spend millions of dollars on something. Let's see what it

[1:50:29] - is. So that's why I wanted to wanted to to

[1:50:33] - Reduce this line so that then the additional appropriation would have to be sought after. Thank you

[1:50:41] - Councilmember Piedmont Smith Yeah, I second what my two co-sponsors said and I also want to add that

[1:50:49] - one of the recommendations of the Walker parking study is to use automatic license plate readers for

[1:50:57] - parking enforcement, which I think comes with some

[1:51:02] - privacy concerns and surveillance concerns. And so I think that definitely should come back to council.

[1:51:08] - So that's just an added reason for this amendment. All right. Thank you. Anybody have any questions

[1:51:15] - for the sponsors or for the administration. Would the administration like to comment on this amendment

[1:51:21] - or no. OK. So any questions then I see no questions. OK. We'll go to public comment. Anybody in chambers

[1:51:28] - or online. Nobody online. I see no movement in chambers.

[1:51:32] - We'll come back here for comment. Any council member comments before we move to a vote on Amendment

[1:51:40] - 12 and no. All right. So with that will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 12. And thank you

[1:51:48] - all very much for being so speedy on this one. Council member Daley. Oh yes. Ruff yes clarity. Yes.

[1:51:57] - Sasberg yes. Piedmont Smith yes. Zulek yes. Sorry.

[1:52:02] - Yes Passes unanimously. Thank you Councilmember Zulik, do you have any thoughts on amendment 13? I will

[1:52:10] - not be introducing it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much Councilmember Piedmont Smith, do you have

[1:52:18] - any thoughts on amendment 14? Yes, thank you No, we did not we've not officially discussed it because

[1:52:26] - it I'd like to move amendment 14 the revised amendment 14 which

[1:52:31] - Attorney Alan, can you please put that on the screen? Yeah, amendment 1 to amendment 14 First we have

[1:52:39] - can we just move do it and we just move this as amendment 14 revised Yeah, I was just trying to provide

[1:52:47] - some transparency since it was included in the packet if you'd like to call it revised I mean as long

[1:52:55] - as we're pointing out what the revisions are and how it changed

[1:53:02] - Okay if you could please display it I will point out what the revision was and I second a second.

[1:53:09] - Thank you. All right. Council member Pete Smith. So this this amendment reduces the office of the mayor's

[1:53:16] - budget by ten thousand dollars which was reserved to implement branding initiatives and the correction

[1:53:24] - between what was in the packet and what is on the screen currently is that the account

[1:53:30] - The correct account is five three nine nine zero It's called technically it's called account even though

[1:53:38] - we know it as line item Just to be extra confusing But yes that number five three nine nine zero is

[1:53:45] - the correct number and the previous number five three one seven zero is incorrect So that's just been

[1:53:53] - corrected in the text of the amendment

[1:53:57] - And I'm bringing forward this amendment because I feel like the whole branding initiative was kind of

[1:54:04] - a waste of time and I don't want to throw good money after bad. Thank you. All right.

[1:54:11] - Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Any questions on Amendment 14 is revised. All right. No questions.

[1:54:19] - We will move on to public comment. Anybody in chambers or online would like to make

[1:54:25] - public comment nobody online has Volunteered a question. Nobody in chambers is moving. We'll come back

[1:54:33] - here any council comments before we move to a vote Councilmember, sorry, I'm happy to support this and

[1:54:40] - and not move forward with the one that's I think we should just do this one All right, thank you any

[1:54:47] - other comments All right, I don't see any other comments so will clerk please call the roll on amendment 14

[1:54:56] - Councilmember Ruff. Yes Flaherty Stasberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes, sorry. Yes, Bailey.

[1:55:06] - Yes, 14 passes unanimously. Thank you everybody Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Do you have any thoughts

[1:55:16] - on amendment 15? Sure, I move amendment 15 to Appropriation Ordinance 20 2602. Sorry second

[1:55:25] - All right. Thank you very much. This amendment reduces the Department of Economic and Sustainability's

[1:55:33] - budget in the amount related to the grade nine salary and benefits of the transportation demand manager

[1:55:40] - position. So this is a position that is currently not filled and when it was filled for a few years

[1:55:47] - it didn't seem to accomplish very much. So I send in the interest of tightening belts I think.

[1:55:55] - We can do without it. Thank you All right, thanks very much any questions Councilmember Stossberg and

[1:56:03] - then councilmember Flaherty have there been similar reductions from the other category one expenses

[1:56:12] - for this position like insurance and FICA and perf and all of those sorts of things or was it just the

[1:56:20] - salary that was taken off and Does category three

[1:56:24] - allow those other or sorry does number three allow those other things to be changed. What's the I believe

[1:56:32] - so. Yes I believe that's why number three was added by our wise counsel Mr. Allen. Yeah that's correct.

[1:56:40] - So in discussions with the controller Mr. Kim can speak to this as well. Those are.

[1:56:47] - Very specific line items for the benefits of each employee and we didn't know what those totals were

[1:56:54] - So that's exactly what section 3 does is allow the controller to adjust appropriately So that if this

[1:57:00] - position is removed all those will be reduced accordingly is my understanding Yes, and I'd just like

[1:57:06] - to confirm that we will reduce all the appropriate benefit lines if you vote to eliminate this position

[1:57:13] - Great. Thank you

[1:57:17] - Question. Oh, yes councilmember Flaherty. Yeah, just curious. I'm in Any follow-up you had with the

[1:57:24] - administration or just your own thinking? Is it just that this money will then go? Back to the general

[1:57:31] - fund and just reduce the overall expenditure. Did you consider options for how the money could be better

[1:57:38] - spent for similar purposes? Thank you for asking Yes, I personally would like to see the money used

[1:57:46] - Better implement our climate action plan particularly in the realm of food security and our local food

[1:57:55] - system However, I this is not a venue where I can dictate that but that was my idea and that's what

[1:58:04] - I've talked with director Cooper Smith about So we'll see Thanks any other questions for amendment 15

[1:58:13] - Okay, no questions that I see

[1:58:16] - Any public comment here either in chambers or online? Nobody online, but I do see somebody making their

[1:58:22] - way to the podium. Thank you very much. You have three minutes.

[1:58:27] - I'm not gonna need all three minutes. My name is Iris Bowl again. I just think it's interesting that

[1:58:32] - this position is being cut I think it's out of convenience and not in the spirit of actually trying

[1:58:38] - to understand how transportation modes could be better utilized around town our east-west corridor for

[1:58:43] - bicyclists and scooters is terrible and I just generally think that this role offered a lot of promise

[1:58:49] - and a lot of

[1:58:50] - A lot of effort went into making it it's very hard to create jobs at the city And I think it's a shame

[1:58:56] - that out of a matter of convenience because the position is not filled that for example The Transportation

[1:59:03] - Commission is not being given an opportunity to talk about this particular item. Thank you Thank you

[1:59:09] - very much last check for anybody online looking to make comment Nope, I don't see anybody else here

[1:59:15] - in chambers

[1:59:16] - So we'll come back here for council comment. Any last comments before we move to a vote on this council

[1:59:24] - member sorry does raise an interesting thought that we hadn't at least I hadn't considered but maybe

[1:59:32] - both a question for attorney Allen and controller. Kim is it possible to essentially like I mean defund

[1:59:39] - a position.

[1:59:41] - keep the position as a line that could be revived so that you don't have to go through the whole process

[1:59:47] - of creating a new position? Because I mean, it is a good point that it, you know, I don't know if it's

[1:59:53] - like very hard, except for the fact you have to like talk to us, but you know, but you're right.

[1:59:59] - So yeah, so what are your? Absolutely. You can keep the position alive. You can keep it in the salary

[2:00:05] - ordinance. It still exists in the system. You could fund it at a later time.

[2:00:10] - Right. So OK. That's interesting. So I hadn't thought about that with with position so we could so but

[2:00:16] - that would look like us defunding it in the salary ordinance and not defunding it in this ordinance.

[2:00:22] - It's actually the reverse would be true. Okay. Defunding in this ordinance and then there is a later

[2:00:28] - amendment for the salary ordinance specific for this position and then that would just would not be

[2:00:34] - passed. So it would remain in the salary ordinance but there'd be no funding in this.

[2:00:39] - Interesting Thanks, I support this amendment I appreciate our member the public and Engineering department

[2:00:48] - who commented I would not characterize this as a cut of convenience because it's unfilled. I actually

[2:00:57] - do think it's a position that was never really Supported or empowered to thrive in particular the

[2:01:06] - primary lever of transportation and management, or one of the primary levers is parking pricing. That's

[2:01:12] - not something that was ever authorized for this position to lead policy on. It's genesis, I was part

[2:01:19] - of that, not as a member of the council, but as a member of the public, engaging quite a lot with the

[2:01:25] - city's $50 million of appropriations for parking garages, with an eye to trying to manage demand better

[2:01:32] - before building bigger.

[2:01:34] - at a higher cost, of course. So it was a bit of a concession that I mentioned previously when we talked

[2:01:40] - about this, a bit of a, I don't know what the word I'm looking for is, I don't know, like not helpful

[2:01:46] - because the position was created after we overbuilt supply. So you really needed to manage demand first

[2:01:52] - before we overbuilt supply. In any case, the position did exist and did some good things for a while,

[2:01:58] - but I just don't think it's actually really achieved the vision of what we

[2:02:03] - You know had in mind there and so I would support spending the money on Similar things to accomplish

[2:02:08] - more in our transportation system consistent with our current city goals and efforts I think that could

[2:02:13] - be through a position. I did ask questions about that through our you know council question process

[2:02:18] - Probably that would be a planning position though could maybe an engineering position. I don't know

[2:02:24] - I think it could also be expenditures, you know, notably we had 10 or 11 applicants this year for the

[2:02:29] - neighborhood traffic calming and

[2:02:31] - I think we fund that at a $50,000 level which is adequate for one project a year. This is a this is

[2:02:37] - consistent year-over-year as well. We have many Residents looking to make looking to address unsafe

[2:02:43] - conditions in their streets that generally support mode shift By by creating the safe conditions for

[2:02:49] - for using modes other than vehicles for transportation So that would be another consideration we could you know

[2:02:57] - triple the amount of that funding and actually fund several of our neighborhood projects, maybe make

[2:03:02] - a dent more over time rather than having the same people come over and over going through the process

[2:03:08] - of contacting council members to get their letters of support, all these things that they do in a really

[2:03:13] - well-designed process. But when it's one in 10 that get funded, clearly we're not meeting the need there.

[2:03:19] - So I would really like to see this amount of cost savings get reallocated

[2:03:23] - In a similar for a similar set of goals and I think again that could be personnel that could be You

[2:03:30] - know programs and capital Those are my two cents. Thanks Thank you councilmember Stossberg, I'm gonna

[2:03:38] - very simply say I agree with him And I pointed at councilmember Flaherty for those who can't see me.

[2:03:45] - Thanks Short and sweet. Thank you. Anybody else with comment? All right, so we will move to vote

[2:03:54] - Walton I was gonna call you councilmember Bolden clerk Bolden. Would you please call the roll?

[2:04:03] - Thank you. Yes councilmember Flaherty. Yes Stasburg. Yes Yes Yes, sorry, yes Yes, yes Thank you that

[2:04:14] - passes unanimously Okay, that was amendment 15 I know we had a

[2:04:21] - Some additional in our packets. Do we have a 16? Yes, I'm I would like to introduce amendment 16. Okay.

[2:04:29] - Thank you Do I have a second for amendment 16 second super thank you. Can you please talk to us about

[2:04:36] - it? Okay This one and if you'll forgive me I'd like to take just a little bit of time and talking about

[2:04:44] - really the approach behind this

[2:04:47] - I think it's very clear and worth repeating again and again that our that both SEA one and our local

[2:04:54] - economic conditions do not support the current trajectory of the city's operating budget. We'll stop.

[2:05:01] - I think the proposed general budget spends approximately five point four million dollars for seven million

[2:05:08] - dollars more than projected revenue. We know this.

[2:05:12] - And we also know that we have considerable reserves, which I think that we've spent several years opining

[2:05:20] - on but Reserves do not make recurring operating deficits sustainable. And so if we use reserves to pay

[2:05:29] - recurring cost

[2:05:30] - Those costs return year after year and the revenue does not. And so eventually those reserves are going

[2:05:37] - to be smaller and the structural problem will remain. So deficit spending as I've said multiple times

[2:05:43] - I think is justifiable when we're making a deliberate investment with a clear return. That return does

[2:05:49] - not have to be financial. It may be things like safer streets stronger infrastructure more housing reducing

[2:05:56] - homelessness better public health lower future costs et cetera.

[2:06:00] - I think, and again, I'm trying to bias myself away from using the language that I think has grown tired

[2:06:06] - because I've said it too much and easy then to say that I'm just being theoretical. But I think that

[2:06:13] - we should be able to say what results we expect.

[2:06:16] - From our spending we should know the baseline the target the responsible official and how we're going

[2:06:22] - to determine whether that investment worked And so to me this sort of proposed deficit is not presented

[2:06:29] - as a defined investment strategy And if you all remember you won't because you know, we say a lot of

[2:06:36] - things and from this from this dais

[2:06:38] - But last year when I voted for the budget, I said that I'm voting for this budget, however, I do not

[2:06:46] - think that we should be spending money this way. I said, I don't think that you deficit spend without

[2:06:53] - a clear idea about investment, with a clear investment strategy. And so to me, again, and generally

[2:07:01] - in our budget and despite sort of our efforts here, I still think

[2:07:06] - That we're in that type of situation and so this matters to me a lot because we have I think is all

[2:07:12] - of us share a lot of unmet needs and in the city and We need infrastructure and investment and affordable

[2:07:18] - housing and effective public safety and parks and transit and climate action and cetera, etc, etc And

[2:07:25] - if we want to invest in those priorities, we have to examine our existing commitments with the same

[2:07:31] - seriousness we apply to new requests now

[2:07:34] - All of this I arrive at amendment 16 through and also what the public commenters noted how difficult

[2:07:42] - it is for us as a council to be nitpicking at things within the budget.

[2:07:49] - I noticed while writing all of these amendments, and those of you who wrote them, I mean, we had this

[2:07:55] - conversation on the amendment you just did, how difficult it even was to pinpoint, okay, this account,

[2:08:01] - actually this line, adding up things together. And as I was working on my multitude of amendments, it

[2:08:06] - sort of occurred to me that I'm like, this is quite fascinating. I am sitting here as an individual

[2:08:12] - person with the sole support of a half-time person, and I get 40 people responding back to me in the response,

[2:08:19] - of whether or not what I've proposed is appropriate, responsible, whether I identified the right accounts,

[2:08:25] - whether yada yada yada. So it makes very clear that our job, right, is not to redesign departments or

[2:08:32] - choose individual employees from the dais. You know, we don't manage the daily work. We don't have complete

[2:08:39] - knowledge of every workload, dependency, legal obligation, you know, et cetera. And nor should we, I

[2:08:45] - think very clearly. I think we are not,

[2:08:48] - You know, I mean as I've said throughout tonight like we're not the executive branch and so our role

[2:08:54] - though However, very clearly I think as councilmember Flaherty has said time and time again Our role

[2:09:00] - is to establish the fiscal boundaries and public priorities So with that said this amendment asks the

[2:09:07] - administration to do that work within those boundaries it recommends that the reductions and I've

[2:09:13] - put here reductions of $2.5 million that they actually focus on long-term savings and in places where

[2:09:21] - ideally that reduction wouldn't cause sort of unacceptable harm. I think it recommends that the reductions

[2:09:28] - focus on recurring long-term savings, recommends that the departments share responsibility in rough

[2:09:36] - proportion to the share of general fund spending, but I think that's just a recommendation.

[2:09:44] - To put this sort of in perspective, I think a $2.5 million reduction in addition to a handful of the

[2:09:50] - smaller reductions that we made will put our deficit at about $2.97 million. And with the sort of vacancy

[2:09:57] - rates and underspending and the padding, et cetera, will do fairly well to bring us into a close to

[2:10:03] - balanced budget. And so to me, this is not about cutting the budget for the sake of cutting. It's not

[2:10:10] - an argument that government should always be smaller.

[2:10:13] - I think that a city can spend less and still spend badly. And I think we can also spend more and materially

[2:10:22] - improve people's lives. And so to me, fundamentally, the question is what our spending is accomplishing.

[2:10:30] - And trying our best to ask these questions, I think, has been very, very difficult. And anyway,

[2:10:37] - so with that, I'm asking us as the fiscal body to sort of force some choices.

[2:10:43] - And I think I'll end I'll end there I asked for your support on amendment 16 Thank you any questions

[2:10:53] - for councilmember sorry councilmember Stasberg Well, I have two questions and neither of them are for

[2:11:02] - councilmember. Sorry. I

[2:11:05] - One of them is definitely for Controller McKim, if I could ask that one first. And so I know that I've

[2:11:11] - discussed this with Controller McKim before, and I know I discussed this, or I asked this question multiple

[2:11:17] - times of Controller McClellan before that, and I wish that I could have prepped you for this question,

[2:11:23] - because you might have appreciated that. But the question is, what is the best practice for the amount

[2:11:29] - of reserves to have, and how do our reserves compare to that best practice?

[2:11:36] - I will say that literally this morning I added, I wrote a section for our financial policies manual

[2:11:48] - on financial reserves.

[2:11:51] - But I have not yet gotten to the point of actually calculating the correct percentage, the correct amount.

[2:11:59] - So yeah, I'm just not there yet. We'll probably have, it is definitely a best practice to have a policy

[2:12:06] - on reserves, on level of reserves. And we will definitely have one by the end of the year. But unfortunately,

[2:12:14] - I just don't, I don't have that information yet. I will say that as we,

[2:12:19] - As we provided in the budget book the the reserves are definitely substantial And you know certainly

[2:12:26] - would accommodate The small deficit that we've already that we've already proposed and which you've

[2:12:34] - actually already trimmed down tonight also but that the it's enough to accommodate that if we were to

[2:12:41] - even see a deficit which there's a good chance that we would not actually see by the end of the year a deficit

[2:12:49] - That so I'm sorry. I I tend to like to use that when I was at the county I would use 30% as a as just

[2:12:57] - kind of a rough best practice but And we're certainly above that well above that How far above that?

[2:13:06] - I mean I think last time I asked this question of Jessica McClellan and it and it's been I mean clearly

[2:13:14] - a while it at least

[2:13:16] - Maybe a year maybe since last budget time and I think our reserves were about 50 percent Is that about

[2:13:22] - that that sounds about right? I mean there's an it should be in the packet It's actually if we go to

[2:13:27] - the 4b the statement 4b and just look at the operating budget As a percentage of the budget or the operating

[2:13:33] - balance as a percentage of the budget we can calculate that out Okay, thank you. Um, I'll save my next

[2:13:39] - question unless you all want me to do it now. I

[2:13:48] - Sorry, I was gonna ask if there were any other questions. Yes, I was moving on to other first round

[2:13:57] - questions. Sorry. I appreciate the help. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. Yes. I want to ask the administration,

[2:14:06] - whoever wants to answer, how feasible is it for you all to come up with these cuts in the by the debt

[2:14:15] - and still meet the deadline? I mean,

[2:14:19] - Since it's not it's not just up to the controller right it'll have to be a discussion is it is it feasible

[2:14:27] - to even do that and still meet the budget deadline. I can let the controller answer with the details

[2:14:36] - but I want to. Two point five million dollars is significant. I want to acknowledge first that with

[2:14:44] - the you know this is the last year that we're

[2:14:48] - paying the Bloomington Transit subsidy and combined Combining that with our share of the election funding.

[2:14:57] - We're pretty much even spent I mean even budget so we'll probably be Even spend by the end of the year.

[2:15:05] - So I want to acknowledge that publicly again and Reducing two point five million dollars. I know it's

[2:15:13] - been suggested in writing and elsewhere that we reduce

[2:15:17] - staffing I Want to be very clear that I am serious about running Incredibly efficient government and

[2:15:29] - a fair government and My team has put in a lot of work to get the morale around City Hall higher we

[2:15:40] - just won best places to work in Bloomington and

[2:15:46] - That was a milestone that I can assure you we would not have reached without a lot of very intentional

[2:15:57] - work. And just the conversation in the documents and in these hearings, even if one's direct department

[2:16:07] - was not addressed, there is now fear in every department. Are they coming after us?

[2:16:17] - So, I am open, and in fact, we already had intended, guided by some of our professional services, to

[2:16:24] - start looking at how to do some realignment. Now that doesn't mean cutting positions necessarily, and

[2:16:32] - I don't even know that there's gonna be cost savings. But we do have departments that are doing overlapping

[2:16:40] - work, we have departments that are too big,

[2:16:44] - various other things that are happening, and I mean too big in terms of they're doing too many things

[2:16:52] - all under one umbrella, not that we have too many people in them. Asking us to cut 2.5 million especially

[2:17:00] - from staffing at this point would mean that we would go into the year with, we would have to make decisions

[2:17:08] - that haven't been thought out, honestly.

[2:17:11] - and I can say that it would cause harm to our city services a Restructuring of any kind causes a lot

[2:17:21] - of fear in staff Even when the outcomes can be better for everyone so it's just it's a anxiety ridden

[2:17:31] - process and I wouldn't want to do it in a matter of a month and

[2:17:38] - We would have to have cuts made so that we didn't have positions in place by January 1st that I mean

[2:17:46] - If the appropriations not there that that is what we'd be asking for. This is at least six months of

[2:17:54] - work to do that so That's my comment on the high level. I want to make another comment that is related

[2:18:02] - but you know the structure of council meetings are such that

[2:18:07] - We can't always have a response. I did leave the room during Council Member Stossberg's comments. We

[2:18:17] - have gotten to a point that the cabinet and other staff and even members of the public expect to be

[2:18:27] - demeaned when we come to this podium. That's not acceptable.

[2:18:36] - There's not a structure that people can respond. I told myself that I was gonna let our cabinet know

[2:18:45] - that when they're called names or when somebody is speaking down to them in a demeaning way anywhere,

[2:18:53] - if they're not in a position to say something, they can leave. And I was reminded that if we leave,

[2:19:02] - we don't get the city's work done.

[2:19:07] - So the highest priority for me isn't really budget related. The highest priority for me is how we work

[2:19:17] - together. And I have been told by members of our staff, by members of your staff, that it can be a hostile

[2:19:28] - work environment. That's not a city I wanna be part of. And I think we can do better.

[2:19:37] - So, as we move forward through the budget process, I know that we have work to do on how we outline

[2:19:45] - outcomes. I know we have a president of our country that speaks to his staff and the public in unacceptable

[2:19:54] - ways. I want us to do better in Bloomington. And I want us to have a respectful discourse that honors

[2:20:03] - people's dignity, even if we don't agree.

[2:20:07] - So I'll let controller McKim address the details of what a 2.5 million dollar cut might look like and

[2:20:21] - how we What what complications that causes? Thank you

[2:20:30] - Of course, I don't have the ability to set these priorities. I've just run running calculations, but

[2:20:36] - I did take the 2.5 million dollars

[2:20:39] - And as the amendment indicated that it should be allocated roughly according to the proportion that

[2:20:47] - that department has in the general fund budget, I just calculated it exactly, so exactly proportionally,

[2:20:56] - just to see how that would come out. And what that would look like is a cut of 765,000 from police,

[2:21:04] - 718,000 from the fire department, 183,000 from ITS,

[2:21:09] - 137,000 from public works 120,000 from planning Da da da da. I mean, I don't need to read them all 33,000

[2:21:18] - from the council budget 56,000 from facilities maintenance, etc. So those are really large cuts and

[2:21:28] - definitely not cuts that we would be capable of producing within a week and implementing within

[2:21:37] - Couple of months as the mayor just indicated but at least I think that gives you some idea of the kind

[2:21:47] - of magnitude Of what those cuts would look like if they were out allocate proportionally Thank

[2:21:55] - you councilmember, sorry, thank you so much both for for all of the comments, I think the We're not

[2:22:04] - addressing the the the

[2:22:06] - core of it, which is whether our current spending under our current circumstances is sustainable. And

[2:22:14] - so let me just ask that directly. Is the way that we're currently spending sustainable? I believe in

[2:22:21] - this budget we brought ourselves down to a sustainable level. So we could just continue with a budget

[2:22:28] - like this? Especially if we did not continue with the BT funding.

[2:22:33] - After this year or found some other funding source of which through the must process there is actually

[2:22:39] - other another Kind of path to getting BT fund and even with Edie lit going away, right? Okay, what what

[2:22:45] - replaces Edie lit in that in that sense? Then the the the six million that we're spending on Edie lit.

[2:22:52] - Where does that come from in the future? Specifically for BT or just overall for you know, just overall

[2:22:58] - because the because the BT is one one portion of it all of the

[2:23:02] - all of the LITs will get, the different LITs, the ED LIT, the certified shares, and the public safety

[2:23:08] - LIT, will all get collapsed into one municipal services LIT if the county council decides to adopt them.

[2:23:14] - So there's still, yeah, there's still a lot of, the county council could decide to adopt a much lower

[2:23:20] - amount, and we would have to make some pretty dramatic cuts. So no, there's absolutely, there are plenty

[2:23:26] - of things that could happen that would make us have to adopt fairly dramatic cuts.

[2:23:32] - Thank you Thank you any other questions Councilmember Flaherty, I'm curious for the sponsors perspective

[2:23:41] - on the opportunity of Eliminating general fund Support for for sanitation services, which I've generally

[2:23:49] - held the view should be covered by The rates that the folks receiving that service pay this came to

[2:23:58] - the fiscal committee a couple weeks ago and

[2:24:01] - and I believe after many years of talking about the the administration and public works carbon is planning

[2:24:11] - to bring a Proposal to phase that over three years. I think it is like 1.6 million in this year's budget.

[2:24:21] - Oh Did we yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah Yes, I guess I'm I

[2:24:27] - The magnitude we're talking about, even with the full elimination of phase period of time, it's like

[2:24:34] - $4 a month for the smallest cart size and maybe $11 a month for the largest. This is in a context in

[2:24:40] - which we already have well below market rate service for sanitation. And not to make light of what somebody

[2:24:47] - on a fixed income might feel for another $11 a month, but we do also have an integrated billing with

[2:24:54] - CBU, which serves everybody.

[2:24:56] - And you know specific assistance programs identified people that do struggle with with paying their

[2:25:03] - bills and so I Said at the fiscal committee meeting. I was comfortable with phasing that you know All

[2:25:11] - at once basically and I'm curious for your perspective on That as an option to meet this proposed reduction

[2:25:19] - in part No, I think that that's that I think it would make a lot of sense you know

[2:25:26] - I think we also could explore like whether it's rates or whether it just makes sense for the city not

[2:25:32] - to be collecting at all. Somebody privatizing it is also something worth exploring. I would fall probably

[2:25:38] - more on the rate side than the other. But again I think it is a conversation that we have to have.

[2:25:45] - alongside a lot of these other conversations, right? And so, you know, I don't think that, I mean, that

[2:25:50] - is one way, I guess, that you could get very close to the sort of target figure that I've said here.

[2:25:55] - I'd also be happy to reduce this number to think of something that makes more sense. I struggled for

[2:26:00] - quite a while to think, like, what really is it? And then based on the other amendments that I was putting

[2:26:06] - forward that I didn't put forward, I was like, okay, you know,

[2:26:10] - this is roughly where I was at. But yeah, I think that that is a conversation that we have to have amongst

[2:26:18] - many other conversations about where we're spending money. Now, I have to trail what I'm saying here

[2:26:25] - with what I said at the beginning of the budget process and really going back to last year is that every

[2:26:33] - single time we propose almost anything, if we say we want to open Kirkwood for pedestrians,

[2:26:40] - the retort is, we can't afford it. If we say we want some new, no matter what it is, and then we act

[2:26:46] - like each of those things is like some shiny, oh, that's like a fun, unnecessary thing. But it's like,

[2:26:53] - no, it's actually just a choice that we're making with other things, but we never surface what we're

[2:26:59] - making the choice with. And so even now, we're saying, look, there's no way we could cut anymore from

[2:27:06] - this budget. We're at zero. But even, there's a bunch of things

[2:27:10] - When we said we'll we'll cut this with people said, okay, we could cut it a little bit more, right?

[2:27:16] - so so I just and and if if we had moved in the direction that That of actually creating a budget system

[2:27:23] - that would allow this type of dialogue This wouldn't be a hard wouldn't be as hard of a discussion,

[2:27:30] - right? So so that's what we need to surface here as well. So Thank you councilmember Stossberg

[2:27:37] - I just want as a follow-up on that to note that the Sanitation subsidy is actually coming out of Edie

[2:27:44] - lit this year not out of the general fund and this amendment actually cuts the general fund which means

[2:27:51] - that if that million dollars was part of that there would have to be a whole lot of gymnastics behind

[2:27:59] - the scene to cut things out of the general fund and then and then reality sounds like a mess to me and

[2:28:08] - Yes, but I think just to highlight though what councilman Flaherty said, you know phased approach,

[2:28:14] - you know, you don't it would make more sense and I think the same if we're looking at You know any type

[2:28:20] - of restructuring I get it a phased approach I talked about for example, you know funding things at six

[2:28:26] - months or nine months, right? So that so that we force those conversations about Restructuring I think

[2:28:32] - is also a possibility of ways to to look at some of this too Any other questions

[2:28:38] - on to public comment anybody in chambers or online would if you would like to make comment on amendment

[2:28:46] - 17 are you sure it's 16 16 I lied great we have a public comment or online you can unmute yourself and

[2:28:55] - please state your name and you have three minutes you hear me yes okay Kevin Keough I'm speaking tonight

[2:29:03] - in support of amendment 16

[2:29:06] - Targeting 2.5 million in cuts signals necessary structural fiscal discipline as the city prepares for

[2:29:12] - flattening property taxes and shifting state income tax allocations. At the same time, I want to address

[2:29:19] - three key observations from tonight's meeting. The comments from the city employee about staff morale,

[2:29:25] - the council members concerned about open reviews adding red tape, and the glaring lack of public

[2:29:31] - participation in the room tonight.

[2:29:33] - When you look at a handful of public comments offered on a multi-million dollar budget, it's clear the

[2:29:40] - public is largely checked out. This is not because citizens do not care about local taxes or city services,

[2:29:46] - but because an opaque budget presentation. It's very hard to understand the budget, and to make meaningful

[2:29:53] - engagement, it's almost impossible. Public meetings, public comment, and fiscal transparency are not

[2:29:59] - red tape. They are fundamental pillars of the local government.

[2:30:04] - I also urge, as I have in the past, the long-term solution is adopting formal government financial officers

[2:30:10] - association presentation standards. These are the best practice. It's important to emphasize that preparing

[2:30:17] - a GFOA compliant budget document is fundamentally the responsibility of the administration,

[2:30:23] - not the council. The executive branch builds and presents the budget, the council's roles, policy direction,

[2:30:29] - and oversight. Look at communities like Fishers, Indiana,

[2:30:33] - where the administration produces a modern GFOA budget document that bridges the gap between municipal

[2:30:40] - finance and the public. Bloomington can, and should, they can do even better. At the core, GFOA standards

[2:30:47] - are specifically designed to demystify complex municipal budgets. They translate thousand lines of line

[2:30:55] - items into clear strategic goals, program-based outcomes, and multi-year financial forecasts into the future.

[2:31:02] - When the administration delivers a budget built on these standards, it provides true accessible transparency

[2:31:09] - without administrative friction, enabling strategic belt tightening that protects core services, respects

[2:31:15] - city employees, and actively re-engages the public. I support Amendment 16 as an essential first step

[2:31:22] - towards spending discipline, and I urge the council to direct the administration to adopt the GFOA budgeting

[2:31:28] - standard to give our city a clearer

[2:31:31] - more accessible budget process moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else would like

[2:31:36] - to make public comment? I see somebody in chambers approaching the podium. Thank you. You have three

[2:31:42] - minutes. I didn't want to make three comments tonight. My name is Iris Bull again. I think that the

[2:31:47] - number of people in the room is not representative of being checked out. I think it's representative

[2:31:53] - of the government working to some degree.

[2:31:55] - People show up when infrastructure breaks down. I think that proposing cuts without having a clear plan

[2:32:01] - for where they're specifically going to come from and which steps you specifically want to fire, I think

[2:32:07] - it's reckless. And I think it's unnecessary. This is like a manufactured hostage situation. If it feels

[2:32:14] - like the only way to have a conversation, it's creating a conversation that no one wants to have with

[2:32:20] - you. That's just not how you talk to adults with any modicum of respect. That's it.

[2:32:27] - Thank you very much. Any other public commenters. We do have another one online. Awesome. You can unmute

[2:32:42] - yourself and you have three minutes. Thank you. Yeah. Hello. Do we have.

[2:32:55] - Okay, I think you're still muted. Can you unmute yourself and you have three minutes? I hear him. Oh,

[2:33:03] - hi. Go ahead. Yeah, you must still have me on. This is Kevin. I know Eric's raised his hand. Somehow

[2:33:11] - he hasn't been officially. All righty. Thanks, Mr. Keogh. Eric says he's unmuted, so it has to be something

[2:33:20] - technical and working in the background.

[2:33:24] - You might want to attend to that. Well, OK. If it's not working, do you want to try maybe putting your

[2:33:32] - comments in the chat, and we can read them for you? I'm sorry, I don't know what the- Participation

[2:33:40] - indicator is muted or not, because- Oh, you're on.

[2:33:45] - You're on. Hello. Hi. We can hear you. Awesome. Thank you. So that was a problem. That was a problem

[2:33:52] - on your end. I did not change anything. Good evening. My name's Eric Ost. And I want to echo many of

[2:33:59] - the things that folks have said tonight. I appreciate that there is a good degree of importance in these

[2:34:06] - conversations. How we spend money not only reflects priorities,

[2:34:11] - But to some extent, priorities are opinions. But it also enables government to work. And I think that

[2:34:19] - using adversarial language or taking an adversarial position, as I've heard some comments tonight,

[2:34:28] - is not, I mean, sure, we can feel different ways. But anyway, to more of the part of the matter, I support

[2:34:37] - incenting and prioritizing conversation.

[2:34:42] - The council is the fiscal body. It oversees how things are spent. And it's important for the executive

[2:34:52] - branch to engage with the legislative branch. I know that people are busy, but that's part of the way

[2:35:02] - government is structured. And it's a necessary element. So I do support

[2:35:10] - To the degree that the legislative branch can incent and prioritize greater degree of conversation about

[2:35:18] - expenditures, you need to use those tools. I spent the day today looking at data and I wanna bring to

[2:35:26] - the floor a concern I've raised many times over the years is that we seem to be stepping backwards in

[2:35:34] - terms of transparency. Public records are no longer published

[2:35:39] - released public records are no longer published for the members general members of the community to

[2:35:46] - see accident data which used to be published is now withheld intentionally withheld under a premise

[2:35:53] - and hypothesis that I believe does not stand. So I asked the legislative branch to be attentive to these

[2:36:01] - things and to the extent that you need to pass revisions to the Bloomington municipal code to direct

[2:36:08] - the executive branch to do certain things in certain ways, I suggest and request that you do so. So

[2:36:16] - here is to collaboration and a better future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other commenters online?

[2:36:24] - No. Okay. Thanks for everybody to everybody who commented tonight. Any council comments before we move

[2:36:32] - to vote on amendment 16?

[2:36:36] - Councilmember Stossberg and then councilmember Piedmont Smith Thank you, I'm not in support of this

[2:36:42] - amendment The two well the second question that I didn't ask I didn't ask it because councilmember Piedmont

[2:36:49] - Smith asked it or Essentially asked the same thing which was about how much time it would take to actually

[2:36:56] - make these changes First off in terms of spending down our reserves. We've been trying to spend down

[2:37:02] - reserves like I

[2:37:03] - for three years everything that I heard in all of the Fiscal related meetings that I was in was we have

[2:37:10] - more reserves than we actually need and we're trying to spend down reserves and when you When I was

[2:37:16] - looking back and I didn't do it in preparation for this meeting But you know, I've done it relatively

[2:37:22] - recently when I was looking back at actual expenditures for past years and whether or not we

[2:37:28] - actually deficit spent there were at least a couple years where we didn't and then our reserves actually

[2:37:36] - grew when we were trying to reduce them and I Think that it's responsible governance to have some reserves

[2:37:44] - to have some money in our pocket just in case but we don't need to have so much money in our pocket

[2:37:52] - just in case that we are withholding city services and

[2:37:57] - I think that Additional cuts would be doing that in terms of this kind of broad-based thing, but also

[2:38:03] - this Well, actually mostly I guess this like broad-based thing. It's I Don't think that that is necessary

[2:38:10] - this year. I appreciate the argument that we have to think about tightening our belts Well, everything

[2:38:16] - I've heard about preparation for this budget is that we have already tightened our belts is that we

[2:38:23] - left things many things pretty flat and

[2:38:27] - So that we could prepare for this future where our revenues are a little bit less certain and then the

[2:38:34] - other reason why I'm voting no is that the time and feasibility I Absolutely agree with everything that

[2:38:41] - the mayor said is that what they would have to do to make this happen in the next one two Three weeks

[2:38:48] - at the most would not be well thought out would not be a good long-term plan and would be really

[2:38:54] - Challenging on staff because it's not as though the controller himself can just make all these cuts

[2:39:01] - It would take every single department head and half of every department head staff to be able to identify

[2:39:07] - Those kinds of numbers and that I think that that's unnecessary to put our staff through that in the

[2:39:14] - next one to three weeks So I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you Thank you, so councilmember

[2:39:21] - Piedmont Smith and then councilmember Flaherty

[2:39:26] - Well I will just agree with everything councilmember Stossberg said and suggest that an amendment such

[2:39:35] - as this or an idea such as this really should have come a lot earlier in the process.

[2:39:43] - Thank you. Councilmember thank you. This is really interesting. I very much appreciate councilmember

[2:39:52] - sorry for bringing this and the

[2:39:55] - Thoughts you shared behind it You're right that you know through your experience this budget process

[2:40:02] - you're noting that that it's it's very difficult for council members to understand Specific line items

[2:40:08] - and things to cut there might be things we identify but it's it the administration ready is in a much

[2:40:14] - better position on that front We're also hearing and I think I get it and I agree to some extent that

[2:40:21] - you know the current time frames available are simply impractical and

[2:40:25] - But let's run the counter hypothetical. So you come six months ago to say, I want to see 2.5 million

[2:40:31] - reduced from the plan that isn't yet produced. And they say, that's meaningless. We're going to bring

[2:40:37] - you the budget that we think is the right one for the city. We're essentially being told there's no

[2:40:43] - right time for the council to weigh in on something like this. And it is a matter of trade-offs. And

[2:40:49] - when we talk about council priorities and things, we want to see improvement on things like, I don't know,

[2:40:55] - Utter failure to clear pedestrian infrastructure of snow and ice for the safety and accessibility of

[2:41:00] - our residents that was noted in the council You know set of priorities and we didn't actually make any

[2:41:05] - meaningful improvements in this budget proposal on that on that priority front I Guess we could have

[2:41:10] - said, you know in August. Hey, this is like quickly like this isn't good enough and we need to see you

[2:41:15] - know a $500,000 plan to do better like meaningfully better on that front and you need to cut that from

[2:41:20] - somewhere else to make a budget neutral That's not an amendment yet. It's just an idea

[2:41:24] - And so therefore, it's not binding and the likely outcome is actually gonna be like, well no, we don't

[2:41:31] - think that's the right thing. All I'm getting at is that like, I don't know, I think I'm in support

[2:41:38] - of this amendment. And I recognize its limitations and its challenges and problems. But the opposite

[2:41:45] - conclusion to me is essentially conceding that our hands are tied on doing anything meaningful about

[2:41:52] - the budget.

[2:41:53] - You know ever and I you know, I Don't I don't think that's an acceptable outcome or conclusion either.

[2:42:00] - So again, I recognize this isn't a optimal by any means Even so I think there are ways to go about it

[2:42:07] - and do it that actually don't have to involve cutting staff necessarily and or if they do involve cutting

[2:42:15] - staff It might force conversations around optimal staffing that you know again shouldn't be rushed but

[2:42:22] - Conversations we need to have so I think I'll vote for it. Thank you Thank you any other comments from

[2:42:31] - council before we move to a vote on amendment 16 councilmember Ruff Councilmember sorry doesn't need

[2:42:39] - me defending him. So that's not what I'm doing here when I say this but There was a comment made that

[2:42:47] - this was reckless and When councilmember was sorry began

[2:42:53] - Presented the amendments and open the amendment is there any cotton it's open in comment explained it

[2:42:59] - the thoughtful a very thoughtful approach which is well if we're going to say Council members don't

[2:43:06] - really have the staff help the expertise the experience to make specific decisions about budget cuts

[2:43:12] - and all these technical all these areas Well, but yet we're the fiscal body with the ultimate responsibility

[2:43:19] - for the physical decision. Well that's

[2:43:22] - Totally logical and rational and thoughtful approach to then say okay those with the expertise and the

[2:43:29] - time and the staffing and the full-time jobs to do it Present us with something that reaches that addresses

[2:43:37] - our concern or in this case councilmembers So far specific concern a proposal about a budget that was

[2:43:44] - not sustainable. That's totally logical. There's nothing reckless about that approach and

[2:43:53] - But I will say privatization I saw that come up at one point that would come up of city work city jobs

[2:44:02] - is generally always going to be a non-starter for me as savings tend to come in the form of worse jobs

[2:44:12] - and benefits and wages and working conditions and quality of services delivered. But finally you know.

[2:44:22] - One of the public speakers said something about priorities or just opinions. And yeah there's a certain

[2:44:33] - legitimacy to that. If I say the subsidy the subsidy to sanitation is a totally different kind of subsidy

[2:44:43] - than the subsidy to bicyclists of which I am one of eight hundred thousand dollar and

[2:44:52] - You know curb sets of bump outs and curbs and etc. To me those are entirely different one in the case

[2:45:01] - of the sanitation services subsidy. If you take that away it's made up in the form of almost just call

[2:45:10] - it a tax as it's as the cost is picked up by those who received that fundamental service which is most of

[2:45:20] - significant majority probably of the citizens as opposed to some expenditures which address or go towards

[2:45:32] - supporting a much smaller slice of the community in terms of users. So I don't think that all, I strongly

[2:45:44] - disagree. While I acknowledge that priorities are

[2:45:49] - to a certain extent opinions I think we could get majority agreement from citizens about what is more

[2:45:59] - or less a fundamental basic city service that will is simply lifted onto their pushed onto their shoulders

[2:46:09] - when a subsidy like sanitation fee is reduced or removed or shifted compared to some other expenditures

[2:46:19] - which are much more of a choice. Anyway thanks for giving me a moment to to just say what I had to say.

[2:46:28] - I know I haven't said much tonight but I've been thinking through everything very carefully. Thank you.

[2:46:36] - Any last comments before we move to vote for amendment 16. Council member sorry.

[2:46:44] - I just piggyback on just the last part of Councilmember Ruff's comments there. You know and again if

[2:46:50] - you know if we think about this process I think one of the positive externalities of us this year trying

[2:46:57] - to be as involved as possible and looking into all of these issues of budgets that has surfaced a lot

[2:47:03] - of very interesting conversations that

[2:47:06] - hopefully continue sort of throughout. Echoing what Councilmember Flaherty so eloquently said, the reality,

[2:47:13] - I think it's easy to frame this as though we're sort of like today waking up and being like, let's transform

[2:47:20] - the budget or something. The reality is that we've been fairly consistent in saying most of the things

[2:47:27] - that we've said throughout this time for the last several years. And also, I don't think that this is

[2:47:34] - something that

[2:47:35] - is in any way adversarial or you know like nobody has to be wrong in order for us to do better. And

[2:47:43] - so so but going back to what Councilmember Ruff said to tie sort of my approach and thinking here completely

[2:47:52] - together the conversations that we have to have continually are how do we do best by the people who

[2:48:00] - fund all of

[2:48:01] - of these activities and who are the beneficiaries of all of these activities and how do we do that in

[2:48:07] - the most equitable way but how do we do it in a way that's deserving of them and and that's what drives

[2:48:14] - all of these conversations and I think it's really easy for us and we've seen it you know we start having

[2:48:20] - conversations about you know whether it's our own salaries or whether it's positions that exist in the

[2:48:27] - city and and we start looking internally as though this city exists

[2:48:31] - for us right like it exists for the people who are employed here but we all are here to serve the

[2:48:39] - people of this city in the best way possible. That's the guiding point. Again, when I said, for example,

[2:48:45] - talking about sanitation, it's just a conversation that we should have. How do we give the best possible

[2:48:51] - service to the people of the city? I wasn't making any deeper value statements about my political views

[2:48:57] - or anything, but I'm just saying that is what should drive so many of our conversations, and I hope

[2:49:03] - that we can continue to do so. I really appreciate all my colleagues. I think we do keep that at

[2:49:09] - for a front of our minds, even though our format sometimes make it seem like that's not the case, if

[2:49:16] - that makes sense, right? Because our format is of necessity sort of, I don't know, episodic and sometimes

[2:49:24] - tense. But anyways, with that, I will be voting for this. Let's see how it goes. All right. Thank you.

[2:49:32] - And with that, can, Clerk, please call the roll on Amendment 16.

[2:49:38] - Councilmember Stossberg no Edmont Smith no Zulik No, I'm sorry. Yes, daily. No rough No Clarity yes

[2:49:53] - All right, that amendment fails two to five Thank you. All right. I'm assuming there is an amendment on

[2:50:08] - 17 somewhere since we had an amendment 18. I can't find it There is no amendment 17 Super Okay, fantastic.

[2:50:17] - So we are done with all the amendments. No, we are not Are there any other amendments that I've missed

[2:50:27] - Councilmember Stossberg, I think for the sake of Order I'm gonna move to take amendment 5 off the table. I

[2:50:38] - Okay, so I'm doing that for the point of order because I think that we need to dispose of it in one

[2:50:44] - way or another whether we vote on it or Because we we passed councilmember Piedmont Smith's that was

[2:50:51] - similar or whether the original mover of said amendment Re-withdraw it right I had that we were gonna

[2:50:58] - come back to it take a recess and possibly rewrite it Okay, so we are not doing that. So I have the

[2:51:04] - second the motion

[2:51:06] - Okay, super. Thank you. So we need to vote on that now so to withdraw Amendment five since it had been

[2:51:12] - brought up we didn't know well Whoever sponsored whoever moved at the first time which I think

[2:51:18] - was councilmember Sorry could withdraw it or we could just vote on it and vote it down. I withdraw motion

[2:51:25] - amendment Five great, but we still need to vote on it. No to withdraw. I

[2:51:32] - You actually could just let it die if you want you don't you don't even have to address it at this point

[2:51:38] - Okay, I withdraw my motion to withdraw just Amendment five is dead Thank you. Okay, so that's it with

[2:51:45] - amendments. Then we are done. We're ready to move on to the full

[2:51:49] - Appropriation ordinance 2026-02 and I'm gonna pass this back over to president. Sorry a point of information

[2:51:59] - here Controller you had said that you would you didn't want us to vote on it if we make amendments today

[2:52:08] - Do you still hold that view? Yes, we will need to but what I would ask is that you continue this meeting

[2:52:17] - to the the 14th and

[2:52:19] - This will give us the opportunity to take all of the the amendments that you have passed to enter them

[2:52:27] - into our financial system and then enter them into Gateway and to produce a final form for which you'd

[2:52:36] - be able to vote on on at the next meeting Any motions, yep, I move to I motion to move appropriation

[2:52:45] - ordinance 2026-02 and

[2:52:47] - to our next regular session of October 14th. Second. Motion and second any discussion. Council member

[2:52:54] - Stossberg. I'm just wondering if it's worth having any final comments on this tonight or whether we

[2:53:01] - should just save final comments on all of this for next week. I'm just kind of thinking about the length

[2:53:08] - of next week's meeting. Does anybody have any thoughts on that.

[2:53:12] - I'm happy to have final comments right now. Anybody would let's do final comments right now anyone comments

[2:53:20] - start with customer Sasper I'll just say that that I I appreciate that we've I'll say spent more time

[2:53:28] - talking about the budget this year I think then we have the last two years combined because I do think

[2:53:36] - that that's important to do I I do I think I

[2:53:40] - Echo our public commenters one of our public commenters mentions that Some of this was maybe not the

[2:53:48] - best way to bring it up and not the best way to initiate a conversation about certain things and I I

[2:53:57] - agree with that in some respects that it Was not necessarily adversarial but I think that it puts city

[2:54:06] - staff in a really weird spot and

[2:54:09] - to have us talking about them in the way, like on paper, in the way that the amendments happen, right?

[2:54:18] - Is it saying, well, we're just putting it all on paper. And if we want to tone police me, which I really

[2:54:28] - don't appreciate in general, and generally speaking, I think is really inappropriate, then we could

[2:54:37] - say a lot about the tone

[2:54:39] - Some memos and some things that get written, you know, and it's like oh, well, okay Let's let's just

[2:54:48] - consider that right now and I think that That happens across the board and I Guess that's all I have

[2:54:58] - to say about it as it doesn't have to be adversarial. It's not necessarily adversarial but there's

[2:55:07] - tone that happens on paper, just like there's tone that happens when people speak, and sometimes tone

[2:55:15] - means one thing, and sometimes tone means another thing, but to express frustration from this dais is

[2:55:23] - not inappropriate. And in fact, I had a constituent ask me about a week and a half, two weeks ago, how

[2:55:30] - do you even stay calm up there? So whatever she sees,

[2:55:35] - She's like, wow, she actually does stay calm in the face of all this. Am I passionate about some things?

[2:55:42] - Yeah, I sure am. And one of the things that I'm passionate about was one of the other things our public

[2:55:48] - commenter said, which is transparency. And if you notice, nearly everything that I voted for tonight

[2:55:55] - in terms of amendments was about transparency. It was about putting our residents first in this whole process

[2:56:02] - As councilmember Asari said remembering that we all work for them not just the seven plus two that are

[2:56:10] - absent up here and The other elected officials in the room, but every single city staffer works for

[2:56:17] - the residents and I think our city staff generally do a really great job doing their jobs and working

[2:56:25] - for the residents and figuring that out and

[2:56:29] - Serving them in the ways that they need to be served at all different levels. And so once again, I'm

[2:56:37] - going to apologize to staff who felt like their jobs were uncertain Because that is never the way that

[2:56:46] - our staff should end up feeling Especially during this kind of time. So thank you very much Sharing

[2:56:54] - again, I'm sorry Any other comments

[2:56:59] - Councilmember flirty. Thank you I've appreciated the discussion we've had tonight Unfortunately, I am

[2:57:04] - NOT available for next week's meeting so I won't be here to take a vote on the civil city budget But

[2:57:10] - that'll be ill material I think because my vote would have been no and I will talk about that for a

[2:57:15] - moment now I also voted no on the civil city budget last year and mean for that to be interpreted as

[2:57:21] - just broad dissatisfaction with mayor Thompson's administration and how she's leading the city's executive

[2:57:27] - branch and

[2:57:28] - My lack of buy-in and some of her priorities and some in some cases how she directs her staff to spend

[2:57:33] - their time and the city's money There are some specific issues that I think of as like foundational

[2:57:38] - problems in in the executive branch governance right now that I I would like like into something like

[2:57:44] - a floor or a threshold of good governance that I need to see met in order to give me the basic confidence

[2:57:49] - to support a budget request like this and

[2:57:52] - And at a certain point when we've raised these foundational issues and they've not been addressed or

[2:57:57] - the administration refuses to address them, the budget is one of only a few accountability mechanisms

[2:58:03] - we have depending on the item. Sometimes legal action is another accountability mechanism. None of them

[2:58:08] - are ideal. They're clunky accountability mechanisms. They nevertheless are that. And I did have remarks

[2:58:13] - written up for some of the specific issues and instances which I could get into. I'm not sure how productive

[2:58:19] - that is or the appetite for that right now. So I won't.

[2:58:22] - unless unless you really want to hear but All right I'll try not to believe I'll try to belabor it too

[2:58:30] - much. No, I mean I'm quite serious about this and it isn't and I don't mean it by any way of disrespect

[2:58:38] - to the mayor and anybody on their staff, but I've been quite upset and concerned about what I believe

[2:58:46] - is the violation of a

[2:58:48] - some of our local laws, so specifically Bloomington Municipal Code 15.08.040, which allows the city

[2:58:54] - engineer to make temporary experimental or emergency traffic regulations. Those regulations aren't allowed

[2:59:00] - to extend past 180 days by the letter of city code, yet the administration has chosen to largely forego

[2:59:06] - updating Title 15 in order to issue repeated orders for the same thing over and over. I think it's a

[2:59:12] - clear violation of the law. It's been raised repeatedly with, I would say, increasing urgency and still,

[2:59:18] - and including in the budget context by me, and still explicitly asked if they'll stop violating this

[2:59:25] - law in 2027, they don't agree to do so. To me, that's a rule of law issue that goes beyond the specific

[2:59:33] - code provision in question. Again, this is one accountability mechanism, one of three that I can think

[2:59:40] - of for this issue, and it's a floor for me. It's a minimum expectation. Second, on

[2:59:46] - You know, I mentioned snow removal earlier. To me, that was a real failing. One of the things that is

[2:59:53] - a top priority for me is the safety and accessibility of our public infrastructure for all residents.

[3:00:01] - Snow is tricky. I don't feel like there was a meaningful effort to improve that issue in this budget.

[3:00:08] - And I'm especially dissatisfied with the enforcement efforts of the city.

[3:00:14] - You know a really striking example of this is the college square property the city's redevelopment Commission

[3:00:19] - owns in our major snow events the last two years at least That property has been in violation The hand

[3:00:24] - director has said it was the responsibility of the construction manager Weddle Brothers construction.

[3:00:30] - I just find that wholly inadequate It was in violation for two weeks. We were the property owner the

[3:00:35] - city government You tell me we can't get our contractor to do to fix the thing I think their overall

[3:00:40] - approach to issuing warnings before fines is fundamentally misplaced and does not

[3:00:44] - The enforcement as a tool to get compliance on that front is just fundamentally failing, and I'm not

[3:00:50] - seeing the serious recognition of that problem. And it is legitimately a safety life and death problem.

[3:00:56] - It forces people into the dangerous streets under dangerous street conditions. And probably the biggest

[3:01:03] - public safety issue in our city is the deaths and severe injuries on our streets. Which brings me to

[3:01:09] - the last issue, which is about follow-through on commitments and funding

[3:01:14] - previously made to the council. In particular, I've been quite disappointed that what we negotiated

[3:01:20] - during the 2024 budget cycle in the form of a bond ordinance was the Indiana Avenue Safety Improvement

[3:01:25] - Project. That was part of an extensive budget negotiation. And over the past several years, staff has

[3:01:31] - had a lot of wide-ranging public engagement on that project. They developed a design that would

[3:01:37] - unquestionably increase safety for vulnerable street users. However, a few individuals at Indiana University

[3:01:43] - Oppose the project and prefer to car centric design that would largely replicate existing conditions

[3:01:48] - that are again objectively unsafe documented where we had residents die and be severely injured That's

[3:01:54] - based on prior primarily closed-door meetings staff ultimately end up recommending a subpar concept

[3:01:59] - to the Transportation Commission Which the Commission unanimously rejected is inconsistent with city

[3:02:04] - code and the goals of the safe streets for all action plan We directed staff to bring back a proposal

[3:02:09] - consistent with city code consistent with the the goals of the city and staff

[3:02:13] - just went radio silent, didn't tell us anything about it, didn't bring anything back or say anything

[3:02:19] - for six months until I asked about it, at which point they said they're not gonna pursue it, and hadn't

[3:02:24] - even talked to IU following the commission's vote, hadn't even talked to IU, but they're not gonna pursue

[3:02:30] - the project anymore with a sort of hand-wavy answer about, oh, it's gonna be incorporated into this

[3:02:35] - downtown kind of transportation study. That whole process on so many levels is just, again, a failure

[3:02:40] - of governance, in my opinion,

[3:02:42] - It's a failure to follow through on the commitments made to council. And at that time, I asked what

[3:02:48] - happens if conditions change. We were assured by the controller that the administration would come to

[3:02:53] - the council to work together to figure out what to do. That's not what has happened. Additionally, the

[3:02:59] - fact that because we can't get buy-in from a stakeholder or two who are deemed to be more important

[3:03:04] - than everyone else, we can't move forward on the project is just fundamentally unacceptable to me. Again,

[3:03:10] - it's a floor.

[3:03:11] - of what I expect of government. These things are all tied to the budget. They're tied to the appropriations

[3:03:17] - we're making. And again, when you're left with minimal recourse on accountability, I'm choosing to exercise

[3:03:23] - my vote here as a signal of accountability. So those are three specific things that I think

[3:03:29] - are representative of broader categories of things that I am dissatisfied with this administration.

[3:03:34] - And you can probably expect the same from me next year if we don't see market improvement across those things.

[3:03:41] - What my vote would be next week. Thank you again. No disrespect. It's my perspective I do appreciate

[3:03:48] - that the many good things the staff are doing There's lots that I agree with the things that my colleagues

[3:03:55] - are bringing to through the budget process tonight that I supported I appreciate that effort as well.

[3:04:01] - So, thank you Councilman Flaherty any other comments Okay, and with that I think the motion is still

[3:04:08] - on the table so I

[3:04:10] - I forget what it was to table. That's a procedural thing to move. Yeah, that's a procedural thing. We

[3:04:17] - can do voice vote. Yes. Okay. Fantastic. All those in favor then of moving this to our next regular

[3:04:24] - session on October 14th, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you so much. That will be read

[3:04:31] - on October. I mean, that will be next read on October 14th. Thank you all very much. Let's move on.

[3:04:37] - Are there any other motions?

[3:04:40] - I move that ordinance 2026-25 be introduced and read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second

[3:04:49] - motion and second all those in favor say aye Any opposed? All right. Will the clerk please read? Ordinance

[3:04:59] - 2026-25 and ordinance fixing the salaries of officers of the

[3:05:05] - the police and fire departments for the city of Bloomington Indiana for the year 20 27. The synopsis

[3:05:12] - is as follows. This ordinance sets the minimum and maximum salary rates for all sworn fire and police

[3:05:19] - personnel for the 20 for that for the year 20 27 in accordance with council approved collective bargaining

[3:05:26] - agreements. Thank you very much. I move that ordinance 20 26 25 be adopted. Second. Wonderful.

[3:05:32] - Anyone to present on this? I guess we've already talked about it, but any additions to this one Councilmember

[3:05:40] - Stasberg, I would like to move amendment one to ordinance 20 26 25. Okay So I think though director

[3:05:48] - paycheck was gonna say a few words. So is that okay? Can we? Did you want to speak before no,

[3:05:55] - thank you. Sure paycheck resources director. I'll answer any questions. Okay. Yeah Fantastic

[3:06:02] - Amendment one take it away Amendment one just add some clarifying language in a couple of places Under

[3:06:09] - training it clarifies the 100 hours per 20 hours of training The language aligns with the collective

[3:06:16] - bargaining agreement and then the clothing allotment adds a per year after that which is like the intent

[3:06:24] - and is what is there and the per year was just absent that's all it does and

[3:06:31] - Wonderful. Any comments or questions on this one? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment on Amendment

[3:06:40] - 1. Would anybody like to comment on Amendment 1? Anyone online? Fantastic. Coming back to council, any

[3:06:48] - final comments on Amendment 1? Thank you for your work, Councilmember Stosberg. Will the clerk please

[3:06:56] - call the roll? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith? Yes. Zulek?

[3:07:01] - Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rough. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stasburg. Yes. Excellent. That passes. We're

[3:07:10] - now on the ordinance as amended. Any other motions. All right. Seeing none any questions. Seeing none

[3:07:19] - we'll go to public comment as anyone would anyone like to make public comment on this portion of the budget.

[3:07:32] - Anyone online seeing none. We'll come back to counsel any final comments All right, will the clerk please

[3:07:41] - call the roll on ordinance 2026 25 Councilmember Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes rough. Yes clarity.

[3:07:49] - Yes Stasburg. Yes Piedmont Smith. Yes Thank you. Thank you very much. That carries. Are there any other motions?

[3:08:01] - I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty six be read by the clerk by title and synopsis only

[3:08:08] - second motion in a second any discussion all those in favor say aye aye any opposed will the clerk please

[3:08:16] - read Ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty six in ordinance to fix the salaries of appointed officers

[3:08:23] - down union and AFSCME employees for all the cities of

[3:08:27] - For all the departments of the city of Bloomington Monroe County Indiana for the year twenty twenty

[3:08:33] - seven the synopsis is as follows ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty six sets the maximum twenty

[3:08:39] - twenty seven salary for all appointed officers non-union and AFSCME employees for all the departments

[3:08:45] - of the city of Bloomington Indiana. Thank you so much. I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash

[3:08:51] - twenty six be adopted. Second. All right. Are there any amendments any motions.

[3:08:57] - Councilmember Piedmont Smith I move amendment 1 to ordinance 20 26-26 Second amendment 1 is on the table.

[3:09:07] - Go for it this amendment Revises section 1 of the ordinance to eliminate the vacant transportation demand

[3:09:16] - manager position from the ESD department Any questions for the sponsor Councilmember Stasberg

[3:09:25] - Earlier in the evening. There was a discussion about the idea of Defunding it but keeping it in here

[3:09:32] - so that then it would be like easier to recreate later if we ever wanted to What are your thoughts on

[3:09:39] - that? My thoughts on that are that If we have this position, it should not be an ESD So I would still

[3:09:46] - take it out of the ordinance and if we want to revisit transportation demand management

[3:09:53] - It should probably be in the Department of Planning and Transportation. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[3:10:00] - Any other questions or comments. Seeing none we'll move now to time of public comment. Would anyone

[3:10:07] - like to make a public comment on this amendment. Anyone online. Seeing none we'll come back to counsel.

[3:10:14] - Any final comments. Thank you very much. Will the clerk.

[3:10:18] - Councilmember Stasberg sorry, it went so fast I agree with councilmember Piedmont Smith that that eliminating

[3:10:25] - it from ESD is the right thing to do Because I don't think it ever should have been an ESD in the first

[3:10:31] - place. It should have been somewhere else and I think that I really appreciated councilmember Flaherty's

[3:10:37] - comments on other Planning transportation related things that this money could be potentially reallocated

[3:10:44] - for though. I also appreciate the idea of reallocating that money toward

[3:10:49] - implementation of our climate action plan which are two things that may be sort of related but also

[3:10:55] - maybe aren't so I hope that there is a broader conversation about that in the next several months and

[3:11:02] - also understanding that that that's a hundred and some thousand dollars that is no longer in our budget

[3:11:09] - that could potentially be reallocated at some point in 2027 for some additional project. Thank you so

[3:11:16] - very much. Any other comments?

[3:11:19] - Seeing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on this amendment? Councilmember sorry. Yes Daily.

[3:11:29] - Yes, rough. Yes 30. Yes, Stasburg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes, that amendment carries Let's

[3:11:39] - go back to ordinance 20 26 26 nice as amended any Any other questions

[3:11:51] - I don't think so. No. Yeah. OK. I can talk about this amendment. I think that we and maybe. So my intention

[3:12:06] - here was that our our our incoming attorney based on how we we have room in our budget and salary to adjust

[3:12:21] - the other position. And so this was the attempt to do that now. This is not the right place to do this,

[3:12:27] - nor the right mechanism to do this. I think we would have to take different type of action in collaboration

[3:12:33] - with HR. So I'm not going to introduce it, if that's OK. But I think it's a broader conversation that

[3:12:39] - we should have, as I've been saying. Sort of the refrain for today speaks a lot, I guess. But yeah,

[3:12:45] - so something for us to revisit is sort of the

[3:12:49] - That's second our second Lord position. Okay, so any other motions amendments questions Seeing none.

[3:12:58] - We'll go to public comment on ordinance 2026 2026 26 Anyone online seeing then we'll come back to council

[3:13:07] - any final comments or No, well the clerk, please call the roll. Oh councilman Sasberg. No, go ahead. Oh

[3:13:17] - It's fine. I was just gonna thank our staff again. That's all because this is like the ordinance that

[3:13:25] - actually sets their salaries for 2026 So thank you our staff for all the work that they do. Thanks Will

[3:13:33] - the clerk please call the roll councilmember Daley Yes, rough. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stasburg. Yes Piedmont

[3:13:41] - Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. I

[3:13:45] - Thank you that carries and yay any other motions Yeah I move that Ordinance 20 26-28 be introduced and

[3:13:55] - read by the clerk by title and synopsis only second There's a motion to second any discussion All those

[3:14:06] - in favor say aye aye any opposed will the clerk please read I

[3:14:17] - Ordinance 2026-28 in an ordinance to fix the salaries of appointed deputies and employees of the Bloomington

[3:14:25] - City Clerk for the city of Bloomington Monroe County, Indiana for the year 2027. The synopsis is as

[3:14:33] - follows. This salary ordinance establishes the 2027 maximum salaries for Bloomington City Clerk employees.

[3:14:41] - Thank you.

[3:14:42] - Any motion I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty eight be adopted second. All right. Clerk

[3:14:51] - would you like to say anything. I am here to answer any questions and record your votes. Council would

[3:14:59] - you like to ask any questions. Council member Stasberg is that in turn hourly rate based on the living

[3:15:07] - wage ordinance. Yes. Thanks. Any other questions.

[3:15:13] - Seeing none any motions Seeing none. We'll go to public comment. Is there anyone who wishes to comment

[3:15:21] - on the clerks? I mean originates 20 26 28 Anyone online coming back to council any final comments, maybe

[3:15:29] - your last chance I'd be remiss if I thanked all of the city staff and didn't specifically thank the

[3:15:37] - clerk staff as well because the clerk staff do a tremendous amount for

[3:15:43] - City and keeping all of our meetings in order and all of those things. So thank you to those staff members

[3:15:50] - as well Because I'm in the in the sort of vibe of losing battles another conversation that I've continued

[3:15:58] - to have throughout the year is the importance of us really thinking about both the structure of council

[3:16:05] - staff and the structure of the clerk staff, I think that there's ways that we can

[3:16:11] - really harmonize and bring better outcomes to all of this. I hope one day that we will all join together

[3:16:22] - in this wonderful, glorious paradise. Okay, with that, will the clerk please call the roll.

[3:16:31] - I mean I have much broader things that you know, you know, you wouldn't like them Okay councilmember

[3:16:42] - rough Thank you Flaherty, yes Stasburg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, Azulik. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes daily

[3:16:52] - Yes, thank you all very much. All right now we're

[3:17:02] - or any well wishes. Well, I hope you all get home safely and whatnot. Have a wonderful evening. This

[3:17:09] - is adjourned. Bow.

Bloomington City Council 10/7

Transcript