►
From YouTube: Bloomington City Council, December 14, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
A
You
all
right,
very
good
to
summarize
our
agenda
for
legislation
for
second
readings
and
resolutions.
This
evening
we
have
resolution
22-20
a
resolution
responding
to
Monroe
County
Board
of
Commissioners
ordinance,
2022-46.
A
That
is
followed
by
ordinance
22-37
to
amend
the
city
of
bloomington's
zoning
maps
by
adding
the
transform
Redevelopment
overlay,
the
tro
to
certain
below
described
property.
And
then
our
legislation
for
first
reading
this
evening,
ordinance
22-38
to
amend
the
city
of
Bloomington
zoning
maps
by
rezoning
a
87.12
acre
property
from
mixed-use
employment
me
to
mixed-use
institutional
Mi.
Regarding
the
northeast
corner
of
West,
Fullerton
Pike
and
State
Road
37
Monroe
County
government
petitioner.
A
That
is
followed
by
appropriation,
ordinance
22-06.
An
ordinance
appropriating
the
proceeds
of
the
city
of
Bloomington
Indiana
General
Revenue
annual
appropriation
bonds
of
2022.,
together
with
all
Investments
earning
their
earnings,
thereon
for
the
purpose
of
providing
funds
to
be
applied
to
the
costs
of
certain
Capital
Improvements
for
Public
Safety
facilities
and
paying
miscellaneous
costs.
A
E
E
E
Resolution
2220
be
introduced
and
read
by
the
clerk
by
title
and
synopsis.
Only.
A
A
minute
we've
got
virtual
Madam
clerk.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.
G
B
C
B
H
H
B
Resolution
2220
a
resolution
responding
to
Monroe
County
Board
of
Commissioners
ordinance
2022-46
the
synopsis
as
follows.
Resolution
2220
expresses
the
Bloomington
Community
common
council's
support
for
the
formation
of
a
capital,
Improvement
board
and
furtherance
of
the
convention
center
Expansion
Project.
I
Yes,
happy
to
Stephen
Lucas,
Council,
administrator
and
attorney
resolution.
2220
gives
the
council
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
an
action
taking
about
a
month
ago
by
the
County
Board
of
Commissioners,
which
is
referenced
in
the
title.
The
Board
of
Commissioners
adopted
their
ordinance
2022-46,
which
created
a
CIB
on
the
condition
that
the
city
expressed
a
support
for
the
creation
of
such
an
entity
to
oversee
and
manage
the
convention
center
Expansion
Project.
I
The
resolution
itself
recites
a
bit
of
the
history
of
the
the
food
and
beverage
tax
which
was
enabled
several
years
ago
to
fund
the
expansion
of
the
convention
center.
I
won't
repeat
that
most
recently,
folks
from
the
city
and
county
have
been
meeting
to
figure
out
what
sort
of
entity
will
oversee
the
operations
and
and
the
the
Expansion
Project
itself.
The
city
Administration
has
expressed
support
for
a
501c3
non-profit
entity.
I
Both
the
County
Commissioners
and
the
County
Council
now
have
expressed
support
for
a
a
capital
Improvement
board,
which
is
an
entity
provided
for
in
state
law
that
that
many
other
communities
use
to
manage
their
convention
centers,
and
so
this
resolution
tonight
gives
the
council
an
opportunity
to
weigh
in
on
this
question,
it
expresses
support
for
the
creation
of
a
capital
Improvement
board
and
encourages
the
city
Administration
to
continue
working
with
folks
in
the
county
to
address
any
remaining
questions
left
open
after
the
commissioner's
ordinance
2022-46
was
adopted.
I
We
have
several
folks
here
from
the
the
relevant
bodies
and
and
interested
members
of
the
community
who
know
much
more
about
the
project
than
I.
Do
who've
been
working
on
this
for
several
years
and
I'm
hopeful
that
they'll
be
able
to
chime
in
with
their
their
perspectives
and
and
answer
questions
I
believe
we
have
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael
here
on
on
Zoom
I,
don't
see
her
in
the
room
from
the
administration
in
case
there
are
questions
there.
She
is
so
that's
that's
a
very
brief.
I
Rundown
I
won't
belabor
the
point
happy
to
go
into
more
detail.
Folks.
Have
it
your
packet
materials
attempted
to
provide
you
a
sense
of
what
a
CIB
is
and
what
Authority
it
has
again.
I
think
folks
from
the
city
Administration
have
been
looking
at
this
issue.
I
Beth
Kate,
Corporation
Council
may
also
be
able
to
answer
questions
if
you
have
them
on
how
a
CIB
might
operate
versus
a
501c3,
but
essentially
this
this
resolution
expresses
the
council's
support
for
the
creation
of
a
CIB
to
further
the
convention
center
Expansion
Project
and
recognizes
that
they're
still
on
unanswered
questions
that
that
may
need
to
be
addressed
and
calls
on
the
city
Administration
to
continue
working
with
our
colleagues
in
the
county
to
to
answer
those,
possibly
through
the
creation
of
a
any
needed
interlocal
agreements.
I
think
I'll
leave
it
at
that
and.
A
Thank
you
before
we
go
to
council
questions
on
this
matter.
Are
there
Representatives
either
from
the
city?
I
see
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael?
Here,
apparently
you
are
the
spokesperson
for
the
city
on
this
and
then
also
Mr
Cockrell
from
the
county
if
either
one
of
you
would
like
to
make
some
introductory
remarks
before
we
turn
it
over
to
council
for
questions,
I
see
Mary
Catherine's
hand
up.
Please.
J
Thank
you
good
evening,
Council
I'm
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael,
director
of
public
engagement,
Office
of
the
mayor.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
tonight.
I
know:
we've
been
in
contact
on
this
topic
quite
a
bit
over
the
last
several
months.
I'm
joined
this
evening
by
Corporation
Council,
Beth
Kate
who's,
also
here
to
try
to
be
of
assistance.
As
we
discussed
this
issue
answer
questions
as
they
come
up.
Pardon
me
a
little
frog.
J
My
throat
tonight
you've
already
received
a
series
of
correspondence
from
the
administration
outlining
our
thoughts
on
the
relative
workability
of
a
CIB
versus
a
501c3
for
the
expansion
of
the
convention
center.
We
remain
committed
to
that
project
and
that
commitment
includes
100
of
the
city's
food
and
beverage
tax
revenues.
We
really
want
to
see
this
project
go
forward.
J
I
think
the
the
topic
in
the
issue
in
question
is
simply
what
form
of
organization
is
it
going
to
take
to
to
get
that
done
most
effectively
and
it's
after
literally
six
years
of
study
and
talk,
we've
come
to
the
conclusion
that
our
preference
would
certainly
be
and
strongly
be
a
501c3,
but
we
understand
too
that
well-intentioned
people
can
have
different
opinions,
and
that's
okay,
so
happy
to
be
with
you
this
evening
to
further
discuss
this.
Thank
you.
A
K
And
I'm
here
mainly
to
listen
and
answer
questions
as
it
cease
fit
but
I.
You
know,
I
I,
think
some
of
us
in
this
room
have
been
part
of
this
conversation
of
a
convention
center
and
how
it
moves
on
and
moves
forward
since
I
I
think
the
beginning.
I
think
I
was
not
here
in
the
beginning,
but
there
are
members
of
the
audience,
but
I
was
really
involved
in
the
negotiations
that
were
going
on
right
before
covet
hit
and
everything
got
put
on
hold.
K
And
at
that
point
in
time
we
were
talking
about
a
CIB
and
so
I
I
see
this
this
motion
and
what
the
what
the
Commissioners
did
is
just
kind
of
trying
to
continue
from
where
we
left
off
in
2019
2000,
beginning
of
2020..
So
again,
I'm
here
mainly
to
answer
questions.
But
if
you
have
any
I'm
more
than
happy
to
answer
them.
A
L
So
this
amendment
puts
some
conditions
on
the
common
Council
support
for
a
CIB
and
the
conditions
reflect
what
the
the
mayor's
Administration
said
about
the
use
of
a
CIB
in
their
memo
of
November
23rd
it
in
addition
to
that
well,
except
for
two
items.
So
all
of
these
it's
it's
organized
a
little
bit
differently
and
and
more
concisely.
I
think
in
exhibit
a
you,
can
see
that
this.
This
was
in
the
second
packet
addendum
that
went
out
this
afternoon.
L
I
apologize
that
it
was
not
sent
out
sooner
I,
I,
guess
I
was
waiting
for
somebody
else
to
do
something,
but
never
do
that
so
I
I
am
personally
not
a
great
fan
of
Convention
Center
expansion,
but
I
do
feel
like
the
food
and
beverage
tax
was
passed,
and
now
we
need
to
actually
use
the
funds
that
we
have
collected
for
the
purposes
that
were
stated
when
the
tax
was
passed.
L
So
these
the
exhibit
a
which
would
hereby
be
attached
to
the
resolution
lists
as
I
said,
the
conditions
that
the
mayor's
office
has
listed
on
November
23rd,
with
the
exception
of
one
other
thing,
that
two
other
things
that
were
in
the
November
23rd
memo,
which
is
that
the
city
controller
shall
be
the
controller
for
the
CIB
I
feel
like
the
CIB
could
determine
that
it
does
make
sense.
The
city
controller
would
hit
the
ground
running
but
seems
to
me
the
CIB
could
determine
that
and
then
the
other.
L
The
other
item
is
to
have
a
an
independent
annual
audit,
rather
than
the
State
Board
of
accounts.
Audit
and
I
I
did
hear
back
from
Corporation
Council
Kate
about
that,
and
she
explained
that
it
was
because
State
Board
of
accounts
is
very
over
overworked
and
doesn't
get
to
audits
in
a
timely
manner.
But
again,
I
feel,
like
that's
a
item
of
detail,
that
the
CIB
could
decide
for
themselves.
M
Madam,
chair
I,
do
not
have
in
writing
the
amendment.
C
L
So
did
I
add
anything
else,
oh
and
the
the
other
thing
other
than
what
was
in
the
mayor's
memo
minus
those
two
items.
The
other
thing
that
I
added
in
exhibit
a
was
the
representation
on
the
composition
of
the
CIB,
shall
be,
as
the
county
commissioner's
ordinance
indicated,
with
equal
representation
from
city
and
county
three
and
three,
and
then
the
seventh
member
chosen
by
the
remaining
members.
So
I
wanted
to
put
that
in
writing
as
well,
so
I'm,
sorry
that
was
kind
of
a
train
of
Consciousness
introduction.
A
Right,
thank
you
and
given
the
lateness
of
the
hour
that
this
was
presented,
I'm,
hoping
that
members
of
the
public,
especially
from
the
county,
have
gotten
a
copy
of
this.
Would
anyone
from
the
county
wish
to
speak
to
amend
Amendment
one
particularly
hearing
from
Mr
Cockrell
I,
believe
you
have
you've
had
an
opportunity
to
review
this.
K
Jeff
Cockrell
with
the
county
legal
department,
I
I,
got
a
copy
of
this
a
few
minutes
ago.
There's
not
a
whole
lot
of
surprising
things
on
it.
Actually,
the
most
surprising
thing
is
and
then
I'll
go
back
to
where
the
negotiated
negotiations
ended
in
1920
was
that
that
seventh
member
of
the
CIB
was
was
a
real
contentious
point,
and
this
kind
of
with
this
in
the
commissioner's
resolution
kind
of
clarifies
it
I'd
also
have
a
couple
of
comments.
The
first
is
in
number
one
with
the
with
the
CVC
appointments.
K
This
has
always
been
kind
of
a
struggle
in
the
way
it's
the
language
here
makes
it
difficult,
because
that's
not
a
locally
designated
who
gets
to
make
those
appointments.
Those
are
found
in
the
in
the
state
code
and
so
I,
don't
know
how
you
just
give
those
appointments
without
changing
that
state
code.
K
So
I
think
that
is
a
is
a
concern
that
would
need
to
be
worked
out
in
a
way
that's
different
than
the
language
in
this
if
it
gets
worked
out,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
the
state
code
says
the
County
Council
makes
three
appointments,
two
of
which
have
to
be
from
a
hotel
or
other
type
of
organization
with
at
least
40
beds.
The
County
Commissioners
make
two
two
appointments.
K
One
has
to
be
the
associated
with
the
IMU
and
the
other
one
has
to
be
of
a
hotel
with
with
40
or
more
beds,
so
there's
there's
kind
of
a
limited
pool
anyway,
but
that
that
certainly
is
in
code
and
I.
Think
if
you
combine
that
with
kind
of
the
last
SEC
the
last
statement
of
no,
if
no
agreement
can
be
reached,
the
parties
must
then
establish
some
other
alternative
structure.
I
think
there's
a
there's.
There's
needs
to
be
a
realization
that
hey
you
know.
K
One
part
of
this
is
definitely
against
state
code
and,
and
that
has
to
be
worked
out.
The
other
thing
that
I
I'm
wondering
if
in
number
four
when
you
talk
about
necessarily
the
necessary
interlock
interlocal
agreements
to
achieve
the
fourth
foregoing
components
and
additional
components
such
as
staffing
needs
of
the
CIA
CVC
and
CIB.
K
If
that's
more
of
a
hey,
we're
going
to
agree
to
to
build
the
budget,
you
know
kind
of
before
the
budget
sessions
looking
at
our
revenues
and
and
putting
that
so
then
the
the
CIS,
the
CIB,
would
then
have
an
opportunity
to
hire
their
own
Staffing
and
make
those
determinations
for
themselves
or,
if
that's
something
different.
That
would
be
a
question
I
would
have
about
this
amendment.
A
L
K
Right,
I
know
our
County
Council
does
budgeting
and
you
guys
do
budgeting
in
the
fall.
If
we
create
a
CIB
in
January,
whether
we
would
go
ahead
and
have
both
City
councils
kind
of
work
with
the
CIB
to
create
a
budget
that
they
could
utilize
as
opposed
to
making
interlocal
agreements
about
the
staff
that
that's
purely
my
question.
Okay,.
N
Beth
Kay
Corporation
Council,
just
on
the
first
point
that
Mr
Cockrell
raised
about
the
statutory
Provisions
about
CVC
appointments,
as
he
and
I
have
talked
a
little
bit
about
this.
That's
our
reference
to
inter-local
agreements.
Some
of
the
terms
being
worked
out
in
that
way
would
allow
us
to
sit
down
and
talk
through
how
recommendations
from
the
city
would
contribute
to
the
appointments
that
are
specified
in
the
code.
So
that's
one
of
those
things
that
an
interlocal
agreement
would
allow
us
to
work
through.
N
O
My
name
is
Mike
Campbell
I'm,
the
president
of
the
convention
and
business
commission.
So
you
can
see
why
we
would
be
interested
in
commenting
on
on
at
least
0.1
so
and
I
did
want
to
go
ahead
and
and
talk
through
some
of
that
with
the
statute
and
and
I
know
we're
aware
of
that.
But
there
is
a
very
limited
pool
of
hoteliers
that
would
fit
the
parameters
for
selection
and
serving
on
this
commission.
So
in
the
vast
majority
of
those
are
within
the
city
limits.
O
One
point
that
has
not
been
brought
up
is
approval
of
the
budget
by
both
bodies,
both
the
city
and
the
county
in
in
point
one
and
and
that
I
would
certainly
want
to
know
how
that
would
would
operate
if
one
body
agreed
one
way
and
one
didn't
another,
how
that
would
work
since
the
tax
was
collected
by
the
county
and
then
in
point
number
three,
where
it
says
the
County's
commitment
to
continued
appropriation
of
innkeepers
tax
proceeds
to
the
CIB
to
fund
CC
operations
and
maintenance
leaves
off
a
very
important
point.
O
A
lot
of
the
funding
is
is
also
for
sales,
marketing
and
attraction
of
those
conventions
that
would
be
coming
there
and
is
not
enumerated
here,
so
some
some
language
in
there.
That
would
talk
about
the
other
piece
of
that
which
we
currently
use
and
fund
so
that
we
could
attract
those
commissions
to
a
to
an
expanded
convention
center
right.
A
Good
back
to
council
now
for
any
questions:
oh
Mary,
Miss
Carmichael.
A
J
Thank
you,
president
Sandberg
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael.
Obviously
the
mayor
just
want
to
remind
everybody
that
the
memo
that
council
member
Piedmont
Smith
referenced
in
that
memo,
we
listed
items
that
had
been
included
in
the
2019
negotiations,
but
had
been
dropped
from
the
County
Commissioners
CIB
resolution
that
they
passed
and
and
just
as
a
reminder
that
memo
landed
on
the
conclusion
that
even
with
those
amendments,
a
CIB
puts
the
city
at
a
disadvantage
and
is
not
what
we
would
recommend
or
or
prefer
so
just
want
to
make
that
point
of
clarification.
M
Before
I
ask
a
question:
I
just
need
to
say
that
I
am
overwhelmed
by
this
amendment.
Having
just
seen
it
I
do
not
understand.
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
read
it.
I.
M
Don't
think
that
the
presentation
that
the
sponsor
made
was
sufficient,
so
I'm
going
to
be
playing
catch
up
here,
but
the
bottom
line
is
I
simply
don't
understand
how
this
impacts
the
current
situation
that
the
county
and
the
administration-
you
know
I,
don't
understand
it.
M
I
wish
I
had
one
right
now:
I
I
did
want
to
to
start
with
point
three
with
the
gentleman
from
the
CVC
said,
so
it
says:
County
commitment
to
continued
appropriation
of
innkeepers
tax
proceeds
to
the
CIB
to
fund
CC
operations
and
maintenance.
This
implies
to
me
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
that
there
wasn't
a
guarantee
that
the
innkeeper's
tax
would
continue
to
go
to
a
Convention
Center
under
the
the
terms.
Without
this
amendment
is
that
correct.
O
Every
time
you
come
up
so
Mike
Campbell,
president
of
the
convention
and
visitors,
commission,
and
actually
there
is
a
Monroe
County
statute
that
points
to
the
ongoing
nature
of
the
innkeepers
tax
collection
and
support
for
a
Convention
Center.
This
was
adopted
in
1990
and
since
1990,
the
convention
of
visitors
commission,
through
the
use
of
the
innkeepers
tax,
has
been
the
sole
funding
member
of
the
existing
Convention
Center
for
all
upkeep
and
then
that's
in
part
of
the
ordinance
that
has
not
been
rescinded.
That
talks
about
a
continued
commitment
to
the
convention
center.
M
O
But
not
in
such
a
restrictive
nature
as
what
was
in
the
amendment-
and
that
was
part
of
my
concern
is
that
in
the
amendment
it
left
off
marketing
and
and
some
other
attraction
for
convention
centers
that
was
not
present
and
that.
O
M
O
M
O
O
The
only
thing
I
see
is
92-40
in
the
ordinance.
Okay.
M
So
how
would
an
ordinance
pass
in
1992
be
effective
as
of
1990.,
so.
O
This
repeals
the
ordinance
90-13,
very
good,
okay
and
it's
ordinance
92-40.
M
Thank
you
to
the
sponsor.
Why
is
it
that
we
needed
to
be
specific
about
this
in
this
amendment,
since
it
was
required
that
those
dollars
would
continue
to
go
to
the
convention
center
anyway,.
L
Well,
for
one
thing
that
County
could
change
their
code,
but
mainly
it's
in
there,
because
it
was
in
the
mayor's
memo
and
I
was
trying
to
get
everybody
on
board
to
move
ahead.
M
So
you're
saying
that
the
mayor's
memo
was
concerned
about
those
dollars
potentially
being
withheld
in
case
of
a
dispute,
and
this
ensures
it.
A
J
Yeah
I
think
that
is
probably
a
little
bit
better
position
to
answer
that,
but,
yes
and
I
think
that
you
know
we
obviously
take
our
our
approach
to
this
is
to
do
everything
we
can
to
protect
the
city
and-
and
that
would
certainly
be
one
thing
that
we'd
want
to
address
so
I'll
leave
it
there.
M
N
Fk
Corporation,
Council
I
think
the
list
of
things
that
was
in
that
were
in
the
memo
of
November
23rd,
which
is
what
council
member
Piedmont
Smith
was
drawing
on
for
the
amendment
reflect
things
that
both
as
I
understand
it
I
wasn't
here
six
years
ago
and
throughout
the
earlier
portions
of
these
negotiations,
but
were
all
things
that
people
were
actively
talking
about
to
try
to
ensure
that
both
the
county
and
the
city
were
fully
committed
to
the
expansion
of
the
convention
center
and
the
project,
and
so
that
list
that
you're,
seeing
in
the
memo
and
the
council
members
Piedmont
Smith
Drew
on,
is
stating
out
loud
the
various
ways
that
both
balance
could
be
achieved
in
governance,
if
you
will
and
in
the
project,
and
also
that
level
of
commitment
being
evidenced
again.
N
K
Jeff
Cockrell
County
attorney
I
was
just
conferring
with
Mike
Campbell,
because
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
innkeepers
tax
has
to
be
approved
for
spending
by
the
convention
and
visitors
commission
before
it
can
be
spent
anywhere.
So
you
know,
if
you
look
at
number
one
which
you
know
is
is
now
with
the
Statue,
but
I
think
you
know.
I've
talked
with
Beth
K
and
we
we're
thinking
about
ways
that
maybe
we
could
utilize
that.
So,
if,
if
that
were
in
place,
it
would
be
you
know
kind
of
you.
M
F
Yes,
thank
you.
This
is
the
point.
I
thought,
I,
understood
and
now
I'm
not
sure
I
do
so
so
I
need
to
Circle
back
still
regarding
Roman
numeral,
three
accounting
commitment
to
continued
appropriation
of
innkeepers
tax
and
so
forth.
Mr
Campbell
did
I
understand
correctly
that
current
County
statutes
allow
the
money
to
be
supportive
of
the
CVC,
but
am
I
understanding
correctly
that
you
would
like
to
see
it
more
explicitly
state
that
it
could
be
used
for
outreach
efforts
and
marketing
efforts.
Well,.
O
It's
what
it's,
what
I
asked
for
was
for
it
to
reflect
what
is
actually
happening
now
and
and
with
a
much
larger
organization.
Certainly,
there
would
be
additional
costs,
and
we've
talked
through
that
with
the
county
and
the
city,
and
we've
expressed
our
support
for
this
all
along
what,
rather
than
earmarking
it
simply
for
operations
and
maintenance.
O
F
O
Don't
necessarily
want
us
to
be
so
restrictive
to
say
we
could
only
spend
it
on
these
small
items
when
we
don't
know
what
things
will
look
like
10
years
from
now,
but
we
know
we
will
continue
to
support
the
convention
center
with
the
use
of
the
innkeepers
tax.
F
P
In
the
memo
from
the
administration
there
are
15
items,
I
think
and
in
your
Amendment
there
are
not
15
items
so
just
wondering
why
you
chose
to
leave
out
some
of
those
items
in
the
memo
and
a
follow-up
I
think.
For
me
this
is
much
too
much
information
to
try
to
decide
in
one
night,
but
if,
if,
if
you
could
answer
that
question.
L
Yes,
so
the
reason
I
Consolidated,
some
of
the
items
from
the
November
23rd
Memo
from
the
mayor's
Administration,
is
just
to
make
it
easier
to
read.
Basically,
I
was
trying
to
make
it
easier.
L
Hopefully
that
is
the
case,
but
rather
than
listing
15
things,
I
mean
with
a
lot
of
repetition
of
you
know
the
the
CIB
shall
get
County
and
City
permission
to
do
this,
and
then
the
CIB
shall
get
County
and
City
permission
to
do
this,
and
then
you
know
I
just
said
the
city
and
county,
shall
you
know,
sign
off
on
and
then
put
a
list
of
things
so
it
as
I
mentioned
at
the
outset.
L
The
only
two
things
from
the
memo
that
I
did
not
include
was
that
the
city
controller
automatically
be
the
controller
for
the
CIB
and
that
the
CIB
engage
in
independent
auditor
to
do
annual
audits
rather
than
the
State
Board
of
accounts.
I
thought
those
two
items
could
just
be
left
up
to
the
CIB
to
decide.
H
A
Q
Thank
you
in
reviewing
the
the
list
from
the
mayor's
Administration
memo
on
November
23rd.
There
was
an
item
that
I
another
item.
You
didn't
mention
Council
Memon
Smith.
That
I
think
is
not
included
in
the
amendment.
That's
item
number
10,
which
says
expeditious
transfer
to
the
CIB
of
all
city
and
county
property
purchased
via
the
innkeepers
or
food
and
beverage
taxes
I.E
no
later
than
90
days
after
establishment
of
the
CIB
or
the
CIB
dissolves,
so
sort
of
a
conditional
transfer
of
of
properties
acquired
over
the
years
from
these
two
funding
sources.
L
Thank
you.
No,
that
was
unintentionally
left
out,
so
I
would
propose
to
put
that
back
in
my
bad.
Q
Thank
you,
I
I,
suppose,
if
it's
not
if
it's
okay
with
the
chair
I
would
be
curious
to
hear
the
County's
perspective
on
on
that
particular
possibility
of
addition
in
the
cities.
Why
why
they
found
that
term
essential
as
well.
K
A
real
problem
with
that
addition,
for
mainly
the
following
reason:
we
purchased
all
the
property
and
we
still
have
debt
on
all
the
property
through
a
through
the
lease
purchase
statute,
which
requires
so
technically
right.
Now
the
county
is
not
the
fee
title
owner
to
to
most
of
the
property
we're
talking
about,
because
we
have
debt
on
it
once
that
debt
is
paid
off
by
Statute,
it
has
to
go
back
to
the
county,
so
it
would
be
tough
for
us
to
transfer
title
without
paying
off
the
debt.
K
Certainly,
that
would
be
really
hard
to
do
within
a
90-day
period.
I
would
also
say
that
there
are,
at
least
in
my
mind,
some
questions
because
we
did
not
purchase
we
had
purchased.
We
have
property
north
of
town
where
the
current
Visitor
Center
is
that
was
bought
with
food
and
beverage
tax
and
I'm,
not
sure
that's
part
of
this
convention
center
expansion
I
also
think
that
there
should
be
a
conversation
about
looking
at
all
the
property
there.
K
There
I
think
particularly
the
ones
on
the
southern
end
of
of
that
block
to
see
what
is
the?
What
is
the
projected
future
use
of
those
properties,
I'm
sure
when
we
bought
it
and
I?
Think
to
this
day
we
think
that
that
is
for
a
Convention
Center
expansion
at
some
point
in
time.
However,
if
you
looked
at
when
we
went
through
the
process,
we
looked
at,
where
we
were
going
to
expand
to
and
again
the
city
was
gracious
enough
to
buy
the
the
lot
north
of
the
street
I
I'm.
K
Sorry,
my
maps,
my
map
in
my
mind's
gone
north
of
Third
Street,
the
what
I
refer
to
the
bunker
building.
Ironically,
that
was
not
in
my
mind
that
was
not
purchased
with
either
innkeepers
tax
or
food
and
beverage,
so
that
would
not
be
included
in
in
what
you
guys
are
are
putting,
but
when
they
purchased
that
property
I
think
it
made
that
expansion
all
the
way
to
the
south
of
something
that
we
probably
need
to
rethink
and
think
about
if,
if
that's
still
appropriate.
So
those
are
kind
of
my
comments
on
that.
J
Thank
you,
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael
office,
the
mayor,
so
we
bought
that
land
with
the
intention,
of
course,
of
expanding
in
that
direction.
That
was
the
recommendation
of
the
group
that
was
made
up
of
both
City
County
and
Community
Representatives
back
in
2019.
The
idea
was
a
bridge
over
Third
Street,
but
I
I
do
have
to
just
circle
back
for
one
quick.
J
D
G
Just
to
clarify
for
I'm
I'm,
looking
at
the
the
amendment
and
it
talks
about
in
number
one
equal
representation
in
the
appointments
and
then
I'm
looking
at
Indiana
code,
that
was
in
a
packet
3610-8-4
about
the
board,
is
composed
of
seven
members
am
I
misunderstanding
that
this
the
state
code
tells
us
how
to
do
the
memberships
of
the
board
or
those
two
different
items
are
those
two
different
entities
that
the
Commission
in
the
amendment
number
one
or
in
the
Indiana
code
is,
are
those
two
different
things
that
Cockrell
clarify
me?
Yes,.
K
The
convention
of
visitors
commission
is
found
in
in
the
portion
of
the
code
dealing
with
local
taxes
in
chapter
six
of
the
Indiana
code
that
is
specifically
tied
to
innkeepers
tax
I.
Think
the
I
I
don't
have
a
copy
of
what's
in
your
code,
but
I
believe
it's
probably
about
the
capital
Improvement
board,
which
is
a
which
would
be
a
totally
separate
entity
than
the
convention
and
visitors.
Commission.
A
R
Quite
sure
how
to
couch
this-
maybe
it's
just
a
clarification
for
me
that
somewhat
could
straighten
out
for
me,
but
the
term
operations.
R
I
would
think
that
would
include
marketing
and
those
sorts
of
things.
Is
that
not
the
case
and
if
it
isn't,
could
someone
explain
to
me
what
does
operations
mean
if
it
doesn't
include
marketing
and
a
tracking
convention
bit?
Is
that
not
operations
or
am
I
not
saying
this
correctly,
that
that's
been
budgeted
for
previous
years
and
you've
been
allowed
to
operate
anyway
right,
okay,.
O
So
yes,
so
you
could
certainly
interpret
it
that
way,
you
can
interpret
it
a
different
way
and
so
that
that
monies
are
only
for
the
operations
and
Staffing
to
maintain
the
building
and
the
business
within
it,
not
the
business
to
get
it
here,
and
so
that
might
be
done
by
a
different
entity
as
well
so
currently
visit
Bloomington
has
a
convention.
Sales
person
I
would
think
that
would
fall
within
the
purview
of
supporting
the
convention
center.
M
Okay,
so
I've
I've
finally
found
in
my
email,
The
Memo
from
the
administration,
from
your
Catherine
Carmichael
dated
November
23rd,
and
if
hastily
compared
it
to
exhibit
a
of
the
amendment,
they
have
15
bullet
points
in
their
memo
and
from
what
I
can
see.
Every
bullet
point
has
been
addressed
in
exhibit
a
except
items:
10
11
and
12,
and
there's
one
item
here:
that's
not
present
in
their
in
the
administration's
bullet
points.
M
Item
10
is
the
that
the
administration
expected
was
expeditious,
transfer
to
the
CIB
of
all
property
purchased
via
innkeepers
of
food
and
beverage
taxes
or
the
CIB
dissolves
11
was
appointment
of
the
city
controller
as
the
statutory
controller
for
the
CIB
and
12
was
authorization
by
both
city
and
county
for
the
CIB
to
have
outside
independent
audits.
M
So
I
don't
know
yet
to
whom
to
ask
this
question
I
feel
like
I
need
to
ask
both
the
sponsor
and
the
administration
of
their
intent.
But
let
me
start
with
the
sponsor:
did
you
intend
to
leave
out
items
10,
11
and
12
from
the
exhibit,
or
are
they
included
here
in
a
fashion
that
I
have
yet
to
determine.
L
Apologize
that
this
was
so
late,
I
totally
understand
that
it's
a
lot
to
digest
items,
items
11
and
12
from
the
the
administration's
memo.
I
purposely
left
out
item
10
I
accidentally
left
out,
but
maybe
that's
a
good
thing,
because
the
county
has
expressed
Pro
that
there
they
find
it
very
problematic.
This
item
number
10..
So
that's
my
explanation.
Thank.
M
You
for
that
I'm
just
going
to
say
now
that
I
really
want
an
explanation
for
each
point
and
to
fully
understand
the
the
stanza,
since
this
we're
negotiating
this
on
the
Fly
here,
but
I'd
like
to
ask
the
administration:
did
you
have
a
chance
to
see
exhibit
a
of
this
amendment,
and
do
you
have
a
specific
reaction
to
those
three
items
that
the
sponsor
left
out?
J
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael
Office
of
the
mayor.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I
want
to
point
out
again
that
that
memo
of
the
23rd
was
listing
the
things
that
were
left
out
of
the
resolution
that
was
passed
by
the
County
Commissioners.
It
was
not
intended
as
a
road
map
to
drive
us
to
an
ideal
CIB
again,
because
we
don't
feel
that
a
CIB
is
the
appropriate
way
to
get
from
point
A
to
point
B,
which
is
a
built
Convention,
Center
expansion.
J
There
are
several
roadblocks
but
I
think
the
Crux
of
the
matter
is:
it
puts
the
city
at
a
disadvantage
because
we
are
going
to
have
a
great
majority
of
the
investment
and
I'm
sure
there'll
be
some
pushback
on
that,
but
but,
and
so
we
feel
that
the
organ
the
way
the
CIB
is
set
up
does
not
give
us
enough
control
and
power
long
term
to
be
able
to
really
guide
this.
The
way
we'd
like
to
see.
So
that's
that's
a
real
sticking
point.
M
Context
my
question
for
you,
which
is
in
order
to
fully
understand
why
the
501c3
is
superior
and
the
administration's
mind
I'm.
Having
to
ask
these
questions.
You
shouldn't
interpret
this
as
taking
one
side
or
the
other,
because
I
frankly
still
just
don't
understand
the
question
fully.
Does
that
make
sense,
Miss
Carmichael.
M
So
having
said
that,
you're
saying
that,
even
if
those
items
that
we
just
discussed
were
included
in
this
amendment,
the
administration
would
find
the
CIB
to
be
an
inferior
solution.
But
the
administration
would
certainly
prefer
these
items
to
be
in
the
CIB.
If
it
were
to
come
to
pass.
Do
I
have
that
correct.
J
F
K
Make
sense
your
question
makes
sense.
I
hope
my
answer
makes
sense.
I
I
think
what
would
happen
it
was.
It
would
end
this
rendition
of
that
Capital
Improvement
board
ordinance,
there's
nothing
that
would
prohibit
the
Commissioners
from
passing
another
Capital
Improvement
board
ordinance
in
the
future.
I
think
this
is
an
attempt
to
keep
this
conversation
moving.
I
think
we've
gotten
some
feedback
from
from
the
administration.
S
I
Julie
Thomas
Monroe
County
Commissioner.
We
heard
from
a
lot
of
folks
that
this
progress,
this
project
should
progress
and
move
forward.
This
was
the
resolution.
Was
our
effort
to
do
so
and
to
do
so
expeditiously,
and
that
is
not
something
where
let
me
put
it
this
way.
S
You
should
take
that
CIB
proposal
as
what
it
is.
It's
a
proposal
to
move
forward
with
the
CIB
and
to
keep
keep
going
forward
rather
than
muddying
the
waters
with
alternate
proposals,
but
to
work
on
mous
and
to
work
out
what
has
to
be
worked
out,
because
we
know
there
are
details
that
still
have
to
be
done.
S
F
Q
Way
back,
thank
you.
I
had
similar
questions
that
I'll
just
follow
up
on
section.
Six
of
the
same
ordinance
from
the
commissioner
says:
On
a
related
point
that
the
formation
of
the
CIB
and
the
need
for
Speedy
action
are
based
on
that.
This
ordinance
is
quote
contingent
upon
the
city
of
Wilmington's
agreement
with
the
terms
of
this
ordinance
by
January
1st
2023.
Q
It
seems
to
me
that
if
we
pass
this
amendment
the
we
can't
assent
to
that
agreement
by
adding
conditions
or
or
can
we
could
it
still
even
be
valid
for
us
to
comply
with
the
terms
of
the
commissioner's
ordinance
if
we
amend
the
conditions
upon
which
were
ascending
to
a
cab
being
formed.
M
Q
Would
the
passage
of
amendment
three
automatically
Amendment?
Why
I'm
sorry
I
kept
talking
about
bullet
item
three,
but
the
passage
of
amendment
One
automatically
void
the
offer
that
was
contained
in
ordinance
2246
from
the
Commissioners?
By
changing
the
terms
we
aren't
agreeing
to
the
terms
they
laid
out
is
my
point
and
I'm
one
could
argue
perhaps
that
you're
only
adding
terms
so
can
we
agree
to
their
terms
and
add
more
I,
don't
know
that's
why
I'm
asking
so.
I
The
question
Stephen
Lucas
city,
council,
administrator
and
attorney
I
think
that's
a
good
good
question
that
Mr
Cockrell
may
want
to
respond
to
I
I.
Think
as
as
drafted,
this
was
an
attempt
to
give
the
council
a
chance
to
express
your
position
not
necessarily
to
to.
Essentially
you
know,
agree
with
the
terms
of
ordinance
2246
that
the
Commissioners
passed.
I
Of
course,
it
could
say
that,
if
that's
you
know
what
you
want,
it
there's
essentially
currently
one
one
operational
section
of
the
the
resolution
that
could
be
amended
to
say
the
council
agrees
to
the
terms
of
ordinance.
2246
I
think
is
originally
drafted,
it
more
or
less.
I
Does
that,
though
it
recognizes,
there
are
I
think,
even
even
with
the
commissioner's
ordinance,
2246
I
think
their
unanswered
questions
that
may
need
to
be
negotiated
through
an
mou
or
interlocal
agreement,
and
so
at
least
the
original
draft
of
the
resolution,
I
I
think
was
intended
to
Express
the
council's
support
for
the
creation
of
a
CIB,
which
I
think
was
the
main
thrust
of
the
Commissioners
ordinance
and,
and
then
it
calls
for
folks
to
continue
working
on
these
details.
So
I'll
let
Mr
Cockrell
respond
to
how
the
county
might
take
it.
K
Well,
I
I
think.
The
only
thing
that's
going
to
avoid
the
commissioner's
ordinance
is
the
passage
of
time.
Without
that
you
know,
I
think
if
you
send
back
an
amended
version
with
with
with
these
items
on
it,
then
the
Commissioners
would
have
the
opportunity
to
review
that
and
then
make
a
determination
whether
that
fits
that
statement
and
then
they
would
at
a
commissioner's
meeting,
say:
yes,
it
does
or
or
no
it
does
not
I
guess.
K
That
would
require
you
to
make
votes
on
future
things.
I
mean
there's
going
to
be
future
budgets
that
need
to
be
approved.
We,
the
county
by
itself,
cannot
appropriate
use
any
of
the
Cities
portion
of
the
food
and
beverage
tax
without
the
city.
Agreeing
to
that
right
and
that's
that's
that
I,
don't
think.
That's
ever
going
to
happen.
K
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
use
a
vehicle
such
as
a
third
party
to
utilize
that
and
let
them
make
the
request
to
us
similar
to
what
we
we
do
with
dispatch
almost
I
know
that's
still
internal
within
a
within
you
know,
kind
of
our
umbrella.
This
would
be
a
much
more
external
use,
a
user
of
these
kind
of
things
the
city
owns
and
controls
a
key
piece
of
property.
There's
nothing
in
this
ordinance
by
you,
agreeing
that
this
looks
good.
K
That
would
require
you
at
the
end
of
the
day,
to
transfer
those
right.
Those
are
all
going
to
be
worked
out
in
these
interlocal
agreements.
We've
talked
about
so
I
hear
what
you're,
saying
and
and
I
would
say
as
much
as
I
would
like
this
to
be
the
end-all
be-all,
and
this
is
how
we're
going
to
move
forward.
There's
still
a
lot
of
work
ahead
and
there's
a
lot
of
conversations.
Q
Just
a
brief
follow-up,
so
if
there's
a
lot
of
conversations
and
things
that
need
to
be
figured
out,
why
this
ordinance?
Now,
why
not
wait
until
we
have
those
things
figured
out?
Clearly,
the
administration
or
some
folks
think
that
this
is
a
part
of
the
negotiations
and
that
the
city
is
positioning
itself
in
a
worse
place
in
the
context
of
overall
trying
to
figure
out
that
right
balance
of
of
who's
contributing
what
and
whose
rights
you
know
are
protected
that
sort
of
thing.
Q
So
why
come
to
us
with
this
ordinance?
If,
if
we
have
so
much
to
figure
out,
why
not
figure
out
those
pieces
first
well.
K
I
guess
I
would
I
would
answer
that
a
couple
different
ways.
The
first
way
is
no
matter
what
governing
body
we
use
and
I
think
clearly
the
the
county
thinks
the
CIB
is
the
way
to
go
and
I'm
not
trying
to
say
that
that's
any
different.
Now
all
these
things
are
going
to
be
have
to
be
worked
out
anyway.
K
Two
I
would
say,
having
this
body
put
put
together
and
helping
with
making
the
decisions
on
what
they
want.
The
property
is
a
perfect
example.
What
properties
do
they
foresee
that
they'll
want
to
be
able
to
use?
What's
what
is
their
immediate
use?
The
budget
question?
What
do
they
see
as
their
needs
as
far
as
Staffing
and
things
like
that?
S
That
yeah,
if
I,
might
thank
you,
Julie
Thomas,
Monroe,
County,
Commissioner,
I,
just
I,
see
the
question
and
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
and
the
clearest
way
to
answer
it
is
this.
We
were
talking
about
a
CIB,
then
covet
happened
and
then,
when
we
came
back
to
talk
about
the
convention
center
again,
the
administration
brought
forward
this
501c3
idea.
S
A
501c3,
unlike
a
capital
Improvement
board,
does
not
require
a
public
approval.
Public
board
elected
board
approving
budgets.
It
does
not
require
public
meetings.
There
are
issues,
there
are
other
issues
as
well.
We
put
forward
our
resolution
to
clearly
State.
We
prefer
going
on
the
track
of
negotiating
because
there's
still
more
negotiation
negotiating
the
CIB.
S
We
asked
our
colleagues
on
the
County
Council.
They
agreed
we've
we've
heard
from
the
administration.
Obviously
they
prefer
a
501c3.
S
Our
question
to
you
is:
do
you
prefer
that
we
negotiate
on
the
CIB
track
or
the
501c3
track,
not
both
one
or
the
other?
We
would
like
to
know
where
the
city's
common
Council
stands
on
this
pivotal
issue
about
which
are
we?
Which
path?
Are
we
following?
There
are
very
different
paths:
they're,
not
the
same.
G
Thank
you,
I'm,
not
sure
if
this
is
a
question
for
commissioner
Thomas
or
Mr
Cockrell,
but
so
if,
if
a
CIB
is
created,
can
you
tell
me
how
how
does
it
work
with
the
existing
entity.
G
Or
is
it
just
a
separate
entity
that
is
in
charge
of
building
the
convention
center
and
getting
that
going
and
then
once
that's
once
that's
finished,
does
it
go
away
in
something
else
or
is
that
does
that
exist
in
you
know
in
perpetuity?
Theoretically,
and
then
is
there
a
working
like
working
together
with
one
that's
managing
the
convention
center
now
or
is
there
inherently
a
conflict
in
that
like
those
two
different
bodies,
I.
K
Guess
I
think
I
understand
the
question.
I
guess
the
the
vision
I
think
that
the
county
has
is
that
the
CIB
would
control
the
current
convention
center
and
the
areas
where
there
would
be
expansion,
including
the
areas
where
there
would
be
an
expansion
for
a
hotel,
so
they
would
have
control
and
again
that
control
is
going
to
have.
It
was
going
to
take
some
details
to
work
out
because
of
our
debt
structure,
but
they
would
have
control
over
all
that
I
think
the
the
vision
I
would
have
is
at
least
initially.
K
We
would
assign
our
management
agreement
for
the
the
current
Convention
Center
when
when
they
get
control
of
the
property
to
the
CIB,
and
so
they
it's
a
Perpetual
thing
I,
we
I
think
we
would
Envision
that
they
would
be
the
group
that
handles
the
convention
center.
You
know
the
you
know
the
and
we've
with
our
building
Corporation
we've
kind
of
had
a
mini
CIB.
Where
are
where
they're
really
invested
in
making
sure
that
the
the
building
has
all
the
physical
maintenance
needs
it
has
and
that
they
they
may.
K
If
there's
questions
about
hey,
how
do
we
get
more?
Do
a
better
job
marketing
and
things
like
that
they've
been
pretty
active
in
that
that's
really
outside
the
scope
of
what
a
building
Corporation
does,
but
it
but
I
envisioned
the
CIB.
Acting
a
lot
like
that,
where
you
know
they
come
up
with
the
plan
and
then
they
come
to
the
city.
They
come
to
the
county
and
say:
hey
here's
our
plan,
here's
what
we
think
it'll
call
take
the
fund
and
and
then
they
would
also
handle
the
day-to-day
operations
and
and
work
with
the
assuming.
P
Yes,
thank
you.
I
wanted
to
see
if
Miss
Carmichael
I
know
she
has
her
hand.
Rights
could
also
respond
to
the
question
that
the
county
responded
to
about.
J
Thank
you,
Mary
Catherine,
Carmichael,
Office
of
the
mayor,
I
appreciate
the
question
very
much.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
that
I
think
that
that
was
a
little
bit
of
a
misrepresentation
of
the
potential
for
a
501c3.
Getting
back
to
that
idea
of
kind
of
a
build
to
suit
model,
we
can
build
in
as
much
transparency
that
a
c
as
a
CIB
would
have
so
to
assume
that
that
would
be
not
subject
to
public
review
is
just
simply
not
accurate.
J
Excuse
me
I
also
want
to
share
just
a
little
history.
A
501c3
was
being
considered
back
in
2019
on
a
parallel
path
with
the
CIB,
so
both
things
were
being
talked
about
and
considered
when
things
shut
down.
J
You
know,
I
tend
to
believe
that
the
best
predictor
of
future
behavior
is
past.
Behavior
we've
been
discussing
this
for
six
years
and
we
don't
have
anything
to
show
for
it.
Frankly,
so
I
would
say
that
well.
I'd
also
point
out
that
the
CIB
resolution
that
you're
considering
from
the
county
was
passed
with
no
City
input.
J
M
So,
according
to
the
memo,
the
501c3
would
have
five
members
of
its
board
elected
from
the
board
for
the
directors
would
be
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
one
would
be
appointed
by
the
city.
Council.
Now
am
I,
it
would
have
official
election.
Okay,
so
there'll
be
five
members
of
the
board
under
this
501c3
and
four
of
them
would
be
appointed
by
the
administration.
M
The
only
other
thing
I
see
here,
an
explanation
of
that
is
the
following
paragraph.
The
501c3
approach
also
could
allow
the
city,
if
desired,
to
coordinate
development
and
operations
of
other
city-owned
Assets
in
the
downtown
area,
including
potentially
the
Waldron,
the
Busker
Chumley.
The
mill
and
other
trades
District
property
and
or
Hopewell
the
former
Hospital
site,
if
decided
at
a
future
date,
so
I
guess
this
question
is
for
Ms
Carmichael.
M
Do
you
see
the
501c3
vehicle
as
a
way
for
all
of
the
kind
of
the
special
properties
of
town
that
might
potentially
be
in
the
same
class
as
a
Convention
Center
as
potentially
manageable
under
a
501c3?
Is
that
the
idea
of
this
memo.
M
Okay
so
think
that
maybe
everyone
can
see
sort
of
the
the
follow-up
question
that
maybe
I
can't
articulate
but
I
mean.
M
The
county
still
has
a
a
vested
interest
in
the
outcome
of
the
convention
center.
Despite
I
mean
they
own
land
and
have
operated
it
for
30
years.
Even
though
we
have
a
lot
of
money
to
bring
to
the
table,
does
it
seem
reasonable
to
you
that
the
the
membership
of
the
board
of
a
501c3,
four
members
of
whom
were
appointed
by
the
administration
might
make
the
county
feel
left
out?
M
J
You
can
you
discuss
that?
Okay,
the
membership
of
the
501c3
board
is
flexible
right.
We
can
talk
about
that.
That
was
certainly
what
we
proposed
in
the
memo.
I
stand
by
that,
but
nothing
is
carved
in
stone
at
this
point
along
those
lines,
but
I
would
say
you
know
all
the
properties
that
we
mentioned.
J
Those
are
city-owned
properties
right,
so
Our
intention
would
be
to
own
and
operate
the
well
not
really
operate,
because
that
would
be
other
people
operating,
but
basically
put
everything
under
all
the
city-owned
properties
under
that
501c3
canopy,
which
then
doesn't
really
make
sense
for
if
their
city-owned
properties
to
have
the
county
have
an
arm
of
control.
That
being
said,
we
would
want
to
work
very
closely.
We
think
that
the
way
the
501
C6
that's
running
the
convention
center
right
now
beautifully.
We
love,
we
think,
that's
great.
J
We
would
want
to
have
the
same
management
entity
we
would
want
to
by
all
means
have
the
same
marketing
entity
visit
Bloomington,
we
think
they're
fantastic.
We
want
to
be
a
partner
in
this
and
there's
a
lot
of.
There
are
a
lot
of
aspects
of
this
that
really
aren't
broken,
that
we're
not
trying
to
fix
okay.
M
But
I
mean:
do
you
mind,
yeah?
Why?
Why
has
the
administration
not
already
formed
a
501c3
for
those
other
properties,
I
mean
if
it's
such
a
good
idea,
I
mean
we
could
have
been
entertaining
resolution,
considering
a
501c3
responding
to
the
administration's
proposal
in
the
same
way
that
the
commission,
the
Commissioners,
have
tabled
an
ordinance.
So,
first
of
all,
why
hasn't
the
administration
table
the
501c3
for
us
to
consider
and
to
consider
resolution
four
and
why
not
set
one
up
anyway,
regardless
of
whether
we
set
up
a
CIB?
M
In
other
words,
it
seems
like
a
good
idea
whether
it's
part
of
a
it
takes
over
the
convention
center
or
not.
J
I,
that's
a
process
and
I
yeah.
We
we,
when
we
know
that
that
this
is
a
path
forward
and
we
just
didn't
want
to
do
it
preemptively,
but
we
are
working
on
this.
M
C
M
L
C
M
F
Thank
you.
Okay,
I
lost
my
list
here.
It
is
all
right,
so
I'm,
starting
to
tally
up
the
particular
kinds
of
issues
that
will
be
covered
by
Inner
locals.
What
we've
heard
so
far
is
that
the
County
Commissioners
have
placed
before
us
a
suggested
way
forward
through
a
CIB,
and
what
we've
heard
from
Mr
Cockrell
is
that
there
can
be
continued
conversations
and
negotiations
and
that
things
can
be
worked
out
via
in
our
locals.
F
L
And
a
point
of
order,
but
I
I'm
going
to
not
and
retract
the
one
I
made
for
council
member
voland,
because
I
I
feel
like
perhaps
the
council
would
have
benefited
from
discussing
the
resolution
as
a
whole
before
moving
to
the
amendment
so
but
I
did
want
to
out
of
fairness,
say
that
council
member
scandalury's
question
also
is
not
about
the
amendment.
But
please.
F
K
I'm
going
to
give
a
totally
inadequate
answer
to
that
question:
I
guess
my
answer
would
be.
That
would
be
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
would
want
to
get
to
CIB
in
place
and
get
them
and
get
them
working
is
so
that
they
can
help
us
through
all
the
issues
that
they
foresee
happening.
I
think
you've
hit
some
of
the
big
ones.
I.
Think
one
is
the
property
I.
Think
one
is.
You
know
we
know
that
innkeepers
tax
is
going
to
be
used.
We
know
that
food
and
beverage
tax
is
going
to
use.
K
We
know
that
the
county
has
debt
issues
in
order
to
transfer
property.
We
know
that
we
want
to
attract
a
hotel,
a
substantial
hotel-
and
you
know
I-
would
suggest
that
we
have
to
think
about
what
incentives
we
we
think
are
going
to
be
necessary.
That's
something
that
I
think
the
CIB
would
be
a
much
better
position
to
be
able
to
analyze
and
work
out,
I.
Think
in
the
the
ordinance
it
talks
about
letting
the
CIB
review
needs
for
other
infrastructures,
such
as
parking
garages
and
things
like
that.
K
I,
don't
know
if
any
of
that
is
necessary,
but
you
know
those
are
all
part
of
this
mixture
of
things
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
is
going
to
require
agreements
from
the
city,
county
and
CIB,
and
it
seems
that
the
the
more
decisions
we
we
get
to
before
we
have
that.
You
know
the
person
who
was
actually
going
to
operate
and
maintain
the
facility
involved,
the
more
likely
we're
going
to
miss
something
or
the
more
likely
that
they
that
they
will
have
different
ideas
on
how
it
has
happened.
K
So
you
know
I,
think
the
county
recognizes
that
this
is
just
the
next
step
and
so
I
think
it's
a
step,
that's
necessary
to
move
forward
in
a
in
a
expedited
manner.
I
mean
I,
as
part
of
me,
is
talking
from
frustrations
of
having
dealt
with
the
convention
center
for
for
the
six
years
and
I
and
I
hear
the
frustrations
with
the
city.
K
Administration
staff
I
I
get
it,
but
that's
that's
all
part
of
it
and
I
think
we
kind
of
need
that
third
party
is
going
to
operate
mate
and
maintain
the
facility
to
kind
of
help.
Lend
information
to
to
what
is
all
necessary
in
those
interlocals.
Thank
you.
Q
Yes,
thank
you,
I
guess,
I'm
going
to
challenge
the
idea
that
this
is
a
necessary
or
the
only
Next,
Step
a
little
bit
like,
and
the
idea
that
commissioner
Thomas
shared
that
you
know
the
the
only
decision
point
right
now
is
CIB
or
501c3
route.
Q
The
amendment
you
know,
and
the
memo
approve
is
shared
by
the
administration
about
CIB,
says
that
we
would
need
to
work
on
the
work
out
these.
They
have
the
opinion
that
if
we
pass
the
amendment,
the
council
would
be
stating
its
opinion.
If
we
approve
the
resolution
that
these
interlocal
agreements,
some
of
these
issues
actually
need
to
be
worked
out.
Q
Q
That's
that's
a
comment
more
than
a
question,
but
I
I
guess
I
want
to
hear
feedback
from
probably
from
commissioner
Thomas
or
someone
on
the
county
side
about
about
that
assumption
and
the
counter
assumption
I
just
shared
as
well
as
what
might
happen
if
the
council
decided,
for
instance,
to
vote
this
down
tonight,
not
out
of
a
desire
not
to
move
forward
with
the
CIB,
but
out
of
his
desire
to
figure
more
out
first
and
take
more
time
rather
than
this
sort
of
December
31st
like
self-destruct
class.
Q
So
if
we
think
they're
you
know,
CB
is
worthy
of
consideration.
But
there
are
some
things
we'd
like
to
work
through
how?
How
does
the
county
receive
that.
S
Julie
Thomas
Monroe,
County,
Commissioner,
no
I
appreciate
the
question
and
I
understand
your
point.
S
All
we're
asking
for
with
our
resolution-
and
this
is
what
I
was
trying
to
clarify
before-
is
to
get
a
feel
for
what
this
Council
wishes
to
do,
because
we
we
have
a
few
council
members
who
have
been
part
of
meetings,
but
not
everyone,
and
so
that's
why
we
wanted
to
move
forward
and
see
if
we
could
get
moving
on
something
and
get
some
movement
toward
a
common
goal
via
the
same
path.
Yes,
there
are
multiple
paths
and
If
This
Were
to
be
voted
down.
S
If
we
heard
from
seven
or
eight
of
you
or
five
or
six
of
you,
however,
many
that
you're
interested
in
CIB.
But
you
have
more
questions
and
you
don't
want
to
pass
this-
that
would
say
something
to
me
versus.
We
only
want
to
follow
a
501c3
path
right,
so
we're
listening
to
what
you're
telling
us
already.
S
It's
not
just
the
vote,
but
it's
also
the
vote,
and
so
we
wanted
to
put
something
out
there
to
be
to
start
on
a
definitive
path,
because
we
have
been
going
back
and
forth
and
it's
not
the
County's
fault
and
it's
not
the
city.
It's
both.
You
know
both
parties
and
thank
you
covid
for
a
lot
of
that
too
break
in
time.
Q
You
thank
you
just
a
very
brief
follow-up
and
I
see
maybe
Miss
Kate
actually
first
has
a
response
to
that
or
maybe
not
Miss
Kate
did
you
want
to
speak
to
my
question
at
all
or
no.
S
They
are
so:
we've
had
yeah
a
council
member
scam,
bellary
and
council
member
Sandberg.
Currently.
A
N
Beth
Kate
Corporation
Council
I
just
wanted
to
add
to
what
Ms
Carmichael
said
earlier.
Sorry,
I
couldn't
jump
up
fast
enough
to
your
question
council
member
volin
about
the
501c3
for
the
management
of
other
properties
and
the
timing
of
that.
Yes,
we
are
actively
developing
that
we
didn't,
as
Ms
Carmichael
said,
want
to
preempt
this
process,
but
but
that
is
in
the
works.
So
I
want
to
let
you.
M
C
I
M
November
9th,
yes,
this
resolution
Madam
president:
when
was
it
written
Mr
Lucas.
I
I
can
say
that
Beth,
Kate
and
I
met
with
Jeff
Cockrell
and
Molly
Turner
King
at
the
county
to
discuss
the
commissioner's
ordinance
to
to
think
through
some
questions.
The
County
Council
also
considered
a
resolution
recently
toward
the
end
of
November,
and
so
knowing
that
that
was
going
to
occur
in
consultation
with
President
Sandberg.
I
The
resolution
before
you
tonight
was
written
to
to
benefit
from
the
input
of
the
County
Council
I,
believe
their
resolution
was
passed,
November,
30th,
29th
or
30th,
and
so
this
was
the
earliest
opportunity,
after
that,
action
that
that
a
resolution
could
be
written
to
to
incorporate
all
of
that
information.
So.
M
I
just
want
to
be
clear,
then
we're
being
asked
to
consider
the
question.
That's
before
us
was
in
response
to
an
ordinance
passed
by
the
Commissioners
on
November,
29th
or
30th
and
is
before
us
and
is:
is
the
offer
expires
end
of
the
year
and
we
have
basically
less
than
a
two-week
process
where
we're
being
asked
to
consider
it
do
I
have
that
right?
The.
I
Commissioner's
ordinance
was
passed,
November
9th
the
County
Council
adopted
a
resolution
also
in
support
of
a
capital
Improvement
board
at
the
end
of
November
I,
see,
and
so
this
resolution
incorporates
and
responds
to
both
of
those
actions.
A
If
you
will
Mr
Lucas
just
kind
of
put
the
announcement
out
to
anybody
who's
watching
on
Zoom,
so
we
can
get
an
idea
how
many
people
might
want
to
make
a
comment
on
Amendment
one
and
then
anyone
here
in
Chambers
feel
free
to
queue
up,
I.
Think,
probably
in
the
interest
of
time
we
will
limit
the
comments
to
three
minutes
per
speaker.
I
Yes
and
I
do
see
one
one
hand
raised
on
Zoom
currently
if
there
are
other
members
of
the
public
on
Zoom.
That
would
like
to
comment
on
the
amendment
to
resolution.
2220,
please
use
the
race
hand
feature
to.
Let
us
know
you
can
find
that
in
your
control
bar
by
clicking
the
reactions,
tab
or
the
more
tab.
You
can
also
send
us
a
chat
to.
Let
us
know
you'd
like
to
comment.
A
T
Thank
you,
Council
Eric
spoonmore,
president
of
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
I,
would
urge
you
to
not
support
Amendment.
One
I
think
I
agree
with
commissioner
Thomas
that
it
seems
like
this
question
has
become
more
about
whether
or
not
the
city,
council
and
the
city
wants
to
support
a
capital
Improvement
board
versus
a
501c3.
Now
the
Chamber
of
Commerce.
As
you
may
know,
we've
issued
a
press
release
recently
we're
very
much
in
favor
of
a
capital
Improvement
board.
T
We
see
the
Commissioners
actions
in
creating
that
as
a
compromise
and
if
the
tapers
table
was
flipped
and
they
had
proposed
a
county
controlled
501c3,
the
chamber
wouldn't
support
that
either,
and
so
we
see
the
the
CIB
as
a
great
compromise
for
the
county
and
the
city
to
work
together
on
this
to
achieve
the
shared
goal
that
we've
all
been.
You
know
wanting
in
this
community
and
have
been
working
towards
for
the
last
five
six
years,
well,
I'm,
probably
more
like
20
years,
so
just
and
also
to
the
issue
of
time.
T
It
seems
like
my
sense
is
that
some
council
members
may
feel
like
they're,
being
rushed
to
make
this
decision.
I.
Think
it's
important
to
remember
that
we
have
a
general
assembly
that's
about
to
go
into
session.
That
wants
to
take
away
this
funding
mechanism
from
us.
We
Dodge
that
bullet
last
year,
we're
not
going
to
be
lucky
again
this
year.
If
we
don't
act,
quick
time
is
absolutely
of
the
essence.
Capital
Improvement
board
is
a
proven
model
that
works
in
the
state
of
Indiana.
T
Many
communities
have
done
this
with
projects
just
like
what
we
want
to
do
here
so
urge
you
again
to
not
accept
this
amendment
and
just
make
a
decision
on
you
know
whether
or
not
we
want
a
capital
Improvement
board
or
if
a
city
controlled
501c3
needs
to
be
the
proper
mechanism
for
governance.
Thank
you
thank.
I
U
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Jeff
McKim
right,
Jeff
McKim,
member
of
the
Monroe
County
Council.
First
I
need
to
make
an
important
point
about
a
CIB
versus
a
501c3
before
I
move
on
to
a
specific
comment
about
Amendment
one
and
that's
the
issue
of
standing
with
the
public
entity
like
a
CIB.
Every
resident
has
a
potential
remedy
to
potential
violations
of
basic
transparency
statutes.
U
Every
resident
has
the
standing
exercise
options
to
enforce
the
transparency
required
by
law,
including
the
use
of
the
public
access
counselor,
which
costs
nothing,
that's
simply
not
possible
with
a
private
entity.
The
remedy,
in
the
case
of
a
private
501c3,
is
to
file
a
lawsuit
and
good
luck.
Getting
standing
on
that
a
public
entity
is
simply
better
than
a
private
entity
and
transparency
grounds.
Now
the
Monroe
County
Council
voted
unanimously
and
supported
the
CIB
path.
U
We
recognize
that
the
city
administration's
memo
included
some
valid
issues,
in
particular
the
broader
issue
of
balance
between
the
city
and
the
county.
We
recognized-
and
this
was
reflected
in
our
deliberations.
Some
of
those
issues
would
need
to
be
addressed
in
some
sort
of
future
mou
or
interlocal
agreement,
but
as
Mr
Cockrell
said,
the
sooner
we
get
the
CIB
put
together
and
appointments
made
the
sooner
we
can
get
some
of
these
other
questions
answered
decisions
made
and
progress
made.
U
U
But
if
you
do
adopt
an
amendment
like
this,
one
I
encourage
you
to
make
the
appropriate
actually
I
urge
you
to
make
the
appropriate
changes
to
or
entirely
strike
New
Roman
numeral
1.1.
As
you've
already
heard,
this
Arrangement
is
simply
not
possible
under
the
current
statute.
I
think
there
are
some
things
that
we
can
do
to
get
to
the
spirit
of
that
item.
So,
for
example,
the
County
council
could
potentially
resolve
not
to
appoint
an
elected
official
or
employee
of
the
city
or
county.
U
Our
current
practice
has
been
to
a
point
one
of
our
own
members
to
the
CBC.
Well,
I
can
only
speak
for
myself.
I
would
certainly
support
a
resolution
or
ordinance
that
would
restrict
us
from
nominating
a
County
elected
official
or
an
employee.
Further
I
would
also
support
an
ordinance
that
would
have
us
solicit
a
recommendation
from
the
city
for
one
of
the
hotelier
positions
on
the
CIB
or
on
the
CBC.
U
Rather,
but
the
way
this
amendment
is
worded
right
now,
we
would
simply
not
be
capable
statutorily
of
of
meeting
that
requirement
so
again,
I
I
urge
you
first
to
either
reject
or
significantly
amend,
Amendment
one
and
then
to
support
the
underlying
resolution
expressing
support
for
a
CIB.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
deliberations
tonight.
Thank.
V
Hi
Kate
Wills,
Monroe,
County,
Council
I
agree
with
both
of
the
previous
speakers
that,
although
I
would
very
much
encourage
you
to
pass
the
original
resolution.
I
think
that
the
amendment
is
too
problematic
to
to
pass
tonight
as
it's
written.
In
addition
to
the
point
that
councilor
McKim
made
the
very
last
part
of
the
exhibit
a
Amendment,
essentially.
V
Essentially
says:
hey,
we'll
do
a
501c3
if
we,
if
things
don't
work
out
and
kind
of,
undermines
the
idea
of
at
least
we're
all
taking
a
step
forward
in
an
agreement
that
okay,
here's
here's
the
path,
I
think
that's
been
said,
and
I
I,
like
that
idea
of.
V
At
least
three
quarters
of
the
entities
needed
have
shown
intent
to
take
a
step
forward
on
this
issue,
and
the
items
in
exhibit
a
are
largely
things
that
that
I
would
think
either
we
could
talk
about
in
the
next
few
months
as
an
interlocal
or
an
mou,
or
we
could
defer,
as
as
two
Roman
numeral,
two
number
three
kind
of
indicates.
V
We're
gonna
have
we're
gonna,
have
a
CIB
full
of
professionals
and
from
our
community
who
are
are
way
more
expert
on
these
exact
types
of
decisions
than
any
of
us.
I
think
really
are
and
we
can
defer
to
them
to
present
to
the
rest
of
us
for
approval
on
a
lot
of
these
things.
So
again,
my
my
thought
is:
I
we'd
really
like
to
see
a
structure
put
in
place,
that's
transparent!
That
by
definition,
has
an
accountability
to
it.
V
W
Good
evening
Council,
my
name
is
Trent
Deckard
I'm,
an
at
large
member
of
the
Monroe
County
Council
here,
along
with
some
of
my
colleagues
in
the
county.
First
of
all,
thank
you
for
approaching
the
issue.
I
think
that
in
the
last
I
I
was
going
to
say
a
few
years,
but
it's
well
over
a
few
years
a
number
of
us
have
been
approaching
this
issue
over
and
over
and
over,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
draw
attention
to
is
that
timeline
that
we've
been
on?
W
We've
essentially
collected
this
tax
county-wide
we're
now
ending
the
fifth
year
of
doing
this.
Previous
speakers
have
talked
extensively
about
some
concerns
with
the
legislature
and
potential
action
there.
I
am
always
hesitant
to
alarm
people
or
scare
them
or
use
language
that
concerns
them
about
the
legislature,
but
if
passed
is
prologue
and
with
the
legislature,
it
has
been
I
think
that
we
have
strong
signals
that
they
could
be
looking
at
in
our
community.
W
I
am
in
opposition
with
all
due
respect
of
the
amendment,
as
it's
written
I
see
several
different
problems:
the
some
of
the
legality
issues
in
item
one
when
we
go
to
two
down
to
number
three
I
see
that
as
a
lot
of
particular
details
that
will
choke
the
process.
I
think
we've
been
choking
on
this
process
as
elected
officials
for
quite
some
time.
W
I
am
a
bit
concerned
about
a
501c3
and
that
into
the
transparency
I'm
not
trying
to
cast
aspersions
at
anything,
but
we
have
to
be
exceedingly
cautious
with
that,
as
we
have
to
with
every
dollar
that
we
have
I.
Think
that
a
CIB
can
show
us
tremendous
leadership.
We
certainly
have
examples
of
that
in
all
of
our
boards
and
commissions,
and
we
see
this
routinely
and
as
counselor
wilts
and
I
were
talking
about
when
we
look
at
the
the
functions
of
our
Dispatch
Center.
W
This
is
a
testament
to
what
the
county
and
the
city
has
done.
Well,
I
think
some
of
the
details,
while
they're
exceedingly
important
and
there's
things
to
work
out,
while
some
of
these
details
are
difficult.
I
think
that
in
a
few
years,
I
think
we
will
not,
as
a
public,
be
focusing
on
those
details.
In
fact,
I
think
we'll
look
back
and
we'll
not
be
able
to
figure
it
out.
W
Much
like
we
can't
quite
always
place
what
happened
to
turn
the
old
Tom
O'daniel
Ford
to
the
current
Convention
Center
I
will
say
this
in
my
last
words
and
I'm,
respectful
of
your
time.
I
know
it's
important
in
our
meetings.
I
urge
movement.
We've
got
to
go,
we've
got
to
move,
we
have
been
choking
on
these
details
and
we'll
continue
to
choke
I,
respectfully
urge
you
to
say
no
on
the
amendment
and
look
at
that
underlying
resolution.
With
some
positive
movement.
I
A
S
Hello,
everyone
thank
you,
Julie
Thomas,
Monroe,
County,
Commissioner
and
I
did
want
to
offer
some
public
commentary
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
answer
your
questions
earlier.
First
I
do
want
to
thank
you
all
for
hosting
this
agenda
item.
This
is
important.
We
put
it
out
there.
We
appreciate
that
you
picked
it
up
whatever
you
do
with
it.
It's
up
to
you.
The
first
thing
I
will
say
is
that
the
thing
to
remember
is
that
City
residents
are
County
residents.
Let
me
say
that
again:
City
residents
are
County
residents.
S
There
are
elected
officials
who
are
in
the
county
on
the
County
Council
and
On
The
Board
of
Commissioners
who
live
in
the
city,
and
so
let's
not
forget
this
is
not
an
us
or
them.
It's
us.
Okay,
the
County
Council.
We
want
to
do
the
CIB,
because
this
is
going
to
be
an
equal
partnership.
We
did
not
see
anything
as
council
member
of
Olin
pointed
out
about
an
equal
partnership
in
a
construction
of
a
501c3
where
the
city
has
all
of
the
appointments.
S
S
S
In
addition,
strong
collaboration
between
city
and
county
in
the
planning
and
development
of
this
project,
including
the
commitment
of
city-owned
land
in
the
footprint
of
the
plan
development,
was
also
mentioned,
and
in
a
question
in
response
to
a
question
from
council
member
McKim,
the
mayor
said
this
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
long
process
that
we're
going
to
go
through
together
and
to
a
question
from
council
member
spoonmore
at
the
time
about
metrics.
How
do
you
know
this
has
been
successful?
The
mayor's
response
includes
this.
This
is
not
just
a
city
project.
S
This
is
a
joint
project.
This
is
not
for
us
to
determine
that
and
in
response
to
a
question
from
counselor
Yoder
I
have
a
commitment
to
work
closely
with
the
county
on
this.
We
are
in
the
county.
Every
resident
of
the
city
is
resident
of
County.
As
you
all
know,
and
I
think
this
is
a
fantastic
opportunity
for
this
city
and
county
to
work
together
and
I.
Don't
think
it
will
work
unless
we're
collaborative
about
it.
A
X
Good
evening,
council
members
Dave
Askins
with
the
b
square
bulletin,
so
earlier
in
the
meeting
I
heard
the
idea
sort
of
expressed
that
CIB
and
a
501c3
had
always
been
under
consideration
in
parallel
fashion
and
that
didn't
square
up
with
my
recollection
of
History,
exactly
and
so.
I
went
back
to
the
archives
of
the
b-square
and
I
found
this
delightful
photograph
of
of
commissioner
Thomas
and
she
I
don't
know
how
this
is
going
to
work.
Maybe
I
will.
Let's
see
you
can't
see
that
trust
me.
X
It's
a
delightful
photograph
of
commissioner
Thomas
holding
Aloft
a
a
diagram
and
it's
it
was
called
at
the
time
a
spider
web
of
connections
between
the
various
entities
that
would
have
to
enter
into
a
interlocal
agreement
to
make
a
CIB
actually
work.
X
So
this
article
is
dated
December
19th,
so
almost
exactly
three
years
ago
and
I'll
just
read
the
first
three
graphs
after
months
of
disagreement
between
city
and
county
officials
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
the
choice
of
governance
for
the
59
million
dollar
expansion
of
Monroe
County's
Convention
Center,
has
settled
on
the
formation
of
a
capital
Improvement
board
a
CIB.
A
CIB
is
enabled
under
the
state
statute
as
an
entity.
X
The
outcome
of
the
meeting
is
that
County
attorney,
Jeff
Cockrell
and
bloomington's
Corporation
Council
Philippa
Guthrie
will
be
working
just
before
Year's
End
or
in
the
first
few
days
of
next
year,
to
put
together
a
draft
of
the
interlocal
agreement,
elected
officials
have
set
a
next
meeting
for
January,
13th
I
think
that's
an
important
chunk
of
history
that
maybe
you
should
keep
in
mind
tonight.
Thanks.
Thank.
A
L
It
was
an
amendment
to
my
Amendment
and
I
I,
emailed
it
to
Mr
Lucas
and
to
city
clerk
Baldwin
Mr
Lucas
would
are
you
able
to
pull
up
that
text?
L
Might
be
easier
if
you
can
see
it
so
what
I
propose
in
exhibit
a
under
Roman
numeral
one
out
of
one.
We
delete
a
and
b,
and
we
just
say
equal
representation
on
the
convention
and
visitors,
commission
CBC
within
the
confines
of
state
code,
or
what
something
like
that
within
the
confines
of
state
code.
L
So
this
this
leaves
it
more
open
like
that.
We
agree
in
principle
that
the
city
and
the
county
should
have
some
say
as
to
who's
on
the
CBC.
We
know
that
in
state
code
it's
the
county
that
actually
makes
the
appointments,
but
this
would
indicate
that
we
expect
the
county
to
consult
with
the
city
and
then
in
Roman
numeral,
three
County
commitment
to
continued
appropriation
of
innkeepers
tax
proceeds
to
the
CIB
to
fund
CC
operations,
marketing
maintenance
and
related
expenses.
A
Y
M
I
mean
we're
getting
really
deep
in
the
weeds
here.
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
ask
the
the
administration's
reaction
to
public
comment
and
now
we're
changing
the
amendment
yet
again
so
I'm
not
trying
to
proceed.
I
A
A
M
J
J
Obviously,
mayor
so
I
gotta
admit
I'm
a
little
confused
at
this
point.
I
I'm,
not
sure
what
my
reaction
is
I.
If
we're.
If
you
could
put
that
back
up,
Stephen.
J
J
J
So,
actually
again,
I
I
just
have
to
reiterate
this
is
we
can
build
the
suit
or
we
can
keep
up
all
of
these
machinations
and
try
to
try
to
pound
this
square
peg
into
this
round
hole
so
I'll
leave
it
there.
Thank
you.
M
So
I
guess
I
would
ask
you
councilmember
Piedmont
Smith,
both
the
county
and
the
city
Administration
seem
to
be
more
in
favor
of
negotiating
the
details
a
little
bit
later
and
you're.
With
this
amendment
and
with
the
amendment
to
the
amendment
you're
trying
to
sort
of
nail
them
both
down
now,
would
you
agree
with
that?
Characterization.
L
I
I
think
the
CIB
is
is
a
preferable
option,
but
I
want
assurances
that
the
city
will
play
an
equal
role
and
that
is,
and
I
also
would
like
the
mayor
to
get
on
board
with
this.
So
that's
why
I
offered
the
amendment
and,
of
course
the
amendment
to
the
amendment
is
because
of
the
comments
that
we've
heard.
M
M
Several
members
of
public
comment,
who
are
were
mostly
elected
officials,
pointed
out
that
time
is
of
the
essence,
because
the
tax
itself
is
in
danger.
So
my
question
is:
what
will
it
take
to
ensure
that
the
tax
is
no
longer
in
danger?
M
My
understanding
is
that
only
a
commitment
to
a
bond
will
make
that
happen,
but
I'm
getting
the
impression
that
the
formation
of
a
CIB
and
the
somehow
the
assignment
of
the
taxes
to
the
CIB
might
foreclose
that
possibility.
Can
anyone
answer
for
me
the
question
of
what
it
would
take
to
ensure
that
the
tax
is
no
longer
in
Jeopardy
I?
Don't
know
who
to
ask
that
question
to.
T
T
Situation
with
the
food
and
beverage
tax
is
well
known
to
those
legislators
and
I.
Think
my
understanding
and
my
conversations
with
a
number
of
them
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
is
that
the
general
assembly
wants
to
see
meaningful
progress
and
I
think
meaningful
progress
on
this
project
would
constitute
the
formation
of
a
capital
Improvement
board
where
everybody
city,
council,
County,
Council,
County,
Commissioners
and
the
mayor
agree
that
this
is
the
pathway
that
we
want
to
go
forward.
Otherwise,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
in
Jeopardy,
but
I,
don't
think
necessarily.
M
Well,
okay,
I
appreciate
that
answer:
I'm,
not
sure
the
person
to
follow
up
on
this
question,
but
I
appreciate
the
sentiments
expressed
to
you
by
legislators,
but
I'm
talking
about
hard.
In
other
words,
if
we
have
dollars
committed
to
a
bond,
no
one's
going
to
repeal
the
tax
I,
don't
know
how
long
that
was
going
to
take.
But
I'm
asking
I.
Think
a
legal
question
rather
than
a
a
political
question:
can
anyone
Mr
Lucas
Ms
Kate
Mr
Cockrell?
Can
you
anybody
intelligently
talk
about
what
will
prevent
the
tax
from
being
repealed?
A
K
Going
to
pretend
that
you
are
one
of
my
clients-
and
this
is
how
I
would
I
would
likely
respond
to
that
again.
If
not
your
attorney,
you
know
don't
sue
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
typically
I
would
look
at
the
State
Constitution,
which
has
a
Prohibition
against
the
state
interfering
with
the
contract
right
and
so
what
a
bond
obligation
is
is
a
contract
that
pla
and
you
would
pledge
the
food
and
beverage
tax
revenue
towards
that.
K
And
to
me,
that's
that's
the
that's
where
my
mind
went
when
you
have
when
you
asked
that
question
there
may
be
other
mechanisms
out
there
to
do
that,
but
I
think
in
the
context
of
this
I
would
say
you
know
once
you
issue
the
debt
and
there
is
somebody
that
is
not
a
public.
That's
not
the
city.
You
know
not
the
receiver
of
the
of
the
tax
revenues,
who
has
a
contractual
ability
to
get
that
Revenue,
then
I
think
you
start
looking
at
that
constitutional
part
of
that
Constitution
and
I.
K
N
Death
K
Corporation
Council
I'm,
not
technically
you're
a
lawyer
either.
So
with
that
massive
disclaimer
yeah
I
mean
I
would
agree,
we
see
in
various
places
in
the
state
code
and
we
see
in
the
state
constitution
the
principle
that
Mr
Cockrell
reflected
about
not
interfering
with
contracts.
I'll,
put
aside
my
thoughts
about
annexation
and
interference
with
contracts,
but
but
it
is
true
that
once
you
have
Debt
Service
obligations,
if
you
have
a
contract,
that's
been
entered
into,
those
are
protected
against
subsequent
interference
legally.
N
C
N
And
I
think
Mary
Catherine.
J
Add
to
this.
Thank
you
so
much
Mary,
Catherine,
Carmichael
Office
of
the
mayor,
so
I
I,
do
differ
with
Eric
spoonmore
from
the
chamber
on
his
interpretation
of
what's
going
on
at
the
state
legislature.
I
too
am
in
touch
with
a
variety
of
legislators,
and
lobbyists
in
Indianapolis
I
think
that
their
primary
focus
for
this
session
may
be
a
future
formations
of
or
uses
for,
food
and
beverage
taxes
in
communities
who
are
thinking
about
initiating
a
food
and
beverage
tax.
J
I'm,
not
saying
it's
completely
off
the
table,
but
I
would
not
raise
the
level
of
alarm
today
that
I
might
have
in
the
future.
I
would
also
say
what
they're
looking
at.
He
did
have
one
thing
right
with
the
demonstrative
demonstrable
progress.
That
is
what
they're
looking
for
right,
so
I
think
actually
what's
going
on
tonight,
is
almost
demonstrable
progress.
We're
really
working
hard
on
this.
We're
keeping
them
updated
that
we're
working
really
hard
to
get
this
figured
out
in
Bloomington.
J
They
know
that
we're
not
just
sitting
on
our
hands
and
counting
that
money
for
fun.
They
know
that
we're
trying
to
find
a
path
forward
and
from
my
understanding,
that's
okay
and
frankly,
the
legislature
doesn't
care
from
again
from
my
communications
legislature
doesn't
care
if
it's
a
501c3
or
a
c,
I
b
they
don't
have
a
a
horse
in
that
race.
It's
just
get
the
thing
done,
do
what
you
told
the
people
you
were
going
to
do
with
that
tax
and
that's
again
we're
still
committed
to
that
we're.
J
A
hundred
percent
committed
to
that
so
I
I
just
have
to
again
disagree
a
little
bit
there
with
Mr.
A
E
Yes,
I
do
so
to
the
sponsor,
so
the
intent
of
the
sponsor
councilmember
Piedmont
part
of
the
intent
was
to
provide
incentive
to
the
administration
that
if
we
were
to
support
a
CIB
that
this
would,
you
know,
incorporate
some
of
the
terms.
Some
of
the
conditions
that
have
been
stated
in
the
memo
by
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael
on
November
23rd,
so
I
wanted
to
ask
Miss
Carmichael.
If
this
is
a
step
forward,
then
I
know
that
you
don't
you
support.
E
The
administration
supports
a
501c3,
but
this
is
a
step
forward
in
terms
of
providing
these
conditions.
Is
it
not.
J
A
A
S
Thank
you,
Julie
Thomas,
Monroe,
County,
Commissioner
I
will
not
use
three
minutes.
I
want
to
point
out
that,
as
amended,
0.3
in
the
amendment
is
exactly
what's
happening
now
so
I,
don't
know
why
that's
needed
and
if
they're
we're
going
to
hear
concerns
about
laws
that
may
change
or
things
then
I
think
look
to
the
words
good
faith
that
were
Incorporated
in
point
four
I
think
we
need
more
of
that,
especially
this
holiday
season.
Thank.
U
Thank
you
very
much.
Jeff
McKim,
Monroe,
County,
Council
I
will
take
well
less
than
three
minutes
in
response
to
Ms
Piedmont
Smith's
question
about
Administration
support
for
her
changing
the
language
about
the
CBC
composition,
Miss
Carmichael
talks
about
building
the
suit
in
support
of
a
private
501c3,
but
this
particular
question
about
who
appoints
the
CBC
and
how
its
funding
is
directed.
U
A
F
This
question
is
directed
to
Ms
Thomas,
commissioner
Thomas
or
Mr
Cockrell,
or
both
or
whatever
you
think
is
appropriate,
as
amended
exhibit
a
as
you
look
at
Amendment,
a
as
as
amended
is
there
any
way
in
which
you
feel
it
disadvantages?
The
county
I'm
recalling
conversations
even
before
I
was
on
Council.
That
I
heard
of
calls
for
a
true
and
equal
partnership,
so
I
want
to
ask
specifically:
is
there
anything
in
exhibit
a
that?
Would
unfairly
disadvantage
the
County
government
in
this
circumstance.
Q
M
M
That
was
originally
intended
and
it
removes
ambiguity,
so
I
support
the
sub
Amendment.
Thank
you.
F
Yeah
yeah
Echo
those
comments
as
well
and
I,
especially
appreciate
what
council
member
Piedmont
Smith
shared
in
presenting
this
that
that
certainly
there
is
a
belief.
I
share
her
belief
that
a
CIB
is
a
better
path
forward
compared
to
a
501c3
I.
Think,
as
we
have
all
talked
about
true
and
equal
Partnerships
over
the
years,
I
think
there
are
elements
in
this
amendment
to
the
amendment
that
will
help
ensure
that,
within
the
parameters
we
have
to
follow
in
state
code.
Thank
you.
E
Yeah
thanks
I
support
the
amendment
to
the
amendment.
It
removes
the
potential
conflicts
with
State
Statute,
but
I
have
a
lot
of
trepidation
about
the
way
that
this
has
proceeded,
because
there
hasn't
been
really
adequate
time
to
vet
details
about
this.
It
seems
the
other
conditions
seem
quite
reasonable,
so
I'll
be
I'll,
be
following
with
interest
council
member
scandalury's
question
to
follow.
Thank
you.
A
The
amendments
to
the
Amendments,
while
they
may
be
helping
to
try
to
move
things
in
a
better
Direction
I,
can't
even
support
them.
It's
just
too
muddy
and
I
think
we
have
a
better
straightforward
path
by
accepting
the
resolution
that
we
have
before
us,
so
I
will
be
voting
now
all
right.
If
no
one
else
has
any
further
comments.
No
one
else
on
remote,
let's
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll
on
the
amendments
to
the
amendment.
Y
B
R
H
F
Yeah
I
revisit
my
earlier
question
again:
I
would
direct
it
to
colleagues
at
the
county.
Very
specifically
in
exhibit
a
as
we
have
just
amended
it
are
there
any
specific
ways
in
which
you
feel
these
what's
been
laid
out
here.
The
various
elements
would
somehow
unfairly
disadvantage
the
county
in
moving
forward
with
an
expanded,
Convention
Center.
K
K
I
followed
this
correctly
item
five
had
that
was
that
part
of
the
amendment,
particularly
the
last
section,
the
last
sentence
was
that
amended
or
is
that
remained
intact?
I
guess
from
my
opinion,
the
only
thing
that
gets
me
a
lot
of
qualm
is
the
is
the
statement
that
if
no
agreement
can
be
reached,
the
parties
must
then
establish
a
5101c3
or
alternative
governance
structure
that
will
maintain
the
balance,
I.
Think
I.
K
A
S
Okay,
so
that's
an
issue
because
the
CVC
is
is
again:
that's
a
state
statute
again,
for
me,
number
three,
as
amended
already
exists
in
County
ordinance,
just
have
some
good
faith
that
it's
been
there
since
1990
it'll
stay
and
the
last
item.
The
last
line
of
the
entire
exhibit
a
is
problematic
because
it's
it
basically
says
we're.
Choosing
this
path,
but
not
really,
and
to
me,
that's
that's
not
a
sign
of
good
faith
and
approaching
this
equally
either.
A
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you.
Now,
at
this
time,
I
have
been
asked
to
take
a
small
recess
for
a
break,
and
so
we
will
do
that
when
we
come
back
after
about
two
or
three
minutes,
that'd
be
fine.
Five
minutes.
We
will
begin
with
questions
from
council
members
on
the
amended
Amendment,
so
at
this
time,
I
would
like
to
call
a
five
minute
recess.
Thank
you.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
A
Y
A
F
Madam
president,
thank
you.
I
appreciate,
Mr
cockrell's
comments
earlier,
and
so,
with
those
comments
in
mind,
I'd
like
to
move
amendment
to
to
Amendment
one
or
sublets
call
it
sub
Amendment
B
for
simplicity's
sake.
That
would
strike
the
very
last
line
of
exhibit
a
that
line
reads.
If
no
agreement
can
be
reached,
the
parties
must
then
establish
a
501c3
or
alternative
governance
structure
that
will
maintain
the
balance.
A
J
Sorry
I
was
having
momentary
technical
difficulties
there,
Mary
Catherine
Carmichael
Office
of
the
mayor.
You
know,
we've
had
an
interesting
experience
in
this
process.
We've
worked
really
long
and
hard
to
get
this
process
moving
forward.
J
I
found
I
was
initiating
meetings
over
the
summer,
even
at
a
time
when
the
county
was
had
said
that
they
would
be
the
ones
who
would
host
the
next
meeting.
So
I
think
that
part
of
the
rationale
behind
this
is
first
of
all,
we
think
the
501c3
is
the
best
alternative
between
the
two
options,
but
second
of
all,
we
found
that
you
know.
Sometimes
the
best
way
to
get
action
is
to
really
put
some
pressure
on.
So
that
is
certainly
one
way
to
do
it
to
say.
J
A
Gotten
that
answer
does
that
satisfy
you,
councilmember
Bolin.
Anyone
else,
questions
from
Council
see
no
questions
from
Council.
We
go
to
the
public
for
council
member
scandalory's
Amendment
to
the
amendment
to
Amendment
one.
T
I
U
Jeff
McKim
Monroe,
County
Council
I'll,
be
his
brief,
as
Mr
spoonmore
I
also
support
s.
This
amendment
I
think
it
moves
in
the
right
direction.
I.
D
U
Say
that
I
appreciate
what
Mary
Catherine
said
earlier
about
some
you
know.
Sometimes
some
pressure
is
good
and
actually
I.
You
know
I
know
a
lot
of
this
probably
feels
like
it's
beating
up
on
the
administration,
but
the
administration
definitely
took
the
lead,
I
think
in
getting
the
the
discussion
back
on
track
and
I,
but
you
know
I
think
they
should
declare
victory
for
that.
U
I
think
that
was
a
really
good
move
and
I
think
it's
benefited
the
community
as
a
whole,
but
that
said,
I
definitely
support
this
amendment
and
I
support
moving
forward
with
the
CIB.
Thank
you.
A
Z
But
I
sure
don't
need
three
minutes.
Steve
Layman
and
I
definitely
support
the
amendment
and
support
the
CIB.
D
M
Yeah
I
seconded
this
and
support
this
call
it
a
sub
Amendment,
because
the
County's
ordinance
has
a
sell-by
date
on
a
CIB
anyway,
this
statement
is
also
redundant.
If
no
agreement
can
be
reached
on
a
CIB,
then
we
have
to
come
up
with
something
else.
So
there's
no
point
in
stating
it
and
I
can
see
why
County
officials
might
be
put
off
by
the
requirement
that
parties
must
then
establish
a
501c3,
even
though
it
says
or
alternative
governance
structure.
M
A
B
H
A
I
There's
even
the
council
offered
comment
on
on
the
original
Amendment
you've
now
amended
it
twice.
Council's
normal
practice
is
to
offer
comment
on
amended
legislation.
It's
it's
up
to
the
council,
but
that
would
be
in
keeping
with
the
council's
normal
practice.
Yeah.
That's.
A
AA
M
One
of
the
questions
that
came
up
in
the
conversation
God
knows
when
it
was,
but
it
was
sometime
tonight,
is
that
this
amendment
is
too
prescriptive.
I
think
I
think
that
was
the
criticism
of
it.
M
I
guess
I'd
like
to
hear
from
somebody
in
the
county
to
reiterate
why
this
amendment
is
to
I
mean
do
I
have
that
right
that
it's
too
prescriptive
for
the
County's
taste,
and
why
would
we
bet
we'd
be
better
off?
Not
adopting
the
amendment
can
can
I
get
a
an
opinion
from
a
county
official.
S
County
Commissioner
Julie,
Thomas
I
will
try
to
answer
your
question.
I
think
I
I
think
I'm
following
your
question.
The
reason
why
we
don't
believe
the
amendment
is
necessary
at
all
is
because
this
is
all
how
things
will
be
settled
in
a
CIB,
whether
through
a
CIB
or
before
a
CIB
with
memorandum
of
understanding
that
are
going
to
be
needed.
S
All
of
this
will
be
addressed.
It's
very
detailed
where
we're
just
asking
a
very
simple
question:
do
you
want
to
proceed
with
the
CIB,
or
are
you
wanting
to
proceed
with
a
501c3?
That's
our
question
and
we
recognize
that
there
are
points
that
will
have
to
be
worked
out,
but
our
question
is
super
simple.
S
M
S
M
S
F
Yes,
I
appreciate
very
very
much
the
discussion
we've
had
today,
I
think
it's
been
some
of
the
most
productive
kinds
of
conversations
I've
seen
in
this
journey
and
I
appreciate
council
member
Piedmont
Smith's
work
in
putting
this
exhibit
together,
I
think
or
putting
this
amendment
together.
Excuse
me,
I
am
satisfied
with
the
questions
I've
had
answered
about
interlocals
I
understand
that
much
can
be
worked
out
later.
F
Much
can
be
worked
out
later
and
at
the
same
time,
in
my
role,
I
represent
City
residents
and
so
I
feel
an
obligation
to
ensure
that
the
city
has
built-in
statements
that
include
that
ensure
true
and
equal
partnership.
That's
also
why
I
very
specifically
asked
the
question
of
our
County
colleagues.
Are
there
any
ways
in
which
you
feel
unfairly
disadvantaged
by
what's
been
laid
out
in
exhibit
a
and
I
think
we've
gone
on
to
address
some
of
those,
so
with
that
I
will
be
supporting
the
item
before
us.
Thank
you.
Thank.
Q
Thank
you,
I
was
actually
just
going
to
ask
a
question,
but
I
think
I'll
just
reflect
on
that
as
a
statement
instead
and
we'll
just
move
forward,
and
it's
just
again
I
appreciate
this
sort
of
simplification
from
commissioner
Thomas
about
this
yes
or
no
on
CIB,
but
I.
Just
really
don't
think
it's
that
simple
and
in
particular,
there's
there's
some
things
in
the
ordinance
creating
the
CIB
that
specify
things.
The
CIB
shall
do
and
so
sort
of
will
therefore
be
authorized
to
do
seemingly
on
its
own
initiative
once
created.
Q
Those
are
contradicted
by
things
in
this
amendment
data
or
subject
to
city
and
county
approval,
so
they
are
not
one
in
the
same.
It's
not.
This
is
all
just
stuff
that
can
get
sorted
any
way
or
another
after
the
CIB
is
created
the
length
you
know.
If
we
just
wanted
to
express
our
will
and
desire
to
move
forward
with
the
CIB,
we
could
have
done
that
with
a
resolution
that
didn't
automatically
create
a
CIB.
We
could
have
just
passed
a
resolution
saying
the
council
expresses
its
intent
to
move
forward
with
the
CIB.
Q
So
just
pushing
back
or
disagreeing
I
guess
respectfully
that
that
it's
only
a
question
about
whether
or
not
to
proceed
with
the
CIB
there's
more
in
it
than
this,
and
without
getting
too
much
more
to
the
details
for
a
reason
similar
to
council
member
scapularity
he'll
support
the
amendment
thanks.
E
Well,
similarly,
I
my
preference
I
my
preferences
for
CIB,
rather
than
a
501c3
I,
think
it
was
well
stated
by
council
member
McKim
to
ensure
transparency
and
process
best
means
there.
There
were
problems
with
this
amendment.
I
think
that
those
problems
are
largely
resolved.
I
think
that
the
I
think
that
what
is
left
in
terms
of
conditions
or
seems
to
be
reasonable
and
and
rather
benign,
I
think
agreeable.
I
should
be
agreeable
to
all
parties
and
knowing
that
there
be
further
details
worked
out.
E
So
I
was
formerly
of
the
mind
to
find
the
resolution
adequate
in
itself
for
stating
my
support,
but
I
I'll
support
this
this
amendment
as
a
step
forward
and
I
appreciate
council
member,
even
though
it
came
in
a
late
hour-
and
this
was
a
trying
process-
I
appreciate
councilmember
Piedmont
Smith's
effort
to
move
this
forward
and
joining
with
the
administration
to
find
some
common
points
of
agreement.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
Okay,
so
this
is
just
on
the
amendment
and
I
can
barely
keep
my
thoughts
in
my
head.
It's
been
hard
to
follow.
This
is
an
amendment
to
a
resolution.
M
Resolution
is
not
binding,
except
in
certain
circumstances
where
we
like
it's
statutorily
required
for
some
kind
of
bond,
but
it's
not
what's
at
hand
here,
so
this
certainly
isn't
going
to
protect
the
tax
at
least
not
directly.
It's
not
a
guarantee
of
a
protection
of
the
tax
and.
M
I'm
sorry
I'm
hearing
a
echo
or
something
it's
not
going
to
guarantee
the
tax.
It's
not
even
a
guarantee
of
what
we're
actually
going
to
do.
It's
more
just
an
indication
of
where
the
city
council
stands
at
the
time
at
this
time,
and
but
what
what
it
has
been
effective
at
the
amendment
and
the
resolution
as
a
whole
has
been
in
doing
what
everyone
has
said
we
need
to
do,
which
is
to
advance
the
conversation.
It's
forced
us
as
a
council
to
say
what
we
think.
M
We
certainly
had
an
extensive
debate
tonight
about
it.
Everyone
is
a
better
sense
of
where
we
are
so.
In
that
respect,
it
has
succeeded.
I
think
both
the
ordinance
from
the
Commissioners
and
the
proposal
of
a
501c3
for
the
administration
have
forced
the
issue
for
this
body.
M
So
if
we
were
to
approve
this
amendment,
it
would
say
I
think
to
everyone
in
the
county
that,
yes,
we
are
generally
supportive,
but
we
are
concerned
about
the
details
and
I
agree
with
I
believe
it
was
councilmember,
scandaluri
or
Flaherty
I.
Don't
remember,
who
that
it's?
M
Not
that
simple
that
that
we,
it
isn't
for
us
simply
a
question
of
whether
or
not
to
have
CIB
I,
don't
think
that
the
Administration
has
done
a
sufficient
job
of
selling
the
501c3
I
do
think
it
has
potential,
it
is
precedented
can
be
made
to
be
the
equivalent
of
a
public
body
if
all
of
its
Agreements
are
set
up
to
effectively
be
as
transparent
as
a
public
body.
M
What
is
still
missing
from
the
administration's
proposal
for
a
501c3
is
the
membership
of
the
board,
and
perhaps
the
most
significant
argument
that
has
been
Advanced
tonight,
for
my
opinion,
is
that
the
CIB
board
is
equally
split,
that
it's
clear
that
what's
being
proposed
is
an
equal
split
and
it's
not
yet
been
clearly
proposed
by
the
administration
and
I
think
that
that
is
causing
their
proposal
to
find
less
favor
than
a
CIB
right
now.
M
So,
having
said
that,
I'm
still
I
mean
I'm
going
to
approve
the
amendment
to
the
resolution
with
my
colleagues
but
well
I
guess
I
could
leave
this
comment
for
the
overall
discussion
of
the
resolution.
I
am
concerned
about
how
we're
actually
going
to
get
there.
We
still
have
a
lot
of
negotiating
to
go.
Thank
you.
A
I
will
just
say
that
I
was
fully
prepared
to
support
what
was
in
front
of
us
tonight
before
the
amendment
came
forward,
and
we
have
had
a
robust
discussion
and
I
appreciate
very
much
that
the
work
that
this
Council
has
done
to
make
the
amendment
palatable,
at
least
it
seems
like
it
is
from
the
response
from
the
county.
Representatives
I,
still
have
just
concerns
about
the
initial
15
points
that
were
put
forward.
A
A
Don't
feel
that
as
a
representative
of
the
city,
they
would
not
have
been
respectful
to
us
moving
forward
with
the
CIB
I
I
do
not
agree
with
the
501c3,
and
those
15
points
appeared
to
me
to
be
like
trying
to
turn
what
we
have
discussed
as
the
pros
of
a
CIB
into
more
of
a
501c3.
While
these
amendments
do
make
this
better,
it
still
does
not
satisfy
me.
So
I
will
be
voting
no
on
the
Amendments
and
hope
we
can
approve
the
CIB
with
the
resolution
all
right.
Anyone
else
have
a
final
comment.
D
H
M
Could
the
transfer
of
property
to
a
CIB
not
actually
I'm,
going
to
withdraw
the
question?
I
was
going
to
say:
is
it
the
same
as
encumbering
the
tax
with
a
bond,
but
is
it
in
no
way
an
encumbrance?
That
might
also
send
a
message
if
we
were
to
specifically
say
that
we
that
the
city
and
the
county
have
collectively
transferred
property
to
a
new
entity,
and
that
shows
that
were
serious,
I
I.
It's
not
a
great
question,
but
I'm
going
to
ask.
Does
anybody
who
can
respond
to
it.
J
Was
great,
thank
you.
Mary
for
Michael,
opposite
mayor
appreciate
it.
You
know.
I
would
just
say
this
property
was
amassed
over
a
period
of
30
years.
The
old
or
the
current
Center
had
hardly
opened
before
it
was
realized,
gosh
we're
going
to
need
a
bigger
facility,
so
Community
leaders
at
that
time
started
amassing
tracks
of
property
in
the
area,
much
of
which,
although
not
all
but
much
of
with
which
most
of
which,
in
fact
I
think
is
fair
to
say,
was
purchased
with
innkeepers
tax
dollars.
J
N
Corporation
Council
Kate.
Let
me
just
jump
in
to
say
council
member
voland.
Can
you
hear
me?
Okay
in
response
to
your
question,
I
I.
Think
the
gist
of
this
point
was
to
do
what
you
just
suggested,
which
is
to
say,
let's
see,
seriousness
by
commitment
of
those
properties.
Mr
Cockrell
mentioned
before
about
there
being
a
difficulty.
If
the
some
of
the
property
is
debt,
encumbered
I
know
when
the
city
first
proposed
a
purchase
that
would
relieve
the
rest
of
that
debt.
N
M
N
M
I've
got
a
follow-up
question
on
about
Point
11
of
your
memo,
because
to
me
this
is
perhaps
the
most
important
point
that
was
not
included
in
the
amendment
we
just
passed.
Why
is
it
that
the
city
believes
that
the
city
controller
should
be
the
CIB
controller?
Could
you
or
Ms
Carmichael
go
into
the
detail
of
that
particular
Point
yeah.
N
And
council
member
Piedmont
Smith
had
asked
about
this
earlier,
so
I'll
just
share
what
we
shared
with
her,
which
is
the
city
controller,
is
intimately
familiar
with
the
funds
and
the
accounts
and
the
record
keeping
and
all
the
requirements
he's
bonded
all
of
that
stuff
and
the
vast
majority
of
the
funds
involved
would
be
funds
allocated
to
the
city.
It
just
seems
to
make
sense,
rather
than
include
someone
new
and
potentially
pay
them
as
well.
It
just
is
drawing
on
someone
with
expertise
and
again
remember.
N
Everything
in
here
is
in
the
spirit
of
saying
how
do
we
achieve
the
balance
between
City
involvement
and
County
involvement,
because,
notwithstanding
the
3-3
split
on
the
CIB
board
that
you're
talking
about
I?
Think
if
you
look
back
in
the
memos,
what
we
had
emphasized
was
there
are
certain
statutory
duties
that
fall
only
to
the
county.
So
this
was
attempting
to
say
that's
why
there
was
balance
being
sought
back
in
the
day,
and
this
is
reflecting
that
so
thank.
M
K
M
K
Well,
I,
guess:
if
we
don't
form
it,
then
we're
not
violating
state
law.
I
mean
I,
think
that
that
has
to
carry
some
weight
and
I
guess
the
flip
side
of
it
is
you
know
you
you
just
there's
been
a
lot
of
statements
made
of
why
it
was
a
good
thing
to
use
the
city
controller
I
mean
that
should
all
be
part
of
that
process
that
the
CIB
utilizes
to
to
make
a
decision.
C
A
J
Yes,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
President
Mary
Kathy
Carmichael
mayor's
office,
I
I,
just
want
to
remind
everybody
that
the
administration
did
not
pull
these
15
points
out
of
the
out
of
a
hat.
These
were
things
that
were
discussed
Again
by
some
of
the
very
folks
in
this
room
back
in
2019,
a
group
made
up
of
city
and
county
officials
and
community
members.
So
this
that
the
point
especially
well
all
of
them,
but
that's
where
the
Genesis
of
that
suggestion
originated.
D
A
I
I
will
again
invite
those
folks
on
Zoom.
If
you'd
like
to
comment
on
resolution
2220
as
amended,
please
use
the
race
hand
feature
to.
Let
us
know
you
can
find
that
in
your
control
bar
under
the
reactions,
tab
or
the
more
tab.
You
can
also
send
a
chat
to
the
meeting
host
to.
Let
us
know
you'd
like
to
speak.
T
Thank
you,
Eric
spoonmore,
again,
Chamber
of
Commerce
I
just
want
to
thank
you
guys
for
the
very
thoughtful
deliberate
process
that
you
all
have
used
here
tonight.
As
we
discuss
these
complex
issues.
This
is
important,
stuff
and
I.
Just
appreciate
the
time
that
you
put
into
it
again.
We
think
the
most
prudent
option
is
to
stick
with
what
we
know
that
works
here
in
Indiana
for
these
kinds
of
projects.
T
T
R
Thank
you
before
we
get
the
comments
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
slip
a
question
here.
If
I
can
go.
R
Really
thinking
now
now
and
I
heard
earlier
that
the
city,
depending
on
the
choice
that
one
group
or
another,
is
going
to
be
at
a
disadvantage
and
I
guess
I'm
not
sure
what
that
means.
So
it
could.
Could
somebody
from
City
Administration
tell
me
what
that
disadvantage
is
and
then
maybe
someone
from
County
Executive,
depending
on
which
mechanism
we
choose
I,
guess
I'm
confused
what
what's
the
disadvantage.
R
J
Mary
half
Carmichael
officer
mayor,
you
know
it's
interesting.
The
the
idea
of
a
capital
Improvement
board
originated
in
the
state
legislature.
The
state
legislature
is,
you
probably
know
it
tends
to
be
made
up
more
of
folks
outside
of
municipalities
than
inside
of
municipalities.
So
sometimes
things
that
the
legislature
thinks
are
are
important,
and
you
know
we
see
several
of
those
things
in
this
particular
setup
of
a
CIB.
They
tend
to
give
they
tend
to
say:
okay
County,
you
represent
the
county.
J
You
do
this
so,
for
example,
a
couple
of
things
we've
talked
about
tonight
is
the
appointment
of
the
folks
to
the
CDC
and-
and
you
know,
we've
got
The
Fab
Tech
and
you
know
all
sorts
of
things
that
the
way
we
see
it
kind
of
tend
to
favor
a
county
control.
So
that's
why
it
makes
us
a
little
uncomfortable
and
we
don't
want
to
be.
We
don't
want
to
put
the
city
in
a
position
that
decisions
are
being
made
about
City
assets,
that
the
city
doesn't
have
any
influence
over.
K
Respond
with
you've
heard
the
proposal
of
the
who
the
the
board
members
of
the
501c3
would
be
and
who
they
would
be
appointed
by
you've
also
heard
I.
Think
Jeff
McKim
expressed
it
best
about
the
transparency
issues.
I
think
there's
also
a
what
I
consider
probably
another
minor
issue,
and
that
was
with
the
tort
claim,
immunity,
but
I
I
think
you
know
it
is
insurable.
I,
don't
disagree
with
that
and
that
I
did
not
check
on
the
cost
of
insurance
and
I'm
I'm
willing
to
defer
that
the
city
staff
when
they
checked
on
it.
K
M
I
want
to
reiterate
this
question
that
I
asked
during
the
amendment
process
to
the
administration,
so
Mr
Sims
asked
kind
of
the
question
that
was
on
my
mind
too,
but
I
want
to
go
a
little
further.
There
were
two
aspects
to
the
501c3
that
seemed
to
be
problematic.
One
of
them
Mr
Cockrell
identified,
is
that,
as
as
far
as
We
Know,
the
administration's
proposal
is
for
a
board
made
up
entirely
of
City
appointed
members,
whereas
the
CIB
is
evenly
split.
M
M
Let's
call
it:
tourism
development
opportunities
in
the
501c3,
the
bus,
quick
Chumlee,
the
Waldron,
Etc
and
I
think
I
asked
earlier.
Why
not
create
a
501c3
anyway
and
handle
those
under
a
501c3,
regardless
of
whether
the
convention
center
is
also
part
of
it?
So
these
are
the
only
two
things
that
seem
to
distinguish
the
501c3
in
my
mind
from
the
CIB.
M
What
can
the
administration
say
now
to
I
guess
for
lack
of
a
better
phrase,
sell
us
on
a
501c3.
It
does
not
seem
particularly
compelling
at
the
moment,
Ms
Carmichael.
What
can
you
say.
J
Excuse
me:
I'll,
take
the
point
about
the
board
membership.
You
know,
I
think
whenever
you
enter
into
something
or
start
a
negotiation
about
something
you
start
at
a
place
that
you
really
think
is
great
and
then
you
you
know
you
negotiate
from
there.
So
I
don't
think
that
a
4-1
board
membership
is
Rickman
Stone
by
any
means.
But
you
know
you
got
to
throw
something
out
there.
J
So
excuse
me,
I'll
I,
think
I
can
let
Beth,
if
she's
still
around
if
she
wants
to
handle
the
second
part
of
your
question,
Ms
Kate
if
she
wants
to
handle
the
second
part
of
your
question.
N
Beth
Kay
Corporation
Council,
so
the
second
part
of
your
question,
council,
member
voland
I,
think,
was
what
about
developing
a
501c3
with
respect
to
managing
the
other
properties
that
were
discussed
earlier.
That
is
in
the
works
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
ideas
is
that
it
would
integrate
well
to
deal
with
the
convention
center
through
that
same
mechanism.
N
I
think
there
have
been
some
conversations
with
Council
leadership
about
that
already,
but
in
any
event,
yes,
so
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
we're
working
on
and
that
we
were
thinking
would
make
sense
in
terms
of
integration.
Here.
Does
that?
Yes,.
M
It
does,
but
now
it
leads
to
a
follow-up
question.
Can
you
see
why
the
county
might
be
leery
of
a
five-member
board
on
the
CIB
all
appointed
by
the
city?
It
will
be
four
by
the
mayor
and
one
by
the
council
and
none
by
the
county,
because
the
city
says
it's
also
managing
its
other
tourism
development
assets
under
that
501c3,
and
so
that's
why
there
has
to
be
an
All-City
appointed
board.
M
N
You
say
to
that
I
think
I
would
just
Echo
what
Mary
Catherine
said
about
that
not
being
set
in
stone.
I
do
understand
what
the
county
is
saying
about
the
composition
of
that
and
you
know
I
think
as
you'll
see.
If
you
look
back
in
the
memos
that
we
sent
earlier
there's
still
if
we're
what
we're
looking
for
is
balance.
The
county
continues
to
retain
all
of
the
statutory
Authority.
You've
heard
a
lot
about
today
with
respect
to
CBC
appointments,
and
you
know
control
ultimately
over
whether
the
tax
even
exists
or
not.
N
Forget
the
state
legislature
or
the
county
could
repeal
it
right
so
I'm
not
suggesting
that
they
would
but
I
mean
it's
again.
It's
a
it's
a
matter
of
balance.
Having
said
that,
I
think
Mary
Catherine
said
you
know,
that's
not
a
composition
that
you
know
can't
be
Revisited
or
can't
be
further.
Looked
at
to
try
to
address
that.
M
Well,
I
appreciate
that,
but
I
mean
it
feels
like
we're
talking
about
it
tonight
and
so
I
guess
I
would
ask
you
tonight.
Would
a
501c3
with
two
members
appointed
by
the
city,
two
appointed
by
the
county
and
one
appointed
by
the
other
four,
be
acceptable
to
the
administration.
J
I
wouldn't
say
so,
especially
since
this
would
be
excuse
me
again,
a
city
asset,
so
that
really
wouldn't
make
a
whole
lot
of
sense,
but
I
would
also
say
it
as
kind
of
premature
to
negotiate.
This
I
mean
one
other
point
that
hasn't
been
brought
up
this
week.
This
evening,
I
think
is
important
in
Germain
is
part
of
our
proposal
in
the
memo
is,
and
so
we
feel
very
strongly
about
would
be
a
broader,
more
represent.
J
You
know
more
holistically
representative
Advisory
Board
to
the
501c3
board,
so
that
would
include
you
know,
certainly
representatives
from
County
government
Arts.
You
know
other
constituencies
and
stakeholders.
Thank
you.
K
I
would
just
like
to
respond
when
I
was
talking
with
commissioner
Thomas
and
that
you
know
this
CI,
CIB
or
50
this
entity,
which
is
called
an
entity
to
keep
it
they're,
going
to
have
a
huge
task
ahead
of
them
simply
dealing
with
the
convention
center
I
am
not
I.
I
could
not
tell
you
for
certain
that
there
is
support
from
the
county
to
commingle
all
these
other
different
buildings
into
this
already
Monumental
task,
I
think
I
think
that's
another
concern
that
we
would
have
with
with
that
plan.
A
L
Yes,
I
am
in
favor
of
the
resolution,
as
amended.
I
think
a
CIB
is
the
appropriate
mechanism
by
which
to
expand
the
convention
center
and
I
think
that
the
city's
position
is
is
guaranteed
somewhat
by
the
amendment
that
we
passed.
I
also
see
that
we
do
need
to
act
soon
and
I
think
that
County
and
City
needs
to
move
ahead
together
in
good
faith
and
make
it
happen.
L
My
main
concern
well
I've
I,
have
many
concerns
about
a
501c3,
but
transparency
is
a
big
concern
and
also
that's
not
what
we
talked
about
back
in
2019
and
2020,
so
it
kind
of
came
out
of
nowhere
or
even
for
me
being
on
city
council
when
this
was
proposed
earlier
this
year.
So
the
well
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that.
L
M
This
has
been
hard
for
both
the
city
council
and
the
County
Council
I,
remember
in
2019,
coming
into
very
tense
situation,
but
frankly,
the
entire
past
two
terms
has
been
this.
Tension
between
the
city
and
county
executives
and
I
continue
to
be
very
frustrated
by
it.
M
M
But
you
know
the
Administration
has
also
seemed
to
be
backfooted
here
by
the
proposal
tonight.
I
mean
I'm.
Reading
the
memo
tonight
about
the
501c3
option
and
I
I
I'm,
not
seeing
the
compelling
argument
for
it
I
mean
there's
been
a
lot
of
distrust
between
the
two
entities
and
I've
commented
with
my
colleagues
here
and
with
our
colleagues
on
the
County
Council
about
the
just
the
years-long
set
of
distrust
that
has
existed
at
the
top
and
I.
M
You
know
beside
everything
else,
I'm,
so
sick
of
it
I'm,
so
sick
of
it
and
I
want
to
see
more
cooperation
at
the
top,
but
the
you
know
like
at
the
same
time
that
I
believe
that
the
Administration
has
made
some
good
points
that
were
excluded
in
the
amendment
that
councilman
Piedmont
Smith,
tabled
particularly
I
think
that
it
is
a
legitimate
concern
of
the
administration
that
I
I
support.
M
I
agree
with
about
the
tax
money
coming
in
the
Lion's
Share
of
the
tax
money
comes
to
the
city,
and
you
know
we
have
a
track
record
of
very
good
controllers
and
it's
important
that
the
controller
who
is
at
once
a
Cabinet
member
of
an
Administration
who's,
not
separately
elected
and
has
a
fiduciary
responsibility.
M
You
know,
as
assigned
by
the
state
unique
among
cabinet
members
in
the
city
that
and
and
I
mean,
would
set
aside
the
character
of
the
current
Treasurer
Mr
Underwood,
whom
we
all
on
this
side
at
least
greatly
esteem,
that
it
is
not
unreasonable
at
all
to
ask
the
city
controller,
be
the
CIB
controller.
M
Their
concern
for
independent
audits
is
one
that
I
share
as
well,
and
this
was
not
included
in
the
the
amendment,
but
we're
being
asked
to
make
a
decision
tonight.
There
was
a
resolution
table
tonight.
M
I,
don't
think
that
the
looming,
possibility
of
the
tax
being
repealed
is
as
big
a
deal
as
what
both
the
county
and
the
city
have.
People
from
all
sides
have
said
we
we
need
to
get
on
with
it
if
we
wait,
I,
don't
like
being
rushed.
I
know
that
everybody
on
this
side
is
familiar
with
my
desire
for
more
time
to
consider,
but
in
this
case,
if
we
even
if
we
were
to
put
it
off
a
week,
let
alone
into
January
we'd
have
to
revisit
the
whole
thing
over
again
we're
putting
it
off.
M
Our
recess
is
going
to
be
a
month,
we're
literally
not
going
to
be
here
for
a
month
and
I
do
just
want
to
get
on
with
it.
M
I,
don't
think
I
think
the
administration
had
a
chance
to
make
their
case
for
a
501c3
and
tonight
and
they
just
it
it's
it
hasn't
it's
been
good,
but
not
enough.
So
I'm
gonna
be
voting
for
this
resolution,
because
I
I
do
want
to
get
on
with
it
I.
M
Let's
just
I'm,
going
to
share
the
administration's
concerns,
as
I've
said,
but
and
and
there's
still
a
lot
of
trust
that
needs
to
be
built
and
I
hate
that
I
have
to
say
it,
but
there's
been
a
lot
of
distrust
between
the
two
entities
that
shouldn't
exist.
I'm
very
surprised
to
hear
commissioner
Thomas
say
something
I've
been
thinking
in
my
head
for
a
while
that
City
residents
are
part
of
the
county,
very
surprised,
because
I've
been
thinking
it
for
a
long
time,
because
I
haven't
felt
that
message
coming
from
the
county.
M
For
a
long
time,
the
city
of
Bloomington
was
created
by
Monroe
County
200
years
ago.
We
wouldn't
exist
without
action
by
the
county.
We
exist
to
be
the
county
seat,
and
yet
there's
been
this
much
contention
here,
partly
because
of
statutes
that
we
had
no
no
no
hand
in
creating
okay,
the
state
tells
us
how
to
be
municipality,
how
to
be
accounting.
M
M
So
you
know
I
want
to
just
say
add
a
word
of
Sympathy
for
the
administration,
which
is
doing
the
best
it
can,
but
like
I,
am
I,
don't
care
about
the
tax
being
repealed
as
much
as
I
care
about
getting
on
with
it
already
I'm
going
to
support
the
resolution.
Thank
you.
Thank.
G
I'm
going
to
vote
to
support
the
CIB,
and
let
me
tell
you
why
I
think
the
CIB
process
structure
as
a
superior
structure
to
a
501
3C,
as
it's
spelled
out
in
in
the
administration's
proposal
in
talking
about
the
following
components,
are
essential
to
any
perspective.
Cib
I
want
this
process
to
move
along
and
I
want
it
to
get
done
as
as
well
as
some
of
my
colleagues
have
mentioning
that
same
thing.
I
see
that
the
structure,
first
of
all
pointing
all
five,
that's
not
fair,
and
it's
not
a
neutral
way
to
go.
G
I
see
that
from
points
two
through
about
nine
on
the
essential
to
any
CIB
memo.
G
It's
approval
by
it
I'm
in
a
cut
cut,
it
short,
but
approved
by
a
county
and
City
fiscal
bodies
for
budgets,
for
bonds,
for
this
approval
by
city
and
county
county,
selecting
contract
authorization
by
city
and
county
for
the
CIB
to
decide
something
else,
and
then
a
couple
other
things
I'm
afraid
this
looks
like
a
very
slow
process
and
it
looks
like
one
it's
going
to
be
very
contentious
and,
and
it's
natural
that
we
have
differing
opinions
and
differing
interest
in
accounting.
The
city
I
get
that
I.
G
Think
we
all
get
that
so
the
the
501
3C
is
just
not
the
way
it's
structured
right
now.
The
way
it
looks
to
me
and
I've
read
this
several
times
from
different
directions:
it
just
doesn't
look
Fair
and
because
of
that
I
think
the
taxpayers
deserve.
You
know:
countywide
people
that
have
contributed
to
this
I
think
they
deserve
a
fair
process.
G
It's
fairer,
I
think
they
deserve
one,
that's
more
transparent
and
it's
in
statute
and
more
neutral,
and
it
appears
to
me
that
the
CIB
is
a
more
neutral
entity
to
try
to
administer
these
things.
And
so
so
because
of
that,
those
are
my
reasons
for
supporting
the
CIB.
A
R
Thank
you.
The
first
thing
I
want
to
thank
Mr,
Cockrell,
Miss,
Kate,
Miss,
Carmichael
and
even
Mr
Campbell
for
your
comments
and
participating
I
found
it
helpful
I
remember
years
ago,
I
want
to
say
2019
or
something
I,
don't
know,
I
thought
we
were
meeting
in
the
basement
of
convention
center
and
it
was
a
group
of
city,
state
or
city
county
stakeholders.
Some
elected
people
I
do
remember
and
not
a
great
bunch
of
detail,
but
we
did
discuss
a
501
C3.
That
was
part
of
the
discussion.
R
R
I
guess
where
I'm
going
here
at
this
point
is
I've
heard
terms
of
good
faith
I'm,
not
so
sure
how
we
get
there
based
on
everything
else
that
we've
gone,
it
seems
like
good
faith,
is,
is
evasive
right
now,
one
of
them
I,
guess
I,
wonder
sometimes
why
in
this
particular
case,
why
we
just
couldn't
put
City
Executives
and
our
attorneys
and
County
Executives
and
their
legal
folks
and
put
them
in
a
room
and
say
work.
This
out
seems
pretty
simple
to
me:
take
them
one
by
one
one
by
one
and
negotiate.
R
If
that
hasn't
been
done
and
I
don't
know,
but
then
it's
brought
to
us
to
be
the
Arbiter
one
way
or
another
and
I
just
think,
there's
more
work
that
could
have
been
done,
I
think
at
those
executive
levels
to
work
this
stuff
out.
You
can't
get
everything
you
want.
What
is
the
best
mechanism
for
us
to
move
forward?
I
think
that's
what
this
the
gist
tonight
is.
What
is
the
best
mechanism
for
us
to
move
forward?
R
Just
local
government,
that's
my
preference
now
would
I
divorce
myself
from
that
conversation,
and
we
said
we're
going
to
do
in
audit
by
an
independent
auditor,
no
I
mean
we'll
still
get
audited,
that's
just
my
preference,
but
that
shouldn't
be
a
deal
breaker
or
one
of
the
deal
breakers
into
starting
to
move
forward
on
this
a
couple
things
that's
been
said
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
work
through
some
stuff
I'm
like
council
member
volen,
my
colleague
that
says
you
know
I'm
really
glad
to
hear
that
the
county
folks
say
you
know
you're
all
County
folks,
yeah
I've
heard
it
before
I,
don't
know
if
he
hadn't
I've
heard
Bob
also
heard
on
the
other
side
that
City
people
are
80
percent
of
the
county,
the
city
80,
but
we're
all
count.
R
You
see
how
divisive
that
is.
I
mean
as
long
as
we
hold
on
to
that
rhetoric.
It's
going
to
be
tough,
it's
going
to
be
tough,
so
I
don't
know,
do
I,
have
the
authority
Mr,
President,
I'll,
just
lock
him
up
in
a
room,
say,
come
up
to
an
agreement
and
come
see
us
when
they
get
done
and
do
it
before
December,
31st
or
January
1st
out.
R
R
If
you
want
to
make
that
indication,
but
I
think
the
best
way
for
us
to
move
forward
that
I
think
the
majority
of
us
can
work,
work
with
and
hopefully
resolve
moving
forward
is
the
CIB
at
this
point
and
that's
the
way
I'm
probably
going
to
vote
this
evening.
So
thank
you
very
much.
P
P
My
my
main
thought
here
is
that
five
days
has
not
been
long
enough
for
me
to
dig
into
the
details
of
a
CIB
or
a
501c3,
and
three
hours
tonight
has
most
definitely
not
been
enough
time
to
for
me
to
do
what
I
would
consider
an
appropriate
amount
of
due
diligence
on
where
this,
where
this
should
be
going
right
now
or
what
I
support
and
what
I
don't
support
so
I'm
having
a
very
hard
time
with
all
of
this
tonight,
I
would
say
just
that:
I
think
it's
rushed
and
that
there
was
a
sense
of
urgency
put
on
this
unnecessarily.
P
P
I
don't
understand
why
postcovid
it
had
to
come
to
this
forum,
I
guess
for
support,
instead
of
being
invited
again
and
being
in
a
room
with
city
and
county
officials
and
and
working
it
out
in
that
way,
I
I
think
I'm,
most
Echo
council
member
Sim
comments
tonight
that
I
wish
that
I
guess
could
have
been
done
either,
particularly
without
us
or
with
us,
in
a
different
way.
P
I
am
still
in
a
place
where
I
am
asking
bigger
questions,
I
think
than
should
a
Convention
Center
expansion
be
done
with
CIB
or
a
501c3.
P
P
What
I've
read
is
1989
to
2022
we've
that
the
nation
has
a
doubled,
Convention
Center
space,
while
convention
center
events
have
declined
and
I
can't
imagine
what
that
looks
like
now.
After
covid
also,
you
know
we
haven't
talked
at
all
about
I
mean
because
this
isn't
really
the
space
I
guess
tonight,
whether
we're
talking
about
CIB
versus
501c3,
but
Indianapolis,
expanding
its
Convention
Center
to
take
on
the
type
of
conventions
we
are
hoping
to
host.
P
But
then,
having
that
space
in
an
airport
in
the
infrastructure
to
support
it,
we
don't
have
an
airport
for
people
to
cover
I
mean
I
just
have
a
hard
time,
also
post
covid.
What
do
residents
of
the
county
and
the
city
think
now
is
that
how
they
want
to
be
spending
their
tax
dollars,
or
would
they
rather
than
see,
go
to
something
else?
P
The
students
over
checked
I
think
it's
been
a
long
time
can
go
to
anything
related
to
tourism,
so
I
have
a
lot
of
questions
still
around
the
whole
idea
of
a
convention
center
and
I
mean
not
just
the
CID
versus
501c3
so
tonight,
because
I
do
not
feel
it
already.
I
will
abstain
or
vote
no,
and
that's
where
I
am
thanks.
Q
Sure
I'm
going
to
vote
to
support
the
resolution.
I
wasn't
going
to
mention
this,
but
councilmember
rosenbarger
did
so
I
thought
I
would
just
bring
it
up
which,
because
I
think
she
has
a
good
point,
which
is
that,
like
there's
a
lot
that
follows
from
this,
not
only
about
how
to
govern
things
but
about
the
scale
of
expansion
and
about
the
responsibility
of
of
that
fiscally
for
this
body
and
others
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
when
the
tax
was
passed.
This
was
the
intention
and
I
think.
Q
Well,
no
legislative
body
or
fiscal
body
can
bind
future
bodies.
Simply
you
know
with
their
intention.
There's
something
meaningful
there
still,
but
I
think
it's
worth
thinking
about
all
those
things
and
sort
of
serendipitously
I
was
at
the
commission
on
sustainability
meeting
last
night
and
someone
brought
up
the
2021
Community
survey
that
the
city
does
representative
sample
of
City
residents,
statistically
significant
numbers
and
was
in
another
context.
But
I
was
looking
at
the
survey
and
I
was
scrolling
through
it.
Q
I
got
to
a
question:
they
talked
about
projects
or
issues
in
Bloomington
and
how
important
they
are.
We
have
recovery
from
covid,
92
percent
said,
is
essential
or
very
important,
investing
time
and
resources
to
ensure
equal
and
fair
delivery
of
all
city
services.
83
percent
Citywide
high
speed,
fiber
fiber
68
Redevelopment
of
the
Hopewell
Hospital
site,
57,
expansion
of
Bloomington
Murrow
County,
Convention
Center,
16
percent
of
a
representative
sample
of
Bloomington
thought
that
was
essential
or
very
important.
Q
So
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
context
in
the
context
of
what
councilman
Rosenberger
said
again,
not
because
I
don't
think
this
has
some
some
legs
to
do
something,
but
I
think
we
need
to
be
very
careful
about
the
scope
and
scale
and
and
fiscal
responsibility
of
of
some
of
the
decisions
that
follow
from
this.
Thank
you.
A
I
will
take
opportunity
to
say
that
I'll
cut
to
the
chase
I
do
support
resolution
22-20
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
I
want
to
just
remark
a
little
bit
about
this
long
journey.
That's
been
interrupted
by
covid,
but
a
lot
of
the
comments
that
I've
heard
many
of
them
offline,
as
well
as
in
public
meetings,
seems
to
me
we've
kind
of
pitted
the
city
in
the
county
in
a
in
a
battle
of
control
versus
cooperation
and
I.
A
A
Who
can
do
it
better
who's
got
the
Lion's
Share,
the
food
and
beverage
tax.
Therefore,
we
should
have
the
dominant
control
over
how
this
goes.
We've
we've
been
at
this
for
six
years
and
they're
not
moving
it
forward
and
then
on
November
9th
the
county
did
so
that's
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
today
is:
let's
move
this
forward.
The
word
of
the
day
in
that
last
meeting
that
council
member
scandalorian
I
attended
was
dithering
and
whether
16
percent
of
the
community
thinks
this
is
important
or
not.
A
These
food
and
beverage
taxes
have
been
leveraged
for
this
purpose
to
assist
the
CVB
to
assist
the
convention
center
in
making
it
the
best
it
can
possibly
be.
The
expansion
is
something
that
is
needed.
It
has
been
a
point
of
discussion
for
over
six
years,
but
now
the
county
has
given
us
a
mechanism
to
move
it
forward
and
they
have
managed
this
convention
center
for
30
years
and
so
I
think
they
do
have
a
pretty
invested
stake
in
how
this
goes.
A
I
think
they
want
the
best
product
that
it
can
be
as
well,
as
does
the
city,
so
this
dithering
over
who
has
more
control
I
think
we're
all
finished
with
that
Turf
issues.
I
think
we're
all
finished
with
that
I
hope
we
are,
and
it
is
now
time
to
take
the
food
and
beverage
tax,
the
innkeepers
tax
and
to
allow
a
CIB
with
professional
status
to
make
all
the
decisions
that
that
need
to
be
made
in
order
to
move
this
forward.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
Anybody
else
have
any
final
word:
council,
member,
Rallo,
sorry,
I,
didn't
see
your
hand.
E
That's
quite
a
right.
It
was
I
decided
to
comment
a
bit
late,
because
this
is
a
really
interesting
comments
and
discussion.
I
I
wanted
to
tag
along
with
the
council
member
Flaherty
I
think
that
the
these
are
important
questions,
the
scope
and
scale,
but
I
wanted
to
also
add
that
when
the
Fab
tax
was
when
it
was
supported,
it
was
supported
in
a
small
part
because
of
discussions
related
to
the
expectation
of
the
Civic
Center
Convention
Center.
E
C
B
C
A
E
E
B
Ordinance
2236
to
amend
Title
20
of
the
Bloomington
municipal
code
regarding
proposal
to
amend
chapter
20.02,
zoning
districts
and
related
sections
to
establish
an
overlay
district
and
related
development
standards
for
the
Hopewell
neighborhood.
The
synopsis
is
as
follows.
This
petition
contains
a
text
amendment
that
proposes
to
add
the
trans,
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
to
the
unified
development
ordinance
in
order
to
address
the.
Y
B
Got
a
little
over
excited
so
intro,
let's
see
we'll
start
with
councilmemberello,
yes,
Clarity,
yes,
rosenbarker.
P
H
B
Okay,
ordinance
2236
two
amend
Title
20
.;
oh
goodness,
unified
development,
ordinance
of
the
Bloomington
municipal
code
regarding
proposal
to
amend
chapter
20.02,
zoning
districts
and
related
sections
to
establish
an
overlay
district
and
related
development
standards
for
the
Hopewell
neighborhood.
The
synopsis
says
as
follows:
this
petition
contains
a
text
amendment
that
proposes
to
add
the
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
to
the
unified
development
ordinance
in
order
to
address
the
change
in
resolution,
2217.
AB
Okay,
thank
you
all
right,
so
we
are
here
to
discuss
the
transform
Redevelopment
overlay.
So
first
question
is
the:
what
is
the
overlay?
What
is
an
overlay?
So
an
overlay
district
is
a
type
of
zoning
District,
which
is
placed
over
an
existing
zoning
District
or
a
combination
of
other
zoning
districts.
The
boundaries
of
an
overlay
are
often
selected
to
protect
environmental
features,
preserve
historic
buildings
or
promote
economic
and
residential
development
within
an
area.
AB
So
the
regulations
and
boundaries
of
an
overlay
District
allow
for
focused
regulations
to
be
tailored
to
an
area
within
the
city
which
share
unique
characteristics.
The
regulations
within
an
overlay
may
be
more
or
less
restrictive
than
the
underlying
base
zoning
district
and
will
supersede
the
regulations
of
that
base.
Zoning
District
within
the
specified
regulations
in
the
overlay
ordinance,
so
the
city
actually
has
a
existing
overlay.
It's
the
downtown
character
overlay.
It's
split
up
into
six.
AB
AB
So
with
that
this
body
authored
resolution
1722,
which
gave
plan
commission
guidance
on
eight
specific
topics-
these
are
the
eight
topics.
I'll
cover
how
they
are
addressed
in
the
overlay.
AB
So
all
subdivisions
within
the
overlay
are
required
to
be
designed
according
to
the
infill
subdivision,
which
is
in
chapter
five
of
the
Udo,
which
is
the
subdivision
control
portion
as
as
amended
within
the
overlay.
So
the
amended
standards
require
that
100
of
lots
be
served
by
an
alley.
Additionally,
all
properties
within
the
overlay
shall
be
required
to
utilize
a
platted
alley
for
motor
vehicle
access.
Access
to
the
property,
Drive
Cuts
will
be
prohibited
when
a
platted
alley
is
adjacent
to
the
property.
AB
AB
So
the
resolution
I
identified
four
specific
dimensional
standards
that
were
to
be
modified.
The
first
two
are
adjustments
to
the
maximum
impervious
surface
coverage
in
the
minimum
landscaped
area
So
within
the
mixed
use
and
non-residential
Zone
properties
within
the
overlay.
There
is
an
allowed
excuse
me:
they
are
allowed
to
increase
their
impervious
surface
maximum
by
25
percentage
points
to
the
underlying
base.
Zoning
District
residential
Zone
properties
will
be
allowed
to
increase
their
impervious
Surface
by
15,
so
these
areas
are
in
or
excuse
me.
AB
These
increases
are
in
addition
to
the
standards
of
the
underlying
base.
Zoning
district,
for
example,
a
property
within
the
underlying
based
zoning
District
of
mixed
use.
Medium
scale
mm
would
be
allowed
in
85
percent
maximum
impervious
surface
coverage
rather
or
which
would
be
up
from
the
mm
districts
base
of
60
percent.
And
then
you
can
see
the
landscape
area.
Minimum
was
modified
to
meet
the
new
impervious
surface,
so
it
was
changed
at
the
same
percentage.
AB
The
resolution
guidance
called
for
reduced
Society
in
rear
setbacks,
side
setbacks
are
proposed
to
be
reduced
to
zero
feet,
rear
setbacks
in
the
mixed
use
and
non-residential
Zone
districts
will
be
set
at
zero
feet,
while
the
residential
zoning
districts,
rear
setback
will
be
10
feet
and
a
reduction
to
minimum
lot
size
has
been
included
that
will
eliminate
the
minimum
Lots
area
for
mixed
use
and
non-residential
Zoning
districts
and
then
in
the
minimum.
Excuse
me,
the
minimum
lot
area
in
residential
zoning
districts
will
be
1500
square
feet.
AB
And
then,
just
as
a
note
similar
to
the
R4
District
excuse
me
the
RM
and
Rh
District
that
would
be
residential,
multi-family
and
residential
high
density
multi-family,
a
single-family
duplex,
Triplex
and
Fort
Flex
dwelling
units
will
actually
have
to
match
the
R4
District
standards
rather
than
the
specified
under.
Excuse
me,
the
specified
overlay
District
standards
all
right,
so
the
there
was
a
call
for
and
the
elimination
of
parking
requirements.
We
did
that
through
this
simple
sentence,
so
the
resolution
identified
the
need
for
pedestrian
scale
development
standards
for
first
floor
residential
uses.
AB
This
will
be
achieved
in
a
number
of
ways
within
the
overlay.
The
first
is
that
multi-family
dwellings
along
a
street
identified
in
the
transportation
plan,
as
Main
Street,
shared
Street
or
general
Urban,
as
well
as
those
along
the
B-Line
Trail,
will
will
be
required
to
be
set
back
20
feet
behind
the
buildings
facade
front
facing
facade.
So
this
matches,
what's
in
the
greater
downtown,
specifically
downtown
edges
and
areas
like
that.
AB
AB
Dwelling
units
will
have
a
front
building
wall
which
faces
a
street
or
excuse
me,
dwelling
units
which
have
a
front
building
wall
that
faces
a
street
will
be
raised
two
to
five
feet
above
the
sidewalk
level.
So
this
will
raise
windows
and
some
private
entrances
along
sidewalks,
increasing
privacy
from
the
street
and
still
allowing
Windows
to
be
built
along
the
building,
facade
activated
front
setbacks
are
required
so
front
back.
Setbacks
will
be
not
be
allowed
to
generate
dead
space
and
will
be
required
to
provide
landscaping
or
outdoor
commercial
uses,
which
will
promote
walkability.
AB
AB
Ground
floor,
residential
facades
will
be
required
to
be
at
least
20
percent
glass
or
framed
facade.
This
will
reduce
the
amount
of
blank
uninterrupted
walls,
while
still
offering
some
privacy
for
dwelling
units
along
the
ground
floor
and
then
the
maximum
building
floor
plate
within
the
overlay
will
be
limited
to
5
000
square
feet
without
achieving
affordable
housing
incentives.
This
will
reduce
the
length
of
buildings
and
breakup
facades.
More
often
all
right.
So
these
are
the
eight
items
that
the
resolution
gave
guidance
for
and
then
planning
in
planning
transportation.
AB
In
reviewing
the
and
crafting
the
ordinance,
we
proposed
a
couple
of
extra
ones
that
we
believe
meet
the
comprehensive
plans
goals
and
will
hopefully
promote
desirable
developments.
So
the
first
is
a
modification
to
the
allowed
use
table
which
will
extend,
expand,
permitted
uses
to
include
more
dwelling
uses.
So
this
will
these
these
uses
will
be
permitted
to
you
with
use
specific
standards
anywhere
within
the
overlay.
Other
uses
that
are
seen
as
incompatible
with
higher
density
residential
areas
have
been
excluded.
You
can
see
the
list
here.
AB
New
specifics
use,
specific
standards
have
been
proposed
for
multi-family
dwellings
and
restaurant
uses
within
the
overlay
due
to
the
increased
impervious
surface
coverage
on
properties
within
the
overlay
as
standard
to
require
that
all
entrances
and
drives
and
surface
level
parking
lots
be
constructed
solely
of
permeable.
Pavers
has
been
included.
AB
AB
The
maximum
Fuller
plate
for
properties
within
the
overlay
has
been
limited
to
5
000
square
feet
without
the
use
of
incentives,
so
the
incentives
have
actually
been
modified
slightly
from
what
they
currently
are.
If
you
achieve,
if
a
developer
were
to
achieve
affordable
or
sustainable
development
incentives
that
can
increase
their
maximum
floor
plate
to
ten
thousand
square
feet,
if
they
achieve
both,
they
can
do
20
000
square
feet.
AB
Additionally,
there
is
an
increase
for
height
that
exists
elsewhere
in
the
Udo,
but
has
been
modified
again.
If
you
have
a
developer
were
to
achieve
tier
one
projects,
they
would
be
allowed
in
a
primary
structure,
height
of
an
additional
two
stories
same
for
tier
two,
and
then,
if
you
were
to
achieve
both
tier
one
and
tier
two,
you
would
get
both.
AB
So
you
could
have
four
additional
stories
potentially
and
then,
if
you
obtain
the
housing
incentive
or
affordable
housing
incentives,
as
well
as
the
sustainability
incentives,
you
would
get
that
extra
half
that
you
already
would
get
in
the
udl
and
then
the
a
new
feature
of
the
overlay
only
within
the
overlay
is
departures.
So
departures
have
been
added
in
order
to
allow
greater
flexibility
and
Architectural
design.
AB
Departures
will
join
other
similar,
similar
flexibility
and
relief
procedures,
including
minor
modifications
and
variances,
as
an
alternative
mean
of
means
of
compliance.
Departures
are
intended
to
allow
for
form-based
adjustments
to
the
requirements
of
the
Udo.
The
departure
must
meet
the
goals
and
the
specific
standards
while
achieving
or
providing
exceptional
architectural
design,
something
that
would
not
otherwise
be
allowed.
Specifically
so
request
for
departures
are
required
to
receive
approval
from
the
director
of
planning
and
transportation
prior
to
being
reviewed
by
a
plan.
AB
Commission,
the
director
must
find
that
a
site
and
building
design
offer
a
unique
and
beneficial
design
and
all
site
plans
which
will
require
a
departure
must
be
reviewed
under
the
requirements
of
a
major
site
plan,
approval,
which
means
they
will
go
to
plan
commission
for
final
approval.
AB
So
the
standards
of
the
overlay
were
intentionally
designed
by
this
planning
staff
to
allow
for
future
expansion
of
the
overlay
either
within
the
Hopewell
neighborhood.
It's
a
master
plan
itself,
master
plan
area
itself
or
within
other
areas
in
the
city.
The
comprehensive
plan,
as
you
well
know,
has
several
areas
that
have
been
identified
as
Focus
areas,
one
of
which
is
the
Hopewell
neighborhood.
AB
So
the
standards
of
the
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
were
designed
to
encourage
the
same
Investments
and
growth,
so
the
overlay
will
become
an
additional
tool
for
plant
Commission
in
this
body
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
city
all
right.
So
with
that
the
plan
commission
voted
7-0
to
forward
this
petition
to
Common
council
with
favorable
recommendation
and
I
can
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
A
C
G
Asked
to
be
a
sponsor
for
some
technical
Corrections
that
were
just
omissions
and
typographical
errors.
Do
I
need
to
read
the
list
of
Corrections.
G
G
A
So
do
we
have
a
second
for
Amendment,
one
right,
moved
and
seconded
and
any
questions
from
Council
on
that
I
mean
if
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
read
the
packet
I
suppose
you
could
go
over
some
highlights,
but
if
we
don't
need
to
do
that,
we'll
go
to
the
public
to
see.
If
there
are
any
comments.
I
A
H
F
E
A
M
Of
course,
my
questions
are
about
parking.
They.
M
You've
referenced
a
reduction
in
the
maximum
parking
of
50
percent.
Could
you
please
repeat
that
point.
M
Can
you
tell
us
what
that
means
practically,
because
I
can't
find
the
table
I
have
the
Udo
up,
but
I
can't
search
it
to
find
the
table
that
it
amends.
What
is
the
maximum
parking
requirement
currently
in
that
area?.
AB
M
Okay,
so
it
depends
on
the
use-
yes,
in
other
words,
okay,
all
right,
but
just
to
reiterate
the
there
is
no
longer
a
minimum
parking
requirement
in
this
overlay,
whether
as
a
result
of
this
ordinance
correct,
very
good.
Thank
you.
G
You,
madam
chair
Mr,
robling
I,
had
a
conversation
with
somebody
after
it
was
previewed
it
at
a
Works,
Council
ball
or
something.
How
does
this
affect?
How
does
the
overlay
affect
existing
buildings
and
business
functions
that
are
there
now.
AB
Udo
has
rules
for
compliance
on
properties;
it
doesn't
retroactively,
do
anything
so
if
they
were
to
change
their
use
or
expand,
their
use.
I
think
depends
on
the
exact
rules,
but
it's
often
30
percent.
If
you
were
to
expand
or
change
a
use,
then
you
have
to
come
into
limited
compliance
or
full
compliance.
That's
when
the
new
overlay
rules
May
apply.
It
depends
on
the
exact
use
that
you're
doing
single
family
houses
wouldn't
have
an
issue
with
that.
For
example,
yeah.
G
I
think
this
gentleman's
most
concerns
were:
he
has
a
building
in
that
area
and
he
was
worried
about
alleys
and
and
all
that
and
and
he
was
concerned
that
this
might
mean
that
those
were
going
to
be
changed
or
he
was
going
to
have
to
you
know
something
different
was
going
to
happen
and
considering
it
a
burden
on
on
him
and
so
I
I
promised
I
would
ask
him
you
know
during
regular
session.
So
thank
you.
AB
Yeah
I'll
just
say
that,
yes,
he
came
to
plan
commission,
we
heard
him
speak
and
yes,
his
use
should
never
be
affected
unless
it
were
to
be
deactivated
for
a
certain
amount
of
time
and
reactivated.
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
believe.
His
issue
is
an
actual
issue
that
he
has
to
worry
about
anytime
soon.
A
E
E
Okay,
so
those
exist
on
site.
How
will
that
be
utilized?
Has
there
been
any?
Is
there
anything
definitive
about
that.
AC
This
is
Scott
Robinson,
director
of
planning
and
Transportation
council
member
Rollo.
No,
there
has
been
no
decision
on
that
time
for
the
garage
it
currently
is
not
under
City
ownership.
E
Okay
could
could
I
continue
with
a
couple
brief
questions
Madam
chair,
so
regarding
the
going
from
a
maximum
of
5
000
square
feet
per
building
plate
to
to
ten
thousand
or
twenty
thousand
in
terms
of
incentives
with
this
of
this
word
presumably
affects
building
facades
and
carve
outs
and
Courtyards
Etc.
Would
it
or
are
those
to
be
maintained
in
building
facades.
E
AB
Okay,
yes,
yes,
if
you
were
to
achieve
the
incentives,
you
could
expand
the
facade
of
the
building.
Definitely
yes
and.
AB
Things
like
the
Courtyard
would
expand
at
the
same
rate,
it's
five
percent
of
the
building,
foreplay,
no
matter
what
that
number
is,
for
instance,
oh.
E
It
would
okay,
yes,
you
know.
My
last
question
is
about
the
material
allowed
use.
Could
you
go
back
to
that
because
I
had
just
had
a
probably
a
minor
question,
but
one
of
the
one
of
the
loud
materials
was
stucco
I,
think
that
is
not
equivalent
to
ethos.
Is
it.
AB
No
ephes
is
still
specifically
barred.
It's
a
prohibitive
okay,
facade,
material.
E
Okay,
so
this
is
some
other
material
that
isn't
well
I
would
assume
it's
durability
is
going
to
be
better
than
ethus,
which
is
very
poor.
Okay,
I'm
satisfied.
Thank
you
very
much.
L
Yes,
I
wanted
to
follow
up
on
council
member
rolla's
question
about
the
facades
of
buildings
that
where
the
developer
has
taken
advantage
of
one
of
the
incentives-
and
so
it's
I
thought
15
000
was
the
largest.
Can
it
get
up
to
20
000
square
feet.
L
Years,
yes,
and
so
for
the
downtown
overlay
we
have
rules
about
when
there
are,
you
know
larger
facades
longer
facades
that
there
has
to
be
articulation
and
variance
variation
of
depth,
and
things
like
that
are
there
rules
like
that
here
in
this
overlay
as
well.
AB
They
know
they've
been
replaced
by
the
addition
of
the
Courtyard
and
other
items
like
that
they
were
removed
because
we
hear
a
lot
from
Architects
and
developers
that
they
produce
the
same
building
every
time
to
meet
those
requirements.
So
this
is
for
lack
of
a
better
word,
a
test
experiment
type
so
that
we
get
the
same
results,
but
without
the
I
mean
cookie
cutter
design,
hopefully
that
that's
potential
or
partially
the
goal
I
should
say.
L
Can
you
explain
a
little
more
how
the
interior,
Courtyards
and
I
don't
I
didn't
catch?
What
the
other
thing
was
that
how
the
overlay
would
prevent
kind
of
a
monolithic,
same
facade
over
an
extended
length,
yeah.
AB
So
the
goal
of
the
courtyard
was
that
you
would
break
up
the
facade
through
an
actual
physical
means
and
then
the
within
the
setback
or
excuse
me
the
build
to
range
for
the
front
setback
you're
allowed
to
go
in
and
out
of
that
and
encouraged
through
the
use
of
the
Court
heart
and
yard
and
the
front
setback
Landscaping
requirement.
So
we're
trying
to
achieve
similar
goals
of
breaking
up
the
building
the
monolithic
building,
but
not
doing
it
through
architectural
requirements.
But
but
doing
it.
Physical
replacement
or
physical
space
requirement.
M
M
AB
I,
don't
suspect
a
commercial
laundry
is
coming,
but
I
do
understand
the
question,
and
that
is
something
we
could
look
at
at
the
spring.
Update
of
the
Udo,
and
in
fact
I
suspected
is
something
development
services
is
reviewing
so
so.
AB
E
I,
do
I
forgot
to
ask
about
the
architectural
design
and
quality
that's
going
to
be
essentially
presented
to
planning
staff
planning
staff
is
going
to
make
some
decisions
about
the
quality
before
it
goes
to
plan
Commission,
I,
assume
and
I'm
wondering
by
the
time
it
goes
to
the
plan.
Commission
are:
are
they
going
to
have
just
two-dimensional,
renderings
I?
Remember
the
we
had
some
discussion
in
the
past
about
3D.
E
You
know
models
of
development
proposals,
petitions
that
would
give
the
playing
Commissioners
a
sense
of
the
size
and
the
and
the
scale
of
these
of
these
buildings
and
how
they
relate
to
one
another
and
what
they
may
look
like.
E
AB
Sure
so
I'll
answer
the
second
part.
First,
the
criteria
have
been
added.
They
hopefully
are
clear,
but
the
for
what's
submitted
the
same
rules
as
apply
elsewhere
in
the
Udo
apply
here
and
plan.
Commission
always
has
the
right
to
ask
the
petitioner
for
extra
information,
whether
that
be
the
3D
model,
which
is
required,
for
instance,
in
the
downtown
or
architectural
details.
They
can
ask
for
modifications
or
changes
and
just
to
continue
it,
and
then
the
same
applies
to
the
director.
E
AB
E
AB
A
L
L
So
what
is
the
rationale
behind
that
and
yeah?
Let
me
start
with
that
and
then
follow
up.
AB
Sure
so
the
rationale
is:
it
only
applies
to
the
identified
streets
in
the
thorough
plan,
which
means
they
are
well
traveled.
So
this
is
the
combat
the
issue
you
kind
of
see
in
the
downtown
not
too
far
along
here
on
Morton.
There
are
Apartments
right
on
the
street.
You
can
see
right
into
that
and
then
you,
basically
they
shutter
the
window
permanently.
So
we
were
trying
to
encourage
usable
space,
but
that
is
not
a
dwelling
unit.
AB
Essentially
so
it
can
be
a
Lobby
or
a
hallway,
but
it
just
won't
be
someone's
home
and
that'll
be
set
back
from
the
busier
streets
along.
You
know:
less
well-traveled
streets
there's
some
flexibility
within
that,
but
the
idea
was
only
along
heavily
traveled
streets,
where
we
expect
lots
of
Walkers
lots
of
bicycle
Travelers
lots
of
cars
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
easily
see
into
someone's
home.
L
Thank
you.
So
my
follow-up,
then,
is:
is
there
anything
in
here
to
prevent
what
I
see
like
at
stage
Yard
Apartments
300
block
of
South
Walnut,
where
you're
just
looking
at
an
empty
hallway.
AB
L
W
L
Okay,
do
we
in
any
part
of
the
Udo
or
any
part
of
the
city,
do
we
require
public
art
or
some
kind
of
more
interesting
pedestrian
pedestrian
facing
facade
for
residential.
A
I
Yes,
I'll
extend
the
invitation
again
to
folks
on
Zoom.
If
you'd
like
to
comment
on
ordinance
2236,
please
use
the
race
hand
feature
to.
Let
us
know
you
can
find
that
in
your
in
your
control
bar
under
the
reactions,
tab
or
the
more
tab.
You
can
also
send
a
chat
to
the
meeting
host
to.
Let
us
know
you'd
like
to
speak.
M
A
quick
point
of
order:
the
people
who
are
on
Zoom
are
much
more
audible
than
people
in
the
room
and
I
just
ask
everyone:
who's
got
a
microphone
to
get
closer
to
it,
or
maybe
we
can
Up
the
Volume
a
little
bit.
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
all
I
know
is
that
it's
much
less
difficult
to
hear
a
zoom
speakers
than
it
is
people
in
the
room.
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you
to
staff
for
the
presentation
and
your
work
on
this
I.
Think
Mr
Lucas
said
that
this
is
sort
of
the
first
time
in
memory
that
the
council
has
directed
a
change
of
some
kind
to
the
Udo
and
I
appreciate
that
it's
a
systems
level
thing
setting
the
rules
adjusting
those
types
of.
Thank
you
adjusting
those
types
of
parameters,
I,
also
like
the
the
forward-looking,
forward-thinking
approach
that
that
staff
took
with
with
respect
to
an
overlay
that
might
we
might
learn
something
from
and
it
could
be
used
elsewhere.
Q
Also,
it's
been
sort
of
a
persistent
problem
in
the
downtown
for
first
floor
residential
uses
to
have
that
three
foot:
five
foot
setback,
zero
foot
vertical
raise
living,
room
or
bedroom.
That
sort
of
is
not
a
pleasant
place
to
live
and
and
it's
very
awkward
to
sort
of
pass
by,
so
that
minimum
vertical
rise
will
will
help
on
that.
Q
So
I
think
it's
a
lot
and
similarly
you
know
reducing
parking
minimum,
seeing
what
the
appetite
is
among
developers
to
cater
to
folks
who
who
don't
need
that,
like
the
formerly
what
was
formerly
called
The
Bicycle
Apartments,
you
know
at
Madison
and
and
the
fourth
things
like
that.
So
it's
it's
a
good
trial
to
to
see
some
of
that
as
well
and
I
appreciate
the
work
that's
got
into
it.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
I
want
to
Echo
councilmember
Flaherty's
comments
and
say
that
I
think
that
what
we're
looking
at
with
the
tro
is
the
future
of
the
area
that
has
increasingly
grown
under
the
definition
downtown
that
the
ideas
in
it
are
good
for
pretty
much
every
aspect
of
downtown,
not
simply
the
Hopewell
overlay.
But
it's
a
great
place
to
demonstrate
some
of
the
details.
Again.
Parking
is
just
one
example:
there's
a
lot
of
expectations
that
we
have
about
parking
that
are
just
not
founded.
We
certainly
haven't
seen
any
detriment
in
the
developments
south
of
Fourth
Street.
M
M
I'll
also
point
out
that,
if
there's
a
logic
to
keeping
the
the
parking
garage
from
the
hospital,
it's
the
same
logic,
the
only
really
valid
logic
behind
the
trades
District
garage,
which
was
that
by
building
it
and
centralizing
the
expectation
that
there
would
be
a
demand
for
structured
parking
and
centralizing
it
in
a
single
building
that
the
buildings
that
will
be
built
near,
it
would
not
need
to
add
their
own
structured
parking,
which
is
a
very
expensive
and
relatively
valueless
component
of
a
typical
apartment
or
office
building.
M
So
if
that
garage
can
be
surrounded
by
apartment
buildings
and
Office
Buildings
that
find
themselves
not
needing
to
add
structured
parking,
the
developer
benefits
the
people
renting
office
space
or
buying
condos
or
renting
apartments,
and
them
benefit
from
not
having
to
pay
extra
for
the
embedded
cost
of
parking
in
the
structured
parking
in
the
building.
Everyone
benefits
from
development
immediately
around
and
nearby
to
that
garage
that
as
chew
parking
as
a
result,
so
I'm
very
excited
about,
what's
going
to
happen
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
the
results
in
the
next
few
years.
P
Afford
to
see
changes
in
this
district.
One
thing
to
point
out
is
that
the
changed
minimum
lot
size
for
for
properties
down
to
15,
00
square
feet,
I
think
that's
really
exciting,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
folks
might
want
to
own
or
rent
a
property,
but
not
have
all
that
land
to
take
care
of
so
very
excited
to
see
how
that
turns.
Thank
you.
A
C
F
A
E
Y
H
D
B
Ordinance
2237
to
amend
the
city
of
Bloomington
zoning
maps
by
adding
the
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
to
certain
below
described
property.
The
synopsis
is
as
follows:
ordinance
2237
would
add
a
zoning
overlay
to
properties
in
the
Hopewell
neighborhood
located
in
and
around
the
former
Indiana
University
Hospital
location.
A
AB
Have
a
brief
one
slide
explanation
of
the
map
you
guys
proposed
very
good.
AB
L
Yes,
I
I,
just
kind
of
overlaid
that
map
with
the
the
zoning
map
to
see
which
zoning
districts
are
exists
within
those
boundaries
and
so
I'm
just
curious.
There's
a
strip
there,
just
south
of
Maple
Street,
that's
am
I
mixed
institutional.
L
Is
that
an
area
where
Bloomington
Hospital
is
still
going
to
have
some
property
or
what's
the
institutional
nature
of
that?
Can
you
remind
us.
D
M
L
I
G
B
C
H
H
A
R
B
Ordinance
2238
to
amend
the
city
of
Bloomington
zoning
maps
by
rezoning
of
87.12,
acre
property
from
mixed
use;
employment
to
mixed-use
institutional
regarding
the
northeast
corner
of
West,
Fullerton
Pike
and
South
State
Road
37,
Monroe,
County
government
petitioner.
The
synopsis
is
as
follows:
ordinance
2238
degrees
on
87.12
Acres,
from
mixed
employment
to
mix
East
institutional.
A
F
D
A
B
Yes,
appropriation,
ordinance,
2006
and
ordinance
appropriating
the
proceeds
of
the
city
of
Bloomington
Indiana
General
Revenue
annual
appropriation
bonds
of
2022,
together
with
all
investment
earnings
thereon
for
the
purpose
of
providing
funds
to
be
applied
to
the
costs
of
certain
Capital
Improvements
for
Public
Safety
facilities
and
paying
miscellaneous
costs
in
connection
with
the
foregoing
and
the
issuance
of
said
bonds
and
sale
thereof,
and
approving
an
agreement
of
the
Bloomington
Redevelopment
commission
to
purchase
certain
certain
property.
The
synopsis
is
as
follows.
E
F
B
B
H
A
B
B
Cbmc
asked
me
and
also
a
change
affecting
one
additional
job
title.
The
synopsis
is
as
follows:
this
ordinance
amends
ordinance
2226,
which
set
the
maximum
2023
salary
for
all
appointed
officers,
non-union
and
afscme
employees
for
all
the
Departments
of
the
city
of
Bloomington
Indiana.
The
changes
reflect
the
cert,
the
recent
execution
of
a
collective
bargaining
agreement
between
the
city
of
Bloomington
and
local
2487c,
cbme
afscme,
and
also
a
change
affecting
one
additional
job
title
unrelated
to
the
collective
bargaining
agreement.
B
I
Yes,
before
moving
to
that,
just
a
quick
note
next
week
will
be
the
last
meeting
of
the
year
that
you
have
scheduled
other
than
the
three
items
that
were
just
read
into
the
record.
There
will
be
I
think
at
the
moment
the
plan
is
to
have
three
interlocal
agreement.
Resolutions
come
to
the
council,
dealing
with
animal
shelter,
operations,
building
code,
Authority
between
the
city
and
county
and
Justice
assistance
grant
funds.
Those
are
annual
resolutions
and
again,
given
the
busy
schedule,
I'd
encourage
folks
to
reach
out
ahead
of
the
meeting
to
the
relevant
staff
members.
I
If
you
have
questions
on
those
since
next
week
will
be
busy
beyond
that.
Yes,
the
council
has
yet
to
adopt
an
annual
schedule
for
2023.
Last
week
the
council
was
discussing
two
different
options:
A
and
B,
just
to
note
that
a
revision
to
option
b
was
made
today
and
sent
out
in
a
a
packet
addendum.
The
revision
changed
the
departmental
budget
hearings
in
August
to
have
those
confined
to
one
week,
I
believe
August
28th
through
the
31st
previously
in
option
b.
I
Those
were
spread
out
across
five
days
across
two
weeks,
and
so
this
revision
consolidates
those
back
to
the
the
typical
four
four-day
approach.
I
believe
that
was
the
only
change
to
either
schedule
since
last
week.
Happy
to
answer
questions
or
or
go
into
any
more
detail
all.
M
I
M
Mean
I
don't
mind
six
but
I
think
to
cut
to
5
PM
is
to
early,
but
5
30
isn't
unreasonable
and
so
I'll
still
maintain
that
and
I'm
looking
for
a
second
second.
M
Need
just
a
brief
statement
again
like
the
departmental
hearings
are
four
four
and
a
half
hours
on
average.
If
we
start
at
5,
30
we'll
definitely
be
done
by
10
most
nights.
M
You
know,
I
can't
vouch
for
public
works.
You
know
they.
They
love
budget
time,
but
that's
just
a
dig.
It's
an
unfair
dig,
but
otherwise
I
feel
like.
If
we're
going
to
move
budget
time
up,
six
has
always
felt
arbitrarily
I
mean
why
not
just
meet
at
6
30..
So
if
we
really
are
serious
about
getting
out
earlier
budget
week
since
it's
a
heavy
week,
5
30
I
think
would
be
better
than
five,
but
also
better
than
six.
Thanks
all.
Q
A
I
I
I
just
a
quick
comment
from
Council
staff.
I
just
wanted
to
note.
This
will
be
a
a
different
approach
that
from
what
the
council's
done
in
the
past,
so
I
I
would
ask
that
you
all
give
each
other
some
some
patience
and
some
understanding
as
we
work
through
what
will
be
a
new,
a
new
approach
to
the
council's
legislative
process.
Staff
will
do
our
best
to
work
through
issues
if
there
are
issues
we'll
bring
those
to
your
attention,
but
just
wanted
to
make
that
comment.
M
Just
briefly,
I
I
appreciate
the
work
that
councilman
flared
in
I
believe
Piedmont
Smith
did
to
put
this
together.
It's
an
Innovative
approach.
It
resolves
a
lot
of
conflict
that
we've
had
this
year
and
it
it
I
mean
I.
Do
support
also
the
idea
that
customer
Flaherty
has
floated
about
enabling
sort
of
automatic
third
readings
I'm,
not
sure
that
any
one
member
of
council
should
be
able
to
demand
a
third
reading.
M
Even
though
I
myself
have
recommended
that
I
took
I
took
some
interest
in
the
way
that
we
amended
the
reasonable
hour
ordinance
so
that
it
required
two
members
to
close
a
meeting
at
midnight
in
the
same
way,
I
feel
like
if
we
were
to
to
have
two
members
requesting
more
time.
That
ought
to
be
enough,
but
that's
something
we
can
discuss
in
the
early
2023
when
we
discuss
other.
M
You
know
many
pressing
issues
of
order
and
process.
So
with
that
I
urge
my
colleagues
to
support
draft
B.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
the
sponsors.
I
think
that
this
is
a
very
interesting
approach
and
I'm
certainly
willing
to
try
it
like
councilman
rivoland
I've,
been
sort
of
mulling
over
this
idea
of
looking
for
a
change
in
our
procedure
to
protect,
protect
the
minority,
and
you
know
that
was
suggested
to
be
action
taken
in
a
second
reading.
That
would
require
unanimous
consent,
I'm
still,
as
council
member
of
Olin
said,
I'm
still
mulling
over
whether
this
is
should
be
required.
E
You
know
perhaps
two
members,
so
I
look
forward
to
discussing
that
later,
I'm
satisfied
that
we
could
make
that
decision
at
a
later
date
and
so
I'll
be
supporting
the
schedule.
Thank
you.
G
Q
There's
been
some
adjustments
to
this
and
with
respect
to
how
to
strike
the
right
balance
of
flexibility
by
going
to
Second
reading,
but
also
without
a
committee
recommendation,
but
also
having
more
time
if
members
reasonably
need
it
for
an
amendment
or
further
consideration
or
questions
that
can't
be
answered
on
on
the
evening
of
its
initial
substantive
consideration,
I'm
confident
we
can
find
the
right
balance
and
work
on
that
collectively
in
the
new
year
likely
in
the
form
of
a
committee,
but
I
would
also
just
encourage-
and
I
mentioned
this
via
email
to
my
colleagues
and
sort
of
the
adoption
of
a
norm
of
of
reasonably
granting
folks
time,
if
requested,
and
while
we
work
on
that
question
and
I
think
that's
been
our
general
practice,
but
just
wanted
to
speak
in
favor
of
that.