Common Council Regular Session

Bloomington Common Council-Regular Session Minutes Bloomington City Hall, Council Chambers, 401 N. Morton Street, Bloomington, Indiana Wednesday, December 17, 2025, 6:30pm CALL TO ORDER [6:31pm] Council President Stosberg called the meeting to order. 1. ROLL CALL (* indicates participation via Zoom) [6:31pm] Members: Isak Nti Asare At-Large Courtney Daily District 5, Council Parliamentarian Matt Flaherty At-Large Isabel Piedmont-Smith District 1, Council Vice President Dave Rollo District 4 Kate Rosenbarger District 2 Andy Ruff At-Large Hopi Stosberg District 3, Council President Sydney Zulich District 6 City staff, officials, and guests present: Nicole Bolden City Clerk Lisa Lehner Council Attorney Kari Bennett Deputy Council Attorney Christine Chang Temporary Legal Research Specialist David Hittle Planning & Transportation, Director Enedina Kassamanian Legal, Assistant City Attorney Andrea de la Rosa Economic & Sustainable Development, Assistant Director of Small Business Development Aleksandrina Pratt Legal, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Knapp Deputy Mayor Jessica McClellan City Controller Noah Sandweiss Housing & Neighborhood Department, Program Manager Christopher Wheeler Legal, Assistant City Attorney Eric Greulich Planning & Transportation, Development Services Manager 2. AGENDA SUMMATION [6:31pm] Stosberg thanked city staff, especially Public Works for removal of snow, and administrative staff. She appreciated Christine Chang and thanked her for her work on her last day as council staff. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [6:37pm] Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded to approve the minutes of August 18, 2025, August 20, 2025, August 25, 2025, and August 27, 2025. The motion was approved by voice vote. 4. REPORTS [6:38pm] 4.1. Councilmembers Rosenbarger reported about a Redevelopment Commission (RDC) meeting where RDC-owned College Square lot was discussed. It was being considered for a hotel for the Convention Center expansion. The lot was an exciting opportunity to develop a variety of things like housing and more. She discussed another city-owned property on North College Avenue. Flaherty commented on the RDC and thanked the members and Jane Kupersmith, Economic and Sustainable Development (ESD), Director, and Anna Killion-Hanson, Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND), Director for meeting with council at a work session. He hoped the city’s fiscal body would be included in major fiscal decisions in the future. He noted the RDC commissioners Cassady, McRobbie, and Meyerson for confirming that the RDC did not intend to give away a $7 million piece of property to a private hotelier as a subsidy for a host hotel for the Convention Center. He spoke about city- and county-owned land, funding sources for the expansion, the Food and Beverage Tax to be the sole funding by the city, and options for the city and county to work together.  Meeting Date: December 17, 2025 Ruff thanked council leadership for their work that year. He appreciated the bipartisan vote to reject redistricting in Indiana. Rollo mentioned his and Ruff’s upcoming constituent meeting. Piedmont-Smith spoke about President Donald Trump administration’s violation of the United States Constitution. Mr. Trump had declared war on drug cartels as unlawful combatants, and over eighty people had been killed, in violation of international law. She referenced the American Constitution Society website which said the war was against an amorphous foe with United States’ missiles striking people on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific. Mr. Trump had threatened to invade Venezuela. She pointed out the broad consensus among international law experts that the US military campaign violated international law. It was important to continue shedding light on these types of actions. Stosberg appreciated that redistricting in Indiana had failed. She noted her constituent meetings. 4.2. The Mayor and City Offices David Hittle, Director of Planning and Transportation (P&T) Department, reported on the Housing / Attainability Project in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The purpose was to increase housing / attainability. He referenced the Comprehensive Plan and discussed housing supply goals. He discussed peer cities, populations, housing costs, housing pressures and fears, zoning and districts, and housing types in zones. He spoke about housing diversity, and hoped that other types of housing, not just single- family homes, would be given a chance. He described cottage developments, by-right appropriately scaled multi-units, like duplexes and triplexes (with conditions), and current rentals. Hittle gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), splitting lots, subdivision regulations, zoning regulations, and off-campus student housing. He spoke about short-term rentals of /which there were about four hundred in the city. He discussed improving old processes like permitting, coordination with Indiana University (IU), and the UDO amendment timeline. / Stosberg extended the time for this section of the meeting by/ 5 minutes, until 7:21pm, without objection. Rollo commented on owner-occupied homes and asked /about a cap on rentals. Hittle said that was an option, but it was important not to diminish rentals. Zulich asked about campus-adjacent neighborhoods given that the city’s population was more than 50%/ students. Hittle said it was expected that students live near campus, and noted the concern from /residents was about redeveloped lots for student housing. There was discussion on luxury, multifamily buildings and student housing. Zulich questioned the negative way in which students were discussed. / Stosberg extended the time for this section of the meeting by 3 minutes, until 7:25pm. Flaherty noted the importance of not stigmatizing or vilifying any set of residents. He asked what council’s role was in the timeline. Hittle said by March the housing attainability packet would be complete and he suggested continuing/ the discussion between staff and council. Input from council and the public was crucial. Flaherty stressed / the importance of obtaining input from the beginning since there had been issues in the past with council being blindsided by the administration. / 4.3. Council Committees Piedmont-Smith, Chair, Committee on Council Processes, reviewed the committee’s consideration on moving the general provisions for boards and commission in the Bloomington Municipal Code (BMC), allowing discussion of legislation at first reading, allowing a consent agenda, and possibly requiring councilmember sponsorship for each legislation on the agenda. 4.4. Public Christopher Emge, Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, reflected on council’s work over the year. Paul Rousseau appreciated councilmember constituent meetings. He spoke about public comment period, sidewalks, snow violations, and student enrollment. 5. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS [7:35pm] There were no appointments to boards and commissions. 2  Meeting Date: December 17, 2025 6. LEGISLATION FOR FIRST READINGS [7:35pm] There was no legislation for first reading. 7. LEGISLATION FOR SECOND READINGS AND RESOLUTIONS [7:04pm] 7.1. Ordinance 2025-19 To Amend Title 15 of The Bloomington Municipal Code Entitled “Removal And Impound of Vehicles” Re: Chapters 15.48 and 15.52 – Updating Permissible Towing and Storage Charges for Authorized Towing Services Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded that Ordinance 2025-19 be introduced and read by title and synopsis only. The motion was approved by voice vote. Clerk Nicole Bolden read the legislation by title and synopsis. Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded to adopt Ordinance 2025-19. Enedina Kassamanian, Assistant City Attorney, summarized the legislation. Sergeant Jacob Hunter, Bloomington Police Department (BPD), and towing companies were present to answer questions. Stosberg passed the gavel to Piedmont-Smith. Stosberg moved and Daily seconded that Amendment 04 to Ordinance 2025-19 be adopted. Stosberg presented Amendment 04. Amendment 04 Synopsis: This amendment, sponsored by Councilmember Stosberg, amends the time period after which storage fees may be charged from twelve to twenty-four hours and requires business hours to be defined in the contractual agreement between the police and tow companies. There were no council questions. There was no public comment. Daily thanked Stosberg, noted the previous meeting’s discussion, and said she would vote yes. Stosberg thanked staff, council staff, and BPD for helping to refine the amendment language. The motion to adopt Amendment 04 to Ordinance 2025-19 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 9, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0. Piedmont-Smith passed the gavel back to Stosberg. Ruff moved and Rollo seconded that Amendment 05 to Ordinance 2025-19 as amended be adopted. Ruff presented the amendment. Amendment 05 Synopsis: This amendment, sponsored by Councilmember Ruff, allows a towing service to charge an administrative fee not to exceed $25. Piedmont-Smith asked if the $25 fee was in addition to the $25 fee to the city. Ruff said yes. Stosberg asked what the fee was for. Ruff said it was administrative, since towing companies had to ensure citations were paid before releasing vehicles. Bolden clarified tow companies were not charged for verifying that citations were paid. There was discussion on fees and towing costs for vehicle owners and towing companies. Staff did not have a position on Amendment 05 because there had not been time to consider it. Cody Chandler, Chandler Automotive and Towing, said Indiana University (IU) and Monroe County allowed the fee and explained why it was needed. Towing companies were required to verify that city parking citations were paid before releasing the car. Ken Parish, Ken’s Westside Service and Towing, clarified when the $25 fee was charged and the process and problems with towing due to parking citations and miscommunication from Parking Services. The towing company also had to contact the owner of the car and any lien holders. Cameron Mizell, Bland’s Wrecker Service, said there were many indirect costs associated with towing for the city. The $25 fee did not cover the administrative costs for all city-initiated tows. Sergeant Jacob Hunter clarified the process of releasing a towed vehicle that was not initiated by the car owner. BPD did not believe the fee was necessary, but understood tow companies’ stance. He explained 3  Meeting Date: December 17, 2025 the difference between police-initiated tows and tows due to parking citations. The administrative burden for towing companies was having to communicate back and forth with Parking Services. Zulich thanked the towing company representatives and said she had been persuaded to vote yes. Flaherty stated he would vote no because a council meeting was not the proper process for determining business fees for towing companies. Ruff commented on the county and IU fees. Piedmont-Smith agreed with Flaherty. Rosenbarger said she did not have enough information to support the amendment due to its late distribution. Stosberg would vote no and gave reasons why. The motion to adopt Amendment 05 to Ordinance 2025-19 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 5 (Ruff, Rollo, Daily, Zulich, Asare), Nays: 4 (Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Stosberg, Rosenbarger), Abstain: 0. There were no council comments. Jacob Padawan, Tow Time Towing and Recovery, commented on types of towing, and fees for checking liens, abandoned vehicles, and requirements by the state. Ken Parish, Ken’s Westside Service and Towing, said towing companies had to notice car owners within seventy-two hours. Cameron Mizell, Bland’s Wrecker Service, reiterated that the legislation was for city-initiated tows. Piedmont-Smith believed the legislation and staff memo lacked information though there had been good discussion to address concerns. She urged staff to provide robust information so council could make the best decision possible. Flaherty spoke about requiring all legislation to have a councilmember as sponsor in order to minimize questions and concerns, and more. Rollo appreciated the informative comments from the public. Stosberg spoke about fees for certain types of tows and expressed concern over some towing practices. Asare clarified that the purpose was to cap what could be charged. Stosberg believed that per state code, charges were supposed to be itemized. The motion to adopt Ordinance 2025-19 as amended received a roll call vote of Ayes: 8, Nays: 1 (Stosberg), Abstain: 0. 7.2. Ordinance 2025-20 To Amend Chapter 4.32 of The Bloomington Municipal Code Entitled “Non-consensual Towing Business” Re: Updating Towing License Requirements and Permissible Towing and Storage Fees for Non- consensual Towing Services under Chapter 4.32 Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded that Ordinance 2025-20 be introduced and read by title and synopsis only. The motion was approved by voice vote. Bolden read the legislation by title and synopsis. Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded to adopt Ordinance 2025-20. Andrea de la Rosa, Assistant Director of Small Business Development, Economic and Sustainable Development, presented Ordinance 2025-20 and highlighted key points. There were no council questions. Stosberg passed the gavel to Piedmont-Smith. Stosberg moved and Daily seconded that Amendment 03 to Ordinance 2025-20 be adopted. Stosberg presented Amendment 03 relating to business hours, background checks, signage, and storage fees. Amendment 03 Synopsis: This amendment, sponsored by Councilmember Stosberg, establishes parameters for the business hours a towing company must keep and clarifies that the background check also applies to violations and fees from the City of Bloomington. It also modifies the signage requirements for parking lots, starting on July 1, 2026. This amendment also amends the time period after which storage fees may be charged from twelve to twenty-four hours. Ruff asked who was responsible for noncompliance. Stosberg believed it was the property owner. De la Rosa said staff believed there needed to be improvements to signage but perhaps with a longer period of time to comply. There was additional discussion on signage and timeline. Daily moved and Zulich seconded to adopt Amendment 01 to Amendment 03 to Ordinance 2025-20 to strike section 2. 4  Meeting Date: December 17, 2025 Piedmont-Smith preferred changing the effective date rather than striking the language on signage. Jacob Padawan, Tow Time Towing and Recovery, supported good signage. There was discussion on Amendment 01 to Amendment 03 and the effective date for new signage, the longevity of signs, and actions council could take that evening. Daily withdrew the motion to adopt Amendment 01 to Amendment 03. Asare moved and Flaherty seconded to amend Amendment 03 to Ordinance 2025-20 to reflect an implementation date of July 01, 2028. Amendment 01 to Amendment 03 Synopsis: This amendment, sponsored by Councilmember Asare, modifies the signage requirements for parking lots, starting on July 1, 2028. Stosberg explained the reasoning behind Amendment 03. The motion to adopt Amendment 01 to Amendment 03 to Ordinance 2025-20 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 9, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0. There were no council comments. The motion to adopt Amendment 03 as amended to Ordinance 2025-20 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 9, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0. Piedmont-Smith passed the gavel back to Stosberg. Ruff moved and Asare seconded that Amendment 04 to Ordinance 2025-20 as amended be adopted. Ruff presented the amendment. Amendment 04 Synopsis: This amendment, sponsored by Councilmember Ruff, allows a towing service to charge an administrative fee not to exceed $25. Piedmont-Smith asked about the administrative burden placed on tow companies and about regulations by the state. Ruff said the fee would cover the required record-keeping costs of impounded vehicles. Stosberg asked city attorneys about the state requirement to itemize all fees for car owners. She noted that Amendment 04 had not been vetted by the Legal department. Aleksandrina Pratt, Assistant City Attorney, referenced state code, but reiterated that Amendment 04 had not been presented to Legal until that day. There was additional discussion on requirements and fees. Jacob Padawan, Tow Time Towing and Recovery, discussed business costs and agreed that itemized fees should be used. He referenced an audit where he had to provide the city with documentation for a two year period, which required him to hire a new employee and took office staff two weeks to compile. Robert Chandler, Chandler Automotive and Towing, discussed being audited and required documentation and that the problem was having separate requirements for the city and state. Piedmont-Smith stated she would vote no because of the short notice. Stosberg said she would vote no because the fee needed to be better vetted. The motion to adopt Amendment 04 to Ordinance 2025-20 as amended received a roll call vote of Ayes: 6 (Ruff, Rollo, Daily, Zulich, Rosenbarger, Asare), Nays: 3 (Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Stosberg), Abstain: 0. Stosberg asked how it was decided if a vehicle needed special treatment equipment while towing. Robert Chandler, Chandler Automotive and Towing, said most tows received special treatment equipment due to parking angle, all-wheel drive, and not having keys. Jacob Padawan, Tow Time Towing and Recovery, said special equipment was almost always used and gave examples. Asare thanked the public; he would vote for the legislation. Flaherty also thanked the public. He commented that backed in, angled parking would save money for all. Ruff thanked his colleagues, staff, and the public. Rosenbarger thanked the public. She sometimes did not speak because there was so much discussion at meetings, so she opted out, but was paying attention. Stosberg better understood the damage-free, special treatment equipment and the administrative fee. 5  Meeting Date: December 17, 2025 The motion to adopt Ordinance 2025-20 as amended received a roll call vote of Ayes: 9, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0. 7.3. Resolution 2025-21 Resolution Acknowledging Receipt Of The Collective Bargaining Agreement Between The City Of Bloomington And American Federation Of State, County, And Municipal Employees For Calendar Years 2026, 2027, And 2028 And Pledging Fiscal Support Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded that Resolution 2025-21 be introduced and read by title and synopsis only. The motion was approved by voice vote (Rollo out of the room). Bolden read the legislation by title and synopsis. Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded to adopt Resolution 2025-21. Deputy Mayor Gretchen Knapp noted the productive bargaining session. She referenced the timeline, salary rates, meetings, an 82-7 approval vote, and costs. There would not be an additional appropriation. She discussed the new pay grades, salaries, and tenure. Stosberg asked about appropriations for the tenure steps and Knapp clarified that it was set for 2026. Asare asked about staffing level requirements in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Jessica McClellan, Controller, said the CBA did not have the contracted positions but the salary ordinance did. There was no public comment. Piedmont-Smith thanked those who worked on the CBA, and Stosberg concurred. Asare thanked all. There had been good support for the agreements, CBA, Fire, and Police. The motion to adopt Resolution 2025-21 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 9, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0. 7.4. Ordinance 2025-47 To Amend Title 8 Of The Bloomington Municipal Code, Entitled “Historic Preservation And Protection” To Establish A Historic District Re: The Ivan Adams House Historic District (Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission, Petitioner) Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded that Ordinance 2025-47 be introduced and read by title and synopsis only. The motion was approved by voice vote. Bolden read the legislation by title and synopsis. Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded to adopt Ordinance 2025-47. Clerk’s Note: Stosberg passed the gavel to Piedmont-Smith. Noah Sandweiss, Program Manager, Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), presented the legislation. He provided a background on the house and on Ivan Adams and his stone carver work, and discussed the requirements and qualifications for establishing a historic district. Piedmont-Smith passed the gavel back to Stosberg. Piedmont-Smith said it was unique to only list one property and asked if that had happened in the past. Sandweiss said yes and highlighted single structures that had been approved. Stosberg asked for clarification on the process for single structures. Sandweiss explained the process as well as the process for alterations to single structure properties. John Butler, property owner, spoke in favor of the request and gave reasons in support. He spoke about stone carvers. Sam DeSollar commented in favor of the historic designation and urged council and the mayor to fill vacant seats on the HPC. Amy Butler, property owner, discussed a variety of reasons in support of the request. Karen Duffy, HPC, spoke about the cultural significance of the structure. Daniel Schlegel, HPC and Director, History Center, gave many reasons in support. Piedmont-Smith asked if the property could become part of a larger district. Sandweiss said yes, the Cottage Grove Neighborhood, but the property should be judged on its own merit. Rollo appreciated the legislation and would support it because of the cultural significance involving limestone, and local heritage of the city. Zulich spoke in support of the request. The property owners had done robust community outreach in their neighborhood. Daily would support the request and 6  Meeting Date: December 17, 2025 appreciated the history of the property. Flaherty was hesitant because the historical association was not based on the architectural characteristics but rather on the person who played a significant role in history. He appreciated the discussion and that the owners had purchased the property to preserve it. Ruff restated the importance of limestone work in community and would support the request. Rosenbarger thanked everyone, but would vote no and gave reasons why. Stosberg would not support the request because it would set a unique precedent and provided reasons. The motion to adopt Ordinance 2025-47 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 6 (Ruff, Rollo, Piedmont-Smith, Daily, Zulich, Asare), Nays: 3 (Flaherty, Stosberg, Rosenbarger), Abstain: 0. 7.5. Ordinance 2025-43 An Ordinance Annexing Certain Real Estate To The City Of Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded that Ordinance 2025-43 be introduced and read by title and synopsis only. The motion was approved by voice vote without objection. Bolden read the legislation by title and synopsis. Clerk’s Note: Per Bloomington Municipal Code 2.04.420(b), the motion passed. No legislation may be introduced for council action after 10:30pm local time without a two-thirds vote of the members of the council. Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded that Ordinance 2025-43 be adopted. Chris Wheeler, Assistant City Attorney, explained voluntary annexation, eligibilities, process, and history of the request. Stosberg asked about the contiguity with the road which was not a public right of way. Wheeler said the requirement was to be one-eighth of the city; the road was irrelevant. Jay Nelson spoke against the annexation and gave reasons including drainage concerns. Paul Post urged council to vote against the annexation of a single property and to let the ongoing litigation finish in the courts for the Cory Lane neighborhood. Joseph Chan commented against the request noting that the surrounding properties drained into the property, which had karst issues. Magda Andrade expressed concern with annexing that property. Leslie Ruiz was concerned about the impacts on the neighborhood like drainage, water damage, and parking. Lieutenant Ray Reyes spoke against the annexation. Asare asked about any structure deficiencies in the area that would require city investment, and about recourses adjacent property owners could take if there were future issues with their property. Wheeler said there were no costs to the city, and annexation did not impact recourses; any issues would be between property owners. Eric Greulich, Development Services Manager, Planning & Transportation, said with the conditional use approval process there would be more analyses of the impacts of development. He gave details on what would be evaluated. Rosenbarger asked if other property owners in the area could voluntary annex and Wheeler said they would need to go through the process to see. Piedmont-Smith thanked residents who commented, and noted that council had to decide on the petition and whether it met the qualifications to be annexed, not concerns like karst and storm water. Ruff said a lot of work was needed to develop the property. He would vote no since there was ongoing litigation on annexation in that area. Daily was not convinced that annexing the property was in the city’s, or residents’, best interest. Flaherty spoke about how the voluntary annexation fit in with broader questions of annexation and sewer connections. There had been contracts that allowed a property to connect to sewer and when annexed, they would not remonstrate which had been intervened by the state. He gave examples of what could happen. Rollo spoke against the request due to the pending litigation for the area. Stosberg would support the request. She said residents’ concerns were valid. She spoke about the size of the lot and the county down-zoning the property, resulting in nothing being able to be built there. The motion to adopt Ordinance 2025-43 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 6 (Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Stosberg, Zulich, Rosenbarger, Asare), Nays: 3 (Ruff, Rollo, Daily), Abstain: 0. 7.6. Ordinance 2025-46 To Amend The Bloomington Zoning Maps And Zone Property Currently In the Monroe County Jurisdiction To Residential Medium Lot (R2) In Anticipation Of Voluntary Annexation Re: 2005 W. Cory Drive (William Wamathai, Petitioner) Daily moved and Zulich seconded that Ordinance 2025-46 be introduced and read by title and synopsis only. The motion was approved by voice vote. Bolden read the legislation by title and synopsis. Clerk’s 7  Meeting Date: December 17, 2025 Note: Per Bloomington Municipal Code 2.04.420(b), the motion passed. No legislation may be introduced for council action after 10:30pm local time without a two-thirds vote of the members of the council. Daily moved and Piedmont-Smith seconded to adopt Ordinance 2025-46. Zulich moved and Daily seconded that Amendment 01 to Ordinance 2025-46 be adopted. Zulich presented Amendment 01. Amendment 01 Synopsis: This amendment, sponsored by Councilmember Zulich, corrects an error by changing the name of the Petitioner to reflect the owner of the property at 2005 West Cory Drive, as identified on the City of Bloomington Planning Department application form. There was no council questions. There was no public comment. There was no council comment. The motion to adopt Amendment 01 to Ordinance 2025-46 received a roll call vote of Ayes: 8, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0. (Flaherty out of the room). Greulich presented the legislation including the recommendation from the Plan Commission. He gave a brief summary of the property and zoning. Rollo asked about site inspection and Greulich clarified that it depended on the type of development and described examples. Jay Nelson spoke against the annexation and in favor of only allowing a single-family home. Ruff commented against the voluntary annexation process. Piedmont-Smith spoke about the UDO which had strong environmental protections. It was necessary to zone the property since it had been annexed. Flaherty said the process was logical, with annexation first, then zoning and then what could be built or not. Rollo asked about conditional use for a duplex and Greulich confirmed that it would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ruff said his no-vote was a protest vote. The motion to adopt Ordinance 2025-46 as amended received a roll call vote of Ayes: 7 (Flaherty, Rollo, Piedmont-Smith, Stosberg, Zulich, Rosenbarger, Asare), Nays: 2 (Ruff, Daily), Abstain: 0. 8. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT [11:10pm] There was no additional public comment. 9. COUNCIL SCHEDULE [11:30pm] Stosberg reviewed the council schedule and said that interview committees would have meetings in the first two weeks of January 2026. 10. ADJOURNMENT [11:31pm] Stosberg adjourned the meeting. APPROVED by the Common Council of the City of Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana, upon this 01 _______ day of April __________________________________________, 2026. APPROVE: ATTEST: ____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Isak Nti Asare, COUNCIL PRESIDENT City Clerk Nicole Bolden Clerk’s Note: The above memorandum summarizes the motions passed and issues discussed at the meeting. It is not a verbatim copy of every word spoken. Bloomington City Council meetings are available for watching on the following websites:  Community Action Television Services (CATS) – https://catvstv.net  YouTube – https://youtube.com/@citybloomington Background materials and packets can be found at https://bloomington.in.gov/council 8