Bloomington Common Council Meeting - March 5, 2026: Hopewell PUD, Flock Cameras Resolution, and City Reports
Bloomington Common Council Meeting - March 5, 2026
This meeting of the Bloomington Common Council included approval of minutes from 2025 meetings, reports from city officials, a first reading discussion of the Hopewell Planned Unit Development (PUD), a resolution on transparency for automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology, and public comment on both topics. The council voted to postpone the Hopewell PUD to a later date and unanimously adopted the ALPR transparency resolution.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: Minutes from July 30, November 5, December 3, December 10, and December 15, 2025 were approved as amended (9-0). The December 3 and December 10 minutes had corrections: a note explaining why a motion failed (needed two-thirds majority) and a typo fix, respectively.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Non-Agenda Public Comment (First Session): Paul Rousseau commented on the Indiana Avenue safety improvements project, criticizing the proposed two-way bicycle lanes as unsafe and urging the city to consider alternative approaches like enforcement and education.
- Public Comment on Hopewell PUD: Over 30 minutes of public comment (extended by 15 minutes) with 15 speakers. Most speakers expressed strong support, including representatives from Heading Home of South Central Indiana, the Monroe County Community School Corporation (superintendent), the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Cook Group (talent attraction), the local Builders Association, and the Community Foundation. Supporters cited the urgent need for affordable housing, workforce retention, and the PUD as a model for future development. A few speakers raised concerns about affordability mechanisms, HOA costs, and the appropriateness of using a PUD process rather than broader zoning code changes. One speaker noted the displacement of residents from nearby Seminary Point apartments.
- Public Comment on ALPR Resolution (Flock Cameras): Approximately 20 speakers spoke, nearly all urging the council to go beyond transparency and terminate the Flock contract. Speakers cited security vulnerabilities, civil liberties concerns, potential ICE collaboration, and the technology's threat to immigrant communities. A few speakers shared personal experiences of being falsely flagged by Flock cameras. The mayor was noted to be absent during this discussion.
Discussion Items
- Controller's Report: Jeff McKim provided an update on the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and audits. He explained the transition to GAAP reporting, progress on audits (2022 issued Oct 2024, 2023 issued July 2025), and his goal to complete the 2024 audit and restore a sustainable annual cadence by the September 2026 deadline. No questions were asked.
- Planning Director's Report on HB 1001 and UDO Amendments: David Hittle summarized House Enrolled Act 1001 (formerly HB 1001), which requires a public hearing in 2026 to evaluate zoning ordinances for promoting housing development, and annual housing reporting. He outlined a proposed working group of staff, council, and plan commissioners to draft UDO amendments for housing attainability, with a timeline for public meetings in May and July, and plan commission and council consideration in August/September 2025.
- First Reading of Ordinance 2026-06 (Hopewell PUD): The council discussed the proposed rezoning of a 6.3-acre property to a Planned Unit Development for nearly 100 homes, with affordable homeownership options starting at $83,500. Mayor Thompson and Flintlock Labs presented the project's goals: workforce housing, local builder participation, and a model for UDO changes. Council members questioned affordability mechanisms, accessibility, use table alignment, and the delegation of final plan approval to staff. The petitioner expressed openness to reasonable conditions, including all-electric buildings and aligning uses with the project's intent. A motion to postpone to the next regular session (March 25) passed 6-3.
- Resolution 2026-04 (ALPR Transparency): Councilmember Asari introduced the resolution, which requires the chief of police and mayor's office to brief the council on the city's ALPR program, including scope, cost, retention policies, and data sharing, and imposes a pause on expansion until the briefing. An amendment establishing a six-week deadline for the briefing was adopted 8-0. The resolution states the council's intent to consider an ordinance for durable rules. Following public comment and council discussion, the resolution was adopted unanimously (9-0).
Key Outcomes
- Minutes Approved: 9-0 vote to approve minutes from five 2025 meetings as amended.
- Appointments Approved: Joe Throckmorton to BZA, Katarina Koch to BUEA, Carl Geyser and Justin Meschter to Environmental Commission, Graham McKean to Utility Service Board – all approved 9-0.
- Hopewell PUD Postponed: Ordinance 2026-06 moved to second reading and discussion scheduled for March 25, 2026 (vote 6-3).
- ALPR Transparency Resolution Adopted: Resolution 2026-04 passed unanimously 9-0, with a six-week deadline for the administration to provide a public briefing. The resolution also calls for a pause on ALPR program expansion and signals intent to pursue a binding ordinance.
- Special Session Scheduled: A special session of the council will be held on March 11, 2026, at 5:45 p.m. for hiring committee deliberations.
Meeting Transcript
I'm gonna call to order our March 4th uh meeting of the common council for 2026. Will the clerk please call the roll? Councilmember Flaherty. Here Stasberg here. Piedmont Smith. Zulik. Present. Sorry. Here. Daily. Here. Rallo. Here. Ruff. Here. Rosenbarger. Here. Okay. The agenda is posted online and on the doors. But this evening's agenda includes approval of minutes from five meetings held in 2025. Under reports, we'll hear from council members first and also from city offices where we'll have a report-awaited apport from our new um city controller Jeff McKim and also a report from our planning director David Hittle regarding House Enrolled Act uh 1001. Um under legislation, we have one ordinance for first reading concerning a proposed rezoning a PUD and then we also have a first reading of a resolution um which proposes transparency requirements around flock um cameras. Um important note if you've been to a council meeting um before at our last meeting, um our last regular session, uh we um made uh new uh legislation that allows us to discuss um legislation during first reading, and so the PUD is is a first reading um tonight. Um in the past we wouldn't have discussed something during first reading. We intend to discuss that. We may discuss that um should the council decide um to and um we've come up with some basic rules. This is the first time that we're doing first reading discussion, so we're kind of trying to feel this out. Um we're gonna run it the way that we uh essentially that we usually run um second readings in that council will receive a presentation um from um the city staff, we'll ask some questions. Um after that there will be a um uh period of um public comment on the PUD. Um we've limited that time of public comment to 30 minutes. Now that can be extended, so the council may choose to extend that, um, but it might just stop at 30 minutes. Um and then thereafter there'll be some sort of time for closing comments. The council can at that time either choose to make some type of a vote um on the thing or to delay it for another time. All of those things are um our possibilities and is to um the the the full body um to decide. Um councilmember Piedmont Smith would is there anything I missed out on the rules that we've proposed for first readings. Thank you very much then. Um okay, so so with that um we have minutes uh for approval. Um we have those four um uh four five set of of minutes. Um are there any amendments to the minutes uh please council member Stasberg? I just remembered that I uh messaged the clerk a couple of notes about those, but I don't think that uh updated minutes were ever sent out. Did anybody see any updated minutes? I don't think so. Okay, what would the clerk prefer me to do right now about those? Um the the two things were uh in the um meeting date of December 3rd. There um I thought maybe it would be useful to have an explanation of why uh a motion ended up failing with five yeses and two no's. I think it was after 1030, so we needed a two-thirds majority. Um and uh and then I think there's a a typo in the minutes from December 10th. Uh Clerk Williamson, do you think? Yeah, so we did fix the typo and uh Chief Deputy Clerk McDowell did add in that note. I am actually talking with her right now about the minutes.
openpublica.com