Bloomington council nixes Green Acres conservation district, disallows own debate, public comment

At its Tuesday meeeting, Bloomington’s city council voted unanimously to reject a proposed historic conservation district for Green Acres.

The tally on the vote for approval was 0-8. The total was not 9, because Dave Rollo was absent.

That outcome lifted the interim protection order for the structures in about 125 acres which are located in the eastern central part of Bloomington. The order had been in place since Bloomington’s historic preservation commission (HPC) recommended the area as a conservation district in mid-August.

The previous day, advocates for the district had asked that their application be withdrawn.

The requested withdrawal led the council to choose a rare procedural approach to the handling of the Green Acres agenda item. It was a path that meant no discussion by councilmembers, or commentary from the public.

There was a failed effort by some councilmembers to allow Green Acres as a topic in the ordinary period of public comment at the end of the meeting. That’s a time when the comment is supposed to be restricted to items not on the agenda. That effort foundered on a two-thirds majority requirement for suspending the rules. The vote was 5-3.

Voting for the suspension of the rules to allow for public comment on the Green Acres question at the end of the meeting were: Matt Flaherty, Sydney Zulich, Isabel Piedmont-Smith, Hopi Stosberg and Isak Asare. The three voting against it were: Andy Ruff, Kate Rosenbarger, and Courtney Daily.

Green Acres procedure: Introduction

The first step went as it usually does for any piece of legislation. City clerk Nicole Bolden read aloud the title and synopsis of the ordinance establishing the Green Acres conservation district. Adoption was then moved and seconded, which set the stage for the presentation of the ordinance from city staff.

Bloomington’s historic preservation program manager, Noah Sandweiss read aloud a letter sent to the council the previous day, by Lois Sabo-Skelton, who is chair of the Green Acres Conservation District Development Committee. The letter that says the group was withdrawing its application.

After reading the letter, Sandweiss said, “So at this point, my understanding is that the city council still has to make a vote on the map that was submitted on whether to approve or to reject.”

Ruff immediately said, “I move that we take that vote right now.” That got a quick seconding motion from Daily—but Zulich had also turned on her mic, and appeared ready to second the motion.

Green Acres procedure: Calling the question

Piedmont-Smith, who was presiding over the meeting as council president, analyzed Ruff’s motion as calling the question, in technical parliamentary terms, “moving the previous question.” A motion to call the question is not debatable and requires a two-thirds majority to pass.

The effect of a successful vote to call the question is to end debate and bring the council immediately to a vote on the matter.

The roll call on calling the question was unanimous, but revealed some discomfort on Stosberg’s part, who said, when her name was called, “I can’t comment, which is too bad, so I guess I just have to say yes.”

Piedmont-Smith did not appear to understand the impact of the successful vote to call the question, saying after the vote, “I believe that before we actually vote on the ordinance, we could have council comment.” But deputy administrator/attorney Ash Kulak corrected Piemont-Smith, saying that the council had to proceed with a vote on the ordinance.

That meant that the public, like councilmembers, also did not have a chance to weigh in on the ordinance.

The vote on the ordinance itself was then unanimous, with all eight councilmembers present voting against it. That meant the council had reached the end of its legislative items on the night’s agenda, setting the stage for the final public comment of the evening.

Green Acres procedure: Disallowed public comment

Like the first period of public comment on any city council agenda, the final period of comment is restricted to items that are not on the agenda. That meant that the topic of the Green Acres ordinance was off limits for the final comment time.

Stosberg then made the comment that she had previously indicated that she’d wanted to make. Given the number of people in the audience who had attended the meeting, just to offer an opinion on the Green Acres item, she wanted to allow them to speak during the final public time, even though the topic of any agenda item would have ordinarily been off limits.

Flaherty got clarification from Stosberg that she meant to be making a motion to suspend the rules, to allow comment on Green Acres during the final period of public comment. When Piedmont-Smith called for a voice vote on suspending the rules, it was not unanimous. That led Piedmont-Smith to ask for a roll call vote.

That came out 5–3 in favor of suspending the rules. Voting yes were Flaherty, Zulich, Piedmont-Smith, Stosberg and Isak. The three voting against it were: Ruff, Rosenbarger, and Daily.

Based on the simple majority, Piedmont-Smith declared the motion passed.

But based on a question asked by The B Square of the city clerk, about the need for a two-thirds majority to suspend the rules, city clerk Nicole Bolden walked to the opposite side of the chambers where the city council’s attorneys sit, to raise that issue with legal counsel.

The verdict from deputy administrator/attorney Ask Kulak was that a two-thirds majority is, in fact, required to suspend the rules in the way the council wanted.

The impact of that determination was that comment on the Green Acres ordinance was disallowed during the final public commentary period.

Green Acres final public comment

Commenters who were present to talk about the Green Acres conservation district still found ways to take the public mic and talk about it in implicitly, by speaking about historic preservation generally. That’s something Piedmont-Smith allowed.

For example, James Bohrer  took the opportunity to talk about the fact that a conservation district, like the one requested for Green Acres, will after three years automatically elevate to the stricter designation of a historic district, unless a majority of property owners object in writing.

Bohrer suggested that the same requirement be imposed on the establishment of a conservation district in the first place—that a majority of property owners have to indicate their support in writing.

It’s the same issue that Sarah Alexander also raised from the public mic at the end of Tuesday’s meeting. She spoke about the elevation of Maple Heights, where she lives, from a conservation district to a historic district. Alexander told the city council that after three years, 53 people voted against elevation of the district, but that was not enough to defeat the 7 yes votes that were turned in.

In a historic district, any exterior alterations are subject to review by the city’s historic preservation commission (HPC). In a conservation district, it’s just moving or demolishing buildings, or constructing new buildings that are subject to HPC review.

Green Acres: Council postlude

The impact of the way the council had handled the Green Acres item proved to be vexing for some councilmembers. At the very end of the meeting some councilmembers offered to stay, after the meeting was over, to talk to those in the audience who wanted to discuss the issue.

Rosenbarger, who had joined in the unanimous vote to call the question, which precluded any council discussion or public commentary, said at the end of the meeting: “I wish we had heard this tonight and gotten to appropriately vote no on it. That would have been my preference.” Rosenbarger continued, “It’s so hard that we didn’t get to have any debate at all. I mean, we didn’t get to hear from the public. We also didn’t get to hear from council.”

Offering a counterpoint was Daily, who alluded to the content of the letter from Sabo-Skelton, which had kicked off the agenda item. The letter says, “Please know that we will be back, and we remain hopeful that future discussions will lead to a positive outcome for the Green Acres Neighborhood.”

Daily said, “l just want to explain the other side of it, which is: We were voting it down, and it’s going to be coming back in a different form.” Daily continued, “So there wasn’t an actual topic to be discussing, since it was getting a no.”

Daily added, “I’m always happy to hear back from constituents, but we don’t know what we’re going to be debating on, if this is coming back in a different form. I’m happy to have emails. I’m happy to meet with anybody who wants to, but that was why I voted the way that I did.”