In the wake of security concerns at the Bloomington Community Farmers' Market and other public venues, local activists with Moms Demand Action are hoping businesses take steps to create a gun-free environment.

Organizations can legally prevent people from entering their premises with a firearm. Indiana Criminal Trespass Statute (IN Code 35-43-2-2) allows businesses to deny entry if the business has posted a sign citing this specific code.

Several local businesses have already taken this step. Bloomingfoods, for example, displays a sign at its entrance stating, in part: "We deny entry to anyone carrying a firearm." 

Bloomington residents Rachel Guglielmo and Susan Ellenwood are members of Moms Demand Action. They've been working to increase the number of businesses that are willing to ban firearms. They're also working with the Bloomington Police Department to educate officers about their role in helping enforce this prohibition.

Last year, Bloom Magazine and White Rabbit Copy Service & Digital Printing partnered to create signs that they offered free of charge.

On the national level, more business leaders are calling on Congress to act. CEOs of 145 corporations – including Twitter, Uber and Levi Strauss – recently sent a letter to Senate leaders urging stronger gun controls. Walmart, the country's largest employer, announced it will stop selling certain ammunition and guns, and is discouraging "open carry" in its stores. Other major retailers, including Kroger, CVS and Walgreens, are doing the same.

​For more information, check out the Moms Demand Action – Indiana Facebook page. Or contact the group by emailing indiana@momschapterleaders.org.

 At its Aug. 29 special meeting, the Bloomington Plan Commission 1) passed one “clean-up” amendment to the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), 2) asked staff to develop six amendments for consideration on Sept. 5, and 3) directed staff to prepare another 11 UDO amendments to consider on Sept. 10 or at subsequent meetings.

Here’s a roundup of amendments that planning staff will be drafting for the Sept. 5 meeting. They were proposed by Planning Commission chair Joe Hoffmann and unanimously supported by the rest of the commission. The substance of the amendments will be debated and likely voted on at the Sept. 5 session, which starts at 5:30 p.m. at city hall council chambers.

UPDATE: It's likely that on Sept. 5 commissioners will only be deliberating on amendments related to duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. The first set of draft amendments are now posted on the city's UDO update site.

1. An “omnibus” amendment to fix typos, misspellings, cross-references and other clerical errors. 
2. Teardowns. An amendment clarifying how teardowns will be discouraged on lots eligible for duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes.
3. Duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. Two parallel amendments. One would eliminate “plexes” as a conditional use entirely in R1, R2 and R3 zones. An alternative amendment would return the plexes as a permitted use in those zones, as they were in an earlier draft of the UDO. 
4. ADUs. Two parallel amendments related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs). One would make ADUs a conditional use. The other would leave ADUs as a permitted use and allow two bedrooms, rather than one. It would also allow ADUs to be the same size as other permitted accessory units in the district, like garages. 

For Sept. 10 or later meetings, here are amendments that planning staff will be drafting, based on Plan Commission requests (the name of the commissioner who proposed each amendment is indicated in parentheses):

1. Livestock. An amendment to Chapter 20.07.10 (Defined Words, page 373) changing the definitions of livestock in urban agriculture to categorize them by size and weight, rather than by a list of species. (Brad Wisler)
2. Payment-in-lieu. An amendment to Chapter 20.04.0110(c)(7) (Payment-in-Lieu, page 205) clarifying the procedures and process for developers to use the payment-in-lieu of constructing affordable housing. It would require that the Common Council approve the process, and that the process must be consistent and standardized. The amendment would also clarify how the funds could be used. (Flavia Burrell) NOTE: This is a position that the Chamber has publicly supported.
3. Impervious surfaces, invasive species. Amendments recommended by the city’s Environmental Commission related to adding to the list of invasive species and proposing alternatives to impervious surfaces. (Jillian Kinzie, Karin St. John)
4. Partial demolition. An amendment to Chapter 20.06.50(c) (Demolition Delay Permit, page 268) to ensure that any partial demolition would not alter an historic structure's contributing designation status. (Susan Sandberg)
5. Financial surety. An amendment  to Chapter 20.06.60(c)(iii) (Subdivision Procedures-Secondary Plat, page 298) clarifying the financial surety requirements for secondary plats. (Neil Kopper)
6. PUD criteria. An amendment to Chapter 20.02.50(b) (Planned Unit Development District, page 51) making 6G ("Protection of specific natural, environmental, or scenic resources or green spaces") and 6H ("Retaining natural landforms throughout the development") as qualifying standards. Those are currently listed as "highly-valued" features, not requirements.  (Nick Kappas)
7. Student housing zone. An amendment to Chapter 20.02.30(a) (Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, Student Housing, page 21) providing greater specificity and clarity about where the student housing zones would be located, based on proximity to campus and characteristics. (Joe Hoffmann)
8. Review process. An amendment to Chapter 20.02.10(c)(1) (Zoning Districts Established, page 19) removing “with the City” and adding “with the City’s planning department and reviewed by the Plan Commission.”  (Nick Kappas)
9. Driveway cuts. An amendment to Chapter 20.04.50(c) (Access and Connectivity, page 124) allowing the option of having two driveway cuts for a duplex. (Nick Kappas)
10. Trees. An amendment to Chapter 20.04.80(e) (Table 4-18 Prohibited Plant Species, page 168) to change the classification of certain trees to "invasive" rather than "poor characteristics." (Nick Kappas)
11. Electric vehicle charging. An amendment to Chapter 20.04.60(I)(8) (Electric Vehicle Charging, page 147) to count those charging stations as part of the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. (Jillian Kinzie)

Draft amendments are expected to be posted on the city's UDO update site before the Sept. 5 meeting.

The following were considered "clean-up" amendments and were passed unanimously by Plan Commissioners at their Aug. 29 meeting. The amendment allows duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes as permitted uses for new subdivisions and undeveloped locations of the city, while keeping these "plexes" as conditional uses for other areas. The most recent draft had inadvertently designated all duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes as conditional uses. ​

NOTE: This column by Erin Predmore, president and chief executive officer of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, was published in the Bloomington Herald-Times on Sunday, Sept. 1.

Current efforts to expand the Monroe Convention Center have been underway for more than two years. Previous attempts to increase the capacity of this community asset date back more than a decade.

We urge our local leaders to work collaboratively — and with a sense of urgency — to complete this long-delayed project.

The current center, which opened in 1991, is a partnership between Monroe County and the city of Bloomington. That partnership has been rocky at times — a fact reflected in the length of time it’s taking to move this expansion project forward.

A steering committee appointed jointly by the city and county met for several months, working with consultants to develop options for the size and location of an expanded center. In May, the group made its recommendations — to build a new structure on a city-owned lot north of the current center. It would be connected to the existing center, which would be renovated. The next step was to hold public forums concentrating on design details.

But Monroe County commissioners put the brakes on the current process in May, citing concerns over the county’s role in their partnership with the city and questions over how the project will be financed.

Two months later in July, commissioners issued a memo outlining a new proposal. Key elements involve:
1) Convening a meeting of the city and county councils, along with the commissioners and the mayor, 2) identifying funding sources for the expansion, 3) answering questions about the facilities to be built, including a new hotel and garage, and 4) creating a Capital Improvement Board (CIB) to manage this process.

The Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce supports creating a capital improvement board and conducting a financial review. We agree with commissioners, as stated in their memo, that officials are “well-positioned to immediately and efficiently discuss and make decisions.” However, we differ on the scope of those decisions.

It’s appropriate for elected officials to give guidance on this project and to ensure fiduciary oversight. We support holding a joint public meeting to create and empower a CIB and to provide direction for the board’s work. Such a meeting should take place as soon as possible.

​Beyond that, leadership requires the ability to delegate.

Our community is blessed with a remarkable number of people who are smart, responsible and civically engaged. We already trust our fellow residents to do some heavy lifting in the civic sphere on a volunteer basis. Appointed groups like the redevelopment commissions for both Bloomington and Monroe County are empowered to allocate tax dollars in support of economic development projects that benefit the public. Our city and county parks commissions are also empowered to be strong fiscal stewards over important community assets.

We trust that community members who are appointed to the improvement board would do the same.
​
The convention center project becomes more expensive as time goes by and construction costs increase. The opportunity costs are also significant. Conventions are booked years in advance, and given the uncertainty of our convention center’s expansion, we’re losing out on these future opportunities.

We urge our community’s elected officials to move quickly to convene a joint meeting focused on moving forward with this project. Create a Capital Improvement Board to manage the expansion and populate the CIB with some of the many experienced community members who have the expertise and willingness to bring this project to fruition.
​
An expanded convention center will benefit the entire Bloomington/Monroe County community. We’re eager to support the work that’s needed to make this a reality.