Good evening everyone. [music] I hereby call to order this meeting of the Bloomington City Council at 6:30 p.m. I am uh council member Victor Rivas serving as mayor proterm. Uh we will begin by presenting the callers and reciting the pledge of allegiance. Chief Hodes. Officers, present arms. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the rep for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all >> order. Ready, please. >> [clears throat] >> You may be seated. Yes. Uh uh the fir the first item is uh approval of the agenda. All members should have received a copy of the agenda. Are there any changes or additions to the agenda? If there are no changes, then I will look for a motion to approve the agenda as stated. >> So moved. >> Second. Um motion by uh council member Carter, second by uh council member Dando. All those in favor I >> motion passes 6. All right. Uh we will move now to the introduc introductory uh section. Uh Chief Hodes, please step up to the podium and lead us through items 2.1 and 2.2. Good afternoon, uh, Mayor Promp, council, city managers. Uh, first up, we're going to do an overview of our police explorer program. So, I will bring up Officer Sam Davern and some of our police explorers, which are kids. Um, yeah, my kid's one of them, too, but he's at home playing his guitar right now, so >> Oh, I get to take over right away. Oh, boy. a lot of pressure. Uh good evening, acting mayor, city council, city uh manager. Thank you for having us tonight. Uh we got a quick PowerPoint we'll kind of skim through. Uh we'll do a little introduction after. Uh but behind me real quick are four of our explorers. We have 25 in Bloomington total. Uh and they compete twice a year in uh competitions throughout the state. Next slide. One more. All right. Um so the Explorer program is designed for anyone 14 through 20 years old. Uh we have sponsored it since 1972. So we have a very long post that we've had. Uh they get hands-on training every Thursday from about eight Bloomington police officers for a couple hours each Thursday. >> Uh this is from our state competition last year in Rochester. Uh we were very fortunate to place in three different things. We took first in suspicious activity, second in crime prevention and five in first aid or fifth in first aid. Uh that is from people explorers all around the state. >> Excellent. >> Um yep just the quick numbers there. So we have 11 new explorers this year totaling at 25. Uh that is our cap that we're able to take into the polls just based off how many we were able to train each year. So unfortunately we did have to turn some people away. We're very grateful to have that problem in Bloomington. Uh and once again the couple things they placed for there uh is from Duth of this year which we took the group on the right there too. Uh for those interested in explorers or if you know anyone, uh our contact info is up there and we recruit every September. So August and September, we're always looking for uh new explorers. With that, I'll let our explorers introduce themselves. >> Um acting major, city council, city man, city manager. My name is Galet Basio. I've been living in Bloomington for about nine years. This will be my fifth year as police explorer accountant from other cities and I'm currently in Normandell Community College. I am hoping to in the future to work as a Bloomington police officer. Thank you. >> Acting mayor, city council, city manager. My name is Thomas Atuma. I grew up in Bloomington. I've lived here all my life. I've been an explorer for two years. currently attend Jefferson High School and my plan is to be a Bloomington police officer. Thank you for your time. Acting mayor, city council, city manager, my name is Jack Sanders. I grew up here in Bloomington and I've lived here my whole life. I've been explorer here for two years. I currently attend Henipin Technical College pursuing a degree in law enforcement and I hope to be a police officer here in Bloomington. Thank you for your time. Acting mayor, city council, city manager. My name is Kaia Fiato. I've lived in Bloomington all my life. Um I grew up in or sorry um I've been an explorer for three years now. I currently attend Normandale Community College for law enforcement. I just recently started as a cadet here at Bloomington and hope to eventually become a police officer upon completion of my schooling. Thank you. Thank you for your time tonight. Uh, also thank you for your continued support for programs like this. It's very appreciated by both us advisers, the police department, and the explorers. So, thank you. [applause] >> All right. Uh, next I'm going to bring up uh two of our civilian employees, uh, Miss Anderson and Malachi. So, we give you this like nice little script here to follow. And go ahead. Uh, mayor, city council, city manager. My name is Aaron Anderson. Um, I did not grow up here. I grew up in Plymouth, so not too far, but my father's been working here for 28 years. Um, I don't have a degree in law enforcement. actually English and classical languages. Uh but I work here as a civilian um employee at the police department. I am record specialist and uh front desk. So if you ever need anything, we'll be down there. And yeah, I've been here for eight months and hopefully many more. >> Acting mayor, city council, city manager. My name is Malachi Camo. Grew up right here in Bloomington. Um, currently a student at uh, Minneapolis Technical College where I'll be finishing with my associates in liberal arts, criminal justice. Um, before being a cadet here, I worked in the health field as a behavior tech. I worked with high behavioral clients. Thank you for having me. >> Welcome. [applause] >> All right. Uh, we'll bring up the uh, police officers next. And just to remind the public, because I get asked about this all the time, why doesn't Bloomington have a police academy graduation? This typically happens in some of our larger departments. Um, my personal feelings when I took over as chief, I didn't want to put anybody before you who had not completed all of their training. So, when someone graduates from the academy, they still have to complete field training. So I don't want to put people before the citizens who are not fully fledged police officers working on their own. So these next four are out here working on their own right now. So if you all want to come up and what we'll do is you'll read off this prepared script here. Uh and then we'll go up here. We'll take the oath of office and then you'll shake everybody's hands. Copy that. uh acting mayor, city council, and city manager. Looks looks very familiar, like I've been here before, but uh my name is Tuvu. Um I was born and raised in Minneapolis. Uh I have a bachelor's in sociology of uh emphasis in law, criminology, and deviance from the University of Minnesota. Uh I started my career in 2008 as a licensed deputy with the Hampton County Sheriff Sheriff's Office. Came here February 22nd of 2011. um started bloom bloom to police departments and then had a little bit of a sbatical moment in uh May of 2023 and then left for about 18 months and then I was like you know I got to go back to the best department. So I I came and here I am. I'm back here again. So glad to be back. [applause] Uh acting mayor, city council, city manager. My name is Lauren Hansen. I'm from Hudson, Wisconsin. I graduated with my associates degree in uh River Falls, Wisconsin at Chepo Chipoa Valley Technical College. Uh I started my career here with Bloomington 13 years ago. Started as a community service officer where I got to work alongside my dad who was a retired Bloomington police officer. I received the opportunity to step into a new role as a police and fire 911 dispatcher where I worked here for nine years on the other side of the radio and I'm very excited and honored to be serving the citizens of Bloomington in a different capacity. Thank you. Acting [applause] mayor, city council, city manager. My name is Kyle Heg. I grew up in Prior Lake, Minnesota. I have a degree in marketing and business management as well as a degree in law enforcement. And before becoming a police officer, I was a cadet for a year with the city. Thank you. [applause] Acting mayor, city council, city manager. My name is Bailey Broadhead. I grew up in Arlington, Texas, but I do have family roots in Bloomington from about 1960. Um, my degree, my undergraduate degree is in sociology with an emphasis in criminology from Texas Tech University in Lach, Texas. And then I also have a master's degree in social work from the University of Texas at Arlington. Uh my previous experience is that I was a police officer active duty air force for seven years and then I have about a year experience um as a dispatcher with the Dallas Police Department in Dallas, Texas. And now I'm very honored and excited to continue my law enforcement career with Bloomington Police Department. Thank you. [applause] >> All right. Now you guys can go up here and then I'm going to read you this oath and you'll be good to go. >> All right. And all the family members, if you guys want to take pictures of them, go ahead. >> You know, don't worry about it. You can get them here. All right. So, when I say say your name, >> you can say your name. >> Family members, you can come up and take pictures uh for them if you wish to do so. >> You're welcome to. >> Yes. Please get up. [laughter] All right, raise your right hand. >> I state your name. >> I >> do solemnly swear >> that I will support >> the Constitution of the United States >> of the United States >> and the state of Minnesota >> and the state of Minnesota >> and faithfully discharge the duties >> as a police officer >> police officer >> from the city of Bloomington, Minnesota. to the best of my judgment and ability. >> Congratulations [applause] [cheering] [applause] [cheering] >> [applause] >> No. So for all the families, you can go upstairs. There's a reception for folks. So go enjoy. Thank you, Mayor City Council. >> It's cold. >> What do you mean it's cold? I'm sweating and drinking. [laughter] >> I want one of those. Can you send that to me? All right. Okay. We will move to the introduc introductory section. Uh oh no that's I'm behind that now. Sorry about that. Now let's move to item 2.3. A proclamation for small businesses. I'll move down to the podium to read the proclamation. That's not good. [clears throat] >> This is crazy. >> This way. This way. The other way. >> Oh my god. >> It's okay. >> It's on. >> Yeah. It's on. Okay. The city of Billington proclamation is small business. Small Business Saturday, November 29th, 2025. Whereas Bloomington celebrates all our businesses, but recognizes small businesses as the engine of our local economy as employers and providers of products and services. According to the United States Census of of the 40,630 businesses in Henipin County, 39,200 are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. That is more than 90% of the 96% of businesses in Hannipin County. And whereas Bloomington supports these entrepreneurs all year long, including through our work with Henipin County's Elevate Henipin initiative, offering expert consulting, focused cohort programming, and a library of resources and not cost for every resident and business. We also promote shopping at our local small businesses via the multi-jurisdictional love local campaign which encourages residents to support local independently owned businesses that create jobs, boost the local economy, and make our communities vibrant and livable. And whereas for many residents, the Thanksgiving holiday kicks off a season of gathering, dining, shopping, and experiencing arts and culture. And consumers know that supporting small independently owned businesses have positive social, economic, and environmental impacts. Therefore, I, Victor Rivas, acting as mayor, do hereby proclaim Saturday, November 29th, 2025 as Small Business Saturday in the city of Bloomington, Minnesota. And I encourage all those who leave and work here to celebrate our local small businesses on this day and throughout the entire year. Thank you. Do you want to say two words? >> Good evening everyone. My name is Britney Milin and I'm the owner of Elevate Performing Arts Center. We have proudly served the Bloomington community for the past 13 years educating dancers to through the age of 18 in a wide variety of styles, ballet, tap, jazz, hiphop, contemporary, and more. At Elevate, our vision has always been to nurture confident, courageous, artistic, and diverse dancers. young people who not only develop strong technical skills, but who come together to form a beautifully strong and supportive community. A little over a year ago, I reached out to the city council seeking support to help ensure that our business could continue its legacy here in Bloomington. That outreach led me to Barb Wolf and Heromi from NextStage, and I cannot express enough how impactful their guidance, support, and partnership have been. Because of their efforts, we are were able to begin an exciting new chapter in a brand new four studio space located in the Penn Lake Shopping Center right here in Bloomington. Thank you for your time, your support, and for helping Lva continue to thrive in the city we are so proud to call home. [applause] >> Hi, my name is Daniel Hernandez. I am uh the owner of Colonial Market in um in Wine and Spirit apparently down in in um uh South Loop uh of St. uh of Bloomington. Um I'm very very excited to be here. Um it is very important to have food in the our tables and in order to have food in our tables, there has to be a grocery store nearby. Well, our our fellows over there didn't have a a grocery store nearby. They literally has to to drive seven minutes away or so to get it. So, you know, if you make your math, you already are spending 15 minutes and by the time you get out of, you know, the lines, you're already one hour. Right now, we the the the time has shortened less than half an hour for them. They're very grateful to have us in there. We have wonderful uh restaurant that is uh Mexican uh uh or uh you know real flavored Mexican food which is very good uh made from a scratch. Um in our grocery store it's a very unique. It's it's it's it's what I call hybrid. It's around 80% American food and 20% minority food. It can include from Asian or um um Latinos uh food as uh in our neighborhood we have a lot of Latinos. So I am very very happy to be here um and very happy to fulfill the need in uh what it's called uh food desert. I think I'm I I'm getting good at it because I'm also have a store in North Minneapolis where there was a huge need of of food and we're being fulfilled on that. Um stop by anytime. We we really need your support. [laughter] So thank you so much and I appreciate uh all the work that the city of Bloomington has done. they had been uh with me every step of the way uh and I have no complaints. So, thank you so much. [applause] >> Where is the picture? >> Right here. Just on either side. If you want to hold that. >> Thank you. All right. The next order of business is the consent agenda. These items are considered routine and will be acted on one by one motion. Uh, council member Moa has consent tonight. Thank you, acting mayor. The only thing I've heard of is uh item 312. Anyone else have anything? Okay. If not, I would move items 3.1 through 3.11 and 3.13 through 3.25 as stated. >> Second. Those in favor say I. >> I suppose nobody. >> Motion passes 6. >> Right. >> All right. We now move section uh >> 312 >> 312. >> Hold up. So where is that? Oh, okay. Okay. So, we need to go over that one. >> It's okay. It'll be quick. >> Oh, okay. Got it. >> So, what do I need to say on that one? >> So, we now move to uh item 312 >> resolutions to adopt 2026 city council meeting calendar and update council meeting and listening in session procedures. >> Y uh thank you uh acting mayor Rios. Um the reason I held 312 is currently we are uh posting video of our listening sessions because we're in the HEG. I think this was a transitional thing. We were in a difference conference room that we only had audio and then when we moved into the HEG for various reasons uh video became available there and it has been our practice to post the video obviously with the audio as well. And so in my mind this is just a cleanup. I'd just like to clean up that language that says audio only and just to note that audio and or video, but that it's not live, that you're not going to be able to watch it live. Um, but you would be able to go watch as as is now. If you go to YouTube, you can watch the video of these meetings uh as it is. I I did it at 2:30 this morning. So, [snorts] um, >> that was that was when I was reading the packet. >> [laughter] >> So, for various reasons that we don't need to get into. Um, but I think that's what we've been doing. I I just it for me it's just a cleanup item. >> Council member the center. >> Um, yeah. Thank you, Mr. uh, Mayor Prom. Um, I am confused by that. I was never informed that we were doing video for listening sessions. It's always been an audio thing since we started this whole process. Maybe it's the one meeting I missed where you guys decided to ch that it got changed. I have no idea. But that is very brand new news. I mean, moving into the HEG wasn't necessarily We didn't move into the HEG so we could get video. We moved into the HEG so we could accommodate people in a better setting. That video got turned on was not something that I was aware of. I'm not suggesting that I oppose it. That's not what I'm getting at. I I if I remember correctly, the original intent of the listening session for council was that we had a setting where people who didn't want didn't feel comfortable being on video could be there to talk to council in an informal setting. So, how did this happen without us having to vote on changing it? That's my question. Again, not because I oppose it necessarily. I'm not trying to like stop the process here, but I would love to get an explanation for when that decision was made, why it was made, and why council wasn't formally informed given the original intent of the listening session. >> Tim, [snorts] >> uh, mayor members or acting mayor members, uh, I don't know the answer to that question. Uh I do know that we've had uh several different staff people in the role and I know that we use WebEx to pro provide the audio recording. Um we can certainly investigate the reasons if you want to move forward um with a calendar u adopting the calendar and then we can push this one to the next meeting and we can get you an answer or frankly we can um just if you want we can adopt it and then bring it back. Um it's up to you. It's it's not something that requires a public hearing or anything like that. So, it's totally up to you on how you want to proceed. Uh if you want to, you know, pull this part of it out and just adopt the calendar and the other part. Um the one thing I will say is that we would really like to adopt the rules of procedure uh edits that are being um recommended because one of them includes uh fixing something at the with regard to the meeting schedule for the very first meeting. um of the year. So, it's not on January 2nd, which is a Friday. Uh and we can't find a legal reason why we need to do it. So, we would really like to adopt the the rules of procedure edits. Um but if you'd like to pull out these listening sessions, we can we can bring those back. >> No, I thank you. I appreciate the explanation. Um Mayor Prom, I I'm not going to vote against this. That's not the point I'm making. And so if we can pass it at council reflected as as council member Nelson would like the change to be made, I will support that. I just because I'm not I'm not interested in taking away something that probably people like. It's just it was it was not in it was just I'm surprised and I'd like to get an understanding of the background for that at some point. Um and that can be done offline. But am I the only one that's surprised? Like candidly, I I I mean that sincerely like m Mr. Mayor Prom, did you know? I wasn't aware that we were recording it, but I have learned from the residents that there was some recording being taken place because I got a few emails stating that why we were removing it based on what they read. >> Understood. Understood. >> I wasn't aware that we were >> Yeah. Okay. I I just wanted to check to make sure if I'm the only one that was in the in the not in the no, then I I withdraw my commentary, but I don't think I am. I would be surprised if even Mr. Mayor knows. But anyway, uh with that said, I would love to get an explanation for when it changed, why it changed, and um why we weren't informed. And then uh with that, I I have no other comments. I'm happy to second whatever motion >> council member Nelson wants to make. Well, thank you, mayor. Um, uh, just one other thing, too. Uh, as we're, uh, uh, discussing this too, I understand that we're also removing the call-in function, >> uh, to to the meeting. >> That is the main thing. >> Yeah. Um, and and just, you know, and if we're going to vote on this, I just want to let you know that I I'm going to oppose it uh, for that reason and for the other reason, too. I I think that when we we make a commitment to to residents in terms of making things open, uh, we got to stick with those things. Uh um and and I and I get it. Um we don't we've got so many people coming in, but I do think it disenfranchises folks that that do not have that opportunity to to get over here. Um I find it difficult to get over here myself. Uh there are a number of other folks that that uh have that same uh dilemma. And calling in gives them that opportunity uh to to be able to do that, especially when it's if you're a senior and you want to come over here at night, you're trying to drive around in the dark. That's just not something you're going to do. um if if you have difficulty uh like some of my relatives do uh with driving at night. So for those reasons uh and for the other surprises here, I I cannot support this at this time. >> Mr. Walker. [snorts] >> Uh yes, thank you Mr. Mayor, Pro Tim, members of the council. Uh we believe as staff that um the rules were clear about uh the recording of meetings. Uh we believe that recording them was not an intentional thing. I I can't answer as we're sitting here tonight how or why that started. The video part, that's what I'm meaning to say. My apologies. I what would be helpful tonight is clear. If if the intent never was to have those um recorded and broadcast uh in that fashion, then we don't need to make the rules change uh that Council Member Nelson meant. If we do want to turn that happy little accident into a permanent change, then um we can do that, too. But it was not the intention to do that and deviate from council rules. >> I I support the the fact that we're recording it. Um and and if we're ready to vote on that, we can. >> Yeah. M Mr. Mayor Prom, I we were always recording it. We were just recording audio only and now we're adding video to it. But we were always recording it. That was absolutely true. So I my my thought was not a question of whether or not we record it and publish it. That's absolutely an expected behavior. I did not expect video to be on during the listening session. That's the only thing that's surprising me. So if nobody else has a complaint about it, I'll vote to keep it. But I that's a surprise to me is all I'm saying. >> So can I look for a motion? >> Oh, you have come. >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh Mayor Prom. Um, just a quick comment. Um, I'm okay with the video, but I would like to monitor it because the reality is the listening sessions have been overwhelmingly successful at bringing people in to talk with us and get their issues and concerns resolved as opposed to being a format for basically political speeches. And and so you've got one group that wants a forum to say what they want to say and another group that just has questions and concerns and I'm going to be much more on the service side. I want to serve the people of Bloomington and I want them to be there. So if we can just monitor this. We have been posting them. They have been on video. Uh people have still been coming in. But if maybe because of the fact we're talking about this more, if that deters people and if we see a downturn, I would be I would be open to looking at changing that back. I So at this point, I'll make the motion to um approve the rules with the one modification that the video will be posted along with the audio. The audio video will be posted. Sorry, >> mayor prom. >> Point of clarification. So this would be bullet one. >> It's the sixth one. >> Sixth, the sixth bullet on the listening session guidelines, which is an attachment to the one of the resolutions we're asking you to take action on tonight. And what I'm hearing you say is that you would prefer that it read audio and video recorded and then the rest of the the text of that would be removed. Right now it says audio. >> It's not live. There is something with I would leave the it's not live. again. >> Okay. No live broadcast. So, just to restate what I'm hearing, audio and video recorded and then a PN no live broadcast. >> That seems right. >> Okay. And then we also need to figure out how you want to proceed um in your motion with regard to the strike through that staff are recommending with regard to the call-in option. >> Yeah, that one's fine. >> Okay. >> That that strike that out. I I I'm Yeah. >> Good. Okay. So, that's my motion >> and I'll second that. Oh, you Sorry, >> I just have a question. >> Okay. >> Um, can can staff talk a little bit about the rationale of removing the call-in option? >> Mayor Portma members, my recollection of of the [clears throat] uh part of it was that uh it was never used very much. Um the law has changed with regard to to having call-ins um since the most recent you know co obviously but then after COVID last session they changed the law again. So call-in options would have to be required if any of the council members were participating remotely. Uh, one of the things that I recall as a part of the discussion in the past was the desire to have a back and forth conversation and a dialogue and that gets to be a little bit more complicated to pull off um, when somebody is on the telephone. Um, that said, there have been rare times where somebody has requested um, an accommodation or some other um, you know, reason that they weren't able to be there in person um, you know, health or otherwise and and there's been an accommodation granted. Um, so this is just um something for you all to to weigh in on and give us some direction on. >> Does it is it a huge burden like is it has a heavy lift for staff to set up the call-in option? >> I mean I I guess I'll just say I'm in agreement with council member Lman. I feel like even though it doesn't really get used um the idea that we'd be taking away accessibility for people who couldn't get here. I know before I was on council and my kids were little there was no way I could make it to these meetings. like if I did, I had, you know, it was like a big to-do, right? And so, um, I would just rather keep the option available for people if they need it. Um, if it's not a huge lift for staff, I don't really see what the big deal is of keeping it. Um, and then I actually would prefer to just continue to have no video recording. I know that's not the motion on the table. So, um, just because I do recall the conversation, I agree with Council Member Dolesandro. um there were people taking pictures and screenshots of people speaking at listening sessions and putting them on Facebook and it was like online bullying and so we decided to just take that that part of it out of the equation and granted anybody can come and videotape us on their phones that happens all the time that's their prerogative but um I kind of feel like just for the um because we do know that people have started to come to the listening sessions more because it is more accessible and more comfortable um I I would be in favor of keeping it audio only. >> Just for clarification, um I'm aware that we don't have uh the videotaping live that is only accessible 24 hours after the fact. Am I correct on that? >> Um yeah. So, um you know, I don't see the problem with having it available 24 hours later. Um I'm in support of having it accessible to people. uh video after listening session. Um so if we're ready to vote on it, we can do that. I guess >> uh mayor prom and members from a parliamentary procedure perspective, let me just say I'm hearing that we have a motion on the floor. Council member Nelson made that motion um to strike the call-in option available which is in the staff recommendation and then to edit that six bullet to audio and video recorded and then PN's no live broadcast. So my recommendation from a par parliamentary procedure perspective is that you need a second and then if you have a second then you should vote on this attachment and then once we have an attachment then you can move to the to the motions. >> All right. So, mayor, now would be or mayor prom, now would be a good time to call the vote on that particular motion, >> right? Those in favor >> say I >> don't oppose. >> No. >> So, said I >> fails. >> Fails. >> Fail. Motion fails. Yeah. Three. Three. >> Three. >> Mayor. >> Mayor. Uh, mayor, we got to Yeah, let's take that out. My recommendation is we take that out and just move the calendars forward today and uh maybe we have that conversation with the when the mayor returns. Uh so what I'll do is I'll go ahead and move um uh to adopt a resolution establishing the 2026 city council meeting calendar. >> Second. >> No other comments. Those in favor say I. Hi. >> Motion passes 64 for the calendar for the calendar council calendar, right? >> Only. All right, sounds good. >> Uh, mayor, do we need to uh postpone the other portion of the uh agenda or can that just be picked up again uh without any procedural function? >> M chair. >> Um, mayor prom and members. So, the second motion talks about two different things. those rules of procedure which would be great to have action on and then the listening session guidelines. So you could act on the the resolution um removing the references uh to the listening session in exhibits B. Um that would be helpful or if we can take it up at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> All right. Right. So then can we just let it stand or do I need to move to postpone it till uh uh make a motion to adopt a resolution to postpone uh uh the second item. >> Mayor prom and members I I think it would be appropriate to ask for uh a motion directing staff to bring it back to the next meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. Uh those in favor please say I. Motion passes 6. We now move to section four, hearings and resolutions and ordinances. We have several public hearings tonight. I will introduce each item in turn, present staff report, open for public comment if required, then ask for console discussion and action. A reminder to any aot anyone that testifies during our public hearings tonight. We have a fivem minute limit per speaker on public testimony. The signing sheet is on the podium. I encourage you to add your information after you testify or while you are waiting to testify. Our first item is uh item 4.1. The council is asked to approve a resolution awarding the sale of general obligation capital improvement bonds series 2025E. Our CFO is presenting this item. >> Good evening um acting mayor Rivas um city manager and city council. Um today we had the bond sale on the 2025 E and this is for the salt shed. We um as we move forward on the next slide this morning we had 11 biders and um you know as we've moved through the process um let me go back to the bond timelines. So in August the council authorized the sale and it started the 30-day reverse referendum that is um required under capital improvement bonds and then um we had our credit rating calls in October. We had the bond sale this morning and um we will receive the proceeds approximately a month from today. On the next slide, we will give the some of the information on that. Um again, we are um one of 35 municipal governments um countrywide um that have the three AAA's. Um again, the I believe in our last um conversation on bonds about a month ago, we went through the ratings on this one. In this particular um bond, we only had um S&P rate this one. Um it keeps the price a little bit lower on bond issuance cost to just have the one rating on this particular one. Um and then if we move to the next slide. So in this particular bond, um the project cost needs $12 million. Um and it's again for the the land acquisition for the salt shed and for the building um of the salt shed. It is a 20-year term bond. Um the property taxes will be paying the debt service on these bonds with the premium that we received on these bonds um was just over $800,000 of premium. So the final amount of the par that we will be issuing the debt for um if the council should award it this evening is 11,245,000. We had 11 biders. Um UBS was the lowest bidder um at a true interest cost at 3.62%. And then the next slide. Um, and then just some um, other information. We have um, Elizabeth Bergman from Baker Tilly on um, on the call too. And we have Julie Edington from Q Tech Rock on the call should you have any questions for either of those. Um, Baker Tilly did share some information that there was 562 unique email addresses that um, went out and was looking at our bond sale information in the market. So, um, we had a lot of attention, um, looking out there today. >> Consult, are there any questions for Lori? >> No questions. So, so I would look for a motion to council member S. >> Thank you, uh, acting mayor. Um, I'd move to uh adopt a resolution awarding the sale of general obligation capital improvement bonds uh series 2025E in the original aggregate principal amount of 11,865,000 fixing their form and specifications. >> No, no, >> the the I'm sorry. Um, the true amount is >> apologies. Yep. Uh 11,245,000 fixing their form and specifications, directing their execution and delivery and providing for their payment. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I post motion passes 6. Our next item is uh item 4.2. The council is asked to authorize author as to authorize the issuance of sale tax exempt general obligation CIP bond bonds series 2026B. Our CFO is presenting this item. Lori, >> good evening. Um um acting mayor Rivas and council. This particular item um as um Priyanka brings up the PowerPoint on this particular one. This is for the public works garage and it is the start of the process to authorize the issuance of the debt. And so um with the information um as she's obtaining it here um again we are looking um for authorization from the city council to um bond up to $28 million for the garage. Currently in the CIP it is listed at 25.9 million but the bids will be going out in December. And we want to make sure um between that 25.9 and the $28 million there is sufficient um I would call ceiling should the bids come in higher than expected. So again it's for the fleet garage um and it will be a 20-year term. the project um the garage project has actually been in the CIP as you can see there from 2016. So it's been in the the CIP for nine years um and we are looking to bring this forward now to issue the debt in 2016 on February 2nd. On the next slide. So again, this sets off the timeline once the council, should they authorize it this evening, um we would go through a 30-day reverse referendum period. It would expire in December. Um we would have our credit rating call in January and we would have the bond sale date of February 2nd and the proceeds would come in approximately a month later and then the project can get started. And before you is the resolution should the council want to authorize the sale of these bonds council. Are there any questions for Lori? No questions. So I would look for a motion to approve. Look uh sorry I do have a question. just to remind myself uh Mayor Prom uh and uh Miss Economy Schuler um this includes uh this is in that new fac that this is in that new place um we are just to make sure I tie these two together right the salt shed is going where we're tearing down the building and the new fleet garage is going where the salt shed or do I have it backwards >> um acting mayor Rivas and council member Delesandro the salt shed is going um I would say on the east side of um where we just acquired property and then where the salt shed currently is and where the building that the city um purchased all that will get torn down and the new garage will go in both those parcels. >> Great. And and these bonds support both that tear down and reconstruction uh >> for the garage. Yes. >> Yep. Great. Thank you. That was ultimately my question. Thank you. Uh nothing else. Thank you. So, look for a motion to approve. >> I'm happy to make the motion if you want. Sorry, I could have done that while I was in there, couldn't I? Sorry about that. >> Okay. Uh, I move uh to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of tax exempt general obligation capital improvement bonds in the proposed aggregate principal amount of $28 million. >> Second. >> Those in favor? I I motion passes 6. >> Thank you. Our next item is item uh 4.3. The council is asked to hold a public hearing on the city's ordinance to increase wastewater rates. Our deputy finance manager is presenting this item. Carrie, >> good evening. uh acting mayor rebas and city council. So uh before I get into the information for the utility funds and the 2026 rates, we go to Oh, I have it right here. Um just want to take the opportunity again to talk about where we are in the budget calendar. So of course tonight is the utility rate hearing. Then next week, November 24th, will be a discussion on the 2026 budget and 2026 tax levy with an opportunity for public comment. And then December 8th will be the truth and taxation public hearing. And then on December 15th is the date that the council will adopt the final 2026 tax levy and budget. So, the information I'm presenting this evening, it's a review of what was shared with the council at the October 20th study session. And at that meeting, utility superintendent Scott Anderson, water resources manager Brian Greedel, and solid waste project coordinator Laura her provided a detailed overview. I won't go into that same level of detail tonight and we'll instead just go um do a kind of brie brief recap, but all three of them are here in the city council chambers this evening if you have any questions after my presentation. So, water utility fund. Uh, as a reminder, we are holding water rates flat for 2026 because the water utility fund still has a healthy working capital balance. Um, that it's strong enough to support the upcoming capital needs that are forecasted. We are expecting a small revenue increase of about 5,000. You can see there um compared to 25 just for the lab service fees. But then um that is offset by there's a decrease in the cell tower revenue that comes into this fund by 26,000. But the biggest change uh from 2025 is with our capital outlay. So that is going up about 1.8 million compared to 2025. And then this is the 2025 rates which will also be the 2026 rates. So no changes proposed for 26. And then the long-term model. Um you can see here we are showing the working capital balance in green which is signifying um it is in a healthy condition um forecasted out compared to the goal. Next up the wastewater utility fund or sewer fund. So for the wastewater utility we are proposing a 6% rate increase for 2026. And you'll see that the overall program income is only showing going up 3%, a little over 3%. And that is because we did lower what we're forecasting for the city sack fees, the new city sack fee revenue, just based on what we're seeing coming in currently. So that went down from what we were originally projecting at 600,000 down to 200,000. Just being conservative and looking at how that's coming in now. The biggest change um but in both revenues and expenses in this 2026 budget is be is due to the very large North Central Sanitary Sewer Cap capacity improvement project which we've been talking about. That's around $29 million project and we will be issuing bonds for that. But then this fund will be paying back that debt. So for the wastewater utility we're proposing a 6% rate increase for 2026. So that will be $61 per every 1,000 gallons. And then because of this large capital project um that's coming uh to increase capacity for development, we'll see some strain on the working capital balance looking out. Um this is a conservative projection. You can see that here it dips down into the red and um which means it's going below 80% of our working capital goal. But the fund itself is uh not expected to go negative, just below where we would like it to be for the goal. And um the balance is projected to go back up in future years. So one thing that could help strengthen this is if those city sack fee revenues are actually higher than what we're projecting or what we've been seeing so far. So that would help. Next is the storm water utility fund. Similar to the water utility, we are proposing no rate increase for storm water for next year. And this fund continues to have a healthy working capital balance that's sufficient to support uh future capital needs. The biggest increases here too are capital outlay. So you can see $450,000 more in capital outlay. And then we also have some related engineering professional services for projects that's joined up with that material um and services line. And just showing you the 25 rates, the 2026 rates will be the same. So no changes proposed. And then the storm water long-term model um showing a healthy working capital balance. It does slightly dip down in 2029. So it's going below that 90% um but coming back up forecasted to come back up in following years. And then the solid waste utility fund. So just a brief recap. So, in August 2024, the city council directed staff to update the garbage rate structure by increasing the price differences between cart sizes and adding and also adding an every other week service option. So, the goals are to make the system um fairer, encourage more recycling and organics participation precipitation, sorry, and support uh long-term financial sustainability. So this direction is based on the 2024 pay as you throw rate study and which reviewed uh collection costs, service levels and uh received community input. So here are the proposed 2026 garbage rates based on council direction. So, this also includes that new every other week small cart option and staying with the small cart uh saves about 6% compared to 2025. And then the new every other week service is nearly a 30% cheaper option than the current small weekly rate. And then but then the large cart users will see um an increase in um 38%. And then overall just what we're forecasting we'll know better once this uh rolls out but that the average household would be expected to see a decrease. And then this slide shows all of the solid waste rates. So all the services except garbage include that standard 3 and a half% contract escalator. And then um just to recap, organics recycling started in March of 2022. And just like regular recycling, it's paid by all households that have city collection service. And residents can opt in for a cart at any time. And currently the participation is at 32%. So this is that timeline that um you've seen where the cart chart changes um and the roll out of the every other week service here. So residents who sign up by December 15th will receive cards by the end of March and those that sign up by February February 16th will receive them by the end of April. And those requests can be made online or by phone or in person here at city hall or at community events. Um but that new every other week service will start in January. So uh we are forecasting about a 5% increase in revenues based on the new pricing structure and the higher revenues from large garbage carts um in our forecast would be offsetting some of the reductions from customers that are choosing to go to smaller carts or switching to that every other week service. Um it's just a forecast though. So, we'll be watching that closely to see how customers adjust under this new plan and uh we'll update our projections as we go. Um the large increase in expenses in 2025 is due to the curbside cleanup because 2026 will be a curbside cleanup year now that we do that every other year. So, we do that on the even years. And then this is the long-term model. Um, so we're tracking to meet our working capital goal for the solid waste fund and then you um showing that every other year um curbside cleanup which is a large expense. So just putting that all together um no changes for water or storm water. uh wastewater there's a 6% increase and then just everything together for solid waste with all the changes we have estimating 1% decrease and then this next slide there are a lot of numbers on here there's a lot of detail um I'll just for tonight I'll just focus on the very bottom the yearly impact so on the left a small household using the new every other week service could save about $30 a year. And then um going over it kind of goes from small usage, medium, large, different examples. So then in these scenarios, a small usage customer would have a $10 per year increase, medium $84, and then large $165 for the year. And that is the end of my presentation. Council, do you have any questions, comments? [clears throat] >> Council member, >> thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you for um uh going over which is, you know, a level of detail that we've covered in a number of different meetings. I know you referred to that earlier that you really got into the level of detail uh with the council in previous meetings. And I just uh hope that as we have our conversation that uh folks remember that that there was uh additional meetings prior to getting to today. Um and I don't have any specific question but I want to thank you again for uh uh what uh you and staff has done to to get us to this point and and also our work that we've done here to transform the the process. comments, questions, >> just a point of order. We have a public hearing on this, right? Okay. So, I'll hold my comments till after the public hearing. Thanks. >> So, this one is the next. [clears throat] >> Okay. Okay. At this time, I'll I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the chambers wishing to speak on this item? >> Yes, please come up. >> My face any particular way or face this way? >> Please please sign your name or afterwards if you if you don't mind you. >> Okay. Yes. I'm Richard Heler and I'm a Bloomington resident and uh I have a little question on the agenda, but uh I had thought with that we were going to be here uh to discuss the the uh PMP a little bit. Um >> that would be in a at a later time in during the meeting. Is that what you wish to speak about? >> Yes. And I have a couple of people here also who want to talk about that. And uh I guess I had a question on uh the um protocol whether we can ask questions of the council or everything goes to the question. I mean everything goes to the council. In other words, when these speakers were up here, nobody asked us if we >> mayor prom members. So right now uh the public hearing that we have is on item 4.3, which is the wastewater rates. Uh that is the item that we're taking public testimony on right now. So, if you have any testimony on that item, >> this would be the appropriate time for that. If you'd like to talk about the PMP, which is the pavement management program, that's going to be a couple of item items on the agenda later, and we want to keep your testimony on that item in that public hearing separately. >> Okay. I'm just looking at this notice that I got that said up here. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, that's not true. >> No, it's true. Um, >> but discuss PMP. >> Yep. So, we're on item 4.3 and then the PMP is item 4.8. So, it'll be in about 15 minutes. >> Oh, I I thought it was uh 3.9 or something. Yes. >> 4.8 is the PMP. >> 4. Okay. I don't have that. >> Okay. >> I don't have the 400s. Okay. >> That's all I had then. So, >> we can speak later on. >> If you can come, please come back after. Thank you. >> Um, is is there anybody else that wishes to speak on? Thank you. handed out here. >> I didn't realize I'd be talking about uh the garbage. Uh I really don't. My name is Matt Larson. I live in on Logan Avenue. Um I didn't really want to come to the city council. Last time I was here is when you guys were talking about I can wait. >> Mayor Pro members, uh this is the public hearing on wastewater. The garbage is >> when she talked about the garbage prices. So that's part that's why I want to talk. That's going to be the next public hearing. This public hearing is on the waste water. >> Just wanted to clarify because she talked about the water and the garbage at the same time. >> Yep. >> So, it wasn't really clear. >> Yeah. >> The presentation was on all the utility rates and so we're going to be taking them each in order. So, 4.3 is the public hearing that the acting mayor is opening right now. >> I understand that. It's just because she talked about part of it and >> it's a sticking point. Yeah. >> You promised nothing would go up. Boom. >> But to go up 38% is crazy. I'll come back. >> Thank you. >> Say, mayor point. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, just just so there's a there's a little bit of confusion, too. I think the uh the uh the agenda that we have here is just missing the uh the additional page. I think that's what's uh providing the the confusion. So, just just so everybody everybody knows, mayor, if you're okay with that, that I the agenda you may have seen up there or picked up only goes down to 316, which only includes all of our our consent agenda. And I think the the city attorney did a nice job of explaining that we're going to walk our way through each one of these uh items, you know, 4.3, which is the uh public hearing on uh the ordinance to increase wastewater rates. And then next we'll we'll cover uh the items around solid waste and refuge which is 4.4. And then you know though there on and and their their fourth uh and then uh later on which this is the agenda you don't have um after we get through all these ones here we'll get to that 8 point uh that 4.8 one which is that uh feasibility study and the payment management uh uh piece. So we'll try to get to that as soon as possible. Hopefully that clarifies a little things uh and hopefully you won't be as confused as I was. So, uh, hopefully that helps. Uh, bear. >> Yeah. >> Is there anybody else that wishes to speak in regards to the wastewater? >> Oh, Prianka, do we have anything anybody on the phone? >> Mayor Proam, we do not have anyone online. >> Um, that's it. Um, can I look for a motion to this? >> So, move to close the hearing for wastewater rates. Second. [clears throat] >> Uh, those in favor? >> I >> against motion passes 6. >> All right. Our next item is uh 4.4. Oh, sorry. Oh, council. Any discussion on item 4.3? It's uh Council Leandro, you had something? >> Uh, no. I'm going to save my comments to when we get to the garbage stuff. >> All right. Thank you. Thanks. >> So, our next um right, council, could I get a motion on item 4.3? >> Mayor, I'd be happy to make that motion. I'll move a motion to adopt an ordinance amending a pedex A of the city code to increase the wastewater service rates as indicated in chapter 11. >> Second. >> Um those in favor? >> I against both. Motion passes 6. All right. Our next item is uh item 4.4. The council is asked to hold a public hearing on the city's ordinance amendance amending solid waste and refuse collection fees. At this time, uh I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the chambers wishing to speak on this item against this uh solid waste? >> I thought that was the next week. I'm sorry. Hey, how's everybody doing? My name is Matt Larson. Um, I came here just for something later on in the in the meeting today, but uh, one I kind of will bring it up right now is because I came here years ago when you guys wanted to bring the garbage into the city and I was against it because I like the I'd rather have the businesses actually fight for for our business that we can control it. And to see that and we were promised that we were the whole goal was to have less trucks coming down the roads and now you're gonna say we can do every other week. Same truck's going to come down every single road unless everybody switches. So which one is it? And a bunch of you guys are new from when this happens. But at the same time to see a percentage go up 38% of anything is out of control. I I don't understand that. And what I'd like to talk about is if you guys when you're making your decisions, can you please look at every little thing that every half a percent people keep saying, "Oh, it's only a half a percent on my cable bill. It's only a, you know, 3/4% because we have to do this because of the Mall of America. We've got a great city. Your staff is phenomenal." Is I I didn't want to be here, but to see the thing today with the police was phenomenal. I love to see that. Thank you, Chief. Um, but I think we really need to look at that because this is one group of people asking for money. We have Henipin County people looking for money. We have the state looking for money, the federal government looking for money. And I have three, four neighbors that are all retired right in my neighborhood. And you could say, well, they don't have that much trash. But it's everything. So I' I'd love to see us, maybe the city manager could keep score of who says no to things throughout the year and keep score, you know? Are we saying no enough? Because it's really easy to say yes, but everything adds up so darn quick that we're losing the ability to do things we want to do for things. And things don't have to be so nice. Beautiful bathroom. Outrageously expensive. You know, it's a million dollars for a bathroom for 10 bathrooms. So, you got to please think about that on every little decision we make because it's so easy to say yes. But also fight the fight the contractors to put up your you know a bigger fight to lower the lower the cost. How can we reduce cost because I never hear anybody saying what are we doing to reduce the cost for everybody? >> I'll come back later on tonight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else wish we should speak on uh the solid waste and refuse collection fees? [clears throat] Brianka, do we have anybody online or phone? >> Mayor Pro, we do not have anyone online. >> Council, the public has had the opportunity to testify. Um, could I get a motion to close the public hearing? >> So moved. >> Council, any discussion on item 4.4? >> Yes. Um, council member de Alexisander. >> Thank you. So, [clears throat] uh, my comments are hold. We haven't closed. Um, those >> I'm sorry. I >> Oh, sorry about that. Council member the Alex Alessandro. Oh, those in favor of closing the public hearing. >> I motion passes passes 6. >> Now, um, council member the Alessandro. Sorry. >> That's okay. No worries. Thank you. Um, so my comments uh might I don't know if they'll address the gentleman's questions there, uh, maybe a portion of it. Um, in my comments, what I was going to say was thank you actually because I'm a fan of these changes to the solid waste. And here's why I the very it's fascinating to me. I have had of all the conversations I've had around the the the garbage. Um, aside from the yes, I like collection, no, I don't like gun, you know, that which is a debate that continues in this city long after the vote has been h cast, I um I have people tell me that they think paying what they pay to put out a garbage can that has nothing in it every week is silly because they don't have enough garbage for that. especially my I'm going to call this Eleanor's bill when it gets done eventually because my good my my neighbor Eleanor uh lives at on Kfax Avenue um asked for this explicitly, right? As a senior, she doesn't have enough garbage. What she wanted was, hey, could we share garbage across a couple of people or whatever, right? Trying to find ways for them to actually reduce the amount of money that they pay on for things when they don't use them. I am myself a single person in my house at the moment because my uh my wife is not um living in town. So I barely have enough garbage for every two weeks, let alone, you know, once a week. Um and that's because I use the composting and the recycling a lot. And so we are trying to encourage as a city who's adopted a sustainability model, we are trying to encourage people to put things in different bins. You can have a large recycling bin with uh and as many of those as you want. um that's an attempt to offset what goes in our landfills. And so um I I don't I I understand the the the comments and I I get that. I agree that we need to be fiscally responsible. I actually think this is a fiscally responsible thing. We're asking for the people who put most of the stuff into a landfill to pay more for that than the people who don't. And I think that that's correct. So I'm going to support it. Uh I appreciate it being brought to council. Um, and I um I'm glad that we're finally getting to a place where um we can make distinctions between people who are are are in need of some relief around some of this stuff and people who, you know, haven't chosen to to to to kind of modify what their behaviors are, whatever for whatever reason, they have that right to. So, uh, with that, I'll be voting for it. Thanks, >> Council Member. >> Thank you, Acting Mayor. Um, first I I just want to thank staff for all the work they're doing with this. I know it takes a lot to uh to work and negotiate contracts and make sure that we're we're getting things and given the the work that we have to do knowing that our infrastructure is from the 60s and 70s. Uh it's incredible that we don't have higher levy increases because of the age of our infrastructure specifically for the [snorts] solid waste. The thing that I've always been concerned with for this um and if you've been paying attention, we've been talking about solid waste since like February. Uh this has been a long time. This isn't the first time that we're talking about it tonight. This is a culmination of four or five meetings that we've already had to talk about solid waste and what we have to do given that the contract's up in 2026. And since we've had those conversations, the biggest thing that I've been concerned about is that [clears throat] the increases in solid waste um really impact families. The pricing structure, my concern is won't change people's habits. They'll pay less because they might move down to a smaller can, but they're still putting in the same amount of garbage. Um, and simply moving to a smaller can doesn't change habits. To me, it feels like s the families who simply cannot because like me, they have three, four, five kids, cannot move down to a medium or a small, can't even think about doing every other week because there's so many diapers that pile up. And so to me, what it is is it's families who live in town that are subsidizing lower users, lower garbage generators. And to me, the concern is that's going to drive families out of Bloomington instead of to Bloomington. And so with this uh solid waste, I understand the thought and the concept behind it. Um but I truly feel like it's putting our families in Bloomington at a disadvantage. And it's something that I just can't do because I'm in that stage of life. I'm in the stage of life where a birthday party puts me over by literally double. I can't fit enough. I have to wait for next week and slowly put it in and wait. Um because and every time you have an open lid, every time there's an extra bag and start extra charge and so all I see in this is that there's continue to be more charges without any um benefit that we can can considerably see to drive those habits. So um with that, that's my thoughts on that. [clears throat] >> Thank you, mayor. Um, so I um I think in 2024 we did a pay as youth throw study and there were pretty robust findings and um you know I was really grateful that staff did that because it was I felt like really compelling evidence that shows that when you make these changes people's habits do change. So I actually just recently got the small garbage cart in our house at our house and my husband was like what are you doing? I mean he was kind of mad at me. Um but guess what? But I cleaned out the fridge this weekend and I normally would just throw stuff in the garbage and I was emptying containers and like separating things and I had a big old bag of organics and a small one of garbage, right? Like so and I'm not saying that's how everybody is, but um the evidence would suggest that these kinds of changes do support behavior change. And so um I just wanted to maybe I just wanted to point that out because um these changes were based on a study that was conducted. Um and then we also had our Let's Talk Bloomington page. there was a lot of community engagement. Um, so again, and that started back in 2024, so we've been talking about this for quite a while. Um, uh, there was another point I was going to make. I can't remember what it is now, but um, I will be supporting this. I think that, uh, we have to figure out ways to in to get people to start changing their habits. Uh, we just were fighting the Burnsville landfill because they're increasing in size. 40% of what goes in that landfill is organics, right? we need to start encouraging people to and and right and and in incentivizing them to change their habits. And so I will be supporting these changes. Um and like any big change, it's going to take time for people to adjust. Um but that's where I'm at. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. Um, I wanted to um uh uh give the uh staff the opportunity uh to respond to a couple of questions that were were raised uh that I wanted to make sure I got an answer to. Uh the the 30% increase uh uh that number that was talked about uh for this particular year. Do we know uh how much that would have been part of because I know we've got the uh every other year uh uh spring cleanup. I'm trying to think what we call now, the bulky waste removal thing. How much of that because I heard one of the the presenters that came up here um had had uh discussed that we that this was like a 30% increase. Can we respond to that at all? >> Uh yes, council member. I'll ask uh city staff to come forward and clarify that for you. >> Acting mayor, council members. Uh so the 30% increase in the garbage is for the large garbage cart. So um had we kept our solid waste rate similar to the structure we've had in previous years with the new contract uh that increase would be probably about 4 and a.5% across all of our garbage cart service levels. Um that's what we've done stand in in previous years. Um there is a larger increase in 2026 on the larger garbage cart and that is reflective of the results of this pay as you throw study. Um based on how our consultant has anticipated residents will move um their their cart sizes may shift and to make the whole the program whole in our in our revenue. So there is a larger increase on our large garbage cart and the the small garbage cart is actually going to see a reduction in cost. So it's it's it's different than previous years. >> And so it's not a 30% increase across all uh folks that are >> That's 38% 38%. Yeah. 38%. Uh the other uh questions raised since if I could mayor uh uh if I could ask uh uh the the roads you know one of the we had there's four different items that we had talked about um uh during that period of time and I'm you know I'm struggling to write them all down here uh because it's been a little bit of time since I've been on the OC committee. One of them was roads, noise, um, uh, and, uh, uh, smells. And it was a few things that we had in that list of items. And one of the items that, uh, that the speaker, uh, had brought forward was this idea of, of, of the roads. In fact, when you go every other week, that that would increase the amount of traffic on the roads. Is that is is that the case with this with this proposal of going every other week? >> Uh, acting mayor and council member Lman. Um, no, that is not the case. the the the garbage, the majority of homes are still going to continue to have weekly collection. And so that truck is going to be driving down each road every week. Um, >> and they would just skip >> it's just going to be skipping those homes that are every other week. So, >> it does not increase the traffic on the roads. >> All right. Thank you for uh making some uh uh I just want to get that clarified. if there's anything else I missed staff uh from that speaker that I can think of. I just want to make sure we're answering all the the speaker's questions. >> Okay. All right. Well, then I just had a couple of comments and thank you. Uh uh you know, I think uh Council Member Carter did an excellent job of outlining uh specifically uh the reasons why, you know, that I support uh uh us moving forward with this. Now, what I will say, you know, uh uh to my my colleague here that that sits next to me here is that Yeah, I hear you cuz I I I had that same same thought in my mind too as well. In fact, you know, former council member Spencer uh brought that same idea forward um about the water uh rates. And you know what? Hey, you're you're right. You know, there is there is an aspect, you know, when you have a larger family that there's going to be somewhat of a what of an impact and you can't get around the the diapers. for example, I can't get around diapers. That's impossible. I'd love to go to every other week. And that's just one of the the problems when you we try to set up the accessibility. Now, I mean, uh, you know, because I served on the the committee that was looking at this and so we we thought about that. So, let me personally apologize to you and residents that are are struggling with that, but I think this is an opportunity for us to move this forward and and get to where we need to get to. You know, my colleague put it right. If we really want to try to reduce the amount that we're putting in Burnsville, we got to start somewhere. But we we cannot forget our large families and and um we need to think about that as we kind of move forward with this process. But this is a good place to start. And unfortunately, you're going to be, you know, having to pay a little bit of that burden, but we did look to find a way in which to try to figure out ways to mitigate that. And just so folks know, uh you can get an additional recycling bin. um most of the waste that's in there is is typically um organic uh type waste that's in there. And so if you do kind of what my colleague said again, I don't need to repeat all of what she said, but uh it's exactly how we do it. Now, understanding that though, we're we're at at this stage of of this of this uh uh of this process and we need to take additional steps as we kind of move forward to to make sure that we're as inclusive uh for everyone uh as possible to make sure they can all take advantage of this. And I'm looking forward to us having that opportunity as we evolve this uh particular process and I hope that we can get your support because we know from an environmental standpoint we really need to need to work in that direction. >> Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you uh Mayor Reus. Um just a [clears throat] couple quick things. A lot's been said on this. I want to make a couple points quick. Um appreciate the uh concern about the increase of costs uh for people and and and we do take that seriously. I would direct people to look at the weighted average rate which is decreasing by 4% for people within Bloomington because they do have more choices than they used to have in terms of their service. So those large families if they can do a little bit and get down to that medium. I just point out that today's price for a large is 1908. A medium next year will cost $1850. So you would actually reduce rate. You don't have to go all the way down to small. You don't have to go every other week. You just have to decrease a little bit and you can save money on this thing. I would also point out that this is not a revenue source for the city. This goes to pay a private companies that pick up our trash. The city doesn't make money on this. The city pays a private company to do it. Just like we pay private contractors to rebuild our roads. We are not in this business to make money. That that is not what we're doing here. We're not raising rates so we can go spend it on other things. We are raising rates to pay for trash and for the tipping fees and for the people that drive the trucks and all of those things. And yeah, they have gone up over the years, but we put together a platform that gives every family, every resident an opportunity to save money. I think councelor Dellesandro said it uh with regards to many of the people that they have just a tiny amount of waste and this every other week is a huge savings something they've been asking for for a long time that that we look at and so I'm I'm very happy with I have other concerns about this because it's not specifically aligned with our contract with the haulers and there are some pros and cons of that but [clears throat] in terms of this format it gives you more control it gives you options it gives you the opportunity to save money if you can do that uh with a little bit of maybe a little bit of change of behavior and that is what it's trying to encourage. So, um so that's that's all I got to say. I I I support this. I think it's the right direction to go and um appreciate staff's hard work on it and I appreciate the concerns. We should always be looking out for the cost of things for people. That is a very serious concern and I think if you look at this in totality, it's exactly what it does. I just have a quick comment myself. Um, and I'm going to reiterate to the fact that this is as a council member, not as a mayor. Okay. Um, I um [laughter] I will say that I will not support this uh for the fact that a lot of my constituents have contacted me on regards to having families. I got three big dogs and I generate a lot of garbage. So we use a 95gallon container and we it fills up every week. Uh but we we take that into account. So a lot of the families uh that have written to me and whenever they see me, they have approached me is they're concerned about it because like uh council member Moa mentioned uh it's a burden on families. Uh especially because they actually overfill their container once a week, the large ones. So, um, on that note, I will not support this item. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. I'm prom. I'm very happy to make the motion. [snorts] >> All right. 4.4. Right. Yeah. Uh I move to adopt an ordinance amending chapter 10 and appendix A of the city code to amend solid waste and refuge collection fees as indicated in chapter 11. >> Second. [snorts] >> All those in favor? >> I post. >> No. >> No. >> Motion passes forward to summary publication then. Mr. Marim. >> Sorry. >> Uh for some I'm assuming you want me to do some publication. Yep. Thank you, sir. Uh motion to adopt a resolution directing summary publication of the ordinance amending appendix A of the city code to increase wastewater service rates indicated in chapter 11 and ordinance uh amending chapter 10 and appendix A of the city code to amend solid waste and refuge collection fees as indicated in chapter 11. >> Okay. Those in favor >> I >> I motion passes 69. 4.4. Our next item is 4.5. The council is asked to adopt a resolution to establish uh storm water charges. Uh, console. Uh, are there any questions? No. Do we have it? Could I get a motion to approve uh IM4.5? >> Yeah, I'd be happy to make that motion, mayor. Um, mayor, I'll move a motion to adopt uh a resolution establishing a basic uh system rate for the purpose of calculating storm water drainage charges pursuant to section 16.15 of the city code. >> Second item 4.6. The council is asked to establish the 2026 util utility fund budget. Uh could I get a motion to approve? >> Mayor, I'll move a a resolution adopting uh 20206 water, wastewater, storm water, and uh solid waste enterprise budget funds. >> Second. Um those in favor? >> I oppose. Motion passes 6. Our next agenda item is item 4.7. The council is asked to hold a public hearing on the city's annual miscellaneous issues ordinances. There are many separate ordinances. However, we will hold a single public hearing for all of them due to the nature of many of them. As a reminder, these items are characterized as miscellaneous, which means they are either cleanup or minor policy matters. The cleanup items are ordinance A to O and Q to Z. The minor policy changes are ordinances A A and FF. We will have the staff presentations, then the public hearing if any member of the council wishes to cast a different vote on one or more of the individual ordinances. We will remove the particular ordinance from the larger motion and acted on it through an individual motion. Any questions? Planner HBEC is presenting this item. >> Uh good evening acting mayor and council members. Uh thanks for the item introduction. Uh I can go much faster through this slide now. Um so basically as described uh this is kind of a hodgepodge of ordinances that don't warrant their own project. Um and as acting mayor Vivas said um there are two categories which are cleanup items um which we're not really going to go through one by one and then there are uh more policy change items. So, as far as a timeline goes, um we held a public hearing on October 23rd at planning commission. Um and planning commission approved these ordinances 6. Uh so this is a very long list of cleanup items. Um no, ordinance P was removed from the project as we felt it needed further work. Uh we're just going to go through one example of a cleanup item. Um but we can discuss these individually if needed. Uh so ordinance A is a cleanup item and it is simply adding the word or. Um it was a grammatical mistake and that's what much of the cleanup items are. Uh we will go through the policy items one by one. Um you saw all these at the study session. Uh but we did kind of reorganize and reorder some of these. Um so we'll start with ordinance AA which is lighting standards update. So the exterior lighting section of the code needs to be updated to specify when lighting plans are required. Not every project that involves the installation of lighting such as within a ground sign for example necessitates a comprehensive phototric plan. Um, additionally, staff is proposing adding a statement about maintenance of lighting to ensure it's kept in good repair. Ordinance BB um came from a the office conversion study which uh came before council earlier in the year. Um, and so it is proposing to allow multifamily residential uses when combined with minimum levels of non-residential floor area in the zoning districts listed on the screen. Um, and then ordinance CC application processes updates. So there's a existing process for appeals to certificates of appropriateness that needs to be cleaned up because the code currently says that appeals of the planning commission decision would then go to a public hearing at the planning commission. Uh but that's inaccurate. They should actually be decided on by the council. Um additionally with appeals of decision of certificates of appropriateness, there is currently no fee listed. The fee should be $220 which mirrors other appeal fuel costs fee costs. And then lastly, as part of the streamlining development project completed last year, we established the process for appealing a variance decision by the planning commission but forgot to add it to the code. Um so the appeal process should include a public hearing at council. Ordinance DD relates to um garage height limits um and accessory height limits. So the accessory structure rules do not allow a garage or accessory structure to be taller than the principal dwelling uh which can be a challenge in some cases. Staff proposes a maximum of 15 ft in height for the access accessory structure and garages that do exceed the height of the principal dwelling. Ordinance E is proposing um removing the requirement that non-residential structures that are on the same site have to match um architecturally. So style, color, scheme and building materials. Um staff believes that this is an unnecessary burden um and limits design flexibility and creativity. And then lastly for the policy change items um related to sidewalk widths on minor collector roads. Uh currently code requires an 8ft sidewalk along minor collector roads which are shown on the map in light blue. Um the city engineer has agreed that this could be reduced to six feet when not abuing the curb. Uh, this amendment is intended to rightsize the sidewalks along lower volume roadways and decrease imperous surface while still providing adequate facilities. After planning commission and council feedback at the study sessions, um staff added language to provide the city engineer discretion as to when the sidewalks can be reduced to six feet. Um, so I have a motion on the screen and I'm available for questions. >> So, Mayor, is this the time you want to know which ones we want to hold? Um we have >> yeah [laughter] >> yeah I am but I want to solve myself just which one do public hearing this one >> at this time I'll open the public hearing is is there anyone in the chambers wishing to speak on any other ordinances is detail in item 4.7. Oh, I guess Reena, do we have anybody on line or the phone? >> Mayor Prom, we do not have anyone online. >> Council, could I get a motion to close the public hearing? >> So moved. >> Second. >> U, those in favor? I >> I motion passes 6 council. Any discussion on item five uh 4.7 as a reminder? >> Yep. >> So uh >> yeah, I think I've already stated in the last time we were together uh my my feeling about uh ordinance E um in terms of you know I'm I'm a I'm a square. My my my my sister likes having mishmash socks. I wasn't one that liked that and and that's my failure [laughter] to that and uh and I do I do think that uh um I just would like to see a little more of this uniformity or not that we not go down this direction directly the way that it is today. Now I do think that you know certainly uh folks can come to a different conclusion um around that but I do think some uniformity does make sense um but uh um and there are other ways of of going about doing this so um I I won't support that one. So, if we could hold that one out, I would appreciate it. But other than that, I think I the other ones I can I can get around. >> If if that makes sense, I can I can read this excluding eee. Is that what we want to do? Right. Okay. Are we ready? Anybody? Okay. >> All right. Mr. Mayor Prom, I will move to adopt an ordinance uh A through O and ordinances Q through Z excluding ordinance E. Is that how I do it? Oh, it's in the next one. My bad. I'll just do this one then. Uh ordinances A through O. That makes sense because E would be after the f first part of the alpha. Three and a half hours of sleep, guys. Part. Sorry. Um, ordinances A through O and ordinance Q through Z as included in the meeting packet, thereby amending chapters 6, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21,22, and appendix A of the city code. >> Second, >> I >> All right. Now, the next one, can I get a motion on the minor policy items ordinance AA through FF? >> Yep. Happy to do that, Mr. Mayor Prom. Uh, I move to adopt an ordinance uh an ordinance number and ordinances AA through FF excluding E as included in the meeting packet thereby amending 21 uh chapter 21 in appendix A of the city code. >> Second. >> So in favor >> I post motion passes 6. >> Okay. Uh I think we'll skip we do you want me to do summary publication on those first? Okay. So then then I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance E >> as included in the meeting packet thereby amending chapter 21 and appendix A of the city code. >> Second. >> Those in favor? >> I motion passes 6. Oh >> no no be no. Yeah. Sorry. Nope. >> Motion passes 51. >> Right. Oh here >> and then summary publication if you will if you're ready. Okay. Uh I move to adopt a resolution authorizing some summary publication of all of the 2025 miscellaneous issue ordinances. >> Second. >> Those in favor? >> I oppos. Motion passes 6. Our next item is item 4.8. The council is asked to hold a public hearing on the payment management program. Our engineering department is presenting this item. Brian and Dar. >> It's not easy. [clears throat] >> All right. Good evening, Mayor Prom, council members, city manager. Uh Darren Rezac. I'm a civil engineer in public works. Um with me I've got Brian Hansen, our development coordinator uh down in engineering. So this is the uh public hearing for the 2026 101 PMP street improvement project. Um I'm going to give a brief overview of the PMP project as a whole um and then turn it over to Brian for um kind of run through some of the assessment piece of it. So, so the pavement management program uh is the city's tool that we use for managing and ultimately improving about the 340 miles of streets that we have within the city. Um it's essentially our, you know, our asset management program for uh making sure that we have a functional and reliable uh transportation network in the city of Bloomington. So um the p the pavement management program is um the program itself and then what we do is uh in order to rank and score and um put projects together we use a pavement condition index or the PCI we love our acronyms down in engineering. Um pavement condition index is a basically we score the roads um score of uh 100 to zero um and with a 100 being a brand new road and a zero being a road that has uh reached the end of its usable life. So, um, within public works, we have staff members in our street maintenance department that are trained in assessing and scoring. And so, what they do is every year about onethird of the city uh, gets rescored and it provides an updated uh, pavement condition index. And what we're able to do is um, put together projects based off the uh, different PMP techniques that we have. So, the reconstruct, the overlay um, and then the seal coat. So, um, it also helps us put together our 5-year CIP program so we can, uh, let people know what's going to be happening in the future. So, um, what the program also does is we're also able to use some of those techniques, um, and and using them at the right time. So, um, finding out when a street needs to be, um, have seal coats or milling overlays or, you know, ultimately reconstructed. So, um, what that does for on the city side of it is, uh, the city and the property owner side of it is it helps manage the assessment. So, um, being able to use some of the other techniques that aren't funded through assessments helps, uh, both the property owners and the, uh, the city of Bloomington itself. So, and then why do we have PMP? So, prior to PMP, and this will make a little more sense on the next slide, but methods were leading to system failure. Um so what you see the two graphics that you have would be uh the graphic on the left would be representative of a road that was put in uh prior to the PMP program being uh um implemented uh over 30 years ago. Um so you'd have a brand new road would be constructed uh no routine maintenance is completed and then you know at a certain amount of time um that road is just reaches the end of its usable life. Um the graphic on the right you see is um using some of the PMP techniques that we have we're able to uh greatly extend that life cycle of the road. So we liken it to um providing you know routine maintenance on a vehicle. It's obviously a lot more cost effective to uh do that routine maintenance than it is to you know replace your vehicle every so often. So, uh, the current PMP, excuse me, current PMP program, um, we do about 2.5 to 3.5 miles every year of the reconstruct program. We have, uh, the 2026 program, excuse me, the 2026 project, we have, um, about 2 and a half miles scheduled. Um, the overlay, 9 miles until 2026, and then we, uh, bring it down to 8 miles. And then the seal coat um we're at 25 miles. So the uh the top two or excuse me, all three of those uh programs right now or projects right now we do hire out to uh contractors to complete with the seal code that's completed through a uh South Metro Joint Powers Association agreement. So uh overall goals of the program is keeping the PCI at 70 or above, keeping the problem streets. So that's the PCI of 35. So those streets that are in the reconstruct range, we keep them less than 10% of the total mileage. Um and then we have some numbers for uh the previous couple years uh PCIs. Our funding sources, um reconstruction, um portion of that is funded through assessments. Uh portion of that is funded through debt issued by the city. Um if we're on segments that have state aid routes, we'll uh we can pull funding for that. And then the utility work is funded through their associated accounts. Um overlay is the franchise fee. So that is the uh fee on the XL and Centerpoint bill. Um and then similar to if we're on state aid segments, we can use some of that money and then the associated uh utility funds for those. and then seal coding of the trails and replacement of the walks can also be funded through franchise fees. [clears throat] Uh so where we are in the process right now, so should the council uh order the 2026 101 project, um uh city of Bloomington engineering staff will put together the um engineering plans um that would go through the new year with the ultimate goal to bid the project and uh start construction in early spring of 2026. and then myself and Brian would be back in the fall of 26 for the special assessment hearing um to adopt those assessments. [snorts] And a couple addition additional items that we would be including on this project. Um so Stanley Avenue between uh it's 9M Creek and 84th Street. So the city did receive a safe house to school grant um that would be for the installation of a sidewalk on that stretch through there. So, um, we're proposing to actually narrow Stanley Avenue, uh, down and then install the sidewalk on the west side of it. Um, that work would be included with this project. The, um, but the, uh, the funding source would be would not come from, uh, assessments on that. Um, on Fremont Avenue, the that is the proposed route for the majority of the North Central Sanitary Sewer Project. Um so the stretch between 92nd and 90th is a uh non-curved segment. So um how we'd kind of bundle those projects, we would look at having um the contractor that bids for the North Central Sanitary Sewer Project once all the utility work would be complete then um that work would be the the road reconstruction would happen in itself. So, um, we would include items in that project for, um, obviously the curbon gutter and the surfacing to bring Fremont Avenue up to our current standards. And then, uh, Westbush Lake Road. So, we do we are investigating and we've included um, some dollars in the feasibility study. So, um, we do have a retaining wall on the west side of West Bush Lake Road that supports um, Westbush Lake Road kind of in the Tyrannese Woods area. Um that retaining wall is failing and we know it needs to be replaced as part of the project. Um we're also investigating the retaining wall on the east side just south of Highwood. Um it's a big large timber wall. Um so should the project be ordered, we'll look at investigating that further and see um see some options with um we can keep that rotating wall placed or if it would need to be replaced as part of the project. [snorts] >> All right. Thank you, Darren. Um, I'm going to speak a little bit to the assessment portion of the project now. So, as Darren mentioned, part of the the uh funding for the PMP reconstruct project is an assessment to adjacent property owners. So, uh the city's assessment policy is using is to use an adjusted front footage and that policy has been in place since 1962. And then the adjusted front footage is the basis for the assessment calculations for all properties. So, uh the calculation equates all lots into a rectangular lot. So, it's a function of the area of the property, not necessarily the shape or how much of it abuts the right of way. Um, and like I mentioned before, we use that total adjusted front footage multiplied by the rate for the improvement that's being assessed to determine that ultimate assessment. So, as part of the uh assessment process, we are required to provide an estimated assessment to adjacent property owners who may be uh assessed with the project if it's ordered and that was sent out to the property owners here earlier this fall. So looking at the assess the estimated assessments that were received by those adjacent property owners. Um the two improvements that were subject to an assessment or are subject to an assessment for this project if ordered are the surfacing of the street itself and also the the installation of curb and gutter. So the surfacing assessment that total estimated cost was about 3.1 million. The total adjusted front footage so the AFF of all the properties adjacent to those parcels uh subject to a surfacing assessment came out to just over 16,000. So you divide the total cost by the total adjusted front footage and that gives us our 100% rate. So that's the rate we would need to assess uh per adjusted front footage of each property to pay for it entirely through assessments. Uh in Bloomington we have two assessment rates. We don't assess at 100% rate. We assess it at 25% rate for single two and three family homes and a 50% rate for other homes. So you can see there where those uh assessment rates come in about $47 per foot for surfacing for those single two and three family homes. All other properties that 50% rate are at 94 foot $94 per adjusted front foot. And we do the same math for the curbon gutter. Again, that's about 1.9 million estimated. You see that adjusted front footage is less for the curbon gutter. And that's because Bloomington's policy is to is to assess for the initial installation of curbon gutter only. So, we do have street segments that are on this year's list that are being considered uh that don't have curb gutters. So, that would be installed with the project. Those segments that already have curbon gutter in place may have segments replaced with the project, but the properties are not subject to an assessment for that. So, that's the difference in the adjusted front footage you see there. Again, using that same math, we have the two rates that come out to that $55 per foot for the single two and three family homes and all their property types that $110 per foot. I will note that the assessment process is iterative. So, this is the estimated assessments right now based on the engineers estimate. If the project were to be ordered this evening, as Darren mentioned, it would go to construction or to design, excuse me, this winter, go out for bid in the spring. Once we get the bid prices back, if the project's awarded, we'll input those. We'll rerun our numbers again and then based on that we'll have a independent property evaluator do a special a special um benefit assessment to determine the benefit the properties would receive from the assessment. Uh state statute does not allow us to assess more than the benefit a property receives uh from that improvement. So we'll do that math and then before the final assessment role we come back before you and next fall we would ensure that the assessments that are being uh proposed for those properties are at or below that maximum special benefit they would receive. Uh this slide right here just shows kind of the different rates that other cities, peer cities use with throughout the the metro area. As you can see, it kind of varies. You can kind of see where Bloomington falls in. Again, that 25 and 50% rate. You can see some kind of have the same for both. Some have higher rates, some have lower rates, but just kind of see where we fall compared to our peer cities here. Slide. There we go. Um assessment payment options. So, um what's this going to cost me? How do I pay for this? If the project is ordered this evening, like we talked about, uh we will be calculating those final assessments next next uh end of summer, early fall, sending those out. So, the assessment hearing is usually the first meeting in October. At that point, if the assessments are levied, uh property owners would have until November 27th of 2026 to pay off the balance, minimum $100 up to the total amount. They're not required to pay anything, but they can do so and avoid paying any interest. After November 27th, any unpaid balances would automatically be rolled on to the property taxes and though the balance would be spread out evenly over 10 years, that principal would be spread out evenly over 10 years with the 5 and a.5% interest applied annually to the declining principal. So, if a property owner were to be assessed for the project and chose not to pay any portion of it in that prepayment window, the first time they would see a payment or a bill for the project would be with their May 2027 property tax statement. Um, if they were to let that play out throughout the 10 years of the assessment, the last payment would be due with their October 2036 property tax statement. Um, once the propert once the assessment is on the property tax role, uh, an or a property owner could pay off that amount at any time during those 10 years to avoid a paying additional interest. So, if after three years they had they wanted to pay off that remaining balance, they could do so and avoid paying that additional interest. Uh, we do have a hardship deferral program for those that qualify. Um, there are requirements you must meet. um if you're interested in that, our assessing division can help you with that. I will note that if a assessment isn't in the deferral status, it still does acrue interest. That's important to understand. And also that uh eligibility must be um annually uh you must be able to present that annually. So if you don't qualify after that year, the assessment becomes due in full. So it's important that you make sure that you qualify, continue to qualify that deferral status. Uh quick property order contact. Uh we have posted information regarding the project, proposed project on the city website. We had direct mailings to all the adjacent properties that were sent out with a notice of public hearing. We held informational meetings on November 3rd over in public works. We had two meetings, an afternoon and evening meeting. Um obviously the notice of public hearing in the Suncurrent as well. And then we Darren and I have both had conversations, traded emails and phone calls with residents prior to the meeting um tonight as well. And based on those conversations, I did want to just address one area that I know that there's people here this evening that may be speaking on this um is the Xylon Circle area. So, when we had our informational meetings, we received feedback from residents as well as emails um from residents that had um some concerns about the Xylon Circle area. So, I'll let Darren address kind of the construction portion of that here in a second and then I'm going to touch on the assessment portion real quick. So, >> yeah. So, Zylon Circle uh it was identified as uh being a street segment that is in the reconstruct range um both during, you know, using the PCI as well as um when the city engineering and uh maintenance staff do our driveounds. Um, so that was why it was included as a potential street on the on this year's project. Um, and it's also, you know, important to note that certain certain stretches of a street segment, um, you know, as they as they age, as there's additional wear on there, um, there might be, you know, uneven wear between one end of the culde-sac versus the other. So, um, obviously knowing that, um, the areas, you know, one segment of Zylon Circle might look a little better than, you know, let's say the entrance of it. So, um, we just want to touch on that for, uh, council to have a little bit of background, um, based on conversations we'd have with some of the property owners. >> And then on the assessment portion, I do want to make this point. I think it's important for the council and the residents to understand as well, is per the assessment policy, as you can see, there are eight parcels that are above Xylon Circle as well as West Bush Lake Road. Both segments are being considered for part of the project this year. So if Zylon Circle was not to be included in the 2026 101, but West Bush Lake Road remained in the project, those parcels would still be subject to an assessment for the West Bush Lake portion uh of the of the project. So again, back to that adjusted front footage calculation, the they have two frontages from a they front two public roadways, but because of the depth or the area of those lots, they actually only have one adjusted front footage. So, if the project were to be ordered with both Zylon Circle and West Bush Lake Road, they'd have the one assessment for the project, um, if Zylon Circle was removed and it was reconstructed, let's say 10 years down the road, um, they would still not face an assessment. Those parcels on the west side would not be assessed additional because they have one adjusted front footage and we assess for that one adjusted front footage at the end of the useful life. And since they would just been assessed for West Bush Lake Road, they would not be subject to an assessment for Xylon Circle in 10 to 15 years. The parcels in blue if Zylon Circle would be removed would not face an assessment uh with the 2026 101. However, when the Xylon Circle if that was added later date with a later project, they would be subject to an assessment at that time. >> And uh just speaking on what Brian mentioned about um if this was project was completed in the future. So um based on the condition of Xylon Circle and West Bush Lake Road, um this is a comment that was I know was sent to a few council members um as far as um hit the culde-sac at the same time. So while the um if if street segments are within the same vicinity within the same neighborhood um and the same PMP technique can be applied um and the streets are ready for it you know we do try include those projects together um for for a couple different reasons. Obviously a reconstruct project is uh fairly intrusive. Um so you know our thought is is um if we can kind of do it at once um that is better for the residents. It also provides u some better pricing for the contractors that you know you can keep these projects bundled together. Um and then it also sets us up in the future for our future PMP program. So if you reconstruct one area um you know it's it's can be generally assumed that when that area is up for a mill and overlay you can again do that al together. So, >> and with that, just a uh just kind of a recap of the PMP uh program in general. As Darren mentioned previously, the right action, the right time, the reason we do it, it helps prolong the pavement life, it reduces the overall cost of the maintenance of that and helps maintain the city's infrastructure. So, with that, we do have a suggested motion for you and happy to take any questions. >> Council, any questions for Ryan or Darren? Council member. Uh, thank you, acting mayor. Um, for Zylon Circle specifically, is there a cheaper option if they do Zylon Circle or Bush Lake? Like for example, like if they if we if Z Island Z wasn't done this year and they did Bush Bush Lake, would it be cheaper to do one or the other because they only have one adjusted front footage? >> Yep. So, um, thank you, acting mayor, council member. Um, from an assessment perspective, the the diff the the fee would be the same because again, the assessment is calculated based on the adjusted front footage multiplied by the rate of the improvement. So, since they only have one adjusted front footage, it doesn't matter if both Zylon Circle and West Bush Lake Road are being reconstructed or just West Bush Lake Road, that estimated assessment that was provided to them prior to would still be would still be current. So, it would not affect their assessment. >> Council member Loma. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, so then, uh, maybe I'll I'll pick up where where he left off. Uh, I'll do this in the reverse order, which I was going to ask. Um, so, uh, so if, uh, and I know we've got a PCI rating of, uh, 30 31 here, uh, that you're using as the example here, uh, if I were to have a street weight, uh, you know, for a, you know, a couple of years out, have we ever seen where that has been cheaper to to to do that? you know, in terms of we've seen any examples like that. So, where if I don't pay for something today, somehow my assessment would be somehow cheaper in in the, you know, 5 years or 10 years. >> Um, I think that kind of goes I guess historically over time have our assessment rates for surfacing gone up. >> Yeah, I mean that Yeah, thank you. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, uh, council. Yeah, the assessment I in my time in this role I have not seen I mean there's been some fluctuation where the rates for certain improvements have stayed pretty similar but we haven't seen major increases but we haven't seen big dips. I mean the cost of construction with the cost of everything you know has continued to to rise and those subsequent the rates have reflected that. So we try to keep them in line so they don't raise too much but um I haven't seen a major decrease over the eight or nine years I've been doing this. So the risk I take if I don't do it in this thing is that it may be more expensive in the future is basically what I'm hearing you say >> potentially. >> So then just two other real quick questions here. Um I and we don't have to go back to the slides. Um I I saw that Edina finally moved away from their assessment of going uh and we've talked about this many of times uh from going from 100% you know down to their I think it was 53% uh ratio uh that they have. And I noticed that uh Woodberry has uh for their business side of the house is 75% up to 100%. >> U have we looked at or considered that at all in terms of if you're a non-residential and we don't have to answer that today. I just thought that was really interesting that they were they were doing that and that's something I'm just I'm just curious about um in terms of terms of doing that. Um and then finally my last I guess it's more of a statement kind of question that I want to get answered later. Uh my other one is uh your slide 5030. Um uh for our assessment it is 25%. But who pays that other 75%. >> Great. Yeah. Thank you uh Mr. Mayor uh acting mayor council member. Um first your your comment regarding the different assessment rates for different cities. Um I can't speak exactly to Woodbury but again we have the two different rates for our other properties we use at 25 and 50% rate. So single two and single two and three family homes 25% rate 50% rate for all others. So that could be commercial industrial um you know u open space those type of things that's assess that 50% rate. So that's where we have been historically that has not changed. Um that's kind of where we've been as a city for quite a while now. So we haven't looked at changing those. Um to your Dina example, yes, I keep adjusting it every year because as you are probably aware, they've going they're going away from special assessments, but they're implementing a fee that everyone pays annually regard whether or not your street's being reconstructed. So they're collecting that fee still from all the property owners and then when the street's reconstructed, you've already prepaid, so to speak. So they're phasing out the special assessment and replacing that with a with a fee, annual fee for all their prop the residents. So they're still collecting those dollars, just doing it a different way. >> Different way. >> Um and then your last question, I apologize. I just >> Yeah, not a problem. So, so for example, uh we have a 25% uh that's paid by the by the >> Thank you. Yes. Yes. The question. Yes. So, of the uh of the project itself about 25% of the total project cost of the P&P reconstruct project is paid through assessments collected through assessments to adjacent properties. That remaining 75% as Darren mentioned is paid through citywide property taxes, the utility fees that are collected for the certain utility improvements and those type of things. So, about 25% of the total project cost is is collected through assessments. So if I So if my understanding is correct, if we delay a portion of a project, taxpayers would pay theoretically there's a risk of us paying more on that 75% if we delay that later on. >> Uh 75 I guess it's it's a it's a function of the cost total cost of the project what the project costs are construction costs are on an annual basis. So if construction costs increase next year then the 75% 25% of that total cost Yeah. That would that would be more than what we're paying this year. Correct. >> Thank you. I just want to make sure I have my understanding correct with that. >> Right. I just have a quick question for you. Um um make it quick. Um we don't have a lot of time, but I'm just curious. How do you explain that um that if you do the improvements on silent >> and west Bush Lake at the same time >> the houses or the properties uh on blue won't get charged for the assessment how is that >> sorry and Mr. Uh, acting mayor, I apologize if there's some confusion. If Zylon Circle is ordered as being proposed this evening, the houses in blue would also be assessed. That's correct. So, the only h the if Zylon Circle were to be removed from the project, the houses in blue would not receive an assessment for this year's work. However, the houses in red on the west side would still be subject to an assessment for the West Bush Lake portion if that were to remain in the project. >> You're welcome. >> Any other any other questions, console? No. Right. Um, so at this time I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the chambers that wishes to speak on this item? >> Come on. Come on up. Hello again. >> Hello. >> Uh, I'm Richard Heler again and I happen to live on Xylon Circle. First thing I would like to do is thank the engineers uh who've been really responsive in the city of Bloomington. I call them with an issue and they come out. Uh the reason I'm here though and I learned a lot here that I didn't know before and that is uh the type of assessment and uh I basically came here because I have an assessment uh in the mail that came in for $4,000. And I was trying to figure out uh why we needed the whole reconstruction of the the road since we're just a culde-sac. We have about uh 15 houses on it and uh that's it. the the roads. Uh if I've had a sewer issue, the city has come out right away and fixed it. So, uh this explains a little bit more. I'm still a little unclear about the eight houses would be assessed. Is Westbush Lake Road, for instance, going to be part of that? Is that the reason that those blue houses or something are not going to be assessed? I can't remember that. Uh >> I'm not sure who I'm talking >> Oh, I'm just Yeah, I recognize the names. [laughter] >> We've built >> um Mayor Mayor Pertim members, just so just we'll pause your time, but just to note, we'll write down the questions as people ask them during the public hearing and then we'll get they'll get answered by staff after everyone's done. >> Okay. Now, would we approve this before the questions are answered? I guess that's my issue. If everything gets approved, then Okay. So, we went to the first meeting and they said come to this one and get our uh issues front. Okay. So, uh I guess what I'm uh in asking for is that less of a work done and again I didn't realize that the beginning of the circle is more than the the end of it. But uh just saying if we can resurface it instead of re redoing it. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Does anybody else switch? Come on. >> My name is Annne Heler. I also live on Xylon Circle and I'm not I'm not up on the circle part. I'm on the beginning part. And the entrance is fine. The whole if you drive on the whole street, it's smooth. it's not potholed or uh I I don't see any need to tear the whole thing up and redo it. I think either a seal coat or an overlay would certainly approve the improve the appearance, but the actual street condition seems just fine. It's smooth. It doesn't have buckles in it and uh it seems like an overkill for that project. You Anybody else wishes to speak? How are you? Uh Dick Johnson. I'm also Xylon Circle. I'm one of the blue houses. Uh we certainly don't think it needs to be reconstructed. Um the road's 41 years old, I believe. Um there's about 45 cars probably that are garageed on it. Um I think we probably have less than 60 trips in and out a day. That road's going to last many years. Um resurfacing or just painting it is about the extent of what is required from a standpoint of aesthetics and safety. There's no safety issues on that road. [clears throat] Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> All right, Brianka, do we have anybody online wishing to speak? I just have a >> quick add to I was uh in South Carolina uh a couple of years ago and uh they have property tax on the frontage of the road of the streets that people live on. So what the the construction now is all you know the the frontage is 30 feet and it goes all the way back. So people are trying to save on their taxes by just having very small frontages and then having a long house which I thought was cut interest. >> Awesome. Jack had nobody online. >> All right. Larson again. Um I think I'd like to move over to Zilent Circle if I can. If I could be your neighbor. Um I want to bring up a couple things. Uh, I understand it's the square, the rectangular size of the property is how you could build for it. Okay. And I get that this probably been historical that we always have the assessments for people's houses. Don't quite understand why we pay for the tax for our fuel. We pay our property tax, but yet we have to pay for our our streets. Sewer breaks down, we don't have to pay for it. When you want to redo the street, we have to pay for it. Um, the money is something, but it's more the neighbors, you you know, I can handle the money, but I just don't think it's right. When I look at the road and I look at the chart, I don't think my street is over 70 years old. So, I'm not sure why we're not just resurfacing it. In addition, I know engineering's black and white. They we want to have our trends of how we're making our houses and everything in their streets, but this is an area that does not have uh curbs. And I think they that the highway department, the federal government has proved that we don't need curbs where there's roads. Look at every highway. We're always we're getting maybe get charged more for our sewer drainage sewer. Well, without having the the curbs, the water from the rain goes into our grass and waters our grass. And if we look at um uh the your your point on the garbage that if I have a small garbage can, I should be able to have it only pay a little bit and have it every other week. Well, I drive maybe 10 miles or 10 miles a week at the most. but yet I have to spend $10,000, which is more than double what my property tax is. So, I would say that we should look at it as a sure be great to come in and do these plots to redo the road, but wouldn't we be better off to say that road doesn't really need to be pretty? We could still seal coat it a couple more times because I think our road is really nice. I think you guys do a great job on taking care of the city. um that I don't think we always have to rip it all out and redo everything. I'm a big proponent of I don't see any added value to add curb in our neighborhood. I think it actually makes it more like rigid like city like city versus a nice open beautiful area where we've got the lakes. Um one thing I would like to also point out is between 86 and um 87, sorry about that on Logan, we have other problems. The sidewalk alone, which is a city one, is pitched as you walk down the sidewalk. It's pitched. It's about uh 10 inches per 10 feet or 12 inches per 12 feet like this. I think there's other areas that the city should be spending the money. So, I'm going to save you money. Let's get rid of the curb. We saved a couple million dollars or whatever it is. Get rid of the curbs or the sidewalk. Yeah, the curbs. And we spend the money on things that really need to be fixed. So, that's all I have to say. As you see, the trend from me is like, let's spend less, spend the money where we need to spend it. Thank you. Appreciate everybody's time. >> Thank you. >> Just one more. >> I was going to say too that uh yeah, now we'll have to pay. Uh >> can you please say your name? >> Oh, my name is Michelle Hankles. I live on Fremont and um I have lived there for um what 47 years uh without curbon gutter hasn't bothered me at all. I don't see the point of the curbon gutter and um now uh with all the taxes and everything going up and now we're going to have to pay another $12,000 for curb and gutter. So I I don't see the point. I don't see where it's going to improve anything. >> Hey, thank you, councel. The public has had the opportunity to testify. Could I get Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? >> So, moved. >> Those in favor? >> I post. Motion passes [clears throat] 60. Council, any discussion on item 4.8? >> Council member Lman. >> Uh, thank you, mayor. I think we had a number of questions that I'd like to have uh staff uh respond to if we could. Um uh just trying to go back through here to to grab a few of these out of here. Um we could >> Oh, are you prepared to ask those questions? >> I'll have staff join us here for this. >> Okay. I'll just go ahead and start with these ones and then whatever ones I miss here. So, um if maybe we could start with the seal coating. Um uh there was uh the issue raised that this road is only 41 years old. Um I think they were speaking specifically about the uh the the circle uh portion of it and so why not couldn't we seal coat that for a few more years? >> Uh acting mayor council member Lman. Um so based on the history I mean Xylon Circle has had seal coats provided in the past as part of maintenance. Um but based on where we are as you know the the program as a whole um you know we try and hit the seal coats either right after about five to seven years right after a reconstruct or about 5 to seven years right after an overlay. Um so is I guess my question to the resident is this um to make the for more of a um to make it look like it's a new road versus actually providing um maintenance to the road itself. Um it's based on I guess based on the based on the the where the road is right now. Um there's a lot of um surface distresses. There's um some cracking going on and um you know if you have a a PCI where you're in that reconstruct range, you know, a lot of the issues are you know within the the the subsurface gravel itself. Um, so speaking on the seal coat and then as well as the melon overlay, um, you know, if we were to do a millon overlay on that, what you're going to see very quickly after the fact is a lot of that reflective cracking, um, you know, coming through the surface. So, um, you know, I we'll we'll take direction from the council, but you know, pro providing a seal coat based on the condition, um, I I don't think we would advise that for, you know, keeping it within the what what the basis of the program is. >> So, I get that. Uh but uh if the uh so I I heard earlier that uh that the the age of the street is that true 41 years old. Yeah. >> Put a big chart up there that that these roads should last uh 70 70 years. And I think that's where the confusion is coming into. Is that uh I'm not sure if that has a curb and gutter. Does that have a curbon gutter? >> Uh acting mayor. Yeah, council member Lman. It does have existing curbon gutter on Xylon Circle. So >> okay. So why not making it all the way to the 70 years on that? I think that's where the confusion is, >> right? And so I guess the you know the the the soil profile throughout the city of Bloomington. I mean it it varies greatly from the east side you got um very nice sugar sand to the west side that was you know basically constructed on a swamp. Um so you see the you know the the variation in the age of the streets you know can really vary depending on where you are in the city itself. So, um I know when we when we do give the, you know, the informational meetings, um people do, you know, look at the look at the the the x-axis and, you know, the the years that we have on there and we, you know, we we do caveat it and say that um you know, not not every street is is the exact same and will survive um you know, throughout time in the exact same way. >> Yeah, I think and I've heard that over over many years that that we just that's not a guarantee. That's just what what you recommend that that that that happen there. Then the other question I heard was around uh uh what's the point of a curbon gutter for those I think there's a couple of folks that are here that don't have curbon gutter at all. Uh and there was also an illusion uh to uh the fact that a highway doesn't have a curb and a gutter. Uh how's a highway or a residential streets different in terms of what that provides and what does that you know help us to understand in terms of roads? >> Acting mayor council member Lman again um so you know what what he's talking about as far as non-curbon gutters. So that you know kind of getting into the civil engineer speak of what it is. So he's talking about kind of a rural section. So no curb and gutter where uh you know drainage just essentially washes off um you know into the adjacent ditch or or lawns or whatever. Um within the city of Bloomington I mean for for a lot of it we are in an urban area. Um collecting that rain water and ultimately you know getting rid of it um is important to you know basically prevent our streets from flooding. Um what curbon gutter also does it provides a clean edge for the plows um to you know clear snow throughout the winter and it also prevents those plows from doing damage to the yards um and during plowing operations as well. So um it's been very practice in urban areas to you know install the curb and gutter collect the rainwater and then ultimately treat it. Um highways you know it it varies on where you are in the metro. So like uh 49 the 494 project. So um they are installing 4-in curb in spots through there. Um they also have some areas where it is a rural ditch section where that water can um just kind of sheet off the roadway and and into the ditches itself. Um city of Bloomington, we just don't have the rightway to provide ditches everywhere for all of that storm water runoff. >> All right. Thanks. I'm pretty clear on that. There was another question about taxes or something and I I I wasn't really clear as to what maybe one of my other colleagues or the manager got that question around around taxes if you leave the curve curve part off off of it but uh or maybe staff remembers that. But those are all the questions that I have. >> Council me, we might want to limit our comments. Uh uh we still got a very stiff uh agenda to go through. So please, >> well, I mean, mayor, I understand that we've got folks who've got questions here, and I just want to be sure we answer them. It'd be unfortunate to not get through our entire agenda, but this is why we're here. We should maybe let this thing go all the way to the end of the end of the meeting. So, um, it' be my comment back to both you, the mayor, and the manager in terms of construction of the agenda. >> Yeah. Mayor would like an answer to that that tax thing for that that resident is out there. >> Go ahead. So, what was the tax question again? >> I'm not I'm not entirely clear what that question was. Um I think it was something to a degree, if I remember it correctly, that if you get rid of the curb and gutter um sides of it, that you could reinvest those tax dollars um um uh to the sidewalks or that type of thing. And I think there was another uh uh piece or component to that question in terms of uh why are we also paying uh for u uh uh these taxes individually because uh the state and the county uh uh have already uh assesses people uh taxes through other other means. So I think if I remember correctly that's what it was. If I could clarify on that, what I recall is that the resident mentioned the fact that the taxes were we were being charged taxes, property taxes, and for the sewer and and water whenever there was a damage, it just got fixed without charging the the residents. And with the PMP, it is a reconstruction of the road that assessment gets passed on to the residents. That was the question that he had. If anybody has an answer, can you please provide it? because that's my understanding that the question was >> yeah I I think that the the my understanding of the question was the utility fees are collected to pay for some of those utility projects. So for the street reconstruction for that reconstruction component the special assessments have always been has have always been a component of the total funding of that project. So that's a to that's a a policy decision that the city has had for many years. Uh, and the reason being behind that is that there is this the state statute that allows municipalities to assess special assessments for certain public improvements such as the PMP project. And like I mentioned before, you know, there needs to be a benefit to those properties. So that's why those properties are being assessed and have the ability to be assessed. It's because yes, they're paying this through citywide property taxes, but you're also receiving a benefit from the improvement that's adjacent to their property. So that's how that is that cost is justified and that's in state statute. So again, that's where we do that analysis to confirm that the assessment amount that's being assessed does not exceed that benefit they received from that improvement of that project. >> All right. Thank you. I I hope that answers your question in regards to >> tax. I was saying if you get rid of the curb because you're I mean you guys have to pay 75% of it, right? I'm saying you can use that money for something else like another street. Get rid of the curb. We don't need it. >> The water has drained really good for the last since 1958 over there. my opinion. >> Thank you, Act. Um, I just I have a comment on this. The assessment part is the most confusing part ever. And I know personally because I had my street reconstructed last year. And when you get your assessment, it's four grand. And that's until you get the the the bids out and the bids come back and then it changes. >> And then we do the special assessment part and all of a sudden it's four grand and it's not four grand anymore. And for me, in my case, it dropped significantly down to like $1,500. And so when my wife and I were planning for this right now in November, December in 2023, we're like, "Oh crap, four grand. We got to start saving for this because we got to pay for this in a year. So, how much we got to save every month to to pay off the four grand?" And then come next fall when the construction's done. Um, which the city did a great job and my kids love seeing all the construction vehicles up and down the road and they even love more biking, rollerblading, scootering all the way down our new road. But come November, my assessment that I actually have to pay is so different from what was originally assessed a year ago. And I think that's the biggest piece that I I think we have to do a better job at to show. Um because it is really confusing and you expect a huge bill and all of a sudden it's not a huge bill or it's not as big as you thought, but you still have to plan for it. And so that that's the piece to me that always makes this really difficult because I had neighbors who had been on that street since it was constructed in 73 or 74 and they said, "This is the first time it's been reconstructed." That's because we're in the central Bloomington, really nice soils. But again, we were like, "Oh, there's it's not cracked too bad. There's a couple potholes here and there, but you can patch it up." But the assessors and engineers said, "Okay, your suble is the concern." It's not what you can see on top, it's what's on the bottom. If we don't do this in the next couple years, you're going to have to do it anyways. And as we've seen coming out of the pandemic, costs for road materials has skyrocketed. Skyrocketed. Like if we knew the pandemic was going to happen, we should have fixed all our roads in 2019. >> But we didn't. But we're here now. And so we know the the best time to do something was yesterday. The next best time to do something is today. And if we wait till tomorrow, we don't know what tomorrow's going to bring. And so I understand the the concerns that the residents have, the confusion that they have because it is not easy. And so um especially for Zylon Circle because Westbush Lake Road needs because it is a bigger road that collects and brings in that work is going to have to be done. And so it's do you want two construction jobs to happen within a few years of each other or do you want to get it taken all at one time? And so that's that's the difficult part. But I I see the benefit of our PMP. That's the reason why residents say they like coming to Bloomington instead of St. Paul, Minneapolis, Richfield, because our roads are actually nice. Our roads actually get plowed in the winter. There's no plot holes because our city does a good job to maintain that. And if you go down south to Louisiana, they still pay those assessments and the roads look like crap. And so, um, that's that's where my stance is. I appreciate, uh, and know that once this work is done, it's going to continue to be a good road for a good long time. >> Mr. Walker. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Pro Tim. Uh for the council's benefit, the city attorneys have informed me that this procedurally is an item that would require six votes in favor to pass, which would be all six of you here tonight. Uh so if we still have uncertainty or questions at all about this, staff would be happy to go back and um work on additional answers of clarification for the council and bring this back. Uh proposed that that would be the December 8th meeting. So we just had a little bit of time. I don't think we'd be able to get all those answered by the 24th, but we could certainly do it by the meeting after that, which would be the 8th. But again, that's just um procedurally if there were any council members with reservations tonight. >> [snorts] >> Um I'm I'm happy to make the motion. Uh Mr. Mayor Prom, I just um um after the after the motion in the second, I did have a quick comment, but I'll in the interest of moving things along, I'll get it on the record after that. That's cool by you. Um okay. So I move to adopt resolution ordering the 2026-101 pavement management. Huh? >> Yes. Sorry, >> mayor members. Um the the proposal by the city manager procedurally was to continue the item um and direct staff to work on the questions that were raised. Um the item needs six votes tonight and in order to move forward. So I'm not entirely sure that's possible. >> We're moving forward. Okay. >> I don't think we have a problem here. I think we're go. >> All right. Just confirming. >> Yeah. We have 40 seconds to do this. >> Yeah. >> So, we need we need a motion and a second to extend the meeting to 9:45. Works with >> I'll second his motion. >> Okay. >> All in favor? [laughter] >> I motion passes 6 to extend the meeting to 9:45. >> Okay. Uh, is it okay for me to make the motion now, Mr. Mayor Prom? Okay, great. Uh, I move to adopt resolution ordering the 2026-101 pavement management program street reconstruction project street references numbers 1 through 13. >> Second. >> All those in favor. >> Oh, if if you if you will let me then make that comment that I requested. Thank you. That's right. Um, so uh Zen circle folks are in my patch and I care deeply that folks understand this. I'd be I wanted to make two comments on this one. Thank you engineering for sitting down with them in advance. Uh we need to get better at doing that. Um also invite your city council member to those meetings if you could please, especially the district level ones because we'd love to show up and be helpful and things like that. Um but also I want uh the folks from Xylon to know to reach out to us too directly if they have questions. I am not a fan of the PMP. Um I am a fan of the PMP program. I'm not a fan of the the the the method. I continue to to believe that the numbers are too conservative and so I will continue pounding on that only because I don't know I do believe that something out of 31 is bad. I understand that. I also think that 78 is like not bad and so getting to 75 or 60 or whatever before we do things. So I I continue to be frustrated by this on behalf of residents because I think it's I it feels arbitrary and that's because I'm not an engineer. So what the last thing I want to say is please understand that these are these are engineers who are have their life their life is dedicated to these kinds of things. This is what these people do and we pay them to be our experts. And so while I am critical sometimes and skeptical most times about this program, I do trust that if you say that this road is this close to whatever, especially given climate change and the fluctuations in temperature and everything that are making road challenges even more difficult, that this is the right time to do that. I'm going to be supportive. So, um, but I do I especially want to reach out to the Zylon uh circle folks to say thank you for showing up tonight. Yep. So motion passes, right? >> We didn't vote. >> Those in favor >> motion passes 6. Right. Our next agenda item is item 4.7. The council is asked to hold a public hearing on the city's annual miscellaneous issues. Oh, this is the other one. This one. Hey, check the other page. Manage. This is the one that we just passed. Now, our final public hearing of the night. We will move to item 4.9. The council is asked to hold a public hearing on a parking on parking ramps. Our building official is presenting this item. Bernardet. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Bernardet Gillespie and tonight I'm presenting the proposed parking ramp operational license ordinance including the purpose of the program, the data supporting the ordinance, and the steps ahead should the ordinance be adopted. Um, this item is before you as a public hearing. There we go. Is that my first? Sorry. There we go. All right. So to recap the Bloomington parking ramp data, we have 179 parking ramps within the city which 96% are 20 plus years old, 54% are more than 40 years old and again the parking ramp operational license ordinance is being proposed as uh ensuring public safety. the program design. So, it is a bianual every two-year uh licensing requirement again being uh inspected and a report and application being submitted by a state licensed engineer. And that report and the application being reviewed by the building and inspections division. The license fee per ramp every two years is $175. And then the revenue to support that the city admin expenses is approximately 31,000 by annually. Uh licenses may be issued with conditions if immediate repairs are required by that state uh license engineer. And then if there are maintenance concerns which are ident identified through that application and reporting process, we would follow up uh with additional inspections and review of the the application and the um enforcement action could be taken if necessary to achieve compliance for um additional compliance that would be required. So what types of parking ramps would be required to be licensed? In examples one and two, it would be ramps that are subject to sustained snow storage during winter months. Those are the ones that have large snow removal equipment, uh vehicles that uh clear the snow and that are exposed to corrosive deicing salts, etc. And then the underground slab ongrade garages, which would be example three with one level underground, no additional uh parking structure above that would be exempt from this ordinance. So some pros and cons to um the parking ramp lensure program. Obviously providing assurance that parking ramps are inspected by a licensed structural engineer um for structural integrity, reducing the risk of future structural failures and enhancing life safety, enabling city staff to review and inspect ramp repairs for compliance during the correction process. And then the uh potential cons to this would be closure of ramps if inspections reveal structural deficiencies. Uh potentially higher costs for owners if repairs are required. Increased workload for staff if owner fails to make repairs triggering that code enforcement process. And just one comment I would like to make on the the con side of this is these things may still happen without a structural engineer and and report. if we find out that there are ramps that are not in compliance, we would still be following um maybe having to close ramps and things like that. So, our out outreach and engagement efforts, we had a let's talk page that was launched in February of 2025. We sent letters to all ramp owners in April of 25 as well as a briefing article that was posted. We held a meeting with stakeholders in June of 25. And then we had a uh September 2025 city council discussion study session item and then today with the public hearing. Oops. Back. So next steps if adopted uh we would establish and test the new license type within our licensing software training staff on the new licensing process notification to property owners of the ordinance um and upcoming lensure in 2026. The ordinance becomes effective January 1st, 2026 with the application due January 30th, 2026. There will be flexibility for ramp owners to submit their engineered reports due to this being a new license requirement. And with that, I will stand for questions. Council, have any questions for Council Alexander? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor Prom. Good evening. How are you? >> Good. How are you >> doing? Good, thank you. Um, can you can you uh talk just a little bit more about um the feedback that you got from the the parking ramp owners about um their thoughts on the program? You know, was it general idea like, "Oh, this will probably help me," or "I really hate that you're getting in my business." Like, which direction were people going? Generally speaking, >> uh, surprisingly, a lot of owners already do this, so on their own. Um, they have a maintenance kind of like our PMP program, they have a maintenance program for their buildings and their, uh, parking ramps. And so, a lot of them already have repairs that they've made. Uh, we did receive feedback regarding the underground slab ones for, um, that do not have any two two level of parking. And so thinking that it if it's a slab on grade, it's not going to be affected the same way as something that has multiple levels of parking. And so that was um changed in a later draft of the ordinance. So based off of that feedback from the owner um and then uh most of the property owners are very they were very aware. We contacted Bulma and a lot of them are the maintenance uh and managers for those ramps. And so it's a lot of them are owners in other cities and so they already are doing this in other cities. >> Thanks. Appreciate it. >> Yes. >> Council member Cutter. >> Uh not yet. No. So you wait. Okay. So many. [laughter] >> All right. Any other questions for Brand comments? No. Okay. Well, at this time, I open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the chambers wishing to speak on this item? Guess not. Pena, do we have anybody online? >> Mayor Prom, we do not have anyone online. >> Right. Council, the public has had the opportunity to testify. Council, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh those in favor? >> I >> I >> I um motion passes 60. Council, any discussion on item uh 4.9? >> Uh council member Carter. >> Um I guess I will just say I will be supporting this. I think this is very a common sense uh solution to future problems and even current problems. Um, I think we all know what's going on with the Heights and you know, if there had been maybe a program in place over the last couple decades, it could have prevented something like that from happening. And so, um, and then you just said, other cities are already doing this, so this isn't going to be new for a lot of the operators that, um, who manage these properties. So, I will be supporting it. Thank you, >> Council Member. >> Uh, thank you, uh, acting mayor. I I agree completely with what council member Carter um just said as well. I would like to see um a report back and what the status is because I am interested to see what the the condition of the parking rafts in Bloomington are um because of the situation with the heights and what we had to do it. I I'm concerned that we have more than we think we know of. Um and I I want to prepare in case people have to come and say our HO can't handle it. We have to do something different. and we need support, something like that. So, I would like to see something like that come back so we know what the condition of our ramps are. >> Mayor, Council Member Moa, so based off of your comment from the study session previously on the condos and HOAs, I went out to each condo uh building. And so, I believe there's like literally a handful that would even be part of this parking licensing program. And then as part of um the work over the last year with this ordinance, there have been additional heightened um requests for inspection. And so I've gone out and there have been orders sent to multiple other parking ramp owners that are now in permit process. So I do believe we will have some but hopefully again coming into compliance with our code. >> Council member, >> I'm ready to make the motion if that if you Oh, Dwayne would like to make a com. I I just wanted to thank the staff for responding to my questions that I had uh earlier. Um uh really appreciate uh especially the uh uh around the fee in terms of what what that looks like. So thank you >> council member de Alexander. You want to make the motion? >> Happy to do that. Thank you Mr. Mayor Prom. I move to adopt an ordinance create to create a license requirement and licensing standard for parking ramp operation thereby amending chapter 14 in appendix A of the city code. Second >> I >> and Mr. Mayor Prom I'll make a resolution directing summary publication of an ordinance to create a license requirement and licensing standards for parking ramp operation thereby amending chapter 14 and appendix A of the city code. >> Second >> I We are now at our organizational business. >> No. What? Oh, 51. >> Oh, >> keep reading. Yeah. [laughter] It's okay. Hey. Okay. This is a >> Yeah, this is a study item. [laughter] Planning staff will provide the overview followed by council discussion. No formal action is scheduled at this time unless the council chooses to direct staff otherwise. Let's have staff report. Sorry, am I sharing or Okay. Uh thank you, acting mayor, members of the city council. Yeah, this is a study session looking at the official building height map for the city or I'm sorry that title should be changed. The official height limits map for the city of Bloomington. Um so that's summarized in the first bullet. Second bullet is um with this examination staff has prepared some adjustments to the height limits map that reflect land use guidance that's been um adopted since u the original uh standards were adopted back in 2010. We'll get back and get to that in a little bit. And um so they're reflective of that land use guidance and adopted visions for development in specific geographic locations. More detail to come. So the background back in 2010 there was regulatory framework that was adopted to um uh regulate uh building heights throughout the city. Um there were numerous parts to that. Um, as you can see in those bullets, there were uh shadow casting limits for new construction on protected residential properties. Um, building stepbacks for upper stories of buildings that were adjacent to pedestrian streets to um reduce the shading on those streets. And um that third bullet, which is the the bulk of the discussion, well actually it's pretty much all the discussion is the um way we regulate heights. We do it by location or um referring to a map. So we have mapped uh map based height regulation and that's what set up some building high C categories reflected in this map before you right now. So there are five height categories technically six because those that are not colored are limited to uh two stories or 40 feet but otherwise there are five other height categories uh there for you to see and you know distributed throughout the the city. the um the airport height limits are obviously those uh parts of the city that are affected by airport activity, but otherwise uh yeah um and then the the bulk of the no limited uh height or no height limits are along uh 494 and uh concentrated around 98th Street and uh 35W. So with that information um or you know with the the height map as it is uh staff started compiling resources to conduct our analysis. We looked at current land use guidance that was adopted in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um from that we uh focused specifically on medium and highdensity residential areas or those that are guided medium and highdensity residential in that land use uh guidance. Then we uh also considered um plans that were adopted for specific geographic locations throughout the city. So we have Normandale Lake, Pan-American, uh Lindale Avenue, South Loop, and uh the 98th Street station area around uh yeah around the 98th Street stationary. And um back in 2017, you're probably already familiar because or you may be familiar with it. Um but back in 2017, uh the housing and redevelopment authority did a um a study of uh commercial nodes throughout the city and that was incorporated in 20 uh into the 2040 comprehensive plan and was also part of a um a toolkit for um uh maintaining those uh valuable commercial nodes. So those have been highlighted and those have been also considered in this analysis. Here are those um you know a bigger picture of each uh node that was um considered and uh the land uses uh surrounding each of of each and and the surrounding land uses. So with that um we prepared this um amended height limit map. Um you can see that there's been um a lot of areas that have been added compared to what we have right now. And uh the uh what fed into that was a logic framework that staff developed um um based on again our analyses of current land use guidance and the adopted plans for uh certain geographic areas. So um part of that uh framework was looking at uh medium density residential and highdensity residential. medium density uh density residential having a a minimum building height uh limit of three stories or 50 feet. Um there's a pretty good number of them that are capped at two stories or 40 ft. However, if you look at the land use guidance in the comprehensive plan and the type of uh the residential types that are allowed in medium density residential, staff felt it was appropriate to raise that height limit to three stories or 50 feet. um with um and we kind of um apply that same sort of analysis to highdensity residential um looking at the type of um residential dwelling types that are in highdensity residential areas and then uh raising that up to four stories or 60 ft. And of course we always um caution that maybe the height could be even greater depending on the context. Again, relating back to those area plans that the city has adopted since 2010. Uh here's an illustration of kind of how we apply that framework. So looking at current building height limits, looking at the land use guidance um uh you know and um highlighted in that land use guidance again is the high density and medium density residential. Um that third um graphic you you can see that there's a um there's a commercial node that is within that area that we also had to consider and felt it was appropriate to adjust heights based on the presence of that commercial node and that's how we got to the proposed height limits in that final pain. Um some additional considerations. These aren't massive concerns, but nonetheless, we wanted to be uh honest and upfront. And uh we did look at, you know, the the proposed changes in uh with respect to the um opportunity housing ordinance and would that compromise the the uh the height uh bonus that you get as an incentive. And from our from our analysis, it would not compromise that. you if you meet the base affordability requirements, you still get that extra story. Um but even if you if you even go deeper in affordability, you don't get extra height. So uh we want people to um or you know the the ordinance is structured to encourage that uh deeper affordability, but it's not going to go any further to get an extra story. So, um this actually might help or um yeah, or I shouldn't say it might help, but um if people are um or if developers are looking for greater height, they're going to need extra incentives to perhaps afford the additional units that will come with that height. So, it it it works really well with the structure of the ordinance as it is right now. And um it should be, you know, noted that the proposed changes aren't going to necessarily materialize in taller buildings. There's a there's a lot of forces at play. Um they still have other standards that they have to meet. There's a lot of shadow casting standards that um you know, again, if they're adjacent to uh protect a residential property, they can't um uh uh block them out from the sun. Um there's off- streetet parking, landscaping, all that stuff still has to be um adhered to and followed. Um there's also market forces that are at play that need to be considered. And um state building code also regulates height based on occupancy uh fire suppression system all that stuff. So um whatever you see in the map is not going to necessarily materialize in the building heights that staff have laid out. But nonetheless, we wanted to give or we felt it was appropriate um understanding the land use guidance and the adopted plans that um that have come out since uh 2010. Um there hasn't been a formal public engagement process for this project, but nonetheless we have had um you know contact with properties that are interested in u expanding or redeveloping u one well I mean the only one that actually we've spoken with is Minnesota Masonic Homes and uh they recently proposed an or had an expansion reviewed at DRC and um right now they're currently limited to three stories or 50 feet. And what they showed in um their their their concept for the expansion is a a greater height of uh needing uh four stories or 65 ft. And so um given the the context of the development, um staff is supportive of an increase of of height to four stories or 60 ft. Um I know there's that 5 foot difference, but they can probably make that up through the opportunity housing ordinance. So, we're not worried about that, but nonetheless, we're requesting your guidance. If you have any questions about that or if you feel differently um happy to take that into consideration and this is um the on the very left you'll see what the current building heights are. Um in on the uh M Minnesota Masonic Homes site in the center is the land use guidance and in that last plane is or last pane is uh what it would look like if we changed from the uh current height limit to the proposed height limit of four stories or 60 ft. So next steps um this is a study item so there's no formal motion required. Um we will be taking your feedback um as well as what we received from planning commission on October 23rd and then we'll prepare an ordinance and then we'll uh present it to you all ending this year, beginning of next year respectively. Um so um to that uh to that uh October 23rd planning commission meeting um we did receive some good feedback. We have that summarized here in this table before you. um we can go through each question um one by one and uh if you would like to uh respond to each question um that's fine otherwise if you're just happy with or I mean if if you're satisfied with the feedback um given by planning commission we just like to consider all these questions at once that's also appropriate or however you choose but um otherwise uh I'm available for questions and we can go through each one if you'd console. Any discussion on item 5.1 council member >> I can get a start. Um so just kind of listening to or um you know thinking about what the uh the planning commission they seem they had had relative agreement. There was one section though where they had some disagreement in terms of the height uh with staff that I remember just off off the off off the the bat. I'm trying to remember it was on Lindale. I think it was was it Lindale and >> uh >> yeah uh yeah acting member uh council member Lman the uh the uh the point you're talking about is around 86th in Lindale. >> Thank you. So, they were concerned about the different treatment uh between that and 98th Street or the intersection with 98th Street. >> Um, and so uh that's which point is that? Yeah. Point number five. >> And I'm not sure if you're trying to walk all the way through this mirror or not, but I I just I'm not going to walk all through. I just give you all my comments now. So, we're we're done with me. Make this make it faster. And I and I guess what I think is interesting uh as they look at this whole thing o overall, you know, first I think the idea of letting other uh residents get the opportunity to to to comment on this. Uh it's pretty complex, so I'm not sure how that gets done from an engagement standpoint. So good luck there, but uh uh I' I'd like to see that that feedback. But I think really the question I have as I look at these height map uh pieces what you presented here and what's written in the document is really my question is what is our what what is what what is planning stance on low density on our artillery roads and our collector roads kind of long term and that's sort of the way I've kind of looked at it in terms of that if if the idea is that we are going to do away with residential that low density residential abudding or being close to it then you know my my opinions and points of view in terms of where we're going with this are completely entirely different than you know but since I'm not really clear as to really what that looks like or what we're kind of thinking I know in in a way you know there's a there's a there's already the plan out there in terms of what we want to do but if if staff would feel differently about you know what those plans would look like if you know we had an answer to that low density along the artillery roads that would have give me a better understanding in terms of what long-term that makes sense. And so then I might be more interested in a in a in a a greater height or no limit on those types of places. Uh because I just couldn't imagine living next to a skyscraper or that kind of thing, you know, eventually uh because that makes the most amount of sense in those particular areas. So I think that, you know, for generally I agree with where the planning commission is going, but uh that's more so what I'm looking to have a much better understanding of um kind of going forward. Okay, >> Council Member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, Acting Mayor. Um, I just have a quick question. So, when I read the packet, I was a little confused because in the presentation part, it said MDR areas would have a minimum building height of three stories, but this seems to say there's a maximum building height of three stories. Can you just clarify for me? Did I Am I misunderstanding that? >> Uh, no. Uh, acting mayor, uh, council member, it's kind of hard to say or how to articulate it without it sounding confusing. So, um, a minimum maximum height of of three stories of three stories 50 feet. meaning that um we um staff's again uh staff's analysis of land use guidance in the areas in the planning areas throughout the city. We feel it's appropriate that uh medium density residential properties be treated um as having uh being allowed to um build up to three three stories or or 50 feet. Um God, it's really this is really tricky to say. I'm sorry. I hope I'm uh wherever there's a medium density residential area uh they will have a maximum height of three stories or 50 feet. That's a minimum standard we're applying to them. >> Okay. So that's the maximum >> maximum height. >> So that's the standard. Okay. [laughter] >> Yes, that is a standard and I not >> required to be >> that that was my confusion. It said min minimum building height limit of three stores. I thought it had to be at least three stories, but they could build a a threetory 45 foot tall. They could build a twostory at 40 ft. And then there is some flexibility if staff is supportive and they use OO that they might be able to go above that with some of the uh OO incentives that we have in place. >> Yes. Correct. >> Thank you for the clarification. Any other questions or comments? Uh, council member de Alexisander. >> Um, so I'll make a um to give you my sense on these, I guess. Um I my my only comment would be um I think we're setting ourselves up for the idea that um this will get changed again, which isn't necessarily bad, I guess, but um but I feel like um don't you already have buildings that are taller than this in Bloomington? uh acting mayor uh council member they are taller um for the benefit of of uh of the affordability requirements and the opportunity housing ordinance I don't I'm not aware of or I mean we when we uh when we review proposals we are looking at the height allowed and then of course we have uh that um that incentive structure in the OO but um none that not Not that I'm aware of. Um, unless they were built prior to the adoption of these height standards back in 2010, in which case they are allowed to be taller in that instance. >> Yeah. >> But as of right now, um, the only way that they're taller than is through the O. >> Okay. So, I probably I probably missed a a key piece of this, which is we're only talking about certain types of buildings. Um, when I read official building height map, I was like building height, like it's all the buildings. And then I think of commercial buildings and I'm pretty sure we have commercial buildings that are taller than 60 ft. So that's why I was curious. So we're specifically focused here and I apologize this is my lack of preparation on medium dense density housing style buildings and their height limits or maximums. >> Uh mayor uh acting mayor uh council member. No, this is um we we did look at medium density residential and highdensity residential, but then we looked at all the areas or all the uh area within um those those planning those plans that have been adopted since 2010. So, um >> but still focused on multif family residential, not focused on commercial. >> Well, um >> knowing that one is a subset of the other. >> Yes, certainly. [laughter] Uh I mean, we're looking at all buildings actually. I mean within the areas u so so anything outside the area of those planning areas like the retrofit plan or the south loop district plan um those are we we we paid special attention to medium density and high density residential however within the planning area of like the Lindale retrofit plan there's a lot of commercial and non-residential that we are allowing a greater height to achieve the goals uh that were stated in that in that um corridor our plan. >> Okay. >> So, we're not focused on just residential. >> Okay. But we're but we're also not limiting in certain areas to a maximum of 60 ft. >> Um, correct. So, um well um let's let's go. Well, I can't do that on my computer. Sorry about that. >> That's okay. >> There we go. So, maybe it's helpful to look at these uh height categories again. So we are um so for instance uh around uh 98th and Lindale we have proposed that some areas be have no height limit essentially. Um so we're we're not it goes from three stories to to no height limit um based on the the amendments we're we're proposing. >> I understand. Okay. I appreciate reressing it in the context of the colors here. Um okay. Um, so I I I tend to be more about like shadows and everything else is going to solve the problem. I'm not sure why I would put maximum heights on anything, but that's just because I tend to be open about this stuff to like leave interpretation up to people in the future. So from my perspective, um, I I would support whatever planning commission supported and I would also be okay if we were more laxed than that. I guess that's where I'm at. Okay. >> Any other questions, comments? Yep. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, Acting Mayor. Um, I guess just my quick comment is I appreciate that you're targeting where density makes sense and commercial nodes and things like that and that single family neighborhoods are protected. I know that's a concern that we hear quite often. Um, and I think this is a really good way to balance that. I do tend to personally lean towards Council Member Dolesandro and kind of let the market uh dictate that and then take a look at the specific project and te, you know, verify traffic, verify shadows, verify um those types of things that they aren't negatively impacting. I think going back a little bit, it's similar to the work we did at Friendship Village when they were looking at their project and did a lot of shadow work and how that would impact it. And then there was water uh things that had to be worked out to maintain that so they could get their project. But um you know, I think I think this goes it's a good step and it may need to be modified in the future. Um but I think it goes the right direction. It signals that these are the places where it makes sense to put it. I mean, we've done a little bit of it. I remember 108th place um that we did and I was just looking at it's like three and a half stories it looks like to me. Maybe maybe up to four. Um and I think overall it's operated well now that they maintain their yard. They're doing a better job with that. So, so, so, um, I I just think this is the right direction to go and and you know, if we need to add more flexibility to it in the future, I think we can and >> and I think to the people's concerns about their single family neighborhoods, uh, this protects it, maintains those those heights and things, but, you know, >> I think density works in those areas. So, I think >> good job. Appreciate the planning commission. >> Act if I may. Um, in response to the comment about, uh, reviewing these or, you know, when they'll change, uh, we do, uh, planning staff does recognize this hasn't been looked at since 2010 and we don't want to make that an ongoing practice. We want to review it more often and [snorts] in context to development as it comes to us. I mean, obviously, we're we're we're bound to the land use guidance that we've adopted. Um, but we want to make it a more uh a more uh frequent step to review the hype map to make sure that we are complying with the uh the goals that we've set out as a community. >> Makes sense. >> Just one quick specific thing with regards to the Masonic Homes. Um, I looked through their plans and I would be supportive of that. Um, I think it's the right direction to go. It seems very consistent with what they have there and given the large acreage of their property and things like that. I see zero problem if they go a few feet higher. >> Thomas, do you have what you need to >> Yes, I do. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. >> Right. Thank you. I know. Next. Next, we will move to council policy and issue updates. Mr. Walker, >> nothing tonight, sir. Council, Mr. Lman, >> thank you. Um, I want to apologize uh for my uh statement that I made earlier about the agenda construction uh tonight uh for staff. I know you work hard to try to put this together, but it has been a little bit frustrating sometimes uh when we we get a little bit crammed on some of the uh the public hearing parts of it. And uh and so uh I apologize, but I I do feel that way. Uh and I I just get concerned that when we get to public hearings that uh I just want to be sure that those uh questions that are being asked of us. Um uh and it's it's of a making of our own. Uh I know the five minute uh time period uh also allows folks to extend that. So it does make it complicated to be able to to get it in there. But I again want to apologize to staff. Uh u but I want to let you know that I do feel frustrated with that part. And then just two other things I wanted to mention just real quick. Um uh I know that the uh Bloomington Learn to Lead um uh deadline is coming up. I think it's this this Friday or is it I'm trying to think of what it I think it's this Friday that's coming up. Um and so uh if those are interested in becoming uh part of that program, it's a phenomenal program. Let me just look to the guy to my right. You can see just how well that training uh [laughter] >> a good example uh of somebody who uh really has helped to contribute uh to our our uh city. And that leads me to my next thing. I always like to just say a little something uh for those folks who are leaving uh the council. And I want to thank my colleague uh as a fellow member of the coun city council and as a congregationalist who respects the foundational ideas of civic responsibility. I want to take a moment to honor you uh council member Saw. Um the earliest Americans uh vision of a thriving community as described by John Winthrop was a city upon a shining hill, a place uh where whose actions would be an example to all others. Uh this vision is not one of mere pride but of profound responsibility and a covenant to all our people including a cleareyed view of our commitment to those who were here first. I see the same spirit of deep commitment and reflection in SA's work for the residents of Bloomington, his advocacy for diverse and marginalized voices, and his commitment to tackling complex issues like missing middle housing and financial stewardship, as demonstrated in our our recent uh policy discussion, even even tonight. Uh you've shown a tireless dedication to making Bloomington a model of progress and opportunity for all. Thank you, SA, for uh serving to make our city the best possible example of what good, thoughtful, and inclusive governance can be. We are fortunate to serve alongside you. Thank you. [applause] >> It's not I wasn't expecting that tonight. >> Well, and I never do that because I don't want to mess up the mayor when the mayor will probably say something at the end, but I want to just get it in now before the end. [laughter] >> Yeah. No, >> you didn't tell me your term still goes through the end of the year, but >> uh I just I thank you for those words, Council Member Lman. I really appreciate them. It's been one of the deepest honors of my life to serve this great city and to serve alongside all of you. I think the the biggest thing that I've taken away is that um after getting to know all of you is that there's no one up here that I doubt your conviction and your determination to make sure that this city continues to be a thoughtful uh growing community. And so I just thank you for those words. Appreciate it. And last but not least, I just want to apologize to everyone for some of the confusion created for my lack of experience. No, >> but it is it is exciting to do this. Although I was a nervous wreck for most of it, I thank you for the opportunity. >> Um, if there's no further business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. Oh. Oh, council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Sorry, uh, mayor. I don't usually do this, but I did want to just um I sent this early and I appreciate staff had uh got back to me regarding um uh train crossings and the late night crossings and the noise that they're making within our community. I know we had residents come to a listening session. Um I've heard from other people about a different thing and so um I would like to see what we can do to move some of that forward. I noted that uh Edina it had just started a study and I realized you know like they already started there. It was I I still think it's worth a phone call to Adina and SRF and find out if we can collaborate on that and save money for Adina and for Bloomington by doing one study on that. And um there was a question in here and even though I mentioned places in West Bloomington, that just is because my district is in West Bloomington. It was not meant to exclude East Bloomington from it because I think it's a similar concern. And I mean I I don't know if everyone's aware these trains are going through in the middle of the night and every time they have to cross a street they blow the horns and wake people up. Um candidly I sleep through pretty much everything so doesn't wake me up but I'm only a couple blocks away from it so it's impacting my neighborhood. So >> council um I would just second that. >> Looks like third, fourth, fifth. >> I just want to make a comment a quick comment on that if I may. I'm um I'm actually we are already working as a city on trying to procure funds for that. I'm um I know I'm because I'm part of a national uh legal city's um uh transportation hub uh for advocacy at the federal level. Uh they told me that they have an abundant funds to be tapping to. So I I know that Mr. Walker here and the staff have already looked into applying for grants on that regard. So, we're in a good position at the moment, I think. >> Yep. And I apologize. Um, I was supposed to be meeting with Steve Elkins and a neighbor on Friday and I had to move that meeting. We'll have that meeting this week. I will say to your point about the stuff that was discussed with LM um National League of Cities. I looked into that. Um, apparently these are those are about passenger trains, not freight trains, and so we don't necessarily get to use those funds. Um, but anyway, if somebody else is taking this on and I don't have to advocate for it, that's great, too, because I've obviously I'm not aware if like nine what I'm not interested in is all of us doing separate work. If we could like get it under one group of people and get it done. So, Victor, if you want to take that on, that's awesome. Uh, or whatever. I'd love to I'd love to refer Steve and the residents and stuff to the people who are actively moving this forward as opposed to taking a meeting that I can't be useful at and then just doubling up the work. So, or or or I'm going to do it and then we don't have nine other people doing it. Like that that's all I'm saying is like can we kind of figure out who the maybe maybe the task force what what's the task force who's on the task force and as opposed to all of us thinking we know something and you know or whatever. I'm open either way really. I just would like to get it organized. Yeah, >> I feel like there's a lot of issues that we're all kind of >> working. I don't I don't know why what makes this specifically like why do we need >> because I only only be only because I think that it is going to be a very specific ask at the federal level for a very very specific amount number of dollars etc. And so honing in on what exactly that is um and getting a sense for it would make sense to me. And also because it um may not get resolved there in which case we'd have to have a plan B and I wouldn't want it to drop off when because somebody thought oh no that didn't work and then we just didn't follow up on it. >> I'm just wondering if maybe we asked staff to take the lead on >> would love that too. >> That's what I'm saying. >> More engagement of us of the >> Yeah. >> All for it. Yeah. Right. So if there's no further business, [laughter] >> I would I make the motion. >> Yeah, you I Okay. Who second? Those in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes 6. The meeting is adjourned at 9:45 and 26 seconds. [music]