Good evening everyone and welcome. Good evening. I will call our Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, August 3rd, 2026. Thank you to everybody who is joining us here in the chambers this evening. Thanks to everybody who's watching online. We will begin our meeting as we always do. If you are able, please rise, move any remove any head covering and join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Once again, welcome and thanks to everybody who is here. I know we've got a lot of folks here. I do want to remind everybody we do have the screens on out in the uh in the uh entryway and we can turn the volume up if if folks want to uh stand out there or sit out there and watch as well. Uh we have council our first order of business this evening is the agenda. Uh on our agenda this evening under introductory items, we have three items. We have a proclamation for the 2026 National Night Out, which is tomorrow evening. Item 2.2 is a resolution uh denying a petition for environmental assessment worksheet. And item 2.3 is our public comment period, which I think most folks are here for. This is regarding the NM Creek Corridor renewal project and the Nine Mile Creek lower valley management plan project contracts. Item three on consent business. We've got 21 items on the consent agenda tonight. Council member Nelson has consent. Uh item four is our hearings and resolutions and we have one public hearing this evening. This is a public hearing regarding the Bloomshshire V Village village town homes and we will wrap up with our council policy and issue update. Council, anything to add or any corrections for tonight's agenda? Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you Mayor. Just very quickly, would it make any sense to do 2.2 after 2.3 after we heard from people in 9M in case there are any environmental things that come up during those conversations? Uh I think uh we this uh item 2.2 was was more of a legal presentation, a legal consideration. So I think I'm comfortable uh just based on what we've heard from our legal staff and from our environmental uh consulting staff that uh that there is the sufficiency of uh what we have in place now. Okay. Anything else council? If not, I would move the agenda as stated. >> Second >> motion and a second by council member Lman to accept tonight's agenda as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 6. We have an agenda and it uh also just noting that council member Carter is not with us this evening. So we have a 6-0 vote tonight. I do want to say also given the agenda as we're looking at it right now, item 4.1, our public hearing regarding the Bloomshshire Village Town Homes, uh is going to be at least 90 minutes is my guess. Uh maybe pushing two hours. So, if you are here for that, settle in or uh uh you can even step out and uh join us as we get back down to that. So, just wanted to let you know. First item on our agenda, council, is our national night out proclamation. And I will head down to the podium. As I mentioned, uh, tomorrow night is National Night Out here in Bloomington and across the country, and we do an annual proclamation, and we also do about 250 parties across the city, and it's, uh, one of the more, uh, entertaining and enjoyable nights of the uh, of the summer. It really is a lot of fun and brings neighborhoods together in ways that uh, few things do within the city here. So, uh, it's a wonderful event and our proclamation reads, "National night out, Tuesday, August 4th, 2026." Whereas the National Association of Town Watch is sponsoring a unique nationwide crime and drug prevention program on August 4th, 2026 called National Night Out. And whereas the 43rd annual National Night Out provides a unique opportunity for the Bloomington Police Department to join forces with thousands of other communities across the country in a community building campaign that promotes police community partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie to make neighborhoods a safer, better place to live. And whereas the Bloomington Fire Department and the Bloomington Crime Prevention Association play a vital role in assisting the Bloomington Police Department's efforts in supporting National Night Out 2026 locally. And whereas it is essential that all residents of Bloomington be aware of the importance of crime prevention programs and the impact that their participation can have on reducing crime and drug abuse in our city and strengthening neighborhood spirit. And whereas the Bloomington Police Department values community partnerships by always being respectful while keeping our community safe. That respect is demonstrated through their compassionate and honest service. And whereas community partnerships, neighborhood safety, and awareness and communication are important themes of the National Night Out program. Now therefore, I, Mayor Tim Busy, do hereby proclaim August 4th, 2026 as National Night Out in the city of Bloomington, and urge all residents to join with their neighbors, fellow community members, the Bloomington Police and Fire Departments, and the Bloomington Crime Prevention Association in making this community safe for everyone, dated this 3rd day of August, 2026. As I said, it it is always a fantastic time. the neighborhood parties, uh the food is wonderful, the partnerships, the community is is great, and the community building between the Bloomington Police Department and our residents is always just such a special part of it. So, uh Chief Hodes, thank you very much. Uh thanks for for you and your officers spending your time. Uh I I know we all managed to have a good time, but I wanted to turn it over to you for just a moment and make sure that uh people um get the personal invitation from the chief to participate tomorrow night. >> Hey, ain't nobody come here to hear see listen to me today. So, I'm going to be uh very [laughter] very brief. Uh I would just encourage everyone to get out, enjoy your neighbors. Uh I know we'll be out there, but uh Bloomington continues to be a growing community. Uh we continue to be a community that is welcoming a lot of people into it. So, every year there's probably somebody new on your block. So, let's get out, meet them. And for those of you who have moved to Bloomington, hopefully uh you were welcomed into your neighborhoods when you moved in. So, that's just the type of community we have. So, I would encourage you all to get out if you have the opportunity to do so. >> Very good. Thank you very much. Pass your our thanks on to the rest of your department and very good. We'll get pictures tomorrow night. I promise. It's been great. Thank you much. council. Next up on our agenda is item 2.2. This is uh was a late addition to our city council packet. This is a resolution denying a petition for an environmental assessment worksheet and reaffirming the sufficiency of the completed environmental assessment worksheet which was done back in uh 2020 uh 2025. Uh just as a quick reminder, an environmental assessment worksheet was prepared by our friends at Short Elliot Hendrickson on behalf of the city for the Nine Mile Creek Corridor renewal project. And the resolution approving the EAW and making a negative declaration for the need of an environmental impact statement for the Nine Mile Creek renewal corridor was adopted by the city council on August 27 or October 27th, 2025. Uh a petition was submitted late last week uh requesting environmental review of the NM Creek corridor renewal project. It is uh it's typically a multi-week pro process to get this moved forward and reviewed by uh both and and the folks at the state both took the time over the weekend to do the work and uh to get the information back to us and uh both the city and the and our uh short Elliot Hendrickson they've determined that the original approved EAW is sufficient and supports a conclusion that a new EA is not required as noted in the attached resolutions and finding a fact in your packet. So, uh, I just wanted to to, as I said, this was a a late edition. Wanted to bring this forward to you. If the council has any questions, I know we have folks here who would be willing to answer, including, uh, a representative from, and uh, any questions the council might have. Council member Lman, >> thank you, Mayor, and I I appreciate you uh, laying out uh, uh, the the structure and the topic of this. I think the question that's in my mind is the conversation and the discussion around the original EAW uh back in 2025. Um uh and in terms of that sufficiency in terms of that discussion uh I just wanted you to talk a little bit more about what uh we went through to get to that that conclusion during that period of time. What I think I'm going to do, I'm going to call up uh any of the trifecta. Bob Simons, Renee Clark, or Derek uh from Derek, I'm not going to pronounce your last name correctly. >> Duchelle, is that correct? Uh from uh and perhaps they can answer some of your questions. Did I get it? Was I even close, Derek? >> You know what? It's as close as I've heard many times. So, fair enough. >> Technically, it's Dichel, but I've heard every every version, so you are close enough. >> Very good. Thank you. Thanks for being here this evening. >> Yes, I appreciate. Thanks for your time and and all of our guests here tonight. Um, specific to the process, which is really more my area of expertise. Yes, this uh EAW was submitted last fall. It went through the 30-day review period. It did receive a couple of agency comments. Those were addressed. The council then evaluates that. And at the conclusion of the EW process, you're really left with two choices. you either terminate, which the city decided to do with a negative declaration on proceeding to an environmental impact statement, or you believe that there's sufficient risk or environmental impacts that it needs to be advanced to a full environmental impact statement or EIS. So, the decision at the time was to terminate environmental review, which then allows the project to proceed towards permitting, submitting applications, further agency review. um because while it's in review, no decisions can be made on the project. So that's a very important step in the process. Now, because that happens fairly early in the process, there are components that are known, but maybe not as specific as they would be in the RFP or we're talking about today. That's just a nature of the process. It's really considered environmental vetting at a high level to identify the risks they might be out there. We disclose those. We get comments back that we can address. We want to learn and understand where the project may need to assess, evaluate, and potentially make some alternatives or make sure we're moving in the right direction. And we believe that process was achieved. Um the resolution before you today is essentially reaffirming that process and that you're standing by that conclusion that was made originally, which again was a negative declaration on the need to go to an EIS. The rest of the process proceeds independent of that. Um, and so the resolution that's been prepared and the finding of facts support reaffirming that, which essentially is also stating a denial of the petition to revisit the EAW and go through that process again. >> Thank you for that. Uh, so >> the only other thing I wanted you to talk about a little bit is the uh the public uh component of that uh because I think that's important for folks to kind of understand how that the public component of it operated and worked. And then if you could just briefly, I know the mayor talked about it, but what happened over the weekend to get us back to this conclusion today. >> Sure. So the EW process does include a publication through the environmental quality board monitor. That's their newsletter. I I understand a lot of the public doesn't subscribe to that. So I don't want to say that that was your chance, but it typically is also put through public notice. It was discussed at council. We typically believe that there is certainly legal opportunity. I know there's some debate on whether this is adequate or not that it's out there, but it met all the legal obligations for availability, public notice requirements. It certainly was discussed here at council. Um, and of course there's a lot of agencies and stuff that participate too. But specific to the public, all of the legal requirements were made for addressing that and commenting. Um, specific to the events that got us here today, yes, the city was notified on Friday that a petition uh was made uh to revisit uh the EAW. Uh the environmental quality board, we reached out for clarity on, you know, what did you receive? What are your next steps to make sure we're proceeding properly? The discussion we had with them, and I'll just reiterate because it's a fact, is they review that petition for completeness. They do not review on merit. They do not review on second-guessing a decision that was made or provide direction on where the city should go. It's strictly to ensure that it meets the legal requirements to be complete. So the number of people that provided signatures, the content of that, they determined that it was complete provided a response late on Friday um along with instructions on the next steps for the city as RGU as far as timelines, noticing those types of things. Um, in response to that, one of the key requirements is it does have a 15-day decision turnaround that can be extended, but the initial one is set up that within 15 days, the RGU is expected to make a decision on that petition, which does land us here tonight. Now, it's unfortunate that's a quick turnaround to get it introduced into the packet, but you were well within the legal requirements of making a decision this evening. Um, to extend it is certainly a possibility. You could go longer, address it at another meeting, table the discussion. I just want to be clear that if that occurs, you can't make any decisions on the project tonight. You're essentially tableabling everything in favor of revisiting the EAW. Now, that doesn't mean you can't deny the petition later, but it is potentially going to delay decision- making while that's in review. Hence, the material in the packet and a little more urgency to make sure you're receiving the information, our feedback, and clarity in the process. Thank you council. Additional questions, comments on this staff. Anything else to add? All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> So then council, the question before us is uh is this uh resolution denying petition for an environmental assessment worksheet? Item 2.2. Discussion on this council. Council member Dellesandro. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. [clears throat] So, I I'm there was nothing. I'm assuming, and you guys can can confirm this for me, that with with whoever it was that reviewed the the data that came with the petition, that there was nothing substantially different between what we looked to approve in October versus what we have in front of us today. Is that is that correct? Do I have my understanding of this? There there are components of the petition that do bring up topics that we believe were substantially addressed to the level required in any AW. There are some specific components asking about quantities of herbicide that we are not as specific as they would like other aspects of the tree removal, but substantially the topics were covered. Again, maybe not to the the level of detail, but again, at the time they were presented to the level of detail that were known. It's very typical for the for the EAW review process that as we get into final plans and permitting that they're much more specific. So, yes, there were some components that asked for more information, but for the most part, they were seeking alternatives, um other ways of looking at the project, kind of looking at I know this is going to probably not sound great, but some of the nuance of it rather than a wholesale you've done something different. It's just kind of shifting some components. Um valuable information, worthwhile of a discussion as a consensus. We don't believe that it's necessarily something that's in the best interest to discuss and go through another round of an EAW review for, but there were some things that have merit to be understanding of, but that's a different threshold than continuing the process legally and through that whole review. >> Okay. Um, so, so and and um to just make sure I understand when you say understanding, you're saying that the information that we have is worth us knowing about, but in your estimation, it doesn't change the outcome of the EAW work that we conducted in October. There's nothing materially different that would have had you say there's a whole section of this thing that needs to be relooked at because it's materially different. Yes, I would say that all of the the topics that are required to be addressed were addressed and all of the subjects that were brought up in the petition were discussed to some degree. There is nothing that I would say is a complete omission or something that we would significantly look at as something we would need to revise and put out again for public review. >> Okay. Okay. I appreciate the clarifications. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Revis, >> I I do have a question more for clarification than anything else. Um you did mention the fact that some things did change right? >> Yes. >> That in the process the presentations didn't actually put out all the information that you have now in your hands right that some of the information was changed because of the during the studies that you uh performed. There were other things that you learned that could be different. Right? So that that's it. There is in fact changes now compared to the information that we got back in 25 and even in January 26. Correct. >> Um I think technically when you say change yes that is accurate. I would say it's more of a refinement. So we talked about ranges. We will do thinning activity or baroque savannah within these acres in these areas as we've learned more about the project adjusted priorities and there's been components from the beginning of this project that have also changed. Do we have bikes and pedestrians? Is it ped only? Do we keep the dam or remove the dam? Do we do the rander and a boardwalk or keep the bridge? This is the most recent one that we've really dove into as far as some of the refinement that occurs or change as we get deeper into the project. But this project, like most projects like this, have had refinement since the original day we started evaluating these things. And I think this is a component of it. Um, it's just proximal to kind of some of the final decision-m which is elevating the discussion a little more than usual. >> Thanks for that clarification. And I I do have another follow-up question in regards to that. Um do do you think or in your opinion in your professional opinion do you think that that information that now we are that we have in our hands could have been disseminated to the public as well in a timely manner so that they could understand that the changes that have happened are just improvements on what we had originally. And I I perfectly understand that these things keep changing as they evolve and as we get gather more information we make decisions that are you know that we back up with science or or more information that is available to us. Right. So but you think that the that information could have been made available to the public as as well so that they could you know uh their expectations of what was happening could have been met at that point. So specific to the EAW, not for that document precisely. Once that decision is made not to pro progress to an EIS, that essentially terminates that process. So I want to parse out from item 2.2. Could there have been more? No. Technically that process was complete. So we wouldn't go back to that. From the overall public engagement and discussion topics, I believe we've adequately explained some of the variance and nuance whether that's at public meetings. This is the third time I've presented to council on these changes and revisions as we've gone through. We've tried to be clear. I know some of the commissions also saw information early that was modified over time. It's actually a testament that this is how the process is supposed to work. If we started on day one with we're going to do this and we never changed, we're not doing our job either. So the fact that we've had again some modification and we can you know what's an allowable amount of modification um that varies by people's opinion. So I know one of the topics that's very approximate to this petition is the buro savannah and we do we did add areas to that. Um overall for the entire project, our revisions constitute about 10% of the project area being revised, which generally falls within what they would consider an acceptable amount of revision without really needing public notice. But I believe we've done our best to try to disclose that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, council member. Anything else, council? >> If nothing else, council, I would like I would look for action on item 2.2 two this evening. Council member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mayor. I would move to adopt a resolution denying petition for environmental assessment worksheet reaffirming the sufficiency of the completed environmental assessment worksheet and reaffirming the city's negative declaration on the need for an environmental impact statement for the 9M Creek corridor renewal project. >> Do we have a second? Second by council member Dallas. Motion by council member Robertson. Second by council member Dalisandro to adopt the resolution denying petition for an environmental assessment worksheet reaffirming the sufficiency of the completed environmental assessment worksheet and reaffirming the city's negative declaration on the need of an environmental impact statement for the nine creek corridor renewal project. Any further council discussion on this? Council member Dalisandro. >> The only comment that I would make, Mr. mayor is that you know um something that is mostly for like staff consideration in these cases and you know I understand the legal process that we're working with here and I understand the the you know environmental impact statements uh have a long storied positive and negative history depending on how you choose to wield them right and so I don't want to necessarily suggest that we volunteer ourselves for every environmental impact statement in the world right I don't mean it that way but it the the question that I guess I would pose to us as council and to staff is that when we are doing a renewal project of this magnitude that we don't necessarily take it upon ourselves to ensure that substantially the information in an environmental impact statement is something we consider in our projects. Now, I'm not suggesting we did or did not do that in this case. I don't actually know because I've never been through an environmental impact assessment, so I don't know what's in there. But I would want us to feel confident that substantially the conversations that are that are that proceed when we do an environmental impact assessment are things that we would have included in this conversation when we're doing something as substantial as this kind of renewal. And I don't know the answer to that question. So it might be worth it for us to to think about and consider uh as we think uh you know I mean obviously between climate change and other things like that this is not the last of the environmental type situations will be in here and so I I could defer to uh obviously our experts on this but I you know if it if it makes it sense for us to do it proactively to ensure that substantially we feel we have the information we we would get from something like this um maybe it's something we would do anyway because it rises to that level of importance and certainly it would help with with communication to our our residents. >> Thank you, council. >> That's the only comment I have. Thanks. >> Any other comments? >> If not, council, we got a motion and a second on item 2.2 this evening. >> No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed? >> Motion carries 51 with council member Rivas in opposition. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. brings us to item 2.3 this evening, our public comment uh period. This is regarding the award of the 2026 9mm Creek corridor renewal project and the 2026 9mm Creek lower valley management project plan contracts. Uh so this as you all know I'm assuming this was uh the addition of a public comment opportunity was is not something that we we typically had and so I wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to hear more from our residents on this important topic and and to do it before uh we would take a vote on this and have the discussion on this uh because you know civil discussion and and community input is good. It's what we we want to hear and it's what we desire and it's what uh it's what makes city government as strong as it is. And I want to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard and that the council can conduct our business in an appropriate and thorough manner. And so I'm hoping as we get into this that we can all agree on uh basic the basic kind of ground rules. And those ground rules uh and for everyone I I want to make sure that we all maintain a tone of respect. and I mean everyone whether it's uh the council, our city staff, speakers, anybody else in the in the audience that we just maintain a tone of respect as we go through this and that includes uh we won't be uh uh we'll we'll listen without interrupting or speaking over others who are speaking that we're going to refrain from booing or clapping or shouting or heckling or chanting anything along those lines because I guarantee you if you you cheer for someone there's going to be somebody who's going to be wanting to boo for someone and I think we're better than that. I don't want to get into that and so we won't be doing that and we absolutely won't tolerate any personal attacks or abusive language or threatening or intimidating behavior. We're not going to do any of that kind of thing. And so the way this will work just from an operational standpoint, uh I've got the list of 30 names here, folks. And what I'll do is call you in five person groups. And if you could just line up basically right in uh right in a row. Um uh Elizabeth Tolsman will play air traffic controller and help us uh sort everybody out if you have any questions. You'll be limited to two minutes and you'll see the clock on the wall. We'll keep you to two minutes and I will stop you at two minutes because as I said I want to make sure everybody has an opportunity. As you're making your comments, please direct them to me and the council. We're not directing them back at the audience members. And please do stick to the subject. We want to make sure we stick to what we're talking about this evening. Uh, as I said, we we welcome the variety of opinions that I know we're going to hear tonight. I know we're going to hear both sides of this issue, and we're going to hear from people who believe very personally, very passionately about this, but I really do hope and expect uh that Bloomington can can keep this civil and respectful. I know that uh there are other places that can't do that. I think we're better than other places that can't do that. We can do this. And I would hope we'd all agree with this. We can have this discussion. We can come to a vote. Some of you are going to leave angry. Some of you are going to leave happy. I understand that. But I hope we can do this in a proper way. So if we can all agree to that, I would greatly appreciate that. Council, will you all agree to that? Very good. Thank you very much. We are going to get right into it then and get into our period here. So, uh, the first five, >> council member Lman, >> I hate to do this to you, but I just I wanted my my question is for this particular topic, could you just outline what it is that we're going to be making a decision on so that we're clear as we're having this conversation, this dialogue this evening, what the scope of this conversation is, if you don't mind doing that. >> That's a very good point and and I know that will be uh that will be clarified in the presentation which is coming up after this. Okay. But uh basically the city council has approved this project. This uh it was voter approved. It was city council approved uh last year on a 70 vote. What we're talking about tonight, what the decision we're making tonight whether is whether to award the contract to begin the work to continue the work on on this section of the project. And so that is officially what we're making a decision on tonight. It's not uh it's not, you know, revisiting the merits of the project as as a whole whether or not we should do it at all. This is specifically the vote that this council will make is on the selection and the award of a contract to get the work done. >> I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that that's indeed what we're talking about here. >> Thank you, council member. That that's a good clarification. Our first five speakers, and again, if you could just line up and we'll get you going. They are Dr. Gretchen Buchanan, Ben Bullard, Mark Mercer, Paul Coat, and Jonathan Minkx. So again, if you just line it up and introduce yourself and then you uh the the the clipboard includes the the speaker register. As you finish up, just sign your name next to your name and that will that will be good. So good evening and welcome. You have two minutes. Off you go. >> Hello council and fellow citizens. My name is Dr. Gretchen Buchanan. I'm a Bloomington parent, marriage and family therapist and scientist who studies relationships and systems. And that perspective informs my view on this issue. There is a dominant philosophy in our culture that views land as an object, a passive resource to be owned, managed or utilized. But there is an older indigenous wisdom that we are not owners of, but in relationship with the land and other entities in and on it. To be clear, I am not indigenous. But once you see the truth of this philosophy, you cannot unsee it. It asks us to act so that seven generations from now, our descendants experience a world that is flourishing. This stands in stark contrast to a worldview that treats the land as a mere object to be possessed, devoid of autonomy. We may want the best for this object, but it is for our own selfish purposes, not because we think of it existing outside of us. We see this objectification everywhere. Think of how we treat a person when we view them only as an asset. Like a boss who micromanages an employee ignoring their well-being to squeeze out a result. or the so societal pressure on women to maintain a specific appearance while ignoring their internal reality. In both cases, we are only looking at the surface. When we objectify NM Creek, we are doing the same. We prioritize our own immediate comfort or control rather than engaging with the ecosystem as a partner. This is where the opposition to the restoration, the Save Our Woods perspective, misses the mark. They are looking for personal satisfaction, their shade, their walks, their control, rather than asking what the land needs to be healthy. If we keep treating the creek as an object to be managed for our convenience, it will remain in an unnatural, sick state, choked by invasive species. This is the essence of true stewardship. Stewardship isn't about imposing our will. It is about serving the future. This is not a debate about shady walks or individual preferences. It is a choice between superficial control and a legacy of life. >> Doctor, I'm going to have to interrupt you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Uh and I forgot to mention also uh if there are questions, specific questions that come up, we're not going to try and answer them on the fly here. Our presentation will answer any specific questions uh after we are done. And so yes, and thank you for the signature. Very good. Mr. Bullard. Good evening. Welcome. >> Hi. Uh good day everyone. My name is Ben Bullard. I am a Bloomington resident and I work as an ecologist and project manager doing ecological restoration work in the west metro. I also serve as a board member of the Minnesota Oak Savannah chapter of the Prairie Enthusiast. [snorts] Uh while our chapter is new in its formation, the Prairie Enthusiast organization has existed for nearly 40 years with the mission as follows. To seek to ensure the perpetuation and recovery of prairie, oak savannah, and other associated ecosystems of the upper Midwest through protection, management, restoration, and education. With that introduction, I'm guessing you can figure out where I stand on the topic today. Um um and my mission is not to seek to change anyone's minds. As we know, this project is already in motion. Um I would simply like to open the door to you folks and anybody in the public um who would like to learn more about uh our organization um and what we're really all about. Um I would be very interested in showing others around to successful oak savannah restorations. Um, and I have some paper materials with me about the Prairie Enthusiast, which I would be happy to share. Um, and I will be here as long as anybody would like to chat. Uh, along with my friend here, Gabriel, who is also a member of the Prairie Enthusiast. Um, if I could make one opinionated statement, I would say that for me, Oak Savanas are amongst our most precious landscapes because they represent the intersection of biologically diverse landscapes and uh, landscapes for people to live and thrive and enjoy nature. I realize that there's going to be some division that we're going to hear tonight. Um, but I really don't think that we're that far apart in all of our goals and our shared um shared values. Um, I appreciate everybody coming tonight to share their concerns and uh I would like to thank the city for uh having us. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Bullard. I appreciate it. >> Mark Mercer, good evening. >> Hi, Mark Mercer here. See, I um I just think that there was a little bit more community outreach with the with with the bike path and stuff. I I felt like I was more in tune. I could could step away for three, four weeks and I could ask somebody and they kind of knew what was going on. I kind of feel like we're blindsided with this with this Oak Savannah thing. Couple months ago is when I really first heard about it. And you I know I've if I read all the fine print and everything, but I just the magnitude of it to me is just it seems like it's overwhelming and I just think it's too much. Um, I've looked at some oak savas and some of them look kind of nice, you know, but that's not what I want and that's not what a lot of the people want when we walk down to the creek and talk about it. We just we don't want it, you know, and um I don't see the wildlife like I've seen before. Um, I see deer every once in a while, but I don't see them in the in the capacity that I have in the past. And I don't know if that has to do with the clear cutting that you guys are doing now, but um I I just I kind of think that we should give it a little bit more thought here. And and maybe sometimes less is better, you know? I mean, when I heard 60 land 60 acres of clear cutting, I I thought that was a that thought that was excessive. I thought that was too much. And um I think we should revisit this again and maybe just I don't know, get get things going differently. But I I like I like the canopy. I walked there the other day and I looked at all the trees and I think it's almost like a meritocracy. It's like these trees deserve to be there. You know, they're at the top of the canopy and they and for some reason they're there. They're just they just deserve to be there. They don't see they don't think they deserve to be cut down. And that's just just my opinion. But thanks for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Mercer. Well, Mr. Mr. Mercer, if you could sign the clipboard really quick, please just sign next to your name there. Thank you, >> Mr. Coat. Good evening. >> Hi, I'm Paul Coat. Um, I live a block from Nine Mile Creek and I have hiked it for almost 20 years now. Um, I know some folks don't like how it looks right now and are anxious about how it will look in the future. The process of ecological restoration is disruptive and it can feel jarring in the moment, but we have to look at the facts beneath the surface. I want you to think for a moment about a massive oak tree. If you only think about how it looks, you miss the most important part of the tree, and that is the complex network of roots beneath that anchor it and absorb nutrients from the soil. And right now, the roots of our native trees at 9M are actively struggling against invasive species, overcrowding, and severe erosion. A tree cannot survive on looks alone, and neither can Nine Mile Creek. Anyone who has ever seen a loved one undergo a life-saving medical procedure knows that the healing process isn't pretty. And for anybody who is in the middle of that, um, just know that you're in my thoughts. Nine Mile is beloved, I dare say, by everybody in this room on any side of this issue. And while it's completely natural to feel alarmed by the immediate disruption, especially when there is various levels of information or misinformation circulating online, the city and the watershed district have done diligent work to present the facts and keep the public updated on the plan. This project is essential to return our corridor to true health and save the native trees that are currently fighting to exist. Nature can take care of the beauty. We have to take care of the health of Nine Mile Creek. And I ask the city to please be thorough in answering any questions residents have. And I do want you to know that I support taking the next step forward with your vote tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Coat. Mr. Ms. You want the overhead? Is that what I understand? >> I would love the overhead. >> Grant, if you could turn on the overhead camera, please >> and to raise. Doesn't this table come up a little bit? Is there a >> It's always a little short for me. Is it the highest? >> I think it's the highest it's going to go. All right. >> That's the highest go. >> Good evening. Welcome. >> My name is Jonathan Minkx, lifelong resident here in Bloomington, Minnesota. Good evening, mayor and council. I want to begin with something Mayor Busy said in January 2023 when discussing the local sales tax project. You said you wanted to be very clear. I'd like everyone to remember those words as we look at how this project has evolved. If we go back to 20 thou 2019 with the master plan, city documents and discussion shows staff expressing concerns about park maintenance. The city acknowledged its lack of staffing and resources to maintain existing parkland and discussion and converting it to Oak Savannah. Around that same time, the city also met with stakeholder and groups interested in these restoration efforts. There's nothing wrong with the community organizations participating in public discussions, but residents deserve transparency on how ideas develop and who is involved in shaping them and why certain restoration appro appro approaches become priorities. Here's the one with the stakeholders right here where valuable stakeholders in the master plan. And then here we talk about the community members and special interest groups looking for more support. encouragement and allowance from the city. As someone who served on the parks, arts, and recreation commission, I reviewed a full year of commission materials in and April 2025 presention presentation, Oak Savannah appeared only as a brief bullet point on page 103. I'm going to run out of time. There's a lot more I'd like to talk about, but one thing you want to promote is your core mission about a cultivating and enduring and remarkable community. I would like to say that we do not need outside radical groups coming in to sway us in our decisions in the city here. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Minks. Our next five up are Matthew Howlet, Danolic, Jamie Anthony, Sonia Walters, and Natalie Rooney. Mr. Hock, good evening. >> Good evening. You already heard me uh ask three times now, I think. To which era are we restoring? We've already heard about Governor Ramsay's era. So, what's the other? Herds of deer currently enjoy the new wetland meadow. For two centuries, the oak trees in Nine Mile have been maturing like fine wine. Each are irreplaceable mastercraft of nature that stands in the center of Minnesota's web of life. Once they are unbburdened by colonizer species, their majesty will be brought forward 150 years immediately. Even now, their stands of oak so massive on Humboldt A Avenue, they create a vented thermal 10° colder than 106th. Next year, shrouded in tall grasses that stand until spring, they form breathable windows, not walls trapping deadly humidity. We need these allseason sanctuaries as we experience the coldest summer of the rest of our lives. Within two years, a super bloom, more than 10 times the acreage of what bloomed in front of Civic Plaza, this year will explode, beginning their eternal dance beneath the great moving webs of shade from May to November. As the biodiversity stacks up month by month, so too does the collective defenses that help safeguard the entire city from pests and diseases. Of the 10% of oakwilt that can travel beyond its immediate surroundings via sap beetle, all of its predators live inside the savannah. Within 5 years, there will be abundance beyond counting of dragon, butter, and fireflies, of food, medicine, and millions of new free seedlings for other projects in the growing restoration revolution. I cannot think of a greater legacy than the oaks that will outlast every building in this city, ensuring the good life to seven generations beyond ourselves. That is the era we restore today. >> Thank you, Mr. Howlet. If you could sign in, Mr. Howlet, quick, please. Thank you, Mr. Nola. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. I want to start by thanking you for making the restoration of NM Creek possible. We are here tonight because of the work and your leadership around that and thank you. I'm extremely excited about the restoration of the oak savannah which seems to be the controversy which I'm confused by. Less than 1% of critical endangered beautiful environmentally important Midwest oak savanas are still intact and remain. Oak savanas are one of the most important ecosystems in the world and anybody who's enjoyed one know they're beautiful, rich in color and diversity um edible and really good for people, pollinators, birds and plants more than most any other ecosystem in the world. Oak Savylvanas is Bloomington. Look at the name of our landmarks and look at the landmarks that still stand. Those majestic oaks in our neighborhoods as well as the resources and soils that we know. Oak Savylvanas is Bloomington. Only around 15% of Nine Mile Creek Park is being proposed to restore oak savylvanas. 15% of the park. The oak savana restoration will not cut down all non- oak species. There is not clear cutting occurring for oak savylvanas. Um and there will be non- oak species there. Yes, the restoration will save more than 12 oak trees. The restoration is not replacing a forest with an oak savana. It is restoring an oak savon that is seriously degraded because how we have managed it. This is not nature. This is us preventing cycles from being successful. Restoring the savannah at Nimo Creek is very important for many reasons. The contiguous acres of savana powerful native remnants. It's a nature-based park, importance of the ecosystem, the critical need for plant diversity and the existing environment. And I want to speak to this plan reflects your balancing of many interests. 85% of the park is being done way people like it. The only interest of a vocal minority is on 15%. If this was truly a full restoration plan, it would look much more different. We accept this plan and our support of this plan in spirit of compromise and community. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Mr. Dro. >> Jamie Anthony. Slight logistical. Okay, we got the pen. >> Well done. >> This is a little tall for me, but >> just use the microphone. Put the microphone down. >> It's just a little tall. There we go. Okay. >> Hi, I'm Jamie Anthony. I do not live near the NM Creek parks that are in question today. But I feel so strongly about the importance of this project that I'm here anyway. And it takes a lot of courage to get up on a microphone and tell people that you believe in what they're doing. So, I'm here today to commend not only the city council for your careful stewardship, but also the Bloomington city staff who have been involved in all of the planning and the work that has gone into the vote that you'll be doing tonight. I'm proud to live in this city. I've only been here since January of last year, so I'm pretty new. And when I learned that there was like some hubbhub about people not wanting an oak savannah restoration project, I was like, "What?" So, I did what um you all at the listening sessions know that I like to do, which is do a lot of research and figure out what am I missing? What's going on? So, I went back and I read not all the documents, but a lot of the documents and I wanted to understand how how was it missed that this was part of the plan. I can't answer how it was missed because to me as a newcomer, it seems pretty obvious that part of the plan all along has been an oak savannah restoration. I happen to work at an organization that also is a really strong steward of the lands and we have an oak savannah there. And I just want to tell you it's worth it. It's really ugly when you're restoring it at first, but it is so worth it to have the biodiversity and ecodiversity that an oak savannah and well-maintained lands can provide. So, I'm here to vote in support of you approving the two um bids that are on the agenda. Thanks for your time. Appreciate what you're doing. Thank you, Miss Anthony. Sonia Walters. Good evening. Welcome. >> Hello. I'm Sonia Walters. I'm a landscape architect and I live in Bloomington at my current house for about 14 years and my mom's lived here since I was a baby for so 56 years and um I've lived on and off here. Um I support the project. I want to thank everybody who's worked on it and the experts who have weighed in on the importance of Oak Savannah. Um I do volunteer work and in one of our um continuing ed lectures we had an expert on bees, Minnesota bees and there's like 500 types of Minnesota bees and um oak savannah supports so much and one of the um in this lecture that we listened to um Heather it was by Heather Holm and she referenced um so much the importance I had no idea how important the oak system is to our our um you know historic ecology in the area. And I just want to thank everybody for supporting the project and moving it along. And I hope that um we can enjoy it. It's such a fun thing to go out in native areas and see all the be bees and butterflies and birds and watch them and it I hope that we all get to enjoy it soon. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Walters. Natalie Rooney. Good evening. Welcome. >> Hi, Mayor and Council. My name is Natalie Rooney and I'm a Bloomington resident. I chose to make Bloomington my home because of the vast number of parks and green spaces and the wildlife who call our parks their home. Lately, the NM Creek Restoration Project has been a hot topic of online discussion. There's been hesitation from some residents over the project and the changes it will bring. What some see as a healthy ecosystem is anything but. Invasive species and overcrowding is choking out the life of our creek. Buckthornne has taken over and is preventing native flora from establishing and thriving. Tree overcrowding is stifling our oak potential and making them susceptible to disease. I've been volunteering my time over the last three years with Bloomington neighbors nurturing nature. From removing buckthornne and other invasives to replanting native flowers, grasses, sedges, and shrubs, every hour of our manual labor has resulted in nature quickly bouncing back and thanking us. Fireflies, bees, butterflies, and other pollinators have returned to each of our restoration sites. And we've witnessed deer, and a diverse population of birds return as well. By doing this restoration at 9 Mile, we are ensuring a diversity in both flora and fauna and healing the creek as a result. Contracting a professional company for the work will make sure those changes happen much quicker and the schedule minimizes potential negative impacts to wildlife. I'm beyond excited for everyone to witness these changes to come. I want to thank the city for working with residents on this project and the from the initial plan presentations receiving resident feedback and using that feedback in addition to guidance from experts has assured a balanced and educated approach. A special thanks to Renee Clark is due as she's personally been connecting with residents over their concerns and being incredibly patient throughout the process. I urge you to move forward with this project. This work is invaluable and I want to assure everyone who's concerned that nature will heal and future generations will thank us for the work we're putting in. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Rooney. Our next five up are Connie Anderson, Vicky Wiz Wiznookski, Alex Bros, Suzanne Zetis Zakowski. Wow, I'm just destroying these names. I apologize. Zo Zotus. You know who I'm talking about, don't you? Yes. Thank you. [laughter] And Rod Fishman. Yep, that microphone is the best. Yep. >> Good evening and welcome. >> Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Connie Anderson and I move to Bloomington specifically to live near the woods of Central Park. The issue before you is not buckthornne removal or responsible tree thinning. We all agree on those things. The issue is to is the plan to cut down over 40 acres of mature woodland and convert it to an oak savannah. Many of us believe this project would restore the woods to a state of health by removing invasive species and improving the existing forest. Instead, it has become a proposal to remove hundreds of mature non- oak trees and fundamentally transform one of the park's most treasured features. A [snorts] proposal that the public never had an opportunity to comment on. I do not believe spending millions of taxpayer dollars to take away something that so many residents already love is a wise investment. People came come to these trails because they offer quiet shade and the feeling of being in a real woodland, something increasingly rare in an urban environment. Those mature trees provide cooling wildlife habitat and help reduce the urban heat island effect, which is one of the goals in Bloomington's urban forestry plan. I believe we should manage these woods for what they are today and not attempt to recreate what some think may have existed nearly a hundred years ago. Bloomington has changed. The climate has changed. The surrounding landscape has changed. Our management should reflect today's realities. I [snorts] respectfully ask you to stop and reconsider this plan. Restore the woodland to health, but don't clearcut it to create a prairie. Once these mature trees are gone, they are gone forever. We have one chance to get this right. Please protect the woodland that so many Bloomington residents value. >> Thank you, Miss Anderson. >> I think the pen's right there. >> Oh, thanks. >> Good evening, Vicki. >> Hello. I'm Vicky Wiznooki. I've lived in Bloomington since 1997 and I'm here today as a Bloomington resident who supports the 9M Creek Oak Savannah restoration plan. I'm not a public speaker, so I will be brief. Uh, one of the main reasons that I support the restoration plan is because it was created in partnership and collaboration with the community. The problem was identified, the public was invited to give their input, and experts were consulted, and a good plan to fix the problem was made. I appreciate that the city's commitment to making Bloomington a better place to live. And I also appreciate living in a city that's willing to invest in our future and plant the seeds for restoration now so that future generations can enjoy the results. This project is one whose impact will last for decades and will benefit nature, ecosystems, and humans alike. I believe that the construction of a healthy ecosystem is worthy of our time, attention, and resources. I'm proud to live in a city where people are consistently invited to engage in the process of creating collaborative vision for our future. and I hope that the city council will decide to move forward on the scheduled restoration project. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Muski. >> Good evening, Mr. Bro. >> Hi, Alex Brozer here in support. Um, I would first like to recognize and respect that Nine Mile Creek was a traditional ancestral homeland of the Dakota people. I grew up a few hundred feet from 9 mile and now live on screbachin park where I have been restoring the mezzik oak savannah behind my home through adopt a park program. I started removing buckthorn and other woodies in my spare time before my elderly neighbor called the police on me. With her limited ecological knowledge, she only knew how to leave it alone and let nature be. Thankfully, the city applauded my work and provided me with resources and next steps to ensure successful restoration. that that is what really sparked my passion and eventually a career in ecological ecological restoration where I have now had a hand in restoring hundreds of acres of land. It's been such a joy to see the native flora and fauna return. And just last week, I recorded an endangered rusty patch bumblebee in the res restoration area behind my home. Unfortunately, to my elder elderly neighbors dismay, we lost the ability to just let nature be long ago when we introduced non-native invasive plants and altered the systems that were here before us. Famous conservationist Aldo Leopold states in a San County almanac, "One of the penalties, one of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. In other words, ignorance is bliss. Seeing the tree cutting is jarring, and many have stated that they are sad to see clear cutting. Now, [clears throat] now the lay man is able to see and feel what those with an educ ecological education feel every day. You're able to recognize an ecosystem in need, but just because you didn't see it before doesn't mean it didn't need help. Really, it's not up for debate. It's not what you or I want. It's already written in the banks. It's what's live. It's what the living beings who have been here longer than any of us tell us with their wide reaching spaced out limbs. If we really want to do save our woods, we need to listen to them. For those saying we will not see the change in our lifetime, well, that is false. Let me remind you again, time is up. >> Thanks. >> Thank you very much, >> Ms. Zawasttowski. Right. >> That is correct. >> I got it. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Good evening. [laughter] >> Um, good evening. I am here tonight to reaffirm my strong approval of the city's commitment to taking responsibility for the man-made decimation of the 9M Creek area by restoring the endangered oak savannah ecosystem that once flourished there. Decades of ignorance and how to treat this precious ecosystem along with the invasion of human introduced buckthornne and other invasive species has turned this precious space into something unrecognizable from what it once was. As you all know, there was much planning, consultations with experts, engagements with fellow citizens, and a city-wide vote which passed resulting in the culmination of the current restoration plan. A lack of understanding on the part of some does not mean that we should pause on taking action to save this vital area before it is too late. From listening to act actual ecologists and naturalists on this topic, we can all understand that time is of the e essence if we wish to save the oaks, restore the oak savannah, and allow the return of flourishing native flora and fauna as well as for the benefit of future human generations. A failure to act now will seal the fate of this endangered ecosystem and allow the buckthornne to continue its rampage as it slowly snuffs out other species and ruins soil quality. I thank the city council and everyone who voted in favor of this restoration and I urged the city to stay the course. I thank you and I would also like to address um Jonathan Mink's final statement on the Facebook post regarding the radical alons. That was me. What he didn't include was my other comment saying that that was a tongue andcheek joke that I knew that my friend would understand. And also, radical means amazing and I invite you all to learn more about Altons. They're doing truly great things. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Freshman. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Hello, Mayor and council members. Thank you for taking the time to have this public forum. I'm certain everyone in this room wants what's best for 9mm Creek. From my home, I can see the ball fields at Smart Smith Park, but I choose to drive to Harrison Park or the 106th Street Bridge parking lot because the NM corridor is a magical place, a sanctuary for me. I believe it. I believe it when the supporters say that the savannah will increase the flowers, birds, and monarch butterfly population. This makes me very happy because I have a huge soft spot for the monarch butterfly. Its life cycle life cycle truly amazed me. However, they say there will be plenty of shade as well. Don't believe them. I went to Lowry Nature Center and the Louisville swamp area. A naturalist from the Lowry Nature Center told me the oak tree will be an island of shade and a sign and a sign at the Louisville Swamp said, "Be sure to look for the oak trees scattered in the preserve." Nobody has ever described the trees in 9M Forest as scattered or an island. The shade in the wilderness enchants me. It's why I go there. Furthermore, I'm certain that as long as you and the council are in charge, you will make it a priority to find the money to chop down the trees, mow and and burn the savannah as needed because this is your legacy. However, when you're no longer mayor, no disrespect. Um, will the oak savannah continue to be a priority? Maybe yes, maybe no. If it isn't, we need to look no further than the walking bridge below the 106th Street Bridge to see what will happen. For at least three years, there has been a steady parade of cones being placed there. First one, then two, then three or four with tape to protect us from the eroded areas. That fence and finally it was demolished. It has sat for at least one year without any acknowledgement of when it will be rebuilt. And you know why that is? It's because it's not a priority. Again, no disrespect. Your priority is to Savannah. I am certain that if the mayor and council who approved and built that bridge were still in power, they would have found the money to fix that bridge. I believe the supporters are truly doing Mr. Freshman. I'm sorry, time is up. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Next five in line for us tonight. Trevor Jackson, David Neil O, Eloise Jaskin, Tom Walter, and Cody Swede. All right. Hello and thank you for having me here today. Instead of going into depth about the ecological benefits of this restoration project, what would like what have many people discussed both here and online, I'm instead going to be a little selfish and talk about myself and what I like. I really like prairies and I really like oak savas to some of my absolute favorite ecosystems in the entire world. So, as I learned more about this project over time, I became excited to find out that we're really leaning into having an oak savan opening. And I wanted to express that excitement here. As some of us know, oak savannah is one of the most endangered ecosystems in North America with less than half a percent left. But they provide such incredible ecological benefits. The main thing I want to discuss is the diversity of the plants. In the middle of the oaks of an opening, we can see a dense plantings of things like cone flowers, highups, blazing stars, bergammont, yarao, and goler rod that give support to not only our pollinators during the summer, but they also provide nesting locations for some of those pollinators in the winter and a food source for our overwintering birds in the form of seeds. As you move closer to the tree lines, the plants that thrive in sunny prairie conditions drop off and get replaced with lots of different kind of plants. You'll see the big leaf aiders, the colines, the thimbleweeds, the poke milkweed, and some funky looking fig warts that fill in that awkward niche of not quite full sun, but not quite full shade yet. And of course, um, of course, shading these woodland edge plants, you'll see these delightful oak trees. Before the thinning and removal of invasives and other trees, these trees were in a fierce battle with each other for dominance, which stunted their growth. But in an ideal oak savannah environment, this would not be the case. they would instead have space to focus their energy on widening those canopies to a and provide a much higher quality of habitat for birds and insects to live in. I could go into more depth about my adoration of oak savanas, but for the sake of time, this is all I could feasibly squeeze in. So, thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Jackson. >> Mr. is it Oen or >> Oen Mr. Oen, good evening. Welcome. >> Yeah. Um, good evening. My name is David Oyen and thanks for the opportunity for being here. I live in 110th Street between France and Normandale, 15minute bicycle ride from um the 9mm corridor in the park. My wife and I moved from our farm in rural Montana to Bloomington seven years ago to be near our three children, all of whom graduated from college, great colleges here in the Twin Cities. Imagine that. And they never left. Imagine that. Um, so, um, we're coming to be with them and, uh, and now our seven grandchildren. I'm here to support the NMO Creek Renewal Reenewal Project for a number of reasons, which real boil down to the fact that I'm a grandfather and um, I've become connected to three organizations here in the area that I think are extremely important. Uh, one is the elders climate action twin cities chapter which focuses on uh advocacy for being good ancestors to future generations on climate and healthy environmental issues. The second is all lawns of Bloomington and real and uh and Richfield which encourage educates and enables individuals uh to convert their suburban turf lawns to native pollinator habitats. And the third one is Bloomington Neighbors Nurturing Nature, which organizes volunteer work parties to battle to to battle invasive buckhorn in the city's municipal parks and to create healthy school and public landscapes with resilient native plants. I look to the other commentators to address the science behind oak savanas and the details of the proposal itself. I simply want to commend the city of Bloomington for having the vision on behalf of the community in the nine mile corridor but to implement this project and I encourage the council and the committee to have the courage the persistence and patience >> to see it through the land the water the wildlife current and future generations Mr. I'm pleased. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Miss Jas. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> My name is Eloise Jaskin and >> Could I ask you to get into the microphone a little bit more so we can hear you? Very good. Thank you. >> Right. My name is Eloise Jaskin and I am a long-term resident of East Bloomington. And I'm here tonight because I have a story for you and I'm going to read you a story. It's not a bedtime story, so no napping. Um, it but it is relevant to the Nine Mile Creek corridor restoration projects. I've been in frequent communication lately with a burer friend about the issues surrounding the Nine Mile Creek corridor restoration projects. In a recent email, he told me about his experiences with birding at the Parker Picnic area, both before and after the Oak Savannah conversion there. His story about the consequences when restoration projects have an unexpected impact was so compelling that I wanted to share it with you. My Burer friend wrote on July 28th, 2026. Quote, "I recently been sent another bulletin with a video about the Oak Savannah restoration in the Parker Picnic area. The guy in the video makes it all sound great, but that wasn't my impression. When the clearing there took place, it pretty much destroyed a large portion of what I considered a great birding area. Maybe it will recover in time, but after four years, it still is relatively birdless compared to what it used to be like. It's not a place I would go to anymore to look for look for warblers." End quote. My friend is an expert birder with an in-depth knowledge of Henipin County birds and birding locations as well as being a recognized and respected member of the Minnesota birding community. He has been birding the Park Parker picnic area since 1980 and has birded the Nine Mile Creek corridor hundreds of times. He goes out birding almost daily. This guy knows what he's talking about. >> Mr. Haskin, I'm sorry your time is up. Too bad I was getting to the good part. [laughter] >> I'm sure you were. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you, >> Mr. Walter. Good evening. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Tom Walter and I am here on behalf of Erica McMullen who very much wanted to be here but had a family commitment that's been planned for six months. These are here her words. You are the only people with the power to stop what the vast majority of residents don't want, did not vote for, and are adamantly opposed to. We respectfully ask you to delay the project and vote no on awarding any contracts at this time. These are the reasons why the project needs to be put on hold. First, the voters of Bloomington did not vote for Oak Savannah and Prairie. The ballot said renewal. The ballot question itself used the words improvement and restoration. It did not mention oak, savannah, and prairie. A ballot question should not leave anything open to interpretation. Secondly, there was a major lack of transparency and clarity by the city. The city had meetings about bike trails, playground equipment, removing buckthorn dead trees, fixing bridges, stopping erosion. But they failed miserably in making the residents aware of the biggest changes of all. Tearing out acres of mature and healthy trees and swapping one unique ecosystem for another. Residents that I've personally spoken to and I were also shocked and appalled at the clearcut we saw this spring. The city's own website uses renewal in its title, not restoration. No pictures of Oak Savannah or Prairie are even shown on the main web page. Nobody should have to search hard to find the truth of this plan. Word is only spreading because of grass grassroots efforts to raise awareness. I suspect there are still thousands of residents who are not aware of these changes. These are major changes from last year's proposed work. The acres of Oak Savannah has almost doubled. Over 13 new acres of prairie have been added. Mr. >> Walter, >> am I done? >> I'm sorry. Your time is up. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Also, you're going to run out of money. >> Could you sign it? Could you sign in, please, Mr. Walter? Thank you, Mr. Swede. Good evening. >> Good evening. I um this is my first city council meeting and I I love it so far. The people are fired up. Um, I am so I'm here today because I love nature and I think that's why everyone else is here today too, right? You we all want to have the best possible nature in our our spaces like NM Creek. Um, and for me growing up, nature always meant greenery, right? You know, it's trees are green, grass is green, bushes are green, and that's nature. But unfortunately, as uh a previous uh speaker alluded to, um I began a journey in native restoration of my own lawn. And what I began to see as nature changed. U things like Siberian elm or Japanese honeysuckle or buckthornne are as as native or as as natural as a parking lot would be. It's like a big column of uh cement got placed in in our our park. And unfortunately um I can't go to 9m Creek with my wife and kids without seeing that uh that non- nature nature everywhere. And I I really it it hurts actually. I it feels bad when you see an an area that should be full of cone flowers and oaks and uh bee bomb and all these beautiful plants that that create forage for bees and butterflies and uh deer and and all kinds of animals uh great and small. And instead it's things that you know they can't eat the berries because they die. They can't eat the leaves because you can't forge on them. So I'm I'm speaking of course in in favor of this uh this plan and I'm glad that it's going through. I there's a old saying that um you a great leader plants trees whose shade they will not see and this is uh a way to plant quite a few trees and restore area whose shade you may not be empowered to enjoy anymore. Uh but an oak tree lasts 200 years. It's a lot of shade for a lot of people and I'm so thankful that you've decided to do this to 9 creek and I look forward to seeing it when it's completed. >> Thank you Mr. Sweet. Our next five up, Megan Lungquist, Jane Freeman, Stephanie Thford, Jill Craftton, and Brian Hoffman. >> Good evening and welcome. >> Hi, my name is Megan Lquist and I'm a resident of the South Loop in Bloomington and I'm speaking in support of the NM Creek Restoration Project. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to protect and restore 9M for future generations. The proposed restoration is an investment that aligns with the city's goals and is an opportunity to act in a way that is bigger than Bloomington by improving a creek that has major downstream impacts. This is a really critical precedent to set. I understand the concern about the changes to the park's appearance and especially the loss of the the tree canopy. Ikes Creek runs directly in my backyard and it underwent a similar revitalization change um that just ended this spring and honestly it was a very stark sight to see. But um the temporary pain and ugliness of that construction project has given way to a healthier and more beautiful natural space. The trout that are living in the stream are thriving which is amazing. Stewardship cannot be a preservation of the status quo and attempting to save this area as it stands is a choice but one that risks losing the values that make Nine Miles special. I appreciate that this plan looks beyond the immediate preferences and focuses on what will leave the strongest legacy for Bloomington. This project will create a healthier, more diverse, and more sustainable park that will be enjoyed by people and also save it for the land, plants, and animals that depend on it. Thank you for your time and supporting this project. >> Thank you, Miss Lungquist. Miss Freeman. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, city council. Um, my name is Jane Freeman. Um, and thank you for having the public comment session tonight. Listening sessions and public comment sessions allow community members to share their views. However, they do not allow for an indepth exchange and conversation about the specific plans for the upper trail. The opportunity for this in-depth conversation needs to happen before going ahead with the contract award tonight. There are many questions that an engaged community will have. Here are just a few. Why was Oak Savannah chosen? Were mixed woodland and forest options also considered? If other options were considered, what made Oak Savannah better? Were preferences of park users and adjacent property owners taken into consideration? Was the impact of global warming considered? What are the plans for ongoing maintenance past the five years in the contract? Community [snorts] involvement and buyin is one of the highest priorities when a project of this size is being considered. It is essential that our community better understand the restoration plans beyond what was in recently included in the RFP. Bloomington values community input as exemplified by the previous engagement events and the treats because meaningful communication ensures that community members feel included, heard, and valued. With all this said, I urge you, mayor and council, to pause the contract award tonight and instead hold a community engagement event where we get a chance to have a conversation about this the plan for the upper trail. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Freeman. Now, I know you're you're not Stephanie, are you? >> Oh, is >> No, I'm I'm I'm just checking because I I I called Stephanie and I didn't see her come forward. Is Stephanie here? She is not. So, we'll just move on to Jill. Jill Craftton. Good evening and welcome. >> Thank you. Um yeah, Jill Crafton and I've been serving on the um [clears throat] Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek watershed district board as a manager because of your support and your advocacy for me to be there. Um and I've learned a lot and I've been a champion for restoring ecosystems through that watershed. Um but as an Isaac Walton member and um member of the Bush Lake chapter, we've been strong opponents or opponents advocates for what you have done from taking that master park plan and developing a a natural resource plan and really trying to restore ecosystems to this city. Um and I think it's what makes us really special. Um on our chapter grounds at Bush Lake, um it took [clears throat] three years and Paul Erman was the main one driving that. but to get the buckthornne out before we could start to restore it with native plants and whatever. Um, and so I know it may seem extreme to do a clearcut, but sometimes that's the best best approach to get there the most efficient way and it can look ugly, but the oak savannah is what was here before and it has grown. those trees and the plants grow together and evolve with um the insects and birds and and wildlife and it's a system and they're all part of it. And so I commend you for what you're doing tonight. I have supports going forward with the contract and I appreciate all you've done to help us with our valuable treasures in the city. >> Thank you, Miss Craftton. Mr. Hoffman, good evening. Welcome. >> Good evening, mayor, council members. My name is Brian Hoffman. Um been living next to the park for 30 years. Originally moved into the uh community back in the early 60s with my parents. So I've sort of seen the whole progression and uh I really want to um echo of course the mayor's comments about the the importance of having community engagement conversation and I also would respectfully disagree that the project was already approved. uh the concept was but the details are different and I think the but I I've tried to follow this project and I had no idea that the clear cutting was occurring until very recently when the RFP was issued and at this point basically asking council to delay the project because the um the contract can be changed the extent of the work can be altered before it's signed um the buckthorn absolutely got to go there's a lot of diseased trees there. There's a lot of crowding on the oaks, but there's a difference between a mixed uh uh species woodland and the oak savannah. Now, I've heard a lot of people comment about oak savannah, and I'm actually been surprised. Um, and I understand the ecological argument for that and for restoration. And there's also a balance with the community psyche, the human element of being down there and enjoying it. This is a city park. I mean, if I'm going to go to a zoo or the state park, there's lots of various trains and environments and ecosystems available. Uh, when you go down there though, you talk about a lot of people, residents and whatever using the park for recreation, solitude. I think those were the primary comments that were heard during the open house meetings when it started at Moyer was that solitude that closed in that canopy. And I'm afraid it's being lost. Now, I've heard some people say it's not a clear-cut. If that's the case, well, that's great. But it's not known. I have not heard from anybody exactly the extent of this project uh in the upper trail area. And I think some moderation could sort of satisfy everybody. And I want to thank you very much for your attention and for this opportunity. >> Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. So, the last five in the queue this evening, Ted Kramer, Susan Baker, Vicky Huen, Brian Seig, and Leslie Swanson. Excuse me, Swson. Leslie Swinson, >> ready for me? >> Yeah, this a little short. >> Um, so I think everyone here is here because, you know, we want what's best for the ecosystem and nobody's saying we should pave paradise and put up a parking lot by any means. Uh, but there's a mix of voices due to a mix of knowledge levels when it comes to ecology. And I mean from talking to people who've looked into this a lot uh can tell you that there are some remnant prairies out there in 9M Creek corridor and these are patches of land where everything that's lived there's lived there since even before 1492. And I think preserving and even helping expand those and those are um like also considered oak savannah to some extent, but that's kind of our holy grail cuz once that's gone, it's gone forever. So, I'm in favor of going forward with this project in a way that's consistent with the advice of people who are, you know, well-versed in forestry. So, it's an important legacy for the city because, you know, in 300 years, the impacts of this project will be felt more than any hockey arena or community center. So, let's make sure it happens. And yeah, thank you, Mr. Kramer. Miss Baker. >> Uh, good evening, Mayor and Council, and thank you for the opportunity to for everyone to be able to share tonight. I am opposed to converting a major part of our current woods in Moyer Park to Oak Savannah. I appreciate appreciate the shade that these woods provide. It is a peaceful and refreshing place to walk. Converting to Oak Savannah would change the character of this park. Moyer Park would have about 40 fewer acres of shade. Living in this suburban place, I value the shady places in our parks. converting to Oak Savannah may make sense in areas where there is a lot of space to do so perhaps in uh in one of our state parks. It should not be done in areas that are adjacent to neighborhoods. Just because this area used to be at Oak Savannah 100 years ago is not a sufficient reason to recreate it here and now. Our population is much denser now than it used to be. I attended several engagement meetings in 2025, read the poster information, and I thought I understood the city's plans for Moyer Park. I I knew there would be no bikes, and because of that, there would be no widened paths for bikes, saving many trees from destruction. I knew we would remove invasive species and protect or rebuild creek banks. I knew we would have a new picnic area and building. It was never highlighted to me and others that we would be clearing approximately 40 acres to reintroduce Oak Savannah. If the city had this major change in mind, it should have been discussed openly in engagement meetings. I was one of several people who just recently became aware of this part of the project. I urge the city to scrap the idea of Oak Savannah expansion in Moyer Park. Thank you, Miss Baker. Miss Houston. >> Hi, Mayor. Thank you for having us uh in an open forum. Appreciate it. Or I should say a comment for him. Um a few points that may warrant a pause for this project and the need for further open forum discussion. With all due respect, I don't believe the city has been very transparent or clear about the scope of this project since the announcements of the oak savannah and the upper paths. We've we've lost acres and acres of healthy majestic trees that are going to be cut down and that and oak savannah um being implemented uh is not preferred. If you walk the creek daily, you will hear people exclaim, "This is not what we thought we were voting for." And the upper trails plan just revealed in June, "It's a huge shock." The Oak Savannah fantasy, while noble, was not mentioned until recently. In my opinion, it does not fit in a vast huge gorge forest environment. No upper paths destruction, please. And everybody wants Buckthornne removed, by the way. Everyone, my number one thing is maintenance. The city has not maintained 9M for decades. And on the original pre-sanitized website for the restoration project, the city cited the need to have less maintenance due to staffing issues, high costs, and long upkeep, long-term upkeep concerns. If you've researched Oak Savannah systems, you know they require 20 plus years of continual maintenance to take hold and actually work and be sustainable. Who's going to babysit and nurture these fragile dynamic ecosystems? What is a maintenance plan beyond 5 years? It's not just burns. It's seeding, watering, mowing, and clearing invasive species that will keep roaring back. Um, with time running out, thank you for very much for the opportunity. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Seic. >> Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Um, members, uh, my name is Brian Seig. I've lived in Bloomington for 57 years. Nine Mile Creek used to be a shady, quiet escape back to nature and primarily used as a walking park. It was shady, cool on hot summer days. My kids now in their 40s, uh, practically grew up in the woods. Um, comments have been made that the voters have approved and, you know, selected this project. This is proof of what the voters voted on. There's no mention of 1850 landscape. There's no mention of of uh invasive species being ash, red cedar, which have all come out in the presentation that those are invasive species. Other me other speakers here have said 85% of the park isn't being changed. Well, I guess my my thought is it's been a walking park. It's a park. And if 85% isn't being changed, I'm not sure how you're going to cure the buckthorn problem, but why not deal with make an oak savannah of the 85% but leave it a walking park. Um I wore this shirt. It's a little um out of tune because this was all about bikes in the park. That was one of the more recent big pushes. Um, very little mention of of I'm going to ask you one question. If I wonder how voters would feel if they were told that this there was free removal of invasive species in their yard while they're at work and then they come home and find a corn field. That's actually what happened. And based on what we voted on, that is not what was told to us. So, uh, I respectfully just please put a hold >> and reconsider. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And Miss Wson, >> good evening. And I would just like to present a few facts um that I'm sure most of you know already. So, I was on the DNR website and one of the most recent maps that the DNR has has an oak savannah going up through Egan, not crossing the river. So, the fact that you are all saying that this at one time was an oak savannah, I think that's up up uh it's questionable. So, I am speaking against doing the restoration that you are doing, not just at 9M, but in all of Bloomington. Here are the reasons why. Number one, we are a 100 years ago, we weren't nearly as urban as we are. We are very urban. We're going to get and continue to get urban influences. The fact that you are going to try and maintain this as an oak savannah is going to be expensive. Naturally, if you want to go back to naturally, naturally, oak savas are maintained by bison, by buffalo that eat the grass, the tall grass, so that when fires come, the young oaks, the fires are not as severe, so the young oaks can live until they become bigger and can survive a fire. We are not doing anything like that. Um I want to say that you are asking for a single species or close to a single species and we all know what a single species the dangers behind single species. Uh just look at the ash trees. Um and I'm assuming that all of you know because it was in the newspaper about the fungus that is in California killing thousands of oak trees. And there is nothing anyone can do about it because they don't know how to contain this fungus. And I'm I'm concerned about and have spoken to some of the people here in Bloomington. What are you planning to do should the fungus come here? And in fact, the fungus is here. >> Miss Wson, your time is up. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> council. That completes our list of speakers this evening. I want to thank everybody who spoke. I want to thank everybody who was here this evening. We I I I appreciate how we managed this. I really do. It uh it was a respectful conversation. Everybody brought forward uh your good point of view and but did so in a respectful and a courteous way knowing that whatever side of the decision here you are on uh these folks are our neighbors and uh we we don't need to yell and shout. We can we can have a conversation like this. So, thank you all. Thank you very much for doing it in in the way that we did get it done. and I do appreciate it. Council, I will now close our public comment period and turn the conversation over to a presentation. I think we've got a our our city staff and uh at least one of our consultants will do a presentation. I'm going to turn it over to Renee Clark and Bob Simons and and back to Derek. And I've forgotten to pronounce your name already. I've forgotten it already. So, uh to Derek. So, uh, turn it over to you for the presentation. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mayor and City Council. We're here tonight again to uh request uh authorization of two construction contracts to continue with the NM Creek Corridor renewal project. a bit of background um and to recognize council's um recognition of the community's importance of natural resources. I think threaded through all of our comments, the community cares about our natural resources and council requested natural resources be presented as an opportunity for voters um to take on this really significant um initiative for um such a large scale restoration project. The engagement process that we have followed um was identified in the park system master plan and we um stayed true to that um for two years talking to um the public in a variety of ways. We did a creek walk where we learned together about the issues and opportunities throughout the corridor, the creek, the woodlands, the wetlands, the prairie. Um, as an example of some restoration that's already been done. Um, and I love to thank the community for their longstanding commitment to the city in working with us. um some for this entire two years on guiding the plan that we um that council approved and that we're here discussing tonight. Um as a reminder, there is some work that council has authorized um since the approval of the project back in January. Um one was uh tree removal specific to construction activities to facilitate the start of construction here this summer. the work at the Veterans Memorial at Harrison Park which is underway and then we are anticipating um con uh the construction to begin on the remainder of the projects being considered tonight um shortly this summer upcoming um as requested by the community through the engagement um we will be initiating a wayfinding project as well as um education educational opportunities throughout the corridor um really specific to natural and natural and cultural resources. I want to highlight um some of this project that isn't specifically the subject tonight but has been um previously contracted and included. Um we will um end with the um presentation or discussion of the components regarding natural resources and the um things being considered in the contracts tonight. and then Bob will conclude with um contract details and next steps. Reminder, um Harrison and Moyer Park are also part of these projects that include a new picnic shelter, a trail loop redoing of a disc golf course, and one of our two um ADA accesses for this project, which has um been really important to the community in the project. >> Thanks, Renee. I'm going to touch on some of the aspects of the infrastructure and the natural resource components specifically. So, uh we've discussed these previously and really haven't any significant changes, but for completeness, we want to make sure and just go over this as an overview. So, uh within the corridor, we do have some major infrastructure activities that are occurring. Um north of 106 Street, we do have paving 8ft trails uh between Moyer and 106. So, that northern section will be paved 8ft trails, very similar to current alignment for the most part. Um overall we are replacing two bridges um because of structural failures that they've had. One is missing already. That is part of this project uh for that. Um reducking the remaining bridges so they're in good shape. Uh there are some stairs north of Morgan Circle that'll be removed and then we're replacing those stairs at Morgan Circle with a switchback and then those at 106 Street. So improving access. Those are just have kind of degraded over time and particular with the switchback is providing ADA access that really isn't there presently. So expanding usage for all all workers, I'm sorry, all residents and users of the park. Uh and then there's another activity that's a little bit hard to explain, but underneath 106 bridge, there's some retaining walls that are failing. So we're undertaking an exercise referred to as soil pinning just to stabilize that and ensure that that stays in place for access within the the creek itself, which is really where we started with the majority of activities. We brainstormed a lot of activity in here and identified the priority ones. So, one of the highlights is the creek remander which I think is a significant improvement out here. It's on the next slide. Uh but within the creek corridor, we're removing uh the bridge and installing a new boardwalk associated with. So, we're enhancing that crossing. And then there's a number of areas where we're replacing um eroded banks and and so and slope repairs with stabilization practices. So, it's kind of a variety on what's a best fit, including rip wrap where necessary, and there's a lot in that channel already. So, we're trying to minimize that, but it works really well to try to hold soil in place. But then also using biological material like wads and toewood, log veins with boulder hooks to actually reshape the channel rather than trying to stabilize the bank, work with the the fluial geometrics of the channel. Um, and then fabric encapsulated soilless when we need to rebuild and live stakes to try to get that vegetation back. So really a combination of things are specifically focused on the creek. Now one of the highlight parts of the project I think specific to the creek is uh currently we have one bridge crossing that we want to replace with a boardwalk and part of the boardwalk is that accommodates an actual remander of the channel. So there's a section up here north of 106 just downstream from Harrison Park where in a previous storm event large section of the channel essentially cut straight and it lost that natural meander. So part of this project is to restore that and put that back try to restore those processes. Um this is an area that's been mentioned as some clearcut and that is accurate. The trees in this area were removed to accommodate the remander. Now the benefits of that is it's restoring flood plane. a lot of flood storage here. This is downstream of two major storm water inputs. Hold that water here. Uh restores the wetland associated with it. And then we're adding 1400 feet of new channel and restoring that meander process. So there's a lot going on in this small area and on a percent basis it's a small part of the project, but this is one of the most significant from a ecological restoration specifically focused on the creek and those associated amenities. Something we're really excited about. And then a large part of the project is tied back to our natural resource uh renewal project. So we have a request for proposals that's been out recommendation on the table for you this evening. We have 235 acres it's managed. The biggest component of it overall is that removal of invasive species. It's targeting buckthornne and garlic mustard but it really extends further to other invasive species that are present as well. A lot of those are shrub, but that's one of the biggest issues and I think everybody is in universal agreement of taking that approach. Um, the burough savannah is a component of it. Um, we can talk a little bit further about that to address some questions, but we are including prairie restoration establishment. There's a remnant prairie that we want to enhance and extend back to its original footprint in addition to establishing prairie along some of the areas that currently are mowed turf. So, we want to get that back more to a natural setting um and try to minimize some of that maintenance but also have more of a natural fuel throughout the park. Uh there associated with the remander is the wet meadow and flood plane restoration. We are proposing to remove some of the the dead ash trees. It's unfortunate that they're present. It's more of a safety issue than an ecological issue. Trying to remove some of those in there. And then there's some earth and trail and gully repairs. uh particularly on the upper trail itself isn't bad, but getting up and down um has actually damaged the slope in a number of spots. So, we want to uh repair those two and just kind of stop some of that continual damage. It's just coming uh from continued use. Now, the nice part about this, and I recognize that we would love to have a 20 a year or longer plan, but we we have this as five years um for the initial contract. So, that's really hitting it hard initially and then four years of post restoration. Now part of that is because we can't tell you exactly what needs to be done at this area four years from now. So it's an adaptive management approach that says this is the outcome we want. We will work our way to get there with these initial actions and then take the necessary steps to try to achieve it. So while there is some unknowns to that, it's actually the best approach to be flexible but intentionally flexible so that you can work forward and make those u outcomes that you're trying to achieve in a realistic timeline. Um I do have some responses to questions that were raised in the previous session. Being as the rest of the presentation kind of migrates to other portions of it, I'd like to address those now if that's all right. Um so some of the questions that we heard um and first of all I want to thank everybody for their passion. And I do agree everybody is on the same page here of we want this park to be the crown jewel. Maybe some nuance in what exactly that looks like, but frankly I see support for the project overall and maybe some nuance to some components of it. Um I do want to touch on one of the comments about clear cutting. Um somebody had mentioned 60 acres of clearcut. Now from our standpoint clearcut means we've removed everything that is going down to just grass as an herbaceous layer and that's really an overstatement. The clear cutting that we will have out here is associated with the reiander footprint or the switchback and that work already occurred last winter to try to free up those areas for specific um components that are cited there. Um and that's about five or six acres overall. So there is other removal but I wouldn't constitute that as clearcut. Those other areas where there is removal is either thinning or associated with the oak savannah where we are removing some species in there but overall it's still woods. It still classifies at woodland habitat and isn't really clear-cut. Although I can appreciate some of the equipment that's used, forestry mowers and things like that. It will look different with the buckthornne removal and some of the tree removal, but I just want to be sure that technically it's not really clear-cut. It's a conversion of one woodland community to another, if that's fair. And I understand that itself introduces ambiguity, but we can get into specifics if we need to. Um, one of the other components we've heard a lot about is the shade and cooling. Um, there's no doubt that shade feels good, but shade is a relative component of comfort. Um, I know some people like it hot, muggy, and still, and we like the shade, and that feels good. I'm not going to discount that feeling. Conversion and removing some of this will open it up. I understand there'll be additional light penetration. You go from dense shade to more of a dappled shade. For the most part, people don't notice that very much when you're in that setting. But what you will notice is more air flow, a decrease in humidity, a decrease in mosquitoes and other insects that like that hot, humid, still environment. And I don't want to say that your perception is wrong on what that is, but I think there's a component that a comfort level and enjoyment of walking the upper loop with fewer trees in there is probably going to feel the same or better for most people um with this conversion. Now, that's an aesthetic, not an ecological um component. But I just want to note with the tree thinning, we're not opening it up to just be beating sun on and people walking through the system. There'll be certainly some openings that you'll walk through, but overall, I think your experience will be very similar from a comfort level. And I think a lot of people actually appreciate the sightelines and visibility with a savannah. Right now, a lot of these areas are very dense. Once you get off the trail, you can see, you know, several feet ahead of you, but it's pretty thick. The open savannah area is kind of where humans evolved because I can see a lot and this is much more comfortable and a lot of folks actually appreciate the visibility over the dense kind of enclosed space that we have in a lot of areas. Now again that's a perception issue not ecological but I I think a lot of folks are going to appreciate that change. Um the oak savannah was kind of addressed by a number of speakers and it's a very rare habitat. Um we're thankful that the trees are still there. they need to be liberated to kind of get them out of the the encroachment that's there. But why Oak Savannah is because we can. If the if the oak trees weren't there, there'd be no opportunity. So, it's kind of a blessing that they're still there and you have the opportunity to do it. That's part of the focus. I would also say while we're targeting 40 acres or so, most of the area was historically Oak Savannah. We're doing a fraction of what we could do and trying to balance that with existing conditions, prairie, the the boardwalk and wet meadow crossings and the savannah. Trying to balance all of that out. That speaks a little bit to the questions on diversity. We don't want to have oak only. The goal was never oak only. The goal was never to be only oak trees in these areas. It'll be oak majority. And maybe we didn't do a very good job of communicating that when we talk about oak savannah sounds like you mean oaks. We mean oaks and other species, fewer of them, more sentinel species, but they provide that continuity and transition. They're part of the community. It's not oak only. And we have an entire oak savannah understory that's completely absent now that we can restore as well. So that overall diversity, the health, the vigor of those species. And one thing that wasn't mentioned is right now we also don't have any oak natural reproduction. We don't have any new oak seedlings or anything starting in that understory. So what's there today as those mature oaks are the oaks. Um in liberating those and restoring that buro habitat will actually hopefully get them to naturally reproduce as well and not just be a point in time but an ongoing uh healthy ecological system. So there's a lot of other specific comments but those are some of the general themes I heard and I just want to address those to council. Bob, if you want to continue. >> All right. [clears throat] Thank you Derek. I'll just give a little bit more information more specific to the contracts, the timeline, and the funding. Um, as Renee mentioned, we have a few contracts that are either completed or underway. We have the the winter tree removal which occurred back in February. Council ordered that project at the end of December and we awarded it in early February and completed it in February. That was specific to the infrastructure improvements. Then we have the Veterans Memorial in Harrison Park that's underway, moving along very well right now. Um, similar timeline to the tree removal and awarding at council. Um we that was awarded back in March. Started in April and it's well underway. We have a a planned ribbon cutting celebration um planned for just before Veterans Day here this fall. And now for the two contracts that are up for award tonight. We have the Nimile Creek corridor renewal which is the bigger the biggest of the projects. It's the corridor of the creek and Moer Park improvements. Um, as mentioned earlier, um, this project and the lower valley management plan that was, uh, authorized a bid, ordered and authorized a bid by council in late January of 26. We had the bid opening for the Nimon Creek corridor renewal here on July 23rd. Um, there was two bids, two very good competitive bids for the project, two good specialty contractors that we've had in the past, two good formal formidable contractors. So, we were very pleased with the bids that we received. Um, city council is asked to consider tonight the award to Vite and company for that Nmile Creek corridor renewal project. Um, anticipating starting here very shortly, very soon up here in the fall and then continuing through the fall and winter of 27. And then for the lower valley management plan, the upland and natural resources that was released as an RFP. Um, same timeline as the corridor renewal as for approvals through council. Uh, the proposals were due, they were released in early May and they were due at the in mid June as you see June 17th. Once again, we received some great um proposals. Uh we received three proposals. Um some contractors that have been working worked in town before and we we know and they they've done good work for us in the past. Um uh we through the RFP process, we have a few different criteria, scoring criteria that we review. The project team reviewed that and would like to consider the award of the contract to Resource Environmental Solutions um asking that tonight. And as Derek mentioned, that's a five-year contract for those activities in that establishment period. And then in regards to overall the a cost summary for these projects that we've been talking about the um corridor tree removal as you see listed there Harrison Park trail head and vets memorial as you see listed there were that both awarded back in the back this this past winter and early spring the 9 mile corridor renewal which is up for award tonight at 11 the 11.6 6 million is the bid that we received from Vite and Company. Um Moyer Park restroom and shelter package and the playground equipment package. Those are both authorized by council back in June with the dollar amount shown there. And then we have the lower valley management which is one of the items that are up for award tonight. Um looking to award that to resource environmental solutions at the 4.1 million. Um that comes to a construction subtotal of 19.3 million. for all of these projects, we've been including a 10% construction conti contingency on those and we're asking the same thing tonight. Um, and then the design and admin cost shown there. So, the overall project total cost is actually very similar, very close to what we we brought back in January when we were giving the project summary at that time as well. So all these projects are fully funded for with our different funding sources that we have which include um the local option sales tax uh the PMP park trails funds um Nimal Creek wershed district um we'll be providing funding our storm water utility and then also as mentioned previously in previous council meetings when we awarded the Harrison and Vets project we have a deed grant as well as Bloomington remembers veterans fund for the veterans memorial project. So, with that, we have two requested actions before you tonight um for the award of these two contracts, and we'll take any more questions you might have. >> Thank you for the information. Actually, I did have one question and then we'll get into the council questions. Uh there there were questions about the the longer term maintenance of the park and I think that was addressed in some place that I did see. If you could if you could talk about that a little bit beyond the the four or fiveyear maintenance plan that is part of the contract, what what is the long-term plan? Yeah, mayor, city council, thanks for that question. The long-term maintenance will be done um with a combination of staff, um volunteers through our adopt a park program, which has been really successful at scale um with some recent examples, and then contracted services. Um the efforts overall throughout the city have been ramping up as we implement our natural resources prioritization plan. um increasing the amount of natural areas we're able to restore. This project will add to that. Again, um the 5-year establishment period is really important as when um the activities are most intense. Um over these years, we'll be ramping up um with the addition of this project. We're essentially doubling um our efforts um and anticipating four additional seasonal staff estimated at $50,000 at this time. Contracted uh woodland and wetland restoration. Um $83,000 estimated burning and grazing each on a 4-year rotation estimated at about 36,000 annually. So, we are um as we consider our efforts citywide and including taking this on um five years out, that's the way we're thinking about the work and I do have um members of our maintenance team here to answer any more specifics there, but that's generally the approach at this time. >> Thank you. I appreciate the general information and just the knowledge that there is in fact a long-term maintenance plan in place. It's not just a matter of doing it and then throwing it to the wind and seeing what happens because that's what was the case for a few decades around here and we're we're not going to do that again. So, thank you for that. Council questions regarding the presentation tonight. Council member Disandro. >> Uh thanks, Mr. Mayor. Uh because because we uh republished the EAW as part of the conversation, I had the chance to like look at it again, right? And so there were a couple of things about the the EAW itself that I just was kind of I wanted to make sure we covered off. There were some um at the time of the publishing of it uh things like the invas the um um endangered species US Fish and Wildlife Service stuff was kind of still outstanding. I don't want to you know there was uh something around the historic preservation office I think as well. I'm assuming we got concurrence for all of those things and I just didn't know whether or not we updated the documentation that's online to confirm that. >> Um, yes, we did get all of the documentation uh for that. So, from the historic preservation office, yes, we got concurrence of that the project will not have any cultural resource impacts um from for what the the ground disturbance activities are located. Yeah, >> I I don't want to dismiss that. There may not be resources there, but where we are working is not coll-located with any known for clarity. Um the other permits around fish and wildlife, we are complying with the requirements, which is why our our woodland work is in winter where we're working around the the northern long-eared bat and any migrating birds are not present. So that's why that work is occurring when it is. Um, from the DNR standpoint and stay listed species, we have avoidance plans for those that are appropriate and kitten is a very specific one that we know is present. Um, we took a little bit of a different approach of we're seeking approval of our sustainability plan around kittentales as opposed to seeking a permit to potentially impact them. We're actually taking a much um more generous approach of actually getting the DNR to endorse our plan that it will and recognize that it's actually enhancing the habitat and improving the sustainability of this species rather than in the EW it mentions a takings permit. So, we've actually modified it to be something that more collaborative and recognizing the benefits of the project to the species rather than kind of admitting we might accidentally impact one during the process. So that's a I appreciate those questions and the quick answer is yes, we've addressed all of those but I think elaborating a bit to explain not just address them but enhance those into something more meaningful for the project is what actually occurred. >> Okay, that's great. Thank you for that information. Second question I have is around um I think you addressed it in the presentation. I just want to like connect the dots. So somebody asked about a bridge that is that is not has not been prepared in some period of time. uh mentioned cones and then nothing etc etc. I believe that's one of the two bridges that is in this bid. Correct. >> Yes. Uh mayor council member Dellesandro that is correct. Yeah that's we call it bridge 8 but it's yeah south of 106 street that we took out last year because it was deficient. It was yeah unsafe and yes that will be replaced as part of this project. >> Okay. >> Uh great. Thank you. Um I don't think I have any more questions at the moment. Thanks Mr. Mayor. >> Very good. Council additional questions. Council member Lman. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. And you know, I appreciate you answering some of these questions, especially around the maintenance piece because that was something I know that uh that I was very concerned about. Uh uh how do we take care of this ongoing? I feel satisfied with with those responses. Um I did want to hear a little bit more uh and I apologize if I missed something, so just tell me you already said it and we're done. But uh with the uh the climate change component of it, uh there was some concern out there around the climate change component of it. And if we go with this Oak Savannah piece, there's you know certainly there's an argument out there uh in the community in terms of does this make sense to to do that and I want to just hear your opinion around I know it's covered a little bit earlier, but I wanted to hear your you know kind of talk about that since that's part of the discussion tonight. >> Sure. Sure. I think that's a great question and I think it's actually very wise to view this project in that type of perspective. We're talking about generational project. We should be viewing it in terms of climate change. My personal opinion is these oaks, some of them being more than 250 years old, have seen a lot of change already and they're still persevering in a very stressed environment with climate change, all the competition that they're occurring and being in a fraction of their former self. So they're actually fairly isolated. I know there are some comments on fragmentation. Well, the park itself is fragmented because it used to be a contiguous system up and down the entire river valley. So we've already seen that. So in my opinion to address that is not to kind of take it as the inevitable that well it's going to happen anyway, so why do we put the effort into trying to protect these? I would say they've demonstrated that the right species in the right location with the right mimicking of natural processes and I say that mimicking because we don't allow uncontrolled burns but it's a fire dependent community. So we're going to introduce those in a very safe controlled situation. If we do all of those things and we improve that resiliency, I can't tell you that those trees are going to make it if we see a lot of change in climate, but I can tell you they won't make it if we don't do anything. And the odds of them making it are going to go up if we intervene and try to keep them as healthy as possible. And if we try to get some of that natural reproduction, try to get some of that overall community change in place, we are giving them the best chance of survival with an unknown future. That's why I think it's important to to to approach it that way. Now, I also want to touch on when I say success ecologically, we've already seen this area is very diminished of what it was historically. the odds of us being successful actually goes up very quickly the more you do and the more contiguous areas you have. So the idea of we'll just do a little bit less. I understand the rationale behind it, but actually the less you do and the more scattered it is and the smaller areas you do, the less likely it's going to turn out. So the bigger you do it, the larger areas you have, the more meaningful you invest in early, the odds of success go up. I think we're compromising quite a bit already to try to get this into the best area we can and concentrate that activity. Now, I know I'm straying a little bit from your initial question, but it's connected on how this all fits together and what we believe is the best chance for it to work going forward. >> I appreciate that. Um, and then you had also mentioned the thinning and also uh one of the other concerns that was out there was with regards to that it's not just a purely uh oak savannah and I I appreciate that clarification and what the clear cutting actually is and what that is and I I it's uh interesting to me that you said I think it was 5 to six acres as opposed to 60 acres which you know kind of put me at ease. Uh so I appreciate your responses to that and that also ties of course obviously into the climate change component of it. Uh the other uh piece uh that and maybe you covered this is the transparency piece uh in terms of that and I just want to make sure we answered that because I think folks uh uh you know we're really concerned about the the ballot question and obviously we know there's a limit in terms of what you can put on a ballot question and then what we put in the uh uh the uh the the Bloomington forward piece and and maybe you already responded to that while I was back there. Mayor, members of council, the project um started with the idea of restoring natural resources through this corridor. And we worked with the community with our scientists and technical data to study to see what's there existing conditions, what's possible in um different restoration scenarios. What are the values of the community? and they were recreation, aesthetics, shade, um access, and of course nature. And people's idea of what natural resource restoration is, we've heard tonight isn't exactly the same. The way we've talked about it in the community um about science is interjecting scientific terms with plain language that people can understand. These community meetings included maps and figures and storytelling and dialogue with our technical experts with people in real time with um sitewalks. Um we had about 40 people 30 to 40 I want to say um at our sitewalk where we learned and talked with staff with our team um looking at what's there and what's possible. Um so through and through public um um presentations we really done um what we feel is two years of solid due diligence to listen, learn and share out um next steps and where we're going with the restoration and project overall. >> Okay. So I think what I'm understanding is um that uh and this was a different approach uh you know that we were we're going to start off at the very beginning of this of having a dialogue and work our way all the way to where we got to today. Uh and that you know that means that things changed from I remember the original proposal was different than what it is today. That's my understanding that uh we had that dialogue going on with folks. some folks were very concerned about the transparency component of it that you know that that missing component of that and so that's the piece that I'm kind of hoping that you could talk a little bit more to or speak to that in terms of what staff's philosophy was around that and I know you can't cover everything in every detail about it because we just don't know what's going to be the most important things to some folks at certain periods of time but I wanted you just to kind of if you wanted to talk a little bit more about that want to give that opportunity >> mayor members of council um we had a really tremendous team on this project. Um, and I really want to recognize our communications team who have been um with us since before the referendum on talking to people, sharing information in many different ways digitally, print um a dedicated project website that we've updated our Let's Talk Bloomington um collaboration page, our in-person events, and our council presentations. I think there's been a really large variety of multimedia touchpoint opportunities where we've shared information about all the aspects of the project um to the best of our ability and I think our communications team has really done an amazing job of helping us tell this story particularly about natural resources and these restoration approaches that um are conceptual in our minds as we talk about them and especially with the community that have um less of a technical understanding of some of these terms. So I think in that way um this project has been um quite transparent. >> Council member Reebas, >> can can we you turn on your microphone, please? Council member Reebus, >> uh we're going to have the opportunity to to make comments and >> Yeah. Yeah. Once we get done with questions. >> So I just have a quick question for you. Um, in regards to the transparency, I I know that we talked about it casually earlier. Um, you have you guys have done a great job. I mean, I'm not denying the fact that we go back to mid 2025 and we were already talking about grasslands and oak savannah. I I've seen that. I went deep into all the information that we got. My question to you was earlier that during the process as you learned that things needed to change, was there a possibility to be able to make that information that you were acquiring as things were evolving to communicate that to the public? I I know that's the question right now. It's not that there was no trans transparency. There was just a little lack of transparency as things change. That's the way that I see it. And so again I'm going to re ask the same question. Is it the is there a possibility that possibility that in the future we can actually as we evolve with the information as plans change that information can all can also be uh passed along to the public because that's the only problem that I see with the transparency. So other than that, I mean, we I I'm aware that we all knew about this over a year ago as as I got into all the information from the previous meetings that we have. So was is that possible? Um, mayor, members of council, as we um, as we develop projects, we try really our best to communicate um, in a way that the public can understand and um, to a depth of knowledge and detail that we think we can communicate accurately and have um, people be able to consume. And we we I think as we listen and learn, we can continue to increase the amount of information, increase the way we deliver information. And I think we even throughout this project tried to do that. Um as we started doing more videos, um we learned early on those resonated with people. So we will continue to listen and learn and um improve how much and how we share information about these projects. Uh thank you. And I know that we recently won awards in communication. So I I just you know just to see a little improvement on that so that people uh can say that they got all the information they needed. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Thank you council member. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you mayor. Um got a question kind of about the project first. I think the most contentious item is clearly the oak savannah and the canopy of that. um you've addressed some of that uh in my mind in terms of that it's not going to be oak only. It's not going to be one oak and then there's another oak like 300 yards away that you got to try to get to through the sun because you may notice I'm fairly Scandinavian. Um so lots of sun may not be ideal for me. Um I prefer shade greatly. Uh, and so can you talk to me a little bit about your philosophy of how those other trees that are maybe competing with the oaks, you know, how you're going to go about deciding which of those remain, which of those go? Um, are you gonna just as minimal as possible removal of those other ones, a moderate amount to allow for space for future growth of new oaks or can you give me a little bit of an idea of that what that philosophy is? And then just maybe a little bit more detail on what that canopy will be like? Um um you mentioned some like dimpled light through it which I assume is just light coming through the um the leaves and stuff but not huge gaps of of uh no shade just to help clarify those. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair representation. So there are you know there's an area of existing prairie that'll be expanded. So there will be depending on where you go like south of 106 there'll be an area with no trees. North of 106 there'll be generally will be trees for most areas. The reander won't because that's flood plane. That's a little bit different. Most areas will have some and I don't know if it's the technical term, but I call it dappled light. You're getting some through um on there, but it's not dense shade, but you know, again, you it's not the same as standing out in direct sunlight for a long period of time. So, similar, you'll probably will be okay. Um the the component of it is um and we've tried to codify this in a way because we we structured the RFP with an outcome that we want to achieve. So we were not overly prescriptive of this tree here and provide it too much where the contractor goes out and does exactly what we told them to. We want to be thoughtful about it. So I can give you some nuance to the Oaks of Anna area. One of the thing we've talked about is we will leave a buffer along the property line. We are not going to go to the property line and open that up. There'll be 50 to 100 ft of we're going to leave it a little denser here for a very good reason. And that's not typically where trails and stuff are located, but we recognize that transition is probably valuable. So it won't be as thin on the property line or on the edges um within the area. It's not all uniform evenly distributed oaks. So if there's a big area that the oaks aren't here, that just becomes part of the tree thinning. So as much as we put polygons on a map to say, well this is Buro Savannah, there'll be areas within there where there aren't oaks for 300 ft and that will be thinned like the rest of it, but we're not just going to make an open area. If it's Buro Oak Savannah, the oak has to be a component. So those areas would stay more of that mixed deciduous woodland and again provide that transitional area. Um within the oaks where oaks are sufficient density that might have areas that are an acre in size or more that might be leaning towards oaks only, but only if they're kind of already closed the canopy and things are competing with that. There'll be transition all over the place where we're going to leave some trees. We we kind of call them sentinel species because they'll be more single representative. So, if there's a great big sugar maple out there, we probably want to leave it. It's doing just fine. Um, but the safeguards we have on that is if we're going to leave some trees in there, they kind of have to be compatible with the oaks. They have to also do well with the prescribed burn from a management standpoint so that we don't save them and then end up having to burn them by accident. So, a great example are the red cedar trees. They compete a lot with the oaks and they burn really hot and actually are hard to manage. So we don't want to do a controlled burn with red cedar trees mixed in the oaks. That's that's not going to work for a number of reasons. So we've left it in the RFP for the city to designate which trees to remain whether they paint or put ribbon or what those are do not touch. And once all those get marked in those baroque areas, then the contractor knows what they can do and more importantly what they can't. So there is some discretion on there to kind of see before you do it what that's going to look like. And it's going to vary. Some spots will be a little sparse. Some spots are going to be still a pretty enclosed canopy as long as it's meeting that technical definition. I know there's a range what people consider for canopy in an oak savannah. As much as some of us would like to open all of that up and make it pretty sunny and open, the reality is it's going to transition down the slope, it's going to change community. we're not drawing hard boundaries where this is that community and 10 feet away is another one. They're going to blend. So overall that's going to be there. Um a specific area is going to be quite variable. Um so overall we're trying to kind of get that compromised where it is oak savannah. We're getting that outcome. But it's not intended to go in there and just leave these single 300t spaced oaks. And some of the oldest oaks out there are not the ones that you're picturing in your head that are 100 feet tall with a 200 foot canopy. The oldest oaks out there are small and kind of stunted and you think, well, that's probably 25 years old. No, those are the old ones. They've grown up in hardship. So, we can't really go in there and make it oaks only because that's not really what those particular ones like either. Now, a lot of the upper trail ones, those are big and broad. So, it's going to be very different throughout. It's hard to characterize it. It's also why we don't have a great photo of this is what it's going to look like because I don't think we can make one of what it's going to look like. This is unique. We can give you representatives of other sites, but this is unique and it's and it's that's part of the appeal is this isn't like any other site. This is the nine mile site. This is awesome. >> Thank you. I got a question about the contract um which is I think the the main issue before us. >> Yes, it is. Please. Um, based on the work that has been done since we uh went out for bid on this, based on the feedback that you've heard from the community, uh, based on the conversation today, are there any changes that you would recommend in terms of the scope of work that we're looking at approving in this contract? >> I'm not aware of any at this time. Other questions? Council member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um hopefully this will be very brief. Um I just had a quick question. So we heard a speaker reference um the impact of this restoration to areas downstream and other parts beyond just that that part of NM Creek. Um would it be accurate to say that this investment would improve areas downstream? And that's something that we could look forward to seeing generations from now. Well, it kind of depends on what you mean by downstream. So, if we're successful in our restoration, one of the big components of it that it related to the tree thinning specifically is we've got a lot of areas with bare ground and we got a lot of trails that eroding. We have a high sediment load in the creek. So, a lot of, you know, dirt and material and leaves go in there. It makes its way downstream. Now, it's going into the Minnesota River. That that's a little system in a big system. You can say with all consciousness in good faith that yes, we're making an improvement, but at the scale of small water into big water, I don't know that you could prove it or measure it necessarily, but the answer is yes, we are doing that. Um, I will say one of the things that's the biggest challenge for this section is yes, we'll have a positive impact in the immediate reach and downstream, but we have a lot of storm water and other things that are coming from upstream that have to pass through here. So a lot of our activities are actually to mitigate what's coming in more than ensuring what's leaving is better quality because it has a lot of impacts already that we're trying to balance. So that's a fantastic question and I'm kind of taking it away to say yes, but but there there are some components of this that are hard to manage that specifically. >> No. Uh thank you very much. That's a phenomenal answer and I really appreciate it. So thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, one question that actually council member Nelson made me think of specifically to the contract. You've said a couple of times that you the contract isn't overly prescriptive that there are other there are possibilities and flexibility in there. So, who's going to manage that? How will it be managed internally with staff? Will it be uh through consultants? How will that be managed? >> Yeah, mayor. I can answer that. Um, yeah, that'll actually be a combination. It'll be managed by city staff, but we'll also have the the help of our consultant team as well. But the city city staff will manage the contract directly with the both of these contracts actually >> and through the the entirety of the five years of the contract. >> Correct. Okay. Y thank you council. Unless there are additional questions, I think we're ready to move on to discussion here. Council member Alesandro, >> I remembered I had one other question about the EAW. Do you mind if I ask it really quickly? There there's a section of the EAW that that shows kind of like um the the proposed thinning tree thinning project and like say shows a section at 10% a section at 20% a section at 30%. Is that still an accurate picture? >> Um from the EAW the percent removal increased about in 10% increments. Part of that do you want the background on why? >> Lovely. >> Okay. Part of that is if if we're going to go in there and have the disturbance of bringing in equipment, removing trees, and all those other things, a lot of areas at 10% may not necessarily be as effective. So, we we adjusted some of the areas and increase the percent removal just to make sure it was worthwhile. Um, sometimes if you do too little, you're introducing disturbance without benefit. So, a lot of evaluation was we should probably do a little bit more on the percent removal to make sure if we're treating this as a one-time kind of kickstart for the project that it's really meaningful. So that was an adjustment from the AW. Now that it does add up to hundreds of trees when you deal with this area, but it's actually not as significant of a change as it sounds like. >> So So the 10% increase would have gone up a little bit or or more of the area would have gone into the 20% bucket or something like that is what you're saying. >> Yeah, it's a little bit of a shift. It didn't change the total thinning overall, but it shifted where some of the percents occurred and >> and and no area of the proposed site is getting thinned at more than 30%. Other than the buro savannah, I mean that's by nature of that habitat has to be thinned more. But the other areas, no, with the exception of the areas that have already been clearcut for the switch back and and the remander. Yes. >> Understood. Thank you. Appreciate the help. Thank you. >> Very good. Any additional questions, council? If not, thank you all. Thanks for the information. It's been very helpful in our conversation. Uh, so council, as we move into this, what I'm going to do really quick, because we have one more meaty item on our agenda tonight, uh, I'm going to move that we extend our deadline to adjourn no later than 10:30 this evening because, um, we've got, like I said, another meaty one. So, yep. Uh, so I've made that motion. I look for a second. Motion and a second by council member Reebas to extend our deadline to adjourn at no later than 10:30 this evening. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. 6. I think you can sit down now is my understanding. Um I believe um council so so thoughts on this. I would like uh feedback. I would like some input understanding that what we're discussing tonight is this contract. We're we're discussing the contract that we're is being proposed in front of us. The work that uh would be done and the pros and cons of it. So council member Dalisandre will kick us off >> very very well very quickly just a procedural question. >> Yes. I am wondering since we have two motions in front of us and we have I think the majority of the discussion to be had on the second one if we would be able to move the first one separately that way get it out of the way unless we have discussion on that one but that discussion that the first one is about the infrastructure projects and that's separate and distinct from the restoration project as I under as the way I read it >> if >> does anybody else agree with me on that? Uh, council, you agree with that or do you want to discuss this as a whole and and move them both at once? >> I'm okay either way. I just wanted I thought maybe it might be easier to just get there. >> Council member Lman is thinking we should talk about them all at once and >> Okay. I I think we're going to end up in that place anyway, but Okay. Okay. >> No worries. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. >> Anybody want to lead us off? Council member >> Elas, >> if if you could turn on your microphone, please. And Yep. >> If I may. Thank you. >> Yep. Please. >> Thank you, mayor. I'm just going to read these pages. It's about 10 of them. Kidding. Kidding. I actually eliminated a lot. I want to speak tonight not as a critic of restoration science. Let's start with what is actually being proposed. The lower lower valley management plan covers 235 managed acres. Within that, the final RFP calls for extensive bur savannah restoration and free and three tining across multiple management units, not simply selective removal of ash and invasive species which residents support and which many believe they were approving. Here is a contradiction that I cannot get past. This council and this city have been appropriately appropriately vocal about the climate crisis. We have adopted sustainability goals. We have talked about he hit heat mitigation, canopy preservation, and climate resilience as core values in our parks and planning documents. And yet here we are advancing a plan that converts substantial portions of a mature urban woodland corridor into oak, savannah, and prairie and presenting presenting it as a climate positive project. Mature trees are not something you replace on a five-year timeline. A 60 or 80 year old oak is sequestering carbon, cooling the surrounding air air, shading trails, and supporting a wildlife web that a newly seated prairie or young savannah simply cannot replicate for decades. Some estimates put full ecological maturity at 30 to 50 years out. In the meantime, we are reducing the very canopy that residents currently relied on specifically because this corridor is cool and shaded in the summer months. This is not a minor side effect. This that is a direct near-term result of this plan and it ruins counter I mean it runs counter to the climate commitments we ourselves have made publicly and recently. I have read staff's materials carefully and I want to acknowledge they reflect real ecological expertise. Nobody on this council is questioning the credentials of the consultants or the academic literature behind oak savana restoration as a competit. But good science applied at the wrong scale in the wrong context is still the wrong decision. A rural or less intensively used restoration site is not the same as a heavily used mature urban forest corridor that thousands of residents walk through every month and specifically for shade and tree cover. Applying a textbook savannah conversion here and marketing it to residents as sustainability ask people to trust the decades out pay off while absorbing a very real immediate loss of canopy. I also want to flag the process concerned residents tell me and I believe them because I have heard it consistently and independently from people who do not know each other that they thought they were supporting that what they were supporting was trail and bridge improvement, erosion control and targeted ash and invasive removal, not the degree of woodland to sabana conversion now reflected in the final RFP. the engagement to RFP comparison in our own pocket shows that expansion. If the scope grew significantly beyond what was clearly presented to the public, that is a problem regardless of the ecological merits because it undermines the trust residents need to have in how we bring projects like this forward. So my ask tonight is not to scrap a restoration effort. It is this. I would like staff to come back to this council with a phased approach of reserve significantly more of the existing mature canopy particularly along the upper trail and the and that treats canopy loss at a cost to be minimized rather than a footnote. I would like a clear account of of exactly which stretches on how many acres are slated for conversion versus preservation. Hard numbers, not general assurances that trees will remain an important part of the landscape. And I would like to us to be honest publicly about the near-term heat and habitat tradeoffs this project involves rather than presenting the purely presenting it purely as a climate win. I do want to acknowledge the fact that savanas do hold a lot more carbon than trees in their roots. It does take a long time though. All of all of you that are educated on this can corroborate that because I research it and I have read a lot about this. Yes, savylvanas are in a long term 50 years. They are more productive than trees. However, what do we do in the near term? Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you, council member. Council member Lman. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm glad that we've all uh come here tonight. And mayor, we've come a long ways. Uh, you know, from when we first got started several uh several years ago when we're here having a hot debate about climate change and I think it's uh wow has thing have things changed. uh you know I think the the foundation of a of a of a solid argument is a lot like uh you know we need to build a house and uh I think all of us who have come here today have really come here out of sincerity mayor uh I heard a lot of really good points you know uh you know a 40 plus uh group of folks who voted against this particular project is not a not a small minority it's it's a it's a large minority and So, um I I I think it's important that as we look at this and move this forward, uh that we we think about that as we as we take these steps forward. And and I'll concede that the uh the transparency on on this particular item is probably not what in best keeping of what we've tried to do. Uh and so I'll concede that. Um, but on the other hand, I think that the complexity of this, the overall project and what we're trying to do, uh, there's so many different components of this. I can understand why why we missed on this and it's an opportunity for of us to improve. Uh, you know, thirdly, uh, you know, many of our main concerns about maintenance, those were brought forward. You know, I I'm concerned about that. Uh, and then then finally, the climate uh, climate concerns. Those are all solid reasons why not to, you know, support what was originally uh kind of brought forward uh a number of months ago. And uh and I can understand that folks may not understand where we're at today and where this project has kind of moved to. And it kind of reminds me, mayor, a little bit of uh when we bought our house a number of years back, there were three trees out front. And I had no idea why those three trees were were out front. and uh every time the the snow plow would come up and beat up against it. And I'm thinking, why don't we just tear these trees down? Well, many years later, I found out that those were the three trees that were given to us by our sister city uh from Japan. Uh you know, later my wife had the opportunity to serve on the uh sister city organization. And uh so you just don't know what you're doing necessarily when you get ready to do things. And uh um and I I I just think it's kind of funny how we are as leaders responsible for what comes forward. Now I helped to pen every word that was in that climate emergency and I think this is a good dialogue and I think that that folks could come to this with many different points of view. But really the question tonight is not about whether or not we ought to do this. It's about a contract that we have here. And and that's why we've got to ask why do I support this or why should you support this? Well, that's what the question is and the question is does this fit what was laid out and what we wanted to do uh as a city. It was close. We passed it. But this is exactly what was was laid out in the parks plan. The spirit of this we took a lot of time to have that dialogue and that conversation. And I can understand why you may have a different point of view, mayor, and come to this with a different conclusion. But really tonight, the question is about the contract. And in order to move me off passing this contract, we really have to have a compelling reason because we all supported this unanimously. And so you got to have a really good reason to not want to move that amount of money tonight. And I think that's the question you have to ask the other taxpayers is when we delay this, we're going to increase the cost of this and it's going to be a substantial amount of burden to those folks. And so if you're fiscally responsible, I don't know how you cannot support this tonight. Now, I can understand having a different point of view, a different perspective, but our future generations will look back to us and ask, "What did we do?" Well, this is the path by which that we decided to go down and and staff has laid this out clearly, concisely, and while you may not necessarily agree on the details, I'm going to support this because this has been the path forward. I can understand if you look at the climate emergency and come to a different conclusion. I get that. But when I look at the climate emergency, mayor, what I see is a council that should make a clear decision and stick with those decisions and move forward, not stumble and move slowly and cost taxpayers more money when we can invest those same dollars somewhere else. If you don't agree, I understand. But that's why I'm going to be supporting this tonight. It's the best decision that we need to move forward. It's the the ecological decision and it's the most sustainably economic decision to make forward. and I'll be supporting this mayor. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, and thank you so much to my colleagues for their comments. I really, really appreciate that. Um, I'll do my best to be brief, which is difficult for me. Uh, but um, many of the things I wanted to talk about have been touched on both by speakers um, here and my colleagues as well. Um, but to colleagues point, to council member Lman's point, by awarding the contract today, which I am in support of doing so, it saves us time and money, right? It saves money now. know it saves time now if if you know two or three or five decades from now my kid or my grandkid says hey we really need to do something about that I really wish we could have taken the opportunity to do so 50 years ago when it would have cost a lot less money and time um I think when we're we're discussing the contract and whether or not to support it I do believe that this is the correct choice to support this because it saves us time and money now um which we know will come before us again later um and just to touch on some points that other folks had mentioned but I had owned had in my own notes and I definitely wanted to make sure I I said before the community. Um I totally agree with what we're hearing about uh that it's a the park itself is a is a psychological benefit. We want people to have that. It's a it's an amenity. It's a good thing. We love it. We also want to save it. Everyone here wants the park to be happy and healthy. Um and we have an opportunity to do that. Sometimes when you have a bad tooth, you have to pull it out and it looks really gross and uncomfy for a while, but that's what saves you down the line, right? it gets less expensive to fix it right away than do it later. Um and and to the point about maybe not seeing um the changes in their full glory, I totally hear that. I absolutely do. Um I may not be here to see it, but my grandchildren will, right? Um I am not indigenous to be very clear, but my son is and so we do my husband and son are. And so we do talk about the seven generations in our family, right? Like how is this decision going to impact people seven generations from now? Um, and I personally I'm in support of I'm here to support the contract. I'm proud of the council that we'll be able to help implement this change for generations to come. Um, it's not always fun to have to make these decisions. And to be very clear, as as my colleagues have said, everyone taking their time to come tonight, to email us, to um, call on the phone, everything, all the the community um, reaching out to let us know how they feel. That's really important. And it's really important that you have a place to come and tell us that. And it's okay that you disagree with me. completely fine, right? No worries whatsoever. You have a different opinion than me, that's totally okay. Um, but based on the information we've been given by staff, based on the several yearlong uh process, I am in support of these contracts and I think it will save the city time and money later. So, that's why I'm in support of it today. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you, mayor, and thank you for everyone who came here, everyone who's emailed. Um uh in my time on the council, this is one of my favorite issues because everyone loves this place, even if we disagree. Um it's one of the most special places in our community and um this was also actually amazing to have this many people come out and respectfully talk to each other and even if they didn't disagree. Um, you know, normally I think we get, you know, one person in support of something. That's usually whoever's proposing it and [laughter] and a bunch of people who are maybe impacted by it because it's nearby them that maybe oppose it. And this one brought out people from both sides. And I I really appreciate that and because I think I think that is reflective of how this entire project has gone for the last couple years. I mean, we look back um you know, even last year uh in in the spring uh staff presented um information to the um parks commission, the sustainability commission, the council, which by virtue of the council is on TV, to the entire community. And that information specifically said there would be oak savannah restoration throughout what I think most people would consider the the walking area of 9 mile. They did talk about some stuff in uh up in Moyer Park. Obviously, that's not where the Oak Savannah is. And then there was another section that was down uh right close to the Minnesota River. But it specifically highlighted over multiple pages within the packet that um Oak Savannah Restoration would be there. And then that conversation has continued to evolve, continued to expand and move forward uh through the you know, great uh partnerships within the community. And I think, you know, from what I heard tonight, I think that staff has heard the people who have concerns about the canopy in particular, about what impact this is going to have that and they don't want this wide open space other than it sounds like, you know, there'll be a little bit of prairie restoration. Um, and from what I heard that part of that is actually just turf right now. So that doesn't seem too problematic in my mind there. So, um, I I think we're all better for this conversation, for the conversations that have been going on for the last couple years. And I got to be honest with you, based on it, I'm much more supportive of this than I was even a month ago. Um, I I think people asked great questions and I appreciate uh um our staff and our team taking the time to respond to those, explain things to people. Um, ultimately you you may agree or disagree with with the scope of this project, but I think that those questions have have made the entire project better. Um, and and I appreciate the mayor and I appreciate the city providing so many opportunities, including tonight, to ask those questions. So, thank you. >> Thank you, council member. Council member Dellesandro. >> Uh, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Uh, yeah, I really do want to thank everyone. I you know I I hope you all know whether you like me or don't like me or agree with me or don't agree with me that the most important thing I feel like we can do here as a council is work on our on our ecology and work on the the the climate aspects of of our of our city. Um, I hope that you agree that I've been consistent with that even if you didn't like my outcomes, but from uh conversations around um our our, you know, increasing the the the work on trails and things like that as a function of our PMP program to uh building the natural resources management office, which we didn't have before my time on council in order to focus those efforts here. At the end of the day, climate change for us is about buildings and transportation. We already know this. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus our climate efforts on restoration elsewhere. And I and so, you know, yes, we have to continue to work on climate change initiatives around construction and transportation. Um, and we also need to care for our environment. And when I think about I, you know, when I think about the birds, for example, I'm a huge burer myself. Photog nature photography is my favorite thing. uh you know, you you may see warblers diminish in terms of where they are, but you know who's been suffering like for decades under the threat of not having these savas? Redbellied woodpeckers. And I'm a huge fan of woodpeckers in general. And I can't wait to see piateds and woodpeckers thrive in these environments. And so I it is change. It is uncomfortable. I get that. But from the very beginning, we have worked to, at least I have, and my council record reflects that, worked to to manage our ability to improve the ecological value of Bloomington's resources. And when when when a third of the city is set aside as green space, you can't say, "Oh, it's a park in an urban area." you have to think about it more globally in in terms of the ecology around it. Um so uh ultimately the people who have come here everybody agrees you all care deeply for this space and it's the number one thing we hear when everybody says what do you love about Bloomington? There's probably two things that are always at the top. One of them is always our natural spaces and and so it behooves me to make sure that we take care of these things and I am always going to look at the data. I the the the presentation that we walked through tonight is literally the exact same presentation we were shown in January of 2026 when we we voted 70 to agree to this project. It's the exact same one. To me, that gives me confidence that while the details have emerged in the RFP, the the the the what we were asked to support is the same in January 26 when we voted 70 to what we're voting for for now. Uh so, I feel confident in making uh a yes vote on this tonight. And I thank deeply the work of of staff and council. And by the way, the other thing that we have done, I just want to say this. I know people make fun of it maybe and want to talk about special interest interest groups or whatever, but the the work the other thing that we did as a council that we all should take credit for is building out our volunteer management office. Those two things went together to create the ability for stewardship like BNN and the outlaws folks and all that kind of stuff to work in partnership with the city. And by the way, that also keeps costs down. When volunteers are doing this ecological restoration and management work, we're not paying for it as taxpayers, and that's a good thing. So, I want to encourage people who maybe are on the fence about this, maybe don't like our outcomes tonight, depending on what it is, to get involved in those organizations anyway, because you will have a chance to shape the future of these uh of these spaces. And to me, that's the biggest gift we can give to the city is working in community to support each other and build this framework. Thanks. >> Thank you, council members. Uh just very quickly, a variety of points that I just I just wanted to make. Uh we all learned way back in college the uh the whole communication process involves a message sender and a message receiver. and it's incumbent on the message sender to make sure that the receiver receives that message. Uh I don't think we did a good enough job as message senders. I don't think it's intentional obscation or or lack of transparency. We just didn't do a good enough job uh that so that the message receivers understood what the notion of restoration meant. That being said, we did somewhat of a good job because we do we've heard from people who did understand what we meant. It's just we didn't reach everyone with the notion of what restoration meant. And I think that's that's on us and we we could do a better job uh next time. Uh along the lines of restoration, uh Paul Coat said, you know, ecological restoration is messy. And that's exactly right. And um if if you're talking about restoration of a home, you don't just change the curtains and call it restoration. I mean, you don't if you're restoring a car, you don't just change the blinker fluid and say you're done. Sometimes sometimes in a home you go down to the studs. Sometimes in a in a car the engine comes out. Restoration can be messy, but with an ultimate goal in mind, you you take that for what it's worth and you live through the the the messiness because you know the outcome. And that kind of goes to the quote that uh Mr. Swed uh brought forward that he stole it from me. you know, the whole notion of um you know, blessed are the blessed are those who plant a tree under whose shade they will never sit. And I think that's exactly the case here. We're playing the long game here. This is uh yeah, it will be some discomfort. I don't think as long as folks are anticipating, but it's we're going to see this uh down the road the the benefit of what we're doing here. And I think it's important to keep that in mind because um we need to be good ancestors. We need to be good stewards not just for now but for what this community could look like in the future. And I know that's tough sometimes when um you know the here and now is the important part but I think it's important to think of the big picture in the long term as well. Uh and the final point that I do want to make we heard from so many people. I saw so many Facebook posts. My god people put down the this the phones. It's a get out and enjoy the summer. Uh got so many calls from folks and I appreciate it. And I appreciate the passion and the the back and forth, the respectful back and forth for the most part. There was a couple of snarky comments, but for the most part, the respectful back and forth and then the respectful work that we did here tonight. This is this is a community that u believes in this kind of thing and will work toward it. I mean, uh despite what some might think, I mean, this is absolutely in line in alignment with our park system master plan. It is in alignment with our natural resources prioritization plan. It is in alignment with the work being done by the Isaac Walton League, by uh Three Rivers Park District, by the watershed districts, by the US Fish and Wildlife. We are in alignment with everybody all around us because this is what restoration and uh it looks like. It's what it looks like and this is the goal in so many different so many different ways. And so, uh uh I appreciate everyone who participated tonight. I appreciate everybody who participated over the last few weeks in all of this. um this could have been an entirely different meeting tonight and and it wasn't and and thank you for that. Thank you. And we're um we're going to have have a vote now and I can count noses. I'm assuming many of you can as well. And but I think we're we're going to move forward with this and we can um we can ultimately point to this as a success for the city of Bloomington and and the work that we're trying to do. And with that council, I would look for action. First, uh the first we have two different motions. Uh, Council Member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mayor. I [clears throat] would move to accept and bid the uh contract for the 2026 401 9mm Creek Corridor renewal project to Vit and Company. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. In the amount of 11,697,475.95 and approve various contract changes up to 10% of the original contract amount 1,169,74760 for a total pro ah total project construction authorization of 12,867,22355. Second >> motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Donald to accept item 2.3 as stated. Any further council discussion on this hearing? None. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries 51 with council member Reebas in opposition. Council member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move to accept the bid and award the contract for the 2026 404 9mm Creek Lower Valley Management Plan renewal project to Resource Environmental Solutions LLC in the amount of 4,181,453 and4 cents and approve various contract changes up to 10% of the original contract amount 418,145 and30 for a total project construction authorization of 4,599,598 and.34. Second >> motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Dalisandro to accept the second motion associated with item 2.3 this evening as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. 6. >> Thank you council. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you to staff and all. Thank you for uh your input. Uh I appreciate it community. Well done. Thank you very much. At 9:12, we will get to our consent agenda and item three on our on our agenda. Council member Nelson, you've got tonight's consent business which has 21 different items on it. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I thought for a change we just go through them individually. [laughter] >> Why don't we do voice vote? >> Yeah. So, um I I did not hear of any holds. I have a hold. >> Yeah. 3.9 and 3.11. >> Okay. Anything else? >> I will give that to I'm going to hold mine off till the end of the meeting. >> You're going to hold your hold. Gotcha. Then I move items 3.1 through 3.8, 310, and 312 through 321. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Nelson, second by council member Dalisandro to accept the consent business as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 5-0. Uh, Council Member Dellesandro, item 59. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Uh, so the reason I'm holding this, so the it's not uh because I don't agree with the concept. It's that I don't feel like I ha got the time to have enough information. Um, city manager and I talked about it on on Friday afternoon. Um, the the request was read through the packet, see if it answers your questions. If it doesn't answer your questions, then potentially put it on hold. I'm only asking to table this for to a future meeting because I have um more questions than I could have posed over the weekend that would have been it wouldn't have been responsible of me to ask staff to respond that quickly to those items. >> Very good. Uh count uh what's our next best option? >> August 31st. >> Plenty of time. >> Motion to table until August 31st. I mean great dates on plenty of time. Plenty of time. That would be fine. So, I would I would move to um to hold over items 3.9 and 3.11 to the meeting scheduled for August 31st. >> I'm going to ask Miss Mandershide, can we do them together or do we have to do one at a time? >> You can do them together. Uh my understanding is you're continuing both 39 and 311 to August 31st regular meeting. >> That's correct. >> Yes. And that and just because they're related to each other, one updates the schedule of the other. So, it seemed relevant to have them together. >> They need to go together, mayor. >> They need to go together. Okay. Okay. So, we've got a a motion by council member Dalando, second by who was it? Council member Nelson, and I heard uh table, hold over, and um >> August 31st. >> And we heard about three different uh synonyms of >> So, continue the item to the August 3rd, I think, is the right way to say that. Yes, exactly. Thank you. >> Any further council discussion on that? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Holding over item 3.9 and 311 to our August 31st meeting. Very good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, folks. appreciate the assist on that. >> 5-0. Did I say 6? >> Oh, I don't know. I didn't say. I just wanted to hear it out loud. >> 5. >> 5. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Nelson. Uh, we will move on to our only public hearing of the evening, item 4.1, which is a public hearing regarding the Bloomshine Village Town Homes resoning, FSBP, and platting. Uh, first of all, thank you to you folks for sticking out with us. Appreciate it. It's been a long night already, and I appreciate you sticking with us. Uh, we will we will do our our due diligence on this. Uh Liz OD is leading us through this. Good evening and welcome. >> I am. Thank you mayor and councel. So yes, the um only public hearing on the agenda this evening is for uh Bloomshine Village Town Homes. Um this is for a series of uh entitlements for six properties um along East 86th Street and East 87th Street. >> [snorts] >> So what they are requesting is a resoning application from R1 single family residential to R3 middle housing residential, a final site and building plan application to construct 33 town homes and associated improvements. And then a type three preliminary and final plat single family um lots into 33 individual town home lots and one uh common lot. [snorts] So the subject properties are guided as medium density residential in the comprehensive plan and these subject properties have been guided as this designation in multiple comprehensive plan iterations going back as far as 1972. Um and as you can see on my screen uh you can see kind of multiple snippets from each of those um iterations showing the um area as medium density residential. So the six uh single family homes are currently zoned R1 uh single family residential consistent with the land use guidance of medium density residential the sites must be reszoned to R3 um which allows town homes as a permitted use in that zoning district. And so to facilitate development of these lots um the homes or most of the homes have since been uh demolished except for one I believe. [snorts] So with um resoning staff reviews the purpose and intent of the uh zoning district and compares the existing zoning. So the R3 zoning district allows up to 12 units an acre. Uh proposed density is just under 12 units an acre. It's consistent with the current land use guidance of medium density residential. Our three zoning district is designed to be um more compatible with a low density uh residential. the surrounding neighborhood. Um, this property also has access to transit and major collector roads as well as a regional trail just to the east and also has a very close proximity to uh two parks. [snorts] So, when evaluating resoning applications, uh there are no specific state statute findings rather the request is evaluated on consistency with the comp plan and public benefit. So the goals and strategies in the 2040 comp plan include providing a range of housing options. Uh town homes in general provide a good option for older generations in single and two uh person households. Uh strategy 2.2 identifies new locations and opportunities for housing. And then um housing element goal three. this uh project would provide um three affordable units um which serves kind of our local um demand for housing. Uh so furthermore uh 9% of the units must be affordable at 60% AMI and so they are showing three units at 60% AMI. Uh they are not seeking any development incentives through our OHO. Uh the project meets just baseline city code standards. Um and one uh unit affordable unit will be constructed in each uh phase for a total of three phases. So here is the overall site plan. Uh overall they're reducing the number of existing curb cuts to just one access off of 86 street and one off of 87 street. Uh the construction of seven uh town home buildings with four and five units and then each with their own garage and driveway. And then there will also be constructing an infiltration basement basin for storm water improvements as well as a private driveway that would connect all the homes. Uh as I mentioned earlier, this would be constructed in three phases. Uh those phases are shown on the screen here. Uh won't spend too much time on this, but uh grading and in infrastructure must be in place uh from the get-go. So, in phase one, as far as traffic goes, um the town homes will generate 238 trips a day. When you take away the trips that the single family homes had or were generating, that gives you kind of a net increase of 181 trips a day. And most trips um will be traveling north to 86th Street. So, roughly 70% of the total trips will be coming off of 86th Street and then the remaining on 87th Street. Um, and the total number of curb cuts, uh, like I said before, are being reduced from six down to two. And so, traffic staff, um, typically evaluate the placement of those curb cuts and turning movements. Um, and then lastly, traffic staff is evaluating, uh, potential stop sign at the corner of 87th Street and Bloomington Avenue following a crash that happened in the past. So, here are the building elevations. The buildings are three stories tall or 41 ft tall. Um all units have a balcony or portico. And then the applicant did uh submit a shadow study. Um uh and that shadow study determined that there was no um or minimal minimal impact to um neighborhood or neighboring properties with shadows. And then just to note that our code requires building articulation or the units have to be offset from each other. Um that complies with our city code as well. In terms of parking and sidewalks, two stalls um per unit are required. So two two stall garage that's compliant. Uh nine guest spaces must provide be provided. Uh they're showing that. And then regarding the sidewalks, um each unit will have a um private sidewalk from the um entry to the public sidewalk network and then uh just a minor revision. They have to identify an 8 foot wide um public sidewalk on 86th Street. [snorts] The overall landscaping plan is compliant. They're showing an adequate number of trees and shrubs. And then just to note, they are showing a uh six foot tall privacy fence uh along the entire perimeter of the development. And then um the preliminary and final plat. This is just to show that each of the um town homes unit will be their own uh lot and then the um common lot will be for the private uh driveway. So staff did receive uh one piece of correspondence from Metro Transit and they're requesting to facilitate improvements to um their bus stop just located on 86th Street. Um that's for local route 538. And so staff is re recommending a condition of approval for clarity. And then just to note um staff has received public correspondence which has been included in the packet and that's been updated from um two parties to three parties as is as of this afternoon um all expressing opposition of the project. Uh so with that staff is recommending approval as well as planning commission. This went to planning commission last month. Um overall nine people spoke in opposition. Uh general themes of opposition were storm water, uh building height, demo process, parking, and traffic. And I go into more detail in the staff report, but um in the interest of time, I won't go uh into too much detail, but um happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Thank you, Miss OD. Appreciate it. Council questions. Well, I will ask uh the the questions that uh um you heard at the the planning commission. You you mentioned storm water. What's specifically storm water? Is is there a storm water plan in place? I'm assuming there is and and there what were the concerns regarding that? >> Correct. So, I think the overall concerns regarding that was uh mayor uh storm water is required to be managed on site. So, they're showing an infiltration basin uh on the east side of the development that would be installed as part of phase one of the project. Um, and overall uh I think there was concern about imperous surface um grading, that type of thing. Um, but all um our engineering staff um addressed those concerns at the planning commission. Um >> yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions, council? Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, very quick question. uh as they were going through the process, was there any consideration of maintaining R1 given the additional flexibility that we recently approved in R1? Um was that a pathway that they looked at? >> Um mayor and council members, I was not part of kind of the initial um conversation um of this project. Um so I am not aware of them. Um, I don't know if they were looking at cuz I know that detached town homes as part of the missing middle project are now allowed in R1. These are not detached town homes. Um, so I think they would have to be um reszoned anyway if they were going to do just general town homes. >> If that answers maybe your question. >> Yeah, I understand why they went R3 because of the attached town home portion. I just didn't know if they had looked at anything like, you know, quads or detached or anything and what that looked like, but maybe they didn't. Okay, I'm getting a no, they did not, [laughter] just for the record. >> Sorry. Hi, Mayor. Uh, Nick Johnson, planning manager, uh, Council Nelson. No, they did not. Once they learned that the sites were guided medium density residential, they targeted attached town homes throughout the entirety of the process. Yep. >> Any other questions, council? All right. If not, I will open the public hearing. This is a public hearing regarding the Bloomshine Village Town Homes resoning FSBP planning at 15256016365 East 86th Street and 1604 and 1606 East 87th Street. So, as I open the public hearing, uh, anybody who wishes to speak certainly can ask you to come forward, state your name, uh, and, uh, we'll have you'll have three minutes to speak. clock on the wall. We'll let you know how much time you have. Um, if you could sign in after you have spoken, that would be very helpful. And much like the series what we just saw, we'll collect the questions and we will answer them at the end of the public hearing rather than trying to uh answer them on the fly here as we go. So, with that, I will open the public hearing on item 4.1. Is anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak tonight? Hello, my name is Connie Revard. My understanding of the missing middle housing study findings included um housing new housing should be compatible in scale with with uh existing homes in that area. Um they clearly the twin wind plan is not compatible which is obviously why you need to reszone but that's >> not acceptable to the neighborhood which uh people do live there. Uh another uh finding was um aging population and smaller household size and yet uh Twin Wind is planning um three levels with stairs, no elevators. How are older people? How does that match that? Um the uh smaller smaller households yet we have square footage of 2500 to 3200 square feet. And I just heard the woman um staff person also said older and single and twoerson um clients is who we're trying to serve. So this u plan doesn't really match what you're youselves in your study are saying that that's who we're trying to find housing for. Um um along a major collector road. So 86th Street and Cedar have both been turned into they used to be fourlane and now they're each essentially two-lane with a a center turning lane, but in terms of the volume of traffic and being close to a park, kids will have to to actually cross this major collector road. Um, and I heard you say in the previous uh discussion about the other topic, you're very concerned about climate change. Why then are we um putting in this high imperous surface um town home development? I heard it's as high as 80%. If you could tell me how high is the percent imperous surface of this doesn't match what you just talked about in the previous thing. Um I did watch parts of a few city council meetings from February and March. Uh the things I heard related to this were that you were m considering updating the code for zoning. I did not hear let's change the zoning. I didn't ever hear that in terms of transparency. Um I heard that the standard is not to exceed two stories or 40 ft. This plan is 41 ft. Um I heard also um the commissioner if that's his title um Dakota Castend day saying why would we include include wording that says more than 20 units. That's pretty likely or pretty unlikely, low odds, 1 to 5% that we would ever do that more than 20 units. This is 33 units. Again, very inconsistent, very um so I don't understand. I did not hear the word reszoning in any of these meetings. Um also why um you know, you talked about I heard you say mayor uh message receiver and sender. We did not receive any um anything. The first we heard was from this developer who already seemed like it was a sure thing um before we heard from our own city about this reszoning and putting up this three you know this um >> Mard. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry your time is up. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Others wishing to speak. Hi, my name is Lana Fredine and I live across the street and in the last meeting you were talking about green space and needing all this. There is no place in this for a kid to play. I grew up this neighborhood had huge lots. We played in the yards. We we had a huge sandbox in our backyard. the whole neighborhood came over. This is totally insane. My parents are rolling over in their grave right now that the city would even consider something like this in this neighborhood. Um, I could see you took out six or going to be six houses, maybe putting in 10, you know, duplexes, something like that. But 33 and then for them there isn't any building there that is three stories high. This is insane for a neighborhood of in East Bloomington. Um, and I I just didn't understand what the process was from changing zones one to three. I got a little bit more information tonight, but I I really truly hope that you think about this because I don't think think of your own kids. There is no place for them to play except in their driveway. And to cross 86 Street to get to the one park, to have to cross over Bloomington to get to the park at the church. Are parents going to want to I mean, in these days, you have to be watching your kids all the time. That's not going to happen. I'm sorry, but I'm a grandparent and I would not let my kids go to the park by themselves. And it's it's just insane. As far as I'm concerned, this house has been in our family for 72 years, and this is not what our neighborhood wants. There aren't a lot from my neighborhood here, but I can guarantee you that everyone in my neighborhood agrees with me that it should be something different than what is being put forth right now. And I hope that you think about it and you know I I realize something's got to go in there, but 33 units. No, that's that's not what this part of Bloomington, this neighborhood wants or needs. >> Mine, your time is up. Thank you. others. Uh hello, my name is Roger Revard. Um I live in the neighborhood. Um so regarding the Twin Winds project, uh let's go through go through a few steps on their game plan. Uh the city of Bloomington middle missing middle housing web page says the city has an increasingly aging population and smaller household average household size. Uh obvious and this was also presented in the planning uh slide as the primary objective of this uh project. And as has been pointed out each of these is three stories tall, three flights of stairs, no elevator, four to five bedrooms, 2500 to 3,000 square feet. This is not the housing that elderly people and smaller household sizes are looking for. So, it's it's obviously not a part of the plan here. Also presented in the planning slides was that uh city of Bloomington has an affordable housing requirement. They tore down six of the most affordable houses probably in Bloomington. They were assessed around 25,000 to $300,000 each. And what are we getting for taking away six affordable housing? Three, this is not the right math for getting more affordable housing in Bloomington. Also, as has been mentioned, uh, green space, environment, and water runoff. This project takes houses that were probably 70% green space and reverses that to where it's probably 70 80% impervious. This is not uh, and the height of these buildings. The whole neighborhood is single family, singlestory buildings. These are going to be three-story buildings. They're going to with only a 10-ft setback from the sides of the property lines. It's going to be looking over the entire neighborhood. And they tore down every single tree that was on those six house lots. So, there's no vegetation, well, grass left on there. Um, also traffic impact in the neighborhood. I was at the planning meeting. The traffic engineer was saying the average town home has fewer uh than a than the average um resident uh single family home, but I looked up online and it said no. If you if your town home is four to five bedrooms, it's got the same. So, they've underestimated the traffic uh the traffic impact by onethird. And also, as has been mentioned, the notification that we got that this project was happening, I received a handwritten letter that I thought was a piece of junk mail from the developer in miday. [clears throat] I missed this meeting because I I didn't read it for a couple of weeks because I thought it was a piece of junk mail. I didn't get a notification from the planning or from the city staff here. I mean, so we've had less than two months to even respond to this. So this is not a very good uh version of transparency for our city. So I guess as a final point um it seems like the city of Bloomington is more interested in somehow attracting future residents than they are in the current residents especially the residents of East Bloomington. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Rev. Others wishing to speak. >> We speak again. >> Nope, you may not. One bite of the apple. Sorry. Hello. My name is Brian Sig. Um, I don't have any skin in the game on this one other than when I heard it was coming up at the planning commission, I drove by the area and looked at it and it really is sad. Um went to the planning commission meeting. Well, first drove by the area. There's another apartment or condo unit there. Dead end street. Trash all over the street. I mean, I couldn't believe it. It looked like people were living there. Now, again, city camp, you know, clean the streets every day and bur patrol for that. Um, I guess my thought is just the human side of things that at the planning commission there were maybe only nine or 10 speakers, whatever it was, but there was like 35 residents there. The planning commission just blew past every human consideration of this is our homes. We've lived here for 30, 40, 50, 70 years. and their conclusion, oh, this doesn't cause a problem for any of us. All the legal requirements are done. Um, I just feel a lot of pain for these people. Um, I just don't feel like the city listens to its residents. It doesn't seem to care for the people that are paying the bills and electing the officers. And I understand change is painful. And I understand that maybe the city has to do certain things because, hey, we keep spending more money. We better find more people to pay the bills cuz it's getting pretty tough. But have some pity on the people that elected you, the people that consider you their representatives. Um, you know, I guess I rest my case in just try to be human occasionally, too. I realize the city has financial needs and and struggles, but there's people's these are their homes, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you for hearing me. >> Thank you, Mr. Seic. Good evening. >> Good evening. I'm uh Bonita Welch and I do live in this neighborhood and I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years. So, um I just um one of the major questions is why did Twin Win proceed with the purchase of these properties when they were um uh when they are R zoned as R1 when somebody knew had to have known that it had to go through the city process. and with zoning to be totally rechanged or redone and um there's a lot of destruction um uh demolition that's already been done there um per the other residents. So my question is, how long has this been going on that we in the neighborhood have no idea that this was the plan? So I think we were deceived a little bit. Somebody's doing something I think or I don't want to think that it was under the table, but um it wasn't upfront. Um, and just one other thing is that when I moved when we moved into the neighborhood 40ome years ago, um, there weren't many kids. Ours were probably my two children were probably just the couple that got on the bus on our corner on uh, um, every day. Now, there's multiple children that get on that bus. There's children that are that come over from the daycare center on Cedar Avenue that have to cross the street and get on this bus. And I am concerned about those children crossing streets with more traffic. And especially when you're talking about winter, those streets are not very wide now. And if you have cars parked on both sides of the street, you cannot have two people driving up and down that street. Somebody has to pull over and wait. So, the streets aren't real wide. So, what's going to happen in in uh um in winter when you've got even less room there? And I just want to make sure that traffic is considered, parking is considered, and our children getting on and off school buses are considered. These are major points and cannot be just um brushed to the side. Thank you, Miss Welch. Others, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anybody in the chambers. Council, no one coming forward, no one on the phone looking to speak. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.1. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Robertson, second by Council Member Lman to close the public hearing on 4.1. No further discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. 6. Uh, I know I think the applicant is in the room. Is there anything now that we're done with the public hearing, anything you would like to add to the process? Good evening. >> Yeah, good evening. You can identify yourself. Uh am the owner of uh Twin Wing One LLC and for the project Lumshai at Village Tower Home. >> Yeah. Um good evening. Good [clears throat] evening. Um mayor, council members. Um my name is Hungi. I'm I'm represent uh Lynn LLC. Uh I'm an registered architect in Minnesota and I uh help here help um Lynn to um to design this project. >> So I'm here to answer any questions you may have. >> Very good. >> I'm uh Sean Smith. I'm uh the civil engineer on the project. So, I took part took part take in the uh civil plans and the storm water um regarding this project. >> Very good. Thank you. Uh council, any any questions of the uh the applicant tonight? All right. Oh, council member Lman. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Uh sorry, one question I wanted to ask uh that that did did come up uh when you were looking at uh and I want to be careful about how I ask this question. Uh when you were looking at in terms of trying to with the development uh in terms of what you proposed uh for that particular uh area, did you consider trying to keep it as is? What kind of wind? Could you tell me a little bit more about your thinking in terms of what what you went with in terms of the development? Thank you. Um, hi mayor. Um, original that um, the owner the owner bought a single family housing single family and she has me to come in and design redesign for the just just as just housing just a remodel house and the existing house right now is very bad shape. No matter what you do is not going to worth anything. So she consider that I told actually I told her as the architect advised the client I told her that is this is only slap on grade and the square foot is less than 1,000 square feet and to be honest with you the lot is so large and how is only less than 1,000 square feet. It don't make any sense. So because of considering the needs of housing in the Bloomington area, I told her that what we what what should we do? So we come up with we talk to the city and do them research um with the comm with the online and we saw that this is can be a potential more can be more development. So that's why we reach to reach to the next neighborhood, next house and ask the the owner from the next house whether or not you want to sell or not. We're not forcing anybody to sell. We just consider say hey look we have this house and we thinking about do some development here and one thing after the other and this the neighbor the housing the the people next to it agree to sell it to us. We never force anybody to sell to us and one after the other. Um and we found out that the plan is um medium density housing development or 2040 planning process. That's why we come up with um make a decision to approach the neighborhood to whether or not they want to sell their house. So they agree we are quite six of them finally. So one thing one thing after the other one. Thank you. >> Other questions council. >> Is that an questions? >> I think I did. Great. Thank you. Thanks much. If we have additional questions, we will we will call you back up. Thank you though. So, council, the question before us on item 4.1, uh, the reasonzoning, the planning, the final site development plan, the whole bit. Uh, thoughts, questions, comments on this. Council member Lman. >> So, yeah. I mean, I guess I had some questions based on some of the things. I'm not going to ask them all because, you know, we're limited on time here, but uh um I don't know if staff has going from six affordable housing to three. And I I know that may just be a math issue, but uh um and I don't know that that that has any bearing on anything in terms of I don't know if there's any requirements uh for this to go to to replicate the exact same number of of uh affordable housing. But if staff could speak to that, that's one question that I have. And then the other question that I u that I would probably raise up here, I'm just trying to get myself down to three. There's so many I want to ask, but I'm just going to just try to stick with three. uh the height uh consideration uh you know have we done this before in in other places could you could you talk about that what's the impact of that uh I keep hearing uh that uh that these homes were supposed to be for a certain uh uh age limit and the the three stories that seems to be you know but I don't know if that again fits the requirements you know with the staff component because obviously we made all the findings for this and then I guess the last one that I would ask is going from R1 to R3, you know, because of what they've built there, you know, u just help me to understand, you know, if they went down a different thing, could you put an apartment there? Could you put I mean, could you could there be more dense development there as an alternative? Uh as opposed to because I don't, you know, just help me understand that R1 to R3 just for the the the general public is watching. I I know it's in the staff report, but I think those are the three things that I think rise to the you know, certainly there's other things out there, but I think those have all been asked and answered, the parking and the traffic and that thing and the the planning uh meeting. >> Yeah. Uh mayor, council members, I'll try and take some of those questions because I've been more involved in the uh full extent of the process all the way through the review. And if I can make one quick point about public notification, this did come up at planning commission as well. And we're actually doing a development review 101 study session,formational session at planning commission this Thursday. So I invite anyone who's interested in development review absent a specific project to learn more about our process to attend that or to watch that. Um hopefully there'll be some good points shared in that. But um the reason that we don't issue a notice when sites are being reviewed on a preliminary basis is because for a few reasons. One is there's no hearing to yet advertise and so we can't direct someone to attend a meeting when there is no meeting as of yet. As I shared at the planning commission meeting, sometimes applications come to our preliminary uh development review group and don't actually end up becoming formal development applications. That's another reason that we don't notify because we don't know if a project is going to go forward. And then finally, the last reason we don't is because we have not collected any fee. So any notification that the city would be doing would be doing at our own cost um at that point. So I just want to reiterate that kind of aspect to the public. Um starting with your second question related to height. So, uh, if you recall, there was an ordinance adopted, uh, I want to say 6 months or so ago, revising the city's height map standards. And one of the actions that was done as part of that was to elevate all sites guided for medium density residential uses to at least uh, three stories or 50 feet in height. So this project coming in at three stories. Again, we eliminated the number of stories as part of our regulatory structure for height. But in other words, 50 feet is what is allowed at this property on the basis of it being guided medium density residential. It's coming in at 41 ft uh in height. Um in Bloomington, as long as you're meeting certain sideyard setbacks, you can actually have a single family home that's up to 40 feet in height. So this project is exceeding that um by a foot, although single family homes are limited to two stories in height. So, um, we were concerned about height given that they were talking about doing three stories and that's why we requested the shadow study. Um, absent that threetory in their proposal, we wouldn't have requested that. In fact, there was multiple iterations of completeness review with this application and that was one of the things staff flagged as far as we needed to understand what the impacts of these structures were on the adjoining property. So, that's why we asked for that. Um, regarding your question about what could they have developed here other than single family homes. So the existing zoning is R1 single family, but the comp plan guides this site medium-density residential. And so the way to uh to initiate that change is to seek resoning um of the property to a medium-density residential zoning district. They could have sought to seek highdensity residential, but that would require a comprehensive plan uh amendment in addition to a reasonzoning action. And so that is why they did not do this. Um, uh, I, you know, I have a slightly different timeline than the applicant in terms of what they're reporting, but they, I can report they did come to city staff and say, "Yes, we own these properties. We're interested in potential redevelopment. What is the site guided?" We just share that information with the public. It's readily available on all of our uh, plans and uh, and those things. To the question about the opportunity housing ordinance, it does not require replacement um, of from six to three for your question, Council Member Lman. There are some provisions around protection of Noah properties. That's more for large-scale multifamily sites that are being bought and potentially renovated to increase the rents. So, there's some uh notice provisions around that and tenant protection type things. The opportunity housing ordinance does that, but there's no formal requirement that they swap uh that they replace six because that's what the single family homes uh were that were there before. So, yeah, I think I did I miss anything there? Okay. So, the other concern that I heard brought up uh was regarding traffic. And I see Mr. Roberts here. And I I've uh been through enough of these I'm I'm realizing that I think a total of 181 additional trips per day is barely a drop in the bucket if I recall. Is that correct, Mr. Roberts? >> Mr. Mayor, council members, it's a fairly low trip generator in terms of uses like that. A couple hundred trips is is fairly small. um in terms of the number of trips generated like a fast food restaurant generates trips in the in the several thousand all the way up to a big box store which generates you know 10,000 or more trips a day. This is fairly low and it's also depositing those trips onto fairly low volume quiet roads >> and uh 86 street I know is with with 4,500 vehicles per day. Uh I mean that's that's nowhere near capacity. Is that correct >> Mr. Mayor, council members? That's correct. that was converted, as mentioned earlier, to a threelane roadway. Three-lane roadways are capable up up to around 20,000 cars a day. They we don't even start worrying about them until around 15,000 cars a day. So, at 5,000 cars a day for 86th and Old Cedar, um there's plenty of gaps getting onto and off of this roadway should not be a significant issue. There's the two-way left turn lane, so it should operate safely. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Council, additional questions, thoughts on this? Let's go to comments. Council member Dallas Alesandro. >> All right. Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [clears throat] All right. I So I first I guess the the I'm I'm guessing that because this is a reasonzoning thing, so this is not the same as when we find for compliance with our current plan. Is that correct? And in other words, it's it doesn't follow the same that follow the same requirement that like we look at the findings and we conclude one way or the other. >> That that is correct. >> Okay, great. So then I can go off. That's all I wanted to understand. [laughter] I hate this project so much and I don't hate this project because the fine people that are involved in it or anything else, but this is exactly the kind of thing I didn't want to happen when we did all the stuff that we did around this stuff. And it just drives me crazy. I don't love the fact that we didn't notice people in ahead of time. Not because we don't have to, but because it was the it's the right thing to do. when you decide to materially change the neighborhood feel and and and aspect. I said this back when we did this to Washburn Circle. I said the exact same thing. I'm going to say it every time. When you are when somebody is going in and asking to materially change the neighborhood character, we should do a better job than follow the legal limit. I I it's just in our best interest to do that. to the comment about h the humanitarian nature of this thing. I would not want to have just bought a house and then found out within a year that I'm going to have a 33 unit threetory town home next to me. That that's not the same thing as when somebody buys the house next to the fire station. Like they know what they're getting into. This is not the same. I am for these kinds of projects. And I have always said they should go out to in. Right. So, in my neighborhood, we have I have a great example of this, right? The if you take the little section of my neighborhood, which is essentially um you know, Fremont, 86th Street, um Lindale, and 90th, that little section of the neighborhood. Okay. Central Bloomington. I'm on the east side of 35W as well, so I'm not prestigious West Bloomington here, even though I represent them. Um the the it goes like this, right? The houses on the ends are duplexes and condo buildings and apartment buildings. The further you go into the middle of the the the blocks, they're single family. And that's great. That's a nice transition. You you understand the blocks dynamics, you understand where density is going to be, etc. This is smack dab in the middle of a of a of a block. Like I I just don't get it. uh if it was on the corner or if we had looked at and I understand now a little bit better about how this this lot area became this the lot area that it was going to be. But this is the perfect kind of thing for the Lindale the Lindale Avenue um area that we talked about a while back off of near um you know 82nd Street that strip right along Lindale Avenue. Perfect example of the kind of thing we want. There's the stuff that that we own on Humbult that's near where we at where we built the Noble. That's a great example of that first that first tier into a neighborhood where this kind of thing could go. I I just don't understand why we would want this right smack dab in the middle of a a block like this. It doesn't it doesn't make sense to me. And so I struggle with this because on the merit it complies and I feel like but I want to vote against this just on principle at this point because we're not learning our lesson. And I you know I I just I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated by having to make a a a decision on this kind of project when I think we can do better for our community. I I really do it. It's not to say anything against the fine people that have brought this or anything like that. And frankly, you all should be mad at your neighbors for selling out their homes because if they never did this, you wouldn't be in this position. But people love to lowball, lowball, lowball their taxes until they go to sell and then they can't sell fast enough to the highest bidder. So that is who we are. I'm a homeowner, too. I'll do the same thing. I'm not even arguing that. But the point is like if you do truly care about neighborhood character, you don't have neighbors who sell these things out like this. That's just not what you do. So at the end of the day, you know, we have control over this as a citizenry by making sure we are in community with our neighbors and we understand what the neighborhood needs to look like. All that having been said, I really am frustrated for the fine people who live there that they have to look at yet another dead area forever until this thing gets built, just like I have to do every time I talk to people about 86 and Penn. we something's got to give that they can't people can't tear up the neighborhood and then come ask for permission to do what they want to do. I just don't think that that's okay. So on multiple counts I'm really frustrated and I'm struggling because at the end of the day on the merit I can't really say no on the facts of the case. I can't say no because then they'll sue us and blah blah BLAH AND LIKE OH I I'm really struggling to be in this position. So I just needed to get that off my chest. Thank you for listening to me. Um, and if I have to, it will be withholding my nose. >> Thank you, Council Member. Other thoughts? Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, and I appreciate Council Member Alesandro's uh points there. >> Yeah. [laughter] So, um, >> wait. Sorry. >> I will say and I just like clarification of this maybe from the city attorney. What is our level of discretion to council member Dlesandro's point? I thought we have fairly high discretion on a resoning question. Miss Mandershide, can you help us out there? Mayor members, uh, a resoning like this is a judicial or excuse me, a legislative action. uh if the court is reviewing this, they're going to look as at whether you made a reasonable uh decision uh and not an arbitrary one. So, they're going to look at the facts and the staff report and the public hearing testimony and the totality of the record and judging the decisions that are made. >> Okay. Helpful council member. >> Yeah, it is. And I just I recall because um at the Pen Lake one we reszoned and then we saw what it was and then we went wait maybe we don't like that and that's where we got sued. But that's not this. We get a chance to look at it. We get a chance to see how it integrates into the neighborhood, where it's specifically located. All of those factors are part of this and then you can make the zoning decision if you like that um with the city attorney's you know caveat that you know it's got to be justifiable. You got to have a basis for it um there. So, with that said, I will note that I do live in West Bloomington and I do have town homes in the middle of my neighborhood um that are bounded on on all sides by single family homes um right off of 102nd. So, um this is not something that that seems to me all that unusual. Um I do agree that most development patterns have them closer to the main road. I think that was noted here too that you know they have access to the to the main road at 86 there if they can handle the higher traffic volumes. So um you know that one by my neighborhood though shares a street with single family uh neighborhood uh single family homes on both sides. Um and it does not actually have direct access out to 102nd. It it all of the traffic goes right through the single family neighborhood. So, this does not I mean, from that standpoint, it is not particularly troubling for me. Um, I've never had a problem with my neighbors that live in the town homes. It's just more neighbors. It's good people, you know, and get got more people in the neighborhood. I find that fine. It provides different housing options for different people that may be in different positions in their life. Um, so, you know, and in general, I think we need more housing options. I do get the point that, you know, this may not be ideal for some people, although if I understand correctly, there are four uh ADA compliant units. Um not exactly sure how they're doing that with stairs, but um that sort of thing. So, uh you know, I'm supportive of this just based on my um looking at and reviewing the record, my experience, and um other places. I I think that, you know, the reality is it's going to add some more neighbors and and, you know, hopefully, you know, kids become friends and neighbors become friends and um, you know, adds and enhances the neighborhood as it has in mine. >> Council member Rivas, >> I guess I'm human. I [clears throat] I mean, I'm gonna hatch I mean, I'm gonna take advantage of that word, adding humanity to the whole thing. My question to you uh is it's impossible. I I I heard what you said earlier that you don't want to communicate anything until it's a concrete deal, right? I I understand that. But could it be possible to take into consideration how the neighbors in that area will feel? I I you know, I had gotten communications from them a you know, stating their disapproval of this project, right? and and I um you know for because of the position position that I am in I agree with uh council member Nelson that yeah we need the housing but at the same time I understand where the neighbors are coming from because I quite honestly don't feel against having a town homes right on top of where I live but at the same time I don't want it you know I mean it's very difficult to to to actually express myself when it comes to that because I wouldn't want to leave close to one and I'm really close to the ones by the high school, not that far away. But I I don't know, it creates a different sentiment in the neighborhood. So, would it be possible at all in the future to be able to communicate, hey, there's a possibility that this could happen in your neighborhood? How do you feel about it? And if the neighborhood at that point reacts in a way that they don't want it, you know, you could put an stop to the whole project instead of coming to this point now. I mean, we're giving the opportunity, giving them the opportunity to talk right now and it's a brief moment that they express their concern and then we decide to pass this and it doesn't affect us but it does affect them drastically because they have to live with the consequences of this and I don't see it as a bad thing. Again, I agree we need the housing uh but it affects their lives. I mean, is is there any way that we can somehow be more open to communication and literally when somebody comes to propose something, communicate the neighbor to the neighborhood that there's a possibility of something of this magnitude happening and then they can get involved a lot earlier in the process. Thank you, council member. Council member Lman and then Council Member Robertson. Council member Lman. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh so we've got discretion here and I think that the real question here is, you know, should we use that discretion or shouldn't we? And I think that uh I want to be careful, you know, when we do policym I I think there's maybe there's some opportunities for us to uh fix our policy, but I I want to be careful about trying to fix our policy that have led us to this particular circumstance because of what it indicates to the market and to those folks who uh develop properties uh in uh Bloomington, you know, to change the rules, you know, after you have brought the proposal forward uh is kind of tricky. So, I'll just take the three things that uh I brought forward and certainly you could look at these other items that are out there. And so, the height, that's one of the ones that, you know, certainly um I thought, well, maybe, you know, we could maybe make a finding around that. Well, you know, this council uh already made those changes to the the height, so that that really can't be changed. So if another devel developer came in and did this that they may be dealing with the height no matter what that uh residential piece. So that's out um you know the six of the the three houses you know uh in terms of the affordability component of that it would have been nice to kind of get more of that but again this is a market situation that I kind of look at too and so I can't ask a developer to do more than what the market can bear so that's really out and then the you know the R1 to R3 well we guided this to be you know more medium because of the whole idea that we want to try to get more housing, you know, in, you know, in in Bloomington in the east side, mayor. So, you know, as I look at this, you know, gosh, I mean, you know, I don't love I don't like where it is. I think it's horrible to to have it there. Uh, you know, in terms of those types of things, but the reality of the circumstance and situation is I think about the alternative and the alternative is maybe it's not this, maybe it's an apartment, maybe it's something even more densely uh that that would be worse here. Uh, so I'd rather take this than what the alternative may be. We don't know what that could be or what the market or these these properties sit sit faking for uh a longer period of time. And so I I one of the things we've got to deal with here is renewal like what we just dealt with with the uh with our properties down uh you know with our change we made to our park. It it it isn't it isn't like what it was before. And so, you know, I I I hear what you're saying, but my my my issue is as I look at this, not only am I a council member for those folks who are resident residential folks who live there, but I also have to think about the marketplace by which the how we renew our city. And as we look at this, we've made all the findings, the planning uh uh and staff have both brought this forward based on the rules that we've created. Uh, so yeah, if we don't like this, then, you know, and I I've got some problems with, you know, having this in the middle of a of a street, I think it makes more sense to be on the side, but we talk about renewing our our our city, if it starts from the inside out, I guess that's the way we got to go. So, yeah, as much as I want to make some changes here, I I can't do this on the backs of the developer. That's wrong. I just I can't do that. So, I will be supporting this uh this evening uh based on what we have here and and certainly all these things that that uh that our residents have brought forward. I I I I hear you and we've got to deal with that. But these are decisions that that that I've I've made. I I I made the height decision. I was right here. I voted for that. Uh so, Mayor, I I I got to support this. So, >> thank you, council member. Council member Robinson. >> Thank you, mayor. I'll keep it very brief. Um my colleagues have pretty much touched on every point I was going to make. Um, but as an eastsider myself, I thought it was important that um I make sure and make a note. Um, I think there are some certainly some issues we've heard about tonight, not just with this project, but with others. Um, in terms of communication, certainly sometimes if there's nothing to point anyone to, there's simply there's no there there's no there there, right? We can't direct anyone to a meeting that doesn't yet exist. Um, but I do think there's certainly some room for improvement, right? We always want to make sure that people are feeling heard, um, feeling like they know what's going on in their own community, where they are paying the bills, as someone said earlier. Um, uh, I will say I'm in support of this, um, in [clears throat] terms of bringing new folks to Bloomington, right? I think that I'm excited to welcome new neighbors. Like I said, as an East, um, I think it's important that we're looking for different types of housing, talking about different types of family structures, maybe non-traditional families, maybe it's a kid living with a grandparent, something like that. Um, there's all different types of families and different types of folks. And I think that these this project um, will be helpful in that way. But I do think it's important that we listen to the folks who took time to come out tonight um and let us know their concerns and we need to um find a way to make everyone feel heard in the future, feel like they know what's going on. So, I will be supporting this project tonight. >> Thank you all. Uh I'm looking at this like I I look at a lot of our new development that's gone up recently. It's uh it's literally as much as we can put on to a a development site. And if you recall uh our infamous 86th and Penn, I think a couple of us voted against that primarily because of the density. Basically saying, can we can we cut that back by 5 10 whatever it was? I don't even remember the number to just make it a little less dense. That's what I'm feeling with this as well. 33 seems like a lot. I'm looking at these site plans and I don't even know what the setbacks are, but it seems to be awfully close. That that fence is not that far off of the building and the fence I know is within a foot of the property line. And so I mean that's it's just a really tight area and I get it. It's probably what makes the project pencil out, but at the same time um it just it feels there there's density and then there's just really dense development and that's what this feels like to me. U I I think the the the site could handle it. I think it uh the roads I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the the storm water and that kind of thing. It just feels like really jamming people in a little bit tighter than I'm comfortable with to be honest. Um, that being said, I don't know if that's reason enough to deny or if I recalled my vote against 86 and Penn got us dragged into court and we lost, but uh uh so I'm, you know, I I go back and forth on that. So, I'm uh I'm not exactly sure what to think about this other than what I wish would what I could see right now and what I wish I could see would be less than 33 units sitting there. Can I ask a a a clarification on just on procedures? So, knowing that we have the potential to that this property can be redeveloped with our new R1 standards around cottage homes, town homes, um duplexes, forplexes, and that kind of thing. Would there be a would it be possible to deny the application on the grounds that there is sufficient functional densification within the R1 zoning function that exists today to support um a a a medium density comp plan oriented development that doesn't require resoning? Is that a reason enough to to deny the application a and hold legal standing? I think is the right I mean and I know I'm asking for legal advice on on the fly and that's not fair but but I'm just curious whether or not we think that that we could make the argument on that front because I do think you know if if that was the case this is a great opportunity for village or cottage home type development and it would fit really nicely in the community and you'd still get a lot of densification >> but you wouldn't have to reszone to do it. Miss Mander. >> Uh, mayor members, a couple of things uh to to keep in mind. Um, the courts have weighed in on neighborhood opposition. Uh, it can be a factor uh in your consideration of all the factors. Uh, it can't be the sole reason. Uh, the courts have opined on that. Couple of things related to compliance. uh this is an otherwise compliant design uh proposal and so if you are uh interested in moving forward with something other than approval uh you will need to state reasons for that on the record. Uh, and then my recommendation would be that you direct staff to return with a reason uh, excuse me, a denial resolutions in writing for you all to take action on in the future. The action deadline on this particular project is not until the end of September. So, there is room to do that. However, if um if you think that this project needs just a little bit more time um and perhaps um a lot of new ideas have been um discussed tonight that might be of interest um to the applicant, then perhaps you continue it and you let that play out. Um I'm not I have no idea if that's on the table or of consideration. Um just putting out the various options that I see before you all tonight. Um the one last thing I'll say is with regard to votes. Um we have a lot of votes in front of you on the um PowerPoint slide. So I'll just run through the vote requirements under law. Um for the reasoning there is a four vote requirement. For summary publication there's a five vote requirement and for the sec uh third and fourth um motions it's a four vote requirement. Any other questions? Mayor, members, >> I if I may add one more question. Thank you, Miss Mandershite. Um, so and this is more of a I guess a question on timing. Was the was the applicant and maybe the planner has to answer this question, but was the applicant aware of the R1 zoning changes when the application was made for this project? like timing wise, was the was the was that done before the application for the particular development, you know, presented or were they in process already when we made those changes? >> Mayor, Mayor, Council Member Delisandro, their first contact with city staff was in March of 2025 and so the missing middle housing ordinance provisions were not adopted yet at this time. And if I can make one clarifying point is that this this project is actually utilizing very little of the zoning reform components that we've been doing over several years. So through the discussion of this project, there's been a lot of talk about missing middle housing. This project is not utilizing the missing middle housing. It's just our town home standards >> um that we've had for many years and uh there's lots of town homes in Bloomington as council member Nelson uh elucidated. >> I I completely understand. My only comment there is that if presented with those new options that don't require reasonzoning, would they consider would they reconsider a plan for the project is the open question. I'm not asking them to answer that question here. I just wanted to make sure I understood the timing of it in case it was in case it was something that they might want to do that. So, to the extent that we give them the time to do that, maybe, maybe not. I'm not trying to speculate. I just I'm curious. >> Okay. I appreciate the clarifications. Thanks. Council member Nelson, you had a question or comment. [clears throat] Okay. All right. So, council, where do we go from here? Council member Malmo, what are you thinking? Yeah, I'm a little bit nervous because I hearing some folks that are kind of nervous about this, but you know what? The only way to really know is to make our way down this pathway and start voting on this thing. We're pretty tight on time here, so I'm thinking that uh we go ahead and just roll down this thing. Now tell me what happens if this fails. Can I does it come back or is it just dead? >> If it may remembers if it if if you're I'm I'm assuming you referring to >> if it fails >> every one of these failing >> or just one of them. Yeah. Well, let's say I don't get the four votes on one of them >> so um I would need to defer to uh the uh the planning manager. My suspicion is that if the resoning fails, the rest of these don't move forward. >> That's correct. >> Well, uh, [snorts] I'm going to do it. Council member Lman. So, uh, see, I've got it right here. I've only I see three here on my packet here. Should I read these off here? Because it seems like this a little different. >> Start from the top on the screen, I believe. >> Okay. So, I'll move to adopt uh an ordinance reszoning 15256016365 East 86th Street and 1604 and 1606 East 87th Street from R1 single family residential to R3 middle housing residential. >> Second. >> Second. Motion by council member Lman, second by council member Robertson to uh adopt the reszoning of the stated properties from R1 single family residential to R3 middle housing residential. Any further council discussion on this? >> I I have one point of clarification, Mr. Mayor. Um so the the other option that we were banding about there for a minute was to continue this. Is there any reason why we wouldn't do that in lie of this? And I realize, you know, the motion's on the table, so we have to like go from there. But but, you know, I I would maybe prefer that we continue this in the event that we could maybe give the applicant a chance to consider the information that's been provided tonight. it it I don't know if that's a better answer or not, but I would I would love to consider us tableabling this vote to a later date if we think we can do that. And I would happily make that motion instead if that's possible. >> I think it makes more sense to do that um than to potentially deny tonight. I think that denial puts us in a different >> okay >> spot. So I find out if people want to continue and then >> Okay. >> And then if not then >> So council member Lman. >> Well, you know, mayor, you know, that's the main motion. So if if uh Dlesandro wants to make that motion on top of mine and and and John wants to second it, that's perfectly fine. >> So is it Yeah, I think you have to withdraw your motion and then I can make a new motion. >> Motion. Technically, that's not true, but whatever. I'll do it just >> either way or I can amend the motion, I guess. >> Yeah, you could, but I I'll just do it this way. That's fine. Uh, so I'll uh withdraw my my uh motion if that's okay with you. >> I withdraw my second. >> I'll go ahead and move to uh postpone uh do we need a date? >> Continue the item. >> All right, I'll continue it to what date? >> August 31st. >> August God, we're going to have a big meeting that night. >> It would be helpful to also articulate if there's anything in particular that you have questions on. >> I've got no questions at all. You got questions? >> Sure. Let me just I'll make the motion if you want. U council member. Yeah. Um so I move to continue this uh this decision to the August 31st meeting with the idea that we would uh have planning work with the applicant to determine whether or not there's a consideration for any other um development plans that they might want to uh uh offer as part of the consideration. Motion by council member Dalisandro, second by council member Rivas >> to continue uh as stated to continue the item as stated. Are we clear on that? Clear enough on that. >> Was that appropriate? Um, Mayor members, what I what I understood you to say is that you were interested in the applicant reaching out and having a conversation with planning staff about the possibility to incorporate some of the missing middle concepts that that have been discussed and possibly any other things that have been discussed during the meeting tonight. Is that accurate? >> Yes, that's right. So, so the the the knowing that this is guided for medium density and knowing that we have passed R1 uh modifications that fall within that are that medium density consideration, I'd love for them to have the opportunity to review those with the planning commission. >> All right, thank you. >> All right, we're clear on that. Any other questions, council? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> I No. >> How many did I count there? two motion carries 42 to continue this and um and and I guess turn to the applicant and say uh uh I' I'd encourage you work with staff to understand better what uh what the uh the question was or the possibilities are and um see if we we can figure out a path forward rather than having this be denied. Just look for a path forward where we can get to yes on this. All right. All right. Thank you, council members. With that council, uh we will move on to our organizational business which includes our policy council policy and issues update. Very quickly, we held a smaller listening session earlier this evening, our regular listening session. We had a number of different speakers. We did hear from uh Dr. Gretchen Buchanan who uh eventually spoke about a number of things at the uh the second listening session. Uh heard from two folks uh Ali Sad and Chris Deanscini and I guess uh Muhammad Akabatada as well regarding our city ordinance regarding licenses and uh tobacco sales. And so I had a good conversation with them and are I think considering whether or not we want to open portions of that those requirements to try and better accommodate some of the things that they're facing with their businesses. Uh we heard from Sally Nes talking about the the Smith Park shared agreement and uh Jamie Anthony had some questions regarding the police department and their policies. So once again a a good and productive council listening session. >> Mr. Manager, do you have anything to add? >> Nothing tonight, sir. >> Council, anything to add. Council member Lman, [laughter] you're kidding me, aren't you? >> Well, I said it earlier today or earlier during uh consent. I'll [snorts] be I'll be brief. Uh I just wanted to mention uh that that uh we we had an item on our list earlier today 3.1 uh talking about our pension and uh just wanted to mention how appreciative that I am of the work that uh that our uh my fellow uh colleagues that have been on that uh fire uh Bloomington Fire Relief Association uh uh for their pension and what they've done and what we've done over the many years. We've kind of come a long ways uh with that, mayor. And uh what I would say is uh you know, we we've we've done a great job of of bringing back, you know, real returns. When we compare our our pension plan uh with uh other pension plans of similar size and and scope, uh our pension plan is um you know, above the median for our peer group and above uh you know, uh our own policy benchmarks uh that we've been able to achieve. Even more importantly, we've been able to achieve that return with volatility in the lowest quartile, meaning we took uh less risk than approximately 75% of the comparable plans. Um above median uh returns on material, less uh uh risk over a full market cycle is a definition of what we'd call prudent uh stewardship. So really all I want to say is uh you know it wasn't by accident. You know that certainly uh all of our staff and the council members that are here want to thank uh uh you know this is a team sport. We all work together to to achieve that and uh want to thank uh those consultants and the fire department and all those other folks uh that were a part of it. >> Thank you uh council member. Yes, because we're not that far removed from much uh more troubling days regarding that fire pension. So we're not that far removed. Thank you for that. Council, anything else to add? >> If not, >> uh, Mr. Mayor, I just want to say look forward to seeing everybody tomorrow night. Absolutely. >> Oh, yes. Yes. Uh, national night out. Looking forward to that. And, um, yes. Be a lot of fun. It always is. Council, uh, looking for a motion to adjourn tonight. >> So, moved. >> Motion by council member Robertson. Second. Second by council member Dallas to uh, adjourn tonight. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, council. Good job tonight. Thank you to our staff. And once again, thank you to all of our members of the public who took part tonight. I think it was a uh a good example of how this can all be done at the local level. Thank you all. Have a great rest of your week.