Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] Good evening everyone and welcome. I will call this Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, December 22nd, 2025. our last meeting of the year. Council, we uh have a full agenda and we will begin as we always do. If you're able to please stand, remove any head coverings and join me in the pledge of allegiance. [clears throat] >> 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. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you to everybody who's joined us here in the chambers this evening and thanks to everybody watching online. Our first order of business tonight, council, is to adopt tonight's agenda. Uh we have uh a a moderate agenda. I think we can get out of here at a reasonable hour if we put our minds to it. Uh under item two under introductory items, I'd like to add a small walk-on item there. Uh consent business. Council member Rivas has our consent items and we have 17 consent items this evening. Under item four are hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. We have uh one public comment opportunity and three public hearings. Item 4.1 is a public comment opportunity regarding the Bloomington Ferry Road Corridor Vision Study. Item 4.2 is a hearing regarding the adopt American Boulevard transit study. uh public hearing on item 4.3 is an ordinance to vacate of public plaza at the MOA waterpark extension and deadline resolution and summary publication and item 4.4 is a public hearing regarding our boards and commission ordinance. Under item five are organizational business. Uh item 5.1 is an order and authorization to bid Harrison Park trail head and Veterans Memorial Plaza improvement project and the NM Creek corridor renewal tree removal project. And item 5.2 2 is a resolution to revise the compensation plan for full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary non-UN employees for the city of Bloomington. We'll wrap up as we do with our council policy and issue update. And uh I think I said I I mispronounced that in 4.2 is the public hearing regarding the adoption of the American Boulevard transit study. I don't know. I I just it felt like I didn't say that correctly, so I wanted to make sure that was clear. Uh that is our agenda for this evening, council. If there's anything to add or any corrections, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise, I will move approval of tonight's agenda. We have a motion and a second by council member Rivas to accept tonight's agenda. Hearing no further discussion on this, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. 70. Item 5 point uh excuse me, item two under introductory items. I said I wanted to walk on an item uh introductory. Um, typically we might push this later in the evening, but I decided I wanted to do it earlier this evening because otherwise people tune in and we we lose track of everybody. This is the last meeting of um, council member at large, council member saw Mua and um, wanted to thank him publicly and congratulate him publicly and call him out for his outstanding work on the Bloomington City Council over the past couple of years. Saw I have appreciated uh, the the common sense direction that you have brought to this council. I greatly appreciate your perspective that you bring as a father with 10 11 kids and three I'm sorry three there are three of them I'm sorry I lost track uh and I I appreciate how uh so often you bring the notion of family into your comments whether it's your uh your your family your three kids or your your uh extended family and your parents and your your family at large because uh it shows more than anything that this is uh this is a datadriven job. This is a policydriven job, but mostly this job is about people and and how you relate to them and how you make the world better for them and how we do our little part of the world here in the city of Bloomington uh to to really support and uh make their lives better. And so I appreciate that that perspective that you always brought and uh the energy that you brought and your good humor and I've just so enjoyed having you on council. We're going to miss you. Something tells me we haven't seen the last of you, but we we will see. Uh but thank you for your work on the city council. Thank you so very much for the time that you spent with us and again congratulations on getting your Monday nights back uh after the first of the year. Very well done. So, thank you so very much. Council, anybody else want to chime in? Council member Dalisandro. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yes, just on uh from my part, um just I would have said this later. Thanks for bringing it forward. Um it's been great having you on council saw and um I agree with the mayor that your perspective was always very valuable. It matters most when we have a diversity of opinions up here because I think we get the best work done and your opinion was unique in so many ways but also thematically in line with Bloomington's values which you helped document when you were part of the leadership development program and everything in the work that we did on our our Bloomington together um tomorrow together program. So you just thank you. Um I was going to stand up and shake your hand eventually anyway. So, we'll make that happen. But, um, I look forward to staying in touch. And as somebody who was kind of new at the same time, um, it was great to ride along with you. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Council Member Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I won't go on and on and on, but I just want to say thank you and I've really appreciated serving with you and getting to know you and getting to know your family um, through different events. And I can understand um as a fellow parent of young kids. I think those of us who have young kids up here um understand the the difficult decision that you had to make and and totally respect that too. But agree with the mayor. We know we have not seen the last of you. We know you'll continue to stay involved. Um but just want to say that I appreciate all that you've done on council and I appreciate the um the sacrifice that has come with it too. So it's a it's an amazing job. It's a wonderful job. Um, but there are pieces that sometimes it gets hard. So, thank you for all you've done. >> Thank you, council member. >> Council member Brigas, >> thank you. It's it's been a learning experience for me and and I can say freely that I have learned from you. Also, the little chats that we had after the meetings occasionally were very helpful and I do appreciate that and I just wish you the best and hopefully we'll see you sitting here around in a few years. Well, who knows where, but you know, we talked about it also. So, but thank you so very much for your help. It was great to have you around and and assist with questions I I had which never end. So, thank you. So, Council Member Mua, before I stand up and shake your hand and present you with this plaque, I'm going to say Grant. Roll them, please. >> Hello there. My name is Saw Mua and I am an alumni of the Bloomington Leadership Program. I also served on the 2020 budget advisory committee and today I am honored to serve as an atlarge city council member here in Bloomington, Minnesota. I saw Mua do solemnly swear >> that I [music] will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States. >> Hi, we are members of the Bloomington leadership program. >> WE ARE BLOOMINGTON PROUD. When I think of Bloomington and our mission to cultivate an enduring and remarkable community, what people want to be, these are the events that bring us together and reflect that mission that we have at the city. >> When I applied for the leadership program, my goal was pretty simple. I just wanted to learn more about our city. I never imagined how it would change my life. And when I look back on the impact that Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians have had in our city, I am thrilled to see all of these faces here today, sharing, caring [music] for each other, and showing that Bloomington truly is the place that people want to be. >> I'm proud to be part of building a Bloomington where connectedness and community continue to grow. So, thank you for your service, my friend. [applause] >> Council member, the mic is yours. [clears throat] >> Well, that was a great video. I didn't expect that. I appreciate it. [laughter] Yes, we have the the bre the best communications people uh in the state and then and we have the awards to show it, of course. Um so, thank you, mayor, for the opportunity to say a few words. Thank you to the city council for the opportunity to say some words because I still vividly remember the night that you all appointed me to this seat [clears throat] three years ago. I was sitting at home with my wife. She's like, "Ah, it's going to go two or three rounds." And in that first round, the six of you up here thought that I would be someone that was worthy of helping guide the city into the future. And I'll never get forget that moment because I didn't know what to think. And so I went to bed and I slept on it. And the next morning I woke up and I still couldn't believe it. And so I took a drive around town after I gotten the kids ready, made breakfast. I was driving around town and I saw lights flicking on, people waking up making breakfast, store owners popping over their their shades, getting ready for the day, getting ready for customers. And as I drove through the city on my way back home, I came right here, old Shakipi, 98th Street. And just as I was coming here, I could just see the sun rising up on city hall. And as I was sitting at that light, all of a sudden, I felt this weight just gently settle on my shoulders. And I didn't anticipate it. I didn't expect it, but there it was. It wasn't heavy. It wasn't overburdening, but it was a responsibility. And that's not that's something that I have never and will never take for granted. that I was given this opportunity and this responsibility to help guide this wonderful city. And I want to share this story because I want you all to know how much of an honor it was and has been to serve on this council to help guide our community forward. And it's not lost on me how much work it takes not only from us up here on the dis but from the the staff that we have here from all the residents who are willing to raise their hand, share their voices, meet us for coffee, send us an email so that no matter what when someone calls 911 for help, it gets there as quickly as it can. So that when someone turns on their tap water, it flows every time, all the time. and that our parks and our green spaces remain places of joy and stewardship for generations to come so that my kids can continue to enjoy them and hopefully my grandkids will as well. So, thank you to every resident that I've met, that I've spoken to, that I've received an email from, that I've had coffee with, that I've met at parks to walk around and chat about your thoughts and your concerns, your questions, and your willingness to work with me and this council, uh, will not be forgotten. And I've met so many of you, and I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Bloomington has the most engaged and caring and thoughtful residents anywhere in this state. Uh, thank you to city staff, to Priyanka, and before you, Safa and Matt. Wrangling all of us up here is like wrangling cats. So, I don't envy your job, but thank you for making our lives easier. Thank you for everything that you do. [snorts] To Zach, Elizabeth, and Kathy, your leadership and dedication is why Bloomington functions properly and is moving forward as a resident, I'm going to expect that it continues that way. Um, but I have no doubt that I will knowing all of you and having the chance to have gotten to know all of you. Um, to Chief Hodes, Chief Seal, all our first responders, thank you for your dedication and ensuring the safety of this community. To Lori and Kari and our whole finance team, the budgets, the three AAA ratings, that doesn't just happen out of nowhere. It takes a lot of work and dedication from a a team that knows what they're doing, that cares about where they work, cares about the city that they they work in. There are so many of you that I've I've worked with, and I can't name everyone individually, and even those I didn't meet personally, your work does not go unnoticed by me. I see how each of you show up to make sure that Bloomington runs smoothly. You make sure that no residents worry about the things that make a city great. Your dedication is the backbone of the city and from the deepest place in my heart, thank you. Thank you for that dedication. And thank you to my fellow city council members. I had no idea what I was getting into when I started this role. Um but you've supported me. You've taught me. We've learned together. You've helped me navigate our favorite, you know, Robert's rules of order up here. [laughter] Um the the friendships that I've made with each of you mean a great deal to me and I appreciate it. I'm looking forward to continuing to connect with everybody. Thank you, Mayor, for your leadership and your ability to heard all of us cats to keep us focused and on the important work that we have to do. And I know it's no easy feat. Um but you always make it look pretty easy. So I appreciate you for that. Thank you. And thank you to my family. my incredible wife Shauna. While I was away at council meetings, you know, commission meetings, briefings, conferences, you were home holding down the fort, making sure our kids were happy and healthy and fed. I've asked so much of you and you stood by my side every step of the way. Thank you. And to my boys, who I think now without me on the council is going to drop our average YouTube viewing age probably about 30 years. they're watching right now. Um, thank you for tuning in on Monday nights to catch a glimpse of dad before you go to bed. I hope the values that we talk about here, that we talk about at home, stick with you for your whole life. And to my father, may he [snorts] rest in peace. And to my mother who braved war, learned a new language and culture, and gave me a chance at peace and success. Thank you for instilling the values of service. And to my in-laws, John and Joanne, Barry and Amy, your love and support is what makes this work possible. Uh, I know I always have you to lean on when I'm not at home. So, to wrap it up, the theme of this speech is thank you. Thank you to the Bloomington residents, to city staff, to council, to my family. It's with bittersweet emotions that I call today my last city council meeting for now. You alluded to it, mayor. I will always be here for this incredible community and if the need ever arises, I will always answer the city's call. So someday when my family doesn't need me quite as much, I'll raise my hand again and give whatever I can to this enduring and remarkable community where I want to be. Thank you. [applause] >> [clears throat] >> Well done, council member. Thank you for your service. We will move on. Council item three on our agenda is our consent business. Council member Rivas has our consent business tonight. Council member, can you turn mic on, please? >> Thank you. >> I think I speak loud enough. All right. >> 2 310. You holding 311. >> Oh, no. For you. >> All right. Sure. All right. I move items 3.1 to 3.4, items 3.6 to 3.10, 3.2 12 through 316. Uh, Council Member Nelson is holding item 3.5 and 3.11. Council member Lman is holding item 3.17. Second. >> We have a motion for the consent business as stated, holding out items at 3.5, 3.11, and 3.17 for further consideration. Any further council discussion on that? >> Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. opposed. Motion carries 70. Council member Nelson, item 3.5. >> Yeah, just want to make a quick comment here. Um, this is regarding some uh cost uh that are all within the contingencies in the overall budget. So, I don't want to mislead people that this is going to be extra cost to anybody. This was all within the overall budget. But, uh, there are items within here and it's it's just the point that I want to make is I think we need to look at being a little bit more firm on some of these cuz some of these things I I got to be honest, they're obvious code issues that I think the contractor should be responsible for. There are obvious um work that needs to be done that I think the contractor should be responsible for. And I really just think we need to tighten up these processes on this so that uh we don't run into these additional costs and and I worry that there's a just sort of a on the contractor side on the city side even with all due respect sort of a feeling like well we we have contingencies so it's fine. Well it should be figured out on the front end in my opinion and and and get done then. I mean just as a few examples like they had to add additional exit signs. Well, we should know where the doors are, where you needed exit sign. They had add power to a overhead door. I don't know how you expected the overhead door to go up without power. Things like that. They just they strike me as not something that should fall into contingency. It should just be something that's done by the contractor because it needs to be done for the scope and and per code and things of that nature. So, I'm going to support it. Um, you know, I like I said, it's it's well within budget. It's not anything that's um you know really pushing us out of there. It's it's kind of the practice. I just like to tighten that practice up and so wanted to shine some light on it. >> Thank you, Council Member. Uh Council Member Dallas comment. >> Uh yes. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um yeah, I I tend to agree with Council Member Nelson on this. I apologize. My comments were way late today and so I didn't actually get the chance to ask a lot of questions about this stuff, but but this is not the first time that we've had this kind of thing happen, especially with these projects. And again, I, you know, I'm with Council Member Nelson, all within budget, everything, but I know that I asked similar questions about when we had the the uh budget um changes associated with the um the um um facility at at Bryant Park, for example, right? Um they're just um unforeseen circumstances make total sense, right? These don't feel unforeseen. They feel seeable like very far into the future. And I I actually think part of the challenge is that we're not value engineering these projects like I like I think we can too, right? So so by going back and asking these questions in advance, we actually either get to the get to a point where we know better what the costs are going to be because we've asked those questions or we can actually get the chance to be under budget, which would be amazing. I would love to be under under budget on some of these things. That would be awesome. So, um, I would just like us to continue to to kind of try to insert a planning. You come in here and you ask for a budget. Totally get that. Got the co got the 10% contingency, but then on top of that, there's a value engineering opportunity that comes before the work actually gets underway. And um, I I just think we could be better at that. So, I'd love to see us do that. That's all. And I so appreciate Council Member Nelson bringing it up. I think we have several examples over the past year where we could point to like, huh, that's weird. We should know those things. So, I'm hoping we can figure that out. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Lman, >> just briefly, Mayor, um, and and Council Member Nelson mentioned this at the outset of this, just the idea that these were in the budget. This isn't anything new. I know there were some concerns brought forward to us in another listening session. And I just want to be sure that we're very absolutely crystal clear that this is not something brand new or way out of the scope of what we uh uh thought. >> Thank you, Council Member. >> Any other council discussion on this? If not, Council Member Nelson, you said you were still going to support it. Would you like to move item 3.5 of the >> I would move item 3.5. >> Second. Motion by council member Nelson, second by council member Dalisandro to accept item 3.5 in tonight's consent agenda. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries 70. Council member Nelson, you also had item 3.11. >> Yeah, apologize for that. Um, so 3.11 has some uh lots that are potentially being purchased as part of the 49435W project. uh which makes I mean they got to get the land that they need to do but that was not part of the presentation that we received. it was not part of the municipal consent. And so I am wondering if if we need to redo something, if we need to do something again uh with regards to that because the only thing they mentioned in terms of property acquisition and they cited statute that indicated that they needed to bring it forward because of property acquisition. They they noticed some water ponds at 82nd. did not notice these properties uh along um the freeway there uh between 83rd and 84th I believe um on Humbult. And the other thing that I want to just ask is are they actually going to use these for something or are they going to do the same thing they did on those other lots? And I mean, literally, they took rightaway and tore down houses and then they gave us the rightway back 20 years later or something like that. I mean, are they actually going to use this or are we just taking lots that people could live on out of circulation? So, let's ask that ask that question. Uh, Amy Amy, can you share a little light on it? Shed a little light on this for us. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nelson. Um so the the layout that they did provide did there is a very detailed layout. It was a linked document in your packet. There was no expectation that the council was going to fully review this giant PDF. Um that was a concept layout that showed the big picture. So the one the one that you were seeing in the presentation showed the big picture of here are the the big changes that we're making. Um, so this is not unknown that they were going to be needing these Ralph acquired parcels um south of 80 south of 82nd Street on the west side of 35W um for storm water retention or for water water mitigation. So it it's been in the plan for the full vision and it is part of this next project that went through the municipal consent process. I'd be happy to provide access to that full project layout again if that's something that people are interested in taking a look at. >> Council member may thank you for doing that. The the full detail that I saw also ended at 82nd um because I did click on the link that's within that um at the time and then I went back and reviewed it again. So maybe I clicked on the wrong link, but they had a full detail and it stopped at 82nd, had the what do they call a fly bridge or something like that that they had on the uh north side of it and I did not see anything to the south of it. So if you could provide that again and the other part I just want to make sure because they did not explicitly mention this when we gave municipal consent. Do we have any legal obligation to reconsider that? Um, I'm not saying I oppose it. I'm just uh wondering if if that information was not readily apparent to the council, should we redo that action? [clears throat] Uh, because it is eight properties. I mean, it's not insignificant. >> Miss Brown. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nelson, I I guess that probably is at your discretion if you'd like to revisit it. Um I don't think they were asking for um your support on any specific parcel as part of the municipal consent. So the municipal consent is request a statutory request for the city to indicate support for the project. It's not necessarily about the the details of each element. I I completely understand the interest in specific par parcels, especially since Bloomington currently owns and manages those specific parcels. Um I I think I'll defer to the city manager, Mr. Mayor, if you have any additional guidance on it. The time period has passed for municipal consent and we have provided it. I'm certain that they would be open to providing more information. Perhaps it uh perhaps that would be the thing to do. Uh council member, maybe get uh ask for more information if need be, have a presentation or somebody in front of the council again providing a little bit more detail about how this came about and and the work that's expected there as to whether or not uh I'm I'm sure Miss Mander could do a little research and decide uh tell us whether or not uh additional municipal consent or municipal input is uh is appropriate in the situation. Does that make sense? Okay. Okay. Does that make sense, Steph? Okay. Uh so, uh council uh council member, your pleasure. Do we want to hold this over or do we want to approve this and then uh just uh look for more information later? >> It sounds like we already did the municipal consent to the legal standard that we needed to do. So, I don't see any reason to continue to hold it. I I would love to, and I don't mean to take up the entire council's time. Maybe it's just a one-on-one thing with me to go through it because I don't really disagree with it. It just surprised me. >> I was like, "Wait, what? What happened to these eight lots?" And I remembered that there were the other lots there. And >> so, um, that it's not those lots. I'm really happy about that they didn't buy them, give them back, and then buy them again. [laughter] >> So, that was really the cherry on the top. So, anyways, I'll move this item 3.11. Uh, >> very good. We have a motion. Council member Dallas, >> I'll second it. Then second a question, council member Alesandro. Yeah, thank you. Um, happy second. I actually think they are the same parcels. Like if [snorts] it feels like they are to me because they're in my patch and I've been waiting for us to do development on these parcels and I was wondering why we haven't gotten our act together and now they're back in the hands of of mindot. So like I do want to have a conver I'd like to be a part of that conversation. In other words, because I'm confused >> and >> are we sure they're not? >> Uh, it looks to me that they are. They look like the same ones that just gave us back two years ago right on Humble Avenue. Yes. That they looks like the same lots >> or two years ago. Yeah. >> Then I would like to hold it. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Would you re withdraw your motion then? Uh, council member >> uh Bob Simons is here to to help us out a little bit too. Bob, >> good [clears throat] evening. Mayor and council. I'll try to help a little bit. But I don't know how much help I'll be, but I did receive word from our rightway agent earlier today that the parcels that you were initially referring to um from a couple of years ago were actually parcels south of 84 Street and these parcels are between 83rd and 84th Street was my understanding. So I I believe it was it was two different sets of parcels that we're referring to. >> There were if I may, Mr. Mayor, I actually think I actually think they were all part of it. And there was one even over on Fremont. Like there's a there was a group that was given back to us. Like I I we we should I I think we should look >> I I I would agree with you and I do think I I recalled that yes, between 83rd and 84th those parcels were returned back to the city. So, why don't we uh why don't we take uh withdraw the motion and maybe hold this over if we could make the motion to hold over item 3.11 and uh get a few more answers to this before we move on it. >> I would make that exact motion. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Nelson, second by council member Dalisandro to hold item 3.11 uh to date uncertain until we can get some a little bit more clarification on this issue. Any further council discussion on this? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. Thanks for bringing that forward, council member. >> Uh, council member Lman, item 3.17. >> Yeah, thank you, mayor. U, I was I was just going to let this one pass through, but then I got some late uh a couple of notes for folks who were a little bit confused about uh this from the staff uh amendment to the uh uh city of Bloomington employment rules, and it was specifically around the uh the funeral leave being uh shifted over into the personal leave. And I just wanted to just be sure that uh just because I had a couple little staff reaching out to me that they were confused about. I thought it was pretty straightforward, but I wanted to just be sure that uh one that the uh the uh that um that this is a direct comparison. Um you know, they were just kind of just moving it as it states in the uh in the area and that the communication has been sent to employees around this and then that there is consistency with the uh the amount. It's not a deduction from the uh the personal leave on period of time. Somebody can speak to that. >> Mr. Bard, I think is going to help us out with this. >> Again, I thought it was very straightforward and until I got those people who reached out to me, I wasn't going to even cold this. So, apologize. Uh council member Lman, members of the council, u yes, this relates to uh it actually relates to our policy on the new uh paid family leave benefit that's going into effect in January. We patterned our city policy off of the model policy from the League of Minnesota Cities. And in that model policy, it included a provision on funeral leave that uh we don't need in our policy because we already have funeral leave referenced in our article on personal leave. And so uh a number of employees have reached out to me and asked about it. I've explained it to them. Um so we're in good spots there. So this is really just uh to clean up that uh provision. So, we already have, you know, leave referenced in our personal leave article. So, uh, this is not necessary. >> No, no loss or anything like that at all. It's all pretty much the same. All right. Well, that's all I need. Thank you. >> I'm happy to move it. >> Please do, council member. >> Okay. I'll move to uh uh move to adopt a resolution amending the city of Bloomington's employment rules. Motion by council member Lman, second by council member Rivas to accept item 3.17 on our council uh um our consent business this evening. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you me council member Rivas for presenting this tonight and thanks for your input. Council members, we'll move on item four in our agenda. Our our hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. We'll start with item 4.1. This is a public comment opportunity regarding the recommendations of the Bloomington Ferry Road Corridor Vision Study. Miss Marone, back again. Welcome. >> Good evening, council. So, we visited you back earlier this summer as we were just getting our dipping our toes into the study to make sure that we were on the right track and working towards the council goal. So, if you think back a couple years ago, a section of Bloomington Ferry Road came up for some pavement management. There was quite a bit of discussion with the council and staff at that time about um if we just reconstruct this road or or do an overlay on this road, are we just preserving pavement for the sake of preserving pavement? What would the ideal vision be for this corridor? And then you sent the staff back to investigate that a little bit further. So that's what we're doing with this study. Um tonight we have a technical advisory committee recommendation as an outcome of that that will show you the difference in um working to a layout that will work towards the goals that the city has set for multimmodal transportation safety improvements um sustainability efforts and also maintaining traffic safety and what the cost differential is for that between um maintaining the existing cross-section and that proposed future vision. So with that, I'll um let Phil Kulis with SRF um lead this presentation. >> Thanks. >> Good evening, Mr. Kulis. Welcome. >> Welcome or thank you. Good evening, mayor, council members. >> All right. Uh so yeah, as a mentioned going to go through what we've done over here over the past few months with the project. Uh we've done quite a bit since we were here uh several months ago. Uh so go just a refresher of what the goals of the project are so everyone has that in their mind. uh go over the concepts that we looked at, go over input that we received from the public uh on the concepts and what we're doing with the project. Uh go over the evaluation. There's a matrix. We won't go too much in detail. Uh can answer your any questions though. Go over the recommendations and then also the input from the sustainability planning commission that we went to a month or so ago. So the project as a whole is looking at Bloomington Ferry Road um on the west side of the city here just east of Trunk Highway 169. looking at what the corridor is today and looking at what it um wants to be in the future. Really trying to rightsize the corridor. Um the the roadway was built many years ago before the river crossing of 169. Um so it used to serve a different purpose. It used to serve those regional trips. Um now with the 169 bridge over the river, it's a different need. It's more local commuter traffic, more local people um just out on their daily route. So really trying to figure out what's needed from the um today as well as into the future to raise the right size of the corridor and meet the various um needs of the uh city not just trying to move vehicles but looking at pedestrians, bicycles, what can we do with the corridor to enhance the overall transportation. Um so based on the goals of the project um input from the public ultimately three concepts were considered here. Um so we have concept A which is a one-way bikeway and sidewalk. Uh so that's on both sides. Uh with this concept, bikes would be able to travel um one direction. So if you're on the east side, you'd be going northbound. If you're on the west side, you'd be going southbound. Um B is a shared path. This is where bikes and pedestrians will be sharing the same space. Um this would exist on both sides of the roadway. And concept C is a two-way bikeway on the one side, so on the west side where bikes can go both directions as well as there's a sidewalk there. Um so complete separate facilities for pedestrians and bicycles uh like concept A and then on the east side there would be a sidewalk. So these were the three concepts that uh moved forward. All of them have a reduction in lanes. So right now there's two lanes of travel in each direction for vehicles. Um based on the technical analysis, we're really not seeing the need for that. Um the volumes out there have been really consistent for the past 20 years and are well under the capacity of what a roadway with one lane of one lane for vehicles in each direction would be able to accommodate. So all concepts that were um considered other than the no build um have that one lane of direction or one lane of travel in each direction. Uh so back in September we went out to the public with these three concepts for input. Uh so September 23rd um we were also along the corridor at the north end. Uh it was a well attended open house. Uh we had 88 people sign in. However, there was people coming that didn't necessarily sign in. We estimate there was roughly 120 to 130 people at the open house which is um for generally most projects a really well attended open house. So we were really happy with uh the input we received. We received input both at the open house via comic cards as well as we had several staff members from the city as well as the consultant team there to answer questions. gather input and then there were surveys as well um that were posted online. So we received input via in person as well as online later via let's talk Bloomington. In the bottom right here you can see there was a question asked in the survey about which concept do you feel best addresses the goals and based on the public input 47% of people um preferred concept C or thought that concept C aligned most with what the goals of the project are. some common themes uh that we were heard from the public. So, we had layouts out there that people could comment on. Uh you can see post-it notes. We had um I can't remember how many couple hundred comments here on on post-it notes. So, we took those back and developed some themes. Um a big part of it was a lot of people along the corridor really value the um pedestrian bicycle infrastructure and want to enhance that and make it safer. Um there's also a lot of green space out there today with the um wide median. There's interest in maintaining that green space, being able to use that for various um uses, stormware management, uh green infrastructure, pollinators. There is concern out there for the existing speeds um which the fourlane section out there today um it's not really needed. People can drive it faster than may what we really desire. Um, so there's concerns about speeding and there there is the actual technical data that backs that up that people are overall speeding along the corridor and then also project funding cost and priorities. So there was um questions about what is the need for the project and how it would be funded. Um so that that is something that the public asked about as well. After the second round of engagement, uh there were some follow-up items that we did here. Uh we took a further look at linsim drive analysis um based on some of the comments that there's longer cues and delays right now um which we looked at that is true in 2025. There's a lot of construction projects around the area on the regional system that has been impacting that but overall the past few years other than 2025 that wasn't necessarily the case. We also took an look at intersection site distance along the corridor. So intersections where there were requiring vehicles to judge gaps in traffic. Um we took a look at that. Um, Lindstöm was the main focus, but then we also took a look at other intersections and we have some interimm solutions that will help address that. Uh, Vaness Road, so that's the northern intersection that there's an existing signal at. Um, we heard comments that there was an interest in preserving that signal. So, we took a look at signal warrants to really see is there any way that a signal there is really needed or warranted. Um and then as part of this project, we identified full vision what the quarter wants to be ultimately, but then also identified uh interimm improvements that could be implemented um at a lower cost um and easier to help get towards that vision, but then address the immediate needs that are out there today. So, here's a matrix that I'm sure no one can really see on their screen. There's a lot of boxes in here. Um so, I don't really need to go into too much detail, but happy to answer any questions. Overall existing conditions, the no build is on the far left. So that's the one that the column that has more yellow and then als based on the goals of the project really all the alternatives help to address them and are better than really the no build condition out there. Um I will point out there are the two red boxes on alt A and B and those are under non-motorized comfort and safety and that deals with concept A um potentially requires people to cross the road depending on what direction travel you're um heading on the bike way and then concept B is due to the shared environment of peds and bikes with the shared use path recognizing today there is separation and as there are a lot more ebikes out there being able to travel much faster there is more of an interest in having peds and bikes being their own separate space. Um so that's why that stands out. Um and then cost on the um other concepts there. Um obviously that is a factor here is is cost. Um the corridor as itself is going to need replacing um reconstruction in the next 20 years. Uh the corridor was built from the 1970s to early 1980s. Um, so it is getting really towards the end of its useful life and in the next 20 years, um, regardless of needing or interesting, um, reducing the cross-section and doing something different, it will need full reconstruction anyways. Um, which right now we've estimated cost $21 million to fully reconstruct the roadway. The alternatives um, A, B, and C are an additional three to six million depending which one we select, um, to gain the additional benefits that are shown in that matrix. on this slide. Um, so just kind of want to point that out that even if we do nothing, the corridor does need fully um does need to be fully reconstructed which has a cost of roughly $21 million today that we estimate. So there is that cost and this is three to six three to six million additional to get some of these benefits that we point out here. Um the vision vision would really help with storm water management recognizing that today there is flooding of private properties along the corridor. This would help to mitigate that via reduced impervious area as well as the um ability to implement storm water management basins really help slow down the water from getting there. Um there's sustainability impacts here um reduced impervious area more green space and then we're really in the mobility safety of um pedestrians, bikes, vehicles with the concepts that we're proposing here or looking at there really is the ability to enhance the operations and safety of all users of the corridor. So, um there's definitely a lot that can be gained from the alternatives for that additional uh $3 to $6 million as well as also long-term pavement costs as well. Um we estimate that every million overlay that would occur approximately every 20 years would be about $3 million less. Um so there's an additional upfront capital cost, but then the long-term maintenance cost um would be lower just due to the less pavement that's out there. So based on all the technical uh evaluation the evaluation matrix I just showed input from the public um the technical advisory committee um is recommending the two-way bikeway with the sidewalk on the one side. So, alternative C and as part is that a part of this um there is a recommendation that once it moves into the design phase of the project that really would try to um preserve as much infrastructure as can be um really trying to hold one curb line if possible that's out there and building off of that. So, really um taking a further look and seeing what can be done to help lower that additional cost um by prever preserving some of the infrastructure that's there. And as I pointed out, we did look at interimm improvements recognizing the full vision there is a higher price tag to it. Recognizing that um that will take time to um design to get the funding for in place. Um so that's further out but there are existing issues and concerns out there today. Um so as part of this we are looking at interimm improvements. Um so for the corridor as a whole um we are looking at doing a rain lane reduction via striping. Um, so this would help with some of the um pedestrian bicycle uh safety concerns that are out there. So we can help tighten up the the roadway, reduce speeds, reduce some of the crossing distances for pedestrians um just via some lowcost um lane reductions via striping. And then also looking at intersections um at Vaness Road, Lindstöm, Yukon, and 102nd um some improvements at the intersection uh via lane reductions, tightening up the roadway um to get some of the benefits that the full vision would have. And really the intent with these is that they could be instructed um in the near term but then they would also would be part of the full vision as well. Um these wouldn't be things that would then have to get ripped out with the full vision. This would be helping work towards what the full vision is. And then in just input from the sustainability and planning commission um they mean they both supported what the project is trying to do here and um planning commission uh recommends the city council to adopt um the recommendation for alternative C as the full vision as the preferred long-term vision here and then the interimm improvements along the corridor and the four intersections that I had just shown on the previous slide. So with that, I know there's a lot of information in your packet as well as what we went through. So happy to take any questions. >> Thank you much, Mr. Culis. Council questions, comments on this. Council member Mu. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, and option C isn't is already in place in sections of Bloomington Ferry Road, correct? like basically the southern part from uh Pioneer Trail about south there is option C already correct in this when you say that you're talking about the ped bike facilities not the roadway correct um that is in place for parts of that and and that's where some of that would be looked to preserve and it really depends on really the timing of the project I mean if it occurs in the next 5 years that might be different than if it occurs in 20 years away. Some of that infrastructure might be okay. Some of it might be then deteriorating. So that's where when we get into the design phase, that's where we'd be looking at saving some of that, recognizing, as you point out, that a very similar cross-section does exist. So that's where we'd be looking to try to maintain as much as possible. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other comments? Council member Nelson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, apologies in advance. Got a few questions. uh Vaness uh intersection. Are there challenges with regards to that? Because to the southwest is commercial. Uh it's got a, you know, a McDonald's, a gas station, a a shopping mall. Um and then to the northeast is residential. Are there different traffic flows? And you know, how does that impact the design of that with regards to that signalized crossings and all of those things? Yeah, Council Member Nelson, good question there. Um, yeah, so we did take a look at all the counts that we have throughout the day. So, we have 13 hours of counts from 6 am to 7 PM. So, really capturing the bulk of, um, traffic that's out there. And when we look at the data, um, we looked at it a couple different ways here. I mean, really not seeing the need for that signal. Um, but we do recognize that that is a wider, it's a larger intersection today. Um so that's where we wouldn't recommend removing that signal um without doing other geometric improvements. So that's why the uh concept that we have here looks at tightening that up um because an always stop control intersection with that many lanes that's out there today it is difficult for drivers to understand who got there first who who should be moving first um as well as pedestrians. So that's where we're not seeing the need for the signal. Um however we want to recommend removing it without doing other items. So that's where the interim improvement is um considering tightening that up and looking at the signal removal. I mean as part signal removal um typically um it's goes through a test period where basically the signal is put into flash bagged where it's in place if it needs to be but test out to see how it would function without that. And that's something that the city would be interested in doing um kind of as a interim pilot test as well. >> Okay. I appreciate that information because my concern had been like a bunch of people are going into McDonald's to get gas. They're coming right off of 169. They're all using that one area to get back out because I don't think the only way to get out there is to go to Vaness and take a left to get back to the freeway and um so that that was my concern. You had a bunch of people rushing through there and uh there. So, um, it was there any consideration with regards to, um, I'm probably going to mispronounce this, but Zenran, because it's very close to Pioneer and Bloomington Ferry, and if there's changes at Pioneer and Bloomington Ferry, does that impact that entrance exit there? >> Yeah, council member, that's a good question. Um, you're referring to with the roundabout concept there, I'm assuming. >> Yeah. Yeah. And if you put a roundabout right there, but then you have an uncontrolled intersection from one direction onto Bloomington Ferry. I I don't know how that works. Like, so >> yeah. Um based on the traffic volumes we're seeing out there, we're not necessarily seeing that there that'd be an issue. Um for moving into the design, there would be consideration of doing a more detailed evaluation, I would say, and seeing if there's any any needs that would trigger something doing something different there. Um but as of right now um what we have shown we feel able to operate acceptably and um there wouldn't be any issues or concern with that. >> Okay. I I appreciate that. It's just yeah usually having intersections very near each other is a complicated matter. Um I got some other questions. Uh let me just jump to the other one. Were there any significantly different options looked at because all of these seem tweaks on themselves and you know we're make it down into one lane put some type of bike pedestrian type you know how far you want to go with that both sides one side shared not shared all of that was there anything radically different looked at because there's there's a a significant amount of rightaway there we already as was mentioned we already have right you know we already have trails sidewalks on both sides, two lanes on both sides, a boulevard. Um, I don't think this works everywhere, and I'm pretty sure I'll get emails tomorrow, but would there be areas that we could, if we did one lane, we did um a path on one side that we could add additional housing and we could, frankly, you said at the beginning that this was designed at a different time. I remember that different time. I remember driving on Bloomington Ferry the bridge to come into Bloomington and taking this road and then I remember when they built the bridge. This is not the same time. Could we convert this to a residential street? Could we add housing? Could we do other things? You talked about green space being important. Could we meet some of our other goals with this and and frankly just radically rethink this road? >> Yeah. Um, good question, Council Member Nelson. Um, so initially we had looked at other um, items such as do we maintain the wide boulevard ultimate based on input um, that we heard from various commissions. We we dismissed that one. Um, and there I think previously that was brought up about the housing about potential to um, use it for housing. I mean ultimately there is a lot of rightaway out there um for a road I would say but in terms of fitting in residential areas we took a look at that and by the time you put in a road and setbacks there really is very I guess limited space in that sense so it's a lot of rightway for a roadway that is over um kind of built but in terms of fitting housing in there didn't really see that as like a real potential to kind of squeeze that in there so that that was considered because I I was either this or planning commission where that comment came up before. >> Okay. Yeah. My suggestion is talk to the people that can change those rules and [snorts] see what they want to do. I It's not everywhere. I mean, I I don't think like some of these areas where you already have residential on both sides. You're not going to just fit some more houses, but there are some where there are park spaces that aren't like, you know, places that people are using a lot. I'm not trying to take out park space necessarily for housing, but I, you know, I am looking for opportunities for for that type of thing and to better utilize because it seems like no matter what we do, we got a ton of rightway and it's underutilized in terms of opportunities here. So, um, I think that for now, that's all I got. Mayor, thank you for the time. >> Thank you, council member. Other comments, questions? >> Council member Dlesandro. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um these uh these recommendations for interim improvements are they uh uh the costs that you indicated to us inclusive of these temporary implement implementations? >> Yes. Um yeah the the overall cost includes um the full vision which would include these inter improvements. So yeah these would be if these are completed before like the full corridor is built um essentially the cost for the full corridor would come down at that point due to constructing these sooner. Okay. Okay. Yeah, that is comprehensive of including these. >> Okay. And these would these are not um they're interimm improvements, meaning they're happening in advance of the overall reconstruction, but they're not temporary in the sense that they would be the permanent way that the streets would be built going forward. >> Um let me they would be they would be constructed nearer term, but they would be constructed in the um like full vision what we would have. Um, so it's they wouldn't be like ripped out and redone at that point. This would be like the permanent condition. They're intermed. Okay. Very good. Thanks. Me, >> council, if there are no further questions other than council member Revis. Council member Revis. >> I'm just wondering if um are there any funds already for this project or have you thought of any ideas where they will be coming from? Miss Marone, >> I'll jump in on that one. Council member Revas. So, I think it's important to remember right now that this is a study. Um, this is just to develop the vision for the corridor. It's not a proposed project at this time. But, um, to your question, we will um look for safety funding opportunities to apply for for some of these interim improvements if this um if this recommendation moves forward and then um the normal PMP program. And then we'll also we're always looking at um roadway roadway funding opportunities. So um there are other regional solicitations and we bring those forward to you every two years. The different projects that we recommend um trying to do funding applications for projects. So we would kind of be on the lookout and include this in our our list of projects. >> Right. Um I I'm aware that there there are large amounts of funding for safety, road safety programs um at the federal government. Um but and I understand the city is it's amazing how the city moves um on procuring federal grants. I I you know when sometimes I'm talking about it because I learned from from a group of people that I belong to at the with the federal go uh federal advocacy group. um sometimes they are they are already applying for grants and so you know that's out there. I know this project is probably a few years up ahead of us. Um uh the only one thing that I would suggest is that we probably try to put more green spaces instead of adding more concrete or asphalt because it requires a lot more maintenance to to do so. Uh other than that, I mean, it's it's ideal, but like uh Council Member Nelson suggested, maybe come up with something new. I know this these are we're seeing this in Richfield and the proposition for Nicollet Avenue also. Uh um it's it's uh you know, it's it looks good. Um, I I just wonder um why it was designed as big as it is um if you never got the traffic that probably was thought of, right? I mean, it's a nice place. It I'm I'm fine if it goes a different way, but I love riding there on my bike that area. It's quiet, no traffic, but you know, everything for progress is good. But yeah, there is money out there. Uh uh the only thing that I would suggest is more green spaces. I know uh it requires higher maintenance if we have asphalt concrete on or concrete on on the sidewalks, right? So, but thank you. Thank you. I just curious. >> Thank you, council member. Council, if there are no further questions, this officially is not a public hearing, but it's a public comment opportunity. So at this time I want to open up our public comment opportunity on item 4.1. This is regarding the recommendations of the Bloomington Ferry Road Corridor Vision Study. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.1 this evening? Please come forward. Did you guys you guys want me to sign in? Okay, >> cool. Um, yeah, I liked a couple of the council members ideas about the green space on the corridor project. So, there's that two-way looks like option C was kind of the picked option from the public. I was wondering if the thought was to bring up because they have the two-way bike lane and the sidewalk on the one side. Have you ever thought about just eliminating it just putting green space on the whole other side? If that makes sense. So if you guys I know it's in the design phase but I just pro green you know just make the other side green and just I brought up sidewalk plowing is a thing is that extra maintenance to plow extra extra asphalt so saving on the asphalt go more green in the project. So that's I got to say thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Phil, others wishing to participate in the public comment opportunity for item 4.1. Priyanka, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak this evening? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anybody in the council chambers. Council, nobody coming forward. I will officially close our public comment opportunity on item 4.1 and look for uh council comment questions or or information on this one and ultimately action. Council member Nelson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I because they weren't here to speak on this. I will tell you that I've received a number of communications on this. I would say predominantly against making changes. Why are you doing that? The road's fine. All of that type of stuff. Uh which is fair. I mean, they're using it and it's working well for them. So, that's good. That's a positive thing. Um, I will also say that simultaneously with that, I hear a lot of people concerned about why do people drive so fast on there? My kids can't cross that road. It's too wide. It's very unsafe. We're trying to get to Countryside Park. That type of thing. I will say that the concerns differ. There's there are three sections to this road. south of Old Shakapi sort of going past Dread Scott, Old Shakapi up to Pioneer Trail and then Pioneer Trail up to 169 and and from talking to people and from my own usage of it, they're very different. And so as we develop this into plans from vision, you know, I just like to make sure that we take into account the differences and the unique nature of those different areas. Um we already have very good uh bike um uh facilities on the southern portion of this. Getting people down into the um the uh river bottoms there um getting out is a little bit more challenging, a little steep. [laughter] So So um not a big deal in my car, but though for those of you on bikes, it's a little tougher. Um and so I just want to make sure we do that. Um, I do appreciate that staff was very clear that major improvements are going to have to be made on this and it is not that we're going to do this preemptively. It is that we know we have to do these major improvements. We'll do them, you know, at a time that makes sense so that because there were a lot of concerns of people that are like, well, why are you going to take out a perfectly good road and redo it? We're like, well, the road has to be taken out and redone at some point. and and so we're timing it to that. I also really appreciate that there are interim um things in there for safety. Uh there have been a number of people that I've spoken to that have had uh near um misses. Um I also know that there is uh one face fatality um somebody crossing over by countryside and and going over to the apartments across the street. Um, and so there there are legitimate safety issues there and and making sure that we address those I think is is absolutely critical. So I'd like to thank staff for this. Um, again, I think the main comment that I heard from most people is it's fine. Don't change it. But I think when you talk with them, the underlying issues are there with regards to speed, safety, crossings, um even the green space and things of that nature, uh that they want to make sure that they have access to. And so, thank you for the good work on this and and look forward to this as it goes more into development and we get more public input on those different projects, which again is is not going to be next year. It's going to be a little bit down the line other than the um immediate safety improvements that we can make cost effectively. >> Thank you, Council Member Nelson. And and a very good point that uh I mean the two very good points that this is it it's it's working well now, but it has changed and and the uses can change with it as well. And uh but I also agree 100% that there's no sense in tearing up good pavement. When it's time to replace this, we can consider this. and the fact that this is a uh uh this is a study not a plan and to be able to look at the different uh unique sections of it and and adopt you know adopt a formal building plan accordingly. So agreed council member Lman >> just a quick question um on the uh I just want to make sure I understand it sounds like this project pretty much pays for itself you know in the in the out years after you kind of get it done. Am I understanding that correctly? I mean, or am I am I >> Mr. Mayor and Council Member Lman? Yeah, we did do the cost estimates for the existing conditions and the future conditions for full reconstruct and then for future overlays. And you're right, under our the way we maintain our roads where we do the reconstruct and then like 20 years later we do an overlay and another um ultimately over the the course of the life it does it does pay for itself or like benefit we come out to a benefit but that's a very long-term vision but I think it's important to be able to see those numbers just as as you're making these decisions >> think in the long term. Now is that also include the sidewalk component of that? Um, so the sidewalk portion is included [snorts] in the estimate. It was a little bit harder. Um, we still because our pavement management program for our sidewalks and trails is a little newer. I don't think we know the full like we didn't include a re reconstruction of the sidewalk. You know, we don't do mill and overlay for that. So, it's a little less detailed on that part. We also then looked at just the routine maintenance and that is a little bit more of a wash as far as um we don't get a huge savings in the amount of like snow removal maintenance and those types of maintenance. Um we're adding more off-road facility, a little bit more off-road facilities. It is uh easier to plow the multi-use trail because they can use a truck with that. So, it kind of is a wash on the reduction of the number of vehicle lanes and adding a multi-use trail. So, >> thank you. >> We got into the weeds. >> You anticipated my my other question. Thank you, >> Council Member Delisandro. >> Uh, thanks. Just really quickly, thank you for bringing this forward. I remember the conversation with Julie Long like two years ago when I was a big fan of of doing this largely for two reasons. One, because getting more green space back is good and reducing the PMP is good. Um, I am, as you know, no big fan of the PMP. So, anytime I can say we didn't spend as much money on roads, I love that. So, um, I'm glad to see it moving in that direction. And thank you for the cost estimates because I think that those are important. Um, I agree. Um, I'm probably leaning a little bit more to to less upfront. Like, I like the 3 million, not the 6 million investment. So, I'm a little bit more in the B camp than the C camp, but I don't think that that's too relevant for today. um other than to say um uh we if we can get um a long-term benefit that says, you know, there's six 1012 million dollars of of of costs were not bearing on this because we've rightsized the road for the for the future. Um and we've given back some green space. I think that's generally really good. Thanks. >> Thank you. Also, if there are no additional questions, I would look for action on item 4.1. >> Council member Delisandro. >> Sure. Happy to make the motion. Um, so I am uh making a motion to adopt the recommendations of the Bloomington Ferry Road Corridor Vision study, including quarter vision preferred concept C with future project design working to preserve existing infrastructure where possible, and two interim safety improvements that include corridor striping changes, intersection control modifications, and crosswalk enhancements. Motion by council member Dallas, second by council member Rivas to adopt the recommendations of the Bloomington Ferry Road Corridor vision study as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. >> Thank you very much. Good work on this. It's good looking study. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> council. As we move to item 4.2, and I'll say this to staff as well. We are already at uh 7:40 and we still have three public hearings and two rather large organizational business items that we have to get through and uh the end of the year is nigh. So uh just so we're clear on that, right? All right. Item 4.2. This is a public hearing regarding the adopt of the uh regarding the American Boulevard transit study and the possibility of adoption of that. Mr. Kirk Roberts is here this evening. Good evening, Mr. Roberts. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the reminder. I'll be quick on this one for sure. Um council, you've been uh you've heard about the study. We've been to the council as this kicked off about midway through as well and then as we wrapped up um a month or so in October, excuse me, u on the results. So I'm just going to run through a highle summary of what we did and why we did it. American Boulevard, uh the main areas that we were focused on are first transit. Uh, American Boulevard with the concentration of jobs, uh, businesses, housing along that corridor has always been a prime area for a bus rapid transit line. The city has always had that in our long-term plans. Um, and so that was our first goal was to to take a look at this. When Metro reviewed it last, they didn't think it was as viable. We disagree. And so that's the primary point to this study is keep those conversations going about how we can implement a bus rapid transit line along the corridor. Second to that, one of the reasons it didn't do well is that the land use is a little less supportive uh than than some of our transit partners would like to see. So, we wanted to look at land use. Is it going the direction the city wants the land use to go out there? It has changed rapidly in recent years and it will continue to change. Do we want to guide that? And then the last part is infrastructure. If you've been on the corridor, you know it's not the the most friendly place for bikes and pedestrians. Um it's a little bit hostile to that. Can we do better on the infrastructure to support transit? Those were the three primary goals. In terms of transit, there were four alternative lines that were considered all starting out at the Mall of America um and then heading west across the city. Of those candidates, two uh did well uh the the and metrotransit's interested in in continuing conversations on those. The first is a transit line from Mall of America over to uh up into Adina uh via France Avenue up into the mall there in Adina. And then the second and um highest ranking line is uh a continuation of Route 4 from Minneapolis. Right now, Route 4 currently comes down and terminates around Penn Avenue and um 82nd Street right in that area with a transit service station. this concept would just extend that line over to the Mall of America and that that did very well. So, we've got two transit lines to talk into the future with. In terms of land use, uh we received a number of recommendations that were canonized in this plan uh just to how to continue to guide development along the entire corridor based on what we're seeing in our special use districts. The next steps on those, we'll put those right into the comprehensive plan as we go into the comprehensive plan update next year. Um, one other thing we looked at is development could occur. How likely is it to occur? It's pretty likely to reoccur. Development is pretty likely to occur along this corridor. So, it's good timing. Um, and then the last thing is the infrastructure that we talked about. We worked with the public extensively to see what they wanted along the corridor, what would help them feel better about using it. transit riders, drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and we developed a future concept for testing as this corridor is reconstructed. So, you've got a transit line, we've got some land use changes to start putting into place next year, and we've got some infrastructure in mind. And the last thing is the timing. Transit, we will hear back from Metro Transit. We're meeting with them in January to talk about their evaluation on the next arterial BRT lines and how these routes look in terms of that and what they're moving forward with next. So, in the meantime, uh we will continue to develop these. We'll also start working with our partner agencies, the city of Adina, Henipin County, seeing what interest they have in these plans. Um land use, the recommendations will go right into the comprehensive plan update starting next year. The council will obviously be very involved in that and that work wraps up in 2028 and the infrastructure is the last part. Um and this is the thing that's going to take the longest. Um as you all know the corridor is very busy right now with the construction taking place on 494. The volumes they vary um they fluctuate but they are significant right now. And so as those projects come online on the 494 and traffic starts to start using the freeway again like we'd like it to do, we'll watch the volumes here and then we can start planning for the specific corridors or the the the way the corridor will look into the future. And that's probably the only uh the contentious part of this study was that cross-section I showed you before. And this is why it's a concept for testing. So when we start when traffic volumes start to moderate along that corridor and we start to know what the future's going to look like um and as we start to line up projects in conjunction with our transit partners um and other folks using the corridor, we'll we'll look at that those new volumes and then we'll decide what parts of this really excellent cross-section can we start incorporating along the corridor. And this is a plan that's going to last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and out into the future. So, we have this as a place to start those conversations. It's a it's a cross-section that's developed in conjunction with the community and what they place the highest priorities on for the corridor. So, with that, we were at the planning commission on November 10th. So, this plan comes with a recommendation of approval from that body. We are here seeking council adoption of the plan. And if there's any questions, I'd be happy to. >> Thank you, Mr. Roberts. I think when we looked at this the first time, I I brought up the fact that we're seeing some proof of concepts for for a number of these uh ideas in the preferred concept for testing, including the dedicated bus lanes and then the separated bike lanes. Do we have any idea how those are working in other areas, specifically here in in the Twin Cities? I know there are they're common across the country. Little different in the Twin Cities when you deal with with snow and with winter and so on. Uh any insights on that? >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, they're being seen more and more um as the area densifies. We see these um frequently and uh they're working well to my knowledge. One thing is the maintenance is easy on them. You can just run that plow right down there. You don't have to have metransit staff come out and maintain those facilities. They can just be picked up and maintained easily. Um the their use uh is becoming more common and so the way that people operate with them is becoming a little more understood too. Um, for instance, in some cases they can act as a right turn lane. Um, and those those laws around that are starting to be articulated and understood more. We do actually have a very short segment of transit only lane on Knox Avenue on the northbound approach to American Boulevard. It's bus only right there. So, we've got a a tiny sliver of that in and hope to see more. >> Thank you, council. Any questions of Mr. Roberts? Council member Mu. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, my question about the bus lanes. Is there any state rules or regulations that we'd have to work through to to get something like this in place? Um, that's my only like question if we're dedicating some a lane to this. >> Mr. Roberts. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Mo. Um, I'm not aware of any specifics. Um, so they' just be enforced and and and regulated as posted on the ground. Yeah. >> Council member Nelson. One quick question. Isn't there already bus transit from Southwest Transit on this corridor? >> Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nelson, there is, and we're happy to see that. So, earlier this year in the fall, uh, Southwest Transit started to implement transit service uh, along parts of the corridor um, and then up into Richfield and all the way over to um, the the airport. That's standard local service. It's not a bus rapid transit line, but yes, there is transit. There's also Metro Transit provides local service along the corridor as well. >> Just one quick followup, >> please. >> In terms of moving forward with this, what what are the costs? What are what happens next if if if we approve this? >> Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nelson. Yeah. Yeah. So, just as outlined in the process going forward, the next steps really are to see what Metro Transit does, where these routes start to fall out in their rankings and how we can partner with them. Uh that's on the transit front. Uh the next um obviously the comprehensive plan is going to be updated um here starting next year and then the infrastructure is large side depending on the direction that council wishes to go in adopting the plan and then obviously what transit decides to do. Then we start programming those infrastructure plans. Uh we start trying to find funding and things like that. So that's five years at a minimum before we start to see any of those things come to fruition uh out into the 20-year process. So it's not an overnight thing. It's a very long-term plan for the future. >> Just for quick clarification at this point, it would be we're working on our comprehensive plan which we're going to work on no matter what. And we're going to work with our partner in transit which we're going to work with no matter what. there is an and then if things come to fruition there may be some things in the future that we need to spend money on and and look at further there are program yeah council member Nelson so as um we start to look at maintenance on the road for instance as we start to develop our maintenance which is ongoing for pavement maintenance then we start to factor in you know what's metro transit doing do we need to start looking at different crosssections of this roadway then we start doing that traffic modeling and developing those projects. Um, yes. So, it's a whole lot of moving parts that have to start once this plan is approved. >> Council member Alesandro, >> thank you. Um, so, um, describe describe as as Council Member Nelson alluded to, there are there are bus routes and their local bus routes on on American Boulevard. Anyway, what distinguishes the Bloomington the the the rapid transit uh function and and what is the what is like the guaranteed rate of transit that we would expect from council in order in exchange for a dedicated lane for buses for example. Um because that's a lot to ask for a city road especially American Boulevard which is kind of busy. I'm all for it but I would like to make sure that they go they give us what we want which is rapid transit. like I'm expecting every 15 minutes I can get on a bus kind of thing. And so I'm just curious what their expectations are and what the SLA is that we get from them in exchange for that um that rideway. >> Yeah. Mayor Busy, Council Member Dellesandro. Yeah. So the um in terms of the the bus rapid transit, the enhancement there is just it's a much higher capacity line in terms of moving the public. It's the the higher frequency service, the limited stops, uh gets people where they're going much faster and so it carries much more traffic than a standard bus line. So, uh you you obviously knew that uh in terms of the dedicated transit lane um that is um in terms of their return when we get a bus rapid transit line in that is a long-term transit route that stays into the future um just like you would with a light rail line um that we have obviously through the South Loop to the Mall of America. And so then we negotiate that use of the public space, the public roadway. um is it worth dedicating a bus rapid transit or a a transit only lane to them um for that? Does it increase their running time? Does it improve their reliability? And so that's part of the negotiations we have with them. So I don't think there's a direct a more direct answer to your question than that. It's a point of negotiation that we go forward with um with our transportation partners. Quick followup if I can. Would would you expect a certain minimum um you know just in your experience and with your expertise would you expect a certain minimum in that area like like every 15 minutes every 20 minutes? I think the the orange line is running every 15 minutes or so right now. So is that in line with what you might expect and and then you know in terms of into the evening and things like that are we talking about extended hours that kind of thing? What are your thoughts? >> Yeah, council member Dellesandro those are good questions. Yeah. So 15 minutes is the standard run time for the bus rapid transit line. I think they varied that a little bit during the pandemic, but that's pretty standard is that 15-inute running time. They also extend the hours um over a local service, so they're running later into the night and as well as the weekends. Sometimes they'll reduce the service frequency on the weekends to maybe a half an hour um like the Orange Line does. Um but yeah, so you get these longer running hours, you get um addition quicker running times, and then you get that extended weekend service, too. So there's a lot of benefits to the public through that. Council, anything else? Council member Rivas, >> just curious, how much has the city invested in this study so far? >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, council member Revas, I'm happy to to forward the uh information on the cost of the study to the city manager if you'd like. >> Yeah, that would be nice to see. Yeah, I I'm just curious. I mean, like there are no guarantees that these buses are going to be coming over there, right? So that all this investment at this point is just being made with the possibility of getting those two lines right. I mean I know that last year there was a big study on the train coming over to the Mall of America on the north side by IKEA and that was all cancelled after a large investment of funds in the study. Um uh you know I'm I'm don't want to sound detrimental here but I mean it's in most cases uh right now as busy as um American Boulevard is it wouldn't support the two lines because there are not enough apartment buildings in that area to to support two lines, you know. So I I just figure a lot of the times we're just making investments without having any returns just because we c we want certain things but it's not that we need them. I mean at this point uh really a lot of the buses in the area when I happen to drive around there are empty almost you know two three people riding them. So, um I I just question what we do at times um because of the fact that there's not a lot of use for it. Uh but you know, maybe in the future, I don't know, hopefully all that area develops the way that the city has planned to and it actually creates the need for this at this point. I mean, at least in my view, in my from from what I perceive of it, there is no need for it. But that's just my thought. Thank you. >> Council member Revel, are you did you want to answer to that or did you have a Yeah, the um it's a common adage that plan beats no plan and Bloomington has always been a leader when it comes to transportation and we do that through our planning work, whether that's the blue line uh that was the first LRT line in the state that came through and into Bloomington or you know our land use plans, the way that we guide development and everything like that. So, I think that's that's the value. Um, and as well, it's our ability to set the vision. What do we want as a community to see for that corridor? Are we happy with the way things are going? Um, are we content, you know, with the the way the public's being served on that transportation? Do we feel like there's a better, higher use of that public space, that public realm, that public transportation? So, I think that's the value in the plans is that it allows us to set the future. It allows us to have those conversations with our transit partners. um requesting additional transit service for the public and and be taken seriously on those the the other agencies understand our intent. I hope that addresses some of your questions. >> Council member Evas, >> it does. I mean, I don't qu I don't question the ability to to explain the purpose of this. So uh what I find very difficult is the fact that in order for the transit to work it has to have the public demand of it and as it is uh everything is in the drawing board right now you know I don't see the beltman blowing up in that area still the area looks the way that it has looked for the last 10 years maybe more I don't see any change in there and we're just trying to force the issue uh from my point of view and again I go back to that plan that they had big plans for the train coming over from the north side going across the river uh towards a mall of America and that all fell apart after millions of dollars in investment planning it uh you know and didn't materialize at all right so that's that's my only worry but I do understand where you're coming from I mean if Bloomington has always been the at the forefront of all these great ideas you know of course I'm Uh, I'm all for that, but at the same time, I do worried about, you know, where do we get the funds to do all this, right? But thank you so much for your explanation. I I really appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, council member. Council, I am going to open the public hearing now. This is a public hearing on item 4.2 regarding the American Boulevard Transit Study. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.2 this evening? Priyanka, >> is there anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone on the phone. >> Last call. Anybody in the chambers? Council, no one on the phone. No one coming forward in the chambers to speak to item 4.2. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.2. >> So moved. >> Got a motion by council member Carter, second by council member Dalisandro to close the public hearing on item 4.2. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. 70 council. Any additional comments, any thoughts on this? Council member uh Lman, >> I know you wanted this to be uh quick because we are running out of time here quickly here. Uh, I'll just say this, uh, you know, certainly, um, uh, I'm very interested in trying to do this plan because there's a dialogue I think that needs to continue to have with the economic impact to this area if we make a reduction and go to, uh, have a bus lane in there, especially with the way that that that 494 serves as a reliever uh, for uh, both 494 and uh, for that whole area. And so I'm just curious what that impact is as we continue to study and have that dialogue with our our neighbors and that type of thing. And the other question I have is around the business access. If we do do that, what does that look like? How is the impact there? So I'm hoping that as we move through this study, we can look at a number of those items. >> Thank you, council member. Any additional comments? If not, council member. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, yeah, I'm interested in this plan, too. Um, I'd rather have a plan than not a plan. Uh, every business unit I've ever run, we always do plans, even if they don't come into anything because moving forward with nothing, uh, doesn't make any sense. And what it looks like today isn't what it looks like tomorrow. And when you look at American Boulevard right now, there's no reason for people to be there. Who wants to go up and down American Boulevard? Nobody. It's a bunch of warehouses. Everything's run down, dilapidated. So, I think we're right. we're due for redevelopment of that area and I'd rather have a plan or considering something to support that redevelopment. Um, and I think this is something that the city has specific control over the um, the example of the train coming on the north side of town that was with the state with multiple counties, multiple cities. We had limited very little control over that. But this is something we have direct control over and so um I'll be supportive of moving forward with something to better understand how this is going to look like in the future, not necessarily today. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Carter. >> I'm ready to make the motion. >> Council member Carter. >> I'd move to adopt the American Boulevard Transit Study. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Carter, second by Council Member Mua to adopt the American Boulevard Transit Study. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed. Motion carries 61 with council member Rivas uh in opposition to the American Boulevard transit study. Thank you very much. We will move on to item 4.3 in our agenda this evening. This is our third public hearing or excuse me our second public hearing. Our third item under item four. Uh this is an ordinance to vacate of public plaza area uh related to the MOA water park extension of a deadline and resolution of summary. Bob Simons is going to make sense of all of this for us. Mr. Simons. >> Good evening Mayor and councel. Well, I will pinch hit on this item tonight and uh hopefully should be fairly quick. Um, as you mentioned, it's a public hearing tonight for the ordinance to vacate the public plaza area over Lindell Lane for the MOA water park, an extension of the deadline and resolution of summary publication. Uh, MOAC Land Holdings had requested to amend the existing ordinance 2024-27, which partially vacates the rightway of Lindell Lane on the plaza area um over Lindell Lane. Um, ex basically extending the effective date. Um, the date was December 31st of 2025. This is extending it to December 31st of 2027. The city will still when this vacation would come into play, the city will still um retain the portion of the public rideway underneath the bridge, basically from the bridge deck down. Um so there won't be any in um impeding of existing traffic. Uh this vacation will not be effective unless prior to December 31st of 2027. the um loan closing for the full financing of the water park project has come through and and also construction of the water park improvements has commenced which may include demolition or excavation. Um so before us tonight are the adoption of ordinance number 202 ordinance 2025 which is modifying the existing ordinance which is basically just extending the deadline um to 2027 and then also with that is a resolution authorizing summary of publication for that amendment to that ordinance and that's that's >> thank you much Mr. assignments. >> Mhm. >> Questions on this council? Pretty straightforward. Just basically extending the deadline a couple of years so we can see this project to fruition possibly. No questions. Council, I will open then the public hearing on item 4.3. Once again, this is a public hearing regarding a an ordinance to vacate the public plaza area related to the MOA water park. Extension of a deadline and resolution of summary. Is anyone in the council chambers will wishing to speak to item 4.3 this evening? Pianca, do we have anyone on the phone here? >> We do not have anyone on the phones. >> One more call for anyone in the chambers. Council, no one in the chambers coming forward. No one on the phone wishing to speak to item 4.3. I would look for a motion to close the public hearing at item 4.3. >> So moved. >> Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Rivas to close the public hearing item 4.3. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. opposed. Motion carries 70. Pretty straightforward. Council, any additional questions on this? If not, I'd look for action. >> Council member Mua. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, move to adopt an ordinance modifying number 2024-27, relating to the partial vacation of Lindal Lane, formerly known as East 81st Street, as dedicated in Airport South Edition, Mall of America, Mall of America fifth edition, and Mall of America 8th edition. according to the records recorded plats thereof of Henipin County, Minnesota. >> Second >> motion by council member Mua, second by council member Carter to adopt the ordinance modifying uh the ordinance uh relating to the partial vacation of Lindell Lane as stated by council member Mua. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. Council member Mua. Summary publication. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I make a motion to adopt resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance ordinance number 2025 amending ordinance number 2024-27. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Carter for summary publication of item 4.3. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 70. Our final public hearing of the evening. This is item 4.4 regarding an ordinance on our boards and commissions. We have with us tonight Eric Hold House and Jackie Don Cab. I never see your name correctly. >> Don Cavage. >> Don Cabbage. Thank you. Don Cabbage. >> Good evening and welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council. Um well, we're here following up on the topic of city council involvement on boards and commissions. We will share a brief background of the engagement and then some recommendations for updates and changes moving forward. I think. Oh, there we go. Okay. So, at the city council meeting on January 6th on the topic of city council involvement on boards and commissions, staff were directed to engage affected parties, gather feedback, and provide options for recommendations for a consistent process and guidelines for city council involvement on boards and commissions. So feedback was collected um over those months following um via the annual boards and commissions member engagement survey, focus conversations with boards and commissions and focus conversation with staff liaison. Then on June 3 uh June 30th, sorry, city council was presented with options for involvement based on engagement findings. recommendations included updates in key areas, including regular touch points for connection and feedback, improvement of two-way sharing of information and priorities, and addressing council representation on boards and commissions. So, we're here today um with recommendations for touch points and communications as well as a request for council action regarding council involvement on boards and commissions. Thank you, Jackie. Uh, good evening, Eric Holt House, community outreach and engagement manager. Uh, mayor, council members, to carry on with the presentation. Thank you for that background and timeline. Um, so this will be an a summary of stakeholder engagement that was mentioned for both boards and commission members and also staff liaison. And the attempt here was to uh find something that could reach a greater level of consistency and experience across boards and commissions. Uh be attentive to people's time uh time and efficiency [snorts] um and include productive uh touch points and dialogue. What we had heard um from board and commission members through the annual survey and this is a brief summary as compared to more detail was shared in June. Uh there was interest in regular touch points and communications with council. Um we received of course as surveys do a decent response rate around 30% a little bit greater that was complemented with a focus conversations with each of the board and commission so we could hear from everybody. And generally speaking what we heard again just a very brief summary here uh folks were seeking clear expectations and requests from council uh to best fulfill their advisory roles. uh and they were interested in creating a consistent feedback loop and communications uh between board and commission members, city council, also city leadership on priorities, what work is meaningful. Uh for staff liaison, these were focused conversations with all staff liaison. Uh there was a desire for clear direction on initiatives. Uh there was interest in more conversation with city council to increase understanding and alignment. And these are just trying to gain here some uh variety of testimony and responses. There's also some interest uh uh some expression that city council representation on boards and commissions can result in an unintended power imbalance. And so actually some of the things I shared earlier I meant to share here but useful nonetheless. Um so reviewing that feedback from board and commission members and staff liaison what we're trying to achieve here operationally um these are recommendations for enhanced connections and alignment uh to achieve that consistency and to achieve uh you know uh efficiency with people's time and to take advantage of many things we already have in place but to hopefully improve them. Uh so communications um there's a board and commission connect newsletter. This is a useful vehicle um for sharing information two ways with board and commission members and city council. Um it was also expressed I believe in a former meeting. Uh we'll keep um making sure that board and commission members are aware perhaps of public projects or events that they could attend um so folks can be in the public and perhaps there can be some touch points with the council there as well. Uh, additionally, um, substantively, it wouldn't just be electronic communications. Of course, we have existing twice annual board and commission connect meetings. Um, and so this would continue, but it would be enhanced as well is the intention here. Um, twice annually board and commission members, city council members, staff liaison, other city leadership is regularly invited and all those individuals would continue to be invited. Uh what we would seek to do here is further clarify the expectation uh for the purpose of council representation that the uh mayor ideally would attend. He typically attends. So that would sort of be asis. Um we get sort of a smattering of attendance from board and commission members and also staff liaison. So we would clarify the expectation uh that at least the chair or vice chair would be there and that staff liaison would be there. Um we would we have typically had we would continue to have connecting activities to get folks to know each other to see what it's like in other commissions or meet with their own commissioners and other individuals in the room. Um [snorts] we would also have conversation around process improvements. The things that we would like to add and make more uh regular would be intentional conversations around work plans, work plan updates and ensure that um BTT or city strategic plan, city's priorities can also be discussed, updates provided, dialogue had. And what this ideally then would accomplish of course is more touch points around work plan and priorities more than just an annual presentation to city council on work plan. So this is what that's trying to achieve. Um also when the so that would be sort of repeated in the spring and the fall twice annual also then in the fall as you'll see here um there would be conversation at that second board and commission connect meeting on what would be expected uh in the work plans. We would also offer the facilitation network here at the city facilitators in that network um uh we'd offer their time to ensure a more consistent and perhaps productive and intentional work planning process and also uh product Um and then in January and February as has been the case of course this touch point would remain. It's part of city code that work plans an annual report comes to city council. So that of course would exist. The additional touch points um many of these exist already. The Bloomington leadership uh program that we have uh it's been annual for some number of years now. Um, this is where uh we always have at least one session with city council members and board commission members to expose Bloomington leadership program cohort members to what the city council is and its members are and how board and commission me uh board and commissions operate. We also regularly we would continue this no doubt city council and board and commission members attend um the [clears throat] selection meetings for applicants and then of course you are selecting you are appointing those members ultimately. >> Back to you Jackie. >> All right. Okay. Um so that brings us to the code amendments being proposed. So I'll just run through these real quickly just for review. So this first one app um well first of all these all apply to boards and commissions established in city code chapter 2 article 5 uh specifically sustainability and creative placemaking. So this first one just removes the reference to city council members regarding um term limits for con uh commissions. This next one is specific to creative placemaking and it removes the reference to a potential council member on the creative placemaking commission. And then this third one is in regards to sustainability commission and changes the number of commissioners from 11 to 9 and removes the reference to one being council member being a seated member of the sustainability commission. So with that, um, this is the motion before you. >> Thank you, council. Questions on this one, Council Member Lman? >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Not really. Uh, oh, wait. We're at the question phase. I'll I'll wait till we get to the conversation part. >> No. Yep. We're the questions right now and then we'll open the public hearing, then we'll get to question or comments. Other questions? Council member Rivas. Um, can you explain the imbalance that a council member being part of a commission uh creates? >> Yeah, sure. It could be um council member Rivos, mayor, councel u this would be the perception of some individuals. So, as we uh sought to create an amount of consistency across boards and commissions, we sought to improve kind of touch points. to get to your question. Um, in the engagement that we did, the feedback that we received, there was a thought that sometimes having a council member, their opinion perhaps carries different weight. I'm just speaking generally on some comments that were provided. Um, so it's just sort of a different variety of position that the individual holds, I think, is generally what it's trying to speak to. >> I'm sorry to say, but it still doesn't clarify my question. I mean if if if it's just a perception or is it a reality though? I mean, I I haven't been part of any commission, so I can't really tell you how I, you know, the rest of the my fellow members of the council uh behave or react in there or what opinions they have on it. But I just question the the the fact I mean I hate to say it but everyone sitting here has been elected by the public and I will have a real hard time u you know aligning with this request because of the fact that I believe that everyone sitting here has the right to belong to these commissions or or um what is it called? Um uh yeah uh but anyway so you see my point. I just have a hard time you know accepting that even though I haven't belonged to one and I don't really you know I think about it but I don't really see the necessity for me to be part of it. I'm I get busy enough with other stuff but but I I have a hard time you know accepting that after all everybody has been elected by the public and I think each they should have the right to participate in these boards and commissions. >> Sure. And thank you for clarifying that question as well and I would just go back kind of the the original charge that we had was to find out an opportunity for consistency across boards and commissions. And so in seeking to find what that consistency could look like, the questions were posed. Would you prefer to see uh you know enhanced touch points? Would you prefer to see you know liaons on council liaison on [snorts] uh boards and commissions or would you prefer to see no representation? And so in you know those were offered and a variety of also qualitative responses were provided. And so in that sort of voting process, uh, folks suggested having no seats on city council generally and that idea of power imbalance may have just been a some small number of people. So there a lot of other comments that were provided as well that generally pointed in that direction. So I I don't have further kind of evidence behind. Sure. >> Revis. >> Um, another question I have for you is is quick. Uh what is the purpose of of not having service limit limits? Um you know what I take from that is that you can serve 20 years in one commission or board. Um 30 years or 40 like we had in a case with the port authority, somebody being there for 40 plus years. I mean I I find that you know making a career of being part of a board or a commission. It's I just find it difficult. You want new people. Of course longevity creates consistency to a certain degree but at the same time being perennially in a commission or a board. I don't see that as a, you know, as a positive thing. There are new ideas, good ideas from other people that might I add something positive to a board or a commission. Uh, you know, that would be good to have term limits that a certain time, you know, it's time for the members that have been there for a long time to go and give the opportunity to somebody else to be part of it. At least that's my opinion. But could you just answer that question? What's behind that? >> U different boards. So, thank you, Council Member Rivas. And council, would you like to >> I was just going to click back to it. I maybe um worded that one. So, are the this 2.72 um so there are service limits. There are term limits for everything with the exception of board and board of review. So, but there are term limits for the others. Um, this just eliminates the mention of members of city council serving on a border commission because it was part of that um 2.72. >> Yes. Council member, you got to turn your mic on if you're going to talk. >> I'm I'm pro term limits. That's any anywhere. It's it just uh to me I think it's is the best way to to do everything. But that's just my opinion, I guess. But thank you. Thank you for your for your time and your explanation. I appreciate it. >> Council member Dellesando, questions or >> No, just um point of clarification. So, if if you read the whole service limit section, if I understand it correctly, there are a six-year term limit for every member of the board of commission except for the board of review or for the city council. And all we're doing here is removing the city council reference on that section. So, in other words, boarding comm boards and commissions have a six-year term limit today and they'll still have that uh when we're done today. Is that correct? Okay, great. Thanks. >> That's correct. Thank you for the clarification, Council Member. Any other questions, council? All right, let's open our final public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing uh on item 4.4 regarding an ordinance regarding our boards and commissions. Is there anyone in the audience here in the council chambers wishing to speak to it in 4.4 this evening? >> Priyanka, do we have anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone on the phone. >> Last chance for anybody in the council chambers. Council, no one coming forward. No one on the phone. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.4. >> So moved. Second. >> Motion by council member Lman. Second by council member Mua to close the public hearing item 4.4. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. 70. Closing the public hearing. Council, now comments, thoughts on this one. Council member Lman. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, uh, after nine years of service on the sustainability commission, it's time to retire, and I sent that notice out today. I'm happy about that. Uh, time to take on new opportunities, uh, with the city. Uh and certainly uh I've had my uh my opinions about about this here and uh uh certainly happy that those folks who are surveyed in the uh in the sustainability commission uh liked uh having a council member there and they they mentioned that in their in their survey and and indicated that. So I I I appreciate that. I don't want to relitigate uh this this issue before this uh uh council today. Uh you know I can clearly see where the where the where the winds are going with this this whole thing here. But one thing I you know you know one of the things I campaigned on uh is this idea of Bloomington's future built together. And one of the thoughts that I I wanted to kind of bring to this council and wanted to have us uh consider as an amendment to this is to uh refer this uh and these items you know I won't change the passing of it today but also uh send this on as an additional amendment to the charter commission to do some of the cleanup and the clarification uh that I had uh had asked uh along this whole process here. I don't want to hold this up. I I can see where this is going today. Um but uh you know I continue to have questions about that and there's some other sections and other parts of the charter that I I think really are part of this and I'd like to see another group that's maybe a little more tasked with that kind of look at these things and kind of uh align some of these things. And so um um I have I've listed all those concerns and the city manager has those concerns and I've also forwarded those things on to the the mayor. And with that, I you know, certainly, um, you know, not a big supporter of this, but I'll certainly, uh, you know, with that amendment, I can, I could see myself supporting this, moving this forward. Uh, so, [snorts] Miss Mander, I will ask you, is the is the correct tact here, is it to include it somewhere in the ordinance, or is it uh to pass the ordinance and then make a a a council statement asking the uh uh charter commission to take a look at this and clean this up as necessary? >> Uh, excuse me, [clears throat] mayor members. Uh, there's one provision in the city charter 2.02 2 that addresses boards and commissions. Um the bulk of all of the language related to boards and commissions is in the city code. Uh the charter commission is meeting uh to systematically work through the city charter starting in January. So, if there's a specific provision um that would be of interest, I'd welcome a conversation with uh Council Member Lman um or and anyone else about anything that would they would be interested in me bringing to the chair um to include in that discussion. >> Council L. Is that clear? is that uh um it it's not necessarily related or tied into the ordinance, but it would be a discussion and a request to ask the uh the charter commission to take this up >> because that'd be a separate separate thing. >> Yeah. Mayor member, sorry to clarify, there's I wouldn't recommend or find it necessary to add any language to the motion uh on the ordinance tonight. You could separately direct me to follow up. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is that does that need to be a council action or to do that or I mean >> mayor members if you want to certainly can but it's not necessary I hear you and I I'll just give you a call. >> Okay. All right. Sounds good. >> Council additional comments questions on this. Council member Mua. >> Thank you mayor. Um no I appreciate the the work the staff has done for this. I think when I started in council, this was one of the biggest things that I campaigned about and talked about because from the commission members that I spoke to, the um the ability to work and interact with council was very limited. They only showed up here once a year and so I think this goes a long way to help our relationship with boards and commissions. I believe strongly that um council's presence on those boards and commissions has undue influence on those. We have decided up here that the work that we're asking our commissions to do is more than we can handle. Like we would spend our whole time here if we did all the work that all our boards and commissions did. And so I think it is prudent upon us to make sure that they can do their work and come back to us on a regular basis to report and tell us this is the work that you've tasked us with. This is what we've come up with. And so I think this is a right step in that direction. But I'd be happy to make a motion if anyone uh doesn't have any more comments. >> Stand by. Council member Mua. I'll look down the table here and see if there's anyone else wishing to comment on this. >> All right. Council member Mo. >> Mayor to mic. >> Uh I'd move to adopt an ordinance uh amending chapter two of the city code related to the city boards and commissions. Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Dellesandro to um approve the ordinance amending chapter two of the city code related to city boards and commissions. Any further council discussion on this? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> I. >> Motion carries 52 with council members Revas and Lman in opposition. Council member Mua. Summary publication, please. Hey, mayor. I move to adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance amending chapter 2 of the city code related to city boards and commissions. >> Second >> motion by council member Mua, second by council member Carter for summary publication on item 4.4. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed. >> Name. [snorts] 52. >> Opposed to summary publication. >> Yeah. Motion carries 52 uh for summary publication of item 4.4. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We will move on in our business to our organizational business. Item 5.1. Uh this is an order uh or this is a an item to order and authorize to bid Harrison Park Trail Head and Veterans Memorial Plaza Improvement Project and the NM Creek Corridor Renewal Tree Removal Project. And we have Mr. Simons and Renee Clark back again this evening. Good evening. Welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor City Council. Um, as you stated, Mayor, uh, we're here to order and authorize the Harrison Park um, trail head and Veterans Memorial Plaza and the tree removal project. We are nearing the end of the design phase in the construction document process. We will be here the end of January with doing the same with the full project where you'll see a full project presentation. If you recall a year ago, we were here making some critical design decisions at the concept level where um council directed staff with guidance from the public to maintain trails as pedestrian only as well as um gave staff direction on ADA access points at Harrison Park and um Moyer Park. um staff were here last in September where we gave you a full project presentation of the 60% plans reviewing the natural resources scope, trails, bridges, and Moyer park improvements. And again, you'll hear those final details at the end of January. >> All right, I'll give a little bit of information on the contracts that we're splitting apart for this NM Creek corridor project. The first two of which are the two that we are here to order and authorize to bid tonight. The winter tree removal being the first one. We're looking to bid that here in January with an award in early February. Uh it's the tree removal that's necessary for the infrastructure improvements and access for the larger projects. So locations of bridge removal, locations where we're improving ADA access at Moyer and Harrison Park, um things of that sort. And the reason we're bringing this earlier is because um this needs to be completed before April 15th due to some environmental regulations for the longear bat for the tree clearing. So we'll be looking to get started here by late February with that project and finishing by April 15th. Then the Harrison Park trail head and Veterans Memorial Plaza improvements. Um the Veterans Memorial piece. Well, first of all, we're looking to bid this in January as well. Mid to late January and award it at late February and then move forward with the project to be opening by November 11th of 2026 is the goal. So that's another reason why this project has broke out to come earlier. Um it includes the Veterans Memorial Plaza that which we've looked at locations at Civic Plaza. Now we're very excited about the location at Harrison Park. It looks like it's going to fit very well. And then we also have parking lot improvements um at the Harrison Park trail head and then storm water management items with landscaping and rainwater gardens and things of that sort that would be associated with the NM Creek project but work well with with this Veterans Memorial project as well. the few other contracts or um um contracts that will be coming with you to you at the end of January as Renee mentioned the larger quarter infrastructure and creek improvements project and you see the timelines that we'd be looking for bidding and and awarding that that includes the large project the trails the bridges the creek repairs boardwalk um Moyer Park itself anticipating construction in spring of 27 through the summer or spring of 26 through the summer of 27 and then we have our upland and natural resources uh project which will we're hoping to follow the same timeline is that corridor infrastructure project, but that'll be a longer um contract, a five-year contract for the activities in the establishment period, and that's more of the upland restoration piece, um natural resource preservation, invasive species management, things of that sort. And then looking to come back at a later date with additional wavefinding. We'll be including wayfinding with these projects, but we've heard a lot from the public aboutformational signage along the corridor. So, we'd be looking to come back with another project for that when once major construction is moving along in 26 and 27. Harrison Park Trail Hut and Vest Memorial. Um, nothing's really changed since we came in September for an update. Still looking at the location on the south of south side of the existing Harrison Parking lot. Um, I know the Bloomington Remembrance Veterans folks are very excited that this is to the point it is that we're looking to move forward with bidding and move towards construction. [snorts] In regards to construction costs for the two projects that we're bringing tonight, the winter tree removal, the estimated construction estimates about 190,000 and that's funded through the Bloomington local option sales tax dollars. And then with the Harrison trail head and vest memorial plaza improvements, vest memorial um plaza improvements 750,000 funded through a deed grant uh Bloomington remembers veterans funds and city funds that have been allocated for this project as it's moved through the different possible locations. And then we also have the Harrison Park trail head which is part of the NM Creek corridor project initially but being done since it's in this location with the Veterans Plaza and funded through Bloomington sales tax and storm water utility for a total construction cost estimate of just over one and a half million. So as Renee mentioned for our timeline we're here tonight to order and authorize the tree removal and the Harrison and Vets projects. Um, we'll be going to Park and Sustainability Commission for either memos or updates to them for these larger projects, coming back at the end of January to city council for the corridor improvements and upland restoration piece. And as we mentioned, we'll be looking to bid and award and move forward with the winter tree removal and construction here starting up in April. And with that, we have the two requested actions for this evening. >> Thank you so much. Uh, thank you for the information. The one thing I would request, we we know how folks react to tree removal. Mhm. >> So, as we get into that, I I would appreciate as much uh communication as possible through all our social channels, through our publications and so on, and maybe even for some temporary signage out there where the trees are coming down so people understand what's happening and why because I I can guarantee we'll have folks upset about uh the trees coming down there. That would be my only request. Council, other thoughts, questions on this one? Very good. Uh excited to get this moving. So, uh council, I would look for action on item 5.1. >> Council member Mu. >> Thank you, mayor. Happy to do that. Really happy to see the the vets park get going. Really excited for that. I know it's been a long time coming. So, I'd move to um adopt uh to authorize and bid Harrison Park trail head and veterans memorial plaza improvement project and nine mile creek corridor renewal tree removal project. >> Second. Motion by council member Mu, second by council member Carter to order and authorize to bid the Harrison Park trail head and Veterans Memorial Plaza improvement project and NineM Creek corridor renewal tree removal project. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 70. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> And finally tonight, item 5.2. This is a uh an item a resolution to revise our compensation plan for full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary non-union employees for the city of Bloomington. We have with us tonight uh Elizabeth Tolson, our deputy city manager, and I think Steven Barrett is here as well. >> Good morning, mayor and city council members. I'm here to present our good morning >> uh continuation of our compensation plan that we presented two weeks ago. Uh as mentioned, I have deputy finance officer Kari Carlson and our HR manager Steve Barrett here with me tonight. Uh just want to start off by explaining more about what a compensation study is. Um it provides data-driven guidance to help an organization design or update a compensation plan uh to ensure that's fair, competitive, compliant, and financially sustainable. Um this has been a year-long process that we've worked on. Um and we um Baker Tilly, who's the company that we work with, um what they did was they took every single position here at the city. They analyzed the job description. They looked at internal equity factors in terms of pay. Um they looked at market factors, our peers in the market to ensure that we were market competitive as well. They did a market analysis. They reviewed pay structures across other peer cities and counties and public sectors. And then they provided city leadership with an overall recommendation. Um it should be noted that the last compensation study was done in 2019 um at the city and it is common in the public sector to have these studies done every 3 to seven years primarily to maintain uh market competitiveness and to track and retain a talented workforce. Um I would note that the previous city leadership authorized this comp uh study to be done um before uh many of our leaders started here um and we also incorporated this as part of our budget strategy that we worked on this past year as well. So, some of the key highlights from that compensation plan is here are some of the peer cities um that they compared um as well as uh Dakota County and Met Council. Um of the 18 cities in Minnesota that has a population of 50,000 or more, nearly 70% or just 67% of these cities do have a step-based uh system based on years of service rather than performance. Um it was noted that um our market analysis is generally we found um the city of Bloomington was either at or above market. Um but our minimums and our midpoints were slightly below. Um I would note that in an informal survey that we did of our peer cities, many cities are actually doing higher colas um and steps just to be market competitive um as well. Um I would also note that we have uh eight labor unions here at the city and over half of our um employees are represented. They include our public safety, our dispatchers, clerical, technical, civilian jailers. And it should be noted that contracts are negotiated um agreements um and they negotiate terms and conditions in their employment including wages, benefits, steps, working conditions and so forth. And when we negotiate with our unions, we strive to treat all our employees equitably regardless of their union status um ensuring that they have comparable benefits and structures um while valing um the right to negotiate as well um amongst our labor systems. Um so just doing a side-by-side comparison between our current comp plan and the one that we are proposing. So as it stands uh based on the comp plan uh that we've adopted in 2019, we have two separate plans. Here we're proposing one single plan for ease of u access, readability, and transparency. Um under the current plan, we had six steps plus a discretionary performance range that went up to the maximum range. Here we're proposing nine steps in each pay grade up to a maximum. Um our current plan has 3% increments in between steps. Here we are proposing 4% between the steps. Um council decides what our cola um stands for cost of living adjustment. And here are just some data on past COLA that the council has approved in the past. Here we are proposing a lower cola um 2%. Um and then we're also uh moving um step increases based on employees anniversary date um as opposed to those in the performance range. their effective date was at the beginning of the year. Um, so it was a whole year of increases versus being um, at their anniversary date. Um, in our current plan, if you kind of average it out, I know the assumption is just do the math 3 plus 3 or 4 plus two. Um, but when we did a financial analysis of all these options of um, higher steps, lower cola and and all these other financial scenarios and so it's not just a straight up adding the math. We actually found that a 3% colon and 3% step increase, there's just an average effective increase of 5%. Whereas the proposed plan um is actually just slightly over 4%. So in essence, it actually costs um or actually saves the city um roughly around a million dollars um or proposed plan compared to the current one that we have right now. I would also note that the proposed plan was embedded in the 6.96% levy that the council approved last week as well. So again, this was part of our budget strategy um and personnel costs that we took into consideration throughout the year. Um these are just key highlights of the proposed compensation plan. Obviously addressing just inequities of the current structure. Um remaining competitive in the job market, fair and transparent wage progression. Um when somebody gets a job offer, it's not like just pick a number. It's like we're offering a step one or two or three. So allows for transparency um in making job offers as well. Um it also helps us um predict better budget um projections. Um and it just has improved long-term financial sustainability as well. There's a question asked of where the anniversary rates of our employees and so we kind of outlined where our full-time, part-time, and our temp and seasonals um surprisingly we found that there it kind of equals by quarter um about the amount of employees um that are get their step increases on their anniversary dates. And so this data point shows that Uh one thing we want to highlight is compensation is also about uh organizational culture and employee retention. As many of you all know we've been through lots of transitions this past year and one of our goals um earlier this year was to maintain uh morale and stabilize the organization. Um as you know leadership transitions and turnover can create organizational angst um and impact morale and culture and uh there is a cost to turnover in an organization as well. Um research shows that's 33% of a person's salary. So if you're having constant turnover, constantly backfill, losing institutional knowledge without good succession planning, um there's also an impact to our culture um as well. So that's taken into consideration. Um so it's not just compensation, it's also our organizational culture or morale as well. And then there's a question around performance management. Um, I would like to clarify and be clear that the city of Bloom does have a performance management system. Um, we have an annual performance evaluation. Um, but performance is just not managed. It's managed throughout the year, not just at the anniversary date. Um, we have feedback, coaching, training development, employee conversations. We have things such as PIPS, performance improvement plans, um, succession partnership plans that identify specific areas for immediate improvement. um city leaders, we actually meet monthly um to address any performance issues or things that we're seeing that are impacting performance or behavior in the organization. Um and I would also note that um compensation is a property right of our employees and so our employment rules um um ensure that they have due process and by having in-house legal counsel we also are able to mitigate employment actions and liabilities as well. Um and then so finally um you know there's an ask of how do we manage personnel costs? So as mentioned the city council approves our cola um each year but personnel costs can be managed in other ways um especially through FTE management alignment and reallocation which we've done um and through our priority based budgeting that we've done this year through attrition and also timing of vacancy as well. Um, as asked by city council, we are currently reviewing our crude benefits and trying to mitigate uh long-term liabilities to better align with a more modern and flexible workforce. And lastly, I would note that we have other levers to work um throughout the year. Um, but doing so just requires communication, engaging our employees, um, organizational change management, um, working with our unions as well, and also compliance with our employment rules and personnel policies. And so before us is we have a requested action um and a resolution. And I would want to note um because there were lots of feedback from residents of asking if they can have an opportunity to comment on on this process. I would note that historically our compensation plans have been on consent items and so this is I don't know this is the first time we've had this on organization development. It was primarily for transparency. Um, but I did double check because a question was asked. Um, and it's my understanding that our charter does not require public comment for resolutions. Um, so I just wanted to make that note and if there's other questions we can certainly address that as well. And with that I would stand for any questions. >> Thank you very much and uh thanks for the work on this. So you mentioned uh in one of your first slides that uh this was last update the last compensation study was done at the city in 2019 and so in addition to being at its due date basically the world of work has changed significantly since 2019. Can you can you talk at all about how this compensation study addresses that and some of those post-pandemic work realities? >> Yeah, thank you mayor council members. I note a few things. Um I can't remember the timing but at one time uh public sector compensation was limited by the salary uh the governor's salary when that was changed. I can't remember what year it was. It really exploded um um the talent and the competitiveness of recruiting talent of leaders across the city. And so you saw lots of movement in the public sector between county, state, city and so forth. So that's one huge change that's happened in the last I believe five or six years. um to I think the pandemic in our world also um change the changing workforce. Um we're seeing people wanting more flexibility. Um we're seeing people uh move um to other states, counties, cities that allow for more flexible and um benefits um as well. And so we're also seeing just changes in that. Um and we're also seeing cities compete for talent um and retention. Um, we're not seeing employees stay 10, 20, 30, 40 years as more. We're seeing more turnover and change in the public sector as well. Thank you. Council questions. Not not a one. You >> Oh, questions or comments? Of course. I mean, yeah, we're Yeah, questions or comments. My bad. Council member Carter and then Council Member Nelson. Um, I did I do just want to take a moment to thank staff for all of the work that you've put into this. I know you said it's been like a year-long process and I also appreciate the time you took to sit with each of us to answer questions. Um, I think it was pretty apparent that most of us didn't totally understand um the compensation plans for non-union employees in the city. And I'm one of them. I don't think we've ever gotten kind of a foundational, at least in my time on council, we haven't gotten like a foundational overview on how um this works. And and I understand that uh this system, this step system is very um it's kind of a traditional pay system in city governments or any kind of government. Um I think it's harder for people who are in the private sector, nonprofits, whatever to kind of wrap your head around how it all works. Um but again, thank you for sitting with me so that I could try to wrap my head around it. Um, and you know, one thing I guess I just want to kind of point out is that, um, one thing that does make, uh, the city or government different is the kind of factor of the labor unions and how they negotiate their contracts, um, and how they're set up and then how we then need to be, like you've mentioned a couple times, fair and equitable with non-union staff. And these kind of systems help us do that. Um, and so, um, as much as I still kind of disagree fundamentally, I think performance should be tied to pay, I understand that that's just not the the system that we have, but that we still have performance um, performance reviews and planning and um, and it sounds like very robust and I know in conversations with you that uh, I I'm not going to go into details, but I feel confident that um, that performance is addressed adequately. So with that um although I have started I started off with concerns um I will be supporting this plan uh and I also I think the other piece for me that um really kind of solidified my support is that this plan saves us money. It saves the city money. Um and that was my biggest question the last time too was just like what's the modeling? How do we know that? And so I appreciate you sharing that information. Um, and the the reality is is if we don't approve this, um, we will have to find a million dollars worth of items to cut in our budget. And we know how hard it was to just get where we were. And so to try to find another million seems uh nearly impossible at this point without um some significant uh costs, not in dollars, but in other things, services and things that we do for the community. So that's where I'm at. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Carter. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Um I mean, we're here on December 22nd and um for me, this is a difficult conversation. Um because I truly value the work of our staff. They're fantastic. They help me understand things that um you know, I didn't previously know. They take care and serve our community. They're they're great, you know, and and uh to a person that I've interacted with in this city. I have never seen one that has been here because they're getting a raise every year or anything of that nature. They're here because they have a passion for what they do. Whether that be, you know, in the police or fire public safety areas, whether that be in public works, whether that be in, you know, uh just uh community service to the community development. They're great people. I still struggle with this compensation plan. Um the idea that you would essentially guarantee people four plus percent raise every year. I just struggle to get my head around it. [snorts] I do appreciate uh council member Carver's comment that this saves us money in the next year in comparison to the other plan. And so I I would be willing to support this today for 2026. Uh, this came up kind of late in our budget cycle and I would like to revisit it in the first or second quarter in more detail. I would prefer not to revisit it in excruciating detail at 8:46 p.m. on December 22nd. Um, I think this is in our budget. It's it's it's good for us for this year. Um, but I don't want to revisit it in three years and four years and seven years. I want to revisit it next year. uh when we can really kind of think through these understand them you know as an example I have a question I mean sure almost 70% use this type of system [snorts] 30% don't what are they doing how does it work you know what does it cost them um because ultimately candidly if you have a 4 to 6% increase in labor and labor is our biggest cost every year it's financially unsustainable for the community over time um and and that's my biggest concern. So, it's people should be paid fairly. People should be rewarded for exceptional work. I agree with all that. And that that's what I'd like to talk about is how to find a system that does that. >> Thank you, Council Member. Other thoughts? Uh, Council Member Muan, then Council Member Dellesandre. Council member Mua. >> Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the the comments of my fellow council members. I agree with you. I think anyone who uh has a team and has to hire knows the challenges of that. Um it is really hard and uh turnover has a big big cost impact. Um and I think also for just residents, they see us introduce a lot of employees here and we've held headcount steady for the last three years. And so the people who are being introduced here at city council meetings are backfills. They're not new headcount. So I want to make that that point as well is that we are seeing the active attrition happening every single day when we introduce new employees uh here at city hall. Um my message to staff u is the message that the mayor has all the time. The expectation is that when you come here you have to deliver a high level of service. And I feel a lot more confident after we had our conversations around our performance reviews and how we go through that process u to make sure that these aren't just quoteunquote automatic like you have to perform to get these. Um and so that's my message to staff is that this is not a place that you come and you relax because you get these automatic raises. If you don't perform, you're not going to be working here in Bloomington because we expect the best out of our staff. Um, and lastly, I have no interest in adding a million dollars back to this budget. And so, I think this is the the first step in moving in a direction that is different from what we've had traditionally. And that's helped me wrap my head around it because I am I come from the corporate world. That's what I'm used to. That's what I know. That's what I do with my team. Um, and I appreciate the comments from Council Member Nelson about bringing this back to continue to work on this so we can bring uh a better system to our residents and to our city staff so they know what to expect so that it aligns more with expectations. Um, so I I I see where this is going and I appreciate the work that staff is doing. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Dlesandro. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll add two points here. Um, first off, very comfortable having the conversation again and in 2026. That's fine. We can approve it for tonight if that's what people want to do and then we can talk about it. I don't have a problem with that. I think um I think there's two aspects of of um uh um the work that this that that our staff does that I think is worth noting and considering. One is um as as noted by many of the studies that we did today, these are these folks these are multi-year endeavors that these people take on. It is important to actually have that consistency to do the kind of work that we do. Um if I had turnover like I had in retail when I worked at Best Buy, for example, burning through people, right, and cost quarter overquarter profits and all that kind of stuff, I would not, you know, I wouldn't be able to do this kind of work where we have somebody like, you know, Mr. Roberts, for example, who has been working on that, you know, American Boulevard study since before 2023. I know that to be true cuz I looked it up. I don't know exactly how long ago, but I think 2013 might have been a number at some or a date at some point. So, like that consistency does help us. It helps us because turnover costs more. It costs more money to replace an employee than to maintain one. It it's true in the private sector as well. And so, I I do think that's a worthy consideration. And again, not necessarily suggesting that this is the right answer. I'm very happy to revisit it, but I think it's an inconsideration we haven't really talked about as a council in how and why plans are different potentially here than they might be in a in a private sector realm. Um, the second thing I'll say too, um, is that I like the idea that, um, we are transparent to the community with what we pay people and what they can expect that to be. Now, you're right. There's some challenges associated with uh with sustainability if if our levy is at 4% every year guaranteed, you know, it it it kind of sort of was anyway, but if it is anyhow, um and you can't do anything new in terms of investments without adding more to the levy, that puts us in a bit of a constraint. And so, it's worth us taking a look at that. However, um knowing knowing what we're going to pay people and knowing what that budget will be will provide a very nice baseline for us to be able to make different decisions, including potentially, you know, getting rid of certain staff if that's what we want to do because we don't want that program anymore or whatever. But we will know exactly what it is we'll be spending or saving if we do that. And I think that transparency is good for the public uh in a in a in a city. Um as opposed to I can promise you it takes a lot to get private data about what we're what people are paying people in the private sector. I can guarantee you that my my my my salary is not known. Uh but my salary as a city council member is known. Um and that's also a difference that we have to consider here. So so I'll support it and I'm very happy to to have it come back. I don't have a problem with it being a short-term approval here. Thanks, >> Council Member Rivas. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for providing all this extra information that we requested last time. Um, I I also have a hard time and I do echo the comments from uh Council Member Nelson. Um it's very difficult to to comprehend this but at the same time after all the comments and all the answers that were um the questions that were answered while we sat down you know oneonone uh it has helped mitigate u you know the difficulty in accepting this but at the same time we do have a a a great city staff that deserves to get paid properly. Um it's just the timing that makes it difficult. Um you know the more you talk to people in the public uh out there, the residents, the more you get concerned about it. Um but at the same time um I I do like the idea that we can visit this next next year early in the year. Um um you know and go through it in more detail and and find ways to somehow mitigate the impact that it has on the residents. Um, but you know, that said, I'll I'll be behind it. I I don't want to, again, like most of us agree, we don't want to add a million dollars to the existing budget already. It makes it very difficult to to to accept that. But it would be nice to discuss it again next year, and I'm trying to find ways to to make it um more viable, I guess, if that is possible at all. But thank you so very much for providing this information. I I know that some of the public uh it's divided out there but uh some of the people that I have spoken to once they have saw more of the information that was provided for them they were a little more accepting about it. So you know that said if we try if we're going to discuss this next year let's try to do it early so there's more time for us to you know try to evaluate the whole thing but you know that it said I'll be behind it. Thank you, council member. Council member Lman, >> I'll be brief. It's pretty much all been said. I've kind of lay it out this way. Pay me now or pay someone else more later on. Um I appreciate the fact that we've uh really taken a a first step forward to resolve the current uh fair recognition of performance uh across our it's taken us a long time to get to this point. It's a first step and I'm looking forward to that conversation in the future. hope we don't go backwards uh on that. And so I hope we stay stay firm with this idea of of of equity across that we we talked about in our values and that type of thing. So with that being said, I'm not sure if everyone's had a chance to say anything. Mayor, um I'm happy to move this unless there's other people want to comment on this. >> I think we've all had a bite at the apple. Council member Lman. Mayor, I'll go ahead and move to adopt a resolution uh for the new 2026 compensation plan for full-time, part-time, and seasonal and temporary non union employees for the city of Bloomington. >> Second >> motion by council member Lman, second by council member Mua. Council discussion, council member Nelson. >> Yeah, mayor. Is it possible to either amend this or would it just be staff direction that we talk about it next year? >> I think staff direction appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Any other council questions on this? We have a motion and a second on item 5.2. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. Thank you much and thanks for the work that you put into this and I know it was uh not a small task. >> Our final item this year on our council agenda council is uh council issues and up uh issue updates. I will start with our listening session. Earlier this evening, uh we had three folks talk, Chad Dolly, Andrew Thu, and Julian Bigger. And uh they they did talk regarding the compensation plan, and they brought up their their opposition to it for a variety of good reasons. And uh so while this uh we we didn't have a public hearing or a public comment period uh available within the council's meeting tonight, we did have an opportunity to hear feedback on this on this compensation plan. And um uh and then Mr. Dr. Thu also had some concerns about a data request he submitted and I think it was a matter of uh maybe lost in the inbox or maybe somewhere in the junk file. Uh but it was responded to and we'll uh try and make sure that we get the information into your hands. So uh and that was our last city council listening session for this evening or for this week for this year. Uh Mr. Walker, anything to add tonight? >> Uh Mr. Mayor, I'll just add to the council's comments from earlier on behalf of our staff. Thank you, Council Member Mua, for your service to the city, both in your elected capacity and your um service on our boards and commissions uh that you've participated in. And as you and I have discussed, I'm sure we'll see you down the road. Council, anything additional? It's time to adjourn, but council, I want to wish everybody uh a blessed holiday season and a happy new year as we go into the new year. and thank you all for a a productive and interesting and well done year up here on the council. Uh Deas, you you did we have all done a very good job, I think, and and I appreciate the work that you put into it. And I will look down in this way and say the same thing to staff and say thank you very much for your work this year. It's been a a big year, a busy year, and I know we've even got a bigger and busier year coming up next year. So, thank you so very much. Well done. With that, council, I would entertain a motion to adjourn 2025. So moved. [laughter] >> We've got a motion and a second to adjurnn tonight. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you all for joining us this evening. Have a good rest of the holiday season. We'll see you in 2026. [music]