Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Good evening everyone and welcome. I will call this regular business meeting of the Bloom City Council to order. Tonight is Monday, February 2nd, 2026th. Thank you for everyone uh joining us here this evening. Thanks for everybody joining us online. Apologies for starting a little bit late. We had a listening session that went very long tonight and so um we're getting a little a late start tonight. So I appreciate it. We will start as we always do. If you're able, if you could please stand, remove any head covering and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Once again, welcome. And once again, apologies. I hate a meeting that starts late. I'm I'm that guy and I apologize that doesn't happen, but we just happened to do it this evening and I apologize for that. Our uh first order of business is to approve tonight's agenda. Uh on our agenda this evening, we have nothing under our introductory business council, but we do under our consent business have 11 items. Council member Lman has our consent agenda tonight. Under item four, hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. We have two resolutions and three public hearings. Item 4.1 is a resolution awarding the sale of general obligation sales tax revenue bonds series 2026A. Item 4.2 2 is a resolution awarding the sale of general obligation capital improvement bonds series 2026B. Our first public hearing of the evening is item 4.3 that is regarding a city code amendment and that's on com commercial vehicles in residential districts. Item 4.4 another public hearing on another code amendment the city officials height limit map and height standards and item 4.5 another code amendment for art incentives for private development. Uh we have nothing. That's all we have under item five under or item four, excuse me. Item five under organizational business. We don't have anything there. And uh we will wrap up as we always do with our council policy and issue update. And what I think I'd like to do, council, uh I know that we we just listened. We just had an hour plus of a of a listening session. And what I'd like to do is just plan on as we wrap up the evening, why don't everybody gets a couple minutes just kind of download and you can download publicly. Why don't we do that? We'll just start on one end and come right on down and uh just everybody get your thoughts together and we'll plan on it. But we will have the shot clock running because you're only going to get a couple minutes and we'll we'll make sure that we can move it along. So uh unless there are any changes or edits to that, I would move that as tonight's agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second by Council Member Dolesandro to accept tonight's agenda as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70 and we have an agenda. As I said, nothing under introductory. So, we go to consent business. Council member Lman with our consent agenda tonight. >> Uh so, Mayor, I have uh 3.11 uh that's being held uh u uh are there any other items that uh anybody else would want to hold? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and move 3.1 through 310. Motion by council member Lman, second by council member Dalisandro to accept tonight's council uh consent agenda item 3.1 through 3.10. No further council discussion on this. >> All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. 3.11. >> Um and that was held uh by my my colleague um uh Miss Robertson. >> Council member Robertson. >> Uh thank you, Council Member Lman. I just um would like to note uh Mayor that I need to abstain from voting on item 3.11. >> All right. With that being said, mayor, I'd be happy to make the motion. >> Council member Lman. >> Mayor, I'll move um having been able to make the required findings, I move to approve a major revision to final development plans to reduce parking requirements at 8101 34th Avenue South to allow for a retail tenant subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. >> Second >> motion by council member Lman, second by council member Carter to accept item 3.11 in tonight's consent agenda. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed and abstension. So, uh, passes 6 with council member Robertson abstaining on item 3.11. Thank you, Council Member Lman. Well done. We will move on in our agenda to item four, our hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. Item 4.1, a resolution awarding the sale of a general obligation sales tax revenue bond series 2026A. Our CEO Lori Economy Shoulder is here to join us this evening. >> Um >> CFO, excuse me. I gave you a promotion there, didn't I? >> Yes. >> Temporary few seconds. >> And Priyanka is going to be pulling up the slide deck. >> Here we go. >> Yes, it is. So, these bonds um mayor and council are for the 9 mile creek corridor project um and it is the final um bond sale for the $155 million of sales tax. So, all the sales tax bonds are issued and um we'll receive the um proceeds from this in approximately 30 days on um March 3rd. And so with that, um, we, um, had the council authorize the bonds for this project on December 8th. Um, we had the credit rating call and you have a little bit of information on the credit rating, um, in the packet and then, um, sold today and then the proceeds will be coming in on our timelines. Uh, we had to ask Baker Tilly to update our information on those that have three AAA's. uh two more cities were added. So now it is 36 municipal governments out of 19,000 that have the three AAA's. So we've had um three AAA's since 2004. So some highlights from the credit rating report. Um the city has strong and stable financial performance, available reserves, um and a robust and prudent approach to financial management. Um and that financial management encompasses all the city and the council actions on where they look at um activities for us. This is just some information on our sales tax. Um you will see that the first period of April of 2024 um is the very first column and that is our least amount um and that was just over a million dollars. And so, um, so long as we can continue to to stay, um, I would say right in that million one or above, um, we should not have a problem with the debt service over the 20-year period for these bonds. And hopefully we we'll be able to accumulate enough reserves to, um, call these a couple years ahead. information on the bond sale that went out in the public um with Baker Tilly um and both um Elizabeth Bergman and from Baker Tilly and Julie Edington from QC Rock are on the call should you need or have any questions for them. We had anticipated premium on the bonds so we would need to issue the full 20 million. Um so what we went out in the market this morning at is 19 million7. Um it's a 20-year term. Uh the sales tax are going to pay the debt service on these bonds. Uh the final amount was 18,265,000 because we received um over a million8 in premium versus what we had anticipated. So we were able to um take the premium off the bonds amount. So we have at le a smaller amount outstanding. Um we also had a tremendous amount of interest in our bonds this morning. We had 16 biders. Um we have not seen this before and on both of these issues we had 16 biders. And just to give you a little bit of information on how tight the sales were, um the winning bid for RBC was at a 3.883. The next bidder 3.889, a 0.006 and it's the same differential on the other one. So we had a lot of interest, a lot of sharpened pens this morning. Um, so the true interest cost on this is a 3.38. Um, and the project will receive the $20 million. >> And before you is the motion. Thank you. It's exciting to hear the interest in in that type of uh sale and and I think it speaks volumes to the work that Bloomington is doing and the reputation that Bloomington takes into the market when this happens. So, it's good to hear. Council, any questions of Miss Economy Scher? Council member Dallas. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, uh, congrats. That's great. Um, you must I have to say they probably do like a little dance, right? I hope that you guys like get excited about it like we do when we get to see this stuff. Um, the the um I mean obviously right on the dovetales of the big conversation we just had as a community, I I don't know about you all, but I am anticipating that we will see some kind of tax receipt impact associated with what's going on here. What what is our margin in terms I know you mentioned 1.1 millionish along the way and we probably could maybe u retire that debt a little early. What kind of what kind of systems do we have in place to to um to what I guess what kind of wiggle room do we have against that 20 years on tax receipts if they don't come come in as we are anticipating right now? Um, I would say right now our debt service, we have a level debt service that was anticipated at 12 and a half million a year. Um, so long as we're receiving that million dollars a year, um, pretty much the million41 every single period, um, we should be just fine. So, anything above that is going to be accumulated. It will earn interest and it will be able to pay the debt off faster. >> Great. That's helpful. Thanks. >> Other questions? Council member Lman, >> just a real quick question on the motion here. Uh, I know some differences between what we've got printed here in this motion and what's on the screen here. I see that in the original before the aggregate is is is missing on this one on the screen here and then fixing their form. Does that matter at all? What I would con what I would suggest is the the motion that's in the packet that you have on the sheet in front of you as opposed to in the on the screen in front of you and it's written in there or it should be written in there. It's right in front of us. the 18,265,000 is the the total that would be filling in that space. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> Yeah, that makes total sense. Yeah, just just there's a little difference there. >> Y understood. >> Any other questions, council? >> If not, council, I would look for action on item 4.1. Council member Del. >> Make the motion, Mr. Mayor. Uh, okay. I [clears throat] move to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of general general obligation sales tax revenue bonds series 2026A in the original aggregate principal amount of 18,265,000 fixing their form and specifications and providing for the execution and delivery thereof and security therefore >> motion by council member Disandro second by council member Rivas to authorize the issuance of general obligation sales tax revenue bond series 20 26A as specified. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. >> Well done. And we will move right into item 4.2. This is a second resolution. This is a resolution awarding the sale of general obligation capital improvement bond series 2026B. Miss Academy shoulder. >> Mayor and councel. This is for the fleet garage. Um and this is actually for the um construction of the fleet garage. Um, last fall you issued a smaller amount of just over $3 million for the land purchase. Um, and council maybe um, recall back in 2003 is when you purchased that land. Um, and I'll just make a comment that um, this item has been in the CIP for well over 10 years for a fleet garage. So, um, it's kind of coming into fruition, but it took time and it took, um, the ability of council to let us um, move this forward and have a little bit of a debt levy for these type of projects. So, um thankful for that type of activity. Again, um the council authorized the bonds back in November. We needed because it's a CIP bond, it needed a 30-day reverse referendum period. So, that um went through um we had the credit rating call the bond sale today and then the proceeds will come in. And again, um the project is looking for um the 25 million75 and um it is out there for 20 years and again we had 16 biders. UNMB is um the lowest bidder and they really sharpened their pencil and again it was um 0.00006 between the two biders. So um very sharp and pencils a lot of interest for these 16 biders. So very thankful for the results today and the uh the motion is before the council. >> Thank you. Council questions, comments? Council member Alesandro. >> Uh one other question for you on this one because this is property tax related. So obviously when we passed the 2026 budget and the CIP in general, we had a number in mind. That number came in lower today. How does that positively impact the potential um debt service obligation we would have for let's say next year's tax >> mayor? Would it all go forward? Like would it be the full >> whatever the what was estimated for 27 will be reduced to what is actual for this bond. So it >> the whole of it >> um I mean there is probably a3 to4 million reduction. So um that will be the actual debt service of that is a calculation. I can get that and then um >> well mostly I my my question was mostly will it will it let's say let's use the $3 million number you gave if it's a $3 million adjustment is that all in one year or does that get that does that get papered across the 10-year like across the 20-year period >> the 20-year period the full 20-year period okay that's very helpful thank you [clears throat] >> other questions comments >> I think the only thing the only comment that I would offer I know as we as as we look at some of our debt load there there's a question and there's conversation about wants versus needs and I I understand that and that's certainly a question that needs to come forward anytime we're uh looking at an expenditure like this. I think anybody who took the uh this took staff up on the offer, I think it was last fall or or last spring, I can't remember when it was to do the tour of uh of facilities in need shows that this is this is a need uh based on the amount of space that they have. Uh the the ability to service our larger trucks which are grow outgrowing the uh the current garage significantly. just the ability to be able to keep our capital equipment in good operating condition and extending the life of those of those vehicles and and equipment and basically everything with a motor that runs I think goes through there in terms of uh the maintenance garage. So, uh it's a legitimate question to wonder about that, but I do think this this qualifies as a need in terms of what we're looking at in terms of our our facilities here in the city. And mayor, I would add, we'll probably do another tour on the future items that are coming. >> Very good. >> This summer, >> it's always good to put eyes on things. And >> council, unless there are further questions or conversation, I would look for action on item 4. >> I'll make the motion. Mr. Mayor, >> council member Dellesandro. I move to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of general obligation capital improvement plan bond series 2026B in the original aggregate principal amount of 23,895,000 fixing their form and specification directing their execution and delivery and providing for their payment. >> Motion by council member Dalisandre, second by council member Robertson to uh approve the award of the sale of general obligation capital improvement bond plans series 2026b as stated. Any further council discussion on this hearing? None. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. 70. Thank you, Miss Economy Scher. Well done. Uh, thank you for the good news. We'll move to item 4.3. This is our per first public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing regarding city code amendments, the commercial vehicles, and residential districts. And we have with us tonight Derley Navaro from our planning staff. Good evening and welcome. >> Good evening, council members and mayor. Um my name is Zelina Navaro and I will be presenting the commercial vehicles in residential districts. Um tonight for the agenda we have the project overview, the purpose, why the goals, the project timeline, study sessions feedback and current code and proposed changes. Um so the gasoning code limits what type of motor vehicles and trailers may be parked or store in residential areas. Over the past several years, staff have seen an increase in enforcement cases as vehicle size and designs have changed. Uh many residents relying on work vehicles for small businesses, trade work or deliveries. And the current code can be difficult to understand or doesn't match the type of vehicles that residents use. And this project is about finding that balance between flexibility for residents and protection of residential neighborhoods. Um, for this project, staff conducted both in-person and online community engagement, including tableabling at the Bloomington Pride event and Lesto Bloomington page. Planning staff met internally with environmental health, public works, police, and legal staff to understand enforcement challenges and concerns. Then a staff presented the project as a study item to both the planning commission and city council. And based on the study sessions feedback, staff drafted an ordinance and held two staff meetings with the same internal group of staff to review the proposed changes. In addition, I participated in a field trip with environmental health program coordinator to look at commercial vehicles and trailers that are being currently used by residents in Bloomington. And the planning commission held a public hearing in December and recommended approval um to the city council through community engagement planning commission and city council study sess study session. Several themes came up. Support for greater greater flexibility for work related vehicles. Maintain neighborhood character and safety. Clarify how attachments are measured. Address safety near driveways and intersections. And reflect the community out input. As I mentioned ear earlier, I went on a field trip with American mental health to look at the motor vehicles and trailers that are currently currently being used by residents. I'm not able to share those photos for private reasons, but I was able to find similar vehicles here at Civic Plaza and our fleet department. Um, most used motor vehicles do not exceed 12 feet in height and 22 feet in length, confirming the vehicle size research that staff presented during this the study sessions. Under the current code, vehicles are divided into two types based on sa on size and use. So we have type one, type two and type three. Type one vehicles are up to 8 feet in height and 22 feet in length. Type two vehicles include taxis, limousines, and is not plow equipped vehicles that meet the same size as type one. And then we have type three vehicles that are exceeding those size limits or are classified as non-residential and are prohibited. A staff is proposing to remove vehicle types and replace them with one clear size standard. The proposed change increases the height limit to 12 feet and keeps the existing 22 feet in length. Based on community engagement results, um resident supported out allowing vehicles such as taxes, cargo vans, food trucks, vehicles with attached equipment, limos, and buses. By and by using just one size standard and increasing the height limit to 12 feet, the ordinance can accommodate most most motor vehicles that are being used by residents and better reflect uh the community feedback that we received for um motor vehicles with attach equipment. A staff proposes measuring only the vehicle itself. During the staff review, we found that regulating attachment will be difficult to enforce and it will create unnecessary challenges for trace people who relied on work um equ work work vehicles equipment. [snorts] So the current code uh prohibits type three vehicles which exceed 8 ft in height and 22 feet in length. And the code also includes a list of mo a list of motor vehicles and heavy equipment that are classify as non-residential. So a staff is proposing to prohibit motor vehicles over 12 feet in height and 22 feet in length and keeping the list of heavy commercial machinery and equipment as prohibited unless the equipment is actively being used in a uh construction project in a residential property. These photos on the right side of the screen represent the type of motor vehicles that will remain prohibited under the proposed changes. [snorts] And for trailers in 2024, environmental health health had approximately 280 enforcement cases related to oversized uh motor vehicles and trailers. Of those cases, 141 were related to oversized trailers alone. >> [snorts] >> Um, under the current code, trailers are limited to six feet in height and 8 feet and 6 in in length. [snorts] And during our field trip, a staff was able to identify most common trailers currently used by residents which are showing shown in the pictures on the right side of the screen. Um, these trailers are approximately 6 to 8 feet in height and 20 feet in length. And this shows that current trailer size limits do not reflect community needs and helps explain the increase on enforcement cases. Um to address this issue, a staff is proposing to increase the trailer size to 12 feet in height and 22 feet in length and that is consistent with the proposed commercial vehicle size standards. [snorts] So recreational vehicles are not part of this this project but it is important to understand what is currently allowed uh under that ordinance. There are two type of recreational vehicles class one and class two and it just depends on the size. Uh we also have a storage or parking requirements on the rear side or front yards depending on the class the cla the class of recreational vehicles and this also applies to trailers for recreational um vehicles. In general, recreational vehicles um are are allowed up to 40 feet in length and yep just to be parked and stores in residential districts. Um during our community engagement, we heard the frustration from residents who cannot park a mo a much smaller vehicle or trailer, but then we have larger vehicles um like recre recreational vehicles that are allowed. Um so many of the complaints received by our mental environmental health were not about the present the presence of a motorb trailer but about the current code that doesn't reflect the standard size um that are currently used by residents today. [snorts] Uh for the maximum quantity, the current code allows you to park or store in a residential property four motor vehicles plus one trailer plus two trailers for recreational vehicles, either class one or class two. Or you can park three motor vehicles plus one type two plus one trailer plus two trailers um class one or class two. For the proposed changes, we are um we're proposing four motor vehicles plus two trailers of any type. So either commercial or recreational, class one or class two or three [snorts] motor vehicles plus one commercial vehicles and two trailers of any type. So the current code allows three three trailers in total. The proposed change changes are um allowing two trailers of any type in total. Under the current code, location requirements applies apply only to trailers and based on safety feedback. Staff is proposing to prohibit commercial vehicles and trailers from parking on public streets uh within the rideway, sidewalks or in clear view triangles. Um, so this means that commercial vehicles and trailers must be parked on a legal driveway or approve of dry parking area and any part of the trailer hitch or load extending into the sidewalk or boulevard will be in violation. Awareness of a potential violation can occur through a complaint from a public or through our proactive enforcement activities. And the Americans with Disability Act also requires that unobstructed sidewalk width of 5T. So we um are maintaining the set by requirements of at least five feet five feet from any lot line and maintaining a minimum of 30 feet from any light line at a street. Um so for cross reserence and code align alignments the goal is to create a consistent standard. Um so residents and environmental health inspectors are not trying to navigate conflicting rules across the different sections of the code. Um so for recreational vehicle allowances we're not changing anything broadly. Instead in instead staff is aligning the size limits to motor vehicles and trailer standards and uh we are proposing to increase the height from 11 ft to 12 ft and decrease the length from 25 ft to 22 feet. Uh please keep in mind that these changes would would only apply for recreational vehicles park or store in the front or side yards at Bodina Street. Recreational vehicles over 22 feet in length and 20 22 feet in length and 12 feet in height will still be allowed to park on the rear or the side not a body in a street according to the recreational uh vehicle ordinance requirement uh for exterior storage. The proposed change removes confusion and aligns the ordinance to heavy machinery or equipment to be stored when there is an active construction project on a residential property. >> [snorts] >> And with that, uh, that concludes my presentation and I'm able to answer any questions that you you have. And I just want to say that we did receive correspondence from two residents that are not able to provide their testimony tonight. And I will hand this over to you um, before the public hearing period. >> Thank you so much. Council questions for Ms. Marvel. Council member Alesandro. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I don't know if you have the answer to this, and maybe it's more of a question to the city staff as a whole, but I I don't necessarily um I mean, I think these are all great uh and they're fine. I understand the them in the same way that we're accommodating a bigger garage. We need to accommodate big bigger vehicles. The whole world has changed in those areas and I get that. I'm just I'm not a 100% sure I understand how we are what are the mechanism of enforcement that are how are they changing to accommodate this because what I can tell you is that and we've heard from some of our residents in fact that enforcement is really hard. Um I mean I I can tell you just as a personal anecdote from down in my neighborhood that um we have somebody who has for two years just not complied. And we're not taking we're not we're not like taking the vehicles away like we're not impounding their vehicles or doing anything that like is a in my opinion an escalation of enforcement with non-compliance. And so I guess my question and I don't again don't mean to put you on the spot to try to answer this is how do we make it I'm not a fan of having laws in the book that can't be enforced. I'm just trying to understand how we're actually going to escalate the enforcement towards compliance here if that's what our goal is because otherwise we're just putting environmental health in a predicament to have to talk to the same people over and over and over again about stuff. >> Mhm. >> And it's I don't know it's kind of a waste of everybody's time at that point. Uh so I I mean again I no and I don't yeah this probably isn't the place for that discussion but I do think that's a worthwhile discussion because you can certainly envision a spot where your neighbor uh if if that neighbor over two years has been fined I bet those fines are less than what it would cost to store those vehicles somewhere else. And so there's no incentive to get it done. And so, uh, we might want to we might want to consider that conversation as we move forward as we look at all this then. Yes. Take that secondary look as to how do we make sure that we give our staff the tools they need to enforce this new ordinance that we're considering. >> Yeah. And I I know that we talked about this in the fall and I I you know, I I'm not a huge fan of passing a change to the ordinance without the effective like enforcement function associated with it. um if that's what we're doing here, I just would would want us to do it and and make sure we bring that back fairly quickly then. >> Yeah. But I I mean, if we don't have the answers, then I understand that. I just it's a it's an open question in my mind. Um >> Yeah. >> And I didn't see in the environmental health responses that, you know, was brought in the presentation or in the materials that there was any positive or negative associated with that. >> Yeah. And and I don't know that we have the right people here to answer those questions. I mean, I would ask either Miss Mandershide or Mr. Johnson, if uh you can shed some light on this. >> Uh mayor, members, um there are some um property owners, and I'm I'm not suggesting that the one you're speaking of is specifically that that this is going on. Um it's happy to do some research, but um there are some property owners that make a decision to pay the citations on a regular basis and continue to stay in violation. Um that is just a choice that some people make. um or they don't pay it and then we bring it to you later in the year and you assess it to the property um after a public hearing. Um the ordinance does um allow our ordinances violations of city code are misdemeanors, criminal misdemeanors. Um so there are some places in the United States that criminally prosecute. Um that has not been widely practiced in Minnesota for a while. Um because it also doesn't bring about compliance. um you have a then you just create um homeowners that have criminal misdemeanor on their record. So um it is a vexing challenge. Um and I will say um relatedly that this particular matter that's before you tonight is one of the most common um set of circumstances that come to the city attorney's office uh for administrative hearing. And so we've been working um to highlight that um with community development over the last year. And we're excited to have this um before you all tonight as a hopefully an opportunity to um find a a more of a match for what the community is needing and wanting and um and where the citations are happening. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor, it does make sense. I'm I'm fine. Like I said, I'm fine and I understand that we need to accommodate a change in the policy because the machines themselves have been adjusted accord and I get that and that will help with some of the compliance issues. We're probably bothering people for compliance that you know it's not really their fault. That's just the way things are made now. So, I get that part of it. >> I'm just kind of confused about >> what was our goal, right? Is our goal compliance? And if our goal is compliance, then and I'm not suggesting we criminalize this. That's not my point. But, you know, impound the vehicle. Like, I don't know like what we you know, I there's there's or if we're never going to get to compliance, then I just wonder if if it matters that we put the rules on the books. That's what I'm trying. Maybe we uh we instruct staff to bring this back as a study item sometime in the near future to to at least learn more about it because yes, maybe this will simplify and clear things up to an extent that it's it's more manageable or to to learn why they don't impound vehicles. I don't know. >> It's it's fair it's fair to ask that we let this ride for a little bit and then bring back what the current situation is. I understand that part. So that's fair. Yeah. Thanks. >> All right, Council Member Revis. >> Just a quick comment. I thought that this the intention of this um potential um ordinance was to help business owners, not to u deal with compliance. But correct me if I'm wrong. I think uh the whole purpose of this was to help uh business owners deal with their they have equipment that they can't afford to be paying to store it away because they occasionally park it for a couple of days and then they have to use it. Uh so I as far as I remember it wasn't about compliance. It was about helping business owners to deal with the uh avoiding getting citations in regards to the equipment being stored in their driveways. >> And and I think that's what we heard from the presentation. That's what the goal of this is. Council member Dallas brought up the the question and we'll look at it at a in a future in a future study meeting. But what we're talking about tonight, yes, is whether or not these these changes do help with uh assist folks who have large vehicles or larger vehicles parked outside their house. >> Thank you, Council Member Nelson. >> Yep. Thank you, Mayor. Two quick questions. Um, if I'm understanding correctly, the number of motor vehicles that people can have is unchanged because I know that's a continuing problem that we have that we have families with five drivers, six drivers that have cars parked, you know, uh, there. This did not look into that issue. We just left it at least as it is proposed unchanged at this point. Is that accurate, >> mayor? Um, council members, yes, that is correct. We couldn't really look into changing the number of vehicles that are um parked in a residential property with this project. However, if that's something that the city council desires to change in a future, you could direct staff to do that and uh we could um add it to a future um study session or the the planning work plan. >> Thank you. That was a very good answer. Um my second question is you reduce the length of RVs and and the only reason I bring this up is a couple of my colleagues may remember that we we had a couple discussions about RVs over the course of like maybe like a month or two. So, and but there was a very specific reason we came up with that link. I remember someone had done a ton of research on this and came up with this and then we had actually somebody after that that came in and said, "Well, mine's 24 foot 6 in and it's a standard issue thing." And then I think we decided like, okay, at some point we just got to draw the line here. So, I'm concerned about reducing that to 22 given the amount of work we did originally. >> Council member Carter, thoughts on that? >> Thank you, Mayor. I uh I echo >> and and can we maybe maybe we should hold off if we just ask questions here and we we hold this. This sounds like discussion. >> I guess a question I had had was why did we choose to go with 22 feet? Why don't we just say 25 feet for maximum size for >> commercial vehicles? >> So, similar. Yeah. Mayor, council member. So, um, based on the research and the community feedback, um, staff is just recommended 22 feet for commercial vehicles and trailers. Um, yeah, just based on the research and the the the photos that I show, we measure the the commercial vehicles that are com commonly most used by residents and they do not exceed 22 feet in height. So, it didn't make sense for us to allow 22 25 feet um in length, sorry, 22 feet in length if um we don't need it. Um it made more sense to reduce the RB um section and that that is just for the front and sideyards at But Street. Um in your research, did you also measure RVs? I assume not because most people probably don't have their RVs out. >> We did not. >> Okay. Um, yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Other comments, questions here, council, before we get into the uh the public hearing and then we can have our discussion. >> Mr. Johnson, looks like he's got something to say. >> Hi, Mayor. If I may just add a little bit of context to that, and one of the uh nuances of our RV ordinance is that RVs on a trailer constitute an RV. So in effect, what we were experiencing is that some residents uh who had trailers, larger trailers that didn't meet our standards would sometimes put a recreational vehicle on them so that they in effect became recreational vehicles per our regulations. So there was a lot of gamesmanship or kind of uh going back and forth between the various regulations depending on what was advantageous for them. And so I definitely I was part of that previous group that worked on that with Glenn Maragard and I do remember those numbers. Um, I do want to emphasize what Derley said that uh you're still allowed to have RVs of that size. They just can't be stored more than 8 feet in front of the dwelling. So, in a lot of residential settings, there should be some options for them. Um, I don't want to dismiss that concern. Um, but in effect, we had to build alignment between the two policies because the RV ordinance uh calls trailers out as RVs. So, the standard has to be the same uh in effect for in the front yard. >> Does that make sense? >> Okay. Yeah. Mhm. Sorry, Council Member Lman. >> Um could you just talk a little bit about um maybe I didn't read this correctly, so just, you know, I'm getting older and my reading isn't as good as it used to be. Uh the the trailer component and how it interacts, you know, with those the car count in the driveway. Could you talk a little bit about that? [snorts] Mayor, council member, are you talking about the proposed changes and the the number that it's right here in the screen or >> Yeah, because my understanding was if you had a trailer, you know, if you had a trailer plus a vehicle that that interacted somehow with this count, this vehicle count in your driveway. And I just want to be sure that I'm crystal clear in terms of how my understanding is how that works. So, uh, we're proposing four motor vehicles and two trailers of any type. So, it could be either a commercial trailer and a recreational trailer, or it could be two commercial trailers, or um, it could be two recreational, so class one and class two. Or it could be three motor vehicles, one commercial vehicle, and two trailers of any type. Again, it could be two commercial trailers, one commercial, one recreational, or two recreational, class one or class two. Does it is does that answer your question or >> Yeah. And just And so it doesn't matter how many how big your your your driveway is, you have a right to put all of that on your driveway. Right. >> Correct. But um the caveat is that trailers and commercial vehicles have to be parked or stored within a driveway or a legal um of dry parking area. >> Okay. Thank you. I just want to be sure that I was really crystal clear about what what that could mean because that could mean it could be other parts, you know. So, thank you. >> Council, any additional questions? Council member Nelson. Sorry, mayor. Just quick, I was appreciate council member Lman brought this up because I just noticed something that I hadn't noticed before and that's on me, but the current code allows four motor vehicles, one trailer and two trailers for recreational vehicles. [snorts] And so the new one is you still got the same vehicles, but you can have two. So we're basically making it more restrictive. Mayor, council members, >> you're increasing the size and and I appreciate all that. I think the biggest thing for me, and I'll just be honest, was the commercial vehicle, just getting that defined as a vehicle >> and adding it to the four and then at some point maybe looking at the four. I, you know, I wasn't necessarily looking I mean, and I'll be honest, I I own a small business. My small business is in construction. If you should be able to find a place to keep your business trailers and things like that. What I wanted is the trades person to be able to drive to their house. Sorry, I not asking questions anymore. >> Yeah, now we're now we're into discussion, but I appreciate that. Why don't we uh why don't we go to the public hearing and then we can have this conversation as we get to the other side of the public hearing. How about that, gang? All right. >> Thank you, Miss Navaro. >> Yes, I will hand the >> Perfect. Thank you. So with that, council, this is a public hearing, our first public hearing of the evening. It's a public hearing regarding our city code amendments, commercial vehicles and residential districts. It's item 4.3. Is there anyone in the council chambers who wishes to speak to item 4.3 this evening? Please come forward. As you come forward, I'll just give the a quick rundown on our uh how we handle public hearings. Um, first of all, if you could identify yourself, tell us who you are and and then sign in as well. Uh, we do have a fiveminute limit and you'll have the shot clock be able to keep track of you and I'll cut you off at the end of five minutes. And what we'll do if uh there are a series of questions, we won't try to answer questions on the fly. What we'll do is answer the questions once we get to the end of the public hearing. It just makes it a little bit cleaner, a little easier to answer the questions. So, >> thank you. >> Very good. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council members. Uh, my name is Roman Costeno, 14-year uh, Bloomington resident, taxpayer, and recently a small business owner. [clears throat] I'm here to respectfully request that the city allow um the storage of work vehicles and some equipment at my home. Um for example like my to toable um boom lift which I use for tree service my my business. [clears throat] Um recently I received a a notice from Bloomington inspector stating that the boomlift has to be moved off the property and so which forced me to move it and store it at my uh relative's house over in Burnsville. >> [cough and clears throat] >> To be clear, these were not uh nuisance complaints. Um, in fact, I never had issues with my neighbors over my equipment. My neighbors are my clients. Um, I've done work for for many of them and they love my work and we have a great relationship. Um, like many small business owners, my vehicles and equipment are essential tools that allow me to earn a living. I maintain my equipment and my property in in good order. I'm not asking for anything disruptive, just a reasonable accommodation to operate my small business from where I live. Small businesses like mine contribute directly to local economy. Um, I regularly spend quite a bit of money filling up all the gas, all the fuel tanks between the vehicles, equipment. Um, quite a bit of tires. I go to repair shops, auto parts stores, dealerships. Um, those are just, you know, to name a few. Um, so the the money are staying here in our community. Off-site storage is not really affordable or practical for me. If I am required to store my vehicles and equipment elsewhere um away from my home, it would add significant cost and inconvenience and would probably force me to relocate just like I did with my boom lift to a nearby city um which has more reasonable regulations. Honestly, that's not what I want to do. I want to stay in the city. My kids are in the schools um in in Bloomington and so I want to live here and continue contributing to the to the community. So my goal is is to ask council and um to consider a balanced approach that support supports hardworking residents and small business owners. Thank you so much. And I'm sorry I'm I'm very nervous because it's first time I speak in front of you guys. >> You did a great job. Thank you. Can can I ask a quick question? So based on the the the recommendations that the staff is bringing forward, would this benefit you in terms of your small business and parking at your home? >> So if we switch to 22 feet and I'm not sure if that was only for uh um recreational. So, my boom lift is 22 and a half. >> If that cuts me off by six inches, you know, I'm not in compliance again. >> Um, and I, if I may give a little bit more um information on what kind of boom lift I'm talking about, it's it's like a trailer. It has a a thong that hooks up to a hitch to a vehicle. And so, it's just like a trailer, two wheels. It's not self-propelled. It's not that big. It's, you know, it's it doesn't look bad. Um, and so I personally don't see a problem with keeping it on my driveway. Like I said, never had issues with any of my neighbors. Um, all right. Any more questions? >> That will do it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you much. >> Do I have to sign this up? >> If you could, please, just so we we know who is talking to us tonight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to the city council on this topic? Priyanka, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anybody in the council chambers. Council, no one coming forward. No one on the phone wishing to speak to item 4.3. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on a public so moved. >> Item 4.3. >> Second. Oh, motion by motion by council member Lman, second by council member Carter. I didn't hear you make the motion, council member. So, so quick and efficient. Uh, >> no further discussion on closing the public hearing on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. >> So, thoughts on this? Uh, first of all, I will say to staff, the pictures with the the measurements on on city vehicles is very helpful. I mean, I don't know about you folks, but to, you know, to be able to to envision it and because I know most of those vehicles from seeing them around town and and seeing them in the parking lot here. So, that's been that's very helpful to try and get a better understanding. Uh I I think the the conversations that we've been having for a long time trying to figure out that balance between how to help uh folks who want to park their recreational vehicles, folks who want to park their their work vehicles or whatever, balance their need with the fact that neighbors are going to have to look at this. And we all know that's the case as well. And that's the flip side of it. And to try and thread that needle, uh, it's more art than science, I think. Whether it's, you know, four vehicles and two trailers or or four vehicles, a trailer, and in our, you know, recreational vehicle, I it's hard to exactly define what would absolutely work. But I think what we have heard over the past few years is that what we currently do isn't necessarily working because we need we need uh to make changes more. The world of work has changed and the world of work vehicles has changed. So, uh, with with that in mind, uh, I think this the the planning commissions and, uh, the staff recommendations seem to make sense and it seems to without doing a complete overhaul at least moves us forward and and moves us in a different direction and gives people a little bit more option. That's my two cents. Council member Lman, >> you know, thank you, Mayor. I'm not going to re restate what you just said. I think you said that quite eloquently. The the one thing though, mayor, that I kind of run into an issue here is this, you know, this seeming reduction from 25 down to 20 22. Um, and I know it doesn't feel right because I I really like the idea. So, because I certainly when the RV side of it, I wanted to keep it on the lower end. It just feels like a kind of a sneaky way to kind of kind of get this, you know, uh to a lower uh thing, which I'm totally in favor of. I totally want to do that. But uh I I just without um other RV people being here I I'm I'm troubled by by doing that. I just don't know that's the right thing to kind of do. So that's one thing mayor I'm a little bit concerned about if I understand it correctly. You know, and I think, you know, the other thing I would say is, you know, with the RV standard, I think this, you know, past councils have kind of moved in this direction of, you know, allowing more storage, uh, you know, you know, in the, you know, within these zones and we continue to kind of move in a direction, you know, and I think it makes sense in this sense of, uh, as we're trying to move to be more dense city, more urban, um, that we kind of blur the lines between residential and business. And you know, I think that I think that's an okay thing if that's what if that's what we're attempting and trying to do. So, um, you know, with that with that one caveat and then the other question I raised uh earlier about, uh, you know, how that driveway is getting used and maybe it makes sense to go ahead with it forward with that and then have a a deeper conversation um, with respect to how the driveway is operated and utilized. But uh I would look to see what other council members but you know I stand to kind of support this you know because those folks that uh you know working people need to work and so this moves us in that direction and uh uh while I have a real deep concern about enforcement that's not going to be be possible. Um but I think this you know this is you know I mean what we were doing before wasn't working either. So why don't we try this and see how this works. So, um, you know, I I reluctantly, uh, you know, am going to going to support that with with those couple of caveats there. [snorts] >> Thank you. Council member, you brought up a a question. If I could ask a question of staff here, when we're talking about the the measurements of the length of anything, especially a trailer, for example, uh, is it just the body of the trailer or is it the hitch as well that is is included in the in the measurement? >> Mayor, city council members, it will be the hitch as well. So it would be the whole the body of the trailer and then any the hitch or any other attachment to it. >> Got it. Thank you. That clarifies things. >> Mhm. >> Other questions, discussion, council? >> Yeah. Comments, comments, questions. >> I would suggest that we just >> 25 ft. 25 ft be because I was just mentioning to council member Galandro that I have an RP and it's 36 feet long not 22 or 25. Uh and and you know lucky you I could put I could put it in my driveway and no problem because it fits in there. You wouldn't even see it from the the on the street but [clears throat] but not everybody has that type of driveway. So I would suggest that we keep it at 25 because I happen to see quite a few where I live there's quite a few b businesses like Romans that do trees and have their trailers out there. So they have no action to put it in their driveway or put it on the streets. And when I have spoken with them they tell me that they leave it on the streets because they are not allowed to put it on the driveway. So I rather see them on the streets than I mean on the driveways than on the streets. And when you measure the trailer, on average they're 20 to 22 feet long, plus the tongue that attaches to the to the um hitch, right? So, you know, 25 ft is a more beneficial and I guess overall more helpful to everybody. >> So, um so let me just clarify here. What what I think you're talking about is is recreational vehicles and we're limit reducing that or the proposal is to reduce that from 25 to 22 feet. When we're talking about these type one vehicles or these vehicles uh like taxis, cargo or carried vans, food trucks, box trucks, that kind of thing, that would stay at 22 feet. That was that's in the current the current ordinance, the current code allowance, and that would stay in the in the proposed code allowance. The height would go up by four feet, but the length would stay at 22 feet. My suggestion is to go to 25 because some of them are are for whatever reason they're increasing the length of trailers and then you add the tongue that attaches to the hitch then become three on average those things are three feet long. So it adds from 22 to 25 ft automatically in most cases. >> So and and the way the way it's is proposed now currently it's 8.6 feet. It's only 8 and 1/2 ft and we're proposed to move that length up to 22 feet. And you're saying you want to move the length of the trailer up to 22 feet. Are you saying that as well for the uh the >> for all vehicles? >> For all vehicles up to 25 as well as then RVs up to 25 ft. >> Yes. Just as uh council member Nelson suggested that instead of calling them trailers and and other things, just four vehicles and they can be anything. Well, as long as they stay within the time the size frame, but have been stipulated by the ordinance. and and to the uh >> and to the to the benefit that this the staff brought up, keeping them all at 22 feet made it easier for for enforcement and for for understanding to put that as a consistent 25 ft arguably might do the same thing. So >> thank you. >> Okay, >> Mr. Johnson has some a comment on that they think. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of council. Thank you, Council Member Rivas. Um, if you wanted to align uh the two factors, the most important is the RV length and the trailer length because in effect an RV on a trailer uh is considered an RV. And so that's where we were experiencing um some residents would say, well, no, this is a recreational vehicle trailer, not a commercial trailer. And they would play a game back and forth. And so if you want to increase if you're concerned about the length of the RV in in front of the front plane of the dwelling, uh what you need to align is the trailer length and the RV length. the the commercial vehicle can remain the way it is. That's not confused between the two things. >> Um so hopefully that makes that clear. Uh if that were an amendment you did want to make, we could uh call out the citations to that um ordinance number. I'm sure the city attorney would appreciate that. >> So again, just to summarize what what uh Mr. Johnson just said, [clears throat] the the vehicle length could stay at 22 because that's not an issue. However, the trailer and then the RV length to coincide them at 25 feet would make things easier for everyone. We're cool with that one. And [snorts] all right, any additional questions, council member Alesandre, >> questions or comments? >> Comments? I'm sorry. Comments. >> All right, we're we're ready for comments, right? Yeah. I think that's great. Um I will go on record once again saying that between April 1st and November 1st, I don't think there should be restrictions on RVs at all. I don't think there should be restrictions on people's boats. I don't think anything. We are an outdoor people and I feel I think it's absolutely not okay that recreational vehicles is this there's this kind of embedded discrimination when you have a quarter mile driveway on the west side and you got a 30- foot driveway on the east side and all of a sudden I'm a problem on the east side but they could have it there all day and nobody would care and it just bugs the crap out of me especially during times. Now, I'm not saying store the vehicle on the property, but between April 1st and November 1st or April 1st and October 1st, pick an arbitrary date. I just don't think we should be bothering people while they're out there enjoying their outdoor activities. So, all that having been said, I'm going to vote for 25 ft because I want it to be longer than that. Thank you, >> in. >> Other comments, council, [snorts] >> council member Nelson. >> Okay. Thank you, mayor. Um, I I tend to agree with regards to the RVs with regards to commercial um attachments, trailers, and things like that. I I think that's a little bit more of a sticky wicket because it doesn't have the time frame of the summer. Um that it is a business thing. Businesses are um unless it's a sole proprietorship, a separate entity from the owner. >> [clears throat] >> And um you know [snorts] should be able to cover the costs of that business. Um with that said, I I'm perfectly fine with the 25 ft on that. And and I say all of that honestly because uh my family grew up in construction. I had a trailer in my driveway in Burnsville. We had work trucks. Got to tell you the work trucks were a lot smaller then. Um, I've actually tried to find a work truck of the type that we used to get and you can't. I mean, like I got to like get a ladder to get into my dad's truck. Like, it's ridiculous how big trucks are. They're stupid big and they make no sense in my mind in terms of as a person who owns a residential remodeling company. They make no sense to me the way that they're developed now. Um, so I just I don't want to have too many I don't want it to be such that the business is like with a bunch of trailers and fully operated out of that location. But I I mean I think someone driving their work vehicle home at night, whether they be the owner, whether they be the employee. We talked about Hero and and the good folks that work over there, good Bloomington company. Um, and you know, a lot of their people, I think most of them take their vehicle home. That shouldn't be a problem. That that part that part's fine. 25 ft if it's the same size if you can park your trailer or your RV or your big truck. But I mean, that's fine to me. So, I think the 25 is fine. I do tend to agree with Council Member Delisandro with regards to the RVs and the recreational stuff during [snorts] the summer when you're going to use it. um you know, with obvious caveats of the the sidewalk and the sideyard and all that stuff, but um I I really really don't want to go down that path again. So So I'll support the 25 ft um and just say that um I think we should be small business friendly. I think that we should be worker friendly and I think that moves us in that direction. >> All right. So I I council I'm I'm hearing agreement that uh we like this we we like the recommendations with the caveat that we would like to change the uh maximum length of a standing by as I'm trying to remember it all of a RV from 22 to 25 ft in the proposal. Is that is that what I'm hearing? All right. Uh would anyone uh Mr. Johnson, something. >> Mayor, thank you for the clarity of the public record. I think this is on page 119 and 120 of your packet. And uh the specific citations that would be changed uh in the RV section would be 21.301.13, little C to big C, little BB uh big BB. You'd be changing recreational vehicles, including any trailers must not exceed 25 ft. Currently, the ordinance proposes to strike that and make it 22. And then for uh vehicle and trailer parking section on page 120, uh the citation number is 21.301.20 little C uh one big B. Uh that's moving again the trailer from um uh from 22 feet to 25 ft in length. So just for the record, I >> I'm impressed, Nick. That's exactly what I was going to say. >> Exactly. >> Thank you. >> So well done. Well done. >> And I'll provide it to the council secretary. Okay. Uh so councel with with that understanding we understand what we're we're talking about here now. Uh I would look for a motion as such. >> Oh my gosh. I'll move the I'll move it. [laughter] >> Council member Carter. >> They're all fighting down there. Do it. I'd move to approve the ordinance updating commercial mo motor vehicle and trailer standards on residential property thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code and then with the changes to the >> trailer and RV from 22 to 25 ft. >> There you go. That's the motion. >> Second. We have a motion by council member K, second by council member Dalisandro to adopt an ordinance updating commercial motor vehicle and trailer standards on residential property thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code and including the change to move trailers and RVs from 22 to 25 ft in the recommendation >> in length. Excuse me. >> Yes. >> Everybody clear on that? Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> And [snorts] now we need a summary publication. Council member Carter. >> I move to approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of the adopted ordinance, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Motion by council member Carter, second by council member Dalisandro for summary publication on item 4.3. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries 70. Again, thank you very much. Thanks for bringing this forward and thanks for cleaning this up a little bit. I think it's been something we've been working on. Our second public hearing of the evening, item 4.4. This is a public hearing also for a city code amendment. This regarding the city's official height limits map and height standards. Mr. Ramler Olsen is with us this evening. Good evening. Welcome. >> Good evening. [clears throat] That's it. All right. All right, I trust. Oh, there we go. Okay, there we go. Just wanted to make sure I was sharing my screen. Okay. Yes. Uh this is a public hearing uh examining amendments proposed by staff to the official high limits map and uh chapter 21 height standards. Um in summary, those are changes to the unit of measurement for uh for how we for how we uh measure height. um what sort of elements of buildings are exempted from contributing to building height and um looking at some of the stepback standards for multi-story buildings um adjacent to protected residential properties. That last bullet is new to you all. Um this was not brought up originally in the study session back in it was late October. I think that was when we had our study session. Um I'll go through it and u make sure that you're kept a breast of what we're proposing. Um and then uh yeah that last bullet we're ch uh we're proposing changes to the high limit map and we'll get to that in just a moment. Um the regulatory background began in uh 2010. Um there were um a variety of standards adopted back then to uh control the height of buildings especially with respect to um protected residential properties and uh pedestrian streets. And then there was also the map heist uh map-based height regulation that was also novel to the city and that was also adopted back in 2010. Um as I mentioned uh oh sorry that was the PC meeting uh the planning commission meeting that was on the late October. We met um we had our study session in uh the middle of November. But um from that uh November meeting, you affirmed all the uh the recommendations proposed by planning commission that were voiced uh in that October meeting. So uh let's first start with the height limits map. Um looking at what currently is um is currently in place and regulating building heights. Um you'll see in the the bottom right hand corner those are all the categories the high limit categories um for uh structures in the city and uh you'll notice that they're they're uh they're presented as both stories and feet. Um what we're proposing is getting rid of the stories and just keeping the feet. So something to consider. Uh we also uh were consulting uh the land use plan in the most recent comprehensive plan the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um as we were developing our uh amendments um from that we extracted medium high density residential or for those properties that were guided uh medium and high density. Um and uh we're applying a certain logic rule to uh those properties that are guided medium and high density. We also looked at um the uh the district plans that have been completed since 2010. There's quite a few of them. Normandale Lake District, Pan-American. Um we also looked at the corridor plans for Lindale Avenue and um the station area at 98th. So we consulted all these as we're coming up with the amendments to the the height limits map. Um neighborhood commercial areas were also cons um examined uh to see how those could be adjusted to um uh affectuate the vision of those uh commercial nodes. And this is more of a detailed look at each um looking at the land use of uh the eight commercial nodes um that were identified um in the city's comprehensive plan. Um uh prior to the uh November meeting, we were in contact with uh Minnesota Masonic Homes. They are looking to expand their property and um their proposal was to uh to um have that uh that uh expansion be uh have a height limit of 65 ft. Um that wasn't originally proposed um as we brought forth the amend or our proposal for the uh the amended height limits map. So this is kind of how we came to the uh new height limit for it. um it was at uh I believe 40 ft or I'm sorry 50 ft and uh now we're proposing uh the height limit to be 60 ft. So just uh that's kind of how we that's the chain of logic that we followed as we were looking at that property specifically. And so with all that being said, this is the proposed high limit map. Again, you um uh compared to the the um current map, there's a lot more properties that are um proposed to have a higher height limit. Um you'll see a lot more properties. Those are mainly guided medium or highdensity residential. For those that are medium density residential, they were given a minimum height limit. I know it's really weird to say that, but a minimum height limit of uh 50 ft. And those that are high density were given a minimum height limit of 60 feet. They could be taller based on context, but we wanted them to have that minimum height limit um that uh I just explained. And uh as mentioned before there are proposed uh amendments to the uh uh to uh chapter 21 those height standards. Um again uh we're as mentioned before building stories are being removed as a unit of height measurement and we're just going to rely on uh uh the measurement in feet since that's the more operative measurement. Um, we're proposing that roof mounted equipment and stell uh stair and elevator cores be exempted from height limits um except for shadow casting standards. Those they'll be still subject to those standards. And um so this is what's new um from what was originally discussed back in mid November is that uh the stepback standards for multi-story buildings um are uh will be enforced with respect to uh low dens those properties that are guided lowdensity residential. Currently um there those standards are enforced against uh protected residential properties but within that basket of properties that includes medium density and highdensity residential. Those are the properties where we want taller buildings. However, if we're we're probably kneecapping them by um including that in the standards where they have to um maintain a certain height limit um that uh would uh be a departure from the proposed height limit map that we're that we've already prepared so that you we're modifying the language so that it's not productive residential property but it's those properties that are guided low density residential. So, if that doesn't make sense, I'm happy to explain further. Um, so there was a public hearing on December 18th of last year and uh planning commission recommended uh approval of staff's uh ordinance and the proposed map um on a 3 to1 basis or 3 to1 vote. And um sorry for the stuffy technical language. you'll you know you can u modify it however you want but uh this is the recommended language for the ordinance and then this is the recommended l uh recommended language for the summary publication and with that I can take any questions you may have thank you much for the information council questions council member Nelson >> yeah thanks mayor uh three quick questions here all kind of related um the stepback standards um that you're proposing. Um does that apply if the adjacent property is low density residential or if the property itself is low density residential? >> Uh mayor, council member, that's if the adjacent property is low density residential. So I think I have a Yep, there we go. So um this is how it's currently uh regulated. So the structure height u as it's currently stated um in uh 21301 uh10 subsection F structure height must not exceed the horizontal distance or separation between the structure and the protected residential property line. So that's again like the um protected residential properties can include medium and high density residential. We wanted to make sure that it was just for those properties that are um proposed to remain low density residential and um as uh stated in the uh land use plan. Uh second part of that question is so and this is a great picture because it assumes the um ground is flat but the earth is not flat and um so [laughter] what happens if there's a slope between the two properties in terms of the height? Is there any type of adjustment for that? So if there was say a large embankment um next to a property and then you put 60 ft on top of that, how does that work? >> Uh mayor, council member, I think in those instances that's where the shadow standards would be operative. Um we do have shower standards that um uh would uh uh control for that grade difference. So again, if it's a taller building on a higher elevated ground, well, it's going to be casting longer shadows and it'll have to the design of that building will have to um acknowledge that and be modified so that it doesn't those shadows don't trespass on the adjacent property. >> Okay, that addresses my third question. So, thank you. >> Okay, Council Member Lman, I I'll just pick up right where that because I had a measurement question, too. I'm on page 215 and it talks about that that lower lower measurement and I just want to be sure that I I'm crystal clear terms of the measurement part of it going down not going up. Uh so if yeah you know so if if you so is the uh because I see in here it says that the highest point no where am I at? H in the event that the grade has been or proposed no I'm in the wrong spot here. or anyways you know better than I do there there's what I'm wanting to understand is how low can it go is my understanding I mean is it is the elevation of the measurement is the elevation of of is it how it natively is in terms of the elevation of the land or can I dig out I mean I know it's a huge expense to do this but I'm just curious if a person were to dig down deeper where does that measurement begin? uh mayor, mayor, council member, I I think that's getting to other standards about uh grade and fill. Okay. Um >> but those are those are handled through a different a different that you know. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. Um well, I'm going to [laughter] Oh, man. I wish >> I don't have everything memorized. I apologize. Just say it's good. [laughter] >> My bad. Sorry. Thanks, Tom. Uh thank you, Mayor, Council Member Lman. Um, effectively the way the measurement standards work is that it measured it at that point. So whatever the grade is at that, say it's the east side of the building. The grade on the east side of the building might be slight or the elevation might be slightly different than the west side of the building, right? Well, east over here, west over here. Um, and so you're measuring the height at that point independent of each other. It's not measuring from the lowest point of the building building to the very tallest point of the building. It's measuring it at that point. If that makes sense. I don't know if that addresses your question. >> It totally makes sense. I'm just wondering about the if I grade it out and that kind of thing. But you know what? We can talk about that later. We don't need I I got another question here and we'll we'll talk about that later. That's not going to make a difference. Thank you. We don't need to have a lesson here in that. But my only other question is and I'm assuming I just probably just missed it in here. Uh you know, given these standard changes in the in the increase of the elevation, uh u can our our fire department support these these changes uh that are they're being made? And I kind of look at the city manager for that. Sorry, I normally would ask this uh overnight, but I ended up uh getting up super early this morning. So, uh mayor, council member, uh yeah, the fire marshall was consulted at the outset of this project, and their their feedback was similar to what we got from building and inspections was that uh building code is preemptive. So, they're going to follow the building code um first. Um so uh for instance uh certain building uses might require a short a shorter building height and that's irrespective of what the the land use guidance is or or what the the zoning standards are. So they might not even be able to go to their maximum height just because the building use and that's related to building inspections and fire is the same way is that we're going to follow what the building and fire code are. Additional questions, council. All right, hearing none. Why don't we head to the public hearing now? Thank you, Mr. Randler Olson. This is a public hearing on item 4.4 tonight regarding city code amendments to the city's official height limits, map, and height standard. I'll open the public hearing and ask if anyone in the council chambers wishes to speak to item 4.4 tonight. Priyanka, do we have anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last chance for anybody in the chambers. Council, no one coming forward to speak. No one on the phone looking to make a comment. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.4. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Reebos. Second by council member Carter to close the public hearing on 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. >> So thoughts on this council? This seems to be pretty straightforward and it's based on what we had talked about earlier. Council member Alesandro. >> Yeah, just a quick question. Is there um there's nothing imminent in front of um planning right now that would be positively impacted by this at the moment. Is there >> I should have asked that earlier, but it wasn't relevant to the specifics of the ordinance. Just something I was curious about. >> Mayor Counelor Dellesandro, thank you for the question. There is a development application that's tracking through right now. uh was at the planning commission um last month um or earlier this month I should say that is seeking flexibility uh to the stepback standards. So if this ordinance is adopted uh they would no longer need to seek that flexibility through the plan development ordinance. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Council member Nelson question >> at the Wixen uh Jewelers uh site at 9950 Lindale Avenue. It's an application by real estate equities for a 180 unit four-story apartment building. Wonderful. >> And it's coming to you all in February. [laughter] >> Thank you, >> council. Any other questions? Any other discussion on this? Council member Lman. >> If there isn't any other uh any other discussion on this, I'm happy to move it with I just had one little comment. I was as I was reading through through this, I was thinking of the movie Up, one of my favorite movies to watch with my kids. So, uh uh and we're not going to make that happen with this this ordinance. I'm not saying that at all, but I just uh as I was thinking about this, I was, you know, thinking about that. So, um [laughter] I get you to laugh on that one. >> Happy to go ahead and uh uh move to adopt uh an ordinance amending the standard uh regul regulating structured height, amending residential setback standards, and amending the official height limit map, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Second. Motion by council member Lman, second by council member Robertson [snorts] to uh for to adopt an ordinance amending the standards regulating structure height, amending residential setback standards, and amending the official height limit map. Questions? Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Uh just a quick comment. Um and I'll be very quick. I'll support this, but I don't know why we don't just get rid of this. We didn't have it until 2010. seems like we're governed by building code already uh in terms of the heights and things like that. So, why don't we just leave this to the building code and and not make it more complicated than necessary. Overall, I think it's a good move um that the direction that we're going with it. But I, you know, just in general for simplicity, uh for developers and for our community, I I'm not seeing the benefit of these height standards. So that's my comment. >> Thank you. I think the general rule of thumb, council member, and you know this, uh whether it's code or zoning, uh it's to prevent, it's to protect, uh value. >> Yeah. Doesn't mean it couldn't be redeveloped in a different way. >> Y we have a motion and a second on the table to move forward with item 4.4 as stated. No further council discussion on this. If not, all in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 70. Council member Lman, summary publication, please. >> Be happy to do that. I'll move a motion uh authorizing summary publication of the adopted ordinance amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Second >> motion by council member Lman, second by council member Robertson for summary publication on item 4.4. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. The motion carries 70. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Ramler Olsson. Thanks for that. We'll move on to our final public hearing of the night. Uh again, a city code amendment. This is regarding art incentives for private development. Uh Emily Hespach is with us this evening. Good evening. Welcome. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. Um yeah, so I have before you an item about um incentives in for arts and development. Uh so a little bit of background. Um the Bloomington citywide creative placemaking plan was adopted by you all in March of 2025. Um and one recommendation that came out of that was to look for ways in the zoning code that we could encourage um public art on private property. Um so we visited planning commission, creative placemaking commission and um city council and then we kind of made some edits to the proposed um code based on what you all said. So timeline with regards to this. Um so this did come before you as a study session in September, but it was originally um a part of miscellaneous issues and then we ended up pulling it out because it is a little bit more complic not complicated but longer than what a typical miscellaneous issue ordinance would be. Um so I'm just going to jump right in. There are six proposed code changes. Uh the first one is to add a definition for art structure. There's currently no definition for art in the zoning code other than mural. This proposed code change would create the foundation for the rest of the changes and to be able to add incentives. The second proposed code change is to allow art structures to encroach into required setbacks in residential and non-residential districts. In residential district staff proposes requiring a minimum of a 10-ft setback in the front and 5 foot for side and rear yards uh for structures that are 15 ft or less in height. And then for non-residential zoning districts, staff proposes minimum front setback again of 10 ft and minimum rear and side setbacks of 5t for art structures less than 30 feet in height. Um, and then just for reference, the goldfinch on the screen is around 30 feet and the convergence sculpture which was on the last slide is about 18 feet. The third proposed code change is to allow murals to act as a substitute to the requirements for windows and mixed use districts. So requirements in mixeduse districts are that buildings must consist of windows on the ground level of the facade between 2 and 10 ft. Um there are several exceptions existing for this already including embellishment of the facade or installation of display boxes. Staff is proposing allowing murals um to be added to this list of exceptions subject to review uh for size and scale requirements. Code change number four is allowing art structures to act as a substitution for up to 25% of shrub requirements. Originally staff was proposing having a reduction for trees and shrubs. Um but based on the feedback we got uh we removed the possibility of reducing the number of trees. So existing exceptions um for landscaping requirements include fee in lie of planting and other reductions from mixed use districts. Staff proposes including art structures to this list of exceptions again with the review and approval of the issuing authority. The fifth recommendation um was added after we got feedback from planning commissioners and you all about not wanting a reduction of trees. Um so staff looked at a parking reduction in its place. The proposed parking reduction would be up to 10% or 10 parking spaces whichever is less of off- streetet parking stalls when an art structure of sufficient scale and orientation is installed as determined by the planning manager. Um, additionally, these would have to meet safety and maintenance requirements. And the last proposed code change is to allow art structures in landscaping yards. So, this is kind of similar to the fir or to the second one which was about permitted encroachments. Uh but in addition to permitted encroachments of structure setbacks, staff is proposing to clarify that art structures be allowed in the required 20- foot landscaping yard. Um existing allowances include rain gardens, sidewalks, and bus shelters. Uh so with that, I'm available for questions and um I have the recommendation up as well. >> Thank you. Uh, just for a clarification, I don't know that I've heard the the the uh specification a landscaping yard. Is that like somebody's backyard we're talking about now or is that uh or something different? >> Mayor, uh, thank you for that question. So, this is typically in commercial districts. It's like a a requirement of a 20ft landscaping yard. Um, yeah, this is it's just kind of a requirement we have in code. >> And so, when we're talking landscaping, we're just talking green space and commercial district, that kind of stuff. Now, I understand. Thank you. questions. Council, >> Council Member Dellesandro, >> it's going to seem like a trivial question. Uh, and I don't mean to split hairs here, but I literally Why do we specifically specify three-dimensional? I'm only saying that because some of the some of the things that you could see there like um technically speaking like um a curtain or a you know somebody using like a a canvas uh would would would technically be two-dimensional depending on unless you're talking about if as long as it's more than a millimeter thick then it's you know x by y by this right I'm just kind of curious why we say three-dimensional structure and and not just a freestanding structure >> mayor Um, Council Member Dolesandro, thank you for that question. Um, I think that we did that really to have the specification between like a mural and um, an art structure, which would be 3D, whereas a mural, which we have a definition for already in the code, is obviously like on a wall. Um, I don't think there's a ton of like I don't think anyone would fight you exactly on why that's in there. Um, but I think that's just kind of how like a sculpture would be described. >> Okay, understood. Yeah. If I put up a if I put up a one inch thick piece of concrete and then I draw on it, is it a mural or is it a structure? That's it. Or doesn't it matter because we have both now? Maybe the way they look at it. That's why I want to ask the question. Mayor, council member Dallasro. Um, that's a good question. I would have to read the mural definition. I'm guessing that has to do with being on an actual wall. So that would probably be a structure. >> And again, I'm talking about inch to inch. Like I get it. I just want to be sure that we're not in uh inadvertently creating a problem for ourselves by having this arbitrary three-dimensional structure unless we all agree that as long as it's not literally paper thin, it counts as three dimensions. But I don't know if we need to worry about that. Thanks. >> I would agree with your final statement there, council member. [laughter] Yeah. [gasps] >> Other questions of staff council? If not, thank you very much. We will open our final public hearing of the evening. This is item 4.5. Public hearing regarding city code amendment for our art incentives for private development. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.5 this evening? Priyanka, anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last chance for anybody in the chambers. Council, nobody coming forward. No one on the phone. I would look for a motion to close the public hearing at item 4.5. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Reevas, second by council member Robertson to close the public hearing on item 4.5. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. [snorts] So uh other thoughts on this uh council? Um I think pretty straightforward. I think specifying a three-dimensional, however you rate that third dimension, um, is probably a good idea and it kind of sets it apart. And I I like the fact that we continue to to make art more accessible and give more opportunities for it. I've you've all heard me say before, great cities have great art. And uh, to give more opportunities and more options for folks to to include or install art within their development, I think is just a a great idea. personally others. Council member Robertson. >> Uh yeah, just to echo that comment. Um Mayor, I think this is great and I'm looking forward to seeing the new art that's going to be installed in Bloomington. >> Council member Lment, you know, I've made many statements about this in the past, but I think I'll just sum it all up this way. The the creative enterprise of innovation uh is is important for a sense of place uh in Bloomington. Uh but the enforcement of free speech in the future scares me uh in terms of what that looks like. And so while I the the former there's a reason why I'll support this uh there's a caution in me in terms of that latter statement. >> Understood. >> No other comments. Council I would for look for action on item 4.5 this evening. Council member Delisandro. >> Happy to make the motion. I'll move to adopt an ordinance establishing a definition of art structure allowing art structures to encroach into setbacks in residential and non-residential zoning districts, allowing for a landscape requirement reduction for installation of art structures, providing a parking requirement incentive for installation of art structures, and adding murals as an exception to the window requirement in mixeduse districts, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. Second >> motion by council member Dalisandro, second by council member Robertson to accept item 4.5 as stated. >> Any further council discussion on this? >> Did you want to make >> hearing? None. All those in favor, please signify by saying I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. >> Thank you very much. >> You missed your chance. >> Oh, and now we have summary publication. Thank you. >> Oh, yes. Thank you. Um, I move to adopt a resolution uh authorizing summary publication of the adopted ordinance amending chapter 21 of the city code. Second >> motion by council member Dalisandro, second by council member Robertson for summary publication of item 4.5. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. Now, thank you very much. That concludes our business this evening. Council, I will move on to our organizational business of our council policy and issues updates. Uh, as I mentioned when we started, what I think I'd like to do, we uh, for those of you just tuning in, we had a um, a busy listening session this week. Uh, we had I I think we were there for an hour and 15 minutes and I think we heard 25 or 26 people speak and it was an opportunity for people to uh, to talk specifically about immigration enforcement in the city of Bloomington. And I thought we got some good perspectives, a lot of good comments for folks. Uh, thank you to everybody who who did speak. Thank you to the folks who were in the chambers. Thank you to the folks who were in the overflow room. Thank you to the folks who are watching online. I think we were north of a couple hundred almost 300 people who were involved in that way. Uh, so obviously this is something very important to this community. And what I thought we could do, council, is we we took in a lot. We've had, you know, we've been sitting here a while now and it's been percolating, I think, for everybody. But what I'd like to do is just uh kind of make our way down the the deis and just if you've got a couple of minutes your thoughts if you want to do a you know just kind of a a brain dump and and think about what else we should consider how else we should continue to move forward. I would ask you I mean we we could as we have the last few times we've talked about this. We could sit here for a long while talking about this but maybe if you could just include your thoughts about where we what the next steps might be and your thoughts about the public participation tonight. And um we we don't need to we don't need to hash this out and stay until midnight tonight, but I I would like everybody an opportunity to talk. So why don't we start on the far end, Council Member Dalisandro, and just work our way this way. >> Okay. So am I getting five minutes, three minutes, two and a half minutes? What am I getting? >> Two and a half minutes. >> Um okay. Uh so thank you. Yes. Thanks everybody that showed up. Um here are some of the things that I heard. I The overwhelming theme that I heard uh tonight was do something. Um, uh, the human rights commission came and asked us to make sure we've got know your rights documentation, uh, well established for people to be able to get to. Um, I heard about providing mental health resources. I heard please don't share any data with ICE. I don't think we do that. Um, uh, we as some folks asked for assistance with utility bills. Um, we asked, uh, consider not renewing liquor licenses for hotels that are harboring ice. Uh, ban staging on public property like parks. and they reference the the stuff that Richfield has done recently. I heard a lot of support for BPD, but uh also calls for them to be differentiating themselves in our community. Um the quote, I feel safest if BPD is actively engaged in keeping us safe, right? Um I also heard um uh you know, somebody asked if BPS could reinstate safe zones. I don't know if they could do that, but I would definitely acknowledge that BPS should um maybe give some people some thoughts on that. Um, I had uh I had an idea. Uh, you know, I don't I personally don't ever want somebody who was a member of this enforcement action to work at BPD. I would love to ban them from ever having a job in our city under that regard. I don't know if that's possible. I don't know if that's legal. Um, but I I really want to never see somebody who is willing to do this support our community. Like, I just don't think that's our values. Um, all that having been said, I would also love, Mr. Mr. Mayor, maybe before the end of tonight for you to talk a little bit about the cities for uh safe and stable communities stuff that just announced today because I don't know if we know what that means in terms of what you're going to try to do there, but I know that you were joined by lots of folks in that regard. And I think we didn't mention it explicitly too much when we were talking with the group. Um but so to elaborate on that if you had the opportunity. The thing that I I just want people to know this is my personal opinion, right? My personal thoughts. I think people know where I stand on this. It's a Black History Month started today and there's a a a lesbian poet by the name of Audrey Lord who said in 1984, "Your silence will not protect you." She was saying that because staying silent about one's identity or oppression and she was specifically talking to the LGBTQ plus community of which I am a member um doesn't bring you safety. It does not bring you safety. She calls for visibility, active resistance, and speaking up against injustices. And she does that because she knows that bad things will happen to people regardless. Um, so your choices are whether or not you can create visibility as a a crucial way of making survival and the liberation possible. And so as somebody who sits not in the black community as we start Black History Month, but certainly in the queer community, I I feel a kinship to the work that's being done right now to protect black and brown people. And I I want people to just know that I'm with them and I want to thank them desperately for showing up tonight and I want them to keep showing up. Thank you. >> Thank you, council member. Council member Rivas and it doesn't go along the lines. >> Can Can you turn your mic on, please, Victor? Thank you. >> It doesn't go along the lines with whatever everybody's gonna comment in here, but I'm going to say it. As a city council member speaking from conviction, our city thrives on law and order today. I address the vital roles of ICE in enforcing federal immigration laws, fighting human trafficking, dismantling drug cartels, and removing dangerous criminals in Minnesota. ICE has arrested individuals tied tied to assault, drug distribution, and homicide. Real threats to our communities. I am troubled by our governor and policies limiting ICE cooperation like sanctuary declarations which foster lawlessness erode trust and strain local resources. This isn't a comp a compassion. It is chaos. Meanwhile, many motans quietly support the federal government's efforts but fear speaking out publicly believing it could ruin their lives. I advocate compassionate enforcement, welcoming legal immigrants while holding law breakers accountable. We must collaborate with ICE to keep Minnesota Minnesota safe, allowing our officers to focus on local priorities. Motans reject division and recommit to law and order, support eyes, hold leaders accountable, and build a safer future. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Um, just I'd like to echo the thanks to all the people that came here. It was uh very powerful, very moving. Um, you know, I think we all experience this in different ways and to hear how you guys are experiencing it uh was very helpful as a decision maker. So, I really appreciate it. Um, [snorts] I never thought there'd be a time in my life where my kids carried their passport cart with them. Not because they're black or brown, but because they have friends who are, because they have co-workers that are. What ICE is doing in our community is absolutely horrendous. the absolute violation of our community to send in masked, armed, paramilitary, untrained, unqualified people is is astonishing and and to see what they're doing is is absolutely unconscionable in my mind. The reality is I would like to also thank our Bloomington Police Department for their extraordinary professionalism for the fact that they do go after the bad people. They don't just indiscriminately go after anybody that looks a certain way. They go after the bad people. And you know, I would like to thank Chief Hodes for his leadership and culture, a culture of respect that he has instituted here and a culture of professionalism. Um, and some videos that that talk about the orange jumpsuit district. People know with throughout the region that don't commit crime in Bloomington because we have the people that will enforce it. We will have we have the people that will look into it. And so I find it distinctly troubling when we talk about that we have to get back to enforcing law and order when we're here in Bloomington where we do already do that. I find it distinctly troubling when we talk about there should be collaboration when it's not the local government that's not collaborating. It's the federal government that send in poorly trained, unprofessional people to try to act like they're law enforcement when they're not. They have no accountability. Absolutely 100% we should have law and order. Absolutely 100% we should go after the worst of the worst. Let's do that and let's stop the nonsense that we have seen within our community. Um, I I I appreciate Council Member Delisandro's uh points of all the things I I have a whole list put together. I'm sure staff does. I think a lot of great recommendations from folks. Um, and I also want to address just the it is important the words that we used and and maybe the words that I've used right here and now weren't the perfect words. I'm absolutely certain of that. Um but when we look at the words that have been used by our state and local people, they have talked about the experience that their communities are having and the anger and the passion about it and they have said act peaceibly, act lawfully. Have [snorts] a few people maybe gone a little bit over the line? Of course that happens unfortunately. On the flip side, we have people that say there is going to be retribution if you don't obey us. There are people that call somebody a domestic terrorist because he's trying to help a woman up. These are the types of inflammatory words that are actually being spoken to. So to talk about state and local leaders being the inflammatory ones is is absolutely wrong. With all that said, I think when we look at everything that we do, we have to look at I'm a very pragmatic person. We have to look at what is going to work, what is going to protect our community. And so I so much appreciate the vice the advice of our chief of police, of our city manager, of our mayor, and and I appreciate all of the work that people don't see that the amazing work that that is going on in this community when you're saying, and I and I hear you. I feel it myself like we're not doing enough. We're not doing something but we are and and and they are and a lot of it's back channel, a lot of it's quiet, a lot of it is that to just move the needle. I probably took up way too much time. I'm sorry, mayor. Um but um thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> Thank you, council member. Council member Lman. >> Thank you, Mayor. I wrote down some of my remarks here. Um, you know, I suggest, uh, you know, a working task force to drive, uh, this forward quickly, including school board, uh, community organizations, uh, business leaders, city council, and so many others. I think that'd be very helpful as we move through this piece. Um, African-American History Month, LONA, in my view, uh, you're part of the community. A United States senator I worked for um once said, "If we don't fight hard enough for the things that we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." You know, Jenna challenged me on that. [laughter] Um in our Bloomington tomorrow together, it states that safety and security are critical components of a resilient and healthy community. It's a a difficult and a delicate balance and approach that our mayor is walking for those of us who are fearful of what a stronger stance may mean for those who look like me. But I am committed to the mission of cultivating an enduring and remarkable community where people want to be. But there is in that a balance that we have to consider as policy makers. A community is not remarkable if people are afraid of crime. In addition, a community is also not remarkable if people are afraid of the system that's meant to protect them. And so we also say that we're a connected, welcoming community. But then if we are silent, then we're also in that same paradigm. And so we are are are forced to to try to do something. And and so what I I've thought about there's many of the members that are on this uh council today and previous councils um that have their respectful historical underpinnings of having military service in their background. and and one of the the the people that I've kind of looked at and looked up to is General Mark Millie, born on June 20th, 1958. A retired four-star US Army general who served as the 20th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 19 from 2019 to 2023. That was the nation's highest ranking military office. And he said as he retired, we are unique among the world's armies. We are unique among the world's militaries. We don't take an oath to a country. We don't take an oath to a tribe. We don't take an oath to a religion. We don't take an oath to a king or a queen or a tyrant or a dictator. And he goes on and says other things that I I won't comment here. But then he says that we don't take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the constitution and we take an oath to an idea that is America. and we're willing to die to protect it. That document, the Constitution, is our north star. It is a map to a better future. It is that document that all of us in uniform swear to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That has been true across generations, and we in the uniform are willing to die to pass that document on to the next generation, said General Mark A. Millie. And so I I think about, you know, just a few weeks ago, Mayor, and you know, you've been through that that ceremony right there in front of that podium where we've all taken that that oath in terms of what we're going to do. And I just want to assure uh that, uh, you know, just from my perspective, and I've seen each and every single person that's up here, uh, you know, take that oath. Uh, and I I I want to believe that we're going to do what's in the best interest of the Bloomington residents, uh, and those who reside here. Uh, that we will be good stewards of that constitution that has been handed down to us. And it may be difficult those perspectives by which that they look at that constitution, but we are a remarkable community. And that's why I want to be here to be a part of that discussion. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Lman. Council member Robertson. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, I I can tell you right now I won't be nearly as eloquent as my colleagues have been um on this extraordinarily important issue. Um, but I do want to thank um all of the residents who came out tonight who listened on the phone who um talked amongst their neighbors who uh even if they weren't here tonight are talking to their neighbors about it now. Um, as a brand new council person who's been here for all of three weeks, I certainly didn't expect that we would be dealing with outright fascism um, the first month of my four-year term, but here we are. Um, and I'm honored to be serving with the people that are up here, and I I couldn't have asked for a better group of folks. Um, we heard so many wonderful ideas tonight from residents um, uh, resolutions to end staging, ban masks, um, make sure people wear body cams. I love the idea um that was brought forth by the unions about um suspending liquor licenses for um hotels that are choosing to house ice. I think that our residents are full of potential and ideas and love and kindness and um full of energy to put forth into the community to protect each other. That's what they want to do. Um we als we heard from people who are terrified, right? I uh have someone in my home who carries their passport everywhere they go all the time. I won't let them leave the house without it, right? It's scary. It's really really scary. Um, and I'm I hear people say, "Well, obey and it'll be fine. Just do what they tell you and it'll be fine." Obey and I won't hurt you is what they say to hostages. That's not what we say to residents. That's not what we say to our neighbors. Okay? Um, you know, if you just obey, then I'll stop is what abusers say. That's not what law enforcement should be saying to its residents. Right? And to be very clear, I want to distinguish between the actions of ICE and the actions of Bloomington uh police who are welltrained, who um are not uh the same agency. And we should get ICE out of BPD's way so that Bloomington police can continue to keep our residents safe and do the jobs that we pay them to do, right? And that they're trained to do. Um I heard residents say uh three things to many many things but three things tonight I just wanted to to note um that they are asking us to be leaders not followers right um and sometimes we have to be really brave and I know for a fact that everyone up here can be really brave I believe in us and we can do that. Um another thing someone said was that we are made for these times and I got a chill in my spine when I heard that because we are we are made for these times. We were put here. I am a big believer in fate. Um, we're here for a reason right now. There's a reason you're listening to me babble all this at you right now and it's because we are made for these times and we can do this. Um, the last thing is uh uh one of the speakers tonight asked that um or said let us continue to be excellent to each other and what a beautiful thing for neighbors to still think after however many weeks of um this nightmare occurring in our city. It needs to end. Um, for anyone who's unfamiliar, my personal views is that we should abolish ICE. They believe it's a redundant agency. They're doing this with our tax dollars and it's unsafe and unnecessary and it's not helping anyone. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. >> Thank you, Council Member Carter. >> It's no fun going last because you guys have said all the good stuff. [laughter] Um, no, I I do want to uh echo the thanks, the appreciation for our community, for everybody who came today, uh, for the people who stood up and spoke. Um, I don't know about others on council, but I before being on council, I would come and testify every once in a while, and that is just one of the most terrifying things to do. Um, and so really appreciate everybody who um showed up tonight to share their opinions, uh, to everybody who's emailed us, and and really just probably most importantly to everybody in the community who are just doing so much. um from donating money to and donating food to making deliveries and driving people and um checking on their neighbors. I mean, it's I could I could not be more proud to be a Bloomington resident and I do believe that we have an incredibly remarkable community filled with loving and supportive people. Um, and so, um, I I also encourage, uh, those who came today and those who are listening and everybody on our community, continue to show up, continue to speak your voice, uh, continue to hold us accountable. Um, I, you know, I think everybody kind of shared some of the things that were said and, you know, I did hear some frustration, right? Some frustration because they felt like that, you know, we weren't doing enough. And I will be honest, and I I haven't been shy about it. I've had my own frustration and feeling like we could be doing more. We should be saying more. We should be saying things differently. Um but I do I do believe that um we're in a it's a really it's a tough position that we're in, right? We want to be here for our community. We want to do all those things and we want to be super strategic and thoughtful and um and think, you know, really carefully about what we're doing. And so I want to thank um our Bloomington police, our city leadership, the mayor. Uh there have been a lot of conversations happening, a lot of um coalition building, uh reaching out to different people at different levels of government, um a lot of work behind the scenes. And so I think as we move forward, you know, I think that we have to do a much better job of communicating with our community about what we are doing. And obviously I know that there's some strategy things and there's things that's probably not very strategic to share all the details about, but people want to know that we are not being silent, that we are not being complicit. And that's the worst feeling, right? Is sitting up here and feeling like we are being complicit because we're not saying enough or doing enough. Um, and so that is one thing that I really really urge us to do better at. Um, both, um, you know, as a city, from our communications team, from the mayor, city manager, but also each one of us individually. Um, we all have Facebook pages on, you know, our city council Facebook pages. I I honestly like detest Facebook. I mean, really detest Facebook. Um, but I have still been trying to get on and make some some comments and and share what we're doing. And so not enough. I need to do better. But um I encourage all of us to be part of that solution. Um I also would love for us as a next step to kind of just inventory everything that we heard. What are the lowhanging fruits? Things that are going to be really easy for us to do. Adding mental health support resources to the website. Super easy. I bet we can do that tomorrow. Um and then have some have a conversation. Let's have a study session on some of the other things that we heard and what do we want to move forward with. but not in a month, but like the next council meeting. Um, there might be some things that we just don't have authority to do. Um, and there might be some things that we don't have majority support to move forward and we can kind of tick those off the list. But if there are some additional things that we can do as a council that were brought up tonight, I think that that would really say a lot to our community. Um, and so that's what I would I would recommend as a next step. Um, yeah, I think that's what I have. Uh, you know, I guess I wasn't super explicit. I'm not I'm not supportive of what's happening. I don't want ICE in our community. If they were here just getting the dangerous criminals like they had been for years, I w we wouldn't have this problem, right? And um but what they're doing right now is unacceptable and we should be doing everything in our power to to get them out here. >> Thank you, council member. Uh, and thank you all and I think you all said it very well and agree 100% in the thanks to the folks who came forward tonight. Agree 100% in the support for the work that the city is doing up and down this table and across our police department, our city staff, uh, within the city itself, uh, the organization that we have, all those things. I think we're we're doing a lot. Um, council member, you asked about this this coalition. I didn't the name. They didn't ask me on the name, right? I didn't I didn't log in quickly enough on the name because it's kind of a cumbersome name. Uh but I mean I'll tell you what I'm going to read to you what the statement is. I mean the statement of our coalition. We're a nonpartisan coalition of I think it's right now about 15 cities working together to restore stability, trust, and effective local governance. Operation Metro Serve has created instability that strains lo public safety resources and disrupts local economies affecting businesses, schools, and families well beyond the Twin Cities. We stand for rule of law and respect the role of federal immigration enforcement. We expect federal leadership to direct agencies in a way that recognizes local jurisdiction and responsibilities while respecting the integrity of our cities as a whole. We are concerned that current enforcement approaches may risk undermining constitutional protections and places cities at legal and operational risk. We're calling for improved coordination grounded in the rule of law, due process, and respect for local governments. There is strength in numbers. When cities rise concerns, raise concerns individually, they can be dismissed. A unified nonpartisan coalition cannot. We're urging immediate deescalation, clear coordination, and return to stability so cities can do their jobs and motans can feel secure in their communities. Uh, and the the basic three tenants that we're talking about here are uh to restore order, trust, and a sense of normaly, to uphold constitutional rights and due process, and that we have uh strengthened numbers. The bottom line is there's strength in numbers and uh this is a group of of cities as I said I think it started out less than 10 10 11 12 or so and I think some cities have been adding now the call is going to be for additional cities to add on uh the message we brought and basically we're speaking on behalf of this group when we were in DC or last week and one of the messages we brought was this is happening beyond Minneapolis. Minneapolis is is the the epicenter certainly, but we're all feeling it and it's it's affecting all of our communities across the Twin Cities and we're seeing it on a very personal level, but we're also seeing on a very economic level. I mean, the bottom line is if if the goal is to crash the Minnesota economy, they're they're well on their way right now. They're well on their way. So, uh we can have more conversations on this. If the city council is comfortable uh backing this and moving on moving forward full steam ahead that's great. If not I mean if I have to do it as simply a mayor in this coalition I will do that and set and specify very clearly that this is what I'm doing. Uh but I think it's it's it's a good move forward and to your point council member about how we need to improve communications. That was one of the reasons we kind of came together with this. We needed a unified message and with a message then we can start actions whether it's you know making the congressional stops or or doing a variety of things as a group together that will have a bigger impact than one city doing the onesie twoosies the oneoffs. So that's uh that's basically what we're we're looking at here with this group. Quick question, council member. >> Yeah, it's a quick question uh kind of tangential to this this issue here. Um you know, one of the things I noticed at this particular um listening session is our use of that three minutes. You know, uh that's the way it was when I got on this council. One of the things I noticed about that is how many more people were able to share their perspectives and their points of view at this meeting. And I I'm wondering, mayor, uh, if it makes some sense for us to have another look at that. You know, I've been reluctant. We went to we went to five minutes thinking, you know, I I know we're trying to solve a certain problem with that, but I wonder if it makes sense for us to be a little more inclusive and and look at that three minute time frame again. >> Good thought. Good thought. [snorts] >> Council member Nelson. Thanks, Mayor. You were you looking for direction or input from us or >> Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. I I would support the entire city backing the letter and joining the coalition. I think it's good. I think there's safety in numbers. I think there's also strength in numbers. >> Um and and I think what they're asking for is frankly very courteous, very I mean straightforward. I mean, follow the law. >> Yeah. if we're going to talk about law and order, let's let's do it ourselves. So, I I think it's good. I support it. >> Thank you. So, >> council member Rivas, I >> I had already seen that. I I got the email from >> them. Um that I like I I you know, I'm not opposed to what the city is doing. I really I'm not. What I'm opposed to is the fact that we leave a lot of the stuff has had a lot to do with these issues that we're experiencing right now. And whether we accept it or not, I know we're going to get we get into arguments and all the stuff, we still have we're still doing the job that we're supposed to be doing. My my opposition to making statements is the fact that we are leaving a lot of stuff behind. I I know and I'm gonna make a comment right now that we all disagree on, but things got worse when our um politicians started to make comments that just exaggerbated the the whole situation. In in my opinion, in my you know, I'm not everybody agrees with it, but there were a lot of people here today that could have spoken and they didn't. and I spoke to a few of them uh because they were afraid to to make their comments. And I I I'm not going to say that I'm not afraid. Sometimes I'm reluctant to make comments because um I don't look at my Facebook page ever because all the crap that I hear in the that I I've read in the past, it's just not a good thing. And I'm not going to engage with anybody. I just leave it alone. It's probably been nine months or more that since I seen my page because all the threads and all the stuff that I see there. I I don't I don't find it worth it to be looking at it. Okay. That's why I don't even visit the the the page. But my that's my point. I I you know I and I I thought that uh Council Member Lman was going to elaborate more on what he was saying being more accepting to me. There are a lot of people in Bloomington perhaps um maybe 40% of the people in Bloomington are have a different view that we don't take into consideration in everything that we do and and you know and I can say that because I think I represent a lot of that 40% myself here with the opinions that I that I bring forth. Um, so you know, we're forgetting about those people and that's what sometimes puts us in a puts us in a position that makes it very difficult for issues like the one we're experiencing right now to be dealt with in a in a uh quicker, more efficient way because there's that opposition that is hiding behind closed doors and it has a a lot to say and it's out there and it's going out of the you know like I I I don't want to bring >> member can I my my my goal was here to give everybody a chance to talk and and just to kind of you know express yourselves and what I don't want to do because if we start this Victor we're going to be here till midnight again. >> Yeah. And I just want to quick say this that there are a lot of people out there that I feel misrepresented here in the city. >> Okay. And then we're not taking them into account in what they have to say. There were quite a lot of them today here. They didn't say a word. Maybe two or three said something. A lot of them were and and you know they are afraid to speak. And let's face it when I when I say this you know my wife just texted me and says why do you have to say something? You know I'm afraid that somebody's going to try to hurt the dogs or her and whatever. I it's possible because of what I see on Facebook and the comments that come up against me. Yeah, it's possible. I'm not afraid, but I'm reluctant to say stuff sometimes. But why why should I be reluctant to say what I what my opinion is? That's what I'm trying to get to. I mean, if we are >> and and I appreciate and that's why and that's why we had the opportunity. I wanted to make sure. >> But anyway, I do support the you know what I I saw it. I mean, it came up earlier uh over the weekend. >> I'll keep you updated as to where we end up with all >> Yeah. And and I have a quick announcement to make if I may. If I may. It has nothing to do with this. It's totally different. Let let's put a bull on what we're talking about and then and let's I'll let you do that and then let's uh we don't need to we don't need >> the only comment I would make Mr. Mayor if I may is that anybody felt the the whole reason we didn't ask for people to clap or boo or anything like that is because we wanted to quorum in this room and there were a couple people here who might have come up here tonight and said something that I abhorently dis like disagree with but I sat and listened to them. Nobody should be afraid to come to council and speak they want what they want to say. We have a first amendment right. The whole problem with this pro with this surge right now is people's first amendment rights are being suppressed. So if you felt like that tonight because of the situation you were in, then maybe you can have a little bit of a thought for the people who are actually feeling like that in their daily lives right now because um because first amendment rights are being trampled on in the cities, right? All over the city. So I I just put it out there. I have met with so many people that disagree with me in the four years that I've been on council. In fact, somebody wrote me tonight. I've offered to meet with them. I will always show up and meet with you. I do not have to agree with you to be your council member. I do not have to. So, for what it's worth, anybody who might have been here tonight who felt like they should talk to somebody besides Victor and want to get their concerns addressed, they're more than happy to call me. I'm more than happy to listen. Thanks. >> Right. Thank you, Council Member. Let's put a uh let's put a bow on this. What are you asking, Council Member? >> So, Sean brought up a good point, and you you asked it earlier. Do do you want us to support you doing that from the whole council tonight? I mean, one of the criticisms, you know, and I I think we ought to do that tonight. You know, you know, Jenna, you keep saying, "Hey, we're not moving fast enough." Here's me trying to be a little faster. So, I'm going to go ahead for action. >> Yep. Totally did. So, I may I'll go ahead and move that we uh as a council uh support you and we also support uh um trying the word >> coalition. I can't remember. >> Coalition. Yeah. Um we'll get it back. Yeah, you get you if you guys can figure out the the language. >> The city the cities for safe and stable communities is what they're calling this. >> We got a motion. Do we have a second? >> We got a second by council member Robertson. Council member, >> um I will support this, mayor, because I trust you. I have not seen anything on this yet. So, I mean, I would love to like learn more about it and what the asks are. >> I mean, I again, I trust you. I I believe that you're representing the values of the council and the city and our strategic plan and all of that. Um, so I will support it, but I would love to see more. >> I will share all the documentation that I have and we'll do that. >> Uh, Council Member Robertson, >> I promise it's very brief. Um, I would just ask um, anyone listening and anyone up on the council um, we had a resident today ask um, if we would join them in lighting a white candle from 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 4th um, on the corner of your road um, to support our neighbors in our country. I will be doing that and I would ask my um, neighbors and fellow council people to do that as well. Thank >> you. Okay, we got a motion and a second to uh to support the coalition and the work that we're doing with that for for Bloomington to to jump into that with that. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> Motion carries 70. Thank you all very much. >> Victor, you had something quick announcement. >> Um uh yeah, I was uh elected uh for the National League of Cities safety and hold on one second. for the crime prevention uh and safety federal advocacy member. So, >> good work. >> Good work. >> Thank you. And then uh this is more of that stuff. It was given to me um about a sign on 89th and um uh 88th and Penn Avenue. I don't know if you have heard about it. I haven't given that that area myself, but so handed all the way down there to to the manager, >> council, another uh another full and good and I think productive evening with us all tonight and thank you all so very much for it. Uh with everything that we officially need to do completed, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn tonight. >> So moved. Second. >> Motion by council member Rea, second by council member Dallas to adjurnn tonight. No further discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. Again, council, thank you. uh staff who helped keep uh all of this moving tonight. Thank you so very much for all of the work that you did on this. This was a biggie. And as we have said many times, thank you to everybody who participated tonight. It's it's fantastic turnout. Shows that Bloomington uh is is quite the community. So, thank you all. >> Everybody have a good rest of your week. [music]