And I will call this meeting to order. And here is the list of folks that we've got. Uh Amber Matwick, are you here? Amber? I don't see Amber. All right. Connie Roth. Connie, you're up first. Why don't you come on up? Uh and we're I'm just going to uh Mark Mercer. Mark, you're second. Mark Hansen. All right. Sally, I see Sally Ness. Matthew Howlet. I saw him. Matthew earlier. There he is. Paul Montgomery. Paul. Don't see Paul. Uh Erica McMullen. Very good, Erica. And then Kevin Johnson. Very good. So, we are going to start and as I said, we're gonna get everybody as much as we can. Uh if I cut you off at 3, four minutes, I'm just trying to get through a lot of people. So, if you could introduce yourself and you are on your way, Connie, go ahead. >> Okay. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Connie Anderson and I live adjacent to the upper trails in Central Park. I purchased my home because of its location to the woods. I love being in the shade of the woods and when I walk the trails, it feels like I've escaped the city and up in up north in a quiet forest. The mature trees block the sights and sounds of traffic, provide welcome shade on hot summer days, and create a peaceful place that many residents treasure. I fully support restoring the health of the woods by removing buckthornne and other invasive species, addressing erosion, improving water quality, and restoring a native understory. My concern is not with the restoration itself, but with the decision to convert approximately 40 acres of mature woodland into an oak savannah. The city is choosing to replace diverse woodland with oak savannah. But that is not the only choice they have. An oak savannah is an ecosystem where scattered oak trees grow above an understory of prairie grasses and wild flowers. Trees are spread far apart to allow sunlight to reach the ground as prairie grasses need a lot of sun. The shade that residents currently enjoy on the upper trails comes from a closed canopy woodland. Parks and recck says the upper trail will continue to have a wooded character and provide substantial shade, but how can that be? An oak savannah and a woodland are two different things. Bloomington prides itself on engaging residents and seeking community input before making significant decisions. Yet, many residents only recently learn about the long-term vision for the upper trails. Community engagement events did not clearly explain that the wooded trails would be converted to an oak savannah. The volume of public concern now demonstrates that people did not understand what was proposed during the official engagement period. There's there was a significant change in the amount of Oak Savannah proposed between the last community engagement and today. And the handout um that was passed around compares the community engagement with the RFP. Because the change substantially alters what was presented, it is reasonable to conclude that the public did not have enough information to understand and comment on the plan. Public engagement is meaningful only when residents understand the plan they are being invited to comment on. The restoration approach for the upper trails was developed after public engagement events concluded. Residents never had a chance to weigh in on that plan. There's an opportunity for a win-win solution. Restore the health of the existing woods while preserving the beautiful shaded forest so many Bloomington residents love. The wooded upper trails provide shade, noise buffering, visual screening, and a sense of escape that is increasingly rare in urban environments. The human benefits of these woods are being overlooked. The ecological benefits of restoration are often easier to measure and quantify. The psychological and emotional benefits of a quiet shaded woodland are harder to measure, but they are no less real. I respectfully ask you to pause and reconsider the plan to convert our woodland into an oak savannah. Once these mature trees are cut down, that decision cannot be reversed and these trees will be gone forever. Thank you. >> Thank you, Connie. Yep. >> Folks, >> folks, I'm going to ask you to uh respect our our meeting process here. We don't allow clapping because if I allow clapping, then I'm going to have to allow booing and nobody wants to get booed. >> They'll probably boo me. >> They might boo you. They might. They boo me all the time. You get used to, don't worry. Uh so if we could we could refrain from that. I certainly understand you support some speakers, but there's going to be some speakers you disagree with as well. So, thank you very much, Connie. Thank you for your comments. Good evening. >> My name is Mark Mercer and I've been been here 25 years and um I I just I don't like the way things are going down there. I I don't like the way the we clearcut everything. I don't like the way the bridge has been down for a year. Um and the trees they look like right out of a Dr. Seuss book that I read my children. The tops getting just sitting there like that. And the same thing with the um with the savannah. Um, I've been told that it takes between 20 and 50 years to get an ecosystem completely done for a a savannah. I don't know. I'm not an expert, but that's just what I've read. Now, I don't have that much time. A lot of us don't have that much time. And then we have to we have to burn it. And I've been told from all the research I've done is that it takes between three and 10 years for it to come back to its natural state again. Now, I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, that's what I've read that I I don't think that's a real good bargain in my opinion. And uh I'll make it short here. Another thing is, and I don't know if this is going to be a touchy subject or not, but you know, we're going we're putting washing stations in for this from what I've been told for the new community center, and they're at about $4,500 a pop. I mean, minimum, and some of them are up to $35,000 from what I've read. I I don't know if like I said I don't know if this is true. It's only what I've read and I I you know everybody's got a different opinion about everything. Well, I think this is a small part of our population here and we're accommodating these people which I think is great. I mean I I'm all for religion as long as your religion does you don't want to snuff me out or nothing. I could care less but I think that's great. But if you're going to accommodate a small group of percentage of people, I I think that you can accommodate us for the for the Savannah. We don't want the Savannah. I I'd say 80% of the people that I talked to, and I probably talked to 500 people since I found out what we're going to do with this thing. And I'd say eight eight to nine out of 10 people do not want this. And I don't want it. You're you're taking away some options from this. I mean, if you want to if you want to have uh go to a savannah, go to the Parker's picnic and and trail over there there. You guys have started that about four years ago, I believe. And hey, that's a nice that's a nice option. Go over there. But I think if you take that option away from us, there's there there's no other option in the cities or anywhere that I know of except for Elm Creek up north. They have a creek where you can walk down by the trail and everything, but they don't have a highland area that's fully canopied. And on a hot summer day like it is now, I I think that's really refreshing to have something like that. And if you take it away from us, we won't get it back. I mean, there's 1.1% 0.1% of all landscape in in Minnesota is savannah. And there's a reason for it because they don't regenerate as well as as other areas. And there's probably other variables for it, other reasons for it, why why they don't do that. But I I I just think if they were going to if they were going to survive, there would probably be a lot more of them percentage-wise of landscape. But but there's not. So I just think we don't want it. I mean, honest to God, I don't want to be redundant, but almost everybody I've talked to about this, they do not want you cutting down that area. It's just a nice canopy and a nice place to go. So, thanks for your time. >> Thank you, Mark. >> Our second mark, Mark Hansen. Good evening. Welcome. >> And uh my name is Mark Hansen. Uh I live in the in the west side of Bloomington here and we're talking about the Olive Isle edition. Again, I'm reading the memorandum that was sent from the planning staff around to all of you and some of the inserts in here. Uh particularly this lot says a great view of Bush Lake. Fourcar tandem garage on main level. Six vehicle lower level garage/basement family room with 13 ft ceiling. This was in 2002. Now we're talking about how many years where the front yard was always on Amston Ridge Drive. Now all of a sudden you're saying it's on finesse and now this garage is in the going to be in the backyard. Doesn't make any sense. 2026 building permit. The building inspector was there with because this place had the fire. It was discovered that work was being completed without a permit in the garage basement storage area including outside wall framing installation sheetrock. Part of that installation, that permit was pulled and cancelled on April 8th. Part of the inspections were the city staff informed him that he would have to have a fire rated ceiling in order to come finish his work. What happened to that work? Was it made to be taken out? We don't know. Has anybody been down there? I've seen nothing come across from staff on this. Has any of you been there? Okay. Again, I'm not disagreeing with things can be structurally can be storage garage or whatever in a sideyard, but now all of a sudden you've switched it to Vanessa to be in a backyard. And then I was kind of concerned about the fact that city staff contacted developer because I was the one that informed him of this issue. and he goes and says, "I have confirmed that no work has been performed any part of the basement below the garage at 8350 Amston Ridge Drive beyond painting." How do you pull a building permit, get it yanked, and then say nothing's been done? Over 20ome years, this was used as a family room by these people, and now all of a sudden, it's storage. Something's wrong. You as the staff and mayor have the deciding vote on whether or not to accept the planning commission's recommendation. I would recommend that you either go investigate it further or just say no. This is not right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mark. Mark, if you could remember to sign in on our last mark also, if you could sign in, make sure that uh we got you signed in. [laughter] Sally, please. [clears throat] >> At the last listening session, I spoke about the concern with the shared agreement that the city can't opt out, not renew when the term expires and that the city should make sure it does not happen again. Tonight I am addressing the loss of the city use of the Smith Park football/sockcc field located on the 8201 park property. In 2015, 8201 Park was in foreclosure and the city was concerned about the loss of the shared use of the Smith Park football soccer field and the city fixtures such as the lights for the Smith Park football soccer field located on the 8201 Park property due to foreclosure. The city was so concerned the city contacted the attorneys for 8201 Park and residents watched the city clean up the property. It does not make sense that 10 years later, the city is not concerned and gives the city fixtures away. From data dated January 26, 2016, the bank does not want to take the property subject to the joint use agreement. Jim is trying to convince the bank that the joint use agreement actually makes the property more marketable rather than less. My comment, note that the city is concerned about the joint use agreement and is contacting 8201 Parks Bank from the data dated January 28th, 2016. I haven't seen any of the closing documents since the city is not a party. But it is my understanding from the buyer's attorney that the city fixtures as set forth in the joint use agreement were not pledged as part of the security in this transaction as had occurred without the city's knowledge in the sale to Al Farooq Youth and Family Center. My comment, this is the city pointing out that the previous mortgage Darl Farooq doing business as Alfuruk Youth and Family Center had with Midcountry Bank included the city fixtures and the city was concerned about the potential loss of the fixtures that it was in contact with 8201 Park Properties Bank. Now, the city wants residents to believe the loss of the fixtures is not a big deal. From data dated February 17, 2016, did the sale of the property and closing take place on January 27th as expected? Was it necessary for you to work out a separate agreement with the bank to protect the city's interest in the property? My comment again, the city was concerned about the potential loss of fixtures. It was in contact with 821 Park Properties Bank and this email clarifies the concern was to protect the city's interest in the property. Again, now the city wants residents to believe the loss of use of the field and the fixtures is not a big deal from data dated February 17, 2016. In short, the sale was the best thing that could have happened for the city. My comment. And now the city wants residents to believe the new agreement and the loss of the use of the field and the fixtures is not a big deal. That should not have happened. >> Thanks, Sally. Matthew Hellet. Good evening. Welcome. >> Thank you. [clears throat] My name is Matthew Howlet. I'm a volunteer project manager of BLN here to save our savannah council. Last we spoke of 9 miles oak savannah two years ago, we heard a warning from Aldo Leupold about the mark of death inflicted on a land that is invisible to the non-incologists and the despair of those who do not want to be told otherwise. Those days of despair have come to a head after 150 years of colonial neglect piling up log by log since Governor Ramsay set in motion to erase the era before Bluington was known by the Dakota as Tatona Tanina. His proclamation of their extermination is why the act that exiled their village, its inhabitants, and their wildlife still stands or wildfire still stands to this day. It is why native plants were criminalized to grow in our lawns until 2023. It is the same mechanism of ethnic cleansing and murder of our neighbors today. Those who cannot see that throughine of colonial heritage imposed upon nature put up more defensive claims than time allows. Claims like, "I won't live to see the benefit. I want to go back to the 50s. I want to pause for a year. It took five years to fully restore Marshes Lakes 3 acres of oak savannah by hand. This is at least 48 acres in 18 months. Anyone with a native lawn can tell you the results are immediate and grow exponentially. Without fire to remove the enormous nitrogen levels in our soil from more than a century of suppression and pollution, the conveyor belt of ecological succession is sliding into reverse. From plowing oak savannah to farmland, importing invasive Kentucky bluegrass for every yard, forced into 340 miles of car dependency, dumping a zip code of poisons into the geoengineered creek while Bachman's profited off of Buckthornne until 2001. We never left the era of colonialism. From the very beginning, we conquered nature and built the similocum in itsstead and then refused to be told otherwise. Because of this neglect and lack of urgency, we have 260y old oaks in the park, literally being speared by native kamicazi colonizer trees that appeared under them less than 20 years ago. Mildly severe storms on July 4th snapped what should have been our strongest trees in half as the entire ecosystem degrades and ensures Buckthornne will never leave. Each loss older than our democracy leaves a third of a football fields size hole in the canopy that no one alive today will ever see restored. Claims like, "I didn't vote for this. Maintenance is impossible, too dangerous, or expensive, and life finds a way." In the two years of project feedback, there is not one scientific argument that explains why saving native colonizer species whose ecological role is to reclaim land and then burn down is better than restoring the crown jewel of our biodiverse ecosystem. Save our woods's leadership ignored Dr. Malcolm's best quote. Even though he'd tell you the problem with the scientific discipline you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourself, so you don't take responsibility. This is why hanging science to save a forest on Buckthornne because they can't even identify it showcases colonial irresponsibility. Exploiting the bargaining stage of grief from a community seeking truth who are then dumbfounded to learn there is currently a pocket of oak savannah within 9 mile right now. We who conduct restoration, however, do. These past five years, lawns, city, schools, its people have seen a restoration revolution. From the city not letting volunteers cut buckthornne and parks to becoming their active partners to building a system capable of restoration and permanent maintenance with or without fire across all of our parks. No matter how many claims or stocks of Buckthornne there are, we'll cut straight through to the core colonial one. I don't care. I'm selfish and repeat. To which era are we restoring? Nature's or Ramsy's come here. Thank you. Matthew Paul Montgomery. Paul, are you here? Erica McMullen. Thought I saw Eric. There she was. >> Good evening and welcome. >> Good evening, city council. Mayor, >> you get right up into that microphone if you could, please. There you go. Thank you. >> My name is Erica McMullen and Nine Mile Creek is pretty much in my backyard. I've lived there 20 years and the location was one of the main reasons I bought my home. I'm very concerned about the Nimal Creek project and the lack of transparency with the public. I am here to urge the city council to put this project on hold immediately before bids for the next phase are awarded. There are many reasons to support this. You have packets that show what was presented to residents and community engagements through August of last year and how that differs from what is now out for bid from contractors. We were not told that a change was underway to transform our unique wooded area into a hot, sunny oak savannah and prairie. And now with the 40 acres that the city had recently been showing as Oak Savannah has increased to 58 acres in the bid documents without community input or knowledge. The public, the residents, the voters were not told of these changes and we only discovered them when searching through the 88 page RFP bid documents that went to contractors in June just recently. There are many other changes in the documents from what we were told as well, including elimination of work at at the unit's Q&R, which is another 79 acres of changes. That's they don't even show up on the contract documents anymore. And a lot of that was buckthornne and vasa removal. You owe it to the voters to stop this process in its tracks, have more community engagement meetings, and get input from residents now that the plan has changed. When we voted for $20 million in improvements and restorations on the ballot, this is not what many people had in mind. I, for one, thought that there would be removal of invasives like buckthornne, removal of dead and diseased trees, repair and replacement of bridges, erosion management, and other similar things. From the ballot question we were asked in the city meetings I and many others attended, there were there was no indication that a beautiful, serene, and peaceful shaded creek would be clear-cut in areas and turned into a completely different ecosystem called Oak Savannah. This includes the need for ongoing management, including controlled burning, which is close to a lot of our backyards. Surely, there's a proper place for Oak Savannah. It's just not here. It does not make sense to bring it back because just because it was here over 100 years ago. Nature changed it. And yes, people did have an impact. But that doesn't mean we need to destroy the unique ecosystem that we have now just to swap it out for another unique e ecosystem. That is not being good stewards of our land or our taxpayer money. the system. The city has also printed um that they will remove most or not all non- oak species in paperwork which was not disclosed to us during the community engagements. If you look around Bloomington, we have lots of wide open spaces that already resemble oak savannah or are oak savannah such as Highland Park, Running Park, Marsh Lake, the river trails by Highway 169, Tarnhill, and many more. We don't need another wide open, blazing hot sunshine baked open space. We need to keep the gym that we already have and make it healthy. So, I ask each of you to please pause this project where it's at. Take the time to tell the residents and voters of Bloomington what is going on. Be upfront, honest, and transparent with us. Listen to what the people you represent in each of your districts have to say. Um Mark who spoke earlier said that he talked to people and about 80% were not in approval of this Oak Savannah change. And I've talked to many people in the last couple weeks and I'm going to say my percentage is more like 95%. They want to keep it as it is but improve [clears throat] it and and restore and keep keep the big old oaks that everybody loves. I don't think anybody wants to get rid of that. Nobody wants to keep the buckthornne. Um so I think we can come to an agreement with a plan that kind of works for everybody. Let's focus on what's important. Save the big old oaks but not at the expense of everything else. So, um, please put this project on hold because once our cherished ecosystem is gone, it'll be too late. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Kevin Johnson. >> Good evening. Welcome back. >> Hello. Kevin Johnson here on the uh house lot split on Olivia. Um just want to start out piggybacking what Mark was saying. Um that work has been done down there. That is not a storage place. That's,250 square ft. Egress window furnace. The contractor was trying to improve it. Who's to say the next person after the house sells won't do that? There would be no clue. easily go in there without a permit and do that work. Um, I emailed the city and yourself uh about this, inviting you guys out to look at the property to see what us as neighbors and homeowners look at and what we would potentially be looking at. I didn't even get a response. I don't know if any of you guys have been out there to look at this and see what we're dealing with firsthand. This is a recommendation from your planning committee. It's not a need. Doesn't have to go through. So, I just want you to think about that and before pushing through any of this. Please stop out, look at it, understand what is going on. They didn't even know when they applied and got the permit that that was a,50 foot room under there. It wasn't brought up until we told you guys about it and this thing had been pumped back. So again, I just want to be known that I think you guys need to take a look at what is actually going on and not what some planning person is saying. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We'll double back here and see if anybody else on our list. Amber, are you here now? I don't see Amber. Uh, who else did we go past here? Uh, Paul Montgomery. No. Paul McGomery. Well, I I want to say we got about three minutes here. I don't want to bring somebody up and then rush you through your any presentation you might have uh for anybody not prepared. But I do want to say that uh we appreciate your the information that uh everybody has been sharing with us, your opinions, your thoughts on this project. Uh, I know that Nine Mile is a it's a gem within this community and a lot of people have strong uh strong opinions on it and and strong emotions around what might be happening down there and how with the work that's being done. So, I do appreciate that. The uh our August 3rd meeting is when we're going to consider all of this and we'll be looking at that RFP to uh to let that RFP and again all of the information on both sides will be taken into account. And when I say both sides, I understand there's a lot of folks who have been emailing, but we have also spent uh a better part of a year and a half, two years with with experts working on this, trying to put together a plan. So, there's going to be a balancing act among all the the council members as we make this decision, as we think about all this. Council, anything to add? Any thoughts? No. I I would disagree with you. I So for for the So you can't hear it on the mic, so I want to hear folks to be able to hear it. Uh but that something changed that we we weren't uh we weren't talking about what is actually happening there. And and I would disagree with that because the plan all along was for restoration. And restoration does not mean just kind of doing little nibbling around the edges. It means restoring to what it once it once was. And I think we were we were pretty straightforward with all of that. I mean, you I know there the words all over the public engagement were tree thinning, removal of trees. I mean, we were upfront. I I think we were upfront in terms of what was going on. So, yeah. And if it wasn't understood, that that's one thing. But if I I believe the information was out there. >> Why Why don't we Why don't we call adjournment because this is this is spinning out of control a little bit. and we will have the opportunity on uh August 3rd to con continue this conversation. But again, I appreciate everybody and I appreciate your your conversation here. Thanks much. >> I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Council >> council, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? We are adjourned.