Mhm. >> [music] >> Good evening, everyone, and welcome. I will call our Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, the 1st of June, 2026. Thank you to everybody joining us here in the Council Chambers. Thanks to everybody joining us online. We will start as we always do. If you're able, please stand, uncover, 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, thanks to everybody who is with us here this evening. Council, our agenda this evening is a full one. We've got a lot of work to do tonight, so we've got to keep our nose to the grindstone and get it done. Uh under introductory items, we have a number of appointments. Under 2.1, we're going to make appointments to our Planning Commission, 2.2 to the Human Rights Commission, 2.3, we're going to make an appointment of a young adult member to our Human Rights Commission, 2.4, a young adult member to our Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission, and 2.5, young adult to the Sustainability Commission. Item 2.6 on our agenda, we are going to be introduced to our participants in the Growth Through Opportunity. Uh we're going to have a presentation on that and a swearing-in. Looking forward to that. Our consent business is a hefty one, 26 items and Council member Rivas has our consent agenda this evening. Under hearings and resolutions and ordinances, we have five public hearings tonight. Uh No, I'm sorry. Six public hearings. Uh our first public hearing is uh the first five are, that's what I was thinking. The first five relate to Charter Commission changes. So, Charter Commission recommended changes to our city charter. So, 4.1 uh amends Section 5.5, 5.11, and 5.16. Item 4.2 amends 7.06. Item 4.3 amends 7.10. Item 4.4 is uh will be amending 7.14, 15, and 16. And item 4.5 will amend item 7.17 all of the city charter. Uh pretty administrative and standard uh changes, but we'll have those discussions and public hearings regarding all of those as well. Item 4.6 is a public hearing regarding the Gallery Apartments rezoning, the PDP, and the FDP. And item 4.7 is a reasonable accommodation appeal for Underdog Recovery Homes, and we'll be taking that up with uh with the attorney's office in a quasi-judicial manner as a council. Item uh five is uh under organizational business. Item 5.1 will be authorizing preparation of tax increment financing plans for the Lyndale Apartments at 9955 Lyndale Avenue South. And we will wrap as we always do with our City Council policy and issue updates. Council, any corrections or additions to tonight's agenda? Hearing none, I would move the agenda as stated. Motion by Council member Robertson, second by Council member D'Alessandro to move the agenda of tonight's Council meeting as stated. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed, the motion carries 7-0. We have an agenda. And as I said, first on that agenda is appointments. And we're going to start with a number of different appointments. Uh the Planning Commission appointment is item 2.1. And then the uh Human Rights Commission is at 2.2. And I know that Council members Robertson and Lowman were part of that interview panel. I'm going to turn it over to Council member Robertson to kind of lead us through the uh process that you folks went through. Uh maybe talk about some of the uh applicants that you saw and then your recommendations for appointments to those two bodies. Council member Robertson. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Um uh thank you uh Council member Lowman for participating in these commission interviews with me. Um and bear with me as this is my first time presenting these. So, my apologies for any mistakes in advance. Um so, we um interviewed uh folks for both the Well, I'll start with the Planning Commission. Um we had was it I believe seven applicants for two openings. Um we were extremely lucky to have so many qualified applicants. Um and we would say I know that we said as a group um we would definitely encourage everyone who didn't make it this round, please come back and try again. Um we're not uh being facetious when we say that truly everyone was really well-qualified. We're very, very lucky that in Bloomington we have so many people who want to participate in this process. Um so, as I said, we had seven applicants for two openings. Um there were uh six interview questions asked of each um interviewee. Um so, the interviews uh they all got the same questions. They got those in advance, so they were able to take a look at those and be prepared by the time they got to us. Um Each interview was about 15 minutes long. And we talked about background and experience. Um for the Planning Commission, they specifically asked about a development in Bloomington that they maybe had a really negative or positive reaction to, which I thought was great. And the um answers we got to those questions were really or to that question was very uh the answers were very varied, pardon the language. Um and that was interesting. Uh you didn't see the exact same thing from every single person. I think Council member Lowman would agree with me on that, and that was very cool. Um and it was very clear that all of the interviewees really were dedicated to making um Bloomington the best that it can be and so we're very very lucky for that. Um let me pull up through here. Here we go. Um So like I said we had seven applicants and two openings. Um one of those I'm just going to go ahead and say who is a Is that okay? Um one of those um applicants was a person who is on the commission um already. That person Madeline Some Summers, excuse me, Summers um is being recommended for reappointment. Um she's a really strong candidate. Um she's got experience on the commission already. She has tons of institutional knowledge um and she's really really willing to work through the process um and she put a strong emphasis on her preparation for meetings, which is extraordinarily important um and I think invaluable. Um All right. So then we had let's see um as I said we had were several we had seven seven applicants total. Everyone was very well qualified. We had three right up at the top. Um so the first Madeline Summers has been reappointed. Um then we had two folks that were very very close. So we ended up um appointing Robert Coleman um to excuse me, not appointed, recommending. My apologies. Thank you, council member. Um we are recommending for appointment um Robert Coleman for um that second spot. Um he had a really um unique perspective. He has an urban studies background, really really deep concern on what's best for the city. Um and we were um informed by the chair of the planning commission who was in on the interviews with us um that Mr. Coleman is extraordinarily prepared for meetings, um asks really great questions, um really really knows what's going on in depth um and is really willing to listen and learn and be present. Um and so we really appreciated that. So for those reasons um we would recommend that the council appoint Madeline Summers um for reappointment um to the planning commission and that the council appoint Robert Coleman. Um both these terms would start July 1 and end uh 2026 and end June 30th, 2029. >> Thank you for the overview, council member. Uh, council member Lowman, anything to add? >> I think she did a fena- phenomenal job. I think all of us were in agreement. That would be the only thing I would add. Uh, uh, the chair and and the rest of us on the panel. >> Very good. Council, any questions of council member Robertson regarding the recommendations? If not, council member Robertson, I would look for a a motion to appoint Robert Coleman and to reappoint Madeline Summers to the planning commission for terms that run 7/1/26 to 6/30/29. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Lowman to appoint Robert Coleman and Madeline Summers to the planning commission. No further council discussion on this? All those in favor, please signify by saying "Aye." >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations to Robert and Madeline and thank you to all the applicants for that position. Item 2.2 this evening is the appointment to the Human Rights Commission. Council member Robertson. >> Thank you, mayor. All right, give me one moment, please. All right. So, um, for the Human Rights Commission, we had um, three applicants and for one partial term opening. Um, that term will run from June 1st, 2026 to February 28th, 2027. Um, and again, uh, the folks that we spoke with were all extremely um, dedicated to the cause. It was it's always really wonderful to listen to people speak about how much they want to help others and how much they want to help um, all of the residents of Bloomington uh, be the best they can be. Um, so again, during this interview, it lasted about 15 minutes. Um, all of the interviewees were asked the same questions. They did have those provided to them beforehand, so they were able to prepare. Um, asked about their background and experience. Um, asked about their vision for the Human Rights Commission, um, how they're engaged or connected in the Bloomington community, in what ways they could serve as a bridge to the city, um, and, you know, how they can, um, cultivate, or, excuse me, how they can enhance the the city's mission. Um, so, again, we had three people, uh, all, or, yeah, three people interviewing for one spot. Um, all of the folks who interviewed were phenomenal, and again, we would say truly, if you didn't get appointed this time, please, please, please come back. If it were up to me, I would love to have spots for everyone, but we don't. Um, but truly, we are we are extraordinarily blessed to have so many people in Bloomington who care so much about their neighbors. Um, so, we had three folks, um, all the candidates were fabulous. Um, of the three that were interviewed, um, the, and again, we were all in in agreeance with this, um, we would recommend that Jessica Kilty, uh, be appointed to the Human Rights Commission. Um, Jessica is extremely passionate about the work of the HRC. Um, she's done really extensive volunteering outside of just her professional involvement, um, and she does have, uh, professional experience in immigration work, um, which we think it could be certainly very helpful, especially given, um, the recent tragedy of Metro Search. And, um, we felt like she's really in the midst of it. She's a great connector of people. She's ready to take it to the next level. Um, and we were just, again, we were very impressed with everyone, but we were we were impressed with Ms. Kilty's, um, passion and her work, and so, we would recommend her for appointment. >> Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Lohmann, anything? Nothing? All right. Council, any questions of Councilmember Robertson regarding the panel's recommendations for the Human Rights Commission? If not, Councilmember Robertson, I would look for a motion to appoint Jessica Kilty to the Human Rights Commission for a term that goes from 6/1/26 to 2/28/27. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Councilmember Robertson, second by Councilmember Lohmann, to appoint Jessica Kilty to the Human Rights Commission. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Motion carries 6-1 with Councilmember Rivasi in opposition. Thank you so very much. Uh, and thanks to Councilmember Councilmembers Lohmann and Robertson for serving on that. Uh, I know it's a time commitment, but I appreciate the that you did put the time in and um I I really I can't say enough about this process that we've gone through now and the improvement in the process and the quality of candidates that we continue to get and the quality appointments that we get tend to get. So, thank you very much for that. Uh, moving on item 2.3 through 2.5 are appointments to a young adult members to different commissions. These are a bit different rather than to be on kind of our our general calendar. These are more closely associated to the school year. So, these terms will run from September 1st, 2026 to August 31st, 2027. Uh, if you look in your packet council, the young member for the Human Rights Commission, we had five applicants and two openings and I know we didn't do interviews with these. Uh, so I'm I'm sure you've had a chance to look through them council. I have as well I've dug through the the um the applications pretty closely. I talked to to folks who who were in the know about some of these folks and and made recommendations. And uh based on that, unless there are others who would like to come forward, we've got a um we've got a couple I think that have stood out, but what we'll do is is open it up to recommendations or open it up to votes. The recommendations that I have heard were for Musab Ali and Sunny Baldwin. I'm just saying those were the recommendations I heard based on some conversations that I did have. But as we have done in the past, what we're going to do is take a vote and we'll start on the the far all the way down in the far end of the table. Everybody gets two votes and whoever gets to four votes will be appointed to the will be the youth appointment to this to this commission. Any questions on this council? We've done this a number of times before. All right. Ms. Ray, can you could call the roll call for the votes for the young adult member of the Human Rights Commission? >> Council member D'Alessandro. >> Mr. Mayor, I had selected Kennedy and Wynn as my two at the >> Thank you. >> Rivas. >> Excuse the time I'm taking on this, but I I've just read my wrote my notes in here. I have Kennedy and Bowling are my choice. >> Thank you, Council member. >> Nelson. >> Kennedy and Wynn. >> Lowman. >> I've got uh uh Sarah and Wynn. >> Robertson. >> Uh Kennedy and Wynn, please. >> Carter. >> Uh Kennedy and Wynn. >> Mirabassi. >> I'm going to go with uh uh Musab Ali and Sunny Baldwin. Council by my tabulation here, we have two members that received five votes. Laken Kennedy and Quinn Wynn. Am I correct in that? >> Yes. >> Very good. So, Council, I would look for a motion to appoint Laken Kennedy and Quinn Wynn to the young adult member openings in the Human Rights Commission to run from 9126 to 83127. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Council member D'Alessandro, second by Council member Robertson to make those appointments as stated. No further council discussion on this? All is Oh, council member Carter with a question. >> Thank you, Mayor. I don't have a question, but I just wanted to say when I was reviewing these applications, I am I was just blown away by the candidates, um the young people who applied and not just for this commission, but all the commissions. I was reading their applications and resumes and I was like, "Oh my gosh." Like >> [laughter] >> who is putting us to shame? I mean, um these young people are involved in so much and um doing incredible things already, every single one of them. And so um very, very hard decision and um I just want to applaud them for for applying and knowing what these commissions are and for all of the incredible work that they're doing. So. >> Thank you, council member. Uh hear, hear. Couldn't agree more. So, we have a motion and a second to appoint Laken Kennedy and Quinn Wynn to the young adult member positions in the Human Rights Commission. No further council discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations to Laken and Quinn. Uh our next young adult member appointment is to the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission. We had one opening and one applicant. So, council, I would look for a motion to appoint Cole Johnson as our young adult member to the park from uh to serve on a term from 9/1/26 to 8/31/27. >> So moved. >> Motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Rivas to appoint Cole Johnson as the young adult member to the park. All those in favor? Please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations to Cole. And the same is true with the Sustainability Commission uh with a a slight degree of difference. We've got two openings and two uh applicants. So, uh I would look for on a a motion, council, to appoint Hanan Abre Dima Man. I'm close on that, I hope, and Tara Larson as the young adult members to the Commission to terms from 9126 to 83127. >> So moved. >> Motion by Councilmember Carter, second by Councilmember D'Alessandro to appoint I'm just going to say your first name, Hanan, and Tara Larson to our young adult member openings on the Sustainability Commission. Any further Council discussion on this? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. As we have said a bunch of times, outstanding number of people both uh for the for the uh adult members and as the young people as well. These are it just keeps getting better, the number of folks who apply and the quality of our applicants. And so, congratulations to everybody who did apply. Um I'm sorry that we couldn't appoint everybody, but there is always room to to volunteer and to be part of this uh the city, whether it's on a board or a commission or uh with your church or with a youth group or with VEEP or any number of ways to to be involved. Really encourage people to do so. So, but thank you. And once again, thanks to our Councilmembers and thanks to uh I think uh this is Planning Commissioner member Lokken also helped out with this, did he not? Very good. Very good. We will move on, Council. Thank you for that, by the way. Thank you all. We're going to move on to item 2.6. This is a uh presentation and swearing in of the participants for our Growth Through Opportunity um program. And I think Chief Hodges is going to kick this off, but I know that uh uh one officer is sleeping on the job, but the other is standing up and ready to go as well. So, Officer Daniels, good evening. Chief Hodges, good good evening to you as well. >> Good evening. Good evening to you guys. Um I just got to talk about our GTO program. This will be the third year that we've been doing it. Um and what the GTO is, it's the Police Department has um combined our work with Empower Inclusion. We're working together to provide support to individuals with disabilities as they identify and pursue their employment related goals. And so this year our two um GTO interns are going to be Joey's in the back right now. He's hanging out in the back, so we'll see if we can get him sworn in, but I'll tell you a little bit about Joey. He graduated high school in 2024. He was the manager for the Chanhassen hockey team and also plays goalie for his Special Olympics team. Um Joey has a very and his Joey Aebersold, We were talking about that earlier, so um Joey has a very supportive family including his parents and two sisters. He's a young man who enjoys sports, hanging out with friends and family just like most 20-year-olds. And then Jack right here, Jack recently turned 23 and attends the Capstone program in Golden Valley. He enjoys watching sports, especially football, which I'm very proud to hear, and being active outside. He also enjoys people and loves being helpful and social. And so what the program is is we reach out to all different city departments and even the Mall of America. Um they'll be spending time with a lot of them including environmental health, communications, public works, parking rec, and the fire department. Um and they will start next week with parks and rec and police with the cops and cones, so that's them. I'll have them come up if they're willing to and come on up. Joey, you coming or what? >> All right, Joey, man, we'll swear you in in your sleep, man. >> [laughter] >> All right, uh Jack, so raise your right hand. Say I and state your name. >> I >> Then say Jack Johnson. >> Jack Johnson >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will support >> that >> will support >> the Constitution >> of the United States >> of the United States >> [sighs] >> and the state of Minnesota >> of Minnesota >> and faithfully discharge >> faithfully discharge >> duties >> the duties >> as a growth as a growth >> through Yeah. >> through opportunity >> as a growth through opportunity >> intern >> intern >> for the city of Bloomington >> city of Bloomington >> Minnesota >> Minnesota >> to the best of my ability >> best of my ability >> All congratulations, MAN. >> THANK YOU. >> [applause] >> ENJOY, WE GOT YOU IN THE SLEEP, DUDE. IT'S ALL GOOD. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, GUYS. >> We got to do the official grip and grin, Chief. You got to You got to make sure. >> He's got to come take a picture, yeah. >> There you go. >> We want to take this out. >> Right here. >> All right, cool. >> [laughter] >> What side you want? You pick. Your world. All right. >> Right here. Peace. >> All right, congratulations. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Thank you, Officer Daniels, for shepherding this through. We do appreciate it. Jack and Joey, congratulations and welcome aboard. We're very excited to have you on board and I looking forward to getting to to know you a little bit better, so guys, well done. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you. Next on our agenda, Council, is item three, our consent business. Council member Rivard has our consent agenda. Council member Rivard. All right. Count- The Council member, we need your microphone on. >> Sorry. I apologize for that. I move item 3.1 3.1 to 3.8 and items 3.10 to 3.20 and items 3. 22 to 3.26. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Rivas, second by Council Member Carter to adopt tonight's consent agenda as stated. No further Council discussion on this one? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Council Member Rivas, item 3.9. >> Yes, I just have a couple of questions on that. Um Okay. I know there's a a new 50% flexibility on the uh in extreme conditions. Um and I I'm just wondering um what uh what defines extreme what guardrails are in place to uh from becoming the normal during routine budget budget pressures. >> Uh Mr. Walker, do you want this or is Ms. Economyshouler or >> Um Mayor and members of the Council, I'll ask our Director of Finance, uh Lori Economyshouler, to come help with this one. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, Mayor. Council Member Rivas, could you reframe the question one more time for me? >> Okay. She said new uh 50% flexibility in extreme conditions is it's uh put in place, right? Uh for the budget. Uh my question is are there any guardrails uh what exactly defines extreme and are there any guardrails that prevent it from becoming the normal during routine budget pressure? >> Mayor and Council Member Rivas, um this particular piece uh is the reserves and it's not a budget pressure. It was more a a a reserve reserve, so um I'll get I'll go back to you. I think the example was during COVID our revenues, um, for lodging decreased 70%. So that's an extreme condition. We brought it to council and council allowed us to, um, watch our, um, reserves. We also had, uh, a community budget team. We also did a lot of things. So there's a lot of market issues. It would never become part of a normal budget thing to bring reserves to a 50% and there's two different things. >> If I If I may, uh, the the only reason I'm asking the question is because I for the last 3 years every time that, uh, a department or or including, uh, artistry uh, we had a budget, uh, so-called for to me meant emergencies, right? Uh, and it was always taken out of there that even we laughed about it and called it the slush, uh, budget or funds. Uh, so the that's the only reason I'm questioning this because, uh, I I we discussed this before that the money that we the funds that we had put aside for so-called emergencies was used for whatever, you know, it was taken and given to departments whenever the departments asked for funds. So that's why I'm asking this question. If it will create the same, uh, uh, routine that we had in the past with the funds that were existing as, you know, um I I forgot the terminology right now. I'm kind of out of it a little bit, but my question is just because of that. I just want to make sure that we don't use the funds in a way that we used to use them in the past. We just took, uh, funds from >> Are you talking about our strategic plan? >> The strategic priority funds. >> completely different again. >> Yeah, so >> So, um, Mayor Councilmember Rivas, within the general fund that where we have our tax levy, we also have a contingency at 2 and 1/2% which is a requirement within our um charter. So, that is always the contingency that if we needed to use that contingency for an emergency, we have about $2 million to use that. So, that's within the borders of the general fund. In the borders within the strategic priorities fund, we've already had some conversations about how to move that to in the future to um offset some of our capital and debt things. So, other than um I'll call it some um activities that we'll do as we're transitioning to that. Um that will be a whole different type of um activity that we'll do with that fund. It will not be coming in as like a slush fund or that type of activity. There's always a strategy behind how we use that fund. And we bring anytime we use that fund, we bring it to the city council to vote on. >> All right, thank you. I I just have another question in regards to uh since we are exclusively applying the same policy to the port authority and the HRA, are their budgets and fund balances also being brought into the same monthly reporting cadence as the the city's general fund? >> Mayor Council member Rivas, um their reports um are for their boards generally on a monthly basis. The HRA board is receiving their financial report, the port authority is receiving in a financial report and having the conversations about their budget and their financial activities um within those areas. We do not put publish their financials other than through the annual report. >> All right, thank you. >> Okay. Mhm. >> Uh my other question is in regards to the art street. >> Let let let's finish this one if we could. Uh Council, any other questions or or comments regarding item 3.9? Council member Lohman. >> Yeah, just so we're we're clear about these budgetary and financial control policies. Um, you know, these are pretty standard things that kind of come before us. Um, and one of the things I wanted to give, you know, the officer the opportunity to say is just what is is different between the 2018 and the 2026. What I saw were just basic uh, changes, um, you know, between 2018 and 202026 policy changes here. And these are just these help to ensure the strength of our very strong uh, fiscal policies that we have and budgetary policies that the city runs uh, runs by and and it's by the way, award-winning uh, our our processes. So, um, I just wanted to give you that opportunity if there's anything you wanted to mention, if there was anything any highlights you want to mention between 2018 and and 2026. >> Mayor Councilmember um, Lowman, we utilize the Government Finance Officers Association best practices. We use the state auditor's best practices. And part of that, um, even in looking at the state auditor's piece, that percentage type um, the revenues for budgetary is right within that some of the language that they use. Is that in extreme conditions, the reserve should be a little higher just to make sure if there's fluctuations in the market, if our cash balances are being drained from other purposes, an emergency, storm, whatever it is, we have the ability to handle it. Good financial management. >> Oh, thank you for that and I I appreciate my colleague too also asking those those questions and making sure that, you know, we have we have this opportunity to highlight our our our great fiscal uh, and budgetary processes. >> Thank you. >> Council, anything additional? Councilmember Rivas. >> I just want to make a comment. I I I mean no way challenging the ability of the city. I mean, I I understand. I know and I'm aware that the city is in great financial shape. I That's not what I'm questioning in any way whatsoever. I know you guys do an awesome job there. I I I was just curious because I didn't quite understand how or what was the change to it. >> Yep. >> I wrote my questions on that. But I I do admire the the the fact that you do an awesome job and and I boast about it when I go to meetings with other city uh officials. Uh so, you know, in no way whatsoever I'm challenging the ability of your department to handle uh you know, the city finances, which is a great work that you guys do. Thank you anyway. >> Thank you for the compliments. >> So, Councilmember Rivas, uh since you were the one that held it, if your answers or if your questions have been answered satisfactorily, do you want to move item four uh four two 3.9? >> Yep. So, uh I move item 3.9. >> Motion by Councilmember Rivas, second by Councilmember Nelson, to accept item 3.9, which is the approval of budgetary and financial control policy revision on tonight's uh consent business. Any further council discussion on this? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0. Item 3.21, Councilmember Rivas. >> Yeah, um I am you know, we we have gone through this a lot uh and we discuss the reality that uh Artistry is always asking for funds continually throughout the year. It's not the first time that they do this. Um I don't know how the rest of the council feels about it, but I I do know that we all all all of us have questioned at one time or the other the fact that we continue to uh fund this department. I I'm I just wonder uh are they not able to manage their finances that they're constantly in the need of uh of funds? >> I I well, I Councilmember, I will say if if reading the item 3.21, if you recall about two months ago or so, we we uh we forwarded Typically, Artistry would be in this list. What we did was give Artistry their cut 2 months ago and so on. Artistry is not in this list right now. This is Angelica, this is Bloomington Chorale Symphony Orchestra, Continental Ballet, Medalist Concert Band, and Notable Singers. And these are awards that we've made to to folks for a number of years to to support the arts in the city of Bloomington. Artistry is not in this list. They've already they received that money ahead of time to try and help bridge a tough financial gap that they had right now. But Artistry isn't in this list. These are the other six resident art organizations within the city of Bloomington. >> I understand that. I think I in this particular time I have made a mistake, but I do are they not part of Artistry as a whole though? >> Artistry is a stand-alone organization. >> And then >> And these other art these other arts groups that I've mentioned, those are also stand-alone organizations. >> In that case, I sincerely apologize for that. I was under the assumption that they were part of it and we had just given him the full amount just a maybe a month and a half ago. So, I I apologize for that. >> No. That's um that that >> to for allowing me to question that that >> Very good. Again, if your questions have been answered, would you like to move item 3.21? >> Absolutely. I move item 3.21. >> Second. >> Motion by Councilmember Rivard, second by Councilmember Robertson to accept item 3.21. This is a 2026 one-time grant to our resident arts organizations or yearly grants to these organizations. Any further Council discussion on this? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Thank you much Councilmember Rivard for taking on that that lengthy consent business this evening. We greatly appreciate it. Moving on to item four, our hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. And as I mentioned as we were talking about the agenda, we're going to start with five items that are amendments to our Charter Commission. And these were recommended by our Charter Commission. They are amendments to our city charter, which as you all know is basically our city constitution. It's it sets the the the framework and the guidelines how we're supposed to run this city. And these are recommendations by our charter commission. I think primarily administrative and cleanup kind of things and and get to best practice. I'm going to turn it over to our city attorney Melissa Manderscheid to lead us through all of these and we'll answer any questions anybody might have. Ms. Manderscheid. >> All right, thank you Mayor and members. So, some of you may recall over the past couple of years the Charter Commission has been systematically marching its way through each chapter of the Charter Commission excuse me of the charter. And so this past year we tackled chapter 7, 8, and 12. And as a part of that process we we literally go section by section and discuss each of them. Um staff come in and answer questions. And out of that sometimes there are requests to clarify things both by the staff as well as by the Charter Commission. Um it's also an opportunity to reflect on uh antiquated language or opportunities to clarify things. Um this year we also uh looked at chapter 5. Um the League of Minnesota Cities asked all the Charter Commission cities to look at their um charters and make sure that um they were um consistent with the Minnesota rules and didn't um have any opportunity for confusion. And so our Charter Commission looked at ours and concluded that we had an opportunity to clarify that as well. So before you tonight are some edits to chapter 5 and then some edits to chapter 7. I have broken them down into uh five different ordinances. Um as you probably recall there are four different ways to amend a city charter. Um the process that we're being used that are I'm recommending you use tonight grew out of a conversation at the Charter Commission and in consultation with the chair of the Charter Commission Steve Peterson. Uh the the process that we're looking to use tonight uh is detailed uh in a timeline in your in your item. I'm talking from page 95 of the chart of the Council packet right now. And that particular process starts with a recommendation from the City Council which you all acknowledge receipt of a couple of weeks ago and then we published the entire ordinance in the the newspaper in the Sun Current. And this is going to be a public hearing because what you're asked to do is amend the City Council's asked to amend the city charter by ordinance. Just like all your other ordinances that you entertain, you will hold a public hearing and then you will ask questions and you'll take action on the ordinance. The one unique element of this particular process in state law is that it requires a unanimous seven-member vote. The entire Council needs to be in favor of it. After the vote happens, if there are seven votes in favor of moving forward with amendment, then we're going to publish it again in the newspaper and after a certain amount of time, if there isn't a challenge to this amendment, then it will become effective around September. And so with that as introduction, any questions on the process before I start with chapter five edits? >> No questions, Council? Very good. Ms. Mayor say please. >> So in the interest of efficiency as well as because these sections are very long, we opted not to do a PowerPoint presentation because none of the text can fit on a PowerPoint slide. So I'm going to just go and call out the page numbers where these ordinances are. So number four or item 4.1, the ordinance is on page 102. And so what you'll see in that ordinance, again page 102 of the packet, there are three sections of chapter five of the city charter. And again as I mentioned, our League of Minnesota Cities asked all of our charter cities to take a look at our charters and when we did that we realized that there was the opportunity for confusion and that our public might look to our charter and use the language that we have in that charter as sort of the beginning and the end of what's necessary. Unfortunately, Minnesota rules require more and although there is that is understood in the ordinance excuse me in that in the charter right now and it says in substantially the form we thought there was a possibility of confusion. So in consultation with the charter commission we're recommending that the sample petitions be struck from the text of the charter and in the alternative the city clerk is going to maintain a sample petition for the public. That will allow us the ability to engage and actually give the entirety of what's required to um people that might be interested in proceeding with the petition. The other thing I'll I'll note is that last year the charter commission also looked at these sections because there was a desire to add email and telephone and just to say on the record that is a request that will continue forward. It's the in our sample and that is because it allows the clerk's office to check and verify the signatures much more quickly and there's a back and forth process for verification and signature collection and correction and it's much more facilitated when we're able to get in touch with people in a way other than US mail. And there are specific timelines and it's 2026 and so we use email and telephone now. So with that you'll see edits to three sections 5.05 5.11 and 5.16. All of them are striking the sample petition and referring people to the city clerk's office and directing the city clerk to maintain a sample petition. Any questions? >> Does anyone have questions on this? No questions? Council member Carter. >> So I assume the sample petition would be developed based on the state requirements. Did the Charter Commission discuss any language that would kind of clarify that in the charter or so that people know it's not just like willy-nilly the city clerk is just making things up. Um >> Chair members, the the specific language where the requirements are located is in the text of each of these edits. It's Minnesota rules part 8205. And so there is language in that section about everything that's required to be in a petition. And then the League of Minnesota cities also has a sample petition. This particular one that we have in our charter now that we're suggesting be removed is part of what's required but not all of it. >> [clears throat] >> I do understand that and that's helpful to understand too that it is laid out in part 8205 what would be in that sample petition. So um I don't find that it's not super clear to me that that's the case in the way it's worded here but I'm also comfortable moving forward with all of this. >> Other questions council? All right, no questions? These are all public hearings and so I'm going to open this public hearing but first I'm just going to give the blanket uh guidelines here for our public hearing. Anybody is able to speak on any of the issues that are coming forward in the public hearing. You'll have 5 minutes based on our our clock on the wall so we'll be able to give everybody the same amount of time. We also will have people on phone on the phone if they decide to call in, so that's a possibility. As you come up at S2, identify yourself for the record and then you can sign in after you're done. So, as you wrap up, you can grab the clipboard and just kind of step to the side just just so we can keep the process moving. We also we won't answer questions on the fly. We'll wait until we get to the end of the public hearing and then answer any questions that have come up during the time. And as I said, I will stop you at 5 minutes because we want to make sure that everybody has the same amount of time to speak on all these items. So, with that, I'm going to open the public hearing on item 4.1. This is a Charter Commission request to amend sections 5.05, 5.11, and 5.16 of the City Charter. Anyone in the Council Chambers wishing to speak to item 4.1 this evening? Is there anybody we have anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do have a caller online. >> Very good. >> Caller with phone number beginning with 612-816, do you wish to speak on item 4.1? >> Uh no, I'm here to speak on item 5.1. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for that clarification. Last call for anybody in the chambers? Council, nobody on the phone and nobody coming forward to speak in the chambers. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.1. Motion by Council Member Riva, second by Council Member Danielson to close the public hearing on item 4.1. I I'm sorry, it's Robertson. I did that to you again, didn't I? Danielson. I I do that sometimes. I apologize. No further Council discussion on closing the public hearing. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, motion carries at 7-0 closing the public hearing. Council, any questions on this? And I will say this is probably the most substantive change I think that we're going to be talking about tonight. This is probably the biggest one and I do want to remind everyone that changes to the charter require 7-0 vote. So, if you're opposed to it or if you have some questions about it, please do ask because uh if it's at 61, it does fail. So, just so we're clear. Council Member D'Alessandro. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh more of a comment than a question. Is it possible for us to I'm assuming that on the clerk's website, there's probably an area of of of inquiry for the public about how to do a petition to the council in the if if something like this would it be possible to update that to make sure that um that we have a link to this Mis- Minnesota Rules 8205 or whatever, so it's nice and easy for people to find. >> I I think that's a good suggestion, Council Member D'Alessandro, and yes, we'll direct staff to make sure that either if that hasn't happened already, that it does happen to make it as easy as >> Right. Now, I think that is helpful and then a sample petition, if we have one that is maintained by clerk anyway, we could have a a view of that online as well as a PDF if people wanted it, but I I would think that that I mean, it makes sense to me that we're not relying on a piece of paper a static image here. As it evolves at the state, we would have the ability to evolve on our own website. So, if we could do that, it'd be great. >> Very good. >> Otherwise, no other questions. Thanks. >> Any other questions, Council? Comments on this? If not, Council, I would look for motion uh to approve item 4.1. Council Member Robertson and a second by Council Member D'Alessandro to accept item 4.1. >> Sure. I was going to read it, but if you if that's perfect, then that's if that works that way, it works for me. >> going to follow up by reading it as well as >> Okay, perfect. Yes, >> This is a Charter Commission request to amend sections 5.05, 5.11, and 5.16 of the city charter. Any further questions, Council? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Item 4.2. This is another public hearing. This is regarding the Charter Commission request to amend section 7.06 of the city charter. Ms. Manderscheid. >> All right, Mayor and members. This is starting now with our amendments to chapter 7. Chapter 7 uh includes the items on our finance and budget. So, we have um our CFO here also if there's a a need to call her up um and answer any follow-up questions. But, again, as the mayor indicated, these are very straightforward. This particular edit is to 7.06. You can find the ordinance itself on page 112 of your packet. This ordinance um the need for this ordinance came up um we are entering a batch of years that have 5-week Decembers, and so there was some question this past year like how are we counting weeks? Uh and we ultimately concluded that there was an opportunity here in 7.06 to make a clarifying edit and give an actual date that the uh budget needs to be passed uh as opposed to saying something more generic as in the third week of December, which could mean potentially a couple different things. But, we thought for sure December 23rd um would be a hard date, and we discussed the actual date at with some um specificity at the Charter Commission and ultimately concluded that December 23rd would work well for all involved. >> Council, any questions of Ms. Manderschein? No? Very good. Hearing none, I will open the public hearing at item 4.2. This is a public hearing regarding Charter Commission request to amend section 7.06 of the city charter. Anyone in the chambers wishing to speak to item 4.2 this evening? Ms. Ridley, do we have anyone new online? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone new online. >> Last call for item 4.2. Council, no one coming forward, uh no one on the phone to speak to item 4.2. I would look for a motion to close the public hearing at item 4.2 this evening. Council member uh mo- motion by Council member Robertson, second by Council member close the public hearing at item 4.2. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Council, any questions here? This is just specifying the date of December 23rd as opposed to the ambiguous third week of December. No further questions on this? All right. Uh I'd look for I would look for action on item 4.2. Council member D'Alessandro, I'm losing track here already. This is not a good sign. >> Um no, that's okay. Happy to make the motion, Mr. Mayor. Uh [snorts] I move to um accept the Charter Commission request to amend section 7.06 of the city charter. >> Second. >> Motion by Council member D'Alessandro, second by Council member Carter to amend section 7.06 of the city charter. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Item 4.3, Ms. Manderscheid. >> All right. Uh Mayor and members, this is on page 120 of your packet. This relates to disbursements. This um there is a lot of strikeouts and edits on this particular section, but overwhelmingly what it's doing is bringing us into to the 2026. So, this these amendments um contemplate that disbursements can happen by credit card and electronic funds transfer. Uh it also indicates that we will not be dispersing city funds with digital currency, um i.e. uh Bitcoin and things like that. Um the disbursements um have to be ident- they they need to identify the funds and from which the payment will be made, and they must comply with uh Minnesota statutes when we process electronic funds transfer. There was some discussion at the Charter Commission about including a specific reference to state law. We ultimately concluded not um that we wouldn't move forward with the specific reference to state law, given that it's a charter, and so we we fell back on simply saying Minnesota statutes to indicate that there was uh state law on this. We similarly similarly removed the requirement that the city manager has to write on every contract which fund it's coming from. We had seemed like that a a good modernization opportunity there. So, um with that, uh I'm available for any questions. >> Questions on item 4.3, Councilmember D'Alessandro. >> I just I had one quick question which was what is what was the the um reasoning behind not accepting digital currency? Was it a function of not being backed by the Federal Reserve or something like that that that warranted that? I'm asking only because it's obviously very popular in lots of markets right now and I wouldn't want us to be back here a year from now going, "Oh, well, we probably need to get some of that." I just was curious. >> Ms. Economy Sholder. >> Mayor and Councilmember D'Alessandro, um we can accept payments of any sort, but we're not going to make payments in the digital world. So, we can um because if you make a payment in a digital world, if there's any mistakes, we can't get it back. But if we um make it an EFT or those type of things, um we have ability to be able to get some funds back. So, we're trying to just protect the city. >> Yeah, that's fine. I just was curious if there was some particular rationale behind it, but it meant that makes sense to me. Um appreciate thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um generally I think that absolutely makes sense. Um my only question is what would happen in the case of and I know we have robust systems in place to prevent this, but there was a ransomware or something like that. Those are those ransoms are always paid in digital currency. What process would there be if the decision was made to just pay it as opposed to trying to work it out a different way. I mean, we saw it in St. Paul. I don't know if they paid or not, but um So. >> Mayor and Councilmember Nelson, um the city of St. Paul did not pay that ransomware. Um as an example, I mean if if NIBY and the council authorized it, um the funds would probably move through US Bank to wherever it needed to go. Cuz they're our current banking customer or vendor. But it we wouldn't authorize it in general through what we have. It's not an authorized mechanism. >> Okay. Would there I guess my question is would there be a way to for the council for the city to do that obviously, you know, with transparency and people knowing about it. I just um obviously I appreciate the work that staff is doing to prevent that type of thing from happening, but it does happen and and other places have paid it. And um would there be a process, I guess to bring it forward and say, "Hey, we're going to have to change modify this policy and make this payment because it's less expensive than the alternative." >> Ms. Manderscheid? >> Mayor and members, um the city has in the ins- in the event um in the situation you reference with regard to uh a cyber attack, the city has uh has coverage for that. And I suspect that we could work with our coverage provider to make any payments that are necessarily. Um that said, if you would like us to hold this over and not take action tonight, collect some additional information, the council is not required to take action tonight. Um you have until I believe July 1st to take action. >> I'm not looking to hold it over or anything. I think it's a good policy. I just think that if something ever came up, we might be in the situation of discussing that. Um and what that might mean with our insurer, with all that information. Um so um I I want to make sure that there's a pathway that we can actually discuss it at that point, which I think from what I'm hearing there is. We talked with our insurance company, and we talked to if we needed to make any changes. Um I mean, uh again, seriously appreciate the amazing work that our staff is doing to prevent that from happening, and we've been briefed on it, and it's uh but it's legit, you know, it's out there. >> It is Council member Menneh, I appreciate you bringing that forward, and and I I think I agree with what you just said there basically. I think if we direct staff to make sure that there is at least a contingency plan in place, whether it be with our carrier in some other way to to make this happen. But I I agree. I I mean, I hate to legislate for worst-case scenario, and and I think we could find a way forward with this, I think we should. All right. Thank you. Council, any any additional questions on 4.3 before I open the public hearing? If not, I will open the public hearing on item 4.3. This is regarding a Charter Commission request to amend Section 7.10 of the City Charter. Anyone in the Council Chambers wishing to speak to item 4.3? Ms. Reid, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone new online. >> Anyone in the Chambers? Council, no one coming forward, no one on the phone looking to speak to item 4.3. I look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.3. >> So moved. Second. >> Motion by Council member Carter, second by Council member D'Alessandro to close the public hearing on item 4.3. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify >> by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0. Council, anything more on this? Good conversation, Council member Nelson. Council member D'Alessandro. >> Yeah, just a follow up on Council member Nelson's thought. I I do think it might make sense if US Bank or someone in our fiduciary realm has the ability to convert our currency to to digital currency in order to make a payment like that, we would want to know, maybe not publicly necessarily, but it would be good for us to know that we could do that, I think. >> And I think in general the the council direction is for staff to come up with a plan B just in case this happens. >> makes sense. Thanks. >> Any other Yeah, let's ideally let's not have that happen. So, council, any other questions on this? If not, I would look for action on item 4.3. Motion by council member Nelson, second by council member D'Alessandro to accept the Charter Commission request to amend section 7.10 of the city charter. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed. Motion carries 7-0. Item 4.4, Mersheid. >> May members, this is on page 129 of your agenda packet. This relates to an amendment of city charter section 714, 715, and 716. This relates to a clarification um on the on the procedural steps and the vote requirements uh in the cadence of issuing various types of uh financing tools that you see described here in these various sections. So, the edits are similar throughout each section. There it was a clarification in 714 that we don't have to have five votes, it's at least five votes. And then a clarification later on that to award the sale of the G of the general obligation bonds is a four-vote requirement um to authorize the issuance uh is a five-vote at the beginning, four votes once uh you all have a a a uh decided to move forward, it's only four votes to actually award the sale. Similarly in 715, um there is a clarification of the vote requirements for a tax anticipation certificates. Uh this is a five-vote to adopt the ordinance to authorize the issuance, and then four votes to award the sale. And then the final part is 7-16. This relates to emergency debt certificates. Again, five votes at least to approve the issuance, and then four votes to adopt the resolution awarding the sale. These are not tools that we have used in a very long time, nor tools that we necessarily desire to be able to to have to use. But we discussed with the Charter Commission a request to keep them on the books to have them available in the event they were necessary under some extraordinarily challenging circumstances. So with that, it's just a clarification of at least five to authorize and at least four to award after to award the sale. Any questions? >> Council, any questions of Ms. Manderscheid on item 4.4? Council member D'Alessandro. >> I do have one question. >> required, Council member. >> I know that. >> Well, I you you you you suggested we get them all out beforehand, so I'm going to take your advice. >> [clears throat] >> Um Uh thank you, City Attorney. Um these clarifications make total sense to me. I just was curious if they uh were they are they the result of of a something that happened at the state legislature or something that we're now adopting these changes in the vote counts or are these just clarifications of the way that the vote always supposed to happen? >> Uh Mayor and members, they are clarifications of of existing practice. Um when um when we're deciding or when the agenda comes out, we prepare how many votes are required for every action that you all are going to contemplate. And uh in preparation for that, Lori and I had previously discussed how many votes do we need to award the sale. And then when this came up during the Charter Commission, we discovered that there was an opportunity to clarify that in writing, so we took that opportunity. >> Thank you. Any other questions, Council? If not, I will open up the public hearing on item 4.4. This is a public hearing regarding Charter Commission request to amend sections 7.14, 7.15, and 7.16 of the city charter. Anyone in the chambers wishing to speak to item 4.4 this evening? Ms. Ray, anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone new on the >> Last call for anybody here? Council, nobody coming forward, no one's on the phone. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.4. Motion by Council Member Rivard, second by Council Member D'Alessandro to close the Uh second second by Council Member Robertson to close the public hearing on item 4.4. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0, closing the public hearing. Council, any questions on this? Any comments? Council Member D'Alessandro, do you have action on item 4.4? >> Absolutely. I'd be happy We should read a couple of these, right? I mean, I'm just thinking. Uh I am um ex- moving to accept the Charter Commission request to amend sections 7.14, 7.15, and 7.16 of the city charter. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member D'Alessandro, second by Council Member Carter to accept the car- the Charter Commission request to amend sections 7.14, 15, and 16 of the city charter. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0. Item 4.5, Ms. Manderscheid. >> All right, Mayor and members, this is on page 139 of your packet, 139. And this is an a an amendment proposed to section 7.17 of the city charter. This has to relate This This section relates to net debt obligations. And there was a lengthy discussion at the Charter Commission about um some clarification of the text, what it means, um how to what people necessarily understood um net debt bonds to be, how they function. And so these edits are intended to be clarifying. In subdivision one, you see edits similar to the ones that you just made in your last ordinance. The at least five votes to to authorize issuance and then four votes to award the sale. And then in subdivision two, there's a definition of what is meant by net debt and just a general clarification of the of the section so that it is more understandable to the reader as well as to those that may be approaching it for the first time as opposed to having spent a lot of time in it. These changes were not only discussed in depth with our CFO, but also our outside bond counsel to ensure that they were acceptable to bond counsel and they were discussed a couple of times at the Charter Commission to make sure that everyone understood what was functionally happening. With that, I am available for questions as well as the CFO. >> Thank you, Ms. Madershchek. Council, questions on item 4.5 this evening. No questions? Very well. I will open the public hearing on item 4.5. This is a public hearing regarding a Charter Commission request to amend section 7.17 of the city charter. Anyone in the chambers wishing to speak to item seven 4.5? Is there anyone? >> No, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anybody in the chambers? Council, I would nobody coming forward and no one on the phone, I would look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.5. Motion by Council Member Loman, second by Council Member Robertson closing the public hearing on item 4.5. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Any questions on this one, Council? Council Member Loman. >> I I any questions. I just want to move it. >> Any questions? Councilmember Loman. >> I move for resolution to unanimously adopt an ordinance amending the city charter section 7.17 related to general obligation charter bonds and limited citations on net debt obligations. >> Second. >> Motion by Councilmember Loman, second by Councilmember Carter to accept the charter commission request to amend section section 7.17 of the city charter. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, say by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0. Ms. Mancha, thank you very much and I want to thank our charter commission for the work that they did on this and I know that staff did a lot of work as well. Good to get this cleaned up and bring this into 2026 and to make sure that we are all nice and tidy and everything is ready to go. And I do want to point out staff Council, if you notice in the in the packet, typically we do summary publication for a reason. We can get it condensed down and it's much less expensive. We published all of these these charter amendments. And so the Sun Current, I think we made their we made their quarter amendment. >> $835. >> We we did they did well by us to to get all these things printed. So with that I will open or we will move on to item 4.6. This is our final public hearing of the evening. This is regarding the Gallery Apartments rezoning and PDP and FDP. Good evening and welcome. >> Good evening, Council. Give it just a minute here so I can get >> Standing by. >> promoted to get my PowerPoint up. >> [snorts] >> And what's being passed out to you now is the list of conditions of approval that was recommended by Planning Commission. This is unfortunately it was left out of the staff report in the packet by error. So we're just providing that to you now so you have a moment to review it. Now I will discuss some of these in the presentation. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Any questions after a quick review? Mr. Palmer here. Mr. Palmer, please continue. >> All right. Good evening, Council. My name is Dylan Palmer. I am with the Planning Division and I'm here tonight to present item 4.6, which is for the Gallery Apartments. It's a re-zoning and then a preliminary and final development plan located at 7900 Xerxes and 3500 American Boulevard. So, this is an overhead view of the existing conditions at the site. Uh right now, the site is composed of the Wells Fargo Tower. Uh that's not proposed to be altered as part of this project, uh as well as a drive-thru bank and a large surface parking lot on the eastern side of the project. Uh the entire site is proposed to be re-zoned and there is currently an Xcel power line running through the northern portion of the site, as you can see here with that green line that kind of bisects the eastern parcel and then runs along the north edge of the western parcel where the tower is. Uh so, the proposed re-zoning is to re-zone this entire site from CO1 plan development to C4 plan development. Uh CO1 is one of our legacy zoning districts. It was when the city was initially chartered and they had zoning districts, CO1 was pretty prevalent along I-494. We no longer re-zone properties to CO1, so a lot of these standards in that district are out of date. They don't work for current developments. So, the C4 zoning district allows for reduced setbacks. It allows for multi-family residential. And then the plan development uh add-on there, it allows for more flexibility for the developer and for the city. This site is guided office in the comprehensive plan which is consistent with the C4 zoning district. Office in the comprehensive plan also supports residential development in these office park areas. This is a preliminary development plan of the site. It shows the entire site again including the tower as well as the proposed apartment development that we're going to be talking about here tonight. Other going to be developed on the east side of the site. That's again currently where the Wells Fargo drive-thru is and it's a very large empty surface parking lot there at the street corner. There is a separate lot line adjustment application that's underway that will create a straight line between these two properties rather than the current is kind of a weird diagonal thing that affects where who gets what parking per se. Speaking of parking, this is our parking calculation for the site. So if you notice they're actually 102 spaces short of the required parking number. They have provided us with a proposed parking agreement between the apartment development and the Wells Fargo tower for 168 spaces. The way that parking share parking agreement will work is during the day those spaces will be available for customers and for employees of the Wells Fargo tower and in the evening they'll be available for residents of the apartment complex. All right, and then this is the phase one plans for the apartment development. So this is a two-phase apartment development. Today what we're voting on or what council will be voting on is for phase one of the development. So it's 270 units and it's six stories tall. It'll be located right at the corner of Xerxes and American. They're also in their preliminary development plan proposing phase two which is just to the north of this building. You can kind of see it's a lighter gray box at the top edge of this. If they were to develop phase two in the future, depending on economic conditions and everything, that would come back to the council for another vote. So just some highlights about this again, 270 units. There are a big mix of studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms. This includes affordable units, a pool, amenity rooms, a fitness center, bike storage, a roof deck, and a courtyard. And then as you can see on this image, I labeled the entrance to the parking garage. They're going to be removing a right-in entrance off of Xerxes Avenue there, as well as providing an amenity terrace with a pool fronting onto American Boulevard. >> [snorts] >> This is the landscape plan for the site. It is code complying. They're going to be planting a lot of new trees along Xerxes and American, as well as along Southtown Drive, which is the frontage road for I-494. These are two pictures of the phase one building elevation. So the picture on the left, that is the view from the southwest from the Xerxes and American intersection. So that's what most people driving through the area will see. And then again, as I mentioned earlier, the planned development zoning overlay allows the developer to ask for flexibility requests. So in this case, they've requested four separate flexibilities. Three of those are related to setbacks, and one of those is related to the storage space. The first three there, the front front setbacks for phase one building, the phase two building, and for a parking lot setback. All those staff is supportive of just because of the nature of the site, we want to be able to have these buildings a little closer to the streets, to Xerxes and American, and we want them to be able to use that space for residential development and more residential units, rather than just have this big empty yard between the street and the building. So we figured in this case, staff is very supportive of having that building closer to the street and providing more space for the residents. The fourth request is a storage space reduction. They are requesting a reduction of requirement from 270 storage units down to 61 units Uh because they are proposing affordable housing units with this development. That reduces the requirement down to 135 already. The applicant is requesting further reduction down to 61 spaces due to market conditions and staff is supportive of that as well based on some of the data that was provided by the applicant. >> [snorts] >> Affordable housing plans if 9% of their units are provided at 60% area median income or lower. That's again a mix of all different unit types and the OHO, the opportunity housing ordinance allows them to use these incentives to reduce in this case the storage space requirements and the exterior material requirements. At the planning commission meeting, planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning and the preliminary and final development plan 7-0. We had two members of the public speak at the public hearing. We had some questions about traffic concerns, overhead power lines, the size of the building and parking requirements. And then the piece of paper that was passed out to you before the meeting is or before the hearing, excuse me, is the list of recommended conditions. Vast majority of these are pretty boilerplate for any large development, but I'd like to call attention to condition number 14 which is about the shared parking agreement that we just want to make sure that that's in place prior to them receiving their building permits. And then we also have a condition number 21 that refers to sanitary sewer capacity. So this is located in the area of the sewer sanitary sewer project and we want to ensure that that project to expand the capacity of sewers is complete and all done before they start adding resident more residential units to that specific sewer line. And with that we have three recommendations for you tonight and I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Council questions on this? Questions? >> [clears throat] >> Councilmember D'Alessandro. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh hi, good seeing you again. Um I I was going to ask about the North Central Sanitary Sewer project anyway. What is the um um how does that impact their development timeline? Uh in that, you know, obviously that project is subject to our development, and so how how is that being managed, the the give and take here, if you will. How are we going to line that up? >> Yeah, Mayor Councilmember D'Alessandro, what I'll do is I'll defer that question to our city engineer, Julie Long, who's joined us, and she can give you the uh more specifics on the timeline. I believe the applicant The applicant has joined us as well, so they can give you some specifics on their timeline. I believe they were looking at uh starting construction either very late this year or early 2027, but again, I want to defer to them for the specifics on that. Good evening, Ms. Long. >> Hi. Mr. Mayor, Councilmember D'Alessandro. Um the North Sanitary Sewer project is a 2-year construction project, so we anticipate it to be completed by the end of 2027, so it should time out nicely with the start and conclusion of their construction. >> Okay. >> Um but it is a condition of the um CO. >> And there's no um there's nothing in the in the um what we would sign between us that would penalize us for going past that date or incentivize us to do it faster? Or I mean, there's nothing there, really. It's just a a shared agreement. >> Correct. There's the intention This is a condition just like any of the other conditions that we are putting on the project. Um and we don't foresee, knock on wood, any obstacles to meeting that. We have previously put this as a condition on a project over in the South Loop district >> Mhm. >> when we were doing our sanitary sewer improvement project over there. So, we've done it in the past, we met the timeline, we anticipate doing the same in this project as well. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, Council? You said the >> Yep, the applicant has to be here. >> is here. Uh, anything you wanted to add to to the presentation tonight? >> Well, yeah, I would like to introduce myself if I may. It'll take a few minutes. My name is Joe Maclin. I'm with Chase Real Estate out of Burnsville. I'm accompanied by Amanda on our development team. Um, yes, the construction period we'd likely start late this fall, but it'd be spring 2028. Um, and well, I could go on the nuances of the sewer capacity, but we have to remember that the Wells Fargo building is also not at full capacity, but that It doesn't matter. We'll be in The timing will work out um, great. But, we're we're a small company in Burnsville and we typically do one apartment like this a year. Um, about 5 years ago we actually looked at this site um, with Mark uh, the prior city planner. And so, I'm thrilled to be here. Um, the city has been um, wonderful to work with and um, I don't really have a lot to add. I I would uh, like to commend our architect for coming up with a great design. And we've really been studying a lot of the area properties. Um, and I mean, we're going to design something that we'll be truly proud of and I think the city will be proud of. Um, our team also manages affordable apartments in the city of St. Paul. So, we're all in-house development construction. So, um, what we understand all the nuances and and the reporting of that. So, I'm happy to take any questions that you may have. >> Thank you for being here tonight. Council, any questions? Good. Thank you for being here. Don't go far in case we have any additional questions after the public hearing. So, that'll be good. Thank you. With that, Council, I am going to open the public hearing, our final public hearing of the night. This is item 4.6, a public hearing on the Gallery Apartments, the rezoning and the uh, PDP and FDP. It's located at 7900 Xerxes and 3400 American Boulevard West. Anyone in the Council Chambers wishing to speak to item 4.6 this evening. Is there anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone new online. >> Last chance for anybody on item 4.6? Council, no one on the phone, no one coming forward. I will look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.6. Motion by council member Rivas, second by council member Robertson to close the public hearing on item 4.6. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Uh council, anything on this? Any concerns? I I think this is uh I anything we could do to get this filled up would be great. I think we've been talking about this in a number of different possibilities for a while. I think this is an important gateway to the city of Bloomington and it's kind of it's a bit of an oddball because it being north of 494, but it is still Bloomington and uh but we've been talking about a variety of different things on this site for a while now and I'm glad to see if we can start moving forward on this and get this done and get in the ground and get the sewer all hooked up, I would be very excited to see that happen, especially at at six stories and 270 units. So. North? >> South. >> South of 494, I said I I apologize, south of 494. Council member Dallesandro. >> Thanks. >> Council member, is your is your >> Sorry, it went on and back off again. There we go, apologies. I must have double tapped. I'm sorry about that. Um so yes, thank you for being here, excited about this. I didn't see anything and maybe we just glossed over it, maybe it'll come back and be more relevant in the future, but I didn't see anything about how the the plan for any kind of um uh sound management right along 494 there and I was just curious if we had anything in particular that we would be requiring in that regard. Um being that it's six stories tall, at some point you can't do that, you're going to be overlooking 494, obviously, but I'm I was just kind of curious if we had anything that was we were window pane requirements or anything that we were expecting on the the what would be the north side of the building. >> Mr. Palmer. >> Yep. Uh Mayor Bessie, Commissioner D'Alessandro, we don't have any requirements on the city side of the sound wall construction. That would be up to MnDOT. I don't know off the top of my head if they are proposing to construct them in that area as part of the 494 construction. Uh but there are other apartment complexes in the city that are, for example, the South Loop that are underneath the airport uh and other highway areas. For example, I know there's uh the Ever apartments that are west of here, just west of uh Bush Lake Road that are directly adjacent to 494 and we didn't have any specific requirements for that project, either. >> Thank you. Council Member Nelson. >> Yep. Thank you, Mayor. Um just a couple quick questions here. Uh in terms of the opportunity housing ordinance, will there be any other requests coming forward specifically for financial incentives? >> Uh Mayor Bessie, Council Member Nelson, no, the applicant is not requesting any financial incentives. >> Okay. Um second question is um I don't want to get too far into phase two cuz it's not before us tonight, but um phase two will include its own parking underground, so that won't we're not setting ourselves up for a situation of in improving this where we'd be even more short of parking. I'm seeing some shaking heads and some nodding heads. Okay. I I just want to make sure we weren't putting ourselves in a bad spot there. Um and then uh yeah, whenever you're ready for comments, I got a just a couple quick ones. >> I think we're done with questions. Let him fly. Please. >> Okay. I think it's a a really nice project. My biggest fear initially was when I read it was going to take out the bank, but then I figured out it was just the outdoor bank um cuz I do have a security box in that in that [laughter] bank. So, I was like I was like, "What's going to happen to my wife's jewelry?" So, >> [laughter] >> she would not be happy. Um but this is a really good use of that property. I mean, I I do go to that bank. I got my first mortgage to buy my first house in Bloomington from Wells Fargo at that bank and um whenever I go over there, there's just abundant parking and empty space and and and this will be a really uh nice nice project to deal with that. Um appreciate your hard work in the 5 years you've put into it and let's get the other one done quicker than 5 years, hopefully. Um and you know, I I also like the fact that, you know, I mean, this is close to 494 and and yet they're still able to build it. They're still able to uh make it work even without financial incentives and so um just, you know, for other people that may be looking at projects in Bloomington, thank you for proving it can be done. >> Other comments, Council? If not, Council, I'd look for a motion on item uh 4.6 and we've got it as you see on your screen, we've got three different motions that need to be made here. >> Council member Dalessandro, do you want to take it on? >> Happy to do it, Mr. Mayor. Uh okay, first motion to adopt an ordinance rezoning 7900 Xerxes Avenue South and 3400 American Boulevard West from CO-1 PD commercial office plan development to C4 PD freeway office plan development. >> Second. >> Motion by Council member Dalessandro, second by Council member Carter to approve [clears throat] the rezoning of 7900 Xerxes Avenue South and 3400 American Boulevard West. Any further Council discussion on this? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0. Council member D'Alessandro. >> Uh I move to adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance rezoning 7900 Xerxes Avenue South and 3400 American Boulevard West from CO1 PD commercial office plan development to C4 PD freeway office plan development. >> Second. >> Motion by Council member D'Alessandro, second by Council member Carter for summary publication for item 4.7 or 4.6, excuse me. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0. Council member D'Alessandro. >> Finally, I move to approve a two-phase preliminary development plan for two phases of residential development with 360 total units at 7900 Xerxes Avenue South and 3400 American Boulevard West and final development plans for a six-story 270-unit multi-family residential building located at 7900 Xerxes Avenue South subject to the conditions and code requirements recommended by the planning commission. >> Second. >> Motion by Council member D'Alessandro, second by Council member Carter to approve the two-phase preliminary development plan and two phases of residential development as well as the final development plans for a six-story 270-unit multi-family residential at 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, motion carries 7-0. Congratulations. Looking forward to seeing you in the ground. Looking forward to the the ground breaking and the ribbon cutting. Very good. Thank you very much. Council, we're going to move on to 4.7. Uh and this is a unique one, so I need everybody to pay attention here a little bit. This is a reasonable accommodations appeal for Underdog Recovery Homes. And as you saw in your Council packet, this is the Council basically working in a quasi-judicial manner uh to determine to to hear this uh this appeal and and to respond accordingly. And I'll just let you know this is how we are going to do this just so we get this all done. I'm going to call this item and open it. And then we've got a couple a couple of steps here that we're going to follow. City staff is going to provide information on the planning manager's decision and procedural history of Underdog's request for a reasonable accommodation. That's Mr. Toskey, our assistant city attorney. Then we're going to turn it over to Underdog Recovery Homes appeal the presentation. Megan Rogers as per council for Underdog Homes. You moved on me. There you are. Megan Rogers will make her presentation. We're going to have questions from the council and then both the Underdog and the city and then the city council discussion and ultimately come to a conclusion as we as we work our way through this. What I'd like to do council for both of you kind of let's keep this within 10 minutes so we're not here well into the evening but I think we can work through it and I hear the information that you have to present to us. And so I will turn it over to Mr. Toskey. All right, ladies >> Good evening council mayor members city council. I'm Kevin Toskey like the mayor said. I am assistant city attorney. I work with community development and parks here at the city. So I'm here to present the Underdog Recovery Homes reasonable accommodation appeal. With me is Nick Johnson planning manager and Lynn Moore the environmental health manager in case you have any questions related to any of the aspects of their work and how it touched on this. I've been working with them throughout on this issue. So Yeah, reminder like the mayor said not a public hearing so we'll have to argument and Underdog will first or I'll present some background and then Underdog will go then I'll go and then we'll have time for questions and deliberation after that. So All right, just to kind of ground us here. The ask is to application is to house up to 10 unrelated adults in a single family home. There's three locations that they operate from right now. The why is to provide a residence for those in recovery with a living house manager and to comply with city code. So, city code has a maximum of six unrelated adults in a single-family dwelling. So, they need a reasonable accommodation to exceed that number and serve up to 10 as the request. How they [snorts] do that is a reasonable accommodation request. So, that's in city code in chapter 21. Uh it's 21.5 .07.03 is where that's located. So, we have a process in city code uh of how they go about doing that. So, just a little bit of background about reasonable accommodation. It's required by the Federal Fair Housing Act and the amendments to it. Uh it was added to city code in 2024 with some broader zoning amendments. It's modeled after some other ordinances in uh um other cities in the state. >> [snorts] >> Um what it is is a waiver or modification of city regulations or policies to afford a disabled person the equal opportunity to enjoy and use a dwelling. Previous to adopting the reasonable accommodation process, we used variances to do this, but those are a different standard, so it didn't quite fit. Um variances are based on practical difficulties with the land where this is based on uh residents' disabilities. So, different standards apply and this is the most effective kind of way of doing that. Um we've approved a few of them um for like fence height and things where they have uh children with mental health disabilities that might climb a fence, a short fence, so we've allowed higher fences and things like that. Um I think those are the only ones we've had so far, um but just kind of an example of where it comes into play. All right. So, the process as it laid out in city code is an application form is submitted with any supporting information they want to give. Uh the city might need additional information. We might seek clarification, ask some more questions. That's pretty typical. Um it's kind of supposed to be an interactive process where you go back and forth and get more information, get clarification, things like that until you can kind of flesh out the record and make a decision. So, under city code the planning manager makes the initial decision. Uh we mail the decision notice to all the abutting property owners of the residence where it that applied. Um and then either the applicant or those abutting property owners getting notice can appeal to city council, which brings us here tonight. So, a little bit about Underdog and all that uh council for Underdog explained a little bit more about their operation, but they're in three single-family locations in Bloomington. Uh there's 11041 Goodrich Circle, 2911 112th Street West, and then 691 102nd Street East. So, three locations. Each home has nine to 10 adult residents that it includes a live-in house manager that also resides in the property. Uh residents generally share bedrooms except the live-in manager has their own bedroom. They have valid rental licenses from the city. They meet the living space requirements for 10 residents. So, that's based on the international property maintenance code. Um environmental health inspected all three properties for a rental license in 2024. They were vacant and unfurnished at that time. They came back to do the second rental inspection in 2025. Talked with the housing manager um and looked around the properties. There was whiteboards that kind of showed room assignments and names of all these residents that were living there. So, it was clear they had more than six residents at that time. That was in November of 2025. Um just a little bit about their operation. So, there's you know, there's zero drugs or alcohol allowed. There's weekly random and uh weekly and random drug and alcohol testing. Residents are required to participate in house meetings and do chores. Um they attend treatment of their own choosing. So, each person is kind of on their own individual treatment plan. Uh residents might be evicted maybe evicted for positive drug and alcohol tests. Um they They attend three recovery meetings a week and attend at least 20 hours of school, work, or volunteering. Um the maximum stay for residents is up to 1 year, uh but the average program stay according to uh information they submitted is 97 days. So, roughly, you know, 2 to 5 months is the average uh stay. So, here's the city code provisions that we're talking about tonight. Um the definition of family comes in the zoning code, that's 21.601. So, the definition of family was six or fewer adults or any number of adults who are all related to each other by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship, together with minor children in their care that occupy a dwelling unit. And then, the second uh section you see there is from 21.203 B7. That provides the restriction on the occupancy, so only one family, as it's defined above, can occupy a single-family dwelling. Uh and then, individual units within kind of multi-family dwellings, townhouses, two-family dwellings. So, that it establishes the restriction, the six-person unrelated adult uh limit. So, that's why we're here. They seek reasonable accommodation to house up to 10 in a single-family dwelling at three locations. Little bit about the timeline. So, I mentioned November 2025 is when I first met with uh environmental health. They had inspected the property. They saw these whiteboards and room assignments. Confirmed that more than six residents were in each recovery home. So, I sent them a letter uh November 18th of 2025 asking for proof that all the residents were related with legal authority accompanying that or to apply for a reasonable accommodation. Uh they responded in uh December, in December 16th. Uh they asserted that they have a tribal uh contract with the Red Lake Tribal Nation. Uh they asserted that all those residents were related by blood, but there was no legal authority provided for that. And there was no proof that all the residents were to each other by blood. So, at that time each house had five to seven residents that were Native American from the Red Lake Nation, but the remainder weren't. Um So, there was no proof that every resident was related to each other by blood. So, that led us to January 2026. Uh January uh 30th is when Underdog applied for reasonable accommodation with the city. Um The letter There was a letter from council one attached case and one study. Uh we evaluated that and uh asked for more information in March 2026. So, we didn't have any information about their operations, um occupancy agreement, rules and procedures, kind of governing documents for the recovery homes. Um we got that. They provided that in April 2026. So, we got uh the rules and procedures, the occupancy agreement, floor plans, intake form, kind of the resident bill of rights that they're required to give to the residents. So, we got all that in April. Uh we evaluated that in April 20 April 17th, 2026, the planning manager denied the reasonable accommodation application for a couple different reasons. So, at that time the record didn't have enough to establish a qualifying disability under the Fair Housing Act. So, that was one reason. The second reason was Underdog not established the necessity of having four additional residents in each recovery home. And then the third reason was granting the reasonable accommodation application would constitute a fundamental alteration of the single-family zoning regulations in the city. We'll talk more about that later um as I get into my presentation. Um we asked for or Underdog filed a notice of appeal within 10 days as required by city code. And then they submitted some supplemental information on May 8th, 2026. There's some statements of support and affidavits from um licensed alcohol and drug counselors and uh housing kind of sober home providers and workers within those uh kind of that industry. So, that's kind of the record as we have it right now. So, just to ground us in kind of what three elements must be established for a reasonable accommodation, there's three things. So, there's the qualifying disability. Um with the supplemental information they submitted in May, uh we think that they have established a qualifying disability. So, we're not going to contest that element tonight. So, we won't be talking about that. Um the necessity in the 8th Circuit where uh this is a federal law, so federal courts kind of hear these cases. In the 8th Circuit, they've said necessity is a high standard. So, that's something that is essential, indispensable, and it cannot be done without. So, it has to be a necessity at that standard of level the four additional residents over and above the six. The third thing that has to be established is reasonableness, and what case law says is what isn't reasonable. So, if it imposes an unreasonable administrative or financial burden on the city or is a fundamental alteration of a city regulation or policy. So, you see those the planning manager uh had found that none of those applied, but for this hearing uh we found that the qualifying disability kind of prong was satisfied. So, the two things we'll be kind of talking most about are the necessity and reasonableness tonight. Um that's all I have for background. I'm going to stop sharing, and I'm going to put Underdog's counsel's presentation up on the screen here, and she can present on my computer. >> Let me just ask counsel very quick just on background and process, not on on the merits of the case, but background and process. Does anybody have any questions? Councilmember D'Alessandro. >> One question on um the ordinance. How long has the six-person limit been in place in the city of Bloomington? >> That was changed in April of 2025. So, it used to be four. Um on >> So, it's gone up, but it hasn't gone down. >> It has not gone down. Yeah. >> Okay. And and I missed it in here. What What were the dates where the this these LLCs were established at these homes? >> The rental licenses were issued for two of them in April of 2024 and then September was the Goodrich one. So, a little bit later on. >> Okay. >> Um two of the houses had some work done to add bedrooms in that area. >> So, at the time that they applied for the licenses, the requirement was four and then in April of 2025 it moved up to six. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other clarifying questions about the process or the backgrounder? Very good. Thank you. We will turn it over to Underdog. And Ms. Rogers. >> Could I just go up or down on the slides? >> Perfect. Thank you so much. >> I think. >> Good evening. >> Mr. Mayor and members of council. I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you all this evening on behalf of Underdog Underdog Recovery. Um so, thank thanks also to staff for the excellent summary of sort of where the process is here. I think um I sort of put up here on your screen a sort of an arc of what I'd like to talk about this evening and present to you. Um and I'll I'll just start sort of setting the groundwork of talking about recovery residences and then I'd like to turn to Councilmember Medeiros Andreus' question with regards to this for the definition of family and why Underdog recently believed it was in compliance with the underlying ordinance at the time it began its operations. Um and then we'll talk about the reasons why we are coming you this evening for a reasonable accommodation request and why we do believe that reasonable accommodation is appropriate underneath the code and under federal law. Uh [snorts] so, recovery residences play a very important part in the continuum of care in terms of treatment of people with drug and alcohol addiction and drug and alcohol addiction has been recognized for the past 40 years as a protected disability under the ADA and the FHA. So, let's talk a little bit about what recovery homes can provide. We have the opportunity and the privilege to work in this space. Um and when we think about the continuum of care, we have people who are sober and in recovery and at home with their families and are successful and are following programs and doing other work and they are let's consider that the zero level of care. And then at the highest level of care, we have detox and withdrawal management and medically managed care for people who are coming out of immediate drug and alcohol addiction. Then somewhere in the middle, we have residential treatment and that's like Hazelden, right? Like that's the thing that we often times think about in the recovery space as that higher level of care where we have inpatient treatment. And somewhere between people being at home with their families and successfully living their lives and following a path of sobriety, we have recovery residences, which is what is before you this evening. Okay? Um so recovery homes provide safe alcohol and drug-free shared living environments. They provide a transitional bridge between treatment, that higher level of care, and independent living with one's family. They facilitate active recovery. Um they facilitate community engagement in recovery and they cultivate a sense of belonging and a sense of responsibility for the community. Um when we talk about uh recovery residences, we often talk about the four Rs, which are rediscovering what stability feels like, reconnecting with one's personal values outside of addiction, rebuilding trust in yourself, and finding your rhythm in work and life and engagement again. And I want to bring those factors to attention for you as an important component of this care level because it's why building community. We're going to talk about community in the context of 10 people living within these homes. Um nine people living within these homes with a house manager. Um is why these four Rs are essential to that provision and building of community and why these homes have been established in this manner. Um it's also important for us to talk about in the drug and alcohol space um up in front of you is the study the most recent NIH study in terms of the number of recovery attempts for people attempting to get sober. Um alcohol approximately four tries, four relapses is on average. Um cannabis is the same. Opioids is higher at six. Um stimulants and other drugs data within Minnesota shows seven times within within treatment to get sober is is our state average at this point in time. Um so relapse and recovery and community are core components to the arc of treatment in the context of this disability. So Underdog Recovery Homes was established in 2024. Um its purpose is creating a safe and integrity-filled environment for supporting individuals on their journey to health, healing, and recovery. Um so core features of Underdog are individualized care plans that are tailored to each person's unique needs. Underdog operates both in Bloomington and Minneapolis. The the people who are served in Bloomington are served in Bloomington um because this community provides something special and unique to their treatment journey. Okay. Um this is a sustainable housing model that is supported by the Red Lake Tribal Nation um with housing support dollars. Um so one of the things that you'll see in in the city's findings of fact is that there's not an allegation coming before you tonight that this um that our request for for nine people to be served in these homes is tied to an economic benefit. That's correct because we have obtained outside funding to provide for that um economic sustainability. Okay? Um and uh and Underdog works with a continuum of care model. Um so just that that I as I described, Underdog has strong referral relationships to uh to other providers either in the residential treatment space and then certainly in the withdrawal and detox management space. Um core note here, one of the questions that has been proposed by city staff is why is Underdog not providing the treatment? Why is Underdog not doing the treatment in the home? So, over the course of the last 4 years, you will have seen in the context of federal prosecutions um of people of of providers who are both providing housing and providing treatment. Um the allegations in those federal prosecutions was that uh providers were utilizing housing as an incentive to get people into their treatment programs, which are then funded by Medicaid. And they were using those Medicaid Medicare dollars to fund the housing programs. So, we operate at Underdog in strict compliance with federal law. Um so there is a complete separation between our treatment programs. We have a treatment um partner uh in Kai Shin Services that is local to Bloomington as well. Um but then the people who are living with our homes they are required to attend treatment. They are required to be within a program. Um but it is just not going to be an Underdog provided program. And that's for a very specific reason. Um the other item that I just want to bring to you is um and we're going to talk a little bit about why we believe we were in compliance with the ordinance as it existed. Um but there are are the the three factors. Um so we've talked about the federal prosecutions. Um lastly, there were four letters provided by members of the community in opposition to these homes um in response to the staff report. And um in those letters, um there were certainly there were two letters that we just don't want this. This isn't right for us. Um, the but there were other two letters that said, "Well, we've been living next to these properties for the last several years and we believed, like it was fi- it's fine. Um, but but we can't have an increase in the number of people who are served. We are not suggesting an increase in in the status quo from as the the homes are existing today." Um, and the other factor is that at any point in time should the City Council feel it is appropriate, um, we would absolutely accept conditions of approval that would require certain maintenance standards, smoking areas, um, specific, uh, restrictions or performance standards that would be tied to ensuring that, um, some of those neighborhood impacts, uh, that were addressed by the residents, um, could be fully, uh, taken care of. And I do have the full Underdog team here tonight, um, who can speak to that. So, talking about Bloomington's operations, these are the three homes that Underdog owns within the City of Bloomington. Um, they were all purchased um, specifically after reviewing, uh, the International Property Maintenance Code, um, for the number of square feet, um, that was permissible to have the number of residents that we are seeking before you this evening. Um, we approached city staff, um, in 2024 prior to the, uh, prior to the purchase of the first home on Goodrich, um, and went through an analysis with the housing team about, uh, the square footage to make sure that would accommodate up to 10 residents. So, all of these homes are in strict compliance with your rental ordinance. Um, that has always been the purpose and intent, uh, and the, um, the provider also pulled building permits and, um, and went through that entire permitting process to ensure that the the, um, the bedrooms are all in full compliance with your rental housing ordinance. But now we get to the zoning ordinance, which is what we're seeking accommodation from this evening. Um, and so your zoning ordinance says, uh, six or fewer adults any or any number of adults who are all related to each other by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship together with minor children in their care occupying a dwelling unit. So, each home, um, is primarily resided in by members of the Red Lake Tribal Nation. Um, the the city's interpretation, uh, and the reason that we're here before you tonight, and we raised this in our first communication with the city, um, was saying, well, this home is these homes are different. Um, these homes are representative of a tribal population, um, and uh, and the Supreme Court has recognized that tribal membership decisions are uniquely tied to tribal traditions, customs, and self-government. Uh, the tribe has chosen to define citizenship, uh, through blood quantum and ancestry. And membership is not a voluntary social affiliation, but rather a status derived from documented blood lineage recognized by a sovereign tribal government. So, that's where we come to the concept of adults who are related to each other by blood. And that is how these homes continue to operate. Um, the ordinance does not define related by blood or establish a minimum degree of consanguinity. Uh, >> [snorts] >> the residents are members of the Red Lake Tribal Nation, um, whose citizenship is based upon blood lineage and ancestry. Um, and at a minimum, we believe this demonstrates a good faith basis of operations underneath your ordinance. Um, but when we brought this to staff, staff said, as the as city attorney, uh, Taski has said, um, that they disagreed with that interpretation of its ordinance, and so then we applied for a reasonable accommodation and are here before you this evening. Um, and I I would just point to you to you, um, that your your, uh, the zoning ordinance has been updated and has become more flexible. Um the co-living development process specifically permits families plus um in the context of single family housing. Um it and it also in the context of the adoption of that ordinance talks about that the definition of family includes consideration for traditional families as well as the various forms of functional families. And that's just pulled from the staff report. So I we believe that this interpretation is consistent with the city's historic policy. Um but moving on to reasonable accommodation. Uh so four questions that are asked they're asked by your ordinance. Um are the residents disabled under the FHA ADA? The city has said yes, they are. Um will the request impose an undue financial or unreasonable administrative burden on the city? No, the city has said no, it will not. It it will not create those problems. Um but then the questions are is the accommodation necessary and will the request fundamentally alter the city's family zoning regulations? So is the accommodation necessary? So the city has said um to you and will continue to say to you again tonight that we have not proved that this accommodation is necessary. Um but I would suggest to you that the city has supplemented its determination for the professional determination of multiple licensed providers. Um so uh multiple studies have been provided. The city sites to one but there were four that were provided as part of the overall packet. And what what the the first study that we provided says is that larger houses have fewer problems related to conduct disorder aggression and criminal activity. Um so they function better. And that's the question. Is it necessary to have 10 people living within a home including our house manager? Um and we are saying that it is. And not only is it because this is the best practice that is reflected from NIH funded studies that are independent of recovery groups um or uh or specific providers. So the the broader scientific community is saying the data reflects this. Um but but then we also have provided affidavits from licensed drug and alcohol counselors both working within the Underdog system and working in the community that 8 to 10 residents is not only supported by this literature, it creates a stronger, more sustainable recovery community, and that reducing occupancy materially impairs the effectiveness of the recovery model in play. >> [snorts] >> Um and the so the city's findings of fact say and I I just I'll just read from this that we expressed a general preference for a larger number of residents for increased therapeutic effect, but the record lacked a showing that up to 10 unrelated residents was essential or indispensable to achieve the best therapeutic effect. To be clear, we are saying the data reflects a higher number higher concentration of people between eight to 10 people is necessary for best therapeutic effects. We are adopting that guidance from the NIH-funded studies um and we are supporting that through the licensed drug and alcohol counselors that have testified before you to um as part of this packet. >> [sighs and gasps] >> Um and and the city defers in this in this indispensable language um to a case out of the city of Anoka that was uh decided in 2024. So, the city relies on One Love to say that necessity is a high standard under the FHA and the ADA. Necessity means something indispensable, essential, something that cannot be done without. Um One Love, and this is what's really important to to understand here, is that One Love articulates the standard but did not apply it to the testimony um that that that was before it at that point in time. Instead, the One Love court determined that only pieces of evidence regarding necessity presented by the plaintiff in that situation were self-serving statements based on anecdotal experience. We are presenting to you licensed drug and alcohol counselors testifying that this is the case. We are also presenting to you a scenario in the finding of fact is that there is no one who has been in recovery that is testifying to this. We have two statements in those affidavits of people who have been in recovery for over 20 years saying that this is an impact, it is necessary. And then lastly, it's based upon these federal studies um that are saying that yes, these are the best practices for operating a sober home. So, in this situation, we believe that the city cannot reasonably claim that Underdog has only provided sort of similar statements um because we have cited to these numerous studies. Um and in the the having more people includes having more success. Um and there So, we have scientific evidence, we have all of that along the way. Um and then we also have those treatments. The the findings of fact just do not match um the record, and we do articulate the necessity aspect. But then, >> Ms. Rogers, we're we're 15 minutes now. Are we getting close or >> Yes. We absolutely are getting close. Last slide, I promise. Thank you so much. I can talk forever. >> [laughter] >> Uh so, the the last question that's before you this evening is um will the request fundamentally alter the city's zoning regulation? Um and by definition, a reasonable accommodation request alters the city's zoning regulation. Um but this is a property-specific, disability-specific request. Just because you approve this today does not mean that you approve it for any other provider that's coming in. Every other provider has to engage in the back and forth that uh that city attorney described. Um recovery homes are not akin to state-licensed care facilities. I want to bring you back to that the four Rs. What are we doing here? We are reintegrating into life in this space. We are not in a in a high-care treatment situation. Um and then lastly, uh I'll just raise for you that um the city of Rapids faced this question. Um and uh in that situation, um just like here in the city of Bloomington and Maricopa, uh, the the 10 related residents may live within this home. There is no prohibition. There is nothing unsafe or against the public health, safety, and welfare of having 10 family members related in this home. I'll remind you that we believe that we are family. Um, but aside from whether or not we meet that definition of a family, the question that Maricopa posed was, "Why is allowing 10 unrelated residents to share the same house not reasonable?" And the court said that the the city failed In that case, they failed to articulate or provide any evidence as to how reasonable accommodation for 10 unrelated residents to live in a group home would fundamentally alter the city's policies more than allowing 10 family members to live together. And I will say that the the other question the city has raised is whether or not the commercial nature of this, um, is something that fundamentally alters the the zoning situation. As a reminder, we do have a rental license. So, a a family with, um, two parents, a set of grandparents, and, uh, six kids could all live in that house in a commercial operation as well. Um, but thank you so much for your time. Thank you for allowing me to go over, Mr. Mayor. Um, and we certainly stand ready to answer any questions that you may have with regards to our application. >> Thank you, Ms. Rogers. Mr. Tuskey. >> All right. Let me just pull my stuff back up here. Okay, just to kind of ground us back to the three factors that I talked about earlier. So, a little summary before I move ahead. So, qualifying disability, yes, based on the evidence Underdog submitted for the appeal. We're not contesting that. Um, whether the request is necessary. Don't believe so. Underdog has not shown necessity. Whether the request is reasonable. So, like Ms. Rogers said, would it cause an undue financial or administrative burden on the city? No, it wouldn't. But, would it constitute a fundamental alteration of the city's zoning regulations? And yes, the answer to that is yes. Okay. Not able to Let me try it again here. Okay. So, as to necessity, I just want to kind of ground us Underdog, it's their burden to show that 10 residents is a necessity. So, under the case law that's in the 8th Circuit, just very recent case law as we heard, it's essential or indispensable to its operations and not simply preferable. So, some of the language that the courts have been using is necessity is a high standard. It means something indispensable, essential, something that cannot be done without. That's the Anoka case. Necessity is a quote fact-intensive issue, also the Anoka case. Necessity is more than merely helpful or conducive. That's the Maricopa case from Rapids. And being preferable to an An alternative is not sufficient, it must be essential. That's the Anoka case again. So, the courts themselves are are establishing a high standard, at least in our circuit they are. So, that's kind of what we're bound by when we look at this reasonable accommodation request. And I just want to remind counsel here that Underdog is not locked out of any single-family housing district in the in the city. They can operate with six or less adults in any residential zoning district. They could operate with seven to 16 residents in our multi-family zoning districts as a permitted use as well. Um, I'll talk a little bit about the state law that permits that in a little bit. So, having more than six residents is not a condition of any required license or regular regulatory requirement on their half or beyond the city's that the city imposes on them. Um, Ms. Rogers mentioned this, but Underdog didn't provide any evidence that having up to 10 residents is any sort of financial necessity. So, you'll see that in some of the other cases uh that have been through the federal courts that there's an uh one of the things is that the operators will argue is that we need 10 people to make this pen out financially. So, we don't have that here. The other important factor I think is that the residents receive substance abuse treatment of their own choosing outside of the house. And they attend recovery meetings outside of the house. So, the whole thing hinges on this peer support argument that the four additional residents are are giving more peer support to the to the other residents and making this more kind of therapeutically beneficial overall. So, because of the the treatment component happening outside, the whole thing hinges on peer support. So, that additional peer support like we talked about must be essential, indispensable, cannot be done without. Some of the things that are mentioned in the the documents they submitted are, you know, weekly meetings, there's chores, kind of a softball team, a Thanksgiving celebration, but the treatment itself for the substance abuse orders comes from outside and there was good reasons for that as you heard. The other thing I want to mention is that I mentioned this before, but the residents are, you know, the average length of stay across the program that they have is 97 days and that's in the record. So, residents can only stay up to a year as well. So, the majority of residents are leaving within, you know, two to seven months or so or something in that range. I cannot move. I apologize. I can't move the slides and I don't know why that is. Oops. Sorry. Pull it back up and share again here. Okay, so a little bit about the evidence that they submitted and then a little bit about the reasons why I don't think it establishes necessity. So, there's no evidence submitted by any current or former residents as to the day-to-day experience in the home itself. So, what are we doing on a day-to-day basis that that this peer support comes from? The affidavits and statements come from people that refer people to Underdog. Um they weren't coming from actual residents themselves that have been through the program. I I realize that some of the statements of support are people that worked for Underdog, but the residents themselves, we don't have a statement that says, "Here's what I did on a weekly basis where I got peer support and I found it helpful or beneficial to my recovery." Um I think the affidavits and statements have a lot of conclusory kind of language in them that just says, "Yes, it's you know, you get language like um stronger and more sustainable recovery community would materially impair the effectiveness of the model, diminishes the effectiveness of the recovery environment." Without a kind of an analysis of day-to-day, week-to-week, how is that happening? Um there's no statements in the record that six residents per home does not provide sufficient benefits or what can't we do that we can do with 10 if we only have six? So, remember this is their burden to prove and it's fact intensive, so we need facts to kind of substantiate the peer support and the the therapeutic benefit of having the four additional residents. Um so at the what we think of the maximum this the the evidence provides is that might be preferable, might lead to better outcomes overall, but the evidence that it's indispensable and cannot be done without is lacking. I'll turn to reasonableness now. So, remember that if it's a fundamental alteration of the city's single-family zoning uh scheme, then it it's not reasonable and the council can't grant the reasonable accommodation application. So, the city permits a licensed residential care facility serving six or less people in its single-family zoning districts. That comes from state law. The state says we have to allow them as permitted uses. So, the city aligns itself with state law and allows small-scale licensed group homes of six or less persons. We don't allow any other congregate living in single-family zoning districts, just what the state tells us that we have to permit. Um and that holds true in the multi-family districts, too. If you have seven to 16 people, a residential care facility can serve that amount as a permitted use in multi-family districts. The state tells us that the city has to allow that. So, the cap on the six unrelated person is this commensurate with state law for licensed group homes. It ensures that group homes are imperceptible from other single-family uses in the neighborhood. With more residents means more potential for incompatibility. You have more conflict between residents potentially, adjacent homes, more frequent resident turnover. Um the record has a record of, you know, it's been getting better, but, you know, in the first couple years, there were several law enforcement responses to the properties. Um and then you have the letters from the neighbors. Um not going to go into a lot of detail about those, but um generally, they express some concern about increased congregate living in neighborhoods. So, these sober homes are not licensed residential care facilities, but they're similar in scope uh and function. They have common dining and wreck areas, shared outdoor space. They share restrooms. And yes, they are money makers for uh their operators. So, um >> [snorts] >> they're our businesses. A license a rental license property would still be subject to the six or less adult limit. So, there's no benefit to uh the rental um a rental uh uh business if it's six or less uh people. All right. So, just a summary in our motion. So, Underdog has not shown that it's has shown that it's residents have a qualifying disability, excuse me. It's not shown that under that high standard that 10 residents is in the is necessary and their request of what constitute a fundamental alteration of the city's single family zoning regulations. So, I have the motion up on the screen. We'll take questions now. I think Underdog can take questions first and I can answer any after that that you might have. And then you'll have time to deliberate and I can put the motion language back up on the screen when the time comes. >> Thank you, Mr. Toskey. Appreciate that. Just a reminder, Council, it's time for questions now. We'll we'll start with Mr. Rogers and and then go to Mr. Toskey. What we're trying to do here is establish a basis of fact and make our decision based on fact here. This is where in that unique kind of a quasi-judicial role right now where what when we come to a decision, we need to list two or three facts that back up that decision. And so, as we ask the questions, as you form your questions, as you kind of wrap your head around all this, I want you to keep that in mind because we're working toward trying to make a decision based on the facts of the case. So, Council, questions? Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Ms. Rogers. Um, just a couple things. You indicated that you thought members were family. To your knowledge, did do residents know each other prior to moving in together? >> Uh, no, but they are all members of the Red Lake Tribal Nation. >> To your knowledge, do they maintain contact after they leave? >> Uh, I certainly we can certainly have testimony from our providers here. >> Okay. >> Uh, but certainly are part of the same community before and after their stay at the home. >> Okay. >> Just clarify, they don't know each other individually. They haven't gone to events with each other or anything of that nature. >> On a case-by-case basis, I'm sure there's some overlap. >> Okay. Um in terms of peer support, it's my understanding that they're required to go to meetings, I assume Narcotics Anonymous, AA, um as well as the IOP. Um why is that not sufficient peer support? >> I think it would be more helpful to the council to hear from a licensed recovery specialist rather than me. >> [laughter] >> I'm I'm sorry, you're going to have to come up to the podium and if you could identify yourself, please for the record. Just speak right into the microphone, please. >> Um my name is Alana Sasaki. Um and I'm the owner of the Underdog Homes. And we have three homes in Bloomington and we have two in Minneapolis and one in Bemidji. Um and just for the record, we have not had this issue in any of the other homes. Um and a side note that wasn't brought up was uh I was being harassed by one of the neighbors in the Bloomington home and I had to file a restraining order and it was awarded. Um and multiple threats and I believe that that's what spurred this whole thing on. Um and I just thought you should know that. There's a little background to that. Um so to ask your question, we can speak more to it. So we've dedicated our lives to working with the underserved. Um I'm an addiction doctor by trade. That's what I do. The comment from the city attorney about this is a money maker, I make far more money as a doctor than I do owning an Underdog Sober Home. So it's really more of um opportunity to give back. If you decide that we can't stay here in Bloomington, we'll have to sell the homes and move to a different city, but we're hoping to continue to operate. The difference of six to 10 might not seem like a lot, but that's 12 individuals that we're giving that are homeless a place to live. People um one in 10 people in your city have an addiction. They want to come back to their city. Um and so having that here in Bloomington is a positive thing. Um it's something that I think the city should be proud of. So, I want to turn over to Christine Titus and Corey. Um they are the housing managers both in recovery for many years, and they can speak about the community of having a larger amount of people in the home. If it was six, we have one live-in manager who's in charge of the whole operation, but five people is not very much of a community. Um and they're coming and going, and they share rooms, and they have meetings, and food, and it just would make it a lot less community, to be honest. So, I'll let them talk a little bit more about how that looks in the house. >> Oops, I'm sorry. Oh. My name is Christine Titus, and I'm operations manager. I've been with Underdog since June of 2024. Um and I would say that um the majority of our individuals, they do know each other. So, as um one of those slides showed, people who are in recovery, they're in and out. Um so, they know each other prior to coming in, and Underdog has built a reputation of a stable recovery living environment in those two years. Um we Our name is out there. We're known throughout the state. Um we worked with many organizations to bring individuals into our housing. Um one of the advantages of having a larger group of individuals is building the recovery community outside of our home. So, going to recovery meetings. So, you have people who are a little more solid in their recovery that are attending recovery meetings. They know of the successful outpatient programs um and they'll make recommendations for outpatient programs as well. Um in regard to those who have left our program, they're still in touch with um many of the individuals in our homes. They've built the outside community going to meetings, so they're going to those AA, NA, Wellbriety um also with with our sober softball league, we have members who are in our homes as well as those who have graduated. They're part of the second largest sober league in the state, which is also a great resource for community. Um I don't think that would have been possible had they not gone through Underdog and been um shown those types of opportunities. So, as Alana said, having five, because we're we would be limited to five plus a house manager, having that larger group of resources is very important in um recovery community. Um as Megan mentioned, I'm in recovery. I've been sober for 7 and 1/2 years. I went through a long-term recovery program, then through transitional housing, which was um 30 women in a transitional housing program. Uh I would say that's maybe a little too many, but so 10 is I in my personal opinion a great resource, a great foundation of people to keep you connected in the recovery community. >> Uh good evening, Mr. Mayor and council people. Um my name is Corey Samley. I'm um the I I the Bloomington homes. Um I uh have been in recovery myself also for 25 years. I also previously coming from here, I was a director at a smaller treatment facility in Minnetonka. We housed 12 gentlemen there. And it's the community that really is a necessity for that amount of people. Um The conversations that you first that I first hear when these people come in about Oh, I knew him from when he was doing this. It could be from any city and Um it's unbelievable how all these guys know each other from whether it's from Duluth, from Bemidji, from the Red Lake Nation itself, from White Earth, all over the place, you know. They're like, "Oh, yeah, I used to do do do this with him and this with him." So, all these guys surprisingly know each other somehow shape or form. Um And then for them to help each other out in a community in these houses is just It's awesome to see that twinkle still coming back in somebody's eye. You know, um and the more of those people you have together, the more they encourage people on. Um it's it's just a it's remarkable. Um I don't know what else to say. It's just I would hate to see us having to move because we cannot accommodate the these services that we give to them. So, I hope you just consider us. Thank you. >> Questions, Council? Councilmember McLellan. >> Um thank you, Mayor. Um I just wanted to go back to the the the question of um of uh of uh bloodlines. Uh and just I wanted to have a better understanding of that. Under the federal law, related bloodline means a specific biological family relationship, parent, child, aunt, uncle, that kind of thing. I'm trying to understand a little bit more about it was it under that provision of of or was it under the guardianship uh provision portion of our definition that uh that you were looking at in terms of that help me understand a little bit more about how you're getting to that conclusion. >> Yes, absolutely, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Lohman. Um we are actually not utilizing either of those provisions to get to to that interpretation. Um instead, we are relying upon uh the the previous case law since the 1970s that says um tribal nations have the independent authority to determine who is a part of that nation and who is uh related by blood for the purposes of determining tribal membership. Your code, so it's two separate Think of this as two separate concepts. Um so first and foremost, we have a tribal nation that determines who is a member. The Red Lake Nation determines that its membership is guided by people who are related by blood. Your The language of your ordinance says people who are related by blood constitute a family. And so we're utilizing those two concepts um in terms of operations here within the city specifically for serving um these members of the Red Lake Tribal Nation. >> And not under guardianship? >> Correct. >> And then I I've got a few other questions here. Um the uh the study that you uh cited with the uh the NIH is is that your your part of your argument? I heard a little bit here uh as as to why that it's uh uh necessitated to be able to have that uh that accommodation. >> Absolutely. So So we we cited four studies. Um those are Counteracting Not in My Backyard, which is the site the study that's particularly ref referenced by the city, and that talks about the number of eight to 10 people um being having demonstrably better outcomes. There's the data. >> I'm not going to I'm not going to argue that part there. I just want to keep keep moving. I've got several questions here. >> Um and the practical impact here uh by our testimony. >> What would you say to that the since we just talked about the family component of that, I know there are studies out there that say that if you have the family together, that that also can be detrimental. Uh you know, to be to be together as a family. There would be any response to that? >> Uh from a recovery perspective? Um so so one of the things that's and this sort of goes back to those four hours. So um the homes are heavily programmed and you see that in the materials that have been submitted to you um in terms of the operations that we're we're making sure they happen on site. Um and I think it's really important to just refine our analysis here in terms of what service is being provided. It's not intensive outpatient treatment. It's not going to NA or AA. Um what's being provided in the home is reintegration into community um and relearning the tasks of being a member of community while being sober and being surrounded by people who are in varying levels of their journey in doing so. And so each one of these homes is specifically programmed to provide that sort of continuum of experience. People who have been there for a period of two to three months, people who are just coming in. Um and I would also just suggest that the the turnover rate, which is something that's been discussed, um is something that uh that I think we should acknowledge as reasonable underneath these circumstances because people do not want to be away from their families and away um from their you know, from from living um in other locations. You know, this is a a treatment mechanism that we are utilizing here. And so that goes back to that disability component that this is necessary to treat the disability um that uh the people who are being served have. >> Okay. So then just uh just a few more uh mirror and I'll wrap it up here. Uh so it sounds like uh the original uh when they moved in, uh the the context of the idea uh was that uh that this is a family uh because uh it's my understanding I've got to ask this of of of staff, but that you didn't pick a different cuz there's other zones that are out there that could have been picked to be able to utilize to have up to 10. It sounds like you really walked through that that process by which that you identified that when when they first were is that is that true? >> That's correct. We specifically sought these homes for their square footage and to make sure that they could comply with the rental housing ordinance and then relying upon that definition of family as the basis for operations and of course when when city staff said that is not an appropriate interpretation then we made this application to you here this evening. >> All right, I think that's all I got. Thanks. >> Council member Robertson. Thank you, [clears throat] Mayor. Ms. Rogers, thank you so much. So, just one question. Well, I babble a lot, so bear with me, but is there an exclusive agreement with that Underdog has with Red Lake Nation to house only Red Red Lake Nation members in the Does that question make sense? >> The question does make sense. Yes, Underdog has an exclusive agreement with Red Lake to house a minimum of six members in each one of the homes. >> And then just to follow up, so to make sure I'm understanding correctly, that exclusive agreement says yes, at least six Red Lake Nation members. And so it is Underdog's position that the hybrid number is in compliance with the code as it stands. >> That's correct. So, the six people refers to the family and then there's unrelated members for the other two members and then the house manager. >> Perfect. Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate >> Council member Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor. I was going to ask the exact same question, so thank you. The other question that I had was around the necessity. So, I am not an expert in this field, but I was very intrigued by the model and did a bunch of reading. And um, I am curious just about kind of the the number of people living per room and kind of the the the necessity of that. So in my very brief reading, again, not an expert, um, the National Association of Recovery Residences recommended like two people per room as a best practice. And so is that what's happening? That's correct. >> Okay. >> Um, I believe there may be one home that has a very large bedroom that has uh three people who live in that home. Um, but all people have the number of square footage that's required um for each person underneath the the rental housing ordinance. >> Okay. >> Um, I think those were my two questions for now. Thank you. >> Thank you. I just want to follow up on just so I'm clear here. So the in the 10 the three homes, so there'd be 27 residents isn't three 27 residents and then three managers, correct? >> Correct. >> Those 27 residents are they're not all currently tribal members at the Red Mountain Recovery Residences. Is that correct? >> correct. >> Okay. Uh, second question, um, we heard that when the application was made and the the initial inspection was made, that was one thing and then they came back and and staff uh found a higher number than than what they anticipated. I mean, was that was that intentional? Was that known that by by Underdog that they were violating the standards that the city had put forward? >> Not at all. Uh, the at the time that that Underdog purchased the Goodrich home, we had an extensive conversation with environmental health staff, um, walked through the International Property Maintenance Code um with uh the Underdog team along with their um with their builder uh who had to make some changes to the property in order to accommodate it, including raising the ceiling levels. There's a requirement that a bedroom has to have I think a minimum of 7 ft 7-ft ceiling and we ensured that that was the case. So we at the time that we licensed the homes we specifically licensed them for 10 people and while admittedly I wish that I had a record to produce to you of an email we we discussed this concept of the of the blood relationship with environmental health staff at that point in time. >> Okay. >> So I have no I have I I must admit to this Council before you this evening that I have I have no evidence I have evidence of the measurements I have evidence of the floor plans and that's part of the record here but I do not have the evidence of the family definition in front of you. >> Yeah, we we heard also that if if if these changes aren't approved that Underdog was have to move from Bloomington leave Bloomington. So that tells me I mean it's it's a financial necessity but is it necessarily a programmatic or an operational necessity? >> So all of Underdog's homes operate underneath this minimum resident requirement financial necessity aside from a programmatic necessity. >> Okay. And and you also said something about how this is standard everywhere else but I isn't it different in Rapids and in Anoka? >> Absolutely. Everywhere that Underdog operates. So Underdog operates homes in Bemidji and Minneapolis and Bloomington. >> So there's nothing in Rapids or Anoka I thought there was >> No. >> Oh no. Okay. >> No. Nothing. Two two the most recent cases discussing this issue come from Rapids and Anoka. Absolutely. >> Understood. Okay. Councilmember D'Alessandro. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um so um to to just uh make sure I understand. Was the was the So, you say you don't have the evidence to show this. That's fine. I understand that. But, at the time of your application for a rental license for the purposes of this, you're positing that there was a conversation here that explained that the that at least six of the residents were going to be blood related. >> Yes. >> For each of the homes? >> For each of the homes. Um specifically that uh these were tribal members who were related by blood based on the tribal designation. >> Understood. Okay. Um And And so, for me, the challenge that I've been having is where where am I applying the blood relation tribal population issue and where am I applying the reasonable accommodation request for disability? And why are we doing both of those things when it seems like one of them would be enough for you have brought this request months or even years ago. >> Um absolutely, Mr. Mayor, Council Member D'Alessandro. Uh so, our interpretation of family really has no place in front of you this evening. Um it is simply just the opportunity for us as a provider to suggest that we weren't trying to play it fast and loose here. We were We were operating underneath the ordinance um and ensuring that we were in compliance with your rental ordinance. Um what we are applying before you this evening is for reasonable accommodation to continue providing these services um within the city of Bloomington. >> Okay. Um [snorts] has there been any knowing that there was a violation here that wouldn't necessarily wouldn't you wouldn't know the outcome for. What has there been any attempt to find uh uh properties with that that fall easily within the requirement multi-family uh ordi- uh zoning or anything like that to accommodate the requirement for you all to maintain your uh your business here? >> Mr. Mayor, Council Member D'Alessandro, this is going to be a circular argument. Um, that's what we thought we had found with these properties. Um, and so, uh, very specifically, so one of the components of, uh, of of recovery housing is to retain the the residential nature, um, the neighborhood character, um, and to introduce introduce people in recovery, um, back into what I will just call as a normal up and flow of life. Um, >> [cough] >> single family districts, while excellent for a variety of housing types, um, are not that. Um, and so, we are particularly seeking single family housing, um, that specifically contemplates, um, that neighborhood character that we are looking for. The same thing that the city is is working to protect is the thing that we are seeking as a provider. Uh, and and that's where I would suggest that there, um, certainly if the city has concerns, we are happy to have conditions of approval associated with this, um, that could perhaps, uh, alleviate, uh, some of those considerations in terms of neighborhood impact. >> Um, helpful, thank you. What what is the what is the, um, process of this to to man- to manage to that or to benefit from that. What is the process of the the folks that are living in these homes, um, getting out and being a member of the community? What is your what is the the the tactic that is used by the organization to ensure these folks are, for lack of a better way to put it, productive members of society, which is a euphemism for a lot of bad things, but you get my my question. I'm assuming that the the expectation is that they're maintaining the home, they're volunteering in the community, they're doing all these things. So, do we have evidence of that from from these residents? >> Absolutely, and I will turn it over. >> Yes, we do. So, part of our program requirements is that they're working, going to school, or volunteering. So, when they're with us, the the it's a transitional program. So, the idea is that um we help them with household management. So, we assign chores, show them how to run a household. Um we pair them up with resources outside of the community, so getting them involved with um peer recovery support specialists, housing um resources so that they can move to independent living. Um and while they're working with us, you know, they're saving their money, trying to get to that next level, which is independent living. So, they're saving their their um money, putting it aside for deposits. Um and the point of living with us is to get to that next level. So, as Megan said, we're in between, you know, family and inpatient, um but getting to that independent level. So, that's while we're they are with us, that's the point of going through our program is it's transitional. And so, we do want them to become independent and giving back to the community that they live in. So, that's also why the volunteering is important, volunteering within the community that they live in. >> Okay. Thanks. Two very small uh hopefully transactional questions here. Council member, before we get to those? >> Yep. >> I'm going to do a little transaction as well. Uh Council, looking at the time, I'm going to say that we uh I'm going to move that we extend our deadline to adjourn no later than 10:30 this evening so we can complete our business. I've got a motion and a second by Council member Rivas to extend no later than 10:30 to conduct our business this evening. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Council member Donaldson. >> you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry for that. Um two really quick questions. Um first, um is uh is the organization paid by the person or is it a a a fee uh per person to is that the reason for the requirement? I mean maybe it isn't the reason but is that the model that is used by the outside sources? >> In this situation for all three homes all residents are supported by the Red Lake Nation even those members who are not members of the tribe. >> Okay and and then last hopefully transactional question then are the are the um the average 97 days or or whatever are they they're sent back to their homes once they are through this program or what happens at the at the end of the year like they have to get out it sounds like is that true? >> variety of housing types but certainly can well some you know as you were seeing in her first slide the majority of the folks the reason they don't stay the full year is not because they don't want to is because they typically relapse. And so then we have to put them back into a higher level of care. But we have had several folks graduate and get their own apartment and we help support with that process. >> Thanks. >> Also additional questions? All right. Want to we turn it back over to Mr. Toskey here and see if we have any questions specifically from the city perspective. Also member D'Alessandro. >> I'm going to just keep going why not? Thanks Mr. Toskey. It it and the um the argument that we heard is that a higher number of people in the home actually results in a lower amount of calls for service to the home potentially because there's less disruption and less community challenges. Is that evidenced by our like experience with calls for service to these homes? >> It's hard to say. I mean, there was Sorry, Council member or Mayor Council member D'Alessandro, there there hasn't been recently in 2026 any calls for service. So, I'd say they're doing a better job on that front this year, but there were several in 2024 and 2025. >> Several uh said another way, are they more or less are they outside the bounds of what we would get from the other group homes that we have in the city? >> Uh pretty typical I or sorry, Council uh Mayor Council member D'Alessandro, pretty typical like um residents having some mental health episodes, residents kind of having disputes with each other about, you know, belongings and things like that. There was an overdose um that happened. Um trying to think of some of the other ones. Um but, you know, the mental health calls certainly that same would come from other group homes, you know, or someone's having an issue >> the type of calls I'm asking for the frequency. >> Yeah. >> Are there more coming from these homes than homes of uh the other kinds of group homes we have? Do we do we know that? >> I don't know that for sure, no. >> Okay. All right, that's helpful. Um then my second question to you then is um did we include in our in our in our evidence of finan- uh financial or administrative burden, did we include calls for service from the police in that in that um evidence? >> Yeah, Mayor Council member D'Alessandro, I did not consider that as a burden on on the city. >> You did not? >> No, I didn't. >> Okay, thanks. >> Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um they had indicated that there had been meetings prior to purchasing or setting up these locations. Do you have any evidence, recollection, um information to provide about those meetings? >> Yeah, Mayor Council member Nelson, I would invite Lynn Moore to come up and speak to that. I was not privy to any of those conversations, so I don't have any uh information myself. >> Good evening, Mayor. >> Or, evening. >> Council members, I was not included in any conversations based on uh number. I mean, we did not know any idea of number of people going in upon rental license at the time of these rental license being issued. The zoning code was four, maximum of four unrelated. And later in uh spring of 2025, that changed to six. Um so yes, we did not know anything about how many people were going in. When our staff person did the pre-licensing inspection, the homes were completely empty. And I think we would have had conversations then about whether or not to issue the license if we would have seen two or three beds in each bedroom. >> Is that helpful, Council? Uh Council member Nelson, is that helpful? >> May I remember the Council if I can just add, I'm not aware of any preliminary meetings that took place with planning or zoning staff uh prior to uh occupancy or operation. So, just to clarify that. >> Thank you. >> There's no questions, Council member Lowman? >> Yeah, um so uh one of the questions I have is in terms of the uh the enforcement part of this. So, uh if they are um allowed to have uh uh you know, if this accommodation is made and uh they're they're not considered to be family or through guardianship, uh you know, 10, how does the city enforce this? >> Uh >> How does that work? >> Mayor and Council member Lowman, generally our civil fine process is probably where we'd start. So, you'd get a series of notices. Generally, there's three notices. So, it'd be >> Let me Let me >> Mhm. >> slot this a different way. So, is my understanding that that it's it's the uh it's the domain of us to kind of do the seven and under, but the state does the above the eight. Am I Am I misunderstanding that or that there's a different enforcement mechanism there in terms of who enforces depending on how many members are in that particular location? >> Right, yeah. So, uh Mayor Council Member Loman, that the state generally would regulate licensed residential care facilities. This is not one of those items, so it's up to the city to do the enforcement on this. >> So, it doesn't matter what the number is then. So, you could have 12 or 14 or 20 people in a in a and we would have the responsibility to to enforce that. >> Correct, yeah. Um >> And then in terms of the the the family definition, I just wanted to go back to staff to just so I understand that, you know, if if we're following their, you know, they they they told staff that that's what happened and then that's why they were dwelling there for that period of time. That's kind of you know, do Help me understand why I shouldn't take that definition of a family. >> I Okay, Council Member or Mayor Council Member Loman, I put the definition back up here. So, do you see that bolded and underlined text? All related to each other by blood. So, in the submissions they made to the city, so I have these um Exhibit B4, they said that there was five or seven Red Lake Nation members out of the nine or 10 total. Um Exhibit B6, again, each recovery home has five to seven Native American residents out of nine to 10 total. And then in their latest letter to council on May 8th, they don't mention that. So, I think if you took their definition, it would render that language meaningless in our city code. Um they all have to be related to each other. So, even the non-Red Lake members, we need to be related to the Red Lake members by blood. And there's no evidence of that in the record at all, from the beginning to now. >> Thanks for clarifying that. And then I just wanted to, you know, in terms of those three uh uh portions of the accommodation portion of it, uh uh you know, we we we say they qualify on the first part, the necessity and the fundamentals of it. I'm not understanding in terms of the fundamentals how that fundamentally shifts or or prevents us from being able to you know, to to enforce enforce that if we we make this accommodation for you know, for this for this group. I mean, I guess the the one argument is, you know, that I had in my mind was that well, you know, they should have applied in some of these other areas, but they've already laid out in their testimony that this is kind of what's necessary by the NIH in terms of this you know, this type of environment and a residential zone. You know, in terms of their their therapeutic type thing. I think I heard them say that it was, you know, related to the the NIH NIH what distinguishes how they're trying to do that. And so, if that's the case, and there isn't a zone that's a R1 that would have meet that standard, then the only way to really handle this would be through an accommodation, right? Since they're not family members. >> Correct, yeah. Yes. Uh Mayor, Councilmember Loman, sorry. They they would need an accommodation to be in compliance with city code, yeah. Like same with a variance, you know. >> Yeah, so I just I'm not seeing where that where I mean, it sounds like the necessity is there. We've got medical journals, and we've got, you know, uh professionals doing that. Most businesses would would agree to that. But then the last part is this fundamental. That's the part I'm trying to understand from the fundamental standpoint why this doesn't reach the fundamental aspect of that. >> Mayor, Councilmember Loman, I think the what my the argument is that this is congregate living. We only allow congregate living in licensed group homes. What they're doing is very similar to a group home, though they're unlicensed. So, we don't allow we align with state law because implicit in what the state law says is you have to allow group homes of six or less people. And implicit in that is an understanding that once you get above six, it's kind of incompatible with a single-family residential use neighboring properties. Those >> So, what you're saying is the accommodation Well, I just want to make sure I understand this. The accommodation is that they could apply and and get a different But how do I then account for this type of a living environment of the this the of the of the residential zoning? Do you understand what I'm asking? >> Mayor, Councilmember Loman, I don't understand I'm not understanding the question. >> Okay. So, what I'm hearing the applicant or the the person the site saying is that they they need a residential area like this as a part of that accommodation. >> Right. >> And then what we're saying is you've got to then move. So, we're saying that you can't have it there. But where else then can you have that in the rest of the city? That's what I'm not understanding. Where else could you apply that same standard somewhere else and be able to That's the problem running into with this. Help me understand how if you can't do it here, where could they do this somewhere else in the city? >> Yeah, Mayor, Councilmember Loman, they can do it here with six residents. So, that's the alternative. They could reduce their number to six and be in compliance full compliance with city code or a multi-family >> I get that. I don't agree with you on the necessity. So, if I if I say the necessity is there, then how would I be able to do it? >> Then how would you be able to If the necessity is there, then they could then we you know, if the council granted the accommodation, they would have up to 10 and they could operate in a single-family home as they are doing right now. So, it gives you the authority or the permission to live, to increase from six to 10, similar to like what a variance would do. >> Yeah, so as long as I So, as long as I can meet that necessity piece, I'm good. Okay. All right, I'm fine. I'm fine. >> Council member Carter. >> I hesitate asking this cuz I think we've already answered it, but I want to be super super clear. So, if we were to agree that the people living in the facilities who are from the Red Lake Nation, if we were to say, "Yep, we agree they're family." Um so, there were six people who were related and then the rest were unrelated. That would still violate city code. >> Yeah, everybody in the house Yeah, Council Mayor Council member Carter, all members would have to be related by blood. >> Okay. >> So, the evidence is that there's been members throughout that aren't Red Lake members. So, they need to be related to the Red Lake members and there's just no evidence of that. >> Okay, thank you. >> Council member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um thank you, Mr. Toskey. And just to kind of go off of what Council member Carter was saying, just to make sure I'm understanding it. So, hypothetically speaking, um if Underdog said that we are have an exclusive agreement with Red Lake, only Red Lake Nation members will be served in these in this particular home. Would this the city then agree, that's a weird word to use, um that according to the definition of family that's a long-held standard by the feds, right? That the tribes get to determine who their members are. Um if they were all Red Lake Nation members, would the city then say that that was permissible? Does that make any sense under the code because they're all family per the federal No, what I'm saying is is different than that, right? So, because assuming Yes, if if we're assuming and not disputing the long-held standard that tribes get to determine their own members, right? So, if there was 10 Red Lake Nation members living in the home, we're saying that that just so I'm clear, would the city's position be then that that is in compliance? >> Yeah, Mayor Council member Robertson, there we haven't really received legal authority that effect and our code does not further define what related by blood means. So if you were to adopt that kind of interpretation, yes, every person living in the house at all times, even the manager, would need to be a Red Lake Nation member. Or somehow related otherwise um with a family type brother or sister thing. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Council member >> Thanks. Just one additional step to that. Then if we if we accepted that, what would prevent them from having 12 people that are all members of the same um band? >> Mayor Council member Nelson, they applied for up to 10, so that's in their application. So they would We're not considering 11 or 12. You'd have to grant another reasonable accommodation to go above 10. >> Okay. >> So the maximum they're seeking is 10. >> And then um I don't think this is an exact corollary, but there are nations out there that will grant citizenship based on ancestry. Um yet I think we can all agree that they're not all blood relatives. I mean, you know, um several places like Canada, Ireland, you know, will grant you citizenship and say you're Irish or whatever. They're members of that community. They're members of that they can be citizens of that country. Um it seems like a similar corollary to being a member of the nation. Um but they're not all related. I mean, they're clearly not all blood related. >> Mayor Council member Nelson, in those cases, and I haven't done any research on other countries, but generally to be a Red Lake Nation member, uh you need a 1/4 quantum of Red Lake Nation blood. I don't know how that is calculated or or done, but the tribes themselves have the authority to determine that based on their own kind of regulations. >> Then my last question, just quickly, is the argument has been made and and I actually think it's a reasonable argument that you know, being within a neighborhood, a community is beneficial for folks. But I would remind you that in Bloomington, a lot of our development patterns allowed for multi-family within R1 zoning. We have an example with Touchstone within our community that is a multi-family property that's in a single-family neighborhood. These properties do exist within Bloomington. Is that correct? >> Councilman or Mayor Councilman Vernelson, I think that might be a question for planning manager or Lynn Moore. I don't I don't know the specifics offhand, but >> Mayor Councilman, yes, we do have multi-family within single-family or abutting single-family districts where we have rental licenses at housing buildings that provide services for seven and up in various zones. >> Questions answered, counselor. We ready to get into some discussion here? >> I would think so. Uh So again, council as as we make this decision, um and and ultimately as we come to a final decision, we need we need factual statements to back up what we're saying. So think about your conversation, think about the questions that have been asked and answered on both sides and how they relate to a statement that you could make about this about this case. And I will be happy to opine that I don't believe that that Underdog has met the burden of proof that more than six people are really necessary for a successful operation of the of these homes. We've we've seen uh we we've heard the the higher numbers are perhaps better by NAH and so on. But then I think it comes down to the questions of necessary, the question of necessary, and the definition of necessary. And it's not it it wouldn't be it's not something that would be nice to have. It it would it needs to be something that's indispensable or absolutely a part of it. And and we heard that yes, they would close up shop and move if if they didn't get this uh accommodation here in Bloomington. That doesn't tell me it's necessary for the treatment of these individuals. That tells me it's necessary for a business operation, for a business plan. And I just don't uh I have not been convinced that uh they can't do with six what they could do with 10. And what their what the benefit here is is the the density within the house as opposed to the as opposed to the uh the recovery of their of the of their residents. Um I also uh as we get into this notion of and we've had the conversation about family, I mean, to hear that I mean, flat out that even if even if we did move to the accommodation that everybody was from the Red Lake Nation, we could consider them family. We heard flat out that that's not the case in any of the the homes that uh they're operating here in Bloomington. And I think that to to do that to change that would significantly change the way we interpret things and we're able to we're able to uh enforce zoning and enforce ordinances within the city of Bloomington. And I do believe that it it would be uh it would it would fundamentally impact the uh the the standards that we have in Bloomington. And then yes, then what's to stop from saying 12 or 15 or if if cities are not able to do this, then what's to stop uh any you know, the accommodation from being made uh based on any on any number of things. Cities have zoning standards for a reason and especially in in single-family residential areas, we we wouldn't let a variety of things. We wouldn't let a metal shredder into a residential area uh because we want to maintain that um we we want to maintain what we believe to be best for that area within our city and we have that power now and I think we abdicate that power if we if we don't do this. So, those would be my thoughts as we as we move forward. Councilmember Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um first, I'd like to thank you for what you guys do. It sounds like you do a very very good job. Um and it is in obvious need within our community, within our region. Um and I um I applaud you for for what you guys are doing. You seem to be doing it right. You know, sadly, I know folks that have gone through treatment and things like that and they've been in in places that you know, have not been as responsible as you guys are. So, I I appreciate that. Um with that said, I do tend to agree with the mayor that I'm not sure that single-family neighborhoods, um based on our codes, based on what we have here, it's not my preference. It's just based on what the rules are. My preference is to help you guys and but that's not the decision here. This is quasi-judicial. We apply the rules in this and and I don't see it. Um the mayor talked about one side of it. I'll talk about the other side is I do think there are opportunities within Bloomington to accommodate the the 10 folks in terms of multi-family that is within R1 or adjacent to R1 within communities. I mean, I know my own neighborhood has those types of facilities. Um and they may be more appropriate. I I do find it unfortunate that you know, we've got a disagreement on on conversations that were had a few years ago, and that's always uh disappointing when there's no documentation of what was actually said in any of those. Um so, I mean, from a factual basis, when we're looking at it, you know, it's hard to put any weight on sort of either side of that argument, because we just have no we just have a he said, she said situation, and then that's unfortunate. Um My hope and you know, I don't know how it's going to go. You know, I'm just sharing my opinion now, but my hope is that that we can work with you as a city and find a place, because, again, I appreciate the service you're providing and and the necessity of it, and would love to keep you in Bloomington. You you seem like great uh earnest folks that are that are actually doing a really good job helping people get their life back on a better track for them. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um Yes, I um wanted to say thank you to everyone who's here. You've all done a great job of presenting um some really in-depth information, and that's never easy. Um and to go off of Council Member Nelson's um point, to thank the folks who are providing recovery services for here in Bloomington. Um it's also something very near and dear to my heart. Um actually, 10 years ago today, my brother overdosed on opiates. Uh we lost him 6 days later when he had to be pulled off life support. Um so, I'm really really um attuned to this issue, right? Uh my sister now is a peer uh recovery specialist. She works with Fam Links in Recovery. So, we my family is very into the the recovery realm. Um and so, I could not be more supportive of wanting to get folks into recovery and keep them in recovery, right? Um and I'd love to do everything we could do to make that happen in Bloomington. The issue I'm coming up against, um and to be very clear, I am in no way disputing uh the long-held standard that tribal nations get to determine who their members are. So, I'm not disputing the definition of family. Um the thing I'm I am getting hung up on and I'm wondering how my colleagues may feel about this as well, um, is the numbers issue, right? If and the issue, um, that I'd asked Ms. Rogers about and the hybrid numbers. My thought is if there was an exclusive agreement that these homes were only housing including the manager were only housing Red Lake Nation members, then to me it feels like this is a done issue and everything's fine and we could I am ceasing to see an issue. Um, so truthfully that's where I'm landing with it and I just into to Councilmember Nelson's point, I would just love for us to figure out a way to make it work. I have to believe that there's a a way we can make this work and that we can keep folks, um, happy and healthy and housed and um, I just I if there could be some kind of exclusive agreement recognizing that that we've said that they're sup- supported financially, but that's different than saying someone is a nation member or tribal member. So I I I just wonder if there's some way we could work with that, right? Is is there any way that that could be a condition of approval as we had discussed? I'm seeing some hands raised, right? I'm I'm wondering if that's something that we could work on. Is that a way we could move this forward? Um, because to me then everyone's a family member and and that's Yeah. My bare minimum legal understanding aside, um, that would qualify. It is I think is what we're saying. Um, and so that's where I'm at with it and I I don't let my my colleagues, um, give their two cents but that's that's what I think is. I would I would love for us to find a make find a way to make this work and I think that perhaps an exclusive agreement is maybe a way to do that. >> Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Luomanen. >> Thank you, Mayor. I apologize for earlier. I wanted to just get the answer and I finally got it from from Sean. So, stopping was the right thing. So, you know, what I want to you know, say my say to my colleagues is that we got to be careful when we're we're in these quasi-judicial about any kind of policy hat that we kind of put on. And you know, I always want to try to solve a solution or solve a or work towards a towards a solution. And I do think that that's an interesting conversation to maybe have after the proceedings here later on today. So I want to be careful about that. You know, certainly when I look at you know, the definition of family You know, it's an interesting case in terms and certainly from a tribal standpoint, you know, there is that that blood specific piece of it. But when you kind of go to the definition of what a family means, that's where that it kind of falls apart. And so I don't think that's even even if we as we look at this, it just really doesn't make sense. If you look at it, you know, you can belong to the Catholic Church and and then you know, you know, you can buy blood, you know, belong to that thing. That doesn't necessarily make you related to everybody and part of a family. I think that's a slippery slope to kind of work your way down down that way. Although I I do believe that that is exactly though what the you know, what you all believed when you when you wanted those houses. So I think you believe that that was indeed the case and that's why you selected those homes and that's probably why you worked through that that process. So I believe that that was indeed the situation that was there. So then what we're asked or what I was asked to do you know, in terms of I look at this analysis is you know, you know, is there then since I can now kind of map out or erase the the familiar piece of that, I kind of move over to the accommodation piece of it. Definitely there's a quality qualified disability. I I maybe don't agree with some of my colleagues up here. I do see that there's some necessity to it. I absolutely think there's some necessity there. The I'm not going to you know you've got a medical person saying this, you know, that's kind of what a I don't know. But now the next question becomes, you know, is it fundamental? Is there any other options for the city to be able to accommodate that? And that's where I think that even falls apart, you know, in terms of as we look at the analysis, you know, Shawn is is my my Councilmember Nelson here has has brought forward what what I I was concerned about, you know, could you go into another uh uh zone that has a similar uh uh uh set up within the city? Well, yeah. If the answer to that is yes, well, then there's a way to accommodate that without making this this change. So, that that goes to that piece of whether or not it's fundamental. And so, I just don't see uh that it's it's it's fundamental uh that we have to do it within the zone. So, it could be done somewhere else. And so, if that's the case, uh then other things have to be a part of it. Now, that's the other reason why I raised the guardianship. That's another way uh that maybe it would have worked that way, too. But that that isn't what you were claiming. So, I it's hard for me to make uh any of those findings to support that conclusion. So, I'm I'm I'm with you, the mayor, when you look at the facts of this case, I just cannot uh uh be able to support those. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Carter. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. So, um I guess I'm just going to kind of go through the bullet points. So, I don't think we have to talk about the first one in my opinion, but um for the second one for Underdog has not shown the request to have 10 residences a necessity. Um I actually I think probably because I dug in and started doing a lot of reading myself, I do think that they have shown that there is a necessity. Um there is clear research that shows that peer-to-peer support is critical for people in these situations. Um and so, I I that's kind of where I'm at in that one. I I do think that they have shown that there is a substantial amount of research and literature that shows that this model helps people in recovery. Um Now, of course, the request the third bullet is the challenging one. Um but I kind of ask myself like I don't know. Isn't this why we have the RA process in place? Is to help us in situations like this, help organizations like theirs in situations like this? So, I do understand that licensed residential care facilities such as group homes have a maximum of six. I also don't think that there's evidence to support people needing to live in that peer-to-peer kind of housing situation for people in those kinds of facilities, right? In this kind of um sober living facility, it is very clear in the research of why um that model works and why we would do that. And so, to me, it is a reasonable accommodation. The other thing I think about is the residents in the area. And I understand that there was maybe some miscommunication. They maybe were confused. But the fact is is 10 people have been living in those homes since they opened. And people didn't have a problem. It was only when they were asked if they could increase the number, then people were like, "Oh yeah, we have a problem with that." But they didn't actually have a problem with it before. And when they didn't realize that there were 10 people living in there. And so I guess maybe I'm on the opposite side of this. Um I think that the reasonable accommodations um pieces have been met and I would support the continuation of their operations in Bloomington. Um you know, I think that we live in a community, in a state, in a society where addiction is rampant. Um and if we can't figure out how to have systems and policies that support people who are suffering from addiction and and trying to be on their recovery journey. I mean, these are the systems that continue to perpetuate the challenges that we have. And so, that's where I'm at. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Rivas. >> I'll be brief. Um my notes uh uh thanks uh um Council Member Carter. Uh I was going to stay quiet and not make any comments, but I also believe that they have met at least the two uh the first two uh um requirements. Um a lot I was reading a lot also, and most of the experts recommended two people living each of the rooms. If do and I'm going to clarify it a little bit here. Uh the fact that if two people can live in one room, it could I would say that if we put uh uh lines that can't be crossed, like absolutely 10 people in that house including the manager, two people per room. If a house has five bedrooms, 10 people could be allowed. If a house has only three bedrooms, six people could be allowed, but not go beyond that. That would be something that I would suggest. And my only problem again is the same. Uh the zoning regulations will have to be drastically adjusted just for those those three homes. And the other one is the concern that the residents around these homes normally have. And and it's not just your homes, uh it's this has been shown all over the city that residents have major concerns about issues when the police has to be called or even when the police doesn't get called, but things that do happen outside the houses. But other than that, I agree with Council Member Carter that uh they have met the you know, the at least the minimum uh requirements to be able to continue operating in the city. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thanks, Council member. Council member O'Alessandro. >> Um thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um so, I'm I've got a kind of a hybrid, I guess, opinion at this point. First off, I I don't understand the qualifying disability argument as it relates to this, not because I don't believe that there's that addiction is a qualifying disability, generally speaking, but I don't know why it pertains to a zoning code. I'm struggling with that. I understand it for reasonable accommodation in things in in housing as in you can't deny me housing. I understand it in things like you need to make sure there's a ramp for me if I have mobility issues. I mean, those kinds of reasonable accommodations make sense to me. I need more people in a house. It doesn't feel like you get a qualifying disability like regard adjustment for that. It And so, I've struggled with that one the whole time we've talked about this, and not for any reason other than it it seems like a apples and oranges situation. Um so, doesn't matter. City has found that it's that it's reasonable and qualifying, so I'm going to just back off on that, but I I'm confused by it to begin with. And I think that that sets up the additional confusion that I have, which is which is, you know, yes, the absolutely the the documentation, the evidence suggests that um that homes like these are very helpful. They say things like 10 or fewer. Absolutely. Over 10, it's a problem kind of thing. I can't find a lot of documentation that says the number is nine. I can't find that. I can't find anything that says five sucks, but nine is great. I can't find anything like that, right? And and nobody presented anything like that today, either. I There's There's anecdotal evidence, of course, that would say I It nine was better to for me, but to to to our attorney's point, we didn't get resident evidence. We didn't get anecdotal evidence from residents saying I was better off with nine. My nine buddies, me and my nine eight my eight buddies, that was what made the difference. I was in a home that only had four other people and it didn't work for me. I needed to be in this number, right? I don't see any of that here. And so, I don't know if 10 is the right number or eight is the right number or five is the right number. I do absolutely agree that the evidence that we have in literature and in and in these studies that were were um cited by both sides that says 10 or fewer is the right number. So, like I can buy into that, but then I'm also like, well, then why did the state cut it off at six? And and I understand I'm not again trying not trying to apply it whole evidence, but like um I you know, and and I I'll just throw out here that the thing that bugs me about this hearing is there's nobody here from public health giving me a public health point of view on this conversation either. And I find that always frustrating that we don't layer the things that help us make better decisions here. And maybe that's because we're not talking policy and we're just trying to stick to the facts, but I would have appreciated understanding if we had an expert in public health here helping us get a uh a an expert opinion that wasn't on either side per se was like a third-party opinion that could talk to this a little bit more um um authoritatively for me. Um so, all that having been said, I'm not I I think that there's already a problem with fundamentally alterating alternating um our single-family zone regulations because I think group homes are already doing it. And so, I don't think this idea of accommodating this particular unit is going to change that. I think we have a problem already in Bloomington, which is the number of group homes that are in our community. Um not because I don't think they're important, but because I think that shows a failure of our federal and state systems to support people who have these problems. And we have wonderful people like these folks trying to find ways to make it work. And I think that's a fundamental failure of the process, but that's again not what we're adjudicating. So, I would say um I candidly, I could go either way here. Uh and that's the problem because I don't feel like I have a strong point of view one way or the other. Um I could absolutely agree with you, Mr. Mayor, that um the his standards haven't been met, and I can absolutely agree that that there has been reason that that we could reasonably accommodate this because we've been doing it already. So, that's where I'm stuck at. >> Very good. Thank you. >> I don't know if that qualifies as an abstention or what at this point in time. >> Ms. Remember Robertson. >> Uh Mayor, thank you. Um uh this is sort of a procedural question. I am hearing differing opinions among my colleagues. Uh just to be clear, are we required to make a decision this evening? Ms. Manderscheid may be able to answer this question better. My apologies. Um are we required to make a decision this evening or is this something that we as a body can can put off and come back to? I'm just curious. >> Uh Mayor members, the agency action deadline was extended by uh Underdog. I I don't know the exact date off the top of my head, but I would defer to Nick. I believe it's July >> July 15th. >> July 15th, yeah. So, to answer your question very succinctly, do not need to take action tonight. That said, if you decide to con- continue it, you would need to continue it to a date certain. >> Thank you very much for answering. >> Well, and let me ask uh Ms. Manderscheid, uh and I what I'm hearing is some folks want to try and find a way to make this work, but that's not the decision that we're able to make through this process. Is that correct? >> Mayor members, I heard Underdog uh indicate that they were open to conditions. Um if that was going to be what What I understood them to say is if that was going to be the difference, the conditions would be something that they would be amenable to. I was not a part of those conversations previously, so I don't know whether that came up and staff had had the opportunity to think about any of that. >> But I guess my question is manager, I mean are we are we even allowed to do that in the construct of a hearing like this? >> Mayor, council members If you grant a reasonable accommodation, you can attach reasonable conditions to it. That's in the city code. So that's a possibility if it needed to be continued and those could be fleshed out if that's the direction. That could be that could happen. That's authorized, so But like like you said, the application tonight is up to 10 and we haven't discussed any sort of alternatives. >> Okay, thank you. Does that help answer your question council member? >> It does mayor, thank you so much. >> I guess after sitting here for two hours doing this, I'd rather try and get to a a decision one way or another this evening. Very quickly Miss Rogers. >> Mr. Mayor, I appreciate it. I would just like to say that if extending the agency action deadline would be something that would allow staff, your staff, public health staff, underdog team to have further conversations, that's something that we would be happy to do. We want to find a solution here and that's our goal. >> Okay, thank you. So uh I I'm As I said, we've talked about this for two plus hours. I think I'd like to at least be able to figure out a path forward. One way or the other or maybe the third way, but I think we'd you know, one way or another would be I think uh re appreciated by by all of us and probably by staff as well and and by the applicant as well. So, Councilmember Loman. >> So, I guess, you know, I I think there is something there to you know, you know, it does public health help us to to to make a more sound decision. I think that there's that speaks to me. So, that'd be one reason why I'd want to put it off. But other than that, you know, I don't know if that really even changes some of the other people's opinions up here about that third, you know, and I I was I'm a little bit swayed by by what you said to to want to hear some more about that. But you know, if there if there if there isn't enough up here to shift it, I think we should make a decision tonight and move on. So, Let me let me throw it out this way. Is anybody willing to make a motion one way or another and see where we stand because that might give us a little bit of guidance where we want to head. >> You I can read the motion on the screen and we can take a vote on it if that's what you're asking for, Mr. Mayor. >> I I mean it would be a starting point to figure where we go from there. >> Right on. Right on. Okay. >> Or or or I mean, if you're so inclined, a motion the other side. I mean, it's a >> Yeah. Just So, so with the with the information that with the information that's on here in my personal opinion, again, with only the information on here. Not sure not understanding why qualifying disability is even here. But let's say we agree that that's true. I am on the I am not in agreement necessarily that the request to have 10 residents is necessary because again, I see less than 10 in the evidence, but I don't see that it's got to be nine. And the request would constitute a fundamental alteration. My opinion is that it these things are already doing that. So, I guess yes would be the answer. So, in if I say that two out of the three have not been met, then I'm going to say I'm going to read it as here, but I'm not sure if that if that makes sense as to people why I'm going this route at this moment in time. Okay. Motion to I move to adopt a resolution adopting findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision denying reasonable accommodation appeal by Underdog Recovery Homes. >> Do we have a second? >> I will second that. And understanding that our our the findings of fact that you're referencing are the two bullet points that number two and three bullet points there. >> Yes, to be clear, because I don't currently believe that the Underdog has shown that their request to have 10 residents is necessary, and I do agree that it would constitute a fundamental alteration of the zoning regulations because I think we're already in that position with group homes generally speaking. >> So, those are the findings of findings of fact. >> So, Mayor, a point of clarification, there is a resolution that staff have prepared that's in the packet, and I hear that the motion that Councilmember D'Alessandro is making is perhaps not 100% consistent with the language in that resolution. If she's disagreeing with one of the bullets or I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I want to be clear that there is a motion, and it doesn't sound like that's the entirety of what the Councilmember >> So, let me let me let me see if I can summarize Councilmember D'Alessandro. That I mean, the first bullet I mean, Underdog has shown that residents have a qualifying disability. I don't think anybody's questioning that. Is that correct? >> Uh I am not currently questioning it other than what I said earlier, which is I'm not sure why that's relevant, but yes. >> so, not questioning the first bullet, but agreeing with the second and third bullet points that Underdog has not shown that the request is necessary, and that it would constitute a fundamental alteration. How is that different than the the If this language is different, how is it different from what we have in the packet? >> Mayor members, I heard some qualifying language in Councilmember D'Alessandro's motion, but I I I just want to highlight perhaps it's fine, but I just wanted to highlight that. >> Understood. You're You're speaking to the last bullet, correct? Where I said like I think it's all I think that group homes already have altered this, so it's not necessarily a fundamental alteration by virtue of this particular um hearing, I guess. That's probably what I did say. >> Okay. >> It's fair. >> [laughter] >> But do they have to hit all three They have to They have to prove all three, correct? >> No. >> Or at what So, I can still make the motion >> Well, I mean yes, I mean because yes. >> I can still make the motion to deny the the the the deny motion here based on the fact that I I only agree with number two. Bullet number two. Is that true? Or do both of these have to be true for me to be making the motion to deny? >> the motion to deny based on one bullet point that could be the second bullet point only. Yeah. >> Okay. Then I'll change the way I said it to be very succinct and say I'm making the motion to adopt a resolution of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision denying reasonable accommodation appeal under by Underdog Recovery Homes because I do not believe that Underdog has shown that the request to have 10 residents is necessary. I'll just leave it there. Is that okay? >> May May I remember that works for me. >> Very good. And then I will second that. All right. Yeah, no, I'm glad we got there. I'm glad we got there. Council discussion on this. We've had considerable discussion anyway already, but Councilmember Lowman. >> So So, just one question. So, if we just go forward with one one item uh in this leaves here and goes to court the other two just die, right? They're just We're only standing on this one principle, right? >> May I remember the resolution that's in the packet on page 229 unpacks all of the elements that needed to be proven in order to reach the conclusion that staff made, which is to upload the planning manager's denial. So, it isn't it is all of the elements that were included in the >> So, all this is going to be included. I just want to make sure I'm voting on under that showing that residents have have qualifying disability and everything that's on this page here. Okay. Even though just one was listed. Okay, I just want to make sure I'm clear. Go. Councilmember Ricardi, you had your hand up earlier or No. >> I mean I have a I have a general question, but it's I won't >> Okay. >> We'll open it >> Everybody clear where we are at? >> I have one quick question. If if if this doesn't pass, then what is the Do you have to write Do you have to do a motion to then approve? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Got you. >> Questions, council? If not, we've got a motion and a second on the table to adopt the resolution adopting findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decisions denying reasonable accommodation appeal by Underdog Recovery Homes. Hearing no further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Nay. >> Councilmember Nelson, I didn't see your lips move. All right, you did. Okay, I wasn't sure. So, uh I I counted four three, is that correct, council? Okay, very good. Again, I didn't see your lips move, councilmember. So, you made me nervous there for a moment. There there you go. So, Well, let's see a show of hands with the I. Show the hands with the I. Okay, you got that for the record, folks? All right, very good. Motion carries four to three. And so, denying the reasonable accommodation appeal by Underdog Recovery Homes. All right. Thank you all for this conversation. Thank you. This has been I a lot of very good points brought up. And again, I want to reiterate the work that you do is incredibly valuable, and I think we all have that that that is not in question at all. Uh it's just a matter of whether or not this would be the place, so we appreciate your being here tonight. Appreciate you sticking with us. Staff, thank you for your work on this. Uh Council, thank you for the conversation about this. This was very well done. Thank you. On to our organizational business, item 5.1 is authorizing preparation of tax increment financing plan for Lyndale Apartments at 9955 Lyndale Avenue South. Ms. Thorp from our Port Authority is here. Good evening and welcome. Talk about sticking with us. Thank you very much for being here. >> Yes, good evening. I So here I have 45 more minutes. I can just >> Yes. >> [laughter] >> Uh yes, my name is Ellen Thorp. I'm an economic development analyst with the city's Port Authority, and I'm here to uh present the Lyndale Apartments and ask for approval for staff to work on developing a TIF plan. So just uh some the quick agenda, go over the kind of project, the funding terms, and what the uh Council action is for tonight. Uh so the project is going to be located on Lyndale Avenue between 99th and 102nd. It is a fully affordable uh project um depending on what kind of standard you use, but um it averages to 60% AMI. 25 of a 25 of those units are restricted to 70% of the AMI. Uh there are 318 parking stalls as well as some community amenities uh like a club room, outdoor patio with a grilling area, and playground, secure bike storage. Accessible units are included, and uh they're working with a program called Esusu, which helps build credit for the uh residents in the development. The unit breakout uh looks like this. So a lot of that um is kind of in the 60% of the AMI mixed amongst one, two, and three bedroom units. For our Met Council goals, this is kind of showing kind of where we are. So, Lindahl Apartments will provide four at the 30%, which will kind of get us closer to that 445. As you can see, we have met or exceeded our goals for the the 60 and 70%. But, still are excited to have any type of affordability here. So, the location, like I said, is along Lindahl Avenue and it is just south of the Lindahl Avenue Retrofit Plan and it's located within walking distance to the transit center and then I called out Festival Foods cuz that kind of anchors where that development is. And the financing summary, they this is taken directly from the developers uh proforma. So, they will also be Sorry. Um So, these are the financing summary from the proforma. They have applied to Hennepin County and the Met Council for grants. We were notified early this week that $900,000 was awarded to the project. So, it's great to see that there's going to be a mix of funding. And then the the TIF details that we are proposing is on this slide. So, it's going to be totaling $3,000,000 gross or 1.2 in net present value in a 25-year life housing TIF district. 5% of that would be set aside for admin and 5% for pooling. I am obviously with the Port Authority and we took this to to HRA on May 12th to approve the term sheet. And the reason why uh uh Port went through HRA because there could be a need for the um LAHA funds or the local affordable housing aid um because of the 2.5 million that is still outstanding from Hennepin County and Met Council, there could be a request um for there and uh Council members Carter and Robertson got to hear kind of those nuances earlier as well. Um and then the kind of where we're at in the process. So, we've met with HRA and that was on May 12th. Tonight, I'm here with you all. Uh and then pending some of those applications with the with Hennepin County and Met Council, we'll come back in July 14th and 21st to present the uh TIF plans. And the suggested action, like I said, is authorizing us to continue to work on a TIF plan for uh Lyndale Apartments. And I will stand for questions as well. Uh real estate equity is, which is the developer on this project, is has joined us on the phone. So, they are also available for questions. >> Thank you. Much appreciated the the brevity. We We really appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Uh and Council, just so we're we're clear on this, this is the the Wixon site. This is what we're talking about. It's the Wixon site. We did uh authorize the land use at a at a meeting previously. And so, uh we and we had a public hearing at that point and talked to a lot of folks about it and heard from them. So, this is basically just to develop the tax increment financing plan for this site. Any questions, comments, concerns? >> Sorry, yes, you last saw this on February 23rd. I put that in my notes. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Council member Nelson. >> Thanks, Mayor. Is this the one that checked off that they didn't weren't going to need financial incentives and then went, "Wait, maybe we will." >> Council member Nelson, I believe that is the case, yes. >> Okay. And can Can me a little bit more detail, I apologize, on the LAHA part, um that they might that's a maybe request if they can't get other funding or and what impact does that have on other expenditures of LAHA funding that we've considered or are doing? >> Uh Mayor Bassi, Council Member Nelson, Council Members, uh Kevin Kinsey here with the Port Authority. So, as Alan mentioned, there is a potential for a future request for LAHA funds. That would be based on the outcomes of the applications that are to the Met Council and Hennepin County. Uh thankfully, they were awarded 900,000, so that reduces the potential amount of ask that they may need to come to the city to request. We uh do have kind of kind of an estimated budget of um potential sourcing for that LAHA assistance to the project. So, we have a schedule of potential projects kind of in the pipeline and um have sort of set aside a a amount that could potentially be for this project within that pipeline. Um but it will we will need to evaluate it at the point of time where they have a determination of those applications and if they have any future funding sources. And then at that point, we will also evaluate uh if they get their tax credits and what that final budget looks like. So, we'll really right-size the subsidy based on those updated documents. >> Okay. And then one last question, Mayor, just because they were both of them tonight's meeting. I mean, we had one project that uh was able to move forward without financial assistance and then this one does. Is there a significant difference between the projects that is driving that cost and can you help uh help uh me and others understand just sort of what that is and why this one needs assistance and the other one does not? >> Uh Mayor, Council Members, the disparity or difference between the project that we previously heard at or heard about, um, the Chase project on Xerxes Avenue. So, that project is a market rate project, and so the rents that are attained at that project would be different from a fully affordable project that has rents that are at a restricted level. And so, the need for financial assistance is driven by that difference in those rent values. And so, that impacts the project as does market conditions. Uh, that project is located in an area that's more likely we were, um, predicting to, uh, have higher rent values based on just the location of that project. And so, that amongst, uh, a variety of factors impact the need for financial assistance. >> Thank you for that. And I think this, I mean, it does show, Council member, I mean, our our stated goal of trying to get to the some of those lower levels of of affordability. Um, I think the understanding is that it requires public financing, public buy down of the cost to simply to get us down to those to those levels. And other projects that don't go to those levels can perhaps pencil out on their own. Council, any other questions, comments here? No. If not, Council, I would look for action. Council member Nelson. >> Sorry, I'm not acting. Um, I just do have one other quick question just to clarify it remind me, is this 100% affordable? This was partially affordable. There is some market rate. >> No. All the rents are restricted at certain AMIs. Yeah, it's broken between 30, 50, 60, and 70%. So, the entire project averages to 60% AMI. Uh, so, per our OHA standards, I consider this fully affordable and um my lovely supervisor was uh quick to point out that there are two different sort of like affordability definitions. So, all of the units are restricted uh to certain incomes on basis of like 30, 50, 60, and 70% tiers. So, technically it's all affordable, but based off of either a light tech or OHO standards, the kind of how the percentage would change. But, yes, it is fully affordable, no market rate. >> Does that help, Council member? >> Um it helps my understanding. >> Fair [laughter] enough. Fair enough. Any other questions, Council? I would look for action hoping to get out of here before tomorrow, Council. Anybody? Council member Lowman. >> I'll do it. I'll move to adopt the resolution authorizing staff to develop a tax increment financing plan for Lindell Apartments. >> Motion by Council member Lowman, second by Council member Dalla- Council member D'Alessandro. >> [laughter] >> To adopt the resolution authorizing staff to develop a tax increment financing plan for Lindell Apartments. Any further Council discussion on this? Council member Nelson. >> I'll be very brief here. Um I I am not going to support this. I I find it the idea of concentrating all the affordable housing into a single building is something that in the past it was a mistake. I I don't think it's the best I think that integration policy in the OHO is extremely important for making this work. Um and again, I'm just concerned about that concentration of it. Um I I don't dis- I mean, I'm not a huge fan of TIF, but I I will support TIF, but not necessarily to put everybody in one place. Fair enough. Thank you, council member. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carried 6-1 with council member Nelson in opposition. Thank you. Thanks for sticking it out with us. We appreciate it. Next on the agenda, council, is our council policy and issues update. I will quickly recap our city council listening session earlier this evening. We had 1 2 3 4 5 6 speakers uh this evening. Jamie Anthony uh was asking questions about the immigration-related uh collaboration between Bloomington police and ICE on May 12th. We explained some context around that and and gave her an opportunity to ask additional questions, which I think we we've asked staff to uh take a look into and provide answers to. Uh Sally Ness was with us again, speaking about her concerns with the Smith Park shared use agreement. And again, more questions answered and staff will uh respond with uh specific answers. Uh Deborah Paone, I think I'm saying that correctly, concerns about uh fiber installation in the city. And I told her um join the club. I think everybody has has expressed those over the past couple of years. We need to, I think, uh boot up once again our our staff response to some of those questions and make sure that uh the issues of, and she brought them up very nicely, communication, safety, and restoration are are met because uh they clearly aren't in a couple of places now. Uh Elizabeth Cambronne and Brian Emerson spoke with concerns about the construction underway at the new Community Health and Wellness Center and their neighbor the impact on their neighborhoods. Um Elizabeth in particular spoke about city parks and how they are are integral to everything that we do. Uh Mr. Emerson spoke about his home damage due to the construction. So, looking into that. And finally, Mr. Jim Bowman, who we have not heard before, he was uh which is with us for the first time, concerns significant concerns about traffic on 106th Street between Xerxes and Lyndale, uh about speed, about passing in the middle turn lanes, about all kinds of issues, and can't disagree with him. And we've asked our police to maybe take a look at that and ask to our we will be asking our traffic staff if there are any things we can do to to slow folks down in that neighborhood. So, that is a recap of our listening session earlier this after this evening. Um the only other thing that I have to uh bring forward um the farmers market opens this weekend. Don't go to the farmers market last weekend like I did because it wasn't open. And uh uh couldn't figure out where all the tents were. And but it it opens this weekend, so exactly. Hope to see everybody there. It's always a a great kind of official start to summer, so I'm looking forward to it. Mr. Walker, anything to bring forward this evening? >> The only other event that I would highlight, Mayor and Council, between now and the next time we meet beyond the farmers market is the pride event on June 14th also here at Civic Plaza. >> Forgot about that. Very good. >> Nothing further. >> Council, anything else to add this evening? Council member Rebice. >> Thanks. I just I I I've refrained from making this comment cuz he wasn't adequate, but on regards to 4.7, if we didn't give him what they were asking for, we should enforce all around the city that there are some houses that have 14, 15 people living in there. You can tell by five, six cars parked in their driveways. And that's a violation. Although I don't know with certainty that they're not family members. And that could be possible given to the ethnicity of the people living there, but um but it would be in a clear violation of city code if more than six people or, you know, with a couple of children here and there are living. Uh but you see it all over the place. Uh and if we're holding these people to that standard, we should hold everybody to that same standard. >> I agree completely and if you have examples or instances, please bring them forward. >> Well, you know, I don't believe that my role as a city council member is to bring violations to the city. Although I have witnesses I have witnessed a lot of violations out there. I'm sometimes make comments during meetings, but I don't think I'm going to be the one I'm bringing, you know, violations to the city. It's It If somebody like a resident or somebody brings it to my attention, then I will support that. But I will not personally bring any violations to the city. I'm just merely mentioning them so that we can if we exercise holding people accountable to code, we should do it all across the board. >> Agree completely. Thank you. Thanks, Councilmember. >> Thank you. >> Anything else, Council? Councilmember D'Alessandro. >> So, obviously, Mr. Mayor, that judicial hearing, quasi-judicial hearing was tough. And what I think it underscores is that we we don't have, in my opinion, good good policy as a council to guide us around group homes in the city. And I know it's a I've This is not the first time I've mentioned this and it won't be the last time. I I think I think we can do a better job. I think we can find a way to carve out ways for these kinds of accommodations to be useful in the city. Like you know, I know we've been hamstrung a little bit by the way that the state handles them and that's problematic. I'd like to see us continuing to advocate at the city at the state level for policies that let us be better community members to folks that are in these addiction situations and things like that. We just It's Something's broken, inherently broken and I think, you know, we lead on so many other things here as a city and this is an opportunity I think for us to do some really really good work. Um, so I I hated being in that position and I would like to not do that again because we have good policy that helps guide us in the future if that's possible. >> I think that's a good suggestion council member and um >> [clears throat] >> staff hearing it and we'll see where fits into to work plans and whether we can take a >> I mean I know it's intersectional, right? It's public health plus police plus I mean I get all of that but there's I I never ever like to deny people accommodation to good things over zoning. I just it's it shouldn't be the place where we find these things and and deal with them. Not [snorts] when people are involved, right? Not when we're talking about people who need help. Thanks. >> Thank you. Anything else council? If not at 10:04 p.m. on Monday night, we have reached the end of our agenda. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Motion by council member D'Alessandro second by council member Danielson or Danielson I did it again. I did it again. >> [laughter] >> Council member Rivas with the second. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I. >> [laughter] >> Opposed motion carries 7-0. Thanks for your much for the conversation this evening council. Thank you to staff. Thank you to everybody who's tuned in. Have a good rest of your week. >> [music] [music]