Good evening everyone and welcome. I will call this Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, December 15th. Thank you to everyone joining us here in the council chambers, everyone joining us online. We will begin our meeting as we always do. If you're able, please stand, remove any head covering, and join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] Once again, thanks to everybody joining us tonight and watching online. We have our second to the last meeting in 2025 tonight. So, we're getting to the end of the year, starting it off brand new as of the 1 of January. Our first order of business is to approve tonight's agenda. Council, here is the agenda. Uh, we have nothing under introductory items tonight. Under our consent business, uh, and I think it's council member Dallas with consent tonight. We have eight items under the consent agenda. [clears throat] Item four, our hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. We have one resolution, uh, the resolution regarding the 2026 property tax levy and general fund budget. We had the truth and taxation hearing last week and will be our opportunity for our discussion tonight and then, uh, consideration of the resolution to approve the property tax levy and general fund budget. We have two public hearings this evening. Item 4.2 two is a public hearing regarding [clears throat] an ordinance amendment related to approval of contracts for municipal buildings and item 4.3 public hearing on administrative hearing technical amendment ordinance. Item five is our organizational business and we have two items there. Item 5.1 is a study item regarding our fence standards update and item 5.2 will be our discussion for our 2026 legislative platform. We'll wrap up with our council policy and issue update and then hopefully adjourn at a reasonable hour this evening. Council council, anything to add or any corrections to tonight's agenda as presented? Hearing none, I would move the agenda as presented. >> Second >> motion and a second by council member Mua to accept tonight's motion agenda as presented. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. And we have an agenda. And first up on that agenda is our consent business. Council member Dalisandro has our consent agenda. [clears throat] >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um who would like to hold anything? >> Anyone? >> No. Okay. Very good. Then uh I guess I get to move the agenda. So I'm going to move items 3.1 and 3.8 of our consent agenda as stated. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Dalisandro. Second by council member Lman to accept tonight's consent agenda. Item 3.1 through 3.8. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion. >> Council member, >> you're voting no on the entire consent agenda. [clears throat] >> Well, can you turn your mic on, please, council member? >> Um, I'm not against everything in the uh consent agenda, but the H levy. I'm not completely satisfied with it. So I'm what do you know on that? >> Understood. Council member, the protocol would have been had you wanted to call out item 3.8 and then you could have voted against that and voted for the rest of the consent agenda if you were interested in that. So uh just to let you know in the future that's >> in the future I will do that. Thank you. >> Very good. Very good. So uh the motion to approve the consent agenda passes 71 or 61, excuse me, with council member Revas voting in opposition. Moving on to item four, our hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. Item 4.1 is our resolution regarding our 2026 property tax levy and general fund budget. We're going to be hearing from Kari Carlson and first turn it over to uh Mr. Walker, our city manager. Mr. Walker. >> Yes. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh members of the council, good evening. Zach Walker, city manager. Um before Miss Carlson presents tonight, I just wanted to um briefly frame this issue for you. So, as the mayor said, we had the truth and taxation hearing last Monday night, about 18 speakers who who came in to share their thoughts and perspectives with us on that. Um, I will tell you, uh, as staff, um, we take those comments very seriously and we heard from many in our community who spoke about issues of affordability and adjusting to cost increases across the spectrum in their household budgets. Uh so um as staff we wanted to take a look at what maybe we could do though we've um certainly done a lot over the past uh 10 11 months to go from 18 uh% down to the proposed uh 7.48 but hearing from the community we wanted to see what else could still be done at this point uh in the year. Uh and so as um had the opportunity and I do thank you all for making time to to visit with me this past week. Uh but we are proposing um a use a one-time use of resources from our strategic um um priorities fund uh to do a tax levy offset. Certainly that's not a structural ongoing fix, but it'll lower that amount by an additional half a percent for this year. So from the 7.48 now under seven to 6.96%. Um just want [clears throat] to convey and communicate that um my team and my office, deputy city managers, Miss Carlson, our finance uh director, Lori, Economy Scher, we all understand the assignment. We know we need to continue to uh refine our approach uh on the city's budget and continue to make those um changes that are structural ongoing permanent fixes um to strike that appropriate balance between um high quality um excellent city services um but also um appreciating recognizing um and taking into account um affordability issues in our community. So we will continue that. This is an evolution and a journey with priority based budgeting, etc. Um, but we wanted to uh just continue to demonstrate um our receptiveness to the community input and the direction we're getting from council. And so that's why you'll notice the reflected uh change uh in Miss Carlson's presentation tonight. Uh so with that, mayor, if it's appropriate, we can turn it over to Miss Carlson. >> Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any questions of Mr. Walker? We'll get into the conversation here in a bit, but any direct questions on this? If not, we'll turn it over to Miss Carlson and jump right in. Good evening. Welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. >> So, this is the final presentation in a budget process that began early this year. I'll start with a brief review of the budget process calendar, and I will highlight the public safety investments in this budget request. I'll then review the reductions made from the 2026 preliminary levy. I'll present the final 2026 property tax levy and general fund budget request, outline key areas of focus for next year, and close with a recommendation. I'll then turn it over to council for discussion and approval of the 2026 final levy and general fund budget. As a review work began this spring with priority based budgeting, budget development, and department discussions, council held a study session in August, set the preliminary levy in September, and continued department budget discussions and presentations throughout October. Public input occurred at multiple points throughout the process, including the August 18th study session. The November 17th utility rate hearing, the November 24th council meeting and the truth and taxation hearing on December 8th. Tonight, December 15th, represents the final step in this process with council adoption of the 2026 tax levy and budget. More than half of the budget increase is related to public safety, largely driven by the fire department's transition to a combination staffing model. These changes were anticipated and planned for, including using fire pension reserves to help ease the transition as safer grant funding for firefighters hired in 2023 and ARP funding, American Rescue Plan funding for three battalion chiefs expire. But even with that planning, there is still an impact to the levy. On the police side, one-time state public safety aid that was supported some additional positions within the police department will also be absorbed into the general fund in 2026. So, all of this is making up a significant portion of the budget increase. This slide shows how the 2026 tax levy increase has evolved over this year. We did begin with a conceptual increase of 17.92% and that reflected the full cost pressures that were coming in before any reductions. But after changes in capital planning, debt service schedule um updates and also personnel cost updates, the council adopted a 9.44% preliminary levy in September. And then um as city manager uh Walker said, we've had continued refinements and reductions. And uh now tonight we're proposing a final levy of 6.96%. So to reduce the levy from 9.44% to 6.96% staff identified $2.17 million in expense reductions, revenue adjustments, and additional levy stabilization. These include uh lower debt service, reduced paid on call firefighter costs, increased fire state aid, some higher budgeted permit uh revenue, and reductions identified through priority based budgeting in our expenses. This slide shows that 6.96% increase um in the tax levy broken out by department to give another look at it. So, police department accounts for the largest share at 2.62% 62% of that increase, followed by fire at 1.47, public works at 1.18%, parks and wreck a little over one, public health at 26% net impact. And then the net impact for the community development is actually a decrease of 337% and that's because of the increased permit revenues um compared to 2025 budget. Um and then finance, legal, administration, communications together um account for 76%. A 6.96% tax levy increase for the median value home is roughly an increase of $2.39 per week, $10.37 per month, or 125 $124.39 per year. This slide compares Bloomington's proposed 2026 levy increase to the average increase across Minnesota cities. So the average increase across Minnesota and for cities is approximately 8.7%. And then Bloomington's proposed increase is 6.96%. So while this does not eliminate the impact for taxpayers in Bloomington, it does reflect the reductions that we've made and the adjustments made through this budget process and just indicates that Bloomington is not out of line with other cities in Minnesota. This slide is just a reminder overall that the city is only one part of the property tax bill. So preliminary tax statements reflect that were received in November in our households reflect that preliminary levy of 9.44% to point that out as well. And then this proposed final levy would have of 6.96% reflects a 2.48 reduction in those property tax statements for the city portion. Um but property taxes are shared between um the city, county, school district on those statements. Also for businesses, there's a state portion as well. Um and for a resident's tax bill, the city's portion is about onethird of that property tax bill. And then each jurisdiction jurisdiction, as you know, sets their own tax levy and that we only control that city portion that we're bringing down. This is the chart that shows the 2025 final tax levy and the proposed 26 levy and the general fund is increasing by about $5 million and then there is an increase for forestry within the parks and recreation special revenue and um the debt is going up about 1.1 million and then most of other areas ref remain flat although we are uh bringing down the Normanddale Lake District tax by 150,000 for 2026. Six. Here's that general fund budget showing total revenues and expenditures. Property taxes make up about 67% of the general fund revenues, followed by lodging and emission taxes as the next highest revenue source of 9%. And then on the expenditure side, public safety accounts for nearly half of that general fund budget. Police at about 41 million and fire just under 17 million. And then here's a chart, the pie chart where the general um fund revenues show where the different sources come from. And property taxes you can see make up the largest share in blue along with next to that in orange lod lodging and emission taxes and then permit licensing fees, grant revenues and so on. On the expense side, the public safety is the largest share of the general fund with police and fire accounting for nearly half. The rest support services like public works, parks and recreation, community development, and general government. And not and just to highlight again as on that last slide, not all of these are covered by property taxes. There are grants and other revenues that fund these services as well. So our recommendation based on the work throughout this process, staff recommends adopting the proposed 2026 final tax levy of a 6.96% increase. We heard the concerns shared by residents and businesses about affordability and the levy has been reduced from the preliminary 9.44% that was shown on property tax statements in November or preliminary property tax statements in November and um further refined since the tax truth and taxation public hearing last week. So, this proposed levy supports essential services and includes additional levy stabilization while recognizing that further reductions at this point would begin to impact staffing and service levels. And then looking ahead, we'll continue evaluating efficiencies and advancing priority based budgeting. will also explore a two-year budget process to predict to improve predictability and keep working to strengthen the education about our budget and city spending and public engagement around the budget. So with that uh we have chance for council discussion and we've got these two motions um ahead of you for this evening. The first is the resolution establishing the final 2026 tax levy for the city of Bloomington and then also the resolution adopting the final 2026 general fund budget. >> Thank you council. Any questions of Miss Carlson tonight? >> Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you mayor. Um I am just curious what what is the total with the HA and port? I know we had discussed that previously. Can you just give us an update based on the updated final levy here? >> Uh yes. Um mayor, council members, council member Nelson. So uh the last slide that I showed last week that had all of them together. I don't have that put together tonight, but the h levy did not change. >> So the but the city one did come down um about $450,000. So, >> so >> I don't have that in my head because I don't recall what where were we at last week. >> Eight something. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That That's good enough. That's good enough. I don't need anything. >> If you would like, I can get my laptop while you're discussing and I can calculate it. Okay. [laughter] >> I just wanted to know generally. So, >> council member questions. >> Yeah. Just a quick question. Um, and I just didn't get a chance to see it in here. Uh what impact, if any, does this what we did uh tonight have on next year's or the the next proceeding levy? >> Yes. Uh mayor, council members, council member Lman. So before when we had um the slightly higher levy, it was um preliminary conceptual for the next year was looking around also seven% a little higher. Um so now that's kind of pushing it to around 8% potentially. However, that is just a starting place. So, um there would be a lot of work to refine that number. >> That could go up or down depending on what the what everything looks like coming in next year. [clears throat] >> Other questions? All right. Thank you. Thanks much for your work and for the work of your entire team and the entire leadership team in in putting this all together. I know it's it literally is an 11month process and uh so thank you much for it. >> Thank you. But don't go far in case we have some questions. >> I'm ready here. [laughter] >> Council, uh, now is your opportunity, our opportunity to discuss this, to to offer opinions and and thoughts and and then ultimately decide where we're going to go with a motion on our uh our final tax levy and the final 2026 general fund budget. So, I see council member Nelson's hand and then council member Carter. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'd like to echo your thoughts of thanks to uh Ki, the entire staff, um, everyone who's worked on this budget for uh, frankly more than a year. And I remember being here last year when uh, people said, "Hey, you know, is our input taken into account?" And and it has been and we we did two things. one, we expanded the opportunities for the public to weigh in on this starting back in August and have worked from where we were at last year to where we're at tonight. And so, I just I want to thank staff for all of that hard work, that listening to the public and where we're going. Um, I would say uh in particular, I know my my colleague Council Member Rivas was probably more specific than any of us publicly and said he wanted the combined amount to be, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, under 9% and we and you delivered on that and even better than that. And so I, you know, I I appreciate the hard work that you have done there. With all of that said, I I uh I I still have personal things that that are in the budget that that I wish would be changed. Um, in particular, I'm concerned uh because we haven't made a final decision on the um uh compensation plan and that is a huge portion of our budget every year, but I think we'll get that worked out. Um, I've obviously as we've gone through this entire process brought up a number of other issues. For me at this point, unless I hear something different that changes my mind from one of my colleagues, I' I'm going to be supportive of this budget. Um, I think staff has done again a great job. You've listened to the public, you've listened to us. Um, you know, when you were given a mark to get it below 9%, you you delivered on that and and you beat it completely. So, um, let's keep the up the work, which is what I heard as a commitment from you and from our city manager and and keep moving forward because we know there's a lot of people struggling with this, but um, you know, to be in the 6% is is better than the seven and is way better than the nines. So, in the 18. Yeah. Yeah. So, thank you very much. I that that's where I'm at. Again, I don't think I'll ever vote for a perfect budget that I think is perfect. Uh, but I will vote for a budget that I believe is good for the city of Bloomington um and and for our residents and for our businesses. So, thank you. >> Thank you, council member. Council member Carter. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. So, um, I want to start just first by thanking all of the residents who engaged in the process and provided input. uh whether that was through the community engagement sessions that your team led Kari or through the public comment periods that we added throughout the process or the emails and phone calls and all the other ways that people can engage. Obviously, we heard a variety of opinions. Um I think what's clear to me and I'm sure all of us up here is that there are different beliefs in terms of what our wants and what our needs. Um there are different beliefs around where we should cut costs. Um, but regardless, I I really appreciate everybody who took the chance or took the opportunity to to weigh in. Um, and as was alluded to already, I think we can all recognize that we're in a really tough spot as a society. Um, we truly are in an affordability crisis. Everything is more expensive everywhere. Whether you're going to the grocery store or the gas station or you're opening up your property tax bill, it feels like everything continues to go up. And specific to Bloomington, um you know, we're in a position where we live in a community with aging infrastructure that has needed investment and it will continue to need investment um if we want to, you know, maintain the resources we have and the amenities we have. And like you mentioned, we're already we're we're in the middle of building a full-time fire department. And that's the addition of a lot of FTEEs, which is expensive. It just is. Um so the city is not immune to this affordability crisis, I guess, is my point. um everything is more expensive in terms of goods, supplies, equipment, labor, um and all of the other things that are required to make a city run well. Um and then like Ki mentioned, Bloomington's not alone. Um if you look at conversations that are happening across the state, from cities and suburbs to small towns, everybody is having conversations around the the cost um that it is the the expense that it takes to run a city well and to update aging infrastructure and maintain it well. And so, um, I think, you know, I guess what I would say is we as elected officials have a really tough balancing act, um, of reducing costs as much as possible while maintaining excellent city services that the majority of residents have come to expect and not making decisions that will negatively impact the future. For example, uh, the decision to move to a full-time fire department probably should have happened decades ago. Um, and maybe it could have been done more gradually, but I assume that that decision was put off because of how expensive it would be, right? Um, and I get that. I really do because we are now dealing with the consequences of that. Um, when we decided to move forward with building out a full-time fire department, I don't actually think it was even a choice. Um, the outcomes were so bad for our fire department, not because we don't have amazing firefighters. We do, but they were underresourced and they were put in an unfair position. Um, and so again, we really as council members have to balance what we're hearing right now in the community, but also think about how our decisions impact Bloomington 10, 20, and 30 years from now. Um, so with all that said, I do also want to be very, very clear. So everybody, all the residents who have weighed in over the past several weeks and months, I agree that we cannot treat property taxes as an endless supply of cash. Um I do firmly believe that and I also believe that the majority of city staff also feel that way. Many of our city staff are residents themselves are so are living with the implications of these t tax levies. Um I believe our staff are overall costconscious and they are doing what they can to be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. Uh so as we move forward I do think that there's an opportunity to continue to find efficiencies and as a council I think we're going to have to make some hard decisions. Um, I believe that the new priority based budgeting system that will be fully implemented. We haven't even fully implemented it yet, right? Um, next year will help us in that decision-making. Uh, we also have a brand new leadership team. We have a brand new city manager. Our deputy city managers are still relatively new. All of whom have done an excellent job in the short time that they've been here in finding cost savings and reducing expenses. And I feel confident that they're going to continue to do that. Um, and then I did want to speak to one area that a few residents asked for us to cut, and that is our equity and inclusion work. Um, so if we cut that budget, which I believe is 500,000, it's what I got from the finance team, that would save the average median household in Bloomington $20 a year. $20. I think it's like 20 cents a week or something close to that. So, I personally would not support this and I'll tell you why. So both times I ran for city council, I ran explicitly on a message and a platform focused on equity, inclusion, fairness, and access. And the second time I ran, I won with more votes than any council member or mayoral candidate in city history. So to me, that is a mandate. Um that to me tells me that the majority of Bloomington residents are committed to this value. and I would be willing to bet that they would pay $20 a year for their city to continue to have diversity, equity, inclusion as a priority. So, um, I again want to thank all of the residents who engaged in this process. I encourage everyone to continue to hold us accountable. I also encourage residents to remember and keep an open mind uh that all of us up here, every single one of us ran for these seats to make a positive difference in our community. Um, it's not like Congress where you can figure out ways to make millions of dollars. I don't totally understand how they do that, but we're not leaving these seats millionaires. Um the $12,000 a year is helpful, but we're not here to make money, okay? We're doing this because we love Bloomington. Um and we care about our neighbors and and we're really I think I can say every single one of us is doing our best. Um so again, so I want to thank Ki and the finance team and all of city staff for all your hard work. Uh thank you for listening to council members and residents as you've worked to find efficiencies and savings. And I am glad to hear that that mindset is going to continue. Um, and it can't just continue with staff. It has to continue on council. Um, it's very easy to say we want, we want, we want until it comes budget time and then we're like, "Oh, just kidding. We don't that's a lot." Um, so I think that this levy presented tonight reflects our values as a community as laid out in our strategic plan that was developed with community. It honors our debt service obligations. Obviously, we have to pay those. It significantly invests in public safety, which we continue to hear is a top priority. It maintains the quality city services that we expect in Bloomington and it positions Bloomington to continue to be in a strong financial position. So, I will be supporting the tax levy tonight. >> Thank you, Council Member Council Member Lman and Council Member Rivas. Council member Lman. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, a mandate. I like that. I do. I like that. That's a That's a great way to way to do that. I don't need to speak to it then. [laughter] Um uh so mayor I want to um you know you obviously and my other colleagues have already thanked staff and I think they've done a phenomenal job. You know 18% you know if you could bring it down to half of that would be 9%. I mean wow 6.96. Now I don't love the way we did it but you know the last little bit there but you know I'm not going to complain. [laughter] you know, it's one of the things I asked for that we we do that, but I I understand from a structural standpoint that can create create problems. So, I I I'm not going to forget that if we look at that next year, I promise I won't forget about that. You know, uh you know, that is an example of um well, maybe I'll say it this way. You know, we had a lot of comments. You know, there's 18 speakers that came before us. is probably one of the most uh um attended uh sessions I've ever seen since I've been on council. And uh uh we certainly had some folks who were very passionate and and very much cared about this community. And I I am happy that they they came here. But one of the things that was done which I think was kind of a disservice uh to to us as we try to gather together and try to move this conversation and discussion along. Uh I like to call it cherry-picking. We had uh some folks who put up on the on the slide uh piece up there certain council members um uh you know their their levy responsibilities or their you know what they had to pay and they just intentionally left off those other folks who had higher levies to make it sound like somehow we would uh benefit from you know having a you know a lower tire. somehow it was different or or to create this perception. Uh I don't know what they were were looking to do and they even put it out on the internet uh to try to to overemphasize that mayor. And you know I just uh for those folks who were were really genuinely here who really were driving to try to you know passionately try to to make their case to us to to to pull this this thing down because they're they're facing affordability. really a disservice to to not show that, you know, for example, my colleague down on the end here had a 12% uh, you know, increase and she's 12 and a half, even more than that, you know, increase and she gave me the permission to uh to do that. I'm not going to call anybody else out there, but you know, I think if if you're going to really make your case, tell the full story. you know, mayor, I just don't know why a person would would would just kind of cut it down to a certain way to kind of make their point to get it across because you know what, the truth comes out. People are going to find out, you know, what's happening with that. So, uh, I just thought that was just despicable. Um, and and I just hope that the next time that you kind of come forward that you you tell the full story because I do think your point of view and your perspective is important. Uh, I really wanted to hear, you know, why you thought, you know, putting us up there, you know, really made a difference. But you know what, uh, you know, next year is your opportunity to to to make it a little bit better. And I'll look forward to that. I I'll assume positive intent. You know, one of our our values here in the city is affordability and the cost. And my colleague spoke spoke to that eloquently. Um, but I just want to be sure that that folks understand that most of the things that we do here are are really focused on that idea of how do we, you know, not just do handouts, but really a hand up. How do we get folks from a situation where they're in? That's how we make our city a welcoming city. That's why we believe in our our city being a an open garden that everyone can be a part of and and participate in. They may have differing uh positions and differing points of view of how to tend that garden. Uh but we we value all those voices that are here and and that's why as we we drive forward and we we look forward we we have look to try to add uh as a part of that priority based budgeting. We're we're planting a seed for the future uh to try to create uh a type of garden where everyone can prosper and be a part of of that. And as one of my former council members once said, who's now in the in the house, that these represent our values as a city. We valued the the responses that we got last time and our staff went back and sharpened the pencil and and drove that drove that number down to 6.996. Uh I'm not loving it, you know, all the way cuz I realize that from the out years there will be increases because of those types of things. But you know what? We need it. Uh folks need to be able to afford to live and to be able to be a part of our city. What else do we value in the city? Well, 50% of that investment or or more if you include other items I do is around 65% is around public safety. Uh we value those folks. Um we we we value that steady and I'm hoping we can create this on an ongoing basis more steady experience for the taxpayer that comes here. We value everyone uh in this city. Uh and that's why we work so hard with the way in which that we pass these taxes. And let me just say as I as I wrap up what I have to say here that highquality services um are not just for the few. Uh they're for everybody. Uh this idea of of of of including people and making sure that everyone feels safe here starts right here in our budget. U and so I have an expectation as a as a council member and a long-term resident. uh that we protect all those folks uh whether it be through the budgets that we pass or by the enforcement uh that we uh support through our public service. Thank you, mayor. Thank [snorts] you, Council Member. Council member Revis. >> Awesome. Thank you so much for the effort. Um it's uh it's been a difficult time. Um especially because I represent a lot of the people that that are actually having a hard time financially. That's where uh my um opinions come from. Um I do get a lot of um communication through emails and phone calls with them. Uh so I do admire the the reality that you guys have gone out there to bat and brought this thing down from nine. I don't take into the account account the 18% because that was unrealistic to start with. But from 9% to 6.9 is is it tells a lot about what the city is about. Um and I I'm going to be brief. My only opposition to that is and and I did mention this to to Mr. Walker is I don't like the fact that we take funds from the strategics priority funds to uh give taxpayers a break. I think I wish you had gone a little farther. Um, you know, it's just a matter of opinions. We all have different opinions here. I And I I think I I like to defer that I don't agree 100% with what everybody thinks in this council and I'm not reluctant to say that. I my opinions are very different. Um, and that's the reason I'm here sitting. I got elected for that reason. Um um that said though, I do admire the fact that the uh you guys have done a wonderful job. Uh nobody not everybody's going to be happy, including myself. I I'll be honest, I I wish that we could have brought it even further down, but it's so late in the year when we started pushing for that. Uh and I do realize that we have come to the point that we need to vote on it. Um it it is very difficult for me to uh to say that I'm 100% behind this and and like again I say that just like uh uh my fellow council member Carter said that she feels like she got a mandate to uh keep um um diversity, equity and inclusion. I feel that uh I have a mandate from the people that elected me when I compared the votes that I got also to to uh my friend uh Patrick to with whom I communicate constantly. Um it's uh you know I don't think it's a mandate but I feel that I have the responsibility to truly represent them and if they oppose passing this budget I feel that I need to be behind them as well. Although I do admire the the fact that uh you know the finance staff and other um department managers have gone out there to be able to bring this budget to the point where it is at this moment. Um that said I personally I'm behind it but due to the fact that I get a lot of communication with them to uh to truly represent them I feel that I you know I'm not going to be 100% behind this. Uh, also what I want to uh remind um the staff in a very gentle way, uh, I'm I'm trying to not be so condescending when I ask questions because I I realize that watching the videos sometimes I'm not kind enough to to ask questions and I'm working on it. I promise everybody, okay? I had to I had to be kind and respectful and mindful of how people feel when you approach him. So, um, please forgive me if at any moment I make you feel uncomfortable. It's not my intention. But that said, uh, it's great that you have brought this down to 6.96. Uh, I'm I'm I'm going to have a real hard time at the time of boarding, but which way to go, but uh, it's wonderful to be able to to tell the residents that have been communicating with me that, you know, we managed to bring it this far down. and it's it's it's not easy given the time frame that we got to start pushing for this. So, thank you so very much to you and the staff in finance for doing what you did and thank you Mr. Walker for pushing through that. Again, my only opposition is the fact that we got funds from the strategic uh uh uh priorities fund. So other than that I think uh the job has been magnificent and I you know again I feel personally I'm behind it but uh I feel that I have to um represent the people that elected me and that's when it becomes really hard for me to make decisions while I sit here. Thank you so much. Thank you Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you council member. Council member Muell. >> Thank you mayor. Um, thank you to all the residents who came over the last four or five months. Thank you to staff. Um, I truly believe we have the best residents in in the whole state of Minnesota. Um, I love punishment. So, I watch other cities budget meetings just for fun. And I watched six of them this year and the most that I saw come to speak uh even in cities that had double-digit preliminary tax levies was three. three people showed up to their cities outside of Bloomington to speak about the tax levy. The fact that we had 18 people show up. The fact that we had, I don't know, 50 emails show up in our inboxes, 21 people comment on the Let's Talk Bloomington. The fact that I had like four coffee dates just to chat about the tax levy with residents who wanted to talk shows the level of engagement, of care, and responsibility the residents of Bloomington had. And I truly admire all those folks who spoke up from whatever viewpoint you have. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us. And to staff, uh, usually we don't start to what, like April, but you guys started literally the day after last year when we had this conversation. Uh, and there's two points that I want to talk about. There was a comment that said, "We don't care. The people up here don't care." And the fact that we started this process last year, literally the day after we had this conversation, I think shows that we cared. The fact that we opened it up and allowed and found a way to allow more conversation from residents instead of just the truth and taxation hearing, which every other city does. They only have the one meeting. Shows that we value our residents and we care. And we all live here. We're all your friends. We're all your neighbors. we live here and we are impacted by this just as much as you. And so I think the notion that we don't care um just doesn't sit right with me because if I didn't care that conceptual levy at 18% probably is what I would have wanted to do. I've told chief like I want the fire department up like yesterday I would have had 18% so we could do that. But the fact that we do care and that we have worked and worked with staff to think of new ways to think of new processes to help us alleviate that uh shows that we do care and we don't care just about today. We know today there is a lot that people are dealing with. Grocery store prices continue to go up. Gas goes up and down. You never know what you're going to get. [clears throat and cough] Your tax uh in your tax levies continue to go up. And we do understand that and that's why we've worked so hard to get this down to under 7%. But we also have to care about tomorrow. One of the things I ran on was that when I am 65 years old and I turn around and my kid calls me and say, "Dad, should I come back home?" I want to say absolutely. Because of the decisions we made here today, my kids are going to say, "I loved growing up in Bloomington. Bloomington continues to be a wonderful place to live because we made the investments yesterday. I want to take my kids home and raise them where I grew up. That is what I want us to do. And so that is how I care not only for today but for tomorrow. And then the second thing that's been sitting with me is is today the right time? And as I keep thinking about is is it the right time? [clears throat] I think I've come to the res the realization that there's never a right time. Like if there was a right time to have kids, I wouldn't have kids because I need more money. I need more time. I need more energy. But you just you do what's best for you in the moment. And there are better times and there are worse times, right? The best time to buy a house was in 1960 when houses were only what, three times your annual income. The worst time to buy a house probably like 2006, 2007, 2008, right? The best time to invest was in 2009 when the stock market crashed and then we went on a 17-year bull run. Anyone who stayed invested in 2009 until now made money hand over the fist, but people panicked. So, there's never the right time. And so being my last budget meeting on this council as part of this council, I know how much every one of us genuinely cares. And I'd say council member Rivas, we have so much more in common than you you give us credit for because getting to know you and everyone else in here, there is no one on this council that I uh doubt their care and concern for this city. So, I think I would encourage this council to continue to have these difficult conversations because they're not over. After tonight's meeting, after the conversation we have tonight, it's not over. We all know our city has considerable challenges up ahead. And so, I encourage you all to continue to have those hard conversations, to not kick the can down the road because everything was cheaper yesterday. The next best time to buy something was today. So, let's not kick it off too far down tomorrow. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member M. Council member Delisandro. Anything? Good. Thank you all for uh your input. I I'll be very brief. I I again appreciate the the staff's work on this. I think this is uh I agree with everybody. It's not a perfect budget, but it's a budget that we've got and we'll we'll work with it. As I mentioned last week, I think it says it speaks volumes that of this budget, 85% of this budget goes to those five building blocks, those foundational services that are that that cities provide. Police, fire, park and recreation, public works, and community development. I mean, those are the building blocks. That's what you turn around. That's what cities do. They do other things as well, but those are the five things. Those groupings of things are are what every city could can or should do. And if we look at it in that way, uh, and then we look at it with this conversation we've been having about wants versus needs, then it's, as Council Member Mua said, it's going to be a tough discussion moving forward because when I look at police and fire protection, when I look at plowing the streets, when I look at fixing potholes, uh, when I look at having summer park and recreation opportunities, when I look at all our green space across the city, I look at the work that we're doing to try and attract and grow businesses in the city of Bloomington, our our inspections that keep everyone safe from a food to a a housing standpoint. Are those wants or are those needs? And if those are in wants, then how do we reduce them without affecting the quality of life within our city? And it's a conversation that if we want to have uh I want to make sure that we involve the entire community because we we all get emails, we all hear voices, but we also uh don't get emails, we don't hear voices. Folks who are either in agreement that it was time for a full-time fire department uh or that you know having the best police department in the state of Minnesota is is a worthwhile investment. And so uh it it also then all ties into cities are in in the service industry. We provide services. We don't make widgets. We can't cut the cost to production. We can't you know change there aren't things we can tinker with there. It's basically the people who provide those services. You know for now you need a guy behind the wheel of a snowplow for now. I'm not saying that is forever kind of thing, but for now you need someone behind the wheel of a snowplow. uh you you need firefighters and police officers and and the folks to do the the things that we need to get done. And so it will be a difficult conversation as we move forward. And it will be difficult for staff and for this community to to think their way through all of this. But I think we're up to it. And I think I I think there is a way to continue to move Bloomington forward, which is in my mind the preferred direction forward and uh still maintain the livability of this community. uh maintain the services that people have come to expect and to deliver them in the exceptional way that people have come to again not only expect but need and and uh desire here in Bloomington. So I think everything that has been said has been said. So uh council I would look for action. Council member Mua. >> Thank you mayor. I'd be happy to do that. Uh, I'd move to adopt a resolution establishing establishing final tax levies for the city of Bloomington for the year 2026. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Carter to adopt the resolution establishing final tax levies for the city of Bloomington for the year 2026. Any further council discussion on this? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries 61 with council member Reeas in opposition. Council member Mu. Mayor, I move to adopt resolution adopting the final 2026 general fund budget. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Carter to adopt the resolution adopting the final 2026 general fund budget. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I >> I >> opposed. You voted. Yeah, I'm sorry. I was uh motion carries 70. Again, thank you very much for uh to the staff for the work that put into it. Thanks council for the discussion that has gone on for the past months and uh thanks to our the members of our community who have who have weighed in in so many different ways and uh it's the most important work that we do as a council and we do it every single year and uh we'll continue to do it and looking forward to the conversation as it moves forward. >> Thank you. >> Thank you K. >> Item 4.2 is our first public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing regarding an ordinance amendment related to the approval of contracts for municipal buildings. Our maintenance supervisor, Tim Barrett, is here. Good evening, Mr. Baron. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Come up here. All right. So, before you tonight, I have an ordinance amending chapter five of the city code. And what this ordinance is is um an amendment to chapter five of the city code to update approval amount of our construction contracts for our mis misable buildings. Um kind of some terminology. Mistville building is any city-owned facility that could be civic plaza, public works buildings, uh or fire stations, um any uh park facilities, anything like that would be considered mis building. Construction can range anywhere from sidewalk to trail improvements, um building mechanicals, remodeling of city facilities, or uh new construction. So, it kind of gives you a little terminology of what that kind of means. Uh kind of the background of this ordinance, it's been in place since 1994 with no amendments or any changes. Um this um ordinance is council needs to approve any construction contract over $100,000. Um it needs to be approved by a vote of not less than five members on the city council and then to transfer funds to um for these construction is it needs an affirmative votes of at least five city council members. And with that, city council needs to establish the construction budget as well. So, what staff is recommending is that we change the amount from $100,000 to $175,000, which would align with the city's purchasing policy. Um, all contracts that come to the city council are over $175,000. And we just are kind of kind of fine-tuning this and making sure it kind of is the same all across the board so nothing gets missed. So, that's kind of the recommendation behind this. Um, so in front of you is a motion to amend chapter 5, article six of the city code related to construction of municipal buildings. >> Thank you. Council questions >> and I do have a question. So you mentioned it it's uh it it um is in conformance with the the purchasing. Uh I've got to imagine there must have been some thought also since the ordinance has been in place since ' 94. uh set at $100,000 those years ago that it might make time to might be time to update it. >> Correct. Yep. Those were obviously dollars in 1994. We're in 2025 and >> Exactly. >> Yes. >> Um actually, I'm surprised it's not a little bit higher than that given the uh the rate of inflation in the past 35 years. >> Council, any questions? Council member Nelson. >> Thank you, Mayor. I am wondering if you can give us any examples of projects that are between the 100 and $175,000. Um, so I mean they could be anywhere from if we're doing sidewalk improvements on a city facility, it could be sidewalk replacements, things like that. Um, crack ceiling could fall underneath between that 100 and 175. They're obviously small projects. Any new construction or remodel is going to be well over that $175,000. So they're kind of your smaller ones. Um, same type deal. if there's any mechanical replacements, for instance, at a park building, those have smaller um HVAC units, things like that could fall within that 100 to $175,000. >> Thank you. >> Additional questions. All right, don't thank you much. This is a public hearing. I will open the public hearing at item 4.2. This is a an ordinance amendment related to the approval of contracts for municipal buildings. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.2 this evening? >> Priyanka, do we have anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anybody in the chambers, council, no one coming forward, no one on the phone wishing to speak. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.2 this evening. >> So moved. Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Dallesandro to close the public hearing on item 4.2. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. >> Council thoughts on this. Uh I I think as laid out, it makes pretty good sense the fact that it uh aligns with u other numbers in our in our purchasing policy. And as I said, I think it fits a little bit better in terms of uh 2025 as opposed to 1994. And so I think it makes uh it makes good sense to to move this up to the 175. If everybody's in agreement, I look for action on item 4.2. Council member Mua. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd be happy to move this. And uh move to adopt an ordinance amending chapter 5 of the city code related to approval of contracts for municipal buildings. Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Dalisandro to uh approve the uh ordinance amending chapter 5 of the city code related to the approval of contracts for municipal buildings. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you much. [clears throat] >> Moving on to item 4.3, our second and final public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing regarding administrative hearing technical amendment ordinance. Miss Mandershide, city attorney, is going to lead us through this one. Miss Mandershide. >> Thank you, mayor members. This is a technical amendment to chapter one of our city code. It in it can it includes an outdated uh title that is no longer used in in the city. And so the request is to generalize the section to make it more durable. Generally speaking, the section that we're talking about relates to our civil hearing process. That's in chapter one of our city code. Uh, it's removing the reference to associate city attorney and replacing it throughout this section with the more durable term of city attorney's office. Council questions of Ms. Mandershide. No questions. Very good. Thank you much. I will open the public hearing now. This is item 4.3, a public hearing regarding an administrative hearing technical amendment ordinance. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to item 4.3 this evening? Priyanka, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak to item 4.3? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Anyone in the chambers? Last chance. Council, no one in the chambers coming forward. No one on phone on the phone looking to speak to item 4.3. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.3. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Dalisandro. Second by council member Mua to close the public hearing on item 4.3. No further council discussion. And all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. Council, this one's pretty straightforward. Just cleaning up some language. Uh, changing uh removing assoc associate city attorney and just going with a more general city attorney's office. Unless there [clears throat] are any questions or concerns about this. I'd look for action on it 4.3. Council member Mua. >> I'll do them all tonight, guys. Uh, I move to adopt an ordinance amending chapter one of the city code related to interpretation and enforcement of city code. >> Motion by council member Mua, second by council member Dalisandro to adopt the ordinance for amending chapter one of the city code related to interpretation and enforcement of the city code. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you very much, Miss Mandershide. We will move on to our organizational business this evening. Uh first the study item and the second a discussion item. Study item is item 5.1 regarding our fence standards update. Dylan Palmer from our planning staff is with us. Mr. Palmer, is this your first time in front of us? >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Yes, it is. >> Well, welcome. Very glad to have you on board. Welcome to the city of Bloomington and welcome to the to the chambers. >> Thank you. Get my PowerPoint. All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. Uh, as Mayor Busy mentioned, my name is Dylan Palmer with the planning department, and I'm here to present item 5.1 tonight, which is a study item to update our fence standards ordinance. So, just some objectives, uh, what staff is looking to do. This is an item that was, uh, initially presented on our 2025 planning commission work plan. Uh the main goal is to update our fence code to be clearer for residents uh particularly particularly around uh fence materials, height, opacity requirements as well as location of fences in residential yards. Uh we also wanted to evaluate opportunities to allow for additional privacy fencing for residents as well as make some clerical updates. Uh just a little bit of background, the fence code was initially written in 2008. So, if you drive around, you'll see a lot of fences uh throughout the city that do not comply with current requirements. They're legally non-conforming because a lot of these fences existed uh prior to 2008 when that ordinance was initially passed. Uh we're also uh again, this is a study item, so no formal action needed tonight. We're looking at taking this to a public hearing with the planning commission in January of 2026 and then bringing it back uh to the council in February of 2026. All right. So, just a little bit of background on the purpose of the fence code. The city uh initially passed this in order to set standards for fences to make sure that people uh were mostly complying by one standard set of rules. There were some goals set out in 2008 which included to allow areas for privacy in residential yards while maintaining the open design along streets. uh provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between active areas and more passive areas. Enhance the aesthetic conditions within the city, limit sighteline obstructions, reduce potential for crime and illegal activities, and then prevent conflicts with utility lines. So, these are our current fence standards, and this is a graphic that's pulled from our fence standard handout that can be uh seen online by residents. Currently, we allow for a 4ft tall fence with a maximum of 50% opacity in the front yard as well as the corner sideyard. So, that's that area in the red circle there. And that will be a one of the big points of discussion tonight. You're also allowed to have a 6ft tall fence in your rear and your sideyard. So, if you're looking at the graphic, that's kind of that white dotted area on there. And then one other helpful tip here, we're also going to be discussing the rear plane and the front plane of the home. So on the right side in the section of the graphic labeled internal lot, you can see what we're calling the front plane and the rear plane for purposes of discussion tonight. All right. So first item is our proposed options to change standards for corner sideyard fences. So looking at option A, that's the same graphic that you saw on the previous slide. Those are our current standards where we only allow a 4ft height with a 50% opacity in the corner side yard. Uh the reason that we are looking at changing these standards is because we have received uh fairly frequent inquiries from residents who live in corner side or have properties on corner lots where they're looking to expand the area of their rear yard where they can uh put a taller fence mostly to allow for more recreation in their backyard. They have kids, they have pets, a lot of situations like that. So, we've thought about four options tonight that I'll be presenting to you. The first option is to simply maintain our current standard with the 4ft tall height requirement and the 50% opacity. And then a little bit of clarification here. Uh the clear view triangles, you can see there are those darker triangle areas on the left and then I change the color to blue on the right to call it out. In any case, anywhere in the city, if you're on a corner of a street or a driveway, you're not allowed to have a fence in that 15 by 15 area there uh to provide for visibility for cars and other traffic along streets and in driveways. Uh so again, option A, maintain our current standard. The second option, that's the graphic on the right, would be to allow a sixoot sense, six-foot fence in that corner sideyard with a 1-ft setback. So this would be going up to the front plane of the home. So you could build a six foot if you're looking at the front side of a perfectly rectangular house going straight across over to the street and then a 1ft setback from the property line. This is similar to a couple of other cities in the region. Most specifically, this is what city of Blaine's fence standard looks like. Uh our next two options, option C would be to allow a sixoot fence at the rear plane of the home. So you would still have that 4 foot maximum height in the majority of the sideyard and corner lots, but you'd still be able to have a little bit of an expanded area behind the rear plane of the structure where you could raise the height up to six feet. Option D, that's the graphic on the right, would be to allow a sixft fence at the front plane of the home and no setback. So you'd be able to do a sixoot fence behind the front plane of the home and there would not be a setback. you'd be able to go up to the property line. And then just to clarify because we had this question in planning commission, there is already a two-foot setback for all fences located next to sidewalks and that's across the city and all lots and we're not proposing to change that at this time. So there will still be a two-foot setback in place if there is a sidewalk uh along the property lines. So this is a table that outlines all four options showing you the different uh restrictions going from our current standards which we believe are the most restrictive and then going over to option D which is the most permissive and that's most similar to the city of St. Paul's. Uh the planning commission was generally supportive of allowing a sixoot fence in the corner side yard. They were about evenly split between options B and option C. and then I'll uh if you don't mind I'll hold all questions until the end of the presentation. We can certainly come back to the graphics if that would be helpful. All right, we'll move on to our next question which is about opacity. So, as I mentioned earlier, we currently have a 50% opacity requirement in front yards for the 4ft tall fences. Uh and that graphic right there in the middle of the screen shows you the difference between a more than 50% opaque fence and then a less than 50% opaque fence. uh peer cities. So, Edina, Richfield, and Egan do not have any opacity requirements. Uh they only focus on height in the front yards. Staff is supportive of removing opacity requirements to ensure standards are clearer for residents to understand. We have received some questions from residents about uh building a completely opaque fence in their front yard. And then the planning commission, they were divided on removing the opacity requirement. Again, pretty much a 50/50 split on keeping the requirement or removing it. And then to demonstrate what a uh more than 50% opaque fence would look like, we have that image on the right there. A fairly creatively built fence. Uh not in Bloomington, but good example of what a not uh completely opaque fence could look like. All right, move on to our next item, which is fence material. So, we're uh looking to update the code to clarify that plastic slats, so that's the image there on the right side, do not count towards screening requirements. And this would apply to commercial and industrial sites. Uh we've had some discussion with our environmental health department that a lot of industrial properties use these plastic slats to provide screening. And over the years, just with uh a lot of times it's snowplow damage or any kind of weather issues, those plastic slats fall out of the fence, they break, and then they create holes in the fence. So, industrial property or commercially proper commercial property is no longer no longer screened. Uh we'd also like to add language to restrict fence coverings to be a commercially built product manufactured specifically for use on fencing. So, that's the image on the left. That was just something I pulled off of Amazon of a opaque fence screen that could be used and it uh it's a lot more aesthetically pleasing than the uh plastic slats there on the right. So, we'll be asking if you support making these updates to the fence material standards and then the planning commission was supportive of these proposed updates. And then this is uh probably the most confusing question of the night so feel free to interrupt if you have questions about it. So, our current standards and we like to call this a legacy code item is that a fence may rise to eight feet if it is located 65 ft from the front property line. So the graphic on the right shows uh the top half of the yard there where you're allowed to have a 4ft tall fence and that's going 65 ft back and then our proposal which is on the lower half of that lot which would allow for an 8ft tall max fence at 30 feet or structure setbacks. This standard only applies to very few lots across the city, mostly down along the bluffs, but uh we I've had one time in my knowledge where this has come up. So, we're just looking to uh make the standards apply set uh structure setbacks for all sides of the house. uh planning commission was not supportive of making this update and they also expressed a desire to remove allowances for 8 foot tall fences citywide and after doing some research it also looks like Edina Egan Ridgefield as well as Minneapolis they have a 6' tall maximum height limit citywide as well so they do not allow for 8 foot uh tall fences anywhere in their cities. All right and then some other minor code updates that we're also looking to make. These are just some housekeeping items. We're proposing to remove language that pertains to locating a fence up to the property line. Uh our city's legal department stated that the current language may expose us to legal challenges. The code language uh more or less just says you're allowed to place a fence on your property line. We thought that that would uh could open up the city to uh any form of legal remedy or anything like that. and we wanted to remove that language because uh placement of fences along property lines is ultimately a private issue. Uh staff is also proposing to remove language governing arbors and trelluses as fences. So uh this is an issue where arbors and trelluses have standards in the fence code section. They also have separate and different standards in our permitted encroachment sections of the code. And those standards are a 5-ft side setback, 10-ft rear setback, and 20ft front setback. So, our proposal is just to completely remove this section from the fence code so that we have one location for all arbor and trellis uh related standards. And with that, we'll go to our guiding question. So, uh I guess we'll start with our first question. Mayor and council, do you have any preferences on the corner allowance? Council member Dellesandro, [laughter] >> Mr. Mayor, I was drawing a picture for myself and I'm trying to follow along. Um, so the the specific the specific issue that I that my you know folks in have have contacted me have talked about is really not one that you have described here, but maybe you could walk me through it and if and if you could tell me about option B versus option C and how it might lay out I would get a better handle on on whether or not I could support one or the other based on the needs that I'm hearing about. So in the case of of of many of the yards and the first off the the principal structure um I kind of have to invert this one because um think about in my scenario the the rear is the front right. So I'm going to give you specifics. So 86th Street uh the left side would be Emerson Avenue which is my street. Okay? That would be considered the side street because the front of the house faces 86th Street and it's addressed at 86th Street. Right behind the principal structure is the garage and the garage exits off of to Emerson. >> Okay. [snorts] The way that our code works today, they can't use the sideyard. They can't fence the sideyard that would be what we would considered from the street to on the principal structure side to the garage uh um driveway, right? And they can't they can't fence off the rest of that section uh on the then the south side of their garage uh their driveway either but they can put our revide and completely close it off via a a hedge or whatever. Um what what is what is how do how do we are we solving a problem for them in that scenario? Is this is am I thinking can I think about this as Yep. They can put a fence on the principal structure to their garage uh driveway and from their other end of their driveway down to the end of their lot on that side side that side the Emerson Avenue side for example. Am I interpreting this picture correctly? If I'm looking at option um D or or C I guess it would C would be the the example of that. [snorts] Am I I'm sorry. I could draw you I could bring my picture to the overhead, but that's not the best answer for you. Not Not with my chicken scratch today. >> Yep. Mayor, Commissioner, uh, Commissioner Dallas, that would be accurate. So, currently, you would still be able to have a fence in that sideyard. It could just only go up to four feet in height. What we're proposing here is that you'd be able to place a fence there up to six feet in height. So, uh, for example, option D, let's say the garage is, uh, located where that six foot max label is on the graphic just to the left there. You would be able to fence in if we were to move forward with option D, you'd be able to do a sixoot fence down to the driveway, not within the clear view triangle, and then along the driveway to the garage, as well as on the other side of that driveway going to the uh, rear property line there. >> Okay. Um, in the case of option C, am I looking at that correctly? Which is there's that that front street, if you will, um, that side street. Um, we're we're still limiting it to 4 feet through through to so if the if the garage was at the end of where you have the rear setback, am I looking at the at at the rest of it could be fenced? So in this case it would be kind of a compromise where the front portion of that side street yard would be have to be 4 feet but once you got on the south side of the driveway it could be six feet. And is that also a way I'm interpreting this? >> Uh mayor council member Dal Dalisandre yes that would be correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Um and then can you show me option B again? >> Y >> and then >> Okay. And that's the same but with a with the one foot with a one foot setback. >> Yeah. Mayor, council member Dez Dalisandro, excuse me. Uh that would be correct. So option B, the reason we put option B and option D separate is because option B has that set back in there and it is theoretically it is more restrictive in order to place the fence further back from the property line where option D is allowing you to place a fence all the way up to the property line. >> Right. Okay. Um thank you. That's helpful for questions. Um uh appreciate it. U if anybody else has any questions, Mr. Mayor, that that's fine for now. I'd have some comments, but otherwise good. >> Thank you, Council Member Mu and Council Member Nelson. Council member M. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, man, I wish this was four years ago because I built my fence four years ago. It would have been nice to have some more yard space. U but anyways, my question is around inspections. Fences don't get inspected. Is that correct? Once someone So, you can hire someone, you can build it yourself, but it's up to you to build it and no one comes out to check if you did it right. The only time you would get some notification is if environmental health came around and said you didn't do this correctly. Is that right, >> Mayor? Council member Mua. Yes, that is the correct. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Nelson. >> Uh, thank you. I'm probably [clears throat] going to go along the route of Council Member Delisandro and just ask for clarification. Um, uh, for someone who has I've spoken with for several years about this. They have a situation in which the rear yard is the street. It's the main street, Minnesota Bluffs. The sideyard is Sumpter. And then they access the property uh off of a circle. It's part of an association. And so they have been limited to 4 feet with a significant setback. And one of the properties basically you you'd have a like 8 by8 backyard. Um, and so I am wondering how that applies in this situation because everything I've seen, your front street is the front of the house. What happens if that street is the back of the house and the rear yard? Would would any of these allow for that to be built with a more minimal setback and a greater height? Uh, Mayor, Council Member Nelson, in this instance, we are only looking at the sidey yards and corner lots, but that is something that uh we would probably look at that in a case- by case basis if they were to come into the planning department. And we'd be able to look at where their rear yard is exactly placed along the street and the conditions of the street and all those kinds of uh >> Well, I can tell you with certain they've been in before to try to look at this. So, >> let me defer it to planning manager Johnson. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor, Council Member Nelson. Um, the lot you might be talking about, I believe it's a corner lot, but it might also qualify as a through lot. And so, our fence code also has provisions that allow privacy fencing uh along the rear lot line of a through lot when both properties on either side of you are also through lots. one of the proposed changes that's in the um concept uh code uh addition that's attached to the staff report would actually clarify that to say that as long as one of the houses next to you is a through lot um that you would qualify for that exception uh for lack of a better term. Okay. >> Um I didn't describe that very well but the point is in other words you have to have through lots on both sides of you to be eligible for this exception. So, when we get questions about a property that has roads on three sides, you know, it's either a situation where possibly it's a through lot and can qualify for one of those exceptions or it might be the candidate for a variance. Um, one of those situations. >> Okay. >> And I know this is just study, so maybe I'll just follow up with you with specifics. >> Certainly, >> one of you. >> Um, and then, um, the opacity question. Um, in general, I think I understand it. The concern that has come up, and I'll be honest, this is for my own house, but I've talked to many people, is building like a screening fence and trying to build that alongside a garage, frankly, for my trash. Um, and and but I've I've talked with a number of other people that, you know, for various reasons, they don't want to put that into their garage. Um, and I won't speculate why. Uh but the the challenge is you know if the house is built already to the setback if you build it in front of that it has to be 50% opaque which is kind of not screening. You know it's it's it's and I don't want to build it at the setback. They don't want to build it right at the garage. They'd like it a little bit of like 3 4 feet so you can access it and put it behind there. But my concern is candidly in the front yard if you put a fence closer to the street, you know, you have your white picket fence classic type of situation. Um, I'm not sure opacity I I'm not sure that that completely screening and blocking the view makes sense right at the street or close to the street, but I think screening is a different thing. And is there a way to distinguish between those two items? Unless most of my colleagues are completely fine with a complete privacy fence um in the front yard um to a certain extent. So, >> uh Mayor, Council Member Nelson, I'll certainly take note of that. And what we will do is prior to the public hearings next year, we'll consult with other members of staff and see what their opinions is or their opinions are. uh consult with our environmental health department especially to see if they have any uh input on a proposal like that. >> Okay. And then the last thing I'll say is the 8 foot um fence. I'll be honest, if it's at the setback, the normal setback for a property, I don't really care. You could build your house there. Your house is going to be 8t tall. So why can't you build a fence? So I I don't personally have a problem with that part. So thank you, >> Council Member Revis. >> Just two quick questions. One of it might be premature, I guess. But what what what is the language right now on regards to placing the fence all the way to the property line? What does it say now? And what is the what are you proposing to to bring it back, right? To have a set back on it. >> Uh mayor, council member Reva, so if uh you were you can place your fence up to the property line now in any uh situation. The we're making the code update. There is the specific section of code that states that you are allowed to place your fence along the property line. We're simply we're removing that item of code just because it was a directive from our legal department that it could potentially open up the city to legal ramifications if someone were to look at that and say the city's responsible for where fences are exactly located. Ultimately, it's a private privately handled court issues. That's why we're removing that specific section of code. I mean the second question is this is probably the one that's premature. Um especially because I live in a quarter lot too. Um would everyone after if this if these changes actually take place? Um would everybody will have would have to bring uh their offenses up to um up to uh to the city standards at that point or there will be some lenience to people that already have fences on the side streets. Mayor, council member Ree. So any if if these changes were to be uh placed in a code, any fences now would just be considered legally non-conforming. So it's much like the fences that existed prior to 2008. They're allowed to stay in place as they are unless the property owner wants to make updates to their fences. >> Right. >> Yeah. The only reason I asked that is because I I know that they can be a little spendy. Mhm. >> Um I mean I we have a very basic thing and it was $15,000 just to put the fence around. So it's it's kind of an investment for people to change that. That's it. Thank you. >> Uh Council Member Lman and Council Member Carter. Council member Lman. >> Thank you. I'm not sure if we're going through all the questions, but I intend to go through all of them because I don't I want to keep going back and all the way down this thing if you don't mind, Mayor. Uh so I think when I look at all of this that I think the the primary thing that I'm uh kind of thinking in my mind is around opakqueness and clear view triangle. Now obviously there's a reason why we have those things from a planning perspective. Um you know as I look at all these items here and I guess the question is you know where where does the crash data tell us? You know we got what folks are doing in Blaine and I you know I know that you know in terms of how our streets are organized may be different and that kind of you got to account for that. So, um, and then from a safety perspective, I think of when a when a firefighter's got to go get into a place, you know, we had a fire, you know, in our in our neighborhood where they didn't see the pool and, you know, you know, end up getting injured or an officer needs to get into a place. Those are the things that when I look at this that kind of drive my conversation about front yards. Um uh and you know if a car is trying to get you know you know I live on a corner a lot too and I think about how my you know my fence extends just down a little bit and I know my neighbor would love to rip that fence down. I mean they haven't said it so you know so eloquently but I know they would love to see that thing go [laughter] and I was happy when our fence went down between us and and and our neighbor. I just thought it looked better that way with being gone. But uh so I I wonder you know from a historical perspective if some of these things are in place because they are you know how things look and how people feel about them but are they really what's the data showing us around safety crash data clear view triangle if uh if if that isn't driving the decision making here with with this then I I you know then I don't I mean if there isn't a reason to keep it the way we have it from a safety or a clear view or opcness kind of standpoint point, then let's open it up so that children uh can kind of get down there and other people can kind of be a part of that. So, that's what I would answer on this this taller yard allowances. Um, from a removing a penance requirement, I think you got my response on that. Uh, amen amend uh uh permitted fence materials. I think you got my answer on that one. You know, if there's something from a safety standpoint and also would say even from an environmental standpoint, you know, for example, you know, the plastics, we know what that can do. Let's not do that. Um, and then allowance for the 8 foot uh fence in the backyard. Yeah, I mean, you got a house back there. [laughter] That would be the the uh the other piece. And I think some of the other language that you have on there, I'm not sure if that's even in this question here, but yeah, staff wants to get rid of that fence thing from legal reasons. There's no reason to sue the city. Let's get out of that space. And then what's the other one? The other one was uh there was another question you guys had removing the uh the arbor and the trellis of fences. Yeah, I mean it totally makes sense. let's let's make that simple or move or take whatever that is where it is and bring it into this thing. So hopefully that helps you to kind of understand. But my standard is around safety, you know, opaqueness, clear view triangle. Do we have support from a from a crash, a safety kind of standpoint, protecting our officers or uh folks that are coming out there uh to be on the property temporarily? >> And and just to be clear, Council Member Lman, there's no proposal to change the Clear View Triangle. That that's I think kind of there and it's >> Yeah, it's not going anywhere. >> Yeah. Thank you for for clarifying that. I I just make that as an example. Thank you for being I should be precise about that. We're not changing that. But like that is that's how I look at the other elements that we're looking at at this is that it should fit that standard of safety is kind of Thank you for letting me clarify that it should fit that same level of standard, but if it doesn't come up to reach that level of standard, I don't see why we ought to protect that safety uh piece of it. Thank you for letting me clarify that. Yeah, >> council member Carter. >> Uh thank you, mayor. Uh so I am leaning toward um option C for the first one. Um I am fine removing the opac opa opacity opacity requirement. Um totally good with the amended uh fence materials and then I guess I don't have super strong feelings about the 8oot fences. Um you know I I think they're I would probably lean toward being fine with them um and supporting the setback changes. And >> I'll throw in my two cents. I agree with Council Member Carter except on the 8oot fences. I'm I'm just not a big fan of 8 foot fences. I think it looks like a prison yard. I mean, it's a 8 foot is just too tall. It really is. So, yep. Anything else uh to provide feedback here? Council member Mo. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'll save my comments for the end. I think by this point everyone kind of knows where I'm at with property rights and the more the better for me. So, but the the reason why I asked about the inspections is because I want to make sure however we write this, it's easy to understand because council member Rivas is right. Uh I chose to build my fence myself because the quote to build it was double. Uh, and so people who are going to build it themselves need to be able to really easily read this because I had trouble reading the code when I was trying to build my own fence. And then secondly, I would hate for their first experience to be with environmental health because they didn't build it right because we don't inspect fence builds. And so that was just the reason to for my my comments and my question about um what whether we inspect fence builds or not. And so I think overall if we just keep that in mind that'd be that'd go a long way to uh to help people understand the ordinance and and be able to build their fences properly. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member. Council member Carter, quick question. >> Uh yes, quick question. Um Council Member Mua's comments reminded me of this that I had this earlier. Um what do we do when somebody installs a fence that is just not co-compliant? So I there's a couple of examples around my house that people put in full six-foot fences that are not at all opaque in their front yards. I'm thinking about there's one on Popular Bridge. Um it's like a big giant white fence and I I was so surprised when it went in and actually one of my friends live lived in that area and so she was upset about it and but it's still there like they just did it. So do we do anything about that when people put in a fence that is not co-compliant. They never checked with the city. >> You can go for it. >> Yeah, mayor. Council member Carter. Uh it'll be uh our environmental health department will issue a violation and then the property owner will work with environmental health uh whether that is reducing the height of the fence down to 4 feet, removing the fence all together, but ultimately it is something that our environmental health department is responsible for enforcing and responsible for working with the property owner on >> Thank you. >> All right. Anything else, council? >> Is that enough feedback to work on? Perfect. uh we'll look for you again in February. Is that what I was that what I heard the first time through? >> Yeah, Mayor, if I can make one comment to the point around non-conforming fences, those is I do agree that it has been an issue in the past and I think we could do some things with our communications division. Um should new rules be adopted, we could definitely roll something out uh either in the briefing or um on a video uh that would give people some tips and uh things. So, I think that's lowhanging fruit that we can do, but yeah, that was just the one comment I wanted to add. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Very well done. Thanks much, >> Mayor Council. Thank you very much for your input. >> Thank you. >> Item 5.2 on our agenda under organizational business is a discussion of our 2026 legislative platform. Elizabeth Tolsman, our associate assistant associate deputy. I can't I can losing track of our words now. Deputy. That's it. Deputy. Uh and Brianna Eldinger are here to present this tonight. Good evening. Welcome. >> Yes. Good evening, mayor and councel. Um, Elizabeth and I are here to share the draft 2026 legislative platform. Uh, so tonight, uh, we'll talk through the timeline of the process, highlight our two state capital budget requests and our requests to allow intoxicating liquor license at Dwang Golf Course. Then we'll walk through our draft platform highlighting priorities for Bloomington and the region. and we'll also discuss topics at the federal level that are impacting Bloomington. And finally, time for discussion and questions. Uh after that, we will bring the final draft back next week and ask for formal adoption um on the consent agenda next week. So, this is what we've been up to since August. Uh staff have been working on developing our draft platform that's before you tonight. We've had the opportunity to present our capital um state bonding projects to both the House and the Senate committees. So, that's great progress and so early uh in the in the timeline here. Tonight, we're here presenting to you and asking for adoption of the final platform next week. Uh we'll have a legislative breakfast with all of our Bloomington delegation and hopefully all of you uh on Friday, January 9th. And then the Minnesota State Legislature, the session begins in February. So, we'll move right into winter real quick here. So, first up is the uh state capital budget request. So, our top priority is the North Central Sanitary Sewer Project. Um we're seeking funding from the state to help us pay for this project. It's a sanitary sewer capacity um adjacent to Interstate 494 and 35W. It includes upsizing sanitary sewer capacity to accommodate new land use densification here in Bloomington. And the new infrastructure is necessary to accommodate sewer flows that are expected to be generated by higher density redevelopment including housing in the pename district which is as you know adjacent to the orange line 35W and 494. And so development and redevelopment in this area are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and regional goals and something that we're really hoping for support from uh the state to fund this project. Uh the second project that we have uh at the legislature this winter will be the old Chaki road corridor improvement project. This is specifically between Aldrich to Second Avenue and um in conjunction with Henipin County, we are planning improvements along Old Shakpi Road. Uh, we're going to enhance safety, accessibility, and mobility for all users. Historically, this corridor has prioritized fast car travel and limited safe options for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. And so, this area also includes vulnerable communities and is impacted by travel related pollution. These improvements will aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support safer, greener, and more equitable transportation for all. So, here's some photos from our presentations. On the left, we have our utility superintendent, Scott Anderson, and our city engineer, Julie Long, presenting on uh the projects that they're leading. This on the left here is to the House committee, and then on the right, we were able to present to the Senate committee at the old Mitsubishi plant um up right in that Pen-American district. So, the um the tour group got to see the the area where the project will actually be and get a better idea of what they're hopefully going to be helping us with. And then for the Dwan liquor license, this is the only bill right now that we have planned to bring to this session. It's actually a reintroduction of the bill. Um, we we had requested this and it was on the draft liquor light liquor bill last year, but then that bill just did not make it to the finish line and so we're bringing it back again this year. And then we also have a list of priority topic areas. So in your packet tonight, you'll see this brochure. This is our draft of what we'll bring back to you next week. And Elizabeth will share about this. >> Yeah, thank you. So, as Brianna mentioned, um this is actually starts on page 133 of your council packet and it goes all the way into page 140 uh 149. This is something new that we did this year. We added a marketing material of our legislative priorities and we will also upload it on our website so it's accessible with links and updates uh once it's adopted. Um but provides a nice kind of greater summary than the one or two pager that we've done in years past. It gives you um a direct feed of whether we support or oppose something. um and it's just more um written in more plain language. And I just want to compliment staff. We have what we call legislative action teams um who are subject matter experts uh leaders across the city. Um and they helped us come up with these priorities, not only based on their expertise, but also on feedback that we've heard from each one of you during council meetings, our residents, and also our state delegation. So, I'm just going to highlight a couple um key things in each area here. Not to say they're more important than the other. Um but under broadband um we're highlighting supporting the Equal Access to Broadband Act. Um and we're asking to authorize cities to negotiate franchise agreements with broadband companies for the use of public rightways or what's called his role. Um many you guys are familiar with this. Um it's not only about access and opportunity for us to um um build revenue and franchise fees on that. It also, as you guys know, um it's been disrupting our rightaways as well. And it also helped us um hopefully control or at least mitigate um the damage that we've been seeing on our rightways as well. Um I also want to highlight under data and financial supporting local governments in maintaining the authority to manage, retain, and delete data. Um in Bloomington, we have a increased number of data requests um that's coming in our city. Um, and I would note that uh, Representative Elkins is part of the data practices committee and Representative Green has also been um, advocating for the data practices act um, that would allow us to maintain the type of request um, the number of days that maybe people can obtain that request or pick it up um, just because it causes a lot of time um, for our staff um, to not only maintain it um, but to produce the data as well. Um under economic development, I just want to highlight the supporting the reinstatement of cannabis tax revenue. Um unfortunately in this past uh legislature um they eliminated the local government cannabis aid account. As uh many of you guys know um the office of cannabis management um was started and they have the ability to license, do background checks um and also do product compliance. However, it's incumbent upon cities to um oversee registrations, um zoning, and also doing age compliance checks. So, by not having the revenue pass through to us locally, um it puts a lot of work on our staff and our police officers to do the compliance and so forth. And so, if we're going to do this, we also need the some revenue pass through um for us to do the work as well. Um then another area that I would note um is um supporting child care feasibility study. um or regional efforts in the space. Uh Representative Culture is um very interested in this. Um this is really to take a look at employers and job seekers are consistently reporting that access to child care is a barrier to successful employment and by us working together to find better understand the problem and create shared solutions is something that was highlighted by our delegation as well. Then I'm just going to gloss over energy environment and environmental health. Um um there's not to be dismissive of them, but I'm going to highlight a few other things. Under housing, um this has been something that's been brought up by um council as well is supporting the reinstating the ability for cities to license and inspect group homes. Um right now it's um um licensed by the state. And so by not having local control um it allows us to not uh make sure that um places are safe um and that we're managing um that area. Senator Wickland has expressed interest um in this area as well. Um also I would note that um supporting HOA regulation reform would help HOAs and their members resolve disputes outside the courtroom. Uh Representative Elkins um is very interested in this and has taken the lead um in this work as well. Under public health, we held a mental health summit uh September 30th and many of our um areas and priorities here are outlined from that summit um from our three cities um that we work with. And so I know that a lot of those recommendations came from there. Under public safety, I'll just briefly highlight um supporting universal law enforcement background checks, supporting funding for embedded social worker program, supporting funding for our therapist program, supporting statewide restorative courts. Um then noting that supporting funding for our state bomb squads, um Bloomington has one of only four in Minnesota and funding these units is very vital to our community. Um especially with things that have happened this past year, they've been critically deployed um in the area as well. And then last but not least, just highlighting transportation and infrastructure. Uh supporting limiting local cost participation um is really important. Um, similar cannabis, um, a lot of the money is funneled through the state and the county and it's putting greater strain on local government to, um, ensure that our, um, community benefits from safe and reliable highways, bridges, and alternative transportation. Um, this is also one of the impetus for our old Chakby uh, quarter project. Um, but is ensuring that we are getting uh, the funding um, to maintain our streets and roads. Then obviously uh meeting transit needs, ensuring accessibility um um across western and uh east Bloomington up and down uh micromobility was launched uh this past year. Um but uh transit needs and access has been a huge need that we've heard from the community. Then I would end with we have addendums. We will link to this um but many of our um elected officials, city leadership are part of the I494 corridor commission. Um we're active in the League of Minnesota cities, um the local public health association, metro cities, and the municipal legislative commission. So we are active in many of those meetings. Our city manager actually uh attends many of those. So there's a huge connecting. Um there's what we could do, what Bloomington needs to lead on, but there are also things that we need to do as a region and with our um city partners and our peer cities. We can't do it alone. And so it's important for us to advocate um with one another. And with that, that's the end of the presentation and we'll open up for any questions that you may have. >> Thank you both so very much. Council questions here. Short of questions, I will uh uh say express my appreciation for the the bullet under housing to the support the well-crafted policies and programs because uh just regarding housing, affordable housing and and the housing in the region uh there are just so many different possibilities and options and and uh ideas and thoughts and viewpoints on this. Uh I think to write it in this way is the way to go. I do think eventually there will there will come something that I think we can take a stand behind specifically and I'm not sure what it is yet. Uh I've heard a number of legislators present on what they're bringing forward or or thinking of bringing forward or some of those advocacy groups that you mentioned what they might bring forward. Um ultimately I think we might have to have that conversation as a council here to decide what we really want to back and we really want to push rather than just sit on the sidelines and uh talk in general terms. if we want to talk specifically what these folks are saying is the right thing and we want to make sure we get in behind it. So just a thought. >> Council member Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor. I don't have a question, but I really like the new layout and the more descriptive um summaries for each item. So, thank you for that work. Actually, uh, Miss E. Idinger and I were talking on the way down here. I mean, I can this this meets the a nice happy medium because I can remember when our our priorities were 75 pages long and I can also remember when they were two pages long. And this somewhere in the middle, I think, makes the most sense in terms of what we're what we're uh leaning toward or what we support of or oppose. just enough information to that we can work with it but without making it so ownorous that nobody's ever going to read our policy and procedures. So >> mayor and council I'm sorry I overlooked the slide. Um I would be remiss to emphasize our federal efforts as well. Um just want to highlight we have two earmarks um right now. Um and in June we were notified that our two requests were put forward um for congressionally directed spending to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Um in August we informed that our projects were included on the published list. Um, in November, we informed that when Congress passed the continuing resolution, which extended government funding, earmarks were not included. So, Congress is working on passing the remainder of the appropriations bill, but it should be noted that our projects must be included in the final appropriations bill by both the House and the Senate and signed by the president for it to move forward. Um, I know many of you guys were part of our NLC delegation earlier in March where we highlighted this. So, I just want to give you a brief update on that. Um, it would also be remiss to know that we are continuing to monitor impacts to any federal grants. Um we've been doing that all year. Um Senator Wickland is very interested in that. Um things related to public health, emergency preparedness, housing, food security. As you guys know, we've acted quickly on clean energy, transportation, infrastructure, and community safety and security. Um I sent you all an update this morning. Uh the affordable healthcare credits are of critical note right now for our community. Um we continue to meet with our federal lobbyists every other week, and all of them will be at our um uh legislative breakfast on January 9th as well. So, I'm sorry that I glossed over that, but I wanted to highlight our work with our federal lobbyists as well. >> Yeah. Thank you for doubling back on that. Appreciate it. Council, is there anything else? And we'll have an opportunity read this a little bit more in depth. We'll have the opportunity to uh to approve them next week. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. Next on our agenda, council is our policy and issue update. I will start by uh recapping our listening session earlier this evening. We had one speaker who called ahead of time and signed up, Vicky Hooim, who is an HR comm H commissioner and she spoke on behalf uh of uh the HR commission, I think, but also as herself as a as a resident uh personally asking that the council passed the levy request and uh shared uh shared the feeling that the of the hard work and the thoughtfulness that went into the budget and levy request and and hoped that uh we could better understand the importance of it uh by her coming. And I appreciate uh Commissioner Hooim for coming to us uh tonight and for her service on the HRA. Then the uh other speakers we had were not scheduled, but we called them up and talked to them anyway. We talked to Oliver and Thomas who were there uh this evening as uh Boy Scouts and looking to get a merit badge for their participation. My guess is I think we have one more here uh who is probably looking for a merit badge. What's your name, young man? >> Giovani. Giovani. Well, welcome. So, we've had uh Oliver, Thomas, and Giovani here this evening. Uh scouts, how long have you been in scouts? >> Three to four years. >> Three to four years. Great. And you enjoy it. >> Super. Well, thanks for thanks for sticking it out. You win the prize for sticking it out to the end of the the meeting. Uh Oliver and Thomas didn't quite made it but make it, but you did. So, thank you for being here and thanks for being part of our meeting tonight. That was our only speaker this uh this evening and our only speakers, I guess, this evening. And that was what we had for our listening session. That's all I have. Uh Mr. Walker, do you have anything? >> Mayor, I'll uh update the council. I know many of you have um through your constituents have expressed an interest in um dealing with uh railroad traffic and residential neighborhoods, particularly uh late of night or you know during traditional sleeping hours. staff is planning to bring that uh issue forward for uh consideration specifically requesting funding to conduct a rail crossing study uh early in 2026. So just wanted to follow up as many of you have discussed that issue with me. >> Council, any questions of Mr. Walker on this? Questions of Mr. Walker? Okay, council. Anything? I'm going to start with council member Muup. >> Thank you, Mayor. Well, it's the happiest time of year again. I think uh a lot of it is just because it's so dark and cold and snowy and so they try to make us feel like we're getting together. But in any case, it definitely makes me look back and think about everything we did throughout the year. And um for me, when I think about the year and what I enjoy living here in this city is when I turn on my water, it turns on. If I have to call dispatch for anything, they are friendly, professional, professional, and knowledgeable. I know that our police and fire would be at my house within minutes if we needed to. I know that the grass is mowed in the parks and the parks are upkept and everything in our city functions as it should. And that doesn't just happen out of nowhere. It's not a magic wand that we wave. Um it happens because of the incredible Bloomington city staff that we have that work here every single day. [snorts and clears throat] I know it's a little early. We have another meeting next week, but I know those folks like to plan, too. And so, I want to reach out and just sincerely thank all Bloomington city staff. Whether you show up here to the city council chambers, you present to us and we see you all the time or you're in the back rolling up your sleeves and digging us out when we get, you know, six inches of snow. I want you to know that we truly appreciate the work that you do every single day. and we might not be able to tell you uh as often as we would like. Um but thank you. And a special thank you to our folks in police and fire and public works. Um during every holiday, you guys are always on no matter what. So while we're at home enjoying a nice dinner with our family, you guys are out there making sure folks are safe and that we [clears throat] can get home safely uh after we are celebrating with our families. And so I think the the best thing that we can do to show our appreciation is um grant some time off for our folks after a hard year. And so I'd like to make a motion that we close city hall at 12:00 p.m. on December 24th, 2025 and grant staff four hours of paytime off to be able to spend with their families and uh be around the people who matter to them. Well put, Council Member Mu. We've got a motion and a second by Council Member Dalisandro to grant staff four hours of uh paid leave on December 24th, closing city hall at noon on the 24th. And I'll echo council member Mua's appreciation for our staff. Uh I've said it before and I continue to say it. We've got the best city staff in the state of Minnesota. And um and our appreciation, we can express our appreciation all day and into the night. And here's an opportunity for us to to put our money where our mouths is. uh Maltzar, something like that. Uh allowing uh people to to spend the evening of of the 24th at home with their families. So we've got a motion in a second to to grant this. Any further council discussion on this hearing? None. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. 70. Congratulations and thank you all so very much for the work that you do every day. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council Member Mua. Council member Rivas, I saw your hand up earlier. Yeah, I just like to echo what uh council member u Mua just said, but I do have another thing to say. I would like to formally apologize to uh council member uh de Alexandro for last Monday's incident. Uh, however, it wasn't my intention to put her on the spot that she was uh but I did watch the video a couple days later and it even though it wasn't my intention to actually put her on a position that I did it, you know, it all indicated that she was in the receiving end, I was speaking and it's not what I say is how she felt about it. So, I sincerely apologize to you for that um incident. [snorts] Uh that said um um it's been another year uh a lot of learning still for me uh and but it's been uh very nice to work with each and every one of you guys. It's every time that we spend time together here, I always take something home that I ruminate on and you know digest and and take it bring it with me the following time. Uh so it's it's been a pleasure working with each and every one of you guys and again I sincerely apologize to you. Um that said uh uh we have another week so I can't say merry Christmas yet. So but uh thank you thank you to everyone for uh for uh all the work that you do. Uh it's uh it's great to know that uh you know being outside it's easy to criticize what goes on in here but when you're part of it you realize that there's a lot more we have uh some of the best people working with us in the city. So thank you everyone. >> Thank you council member Revis. Anything additional council member Lman I'll try to be brief as possible here. Um, mayor, in the past, our council has uh with the school board uh addressed the uh uh the immigrant issue was going on at the time and I can't remember precisely how we did it, but I we think we had a resolution uh that this body had had brought forward and I I want us to kind of carefully uh you know this body think about that and consider that as we you know move into into January and into February in terms of where we want to be at uh in terms of what is happening. I think we need to acknowledge what's happening. I know a couple of my fellow council members have brought that forward and uh you know and I I turn to you mayor and city manager to to kind of uh look back at what we did in last time to see if it's time for us to reaffirm uh that stance so that uh folks have a real clear understanding of where this body and where this this uh city stands on that. >> Thank you, council member. That's a that's a good point and and good memory on your part for bringing that back for back to us again and bringing it forward. uh I think we will we'll definitely uh reach out to our colleagues on the school board and and see what we can come up with. Thank you for that. >> And then the secondary thing uh in in the same light and I again I don't want to you know kind of belabor this here and it's kind of more of a conversation with you mayor. I know that when uh and maybe some of the other colleagues that are here that have been here for a little while. Um, you know, I I seem to recall us having a conversation um with regards to um our our staffing and just, you know, when when our our last city manager came on board and um you know, in terms of you know, how they were paid and just the inconsistency that was out there and and I want to be careful, you know, I don't want to go too too far, so stop me, mayor, if I but I just want to be sure that we are with all deliberateness as we as we look at how they're being compensated that we have that full historical picture as we kind of move into that that conversation that we may have you know later on. I just want to be sure that we're not missing that because I know that some of us kind of had a you know that conversation when that happened. Um you know when you know and we got that feedback and I think some folks may not have all of the same information and I just want to be sure that when we get ready to kind of make a call on that or have a conversation around that we all have the same background and all the same information. I just want to be sure and hopefully you understand what what I'm talking about mayor if you recall that. And are are you talking compensation, city employee compensation just general is what we're talking >> Yeah. in general because I know that you know our past leaders, we've had that conversation during our our uh our our retreats that we've had um uh in the past and I just want to be sure that all of that information is in front of uh because I just think it's so critical what we're what we what we say to our our staff and how we want to make sure that they're treated especially as we are moving into January and February of next year. you know, it's kind of what we we talk about, what we value, um, you know, in terms of our our mission statement and that type of thing in terms of how we how we hold that value. So, uh, in that that same light, I'm just hoping we get all that information so that this council can clearly make a good good decision when we get ready to to >> why don't we continue this conversation offline and make sure that we're we're tracking the same. Yeah, I'd be love to do that. Just want to be sure. Yeah, >> sounds good. >> Last call, council. Anything else? Hearing nothing. Uh, council, we've finished our business. I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Motion by council member Carter, second by council member Dalisandro to adjurnn this evening. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. Council, thanks for the discussion this evening. Thank you staff for your work and pulling this all together. Thank you to everybody who joined us in the council chambers and who watched online tonight. Everybody have a great rest of your week. Thank you.