Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good evening everyone and welcome. I will call our Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, June 15th, 2026. Welcome and thank you for being here to everyone in the council chambers and thank you for joining us online, the folks who are watching on their screens. We will begin tonight as we always do. If you're able, please stand uh remove any coverings and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Once again, thank you and welcome to everyone. Council, welcome. Our first order of business is approval of our agenda this evening. And it's a full one, but I think it's one we can get through. council if we put our minds to it. Uh under introductory items, we've got one proclamation. We've got a proclamation for the Junth celebration coming up on Saturday. Uh item 2.2 is an update on the 2026 state legislative session. We have uh Bloomington's uh lobbyist here this evening to to give us a rundown on the on the some good news that we received for Bloomington. And item 2.3 is the external auditor's report on our 2025 annual financial report. So we'll hear that again tonight. Our consent business is 20 items long. And council member Carter has consent this evening. Thank you for taking that on. Council member, under hearings, resolutions, and ordinances, we actually have five public hearings this evening. Item 4.1 is a public hearing regarding the vacation of public drainage and utility easements over and across lot one and two, block one, Whitney edition. Item 4.2 is a public hearing on our city code amendment regarding corner lot standards. Item 4.3, a public hearing on the Telegraph Hill Office Park resoning. Item 4.4 4 and 4.5 are similar. 4.4 is a public hearing for park and fly, a reguiding, resoning, and a conditional use permit for that property. And item 4.6 is the same for park and go um on International Drive and American Boulevard. Those two properties are situated. Under organizational business, we've got three items there. Item 5.1, we're going to get a park system master plan 5-year update. We will begin our first conversation on item 5.2, our first conversation on the Adora Apartments development proposal. And item 5.3 is an update on our 2027 2028 budget process. We'll finish up with our council policy and issue update. And as I said, council and staff, if we put our minds to this, we don't have to be here well into the evening. We can get out of here at a decent hour. Any additions or corrections, council? If not, I would move the agenda as stated. >> Second. >> Motion and a second by council member Carter to accept tonight's agenda as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. And we have an agenda. Our first item on that agenda is item 2.1, our Junth proclamation. I'm going to go down to the podium. >> Good evening. Come on up. We've got city folks. We got city uh Bloomington folks. I want you to come in behind. The cameras are that way. They're going to be looking at us. So, and uh Ncoya and you'll be speaking after I get done. So, very good. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you all for being here tonight. This is a proclamation for Junth, June 19th, 2026. Whereas on June 19th, 1865 in Galveston, Texas, more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Major General Gordon Granger and Union Army troops arrived to enforce the freedom of the last enslaved black Americans. And whereas this historic moment marked the fulfillment of emancipation for enslaved people in the United States and gave rise to the annual celebration known as Junth, the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the end of slavery in America. And whereas the year 2026 marks the 161st anniversary of Junth, a day to honor the resilience, strength, culture, and enduring contributions of black Americans throughout our nation's history. And whereas Junth serves as an opportunity to reflect upon the painful legacy of slavery and discrimination, acknowledge the ongoing pursuit of racial equity and justice, and recommmit ourselves to building a more inclusive and united community for all people. And whereas as we celebrate Junth, we recognize the importance of education, remembrance, service, and civic engagement in advancing the ideals of freedom, equity, and opportunity that define our nation. And whereas the city of Bloomington joins communities across the country in recognizing Junth as a time for celebration, reflection, and renewed dedication to justice and human dignity. Now therefore, I, Mayor Tim Busy, mayor of the city of Bloomington, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim June 19th, 2026th as Junth in the city of Bloomington, and encourage all residents to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities honoring freedom and equity for all, dated this 15th day of June, 2026. And one of those appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities, I mentioned briefly on Saturday, we will have our June uh Juneenth celebration here at city hall. I think it's a 4:00 start if I'm not wrong. And uh everyone is everyone is welcome. It's always a great time and uh encourage everybody to be here and and please join us for that. And I'm going to turn the microphone over now to Nicoya Ingram, our community member, who's going to speak for us. Good evening. >> Okay. Well, good evening, Mayor Busy, council members, and community members. My name is Nicoia Ingram and as an immigrant American woman, the wife of an African-American husband and the mother of eight African-American children, I stand with deep gratitude and respect for the sacrifices, resilience, and contributions African-Americans have made throughout history. Their courage and perseverance have helped shape this nation and created opportunities that have impacted so many, including families like mine. Junth remind us that freedom, justice, and honoring history matter. It is a time to celebrate the strength, culture, and achievements of African-Americans while reflecting on our shared journey toward a more inclusive future. Thank you to the city of Bloomington for recognizing Junth and for supporting a celebration of black excellence, education, and history. On behalf of Bloomington Junth, I create solutions international, our partners, volunteers, artists, vendors, and community members. Thank you for honoring this important day and the legacy that continues to inspire generations. >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much for those for those words and uh and for the reminder the the respect and the understanding of history is just paramount in in this and in so many instances and sometimes as a nation we forget and we need do remember we absolutely do. So thank you and thank you all for being here this evening. Thanks for being part of this. They gave me a stack of proclamations. So everybody gets a proclamation tonight. Everybody gets a >> Now, why don't we step over this way? Okay. Once again, Saturday, uh, starting at 4 right up here at City Hall Civic Plaza. Please, uh, everybody join us for our Juneenth celebration. Item 2.2 on our agenda is our update on the 2026 state legislative session. We have our Bloomington lobbyist, Katie Sen, is here with us. And uh I think just uh the general summary, I think expectations were low coming into this session, but Bloomington succeeded on a couple of very important things and I think doing a large part for the work that Katie did for us. So I'm going to turn it over to you. Good evening and welcome. >> Thank you, mayor. My name is Katie Sun with Messerly Kramer and I'm the lobbyist for the city of Bloomington. Um and I just want to start out by first doing some thank yous. several of you came to the capitol and participated in hearings and met with legislators on the city day at the hill um as well as maybe behind the scenes talking to folks and that makes a huge difference. So, thank you all that were involved. Also, um I wanted to just point out that you have amazing staff, which you know, and it really does make a big difference to have engaged staff. Both having, you know, lots of different staff sent flagging items for me that maybe wouldn't be on my radar, whether it's public health or utilities or housing. Um it's incredibly helpful as well as just being a resource for our delegation and for the League of Minnesota cities when they want people to come testify. So, the fact and they're always very quick to respond to my questions, which and as you all know, sometimes can make a huge difference. Um, and then finally, our legislative delegation just works really closely with the city and has been champions of our priorities and has um really helped behind the scenes. And so, and we're obviously losing our senators. They're retiring, so we'll have new senators. Senator Wickland and Senator Man are are retiring, but I'm sure we'll have great folks next year filling their shoes. but they they deserve a lot of the thanks for working behind the scenes um late into the night often. Um so we had some great wins for Bloomington that I'll talk about. I'm going to just briefly just kind of set the stage for session and um what what happened overall. Um obviously last time we talked at the breakfast we talked about kind of what the legislators were coming into. It was a very difficult year. Obviously, the assassination of Melissa Hortman really colored a lot of um coming into session as well as the ICE metro surge, the shooting at Annunciation. Um serious findings of fraud in state programs and the most closely divided legislature that is possible. Um a tie in the House and a one seat Democrat majority in the Senate. Um, so as the mayor mentioned, I think expectations were low knowing that there was a lot of a lot of, you know, tension and um, just a really tight tight tight majority. Um, the things that were on the agenda were passing a bonding bill, which obviously takes bipartisan support because it needs a super majority. um addressing the Henipin County Medical Center funding crisis as well as debating gun control, fraud, affordability, and ICE tactics and what and the legislator legislaturator's reaction to that. Um the legislator legislature came in, there was a budget surplus for this current bienium, but there was a structural deficit going out into the future. So was very restricted funding despite the fact that there was a little bit of money on the bottom line for the current cycle. Um, so in the end there was agreement to find funding for HCMC. There was agreement to create office of the inspector general to help address fraud. There was one-time property tax relief of $125 million that was part of the final deal that will go direct to homeowners. Um, there was a license tab fee uh pause for one year on the increases. Um, and a $1.2 billion bonding bill. there was not action on gun gun control or funding for businesses that were impacted by Metro Surge, which are are a couple of priorities um the Democrats had been pushing. Um on the Bloomington side, we got $4 million for the North Central Sanitary Sewer, which was a huge win. We had had we had been on the bonding tour for both the House and the Senate, and um our delegation pushed really hard to make sure we got funding for that. I think I heard from non-B Bloomington legislators that they thought it was a great project and they were um they thought it was going to lead the way for additional housing and just you know really exciting development happening. So we did a great job telling the story I think all of you did on the need for that. Um we also got the Dwan golf course liquor license pass so you can have beyond just 32 beer at the golf course legally. And uh we got a couple of couple of folks asking at the end of the hearing, "What took you so long?" So it wasn't wasn't a lot of push back on that one. I think they they saw the need for that. It was just a matter of getting the liquor bill across the finish line, which happened this session. So that was good. Um there was also $10 million for Metro Regional Parks and Trails and as an implementing agency, Bloomington gets a portion of that. So the state puts in 10 million and then the Met Council will match for 6.7 million. And so that's good news for um Bloomington Parks as well. We always watch that and participate in trying to get that funding increased. Um we had a second bonding priority old Chakapi Road um just in case they wanted to, you know, fund two really great projects. And that bill did get a hearing in transportation. And there was some hope that maybe there'd be a transportation bill separate from the bonding bill with a list of transportation projects, which was another reason to include that one. That didn't end up happening, unfortunately. Um, and then I'm going to just kind of go through some of the general city provisions um of interest. I mentioned 125 million in property tax relief. They did pass a pretty significant homeowners association or HOA bill. Um and one of the parts of that bill prohibits cities and counties from requiring the creation of an HOA as a condition for approving building permits. Um they also increased funding for police training through the Philando Castile Memorial Training Fund. That was something that um Bloomington police chief had been tracking the last couple of years. Um they increased that from 4.9 million per year to 6 million per year. Um, and then some things that did not pass, there was a bill called the Starter Homes Act that was really the very all-encompassing bill related to city zoning, and that did not move forward. Um, there was also an effort to limit the use of non-disclosure agreements or NDAs for municipalities and counties and local units of government. That did not move forward. Um, there was a bill to allow local governments to restrict guns. Um, that did not move forward. And then there was also a bill related to uh limiting corporate ownership of homes and that did not move forward. So those were sort of some some of the big um broader city priorities that that did not move forward. So um everyone is on the ballot at the state level this year, every house member, every senate member, the governor. Um so though with with such tight majorities, we will see what happens as far as um changes in in in leadership potentially. There's been a lot of retirements including from key chair positions. So, next session will in a lot of ways be, you know, not starting over, but really starting with a lot of new faces and helping them get up to speed on our our issues. So, and I'm happy to answer questions if folks have. >> Well, thank you very much, uh, Katie, and thanks for all the work the the entire team from Kramer did, uh, on behalf of Bloomington this past session. I think we did accomplish a lot and we are grateful for the work that you do and uh thankful as you said for the outstanding staff that just makes it so easy I think to get a lot of this work done. Uh and I will be with everyone on the ballot and with expected turnover and certainly there will be turnover here in in the seats that represent Bloomington be looking to you for for some guidance as how do we approach this next next uh winter as we get into the new legislative session with some of the uh the legislative ask that Bloomington is going to have how best to approach this. So we'll be looking for your your guidance and leadership there. >> Council, any questions of Ms. Sen? >> None. All right. Thank you so very much. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate your work. >> Item 2.3 on our agenda, council, is a the external auditor's report on the 2025 annual financial report. We have uh Amy Sega from our finance department and Annie Herring from Red Path & Company are going to be leading us through this. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. I am Amy Seagas, the mayor's head, deputy finance officer. I do want to extend a huge thank you um to the accounting team who did work um very hard long hours to provide all the documentation in response to our auditor's inquiries and collaborated to produce the annual fin comprehensive financial re report. Um I would like to introduce Andy Herring a partner at Red Path & Company who will present the results of the 2025 external audit. Thank you. Mr. Harry, good evening. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. As Amy mentioned, I'm here to present the results of the 2025 audit. So, I will jump right in here. Uh, as part of the audit, we um just as a reminder, we are auditing the city as well as the housing authority and the port authority. Um and as we issue five reports or we issued five reports as part of the audit and those reports were dated June 3rd, 2026, so a few weeks ago. Um we issue a opinion on the financial statements, a report on internal controls, a report on legal compliance, a report on federal compliance, and a communication with those charged with governance letter to the council. The overall results, an unmodified opinion, also known as a clean opinion, was once again issued. There were no findings related to internal controls over financial reporting, no findings related to the state legal compliance audit, one finding related to the federal compliance audit and standard communications in the governance letter. So the opinion on the financial statements you know our overall job is to verify that the these financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects. That's audit lingo to verify that there are no material misstatements in the financial statements or um misstatements that may influence the decisions of a financial statement user. You know we're not auditing to the nearest dollar. um not auditing for the very insignificant items but looking for more significant misstatements. Um so we perform it looking for accuracy and completeness verify basically verifying amounts are not overstated or understated and also that uh test relating to the accuracy cutoff and classification of amounts verifying they're recorded in the correct period in the correct counts um those sorts of things. So the overall results again an unmodified opinion was issued on the financial statements. A few risks that we think about and plan as part of the audit. The these these risks are identified for all audits um that we do at RedPath. Just the risk of management override of controls essentially um circumventing the city's internal controls. There's a risk of inappropriate dispersements. There's a risk of inappropriate or not or uh improper revenue recognition lining up grants with the corresponding expenditures. And then there's always a risk of fraud. And I want to just um expand on that a bit because it's in the news so much lately. our our responsibility as auditors is to detect um material misstatements in this document that may result from fraud. We're not necessarily able to or it's not the the scope of the audit to identify all fraud that may occur within the city. you know, if somebody um takes a dump truck and goes and uses it for a personal project over the weekend, our audit's just not going to detect that type of thing. So, uh we do have the responsibility to to detect material misstatements as a result from fraud. But unfortunately, we're just not designed to identify everything. Um most often fraud is identified from tips from usually internal um employees or other internal procedures such as uh review of records and that's why it's so important for the city to have a sufficient and sound set of internal controls which is the next report. Um so we look at the the city's internal controls or its policies and procedures over finances as part of the audit. Um common internal controls, proper dispersements, a review of monthly bank reconciliations, making sure there is an ideal segregation of duties, checks and balances are in place, that no one person has too much responsibility in any given area. And then on the back end making sure that financial information is reviewed by management. The results uh no findings were detected relating to the city's internal controls. The next report we issue is a report relating to Minnesota legal compliance. The state auditor issues a guide that we complete as part of the audit. It contains seven sections listed there. Um, for example, we're testing for compliance over investments, making sure the city is only investing in um, securities that are authorized by state statutes. Um, there's statutes relating to debt and again dispersements, it's a common one, tax increment. So, a variety of state statutes that we're testing for um as part of the audit and uh again, no no compliance findings were noted. Next is an audit um commonly referred to as a federal single audit. This is required when more than $1 million of federal funds are expended during the year. Um, this past year in 2025, we tested the section 8 housing choice vouchers program. So again, we're gaining an understanding and testing the controls over com the compliance requirements of the program. We're testing a sample of federal expenditures as part of that single audit. And we did note one compliance finding relating to allowable costs and eligibility. And that finding, it's a repeat or a carry forward finding from 2024. So, we identified this item about this time last year. Um, and steps were made to correct this and it's it's an ongoing improvement process. But then we come along for the 2025 audit and we go back to January 1st and we're testing all of 2025. So, we really didn't report this finding until May or June time frame of 2025. Um, so there's that time period that almost re-reporting on, but that's just just the way it goes for the the how the tests and the timing of this works. So what we did find is for the tenant file checklist that should be in each tenants file uh 13 out of 25 of those checklist did not exist in the file. Um and for two tenants the housing assistant payment they received incorrectly included an amount for utilities and that was due because of their lease had changed within the past year or two. um it used to include utilities and then it didn't. So the the payment didn't get updated for that change in their lease. And then for one tenant uh the tenant uh did not report the correct amount of income. So they really should not have qualified for a housing assistance payment. And to put some context on things, the the overall question cost from those items, $4,184. And then in the governance letter, nothing really too significant in the letter this year. It does highlight that there were no new um accounting policies adopted by the city. There are a few estimates in the financial statements such as the the discount rate used by the actuary for the pension liability estimates related to landheld for resale and claims payable. Once again um the staff were very well prepared for the audit. Um things were ready on time, easy to work with. Um everything went smoothly for the audit. So it we highlight that there are no difficulties encountered or disagreements during the audit. Um no misstatements were detected above anything that was maybe very clearly trivial. Um and then we're also um required to point out any footnotes in this document since it is fairly thick and there's there's a lot in here. uh what footnotes might be most um sensitive or um that the council might be most interested in. So I highlight note seven. It's on long-term liabilities which includes the bonds payable of the city. If I was a council member, I'd want to know about the debt. Turning uh a look a little bit more at the financial information. The city once again received the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting relating to its 2024 financial statements and we're expecting to again be awarded for the 55th year based on the 2025 document. Um, and then I just want to highlight, you know, staff do a a tremendous job and they put in a lot of time and effort into preparing this document. Um it's a quite a thick let's see it's over 200 pages but in the front of it there's a transmitter letter which highlights economic condition and outlook major initiatives um some of the more um maybe more meaningful things actually than a look back at the numbers. There's also management's discussion and analysis which provides a nice overview of what happened during the year as well as hits on some economic factors. So if you're looking to maybe read part but not all of that document um those two portions of it near the front I think are provide a nice overview. Um and then following that is our independent auditor's report and then the financial statements, footnotes and further statistics on the city. A look at the general fund and how it everything um turned out in 2025. The final budget called for a $6.7 million usage of fund balance. The actual results uh turned out a $278,000 usage of fund balance. So there was uh a favorable variance for revenues primarily related to licenses and permits and investment income as rates remain strong in 2025. And then on the expenditure side really all departments and functions came in under budget. So that's kind of spread across the city there. Budgeted savings. A five-year history of the general fund fund balance. Um finished 2025 with $55.3 million in fund balance. Um comparing fund balance as a percentage to next year's budget that did dip a little bit as there was just a slight decrease in fund balance but the budgeted expenditures uh for next year continue to increase mainly due to inflationary costs going up. So that fund balance of 55 million, there are a few um restrictions and commitments related to that fund balance. At the end of 2025, uh 49.7 million of that was unassigned. But as you know, the city's primary funding source is property taxes, and that first property tax payment for 2026 isn't received until July 1st. So there's there's the need to have uh really six months of um reserves on hand to fund operations for the first half of the year. Um re uh fund balance is also important for uh reserves and any emergencies that might come up and it helps uh soos smooth the effects of any potential uh needs and decrease volatility in the future. So, um, Bloomington met its working capital goals for the year. Um, so in from my opinion, uh, everything is in solid financial condition. Um, and I think that's it. Uh, so yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. And if not, I think you've got a a motion to approve the audit. >> Thank you, Mr. Herring. Thanks for the the thorough work that you and your your your folks do at Redpath. greatly appreciated and um appreciate the the feedback that we get on on our operations and our budget throughout the year. So, I appreciate that. Council, any questions of Mr. Herring? >> Council member Delisandro. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one question. I I I didn't want to I don't want to assume or hear an implication in your statement, so I figured I'd just ask you for clarification on the one finding. it it seemed to indicate that it was more of a timing issue than anything else that you you may you believe that we probably have in control now the the items that would prevent that oversight in the future. It's just that that particular violation happened during the period of time between the beginning of the year and and when those findings were made and therefore it it this time next year we would maybe not see an issue in that regard. Is that a fair as um ascertaining of your commentary? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I figured I'd ask. >> Yeah, those tenant files are reviewed annually. >> So, it's it's kind of a a process to catch up and yeah, the I think I mentioned 13 of the 25 were missing that checklist. Vast majority of those were early in 2025. So, improvements are being seen and I I certainly hope that that finding will go away. um as um the the housing authority is was more staffed up in 2025 and um is aware of the finding has been reviewing those files more closely. >> Right. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Any additional questions? Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Along the same lines, and this probably isn't for you, but maybe for staff. Are there any efforts, any opportunities, or any need to try to recoup any of that money? I know it was $4,000, but it's, you know, not a huge sum, but it's still something. Um, is that a possibility and something we're working on? >> Uh, Mr. Walker or Miss Conamy Scholer? >> Uh, at the moment, council member, I'm not certain uh where that is at in the process, but that is certainly something we can follow up and provide a answer to the full council. No further questions, council. Very good. Thanks so much, Mr. Herring. Appreciate your work. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> With that, council, I would entertain a motion to accept the city's annual comprehensive financial report for calendar year 2025. >> Motion by council member Dalisandro, second by council member Rias to accept the city's annual comprehensive financial report for calendar year 2025. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 70. On to our consent business. Council member Carter has our insent consent calendar tonight. Council member Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, so I do have one hold. Uh, Council Member Nelson would like to hold 3.4. Um, last call. Any additional holds from anybody else? Okay. So, with that, I would move to approve items 3.1 through 3.3 and 3.5 through 3 20. Motion by council member Carter, second by council member Dalisandro to accept tonight's uh consent agenda as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. 70. Item 3.4. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Um I had a few uh individuals come up and talk to me after the listening session. and they had concerns about this item. And um first I'd like to apologize because I thought this was a public hearing and it's not. So if it's all right, I'm going to try to summarize their concerns just quickly so that the entire council is aware of those before voting on that. Um, so I think the the biggest thing is they're concerned about fitting in another house on a small portion of large lots uh particularly overlooking uh Bush Lake and um how it uh may not fit with the character of that existing neighborhood there. They had concerns with regards to the uh notice. They just recently received that. Um and um I did try to talk to them about the the changes we made with regards to the um size of properties, the minimum lot size setbacks and things that we made a few years back. Um all of those types of items. Um I I in general they they are not supportive of this and uh just again concerned about additional house uh in a neighborhood that um is fully developed and maybe not expecting that. So um hopefully I summarize your comments um appropriately for you um that I just wanted to make sure that the council was aware that there were concerns about this item. Thank you, Council Member Nelson. I appreciate that. And just to let you folks know, I we we typically would we have the option of opening it up to public comment here, but I don't like to do that when we haven't noticed it because then everybody doesn't have the opportunity. So, it would be kind of selective the folks who were here. But what I would like to offer, and if this would be okay with you, council member, and folks, what I would like to do is hold this over until next week. Uh because we do accept things on on our agenda that don't have public comment attached to them. You can make public comments at the listening session, which I think a majority of you were at very recently. Uh so if we hold this over until next week, get your names on the list, we can hear your concerns at the public comment section uh our listening session next uh a couple weeks out, I guess, and then we can uh then we can bring this back on as part of the uh consent agenda next time. Would that make sense? >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate that. And just for for you folks, um please just uh work with uh the uh council secretary to just make sure your name is on that list so you get an opportunity to speak because you know as as we know we had what five six speakers tonight and I think we ran out of time. So just get on there early so you can speak early. We'd love to hear from you and appreciate you guys coming. Yeah um and sharing your thoughts. >> Yeah. No, it's uh it's just it's a way to do this without uh without making it fair for everyone. So just we can do that. So we can see in a couple weeks at our listening session and then consider this again >> one week or two June 29th. >> June 29th, two weeks out. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Delisandro. >> Just a question. Um was there a public hearing at the planning commission for this item? >> I think this is administrative approval. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. Uh so uh council I would uh move that we lay item 3.4 over until the next council meeting on the consent agenda. That would be the approval of type 1 preliminary and final plat for the olive edition. >> Second >> motion and a second by council member Nelson to hold over item 3.4 until our June 29th meeting. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. Thanks for bringing that forward, council member, and hopefully we can uh we can get some opinions on this and and get some feedback before we officially vote on this. So, thanks much. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thank you. Item four on our agenda, council, is our hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. We have five of them this evening. First up is a public hearing and item 4.1, public hearing, vacation of public drainage and utility easements over and across lots one and two, block one, Whitney edition. Bob Simons, our assistant city engineer, is here. Good evening. Welcome. >> Good evening, mayor and councel. Yes, I'll be taking this item here tonight. We have the public hearing for the vacation of public drainage and utility easements over and across lot one and two, which is the Whitney edition, which is located in the northeast quadrant of 94th and I35W. Um the applicant is Quicktrip Incorporated. They've requested to vacate these easements. Um eliminating these e easements, the purpose of this proposal is to eliminate the easements because they've found to be in conflict with their overall development plan. Um should note this action will not be effective until um the combination of those two lots, lots one and two. Um we do have the I believe the applicant Quick Trip is um um a real estate manager for Quick Trip, Emily uh Hellwig is online currently. Um but this is for the as I mentioned the vacation of the drainage and utility easements and existing 10-ft drainage and utility easements between lot one and lot two that are going to be combined with the development plan. Um, with that, that's what we have in front of you tonight. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Simons. I I would open it up to I'm sorry, I missed the name of the the applicant. >> Uh, Emily Hellwig, I believe, is online. She was going to be online tonight. >> Miss Hellwig, would you like to add anything to what Mr. Simon just said? >> Yes. Thank you, councel. I Quit Trip is looking to vacate this. Um, with our layout of the site, this area is right between the store and the canopy, which we have a lot of utilities going through there. We are relocating a private storm that goes through there with a neighbor. We've already gone through that design and have an easement set up with them. So, there's just a gas man that goes through this easement area right now. And we have been in contact with the gas company about a reroute to the west. So, this would clean up everything going between the two sites and have it along the perimeter of the site. >> Very good. Sounds like a solution. Council, any questions of Miss Mr. Simon? >> All right. I'm going to open this public hearing in just a moment. I just want to make sure everybody understands our ground rules for public hearings. Uh, anybody can speak on any item as part of a public hearing. You have uh five minutes and we have the the clock on the wall to let you know when your five minutes are up. And when you get to five minutes, I will stop you. Not because I'm mean, but because I want to make sure everybody gets the same amount of time. And uh what we will do if you ask any specific questions, we will hold the questions and we will answer them at the end of the public hearing just so we're not kind of shooting from the hip. We have an opportunity for staff to to formulate the answers that uh are as correct as possible. Uh did I miss anything? I think that's everything. Very good. With that, I will open the public hearing on item 4.1. This is a vacation of public drainage and utility easements over and across lots 1 and two block one Whitney edition. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.1 this evening? Miss Ray, do we have anyone on the line wishing to speak? >> We do not have any callers online. >> Last call for anybody in the council chambers. Council, no one coming forward in the chambers. No one on the phone wishing to speak to item 4.1. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing at item 4.1 this evening. Motion by Commissioner Robertson, second by council member uh Delisandro to close the public hearing on 4.1. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Motion carries 70. Council, any questions on this? Any concerns? Pretty straightforward. Council member Nelson, >> just a quick question. It's not really a concern, but it seems very odd that there's like property >> surrounding a different zoning. Is that a concern at all for staff that there's a like R1 zoning because of the one portion of the property that's surrounded by >> or B1 or whatever we're changing it to. >> Mr. Simon, slow walking this and waiting for Johnson. >> Nick Johnson. Sorry, Nick. >> No problem. >> Hi, Mayor. Council member Nelson, are you referring to item 4.3? >> Oh, yeah. >> Yep. >> No worries. >> Okay, >> I'm presenting 4.3. >> Any questions regarding 4.1? Council member Delisandro, was that a question or is it >> I I I'm just was the one question I had is when I asked a question earlier of staff, I got a I I was pointed to the site survey map and it highlighted for me the buildings that are going to be a part of this. Is that other section uh like of more open land off the off the um off the feeder road, if you will, also part of this development track? Um, it it's not included explicitly here, but I would assume that ingress egress from a convenience store and I'm assuming a gas station is going to need that. So, I just didn't know if that was part of this or not. Do you know where I'm talking about that kind of open lot that has this kind of sweeping um driveway? I just was curious if that was also part of this. >> You want me to speak to that, >> Mr. Jess? >> Uh, mayor, council Aislesandro, that lot is not part of the uh proposed development. Quicktrip did negotiate with that property owner and try to obtain that parcel and incorporate into the development. They were not able to come to an agreement. Um they do have adequate access off 94th Street um for the proposed convenience uh sales facility with fuel sales. So >> Okay. >> Yep. It's not included. The corner lot if that's what you're referring to. >> Yeah. Okay. Um so people will be just in in and out of there directly off of 94. There's no expectation uh for anything off of the the what I don't know if that's I forget what the ington Boulevard or whatever that is. Okay, >> that's correct. There's two driveways to 94 Street. >> Yep. Okay, thanks. >> You're good. Thank you, council. If there are no more questions, I would look for action on item 4.1. >> Sure, Mr. I'll take that. Council >> member Aleandro. >> Absolutely. Just make sure I read it correctly and I'm not looking at 4.3. >> It does. Okay. So, um, I am making a motion to adopt an ordinance approving the vacation of public drainage and utility easements over and across lots one and two, block 1, Whitney edition, Henipin County, Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> Motion by council member Dalisandro, second by council member Rivas to adopt an ordinance approving the vacation of public drainage and utility easements over and across lot one and two, block one, Whitney edition, Henipin County. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you much. >> Mr. Mayor, if I could I just ask a a a question as it's related to the Quick Trip. Um I know that we had the representatives from Quick Trip come to us in a listening session not that long ago and and ask for uh relief on our our issue related to tobacco. Never heard anything. Love to see this moving forward. Kind of wondering if that got resolved somehow and they're willing because I think it's actually a really cool story that Quick Trip is willing to come to a place that doesn't have tobacco sales potentially unless that's not what's happening. And so I just wanted to kind of tee that up for future discussion or for to to have somebody come back and talk to us a little bit about what their decision was and why they made that >> was thinking the same thing not pursuant to this. Uh so perhaps we could pick that up maybe in at the end or maybe staff will be able to come up with an answer or or maybe it's just TBD which is an entirely possible answer. >> Very fair. >> So thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Item 4.2 on our agenda is our second public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing regarding city code amendments, corner lot standards. >> Miss Espec is with us again. We've talked about this a few times and we're going to bed tonight. Yes. >> Yes. Uh good evening mayor and council members. Um yes, we have talked about this before so I think I can kind of speedrun this. Um but basically we went to a public hearing for planning commission on May 21st and now we are here. Um, so some background. Bloomington's current zoning rules treat all streetf facing yards on lowdensity residential corner lots as front yards. This results in larger lot size requirements, increased setbacks, and stricter regulations compared to interior lots. These standards may hinder the city's goal of encouraging infel development and improving housing affordability while also creating inequities for corner lot owners by limiting their ability to expand their homes or add accessory structures. The ordinance proposal seeks to increase flexibility and reduce hindrances to development for corner lot owners. This slide shows a summary of the items proposed to change in the ordinance. I'll go through each topic individually in the upcoming slides. The proposed ordinance reduces the setback requirement for primary and accessory structures including accessory dwelling units on corner lots from 30 ft to 20 ft along the side street lot line. This change would make better use of corner lot space by treating side street yards more like sideyards instead of front yards. The proposed ordinance also recommends lowering the minimum site area requirements for corner lots. The proposed ordinance would reduce the minimum site area for single family homes from 11,50 ft² to 9,100 ft² and for two family homes from 14,625 to 11,700 ft. These changes respond to feedback from the planning commission and city council and are intended to align lot sizes with proposed setback requirements and typical building pad size. The proposed ordinance would also reduce minimum site width requirements for corner lots. The new minimum widths would be 70 ft for single family lots and 90 ft for two family lots compared to the current 100 ft requirement for both. The planning commission and city council directed staff to allow accessory structures in the side street yard between the primary structure and the side street lot line. This would allow corner lot owners to have more space to place accessory structures on their lot. With the proposed ordinance, there would still be a 20-oot setback requirement from the side street lot line. Several definitions were added and edited edited in this ordinance to ensure consistency and improve clarity. The new definitions establish a side street, lot line, and yard, which will be discussed briefly on the next slide. So this figure outlines um what the side street yard would be with the new definition and the rear yard. So in order to support the reduced setbacks along streets, staff is proposing to add a new definition for side street yard and side street lot line to improve clarity. This allows greater flexibility for corner lot owners to use the side street yard differently than a side/rear yard. As far as planning commission goes, um they had a short discussion and recommended approval 5 to zero at the public hearing on May 21st. And with that, here's the recommendation and I'm available for questions. >> Thank you so much. Thanks for clarifying. Uh we've had long discussions on this. I appre appreciate you clarifying it and condensing it all into a bite-sized portions there that we can use. Council, any questions of Miss Hespach? Council member Lman and then Council Member Nelson, >> just real quickly if you could talk a little bit. I know we talked about this in a little more detail in our last discussion around the screening uh requirements for that side if you have ADU in that space. Uh what that looks like and and any concerns that staff has about that. >> Um Mayor, Council Member Lman, so there wouldn't be screening requirements for an ADU. Um, but similar to I guess now a primary dwelling and any other type of accessory structure like a shed or garage. Um, they could be placed at a 20oot setback. Um, so that if more people do that, that might add to more like consistency in the visual look. Um, but I don't think staff is too concerned about that difference right now. >> Okay. No concern about privacy at all. Looking at other Okay. >> Council member Nelson. >> Yep. Thank you. Just a very quick question. So, um, and this is only because in prepping for this meeting, it I it I was reminded that I ran into this once in St. Louis Park. Um, what happens if what everyone would look at the house and what the sideyard is is actually the front yard versus the front yard is actually the sideyard and that sort of thing because we had to end up going through a variance process on a project there. um which which passed after a lot of discussion about sidewalks. So it can you explain how those variances would work or not variance but how that atypical situation might work? >> Mayor Council Member Nelson, um I welcome planning manager Johnson to correct me uh if he has a better answer, but typically we look at those on a case-byase basis. So we would look at where the now required setbacks are. So if there's a 30ft setback on one side and then like a 10-ft setback on the other side, we know like okay those are the sideyards and then a 30 foot and a 30 foot would be front and rear. Um so it's not always the same, but it's typically we kind of look at each lot and how it was built and how that would be considered. Okay, I appreciate that answer because I I know that uh there they had a very strict based on the width and in each direction and which one was front, which one was side, even though the house orientation was completely I mean the front door and the garage were on the sideyard, but there was a weird way that the lot went backwards, so the greater width was the other direction and that was actually the front yard. And so they they wouldn't allow for an expansion of the garage. Sorry for too much detail here, but I just it sounds like you have some discretion to look at what makes sense. >> Yeah, Mayor Council Member Nelson. So, uh, we apply the definitions in the code. There is some discretion in the definition. I mean, there is general parameters um, with respect to the definition, but in many of the cases because it's a fully built out community, we're looking at where is there uh, a compliant rear yard setback, right? And so that kind of dictates a lot of what can be uh the sideyard along a street versus the front yard because the rear has to be opposite the front. Um and so that's dictating a lot of it. Um but in addition to that, I mean, you know, when you release these new definitions into the wild, they're going to work in 90 plus percentage of the situations for that 5 to 10% where it doesn't work. That's why the variance process does exist. >> Yep. >> Council member Delisado. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick followup on that. So, I was going to ask the what percentage do we think are going to be kind of sort of out of compliance in this? Is it is it generally the rule that where the where the front door is is considered the front of the house even even in an orientation scenario like that or is it largely determined by like the address that is defined you know um I don't know by the postal service or wherever how does how do you decide generally I'm realizing there's exceptions. >> Yeah. Yeah, Mayor Councilman Dellesandro. So, in the definition, it talks about um uh the front street being the primary street designated as where the principal building entrances and fronts um of the building face the street. And so, that's really uh the key language in the definition. And no doubt there are properties that have kind of do send mixed signals. >> Yeah. >> Uh a little bit in respect to that. We'll also look to the driveway uh and the garage typically as to in combination with the front entrance. If those things are sending different signals, then um then we have to make a little bit of a judgment call there. But again, that's why the variance process does exist is that we know zoning is an imperfect tool. You're applying it on a 3D world. Um there's going to be situations where our regulations don't fit a particular site perfectly. Are we are we requiring um people to pay to apply for a variance in this scenario or is there a waiver for variances in this particular scenario given the fact that it's kind of like our arbitrary rule compared to like the situation of their house being there for 50 years or whatever? >> Yeah, if it was clearly in conflict with the definition then they would have to go through uh the variance process I believe because then it just wouldn't be consistent with the code. Um but if there's a little bit of discretion there we do want to work with folks. Um, the one thing I would say just to clarify for the public, we don't believe this this ordinance is going to create new nonconformity. This is relieving some rules and relaxing some of our existing rules. So, we don't anticipate this to create any uh nonconformity on existing uh properties. >> Okay. Uh, just for the council's consideration in the future. I don't I don't know that when when we've created the rule that already exists in nature and then we come and ask for variance, we should charge them for that. That's my personal opinion. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. Anything else to add? No. Council, any additional questions? Hearing none, I will open the public hearing on item 4.2. This is a public hearing regarding city code amendments regarding corner lot standards. Anyone in the council chambers wish to speak to item 4.2 this evening? >> Good evening and welcome. >> Brian, good evening. My name is Brian Sig. Um, I wasn't prepared to speak on this topic. I was more wrapped up in what was happening in Nine Mile Creek, but that's a different subject. Um, my concern as when we change the minimum lot size is we're discussing this always as the property owner, not the surrounding property owners. I've owned pro my property for 50 years. This happened to me. It went through various variance process but and I lost but the point is we're looking at it only from what's the advantage to the city and the advantage to that property owner not to the concerns of adjacent property areas owners and I feel that you know council member Dalisandro said she's concerned about charging people that want a variance I'm concerned the other way around that. Why don't you have to get a variance when it's affecting all of your neighbors and you want to change it? This in this case, you're changing it 10 ft. So, in other words, suddenly somebody that didn't have room for a shed put a shed up in front of my house, which is what happened. But what I'm saying is you're not considering um I'm I'm not sure the proper term, but you're changing the rules. People have owned property adjacent to these properties and you're arbitrarily changing something that used to require a variance process and they had a voice in it. And just like when you change the minimum property size, suddenly maybe one of my neighbors can throw up another house on their lot and sell it, subdivide the lot. Um, I think this is egregious for existing own property owners because seven people are deciding to change the rules. I I bought under certain conditions and now I'm that's being changed on me. Uh, as bad as it might seem to pay $100 to apply for a variance. Um, I see a lot less damage there than I do to surrounding property owners that lose their rights by these sorts of things. And I lost on the minimum property size, but I I just want you to know as a citizen, I feel like my government is oppressive in things like this because you're changing the rules that everybody bought property based on. And I think that's excessive. Anyway, thank you very much. I' I'd like to be positive. I don't know a positive way of putting this. So, >> thank you, Mr. Seic. Anyone else wishing to speak? Priyanka, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anyone in the chambers. Council, no one coming forward, no one on the line wishing to speak. I would look for a motion to close the public hearing on 4.2. Motion by council member Robertson. Second by council member Dalisandro to close the public hearing on 4.2 or revas. Excuse me. Revas. You guys got to be louder. I needed clear. 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. >> Uh council comments on this. Questions? I I and I wanted to answer at least some of the concerns raised by Mr. Sebig. I think uh yes, I mean this is seven people making decisions, but that's what the city council does. I mean, that's what we're elected to do and that's what we do. And I do think we do take into account the other the the neighbors and how it impacts the uh uh the neighborhood and and all the folks around them, which is why the the setback isn't zero, which is why it isn't a free-for-all. We do have um restrictions, but we've changed what the definition of that appropriate restriction is at this point. And we've had this conversation, we had this uh an extensive conversation on this in terms of lot sizes and set packs and so on. And I think the idea is that what um what folks originally thought was the standard, the only way to do things. I think there's some there's changes in opinions on on how we can do this and how we can uh do it uh that fits everybody. It isn't necessarily doing it to someone. I don't believe we're being oppressive in any way. I think we're offering a a bit of a change to rules that are in place and are looking at opportunities to provide more options and opportunities for folks. So, that's that's my thought on that. >> Council member Delisandro. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I just as a an ancillary comment to that, I you know, I I understand and I you know, I agree. I am asking in my comments I said you know hey you know if we're doing this people you know sometimes get impacted and I I I agree with all that. I I believe we asked um prior right that we do a better job of notifying neighborhoods when changes are coming to their neighborhoods as opposed to at the end of the process more at the beginning of the process where they can have more of a voice. um that stemmed from the the the the issue related to um Wentworth Circle in my or in my neighborhood, right, where somebody took a lot um tore down a a house, made it two lots with the intent of building two homes that they want to rent out with the idea that they'll get a third one when this other house is vacated, right? And the there only seven people on that circle and they were very upset about it. But yeah, I went out talked to them and everything and that's how it works. The problem wasn't so much that they didn't under didn't understand like and that that they don't understand that private property owners have a right to do with their property what they want. We all have that. I wouldn't want to be told what to do with my house either. Um but more so that like they found out about it after most of it had already been decided. And if we can do a better job with notices and we can do a better job with um helping people in the neighborhood understand how the neighborhood is changing, I don't know that we necessarily have the same issues. I think a lot of what we do to ourselves is just kind of catch them off guard and then their first the first reaction for people naturally is to be up in arms about it. Um so uh you know my my thought is if we're if we're working on those notifications uh we're doing it earlier on in the process. We're you know those kinds of things we're inviting those folks to the planning commissions hearings as opposed to waiting till the end of the line here with council. I think we can do a lot to help people understand how the neighborhoods are changing. Certainly, they've changed from 50 years ago, too. Certainly, the rules we have in place weren't there when my house was built in like 1962. So, I I think that we could continue to move forward with that if that would be possible. And then I think we we'd do a lot of people a lot of favors that way. >> Appreciate the input. >> Yeah. Thanks, >> Council Member Lman. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I want to thank staff. I think they've done an outstanding job of, you know, really kind of putting this together and making a really good case. You know, we got a, you know, 50 coming out of the out of the planning commission. Uh, you know, did a really nice job in terms of what their decision-making process. We had an extensive conversation, mayor, uh, about this. Um, you know, I'm I'm just not there yet. I'm a corner lot guy and I can think of some circumstances that uh wow I'm just you know I just don't I I can see this becoming some problems you know but I do think this is is in the right direction and I also kind of question you know a little bit you know does this kind of accomplish the goal in terms of the uh of trying to get more ADUs uh out there does it really move the needle we'll see obviously when that comes forward but I just think at this time uh and I'm not you know trying to get anybody else to come along with me I I just I'm not that not there yet. Um, and I don't want to, you know, keep conversating and having conversations about it, but I do think it's, you know, it's there. Uh, you know, the planning commission supported it, but I'm just I'm just not fully uh fully there with where this is today. Uh, but I do encourage my colleagues, uh, if you're there and you see this, uh, as a step in those directions, please support this. But I I'm not there today and I'm not going to support this. >> Council member Elvis, >> I just have a question. It's not necessarily entirely about these, but it's more I understand that let's say if I decide to build a house bigger, I'm in a corner lot also. Um, and I bring it up to the 20 ft on the side street. I mean, it benefits me. Yeah, I could have a bigger place to live on. Um and then uh from 80 ft or 90 ft at the front right to what was the sorry if you don't mind answering that for me please. Um the front uh the the front part of the house how big uh is it right now? I mean I I think it was a waste of uh space when they built our house. This is so small compared to the lot. But I do have a question that is not related to this. If we have a problem, some people will have issues if we were to build a bigger house. You know, it would probably cover their abuse and stuff, but and they will have an issue with that. My question is regarding to people having u gardens in their properties. Are they allowed to push it all the way to the property line? Is there a rule that prevents him from doing that? Mayor, Council Member Rias, um I don't believe we have setbacks for gardens, maybe garden beds. >> Yeah, Mayor Council Rio, it depends on what type of garden you're talking about. Once it gives above above a certain uh height, then it becomes a structure and it's subject to setbacks. But a typical just garden on the ground doesn't have a setback requirement. There are easements along property lines where um you know we typically don't encourage residents to encroach in those easements because we might need to use those or private uh cable gas those folks use those easements alongside property lines but there's not a um setback requirement for a garden. >> It's it's if they have any structure right I mean it really doesn't bother me personally but what it does is that it damages the garden their gardens damage the fences. Okay. I mean I have witnessed that on our property. So my question is if we were to allow this to people to build you know structures what is the effect on the neighbors and you know as as a corner lot uh person I you know it's a great benefit to me right and and to the city to a certain extent um um to a certain extent um it benefits us because we could have two properties in one lot right if that's that would be the pays for improved housing uh availability. But you know just just a question uh uh my concern is just about the neighbors what they would think or how they would feel if another structure would go right besides their property. Um >> yeah, Mayor uh council member Rivas. So there's a couple things in this ordinance. One is talking about structure setbacks. So it is offering uh 10 ft less in required setback than what currently exists today for that street side yard. And so um and one of the uh aspects of this conversation that I think is important is that the zoning code is there to preserve public health, safety, welfare. If I ask a room of 100 people what that means in terms of what the code should do, you're going to get 101 opinions about that. U but just from the purpose of staff, what we we don't believe a visual impact in terms of moving a structure 10 ft forward uh is a threat to health, safety, welfare because we're preserving uh public infrastructure. You're preserving areas for landscape planting. That's why we have landscape yard requirements. 20 foot setback accomplishes that uh along uh streets. Um the other thing that you're referring to though is that the ordinance does talk about lot size. So it is feasible. We don't want to hide from the fact that there are corner lots in the community that are so large currently they would not otherwise be allowed to be subdivided. Uh except for some of these changes to minimum lot size and um lot width. Um, but again, it's about health, safety, welfare, not about um uh I don't want another uh dwelling in my neighborhood. It's about what is the minimumsiz lot that should be required to accommodate a dwelling according to Bloomington's infrastructure. Does that make sense? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Other comments, council. >> All right. Hearing none. Uh we have held the public hearing. We've closed the public hearing. Council, I'd look for a motion on item 4.2 this evening. Council member Robertson. >> Excuse me. Thank you, Mayor. I move to adopt an ordinance updating corner lot setbacks with and area requirements and editing definitions related to corner lots, thereby amending chapter chapter 21 of the city code. Motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Dan uh Delisandro to uh approve the ordinance updating corner lot setbacks with and area requirements and editing definitions related to corner lots. Any further council discussion on this hearing? None. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries 61 with council member Lman in opposition. Council member Robertson, summary publication, please. >> Thank you. I move to adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of the adopted ordinance amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Dellesandro for summary publication on item 4.2. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you very much for that, Miss Hesbach. Uh on to item 4.3, our third public hearing of the evening. This is regarding the Telegraph Hill Office Park reszoning. That's at 7815, 7825, 7835, and 7845 Telegraph Road. Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, presenting this one on behalf of, uh, planner Dylan Palmer, and I would note the applicant is in attendance. Um, if there's any questions for them. Um, but the Telegraph Road uh, or the Telegraph Hill Office Park rather, is a a little bit of a unique property in that it was developed under the base zoning R1 uh, as a planned development. the city had a practice during this time that would authorize uh new uses that are otherwise not allowed in that base zoning district via plan development. So that's not a planning best practice. That's not something uh that you can do anymore. It's akin to a use variance. Um, so you're not uh allowed to do that anymore, but effectively these uh four office buildings and this joint common property were developed uh as an uh kind of lowintensity office site uh via plan development while retaining the R1 uh um base zoning district. So uh the majority of the owners at this site have come together and submitted a privately initiated um application to reszone the properties. You'll notice that one of these sites is excluded from this action and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a second here if I can get my slide to move. Okay. So, I I provided an overview of most of these things. Um uh this area was regued to office in the city's comprehensive plan in 1984. So, it's been guided as office. It's had this use uh pattern for a long period of time. Um, the B1 zoning district in Bloomington is kind of the ideal zoning district for this area because it is basically a low-intensity commercial or office district that's intended to be a buffer transition to residential uses. So, this site fits that uh quite well. Um, the reason that 7805 Telegraph Road was excluded, um, and I invite the applicant to provide more of the background if they want to, but, uh, several of these buildings have changed hands in the last few years, and every time they're, uh, looking to sell these properties or find new tenants. They run into this complexity around R1 PD. Commercial real estate brokers get confused. The zoning here is residential. What can I do with this property? What they can do only at this time is office. That's it. Um, that's the only authorized use. And so uh the current property remains a little bit under this cloud of office only with this kind of odd uh base zoning designation. The reason that 7805 Telegraph Road was not included in this application is that they were not able to obtain the authorization or consent via signature of that property owner despite many attempts. The city also contacted this owner. We didn't uh get any uh correspondence returned to us via those attempts to do so. Um so that is why it is not included. Now, just from a standpoint and welcome city attorney feedback on this if necessary, but the city has to process a privately initiated application. One other point I would make about that is that the owners of the three out of the four properties did furnish us with association documents uh declaring or making it clear that three4s of the owners are authorized to act on behalf of the association. So, that was a critical component because that's the parking, that's the access, that's the common property that serves the land. So I want to make that point. Um here's the guide plan in the 2040 comprehensive plan. So you can see um the area to the south is lowdensity residential. This is guided office which is just reflective of its current use. This is the proposed z resoning action. Again B1 is the neighborhood commercial zoning district. It really is the best district we currently have in our modern districts that fit this uh not only the guidance of the comp plan, but just kind of the local characteristics of what um uh the site is and what it could be. Um yeah, I think I've covered most of this. I think the only thing I'll say that I didn't share is that the site is served by uh roadway with adequate capacity. It has appropriate sewer and water capacity. Uh it kind of has all the components of still being a compliant uh development. Otherwise, these are some of the things we look at with respect to a reasonzoning request. And the planning commission did hold a public hearing on this item. Uh other than the applicant, I don't believe anyone testified at the hearing. Um the planning commission did recommend approval 5 to zero. Um there were some questions about spot zoning, ensuring that they understood the definition of that. And um again, we went over in more detail about the exclusion of the 7805 site. Um, the last thing I'll say about that is that uh in according to the Bloomington code, the planning commission and the city council are the two bodies that have the right to initiate resoning. So, the city certainly can initiate a reasonzoning action on that site to clean it up. In effect, um, it's just this despite the fact that we were unable to get in touch with this owner that they're not included. It really would be to their benefit to have signed on to the application. Uh, the last thing I'll say is that we did receive one final uh, email or one piece of correspondence. You should have been provided a handout, I believe. um that's in support of the application. Other than that, staff and planning commission recommend approval. I do have suggested motions and happy to take any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Council questions on this. Council member Nelson. >> Honestly, I think my question was answered. It sounds like it's something we can clean up at whatever time we want to. So, there does seem to be concerns from staff. Thank you. >> Other questions, council? >> You said the applicant is present. and Molly if the applicants representatives here. >> Nothing to add. Okay. >> Very good. Thank you. Council member Dellesandro. >> Real quick question for you. U Mr. Johnson, thanks for this. Um it can you um at a very high level just recount the kinds of expansion opportunities this yields as a result of the move from R1 to B1. >> Yeah, thank you uh Mayor Council Delandro. So, uh daycare, for example, is a use that's authorized in B1 that's currently not allowed under this R1 PD situation. uh limited retail. So there is a cap on the amount of retail that they can have in the site of 25% uh for example um instructional center. So I mean to get into the nitty-gritty of it, we're fielding calls from brokers saying, "Can I do this? Can I do that?" And it's like, "No, you can't because it's office only period." So that makes it challenging for uh agents who are trying to rent space in the building and and that kind of thing. >> Do we do we currently know the occupancy of the buildings right now? Are they full or are they not full? Or >> I'd invite the applicant to speak about the current occupancy. I know that there are several office tenants including like a therapy office, like medical office and then a few other offices. But yeah, they >> and that will still be allowed. Is that correct? >> Correct. Yep. >> Good evening and welcome. If you could just state your name so we have it for the record. >> Yep. I'm Molly Stafel. I do the admin and accounting for the association. Um I would say the buildings are mostly occupied and leased. The only thing I would say is a lot of people are hybrid. So there's not a lot of people present but is mostly leased. >> Any other questions? Council, council member Lman, >> just kind of a passing question. You know, you have child care use and medical uses. Is there are there any restrictions in terms of what can be conducted in medical practices, you know, in terms of X-rays or that type of thing? And is there any, >> you know, Yeah. >> can you have a child care thing next to, >> you know, you know, X-ray type thing? I know there's, you know, there's studies out there that show there's no impact, but I'm just just curious. >> Sure. >> Uh, Mayor, Council Member Lman, um, not in zoning. I don't know if there's something in the state, uh, licensing that might, uh, look at kind of the surrounding uses and buffering for, uh, child care, but, no, not in zoning. Yeah. And, uh, as far as what medical offices in terms of that use, it means no overnight stays effectively. Once you're, you know, inatient, once you're keeping patients overnight, then it's not a medical office. >> Others? All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you for the information. This is a public hearing and I will open the public hearing at item 4.3. It's a public hearing regarding Telegraph Hill Office Park resoning 7815, 7825, 7835, and 7845 Telegraph Road. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.3 this evening? >> Miss Ray, is there anyone on the phone wishing to speak? Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last chance for anybody wishing to speak in the chambers. Council, no one coming forward, no one on the phone. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing item 4.3. >> So moved. >> Motion by council member Lman, second by council member Dalisandro to close the public hearing on item 4.3. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. Uh, I will just say council, I was just up there earlier this spring for an event at a ribbon cutting at the new uh it was a mental health facility I think for for kids and it's a it's a great therapy spot and uh the the um it's a nice combination because as you can see on some of the the slides here it's heavily wooded between the single family homes and the site but at the same time this site basically fronts 494. I mean, so it's I think the the change to to B1 I think is it makes sense and it gives them more options and and uh little bit of flexibility and I think this is a really a good way to continue to make this really kind of a very unique office park within the city of Bloomington. Any other thoughts, council? If not, council, I'd look for action on it 4.3 tonight. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to do it. It's in my patch. I'd be happy to make the motion. Um, and I'm excited about this, too, because I do think that the um that that it's a really unique area and um I mean, who knows, maybe you'll get a like ice cream shop in there and people can walk across the woods and eat their ice cream. Wouldn't that be nice? Could happen. Uh, okay. So, I'm making a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map by reszoning land at 78815, 7825, 7835, and 7845 Telegraph Road from R1 PD single family residential plan development to B1 PD neighborhood office plan development. >> Second motion by council member Dalisandro, second by council member Lman to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map as stated from R1 PD to B1 PD. Any further council discussion on this? If not, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. Council member Dellesandro. >> I move to authorize uh summary publication of ordinance uh amending the zoning map by reszoning land at 7815, 7835, and 7845, sorry, and 7825 Telegraph Road from R1 PD single family residential plan development to B1PD neighborhood office plan development. Second >> motion by council member Dellesandro, second by council member Lman for summary publication of item 4.3 this evening. No further council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. And thank you very much for for the application. >> Item 4.4 is our fourth public hearing of the evening. This is regarding a regiduiding, reszoning, and cup for park and fly which is at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard. Mr. Centinario is going to lead us through these next two items. Good evening and welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Thank you, mayor, council members. So, the next two items of on your agenda relate to really a project that's been in the works for uh several years at this point. Um, but the first item on uh or first item is related to the Rosa Development Company site or park and fly uh as you'll probably hear me refer to it. Uh, and that is several elements. uh one being uh comprehensive plan amendment uh to reguide uh the park and fly site uh from uh what it is today which is uh south loop mixed use and to highintensity mixed use and you know these designations have some impact uh in terms of the the allowed uses uh and in combination with that uh the applicants are seeking a resoning uh from HXRP PD to CX2P PD. These are zoning districts that are associated with those uh comprehensive plan land use designations. Uh so they're they are consistent with one another. And uh also uh you're being asked to take action on a conditional use permit application for remote airport parking. And so you've you've heard me speak on these items uh before uh several times in fact. Uh and just a brief summary on uh the Park and Fly site. Uh it's about 12 acres, a little over 12 acres. Uh it's comprised of over 2,000 parking stalls. Again, this is a remote airport parking facility. Uh so there's there is almost no building uh per se. There's a very small uh entrance uh building or a gate. Um but it's it's majority surface parking with a with a parking structure. and it's been in operation since the late ' 80s. Um for for decades now, uh the city had processed uh teacups or or temporary conditional use permits uh that that evolved into intermuse permits. Uh but all of these approvals were temporary in nature. Uh they were never intended to be permanent rights to operate uh remote airport parking. Uh the parking structure that's on the site was built in uh 94. An office tower was intended to be built on top of it, but that never materialized. Uh and then there was a different approach uh again with these temporary approvals to try and condition uh these uh temporary approvals on development milestones that that did lead to some potential development uh but ultimately the pandemic happened and and that development did not move forward. And so uh the current interimm use permit again temporary approval for the park and fly site uh expires August 8th 2027. Uh that's also of in a previous application we amended the city code and so these uh temporary uses uh cannot extend past uh August 8th 2027. So to touch on the uh city code amendments from uh just a few months ago uh remote airport parking uh has been eliminated as an interim use in the HXR zoning district. So for a long time these temporary approvals uh they were allowed to be approved for up to five years. that's no longer an option. It's been eliminated from the city code. Uh remote airport parking facilities was added as a conditional use in the CX2 district. You know, we went through uh an airport parking study. Uh talked about different uh alternatives for how to uh how to what degree does the city want to regulate these? Do these uses? Do we want to allow them uh as permitted uses or conditional uses or prohibit them altogether? Uh ultimately where we ended up is to allow them as a conditional use in the CX2 district. uh but uh there are some uh performance standards associated with that. One is a minimum 2.75 acre development site along American Boulevard East has to be established uh within about 10 years. And we think that's critical uh because we don't believe that this use is consistent unless there is the potential for uh dense urban transit supporting development uh along American Boulevard which is a very important corridor in the city. Uh similarly we want uh of development of substance. So we have a minimum 120,000 square foot floor area that's already established in the CX2 district. Uh and we the the code would allow or does allow uh surface parking within existing remote airport parking facilities uh to be maintained. Uh it would allow uh future expansion to so to actually increase the capacity uh if within parking structures uh and it actually would allow integration of structure parking within uh development. So you can envision an office building or some other uh highintensity use with structure parking. Some of that structure parking could uh be used to operate a remote airport parking facility. And so this is what the the maps look like. Uh you have on the left the existing designation which is south mixed use and then you know we love diff coloring different things on maps and that would be the high intensity mixed use. Similarly with the zoning district uh you know uh goes from green to red frankly and uh but there there are some very uh impactful changes between or differences between the HXR district and the CX2 district. Uh and that's something that uh we discussed at length uh over multiple conversations with the applicant on you know how to reduce barriers uh to uh transit supporting intense development. One of the requirements in HXR is uh the R stands for residential and there is a requirement to have a residential component and a very dense residential component of 30 units per acre. Um whereas in the CX2 district residential uses are permitted but they are not required. Uh a second very significant change is uh related to floor area ratio which is one one measurement of land use intensity in the HXR district. It's very prescriptive a minimum 1.5 F which is uh very significant. Um and the CX2 district allows that kind of intensity but it doesn't require it. And so it's the the idea is to reduce barriers to uh permanent development on this on the properties. And so uh discussing the future development site uh again this would be a 2.75 acre uh development pad or future site. Uh there are some requirements to screening uh so there would be you know pretty dense vegetation between a future development site and the remainder of uh the remote airport parking facility. and uh there's a compliance date uh in a little over 10 years. So as part of the this development package uh we asked the applicant to essentially take part in a zoning exercise uh to demonstrate how uh this future development could hypothetically be implemented and they did that. They they presented a future development concept. Uh so we're not you're not being asked to approve this concept or to weigh in on it. It's really just a zoning exercise to demonstrate this is how things could hypothetically happen in the future. But what they're showing is a 2 point 2.75 acre site uh with a perimeter uh landscape yard uh and a 120,000 foot office uh building. And so this is this is one way to accomplish uh that future development. Uh you know, one thing we like about this concept is it pushes the building towards the street. It's right along American Boulevard like uh the code would like to see. Uh obviously we want to make things as convenient to get to and from the light rail as possible. Uh so folks could uh take light rail to back and forth to work if they care to. And then you have the parking behind the building. And it's a little difficult to see, but if you look along the perimeter of the site, you see a lot of uh trees. And these sites are landscaped. uh but they're not I wouldn't consider them well landscaped and very much below what we require for permanent development. And so when we uh if we treat uh remote airport parking as a permanent use uh well then we we get to expect compliance as a terms to in terms of landscaping. And so that's another element of this application is how can uh these sites really improve the the amount of landscaping that's on the site. Obviously, these are this is acres of uninterrupted asphalt. So, you're really along you're really talking about the perimeter of the site. Um, and that's what that's what they uh included in their plan submitt is adding literally hundreds of trees and shrubs uh onto the site as it exists today. This is just zoomed in a little bit more around the parking structure. There's some uh landscaping here, but uh it really would be a pretty dramatic change uh in the amount of uh landscaping that would uh would be uh installed within the next year. And then going back to the hypothetical or the conceptual development, you know, that's what's showing here is permanent development. And so when reviewing permanent development, we require landscaping and uh we have certain code requirements that have to be met. You know, trees and parking islands. uh we want perimeter or landscaping between uh the this development and the remote airport parking facility. So this is just a image on how that could be accomplished in the future. And so the planning commission did hold a public hearing. They recommended city council approval. Uh obviously I have a lot of text on this side because there's quite a few motions. Uh but I'm sure the the council has questions and I'm I'm happy to uh try to address them. >> Thank you, Mr. Centinario. Council questions. with the reminder that we have decided on the uses here. We're we've decided the changes that we've made. So, we're not questioning that. What we're questioning are these uh these land use designations, the zoning map, and uh and so on. So, we're not going to relitigate the the entire situation here. Council member Nelson, >> what happens if we don't approve this? >> Um Mr. Mr. Centinario, >> uh, Mr. Mayor, council members, they have an existing intermuse permit that expires August of next year. And so that's, uh, they can operate under that intermuse permit. Um, and, uh, that's what we would go with and try to figure out something else if it doesn't get approved. Other questions? I see the applicant is here. Is there anything you'd like to address? Good evening, Mr. Griffith. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Um, hopefully this is the last time you'll see me on this matter. Uh, because as the mayor said, and I appreciate it. Um, you know, this has been a long road and you decided in March that this was an appropriate use in the CX-2 district. Hopefully, we won't relitigate that. Hopefully, um, Mr. Nelson uh was asking the question for clarification because really it's not a good end if if the parking rights expire and we don't have a solution after two years of working at it. And I am really really grateful to be here at a point where both sides agree um from staff uh city attorney's office now the planning commission that this is the right path. It's balancing the rights of the property owner with the expectation for development and and highintensity development. CX-2 and uh the corresponding land use guiding are high intensity. But as the staff has pointed out, and this was really the the key moment when we kind of had a coming together is when staff put forward to the idea that what about more flexible zoning such as the CX2 district? And we really saw that as an opportunity. And I've said this before, but developers don't leave opportunities on the table. So if there's a 3acre site that's mandated or 2.75 acres, I suspect there might be some rounding up to three acres or even more. But, uh, if there's a site of that size, which can't be parked, uh, and it's sitting on American Boulevard and we have this flexible zoning scheme, it's going to develop. And the the other thing that's embedded in this is the parking can be integrated in the development. And so, you can imagine a layer of parking underground or above ground that provides that airport parking but also supplies the development. So, a lot of creative things can happen. And so um it's it's our expectation and hope that this will be the last night at least at at this stage before something comes forward to develop the site. I I want to point out two things uh because it came up in the discussion uh previously. This is now as your staff has pointed out throughout the report consistent with your comprehensive guide plan. Consistent in a way that it says you can do both end not either or and and that's really the plus of of all this discussion and all this hard work. Um the other thing that that uh staff pointed out is that this is this is more flexible and that is really the key. So with that I think there's an important opportunity for the city. Um I met with your uh new city manager uh last fall and said this can go one way or the other and and we all collectively took it in a good direction and and I really appreciate that. So thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Griffith. Any questions of Mr. Griffith? Council member Lman. >> Thank you, uh, Mayor. Mr. Griffith, I do got a question for you. >> Oh, I have to do this obligatory question. Uh, >> thank you. >> You know, is are there any concerns, uh, of you or the applicant of, uh, you know, any market factors or hardships, uh, that may arise and, you know, how may how may you deal with that or, you know, because we've been in this situation before and I'm just I'm just concerned. I just want to ask the question. uh you know if you foresee that I know right now it doesn't look that way but things come up and I'm just curious how how one might look at that or how that might come back. Uh Mr. Mayor, Council Member Lman, I appreciate that and I think about places in this community and places in other communities that uh we all know when those boom cycles come all sudden an entire avenue suddenly has new development and housing going up and and you you're you're just kind of wowed by how much can happen in a short period of time. And now we've been through a long stretch of difficult interest rates and difficult difficult financing. And the apartment building that Miss Mureer proposed was a very real aart. She was a week away from pulling a building permit. You all know the story or should by now. And and the market changed and and financing wasn't available and you couldn't get a guaranteed maximum price. So every every cycle has its challenges. uh but what you have done uh or what you did in March and hopefully you'll continue with this action tonight is set the table to give us the maximum flexibility to bring forward something and we can all imagine with the way the the market is changing and AI and and the way people travel and the way now they're talking about flying cars you know uh who knows uh but but you've you've really set the table with your March action to make all possibilities available and it's up to us now as property owners and developers and and maybe they'll be joint venture partners to bring something really special to your community. So, I think you've done your job and and the next 10 10 years it's back in our court. >> Other questions? Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you. A quick question with regards to you noted that uh this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Is that the comprehensive plan as it stands today or as amended if we take action? Mr. Mayor, >> council members. Yeah, that's a great question. And you know, when we uh went through a recent uh South District plan uh addendum, uh the airport parking study was in the back of our minds and tried to incorporate some of that feedback within the plan itself. And so those changes have already been implemented uh where there really is this acknowledgment of these long-standing businesses uh that could continue provided that there's avenues for for future development. >> Okay. Um I was specifically asking about the comprehensive plan which has not been amended yet, not the South Loop district plan. >> Uh I you know I think the the comprehensive plan is quite general. Uh but when we have a site where there is a uh district plan uh we look to that as that tends to have a little more specific guidance and in that uh district plan there was uh some some changes that I think is consistent with this proposal. >> Okay. And then and then specifically looking at that South Loop plan um the notes in our packet specifically say permanent remote airport parking without future redevelopment is inconsistent with the goals of the district plan. It's my understanding that over 9 acres of this property will become if this is approved permanent off airport parking and it says specifically that that is inconsistent with the South Loop plan. >> Mr. Mayor, council members, I think the the intent of that language is to prohibit a 100% uh remote airport parking facility uh of the 12 acres 12.2 acres that you uh looked at in the slide. And so we felt that uh it would be consistent provided that there was some permanent development other than remote airport parking. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any questions? Council >> council member revis >> just a quick question. um by 203 2036 is it expected to have an structure already up or breaking ground at that point? >> Mr. Mayor, council members, the so the the code as it sits today uh would not require a permanent structure to be built on the site. That's certainly the hope and the expectation and it it's logical uh for that to happen. Uh what is required is a 2.75 acre site that cannot be used for remote air surface remote airport parking uh with a perimeter uh landscape buffer. And if we put our development hats on, uh that seems silly, right? To have a 2.75 acre site that you can't generate any revenue from. Uh and so it really incentivizes permanent development. >> Let me rephrase the question. And um what what I want to know is whether the development of that property would happen before it's 2036 or or 2036 will be the year that would trigger that if it does happen at this point because you know the the I understand that the the piece of land 2.75 acres will be put aside. But my question is would it be built by 2036? Do we require them to have an structure at that point or are we just leaving it up to >> Mr. Mayor, council members? Uh there would be no guarantees that a structure would be completed by 2036. >> Right. Thank you. >> All right. Council, I am going to open the public hearing on this one. I'll open the public hearing item 4.4. This is a public hearing regarding park and fly reguiding, reszoning, and conditional use permit for 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East. If anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to this item, Miss Mayor, we we could have let you in just as a as the >> Oh, sorry. I didn't want to interrupt the Everybody had questions. Um, I just wanted to say a couple things really quickly. I don't want to take too much of your time, but um I've been at many of these meetings over the past two years and um we've really tried hard to come up with a compromise and um and you know through through this whole process um one of the biggest stumbling blocks I think that people ran into is that we I know that you obviously want highintensity development along American Boulevard and one of the big impediments to that is has been this whole time having temporary rights is it's very difficult to invest that kind of revenue in something that could expire and be taken away. Banks really don't like it. They like, you know, they want solid ground. They don't want to be investing in your property if it's in shifting sand. So, that's been one big problem. Um, and you know, through this also, you know, we saw that, you know, you handled it for the mall and for, you know, Mr. ating and his group and certain other people along this, you know, and basically I feel like Bill and myself have really done whatever has been asked of us to get to a compromise and um so I really don't know what would happen if, you know, we have more or less gotten, you know, to a reasonable compromise. So, um I I just wanted to kind of highlight those items. All right. Thank you very much. >> Thanks for coming. Oh, the flexibility I think would also help. And this is my other last last minute is um that I have no intention of having 2.75 acres of vacant land that we're paying tax on when you are now opening it up to we could do food, we could do entertainment, we could do office, apartments. And I mean, I think that's one of the reasons why the Mall of America has been so successful is they have such a variety of uses that they can use that you're going to find something that works. Um, but when you're stuck where you can only do this and you have to do a certain portion of it affordable and you have temporary rights, it's not an easy fix. So, thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Others wishing to speak on this item. Miss Ray, do we have anyone on the phone? Mayor, >> we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anyone in the chambers. Council, no one coming forward in the chambers. We have no one on the phone wishing to speak. I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing item 4.4. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Lman, second by council member uh Carter to close the public hearing item 4.4. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries 70. >> So, council thoughts on this? Council member Nelson, then council member Lman. Council member Nelson. >> Yeah, thank you, mayor, and I appreciate that you don't want to relitigate this, but I continue to be opposed to this. I understand that there's one viewpoint that this will develop some highintensity use, but the reality is is it locks in over 9 acres of surface off airport parking, something that this city, this the previous councils did not do for three decades. We will be the first ones to do that. And I think it's absolutely wrong. And I and frankly, I think they made the case for us. They said, "We're not going to let 2.7 acres sit there." What about the 12 acres? The reason it hasn't been developed is because of the off airport parking. And if that just goes away at the end of the interim use, guess what's going to happen? 12 acres will get developed, not 2.7. There is no reason to pass this. I appreciate staff doing a really great job of of trying to make the argument, but it does not meet the South Loop District plan. It does not meet the current comprehensive plan unless we change that plan. It does not meet any of that. Um, one of my colleagues and I forget who last time said that they agreed with me, but they felt that there was staff recommendation for this. Look at everything staff has said for the last couple years. They have consistently said that this was never a use that was contemplated. That this was never a use that was wanted in that area other than to be temporary. And look at what happened when it was approved. There was a temporary use permit. You can argue that maybe that wasn't something the city could do. I would argue that there was zero harm. It was only to the benefit of them to be able to do make revenue for a short period of time. So I don't I mean I know there's been talks of lawsuits. I have zero idea what basis there would be when there was no harm that you've made millions of dollars for 30 years on this project that you were somehow harmed um on that. I I I don't see this as good for the people of Bloomington, for the residents, the businesses, because they don't pay their fair share of taxes, properties next to them that are much smaller pay higher taxes because they have buildings. And and so we're as residents subsidizing this place in order to not have that. And so I, you know, I I made my case last time. I understand where you all came down, but I guess my basic question is, do you really really want to approve surface parking? 9 acres of surface parking in the south loop. That is what this decision does. >> Council member Lman. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. And uh you know, thank you, uh, Council Member Nelson. Um, you know, I I certainly see where where you're coming from. uh you know and I'll concede you know I'm skeptical you know uh that the market will match our our vision in terms of of what's out there. I think you know I've got to I've got to concede that. Um uh but you know you know and I I I remembered I was you know quite uh locked in a number of years back with regards to uh how we did our apartment buildings and how we had uh storage in there. You know, certainly from my experience, I I thought, you know, you know, can I trust the market to drive what would take place? You know, this market or this this council kind of went in a different direction during that period of time, and we made the decision that we were going to let we were going to trust the market to kind of lead where we needed to go with this. Um, and so I think it's it's kind of been our our stance on this council to kind of, you know, let's see what the market will will bear out and see what what it can do. Um, now I think we can't, you know, let that be something that's all by itself. I think we, you know, as a council, uh, and as from a development standpoint have a role to play to kind of help to drive, uh, to drive that that experience that's happening there in the South Loop. And I and I trust that this council and I trust that our staff uh, will really be able to do that over the time. It absolutely, you know, this is a risky uh, you know, endeavor. Um, and what I would say is, you know, while I, you know, I I I don't like this solution, uh, that we've already agreed to in previous meetings, the mayor talked about that, I would be hardpressed to find another solution that that would be able to solve this problem. You know, you showed me another solution that would allow this this flexibility and and and we're going to see in about 10 years uh whether or not uh this takes place. But, you know, I mean, we we can't continue uh to do the same thing that we've been doing uh and expect change. I think that, you know, the the property owners have rights. They're looking for flexibility. This provides that flexibility. Uh I want to go with you, but I I just, you know, I don't see what the other solution is. So, barring another solution that's presented here tonight, I will be supporting this and moving this forward. Uh but I I think we've got to be careful as a council to stop here and shut this thing down without having another solution in mind. Thank you, Mayor. >> Others. Council member Delisandro. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I This is a conflict for me because my heart is with Council Member Nelson's opinion about it. I think um uh I think um you know there's volatility in the market of course but I also think that um it's been clear from a very for a very very long time that the expectation of the South Loop was that it was be developed in urban scenarios and with high de high um degrees of of uh density and walkable environments and the concepts were all really clear from the jump. Um and so um this kind of flies in the face of that. Now, I also believe that um if the applicant were to receive an offer on those nine acres, they would sell the crap out of that for the right price. So, because that's what the market does, right? And so, you know, I I think that there's there's there we're not shutting off the opportunity for development to happen on those other acres, but we are guaranteeing that development will happen on the three acres or whatever that we're that we're we're talking about here. And I don't like that solution, but I I like it better than the potential litigation challenges that we would have um to I mean I'm the one that stood up here and said park a plow truck in front of the thing and don't let anybody park there. So I'm I am with you uh in that regard because that would force the issue, but I don't think it solves it to the point in the time frame that we want to get three acres available to us to to build right now. I just truly hope that we actually see what happens happen here, which is, you know, what I'd like to see is two things. One, that those those acres are taken very quickly that you that we see, you know, the work that's been done with uh with the AC Hotel and the Hazlewood development and all that like become a thing that people start to archetype as the way that you can do things in the South Loop. And that this becomes a place where that happens very quickly. I'll probably say the same exact thing when we talk about the next one. But the but the the the the I the forcing function needs to be at this stage, you know, either, you know, to council member Nelson's point, some kind of litigation or uh some kind of solution. And I don't think there's anybody in the city that truly loves this plan, but I do think um we'll get further than we will in a time frame that we want by doing something. So, I'm going to hold my nose when I vote for this one, but I will probably support it. >> Others, council, >> I think, uh, ultimately I I I certainly understand your arguments, council member Nelson, but I also understand the realities of what we have here in Bloomington. uh we made the same decisions uh with the penant American plan that we had realizing and understanding the realities of what we saw in front of us that what was drawn on paper or what was envisioned or what was dreamt or or believed a while ago just what didn't reflect reality at at this moment. And if we want to wait for that reality to arrive, we are all going to be long gone on this council and it won't be we won't be around anymore. Council member Nelson, >> thank you. Appreciate all the feedback on on it. And I I would just say that um the solution that I have offered is to just let it end and to let the marketplace work on that land just like every other land holder in that area, including the Central Station, including the Mall of America. Council >> member, thanks. Thanks. We understood what you were saying. We're trying to move things along here because we're going to be here till 10:30 anyway. Fair enough. Other thoughts on this council? If not, council, I would look for action regarding uh 4.4. Council member Lman. >> Mayor, I'll move a motion uh to a resolution uh amending the comprehensive plan future land use designation at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East South Loop mixed use to high intensity mixed use. Motion by council member Lman. Second by council member Robertson. Council member Nelson. Question. >> Yeah. Uh no. I'd like to uh make an amendment to the motion in terms of the conditions of it. I'd like to add a condition that um change the taxes on the portion that is off airport parking to be based on income and not based on the building valuation. >> Uh council member Lman I honestly council member Nelson I don't know that that's legal. Council member Lman I mean if it's legal I'd consider it. I just want to make sure that I'm not I mean I'm nervous about making an amendment of that level of proportion. >> I I >> at this minute >> I would be as well, but uh it's your motion. Are do you accept the motion? >> I guess the amendment. >> Well, I would look to the the city attorney because I need to have a and then I would also look into my seconder if you >> um Mr. Walker. Um what I would request um council is that we would if if that is the intent to consider that motion that rather than take something of that gravity on the fly, I would like the city attorney to visit with the city assessor uh and just get you a solid answer uh rather than kind of cook that up here tonight. >> So are you suggesting we just table this or >> post? Um yeah, I'm suggesting you table that um if there's um support among the council to do so. Yes. Yeah. >> So, Council Member Lman, are you amendable to the amendment? >> Uh you know, I I mean I I'm I'm interested in it, but I I'll tell you this. Uh you know, it wasn't presented today. Uh, I guess what I would ask my colleague is, uh, if we were to pass this tonight, would you be open to having that come back and we pass that later on to add on to this? >> Uh, what is the process for changing conditions and what latitude do we have to do that? >> That's a good question, >> Mr. Walker and M. And Mandershide, anybody, >> Mr. Mr. John Mr. Johnson? >> Yeah, I'll look to Mayor Council Member Nelson. I'll look to Mike Centinario to join me. uh to make sure that my head is screwed on straight here uh for this question, but um I don't believe you'd be amending the comprehensive plan amendment action. You'd be the the conditions are subject to the conditional use permit. I believe >> so that would be the only thing we had to hold. >> Uh I believe that's correct. If you want to uh amend the condition or add that condition, >> Mr. Mayor, council members, that's correct. So we did not uh include any recommended conditions for uh the guide plan change or the resoning. Traditionally we would we haven't had any conditions associated with those types of changes. As the name suggests a conditional use permit has conditions. >> So then mayor what I would say based on what I hear there I think that's more appropriate for that to come later on. Uh and then if that's the case then I I think it would make I would I would not feel comfortable making that type of change right here on the deis. I would prefer that that gets done at a later later date or a different time so that we have the opportunity for the applicants uh to be able to uh comment and discuss that. >> So if I could So I' I've heard the the motion rejected the amend amendment to the motion. Is that correct? Okay. >> All right. And it wasn't seconded as Right. Okay. >> Mr. Mayor, we're point of fact or point of clarification here. So, we have four motions in front of us. What we're talking about is potentially modifying the fourth amend the fourth resolution that's here in front of us. Right. So, we could get through the first three and then come back to that and giving Miss Mandershide and others a few minutes to like help us understand how to navigate that. >> Yes. And and if need be. Yes. We Yes. >> And and if we we don't have to pass all four of them tonight. We could we could pass the first three and table the fourth one pending additional discussion and that would not impede anything. I assume >> I'm I'm not sure if there would be a public hearing required or I don't >> members we had the public hearing tonight. My question for Mr. Centinario is when is the agency action deadline for CUP? >> Yeah, thank you mate. the we had to extend to the 120day deadline uh given the meeting dates and the uh applicable deadline is August 13th. All right. So, we've got a motion and a second on our first motion on the screen to adopt a resolution amending the comprehensive plan future land use designation at 37 and 3750 American Boulevard from South Loop mixed use to high density in mixed use. Any questions on that? Any more discussion on that? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> No. >> Motion carries 61 with council member Nelson in opposition. >> Mayor moment. Mayor, I'll move to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map by reszoning 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East in the city of Bloomington from HXRPD highintensity mixed use with residential plan development to CX2 PD mixeduse plan development. Second >> motion by council member Lman, second by council member Robertson to adopt the ordinance amending the zoning map by reszoning 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East as stated. >> No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> No. >> Motion carries 61 with council member Nelson in opposition. >> Council member Lman. Mayor, I'll move to adopt a resolution approving summary of publication of the ordinance reszoning 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East from HXRPD to CX2PD. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Lman, second by council member Robertson for summary publication on item 4.4 this evening. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries 70. Mayor, I'll move to adopt a resolution. Well, maybe you know what? Maybe what I need to do is Yeah. Here, I'll I'll do it this way. I'll move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit uh for an existing remote uh airport parking facility at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East subject uh to the conditions suggested by uh my colleague Council Member Nelson regarding tax uh portion airport uh uh what did you say? Sorry. uh doing property taxes based on income income, >> not on the valuation of the building and structures. >> Okay. Uh code requirements listed in the resolution and what was discussed by um my colleague. See if we get a second on that. >> We have a motion first. Let's see if we get a second. >> Second. >> Second by council member Rivas. Point of clarification, council member Carter and then man. >> Thank you. I guess I'm confused because I thought we were saying we were tableabling it to give staff time to go to the assessor and >> Yeah. So, mayor, if I may. So, what my suggestion would be, we make the motion, we second it, and then we put another motion on top of that to postpone the motion until a date certain. >> Miss Manderstein, can you help us here? >> Uh, mayor, members, I would appreciate the opportunity to research whether we can attach a taxation uh direction to the assessor as a condition of a land use approval. Uh, so I would appreciate the opportunity to do that research. You've had the public hearing tonight. Uh, it's been properly noticed and properly held. Uh the CUP uh uh motion does not need require action tonight. You've got time. You could continue it uh to a date certain and then you would not need to renotice anything. Uh I believe that you could get answers to your questions by uh Janu or June 29th >> or June whatever the >> June 29th. >> Yep. >> Are you okay with me putting the postponement in this motion, this main motion? Uh, mayor members, I appreciate that a motion has been made and seconded. I do not think legally it's necessary to do that tonight. Um, because it is properly before the body and the action you could make is simply to postpone it um to a date certain. >> Okay. Well, then that that's what I'll move then move it to postpone this this last section. >> So, uh, Council Member Lman will resend his last motion. Thank you. >> And make a new motion asking to table this portion this motion of item 4.4. uh till our June 29th meeting >> allowing allowing staff to do some research and figure out where we might be going on this and uh second by council member or by second by council member Nelson you're good with that >> all right >> council any questions on this >> so just to clarify yes the original motion is rescended and now the motion is to table >> correct and I just want to my other question too is I want to make sure that we're going to talk with the applicants about this so that we have a good fair understanding of this. >> Well, I I'll make the comment. I I will not support this. I I think we we've we have an agreement in place. Uh this is exactly what I was saying when I said I didn't want to relitigate this evening because we've made this decision as a council and to to try and throw uh conditions on this at this time I think is is not fair to the applicant and I think it kind of disrespects the the process that both staff and the applicant and this council have gone through over the past two years. So we got a motion and a second to table this uh part of the condition the approval of the conditional use permit. Any further comments on this? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> No. >> So, uh, it is tabled on a 4-3 vote with, uh, council member Dellesandro, council member Rivas, and the mayor voting in opposition to tableabling this. All right. Very good. Before we take up item 4.5, council, I'm going to look for a motion to I'm going to make a motion to extend our deadline to no sooner than 10:15 uh by the time we get out of here uh to make sure that we get our work done. Always >> second. >> Motion and a second by council member Lman to extend our adjournment deadline to 10:15, no later than 10:15. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Let's move on to item 4.5. This is the second half of the double header. This is uh a public hearing regarding Park and Go regarding resoning and CUP7901 International Drive. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, a lot of the same issues obviously apply to Park and Go, and so I will uh try to be briefer or more brief. Uh the same entitlements are being sought uh future land use designation from South Loop mixed use to high-intensity mixed use. The base zoning district change is the same HXR to CX2. And you're being asked to consider a conditional use permit for remote airport parking at 791 International Drive. And so park and go uh we're at 791 International Drive. So 34th in American Boulevard uh just a slightly larger uh property uh fewer stalls overall uh because park and go is 100% surface parking. Uh similarly uh there is an existing intermuse permit and that intermuse permit expires August 8th of next year. And you know, we went through the background before of allowing remote airport parking as a conditional use in HXR, I'm sorry, in CX2, removing it as an intermuse in HXR with those stipulations on a minimum lot area, minimum floor area, and allowing uh the continuation of surface parking as well as integration uh within uh development. The same uh land use designation change would occur south of mixed use to highintensity mixed use. The corresponding zoning districts uh that are intended for those land designations uh going from HXR to CX2 uh would be accomplished on the site. One minor thing to note is that this site is not uh does not have the plan development overlay. And so in the future, if there's a development proposal that necessitates development flexibility, uh you would anticipate a re uh reszoning to apply the plan development overlay to the site because it does not uh it is does not exist on this property. And so going through that zoning exercise again, uh the applicant put together some sketches on what 2.75 acres uh would look like at the park and go property. Uh and that's what this and that's what this uh essentially what this box is. Uh where you have uh the minimum uh lot area. Uh there was a variety of concepts that the applicant has has prepared uh over the years frankly and some of that was included in the packet uh that shows a variety of different developments development phases over the entirety of the park and go property. Uh but this sketch here just says that zoning exercise shows 2.75 acres with some landscape uh buffer. This is a conceptual development that you may have may recall from past conversations. And again, this is conceptual. Uh we're not asking to take action uh on on this drawing. Um but this is how the applicant uh presented a really an entire uh complete redevelopment of the park and go property uh with a variety of different phase developments, whether that's residential uh mixeduse, office, uh hotel. Um uh this is just one way that uh this site could redevelop in the future. Similar to the last application that you saw, the site is landscaped and the park and go property has more landscaping today uh than the park and fly property. Uh but nonetheless, it still is well short of code compliance if we're when we consider it as permanent development. So again, if you see this plan, you see a tremendous amount of landscaping along the perimeter uh because uh we exempted landscape parking landscape parking islands uh because that that creates an obstruction uh in the in the parking field. And so uh similar to the last application uh as part of a as a recommended condition of approval, uh this landscaping would have to be installed uh within the next year. And so the same very similar motions are before you tonight for the land use designation change, the resoning uh summary publication and then the conditional use permit. >> Thank you, Mr. Centinario. Any questions of Mr. Centinario on this? I know uh I know we've got the applicant here as well. I'm trying to see around you, Mike. Good evening. Welcome, >> mayor, council members. Dan Williamson, park and go. Mr. Lman, I'm going to go right to your question before you ask it. That is one. What would happen in 10 years? Well, I can tell you what, there's $1.5 million worth of reasons why it won't sit empty after 10 years. That's the simple one. The second one is, of course, the one we all love is property taxes. We continue to pay property taxes. the um opportunity to have more, let's just say, opportunities on the property. You can see our plan. Our plan shows multiple uses on the property under the old system, which is what you're looking to change here. You just simply can't do all that. And of course, if the parking's not there, there's no way to finance the project going forward. This is just simple math. So giving us the abilities that you've put in this plan a the multiple options to the being able to build the parking into the development which is the first development phase that we had on the paper which by the way we had the numbers and everything ready to go. Had interest rates not gone the way they had we would have actually started our project already which is kind of interesting. Um, so like I said, hopefully that answered your question that it won't sit empty because that is the market and uh we make money by doing things on our property. We currently park cars. We would need to replace that revenue with something in uh 10 years. So I'm here to answer any questions. Council, any questions? >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any more comments or questions of staff council? >> If not, I will open the public hearing item 4.5. This is a public hearing regarding park and go regarding resoning and conditional use permit at 7901 International Drive. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak at item 4.5 this evening? >> Mr. Griffith. >> Good evening, council. Um, I didn't expect to speak on this uh application. Um, I'm I'm very very disappointed in what just took place up here. I I know that um Mr. Nelson's had legitimate concerns. >> Mr. Griffith, if I could ask you, we we're on 4.5 now. I understand I understand the motion of this, but we're on item 4.5. And if you could speak directly to this one, I >> Sure. >> Thank you. Um I think the uh application that's before you for park and go very much like the application for park and fly was done in good faith based upon your action of March. You've changed that direction with the discussion this evening and I think it's it's bad faith and and I wish the council would have finished this up as uh we all expected this evening. Um, I can tell you as a land use attorney that conditions that you impose on this applicant or the applicant uh before you have to be rel related to land use and zoning principles, not taxation. And and you know, we're all going to find in a couple weeks that that's the answer. >> Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Anyone else wishing to speak? Miss Ray, do we have anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. Council, no one coming forward, no one on the phone wishing to speak. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing at item 4.5. >> So moved. >> Motion by council member Lman, second by council member Dallasro to close the public hearing on item 4.5. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries 6 with council member Rivos having stepped away for a moment here. >> Council questions, comments on on this one. Council member Nelson. Mayor, I'll be super quick because it's fairly repetitive from the last one. So, my comments still stand on this one. Um, but I would like to thank this applicant for showing a plan to develop the entire property and not just doing the minimum required. Other comments, council? If not, council, we've got uh a number of motions attached to item 4.5. Council member Dallas. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, first one up is to adopt a resolution amending the comprehensive plan future use land designation at 7901 International Drive from South Loop mixed use to highintensity mixed use. >> Motion by council member Dallaso, second by council member Robertson. Thank you. To adopt the resolution amending the comprehensive plan future land use designation at 7901 International Drive from South Loop mixed use to highdensity mixed use. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. >> Motion carries 51. Council member Nelson in opposition. Council member Brievas having stepped away. >> Council member Dalisandro. >> I'll move to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map by reszoning land located at 7901 International Drive in the city of Bloomington from HX-R highintensity mixeduse with residential to CX2 mixed use. Motion by council member Dalisandro. Second by council member Robertson to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map and reszoning land located at 7901 international drive as stated. >> No further council discussion on this. All those in favor please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> I voted wrong. >> Motion carries 51 with council member Nelson in opposition. Council member Revas having stepped away. Council member Dalisandro. I'll move to adopt a resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance reszoning 7901 international drive from HXR to CX2. >> Council member uh Dellesandro with the motion. Second by council member Robertson for summary publication on item 4.5. >> No other council discussion on this. All those in favor please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion carries 6. Uh with council member Rebos having stepped away. Council member Dallasro. Well, I'm in opposition to this one. Uh, as if we're going to amend it like we did the last one. So, I don't know that I would make that motion only to vote against it. >> You're >> Can I I mean, I'm happy to do it, but I just didn't want to be sure. I usually the person that makes the motion doesn't turn around and vote against it, but >> it's happened before. >> Okay. Um, then I'll do that. Is Is that what we're Is that what we're looking to do? >> Well, I I I think I I would say in the interest of fairness, if we're we're looking at it for item 4.4, four, we got to look at it for 4.5, I believe. And I don't think we're going to get a different answer, but I do think uh I think just to be >> okay, >> to be fair to the applicants, I think that would make the most sense. >> Okay. So, I'm going to move to postpone the uh the hearing or the uh adoption of the resolution approving a conditional use permit to uh June 29th. That's my proposal, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion by council member Dalisandro. Second by council member Robertson to postpone or to table uh the final motion in this uh this series for item 4.5 the resolution approving the conditional use permit until the council meeting on June June 29th. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor please signify by saying I >> opposed. No. >> Once again 43 with council members Dalisandro Reebas and the mayor in opposition. All right. Thank you, Mr. Centinario. >> Thank you. >> We appreciate it. And um thanks to our applicants for for coming forward and uh having that conversation. We're going to move on to item five, our organizational business. Item 5.1 is a an update on our park system master plan five-year update. Miss Renee Clark is with us on this one. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Um, tonight I'm here to introduce the five-year park system master plan update. I'll present a process and take any early feedback on direction as we get started. Tonight, I'll review the 2021 park system master plan and process. We'll talk about why we are proposing this system update. Explain how we'll evaluate the system and the approach to the work and review schedule and next steps with you and the community. As we wait for advancing the slides, I can just keep talking. I think you have the presentation. The purpose of the update is to expand on the details for implementation and evaluate service levels for major park amenities, including playgrounds, courts, athletic fields, and to prioritize capital investment, aligning priorities and funding with community needs. The park system master plan, as we've talked about, is guiding for future investments. It's not uh planned for individual parks. As we start the update, I want to just remind us about the community engagement that we did in the park system master plan. Um a statistically valid survey, a recreational program analysis that set the cost recovery model that we're using today. It guides our core programming. We did a demographics and trends analysis to study service levels and site new park amenities. And with this update, we are going deeper into that service level um to identify how to prioritize those specific park amenities I talked about and we'll >> next try it now. See if it works. >> That was >> There we go. I continue to highlight with uh pro park improvement projects these top pri priority park elements identified by the community and council that guide our work. The action plan includes these priorities and nine total that establish a highle implementation framework. This gives us an opportunity to evaluate pro progress and determine what comes next. So under each of these nine priorities, there's a checklist of items that we bring to you periodically over the last five years of things that we've accomplished. This is a really exciting slide, and I want to recognize Allison Warren, our strategy and budget manager, for putting our park system master plan into Invisio and creating this progress dashboard for us. It is online. These are screenshots of what that look like. Looks like the nine priorities with the checklist items are that 74% progress of items 5 years ago we set out to do to advance um improvements in our park system. So these include park improvement projects with new amenities added a facilities condition assessment that we completed, equity prioritization framework that's integrated into our planning, a better understanding of asset conditions and replacement needs that's done through our operations and maintenance plan, the strategic partnerships with Three Rivers Park District we identified early on, and significant progress in natural resources as promised with the master plan. We've got um community partners in Great River Greening, Bloomington Neighbors, Nurture Nature on a new adopt a park program all being tracked in this process. And then um just a reminder, the opportunity to do the NM Creek Corridor renewal project came through our recognition, council's recognition of natural resources as a community priority. Um and you know, I'll just note this effort is one of the most significant of its kind in the metro area. what we've learned and why we're updating the plan after 5 years of implementation. We've got a better understanding of facility conditions, replacement needs, recreation trends, and future costs. The update will help us continue making thoughtful investments that provide the greatest community benefit. We will work to align priorities, CIP, and funding with this update. Um, park master plans are a 10-year vision that we, you know, check in with the community and council to create a roadmap, as you will. This 5-year update is just aligning what we're doing in a little greater detail with these priorities around um system needs um with council and public input. The framework evaluation will look at replacement needs using recently completed condition ratings. The high will highlight the equity lens of the evaluation framework that is going to be that's applied at a neighborhood scale as well as a citywide scale. The operationalized equity prioritization tool we talked about in the master plan um uses neighborhood characteristics, population characteristics, and park condition that create a prioritization ranking. This is how we chose Smith Park as our first big playground reinvestment with that um ninja style warrior course um with community input. It's also how we're prioritizing natural resources restoration at that same part with park with a Henipin County grant. Brian Park was chosen um using the same tool, the highest ranked community park using this tool and also the synergy to provide natural resources, trail loops and parks and new park amenities. Besides this tool, we've got a geographical lens that uses council districts to look across the city to create equity as well. Um, gender equity has driven recent investments with the Dread Scott and Kelly playfields that improve softball for varsity and Kennedy girls as well as our youth associations. We'll use the youth sports study recreation trends and community demand as well as stakeholder and community engagement to guide this update and council. You will all be engaged in July for individual conversations on that youth sports study. I've got a playground analysis here to demonstrate the data-driven approach we are taking. The current system has 42 city playgrounds. Our maintenance team has used a variety of metrics and created a weighted um framework to evaluate um needs for replacement. looking using this framework, 14 playgrounds, a third of our system require or up for replacement and five of those no longer have replacement parts for maintenance. So this is to illustrate there's a backlog of some work. To further demonstrate this data driven driven approach, the overlapping circles here show redundant access to playgrounds. We'll use detailed data like this and about playground conditions, service levels in the operations and maintenance plan, the equity tool in the park master plan to look at options for how we approach playground replacement. In this case, early observations um different facilities may serve different community functions and may require different investment strategies. This example shows how we may evaluate different service levels for playgrounds. Some facilities function as community destinations while others serve more of a neighborhood need. Looking at facilities this way will help us focus investments where they can provide the greatest value and community benefit. Um this slide again is illustrating a potential service level approach for playgrounds. I just want to note this is an example and that no decisions are made. The update will identify how to maintain access and provide equity amenities, where future investments should occur, and how those investments can be supported through a sustainable funding strategy aligning CIP and funding. We'll review service levels of the key amenities I mentioned, playgrounds, courts, and athletic fields, and link that to the youth sports study. Just note, this year's CIP will be in a step of this direction, um, aligning our priorities and plans. Next year's CIP will be more of a reflection of the work we're we're doing under this update. um ongoing. We'll continue to evaluate priorities with city council as part of the CIP process each year. A bit about the process and next steps where we're going this summer. We're doing the analysis phase of the work. kind of looking more deeper at the playground example I showed you across the system, followed up by community engagement and preliminary recommendations coming back this fall to a council study session. And we anticipate recommendations for next steps Q1 of next year. So again, the purpose is just to introduce this update and take any initial feedback and direction as we get started. Apologies. Thank you so very much. Council questions. Questions. Council member D. >> I I a question and a comment if if if it's okay, Mr. Mayor, because I think you're looking for feedback, right? Generally. So, first question I have. Well, >> um can you go back to the slide with the circles on the map? Sure. >> Okay. So, the first thing I want to highlight is we continue to hear from residents and I think it's obvious in this map that we do not have coverage for parks and recreation in the same way in the South Loop as we need everywhere else. So, my first comment would be I don't know that we thought or didn't think about that in the parks master plan. I'm trying to remember back to 2021 when we were talking about it, but I know we received feedback, a a decent amount of feedback over the course of the last couple years, especially from young people saying, "Hey, I'd really like to have a place to to play in the South Loop." And um you know, while we have Bloomington Central Station, that's not really a playground. That's not really a park. And so, uh some concerted effort to try to find some natural space and green space there or some play space would be, I think, great. The other thing I I'm curious about is um and I guess maybe a question. You kind of mentioned how you might look at these things where we do have significant overlap um is is the utilization of the park a consideration for not necessarily I mean obviously not getting rid of a park per se but to transform the park use. Is that kind of the idea? and how are you going to go about getting utilization information as part of the study that you're doing to see what you should do differently with that park for example? >> Mayor Council, thank you for that question. We will um I gave you a high level of how we're approaching the work. Um it'll also include looking at park usage, who's using the park using tools like Placer AI. We'll use real um census data to see who lives near the parks. Some deeper analysis on not just coverage, but what people have access to. There's several layers to the equity lens that we talk about in the park system master plan. And it's deeper than just do you have access to a playground, but what is that kind of access and quality of the amenity? We know natural area access, natural access to nature in across the city isn't equal and we try to address that through smaller experiences and connection to nature through some of these sites as well. So, um this lens simply looking at overlapping access will um go deeper than than just what's there. Is it a playground? But we want to prioritize a community park in that service area which is larger than a smaller play lot which is a playground with that single park amenity. Perhaps people living there might prefer some other type of experience. It could be a single play feature that is more exciting than a really aged playground. Or it could be um we study a park and realize the and we've done this where a lot of the access is occurring over the lunch hour and a lot of the people are coming there from places where you would buy food. >> So maybe we provide um access to something that suits you know a place to gather and eat your lunch. So understanding the use, the people that live near the park, and the demographics of the people will be factored into our evaluation and the recommendations we bring. >> Okay. And and you you said Q1 of 2027 is when we'll likely come have you come back and kind of pull together that data and make recommendations for modifications. >> Mayor, Council Member Dalisandro, earlier than that. Later this year, we'll be back with a study session with our findings um and some discussion to have about what next steps look like. >> Okay. And the goal would be then to modify the CIP or whatever to try to start to infuse the development or the investment strategy. >> Correct. So this year we've um got an eye towards we we know what our budget how we're budgeting and funding assumptions. will have an eye towards um needs and next year CIP will be you know more directly affected by this study. Okay. The last comment I'll make Mr. mayors just you know I know one of the one of the things I think is reasonable of of some of the commentary we've had around the shared disagreement with Darl Farooq around the playground area is that it it is the loss of green space to a public and in the east side of Bloomington where we already know that there are gaps in that availability it would be smart for us to be thinking specifically about um how to make sure we um uh make make amends for that not in a bad way, but to say like, hey, you know, um this is no longer available. What is now available for the people in and around that area that we could continue, especially since we already knew that there were some islands of of of uh missing um availability for in that neighborhood. Anyhow, so thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Uh and building on that, this this graphic is impressive showing the coverage and I just want to make sure I mean we're talking playgrounds, play lots here, correct? Uh does it include like treb is that considered a playground? It is or >> mayor councel the map before you is showing the halfmile radius around playgrounds specifically. >> So other public spaces, other open spaces that that's not included here. This is specifically playgrounds. Doesn't include Trebar or the Bloomington Ice Garden or the community health and wellness center. all those public public uh >> structures, public facilities that fall under the opaces of >> of parks, arts and recreation. So, >> correct. >> Interesting. Okay. >> Council member Nelson. >> Thank you, Mayor. I had one quick question about this. Uh following up on the mayor's question about being playgrounds, um is there any way to differentiate between city-owned and um schoolowned because there are significant restrictions on the hours and availability of schoolowned playgrounds, i.e. anytime schools in session or their before or after or summer programs. Mayor, Council Member Nelson, I can't clarify if this map includes school playgrounds or not, but yes, there is a way. And we have um for example, the 42 playgrounds I talked about are city-owned playgrounds. We have them identified as both. And I think how we consider coverage and access later on will come to bear in the discussion. >> Great. Thank you. Um and then just expanding beyond playgrounds a little bit. Um just a general comment just for feedback is there seems to be a perception um that that has come about because uh if something isn't maintained then it falls into a state of disrepair such that it needs to be replaced and because that maybe moves to a different fund a capital versus a maintenance fund. it takes longer and so there's a um it takes longer to fix the worst condition thing. So it seems like you're trying to fix that. Um because I know I run into this in a couple of the neighborhood parks around me that I think one of them was supposed to be resurfaced and this was like tennis basketball courts resurfaced about five or six years ago and now um it needs to be replaced and so it's delayed. Um, and the reason it wasn't fixed at that point was COVID and obviously we made decisions and and had to revamp things. So, is that accurate or is this new plan really going to focus on the worst gets fixed first sort of thing? Um, and are there any unintended consequences like some of the ones that could have an overlay uh and have their life extended uh might miss out on that? Sorry for the lengthy question. Mayor, Council Member Nelson, the prioritization framework will certainly factor in condition. It will factor in other things such as equity, the maintenance versus replacement, our maintenance budget funds, the resurfacing. Once playground or courts fall into the replacement schedule, then that's a capital improvement that isn't funded. Thank you for just being concise about that and and it's uh sort of a not not on your side an unsatisfactory answer that because it got worse now it's going to take longer to get fixed. >> Council member Lman. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um so when uh you know we look at access one one question I kind of have when I look at this this whole piece here is you know we have these different kind of circular things is there any uh conceptual idea in terms of safety you know for from a younger kid trying to get from one playground to another playground and we think about access so that's one of the things I'm kind of thinking about and we we think about this equity and geographic distribution is really uh you know, how can a kid or how can a family get to these individual, you know, is there a you know, like 86th Street? Now, I think about when I grew up on like 84th, you know, EA was my my spot to kind of go to, but even you know, even 84th is not really all that safe depending on what your age is to cross over that. So, that's one of the things I kind of think about in terms of an experience. Um, so why we may have a lot of these circles here, uh, especially on the east side, there's a lot more, uh, uh, there's a lot more there's larger roads that just make it more difficult to kind of get across. And so, you know, kids kind of locked into kind of where they're at. I mean, I know our our major place was playing right on the road, which is probably probably worse. But uh uh so uh that's kind of one thing when I look at the whole access piece of this and and as we look throughout the entire plan, how do we create, you know, access for for different types of people um across our community to be able to, you know, uh those folks who don't have mobility, those who are in wheelchairs, those who, you know, what types of experiences are we creating for those? And we talk about trying to be a welcoming community. I I think it's interesting, you know, we're we're kind of in Junth and uh a week uh mayor and uh we have 42, you know, parks, you know, kind of, you know, Jackie Robinson. I'm a big baseball fan, so I I couldn't I couldn't miss that 42. So, I just kind of just saw that 42. Oh, that's interesting. Uh uh that it's out there. Um uh the last thing that I kind of have here, there's lots of questions I have, but I certainly can send them off to you. But uh for some reason I just had this imagination that the last time we went through doing doing these parks that we did it all as one big unit and paid for it. It felt like it was just you know felt like it was just like last year but maybe I've been on long enough to where am I am I misremembering this or or >> mayor council member Lman the park system master plan is a highlevel >> guiding document not a plan for individual parks. One of the recommendations that we implemented from the plan was nine park concept plans >> where the um building replacements would go. Bryant Park was one of those that we took to completion. The this study will go into greater detail on how to prioritize playgrounds, courts, and athletic fields, which is kind of a next level of detail that we didn't do and wouldn't typically be included in a 10-year plan. >> Well, well, I'll say if I can make a comment. I really like the idea. I don't know what we did a number of years back, but you know, we kind of put those things together and and paid for those those those playgrounds all and I don't want to do it all at one time. Of course, I'd like to pay for it all at one time and maybe implement it five years, you know, five years later, five year, but pay for it all at one time so that we get that savings, uh, you know, from inflation. Uh, and it kind of helps us over time to kind of roll that out because I love that we did that. How much money we saved. I remember doing that and I'd love to see us do something like that with with the playground equipment and maybe some of the other items. I don't know we can do everything like that, you know, but uh I think it'd be interesting to kind of implement that kind of thinking uh in into this plan. So that's all. Thanks, Mayor. >> Thank you. I think that was more than a decade ago, council member. >> Yeah, that was more than a decade ago. >> Yesterday. >> Yeah. >> Other questions? All right, no action is required here uh other than to say thank you and thank all of the park staff for the great work that you folks are doing and thanks for your forward thinking and forward looking on all of this because we know how Bloomonians love their parks. So, thank you for your work you put into it. Thanks. >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councel. >> Council member Carter. >> Um thank you, mayor. So, um I hate to do this because I know we have two more items and we're running out of time, but um I have been sitting here thinking about the park and fly and the park and go conversation. Um and I think like kind of like in the heat of the moment, I didn't really feel like I had enough time to really think about the decision being made. And so, um, as I've sat here and I have been thinking about it, I have decided to, um, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider the postponement, um, to June 29, 2026 of the conditional use permits for items 4.3 and 4.4. >> So, we've got a motion in a second to reconsider the the postponements on the uh, conditional use permits for items 4.4 and 4.5. I think I think you said 4.3 and 4.4, but 4.4 and 4.5 just so we're clear on that. >> I wrote very messy on my >> and uh and and just for clarification, because you did vote in favor of in favor of this, you can bring that back for a reconsideration. So, everybody's clear on that? >> Mayor, who was a second on that? >> Council member Robertson. >> Thank you. >> So, we have before us a uh a motion to reconsider. Do we have to do them individually or can we do them together? Mayor, members, uh I think uh so long as everybody understands, you could do the motion to reconsider both of those items since it's exactly same action other than the properties. Uh but then when you go to make uh if it passes and you go to actually revote, you should do each of those separately. >> Copy that. Okay. So, we have a motion to reconsider the actions taken regarding conditional use permits on item 4.4 and 4.5. Any questions on that, council? Oh, we have >> council member loan a question or >> are we gonna have discussion or no? >> I'm that's what I'm Yeah. questions, comments. >> Yeah. So, I'll just make a comment. Uh yeah. No, I think uh you know I I I'm of this of this thought too. However, you know, one of our you know, one of our colleagues did did did raise the point, you know, can we consider the small little uh addition to these conditional uses? And I think it's worth considering the merit of it. You know, I I'm not in favor of that, but uh I'm willing to consider the merits of it, and I think it's I think it's worth considering the merits of it, especially since I think past councils have had serious concerns about this. Uh and I think he's representing, you know, Council Member Nelson is representing that point of view and that perspective. Uh and I think it's worth considering it, you know. Um but uh you know certainly I didn't think I would be you know when we get to that point be be supporting it but you know I'm worth listening to it and considering the idea. I understand that that uh certainly uh that we didn't want to have that that friction kind of coming into this. But I do think it's it's it's worth considering uh what what council member Nelson's bringing forward uh you know in in in 10 years maybe something may not you know have fruition. So, I think it's worth considering. Uh, I'm not I'm not going to hang my hat on this and die on this hill, but uh, you know, I I I think that since we've said we might do that, I think we really ought to consider it. So, >> thank you, Council Member. Council member Reos question. >> I just have a question. Um, are we reconsidering the addition to or just the the tax addition to it or just reconsidering the vote on on uh moving it over to the next meeting? >> The the reconsideration is for for to table it until next meeting which by through my understanding is then we would ask we would have asked staff to to investigate and come back with an answer regarding the the tax. Yes, the tax. it it where we're doing this if we vote again we will be voting to not postpone it or to eliminate the tax >> we would move it uh I'm I'm assuming that it would be to approve what is in in front of us and was in front of us too so to approve the conditional use permit as stated by in the staff report >> that's tough okay thank you >> mayor members uh as a point of clarification there are this is a two-step process and so we're on the reconsideration point if the reconsideration motion passes then we're back to as if the vote never happened. Uh and then um I would add that if the cup does ultimately pass by a majority vote, which is what's required, then the the land use classification of the property will change its nature and the assessor has inherent obligations on how they statutoily classify and review property. And so we can certainly give you more information, but I I suspect based on what I know about the assessing office that that reanalysis will be triggered as a result of a change in the status of the property. >> Thank you for the clarification, Miss Mander. So we have a motion to reconsider and we had a second. Any further questions on this council? And this is simply to reconsider the conditional use permits on item 4.4 and 4.5. No further qu uh council member Nelson. >> So wouldn't technically we be reconsidering the motion to postpone? >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then we'd vote on the motion to propose postpone again and then if that doesn't pass then we'd make another motion. Uh I no >> I think once it has been reconsidered then I think we it's open for a motion and uh whether it's a motion to adopt the resolution as stated here or the motion to adopt uh to to uh postpone again. I mean okay any further council discussion on this on the motion and the second to reconsider the conditional use permit actions on item 4.4 and 4.5. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> No. >> Motion carries 52 with council members Nelson and Lman in opposition. >> So, mayor, now I could move. Okay. >> And we have to move these individually now. >> Okay. So, I would move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for an existing remote airport parking facility at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. Second >> motion uh by council member Carter, second by council member Lman to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for an existing remote airport parking facility at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. Any further council discussion on this hearing? None. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> No. Motion carries 61 with council member Lman or council member uh Nelson in opposition. >> Uh then I would uh make a motion to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for an existing remote airport parking facility at 7901 International Drive subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. Second. >> Second >> motion by council member Carter, second by council member uh Lman to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for an existing remote parking airport parking facility at 7901 International Drive subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries 61 with council member Nelson in opposition. Uh thank you council for reconsidering. thanks for uh uh your thoughtfulness on this and and again thank you council member Nelson for bringing up uh obviously pertinent and and applicable issues but uh thank you moving on to uh item 5.2 in our agenda. This is regarding a proposal for the Adora Apartments development. Kevin Kise from our port authority is here. Good evening Mr. Kise. Thanks for sticking with us this is late. >> Yes, good evening mayor and city council. So, I am here with a affordable housing development proposal called the Adora Apartments on city-owned property. Uh, this property is at the corner of American and 13th Avenue South. And city staff received a development proposal from the developer Johnny Opara and his company J Companies to develop a low-inccome housing tax credit project at this development site. In order to apply for the tax credits, the city needs to take certain actions by July 9th as that's the deadline for that application. So staff is here to ask for authorization to work with the developer exclusively on this site in order to allow us to do that. And Mr. Opara and his architect Kas Wilson, which is also the neighbor of the property, have been working with staff through multiple iterations of the development project to align it with zoning requirements. Uh it's um at the point where it would require resoning, but it's um they've made substantial changes to it to align it with those requirements. And uh the properties themselves, so they are 7920, 7930, and 7940 13th Avenue South. So they are approximately threequarters of an acre currently guided for uh office although they are close to highdensity residential and the city originally acquired these properties in the mid90s uh as a right of the state right of way acquisition fund and staff is recommending that that fund be repaid in amount of $285,570 for those properties. Additionally, staff uh did have an appraisal ordered um a couple years back or maybe a little bit longer than that in late November 2022 that appraised that pro those properties at $695,000. We did ask our city assessor to provide a little bit of an update uh and that range is closer to about $800,000. Now, although that that would need to be confirmed via a separate independent appraisal uh to get an updated price. The development itself, as I mentioned, is by Jo Companies. It is a tax credit project. So, tax credits are very competitive, and in particular, this is a 9% tax credit project. Uh, it's 52 units with a mix of 30%, 50% and 60% AMI units. And staff is supportive in recommending this project because of those deeply affordable units. The developer was also a finalist during the RFP process for 700 American and it aligns with the density along the American Boulevard transit corridor with a Dline bus rapid transit that's located there and without uh tax credits it would be challenging for the city to have these deeply affordable units. So we are being responsive to a development proposal trying to seek those funds. I'll also note that the architect, the general contractor, and the property manager are Bloomington based companies. In order to sell the property or the land disposition, city code does require five affirmative votes of the city council if a sealed bid process was not conducted. So, in this case, we're asking for approval to do exclusive negotiations with the developer. And if you're supportive, we will take those next steps. The proposed sales price would be a write down to $1. So writing down the value of that land and then the HRA would be asked to approve in a future meeting funding for the repayment of that rightaway fund. So if council is supportive of the action tonight, then we would go to the HR on the 23rd for that action. I wanted to note that staff does repeatedly uh share development opportunity sites with developers during conversations, including this one. There was a proposed development in 2022 that was for a lower density use and staff did not advance that project as a result of that low density. The project is requesting two forms of financial assistance. One is tax increment financing. So that would be an estimated $365,000 and that's at its net present value today or 900,000 approximate gross over the period of that housing tip district. Separately, as I mentioned, uh there is a request for 285,000 approximately that would go to the HRA and that would likely be from local affordable housing aid funds. Uh I want to notate on the slide there is one little section that has an asterisk. So there was an update to provide a little bit more clarity after this was published and we'll make sure to make that update in the published documents as well. So the proposed timeline here, the developer has been engaged with staff on their development proposal and made some updates and gone through a staff development review committee. We are in this meeting today asking for direction if council would like to direct staff to pursue this development opportunity and if that is the outcome then would go to the HR for that funding request and then we would come back to city council later this month for a resolution to support tax increment financial assistance as well as authorizing a letter of intent to obligate the property to the developer if they obtain the tax credit financing. The developer would then apply for those tax credits in July and then uh the outcome of that decision would likely happen towards the end of this year or possibly late or late this year or early next year. And then um as a condition of that approval, the city would then uh have public hearings for the land sale approval, TIFF plan approval and development entitlement public hearing. So that was the addition to this uh presentation. And so those would all be separate public hearing steps that would take place. And then if everything goes as planned, the project would con start construction in the fall of 2027 with a 2028 completion. So why are we asking for this now? Tax credits are extremely competitive, especially these 9% tax credits. And this application process is really a once a year thing. So either you get it in now or you kind of you miss the boat so to speak. And um so we're trying to be responsive to the opportunity that exists today. I'm going to give the developer an opportunity to speak here in just a little bit. But just at a high level um Johnny Opara is the developer who we've been working with. Uh he's doing a similar project in Richfields on Penn and I think 64th. Uh it's also a tax credit project of a similar scale. And as I mentioned, his architect, his general contractor, and the property management company are all Bloomington based companies. Additionally, the developer is doing comm community engagement meetings uh this week and then next week. And as part of that process has started to do door knocking with residents. Um and some of the residents did provide feedback to staff that they have some concerns about this project. In particular, it is livability concerns that are related to traffic and parking. So, what is staff asking for council approval tonight? It is direction on if you're authorizing exclusive negotiations with the developer. If you are supportive of us taking the next steps to prepare a TIFF plan in the future, we don't need to do that as part of the approval process for the application, but in the future, we would. um if you're supportive of our ask of the HRA to repay the rightaway fund. Those are really the questions we're asking for you to tonight. Tonight um is really about setting direction for staff on if we want to be responsive to this opportunity and then we would have additional approval processes that would happen according to that timeline that I outlined. Um, I want to notate we did make a small update to the motion from the packet to provide more clarity and that's before you. Uh, and I'll give the developer an opportunity here to speak as well, but wanted to be responsive to any questions you may have. >> Any questions of Mr. Kenise? Council member Lman. Um if you could just talk a little bit about um uh times before we've done this where we just we don't have that competitive bidding process and if there's a staff criteria around that just so the public understands that. >> Uh mayor council member Lman. So uh the city code currently requires that a public bid process happens. So that would effectively be an RFP process. Uh we've heard um from the development community as well as from council that we want to be responsive to development opportunities that exist. And so we are bringing this project forward to be responsive to that. Understanding that development is all about timing and opportunities that exist. And this is a potential opportunity to secure financing for the project that without that probably would not result in these affordable units. >> Council member Dallasro. Um, I'm just I'm trying to do the math here, but it it's not just the it's not just the tax credits. You if do I have it right? You we're and you're not just asking us to do tiff, you're also asking us to give away a property worth about $600,000 to them for a dollar. >> Uh, mayor, council member Dellesandro, that is accurate. So the request before you is for uh financial assistance from the tax increment financing as well as that write down. And so the 285,000 that's that's approximate value that's to repay that state rightway fund. The estimated value of the property is 800,000. So there would be an additional right down on top of that 285. So you are correct. >> Yeah. So so I I don't know. I I guess I'm trying to understand why we would I mean I I don't I don't usually have a problem with TIFF. I understand the way TIFF works and to me that's that's just like you know buying into money that's coming back to us. This is not money that's going to come back to us. So, so we are ask we are and it is I mean I don't know what else could go there but considering it's currently available it also you know it it's a lot more I mean you're asking the the HA you're taking LAA fund so then in other words there's a million dollars here like or or $900,000 there's a $600,000 in in in in value in the property that we want to give to them and in addition to that We want to go to the HR and say, "Hey, take $285,000 out of LA and give that to them, too." And I I don't know, like that feels like heavy. That feels like a lot of money. And I for a project that is also going to need TIFF and also going to need a 9% tax credit from the state, I guess. I don't know how tax credits work. So, I I don't know. I I need a little help feeling good about this one. So, anything you can offer me? But that's a lot of money. And it's not something it's not it's not typical of ones we've I don't know that I've seen one like this in a year or two. >> No, we didn't do that. We didn't give away the land for $600,000. We did not do that. >> Council, any other Thank you, Council Member Dando. >> Thank I'm I'm I'm Yes, I'm I'm looking at Mr. Opara here shortly. Uh I want to make sure that we don't have any other questions for Mr. Kenise. Why don't we bring Mr. or power up. >> Oh, okay. >> Good evening, Mr. Par. >> Good evening. It's been a while. >> It has been council members, mayor. Um, well, thank you for the opportunity. My compliments to Kevin and to Cam and to uh city staff. We are just excited about this project. Uh, as uh Kevin mentioned, we were a finalist uh 7 700 American Boulevard uh a few years ago. We came in second, but um you know, I've always had uh aspirations about partnering with the city of Bloomington. Um I worked at the Mall of America almost 25 years ago. Um busting from the mall to Auxburg University. So, uh Bloomington has a special place in my heart. But, uh we started this journey back in 2018 as far as jail companies. Uh we are a uh real estate development company based in St. Paul and our emphasis our focus is to deliver highquality affordable housing workforce. At the end of the day our job is to help change that narrative in terms of what it feels like uh to coun to council member Lman's u comment earlier the experiences of our residents right uh we have assets that we delivered in St. Paul, um the Hollows, um assets in Brooklyn Center, Wangster Commons, and of course, uh we're under construction right now with the city of Richfield called Penn Station on 65th and Penn. So, we've delivered 158 units uh so far, uh since 2021. Uh we have worked with US Bank uh nonprofit uh lenders here in the community, but most importantly, we've listened to the community, and I believe the ADORA is doing just that. I think that the ADORA uh is doing um something where we can uh deliver not only ones and twos but also threes and fours which are very limited in terms of families that are growing. Uh I'm an immigrant. I came to this country when I was very young. So I know that um families uh that are looking for a place to live uh of five or six. It's really hard in a onebedroom or two-bedroom, right? So, when you have an opportunity to deliver something that is still high quality, a washer and dryer in every unit, balconies, underground parking, um, granite countertops, solid corridors, we have an expectation. If we can't live there, we don't want to be a part of it. And K Wilson's right across the street of Bloomington based uh, we're also working with Cas Wilson on one of the largest redevelopments in the state of Minnesota called the Heights, right, with Sherman Associates. So our experience in terms of understanding um what this product could mean to to this community uh is is very important to us but making sure that they understand that we don't live in the community but we want to understand the community. So we are going to partake in two meetings with the community to understand is this something that um we can work together on and and find some common ground. We've done that with Penn Station in Richville where there's not a near park. So, we did what is called an indoor park. So, we're actually building a park inside of the actual apartment. So, um and even comments from um parking or uh traffic. Uh there wasn't a uh traffic study required at least at this point, but would be open to that conversation. At the end of the day, uh we want to make sure that we want to listen first, right, and respond not only to this council, but also more important to the community. We understand there's some single family homeowners that live in the community, but also uh uh south there are some older Noah properties that may not have the same um current standards and technology that we would be inputting into this project. This is an investment of almost $30 million and we're not even talking about the pre-development. So, yes, to your point, Council Member uh Delisandro, um >> thank you so much. And and >> thank you. and the mayor said the adora perfectly which is fantastic. So, um but I will tell you that um how the process works really um it's really financial readiness with the application with Minnesota housing. So, um, when we're asking the city, uh, to, uh, give us the land for a dollar, that just shows to Minnesota housing in terms strength of that partnership as far as, okay, so not only is he or companies applying for tax credits, but they have a true partner uh, in the city of Bloomington. So, I I I understand your concerns. We've done this with the city of Richfield, uh, we've done this with the city of Brooklyn Center, uh, city of St. Paul, since there were federal funds that were used to purchase that land, we actually had to buy that land. So, this is really more so um part of the application process in terms of understanding that we would need to uh effectively uh get some kind of financial commitments from the city so we can increase our competitiveness from a scoring standpoint. So, I do understand uh the concern with that and if I were in your position, I would ask more questions, too. But I think lastly, uh we have heard some concerns from the community in terms of um parking uh in terms of um the quality, you know, as far as semi-x parking along 13th. I will tell you that, you know, this is a code compliant project. So, that's number one. It is code compliant. If it wasn't, we probably wouldn't be standing here right now. We've worked with um city staff uh on on on numerous occasions in addressing some of the concerns that you know public works may have but I would say this is co- compliant. Um all the parking is um on the ground so there's no parking on the street. Um you know we would work with the business community to see if there is an opportunity if need be uh to um get a um an approval for us to be able to park on 30. as it stands right now, the the the the building parks itself. Um the semi trucks along 13th, uh if they're going to see construction, that would sway them to not even and that's an enforcement deal. So that would work with public works, the city. Uh as far as uh you know, speed, you know, when you see a development of stature, it actually slows down traffic because you have this new development, you know, you don't want to, god forbid, hit anybody. So, at the end of the day, I just wanted to be here to answer questions, but most importantly, just reinforce that I I the city of Bloomington has always had a special place in my heart. I do think that this is a great site. Site has been vacant for quite some time. So, we want to invest $30 million in this project. But also too, just real quickly, um if for any reason, God forbid, we did not get the tax credits um you know, in this application process, then that would warrant, you know, the following year. So, this is really a work in progress. Continuing working with the community, working with city staff and so forth. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Opara. Uh, and I I'll ask for questions in a minute, council, but I I will say I appreciate your outreach to the community and the work that you're doing there. And I think you've got some work to do based on some of the comments that we heard at our listening session tonight. And um I my advice would be to continue talking to them and laying out your vision and and going back and forth with them in terms of their concerns and and your vision for what you hope to accomplish if we move forward with this. And so I I just want to say that we we had a good sized group at our listening session that were wanting to talk about this. So >> thank you, Mayor. >> Yep. Council member Rivas and Council Member Nelson. >> I just have two quick questions for you. It it is u u my knowledge that you dedicate yourself to build affordable housing or mainly right. >> Yes. Uh mayor council member Rivas uh we specialize in delivering high quality housing that just so happens to be affordable. >> So if you don't mind uh my it's a dual question but what motivates you to do that? >> Great question. So I grew up in affordable housing right? So what started we started this company because my father he was on SSI and he lived in affordable housing and when he passed away in 2018 I made a commitment to him that I would try to improve the lives of families and individuals who may not have access to high quality housing that is a no-profit. So that's what really spurred this whole vision. >> Well that's it. Thank thank you for the explanation. I just wanted to the my fellow council members to know that because I met you before and I visited a couple of your buildings through the uh National League of Cities. Uh and I had the opportunity to look at some of your apartments. Uh this will be your first project that has all affordable housing, right? >> Well, all of our pro all of our buildings, Mayor Council Member Rivas, are effectively all affordable or workforce. Uh, so ranging from 60% AMI to 30% AMI. >> Okay, so that's clear there. So, um, what I do recall though I I might have gotten it wrong. It's been a few years. Um, however, what I noticed is that some of the apartments were perhaps the 60% and that's what I looked at. The furniture, all the appliances were the same as the 30% AMI and and that impressed me. And I don't recall if I spoke to some of you guys but but I always wanted to bring you to the to the limelight because I did like that idea that the reluctance of people to live in bu in such buildings is the fact that if you go look at an 80 or 60% AMI compared to a 30% AMI all the appliances are low quality in the 30% AMI the materials in the building are not comparable to the others. And what I noticed in the buildings that I visited is that everything was exactly the same. >> Exactly. >> The size differ, but uh you know it's it's a great thing to to that you have come into our city and that you're trying to do something. I'm you know based on what I have learned in the past about you and your company. I'll be supporting this. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, so given the 30% AMI units and all of that, and I think there was a note in there that you provide additional services for some of your residents, can you speak to what those services might be or how that operates? >> Yes. Uh, Mayor, Council Member Nelson, uh, so we work with, uh, Simpson Housing. They're a nonprofit uh, here in the Twin Cities. We work with them on, uh, Wangster Commons. Uh, we work with them, we're going to be working with them, uh, with Penn Station. So effectively uh just 10 of the units will be dedicated to people with disabilities and people who um don't have permanent housing. So this is an opportunity for them to effectively graduate from maybe being in the shelter. They could be victims of domestic abuse. They could be uh folks that are um you know they're part of the VA. A range of different um situations. The goal uh is to incorporate them into this um new housing that is um really demonstrating to them that they are deserving to live somewhere nice uh to be um somewhere where to council member Rivas's point um somewhere where you can't tell the difference in terms of what people are making. At the end of the day, uh this is where memories are created. We want to make sure folks that regardless of one's income, who could be a police officer or a CNA or someone coming from coordinated entry or someone coming from a unique situation, they all have the same exact experiences. >> And then just one follow-up question. This is a concern that I have on a number of projects. Um not quite as certain I have it on yours, but um I'm always worried about concentrating lowincome people. So you've got your project where that's what you're focused on and doing it in a high quality way. So I I recognize that you got the Noah properties nearby. Um I'm not exactly sure of the boundaries, but I I think somewhere in that area the um Met Council is defined as um uh economic area uh of someone can help me. I forget the terms of it, but it's Yeah, it's um it's a so adding more housing that focuses on lowincome folks. How do you help me understand how that's a positive thing for the neighborhood? Um and I think you'll do a good job at answering this. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Council Member uh Nelson. I will tell you that um so the federal government uh uh puts together what is called uh QTTs qualitative census tracks as you already know. So meaning that 50% of the population is living below the poverty line. This is not one of them, right? So um let me just kind of highlight the rents um for this property. Um, you know, the rents, you know, will range anywhere for 30% EMI units um at uh, you know, 1405 upwards to 1988, right? So almost $2,000, right? So when you look at those rents um, in comparisons to the Noah properties or comparisons to some market rate properties, uh, they're still within the same realm, right? So the concentration of poverty, this is where I go back to. Um, for example, when you look at Wangster Commons, uh, we have three bedrooms, we have four bedrooms. Um, but when you look at them, when you reside in them, we're using the exact same materials that you would build market rate. The only difference is that, uh, you know, in the state of Minnesota, anything that is 60% AMI and below is considered low-inccome housing. So there's a there's a a narrative surrounding affordable housing that we're trying to get away from. But uh everyone that's living in these buildings they are working they are producing members of society. So I think if we were to um you know the word concentration poverty I think in my opinion you know growing up in St. Paul and our rent was $400 for a onebedroom in comparison to right now uh maybe that conversation could be more warranted there. But right here when you're paying almost $2,000 for a 60%, you know, unit and we're looking at inflation, um I don't see that it's more of a concentration of poverty. Thank you, sir. >> Council member Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh thank you for being with us tonight. I actually don't have a question for you, though. Everything you've said sounds great. Um and I appreciate the fact that you've um landed on Bloomington as a community that you want to build in. Um, but I do have a question for staff. Um, and I'm sorry if you said this and I missed it, but how long has this piece of land been vacant for? >> Uh, great question. So, mayor and council member Carter, so the city acquired this property in, I believe it was 1994. Um, and, uh, prior to that, I don't know the exact dates, there was, uh, single family homes on the property and then there was a demolition that happened. So, the city has had these properties that have been marketed and vacant for like two decades at this point. Um, and as I mentioned, >> we've had no real interest. >> Uh, we were working with a potential developer of the site for a smaller project. So, that was the 3600 square foot kind of more of an office project. Um, due to the scale of that, it wasn't brought forward by staff for recommendations of approval. But in 20 years, it's been essentially on the market and we really haven't had a lot of interest. >> Uh I can't speak to 20 years ago. Um but I know since my time and years prior that this property was marketed, uh we frequently have conversations with developers about multiple development sites, including this one. It is somewhat constrained um in terms of its development potential. And so that limits the options here. And so Mr. Opara has been working with staff to align a proposal that can really fit on the site given some of those constraints. >> Okay, awesome. Thank you. >> Um well, it is quite the investment um on the city side, I do understand that, but I also, you know, hearing that there will be $30 million invested. I feel like that's probably that's a pretty good trade-off, especially when you consider uh the amount of units that we're getting. And I do appreciate that there are three and four uh bedroom units. I know in my conversations with people uh who are advocates in the space or you know people who I've talked to who are looking for affordable units that are three or fourbedroom. I mean this is a huge need um a huge need in our community and I really appreciate the fact that um these are highquality apartments um built with market rate um materials. I just, you know, everything that I've heard about this, I think it's going to be a great project and so, um, I'm excited to support it and see it move forward. >> Thank you, council member. A couple of process questions here, Mr. Canise, uh, by if we were to approve this tonight, we basically are saying, correct me if I'm wrong here. Basically, I'm reading this motion being staff continue to do the work that we expect staff to do. Is that correct, >> uh, Mr. Mr. Mayor, that's a pretty effective summary of what we're asking at this point. >> That's what I thought. And so, uh, and I talked to again these folks that we were talking to earlier in the listening session. >> Yes. >> Uh, I made it very clear to them that this was, we are literally at the starting line here. And there would be a lot of work to go through, many public input opportunities, many public feedback opportunities as we worked our way through this process, just like there are in any development processes here in the city of Bloomington. Is that a correct statement? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor that is correct. Uh the one thing I will note is uh the application is very competitive and so that is why we are asking for these resolutions. It is a requirement of the application. Um so I I appreciate all the questions because it is a commitment that is being made as part of that process. >> Yep. But again this isn't the shovels aren't in the ground tomorrow. There's there's correct plenty of opportunity for public input on this. >> Correct. >> Very good. Council member Nelson, Council Member Lman, Council Member Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'll be quick. I support this. I I think it's a great project. Um, to the financial concerns that have been raised, I think those are legitimate. It is a significant amount, but I would point out that it's $20,000 a unit. that is actually fairly competitive to some of the other projects that I've seen that we've done and approved TIFF on where we're getting 9% affordable and a market rate and you know spending frankly through tiff more than this because it's a larger building and all of that and and much higher amount per unit. So I think on on that side it looks like it makes a ton of sense. Um and just really appreciate the time of the developer to be here and answer the questions uh extremely well. So, um, I'll be supportive of this. >> Council member Lman, >> thank you. I'll try to be brief, too. I know we tight on time here. Uh, great to see you back again. Uh, you know, uh, I think the question that I have in my mind is, okay, hey, we're we're, you know, we're doing a five trying to do a 5-2 vote here. You know, we're putting significant taxpayer money in there. Does that make sense? My answer to that question is yes. I think that makes total sense. You know, 20 years Council Member Carter talked about uh, this thing has been been available. uh and then uh you know we get from the tax base uh uh when this thing eventually gets done. Um so I'm really looking forward to kind of making the step forward and mayor I think you've brought forward the the most pertinent question I'm concerned about is you know what does that mean and can we meet those uh residents concerns around that area and that's what I'm really concerned about that we make sure we're meeting that concern but uh you know I mean this is the direction our city is trying to go in. We're trying to densify more things too. So, I think we've got to think about that as we're kind of moving forward uh on this. And so, I think we we we just need to as a populace get used to this idea. And I know I growing up in that area, I wouldn't want to see that go next to me at all. So, you got your work cut out for you. Good luck. >> Council, if there's nothing else, Council Member Carter. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh so, I would move to direct staff to one prepare a resolution of support for financial assistance. Two, prepare a letter of intent for the disposition of the city-owned properties. And three, release the appraisal of the properties. And four, return to city council on June 29th, 2026 for action on the resolution. >> Motion by council member Carter, second by council member Robertson to direct staff as stated in the motion regarding our uh item 5 two this evening. No further council discussion on this. There is council member. I just have a really dumb question. I mean, seriously, why would we pay for an appraisal if we're going to write it down to a dollar? Who cares? >> Uh, Mayor, Council Member Nelson, the appraisal that we are referenced was from November of 2022. >> So, at this point, staff has not engaged in an appraiser to do an updated appraisal. Uh, and part of that was where we are in this process and not wanting to incur any additional costs. We could certainly consider that as part of the process. I don't know if there are any legal implications there. I'm seeing a a no from Miss Manderide. So, we'll take that under direction or advisement. >> Very good. >> Okay. >> Any additional questions, council? We have a motion and a second regarding the motion. Can you see on the screen in front of you? No further discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. 70. Mr. Opara, looking forward to uh continuing in this journey with you. So, >> thank you, sir. >> Yep. Absolutely. Thank you. >> Council, we are at 9:55. I set their limit at 10:15. My watch is yelling at me to stand up because we've been here so long. And uh we still have one more thing to do. So, I'm going to look to staff to get us through this. And I'm going to look to council to get us through this as well. Okay. All right. Item 5.3 is our 2027-28 budget process update. >> Miss Carlson. >> Good evening, uh, mayor and council. So, tonight we'll provide an update on the 2027 28 budget process and the work underway to develop the proposed budget. Uh first the city manager will review the budget outlook and external pressures and then I'll go over the budget calendar, community engagement efforts, our two-year budget process, priority based budgeting, and performance measurement. And with that, I'll turn it over to city manager Zach Walker to begin the presentation. >> Thank you, CI. Uh good evening, mayor, members of the council. Uh we've officially gone so long that my family came here looking for me. Uh so going to speed things up a little bit here for all of us. Uh so as Ki said, uh tonight is not about um setting the tax levy. It's not about making any budget decisions, but really what we want to do is kick off a conversation tonight that so over the next several months, all of us are operating from the same common operating paradigm. uh as we discuss our 2027 and 2028 budget um we are entering uh the budget period I can say confidently from a position of strength uh but at the same time uh residents, businesses and governments are facing growing financial uh pressures. So the goal that I would like all of us to work together on is striking that right balance between maintaining the excellent services that define the city of Bloomington but also recognizing those ongoing affordability concerns. So as I said um we are operating from a position of strength. The community is telling us that Bloomington is delivering results. As you can see on the slide here, our most recent uh community survey has very strong numbers. Uh these are numbers that certainly validate the work of every city department and are indicators that city services are making a very positive difference in our community. Uh and we not only see that in the satisfaction numbers we get but we see that in the results uh from our city departments. Uh things like our crime uh having declined by 10%. Uh the $155 million in Bloomington forward projects that we are delivering. uh our home values continuing to rise, very strong financial position here at the city that puts us in rare air among our peers nationally. And then of course multiple award-winning services across um several city departments. Uh that is also data that speaks for itself. So then when I talk about um all those things going well, it begs the question, well then what's the issue? And as I see it, the issue is that twothirds of our general fund comes from property taxes. Um that means that the budget decisions that we all make directly impact and affect our taxpayers, our residents and our businesses alike. Uh 66% of our revenue in our general fund comes from those property taxes and that concentration is why fiscal discipline is so important. This chart shows our historic levy trajectory over time. Uh, our average levy increase between 2008 and 2022 was approximately 3.6%. Recent years, as you'll see, were significantly higher. A lot of that increase reflects things like inflation, uh, the continued investment in and expansion of our public safety investments uh, and deferred needs that emerged after uh, the pandemic period um, uh, out of 2021. So as we look ahead, uh, one of our responsibilities is determining what level of investment is sustainable for the organization, uh, and meeting the needs, uh, that our community relies upon us for, but also, uh, what's sustainable for our taxpayers. I think you can see in this graph that that work started last year, uh, when we set our levy at below 7% uh, which was below that last four-year average, but also a full point below our peers uh, statewide here in Minnesota. So before discussing next steps which car is going to focus on I think it's important to understand the environment that we are budgeting in uh some of the traditional areas that we look to when we think about budget are what's happening at the federal level and I think the term um that comes up there is uncertainty uh we are seeing either directly or threats of reduced federal grant funding which is a core part of our budget and our services there's also broad spending reduction efforts that directly affect our programs. Uh housing and community development funding changes threaten many of the key initiatives that we're working on here in Bloomington. Uh transportation funding remains uncertain. Tariffs and trade policies uh continue um to create volatility and drive up material costs. And then inflationary pressures that are tied to federal fiscal and monetary actions also further compound uh and create uncertainty in in that area as well. Those issues are also um troublesome for some of our partners here in the state. Uh the state is forecasting a $3.4 billion deficit in its budget for the 2829 uh budget bienium. that's likely going to flow downhill to cities and see an impact here uh uh upward strain on demand for our services as the state has to uh you know roll back some of their services to balance that budget. Uh our partners at Henipin County uh are down 432 FTEEs year-over-year uh and are also facing $59 million in federal uh revenue exposure particularly again in those grant areas. So when our regional partners are under strain, it affects our services and the shared programs we depend on. Uh another way of putting that state and county stress or Bloomington stress. Another area that we look to and see uh challenges is with fuel pricing. Um the those cost pressures not only affect our residents but directly impact our uh expenses here at the city as well. Uh the regional uh average here in the Twin Cities uh as of last week was $3.95 for a gallon of gas, which is a 35% increase from just one year ago. Uh so as I mentioned, that not only impacts what our residents are facing in their household budgets, but that impacts every city department that moves people or equipment here in our city. Uh we cannot talk about our budget and what we are facing without uh recognizing the impact of operation metro surge. Um obviously the leisure economy is very important to the Bloomington economy. Uh in 2026 quarter 1 suffered significant losses. Uh these are statewide numbers but it is uh estimated that approximately 4600 jobs were lost during that period of time. Uh 2.6 million hours of work was lost. Uh 3.8 8 million total working hours were lost, which translates into $71 million in lost wages for people who work in the hospitality and leisure industry. That operation has real world human impact on workers in our community. We all have heard and probably felt, but local inflation uh continues to rise. So, here in the Twin Cities area, uh inflation uh uh in May uh rose 4.7 year-over-year. well above what many households probably budgeted for. Um that means that every dollar the city is spending is also worth less. Uh that is a cost squeeze as much as a revenue concern for us here at the city. Further complicating that is nationally wages uh year-over-year have only grown at a rate of 3.4%. That's meaningful but obviously it lags inflation. So when you compare national uh increase in inflation last month to wage growth, you see a negative uh re a real wage growth of 0.8%. Uh so when you see that kind of negative growth, there's a couple options, none of them great. Um people tap into personal savings and you can see personal savings nationally are down uh almost 2%. Uh that means our residents have less financial cushion than they did a year ago. Uh, another not great option is taking out more debt and total US household debt has hit a record 18.79 trillion as of quarter 1, 2026. Uh, that is a national warning sign showing us that households are more suscept susceptible to economic downturns that ripple throughout our local economy. Uh and then that has a negative consequence that seeing that consumer delinquencies have jumped uh to their highest level in almost 10 years. Uh that is a leading indicator of economic stress and signals a potential softening in consumer spending as well which directly impacts in a negative way our tax base. So there is mixed news uh for our state moving ahead. um strong uh labor growth according to our department of economic development. Strong labor growth uh in March of 20 uh of 2026, the largest level that they've seen in two years. It also outperform the national average. Our labor force participation rate is above the US average. And some of the key sectors that we have here in Bloomington like manufacturing, health services, among others, um are continuing to lead uh in long-term growth. But there are areas of concern uh that labor force participation rate has declined now for four consecutive months. So even though we're ahead of the national average, we are still declining. Um some sectors are still recording annual job losses. Uh we are seeing slower long-term job growth that could compress our future revenue growth. And then immigration and workforce availability remain uh constraints in our uh statewide economy. We also uh would be shortsighted if we didn't acknowledge the needs of our community that continue to evolve. Uh almost 21% of our residents are now 65 years or older. That is above the statewide average of 18%. An aging population means growing demand for services and oftentimes that means residents who are on fixed incomes. Uh our gross rent is about $1,500 a month. That's about $300 above the state median. Uh housing affordability, as we all know, remains a major pressure point. Our uh medium homeowner costs are about $2,000 uh per month. That's also above the state figures. Uh and then I would jump ahead and say that our our poverty rate is essentially the same as the state average. Uh so that's not an outlier, but it's certainly not a point of comfort either. I think we heard that in one way expressed back in February when our executive director of VEP was here and mentioned that approximately one out of every nine Bloomington residents are seeking food assistance every month at their facility. So, I think our budget should um be something that we, as I said, try to land between the polls of emphasizing the things that um we do well and that our residents rely upon us for, but also acknowledge the sensitivity um that we're all facing. Um, as we had our council retreat a few months ago, uh, some of those priorities that we heard and that staff will be focusing on are to emphasize execution over expansion, finishing what we started. Uh, strengthening the ways in which we serve, focusing on operational excellence and continuous improvement. Uh, remaining financially strong, being very um, disciplined in and defensive of our strong financial legacy here in Bloomington. and then aligning our budget with strategy to ensure that every dollar connects to council priorities. So with that, uh K's going to come back and discuss with you how this process is going to unfold over the next several months. >> Hello. Um would you like me to try to get through this like in five minutes or I can do it really fast, faster than I was planning? Yes. Okay. Okay. So, I'm gonna uh go off script, but um so first of all, just this is the calendar. And so, I will just point out on here, it's colorcoded. And so, the green boxes are city council meetings. The orange are city council meetings where the public can comment about the budget. The dark blue is the work that the city staff are doing, and the light blue is community engagement. So, we're we're well underway. And then these are the community um outreach events that we've had to date. And so uh we have four um events. We've already had two that are done. Um you can see the little legend in the corner. Um we in April were at the Bloomington Home Fair and uh yesterday was at uh Bloomington Pride and those events together we've had interactions for with um 400 residents and I will say overwhelmingly they have been very positive. We've had a lot of good feedback and a lot of engaged residents have been watching and they um have mentioned that they get a lot of their information from the briefing about the budget and they did well on our budget trivia that we had. And um as you know, this is our first year of doing a two-year uh budget process. So, we're going to be transitioning to not just doing the 27, but also the 28. And there will be a cadence of um focusing on performance measurements on um those off years. And of course the levy has to be set by you every year but um and there could be some adjustments but um you're going to be setting or approving a um budget for both 27 and 28. Um priority based budgeting. This is our second year of doing it. Um we learned a lot the first year. The focus right now will be on refining and um improving it to make it more useful for us with budget decisions. And there's some also additional um functionality in the software so we can incorporate it easier instead of we had an 800page report um last year and the this will be hopefully easier to work with within the software than trying to digest it in a one report. And then also, like I said, on the off years of the um two-year budget cycle, we're going to be focusing on performance measurements. So, we'll be um looking into um what is being um making sure that we're measuring what matters and having some data for um a narrative of what we're doing and uh turning that data into action and building on that. And then just um you saw this at your retreat as well when Emily Larson um presented this, but um just the the three kind of phases of the strategic planning where you're setting the goals, the performance measurement where we're tracking it, and then like when we're doing our our budgeting that we're making sure that those resources align with those priorities. There you go. How do Oh, hey. But um I did go through that really quickly, but um any questions? >> You did go quickly and I appreciate it. Uh I do think what you what you've said we've been talking about for a while now. I mean, the specifics are are, you know, there, but the conversation about the two-year budgeting and the focusing on on outcomes and priority based budgeting. So, appreciate you're zipping on through it. Council member Carter. >> Uh just one quick comment. Um, it's not in here, but I'm assuming it's going to happen in the past couple years or more than couple years. I feel like we've done a really good job um, updating the website and doing social media and videos and just keeping people more engaged in the budget conversation through the digital methods. And so I'm assuming that's also happening. Uh yes, uh mayor, council members, council member Carter, that yes, we still have a a robust website um where we have all that information and we're also working with communications to do some short maybe reals like social media about um services that the city provides and the costs. >> Okay, awesome. Thank you. >> Other questions, council, >> no problem. >> Can you do it in two minutes this time? I can try. >> Well, um, we we will be seeing plenty of each other. Yes. In the coming months, and so if anyone has questions, you know where to find Krie. Uh, we'll have the conversation as a council. >> And I'm excited to see where this conversation leads because I think we all are focused on trying to get to where we need to get, but understanding the concerns, the the questions, the the issues that we heard last year around budget time. And so to try and work through that, I think thoughtfully and creatively, it's going to be an interesting challenge to do and I'm I'm looking forward to it. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you, >> council. That wraps up the agenda except for our council policy and issue updates. We'll get through it very quickly here. I'm just going to do give a quick recap of our council listening session earlier tonight. We had five speakers. Sally Nes was there. She spoke about her continued concerns about the shared use agreement with Darl Farooq. Cherish Amaro talked about resident and vehicle safety on 106th Street and I think we're all in agreement with that and we need to figure that out in one way or another. Brian Hoffman and uh and Tony Hillman talked about the potential unintended consequences of uh a couple of projects, the RFP that is currently out and we'll continue to uh have those conversations. And then Amber W Mathwig talked about the Bloomington Police Department's response to her Freedom of Information Act request that she made, whether or not it was in a timely manner and some other questions as well. But uh in all I a good good conversation again. I think we had a we had a full house actually and I think we'll have a full house for the next couple of meetings as well, next couple of listening sessions. Uh beyond that, I just want to thank staff for an outstanding pride celebration yesterday. That was uh very well done. And I appreciate on a on a Sunday afternoon in June to see so many staff members working and doing it with big smiles on their face. That that says a lot about the the public service and and the customer engagement and constituent engagement that our our staff does on a regular basis. So hats off to all of them and to our organizers of our pride. They they did wonderful. That is all I have. Mr. Walker. Anything tonight? >> Nothing further. Mayor, thank you. >> Council, anything. Council member Nelson. >> I'll be quick. Mayor, um, last Friday, I got to pretend to be the mayor and and do the keynote address at uh, an immigrant entrepreneur summit that was held here in Bloomington. And it was extremely well attended. Uh, what a lively event. Um, and these are just great people trying to, you know, live the American dream, build their businesses, and, uh, deal with what's going on at the federal level while they try to take care and support their families. And, you know, frankly, it's, you know, I think the best of our of our country is entrepreneurs, these immigrants that come here and and understand what it takes to work hard and and build a life and put down roots and support their communities. So, it was it was really gratifying to be there. I I got done with my remarks and um probably for two hours just spoke with folks coming up that wanted to talk about what they have gone through and what they're doing and just I hope we keep that event here in Bloomington and I definitely delivered the message that Bloomington welcomes them here that that this is a a a business and an immigrantfriendly community. >> Very well done. Thank you and thanks for pinch hitting for me. I do appreciate it. Yeah, it's a >> I didn't do as well as you would have. Uh, no. I I tried about that. I'm sure you did wonderfully. >> Council, is there anything else? If not, we have completed our agenda. Council, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn tonight. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Carter to adjurnn. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you, council, for your work tonight. Thank you to our staff. Thanks to all the folks uh in the community who participated. Everybody have a good rest of your week.