[0:00] I'll send. Alright, we'll get this called to order if I could, please. This is our listening session on 22 July. Thank you everybody for being here. We do have a quorum. We're short a couple of folks, but we at least we have a quorum, so we'll continue to move forward on this. [0:20] So we have, folks who had called ahead and we're gonna make sure that we get them in. Pat Jean? [0:26] Laura, very good. Sally, Anita's not here. Carol, Carol, and Sheila and Cheryl, I don't see them. And Robert, you, you want to talk? You just hanging out? Okay, good enough. All right. So 1234 four. [0:46] Why don't we why why don't we give everybody about six 7 min here? We try what we try and do is parse it out so everybody gets an even amount of time. It depends on how many folks we have signed up ahead of time. I did I've got a couple of calls from Anita over the weekend, so I'm assuming she's gonna be here eventually or or she will not. Anita's not gonna be here the city council meeting. The council meeting, ok. [1:06] So, yeah, well then when we look at like 789 minutes for it, we'll get through this and we'll. [1:12] Make sure that we have enough time for everybody. So, good evening, and if you could, if you could state your name for the record and we'll off we go, so go ahead. I'm Patricia German Bocker, and I have three items that you also have in front of you. This is about a data exchange and information. [1:31] From the University of Minnesota and City of Bloomington. And I am currently speaking with Leah and if I believe they'll be setting up a meeting. [1:49] That is the 1st what is I hope all goes well. I hope I have your approval. I don't know what you're I'm sorry I don't understand. You, you, you're always welcome to meet with city staff, and they, and Leah and Anne have done a great job. I'm assuming there's gonna be about the health and wellness center and they have been meeting with folks. It's all over the place. [2:09] Right, correct. Yes yep they have been meeting with everybody who needs information or would like to discuss this. They've been this is information that will be. [2:20] I'm going to the director of the Center of Aging Science and Care research. Okay, the next piece of con information you have is the survey itself. I wanted to point out. [2:37] Before you get the results, that the survey seemed to be weighted and I wanted you to look at questions six. If you look at questions six. [2:53] There is 10 % regarding a pool regarding swimming, and there is 3 % regarding a senior center. This is the Bloomington Community Health and wellness. [3:09] Enter survey. I believe it was sent to 4 % of the residents in paper form, and it was sent out in by taking an email. [3:27] Survey and then it was also there was a paper copy distribution at Tricksight Center. I also wanted to point out question seven on the survey, if you'll notice. [3:43] Oh, well, NO, on question six, there were NO questions on inclusion services. I thought that was rather interesting. On which services? Inclusion services? You can see that under. [4:03] Question eight, number 14. So on question six, that question. Okay, I see that. Okay. Okay, on question eight, it had questions number 14. On question. [4:22] Eight of the survey, once again, there was 10 % of the questions regarding swimming pools and there was 3 % regarding senior programs. [4:39] I'm wondering the value of the analysis based on the weight percentage of the question. I'm also wondering how to compare. [4:56] Laugh swimming to senior programs. What value do they compare? Yeah, I guess the direct question and so and and I think that would be a good question for and and and. [5:13] Yeah Leah, I mean when you speak with them because they're the folks who in the design of this, and I will say, in the design of the survey, the questions reflect information that we've had in the past. And I know one of the things that we've heard from a vast majority of folks is the interest in aquatics within the new community center. So there, I think the the. [5:33] Questions at least try not to lead, but I think they at least reflect that that interest that has been stated by the community about, on a quantics portion of this. Council member? Yes, thanks for the opportunity mr. Mayor. I have a question for you. I I guess, when you say 3 %. [5:52] I am curious about as an example, what, what you would on question six, what you would have included in that 3 % or 4 % for seniors because I I would want you to make an assumption that e.g. an indoor walking track doesn't serve me. I am 54 years old, so I'm just under the qualification for a senior, so I I I I feel like this. [6:12] This place is gonna be for me too eventually, right? And by the end of the year, in fact, so like, would, would you have it included a walking track in your bucket of senior services or would you not have? Because I would if it was me. Then I wanted to refer you to. [6:26] Number 23 of question six. Yep, that's what that is. Right, that's one but 3 %. That is one question out of 30 for the senior center. But ok so so these are this, if you look at the top, right, it literally says, what recreation facilities and amenities. [6:46] So amenities are things within a center, like a walking track, like, like a swimming pool, like e.g., a pickleball, which I thought saw on question eight, which, by the way, I also play as a 54 year old, right? So I guess I'm, my question to you is. [7:04] Well, let me let me make the statement I'm making and you can tell me if you agree or disagree, but I think it's subjective that you're defining some of these as included for seniors and not included procedures that I might have a different set of questions. If I was answering this survey, I might have thought this covers a bunch of. [7:24] Stuff that I like as a senior. I like. I like gaming, but that's relevant. But I like, e.g., you know, maker space crafts and arts. I like outdoork community spaces for movies and festivals. I like, you know, I like this idea of a, of a laugh swimming. I like this idea of a, outdoor space to enjoy nature. [7:47] For me as a senior. I would feel that I was included yes. In the time span, you will notice that there are three. [7:56] Regarding pools, and there's one regarding the senior center. I understand that you think of a senior center as not having these activities. Nope, nope, I'm not having. I'm reading the question and I'm saying following recreation for. [8:16] Facilities. So facilities I would agree with you, Senior Center would be a facility. Amenities are inside the facility, could be any one of these on my list. That was all I'm trying to I'm trying to understand if we're on the same page about that or not. We are on the same page. The inside that building, there are three related to pools. [8:35] And there's one related to a senior center. So it's yes. Understood. And I just have to say that Patricia, we're we're bumping up against time and I want to make sure I appreciate your questions council members. Okay. So if you Can up in the next minute here and we can move on to our next speaker. Oh, I am really alright, I'm wondering the weight of the question. [8:55] And the value of the responses based on the weight. Of the questionnaire. The other thing that I noticed on the questionnaire was that there was on the online questionnaire, you, you could not have less than a hundred. That would be question 15 on the dropdown, just know. [9:17] There was NO way that you could not put in zero on this amount. I'm also, I'm sure you're aware that there were three parts to the survey, and I'm very curious to have how the free parts were combined, but I'm sure we're having a presentation tonight. [9:37] So the presentation tonight and the meeting, if you get a meeting set up with Leah and Anne I'm sure they can answer a majority of this questions much better than we can in terms of the data exchange. I don't know exactly what they have and the details, but I'm sure they'll provide what they have and we'll be able to. [9:52] They will answer their qui your questions to the best. They facilitate a data exchange. Again, I believe so, but I don't know exactly what exactly we're looking for on the specifics would be. So I'm gonna have to cut you off there and we're gonna have to move on. Okay. But I appreciate you coming in tonight. Thank you. Thank you. [10:11] So I guess before I get started I'm just I want you to call you gotta come up to the table so we can get you on the microphone, please. [10:28] All right. So before I get started, I just wanted some clarification whether or not there's gonna be an opportunity to speak about the wording of the ranked choice voting ballot question at the city council meeting tonight? I don't think so. I think it's our 1st discussion with it. I think what the, the attorney's office is gonna bring forward. We don't have it scheduled as a public comment or a public hearing. [10:48] In any way and it's a, it's an opportunity to to talk about some ideas, and we're not in any. [10:55] We're not on a drop dead deadline that we've got to make a decision tonight about this either, so I expect it to be kind of a, a robust conversation among the council tonight. Okay. All right. Well I guess I just I know I emailed all of you, I don't know if you've had a chance to read it yet or not, but, u. [11:11] The folks that are on the pro RCV side, we've got some concerns about the ballot language that was proposed to you guys in your agenda packet. You know, we just, we want to make sure that it's very clear to voters what they're voting on, and the language that we are asking you to consider. [11:31] Is the language that was used in Menitanca last year when they were voting on the same thing? It was language that was decided, was the best by both sides, the pro RCV and the anti RCV people both agreed that that was the language that was the clearest. And so we're just asking that that similar language. [11:51] Be considered for this ballot measure in Bloomington it seems to work well. We think it's important that voters understand that this is an amendment to the city charter, that it is to repeal ranked choice voting and that it will reinstate the primary. And all of those things are kind of the focus of the petition itself. I mean I. [12:11] I think the petition itself is called charter Amendment to repeal rank choice voting. So I mean, and then within the petition it talks about reinstating the primary. So I mean I think, you know, it just makes sense that the ballot language is aligned with the petition itself and is very clear to voters. The part on that proposal. [12:31] That includes the majority stuff is completely confusing, because under ranked choice voting we get a winner through a majority as well. And so to say that one way as a majority and the other isn't is very confusing to voters. So, for sure want that to be taken out of there. [12:49] All right. Great? Else any questions? So I appreciate it. We've we've received a number of a variety of folks and they have been looking at the language proposed and and yes, in advance of this, I did look at the, the minute talker language from last year and and considered what we've had in the past and how we frame it up and also. [13:09] Trying to make it as understandable as possible to. The the potential boaters in Bloomington and and there's, you know, that's, that's a wide range, so a wide range of folks, so thank you Sally? Hey. [13:32] So, 1st of all, 82nd in park and 83rd in park, they do have street lights. As I stated at the last listening session, the city center city manager sent an email 1 July 2024 that's stated. [13:52] Please note that Bloomington lighting standards do not apply to entrance driveways that lead to parking areas. The city of Bloomington does have lighting standards that apply to parking services, private sidewalk surfaces, and building entrance areas. The lighting. [14:07] Standards apply to drive aisles within parking areas but not two driveways leading to. The intent behind the standards is to light areas where pedestrians are likely to be present, whether walking on a sidewalk or walking from a parked car to a building entrance. [14:24] Pedestrians are not typically present in vehicle driveways that lead to parking areas, which is why the city code does not have lighting standard for these areas. City code 2013 oh 1.07 exterior lighting, purpose and intent. [14:40] The city recognizes the health safety, welfare, and aesthetic value of providing lighting standards in the community. This section's provisions are intended to, one, promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Number six. [14:55] Protect motor vehicle operators, pedestrians, and adjacent land uses from Glare. To be clear, the city code states to protect motor vehicle operators, not just pedestrians as the city manager's emailed states. Again, six states protect motor vehicles. [15:14] Operators. The city code continues B lighting plan. The lighting plan must include the following information and attachments. Four, an accurate site plan indicating the location of property lines and all existing and proposed land improvements including but not limited to. [15:34] Two buildings, parking lots, aisles, and driveways, streets, walkways, and accessory buildings. And then it continues. Minimum elimination on parking surface, up to a 50 % reduction allowed for the perimeter, 25 ft of the parking loading. [15:52] Access or other surfaced areas along the property line or ramp. Again minimum illumination of parking surface of the parking loading access or other surfaced areas along the property line. Additionally. [16:08] There is a parking plan that indicates LP or light pole. It's hard to see, but I put it in yellow, by the Daryl frug sign that possibly would have provided light to the south entrance that was not constructed. [16:26] Yeah, thank you. Mission. Could you read the entirety of number six that you did? Yeah. Protect motor vehicle operators pedestrians, and adjacent land uses from Glare. Okay, so that that's specifically protecting them from Glare. [16:43] It's not protecting them, it's protecting them from Glare. And, we'll go back to, No, I mean that's what it's, those were are the words. Pedestrians from Glare. [16:58] No, I don't think so. I I really, I mean, could have somebody delve into that, but I don't think that we're protecting pedestrians from Glare. It's protect motor vehicle operators pedestrians, and then the adjacent land like homes on Park Avenue from Glare. [17:18] But the lights are up high enough, so the Glare isn't, it's what's going into the home. It wouldn't be the, you know, lights that are lighting up the parking lot that a car would be looking at concerned about Glare. [17:37] But yeah, delve into it but and then again the other parts showing that's the parking access, which would be your drive up driveways. And again, the reason I delved into this is early on. [17:56] When did when I brought this up and you said, oh, are you gonna let it go? And I'm like, well, it doesn't make sense because I was told the entire parking area had to be, had to have lighting and, you know, to try to say to driveways in part of a parking lot. When it previously I was told it was part of the parking lot. When I 1st looked into this, I was told driveway. [18:16] He's part of the parking lot, had NO idea someone would try to. Separate the driveway from a parking lot. But I think this makes it clear that it's the perimeter and any access to the parking lot has to be lit. And again, you asked if it was dangerous, and I said yes, it is. You're driving down Park avenue. And again, I said it was in my truck and there's a car in front of me with the blinker on. I can see. [18:40] See that car is going to turn, but they can't see the entrance, and when they do, they stop quickly, I stop quickly, but the car behind me does not and just. [18:49] Apparently mrs. me. It's dangerous. It should be lit, and then again you're looking at a design, I don't know what part of the process this was, where there was a light pole. It's right where the sign is for the Darfrog building probably because that should be lit up as well to identify the property and that's not lit, and then would it be enough? [19:09] Elimination to light that entrance possibly. I don't know, but. The parking lot is not led according to our city code. We we've had this conversation miss Mass, that you brought this question forward. City staff reviewed it. Our city planners who know our light standards and who are, who we paid to represent the city and and put these informa put this information together and, and come. [19:34] To conclusions and you asked your question. It was answered. I understand you don't agree with that answer, but the fact remains you've asked the question and it was answered. And now we're moving up. And again, just like the disability parking, it was answered, it was answered inaccurately, and I'm saying this isn't, and it kind of feels like a common sense thing that we would light an end. [19:57] That's your that an opinion that perhaps you you don't like the answer and I get that. [20:04] It was answered by our city staff who are experts in this area passed on to you and and we're moving on. In the city staff that if there was an error, it would have been their error and you're asking them to see if they aired, there's a conflict there, the lack of check and balance on that as well. [20:23] I don't think our city staff is so far above that if if there was if there was a mistake, if there isn't an error, they generally own up to it and they fix it. Kind of like the disability parking, they owned up to that. That's wonderful, you keep bringing that up Sally. We're talking now about lighting at the entrance to the parking lot, and you've the question that you have been asked. [20:43] Thing has been answered. Yeah, but again, it according to our s our city code, it says it needs to be have illumination and now you're saying it doesn't matter that it says it in our city code, it just matters what our planning says, but it says it in our planning and it was basing their answer off of the city code. We're gonna move on now Sally, but thank you for coming again once again this evening. [21:05] With your questions. And carold. Thank you. As you can see from my shirt, I'm here to me just so you state your name just so we have it for you. They're all two freeze. Thank you, Carol. [21:23] I'm here to talk about the 9 mi order. I've been walking that area for well over 50 years and more. My two sons played in the creek forever, and, I love the area. I'm a biker. [21:42] But I am against a bike trail through that order. For many many reasons you've heard a lot of the reasons, but I think it would be a travesty to change what's there now. I understand that the area needs a lot of work for the shore line erosion that time. [22:02] Type of thing, invasive species. I'm all for that. I did vote for the product of the project, but there was not one thing in the vote that talked about the bike trail. I know it was mentioned in previous publications, but on the bell itself. And I think that's. [22:22] Probably the only reason it passed is because people didn't realize that the biking part of it was potentially going to be a big part of it. [22:33] I'm a lot older than all of you and I just want you to think seriously when you vote on this, what's going to happen to that area if a bike drill goes through? Think about your children. Think about your grandchildren. I've seen what happens throughout my lifetime. [22:53] When a project like that goes through and it's never for the good in the long term. So that's what I'm asking is just take a good hard look at it. Please don't put that bike trail through there. I understand there's already twelve different entrances to get to the Minnesota River. [23:13] That they don't have to use that area. So, thank you for listening. Thank you. And if I could just ask Carol, I mean your own personal opinion, if a bike trail was in there, what would be the worst case scenario of that? Would it be the destruction of habitat? Would it be dogs getting run over by motorcycles? I mean, what, what would be. Well, I hope it's not motorcycles. Oh you never know, you know, it's those bikers. [23:33] See interpret things differently. I want Highland a lot, so I know. Yeah. I mean, what's your worst case scenario? I think the worst case scenario would be. [23:43] Oh, because I'm a biker, I know that you can't have the curves like the current path. I mean the current path isn't like that, of course, but, a bike trail would have to be, you would have to straighten it out. You'd have to perhaps a lot of that. [24:00] Straightening out would be away from the creek itself. So I think to answer your question, I think there's a few things that would go into that, but those are the probably the top two things. Okay, thank you. Sounds sound any questions? Please thanks for taking the time to be here, Carol. It's nice to talk to you. [24:19] The the overall area of of Central Park and wear Park and everything is is fairly large, and so when we're talking about a trail, there's in my mind, it doesn't necessarily have to follow the path of the existing trail today, right? And I I I tend to I'll just be candid. I tend to share your sentiment that. [24:39] The unique nature of being very close to the creek is not, in my opinion, conducive to bike writing. I think that's a, that makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons, right? It doesn't mean that you couldn't put a separate bike path north and south, that runs through a portion of that territory, because we do have a challenge right now where North south, tre. [24:59] You're traversing north and south in Bloomington to the Minnesota River Valley from places like, the, the, you know, Idena and where it connects there. That's a challenge for bikers, right? So, you know, I'm thinking about it a little bit maybe differently than you are. I'm just kind of curious if you on the, on the spectrum of NO bikes ever ever ever anywhere near to. [25:19] Like, yeah, put it right up against the creek, which I also know is not your thing, right? Would you be, would you be amenable, amenable to a separate kind of scenario where, you know, let's say they have a bikes. [25:31] Places where you could park your bike and say, here's an entryway into the creek, but you can't take your bike there, you're gonna park it, and then you're gonna walk into that area. I would not. Okay, tell me a little bit more about what the concerns are there then. Well, there's already twelve areas. Why out of 13? Number 01:12 areas to more parking or to the the 9 mi Creek areas, two of the Minnesota. [25:51] Sure. Sure. And so to me, that would just be one more that's not necessary. So, NO, I don't Are you saying that one walking path and over here is a bike pat? I'm speculating, I have NO particular idea throwing that out there as an idea. For, for, for $20 million, I think the money would be better off have having something for. [26:12] The Children where they can learn water quality, let's say, the school is right there. Bring other schools in. I think that we have to think about our future. We have to think about our children and grandchildren. [26:23] And generations to come. Cool, well thanks for answering the question, I appreciate it. Any other questions? Thank you. Thanks for being here Carol. I saw a couple of folks come in late, we've got a couple of minutes if you want to jump in or are you just here to listen or are you here to comment on anything tonight? [26:40] I'm not making it, you don't have to, but it's a minute. Ryan Savig, just a quick question. Just before Mike Sabel left I'd asked if there was a possibility of getting the information for the council. [26:58] Meetings the At least the agenda, not necessarily the packet out earlier and you were gonna check into that and get back to me? Just wondering what those might be. Mr. Mayoron council members. Ryan, when you say get it out earlier, you mean earlier than the Thursday, I mean, I'd like to thank you. [27:18] Planned more than four days ahead for council meetings. Well, we actually, we actually have a requirement under state statute that it has to be available 72 h before the meeting, or three days. I think it says three days, right? We interpreted 72 h and we so we actually exceed what's required under state state. [27:41] Actually by getting it out four days ahead of time, based on schedule of meetings and other factors doing so earlier is is challenging for operations around here. The the amount of work that it takes to turn around issues from one week to the next is often. [28:01] More than what we could accomplish in a day or two. So, you know, to get the public, to get the packet out on a Thursday, it has to be reviewed by, people on a Wednesday, which means the submitters have to put it in by Tuesday so there's a cascading effect going backwards. So I. [28:21] I would say unless the council feels strongly about this, if we. [28:26] I I don't foresee moving up the the release of information before that. And I'm not saying a finished agenda necessarily, but one that gives you like three weeks out, two weeks as a minimum, say and potentially and things could move. [28:44] If you don't get the packet done, I understand that, but you're asking this a lot of the citizens, Sometimes these packets are six 800 pages. Sure, so that means that, well, imagine what's Foressa with the same thing. I was gonna say imagine their goal is your weekend, right? One one quick question and we gotta wrap up here. Well, I understood your. [29:04] Question when you asked it that time back was more so kind of, you know, a skeleton agenda, not so much the the raw content of it because I know that. [29:14] Our assistant city manager would have responded the same way that our city manager responded today if you would have asked that then. So that was more so kind of a conceptual agenda. Is there any possibility that may change, and there maybe some concerns with that. [29:29] If there was a conceptual agenda that could at least maybe on a Tuesday or or a Monday. I think that was the the gist of your, your, your question at that point in time. And mr. Mayor council members, thank you council member Lowman if it's if it's just a, forecasting agenda. [29:46] The, we provide that information in, a report that goes to the council every friday. So it's in the back of what we call Bloomington this week so we have upcoming agendas in there. There's, there's a fair amount of movement, but we know more than a, you know. [30:06] Four days out, what's gonna be on the agenda? Because we have to prep for it. So we published both the agenda and the agenda packet, right? So I think it's just that the agenda portion. Right, Correct. Yep yep ok we're gonna wrap up and then and I will say I hear what you're saying council member, and I hear what you're saying Brian, but I guarantee you we'd send out a shell that we had three weeks in advance and if we changed one thing, the pitch forks and torches would be. [30:28] I can guarantee you with that, that's why I worded it the way I did. Yeah. All right, thank you all for speaking this evening. Thanks for joining us. Council with our work here completed I'd look for a motion to adjourn. 2nd Motion and the 2nd to adjourn. I want. [30:48] By saying hi. Hi. You are adjourned, we will see you downstairs. Thanks.