Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Good evening everyone. I will call our Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, July 20th, 2026. Thank you to everyone in the council chambers who has joined us and thanks to all the folks watching online. We appreciate your participation here. We will begin our meeting as we always do. If you are able, please rise, remove any head 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, welcome to everyone, council. Good to see you all. Thanks for being here tonight. We are waiting on council member Carter and when she Oh, she is on. Okay. When she is on, uh, we have council member Carter remote this evening. So, all of our votes are going to have to be roll call votes. So, uh little added level of complexity, but I'm sure we'll be fine. Our first order of business here is to approve tonight's agenda. And we've got a full agenda again tonight, council. Under our introductory items, item 2.1, uh we have a Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Award of Excellence presentation. And since they are here, I bet you know who the excellence is uh celebrating here. Looking forward to that. I'm very excited about that. Our consent business is 19 items long. Council member Lman has our consent business tonight. Under item four, hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. We've got two uh we've got one public hearing and then one approval that we have to do. The first is a public hearing on item 4.1 regarding a resolution of support for a Minnesota investment fund application in connection with Seagate Technology. Item 4.2 is to approve the type 2 preliminary and final plat of Southtown Shopping Center fifth edition. Under item five organizational business, we have two items there as well. Item 5.1 is the Minnesota Minnesota Valley State Trail, the Bloomington phase 2 segment. And item 5.2 is the second amendment to the 2016 master redevelopment contract for private redevelopment of land. We'll wrap up with our council policy and issue update and we will have a meeting council. Are there any additions or corrections to the agenda as stated? Hearing none, I will move approval of tonight's agenda. Motion and a council motion and a second by council member Rivas to accept tonight's agenda. No further council discussion on this. Miss Ryan, >> council member Carter >> I. >> Dallasandro >> I. >> Reebas >> I >> Nelson >> I >> Lman >> I >> Robertson >> I >> Mayor Busy >> I. Motion carries 70 and we have an agenda and we will start with item 2.1. This is a presentation for the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Award of Excellence. We've got uh Anthony Debella. Are you going to kick it off for us, Anthony, or we're going to go right to Mitchell? >> Right to Mitchell. >> Right to Mitchell. Very good. [laughter] >> Mitchell Czech is uh with the city of Shore View, but is uh you're the uh the president of the organization this year. >> Is this automatically on? Yes, it is. Okay. Um I'm with the city of Shorewood. I >> Shorewood, excuse me, not View. I'm sure you get that all the time. calls for the Shorewood Community or uh Shore View Community Event Center all the time. We don't have a pool in Shorewood. So, um but I'm a part of the awards committee for the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association, also known as MRPA. Um it's my pleasure tonight to be here to present not one but four awards of excellence uh for the city of Bloomington's outstanding contributions to the park and recfield in 2025. Awards were very heavy carrying up here, so bear with me there. Um before I dive into the awards themselves, I'll just give a brief overview of Minnesota Park and Recck Association as well as kind of the awards and where they come from. Um so MRPA was formed in 1937 um with the basis of fostering growth and development within the parks and recreation field. Presently there are around 850 professional members. Um that includes cities, counties, uh districts, retirees, students as well as some commercial and private agencies as well. Um the awards committee was created in 1987 with the purpose of acknowledging things that are be being done great within the parks and recreation field. Um it's important within the commi committee that we increase awareness about the outstanding things people are doing throughout the communities. Um myself being on the board it is awesome to just see all the things happening. as a smaller city, some of them aren't always feasible, but really sparked some ideas reviewing the applications and just seeing the outstanding work and the professionals we have in the field. This is an annual program. Um the the awards committee is comprised of a good cross-section of people throughout the state. Um so we have representatives from all over in roles from directors to supervisors to um kind of all over the board. So we really get a good segment of people working in a variety of fields um to adequately adequately assess the nominations. MRPA members may nominate a project for an award of excellence in seven different categories. Those categories are administrative or management strategies, communications, park and facility, programming and events, sponsorships and partnerships, sustainability and volunteer initiatives. Um once nominations are received, they come in front of the committee. we review them, score them, and then deliver them out. So, that's why I'm here this evening. So, with four awards, I'll kind of go one-on-one. I'll provide just a brief overview of each award. Um, we'll call up for a little photo opportunity and then we'll move on to the next award. Um, so for first award received this evening is in the administrative and management category. It's for Bloomington's data driven park maintenance and operations plan. Um, so this plan developed a maintenance and operations plan that delivers clear community centered benefits by improving consistency, quality, and sustainability of the city's park system. The plan responds directly to community expectations for safe, clean, and well-maintained parks by establishing defined service le levels and aligning resources to meet those standards. So with that, I will call up whoever is accepting that award. [snorts] Thank you. Here you are. Congratulations. [applause] Thank you. [applause] >> Our next category is under the park and facility category. Um this is for the Logan Lodge interim senior activity center. So following the closure of the Creekide Community Center, staff needed to find a solution to maintain senior programming while the voter approved community health and wellness center was constructed. They're able to create a welcoming and functional interim senior activity center at a decommissioned DMV facility for this interim center called Logan Lodge. This creative reuse of an existing facility has allowed the city to maintain very crucial and important city programming until the new center opens in 2027. So with that, I will call up the Logan Lodge. [applause] Thank you very much. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Congrats, guys. [snorts] Third on the list, we have the programming and events category for the Bloomington Indigenous Art Fair. This new innovative program established a permanent platform in Bloomington where over 40 indigenous artists can showcase their work, tell their own stories, and foster deep cross-cultural understanding through immersive arts and performance. It provides outstanding artist representation, cultural immersion, interactive learning, and community leadership. >> [applause] [cough] [snorts] >> And lastly, under volunteer initiatives category, we have the DreadScott Field Improvement Kickoff. The goal of this project was to enhance fields three and four at the DreadScott Playfields to better serve the fast pitch community and the city's partner, the Bloomington Fast Pitch Association to improve the overall field safety and playability. Through community partnerships, engaged volunteers, and partner organizations, they collaborated on work on a work event that combined financial investment, labor, and shared resources. The Toro [snorts] company supported the project by providing specialized equipment for turf maintenance and field renovations. And this coordinated planning effort allowed the city to res reduce its costs while improving its valued amenities. [snorts] [applause] >> Congratulations. >> Get in here. >> [laughter] >> Oh no. [applause] >> So, I will say not every city receives four awards. So, you guys should be very proud of your parks and recck team and the staff. Um, they truly have done some phenomenal work this year. And thank you for having me this evening. >> Thank you, Mitchell. And I I agree. Yes, I think everybody up here is very proud of our park and rec staff and everybody in this community should be. What struck me council is so we had we had programming, we had uh we had arts, we had uh community engagement kind of thing and I mean we we and and volunteers I mean we really went the gamut on on everything. We the entire spectrum of work that we can do in our parks, arts and recreations division. So congratulations and well done. Uh, I appreciate all of you and thank you to our our our folks. That that was a great event out at DreadScott when we had the opportunity to get that cleaned up and you guys did great work and and we're seeing the fruits of that pay off now and uh some nice trophies that uh Fast Pitch is bringing home to the city of Bloomington. So, well done. Uh so, thank you all. Thank you. You're greatly appreciated. Uh very proud of you. Very proud of the work that you do and how you represent Bloomington every day. So, thank you all very much. Council [applause] member Dallas, where are you? Oh, >> I was gonna ask a question. >> Okay, very good. Very good. If you have a question, I'm here. >> I was just curious if I if I may, Mr. Um, thanks for being here. I was just curious. Um what's the like do do did did just a very quick understanding of how do we apply as a city to do do we nominate ourselves and then you go through a review process or are you as peers like active like proactively finding projects? I'm just curious how that worked. >> So there's a little mix. I'd say most of the applications are by the cities themselves. However, there are sometimes where whether it's a uh a sponsor an organization they'll nominate the city. Um, but a lot of times for the leg work for the application, staff needs to be involved for those to get the budgeting numbers, get the timeline, all that fun stuff. Um, so it is a bit of a mix. >> Okay, great. Just want to understand. Appreciate it. >> You're welcome. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Have a great evening. And Mitchell, thanks for being here with us tonight. >> Absolutely. Appreciate it. Thanks. >> Pleasure. >> All our best to Shwood. Thanks. [laughter] [sighs] >> Next on our agenda is our consent business. Council member Lman with our consent agenda. Council member Lman, >> I've got uh 312. Any any other holds? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and uh move 3.1 through 311 and then 313 through 319. >> Second >> motion by council member Lman, second by council member Robertson to accept tonight's consent business as stated. Council member Alesandro. >> Point clar clarification. I thought we had 3 point up to 3.19. Did you say 17? >> No, one nine. >> Oh, my bad. I misheard you. Pardon me. >> Yeah, you got to turn the page. No, no. I I thought he said 17 and I n but I misunderstood. Apologies. Thanks. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept tonight's consent business. >> Any further add uh questions, comments? If not, Miss Riot >> Carter. >> Hi, >> Dallas. >> Hi, >> Reebas. >> Hi, >> Nelson. >> Hi, >> Lman. Hi, >> Robertson. >> Hi, >> Mayor Bassy. >> I motion carries 70. Mayor. Uh, >> item 3.12. >> Council member Nelson's hold. >> Council member Nelson. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mayor and Council Member Lman. I just wanted to hold this one again. I appreciate um that we've had conversations. We've held this item over a couple times here and for some very uh good questions. Frankly, I found this to be one of the more interesting things that I've looked into. I got to spend time uh on the revisor's office website um going through our city code, breaking out my building code book, cross referencing definitions. Um it it is uh I think most people would have been asleep. Um but I actually found it very interesting and fascinating. I'd like to thank the folks from the neighborhood that have come out. Um Kevin, I apologize that I I did not take you up on your offer, but I have been out there to look at the property situation multiple times. also been in the neighborhood on other previous occasions throughout the past eight years of of my service here. And um as I've gone through it and uh reviewed it, the reality is is it meets the code and we are obligated um as are you know all agencies of the government to follow codes, ordinances and laws and it meets all of those from all of my review. I spent, you know, hours on this and it meets those. Um, and, you know, we can agree or disagree with that. We can we can look at any of those that may need to be changed. Um, you know, there are some quirky provisions in there, honestly. Um, you know, with regards to, uh, you know, choosing your front yard and things like that, but, you know, it does meet it does meet the codes. It does meet the building code. It does meet all of the things that we want. And so I can't find a reason why we would not move it forward. Um that's just the reality of it. And um I like I said, I did candidly really truly enjoy looking into it. Uh it it was it was uh quirky and interesting and um a lot of different moving parts in there. But at this point um I even though I've held it for uh two different meetings, I'm prepared to move it forward. I'm sure my colleague, Council Member Lman, would be willing to make the motion. Be happy to do that for you. Thanks, >> Council Member Lman. >> Mayor, I'll go ahead and move uh 312. I'll move to approve a preliminary plat and adopt a resolution approving the final plat for Olive Isle Addition located at 8350 Amsdale Ridge Drive subject to the conditions and code requirements attached staff report. Second >> motion by council member Lman, second by council member Nelson to accept item 3.12 on tonight's consent agenda. Is there any further council comment on this? Council member Lman then council member Dalisandro. Council member Lman. >> Just briefly, I just want to thank uh both uh the mayor and the manager and and the entire staff team for uh having the ability to let us kind of work it through. We appreciate the work that you uh uh did and uh to to bring it forward and it made a lot of sense. I appreciate that. >> Thank you, [snorts] Council Member. Council member Delisandro. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I echo those sentiments and and I do just want to, you know, the the anytime we have these things, one of the I I go back to the the challenge that we've we've had about passing, you know, these or these ordinances and these zones across the entire R1 spectrum and it's 70ome% of the city and this is the kind of thing that starts to happen when we when we do that large papering and why I was frankly a fan of smaller cuts at that early on, right? Um but so what I would encourage staff to do is if if as these things are happening if if there are things that we need to kind of revisit that we could please have them brought forward so that we could take another look at them. You know maybe maybe if we have enough of these types of situations where they require this additional effort there's something central some central theme or something that you know that bubbles to the top that helps us understand how in in certain circumstances we might look at the code differently. So I you know I think that'll be important to us. we've kind of gone broad paper and now maybe cut back versus smaller cuts and increment our way out. But either way, there's an opportunity for us to look at that. So, I would encourage staff to do that, but appreciate the effort here. Thanks. >> Thank you. Thank you, council member. And I'll just add thank the three of you for your comments and thank you especially, Council Member Nelson for your thoughtful comments on that. And I and I agree and that this may be a a matter of of taste or thought or whether or not it's right, but but it meets code. It it ultimately does meet city code and we are obligated I think to move it forward based on that. No further council discussion. >> Miss Riot [clears throat] >> Carter >> Ilesandro >> I >> Rebas I >> Nelson >> I >> Lman >> Hi >> Robertson >> I may >> I motion carries 70. Thank you council member Lman. >> We'll move on to item four our hearings resolutions and ordinances. Item 4.1 is our only public hearing of the evening. This is a resolution of support for a Minnesota investment fund application in connection with the Seagate Technology LLC. Alan Thorp from Report Authority is here. Good evening and welcome. >> You can you can turn either one of those around. This one works as well. So if you're There you go. It's >> like this is my first time. Uh good evening everyone. I am here to uh do the presentation for the public hearing for MIF which is the Minnesota Investment Fund program through the state of Minnesota deed. Okay. So the um Minnesota Investment Fund provides financing to help add new workers and retain highquality jobs in Minnesota. So how the program works is Minnesota deed will grant the funds to the city of Bloomington and then in this case the city of Bloomington would loan the funds to Seagate and a quick overview some Seagate um project background. Uh it is a established mass capacity data storage company in Bloomington. It has previously applied to the Minnesota Forward Fund in December of 2025 and it completed a buildout of an 81,000 square foot facility on its campus. In March of 2026, city staff was contacted for additional potential project uh and Seagate is evaluating Bloomington and two other sites. Seagate is applying to myth or for myth funds as well as the job creation funds or JCF uh which the council uh passed a resolution of support for that in Janu on June 29th, 2026. So the um this is the um potential council action and then I'll open it up for questions I think is the next step. >> That is the next question. That's the next step. Absolutely. Council, any questions of Mr. Thorp here? >> All right. >> Pardon? >> Hey, mayor. Sorry. Um, I have a really quick question. >> Oh, hi, Council Member Carter. I'm sorry I didn't see you there. Council member Carter. >> Yeah. No, no worries. Um, maybe just something to clarify for the public. Um, you know, this is for a I think you use language mass mass capacity data data storage center or something. I can't remember the exact language. Oh. And with all of the um debate around data centers, I think it might be useful to clarify for the public the difference between what Seagate is and what a data center is. >> Yes. Uh thank you, Council Member Carter. U excellent clarification. This is not a data center. They uh manufacture technology that does mass capacity data storage. So think of like a hard drive is kind of the Yeah. the technology. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, council member. And I'm sorry I missed you there, but that's Yes, that's a good that's a good point to bring forward. >> Yes. >> Any other questions, council? >> No questions. All right, don't go far. We will open a public hearing on item 4.1 here in just a moment. Uh if anybody wishes to speak, what I'd like to clarify here, uh you will have anybody can come forward and speak on item 4.1. You will have three minutes to speak. And the clock on the wall will tell you when your time is up. And when you get to the end of your three minutes, I will stop you just because I want to make it fair for everyone who is uh taking the opportunity to speak. Uh as you come up, if you could identify yourself, state your name, and then when you finish up, sign in. And I I know where I don't see our clipboard, but I'm sure it's around here somewhere. A and uh and if there are any questions that come up during the public hearing, what we will do is answer them at the end of the public hearing rather than try to answer them on the fly. So with all of that said, I will open up the public hearing at item 4.1. This is a public hearing regarding the resolution of support for a Minnesota investment fund application in connection with Seagate Technology. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.1 this evening? >> No one coming forward. Miss Ry, is there anyone on the phone? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anyone in the council chambers. Council, no one coming forward in the chambers. No one on the phone wishing to speak. I would look for a motion to close the public hearing on M4.1. >> Motion by council member Dallas, second by council member Robertson to close the public hearing on M4.1. No further council discussion on this. Miss Ry >> Carter. >> Ilesandro. >> Hi. >> Reebus. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> Hi. >> Lman. >> Hi. >> Robertson. >> Hi. >> Mayor Bbasy. >> I motion carries 70. Closing the public hearing. Council. Any comments, questions on this? Council member Dallasro. >> Okay. So, I I think I'm confused about the intention of this. So, um this is a this is an application by Seagate to the county for $5 million in assistance in building out this new thing. Is that correct? Is that what it is? And then we're the fiduciary that if first off, this is a letter of support from us saying we like the idea of it happening in Bloomington. And then if they were to be awarded, we'd be the fiduciary that doles out the money at a 0% interest rate. Is that do I have it in like real sum up? >> Except for the point where you said county. This is in fact a state program. >> State program. Sorry, my bad. Okay. Right. Okay. Um why why is it no interest? I I'm just confused by why it's no interest given the fact I mean I Seagate stock price is $800 a share. They don't really need free money from the state at all to do anything let alone whether it's here or not. So, I'm all for supporting like, hey, I love the idea of it being in Bloomington. What I'm not con I'm confused by is why they need $5 million in free money from the state and why we would support that when they made I don't know. I'm going to guess probably a 40% profit margin on their products last year. So, I I just I I just I would hold that st I would just hold that thought is what I'm getting at and and try to understand why why it would be imperative. Now, if somebody could explain to me that the jobs that we would get from them are more than $5 million worth to the city, I would buy that. But I don't think that that's true. Especially if you believe that the with the advent of AI, the the guarantee is that most of those jobs are half of what they would have been if we had done this 30 years ago. So maybe it's a 100 jobs, maybe at 150,000 a year, which means our tax basis is, you know what, $4,000. If they buy a house, it's $8,000. And then it takes a long time to get to $5 million. And so I I just I'm confused. I love the idea of of I'm a huge fan of Seagate. Have held their stock in the past. I'm currently not encumbered by their stock. So I don't have any stake in this at all to say one way or the other. I want to be clear about that. But I I get it and I use them the products, you know, but I I don't understand the free money thing. I don't. And so if somebody has some insights, I'd be happy to hear them. >> Uh I' I'd be happy to try and answer. So >> Sure. Thanks. >> Uh the the Minnesota Investment Fund originally was the Minnesota Forward Fund, which was approved, I think, six years ago, five, six years ago, when uh when the federal government was working their way through the CHIPS Act. And the chips act was a reinvestment in uh microprocessing the the semiconductor industry to try and reshore that in the the United States. And it was the acknowledgement that without support financial support chips industry is going to continue to be in Singapore and in in elsewhere. It's not it's not going to be in the United States in Taiwan elsewhere. Uh so the Minnesota Forward Fund was uh an important part of the CHIPS act because the CHIPS act required a local match and so for the first time and and I I only say this because I worked on it and I'm no longer invested in either. I'm divested myself. U the the chips act needed the the local investment. And so the Minnesota Forward Fund was that local match. And we've seen our local companies uh Seagate, we've seen Bowler, we've seen Skywater all use this local money to match, uh at least portions of what the federal government was made available through the chips act. Uh it then evolved because it was a sum of money that the state of Minnesota had never earmarked for this type of thing before. And it was the understanding that uh frankly in terms of the semiconductor industry, we were uh we were getting our lunch eaten by just about everybody else that even though we were basically the hub of the semiconductor industry, the the beginning of it uh we we were not we we were at a competitive disadvantage because in Phoenix, in Columbus, Ohio, in Boise, Idaho, they were getting substantial public subsidies to to build there. And so it was if we needed if we wanted to move forward, if we wanted to kind of level the playing field and get in the game, this money was necessary. So that's where the forward fund came from. And we got to the point where uh there was a significant amount of investment, but it still didn't match. I think the original was it 400 million or 250 million. I can't remember what the original number was through the forward fund. Uh the the a law was passed this past legislative session or maybe it was last year. uh changing the forward fund to the Minnesota investment fund where it was no longer now a matching fund for chips, but rather it was funding available for the technology industry just in general just to provide again funding and and support and and local uh local support for the the efforts that they were trying to do because again we're continuing to get our lunch eaten by by a lot of different places. Uh this is it's an investment and it's it's an opportunity and uh an uh a desire to to convince Seagate to stay here. They have other suitors and other possibilities where they could go and we would very much like them to stay in Bloomington. We would very much like them to stay in Minnesota. Uh actually straddling Bloomington and yeah Edina if I remember exactly. Uh so it's it's basically an incentive for them to stay within within uh the state of Minnesota and and the United States as well because uh the the competitors right now are are all offshore. So this is that is what the Minnesota Investment Fund was designed for when it started as the Minnesota Forward Fund. That's what the Minnesota Investment Fund is for. And it's uh it's just an incentive to try and entice a a a large very successful company to continue business here in Minnesota. and whether or not that's an adequate answer. That's the answer. >> Hold on, Council Member Revel. Council member Delson. >> No, no. I I appreciate the insights and the information. It doesn't necessarily change my feelings about it, but I I do understand and I appreciate where you're coming from and the background is very helpful. So, thanks very much. Appreciate it. >> Council member Rivas. >> Yeah, I do have a question uh concerning the the CIA moving overseas or outside the country. It's not feasible for any company to try to do that at this point. U all the tariff that have been implemented that's one of the heaviest ones that is in is in place right now. So for a company to mention that they will move outside the country is just unfeasible. And secondly um did the 600 million that we got as a grant from the fed feds a couple of years ago have no contribution to Seagate at all? Was it just for the other two companies in Bloomington? >> That the the initial Minnesota Forward fund was a Minnesota funded. It was not a federal grant. It it was a Minnesota it was Minnesota funded and we were then matching the CHIPS act which was a I believe a $51 billion investment in >> um so we did we did get a grant though from the federal government two years ago that was in the5 to600 million right for the companies here in Bloomington. No, correct me if I'm wrong, but I know I participated at Congress with this. We went and made the presentation and I I think you're right that awarded the >> and I don't know if that was the infrastructure bill or if >> specifically for chips that that was what we went for and I am aware that we did get that grant. So what happened to all those $600 million? Were they invested in only one or two of the companies that produced chips in Bloomington or they were diverse on to each and every one of them? That's my question today. I'm I'm just curious to what happened to that. So, do you know anything about that or >> I uh council member Rivas the question if I understand it correctly is what happened to previous allocations to Seagate in regards to chips. >> Yeah, because I what I know specifically is that we did get a grant that was in $600 million specifically for the chip industry in the city of Bloomington. Okay. >> Years ago, perhaps a year ago, we us >> So I I think what you might be thinking of, council member, if I could, so Skywater and Polar both have applied for and received >> CHIPS funding. >> Okay, so that's my question. Would they the only two or was Seagate part of that also? >> Seagate did not re has not received chips. >> That answers that question. And the other one is I I'm just curious why would they be trying to move out of the country? It doesn't make any sense for anyone to do that. All companies are moving in to to prevent being have to pay tariffs. U you know Toyota just announced billions of dollars invested in the country. Why would Seate try to move out of the country? Perhaps another state and to compete with another state. I would agree with you, mayor, that we would have to do something to to make sure that they stay in Minnesota. I mean, I'm all for that. But, you know, I just I'm curious to know if they're using that as leverage, saying, "Oh, we're gonna move outside the country," which would I would say go ahead, >> see how it goes for them. >> I I would answer that, council member. Uh, first of all, yes, they are using as leverage. They certainly are. And, uh, the second part of that, their world headquarters are in Northern Ireland. So, they're they're they're not a United States company. They're officially a Northern Ireland. taking no money. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> In that case, you know, like I said, if we if it's going to benefit the state, I you know, of course, I would support this this other than that, I it's very hard. It's uh I kind of agree with council member deandro that, you know, it's a senseless thing, but if it's to keep him here in Minnesota, yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Council member Lman, thank you, Mayor. I wanted to just thank you for giving us and the public a better understanding the background uh of that. I I did not know all of that that that information. So I do appreciate that. And also want to thank my colleague uh Councilman Delesandre uh bringing forward this idea where so many people are struggling uh to get by. Why are we you know given a 0% loan uh to a company? Um, I I I just think that's key that you brought that forward and you know, I I appreciate that you you know that you brought that forward. Um, uh, the only other thing I'd say, Mayor, uh, before I'm I'll move this forward is, uh, is the, uh, you know, the way I kind of look at this is there's the other side of this as well is that we could lose jobs. And that's the thing I'm I'm more concerned about with this by not uh, contributing to that. So, with that being said, mayor, um, I'd be happy to to to move this. I will ask one last call for the council. Any additional comments, questions? Council member Lman, >> I'll move to adopt a resolution uh to support for the Minnesota Investment Fund application in connection with the Seagate Technology LLC. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Lman, second by Council Member Robertson to uh accept adopt the resolution supporting Minnesota Investment Fund application in connection with Seagate Technology LLC. No further council discussion on this. Council member Dallas, >> is there any option to have this loan not be a 0% loan? >> It it is it is not the city's money. I mean, [clears throat] it's it's state money and part of the state program is that we are simply the fiduciary would simply come. We're a pass through. >> Is is there any option to not forgive it? >> Um mayor, council members, if I may, uh this is an approval for an application to the state. This is not an agreement of the loan or of the grant of it. It's we're just saying that yes, we support this application to the state of Minnesota. And any of those discussions would be held publicly again when we go through the agreement process. Uh and technically, not to be uh specific, although I know that our city attorney loves specificity from our turning this morning. uh that this they have to meet certain uh job and wage goals for that money to be considered. So I I understand the concern of it being free money, but it is a grant from the state and in order for that to be uh in the correct agreement. It is set up that certain goals would be met and there would be some sort of verification of what they have applied for and then that those goals were met. >> So So maybe you can explain to me, Mr. what the value of our support for it is because it doesn't sound like we have any authority one way or the other. We don't get to set the goals. We don't get to set the price. We don't get to set the the terms. We don't get to set anything. But we're going to support it because why? Maybe these jobs will be in Bloomington. >> Well, their jobs will either be in Bloomington or Diana depending on which side of the uh building they work on, I guess. >> And and all of the jobs or will Minnesota go like, "Oh, no, those that's cool. you're the targets that you have to meet for these jobs to count towards your money don't actually have to be in Bloomington because they get to set the rules, not us. >> I I if I recall the rules of the forward fund as as Miss Thorp said, I mean, it was pretty stringent about job creation, local investment, and and where the money has to go. >> Mayor, if I can just offer a couple of things. Um, I just want to clarify that the Minnesota Investment Fund is a separate program from Minnesota Forward Fund. Um Minnesota investment funds been around for a while but they do when an in my experience working with these bigger companies oftentimes the state is working on a package and they go through their different funding sources and in this case they landed on the myth and JCF as programs that would support the initiative that they're doing. Um so and I think it's a good question around the partnership with the state. It is a dance staff spends a lot of time working with all of the involved parties around these things. Um, in this case, the state is working to have job growth be here rather than in other places outside of the US. And so that's kind of very common in these situations. And I'm happy to talk more about how those negotiations happen. Um, but at the end of the day today, they're asking for support that do you want the state to invest these state resources to support Seagate in a possible expansion of a facility here? It would be new space, new jobs. um pretty exciting project, but again um we're competing on a global market for these jobs and this is the program that the state uses to try to incentivize these businesses to stay or to grow here and thank you for the clarification between the myth and the forward fund. Appreciate that. Anything else, council member? Very good. No further council discussion or questions on this. Miss Wright >> Carter. >> Hi. >> Dallasro. >> I'm going to abstain if I can. Thank you. Rivas >> I. >> Nelson. >> Hi. >> Lman. >> Hi. >> Robertson. >> I. >> Mayor Bassie. >> I. Motion carries at 6 with council member Dallaso abstaining. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And we will be hearing from these folks again. I'm hoping very soon. Up next is item 4.2. This is to approve the type two preliminary and final plat of Southtown Shopping Center, fifth edition. Julie Long, our city engineer, is here. Good evening and welcome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hopefully, this one goes smoothly. Um, the applicant from Krauss Anderson is Krauss Anderson. They were previously received approval from council in September of 2024. Since then, they have not filed their plat with Hanniban County. So, their approval has expired. they decided to reapply and that's what is before you. So, it's the same plat you approved in September of 2024. They're just resubmitting it for approval. And the first the development, the first thing that would be built is the Dixs House of Sport, which council has seen previously. >> Very good. Council, any questions on this? Basically approving, as Long said, approving what has been approved previously. All right, no questions. I'd look for action, council, on item 4.2. >> I'm happy to make that motion. Council member Delisandro. >> Sure. Uh move to approve preliminary plat and adoption and adopt resolution approving the final plat for Southtown Shopping Center, fifth edition, located at 7803 Penn Avenue South, subject of the conditions and code requirements to the staff attached to the staff report. >> Second. Motion by council member Dalisandro, second by council member Robertson to approve the resolution for the final plat of Southtown Shopping Center, fifth edition located at 7803 Penn Avenue South. No further council discussion on this. Miss Ry >> Carter, >> I >> Rebas. >> Hi. >> Nelson, >> I >> Lman, >> I Robertson >> I, >> Mayor Busy, >> I. Motion carries 70. >> Standing by. >> Not read the right thing. >> Mayor, members, I'm double checking to see if this is a public hearing. Typically, we would have it listed as such in the in the packet. I just want to double check later on in the staff report. >> It's not. >> It is not officially listed. >> Two. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to be sure. Thank you, Julie. >> Okay. All right. We will move on to item five, our organizational business tonight. First up is item 5.1. This is uh no action required on this item. It's uh a discussion on the Minnesota DNR Minnesota Valley State Trail Bloomington phase 2 segment. We've got Mr. Jack Distl here. Good evening Mr. Distl and Alex Yelik. Is that very good? Welcome. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Dl. >> Mayor Busy, council members, uh thank you for having us. I'm bringing forward a presentation on an application for replacement and no loss under the wetland conservation act. Uh I assume that many of you have not seen much of the wetland conservation act. So uh we're going to do this and uh the uh acronym WCA is colloquially called WACA. So if you hear me say that that's the Wetland Conservation Act. Um, I'm going to give you a speed review of what the Wetland Conservation Act is and the city's role in its administration. I will then turn it over to Alex who's representing the Minnesota DNR and they will Alex will talk about the project at hand and the wetland impact in question and I'll end it with a discussion on what our decision next steps are. So, the wetland conservation act was established in 1991. Its sole purpose is to stop the net loss of wetlands across the state. It uh is a policy that uh regulates the draining, filling or excavating of any wetland. That's considered the impact. Uh all projects have to attempt to avoid first or minimize their impacts to wetlands. This is referred to as sequencing. If a wetland loss occurs, anybody who does that wetland loss is required to either replace that wetland in a restoration nearby or they buy credits out of the wetland banking system. It is preferred that the credits purchased or the restoration occurred nearby to the wetland that was impacted and it replaces the same type of wetland that was impacted. It's a state policy uh which is run by the board of water and soil resources but it's administered by local government units. The city of Bloomington is the local government unit that administers the wetland conservation act within our full jurisdiction. Our responsibilities include providing a trained and knowledgeable staff member at your service. uh coordinating the applications that come through and or issuing concurrence that a particular project does not need to go through the wetland conservation act. [cough] A part of the application is coordinating with the technical evaluation panel or TEP that is made up of a member of the border water and soil resources, the DNR, the county and the local wershed district whichever one it is in and the city itself. Um, the vast majority of decisions made under WACA uh are done by city staff and signed by Julie Long, the city engineer. The only decision that requires city council approval are replacement plans. In Bloomington, because we are a fully developed city, we don't see a huge number of wetland uh uh applications come through. Mostly their boundary and type, which is just figuring out where they are on the landscape. So, we don't mess with them. Uh the replacement plans are particularly rare. This is my first one that I've done at the city. So I've been here since 2020. Believe the last one was in 2018. So the big things to keep in mind are that a replacement plan needs to minimize and avoid impacts as best they can. And the applicant goes through the process of proving that they're meeting those standards. And then if they show that they provide the evidence of uh going through the process of replacing the wetland at hand, whether it's a restoration or purchase of banking credits. Uh so we received an application by the Minnesota DNR on uh [snorts] June 17th and this pertains to the Minnesota River Valley State Trail, which is a a project that we've already approved. uh a part of that trail construction is going to be uh in the application proposed to impact wetland. That means that wetland will be permanently destroyed. Um and because of that they are the DNR proposing to purchase banking credits to replace that wetland. In the application, if you want to read through any of the details in your packet, they go through that sequencing process, that minimization and avoiding process. um that they're required to do to prove that that impact is the only option available. So, uh I want you all keep in mind we're not making a decision today. We'll bring this back to you. The schedule right now is that we'll bring it back on August 3rd council meeting. However, if there's outstanding items, it can be delayed. But so, this is just to bring you all in as part of that evaluation uh application evaluation process. So, with that, I'm g turn over to Alex. >> Yeah, thank you, Jack. All right. Um, Mayor Busy, uh, council. Uh, my name is Alex Yelik, and I'm a senior environmental scientist with Anderson Engineering, and, uh, Department of Natural Resources, Parks, and Trails, uh, consultant charged with leading the wetland delineation and the permitting process. Um and so just a note on that um you as uh as Jack had indicated um you know we the wetland permitting process it follows a a twotrack uh parallel process by which it's uh you know reviewed and you know reviewed by the state state agencies um in this case city of Bloomington uh state delegated agencies including city of Bloomington uh as well as the federal government under section 404 of the clean water act. Um that's maintained by Army Corps of Engineers. So there are two concurrent applications moving forward at this time. Uh both uh the federal government and and you folks uh have have received that. Um so uh today I'm I'm speaking to you as the delegated state uh regulatory authority. Um and um you know which is including your packet. Um so in general um uh uh regulatory uh review agencies asks um has the project avoided and minimized wetland impacts to the extent practical? And my role here today is to show you our work. Um so um just get into it. Um so uh the Minnesota Valley State Trail um uh it was initially authorized by the state legislature in 1969. Um and then in fiscal year 14 uh 2014 it was funding was approved uh as capital bonding. Um and this bonding requires that the trail is located on the north side of the Minnesota River. Um and that the use uh shall be for as as a paved trail for uh walking and biking. Um so this project represents phase two of a multi-phase uh trail project. Um basically from Fort Snelling up here. Uh I'm not going to do that. So um but basically from Fort Snelling uh down to Sibi County. Um and so this project is uh a subset of that uh uh 2.23 mile um uh Pumis Trail with a bridge crossing between uh the 35W bridge and uh just west of 9M Creek uh outlet into the Minnesota River. All right. Uh so before we dive into some project details um you know it's always useful to review project history. This is no different. Um so we've already discussed the uh legislative actions. Um but in uh 2018 uh Department of Natural Resources completed their EAW process uh of the corridor and uh upon acceptance of the findings and conclusions of that study um the DNR executed an agreement with the city um uh basically outlining roles and responsibilities for the project uh location of the alignment and that sort of Um subsequently in 2023 uh some federal funding was received um was awarded to city of Bloomington um for for this segment. Um so in about 2024 uh my I I became involved um the design engineers had enough of a project for us to uh complete the wetland delineation and so completed that and uh you know it was a process to to to get it uh reviewed and approved. There was an additional segment that we needed to delineate. So that's kind of why it's a long long window there. Um but yeah, in general, uh the application for the wetland boundary and the community type uh was approved uh by Jack in consultation with uh board of soil and water resources uh uh DNR uh hydraologists and uh and other technical evaluation members. Um so currently um you know I'm just standing here before you to um you know discuss how we've uh avoided and minimized these these impacts. Um so uh before I dive into um how wetland impacts were avoided and minimized, I think it's important to understand um sort of the the engineering design constraints uh that are applicable to this project. Um so of course we want to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Um but engineers also have to uh you know consider and abide by um you know reducing and minimizing and avoiding impacts to threatened species to include abiding by uh seasonal habitat restrictions. Um, you know, there's uh northern longear bat uh in this corridor and um and yeah, so there's seasonal uh tree clearing requirements associated with that. Um trail also has to be accessible for all users and abilities. Um so uh needs to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act. Um and then uh importantly the bridge also must accommodate uh you know uh maintenance vehicles. So that goes for the bridge as well as the trail alignment um to facilitate maintenance. Um you know we are in a active flood plane and so um you know the bridge design has to consider uh you know erosive forces of flowing water. Um and so you know and we live in a changing climate and so things have to be kind of built pretty sturdy um to protect our infrastructure investments. Um so so yeah um you know you can have the best project on paper but it al also has to be constructed. Um so that's another consideration that engineers have to make. Um so major part of any project is schedule. Um, so as I alluded to earlier, um, tree clearing is anticipated in uh, you know, early frozen season uh, of 2026 here in November. Um, like I said, that's to minimize impacts to northern longard bat uh, popping and uh, you know, habitat. Um later in the winter um it's planned to complete the the bridge construction and inwater work. Um and that is really to uh you know limit impacts to fisheries and you know movement of of of fish fish populations. um as well as uh allow the future selected contractor to work under uh low water conditions uh that are not subject to, you know, pulsing flooding. Um and that's really to also improve water quality outcomes and prevent sediment from from going downstream. So, um, and then finally in April of next year, uh, we'll be able to start construction of the trail, um, build the, uh, the profile, make the pavement or lay the pavement, and then, uh, do final stabilization of vegetation, um, uh, which would probably happen later in uh, spring of 2028. So, how does this affect our wetlands? So, um the engineers were able to um you know avoid wetland impacts by weaving the trail alignment um throughout uh you know between our delineated wetland to the north and the Minnesota River to the south. Um I do wish I had just blown up this this picture because it does help. Um but uh but yeah, so you can kind of see the the trail alignment is in in in yellow. So, you know, the the big driver of our ability to avoid impact is our uh you know, minimizing our footprint. And so, um I I have cross-section A there referencing pages uh 16 and 49 of the application. um that's describing, you know, the the cross-section. So, here it's a negative 3 to one slope. Um just for a point of uh comparison, um you know, transportation projects when they're constructing adjacent wetlands, they usually minimize impacts to a negative 4:1 slope. So, this goes above and beyond um above that. Um, so [clears throat] um, so yeah, the I I guess I'll just go into the impacts here. So, oh my gosh. All right. Maybe you can see that. So I guess the the first uh red polygon that's a that's signifying a permanent impact that is within the 9mm creek. Uh that signifies rip wrap impacts um basically just to prevent that rip wrap will be placed underneath the bridge span um to prevent scouring and undermining of the structure. Um and then there will be a transition period following the same trapezoidal uh 3:1 slope um that kind of curves around and joins back to the wetland. Um uh and so you know basically the you know we we had a a meeting with uh you know a tech meeting with Henman County and you know they had uh had suggested like oh hey Alex why why didn't you guys build a boardwalk here um and completely avoid wetland one there? Um no that's a good question. Um, you know, boardwalks do not support uh, you know, our design vehicle and, you know, they're not resilient in in a flood plane setting. Uh, in order to construct them, they have to be constructed above 100-year uh, flood plane elevation. In this setting, um, you know, at this elevation here, there's about 12 to 14 ft of of water over top that. So, it's not very practical from a from a design perspective. Um so so yeah so that's that's sort of avoidance. Um uh as far as impact minimization um you know we uh you know uh located the span at a a the narrowest crossing of uh 9M Creek. Um, I believe there was a question that came up uh earlier today about, well, hey, why did why didn't you place the trail alignment on the uh embankment uh further south? Well, it's a it's an issue of of protected species. There are um state protected muscle species in this channel and in the river for that matter. And uh and so you any regulatory process is full of, you know, contradictions. And so, you know, we're we're trying to minimize impacts to state protected species here as well as minimize impacts to federally regulated uh waterways. Um um so, >> [snorts] >> um and then, you know, I guess as far as you know, we put the uh the the 3 to1 cross-section was was applied throughout the project corridor, so minimized impacts that way. Um and then there was also indirect impacts that that we had to think about as well. So um you know anytime when you're putting fill or an embankment through a wetland and cutting off lobes uh that can result in um hydraological impacts. So if if you don't do anything about that, water will collect and change the wetland type um community type and uh that is viewed as an impact um by by regulatory staff. So, uh to get ahead of that, we installed a or uh the engineers installed a uh equalizing pipe to allow flood water to to go in and out and drain and uh and be functionally the same as as the adjacent uh flood plane forest. Um so in addition, we also uh you know installed sediment erosion controls. It's a pretty standard stuff but um still it it it helps to uh minimize potential sedimentation um from from uh construction mobilized sediment. Um so um [clears throat] so so it's it's my understand it's my belief that we have done what we can to minimize and avoid these wetland impacts and um what you see before you is uh unavoidable. Um, and so I'm I've identified uh 02 acres of permanent fills to flood plane forest as well as a 128 square ft impact due to a temporary span crossing to facilitate construction. All right. Um so the proposal here is to mitigate those impacts with uh wetland mitigation credits. Um wetland mitigation credits are a market-based economic incentive um designed to achieve no net loss at the wershed scale. Um you know in in Minnesota we are held to sighting criteria. So you know it it all has to do with wersheds and uh different subcatchments. But in general uh for this project um we were able to locate um all mitigation within the same uh subcatchment uh same bank service area and same county. Um, and if we hadn't been able to do that, then we would have been uh required to mitigate at a to to go find the credit or mitigate at a at a 2 point or a 2 and 1/2 to one um mitigation ratio. So, in this case, we met those criteria. So, we're mitigating to 2:1, meaning for our 2 acres of permanent impact, uh, we're planning on purchasing, uh, prior approved wetland mitigation credit um, from an adjacent bank upstream. Um, and, uh, yeah, it's it's going to replace it. Uh so yeah so it's it's uh 02 acres of of of permanent and then replace it with point4 acres of restored wetland um of of the same wetland community type. I think that's >> all right. Okay. So before we get to question and comments I want to give you a bit of a rundown on the review process that's occurred so far. The technical advisor evaluation panel has met. We met with the county separately because of scheduling conflicts, but uh the review resulted in the questionnaire on as Alex mentioned why was a or if a boardwalk was evaluated as a avoidance measure. Um we found that there was not uh sufficient material in the original application to provide enough detail on how that evaluation was done. uh an addendum is requested by the to the DNR to be supplied that provides that detail. We do concur that the implementation of a boardwalk would not be practicable in this area due to the flood regime and the load capacity that requires uh the maintenance vehicles. The uh board of water and soil resources and DNR we met uh last Friday. Some notes there is that they also found it was insufficient of detail for the bridge placement scenario. With that said, we do concur that the restrictions put on where that bridge can be placed across NM Creek does meet the standards for the uh practicability of uh moving it where it is. uh Alex didn't mention in the application and this will be detailed more in the addendum that we're requesting. Uh the bridge at the narrowest point could be placed in a different location. It was scooted to a slightly wider span across the creek in order to avoid wetland impact. If it had put it put in the narrowest point, it would have forced that path to cut through more wetland than it does. So, it's a it's a tossup between trying to protect the creek itself, which is not permitted under WACA. It's a separate review with the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR. Um, but we concur that protecting that span of creek is vitally important and that engineering standard restriction is apparent. Um, we found that the mitigation measures to install drainage beneath the path where it is impacting wetland is uh a an uh appropriate measure to avoid changing the type of wetland that will be now cut in half by the path itself. So basically the path doesn't create a dam. uh the floodplane forest that uh that has been identified in that area. A silver maple floodplane forest is listed by the DNR as a sensitive plant community type. So avoiding changing that type is an important measure within their application and we concur that that was done correctly. Henman County wanted to point out that while it's not a requirement under the Wetland Conservation Act, they do have a county policy to attempt to replace all wetlands and or purchase banking credits in the county itself. And this application does successfully do that. In fact, it's uh just a short jaunt up the river with a newly built bank that was done by the county. So, they they do appreciate that move and wanted to pass that that information on. So uh uh our goal here uh uh is that on the August 3rd meeting or later it will be brought back to you to make a decision on does this project meet the applicability standards of WACA. There are two parts of this application you might have seen. There's the replacement plan which is the one we spoke about most. There's also a no loss. Usually no losses are uh approved by city staff. No loss just signifies by the name no wetland is being lost but it is being impacted and it's usually uh temporary impact. In this case it's construction impact. So the wetland will be restored post construction. So just getting the equipment in and out. It's going to kind of tear up the wetland a bit. Putting in a temporary crossing to build the bridge and so that will be replaced. It is meeting the standards of no loss and has that avoidance mechanism. Mostly a lot of those come down to the rare species. An important point of clarification, we cannot approve the decision until the take permits, which are the permits required by the DNR to work in these rare species communities when the assumption is that damage will be done to those communities are required. So, we need to wait until DNR proves that they have received those take permits. As to date, we have not received copies of those permits. We anticipate that those permits will be received by the August 3rd meeting, but that is one example of an outstanding item that we will not bring this back to until those permits have been proven to us that they have been received. >> Very good, Mr. Dysl. Mr. Yik, thanks so much. Council questions, comments? Council member Lman and then Council Member Dlesandro. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to just be just make sure I understand kind of what you're kind of looking for uh uh tonight from us and just also establish some some kind of some stuff here uh at EAW is >> oh uh environmental assessment worksheet um it's uh standard um environmental review process um required by uh the environmental quality review board. Appreciate that. Sometimes the folks who are listening don't necessarily know what that is. Apologize. >> Um so no not a problem at all. just I saw that in there. I'm like, wait, I don't know what that folks may not know what it is. Um, so uh uh so then uh this is a state trail that was established back in uh 1969. Uh and then uh the alignment and our agreement from the city was kind of locked in back in December of 2018. Stop me if there's something I'm saying that's that's wrong here. uh and then uh we at that time we had signed a cooperative agreement uh to kind of uh administer this this trail uh during that period of time December 2018 uh to make sure this kind of uh moves forward. So the the discussion today is really around the the replacement plan and whether or not that makes sense uh and then the the no loss wetlands. That's really what you're looking for today. I just want to be sure I understand exactly what you're looking for from us today. >> Yeah, council member Lman, that is correct. We are specifically uh doing the administration of the wetland conservation act. So that is the role we are playing right now as the city. So we're looking at not necessarily the entire trail, although the fact that they went ahead and avoided impacts along most of the trail does count in our assessment of impact avoidance. But we're focused specifically on that section of trail that is impacting wetland and triggering those parts of the wetland conservation act that are included in the application. The replacement for the impacted wetland that cannot be avoided and the no [laughter] loss signifying that there is wetland being impacted but it's only temporary and restored post construction. So then really what my my only real question that I have because I I I think staff has brought forward uh some really good things here and you know I think I've already seen it in the in the the pre-work that was was sent out to council earlier because it sounds like the alignment really can't be moved around at all unless there's a really justifiable reason to kind of do that. And I what I've heard both of you say here uh tonight is that you know you know if you move it one way it makes it worse one way and and kind of this is kind of where where we're at with that. So I guess when I look at that replacement plan I guess to me from the untrained eye I'd say that looks you know looks reasonable to me and then [laughter] sounds from the no loss standpoint from the wetland part I don't know what else we could do short of you know not building the trail but we've you know kind of already established that that's what's going to happen. So, I don't have any other comments. I think that what you've put forth here makes a lot of sense to to this council member. So, thank you. Thank you, [snorts] council member. Council member Delisandro. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I just a couple questions of clarification if I could. Uh thank you both for being here. So [clears throat] the first one uh is um the in one of the questionnaires it was asked whether or not we were going to be replacing or um planting non-native plant species and the answer was yes and I was curious as to why we would be planting non-native plant species as part of any kind of uh you know probably restoration. Sorry. >> No, I'm the smoke last week made me a little sensitive, so apologize. >> Um, so as I understand, uh, the, um, seed mix should be a a native native seed mix. I don't have that information in front of me right now, but I can certainly look into that. Um, >> yeah, I I I could probably have given you the name of the It was like question number 16, but I don't remember on which response form it was. Um, but it it it was I was just curious as to why um it wasn't the bat one, it was the other one. [laughter] Um, why why we wouldn't be, you know, assuming that native plant species would Oh, yeah. It's this one here. Um, qualification interview that you have in like 221 of the pack. It says, "Does the action include or will it cause planting or seeding of non-native plant species?" And the answer we gave was yes. So, just was curious about why we would not why we would do non-native. And to your point, if the seed mix is a combination, maybe that's why or you can't confirm that it'll not or whatever. That'd be a fine answer. I just wanted to cur curiosity about that. >> Yeah. So, usually um the seed mixes are specified state seed mixes um that are have applied um elsewhere along this trail. So this is phase two uh of of the trail. Phase 1 A and B are already constructed and I believe they would have used the same seed mix. So I can certainly look into that. I I'm I'm sorry I don't I don't have that at my fingertips right now. But >> that's okay. That was the first question I had. The second question I had was, and I don't know, this is more of a general question about how when you either bank credits, I'm assuming that this bank that you're talking about is some area of wetland that's been set aside that cannot be that cannot be developed and you kind of buy against that, meaning like at some point that bank's going to be used up, meaning everybody's decided that they're going to take their piece of it and it'll then be preserved for odd infinitum or whatever. Is that like how that works? Okay. >> Correct. Yes. Does that include the species itself? So like one of the things I saw was pretty impacted would be the take associated with the cricut frog. So like do you actually try to like make sure that there are cricut frogs in the bank? Like I get the wetland portion but like what about the species considerations associated with the wetland and do you try to bank those or like populate those so that you know we're moving the cricket frogs downstream or upstream in this case or whatever it is. I just kind of curious how that part of it works. Yeah, absolutely. So, um, state, uh, wetland mitigation banks are again a joint state and federal regulatory process. Um, there's guidelines that we must follow that specifies the frequency and duration of of hydraology that's monitored. We have to identify um, and reestablish and restore uh, native native plant communities and they cannot be invaded by non-natives. Um and so in and then the the degraded wetland that's being restored has to be actually completely drained or farmed or manipulated in some way that it's not functioning. It's its functions values are not um not addressing you know the the ecosystem services that are needed here. And so the um these wetland banks are are restored ahead of any project permit and they're all approved um with credit and you know the the the project uh proponent purchases that and in so doing creates a economic incentive for more banks to be created. And so basically to to answer your question um in restoring the wetland functions and values uh within natural self-sustaining wetland um you know if if if you build it they will come. So um you know the the Cricut F frogs should come but as far as a uh a uh compliance uh standard I have not seen um anything like that in in bank plans. Okay, >> I can just so one of the my understanding is one of the rationale of why we require to see the take permits in hand is we're relying on the process of that permitting system to ensure that we're meeting our obligations to not cause outstanding damage to whatever sensitive species that is. So while the wetland bank is a tight community issue, um we kind of rely on a separate pering process to ensure that we're >> sure this is where I'm going with that, right? So you have a you have a restored wetland that's great. If the cricut frogs are taken from here before they can get over there, then there aren't any cricket frogs to go over there, right? And so like especially when you're talking about a species that is really like I mean according to the logic that's in the documentation, it is a very isolated air pockets of places where that Cricut frog exists. So it almost feels like you have to kind of pick them up and move them to the new one or else you'll take them and then they won't have the chance because their communities are isolated. And so I I was just kind of thinking through that and and hoping that maybe there's an opportunity for us to to think about that. And I didn't know if those take permits, to your point, also include that it's not just how many can you kill in the process of doing this, which I'm sure that's part of what that is, but also can you kind of have some guarantee or some assurance that the bank that you're you're betting against here has enough of those to kind of mitigate the take. And I that's what I was curious about. So if you have more information, you can get us before the third. That's >> absolutely absolutely. >> Okay. Uh uh and then just to confirm, it's only 0.2 acres total that is being permanently filled in. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. It's a seven and a half mile trail. Two and a half mile trail. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. And only and so the rest of it is kind of the standard issue, you know, planes that we have, flood planes that we have down there. Nothing nothing ecologically special about them. I mean, aside from uh the state protected species and and all that. Yes. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, Council Member. >> Council member Nelson. >> Thanks, Mayor. Couple quick questions here. Um the bridge over Nine Mile, um why does it need to support vehicles? Um is that law, is that regulation, or is that just convenience? >> I think it's a maintenance consideration. Um, so it is a dynamic flood plane. Uh, if if you walk out there, there's sediment and, you know, trees that blow around and, um, so it's dynamic. And so I imagine maintenance crews are going to be able to are going to need to have some way of getting equipment back there to clean up the trail or make repairs or or what have you. >> And I appreciate that. The only thing I'd point out is that the intention is to extend this all the way over to Bloomington Ferry. So you'd have access from both directions and would not need to cross that bridge to do maintenance. You could go from either direction eventually and would that reduce cost and impact because I think from my understanding is you have an obligation to minimize the impact and the impact is at that bridge area and that so um I strongly question the need for that to carry vehicular traffic. M >> um second uh uh thing that I had is is part of this plan any type of habitat restoration. We may have talked a little bit about that earlier tonight. Um, and as you go in there and you're doing this stuff, I we talked, you know, council member Delisando brought up some of the stuff, but you know, you've got the equipment, are dead, disease trees, are invasive species removed, and to what extent are they removed so that we can set proper expectations for people uh when they get down there? >> That is a that's a good question. Um, I understand that there's a number of trees um that are being protected uh with this project. So, I believe I don't want to overstate it, but I believe it's 30 or so trees um that are being preserved. Um as far as uh invasive species control, um you know, I I'm going to have to get back to you on that. Um I don't I don't believe there there is anything, but um certainly I can I can look into that. Um, next question I got is, um, in the information that I read, um, as I think we're all aware, there's an existing trail that that people use down there. It's, you know, maintained by [laughter] a local group and with some partnership with the city. Um, but it sounded like that will go away. Am I understanding? Did I read that correctly? >> Uh, yes, I believe so. Yes. >> I will just tell you that for me that seems like a big shift from our prior conversations. And I I know that there's always been conversation that both of them will be maintained. We did that to the east of Lindale and maintained both. And so that that is a um something that I want to make sure that that people are aware of if that is the case. Um the last question I have, and this is probably very tangentially related, there's a property that someone bought and there's signs up um no trespassing and so forth on it. It's I believe it's further west of this area. Um do you have any update on the status of those conversations there? Um I'm just going to be perfectly blunt. If somebody owns that property and you're not able to cross it for your path, what's the point of building this? Mhm. So, yeah. So, I am sort of on the the the wetland replacement and in terms of like rightway acquisition, um that's a good question, but I can certainly um research that and and take a look. >> Y Thank you. Thank you, council member. I would think also the uh the bridge would serve a safety feature as well, a safety purpose for when our if anything happened down there, we would be able to get vehicles across that bridge. Yep. Yep. >> Yep. All right, gentlemen. Thank you much. We appreciate it. Thank you, council, for the discussion. This will come back to us uh and if not our next meeting, the meeting after that. So, very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our final item of the evening, council, is item 5.2. This is the second amendment to the 2016 master redevelopment plan for private redevelopment of land. Redevelopment contract for the private redevelopment of land and this is in the south loop district. So Mr. Kevin Kase is with us. Good evening Mr. Kenise. >> Yes. Good evening mayor and city council. So as the mayor said, I'm Kevin Kane. I'm with the Port Authority here and I'm here to present the second amendment to the 2016 master redevelopment contract for private redevelopment of land. So that's a long name. Um, and in summary, the contract provides terms for financial assistance for future redevelopment projects on the MOA property. So, think of the property to the north of the mall itself, as well as timelines for performance. And that's really why we're here today. The contract has additional goals that it outlines about making prudent public investments that support the long-term viability of the mall itself as well as protecting the city and the public resources that go into those projects. This contract really is kind of the overlay that guides any specific contracts for redevelopment contracts on specific individual projects. The proposed amendment itself is a recognition of delays that are caused by the pandemic. So CO 19 and as outlined in the staff report, the contract language does contemplate that there may be unavoidable delays that exist and it includes an opportunity for an extension for the performance period and that is why we are here today. Uh those terms include epidemics, government action as well as force closures and as stated they are articul articulated in the contract itself. If the council approves the extension is proposed today, it would then go to the port authority tomorrow night. They are also a signer of the contract along with the city council and MOA land um which is a division of triple 5 corporation. port staff and triple 5, which is the owner of the Mall of America, worked together to come to the terms of what would be a reasonable extension in light of the pandemic impacts on future projects. And the result of that is what is here today, which is a two-year extension to the performance period. So, there are two terms by which uh performance needs to happen, and that is at 10 year and 20 year marks. And this extension would provide for two years of extension at each of those. So from 10 to 12 and then from 20 to 22 years. Additionally, it does modify a provision that requires an amount of valuation of construction in or at those terms. and it reduces the $500 million valuation at that 10-year term, which would now be 12, to 400 million, but then increases the amount at year 2020 or year 22 to 800 million. And then it's important to note that there is a requirement for $1.2 billion of estimated value of improvements that still would remain and has not modified. So with that, I will answer any questions and then I know that triple 5 has uh Kurt Hagen here as well as his council and then the special counsel for the port is also online. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Kenise. Council questions on this. Council member Nelson. >> Um Mayor, I don't have any questions. If anyone else does, they could go. I just had a few comments. >> Any questions, council? I'm guessing we're do comments. Yeah, please comments. >> I to be honest, this seems extraordinarily straightforward to me. It's a simple extension. and it ties in with other actions we've taken with SD TIFF and things like that. Um, you know, the I'd be prepared to just move this. It it seems very straightforward and simple to me. We're we're all just trying to work through and negotiate the details of this and appreciate everyone's step thing. So, >> thank you. Council member Rebas question. >> Yeah. All right. See, >> we we'll need your microphone on, council member. [laughter] >> Yeah. Are we on? >> Okay. >> I I move to approve a resolution uh approving an amendment to the 2016 master redevelopment contract for private redevelopment of land with MOC Land Holdings. Second >> motion by council member Reva, second by council member Nelson to approve a resolution approving an amendment to the 2016 master redevelopment contract for private redevelopment with land with the with the MOAC land holdings. Any other comments, questions on this council? Council member Mullman, >> just a quick one. Get it done. My my kids want to get in there, [laughter] man. They're like, what's the problem, Dad? Let's go. No other questions, no other comments on this council. Very good. Miss Riot >> Carter. >> Hi, >> Dallasandro. >> I rebas >> I >> Nelson. >> I >> Lman. >> Water park. I Yes. >> Robertson >> I. >> Mayor Bessie >> I. Motion carries 70. Thank you much gentlemen. Thanks for sticking out with us. Thank you Mr. Kane for uh your work on this. Uh I will be missing tomorrow night's port authority meeting. I won't be there, but you have my affirmative vote on this because I think it's a it's a logical extension and and makes perfect sense. So, thank you so very much. Good >> council. Uh, [laughter] >> earlier this evening, we heard uh Miss Mandershide checking on whether or not we needed a public hearing for item 4.2, and she was able to confirm that we did indeed need a public hearing on item 4.2, and it wasn't listed in our documents. So, what I'm going to do is uh we're going to I'm going to ask you to reconsider that item so we can hold a public hearing. Uh you might recall this is uh uh it's a two-step process. First, we vote to reconsider. Then what we'll do is reopen item 4.2 and we will hold the public hearing and then we will vote once again. >> So, Council Member Nelson, >> we can hold the public hearing tonight. >> We can That's when it was >> Okay. It was advertised. >> It was advertised for >> Okay. >> All right. It was >> it was >> it just was it was incorrectly stated in the documents. So So I'm going to move a uh I I'm going to make a motion to reconsider the vote on item 4.2. >> Second >> motion and a second by council member Robertson to reconsider the vote on item 4.2. Miss Ry >> Carter. >> Ilesandro. >> I rebas. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> Hi. >> Lman. Hi >> Robertson. >> Hi. >> Maybi. Motion carries 70. Opening up item 4.2 two for reconsideration. So, we've had our presentation, we've had our discussion about item 4.2. What I would like to do now is open the public hearing on item 4.2. This is the preliminary and final plant of the Southtown Shopping Center, fifth edition. Is there anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak to item 4.2? Miss Ry, do we have anyone online? >> Mayor, we do not have anyone online. >> Last call for anyone in the chambers. Council, we have no one coming forward. We have no one on line to speak to item 4.2. I would look for a motion to close the public hearing at item 4.2. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by council member uh Robertson, second by council member Dalisandro to close the public hearing on item 4.2. No further discussion. All those in favor, please signify by Oh, I'm sorry. Miss Ryan, could you please call the role? >> Carter, >> I. >> Dallasro, >> Rias, >> I. >> Nelson, I >> Lman, >> I. >> Robertson, I may >> I. Motion carries 70. Now council, I would look for a motion at it in 4.2. two. Council member Robertson. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I move to approve the preh preliminary plat I'm going to start over. I move to approve a resolution uh approving the final plat Southtown Shopping Center, fifth edition located at 7803 Penn Avenue South subject to the condition and code requirements attached to the staff report. >> Second >> motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Dallas to accept item 4.2 as stated in tonight's agenda. No further council discussion on this. Miss Ryan >> Carter >> I >> Dallasandro >> I >> Rebas >> hi >> Nelson >> hi >> Lman >> hi >> Robertson >> hi >> Mayor busy >> I motion carries 70 thank you for your indulgence as we corrected that council we could get that done and I wanted to make sure that we did and thank you Miss Vanderhide for catching that for us and we will make sure that that is done moving on to our final item tonight this is the council policy and issues updates uh I will start off as I do I will recap our city council listening session we had one two three, four, five, six, seven speakers tonight and they broke down basically into two camps. So we had uh uh Connie Roth, Mark Mercer, um Matthew Howlet, Erica McMullen all speak on the NM Creek restoration process. Uh with the exception of Matthew Howlet, they were opposing it. Ma Mr. Howlet was in favor of it for a variety of reasons. We also had two speakers regarding the Olive Isle edition. Mark Hansen and uh Keith Kevin Johnson spoke and is the item that we voted on this evening and Sally Ness uh spoke to us once again about the Smith Park shared use agreement. Uh once again a good public listening session and just to reiterate what I said uh we will have uh we will consider that NM Creek contract uh at our august 3rd meeting. We are kicking around the idea of perhaps having a uh a public comment opportunity on that because I know there's a lot of folks who would like to uh to address that and I think that would make sense to be able to give people an opportunity to speak to it. Um beyond that I do not have anything. Mr. City Manager. >> Uh thank you mayor. Um mayor, members of the council, a couple of items for you tonight. You may recall earlier in the year uh city took a number of steps to support the the community in response to operation metro surge. One of those actions was taken by our port authority. Uh a small business loan program of up to $400,000 was approved by the port uh and administered by our port authority staff. Uh the port authority is going to hear a more robust update on this tomorrow night, but I did want to share for the council's business or for the council's update and awareness that uh as the final numbers have come in on that uh we were able to support 25 businesses to the tune of $180,000 uh through that program. Uh and as you'll see if you watch the port meeting tomorrow night, really good cross representation of ages, um genders, uh races, etc. So, I thought our staff did a really good job of getting those dollars into the community uh and ensuring um uh that our business community was supported in that really difficult time. So, kudos to them and and again, thanks to our port commissioners and our port staff who administered that program. Secondly, I want to remind everyone who's watching tonight uh that the Bloomington remembers veterans dog tag sale uh will uh close on August 1st. uh those funds are being used to help support the cost of uh constructing the Veterans Memorial. And I think really important caveat to remind ourselves is that you need not have been a Bloomington resident uh to be honored through that. Just need to um confirm uh the person you're honoring veteran status. So that can be done online, by mail, or here uh at city hall at our city clerk's office. Um I want to celebrate our communications and engagement department. Last week they were recognized at the Minnesota Association of Government Communicators Northern Lights Awards with five different awards. There were over 200 award entries and we brought home five awards across several different categories. So kudos to our team and I also want to thank our deputy city managers who were able to attend and support our staff. Uh I was slinging root beer floats at our employee summer picnic so I'm glad we we had good representation at that. And then finally, just a reminder for everyone that we will not have a council meeting next week. Originally, we were scheduled for one. The council uh calendar that was approved last year had a July 27th meeting. Uh but we are cancelling that meeting. So, uh August 3rd will be our next meeting. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any questions of Mr. Walker on anything? >> Very good. Council, anything to bring forward tonight? >> With that, it looks like we've uh completed our agenda. I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. Mo motion by council member Robertson, second by council member Rivas to adjourn this evening. No further discussion. Miss Ry >> Carter I. >> Dallasandro >> I. >> Rias. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> Hi. >> Lman. >> I. >> Robertson. >> I may >> I. Motion carries 70 and we are ajourned. Thank you council for your participation this evening. Thanks to the staff and thanks to everybody who joined us or tuned in. Everybody have a great rest of your week.