City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome. Good evening. I will call our Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, August 3rd, 2026. Thank you to everybody who is joining us here in the chambers this evening. Thanks to everybody who's watching online. We will begin our meeting as we always do. If you are able, please rise, remove any head covering, and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Once again, welcome and thanks to everybody who is here. I know we've got a lot of folks here. I do want to remind everybody, we do have the screens on out in the entryway, and we can turn the volume up if folks want to stand out there or sit out there and watch as well. We have, Council, our first order of business this evening is the agenda. On our agenda this evening under introductory items, we have three items. We have a proclamation for the 2026 National Night Out, which is tomorrow evening. Item 2.2 is a resolution denying a petition for an environmental assessment worksheet. AND ITEM 2.3 IS OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WHICH I THINK MOST FOLKS ARE HERE FOR. THIS IS REGARDING THE NINE MILE CREEK CORRIDOR RENEWAL PROJECT AND THE NINE MILE CREEK LOWER VALLEY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT CONTRACTS. ITEM 3 ON CONSENT BUSINESS, WE'VE GOT 21 ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON HAS CONSENT. ITEM 4 IS OUR HEARINGS AND RESOLUTIONS, AND WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE BLOOMSHIRE VILLAGE TOWNHOMES, AND WE WILL WRAP UP WITH OUR COUNCIL POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE.

Council, anything to add or any corrections for tonight's agenda?

Council Member Nelson.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Just very quickly, would it make any sense to do 2.2 after 2.3 after we heard from people on Nine Mile in case there are any environmental things that come up during those conversations?

I think this item 2.2 was more of a legal presentation or a legal consideration, so I think I'm comfortable just based on what we heard from our legal staff and from our environmental consulting staff that there is the sufficiency of what we have in place now. Okay? Anything else, counsel? If not, I would move the agenda as stated. Second. Motion and a second by Council Member Lohman to accept tonight's agenda as stated. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. We have an agenda, and also just noting that Council Member Carter is not with us this evening, so we have a 6-0 vote tonight. I do want to say also, given the agenda as we're looking at it right now, item 4.1, our public hearing regarding the Bloomshire Village townhomes, it's going to be at least 90 minutes is my guess, maybe pushing two hours. So if you are here for that, settle in, or you can even step out and join us as we get back down to that. So just wanted to let you know. First item on our agenda council is our National Night Out Proclamation, and I will head down to the podium. As I mentioned, tomorrow night is National Night Out here in Bloomington and across the country, and we do an annual proclamation, and we also do about 250 parties across the city, and it's one of the more entertaining and enjoyable nights of the summer. It really is a lot of fun and brings neighborhoods together in ways that few things do within the city here. So it's a wonderful event, and our proclamation reads, National Night Out, Tuesday, August 4th, 2026. Whereas the National Association of Town Watch is sponsoring a unique nationwide crime and drug prevention program on August 4th, 2026 called National Night Out. And whereas the 43rd annual National Night Out provides a unique opportunity for the Bloomington Police Department to join forces with thousands of other communities across the country in a community building campaign that promotes police community partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie to make neighborhoods a safer, better place to live. And whereas the Bloomington Fire Department and the Bloomington Crime Prevention Association play a vital role in assisting the Bloomington Police Department's efforts in supporting National Night Out 2026 locally. And whereas it is essential that all residents of Bloomington be aware of the importance of crime prevention programs and the impact that their participation can have on reducing crime and drug abuse in our city and strengthening neighborhood spirit. And whereas the Bloomington Police Department values community partnerships by always being respectful while keeping our community safe. That respect is demonstrated through their compassionate and honest service. And whereas community partnerships, neighborhood safety, and awareness and communication are important themes of the National Night Out program. Now, therefore, I, Mayor Tim Bussey, do hereby proclaim August 4th, 2026 as National Night Out in the City of Bloomington, and urge all residents to join with their neighbors, fellow community members, the Bloomington Police and Fire Departments, and the Bloomington Crime Prevention Association in making this community safe for everyone, dated this third day of August, 2026. As I said, it is always a fantastic time. The neighborhood parties, the food is wonderful, the partnerships, the community is great. And the community building between the Bloomington Police Department and our residents is always just such a special part of it. So, Chief Hodges, thank you very much. Thanks for you and your officers spending your time. I know we all managed to have a good time, but I wanted to turn it over to you for just a moment and make sure that people get the personal invitation from the chief to participate tomorrow night.

Ain't nobody come here to listen to me today, so I'm going to be very brief. I would just encourage everyone to get out, enjoy your neighbors. I know we'll be out there, but Bloomington continues to be a growing community. We continue to be a community that is welcoming a lot of people into it, so every year there's probably somebody new on your block, so let's get out, meet them, and For those of you who have moved to Bloomington, hopefully you were welcomed into your neighborhoods when you moved in. So that's just the type of community we have. So I would encourage you all to get out if you have the opportunity to do so.

Very good.

Thank you very much. Pass our thanks on to the rest of your department. Very good. We'll get pictures tomorrow night, I promise. It's great. Thank you much. Council, next up on our agenda is item 2.2. This was a late addition to our city council packet. This is a resolution denying a petition for an environmental assessment worksheet and reaffirming the sufficiency of the completed environmental assessment worksheet, which was done back in 2025. Just as a quick reminder, an environmental assessment worksheet was prepared by our friends at Short Elliott Hendrickson, SEH, on behalf of the city for the Nine Mile Creek Corridor Renewal Project. And the resolution approving the EAW and making a negative declaration for the need of an environmental impact statement for the Nymal Creek Renewal Corridor was adopted by the City Council on October 27, 2025. A petition was submitted late last week. REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE NINE MILE CREEK CORRIDOR RENEWAL PROJECT. IT'S TYPICALLY A MULTI-WEEK PROCESS TO GET THIS MOVED FORWARD AND REVIEWED BY BOTH SEH AND THE FOLKS AT THE STATE. BOTH TOOK THE TIME OVER THE WEEKEND TO DO THE WORK AND TO GET THE INFORMATION BACK TO US. AND BOTH THE CITY AND OUR SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, THEY DETERMINED THAT THE ORIGINAL APPROVED EAW IS SUFFICIENT AND SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT A NEW EAW IS NOT REQUIRED AS NOTED IN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTIONS AND FINDING A FACT IN YOUR PACKET. SO I JUST WANTED TO, AS I SAID, THIS WAS A LATE EDITION. WANTED TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO YOU. IF THE COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I KNOW WE HAVE FOLKS HERE WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO ANSWER, INCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SEH. AND ANY QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL MIGHT HAVE. COUNCIL MEMBER LOMAN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I APPRECIATE YOU LAYING OUT the structure and the topic of this. I think the question that's in my mind is the conversation, the discussion around the original EAW back in 2025, in terms of that sufficiency, in terms of that discussion, I just wanted you to talk a little bit more about what we went through to get to that conclusion during that period of time.

What I think I'm going to do, I'm going to call up any of the trifecta, Bob Simons, Renee Clark, or Derek. Derek, I'm not going to pronounce your last name correctly. Deschelles? Is that correct? from SEH, and perhaps they can answer some of your questions. Was it even close, Derek?

You know what? It's as close as I've heard many times. Good enough. Fair enough. Technically, it's Daishal, but I've heard every version, so you are close enough.

Very good. Thank you. Thanks for being here this evening.

Yes, I appreciate it. Thanks for your time and all of our guests here tonight. Specific to the process, which is really more of my area of expertise, yes, this EAW was submitted last fall. it went through the 30-day review period it did receive a couple of agency comments those were addressed the council then evaluates that and at the conclusion of the eaw process you're really left with two choices you either terminate which the city decided to do with a negative declaration on proceeding to an environmental impact statement or you believe that there's sufficient risk or environmental impacts that it needs to be advanced to a full environmental impact statement or eis So the decision at the time was to terminate environmental review which then allows the project to proceed towards permitting, submitting applications, further agency review because while it's in review no decisions can be made on the project. So that's a very important step in the process. Now because that happens fairly early in the process there are components that are but maybe not as specific as they would be in the RFP or what we're talking about today. That's just the nature of the process. It's really considered environmental vetting at a high level to identify the risks they may be out there. We disclose those. We get comments back that we can address. We want to learn and understand where the project may need to assess, evaluate, and potentially make some alternatives or make sure we're moving in the right direction. And we believe that process was achieved. The resolution before you today is essentially reaffirming that process and that you're standing by that conclusion that was made originally, which, again, was a negative declaration on the need to go to an EIS. The rest of the process proceeds independent of that. And so the resolution that's been prepared and the finding of facts support reaffirming that, which essentially is also stating a denial of the petition to revisit the EAW and go through that process again.

Thank you for that. So the only other thing I wanted you to talk about a little bit is the public component of that. So I think that's important for folks to kind of understand how that public component of it operated and worked. And then if you could just briefly, I know the mayor talked about it, but what happened over the weekend to get us back to this conclusion today?

Sure. So the EAW process does include a publication through the Environmental Quality Board Monitor. That's their newsletter. I understand a lot of the public doesn't subscribe to that. So I don't want to say that that was your chance, but it typically is also put through public notice. It was discussed at council. We typically believe that there is certainly legal opportunity. I know there's some debate on whether this is adequate or not, that it's out there, but it met all the legal obligations for availability public notice requirements it certainly was discussed here at council and of course there's a lot of agencies and stuff that participate too but specific to the public all of the legal requirements were made for addressing that and commenting Specific to the events that got us here today, yes, the city was notified on Friday that a petition was made to revisit the EAW. The Environmental Quality Board, we reached out for clarity on what did you receive, what are your next steps to make sure we're proceeding properly. The discussion we had with them, and I'll just reiterate because it's a fact, is they review that petition for completeness. They do not review on merit. They do not review on second guessing a decision that was made or provide direction on where the city should go. It's strictly to ensure that it meets the legal requirements to be complete. So the number of people that provided signatures, the content of that, they determined that it was complete, provided a response late on Friday, along with instructions on the next steps for if the city has RGU as far as timelines, noticing, those types of things. In response to that, one of the key requirements is it does have a 15-day decision turnaround that can be extended, but the initial one is set up that within 15 days, the RGU is expected to make a decision on that petition. which does land us here tonight. Now, it's unfortunate that's a quick turnaround to get it introduced into the packet, but you were well within the legal requirements of making a decision this evening. To extend it is certainly a possibility. You could go longer, address it at another meeting, table the discussion. I just want to be clear that if that occurs, you can't make any decisions on the project tonight. You're essentially tabling everything in favor of revisiting the EAW. It doesn't mean you can't deny the petition later but it is potentially going to delay decision making while that's in review. Hence the material in the packet and a little more urgency to make sure you're receiving the information, our feedback and clarity in the process.

Thank you. Council additional questions, comments on this? Staff anything else to add? All right. Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

So then, Council, the question before us is, is this resolution denying petition for an environmental assessment worksheet, item 2.2? discussion on this council. Council Member D'Alessandro.

Thanks Mr. Mayor. So there was nothing I'm assuming and you guys can confirm this for me that with whoever it was that reviewed the data that came with the petition that there was nothing substantially different between what we looked to approve in October versus what we have in front of us today. Is that correct? Do I have my understanding of this?

There are components of the petition that do bring up topics that we believe were substantially addressed to the level required in an EAW. There are some specific components asking about quantities of herbicide that we are not as specific as they would like, other aspects of the tree removal, but substantially the topics were covered, and maybe not to the level of detail, but again, at the time, they were presented to the level of detail that were known. That's very typical for the for the EAW review process that as we get into final plans and permitting that they're much more specific so yes there were some components that asked for more information but for the most part they were seeking alternatives other ways of looking at the project kind of looking at I know this is gonna probably not sound great, but some of the nuance of it, rather than a wholesale, you've done something different. It's just kind of shifting some components. Valuable information, worthwhile of a discussion. As a consensus, we don't believe that it's necessarily something that's in the best interest to discuss and go through another round of an EAW review for, but there were some things that have merit to be understanding of, but that's a different threshold than continuing the process legally and through that whole review.

Okay, and to just make sure I understand, when you say understanding, you're saying that the information that we have is worth us knowing about, but in your estimation, it doesn't change the outcome of the EAW work that we conducted in October. There's nothing materially different that would have had you say, there's a whole section of this thing that needs to be re-looked at because it's materially different.

Yes, I would say that all of the topics that are required to be addressed were addressed, and all of the subjects that were brought up in the petition were discussed to some degree. There is nothing that I would say is a complete omission or something that we would significantly look at as something we would need to revise and put out again for public review.

Okay. Okay. I appreciate the clarifications. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Rivas. I do have a question, more for clarification than anything else. You did mention the fact that some things did change, right? Yes. That in the process, the presentations didn't actually put out all the information that you have now in your hands, right? That some of the information was changed because during the studies that you did, there were other things that you learned that could be different, right? So that's it, there is in fact changes,

now compared to the information that we got back in 25 and even in january 26 correct um i think technically when you say change yes that is accurate i would say it's more of a refinement so we talked about ranges we will do thinning activity or broke savannah within these acreage in these areas as we've learned more about the project adjusted priorities And there's been components from the beginning of this project that have also changed. Do we have bikes and pedestrians? Is it pet only? Do we keep the dam or remove the dam? Do we do the remeander and a boardwalk or keep the bridge? This is the most recent one that we've really dove into as far as some of the that occurs or change as we get deeper into the project. But this project like most projects like this have had refinement since the original day we started evaluating these things. And I think this is a component of it. It's just proximal to kind of some of the final decision making which is elevating the discussion a little more than usual.

Thanks for that clarification. I do have another follow up question in regards to that. Do you think, or in your opinion, in your professional opinion, do you think that that information that now we are – that we have in our hands could have been disseminated to the public as well in a timely manner so that they could understand that the changes that have happened are just improvements on what we – had originally. And I perfectly understand that these things keep changing as they evolve. And as we get gather more information, we make decisions that are, you know, that we back up with science or more information that is available to us, right. So but you think that the that information could have been made available to the public as well so that they could, you know, their expectations of what's happening, who have been met at that point?

So specific to the EAW, not for that document precisely. Once that decision is made not to progress to an EIS, that essentially terminates that process. So I wanna parse out from item 2.2, could there have been more? No, technically that process was complete, so we wouldn't go back to that. From the overall public engagement and discussion topics, I believe we've adequately explained some of the variance and nuance, whether that's at public meetings. This is the third time I've presented to council on these changes and revisions as we've gone through. We've tried to be clear. I know some of the commissions also saw information earlier that was modified over time. It's actually a testament that this is how the process is supposed to work. If we started on day one with we're gonna do this and we never changed, we're not doing our job either. So the fact that we've had, again, some modification and we can, you know, what's an allowable amount of modification, that varies by people's opinion. So I know one of the topics that's very proximate to this petition is the Baroque Savannah and we did add areas to that. Overall, for the entire project, our revisions constitute about 10% of the project area being revised, which generally falls within what they would consider an acceptable amount of revision without really needing public notice. But I believe we've done our best to try to disclose that.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member. Anything else, council? If nothing else, council, I would look for action on item 2.2 this evening. Councilmember Robertson.

Thank you, Mayor. I would move to adopt a resolution denying petition for environmental assessment worksheet, reaffirming the sufficiency of the completed environmental assessment worksheet, and reaffirming the city's negative declaration on the need for an environmental impact statement for the Nine Mile Creek Corridor Renewal Project.

Do we have a second? Second by Councilmember D'Alessandro. Motion by Councilmember Robertson, second by Councilmember D'Alessandro. to adopt the resolution denying petition for an environmental assessment worksheet, reaffirming the sufficiency of the completed environmental assessment worksheet, and reaffirming the city's negative declaration on the need of an environmental impact statement for the Nye-Malcreek Corridor Renewal Project. Any further council discussion on this? Council Member D'Alessandro.

The only comment that I would make Mr. Mayor is that you know something that is mostly for staff consideration in these cases. You know I understand the legal process that we're working with here and I understand the you know environmental impact statements have long-storied positive and negative history depending on how you choose to wield them right and so I don't want to necessarily suggest that we volunteer ourselves for every environmental impact statement in the world right I don't mean it that way but it the question that I guess I would pose to us as counsel and to staff is that when we are doing a renewal project of this magnitude that we don't necessarily take it upon ourselves to ensure that substantially the information that in an environmental impact statement is something we consider in our projects. Now, I'm not suggesting we did or did not do that in this case. I don't actually know because I've never been through an environmental impact assessment, so I don't know what's in there. But I would want us to feel confident that substantially the conversations that proceed when we do an environmental impact assessment are things that we would have included in this conversation when we're doing something as substantial as this kind of renewal? And I don't know the answer to that question. So it might be worth it for us to think about and consider as we think, you know, I mean, obviously between climate change and other things like that, this is not the last of the environmental type situations we'll be in here. And so I could defer to obviously our experts on this, but I, you know, IF IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO DO IT PROACTIVELY TO ENSURE THAT SUBSTANTIALLY WE FEEL WE HAVE THE INFORMATION WE WOULD GET FROM SOMETHING LIKE THIS, MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD DO ANYWAY BECAUSE IT RISES TO THAT LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE AND CERTAINLY IT WOULD HELP WITH COMMUNICATION TO OUR RESIDENTS. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE. THANKS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, COUNCIL, WE'VE GOT A MOTION ON ITEM 2.2 THIS EVENING. NO FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-1 with Council Member Rivas in opposition. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. BRINGS US TO ITEM 2.3 THIS EVENING, OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THIS IS REGARDING THE AWARD OF THE 2026 NINE MILE CREEK CORRIDOR RENEWAL PROJECT AND THE 2026 NINE MILE CREEK LOWER VALLEY MANAGEMENT PROJECT PLAN CONTRACTS. SO THIS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, I'M ASSUMING, THIS WAS THE ADDITION OF A PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY HAD. AND SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR MORE FROM OUR RESIDENTS on this important topic and to do it before we would take a vote on this and have the discussion on this. Because, you know, civil discussion and community input is good. It's what we want to hear and it's what we desire and it's what makes city government as strong as it is. And I want to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard and that the council can conduct our business in an appropriate and thorough manner. And so I'm hoping as we get into this that we can all agree on the basic kind of ground rules. And those ground rules, and for everyone, I want to make sure that we all maintain a tone of respect. And I mean everyone, whether it's the council or city staff, speakers, anybody else in the audience, that we just maintain a tone of respect as we go through this. And that includes we won't be, we'll listen without interrupting or speaking over others who are speaking. that we're going to refrain from booing or clapping or shouting or heckling or chanting, anything along those lines, because I guarantee if you cheer for someone, there's going to be somebody who's going to be wanting to boo for someone. And I think we're better than that. I don't want to get into that, and so we won't be doing that. And we absolutely won't tolerate any personal attacks or abusive language or threatening or intimidating behavior. We're not going to do any of that kind of thing. And so the way this will work, just from an operational standpoint, I've got the list of 30 names here, folks, and what I'll do is call you in five-person groups, and if you could just line up, basically, right in a row. Elizabeth Tolsman will play air traffic controller and help us sort everybody out if you have any questions. You'll be limited to two minutes, and you'll see the clock on the wall will keep you to two minutes, and I will stop you at two minutes because, as I said, I want to make sure everybody has an opportunity. As you're making your comments, please direct them to me and the council. We're not directing them back at the audience members. And please do stick to the subject. We want to make sure we stick to what we're talking about this evening. As I said, we welcome the variety of opinions that I know we're going to hear tonight. I know we're going to hear both sides of this issue, and we're going to hear from people who believe very personally, very passionately about this, but I really do hope and expect that Bloomington can keep this civil and respectful. I know that there are other places that can't do that. I think we're better than other places that can't do that. We can do this, and I would hope we'd all agree with this. We can have this discussion. We can come to a vote. Some of you are going to leave angry. Some of you are going to leave happy. I understand that. but I hope we can do this in a proper way. So if we can all agree to that, I would greatly appreciate that. Council, will you all agree to that?

Very good, thank you very much.

We are gonna get right into it then and get into our period here. So the first five. Council Member Lohman.

I hate to do this to you, but my question is, for this particular topic, could you just outline what it is that we're going to be making the decision on so that we're clear as we're having this conversation, this dialogue this evening, what the scope of this conversation is, if you don't mind doing that.

That's a very good point, and I know that will be clarified in the presentation, which is coming up after this. But basically, the City Council has approved this project. It was voter approved. It was city council approved last year on a 7-0 vote. What we're talking about tonight, what the decision we're making tonight is whether to award the contract to begin the work, to continue the work on this section of the project. And so that is officially what we're making a decision on tonight. It's not revisiting the merits of the project as a whole, whether or not we should do it at all. This is specifically the vote that this council will make is on the selection and the award of a contract to get the work done.

I appreciate that.

I just want to make sure that that's indeed what we're talking about here. Thank you, Councilmember. That's a good clarification. Our first five speakers, and again, if you could just line up and we'll get you going, they are Dr. Gretchen Buchanan, Ben Bullard, Mark Mercer, Paul Cote, and Jonathan Minks. So again if you just line it up and introduce yourself and then the clipboard includes the speaker's register. As you finish up just sign your name next to your name and that will be good. So good evening and welcome. You have two minutes, off you go.

Hello Council and fellow citizens. My name is Dr. Gretchen Buchanan. I'm a Bloomington parent, marriage and family therapist and scientist who studies relationships and systems and that perspective informs my view on this issue. There is a dominant philosophy in our culture that views land as an object, a passive resource to be owned, managed, or utilized. But there is an older indigenous wisdom that we are not owners of, but in relationship with the land and our other entities in and on it. To be clear, I am not indigenous, but once you see the truth of this philosophy, you cannot unsee it. It acts us to act so that seven generations from now, our descendants experience a world that is flourishing. This stands in stark contrast to a worldview that treats the land as a mere object to be possessed, devoid of autonomy. We may want the best for this object, but it is for our own selfish purposes, not because we think of it existing outside of us. We see this objectification everywhere. Think of how we treat a person when we view them only as an asset, like a boss who micromanages an employee, ignoring their well-being to squeeze out a result, or the societal pressure on women to maintain a specific appearance while ignoring their internal reality. In both cases, we are only looking at the surface. When we objectify non-mile creek, we are doing the same. We prioritize our own immediate comfort or control rather than engaging with the ecosystem as a partner. This is where the opposition to the restoration, the Save Our Woods perspective, misses the mark. They're looking for personal satisfaction, their shade, their walks, their control, rather than asking what the land needs to be healthy. If we keep treating the creek as an object to be managed for our convenience, it will remain in an unnatural, sick state choked by invasive species.

Very good. Mr. Bullard, good evening. Welcome.

Hi. Good day, everyone. My name is Ben Bullard. I am a Bloomington resident, and I work as an ecologist and project manager doing ecological restoration work in the West Metro. I also serve as a board member of the Minnesota Oak Savannah Chapter of the Prairie Enthusiasts. While our chapter is new in its formation, the Prairie Enthusiasts Organization has existed for nearly 40 years with the mission as follows, to seek to ensure the perpetuation and recovery of prairie, oak savanna, and other associated ecosystems of the Upper Midwest through protection, management, restoration, and education. With that introduction, I'm guessing you can figure out where I stand on the topic today. And my mission is not to seek to change anyone's minds. As we know, this project is already in motion. I would simply like to open the door to you folks and anybody in the public who would like to learn more about our organization and what we're really all about. I would be very interested in showing others around to successful Oak Savannah restorations. And I have some paper materials with me about the Prairie Enthusiasts, which I would be happy to share. And I will be here as long as anybody would like to chat, along with my friend here, Gabriel, who is also a member of the Prairie Enthusiasts. If I could make one opinionated statement, I would say that for me, Oak Savannas are amongst our most precious landscapes because they represent the intersection of biologically diverse landscapes and landscapes for people to live in and thrive and enjoy nature. I realize that there's going to be some division that we're going to hear tonight, but I really don't think that we're that far apart in all of our goals and our shared values. I appreciate everybody coming tonight to share their concerns, and I would like to thank the city for having us.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bullard. I appreciate it. Mark Mercer, good evening.

Hi, Mark Mercer here. See, I just think that there was a little bit more community outreach with the bike path and stuff. It felt like I was more in tune. I could step away for three, four weeks and I could ask somebody and they kind of knew what was going on. I kind of feel like we're blindsided with this Oak Savannah thing. A couple months ago is when I really first heard about it. And I know if I read all the fine print and everything, but just the magnitude of it to me, it seems like it's overwhelming. And I just think it's too much. I looked at some oak savannas, and some of them look kind of nice. But that's not what I want, and that's not what a lot of the people want when we walk down to the creek and talk about it. We don't want it. I don't see the wildlife like I've seen before. I see deer every once in a while, but I don't see them in the... in the capacity that I have in the past. And I don't know if that has to do with the clear cutting that you guys are doing now. But I kind of think that we should give it a little bit more thought here. And maybe sometimes less is better. You know, I mean, when I heard 60 acres of clear cutting, I thought that was excessive. I thought that was too much. And I think we should revisit this again and maybe just, I don't know, get things going differently. But I like the canopy. I walked there the other day and I looked at all the trees and I think... It's almost like a meritocracy. It's like these trees deserve to be there. You know, they're at the top of the canopy, and for some reason they're there. They just deserve to be there. They don't think they deserve to be cut down, and that's just my opinion. But thanks for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Mercer.

Mr. Mercer, if you could sign the clipboard really quick, please. Just sign next to your name there. Thank you.

Mr. Cote, good evening. Hi, I'm Paul Cote. I live a block from Nine Mile Creek and I have hiked it for almost 20 years now. I know some folks don't like how it looks right now and are anxious about how it will look in the future. The process of ecological restoration is disruptive. And it can feel jarring in the moment, but we have to look at the facts beneath the surface. I want you to think for a moment about a massive oak tree. If you only think about how it looks, you miss the most important part of the tree, and that is the complex network of roots beneath that anchor it and absorb nutrients from the soil. And right now, the roots of our native trees at Nine Mile are actively struggling against invasive species, overcrowding, and severe erosion. A tree cannot survive on looks alone, and neither can Nine Mile Creek. Anyone who has ever seen a loved one undergo a life-saving medical procedure knows that the healing process isn't pretty. And for anybody who is in the middle of that, just know that you're in my thoughts. nine mile is beloved i dare say by everybody in this room on any side of this issue and while it's completely natural to feel alarmed by the immediate disruption especially when there is various levels of information or misinformation circulating online the city and the watershed district have done diligent work to present the facts and keep the public updated on the plan This project is essential to return our corridor to true health and save the native trees that are currently fighting to exist. Nature can take care of the beauty. We have to take care of the health of Nine Mile Creek. And I ask the city to please be thorough in answering any questions residents have. And I do want you to know that I support taking the next step forward with your vote tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Coat. Mr. Minks, you want the overhead? Is that what I understand?

I would love the overhead. Grant, if you could turn on the overhead camera, please. Doesn't this table come up a little bit? It's always a little short for me.

I THINK IT'S AS HIGH AS IT'S GOING TO GO.

GOOD EVENING. WELCOME. MY NAME IS JONATHAN MINKS, LIFELONG RESIDENT HERE IN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I WANT TO BEGIN WITH SOMETHING MAYOR BUSSY SAID IN JANUARY 2023 WHEN DISCUSSING THE LOCAL SALES TAX PROJECT. YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR. I'd like everyone to remember those words as we look at how this project has evolved. If we go back to 2019 with the master plan, city documents and discussion shows staff expressing concerns about park maintenance. The city acknowledged its lack of staffing and resources to maintain existing park land and discussion. and converting it to Oak Savannah. Around that same time, the city also met with stakeholder and groups interested in these restoration efforts. There's nothing wrong with the community organizations participating in public discussions, but residents deserve transparency on how ideas develop and who is involved in shaping them and why certain restoration approaches become priorities. Here's the one with the stakeholders right here where valuable stakeholders in the master plan. And then here we talk about the community members and special interest groups looking for more support, encouragement, and allowance from the city. As someone who served on the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission, I reviewed a full year of commission materials, and in April 2025 presentation, Oak Savannah appeared only as a brief bullet point on page 103. I'm going to run out of time. There's a lot more I'd like to talk about, but one thing you want to promote is your core mission about a cultivating and enduring and remarkable community. I would like to say that we do not need outside radical groups coming in to sway us in our decisions in the city here. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Minx. Our next five up are Matthew Hallett, Dan Nijolik, Jamie Anthony, Sonia Walters, and Natalie Rooney. Mr. Hallett, good evening. Good evening.

Good evening. You already heard me ask three times now, I think, to which era are we restoring? We've already heard about Governor Ramsey's era. So what's the other? Herds of deer currently enjoy the new wetland meadow. For two centuries, the oak trees in Nine Mile have been maturing like fine wine. Each our irreplaceable master craft of nature that stands in the center of Minnesota's web of life. Once they are unburdened by colonizer species, their majesty will be brought forward 150 years immediately. Even now, their stands of oak so massive on Humboldt Avenue, they create a vented thermocline 10 degrees colder than 106th. Next year, shrouded in tall grasses that stand until spring, they form breathable windows, not walls trapping deadly humidity. We need these all-season sanctuaries as we experience the coldest summer of the rest of our lives. within two years a super bloom more than 10 times the acreage of what bloomed in front of civic plaza this year will explode beginning their eternal dance beneath the great moving webs of shade from may to november as the biodiversity stacks up month by month so too does the collective defenses that help safeguard the entire city from pests and diseases of the 10 of oak wilt that can travel beyond its immediate surroundings via sap beetle all of its predators live inside the savannah Within five years, there will be abundance beyond counting of dragon, butter, and fireflies, of food, medicine, and millions of new free seedlings for other projects in the growing restoration revolution. I cannot think of a greater legacy than the oaks that will outlast every building in this city, ensuring the good life to seven generations beyond our park.

The oak savanna restoration will not cut down all non-oak species. There is not clear-cutting occurring for oak savannas, and there will be non-oak species there. Yes, the restoration will save more than 12 oak trees. The restoration is not replacing a forest with an oak savanna. It is restoring an oak savanna that is seriously degraded because how we have managed it. This is not nature. This is us preventing cycles from being successful. Restoring the savanna at Nymo Creek is very important for many reasons. the contiguous acres of savanna, powerful native remnants. It's a nature-based park, importance of the ecosystem, the critical need for plant diversity and the existing environment. And I want to speak to, this plan reflects your balancing of many interests. 85% of the park, is being done way people like it. The only interest of a vocal minority is on 15%. If this was truly a full restoration plan, it will look much more different. We accept this plan and our support of this plan is spirit of compromise and community. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Nderok. Jamie Anthony.

Hi, I'm Jamie Anthony. I do not live near the Nine Mile Creek parks that are in question today. But I feel so strongly about the importance of this project that I'm here anyway. And it takes a lot of courage to get up on a microphone and tell people that you believe in what they're doing. So I'm here today to commend not only the city council for your careful stewardship, but also the Bloomington City staff who have been involved in all of the planning and the work that has gone into the vote that you'll be doing tonight. I'm proud to live in this city. I've only been here since January of last year, so I'm pretty new. And when I learned that there was like some hubbub about people not wanting an Oak Savannah restoration project. I was like, what? So I did what you all at the listening sessions know that I like to do, which is do a lot of research and figure out what am I missing? What's going on? So I went back and I read not all the documents, but a lot of the documents. And I wanted to understand how was it missed that this was part of the plan? I can't answer how it was missed because to me as a newcomer, it seems pretty obvious

Hi, Mayor and Council. My name is Natalie Rooney, and I'm a Bloomington resident. I chose to make Bloomington my home because of the vast number of parks and green spaces and the wildlife who call our parks their home. Lately, the Nine Mile Creek restoration project has been a hot topic of online discussion. There's been hesitation from some residents over the project and the changes it will bring. What some see as a healthy ecosystem is anything but. Invasive species and overcrowding is choking out the life of our creek. Buckthorn has taken over and is preventing native flora from establishing and thriving. Tree overcrowding is stifling our oak potential and making them susceptible to disease. I've been volunteering my time over the last three years with Bloomington Neighbors Nurturing Nature. From removing buckthorn and other invasives to replanting native flowers, grasses, sedges, and shrubs, every hour of our manual labor has resulted in nature quickly bouncing back and thanking us. Fireflies, bees, butterflies, and other pollinators have returned to each of our restoration sites, and we've witnessed deer and a diverse population of birds return as well. By doing this restoration at Nine Mile, we are ensuring a diversity in both flora and fauna and healing the creek as a result. Contracting a professional company for the work will make sure those changes happen much quicker and the schedule minimizes potential negative impacts to wildlife. I'm beyond excited for everyone to witness these changes to come. I want to thank the city for working with residents on this project and the, from the initial plan presentations, receiving resident feedback and using that feedback in addition to guidance from experts has assured a balanced and educated approach. A special thanks to Renee Clark is due as she's personally been connecting with residents over their concerns and being incredibly patient throughout the process. I urge you to move forward with this project. This work is invaluable, and I want to assure everyone who's concerned that nature will heal, and future generations will thank us for the work we're putting in. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rooney. Our next five up are Connie Anderson, Vicki Wisniewski, Alex Brose, Suzanne Zetikowski. Oh, wow, I'm just destroying these names. I apologize. You know who I'm talking about, don't you? Yes. Thank you. And Robert Frischman. That microphone is the best. Good evening and welcome.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Connie Anderson and I moved to Bloomington specifically to live near the woods of central park. The issue before you is not buckthorn removal or responsible tree thinning. We all agree on those things. The issue is the plan to cut down over 40 acres of mature woodland and convert it to an oak savanna. Many of us believe this project would restore the woods to a state of health by removing invasive species and improving the existing forest. Instead, it has become a proposal to remove hundreds of mature non-oak trees, and fundamentally transform one of the park's most treasured features, a proposal that the public never had an opportunity to comment on. I do not believe spending millions of taxpayer dollars to take away something that so many residents already love is a wise investment. People come to these trails because they offer quiet shade and the feeling of being in a real woodland, something increasingly rare in an urban environment. Those mature trees provide cooling, wildlife habitat, and help reduce the urban heat island effect, which is one of the goals in Bloomington's urban forestry plan. I believe we should manage these woods for what they are today and not attempt to recreate what some think may have existed nearly 100 years ago. Bloomington has changed The climate has changed. The surrounding landscape has changed. Our management should reflect today's realities. I respectfully ask you to stop and reconsider this plan. Restore the woodland to health, but don't clear cut it to create a prairie. Once these mature trees are gone, they're gone forever. We have one chance to get this right. Please protect the woodland that so many Bloomington residents value.

Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Good evening, Vicki.

Hello, I'm Vicki Wisniewski. I've lived in Bloomington since 1997, and I'm here today as a Bloomington resident who supports the Nine Mile Creek Oak Savannah Restoration Plan. I'm not a public speaker, so I will be brief. One of the main reasons that I support the restoration plan is because it was created in partnership and collaboration with the community. The problem was identified, the public was invited to give their input, and experts were consulted and a good plan to fix the problem was made. I appreciate that the city's commitment to making Bloomington a better place to live. And I also appreciate living in a city that's willing to invest in our future and plant the seeds for restoration now so that future generations can enjoy the results. This project is one whose impact will last for decades and will benefit nature, ecosystems, and humans alike. I believe that the construction of a healthy ecosystem is worthy of our time, attention, and resources. I'm proud to live in a city where people are consistently invited to engage in the process of creating collaborative vision for our future, and I hope that the City Council will decide to move forward on the scheduled restoration project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Brose. Hi, Alex Broza here in support. I would first like to recognize and respect that Nine Mile Creek was the traditional ancestral homeland of the Dakota people. I grew up a few hundred feet from Nine Mile and now live on Screebokin Park, where I have been restoring the mesic oak savanna behind my home through Adopt-a-Park program. I started removing buckthorn and other woodies in my spare time before my elderly neighbor called the police on me. With her limited ecological knowledge, she only knew how to leave it alone and let nature be. Thankfully, the city applauded my work and provided me with resources and next steps to ensure successful restoration. That is what really sparked my passion and eventually a career in ecological restoration, where I have now had a hand in restoring hundreds of acres of land. It's been such a joy to see the native flora and fauna return. And just last week, I recorded an endangered rusty patch bumblebee in the restoration area behind my home. Unfortunately, to my elderly neighbor's dismay, we lost the ability to just let nature be long ago when we introduced non-native invasive plants and altered the systems that were here before us. Famous conservationist Otto Leopold states in the Sand County Almanac, one of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. In other words, ignorance is bliss. Seeing the tree cutting is jarring and many have stated that they are sad to see clear cutting. Now the layman is able to see and feel what those with an ecological education feel every day. You're able to recognize an ecosystem in need, but just because you didn't see it before doesn't mean it didn't need help. Really, it's not up for debate. It's not what you or I want. It's already written in the banks. It's what the living beings who have been here longer than any of us tell us with their wide-reaching, spaced-out limbs. If we really wanted to save our woods, we need to listen to them. For those saying we will not see the change in our lifetime, while that is false, let me remind you again.

Rosie, time is up. Thanks. Thank you very much. Ms. Zawistowski, right?

That is correct.

I got it.

Yes, thank you. Good evening. Good evening. I am here tonight to reaffirm my strong approval of the city's commitment to taking responsibility for the man-made decimation of the Nine Mile Creek area by restoring the endangered Oak Savannah ecosystem that once flourished there. decades of ignorance and how to treat this precious ecosystem along with the invasion of human introduced buckthorn and other invasive species has turned this precious space into something unrecognizable from what it once was as you all know there was much planning consultations with experts engagements with fellow citizens and a city-wide vote which passed resulting in the culmination of the current restoration plan A lack of understanding on the part of some does not mean that we should pause on taking action to save this vital area before it is too late. From listening to actual ecologists and naturalists on this topic, we can all understand that time is of the essence if we wish to save the oaks, restore the oak savanna, and allow the return of flourishing native flora and fauna. as well as for the benefit of future human generations. A failure to act now will seal the fate of this endangered ecosystem and allow the buckthorn to continue its rampage as it slowly snuffs out other species and ruins soil quality. I thank the city council and everyone who voted in favor of this restoration, and I urge the city to stay the course. I thank you, and I would also like to address Jonathan Mink's final statement on the Facebook post regarding the radical all-ons. That was me. What he didn't include was my other comment saying that that was a tongue-in-cheek joke that I knew that my friend would understand. And also, radical means amazing, and I invite you all to learn more about all-ons. They're doing truly great things. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Frischmann. Good evening.

Good evening. Hello, Mayor and council members. Thank you for taking the time to have this public forum. I'm certain everyone in this room wants what's best for Nine Mile Creek. From my home, I can see the ball fields of Smith Park, but I choose to drive to Harrison Park or the 163 Bridge parking lot because the Nine Mile Corridor is a magical place, a sanctuary for me. I believe it when the supporters say that the savanna will increase the flowers, birds, and monarch butterfly population. This makes me very happy because I have a huge soft spot for the monarch butterfly. Its life cycle truly amazes me. However, they say there will be plenty of shade as well. Don't believe them. I went to Lowry Nature Center in the Louisville Swamp area. A naturalist from the Lowry... Nature Center told me the oak tree would be an island of shade, and a sign at the Louisville swamp said, be sure to look for the oak tree scattered in the preserve. Nobody has ever described the trees in Nine Mile Forest as scattered or an island. The shade in the wilderness enchants me. It's why I go there. Furthermore, I'm certain that as long as you and the council are in charge, you will make it a priority to find the money to chop down the trees, mow and burn the Savannah as needed because this is your legacy. However, when you're no longer mayor, no disrespect, will the Oak Savannah continue to be a priority? Maybe yes, maybe no. If it isn't, we need to look no further than the walking bridge below the 106th Street Bridge to see what will happen. For at least three years, there has been a steady parade of cones being placed there. First one, then two, then three or four with tape to protect us from the eroded areas. Then a fence, and finally it was demolished. It has sat for at least one year without any acknowledgement of when it will be rebuilt. And you know why that is? It's because it's not a priority. Again, no disrespect. Your priority is the Savannah. I am certain that if the mayor and council who approved and built that bridge were still in power, they would have found the money to fix that bridge. I believe the supporters are truly doing... Mr. Purchman, I'm sorry, time is up. Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you. Next five in line for us tonight. Trevor Jackson, David Neil Oyn, Eloise Jaskin, Tom Walter, and Cody Swede.

All right. Hello, and thank you for having me here today. Instead of going into depth about the ecological benefits of this restoration project, like what many people have discussed both here and online, I'm instead going to be a little selfish and talk about myself and what I like. I really like prairies, and I really like oak savannas. They're some of my absolute favorite ecosystems in the entire world. So as I learned more about this project over time, I became excited to find out that we're really leaning into having an oak savanna opening, and I wanted to express that excitement here. As some of us know, Oak Savannah is one of the most endangered ecosystems in North America, with less than half a percent left. But they provide such incredible ecological benefits. The main thing I want to discuss is the diversity of the plants. In the middle of the Oak Savannah opening, we can see dense plantings of things like coneflowers, hyssops, blazing stars, bergamot, yarrow, and goldenrod that give support to not only our pollinators during the summer, but they also provide nesting locations for some of those pollinators in the winter and a food source for our overwintering birds in the form of seeds. As you move closer to the tree lines, the plants that thrive in sunny prairie conditions drop off and get replaced with lots of different kinds of plants. You'll see the big leaf asters, the columbines, the thimbleweeds, the poke milkweed, and some funky looking fig warts that fill in that awkward niche of not quite full sun, but not quite full shade yet. And of course, shading these woodland edge plants, you'll see these delightful oak trees. Before the thinning and removal of invasives and other trees, these trees were in a fierce battle with each other for dominance, which stunted their growth. But in an ideal oak savanna environment, this would not be the case. They would instead have space to focus their energy on widening those canopies and provide a much higher quality of habitat for birds and insects to live in. I could go into more depth about my adoration of oak savannas, but for the sake of time, this is all I could feasibly squeeze in. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Oyen. Good evening. Welcome.

Good evening. My name is David Oyen. Thanks for the opportunity for being here. I live in 110th Street between France and Normandale, 15-minute bicycle ride from the non-mile corridor in the park. My wife and I moved from our farm in rural Montana to Bloomington seven years ago. to be near our three children, all of whom graduated from college, great colleges here in Twin Cities, imagine that, and they never left, imagine that. So, we're coming to be with them and now our seven grandchildren. I'm here to support the Nine Mile Creek Renewal renewal project for a number of reasons, which will boil down to the fact that I'm a grandfather and I've become connected to three organizations here in the area that I think are extremely important. One is the Elders Climate Action Twin Cities chapter, which focuses on advocacy for being good ancestors to future generations on climate and healthy environmental issues. The second is All Lawns of Bloomington and Richfield, which encourage, educates, and enables individuals to convert their suburban turf lawns to native pollinator habitats, and the third one as Bloomington Neighbors Nurturing Nature, which organizes volunteer work parties to ballot to battle invasive buckhorn in the city's municipal parks and to create healthy school and public landscapes with resilient native plants. I look to the other commentators to address the science behind oak savannas and the details of the proposal itself. I simply want to commend the city of Bloomington for having the vision on behalf of the community in the nine mile corridor but to implement this project. And I encourage the council and the committee to have the courage, the persistence, patience to see it through. The land, the water, the wildlife, current and future generations will benefit.

Mr. Oyen, I'm pleased.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Jaskin. Good evening. Good evening.

My name is Eloise Jaskin.

Could I ask you to get into the microphone a little bit more so we can hear you? Very good. Thank you.

Right. My name is Eloise Jaskin, and I am a long-term resident of East Bloomington. And I'm here tonight because I have a story for you, and I'm going to read you a story. It's not a bedtime story, so no napping. But it is relevant to the Nine Mile Creek Corridor restoration projects. I've been in frequent communication lately with a birder friend about the issues surrounding the Nine Mile Creek corridor restoration projects. In a recent email, he told me about his experiences with birding at the Parker Picnic area, both before and after the Oak Savannah conversion there. His story about the consequences when restoration projects have an unexpected impact was so compelling that I wanted to share it with you. My birder friend wrote on July 28th, 2026, quote, I recently been sent another bulletin with a video about the Oak Savannah restoration in the Parker Picnic area. The guy in the video makes it all sound great, but that wasn't my impression when the clearing there took place. It pretty much destroyed a large portion of what I considered a great birding area. Maybe it will recover in time. But after four years, it still is relatively birdless compared to what it used to be like. It's not a place I would go to anymore to look for warblers." My friend is an expert birder with an in-depth knowledge of Hennepin County birds and birding locations, as well as being a recognized and respected member of the Minnesota birding community. He has been birding the Parker Picnic area since 1980. and has birded the Nine Mile Creek corridor hundreds of times. He goes out birding almost daily. This guy knows what he's talking about.

Ms. Jaskin, I'm sorry your time is up.

Too bad I was getting to the good part.

I'm sure you were. Thank you. Mr. Walter, good evening.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Tom Walter, and I am here on behalf of Erica McMullen, who very much wanted to be here but had a family commitment that's been planned for six months. These are her words. You are the only people with the power to stop what the vast majority of residents don't want, did not vote for, and are adamantly opposed to. We respectfully ask you to delay the project and vote no on awarding any contracts at this time. These are the reasons why the project needs to be put on hold. First, the voters of Bloomington did not vote for Oak Savannah and Prairie. The ballot said renewal. The ballot question itself used the words improvement and restoration. It did not mention Oak Savannah and Prairie. A ballot question should not leave anything open to interpretation. Secondly, There was a major lack of transparency and clarity by the city. The city had meetings about bike trails, playground equipment, removing buckthorn, dead trees, fixing bridges, stopping erosion. But they failed miserably in making the residents aware of the biggest changes of all, tearing out acres of mature and healthy trees, and swapping one unique ecosystem for another. Residents that I've personally spoken to and I were also shocked and appalled at the clear cut we saw this spring. The city's own website uses renewal in its title, not restoration. No pictures of Oak Savannah or Prairie are even shown on the main webpage. Nobody should have to search hard to find the truth of this plan. Word is only spreading because of grassroots efforts to raise awareness. I suspect there are still thousands of residents who are not aware of these changes. These are major changes from last year's proposed work. The acres of Oak Savannah has almost doubled. Over 13 new acres of prairie have been added. Mr. Walter?

Am I done? I'm sorry, your time is up. Okay. Thank you.

Also, you're going to run out of money.

Could you sign in, please, Mr. Walter? Thank you.

Mr. Swede, good evening. Good evening. This is my first city council meeting. I love it so far. People are fired up. So I'm here today because I love nature. And I think that's why everyone else is here today too, right? We all want to have the best possible nature in our spaces like Nine Mile Creek. And for me, growing up, nature always meant greenery, right? Trees are green, grass is green, bushes are green, and that's nature. But unfortunately, as a previous speaker alluded to, I began a journey in native restoration of my own lawn. And what I began to see is nature changed. Things like Siberian elm or Japanese honeysuckle or buckthorn are as native or as natural as a parking lot would be. It's like a big column of cement got placed in our park. And unfortunately, I can't go to Nine Mile Creek with my wife and kids without seeing that non-nature nature everywhere. And I really... It hurts, actually. It feels bad when you see an area that should be full of coneflowers and oaks and bee balm and all these beautiful plants that create forage for bees and butterflies and... Deer and all kinds of animals, great and small, and instead it's things that, you know, they can't eat the berries because they die, they can't eat the leaves because they can't forage on them. So I'm speaking, of course, in favor of this plan, and I'm glad that it's going through. There's an old saying that... A great leader plants trees whose shade they will not see. And this is a way to plant quite a few trees and restore area whose shade you may not be empowered to enjoy anymore. But an oak tree lasts 200 years. It's a lot of shade for a lot of people. And I'm so thankful that you've decided to do this to Nine Mile Creek. And I look forward to seeing it when it's completed. Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Our next five up, Megan Lundquist, Jane Freeman, Stephanie Thomford, Jill Crafton, and Brian Hoffman. Good evening and welcome.

Hi, my name is Megan Lundquist, and I'm a resident of the South Loop in Bloomington. And I'm speaking in support of the nine mile Creek restoration project. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to protect and restore nine mile for future generations. The proposed restoration is an investment that aligns with the city's goals and is an opportunity to act in a way that is bigger than Bloomington by improving a Creek that has major downstream impacts. This is a really critical precedent to set. I understand the concern about the changes to the park's appearance and especially the loss of the tree canopy. Ike's Creek runs directly in my backyard, and it underwent a similar revitalization change that just ended this spring. And honestly, it was a very stark sight to see. But the temporary pain and the ugliness of that construction project has given way to a healthier and more beautiful natural space. The trout that are living in the stream are thriving, which is amazing. Stewardship cannot be a preservation of the status quo, and attempting to save this area as it stands is a choice, but one that risks losing the values that make Nine Mile special. I appreciate that this plan looks beyond the immediate preferences and focuses on what will leave the strongest legacy for Bloomington. This project will create a healthier, more diverse, and more sustainable park that will be enjoyed by people and also save it for the land, plants, and animals that depend on it. Thank you for your time in supporting this project.

Thank you, Ms. Lundquist. Ms. Freeman, good evening.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jane Freeman. and thank you for having the public comment session tonight. Listening sessions and public comment sessions allow community members to share their views. However, they do not allow for an in-depth exchange and conversation about the specific plans for the Upper Trail. The opportunity for this in-depth conversation needs to happen before going ahead with the contract award tonight. There are many questions that an engaged community will have. Here are just a few. Why was Oak Savannah chosen? Were mixed woodland and forest options also considered? If other options were considered, what made Oak Savannah better? Were preferences of park users and adjacent property owners taken into consideration? Was the impact of global warming considered? What are the plans for ongoing maintenance past the five years in the contract? Community involvement and buy-in is one of the highest priorities when a project of this size is being considered. It is essential that our community better understand the restoration plans beyond what was recently included in the RFP. Bloomington values community input as exemplified by the previous engagement events and the treats because meaningful communication ensures that community members feel included, heard, and valued. With all this said, I urge you, Mayor and Council, to pause the contract award tonight and instead hold a community engagement event where we get a chance to have a conversation about the plan for the upper trail. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Freeman. Now, I know you're not Stephanie, are you? No, I'm just checking because I called Stephanie and I didn't see her come forward. Is Stephanie here? She is not, so we'll just move on to Jill, Jill Crafton. Good evening and welcome.

Thank you. Yeah, Jill Crafton, and I've been serving on the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Board as a manager because of your support and your advocacy for me to be there. And I've learned a lot, and I've been a champion for restoring ecosystems to that watershed. But as an Isaac Walton member and member of the Bush Lake chapter, we've been strong opponents, advocates for what you have done from taking that master park plan and developing a natural resource plan and really trying to restore ecosystems to this city. And I think it's what makes us really special. On our chapter grounds at Bush Lake it took three years and Paul Erdmann was the main one driving that but to get the buckthorn out before we could start to restore it with native plants and whatever and so I know it may seem extreme to do a clear cut, but sometimes that's the best approach to get there the most efficient way. And it can look ugly, but the oak savanna is what was here before. And it has grown those trees and the plants grow together and evolve with the insects and birds and wildlife. And it's a system, and they're all part of it. and so I commend you for what you're doing tonight. I have support going forward with the contract, and I appreciate all you've done to help us with our valuable treasures in the city.

Thank you, Ms. Crafton. Mr. Hoffman, good evening. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, council members. My name is Brian Hoffman. Been living next to the park for 30 years. Originally moved into the community back in the early 60s with my parents. So I've sort of seen the whole progression. And I really want to echo, of course, the Mayor's comments about the importance of having community engagement and conversation. and I also would respectfully disagree that the project was already approved. The concept was but the details are different and I think the but I've tried to follow this project and I had no idea that the clear cutting was occurring until very recently when the RFP was issued and at this point basically asking council to delay the project because the contract can be changed. The extent of the work can be altered before it's signed. The buckthorn absolutely got to go. There's a lot of diseased trees there. There's a lot of crowding on the oaks. But there's a difference between a mixed species woodland, and the Oak Savannah. Now, I've heard a lot of people comment about Oak Savannah, and I've actually been surprised. And I understand the ecological argument for that and for restoration. And there's also a balance with the community psyche, the human element of being down there and enjoying it. This is a city park. I mean, if I want to go to the zoo or the state park, there's lots of various trains and environments and ecosystems available. When you go down there, though, you talk about a lot of people, residents, whatever, using the park for recreation, solitude. I think those were the primary comments that were heard during the open house meetings when it started at Moyer was that solitude that closed in that canopy. And I'm afraid it's being lost. Now, I've heard some people say it's not a clear cut. If that's the case, Well, that's great, but it's not known. I have not heard from anybody exactly the extent of this project in the upper trail area, and I think some moderation could sort of satisfy everybody, and I want to thank you very much for your attention and for this opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. So the last five in the queue this evening. Ted Kramer, Susan Baker, Vicki Hewson, Brian Savig, and Leslie Swanson. Excuse me, Swenson, Leslie Swenson.

Ready for me? Yeah, this is a little short. So I think everyone here is here because we want what's best for the ecosystem. And nobody's saying we should pave paradise and put up a parking lot by any means. But there's a mix of voices due to a mix of knowledge levels when it comes to ecology. And I mean, from talking to people who've looked into this a lot, can tell you that there are some remnant prairies out there in Nine Mile Creek Corridor. These are patches of land where everything that's lived there has lived there since even before 1492. And I think preserving and even helping expand those, and those are... like also considered Oak Savannah to some extent, but that's kind of our holy grail because once that's gone, it's gone forever. So I'm in favor of going forward with this project in a way that's consistent with the advice of people who are, you know, well-versed in forestry. so it's an important legacy for the city because you know in 300 years the impacts of this project will be felt more than any hockey arena or community center so let's make sure it happens and yeah thank you mr kramer ms baker

Good evening mayor and council and thank you for the opportunity to for everyone to be able to share tonight I am opposed to converting a major part of our current woods and more Moyer Park to Oak Savannah I Appreciate appreciate the shade that these woods provide it is a peaceful and refreshing place to walk converting to Oak Savannah would change the character of this park and Moyer Park would have about 40 fewer acres of shade. Living in this suburban place, I value the shady places in our parks. Converting to Oak Savannah may make sense in areas where there is a lot of space to do so. Perhaps in one of our state parks. It should not be done in areas that are adjacent to neighborhoods. Just because this area used to be at Oak Savannah 100 years ago is not a sufficient reason to recreate it here and now. Our population is much denser now than it used to be. I attended several engagement meetings in 2025, read the poster information, and I thought I understood the city's plans for Moyer Park. I knew there would be no bikes, and because of that, there would be no widened paths for bikes, saving many trees from destruction. I knew we would remove invasive species and protect or rebuild creek banks. I knew we would have a new picnic area and building. It was never highlighted to me and others that we would be clearing approximately 40 acres to reintroduce Oak Savannah. If the city had this major change in mind, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED OPENLY IN ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS. I WAS ONE OF SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO JUST RECENTLY BECAME AWARE OF THIS PART OF THE PROJECT. I URGE THE CITY TO SCRAP THE IDEA OF OAK SAVANNAH EXPANSION IN MOYER PARK.

THANK YOU, MS. BAKER.

Thank you for having us in an open forum. Appreciate it. Or I should say comment forum. A few points that may warrant a pause for this project and the need for further open forum discussion. With all the respect, I don't believe the city has been very transparent or clear about the scope of this project since the announcements of the Oak Savannah and the upper pass. We've lost acres and acres of healthy, majestic trees that are going to be cut down, and oak savannas being implemented is not preferred. If you walk the creek daily, you will hear people exclaim, this is not what we thought we were voting for. And the Upper Trails Plan just revealed in June, it's a huge shock. The Oak Savannah fantasy, while knowable, was not mentioned until recently. In my opinion, it does not fit in a vast, huge, gorge, forest environment. No upper paths destruction, please. And everybody wants Buckthorn removed, by the way, everyone. My number one thing is maintenance. The city has not maintained Nine Mile for decades, and on the original pre-sanitized website for the restoration project, the city cited the need to have less maintenance due to staffing issues, high costs, and long-term upkeep concerns. If you've researched old Savannah systems, you know they require 20-plus years of continual maintenance to take hold and actually work and be sustainable. Who's going to babysit and nurture these fragile dynamic ecosystems? What is a maintenance plan beyond five years? It's not just burns, it's seeding, watering, mowing, and clearing invasive species that will keep roaring back. With time running out, thank you very much for the opportunity. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. Savick. Good evening, Mayor, City Council, members. My name is Brian Savig. I've lived in Bloomington for 57 years. Nine Mile Creek used to be a shady, quiet escape back to nature and primarily used as a walking park. It was shady, cool on hot summer days. My kids, now in their 40s, practically grew up in the woods. Comments have been made that voters have approved and selected this project. This is proof of what the voters voted on. There's no mention of 1850 landscape there's no mention of of uh invasive species being ash red cedar which have all come out in the presentation that those are invasive species other other speakers here have said 85 of the park isn't being changed well I guess my thought is it's been a walking park. It's a park. And if 85% isn't being changed, I'm not sure how you're going to cure the buckthorn problem, but why not deal with making an oak savanna of the 85% but leave it a walking park? I wore their shirt, it's a little out of tune because this was all about bikes in the park. That was one of the more recent big pushes. Very little mention of, I'm gonna ask you one question. I wonder how voters would feel if they were told that there was free removal of invasive species in their yard while they're at work and then they come home and find a cornfield. That's actually what happened. And based on what we voted on, that is not what was told to us. So I respectfully just please put a hold and reconsider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Ms. Swenson.

Good evening and I would just like to present a few facts that I'm sure most of you know already. So I was on the DNR website and one of the most recent maps that the DNR has, has an oak savanna going up through Egan not crossing the river. So the fact that you are all saying that this at one time was an oak savanna, I think that's up, it's questionable. So I am speaking against doing the restoration that you are doing, not just at Nine Mile, but in all of Bloomington. Here are the reasons why. Number one, a hundred years ago, we weren't nearly as urban as we are. We are very urban. We're going to get and continue to get urban influences. The fact that you are going to try and maintain this as an oak savanna is going to be expensive. Naturally, if you want to go back to naturally, naturally oak savannas are maintained by bison, by buffalo, that... eat the grass, the tall grass, so that when fires come, the young oaks, the fires are not as severe, so the young oaks can live until they become bigger and can survive a fire. We are not doing anything like that. I want to say that you are asking for a single species or close to a single species, and we all know what a single species, the dangers behind single species, just look at the ash trees. And I'm assuming that all of you know, because it was in the newspaper, about the fungus that is in California killing thousands of oak trees. And there is nothing anyone can do about it because they don't know how to contain this fungus. And I'm concerned about and have spoken to some of the people here in Bloomington. What are you planning to do should the fungus come here? And in fact, the fungus is here.

Ms. Swenson, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Council, that completes our list of speakers this evening. I want to thank everybody who spoke. I want to thank everybody who was here this evening. I appreciate how we managed this. I really do. It was a respectful conversation. Everybody brought forward your good point of view, but did so in a respectful and a courteous way, knowing that whatever side of the decision here you are on, these folks are our neighbors, and we don't need to yell and shout. We can have a conversation like this. So thank you all. Thank you very much for doing it in the way that we did get it done. I do appreciate it. Council, I will now close our public comment period and turn the conversation over to a presentation. I think we've got our city staff and at least one of our consultants will do a presentation. I'm going to turn it over to Renee Clark and Bob Simons and back to Derek, and I've forgotten to pronounce your name already. I've forgotten already. To Derek, so turn it over to you for the presentation. Good evening.

Good evening Marin City Council. We're here tonight again to request authorization of two construction contracts to continue with the Nine Mile Creek Corridor Renewal Project. A bit of background and to recognize council's recognition of the community's importance of natural resources. I think threaded through all of our comments, the community cares about our natural resources and council requested natural resources be presented as an opportunity for voters to take on this really significant initiative for such a large scale restoration project. The engagement process that we have followed was identified in the Park System Master Plan, and we stayed true to that for two years, talking to the public in a variety of ways. We did a creek walk where we learned together about the issues and opportunities throughout the corridor, the creek, the woodlands, the wetlands, the prairie, as an example of some restoration that's already been done And I love to thank the community for their long standing commitment to the city in working with us some for this entire two years on guiding the plan that we that council approved and that we're here discussing tonight. As a reminder, there is some work that council has authorized since the approval of the project back in January. One was tree removal specific to construction activities to facilitate the start of construction here this summer. The work at the Veterans Memorial at Harrison Park, which is underway. And then we are anticipating the construction to begin on the remainder of the projects being considered tonight shortly this summer. Upcoming, as requested by the community through the engagement, we will be initiating a wayfinding project as well as educational opportunities throughout the corridor, really specific to natural and cultural resources. I want to highlight some of this project that isn't specifically the subject tonight, but has been previously contracted and included. We will end with the presentation or discussion of the components regarding natural resources and then Bob will conclude with contract details and next steps. Reminder, Harrison and Moyer Park are also part of these projects that include a new picnic shelter, trail loop redoing of a disc golf course and one of our two ADA accesses for this project which has been really important to the community and the project.

Thanks, Renee. I'm going to touch on some of the aspects of the infrastructure and the natural resource components specifically. So we've discussed these previously and really haven't any significant changes, but for completeness, we want to make sure and just go over this as an overview. So within the corridor, we do have some major infrastructure activities that are occurring. North of 106th Street, we do have paving 8-foot trails between Moyer and 106th, so that northern section will be paved 8-foot trails, very similar to current alignment for the most part. Overall, we are replacing two bridges. because of structural failures that they've had. One is missing already. That is part of this project for that. Redecking the remaining bridges so they're in good shape. There are some stairs north of Morgan Circle that'll be removed, and then we're replacing those stairs at Morgan Circle with a switchback, and then those at 106th Street, so improving access. Those just have kind of degraded over time, and particularly with the switchback is providing ADA access that really isn't there presently, so expanding usage for all residents and users of the park. And then there's another activity that's a little bit hard to explain, but underneath the 106th bridge, there's some retaining walls that are failing. So we're undertaking an exercise referred to as soil pinning just to stabilize that and ensure that that stays in place for access. Within the creek itself, which is really where we started with the majority of activities, we brainstormed a lot of activity in here and identified the priority ones. So one of the highlights is the creek remeander, which I think is a significant improvement. I hear it's on the next slide. But within the creek corridor, we're removing the bridge and installing a new boardwalk associated with so we're enhancing that crossing and then there's a number of areas where we're replacing eroded banks and and soil and slope repairs with stabilization practices so it's kind of a variety on what's the best fit including riprap where necessary and there's a lot in that channel already so we're trying to minimize that but it works really well to try to hold soil in place but then also using biological material like root wads and toe wood, log veins with boulder hooks to actually reshape the channel rather than trying to stabilize the bank, work with the fluvial geometrics of the channel, and then fabric encapsulated soil lifts when we need to rebuild, and live stakes to try to get that vegetation back. So really a combination of things that are specifically focused on the creek. Now, one of the highlight parts of the project, I think specific to the Creek is currently we have one bridge crossing that we want to replace with a boardwalk. And part of the boardwalk is that accommodates an actual remeander of the channel. So there's a section up here, north of 106, just, downstream from Harrison Park, where in a previous storm event, a large section of the channel essentially cut straight and it lost that natural meander. So part of this project is to restore that and put that back, try to restore those processes. This is an area that's been mentioned as some clear cut, and that is accurate. The trees in this area were removed to accommodate the re-meander. Now the benefits of that is it's restoring floodplain. A lot of flood storage here. This is downstream of two major stormwater inputs. hold that water here restores the wetland associated with it and then we're adding 1400 feet of new Channel and restoring that meander process so there's a lot going on in this small area and on a percent base it's a small part of the project but this is one of the most significant from a ecological restoration specifically focused on the creek and those associated amenities something we're really excited about And then a large part of the project is tied back to our natural resource renewal project. So we have a request for proposals that's been out, recommendation on the table for you this evening. We have 235 acres that's managed. The biggest component of it overall is that removal of invasive species. It's targeting buckthorn and garlic mustard, but it really extends further to other invasive species that are present as well. A lot of those are shrub, but that's one of the biggest issues, and I think everybody is in universal agreement of taking that approach. um the baroque savannah is a component of it we can talk a little bit further about that to address some questions but we are including prairie restoration establishment there's a remnant prairie that we want to enhance and extend back to its original footprint in addition to establishing prairie along some of the areas that currently are mowed turf so we want to get that back more to a natural setting and try to minimize some of that maintenance but also have more of a natural feel throughout the park They're associated with the remeander is the wet meadow and floodplain restoration. We are proposing to remove some of the dead ash trees. It's unfortunate that they're present. It's more of a safety issue than an ecological issue. Trying to remove some of those in there. And then there's some earthen trail and gully repairs. Particularly on the upper trail itself isn't bad, but getting up and down has actually damaged the slope in a number of spots. So we want to repair those too and just kind of stop some of that continual damage that's just coming from continued use. Now, the nice part about this, and I recognize that we would love to have a 20 year or longer plan, but we have this as five years for the initial contract. So that's really hitting it hard initially and then four years of post restoration. Now, part of that is because We can't tell you exactly what needs to be done at this area four years from now. So it's an adaptive management approach that says this is the outcome we want. We will work our way to get there with these initial actions and then take the necessary steps to try to achieve it. So while there is some unknowns to that, it's actually the best approach to be flexible, but intentionally flexible so that you can work forward and make those outcomes that you're trying to achieve in a realistic timeline. I do have some responses to questions that were raised in the previous session, being as the rest of the presentation kind of migrates to other portions of it, I'd like to address those now, if that's all right. So some of the questions that we heard, and first of all, I want to thank everybody for their passion. I do agree everybody is on the same page here. We want this park to be the crown jewel. Maybe some nuance of what exactly that looks like, but frankly, I see support for the project overall and maybe some nuance to some components of it. I do want to touch on one of the comments about clear cutting. Somebody had mentioned 60 acres of clear cut. Now, from our standpoint, clear cut means we've removed everything. That is clear. going down to just grasses and herbaceous layer. And that's really an overstatement. The clear cutting that we will have out here is associated with the remeander footprint or the switchback. And that work already occurred last winter to try to free up those areas for specific components that are cited there. And that's about five or six acres overall. So there is other removal, but I wouldn't constitute that as clear cut. Those other areas where there is removal is either thinning or associated with the Oak Savannah where we are removing some species in there, but overall it's still woods. It still classifies as woodland habitat and isn't really clear cut. Although I can appreciate some of the equipment that's used, forestry mowers and things like that. It will look different with the buckthorn removal and some of the tree removal, but I just want to be sure that technically it's not really clear cut. It's a conversion of one woodland community to another, if that's fair. And I understand that itself introduces ambiguity, but we can get into specifics if we need to. One of the other components we've heard a lot about is the shade and cooling. There's no doubt that shade feels good, but shade is a relative component of comfort. I know some people like it hot, muggy, and still, and we like the shade and that feels good. I'm not gonna discount that feeling. Conversion and removing some of this will open it up. I understand there'll be additional light penetration. You go from dense shade to more of a dappled shade. For the most part, people don't notice that very much when you're in that setting. But what you will notice is more airflow, a decrease in humidity, a decrease in mosquitoes and other insects that like that hot, humid, still environment. don't want to say that your perception is wrong on what that is but i think there's a component that a comfort level and enjoyment of walking the upper loop with fewer trees in there is probably going to feel the same or better for most people with this conversion now that's an aesthetic not an ecological component but i just want to note with the tree thinning we're not opening it up to just be beating sun and people walking through the system There'll be certainly some openings that you'll walk through, but overall, I think your experience will be very similar from a comfort level. And I think a lot of people actually appreciate the sight lines and visibility with a savanna. Right now, a lot of these areas are very dense. Once you get off the trail, you can see, you know, several feet ahead of you, but it's pretty thick. The open savanna area is kind of where humans evolved, because I can see a lot, and this is much more comfortable, and a lot of folks actually appreciate the visibility over the dense, kind of enclosed space that we have in a lot of areas now. Again, that's a perception issue, not ecological, but I think a lot of folks are going to appreciate that change. The Why Oak Savannah was kind of addressed by a number of speakers and it's a very rare habitat. We're thankful that the trees are still there. They need to be liberated to kind of get them out of the encroachment that's there. But Why Oak Savannah is because we can. If the oak trees weren't there, there'd be no opportunity. So it's kind of a blessing that they're still there and you have the opportunity to do it. That's part of the focus. I WOULD ALSO SAY WHILE WE'RE TARGETING 40 ACRES OR SO, MOST OF THE AREA WAS HISTORICALLY OAK SAVANNAH. WE'RE DOING A FRACTION OF WHAT WE COULD DO AND TRYING TO BALANCE THAT WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS, PRAIRIE, THE BOARDWALK AND WET MEADOW CROSSINGS AND THE SAVANNAH, TRYING TO BALANCE ALL OF THAT OUT. THAT SPEAKS A LITTLE BIT TO THE QUESTIONS ON DIVERSITY. We don't want to have oak only. The goal was never oak only. The goal was never to be only oak trees in these areas. It'll be oak majority. And maybe we didn't do a very good job of communicating that when we talk about oak savanna sounds like you mean oaks. We mean oaks and other species. Fewer of them, more sentinel species, but they provide that continuity and transition. They're part of the community. It's not oak only. And we have an entire oak savanna understory that's completely absent now that we can restore as well. So that overall diversity, the health, the vigor of those species. And one thing that wasn't mentioned is right now we also don't have any oak natural reproduction. We don't have any new oak seedlings or anything starting in that understory. So what's there today as those mature oaks are the oaks. and liberating those and restoring that borough habitat will actually hopefully get them to naturally reproduce as well and not just be a point in time, but an ongoing healthy ecological system. So there's a lot of other specific comments, but those are some of the general themes I heard. I just want to address those to council. Bob, if you want to continue.

All right.

Thank you, Derek. I'll just give a little bit more information, more specific to the contracts, the timeline and the funding. As Renee mentioned, we have a few contracts that are either completed or underway. We have the winter tree removal, which occurred back in February. Council ordered that project at the end of December and we awarded it in early February and completed it in February. That was specific to the infrastructure improvements. Then we have the Veterans Memorial in Harrison Park that's underway, moving along very well right now. Similar timeline to the tree removal and awarding at Council. That was awarded back in March. Started in April and it's well underway. We'll have a planned ribbon cutting celebration planned for just before Veterans Day here this fall. And now for the two contracts that are up for award tonight. We have the Nine Mile Creek Corridor Renewal, which is the biggest of the projects. It's the corridor of the creek in Moyer Park improvements. As mentioned earlier, this project and the Lower Valley Management Plan that was authorized to bid, ordered and authorized to bid by council in late January of 26th. We had the bid opening for the Nine Mount Creek Corridor Renewal here on July 23rd. There was two bids, two very good competitive bids for the project, two good specialty contractors that we've had in the past, two good formidable contractors, so we were very pleased with the bids that we received. City Council is asked to consider tonight the award to Veidt and Company for that Nine Mount Creek Corridor Renewal project. Anticipating starting here very shortly, very soon up here in the fall, and then continuing through the fall and winter of 27. And then for the Lower Valley Management Plan, the Upland and Natural Resources, that was released as an RFP. Same timeline as the corridor renewal as for approvals through council. The proposals were due, they were released in early May, and they were due in mid-June, as you see, June 17th. Once again, we received some great proposals. We received three proposals, some contractors that have been working, worked in town before, and we know them. They've done good work for us in the past. Through the RFP process, we have a few different criteria, scoring criteria that we review. The project team reviewed that and would like to consider the award of the contract to Resource Environmental Solutions, asking that tonight. And as Derek mentioned, that's a five-year contract for those activities in that establishment period. And then in regards to overall, a cost summary for these projects that we've been talking about, the corridor tree removal, as you see listed there, the Harrison Park Trailhead and Vets Memorial, as you see listed there, were both awarded back this past winter and early spring. The Nine Mile Creek Corridor renewal, which is up for award tonight at 11.6 million is the bid that we received from Veit and Company. Moyer Park restroom and shelter package and the playground equipment package, those were both authorized by council back in June with the dollar amount shown there. And then we have the Lower Valley management, which is one of the items that are up for award tonight. looking to award that to resource environmental solutions at the 4.1 million. That comes to a construction subtotal of 19.3 million. For all of these projects, we've been including a 10% construction contingency on those, and we're asking the same thing tonight. And then the design and admin cost shown there. So the overall project total cost is actually very similar, very close to what we brought back in January when we were giving the project summary at that time as well. All these projects are fully funded with our different funding sources that we have, which include the local option sales tax, the PMP Park Trails funds, Nymal Creek Watershed District will be providing funding, our stormwater utility, and then also, as mentioned previously in previous council meetings when we awarded the Harrison and Vets project, we have a deed grant, as well as Bloomington Remembers Veterans Fund for the Veterans Memorial project. So with that, we have two requested actions before you tonight for the award of these two contracts, and we'll take any more questions you might have.

Thank you for the information. Actually, I did have one question, and then we'll get into the council questions. There were questions about the longer-term maintenance of the park, and I think that was addressed in some place that I did see. If you could talk about that a little bit beyond the four- or five-year maintenance plan that is part of the contract. What is the long-term plan?

Mayor city Council, thanks for that question. The long-term maintenance will be done with the combination of staff volunteers through our adopt a park program, which has been really successful at scale with some recent examples and then contracted services. The efforts overall throughout the city have been ramping up as we implement our natural resources prioritization plan. Increasing the amount of natural areas were able to restore this project will add to that again The five-year establishment period is really important as when the activities are most intense Over these years will be ramping up with the addition of this project. We're essentially doubling our efforts and Anticipating four additional seasonal staff estimated at $50,000 at this time. Contracted woodland and wetland restoration, $83,000 estimated. Burning and grazing each on a four-year rotation estimated at about $36,000 annually. So we are, as we consider our efforts citywide and including taking this on, Five years out. That's the way we're thinking about the work and I do have Members of our maintenance team here to answer any more specifics there, but that's generally the approach at this time Thank you.

I appreciate the general information and just the knowledge that there is in fact a long-term maintenance plan in place it's not just a matter of doing it and then throwing it to the wind and seeing what happens because that's what Was the case for a few decades around here and we're not going to do that again. So thank you for that council questions regarding the presentation tonight. Council Member D'Alessandro.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Because we republished the EAW as part of the conversation, I had the chance to look at it again. There were a couple of things about the EAW itself that I wanted to make sure we covered off. There were some at the time of the publishing of it, things like the the endangered species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stuff was kind of still outstanding. I don't want to, you know, there was something around the historic preservation office I think as well. I'm assuming we got concurrence for all of those things and I just didn't know whether or not we updated the documentation that's online to confirm that.

Yes we did get all of the documentation for that. So from the historic preservation office, yes we got concurrence of that the project will not have any cultural resource impacts for what the ground disturbance activities are located. I don't want to dismiss that there may not be resources there, but where we are working is not co-located with any known, for clarity. The other permits around fish and wildlife, we are complying with the requirements, which is why our woodland work is in winter, where we're working around the... northern long-eared bat and any migrating birds are not present so that's why that work is occurring when it is from the dnr standpoint and stay listed species we have avoidance plans for those that are appropriate and kitten tails is a very specific one that we know is present we took a little bit of a different approach if we're seeking approval of our sustainability plan around kitten tails as opposed to seeking a permit to potentially impact them we're actually taking a much more generous approach of actually getting the DNR to endorse our plan that it will and recognize that it's actually enhancing the habitat and improving the sustainability of this species rather than in the EW it mentions a takings permit so we've actually modified it to be something that more collaborative and recognizing the benefits of the project to the species rather than kind of admitting we might accidentally impact one during the process. So that's a I appreciate those questions and the quick answer is yes we've addressed all of those but I think elaborating a bit to explain that not just address them but enhance those into something more meaningful for the project is what actually occurred.

Okay that's great thank you for that information. Second question I have is around I think you addressed it in the presentation I just want to like connect the dots so somebody asked about a bridge that is that is not has not been prepared in some period of time, mentioned cones and then nothing, et cetera, et cetera. I believe that's one of the two bridges that is in this bid, correct?

Yes, Mayor and Councilmember D'Alessandro, that is correct. Yeah, we call it Bridge 8, but it's south of 106th Street that we took out last year because it was deficient, it was unsafe, and yes, that will be replaced as part of this project.

Okay, great, thank you. I don't think I have any more questions at the moment. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Very good. Council, additional questions?

Council Member Lohman. Thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate you answering some of these questions, especially around the maintenance piece, because that was something I know that I was very concerned about. How do we take care of this ongoing? I feel satisfied with those responses. I did want to hear a little bit more, and I apologize if I missed something. So just tell me you already said it and we're done. But with the climate change component of it, there was some concern out there around the climate change component of it. And if we go with this Oak Savannah piece, there's, you know, certainly there's an argument out there in the community in terms of, does this make sense to do that? And I want to just hear your opinion around it. I know it's covered a little bit earlier, but I wanted to hear your, you know, kind of talk about that since that's part of the discussion tonight.

Sure, I think that's a great question, and I think it's actually very wise to view this project in that type of perspective. We're talking about generational project. We should be viewing it in terms of climate change. My personal opinion is these oaks, some of them being more than 250 years old, have seen a lot of change already, and they're still persevering in a very stressed environment with climate change, all the competition that they're occurring. and being in a fraction of their former self. So they're actually fairly isolated. I know there are some comments on fragmentation. Well, the park itself is fragmented because it used to be a contiguous system up and down the entire river valley. So we've already seen that. So in my opinion, to address that, is not to kind of take it as the inevitable that well it's going to happen anyway so why do we put the effort into trying to protect these i would say they've demonstrated that the right species in the right location with the right mimicking of natural processes and i say that mimicking because we don't allow uncontrolled burns but it's a fire dependent community so we're going to introduce those in a very safe controlled situation if we do all of those things and we improve that resiliency. I can't tell you that those trees are gonna make it if we see a lot of change in climate, but I can tell you they won't make it if we don't do anything. And the odds of them making it are gonna go up if we intervene and try to keep them as healthy as possible. And if we try to get some of that natural reproduction, try to get some of that overall community change in place, we are giving them the best chance of survival with an unknown future. That's why I think it's important to approach it that way. Now, I also want to touch on when I say success, ecologically, we've already seen this area is very diminished to what it was historically. The odds of us being successful actually goes up very quickly the more you do and the more contiguous areas you have. So the idea of we'll just do a little bit less. understand the rationale behind it but actually the less you do and the more scattered it is in the smaller areas you do the less likely it's going to turn out so the bigger you do it the larger areas you have the more meaningful you invest in early the odds of success go up i think we're compromising quite a bit already to try to get this into the best area we can and concentrate that activity i know i'm straying a little bit from your initial question but It's connected on how this all fits together and what we believe is the best chance for it to work going forward.

appreciate that um and then you had also mentioned the thinning and also uh one of the other concerns that was out there was with regards to that it's not just a purely uh oak savannah and i appreciate that clarification and what the clear cutting actually is and what that is and i it's uh interesting to me that you said i think it was five to six acres as opposed to the 60 acres which you know kind of put me at ease So I appreciate your responses to that. And that also ties, of course, obviously into the climate change component of it. The other piece that, and maybe it covered this, is the transparency piece in terms of that. And I just want to make sure we answered that because I think folks, you know, were really concerned about the ballot question. And obviously we know there's a limit in terms of what you can put on a ballot question and then what we put in the Bloomington Forward piece. And maybe you already responded to that while I was back there.

Mayor members of Council, the project. started with the idea of restoring natural resources through this corridor and we worked with the Community with our scientists and technical data to study. to see what's their existing conditions, what's possible in different restoration scenarios, what are the values of the community, and they were recreation, aesthetics, shade, access, and of course nature, and people's idea of what natural resource restoration is, we've heard tonight isn't exactly the same, the way we've talked about it in the community, about science, is interjecting scientific terms with plain language that people can understand. These community meetings included maps and figures and storytelling and dialogue with our technical experts, with people in real time, with site walks. We had about 40 people, 30 to 40 I want to say, at our site walk where we learned and talked with staff, with our team, looking at what's there and what's possible. So through and through public presentations, we've really done what we feel is two years of solid due diligence to listen, learn, and share out next steps and where we're going with the restoration and project overall.

Okay, so I think what I'm understanding is that, and this was a different approach, that we were going to start off at the very beginning of this of having a dialogue and work our way all the way to where we got to today. And that means that things change from, I remember the original proposal, it was different than what it is today. That's my understanding that we had that dialogue going on with folks. Some folks were very concerned about the transparency component of that, you know, that missing component of that. And so that's the piece that I'm kind of hoping that you could talk a little bit more to or speak to that in terms of what staff's philosophy was around that. And I know you can't cover everything and every detail about it because we just don't know what's going to be the most important things to some folks at certain periods of time. But I wanted you just to kind of, if you wanted to talk a little bit more about that, I want to give you that opportunity.

Mayor, members of council, we had a really tremendous team on this project and I really want to recognize our communications team who have been with us since before the referendum on talking to people, sharing information in many different ways, digitally print, a dedicated project website that we've updated, our Let's Talk Bloomington collaboration page. our in-person events and our council presentations. I think there's been a really large variety of multimedia touchpoint opportunities where we've shared information about all the aspects of the project to the best of our ability. And I think our communications team has really done an amazing job of helping us tell this story, particularly about natural resources and these restoration approaches that are conceptual in our minds as we talk about them, and especially with the community that have less of a technical understanding of some of these terms. So I think in that way, this project has been quite transparent.

Council Member Rivas. Can you turn on your microphone please, Council Member Rivas?

We're going to have the opportunity to make comments. Yeah, once we get done with questions. I just have a quick question for you on regards to the transparency. I know that we talked about it casually earlier. You guys have done a great job. I mean, I'm not denying the fact that we go back to mid-2025 and we were already talking about grasslands and oak savanna. I see that. I went deep into all the information that we got. My question to you was earlier that During the process, as you learned that things needed to change, was there a possibility to be able to make that information that we were acquiring as things were evolving to communicate that to the public? I know that's the question right now. It's not that there was no transparency. There was just a little lack of transparency as things changed. That's the way that I see it. And so again, I'm gonna ask the same question. Is there a possibility that in the future we can actually, as we evolve with the information, as plans change, that information can also be passed along to the public? Because that's the only problem that I see with the transparency. Other than that, I'm aware that we all knew about this over a year ago as I got into all the information from the previous meetings that we had. So is that possible?

Mayor, members of council, as we develop projects, we try really our best to communicate information in a way that the public can understand and to a depth of knowledge and detail that we think we can communicate accurately and have people be able to consume. And I think as we listen and learn, we can continue to increase the amount of information, increase the way we deliver information. And I think we even throughout this project tried to do that as we started doing more videos We learned early on those resonated with people. So we will continue to listen and learn and improve how much and how we share information about these projects.

Thank you. And I know that we recently won awards in communication. So just to see a little improvement on that so that people can say that they got all the information they needed. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question kind of about the project first. I think the most contentious item is clearly the oak savanna and the canopy of that. You've addressed some of that in my mind in terms of that it's not going to be oak only. It's not going to be one oak and then there's another oak like 300 yards away that you got to try to get to through the sun because you may notice I'm fairly Scandinavian. So lots of sun may not be ideal for me. I prefer shade greatly. And so can you talk to me a little bit about your philosophy of how those other trees that are maybe competing with the oaks, you know, how are you going to go about deciding which of those remain, which of those go? Are you going to just as minimal as possible removal of those other ones, a moderate amount to allow for space? for future growth of new oaks or can you give me a little bit of an idea of that what that philosophy is and then just maybe a little bit more detail on what that canopy will be like um um you mentioned something like dimpled light through it which i assume is just light coming through the um the leaves and stuff, but not huge gaps of no shade. Just to help clarify those.

Yeah, I think that's a fair representation. So there's an area of existing prairie that'll be expanded. So there will be, depending on where you go, like south of 106, there'll be an area with no trees. north of 106 there'll be generally will be trees for most areas the remeander won't because that's floodplain that's a little bit different most areas will have some and i don't know if it's the technical term but i call it dappled light you're getting some through um on there but it's not dense shade but you know again you're it's not the same as standing out in direct sunlight for a WILL BE OKAY. THE COMPONENT OF IT IS AND WE TRIED TO CODIFY THIS IN A WAY BECAUSE WE STRUCTURED THE RFP WITH AN OUTCOME WE WANT TO ACHIEVE SO WE WERE NOT OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE OF THIS TREE HERE AND PROVIDE IT. too much where the contractor goes out and does exactly what we told them to we want to be thoughtful about it so i can give you some nuance to the oaks of any areas one thing we've talked about is we will leave a buffer along the property line we're not going to go to the property line and open that up they'll be 50 to 100 feet of we're going to leave it a little denser here for a very good reason and that's not typically where trails and stuff are located but we recognize that transition is probably valuable so it won't be as thin on the property line or on the edges Within the area, it's not all uniform, evenly distributed oaks. So if there's a big area that the oaks aren't here, that just becomes part of the tree thinning. So as much as we put polygons on a map to say, well, this is Burr Oak Savannah, there'll be areas within there where there aren't oaks for 300 feet, and that will be thinned like the rest of it, but we're not just going to make an open area. If it's Burr Oak Savannah, the oak has to be a component. So those areas would stay more of that mixed deciduous woodland. and again, provide that transitional area. Within the oaks, where oaks are sufficient density, that might have areas that are an acre in size or more that might be leaning towards oaks only, but only if they're kind of already closed the canopy and things are competing with that. there'll be transition all over the place where we're going to leave some trees. We kind of call them sentinel species because they'll be more single representative. So if there's a great big sugar maple out there, we probably want to leave it. It's doing just fine. But the safeguards we have on that is if we're going to leave some trees in there, they kind of have to be compatible with the oaks. They have to also do well with the prescribed burn from a management standpoint so that we don't save them and then end up having to burn them by accident. So a great example are the red cedar trees. They compete a lot with the oaks and they burn really hot and actually are hard to manage. So we don't want to do a controlled burn with red cedar trees mixed in the oaks. That's not going to work for a number of reasons. So we've left it in the RFP for the city to designate which trees to remain. whether they paint or put ribbon or whatever, those are do not touch. And once all those get marked in those baroque areas, then the contractor knows what they can do and more importantly, what they can't. So there is some discretion on there to kind of see before you do it, what that's going to look like. And it's going to vary. Some spots will be a little sparse. Some spots are going to be still a pretty enclosed canopy as long as it's meeting that technical definition. I know there's a range of what people consider for canopy in an oak savannah. As much as some of us would like to open all of that up and make it pretty sunny and open, the reality is it's going to transition down the slope. It's going to change community. We're not drawing hard boundaries where this is that community and 10 feet away is another one. They're going to blend. So overall, that's going to be there. A specific area is going to be quite variable. So overall, we're trying to kind of get that compromised where it is oak savanna. We're getting that outcome, but it's not intended to go in there and just leave these single 300 foot spaced oaks. And some of the oldest oaks out there are not the ones that you're picturing in your head that are 100 feet tall with a 200-foot canopy. The oldest oaks out there are small and kind of stunted, and you'd think, well, that's probably 25 years old. No, those are the old ones. They've grown up in hardship. So we can't really go in there and make it oaks only because that's not really what... those particular ones like either. A lot of the upper trail ones, those are big and broad. So it's going to be very different throughout. It's hard to characterize it. It's also why we don't have a great photo of this is what it's going to look like because I don't think we can make one of what it's going to look like. This is unique. We can give you representatives of other sites, but this is unique, and that's part of the appeal is this isn't like any other site. This is the nine-mile site. This is awesome.

Thank you. I got a question about the contract, which is, I think, the main issue before us. Based on the work that has been done since we went out for bid on this, based on the feedback that you've heard from the community, based on the conversation today, are there any changes that you would recommend in terms of the scope of work that we're looking at approving in this contract?

I'm not aware of any at this time.

Other questions? Council Member Robertson. Thank you, Mayor.

Hopefully this will be very brief. I just had a quick question. So we heard a speaker reference the impact of this restoration to areas downstream and other parts beyond just that part of Nine Mile Creek. Would it be accurate to say that this investment would improve areas downstream? And that's something that we could look forward to seeing generations from now.

Well, it kind of depends on what you mean by downstream. So if we're successful in our restoration, one of the big components of it related to the tree thinning specifically is we've got a lot of areas with bare ground, and we've got a lot of trails that are eroding. We have a high sediment load in the creek, so a lot of dirt and material and leaves go in there. It makes its way downstream. Now, it's going into the Minnesota River. That's a little system and a big system. You can say with all consciousness, in good faith, that yes, we're making an improvement, but at the scale of small water into big water, I don't know that you could prove it or measure it necessarily, but the answer is yes, we are doing that. I will say one of the things that's the biggest challenge for this section is yes, we'll have a positive impact in the immediate reach and downstream, but we have a lot of stormwater and other things that are coming from upstream that have to pass through here. So a lot of our activities are actually to mitigate what's coming in more than ensuring what's leaving is better quality, because it has a lot of impacts already that we're trying to balance. So that's a fantastic question, and I'm kind of taking it away to say yes, but there are some components of this that are hard to manage that specifically.

No, thank you very much. That's a phenomenal answer, and I really appreciate it. So thank you.

Thank you.

One question that actually Councilmember Nelson made me think of specifically to the contract. You've said a couple of times that the contract isn't overly prescriptive, that there are possibilities and flexibility in there. So who's going to manage that? Will it be managed internally with staff? Will it be through consultants? How will that be managed?

mayor i can answer that um yeah that it'll actually be a combination it'll be managed by city staff but we'll also have the the help of our consultant team as well but the city city staff will manage the contract directly with the both of these contracts actually and through the the entirety of the five years of the contract correct okay well thank you council unless there are additional questions i think we're ready to move on to discussion here councilmember d'alessandro

I remembered I had one other question about the EAW. Do you mind if I ask it really quickly? There's a section of the EAW that shows kind of like the proposed tree thinning project. It shows a section at 10%, a section at 20%, a section at 30%. Is that still an accurate picture?

From the EAW, the percent removal increased about in 10% increments. Part of that, do you want the background on why? Okay. Part of that is if we're going to go in there and have the disturbance of bringing in equipment, removing trees and all those other things, a lot of areas at 10% may not necessarily be as effective. So we adjusted some of the areas and increased the percent removal just to make sure it was worthwhile. Sometimes if you do too little, you're introducing disturbance without benefit. So a lot of evaluation was we should probably do a little bit more on the percent removal to make sure if we're treating this as a one-time kind of kickstart for the project, that it's really meaningful. So that was an adjustment from the AW. Now that it does add up to hundreds of trees when you deal with this area, but it's actually not as significant of a change as it sounds like.

So the 10% increase would have gone up a little bit or more of the area would have gone into the 20% bucket or something like that is what you're saying?

Yeah, it's a little bit of a shift. It didn't change the total thinning overall, but it shifted where some of the percents occurred.

And no area of the proposed site is getting thinned at more than 30%.

Other than the Baroque Savannah, I mean, that's by nature of that habitat has to be thinned more. But the other areas, no, with the exception of the areas that have already been clear cut for the switchback and the remeander.

Understood. Thank you. Appreciate the help. Thank you.

Very good. Any additional questions, Council? If not, thank you all. Thanks for the information. It's been very helpful in our conversation. So, Council, as we... MOVE INTO THIS, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO REALLY QUICK BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE EXTEND OUR DEADLINE TO ADJOURN NO LATER THAN 1030 THIS EVENING BECAUSE WE'VE GOT, LIKE I SAID, ANOTHER MEETING ONE. SO I'VE MADE THAT MOTION. I LOOK FOR A SECOND. Motion and second by Council Member Rivas to extend our deadline to adjourn at no later than 10.30 this evening. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. I think you can sit down now, is my understanding, I believe. Council, so thoughts on this? I would like feedback. I would like some input. Understanding that what we're discussing tonight is this contract. we're discussing the contract that is being proposed in front of us, the work that would be done, and the pros and cons of it. So, Councilmember D'Alessandro, kick us off.

Very quickly, just a procedural question. Yes. I am wondering, since we have two motions in front of us, and we have, I think, the majority of the discussion to be had on the second one, if we would be able to move the first one separately. that way get it out of the way unless we have discussion on that one but that discussion that the first one is about the infrastructure projects and that's separate and distinct from the restoration project as I under as the way I read it. Does anybody else agree with me on that?

Council you agree with that or you want to discuss this as a whole and move them both at once?

I'm okay either way I just wanted I thought maybe it might be easier to just get there.

Council member Lohman is thinking we should talk about them all at once and

Okay. I think we're going to end up in that place anyway. Okay. No worries. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Anybody want to lead us off? Council Member Rivas? If you could turn on your microphone, please.

If I may. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just going to read these pages. It's about 10 of them. Kidding. Kidding. I actually eliminated a lot. I want to speak tonight not as a critic of restoration science. Let's start with what is actually being proposed. The lower valley management plan covers 235 managed acres. Within that, the final RFP calls for extensive burdock, savanna, restoration, and tree thinning across multiple management units, not simply selective removal of ash and invasive species, which residents support and which many believe they were approving. Here is a contradiction that I cannot get past. This council and this city have been appropriately vocal about the climate crisis. We have adopted sustainability goals. We have talked about heat mitigation, canopy preservation, and climate resilience. as core values in our parks and planning documents, and yet here we are, advancing a plan that converts substantial portions of a mature urban woodland corridor into oak savanna and prairie, and presenting it as a climate-positive project. Mature trees are not something you replace on a five-year timeline. A 60- or 80-year-old oak is sequestering carbon cooling the surrounding air, shading trails, and supporting a wildlife web that a newly seeded prairie or young savanna simply cannot replicate for decades. Some estimates put full ecological maturity at 30 to 50 years out. In the meantime, we are reducing the very canopy that residents currently rely on, specifically because this corridor is cool and shaded in the summer months. This is not a minor side effect. That is a direct near-term result of this plan, and it runs counter to the climate commitments we ourselves have made publicly and recently. I have read staff's materials carefully, and I want to acknowledge they reflect real ecological expertise. Nobody on this council is questioning the credentials of the consultants or the academic literature behind oak savanna restoration as a concept, but good science applied at the wrong scale in the wrong context is still the wrong decision. A rural or less intensively used restoration site is not the same as a heavily used mature urban forest corridor that thousands of residents walk through every month and specifically for shade and tree cover applying a textbook savannah conversion here and marketing it to residents as sustainability ask people to trust that decades out pay off while absorbing a very real immediate loss of canopy. I also want to flag the process concerned residents tell me, and I believe them because I have heard it consistently and independently from people who do not know each other, that what they were supporting was trail and bridge improvement, erosion control, and targeted ash and invasive removal, not the degree of woodland to savanna conversion, now reflected in the final RFP. The engagement to RFP comparison in our own package shows that expansion. If the scope grew significantly beyond what was clearly presented to the public, that is a problem, regardless of the ecological merits, because it undermines the trust residents need to have in how we bring projects like this forward. So my ask tonight is not to scrap the restoration effort. It is this. I would like staff to come back to this council with a phased approach of reserving significantly more of the existing mature canopy, particularly along the upper trail and that treats canopy loss at a cost to be minimized rather than a footnote. I would like a clear account of exactly which stretches on how many acres are slated for conversion versus preservation. Hard numbers, not general assurances that trees will remain an important part of the landscape. And I would like us to be honest publicly about the near-term heat and habitat trade-offs this project involves rather than presenting the purely presenting it purely as a climate win, I do want to acknowledge the fact that savannas do hold a lot more carbon than trees in their roots. It does take a long time though. All of you that are educated on this can corroborate that because I research it. And I have read a lot about this. Yes, savannas are, in the long term, 50 years, they are more productive than trees. However, what do we do in the near term? Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Lowman.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm glad that we've all come here tonight. And Mayor, we've come a long ways from when we first got started several years ago when we're here having a hot debate about climate change. And I think it's a while have things changed. You know, I think that the foundation of a of a of a solid argument is a lot like, you know, we need to build a house. And I think all of us who have come here today have really come here out of sincerity. Mayor, I heard a lot of really good points, you know, you know, a 40-plus group of folks who voted against this particular project is not a small minority. It's a large minority. And so I think it's important that as we look at this and move this forward, that we think about that as we take these steps forward. And I'll concede that the transparency on this particular item is probably not what in best keeping of what we've tried to do, and so I'll concede that. But on the other hand, I think that the complexity of this, the overall project and what we're trying to do, there's so many different components of this, I can understand why we missed on this, and it's an opportunity for us to improve. Thirdly, many of our main concerns about maintenance, those were brought forward. I'm concerned about that. And then then finally the climate climate concerns Those are all solid reasons why not to you know support what was originally kind of brought forward a number of months ago and I can understand that folks may not understand where we're at today and where this project has kind of moved to it kind of reminds me mayor a little bit of When we bought our house a number of years back, there were three trees out front, and I had no idea why those three trees were out front. And every time the snowplow would come up and beat up against it, and I'm thinking, why don't we just tear these trees down? Well, many years later, I found out that those were the three trees that were given to us by our sister city. from Japan. You know, later my wife had the opportunity to serve on the sister city organization. And so you just don't know what you're doing necessarily when you get ready to do things. And I just think it's kind of funny how we are as leaders responsible for what comes forward. Now, I helped to pen every word that was in that climate emergency. And I think this is a good dialogue. And I think that folks could come to this with many different points of view. But really, the question tonight is not about whether or not we ought to do this. It's about a contract that we have here. And that's why we've got to ask, why do I support this? Or why should you support this? Well, that's what the question is. And the question is, does this fit what was laid out and what we wanted to do as a city. It was close, we passed it, but this is exactly what was laid out in the parks plan, the spirit of this. We took a lot of time to have that dialogue and that conversation. And I can understand why you may have a different point of view, Mayor, and come to this with a different conclusion, but really tonight the question is about the contract. And in order to move me off passing this contract, we really have to have a compelling reason because we all supported this unanimously. And so you've got to have a really good reason to not want to move that amount of money tonight. And I think that's the question you have to ask the other taxpayers, is when we delay this, we're going to increase the cost of this, and it's going to be a substantial amount of burden to those folks. And so if you're fiscally responsible, I don't know how you cannot support this tonight. Now, I can understand having a different point of view, a different perspective, but our future generations will look back to us and ask, what did we do? Well, this is the path by which we decided to go down, and staff has laid this out clearly, concisely, and while you may not necessarily agree on the details, I'm going to support this because this has been the path forward. I can understand if you look at the climate emergency and come to a different conclusion. I get that. But when I look at the Climate Emergency Mayor, what I see is a council that should make a clear decision and stick with those decisions and move forward, not stumble and move slowly and cost taxpayers more money when we can invest those same dollars somewhere else. If you don't agree, I understand, but that's why I'm going to be supporting this tonight. It's the best decision that we need to move forward. It's the ecological decision, and it's the most sustainably economic decision to make forward, and I'll be supporting this, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Robertson.

Thank you, Mayor. And thank you so much to my colleagues for their comments. I really, really appreciate that. I'll do my best to be brief, which is difficult for me. But many of the things I wanted to talk about have been touched on both by speakers here and my colleagues as well. But to my colleague's point, to Councilmember Lohman's point, By awarding the contract today, which I am in support of doing so, it saves us time and money, right? It saves money now. It saves time now. If two or three or five decades from now, my kid or my grandkid says, hey, we really need to do something about that. I really wish we could have taken the opportunity to do so 50 years ago when it would have cost a lot less money and time. I think when we're discussing the contract and whether or not to support it, I do believe that this is the correct choice to support this because it saves us time and money now, which we know will come before us again later. And just to touch on some points that other folks had mentioned, but I had in my own notes, and I definitely wanted to make sure I said before the community, I totally agree with what we're hearing about The park itself is a psychological benefit. We want people to have that. It's an amenity. It's a good thing. We love it. We also want to save it. Everyone here wants the park to be happy and healthy, and we have an opportunity to do that. Sometimes when you have a bad tooth, you have to pull it out and it looks really gross and uncomfy for a while, but that's what saves you down the line. It gets less expensive to fix it right away than do it later. To the point about maybe not seeing the changes in their full glory, I totally hear that, I absolutely do. I may not be here to see it, but my grandchildren will. I am not indigenous, to be very clear, but my son is, and so we do, my husband and son are, and so we do talk about the seven generations in our family. How is this decision going to impact PEOPLE SEVEN GENERATIONS FROM NOW. AND I, PERSONALLY, I'M IN SUPPORT OF, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE CONTRACT. I'M PROUD OF THE COUNCIL THAT WILL BE ABLE TO HELP IMPLEMENT THIS CHANGE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. IT'S NOT ALWAYS FUN TO HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS. AND TO BE VERY CLEAR, AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, everyone taking their time to come tonight to email us, to call on the phone, everything, all the community reaching out to let us know how they feel. That's really important. And it's really important that you have a place to come and tell us that. And it's okay that you disagree with me. Completely fine, right? No worries whatsoever. You have a different opinion than me. That's totally okay. But based on the information we've been given by staff, based on the several year long process, I am in support of these contracts. And I think it will save the city time and money later. So that's why I'm in support of it today.

you councilmember councilmember nelson yeah thank you mayor and thank you for everyone who came here everyone who's emailed um in my time on the council this is one of my favorite issues because everyone loves this place even if we disagree um it's one of the most special places in our community and um this was also actually amazing to have this many people come out and respectfully talk to each other and even if they didn't disagree You know, normally I think we get, you know, one person in support of something. That's usually whoever's proposing it. And a bunch of people who are maybe impacted by it because it's nearby them that maybe oppose it. And this one brought out people from both sides. And I really appreciate that. Because I think that is reflective of how this entire project has gone for the last couple years. I mean, we look back. You know, even last year in the spring, staff presented information to the Parks Commission, the Sustainability Commission, the council, which by virtue of the council is on TV, to the entire community. And that information specifically said there would be oak savanna restoration throughout what I think most people would consider the walking area of Nine Mile. They did talk about some stuff up in Moyer Park. Obviously that's not where the Oak Savannah is. And then there was another section that was down right close to the Minnesota River. But it specifically highlighted over multiple pages within the packet that Oak Savannah restoration would be there. And then that conversation has continued to evolve continued to expand and move forward through the you know great partnerships within the community and I think you know from what I heard tonight I think that staff has heard the people who have concerns about the canopy in particular about what impact this is going to have and they don't want this wide open space other than it sounds like there'll be a little bit of prairie restoration. And from what I heard that part of that is actually just turf right now. So that doesn't seem too problematic in my mind there. So I think we're all better for this conversation, for the conversations that have been going on for the last couple of years. And I got to be honest with you, based on it, I'm much more supportive of this than I was even a month ago. I think people asked great questions and I appreciate our staff and our team taking the time to respond to those. explain things to people um ultimately you may agree or disagree with with the scope of this project but i think that those questions have have made the entire project better um and and i appreciate the mayor and i appreciate the city providing so many opportunities including tonight to ask those questions so thank you thank you councilmember councilmember delisandro

Thanks Mr. Mayor. I really do want to thank everyone. I hope you all know whether you like me or don't like me or agree with me or don't agree with me that the most important thing I feel like we can do here as a council is work on our ecology and work on the climate aspects of our city. I hope that you agree that I've been consistent with that even if you didn't like my outcomes but from conversations around are increasing the work on trails and things like that as a function of our PMP program to building the natural resources management office which we didn't have before my time on council in order to focus those efforts here. at the end of the day climate change for us is about buildings and transportation. We already know this. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus our climate efforts on restoration elsewhere and I and so you know yes we have to continue to work on climate change initiatives around construction and transportation and we also need to care for our environment and when I think about You know, when I think about the birds, for example, I'm a huge birder myself. Nature photography is my favorite thing. You know, you may see warblers diminish in terms of where they are, but you know who's been suffering, like, for decades under the threat of not having these savannas? Red-bellied woodpeckers. And I'm a huge fan of woodpeckers in general, and I can't wait to see pileateds and woodpeckers thrive in these environments. And so it is change. It is... uncomfortable I get that but from the very beginning we have worked to at least I have and my council record reflects that work to manage our ability to improve the ecological value of Bloomington's resources and when a third of the city is set aside as green space you can't say oh it's a park in an urban area you have to think about it more globally in terms of the ecology around it. So, ultimately, the people who have come here, everybody agrees, you all care deeply for this space, and it's the number one thing we hear when everybody says, what do you love about Bloomington? There's probably two things that are always at the top. One of them is always our natural spaces, and so it behooves me to make sure that we take care of these things. And I am always going to look at the data. The presentation that we walked through tonight is literally the exact same presentation we were shown in January of 2026 when we voted 7-0 to agree to this project. It's the exact same one. to me that gives me confidence that while the details have emerged in the RFP that what we were asked to support is the same in January 26 when we voted 7-0 to what we're voting for now so I feel confident in making a yes vote on this tonight and I thank deeply the work of staff and council and by the way the other thing that we have done I just want to say this I know people make fun of it maybe and want to talk about special interest groups or whatever but The work, the other thing that we did as a council that we all should take credit for is building out our volunteer management office. Those two things went together to create the ability for stewardship like BNNN and the Outlawns folks and all that kind of stuff to work in partnership with the city. And by the way, that also keeps costs down. When volunteers are doing this ecological restoration and management work, we're not paying for it as taxpayers and that's a good thing. So I want to encourage people who maybe are on the fence about this, maybe don't like our outcomes tonight, depending on what it is, to get involved in those organizations anyway, because you will have a chance to shape the future of these spaces. And to me, that's the biggest gift we can give to the city, is working in community to support each other and build this framework. Thanks.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS. JUST VERY QUICKLY, A VARIETY OF POINTS THAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE. WE ALL LEARNED WAY BACK IN COLLEGE THE WHOLE COMMUNICATION PROCESS INVOLVES A MESSAGE SENDER AND A MESSAGE RECEIVER. AND IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE MESSAGE SENDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RECEIVER RECEIVES THAT MESSAGE. I don't think we did a good enough job as message senders. I don't think it's intentional obfuscation or lack of transparency. We just didn't do a good enough job so that the message receivers understood what the notion of restoration meant. That being said, we did... somewhat of a good job because we've heard from people who did understand what we meant. It's just we didn't reach everyone with the notion of what restoration meant, and I think that's on us, and we could do a better job next time. Along the lines of restoration, Paul Coates said, you know, ecological restoration is messy, and that's exactly right. And if you're talking about restoration of a home, you don't just change the curtains and call it restoration. I mean, if you're restoring a car, you don't just change the blinker fluid and say you're done. Sometimes in a home, you go down to the studs. Sometimes in a car, the engine comes out. Restoration can be messy, but with an ultimate goal in mind, you take that for what it's worth, and you live through the messiness because you know the outcome. And that kind of goes to the quote that Mr. Swede brought forward that he stole it from me, you know, the whole notion of, you know, blessed are those who plant a tree under whose shade they will never sit. And I think that's exactly the case here. We're playing the long game here. This is, yeah, it will be some discomfort. I don't think as long as folks are anticipating, but we're going to see this down the road, the benefit of what we're doing here. And I think it's important to keep that in mind because we need to be good ancestors. We need to be good stewards, not just for now, but for what this community could look like in the future. And I know that's tough sometimes when, you know, the here and now is the important part, but I think it's important to think of the big picture in the long term as well. And the final point that I do want to make, we heard from so many people. I saw so many Facebook posts. My God, people, put down the phones. Get out and enjoy the summer. Got so many calls from folks, and I appreciate it. I appreciate the passion and the back and forth, the respectful back and forth for the most part. There was a couple of snarky comments, but for the most part, the respectful back and forth, and then the respectful work that we did here tonight. This is a community that believes in this kind of thing and will work toward it. I mean, despite what some might think, I mean, this is absolutely in alignment with our park system master plan. It is in alignment with our natural resources prioritization plan. It is in alignment with the work being done by the Isaac Walton League, by Three Rivers Park District, by the watershed districts, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. We are in alignment with everybody all around us because this is what restoration and IT LOOKS LIKE. IT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, AND THIS IS THE GOAL IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. AND SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED TONIGHT. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY WHO PARTICIPATED OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS IN ALL OF THIS. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEETING TONIGHT, AND IT WASN'T. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU. We're going to have a vote now, and I can count noses. I'm assuming many of you can as well. But I think we're going to move forward with this, and we can ultimately point to this as a success for the city of Bloomington and the work that we're trying to do. And with that, Council, I would look for action. First, we have two different motions. Council Member Robertson.

Thank you, Mayor. I would move to accept and bid the contract for the 2026-401 Nine Mile Creek Corridor Renewal Project to Veit and Company. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. in the amount of $11,697,475.95 and approve various contract changes up to 10% of the original contract amount, $1,169,747.60 for a total project construction authorization of $12,867,223.55. Second. Motion by Councilmember Roberts and second by Councilmember D'Alessandro to accept item 2.3 as stated.

Any further council discussion on this? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

No.

Motion carries 5-1 with Council Member Rivas in opposition. Council Member Robertson.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to accept the bid and award the contract for the 2026-404 Nine Mile Creek Lower Valley Management Plan Renewal Project to Resource Environmental Solutions LLC in the amount of $4,181,453.04 and approve various contract changes up to 10% of the original contract amount. 418,145.30 for a total project construction authorization of 4,599,598.34. Second.

Motion by Council Member Robertson, second by Council Member D'Alessandro to accept the second motion associated with item 2.3 this evening as stated. No further council discussion on this? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, Council. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you to staff and all. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it, community. Well done. Thank you very much. At 9-12, we will get to our consent agenda. Item 3 on our agenda. Council Member Nelson, you've got tonight's consent business, which has 21 different items on it. Council Member Nelson.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I thought for a change we'd just go through them individually. Ha, ha, ha. Why don't we do voice vote? Yeah. So I did not hear of any holds. I have a hold.

Yeah, 3.9 and 3.11. Okay.

Anything else?

I'm going to hold mine off until the end of the meeting.

You're going to hold your hold.

Gotcha.

Then I move items 3.1 through 3.8, 3.10, and 3.12 through 3.21.

Second. Motion by Council Member Nelson, second by Council Member D'Alessandro to accept the consent of business as stated. No further council discussion on this? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Councilmember D'Alessandro, item 3.9.

Yes, thanks, Mr. Mayor. So the reason I'm holding this, so it's not because I don't agree with the concept. It's that I don't feel like I got the time to have enough information. City Manager and I talked about it on Friday afternoon. The request was read through the packet, see if it answers your questions. If it doesn't answer your questions, then potentially put it on hold. I'm only asking to table this to a future meeting because I have more questions than I could have posed over the weekend that would have been, it wouldn't have been responsible of me to ask staff to respond that quickly to those items.

Very good. What's our next best option? August 31st. Plenty of time. Motion to table until August 31st. Sounds great.

Plenty of time. Plenty of time. That would be fine. So I would move to hold over items 3.9 and 3.11 to the meeting scheduled for August 31st.

I'm going to ask Ms. Manderscheid can we do them together or do we have to do them one at a time?

You can do them together. My understanding is you're continuing both 3-9 and 3-11 to August 31st regular meeting?

That's correct. And just because they're related to each other, one updates the schedule of the other so it seemed relevant to have them together.

They need to go together, Mayor.

They need to go together. Okay, so we've got a motion by Councilmember D'Alessandro, second by, who was it, Councilmember Nelson. And I heard table hold over and- August 31st. And we heard about three different synonyms.

So continue the item to the August 31st meeting, I think is the right way to say that, yes.

Yep, exactly. Thank you. Any further council discussion on that? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Holding over item 3.9 and 3.11 to our August 31st meeting. Very good.

Thank you. Thank you, folks. Appreciate the assist on that.

5-0. Did I say 6-0? Oh, I don't know.

He didn't say.

I just wanted to hear it out loud. 5-0. Thank you. Thank you comes from Nelson. We will move on to our only public hearing of the evening item 4.1 which is a public hearing regarding the bloom shine village townhomes rezoning FSB P and planning. First of all thank you to you folks for sticking out with us appreciate it's been a long night already and appreciate your sticking with us. We will we will do our our due diligence on this. Liz O'Day is leading us through this good evening and welcome.

I am, thank you, Mayor and Council. So yes, the only public hearing on the agenda this evening is for Bloomshine Village Townhomes. This is for a series of entitlements for six properties along East 86th Street and East 87th Street. So what they are requesting is a rezoning application from R1 single-family residential to R3 middle housing residential, a final site and building plan application to construct 33 townhomes and associated improvements, and then a type three preliminary and final plat to plat six single-family lots into 33 individual townhome lots and one common lot. So the subject properties are guided as medium density residential in the comprehensive plan, and these subject properties have been guided as this designation in multiple comprehensive plan iterations going back as far as 1972. And as you can see on my screen, you can see kind of multiple snippets from each of those iterations showing the area as medium density residential. So these six single-family homes are currently zoned R1, single-family residential, consistent with the land use guidance of medium density residential. The sites must be rezoned to R3, which allows townhomes as a permitted use in that zoning district. And so to facilitate development of these lots, most of the homes have since been demolished except for one, I believe. So with rezoning, staff reviews the purpose and intent of the zoning district and compares the existing zoning. So the R3 zoning district allows up to 12 units an acre. Proposed density is just under 12 units an acre. It's consistent with the current land use guidance of medium density residential. Our three zoning district is designed to be more compatible with the low density residential, the surrounding neighborhood. This property also has access to a transit and major collector roads, as well as a regional trail just to the east, and also has a very close proximity to parks. So when evaluating rezoning applications, there are no specific state statute findings, rather the request is evaluated on consistency with the Comp Plan and public benefit. So the goals and strategies in the 2040 Comp Plan include providing a range of housing options, Townhomes in general provide a good option for older generations in single and two-person households. Strategy 2.2 identifies new locations and opportunities for housing. And then Housing Element Goal 3, this project would provide three affordable units, which serves kind of our local demand for housing. So furthermore, 9% of the units must be affordable at 60% AMI, and so they are showing three units at 60% AMI. They are not seeking any development incentives through our OHO. The project meets just baseline city code standards. And one unit, affordable unit, will be constructed in each phase for a total of three phases. So here is the overall site plan. Overall, they're reducing the number of existing curb cuts to just one access off of 86th Street and one off of 87th Street. The construction of seven townhome buildings with four and five units, and then each with their own garage and driveway. And then there will also be constructing an infiltration basin for stormwater improvements, as well as a private driveway that would connect all the homes. As I mentioned earlier, this would be constructed in three phases. Those phases are shown on the screen here. I won't spend too much time on this, but grading and infrastructure must be in place from the get-go, so in phase one. As far as traffic goes, the townhomes will generate 238 trips a day. When you take away the trips that the single-family homes had or were generating, that gives you kind of an increase of 181 trips a day. And most trips will be traveling north to 86th Street, so roughly 70% of the total trips will be coming off of 86th Street and then the remaining on 87th Street. And the total number of curb cuts, like I said before, are being reduced from six down to two. And so traffic staff typically evaluate the placement of those curb cuts and turning movements. And then lastly, traffic staff is evaluating a potential stop sign at the corner of 87th Street and Bloomington Avenue following a crash that happened in the past. So here are the building elevations. The buildings are three stories tall or 41 feet tall. All units have a balcony or portico. And then the applicant did submit a shadow study. And that shadow study determined that there was no or minimal impact to neighborhood or neighboring properties with shadows. And then just to note that our code requires building articulation or the units have to be offset from each other, that complies with our city code as well. IN TERMS OF PARKING AND SIDEWALKS TWO STALLS PER UNIT ARE REQUIRED SO TWO STALL GARAGE THAT'S COMPLIANT. NINE GUEST SPACES MUST BE PROVIDED. THEY'RE SHOWING THAT. AND THEN REGARDING THE SIDEWALKS EACH UNIT WILL HAVE A PRIVATE SIDEWALK FROM THE entry to the public sidewalk network and then just a minor revision. They have to identify an eight foot wide public sidewalk on 86th Street. The overall landscaping plan is compliant. They're showing an adequate number of trees and shrubs. And then just to note, they are showing a six foot tall privacy fence along the entire perimeter of the development. And then the preliminary and final plat this is just to show that each of the town homes unit will be their own lot and then the common lot will be for the private driveway. So staff did receive one piece of correspondence from Metro Transit, and they're requesting to facilitate improvements to their bus stop just located on 86th Street. That's for Local Route 538. And so staff is recommending a condition of approval for clarity. And then just to note, staff has received public correspondence, which has been included in the packet. and that's been updated from two parties to three parties as of this afternoon, all expressing opposition of the project. So with that, staff is recommending approval as well as planning commission. This went to planning commission last month. Overall, nine people spoke in opposition. General themes of opposition were stormwater, building height, demo process, parking, and traffic. And I go into more detail in the staff report. But in the interest of time, I won't go into too much detail. But I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Ms. O'Day. Appreciate it. Council questions? Well, I will ask the questions that you heard at the Planning Commission. You mentioned stormwater. What's specifically stormwater? Is there a stormwater plan in place? I'm assuming there is. And what were the concerns regarding that?

Correct. So I think the overall concerns regarding that was, Mayor, stormwater is required to be managed on site. So they're showing an infiltration basin on the east side of the development that would be installed as part of phase one of the project. And overall, I think there was concern about impervious surface grading, that type of thing. But all our engineering staff addressed those concerns at the Planning Commission. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions, Council? Council Member Nelson.

Yeah, very quick question. As they were going through the process, was there any consideration of maintaining R1 given the additional flexibility that we recently approved in R1? Was that a pathway that they looked at?

Mayor and council members I was not part of the initial conversation of this project. So I am not aware of them. I don't know if they were looking at because I know that detached town homes as part of the missing middle project are now allowed in R1. These are not detached town homes. So I think they would have to be rezoned anyway if they were going to do just general town homes. If that answers maybe your question.

Yeah, I understand why they went R3 because of the attached townhome portion. I just didn't know if they had looked at anything like, you know, quads or detached or anything and what that looked like, but maybe they didn't. Okay. I'm getting a no, they did not. Just for the record. Sorry.

Hi, Mayor. Nick Johnson, planning manager. Councilman Nelson, no, they did not. Once they learned that the sites were guided medium density residential, they targeted attached townhomes throughout the entirety of the process.

Yep.

Any other questions, counsel? All right, if not, I will open the public hearing. This is a public hearing. regarding the Bloomshine Village townhomes rezoning FSBP planning at 1525, 1601, 1603, 1605 East 86th Street, and 1604 and 1606 East 87th Street. So as I open the public hearing, anybody who wishes to speak certainly can. I ask you to come forward, state your name, and you'll have three minutes to speak. Clock on the wall will let you know how much time you have. If you could sign in after you have spoken, that would be very helpful. And much like the series, what we just saw, we'll collect the questions and we will answer them at the end of the public hearing rather than trying to answer them on the fly here as we go. So with that, I will open the public hearing on item 4.1. Anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak tonight?

Hello, my name is Connie Rivard. My understanding of the missing middle housing study findings included new housing should be compatible in scale with existing homes in that area. Clearly the Twin Wind plan is not compatible, which is obviously why you need to rezone, but that's not acceptable to the neighborhood, which people do live there. Another finding was aging population and smaller household size, and yet Twin Wind is planning three levels with stairs, no elevators, how are older people, how does that match that? The smaller households, yet we have square footage of 2,500 to 3,200 square feet, and I just heard the woman staff person also said older and single and two-person clients is who we're trying to serve, so this plan doesn't really match what you yourselves in your study are saying that that's who we're trying to find housing for. along a major collector road, so 86th Street and Cedar have both been turned into, they used to be four lane, and now they're each essentially two lane with a center turning lane, but in terms of the volume of traffic, and being close to a park, kids will have to to actually cross this major collector road. And I heard you say in the previous discussion about the other topic, you're very concerned about climate change. Why then are we putting in this high impervious surface townhome development? I heard it's as high as 80%. If you could tell me how high is the, impervious surface of this doesn't match what you just talked about in the previous thing I did watch parts of a few City Council meetings from February and March the things I heard related to this were that you were considering updating the code for zoning I did not hear a let's change the zoning. I didn't ever hear that in terms of transparency. I heard that the standard is not to exceed two stories or 40 feet. This plan is 41 feet. I heard also the commissioner, if that's his title, Dakota Castenday saying, why would we include wording that says more than 20 units? That's pretty unlikely, low odds, 1 to 5% that we would ever do that, more than 20 units. This is 33 units. Again, very inconsistent, so I don't understand. I did not hear the word rezoning in any of these meetings. Also, why, you know, you talked about, I heard you say, Mayor, message receiver and sender. We did not receive anything. The first we heard was from this developer who already seemed like it was a sure thing before we heard from our own city about this rezoning and putting up this three, you know, this.

Ms. Rivard? Yes. I'm sorry, your time is up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others wishing to speak?

Hi, my name is Lana Fredine and I live across the street. And in the last meeting, you were talking about green space and needing all this. There is no place in this for a kid to play. I grew up, this neighborhood had huge lots. We played in the yards. We had a huge sandbox in our backyard. The whole neighborhood came over. This is totally insane. My parents are rolling over in their grave right now that the city would even consider something like this in this neighborhood. I could see you took out six or gonna be six houses, maybe putting in 10 duplexes, something like that, but 33? And then for them, there isn't any building there that is three stories high. This is insane for a neighborhood in East Bloomington. And I just didn't understand what the process was from changing zones one to three. I got a little bit more information tonight, but I really truly hope that you think about this because I don't think, think of your own kids. There is no place for them to play except in their driveway. and to cross 86th Street to get to the one park, to have to cross over Bloomington to get to the park at the church, are parents gonna wanna? I mean, in these days, you have to be watching your kids all the time. That's not gonna happen. I'm sorry, but I'm a grandparent, and I would not let my kids go to the park. by themselves, and it's just insane as far as I'm concerned. This house has been in our family for 72 years, and this is not what our neighborhood wants. There aren't a lot from my neighborhood here, But I can guarantee you that everyone in my neighborhood agrees with me that it should be something different than what is being put forth right now. And I hope that you think about it. And, you know, I realize something's got to go in there, but 33 units, no, that's not... what this part of Bloomington, this neighborhood wants or needs.

Ms. Frieden, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Others?

Hello, my name is Roger Rivard. I live in the neighborhood. So regarding the Twin Winds project, let's go through a few steps on their game plan. The city of Bloomington missing middle housing web page says the city has an increasingly aging population and smaller average household size. And this was also presented in the planning slide as the primary objective of this project. And as has been pointed out, each of these is three stories tall, three flights of stairs, no elevator, four to five bedrooms, 2,500 to 3,000 square feet. This is not the housing that elderly people and smaller household sizes are looking for. So it's obviously not a part of the plan here. Also presented in the planning slides was that City of Bloomington has an affordable housing requirement. They tore down six of the most affordable houses, probably, in Bloomington. They were assessed around $25,000 to $300,000 each. And what are we getting for taking away six affordable housing? Three. This is not the right math for getting more affordable housing in Bloomington. Also, as has been mentioned, green space, environment, and water runoff. This project takes houses that were probably 70% green space and reverses that to where it's probably 70, 80% impervious. This is not, and the height, of these buildings. The whole neighborhood is single-family, single-story buildings. These are going to be three-story buildings with only a 10-foot setback from the side of the property lines. It's going to be looking over the entire neighborhood. And they tore down every single tree that was on those six house lots. So there's no vegetation, well, grass left on there. in the neighborhood. I was at the planning meeting. The traffic engineer was saying the average townhome has fewer than the average single-family home. But I looked up online and it said, no, if your townhome is four to five bedrooms, it's got the same. So they've underestimated the traffic impact by one-third. And also, as has been mentioned, the notification that we got that this project was happening, I received that I thought was a piece of junk mail from the developer in mid-May. I missed this meeting because I didn't read it for a couple of weeks because I thought it was a piece of junk mail. I didn't get a notification from the planning or from the city staff here. So we've had less than two months to even respond to this. So this is not a very good version of transparency for our city. So I guess as a final point, It seems like the city of Bloomington is more interested in somehow attracting future residents than they are in the current residents, especially the residents of East Bloomington. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. Others wishing to speak? Can we speak again? Nope, you may not. One bite of the apple, sorry.

Hello, my name is Brian Savig. I don't have any skin in the game on this one other than when I heard it was coming up at the Planning Commission, I drove by the area and looked at it, and it really is sad. Went to the Planning Commission meeting. Well, first, drove by the area. There's another apartment or condo unit there, dead-end street. Trash all over the street. I mean, I couldn't believe it. It looked like people were living there. Now, again, city camp. you know, clean the streets every day and patrol for that. I guess my thought is just the human side of things that at the planning commission, there were maybe only nine or 10 speakers, whatever it was, but there was like 35 residents there. The Planning Commission just blew past every human consideration of this is our homes. We've lived here for 30, 40, 50, 70 years. And their conclusion, oh, this doesn't cause a problem for any of us. All the legal requirements are done. I just feel a lot of pain for these people. I just don't feel like the city listens to its residents. It doesn't seem to care for the people that are paying the bills and electing the officers. And I understand Change is painful. And I understand that maybe the city has to do certain things because, okay, we keep spending more money. We better find more people to pay the bills because it's getting pretty tough. But have some pity on the people that elected you, the people that consider you their representatives. You know, I guess I rest my case and just try to be human occasionally, too. I realize the city has financial needs and struggles. But there's people's, these are their homes. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you for hearing me.

Thank you. Mr. Sevek? Good evening.

Good evening. I'm Bonita Welch and I do live in this neighborhood and I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years. So I just one of the major questions is why did Twin Wind proceed with the purchase of these properties when they were when they are zoned as R1 when Somebody knew, had to have known, that it had to go through the city process and with zoning to be totally redone. And there's a lot of destruction, demolition, that's already been done there, per the other residents. So my question is, How long has this been going on that we in the neighborhood have no idea that this was the plan? So I think we were deceived a little bit. Somebody's doing something, I think, or I don't want to think that it was under the table, but it wasn't up front. And just one other thing is that when I moved, when we moved into the neighborhood 40-some years ago, there weren't many kids. Ours were probably, my two children were probably just the couple that got on the bus on our corner every day. Now there's multiple children that get on that bus. There's children that come over from the daycare center on Cedar Avenue that have to cross the street and get on this bus. And I am concerned about those children crossing streets with more traffic. And especially when you're talking about winter. Those streets are not very wide now, and if you have cars parked on both sides of the street, you cannot have two people driving up and down that street. Somebody has to pull over and wait. so the streets aren't real wide. So what's gonna happen in winter when you've got even less room there? And I just wanna make sure that traffic is considered, parking is considered, and our children getting on and off school buses are considered. These are major points that cannot be just brushed to the side.

Thank you, Ms. Welch. Others? Bianca, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak?

Mayor, we do not have anyone online.

Last call for anybody in the chambers?

Council, no one coming forward, no one on the phone looking to speak.

I look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.1. So moved. Second. Motion by Councilmember Robertson, second by Councilmember Lohman to close the public hearing on item 4.1. No further discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. I know, I think the applicant is in the room. Is there anything, now that we're done with the public hearing, anything you would like to add to the process? Good evening.

Yeah, good evening.

You can identify yourself, please. My name is Vinh Lam. I'm the owner of Twin Wing One LLC and for the project Lum Shai Village Town Home.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Hong Lee. I'm a registered architect in Minnesota and I helped Lynn to design this project. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

I'm Sean Smith. I'm the civil engineer on the project, so I took part, take in the civil plans and the stormwater regarding this project. Very good.

Thank you. Council, any questions of the applicant tonight? All right.

Oh, Council Member Lohman. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry, one question I wanted to ask that did come up. When you were looking at, and I want to be careful about how I ask this question, when you were looking at, in terms of trying to, with the development, in terms of what you proposed for that particular area, did you consider trying to keep it as is? What kind of, could you tell me a little bit more about your thinking in terms of what you went with in terms of development?

Thank you. Hi, Mayor. Originally, the owner bought a single-family housing, single-family, and she asked me to come in and redesign for just housing, just remodel the house. And the existing house right now is very bad shape. The mayor said, what you do is not going to be worth anything. So she considered that. Actually, I told her. As the architect advised the client, I told her that this is only slap-on grade, and the square foot is less than 1,000 square feet. And to be honest with you, the lot is so large, and how it's only less than 1,000 square feet, it doesn't make any sense. So because of considering the needs of housing in the Bloomington area, I told her that what should we do? So we come up with, we talk to the city and do some research. with the online, and we saw that this can be a potential more development. So that's why we reached to the next neighborhood, next house, and asked the owner for the next house whether or not you want to sell or not. We're not forcing anybody to sell. We just consider and say, hey, look, we have this house, and we're thinking about doing something. development here. And one thing after the other. And the people next to it agree to sell it to us. We never force anybody to sell it to us. And one after the other, and we found out that the plan is medium density housing development of 2040 planning process. That's why we come up with to make a decision to approach the neighborhood to whether or not they want to sell their house. So they agree we are quite flexible finally. So one thing after the other one. Thank you.

Other questions council? Is that answers your questions? I think it did.

Great.

Thank you. Thanks much. If we have additional questions, we will call you back up. Thank you, though. So, Council, the question before us on item 4.1, the rezoning, the platting, the final site development plan, the whole bit. Thoughts, questions, comments on this? Council Member Lohman.

So, yeah, I mean, I guess I had some questions based on some of the things. I'm not going to ask them all because, you know, we're limited on time here. But I don't know if staff has going from six affordable housing to three. And I know that may just be a math issue. But I don't know that. that that has any bearing on anything in terms of I don't know if there's any requirements for this to go to replicate the exact same number of affordable housing but if staff could speak to that that's one question that I have and then the other question that I that I would probably raise up here and just trying to get myself down to three there's so many I want to ask but I'm just gonna just try to stick with three the height consideration you know have we done this before and in other places could you could you talk about that what's the impact of that I keep hearing that these homes were supposed to be for a certain age limit and the three stories that seems to be, you know, but I don't know if that, again, fits the requirements, you know, with the staff component. Because obviously we made all the findings for this. And then I guess the last one that I would ask is going from R1 to R3, you know, because of what they've built there. you know, just help me to understand, you know, if they went down a different thing, could you put an apartment there? Could you put, I mean, could there be more dense development there as an alternative as opposed to, because I don't, you know, just help me understand that R1 to R3, just for the general public who's watching. I know it's in the staff report, but I think those are the three things that I think rise to the, you know, certainly there's other things out there, but I think those have all been asked and answered, the parking and the traffic and that thing and the planning meeting.

Yeah. Mayor, council members, I'll try and take some of those questions because I've been more involved in the full extent of the process all the way through the review. And if I can make one quick point about public notification, this did come up at Planning Commission as well. And we're actually doing a Development Review 101 study session, informational session at Planning Commission this Thursday. So I invite anyone who's interested in Development Review absent a specific project to learn more about our process to attend that or to watch that. hopefully there'll be some good points shared in that. But the reason that we don't issue a notice when sites are being reviewed on a preliminary basis is because for a few reasons. One is there's no hearing to yet advertise. And so we can't direct someone to attend a meeting when there is no meeting as of yet. As I shared at the Planning Commission meeting, sometimes applications come to our preliminary development review group and don't actually end up becoming formal development applications. That's another reason that we don't notify because we don't know if a project is going to go forward. And then finally, the last reason we don't is because we have not collected any fee. So any notification that the city would be doing would be doing at our own cost at that point. So I just want to reiterate that kind of aspect to the public. Starting with your second question related to height. So if you recall, there was an ordinance adopted, I want to say six months or so ago, revising the city's height map standards. And one of the actions that was done as part of that was to elevate all sites guided for medium density residential uses to at least three stories or 50 feet. in height. So this project coming in at three stories, again, we eliminated the number of stories as part of our regulatory structure for height. But in other words, 50 feet is what is allowed at this property on the basis of it being guided, medium density residential. It's coming in at 41 feet in height. In Bloomington, as long as you're meeting certain side yard setbacks, you can actually have a single family home that's up to 40 feet in height. So this project is exceeding that by a foot, although single family homes are limited to two stories in height. So we were concerned about height, given that they were talking about doing three stories, and that's why we requested the shadow study. Absent that three story in their proposal, we wouldn't have requested that. In fact, there was multiple iterations of completeness review with this application, and that was one of the things staff flagged as far as we needed to understand what the impacts of these structures were on the adjoining properties, so that's why we asked for that. regarding your question about what could they have developed here other than single family homes. So the existing zoning is R1, single family, but the comp plan guides this site, medium density residential. And so the way to initiate that change is to seek rezoning of the property to a medium density residential zoning district. they could have sought to seek high density residential but that would require a comprehensive plan amendment in addition to a rezoning action and so that is why they did not do this um uh i you know i have a slightly different timeline than the applicant in terms of what they're reporting but they i can report they did come to city staff and say yes we own these properties we're interested in potential redevelopment what is the site guided We just share that information with the public. It's readily available on all of our plans and those things. To the question about the opportunity housing ordinance, it does not require replacement from six to three, per your question, Councilmember Lohman. There are some provisions around protection of NOAA properties. That's more for large-scale multi-family sites that are being bought and potentially renovated to increase the rents. So there's some notice provisions around that and tenant protection type things. The Opportunity Housing Ordinance does that, but there's no formal requirement that they swap, that they replace six, because that's what the single family homes were that were there before. So yeah, I think I, did I miss anything there? Okay.

So the other concern that I heard brought up was regarding traffic, and I see Mr. Roberts here. I've been through enough of these. I'm realizing that I think a total of 181 additional trips per day is barely a drop in the bucket, if I recall. Is that correct, Mr. Roberts?

Mr. Mayor, council members, it's a fairly low trip generator in terms of uses like that. A couple hundred trips is fairly small. In terms of the number of trips generated, like a fast food restaurant generates trips in the several thousand, all the way up to a big box store, which generates 10,000 or more trips a day. This is fairly low. and it's also depositing those trips onto fairly low volume quiet roads.

And 86th Street I know is with 4,500 vehicles per day. I mean, that's nowhere near capacity. Is that correct?

Mr. Mayor, council members, that's correct. That was converted as mentioned earlier to a three-lane roadway. Three-lane roadways are capable up to around 20,000 cars a day. We don't even start worrying about them until around 15,000 cars a day. So at 5,000 cars a day for 86th and Old Cedar, there's plenty of gaps getting onto and off of this roadway should not be a significant issue. There's the two-way left turn lane, so it should operate safely.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Council, additional questions, thoughts on this? Let's go to comments. Council Member D'Alessandro.

All right thank you Mr. Mayor. All right so first I guess the I'm guessing that because this is a rezoning thing so this is not the same as when we find for compliance with our current plan is that correct? In other words it doesn't follow the same that follow the same requirement that like we look at the findings and we conclude one way or the other?

That is correct.

Okay great so then I can go off that's all I wanted to understand. I hate this project so much, and I don't hate this project because of the fine people that are involved in it or anything else, but this is exactly the kind of thing I didn't want to happen when we did all the stuff that we did around this stuff, and it just drives me crazy. I don't love the fact that we didn't notice people ahead of time, not because we don't have to, but because it's the right thing to do when you decide to materially change the neighborhood feel and aspect. I said this back when we did this to Washburn Circle. I said the exact same thing. I'm going to say it every time. When somebody is going in and asking to materially change the neighborhood character, we should do a better job than follow the legal limits. It's just in our best interest to do that, to the comment about the humanitarian nature of this thing. I would not want to have just bought a house and then found out within a year that I'm going to have a 33-unit, three-story townhome next to me. That's not the same thing as when somebody buys the house next to the fire station. Like, they know what they're getting into. This is not the same. I am for these kinds of projects, and I have always said they should go out to in, right? So in my neighborhood... We have, I have a great example of this, right? If you take the little section of my neighborhood which is essentially, you know, Fremont, 86th Street, lindale and 90th that little section of the neighborhood okay central bloomington i'm on the east side of 35w as well so i'm not prestigious west bloomington here even though i represent them um the the it goes like this right the houses on the ends are duplexes and condo buildings and apartment buildings The further you go into the middle of the blocks, they're single family. And that's great. That's a nice transition. You understand the block's dynamics. You understand where density is going to be, et cetera. This is smack dab in the middle of a block. Like, I just don't get it. If it was on the corner, or if we had looked at, and I understand now a little bit better about how this lot area became the lot area that it was going to be, but this is the perfect kind of thing for the Lindale Avenue area that we talked about a while back off of near 82nd Street, that strip right along Lindale Avenue. perfect example of the kind of thing we want. There's the stuff that we own on Humboldt that's near where we built the Noble. That's a great example of that first tier into a neighborhood where this kind of thing could go. I just don't understand why we would want this right smack dab in the middle of a block like this. It doesn't make sense to me. And so I struggle with this because on the merit, It complies and I feel like, but I wanna vote against this just on principle at this point because we're not learning our lesson. And I, you know, I just, I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated by having to make a decision on this kind of project when I think we can do better for our community. I really do. It's not to say anything against the fine people that have brought this or anything like that. And frankly, you all should be mad at your neighbors for selling out their homes. Because if they never did this, you wouldn't be in this position. But people love to lowball, lowball, lowball their taxes until they go to sell. And then they can't sell fast enough to the highest bidder. So that is who we are. I'm a homeowner too. I'll do the same thing. I'm not even arguing that. But the point is, like if you do truly care about neighborhood character, you don't have neighbors who sell these things out like this. That's just not what you do. So at the end of the day, you know, we have control over this as a citizenry by making sure we are in community with our neighbors and we understand what the neighborhood needs to look like. All that having been said, I really am frustrated for the fine people who live there that they have to look at yet another dead area forever until this thing gets built, just like I have to do every time I talk to people about 86th and Penn. Something's gotta give that people can't tear up the neighborhood and then come ask for permission to do what they wanna do. I just don't think that that's okay. So on multiple counts, I'm really frustrated and I'm struggling because at the end of the day, on the merit, I can't really say no. On the facts of the case, I can't say no, because then they'll sue us and blah, blah, blah. I'm really struggling to be in this position. So I just needed to get that off my chest. Thank you for listening to me. And if I have to, it will be withholding my nose.

Thank you, Council Member. Other thoughts? Council Member Nelson. Yeah.

Thank you, mayor. Um, and I appreciate council member D'Alessandro's points there. Yeah. So, um, I will say, and I just say clarification of this, maybe from the city attorney, what is our level of discretion to council member D'Alessandro's point? I thought we have fairly high discretion on a rezoning question.

Ms. Manderscheid, can you help us out there?

Mayor members, rezoning like this is a judicial, or excuse me, a legislative action. If the court is reviewing this, they're going to look at whether you made a reasonable decision and not an arbitrary one. So they're going to look at the facts and the staff report and the public hearing testimony and the totality of the record in judging the decisions that are made.

Okay. Helpful council member?

Yeah, it is. And I just, I recall because at the Penn Lake one, we rezoned and then we saw what it was. And then we went, wait, maybe we don't like that. And that's where we got sued. But that's not this. We get a chance to look at it. We get a chance to see how it integrates into the neighborhood, where it's specifically located. All of those factors are part of this, and then you can make the zoning decision if you like that with the city attorney's caveat that it's got to be justifiable. You've got to have a basis for it there. So with that said, I will note that I do live in West Bloomington, and I do have townhomes in the middle of my neighborhood. that are bounded on all sides by single-family homes right off of 102nd. So this is not something that seems to me all that unusual. I do agree that most development patterns have them closer to the main road. I think that was noted here, too, that they have access to the main road at 86th there. can handle the higher traffic volumes. So, you know, that one by my neighborhood, though, shares a street with single family neighborhood, single family homes on both sides. And it does not actually have direct access out to 102nd. All of the traffic goes right through the single-family neighborhood. So this does not, I mean, from that standpoint, it is not particularly troubling for me. I've never had a problem with my neighbors that live in the townhomes. It's just more neighbors. It's good people, you know, and get more people in the neighborhood. I find that fine. It provides different housing options for different people that may be in different positions in their life. So, you know, and in general, I think we need more housing options. I do get the point that, you know, this may not be ideal for some people, although if I understand correctly, there are four ADA compliant units. I'm not exactly sure how they're doing that with stairs, but that sort of thing. So, you know, I'm supportive of this just based on my looking at and reviewing the record, my experience and other places. I think that, you know, the reality is it's going to add some more neighbors and And, you know, hopefully, you know, kids become friends and neighbors become friends and, you know, adds and enhances the neighborhood as it has in mine.

Councilmember Rivas.

I guess I'm human. I mean, I'm going to take advantage of that word, adding humanity to the whole thing. My question to you is, is it possible? I heard what you said earlier that you don't want to communicate anything until it's a concrete deal, right? I understand that. But could it be possible? possible to take into consideration how the neighbors in that area would feel. I had gotten communications from them you know, stating their disapproval of this project, right? And I, you know, because of the position that I am in, I agree with Council Member Nelson that, yeah, we need the housing. But at the same time, I understand where the neighbors are coming from. Because I quite honestly don't feel against having townhomes right on top of where I live. but at the same time, I don't want it. You know, I mean, it's very difficult to actually express myself when it comes to that, because I wouldn't want to leave close to one, and I'm really close to the ones by the high school. not that far away, but I don't know, it creates a different sentiment in the neighborhood. So would it be possible at all in the future to be able to communicate, hey, there's a possibility that this could happen in your neighborhood. How do you feel about it? And if the neighborhood at that point reacts in a way that they don't want it, you know, you could put a stop to the whole project. Instead of coming to this point now, I mean, we're giving them the opportunity to talk right now, and it's a brief moment that they express their concern, and then we decide to pass this, and it doesn't affect us, but it does affect them drastically, because they have to live with the consequences of this. And I don't see it as a bad thing. Again, I agree, we need the housing, but it affects their lives. I mean, is there any way that we can somehow be more open to communication and literally when somebody comes to propose something, communicate to the neighborhood that there's a possibility of something of this magnitude happening, and then they can get involved a lot earlier in the process.

Thank you. Council Member? Council Member Lowman and then Council Member Robertson. Council Member Lowman. Thank you, Mayor.

So we've got discretion here, and I think the real question here is, you know, should we use that discretion or shouldn't we? And I think that... I want to be careful when we do policy making. I think maybe there's some opportunities for us to fix our policy, but I want to be careful about trying to fix our policy that have led us to this particular circumstance because of what it indicates to the market and to those folks who develop properties in Bloomington. To change the rules after you have brought the proposal forward is kind of tricky. So I'll just take the three things that I brought forward. Certainly you could look at these other items that are out there. And so the height, that's one of the ones that, you know, certainly I thought, well, maybe, you know, we could maybe make a finding around that. Well, you know, this council, already made those changes to the height. So that really can't be changed. So if another developer came in and did this, they may be dealing with the height no matter what that residential piece. So that's out. The six of the three houses, in terms of the affordability component of that, it would have been nice to kind of get more of that. But again, this is a market situation that I kind of look at too. And so I can't ask a developer to do more than what the market can bear. So that's really out. And then the R1 to R3, well, we guided this to be more medium because of the whole idea that we want to try to get more housing in, you know, in Bloomington, in the east side, Mayor. So, you know, as I look at this, you know, gosh, I mean, you know, I don't love it. I don't like where it is. I think it's horrible to have it there, you know, in terms of those types of things. But the reality of the circumstance and situation is I think about the alternative. And the alternative is maybe it's not this. Maybe it's an apartment. Maybe it's something even more densely that would be worse here. So I'd rather take this than what the alternative may be. We don't know what that could be or what the market or these properties sit vacant for a longer period of time. And so one of the things we've got to deal with here is renewal of like what we just dealt with, with our properties down, with our change we made to our park, it isn't like what it was before. And so, I hear what you're saying, but my issue is, as I look at this, Not only am I a council member for those folks who are residential folks who live there, but I also have to think about the marketplace by which how we renew our city. And as we look at this, we've made all the findings, the planning and staff have both brought this forward based on the rules that we've created. So, yeah, if we don't like this, then, you know, and I've got some problems with, you know, having this in the middle of a street. I think it makes more sense to be on the side, but we talk about renewing our city. If it starts from the inside out, I guess that's the way we got to go. So yeah, as much as I want to make some changes here, I can't do this on the backs of the developer. That's wrong. I just, I can't do that. So I will be supporting this this evening based on what we have here. And certainly all these things that our residents have brought forward, I hear you and we've got to deal with that. But these are decisions that I've made. I made the height decision. I was right here. I voted for that. So, Mayor, I got to support this.

Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Robinson.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll keep it very brief. My colleagues have pretty much touched on every point I was going to make, but as an Eastsider myself, I thought it was important that I make sure and make a note. I think there are some, certainly some issues we've heard about tonight, not just with this project, but with others in terms of communication. Certainly sometimes if there's nothing to point anyone to, there's simply, there's no there, there, there's no there, there, right? We can't direct anyone to a meeting that doesn't yet exist. But I do think there's certainly some room for improvement. We always want to make sure that people are feeling heard, feeling like they know what's going on in their own community, where they are paying the bills, as someone said earlier. I will say I'm in support of this in terms of bringing new folks to Bloomington. I'm excited to welcome new neighbors. Like I said, as an Eastsider, I think it's important that we're looking for different types of housing, talking about different types of family structures, maybe nontraditional families, maybe it's a kid living with a grandparent, something like that. THERE'S ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF FAMILIES AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOLKS AND I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE HELPFUL IN THAT WAY, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LISTEN TO THE FOLKS WHO TOOK TIME TO COME OUT TONIGHT AND LET US KNOW THEIR CONCERNS AND WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE EVERYONE FEEL HEARD IN THE FUTURE, FEEL LIKE THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT TONIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL. I'm looking at this like I look at a lot of our new development that's gone up recently. It's literally as much as we can put on to a development site. And if you recall, our infamous 86th and Penn, I think a couple of us voted against that primarily because of the density. Basically saying, can we cut that back by 5, 10, whatever it was. I don't even remember the number. to just make it a little less dense. That's what I'm feeling with this as well. 33 seems like a lot. I'm looking at these site plans, and I don't even know what the setbacks are, but it seems to be awfully close. That fence is not that far off of the building, and the fence I know is within a foot of the property line. And so, I mean, it's just a really tight area. And I get it. It's probably what makes the project pencil out. But at the same time, it just feels, there's density and then there's just really dense development. And that's what this feels like to me. I think the site could handle it. I think the roads, I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the stormwater and that kind of thing. It just feels like really jamming people in a little bit tighter than I'm comfortable with, to be honest. That being said, I don't know if that's reason enough to deny or if, If I recall, my vote against 86 and Penn got us dragged into court and we lost. So I go back and forth on that. So I'm not exactly sure what to think about this other than what I could see right now and what I wish I could see would be less than 33 units sitting there.

Mm-hmm.

Can I ask a clarification on procedures? So knowing that we have the potential to that this property can be redeveloped with our new R1 standards around cottage homes, town homes, duplexes, fourplexes and that kind of thing. would it be possible to deny the application on the grounds that there's sufficient functional densification within the R1 zoning function that exists today to support a medium density comp plan oriented development that doesn't require rezoning? Is that a reason enough to deny the application? and hold legal standing, I think is the right, I mean, and I know I'm asking for legal advice on the fly and that's not fair, but I'm just curious whether or not we think that we could make the argument on that front. Because I do think, you know, if that was the case, this is a great opportunity for village or cottage home type development and it would fit really nicely in the community and you'd still get a lot of densification, but you wouldn't have to rezone to do it.

Ms. Manderscheidt.

Mayor members, a couple of things to keep in mind. The courts have weighed in on neighborhood opposition. It can be a factor in your consideration of all the factors. It can't be the sole reason. The courts have opined on that. A couple of things related to compliance, this is an otherwise compliant design proposal. And so if you are interested in moving forward with something other than approval, you will need to state reasons for that on the record. And then my recommendation would be that you direct staff to return with a reason or excuse me a denial resolutions in writing for you all to take action on in the future. The action deadline on this particular project is not until the end of September. So there is room to do that. However, if you think that this project needs just a little bit more time, and perhaps a lot of new ideas have been discussed tonight that might be of interest to the applicant, then perhaps you continue it and you let that play out. I have no idea if that's on the table or of consideration, Just putting out the various options that I see before you all tonight. The one last thing I'll say is with regard to votes, we have a lot of votes in front of you on the PowerPoint slide, so I'll just run through the vote requirements under law. For the rezoning, there is a four vote requirement. For summary publication, there's a five vote requirement. And for the third and fourth motions, it's a four vote requirement. Any other questions?

If I may I have one more question. Thank you. So this is more of a question on timing. Was the applicant and maybe the planner has to answer this question but was the applicant aware of the R1 zoning changes when the application was made for this project? Like timing wise was that done before the application for the particular development or were they in process already when we made those changes?

Mayor, Council Member D'Alessandro, their first contact with city staff was in March of 2025. And so the missing middle housing ordinance provisions were not adopted yet at this time. And if I can make one clarifying point is that this project is actually utilizing very little of the zoning reform components that we've been doing over several years. So through the discussion of this project, there's been a lot of talk about missing middle housing. This project is not utilizing the missing middle housing. I understand. It's just our town home standards that we've had for many years and there's lots of town homes in Bloomington as Council Member Nelson elucidated.

I completely understand. My only comment there is that if presented with those new options that don't require rezoning would they reconsider a plan for the project is the open question. I'm not asking them to answer that question here. I just wanted to make sure I understood the timing of it in case it was something that they might want to do that. So to the extent that we give them the time to do that, maybe, maybe not. I'm not trying to speculate. I just am curious. Okay. I appreciate the clarifications. Thanks.

Council Member Nelson, you had a question or comment? Okay. All right. So council, where do we go from here? Council Member Maluma, what are you thinking?

Yeah, I'm a little bit nervous. I'm hearing some folks that are kind of nervous about this, but you know what? The only way to really know is to make our way down this pathway and start voting on this thing. We're pretty tight on time here, so I'm thinking that we go ahead and just roll down this thing. Now, tell me what happens if this fails. Does it come back, or is it just dead?

If it may remember, I'm assuming you're referring to every one of these failing?

Or just one of them. Well, let's say I don't get to four votes on one of them.

So I would need to defer to the planning manager. My suspicion is that if the rezoning fails, the rest of these don't move forward.

That's correct.

Well, I'm going to do it. Councilmember Lohman. So you've got it right here.

I see three here on my packet here. Should I read these off here? Because it seems like this is a little different. Start from the top on the screen, I believe.

Okay, so I'll move to adopt an ordinance rezoning 1525, 1601, 1603, 1605 East 86th Street, and 1604 and 1606 East 87th Street from R1 single-family residential to R3 middle housing residential. Okay.

Second.

Motion by Council Member Lohman, second by Council Member Robertson to adopt the rezoning of the stated properties from R1 single family residential to R3 middle housing residential. Any further council discussion on this?

I have one point of clarification, Mr. Mayor. So the other option that we were bandying about there for a minute was to continue this. Is there any reason why we wouldn't do that in lieu of this and I realize the motion is on the table so we have to go from there. But I would maybe prefer that we continue this in the event that we could maybe give the applicant a chance to consider the information that's been provided tonight. I don't know if that's a better answer or not, but I would love to consider us tabling this vote to a later date if we think we can do that, and I would happily make that motion instead if that's possible.

I think it makes more sense to do that than to potentially deny tonight. I think that denial puts us in a different position.

OKAY.

SO I'LL FIND OUT IF PEOPLE WANT TO CONTINUE AND THEN IF NOT, THEN. OKAY. SO COUNCILMEMBER LOMAN. SO COUNCILMEMBER LOMAN.

SO COUNCILMEMBER LOMAN. MAYOR, THAT'S THE MAIN MOTION. MAYOR, THAT'S THE MAIN MOTION. MAYOR, THAT'S THE MAIN MOTION. SO IF DEL ASSANDRO WANTS TO MAKE SO IF DEL ASSANDRO WANTS TO MAKE SO IF DEL ASSANDRO WANTS TO MAKE THAT MOTION ON TOP OF MINE AND JOHN THAT MOTION ON TOP OF MINE AND JOHN THAT MOTION ON TOP OF MINE AND JOHN WANTS TO SECOND IT, THAT'S WANTS TO SECOND IT, THAT'S WANTS TO SECOND IT, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

PERFECTLY FINE. PERFECTLY

technically that's not true but whatever i'll do it either way or i can amend the motion yeah you could but i'll just do it this way that's fine uh so i'll uh withdraw my my uh motion if that's okay with you i withdraw my second I'll go ahead and move to postpone. Do we need a date?

Continue the item.

All right, I'll continue it. Until what date?

August 31st. August 31st.

God, we're going to have a big meeting that night.

It would be helpful to also articulate if there's anything in particular that you have questions on.

I'VE GOT NO QUESTIONS AT ALL. YOU GOT QUESTIONS?

SURE. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION IF YOU WANT. SO I MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS DECISION TO THE AUGUST 31ST MEETING WITH THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD HAVE PLANNING WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A CONSIDERATION FOR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO OFFER AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION.

Motion by Council Member D'Alessandro, second by Council Member Rivas to continue as stated, to continue the item as stated. Are we clear on that? Clear enough on that?

Was that appropriate?

Mayor Members, what I understood you to say is that you were interested in the applicant reaching out and having a conversation with planning staff about the possibility to incorporate some of the missing middle concepts that have been discussed and possibly any other things that have been discussed during the meeting tonight. Is that accurate?

Yes, that's right. So knowing that this is guided for medium density and knowing that we have passed R1 modifications that fall within that medium density consideration, I'd love for them to have the opportunity to review those with the Planning Commission.

All right, thank you.

All right, we're clear on that. Any other questions, council? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. No. How many did I count there?

Two. Motion carries 4-2 to continue this.

And I guess turn to the applicant and say, uh i'd encourage you to work with staff to understand better what uh what the uh the question was or the possibilities are and um see if we we can figure out a path forward rather than having this be denied just look for a path forward where we can get to yes on this all right all right thank you council members With that, Council, we will move on to our organizational business, which includes our Council Policy and Issues Update. Very quickly, we held a smaller listening session earlier this evening, our regular listening session. We had a number of different speakers. We did hear from Dr. Gretchen Buchanan, who... eventually spoke about a number of things at the second listening session. Heard from two folks, Ali Saad and Chris DeConcini, and I guess Mohamed Akabada as well, regarding our city ordinance regarding licenses and tobacco sales. And so I had a good conversation with them and are, I think, considering whether or not we want to open portions of those requirements to try and better accommodate some of the things that they're facing with their businesses. We heard from Sally Ness talking about the Smith Park shared agreement, and Jamie Anthony had some questions regarding the police department and their policies. So once again, a good and productive council listening session. Mr. Manager, do you have anything to add?

Nothing tonight, sir.

Council, anything to add? Council Member Lowman. You're kidding me, aren't you?

I said it earlier today, earlier during consent. I'll be brief. I just wanted to mention that we had an item on our list earlier today, 3.1, talking about our pension. And I just wanted to mention how appreciative that I am of the work that my fellow colleagues that have been on that fire, Bloomington Fire Relief Association, for their pension and what they've done and what we've done over the many years. We've kind of come a long ways with that, Mayor. And what I would say is, you know, we've done a great job of bringing back, you know, real returns. When we compare our pension plan with other pension plans of similar size and scope, Our pension plan is, you know, above the median for our peer group and above, you know, our own policy benchmarks that we've been able to achieve. And more importantly, we've been able to achieve that return with volatility in the lowest quartile, meaning we took less risk than approximately 75% of the comparable plans. above median returns on material, less risk over a full market cycle is a definition of what we call prudent stewardship. So really all I want to say is, you know, it wasn't by accident, you know, that certainly all of our staff and the council members that are here want to thank, you know, this is a team sport. We all work together to achieve that and want to thank those consultants and the fire department and all those other folks that were part of it.

Thank you, council member. Yes, because we're not that far removed from much more troubling days regarding that fire pension. So we're not that far removed. Thank you for that. Council, anything else to add? If not.

Mr. Mayor, just to say, look forward to seeing everybody tomorrow night.

Absolutely. Oh, yes, yes. National night out. Looking forward to that. And yes, be a lot of fun. It always is. Council, I'm looking for a motion to adjourn tonight.

So moved.

Motion by council member.

Robertson. Second.

Second by Councilmember D'Alessandro to adjourn tonight. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, Council. Good job tonight. Thank you to our staff. And once again, thank you to all of our members of the public who took part tonight. I think it was a good example of how this can all be done at the local level. Thank you all. Have a great rest of your week.