City Council - workshop

Good evening, everyone, and welcome. I will call our Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, August 17th, 2026. Thanks to everybody watching online. Thanks to everybody joining us here in the City Council Chambers. Our first order of business tonight is our approval of our agenda council. We haven't had an official study meeting in the council chambers in a while, so this is a bit of a different order for us. Under our organizational business, we have three items we'll be discussing tonight with no action on them, just discussion and information only. Item 3.1 is our discussion about our preliminary tax levy and budget and a public comment opportunity. Item 3.2 is a 2026 BCA strategic plan and operations analysis and using examples with the pro forma for our Bloomington Center for the Arts. And item 3.3 is a study item, again, for our multifamily performance standards. Council, any questions on that? All right. No adjustments, no changes, no additions to our agenda. I will call... I WILL MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND NOTING THAT WE'VE GOT COUNCILMEMBER RIVERS ONLINE, AND I BELIEVE HE'S ONLINE. IS THAT CORRECT? HE'S READY FOR US? SO WE WILL HAVE TO DO THIS VOTE, OUR ONLY VOTE OF THE EVENING IS A VOICE VOTE. SO I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

SECOND.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. NO FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS. PRIYANKA.

COUNCILMEMBER RIVERS.

Council Member Rivas, are you there?

Unmute this real quick.

That was me.

Hit the rear.

I'll be over.

Camera and microphone on.

There it is.

Can you hear me now?

We can indeed. We can't see you, though. You'll have to turn your camera on.

It's on. Something must be not working. It is on.

All right. While you're working on that, we've got a motion and a second to approve the agenda. And I think your name was first up on the roll call vote.

I vote yes on it.

Aye. Thank you.

To Alessandro. Aye. Nelson. Aye. Lohman. Aye. Robertson. Aye. Carter.

Aye.

Mayor Bussey.

Aye. Motion carries 7-0, and we have an agenda. And first up on our agenda is item 3.1. This is our preliminary tax levy and budget discussion with our public comment opportunity. We're going to kick it off with Kari Carlson, our deputy finance officer, leading us through the presentation, and then we'll open it up to the public comment opportunity. Ms. Carlson, good evening. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight we are going to provide an update on where we are in developing the budget. This is still very much a work in progress. Tonight is an opportunity to share where things currently stand, hear from the public and get direction from the council as we continue working toward the preliminary levy in September and ultimately the final budget and final levy in December. We will start with the current working model for the preliminary tax levy. And from there, we'll talk about the overall direction guiding the budget and some of the major investments already underway. We'll also identify some areas where there are still choices to be made as well as potential new revenue sources and how we're proposing to use the capital and debt management fund. We'll finish with what we've heard through community engagement and the remaining budget milestones for this year. Then we'll open it up to the public comments and council discussion. So with that context, let's start with where the preliminary levy is currently standing. SO THIS IS OUR CURRENT WORKING MODEL AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE WORD WORKING BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT FINAL. THE CITY PORTION OF THE LEVY IS CURRENTLY PROJECTED BETWEEN 100.6 MILLION AND 101.5 MILLION WHICH REPRESENTS AN INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 6.6 TO 7.5% OF AN OVERALL BLOOMINGTON TAX LEVY IMPACT. HRA AND PORT LEVIES ARE ALSO INCLUDED, THE TOTAL PRELIMINARY LEVY WOULD BE BETWEEN 106.6 MILLION AND 107.6 MILLION OR APPROXIMATELY THE RANGE OF 6.98 TO 7.93% OVERALL. So for context, last year the city's preliminary levy increase was 9.44% and the final adopted increase was 6.96%. And the average preliminary city levy increase over the past three years has been 8.77%. So again tonight we are not asking the council to set the levy, we're showing you where the working model currently stands so we can get direction before the preliminary levy is established in September. As we work through that model, we're trying to make sure the numbers stay aligned with the broader direction for the organization and the budget. Our budget mission really comes down to balancing two things. We want to sustain and enhance the quality of life that residents expect from Bloomington while also recognizing the economic pressures households are experiencing and the changing demographics of our community. Those two objectives need to be considered together as we're making budget decisions. THESE FIVE POINTS HAVE BEEN GUIDING OUR WORK. WE WANT TO FINISH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED, CONTINUE IMPROVING HOW WE SERVE THE COMMUNITY, MAINTAIN THE CITY'S STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION, BE DISCIPLINED WHEN IT COMES TO TAXES AND MAKE SURE NEW INVESTMENTS ARE ALIGNED WITH THE CITY'S STRATEGY. THIS BUDGET IS ABOUT PRIORITIZING OUR EXISTING COMMITMENTS AND MAKING CHOICES. One change this year that you will see is that we're moving toward a two-year budget process. So this year the council will adopt the 2027 budget and levy, but we're also developing a 2028 budget and a target levy. So that gives us a longer planning horizon and helps us identify financial pressures earlier. Then in 2027, the focus can shift more towards performance measures and results with adjustments to the 2028 budget where necessary. So in 2028, we would begin the cycle again for the 2029 and 2030 budget. This next section focuses on some of the significant investments that are shaping the budget. So the first is completing the transition of the fire department and modernizing our fire stations. The second is maintaining public safety through police staffing and technology. Third is successfully opening and operating the community health and wellness center. Fourth is continuing implementation of the park system master plan and then an urban forest. And fifth is advancing the climate action plan. There's a lot on the slide that I'll talk through. Fire is one of the most significant long-term investments in this plan. So today there are 46 authorized full-time firefighters and 73 part-time firefighters, excluding command and fire prevention personnel. The long-term staffing model calls for 78 full-time and approximately 75 part-time firefighters. So the goal is to staff all six stations in Bloomington around the clock with six engines, four firefighters per engine, and at least one paramedic on each engine, while working toward reaching 90% of emergency calls within seven minutes and 30 seconds. There are also future needs in fire prevention and command staffing as Bloomington grows and service demands increase. This is the staffing plan. This slide shows how the plan to phase that transition in over time, rather than making the entire investment over at once. We are proposing nine firefighter hires in 2027. And then in 2028, the major impact is the transition of the 18 safer grant funded positions into the general fund. Beginning in 2029, the plan adds six firefighters per year until we reach the goal of the 78 full-time firefighters in 2032. And as you know, staffing is only one part of the fire department investment. We also have aging fire stations that need to be addressed. The current capital plan includes Station 2 in 2027, Station 5 in 2029, Station 1 in 2031, and Station 6 in 2033. And this chart brings the staffing and station investments together and shows the projected additional levy impact by year. So you can see that the impact varies significantly depending on where we are in the staffing transition and when the station projects occur. And one important point I want to make is that these amounts on this graph show the impact before using any resources from the fire pension special revenue fund or the capital and debt management fund. So part of our financial strategy is determining how those resources can be used to lessen the impact on the tax levy. So from, you can see that this transition has already started but this goes until the end of 2034. We also looked at Bloomington's police staffing in comparison with some peer communities that have similar attributes as Bloomington. So Bloomington currently has 1.44 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. And that's compared with an average of 1.48 among the cities that are shown here that are comparable to Bloomington. At the same time, Bloomington handles approximately 715 calls for service per 1,000 residents, which is above the peer average of 637. So as we think about public safety capacity, we're looking not only at staffing levels, but also at workload and how technology can help our existing staff operate more efficiently. So this year in 2026 the focus has been on modernizing aging systems and adding technology that improves administrative efficiency. And that represented about 154,000 in an annual expansion. But approximately 148,000 was offset through state public safety aid funding. So that means only 6,500 remains as an ongoing cost in the 27-28 budget. So looking ahead, police is proposing additional technology, including AI, drone, and officer safety tools. And the objective is to reduce administrative workload, improve response capabilities and situational awareness, and help existing staff manage growing service demands. The police department is looking at technology as one way to expand capacity without additional staffing. The Community Health and Wellness Center is another major investment that is moving from construction into operations in 27. The facility is being designed to expand recreation, wellness, and community connection, provide a new public health facility, and serve residents of all ages and abilities. WE'VE ALREADY MADE THE SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL INVESTMENT THAT IS HAPPENING NOW. THE NEXT STEP IS MAKING SURE WE SUCCESSFULLY OPEN AND OPERATE IT. THAT MEANS HAVING THE STAFFING NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SAFE, CLEAN AND HIGH QUALITY EXPERIENCE AND BUILDING THE MEMBERSHIPS AND PROGRAMMING NEEDED FOR LONG-TERM SUCCESS. There will be an initial operating investment from the general fund, but the long-term financial goal is to increase cost recovery as participation grows and reach 100% cost recovery by the third year. And then beyond the commitments we've already started, already discussed, there are several areas where we are looking for council direction. And those include additional climate action plan investments, the home energy loan program, the quiet rail study, the animal shelter, public safety technology, and the urban forest remaster plan. So every additional investment will need to be considered within the overall tax levy target. AND THEN, OF COURSE, REDUCING THE LEVY PRESSURE ISN'T ONLY ABOUT EXPENDITURES. WE'RE CONTINUING TO IDENTIFY REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES THAT COULD SUPPORT CITY SERVICES OR OFFSET COSTS. THOSE OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE CHARITABLE GAMBLING REVENUE, A BROADBAND FRANCHISE FEE, WATER AND SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENTS, SPECIAL ELECTION COST RECOVERY FROM THE STATE, TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FACILITY NAMING RIGHTS, SPONSOR RIGHTS REVENUE. So some of these opportunities are further along than others, but we just wanted the council and the public to see the range of options that are also being evaluated. So another new important part of our financial strategy is the newly renamed capital and debt management fund. So this came out of direction from the April council retreat and was formally approved on August 3rd. The name change reflects a more defined purpose for the fund. So rather than being a broad strategic priorities fund, these resources will now be focused on capital investments and debt management. And that gives us another tool for managing large capital needs while trying to smooth the impact on taxpayers over time. This slide shows how we're currently planning to use this fund. So we began in 2026 with approximately $11.2 million of resources available. And after these planned sources and uses shown on this slide, we're estimating ending 2026 at about $9.5 million. and then the planned sources and uses will have the balance projected to decline to approximately 7.1 million in 2027 and 4.7 million in 2028. And that's intentional to bring that down. So we have accumulated these resources so they can be used strategically for capital and debt needs. And at the same time, we're maintaining a 2.5 million fund balance goal. So we are not planning to spend the fund down completely. JUST SOME MORE ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL SPECIFIC WAYS WE'RE PROPOSING TO USE THESE RESOURCES. SO FIRST WE CAN USE THE FUND FOR DEBT SERVICE. SO REDUCING THE AMOUNT THAT OTHERWISE NEEDS TO COME FROM THE TAX LEVY. SECOND, WE'RE PLANNING TO PAY OFF FOUR EXISTING BOND ISSUES EARLY IN DECEMBER. THE ICE GARDEN BONDS WOULD REQUIRE UP TO 700,000 FROM THIS FUND, BUT THEN WE CAN CALL THAT BOND EARLY AND IT WILL NO LONGER BE PART OF THE PROPERTY TAX FOR THE ICE GARDEN. AND THIRD, WE CAN MAKE DIRECT CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS THAT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF NEW DEBT THAT WE NEED TO ISSUE FROM THIS FUND. SO FOR 2027, THAT INCLUDES FIRE STATION NUMBER TWO. AND IN 2028, WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THE DUAN GOLF CLUBHOUSE. and also course improvements and also the animal shelter. So the objective is to use these resources strategically to reduce future debt and tax levy pressure. And so now I want to shift from the financial model to some other important parts of the process. So the last two things I'll talk about is community engagement and where we're going from here. So similar to recent past years, we've been engaging residents through the process, and we found the best way to get out to talk to the most people is to go to where they are. So along with the Let's Talk Bloomington that's online, we went to four events. So we were at the Home Fair in April. We were at the Pride Festival Juneteenth celebration in a farmer's market, and there's also a new mail-in questionnaire that we included in the July briefing. So as I said, the goal has been to meet residents in a variety of settings and give people different ways to tell us what's important to them. And so this next slide, this is a picture of the map that we had at those in-person events, just so you have a sense of the geographic reach of those conversations. So at our budget tables, we were asking residents to identify where they live in Bloomington. and as you can see we've heard from people across the community that doesn't mean that this is a scientific survey but it does just help demonstrate that the feedback we are receiving isn't coming from just one part of the city and so the different colors if you can see those there are representative of the four different events we were at so for the home fair we had a blue marker at the pride festival we had red at juneteenth we had green and at the farmers market we had black And there are different themes that have come through consistently as we're talking to people. So first, residents do express a lot of pride in Bloomington and value city services and the direction of the community. At the same time, affordability is definitely a concern. We are hearing concerns about property taxes and particularly the cumulative impact of increases over time. RESIDENTS ALSO WANT TO SEE CLEAR VALUE FOR THE TAXES THAT THEY'RE PAYING. THEY WANT INVESTMENTS TIED TO OUTCOMES AND FISCAL DISCIPLINE. THERE IS SUPPORT FOR INVESTMENTS IN AREAS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THERE ISN'T ALWAYS AGREEMENT ABOUT WHICH ONE SHOULD COME FIRST. WE'RE ALSO HEARING THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE WILLING TO REASSESS PROGRAMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE. And finally, residents, they want us to think long-term, and they want us to balance the needs of Bloomington's future affordability and financial sustainability. So here is our budget milestones calendar. So tonight's an important point in this process. There's still quite a bit of work ahead. The next major milestone is September 14th, about a month away, when city council will set the preliminary tax levy, and that will establish the maximum levy for 2027. After that we'll return in October for more detailed discussions of the internal services team and the external services team budgets. There will be another budget study session and opportunity for public comment on November 16th. And followed by truth and taxation hearing which obviously has a public hearing on December 7th. And then the final budget and tax levy will be scheduled to be adopted on December 14th. So there will be several more opportunities for both council discussion and public input before everything is final. And with that, at this point, we'd like to hear from the public, so I'll turn it over to the mayor to start the public comment period.

Thank you, Ms. Carlson. Before we get to that, actually, council, if you have questions, we can weigh in. We'll have our discussion at the end of the public comment period, but if you have any questions of clarification. Council Member D'Alessandro.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had two specific questions. So the first question was related to the bond calls. You mentioned that there's up to $700,000 that we could put towards the bond call for the big, right? How does that relate to and or impact the fact that that project was largely funded through the local option sales tax that voters supported?

Council, Mayor, Councilmember D'Alessandro, this is a separate bond issue for the ice garden. So this was one that was issued in 2019. So this is not related to the bond, the large bond that was issued. This is a smaller project.

Okay. Great. I wasn't sure when it said 2019 whether that meant it was on the books from 2019 or that we had made the purchase in 2019? Great, thank you. Appreciate the clarification on that. And then secondly, I just wanted to see if I could come up with a number from a sustaining perspective for the fire department. So if I'm doing the math correctly, give or take, the implication of the 78 firefighters versus the 46 I think that we say we have now is about one and a quarter million dollars more per year in operating dollars that we're going to well beyond 2034 we're just going to need to sustain that as long as we want to maintain and maintain that number of firefighters is that approximately correct?

Council members, mayor, council members, I don't know if I have that exact number, but we can get that for you. But the additional cost of the staff at that full-time level that's not going to go away. What will go away over time is the debt payments when we pay off those bonds.

Right. Right. So the capital investment is, you know, paid off through the bonds that we purchase and then pay off. I'm just, yeah, that would be great to have just as an ongoing operating impact, understanding that that can be for the next meeting. Okay. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember. Council, additional questions? Ms. Carlson, if you could explain a little bit more the two-year budget cycle that we're moving into now. So what will this time next year look like?

Mayor and council members, that is to be determined exactly what that will look like, but that will, I don't know if city manager has any more thoughts about what year two will look like.

Walker? Yeah, generally speaking, I would say, I MEAN, STILL BY LAW, WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE YOU ADOPT A LEVY EACH YEAR, SO WE'LL GO THROUGH A SIMILAR PROCESS TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO PREVIOUSLY. I WOULD SAY THE BENEFIT OF DOING A MULTI-YEAR BUDGET IS WE'RE BEING MORE STRATEGIC, AND SO WE'LL BE PRESENTING YOU WITH WHAT KIND OF OUR PLANNED REVENUES AND EXPENSES ARE LOOKING LIKE FOR 2028, WHICH GIVES US THAT ABILITY, LIKE I SAID, TO FORECAST LONGER TERM. But you'll still have to make the formal decisions to set those levy marks per state statute.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's what I thought, but I want a clarification on all of it.

Anything else, Council?

Council Member Rivas, anything? I can't see you and I can't see your hand up, so you'll have to chime in if you want to speak.

I'll raise my hand now. Can you hear me? I still have the camera on. I do have a quick question. I'm probably putting the carriage ahead of the horse, but it's the only thing that came up to my head. If you don't mind, Carrie, as the staff modeled the cumulative property tax impact on a median value home in Bloomington, under both the low and high ends of the proposed range, including the interaction with anticipated school and county levies, has that been considered already with the proposed tax at this point?

Mayor, council members, council member Rivas, we have not pulled that information together, but we could try to get something for September.

Well, and I think Ms. Carlson, I mean, they're as early in the process as we are. So schools in the county and the watershed district, they won't have a solid number until their proposed levy, which I'm assuming is due in about a month as well. They're preliminary.

Yes, that is true. But we might have something for the median value homeowner just for our city impact. Got it.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member. Now, Council Member, if you could put your hand down so the next time you're ready to talk, I can tell it's a new hand. How about that? There you go. Perfect. Perfect. Anything else, Council? All right, if not, we will open our public comment opportunity here. Anybody in the chamber is able to speak on our topic of this evening, which is, of course, the proposed budget and levy. We'll have two minutes per speaker, and you'll be able to see by the shot clock on the wall. And as I typically do in these situations, I'll cut you off at two minutes, not because I'm mean, but because I want to make sure everybody has the same amount of time to speak. This is your opportunity to speak and ask questions and so on. What we'll do is collect the questions and answer them at the end of the public comment period. We won't try and answer them shooting from the hip. We'll just answer them at the end of the public comment period. What I would appreciate you do as you start your comments, if you would introduce yourself. And then as you finish up, the yellow clipboard that is on the table there, take that and just kind of move to the side. Maybe have a seat very quickly and let the person behind you begin speaking while you're signing in and just so we can keep track of everybody. So with that, Council, this is our opportunity to listen and hear what our residents have to say about the budget process thus far. And with that, I will open our public comment period. Is there anybody who would like to speak as part of our public comment period this evening?

Good evening. My name is Dulcy Emerson. What, if you have anything in the budget in consideration to making allow, allocating funds to the residents of the Newton neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods that are being directly impacted negatively by the construction of the community health and wellness that is going up with our homes being Suffering damage structural damage and vibrations daily booms and us being affected financially up to the tune of $50,000 or more to our structures falling apart our driveways our garage doors not being able to close the vibrations are ridiculous and I'm wondering what are you allowing in your budget to make us whole and resolving our and making restitution

Very good. Thank you for your comments. And as I said, we'll answer all the questions as we wrap up. Thank you, Ms. Amerson. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Please come on up. You can queue up and get in line.

Good evening. My name is David Freeman, and I just wanted to speak a little bit about a particular section in the presentation where it was talked about using or investing in AI as a proposal to keep the cost down for human bodies in our city government. And, you know, I appreciate moving forward with technology and modernizing and keeping up with the times and all that. Right. But I also support humans doing human work. And I want to be clear about like we need to be extremely careful in how we implement this technology. It's already proven to be both disastrous for privacy and ecological situations. And I don't want our city levy to be contributing to that. Another thing I wanted to talk about briefly is something we've seen in a lot of cities surrounding us or bordering states or whatever is the flock cameras and other automatic license plate readers. I know that flock is the current craze, right? But I know there's other ones that go under the radar sometimes, so to speak. And I want to be clear that it's not just about flock, but it's about any of these systems that go around and randomly gather people's data theoretically using their license plates but we know that their cameras and they're recording our faces they're recording our cell phone technology where we are all that stuff and i don't want our levies to be going towards that kind of technology in our city uh so thank you very much for having me and um have a good evening thank you mr freeman if you could take the ticket and step aside and sign in that'd be great thank you

Good evening.

Hi. Good evening. I'm Jamie Anthony, and I'm a Bloomington resident in District 4. I'm speaking tonight about the vague mention of, quote, public safety enhanced technology in the budget presentation. Mostly, I'm up here asking for greater precision in language, the recent Bloomington outcries over the Nine Mile Creek restoration work, the construction of the Community Health and Wellness Center in the Newton neighborhood, as we just heard about, The athletic fields of Smith Park, which we hear about at every week's listening session, and the BPD engagement with ICE all demonstrate a strong appetite in our community for accurate, reliable documentation of city intent and plans. Given the vagueness of the language in the documents, I want to ensure that you hear strong opposition to using the city budget for some specific types of, quote, enhanced technology that are popular in law enforcement these days. First, I want to share my opposition to the use of taxpayer dollars for automatic license plate readers, better known as flock cameras, as David just mentioned. There are too many examples of ALPRs being used improperly or even illegally by local law enforcement all around the country. And they're also a prime target for vandalism and destruction. Please don't spend our taxpayer dollars on something that's bound to be tampered with almost immediately. Second, I want to share opposition to the purchase of the shock gloves that were in the headlines last week. These gloves are designed to help the police subdue a person who the officer perceives to be defiant in some way. Maybe it's better than a gunshot, but it's still another weapon that raises profound concerns. Third, I want to be sure that you hear opposition to the use of drones for BPD work, except when responding to 911 calls, as described in the Bloomington debriefing recently. More precisely, I want to be sure that there are provisions in the budget that prevent the purchase and use of drones for surveillance. Finally, I ask that any budget allocation for, quote, public safety enhanced technology be accompanied by a budget allocation for engaging with the public to share details about these new technologies and where to expect them in use in Bloomington. Please stop relying on churches to co-host your public outreach events and start investing in relationships that build trust throughout the community.

Thank you, Anthony. Others this evening.

Good evening, welcome. My name's Billy Wald, and I was just, can you hear me? I was wondering, an 8% increase in the budget, how many of you that don't work for the city received an 8% increase in your pay? I don't understand why it shouldn't be zero. I don't understand why all of a sudden the fire department has become such a big... problem that we have to spend millions and millions and millions of dollars to fix it i guess apparently i don't know ambulances don't do things anymore we have we send big fire trucks to every little emergency i don't know how many um i'd like to know how many fires we actually put out like real fires an actual fire not a medical emergency um The police, we have plenty of police. I've heard the chief who I support on the radio several times saying that he has plenty of officers. They don't need any more money. In fact, he has extra, more than in most other cities, so I didn't understand that graph, really. I was wondering how the sales tax is going along if that sales tax that we passed, how's the balance of that? Is that paying for the running costs and servicing the debt, let's say? Is there a balance there? Do we have more than we expected, less than we expected? How are we doing? And that's all I can think of right now. I wasn't expecting to talk.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ewald. Others?

Good evening. Nice presentation. Appreciate that. It's tough to argue against public safety investments. However, if you notice the public feedback, two specifically mentioned three indirectly talked about cost increased concerns. I'm curious and I'd like to, I'm hoping to get an answer on this, why The city has historically spent double at least of the inflation rate, consumer price index, any of the measures you want to look at by the Federal Reserve. We've always spent a minimum since at least 2018. I didn't go back any further, but we've always spent a minimum of twice that. And I realize currently we're talking about public safety increases, that's what's pushing this out of whack, but that would seem to imply that we spent more before on the wrong things or something like that. So I mean, I would just, hopefully I'll get an answer on that. And I think to the point, how many got an 8% increase? The strategic investment fund, we're renaming it, but to me that's just like a slush fund. We spend into the levy to pay it down in a high year, and we pay into it in a low year. But the point is, why aren't we facing the real costs? The shock factor is a valuable thing, and I think we need to be forecasting better if we're going to achieve goals of keeping the city affordable. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Savick.

Heed me, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name's John Hutmacher. Excuse me, I've been a resident since 1992 here in Bloomington. I took a look back at some of my property taxes since 2020 through 2026. My city portion of property taxes increased almost 57%. Over the same period of time, inflation has gone around 21, 22%. So clearly I have well overpaid into the budget of the city. Clearly, we are just adding services to add services, adding more programs to add more programs, and now is the time for you guys to pay the piper. Time to do some of the things that a lot of us have asked you to do. You have plenty of departments that need to go away. It's an oldie but a goodie. We have an Earn Sick and Safe time department in this city we do not need. I have told you and asked you to get rid of that before. You don't need it. We have it at the state level. You have smoking regulations that we regulate businesses. We have a statewide smoking ban. We don't need those people here. We don't need the regulations. We have a community engagement people. I don't think they're needed either. Ms. Carlson talked about where they went to. Same three places I talked about with you guys last Truth in Taxation. You go to three places, maybe four, and get the same answers you want all the time. You're not engaging the entire community. You're engaging the community that you want to engage. And by the way, why on the city Facebook page are the comments turned off? Why can we not make comments? Edina, you can make comments too. Eden Prairie, you can make comments too. We can't hear. You paid $30,000 or something to a consultant that told you to turn off the comments from the public. You're not engaging us. There's no transparency. It's very clear to me. And sewer and water increases, I think they're high enough. Why do we have a community engagement director or a community health and wellness director? We don't have a building yet, but yet we've been paying them and giving them benefits. You guys are losing your direction, and you're way overtaxing us, and you have been for years.

OTHERS TONIGHT? LAST CALL. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL CLOSE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS EVENING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO EVERYBODY WHO SPOKE. Council, do we want to answer the questions first, or do we want to start our discussion? Should we answer the questions first? The ones that I heard, and we can get a variety of folks talking on this one, is there anything in the budget regarding mitigation for the Newton neighborhood? Mr. Walker?

Mayor, there is not anything in the budget for that. I would encourage anybody who has experienced any damages to reach out to the city and submit a damage claim form. That's the appropriate mechanism for addressing that. We have not. Thank you very much.

Mr. Freeman asked about the use of AI and flock cameras, and I think it's important to note The city of Bloomington doesn't have any flock cameras that we use. I know there are a couple associated with a private business in the city of Bloomington, but Bloomington itself does not have any flock cameras up. We have license plate readers that have been proven to be very effective in terms of improving public safety and being able to track people down and actually finding lost people or people who had gone missing. So we do use different types of cameras and obviously body cameras with all of our police officers. So beyond that, anything to add on that, Mr. Walker? I don't have anything further. No, I don't think so. Ms. Anthony talked about public safety information and documentation and agreed that we talked about this last time at our discussion with the Nine Mile Creek. We need to be a little bit more intentional, a little bit clearer in terms of our discussion on things. Words do matter, and we've got to make sure that we talk about them very clearly. The use of enhanced technology, drones, and so on. They're without question, and that's a debate nationally about how best to use drone technology. I have seen it in action and it's a very effective, as you say, for 911 calls and to be able to get to a 911 scene before officers get there and be able to judge what is necessary to go there. So there's definitely use for it. I would agree with you 100%. Surveillance is not part of that use, but that would be a question that we would have to address. It's also very expensive. AND SO WE'LL HAVE TO DECIDE IF WE WANT TO MAKE THAT JUMP. AND IN TERMS OF A SHOT GLOVE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT HAS EVEN DEVELOPED YET, OR WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT THAT ONE. WE DON'T EMPLOY THAT. WE DON'T EMPLOY THAT, YEAH. MR. EWALD TALKED ABOUT THE LEVEL OF THE INCREASE AND ADVOCATED FOR THE 0% INCREASE. AND A ZERO PERCENT INCREASE WOULD EQUATE TO A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CURRENT SERVICES. I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THE QUESTION OF WHY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? EVEN A ZERO PERCENT INCREASE WOULD REQUIRE? There are ongoing costs. Like everything else, costs are going up, whether it's the people that we employ or the programs that we have. Mr. Ewald, my turn now, okay? Okay. Asked about why the fire department. We've got an entire city saying why the fire department because we have relied on a paid on-call system for years, and it was inadequate for a city of 91,000. I think we've all agreed on that, and this council has made the decision then we are going to move forward with a full-time fire department because it's the best for the public safety of our residents here. A comment about how many police officers. Currently we are at full staff or above staffing, but I have heard on a number of occasions from our chief that he would like that staffing level to be higher. AND WE SAW THAT GRAPHIC HOW IMPORTANT THAT MIGHT BE. AND REGARDING THE SUCCESS OF THE SALES TAX, I WOULD LOOK TO MS. ECONOMY SCHOLAR BUT I BELIEVE THE SALES TAX IS RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE IF NOT AHEAD OF SCHEDULE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF COLLECTIONS BEING ABLE TO MEET THE OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR THE THREE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE OUTLINED.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IT IS. IT'S COMING IN GENERALLY ABOUT 50 TO 100,000 GREATER EACH MONTH THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED. all of that will keep earning interest. And our debt service is about 12 million, 12 and a half million a year. And the dollars are coming in and what's ever not spent is earning interest and we'll pay debt in the future. And if we can mature the debt or call it at some future date, we'll look to do that.

Very good. Thank you. Mr. Sevig had questions about the cost going up to double the inflation rate, and that has been the case. We have seen pretty significant increases over the last few years with the city of Bloomington. We have had that conversation as well that in a lot of cases it's catching up or it's catching up to those cans that have been kicked down the road in a lot of cases. The fire department is an example. The work at the Bloomington Ice Garden, upgrading our parks systems, our public works facilities, all these things that for years the goal I think in Bloomington was to keep the tax levy increase as low as possible and that's an admirable goal and it worked very well but at some point we have to pay the piper and this is what we're looking at and we have been over the past few years And Mr. Humacher, back again. Thank you. It's good to see you again. The increase is over the years. We will continue the conversations about services and departments, and it's all part of, I think, the conversation that's going on now as part of the two-year budget, as part of the work that we've been doing, whether and to what level do we need the services that we're having now. WE'RE DOING HERE IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND I THINK WE'RE THAT'S GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CONVERSATION AND WE'LL CONTINUE THAT AND REGARDING THE FACEBOOK COMMENTS WE TURN THOSE OFF BECAUSE IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE BACK AND FORTH IT WAS NOT AT ALL A a positive or workable way of having a conversation. It just wasn't. Some of the crap we were hearing, some of the ridiculousness, it just wasn't a constructive part of the conversation, and it wasn't worth it. I would much rather people come here and talk to us, give me a call, stop me at the farmer's market, talk to any of our council members at any time. It's a much better way of actually engaging with the council and being able to hear what is on the mind of our residents here in Bloomington. Did I forget any questions, council? Did I miss any there? Council Member Lohman?

So just a couple. You did a great job just about capturing everything, but there's just a couple of ones that I wanted to just be sure that – and I'm not going to grab everything that was missed because there's just – something's kind of moving to kind of – questions, but there was the question of, um, how many folks, uh, that don't work for the city haven't had experienced an 8% increase in pay. And I think that's a really an important one, uh, for us to, to address. Um, you know, and I think that, uh, You know, over the years, I've had the opportunity to participate in the Ehlers Conference, and one of the things you've got to be careful with when you look at that 8% increase that we experience year in and year out really is that that's not a direct – I don't know, maybe I'll let staff handle this a little bit better, but it's not a direct – you can't equate that – In terms of how that how that impacts folks in terms of their pay I think that's a that's a very dangerous way to kind of look at that that levy in terms of how that impact. impacts different people there's values it's a very complex conversation that we're having with that, and so I think we've got to be careful with those types of. Those types of comparisons, but I do think that that is a i've heard that many times and i've been at the doors with people and people have that that concern. about you know how this and what I really hear them saying when they ask that question is you know these increases around this affordability it's impacting me and they just don't have a way to say that and so I just want to be sure that we're really clear about what that eight percent represents and I'll throw it to staff I can throw it to the city manager mayor if you have a better way of codifying that question but Mr. Walker

AS YOU SAID, THAT IS A REALLY TECHNICAL CALCULATION OF HOW THAT WORKS, AND I'M RELUCTANT TO DIVE INTO THAT WITHOUT MORE TECHNICAL INFORMATION FROM ME AND DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD. I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS. ONE, THIS IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC BITE AT THE APPLE TONIGHT WITH BUDGET, AND SO AS WE HAVE MORE OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS IN THIS CHAMBER, We'll make sure we're prepared to dive into that with a better level of specificity. I think the thing I would want to acknowledge is THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION AROUND THE 8%. AND THE MAYOR REFERENCED THIS, TOO. WE SEE IT AS STAFF AND WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU AS COUNCIL AND THE CONSTITUENTS YOU REPRESENT. THERE WAS A 15-YEAR PERIOD WHERE THE AVERAGE LEVY INCREASE WAS 3.64%. IN THE LAST FIVE IT'S BEEN CLOSER TO 8.5%. AND THE DIRECTIVE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN FROM THIS COUNCIL TO STAFF IS TO WORK TO BRING THAT PENDULUM BACK TOWARDS THE MIDDLE. THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE FACING. THE MAYOR AND I HEAR IT WHEN WE MEET WITH LEADERS IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. THE MISSION AND THE ASSIGNMENT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD, AND IT WOULD BE PREMATURE AND IRRESPONSIBLE TO DECLARE VICTORY TONIGHT, BUT I HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL CAN SEE THAT THE PRELIMINARY INCREASE LAST YEAR WAS 9.5 AND WE'RE SITTING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 6.5 AND 7.5 RIGHT NOW. WE UNDERSTAND AND WILL CONTINUE TO MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS AND THOSE OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO GET THIS LEVY. into a more palatable place.

Thank you manager and mayor I think that's a good way to tackle that later on we have a little more information in front of us and just just a couple other ones mayor and this one definitely I know we've had many different meetings about this how many fires do we put out that was a question that was kind of asked you know I mean we've had meetings where we've shown exactly you know the you know certainly our chief could speak to that but you know I think that that's you know again I want to talk about today but you know But there is a difference in terms of what our fire department does, has done historically, and what they have taken on now. And so I think that what I really hear in that question is, you know, how is the fire department different than other? And we've always had that type of service, but just we've accomplished it in a different way kind of going forward. So that was another question that was out there. And then I had one other one here. And so then I'll just end on this one here. Again, there's other questions out there, but these are the ones that... I wanted to make sure we're addressed. There was a discussion, and Mayor, you kind of alluded to it, around some of the duplication of services. And there's a number of services that we have that are out there that are duplicated for, you know, for either good reasons or bad reasons. And I don't want to name them because there's so many of them. And I think that's a, you know, we have some duplication there. And the question has always been in this city, you know, in terms of the quality of the service in the primary focus because of how our city has resources, and sometimes those services will not be provided to this city because of our resources, and so we have to think about that duplication, whether or not we'll get the same level of enforcement. So it's not just the duplication of services. It's also the type of services and the type of, expectations that our residents have around some of this duplication. But I do think there's a discussion to be had with some of those things, but I want to be sure that we're not just cherry picking a few of these things. We really do have a lot of other duplicative services and we need to have, you know, I want to make sure we're looking all of those at the same time and not just picking the ones that one person doesn't like. So. Thank you, council member.

Okay. Council, did I miss any other questions? Let's start with that first. Let's finish that up. I don't think I missed any other stuff. Staff, did I miss any?

all right councilmember carter uh thank you mayor so comments please comment okay um so i guess i just have some maybe general feedback and then i'll save my big speech for the end of the year i'm not gonna i hope we don't do that every i hope we don't do that every single time we have these conversations so um a couple things um i just want to thank staff i think this is a really great presentation and just really appreciate the way that you've laid out the priorities. And I just feel like that we've gotten information in this presentation that we haven't necessarily gotten in the past. And so I think it paints a really good picture for some of the challenges and the opportunities in front of us. I do think in the past, when we've gotten the preliminary levy, we've seen kind of, I think it's department by department, kind of how that breaks down. Or we've had it where like this part of it is staff, right? And this part, so we can kind of see a little bit more of a breakdown of where that levy increase is coming from. So for example, I think last year, I can't remember, it was like 75% or 80% of it, right? It was public safety. And so can we have that kind of breakdown again so that people can see Like, oh, 1% is Parks and Rec, and 90% is fine. I don't know what it is, but so if we could have that breakdown, I think it would be helpful. I think it would also be helpful to understand where have we found opportunities to reduce costs. So maybe being a little bit more explicit about that. Victor, I mean, Council Member Rivas brought up at the beginning, I think typically most years we have the impact on the median family value home. And so having that included, I think would be helpful. The other thing I think is an important part of the equation that is kind of more complicated. And I don't think didn't ever realize this until I was on council but the difference between kind of the tax base falling on residential or commercial and what that means for homeowners in Bloomington so I think maybe a little explanation there and kind of where we're sitting and how that's impacting taxpayers and then The last two things I would say for the fire department, I really love the slide that lays out 27 through 2034 and the investments that need to be made. I do think after hearing some of the comments tonight, it might be helpful to include from like 2019 because I think 2019 was when we had the fire service study. I'm looking at the chief now because 2020, I think it was like one of my very first council meetings that we got that report and it basically said, you guys are totally and not to not not you guys are failing at responding to fires in time and it just really demonstrated to council why it was going to be so important for us to make these necessary investments in the fire department and we didn't just start this right this started years ago we've been building and i think we've been trying to tell the story maybe more successfully than not sometimes i mean so we're trying to get better at communicating this change to the community but think maybe having that historical perspective outlined in the in the slide will also be helpful for people to just understand that this is not new this is years in the making it's gonna continue for years and it's something that we have to do for our community and then the last thing is I also would really like more information on the public safety enhanced technology I think we have had there's just been a lot of headlines lately and a lot of things going on in that space and just I AI in general, I think people are really feeling just cautious and hesitant and skeptical. I think we can all see the benefits that these things can provide, but at the same time, we're also seeing some things that are really scary. So I would like some more information on that and just transparency with the community. So that's what I got. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Nelson, I saw your hand up earlier. Yeah.

Thanks Mayor. I'd like to thank staff and for everyone that attended tonight and I'm excited that we have these opportunities for the public to weigh in early in the process. It's very helpful just to get that feedback about the impact that the decision we will ultimately make in a few months impacts you. I'd also like to compliment John Did he leave? He just left? Oh man. Now he was on he was in an article on KSTP about the decline of the commercial base and the impact it's having on people so I was going to compliment him on that so sorry he missed that but I think it gets to a point that Council Member Carter just brought up that you know a lot of the impact or some of the at least some of the impact on on residents has been a SHIFT IN THAT COMMERCIAL BASE OVER TO THE RESIDENTIAL BASE IN ORDER TO HAVE TO PAY THE LEVY. THE LEVY IS A DOLLAR AMOUNT AND IF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ISN'T DOING AS WELL IT PUTS MORE BURDEN ON ALL OF US THAT OWN HOMES OR RENT HOMES AND IT GETS BUILT INTO THAT PRICE. SO JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT Why did fire? Why is it now such an urgency? I would just point out that it's not now just an urgency. That issue has predated my time on this council. I mean, it's a decade or better process and very planful process to develop. what we're transitioning and it involves fire stations to be able to have firefighters staffed there so they can respond quicker and Council Member Carter kind of mentioned I believe that the response times just weren't what I think our community should expect. Our leadership from the fire department came and brought that information forward and put together a plan. in all of the iterations of the council that I've been on has been very well supported. And I think it's worth continuing to do that and support that as the chief knows, and he's out here in the audience, I've asked questions and had comments and thoughts. But you know, overall, I think that's what we had to do for the community. I mean, we don't, we don't want one person showing up on a truck 10 minutes after the call comes in. That's just the bottom line, you know? And so I think the metric of how many are there is it's fair, but It doesn't matter if it's your house there's only one fire that matters and it's the one that happens at your House and how quickly they show up, I also appreciate the work that they're doing. In terms of training those folks in terms of first response and and getting people ready for that ambulance that. based on a number of reasons may show up later, but that our firefighters can stabilize someone and get them ready to get to the hospital as quick as possible. And we know that every second counts in an emergency. So this is something, again, we've been talking about for a decade in a very planful way that we're going about it. In terms of the ALPR type stuff, I would be interested in, you know, if we have any fixed license plate readers throughout the community, not like the city. I mean, I know obviously the mall does, obviously Great Wolf. There's probably others that have them out there. But, you know, my understanding, we have them in our vehicles, which I think is a huge public safety benefit. I've been, you know, traveling with police in the front seat. And... So just to clarify, and, you know, I mean, you know, they know what's going on, but I know they're also not perfect. And so I think those are fair questions that have been asked on there. But overall, I think that the message, I think, frankly, I think we've heard it for several years and have implemented a number of different strategies with the priority-based budgeting, with the looking at our working capital accounts, with our other discussions to get to the point where we're really affordability is a huge issue for our community we've heard it not just today but um for for a number of years and so um i appreciate the community coming and putting that before us again and we'll keep working on that it's important and you know uh i frankly think the city is well managed financially and I think when you look at our peer cities around us, we've managed through storms, frankly, better than most.

Thank you, council member. Council member Robertson.

Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me. I also will try and keep this fairly brief, but I can practically guarantee I'll have lots more to say later. But truly just echoing my colleagues' comments, I want to thank staff for that presentation and all the work that they've done. It really, that was very accessible, I think both for council members and for residents, and so I really, really appreciate everyone doing that. And thank you so much to all the residents that are listening and that came out to speak tonight. That's extraordinarily important. You took the time out of your day to come let us know what we're doing and how we can improve. And the only way we can do better is if you come out and let us know. So thank you. One thing that we've been hearing and I wanted to touch on at this meeting and at previous meetings is a greater need for clarity and transparency. And that's over a number of different areas and we're hearing it from many different residents. from all walks of life, right? And that's something that one of our residents had mentioned, a need to engage in more types of folks, different people than the ones that maybe engage with us more frequently. And so we're hearing that from every walk of life and every side of the island, so it's really, really important that we get on that. And then lastly, regarding investments in technology to increase CAPACITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, PROBABLY WILL COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT I DO HAVE SOME PRETTY BIG CONCERNS ABOUT INVESTING IN THE USE OF AI, INCREASED SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, LAPRs, THE SHOCK GLOVES THAT WERE MENTIONED, RECOGNIZING THAT BLOOMINGTON DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE THOSE. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE EVEN HAS THEM IN THEIR POSSESSION YET. CERTAINLY IF THAT WERE EVER TO COME BEFORE US, I WOULD BE EXTREMELY STRONGLY OPPOSED. I THINK EVERYONE CAN RECOGNIZE WHERE THEY ARE CONCERNED. AS A WOMAN, I'M IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED FOR THEIR USE OF NOT ONLY IN SALON ENFORCEMENT, BUT IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS, SO THAT SHOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC NO. BUT ALL THAT TO SAY, WE ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE FOLKS HERE IN BLOOMINGTON, BOTH RESIDENTS AND STAFF, WHO REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE GETS TO LEAD A HAPPY, HEALTHY LIFE. WE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE USING OUR FINITE DOLLARS APPROPRIATELY, AND WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HEARING PEOPLE BETTER AND WE'RE GIVING BETTER TRANSPARENCY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN MAKE THINGS WORK. SO THANKS.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. COUNCILMEMBER LOMAN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. So I want to thank those who have come here and began this process of the dialogue and the question. I think the questions we had from previous sessions have been real helpful in terms of trying to get additional diverse opinions and also check the pulse of where the community is at. And really, as I look at this, Mayor, I look at this in terms of our excellent services and our reputation that we have around those excellent services in our city and the real dire experience of those residents that are trying to deal with affordability, trying to make the ends meet day in and day out. And it's a balancing act that they're doing at home. I know that when I grew up in Bloomington, I grew up in a single parent family. And so there was real challenges when it related to what those bills look like. And while we have one portion of that share that we hand over as the levy, which I want to remind folks as they're here, that also there is a cost to eliminating services and getting rid of services as well. And those impacts also impact some of our most vulnerable residents. And we've seen over the previous year what that looks like. When at the federal level, we've had those eliminations take place that we had to step in to help out. And so there's a cost to that. And I want to just be sure that as we're looking at this, this budget. that we kind of keep that in mind. So, you know, a former council member and I, in differing points of view and perspective in terms of this point of view, always would talk about the level of CPI and how it was double. But that double CPI that has been shouldered is a good question, but that goes back to my previous question in terms of that balancing act that we have to do. I just want to just make other comments here on a couple other things. I do think that engagement is primarily important. And so having that engagement group and continuously having that group challenged and also our equity and inclusion group making sure that they are part of these conversations and discussions and dialogue I think are critically important for us to deal and make sure that as we look at that balancing act that we're trying to do that we are indeed following our mission of trying to cultivate an enduring and remarkable community where really everybody wants to be, which is not easy. And so as we look at this next budget and we look forward, the thing that I'm concerned about, Manager and Mayor, is the ongoing inflation risks that will come towards the end of the year. I'm happy to see that we now have a second year. I know every year I've come here asking about what the second year looks like, and now I can finally stop asking that question because now we'll have that second year. It only took 10 years or a decade. So for those folks that are in the crowd or saying, hey, you know, I want you to pay attention to this and that, you know, just stick around for a while. You might find that to come to fruition. I want to make sure that we're also baking in the work around the animal shelter. I think we've kind of made a commitment to that. I know I see it in there, but I just don't know how these numbers work. with this low of a preliminary budget, and that makes me nervous. I know that we don't have all the information, the details around that, but that's something I really want to make sure that we're not going to put ourselves in a position where we have increased inflation, other externalities and risks from a political standpoint that would put us in a position where we may not be able to accomplish some of the things that are on our list. So I just want to be careful about that or having to do trade-offs. So I'd rather go in with a higher levy and then reduce that, making sure that we're able to have some cushion to be able to accomplish the things we talked about trying to do. I do think that animal shelter is a critical eyesore, and it gets to the point of our excellent services. It just doesn't meet our minimum level of service. And if we're going to continue to do that, I think we've got to get that done and get it done right. And I don't want it to be done at the expense of a reduction or some kind of budget crisis. I'm also concerned about the staffing costs and that we track that, that when we hire new people and let our older folks leave, that we're tracking how much that costs from an ongoing standpoint and that we're making sure that we're not, as we reduce some of our internal expenses by reducing our internal services to our internal staff, that we don't lose great employees and continue to rehire folks. And and start burning up money that way and these are the last things here that I'll say here I want to want to just thank the staff for just phenomenal work. It's there's so much in these Budgets year in year out I'm always surprised at the different vantage points and viewpoints that you can kind of bring and I understand why sometimes you don't bring it all because otherwise I mean this this meeting could probably go on for two or three hours and we did in the past used to do this this meeting for a much longer period of time and so the question that I ask myself here is Yes, I would love to have an affordable levy. But the question I ask myself when I look at the mission is I would like to see Bloomington be a great city. And that means that, you know, you cannot continue to have awards and safety without looking at how many police that you have and making, you know, future plans and making sure that we staff that appropriately. We see the numbers there. Same thing with the fire. We saw that and we're addressing that. We can't wait for the police situation to get like fire. So we're being proactive. You know, we've won awards around water, our communication. So I don't look at this levy or this conversation as being a how can we race to our peer cities. I look at Bloomington as a unique, shining city on a hill, and I want to protect that reputation and the excellent service that we have at a reasonable price. So I don't know what that means, but that means it has to come in a little bit higher. Okay.

Thank you, Council Member. Also members Rivas or D'Alessandro, do you want any comments for us tonight?

Thank you. I appreciate the work of the team here and I know that several of the specific ways that the data is being presented have to do with the fact that you've been listening to us and getting feedback from us and trying to make sure that we can tell the story that we need to tell so thank you very much for that. I always look at budgets. So two things I'll ask for between now and September, either offline or online here. One would be when I think of budgets, I always think of, you know, the cost of doing business, right? What's the cost of operating the bus, you know, keeping it on the track, right? Whatever that is. And then we have these things that we know that we agreed to do over 10 or 15 or 20 years that are strategic investments in the future of the city. Park System Master Plan, Climate Action Plan, Fire Safety Transformation Plan. That's what I'm calling it now. Nobody else is calling it that. That's just the name I came up with. The Fire Safety Transformation Plan. I hope you like it, Chief. And their multi-million dollar, multi-decade plan with an ongoing operational impact style things that we as a council have agreed to do. We have to own that and also tell the right story so people understand what the expectations are of those things. Why did we say we wanted to do this transformation of the park system master plan? Every single time we talk about it, making sure people are grounded in the thought Why did we start doing that? Because many people who are here tonight, maybe this is the first time that they've heard about this and they have no clue. I could tell by the gentleman who asked the questions around fire that he wasn't here for the last three presentations that Chief Seale did about the call rates, the response rates, all these things that have guided our decision making. That is not a critique. That's because that information isn't something that we keep in front of people on a regular basis. So when it comes to operating costs, strategic investments. And then the third one is this thing that we get to play with, which is what else do you want to do? Right. And that's the, I think that's the intent of the, of the, the, the, um, the one, uh, slide that talks about, you know, the, um, what did you guys call it here? The, the potential council investment opportunities. Yeah, exactly. Um, And I would argue that there's a couple on there that maybe shouldn't be on there because they're part of either the park system master plan or part of the climate action plan, because I think the climate action plan predates even me. So maybe I would put those in that strategic objective. but I can't make the decision about these things because I don't know what they cost. And so the second part of my question, so first thing would be like, can we make sure we talk about operating costs, the strategic multi-decade long investments in both the capital, the transitional costs and then the ongoing operating costs and what that has the impact to the city. And then thirdly, these things that we need to make decisions about, what do they cost? Right now, I can't remember what the quiet rail study costs. I think it's like 80 grand. I don't remember if that's true or not true. Maybe it's $100,000. Maybe it's 200,000. So making sure we have that number so we know what that rail study is going to cost us so we can make that decision. What's the animal shelter going to cost us? I think I saw 1.3 million, but maybe it's more than that, or maybe that was offset by some of these revenue opportunities. So having a sense for what the levers are that we can play with in these things we need to make decisions on would be very helpful. But otherwise, I think that we're in a good spot. I just think, for me, the fire safety transformation plan, the way that it's defined, there's a couple more pieces of information I think would tell the story even better. And I think if we had the same kind of thing for park system master plan and climate action plan, knowing that they're multi-million dollar and multi-decade or multi-year investments. For example, what did we do about composting and solid waste management and the changes we made to the truth in sales thing for energy, right? All that kind of stuff. By the way, consumer price index increase this year in energy alone is 14%. So you could take the generic, 3.4% INCREASE AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION BUT WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON ENERGY AS A CITY MORE SO THAN THE AVERAGE CONSUMER AND SO THAT 14% INCREASE IN ENERGY COST HITS US HARDER AS A CITY THAN IT DOES ANY INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER SO THINGS LIKE THAT ARE PART OF THAT I THINK YOU CALLED IT A TECHNICAL KIND OF CALCULATION THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Anyway, that's where I'm at. I think maybe a little bit more pointed view of those strategic investments, the operating costs. What does it cost to do nothing new or different but just keep providing those high-quality services? And then where do you want us to make decisions about investments? I think that would be very helpful. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilmember. Last call, Councilmember Rivas. Anything? You're not required to. Just wondering. Okay.

All right.

No comments from my part this time.

Thank you.

Well, thanks for your comments, Council. Thank you to our members of the public who spoke. Thanks to staff for putting the presentation together. I think we're in a good spot in our discussion here, and this is an ongoing discussion. We're still... Four months away from a final discussion. Our next big meeting is September 14th, where the council will set the preliminary tax levy. That, as we all know, is the level that is the ceiling. We can't go above it. We can certainly go below it. And the staff, I'm sure, will continue to refine that number and to... bring it back in such a way that I think we're going to have a good conversation about it. And again, I want to appreciate all the perspectives that came forward. I'll just end with the drum that I continue to beat, that police, fire, public works, community development, and park and recreation is 85% of our budget. And those are basic, those are the core services of the city government. And so with the services that we currently provide in those areas, it is what this community has come to expect and almost require of its city. And if we try and mess around with that, we hear from it. I don't care. We hear about it from our residents, no matter what lever we pull or where we try and bring that down, we hear about it. So we'll have to... keep that in mind as well we provide services that people want and expect in this community and the conversation continues so thank you all and i will thank you uh council member loman for bringing up with that we used to spend two and a half hours on this conversation well we did spend an hour and 15 minutes on this conversation we still have two items left And so, Council, I want to make sure that we budget our time appropriately on our last two items. We will go to item 3.2. This is a 2026, the Bloomington Center for the Arts Strategic Plan and Operations Analysis. And we're actually going to see... Examples of pro forma, which I think will be a great thing. Ian Brekke is here from our Center for the Arts. Good evening and welcome.

Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Appreciate your time tonight. We are bringing, we're staying on topic a bit here, and we're bringing the next update on the ongoing BCA Strategic Plan and Operations Analysis. Duncan Webb of Webb Management has rejoined us to present pro forma operating budget scenarios related to BCA for your review and comment. THIS SAME PRESENTATION DID GO TO PARK LAST WEEK ON AUGUST 12TH AND PRIOR TO THAT WE DID ACTUALLY MEET WITH THE CITY'S RESIDENT ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND WALKED THEM THROUGH THIS SAME PRESENTATION WITH SOME THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION AFTERWARDS AS WELL. SO WITH THAT SHORT INTRODUCTION I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME DUNCAN UP HERE AND WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM.

MR. WEBB, GOOD EVENING. WELCOME BACK.

Mayor, members of council, great to be back. I'm going to give you a quick update on where we are. Ian, which one advances? There you go. You try it.

I'm not getting action here.

Oh, go back one.

Okay.

All right, terrific. So we were last for you in May. We presented the results of our situation analysis, including the SWOT work and emerging directions. We heard back from you. RIOs. LET'S START THINKING MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT COST RECOVERY OBJECTIVES AND LET'S WORK ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION, VISION AND OPERATING GOALS. SO SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE BEEN We have done those things. We have had two rounds of sessions with the RIOs including a presentation of the pro forma to them a couple weeks ago. Good progress on mission vision and operating goals and the big work has been this developing a pro forma operating budget. I want to frame it a different way. These were the nine directions that came out of our situation analysis. And at this point, we're focusing on the four that are orange, about optimizing utilization of BCAA spaces, clarifying and improving cost recovery objectives, looking for equitable access to spaces, and then sorting out policy about city use and interdepartmental charges for use of BCAA. So developing the pro forma operating budget was a big job. And what we did was took the current budget format and structure and used it to march forward from previous years through the budget years and five years out into the future. And it also incorporates your current CIP plan. My theory of budgeting is if you can get a good sense of how spaces will be used, that allows you to make reasonable forecasts of revenue and then expenses associated with them. We have employed 3% CPI escalation through all of these years. And what's complicated about this budget is that it relates both to the operation of BCA, but then there's also the sort of internal charges and expenditures back and forth between the city and BCA. There's the capital projects included and also the arts grant program, which is an integral part of your support of the arts community in Bloomington. So here is what we're calling our baseline budget. And I'll just say a couple things about this. I've reformatted your budget structure a tiny bit by simply I've moved property tax and the capital outlays below the line because I wanted to isolate the performance of the building itself. So revenues and expenditures up there are just revenues and expenditures associated with the operation of BCA. Then I took the portion of the property tax that is used to pay capital outlay and the cultural arts grants. I took whatever was required to zero that out below the line, and that left a portion of the property tax to support operations at BCA. So I feel that this is a little bit clearer way to look at, to isolate and look at the performance of BCA as a community serving building. The second thing I'll say is that we have two years of actual forecasted results for 2026, the 2027 budget, which has already been proposed, and then I've added the five years beyond that. And here, the other thing I'm talking, my way of talking about cost recovery is the percentage of operating expenses that is covered by earned revenue, meaning rents and food and and all those things that in this case are just not the property tax. That's the contributing income component. So I should say something about the 2027 budget because you've already made a series of important adjustments in BCA budgeting for the coming budget year, some of which have been influenced by the work that we've been doing with you over the past year and a half. There's been a reduction of internal charges back and forth. There's city fees for BCA use starting this next year. There's more external rental opportunities being pursued. Arts education program registrations are growing and are being encouraged to grow. And we've added a full-time box office position to sort of supplement the needs there. So what that means just for the coming budget year is an 11% improvement in cost recovery already. So that then becomes our baseline for the five years beyond that. So what we decided to test in this model was the pursuit of these six different operating goals. Let's see if we can improve box office income, sort of more ticket sales, more presented events, higher capacity sold. Let's see if we can add some food and beverage revenue. Let's see if we can continue to grow arts education programs. Let's improve space utilization and the optimization of usage. And that's probably the single most important goal that we're pursuing here. PURSUE OTHER EXTERNAL GRANT SPONSORSHIP NAMING RIGHTS AND OTHER EXTERNAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES TO SUSTAIN OPERATIONS. AND THEN LET'S CONSIDER IF APPROPRIATE INCREASING THE COST OF ACCESS FOR BCA SPACES. So rather than do all of that at once, we decided to do three different levels of pro forma. In level one, it's the basic level of change where we're trying to optimize spaces and utilization. It's refining the current model. There are minimal changes for the RIOs and the arts partners, and it's just sort of fixing and improving things that can be fixed and improved without sort of impacting the current user group. Level two, more directly increases the cost of access for the REOs, which comes in two ways. One, there's a per-ticket user fee that they're charged. It's increasing that. And then it's adding room rental rates over time for all the secondary spaces that are not being charged rent for now. And level three... The most dramatic is we've said let's cut back RIO access to the theaters and the other spaces and let's push and pull in other groups who could theoretically pay higher levels of rent and bring higher levels of revenue into the building. So those are the three levels of pro forma we decided to test. So this is level one. So the changes here are there's higher, more presented events, more external rentals, higher food and beverage sales, higher arts education registrations. We're pursuing external grants and we've also hired a grant writer to help do that so it's not a burden on existing staff. And you'll see the final result goes from 2027, it's 121,000, and it kind of goes up and down depending a little bit on election years versus non-election years because that changes the utilization pattern in various spaces. But the key thing here is that the earned revenue over operating expenses goes from our 39% in 2027 to 48% by 2032. If we go to level two, in this case, we're keeping the level one changes and now we're adding the per hire, per ticket user fees to the RIOs and we're charging the RIOs rent for use of this secondary spaces and of the main spaces just for rehearsals. THE R.A., THE PER TICKET CHARGE INCREASES ABOUT 50% FOR THEM, AND THE ROOM FEES ARE AVERAGING ABOUT 10 TO 20 BUCKS AN HOUR, WHICH IS STILL SIGNIFICANTLY DISCOUNTED WELL BELOW WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A MARKET RATE FOR THOSE SPACES. BUT IT'S STARTING TO GENERATE SOME RENTAL INCOME FROM THOSE. SO YOU SEE WITH THOSE INCREASES, WE GET FROM A FINAL RESULT IN 27 OF 121 SURPLUS TO A FINAL RESULT OF 219,000 BY 2032. AND THAT EARNED COMPONENT OF THE BUDGET GOES FROM 38% UP TO 53%. WE'VE INCREASED THAT FURTHER. And then in level three, which is the most sort of dramatic impact on the RIOs, we've basically cut their dates of use of the Schneider, the black box, and a couple of the secondary spaces down about 30% over a period of years. and we're trying to replace that with external rental activity, a combination of some nonprofit and some commercial rent paying. If you do that, you also have to increase staffing, and there's additional materials and supplies costs associated with doing that as well. So in this case, the final result in 2032 hits 250 grand. The earned revenue component hits 57%. That's a lot of information. So let me try and do another sort of way to summarize that. If this is for the final year of the pro forma in 2032, sort of our baseline had a sort of a small operating deficit of 21,000 and earned revenue over operating expenses of 40%. Level one takes it to 100 grand to the good and 50% earned. Level two takes it to 200 grand and change and 58% to the good. And level three takes it a few more percentage points higher to 59%. And that final result is 250 grand. So, what does that all mean? Essentially, the baseline, we've already got this 11% increase from 26 to 27, but level one pushes that cost recovery 19% between 26 and 32. Level two pushes it 24% in that same period of time, and level three pushes it 28% in that period of time. So what did we learn from that exercise? It was a tremendous sort of number crunching ordeal for Ian and I, but you now have a live working model that hopefully will be of value to Ian and staff in the future moving forward as a way to sort of project and test various operating assumptions. WHAT DID WE LEARN? 2027 CHANGES ARE SIGNIFICANT AND VERY POSITIVE. THEY REALLY DO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR COST RECOVERY ALREADY. LEVEL ONE REALLY MAKING THESE RELATIVELY PAIN-FREE ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE DOING THINGS LIKE EDUCATION, REGISTRATION, FOOD AND BEVERAGE, PURSUING SOME EXTERNAL GRANTS. optimizing utilization of spaces a little bit, that really does yield significant positive results with very little sort of pain to the RAOs. Level two is a bit more negative on them with the cost going up and it improves your results a little bit but not as dramatically as level one. And level three, more significant negative impacts on the RIOs and less significant positive impacts on BCA and the bottom line. Still positive, it's still an improvement, but not so dramatic as we had in the earlier two. So that's the work that we've done and we're now starting to share around. We've had some good feedback from the RIOs on that work so far and we will look forward to connecting with staff again and with members of council to see how you all are feeling about how we've sort of pushed these various policy ideas, how far you think we can push towards achieving higher cost recovery objectives. We have additional stakeholder engagement planned looking out in the future. And one of the probably the biggest piece of work coming is to think about how you make arrangements with RAOs. Now it's this very time intensive biannual lease agreement. And we're trying to think of ways to simplify that and also modify it to make it more incentive-based and to introduce the idea that for the RIOs and for others, having a special status here is something that should be earned on an ongoing basis. It should not be treated as a given, but there should be criteria for that they have to meet in order to earn the subsidies and the services and the grants that they receive from the City of Bloomington. And the other side of that is that implicit in that is that we're trying to create a point of entry so that other artists and arts organizations present in the City of Bloomington do have a way that they can start to access this building and earn that status. So our final step will be to sort of work through those agreements, refine the budget, and as a final step, we will develop for you a series of targets and measures so that you can evaluate the progress of BCA relative to your goals for the future of the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Webb. That's outstanding work. That's a lot of number crunching and a lot of ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON OBVIOUS EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD. SO WELL DONE. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. IT BRINGS A NEW LIGHT TO WHAT HAS BEEN AN ONGOING QUESTION AND ISSUE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR SOME TIME HERE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. Council questions or comments, uh, understanding we're not making decisions tonight. We're looking for comments, uh, questions, and we're being judicious with our, with our time here. Council member Carter.

Okay. So this is coming back to council later in the fall for decision-making. Okay. Um, I have just two quick questions. So when we do get to a point of, um, having net revenue, would that just go into the operating reserves then?

Council Member Carter, Mayor and Council that is not determined at this time. Okay. We've simply put together scenarios that improve the cost recovery of the facility. Okay. But we would look to your direction as well as city manager's office on how. Okay.

So in theory they could potentially roll over into the next year's budget and reduce the property tax levy?

I think it's all possible in theory.

Okay. Okay. Mayor and member of the council I just wanted to add a comment. The other thing in the pro forma is that the only number that we didn't change in the future was that property tax number. so we've kept everything else is escalating at three percent but that property tax number is fixed it's the same number in 2032 as it is in 2026 so we wanted to show that we could try and improve performance without any assumptions about additional property tax allocations to the building best practices in the field is often using operating surpluses to fund capital reserves. Here they're a bit integrated, but that's still sort of a policy option you have.

Okay, and I don't remember what ours looks like, but I feel like I remember it being red. So probably a good thing to fund. And then if we were to move forward with the level one budget in the hiring of a grant writer, I guess I just, is it, would this be a full-time position? And do we have, I feel like we have a city grant writer or would this be an additional grant writing position? And is that needed?

Members of council, I've done it as a part-time or contract position. Okay. Not full-time.

Okay. Awesome. I could probably ask more detailed questions, but I can take those offline. Not important right now. But thank you. This is great. I think I've struggled with the continuously increasing property tax levy requests, knowing that this is an important amenity, but then also it's just kind of like, the question was like, where does it end? Like, where does it stop? And I think having an actual strategy and a plan in place is going to be great. So thank you.

Council Member D'Alessandro, Council Member Lohman and Council Member Rivas. Council Member D'Alessandro.

That's fine. I think he had his hand up before mine if you want to ask Mr. Rivas first but I'm happy to go now either way. Please. Quick question. You mentioned that you had had some conversations with the RAOs. what has generally been the feeling or the sentiment of the RAOs in discussion on these items? I don't know if they have been reticent. You said generally positive. I don't know what that means. If you can give us an how they react as to the impacts?

So it's members of Council, Mayor, members of Council, Councilwoman D'Alessandro. It would be unfair to try and generalize too much but I think they are they're nervous first and foremost You know, nonprofit arts organizations are all in a very fragile financial state, so they're very nervous about anything that might impact their sustainability. At the same time, they recognize that change is coming here, and they want to be involved to the extent that they can be in being a part of deciding on what those changes are and how they get rolled out. The very important thing that Ian has been saying to them in all these meetings is nothing will happen quickly and nothing will happen by surprise. So I think we're sort of laying the groundwork for changes that are negotiated, discussed, reviewed, considered, that roll out gradually with lots of warning so that they're fully prepared for what comes. Thank you.

Can you guide me just I guess ground me in when we talk about the availability or the optimization of space are we what what space within the BCA are we specifically talking about I assume it's the Schneider the black box the galleries the studios the rehearsal space and then the lobby on the north side here is that what we're talking about when we talk about optimization of space, or are we talking about other spaces that maybe I don't have top of mind?

Great question, because it's different for each space a little bit. So for Schneider, the issue is that there are people in there many days of the year. The thing that we would like to happen is that we would like more days on which there is a performance rather than days when they're loading in, loading out, rehearsing, changeover. So we want to try and approve essentially the efficiency of that space as a place where the public is invited. The black box has more capacity to add total days, but also is a little bit of that same issue that we'd like to get more performances in there relative to the total days of utilization. For the other spaces, the dance studio, rehearsal rooms, and other classrooms, they're just not busy enough. So what we're really trying to do there is push utilization to find ways through education programs and rental activity that you can improve it. Another optimization issue is, and this is Ian and his team have been working on this. So for example, there's a couple of groups that used Schneider for music. And whenever you do that, you have to put the orchestra shell in place. And it's very inefficient if you have to put the shell in place for one group, take it out because a theater group's coming in, put it back in because then you've got a choral group coming in. So maybe there's some work that can be done on the calendar to have back-to-back music programs because you effectively lose days and days of changeover because of that inefficiency of having to do it. So that's just an example of optimization.

Okay, that's helpful. Is there any part of the BCA itself that isn't being utilized at all that you are considering?

No, it's all being used to some extent.

So I at least have the inventory of space that you're considering correct? Correct. Okay, great. Okay, awesome. So that's very helpful. I'm wondering because I'm not quite sure what you're talking about when you're talking about food and beverage. And there has been discussion over time with council about the installation of something a little bit more permanent as it relates to that. So I don't know what food and beverage on here means, but maybe you can articulate some of the ideas that you were thinking of when you were thinking about how to increase food and beverage.

Two things. One is probably not truly permanent, but more permanent concessions. And second is better facilities for catering.

Okay. Helpful. Thank you. And then I guess this is a quick comment. The level one and level two stuff makes some sense to me. The level three thing does not look like the juice is worth the squeeze there for me. So I'm assuming you came to some similar conclusion based on what you were talking about there. But I personally think we have an incredible opportunity for arts education in these gallery spaces and in these studio and classroom spaces. And so I think that's, for lack of a better way to put it, low-hanging fruit that we could go after very quickly and make some real progress on. So I'm happy to see that on the list. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member.

Council Member Lohman. Thank you, Mayor. In the interest of time, I've already shot a question to the city manager. We can address that since we're talking about this later on. The question I'll put to you today is it looks like staffing ends up at roughly the same level regardless of which scenario we choose. If that's the case, the decision isn't really about staffing. It's about how much of the cost we pass on to the REOs versus the absorption as a city subsidy. Is that a fair read?

Yes, Councilman Lohman. The full-time staff complement, you've only just this last year reached the three next year adds, the fourth, and we're sticking with that as the full-time complement. So there are other increases in contract staff that we've mentioned earlier. BUT ESSENTIALLY THE CHANGES ARE RELATED TO THE SORT OF THE FEES AND RENTAL RATES BEING PASSED ON TO THE EXTERNAL USERS AND THE MONEY COMING BACK IN FROM RENTALS AND OTHER PROGRAMS LIKE THAT.

THANKS.

THAT'S ALL I NEED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. COUNCILMEMBER RIVAS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION HERE. of the other questions I had. So just one quick one. What peer or regional arts centers with similar resident company models has web management used as benchmarks for sustainable cost recovery targets? And how does Bloomington current and projected recovery rates compare to those benchmarks?

Councilman Rivas, Mayor, members of Council, Councilman Rivas. So I think in our two presentations ago, we showed a slide that benchmarked BCA against a series of, first we had like eight different benchmarks, and then we focused in on buildings that had resident organizations like this that were city-owned. That took it down to four. I don't have those numbers top of mind right now, but the cost recovery based on the current year, 26, was somewhat lower than in those other buildings. So with this work, we are, I think, more likely to improve cost recovery to a level that matches or perhaps even exceeds some of those benchmark organizations.

Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Nelson.

Yeah. Thank you. I'll be quick here. One of the things that would be helpful for me is to understand the net impact of some of the various changes like the cafe. Like on a net basis it adds revenue but I assume there's additional expenses so how does that benefit the education programs better utilization but then you have more costs for running the program are those you know what is the margin on I don't know what the margin on an educational program is I am concerned about the box office position. As you noted just a minute ago we added two people last year and I was apprehensive about that and now we're adding another person. Like is adding a box office person going to bring in another $100,000 of revenue to cover the cost of that position? And I just remind people I think that one of the other organizations ran that. prior to us taking it over. So what is the cost of us taking that over versus somebody else doing it? Have we talked to the city clerk's office in terms of those elections, if they're impacting our revenue, I believe, and this is a primary election, not a general election presidential election. But you know, we're running it on the other side of the building currently. you know, is that an opportunity so we aren't impacting the art space? Is there a different way to format that so we don't have that negative impact? And I mean, I think that the bottom line for me is it looks like it's gonna continue to cost us $1.5 million. in property tax support for this and frankly it costs us a lot of money to have softball fields and soccer fields and all sorts of stuff so I don't know if that's wrong or negative or anything but I would be interested in you know I appreciate the effort to go and look at that cost recovery. I also someone had I think it was Council Member Carter brought up the cafe I think that was very astute and I would strongly urge us to look at you know, outsourcing that and making it, you know, maybe even something that is there outside of show times and things like that. So, you know, something that people could come and, you know, sit in our building and have a cup of coffee and meet people and hang out at a place that staff could have a meeting at that they didn't have to leave and go off site and that sort of thing. And maybe it goes into the evening with a glass of wine or something of that nature with a, you know, I don't think, I don't think we're going to put a full restaurant in, obviously, but, you know, is there a way to do that and we could just get lease revenue off of it and take that off of our shoulders and books and how would that net out? So I just threw it a lot at you. I'll be honest, I don't need you to answer right now if I could just get that information from staff as we go forward. So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Anything, Councilmember Robertson? No, you're good.

The only comments, the two comments that I had, the notion of further rental opportunities, which I couldn't disagree, or I couldn't agree with more, to look for different ways that we could get folks in here. Understanding, of course, between the AIM Center and the Hopkins Center for the Arts, we're right in the middle of a lot of competition, and so I don't know about any more performing arts opportunities, but business opportunities or event opportunities, just as event space, so something to think about from that perspective. And then I will say, Council, I have been racking my brain to try and come up with an RAO speed wagon joke, and I have not been able to. And I'm disappointed in myself, but it's been a long time.

I heard it from a friend.

We'll get to that.

I can't believe you didn't use that, Mr. Mayor.

You heard it from a friend. Thank you. Is there anything else, Council? If not, thank you. If not, thank you much. Thanks for the information and the work you put into this. I think, as I said, it's very helpful as a tool going forward. We've got a better opportunity to understand this more clearly now, and I look forward to continuing this conversation. So thank you so very much. Well done. Thank you. Our final item this evening, council, is a final study item regarding our multifamily performance standards. And we have Mr. Thomas Ramler Olson with us this evening to lead us through this. Good evening and welcome. Good evening.

Good evening.

There we go.

Hot mic. Okay, yes. So as was briefly mentioned, this is a study item looking at the city's multifamily performance standards. Here we go. So how this is gonna go is I'm gonna give a brief overview, touch a little bit on the background. I'm gonna go through each performance standard that staff were able to identify that are good candidates for amending. And I'm gonna briefly talk about the standard and then we can have a conversation. I can introduce staff's recommendation and then we'll have a conversation, get some feedback from you all for each standard. And then we'll just go in that order, because there's a lot of information. I don't want to get lost until the end of the presentation. So that's, I think, the best. Well, you all are great at retaining information. So this isn't a criticism of you. This is just, actually, this was feedback that I got from planning commissions. So I don't know. Hopefully it works out, right? OK. Yeah, exactly. Come on. We're all laughing, right? BUT, OKAY, DOWN TO BUSINESS. SO THIS IS A WORK PLAN ITEM. THIS IS A 2026 PLAN COMMISSION WORK PLAN PROJECT. SOME OF THE STANDARDS THAT STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT ARE GOOD CANDIDATES FOR REEVALUATION ARE STREETSIDE SETBACKS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, STORAGE UNITS WITHIN THOSE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT. and then the usable open space requirements for multi-family so the background for the multi-family performance standards is the last time it was updated was in 2015 so it was a while ago and this is also kind of in line of some of the other streamlining projects that we've done we just want to make things easier bring down some of those regulatory barriers that we've identified that can hopefully not gum up the works for development projects that make their way to the city. So it's just about making things easier. So it kind of follows in the vein of some of these other projects that I've highlighted at the bottom of the slide and that I talk about in the staff report. So for this study item, staff have done multiple things. We've engaged people internally, internal to the city. So that includes the planning division, port authority, environmental health, fire department, and engineering about this topic. And yeah, we've gotten some really good feedback and that's what led to identifying some of the standards that I noted a couple of slides ago. I also talked to some developers to get their feedback. I'll be honest with you, I didn't. Some of the issues that maybe they've encountered with development in the city, they had nothing but glowing things to say. So they were very positive. And I was trying to get some of that... I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I WAS LEADING THEM, BUT I WANTED TO GET SOME NEGATIVE REACTIONS SO I COULD REALLY GET THEM TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE CITY COULD DO TO IMPROVE THE PRACTICE OF DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSING DEVELOPMENT. And unfortunately, it just didn't work out that well. But nonetheless, it was nice to meet them and to talk to some of the developers that have been really active in the city. So very appreciative for that and their time. And we also looked at previous multifamily projects. For some of the projects, they deal specifically with the opportunity housing ordinance or some of the incentives related to that ordinance. So you'll see that there's definitely a connection between what we're proposing to amend and how they fit within the structure of the OHO. And just another note at the bottom of that slide, we didn't talk about the multifamily district RM 15 that was dealt with recently with the missing middle housing project. So all the standards related to that we didn't touch because they were thoroughly vetted earlier this year. Okay, so moving on to standard number one, street side setbacks, commonly known as front yard setbacks, but I'm just being more specific that it's the street side. Those are important for ensuring enough room for utilities, drainage, sidewalks, all those necessary infrastructure elements for development. They also contribute greatly to the pedestrian experience. If buildings are further away, there's That conveys a certain tone, whereas if they're closer, that there's more activity, more transparency on the buildings, hopefully complement the closer setback. And, you know, the larger the setback, I mean, with regard to what is available on the site, that constrains development. So the larger the setback, you can't do anything in that front yard. So that doesn't give many opportunity or many options for the developer. They have to negotiate those larger setbacks. And related to those setbacks, there's crime prevention through environmental design analyses have shown like just having buildings close to the sidewalk, having more eyes on the street. BALCONIES FACE THE STREET. IT NOT ONLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE VIBRANCY OF THAT STREET FACE, BUT IT ALSO ADDS TO THE SAFETY BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE EYES ON THE STREET. SO THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT THAT. AND AT THE BOTTOM, I DETAIL THE CURRENT SETBACKS FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS. SO THE RM100 IS THE CLOSEST AT 10 FEET, BUT THE 24 AND 50 ARE AT 40. So with our analysis and talking to staff and also it was important to talk to engineering because of those infrastructure elements that usually accommodate development. to see what was a palatable setback. And we landed on the number of 20 feet. So halving it for the RM24 and RM50 districts, halving it from 40 feet to 20 feet. RM100 we're not proposing to touch because that's at 10 feet right now and that is an adequate distance. Again, we have a lot of elements that we need to include on site. And so the 10 feet seems to work out pretty well. But for staff's recommendation, we're talking about lowering the 40 foot setback down to 20. And it's it still allows enough room for all those infrastructure elements on site, including utilities. And it also just exhibits a more urban character, which is what. the intentions are for the RM24 and RM50 districts. And, oh yeah, and it's also noted that the fire department is in favor of the smaller setbacks because it's just easier to attend to those emergencies if the building is closer to the street. So it's important to mention that. And Planning Commission, when they were examining this project, this recommendation from staff, they actually were interested in setbacks lower than 20 feet. So I want to put that forth to you all as well, that we're happy to look further into even a setback lower than 20 feet. And so the question for this particular multifamily standard is, Does the city support an amendment to reducing the 40 foot setback to 20 feet for the arm 24 and arm 50? Or would you even instruct staff to look into something even lower? And I'll just put that to you all.

Thank you. Council member Nelson.

Thank you, Mayor. What would the rationale be for not doing it at 10, just like RM 100? I mean, that's going to be the most intense building. If that can be at 10 feet, why can't these others? Is there a reason that I'm not seeing?

Mayor, Councilmember, there... That wasn't really touched upon with engineering staff if going smaller than 20 feet. Granted, there's evidence that we can accommodate all the site elements within the 10-foot setback for Arm 100. Although I'm not the engineer, I don't know if THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT I'M MISSING QUALITATIVELY BETWEEN ARM 100 ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT FOR ARM 24 AND 50. I KNOW ARM 100 IS USUALLY LOCATED ON HEAVIER ARTERIAL STREETS, SO I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THAT RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S NEEDED IN ORDER TO HAVE A SMALLER SETBACK. But that's certainly something that we could look into is could the 24 and 50 work out well with a 10-foot setback? But we weren't able, or I'm sorry, didn't bring forth a reason why 10 feet couldn't work, but we could look into it.

House Member D'Alessandro.

Thank you Mr. Mayor just to dovetail into Councilmember Nelson's commentary is there is is the is the intent to standardize the intent is not to standardize them across the RM districts so we have we have four 15 24 50 and 500 right so but not all of them have or is that the reason that we don't want to just kind of like standardize across setbacks for all the RM districts? I'm just kind of curious if that was something that we thought about at all.

Mayor, council member, the districts differ by the type of environment they're trying to create. So they, if you can think about it as a gradient, you're getting from the less dense to the more dense and then the character that comes with a, A setback that is closer and even closer to the sidewalk. Does it reflect what the intentions of that district is? And so staff's interpretation of the 24 and 50 felt that the 20 feet was adequate. Again, we're happy to look at something smaller. But when you get into the RM 15 and those lower, those are... fit it into a heavily resident or into lower density residential environments where perhaps a more generous setback is appropriate.

Okay. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure there was strategically like a reason we would or would not.

So purely aesthetics.

Yeah. And that's fine. If you're saying like, Hey, our 14, our, our four, our 15, that's going to get your, you know, you want that to be consistent with the 30 foot setback we have for residential or whatever, then the, our, these, these two, being 20 and then the 100 being 10. I mean, now you've got this gradient of density. I'm fine with that. That works for me. I just wanted to make sure we had thought it through. Yeah, thanks.

Other thoughts, Council Member Lowman?

So this is more of a question kind of for the council and for, you know, and I know this is not the same. I know Council Member Alessandro, you were talking about this as well a minute ago, but, you know, I'm kind of reluctant to do the 20, you know, even get to that point. I mean, the planner in me says, move it down to 10. I mean, I just get to 10. But, you know, we keep hearing residents kind of say, hey, you know, you're pushing the kids out into the street and it's dangerous, you know. And then, you know, on the other hand, you know, when we look at some of it, again, not this particular, but, you know, you can make this case, too, that now you can add a little bit on the back end and, you know, really squeeze all this stuff, you know, into that. And so, You know, the concern I have is that, you know, we set this up, we do this, we make this change, and then this is what the developer does and brings it back to us, and then we say, no, we don't want that because it's just too crammed, it looks crazy on the thing. So I don't want to, you know, do that knowing that, you know, I just want to make sure that we're, as a council, understanding what we're doing when we go ahead and do this. I mean, I'm totally in favor of doing 10, but I recognize what the impact of that is when we go into these neighborhoods and we make this drastic change going from 40 the way down to 20 or down to 10 and i i don't know what the difference is between going from 20 to 10. and if you're going to do that if you're going to pay the pay the piper you might just go all the way down to 10 because it's going to be the same argument that you're going to have so i just want to make sure because that's really really cramming stuff on on on a property again that's what we want to do density but um anything else comes from robinson

TRULY, MY THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED BY MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I WOULD SAY TO COUNCILMEMBER LOMAN'S POINT, I'M KIND OF OF THE SAME PERSUASION. IT'S LIKE, WELL, LET'S JUST GO DOWN TO 10. LET'S JUST MAKE IT ALL, RIGHT? LET'S JUST CALL IT AND JUST GO DOWN TO THAT. BUT I DO THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HEED THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT SETBACKS. AND SO, YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD BE. I DO THINK I WOULD SUPPORT A REDUCTION, CERTAINLY FROM 40 TO 20 FEET OR POSSIBLY SMALLER. DEPENDING ON WHAT FURTHER INFORMATION WE GET. THANKS.

COUNCILMEMBER RIVAS.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION

It's more like- Only incentivize those units that are 30% or lower AMI. So removing the incentive for those top two AMI buckets. Okay. That's the way I've been thinking about it. Okay. But I mean, this is just an example. There are other ways to incentivize affordable housing development. The feedback I was getting from Port Authority is that's not the golden goose to get affordable units developed. And so eliminating this requirement and therefore getting rid of the incentive, they were fine with that. I'm sorry, the second question.

About whether tenants actually want the storage facilities.

My apologies. So there are, this is anecdotal. We're getting this from developers. So, I mean, have that context in mind. But there are units that sit empty. And we have received, again, through anecdotes provided to us that they're charging for these storage units. And so people are not willing to pay even the money to use the storage units that are provided to them, but that they still have to pay for as being tenants as part of this building or as part of the building. So either that's a calculation that the developer has made that they feel that they can charge for these storage units and therefore not just give them away as part of the rent, or maybe they lower the rent and then people can, supplement the amenities that they have in the building by renting these storage units. I'm not sure what the business model is that's driving that consideration, but nonetheless, they do see storage units that are empty and they are coming to the city to have the storage unit count reduced by 50% through the OHO incentive. And so we haven't received any other feedback that would tell us that, well, we're really running out of storage space for our residents. Other than those anecdotes that we do hear from FIRE about maybe just cluttered apartments or the random parking space with personal items stored in those parking stalls. I don't know how widespread that problem is, but again, based on staff's understanding of where we stand in the region as far as storage unit requirements go, and then just noting that we're getting these reports that storage units are sitting empty, We're clearly requiring too much. And so reducing that amount and even eliminating it and leaving it up to the discretion of the developer was something that we felt is a good recommendation.

Okay. I like data better than anecdotes, but that's fair.

If it's okay, I just wanted to add one other comment on... One of the things that we do see, and often it's in some of the older communities that are having security problems, is that these storage units are actually not being used at all because they don't find them to be secure for people to store things in. So I just wanted to, not only do we have developers saying that they're not always being used, we have certain communities that don't even use them at all and choose to lock them up.

Any thoughts, council? I will say from observation, storage units are indeed used. Yes, some are empty because I think building owners charge extra. And I think in an era where there's not a lot of room within the unit itself, to provide those as part of the monthly rent would make more sense, to be honest. Council Member Rivas, a quick question because we're getting out of here by 9.15. Mr. Rivas, we are getting out of here.

With that promise, yes. I just want to make a comment. Without the hard evidence to prove that the tenants don't want the units, I'm against eliminating them. I would support reducing them to half, 0.5 of a storage unit per dwelling unit. I would be behind that, but I'm totally against eliminating them completely. That's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Nelson?

Thanks. I'd be in favor of eliminating it from our code that they have to be there and allowing the developer to meet the needs of their customers. The fact that we don't require them doesn't mean they won't be built. Fair enough. If the customers, if they believe the customers would use them. Fair enough.

All right. Okay.

Before we get on to the last one, Mr. Rambler-Olson, Council, I'm going to move that we extend our deadline to no later than 9-10. Okay. and be out of here by then.

Second.

We've got a second by Council Member Robertson. No further discussion on extending our deadline until 9-10.

Priyanka. Rivas.

Council Member Rivas, we need an affirmative vote on that.

I did.

Oh, we didn't hear you. I'm sorry.

Aye.

D'Alessandro. Aye. Nelson. Aye. Lowman? Yes. Robertson? Aye. Carter? Aye. Mayor Bussey?

Aye. Motion carries 7-0. But Mr. Ramlin, I'm going to challenge you to get us out of here by 9. How about that?

Mayor, I will try. But this is the... Yeah, this is the meat of the discussion, unfortunately. So, oh boy. Well, I mean, it was for a planning commission. I'm just going to get through it. Okay, usable open space. We consider this to be landscaped or developed area for active or passive recreation. And there are these minimum dimensions that need to be satisfied in order to count as usable open space, 15 by 15 feet, although that differs based on location. If it's a balcony, I'll get into it. It gets really complicated, unfortunately. So I have the minimum usable open space per unit highlighted in the table below. So this is a, you know, staff recognizes that this is an important element to multifamily development. You're providing open space for the residents to recreate or enjoy as they see fit. but it still imposes costs by a consuming area that could either go to a different type of amenity space or an actual dwelling unit. So we are, you know, those are costs that are being transferred from developing a dwelling unit to this other amenity that is just technically, we don't dictate what goes on in the space. It just has to be usable open space. So we don't say it's a playground. We don't say there's, benches or picnic tables or whatever. It's just whatever is up to the discretion of the developer. We don't have to pay too much attention to the table at the bottom of this, but there's a sample of developments where RELIEF FROM THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. I HAVE THE DETAIL BELOW. PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THEY WERE REVIEWING THIS STANDARD, WE DO HAVE KIND OF A COMPLEX OPEN SPACE BONUS SYSTEM TECHNICALLY FOR PRIVATE BALCONIES AND PATIOS. Planning Commission when they reviewed this was not in favor of that. They noted that maybe not all units have a private balcony or a patio. And so there's really this imbalance between those who have it and those who don't. How come, you know, we're not evenly distributing these open spaces equally amongst all the units. So technically more units have more open space than others because of just the privacy of the amenity. And so from Planning Commission's perspective, they were in support of actually eliminating that bonus structure and then just lowering the overall baseline amount of open space required on a lot. And so, looking at that fourth bullet point, this was an idea that we've pitched staff pitch was to make use of the current existing parks and open spaces that we have in the city and if a development is within a certain location. proximity of those spaces to let that be a bonus or be a credit to the open space amount that a development has to provide on site. So they could have the required amount that they have to provide per unit lowered if they are within a certain amount of feet of an existing park or a trail or however we defined those publicly accessible open spaces. So I'm glad we got through that actually pretty quickly. Sorry, all right, 810, right? Or 910, okay. So staff's recommendation and planning commission, and again, this is in line with the planning commission, was to lower the baseline minimum area of required open space for developments in those multifamily districts, and then eliminate the bonus structure for private balconies and patios. So not that they don't contribute to the open space, that they contribute to it on a one-to-one basis. I'm sorry, this gets really... I didn't write it, so I just want to absolve myself of that. So for instance, 50 square feet of a private balcony contributes even more open space than that 50 square feet. from what staff could ascertain is that perhaps that was to encourage the development of patio or balconies and patios to provide more eyes on the street or just a more active, I don't know, interaction between people from pedestrians and residents. And yeah, so there are a nice amenity, but they do come at a cost. And again, they do impose some equity considerations between those units that don't have them and those that do. So anyways, there is a bonus structure for those private amenities, but we're proposing to remove the bonus element of it. and that they just contribute to the usable open space on a one-to-one basis. So I hope that makes sense. I'm happy to clarify, although we have to get out of here in 9-10. So there are two questions that I have before you. Do you support staff's recommendation? And do you all support staff investigating that proximity-based approach? structure for usable open space. Yeah, so happy to get that feedback. Council Member Carter.

Thank you Mayor, I'll be very fast. Yes, I do support staff's recommendation And I do believe that we should investigate the proximity-based option. As I was reading through the packet, I actually was thinking about that myself, because if there's an apartment building getting built across the street from a giant park, it feels like there's lots of open space and park space there, and why would we require them to have a bunch of additional space? So I think that that's a great potential solution for us to look into.

Thank you. I think I have a bit of a different take on this. I don't think balconies should count as open space at all. I think they're an amenity that you could use for opportunity housing ordinance incentive for example because I think it's lovely to do but I think the equity concerns are problematic for me. So like if only one face of the building gets a balcony and they charge $300 more a unit because it has a balcony and nobody else gets any and they get to count it I don't know if that makes any sense to me. this is related to also the to me anyway the setback question because if they're moving forward to the to the site you know it's closer to the street they have technically more room for open space in the back end of the property and I'm not quite sure why we would then require them to have less although I would also say I'm very fine with the notion of proximity based option I think to council member Carter's point I think that's a good one I would actually incentivize in some way them making sure that their residents can safely get to and from it though because again we do not do that we don't think all the way around the problem space right and So we do all this work in a park and then we don't make sure that there are crosswalks across major streets where people can get to those parks. And so I have had this, we do now, yes, we did not do that before, right? And so I have two wonderful crosswalks on 86th Street that I'm going to just say, look what we can do when we think all the way past the problem space, right? In my thoughts here, I love the idea of proximity-based. I think they should absolutely get credit for that. But what can they do to help their residents get there safely? Do they invest in a crosswalk? Do they put one of the little lights on that have the crosswalk-y spaces or whatever that really make sure that it's accessible to those people? To say that it's across the street and then it's a four-lane road like Little or something like that, and then you're like, good luck. you know, not no sidewalks, no nothing, right. Not super helpful to give them the benefit and not get something out of it. So I'd love for you guys to think through that problem and maybe even talk with traffic or parks about it. Thanks.

Yeah. Mayor council member. Yeah. This feedback is very helpful because part of investigating this option would be defining those parameters where we would consider the park as an open space credit. If they don't satisfy it, then they don't get it. So I really appreciate this feedback.

Council Member Robertson.

Thank you, Mayor. So with question one, truthfully, I'm right in the middle of both Council Member Carter and Council Member D'Alessandro's opinions. I do think it's a good idea, but my knee-jerk reaction is I also have a concern about equity. And then question number two, Council Member D'Alessandro took the words right out of my mouth. I think the proximity based option is a great idea. I realize I'm speaking really quickly, but I'm trying to do this fast. but I am concerned about access. Like we heard a couple of meetings ago or last meeting about housing development in East Bloomington. People were like, yeah, it's right by a park, but the kids can't safely get there. So what's the point? And so that would be my biggest concern is I want to make sure that folks who are, if we're using this proximity based option, that we take a look, like you said, staff is doing at how residents can safely access those spaces. Thank you.

Council Member Lohman. Thank you. Number one, I think it's a rag and it's not ready yet. That's personally what I think. I think The conversation that staff and the planning commission is having really reflects that. I think we should wait a little while until it's more done on that one. Two, love the idea. My two colleagues over here have brought that up, the proximity part. I really think there's something there. And I do think the more you dig into number two, it would be clearer for one. But I would just – this whole thing here, I would just punt this off and do the other two things. It's my opinion. That's one. Okay. Councilmember Nelson.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. How does this dovetail with impervious surface, and can you help clarify for me what is usable open space versus not usable open space?

Mayor, Councilmember, so the only thing I can really— to competently react to your question is so that it's going back to the definition of how the code actually looks at usable open space. So landscape are developed for active or passive recreation. That could be just like a lawn or a green space, or it could be a patio, a publicly accessible patio. But I imagine if there's, landscaping stone or something like that that doesn't actually allow people to use the space then we wouldn't count that as usable we wouldn't count a parking lot as usable or anything like that where we wouldn't uh you know a drainage ditch or whatever um i don't believe we would here maybe i shouldn't speak out of turn i'll I don't think pitches are very... No, thank you.

I think the physical dimension is the key component of it. Nick Johnson, planning manager. But yeah, if the area is only eight feet wide and it's along the side of a building, it's really hard to play a game of Frisbee, for example, I'll say. So it's just not usable. So the physical dimensionality of it is important part of the definition.

Yes. So what's there already and then doesn't meet the dimensions that we've set for usable open space.

And then my last question is, do you know when this was added into the code or has it been there a long time?

Mayor, council member, I don't know when the usable open space was added to code. There was some clarification. I think there were clarification or there was enhancements to the storage unit requirements for multifamily performance standards. Back in 2015, it must have been added before that. So it's been around for a while. I'll just say that. Okay. If that's adequate.

I guess the only reason I asked that question is, I mean, it's been a while since I've been in an apartment, but I don't ever remember having open space in any apartment I've ever lived in. So I remember there was like the side yard and had some grass there, but that was about it. Okay. I'll take you up on that. So anyways, thank you. I appreciate the information.

Council Member Rivas.

Yes, I'll be quick. Have you evaluated the proposed proximity credit for nearby public parks, trails? Do you think it could cause inadvertently concentrate reduce on-site open space in already park rich areas while leaving park deficient neighborhoods with a full even if lower on-site requirement and that's one thing i i want to know and also the other is sustainability if we eliminate all green spaces in a building of you know there's no where is the rain going to go? I mean, all of this sustainable stuff that we cover all the time. I wonder, you know, when you guys get into these, if you take all that into consideration, I mean, I know that it will help the builders and developers. If that is the purpose, I guess I would actually accept it more readily rather than come with these and offer it as a as an incentive to make it even for everybody or, you know, I think there is a lot behind this. It might be just my imagination, but I see a lot more than just the proposed requirements here. It's, you know, I'm kind of reading between the lines and it's a lot more behind it. So I would just, I wish you would just come over and tell us this is the intention we have and all of that. It would be a lot easier for the public as well. So I have a real hard time supporting any of these things, really. You know, I know that I am in the minority, but that's the way I feel about this whole thing. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I have.

Thank you, Councilmember. Mayor, Councilmember, so I'll just reiterate, this is about just kind of reducing some of the burdens on developers that we've noticed through development projects that have come forth to the city that you all have agreed to give some, to relax some of the standards, looking at open space storage units. and even front yard setbacks, two of the three related to opportunity housing ordinance. So again, it's just about lowering those barriers that we've all reviewed before. So that's the big part of that. We haven't done an analysis of... what this usable open state open space standard uh regarding the proximity based idea how that would effectively work because we need to define those parameters so we when we come to you with a fleshed out ordinance we would have those parameters in place we would also provide if it would make it easier to understand what we're proposing to also provide analysis of how that might work with the city as it is, you know, with the green spaces that we have identified. So, yeah, we haven't done that analysis yet, but we just want to know if there's an... I don't know if there's encouragement for us to look further into it, and then we'll have something more prepared later this year in the form of an ordinance. So we're just looking for that kind of support, or if you... If you're not in favor of it and you think that it's a waste of time, then we're happy to pivot and look at something else. There's a lot for us to do.

Yeah. So my thoughts on this. So the new multifamily developments that are being built are on freeways or highways or busy streets. And to then eliminate any open space or possibilities for people to get outside is, I think – we're then to the point of basically warehousing people. We're just kind of stacking people up and warehousing them in a spot, and I don't agree with that. And I think to take away open space is also to take away communal space, where people get to know their neighbors, where you see somebody face-to-face. You're not just going from the elevator to your room and into the parking garage. So... I think the more open space, the better. And I also don't necessarily agree with the idea of this proximity-based option to reduce required open space options because you look at, for example, the Ardor or Riser over on the Bluffs. Those guys had nothing to do with the Bluffs and with the wildlife refuge. And for them to get benefit from that, they should still have a requirement to offer open space within their communities. And then everything else around is a benefit to their community. They're able to charge much higher rents for somebody overlooking the wildlife refuge. And again, they had nothing to do with it other than they bought that piece of property and were able to build on it. uh i think i think the more open space the better i i don't think we can uh overlook the amenities for the people who if they want to live in our community they don't want to necessarily live over looking 35w and 494 and i mean they would enjoy something other than a view of a parking lot or a freeway or green space is important that's my thought so

take that for what it's worth as you uh as you consider this and we look forward when we when would this conversation continue uh don't have a plan yet but later this year later this year yeah so there's yeah there's a lot of work to to uh to be done to to collect all this feedback and present something uh that's more fleshed out very good anything else council

It is 9-10. Yep. You got it done.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like the record to show that your comments were the ones that took us over 9-10.

Don't think that wasn't planned. With that, I would look for a motion to adjourn, Council.

So moved. Second.

Motion by Council Member Roberts and second by Council Member D'Alessandro to adjourn. No further discussion. Priyanka.

Rivas. D'Alessandro. Aye. Nelson.

Aye.

Lohman. Robertson. Aye. Carter. Aye. Mayor Bussey.

Aye. Motion carries 7-0. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much for the conversation tonight. Thanks to staff. Thanks to our folks who talked with us this evening. Everybody have a great rest of your week. Thank you.