Good evening everyone and welcome. I would like to call this meeting, the study meeting of the Bloomington City Council to order. We are in our council chambers and at remote locations as well. This is our first time our study meeting is being broadcast, so very happy to be doing that. We are going to start as we typically do with our roll call. So I'm going to ask Ms. Christensen to call the roll here in just a minute, noting that Councilmember Beloga is trying his darndest to get logged in here, but his computer is fighting him right now. So we decided to get going, and we will welcome Councilmember Beloga as he arrives. So Ms. Christensen, if you could please call the roll for us. Thank you very much. Mayor Busse. Here. Councilmember Carter. Here. Here. Councilmember Coulter? Present. Councilmember Lohman? Here. Councilmember Martin? Here. And Councilmember Nelson? Here. Thank you very much. As I said, six of the seven councilmembers are here. We are waiting on Councilmember Belogo, who's having technical issues right now, but he will be joining us here shortly. AS I SAID, THIS IS A STUDY SESSION AND OUR FIRST TELEVISED STUDY SESSION, I BELIEVE, I KNOW AS LONG -- IN THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL, WE HAVE NOT HAD A TELEVISED STUDY SESSION. SO WE -- THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO FOLKS WHO WERE ASKING TO SEE BASICALLY HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE. AND THAT'S WHAT STUDY SESSIONS ARE. informal presentation and discussion between staff and city council members and outside presenters on issues of importance and an opportunity for council members to learn more about specific issues. We do not take public comment here. There is no public hearings, no public testimony. And more often than not, I won't say all the time, but more often than not, no votes are taken at study sessions. As I said, it's an information session where we take an opportunity to learn more about a specific issue. topic and it then guides our discussion as we move forward in the decision-making process on any number of things and we do have any number of things on the agenda this evening we have seven issues and our first issue tonight item 2.1 is our COVID-19 public health and organizational update and Mr. Verbrugge I believe Dr. Kelly is going to provide us with an update is that correct? That's correct Mr. Mayor and Council Members Dr. Nick Kelly is the Assistant Public Health Administrator for the City of Bloomington Public Health Division and And he has additional information following up on the council's request that we start each of our meetings for the benefit of the council, but more importantly for the benefit of the community to provide an update and situational awareness of what is happening and what may be changing from week to week. So, Dr. Kelly, please go ahead. Dr. Kelly, welcome. Thanks for being with us tonight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmembers? As of today, we have 1,416 cases in Hennepin County. We anticipate the actual number of cases is much higher. There is community-level transmission, and we need to be following public health guidance. Something to keep in mind is we expect these cases to increase in the coming weeks, especially as we ramp up testing. We also expect to see an increase in cases as people start having more contact, as restrictions are relaxed or modified in the coming weeks. While we get daily updates from MDH on cases in Bloomington, at this time we're not sharing specific numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Bloomington. There's two primary reasons for this. One is to protect the privacy of individuals that are sick with COVID. Releasing data at the city level gets a little granular and it may compromise somebody's privacy. The second reason, and this is the more important and primary reason, is that We're only testing certain numbers of people in the community right now, and they have to fit certain categories to get tested. And so talking about a handful of cases in Bloomington is misleading because it doesn't tell us the accurate picture of what's going on in the community. We know there is transmission in the community, and we know there are cases in the community. We actively monitor what's going on and work with our health care partners in the state to address issues that are popping up in the community that way. We also continue to learn more about SARS-CoV-2. That's the virus that causes COVID-19, the disease. Recently, the CDC updated the list of symptoms that are consistent with COVID-19 to include chills, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, new loss to taste or smell. The primary symptoms of fever, cough, and shortness of breath are still the primary symptoms we look for. These symptoms we typically see emerging two to 14 days after exposure. But as those new symptoms came out, we wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. There is a lot of discussion happening on models. And models are something that we're looking at on a routine basis. We're seeing models come out fairly regularly at the national level. And the CDC has started now compiling a list of nine national models with Minnesota state specific projections and they're updating them on a weekly basis they project out the next four weeks and what we see is all these models are fairly consistent about what we're seeing they're all showing we're going to see an increase in cases over the next four weeks and they're all giving different assumptions and realities of how do we understand intervention strategies. So many of us have seen reporting, including this weekend, about how Minnesota's model is different from a lot of the national models. And it's very tailored to Minnesota. It includes our demographics, it includes risk factors, and it's tailored to the interventions the governor is using. So that model is a little different in the outcomes that we see compared to the national models. But the one thing they're all consistent on is we're going to see cases increasing over the next short-term period at the minimum. Most of the national models do not make the same kind of assumptions about mitigation strategies. So some of those models look a little bit more, the curve is different than what we see in some of the Minnesota models. But that's because they're making different assumptions on the intervention. Either we do it for the next several weeks or we don't have any interventions at all. Regardless of how those models are kind of dictating, we know social distancing is going to be here for a while. We all need to get better and consistent at practicing that. Keeping six feet apart from individuals outside of your immediate family for the foreseeable future is just a reality that we're going to be dealing with. That's hard. I know my kids want to go play with the neighbor kids. I know we want to go talk with our neighbors and we're getting used to doing that across the street. We need to make sure we're staying consistent with that process and not relaxing that social distancing while we're enjoying the community, whether that's enjoying our trails or our parks. We need to keep that in mind. That's the number one thing we can be doing to keep this virus under control right now is keeping that social distancing in place. Stay home when you're sick. Stay six feet away from other people. As Minnesota's governor, Tim Walz, identified last week, he's looking at making changes. And some of those things, they're going to dial up and dial back. And so we're going to see adjustments over the coming weeks and months, and they may get dialed up and they may get dialed back based on how we see the virus moving in the community. So we just need to be expecting some of that back and forth as this is a dynamic process. And to help us process that at the city level, city staff are actively planning for these changes. And we're working on steps to reduce the risk for staff and residents as the dial is adjusted up. We're in the process reviewing how we can do different things at city hall and city facilities as those buildings may potentially open at some point in the future. And it's important to remember the reason those facilities are closed is to maintain social distance. We didn't close them for the executive order. We closed them to maintain social distance. And as I've said before, we're going to get through this together as a community. Our community is strong. I have been just thrilled watching, connecting with neighbors over the last several weeks and how everybody is being kind and caring to each other. And that's what's going to make us get through this well. Make sure you're getting enough exercise, sleep, eat well, maintain your routines, and moderate your impact in news. And ask for help when you need it. We have great resources on our website, blm.mn.covid. And Hennepin County also has a resource line for residents of Hennepin County. It's 612-348-3000. And for individuals with limited English, it's 612-348-2193. And enjoy the spring weather. This is a beautiful time of year in Minnesota, and being outside is fantastic for your health and well-being. But be responsible. Take care of your community and each other's, and let us enjoy our beautiful city by being responsible. And we've got to remember, just because we're physically isolated doesn't mean we have to be socially isolated. Take care of your neighbors. That is really how Bloomington is going to get through this process, following the guidance from the governor, following the guidance from public health officials, and we're going to work together and get through this as a community. Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Before we get to questions, I'd like to acknowledge that Councilmember Beloga has joined us. Thanks for fighting through the technical issues you were fighting through, Jack. I'm glad to see you with us tonight. I do have a question for you, Dr. Kelly, before we open it up to the council. I know that the governor's stay-at-home order, his most recent one, will expire on May 4th. Do we have any indication or any preview of what will follow? Will there be a follow-up to it or incremental changes? Do you have any idea? We don't have an exact idea of what's going to happen. We do know that we will be doing social distancing for a long time and that the governor has been Pretty clear that he's willing to make changes, but he's not willing to compromise public health and trying to balance that process of protecting the livelihood and the well-being of Minnesotans so that we're living well and we're staying healthy while also protecting the community is a delicate balance. And they have a criteria that they're processing at the state level to make those decisions that are pretty complex. Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Questions from the council. Council Member Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. I have two quick questions. I'm getting nicer outside. I've seen a lot more people outside and it's a lot of our parks and most parts of the people engaged in social distancing. I'm just wondering if you got the answer to that. how we're doing, what we're seeing in our parks, the people following the rules, and I wanna make sure that we can keep those places open and bring people that we can enjoy. And I know, again, they're gonna teach you the tip of all these, but we're crowded and people not following the guidelines. I just wanna know if we have anything on the radar that we can turn at this point. - Dr. Kelly, I'm not sure if you heard that Councilmember Nelson, we're having some audio problems with you. It's sounding kind of boomier or underwater almost. uh dr kelly could you hear councilmember nelson's question mr mayor councilmember nelson are seeing a lot of good compliance we do see some concern about what uh may happen as we see communities around the country uh struggling with getting the community to maintain compliance and facilities um that's always going to be a risk as we get into further into the spring and summer and the weather becomes beautiful and everybody's getting outside maintaining social distance is going to be a priority and that's going to be a challenge. And so far the park response team has been doing a great job with education and the community is doing well. We're hopeful to continue to see that in the coming weeks. Thank you. I just have one other question. Do you need any better? I'll try to get closer. Yes, a bit better. - Okay, my other question is regarding what the Minnesota Department of Health is doing with regard to senior living facilities. I know that that unfortunately are areas that have been hard hit within our state and a couple of them according to their website in Bloomington have some cases in other areas, particularly as rules can be laxed. Are they changing things to help protect the seniors in our community? - Dr. Kelly? Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Nelson, we're working very closely with the Department of Health and a lot of the long-term care facilities in Bloomington. Our staff are in regular contact with facilities. We started that long before we started seeing cases in those facilities and are working to continue to maintain that relationship. in working with the Department of Health, they have stood up a separate team just to help focus on the long-term care outbreaks and the processes they're seeing there to identify, test, and prioritize interventions in those facilities. We're seeing them being managed as well as they can be in their current conditions and realities, and we're working closely with the state to make sure that that continues to happen. Thank you. Additional questions? Mr. Verbrugge, any update from your perspective or from Chief Seale's perspective tonight? Mr. Mayor and Council Members, nothing more from myself or our Emergency Management Director. Very good. Very good. Well, thank you for the update, Dr. Kelly. Appreciate it and appreciate the information that you're able to provide for us each evening. Council Member Carter, you have a question? - Yeah, I just wanted to quickly follow up on the question or the issue I raised last meeting about childcare and the impact that the closure of our youth programs this summer might have on families, particularly those who, you know, really rely on our summer parks, you know, programs for affordable childcare options. And my understanding was the city was going to have, the city staff were going to have some more conversations about that. So I wanted to see if there was an update. mr ferugii mr mayor and council members no update this week council member carter although there are a number of resources that are available for those families and we'll make sure that we can get those out through our communications team we did hear from a number of people last week that were contacting park and recreation that was one of the top two or three concerns i think we shared some of that information with council in the one weekly that We recognize that a lot of people depend on our summer programs for some of their childcare needs. That was one of the driving forces in us making a decision when we did is to make sure there was enough time, frankly, for families to make alternative accommodations. So we'll work with our communications team to make sure that those kind of resources are available to people to find alternatives. Thank you. Last call for questions. If not, we will move on to item 2.2 this evening. which is freeway landfill and freeway dump mr markegard you're going to lead us through this one yes naira busi council members good evening i'm glenn markegard from the bloomington planning division and chris if i can throw a presentation on the screen i'll do that all right So tonight's item is about two closed landfills in Burnsville, the Freeway Landfill and the Freeway Dump, both of which are along I-35W in Burnsville. Both landfills have environmental concerns, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or MPCA, has been following those concerns very closely. Tonight, MPCA staff will present some alternatives that they are considering to address the environmental concerns on both sites. They're looking for feedback from Bloomington and other interested parties by the end of May. The third landfill in Burnsville is the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, which is proposed for a major expansion. We talked about that expansion quite a bit about a year ago. And right now, the environmental impact statement is being prepared. We anticipate that will be completed sometime this summer. And then once complete, there would be a 30 day public comment period. But tonight, we're here to talk about the freeway landfill and freeway dump. And really our next step is to consider a formal comment letter that will come before you at the May 18th regular city council meeting. We're fortunate to have several guests from the MPCA. uh with us tonight kirk kirk kadelka cliff shirk sarah larson hans neve pat hansen and mark umholtz are all present either to present to you or to answer questions tonight so at this time i will turn it over to kirk kadelka assistant commissioner mr kadelka welcome thanks for being here with us this evening Thank you, Mayor and City Council members. For the record, my name is Kirk Adelka. I'm an Assistant Commissioner with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I'm just going to give a quick intro here, and thank you, Glenn, for that. And turn it over to Cliff, who's going to go through more of the specifics. As mentioned, their freeway landfill and dump are part of the closed landfill program. And the closed landfill program was created in 1994 to address old landfills. Many folks know about current landfills and designs that were built, including liners and caps and groundwater systems. Unfortunately, the landfills and dumps that are in the closed landfill program, those systems were not in place when they were first designed. The state has 114 in the program, landfills in the program, and it's the state's responsibility to take care of them long-term to protect human health and the environment. And so we're looking at how to best do that. Cliff's going to talk a little bit more about the environmental conditions there, but I just want to stress one thing here is because of the situation with Kramer Quarries to the south, we're looking at a situation where we don't have contamination at this point, posing a risk to the drinking water for Burnsville or Savage or having contamination flowing into the Minnesota River. We're really looking at how do we handle, address the situation and get a handle on it before it becomes a larger problem. So Cliff's going to go back through the history of the landfill, provide some more details on it and some of the things we're looking at. We really want to get you up to speed on this. As mentioned, we're going to be having some public meeting and comments in May. Really want to give you the background so that you can ask us any questions now as you continue to move forward and create your comments as a city to us as we continue on through this process through the summer and the following years. With that, thank you again, and I'm going to turn it over to Cliff. Good evening, Cliff, and welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayo. Thank you, Council members, for the opportunity to present tonight. I'm going to start. with a little bit of background on this. There we go. On three approaches to handling pollution. So first and foremost is to try and prevent it. And that's through ideas like minimization of waste or minimization of how much salt is placed on the roads. The second way is to manage it, and that is primarily through the permitting process or through evaluations of current systems or operations that say industries would have. And then the third way is to clean up the pollution after it's already happened. And at the MPCA, we have two primary programs that do this kind of work in the remediation division. And the Superfund program is probably one that folks are more familiar with. This is for older industrial sites that might have a single or just a few responsible parties. And second program that is largely into this kind of work is the closed landfill program. And Kirk ran through some of this, but the program was created in 1994 and these landfills were recognized as a societal problem. That there is no real way to go back to responsible parties when you've had a bunch of different industries and residents disposing of waste into a single landfill. So that's why a lot of these sites were taken over by the MPCA and we are now responsible for managing those landfills. And the primary goal of the program is to mitigate the risk to the public and the environment. And the larger facilities are in the metro areas and freeway is definitely one of the larger ones in the program. And as of today, there are 110 in the program and freeway came in in 2017. So we do regular assessments of all of the landfills in the program to try and assess what is the risk at these sites. And we look at things like presence and degree of hazards at each site. So that's groundwater, surface water, methane gas generated by the garbage. conditions that might exacerbate those hazards. So depending on what the surrounding land uses are, or if there's bedrock below it, or if there's drinking water sources nearby. Third is how likely will the public be exposed to those hazards? And then every site is unique. So there are also other risk factors that are considered like the volume of waste, history of trespass, are these sites protected? So as of the last risk assessment that we had performed, freeway landfill is currently the highest ranked site in the program. So this just provides an overview. This is looking from the west. This is similar to the image that Glenn showed. In the front is the Burnsville landfill, Kramer Quarry in the middle. Freeway landfill is just under the label there. So just west of 35. Freeway dump is just on the other side. So under the label there. And there are a drinking water supply area for Burnsville to the south of the site. So the history of the site, it was started in the 60s. And I think one key takeaway from this timeline is that at the time that it was permitted in 1971, There are things that have changed a lot since then. So with RCRA in 1976, and then with solid waste rules going into place in 1988, at the time that this was permitted, the regulations and requirements for landfills have changed significantly. In 1986, freeway landfill was added to the Superfund program, and then in 1990, it stopped accepting waste. The dump is definitely the smaller of the two, operated a little bit earlier in time and has a smaller footprint and a smaller volume of waste, so 760,000 cubic yards in freeway dump. Landfill was permitted and operated a little bit later, considerably larger at 140 acres and has 5.3 million cubic yards of waste. And that is a significant volume. In total, 6 million cubic yards is a pretty big number to be dealing with for a cleanup project like this. Both facilities are unlined, meaning that at the time they were really just filling in low spots. So this is, as you can guess by the surrounding areas, these were mostly wetland areas, low-lying areas that were filled with the garbage. And Kirk hit on this, but key to note that the drinking water source for Burnsville and Savage is considerably lower, that the wells are quite a bit deeper and those have been sampled and there are no signs of contamination really from the landfill at those drinking water wells. - This is a graphic showing what conditions are like now. Kirk mentioned that Kramer Quarry has an influence on the hydrogeology in the area. So the molten lava there in Freeway Landfill right now is above the depressed groundwater table caused by the significant pumping that Kramer Quarry does to keep the water levels low so they can continue to operate and mine there. And so right now the waste is not in groundwater, which is a good thing. It means that the source of the contamination is really through any precipitation that falls onto the cap of the landfill, percolates through the waste itself, and then carries anything that it picks up in that water into the groundwater. So these are current conditions. If we look to the future, When Kramer Quarry stops operating and turns off its pumps, the groundwater levels will go back to historic norms, which is pretty close to where the river would be. And our modeling shows that as this happens, the groundwater level will come up high enough so that a portion of the waste at Freeway Landfill and at the dump will be sitting in groundwater. So the hope is to really get this work done before that happens. And we don't have a real roadmap on that future, but we know that we have some time based on Kramer's operating history. So both of the sites have been investigated significantly, especially in the last couple of years. As part of the Superfund process, we have a fairly extensive groundwater investigation. It started in 2018 and actually spilled into 2019. And what we found is that there is definitely methane within the footprints of both waste masses and also on the outside of it. So that's dangerous from an explosive standpoint. If you have structures nearby, the methane can build up in basements and runs a risk, an explosive risk there. We have detected contaminants in the groundwater for emerging contaminants like 1,4-dioxane and PFAS, but also for more traditional contaminants like VOCs, volatile organic compounds, which are solvents and petroleum-based chemicals, and then also for metals. And there also are exceedances of the surface water criteria for both VOCs and metals. So to address address the sites and and help try and try and eliminate some of that contamination. There are two options that are currently being considered. The first one is we're colloquially calling the dig in line option, which means that we would essentially pick the waste up. builds modern landfill infrastructure underneath and then place the waste back on top. And so that would be a bottom liner and then traditional landfill pollution control systems like a leachate collection system on the bottom liner and a gas extraction system to pull out to the methane that is generated by the waste. And what we are looking for comment on are the three different variations of this dig in line option that we're considering. There's the smallest waste footprint, which is essentially how small can we make this to meet design standards. And of course, this results in a taller final landfill height. A second one is the lowest landfill height. So essentially using as much of the site as we can to spread that out and have it so the peak of the landfill is the lowest given the site that we're working with. And then there's a balance, which we're trying to walk that line between leaving some of the land available for future developments, but also trying to lower that final height. And then a second option that we're considering is the dig and haul option. So we would essentially pick up all of the waste and move it to a different permitted landfill that has been built to current standards. So as we compare these options, the price tag on all of them is pretty large. In the first column here, we're looking at the footprint of the waste itself in its final setting. So the smallest footprint would be about 60 acres all the way up to about 90 for the lowest height. Looking at the potentially developable area, you can see that of course the smaller the footprint is for the landfill, the more land that you would have left for future development. The footprint of the landfill certainly makes a large impact on the final height. So the smallest is at about 850, which is about 100 feet higher than the current height. ground surface at the landfill and those other two options as you spread that out you get a lower footprint. The smallest footprint tends to be the cheapest just because of the infrastructure you have a smaller lined area which is a large contributor to that cost. And we're presenting ranges here because at the time that these were developed we were only at about 30 percent design which means that we were in the fairly preliminary stages of this. So the actual calculated cost is probably somewhere in the middle of that range, but we have to add a plus or minus there just because our design isn't fine tuned well enough to really settle on a single number for that. And then that last column, we are considering an enhanced liner just because of the setting of this area. And so that also comes with the price tag, but it is certainly more protective of the groundwater below by using an enhanced liner. And then that final option, so the dig and haul, of course would free up all of the acreage for potential future development, but it comes at quite a higher price tag. There is a lot that goes into the moving of that waste and what really drives up the cost is at these, whichever facility it goes to, they will have what we refer to as tipping fees. So those are taxes associated with it plus the operating costs for that landfill itself. So the range is quite large and it really is in large part due to those differences primarily in the taxes and other operating and host fees that would be charged at whichever landfill it would go to. So where are we on the timeline? We are in the public meeting stage. So three from the left there. And the purpose of this public meeting has been to try and arrive at one of these dig in line options. So we have those three different alternatives and we're trying to land on one to move forward. There's also some access issues that we're trying to work out. But after we arrive at that one dig and line option, we do plan to carry two forward. So one dig and line option, whichever is selected, and then one dig and haul option. And we will put full design plans together for each of those. Those would go out for bid. And with the bid results in hand, we would be able to go to the legislature, to have them help us decide which of these options we would like to pursue. And then once that is funded, we would move to construction and we got quite a wide time window depending on which option is selected. It could be as low as three years, it could be as high as eight, depending on which of those we move forward with. - So once we do get to the legislature, of course there is the level of funding that would be provided based on those two bid results that we would present. For those that have looked at the feasibility study that was included in your meeting packet, all of these options that we're considering are protective of human health and the environment. So it really comes down to the cost and what is the final use of that property. The funding source would need to be determined. For many of our landfills, we have used general obligation bonds, but that comes with a restriction on future use and future development of that for 37 and a half years. And there are also other bonding sources that we can use, but that could increase the cost just because of the mechanism of the funding. And then there is also that last piece of a financial benefit. If someone were to benefit from this cleanup, how would that contribution be made from that party? So with that, we're open to questions. I tried to keep that as short and sweet as we could just so we had plenty of time for questions. So we can open it up to anyone. And we'll decide based on the nature of the question who can respond here. It may be Kirk, it may be me. Thank you, Mr. Sherk. Appreciate that informative discussion. We do have a couple of questions. I'd like to start with one. And just to help me understand a bit the use of the acreage and how big this impact would be. So currently it's 166 acres and the maximum elevation right now is 750 feet. And the smallest footprint would bring that down to 60 acres would push it up to 850 feet. My question is, Where would where would that additional 100 feet be would that be across all 166 acres would it be concentrated in a certain area? I'm assuming it was it would be a I don't want to say a hill or a bump or a rise of some kind I'm assuming it would be something like that Do we know exactly where that would be in relation to? For example the river or the freeway or or in any of the distinguishing features? Can you tell us exactly where that might be? I? Yep, so the tallest option is being placed as far to the southwest of the site as possible. So as far away from 35E or 35W and as far away from the river. So it would be on that southwestern corner. The other options, because we spread it out, it would drift closer to the interstate, closer to the river, just depending on which of those options we're looking at. So it would be, as you said, away from the river, away from the interstate, kind of in as far away and ideally out of sightline from both river and the interstate as possible. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. Very good. Council member Carter, you had a question. Thank you, mayor. Yeah. So one of my questions, well, my question has to do with the options that include the liner. And if you went with one of the liner options, And then if and when or when, if when the quarry stops operating, you would still have the issue of the rising water table and then the right, or would you not have that? - Nope, we are based on modeling predictions of where that groundwater level would be. We are setting the bottom of the new liner above that elevation. So, and that's where you get some of that contribution to the higher height as well. just because we are raising the base to account for that future groundwater bounce. Okay, thank you. Council Member Beloga. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Cliff, thanks for coming tonight. This is a difficult problem. I have a couple of questions, and they're somewhat related. The first one goes to the question that Councilperson Carter just asked. And it's relative to expected heights of the liner and would it be higher than what the traditional flooding that occurs at the Minnesota River. The base of the liner would not be, but the way that we are designing this is with a, I don't want to call it a dike system, but the side of the landfill that would face the river will be above that flood stage. So in theory, unless you have a very sustained flood, the water, the bounce in the water would not affect the liner itself just because it would be constrained to the river basin itself. Presumed to be, but I understand what you're saying. Yep. What's the expected life of a liner? They there's some research on this it's anywhere from I've seen it is in this depends on on exposure so. A big thing with these liners is exposure to sunlight that you'll you'll degrade that and when you're looking at a traditional landfill where you have the base open for quite a while, while you're filling it that becomes a much larger problem. So it's somewhere in the range of 50 to 400 years. And that depends a lot on the conditions. I think that we would be probably towards the longer life just because we won't have that long-term exposure to sun as this is getting built. But there are studies that show that, yes, these, if constructed correctly and if buried fairly quickly, that they can last up to 400 years. And Cliff, what's the expected... period of time, this would be an issue. You know, all of this degrades at some point. And I know there's a real mix of material and chemicals in the landfill today. But what's the expectation for the degrading process in time? That's a tough question. I don't know that there's a single answer to that. I think all of these facilities are going to face a very similar problem here. And so the idea would be to build this to the current design standards and hopefully we get a much longer life out of it. But as far as the future life of it, that's a tough question. It's hard to know where we'll be in 100 or 400 years and what sort of problems this could create. But for now, it's really the best materials that we have to use for this type of project. And I appreciate the difficulty of the question. It's such an important answer that I think we need to dwell on that for a bit, because if it's on the low end of that, I mean, we're really looking at potentially 50 years. Now, I know that you said, you know, there's causes that may occur, which would degrade the liner sooner. But there's also opportunity for failures, too, because this is not a single membrane. It's a pieced together membrane. and you end up with workmanship issues also. That's correct. One of the enhancements that we are considering is, I don't want to call it a triple liner because that's not quite the right nomenclature in the field, but it's essentially three layers that are sandwiched together. So it would be two feet of clay on the bottom and then geosynthetic clay liner, which is a very thin layer of super low permeability clay. and then the geomembrane would be on top of that. And so the idea is if you think of, if you have three plastic bags and you know each one of them has a hole in it, if you put all three of those together, it really helps to sort of compensate or account for any of those workmanship issues. And that's why we're considering that enhanced liner for reasons like that. - And I know that you've asked, requested that we look and opine on just the two options. But incineration was obviously another option. Was that discarded because of cost? - Incineration was discarded because of the age of the waste. And what we ran into is not only the age, but it was through the years it's been largely mixed with soils. And so we did look at that. We pulled a couple samples of the waste itself. We sent it off to a lab to look at what the value was, what the, I can't remember the exact term, but how much energy could it generate per pound? And it just, it did not seem feasible to do it. I don't know that we could find an incinerator that would be willing to take waste at such a low quality. LET ME UH NOT HOG THE TIME HERE AND PASS THE BATON ON TO ONE OF THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THANK YOU THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER BALOGA COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON YEAH THANK YOU MAYOR I HOPE YOU CAN HEAR ME BETTER BUT UM The following up on Council Member Walters' question is about the longevity of this. Has anything been done with regards to changes in the river height, more frequent flooding, larger rainfall events, things of that that may impact or change the calculations sometime in the future? It's definitely something that we have considered. When we are designing landfills now, a 25-year storm is no longer a 25-year storm. And that is definitely something that as we work through this design, those are details that we will work out. As far as the flood stage of the river, it's really hard to predict. And I think the last year was a very significant event, and we're sort of using that as our as our benchmark of what can we expect here going forward. But we are definitely considering a higher flood stage than you probably would have in the past. And then the taller side, the 850 feet, can you give me something, a relative landmark? Like how does that relate to the Hydenbach Hill or something else that's lost in that area? mr shirk i believe you're uh you were muted for a moment oh sorry yeah uh buck hill is about 90 feet taller than that that tallest option yeah marabou council members i can weigh in on that too a little bit the backyards of most of the homes across the bluff and the bloomington side are at about 800 feet so that the homes themselves would be a little higher in most cases but that would be the backyard elevation, about 800 feet. - I think that raises a concern for a lot of people that live along the block there. Last question I have is, and I know it's kind of a separate decision, but how does this decision impact the plan that many people in the community sought to move this place the waste management side, and then to significantly increase the capacity there. Again, having this idea, I think is one of the big concerns about odor and the timeframe of the project. How do we make decisions related so really really the two are not connected and kirk i don't know if you want to take this one um and expound on that a little bit sure uh marin and council members the they are two different pieces so right now as you mentioned and glad i mentioned earlier on it is going through a supplemental environmental impact statement for burnsville's request for an expansion They will also need what's called certificate of need, which is when we do any landfill expansions and we look at what waste is coming in from this area and what we generate. This type of landfill wouldn't need the certificate of need. It would still need to be permitted and go through the environmental review if the waste went from freeway over to the Burnsville Waste Management. But again, as Cliff mentioned, these are two separate projects because when we put out the bid, the bid would be for any landfill to be able to take the waste. And when we permit a landfill, we also always make sure that the landfill we permit separate of whatever waste comes in is built in a way that sets a category to be able to handle that waste. And so as we put together where the freeway waste goes, we will also designate and say that whoever accepts this waste has to meet these types of protective built into their permit. So it would have, if it was waste management, Burnsville or any other landfill in the area, they would have to meet those requirements that will be put into the bid contract. - Council member Lohman. - Thank you, mayor. - So I'll kind of continue to ask this question about, 'cause it sounds like the alternatives that you're looking for, and I just want to get to make sure that I'm clear about this, are those three alternatives that are the smallest footprint, the lowest, the balanced, those are the alternatives you want us to comment on? Do you want us to comment on the digging hall at all, or is it just those three that you're looking for us to get a comment on? Just those three. Yep. We're trying to get to a final single option for the digging line. So I guess one of my questions or one of my concerns that I have is, so let's say that something takes place where, you know, all three of those plastic bags, you know, pops a hole in there, somebody, you know, put a big... piece of metal in there and it pokes a hole through the three plastic bags. What happens at that point? You know, we see contamination. Then do we have to go? Does you know, does it does that stuff then get moved? What's the impact to that that type of scenario? i got a couple more questions too when you're done with that sure so we would we would have a a network of monitoring wells around this landfill similar to other operating landfills and i can't answer specifically how that would be addressed but it would it would really depend on the magnitude of the problem and and that's that's what the the monitoring piece is is really important in our program to to detect if that is getting to the groundwater or if it's leaving the site. - So from an environmental standpoint, let's say we're gonna have a disaster. Is there any difference between these three different options? So for example, if we get the taller, forget the money part of it, which I'm not going to, but if we just look at that, you know the the highest um the tallest footprint one is there any advantage from an environmental standpoint of going with that alternative as opposed to spreading it out over the the amount of acreages Really, everything would be designed the same to manage the loadings and things that would change based on that height. When you have a smaller footprint, you have less area. So that can have advantages just because you have less of these panels that need to get seamed. You have less of an area on the bottom that could have something that would puncture the liner. So there is from that sense, by making the footprint smaller, you do have that advantage for construction. Now, that said, there are the quality control for construction of these liners is intense. And there's leak detection testing that can be done. So all would be built to the same standard. You would have just a lesser area of it with the taller option. So where these methods have been employed, this particular one, have we seen any failure with that, with those liners or the 50-year type piece? Kind of walk me through if there are any examples of issues with that. I... I don't know that there's specific examples that I can cite. That's really why we put in these monitoring wells surrounding it, is so that you have a condition that you know is current, and through time, you can monitor that. And I don't know that... There's a lot of different conditions at different sites that can cause failures and things like that. So, really, this would be built to a current standard and built as well as it can be built in this setting. Kirk, if it's okay, Mayor, I could join in and add a little bit to that. To the council members' questions, this is being built to the up-to-date standards and what is landfills are being built all throughout the nation. And we aren't seeing those type of failures that are being talked about. Landfill lining started in about the 80s. And so this is a proven technology. One of the other parts I just want to add, too, is while we'll also be encapsulating the waste. We'll also be collecting leachate inside the landfill and actively managing that and treating that. So even during the life of the span of the landfill, we'll also be addressing some of the contamination and that that's coming from the waste as we go along. So that as it ages the waste and does go through its natural cycle, we're addressing some of the contamination of that. And as time goes on, the material is more and more inert and that there are less potential risks into the future in some of these long time spans that we're talking about, you know, hundreds of years and the like. Just finally, when 400 years are up, what's the game plan after that? You know, that's what we have with all of our landfills. Again, right now the landfills are there to allow for the collection of the leachate, address that now, prevent things from getting into the groundwater today. And as it goes through the process within the landfill, the organic materials break down and we capture the leachate in that materials become less and less of potential risk and as we get to the 400 years as noted that is something we'll have to look at again but the process is to encapsulate it address and collect active manage the materials that's there so that there is less risk as we go into the future thank you councilmember carter Thank you, Mayor. So I do want to thank you both for doing this work. I am assuming that, I mean, it's obviously critical to our community now and into the future and I'm going to guess that you don't get thanks all the time since these are the conversations that you have to have. So just thank you so much. I do want to go back to Councilmember Nelson's point. I think his last question or point that he made about the expansion of the other site and then this site and your comment that these are two different projects. And I totally understand why you take that perspective. But I also just want to emphasize that They both impact our communities pretty significantly. And so, you know, I know you're not asking us to weigh in on the waste removal part. You're asking us to pick between the three options of liners. But if you are able to consider the fact that the impact on our communities, Burnsville and Bloomington, is going to be pretty significant between the two. You know, I think that that's, you know, looking at these things holistically is really important as we do think about the future. I mean, to me, it's pretty crazy that years and years ago, somebody, groups of people made decisions to put landfills and water drinking facilities right on the Minnesota River. And so I just want to be really thoughtful about the future. broader impact that both of these projects are having in our community. So with that said, you know, given you're asking us to choose between options, you know, I'm leaning toward to be where it would have the lowest height. You know, I think that having mountains of trash on the other side of the river for our residents to look at is not something that I'm super excited about. So. Mayor and city council members, just real quick on that point. This is a phased approach. So we're asking today and this coming May about those three dig and line options. But there will be another opportunity to comment to the difference between the dig and line and the dig and haul. And that's really going to be more when we go to the legislature and seek funding and have more information on costs. So this is the end of the opportunity for comment. We're just taking it bit by bit at this point. Thanks for clarifying that, Kirk. I appreciate that. And also, if I could ask a question again for clarification, and piggybacking on Councilmember Nelson's and Councilmember Carter's question here, we're talking about two different landfills here, the freeway landfill and the freeway dump. And the third one, of course, is the Burnsville dump or landfill, and I think that's the correct phrasing on there. And to think about these holistically, Are we making a decision or a recommendation for both the freeway landfill and the freeway dump? Do they have to be one in the same? Or is it possible that we could say freeway dump, we would recommend a higher height, the freeway landfill, because it is more directly on the river and more impactful on the sight lines of our residents here on the Bloomington side, that we would want that lower? Is it possible to parse these out into two different decisions, or is it one decision for both the freeway landfill and the freeway dump? The options would move all of the material from freeway dump to the freeway landfill. So that freeway dump, in a sense, would be completely removed in all options. So they are one and the same. So the freeway dump would be emptied out, it would all go to the freeway landfill, and then the freeway dump would become a development opportunity for Burnsville, is that correct? Potentially, yes. Yes, it would be removed, potentially development area, depending on what the final site condition is, how it's left. I'm not a hydrologist, and I don't know for certain, but wouldn't it make more sense to move it further away from the river than closer to the river? It's a hypothetical question. You don't have to answer that now. Council Member Beloga, I believe you had a question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Kirk? So tell us a little bit about municipal consent. Is this a municipal consent item at the end of the day, or is this something where you're going to go to the legislature, irrespective of where our posture is? Mayor and city council members, thanks for the question. This is going to be a decision at the end of the day at the legislature on funding, and they're going to look at all parts and all voices that are involved that want to have a say in it. So there isn't one specific person or community that's going to have the final decision. And it's going to be the legislature as we look at how to fund, whether it's a dig in line or the dig in all option. What we're doing and talking about for this May upcoming public comment period is really narrowing down all the dig in line options. And we're going to listen to all the voices on that to try to I'll get the one that creates a balance between everyone's comments. How many communities are you pulling? Obviously, Bloomington, Burnsville, Savage because the water or Shock Beach? It's an open public comment period, so it would be open to anyone's comments. But you're right. Those are the three cities that have the most interest and that contain the closest attention to the issue. Thank you. Additional questions or comments? Council Member Martin? No. You are still muted, Councilmember Martin. There you go. Second time's the charm. Thank you very much. Yeah, not to prolong, I'm just curious, in the report it specified that in these two sites there was elevated levels of metals, semi-volatile, and volatile. I guess in the short term, especially on the methane front, as we're pulling apart these piles to reline them, are we anticipating any issues around plumes of emissions that may come out of this site, especially considering the residential on the far side of the valley? And then kind of longer term, especially in the worst case scenario, from my perspective, where we may have this at maximum elevation of 50 feet, are we capturing methane out of that pile as it's produced, or are we venting it out I just worry about that being operating properties again across. So short term, as we're pulling it apart long term, as we're venting it. Short term, just with exposure to the air, the concentrations would would reduce significantly, pretty much immediately. What you what you run into with landfills is that if given the chance to build up, you get these higher concentrations. But as far as like a net volume, once exposed to the air, it dissipates very readily. Sorry, I forgot the second part of the question. So can you kind of answer that a little bit? The taller you get, the more mapping you're producing. But even if we went with the smallest footprint option and we're venting off that gas, it's still going to be dispersing pretty rapidly once it's hang on the new landfill would have a methane recovery system built into it so um a lot of our metro sites uh they have uh wells that collect the methane and then it's it's burned off on a flare so this does not have that technology now but the the new landfill would have that that's helpful thank you other questions If not, I would weigh in on, if you're looking for a recommendation, I think I would echo Councilmember Carter's recommendation about the lowest height for a couple of different reasons. First of all, I do agree with the concerns about the sight lines across the river valley for our Bloomington residents. Secondly, now understanding that the freeway dump will be emptied, it would allow for a development opportunity, I would think, that could help offset the slightly higher cost that would come with the lowest height and then the smallest development area on the existing landfill site. I just think it makes the most sense. It gives the most opportunities, and it provides, I think, the best options from a Bloomington perspective, which I think is what we're here to talk about. Council Member Beloga? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We haven't really talked much tonight about the orders that are going to be generated during the process. How bad is the stench going to be and how far will that carry? Prevalent normally in the summertime or from the south. So they're going to go right into our midsection in the eastern part of Bloomington. And I know that it's subjective, but a scale of one to 10, are we closer to 10 or one? i think we would be on that lower end given given the age of the waste what we have seen from from our other sites where we have done this kind of work and you're essentially pulling out old garbage it has had enough time to mostly degrade so you find that the stench that would come along with that degradation Most of it is in the past already. So I can't say that you wouldn't smell it. If the winds were right and if there was an area that may have some different kinds of waste, that there could be a smell related to that. But I wouldn't expect it would be a constant. Council Member Coulter? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to sort of echo what other folks have said, I think, based on the comments that I have been getting, I did get, excuse me, on the other dump side, I do think, you know, folks, I agree with Council Member Carter that we need to think about these holistically, that that You know, from MPCA's perspective, these are two separate projects, but from the folks who live along the river and not too far off it, they're not. And I think we need to be clear about that. And so I think the lower height also makes a lot of sense in that regard. The other thing that I wanted to bring up is more sort of for the council consideration, knowing that since this is not a municipal consent issue, that the decision falls in the hands of the legislature, that this is something we will want to be in touch with our legislative delegation on so that if and when we do arrive at, when we get into some of those specifics that the folks who serve our community in St. Paul are fully aware of our concerns and complaints and so on, And I think it would also behoove us to perhaps work with our neighboring communities, work with Burnsville and Savage and their legislative delegation as well to ensure that we're all kind of on the same page there. - Agreed, Council Member Coulter, thank you. Council Member Lohman. - So just before I give my comments, I just want to be sure that I'm clear. So in terms of the flood protection on the lowest height one and on the highest one, that would be the same. is that is my understanding of that correct or would if we had the higher pile we'd have a you know a better uh a protection from a flood standpoint no you're correct that in all options there would be that that same same flood protection along the river um well you know mayor what i i would say to you is uh i just you know really none of these really fit you know the height here is not all that much of a difference here when we look at these things here. And of course I would pick the lowest one if I had to, but I really do feel that some of these other alternatives really ought to be the way that we ought to try to go. So I can't recommend any of these three. I mean, certainly if there's a majority of the council that go along with the smaller one, certainly I would be there with that. But I really just from a long-term perspective, my concerns from an environmental standpoint and also, you know, really, and just, uh, this is just not a, uh, you look at what this would do to the Southern part of our city and, uh, some of the impacts. Um, I just, uh, I just, I can't support, uh, either of these three options. Any other comments? Council member Beloga, you look like you're reaching for your, the comment, aren't you? Are you? I am. Thank you. I thought you might. Again, yet, but, uh, you know, uh, 50 to 400 years is a blink of an eye in terms of history of this planet. And, uh, I know that the request of MPCA is one of the three options that they're asking. And I, of course, will pick the lowest of the three given that parameter. But because of the geographic nature and the hydrology in here, and I just don't think this is a good long-term solution. And really encourage you to come back and look at the other options. I know that short term, we said that incineration didn't make sense from a commercial perspective, but we only get this one chance with this planet to do the right thing. And if we're just kicking a can down the road for another 50 to 400 years, it seems like Doing it the right way the first time is the best way I would chime in councilman below I agree with you and unfortunately they didn't do it the right way the first time back in 1971 or whenever both of these opened and were operating and I agree with councilmember Carter's earlier comment it's a bit of a head scratcher that someone decided that putting a Landfill next to a river and water sourcing was a good idea at some point I just that that's a head scratcher, but then again here we are so I So we've been asked to give a recommendation on one of their alternatives. If we're not allowed to make Digg and Hall one of the recommendations, which I think I'm hearing from a number of folks, that would probably be the best, and I would agree with that as well. Do we want to come to an agreement on Digg? what we would like to see there, or is our recommendation going to be to send the MPC back with no recommendation from the city of Bloomington and look for additional options without any guarantee that they actually would come forward with additional options? These might be the three options that the MPCA and the state are considering at this time. So, Mr. Koudelka, could you comment on that? Are we... uh are we limited in exactly what we can talk about here or what would be the ramifications if we came back with a recommendation that we would prefer to see the diggin hall or another option to come forward from the mpca mayor and city council members a great question there you know i think it just like we told some other cities too if diggin hall is the preferred option for the city i please do include that in your comments or just buy later during the public comment period. But what we really don't want is that to be the only comment because we are looking to narrow down the other three. And so as we look at it, If it may be your second choice, and you can label it as your second choice, but the first amongst the dig and line, that's also a fine recommendation. What we don't want is a lot of folks coming forward with dig and haul as the only option, and then there's less feedback for us to decide what that other option for the dig and line is. And so as we put two forward to for the bid process that there wasn't an ability for folks to speak on which of those two they might prefer, understanding that may be their second of the two choices. So in short, it's very fair to your comment letter to say Diggins Hall is your preferred option, but of the other two options, we would still like a preference. Very good. Now, what you're looking for us tonight is, based on our conversation, is for a formal letter from the city of Bloomington crafted by Mr. Markagard based on the conversation tonight. Is that correct, Mr. Markagard? Am I interpreting that correctly? Mayor Busse, that's correct. Based on your feedback tonight, we'll prepare a letter, which you can consider at your May 18th meeting, and then we would transmit it once approved. And Mr. Merkiger, I believe you've heard the conversation tonight. Do you have enough information to put that letter together that you think reflects the council's feelings and desires on this matter? Yeah, I believe we do. We got some real good feedback, and that can form the base of the letter. Sounds great. Mr. Mayor and council members, if I could, we will be updating our website with some information that is a little bit more current than what was shown tonight. We're on the cusp of having that ready and it should be ready in about a week or so. Fundamentally, it doesn't change the options that were presented, but as you get farther along in a design, there are minor tweaks and things that have been made. So I would just recommend that... Once that is live, we will let Glenn know, and we hope to have that in the next week or so. And again, it shouldn't fundamentally change the options, but I would recommend that it's looked at as you weigh these options. Council, I believe everyone's had an opportunity to weigh in. If there's anything else somebody would like to add that's kind of unique and distinct here, happy to hear it. Otherwise... We will thank our guests from the MPCA and thank Mr. Markagard and look forward to that letter in May as we look at that. And we will move on with our agenda. So thank you very much for being here with us this evening. Thank you for having us. With that, we will move on to item 2.3, which is our Creative Placemaking Commission presentation and their work plan update. And I believe Ali Plinka is going to lead us in this one. Hello, Mr. Mayor. Hello. Hello, everyone. Great to have you. Thank you for being here this evening. Thank you. Hello, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Alejandra Polinka, Director of Creative Placemaking. I'd like to introduce my team if they're able to pipe in and introduce themselves. We have our partners at Artistry with us and our Creative Placemaking Commissioner Chair. So, Leah, if you'd like to begin. Good evening. So we will go ahead and start. I believe that you have the slide deck. Is that correct, Ali? Yeah, I'll go ahead and I'll lead the entire presentation, Leah. Just a quick intro from you and then we'll intro Rachel and Kevin and I'll move from there. Oh, great. My name is Leah Batten. I am the chair of the Creative Placemaking Commission. I am a founding member of the commission. And so I forget how long we've been doing this. I guess we're in year four. Maybe I'm just making up numbers now, but anyway, thank you for having us. Good evening, Leah. Thank you for being with us this evening. Rachel. Rachel, are you there? Are you able to join us? I'll present Rachel for now. So Rachel Daly is the visual arts director with artistry. She's also been part of our creative place making efforts since the very initiation. And she will be here. I'm not sure if she'll be able to have sound or not, but she'll be on with us as well. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, Kevin. Welcome. Great. Kevin Ramack, Executive Director of Artistry. Good evening, everybody. Good evening. Good evening to all of you and the entire Creative Placemaking team. And, Ollie, why don't you take it away? Great. I'm going to share my screen here. All right. Are you all able to see the deck? Great. Hello, as mentioned, I'm here to present the Creative Placemaking Commission Work Plan update, including an overview of our work plan that was established in 2017, projects and events from 2019, and some project priorities from 2020 through 2021. So this work plan and our work in general is really shaped by our South Loop Creative Placemaking Plan. This was developed by the City of Bloomington in partnership with Artistry and approved by City Council in 2015. One outcome of the plan included the formation of a creative placemaking commission. So the commission advises the city council on using arts, design, culture, and creativity to help accomplish the city's goals for change, growth, and transformation of the South Loop District in a way that also builds character and quality of place in Bloomington. In 2017, the newly formed Commission developed a strategic three-year work plan with accompanying strategies and related project priorities. So these were really again guided by work plan. These work plan strategies and priorities were guided by the vision and the goals established in the creative placemaking plan. The vision is that sustained creative placemaking efforts will establish the South Loop as a distinctive destination known for welcoming and using the earth to transform the neighborhood physically, socially, and culturally. And then our goals include ensuring urban design excellence and transforming the built environment. animating public spaces and strengthening the social and cultural fabric, and involving and empowering the people who inhabit and care about the South Loop, elevating and projecting the South Loop's identity, and building capacity to sustain any creative placemaking leadership and champions. And then finally attracting new development and fostering the creative sector through investments. So with that overview, when the Commission developed this work plan, we asked ourselves, given what we know, what strategies do we hope to accomplish in the next three years? And we focused on building capacity, permanent installations, programming, urban design and infrastructure, stakeholder engagement, marketing and branding, and establishing project protocols. So anything to add from my team before I move on? No. Okay, so creative placemaking. I'm going to do a brief overview of events or projects installed or completed in 2019. So in 2018, just as a little background, we released a call for Creative Spark project proposals from creative people of all kinds who were interested and excited about activating the South Loop. So the applicants could present their own ideas to implement and then request a stipend of $500 to $5,000 to help fund their idea as well as some marketing support. the Creative Spark Projects Review Panel looked for projects that would engage South Loop residents, workers, and visitors in creative ways. So the four proposals that were selected by our panel and those that were implemented in 2019 include a temporary 3D installation in the shape of a great horned owl at the Refuge Visitor Center, it's still up today, by artist Gail Katz-James, a music concert at BCS Park organized by the Reflections Social Committee, freestanding temporary pop-up murals that were at BCS Park by artist Rock Martinez, and the Bloomington Cultural Festival at the Refuge Visitor Center. And this was organized by Together Bloomington. Another event that we helped coordinate was the Art Chat Open House. This is outside of our South Loop efforts, but it was supported the Lindale 98th redevelopment efforts. We partnered with Artistry and Springboard for the Arts to coordinate this event in July of 2019. And we invited artists and creative workers to share what type of artist spaces they would like to see in Bloomington, specifically in the Gateway District. But we also distributed surveys to gauge interest and the need in potential spaces for artists. And we shared all of this input and survey responses with the Gateway District consultant, SanTech, in the hopes that artists live, work, or live or work space would be considered in their research stage. We also wrapped two utility boxes in designs inspired by the South Loop by artists Olivia Novotny and Mandel Cameron. We hosted another Creative Happy Hour in August of 2019. So this included food trucks, dance instruction, live music, and artists again provided popular make and take activities for art activities. Brock Martinez also put some final touches on his temporary pop-up murals in the park during the event. We worked with artists Nancy Musanguzi and Adam Davis McGee, who are there featured in the upper left-hand corner there. on an augmented reality tour on Old Cedar Bridge. And this was installed in October of 2019. It can be accessed via Snapchat on your smartphone. It's an informative and entertaining experience inspired by the legacy and the surroundings of the bridge. There are five lenses that you can access along the bridge with different themes. One of them, for example, is a timeline of important dates and historical information of the area. Another is a series of flags that represent the diversity of Bloomington, and you can tap on the flags to hear how to say hello in that language. There's also, of course, a few fun selfie opportunities with local wildlife and an Aurora Borealis lens. So we also provided a couple tours of South Loop at our projects and we worked on the development of the South Loop sculpture and the South Loop mural as well as projects at 86th and Nicollet. We did some engagement there and those projects were all planned to be implemented this year. All right anything from 18 before I move into 2020? A couple seconds. So I'll do a brief overview now of some of the 2020 projects that we had planned. So I just of course have to mention that due to COVID-19 and response to the challenges being faced, we're currently like many others in the midst of reevaluating projects and events. So this may of course impact processes, development, timelines, or budget considerations. So that being said, I'll have an overview of some of the projects that were planned for this year. The first, as many of you are aware of, is the South Loop sculpture, the Songbird, by Donald Lipsky. It's located at the intersection of Old Shakopee and Killebrew, or Willoughby. It's next to a new trail connection that was recently built, the site, and it'll serve as a welcome and an entrance into the South Loop neighborhood. The songbird was the muse for the artist because there are over 250 migratory birds that pass through the refuge and the artist really wanted to honor the refuge as a really important asset to the South Loop. But it's also a theme, a nod to the theme of migration in general, considering the nearby airport, visitors, and the diversity of Bloomington residents. It's currently in fabrication and installation was planned for the end of the summer, but of course that is to be determined and we will keep it posted. The next project that we had planned was a South Loop mural. So considering community feedback and future plan development in the area, the Commission really thought that this would be a great opportunity to enhance the walkability of South Loop and contribute to its identity. So really to tell a story. The wall surrounds a large Excel substation. It faces both American Boulevard and 30th Avenue at 752 feet long. And we did receive approval from Excel to proceed with this project. So in order to be more intentional about our inclusion and diversity goals, we contracted with Forkast Public Art to identify three emerging curators to facilitate the selection process and to mentor and support the finalists, as well as the selected curator as needed throughout the process. The curator is going to identify the artists who would work on the mural. They'd also be in charge of project management, engagement, design development, and installation. So we worked with Artistry to develop the RFP and three emerging curators submitted draft design concept proposals for our stakeholder panel to review and discuss. And those artists were, I'm sorry, curators were me, Rue Villard, Connor Rice, and ArtCrop. Our stakeholder panel selected ArtCrop and the Creative Placemaking Commission approved the panel's recommendation. Our crop consists of three individuals: Christina Vang, who will be in charge of creative direction and as a producer, Tico Yeh, project operations manager, and Oscar Lai, with community engagement and a creative strategist. Overall, the panel and the Commission really just appreciated their overall approach, their engagement ideas, and their design concept. I wanted to take this time just to share a little bit about the theme Again, these images are more design concepts at this point, not a final design, but their theme revolves around tapestry, the idea of tapestry, the idea that Bloomington is where everyone intersects. The city is a touch for people of diverse cultures, generations and backgrounds, angle into a broader story. So they really envisioned the mural as a tapestry that weaves narratives, growth, and opportunity. From originating here, living here, to those visiting, they see Bloomington as a place of convergence, a place where people gather across its landscapes of neighborhoods, trails and parks, community spaces, to the bustling shops and institutions, big and small, creating world-class recreation, entertainment, hospitality, and as a central destination. So they will be curating eight murals and each will be assigned to a different artist and they'll utilize a tiled system that will have polar blocks throughout the wall. All the murals and the blocks will relate to a pre-selected vibrant color theme and those colors will be inspired by the surrounding parks, vegetation, and rivers. And this system will really help maximize the visual impact. It'll simplify the paint process and it'll make the mural as a whole feel more cohesive despite the difference of art styles within each section. Our original timeline for this project has shifted obviously substantially, so we are currently revising our approach and installation timeline and will continue to update it. Another event that we've been working on for this year with staff from various departments including co-ed and public works, also parks and rec, is the celebration of the Old Cedar Avenue Bridge. So it will be in partnership with the Minnesota Valley Refuge Friends. And this event is a celebration of the renovation of the historic bridge as well as area improvements. It's been rescheduled to take place on Saturday, September 26th from 2 to 6 p.m. at the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. We'll potentially include food trucks, performances, nature activities, and more. But of course, with that being said, we're mindful of the current situation and how it's evolving. So we may have to modify the event. We'll keep you posted. Additional projects for this year have included developing more strategies to deepen our equity and inclusion work, a creative placemaking project for 106th Street as part of area construction work, which could include a mural and a lighting installation at the underpass, activating a vacant lot next to Fire Station #3, which could look like native plantings, benches, maybe a small community garden to serve the immediate neighborhood, We've also worked on 86 projects, 86 Nicollet projects that are part of the Council's previous Neighborhood Focus Area Initiative. um and we chose this area and this intersection just as a little background because of 86th street being the longest east to west by connection in the city it also connects to other projects like the bike bridge and the rights lake park mural and it's nestled in a diverse area with residences business senior housing clinics and more it could also serve as an insightful demonstration project of how creative placemaking can impact on everyday traditional place in Bloomington. One project example for instance that we're considering after engaging with the community here are creative wayfinding signs. Tentatively we also planned another creative happy hour and we will begin discussing and planning a second round of creative sparks program, creative wayfinding to the refuge and trailheads within the south loop and a pocket park on Lindau Lane. So much like the Works Progress Administration's federal art project during the depression of the 1930s, many creative placemaking and public art processes and installations really have the potential to uplift the neighborhood spirits, build community resilience, and provide connection and hope. Also importantly support the local economy and support entrepreneurs like artists, particularly BIPOC artists. So that being said, are there any additional comments from the presenting group? Right. City Council Mayor, do you have any additional questions for us or any clarification? Questions from the Council. Any questions regarding the work plan strategies or their work plan for 2020? I do have one if you could. In one of the slides, you talked about your work plan strategies and you listed established project protocols. Could you explain a little bit more exactly what that refers to? Of course, yes. So, you know, when we started, we didn't have processes in place for how to select projects and how to implement them. And so working with artistry, we really developed processes a series of different ways to roll out projects. So that could mean, how do we select artists? Do we use a call for art, invitational, RFP, RFQ? How do we implement stakeholder panels? How do we reach out to people? How do we roll out projects? So it's really about the background kind of administration and project management and the selection criteria and processes for everything that we do. We do have a placemaking checklist in our creative placemaking that we reference, but it's really about the fundamentals of how do we roll projects out and select them. Rachel, anything to add on that? I don't know if we can hear Rachel, but, or team. - Council Member Lohman, you had a question. Well, maybe I do have one question, but then really more of a comment. Just, you know, I really appreciated the statement that during times of depression or times like this, the public art is really a way of uplifting communities. And I imagine as folks walk through the community and have that opportunity to see some of the artwork that we have, you know, within the South Loop and really across are just, it's just a reminder of how important that the work that we do on an ongoing basis. And I'll also use this as a shameless plug for the idea that, you know, hopefully when we get through this, that we continue to look for ways to continue as we already have done. You know, we've got the 106th Street piece piece there in the fire station three and a number of these other items here that are outside of the South Loop to continue to spread community artwork across the city of Bloomington. You had mentioned in your upcoming programs, something that I wanted to highlight, you're looking to do more strategies with equity inclusion strategies. And I know we're not there yet. I know staff is working towards the health and all pieces of that. And I just also want to hope that you will, as that comes to be, you know, depending on where the council goes with that, we'll also include that as you continue to work on on our pieces. So I guess really more comments than the questions. So thank you again for your hard work. All of your whole group. Thank you, Council Member Lohman. Council Member Coulter. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. knowing obviously that we're all kind of flying without a net here for a while with adapting to COVID, you mentioned sort of some re-evaluations and some rethinking going on. And I'm wondering if you could just detail a little more clearly what that process looks like. And, you know, when we, you know, I'm not, you know, it's not like the homework's due tomorrow, but when, you know, when we could see some updates and when we might have more information about how things will look moving forward. Certainly. Thank you, Councilmember Coulter. I think, you know, for example, the things that we're looking at is how do we engage? Engagement is a big part of a lot of our work. So how can we virtually engage and connect with people who are living and working in that area? So some of the processes, for example, with the mural, some of the engagement processes that we might have utilized normally for the development of that mural may not be able to happen because of social distancing efforts. So we have to work with the artists to establish new virtual components or maybe in mail. Maybe some distance measures that we can take. So it's looking at everything from engagement to implementation of projects. So are we able to implement and construct and install projects as normally required? Are there things that we can do to plan for that? So which each I think with almost every project that we're doing, we're revising that and updating those processes. Especially for the mural, we had originally hoped that the mural would actually be installed this year, but of course, you know, this came right in the midst of this pandemic. So now we're thinking maybe the timeline would be elapsed and it would be carried on over to next year for installation. And then working with artists, how do we revise the strategy? So I do think, you know, just like everyone else, it's hard to name a time of when exactly, but I do know that we're doing all the background work right now. So even on a week-to-week basis, we have additional information that we can share on what projects have been developed in what way. I think we're also looking for projects like Creative Spark. our program how can we adapt that to a social distance world how can we adapt what we're calling for for what types of projects or events that we're looking for for the community in response to these times that we're in so i i certainly think within the next month we hope to have more information for the council that we will be able to share in a lot of our projects thank you council additional questions if not i believe next steps here will be uh like they would be for other of our other commissions that the work plan would now come forward to a regular council meeting. We probably have it on the consent agenda for formal and official approval. And so if you have any additional questions, if anything comes to mind after we're done here this evening, I'm sure if you pass them on, they would be open for suggestions in our creative placemaking world. So seeing no more questions, last call. If not, Thank you, Ali, and thank you to Leah and Rachel, and I missed one name. I'm sorry. Kevin. Kevin, excuse me, Kevin. Thank you so very much for being with us this evening, and I appreciate the hard work you do and the beautification that you do for the city of Bloomington. Thank you so very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council. Very good. With that, we can move on to item 2.4, which is our fleet operations evaluation. And... Mr. John Bradford and Carl Keel, I believe you're going to tackle this one for us. And Michael Keim. And Michael Keim. Sorry for forgetting you, Michael. Not a problem. So I'm going to go ahead and share the... Mr. Mayor, if I may, while John is bringing up the presentation, just for the benefit of our... folks who may be watching the council a couple years ago gave direction to the staff that They wanted to see the city regularly reviewing the services that we provide and the way that we do business even beyond the evaluation that we do during our budgeting season and so we have started on a series of more in-depth service evaluations in various divisions or departments within the city. And we tend to take six to eight months maybe to conduct these evaluations, doing a much deeper dive, looking at the level of service we provide, looking ahead to the future a little bit, and looking around to see best practices. So what you're getting this evening is the recommendation from staff following the completion of our fleet operations, which was begun last year. And you might recall from a couple of our other evaluations, we've made some changes to our operation. One such evaluation a couple years ago was of our human services and public Public Health Services and from that Human Services evaluation we created the co-ed which is the community outreach and engagement division so This is another example of our staff doing that in-depth evaluation Making sure that we just don't take for granted that how we've done things is the way that will always do things And certainly appreciate questions from the council after mr. Bradford and mr. Kime are done with the presentation Thank You mr. Verbrugge mr bradford thank you thank you mr mayor council members well as uh uh jamie mentioned we uh we're doing our fleet operations evaluation uh report tonight and the uh there we go so uh the public works fleet what is it that we do we currently have 598 vehicles an additional 407 pieces of equipment with a $5.4 million operations budget and a $2.6 million annual replacement budget. This is all funded through chargebacks to other departments. As you can see on the pie charts to the right, public works, a large contingent of the of the vehicles. And down below, you can see the makeup of the vehicles from sedans to EMT medical trucks and heavy highway trucks. John, if I could interrupt you for just a second, could I ask everybody to please mute their microphones if they're not speaking right now? I'm not sure where we're picking up the background noise, but if you could please mute, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you. John, go ahead. Awesome. I text my parents. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, stand by, John. We might be getting bleed over from something else. I'm not sure where. All right. Maybe it is cleared. I have no idea where that's coming from. John, I'm sorry for the interruption. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll just continue on here. So who we are. We have our fleet manager, Michael Kime, with us tonight. And he has one supervisor. The fleet pays for... an administrative support person. There's nine technicians and three folks that work in our parts and warehouse operations. For what we did, I'm going to hand it over at this point to Mr. Keim to talk about the details of the study and to talk about what we found and where we're going to go from here. Mr. Keim, welcome. Thank you for having me, Council Members. What we did is we wanted to make sure we were objective about our evaluation. So we actually went out and we contracted with Matrix Consulting, who is one of the few consulting groups in the country who specializes in fleet evaluations. They're a national organization and they did complete their study back in 2019, coming back with 19 recommendations for us to improve our services. pretty standard methodology. They came in, they collected a bunch of broad data. They developed stats on our operation based on that data. They did talk to all of our user groups, and then they compared those against industry standards, really looked at our cost recovery system. And again, they came up with some recommendations for us. Overall, we were rated fairly good, three and a half stars overall out of five. Some of the things that our customers appreciated that we are doing well are the quality of our service, lack of comebacks when we fix it. It's fixed right the first time. Timeliness of it, we get the vehicles in and out fairly quickly. That also impacts the availability. The fueling system is reliable. Some of the things that we can definitely improve on is some of our acquisitions and our communications. And then some of the items that they really recommended we improve on is how our wash bay operates and the transparency of our costing. Overall, they said that our acquisition process is sound. Generally use the Minnesota Department of Transportation cooperative bids. If there aren't any available, some of the vehicles we get are unusual, unique. We do go through a bidding process. When we replace vehicles, we have the operator involved as well as their supervisor, technician, and myself. Make sure that we cover all points of view, making sure we're getting the correct vehicle for what they need. Matrix was actually pretty impressed with our staff itself. They said our level of certification was one of the highest that they've seen in any of the places that they've studied. Pretty much all of our technicians are ASE certified master mechanics. I myself am one as well, as well as I have a CAFM, which is a fleet management certification. The software that we use, they also said, meets our needs. Some of the things that they did find, though, was one of the things is our fleet. We don't have enough technicians for the amount of vehicles that we have. As a result of that, we end up having to outsource a little bit more work than what is considered normal. And also, we tend to get a little bit more behind on our preventative stuff, being that there is the volume of work that we need to keep up with. They also pointed out that the fire department has a parallel operation where we repeat a lot of the same things that they are doing, being that they kind of... do the outsourcing of the fire department vehicles on their own. We do work on some of their smaller stuff, but the larger fire apparatus they outsource directly. Another area where we found some duplication of effort is our parts department and our warehouse operation. The parts department is here in the garage where the warehouse operation is a remote location over in the north garage. We have the duplication of efforts as well as we are carrying a little bit too much inventory. Our security is not what it should be, being that both locations are fairly open. And as a result of all of that is we're a little bit more expensive than industry standards. Another thing that they found was that how we get rid of our retired vehicles. As they come out of service, traditionally what's happened is they've gone into a motor pool that gets used for the seasonal staff that comes in using for the summer. It's referred to as a shadow fleet in the industry where it's kind of been evaluated. It's been depreciated off the books, but we still physically have it. Those older vehicles, of course, carry a higher maintenance cost being that they are older vehicles. And they just recommended not doing that as it's not a very strategic approach to it. As I said, our fleet is a little bit older than the industry standards that results in higher maintenance costs, more maintenance needed. and the lower salvage value, so not as much residual value. The graph there is kind of a generic thing that points that out. You're wanting to keep your lowest lifetime cost of ownership. As the older it gets, the more maintenance and operating costs you're going to have and the less residual value you're going to have in the vehicle itself. This has been caused by a backlog in replacement funding. The industry standard, again, is about a 12-year cycle for a mixed vocational fleet like ours is. Where we are funding them currently is just shy of a 16-year cycle. They recommended about 3.2 million, and currently we're about 2.4, 2.6 million. The fleet size, because we do have a fairly large fleet for our size city, they said that there is definitely an opportunity to reduce the number of vehicles. Telematics, which is, that basically shows the vehicle, where it is, where it's been, as well as how much it's actually operated. and get utilization through telematics. It'll pop up trouble codes, stuff like that. And our fuel system, not the physical pumping of it, which seems to work well, but the actual dispensing of it. We have an automated system that they recommended updating as it's fairly old technology. Again, our chargeback system is not transparent. The departments, they don't really understand how the charges have been calculated and they A good chargeback system helps encourage good decisions by the end user. So we are looking at changing that up. One other thing that they noted is that we don't have a lot of written policies. Most of our stuff is through procedures and has not been codified. So that is another area that they noted. One of the things that's kind of glaring and is intermixed in with a lot of our findings is our physical garage building is woefully undersized. It was pointed out the earliest that I see really being pinpointed was 2015-2016 CHESS. The safety organization that we have come to make sure that we're all up to snuff. They actually considered it unsafe, especially in the winter times. When you have the large vehicles in, there's not enough space to go around them. So you actually have to crawl over some of these vehicles to get from one end of the shop to the other. Obviously, Not having enough space actually causes us an efficiency loss. Matrix calculated that to be around $112,000 annually. Looking at our staffing size, that loss of productivity, they would recommend more people based on that loss of productivity. And even if we wanted to hire more people to meet the labor needs that we have, we would be unable to because we don't have any place to physically put them. And it prevents the combination of bringing the fire department in-house as their fire apparatus is very large. So we're going on to what their recommendations were. And we've grouped them into facilities, staffing, fleet operations, communications, the composition of our fleet, and our chargeback system. For the facilities, one of the things they recommended was a set of mobile lifts that are movable around the garage. We'd love to. Currently, as I said, space is at a very much a premium and we don't have enough space for them. Facilities as well, they recommended actually constructing a new fleet garage as we are undersized and also consolidating the satellite operation of the warehouse parts with our parts room here. John, I see you talking, but I cannot hear you. John, you need to unmute if you'd like to join the conversation. Okay. On the staffing. At the time that they did this study, we had a vacancy in the technicians. They recommended that we fill that. That has been done since then. In order to handle the work volume that we have with our current garage size, they said two more full-time technicians would be needed in order to keep current with our workload. As I said, there is no space for more technicians. And if we did have a proper sized building, that two technicians actually drops to one with the efficiency gain of having enough room. Some of the other things that they recommended is getting rid of the other parallel operation of having fleet, having fire determine their own setup as well as having the fleet, you know, combining them under the same. Again, we would need the larger building to be physically able to accommodate those large firefighting apparatus. They recommended that we formalize how we keep mechanics and other staff trained on the technology. One of the things I love about this particular industry is that the technology is always changing, which keeps it nice and interesting, but you do also have to keep up with those changes. And also they ask that we develop a formal system of performance measures. The recommendation for clearing the backlog of overdue PM services using overtime and vendors if necessary. This has been something that has been ongoing in the just over two years I've been with the city. We have dropped it to just about 10% this morning from levels of around 40% of overdue services. They said that we can have some significant cost savings by bringing in a vendor to handle our parts operation in our warehouse located on site. Also to train, have retraining done on our fleet management system. For communications, again, one of the things that they pointed out was that we did not have a whole lot codified. They recommended that we formalize our fleet policy framework. as well as form a fleet committee with some of our major stakeholders just to keep them informed before decisions get made of things that are coming down the pipe for them as i said matrix did do a survey of all of our customers they recommended that we keep doing that with our user departments at least annually make sure that we are on task and that we don't fall behind on some areas that we are currently doing well on again regularly communicating those performance measures to the fleet manage to the city management, our customers and the staff here in the fleet as well for the fleet composition, disposing of the vehicles in a timely manner, not letting them go into that shadow fleet status. If we are keeping something a little bit longer, make sure that the reason for it is being well defined and that it is only short term, a couple months at the longest adopting a cost, uh, Vehicle cost of ownership, lifetime cost of ownership for the different classifications. We have 90 different classifications of vehicles. Going through each of them, they did pinpoint a couple of them that were out of balance with some of the industry standards that they noticed. These specified patrol car sedans and the plow trucks, you know, where we can be saving some money by tweaking them. Also to revise our longer range fleet replacement plans so that we can catch back up to where we should be replacing these vehicles in a timely manner. You don't want to do it all at once because then you're going to have that spike in later years also when it comes time to replace it. So they did recommend metering out, getting caught back up to where we should be. They want us to conduct some right-sizing studies. The telematics I was talking about earlier is something that was needed to do that. For utilization, what you want to look at is how often the vehicle is used, not necessarily how far it's driven. This was really driven home to me by a study that we participated in with Excel when we were looking at electric vehicles, where I had one vehicle that had gone 500 miles in a month and another one that had gone 150 miles. When I looked at the actual telematic data, the one that had gone 150 miles was a higher utilization, being that it got used every day for very short trips, versus the other one which had gone up to Duluth and up to St. Cloud for a couple of conferences. Also, developing a utilization policy for those low-use vehicles. There are some vehicles that have low use, but there is a justifiable need to have them. A good example would be, say, the Bearcat in the police department. It's a vehicle that you don't want to have to use very often, but you do need that in your fleet. The cost recovery system, again, this is something that our customers had the lowest opinion on, just because it always has been fairly opaque. They did have a model that we will be following very closely just to make the charges more transparent so that they know what is driving their costs, and so that gives them a little bit more ability to control their costs. And that's kind of the thousand foot view of recommendations that they had for us. Most of these things, we have plans in place for rectifying them to get us up to where we should be. And that's where we're at. Do you have any questions for us? Council questions. I will chime in right away. The one that jumped out at me that I saw or didn't see, actually, I was surprised in the recommendation. There was nothing about alternative fuel vehicles. I'm wondering if you could address that. Sure. They are looking more at our procedures and stuff. Alternative fuel vehicles are something I personally have a passion for. The industry as a whole is going towards that. I believe there's 30 new electric vehicles coming out this year. Where they make sense, I intend to replace vehicles with alternative fuel. Right now, the charging infrastructure is definitely a pinch point, as well as some of the vehicles. There's a little bit of a VHS beta tape complex going on right now as to what is the best energy storage solution. Currently batteries, they're working and improving the batteries all the time, but they're also looking at hydrogen fuel cells, different ways of storing the hydrogen so that you don't have some of the range limitations that you have with the batteries and the long refuel times. They did not dive into what that should look like in our city. I do know from the Excel study that we did participate in that we do have quite a few vehicles that would be good fits for electric vehicles. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but that's where we're at. That's helpful. Thank you very much. Council Member Martin. Thank you very much. And thank you for the presentation. I guess a couple quick here. So recommendation number two kind of revolved around that comprehensive policy framework. So with matrix product here, do we feel like this is going to give us the guidance necessary to formalize a lot of this policy? I think it's one thing to go from a list of recommendations to kind of all the manuals. So, you know, because of the practice that we're maintaining, we do have a series of pretty good informal policies already in place. And it's really a question of codifying it. Can folks hear me now? Excellent. And so the service agreements is a critical piece that we're missing in that we actually sit down with each department and talk about what services we're going to provide. And we can provide a lot of cost savings in that discussion. So I think that's sort of the meat of the work. But there will be some policy stuff that takes a little bit longer to implement. Perfect. And the other one, so recommendation seven, as was mentioned, kind of focuses on working through eliminating that kind of shadow fleet of vehicles, 16 notes kind of fleet right-sizing study, or moving forward. It had pointed out, obviously, our current garage has issues for our largest equipment, just for our size, but it also pointed out an issue with our beta technology ratio. So as we're kind of whittling out a lot of these older vehicles in that shadow fleet, then you've Are we anticipating that we might see more efficiencies in the existing garage? So it won't be that crush of maintenance work needed? I'll take a stab at it first. The difficulty isn't so much with the smaller vehicles, except for the sheer number of stalls that we have. But when we get the large dump trucks and plow trucks, that's a real issue. But Mike, maybe you want to touch on just a little bit about how many stalls per mechanic you typically have so that while you're waiting for parts, you can be working on another vehicle. Sure. The industry standard for larger vehicles like our plow trucks is having two bays per technician. And on the smaller stuff, like a F-150 per se, one and a half stalls per technician. And the reason for that is parts availability. If a large truck goes down, generally the parts take a little longer to get in, in that they make a couple thousand Western Stars versus 100,000 Fords. So they anticipate that vehicle tying up the stall on occasion. As it is now, being that we basically have a one-to-one technician-to-bay ratio, is if a vehicle has an issue, when we bring it in the shop and we have to partially tear it down in order to diagnose it, you either have to work around it while the part is coming in or put it back together, pull it outside the shop, wait for the part to come in, pull it back inside, and redo the job. That's really where the efficiency fall-off is. As far as the Shadow Fleet and the age of the vehicles, being that they are in the pool, they don't have the same level of service as the vehicles in the standard rotation. So while there would be a little bit less maintenance if we didn't have as many vehicles, the ones in the Shadow Fleet aren't a huge driver of extra labor needed in order to maintain them. Excellent. That makes sense. Thank you very much. councilmember coulter thank you mr mayor um so the my first question and i couldn't quite hear what councilmember martin was asking so maybe this is what you just answered but um you you mentioned the efficiency loss with the the fleet garage and i'm wondering if you could go into just a little more sort of specifics about about what that looks like and i bring that up because I happen to have my copy of the CIP right behind me and notice that's obviously one of the larger ticket items moving forward. And I think it would be helpful not only for the council, but I think for the community to know if we're going to shell out $25 million for new garage, not only, I mean, you know of course we want to be you know good and have new things and all that but i mean when we're talking about specifically this is something that's actually you know costing us what it was 112 000 a year or something like that just by virtue of having too small of space what does that mean how how can you quantify that a little bit sure and i had touched on it a little bit um with the previous question um But how you quantify that is if you do a job and you don't have a space to bring in the next vehicle while you're waiting on parts, you either have to work inefficiently in a space that's not designed to be worked in, or you have to put that vehicle back together to pull it out of the way to bring the next one in. Some of the other things are, as I mentioned earlier, in the wintertime, a lot of times if you have a couple of vehicles, There is no space. You are literally parked nose to nose. So some of the inefficiencies there are you have to get around it. So you're going outside the building to get into the next bay or you're having to crawl over the vehicles to get from one end of the shop to the other. There's a lot of items like that. The lifts, again, they recommend that we get another set of portable lifts in order to maintain the vehicles. We don't have the floor plan, the foot space available to store another set of lifts. So there's a bunch of items that add up together for all those inefficiencies. Thank you. That's really helpful. And I think, you know, sort of my larger point with this is I think, you know, a lot of times folks, and I'll admit I'm certainly one of them, you see these big ticket items, you see these big dollar figures, and you think, wow, we can't possibly have to spend that much, or what happened that got us to this point, right? And so moving forward, as we're thinking about some of these things where there are some upfront costs, to address sort of longer term issues it'd be really helpful to have that information so that we know sort of what is the the order of magnitude that we're talking about what's the the payoff and and how long is that going to take and that kind of thing so thank you sure sure and you had mentioned how we got here i i know our current facility uh we moved into in the 1980s And from the folks who were around at that time, my understanding is we were pretty much undersized from the get go. Council Member Lohman. Thank you. So one item that I just found interesting as I was reviewing the report was this, which is really kind of brought forward in the recommendation number 14, this adopting updates around fleet replacement and cycle recommendations. And, you know, there's several examples in there, but one of the curiosities that I had you know, just with some of those examples, do we know why some of those practices, you know, were, you know were implemented or utilized um you know for example the police uh you know they've had a shorter cycle than other it was there was there a safety reason behind that you know with the plows there was a difference so could you help give a little more uh you know because i i right when i got done with that i'm like well why why was this why is this different um you know uh from our practice in in the city um then i've got another question for you too sure I can't answer how it evolved. I kind of walked into here and that's kind of where they had the standards set at. I do know from having conversations with them recommending going to a little bit longer life cycle that they are a little bit reticent, I think, based on older technology. Which is kind of an issue across the spectrum. A lot of the older technicians, I'm sure you probably heard growing up, maybe 3,000 miles is your oil change interval. Well, technology has changed over the years. That 3,000 miles is now 7,000 miles, 8,000 miles with the synthetic oils and the better manufacturing of the engines. Yeah. Used to be 100,000 miles out of an engine. You did a pretty good job. Now, if you don't get 200,000 out of a personal vehicle, you probably did something wrong. So I think the technology has changed over the years and they just have not updated their standards. And if I could jump in as well, part of it is an honest safety concern. that Chief Potts expressed concerns over suspensions and high-speed chases. And so I think that there's a longer conversation, and we, Mike and I, have an obligation to provide data that shows that if we do switch to a different system, replacement schedule that it is safe for our officers and that the cars will still look good and that the interiors won't be completely gutted from the hard use that they take. And I think that it's a longer conversation than the consultant says this isn't the industry standard and we flip a switch and go to it. Because there are considerations that the consultant makes is not in their lens that they're looking at this issue through. Well, that's good. That's a good, I love that commentary because that gives me a better perspective and understanding of how to kind of look at this report as from a policymaking standpoint and what the impacts would be from the internal customer standpoint as best I can understand it. So I appreciate that commentary. So one thing I just kind of looked at this, you know, from an overall standpoint, if I was a resident out there and they saw, oh, here are these, you know, odd number of recommendations. you know, let's say all these things were implemented, you know, given what you just said, there may be some things we may kind of decide to go a little bit deeper or kind of hold back on. What types of savings would would the city realize over time if we were to, you know, if we look at all this as one big package, and I'm not sure that's even a fair question. So, you know, stop me if you can't do that. But I'm just trying to understand, you know, if we implement all these recommendations, you know, what's in it for the city and for its residents? I don't know if I can quantify altogether as a package. We have broken down different individual portions of it with some quantifiable data. Basically, though, we are what keeps Bloomington running. You know, I might be personally biased in this, that I think we have one of the most jobs in the cities, but we keep the plow trucks on the road. We keep the police department on the road. We make sure that the utility vehicles get to where they need to get to and that the storm lines are clear. So if we implemented everything that is in this report, we would have a much more efficient operation. There'd be a lot less redundancies across the city of people doing the same task. There are some hard dollar savings embedded in some of these things. I know there's one that will be coming before the council here in the next week or two. But as far as an overall package together, I would be a little hard pressed to quantify this much savings each and every year in aggregate. - That's fair, thank you. - Council Member Beloga. - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Michael, you'll have to forgive me 'cause I'm an old numbers guy, okay? And I've got a blind spot through here. And the blind spot is, and it's with respect to a particular issue, and that is the facility. So as Councilmember Koltier pointed out, we're losing $112,000 annually in efficiency. Okay, that's the gist of the report. And yet the recommendation is to spend $25 million to capture that $112,000 of savings plus safety and some other benefits, okay? Okay. And if I just look at what the cost of $25 million structure is to the residents of our city, not counting issuance costs, but making some assumptions that we're going to retire the bonds in 10 years and have a 3% interest rate on those for that average period of time, all these are just my assumptions. So, you know, Lori may have a different set of assumptions. You might have a different set of assumptions, but you get remarkably close to $3 million a year for that building over that 10 year period of time. So tell me where I'm wrong that the net recommendation for the building is, is that we want to spend $3 million to save $100,000. in efficiency. I'll jump in on this one. Okay. Council member Beloga, you know, no one is making the value proposition that we replace the fleet building or construct a new fleet building so that we save $115,000. I think that's one of the pieces of information that's important in the consideration for the building. For me, frankly, it's mostly about the safety issue and the fact that we're having to have mechanics climb over vehicles as they're doing their work, the fact that they're overcrowded. One of the things that I've seen in that building is when they have one of the dump trucks elevated on a lift to work under it, they can't move the crane all the way across the bay because the truck sticks up too high. It's these sort of things. And you're right. We will not see a dollar for dollar payback on the building through the savings for it. But the values of our buildings probably never work that way when we add it on to public works. I'm sure that the previously I'm sure that that the numbers didn't work out that way for that operation. But you're right, it will not add out to a dollar for dollar savings. So, and I expect that that would be, you know, the logical answer. And even if we approved and undertook the build of building today, we'd probably look at by the time this was cited, designed, financed, constructed, you know, roughly three years. And if safety is our driving consideration, and if it's not, that should be one of the major things, the safety of those people working in there. Why don't we make it safe by outsourcing the kinds of equipment that cause those safety issues today? One of the major issues that we're facing with the outsourcing that the fire department is facing is, frankly, the availability of getting their equipment back in a timely fashion. So they have difficulties on occasion scheduling the major maintenance for some of the fire vehicles, some of the engines. And that's why Yuli has been particularly interested in having the capacity to do his own maintenance and do it with the fleet. It's the same sort of thing when we talk about the snow plows. We're at three in the morning and out plowing and something goes wrong with one of those vehicles. We always staff the fleet garage when we're plowing because they can bring it right into the shop and we get it fixed and it's right back out on the road. So I would say that's probably the major consideration for not outsourcing those services. And I would jump in also as far as the cost savings. You know, the efficiency of the technician, that is one aspect of it. But there's other savings that we would have as well. You know, as I said, the facility we moved into, we moved into back in the 80s. And since that time, there have been a lot of code changes so that, you know, like the the retaining area or the oil, the used oil and such. We're barely at the limit that's acceptable right now. You want to have a little bit of cushion. You don't want to be on that fine razor's edge for some of these things because one big environmental event would rack up some bills pretty quickly. We are going to have a one to one building is going to save us this much money. We won't have that. I'm not going to be here and tell you that it is, but it is something that is pretty well needed. Not to be somebody else has it. We should as well. But most of the other facilities in the area that do the similar things that we do when you look at what they have versus what we have, we're living in a different century. This is Carl. Can you hear me? Yes. So I would note, too, that when we moved in in 1980, that was an old building that preexisted. So that building is built in the early 60s, so it's pushing 60 years old. So the replacement of that building has benefits from a cost efficiency or or an efficiency of operations point of view and from a safety point of view. But the other part of it is that that asset has reached the end of its life and needs to be replaced, much like any other building that's reached the end of its life. Thank you, Carl. And if I could chime in also, if I could ask a question of Mike and John. So this is an extensive evaluation, and there's a number of recommendations here, but nothing in this evaluation of the recommendations binds us to building a new fleet services building. Is that correct? This is not a commitment to build a new fleet services building if we accept these recommendations. No, not at all. We know it's in the CIP, but I think from a practical standpoint, as Council Member Beloga said, it's years off in the future, if at all. But we have a number of recommendations in addition to the recommendations that come in some way associated with a new fleet services building. That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Carter. I'm sorry, Council Member Beloga, had you finished your questioning? I did. I just, I was stuck on that issue. And frankly, thank you, Carl, because I believe that that maintenance structure was opened in the mid 80s to, you know, somewhere in that neighborhood. So I was looking at a 30, 35 year old structure, not a 60 year old structure. So. uh appreciate that data so very good councilmember carter thank you mr mayor so i'm probably asking A very similar question that others have asked, but I just want to make sure that I'm super clear and for those listening that it's super clear for them. So the recommendations include things like filling open positions and buying mobile lifts and eventually a new fleet shop. But I'm also hearing that we have one of the largest fleets or we have a very large fleet for a city of our size. And, um, and that we need to do this right sizing study, but am I also understanding that much of that size issue is due to that shadow fleet that we shouldn't have any way for efficiency sake. And it's, it's just decreasing our numbers because of the shadow fleet. Correct. The shadow. That makes sense. It does make sense. You have a large fleet for a city our size. The shadow fleet when I started was about 60 units. We've halved that to 30 units out of the shy of 600. Where a lot of the right sizing can be done is in the low utilization vehicles. It's not any one department. It's a couple here, a couple there, a couple over here. And the bigger issue with the Shadow Fleet is it kind of drops off of the radar when it comes to fleet replacements. And that ends up causing you more issues with, again, a loss of revenue by not selling these vehicles when it should. So... Do you anticipate, you know, if we go through this right sizing study, and I can't remember what year it said that would be done or finished, that there could be implications or an outcome that maybe we decrease our fleet size and wouldn't need some of these other investments? Or are these investments going to be needed most likely regardless of the outcomes of that study? The other recommendations that they have would be needed regardless of the right size. How we're set up as the city for the fleet really is going to be holding upon the individual department to tell us what they need. And right now, the general gist of it is they feel like they need more vehicles than what they actually do. That's where it comes back to the chargeback system. Where right now it's a little bit opaque, like showing them more clearly where they're spending their money will enable them to make better decisions as to where they're spending. The other piece of that, if I could hop in, is we're making a very concerted effort to make pool vehicles much easier to use than they have been in the past. So that... We have keys available in City Hall for departments to grab a key and use a vehicle with online tracking of checking the vehicles in and out so that we don't have to either station a person at City Hall or make that person come over to Public Works in order to make that work. And I think that if we can demonstrate the ease of this kind of a system to the departments, It's going to be a lot easier to get buy-in on a different model of doing business. And I'm going to also follow up here is part of it is the data, the utilization data. Where it starts making sense for a department to own a vehicle themselves is if they utilize it at minimum of three days a week. Some of these departments, when I talk to them, they're like, oh, yeah, we use it all the time. When you actually look at how much they're actually using it, they might use it one day this week. They might use it three days next week, but then they're back down to two days. So they might not make the connection that they aren't actually utilizing that vehicle as much as they need to for it to be a financially sound decision. Okay, that's super helpful. Thank you both. Council Member Nelson. All right, hopefully you can hear just a quick follow-up. - I'm sorry, did you hear that one? - I think he asked a question about the use of personal vehicles and the reimbursement, whether or not that that would be cost effective in the long run. Is that right, Council Member Nelson, did I get it? - Yes. Yes and no. Financially, if everything is good, it's good. However, by utilizing personal vehicles, my personal preference is not to, just because you start running into liability issues. If it's a city vehicle, we know it's been inspected, it's been maintained, it has the insurance on it. If somebody's using a personal vehicle, there's a chance that they're out there underinsured in a vehicle that may not be safe. And if there was an accident, you know, who's the party with the deep pockets? That's why I personally don't encourage the use of personal vehicles. Occasionally, yeah, but not as a matter of course. Council, unless there's anything pressing, I'm going to move us forward here. And I will ask both Mike and John, this, as I said, was a comprehensive evaluation and there were a lot of recommendations and would like a commitment from you to come back at a future date to update us on how you're doing meeting the recommendations, not necessarily building a new fleet building. If you get one built and we don't notice it, we'll let you know. We'll bring it up. For the many recommendations and the sound recommendations, policy, operational, a number of different things. If we could get an update, Mr. Manager, at some point in the not too distant future, I see you have dates or at least general quarters identified as to when you hope to accomplish some of these recommendations. We'd like to hear back from you on how it's all going. Absolutely. Great. Thank you. Council, one last call. Anything? If not, thank you, John. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Carl. Thank you, Council Members. That will move us on to item 2.5, our 2020 and 2021 budget discussion. Kari Carlson is with us. Are you there, Kari? I believe Kari Carlson is with us and Lori Economy Scholler. I'm here. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. There you are, both of you. All right. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. I'm going to bring up my presentation. All right. Can everyone see my presentation? It is on the screen. Wonderful. Well, again, good evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight, we will be discussing 2020 and 2021 budget information. First, I will review the 2020 general fund impact as well as some additional options for addressing a worst case scenario caused by the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, I will talk about the economic impact on the utility water and wastewater funds. Then I'll talk about options for 2021 and beyond. And at the end, I'll give some information on impacts to property taxes. So first, starting with the general fund impact for 2020. So as presented at the April 20th Council meeting, a worst case scenario for the general fund in 2020 is projected at $17.8 million shortfall, which is 22% of the $79 million general fund budget. And that breaks down between $8.9 million projected loss of lodging and admission taxes in a worst case, $6.9 million in delinquent property taxes and $2 million in reduced permit, licensing, programming, and fine revenue. The strategies for reducing some of the $17.8 million projected shortfall were projected last week at the council meeting. And that included service reductions, deferring capital spending, and utilizing some of the general fund balance reserves. Tonight we would like to present the Council with additional options to consider in order to address this worst case $17.8 million scenario that could happen. For example, if there's a major increase in delinquent property tax payments. These additional strategies include utilizing the reserve set aside for the pool vessel replacement that's scheduled for 2026 and issuing debt for that project instead. utilizing a portion of the compensated absences fund reserve, and utilizing a portion of the strategic priorities fund reserve. These are possible solutions to address a worst-case year-end 2020 financial scenario. And I want to point out they are part of a plan to address 2020 budget shortfalls if needed. and after the 2020 financial results are finalized, which won't be until late January or early February of 2021. Last week I shared that the City had already identified $2.9 million in service reductions as an immediate response in order to reduce $2.9 million from the budget. The city furloughed 63 employees and laid off seven employees. We decided to dramatically reduce the number of summer seasonal employees. We're leaving some unfilled full-time positions open and delaying hiring on other open positions. Departments reduced budgets for contract services, maintenance, and repairs. We reduced supply budgets related to canceled programs. We cut budgets for training and travel, and we eliminated pavement seal coating for 2020. Some more information about personnel costs. Personnel costs are a large portion of the city's operating budget. The city is in the service industry, and services are delivered by people. Where we have closed services and/or canceled programs, we have laid off or furloughed employees. So in motor vehicle, passports, Creekside, Ice Garden, and Parks and Rec, those are the areas where employees have been laid off or furloughed. And 57 part-time and six full-time employees are currently furloughed. And seven part-time employees have been laid off. And we have shifted gears on contract negotiations with unions and are working on just one-year contracts instead of two-year contracts. due to the unknowns about 2021 and beyond. So we are early in this crisis. There are still a lot of unknowns. Any broad changes to staffing levels should be based on information and discussion with council about service expectation. And that's starting tonight and will continue. We have highly trained and experienced employees that cannot just be easily replaced down the road. The federal government is taking historic steps to help private sector businesses keep people on their payroll. There's the same benefit to keeping public employees working and supporting their families. And there's added complexity of how cities in Minnesota pay for unemployment. We are a reimbursing employer. which means we pay any unemployment benefits provided to our laid off employees directly and this significantly diminishes diminishes and delays the savings to the city from reducing its workforce especially if that reduction was intended to be temporary at this time demand for most city services remains stable and we do need staff to deliver those services For deferred capital spending, as mentioned last week, we deferred $730,000 in capital spending. And so far that includes a fire department brush truck, exterior restroom remodel at the Bloomington Family Aquatic Center, delaying some purchasing of the fleet vehicles, seven fleet vehicles that we've not purchased yet, and delaying purchase of a new fleet fuel system. Also a list of additional 2020 capital purchases and construction projects that could be delayed are also all under review. And as we talked about last week, the latest projections for 2019 positive budget variance were good. And combined with reducing our fund balance goal from 40% of revenues down to 35% of revenues would be approximately $6.7 million It could help offset part of the 2020 budget shortfall or a potential shortfall. The City of Bloomington's general fund balance policy does allow for a fund balance range from between 35 to 40 percent of total revenues. And this follows the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor's recommendation to have a minimum of 35% of general fund revenues in reserve to provide adequate funds until the next property tax election. One of the additional strategies we are presenting tonight, if needed, for addressing 2020 budget shortfalls, is using the money set aside for replacement of the Bloomington Family Aquatic Center pool vessel that is planned for 2026. Rather than paying with cash, we could borrow funds by issuing debt instead. This would free up $4.5 million. Parks and Recreation will be taking the opportunity of this summer's pool closure to do a more detailed analysis on when the pool shell will need to be replaced and the cost of that replacement. We have been levying funds and setting aside money for the pool replacement since 2009. We want to emphasize that this should not be seen as a sign that we don't plan to continue operating the pool, but there is time to plan for different funding options for the pool. The Compensated Absences Fund is the internal service fund that pays and records the liabilities associated with employees' accrued time off, such as vacation and personal leave. It is currently funded at 88% of the total liability with a long-term plan of being 100% funded. Decreasing that fund balance to 80% of the liability would free up $1,250,000. Going below 80% funding of the liability does risk a credit rating downgrade. And then the Strategic Priorities Fund is used for funding Council strategic priorities initiatives. It is funded by general fund, positive budget variance, and/or direct property tax levy. In the past, it has helped to fund neighborhood infrastructure and park improvements, Old Town Hall refurbishing and repairs, American Boulevard and Lindale Avenue public improvements, Interstate 494 and the 169 construction project, and fire pension obligations. The available balance is $4.2 million in the strategic priorities fund. We propose using $1.7 million of that, if necessary, for a remaining budget shortfall. The available balance of $4.2 million is assuming that we will still be transferring $300,000 this year to the HRA for their loan program that will be brought to Council in May and transferring $100,000 to Community Development to fund commercial node studies. Council approved $300,000 to fund commercial node studies over two years ago, and Community Development has spent $200,000 of that and has plans for the remaining $100,000 in 2020. So now I'm going to go into some impact of the pandemic on the utility funds, specifically the Water Fund and Wastewater Fund. This is a graph of water demand from February 1st to April 23rd. The red line represents demonstrates average water demand over the last seven years. The blue line is 2020 daily demand. There is a drop-off that starts on March 13th of water demand when the peacetime emergency was declared, along with an additional drop-off on March 16th when restaurants and bars were closed. Also highlighted on this graph is March 27th when the Stay Home Minnesota directive began. This graph was just updated last Friday and you can see a recent uptick at the end in water use and most likely this is due to warming weather and a lack of rain last week. Shown on that previous graph, the past month has shown a reduced demand for water overall. Some hospitality, commercial and industrial customers are closed or at reduced capacity and not using as much water. It is too early to tell on residential demand as the utility building water meter reads for single family residential properties are done every two months. The data is delayed whereas commercial reads are done monthly. If the March trend continues, we would estimate 1 million gallons per day reduction in demand. However, weather plays a large role in affecting water demand and a dry spring or summer resulting in increased irrigation could go a long way toward offsetting the reductions we are seeing now. But with a reduction of 1 million gallons per day for both water and wastewater, the total potential impact equals $2.7 million of reduction in revenue. So demand for water is down and many of our costs are fixed. However, some expenses have been reduced. such as not hiring seasonal employees and some utility capital projects planned for 2020 may also be deferred. Also, it is possible that our expenses for water treatment chemicals will be reduced if actual production is down. The Water Fund ended the year at $5.6 million, which is only 72% of its goal for funding operations and future asset infrastructure replacement. However, the wastewater fund ended the year at $8.9 million, which is 115% of its goal. So reserves have been built up over time to pay cash for utility infrastructure replacement. Spent now, funds will need to be rebuilt. Utility funds can likely weather the economic impact of this pandemic, but are not in a position to support other city operations. We will balance the utility budget if needed by a combination of reducing expenses, deferring capital projects, and spending some of those utility reserves. Next up, preparing for 2021 and beyond. So things to consider going forward is that lodging and admission taxes will likely be slow to recover. We need to control the tax levy and we need to look at what the city can and should stop doing. So one service that staff is proposing to eliminate is the motor vehicle operation. The Bloomington Motor Vehicle Deputy Registrar's Office has been providing driver's license and motor vehicle license services since 1971. The Motor Vehicle Office is currently closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and here are the reasons why staff is recommending that it remains closed permanently. The fee revenue does not support operating costs and the city has no control over the fees because they are set by state statute. There was $125,000 of property tax support budgeted for 2020 and tax support was projected to increase to $250,000 for 2021 and beyond with increases. Service is available from other sources, primarily the county. Bloomington is one of only a handful of Hennepin County cities operating its own DMV. Most cities rely on the county for the service. If the service does continue, we will need to invest in a different facility, service modernizations, and staff training for a new driver's license software. If discontinued, 7.8 full-time employees, which is six full-time and three part-time positions, will be eliminated. Creekside Community Center is another recommendation is that it also remains closed. This is also an aging facility that has outlived its useful life. Many of the programs and events can be provided by using other city facilities when it is safe for seniors to congregate again. The current budget for Creekside relies on one million dollars in property taxes we could save 700 000 of that by operating programs out of other city facilities staffing would be reduced from 8.4 to 3 full-time employees and of course there will be more details to be worked out if council concurs with this proposal last area is impact on property taxes So the COVID-19 pandemic will have a multi-year impact on the city's budget. Each year from 2020 to 2022 will most likely get more difficult. City revenues are on a different timeline than residents. Residents' ability to pay taxes is being impacted right now. The city's primary tax base, which is from property values, won't see the full impact until 2022. So tax levy decisions will need to factor in both of these things. There will be no impact on 2020 taxes. Property valuations and the city tax levy are final for 2020. Property tax statements have already been mailed. 2021 property valuations are largely set. And of course, the city tax levy is yet to be determined for 2021. And then 2022 property valuations, that is when we are going to start to see the impact of the economic downturn. And of course, the city level is also to be determined for 2022. The median value home changed very little from 2020 to 2021, the property valuation. In 2020, the median value home was valued at $283,900. And in 2021, it's at $286,400. What this means is that if the city's 2021 tax levy is flat, meaning a 0% increase, the city tax impact to the homeowners should also be flat. This is very different from the tax levy change from 2019 to 2020, where changes in property values magnified the tax impact of the city's 2020 tax levy. We don't expect that same challenge for 2021. The 2020 total city tax levy that was approved is $64.7 million. $59.2 million was for operations, and 5.5 million was for debt service. This is a chart just showing different options for 2021 tax levy increase and decreases compared to the 2020 tax levy. You can see a change of 1 to 2% either increase or decrease is a range from almost $650,000 to about $1.3 million. These last three slides I have are different scenarios to highlight some of the different possibilities. There's a lot of different variables, but these are three different starting possibilities for a 2021 tax levy. This first scenario, scenario A, is a flat or a 0% tax levy increase. So just going through this slide, it shows the final 2020 tax levy. that's in pink on the far left. And then the preliminary 2021 tax levy projections that we were looking at just last year before all of this are in the middle of blue. And this was just kind of a starting place that we were looking at. So that was in blue in the middle. And then the green section on the far right is scenario A with a 0% tax levy increase. So in this scenario, this could be accomplished by not levying property tax for motor vehicle if it was closed, not levying $600,000, the amount for going towards a 2026 pool vessel replacement, if we issued up for that instead, as well as reducing the property tax levy to the golf fund by $200,000. And this would delay addressing that $650,000 deficit we still have for Highland Greens that we're trying to overcome. This scenario would allow for an increase in the general fund of only $925,000 compared to the original 2.1 million projection that we were looking at before. Part of this could be accomplished by closing Creekside. This reduction, the reduction in debt service from the original projection that's in blue there would not include modeling for a dome that had been projected before, a dome with a school district or the Dred Scott Phase 1 lighting program. Also, to keep the levy for debt service flat, a decision would need to be made about issuing approximately $9 million in permanent improvement revolving fund bonds this fall or how to pay for that additional debt service. The median value home monthly tax amount would change slightly in the scenario from $89.73 a month in 2020, actually down a little bit to $89.13 a month, just with how the property valuations for residential work out. This one's scenario B. The second scenario, this would have a 1% tax levy increase. And the difference between this scenario and the last one is that it includes approximately, it does include the $9 million in PIR fund bonds, which is, that equates to about a $424,000 increase in debt service. It also includes an additional $226,000 that here we have for strategic priorities. It also could be used for the general fund. In this scenario, a median value home monthly tax amount would increase by about 30 cents from $89.73 to $90.03. And then this one's scenario C. So this is showing a 1% tax levy decrease. In this scenario, the general fund would only increase by 282,000 as opposed to the original projection in the blue there of 2.1 million. So that is the end of my presentation. So we'd just like your feedback on some of these different options for looking at how to address if there are major shortfalls in the 2020 budget and some of these options for approaching the 2021 budget. Well, thank you, Kari, for the aid right there. Much appreciated. We're getting some wicked news. Some nasty in the council changes. Council member Lohman, while we get this figured out, you had a question. Certainly, I've got quite a few here. One thing I wanted to say right off the bat is how much I appreciated in your presentation, Kari, that you I did not. - Just to clarify my question very well in the last council meeting, one of the things I wanted to know was what the difference would be for those taxpayers coming out of 2019 into 2020, if they were going to see a shock like they saw in the last council meeting like they did at the end of last year, at the end of this year. And so I just want to be sure that I understood that correctly, Kari, that from what I understand that was written there, the city's 2021 tax levy is flat. The city's tax impact to homeowners should be, for the most part, flat for those residents that are coming into this year. Correct. The information from assessing with property values, it would not be the same as last year. So it's basically if there was a no increase in the tax levy, the same, there wouldn't be an increase on median value home. And I'm not going to ask this question right now, but I would be interested in, because we don't have the data right now, what would happen next. For next year, kind of going, I don't want to ask that right now because we need to see the data, but I'd be curious to see what that looks like. So, to get into my questions that I have. So, if we look at motor vehicle, which is one of the recommendations that were kind of move forward, I can't recall if we have done a service evaluation of the motor vehicle at all. Councilmember Lohman, this is Chris Wilson stepping in to answer that question. We have been working on an in-house service assessment of motor vehicle. If you look to the other service assessments that were planned over the last 12 months, there were three others. And there were resources in all of those budgets to hire a consultant to come in and do those service assessments. We didn't have those resources available in the motor vehicle budget. So the motor vehicle office supervisor, the city clerk and myself have been trying to complete a service assessment and have yet to fully complete that. Work has been done on it, but it has not been finalized yet, given election operations and some staffing issues in motor vehicle and so on. So one thing I noticed is that, you know, like our public health department, We're kind of, you know, as stated on the slide, we're kind of an outlier in terms of having this motor vehicle. And I just wanted to understand, you know, what's the history back in 1971? You know, a lot of things were happening in Bloomington. We have a public health and we have this motor vehicle. Do we know why? And I assume that that would be something we'd look at in our service review. But do we have any history on that? Councilmember Lohman, I do not know why the city, you know, originally created the Deputy Registrar's Office. You're correct that we are an outlier. There are 45 cities in Hennepin County. Only Bloomington and five others have a city-operated Deputy Registrar's Office, and Bloomington is the only Deputy Registrar's Office that is attempting to provide full service through our Deputy Register. The others do more limited scope of services than our office does. So we are definitely an outlier in that. I don't know off the top of my head how that came to be. So we can look into that more, but I don't, I'm sorry, I don't have that answer for you right now. That's fine. That's okay. And I just want to much so get these questions out there. I figure that's kind of what we're doing here in the study here. So with public health, I know if we were to eliminate that, we would no longer be able to have that. Is that the case with the public registrar motor vehicle here in Bloomington? If we were to eliminate that, what would we get that? - You have to be approved for a deputy registrar's office by the state of Minnesota Department of Driver and Vehicle Services. And it is unlikely that if we gave up our deputy registrar, we would be approved because they require a 10 mile radius between offices. and we are grandfathered in currently we don't meet that 10 mile radius as we sit today which is also creating a challenge for us in finding a possible new facility for that office because we have you know it's unclear how they would apply that 10 mile radius to us if we attempted to move to a different location than the one we are currently at. But I believe it is unlikely we would be able to reopen a deputy registrar office if we close ours. So, I mean, certainly I have other questions about that, but the one comment I would say is that one of my concerns that once things kind of go back to normal, we don't know when that would be, that what you just said kind of concerns me. I'd be very interested to see what service level evaluation would bring back. But, you know, we look at the wait times that we go through. I can think about the last time I went. I just wanted to see what it was like to go over to Edina to get my license. I had to wait a very long time, and that just isn't the case when I'm in Bloomington. So I'd really want to be sure that we're evaluating and making the right decisions, especially when you add all of our residents to that Hennepin County and where those folks would end up going. I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY KIND OF BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT ESPECIALLY IF WE CAN'T GET THIS BACK UM SO JUST THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT TO THE REST OF THE MY COLLEAGUES HERE ABOUT THAT COUNCILMAN IF I COULD JUMP IN ALSO UH JUST TAKING NOTE THAT EVEN BEFORE THE PANDEMIC THE UH TAXPAYER FUNDED SUPPORT OF OF MOTOR VEHICLE WAS WAS SLATED AT 250 THOUSAND DOLLARS THIS YEAR THAT'S EVEN BEFORE THE PANDEMIC hit and we had the impact. So just so you're clear on that, it's been a hundred and a quarter for a number of years and it was scheduled or expected to go up to a taxpayer support of $250,000 a year in the coming years. Absolutely. No, I'm very, very aware of that, but I just want to be sure that we are evaluating that. Once you get rid of it, it's gone. It's the same thing with the public health. So I just want to be sure that if we decide we're going to do that, I want to be real clear that we're doing that. where it makes sense and maybe it makes sense to reduce this until we figure out exactly what, what makes sense kind of move forward. Um, I've got some other questions, mayor. So let me kind of move forward with those. Um, I want to make sure on the colleagues get the opportunity to ask. So, um, um, one of the things, car that I wanted to have you, um, uh, help me understand is when you talked about the city being a reimbursing, uh, and just help me understand how that's, I mean, I've been in the private sector and kind of in a quasi kind of, help me understand how that's different, furloughing and layoffing from the private sector to the public sector and what that impact is for us. Because I'm not sure I'm quite following that. So we're still paying these folks, even if they're furloughed and laid off? And how is that different than the private sector? - I believe Ms. Wilson can answer that one for us as well, council member. - Council member Lohmann, yes, this is Chris Wilson again. Cities in Minnesota, the cities I have experience working for, and I believe most, if not all cities are what's called a reimbursing employer. So whereas most private sector employers pay a monthly unemployment insurance premium or tax, to the state sort of every payroll cycle. The cities do not. We don't pay any money into unemployment on an ongoing basis as part of our regular payroll processing. But when we have a laid off or former employee who files for unemployment insurance, the state calculates what percentage of their income during the look back period the city paid and we are responsible for that percentage of their unemployment insurance. So if we were their only employer we were 100% of their wages during the look back period and therefore we get a bill for 100% of the unemployment insurance benefits The state actually provides them with the benefit, and then they just send us a bill to reimburse the state for that cost, hence the title of being a reimbursing employer. So that would be 13 weeks that we'd pay 100% beyond that. Does it matter if you're furloughed or laid off? I believe it's more than 13 weeks, at least at the moment. I think it's... either 26 or it may be all the way up to a year right now. I have lost track of the expansions that I have. We are not paying them 100% of their salary. We're paying 100% of the unemployment benefit that they are entitled to. So I don't mean to present that there is no cost savings to the city, but it certainly diminishes at least our short-term cost savings, especially if, say, they're laid off for eight weeks and then we bring them back. And then if we laid them off again, we would start all over again with paying their unemployment benefits. So it's a different reality. We are already tracking our unemployment liability in the week so far. And our rough estimate is we're up to $180,000 in exposure with just the part-time staffing positions and limited number of furloughs that we have done. So. It's not an insignificant cost to us. No, that does not sound that way at all. Thank you very much. I think I've, I've asked my three questions, mayor. So I'm going to let somebody else get a, get a shot at asking questions here. Thank you. All good questions. Council member. I appreciate it. Council member Coulter. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So first of all, Kari, thank you for all this information. This is really helpful. And I, I want to just highlight the comments you made about the, the need to balance the, uh service and staff reductions with demand for city services because i i think as we continue that this conversation it's very easy and very natural for us to look at the dollar figure and say you know this is this is the only thing people care about is how much their tax how much money the city is spending and i think a lot of people do care about that but we need to remember that there is still going to be, and in many ways, like you said, there's still very consistent demand for city services, and those services have a cost that someone has to foot the bill for. And the other thing that I wanted to highlight that you mentioned was the benefit to keeping people employed. And I was planning on making this point anyway, so you beat me to the punch. we just need to be clear that when folks get laid off, when folks' jobs are eliminated, those are folks who aren't make money anymore and they're not able to go out and buy the things that they normally would. So while in the grand scheme of things, the city of Bloomington is not, you know, we're not making or breaking anyone's budget. I think it is important to note the impact that it has to our community, to the region when folks are out of a job. So that was just sort of what I wanted to begin my comments with. I wanted to ask about the compensated absence fund. And I want to make sure, first of all, that I understand it correctly. So it's when city employees accrue leave, then they leave and go elsewhere for employment or whatever, the city pays out that unused leave. And And that's what that uncompensated absence fund goes to. Is that correct? Is there anything else that that fund is used for? That is correct. That is what that fund is for. And so when you say the goal is 100% coverage, forgive me for asking this bluntly, does that mean that that fund is ready at, I mean, the goal is to have that fund ready at all times? so that if every single city employee left their job at the exact same time, we'd have enough to pay out all of that on a crude leave? Yes, that is correct. That is the goal. I mean, historically, we've been more around 90% of that goal. Okay. And I guess, and knowing obviously that we're not at the goal now, I guess, you know, I'm not, you are the finance minds, not me. I guess I question why 100% is a goal for that since we don't, I would think anticipate that there will be any time where every employee in the city will leave at the same time. I hope that's not the case because I don't know how to drive a snowplow for one thing. So that's more just a sort of a comment there. Council Member Coulter, if I can invite Ms. Economy Scholler to chime in on that one. Mayor and Council Member Coulter, when we look at our credit rating analysis and talking with our credit rating agencies, they do look at this fund and they ask us, when are we going to meet our goal? And so we tend to stay right around the 90% mark and keep pushing out reaching that goal for five to seven years. So it is a floating goal. Don't intend to really make that goal at 100%. If we can keep it right around the 90%, that seems to be where our credit rating agencies are comfortable. That's helpful. That's important context. Thank you for that. And then the other question I had was, I recall last year as a result of the failed rollout of MNLARS that our motor vehicles office received a chunk of change from the state to sort of compensate for some of the loss. Has that all been spent? That's all been allocated and spent or? Councilmember Coulter, this is Chris Wilson again. I would say it was not planned to be spent in this budget year. We had set it aside to hopefully finish out some kind of new space for our motor vehicle office in the coming years. But I suspect over the last five weeks with our office closed and bringing in no revenue that it may have been spent now. the council is not going to be able to close it. So we would have to reevaluate our motor vehicle fund when the situation changes. Either when we open back up and revenue starts coming back in or if the council were to make the decision to close it. more that has gone out of our motor vehicle budget than has come in for the calendar year. So while we didn't anticipate spending that money in 2020, it may have been spent by this unforeseen situation. Okay. So I guess my question is, and I would like some follow-up on that and to know for sure, if there is any of that money that we received from the state that's left over, what happens to that if we decide to shut down modern vehicles. It's unrestricted funds to the state. Motor vehicle revenues are unrestricted revenues. We keep ours in a separate fund, but other cities take them in as revenue into their general fund, just like building permit revenue or park and rec program fees and so on. Okay. So just to clarify, I want to make sure I understand this, that if there is any of that information, minlars reimbursement funding left it's not as though i mean we don't run any risk of losing that or or something if we were to shut down motor vehicles it's not dedicated specifically to motor vehicles offices correct okay thank you um and then the only other comment i had is as far as creekside you know i think this gets back to what i was referring to earlier as far as what is the value proposition that we're looking at here? And we know, and I certainly have gone on the record as not necessarily being in favor of investing anymore in Creekside, but we know that a lot of folks get a lot of value out of what happens there. And so if we do indeed decide to shut Creekside down, Well, I guess what I would say is even before I could make that decision, I need to know what is currently, well, I guess nothing is currently happening at Creekside, but what has been happening at Creekside that can go elsewhere and specifically where it could go so that, you know, if we do indeed make that decision, what is the sort of continuance of services and programs and activities and so on that will continue, be it elsewhere, and perhaps more importantly, what will not? Because I think for me, you know, the cost is what it is, but the biggest factor in my decision is going to be what what will continue to happen with the things that go on it that have gone on at Cree side. That's obviously not something I know I can get an answer on tonight. But I just want to be clear that that is where my head is on that. And that's going to be a major factor in my thinking. Very good point, Council Member Coulter, and very important questions. And I think it's important to remember that this is a The start of the conversation, and there's going to be a lot more conversation, there's going to be a lot of significant detail provided based on questions like the ones that you just asked. And so I think the more of those questions that we can get on the table to frame our discussion as we move forward, the better equipped we'll be to make decisions as to how to proceed into the future. Council Member Martin. Thank you very much, Mayor. And just first off, a big thank you to staff. you look on social media and folks say cut this slash that but these are folks that work their tail off for residents and their colleagues and their friends as council member uh culture alluded to these are people's last time so thank you for all i guess uh off the back here i'm also curious what kind of programming could migrate inside elsewhere and in particular uh our connections with the public health team i know a lot of seniors are connecting with public health nurses things like check-ins be able to make sure basic needs are getting met. So is there going to be any impact if seniors are falling off because their programs aren't offered? Are we going to be able to find those folks? So again, more information down the line would be great on that. And also down the line, I'd love to learn, has there been discussions around modifying curbside cleanup? That's a program that's requiring more and more city subs every year. So either reforming or eliminating that and what possible implications would be would be great to learn some more about it. uh and i know it's it's been an ongoing conversation around city fees especially subsidies that are happening in places like aquatic center it's a huge asset for the community but i know it's continuing to be a big area of cost even for taking basis uh so just moving forward those uh three areas appreciate it council additional questions council member carter thank you mayor um so i had a similar comment related to creekside um would love to have more information before we move forward with decisions related to the programs that are offered there and i think specifically about like fare for all and meals on wheels um things that maybe are less social but more service oriented but the social pieces are also important i just understand we'll have lots of social distancing and all all kinds of issues to consider with our senior community. And then the other question that I had was related to the delinquent property tax payments and curious when we would be when we we would when would we see those because I assume that the six point nine million isn't completely lost will eventually get that I assume and then when that comes in would it go back into our general fund balance reserves to get us back up to that forty percent or you know how would we how would that work what would that look like. Ms. Carlson. Mr. Mayor and Council Member Carter, yes, that would come back. It's all a projection. Right now we are looking at if it was delayed, possibly $6.5 million would maybe come back in 2021 and the remainder in 2022, 2023, but really it's unknown. But we are hopeful that the majority of that would come back. Eventually we would receive all the property tax, but... And then if we did have to spend some of the general fund reserve down, then yes, it would come back into the general fund reserve or where we needed it. Do you want to add anything to that, Lori? Lori? Mayor and Council Member Carter, when property taxes generally are a cash flow piece, similar to what Kari was talking about, it's just a matter of timing when we would receive them. And so if we assume that we're going to be down $6.9 million at the end of the year in property taxes from nonpayments, maybe $6 million comes in into one, but we're going to have a number of other revenue pieces in our general fund that aren't going to come back to the same level that we were this year. So that, say, $6 million that would come in next year are going to offset lower admission costs, lower revenues, and lower lodging revenues, and lower fees. fees and fines. So that $6 million would have to be assumed as that it might be coming in in 2020. We'll know more about delinquencies by the end of July for the first half of the year, and then we'll know more in December. So as we only get paid really twice a year on these pieces, it's hard to determine when the cash flow might happen. Any other questions, Council Member Carter? All right. Council Member Beloga. Thank you. - And I wanted to talk about the delinquent property tax payments also, but the general fund income for 2021 is projected at 2020 levels. So you would almost have to assume that the assumption is that we're running at about 20 to 30% of lodging and admissions. for all of the year 2021 to achieve a $54 million general fund budget as I think that's what you were saying, Kerry. And that seems a little bit conservative, but in any event, as I look at it, there's other than 17.8, and I'm focused on 2020, about $3 million of that is non-recurring cost. In other words, those are savings. Because eventually the capital that we defer, we're going to incur those. If you spend on reserves, they're going to need to be replenished. So about 80% of the cost is going to come back to our taxpayers or from another revenue source at some time or another in the future. So with the 2021 projection being flat, I would really need to see 2022 and actually maybe 2023 to see what the trend is. Because if we have $14 million, give or take, $15 million that needs to be restored to various fund balances, That is a significant amount of the general fund budget. I would have to understand what the plan is to restore those funds over time, because that can mean a significant impact to both the property business and residential property owners in the city of Wilmington. The last thing I want to do is talk about some of the correspondence that I'm getting from residents and what the gist and theme of this is, is why isn't the city gaining greater cost savings through the reductions in staffing? and some of them have suggested various things such as, well, the governor has taken a 25% pay cut as have, I think, the majority of commissioners at the state. How much would that yield? And why isn't the city looking at a program like that? Most businesses have frozen pay as the city frozen pay. Most companies have indicated an absolute hiring freeze where our city has said we are going to defer the hiring of some people, eliminate some hirings, and still go on with the hirings of some other people by implication. And to meet the service demands that are out there, We are not asking our staff to take salary adjustments. Most businesses, many businesses, in fact, some cities, I believe, have imposed 10% pay cuts. So it keeps staffing at current levels. so that you can meet the needs of city services, yet still significantly reduce the burden back to taxpayers. So, Gary, I don't know who wants to field that, and it's a very broad reaching and, uh, totally encompassing kind of thing. But I think there's many people who are asking not only me, but other representatives, those kinds of questions. And I think this is the time where we need to respond to those questions. Okay. - Well, Nkari or Lori, before you jump in, I do want to say, Jack, I don't know that this is the time to respond to those questions. This is part of the discussion that we've been talking about, how to manage this, how to deal with this, how to look at different possibilities. And as I said with Councilmember Coulter's questions, those are good questions for consideration and for discussion as we move forward beyond this first blush. I will say, Jack, I am not aware of a single city that is imposing 10% pay cuts on employees. I've not heard that at all. And you may have heard otherwise. I'd be curious to hear who they are, but I've not heard that. And you're exactly right. There have been. I know the governor has taken a leadership position and taken a pay cut. I know others have as well. And It's a -- I don't know if it's necessarily a financial implication as much as it is a leadership show by the government -- or by the governor showing that he's willing to do that to make amends as can be. So, Kari or Lori, any comments on that or any thoughts? But I think, especially looking at the 2021 budget and what we're projecting for salaries, there's a lot of different variables there that we can look at as we're considering what the 2021 tax levy is going to be and what the budget is. So I think there's, I mean, there's lots of things that city staff can propose and that council can decide on. Mr. Mayor and council members, if I can jump in also. I think there's just, to the points that Kari made earlier in the presentation, about staffing and some of the decisions and then some of the recommendations we're making tonight there are some practical realities in the public sector that make some of the things that council member blogger is mentioning or getting asked questions by constituents about make them difficult the first of which is if we are doing a dramatic reduction of staff That doesn't equate to a dramatic reduction of cost automatically because we have continuing obligations through the state's unemployment system. I think one of the issues here is trying not to take the slash and burn approach, as Council Member Coulter, Council Member Martin said, because we are trying to be thoughtful about the city services that we're providing and making, I think, decisions to... reduce staff significantly right away before we know one how this is going to play out and to What the council's desire is for a level of service or you know what it looks like to significantly alter those services is a lengthier conversation that I think we can't respond to right away with dramatic staff reductions and And the third is that we exist in a collective bargaining environment. We don't have the unilateral authority to just reduce people's pay. And if we do reduce hours to get pay reductions, that puts us back into the situation with the state unemployment in terms of claims that employees can make for lost wages. So none of this is simple and certainly appreciate the questions that residents have about that. And I think it's important to recognize that we still have a significant going concern here by the city in terms of the services that we provide. And once again, when the governor was elected, looking at determining who is essential for the purpose of putting together the stay-at-home order, the vast majority of city staff are considered to be essential services in some regard. And even those places where we have some service offerings that other cities don't have, such as maybe our outreach and engagement division, those Those staff are doing a lot of work to work with underrepresented communities, some disenfranchised communities, and communities where there's economic hardship being experienced as well, trying to connect them to resources. So I'd say there's important work that's going on by staff across all of our departments right now. But this is certainly a policy level question for the council in terms of trying to define the level of services that is appropriate. Think one of the things we're trying to do is we look forward to 2021 and 2022 and councilmember blog and I've had this conversation is it it is concerning understanding what the dynamics are in the In the future revenue pictures and wanting to provide a view into what that looks like I think staff understands what the challenges are going to be from both an economic and a financial and a an ability to pay perspective for our taxpayers and have put forward several scenarios recognizing that the landscape is going to be dramatically different. I think we can get there. I think for tonight's presentation, we wanted to accomplish a couple things. One, we wanted to follow up on last week's conversation by making sure council understood that we had we had options in the event that the worser case scenario materializes. And I, we said last week, we don't call it a worse case because it could get worse. So this is the worser case scenario. And it depends frankly on those delinquencies that council member Beloga referred to and whether property taxes will only be late, you know, not paid for first half or if they're going to remain delinquent for the whole year and how much those are. The second issue is to tee up for the council some policy decisions. We are talking about some staff reductions. We're talking about some facility closures, and those are service reductions. These are ones that... either are being recommended because the particular service is being subsidized by the city and it's not a service that would normally be subsidized. It's not considered an essential service. And then we have another service that's being provided out of a building that is approaching functional obsolescence. The cost to operate it is pretty significant and it also serves a population in the community for whom it's going to be hard to have congregate programming for the remainder of the year. These are not easy decisions. We're trying to set up these conversations. With our motor vehicle office, one of the issues here is a timing question. If the stay-at-home order is released and the city gets to a place where we're comfortable going back to counter service for customers, are we going to reopen that particular service and then potentially make a decision later on just to close the service at some point too? So, you know, we want to be a little bit deliberate without being hasty in terms of making some of these recommendations and asking the council to make some decisions. And then the third thing that we're trying to accomplish is just give the council confidence that we are looking ahead, that we do understand the gravity of the issue. And I think that we're in a position to respond. Council Member Bobloga? Well, I think that helps Mr. Manager and Carrie understand to respond to some of the questions that I've been fielding and I suspect some of the other council members have. And one of the things that gets mentioned frequently along with those questions is transparency. Why isn't this occurring? So the background that you've offered helps. I'm not sure that of course everyone will be watching us tonight and get that information, but for those many people who've been writing to me who live outside of the third district, I encourage you to ask your district and at-large council members those questions too, because frankly, I'm sort of overburdened right now with the number of emails, phone calls, and in some cases, letters that I'm getting on these kinds of questions. So please share the wealth of your questions to others. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Beloga. Council Member Nelson. All right. Hopefully you can hear me better. I switched technology. I'm sensing that you can't, but I'll give it a shot. We can, Council Member Nelson. Yep, sounding better. Well done. Okay, yeah, good. We made an improvement then. Just a couple of questions here. First of all, just wanted to ask in terms of budgets going forward, I've received a number of questions regarding Highland Greens. I know the city manager and I spoke about that earlier today. And I know that there's a current savings for this year. And if you wouldn't mind just taking a couple minutes to explain that to people, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Verbrugge? Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Indeed, last week we asked the Council to consent to a couple recommendations for closures for the year. One of those was our Highland Greens golf course. We are opening Duan Golf Course, and the Council agreed with staff recommendation not to open Highland Greens. Again, another one of the services that we have been subsidizing for a number of years. Because the operation at Highland Greens has been underwater going back to at least 2005. However, within the total Gulf budget, the whole Gulf budget has tended to stay in the black. But Highland Greens continues to pull that down. And this year, we made the determination that... Given our financial situation, we couldn't justify the subsidy to operate it this year. At the same time that we made that recommendation, we also wanted to reassure both the council and the community that we're going to continue to work with the Minnesota section of the PGA and the PGA Reach Foundation for their vision of a home of golf and the potential that it may be at Highland Greens. And so I, again, just want to be real clear with the community that Highland Greens will not be open for golf this year. That is not... suggestion that the city is moving away from Gulf in the future on that site. We're going to continue to pursue that conversation with the Minnesota section of the PGA and hopefully that will come to fruition, but that is not something that's going to occur this year. I think there's a recognition that the, just as the city finds itself in a financial situation that we're going to have to work hard to resolve, organizations like the PGA, the foundations that support them, are in a similar situation with many of their funders and donors, more focused on their own circumstances and less interested, at least currently, in philanthropic giving. So that's a conversation that's just going to have to play out over time. Is that sufficient, Councilmember Nelson? Yeah, that's great. Thank you very much for doing that. Like I said, I'm hearing from a lot of people with concerns there. Shifting gears a little bit, we've talked about personnel, and if I understand correctly, currently we have about 60 employees that are either furloughed or laid off. Can you give me a sense of what percentage of employees that is? That's around 10%. Okay. If I could jump in, Council Member Nelson, our full-time authorized workforce is in the neighborhood of 575 employees, but we have hundreds of part-time and seasonal employees that add to that. The majority of the employees that have been furloughed are part-time employees that work at the ice garden, the arts center, and other park and rec functions. We do have a small number of furloughed full-time employees associated with motor vehicles. So it's less than 10% if you look at the combination of full-time and part-time employees. That would be 60 out of 700 and... 20 maybe off the top of my head. And we're at 70 votes instead of not 60. And the majority or all of them are related to facilities that are closed or programs that are canceled. Is that accurate? Yes. okay um going forward in our budgets and i don't need a specific answer right now is how would decisions be made if there is a um reduction in the volume of work in a department or something like that due to uh business and economic slowdown that isn't just kind of a one-time thing but sort of a lingering thing is something i'd be curious about again i don't need specific details on that i know that that's hard as we go through the budget cycle i think that would be important to look at And then I can get the kind of gets back to Councilmember Beloga's question about the one time versus ongoing and I mean it looks like a lot of the current revenue shortfalls are somewhere between, I mean kind of a mix of one time I mean with the hospitality industry essentially being shut down right now. You got huge one-time costs because of that, but then in an unknown what it looks like and how long it takes to come back, which is ongoing costs. And I think those are the things that we really need to balance, which kind of, I think it's the council member Coulter's point as well as council member Beloga's point is how do we find that balance and service based on what those ongoing revenues are? And I think it's appropriate to use one-time money for one-time revenue shortfalls, and then structurally make sure our budget is down going forward. And so I really appreciate the information that's been provided and look forward to continuing this conversation. I also just wanted to thank staff for the information on the water utilities and things like that. I think it's important to look at how all of these things impact our small businesses, our residents as we go forward here. Thank you. Mr. Mayor and council members, Council Member Nelson, staff agrees with you in terms of the matching up of one-time losses and one-time uses to backfill those. The economic issue this year is primarily around the loss of revenues, and they are primarily in the hospitality industry. and looking forward to next year we're not anticipating that those revenues are going to recover to the extent that they had been at the last couple years so we're going to have some work to do on our budget to accommodate the reduction the ongoing reduction in revenues and that's why we've started having some of the conversation that Kari teed up this evening and that is looking at debt service and What level of projects is appropriate and how we potentially pull down our annual debt service. It's looking at the operations that we have traditionally subsidized and trying to remove those subsidies from our operating budget. And then it's looking at the services we're providing and where we can get reductions in those so that we have sustained matching expenses to go with the revenues. Thank you, Council Member. - Council Member Carter, did you have your hand up earlier? Scratching your nose. You're not supposed to touch your face, Council Member Garnett. I'm rubbing my chin all the time. Well, Council, other questions or continuing this discussion. First of all, I appreciate everyone's viewpoints here. This is the type of discussion I think we need to have and the start of our conversation. And I really do feel it is the start of the conversation. And as staff has asked for general direction, where to go, how to take this forward, how to move forward, where I am as of today, April 27th at a quarter to 10, I would say the absolute starting point is a 0% levy increase. That we look at holding everything flat. And that's, as I said, as of right now. If the downturn continues, if we see another spike in COVID-related cases, and we end up with shelter-in-place orders again in the fall, it could completely change. But my thought right now is to begin work toward a 0% increase in holding the levy flat. And would like to hear your suggestions, your ideas, your preferences as we move forward with this, knowing full well that this is going to be an ongoing conversation because I don't think what we say here tonight is going to be the final word on this by any stretch of the imagination. So give a thought. I mean, just wave your hands. We don't need to. I can see you all right now if you'd like to chime in. Council Member Coulter and then Council Member Carter. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I, you know, one of the things that I've often said is that I don't think any idea is so terrible that it can't be talked about. And I think, not to say that your idea is terrible, but I think that, you know, as a discussion point, a 0% levy increase is fine. I think it helps us frame the conversation again around that values proposition. What does that mean? What does that look like in terms of staffing and service reductions? What are we not going to be able to do because we're going to have to cut costs in that way? So I'm all for having that conversation. But I think we need to be clear that that is, as you have said several times, only the beginning of the conversation. That is not... THE GOAL SOLELY BECAUSE OF THAT NUMBER. ONE OF THE POINTS THAT I HAVE MADE MANY TIMES ALREADY IN JUST TWO AND A HALF YEARS ON THE COUNCIL IS THAT BUDGET DECISIONS ARE POLICY DECISIONS. AND EVERY TIME WE MAKE A DECISION ON A DOLLAR FIGURE, THAT HAS A REAL EFFECT ON WHAT FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY GET FROM CITY GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. SO I JUST -- I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THAT you know, as a, as a starting point, as a, this is what that means. Fine. Let's, let's see where that gets us. Let's see where that goes. But I, you know, I'm certainly not going to, and I, I know you weren't suggesting this, but I'm certainly not going to commit to supporting any specific number until I know what that means. Because I think when we divorce the number from the product, from the services, from the programs, we, we, we cite of what that really means for the community. Thank you. Council Member Carter. Council Member Nelson next. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I actually was making sure my hand was not up, but I will just chime in that I share that sentiment. You know, I think every decision has a trade-off, and I want to know, and I know you're not asking us to make a decision right now, but I do want to be able to weigh, you know, all those trade-offs. And I know people, residents in the community are really looking at us to figure out where we can find cost savings and and as they should be and um you know no people you know no decisions can be perfect and and we're gonna make decisions that you know people in our community don't like um and we're gonna cut we're gonna we're gonna make decisions that impact you know, services and programs and things like that. And I just, so no matter what, there will be trade-offs and I want to better understand what those are before committing to anything, but, but agree that we can start there and, and then see where we go from there. Thank you. Council Member Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. The only point that I wanted to bring up is as we go through this process, earlier it was said that the median value didn't change that much. So if we had a zero-based budget, people's property taxes should be about the same. But we know from past experience that that's on average and different people are impacted differently and some of what i've seen recently and i don't know if this is a continuation and these numbers is um some of those with the lower price point homes and maybe lower incomes have been disproportionately impacted by increases in value in the last couple years and they're the least capable of absorbing those sometimes so what i'd like to see as we go through that is what at those different uh what the impacts are, particularly for those that are going to struggle the most with those costs. I think that's an important thing for us to keep in mind as we go through these decisions. I think the other points that have been raised are absolutely accurate as well. We need to see what people get because I hear from people on we need to hold the line on everything or do absolutely nothing. And I also hear about, you know, why is Highland Greens closed? Why is artistry being, or, you know, our arts programming, are you going to, you know, cut funding to those? And so I hear these valued decisions in the conversations that I'm having with the community. So look forward to having that conversation. Thank you. Mr. Verbrugge, you wanted to jump in here? Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. The last thing I want to say, first of all, to Council Member Nelson's point on the valuations, the assessor's annual report should be coming in the next few weeks, maybe five to six weeks. So we'll have an indication there, even though we know that the median value increase is only about 1%, that every year that is not increased. universal, right? There are different tiers that experience the valuation in different ways. The last thing I'd like to say on this one, thank you for the discussion. For residents and for council, just the expectation in terms of how we'll process this conversation. We have a couple of the near-term recommendations. Heard the questions and the comments from council related to Creekside and Motor Vehicle. We will put together responses to those quickly and bring those back for conversation in the upcoming meetings over the next couple of weeks. Then we have sort of the medium term, which is starting our budget process, which will occur later in May and then in June. We'll start to frame up the issues going into 2021. We'll have more information about how this current situation is playing out. And then we have the longer term issue when we start to know what's happening with the delinquencies and how this year is going to be resolved and then how we start working towards next year as well. So... We're going to chunk it up for the council in sort of that near-term, medium-term, long-term conversation. And everybody can expect that we're going to be talking about the budget quite a bit from this point on for the rest of the year. Thank you. Thank you. Last word, last questions, anybody? Seeing no one, if you can raise your hands if he has. Jack, you can't touch your face. Now I almost called on you there, man. I mean, come on. All right. You can call on me. Council Member Beloga, please. All right. Thank you. You know, one of the real difficulties, too, is that Hennepin County has extended the payment date for first tax payment, which normally is May 15th to July 15th, I recall. And as a result, we're really not going to know what the delinquency position is until a later date in the year. than we would normally do or would like it to be. So it's really going to exacerbate the discussion and we're going to have to have, as the manager just said, many more conversations about what the assumptions are going along the way as we work through what the real problem is for the city and try to get our arms around then what the solutions are. it's going to be an interesting and somewhat unpredictable journey as a result. - I agree, council member. Council member Lohman, you want the last word on this? - Oh, I didn't realize I'd get the last word, but I just wanted to basically say, Mayor, that I appreciate your statement about, you know, kind of putting out there, you know, a zero place to start, kind of a rudder Out there, I think the community needs to know kind of where to start or to begin that conversation and certainly appreciate that myself. The other thing I would say is that I think there is a real difference between the private sector, which Council Member Beloga talked about in the public sector. And I think that being able to have that conversation and to clearly talk about what the differences are is going to be incredibly important as we kind of move forward in this challenge. There are a lot of folks who work in the private sector and just don't understand the public sector and we've got to understand why certain things work and certain things don't work. And so I think we've just got to move ourselves to have that conversation and put it in a way so that everyone can understand that, those differences. And finally, I would say that We've got some difficult days ahead and some times ahead, and I'm looking forward to working with this group as a group, not only the council, but also the executive staff to try to do what's right by our people. We've never seen a time like this in Bloomington, and hopefully we'll never see another time like this again. Amen, Council Member Lohman. Council Member Martin, I didn't mean to leave you out. If you wanted to jump in, let me know. Just really briefly, I will say, as was mentioned, it's going to be dark for a while here. Because of our hospitality industry, we've been able to really bat about the class in terms of services that we offer residents. A lot of services that folks love and utilize. And a lot of those are potentially going to be going away. But something that gives me hope is we've spent the last, well, the entire time I've been on council, starting strategic visioning and planning processes for what the future of the city looks like. So that as these industries start coming back, we can start making smart investments again in areas that the next generation of folks are going to fall in love with. It's going to be tough, but when we're on the backside of it, I think we'll be strong for sure. Thank you, Council Member Martin. With that, we will move on. Let's move on to item 2.6, our legislative update. I believe Mr. Verbrugge and I believe Mr. Rudling is lurking somewhere. Correct, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Shane Rudling, our Port Authority Administrator for most of the year, but also our primary staff person coordinating our legislative activity. Is with us this evening as well. And so we thought it'd be a good idea At this point in the legislature to provide the council with an update especially given a lot of significant discussions that are happening right now So with with your permission, mr. Mayor if we can bring Shane into the conversation, that would be great. Good evening Shane Thanks for sticking with us. Thank you. Mr. Mayor council members Realize it's late. That's relatively good because we do have an update on the legislative session, but it's not very lengthy. But of course, we can talk about it as long as the council and mayor do. But I'll go through it here. We continue to monitor what's happening on the federal level. Unfortunately for the city of Bloomington and cities like us, current federal COVID legislation has not been able to help cities in any way any real way. Complicating that fact is the fact that federal legislation typically allows cities who do qualify to get paid for reimbursable expenses due to the virus itself, where Bloomington, as the previous discussion outlined nicely, our issue is more in the revenue shortfall range than it is new expenses because of the pandemic. So we're working with our federal team and representatives to make sure that cities like us are considered and so that any help that is a future bill, hopefully be able to be utilized by cities like us. On the state side, legislative session has been underway now again, productively for the last week or so with meetings being held online and hearings and so on. That's been going fairly well, I think, logistically. The session ends on May 18 at this time. I think it's safe to say, although obviously I'm not the governor of Minnesota, but special sessions are relatively likely throughout the coming year and perhaps after that to deal with things that the pandemic is causing the state. So we've been working on our legislative priorities. Obviously, they were modified on April 6th at that council meeting. And the third bullet on that new item, COVID relief, that references relief to city budgets, is the thing that we've been working most on, which is culminating in potential expanded uses of either TIF that's been pooled or special taxes, i.e. liquor and lodging taxes that are currently fenced in for specific uses and or specific geographic areas. And so with that, we're working on trying to loosen those rules up so that the council could consider using those sources if they so chose to do so as part of the budget discussion. So, a tax bill is being created right now. We're working with our legislative delegation on language. There looks to be a very likely tax bill this year as well as a bonding bill. As you know, the Bloomington Center for the Arts is not on our bonding ask list again this year. We took that off on the April 6th meeting. And with that, I guess I'd take any questions the council or mayor may have on current session. I know Mr. City Manager Verbrugge is very involved in it as well, and people on the council are plugged in. Questions for Mr. Rudley? Council Member Beloga? I'm on mute. You're still muted, Jack. I'm adjusting the sound. Ah, there you go. Oh, the sound on my incoming. I didn't have a comment. Does anyone, any questions for Mr. Rudley? All right. Oh, I'll go ahead and ask. I'm not sure if it's necessarily for you, Shane. Um, but, uh, just, uh, for those folks that are, um, in our hospitality industry and, um, in retail, uh, industry across the city, uh, uh, Are we taking any additional steps to, and I kind of know the answer to this, but I just want to just throw it out there to try to assist those folks either at the state level or at the federal level in regards to their particular plight. Shane. Mr. Mayor and Councilmember Lohman. So certainly with the impacts to the Mall of America and retail and all the people that work there and work for the tenants and things like that, as well as our 47 hotels, many of which, well, some of which are either closed, many of which are experiencing extremely low occupancy. It's a huge economic impact of those, not only those businesses, people that work there. So keeping that in mind and the legislative policy modification that you approved on April 6th. It's kind of ordered in that order to try to help the people first and also to help the city's budget because that is in effect the people of Bloomington as well. And so keeping that in mind, the federal programs are ones that really have the amount of horsepower that's needed to help these folks out that are either out of work And then through the various business assistance programs that are out there in the CARES Act on the federal side, the state has really yet to put their shoulder into this issue. Obviously, they cannot run budget deficits like the federal government can. And so the federal government will be extensively borrowing all the help that they're giving right now. The state can't do that. And so the state is still trying to figure out how to help those various industries and those people. And, you know, a lot of that information has been presented in the governor's briefings every afternoon. But the answer to your question is, yes, we're looking at ways and we're supportive of all that. But the problem is so large that it's hard for city budget, for example, to have an effect on that large population. Thank you, Shane and Mayor. Very good. Any additional questions? Council Member Carter. Council Member Carter? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You beat me to it before I could get my little hand raised on here. Can you just talk a little bit more about the item around the, I think you said liquor lodging taxes and then loosening up TIF. Can you just talk a little bit more about that? Mr. Rudling. Provide a little more detail, if you don't mind. Mr. Mayor and Council Member Carter. So state statute regulates how a certain portion of the city's liquor and lodging tax can be spent. And specifically, it can be spent only for economic development activities and only in the South Lake District. That's how it was originally. Right now, with the legislative session coming to a quick end here on May 18, what we're trying to do is expand the menu of options for cities, not just Blooming but for cities in general, be able to consider those types of things, more flexibility. So if the proposed language that's being sought by a number of city organizations, as well as Bloomington, is enacted, you could then choose to spend, during the COVID crisis, money out of and lodging fund that's currently regulated by what I mentioned previously on general fund expenses. Now that is not law yet and it may not become law, but that's what we're pushing for at this point. Once again, working with a lot of other city groups that are in similar situations that have similar restrictions on either of those funds. And the same thing is true with TIF funds as well, unobligated TIF funds. So many cities have Sometimes a large, sometimes small pot of money that's gone through a project that is tied up in a development contract isn't obligated to pay bonds and the cities pull those. I had to use them on a development project and that's that's an option that cities may want to use to solve budget issues. Small city may have a few $100,000 sitting there and we have a $100,000 hole and not want to raise the property taxes on the median value home, so they might choose to do that. Wilmington does have some funds that are in that category. They're not a large amount of funds. However, you all may choose that you would rather do that than do one of the development projects that has been talked about, and those will be tough decisions to make. But what we're doing at this point is just try to create options. have those conversations later. And so, uh, did you say that this would be a limited time that we'd have that flexibility or or not necessarily Mr. Rudling? If if it becomes law, I understand it's not law. Mr. Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Carter. So yes, all these laws have a time limit. And once again, they're not lie yet. But sometimes it's been proposed for this calendar year or this calendar year and the next calendar year. Yes. - All right, thank you. Any additional questions? If not, thank you, Shane. I know things are moving very quickly in St. Paul and in Washington for that matter. They're moving quickly everywhere and I appreciate your keeping up on this and keeping us updated. And while we're on the topic also, I want to extend my sincere thanks to our Bloomington legislative delegation. They have been in constant contact with us here in Bloomington City Hall looking for ways to help out in any way that they can. Been very receptive to our suggestions and our ideas. And if nothing else, the lines of communications have been open constantly. And I think that's a key to it. So thanks so very much to our Bloomington legislative delegation for the work that they have done over the past few months here. Greatly appreciated. Mr. Verbrugge, anything to add? Mr. Mayor and council members, I do not have anything else on this item. Very good. Then let's move on to our final item of the evening, item 2.7, our council policy and issues updates. And anyone with anything to bring forward? Mr. Verbrugge, do you have anything this evening? Anyone like to bring anything forward for council issues or policy updates? Nathan. Council Member Coulter. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I have been thinking a lot about the future lately. And I think what brought this on really was the governor's executive order this past Thursday about businesses with less customer facing workforces reopening. And I think what one of the many things that that COVID has revealed in a very stark way is how laid bare our society is when it comes to who's able to get by in times of crisis and more importantly, who is not and how many folks are just one illness or accident away from losing their jobs and not being able to support their families. And that becomes only more apparent as the days and the weeks go by. And it has led me back to something that I have, I mentioned earlier this year, and that is an earn sick and save time ordinance in the city of Bloomington. And at this point, if folks can't get behind the economic argument, and there is evidence that it is an economic good or the social good argument, it is a public health need. It is a public health need for folks to be able to have time to care for themselves and their families if there is an illness or safety issues. And I think it's also worth remembering at this point that the City Council is the public health board for the City of Bloomington. And in fact, even Congress recognizes this need. One of the first coronavirus response bills that was signed by President Trump on March 18th provides for employers to provide two weeks of paid sick leave through the end of the year. And I want to be clear that I've had conversations with small businesses. And in fact, just today, I spoke with the president of Bloomington Chamber of Commerce And I know that there are struggles out there, that there are fears and concerns, and those are very real and very valid. I am just as upset as anyone that the grind closed last Friday. And it is absolutely essential that we address concerns that come from small businesses specifically as best as possible and make something that works for our community. And the conversations that I have had reinforce my belief that we absolutely can do this. Between the staff that we have and the folks in our community, I know there is the brainpower and the dedication to our community to make this happen. And as we think about the future, knowing that COVID is not going away anytime soon, both the shorter term and the longer term, we need to think about what that long process of navigating this new reality and rebuilding looks like and what we can do to build a community and economy that works for everyone and so what i would like to do tonight is to ask all of you ask my colleagues here on the council to support and i'm not going to make an official motion or anything like that but to support asking staff to move forward with an earned sick and safe time ordinance. And to do so through a, call it what you will, a workplace advisory committee that includes council and staff. It includes business, labor, the broader community, everyone with an interest in this issue. A committee that's charged with that specific task and a focus on making something that works for Bloomington. And my final thought on this is just the question I know that we're going to get is why do this right now, given all the uncertainty, given the fear? And I would say that this is exactly the right time to do this. This is exactly the right time to make a bold, important statement that we value the people who make our community run, that we care about the people who care for us, not just the money that they bring into the city coffers. Thank you, Councilmember Coulter. Anyone want to jump in on this? Councilmember Lohman. Councilmember Coulter, I want to thank you for stepping out and taking that on and to say that. Now, of course, we also have to remember that will have an implication also for the city of Bloomington as well. So I do think this is the right time to talk about that. I can't think of any other time where we would talk about this. I mean, there's some real implications that are coming up and I do think that it is time. I think this is an opportunity where the economy is struggling and where we can get those folks from business to be a part of this conversation, this dialogue about really transforming the city of Bloomington. And I think that just what you said, and I really want to, you know, But exclamation point on that, which is the reason why I can kind of support us having this conversation is that we're looking to try to come up with a solution that fits Bloomington's unique operations. And I think that's got to be key as we move forward to have this conversation and this discussion. We've got a large hospitality industry, a large retail industry, and we have got to be careful that we continue to be a leader because of what that means for our entire region. So we need to do this in the right way and what makes sense for our city and look to make our own template. So with that in mind, I can support us moving forward having this conversation. - Council Member Martin. - Thank you. Just real briefly, I appreciate both council members' points here. At this point, 75% of the workers in this country have some form of paid sick and safe time, but the 25% that don't are the ones who are least able. Child is sick. where there's a massive snowstorm, schools are closed, or God forbid there's a pandemic like this where entire industries are . And I also appreciate the emphasis on a collaborative approach with the business community. There's going to be a lot of businesses that are kind of right on the razor's edge coming out of this if they do survive. Make sure that they have their voices included and can be accommodated as much as possible, I think is going to be important. I really appreciated our opportunity housing workers, not just because affordable housing was a buzzword at the time, or we were trying to meet some arbitrary numbers from the council, but because we recognize that allowing people to have stability in our community and put down roots in our community and invest in our community was what was going to be important. And I think this is just one more tool in that toolkit to allow, especially our hospitality restaurant workers to be. I'd support what we're doing. Council Member Carter? - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I want to chime in. I don't have, I agree with a lot of what's been said already, particularly around the public health benefits. of something like Earn Sick and Safe, not only in a time of an emergency like we are in now, but obviously there are public health benefits beyond being able to stay home whenever you're feeling ill. The other thing I wanted to just say is I also really appreciate the collaborative approach and feel like that's the only way to move forward in our city. And not just an emphasis on the business community, but also our nonprofit sector like Veep or Oasis for Youth who are really dealing with issues of poverty in our community on a daily basis and hearing, you know, I think we need to have a very solid understanding of what it really is that people are experiencing who are in low wage jobs and who can't under normal circumstances take time off to care for a sick child or to take care of themselves when they're sick instead of going to work. And then, and if we can get input from residents who have worked in these positions too, I think that if they're willing to do that, I think that that would be really helpful. really critical to hear from the people most disproportionately impacted by our current system. And but again, want to emphasize the importance of that business community's voice too because you know, obviously they are key stakeholders in our community. So, so with all that said, you know, I'm fully supportive of moving forward with this approach and I agree that NOW IS THE TIME AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR FAMILIES AND WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS IN A COLLABORATIVE WAY. COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON. THANK YOU, MAYOR. So one of the things that I think is important for me as a small business owner is that we talk to the business community on this, that all those voices are heard. And I know that Councilmember Coulter is very sincere, and I know that he has actually done a lot of legwork of doing that, not just talking to the Chamber President today, but talking to a number of different people within the community regarding this. And you know, in the last election, this is an issue that was discussed at a number of different forums. And I think, you know, in general, you know, what I always said is, is the conversation we can't be afraid of. We got to come together as a community and see what we can do. And, you know, I will tell you that I'm going to have I had on of a small business owner and very, very concerned right now. Small business owners operate on razor thin margins and they're beat down and a lot of them aren't going to make it through this. And anything that we do that makes it more difficult is going to be very, very difficult for me to support. I'll be very candid about that. But I think there's a pathway there. I think working together, we can meet both of those needs. And that would be my goal. That would be my request that I would have is that we're open to both sides of those and make sure that we're supportive of that because it doesn't help us to put a small business out of business. doesn't help those employees that work for that business to put that business out of business and it's going to be tough this is not a two-month thing this is a 12-month 18-month two-year thing for small businesses and um you know i i know there are some other things that we're talking about um you know that's why i aren't ready for full discussion at this point to help small businesses in our community but you know we gotta keep that in mind as well. But I'm very mindful of what Councilmember Coulter talked about in terms of the system and how quickly people get to the point of not being able to pay rent, not being able to meet their basic living needs. And we absolutely have to see if there's something we can do with the community to help with that. We should be open to looking at it. Thank you for bringing it up. Councilmember Belogia, you look like you unmuted. I'm assuming you'd like to speak up. Is that correct? I think I'm the only one who hasn't. I think you are correct. I thought it'd be my turn. Yes, it is. I think much of what I would want to say has already been said. I think what Councilmember Koltier brought up is very aspirational. It also brings to mind a Old, old saying that timing isn't everything. It's the only thing. And when we look today at what businesses are trying to face, not only small businesses, we hear an awful lot about them, but also large businesses. Two large retailers today filed for bankruptcy. Two others filed for reorganization, and I think they're at the tip of the iceberg. They're part of one of the large employment sectors within our community. The other large segment is hospitality, and frankly, the majority of our hoteliers are closed, and the ones who are open are seeing occupancy rates drop. in the 10 to 20% ratio as best we can tell. Their concern today is really about survival. And if they're willing and if we do reach out to all segments and give reasonable weight to all segments of the population and they can see their way through these kinds of things at this point in time, and agree to it, then I certainly would support it. But I will have to be convinced that business is firmly behind this because today the job losses are significant. The losses are astronomical. You hear about the airline industry. They're operating at less than 10%. Delta, for the first quarter, Announced earnings at more than $500 million in losses. And that was with the majority of the first quarter being fully operational. We're going to see so many businesses fail that I don't want our community to be pointed out as a community business. that is anti-business and contributing to the failure and loss of additional employment, as Council Member Nelson said. So again, if we can get the support of the business community for this, I think it certainly is the kind of thing that has been mentioned. It's a time of need, and I would not be surprised be opposed to it if we get the support of that segment of the business community. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Carter, want to back in? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to appreciate what council members Nelson and Beloga have brought up and totally agree. And I do want to just reiterate and emphasize that need for collaboration across our community. And so really appreciate your comments. I also, you know, obviously I'm a New York council member and I'm And so I'm not always 100% sure of process and all of that. But I do think with this specifically, this effort and the importance and the sensitivity, you know, it seems like often, you know, we will ask that, um you know something to be explored or um researched and then city staff will come back with proposals and i would really ask that um for council members who are interested for us to have a more active role in this effort um i personally would be interested i'm going to guess there are others what that looks like exactly i don't know but i i just want to um I WANT TO BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE WHAT WE CAN BRING TO THE TABLE AND ALSO BE INVOLVED. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUT. I CAN OBVIOUSLY COUNT NOSES AND I THINK WE CAN DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN LOOKING AT THIS. I DO WANT TO ADD MY TWO CENTS Councilmember Beloga and I are on the same page on this in terms of timing is everything. And this is a difficult time to be taking this on. This will be a big lift at this time. It's going to challenge us from a staff capacity standpoint. It's going to challenge all of our businesses in the city of Bloomington. It's going to challenge our community. Councilmember Coulter and I had a discussion earlier today, and my question to him was, can the city handle one more thing? We're looking at an international global pandemic. We've had divisive issues. We've talked about we've got a lot of things on our plate right now, and to add this on is going to be a challenge for our community. But I also fully believe that if we approach this as a conversation and as a group working toward a solution, and that group includes city residents, business owners, our nonprofits, if it includes the community of Bloomington, I think we have a possibility of a good chance of success. We cannot take... Minneapolis or St. Paul ordinance and simply plug and play that will not work. It's got to be specific to Bloomington as council member Lohman said we are a unique community. We are a unique business community with our hospitality industry and so much more going on here and if they are deeply involved in this conversation and as council member Beloga said if we can get them to the table and focused on this at the same time they are basically fighting for survival and If we can do that, if we can move forward, if we can look at how to make this work, and it may be a six, nine, 12, 18-month implementation plan, however it would need to be to make it work, we need to keep all of these things in mind. I think we can begin this conversation. I think we should. I agree with you, Councilmember Nelson. We can't be afraid of having this conversation. As long as we understand that this is a conversation as we move forward and the conversation means both sides contribute and both sides log in and have something to say on this issue. So, Mr. Verbrugge, I think you've got something for your staff to consider now. Mr. Mayor, council members, let us go back. We'll put together maybe a little bit of a scoping of what the work might include. We can probably have something for initial discussion in two weeks at our next council study session, but I will let you know if that's going to progress in a timely fashion or not. Very good. I appreciate that. As I said, it's a lot on the plate, and it's going to be a staffing capacity issue. Thank you. Do we have any other folks want to speak on policy or issue update? Council Member Lohman? Mayor, I don't know how to put this out there, but I'm just going to throw this out there, and it can just... hit deaf ears if it uh if it does but i think uh the question of you know i think council member uh patrick martin has been a really kind of our champion of this this idea of transparency uh and openness and uh what i just really want to throw out to the to the group uh large mayor um is uh Is this a question that we should ask ourselves? I mean, I think it's something that, you know, as we have meetings day in and day out, certainly it's an aspiration, it's a goal to try to get to a certain point, and we're not quite there yet. I just want to throw it out there. Is there anything we can do to help improve that goal of getting to that point? I just want to throw that out so that... Certainly, I've gotten some emails, and I just want to just throw it out there. If there's some concerns that people have around us as a council being and as a staff being transparent and open to the public. Well, I think we added it as our seventh strategic priority or seventh pillar of what we're working toward. I do believe that we've made steps toward increased transparency. If you're watching right now, this is one of them because as I said when we started this meeting, our study meetings are where the sausage is made and you've had a good view of that today. This is a -- it's a work session where ideas are bounced back and forth and possibilities are discussed and different scenarios are tossed out there and that's all part of transparency. I think it concerns some folks when we would come out with a proposal or a policy and they had not seen the work that had gone into that and now you're starting to see some of the work that goes into that and I think this is an important piece to that. I think We have done well from a council standpoint. I hope we've done well. I believe we've done well also from a staff standpoint. I believe there was some kerfuffle over the past couple of days about some presentations that didn't get posted along with the agenda for this evening's meeting, which is not uncommon because the agenda needs to hit a specific statutory requirement in terms of posting of an agenda prior to a public meeting. Sometimes the presentation, sometimes the agenda items are not complete and finalized at that time. And to put them out after the fact, in my nine years on the council, that's not an uncommon situation for something like that to happen. So again, that kerfuffle aside, I think staff is doing a fine job. I think the council is doing a good job. I think for the most part, we have heard community concerns. And I believe we're moving in the direction of transparency and engagement and trying to be more open to working with residents, working as partners and in conversation as opposed to a governing body from on high just bringing decisions down. I don't believe that's the case. And I've never thought that'd be the case. But I think we're moving closer toward a collaborative effort. And Uh, is that what you were thinking? Council member Lohman, is there anything you wanted to add to that or anything that anyone wanted to add to that? I think Mary you've, you've encapsulated what I, uh, you know, I just want to make sure that, uh, you know, really, uh, that if there are some, some concerns, uh, you know, among staff and council that, uh, you know, we, we, we vet that. I mean, during this policy and issue, uh, piece that, uh, so that we know, but I think you've, you've, uh, uh, really laid out, uh, uh, what I wanted to get to. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, we have completed our business. I would look for a motion to adjourn, and I hope Denise is still with us so she can call a roll. So moved, Mayor. Second. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. Ms. Christensen, if you could call the roll for adjournment, please. You are still there. Very good. I'm still here. Council Member Beloga? Mayor Bussey? Aye. Carter? I saw her lips move. I didn't hear her. Aye. There we go. Coulter? Aye. Coleman? Aye. Martin and Nelson. Motion passes 7-0. We are adjourned. Thank you all so very much. Thanks for sticking with us. Folks, I hope you enjoyed watching our study sessions. It's the way your democracy is made, and it's an interesting way to see how things get done. So thanks much for joining us. Thank you all for your work tonight. Thanks to the staff. We're adjourned. Everybody stay safe.