Good evening everyone. I will call this Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, June 16, 2025. Thank you all for joining us here in the H conference room. Thanks for everybody watching online. We're going to start as we always do. If you'd please uh stand and join me uh in the pledge of
allegiance. Before we get into the pledge, I'd appreciate a moment of silence for Speaker of the House Horman, her husband Mark, and for the Hopkins who were also injured over the weekend. Yeah, the Hoffman. Um, just a moment of
silence uh for them and a moment of silence uh to thank the uh first responders and to thank the law enforcement community that did such an outstanding job over the last 48 hours. Thank you all. Now, if you'd join me in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Once again, thank you all for joining us here this evening. Uh, this officially
is a study meeting and because of the timing of some of the issues that we had coming up, some of the items that are on the agenda tonight, there will be some uh other items, not just study items, but actually items that we do vote on, including uh some items on our consent business. we will be having a public
hearing and again it's a a matter of timing for some of the things we needed to get done and uh we have conferred with our legal staff and and this is something that we are able to do not something that I think we'll do on a regular basis but it's something that uh when if and when we need to do especially since we had the study
meeting scheduled to fit in some items that we had to get done uh that we are in fact going to do that uh so uh I will do the approval of the agenda and then we're going to take just a moment also but I will uh the agenda This evening, council, we'll do some introductory
items. Item 2.1 is an update on our 2025 state legislative session, which ended uh not too long ago after a bit of an extra time that legislators took to get their work done. And then item 2.2, we'll hear an our 2024 annual financial report from our external auditor, the
folks at Redpath & Company. Our consent business is just five items. Council member Mua has our consent business this evening. I mentioned that we will have a public hearing. We do have item 4.1 which is a public hearing regarding resolutions authorizing the issuance and sales of sales tax revenue bonds series
2025A and general obligation sales tax revenue bonds series 2025B and then our organizational business item 5.1 will be a study item. We will be talking about our airport parking study and we will have an opportunity
there for public input on that as well. Uh before we get into that, I mentioned it and I I know it's on the top of everybody's mind. Uh the absolutely horrific and tragic and senseless uh actions of this weekend that I don't
know if you're how if you're involved at all in public service, you can't be affected by this. Uh I I think we all probably knew Senator Hortman or excuse me, Representative Hortman, some better than others. I know I've worked with her on a number of issues. She was at our house a number of different times and uh
uh her loss is is immense to the state of Minnesota. She her leadership was was fantastic. She was a mother. She was uh just a darn good person. She trained dogs. I mean she she just had so many good aspects
about her that are going to be missed by the entire state of Minnesota. And it's it's a very tragic and sad occurrence. and uh for her and for Mark to be murdered in cold blood in a horrific fashion just should never happen.
Serving in the public sector should not be a reason to present to shoot a shoot. It should never ever happen. And frankly, uh council, I'm I'm kicking myself because I was I mentioned this earlier uh in April when we were getting ready for the state of the city.
Um we were right around the 25th anniversary of the um Oklahoma City Bomb and given the the rising temperature about public sector and public service and public servants I was planning on saying something and then we we got too
long and I said you know what I don't need to say anything we don't need to really dwell on this and I really wish I had because uh it it speaks volumes and it um it shows the the immense and negative
and brutal power that words can have and rhetoric can have and people taking that rhetoric and putting it into action. And so I I certainly I I I mourn uh the speaker. I mourn her husband. Uh I I
mourn even to the almost the same degree what it means for all of us moving forward. what it means for public service and public servants moving forward, whether they're elected officials, whether they're appointed officials, whether it's just people working in the capital because um it it
feels like a line has been crossed uh here in Minnesota. And for the second time in 5 years, the country is looking at Minnesota and saying, "What the hell is going on in Minnesota?" And I think the same thing. And I and I want uh I want as a council to stand up
and say that this is not okay. This is never okay. If you hear people denigrating public servants, if you hear people threatening anyone on the public side, if if you hear inflammatory or negative rhetoric, tell them to stop.
Tell them to stop. These are people elected, appointed, in uniform, not in uniform. These are people who are doing their job and we're doing the best that we can and serving in the public sector should not be a reason to be shot at.
And uh I just wanted to share that and invite council any any thoughts you wanted to share. Again, I know some of you knew Speaker Hortman better than others. Uh any thoughts anyone would like to share? Be willing to welcome those now.
Council member Lman. Now, I I did write something up real real quick here. Um and the only reason why I did is uh on uh Friday night um for uh somebody who's uh part of Bloomington said, "Hey, you know, I'd like to, you know, woman said
she I'd like to take on running for the Senate House." And uh light of these tragic the tragic loss of Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark and all those uh who are involved it it truly hits differently. It's not just a
political event. It's a deeply personal wound for our community. When your mayor has just stated for those who work alongside Melissa and for all of us who believe in the power of public service, the word address takes on a new meaning here. It's not just about giving a
speech, but about addressing the pain, the fear, and the questions that linger in the air. We must address the violence that has permeated in our society. We must address the ways we can heal and move forward together. I've been
thinking a lot about the words of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And as I've been to the mountaintop speech, he spoke about the struggle for justice and the long and difficult road ahead. knowing his own journey might be cut short. His prophetic words and light of
his own death remind us of the immense personal sacrifice that's involved in fighting for a better world. Melissa Hortman too dedicated her life for the rights of people, working tirelessly and with the spirit of bipartisanship that
modeled how we can move forward even in the most divided of times. Just as Dr. King's legacy continues to inspire. Melissa's commitment to collaborative collaboration and service will guide us
as we navigate this profound loss and strive to build a more just and peaceful society. others. Well, thank you. Thanks for indulging me and listening and uh thanks to our uniformed
officers, our Bloomington police were involved all weekend, both in the manhunt and in the standoff down in Egan over the just last evening. Uh they put in a lot of hours. Bloomington Fire has put in a lot of hours. Uh I know our city managers uh did an enormous amount
of work coordinating everything over the weekend. So thank you to all of our Bloomington city staff for the work that went into this and thanks for the work that you do every day. So on that somber note, uh we will move on if we could council. Item 2.1 uh an
update on the 2025 state legislative session. with us tonight is Katie S. I don't think we moved the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. All that all that talking, we didn't move the agenda. Okay. It was a moving thing. I will
approval of the agenda as stated. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Thank you for Melissa. Melissa for keeping me on track. Council order. Well done. Thank you so very much. Now we will move on to item 2.1 our
legislative session update Katie Sen from Mr. Lee Kramer who's our lead lobbyist. Thank you for being with us tonight. Thank you mayor. Thank you. A nice all but especially nice to be here tonight. Okay. Is that better?
It's not on. Okay. Is that better? Okay. All right. Um, let me know if I'm talking too quiet or too loud, which is usually a bigger problem with me. Um, but I also want to just start out by saying thank you to your great team. Um Kathy, Elizabeth, and Brianna were on
every single email I think that came from me during the entire session and leading up to it and helped get things to the right places. Um as well as many other people that I got to work with more closely this session, department heads and others. And it was just a really great coordinated team effort to
make sure the right people were at the meetings in the room getting the information. And um there were a lot of issues that we were proactive on and also a lot of issues that were popping up during session. So as usual, you have a great team here that is very well respected at the capital as well as a
great delegation who I think really wants to trusts the city and um wants to get your priorities passed at the capital. And so that is a that makes my job a lot easier because it's really just coordinating with them. Um and they're working really hard behind the
scenes for all of you. So um so as the mayor mentioned, session ended not even a week ago. Feels like an years ago. Um last two last Tuesday early in the morning. They finally wrapped up. The regular session ended on March 19th. Um there were some bills that were finished
but many especially the more complicated ones were not finished. So they went into special session and continued to negotiate um among the leaders. You all remember that the House is tied and the Senate has a one vote DFL majority. So every every bill had to be very
carefully negotiated particularly on the Senate side to make sure that they had the votes to pass the bill. Um so I'm going to just kind of walk through I think you have a handout which is what I sent to staff after session ended. And some of these issues we tracked really closely for the city. Others are ones
that as I was reading through bills that came out thought, you know, there are things that I assume thought would be interest of interest to staff. And so if there's questions I can't answer about some of those ones, I'm happy to get more information. But kind of starting off with our our top priorities for the
city. Um we had two tax provisions that we were wanting to get passed in the tax bill. One was the property tax exemption for the Ramada property and the other one was the South Loop de South Loop development to fifth flexibility. And both of those did pass. The tax bill was
probably the trickiest bill for them to negotiate. Um it kind of went back and forth. We were in the both the House and Senate bills to begin with. And then at one point there was sort of a blow up in the tax conference committee and everything came out except for about the five or six provisions that leadership
had agreed to to close session related to mostly related to revenue. Um and then they they couldn't pass that bill without the smaller provisions. um because I think a lot of of legislators, including some of ours, were pushing back and wanting to get some of the non-controversial pieces like ours back
into the bill. So, in the end, the bill got bigger. They did include a lot of the smaller non and I mean, in their eyes, smaller non-controversial provisions that related to local government. So, that that's great to get those across the finish line. Um there was also we're also just kind of
tracking the forward fund um removal of the federal match requirement. I know there there's entities in in Bloomington that benefit from that. The the previous law required a federal match. That federal money is is drying up and so that the state money was not going to be able to be used without that change. So
that was a benefit mostly to a lot of businesses in the city. Um we were also trying to get a liquor liquor sales authorization for Dwan Golf course so that you could sell more than just 32 beer. That provision was in both the House and the Senate bills. In fact, one
of the committees, they said, "What took you guys so long?" So, it was we had pretty widespread support. It was not controversial, but in the end, um there was controversy, as often happens with liquor bills, on a different provision, um relating to whether 17-year-olds
should be able to serve alcohol. And so, um there was a disagreement between the chairs and that there was just no liquor bill at all. So, if there had been a bill, we would have been in there. Hopefully, next year, that is something that will be back again. and we've laid good groundwork. Um, a lot of the local
legislators that had liquor provisions did try to make an effort at the end to do a separate bill, but um, as you know, you've probably heard in past years about other other liquor issues like, you know, grocery store sales and um, free the growler. Those are often if
there's one issue, they don't let the bill pass all kind of as leverage on those other ones. So, that is what happened this year with the liquor bill. and it's not a budget bill, so they don't have to pass it. But, um, I think we're very well placed if they pass the liquor bill next year. Um, and then the
one that I would say we we we probably was is a two-year effort was the Bloom and Bloomington workforce development funding. The House didn't have any workforce development funding in their bill, and the Senate was more focused on things they had funded in the past. Um, so that one did not cross the finish
line. Um that's probably when we needed a little more work with the chairs to explain that, but this was our first attempt to get funding for that program. And then um the other disappointment I would say was the North Central Sanitary Sewer bonding project. The um they did
pass a bonding bill in the end, but they included no local projects. It was only state agencies and higher ed. And so I think if you know they were we knew that they were really focused on water projects, which was good for us. We were and we were one of the um metro projects
that was asking for water related sewer money. A lot of the water projects were in greater Minnesota. So I think if they had gone through an earmarked we would have been in a very very good position. Also typically since Bloomington's the fourth largest city, if they do earmarks that we make a strong case for we should
be one of the cities that has a project in the bill. Um but in the end they just didn't do any local projects which is a little surprising that they could pass in my opinion a smaller bonding bill without local projects but um I think there was a case for really wanting to focus on asset preservation kind of
bipartisanly and so that's that's what they did. Not clear if there will be a bonding bill last year. The amount the state can borrow changes depending on the budget forecast. And so, um, depending on interest rates, there could be a little more room to do another bill
or or possibly not. So, it might not be that there's not a bill for another two years. And then just some of the general city provisions um that we were tracking. One that did pass was a bill related to open additional open meeting law flexibility. I won't I won't read
through that specifically. You can kind of read on your own. But there um those are some changes that I think are are sub substantive and and could be a big deal for you all and for local um city councils. Um they're also ended up there they did include funding in the public
safety bill for um police training and the it's called the Philando Castile Memorial Training Fund. That was something I know Chief Hodgeges was really monitoring and supportive of. It's lower than the amount that was given two years ago, but it's higher than zero, which that that money was
going to expire. So, without additional funds, it would have been zero. So, they landed at 4.9 million per year, which is a little lower than the 6 million per year previously, but I think um the Chief's Association really weighed in on the importance of that funding and was able to get it included in the fi final
bill. Um, they did cut the job creation fund, which I know is is something Bloomington's benefited from in the past or or employers in Bloomington have, but they did not end up cutting the Minnesota investment fund. So, both of those had sort of been considerations. I
should have probably started this out by saying given given the looming deficit, um, almost every conference committee had a cut target. So rather than getting money to spend, chairs were given the task of cutting or finding you know other they could cut one thing and then
spend money on another but net most of them had to cut. And so you'll see in this in the course of kind of going through this the what that resulted in. Um there was even though there was a small surplus for the for the budget that they just passed, there was a much larger um over$2 billion deficit looming
in the planning years. And so their their goal was really to try to cut that as as low as possible so that when they come back they're ready if that deficit gets bigger or if the federal government makes changes that require more cuts. And so that's that was sort of what
their um negotiation was very focused on. Um the transportation bill did have a couple of programs or at least provisions related to cost participation. They're going to require an update for the cost participation study, which is something I know city
staff um and not just in Bloomington, but around the metro um is interested in both for Mindot and also for county level. Um and then there's a creation of a local road funding gap assistance program which mostly is pulling together kind of current revenues. So, it's not a
big new revenue stream. And that's something that in just reading the bill language, I I had a hard time kind of figuring out exactly how that's going to work. So stay tuned on that one. Um there were some changes in the pension bill that again I won't go through but I know might be of interest to folks here.
They did repeal the local government cannabis aid both for cities and counties. That was part of the leadership agreement to get a deal. So before May before May 19th, even though they couldn't pass the bills, they did reach a sort of global deal on how much each each committee would have to spend
and what the main revenue factors would be. um and this was one of them. And so that was something that was sort of locked in as soon as they announced that agreement. It was not something the tax chairs were able to change or negotiate. There was a lot of discussion at the capital this year about HOAs and the
huge growth in the number of um HOAs that are part of new construction and some there were some pretty significant broad changes that were proposed. In the end, the only piece that passed was creating an unbudsman person um in the
department of commerce to help with HOAs. I do think that issue will be back again. There was a lot of passion around it and I think there were also just it's a complicated issue and so it was something where they there were enough members that weren't comfortable with the details to move forward on it. But I
do think that'll be back again. Um, and then Representative Elkins had a bill that that passed in the Commerce omnibus bill related to a task force on homeowners commercial property insurance. So, that's a group that will kind of study more about what's happening with with insurance for um
property owners and I that's something I've heard from city staff that they're interested in tracking a little bit. Um, for for two of the big issues at the capital, paid family medical leave and earn sick and safe time. No really large changes on either side. Part of the
global agreement again similarly that was made with leaders before the end of the regular session was to reduce the paid family medical leave payroll tax from 1.1 sorry from 1.2 to 1.1. That was the only change made to paid family medical leave. And then on earn sick and
safe, I kind of listed out some of the changes which are relatively small in my opinion, but might be helpful for your staff because I know that that's something that they're coordinating um implementing. Um and then there had been a bill that in pre last year would have
required local governments to set aside a pot of money for any bonding projects the state funds which would have been very significant especially if you're getting money for you know an interchange or some very large project and you have to prove you have a set aside for many years. Um that bill ended
up changing so that you just have to have sort of a plan for how you would take care of projects funded by state bonding. And then on housing, the one um mo the most significant provision that passed was related to um how Minnesota
Housing Finance Authority awards grants. They're able to use um they're able to give points up to 5% of the points for I've kind of bulleted out some of the um the things they can give extra points for. Basically, a lot of these are bills that instead of having the bill itself
passed, they've turned them into things where MHA can prefer um prefer giving funding to. So, things like um if you're allowing if you're you're allowing for duplexes, ADUs, or town homes within 50% of an
area. I'm not I guess I'm not going to go through and read these all because they're all a little bit verbose, but um I I'll go through the other bills that were considered and you'll see that these bullets number one through eight all are taken from the some of the bills that didn't pass themselves. So, for
example, um there was the Minnesota Starter Home Act, which was which was pretty broad sweeping that it would have just said this follows along what Minneapolis did where you can legalize duplexes and ADUs on all residential lots statewide. So, that would change
the zoning for that. It would block cities from setting minimum lot sizes larger than 1/8 of an acre. Um prohibit cities from requiring the use of certain building materials or construction methods. So, you can kind of walk, you know, walk through these and I'm sure
you've heard about these bills from the league and metro cities and MLC. Um, none of these larger bills passed themselves, but some elements of these were put into that MHFA scoring. Um, so the Transforming Main Street bill also
did not pass. Um, and then the More Homes Right Places Act also did not pass. Um, and the aesthetic mandate mandates and parking minimums did not pass either. There was also a bill that would have limited PDU PUDS and that one
did not pass. Um, so those were kind of the three buckets I was going to walk through like there's Bloomington priorities, general city provisions, and then housing. Um, as far as what's next, I think obviously everyone at the capital is taking a breath and I think
um, we're not we don't know what will happen next from a standpoint of, you know, who who will be stepping into leadership roles in the house. I think everyone just needs a little time. But at the federal level, we know that, and I know you have federal folks that are helping monitor that for you as well. Um
it's very likely that changes at the federal level will require state action sometime before next legislative session. So it's quite possible that this fall the legislature will be back particularly if there are significant changes to Medicaid and that that those
could have very large significant impacts on the Minnesota state budget that would need to be addressed. Um and then the regular session is set to start up again February 17th. So that's when they would they'll definitely be back then. But I'm happy to answer questions
or see if there's other issues people were following. Thank you very much. Council, any questions, additional clarification? Council member Nelson. Thanks, Mayor. And given though we only have more hours, I'll keep them brief. Um, and so
quickly and the I don't know if these are um for you or not, but the Ramada exemption, did that change the sale from the port to this and the park? I guess. Uh, the Dan golf course, do we have any other options? Uh, the open meeting law,
do we need to change any ordinances to conform with the new changes to the law? The uh cannabis act, does that have a financial impact to us? Are we going to receive money for that? That change our budget? Um, and I don't need answers to
all these right now. Um, the prioritization of housing. Uh, do we need to take a look at any of the little specifics of that in terms of ours? I know we've gone a long way, but the one that jumped out at me is I don't think our minimum lot size is at 1/8 of an acre. I think it's just slightly above
that. So, is that something we need to reook at? Those would be my questions. Um, yeah, I don't need you to answer those. I think most of those I probably can't answer. I will say on the MHFA preferences, I don't think most cities are going to change to match all of
those, but I do think it's an incentive or only 5% of the points will be max 5% for preferring those things. So, it's something to consider, but it doesn't mean you couldn't get a grant if you don't meet every single thing on that list. So,
that's good. But, and I staffed writing furiously. I see that. and we'll we'll get answers to your question. That's all. Yep. I guess a lot of great work here and thank you for the synopsis. Others member Lman. So I guess you know there's some things that council already
mentioned but and and I will say council got to use your big voice tonight. We got people all the way in back tonight. So please use your big voice. Remember what the theater told me. So speak as if there's lady in the back. So, um, uh, Council Member Nelson already mentioned
a number of the things that I I was that I would have mentioned, but, uh, the one thing I wanted to bring forward is around the, uh, the sick, uh, uh, sick and sat time leave, uh, portions of it. There's some things that are in there that I know as we get ready to do our, uh, our conversation there, uh, going to
legislative, I would want to make sure we address some of these things that are there, and we talk about it later. But uh I'm kind of concerned on some of the things are written here that I I want to make sure we don't put out this m this direction especially for those people who are more vulnerable having requiring
additional notice uh gives a lot of concern uh if if we're going to do that. So, I just want to be sure that we're we are advocating uh for something that makes sense for me. Nothing else. Council
wanted to say thank you on behalf of our staff. This has been a tough legislative year. You were amazing. You were very responsive. you guided all of our staff who showed up in the space. You helped to um help people prepare for all of their important speeches and the things
that they needed to say in front of the legislators and you gave amazing guidance to help us get these things passed. So, thank you very much for all that you did for us as well. Thank you. I love representing Bloomington. You guys, it's very fun and work on good stuff. Your legislative platform is
always something I enjoy working on. So, thank you. Well, thank you, Katie. appreciate it. Share uh your thanks with the rest of the team there because I know there's a lot of folks who put a lot of time in a lot of these things and but thank you.
I'll echo Kathy's thanks. You do great work for us and you're a great representative to have the city. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to move on council 2.2. This is a presentation our 2024 annual
financial report from from our external auditor. Andy Herring from Red Patent Company is here. Welcome back one more time, sir. Thank you. And Ly, our deputy finance officer as well. Good evening. Good evening, mayor and council members.
My name is Andy Herring from Red Path & Company, the firm that you hired to perform your audit of the 2024 financial statements. So, I've got a presentation tonight to go over the audit results. Uh, the audit was formally issued last week ahead of
the June 30th deadline. So, I'll just go ahead and start and you can catch up. How about that? to be a presenter. Ah, we issue five reports as part of the audit. The opinion on the financial statements, a report on internal
controls, a report on legal compliance, a federal compliance report, and a communication with those charged with governance letter. Um, so a quick result, uh, it's an unmodified opinion or a clean opinion on
the financial statements. There were no internal control findings, no legal compliance findings. We had four findings related to federal compliance, uh, which I'll explain more in a few minutes here, and then just
standard communications in the governance letter. Um, so looking back at 2023, always uh an exciting slide as this number each year grows. The city has now received the certificate of achievement of for
excellence in financial reporting for the last 53 consecutive years. uh representing that the city and its finance department has prepared a transparent comprehensive clear to understand financial statements
that are evaluated nationally. So a a problem or a a program that the city participates in and should be very proud of those results. Um so the first uh report that we presented is the opinion on the
financial statements. Uh we determine that the financial statement amounts are uh fairly presented in all material respects. That's accounting lingo uh auditing lingo that we don't audit per for perfection. We're looking for material misstatements or misstatements
that would affect the decisions of the financial statement user. So, how do we do it? Kind of three thought processes. Occurrence, making sure that the events and amounts in the financial statements actually occurred and pertain to the
city. Completeness, making sure everything that should be in the financial statement document is in the document. And then accuracy, cutoff, and classification, making sure the amounts are in the correct accounts and correct funds, things of that nature.
We use a variety of auditing techniques from vouching to invoices, um, analytical procedures where we look at trends to make sure they make sense, just plain old inquiries with staff, um, gathering information and evaluating
that information. Um, perform sampling in some areas. So depending on what we're testing, we'll uh adjust our procedures to efficiently uh perform that test. So again, the the result and unmodified
or clean opinion on the financial statements. The next slide just takes us step back a little bit to the the planning and more towards the start of the audit. We did identify three risks during planning and these are generic risks that we
identified to relating to almost all of the m municipal audits that we perform. The first is actually a risk mandated by the AICPA that pertains to all audits. just the the risk that somebody in a
position of authority could override the policies and procedures, override internal controls, um say, "Hey, for this transaction, we don't really need to follow this procedure." The second um most importantly, I think is the risk
relating to dispersements, inappropriate or unauthorized dispersements, whether on purpose or accidental. Examples could be a duplicate payment, a keying area where the wrong amount gets paid, and then of course there's the f fraudulent
uh dispersements that can occur. There's constantly fraud schemes being developed. This is the the scary stuff where, you know, the the fraudsters are out there are they're they're aware of the city's vendors. They they know who
your common payments are to. they they know who the department heads of the city are. Um they can falsely represent um city staff through emails. Um they're they're always after your money, the city's money, the citizens money. Um so
that I know the finance staff is constantly aware of these threats and are evaluating procedures and that's why there's so many checks and balances in place. Um, if this is this is the scary one if something like this were to ever happen. And then lastly, the improper
revenue recognition relating to expenditured driven grants. That's more technical in nature, but it just relates to aligning revenues and expenditures in the same period. So, those are the items that we design audit procedures around
among other risks. I'm happy to report that we did not note any indications that any of these items occurred. So that's the that summarizes the first report, the opinion on the financial statements, a clean opinion. The second
report, a report on those internal controls over financial reporting. We gain an understanding of those controls in order to design our audit procedures. Examples of the controls. Here's that dispersements one again. Um, proper
approval over dispersements. There's also a review of monthly bank reconciliations is an example of a control. An ideal segregation of duties, making sure that no one person has too much responsibility in any given area.
And then lastly on the back end, a review of financial information for financial reports for any possible errors. So, those are examples of internal controls that are in place that we're reviewing and the result, no
internal control findings. The next report is a report on Minnesota legal compliance. The state auditor's office issues a guide that we complete as part of the audit. It contains seven sections as you can see bulleted on the screen. So, we're testing for compliance
with statutory um statutory provisions and state statutes relating to those seven sections. Um for example, the the city is not allowed to invest in stocks. Um those are considered too risky. Um
there's u there's rules and regulations over contracts and um tax increment financing and when debt is issued there's just all kinds of statutes that uh cities has to have to follow um rightfully so. So we're
testing for compliance with the state statutes and did not note any compliance findings. So that slide was compliance on the state level. Anytime an entity receives more than $750,000
of federal funds or expends more than 750,000 of federal funds, a what's called a single audit or an audit of federal compliance is required. And there's various programs that get audited. As part of the single audit, you have to test to obtain a certain
coverage. not testing 100% of federal dollars. So, the three programs that were tested for 2024 were the American Rescue Plan Act dollars, uh, CDBG, and then the section 8 housing choice vouchers program. So,
again, we're gaining an understanding of the controls over compliance and the effectiveness of those controls. How did we do it? We tested a sample of the actual federal expenditures and then
also considered the whether there were any control deficiencies relating to the compliance over federal programs. Uh the results uh four findings this year which I'll go through here.
The first related to the ARPA dollars, there is a the federal government has a listing of contractors that are on a suspended or debarred list and prior to entering into
a contract with a contractor. Uh you have to check to make sure that the contractor is not on that list. And that verification was not performed for the um contract we tested. Now the the contractor that was used was
not on that list but the point is that that verification was not performed. Second uh CDBG program. There are a few reports there the PR26 and PR29 reports.
They are submitted to the housing and urban urban development and ideally those reports are reviewed prior to submission. Uh they weren't being in 2024 and there were actually two errors
on the reports that we noted. Now the the errors were not substantial. They they can be corrected in subsequent periods. Um so there's no there's no really penalty there. Um but it just shows the the importance of a secondary review.
Um the next item related again to the CDBG program. There's environmental reviews that are required for certain projects. uh we tested four projects and noted that two out of the four of them the review was either incomplete or
missing meaning that the documentation of the review was not present. And then finally for the section 8 program uh staff have tenant file checklists that they can use to assist with the verification that a an
potential tenant is eligible for the program. and those checklists were not being used in 2024. Um, kind of similar to the others, we for the people that uh qualified in
2024, we didn't find any instances where they where they became eligible but weren't supposed to. It was just a matter of using those checklists. So, that's the that's the worst of it. Um then the last uh report or letter to
from the auditor to the council is a a letter of various required communications. The first bullet there uh there was one new accounting standard that was implemented in 2024 related to compensated absences or acrewed vacation
and sick time. Uh did not have a significant effect though on what is recorded. A reminder, there are a few estimates in the financial statements. Uh, one related to the pension liability that's recorded, the the city's share of the
PER liability at the state level, um, an estimate relating to the value of land held for resale, and an estimate relating to recorded claims payable. Happy to report that when working with staff, we encountered no difficulties.
they were well prepared for the audit like usual. Um no disagreements. Um so all in all we I feel we work well together and um just had a few uh hiccups as I uh mentioned on the previous slide
but that had nothing to do with our interaction with staff. And lastly uh there were no material misstatements detected as part of the audit. So then I just have three final slides here summarizing the general fund in
2024. The final budget down at the bottom left called for about a $3.9 million decrease in fund balance or usage of existing fund balance. Uh the actual results of
about a $4.4 $4 million increase um due to both revenues being overbudget and expenditures being under budget. On the on the revenue side, taxes were overbudget by about $1.2 million,
property taxes due primarily to the to the collection of delinquent taxes from the previous years. um licenses and permits were over budget by about 1.7 million and then investment income was over budget by about 1.5
million with the higher interest rates. Um on the expenditure side it's really across the board uh pretty all departments um came in under budget so no nothing in particular stood out on the expenditure
side. So that the city ended the year with a general fund fund balance of $55.5 million. Here's a five-year snapshot of the the fund balance, the ensuing year's
budgeted appropriations. And then the the ratio or the the percentage of fund balance compared to the ensuing year's budget. As you can see, you've maintained right about that 50% level, which I I think a a a healthy
spot to be, but not um is not a surplus there. You know, if you get into 60%, then maybe you start to question, okay, why is it so high? But I think 50% is a nice healthy spot to be.
the the last slide here, the general fund balance 55.5 million. There is about $2.5 million of that restricted for public safety uses. That's public safety aid received from
the state that wasn't spent as of the end of 2024. There are restrictions on those dollars. And then commitments for budget carryovers and incumbrances that the council have made. So it leaves 46.8
46.4 million of unassigned fund balance. Few items on the bottom there commenting on that fund balance. It's important for everybody to remember that the city's primary funding source property taxes is
received twice a year in July and December. So this fund balances as of the end December 31st. So you really need to have enough on hand to pay the bills, the the invoices, the payroll for the
next six months until you get paid again. So that that 55 million that it it shrinks um throughout the first six months of the year until it's replenished here in a few weeks. Um, reserves are also important for any
unexpected or emergency type situations that come up and they can help smooth the effects of any future volatility um or needs um that um over a longer period of time.
So with that um that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, a um I believe you have a request for council to make a motion to accept the 2024 audit. Thank you, Mr. Herring. Thank you for the the
work and for the uh I always appreciate the the look at how we do our work as much as what comes out of it. It's the the different pieces that go into it and then the numbers obviously that uh that reflect that. But just showing that uh each year for longer than most of this
council has been alive, Bloomington has been doing it correctly, doing very well. So that's that's very good to hear. So council questions, comments. Council member Galisandro. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this probably is a question for staff more so than it is for the our auditor friends. But I just um just double checking that the four
findings that were uh addressed, h how did we handle those? Did we correct them real time? Are we responsible for uh providing amendments that do correct them? Like what's the process of making sure those I mean these I'm going to assume they're minor. It doesn't sound like there were major infractions, but
either way we want to get the record corrected. How do we do that? Yeah. So I'll speak briefly then maybe you uh those a lot of them related to 2024 issues and turnover on the the housing authority side. So, they I haven't
personally verified that they've been corrected in 2025, but I've been told they've been corrected. Um, and I know there there's a in the official this audit goes in and it's submitted to the federal government because it's an audit
on federal compliance. There's a corrective action plan for each finding that staff write and you've there responded to each finding um saying that they have been corrected. Okay. Yeah, and I would just add to that that
um we have had um followup meetings with um the H and as Andy pointed out, it's had a lot of time to transition um and turn over staff and starting every hourly trained and um
um uh recognized that they needed to um work through some of those some of those processes and procedures. and has been question. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I think I've just asked if maybe in the minutes of
the of this meeting we can get that corrective action plan published along with the minutes just because that way we'll have it the full documentation if that's doable. I don't know if that's a public document but if it is that'd be great. I think what what we can do publicly and I'm sure it's the majority of it absolutely we can do that. Okay.
Awesome. Thanks. Thank you. You're welcome. And I I'd agree over in a grand scheme of things. I think they're on the minor side. I mean, they're significant enough where they need to be reported, but as I commented, no actual instances of
um non-comp they're more non-compliance with policies rather than actual um bad stuff that happened. It's an official accounting. Yeah. Yeah. Accounting 101. Awesome. Thank you. Anything else?
Council council member to that point. Um I appreciate the Thank you. Ready to talk about uh to that point that our council brought forward. If I recall, I thought
we had a finding before with H. Am I mistaken last year or a couple years back? And I just wanted to know how that was different. There have been findings in the past. I I'm trying to I know we had a finding related to
the amounts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, which is the the statement of federal expenses about amounts. I think there was an amount that was on that schedule that should not have been because it was
local dollars and then there was some federal dollars that weren't on it originally that we then had to um put on that schedule. So I remember I recall that finding um so it related to the the federal compliance audit but I don't
recall findings specifically to these items. Okay. was in the H if I remember right my my brain was uh so I just I'm just a little bit concerned that uh you know we had it a couple different times the same area so I don't know if that
was also dealing with uh transition as well because I know at that point in time if I remember correctly there was a transition as well so I'm just you know curious you know again nobody to answer this now but is there you know is there good techniques for if we have a lot of that turnover and change and we kind of
catch that as we come forward again not necessarily looking for a response right now on the spot since I don't have the details of that past one. I think that's unfair. I just thought about that as I was listening to this. Yeah, I guess my response would be that if you're referring to last year, it would have
been the um the receivable amount related. There's been at the same time that there's been a lot of of transition and turnover in the H. There's also been a lot of increased activity and that um activity is a has a lot to do with the
affordable housing um trust fund and all of those developments and activities. And so there was um a something noted last year with um a receivable related to the affordable housing trust fund and
one of those um developments that should have been um recorded. Thank you for that. A reminder of the intensity of all the work we have been doing there in that area and then also transition. Uh so that's a good thing to think about when we're thinking about
our staffing moving forward. Yeah. So that was an actual related to the financial statements where these findings actually relate to as noted like compliance issues with um procedures and checklists and things
like that. Anything else council? If not, councel, I would look for a motion to approve the 2025 city of Bloomington uh annual comprehensive financial report for calendar year 2024. So moved. Second. Motion by council
member Dallasandro, second by council member Carter to accept the city's annual comprehensive financial report for calendar year 2024. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Opposed. The motion carries. 70. Thank you. Uh thanks for your work
on this. Uh thank you for the staff leadership on this and for shephering this on through. And uh Mr. Herring, we'll see you tomorrow night at the Port Authority meeting. So we're looking forward to that. Sounds good. Thank you. Be on item three on our agenda. This is
our consent business. Council member Mua has our consent agenda tonight. Council member Mo. Thank you. Any holds from council? I haven't heard of any hearing. None. I move consent items 3.1. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Wanted to just wanted
to mention one. Sorry. I was looking at something. believe it was 3.1. Uh, so if you hold it, if you could just say we're going to hold it and then we'll come back to it. I am not going to hold it, mayor, because I wanted to thank the staff for the response and my
concern that I had about the first part of the area. So, I'm not going to hold it. Keep moving on this thing. Not tonight. So, that's all I wanted to say. There's no other place to talk about it. Go back to you. Second.
We have a motion by council member Mu, second by council member Carter. Accept tonight's consent business as stated. And I hope you note as you did on the uh agenda sheet, it is 3.5. I think we go from 3.4 to 3.6. And I just want to make sure that that is corrected. Uh so our
consent business item 3.1 to 3.5. Any further council discussion on this? Hearing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you. Council member Mo. We'll move on to item four tonight
hearings resolutions and ordinances. And I think I was going through the agenda council. I think I announced this as hearing. This is a resolution resolution authorizing issuance and sales of sales tax revenue bonds series 2025A and general obligation sales tax
revenue bonds series 2025 here to lead us through this as always. Welcome. Good evening Mayor Castle. I am pulling up the presentation. So, as mayor mentioned, um this evening we have um
resolutions for series 2025A and 25B. Um the first one is the sales tax up here revenue bond and the second one is a geo bond. I'll go into more of that as we process through the presentation. The next slide um as the council is
aware and know we publish frequently is the city is one of 31 municipal governments uh nationwide that has the three AAA's. The city has maintained the three AAA's from Moody's standard pores and Fitch for over 20 years now. So
We're ranked pretty high in the elite for those. Um having um those triple AAA's will help us in the bond sale um for how they're ranked. Um next week we have our credit rating call on Tuesday and we'll see um how the rating goes.
But with the financials from 2024 that they'll get um tomorrow um everything should go pretty smoothly with those. Um the bonds are going to be for the community health and wellness center for Ann and her team over there. Um we've been part of many meetings to knowing
what's in there and what's coming. So it'll have um gymnasiums, the walking track, um indoor playground, um pool with family walkers, including um we'll have public health there and they're going to have more space in public health um than they've had before. So hopefully um everybody will have what
they need in that area. Here are the first year of our sales tax returns. Um so just giving you a a feel of the timing. So I I'll start with the back end. On March people uh vendors
collected that in March by the 25th day of April they submit that to the state. The state um looks through all that and they submit it on the following 10th of the month. So last week we received in June the March
um actual sales. So there's always that time lag there. So, um, here in June, we just got the that first year and we received just over $15 million, um, in the sales. So, when we first did our forecast with the U of M extension
office, the 15 million um, it was a little on the wow, we're going to maybe get that. It was on their high point of where we're going to hit it. In our first year, we got that 15 million. So, as we're looking through that, um I'll come back to those numbers a little
bit. First, you need to know that on um we have the sales tax bonds, which are the 2025A bonds. We are looking to issue um in the neighborhood, you know, the numbers will change on actual sales date, but in general, it'll be about 65 million on that side and 30 million on
the GEO side. We are going to use um about $8 million of the collection that we have to buy down the 2025b because I didn't want that geo exposure for our tax levy on that one. So 8 million is going to the geo side of that. And so
we'll still have enough for debt service um for um the bonds that we sold last fall. So we have debt service for that one coming up on August 1st. And then both of these, all three of these bond sales will have to normal principal and interest um on February one of each year
for the next 20 years. And then on this next slide, um right now the 2024 Bonds, one that we sold in the fall is that bottom blue line. Um the orange line will be the sales tax.
The light blue line then is the geo bonds for this issue. And the top one is the forecasted $20 million. Uh on the top there, as you look across there, um we have tried to keep the debt service on all of these at 12.5 million or less.
So then coming in at 15 million, that 12 a.5 is going to give us the bum the buffer from now moving forward. So, if some years we don't get the 15 million or 12.5 million that we need, we'll be able to use those reserves to make sure that we have um plenty of dollars in the
bank. And if this just keeps flying high, we'll be able to um pay down these bonds. Um and part of that, we're looking to make sure that we can redeem these bonds at any time. So, um and then if there's just a portion that we want
to grab one year and redeem it um early, we can do that, too. So, um, Baker Tilly is putting a lot of flexibility in these, um, bond documents for us, but right now our collections are higher than our forecasted debts for this. And so, the timeline, um, is
authorization to bond. So, we need about 30 days so we can get the credit rating calls, our final preliminary offering documents out in the market um, put everything out there. um so everyone can see all of our documents, all of our financial reports,
our budget documents in July 14th in the morning. Um we'll have a bond sale and we'll bring you the results that evening and then we'll receive the proceeds on August 13th and then I'll be turning the proceeds over to this lucky group of people to um build us
our community health and wellness center. It's fortunate that you're just right here. And then before your the two motions um for adopting the authorization to sell these bonds on the 14th. So I stand for
any questions on the dots. Thank you, Mr. Coun. Other council questions member Delisandro. Just a quick question. I think I heard it right, but you're you're you're not we're not going to necessarily right away knowing that we have the acrual exceeding the
expectations of the of the bond amount. We're not going to we're not going to um we're going to wait a little while before we apply that those dollars to any kind of accelerant on the payback. I'd like to see at least 10 years of um
nice positive numbers and things before we start. Yeah, sorry. I'm a finance superintendent. I I expect I was I'm surprised by 10, but I expected so great. I I understand what you're doing. I I was going to advocate for us to do it faster, but I
completely understand what you're out. So, thank you for that. Thank you. That's all member also. Anything else? Other questions? If not, council, we've got two motions this evening. I will look for action on it in 4.1 this evening. Council
member Delisado, I just question for you. Is this a Was this supposed to be the public hearing question? And I misstated that there was a resolution. Yes. Very good. I thought so. Um yeah, I'm happy to make the motion. Council member Alesandro. Okay. Um the first motion to adopt a
resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of sales tax revenue bonds series 2025A in a proposed aggregate principal amount of $65 million. Thank you. Motion by council member Dallasandro, second by council member Mua to adopt the resolution authorizing issuance and sales of sales tax revenue
bonds series 2025. Council member Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. I'll support this, but in the future, I'd really prefer not doing this at a study session. I'd much rather do this in a regular meeting in the other room.
So, but it makes sense and it's what everyone has expected as we've gone through this project. It all matches up. We've talked about it numerous times. Staff is, you know, on top of it. I don't have problems with it, per se. Just if we could get it to coincide with
the regular meeting. That would be my preference going forward. I would agree with you, council member, and and I do think I I mentioned as I was talking about this agenda, this was one of the the timely items that we we needed to find time to get in. So, and this was one of those, but I agree. We could have ideally try to get make it in in a
regular meeting. I agree. Thank you. So, we have a motion and a second. Any additional comments on this on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Motion carries 70. Council member Delatro.
Um, also u making a motion. I will move to adopt resolution uh authorizing the issuance and sale of general obligation sales tax revenue bonds series 2025B and the proposed aggregate principal amount of 30,825,000. Motion by council member Dallas, second
by council member Mua to adopt the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of general obligation sales bonds tax revenue or tax revenue bonds series 2025B. Any further comments on this council? Council member, my fellow council would also want this
to the other chambers. We have done this before when we needed to do in the past. So just as a matter of history, we don't try to fast. Very good. Also we have a motion and a second on
the table. Anything additional on the second motion related title 4.1 hearing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I motion carries 70. Thank you academy. Thanks so very much. item in the past couple years we have
not accepted any but there is history brought up there is history and precedent where we wouldn't allow outside folks on our staff and city council to to offer their opinions and to be able to help part of a conversation as we work toward a uh a
decision and that is what we're going to do tonight we're going to open up an opportunity for public comment here uh not officially a public hearing public comment and we've got four folks who have signed up at a time. We're going to ask all of them to limit their comments
to five minutes per entity represented. So folks from all person speaking out of the room. Uh the folks that I've got listed on my list here from I believe
from Dan Williams. Is there anybody else who wants to speak? I think it's time. We heard the speakers first and then we're going to
turn it over to staff for the staff presentation. I am hold of the timer and I'm going to cut you off because just because everybody I want that same amount of time with you Good evening.
Hi. Hi. Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay. Don't start yet. Okay. Um, hi, good evening. I'm Kristen Mir representing Rosa Development. Um, I'm the daughter of Robert Mir who developed much of the area in the 80s
and 90s. He developed the Embassy Suites Hotel and the Hilton and kept the middle portion as park and fly. These developments were all uses complemented the growing airport and have continued to do so. The definition of temporary, something that lasts a short amount of
time, 6 weeks, perhaps six months. Park and Fly was approved for remote airport business in 1988, which was 36 years ago. I was nine in 1988 for perspective. Now I'm 45. My father has passed away eight years ago. How can a temporary use become a generational issue? I want to
work with the city to get a permanent resolution now. I don't want my daughters to be dealing with the same issues in another 20 years. In the 90s, the city of Bloomington and others worked hard to keep the airport in its current location. Since then, MSP has grown and is now a booming Delta hub. With an airport the size of MSP comes
supporting businesses like off-air airport parking, car rental, airport hotel, hotels that service the many travelers it draws. These businesses are not irregular, unusual or negative. Every major airport has them. I asked the parking spot to give me their zoding data from the other locations showing
how other cities treat off airport parking. It is permanent and allowed in all other 46 locations. Bloomington is the outlier, not the norm here. You have their study included in your packet and staff has agreed with these findings. Most cities simply agree simply accept
that there is a need for airport parking in the right locations. Other communities nearby such as Egan and St. Paul have off airport parking as a pre-existing permitted use. Also, we have worked hard to run a first class business. We have 52 employees, some of which who have been with us for over 30
years. We have paid millions in taxes to the city and county. We provide travelers a muchneeded service. We have new vans, insurance, security cameras, and app. I would invite anyone here to come look at our business. We are not We are doing a respectable job. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or even
controversial about our operations. Everyone is all for affordability, affordable housing, affordable healthcare while we are providing affordable parking. The current use predated the light rail, amendments to the comp plan, and mandates for transit oriented development. So I think the use should
be grandfathered in as a permanent pre-existing business. If the city does not like off airport parking as a use per se, then it should accept the two established operators and prohibit the opening of new sites going forward. It is a positive thing for the consumer to have choice about where they want to
park. Some people get anxiety driving into large airports. Some find the prices at MSP too high and they like us as an option. Do you think it's easy to compete with MAC? They have unlimited resources, a better location, and we pay them for each airport trip. Prohibiting us gives MSP a parking monopoly, which
isn't good for consumers. The staff and the commissioners view the surface lot the same way as they do raw, unused land, but it is not raw land. It is an integral part of a long-standing business. Airport parking is an economy of scales business. You can't afford to pay the taxes, run prompt vans, pay
salaries, and offer competitive prices if you are too small. You cannot compete with Mac if you are small. Having both the garage and the surface lot gives the consumer a choice for parking like first class and economy on a flight. I tried to see if the city's ideas for a development would work. I hired a
consultant architects and designed a beautiful building. It took two years and cost $2.5 million. Everyone loved it, including myself. However, it didn't work. The returns were reviewed by the Port Authority accountants and it was a pathetic 1 to 2%. I would be in a terrible position now had we gone along
with that project. The moratorum was a great idea to look at issues from a new perspective. However, after the planning commission meeting, I'm worried there is actually been no progress. The staff and commissioners favored option four from the matrix, which really leaves us
exactly where we started. Milestones are now simply being called performance standards. But it's the exact same deal in reality. More checking in, more wasting time, more legal fees. No real solution, potential for the moratorum to be extended or in worst case litigation.
Don't we all want the same thing? An actual solution after three decades of indecision. We have been working for 36 years following laws, paying taxes, employing people, and we have a stellar history of getting people to and from the airport safely.
We are not asking to expand or change anything. We simply want to be accepted as a permanent pre-existing use. That's how this use is treated in all other cities. You have Bill Griffith's letter. This use has permanent rights. It's time to acknowledge that fact and move on. I would like to thank the council for
hitting pause with the moratorum and sorting through these issues. I would also like to thank the mayor and the city attorney for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions also. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, council. Uh quick questions here before we time for one or
two taps. Okay, very good. Thank you. Our friends from all of America, Megan Rogers. Uh good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Pleased to be here. Megan Rogers from Len Hoffman on behalf of
Mall America. Uh well, we have the sort of unique opportunity to sit as observers to this uh parking study and this traffic this study. uh the the airport moratorum uh because we don't have on-site remote airport parking at
our facility at this point in time. It's actually prohibited underneath the zoning district. However, um we see a really unique opportunity here. A unique opportunity that doesn't just doesn't apply to Mall of America, but that applies to other owners of structured parking uh structures within uh this
particular within the South Loop District. And um there's a unique opportunity presented because the South Loop district as your staff has shared um in their report and as was really evidenced by the planning commission conversation around this is designed to be a transit oriented district. There is
a massive investment in the infrastructure of the light rail and uh and as the Mall of America is a significant beneficiary of that. And so, um, what we've put before staff for consideration as sort of a partner in this conversation is a transit oriented
remote parking opportunity where, uh, existing parking structures that are within 500 ft of the light rail infrastructure, uh, light rail station would be able to utilize long-term remote parking. Um, and that could be for airport purposes, that could be for game days, that could be for conferences
that are available on site. um and it would be specifically tied to using excess parking capacity. And so that's only for um that parking that's not needed to serve the primary use. Uh so we are happy to answer any questions that you have about the submission that we have put forward. Um but really uh we
stand here in support uh of staff and the planning commission's recommendation at this point in time. Thank you council. Any questions here? Council member Len. So do you have any concern at all um uh with enforcement? I know that I was reading through the vegan component of this that they had some,
you know, especially when we have the game day type stuff where you'd have folks moving into some of that non, you know, it would uh, you know, kind of prohibit some of the retail shopping. Could you talk a little bit more about that? Well, one of the components of our proposed language specifically requires
that the operator show there's excess capacity. Um, and as you are all very familiar with, the Mall of America has an extensive parking infrastructure that manages capacity on an hourby- hour day-to-day basis. Um and so we can very much reasonably say for our site and we believe it would be true for other
operators within the community um that we know that the the top floor of the east garage is empty uh or closed in fact um o almost every day of the year except for 10 on capacity days. And so the idea would be to utilize that
existing infrastructure and to work in concert uh with Metro Transit so that a person comes into the ramp, they already have their ticket to light on ride on the light rail to the airport or to their eventual destination. Um they park at the site. They we have a known term for their parking. Um and then they just
take the elevator downstairs to the station. Anything additional council? All right, you're good. Thank you so much, Mr. Williamson. Good evening and welcome. Welcome, Dan Williamson, Park and Go. You know, I've
been coming to these meetings for 20 years and I'm starting to outs surervive the staff. I don't know if that's good or not, but um I sat in the planning meeting, which was a closed meeting. Of course, we couldn't comment there. And I've met with the staff
and after you're done. Okay. And one of the things I I heard was a lot of positive things. And I'd like to think that you're also hearing the same things from the planning meeting that we seem to be building a bridge together to maybe move forward and not continue to
have uh meetings that aren't quite so congenial. So, I'm hoping that's where we're going. One of the things I do want to comment on is, you know, I've been around the Minneapolis airport since 1967. That's a little hint to how old I am.
Um, and I remember in the 80s working for Republic Airlines. My office was on the second floor of the Delta Office Building, southeast corner, and I was a planner there, and there was discussion about relocating the airport to Scott County, Hastings, and some of you may have been around when all that
discussion was going on. and I was the planner and they were flopping drawings on my desk saying, "Dan, how many hold rooms, how many gates, how many woolard loading bridges are we going to need? Should we have our own terminal?" And I had to lay these things out and then all of a sudden it stopped. And what I was told is the local municipalities had
kind of made a agreement that we would support the airport in their long-term needs. Now, we run a great airport in Minnesota. It's always ranked at the top. If you walk through airports, I'm in hundreds of airports over the years. Um, they're just really in tune with
what people want. And so, we want the airport to be healthy, but we also need to support them. And it seems like there's only a few properties left that can still provide space to support airport needs. And as Miss Smeir um put very well, um we have a lot of people
that this is where they park. They won't park anywhere else because of the financial constraints when you go to the main airport. They want the service model that we have that we handle the luggage and bring them up to the door. There's a lot of things we do helping with tires, jumping batteries, and when
it's 30 below zero, we're jumping 50 cars a day. So, there's a lot of positive things there. And also, this is the only city we really have this kind of unique situation where there's this limited zoning approach. So even when I stand back from the global view, which
many of you, you know, we know that it's not zoned for this right now, at least there's a little debate on that, but the point is that's how you're seeing it. I stand from a global view going all the way back to 1980s when this airport almost left this location, went somewhere else. So, it seems like we
should try to find a way to make this work because there is a need for the uh remote airport parking and we need property kind of available open for future development in case there are other needs that the airport may wish to have us build and there have been some
interesting suggestions by the staff as to how to do that going long term. So, I'm also here to answer questions if you have any today. There were some questions at the planning commission meeting that I could have answered, but it was closed. So, I gave Mike some of the answers when I met with the staff. So, if there are any questions, I'm here
to answer them. Council member Delisano. Thanks very much. Nice to meet you. Um, so just your your your statement is a little different than what I think I was expecting, which is kind of an up or down, yes or no for against type thing. So you you're suggesting that there's
there are potential opportunities with the airport that you would prefer to to have to hold this property for. Not so much what the city is suggesting, but more that you'd like to hold that open for airport needs. Am I Am I just read I
just want to make sure I'm reading your your statement correct. That that would be part of it. Yes. I just if we if we build it into for instance all residential, it's done. I I understand. We're boxed out. Do you do you have a Can you articulate for us some examples of the kinds of things you might expect
the airport needs in the future might be that you would be interested in supporting? Well, think think about Well, there's a plan you have in your package. Um, you know, think about hotels, restaurants, and there are other airport services that we don't talk
about, whether it's cargo or it's distribution facilities. There's other things that are kind of off. We don't talk about them because they're kind of boring, you know what I mean? It's just it's the nuts and bolts of the airport. Um, so those are the kind of things we're trying to say maybe we should leave some room open for that. We also
know that um, and this has been park and go story. When I got there 20 years ago, summers were quiet. I fill my lot every Thursday, Friday over capacity. So, the demand is growing. It's not going down. We could expand our parking actually.
And part of the plan that I've given you is to look at the north side of the property. There's some logic to doing that. We got an Excel energy line and some other things like that. Thanks. Thank you. We are out of time. Thank you so very much, Mr. Williamson. Appreciate it. Okay.
Mayor, member, staff, appreciate the time. I'll be fast. Um, really just here to uh know for those of you not familiar, um, I'm a developer in the area. um generally large stakeholder in the south loop. We have um the outdoor apartments south of the mirror property.
We have the adaptive reuse of the crown plaza. We have the crown plaza um or a leie in one of the ramps that I think could very much benefit from the uh underutilized provision and uh we're working with staff right now on a workforce development in the south loop as well. So vested interest in the south
loop. Just wanted to come here today to say we're very supportive of anything that finds a happy medium. We understand in the early early meetings that uh the conditional use permits could have been pulled and for us that you know looking out the window at 21 acres of empty
pavement would be a dystopian nightmare. And so we really appreciate that everybody's slowing down and taking the time to figure out what do we do with this? How do we make this work so it continues to feel active but maybe um solves some of the uh um
contra concerns? Um so just here to say we're supportive of what the stats doing, supportive of what came out of planning commission, supportive of the underutilized uh ramp provision, and obviously supportive of the hotel piece that uh Mike will talk about. So that's just it. We're here supportive. Uh happy to answer any questions, questions of
Mr. Katy. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks for being here with us tonight. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Um, uh, my name is Robert Coleman. Um, and, uh, I'm here to talk about a room at airport parking
because it's really important to me. When I when I look at the South Loop, even today, I do not see the uh dense walkable urban environment that the South Loop district plan calls for. And I think that if there were to be major changes to the policy on remote airport
parking, it could make that situation even worse. Um, and I think that as a resident of Bloomington, uh, we are the ones who are we are the ones who live here, right? like if there's not enough housing being built in Bloomington and there isn't, then we're the ones who pay
for that in increased rents and uh more in uh it being more uncertain for us. And when uh the city invests in say new fire stations and new uh roads and water pipes and um and new transit, if the if
the returns from the investments that were going to come in don't come in, we're the ones who pay for that, right? Like the the building's already been built there. Somebody has to pay for it and it's probably going to be us. Um, and I have a really big concern about
how like if you read the purpose and intent of the HXR district, and I think you really should like it, it is completely antithetical to permanent remote airport parking. And I especially when I'm very concerned when talks are
happening about increasing the amount of parking, too. I don't like I don't see how South Loop needs more cars, right? more traffic is going to be the opposite of what South Loop needs. It needs more ground level activation. It needs more
people. It needs more things going on because, you know, a grocery store and a coffee shop does not a neighborhood make. Um, and I was just in uh Washington DC. I saw that none of the none of the comparisons on there
mentioned Washington DC. I was just at um Crystal City and I I rode the entirety of the Metro way which is their little BRT there and it is amazing what they've done in redeveloping around an airport. Now obviously National is not perfect. Um but there is very little
space that is dedicated to exclusively airport right like it is the tiny little triangle but so much of it is it is density and it does have parking garages below that have remote airport parking. We should not be compromising on the
dense walkable urban environment that we've been promised to, you know, these businesses are clearly very profitable that with very low overhead. Um, and I don't think that like just because it's profitable doesn't
mean that we should be spending acres upon acres of Bloomington using it. I mean, if people want a cheaper alternative to getting to the airport, I've got a great option. It costs $2. It's the bus. You leave your car at home, right? Like, and we should be doing we should not be squandering the
potential of the blue line light rail to to serve these uh places that uh create very little light rail um traffic. And I think that um if you were
to allow remote airport parking as a conditional, the floor area ratios of the site have to be over the AC whole site. We should not be giving up on the dense urbal urban environment for these parking garages. I think that they should it you should craft the
definition of remote airport parking to say that hey you can't run a shuttle. You have to have people riding the light rail because what's the point? Like there's so little land left by the light rail that you can build residential on. Like so much of it is in the the
approach path. There's basically nothing left after this. And if we're if we're giving up on this, then how are we going to meet our housing needs? How is Metroransit ever going to say, "Hey, we want to build more transit in Bloomington when we're
like time after time after time, we're giving up on to because even the TOD that we do have is pretty middling. I mean, the fact that they have to the best that they have to do is a 1.5 floor ratio is pretty pathetic for light rail.
If you look at a lot of the other places that have light rail, that's a really low bar to meet. And I feel like if if they have remote airport parking, they should like they should be held to a higher standard for the amount of actual activity that is happening on those sites. Um I think, you know, there's a
lot of talk about, oh, we need the remote airport parking to finance the development, but like what has been happening for the past 37 years, they've been pocketing that money, right? Like it's not going towards the development. They've known that this is coming for a very long time. And
it it's very frustrating that this is one of the things that I look at Bloomington, I say, hey, we're doing something good, right? And even though it's not as much as I want it to be, at least we're going in the right direction. And I don't know, we should be doing good things in Bloomington. And
I don't know if if we're the only person doing that, then that's fine to me. You know, we have time. Thank you. Thanks, Robert. Have anyone else would like to speak at our opportunity for public comment on item 5.1 here tonight?
If not, thanks to everybody who spoke. We appreciate it. We appreciate you spending your time with us this evening. I'm going to turn it back over to our staff now. Our planning staff Johnson, Dakota Castle Day, and Michael Centinario.
Good evening. Welcome, Mayor Council members. Thank you. Uh so we're going to follow up the uh commentary from folks that joined us tonight with uh you know staff's presentation uh and the airport parking study. Uh we will touch on a lot
of the elements that you heard from uh the folks that decided to speak and of course we'll uh we'll be available for I'm sure uh a number of questions that you have. Michael, can I ask you to put the microphone straight on into your Oh, okay. Sorry. Yep. Is that a little
better? It is a little better. Yep. Okay. Thank you. So to give you a little bit of uh background uh the moratorum that is in place uh on land use actions ends this October and so we wanted to meet with
you well we met with the planning commission a few weeks ago and we wanted to meet with you to get your feedback and have adequate time to craft uh potential code amendments um that uh are consistent with the
feedback back that you give us in time to review that and adopt uh any any ordinances before that moratorium ends. So again, we met with the planning commission on May 22nd for a for a study
session. You know, in general, uh they agreed with staff that remote airport parking really isn't consistent with the comprehensive plan and the south district plan. However, there was a broad acknowledgement that these are long-standing businesses that have that
are successful, they operate well, and there is a there really is a demand uh for this type of use. So, uh one of the takeaways from the planning commission was to try and find a middle ground where uh we could allow for nonp parking
type development uh within the south district to try to implement some of the vision uh that's in our uh comprehensive plan and our district plan. Uh but really the purpose of tonight is to get your feedback on uh a recommended approach and as I mentioned the next steps would be to uh work on drafting an
ordinance uh for those changes and to have uh public hearings uh to consider that ordinance in July and to you in August. So we wanted to touch on existing conditions. You know most of the discussion uh is centered around remote
airport parking uh and and that makes sense. The majority of the land uh that's being discussed is remote airport parking as a land use. Uh so we have we have two uh park and go about 1500 stalls. It's been in operation since 1992
and starting in 2019 uh these intermuse permits were conditioned with development milestones and you know that development milestone approach hasn't hasn't led to what we cons what we call permanent uh development. And uh this
for park and go the IUP expired in uh October of 2024. Of course, the moratorum uh suspended any uh actions or enforcement uh on those intermuse permits. The other uh main remote parking
facility is uh the parking spot by Park and Fly. We'll just refer to it as Park and Fly. Uh again, over 12 acres. Uh this one has is a little larger in terms of capacity at over 2,000 parking stalls. It is divided between uh surface
and a structure and it's a little older in operation since 88. Uh the parking structure was built in 1994 and the intent there was to have an office tower uh on top of that parking structure. Obviously the office tower didn't materialize and has been used for
remote airport parking uh ever since. The other part of the study is related to airport parking at hotels and it is uh this type of use where folks stay a night and then park their car for an x number of nights based on that hotel's
package uh has existed more or less since there have been hotels near an airport. Uh so it is a use that um isn't really addressed in much specificity uh in the code. uh there is there is some allowance for it in the code but it it
hasn't led to any uh significant improvements at any of the hotels but the stay park and fly packages are very popular and uh in meeting with u BMTT it's one if if not the most visited uh
page on their website. Uh so it is it is a very popular uh very popular use and we we felt it needed to be addressed uh in this study. Okay. Uh, let me know if you can hear me. Okay. Sorry, we're trying to give Mike a
little bit of a break to to speak a little bit. So, I just wanted to summarize a couple of the other components of our our study. One of those was just looking at um remote airport parking in our adjacent communities here in the Twin Cities. And so, there were three that we identified. So, the first was the Shephard Road
airport parking facility that's in St. Paul. um currently provides both structured and open lot parking. Um it's been a long pre-existing use that is currently legally non-conforming u to the current St. Paul zoning standards. So the area that this is
zoned is T3 or traditional neighborhood uh which currently allows a commercial parking facility as a conditional use with specific performance standards. And so those standards involve having some kind of non-parking use on on the site. Uh so if if this use ever wanted to
expand at the site, they would have to provide structured parking and some kind of component of a non-parking use. U so basically it's allowed as it is, but it any expansion of the site would have to comply with current St. Paul's zoning standards. Uh the second one that we
looked at was Easy Air Park in Egan. Uh they provide 1,694 surface stalls. uh it was approved through a conditional use permit for its phase 1 in 1984 and then phase 2 in 1986 and has continued to operate um from
that approval. And so the city of Egan doesn't currently allow any new um remote airport parking or commercial parking um facilities. And then finally, the third one we found um is a recent one is the Southwest Station Park and Ride in Eden Prairie and that's operated through Southwest
Transit U and they use a portion of u their uh structured park and ride facility um now for remote airport parking and then they provide a new bus service uh that runs through primarily along the 494 corridor with multiple
stops in Bloomington and then ends at the airport. And so it's I believe someone can park there for $5 a day potentially and um take the bus u to and from that park and ride to the airport. Um we also wanted to look at parking at
MSP airport. Um so currently um the Metropolitan Airport Commission or MAC um operates um just around 30,500 public parking stalls. Uh, and that's varied across structured parking at
terminal one and terminal 2 as well as the quick ride lot that's a little further out from the main airport or from the main terminals. Um, we also kind of linked um MSP's 2040 long-term plan where they do anticipate expanding
parking on their property. Um some of that is to expand parking at terminal 2 as they're kind of anticipating um increase in the number of departures and arrivals um out of that terminal. Um and then some of the structures around
terminal one are um reaching the end of their useful life and need to be redeveloped. And so there's um some phased plans in there to um expand parking at terminal 2 um to then allow the tear down of some of those older structures that need to at terminal one
and then eventually kind of rebuild and expand some parking at um terminal one as well. And then as was uh mentioned um from some of the speakers u there's also um a trip fee charged um for every shuttle that comes into the airport. And
so MAC estimated that there were over 119,000 trips from remote airport parking facilities in Bloomington um last year. Next slide. Um and then finally, we just wanted to also highlight um where there has been some additional interest in remote airport parking um and we kind of heard from
both um entities here. So, I don't want to reiterate too much, but just some interest from all of America and utilizing their east ramp and then the 3601 American Boulevard property uh to be able to utilize existing parking structures for remote airport parking.
Uh and then in the case of the 3601 uh potentially using the the uh revenues from that to help fund an affordable housing project on the site. So that's also part of our discussion today of looking at the existing plus some um
interested users in South Loop um on some of those existing parking structures. Okay. So as we included in the report uh we outlined a number of uh policy alternatives and they range from the less less
restrictive approach meaning uh change the code to allow remote airport parking as a permitted use. So there wouldn't be any sort of special uh zoning process. Uh it's unlikely that uh it would come before the planning commission and city
council if it's permitted use. uh and that's on that's obviously a less restrictive approach. I'm sure that would be preferred by the operators uh given it it provides more certainty and uh reduces the the regulatory barriers. On the opposite end you have just
prohibiting the use altogether. Uh and you know that's that comes with some some challenges in itself. Uh and then there's there's options in between. Uh so if you look at number two, that's more or less the current approach that's not working very well. Uh and that's to
continue this intermuse permit uh uh process uh that allows remote airport parking in these five-year increments. Um so we really in our analysis, our discussions with uh stakeholders, with
other other groups, uh really kind of focused in on uh some sort of permanent allowance for remote airport parking uh through a conditional use permit. And I I'll get into a little more detail.
So again, what we what staff's recommendation is and what the planning comm and the planning commission affirmed is to find a mechanism to allow permanent remote airport parking as a principal use uh with other elements and
we'll we'll get in more detail. And so the this idea is a pretty is a very significant departure on what the city's approach has been to date where the city's approach until now has been remote airport parking is a
holding use. It's temporary and over time it should go away in its entirety. Well, you know, our approach through this study has is more acknowledging that the use is doesn't want to go away, if you will. there's there is a
tremendous amount of demand uh that is not decreasing and is unlikely to decrease in the foreseeable future. We also have property owners that want to continue to operate the way they've been operating for decades. Uh and that's understandable. So what we're the
approach that we're trying to find is a middle ground that allows permanent remote airport parking but still allows uh the possibility for uh implementing the vision of the comprehensive plan and the south of district plan. So we
want to differentiate uh between the existing facilities meaning the existing uh remote airport parking facilities park and go and park and fly from new facilities. And when I say new facilities, that could be remote airport parking at the Mall of America or remote airport parking at or within an existing
structure. Think the what Mr. Kading described earlier. So that could limit uh new facilities to within existing parking structures. Uh and we feel that's a good approach because what we don't want to see is a proliferation of remote airport parking
within uh the city of Bloomington, especially the south district which is intended to be our most intense uh development area within the city. And so identifying uh remote airport parking as a conditional use is one is
one major step. And then it's important to think about so what what accompanies that use and that's where we get into discussion of performance standards. And I've highlighted or bolded what we feel are uh
are most important if you will in terms of discussing and getting your feedback. One is structured parking. Should we allow or require remote airport parking to be in parking structures as opposed to surface lots? You know, right now there's well over 24 25 acres of land is
dedicated to parking. The vast majority of that is in surface lots. Uh should there be a minimum development area uh for permanent development or should there be limitations in the surface parking? What ratio uh would we feel is appropriate? If the approach is to require structured
parking, should there be any sort of exterior design standards uh that enhance uh the appearance or uh architectural interest of a parking structure? And one element that I think is an is an absolute necessity is if we are to allow airport parking within
existing structures that there be a demonstration that those structures have supply. uh parking structures are often used by a variety of entities and we don't want to create problems for other tenants uh within these facilities.
Then there are other uh elements that we've we have listed uh whether to establish more intense uh development standards. F is a good example of that. Uh proximity to the airport uh which is a possibility. However, we are envisioning this to only be within the
CX2 and the HXR district. uh the existing facilities are in HXR and the CX-2 district is more or less the Mall of America campus and then there's also environmental uh standards that could be considered enhanced storm water management landscaping uh the the list could go on
and on but we tried to summarize it. So now we want we we would really appreciate to get your feedback and uh so again I've included this chart on what staff and the planning commission felt was the preferred alternative to allow remote airport parking again as
a permanent principal use through a conditional use permit but then establish some performance standards uh on how that remote airport parking would be implemented. And so the qu the first question to you is uh does the council agree with staff and the planning commission to pursue uh remote
airport parking alternative 4 and I've highlighted in the chart below me Nelson in general yes um my one concern concern, although I think you addressed it mostly through the conditions and standards. Um, similar to St. Paul, I'm
wondering if the parking should be a secondary use as opposed to a principal use. Um, so that eventually all facilities are similar so that you have, you know, if there's excess capacity in existing parking ramps, I support
utilizing that. Um, I think anything we can do to roll up that parking to still be able to provide it, still be able to meet market demand, but to free up land for other uses, I think makes sense. And so my question would be, should that be
a secondary use like St. Paul is doing? Um, and I just have one other one big question. Are my numbers correct? So, uh, the airport has over 30,000 spaces for parking and we have
approximately 4,000 just over a thousand at one, 2500 another, and then the hotels using park and fly things. I don't know what those numbers are. Is that approximately correct? Yeah, that is approximately correct. Yes. So, we're providing about
12 and a half% of overall demand. Okay. Mayor, uh, council members, if I may, and some of these, uh, some of these performance standards or regulatory approaches do differ depending on whether you're talking about uh, the
existing two operators or the proposal to allow within existing parking structures to the extent to which your guidance is differentiated between those two uh, different outcomes or solutions, it's important for us to receive that feedback as well. So, I just want to make that uh point as we talk about all these different uh uh potential
scenarios. And I appreciate that. My thought was to merge those two and bring them together. So, um an allowance for the existing parking facilities that they could create or expand the structured parking um portion of it, but
that eventually would all be utilizing some type of excess capacity for a different use. Council member Delaro. Thank you. Um, so there's a open there's a couple of things related to public comment that I wanted to just kind of throw out there
as I've been thinking about this. I've been trying to find the data and it's not easy to find. So maybe we need to ask for this information. But um, you know, I have a feeling that um, and it's just a feeling. So I actually want the data. if we can get to
it, it's probably going to come from the map um of their um their environments, right? What where do those people come from? Because one of the reasons that is while I appreciate that we have this
desire to be this center and whatever MSP airport is the only airport in hundreds of miles for thousands and thousands and thousands of people and so it's not you cannot compare it to Reagan National. I lived in M I lived in
national airport you know I lived in DC for eight years I flew there all the time go out to raising or go out to uh Dallas now you're talking that is what we're talking about people who come from southwestern Virginia come from west Virginia everything like that to go to
to Dallas because it's the only international airport that is that is the life we're in the largest and so I think of the puzzle here that we
forecasting to us. How many of those originations rightations are in people that are not in that benefit that can't benefit people
and you know like other things like that service is not uh and it's not a regional airport like flying cloud or south where highly commuter oriented highly you know
transit oriented business miles. So I think we have enough information to really go like oh we should do this loop when it's number and we're talking about people that we serve. The other thing that I
would say is I like to marry this a little bit with what our hotel like what the impact of our hotels would be if we were officially suppressing the ability for people to actually spend on our hotel before they go on their flight or
spend the night on the way back or whatever because that is also revenue to us and it's a lot of revenue to us with our energy and taxes and things like that. So my take so far is I like I I'm leaning towards the business from there.
Find a way to let them stay. Give them incentives to build where they can and and and convert that as much as possible things that you might like them also do. Um and um if
the statement is correct and we are all going to need to support parking that using excess capacity those ramps makes sense. Um is it going to be enough to then come back and say you know those businesses should go out of business? I
don't know. I I tend to not like to trample on people's rights to own their own businesses and operate them in the way that they see fit. Um, and so I'm hesitant to necessarily artificially create an environment where those two
successful businesses who I assume are not the governor back or not are good partners to the to the city. Um, you know, why why would artificially make it hard for them to be here? Um, that's my update at the moment. So I guess it's kind of
in three or four weeks. Um, I'm not quite sure where in here the the Rosa folks and the parking go folks can survive and themselves um and do their thing. Um, we can incentivize them in instead of, you know, dropping the hammer on them. But if that's three or
four, then I guess that's where I that's helpful. So, Council Delandre, just just uh one item in terms of like our uh our discussion. We're going to we we tried to split out the discussion between remote airport parking and hotel airport parking. So on a the next slide we'll
we'll ask you a couple questions related to hotel airport. Okay. Yeah. So um as it relates to this then whether I don't know which one that is but the one that lets them hang out in what they want but not so uh council member. Yeah. So we're
just asking you feedback on remote airport parking. Uh so that could that's the existing two facilities park and go park and fly. It also could apply to uh incorporating remote airport parking within existing parking structures. We're not we're we are not asking for
your feedback on airport parking at hotels yet. I I have comments on both of them. Um, but in regards to the existing parking spaces that we have, uh, if I correct me if I'm wrong, but last year we were discussing the possibility of
having an apartment building built in one of the parking existing parking, uh, lots. Correct. So, what happened to that idea? Sure, council member. Uh, I believe that was with uh, Miss Weir and, uh, the they are not moving forward with
that apartment building. they don't have an interest in trying to pursue that development. Uh she referenced the lack of returns on that investment and so that uh that development uh which we agree we are very supportive of um it
did not materialize and they do not have as far as I could tell they don't have an interest in pursuing that development anymore. I will be behind 100% behind something like that. But I mean as it is I a lot of what I wanted to ask or comment on
council member theander already spoke about it so I'll just myself to that. I was just curious what happened. Thank you council member council member Lman and council member Carter. Council member Lman. Thank you. Uh so as I as I look at this thing right here, you know,
I understand the market forces that that are there. And you know, typically you want to try to let the market kind of drive things if you can, but we have an overall vision uh that's there. And you know, one of the things I think is interesting about the South Loop and I I think about every day I go into the
North Loop in Minneapolis, but in our plan here, we we say why does the South Loop prosper? Because it has unparalleled connectivity. It's a regional center for commerce and it brings together urban development and natural resources in one place. And so I kind of think about that and then the
other pieces that are in there, you know, building on, you know, the district's unique mix of assets, LRT and bus transit and and those things that are there and and I kind of think, well, how does that really fit in with, you know, these, you know, a surface parking
lot? I guess that's kind of where I have the problem is where if you've got a surface parking lot that to me just doesn't fit that. However, you know, you've got a market force that you got to get somewhere between having a a parking lot
that that that deck and that deck is really expensive and we all know what that looks like. So financ for those private emails are there but I just having a surface lot of sense to me when I look at this
thing overall um you talked about sustainability goals So I ask myself what just from my standpoint I'd like to see more Maybe connectivity
rural areas get I don't think it last question. down. 194 Sure. Council woman, I'll uh regard related to your second question on whether there
could be a fee related to uh environmental sustainability. I will have to defer to our legal staff. Uh and they did look into that a little bit. So I don't know if Kevin if you want to come up and answer the question related to fees or city attorney mayor. So mayor
members um before we would start a fee we definitely want to make sure that we have authority to set the fee and then as you'll probably recall from previous discussions about uh fees we need to have a rough proportionality in an essential nexus. So um if there's a
desire to um explore the possibility of a fee, we would go through that process and then present some options if there are some. Mayor, is this allowed? Can I pull this thing out of here? Just uh Thank you. You're the master of
ceremonies here. I want to make sure. Um we have karaoke now. Yeah. You know, I was just going to say just to the question around sustainability. I think the key component there, I mean, Mike touched on increased landscaping and uh you know, enhanced storm water management. Some of those things of course also have to be evaluated from a
legal perspective to ensure that it's not uh uh is inconsistent with state law. Uh but one other thing I would say just gets to the general uh uh concept as it connects land use to sustainability is just efficient use of land. Okay. Okay. So, one of the elements of why uh staff is recommending
that a certain portion of the properties be reserved uh for uh more dense development is because from a sustainability standpoint, having more density and more compact development uh is preferential or a better outcome uh from a sustainability standpoint. So, is there a sustainability difference from
uh if you had a structured parking the same exact size as a surface lot? Well, it depends on how it's served by storm water management underneath. Um but generally, no. where the concept really kicks in is just efficient uh efficiency of land use and that's what informs some of the staff recommendations. Now, I
remember the question I was gonna I was going to ask about uh can you you can't get to that density number that we've got in those districts with just structured parking, right? That's not possible, right? Because I think that was one of the questions that that the uh one of the So, so council member, we actually don't
consider structured parking at contributing at all towards floor area. So, uh parking structure, it is a it is a structure, you know, it is concrete and steel, uh but it doesn't have any floor area. So the F of a parking structure is zero.
And if you're able to convert it in the future, could you speculate what that might look like if you were to do that? So you would kind of just say, okay, if the market were to demand that change, this is what that floor area would be and that's what we're going to judge. We
we could do that. Uh the parking structure would have to be designed in such a way where it could be converted. uh and usually flat floors. You have to have certain amount of uh clear width to incorporate your HVAC mechanicals and all the services for a
building. Um but yeah, as part of the design, uh we could estimate what sort of floor area could be retrofitted, but if it's a traditional ramp, uh it it has to be torn down uh in order to make way for a different style of
development. I'm gonna go to Council Member Carter. I want to point out to both staff and council, we are at 27 minutes now before our mandate mandated 9:00 uh adjournment time. So, if uh we get to that time, we will have to extend if this can
conversation goes much longer than that. folks at home cannot hear. Um, so I just want to ask a clarifying question and um, mostly because I want to make it very clear for people who might be listening at home. So, if we were to go with number four, if somebody
new came into the area, wanted to buy up some property and turn it into airport parking, would we would that be allowed in a not in a established facility, but just like, hey, this looks like a good business model in this area. So, we want
to turn this maybe knock down an old building that's outdated and we just want to have a surface parking lot for park for airport parking. Would this allow that? So, so Okay, I can repeat what he said. Well, if it's
Thank you. So, our our recommended approach is that no, they would not be able to establish a a new remote airport parking facility. We we just don't feel like that type of redevelopment is in line with the comp plan and the district plan uh for a lot
of the reasons that uh Mr. Johnson uh indicated. I need the microphone. Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you. Um, thank you for clarifying that. I think it's really important um, for people to understand. So, basically, if we were to go with number four, it would allow park
and go and park and fly to remain in existence and operate without this kind of weird temporary status that they've had for decades. Um, so, so I guess I I will say I'm fine moving forward with that. Um, but in
general, I just am not a huge fan of the parking, the airport parking um, in South Loop. And maybe it's because, you know, after being on the port for four years and seeing the vision that has been established, the increased density um, you know, and when you drive around in the area, it doesn't it's just kind
of like, you know, and I know it's functional. I know it's I know it's something that people across the region use. I know it's needed. I understand it's a good business model. long-term business owners. I also don't want to, you know, disrupt those businesses, which was why I'm willing to go along with number four. Um, but I do think
that if we wanted to be really bold in our in our vision and our thinking and our decision-m, um, we probably would do something a little different and try to figure out a way to get these airport parking lots transition to something that can be higher density, um, and
actually fulfill the vision of the South Loop area. Thank you, Council Member. Council member Moore. Thank you, mayor. Um, couple questions. Um, one comment. I do I am interested in understanding what a parking fee looks like as well. Um, I think that would that'd be another
option for us. Um, the one party that I want to hear more from is specifically MAC. Um, what's this going to do to them? they haven't taken a position in anything like if we're n 12 13% of the volume
that goes in there uh how does that impact them and their plans and yes we want to be a good partner with them but at the same time we need to grow as well and that growth supports Mac overall um so that that's a big piece that I am wishing to
understand more of uh what are these impacts and do they have a position that they are willing to share with us u and And secondly, question around structured um parking. I guess I want to understand more of
what is involved in that. Um I think people don't like seeing surface parking lots, but if the whole surface gets turned into a fourtory parking garage, is that as good? Is it not? Is there a limit to the size of the
structured parking that is breeding required? Um so question just regarding that. Um, overall I want to continue to support these businesses um to continue to be successful, but I also know that we have
plans for the South Loop. Um, plans that I wish would move faster. Um, but we have to move at the pace of where we're at. And so, um, interested in number three, number four, um, to come to some middle ground where we can
continue moving forward versus being stuck in this kind of standstill that we have. Thank you, Alura. The related to MAC, uh, we have reached out to MAC, we have had discussions with them. uh their position is that they're not taking positions
and um I think they they recognize that the remote airport parking facilities are a a part or a component of a uh international airport and they they get
a significant amount of revenue from not only the remote airport parking facilities uh but then also the hotels. Uh and so this is just part of the airport ecosystem. Uh and I feel like they're they acknowledge that those elements can coexist with the on airport
parking that they provide because as some of the speakers mentioned there's a a a significant contingent of the populace that they they will not park at the airport and uh these folks do offer a very good very good very convenient service uh that some folks just prefer.
So um between just that um that reality and the fact that they are collecting a substantial sum from the facilities and the hotels, I think they're they're comfortable with that coexistence.
Yeah. Thank you, Council Member. What I was going to add is just the limitations on what a parking structure could be are uh typical uh zoning considerations. Although in this particular area there are height limits um that are imposed by uh the MSP zoning uh airport zoning ordinance. So they would have to abide
by that although you can build a fairly tall structure in portions of the area that we're talking about uh still. Um so we're very confident that you can have a multi-story uh construct a multi-story ramp consistent with typical building setbacks and other considerations that
we review on the zoning side. Um so I just wanted to make that note. The other thing I would say is we appreciate your guidance on the high level. This is the most the biggest picture question. Uh but really in terms of how much it impacts um uh the existing operators and potential future operators uh if if
something along those lines is supported is the performance standards. Really the devil is in the details there. And so one of the standards that we've uh talked about is limitations on surface parking. U I mean you certainly have heard some uh feedback tonight that that is not uh preferred uh by uh one or more
of the operators. Um the other thing is limitations on the percentage of their site that can be utilized for this use. You know, you had questions around um should this be an accessory use. One of the challenges that we've had with the interimm use permit and the development milestones is that it requires these
operators to be developers also. Um we're hoping that through some solution uh you know they can kind of separate themselves one way or the other. I mean it is uh certainly one site. Um uh but just to that that point. So, I just wanted to emphasize that um how uh much
the sites change really is uh tied to what specific performance standards uh would be uh included in the city's policy. But this high level uh direction is uh is really the first step. Why don't we move on to the uh the hotel parking? Everybody's had a shot, right?
Everybody said got their All right, let's move on to the hotel parking question if we could please. Okay, thank you. uh you know the moving on to the hotel airport parking. Uh so what we're talking about is where there is a park
and stay package where uh and that that's hotel specific um and they have different allowances and we're not trying to dictate what that is. Uh but in general uh what we're proposing is that that become a permitted accessory
use. Uh this is this is a use that's been in operation uh extensively and uh we feel that the the code changes that we're proposing should acknowledge it as a permitted accessory use. When we
spoke with uh Miss Carlson at BMTT, she expressed how important this this uh accessory use is to the health of their operations. um it has uh existed for quite a long time and we really haven't seen uh any
sort of sign significant negative externalities on uh airport parking at hotels. Uh so we feel like uh it should be a permitted accessory use. The hotel is the primary use. So what just to be clear what we are not proposing and uh
would not support is hotels having their own remote airport parking facility. Uh we think that the use as a hotel and the airport parking is something accessory to that. Uh that said uh we also don't want to see the proliferation of surface
parking lots for the sake of hotel airport parking. Uh so one way to minimize that potential is to actually establish a maximum hotel parking standard. Bloomington and by large part is a minimum based parking uh has
parking standards like most suburban communities. Uh but a lot of uh more urban cities actually have maximum uh parking splies where you cannot exceed a particular maximum. We think that could work well here. uh what that looks like, what that maximum standard is. Uh love
to get your feedback. Um we think that that could be a good approach. And then also there isn't necessarily anything new per se that we'd have to incorporate in the zoning code, but if this does become a permit accessory use, there is going to be an enforcement element. Uh
because if operators aren't careful, they might park cars in fire lanes or we have had an instance where cars were parked on the grass. Um and that's just not the type of um management uh that we would like to see at hotels. Uh so there
is we would like some feedback on just maybe some very general uh enforcement uh language that we we could consider. So well I I would agree that it's been going on for years. Yes, we know it's it's been a
I have a big voice. Uh it's been uh prohibited in ordinance for years, but it's been going on for years and you can see it every all you have to do is go sometime it snows and you can see all the cars that aren't plowed out. They've been there for three or four days and it's pretty obvious. Uh but I would also
agree that there's not a whole lot of negative consequences, negative externalities. I mean I I think I've been to one or two conferences or events at one of the hotels where you haven't been able to park because everybody all the parking spaces were used up. Uh, so I mean in terms of limits, I would think
perhaps a a percentage, you know, they can't sell all of their potential parking to a park and stay kind of uh operations. And I also like the idea then make sure let's make sure that they don't buy up the property next door and just expand their parking lot as well.
So, uh, some way to to find a a a solution there to continue to allow it or to begin to allow it to continue allowing what has been happening already. Uh, but but putting the limits on it so there isn't the the the negative externalities that aren't huge,
but they are there. People at home can't hear U I just have a comment on regards to uh the hotel parking lot. Um I know it's been going on I learned that a few years ago from people around I mean business people around the city. Um, my concern
is though that if hotels utilize all their parking spaces, if I I know most of you are well traveled and you have been in other cities and when you park in some of the hotels, you pay $60 to $80 overnight just to park your car inside the hotel.
Is there any way that we could avoid that in Bloomington if if you know if we allowed the hotels to have it? right now they do it but it's not really I would say uh for lack of better words legal you know it's not out there advertise as as
such uh but but it for anybody coming into the city and they find themselves rent rent rent rent renting a car at the airport and drive to the hotel and then they have to pay astronomical amounts of money over for parking overnight inside the hotel parking lot you know it could
discourage people from coming into town or doing business in other ways. Um, you know, now Uber is very popular for that reason. I used to rent cars whenever I went anywhere. Now it's when you have to pay that high of a fee for just for
parking your vehicle in a hotel, you just, you know, it discourages you from staying close wherever you want to go. So if we could do something on regards to that uh you know to limit the ability of a hotel to rent all their parking spaces and then the the people are
staying in the hotel while these people are traveling are not going to have parking spaces themselves and then it becomes really expensive to park. That's one of the concerns and if I can make a comment on the previous thing you know on regards to sustainability perhaps the owners of these properties could plant a
bunch of trees in their parking uh spaces. I don't know, just something simple. Uh, instead of building a new structure. Thank you, Council Member. Council member Delisandro. I didn't I didn't know. Did you guys
have a comment on that you wanted to give back to Council Member Rivas? No. Okay. Happy to address the feedback. Council member Delisando, how about why since you got the microphone, why don't you ask your question? Clock is ticking here. Let's uh Okay, no worries. Um
okay. Um so uh I have some ideas. Um first off, do do when when there's a package like this deal, do we get tax revenue on that? You can just nod. You don't have to have mic. Okay. All right. Um yeah. So So okay. So it's in it's
kind of packaged up. So, are we proposing that the in uh that um there's a requirement that there's a hotel stay in order for this to be a thing or would they be able to rent out their parking without the need for a stay? That's a question, but hold on to it. Um the
second question I have is is there any way that we could make this a distance related thing? So like um I'm not sure I think it's smart for like you know the Linta on Normandale Avenue to be
offering park and ride, right? But, you know, so like it if there's a way to kind of limit it within the the area that we're talking about, um, just because I'm sure it's h that's happening organically anyway. But what I wouldn't want to see is incentives made to some
of the, if I may be so blunt, less um, the one the ones that our police go to more often all of a sudden finding this as an alternative revenue source for themselves, right? So like there's a there are challenges with our hotels in certain areas and we want to make sure
that that um we aren't exacerbating those problems in my opinion. So just some thought you don't have to comment on that but there maybe there's a maybe there's a perimeter at which this is a thing. And then my um I agree completely max hotel supply. My idea would be um
you know I think if you gave if you figured out like the average number of parking spaces per hotel today um and told us that that was the number I think that would work. Uh so maybe come up with that cuz I don't know what that number is. Um but I don't think that we have too many hotels that are like way overindexed on parking compared to the
number of hotel rooms they have. So I think it's probably the right ratio would be my guess. Last thing, um I don't know how you're going to do enforcement, but I was thinking um maybe it this is something for which we administer a permit and therefore we
have then the authority to audit. Well, uh councelor Deler, if I can answer the last comment first. Um so this is currently a conditional use uh in many of our zoning districts that allow hotels. Um and we've had a total of one hotel uh come forward to the city
with an application. They went through the initial part of the process and then uh ultimately did not uh go forward or withdrew uh due to the the conditions of approval associated with that conditional use permit. So just to the thought around um uh whether or not to make it a conditional use versus a
permitted use. Some hotels have had that option and not many have come forward to us rather seeking to operate these uh packages without formal uh approval because it's a very challenging enforcement uh issue. I'll just say that. Yeah. And so our our thought is the
again we do want we do not want to support remote airport parking at hotels. So a room night would a minimum of a room night would be required and that's where the city collects the the tax revenues from room nights. So having more people
stay in more rooms at more hotels increases the amount of revenue that's uh that the city collects. So of course we don't we don't want to do do anything to uh negatively impact uh impact that point. Uh, and we did meet with uh, Miss
Carlson of BMTT and she was not aware of any hotels that that operate that way. Um, the remote airport parking at hotels. It's it's possible uh, certainly, but um, I think the hotels, it's in their interest to monitor the
amount of parking at their sites and they seem to do a really good job of managing that so they're not creating issues for their uh, guests. And the distance thing certainly something that we can we can think about. I I think it does tend to sort itself out organically. Um but uh
something we we can certainly look into. We did we did uh we have been discussing a distance requirement as it relates to the uh principal form of uh remote airport parking uses. But uh by limiting it to the what zoning districts you would uh open it up to, that's in effect
a way to ensure that they're in close proximity to the airport. There any other slides to consider here? Are there additional questions? Council member Mo. Thank you, mayor. Um, my initial thought, my gut reaction, right,
especially after looking at the BTT um, website, they advertise 16 hotels that you can stay here, park here, and fly out of these hotels. So my initial gut reaction is like yes, this should probably be allowed. But then my second
reaction is we've already as a council expressed interest in understanding parking in the city as a whole. And so if we go ahead and allow this and then we look at parking as a whole and that completely undoes everything. So, my thought is
like, are we being uh are we ahead of the is the card ahead of the horse right now when we're considering this? Should this be part of a broader, bigger conversation about city parking in general and our developments? Because a lot of these hotels are ripe for
redevelopment and how is that going to impact as these hotels get bigger, they're going to need more parking spaces. How are we going to address that as a city overall? and I don't want to get ahead of ourselves to allow this and all of a sudden we're restricting parking regulations and then we're
running into issues where hotels are over booked, their parking lots are over booked and we can't uh we're getting it spilled onto neighborhood streets and everything like that. And so, uh, my initial thought is I would like to have this conversation as a broader conversation of parking in general, um, and have this as part of that
conversation versus trying to do a one-off and then having to come back, make amendments, change things. Um, and because a lot of it is currently happening right now, it's working right now. So, tackle the big issue, overall issue first before we come back and uh,
and address this piece. Thank you. Uh I I'll just um uh note that the off- streetet parking requirements of the city is a listed project on the 2025 planning commission work plan. So it is something we're planning to study. Uh the one thing I would offer to that though is that I uh I feel like this use is very unique in
comparison to other land uses that we are planning to study. There's been a number of disruptions. Uh and we do feel like Bloomington's parking requirements are high in a number of areas. um uh particularly for retail, office, some of these other uses that have had significant uh disruptions in the last 10 years um especially the last five. Um
but just to the point it is a project on our uh work plan. We are going to uh look at it or try and tackle it from a global uh standpoint. The one thing I would offer though that this is a very unique uh use in comparison to office, warehouse, retail, other land uses that we regulate more frequently.
The mortorium deadline is sooner than we are going to be able to advance that project. Thank you. Uh Dakota Cast, isn't it? Also, anything else? Council member Nelson.
Uh I'm just wanted to follow up on Council Member Rivas's question about uh do any of the hotels charge for parking? Yes, I Yes, they do. They do. Um, and is that I think that's something to consider in terms of how you frame this ordinance so it doesn't become a
desire for them to do more of it to force other uses out. So I would take a look at if there's a way to regulate that. I think that was a good point. So that's exactly right. Enough information, gentlemen. Also good. Very good.
Thank you so very much. Pleas, we have come to the end of our agenda tonight. We don't have on the agenda council issue an update, so we won't be going to that. Uh so with that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn today. So
move second. Motion by council member Dallas, second by council member Carter to adjourn this evening. No further council discussion on this. All those in favor, please sign by saying I. Oppos. Motion carries 70. Thank you much for the discussion, councel. Thank you staff for the work tonight and thanks for the conversation. Thank you to everybody who
joined us up here tonight. Thanks for the uh the comments and your your thoughtful discussion on this topic. Thanks much. We are ajourned.