City of Bloomington, Illinois City Council Meetings, 9 Apr 2018

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: April 9, 2018 - City Council Special Session

Description

April 9, 2018 - City Council Special Session
http://www.cityblm.org

View meeting documentation:
http://www.cityblm.org/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/8308/17
Music by www.RoyaltyFreeKings.com

A

My apologies will, sir, in one minute.

A

A

Break it or send it around.

A

Okay, thank you very much we're going to go ahead and call this meeting of the special meeting of the Bloomington City Council to order, madam clerk, would you please call the roll.

B

B

Here here here.

A

Thank you very much and we're gonna go ahead and start with public comment. We have just in terms of public comment. We do have a mayor's open house. I had one last Friday I have one on Friday before a Monday, City, Council meeting and sometimes I can get people answers or problem solved on the spot, depending on what they are. Mr. Rasmussen was kind enough to be there for the entire time on Friday this past Friday.

A

So if you want problems answered quickly or if you want answers or you want to engage in a dialogue, that's the place to go public comment. We don't respond so I'm, just letting you know that, and so I will count the time we have a to a half an hour. There are more people who have asked to speak then will be able to speak. So I will ask you to be as brief as possible.

A

If you can succinctly state something, I'd appreciate it and I think everybody else who is in line to speak will appreciate it. You have up to three minutes apiece and if you can avoid repetition, that would be great. So, with all those provisos in line, I will go ahead and read these in groups of three Jeff Rozelle.

A

Actually, the first three are Jeff myself: okay and then we have Paul Kinsella and wrong. Lung stress and those are the first three, so I'll call them in groups of three Jeff Mizell.

C

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Jeff Lindsay I'm, an attorney on behalf of myself, family and all similar situated parties here after identified at some point. The issues that I see in this case are that we're trying to define an easement for access to Lake Bloomington myself.

D

A swell call point of order. This gentleman was not on the list right.

A

So you are not you're saying you are the attorney. Yes,.

C

Right, a first name is Jeff. They asked for Jeff, but.

A

You were not person, you are not from the mattel family. No, that's correct! Okay. We need a spokesperson from the Mizell family unless you filled out a if you followed a separate card and I call your name, you can come up, but thank you very much.

A

I misunderstood, I'm, terribly sorry, but you cannot speak under our under our ordinance. This is not me telling you you can't speak I did not realize you were an attorney representative. Sorry, okay, is there someone from the michelle phan it was Jeff. Moselle is.

C

A

C

A

C

Indicated they wanted a first name of the person who be speaking on behalf Allah.

A

Correct and that's yeah I apologize for the the misunderstanding there. Okay, so we have Paul Kinsella, run long strip and Jack pen.

E

Hello, gentlemen, my name is Paul Kinsella I live at the lake. There should be a document coming around I wanted to talk to you specifically about my dock, that I share with my neighbors Ron and Juanita long stretch, Nate and Ally green in the late army. Subkey I prepared for exhibits in your packet to consider the first packet is the exhibit a is when I purchased this home. 11 years ago.

E

It was advertised as a private lake access with two locations for only 10 houses, the the realtor advertised that, because that was the understanding in the agreement I at that time, realized I needed more than a Realtors confirmation on that, so Exhibit B. Well, you will see my purchase agreement and on the third page you will see I wrote my offer contingent on the ability. Buyer wants to be to confirm with the city that he can put boat dock addition improvements, and that was a contingent offer in my purchase agreement.

E

You can see it's crossed out and initialed, because I satisfied that contingency by talking with Craig Cummings 11 years ago, who gave me permission and confirmation of what the real are head till realtor had told me about purchasing the home Exhibit C, the Lake lout, lease I did not include a copy, but obviously the council has a lake lot. Lease there's been some discussion of whether this is a public or private easement.

E

The lease that I have signed has the following statement in paragraph 11 city grants to lessee and he's meant for access to Lake Bloomington over property owned by the city lying between the shoreline of Lake Bloomington in the boundary of lease premises. Nowhere in that sentence does it say the word public and the public does not pay a lease. I play a lake lot. Lease I purchased the home.

E

With that understanding, the financial decision of the value of the home was certainly considered because of that Exhibit D will be the permission and the permit that we got from Craig Cummings on august 26 2009. You can see the last two sentence there that your dock expansion looks fine I've provided a copy to the engineering department. It wasn't just his his word alone. He provided the permit the drawings. The specifications to to the engineering department consider this email as permission to proceed with construction.

E

So I would urge that city council to understand that all these situations, these are not all the same. To look at individually I've had my home appraised and refinanced. In 11 years, I've lived there, one appraiser took Lake premises into account. One did not there's a difference of a hundred thousand dollars, so this isn't just about the convenience of having a boat dock. Thank you.

A

In that, let's say you were rough with Ron but see won't, run long strip or your Paul.

E

A

I'm sorry, these fats I apologize. Let's Iran is next in then Jack pin and then David Brockman, good.

F

Evening, thank you for hearing me out. I bought my property out here at Lake Bloomington in 1976 and I, bought it from Richard Thomas Realty here in town and when I bought the property. They said you have one right away down at the lake at the end of the Trillium Lane, but right away, and you will share it with others off sites. So I'm sharing the same lot with Paul Kinsella I've been maintain that property when we bought it or when we bought.

F

When we got it, it was kind of like a drainage ditch and we brought fill in what sea walls in backfilled and we added a dock to it back in 1978, then later on, we put and after we talked to Cummings, we put it to two dots on there and our docks or straight from Menards, so they meet city code.

F

The one thing I would like to point out is that, like Paul says, this is more of a private situation because in it says in our lease that we can use it for swimming and boating and fishing, but yet on your own city sheets, it says no swimming bathing or waiting allowed. This is public area. So to me that says that that's a private area, what I would like to propose is that I know the city is hurting for money.

F

I would like to the city, take and put the these additional dots issue us temporary for Oratia permits form and have that permit money turned around and put in or applied on our rub on our lease good. We get area from the state, our friends safe from the city and I, propose about fifty dollars. That would would cover the cost. Here's one thing the city wins on that deal because our right-of-way has $4 for lease holders on it. That's $200, coming in just from one lot.

F

The other thing to consider is it if the price of a house goes down. Most of us have our how our lease is set up, that our glide to the evaluation of the house. So if our house valuation goes down, the city gets less money for our lease.

F

A

Thank you. Okay next is Jack Penn David, Brockman and Jim Cole.

G

Thank you very kind for calling me up. My situation is a little different. I've been a lake for quite some time, and mikeís main concern is the sea walls in the area that I am hearing. Now that the lake is going to get pumped down quite a ways if the lake gets pumped down five six seven foot, that's gonna be hard on the sea walls, because the water supports the walls I put mine in 40 years ago, it's in good shape now and every winter. You start worrying about it, because the lake goes down.

G

It was down six foot this year and my big concern right now is the damage that's going to be done to the sea walls in the whole lake area. Most all the houses have a seawall in front. Oh, come on, that's my main concern. I've been up there for 58 years, so I've been around for a while I. Thank you guys very much for listening to me, and that is my main concern right now. Thank.

A

You very much David Brockman, Jim and again I'm, not sure if I'm pronouncing your last name correctly, ko athl and then Ryan Esposito.

H

Thanks for the opportunity to address you, my name is David Brockman and my wife and I. We purchased our place on nighthawk Lane in 1987. At the time we purchased it. We were told that there was an understanding on the lake that the dock on the easement directly in front of our property would be shared by us, and our neighbor directly to the south of us. I was informed that this was also the understanding. On the other reason, that's around the lake, our neighbor canthus Carroll, purchased her place for the same understanding.

H

The dock in question was installed in 1978 by owners prior to us. It's been there for 40 years now. So over 30 years we have maintained this dock, kept the grass mowed on the easement and removed debris from the waterway. We've been good stewards of our easement and have Maine very friendly relationships with our property owners adjacent to this easement.

H

The city now tells us that we must remove our docks due to the water quality concerns you've, given us three choices to work with, all of which demand that we remove our dock, none of which are acceptable. If water quality were the real issue, the city would be addressing all the docks on the lake. They would not continue to issue more bolt permits and they would not be addressing the muck lucky duck arena with all their many docks. We know that the problem will rigid.

H

It is with a few individuals who abuse their privileges on the lake and that brought the city's attention. The city should have the courage to address this on an individual basis and not broad-brush the problem by demanding that we all remove our docks. Many of us here tonight have consulted real-estate agents about the effect of losing our docks. We have all received the same answer. It would reduce your property value by approximately 50%.

H

The City Council needs to be presented with options that include alternatives on how we can keep the use of our docks in questions not just ultimatums that state how we get rid of those docks off the lake. Thank you thank.

A

You Jim again ko HL I apologize for the disprin, uncie ation and then Ryan, Esposito and Jeff Lindsay I believe that's Lindsay or wind zag thanks yeah.

I

Yeah, my name is Jim. Cale can't see the VHL, that's German, I, really.

J

I

Expect to talk tonight and usually I'm, not really lucky at winning lotteries so I figured like tonight. I would probably be a winner. You know so. I'm not gonna take up much time because uh I'm kind of a new kid on the block down here. My wife and I bought a property right next to Jack Penn and if you don't know where Jack Penn lives, you're, probably at the wrong meeting, but anyhow we we moved into there and that we really really enjoy like when we've done everything it has to offer.

I

Soon after we got here, we realized there was a lot of stuff going on that kind of was a little bit disappointing. So I'm not going to correspond a little bit. People know where I live. They probably know why I've got a little bit of a concern.

I

I'm not gonna, go into all that if I say too much, I'm gonna have a bunch of enemies, and my point is coming down here is to enjoy the lake, enjoy the people and I love everyone in this room here so I'm not going to say too much because I, my main thought is I would just really really encourage the council here to, if at all possible, make some decisions on this so that we can. We can move on I'm a farm kid I've, I farmed.

I

You know, there's no, the same farm for 60 years and whenever there's an issue we deal with it a lot of times we deal with it and we've got to settle before the Sun, Goes, Down and I know down here. It's different. You know we get into politics. You know things are different. They don't move that that swiftly, but I would encourage you to to make make some decisions, yet this year, next year, the year after whenever but get it done.

I

So we can move on with our life and we don't have to keep keep dealing with all these up. All these different issues. It just seems like tonight, you know, is, you know, listen, but this is already happened. You know it seems like we've already the last year or two have had meetings voice, our opinions and everyone was explaining the situation and so I'm a little bit uncertain. Why we're here tonight opening this all up? It just seems like we should have been past this stage. So up.

I

You know, I, just I, just pray when I left I prayed for the City Council I prayed for everyone that shows up here tonight that this can be resolved peacefully and that we can go on move on with their life, enjoy Lake Bloomington and all the wonderful friends down here god bless ya. I, don't have much else to say. Thank you. Thank.

A

You Ryan Esposito, Jeff, again, I think it's Lindsay and then Gilbert raised.

K

On February 13 2017 staff stated to counsel to clarify this. The intent of this ordinance change is, from this point going forward. It doesn't impact anything that's out there today, I think we can all agree that if this statement were true, we would not be here tonight. I only ask that all eight options are considered with an open mind and a protecting and enhancing the reservoir is given top priority. I do not understand how my dock on nan, Lee's property affects the water quality any different than a dock, that is on leased property.

K

Both those of us who lease and do not lease are custodians of our land. We all have a common interest in every decision that is made regarding our home. We do not currently have representation on city council I. Think those of you who graciously offered your time to choose or to listen to those of us with concerns.

K

Based on that fact, my only option has been to deal directly with staff on February 6th I sent an email stating quote. Why was the letter that was hand-delivered to staff written by my father, outlining the events from our side, not included in the binder? It should also be noted that I attached this letter to an email sent to staff on May 4th 2017, the response I received on February 13th from staff, was quote.

K

While the letter was given to Steve, it did not address or add any new information to what we'd already collected regarding the dock. So it stayed in Steve's notes. I find it perplexing that our side of the story in written form seems to have no merit in the eyes of staff. Staff has chosen to stop responding to any of my questions through a FOIA I was informed that there are currently only 32 dot permits at Lake Bloomington.

K

The inconsistent and possibly unlawful behavior of staff is very concerning to me and I hope to you as all all of you as well. The proposed ordinance changed removes the power of the building the power of the building department to grant permits at Lake Bloomington. It then transfers that power solely to the water director, one person if docks are taken away from non lakefront lease holders, the value of their property will inevitably inevitably be affected and the property value will decrease.

K

This will impact the amount of money the city receives from mostly soldiers, since lease fees are based solely on equalized assessed value, revenue lost opening up the option for current nominees holders will provide the city with additional revenue stream. It's basically free money of the city that we are offering as an olive branch to accommodate their concerns at a mere 250 per year. The city could generate an additional twenty two thousand five hundred dollars in revenue to help protect and improve the reservoir over the next 10 years.

K

All while not requiring any more services be provided beyond what is already in place. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Natural Resources have not been able to provide any documentation to me in regards to the effects the dock has on water quality. I requested information staff has found in their research before did to me, I'm still waiting for their response.

K

As someone who is very passionate and involved in both our reservoirs is very disheartening for me to stand by and watch all this time, money and resources being spent on something that stem from a neighborly dispute. If we have United and focused this much energy on projects to improve the reservoirs, just imagine where it would be at this time. Thank you.

A

Thank you, Jeff Lindsey Gilbert rays and Tom Miller.

C

Jeff Lindsey, thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I'm gonna hand you what's marked response: Exhibit, A and respondents, Exhibit B.

C

Just one copy I off the pass that I apologize but I think it's important to recognize that they're legally there's no distinction between a lease holder who has lakefront property and a lease holder who has off the lake property the the three options that are being proposed tonight.

C

Don't remedy the issue regarding lots that are off lakefront, but they're, still Alise and the parties. The leases are virtually identical, as it relates to the language of an easement to use that property. So I think it's important for the board to hear that. I also think it's important for the board to recognize that we're talking about. You know the parties producing permits, to which I think there's understanding, and it may not be disputed that for many years there was no permit process in place.

C

So two of the options that were talked about in the documents but not presented as one of the three options, one is using the grandfather clause, language, but something else that might be considered is if it really is water and quality of water. Why not replace the existing docks with city docks and be able to maintain those by the city?

C

That's not necessarily the the answer to everything, but I think it's important for the board to acknowledge that there's, legally, no distinction between on the front, lakefront property, leased property and off the lakefront property lease property. Thank you thank.

A

You very much and we go to Gilbert Ray's, Tom, Miller and then Dale with wit, would I believe thank.

J

You for the opportunity tonight, basically back in 2003, purchased the lakefront property at that time. Enough home was built back in the 50s and has had three generations, so families living cleaning up the properties and taking care of the lots and everything else. So my understanding was Summa get-go is that we were able to use a lot as well as the existing Lots and the docks I spent about four or five years trying to get a permit for leasing.

J

The property tried to get the permit for the dock, there's a meeting that we had with Steve France, nothing in BA BL. Well, we also mentioned we were willing to pay for lease for we'll pay for a dog, so I found out yesterday that there had been a meeting going back to 2003 that did a survey of the residents that only property I was not contacted at any point time, I did not fill out a survey, so my question would be how many lakefront property owners were contacted of that survey.

J

Was it 50% 60% 40%, because it seems like that's what's being based for the decision tonight and if it was only LBA association, members were contacted that may not represent the total amount of basically the docks that are owned in Lincolnton. So I would ask for you to review those analysis that created this, because if there's only permits granted based on the wealth of the property, the location of the property that would seem to me and I could be discrimination and I've already forwarded a certified email with additional details on that.

J

So that's all I have to say right. Thank.

A

You very much okay, Tom Miller, Dale, word, I, believe and then c. Ms l.

L

Like to thank the council for the opportunity, my name is Tom Nora, my wife I own, a cabin at 25, 142, wideout Lane. We have a dock and a cove at the end of the road where we've kept our pontoon boat moored at a pier structure. Since we have purchased the house in August of 2013 before we purchased the house is advertised and shown as having its own dock and access to the lake. We would not have purchased a house if this was not the case.

L

Needless to say, we were shocked when we received a letter in February of 2017, informing us that, due to the location of our dock, that we were trespassing on city property, we attended the public meeting on May 3rd at Davis lodge and Steve Rasmussen and Bob. Yale stated that, starting in 1990 that the city started issuing dock permits to build structures on the lake, our dock was there before 1990. So there is no permit.

L

We were told that if our dock was there before 1990, they would need to prove pass ownership through verbal or eyewitness testimony. We met with Steve and Bob on may 30th 2017 and proved to them, but this structure has been used for over the last 30 years by the last three owners. My letters presented to us and the purchase agreement from 1985 stating that dock can remain on the lake with the property. The city is asking dock owners with older docks provide documentation that does not exist.

L

We have a late lake lot lease one of the water department's arguments against some of the docks is question. It's a question that we do not have lakefront lease and ownership of the dock is by non lakefront lease holder. None of the leases differentiate, whether the property is lakefront or not, nor do any of the invoices from the city Bloomington for Lake lot leases differentiate, whether the property is on the lake or not the water department. States at some of the Troublesome boat docks are on non lease marginal land.

L

Looking at maps provided by the city, all boat docks are on non least marginal land. As there's easement around the whole lake, all property owners must cross the city easement to get to their docks. Just like myself, what benefit is it to us to be paying a lake lease if we aren't allowed to access the lake from our own property? After a year of research, the water department came up with eight possible options to possibly resolve this matter. The water department staff recommendation for this meaning is only three of the eight options.

L

None of the three options they want the council to make a motion our are in favor to anyone, possibly keeping their dock I, don't see any compromise happening on the department's behalf affected our owners, property values stand to lose significant values of over 50%. If the city chooses for them to remove their boat dock, the most logical step would be to have dock owners keep their docks as long as they're, compliant with city code and move forward with new applications.

L

Personally I'd be happy with my grandfathered in and be granted dock permit to continue, use my dock and be able to make improvements. I'm planning on sticking around as our so few people involved. I'd like to see the council decide that they will meet with each stock owner and decide on a case-by-case basis, the merits of having their doctor mitad and not have one sweeping motion to cover everyone, because residents of Lake Burlington have no alderman representing them on City Council I welcome it I welcome conversation for many council member to further discuss this issue.

L

A

Thank you very much. Dale Wickard. Are you Jane, okay, I, usually there's day or Jane yep good.

M

Evening, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. This isn't follow-up to the two emails. I have sent the aldermen I'm back in March, 8th and then most recently, Sunday. The 8th and upon further review of all of this.

M

But we're that keeps coming to mind is reasonable and with that, the advisory committee, consisting of the rasmussen as well as the bill, had recommended three options and those three options all or similar in nature of removing of the dock and from the documentation that I've provided to all of you in our emails is that we had followed the proper protocol and procedures back in 2006.

M

When my husband and I proceeded with putting in place a new da, we had originally gone to the city of Bloomington and they directed us to speak to Craig M Cummings. We brought to Craig brochure of our dock as well as the plans he was familiar with where we were going to be putting in our docks and after further review, he initialed the docket.

M

He had initialed our plans, which you all have a copy of if he was not authorized or if he was not acting on an agent on behalf of the city, then you know he should have. Let us know that from his documentation or his signature of our plans, we proceeded with building our dock. Again, you go back to a reasonable person, would not put in place back then consisting of approximately $50,000.

M

If we overstepped our boundaries, Craig knew about it and he should have with the city of Bloomington should have come to us and said you know this isn't compliant you're, not in ordinance, and you need to remove that docket immediately. We've had that dock now for over ten years, and we have not had a problem with it until recently and again, you go back to reasonable what isn't a reasonable length of time.

M

Ten years later, there's now issues I, don't think that makes sense and with that I am an agreement with being grandfathered in for our dock, to remain I appreciate your time and thank you so much. Thank.

A

You soon as l and then john actually, we may not have enough time assume it sell, come forward.

N

I'll be brief: I did send each of you aldermen an email with most of what I would say today and attached to that. I did have a copy of our sale, clearly showing the docks and access, and also our praise all indicating that our home is the comparables were homes on the water. So it definitely would substantially reduce that I my home. If we lose our docks in our access.

N

The homeless building 62 docks have been in the coast with sociated to our homes since that time. Clearly, that's the number of years that things have worked well, others we're just kind of blindsided all this and feel like one size does not do it all. You don't punish your whole line of children because there's a situation that one of them is got going on. So I won't read my entire email that I sent to you, but clearly removal of the docks.

N

There needs to be an option that several of the other folks have mentioned and that if we can be grandfathered in and/or pay an additional fee to retain that little strip where our simple boat dock is. That would be my my my pray that you would consider that versus taking away what we truly bought. That would be devastating to many of our families and legacy for which we we thought we were getting when we bought our home at the lake. Thank you thank.

A

You actually at this point our our time is up for public comment. I apologize to those of you who did not get to speak, but at this point we're going to go ahead and move on. We have consideration a potential action or direction of various proposed options regarding existing boat docks or on non least marginal land that Lake Bloomington, where ownership is claimed by non lakefront resource, as requested by the water department and I'm gonna, go ahead and turn this over to mr. Rasmussen and then I believe he'll be turning it over to mr. Yale.

A

O

I will thank you very much mayor and members of City Council I wanted to go back and give you three things here. The first thing was when we begin to look at this in February of 2017. The action that was brought forth before the City Council was an ordinance to codify what the water department's policy was, and that was to issue dock permits for docks that were on waterfront property, but to not issue permits for docks that had been placed on city-owned, parkland or city-owned property.

O

That is what the City Water Department policy had been, and the staff felt that it would be appropriate to codify that. So the City Council then could act on that and then, as opposed to of being a water department policy. It would then be an ordinance that would direct the water department to do that on an ongoing basis, and that was to permit docks that were on waterfront property, but to not permit docks that were on city-owned property.

O

As a result of that Hauer, there was a lot of discussion and council asked to go back and look at all of the docks that currently were on city-owned property, which was not part of what we were looking at. But since the council asked to go back, we went back and looked at that. So really, there are two issues.

O

The one issue is: what do we do on an ongoing basis, and that would be the staff would bring back to you the same ordinance that we proposed a year and a half ago, and that is an ordinance on an ongoing basis in the future that the water department would issue permits for docks that were requested on waterfront property and that they would not issue permits for docks who are located on city-owned property.

O

That's on an ongoing basis, but then the issue is come back up and what is it that we would do with current docks that are in position that sit on city-owned property? And that is an issue now that is before the City Council. There are eight options in talking with members of City Council, the three that you see there were the ones that we identified, that the City Council wanted to bring forward and talk about.

O

However, I'd point out that you can do those you can do any of the eight you can do something else or you can do none of those those are up to you, but what we have is we have provided for the opportunity in two weeks to come back with another ordinance, if you so choose, and we can put another ordinance in place or not and I've been asked by members of City Council. What would happen if you would do nothing?

O

If you do nothing with those docks that currently exists, the staff would do what we do with all other situations where there is an issue that is non-conforming with city ordinance and that would we would issue a citation and if the issue was not cured, then that would be sent to administrative court for an adjudication. So we have a position. We have a process in place to take care of that. Should you not choose to do anything else? That's the action of the City Council that the city staff then would take.

O

Having said that, it's up to you to do whichever you would like to do, because you have all of those options. Your disposal and the city staff would stand ready to execute. That decision you make what I'd like to do now is give Bob Yale about five minutes or so to go over what the existing situation is to form a framework and then the remainder of the 45 minutes that you have would be up for council decision and we look forward for any guidance you may give us. Thank you. Bob.

P

Thank you, Thank You, mayor and council Steve's done a nice introduction and bring us to the point where we started a year ago. When we're in front of you, we since then had a public meeting. We since then spoke to many of the dock owners behind us. We've done spent spoken to people in favor of actions and all across the gamut. This topic really resides in three areas. These three areas encompass about everything we could talk about at Lake Bloomington.

P

The text of the water supply is first and foremost, though you've heard already tonight in a different correspondence. What's one more dock, what's my dock do do docks harm water quality to some extent? Yes, do boats to some extent, yes to people to some extent. Yes, do we focus on everything else that causes water quality issues? We do do we focus on nitrates. We do we focus on erosion. We do do we focus on stream bank stabilization. We do do we fund a position of Soil and Water Conservation. We do so.

P

We focus on boats, body, contact, sports and impacts of docks. Yes, we should that's not saying the answer resides in the three options that Steve said any and all those options can be applied to one or multiple groups, but we should focus on water quality first and foremost, and everything we talk about should hit water quality at some point, consistent community development in the packet we've outlined the background, the ordinances, the standards previous council action, we believe in the water department. We should apply those consistently sans any direction to the contrary from the City Council.

P

So we move forward providing consistent approaches to community development, permitting that at the lake some people say: maybe it wasn't permitted the same 20-30 years ago and that's probably true- we did need to get a handle on. It today make sure everybody's on the same page, moving forward and providing access to all I think I've spoken about before. When the lake was created, it was envisioned for multiple uses, multiple parties, we created lots that people are able to lease and live next to.

P

We created access areas for boat ramps, so people could fish and enjoy recreation. We created parks, wien created not-for-profit areas. We have to take into consideration what the lake was developed originally for what it's evolved, that over time to understand somewhere in there. We need to make sure dressing those those issues with everybody. There's those behind us about half the docs on the list are non city lease holders they own private land near the lake they're, not on the land.

P

With that being said, I just want to spend one minute to refresh our memories of property ownership at Lake Bloomington, so blue is easy. Blue is water blue as a reservoir. Green and orange are city-owned land, the green in these pictures- and this is a graphical representation that is Alisa, Bowl or plaited lot. So the greens are lots that we can lease out to our lease holders. They can construct their homes and other infrastructure based on county and city guidelines. The red is marginal land.

P

Non least there is a strip between the lodge and the reservoir and there's access areas that 1950 the first time it came up when his distinguished reign on the lakefront leaseholders and off the lakefront lease holders in 1950 by ordinance council set off the lakefront lease holders have access to the lake access the ability to cross to the lake and enjoy the lake through the red land from their leased lot.

P

So the leases are the same as we've heard tonight. Everybody has access to the lake. Let's, let's imagine the left. Third, looking at it, the green Lots that go from the road to the the red. Let's imagine those are purple purple I'm going to imagine out loud. Those are privately owned: land near the lake, so private subdivisions, another landowner developed, sold, Lots people built homes about half the docks, we're talking about, reside in those areas. I don't have a map specifically like that in my presentation, but we could talk about that later.

P

In those purple imagined Lots, there is an access or public land, it's just simpler, similar to what's around Miller Park or one of our Park areas or the inner loop. It's area set aside for the water department to be able to access through there maintainer trees maintain our infrastructure get to the lake in those areas. If we mow it, we maintain it. We provide a fishing area.

P

Anybody can use those so a little bit different than the access granted by a lease for versus somebody that owns private property, whether it's some of these homeowners or the farmers, lots of farmers owned land are on the lake, that's adjacent to our non leased, marginal land. That was more than a minute current city code. We started coming back with a proposed change. This is one that outlines the basics starting point. You can't construct build, maintain anything on marginal land or the reservoir. Without a permit simple. As that, we did go through eight options.

P

You can apply any and all of these eight options to different groups. Different segments, we've heard people behind me say everybody's different. You can apply that obviously most of the feedback we heard from those behind me grandfather me in or Leslie's property.

P

We did take that in consideration talked with many different avenues and people as well as you are on the table when we came up with the three options not going to take the time to read them all, but in the assess essence we can refer them to administrative court and they would be evaluated equally or individually. We can offer to buy them for an appraised, value, take ownership and then do with what we want.

P

In some cases we had removed them some cases we might make them into a public area some case we might move them to a different public area. This option reckons back to the 1977-78 action of council. Where one leased non leased access area was leased to an adjacent lease holder. It was brought to councils attention the next year that was inappropriately done.

P

It was against what was set aside in 1950 and council decided to rescind at least we heard tonight that some individuals still that same year when in constructed sea walls, did grading and essentially build a dock all the way across that so essentially taking the area that the council had, in their estimation, in air, leased back and took that for themselves. So this option gives back to. We can make them whole, make it a public area again. Last one is give them a temporary permit for six months.

P

Let them get through the season find a way to do. They choose none of those. We can individually look at at the mid administrative court and, as Steve said earlier, if you choose not to provide additional direction at this time, the water department administration will continue forthwith. Our court or this is standards guidelines, and so, if you have a lakefront lease holder, we would issue permits for docks within current criteria. If you do not you're, not a lakefront lease holder, we would continue to not issue permits for those dock holdings, questions and comments.

P

I think I was right on okay questions.

A

Comments for mr. Gale I.

A

Think that's a an indication that you've did a comprehensive job. Thank you, Bob yeah! You may want to stick around because there may be need for your expert opinion or advice. Okay, thank all the woman Hellman and then black I.

D

Was just gonna ask if jeff force or someone could do just a quick overview of administrative courts so that folks, in the audience, know what that looks like what and the purpose said all right. Yeah.

Q

Thank you and we also have Greg Mourdock on the phone who prosecutes cases in our administrative court. Greg I think you're. There correct Greg.

A

Can we hear you, do you hear us? Yes, I can okay. Thank you. Bret.

Q

And so, if, if I say something incorrect, you can you can jump in here and correct me, but essentially the process that they're talking about is they would issue citations, they give notice and then, if there's, not compliance, it gets in front of a hearing officer who would then hear both sides of it. So you heard some conversation tonight about you know. Looking at everybody individually. Well, the hearing officer would be required to evaluate each case.

Q

You know I'm sure they look at things as to whether or not you know permits has been issued, whether or not the dock was constructed in compliance with the permit. You know those types of issues, the code, provisions that director Yael set up and then the the hearing officer would issue a decision. I believe the currents. Fine is $250 a days, so there would be potential monetary fines associated with violating the the current code provisions and, and then there you know, could be other things that the court could order.

Q

Greg is there anything that you would add to that I would.

R

Just specifically note that that one of the things the court typically orders is abatement which in this case, would be removal of the docks. So, in addition to the fines, the administer error, the hearing officer would also order that the docks be removed within 35 days, if they're not permanent properly. If.

Q

The court found in our favor that's.

R

A

I'm, sorry that it's out of order at this point, sir I'm sorry yeah, could.

D

I ask a follow-up yeah. Would it be possible to.

D

Haven't some way so it wouldn't have to go through the.

D

Napkin forming process and being cited or just if somebody opted just to go to straight to administrative court that could that be a possibility.

Q

Typically, there has to be a complaint filed first, so I I would think you would issue that citation or that notice. First, that's that's, typically how the processes and I was I was reminded. There's also if the hearing officer here at City Hall were to find in favor of the city or vice versa. That can also be appealed then to the circuit court. So there is appellate protection within that process as well. Thank.

D

A

Them in black thank.

S

You and I think this question might be for Bob. Don't worry what there is I like the blue tie for the water department, that's nice! So over the last year, I know, we've talked a lot about these issues. I know I've met with a number of folks and heard a lot of stories over phone and email and such and it's a weird situation in that. Nobody up here represents the folks in at Lake Bloomington, which makes this even more difficult and, as I've gone back to residents in Ward seven about this topic.

S

Most folks are like what are you talking about and why can't you fix this road or do this thing in the area, but one recurring motif: I continue to hear at neighborhood association meetings and stuff and those types of events has been. Why is the city even allow any boats or docks on our water supply? Sure.

P

I think I'll. Take you back to the the first three topics: I talked about water quality, consistent development and access to all I have to from what I know. Boating recreation has been allowed from the beginning. So we have to take that consideration. What's the what's the primary goal with the complimentary uses and one of those impacts it's been allowed for as long as I think the the lake has been there, it was originally developed in slightly a different scenario.

P

It might have been row boats that might have been sailboats I know at one point, there was powerboat racing as from what I under and which, if I, would envision the erosion we have now on our shorelines, what that did to our reservoir? So why are there there I think they've been there I think it. It hearkens a deep died of a discussion.

P

The water departments of the opinion that there's good, complimentary and secondary uses I wouldn't want to recommend that we remove all boats but there's a lot of different reservoirs that take an approach in today's day and age and look at. Should we only allow certain types of boats or certain types of engines should they all be electric, should they all have to be four strokes? Should they all be two-stroke with more less pollution?

P

There's some studies that that I can go in and and I won't, but show quite a bit of gas and oil and older two strokes create Erin and water pollution. It should it be just human powered, there's lots of different discussions. I think that would be a lengthy discussion. That would be difficult to get everybody to agree, but it's certainly one worthy of continued continued of effort. But to answer your question: they've been there for a long time. It looks like Steve's gonna. Add to my comment: yeah.

O

I would like to add the answer that question many modern reservoirs when they establish a reservoir, they simply put a fence around it and do not allow any boating or housing so that we do not get into this situation. As you know, at Lake evergreen, which is also part of a reservoir, we do not allow any houses. The reason that we have the situation we have now was in 1934 and 35.

O

When we first started out there, it was not the big deal and we allowed that to happen, and we allowed some houses to be built and some boating to be built, and that was not a problem. A hundred years ago now the population is increased, the stress on the water is increased and so we're confronted with what we have here today. So how did we get there? Well, it just evolved that way. From a hundred years ago, Jeff.

S

Thank you, I guess, I couldn't ask mayor Renner that you could have provided some insight of what was going on 100 years ago over into link.

A

Things that people say about me: that's, okay,.

S

Thank you for that. I don't want to get derailed on that conversation, because that's kind of doesn't really solve our issue in front of us this evening. I just know in Ward 7. That question continues to come up again and again and as water resources are always and a concern of ours, we should be vigilant in protecting that resource.

S

My opinion on this, if that's, what staff is looking for, I'd, be open to one or three I think going to administrative court as one as a solution that would go take force things to be an individual basis. I also might recommend that we do a public hearing, maybe Planning Commission hosts it I know. There's some concern in the crowd of some folks feel as though their story hasn't been told appropriately.

S

Public hearing may allow that in a formal process that can take testimony- and we can include it in a final recommendation but I agree this. This is not a topic we should be lingering on I get I I saw that an option sample three. We pick six months. That seems pretty quick. You know I would envision that being. Maybe at the end of summer of next year of 2019, perhaps if we're looking to craft some some final motion, so those are my thoughts. I appreciate your information. Thank you.

A

Ultimate mathy and then nawab way up.

T

So, thank you for putting this all together. Bob I appreciate it. It says: I've spent a significant amount of time talking to residents and people and staff and everybody else on this issue and.

T

Man there's so many different stories. I mean it's it's ridiculous. One thing I just want to point out that we didn't hear from tonight is that there are people who did not get a chance to speak tonight who feel like there's a negative impact on their lakefront property because of the docks and a marginal land as well. So there's a you know, I was being asked about this last week for some people never said I. Don't understand why this is such a big deal.

T

I said well, because we have people who have you know unpermitted docks who are you know telling us they're getting their lawyers and they're getting ready. We have people who live on property. There were permitted, docks and they're getting their lawyers and getting ready and we're just got stuck in the middle. So it's it's a sticky situation. I would not be in favor of any solution that we put forward where we take sweeping action. One action applies to every dock. You know we need to do so on the individualized basis.

T

I think that there are definitely some folks that have very good arguments as to why they should be allowed to keep their Docs. You know we have a past city employees who maybe didn't follow our own rules, and that's not the people who built docks is fault if we didn't follow our own rules that that's my personal opinion on that.

T

So you know: I sent a long email to all the council after a meeting that I had had with a bunch of folks that are represented here tonight and and I would like us to see a solution where we take the number of docks that we're talking about here and we divide them up and council work as one or twos and we actually go and meet with them on individual basis and work through that process as well. That would be my preference that we do this as we treat each individual as their own separate circumstance.

T

You know I know we have a lot of stuff coming forward in the future, with water, water, quality, the depth of the water in the reservoir and in our long term, or future water supply. So we have a lot of things to worry about with water.

T

You know, but I think that we need to you, treat folks correctly upfront and make sure we take into the real human considerations that we had people who did things wrong. There are people who are here that, quite frankly, did things wrong. You know, but there's there's a balance. I think that we can strike in the middle there. Thanks all.

A

In the know, along boy, okay,.

U

Thank you. This is a really complicated issue, but I. What I wanted to ask you first of all, bob is what happens in terms of health related issues with the docks being on on water or wherever they are so.

P

Docks bring boats and docks, bring body-contact sports, potentially swimming sailing jet skiing substance. Those types of things not just skis the same point so American Water, Works Association, which is a national organization, indicated in 2017 body, contact, recreation and 2-cycle gas engines should be discouraged or prohibited on drinking water supplies. You can go through many different EPA guidelines. You can go through DNR, you can go through different research. You can go all the way to California which, except for a couple of reservoirs, restricts all of recreation on any drinking water reservoir.

P

So what does happen boats and sock boats? They can create sediment problems, phosphorus problems. They can destroy the vegetation on the bottom of the other lake, especially in low shallow areas. We have some low areas where we have docks so take your boat into the shallow area. Your propeller is going to do what move the water stir the water move. The sediment creates turbidity creates phosphorus turbidity is one of our stringent controls that we have to treat and keep out of the water.

P

In fact, with all the rain, which was because I could fall apart required us to pump from a different reservoir because that they brought in so much sediment at that time, it also creates phosphorous from the soils the erosion from the from the banks phosphorous helps algal blooms, I, don't know if many of you tasted our water in the fall and winter, it wasn't that Pleasant. We got lots of calls and concerns.

P

We got to talk through taste and odor concerns algal blooms, and what we're doing to try to to make that better, so boats can create those issues. Body can't contact sports, whether it's just swimming or skiing, or jumping off the end of a dock increases likelihood of pathogens in the water increases likelihood. We treat the water, certainly I, can't guarantee we get them all. There's always that potential so by the can't. Exports are also a large issue as well.

P

You can see stabilization this pitcher, so the waves actions some from boats, some from nature we spend $200,000 a year stabilizing our shorelines I could go on a little farther I. Don't know how in-depth you'd like me to go and.

U

Is there any negative effects from the docks themselves? The.

P

Docks themselves, presuming that there's no boat on the dock or nobody's jumping off the dock. A lot of our Doc's are on sea walls, so the shoreline stabilized so a lot less impact. There are some docks that are hooked directly to the shoreline itself. When that installation occurs when that use occurs, it has the greater potential for again erosion and disturbance of the natural habitat around the lake.

P

We would prefer to have our lake encompass with buffer strips vegetative buffer strips of 20 30 feet wide so that anything that had to go through it was filtered the sediment dropped out. We didn't have access to it. So, yes, there are some incremental disturbances from docks, depending on how they're constructed and where their specific constructed at. Thank you, a woman.

A

Burkas and then Schmidt I could.

V

Have a question about sample motion number 2 or sample option number 2: that's the one that refers to purchasing the docks at a fair market value. Yes, we have a cost to the city associated with that. Yet well,.

P

Estimate approximately no more than $40,000, we did have appraisals done on a sampling of docks, approximately six of them and they've ranged generally in the two to three thousand dollar range. One or two is significantly higher based on the construction of them, but most of them were fairly inexpensive, as we heard earlier, you know, put in from big-box stores and nothing of a high value. Okay,.

A

All the woman Schmidt.

W

Could you we've heard a number of people here tonight talk about grandfathering the docks in, and that was an option that didn't make it to the top. Could you talk a little bit more about why why that's a bad option to just say: okay, you're grandfathered in that's it? No more docks were done from.

P

Our perspective us staff to enforce the guidelines, ordinances, Council actions in place, so that's where those options came from. From our point of view, we feel that the options we presented are within those guidelines, organs and past practice. You can change that to your question. It sets a precedence that I don't know that we want to set. It would set presents not only at Lake Bloomington but keep in mind the same ordinance that govern like Bloomington, govern the city of Bloomington, so you're studying the past practice of grandfathering and docks the lake just taken consideration.

P

There are other issues not only like Bloomington but across the city that may be impacted or come for you in the future.

A

And then just to clarify, if, if we do nothing, that as a council does nothing does not act, this evenings and the default would be going to Administrative Court and that those things would be handled on an individual basis. Is that correct?

A

So if we, if we are concerned about some of the individual nuances of individual cases, one action might be to do. Nothing is that is that it with what.

Q

Statement, I think that what the water department has said is is, if there's no other direction, it's their intent to begin the process of evaluating. What's out, there began citing issuing citations and bringing these forward an administrative court at some time period in the future and.

A

And there are different variables that people would take that the hearing officer would take into account in each of the specific instances in cases I.

Q

Would assume so? Yes, yeah I, think you're gonna hear arguments, obviously from the from the people who are operating the docks or who claim to have permits. So I think each case is going to be different. You're gonna hear a lot of different stories and each case will be then judged on an individual basis in front of the hearing officer. Now that said, obviously, that could take some time. That's not going to be an overnight thing. It's going to take staff time, obviously legal time, the hearing officer time Administrative Court times.

Q

So that's not going to be a quick process, but that is a similar process. Community Development uses you know other departments with them within the city. You utilize when there's a code violation so.

A

In that situation, people wouldn't be grandfathered in, but their individual circumstances would be taken into account on a case-by-case basis. That's.

Q

Right and if we went to administrative court and the hearing officer said you know that you know they think that the you know we don't have a case or the doc is there lawfully. Then you know we'd have to either decide whether or not to appeal that or just to let that decision stand and- and you know there might be some- they come forward where they say it's a it's a okay to be at its location and there might be some where no there's no right for it to be there.

Q

It's hard to predict what would happen with that. Thank.

A

You other comments. Okay, is there a emotion.

A

And again, at the end of the day, if there's no motion, then current practices stand that doesn't have to be all them in black I guess.

S

I understood this to be that we are going to give staff direction and not make a motion this evening.

Q

S

A

Not I'll make.

G

A call make a motion.

S

For sample option three, with a caveat that it's instead of six months, it's 18 months.

A

There's some somewhat a caveat that would be an amen amendment. Okay, my mistake. So then, essentially it would be an amendment you're moving option, three, with changing the six to eighteen. Okay is there a second to that motion? Can.

U

Ask a clarifying question, of course: okay: how would that be different from doing nothing.

Q

Well, I think that pretty much said basically tell staff there's going to be a grandfathering period of 18 months, where we're not going to be issuing citations. We're not going to be out there doing that. Obviously no new permits are going to be issued during that period of time, but it's going to be at least 18 months.

Q

It would get through two more summers where people could utilize their Docs and they've got 18 months to get rid of them, make arrangements to start getting rid of them and then, if they're, not within 18 months, then we could go in there and start citing them, so I think the biggest difference. There is time time that that allows.

A

And it's also, if I'm understanding it, it's not a case-by-case basis, necessarily.

P

Written I'm sorry.

M

P

Written in the intent is we offer that option to the dock owners if they enter into that permit for 18 months, then we've got that I guess agreement in writing. If they choose not to enter into an 18-month permit in this case, then we would just need to cite them and take them in a straight of court. I think that's the second half of the that motion as it's written after 18 months. Well, if they choose at this point not to we could do that.

P

It's written right now that if they choose not to enter a permit, but you can amend it obviously and say we don't want you to even issue a permit in 18 months, then you can start deal with it, but in 18 months. This is what you should do. They should come out or you should cite and work through them individually. Okay,.

A

All the woman burgers actually.

V

Make sure I understand so if we were to approve this every case eventually will be determined on a case-by-case basis, whether it happens now because they didn't want to sign into the 18-month extension or after the expiration of the 18 months. Is that am I understanding that correctly.

P

I would presume that would be correct, because my presumption again is that the dock owner is even after 18 months still, wouldn't some of them may not still agree to remove them at that time. Thank.

V

A

All right so then we're going back to the we have a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Oh no I'm.

U

Seeing some puzzled looks: okay,.

A

U

There's no second.

A

The motion dies in a second okay. The motion dies of a second okay. Are there any other motions or guidelines again? If we, if we don't act, then the default is the staff will act and on an individual basis, and these will be determined on an individual basis with a variety of variables in Administrative Court, all the men mathy. Why.

T

I just same thing as I said earlier, is as I would like to you know the folks that have lake hold leases. I would like to see council divide those ones up. It's I, don't know if it's 8 or 9 of those and and work with them individually to see because I, you know, I think that there's different circumstances for each one of those and we could actually sit down work with them and they can bring back recommendations to the rest of the council. You know as an example.

T

If Dave and I we were assigned a couple of Doc's, we would meet with those folks and both the folks that had the docks and the perm of the the lake holder for lakefront permanence on either side the situation that doc is and bring it back to counsel and then make a recommendation from there for those particular Doc's that we had been assigned I mean I, think isn't.

A

How is that different from what Administrative Court would do? I.

T

Guess I don't know it seems to me as soon as we say, we're going to Administrative Court, we're site and people. The first thing that happens with a site is: it starts off with a fine right and and I. Don't know that I'm comfortable starting everything off with a $250 a day. Fine before we even get to administrative court. Okay,.

A

Old woman Peter thank.

X

You if we do nothing, how is that different from option? One.

P

Yeah, there's no difference. That's okay! We're just! You asked us to come back with some options, and that was one option we presented for.

X

This right and we've been at this for over a year, I think it's time we got on with it and I would make a motion for option 1. Is there.

A

A second that doesn't not to stop any discussion. Is there a second to option? One I have.

Y

An emotion second.

A

By older woman break okay, did you want to speak to that? Okay, all the woman brain yes,.

Y

Second emotion because I appreciate everyone coming out here and talking with us: these are tough issues and I think they do need individual attention by a consistent, fact-finder and decider. If you will, which is what we could see from the administrative law approach versus breaking it up among the council. Members I just fear inconsistency there, just because it wouldn't be the same kind of approach, necessarily so I think that would be the most even-handed manner in which to handle it.

Y

I'm swayed by the commentary saying you know folks need to live in a healthy community it with some predictability and get this behind us. So I appreciate the comments that were made about the fact that you know folks are just like for this to be over with, and that's why I've? Second, at this motion for option, one all.

A

The woman helmet is.

D

It possible to waive the daily fine if we, if we go with the Administrative Court routine yeah. Yes,.

Q

And in administrative court, it's it's not uncommon, you know. If we get abatement, a lot of times will lower discount or waive the fines. So this is. This is something that you know. I think if this was the direction that you give staff will go back and come up with a plan as to how we're going to approach this I.

Q

Don't think it's going to be our intent to have you know every what is considered a legal dock in the court on the same day we're gonna have to go out there and figure out which ones we're going to you know, site and an issue and bring in front of the court, and- and this like I said before this will be a process. It'll take some time. The goal here is is I.

Q

Think compliance much like with our Administrative Court on housing, its its night to collect a bunch of money from people it's about compliance, so so that will be the approach that we would take. Thank.

U

A

Other comments, questions, okay. Well, we have a motion on table and I wonder if everyone can oh- and this would be a bit better off doing the voice vote. Oh no,.

Q

A

Can okay right, so everyone will go ahead and vote. We have a motion on the table. Oh.

A

Thank you. Sorry.

U

A

There we go, the motion carries seven to two. There are two names to announce. Madam clerk.

B

Ottoman mathy and ottoman black okay.

A

Thank you very much, thank you and thank you all for your work on this issue. Okay,.

A

Now, I'm, sorry, all the women's Schmidt did you have a question? Oh okay, right.

A

Mr. Rasmussen, yes.

O

I think that that was the only issue that we had on our special agenda tonight and so I wanted to thank the council for their time on this, and we've worked on it for a year and a half. It is very, very difficult, and all of us who have worked on it have great sympathy on everybody who has Doc's at the lake, both lakefront and non lakefront, and we appreciate the time that you have all spent for it and we will look forward to having some issues adjudicated there here on a case by case basis.

O

We thank you very much for your time. Sure thank.

A

You so much okay at this point is.

D

A

Think at this point, I will all go ahead and allow it sure yeah.

D

Yeah, it does I guess my question is and I think I know the answer of the other realtor's being brought up to date, how the property that they're selling, because I think I, really think there's enough responsibility to go around. You know us the Assessors, the realtor's and I just want to make sure that we don't perpetuate this.

O

Yes, all of the Howland, we have talked a realtor Association on two or three different occasions. They all understand that very well, and there won't be any misunderstanding, certainly on a going-forward basis, that any realtor will warrant that a dock goes with a piece of property unless they absolutely have assurance from the water department, the city, but that in fact, is associated with it and I know. There's been problems in the past with that. Thank.

D

A

Question: okay, all right! This point is a remotion to adjourn move by all the woman Schmidt. Is there a second second second by old woman, Hellman, all in favor signify by saying aye? Okay, we're adjourned for about 16, 17 minutes.