►
From YouTube: December 14, 2020 Bloomington City Council Study Meeting
Description
Bloomington Minnesota City Council Study Meeting
A
A
A
Present
the
six
of
the
seven
members
of
the
bloomington
city
council
are
present,
got
a
text
message
about
a
half
hour
ago
from
council
member
bologna.
He
is
under
the
weather
and
not
able
to
join
us
this
evening,
so
we
will
have
six
members
of
the
council
this
evening,
council.
As
I
said,
we've
got
three
items
on
our
agenda
tonight:
they're
all
organizational
business.
We've
got
our
self
storage
review,
the
city,
council
policy
and
issue
update
and
then
we'll
go
into
closed
session
to
talk
city
manager,
performance,
evaluation,
council.
A
A
Motion
carries
6-0.
We
have
an
agenda
for
this
evening's
meeting
and
first
up
on
that
agenda
is
a
review
of
our
self-storage
facilities.
Here
in
the
city
we've
been
talking
about
this
for
a
while.
Now
our
planning
department
has
done
a
different.
A
number
of
pieces
of
work
on
it.
They've
looked
at
a
number
of
different
things,
and
we
have
a
study
that
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
this
evening
from
our
planning
department,
senior
planner,
julie,
farnam
is
going
to
take
us
through
this
good
evening,
ms
farnam,
and
welcome.
C
A
C
A
C
C
C
Okay
well
good
evening,
and
yes,
I'm
julie,
farnham
one
of
the
senior
planners
here
and
I
am
joined
by
sean
james,
who
is
the
primary
author
of
this
study,
so
he
is
available.
If
you
have
some
detailed
questions
here
and
I'll
just
get
going
into
it.
So
why
did
we
do
this
study
so
back
in
the
spring
bloomington?
There
were
some
concerns
about
the
number
of
new
facilities
that
had
come
online
relatively
recently,
and-
and
so
there
was
concerns
about
that.
C
That
particular
use
there
were
concerns
about
bloomington,
absorbing
a
disproportionate
share
of
the
regional
demand.
That's
in
part
due
to
while
other
cities,
our
adjacent
cities
also
allow
these
facilities
in
their
industrial
sony.
Districts
like
we
do
they
don't
all
have
as
much
land
that
is
in
those
districts,
so
there's
fewer
opportunities
in
the
neighboring
cities,
and
then
there
was
concerned
about
this
use,
which
is
considered
kind
of
a
an
auto
oriented
low-intensity
use
going
into
areas
that
are
planned
for
higher
intensity
and
higher
employment
uses.
C
C
So
the
the
study
really
focuses
around
these
three
overarching
issues
which
I
will
drill
down
into.
So
the
first
is
market
saturation
and
really
the
the
drivers
of
demand
for
this
particular
use.
There's
kind
of
two
demographic
groups
that
drive
the
demand,
it's
the
downsizers
or
the
empty
nesters,
the
older
folks
and
then
there's
the
younger
folks
that
are
moving
out
of
their
parents
home
or
coming
back
from
college
or
just
getting
out
of
college
and
bloomington,
has
a
fair
number
of
both
of
those
groups,
particularly
of
the
more
senior
folks.
C
So
we
have
a
fair
amount
of
local
demand.
There's
also
it's
clear
from
how
that
we
have
enough
to
enough
units
to
basically
support
18
of
our
population
and
the
industry.
Average
is
about
10,
so
that
suggests
to
us
that
we
are
also
drawing
from
a
broader
market
area.
So
it's
we're
serving
more
than
just
bloomington
residents.
C
C
We
have
nine
facilities
again,
eight
existing
one
under
construction
overall
that
totals
7.6
square
foot
per
capita,
which
bloomington
is
the
second
highest
in
the
southwest
metro.
In
terms
of
that
amount,
st
louis
park
is
the
one
that's
higher
than
us.
I
would
note
that
blooming
or
burnsville
is
just
a
little
bit
below
us,
too
regional
demand.
It
looks
like
over
the
past
five
years,
there's
been
almost
a
27
increase
in
square
footage
of
self
storage
facilities.
C
The
next
issue
is
a
low
activity
and
employment,
so
starting
with
the
low
activity
areas.
So,
as
you
know,
bloomington
has
proactively
been
planning
for
certain
areas
of
the
city
to
be
much
higher
in
intensity,
mixed
use
and
more
walkable
really
to
take
advantage
of
some
of
the
major
investments
in
transit,
particularly
around
lrt
and
brt,
and
then
more
recently,
we've
been
engaged
in
the
lindale
retrofit
study.
So
looking
at
lindell
corridor
being
an
area
right
for
redevelopment.
C
C
C
They
tend
to
be
big
and
blocky,
and
the
newfangled
designs
have
these
internal
illumination
with
a
lot
of
glass
on
the
outside,
so
that
you
can
see
the
units
from
from
the
outside.
It's
a
really
kind
of
a
security
thing,
but
the
result
is
that
it's
sort
of
these
big
glowing
boxes
and
because
they
operate
24
7
in
certain
locations.
C
Staff
is
also
recommending
that
we
restrict
the
use,
prohibit
the
use
in
other
certain
areas
to
address
those
issues
that
I
just
went
through.
So
those
are
transit
station
areas,
protected
industrial
adjacent
to
lindell
avenue
and
then
within
500
feet
of
residential
I'll,
just
dive
into
those
a
little
bit
more
so
prohibiting
in
the
transit
station
areas.
You
can
see
those
are
shown
in
the
red
circles
up
there
and
that's
a
half
mile
from
transit
existing
or
proposed
transit
stations
and
that's
again
lrt
and
brt.
C
It's
not
it's
not
frequent
transit
routes,
that's
another
category,
but
those
are.
These
are
the
ones
where
we
have
planned
for
the
most
high
intensity
uses
in
in
these
transit
areas.
So
transit
oriented
development,
applying
this
or
or
prohibiting
them
in
this
area
of
affects
or
applies
to
60
parcels,
and
it
would
make
one
of
the
existing
facilities
non-conforming
and
that's
the
one
that's
essentially
across
the
street,
from
city
hall
right
just
west
of
35
minute.
Commission
concurred
with
this
recommendation.
C
The
second
strategy
was
to
prohibit
in
protected
industrial
again
the
whole
point
of
these,
of
designating
these
areas
as
protected
industrial
is
to
preserve
them
for
traditional
industrial
uses.
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
not
all
land,
guided
or
zoned
for
industrial
is
under
this
protected
industrial
designation
and
again
going
back
to
that
industrial
study.
C
We
recognize
that
some
of
the
older,
in
particular
areas
that
are
industrial,
may
be
good
candidates
for
transitioning
to
other
uses,
and
so
we
call
those
transitional
so
we
had
protected
and
we
had
transitional
so
applying
this
this.
This
applies
to
70
of
the
parcels,
so
you
can
see
the
southwest
industrial
area,
which
is
where
we
have
most
of
our
larger
industrial,
is,
is
all
protected,
and
then
it
also
would
create
two
non-conforming
parcels.
C
C
C
So,
while
it
does
create,
maybe
some
hindrance
to
the
existing
uses
it,
it
may
not
be
that
much
of
a
hindrance,
maybe
more
of
a
hindrance
if
they
were
trying
to
sell
their
property,
and
this
was
considered
a
cloud
on
their
property,
but
again
they
could
could
sell
and
continue
to
use
this.
The
properties
as
as
self-storage
facilities,
planning
commission
concurred
with
staff
on
this
recommendation
as
well.
C
C
C
C
C
Planning
commission
modified
this
recommendation.
They
wanted
to
be
a
little
bit
more
flexible
and
rather
than
500
feet,
they
said
that
the
they
recommended
that
the
res
the
residential
setback
be
250
feet.
So
that's
still
150
feet
more
than
the
current
100
foot
setback,
and
so
that
would
reduce
the
amount.
The
number
of
parcels
where
this
would
apply
to
by
40.
C
C
Also,
I'm
pointing
out
here
on
this
slide
that
we're
not
suggesting
any
changes
to
the
other
requirements
that
are
currently
in
our
code.
Again,
setbacks
there's
far
requirements
there.
They
differ
a
little
bit
between
the
zoning
districts,
there's
height
requirements
and
there's
site
size
requirements
and
again
those
differ
by
the
zoning
district
and
again
it's
it's
i1,
i2
and
i3,
where
they're
currently
allowed
and
are
proposed
to
still
be
allowed
as
a
conditional
use.
C
So
that
makes
seven
of
the
nine
existing
facilities
non-conforming
and
it
provides
for
65
sites
that
could
be
available
for
new
storage
facilities.
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
many
of
those
these
sites
that
could
be
available
are
actually
already
developed,
so
it's
not
like
there's
just
65
sites
out
there
that
are
just
waiting
for
somebody
to
come
along
and
develop
them
that
it
would
probably
involve
redevelopment,
and
so
the
the
amount
of
sites
that
are
actually
likely
to
be
available
are
much
less
than
this.
C
And
under
the
planning
commission's
recommendation
again
similar
restrictions,
except
that
they
reduced
the
setback
from
residential
from
500
feet
to
250
feet,
and
they
felt
that
it
was
appropriate
to
allow
them
along
lindale,
except
in
the
two
nodes
that
are
identified
in
the
lindell
retrofit
study.
So
then
the
98th
street
node
in
the
86th
street
node
or
if,
if
you
know,
council,
thought
that
it
would
be
worthwhile
to
allow
them
anywhere
on
lindell
that
perhaps
in
those
two
nodes
there
should
be
higher
design
standards.
C
C
C
A
There
will
be
required
redevelopment
and
then,
given
the
the
number
that
we
already
have
here
in
bloomington
and
the
saturation
level
and
and
where
we
are
the
role
that
we're
playing,
obviously
in
the
southwest
metro
in
terms
of
bringing
in
other
people's
stuff,
because
there
is
no
place
in
their
own
community
to
store
them.
I
guess
the
question
that
comes
to
my
mind
is
why
wouldn't
we
simply
put
a
prohibition
on
any
additional
storage
facilities
in
the
city
of
bloomington.
C
Sure,
mayor
bussie,
I
guess
that's
certainly
an
option
for
the
council
to
consider.
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
why
you
wouldn't
just
put
a
prohibition
would
be
because
these
do
serve
a
a
positive
purpose,
but
particularly
if
we
are
starting
to
develop
more
multi-family,
I
mean
some
of
these
areas.
Some
of
those
developments
don't
have
as
much
storage,
and
so
these
storage
facilities
serve
a
there's,
a
there's,
a
market
for
them.
C
There's
a
there's,
a
need
for
them,
so
you
know
I
guess
that
would
be
the
reason
to
allow
can
to
continue
to
allow
them
and
again
I
would
agree
with
your
your
statement,
and
I
said
it
earlier
that
you
know
the
65
or
the
101
parcels.
It's
really
pretty
inconceivable
that
that
all
of
those
parcels
would
would
be
available
for
new
facilities,
just
they
could
be,
but
but
to
do
so
would
require
redevelopment
and
just
the
the
economics
of
doing
that.
A
And
I
agreed
on-
and
I
appreciate
your
answer
and
appreciate
the
the
thought
that
staff
has
obviously
put
into
this.
So
the
second
question
I
have-
and
perhaps
I
missed
it
in
the
report
here
or
in
your
presentation-
do
we
have
any
idea
in
the
nine
existing
facilities
what
their
current
saturation
level
is?
What's
their
what's,
their
rate
of
of
rental?
Currently
do
we
know.
C
I
may
have
sean
see
if
he
uncovered
any
of
that
data
in
in
his
research.
I'm
not
my.
My
guess
is
that
that
was
finding
that
data
and
and
compiling
that
data
would
have
taken
a
a
well.
I'm
not
even
sure
how
how
you
would
get
get
that
data,
because
things
change
a
lot,
but
I
will
sean
if
you
are
there,
maybe
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you
and
see.
D
A
E
E
So
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
really
the
recommendations
between
what
the
planning
commission
had
and
what
staff
recommended.
I'm
really
trying
to
understand
on
the
penn
avenue
side
of
it,
because
it
looks
like
on
the
pen
avenue
piece
of
it
that
you'd
be
able
to
have
a
storage
location.
That's
basically
right
across
the
street
from
residential
or
am
I
am
I
mistaken,
with
the
planning
commission
recommendation.
C
So
this
was
the
staff's
recommendation,
so
you
can
see
on
pen
there
are
no
available
sites
because
the
the
500
foot
from
residential
wipes
those
out
essentially
and
and
then
with
the
the
250
foot
there
are
parcels
on
on
pen
that
would
be
come
available.
You
can
see
the
one
that
circled
there
is
that
existing
one
that
that's
out
there
that's
relatively
new
a
couple
years
ago.
So
so
that
is.
E
Yeah,
I'm
quite
familiar
with
that,
but
it's
hard
to
tell
in
this
particular
recommendation
whether
or
not
you
know
I
saw
some
maps
in
the
staff
report.
It
seemed
to
make
me
think
that
maybe
that
this
would
make
it
so
that
you
wouldn't
have
light
shining
into
people's
into
the
residential
front
window.
E
C
Sure,
councilmember
lohmann.
I
think
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
james
once
again
to
dig
into
the
weeds
on
this
one,
because
it
is
a
little
bit
hard
to
see
on
this
map.
If
the
parcel
is
immediately
pen
are
included
on
that
or
or
not
because
it
I
believe
it's
residential
on
the
other
on
the
west
side
of
pen.
So
I
am
not
exactly
sure
so
sean
if
you
could
maybe
respond
to
that
or
shed
some
some
light
on
what
the
analysis
showed.
D
Mr
james
yeah,
thank
you,
mr
mayor
and
council
member
lowman,
so
that
distance
from
residential.
What
we're
measuring
is
the
distance
from
the
residential
property
line
to
it.
It's
essentially
a
building
setback
for
a
proposed
or,
for
you
know,
a
self
storage
facility,
and
so
today
they
have
to
be
100
feet
away
from
that
residential
property
line.
D
The
proposal
is
that
a
new
building
be
250
feet
away,
and
so
you
know
looking
at
the
map
that
would
remove
some
of
that
initial
frontage
immediately
along
pen,
but
given
the
length
of
those
sites,
you
know
they
could
be
conceivably
have
a
self-storage
building
at
the
rear.
End
of
that
parcel
still
might
be
difficult
to
fit
one
in
you
know.
Some
of
those
parcels
are
a
little
bit
small.
D
E
Maybe
let
me
ask
the
question
differently,
because
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is
so
if
I
were
to
develop
one
of
these
or
redevelop-
and
you
know,
put
some
parcels
together,
but
I
have
the
same
lighting
that
I
have
no
requirement,
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
the
lighting
requirement,
as
I
have
on
that
existing
site.
That's
on
pen
avenue.
D
D
E
It'd,
be
less
intense
by
150
feet
is
that
is
that
my
understanding
am
I
right
taking
that
it's
150
feet
less
intense,
okay,
yeah,
so
no.
That
is
not
what
I
want:
okay,
good!
Okay!
Now
I
I
think
I
understand
that.
So
no
thank
you
for
helping
me
understand
that
then.
My
my
other
kind
of
statement
that
I'll
just
make
is
that
I
I
really
like
not
only
the
500
feet,
piece
that
staff
has
kind
of
started
off
with,
because
we
could
always
my
understanding
is.
E
We
could
always
kind
of
bring
that
back
as
it
seems
necessary,
but
as
we
look
at
lindale
in
terms
of
the
the
total
plan
for
that,
I
think
we've
got
to
think
beyond
those
nodes.
This
is
kind
of
more
of
a
statement
to
my
fellow
council
members
that
we
may
want
to
look
from
a
long-term
standpoint.
What
makes
sense
from
a
planning
standpoint
up
and
down
lindell
avenue
and
by
and
by
by
really
kind
of
putting
these
storage
pieces
in
there.
E
It
reminds
me
a
lot
of
the
issues
we
have
in
the
southdale
district.
There
southtown
district
pardon
me
at
southtown
district,
where
we've
got
a
lot
of
those
car
dealerships
and
we're
trying
to
kind
of
maneuver
those
folks
in
there
I
feel
like
we
might
be
facing
that
same
issue
as
we
look
at
lindale
kind
of
long
term.
E
B
B
You
know
limit
the
change
from
the
500
or
the
yeah,
the
500
feet
barrier
to
the
250
feet
barrier,
but
there's
not
any.
It
doesn't
seem
to
me,
at
least
in
the
notes
that
there
was
any
discussion
about
why
to
do
that,
other
than
that
it
it
felt
less
restrictive,
which
is,
I
guess,
not
to
me
a
particularly
good
reason
to
do
something.
B
So
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
more,
perhaps
more
clearly
about
why
the
planning
commission,
in
addition,
in
addition
to
that
point,
the
the
point
that
council
member
loman
just
raised
about
the
about
lindale
avenue
the
nodes
versus
the
entire
stretch
there.
If
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
why
the
planning
commission
felt
more
comfortable
with
that.
D
Yes,
thank
you
so
yeah.
That
was
part
of
the
thought
as
well,
that
you
know
that
500
foot
restriction,
but
it
was
quite
restrictive
for
any
new
self
storage
facility
in
the
city,
and
they
felt
that
you
know
some
of
our
existing
screening
standards
were
with
the
latest
two
facilities.
With
the
cup
process,
the
you
know
wrote
in
that
lights
would
have
to
be
turned
off.
I
think
after
10
p.m
or
something
so
there
are
other
ways
to
address.
D
B
Facilities.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
guess
you
know
I
I
guess
I
would
say
to
sort
of
pick
up
where,
where
councilmember
loman
left
off,
I
I
would
personally
say
I,
I
think,
prohibiting
them
the
entire
length
of
the
that
linda
labnew
quarter.
I
think
that's.
That
would
be
what
I
would
prefer.
I
you
know,
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
flexibility
that
will
be
needed
to
really
put
forward
a
a
strong
vision
there.
I
think
that
would
be
my
preference.
B
I
am
I
I
would
prefer
as
well
the
500
feet
barrier,
but
I'm
I'm
a
little
more
flexible
on
that,
given
that
you
know,
as
has
been
said,
it's
a
conditional
use,
but
I
I
think
we
need
to
think
about
this
in
terms
of
what,
how
are
we
going
to
proactively
zone
and
redevelop
and
so
on
and
and
the
certainly
the
sense
that
I've
gotten
from
from
conversations
that
we've
had
in
meetings
as
well
as
conversations
that
I've
had
with
other
folks?
Is
that
you
know?
Certainly
there
is.
B
A
F
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
Councilmember
nelson
yeah,
one
of
the
planning
commissioners
had
asked
about
rv
storage
and
noted
that
we
have
that
requirement.
I
think
it's
about.
Ten
percent
of
the
the
site
area
has
to
be
devoted
to
exterior
storage
and
typically
used
for
rvs
and
other
outdoor
vehicles,
and
so
you
know
looking
at
aerials,
those
spaces
are
used
and
there
wasn't
a
whole
lot
of
discussion,
then
about
either
loosening
or
not
requiring
more
with
that
regard.
D
F
C
C
F
Okay,
thank
you,
yeah.
I
was
just
wondering
if
there's
a
way
to
thread
the
needle
in
between
it,
but
in
general
just
add
my
comments.
I
do
support
the
staff
recommendation
of
the
500
feet
and
the
entire
lindale
corridor.
At
this
point,
I
think
we
could
revisit
it
if
we
find
that
it's
too
restrictive
and
we're
not
meeting
the
needs
of
residents
for
storage
in
the
city,
but
it
seems
like
we
have
quite
a
bit
at
this
point.
A
E
Well,
I
I
just
I,
I
think
your
question
is
a
good
one
and
I
don't
I
don't
know
how
to
answer
that
question
that
you've
asked
the
mayor,
but
I
think
that's
a
good
one
from
a
policy
standpoint,
we
were
basically
making
more
than
half
of
the
existing
ones.
You
know
did
not
conform
it,
but
I
guess
the
question
I
I
also
ask
myself
as
I'm
thinking
about
that,
is
you
know
really
before
this?
I
don't
believe
we
really
had
a
a
policy
around
so
now.
E
I
think
we're
trying
to
set
that
up.
So
that's
sort
of
how
I'm
trying
to
get
to
that
answer
and
that
if
we,
you
know
had
a
blank
slate
and
we
could
do
this
all
over
again,
you
know-
maybe
we
would
have
made
different
decisions
around
those
particular
facilities.
But
I
think
your
question
is
a
good
one.
There.
A
So,
ms
farnham,
I
think
you
said
it
earlier,
but
refresh
our
memories,
if
a
if
a
property
or
if
a
use
is
non-conforming,
what
does
that
mean
for
the
long-term
use
of
the
of
the
property?
What
does
it
mean?
What
does
it
mean
for
the
short
and
long-term
use
of
the
property,
and
and
what
would
it
mean
for
these
storage
facilities
right
now?
If
we
could
just
kind
of
summarize
exactly
what
that
would
mean
to
move
seven
of
our
nine
into
a
category
of
non-conforming
uses.
C
C
They
can
continue
to
operate
the
existing
uses
as
non
they're,
they're
legally
non-conforming
right
they
were,
they
were
legal
before
they
were
made
non
non-conforming,
so
they
can
continue
to
operate
forever
until
they
they
change
to
something
else.
They
can
continue
to
maintain
the
properties
they
just
can't
expand
the
use.
C
So
from
a
practical
standpoint,
it
doesn't
affect
their
use
of
the
property.
What
I'm
not
real
clear
on
is
you
know.
Sometimes
a
non-conformity
can
be
considered
a
cloud
on
on
the
property
which
tends
to
be
an
issue
if
you're
trying
to
sell
the
property,
but
I
don't
know
that
that
has
a
practical
impact
just
on
day
to
day
operations
of
the
facilities
and
and
operation
of
these
businesses.
C
A
C
A
B
A
All
right
again
hearing
no
dissension
from
the
council.
I
think
that
is
the
direction
of
the
the
council
to
planning
staff
to
to
take
our
comments
tonight
and
and
prepare
something
for
our
the
self
storage
units,
an
ordinance
of
proposed
code
amendments
to
implement
the
recommended
strategies
and
the
conversation
and
recommendations
move
forward
by
staff.
A
D
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
mayor
and
council
members,
just
two
items
just
to
let
the
council
know
we're
tracking
congress
is
still
negotiating
another
ronavirus
relief
fund
package
for
the
country,
and
I
think
the
has
been
well
reported
in
news.
The
hang
up
right
now
is
regarding
funding
to
state
and
local
governments,
as
well
as
a
desire
to
have
a
liability
shield,
and
it
sounds
like
the
congressional
problem.
G
If
the
language
that's
currently
being
discussed,
makes
it
through
there's
about
160
billion
dollars
of
funding
for
local
state
and
tribal
governments,
and
the
language
in
there
currently
directs
governors
to
share
40
percent
of
each
state's
allocation
with
local
governments
and
that
it
would
be
at
the
governor's
discretion
how
to
distribute
that
allocation.
So
we're
continuing
to
track
that
as
it
moves
through
also
continuing
to
watch
what
happens
at
the
special
session
at
the
minnesota
capitol
today.
G
Looking
to
see
if
there
are
any
updates
and
I
haven't
received
any
yet.
Obviously,
the
house
and
senate
have
been
talking
about
some
sort
of
relief
for
minnesota
businesses,
as
well
as
a
number
of
other
issues
that
we
are
interested
in.
So
when
we
learn
more
about
the
both
of
those
mr
mayor
and
council
members,
we
will
share
the
information
when
we
get
it.
A
Thank
you,
mr
verbrugen,
to
piggyback
on
that.
I
was
on
a
call,
a
zoom
call
this
morning
with
mayors
from
the
3rd
congressional
district
and
congressman
dean
phillips,
and
he
said
basically
what
you
just
reported
that
it
was
coming
down
to.
The
sticking
point
was
aided
to
local
governments
and
the
liability
shield,
and
but
they
were
working
toward
a
compromise.
F
Yeah,
thank
you
mayor.
I
just
want
to
follow
up
on
the
discussion.
We
just
had
just
to
make
a
request.
First,
staff
did
a
great
job.
The
report
was
great,
but
in
the
future,
if
we
could,
if
we're
going
to
impact
businesses,
I
prefer
that
we
reach
out
to
them
before
we
do
the
conversation
to
get
their
input
into
it
instead
of
after
the
fact
and
and
making
them
come
in
during
that
public
hearing
type
process.
F
To
the
extent
that
it's
practical,
I
understand
that
staff
probably
wanted
a
little
bit
of
direction
made
sure
they
weren't
getting
too
far
ahead
of
it.
But
you
know
it
would
have
been
nice
to
have
their
feedback
on
some
of
these
things
as
we
considered
it
tonight.
So,
just
just
a
request.
There
again
appreciate
the
report.
It
was
very
thorough,
very
well
thought
out.
E
E
A
If
not,
I
would
like
to
move
to
item
3.3,
which
is
our
city
manager,
performance
evaluation
and
as
part
of
that,
the
open
meeting
lawn
state
law
does
allow
for
an
open
meeting
to
be
closed,
to
evaluate
the
performance
of
someone.
The
council
supervisors
and
obviously
the
city
manager,
is
the
only
person
that
the
city
council
supervises
and
so
in
our
review.
We
will
be
closing
this
session
of
the
city
council
to
have
that
discussion
and
I
would
need
counsel
a
motion
to
approve
the
resolution.
E
E
Yeah
mayor,
I
know
you
alluded
to
it
a
little
bit.
I
did
get
a
few
emails
and
I
just
want
to
just
be
sure
that
we're
crystal
clear
are
there
some
folks
who
are
asking
regarding
our
our
seventh
pillar
of
transparency,
why
this
part
of
the
meeting
is
not
open
and
I
wanted
to
just
if
you
could
opine
or
if
the
manager
could
opine
or
the
our
legal
assistants.
A
Well,
if
I
could
council
member
loman,
I
don't
know
of
any
city
that
leaves
open
the
direct
council
evaluation
of
this
city
manager.
Maybe
it
happens,
I
just
don't
know
of
any.
To
be
honest,
state
law
does
require
if
we
close
the
public
meeting
that
at
the
next
public
meeting,
which
would
be
december
21st
that
we
report
out
as
to
what
the
closed
meeting,
what
the
results
of
the
closed
meeting
were,
and
we
would
obviously
do
that.
We've
done
that
in
the
past,
in
terms
of
just
why
we
do.
A
This
is
as
opposed
to
the
pillar
of
transparency
and
and
engagement.
I
I
think
it's
important
to
to
note
that
the
city
manager
is
is
an
employee
of
the
city
council
and
yes,
it's
a
very
public
position.
Yes,
it's
a
position
that
is
very
involved
and
has
a
very
public
and
direct
face
represents
bloomington
on
any
number
of
things,
but
the
bottom
line
is
he's.
A
He's
a
public
employee
he's
an
employee
of
the
city
council
and
I
wouldn't
expect
any
member
of
our
staff
for,
for
that
matter,
any
member
of
any
staff,
public
or
private,
corporation
or
agency
to
have
an
open
and
public
employee
evaluation.
We
take
feedback
from
the
public
about
the
our
employees.
All
the
time
we
hear
from
a
number
of
folks
about
the
the
quality
of
work
that
our
employees
do.
We
hear
complaints,
we
get
bouquets,
we
hear
praise,
but
to
have
that
formal
and
official
evaluation
of
an
employee.
A
I
think
just
for
it.
It
requires
confidentiality.
It
requires
that
that
employee
and
supervisor
relationship
to
be
such
that
things
can
be
said.
The
the
evaluation
can
be
done
confidentially
and
in
private,
with
the
understanding
that,
then
we
report
out
a
summary
of
what
we
do
talk
about
now.
For
the
folks
who
say
well
he's
a
public
employee
he's
he's
the
city
manager
he's
out
front,
he
should
be
subject
to
public
evaluation.
A
The
folks
who
are
subject
to
public
evaluation
are
typically
the
seven
people
who
sit
up
and
down
this
desk,
and
those
are
the
people
who
you
are
able
to
evaluate
publicly
every
four
years,
but
I
will
not,
I
just
wouldn't
ever
consider
a
member
of
our
staff
to
have
their
performance
be
evaluated
publicly.
It's
just
so
far
out
of
line.
I
think
it's
so
far
to
step
with
the
norms
of
of
personnel
management.
I
I
just
couldn't
ever
see
it
happening
so.
E
Thank
you
mary.
I
appreciate
your
you
know,
you're
being
forward
about
that
and
being
clear.
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
the
public
really
does
understand.
You
know
the
workings
of
this
and
how
this
operates
here
at
the
local
level
and
why
we
really
have
an
advantage
at
this
local
level
in
terms
of
trying
to
get
done,
the
things
that
the
general
public
needs
to
see
and
get
done.
So
thank
you
again
for
clarifying
that
for
the
general
public.
A
A
A
Motion
carries
6-0,
so
we
will
be
moving
into
closed
session
after
the
closed
session.
We
have
to
come
back
into
open
session
to
close
the
meeting,
officially
so
council.
What
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
do?
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
do.
I
think
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
close
out
this
portion
of
this
meeting,
I'm
going
to
leave
it
open
we're
going
to
leave
this
open.
So
if
this
the
public
meeting
will
stay
open,
but
then
I
want
you
to
log
in
to
the
separate
close
meeting.
A
G
G
A
A
Good
evening
we
are
back
from
closed
section,
it's
10,
16
p.m,
and
we
are
officially
back
in
open
session
here
in
the
bloomington
city,
council
chambers
and
all
six
members
of
the
bloomington
city
council
are
again
present
and
with
the
completion
of
our
business.
I
would
look
for
a
motion
to
adjourn
this
evening.
A
We
have
a
motion
by
councilmember
carter
and
a
second
by
council
member
loman,
to
adjourn
this
evening's
meeting,
because
miss
christensen
has
called
it
a
night.
I
will
call
the
role
for
the
council
council,
member
carter,
council,
member
colter
aye.
That's
remember,
lohman
hi,
that's
remember:
martin
hi
spouse,
member,
nelson
hi
and
mayor
bussey
also
is
I
we
are
6-0
to
adjourn.