We apologize in advance for the message. There are some things that need to be said. Steve, Trail update for late April. The City of Bloomington is set to vote on the Bloomington Alternative Transportation Plan Update. This plan includes support for the paved trail as part of the Alternative Transportation Plan (ATP). If this plan gets approved with this section of support for the paved trail it will no doubt be used to try to get federal funding to complete the funding for the trail. If this happens it will be paved. We now will need to show our numbers more than ever. If you are a Bloomington resident we need you most of all. The Bloomington City Council will be reviewing this issue on Monday April 27th at their Study meeting. We need supporters to write City Council Members and let them know you do not support this portion of the ATP. After the study meeting the ATP will move to another Council meeting for a vote. This one will be the most important meeting to attend so be ready to attend that meeting. We will find out the date for that meeting at the April 27th study meeting. Again now is the time to make your voices heard to the Bloomington City Council. The Bloomington City Council Study meeting on April 27th at 6pm is open to the public however it is not open to public comments. FYI, this will be the last item on the agenda so no need to be there early if you decide to attend. Please see my email to the Bloomington City Council below: Hello Council Members I am sending you this email stating my support for the majority of the Alternative Transportation Plan Update. Our city has come a long way since the first Alternative Transportation Plan which I was a task force member. The re-striping of streets has made Bloomington safer for cyclists, homeowners that live along those streets, and more attractive to young families to but homes in Bloomington. One section about safe routes to school requires a public education element. The parents who think it is unsafe for their children to ride bicycles to school so they drive them to school are part of the problem. Less parents driving to school will cut down on car traffic and make it safer for kids to ride. The other section in the Alternative Transportation Plan Update that I do not agree with is calling recreational trails Alternative Transportation. Yes, one could argue that they can be used as such but bicycle commuters take the shortest routes necessary and do not go out of their way to ride trails. Also, having recreational trails included in this plan takes away focus from much needed other areas that can improve real Alternative Transportation action items. On to the Minnesota River Valley Trail which should not be a part of this plan. This trail whether paved or not is and will be a recreational trail. I attended and spoke at the Planning Commission meeting on Aril 23rd. The commissioners as well as you the council members have not gotten the full set of issues about this area from staff and Rep Lenczewski. Rep Lenczewski spoke at the very end of the meeting and once again provided half truths and misinformation about the issues with this plan. I encourage you to view these sections of the webcast. Below are some points that she made that are not accurate. 1. The original MN Valley Trail legislation does NOT specify a paved trail! It specifies a trail corridor but does not say what kind of surface is required. 2. Rep Lenczewski’s legislation does not specify a paved or two trail requirement Section 85.015, Subd. 6 3. The trail is not mostly completed as she stated. In fact some of the sections that have been done are still closed after the flooding from last year. 4. Rep Lenczewski makes a statement quote “Who’s there now and who will be there?”. Great question that should be answered but as you know there has yet to be any kind of user study. The fact is lawmakers, land managers, and City Staff do not know how popular the current trail is. How can you draw a true informed conclusion without knowing the current numbers of users? This should be required! 5. This area does not have full support of bicycling groups in fact even the MN Bicycle Alliance / Bike MN has not taken a position on this area. 6. Rep Lenczewski makes a claim that the only opposition is from a small group of users. Hardly overwhelming support. Please look at the numbers and links below. a. Petition from the Friends of The Minnesota River Valley 535 signatures. This petition is over 2 years old. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mn-valley-trail-old-cedar-ave-bridge b. Petition from natural trail supporters 2,886 signatures against a paved trail. This petition was started Oct 31st 2014, 7 months old. https://www.change.org/p/bloomington-mn-city-council-stop-the-plan-to-put-a-paved-trail-in-the-minnesota-river-valley-between-the-bloomington-ferry-bridge-and-the-old-cedar-avenue-bridge c. Save the MN River Trail Facebook page 1,129 likes. https://m.facebook.com/SaveTheRiverBottoms d. The 2006 DNR survey shows 96% of users support a natural trail. e. The City of Bloomington Survey results show the majority of users want a natural trail. https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/sites/default/files/media/MRVMP%20survey%20summary.pdf 7. The representative claims that after flood events the trail could be quote “Just swept off”. This clearly show the lack of actual knowledge of the area. This area is a major flood plain. After a flood its not a small amount of silty sand, its huge amounts of sand. This does not include the massive amount of debris like large trees and other items. Please go see for yourself. There is plenty of evidence of flooding. 8. The most outlandish claim the Representative makes is that the opposition to a paved trail agrees on the most expensive part of the trail plan which is a bridge over Nine Mile Creek. The only reason why this bridge would be the most expensive part of the plan is that if a paved trail is built a bridge over Nine Mile Creek will need to be strong enough to hold vehicles and equipment to build the paved trail. Natural trail supporters would be happy with a steel wood decked bridge that would be quite less expensive than a paved trail bridge. In closing I want to point out to you that the current Minnesota River Valley Trail is the only multi user natural trail in the whole Twin Cities metro area. This is the draw of why it is growing in popularity. It is not just “hobbyist” mountain bikers. Please, read the comments on the petition against the paved trail! We all want this area to be a part of Bloomington that is a attraction and it already is. Could it be better? Yes, small infrastructure improvements are something that everyone agrees on. Another paved trail that is not wanted is not. Thank you for your time. Dennis Porter 10409 Nicollet Circle Bloomington, MN 55420