►
From YouTube: October 26, 2017 Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Description
Minneapolis Intergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting
A
Good
afternoon,
I
am
calling
to
order
a
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
intergovernmental
relations
committee.
My
name
is
Elizabeth
Glidden
I'm,
the
chair
of
this
committee
and
I'm
joined
today
by
councilmember
Cano
and
council
member
Andrew
Johnson,
and
we
expect
a
custom
council
president
Barbra
Johnson
to
walk
in
momentarily.
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
council
members.
Sasha
Bergman
with
the
IGR
department
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
today
with
staff
from
various
departments.
To
present
four
items
for
from
that
came
up
through
our
policy
leads
liaison
team
process.
We
anticipate
no
committee
action
on
these
items
today,
but
that
these
would
be
for
potential
consideration
in
the
2018
legislative
policy
position.
Document
draft
that
we
anticipate
will
be
considered
by
this
committee
in
November.
B
For
today's
presentation
we
did
submit
an
attachment
to
the
RCA,
which
has
a
collection
of
worksheets
with
information.
It
looks
like
this
about
each
of
the
proposals,
and
that
includes
information
about
the
staff
contacts
for
each
of
those
items,
and
we
also
asked
each
presenter
today
to
create
a
few
slides
and
we
combined
them
onto
one
slide
deck
for
efficiency,
so
we'll
just
start
running
through
that
in
a
moment,
but
before
we
get
started,
I
want
to
give
a
huge
thank
you
to
our
policy
liaison
team
members.
B
As
you
know,
this
interdepartmental
team
has
been
working
over
the
last
several
weeks
to
present
these
items,
to
let
them
research
them
answer
questions
and
it's
it's
been
a
great
pleasure
to
work
with
them
and
we
really
appreciate
all
of
all
of
their
work.
Also,
when
I
give
a
special
thank
you
to
the
staff
who
contributed
to
the
proposals
that
are
before
you
today
and
some
others
that
are
not
before
you
today,
but
that
were
presented
through
the
posse
liaison
team
process.
B
B
C
You
very
much
ma'am
chair
council
members.
My
name
is
Chris
Dixon
for
those
of
you
who
have
not
met
me,
I'm,
a
supervisor
with
our
criminal
division
at
the
City
Attorney's
Office,
and
we
have
two
quick
presentations
to
present
to
you
this
morning.
The
first
I
wish
I
had
a
shorter
title
for
you,
but
we're
talking
enhanced
driving
after
revocation,
based
upon
an
impaired,
driving
offense
license.
Revocation.
C
What
we
are
asking
for
for
the
legislature
is
to
create
a
higher
penalty
for
driving
during
the
revocation
period
of
an
impaired,
driving
conviction,
and
essentially,
what
we're
talking
about
is
creating
a
gross
misdemeanor
driving
after
revocation,
which
we
call
dar
this
type
offense.
If
the
revocation
is
based
on
an
impaired
driving
offense
and
the
individual
violates
during
the
hard
revocation
period,
I'm
going
to
explain
what
a
hard
revocation
period
is
in
a
moment.
C
But
why
is
this
important?
Well,
first
and
foremost,
it's
to
put
some
teeth
into
the
administrative
penalties
associated
with
DWI
is
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
in
a
head
of
accounting.
If
you
are
suspended
or
your
relations
is
revoked
for
DWI,
let's
say
it's
your
first
DD
wines,
the
30-day
period.
If
you
get
a
dar
during
that
30-day
period
in
Hennepin
County,
you
could
simply
go
on
the
courthouse
and
pay
a
fine.
It's
a
payable
misdemeanor.
So
that's
all
that's
the
penalty.
C
Now
there
is
an
exception
and
had
a
big
County,
Prosecutor's
Office
files,
a
formal
complaint.
We
can
turn
that
into
a
misdemeanor,
but
based
on
the
many
many
cases
we
get
and
the
backlog
to
the
courts.
That's
really
not
a
reasonable
option
to
do,
and
also
this
is.
We
have
a
safety
reason
in
mind.
This
is
to
encourage
the
use
of
the
ignition
interlock,
which
would
cut
those
revocation
periods
down
and
I'll.
C
Show
you
why,
in
one
moment
this
is
probably
gonna
be
a
little
difficult
for
you
to
see,
and
we
can
always
show
you
this
slide
later,
but
this
is
from
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles.
These
are
outlining
the
harbor
vacation
periods
for
DWIs.
If
you
get
a
first
DWI
your
license
and
your
blood
alcohol
content
is
between
0.08
and
0.16,
the
license,
revocation
carried,
will
be
30
days.
Now
you
can
get
a
limited
permit
to
drive
after
15
days,
but
that's
it
a
30-day
revocation
if
you're
double
limit
that
revocation
period
jumps
to
one
year.
C
If
you
refuse
to
give
a
test
that
revocation
heard
is
90
days.
However,
you're
also
eligible
for
a
limited
license
after
15
days
and
as
you
can
see,
the
license.
Revocation
periods
increased
dramatically
over
how
many
DWI,
as
you
get
a
second
and
10,
is
a
year
if
you're
double
legal
limit,
it's
two
years,
a
third
and
10,
with
1
over
10
or
2
over
10.
It's
the
same
so
the
possibilities
here
are
for
sixth
extended
revocations.
C
However,
and
maybe
you
can
see
that
red
outline
in
the
slide
above
it
says
all
of
the
above
have
the
option
of
being
reinstated
with
the
installation
of
ignition
interlock
for
the
withdrawal
period
if
you're
18
years
or
older.
So
all
of
these
revocation
periods,
even
for
somebody
with
two
DWIs
in
the
record,
can
be
limited
down
to
whatever
you
get
the
ignition
interlock.
What
does
this
do?
C
However,
saying
that
I
want
to
be
very
clear
what
is
not
affected,
we
do
not
advocate
an
enhanced
driving
period
for
a
driving
after
suspension
or
cancellation,
in
other
words,
for
those
people
who
cannot
pay
their
fines
and
fees
and
that's
the
reason
they're
suspended.
We
don't
ask
for
this
gross
misdemeanor.
In
fact,
our
officers
always
held
the
position
that
we
encourage
people
to
be
placed
into
diversion
programs
that
they
can
get
their
license
back
and
drive
legally.
We
don't
think
this
is
an
equity
issue.
C
We
think
this
is
a
safety
issue
and
in
order
to
separate
those
two,
we
want
to
make
that
clear
that
we
are
not
advocating
higher
penalties
for
suspension
for
fines
and
fees.
Also,
this
would
not
apply
if
you're
eligible
for
reinstatement.
After
that
hard
revocation
cared
what
we
would
call
the
soft
revocation
period.
In
other
words,
if
you
were
suspended
for
30
days
for
your
license,
but
you
just
didn't
get
it
back
because,
for
instance,
you
couldn't
pay
the
reinstatement
which
can
be
expensive.
C
That
also
would
not
get
the
increased
penalty
that
would
be
handled
the
way
we've
always
handled
it,
and
we're
only
talking
impaired
at
driving
offenses.
If
you
get
a
revocation
for
something
else,
such
as
no
insurance
or
hit-and-run,
that
would
not
be
covered
as
well.
The
only
enhanced
penalty
would
be
for
driving
during
the
revocation
period
of
an
impaired,
driving
conviction.
I
will
go
through
both
of
these.
If
you
have
questions
at
the
end,
we.
A
Have
some
questions
if
you
want
to
go
back
on
this,
certainly
which
so
on
the
enhanced
driving
after
revocation
based
on
impaired
driving
offence,
license?
Revocation,
yes,
so
just
not
understanding
how
the
system
works.
Can
you
give
me
some
more
information
about
what
is
involved
in
getting
an
ignition
interlock?
C
Is
a
cost
there
as
I
understand
it?
There
are
two
companies
that
the
state
of
Minnesota
currently
they're,
made
only
tails
of
that
to
you
at
a
later
time,
if
that's
appropriate,
madam
chair,
but
I
do
know
that
there
is
a
couple
of
companies.
I
believe
it
may
be,
only
do
one
that
state
has
contracted
with
so
that
it
runs
to
the
DMV.
There
is
a
cost
associated
with
it.
You
know
the
answer
to
that.
Might.
A
Be
some
good
follow
up
is
just
what's
involved
in
getting
this
installed
and
what's
the
cost,
because
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
because
you've
said
that's
an
alternative
that
ends
up
being,
you
know
something
workable,
and
you
also
told
us
there
wasn't
an
equity
implication
and
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
does
it
take
for
you
to
utilize
the
option
of
installation
of
an
ignition
interlock
again,
just
because
I
don't
understand
that
system
and
then
I'm
curious?
What
do
we
know
about
of
the
violations
that
might
happen.
A
After
a
first
incident
kind
of
the
incidence
of
this
versus
second
incident
and
those
kinds
of
things
again,
I'm
making
an
assumption
that,
if
you
are
someone
who
has
had
more
than
one
instance
of
driving
under
the
influence
that
this
is,
you
know
exponentially
more
serious
situation
than
a
one-time
offender
who,
whatever
so
I'm,
just
trying
to
understand.
What
does
the
data
tell
us
about
kind
of
the
frequency
of
driving
during
this
30-day
period
you
might
get?
If
you
have
a
first
incident
on
record,
okay,.
C
Man
I'm
sure,
I'll,
try
to
address
your
account.
I
could
get
back
to
your
first
question.
First
I
would
like
to
say
the
equity
issue.
I
was
talking
about
necessarily
wasn't
the
cost
issue
it
was
who
gets
impaired
driving
offenses?
That
is
one
of
those
offenses,
one
of
who
actually
that
affects
all
well
as
a
society,
regardless
of
socioeconomic
status.
Absolutely.
A
C
C
In
regards
to
your
second
question
in
terms
of
the
data
we've
looked
at
now,
this
is
going
to
be
anecdotal,
I,
don't
know
of
any
studies
presently
for
that's
done
by
the
state,
although
I
bet
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
would
had
something.
I
will
certainly
check
about
who
offends
within
that
30-day
period
and
who
offends
outside
of
that
30-day
period.
The
anecdotal
evidence
we
have,
though,
is
people
offend
and
offend
and
offend
and
offend
again
and
again,
starting
during
the
revocation
period,
and
that
30-day
period
is
one.
It
really
depends
on
when
you're
caught.
A
A
Just
what
do
we
understand
about
that
picture
and
then
I
guess
my
other
just
more
of
a
policy
question
to
you
is:
why
is
this
proposal
for
all
incidents
as
opposed
to
having
to
grow
supply?
When
you
have
a
second
incident
on
record
or
again
where
it
seems
like
things
are
escalating,
so
was
what
was
the
analysis
that
you
used
to
decide
that
you
should
ask
for
a
growth?
The
first
time,
as
opposed
to
a
second
time
when
someone's
behavior
is
more
clearly
escalating,
mature.
C
The
answer
to
that
is
we're
not
asking
for
an
enhanced
penalty
based
on
second
or
third
or
fourth
or
fifth
time.
That
actually
is
another
proposal.
I
know
in
front
of
the
legislature.
What
we're
asking
for
only
is
an
enhanced
penalty
if
you
get
a
new
driving
after
revocation
during
the
time
your
license
was
revoked
for
that
DWI
I.
A
C
A
C
A
Sort
of
dragnet
tayyar
of
questions
I
am
honestly
interested
in.
Why
was
the
policy
decision
to
ask
for
a
law
change
that
would
start
to
apply
that
you're
going
to
get
a
grouse
after
the
first
incident
on
record,
revocation
experienced
as
opposed
to
targeting
getting
that
grouse
after
a
second
incident
where
you've
revoked
during
after
you've
had
a
second
D
driving
influence,
offense
I
guess.
C
The
answer,
madam
sure,
we
hadn't
thought
that
far
ahead,
the
to
analysis
we
in
made
were,
we
didn't,
want
it
to
affect
somebody
who
got
a
lot
of
driving
after
replications
because
of
they
couldn't
pay
their
fines
and
fees.
Our
analysis
came
down
to
simply.
We
wanted
a
higher
penalty
if
you've
got
that
replication
because
have
been
impaired,
driving
conviction
and
we
didn't
make
a
distinction
between
a
first
impaired,
driving
conviction
or
a
second
impaired,
driving
conviction
to
us.
C
An
impaired
driving
conviction
is
the
serious
offense,
regardless
of
if
it's,
your
first
or
second
or
third,
we
wanted
to
increase
the
penalty
immediately.
To
get
your
attention
that
you
can't
drive,
one
of
the
penalties
of
driving
under
the
influence
is
you
lose
your
license
and
if
you
drive
during
that
particular
period,
there
should
be
an
enhanced
penalty,
whether
it's
your
first
or
second
or
third,
the
difference
is,
we
didn't
want
it
to
affect.
C
A
A
E
C
E
Interesting
I
tell
you
my
constituents
would
say:
that's
really
important
because
they're
subject
to
you
know
the
people
that
drive
without
insurance
that
run
into
their
houses
run
into
their
cars.
It
happens
all
the
time.
It's
just
it's
a
big
hot
button.
So
I
really
would
like
to
think
about
that.
Adding
that
so
I
won't
do
it
today,
but
I
want
so.
A
If
I
could
just
say
something
too,
I
think
that's
an
important
thing.
I,
just
you
know,
I
was
in
an
accident
not
too
many
years
ago.
Actually,
with
an
uninsured
driver
and
I
will
say,
sort
of
the
thing
that
is
benefit
is
luckily
I
had
insurance,
so
other
than
paying
for
my
deductible
I
was
able
to
be
covered.
I
just
want
us
also
to
kinda
think
that
we
have
an
existing
position
on
our
state
legislative
agenda
that
is
about
trying
to
ensure
kind
of
all.
C
A
F
F
We
have
some
other
components
and
we're
considering
adding
this
to
the
package
that
we
worked
on
last
year,
and
one
of
the
items
that
was
in
last
year's
package
is
looking
at
some
of
those
insurance
issues
and
the
collision
issues
where
we're
suggesting
that
a
box
be
reinstated
on
a
citation
that
it
used
to
be
there,
and
we
don't
know
why
it
was
removed
by
the
state.
But
if
that
box
is
checked
by
an
officer
responding
to
the
scene
of
a
collision
and
someone
was
driving
without
proof,
insurance
or
without
a
valid
license.
F
But
that
would
be
a
court
required
appearance.
It
wouldn't
be
an
enhanced
penalty
up
to
a
gross,
but
that
that
would
be
a
court
required
appearance
and
we're
trying
to
get
at
the
issue
that
you're,
noting
that
there
needs
to
be
some
accountability
for
people
who
have
their
property
damaged
or
that
they're
injured
when
someone's
driving
without
a
valid
license
or
driving
about
insurance.
They
need
to
have
their
day
in
court.
They'll.
C
C
Now
previously,
2017
courts
had
interpreted
that
a
restitution
hearing
was
part
of
a
sentencing
hearing
and
a
sentencing
hearing
is
specifically
listed
under
1101
B
as
a
hearing
that
the
rules
of
evidence
do
not
apply
based
on
the
courts
interpretation
of
this
rule.
We
also
think
now
that
anything
not
listed
in
1101
B
3,
specifically
such
as
expungement
hearings,
would
mean
that
the
rules
of
evidence
are
going
to
apply
now.
Why
is
it
important
in
the
restitution
context,
I
think
the
person
who
had
it
put
it
best
in
her
dissent
of
this
opinion?
C
Willis
was
Justice
mikeg.
Now
many
of
you
may
know,
Justice
McCaig,
she
was
formerly
a
Hannah
County
District,
Judge
and
I'll
also
say
that
she
is
the
justice
on
the
current
Supreme
Court,
who
has
the
most
district
court
trial
experience,
and
she
said
two
things
in
her
dissent.
Accordingly,
I
respectfully
dissent
from
the
majority's
decision
which
misinterpret
rule
11
a
1
B
in
a
matter
that
will
provide
proof
burdensome
to
parties,
victims
and
district
courts.
C
Parties
and
district
courts
will
be
forced
to
stretch
the
resources
even
thinner
to
accommodate
restitution
trials
and
victims,
who
have
often
endured
traumatic
violence
at
the
hands
of
defendant,
will
be
required
to
face
their
aggressors,
to
testify
not
only
at
a
trial
but
again
at
a
restitution
trial.
What
are
the
practical
considerations
essentially
a
great
deal?
C
The
state's
evidence
that
we
currently
use
in
these
restitution
hearings
will
now
be
inadmissible
and
I'm
going
to
give
you
two
examples
that
I
think
a
nun
see
at
the
point
first
and
the
one
that
justice
mikeg
mentioned
victim
does
not
wish
to
face
their
accuser
again
and
wishes
to
submit
a
claim
by
affidavit
that
will
not
be
forced
to
come
to
court.
Let's
say
we
have
a
victim
of
a
rape
who
testifies
at
a
trial
against
her
rapist.
He
is
convicted
at
court,
there's
a
consequence
of
the
traumatic
experience
she
gets
counseling.
C
That
is
something
that
normally
would
be
covered
under
the
restitution
statute
that
the
accused
would
have
to
pay.
However,
now
that
victim
is
going
to
have
to
come
to
court
again,
to
testify
about
her
damages,
simply
submitting
an
affidavit
would
be
insufficient,
that
would
be
hearsay
and
she
would
be
forced
to
come
to
court.
The
second
example
that,
frankly,
my
office
faces
on
a
weekly
basis
is
a
victim
who
comes
to
testify
will
be
precluded
from
introducing
an
estimate
from
a
repair
company
to
show
their
damages.
C
Such
a
document
is
hearsay
and
therefore
would
be
an
admissible.
The
classic
example
is
someone's
car
is
damaged.
They
want
to
get
an
estimate
from
a
car,
a
garage
that
oh,
this
is
going
to
cost
me
$600
to
repair.
She
tries
to
bring
that
into
court
and
produce
her
estimate.
That
estimate,
of
course,
is
hearsay.
It's
an
out
of
court
statement
from
that
mechanic.
In
order
to
prove
that
particular
issue,
we
would
have
to
call
that
mechanic
and
I
gotta
say
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
council.
C
That
would
be
incredibly
difficult
to
do
and
frankly,
I
do
not
think
we
would
get
many
people
to
show
up.
Why
is
this
important
in
the
expungement
context?
Well,
it's
important
not
only
for
the
state,
but
it
would
be
also
important
for
the
petitioner
for
the
state
when
someone
applies
for
an
expungement,
the
state
would
no
longer
be
able
to
introduce
a
copy
of
the
original
police
report
to
argue
against
the
expungement
of
a
criminal
record.
That
evidence
would
be
hearsay.
Let
me
give
you
an
example:
someone.
C
It's
20
years
old.
That
person
applies
for
an
expungement
typically,
what
our
office
of
the
Hennepin
County
Attorney's
Office
would
do
since
finding
that
victim
of
a
20
year
old
robbery
would
be
almost
impossible
or
they
could
have
done
or
moved
on.
We
would
produce
the
police
report
to
say
you
know
your
honor.
This
is
why
this
case
is
so
serious
in
this
case
should
not
be
expunged.
That
is
now
there
say
that
would
not
be
admissible.
C
However,
it's
equally
important
for
the
petitioner,
because
petitioners
would
be
unable
to
introduce
letters
of
support
or
letters
women's
perspective,
employers
to
show
adverse
impact,
which
is
what
other
things
they
need
to
prove
to
get
the
expungement
and
that's
that's
what
necessary
for
their
expungement
again.
That
would
be
hearsay.
They
would
have
to
actually
produce
those
people
who
were
supportive
or
produce
an
employer
to
say
I
did
not
give
them
the
job.
C
C
G
every
day
before
I
say
that
words
autonomous
vehicles.
This
is
a
very
timely
topic.
Mndot
is
out
ahead
right
now
they
are
planning
to
test
self-driving
buses.
This
winter
they've
formed
a
group
to
examine
state
laws
called
the
state
transportation
innovation
council,
on
which
I
participate
and
I
was
very
happy
to
have
been
invited,
and
that
council
is
monitoring
this.
The
National
League
of
Cities,
the
American
architectural
foundation,
National
Association
of
city
transportation,
officials
have
all
put
out
guides
and
guides
and
helping
information
for
local
governments
to
help
head
of
this.
Other
cities,
including
st.
G
G
For
our
part,
in
the
city
we
are
speeding
up
from
a
staff
perspective
were
engaged
in
the
transportation
for
America
smart
cities
collaborative
that
is
helping
our
understanding.
John
Burgess
is
joining
me
today.
He
represents
us
on
that.
We
learn
from
other
cities
and
we
are
understanding
more
and
more
what
we
need
to
do
from
a
technical
perspective
to
prepare
from
a
policy
perspective.
There
are
a
number
of
things
that
I
feel
we
should
be
doing
and
that
you
are
already
doing
as
policymakers.
G
G
How
do
we
work
together
collaboratively
with
the
state
to
prepare
among
many
things,
what
that
federal
legislation
proposes,
and
it's
on
the
floor
now
is
that
it's
a
bundling
of
state
and
local
government
so
everywhere
in
that
language
that
says,
state
and
local
governments
shall
should
show
it's
together.
So
it
pins
us
to
the
state,
and
we
should
be
very
articulate
about
what's
most
important
to
us
as
the
state
is
thinking
about
the
development
of
their
legislative
policy
on
autonomous
vehicles
and
transportation
technologies.
G
Perhaps
even
those
we
haven't
even
thought
of
yet
so
there's
a
few
really
important
things
here.
First,
the
federal
legislation,
preempts
state
and
local
governments
from
enacting
our
own
local
laws
on
our
streets
with
respect
to
traffic
control.
We
obviously
disagree
with
that
and
we
feel
that
we
should
be
stating
very
clearly
for
the
state
that
local
laws
should
be
followed
by
driver
and
driverless
vehicles.
G
The
last
the
last
third
point
is
about
our
our
seat
at
the
table
and
participation.
Nowhere
in
the
federal
legislation
does
it
talk
about
local
government
except
to
say
we're
sort
of
pinned
together
with
state
and
local
government.
We
feel
it's
important
that
we
have
a
seat
at
the
table
and
I
am
very
supportive
and
trusting
of
our
state
government
that
they
will
give
us
that
when
we
ask
them
for
it,
so
this
policy
is
articulate
about
our
participation
in
the
development
of
any
state
legislation
or
policy
related
to
autonomous
vehicles.
G
It's
important.
We
talk
about
this
now.
Why
now
this
lift
generated
this
image?
Lift
company
lift,
is
preparing
for
autonomous
vehicles.
This
is
just
any
Street
in
any
city
USA,
but
probably
this
is
the
city
right
away.
So
this
is
one
illustration
of
how
quickly
this
is
moving,
that
both
private
and
public
entities
are
starting
to
plan
ahead,
make
their
plans
for
a
driverless
future.
G
This
technology
has
the
potential
to
significantly
increase
traffic
congestion,
vehicle
miles
traveled
and
climate
pollution,
but
it
also
has
the
potential
to
have
numerous
benefits
for
us.
If
we
get
the
policy
right
from
the
beginning,
so
it's
starting
to
move
very
quickly
and
I
would
hope
that
you
would
give
strong
consideration
for
including
this
preparatory
policy
in
this
in
state
conversations
of
coming.
Thank
you
and
I'm
here
for
any
questions.
G
A
H
G
Are
a
few
pilots
out
there?
The
our
best
examples
in
Pittsburgh,
where
uber
and
the
city
of
Pittsburgh
have
partnered
to
put
autonomous
vehicles
on
the
street.
There
is
still
a
human
being
in
the
uber
car,
but
it
is
an
autonomous
vehicle.
There
are
random.
You
I
I
was
in
Pittsburgh
for
a
meeting
on
this
very
topic
and
I
heard
everywhere,
because
I
really
wanted
to
get
into
one
of
the.
You
know
three
blocks
away,
still
call
me,
because
I
really
wanted
to
get
into
one
of
those
autonomous
vehicles.
G
I
never
saw
one
but
they're
midway
through
their
pilot
right
now
and
providing
a
lot
of
information
to
the
rest
of
us
cities
that
are
really
curious
on
how
how
it's
going
there's
a
number
of
others
that
are
in
development.
Austin
is
another
city.
That's
leading
they're,
not
in
development.
Austin
is
another
city
that
is
currently
has
autonomous
vehicles
running
on
their
streets.
They
were
doing
a
lot
of
work
around
how
it
works
with
signals.
A
I'll
just
note:
you
know
this
is
a
topic
that
Hutchinson
has
been
a
lead,
but
it
really
crosses
over
multiple
interests.
From
the
whole
city,
Enterprise
and
I
know.
There
has
been
some
look
at
trying
to
find
a
good
date
for
a
study
session,
which
I
think
will
be
really
exciting.
I
think
we've
been
a
little
challenged
at
the
end
of
the
year
to
find
the
right
date
for
that.
A
H
I
just
wanted
to
finish
by
saying
that
I
am
I'm
intrigued
by
this
topic,
because
a
lot
of
the
minimum
wage
conversations
that
we
had
a
while
ago
was
around
automation
and
will
workers
be
replaced
by
robots,
essentially
to
cut
back
on
costs
and
Anadyr
to
a
minimum
wage
ordinance
and,
and
so
as
I'm.
Looking
at
this
picture,
and
imagine
it
and
just
curious
about
the
impact
of
this
kind
of
new
transportation
method
on
you
know
the
current
East
African
population,
which
is
a
you
know,
highly
active
in
the
taxicab
industry,
the
Latino
population.
H
You
know
slightly
so
as
well
and
in
general,
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
this
would
mean
for
like
our
workforce
and
what
it
displaced,
workers
and
and
and
so
like.
If
I
realize
it's,
not
the
committee
to
have
that
discussion,
but
I'm
just
letting.
You
know
that
this
is
an
interesting
topic
for
me
for
a
lot
of
reasons
and
I'm
just
curious
to
know
more.
Thank.
A
D
You,
madam
chair
and
I,
wanted
to
piggyback
off
of
those
comments,
because
I
know
that
that's
one
question
a
lot
of
people
have
about
automation,
but
I
also
think
about
all
the
other
ways.
This
is
so
transformative.
Every
year,
1.3
million
people
on
earth
died
in
auto
accidents,
37,000
died
in
auto
accidents
every
year
in
the
United
States
and
just
alone.
The
safety
improvements
of
these
vehicles
being
able
to
reduce
those
deaths
is
such
a
game-changer
and
then
another
aspect.
We
think
about
minimum
wage
and
we
think
about
affordability.
D
Cars
are
an
extremely
expensive
commodity
to
have
and
for
those
of
us
with
the
privilege
of
being
able
to
afford
them,
it
comes
at
a
large
cost
and
right
now
we
obviously
have
public
transit
is
a
big
way
to
help
people
get
around.
But
this
really
opens
up
the
door.
Accessibility
wise
in
so
many
ways,
and
it
helps
lower
the
cost
of
transit
and
actually
I
think
this
will
be
an
important
factor
in
getting
us
to
the
point
where
transit
is
a
right.
D
Transportation
is
a
right
in
our
nation
and
we
can
get
around
and
and
not
have
to
worry
about
market
forces
restricting
access
for
individuals
and
I
also
think
about
the
accessibility
factors
here.
How
these
vehicles
will
be
a
complete
game-changer
for
those,
for
instance,
with
blindness
being
able
to
be
driven
wherever
they
need
to
go
very
easily
and
on
a
moment's
notice,
and
so
it's
an
exciting
time
and
there's
certainly
complications
from
it
as
well,
where
we're
going
to
have
transformation
in
the
job
market.
D
But
it
opens
up
a
lot
of
doors
to
help
a
lot
of
people
in
many
different
ways
and
I
think
if
we're
smart
getting
ahead
of
it
now
and
preparing
so
that
we
can
help
folks
through
the
transition
so
that
it's
not
disruptive
to
their
incomes
if
their
jobs
are
tied
in
to
transport
station
is
all
the
more
important.
And
that's
what
I'm
glad
that
we
have
this
leadership
on
this
topic.
E
A
Okay,
I
think
so
we
have
one
more
presentation
and
then
we
have
another
topic
that
I
know.
Others
are
here
just
as
you're
getting
set
up.
I
will
just
say
to
kind
of
go
back
to
a
question
I
posed
to
mr.
Dixon
about
how
what
would
be
a
cost
for
utilizing
interlock
device
and
Ms
Siegel
responded
via
email
during
your
presentation,
so
I
just
thought,
I
would
say
it
here.
It
looks
like
you
are
able
to
get
that
installed
for
cost
of
about
$85
a
month.
A
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Matthew
Hendricks
and
I
work
in
the
city's
development
finance
division
and
before
I,
had
launch
into
the
presentation.
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
most
of
the
work
behind
the
presentation
was
performed
by
Mark
Winkelhock,
who
was
not
able
to
be
here
today
and
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
Nicky
Newman
from
the
city's
Attorney's
Office.
Who
did
a
lot
of
work
on
this
as
well?
I
This
is
a
presentation
about
clarifying
the
tax,
increment
financing,
pooling
laws
and
by
way
of
background,
the
city's
use
of
TIF
is
enabled
by
state
law,
and
so
state
law
also
sets
limits
and
and
governs
our
use
of
TIF,
and
you
know
tickle
sense.
It's
the
office
of
state
auditor
staff
who
enforce
the
state
law
and
they
closely
monitor
the
city's
TIF
districts
from
the
year
they're,
created
until
the
year
their
decertified.
I
There
is
a
provision
in
the
state
law
that
allows
tax
increment,
that's
generated
within
a
district
to
be
used
outside
the
boundaries
of
that
district
and
that's
typically
termed
cooling,
and
in
the
last
seven
years
the
city
has
used
pooling
to
contribute.
Roughly.
Sixteen
point:
seven
million
dollars
to
our
affordable
housing
trust
fund,
so.
I
The
cap
on
pooling,
that's
set
by
state
law
is
thirty.
Five
percent
of
tax
increment
from
a
redevelopment,
TIF,
district
and
city
staff
believes
that
this
is
a
cumulative
test,
meaning
that
in
some
years
we
might
pool
less
than
35
percent
and
in
other
years
we
might
pull
more
so
long
as
the
cumulative
percentage
over
the
life
of
the
district
does
not
exceed
35
percent.
I
However,
under
a
new
interpretation
OS,
a
staff
have
stated
they
think
the
test
should
be
annual,
meaning
that
in
no
year
could
more
than
35%
of
the
t-I
from
a
district
be
pooled,
and
this
is
a
problem
and
I'll
get
into
that
in
a
little
more
detail
in
a
couple.
Slides
and
the
solution
to
the
problem
is
a
clarification
of
the
state
statute
to
make
it
specifically
clear
that
the
test
is
cumulative,
so.
I
This
slide
is
looking
back
at
seven
years
and
showing
the
amount
of
pool
it's
tax,
increment
revenues
that
were
allocated
to
the
affordable
housing
trust.
One
and
you'll
see
that,
especially
in
recent
years,
a
significant
portion
of
our
trust
on
dollars,
I
came
from
pool
tip
and
the
cumulative
total
is
sixteen
point.
Seven,
five
million.
I
This
slide
is
slightly
more
complex.
It's
looking
forward
at
the
next
11
years,
and
this
is
a
projection
of
the
amount
of
tax
increment
that
we
could
allocate
to
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
in
column.
Two.
Those
amounts
are
based
on
an
annual
tests,
so
that
shows
the
amount
each
year
that
we
could
designate
for
affordable
housing
and
the
total
is
just
under
14
million
column.
I
Three
looks
at
the
scenario
in
which
a
cumulative
test
is
allowed,
and
in
that
column
you
see
that
the
total
over
the
11
years
that
we
could
allocate
to
affordable
housing
is
just
under
30
million.
So
the
difference
is
shown
in
column
four,
and
you
can
see,
there's
a
substantial
difference
over
the
next
11
years.
Roughly
fifteen
point:
eight
million
dollars
would
be
available
for
the
trust
fund.
If
we
can
get
this
clarification.
I
And
to
kind
of
highlight
what
that
means
in
terms
of
impact,
so
the
15
point,
8
7
million
over
11
years
would
be
applied
through
the
trust
fund
and
a
trust
fund
has
a
$25,000
per
unit
maximum
investment,
so
that
means
at
least
635
more
affordable
apartment
units
in
the
city
could
receive
assistance.
If
we,
if
this
clarification
were
made
and
with
that
I'll
stand
for
questions
and
also
I
want
to
mention
Andrea
Brennan
from
the
city's
housing
development
and
policy
directors.
Here.
B
B
A
E
B
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
one
note
before
you
move
on
to
this
I
also
just
wanted
to
add
to
the
discussion
around
the
DAR
DWI,
revocation
that
there
also
is
a
program
through
the
state
of
Minnesota
for
those
who
cannot
afford
ignition
interlock
I
want
to
make
sure
anyone's
watching
if
they
need
help
with
that
that
the
Department
of
Public
Safety
does
have
a
program
that
you
can
apply
to
to
receive
financial
assistance.
If
you
can't
afford
your
ignition
interlock.
F
So
we're
back
with
you
today
to
give
you
an
update
on
that
staff
direction
and
just
by
way
of
review
and
also
what
I
mentioned
that
Emily
Stern
from
C
ped
is
here
along
with
Shelley
Rome
from
the
City
Attorney's
Office.
If
there
are
technical
questions
in
their
respective
wheelhouses,
I'll
be
doing
the
presentation,
but
they're
here
questions
are
needed,
so
the
staff
direction
that
the
council
approved
back
in
June
directed
a
GRC
ped,
City,
Attorney's,
Office
and
Public
Works
staff
to
work
with
representatives
from
the
Friends
of
the
lock
and
dam.
F
The
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Minneapolis,
Park
and
Rec
board
and
other
interested
parties
to
examine
options
for
the
future
of
the
upper
cioth
at
U
falls
lock.
If
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
elects
to
discontinue
the
project
for
its
current
authorized
purposes,
based
on
existing
and
anticipated
future
conditions,
if
the
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
recommends
the
authorization
or
a
change
in
the
purpose,
staff
should
examine
different
ownership
and
operational
structures
that
could
meet
the
state.
Constitutional
and
statutory
requirements
for
the
receipt
of
state
bond
funds
and
other
public
financing
support.
F
Metamaterials
will
see
the
staff
direction
requested
that
requested
information
of
various
ownership
and
operation
structures
that
the
city
could
engage
in
to
meet
this
D
the
state,
constitutional
and
geo
requirements.
We
will,
we
did
work
the
work
we
did
to
better
understand
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
and
the
Congressional
disposition
process
led
us
to
conclude
that
discussion
of
ownership
models
at
this
time
is
premature.
F
It's
really
going
to
depend
a
lot
on
if
the
Corps
does
desire
to
dispose
of
the
property.
When
that
discussion
is
completed,
how
the
Corps
would
choose
to
how
the
Corps
suggests
to
Congress
to
dispose
of
that
property
when
Congress
would
act
on
that
recommendation
and
how
Congress
acts
regarding
the
disposal.
So
our
presentation
today
will
really
focus
on
what
to
expect
regarding
the
process
over
the
next
few
years.
Regarding
the
property.
F
So,
just
by
way
of
review
a
current
status
for
the
st.
Anthony,
Falls,
pertinently
Falls,
Lock
and
Dam,
it's
currently
owned
by
the
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
and
the
lock
was
closed
to
navigation
by
an
act
of
Congress
in
2014.
It's
important
to
note
that
in
2014,
while
Congress
did
close
the
lock
to
navigation,
it
did
not
do
eyes
the
property.
So
the
property
is
still
an
operation
floor
for
flood
mitigation.
It
would
take
an
additional
act
of
Congress
to
do
eyes.
F
The
lock
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
is
conducting
a
disposition
study
which
allows
the
court
to
evaluate
existing
projects
but
no
longer
serve
their
authorized
purpose.
The
objectives
of
that
study
are
to
review
existing
conditions
in
the
effort
of
the
upper
and
lower
santhi
Falls
locks
and
dams
and
lock
and
dam
number
one.
So
all
three
properties
will
be
studied
in
the
disposition
process
and
to
determine
if
there
is
justification
to
recommend
congressional
D
authorization.
F
The
reason
the
Corps
is
undertaking
the
study
now
is
that
the
last
lock
egde
occurred
in
2015
and
they
have
determined
that
the
cost
of
maintaining
these
three
sites
is
about
1.5
million
dollars
per
year,
not
including
dredging
and
other
major
maintenance.
So
it's
a
confluence
of
these
factors
that
causing
the
core
to
conduct
the
study
at
this
point
in
time,
so
now
I'm
sure
going
forward.
F
On
the
other
hand,
if,
during
the
disposition
study
that
opportunity
exists
to
modify
a
project
to
serve
a
different
water
resource
development
purpose,
investigation
of
such
an
opportunity
may
occur
if
funded
in
a
new
feasibility
study.
That
is
different
than
a
disposition
study,
so
moving
forward
with
what
we
should
be
expecting
over
the
next
year
and
a
half
to
potentially
two
years
in
May
of
2017.
The
Corps
did
initiate
the
disposition
study
of
the
upper
and
lower
sand,
Anthony
Falls
locks
and
well
as
well
as
lock
and
dam
number
one
in
August.
F
They
decided
to
proceed
with
a
disposition
study
and
now
we're
looking
at
an
18
to
24
month
horizon
to
complete
that
disposition
study.
So
we
should
expect
results
of
that
study
in
early
to
mid
2019
that
we
would
know
what
the
results
of
that
study
would
be.
And
then
you
see
here
some
more
detail
about
what
the
different
benchmarks
of
the
disposition
study
would
be.
The
first
phase
has
been
completed
that
that
decision
was
made
to
actually
proceed
with
the
study
that
occurred
in
October
2017.
F
E
F
After
the
completion
of
the
study,
Congress
will
act
on
the
recommendation
to
D
either
as
the
project
they
may
I.
They
may
be
authorized
at
that
point
in
time,
at
which
point
the
property
would
move
to
a
GSA
process,
the
General
Services
Administration
process
and
of
a
long
traditional
federal
process.
F
For
just
this
excuse
me
for
disposing
of
unused
federal
property
or
Congress,
can
intervene
at
that
point
in
time
and
interject
themselves
and
put
very
specific
direction
on
the
disposal
of
the
property,
and
they
could
put
additional
requirements
and
expectations
on
the
future
of
the
property
and
their
of
their
own
volition.
So
we
have
some
detail
here
about
what,
if
they
move
forward
with
the
GSA
process,
what
that
can
look
like
the
GSA
process
requires
that
properties
that
are
classified
first
as
excessive
property.
F
If
they
are
at
that
point
in
time,
then
there's
have
a
waterfall
of
priorities
that
the
federal
government
can
go
through
to
determine
who
then
has
access
to
that
excess
property
in
that
pecking
order?
The
the
first
position
would
go
to
other
federal
agencies
in
this
situation.
We
would
anticipate
another
federal
agency
that
would
have
interest
in
the
property
and
could
be
the
National
Park
Service.
We
have
heard
from
the
National
Park,
Service
and
I'm
sure
you've
heard
the
news
today
about
increasing
costs
to
fees
to
use
other
locations
of
the
National
Park
Service.
F
They
at
this
time
are
not
expressing
any
interest
in
potentially
owning
or
operating
the
adverse
st.
Anthony
Falls
Block
in
the
future,
they're
having
budget
struggles
and
other
properties
that
they
are
already
responsible
for.
So
it's
not
terribly
surprising
whether
or
not
at
this
time
interested
in
expanding
their
portfolio
in
terms
of
owning
and
having
total
operation
responsibilities
of
a
property,
so
the
first
op
in
that
waterfall
would
be
another
federal
agency.
F
If
no
other
federal
agency
is
interested
in
knowing
the
property,
then
GSA
looks
for
a
public
benefit
conveyance
to
potentially
HUD
for
homelessness
conveyance.
That
is
typically,
of
course,
that
there's
an
actual
building
that
could
be
used
to
provide
housing
for
homeless
residents.
A
lock
and
a
dam
is
probably
not
going
to
be
appropriate
for
that.
So
then,
the
next
step
in
that
process
that
GSA
would
look
at
would
be
a
negotiated
sale
to
state
local
unit
of
government
or
eligible
nonprofit
organization
for
public
purpose.
F
Either
the
disposition
process,
the
decision
is
not
to
dispose
of
the
property
I'm
not
disposed
of
the
property
fully
or
if
Congress
does
not
move
to
dispose
of
the
property,
then
there's
another
Fork
in
the
process.
That
would
be
a
potential
feasibility
study,
so
the
Corps
could
continue
to
maintain
the
property
and
act
in
a
caretaker
status
operating
the
upper
st.
Anthony
Falls
for
flood
mitigation.
F
They
could
look
to
a
potential
partner
so
retaining
that
piece
of
the
responsibility,
but
then
look
to
a
local
partner
to
join
in
a
feasibility
study
to
look
at
what
some
options
may
be
for
a
joint
project
if
they're
going
to
retain
that
share
of
their
responsibility.
A
feasibility
restart
study
would
also
require
congressional
action.
That
would
be
a
two
congratz
an
election
one.
F
There
would
have
to
be
legislation
authorizing
a
feasibility
study
and
then
to
a
separate
action,
appropriating
funds
for
that
feasibility
study
and
that
study
would
require
5050
local
match
with
a
local
partner.
The
local
project,
sponsor
must
be
a
public
entity,
and
then
there
are
some
rules
around
that
about
how
quickly
they
want
to
see
that
feasibility
study
completed.
Now.
Again,
this
is
the
path
that
would
be
followed
only
if
the
federal
government
decided
not
to
dispose
of
the
property
based
on
conversations
that
we've
had
with
a
lot
of
interested
partners.
F
It
looks
like
they
are
probably
going
to
move
towards
disposing
of
the
property.
We
just
don't
know
what
that
disposition
is
going
to
look
like.
Are
they
going
to
still
want
to
retain
that
flood
mitigation
responsibility
if
those
of
it
in
its
entirety,
there's
just
a
lot
of
unanswered
questions
about
what
the
result
of
that
study
might
look
like.
Indications
are,
though,
that
at
the
end,
there
will
be
some
action
to
dispose
of
all
or
significant
components
of
the
property,
so
that
madam
Sherrod
pause
for
a
moment
to
see.
A
I'm
not
seeing
questions
on
this
just
I
guess
the
the
point
is
is
there's
quite
a
bit
of
process
left
in
the
exact
length
of
the
process
is
a
little
hard
to
determine,
but
maybe
the
most
concrete
thing
is
kind
of
this
estimate
around
the
disposition
study,
which
then
triggers
together,
formal
actions
that
need
to
take
place
as
well
and
so
I
think
and
I'm
not
sure
kind
of
how
your
next.
Maybe
this
next
piece
addresses
this,
but
I
think
that
the
question
then
is
is
at
least
for
right
now.
A
F
You,
madam
chair,
and
yes,
that
is
what
we're
going
to
be
touching
on
now
and
just
by
way
of
refresher
for
the
committee
and
for
anyone
watching.
As
madam
chair
noted,
the
redevelopment
of
the
upper
standing
that
knee
Falls
block
is
the
number
four
priority
on
the
city's
bonding
priority
list.
It's
a
request
for
1.5
million
for
pre
design
and
design
and
just
a
refresher.
There
are
some
fairly
stringent
constitutional
and
statutory
requirements
that
are
imposed
on
any
award
of
Geo
general
obligation
bonds.
F
The
constitutional
requirements
you
see
here
are
that
a
project
must
be
owned
by
a
public
entity
and
public
entity
being
a
state
county
or
city
that
public
entity
cannot
be
the
federal
government
in
order
to
receive
state
bonding
Awards
geo
bonds
must
be,
and
this
is
the
real
foundational
pieces.
There
are
a
lot
of
other
additional
requirements,
but
these
are
kind
of
the
big
four.
They
must
be
for
a
public
purpose.
The
purpose
must
be
specified
in
law
and
authorized
in
the
Constitution
and
mature
and
not
more
than
20
years.
F
There's
basic
constitutional
requirements
for
geo
bonding.
In
addition
to
that,
there
are
statutory
requirements,
capital
investment
appropriations
to
political
subdivisions
such
as
the
city
are
largely
governed
by
one
particular
statute,
and
the
bigger
apartment
also
is
that
50%
there
must
be
a
50%
match
from
non
state.
Revenue
sources
should
be
matched
with
all
capital
investment
Awards
to
political
subdivisions,
with
very
few
exceptions
and
madam
chair
to
your
question
about
the
implications
for
the
city.
Good
rule
of
thumb.
Is
that
once
geo
always
geo
and
there's
a
specific
quote
that
I
wanted
to
note.
F
That's
included
in
the
state
capital
grants
manual
which
is
kind
of
the
the
Bible
with
you
have
any
specific
questions
about
how
to
attain
and
manage
state
geo
grants,
and
that
particular
note
is.
If
pre
design
and
design
grant
is
funded
with
state
general
obligation
bonds,
then
the
facility
or
property
will
become
bond
financed
property
subject
to
all
of
the
required
of
Minnesota
statute,
16
a
695.
F
If
and
when
the
project
is
implemented,
even
if
it
is
constructed
with
constructed
with
funds
other
than
state
general
obligation
bonds,
once
the
facility
or
property
becomes
bond
financed,
it
will
remain
so
for
a
hundred
and
twenty-five
percent
of
its
useful
life,
or
until
such
property
is
sold
in
accordance
with
Minnesota
statute.
16,
a
695
and
the
commissioners
order.
The
determination
around
these
factors
that
you
see
noted
here
is
made
by
Minnesota
management
budget
and
the
state
bond
Council.
F
D
F
Know
the
quickest
way
to
say
it,
and,
and
though
we
kind
of
use
kind
of
back
of
the
envelope
is
that
you
can't
be
a
little
bit
pregnant
if
there's
a
little
bit
of
geo
money
in
a
project
than
the
entirety
of
the
project
is
considered
considered
to
be
general
obligation
bond
financed,
even
if
going
forward.
The
remaining
funds
that
are
used
on
that
project
are
non
geo.
F
This
project,
the
project
is
subjected
to
constitutional,
statutory
requirements
of
public
geo
bond
financing,
regardless
of
how
the
remainder
of
the
project
is
financed
and
again,
the
terms
of
geo
bonds
are
determined
and
approved
by
the
state
bond
council
and
Minnesota
Management
and
Budget,
and
a
cash
grant
award.
Not
geo
bonds
would
be
less
restrictive
and
leave
the
city
with
fewer
future
obligations.
F
A
J
There
are
a
couple
things
at
the
federal
level.
I
will
receive
word
this
week
that
all
of
our
HUD
projects
programs
all
right.
We
have
our
grant
agreements
for
them,
so
we
have
a
funding
agreement
for
CDBG,
ESD,
home
and
I'm,
forgetting
forgetting
the
fourth
one,
but
all
four
of
our
programs
that
are
part
of
the
community
development
process
have
been
funded
and
agreed
to
by
the
federal
government.
We
have
FY
17
funds.
We
have
some
FY
18
funds.
J
If
there's
a
continuing
resolution
in
December
at
the
same
level,
we
should
have
pretty
close
to
full
funding
for
those
programs
wait
and
see,
but
these
may
have
been
approved.
The
second
one
is
just
about
two
hours
ago
the
president
declared
a
public
health
emergency
for
the
opioid
crisis
that
could
be
fraught
to
90
days.
He's
asked
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
to
come
up
with
some
concepts
and
ideas.
However,
there
is
no
new
money
for
this
program.
J
Now
he
does
allow
for
some
flexibility
in
the
programs
now
being
used
by
state
governments
for
healthcare
and
other
things.
You
can
maybe
do
some
repurposing,
but
there's
no
new
money
for
this
crisis.
We
do
know
there's
a
lot
about
interest
in
Congress,
but
we
need
to
have
to
wait
and
see,
but
it
has
been-
and
he
did
declare
this
two
months
ago,
but
now
it's
a
public
health
emergency.
The
last
item
is
the
budget
resolution
was
passed.
J
It
passed
by
us
a
few
votes
in
the
house
and
that
lease
now
allows
for
the
foundation
to
do
tax
reform,
and
it
would
only
require
a
50%
vote
or
51%
vote
50,
plus
one
vote
in
both
bodies
to
pass,
particularly
in
the
Senate
so
and
the
button
the
resolution
is
not
binding.
Now
the
project
resolution
is
more
of
a
recommendation
so
stay
tuned.
We
may
be
seeing
a
lot
of
discussion
about
income
tax
and
federal
taxes
within
the
next
couple
weeks.
I,
don't
y'all
save
for
questions
Council.
E
Man
I'm
sure,
and
thank
you
mr.
neary,
following
up
on
you
know
just
what
you
see
out
there
with
this
tax
reform
stuff
I
mean
this
idea
of
going
after
people's
401ks
in
the
mount
that
they
can
contribute
to
forró
in
case
I.
Think
perhaps
will
affect
you
know
if
they
do
that
more
more
people
than
the
state
and
local
tax
deduction
you
know
for
taking
that
away.
E
You
know
whether
that
happens
again,
you
know
or
not,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
it
would
make
some
sense
for
us
to
seeing
as
how
we've
said
something
about
the
state
and
local
tax
deduction
that
we
might
want
to
say
something
about
not
supporting
any
any
changes
to
the
401
K
rules.
I.
You
know
it
just
blows
me
away.
They
they've
taken
everybody's
pinch
in
the
way,
and
no
you
know
that
was
closed.
I
was
thinking
back
that
I
think
during
the
last
Bush
administration.