►
Description
Minneapolis Economic Development & Regulatory Services Committee Meeting
A
And
in
Cunningham,
which
is
a
quorum
of
our
committee,
we
have
a
consent
agenda
that
consists
of
a
number
of
items,
including
items
7,
which
are
the
liquor
license.
Approvals
8,
which
are
the
liquor
license.
Renewals
9
the
business
license
approvals
and
10
the
business
license.
Renewals
11
are
the
gambling
license
approvals
12
or
the
gambling
license
renewals
item
13
our
business
license
operating
conditions
at
4200,
Minnehaha
Avenue.
It's
a
taxi
driver
license
item
14,
our
uptown
Lotus
business
license
operating
conditions.
Item
15
is
genuine
spa
business
license
operating
conditions,
there's
a
rental
license.
A
You
done
okay,
thanks
item
18
is
the
pathways
to
prosperity,
grant
for
the
public
safety
career
pathways
strategies
item
19
is
the
pathway
to
prosperity,
healthcare,
career
pathway,
employment,
training
and
services
and
item
24,
the
August
round,
4
deed
and
the
redevelopment
grant
program?
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
on
items
7
through
20
which
make
up
the
consent
agenda?
B
Thank
You
chair
Goodman,
just
wanted
to
briefly
comment
on
item
20
on
the
items
we're
moving
forward
for
the
deed
redevelopment
grants.
I
know
we're
going
to
have
a
conversation,
but
the
brownfield
grants
in
the
criteria
for
that
and
just
wanted
to
note
that
we
also
have
not
applied
affordability
to
so.
A
C
You,
madam
yes,
the
number
one
is
a
public
hearing
for
my
burger
operations,
LLC
doing
business
as
my
burger.
It's
located
at
20,
I'm,
sorry,
213,
Oak,
Street,
southeast
Minneapolis,
and
it
currently
has
an
on
sale.
Wine
license
classy
entertainment.
The
purpose
of
the
public
hearing
is
the
business
wishes
to
permanently
expand
its
business
to
allow
for
a
sidewalk
cafe
and
the
public
right
away
for
four
tables
and
16
seats.
The
hours
of
operation
for
this
business,
the
sidewalk
cafe,
will
close
every
day
at
10
o'clock.
There's
a
public
hearing.
A
There
any
questions
for
Miss
Roberts
on
item
number
1,
seeing
none
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
1,
which
is
a
permanent
expansion
of
premise
at
213,
Oak,
Street
southeast.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
Anyone
please
step
forward
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
D
My
name
is
Paul
Abdo
I'm,
one
of
the
owners
of
my
burger
and
I
appreciate
the
council
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
in
front
in
front
of
you
today,
and
we
definitely
appreciate
the
support.
There's
been
a
lot
of
requests
from
the
Cape's
community
families
and
students
to
be
able
to
sit
out
on
the
sidewalk,
so
I
know
that
they'll
be
definitely
grateful.
The
granting
of
the
license
to
expand
the
business.
Thank.
A
A
C
You,
madam
chair
item,
number
2,
is
from
the
applicant
Majesty
for
restaurants
and
coffee
shop,
LLC
doing
business
as
the
original
piece
so
I'm.
Sorry,
the
original
uptown
pizza,
it's
located
at
323,
West,
Lake
Street
in
Minneapolis,
and
the
requested
license
is
for
an
extended
hours
license
so
that
it
can
operate
until
2:30
a.m.
daily.
The
license
that
it
currently
holds
is
for
a
food
manufacturing
license.
A
public
hearing
is
required
for
such
application
notices
were
sent
to
300
within
300
feet
to
residents
and
property
owners.
A
There
any
questions
for
Miss
Roberts
on
item
number,
two
seeing
none.
This
is
a
public
hearing
and
item
number
two,
which
is
an
extended
hours
of
operation
license
for
the
original
uptown
pizza.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
Anyone
anyone
seeing
none
will
close
the
public
hearing,
councilmember
Allison.
A
C
You,
madam
chair,
the
applicant,
is
Wesley
Andrews
conversation,
compliments,
LLC
and
the
doing
business,
as
is
Wesley
Andrews.
It's
located
at
one-one-one,
East,
26th
Street,
and
this
current
restaurant
is
requesting
a
sidewalk
cafe
license
that
does
require
a
public
hearing
and
so
public
hearing
notices
have
been
sent
to
residents
and
property
owners
within
300
feet
of
the
premises.
We've
received
two
responses
in
support
for
this
sidewalk
cafe
that
I
should
mention
is
going
to
be
located
on
the
26th
Street
side
of
the
property
right
in
front,
and
it
will
have
three
tables
with
six
chairs.
A
A
F
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Mark
Ruffin,
the
chief
financial
officer
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis
before
you
today
is
an
annual
event
of
public
hearing
on
license
fees
within
the
city.
These
fees
are
set
annually
on
recommendation
of
this
body
to
the
council
that
is
found
in
appendix
J
of
the
Municipal
Code.
There
are
over
600
different
line
items
with
fees,
so
it's
a
daunting
task
to
take
on
this
process.
F
Ordinance
does
require
that
we
have
this
public
hearing
before
September
1st
of
each
year
for
implementation
of
the
fee.
In
the
following
year.
We
have
other
fees
in
the
city
other
than
these
particular
fees.
They
can
boarded
buildings.
We
have
building
permit
fees
which
were
increased
by
inflation.
We
have
franchise
fees
which
our
fight
against
taxes
or
sales
on
on
electricity
and
gas
usage
of
commercial
and
residential
buildings.
Those
are
separate
processes.
F
These
are
fees
that
apply
against
businesses
against
rental
housing,
primarily
and
and
in
particular,
have
not
been
increased
for
a
number
of
years
by
the
city,
and
so
this
year
we
took
on
a
more
comprehensive
view
of
these
particular
fees
and
and
then
especially
with
the
lands
that
fees
are
supposed
to
only
cover
the
costs
of
what
the
enforcement
of
that
particular
fee
is
addressing.
In
reality
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
we
have
been
under
charging
when
we
compare
all
of
the
costs
associated
with
particular
fee.
F
That
is
assuming
that
the
level
of
service
that
is
provided
is
the
proper
level
of
service,
and
we
can
certainly
have
policy
discussions
as
to
whether
we
should
be
reducing
the
amount
of
service
that
we
provide
or
increasing
the
amount
of
service
and
I'm
sure
you
that
you
as
a
body
will
be
hearing
it
during
the
public
hearing
from
people
who
have
both
sides
of
the
view.
As
a
part
of
this
process.
F
We
are
recommending,
in
the
calendar
year
2019
of
looking
at
certain
fees
and
evaluating
on
nationally
best
practices
review,
as
well
as
looking
at
other
cities
in
this
state
of
Minnesota.
As
to
what
is
the
proper
level
of
inspections
that
should
be
associated
with
certain
fees,
we're
not
going
to
do
every
one
of
those
six
hundred
fees,
but
certainly
would
look
for
feedback
from
elected
officials
in
the
public
on
which
of
those
fees
are
our
most
important
to
them.
F
These
these
dollars
are
all
recorded
in
the
general
fund
for
the
people
who
don't
deal
with
accounting
on
a
regular
basis.
That's
our
regular,
essentially
checking
account
for
the
city,
it's
what
we
pay
most
of
our
employees,
for
it's
what
we
pay
for
police,
fire
and
regulatory
services.
Out
of
primarily,
we
have
other
types
of
funds
which
are
associated
with
things
like
the
Convention
Center
or
Target
Center,
which
are
not
addressed
in
the
general
fund,
though
so
the
general
fund
is
the
basic
technique
account.
F
F
The
main
way
that
we
would
increase
fees
for
animal
control
is
actually,
for
example,
increasing
adoption
fees,
but
I
think
most
elected
officials
have
chosen
to
say
that
we
need
to
encourage
adoptions
as
much
as
possible
and
so
cost
recovery
in
that
particular
case
is
not
as
important
as
as
other
policy
goals
that
we
have
as
a
public
body.
In
particular,
you
can
see
and
I'm
sure
why
a
number
of
people
are
here
today
is
that
rental
housing
in
the
middle
terms
of
our
rental
housing
license
inspections.
F
We
have
only
recovering
30%
of
those
costs,
and
so
this
particular
change
in
the
fee
schedule
and
for
anybody
who
has
not
seen
online
and
I
know
from
any
of
you.
It's
probably
your
first
time
visiting
city
council
chambers.
There
is
over
on
the
left-hand
side
next
to
the
clerk,
a
copy
of
this
presentation
and
then
a
copy
of
the
actual
fee
schedules,
but
a
rental
housing.
F
We
are
not
just
baseline,
increasing
the
fees
but
we're
proposing
to
change
how
the
structure
of
those
rental,
housing
fees
actually
work,
and
mr.,
inter
mole,
our
budget
director
will
will
review
that
with
with
this
body
here
as
soon
as
I
am
completed.
Health
inspections
have
not
changed
much
from
one
year
to
another
on
this
particular
area.
But
that
is
one
that
we
would
like
to
study
more
in
terms
of
level
of
service,
that's
being
provided
versus
the
costs,
I
would
say.
F
This
is
because
it's
the
first
time
in
five
years
that
the
city
has
increased
fees.
I
would
just
consider
this
to
be
a
first
step
and
what
I
mean
by
first
step
doesn't
mean
that
we're
going
to
be
increasing
dramatically
fees
every
year.
It
means
that
we're
gonna
take
a
closer
look
than
we
have
over
the
last
three
to
four
years
in
terms
of
what
our
costs
are,
whether
those
appropriate
level
of
costs
and
then
what
the
fees
are.
F
A
G
We
are
proposing
a
revision
to
that
recommendation
based
on
some
feedback
we
received
from
during
the
public
comment
period
from
individuals
and
organizations.
The
first
change
is
on
page
2
of
the
revised
schedule
amusement
devices.
This
was
simply
an
error.
We
missed
that
there
is
a
state
statute,
capping
those
at
$15
per
device,
so
we
had
proposed
a
$5
increase,
we're
revising
our
recommendation
to
eliminate
that
increase,
keeping
them
steady
at
15
on
rental
licensure.
So
page
8
of
the
schedule
has
the
rental
licensure
information.
G
The
the
big
change
here
based
on
feedback
was
we
were
initially
looking
at
rental
licensure
as
one
activity
where
in
reality
it's
it's
two.
So
there
are
the
smaller
one
to
three
in
the
buildings
and
the
larger
four
plus
unit
building.
So
when
we
went
back
and
looked
at
it,
we
were
able
to
bring
down
the
costs
not
only
for
the
large
buildings,
but
also
for
the
tier
1
1
to
3
unit
buildings
as
well.
So
we
just
think
that
this
is
a
better
mix
for
that.
For
the
committee.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
thank
you
for
your
report.
I
have
a
sign-up
sheet
that
has
only
six
people
on
it,
but
it
looks
to
me
as
though
there's
more
than
six
people
here
to
speak.
So
if
you
haven't
signed
up
I
would
encourage
you
to
do
so
with
the
clerk
I'll
note
that
I
don't
have
a
timer
here
today,
I,
don't
know
why
that
is
so.
I
will
try.
Do
we
have
a
timer
mr.
Sadler,
we'll
use.
H
G
A
Seeing
no
further
questions,
I
have
the
first
six
people
I'll
tell
you
try
to
attempt
to
tell
you
who
has
signed
up
and
I
would
invite
you
up
to
speak.
This
is
a
public
hearing
on
item
number
four,
which
is
the
2019
license
fee
schedule
with
increases
to
the
2018
license
fee
schedule.
I
have
mr.
singleton,
followed
by
miss
Dixon,
followed
by
it's
very
hard,
I'm.
Sorry,
Robert,
Milotic!
A
I
Afternoon
my
name
is
kenneth.
Singleton
I
live
at
39,
55
Lyndale,
Avenue,
South
I
have
one
rental
license.
I
think
the
increase
this
year
is
reasonable
to
me,
but
I
do
have
the
question
that
was
just
asked
about
regulatory
of
programs.
If
we
have
a
longer
term
objective
to
try
to
recover
more
of
the
expenses,
so
did
I
understand
that
topics
going
to
be
taken
up
later
on.
A
So
my
understanding
is
we'll
have
a
broader
discussion
about
what
percentage
of
cost
recovery
should
be
in
each
category
going
forward,
but
for
right
now
this
is
what
the
recommendation
is.
I
would
guess
that
we
would
steer
more
towards
cost
recovery
rather
than
using
property.
Taxes
to
support
cost
recovery
seems
to
be
the
direction
the
finance
department
is
moving
in.
Thank.
J
A
Believe
it
it's
correct
to
suggest
that
one
license
in
one
building
would
not
pay
any
rental
license
fee.
It
would
be
the
for
a
single
unit.
The
I.
Don't
have
it
in
front
of
me.
The
$80
plus
30
per
unit
Kim.
Could
you
protect?
Others
might
have
that
question
as
well.
So
perhaps
you
could
answer
for
miss
Dixon.
K
Hi
Kim
Keller
regulatory
services.
We
are
looking
at
having
a
fee
for
condo
units
and
handling
it
a
little
bit
differently
than
we
have
in
the
past.
So
looking
at
the
number
of
condo
units
and
an
individual
owns
within
a
single
building.
So
if
an
owner
owns
one
two
three
units
in
that
building
then
fall
underneath
the
one
two
three
unit
line
within
the
appropriate
tier
if
they
don't
run
four
plus
units
within
the
same
building
within
the
four
plus
unit
line.
So.
J
I
would
like
to
you
could
step
please,
because
my
comment
is
when
you
live
in
a
larger
condo
building.
I
live
in
one
that
has
305
units
our
association
oversees.
What
can
be
done
in
terms
of
the
rentals,
so,
frankly,
I
don't
understand
why
I
need
a
rental
license
at
all.
I
can
understand
if
you're,
maybe
in
a
duplex
or
a
single-family
or
smaller
units,
but
in
a
large
condo
building.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
do
understand
why
there
was
confusion.
Looking
at
page
8
of
the
schedule
it
looks
like
it
is
listed
as
zero
in
a
way
that
everything
else
is
listed
by
the
amount
of
fee.
Is
that
zero
intended
to
indicate
a
zero
change
from
the
previous
year?
Or
can
you
explain
why
it's
printed
the
way
it
is
on
page
eight
of
the
document
we
landed
at.
G
M
L
The
privilege
of
being
an
accountant
so
looking
at
the
devil
and
the
details
associated
the
rental
rates,
Compton
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
in
correlation
to
the
slides
of
their
CFO
showed
us.
So
the
prior
slides
that
you
showed
us
associated
with
the
expense
of
rental
license
shows
that
the
rental
licenses
have
been
actually
well
twice
as
expensive
to
be
able
to
maintain
it
from
a
licensing
perspective.
I
understand
the
value
of
the
licensing
program.
L
I
understand
that
you
guys
need
to
be
able
to
effectively
review
the
properties,
but
I
would
argue
that
majority
of
the
cost
probably
comes
from
properties
that
are
of
deficiency
per
se
would
use
a
better
term,
but
not
sure,
and
so,
if
you
actually
look
at
the
costs
of
the
deficiency,
the
old
model
was
$700
associated
or
sorry.
This
is
kind
of
confusing,
so
tier
1,
let's
just
use
the
1
2
3
units
is
373.
L
L
Same
number
up,
above
so
tier
1,
1
2
3
units,
it's
only
$300,
so
you're
actually
reducing
the
rates
for
the
people
that
are
paying
for
that
out
of
more
deficient.
And
then,
if
you
go
to
the
people
that
are
2
1,
like
myself,
my
for
my
two
duplexes
I
paste
currently
$70
a
unit
I'm
actually
going
to
go
up
to
150
dollars.
L
So
I
would
challenge
that
the
methodology
used
associate
with
the
increases
be
reviewed
because
it
seems
like
this
has
weeded
more
towards
helping
the
larger
units
and,
for
some
reason,
reducing
the
fees
for
the
deficient
units
versus
people
like
myself
to
try
to
stay
in
the
tier
1
category.
I.
Don't
think
that
the
rates
should
reflect
a
lower
ratio
for
them.
These
from
what
I
can
read
here,
because
this
wasn't
provided
until
today,
I,
don't
understand
why
it
would
go
down
for
them.
But
everybody
that's
in
tier
1,
so.
A
A
N
L
30
for
each
unit,
I
have
to
pay
twice:
that's
140
dollars
total.
If
I
was
a
3
tier
3,
I'd
pay
373
in
the
old
model,
the
same
model
in
tier
3
at
paid
$100
for
my
building
plus
$200
for
each
unit,
so
I
pay
less
then,
if
I
had
been
before
so
like.
Logically,
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
me,
because
I
would
argue
that
the
fee
structure
should
be
correlated
to
the
cost
structures
deficient
properties.
L
So
the
structure
of
this
proposed
model,
you
would
not
be
increasing
by
50%
with
people
that
are
more
deficient,
and
why
are
you
increasing
it
for
people
that
are
less
deficient
and
honestly,
probably
just
meeting
expectations
of
this
board
and
for
the
city
so
I?
This
is
why
I've
really
frustrated
that
this
wasn't
provided
in
advance
and
reviewed
properly
by
an
accountant
like
myself.
Maybe
externally
it
is,
everything
is
under
we're,
not
sure
what
yeah
we're.
L
A
So
Micah
either
you
can
explain
this
to
this
gentleman
or
we're
not
gonna
have
a
public
hearing
today
and
we're
gonna
postpone
it
until
we
can't
explain
it.
I'm,
not
just
gonna.
Have
staff
sit
in
the
audience
looking
bewildered
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
are
either
is
or
any
of
the
other
people
on
this
sheet
who
signed
up
Jonah,
Bridger,
Rob,
Layton
or
maybe
no
here,
please
step
forward.
G
So,
madam
chair
I
think
what
may
have
been
happening
is
we
may
have
been
missing
the
Supplemental
tier
charge
so
for
I'm
not
sure
how
many
unit
building
the
individual
owns.
But
if
it's
a
one
unit
building
in
Tier
three,
it
would
be
charged
$100
for
the
building
plus
155
for
the
unit
plus
200
dollars.
On
top
of
that,
so
it
would
be
a
total
charge
of
455
as
compared
to
373,
which
would
have
been
the
priority.
Okay,.
A
O
P
P
But
I
when
I
got
the
notice
it
added
to
already
kind
of
a
little
bit
of
angst
watching
all
I've
got
three
properties
in
Minneapolis,
two
of
them
in
North,
and
one
is
my
childhood
home
that
went
through
two
months
of
water
damage
before
I,
even
moved
up
here,
I'm
still
working
on
trying
to
fix
that
one
up,
but
I
watched
how
all
the
property
values
went
up
anywhere
from
30
to
$50,000,
with
a
broad
brush
stroke
and
I
hadn't,
even
added
a
toilet,
any
of
them.
So
when
I
saw.
P
In
a
really
rough
neighborhood,
I
live
there
to
try
to
help
maintain
the
crime
and
keep
a
hand
on
everything,
and
it's
slowly
picked
up
primarily
I've
added
surveillance,
cameras
and
I'm,
really
pretty
diligent,
I'm
tier
1
on
both
my
properties,
I
guess,
when
I
saw
the
licensing
going
up,
I,
don't
honestly
know
what
the
licensing
Bureau
does
for
me.
They
come
out.
They
say
great
I'm,
gonna,
basically
you're
you
meet
our
standards
and
then
some
and
I'm
watching
my
lace
and
I'm
watching
my
license
fees
well,
darn
near
double.
P
When
I
read
when
I
read
the
letter
and
said
that
you
guys
are
only
collecting
like
2.5
million
and
the
expenses
are
9
million,
but
you
annually
review
these
I'm
like.
If
that
was
my
business,
somebody's
heads
would
roll
nobody
gets
a
deficit
to
that
extent
and
I'm
like
for
the
past
several
years.
Nobody
picked
this
up
to
me.
That's
kind
of
ridiculous
I
have
the
the
department
I'm
like
how
do
you
get
a
300
percent
deficit?
P
And
now
what
I
see
in
the
past
six
months
or
whatever
is
that
my
property
values
are
going
up
and
in
the
Stax's
and
now
my
license
fees
are
going
I,
don't
make
a
lot
of
those
rentals,
because
I
try
to
keep
them
up
up
to
par
stuff.
I'm,
recording,
I'm,
recording
a
property
value
is
kind
of
going
down
just
because
the
age
of
the
buildings
but
I'm
watching
my
fees
associated
with
that
go
up.
A
Your
time
is
up,
but
I
can
quickly
answer
your
questions.
There
have
been
no
fee
increases
for
five
years,
so
we've
tried
to
not
have
the
burden
go
on
to
license
holders
by
not
increasing
fees,
even
with
the
cost
of
living
for
a
five
year
period,
and
it
isn't
a
deficit.
All
of
the
property
taxpayers
yourself
included,
are
paying
the
difference,
so
we're
collecting
property
taxes
from
everybody
and
instead
of
using
it
for
other
services,
we're
subsidizing
the
rental
licensing
program
with
those
property
taxes
and
we're
trying
to
correct
that
I.
P
A
The
process
of
managing
all
of
the
rental
licensing
in
the
whole
city,
which
is
in
excess
of
20,000
units,
25,000
units
licensed
yeah,
so
I'm
not
going
to
debate
you
back
and
forth
I'm,
just
letting
you
know
we
haven't
raised
any
fees
in
five
years.
So
that's
partially,
why
you're
seeing
a
large
adjustment
today.
A
Probably
from
here
on
out
it'll
raise
with
the
cost
of
living
each
year
instead
of
having
a
major
adjustment,
no
good
deed
goes
unpunished.
Thank
you
is
okay,
so
now
we're
on
to
the
next
list.
If
you
signed
up
on
page
two-
and
you
won't
know
for
sure,
we
have
mr.
grabsy
mr.
Smith
mr.
fours
line
mr.
peel
mr.
Mayer
miss
Ms
Wallner
and
mr.
D'souza.
If
I've
called
your
name
you're
in
this
next
list,
you
are
welcome
to
come
up
and
get
in
line
to
speak.
Hello.
Q
Thank
you
for
having
me
my
name
is
Ashur
Gamzee
I
work
for
property
solutions
and
services.
We
are
a
for-profit
company
that
he
manages
for
moe
nonprofits
throughout
the
Twin,
Cities
and
I'm
here
today
to
certainly
there
is
a
big
deficit
and
there
is
a
number
that
needs
to
be
reached.
I
looked
at
three
of
the
five
websites
of
the
elected
officials
and
affordable
housing
was
a
major
platform
on
three
of
the
five
easily
write.
First
page
could
see
it,
and
so
with
the
proposal
that
I
would
like
for
you
to
think
about.
Q
You
know
the
rental
licenses
they're
all
going
off
of
a
HUD
reiax
standard,
which
is
you
know,
certainly
much
more
comprehensive
and
I
think
there's
a
way
to
try
to
find
and
fill
the
gap,
and
currently
MHSA
is
doing
that.
Where
mhf
a
is
accepting
other
agencies
to
for
like
a
HC,
for
instance,
they
will
accept
a
inspection
from
HC
and
then
my
final
point
is
certainly
mPHA
is
a
big
priority.
Q
I
think,
and
given
the
current
change
of
environments,
I
think
an
opportunity
that
could
be
held
is
that,
let's
say
20%
of
your
units
are
mPHA
units
those
units
get
inspected
annually
if
they
pass
annually,
they
get
inspected
every
two
years
and
you
could
use
those
inspections
in
lieu
of
the
rental
license.
So
that's
what
I
have
to
say
great.
R
You
good
afternoon,
Jake
Goodman
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Cecil
Smith
and
I
reside
at
1331,
Washington
Street,
northeast
I
am
a
city
resident
and
rental
property
owner
I
am
here
to
speak
opposition
to
any
fee
increase
on
rental
properties,
since
this
has
a
direct
impact
on
housing,
affordability.
This
is
a
topic
I've
heard.
Almost
all
of
you
address,
but
we're
here
today
to
raise
two
million
dollars
on
the
renters
of
the
city,
even
as
the
apartments
they
live
in
many
times
have
experienced
double-digit
property
tax
increases.
R
This
is
a
confusing
message
in
principle.
The
city
leadership
desires,
affordability,
but
in
practice
you
increase
costs.
So
I'm
left
with
questions.
What
what
why
so
much?
Where
is
the
comprehensive
fee
study
listed
in
the
RCA?
There
justifies
this
increase?
I've
asked
for
it.
It's
mentioned
the
RCA,
but
it's
not
here.
Why
isn't
the
cost
and
efficiency
study
of
regulation
being
done
first,
which
meant
with
which
mr.
Roth
mentioned
there
should
be
a
priority.
I
have
a
national
study
here
that
says
that
regulation
is
30%
of
the
cost
of
multifamily
development.
R
R
That's
inaccurate,
staffs
own
analysis
shows
that
the
fire
inspection
service,
which
inspects
large
rental
buildings,
is
a
more
efficient
operation
spending
1.8
million
of
the
nine
million
expense
20%,
but
they
inspect
70%
of
the
units
in
the
city,
I'm
not
sure
what
went
wrong
in
the
fee
proposal
development,
but
there's
too
many
questions
and
not
enough
answers.
I
hear
it's
reconsideration
so
that
we
get
this
right
and
not
put
additional
pressure
on
a
strained
rental
market.
Thank.
T
S
And
Tyler
Northeast
recently
had
to
call
inspectors
for
two
commercial
properties.
In
her
neighborhood,
the
inspector
told
me
there
were
three
inspectors
for
the
entire
city
and
that's
probably
why
nothing
ever
gets
done,
at
least
in
the
commercial
I'm
wondering
what
how
many
employees
take
care
of
this
rental
housing
I
mean
there's
a
what's.
The
biggest
expense
is
that
the
inspectors
and
somebody
answer
that
you're.
S
Really
curious
on
what
what
am
I
getting
for
my
for
the
money
I
pay
every
year
and
the
increase
was
in
taxes
along
with
it
and
I.
Just
would
like
to
find
out
were
most
of
this
was
a
nine
million
dollar
budget
where's
that
going
to
well
I
I,
don't
know
what
I'm
paying
for
what
am
I
getting.
My
can
return
for
my
money,
so
I
mom
I'm
not
happy
with
the
increase.
S
Never
him
and
I,
don't
like
taxes
going
up
and
I
did
have
a
bad
ten
at
one
time
and
bad
tenants,
usually
one
of
the
first
things
they
do
is
they
call
inspections
and
try
and
get
my
building
condemned
or
something,
and
usually
the
inspectors
say
man.
This
is
a
nicest
place.
I
see
the
Northeast,
so
I
keep
my
house
up-to-date
and
current,
and
all
that
and
I,
just
you
know,
I
did
have
somebody
come
and
rape
me
in
the
stair
category,
which
I
found
that
interesting
and
I
don't
quite
understand.
S
U
N
Afternoon,
I'm
Dennis
Mayer
I'm
in
mr.
Fletcher's
district
in
Northeast,
Minneapolis,
I'm,
also
property
owner
three
rental
properties
that
are
all
tier
one
properties
and
we've
been
in
the
rental
business
for
about
five
years
here
in
Minneapolis
I'm,
just
speaking
against
any
increase.
Having
observed
the
process
for
inspections
of
our
properties,
the
paperwork,
the
amount
of
time
and
effort
it
takes
to
meet
the
inspectors
to
go
through
the
properties
to
re-inspect
to
make
the
changes.
N
It's
an
additional
cost,
we're
facing
13
to
15
percent
property
tax
increase
in
our
rental
properties
each
in
the
last
two
years.
So
you
take
that
and
you
add
an
additional
rental
fee
increase
and
it's
almost
absurd
as
far
as
the
amount
of
money
that
we
pay
for
a
bureaucratic.
You
know
process
that
I
would
hope
that
we
could
manage
ourselves.
We
take
great
pride
in
our
properties,
we
invest
in
our
properties
and
we
take
good
care
about
tenants
and
for
us
to
continue
to
invest
in
spending
money.
N
Those
dollars
out
of
the
driving
the
efficiencies
of
managing
the
program
would
be
more
effective
at
doing
that.
Also,
the
other
thing
is
we
talk
about
affordable
housing?
You
know
when
you
have
13
15%
increase
year-over-year.
The
only
thing
you
can
do
is
increase
your
rents,
so
it
kind
of
defeats
the
purpose
of
what
we're
talking
about
as
far
as
rental
increases
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
N
T
Anthony
peel
Quincy
Street,
North
East
about
the
rental
property
or
a
number
of
years
that
just
became
a
rental.
It's
a
duplex
a
few
years
ago
and
at
the
time
I
had
to
pay
the
$500
inspection
fee.
For
someone
to
walk
through.
Tell
me
everything
was
good.
I
had
to
do
one
little
thing,
I
forget
what
it
was,
but
then
they
had
to
reinstate.
T
My
questions
mostly
are
around
the
six
point:
five
million
dollar
deficit-
why
that
wasn't
dealt
with
earlier
and
again?
What
is
the
cause
of
the
deficit
where
where's,
all
that
money
being
spent?
Is
it
on
staffing?
Is
it
what
what's
going
on
with
that
money?
That
seems
to
be
a
very
large
deficit
even
over
a
five
year
period?
T
The
other
question
is
around
inspections,
I'm
wondering
if
some
of
this
budget
is
due
to
new
construction,
if
the
in
what
what
are
the
new
construction
paying
for
the
licensing
of
the
new
properties,
are
they
having
to
pay
an
inspection
fee
per
unit,
yep,
etc?
So
those
are
things
that
I
think
would
be
nice
to
have
in
the
public
record.
Thank.
A
U
The
water
bill,
for
example,
and
I
pay
for
two
units
of
garbage
and
I
have
one
we
don't
produce
that
waste
and
yet
I'm
paying
about
$250
a
year
for
nothing
and
it's
frustrating,
because
I
call
to
get
a
smaller
container
and
I
know.
This
is
tangential
moment,
but
it's
the
inefficiencies
and
then
to
tack
on
more
fees
is
very,
very
frustrating.
I
pay
for
the
the
garbage
container.
That's
not
there
and
to
get
a
smaller
one.
I
pay
more.
U
A
V
2
3
5,
Lake
area,
Parkway,
I,
really
managed
rental
property
for
35
years
in
Minneapolis.
I've
really
never
done
anything
else.
A
couple
of
points
please
a
couple
gentlemen:
it
made
the
point
about
the
expense,
the
expense
side
of
the
equation
versus
the
revenue
side
and
I
think
I'm.
An
examination
of
management
metrics
is
appropriate
instead
of
just
looking
at
the
expense
side.
V
A
V
Thank
you.
Perhaps
an
idea
for
solutions.
I
really
don't
know,
what's
happening
to
all
the
all
the
property
taxes
that
the
city's
component
is
of
all
this
new
construction,
new
construction
in
this
city,
Minneapolis,
the
rents
per
square
foot
that
they're
charging
is
unbelievable
and
your
rubber-stamping
each
and
every
literally
pages
of
variances
for
developers
with
zero
discussion.
Sir
mr.
Fletcher
pleasure
to
make
your
acquaintance,
there
has
been
historically
zero
discussion
despite
an
ongoing
and
statewide
debate
about
tuition.
V
V
You,
madam
chairman,
the
fee
per
unit
by
tier
type,
might
be
an
idea
charging
those
who
are
causing
the
problems
more,
but
another
solution
for
this
fee
problem
could
be
perhaps
looking
at
your
property
tax
rate.
Given
the
age
of
the
buildings
I'm
going
to
look
at
just
double
by
federal
tax
law
doubled,
the
useful
life
would
be
about
something
older
than
fifty
or
fifty-five
years
tax
at
a
different
rate
than
new
construction
and
the
rents
per
square
foot
that
are
charged
by
new
construction
warrant.
This
discussion
in
terms
of
affordability,
mr.
V
And
change
the
state
law
to
make
housing
affordable
in
the
City
Minneapolis.
There's
a
tremendous
amount
of
housing
that
has
been
built
prior
to
1970.
That
should
be
taxed
at
a
lower
rate,
and
if
you
really
want
to
generate
revenue,
find
some
way
to
get
the
bicycle
community
with
some
skin
in
the
game.
W
I
currently
own
five
duplexes
in
the
Lake
Nokomis
area,
Diamond
Lake
area,
in
addition
to
Bloomington
and
st.
Paul,
which
is
another
issue,
but
I've
I'm,
really
frustrated
I
guess
with
the
inspections
process
in
general,
I
don't
feel
like
what
I
pay
for
is
what
I'm
getting
I
like
inspectors
to
come
out
to
my
place.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea.
We
need
inspectors
to
keep
people
safe.
Okay,
let's
just
make
that
clear.
My
buildings
are
all
Tier.
W
I
mean
how
many
printer,
what
am
I
paying
for
a
printer
paper
or
printers
or
what's
the
$1400
going
for
per
visit?
I,
don't
I,
don't
understand
it.
I
would
suggest.
There's
my
limited
time
left
that
for
Tier
one
you
just
charge
by
the
visit
because
you're
not
sending
inspectors
out
to
those
buildings
anyway,
you
know
quit
charging
me
every
year
for
something
I'm
not
receiving.
Thank
you
thank.
X
I'm
Wayne
Carlson
live
at
5:23
Coventry
Lina
Medina
I
have
rental
housing
in
the
city
of
South,
st.
Paul,
st.
Paul,
Minneapolis
I
owned
that
for
over
thirty
years,
I've
never
had
a
specter
come
out
and
have
to
come
for
a
second
second
choice.
So
in
Minneapolis
I
mail
in
my
money
and
that's:
what's
what
happens?
I
guess,
there's
a
couple
things
and
might
st.
Paul
buildings.
When
I
have
a
chair,
one
I
only
get
inspected
every
four
years
in
Minneapolis
I
get
inspected,
the
fire
department
comes
out
there.
X
They
sit
there
with
the
big
vehicle
that
were
the
emergency
vehicle
for
people
stand
in
the
street,
and
two
people
come
in
my
building
for
nothing
I
called
down.
There.
I
got
this
there's
notice
and
they
said
they
had
sent
out
a
notice
to
my
address.
So
I
asked
them
what
address
that
was,
and
they
said
it
was
an
address
that
I
hadn't
had
for
15
years
last
time,
I
had
a
noticed,
I
called
him
and
gave
my
correct
address.
You
know
so
maybe
there's
some
efficiencies.
X
You
know
when
I
have
to
call
twice
and
three
times
to
get
a
simple
address:
change,
maybe
there's
something
wrong
with
the
administration
and
maybe
there's
something
wrong
when
you
have
to
have
six
people
come
out,
stand
in
the
street
and
to
them
go
through
my
building
I
mail
in
my
money
every
year,
I
get
the
paper
coming
out
and
I,
don't
think
it's
worth
the
money
I'm
putting
in.
Thank
you
thank.
A
M
My
name
is
percent
PRC
super
said
I
am
just
taking
this
back.
Taking
a
birth
Park
Avenue
I
have
four
buildings
in
Perth
in
from
tier
1
to
tier,
treat
your
new
50
years
for
tier
1.
How
come
you
get
into
treatment
without
any
instruction
or
any
publication
of
anything?
In
that
thing,
why
am
I
giving
well
from
tier
1
to
tier
3.
M
M
M
A
Y
A
A
Y
If
it's
not
a
homesteaded
property
and
it's
like
a
multi-unit
property,
then
it's
probably
legally
rented
with
me.
My
Gus
I
mean
it.
You
live
in
the
place,
you
homestead
it,
and
so
you
could
just
start
there
and
just
reference
that
and
then
the
receive
email,
it's
probably
a
legal
rental
and
then
have
a
verification
process.
I
think
here
to
require,
like
the
city
council,
to
make
a
ordinance
that
people
are
required
to
verify
that
they
live
there
or.
A
L
To
answer
the
previous
gentleman's
question:
a
developer
wouldn't
actually
be
able
to
scrape
websites
that
advertise
and
you
guys
would
be
able
to
effectively
find
people
that
don't
have
rental
licenses
potentially
based
upon
the
addresses,
maybe
cost
you
250
to
hire
developer,
to
create
the
whole
program
very
easy.
Anyways
I
did
some
numbers.
He
did
correct
me.
L
So
tier
1
is
100
percent
increase
for
the
1
to
3
units,
172
percent
increase
for
tier
2,
and
only
a
63%
increase
for
2
or
3.
Using
now,
my
dear
it's
a
little
confusing
because
I'm
using
only
2
units
to
calculate
that
it
could
potentially
be
different
for
one
and
three
because
you're
using
a
quantity
system
now
versus
a
flat-rate
before
and
then
the
same
thing
for
the
four
plus
significantly
more
like
that,
one
gentleman
stated,
but
I
just
used
four
units
from
my
comparison
purposes.
L
It's
one
hundred
and
thirteen
percent
increase
for
the
Tier
one.
One
hundred
and
nineteen
percent
increase
for
two
to
one
hundred
percent
increase
for
Tier
three.
So
once
again,
I,
don't
I
understand
his
point
that
you
would
hopefully
have
more
Tier
one
and
tier
two
folks,
but
it's
more
jority
of
the
inspection.
L
He
was
even
coded
to
me
that
one
inspection
every
eight
years
for
Tier
one
property
is
what
is
the
goal
is
for
the
city,
and
so
it
doesn't
make
logical
sense
to
me
that
you'd
wait
a
majority
of
the
increases
back
to
the
Tier
one
and
tier
two
folks.
It
wouldn't
make
sense.
You
distill
tier
you
have
the
increase
on
it
to
your
three
folks,
give
your
short
money
you're,
just
basically
incentivizing.
L
You
know
those
folks.
That
is
they
don't
what
so,
what
difference?
Why
not
just
I'm
not
gonna,
pay
very
much
more
enriched,
because
it's
not
much
of
a
difference.
I
guess
double
my
rates
and
I
keep
a
horrible
property.
So
logically,
this
doesn't
still
make
sense
to
me.
It
makes
sense
to
actually
have
a
significant
increase
in
the
Tier
three
folks
make
it
a
financial
burden.
Make
them
sell
it
make
somebody
else
like
myself
who
I
bought
a
couple,
ran
to
fit
properties
and
fix
them
up,
and
my
tenants
love
me
now
great.
Z
Ryan
bombers
take
55,
Jefferson
Street
northeast
I'm,
just
here
to
I'm
not
decided
about
whether
I,
like
the
fee
increase
or
not,
but
I'm
here,
just
to
point
out
that
everybody
we've
heard
from
has
either
been
city,
employees
or
landlords,
and
nothing
from
renters
as
much
as
we
all
might
want
feel
like
we're
in
this
together.
Landlords
are
not
gonna
like
this,
because
they're
paying
more
nobody
likes
to
pay
more.
These
fees
would
be
going
towards
providing
services
and
inspections.
Z
Ideally,
I
understand
that
there's
an
issue
with
whatever
everybody
anything
everybody's
already
said,
but
the
idea
is
is
that
this
would
be
going
towards
providing
safety
services
towards
renters,
and
we
have
not
heard
anything
from
renters.
So
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
there
to
the
council
that
we
seek
comment
from
renters,
because
I
got
this
in
my
length
in
my
application
for
a
rental
license,
I
mean
my
tenants.
Don't
get
that
and
I
mean
I
mean
this
is
we're
facing
a
rental
crisis
where
costs
are
going
up.
Z
AA
Thank
you
very
much.
My
name
is
evan
rebid
I
live
over
at
one
5:08
East
26th
Street
I
want
to
echo
some
of
the
concerns.
I've
got
20
units
throughout
the
metro.
Minneapolis
area
I
want
to
echo
some
of
the
concerns
of
not
seen
where
my
money
for
the
rental
licenses
are
going.
I
just
purchased
the
four
Plex
over
Midtown
Phillips,
the
two
to
license
all
my
other
buildings
are
Tier.
One
I
talked
to
the
rental
licensing
division.
Ask
them.
AA
A
All
thank
you
for
being
here
today,
so
the
remaining
names
on
the
list
are
Bernadette
I
thought
I
saw
in
the
room
and
Rob
mount
melt.
You,
oh
you
signed
again:
okay,
I'm,
sorry
and
I.
Didn't
get
your
name
right
that
time
either
apparently
Bernadette
sorry
about
that
feel
free
to
come
on
up.
Is
there
anyone
else
before
Bernadette
speaks?
Is
there
anyone
else
who
hasn't
had
an
opportunity
to
speak,
who'd
like
to
say
something?
AB
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Bernadette.
Hornig
I
represent
the
Hornet
companies
been
in
business
60
years
in
Minneapolis
and
have
over
2000
rental
units.
I
have
mixed
feelings
about
this
increase.
I.
Do
recognize
the
fact
that
the
city
needs
to
increase
revenues
and
that
the
costs
are
going
up
the
way
our
costs
are
going
up
in
the
business
and
that's
why
our
rents
have
to
go
up
sometimes,
and
your
fees
have
to
go
up.
AB
I
I'm
I
understand
that
I
accept
that
I
am
concerned
about
the
process
and
I
do
think
that
the
revised
proposal
is
on
the
right
track,
but
I
feel
like
there
was
unnecessary
haste
which
may
have
left
people
out
of
the
conversation
inadvertently.
I
was
very
vocal
in
my
opinions,
but
that's
just
how
I
am
and
I
think
that
there
needs
to
be
more
study
and
review
done
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
get
this
right,
especially
if
we're
gonna
use
this
as
a
model
to
increase
fees
every
two
years.
AB
AB
But
ten
thousand
dollars
on
the
backs
of
Noah
moderate
income
renters
in
the
city
is
a
significant
change
and
I
think
it
warrants
all
of
our
attention.
I
think
the
devil
is
in
the
details
and
that
we
should
really
spend
time
thinking
about
the
fee
structure.
What
the
city's
goals
and
cost
recovery
are
I
understand
that
I
think
the
property
taxpayers
of
Minneapolis
should
pay
a
portion.
It's
as
a
neighbor,
if
you're
in
a
single-family
home,
it's
in
your
best
interest
to
have
the
rental
property
next
door
licensed
and
inspected.
AB
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Is
there
anyone
else
here,
who'd
like
to
speak
anyone
anyone
seeing
none
I'm,
gonna,
close
the
public
hearing?
Mr.
Schuckman,
do
you
want
to
try
to
answer
some
of
these
questions
or
you
do
not?
Otherwise,
I
are
miss
Keller,
otherwise,
I'm
going
to
summarize
what
I
heard
make
it
go
ahead?
You
should
answer
some
of
these
questions.
K
Thank
You
chair
Goodman
committee,
and
if
there
are
questions
that
I
don't
cover
that
that
I've
missed,
including
please
do
let
me
know,
I'd,
be
happy
to
get
any
answers
that
I
can
think
of
there's
a
general
statement
in
terms
of
how
we
got
where
we
are
today.
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
recognize
a
part
of
2016.
We
did
not
have
tiered
rental
licensing
and
so
no
matter
what
condition
your
building
was
in
or
how
many
city
services
you
used.
K
The
price
that
you
paid
was
determined
solely
on
how
large
your
building
was
when
the
fee
study
was
done
at
that
point
or
the
fees
were
put
in
place
there.
We
were
looking
at
a
historic
or
a
theoretical
workload
and
theoretical
pricing.
Now
we
have
four
years
of
experience
that
are
saying
what
should
we
be
at?
K
There's
a
roughly
45
inspectors
who
work
in
housing,
specifically
the
housing
inspections
was
one
two
three
unit
buildings
and
which
is
about
two-thirds
of
our
unit
or
building
portfolio,
and
then
there
are
about
25
inspectors
who
work
within
our
four
plus
unit
buildings,
and
these
inspectors
do
rental
licensing.
They
also
do
complaints
and
they
do
nuisance.
They
also
do
tenant
interaction,
I
think,
there's
also.
K
K
Time
it's
our
admin
time
it's
the
time
that
are
in
the
back
of
the
house
time
as
well,
that
that
our
landlords
won't
see
and
then
there's
the
per
unit
fee,
which
is
the
amount
of
time
that
it
takes
to
actually
inspect
that
unit.
We
have
done
calculations
on
the
back
end,
so
the
percentage
of
units
that
are
inspected
is
backed
into
that
rate
as
well.
So
we're
not
so
we're
making
sure
we've
equal
cost
recovery
between
our
larger
buildings
and
our
small
buildings.
AD
AE
Guess
I
have
a
little
question
on
the
timing,
although
I
think
I
know
the
answer,
but
I
think
it's
been
raised
a
couple
times.
The
study,
a
full
study
of
their
fees
and
cost
recovery
isn't
completed
and
are
we
rushing
it
now?
Can
we
take
more
time,
I
think,
there's
a
reason
just
based
on
the
budget
approval
cycle
of
the
city
of
Minneapolis?
Why
we
need
some
of
this
information
and
stuff
set
up
now,
and
maybe
you
can
clarify
why
we're
considering
this
now,
the
in
July
I'm?
Why
we
can't
wait
til,
September
or
December.
K
Through
the
chair,
councilmember
Gordon
I'm,
going
to
defer
to
Finance
on
the
overall
timing,
I'll
say
the
timing
of
getting
in
notification
the
beyond
the
legal
notification.
But
our
courtesy
notification
out
to
landlords
wasn't
ideal.
We
had
unexpected
complications
getting
the
letter
out
which
sent
to
that
delay
and
we
hand
printed
and
stuff
25,000
of
them
in
two
days
in
order
to
provide
opportunity,
as
we
could
for
for
people
to
be
able
to
be
here
today
and.
G
Madam
chair
councilmember
Gordon.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
It
is
a
good
point
that
if
there
were
a
delay
to
the
vote
so
back
to
mr.
ruffs
opening
presentation,
as
as
these
fees
are
one
of
the
sources
of
revenue
for
the
general
fund,
it
has
a
direct
impact
on
what
the
mayor
can
or
can't
recommend
in
terms
of
expenditures
in
his
budget.
So
his
budget
is
to
be
released
on
August
15.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
I'm,
gonna
close
the
public
hearing
I
just
want
to
tell
you
all
what
I
heard,
because
the
public
hearing
is
to
get
information
and
to
try
to
adjust
according
to
what
you've
heard,
so
everyone
might
have
a
different
opinion.
This
is
what
I
heard
that
4d
properties
in
particular
have
a
lot
of
inspections
as
a
result
of
all
of
the
public
financing,
and
so
why
would
we
come
in
and
inspect
properties
that
are
already
part
of
the
public
system?
M
A
A
I
have
a
concern
that
we're
charging
for
rental
licenses
and
we
don't
even
do
the
inspection
and
so
I
wonder
if
that's
not
something
we
should
be
thinking
about.
I
heard
someone
say
that
there
are
a
number
of
unlicensed
properties
in
the
city
and
we
should
try
to
figure
out
a
better
way
to
deal
with
those.
A
B
You,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
to
everybody
who
came
and
testified.
I
I'll
echo
that
I
heard
some
good
ideas.
I
did
want
to
comment.
Somebody
pointed
out
that
we
haven't
heard
a
renters
perspective
and
I
actually
have
heard
renters
perspectives
and
other
venues
and
in
general,
on
the
topic
of
inspections,
which
is
in
general,
that
we've
heard
a
demand
that
they
want.
More
of
it,
we've
seen
a
lot
of
properties
that
are
being
poorly
maintained,
that
there's
a
real
public
health
reason.
B
There
are
real
critical
reasons
that
we
need
to
invest
in
inspections
and
that
we
need
to
have
you
know
inspections
really
focused
on
making
sure
that
everybody
who
pays
rent
in
the
city
is
getting
safe,
reasonable
quality
housing
in
exchange
for
it
and
so
I
think
a
lot
of
times.
When
we
talk
about
tenant
protections,
the
question
that's
come
back
to
us
has
been:
are
you
gonna
enforce
that
who's
going
to
inspect
it?
What's
you
know,
what's
going
to
happen,
so
I
think
it's
important
that
that
voice
be
in
the
room
you
know
in
in.
B
And
if
we
don't
do
it
in
the
fees
we
have
to
do
it
in
the
property
taxes,
and
so
somehow
this
is
going
to
get
paid
for
and
I
think
you
know
from
my
perspective,
I'm,
not
sure
that
this
is
a
perfect
proposal,
but
I
think
that
what
it
does
is
it
balances
fees
and
property
taxes
a
little
bit
more
fairly
than
what's
been
done.
I
think
to
your
point:
I
think
there
is
a
public
interest
and
it
makes
sense
for
there
to
be
some
subsidy
I.
B
Don't
think
that
it's
a
signal
of
dysfunction
that
the
general
fund
is
paying
for
part
of
the
inspections,
because
there
is
a
universal
benefit
to
all
of
us.
That
inspections
be
done
and
that
this
work
happened,
but
I
do
think
that
the
balance
is
a
little
bit
off
and
I
think
we're
correcting
to
them.
So
in
general
you
know
I'd
support.
Moving
this
forward.
I
know.
There's
we've
heard
some
frustration
in
this
room,
but
I
appreciate
the
work
that's
gone
into
it
and
I
do
think.
B
AE
AE
I'm,
we
heard
from
somebody
who
pays
I
think
was
paying
some
utility
bill,
so
I
guess
it
depends
on
what
the
going
rate
is
and
what
how
much
you
can
get
for
rent
and
how
much
you
want
to
be
able
to
make
get
good
get
its
profit,
so
you
can
be
up,
and
above
I
am
did
want
to
comment
a
little
bit
on
the
condo
ownership
idea.
I
think
that
one
thing
I
appreciate
about
this
was
added
streamlining.
Some
of
those
things.
AE
I'll
also
hear
a
lot
in
my
ward
about
how,
if
it's
an
owner-occupied
duplex
a
triplex,
it's
managed
much
better
and
it's
going
really
well,
and
so
you
could
almost
make
the
same
case
well.
Why
would
the
owner-occupant
then
have
to
pay
any
rental
licensing
fee
and
also
I
think
it's
clear
that
some
kind
of
associations
can
be
much
more
involved
and
active
and
than
others
and
so
I?
AE
Think
if
we
start
slicing
things
up
like
that,
it
gets,
it
would
be
really
hard
to
follow
and
hard
to
track,
and
so
I
appreciate
it
actually
that
this
came
in
a
little
bit
more
streamlined.
It
was
interesting
that
there
was
kind
of
a
surcharge
on
the
tiers,
as
well
as
a
difference
in
per
unit
costs,
as
well
as
the
building
cost.
So
it
also
looks
pretty
complicated.
AE
AE
Tier
3
is
paying
more
than
the
other
tiers,
even
though
they're
increase
isn't
as
much
a
big
percentages
it
might
be
for
the
second,
but
it's
still
they're
still
going
to
be
incentives
for
getting
down
to
tier
2
and
to
tier
1,
especially
once
you
get
over
this
first
year
of
the
increase,
so
I,
don't
I,
didn't
I,
see
you
shaking
your
head.
Well,
you
didn't
convince
me
that
there's
going
to
be
an
incentive
I'm
in
tier
2
I
want
to
get
to
tier
3,
so
I
can
pay
more
next
year.
AE
That's
not
I,
don't
think!
That's
how
the
tier
2
operator's
going
to
be
thinking
at
all.
They're
gonna
want
to
go
down
to
tier
1,
so
next
year
it's
even
less
hopefully
so
that
it's
out
there
and
it
also
costs
us
more
I
think
it
is
too
bad
that
we
aren't
doing
this.
Maybe
you
didn't
have
our
study
done
fully
I
think
there's
other
fees
in
other
areas,
restaurants
and
food
and
lodging-
maybe
that
we
need
bigger
adjustments
as
well.
AE
I
guess
we'll
see
how
it
goes,
I'm
willing
to
support
this
to
try
it
next
year.
I
do
think
one
of
the
key
services
that
we
try
to
provide
is
to
be
available
for
the
renters
and
the
tenants,
and
also
the
others
in
the
neighborhood.
So
it's
not
just
a
service
to
landlords
that
we're
trying
to
provide,
but
it's
a
service
to
everybody.
E
E
I
think
that
that's
something
that
we
should
be
looking
into
I'm
also
ready
to
ready
to
support
these
increases,
though,
and
I
and
I
just
wanted
to
stress
that
that
you
know
when
we
look
back
on
one
of
those
initial
slides,
and
you
see
that
between
the
areas
that
were
that
were
a
you
know,
trying
to
put
some
put
some
increases.
Are
we're
already
subsidizing
at
fifteen
point?
Five
million
right
like
that's,
that's
a
steep
subsidy.
E
That's
passed
on
to
to
the
whole
city
and
I
I
think
that
there's
that
there
is
room
for
us
to
make
up
some
ground
there.
I
also
want
to
stress
that
that
I,
you
know
as
we're.
You
know,
as
we
enter
into
becoming
a
majority
renter
city
right,
whether
you
know
folks,
like
that
or
not
and
I,
think
about
Ward's
like
mine,
where
there
are
a
lot
of
vulnerable
renters,
and
that
might
not
be
the
the
renters
that
you
represent
here,
but
it's
certainly
the
renters
that
I
represent.
E
I
think
that
that
is
a
convenient
argument
for
some
people
who
wouldn't
want
to
have
to
sort
of
pay
into
a
system
they're,
more
fair,
share
and
and
and
not
a
legitimate
argument,
so
yeah
I
as
a
matter
fact,
I,
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
comments,
but
I
will
make
a
motion
to
approve
move
forward
on
this
item.
Okay,.
A
And
the
motion
bike
council
member
Ellison:
are
there
further
comments
or
questions?
I
think
what
I
want
to
say
is
I
think
these
have
to
go
up,
and
so
it's
either
this
proposal,
or
it's
going
to
be
something
along
the
lines
of
4%
per
year
for
the
five
years
we
didn't
increase
these
and
so
I'm,
not
sure
I'm
prepared
to
just
suggest
a
whole
new
scheme.
After
all,
the
work
that's
been
done.
I
do
think
that
we
have
to
do
something.
A
I
was
one
of
the
people
who
fought
the
increases
for
a
number
of
years
and
I'm.
Not
sorry
I
did
that,
but
I
do
think
at
some
point.
The
economy
is
doing
better
and
we
need
to
be
able
to
adjust.
I
am,
though
I
will
say,
I
think
other
people
on
the
committee
would
agree
with
me.
If
asked
that
we
need
to
be
looking
at
40
properties
and
other
properties
like
mPHA
properties
and
other
affordable
housing
units
that
are
already
getting
inspected.
We
don't
need
to
be
the
inspector
of
all.
A
We
don't
need
to
be
the
duplicate
inspector
and
I
really
think.
That's
a
big
issue
that
we
need
to
address
as
well
as
I
mean
I
I'm
interested
myself
in
this
issue
of
someone
buying
a
tier,
3
or
tier
2
property,
improving
it
and
then
having
to
wait
an
entire
year
to
have
their
tiers
changed.
These
are
things
we
need
to
be
working
on
right
now,
not
let's
wait
till
next
year
to
have
an
argument
over
another
fee
increase,
but
these
are
part
of
a
larger,
affordable
housing
strategy.
A
That
I
think
we
need
to
deal
with
right
away
and
I
would
ask
our
regulatory
services
people
to
give
some
thought
to
that.
So
we
can
figure
out
how
we
do
it.
Some
of
the
other
ideas
that
we
heard
today
I
also
think
have
some
merit,
including
paying
ensuring
we're
gonna
inspect
everybody
or
paying
when
we
inspect
to
ensure
we
only
are
charging
for
what
we
actually
do.
I
think
we
need
to
think
a
little
bit
more
about
that
too.
A
So
I
will
support
the
recommendation
as
much
as
I
hate
raising
fees
because
I
don't
think
I
have
a
better
way
or
a
fairer
way
of
doing
it
and
I
think
it
has
to
be
done
at
this
point.
Are
there
further
comments
or
questions,
seeing
none
on
councilmember
Allison's,
most
motion,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed.
That
item
is
approved.
AD
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
you
have
before
you
two
requests
to
pass
resolutions
adopting
the
assessment,
loving
the
assessment
and
adopting
the
assessment
role
for
property,
assessed
clean
energy
or
pace
energy
financing
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
The
first
project
is
for
a
photo
photo:
voltaic
solar
installation
on
Minnehaha,
United,
Methodist,
Church,
miss.
AD
AD
The
first
project
I
have
is
for
a
photovoltaic
solar
installation
on
Minnehaha
United
Methodist
Church,
located
at
3701
East
50th
Street.
The
total
project
cost
is
one
hundred
thirty,
six
thousand
eight
hundred
and
ninety
six
dollars.
The
requested
loan
amount
is
one
hundred
twenty
seven
thousand
three
hundred
seventy
one
dollars
at
a
five
percent
interest
rate
and
will
pay
back
over
a
term
of
ten
years.
AD
A
Okay,
are
there
any
questions
for
staff
on
the
recommendation
with
regard
to
the
pace
energy
program
at
many,
how
high
United,
Methodist
Church
we're
in
take
them
one
at
a
time?
Okay,
great
does
not
look
like
there
are
any
questions
since
we're
a
fairly
familiar
with
pace
so
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
five,
which
is
the
passage
of
the
resolution,
adopting
the
assessment,
loving
the
assessment
for
a
pace
project
for
photovoltaic
at
many
high
United,
Methodist,
Church
and
I
know
these
ladies,
have
been
waiting
a
long
time
to
speak.
AF
A
You
for
being
here
today,
thank
you
did
either
of
you,
ladies,
like
to
speak
as
well.
Thank
you
both
very
much
for
all
three
of
you
for
being
here
and
sitting
through
the
earlier
public
hearing.
Are
there
anyone?
Is
there
anyone
else
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
Anyone
anyone
sing
done,
we'll
close
the
public
hearing,
councilmember
Fletcher.
B
A
AD
The
second
project
is
for
a
solar
array:
roof
reinforcements
and
LED
lighting
at
Fort,
evil
investments,
commercial
property
located
at
3501,
23rd,
Avenue
South.
The
total
total
project
is
75
thousand
six
hundred
eighty
seven,
seventy
five
thousand
six
hundred
eighty
seven
dollars
and
fifty
cents
of
that.
Fifty
six
thousand
will
be
financed
at
a
four
and
a
half
percent
interest
rate
and
will
be
paid
back
through
an
assessment
placed
on
the
property
over
the
term
of
nine
years.
AD
AD
A
A
AG
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
I'm
Kevin
Carroll
from
the
business
development
division
of
cpad
I'm
here
today
because
add
some
prior
meetings
of
this
committee.
You
indicated
an
interest
in
possibly
changing
some
of
the
brownfield
grant
policies
just
a
word
or
two
about
timing.
The
reason
I'm
here
today
is
because,
if
you
do
make
changes,
they
will
presumably
go
into
effect
with
regard
to
the
next
round
to
a
grant
round
which
will
have
in
November
one
application
deadline.
The
city's
pre-application
deadline
for
that
will
likely
be
in
early
September.
AG
We
traditionally
try
to
give
developers
and
others
at
least
30
days,
advance
notice
of
our
pre
application
deadlines,
which
in
this
case
for
this
coming
round,
will
be
early
August.
So
if
there
are
to
be
policy
changes,
it
would
be
handy
to
have
those
determine
maybe
by
the
end
of
this
month
or
early
next
month.
So.
AG
A
AG
Right,
I'm
not
worried,
so
here's
the
issue
for
many
years.
The
city's
policy
with
regard
to
brownfield
grant
funding
has
been
kind
of
an
open
ten
theory.
The
state
of
Minnesota
adopted
its
first
brownfield
grant
program,
I
think
in
1995
or
1998.
The
Met
Council
followed
a
couple
years
later.
An
epic
County
followed
a
couple
years
later
so
for
at
least
15
years.
AG
The
city's
position
with
regard
to
ground
for
grant
funding
is,
if
you
own,
a
property
in
Minneapolis
that
is
contaminated
in
some
way,
and
you
wish
to
redevelop
it
and
you
wish
to
get
grant
funding
from
one
of
these
grand
tours
to
help
you
do
that.
The
city
will
provide
the
means.
The
city
is
involved
in
the
process,
because
all
of
these
grand
tours
with
one
exception
require
that
the
city's
support
the
project,
a
City,
Council
resolution
of
support
is
needed
for
the
application
to
be
viable
and
again.
AG
In
most
cases,
the
grant
funding
if
awarded,
is
not
awarded
to
the
developer.
To
order
to
the
city
on
behalf
of
the
developer,
and
then
the
city
is
involved
in
basically
administering
the
grant.
The
money
passes
from
the
grantor
to
the
city
and
then
to
the
developer.
So
we've
got
a
critical
role
in
this.
We
are
essentially
the
gatekeepers
we
decide
which
projects
can
pursue,
grant
funding
and
which
can't
so.
AG
My
understanding
is
that,
because
of
the
heightened
interest
in
affordable
housing,
you
wanted
us
to
look
at
the
question
of
whether
the
city
should
support,
grant
applications
to
these
grand
tours
for
residential
projects
that
are
100%
market
rate
projects.
In
the
past,
we've
done
that
we
haven't
made
any
distinctions.
We
have
supported,
affordable
housing
projects,
market
rate
projects,
commercial
projects,
industrial
open
parks,
space,
we've
done
all
those
we've
supported
all
of
those
if
you
are
to
make
an
exception
and
not
support,
grant
applications
for
market
rate
projects.
AG
There's
a
means
to
do
that
and
as
I've
identified
in
the
staff
report
there,
there
is
an
exception
that
currently
exists
in
the
city's
housing
policy
for
for
projects
that
involve
pollution.
Remediation
and
I
wasn't
involved
personally
in
the
creation
of
that
exception.
The
most
recent
adoption
I
think
has
been
in
December
of
last
year
when
the
amended
and
restated
unified
housing
policy
was
adopted
and
that
that
exception
or
a
provision
was
included
in
that.
So,
if
you
want
to
change
the
policies,
it
seems
like
the
logical
way
to
do.
AG
It
would
be
to
further
amend
that
policy
and
remove
that
pollutants
pollution
remediation
exception.
If
you
do
that,
then
all
projects
that
wanted
to
seek
brownfield
grant
funding
all
housing
projects
would
be
required
to
have
at
least
20%
of
the
units
affordable
at
60%
ami.
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
your
support
and
our
honor,
our
understanding
is
that
you're
kind
of
leaning
in
that
direction.
We
did
try
to
put
some
information
in
the
staff
report
regarding
the
potential
consequences
of
this,
so
that
you're
fully
informed.
AG
It
is
a
bit
of
a
sea
change
with
regard
to
how
things
have
been
done
in
the
past,
and
there
will
be
consequences,
especially
with
regard
to
the
number
of
grants
awarded
to
city
projects
and
the
amount
of
grant
funding
provided
the
city
projects.
But
my
understanding
is
that
you
see
this
as
a
way
of
encouraging
market
rate
projects
to
include
affordable
housing
in
cases
where
they,
otherwise
would
not.
That's
my
understanding
of
the
philosophy
behind
it
and
I
think
the
staff
report
gives
you
a
suggestion
regarding
how
you
can
accomplish
that.
AG
A
AE
So
I'm
very
supportive
of
this
idea.
My
understanding
was
that
there
might
be
an
option
where
we
did
not
not
put
that
Inquirer
mminton
place
for
all
parts
of
the
city,
so
whether
we
take
one
of
our
already
designated
things
like
impacted
neighborhoods
and
we
don't
put
that
requirement
in
there
or
not-
is
something
I
think
that
we
should
talk
about
here.
I'm,
actually
having
trouble
opening
my
limbs
to
add
to
look
at
the
staff
report
online,
so
I'm.
A
AE
A
AC
Madam
chair
committee,
members
David
Frank
from
C
Pitt.
This
came
up
a
little
bit
more
recently
than
Kevin's
staff
report.
We
did
spend
some
time
in
the
past
week
trying
to
come
up
with
a
geography
to
recommend
to
you.
Should
you
be
interested
in
creating
for
this
pilot,
for
this
fall
brownfield
grant
round
that
Kevin's
been
discussing,
creating
a
difference
as
to
geography?
So
if
it's
a
market
rate
project
here,
then
the
affordable
housing
policy
would
apply,
and
if
it
was
in
a
more
market,
challenged
area,
for
instance,
it
might
not.
AC
We
didn't
warrant
Abel
in
that
amount
of
time
to
come
up
with
a
clear
and
compelling
difference.
Kevin's
done
some
quick
work
to
show
where
the
past
three
or
four
years
worth
of
brownfield
applications
have
fallen,
and
we
believe
that
it
won't.
Let
me
say
like
this:
it
won't
make
a
difference
for
this
coming
round.
We
don't
believe
that
we're
likely
to
get
applications
that
we'd
be
standing
here,
recommending
to
you
that
the
policy
should
not
apply.
AC
So
we
think
the
right
thing
is,
as
Kevin's
recommended
here
that
you
to
instruct
us
we
feel
instructed
you
instruct
us
to
include
the
affordability
requirement.
What
would
otherwise
be
market
rate
projects
in
this
coming
fall,
brownfield
grant
round
and
we'll
do
it,
and
then
we
will
evaluate
and
along
the
way
we
can
figure
out.
Should
we
have
a
geographic
I'm
going
forward?
If
that's
okay,.
AE
AC
Chair
committee,
members,
customer
record
I
don't
mean
we're
not
expecting
any
applications.
We
hope
we
get
applications
from
all
over
the
city.
What
I
mean
is
our
analysis
reveals
that
the
projects
which
have
applied
are
in
I'll,
say
strong
market
parts
of
town,
so,
in
any
event,
we
would
not
be
recommending
to
you
that
the
locations
of
those
projects
would
be
excluded
from
where
we'd
require
affordability
in
this
round.
AC
A
A
A
AE
Well,
it's
always
you
didn't
really
we're
having
a
good
discussion.
I
appreciate
that
I
just
wanted
to
add
that,
maybe
that's
maybe
we
can
even
refine
this
between
our
meeting
in
the
council
meeting
to
see
what
we
could
look
at.
Some
of
the
I
mean
we
certainly
with
tax
credits.
I
mean
there's
other
maps
that
we
have
there's
green
zones
that
we
have
there's
the
promise
zone,
so
I'd
be
comfortable
moving
it
forward
and
then
having
some
time
to
think
about
it
and
maybe
do
come
up
with
some
other
strategies.
I
like.
A
That
idea,
quite
a
bit
actually
I
will
just
say:
I
want
to
do
this.
Mr.
Carroll
knows
this
I
understand
the
staff
are
not
thrilled
about
it
and
view
it
as
turning
back
money
I
view
it
a
little
bit
differently.
I
view
it
as
subsidizing.
Polluters
I
view
this
as
property
owners
who
are
basically
purchasing
property
for
very
high
rates,
knowing
they
can
turn
around
and
get
the
government
to
pay
for
their
pollution
remediation.
So
it
essentially
rewards
property
owners
of
polluted
sites.
A
It
means
letting
other
communities
within
the
state
of
Minnesota
access
those
funds
to
do
projects,
and
that's
not
a
bad
thing.
I
mean
we
are
a
regional
economy.
If
a
project
goes
to
st.
Paul
or
somewhere
else,
that's
not
a
terrible
thing,
and
if
this
completely
backfires
and
no
one
ever
wants
to
build
anything
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
again
unless
they
get
on
our
brownfields
list
well,
some
of
my
constituents
would
probably
think
that
was
good,
so
I
I
don't
think
it's
bad
to
continue
to
try
new
and
different
things.
A
I
probably
would
not
have
brought
this
up
on
my
own,
but
I
feel
a
big
headwind.
This
committee
is
blowing
harder
than
me
to
do
this
and
so
I
I.
Don't
think
that
this
is
something
that
we
should
criticize
on
the
staff
level,
but
think
about
as
another
way
that
we
can
encourage
the
building
of
affordable
housing
in
the
city
without
our
staff
having
to
beg
for
more
money
in
the
budget
process
and
or
come
up
with
more
you
new
and
unique
ideas.
B
B
Thank
you
very
much
and
I'm
wondering
if
the
right
way
to
approach
this
rather
than
a
geographic
restriction,
is
actually
to
say
to
make
the
exception
for
properties
where
the
cost
of
brownfield
cleanup
exceeds
the
value
of
the
land
once
cleaned.
Essentially,
that
would
give
us
properties
where
they
wouldn't
get
sold
and
developed
otherwise
right.
B
So
the
idea
being,
if
there's
a
three
million
dollar
property
and
it's
going
to
cost
a
million
dollars
to
clean
up,
we
would
rather,
they
negotiate
down
to
two
million
dollars
to
incorporate
in
the
cost
of
the
cleanup
and
handle
that
as
a
private
transaction.
If
there's
going
to
be,
if
there's,
if
it's
just
going
to
be
market
rate
housing,
but
if
it's
a
million
dollar
property
and
it
requires
a
million
and
a
half
dollars
to
clean
up-
that's
gonna
sit
there
as
a
blight
in
our
community
for
a
long
long
time.
B
So
maybe
that's
actually
the
exception
that
we
need
to
make
and
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
the
math
falls
apart
in
some
of
the
promise
zone
areas,
so
I
would
propose
that
as
an
alternative
to
sort
of
apply
a
logic
that
makes
sure
that
we're
applying
for
money
in
places
where
it
meets
the
but-for
test
right
where
development
actually
wouldn't
happen.
Unless
we
get
the
money
in
for
the
cleanup.
E
A
You
for
bringing
that
up.
What
we
were
just
saying
was,
you
know,
combine
what
councilmember
Gordon
said
with
what
councilmember
Fletcher
said
and
let's
see
if
we
can
get
a
little
bit
closer
together,
I'm
what
potential
exceptions
there
would
be
I
think
that
makes
the
most
sense,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
We're
gonna
do
this,
so
please
work
with
us
to
try
to
figure
out
what
the
best
way
to
do.
A
To
you
know
be
responsible
for
oh
I:
don't
want
to
be
responsible
for
the
cleanup
and
not
inflict
my
point
of
view
with
regard
to
the
importance
of
affordable
housing
on
projects,
so
I
think
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
move
this
forward
without
recommendation
with
the
goal
that
councilmembers,
Fletcher
and
Gordon
will
work
with
mr.
Carroll
between
now
and
a
week
from
Friday,
so
we'll
keep
it
in
this
cycle
and
go
from
there.
Is
that
acceptable
to
you?
Mr.
Frank
and
mr.