►
From YouTube: May 23, 2018 Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Description
Minneapolis Intergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
I'm
going
to
call
to
order
this
intergovernmental
relations
committee
on
May
23rd.
My
name
is
Andrew
Johnson,
the
chair
of
the
committee
and
I'm
joined
today
by
a
quorum
of
our
committee
members
council
members
were
Sami,
Schrader
and
Jenkins
and
before
us
today,
we've
got
six
items
on
our
agenda
and
four
of
which
are
consent.
Items
I'll
go
through
the
consent
items.
First,
we've
got
a
amendment
to
our
legislative
agenda
and
policy
positions.
We've
got
a
resolution
supporting
working
people
in
collective
bargaining.
A
We've
got
number
three
is
authorizing
the
stay
to
join
an
amicus
brief
in
support
of
separation
statute
in
US
versus
California
and
item
number.
Four
is
a
passage
of
a
resolution
urging
the
federal
government
to
continue
to
work
on
building
relationship
between
the
United,
States
and
Cuba.
I
will
see
if
any
of
my
colleagues
on
this
committee
have
any
questions
or
comments
on
these
items
and
we'll
note
that
we've
been
joined
by
councilmember
Reich
as
well
questions
comments.
B
B
International
issue,
but
I
think
that
here
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
we
really
have
some
pretty
strong
connections
to
the
country
of
Cuba
and
a
lot
of
Cuban
Nationals
in
our
community,
and
so
the
passage
of
this
resolution
would
send
a
strong
signal
for
our
support
for
the
Cuban
community
here
in
Minnesota
and
throughout
the
world.
Thank.
A
You
thank
you
any
further
questions
or
comments
on
these
four
items
that
have
been
moved.
That's
seeing
approval
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
as
opposed
the
motion,
carries
moving
on
to
item
number
five.
We
have
this
listed
as
discussion.
I
know
it's
been
through
our
Ways
and
Means
Committee,
but
it's
related
to
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
city
charter,
relating
to
our
increasing
the
limits
on
borrowing
for
capital
expenditures
and
to
allow
for
the
combination
of
charter
and
state
borrowing
authority
and
transmitting
the
amendments
to
the
Charter
Commission.
C
Thank
You
chairman
Johnson.
This
is
like
the
first
step
in
many
steps
to
make
this
charter
amendment
and
that
we
had
a
full
presentation
at
ways
and
means
Council.
Vice
president
Jake
is
also
on
and
I
also
made
comments
at
full
council
meeting.
So
thank
you
and
thank
you
bringing
this
up
and
thanks
for
your
support,
your
leadership.
Thank.
A
You
and
if
anybody's
curious
for
more
information,
please
check
out
that
very
detailed
presentation.
I
know
we
have
on
YouTube
those
videos
from
ways
of
means
and
on
the
city
website
as
well,
and
also
the
documents
post
out
in
our
legislative
information
management
system.
So
there's
plenty
of
information
out
there
and
a
lot
of
discussion
on
this
council.
Vice-President
Jenkins
Thank.
A
D
E
E
A
F
Mr.
chair
comes
vice
president
Jenkins
I'm
mark
Roth
from
the
chief
financial
officer.
Certainly,
the
clerk's
office
can
weigh
on
as
well,
but
this
is
the
Charter
provision
process
is,
in
this
case
not
approved,
not
a
process
where
we're
moving
toward
a
referendum.
I
think
the
idea
is
that
we
go
to
the
Charter
Commission.
It
comes
back
to
this
particular
committee
in
the
City
Council
as
a
whole
and
at
the
time
when
the
City
Council
as
a
whole
approves
this,
it
would
have
to.
F
It
would
be
required
that
it
be
a
13
to
zero
vote,
so
unanimous
decision
on
the
part
of
the
City
Council.
If
some
of
the
members
who
were
here
in
the
last
council
term,
we
undertook
a
even
more
technical
change
to
the
bond
sale
process
and
that
did
pass
under
the
same
provision.
More
specifically,
the
Charter
Commission
is
which
will
weigh
in
on
this
process
is
scheduled
to
vote
on
this
item.
June
6th
at
4
o'clock.
F
If
anyone's
interested
in
attending
that
privat
particular
meeting,
it
will
be
in
front
of
the
City
Council,
then
on
June
15th
back
to
igr
on
June
27th
and
again
the
13-0
vote.
Assuming
everybody
can
be
there
as
scheduled
for
Friday
June
20th,
and
then
there
is
a
reverse
referendum
process,
that's
implicit
with
or
involved
with
any
charter
provisions.
So
this
would
not
take
effect
until
the
reverse
referendum
process
on
the
cooling-off
period,
which
would
roughly
be
the
end
of
September,
beginning
of
October.
So.
F
A
You
is
there
any
further
discussion
comments
on
this
item,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye.
Those
opposed
the
motion
carries.
Thank
you,
mister
ruff,
for
your
information
on
that
as
well.
Alright,
now
I
think
we
move
on
to
what
everyone
is
as
eagerly
been
waiting
for.
Our
team
has
been
extremely
busy
over
at
the
Capitol
and
the
legislative
session.
Finally,
wrapped
up,
and
so
we're
very
eager
for
this
recap,
and
even
before
we
begin
that.
G
You,
chair
Johnson
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
Sasha
Bergman
with
the
intergovernmental
relations
department,
certainly
we're
finally
getting
caught
up,
I
think
on
our
sleep
and
having
regular
meals,
I'm,
not
eating
goldfish
crackers
for
dinner,
and
things
like
that.
So
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
today.
G
What
we
wanted
to
update
you
on
this
afternoon
is
kind
of
just
providing
legislative
updates,
of
course,
on
all
the
studies
priorities
talk
about
some
of
the
current
outstanding
issues
that
we
expect
to
be
resolved
in
the
next
couple
weeks,
as
it
relates
to
whether
the
governor
would
veto
or
sign
various
schools
that
are
coming
up
and
then
looking
ahead
to
the
2019
session.
I
know
we
just
wrapped
up
the
2018
session,
but
already
there
are
some
issues
that
we
anticipate
will
be
coming
up
next
session,
based
on
action.
G
G
As
you
all
know,
the
federal
government
passed
tax
reform
in
December
and
since
the
Minnesota
income
tax
system
is
closely
linked
to
the
federal
government,
or
was
we
knew
that
there
would
probably
be
a
lot
of
discussion
about
how
the
state
would
choose
to
conform
to
some
of
those
federal
changes.
Odd
or
excuse
me,
even-numbered
years
are
often
bobbing
years,
even
though
sometimes
in
an
odd-numbered
year.
G
Bonding
bill
passes
that
year
too,
but
we
need
that
bonding
would
be
something
that
the
legislature
would
probably
be
discussing
and
then
because
odd-numbered
years
are,
when
the
legislature
does
the
budgeting
for
the
next
two
fiscal
years
in
even-numbered
years.
Sometimes
there's
action
as
it
relates
to
a
supplemental
budget,
depending
on
the
how
the
the
state
of
the
fiscal,
the
state
of
the
state's
fiscal
environment
and
then
finally
other
issues,
policy
issues
that
had
been
cropping
up,
related
to
opioids,
elder
abuse
and
then
state's
licensing
and
registration
system
which
had
some
technology
issues.
G
But
I
will
just
say
that
last
week,
or
was
last
week,
the
the
legislature
passed
and
the
governor
vetoed
a
first
omnibus
tax
bill,
that's
house
file,
4385
and
then
just
today
we
learned
that
he
vetoed
the
second
omnibus
tax
bill,
which
was
house
file
947.
It
was
very
similar
to
the
first
one.
There
were
I
think
six
changes
that
were
made
in
the
second
version
of
it's
one
of
those
changes
being
adding
funding
for
school
safety
issues.
But
that
is
a
bill
that
the
governor
just
vetoed
today.
G
Some
of
the
proposals
that
we
worked
closely
tracking
related
to
local
government
aid.
This
session
did
not
move
forward.
Ultimately,
in
the
bill,
there
were
a
couple
of
minor
adjustments
for
the
city
of
Lilydale
in
the
city
of
Harmon
town,
but
other
big
changes
that
were
proposed
were
not
included
in
either
of
the
tax
bills
that
were
vetoed.
So
some
of
those
proposals
that
came
up
this
session
were
increasing
local
government
aid
and
the
funding
for
the
formula
limiting
or
eliminating
local
government
natus.
G
Some
of
the
Minneapolis
specific
provisions
that
we
were
tracking
in
the
local
government
finance
area
include
the
lodging
tax
cap,
repeal
that
we
had
on
our
legislative
agenda.
The
bill
was
heard
in
the
Senate
and
in
the
House
Senate
ended
up,
including
an
increase
in
our
cap
from
13
percent
to
thirteen
point.
Eight
seven
five
percent
instead
of
repealing
the
cap
and
that
would
have
restored
us
to
the
full
three
percent
lodging
tax,
allowing
us
to
capture
that
full
amount.
That's
authorized
in
law,
but
ultimately
that
provision
was
not
included
in
the
first
tax
bill.
G
That
was
a
vetoed.
However,
it
was
one
of
the
six
changes
that
were
made
for
the
second
tax
bill,
so
it
did
get
in
the
second
tax
bill.
But
again
that
was
just
featured
by
the
governor
this
morning.
Also
many
up
a
specific
provision
related
to
tax
increment
financing
for
the
upper
harbor
terminal.
These
provisions
were
heard
in
the
house,
but
the
Senate
did
not
hear
any
TIF
bills
this
session,
and
so,
ultimately
that
was
not
included
in
either
of
the
tax
bills.
G
But
it
is
something
that
the
governor
noted
in
his
veto
letter
today
about
provisions
that
he
supported
that
weren't
included
in
the
tax
bill,
and
this
was
this
was
on
that
list
and
then
finally
related
to
the
city's
library
debt
service
aid.
No
change
ultimately
passed
into
law,
but
the
house,
as
it
has
proposed
in
the
past,
did
propose
repealing
that
library
aid
and
that
was
included
in
their
final
omnibus
tax
bill.
But
it
was
never
included
in
either
of
the
two
tax
bills
that
were
sent
to
the
governor.
G
H
You,
mr.
chairman
and
committee
members,
I'm,
gene
Ranieri
and
director
of
government
relations
for
the
city
for
the
last
three
years
have
been
attempts
to
try
and
pass
a
pen
omnibus
pension
bill
that
would
address
some
of
the
issues
in
our
pension
program
to
make
them
more
fiscally,
saw
it
and
make
sure
they
sustain
and
take
care
of
pension
years
into
the
future.
The
last
couple
years,
the
pension
bill
has
been
tied
to
other
bills
that
have
been
vetoed
by
the
governor
this
year.
The
bill
travelled
by
itself.
H
It
was
a
standalone
bill,
all
the
way
through
the
house
and
through
the
Senate,
the
bill
passed
the
House
Senate
about
six
weeks
ago.
It
passed
the
excuse
me
pass
the
Senate
six
weeks
ago
and
at
about
11:45
Sunday
night,
it
passed
the
House
131
to
nothing
what
the
bill
would
do.
It
would
a
want
for
one
thing:
reduced
through
estimated
rate
of
return
from
southern
and
a
half
percent
to
seven,
so
that
would
increase.
There
would
be
a
cost
there
to
all
of
the
pension
members,
including
the
employers.
H
There
would
also
be
some
changes
to
the
design
in
the
PRA
general
fund,
where
there
would
be
the
cola
would
no
longer
be
automatic
or
triggered
based
on
certain
kinds
of
investments,
earnings
it
would
be
triggered
based
on
what's
happening
to
Social
Security.
If
there's
going
to
be
a
Social
Security
into
increase,
there
would
be
a
trigger
a
cola.
There
would
be
one
half
of
that
amount
with
no
greater
than
being
3%,
also
the
PE
RA
police
and
fire
fund.
There
are
some
changes
there
that
will
impact
our
2019
budget.
Among
them
are
number
one.
H
The
employer
would
have
a
contribution
increase
of
three-quarters
of
a
percent
of
payroll
in
2019
and
an
additional
three-quarters
percent
in
2020
and
I
know
when
mr.
Roth
presents
the
budget
mayor
presents
the
budget
that
will
be
in
our
budget
also
in
there
is
an
increase
to
help
with
the
police
and
fire
four
point:
five
million
dollars
in
general
fund
appropriations
to
go
to
the
go
to
PE
RA,
to
help
to
keep
that
fund
stable,
they
have
a
fairly
good
number
of
of
ratio,
but
this
would
help
them
become
more
stable.
H
Other
things
in
the
pension
bill
address
teachers
NSRS
the
corrections
fund.
The
whole
total
was
a
trot
hope
goal
was
to
try
and
make
sure
that
we
add
some
fiscal
stability
and
the
ability
to
be
sustainable
and
everyone
thinks
we
got
there
and
so
I'll
turn
it
over
to
oh.
I
have
capital
investment.
Miss
leche
is
not
here
today
she
is
homesick
and
she
sends
her
regrets.
So
I'm
filling
in
I
hope
I
do
okay
at
the
capital
investment,
as
Miss
Bergman
said
earlier
in
the
even
year.
E
H
This
bonding
bill
was
proposed
to
be
eight
hundred
million
dollars
in
general
obligation
and
25
million
dollars.
In
addition
to
that
general
obligation
for
school
safety
or
school
security,
it's
a
much
smaller
bonding
bill.
What
the
bill
did
the
first
bill.
It
passed,
the
House
the
Senate
bill
failed
in
the
Senate
on
Sunday
and
I.
Don't
remember
the
exact
times
a
bonding
bill
did
pass
in
the
house
went
through
the
Senate.
There
was
some
amendments
in
the
Senate.
H
What
it
did
do
is
waiting
action
out
to
the
governor,
and
the
bill
includes
some
things
that
are
really
different.
That
we've
seen
before
not
seen
before.
One
is
that
this
bill
includes
funding
from
the
legislative
Commission
of
Minnesota
resources
from
the
environment
fund
to
fund
projects
that
have
an
environmental
nature,
but
we've
never
seen
that
before
they're
issuing
bonds
based
on
those
revenues.
H
H
When
was
the
upper
harbor
terminal
for
15
million
dollars,
that's
included
in
the
bill
is
also
10
million
dollars
for
the
family
partnership.
They
were
in
the
bill
last
year
for
I.
Think
one
point:
six
for
planning
and
design,
and
this
year
they
ten
million
dollars
for
them
this
year
on
other
things
that
are
not
in
the
bill
that
we
proposed
or
other
excuse
me
other
inclusions,
the
stone
Arts
Bridge
for
a
million
dollars
as
you're
aware
that
is
owned
by
the
state
of
Minnesota.
H
It
is
an
iconic
project
throughout
iconic
building
structure
throughout
our
state.
Any
time,
there's
a
big
national
event
here
in
Minneapolis
or
in
the
Twin
Cities.
It's
the
spoon
and
sherry
and
the
stone
arch
bridge
that
usually
make
your
national
media.
That
is
neat
some
work
as
an
MnDOT
estimating
it's
a
thirteen
million
dollar
project,
the
million
dollars
will
allow
them
to
start
the
planning,
design
and
engineering
you'll
have
to
come
back
and
receive
hopefully
funds
next
year
and
the
year
after
there's
also
funds
for
the
American
Indian
Center,
five
million
dollars.
H
That's
for
I
think
reconstruction
rehabilitation
of
the
Center,
a
million
dollars
to
the
Children's
Museum
choose.
Excuse
me
the
children's
theater
and
that's
Hennepin.
County
will
be
the
fiscal
agent
there
there's
ten
million
dollars
for
regional
parks.
We
were
hoping
for
15,
but
we
came
up
short
and
also
there
was
a
metropolitan
inflow
and
infiltration
grants
the
five
million
dollars
and
that's
a
continuation
about
a
three
or
four
year
process.
H
What
wasn't
in
some
of
our
priority
projects
with
a
storm
tunnel,
the
stormwater
tunnel
I
know
some
of
you
may
have
taken
the
tour
I
know.
Legislators
took
the
tour
going
out
and
look
at
those
tunnels.
However,
we
did
not
get
appropriation
for
that,
but
we
think
they
might
be
able
to
get
into
some
of
the
grant
programs
and
loan
programs
of
the
public
facilities
Authority,
and
we
both
do
some
more
work
on
that.
We
did
not
receive
any
funds
for
the
upper
st.
Anthony,
Falls,
Lock
and
Dam.
H
H
We
are
delegation
in
the
Senate
was
so
concerned
about
this
and
upset
about
this.
No
one
on
our
delegation
voted
for
the
bonding
bill.
Sunday
night
in
the
Senate
because
of
the
transportation
issue
senator
Dibble
spoke
spoke
for
transit
and
tried
to
get
additional
funds
for
transit.
We
did
not.
We
will
start
an
effort
soon
with
our
folks
who
work
at
the
Met
Council
and
the
council
to
see
what
we
can
do
to
find
ways
to
get
the
d-line
and
all
those
a
arterials
projects
off
the
ground
and
running.
So
that's
did
not.
H
H
A
B
B
I
I
know
we
cannot
abandon
this.
This
battle
and
I'm
just
wondering
what
are
some
of
your
thoughts
for
next
steps?
How
do
we,
how
do
we
move
forward
to
really
ensure
that
we
can
make
these
important
transit
improvement
in
in
our
city,
but
also
for
the
region,
and
so
you
know
maybe
order
some
of
your
thoughts
or
I
don't
know
if
some
of
your
other
staff
members
may
have
some
thoughts.
H
Mr.
chairman
council,
vice
president
Jenkins,
we
have
been
talking
about
this
already.
We
think
there
was
a
good
first
step
when
the
Metro
Council
got
all
of
the
communities
along
the
line
together.
I
think
we
need
think
about
that
again
and
try
and
throughout
the
summer
I
only
think
about
how
we
get
maybe
state
funding,
but
there
are
other
sources
and
how
we
can
work
together
on
this
project,
because
it
is
not
just,
as
you
say,
a
city
project.
It
is
a
regional
project.
H
D
Jeanne
pretty
much
said
what
we've
been
discussing
so
far.
As
you
know,
there
has
been
a
group
can
be
in
the
d-line
coalition,
including
partners
from
Richfield
Bloomington,
Brooklyn,
Center,
City,
Minneapolis
and
across
different
jurisdictions,
and
also
the
Minneapolis
Regional.
Chamber
of
Commerce
has
been
a
key
partner
in
this
as
well.
D
So
I
think
it's
it's
time
to
reconnect
with
all
those
partners
who
have
talked
about
how
important
this
project
is
and
to
think
about
next
session,
but
also
think
about.
If
this
is
the
landscape
that
we're
dealing
with
and
if
we
don't
expect
that
to
change.
How
are
we
going
to
go
from
here
and
really
start
looking
at
the
full
range
of
alternative
ways
to
support
really
excellent
projects
that
we
all
stand
behind
so
I
think
we
have
to
reconnect
with
that
group
of
partners.
B
I
I
B
E
Thank
You,
chair
and
council
members,
my
name
is
Jennifer
Nelson
I'm,
the
legislative
aide
for
the
2018
session
with
igr
and
I'm
gonna.
Tell
you
a
little
bit
about
what
happened
with
transportation
and
the
Met
Council.
So
the
big
priority
that
we
have
in
transportation
was
the
driver's
license
suspension
reform.
It
was
a
project.
We
did
a
lot
of
work
on
this
year
and
it
was
a
bill
to
look
at
a
luminate
Espenson
that
are
happening
solely
because
of
unpaid
traffic
tickets
or
failure
to
appear
in
court.
E
After
said
traffic
tickets,
and
that
bill
actually
was
very
well
received.
Bipartisan
support
lead
authors
in
both
chambers
were
Republican
members.
It
was
moving
as
a
standalone
bill
in
the
house,
but
ultimately
that
combined
into
the
supplemental
budget
omnibus
bill
and
it
eliminated
those
suspensions
and
also
made
licenses
currently
suspended
for
those
reasons
eligible
for
reinstatement.
However,
unfortunately
it
wasn't
that
giant
package
that
was
vetoed
this
morning,
so
that's
something
that
didn't
quite
make
it
getting
lumped
in
with
everything
else.
E
Another
big
transportation
issue
that
came
up
with
the
Capitol
was
a
proposed
constitutional
amendment
for
transportation
funding,
and
this
was
an
amendment
that
was
proposed.
That
would
have
placed
a
question
on
the
November
ballot.
That
would
ask
voters
whether
or
not
they
wanted
to
take
the
revenues
from
sales
of
auto
parts
and
repair
to
go
towards
funding
for
roads
and
bridges.
It
would
have
created
a
special
revenue
fund
for
those
items,
and
it
was
a
very
interesting
way
it
played
out
at
the
Capitol.
E
It
became
quite
contentious,
particularly
between
private
and
public
sector
unions,
because
it
did
not
create
a
new
revenue
funding
stream.
It
merely
would
reallocate
funds
that
right
now
go
into
the
general
fund
into
the
special
account,
so
other
areas,
such
as
education,
that
are
also
funded
from
the
general
fund,
didn't
like
the
diversion
of
money,
whereas
people
do
in
contracting
or
construction
were
in
favor
of
making
those
jobs,
it
moved
in
the
house
and
they
did
ultimately
pass
it
off
the
House
floor.
E
But
it
was
not
taken
up
in
the
Senate,
so
it
will
not
be
on
the
ballot.
It
ended
up
stalling
out
there
and
then
the
one
item
we
wanted
to
highlight
with
the
Met
Council
I,
this
Senate
file,
2809,
which
deals
with
restructuring
the
governance
of
the
Met
Council,
which
is
something
that's
been
tried
before
over
the
years
and
and
generally
hasn't
made
it
past
governor's.
What
it
would
do.
It
would
change
the
Met
Council
rather
than
its
current
governance
structure,
where
the
members
are
appointed
by
the
governor.
E
It
would
increase
that
membership
up
to
29
members
mostly
made
up
of
local
elected
officials,
so
what
they
would
do
is
they
would
give
membership
to
County
boards
would
appoint
members.
Hennepin
County
would
get
two
members
each
other
County
would
get
one
and
of
those
two
Hennepin
County
members,
one
would
represent
aboard.
The
primp
includes
Minneapolis
and
one
outside
of
Minneapolis,
and
then
they
would
have.
It
would
be
a
local
elected
official
appointed
from
each
council
district
and
those
will
be
decided
by
a
newly
formed
municipal
committee.
E
That
would
exist
in
each
district
and
then
the
Commissioner
of
Transportation
are
there
designee
and
then
the
commissioner.
We
get
to
a
point
one
person,
each
in
the
areas
of
public
transit,
non-motorized
transportation
and
freight
transportation,
and
one
thing
that
was
added
to
this
membership
in
conference
committee
as
to
give
some
power
back
to
the
governor
was
that
it
would
allow
the
gut
they
amended
it
to
allow
the
governor
to
appoint
the
chair.
E
H
Mr.
chairman
I
meant
to
cover
public
safety
gun
violence,
the
public
safety
issue.
There
was
a
bill
as
you're
aware
that
increased
penalties,
enhanced
penalties
for
people
who
are
obstructing
freeways
and
public
infrastructure.
The
governor
did
veto
that
bill
on
Sunday
or
Saturday
Saturday,
but
then
it
was
included
into
the
supplemental
bill,
but
but
then
it
was
taken
out
in
conference
committee
so
that
bill
didn't
move
this
year
on
gun
violence.
One
of
the
focuses
was
on
school
safety
and
the
move
to
put
25
million
dollars
into
schools.
H
It
was
also
involved
in
there
were
several
attempts
by
legislators,
particularly
from
Minneapolis
st.
Paul
DFL
members,
to
try
and
do
something
along
the
lines
of
either
the
red
flag,
warning
legislation
or
background
checks.
There
were
attempts
on
the
floor
to
amend,
add
on
the
legislation
and
several
it
in
several
places.
It
was
considered
to
be
nice
remain
to
the
bill
being
debated
that
at
this
time
nothing
happened
on
gun,
gun,
violence
this
year
and
I
think
something
we
need
to
work
again
on
next
year.
G
Committee
members
in
the
area
of
affordable
housing,
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
a
couple
of
things
that
were
included
in
the
supplemental
budget
bill
which
miss
Nelson
mentioned
was
vetoed.
Today
there
was
a
provision
that
would
repeal
the
exception
in
the
rent
control
prohibition
statute
that
allows
for
voters
to
vote
on
an
ordinance
if,
if
the
local
uniformity
has
the
authority
to
have
such
an
ordinance
and
the
let's
see
there.
G
Provisions
that
were
included
in
a
supplemental
budget,
though
that
were
removed
in
committee
before
it
was
advanced
to
the
governor.
One
of
those
things
was
a
requiring
the
Minnesota
Housing
Finance
Agency
to
have
a
report
on
local
regulations,
permits
fees
and
and
any
impacts
that
those
have
on
housing.
G
The
five
consensus
items
that
came
out
of
that
steering
committee
were
included
in
the
supplemental
budget
bill,
along
with
some
items
that
were
not
consensus
items
but
ultimately
that
got
vetoed.
However,
there
are
some
changes
to
taxes
and
fund
reform
that
relate
to
the
Minnesota
Housing
Finance
Agency.
G
That
worked
were
included
in
the
bonding
bill
that
passed
and
I
think
the
impact
of
that
on
the
Minnesota
Housing
Finance
Agency
is
at
this
point
unknown,
but
we
are
closely
tracking
that,
as
we,
you
know,
do
work
in
this
area
to
as
a
city,
and
then
there
was
finally
there
were.
There
was
no
new
funding
included
in
the
Housing
Finance
Agency
before
the
Housing
Finance
Agency
in
supplemental
budget
bill.
In
the
bonding
bill
there
was
50
million
dollars
for
housing
infrastructure
bonds
included.
G
Another
thing
that
the
homes
for
all
coalition
has
included
as
one
of
the
updates
from
the
Bani
no
but
I,
think
there's
some
question
about
exactly
how
much
of
this
funding
goes
to
build.
The
new
new
housing
is
thirty
million
dollars
for
mental
health
crisis
centers,
so
that
was
also
included
in
the
bunny
bill.
So
when
you,
when
you
pair
all
of
those
investments
together,
that's
quite
a
sizable,
that's
for
housing,
and
so
the
homes
for
all
collisions
very
excited
about
about
these
investments.
G
Finally,
I'll
note
that
the
funding
bill
does
allow
for
two
new
uses
for
housing,
infrastructure
bonds,
so
expanding
it
to
include
senior
housing
and
then
manufactured
home
parts.
The
bonding
bill
is
now
on
the
governor's
desk,
but
we
don't
yet
know
what
this
action
will
be.
He
could
line-item
veto
some
items
that
are
in
that
bill.
Some
of
the
money.
It's
not
the
policy.
Thank.
I
G
I'll
do
that
to
the
best
of
my
ability,
so
there
were
five
consensus
items
that
were
included.
I
don't
have
those
up
the
top
of
my
head
in
terms
of
just
reform
to
the
statute,
but
it
was
you
know.
A
steering
committee
came
together,
Andrea
Brennan
from
the
hub
from
the
housing
housing
division
of
seedbed
participated
on
behalf
of
the
city,
and
so
they
you
know.
A
lot
of
folks
were
supportive
of
these
five
consensus.
G
And
so
you
know
there
are
certain
requirements
that
the
Minnesota
Housing
Finance
Agency
has
for
the
allocation
of
the
4%
tax
credits
may
be
length
of
affordability,
required
or
cost
containment
issues,
and
so
those
provisions
would
remove
I
think
some
of
the
ability
of
the
Department
of
the
Housing
Finance
Agency
to
impose
certain
requirements
and
would
allow
for
a
developer
to
challenge
to
challenge
the
requirements
that
was
removed
from
the
supplemental
budget.
But
then
it
wasn't.
G
I
G
Okay,
yep
mr.
chairmembers,
so
there
was
an
effort
last
session
to
modify
the
tax
exempt
on
statute.
Ultimately,
it
didn't
become
law
but
I
think
all
the
stakeholders
were
sort
of
directed
to
come
together
around
some
agreed-upon
changes.
So
the
steering
committee
was
formed
to
create
you
know
a
set
of
agreements
that
that
could
move
forward.
But
there
was
still
some
desire,
I
think
from
from
some
folks
to
push
other
items
forward
that
were
not
part
of
those
five
agreed-upon
consensus
items.
So
yeah.
G
Okay,
a
couple
of
provisions
related
to
public
health
that
were
included
in
the
supplemental
budget
bill
that
was
vetoed
today.
One
provision
would
have
redirected
funding
currently
allocated
for
the
good
food
access
program.
Urban
agriculture
and
farm
to
school.
I
think
that
funding
was
taken
away
from
those
areas
and
allocated
instead
to
mental
health
for
farmers.
Ultimately,
that
did
not
become
law
but
I
think
the
the
reasoning
there
was
the
bag
that
he
had
a
zero
zero
target,
so
they
couldn't
spend
any
money
without
sort
of
taking
it
from
somewhere
else.
G
They
weren't,
given
an
additional
amount
of
money
that
they
were
allowed
to
spend
so
that
had
been
proposed.
Also
earmarking,
some
of
the
statewide
health
improvement
partnership
funding
for
tobacco
cessation.
Our
health
department
receives
funding
from
the
statewide
health
improvement
partnership
and
that's
usually
used
for
prevention,
so
maybe
tobacco
prevention
or
other
preventive
health
measures.
Ultimately,
of
course,
that's
not
included
or
not
going
to
become
law
and
then
finally,
expanding
the
use
of
evidence-based
home
visiting
for
culturally
or
ethnically
ethnically
targeted
home
visiting
programs
was
also
a
provision
related
to
public
health
in
the
bill.
G
In
the
area
of
local
control,
as
I
think
many
of
you
know,
we
have
been
working
closely
with
the
League
of
Minnesota
cities
and
Metro
cities
on
a
whole
host
of
bills
that
have
been
introduced
over
the
last
biennium
to
preempt
local
authority
or
kind
of
tie.
The
hands
of
local
units
of
government
in
a
wide
range
of
issue
areas
were
introduced
last
session,
so
I
think
there
were
more
than
30
introduced
last
session.
G
G
chair
is
you
know
from
testifying
the
prohibition
on
exalt
auxilary
containers
and
having
allowing
local
governments
to
regulate
those
that
was
heard
in
the
House
and
Senate,
but
it
was
ultimately
not
included
in
a
final
budget,
though,
or
final
bill
that
moved
across
the
finish
line.
There
was
a
prohibition
on
rank-choice
voting
that
also
did
not
ultimately
move
forward,
but
was
given
hearings
and
then
preemption
of
transportation
network
company
regulations,
which
is
something
that
was
given
a
number
of
hearings
and
mr.
veneer.
G
You
would
know
the
details
about
all
of
the
different
negotiations
that
began
on
that
issue.
Ultimately,
that
did
not
move
forward,
but
we
anticipate
that
will
be
something
probably
that
will
be
dealt
with
or
discussed
next
session
and
then.
Finally,
the
preemption
of
local
employment
regulations,
which
was
tied
to
the
bonding
that
are
the
pension
bill
last
year,
is
why
that
bill
was
vetoed,
ultimately
did
not
move
forward.
We
didn't
see
it
in
any
bills
and
I
think
it
was
provide.
G
H
Mr.
chairman,
one
thing
to
add
in
the
area
of
the
local
control,
also
in
the
tax
bill,
there
was
a
an
amendment
that
basically
said
we
can't
add
any
taxes
which
we
can
do
to
can't
do
now,
and
also
taxes
on
food,
retail
and
bags.
That
amendment
was
a
was
amended
to
say
you
could
do
a
fee
for
registered
for
a
regulation
and
administration
that
provision
is
in
the
tax
bill
and
it
was
vetoed
so
that
didn't
go
forward.
H
Neither
in
the
area
of
opioids
I
know
the
city
will
be
having
a
task
force
working
on
this
there's
a
lot
of
it
all
over
this
country,
there's
been
an
issue
and
you
use
abuse
of
opioids.
There
was
a
bill
in
the
Senate
authored
by
Senator
Rosen,
the
chair
of
the
committee,
chair
of
the
Finance
Committee.
That
basically
would
have
implemented
a
couple
things.
H
One
the
pharmacies
would
be
Judy
doctors
and
people
who
are
prescribing
opioids
would
be
would
be
asked
or
directive
to
have
limits
on
how
many
can
be
subscribed
at
one
time,
so
they
were
in
the
bill.
They
were
listening
of
how
many
so
many
times.
There
also
was
a
registration
trying
to
find
out
the
person
who
was
in
asking
for
her
painkillers.
Is
it
getting
from
someplace
else?
There
is
a
pilot
program
up
in
Little
Falls,
where
the
st.
H
Gabriel's
hospital
clinic
has
been
fairly
successful
in
working
with
folks
to
get
them
off,
opioids
get
him
into
treatment,
and
it
worked
very
closely
with
the
public
safety
folks,
the
County
social
services,
treatment,
centers
and
then
just
basically
working
with
it
with
the
client
themselves.
This
clinic
includes
not
only
doctors
but
also
social
workers
and
I
chop
employment
folks,
and
they
all
received
some
funding
again
this
year
to
branch
out
the
centers
throughout
central
Minnesota.
H
What
senator
roses
bill
did
and
most
importantly,
was
to
say
that
the
pharmacies
or
the
pharmaceutical
companies
would
be
contributing
to
the
program.
They
would
be
charged
at
one
time,
a
penny,
a
pill
and
it
would
go
up
to
about
20
million
dollars
that
she
was
trying
to
raise.
It
was
changed,
then,
to
be
a
registration
fee
to
be
paid
by
the
pharmaceutical
companies
and
the
pharmaceutical
distributors
to
again
go
up
to
about
20
million
dollars.
That
funding
mechanism
was
not
accepted
is
not
in
the
bill
over
in
the
house.
H
They
decided
to
go
all
general
fund.
The
final
bill
and
clementa
budget
included
about
5.6
million
dollars
this
year
in
a
total
of
16
million
dollars
over
three
years.
For
this
whole
issue
of
opioids
and
that
bill,
like
the
whole,
the
entire
bill
has
been
veto.
So
there
is
basically
no
nothing
in
statute
new
rate
today
or
additional
funding
for
opioid
abuse
and
prevention.
H
Another
major
issue
and
something
that's
periphery
to
us,
but
there
are
an
awful
lot
of
nursing
homes
and
home
care
and
assisted
living
centers
in
our
city
and
as
you're
aware
I.
Think
back
in
November
of
2017,
the
Star
Tribune
did
history
about
abuse
in
those
facilities
occurring
throughout
the
state
task
forces
were
established,
the
governor
had
a
task
force.
The
legislature
had
a
task
force,
a
bill
did
come.
The
bill
was
designed
to
do
a
couple
things
one.
H
It
allowed
people
based
on
some
criteria
to
actually
have
a
monitoring
camera
in
their
rooms,
so
maybe
their
children
could
watch
what
was
going
on
and
there
had
to
be.
There
were
some
guarantees
on
privacy
for
a
roommate.
There
also
was
a
lot
of
it
requirements
for
explanation
who
owned
the
facilities
and
who
to
contact
when
there
is
a
problem.
Also,
there
was
more
procedures
for
the
Department
of
Health
and
the
Department
of
Human
Services,
but
more
for
that
Department
of
Health
to
investigate
and
report
on
these
kinds
of
issues.
H
They
were
task
force
established
one
to
look,
come
back
with
some
additional
regulations
and
another
one
was
to
come
back
on
crimes
and
what
kinds
of
crimes
and
penalties
there
should
be
and
how
to
work
with
law
enforcement
on
this
whole
area
of
elder
abuse.
Unfortunately,
this
was
in
the
big
bill,
the
omnibus
bill,
and
it
did
not
pass
and
it
was
vetoed
today
by
the
governor
on
the
energy
issue.
This
is
an
inter
very
interesting
issue.
H
It
was
something
that
the
Xcel
Energy
had
a
bill
that
basically
gave
them
sort
of
a
streamlined
process
to
get
approval
to
do
improvements
to
their
three
nuclear
plants
today
were
going
to
be
deeming
as
carbon-free
facilities.
They
were
asking
for.
The
numbers
vary,
but
I
think
the
last
number
I
heard
was
fun
one
point:
four
billion
dollars
in
improvements
to
the
three
facilities
to
aquarii
island
and
one
at
Monticello.
They
would
be
a
rather
quick
process.
H
They
would
basically
get
their
approval
first
and
then
move
forward,
and
if
there
were
any
sort
of
overrides
or
over
cost
overruns
at
one
time,
it
seemed
to
be
falling
back
on
the
pre
payers
and
another
time
was
falling
back
on,
maybe
the
ratepayers
and
the
stock
the
bond
hold
stockholders
buying.
It
really
felt
that
going
the
ratepayers
that
bill
was
reviewed
and
probably
amended
three
or
four
different
times.
It
was
separated
from
the
omnibus
bill
and
traveled
by
itself.
H
It
did
not
yes,
the
house,
nor
did
it
but
I
think
if
it
passed
the
Senate,
it
was
to
be
debated
on
the
floor
on
Sunday
night.
It
never
was
brought
up.
There
was
another
thing
that
was
another
issue
that
energy
at
this
time
on
solar
energy
that
somehow
appeared
in
the
omnibus
bill.
What
it
basically
did
was
took
the
word
financing
out
of
some
of
the
PUC
reviews
when
it
came
to
approving
solar
projects.
H
H
Other
topics
that
were
prominent
this
session,
the
elections
there
was
a
million
five
appropriated
in
the
big
bill
for
a
voter
registration
and
it
could
receive
some
state
funding,
but
I
mean
federal
funding.
But
again
that
was
vetoed
next
bill
is
the
Omnibus
liquor
bill.
That
is
a
bill
that
every
year
includes
provisions
dealing
with
how
we
distribute
and
sell
alcoholic
beverages
how
we
brew
and
have
the
craft
brewers
the
winemakers.
It's
become
a
rather
large
area
of
a
statute.
Now
it
used
to
be
just
basically
beer
and
alcohol.
H
Now
it's
wine
making
cider,
making
all
different
kinds
of
stores,
there's
exclusive
stores
that
sell
items,
but
they
don't
sell
the
product.
They
sell
the
things
to
make
the
product,
that's
all
regulated
in
Chapter
340,
a
also
usually
included
in
those
three
chapter.
340
a
amendments
are
special
liquor
licenses
for
municipalities
and
counties.
We
have
three
of
the
five
in
our
city,
two
of
them
I
think
are
on
Penn
Avenue
and
one
is
on
Nicollet.
H
You,
as
a
city
council,
will
be
having
requested
to
approve
local,
give
local
approval
for
those
bills
and
then
going
through
then
would
go
to
our
folks
in
the
community
in
the
cpad
to
go
through
the
licensing
process.
So
approving
the
legislation
doesn't
mean
you're
approving
the
license
just
approving
authority
to
do
that.
That
will
be
coming
up
soon.
There
are
some
questions
being
raised
by
legislators.
Saying:
look,
you
know
we're
not
going
to
oppose
these.
Why
should
we
be
doing
these?
Is
there
a
better
way
to
do
it?
H
Senator
Latz
had
a
bill
that
basically
said
notwithstanding
any
city
charter
or
county
charter.
To
the
contrary,
you
do
it
and
I
know.
We've
been
talking
to
we'll
be
talking
to
the
city
attorney
we've
been
talking
already
about.
What's
the
process,
if
we
wanted
to
change
our
charter
to
address
this
whole
liquor
issue
because
I'm
hearing,
why
just
they're
saying
why
are
we
doing
this
yeah.
A
H
Rather,
fitness
is
a
rather
fascinating
area.
There
is
the
regular
the
regulatory
scheme
in
Chapter
340,
a
it's
pretty
strict.
It
tells
you
how
many
times
you
can
have
it
a
non-profit,
an
event
for
a
non-profit
on
a
certain
location.
You
can
only
do
so
many
of
those
temporary
licenses,
it's
just
them
and
of
course,
for
the
longest
time
we
got
liquor
hours
now,
they're
a
little
bit
longer,
but
but
it's
a
rather
fascinating
and
the
folks
who
work
in
it.
It's
a
fascinating
field
in
the
area
of
this
was
basically
for
tipped
employees.
H
There
was
a
return,
an
attempt
to
return
to
the
two-tier
system
where
there
would
be
a
lower
minimum
wage
and
then
tips
would
be
divided
paid
back,
divided
up
that
did
wasn't
in
the
charge,
I'm
the
most
bill
and
it
did
not
make
it
across
the
finish
line.
So
that
did
not
occur
this
session
and
then
min
Lars.
That's
the
Minnesota
dealing
with
license
plates
and
all
the
registrations
of
vehicles
there
was
funding
proposed
and
I.
H
G
Mr.
chair
wrap
up
by
just
talking
about
a
couple
of
outstanding
issues,
as
I
think
we
mentioned,
and
this
presentation
the
governor
has
14
days
to
take
action
on
remaining
bills.
As
we've
mentioned,
he's
vetoed
the
tax
bill
in
the
supplemental
budget
bill,
but
there
are
still
some
bills
were
watching:
met,
council
governance,
pensions,
bonding
and
liquor
bill
to
see
whether
he
signs
those
into
law
and
I.
G
Just
I
guess
I
would
note
that
I
think
in
the
governor's
press
conference
today
when
he
was
talking
about
the
tax
bill
and
the
supplemental
budget
bill
that
he
vetoed
that
he
does
not
plan
to
to
call
a
special
session
to
deal
with
any
of
those
issues
that
were
vetoed
so
I
think
there's
been
some
that
have
floated
the
idea
of
having
a
special
session
later
on
this
year
to
address
federal
conformity
going
into
next
year.
But
right
now
his
intention
is
not
to
have
special
session
and
then
just
looking
ahead
to
2019.
G
Of
course,
in
November
the
the
gubernatorial
election
will
be
taking
place
as
well
as
all
134
House
members.
So
that
could
change
well
for
sure.
We'll
change
some
things.
You
know,
of
course,
with
some
retirements
in
the
house,
but
depending
on
the
outcomes
of
that
I
could
change
the
makeup
or
excuse
me,
the
power
of
the
house
in
the
legislature
and
then
potential
issues
that
that
could
come
up
next
year.
G
You
know
vetoed
issues
from
this
session,
so
opioids
elder
abuse
tax
conformity
next
year
will
be
a
budget
year,
starting
they
start
early
January,
so
budget
will
be
on
the
top
of
everyone's
minds
and
then
some
provisions
or
some
proposals
related
to
sexual
harassment
and
their
I,
don't
think
this
in
detail.
But
there
were
proposals
to
to
address
the
sexual
harassment
law
and
make
it
easier
for
victims
to
bring
a
case
forward,
but
that
ultimately
did
not
pass
into
law.
So
we
expect
that
to
be
revisited
next
session.
G
One
thing
just
to
put
on
your
radar:
the
the
provider
tax
is
a
two
percent
provider
tax
on
health
providers
in
the
state.
It
expires
at
the
end
of
I.
Think
it's
2019
that
funding
goes
to
Minnesota
care,
but
also
it
pays
for
the
statewide
health
improvement
partnership,
which
I
mentioned
earlier
that
the
health
department
receives
to
do
some
preventative
health
work.
So
that
will
be
probably
something
that's
discussed.
That's
something
that
the
governor
proposed
in
his
tax
bill
this
year
to
continue
and
to
not
have
it
expire.
G
Ultimately
that,
of
course,
did
not
become
law,
so
that
might
be
something
that's
discussed
next
session,
maybe
resolving
the
transportation
network
companies
issue
that
came
up
this
session.
Then,
of
course
we
anticipate
gun,
gun
violence.
Prevention
will
continue
to
be
a
topic
that
folks
are
thinking
about.
So
with
that,
I
will
conclude
and
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Excellent.
A
B
Thank
You,
chair
Johnson,
and
this
is
not
necessarily
a
question
more
of
a
comment
but
two
of
the
special
license
requests
are
in
Ward,
8
and
and
I
certainly
have
spoken
to
they're,
surrounded
by
a
number
of
other
businesses
that
don't
have
access
to
that.
And
so
it's
going
to
create
a
really
significant
imbalance
in
in
that
particular
area.
But
I
but
I
think
it's
a
challenge
across
the
entire
city
and
I
really
believe
it's
a
issue
that
we
as
a
council
need
to
really
think
about.
F
B
A
You
need
to
Chenal
questions
or
comments
from
committee
members.
Mr.
Neher
comment:
okay,
additional
questions
or
comments.
Well
again,
you
have
our
sincere
thanks
for
all
your
hard
work
over
this
session
and
ongoing
work
and
provided
the
bonding
bill
gets
signed.
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
aside
from
not
getting
funding
for
the
d-line
I
think
it's
to
have
our
number
one
priority
fully
funded
through
the
bonding
bill
to
have
a
number
of
additional
items
funded
to
not
see
any
preemption
bills
get
through.
It's
been.
A
It
feels
like
to
me
a
pretty
successful
session
overall
for
the
city,
even
though
it's
not
certainly
not
perfect.
Certainly
there
are
other
opportunities
as
well
in
there
and
other
things
that
we
definitely
wanted
to
see
get
done,
but
we're
glad
that
it
wasn't
coming
up
short
coming
up
completely
empty.
So
any
comments
on
this.
H
Just
concluding
comment:
we
will
have
it
written
more
detailed,
written
document
within
the
next
week
or
two
probably
more.
We
could
more
like
two,
two
and
a
half
weeks
on
what
happened
in
session
and
then
looking
forward
to
next.
No,
so
we
want
to
thank
you
and
the
committee
and
all
members
of
council.
H
We
asked
to
come
over
several
times
and
make
phone
calls
and
emails,
and
we
really
appreciate
that,
and
we
appreciate
some
of
our
members,
like
customers
trader
for
a
couple
hours
and
walked
around
and
so
do
council
member
Johnson
you
were,
there
were
several
times.
That's
the
fine.
We
appreciate
that
in
a
council
president
was
there
and
we
will
call
upon
you
all
to
all
the
time
to
come
over.