►
From YouTube: June 16, 2021 Capital Long-Range Improvements Committee
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
jeffrey
strand,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
capital
long
range
improvements
committee.
Before
we
begin,
we
begin
I'd
like
to
note
that
this
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
0.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
B
C
A
D
A
E
A
B
Very
good,
so
we
have
a
quorum.
There
are
a
number
of
members
who
are
out
of
town
today.
One
member
has
a
conflict
with
her
met
council
appointment
meeting.
We
have
one
member
who's
out
ill,
but
we
still
have
a
quorum
so
with.
Thank
you
with
that.
We'll
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
or
limbs
which
is
available
at
lims.minneapolismn.gov
and
then
today,
for
the
adoption
of
the
agenda
and
acceptance
of
the
minutes
of
june
9
2021.
B
A
A
Thank
you
chair
and
just
a
note
from
the
clerk
we
did
have
some
members
join
since
the
roll
call
and
your
attendance
will
be
noted.
E
C
H
H
G
B
B
So
john
will,
with
staff,
lead
that
part
of
the
agenda
and
then
review
our
work
plan
for
the
next
two
meetings
june,
23rd
and
30th,
where
we'll
be
completing
the
net
debt
bond
and
other
funding
source
financial
recommendations
and
the
enterprise
funds
so
june,
30th
being
our
last
regular
meeting.
Typically,
we
will
have
a
social
gathering.
We
may
schedule.
Another
recap.
B
So
next
item,
then,
is
to
look
at
the
general
comments.
Member
eric
wan
has
kindly
agreed
that
the
comments
submitted
by
electronic
mail
9
57
a.m
today
will
be
referred
to
next
week.
So
we'll
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
june
23rd
top
of
the
agenda,
noting
that
the
your
chair
will
be
out
of
town
at
a
business
conference,
we'll
attempt
to
log
in,
but
it's
possible
that
if
I
can't
the
vice
chair,
willie
bridges
will
be
chairing
the
meeting.
I
There
we
go
okay,
all
right,
so
I
have
the
open
general
comments
pulled
up
to
the
front
in
this
document.
They
are
largely
in
order
of
submittal
at
this
point
and
jeff
if
it
pleases
the
chair,
I
can
go
through
and
just
name
each
of
the
comments
that
are
still
open
or
if
you'd
like
we
can
dive.
B
Yeah,
would
you
let's
just
dive
in
and
if
you
want
to
start
with
the
renewal
reforestation
along
with
so
do,
do
we
have
a
request
that
all
the
comments
be
read
at
the
outset,
the
first
as
we
go
through.
I
B
How
about
if
you
read
the
new
new
language
that
this
was
laid
over
for
action
to
really
add
the
underlying
verbiage
that
was
added
and
then
the
new
language?
So
robert,
do
you
want
to
read
the
the
what
was
added
on
june
8
and
then
the
new
proposed
so.
I
This
is
the
renew
reforestation
of
public
sector
properties
as
part
of
the
climate
action
plan
comment.
It
was
submitted
on
june,
2nd
and
left
open.
There
is
some
additional
language
that
was
appended
to
this
comment.
That
states
quote.
Reforestation
should
be
guided
by
intentional
tree
species
selection
and
placement.
That
is
mindful
about
avoiding
potential
future
impingement
on
current
and
potential
solar
collectors
for
electrical
generation,
which
would
lower
efficiency
and
affect
return
on
investment.
End
quote.
B
And
because
the
vice
chair
is
absent
along
with
the
other
author,
if
there's
no
objection,
I
will
take
the
unusual
step
of
moving
adoption
as
amended.
F
I
just
yeah
quick,
I
don't
want,
we
need
to
keep
moving
along,
so
this
one
looks
like
it
has
general
agreement,
and
I
I
generally
agree
with
the
comment
and
I'm
not
an
expert
on
this.
By
any
stretch
of
the
imagination,
I
just
get
a
little
bit
cautious
when
we
get
somewhat
prescriptive
in
that
new
language.
About
intentional.
First
of
all,
the
park
is
good
at
this
stuff.
F
They've
learned
for
lots
of
other
reasons
to
be
very
intentional
about
the
tree
species
that
they
use,
and
you
know
I
just
wonder
again,
not
an
expert
katie
and
some
other
people
might
know
better,
but
I
wonder
what
the
offset
is
with
having
a
tree
canopy
that
actually
shades
and
reduces
heat
versus
making
it
harder
to
place
on
solar
panels
in
places
where
there.
It
strikes
me
as
it's
a
balance
and
I'm
certainly
not
an
expert
on
it,
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
about
being
too
prescriptive.
K
B
E
I
am
kind
of
an
expert
on
this
and
you
know
the
park.
The
park
board
does
a
really
good
job
and
then
and
then
they
don't,
because
the
people
to
go
out
and
plant,
I
have
solar
panels.
I
know
katie
has
solar
panels.
I
was
as
war
chair
of
minnesota
renewable
energy
society
and
putting
up
solar
gardens.
You
would
be
surprised
how
much
the
tree
canopy
only
25
of
the
available
land
in
minnesota
is
even
ex
has
acceptable
solar
access
that
may
have
increased
now.
E
But
if
we're
going
to
beat
the
climate
crisis
being
able
to
generate
electricity
will
well
offset
any
heat
island
generation.
D
Yeah,
I
think
what
what
makes
this
okay
with
me
to
me
is
that
it
says
placement
that
is
mindful
about
these
things,
so
it's
still
kind
of
it.
It
provides
some
indication
of
the
value
that
we're
trying
to
indicate
here,
but
then
still
leans,
on
staff's
expertise.
L
H
B
John
okay,
if
there
aren't
any
other
questions,
the
clerk
can
call
a
roll.
L
I
Hi
steve
brantford,
sorry.
B
I
All
right
and
this
this
is
the
same
comment
from
the
june
2nd
meeting.
I
I
have
not
received
any
updates
or
alterations
to
this
one.
D
Yeah-
and
forgive
me,
I
think,
maybe
even
last
meeting
and
I'm
trying
to
keep
up
was,
did
someone
included
something
about
the
about
metrics
and
upkeep
of
bike
paths
in
a
different
comment,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
not
duplicating
something.
I
All
right
katie,
this
is
robert.
I
don't
think
I
can
confirm
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
could
do
a
quick
scan
through
if
that
helps.
While,
while
the
comment
is
discussed,.
F
My
recollection,
which
my
age,
maybe
nobody
should
put
any
faith
in,
I
don't
think
we
have
commented
on
that
somewhere
else.
The
only
other
thing
I
wanted
to
point,
I'm
very
supportive
of
this
I'd
love
to
see
something
in
there.
That
also
makes
it
clear
that
whatever
metric
they
use
should
be,
I
think
we
talked
about
this
before
should
take
into
consideration
other
modes
of
transportation
on
those
pads
other
than
just
bikes,
for
instance
rollerblading,
because
a
crack
for
a
bike
and
a
crack
for
somebody
on
a
rollerblade
could
have
a
very
different
impact.
F
B
G
I'm
sorry
page
17
you'll
find
the
comment
called
off
street
recreational
commuter
path,
assessment
and
rehabilitation.
Second,
from
the
bottom.
I
B
D
Yeah,
I
actually
think
that
this
this
gets
at
the
crux
of
of
what
my
comment
was
saying,
so
I
I
think
I'm
fine
removing
my
comment.
B
G
No,
I
think
steve
brandt
was
well.
I
I
had
some
input
but
steve
steve
brent
did
the
heavy
lifting
on.
F
B
It
without
objection,
then,
how
about
if
the
author
and
mover
and
seconder
don't
object,
then,
if
we
just
lay
this
over
for
action
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
next
week
and
see
if
you
can
incorporate
any
of
this
into
the
previously
adopted.
B
No
objection
noted
so
moving
on
to
next
one.
I
Yeah,
I
can,
I
can
go
ahead
and
read
it
out
for
the
this
is
the
the
comment
reads
as
follows:
the
unannounced
2021
redesign
of
its
transportation
and
planning
website
has
been
confusing
and
resulted
in
significant
difficulty
researching
projects
which
were
previously
more
accessible.
I
It
is
no
longer
possible
to
review
past
current
and
future
projects
by
program
and
reconstruction
year.
The
photo
gallery
mix
of
street
water
and
sewer
projects
with
a
word
search
function
to
find
a
specific
project.
It's
more
difficult
to
understand
what
public
works
is
doing
and
how
projects
interconnect
by
year
and
location.
I
The
new
project
template
has
not
transferred
important
documentation
previously
included
on
projects,
and
some
projects
included
by
click
are
yet
to
be
added.
Some
project
status
information
was
incorrectly
listed
and,
to
date
remains
uncorrected.
A
decade
of
relevant
public
works
information.
Previously,
google
searchable
is
no
longer
linked.
This
new
website
design
has
prioritized
style
over
substance
and
makes
public
works
operations
less
transparent
to
the
public.
It
is
understandable
that
the
kovid
19
pandemic
may
have
interfered
with
a
smoother
transition.
However,
public
works
in
the
city
need
to
prioritize
taking
corrective
actions
this
year.
I
To
restore
information
previously
available,
we
ask
that
public
works
gives
click
progress
report
in
2022
and
comment.
B
A
G
G
This
website
was
really
really
helpful
in
being
able
to
understand
what
had
been
accomplished.
What
is
on
deck
and
what
is
in
the
future,
and
it
happened
in
march
where
they
went
through
a
conversion
and
it
just
flattened
the
information
that
was
available,
and
I
was
just
surprised
by
it.
I
guess
five
years
ago
I
started
to
research,
the
transportation
department
and
learning
to
understand
it,
and
I
will
tell
you
that
today,
that
would
be
no
longer
possible.
I
gained
a
lot
by
just
taking
significant
efforts
to
understand.
B
J
C
J
G
J
A
J
I
Yep
very
gladly
this
is
on
parks
funding.
The
comment
reads
as
follows:
as
mprb
moves
to
accomplish
the
goals
laid
out
in
its
20-year
neighborhood
parts
plan,
click
wishes
to
be
as
knowledgeable
and
involved
in
the
p
and
the
funding
process
for
parks
as
possible
in
pursuit
of
this
goal,
click
with
ask
that
mprb
commit
to
educating
click
members
about
the
process
by
which
that
plan
will
be
accomplished
through
both
city
and
non-city
allocated
funds,
and
particularly
the
unique
funding
structure
of
parks
across
the
city.
B
There
isn't
a
author
noted:
does
someone
wish
to
move
this
for
adoption.
B
C
Yeah,
this
was
a
comment
that
eric
and
bill
graves,
and
I
worked
on
bill-
had
brought
a
comment
previously
about
kind
of
transparency
for
the
mprb
funding
process
and
ranking
procedure,
projects
which
he
may
want
to
speak
to
a
little
bit
more.
But
this
is
just
intended
to
kind
of
set
the
stage
for
us
to
be
able
to
act
more
intelligently
about
that.
If
that
is
something
that
we
decide
that,
we
would
like
to
write
a
future
comment
about,
because
I
think
it
is
something
that
would.
K
C
From
kind
of
further
explication
as
we
move
forward
so
rather
than
commenting
about
the
the
process
as
it
stands,
this
just
kind
of
sets
the
stage
for
us
to
be
able
to
be
more
informed
as
we
do
that
in
the
future.
F
Vote
no
on
this.
In
my
view,
the
park
board
over
the
last
well
since
adam
marvin
arvidsson
has
been
the
guy
who's,
been
our
the
presenter
for
us,
which
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
long
it's
been
it's
probably
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
three
to
five
years.
F
The
park
board
has
been
by
far
the
most
transparent
and
the
most
clear
about
their
process,
and
this
phrase
in
here
about
click
being
involved
in
the
funding
process.
I
find
to
be
inappropriate.
It's
not
our
job
to
be
involved
in
the
funding
process.
It's
our
job
to
make
recommendations
based
on
the
funding
that
that
any
department
requests
so
to
me
to
call
out
the
department,
that's
doing
the
best
job
and
ask
them
to
do
more.
F
M
Yeah,
thank
you.
So
I'm
wondering
john,
if
there's
language
change,
that
would
change
your
vote
from
a
yes
from
a
no
to
a
yes,
you
think,
particularly
the
the
language
around
approving
funds
versus
how
you
had
phrased
it.
If
that
language
was
changed,
would
that
change
your
position.
F
I
don't
think
so
because
of
the
last
thing
I
said,
I
mean
that
again,
it
is
just
my
personal
view.
The
park
board
is
actually
they've
gone
from
being
the
worst.
They
probably
have
to
go
back
10
to
15
years
ago
to
being
the
best
in
terms
of
the
information
they
provide
and
the
transparency
they
give
us
now,
while
we
may
want
more
asking
them
to
to
do
even
more
when
there's
other
departments
that
are
glaringly
worse
than
them
and
we're
not
making
a
comment
about
that.
F
D
Yeah,
I'm
wondering
if
the
crux
of
this
comment
is
really
trying
to
understand
the
the
non-city
allocated
funds,
because,
honestly
I
was,
I
was
a
little
confused.
Why?
Why,
like
with
the
first
part
of
the
comment
speaking,
I
mean
a
little
bit
to
john's
point.
It's
like,
I
do
feel
like
the
park
board,
is
pretty
pretty
open
about
the
process
of
how
they
they
make
decisions
with
their
funding
and
and
maybe
the
thing
that
is
least
known
and
that
we've
sort
of
talked
about
is
the
non-city
allocated
funds.
E
You
know
I
I
agree
with
katie,
because
this
I
mean
I
like
the
way
it
was
written
beforehand,
because
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
thinking
about
a
lot
is
the
fact
of
these
non-city
allocated
funds,
and
I
know
it
was
mentioned
that
we
don't
want
to
dissuade
that
and
that
those
assets
that
are
purchased
with
non-city
allocated
funds
are
then
used
as
an
asset.
E
Basically
against
that
part
getting
something
else,
but
one
of
the
things
that
that
I
think
that
this
non-silly
non-city
allocated
funds
in
combination
with
city
funds
is
all
about
is,
for
instance,
if
somebody
say
in
a
in
south
minneapolis
donated
money
to
build
an
olympic-sized
pool
with
their
own
money,
upkeep
and
everything
the
inequality
lies,
yeah,
they
have
a
pool
and
it
was
donated,
but
the
fact
remains:
north
minneapolis
doesn't
have
an
olympic-sized
pool,
no
matter
how
much
that
asset
is
graded
against
future
investment
in
that
park.
E
C
Yeah-
and
I
would
just
I
mean
comments
that
this
is
in
no
way
meant
to
be
any
kind
of
a
reprimand
to
the
park
board,
but
I
do
think
it
is
relatively
indisputable
and
I
I'm
a
first-year
member
and
and
we
do
rank
park
projects,
so
we
do
take
part
in
the
way
they
are
funded.
C
C
So
the
intent
here
is
both
to
kind
of
highlight
the
the
mix
of
funding
that
the
parks
receive,
but
also
to
because
I
I
talked
to
adam-
and
I
talked
to
you,
john
and
I
thought
a
lot
of
what
you
said,
persuasive
about
the
fact
that
we
want
to
ensure
that
parks
funding
is
progressive
within
the
city,
and
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
parks
receive
as
much
funding
as
possible
and
and
effectively
make
use
of
private
funds
when
they
are
able
to
do
so.
C
So
I
think
it
is
important
to
get
that
whole
picture
just
to
be
effective
members
of
of
this
council,
so
so
that's
the
intent
of
this
is
is
to
be
able
to
make
these
decisions
with
with
kind
of
a
holistic
understanding
of
how
the
parks
process
works.
So
that's
my
comment
on
that.
A
F
I
just
quickly
say
that
my
previous
comments
apply
to
the
second
part.
B
Thanks
john,
so
I'll
go
I'd
like
to
go
next,
I
had
been
in
queue,
I
understand
and
empathize
with
newer
members,
and
I
think
that
the
park
board
has
a
complex
equity
formula
and
for
the
regular
recurring
turnover
that
occurs
on
click,
it's
probably
necessary
for
them
to
go
over
their
plan
in
detail
every
year.
B
In
fact,
the
park
board
process
is
was
cited
in
the
racial
equity
training
in
my
organization.
So
I
think
the
intent.
I
can
see
the
intent
of
the
comment,
and
I
just
maybe
it's
just
it's
not
criticizing
the
park
board.
It's
just
saying
that,
because
we
have
onboarding
of
new
members
in
the
information
that
is
a
fairly
complex
equity
formula
or
schema
that
it
may
be
necessary
simply
to
review
it
in
detail
annually.
L
G
Brant
votes
no
as
well.
I
think
I
was
having
phone
troubles,
I'm
in
an
airport.
H
B
G
E
B
We
also
have
notice
the.
B
Okay,
so
am
I
looking
at
a
newer
version
here,
robert?
So
we
have
one
more
yes,
so
we.
B
Let's
move
to
that,
I
just
want
to
say
that
we
have
general
comment
on
american
jobs
plan
general
budget
process,
so
we
will
have
to
have
at
some
time.
We
always
need
to
have
some
text,
obviously
some
body,
an
idea
without
any
wording
to
back
it
in
a
report
that
is
written,
doesn't
really
work
in
our
case.
B
I
I'll
gladly
do
so.
I
do
know
one
hand
up
right
now.
I
So
this
is
a
general
comment
on
climate
change.
The
comment
reads
as
follows:
areas
where
climate
change
is
used,
it
should
refer
to
the
city
of
minneapolis
resolution
number
2019,
r-422
or
current
updated
resolution
quote
declaring
that
there
is
a
climate
emergency
which
demands
a
massive
scale
mobilization
to
halt,
reverse
and
address
its
consequences
and
causes
of
climate
change.
End
quote
by
using
quote
climate
change.
End
quote
rather
than
internationally
acknowledged,
quote
climate
emergency
end
quote:
it
diminishes
the
actuality
of
our
current
situation
and
comment.
B
F
F
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
ethnicity
of
the
content
of
the
comment
it
has
to
do
with
the
appropriateness
of
the
content
within
the
context
of
click,
comment,
addresses
climate
change
and
has
no
reference
to
a
specific
project
projects
generally
or
anything
else.
This
is
about
somebody's
view
about
policy,
as
it
relates
to
climate
change.
F
We're
all,
of
course,
welcome
to
have
our
opinions
about
that,
but
this
is
not
the
venue
to
to
be
espousing
those
views.
It's
up
to
the
elected
officials
to
to
do
that,
and
then
we
make
recommendations
based
on
the
policies
they
set.
B
Thank
you
as
a
courtesy,
recognized
katrina.
E
This
is
not
about
when
people
submit
the
reports,
it's
about
using
the
correct
language
that
the
city
has
made
a
resolution
about
and
in
their
project
proposals.
They
all
use
the
language
of
climate
change,
since
the
city
has
declared
a
climate
emergency.
This
is
about
changing
the
language
each
one
of
these
projects
uses-
and
I
think,
by
changing
the
language
and
using
the
language
from
the
resolution,
will
have
a
different
impact.
When
you
read
the
project
proposals,
that's
why
I
submitted
this
nothing
to
do
with
anything
other
than
language
in
their
documents.
D
Yeah,
I
I
think
that
there
is
a
way
to
make
this
work.
I
mean
to
katrina,
I
think,
there's
what
katrina
just
said.
I
don't
think
fully
comes
through
in
the
comment
that,
and
so
it
could
be
revised
to
recommend
that
staff
use
the
city
approved.
You
know
recognizing
the
city
approved
resolution
and
recognize
that
that
should
be
used
when
creating
policy
proposals
or
project
proposals.
B
And
is
there
anyone
who
wishes
to
speak
for
a
first
time
on
this
issue?
If
not
I'll
recognize?
Oh
wait,
we'll
have
rich
and
then
john
and
then
katrina.
H
This
is
rich.
I
didn't
get
to
see
this
until
just
today.
I
guess
it
was
included
in
the
email
that
was
shared
with
us.
Was
that
today,
or
was
that
yesterday?
H
In
any
case,
I
just
went
to
the
resolution
and
read
it,
and
they
do
in
fact
use
the
language
climate
emergency,
but
there
was
no
directive
of
any
kind
to
do
so
in
other
documentation
or
submittals.
So
when
I
read
this
the
first
time,
it
implied
that
using
climate
emergency
was
a
specific
directive.
H
I
don't
think
that's
the
case.
They
used
it
for
their
declaration,
but
there
seemed
to
be
no
specific
requirement
for
other
departments
to
need
to
use
it.
L
Yeah,
I
think
I
I
think
I
agree
with
much
of
the
intent
of
this
proposal
around
you
know,
asking
that
departments
refer
to
you
know,
use
the
language
of
climate
emergency
where
appropriate.
I
think
something
about
this
that
doesn't
sit
quite
right
for
me
is
sort
of
suggesting
that
we,
you
know,
like
semantics
sort
of
plug
in
climate
emergency
instead
of
climate
change
in
the
language
that
we
use.
L
I
don't
think
that
always
makes
sense
just
from
the
like
sort
of
verbiage
perspective
and
I
think,
there's
plenty
of
places
where
it
is
appropriate
to
refer
to
climate
change
rather
than
the
climate
emergency,
so
that
I
I
I
think
this
feels
a
little
too
prescriptive
to
me
in
that
way.
However,
I
think
a
comment
sort
of
encouraging
references
to
the
climate
emergency
and
this
this
policy
I
feel
generally
okay,.
L
I
Folks,
I'll
recogni,
I
just
want
to
call
out
that
john
is
in
queue
to
speak
jeff.
I
think
you
might
be
on
mute
right
now.
B
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
I
must
have
yeah
john
and
then
katrina.
F
I
I
stand
by
my
comments.
I
I
I,
the
cbrs
that
we
get
from
the
departments
have
tremendous
number
of
deficiencies
from
the
lack
of
data
to
imprecise
language,
and
I
just
you
know
calling
out
this
specific
thing
and
nothing
else
again,
whether
it's
direct
or
indirect.
This
is
about
trying
to
make
a
statement
about
a
policy
and
a
view
of
a
policy,
even
if
it's
indirect-
and
I
think
it's
not
appropriate
for
us
to.
E
E
It's
it's
just
going
by
making
sure
that
people
are
recognizing
that
there
isn't
a
client,
a
climate
emergency
and,
as
you
go
through
and
read
the
proposals
you
can
see
where
the
language
can
be
where
climate
emergency
can
be
used
and
climate
change
should
be
used.
So
I
I
agree
with
both
of
the
katie
and
I
forget
who
else
made
the
other
comment,
but
I
agree
with.
E
N
M
H
G
D
J
E
J
A
J
B
I
B
So
now
we
have
moving
on
to
number
five
on
the
agenda
based
on
click
ratings.
Look
at
preliminary
net
debt,
bonding
20,
22,
27
funding
recommendations.
So
we
we've
had
a
collaborative
effort
the
past
week
and
the
chair
will
call
upon
our
member
john
bernstein
and
the
staff
to
handle
this,
and
I
want
to
thank
you,
john,
for
your
stepping
up
and
working
with
finance
and
property
services
on
this
complicated
subject,
to
help
make
it
clear
for
click
members
and
for
the
staff
for
your
willingness
to.
F
Thanks
jeff
robert,
can
you
share
the
spreadsheet.
I
Sure
give
me
just
a
moment
to
to
bring
up
the
spreadsheet
here.
F
Sure,
while
you
do
that,
I'm
going
to
make
some
general
comments
about
what
we're
about
to
do
and
if
people
have
questions,
I'm
happy
to
take
them
and
where
I
can
defer
to
staff
where
I
can
so.
We've
got
two
sort
of
broad
categories
of
funding.
F
F
The
revenues
that
are
raised
from
providing
water
to
city
residents
are
used
two
ways:
they
can
directly
take
the
fees
that
they
collect
and
invest
those
in
capital
projects,
or
they
can
borrow
money
and
pay
the
debt
service.
F
On
that
that
the
money
that
they
borrow
using
those
same
revenues
that
they
get
from
fees
that
they
collect
for
water
usage
and
that's
the
only
way
that
can
be
used
so
when
we
look
at
something
like
water
projects,
that's
solely
funded
by
water
revenues,
whether
it's
direct
revenues
or
debt,
that's
raised
and
then
serviced
by
those
same
water
revenues,
it's
generally
a
split
between
between
those
two
things,
and
so
those
are
in
some
sense
a
little
bit
easier
to
to
deal
with,
because
they
generally
tend
to
ask
for
things
that
all
we
really
need
to
look
at
is
well
what's
the
imp,
if,
if
they
do,
if
we
give
them
everything
they're
asking
for
how
much
debt
are
they
raising
to
do
that?
F
And
what
does
that
mean
for
rates
over
the
next
five
or
ten
years
for
water
users?
And
if
that
all
seems
okay,
it's
pretty
simple.
We
go
from
there.
So
what's
unique
and
a
little
bit
different
about
this
is
there's
no
set
budget
where
they're
saying
here's
the
budget
for
water
and
this
you
got
to
fit
it
into
this.
That's
separate
and
distinct
from
net
debt
bonds.
F
The
elected
officials
have
given
a
budget
for
each
year
for
net
debt
bonds
in
the
six
year
total,
and
so
that's
what
we
have
to
work
with
you'll
see
those
numbers
on
the
spreadsheet
in
a
minute,
and
once
we
hit
those
numbers,
if
we
go
over
them,
we're
effectively
telling
them
to
spend
more
money
than
they
plan
to
spend,
which
would
not
be
an
effective
use
of
what
we
do
here.
F
You
know
outside
of,
if
we
really
had
an
issue
with
that
in
my
15
years,
we've
never
that's,
never
really
been
where
we've
gone
with
this
we've,
let
that
be
the
job
of
the
policy
makers
and
we've
worked
with
the
resources
that
they've
set
that
got
a
little
bit
more
complicated
a
few
years
ago,
when
the
parks
and
streets
ordinance
came
out.
That
is
very
prescriptive
about
the
amount
of
money
that
needs
to
be
spent
each
year
on
parks
and
streets.
F
Now
we
have
to
pay
attention
to
making
sure
that
the
streets,
ordinance
and
the
parks
ordinance
gets
met.
Otherwise
we
could
opt
not
to
do
that,
but
if
they've
got
an
ordinance,
it
says
they've
got
to
spend
30
million
on
streets
and
we
give
them
a
recommendation
that
spends
10
million
on
streets.
It's
probably
not
going
to
be
very
effective
right
because
they're
going
to
have
to
go
back
in
and
say,
look
we've
got
an
ordinance
to
meet
here.
F
So
for
us
to
be
effective,
we
need
to
give
them
a
recommendation
that
deals
with
all
of
the
projects
that
balances
out
what
they've
allocated
for
net
debt
bonds
and
also
balances
out
what
their
is
prescribed
by
the
parks
and
streets
ordinance.
So
the
sheet
that
is
now
up
that
you
can
see.
If
you
look
at
the
very
top
of
the
sheet,
there's
a
small
section
there
in
columns
z
through
af,
so
those
are
showing
us
based
on
what's
currently
making
the
cutoff,
where
we're
at
on
both
total
ndp
funding
and
also
street
funding.
F
So
this
is
using
a
ranking
cutoff
of
157.
Any
project
that
got
collectively
more
than
157
points
is
in
doing
that.
If
you
look
at
the
total
we're
12
over
on
the
funding
on
the
net
debt
bond
funding
that
the
city
has
set
set
for
the
next
six
years
now
within
that
12
percent,
you
can
see
by
year
that
there's
some
pretty
big
variations
we're
under
by
so
we
we've
got
more
projects.
F
That's
probably
not
the
best
use
of
our
time,
because
they're
going
to
make
adjustments
to
this
and
getting
it
exactly
to
zero
the
amount
of
time
it
would
take
for
us
to
mess
around
with
it
and
do
that,
it's
just
not
worth
it.
What
we
should
do
is
get
it
to
something
fairly
reasonable
which
to
my
line
of
thinking
is
overall
in
the
six
years
that
number
ought
to
be
under
plus
or
minus
ten
percent
and
for
any
individual
year
it
ought
to
be
under
five
plus
or
minus
five
percent.
F
Ideally
it
should
be
pretty
tight
in
years
like
2022
and
2023.
You
know
maybe
within
two
percent
there
and
a
little
wider
in
the
out
years
and
then
something
similar
to
that
so
above.
That
is
how
we're
doing
on
the
street
funding
and,
ironically,
for
the
first
time
ever,
we're
way
over
on
street
funding,
they've
finally
been
able
to
catch
up
and,
as
everybody's
seen,
there's
a
tremendous
number
of
paving
projects
in
here
and
apparently
at
157.
We
have
more
than
enough
in
there
to
to
cover
this.
F
I
don't
think,
there's
to
my
line
of
thinking
and
someone
correct
can
correct
me
if
they
think
differently.
I
don't
think
there's
any
issues
with
us
being
way
over
on
street
funding.
It
would
be
an
issue
for
us
to
be
under,
so
I
don't
think
we
just
because
it's
over,
I
don't
think
we
necessarily
have
to
cut
that
back
at
the
same
time,
if
there's
some
big
projects
that
have
just
missed
and
by
cutting
out
some
street
paving
projects
that
are
also
close
to
the
line,
we
can
get
some
other
stuff
done.
D
I
Yes,
so
katie,
here's
where
we're
showing
yeah
it's
a
high
level
summary
we
have
this
over
here
as
well.
That's
you
know
that
summary
up.
There
is
kind
of
drawing
from
a
little
bit
more
of
a
detailed
breakdown
table
that
we
can
share
out
following
this
meeting.
So
members
have,
you
know,
have
all
the
same
information
and
kind
of
see
how
we,
how
we
calculate
out
whether
we're
over
or
under
the
ordinance
here.
G
G
H
Yeah
also
quick
question:
I
see
exactly
what
john
has
presented
and
john
unless
there
was
something
significant
to
add.
You've
probably
looked
at
this
already.
Are
there
in
fact,
a
couple
of
projects
that
are
clustered
together
that
could
take
away
from
2026
2027
and
add
them
to
2024
2025.
F
So
I
haven't
looked
at
it
in
a
lot
of
detail,
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
trying
to
be
a
very
neutral
presenter
here
and
not
take
advantage
of
what
I'm
doing
to
try
to
push
one
project
or
another.
I,
as
all
of
you,
know
and
aware,
I
have
strong
opinions
about
things
and
I
speak
up
when
we're
doing
comments.
I
I
feel
like
that
would
be
inappropriate
here.
F
My
job
here
is
to
facilitate
and
help
everybody
understand
how
this
works
so
the
next
step
for
us,
so
we've
used
157
as
a
cut
off,
and
if
you
look
up
above
you
can
see
that
puts
us
12
percent
over
robert
will.
You
change
that
to
158
and
everybody
just
watch
what
happens
to
those
numbers
up
at
the
top
of
the
page
when
he
changes
that
to
158
so
by
cutting
out
any
project
by
one
point:
we're
now
underfunded
by
three
percent
and
we're
balanced
in
2022..
F
F
Specifically
we'd
have
to
go
in
and
look
our
next,
so
our
job
now
for
the
rest
of
the
time
we've
got,
is
to
go
through
and
ideally
look
at
the
projects
that
are
near
that
line
above
or
below
and
decide
what
to
put
in
or
take
out
to
get
those
bottom
line
numbers
on
net
that
bond
funding
to
balance
a
little
bit
better
than
they
are
right.
Now
we're
at
this
level
we're
great
in
2022
and
we're
great
on
the
total.
But
we
got
some
work
to
do
in
2024,
2025
and
2027.
F
B
You
have
let's
look
at
amelia
and
eric
sorry.
N
Okay,
yeah,
I
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
the
the
parks
issue
a
little
bit,
but
if,
if
you
want
to
keep
walking
through
this
spreadsheet,
that's
fine
or
if
now's
a
good
time
to
talk
about
it,.
N
Okay,
great
so
the
the
parks
and
streaks
ordinance
is
is
a
tricky
one,
and
I
want
to
just
call
out
that
this
line
row
number
two
includes
all
of
the
funding
that
we're
doing
on
streets
types
projects.
So
it
includes
special
assessments
and
our
state
aid
dollars
and
robert.
Maybe
could
you
scroll
over
to
the
breakdown
of
those
there?
We
go.
N
And
so
robert,
please
correct
me
if
I
get
any
of
this,
not
quite
right,
but
this
is
showing
or
when
we're
talking
about
the
parks
and
streets
ordinance.
The
way
you'll
hear
public
works
discuss
it
is,
they
think
about
general
fund
and
net
debt
bond
spending.
N
First,
they
think
about
the
base
spending
that
they
were
doing
on
streets
before
the
ordinance
was
passed,
which
I
think
is
about
eight
million
dollars
and
then
there's
the
prescribed
amount
that
is
required
to
be
added
each
year
as
a
part
of
the
ordinance
and
those
are
the
dollars
that
typically
public
works
will
track
to
say
this
is
how
we're
meeting
the
ordinance
or
not
then
msa
and
any
other
federal
dollars
or
anything
else,
are
added
on
top
of
that
to
give
a
fuller
picture
of
the
dollar
spent
on
streets,
but
when
public
works
is
is
tracking
the
ordinance
and
when
they're
asked
about,
are
we
meeting
that
ordinance
they're,
really
just
looking
at
the
the
general
fund
cash
or
bond
proceed
sources
for
that,
so
getting
so
being
able
to
answer
that
question
about?
N
Are
we
really
meeting
the
the
ordinance
requires
a
little
bit
more
analysis
which
we
are
happy
to
do
and
if
you
guys
are
interested
in
sort
of
getting
public
works
point
of
view
on
on
wherever
you're
landing.
I'm
happy
to
facilitate
that
as
well,
but
I
just
wanted
to
bring
out
that
nuance
and
say
that
we
need
to
do
a
little
bit
more
digging
to
be
able
to
make
that
sort
of
stamp
of
approval.
We've
met
the
ordinance
or
not.
I
just
wanted
to
call
that
out.
At
the
beginning.
F
That's
a
I'll
just
point
out
that
that's
a
bit
of
a
change
from
what
public
works
has
communicated
to
us
in
the
past.
What
we've
always
talked
about
with
them,
or
what
they've
always
talked
about
with
us
is
what's
listed,
there
is
qualified
funds,
so
that's
net
debt
bonds.
Plus
these
other
categories,
and
it's
one
of
the
important
thing
to
note
that
we've
never
done
is
we
don't
go
into
projects
and
say:
let's
change
around
the
source
of
funds
for
this
project.
F
F
So
in
that
sense,
if
we're
not
messing
around
with
trying
to
favor
using
a
certain
source
of
funds
over
another
source
of
funds,
we're
letting
the
the
departments
make
those
decisions
because
they
have
the
information
to
do
that.
The
one
minor
exception
to
that
it's
not
around
sources,
so
much
is
when
we
get
to
balancing
this
thing.
There
may
be
a
few
places
where
we'll
do
something
like
change
around
the
years
that
they're
asking
for
it.
Not
we
don't
like
doing
it,
but
sometimes
that's
the
only
way
we
can
get
something
to
balance
reasonably.
F
The
other
thing
we've
done
sometimes
is
partially
fund.
Something.
But
again
when
we
do
that,
we
don't
go
in
and
look
at
sources.
We
say
you're
asking
for
8
million.
We
think
you
ought
to
have
6
million.
We
don't
say
what
sources
that
ought
to
come
from
and
those
things
are
rare,
but
they
do
happen.
Sometimes.
D
And
and
john
typically
on
those,
we
only
do
that
within
programs
and
not
projects.
So
it's
usually
within
like
a
paving
program,
because
you
know
a
project
has
has
a
defined
scope,
and
so,
if
we
take
money
out
of
there,
that
could
likely
blow
up
the
whole
project.
Whereas
a
program
has
a
bunch
of
smaller
projects
within
it.
F
Yeah
examples
I
can
think
of
are
a
really
really
big
project
in
terms
of
dollars.
In
out
years,
we
might
cut
back
some
of
the
funding.
It
actually
needs
just
to
make
things
balanced.
Now
you
could
argue,
maybe
that's
not
what
we
ought
to
do,
but
it's
something
that
has
happened
in
the
past
and
we've
also
changed
around
timing
for
the
typical
things
like
bridges
and
fire
department,
fire
stations
and
police
stations,
things
that
are
really
big
dollars
and
tend
to
draw
net
debt
bonds.
F
J
Okay,
there
are
two
parts
to
my
question.
The
first
is
john:
could
you
refresh
my
memory
at
the
beginning
of
this
quick
year?
We
met
with
the
mayor
and
the
council,
and
you
had
a
general
comment
regarding
net
debt
bonds
and
a
problem
that
they
created
last
year.
In
terms
of
estimates,
I
don't
recall
what
the
statement
was,
but
it
stuck
with
me
as
being
important.
J
That's
number
one
and
number
two
is
backlogs
project
backlogs
public
works
has
expressed
that
they
have
backlogs,
which,
which
means
to
me
at
least
in
terms
of
net
debt
bonds,
that
we
don't
go
out
there
to
look
for.
We,
we
don't
go
out
there
to
borrow
the
money
or
to
issue
bonds
until
we
actually
have
a
project,
that's
ready
to
be
moved
forward.
F
I'll
take
a
stab
at
both
of
those
and
then
it's
familiar.
Somebody
else
can
connect
with
them
as
well.
I
think
what
you're
referring
to
the
comment
you're
referring
to
is
last
year.
They
gave
us
this
net
debt
bond
budget
back
in
february
of
2020.
So,
as
everybody
recalls
that's
before
the
pandemic,
they
never
updated
that
for
us
and
our
click
cycle
didn't
end
until
september
last
year,
because
of
but
we
never
got
an
update
from
them.
They
never
updated
it.
F
F
Somebody
like
me,
you
could
probably
answer
that
better
than
me
on
your
second
question
to
me:
that's
all
about
backlog
and
that's
by
specific
project.
I
don't
know,
there's
a
way
to
answer
it
overall,
but
that's
the
authorized
funds
that
haven't
been
spent
yet
but
again
so
people
as
I
understand
it,
bonds
don't
get
issued
and
money
sits
in
the
bank
and
waits
three
years
for
a
project
to
happen,
bonds
get
authorized
and
when
they're
ready
to
roll,
then
they
issue
the
bonds.
F
So
these
backlogs
of
money
is
not
money
sitting
in
a
bank
doing
nothing
that
they're
paying
interest
on
it's.
It's
money,
that's
been
authorized
to
be
spent
that
has
not
yet
been
spent.
So
the
problem
with
that
from
our
perspective,
is
that
it's
it's
it's
taking
up
space
right.
So
if
there's
another
project,
that's
ready
to
go
that
that
if
you
authorized
it
they'd
issue
the
debt
and
get
going
on
it.
You
know
that
money,
that's
sitting
there
in
projects
that
are
behind
or
are
taking
up
some
of
that
space.
I
So
we
do
some
of
that
sweeping
through
of
of
what
resources
have
been
allocated
out
versus
what
resources
are
actually
being
used
before
we
come
into
this
year's
process,
and
I
think
anybody
who's
been
deeply
involved
in
a
large
rolling
capital
program
knows
that
that's
you
know
it's
a
never-ending
process
and
you
have
to
really
you
have
to
approach
it
really
holistically,
but
we
do
try
and
go
back
through
and
sweep
up
those
appropriations
to
john's
point.
I
I
So
I
did
want
to
you
know
just
kind
of
jump
in
and
point
that
out.
You
know
we're
already
starting
to
get
really,
I
think,
maybe
not
really
in
the
weeds,
but
we're
starting
to
get
a
little
bit
in
the
weeds
on
what
this
process
is
looking
like.
I
So
I
didn't
want
to
just
take
a
step
back
and
affirm
we're
kind
of
looking
at
what
we
view
as
our
flexible
funding
sources
right
now,
we're
looking
at
our
net
debt
bonding
levels,
we're
really
focusing
on
projects
that
all
are
making
bids
to
use
the
city's
net
debt
bonds.
I
We
have
some
published
levels
this
year,
as
john
referred
to
of
what
we
think
the
city
can
maintain
in
terms
of
net
debt
bonds,
with
some
slight
increases
over
time,
really
to
attempt
to
account
for
inflationary
increases
over
time
really
high
level
and
to
date
we
don't
have
a
significant
update
to
what
those
net
debt
bond
resources
are.
So
what
we
published
out
there
starts
at
about
51
52
million
dollars
a
year,
and
it
grows
over
time.
I
Those
are
the
net
debt
bonds
that
we
can
leverage
this
year
and
that
we're
asking
click
to
help
program
to
fully
program
those
net
debt
bonds
this
year,
so
that
we
can
so
we
can
recommend
a
capital
improvement
program
to
the
mayor's
office
and
to
do
that,
we
we
use
this
spreadsheet.
I
We
try
and
produce
some
summary
information
for
click
members
to
use
to
kind
of
help
understand
how
those
rankings
really
affect
these
projects
and
we
can
go
through.
You
know
individual
projects,
you
know,
as
click
members,
make
motions
or
little
discussions
on
how
to
change
the
the
net
depth
or
how
to
change
the
programming.
That's
really
where
we
are
in
the
process
and
then,
as
john
mentioned,
you
know
we'll
go
through
the
enterprise
funds
at
a
later
date.
We
kind
of
hold
those
hold
those
separate
I
wanted
to
sweep
back
through.
F
I
F
So
let
me
just
jump
in
here
and
and
close
and
and
we've
got
45
minutes
left.
I
think
we
probably
need
to
start
getting
getting
to
it.
I
would
suggest
that
what
we
do
now
is
again,
like
I
said,
start
going
through
this
by
section.
So
we
look
at
bike
projects
and
we
look
at
bridges.
Maybe
we'll
do
a
quick
overview
first
and
try
to
decide
what
to
put
in
or
take
out
to
get
this
to
balance
a
little
bit
better.
F
There's
one
formatting
difference
this
year
that
I
think
everybody
will
be
well
served
if
you
are
able
to
pull
up
or
print
the
ranking
sheet
that
neil
sorry
that
justin
distributed
this
morning,
so
that
you're
able
to
see
quickly,
for
instance,
within
the
park
board,
the
the
project's
buy
rank.
So
you
can
quickly
find
the
project.
Well,
that's
a
bad
example,
because
the
lowest
ranked
park
product
project
is
161,
so
they're
all
in,
but
if
you
for
some
of
these
other,
let's
take
public
grounds,
so
the
cutoff
is
at
158.
F
If
you
could
put
that
back
robert,
so
psd
25
just
misses
at
152,
so
we
can
start
having
a
discussion
about
which
projects
we
might
want
to
add
in
or
take
out
or
whatever
so
I'll,
stop
there
and
turn
this
back
to
jeff.
B
Thank
you,
john.
Before
I
go
to
katie,
the
staff
also
had
a
short
powerpoint.
Since
we
have
15
minutes
left
in
this
segment,
would
it
be
useful
to
at
least
just
walk
through
the
three-page
powerpoint?
That
gives
a
high
level
of
what
we'll
be
doing
next,
with
the
spreadsheet
data
that
has
been
organized
and
then
also
john
in
terms
of
the
157
projects,
nbc
13
4th
street
sidewalk
exterior
light
poles
was
one.
B
B
I
guess
I
repeated
those,
so
the
members
have
just
received
this
today.
It's
pretty
fresh
and
along
with
the
ratings,
so
whatever
the
members
wish
to
do,
they
want
to
jump
in
and
and
say,
we'll
go
with
158
versus
157
and
start
the
the
work.
Then
I
would
anticipate
for
the
next
meeting.
People
would
come
with
with
motions
and
rationale
for
saying
I
want
to
change
this
cbr
project
or
I
want
to
add
or
delete.
So
that's
how
this
process
has
worked
in
the
past
80.
D
I
No,
that
spreadsheet
has
not
been
sent
out
yet,
nor,
I
think,
a
summary
of
what
like
the
158
ranking,
would
do,
because
we,
I
think
we
have
the
option
to
send
out
both
the
spreadsheet,
as
well
as
a
more
simplified
version,
recognizing
that
the
spreadsheet
can
take
some
time
to
get
familiar
with.
But
some
members
may
just
like
to
look
through
the
the
program
and
say
yep,
it's
very
clear
which
ones
you
know
we'd
like
to
add
or
not
add
to
the
program.
D
F
If
we
need
to
do
something
like
that,
I
don't
think
we
need
30
minutes
for
that,
and
I
think
our
time
would
be
better
spent
right
now,
even
if
people
aren't
ready
to
dive
in
and
start
making
motions
at
least
going
through
this
program
by
program
and
pointing
out
so
people
can
see
you
know
what
project
just
missed
the
off
and
what
project
just
made
the
cutoff.
So
we
can
start
to
think
thoughtfully
about
what
we
want
to
add
in
or
take
out.
J
Raised
a
request
for
john
john:
could
you
throw
us
a
few
examples
here
on
how
to
look
at
it?
For
example,
911
fell
below
the
line
at
152.
J
This
is
for
new
people
here,
so
one
possibility
is.
We
could
say
that
9-1-1
is
is
important
enough
to
pull
up
is.
Is
that
an
example
that
we
could
give
people.
F
F
F
So
we
can
add
that
one
in
that's
not
going
to
help
anything
because
we're
already
at
zero
we're
balanced
in
2022.
That
doesn't
mean
we
shouldn't
add
it
and
at
150
000.
You
know
it's
barely
going
to
change
that.
So
if
people
feel
strongly
that's
a
project
we
ought
to
put
in,
we
can
put
it
in
that's
not
going
to
move
our
numbers
much!
F
F
That's
going
to
change
the
numbers
a
lot
more
meaningfully,
because
that's
3.6
million
in
2024,
where
we're
under
by
12
million,
so
that
would
take
about
a
quarter
of
the
under
funding
out.
If
we
were
to
add
that
project
in
but
at
the
same
time
it
misses
by
a
fair
amount
and
there's
a
project
just
below
that
nbc
12,
it's
actually
scores
higher.
The
problem
with
that
one,
as
you
see,
is
that's
going
to
put
us
over
in
20
it'll
help
2023
2024
2025,
but
it's
going
to
put
us
over
in
2022..
F
So
this
is
where
this
starts
to
get
tricky
and
where
sometimes
we
end
up
having
to
say
push
things
out
a
year
or
don't
fund
it
quite
as
much
in
a
given
year.
We,
this
is
where
we
will
shift
around
funding
by
year
to
get
things
to
balance,
or
it
could
be
that
two
and
a
half
million
dollars
over
in
2022
is
still
within
our.
If
it's
under
five
percent,
we-
maybe
we
don't
worry
about
it-.
M
Thank
you
as
I'm
new
to
this
committee,
I'm
wondering
if.
L
M
Or
or
anyone
else
could
share
kind
of
historic
lenses
by
which
you've
undergone
this
rebalancing
process?
Do
you
look
at
you
know.
City-Wide
impact
make
sure
that
parts
of
the
city
aren't
overly
balanced.
Do
you
look
across?
You
know
different
divisions.
What
have
you
done
historically
come
from
a
holistic
perspective
to
inform
some
of
those
decisions.
F
So,
I'm
speaking,
I
I
don't.
I
think
my
answer
is
going
to
be
personal,
because
I
don't
know
that
there's
any
other
way
to
do
it.
So
if
jeff
wants
to
share
his
view,
that's
fine
too.
My
sense
at
this
point
is
we
largely
defer
to
the
scores,
because
those
are
the
scores
of
the
entire
committee.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
give
those
a
lot
of
respect
and
some
of
the
the
criteria
that
you
just
cited
should
be
reflected
in
the
scores,
whether
you
agree
with
it
or
not.
F
That's
what
the
committee's
come
up
with
that's,
not
to
say
that
we
only
fund
the
next
ones
down
in
a
very
linear
fashion.
Sometimes
we
do
jump
down
a
little
bit
further.
Maybe
it's
because
it
seems
like
a
good
project.
It
missed
for
whatever
reason
and
it
helps
with
our
funding.
We
don't
we
don't
do
things
like
you
know
when
the
cut-off
is
158.
We
don't
fund
things
that
are
at
hundred,
but
we
might
fund
something
that's
at
145
and
not
fund,
something
that's
at
150.
B
F
B
So
it's
a
point
well
taken
by
john
that
we
don't
need
the
full
half
hour
just
to
talk
about
the
work
plan
for
the
next
two
meetings,
but
basically
did
staff
have
the
powerpoint?
Did
you
want
to
just
walk
through
that
yeah
I
can.
I
can
give
it
and
then
we
can.
I
think
john's
suggestion
was
a
good
one
to
just
walk.
B
You
know
hold
off
on
motions
today,
because
everybody's
fresh,
nobody
had
an
insider
view
and
noodle
noodle
the
spreadsheet
that
you'll
be
receiving
and
come
prepared
for
digging
into
the
hard
work
at
the
next
meeting.
D
Jeff,
if
I
can
just
I
had
another
thing
to
answer,
bill's
question
that
came
to
mind-
was
that
especially
given
a
requirement
now
for
funding
streets
and
parks,
and
now
that
there's
especially
that
they're
over
allocated
yeah
that
you
know
can
take
away
from
other
needs
of
the
city
like
when
you're
talking
about
balancing
between
the
different
departments.
N
I
just
wanted
to
say
real
quick.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
clear.
I
think.
If
we
went
to
public
works
with
that
list,
they
would
not
say
they're
over
allocated
compared
to
the
ordinance
funding.
So
I
think
that
that
needs
to
be
pulled
apart,
a
little
bit
more
and,
as
I
said,
I'm
happy
to
to
sort
of
be
a
live
on
with
our
public
works
department
and
bring
them
in
as
needed.
F
D
It
well
and
that
kind
of
gets
to
another
complication
in
a
way,
because
I
mean
one
of
our
frustrations
over
the
past
couple
of
years,
particularly
with
perks,
was
that
they
were
hitting
their
their
allocation
directly
on
like
on
on
the
expected
budget,
and
that
thing
doesn't
give
us
any
say
in
what
is
being
put
forward.
And
so
in
some
ways
it
is
better
for
them
to
be
over
allocated.
So
we
can
have
a
voice
in
in
what
is
prioritized.
F
Just
to
underscore
that
just
to
make
it
make
sure
everybody
understands
what
katie
just
said.
The
point
of
that
is
if,
if
the
park
gets
10
million
dollars
a
year
for
the
next
six
years,
what
they
have
historically
done
is
asked
us
for
exactly
10
million
dollars
in
projects
so
effectively
we're
not
making
any
choices
for
them.
F
J
You
have
a
question
right
away:
yeah
a
quick
comment:
if,
if
john
could
train
a
couple
of
new
people
so
that
we
could
have
a
thicker
bend
in
this
area,
maybe
invite
a
couple
people
to
your
meeting
with
amelia
and
others
we'll
build
some
capacity
and
click
for
for
the
future
as
well.
Just
to
suggest.
G
B
I
B
Amelia,
the
mike
abel
and
the
former
executive
secretary
usually
would
come
with
a
recommendation
on
a
number
and
so
not
not
telling
what
to
do,
but
just
making
professional
recommendations.
B
B
N
I
All
right
so
without
further
ado,
I'm
going
to
jump
in
just
walk
us
through
really
quickly
a
high
level
summary
we'll
share
this
out.
I
think
this
captures
a
lot
of
the
points
that
have
already
been
discussed.
You
know
as
we
go
through.
This
is
part
of
our
cip
programming
work.
We
have
a
couple
of
main
concepts.
We've
already
talked
about
a
few
of
them.
We
have
some
flexible
quote:
unquote,
flexible
funding
sources
that
click
programs,
our
net
debt
bonds,
are
the
major
focus
and
major
driver
of
the
decisions
within
the
cip.
I
I
think
in
some
detail,
but
we
do
have
those
ordinance
considerations
that
determine
how
we're
that
kind
of
place
some
some
guides
on
how
we're
funding
things
as
katie
mentioned
the
park
board,
has
a
certain
amount
that
it
expects
or
anticipates
to
receive,
funding
for,
and
also
tends
to
submit
projects
in
exactly
that
amount,
and
so
those
those
tend
to
those
tend
to
match
up
pretty
well
and,
as
a
result,
click
doesn't
seem
to
make
a
lot
of
prioritization
decisions
within
within
the
park
boards
program.
I
A
quick
note
on
that
this
used
to
be
a
five-year
capital
improvement
program,
but
in
a
in
an
effort
to
provide
more
options
for
click
in
particular
to
make
programming
decisions
a
sixth
year
was
added,
I
think
the.
If
I
could
summarize
it
really
briefly
in
a
high
level.
I
think
there
was
the
sense
that
even
within
a
five-year
horizon,
we
had
a
lot
of
projects
that
felt
like
foregone
conclusions
and
departments
were
largely
submitting.
I
This
may
feel
like
an
unfair
characterization,
but
departments
were
submitting
projects
that
you
know
there
was
a
lot
of
pressure
I
think,
to
to
get
done
by
adding
a
sixth
year
a
year
ago,
or
maybe
two
departments
were
able
to
use
that
sixth
year
and
start
to
add
more
options
and
more
just
a
more
variety
of
projects
that
the
committee
could
begin
to
prioritize.
So,
as
you
look
out
into
that
sixth
year,
it's
not
unusual
to
see
a
lot.
I
A
much
larger
demand
for
projects
out
there
or
a
much
larger
total
amount
requested
in
projects,
and
that's
where
click
can
really
start
to
make
prioritization
decisions
for
those
departments
that
are
submitting
large
numbers
and
you'll
see
those
projects
advance
their
way
through
the
cip
year
after
year.
On
this
slide,
we
also
mentioned
restricted
funding
sources.
You
know
it's
really
referenced
to
the
enterprise
funds.
You
know
water,
water
bonds
are
used
for
water
projects,
they're
not
really
applicable
to
other
projects,
and
that's
why
we
have
it
kind
of
split
out
in
our
process.
I
I
There
is
some
some
exploration
of
what
it
means
to
you
know:
cut
funding
to
near-term
projects,
but
it's
not
certainly
not
the
only
consideration-
that's
out
there,
but
we
do
want
to
mention
that,
just
as
part
of
our
practical
funding
considerations,
we
try
and
explore
the
impacts
on
other
funding
sources,
as
I
believe
katie
mentioned.
I
You
know
if
you
remove
funding
for
net
debt
bonds
and
they're
leveraging
other
funding
sources
you're,
in
effect
reducing
larger
amounts
from
the
capital
program,
and
then,
as
we've
touched
on
already,
we
we
do
look
to
our
published
net
debt
bond
levels
that
are
included
in
the
summary
that
we'll
be
sharing
out
soon.
I
We
do
balance
to
those
levels,
because
we
understand
that
that's
you
know
that's
about
as
much
as
we'll
have
available,
I
see
a
hand
up
scott.
K
Yeah,
I
have
a
question
robert.
I
think
this
might
be
the
only
example
of
this,
but
off
street
parking.
J
K
I
You
know,
I
think,
that's
a
that's
a
great
high
level
summary
of
how
the
parking
fund
has
tended
to
work.
If
you
look
at
it
one
way,
but
there's
really
different
elements
to
it.
You
know
they
have
their
annual
maintenance
work.
They
have
their
annual
capital
program
that
they're
trying
to
try
to
accomplish
to
maintain
facilities,
get
their
operating
budget,
which
is
another
separate
piece,
and
then
parking
funds
are
eligible
to
support
the
general
fund
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
and
so
you
know,
certain
amounts
are
transferred
out
of
the
parking
fund
every
year.
I
K
Well
that
one
I
find
hard
to
make
a
decision
about,
because
I
guess
it's
only
my
second
year,
but
how
do
we
know
like
if
you
don't
give
it
six
million
dollars
in
2027.?
K
B
Amelia
amelia
has
something.
N
Yeah,
I
think
some
really
good
question
scott
one
thing
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
is
that
you
are
right.
There
is
a
a
scheduled
sort
of
regular
transfer
from
the
parking
fund
into
the
general
fund,
but
it's
not
an
automatic
one.
So
we
don't
it's
not
sort
of
a
automatic
sweeping
of
whatever
is
left
over
back
to
the
general
fund.
That
is
a
sort
of
a
policy
decision
that
gets
made
as
a
part
of
the
budget
process.
N
There
is
a
financing
plan
that
we
publish
every
year,
a
part
of
our
regular
adopted
budget
for
the
parking
fund
that
we're
happy
to
circulate
to
help
shed
a
little
bit
more
light
on
that
question.
I
Robert
yep
sure-
and
so
we
have
a
few
considerations
or
rules
of
the
road
for
lack
of
a
better
term
that
we
use.
I
think
we
started
to
touch
on
a
few
of
them.
You
know,
click
does
have
the
capacity
to
you
know,
recommend,
delaying
or
deferring
a
project,
but
it's
really
hard
to
do
if
the
project
is
already,
you
know
going
into
the
ground
out.
Your
projects,
though,
are
certainly
a
lot
easier.
I
If
we're
looking
for
balancing
decisions
or
if
you're
looking
to
support
a
recommendation
with
moving
another
project,
it's
a
lot
easier
to
look
to
the
out
years
or
to
projects
that
we
know
are
not
going
forward
yet
and
and
delay
or
defer
funding.
In
those
years
we've
had
we've
had
challenges,
making
those
recommendations,
for
you
know,
projects
that
already
very
much
slated
for
work
in
the
coming
year.
I
A
general
word
of
caution,
really,
you
know
our
net
debt
bonds.
You
know
we
have
a.
We
have
a
certain
amount
of
neta
bonds
available.
I
think
some
of
john's
comments
really
speak
to
this.
We
can,
over
or
under
program
slightly
those
bonding
levels,
but
it
becomes
a
challenge
if
we,
you
know
over
programmed
too
much
in
the
early
years
and
under
program
and
the
in
the
late
years.
I
think
one
of
the
challenges
that
we've
just
kind
of
gotten
out
from
under
is
you
know
this
perpetually
front
loading,
the
cip.
I
It
looks
balanced,
but
then
you
come
back
the
next
year
and
you
add
too
much
in
the
first
year
again,
you
know
we're
in
fact,
just
ramping
up
our
net
debt
bond
program
a
little
bit
faster
than
we
otherwise
would.
So
we
really
do
we're
aware
of
that,
and
you
might
hear
staff
make
some
comments
to
that
effect.
Just
depending
on
what
the
recommendation
starts
to
look
like
as
it
starts
to
come
together
this
last
bullet.
I
You
know,
I
think
I
would
summarize
it
and
revise
it
slightly,
we're
still
having
conversations
trying
to
navigate
that
streets,
programming
and
understand
the
best
interpretation
for
how
to
how
to
assess
and
program
up
to
the
the
streets
level.
But
you
know
we
we
think
about
it,
a
lot
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
it
as
part
of
the
process
and
staff
needs
some
time.
I
think
at
the
end
of
this
process
to
review
and
understand
where
we're
gonna,
where
we
end
up
as
part
of
the
streets,
funding
calculations.
I
So
one
one
concept
that
we
wanted
to
introduce
this
year,
I
think
just
at
a
very
high
level
is
that
of
you
know
an
incremental
cip.
This
slide
presents
an
option
on
that,
but
I
think
it
speaks
to
the
fact
that
there's
some
funding
uncertainty
and
we
touched
on
that
a
little
bit.
I
think
even
our
net
debt
bond
recommendations
may
be
high
or
low
by
a
certain
percentage,
and
that
represents
you
know
certain
uncertainty
by
click
because
we're
not
entirely
sure
what
our
final
funding
levels
are
going
to
be.
I
But
if
something
were
to
change
between
now
and
december,
materially
for
a
given
project,
because
that
you
know
that
is
a
a
decent
amount
of
time.
You
know
it
is
good
to
understand
that
you
know
it
might
be
good
to
program
or
over
program
a
certain
amount
in
order
to
ensure
that
you
know,
even
if
something
were
to
change
for
a
given
project,
you
still
have
some
other
projects
that
are
kind
of
waiting
in
the
wings
for
implementation.
I
If,
if
funding
were
to
be
able
to
extend
that
amount,
and
it's
good
to
understand
at
least
consider
the
alternative,
if
there
is
not,
if
there's
not
enough
funding,
what
are
the
projects
that
are
likely
to
drop
out
of
the
cip
based
purely
upon
rankings
and
decisions
made
by
a
click
throughout
this
process
yeah.
I
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
that,
and
then
I
won't
cover
this
here
because
we're
already
covering
it
during
the
meeting,
but
we
have
just
some
breakdowns
of
what
what
is
contained
in
that
programming
worksheet.
So
to
the
extent
anybody
is
interested
in
really
delving
into
that
got
a
few
screenshots
that
will
help
with
that.
We
are
also
planning
on
just
sharing
out
what
the
cip
looks
like
based
on
our
scoring
cutoff.
I
So
you
know,
if
you're
not
inclined
to
peel
apart
this
worksheet
and
it's
multiple
formulas
you'll
at
least
have
a
product
and
be
able
to
understand
what
is
what
is
in
and
out
based
on
rankings
and
whatever
else
is
covered
so
we'll
update
this,
send
it
around
so
folks,
have
you
folks
have
this
summary?
It
really
is
just
a
high
level
overview
of
our
process
and
I
think,
lays
out
a
few
of
the
concepts
that
you'll
see
as
we
go
through
this
process.
J
Yeah
robert
is:
is
there
a
way
for
us
to
to
look
at
equity
impacts
of
the
program
that
that
is
being
perhaps
by
neighborhoods,
perhaps
by
populations,
perhaps
by
specific
areas,
for
example
lake
street
the
impacts
of
this
on
lake
street
recovery,
our
proposals
for
north
side
et
cetera,
is
there
a
way
to
slice
and
dice
the
data
so
that
we
know
not
simply
what
our
intentions
were,
but
what
the
impacts
would
be
on
various
populations.
I
We
we
rely
heavily
on
the
the
criteria
that
we
have,
that
comes
from
the
cbrs
and
the
you
know
the
rankings
that
we're
getting
out
of
those
cbrs.
We
have
a
certain
amount
of
geographic.
I
We
have
a
certain
amount
of
information
on
where
the
projects
are
located
and
where
they're
impacting
including
you
know
some
visual
represent.
We've
had
a
few
maps
submitted
by
departments
that
show
that,
but,
as
part
of
this
process,
we
don't
have
and
haven't
recently
had
a
way
to
do.
This
scoring
show
the
cip
and
then
immediately
show
which,
which
wards,
for
example,
or
which
neighborhoods
are
impacted
by
this
programming.
I
think
it
requires
a
bit
of
a
read-through
of
the
final
product,
so
it
does
that
help.
I
J
So
so
it's
very
difficult
to
look
at
impacts
and
in
some
areas
we
look
down
to
the
zip
code
level
or
even
the
the
four
digit
part
of
the
zip
code.
So
a
lot
of
this
is
is
pretty
much
guesswork
and.
N
If
there's
one,
if
I
could
add
one
thing,
question
about
that,
I
think,
as
robert
said,
the
way
this
is
the
way
that
we
do
the
or
incorporate
right
now.
The
racial
equity
impact
is
in
the
front
end
rankings
right,
and
I
think
what
you're
talking
about
is
something
to
be
considered.
N
We
would
need
to
build
in
some
time
into
our
work
plan
after
the
full,
because
it
sounds
like
what
you're
talking
about
is
when
the
full
package
is
put
together,
doing
an
analysis
of
what
that
looks
like,
and
so
I
think
that
is
something
we
would
need
to
really
just
pull
apart
our
work
plan
and
think
about
what
we're
doing,
maybe
a
little
bit
more
about
the
information
we
ask
from
departments
on
the
front
end
as
I
just
sort
of
wanted
to
highlight
again
how
it
could
evolve
if
that's
something
you're
interested
in
but
right
now
we
really
revolve
on
the
in
rely
on
the
individual
rankings
and
as
they
appear
when
they're
all
put
together
to
reflect
that.
J
J
I
I
you
know,
I
think
that's
something
we
should
look
forward
to,
so
that
we
know
that
if
we
do
have
equity
as
a
strategic
goal
that
indeed
we're
pushing
in
the
right
direction,
we
may
be
pushing
the
wrong
direction.
We
just
won't
know.
So,
thanks
for
the
answer
thank
go.
F
To
john,
I
just
want
to
offer
that
if
anybody
wants
to
talk
to
me
offline
about
any
of
the
details
of
how
to
look
at
this
or
what
I
explained
or
once
further
explanation,
I
am
happy
to
make
myself
available
to
anybody
on
the
committee
over
the
course
of
the
next
week
before
our
next
meeting
since
we're
in
a
public
meeting
right
now.
F
I'd
prefer
not
to
share
my
phone
number
right
here,
but
if
you
email
me,
I'm
happy
to
talk
either
via
email
or
via
phone
phone
is
probably
easier,
because
this
gets
kind
of
complicated
my
phone
number.
If
somebody,
you
know
emails
me
and
asks
to
try
to
meet
I'm
more
than
happy
to
make
myself
available
in
the
evenings
weekends
during
the
day,
whatever
works.
B
All
right
anything
further
robert,
so
I
think
john
had
suggested
we.
So
we
have
some
options.
We
can
look
through
the
program
areas
and
we
can
just
say:
let's
say
what,
if
158
were
to
cut
off
and
then
just
walk
through
each
program
area
in
the
15
minutes
remaining
and
then
next
week,
we'll
be
diving
into
this.
We'd
have
just
what
one
or
two
comments
laid
over
for
the
next
meeting,
but
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
members
are
ready
to
resolve
those
today.
I
F
Yeah,
it's
just
gonna
robert.
Can
you
scroll
all
the
way
over
so
that
all
we
see
is
the
left
side
of
the
spreadsheet
and
then
just
to
point
out
to
people.
So
hopefully,
what
you
can
see
on
your
screen
is
what
the
department
has
asked
for
is
that
first
left
area?
The
middle
is
what
they've
gotten
in
the
past
and
then
the
far
right
is
what
we're
suggesting.
So
you
can
see
if
numbers
don't
show
up
on
the
proposed
part
of
the
you
know,
starting
at
column,
z.
I
Right
so
as
yeah
exactly
to
that
point,
if
you,
if
you've,
got
any
blanks
showing
up
in
here
for
a
given
project,
it
means
it's
not
being
funded.
It
was
requested,
but
there's
no
funding
going
through
I'll
just
step
through
really
quickly
by
program.
F
I
Go
this
might
be
a
little
bit
yeah
a
little
bit
fine
detail
on
the
screen,
so
I'll,
try
and
step
through
I'm
just
going
to
call
out
what
we've
got
showing
up
under
that
158
point
cutoff
out
of
300
points
at
a
high
level
in
total.
This
is
still
a
little
bit
under
our
available
net
debt
bond
resources.
I
So
there's
some
additional
programming
that
we
would
recommend
take
place
as
part
of
this,
but
158
really
hits
that
level.
If
you
remember
157,
you
know
puts
the
puts
the
projects
over
by
39
million
dollars
using
this
methodology,
so
going
back
to
158
starting
off
the
projects
that
we
see
within
the
art
and
public
places
program.
Our
public
places
is
funded
based
on
the
score
alone,
moving
down
to
bicycle
and
pedestrian
projects.
I
You
know
our
general
bicycle
and
pedestrian
program
is
funded,
bp001,
safe
routes
to
school,
bp004,
intersection
and
crossing
improvements,
and
then
bp006
18th
avenue
northeast
trail.
What
is
not
funded
using
the
scoring
cutoff
is
northside
greenway
phase
one.
I
It
scores
157.8
points
and
the
cutoff
is
158
points
that
we've
got
here
and
then
our
public
space
program
bp008,
is
also
not
funded
I'll
step
forward
to
the
bridges
program.
So
that's
two
bike:
ped
projects
that
are
not
funded
using
the
scoring
cutoff
stepping
down
to
our
bridges
program
bp001,
our
general
bridges
program,
is
funded
by
using
this
for
nicolette
avenue.
I
Over
minnehaha
creek
is
also
funded,
and
then
the
remaining
bridge
programs
using
this
score
are
not
funded,
two
of
which
are,
I
would
describe
as
reasonably
close
to
the
score,
but
are
below
the
scoring
cut
off
so
cedar
lake
road
bridges
over
basset
creek,
the
bridge
nine
program
and
pillsbury
avenue
south
are
not
funded
in
using
the
scoring
cutoff
moving
on
to
public
grounds
and
facilities,
projects
that
are
funded
by
our
station
number
11
fire
station
number
one
and
then
psd
16,
which
is
our
farm
correctly
farm
running,
which
should
be
our
farmer's
market
project,
and
then
that
leaves
the
remainder
of
the
public
grounds
and
facilities
projects,
unfunded
that
includes
new
fire
station
19.
I
First,
please
precinct.
Fourth,
please
precinct
psd
15,
which
now
I
am
going
to
blank
on,
and
we
need
to
help
remembering
which
one
that
one
was
psd
20,
which
is
the
new
public
service,
building
and
city
hall
improvements,
project,
psd21,
hiawatha
training
and
recruitment,
center,
psd,
22
or
regulus
regulatory
services,
animal
animal
care
and
control.
I
can't
remember
what
it
stands
for:
it's
also
not
our
training
and
wellness
facility.
I
I
I
have
marked
in
this
sheet
solar
as
as
as
being
funded
or
as
as
making
the
cutoff
I
should
say,
but
I'm
noted
that
it
I
am
noting
for
click
that
it
should
not
be
included
in
the
final
programming.
This
is
nothing
to
do
with
the
with
the
scores
or
anything
around
the
project.
I
The
project
manager
has
found
an
alternative
way
essentially
for
the
city
to
finance
some
of
these
solar
improvements.
I
think
we
provide
an
update
on
that,
but
it
no
longer
requires
the
the
the
full
capital
request
in
order
to
in
order
to
implement
the
project,
so
we're
not
recommending
we
allocate
resources
for
the
project
via
the
cip.
I
I
Moving
on
to
the
municipal
building
commission,
our
life
safety
projects
that
make
the
cut
for
our
life
safety
improvements
project
and
our
mechanical
systems
upgrade
as
well
as
the
building
wide
electrical
upgrades
projects
that
don't
make
it
in
include
our
exterior
improvements,
safety
improvements,
non-stage
work,
areas
that
4th
street
sidewalk
and
exterior
light
poles
upgrade
project
that
john
mentioned
was
just
under
the
cutoff
and
then
the
elevator
12
modernization
project.
I
So
three
projects
in
and
the
rest
out
for
the
municipal
building
commission
the
park
board.
All
projects
passed
that
scoring
cut-off
so
we're
not
recommending
just
based
on
the
scores
any
park
board
projects
miss
funding,
I
see
a
hand
up
jeff,
yeah,.
A
I
Thank
you,
jeff
and,
and
katie
has
requested
that
we
send
out
the
the
excel
spreadsheet.
I
think
when
we
recirculate
it,
we
can
either
add
a
decimal
or
yeah.
So
all
of
the
part
board
projects
are
in
based
on
that
158
scoring
cutoff,
and
then
we
have
you
know
our
lengthy
paving
program
and
I'm
wondering
now
what
the
best
way
to
to
go
through
these
projects
are
given
the
limited
amount
of
time
remaining.
I
think
at
this
point
it's
clear.
I
F
I
John
think
I
just
want
to
confirm
we
should
be
able
to
do
that
with
a
little
bit
more
lead
time.
I
think
the
idea
would
be
to
get
this
spreadsheet
out
with
plenty
of
time
for
folks
to
really
winnow
through
it
if
they
want
to
or
just
kind
of
appreciate
how
it
works
if
they
want
to
spend
a
little
if
they
want
to
spend
their
time
differently.
In
the
final
few
meetings
that
we've
got.
B
J
Robert
is
there
a
way
to
generate
a
report
of
the
the
racial
equity
scores
and
rank
rank
them
all
these
projects
along
lines,
racial
equity
score,
I'm
noticing
the
north
side.
Greenway,
for
example,
is
a
very
high
priority
in
terms
of
racial
equity
and
it
falls
below
the
line,
and
I
I'd
just
like
to
see
what
it
looks
like
across
the
board.
I
Yeah
we
we
can
certainly
break
out
any
individual
scoring
element.
We
can
break
out
the
average
score
that
a
given
project
received
for
an
individual
criteria.
I
I
think
in
the
past,
in
the
past
we
haven't
really
like
circulated
individual
member
scores
on
anything.
But
I
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
decision
point
either,
but
we
can
provide
averages.
That'd
be
great,
very
clearly.
Yeah.
B
J
B
L
Yeah,
this
might
be
covered
by
by
john's
suggestion
earlier
about.
If,
if
these
can
just
be
ranked
by
score,
I
think
that
would
be
very
helpful
visually
to
understand
it.
I
think
the
other
option
would
be
using
conditional
formatting
on
column
t
to
to
have
it
say,
highlight
in
green
all
of
the
scores
that
are
above
the
score
cut
off
in
in
cell
v13,
and
you
know
highlight
in
yellow
or
red
squares
that
are
below
it.
So
just
wanted
to
put
that
out.
A
I
Jeff,
I
didn't
have
much
more.
I
personally
didn't
have
much
more
to
to
cover,
except
for
you
know
any
introductory
remarks
or
background
on
this
sheet
and
we've
got
a
little
bit
of
time
preserved
for
a
work
plan,
but
I
think
that
was
really
just
the
whole
time
to
think
about.
You
know
any
any
requests
or
any
additional
work.
Okay,.
B
We
have
three
dan
amelia
and
john.
N
Just
a
real
quick
preference
check
for
this
group,
because
my
team's
about
to
dive
into
an
afternoon
and
tomorrow
morning
of
regular
budget
processes,
so
would
you
prefer
to
get
this
email
immediately
and
wait
a
couple
days
for
the
changes
that
you've
recommended,
or
would
you
rather
wait
a
couple
days
and
get
them?
I
just
want
to
be
honest
about
our
time
constraints
this
week.
B
N
B
Yeah
we
understand
you
have
other
work
to
do
that.
You
don't
work
solely
with
click,
got
the
big
arp
millions
and
hundreds
of
millions,
so
dan
and
then
john
and
katrina,
and
then
we'll
be
running
up
on
our
two
o'clock
adjournment.
G
Yeah,
I
just
I'm
sorry,
I
had
to
leave
a
little
bit
and
come
back,
and
this
would
have
been
an
interesting
conversation,
but
projects
that
are
slated
for
future
that
fall
below
this
cut
off
sort
of
a
little
bit
of
it.
It
doesn't
have
to
happen
now,
but
maybe
in
the
future,
a
little
bit.
G
What
does
that
actually
mean
if
it
falls
below,
because
a
lot
of
these
projects
are
going
to
come
back
next
year,
whether
they
have
fallen
below
this
cut
off
or
not,
and
so
how
important
is
it
to
worry
about
all
that
you.
I
Yeah,
just
a
really
quick,
I
mean
I
can
add
some
some
background
just
on
the
process.
You
know
this
recommendation
will
go
to
the
mayor's
office.
It
will
receive
some
amending.
I
think,
there's
been
a
question
in
the
past
of
just
how
extensively
is
the
cip
adjusted
once
it
gets
to
the
mayor's
office
and
in
past
years
I
think
we've
noticed
that
a
lot
of
the
adjustments
didn't
happen
really
low
in
the
scoring
range.
I
But
there
has
been
that
question
and
I
don't
want
to
I
mean
I
certainly
don't
have
as
much
background
on
it,
but
I
know
that
it
has
been
a
question
before
the
committee
as
well
of
you
know
how
how
much
to
anticipate
what
what
the
city
already
has
going
on
and
how
much
to
make
a
recommendation
based.
You
know
entirely
upon
this
year's
scores
or
to
make
a
recommendation
based
on
this
year's
scores
as
well.
I
As
you
know,
whatever
the
recommendation
was
last
year,
I
think
that's
it's
a
global
question
for
the
committee
as
we
go
through
the
scoring
process
and
ranking
and
programming
thanks.
F
F
The
the
strength
of
what
we
say
is
is
based
on
how
much
the
elected
officials
choose
to
follow
it.
The
reality
is,
they
tend
to
follow
it
pretty.
Well,
they
all
like
to
say
that
they
followed
it
95,
which
is
inaccurate.
It's
never
at
95,
it's
probably
closer
to
85,
and
if
you
go
back
25
years
ago,
it
was
a
lot
lower
than
that.
F
But
that's
our
job
is
to
be
advisory,
so
I
don't
think
the
decisions
we,
the
recommendations
we
make
are
not
set
in
stone,
and
sometimes
we
make
a
recommendation
that
looks
funny
because
we're
trying
to
get
their
attention.
We
don't
in
fact
think
they're
going
to
fund
a
bridge
that
only
goes
halfway
across
the
river,
but
we're
pointing
out
to
them
that
they
said
the
bridge
was
going
to
cost
10
million,
and
now
it
costs
30
million,
and
maybe
by
not
funding
it.
F
We
kind
of
pointed
out
to
them,
so
I
I
just,
I
think,
everybody's
important
everybody
remember
that
that
basically
we're
advisory
and
we're
trying
to
give
them
the
best
recommendation
about
what
to
do
with
limited
resources,
they're
going
to
make
their
own
decisions.
Having
said
that,
historically,
they
tend
to
use
the
report
as
a
political
crutch.
F
So
we
need
to
be
quite
thoughtful
about
what
we
do,
because
if
we
say
something
we
didn't
quite
mean
and
they
like
it,
they'll
use
it
as
a
political
crutch
that
the
only
other
thing
I
want
to
mention,
robert,
I
I
don't
know
where
the
the
status
is
of
my
request
that
I
made
through
you
to
the
water
department
for
that
pro
forma,
just
really
quickly
on
that
for
everybody
in
the
past,
they
used
to
give
us
the
pro
forma
that
told
us.
F
If
we
funded
everything
they
asked
for
what
the
impact
would
be
on
rates,
then
we
went
through
a
period
of
time
where
they
stopped
giving
it
to
us,
which
would
be
the
comparison
would
be
is
if
the
we
were
trying
to
do
the
net
debt
bonds
with
no
budget,
and
we
had
no
idea
what
the
impact
was
going
to
be
on
people's
property
taxes.
F
I
The
department
they
received
the
response
and
they
anticipate
updating
it.
I
think
it's
in
a
similar
format
to
what
we
had
last
year.
It
may
still
take
them
a
couple
of
days
to
turn
the
document
around,
but
we're
expecting
it
before
next
week's
meeting.
I
So
before
we
get
into
the
enterprise
funding
I
do
I
do
have
to
go,
but
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
and
we'll
be
following
up
on
great.
Thank
you.
E
B
Is
202
pm
so
unless
there's
anything
further
with
with
that,
we've
completed
all
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting
our
last
members
and
staff,
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
meeting.