►
From YouTube: June 23, 2021 Capital Long Range Improvements Committee
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
jeffrey
strand.
Today
is
june
23
2021.
It
is
1203
pm.
I'm
the
chair
of
the
capital
long
range
improvements
committee.
Before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
note.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d
0.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
I
will
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
rule
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
D
D
E
F
D
E
E
F
F
G
C
B
A
H
D
H
F
C
F
C
A
A
A
I
Accountability
is
maintained
through
a
system
of
financial
and
program
controls
to
ensure
that
projects
are
managed
within
allocated
budgets
and
are
completed
within
agreed
upon
time
frames
where
cost
overruns
are
anticipated.
Corrective
actions
may
be
taken
to
ensure
that
financial
controls
are
in
place
into
the
future.
A
J
A
L
E
B
E
E
B
C
M
F
G
B
I
A
K
A
N
So
I
I'm
voting
no
on
this.
I
have
several
issues
with
it.
The
first
is,
in
my
view,
this
is
not
offered
in
good
faith.
There
was
a
comment
previously
on.
I
think
it's
psd
24
the
solar
panels
that
a
group
of
us
were
involved
in
rewriting
that
removed
this
kind
of
language.
From
from
that
comment,
and
now
it's
being
reintroduced
again
as
a
separate
comment,
so
that
I
just
don't
think
that's
right
separate
from
that,
I
just
don't
agree
with
a
comment.
N
I
don't
know
if
you
can
hear
me,
but
I'm
not
done.
Oh
I'm!
Sorry,
that's!
Okay!
I
can
hear
you
the
language
of
the
first
or
the
first
sentence.
This
idea
that
the
language
of
capital
budget
requests
is
intended
to
reflect
the
values
of
the
city.
I
just
don't
think
that's
accurate.
It's
an
internal
document.
N
The
capital
budget
request
certainly
should
reflect
the
values
of
the
city,
but
this
is
just
highly
prescriptive.
This
is
we've
never
done
this.
I
don't
see
any
reason
to
start
doing
it,
opportunities
to
pick
out
this
one
thing
versus
any
of
the
other
long
list
of
deficiencies
in
cbrs
and
the
way
they're
filled
out
whether
it's
a
data
or
language.
Just
I
find
this
inappropriate,
regardless
of
your
view
on
climate
change,
which
this
in
no
way
is,
has
anything
to
do
with
my
own
personal
view
on
climate
change,
thanks.
A
O
So
hi,
I
just
have
a
question
which
is:
I
went
back
to
the
guidelines
and
the
guidelines
does
have
us
reflect
the
values,
but
that,
but
there's
actually
not
reference
to
this
in
the
values
that
we're
supposed
to
incorporate.
So
I'm
not
sure
the
protocol,
but
it
seems
like
if,
if
this
is
something
that
we
should
incorporate
in
the
future
specifically
include
in
future
evaluations.
O
O
No
it's
just
as
it
is
a
kind
of
a
question
regarding
the
process
right
because
we
have
value.
This
makes
reference
to
this
being
one
of
the
city's
values
and
there
are,
but
there
are
values
that
we
are
asked
to
consider
as
part
of
the
evaluation-
and
this
isn't
mentioned
in
those
values
right,
I'm
referring
to
the
values
that
are
listed
in
the
click
guidelines,
all
right,
they're,
equity,.
E
A
O
A
F
C
F
K
D
F
B
O
A
So
then,
the
next
item
agenda
item
five
net
debt
bonds,
2022
2027,
funding
programming
as
chair
I'd
ask
the
staff
to
come
up
with
a
number
ranking
number
where
we
typically
start
and
the
in
the
past,
the
former
executive
director
would
typically
come
in
executive
secretary.
That
is
would
come
in
with
the
recommendation
understand
that
staff
recommendations.
A
We
are
the
members
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
the
council
members.
So
staff
are,
you
know,
paid
professional
staff
of
the
city.
I
highly
respect
their
professional
expertise
I'll
take
responsibility.
The
executive
committee
was
not
in
complete
agreement
on
giving
you
this
outline,
because
I
want
to
note
that
you
should
take
this
as
staff
recommendation.
Click
is
not
bound
to
take
this
advice.
It
can.
It
can
just
pick
its
own
number
to
start
and
we
can
work
through
the
process.
A
So
that's
said,
I
appreciate
our
executive
secretary
and
the
finance
and
property
services
staff
for
putting
this
together.
So
we
have
a
very
short
presentation:
if
you
will
10
minutes
and
then
we
will
certainly
allow
any
further
statements
from
click
members,
so
I
don't
want
to
belabor
this
further.
A
J
P
A
P
P
These
projects
were
either
recommended
by
clique,
recommended
by
the
mayor's
office,
or,
I
think
in
rarer
cases
recommended
by
council,
and
these
are
projects
that
might
not
have
actually
elevated
all
the
way
up
to
the
top
of
the
scoring
process
this
year,
but
for
various
reasons,
either
due
to
past
recommendations
and
scoring
by
quick
recommendation
by
the
mayor's
office
or
council.
These
projects
are
going
into
the
ground
and
are
likely
to
use
up
resources
in
2022
through
2027..
P
We,
we
kind
of
know
these
projects
are
going
forward
and
it's
unlikely
that
they
just
be
stopped.
So
we've
incorporated
those
into
this
programming
picture
that
we're
looking
at
to
see
how
much
resources
those
are
likely
to
consume,
based
on
what
departments
came
forward
with
this
year,
that
that
does
eat
up
some
resources,
and
so
it
kind
of
forces
a
slightly
higher
threshold
on
the
quick
score
cut
off,
and
so
using
that
methodology
we're
recommending
a
scoring
cutoff
of
164
points.
P
I
I
can't
quite
recall
last
year's
scoring
cutoff,
but
I
think
it
was
you
know
by
coincidence
somewhat
similar
to
that
164
as
a
scoring
cut
off
overall.
Just
looking
at
all
of
our
net
bonding
resources
puts
click
slightly
over
in
the
near
years
on
net
debt
bond
funding
under
in
2024
on
average.
It
really
accomplishes,
I
think,
a
lot
of
goals
are
trying
to
have
a
balanced
net
debt
bonding
program.
P
P
We
would
recommend
bumping
those
projects
back
as
well,
and
then
we
made
two
additional
adjustments
which,
if
click
decides
to
hold
with
you
know
they
would
go
through
otherwise,
quick
and
certainly
amend
or
replace
these
projects.
But
we
would
recommend,
based
on
last
year's
recommendation,
that
the
farmers
market
improvements
projects
be
excluded
from
funding.
You
know,
based
on
the
fact
that
it
wasn't
recommended
last
year.
It
does
perform
better.
P
This
year,
but
it's
essentially
coming
in
with
another
request
for
funding,
and
I
think
the
idea
is
that,
if,
if
this
were
included
this
year,
maybe
find
another
project
to
remove
from
the
cip
so
that
we
don't
go
over
our
net
debt
bonding
levels.
We're
also
recommending
excluding
the
psd
24
project
and
really
this
one
should
just
be
stricken
based
purely
on
technical
matters.
This
project
is
no
longer
needed.
P
O
P
It
gets
us
close
to
a
fully
funded
streets
funding
plan
based
on
what
was
actually
requested
this
year,
which
was
a
little
bit
low
and
it
it
it
presents.
I
think,
some
additional
considerations
per
click
that
are
probably
in
line
with
what
we've
seen
past
years
in
terms
of
what's
funded
and
what's
not
funded
by
each
of
the
programs,
for
example.
P
In
this
scenario,
if
there's
an
additional
way,
I
can
you
know,
present
this
information
or
additional
detail
for
the
record.
I
can
kind
of
go
through
one
by
one,
but
just
keeping
an
eye
on
the
time
and
trying
to
understand
what
we're
recommending.
I
realize
I'm
really
just
ripping
through
this
right
now,
but
I
can
thank
you
for
the
discussion.
Thank
you,
robert.
A
P
Yes,
so
it
in
red
means
it's
below
the
scoring
cutoff,
so
northside
greenway
is
157.8
points.
The
cutoff
of
164
excludes
it.
It
wasn't
included
for
funding
last
year,
and
so
it's
not
an
ongoing
project.
So
it's
also
not
included
on
that
basis
as
well.
The
funding
request
for
this
year
was
for
about
seven
and
a
half
million
dollars
in
2026..
P
G
I
I'd
just
like
to
point
out
that
what
you
shared
with
us
last
week
in
terms
of
the
the
equity
matrix
that
scored
very,
very
high,
and
I
believe,
there's
a
reason
for
it.
It's
because
the
north
side
does
not
have
the
amenities
that
the
rest
of
the
city
does,
and
this
was
a
very
important
element
in
in
finishing
part
of
the
greenway
that
would
have
helped
north
minneapolis
be
integrated
with
the
rest
of
the
city.
K
K
Maybe
not
do
a
voice
vote,
but
just
to
make
sure
that
we
are
okay
with
each
one,
each
piece
of
staff's
recommendation
and
then
get
to
these
pieces,
because
we
may
realize
that
some
of
these
projects
that
we
do
want
to
keep
in
might
just
continue
being
in
there.
If
we
don't
agree
with
the
staff
recommendation.
A
N
To
be
reasonably
brief
here,
I
want
to
start
by
just
sort
of
in
my
these
are
my
opinions,
but
based
on
my
experience
on
the
committee,
just
I
think
it's
important
to
make
draw
a
distinction
between
our
role
in
the
and
the
role
of
the
finance
staff.
We
are
completely
advisory,
as
I'm
sure
most
of
you
know,
the
reality
is
elected
officials,
follow
our
recommendations
at
a
fairly
high
percentage,
not
as
high
as
they
like
to
claim,
but
they
don't
have
to
follow
them
at
all.
N
If
they
don't
want
to,
that
gives
us
the
freedom
to
do
things
a
little
different
staff.
It
would
be
job
suicide
for
them
to
tell
elected
officials
to
stop
funding
something
midway
through
a
project
if
they
started
doing
that
on
a
regular
basis.
We
don't
have
that
handcuff
and
not
that
we
want
to
start
doing
that
left
and
right,
but
one
of
the
things
I
think
we
do
for
the
most
part
is
what
people
call
zero-based
budgeting
each
year.
N
We
just
look
at
everything
from
the
ground
up
and
see
what
rises
to
the
top
and
there's
a
lot
of
value
in
that,
especially
when
we're
just
advisory
right.
It
gives
the
city
a
fresh
look
every
year
and
it
doesn't
say
well
we're
already
underway
on
these
projects,
so
we
have
to
keep
finding
them
we're
just
going
to
put
them
in
now.
You
know
we
got
to
be
practical
about
this.
N
We
can't
keep
telling
them
to
stop
building
a
bridge
when
it's
halfway
across
the
river,
but
at
the
same
time,
if
there's
a
project
that
didn't
turn
out
the
way
they
said
it
was
going
to
turn
out
or
it's
just
fallen
in
priority
because
there's
higher
priorities.
I
think
it's
good
for
us
to
point
that
out
and
sometimes
the
way
to
point
that
out
to
grab
attention
is
to
not
fund
it.
That
doesn't
mean
they're
not
going
to
actually
not
fund
it.
N
It
draws
their
attention
to
there's
something
that
might
be
fixable
or
a
lesson
that
can
be
learned
for
the
future.
So,
having
said
all
that,
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
and
not
to
mention
also
that
our
scoring
system
already
rewards
projects
that
are
have
previously
not
even
been
funded
but
been
presented
to
us
before.
So
there's,
there's
there's
points
that
they
get
if
they've
shown
up
before,
there's
something
built
in
for
this
already.
So
I
don't
think
we
want
to
as
a
matter
of
practice
simply
put
stuff
in
because
it's
already
been
funded.
N
So
I
would
suggest
I'd
actually
do
this
if
it's
in
order
I'd,
do
a
motion
that
we
start
with
a
cutoff
of
158
and
that
will
make
the
north
side
greenway
just
miss.
I
absolutely
agree
that
that
should
be
in
though
I
think
we
should
be
careful
not
to
use
this
external
matrix
and
say
well.
It's
quite
high
on
the
matrix
equity
is
a
huge
portion
of
the
points
that
these
projects
already
got.
N
So
it
you
know,
it's
fallen
where
it's
fallen,
but
the
reality
is,
I
think,
robert
misspoke.
It
looks
to
me
at
least
going
to
the
spreadsheet
that
this
was
funded
last
year
and
that's
what
it
says
here
prior
funding.
It
was,
it
was
funded
in
2026
they're
now
asking
for
funds
again
in
that
same
year,
2026
and
the
actual
the
request
is
dropped
from
two
and
a
half
million
to
two
million.
If
we
use
158
it
misses
by
two
tenths.
N
A
P
Here
let
me
pull
up
the
current
year
funding
request
yeah.
So
the
current
year's
funding
request
is
for
just
years
2023
through
2027
and
if
it
helps
I
can
pull
up
the
cbr
if
they
have
provided
additional
detail
on
the
2022
year.
I
just
don't
have
at
my
fingertips
whether
they're
sitting
on
appropriation
or
not
for
bridge
9.
L
L
P
P
You
know
that
had
funding
in
the
out
years,
for
example,
35th
street
negled
ave
it
had
funding
programmed
for
2026,
but
staff
are
not
necessarily
recommending
it.
We
really
are
just
focusing
on
the
you
know
the
upcoming
2022
year
and
what
already
has
programming
there?
Projects
with
programming
in
2026
are
still
into
staff's
view,
not
necessarily
going
into
the
ground
and
not
in
heavy
design
work,
and
so
you
know,
wouldn't
constitute
you
know,
abandoning
a
project.
That's
already
been
communicated
to
the
public
that
people
are
already
planning
for.
P
C
I'm
just
asking
first
of
all,
those
of
us
who
are
dialing
in
by
phone
don't
have
a
way
to
raise
our
hand,
so
I'm
sorry
for
the
interruption,
but
that's
the
only
way
we
have.
I
would
like
to
request
that
staff
list
again,
since
we
don't
have
these
accessible
in
front
of
us.
The
projects
that
they're
recommending
being
deferred,
not
just
by
number
but
also
by
project
name
as
well
as
those
that
fall
below
the
threshold
in
this
recommendation,
because
otherwise
we're
flying
blind
out
here.
A
P
P
P
P
That's
the
biped
program
projects
that
using
staff's
methodology
are
not
making
it
into
the
cip
I'll
step
forward
to
the
the
bridge
program.
So
under
the
bridge
program,
there's
only
two
projects
that
don't
make
it
in
one
is
the
cedar
lake
road
bridge
over
basset
creek
and
the
other
is
pillsbury
avenue
over
the
hennepin,
the
hc
railroad
authority.
I
can't
remember
what
that
stands
for.
P
G
P
Let
me
see
here
so
we
have
two
projects
that
are
being
recommended
for
exclusion
right
now.
One
is
the
psd24
solar
project.
We
have
alternate
funding
for
that.
The
other
is
the
farmers
market
project,
which
was
not
recommended
for
inclusion
last
year.
It
does
score
higher
this
year,
but
it
does
represent.
Essentially
a
new
request
for
funding
and
staff
have
already
noted
you
know
it
it.
Based
on
our
methodology.
P
P
Other
projects
that
are
not
making
it
in
are
fire
station
number
one
renovations,
the
911
facilities
project
and
the
radio
improvement
project
and
psd
15,
the
traffic
maintenance
facility
improvement
project
and
then
finally,
psd
23,
the
mpd
training
and
wellness
facility
project
is
not
being
recommended
for
inclusion.
Based
on
this
method,
staff
also
made
an
adjustment
to
the
mpd04
project
and
pushed
that
project
back
to
2024.
P
Moving
on
to
the
municipal
building
commission,
we
have
a
few
projects
that
are
being
recommended
for
exclusion.
One
is
mbc
16,
building
wide
electrical
upgrades,
nbc
13,
the
4th
street
sidewalk
exterior
light
poles
upgrade
project
nbc
10,
exterior
improvements,
15
elevator
12
modernization,
some
of
which
are
new
projects
this
year,
moving
down
to
the
park
board.
P
Really
it's
park,
prko4
athletic
fields,
site
improvements,
program,
that's
being
recommended
for
exclusion
based
on
its
scoring
based
on
the
cutoff.
It
scored
161.4
it's
higher
than
the
158
cutoff
that
we
looked
at
last
time,
lower
than
the
164
cut
off
that
staff
used
when
we
factored
in
a
lot
of
the
projects
that
are
currently
ongoing.
P
And
then
we
have,
you
know
we
have
quite
the
list
of
of
paving
projects
that
we've
got
in
here.
I
think
I
could.
I
could
call
them
out
pretty
quickly,
but
if,
if
folks
kind
of
see
a
better
way
of
doing
it,
please
you
know
stop
me
and
let
me
know
right
now:
pbo
75
is
not
in
due
to
the
due
to
the
scoring
cut
off.
P
P
P
N
With
the
hand
raise,
so
let
me
just
ask
first:
jeff
is
the
motion
in
order
now
motion
is
in
order
right,
so
I'm
going
to
move
that
we
use
a
cutoff
of
158
and
as
a
starting
point,
that
we
use
that
we
fund
the
north
side
greenway,
which
is
now
showing
on
the
screen,
which
misses
that
cutoff
by
two
tenths
of
a
point
point
and
then
from
there.
We
can
work,
work
our
way
up
and
get
this
thing
completed.
I
I
personally
don't
think
we
should
go
with
what
was
just
recommended.
A
A
A
A
C
K
H
I
think
I
agree
with
the
idea
that
we
should
be
looking
at
this
at
a
pretty
different
angle
than
than
what
has
been
recommended
here,
and
I
am
also
a
little
concerned
that
you
know
I
I
I
it
seems
that
at
least
some
of
these
projects
that
have
been
recommended
for
attenuation
of
funding
because
they
are
already
underway,
may
make
sense
for
us
to
include,
and
if
we
go
back
down
to
158
and
then
we
need
to
start
adding
some
of
those
in.
We
might
just
end
up
a
little
bit.
H
But
I
also
wonder
if
we
should,
through
with
looking
at
the
ones
that
have
been
that
are
score
under
but
have
been
recommended
for
continuation
of
funding,
because
they
are
already
partly
funded
or
partly
underway
and
make
decisions
about
each
of
those
and
then
set
a
point
cut
off
threshold
that
helps
us
get
closer
to
a
balance.
Does
that
make
any
sense
it?
You
can
disregard
this?
If
it
doesn't.
N
N
After
if
this
motion
passes,
is
to
go
through
program
by
program
with
an
eye
on
what
the
just
misses
and
the
just
makes
our
and
where
we
are
over
or
underfunded
and
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
the
reality
is
just
gets
pretty
qualitative,
even
though
it
looks
very
quantitative
right.
It's
all
about.
N
We
may
have
to
skip
down
two
projects
and
take
one
that's
a
slightly
lower
rated
because
it
helps
a
year
where
we've
got
a
funding
problem
or
you
know,
because
it's
a
good
project
and
it's
been
funded
in
the
past
there'll-
be
lots
of
different
things.
It's
a
little
bit
messy
and
that's
just
kind
of
how
we
do
it.
I
mean
I
haven't
heard
a
better
way
and
I'd
certainly
be
open
to
it
if
there
is
but.
K
K
A
A
A
N
To
point
out
to
make
sure
everybody
sees
what
that
robert
you're
done
now
right:
okay,
so
that
what
this
proposal
puts
us
two
percent
over
on
the
on
the
six
year
total,
which
is
great
we're
way
over
in
27.
We
may
want
to
try
to
do
some
adjusting
there
and
we're
under
by
a
fair
amount
in
24
and
25
right
below,
where
robert
has
it
highlighted
right
now.
So
that's
the
important
thing
to
take
a
look
at
and
now
we
can.
C
C
M
C
F
F
A
A
N
So,
thank
you.
I
I
just
want
to
make
one
point
about
what
scott
pointed
out
I
so
I
think
I
was
one
of
the
co-authors
of
the
comments,
so
I
totally
support
the
idea
of
them
funding
sidewalks
in
2022
and
2023,
and
we
have
a
comment
telling
them
to
do
that.
That
said,
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
put
the
funding
in.
We
can
do
it
either
way.
N
If
we
can
kind
of
come
up
with
things
to
take
out
to
you
know,
if
we're
going
to
fund
things
that
are
where
we're
already
over
so
robert,
can
I
ask
you
to
go
to
the
top
of
the
spreadsheet,
and
maybe
we
need
to
go
through
this
and
just
look
by
program
now
that
we've
got
a
starting
point,
so
northside
greenway's
in
there's
nothing
to
do
on
bike
pad.
It
seems
to
me
the
next
program
down
at
126
is
pretty
far
away.
So
now
you
move
to
bridges
bridge.
N
N
P
D
N
N
I
don't
know
if
he's
having
technical
difficulties,
but
I
I'm
happy
to
make
the
most
on
behalf
all
right,
john,
so
the
the
motion
katie
or
somebody
help
me
out
here,
because
I
don't
remember
what
we
said
in
the
comment.
But
if
we
gave
specific
numbers,
but
the
the
motion
would
be
to
restore
funding
in
2022
and
23
23.,
actually
in
2022
through
2024,
I
guess
we'd.
Do
it
at
that
same
300,
000
level.
Q
K
N
N
F
N
D
D
A
I
would
love
to
do
unanimous
consent.
The
clerk's
office
has
said
previously.
That's
frowned
upon
in
the
virtual
environment.
Alternative
might
be
just
to
make
a
motion
and
then
have
amendments
done
as
friendly
amendments.
I
don't
like
friendly
amendments,
but
I
think
we
could
argue
about
it
in
the
time
that
it
takes
for
a
quick
roll
call.
So
great,
let's
try
to
be
comprehensive
in
future
emotions,
so
clerk
will
call
a
role
in
this
one,
and
then
members
can
be
creative
and
put
multiple
actions
into
a
single
motion
going
forward.
D
C
E
D
F
B
B
N
B
N
B
N
K
Yes,
so
I
intend
to
move
back
in
the
public
space
program,
so
this
is
a
new
project.
So
that's
why
I
think
it
scored
low
low,
that's
otherwise
it
would
have
had
you
know
the
historical
points
so,
but
it's
also
not
an
expensive
program,
and
so
that's
another
reason
why
it's
kind
of
again
a
rounding
error
that
I
think
could
provide
a
lot
of
value
and
experimentation
and
piloting
for
more
public
space,
complete
streets
type
initiatives.
D
K
A
N
N
I
K
N
G
G
G
P
Is
that
correct,
barbara
right?
I
I
think
I
would
echo
that
for
this
project
in
particular,
I
think
we
had
that
question
of
why
we
didn't
see
a
funding
request
for
2022
and
it
sounds
like
we
can
infer
that
the
1.9
million
dollars
in
authorized,
but
unissued
bonds
are
planned
to
be
utilized
either
for
work
this
year
or
in
22,
possibly
both
to
start
getting
this
project
or
to
make
progress
on
this
project.
The
project
is
now
asking
for
additional
authorizations
for
23
through
27.
right
now.
N
I
would
just
eric
I
just
said
your
point
is
fair,
but
I
think
we
should
be
careful
too.
There's
different
reasons
why
they're
behind
and
particularly
coming
out
of
the
pandemic,
it
could
just
be
a
catch-up
thing
and
oftentimes
they're
able
to
get
it
caught
up
quite
quickly.
It's
it's
when
program
for
me,
it's
when
projects
are
perennially,
have
these
huge
unspent
balances
or
authorized,
but
not
issued
bonds.
G
N
A
J
I'd
agree
what
katie
was
saying
earlier
about
the
third
9-1-1
and
also
there's
monies
coming
into
the
police
department
to
do
something
from
the
covet
that
was
just
announced
this
morning.
So
I
don't
know
how
that's
all
going
to
work,
but
the
cities
will
be
getting
all.
Cities
will
be
getting
more
money
for
the
police
department,
but
I
agree
with
support
what
katie
sings.
H
Hey
matt,
I
guess
you
know
I
I
I
think
the
the
comments
we've
authored
here
around
policy
around
funding
police
related
things
right
now.
I
I
think
we
should
leave
all
of
those
off,
though
I
do
think
as
katie
mentioned,
991
is
separate,
and
we
should.
I
agree
with
putting
that
in
here.
I
guess
the
other
one
on
this
list
that
I'm
slightly
compelled
by
is
the
city
hall
won,
but
it
does
rank
rather
lowly.
H
I
just
wonder
if
that
is
one
where,
because
work
is
still
happening,
if
if
it
would
really
mess
with
the
completion
of
that
building,
to
not
include
the
city
and
new
public
sector
building
on
this
in
the
transition,
that's
happening
with
the
city
right
now.
Would
that
be
an
issue
or
you
know
are?
Is
it
are
things
going
to
go?
Okay
with
that
transition
to
the
new
building
without
these
funds,
john.
N
Yeah
actually
good
catch
matt,
and
I
agree
with
you:
I'm
not
sure
why
this
scored
so
low.
It's
a
good,
in
my
view,
it's
a
good
project
in
terms
of
it.
The
reality
is,
it
saves
the
city
money,
whether
you
like
the
building
or
don't
like
the
building
over
the
long
haul.
It
saves
the
city
money
their
process
around
this
stunk
right.
N
They
they
basically
excluded
it
from
from
click
back
in
2018,
and
they
should
not
have
done
that,
but
that's
water
under
the
bridge,
we've
made
a
comment
and
told
them
that
you
know
this.
One
does
fall
20
points
below
our
ranking,
but
to
me
this
will
they're
going
to
do
this,
one,
which
is
not
necessarily
a
reason
for
us
to
recommend
it.
N
For
what
it's,
just
according
to
the
start
of
you
right,
jacob
fry
was
quoted
in
the
article,
is
basically
saying
that
they,
some
of
the
quote,
cost
overruns
which
I'm
assuming
this
must
be.
That
sort
of
thing
is
about
improving
the
carbon
footprint
of
the
building,
adding
solar
panels,
things
that
were
not
initially
in
the
plan.
That's
what
the
quote
is
in
the
star
tribune
article,
how
accurate
that
is,
I
don't
know.
That's
the
only
information
I
have
on
it.
P
Yeah
and
if
you
remember,
there
were
two
major
components
to
this
project:
it's
the
new
public
service
building
and
the
city
hall
portion
of
the
improvements,
the
new
public
service
building
is
stood
up
now
and
what
we're
looking
at
is
is
the
the
additional
cost
of
restacking
reorganizing
staff
within
within
city
hall,
making
those
improvements
and
that's
kind
of
separate
from
how
we've
done
improvements
in
the
past,
in
partnership
with
the
municipal
building
commission.
These
are
entirely
city
born
city-born,
us.
F
O
F
Can
you
hear
me
okay,
so
you
know
they're
gonna
do
this
anyway,
so
why
don't
we
just
put
it
in
the
budget,
so
it
takes
the
money
out
of
there
because
they
are
going
to
do
this.
For
I
mean
they
need
to
do
this,
whether
we
suggest
they
do
it
or
not
so
putting
the
money
aside.
For
that
to
happen,
just
shows
us
how
much
money
we're
going
to
have
truly
have
money
left
to
deal
with.
N
John,
so
I
I
think
we
should
put
this
in,
but
I
don't
agree
with
that
that
approach.
I
think
it's
important
that
we,
if
this
is
not
the
project,
but
if
there's
a
project
that
they're,
we
know
they're
going
to
put
the
money
in
for,
but
we
don't
agree,
we
should
keep
the
money
out,
despite
the
fact
that
you
know
that
there's
some
practical
issues
around
that,
I
think
it's
important
that
we
convey
that
message
to
them
again.
I
I'm
not
saying
that
about
this
project,
I'm
just
broadly
speaking,
connectivity.
N
A
N
C
N
K
N
N
A
K
N
N
P
N
This
is
where
we
can
start
to
pick
and
choose
to
put
stuff
in
that
that
helps
in
the
specific
years
that
we
need,
because
there
isn't
much
difference
on
the
ratings
on
these
so
125
and
over
in
every
other
year.
Sorry
under
in
24
and
25
and
over
in
every
other
year.
So
can
you
scroll
down
and
look
for
ones
that
have
big
asks
in
24
and
25.
K
E
D
N
J
N
N
M
H
A
D
N
G
P
So
sorry,
to
be
clear,
we
would
move
the
bonds
issued
from
pv
108
out
to
2024
and
then
because
I
remember
this
comment
coming
up
in
the
past.
This
is
really
close
to
a
year
when
some
or
a
large
portion
of
this
work
may
be
programmed,
I'm
less
familiar
with
how
concrete
streets
is
working
because
it
is
an
ongoing
program,
but
is
that
a
question
or
consideration
for
the
committee
as
we
make
this
make
this
proposed
move.
N
A
H
Okay,
yeah,
I'm
wondering,
are
there
others?
I
guess
this
question
of
how
do
we
get
2022
balanced
out,
obviously,
is
an
important
one.
I'm
wondering
if
there
are
other
sections
we
need
to
go
through
before
we
like
fine-tune
the
numbers
or
have
we
already
gone
past
most
of
the
things
that
have
bonding
implications,
because
I
I
I
also
would
like
to
see.
Are
there
other
options
better
than
moving
around
the
concrete
streets
program.
D
P
C
A
P
All
right,
let
me
let
me
work
through
them
really
quickly.
We
have
bp008,
which
is
being
recommended
for
inclusion.
It's
an
additional
250
000
a
year
starting
in
2024.
That's
the
public
space
program.
By
the
way
dr
134
bridge
9
program
is
being
recommended
for
inclusion,
with
a
two
million
dollar
cut
to
the
2027
requested
funding
level.
P
The
911
facility
project
is
being
recommended
for
inclusion
in
2022
and
2023,
which
comports
with
the
years
of
requested
funding,
psd,
20
city
hall
and
new
public
service
building
project
is
being
recommended
for
inclusion
despite
being
below
the
cutoff
nbc
13.
The
4th
street
sidewalk
exterior
improvements
project
for
150
000
is
recommended
for
inclusion
in
2022
and
then
concrete
streets,
rehabilitation
recommending
pushing
the
funding
for
2022
out
to
2024
for
the
net
deadbonds
I'm
going
to
scroll
through
and
just
confirm
that
I
don't
have
any
additional
changes.
E
P
K
K
C
N
So
important
to
note
on
142
that
it's
not
using
netdefon,
so
it
has
no
impact
on
what
we're
doing
here
so
to
the
extent
that
it's
an
underway
project
everything
got
to
fund
it.
We
can
do
that
and
it
has
no
impact
on
their.
What
we're
trying
to
balance
here,
general
fund
yeah,
it's
using
general
fund
money.
A
K
C
K
J
J
K
J
C
A
D
M
N
C
D
I
D
F
P
C
D
I
A
N
So
it's
I
don't
know
how
productive
we're
going
to
be
below
here.
I
think
most
of
this.
The
next
step
is
all
fully
funded.
So
unless
we're
gonna,
what
we
need
to
focus
on
is
getting
more
funding
in
2025,
less
funding
in
26
and
27..
Those
are
the
biggest
out
of
balance
places
at
this
point.
We
may
need
to
go
back
to
paving,
but
we
should
look
below
paving
first.
N
N
N
So
you
can,
but
it's
not
using
many
years
that
matter
for
us,
so
I
don't
know
that
we
mess
with
it
robert.
Can
you
go
to
that
and
leave
it
on
screen
quarter
18.,
so
just
using
bonds
in
21,
22
and,
oh
sorry,
that's
prior
22
and
23..
So
it's
it's
a
highly
rated
project
at
194..
Those
are
not
the
years
where
we
have
big
problems,
so
I
would
suggest
we
not
mess
with
that.
At
this
point,.
P
N
H
robert.
Would
you
be
able
to
bring
the
screen
to
kind
of
the
overview,
because
I'm
I'm
wondering
should
our
process
do
we
need
to
focus
on
adding
or
cutting
or
just
shifting
things
around
in
the
years?
I
see
that
we
are.
Our
total
is
nine
percent
above
ndb.
So
do
we
need
to
overall
cut
versus
adding
new
things
and
are
there
any?
I
seem
to
remember
that.
It's
important
that
the
2022
we
get
close
to
zero
and
the
total
we
get
close
to
zero.
N
H
K
N
City,
there
is
no
there's,
no
great
clean
answer
to
matt.
It's
a
fair
point.
It's
this
is
this:
is
the
messy
sausage
making
we're
doing
we're
in
the
midst
of
right?
Now?
Basically,
you
know
if
we
can
find
a
project,
that's
got
funny
in
26
and
27
that
we
like,
and
we
think
they
ought
to
move
up
great.
Let's
do
that
because
that's
the
easiest
way
to
solve
this.
N
K
N
N
K
N
N
N
N
D
N
E
K
N
N
N
J
K
N
J
N
D
N
N
I
think
you
should
open
it
up
to
anybody
who'd
like
to
be
a
part
of
that.
You
know
without
getting
it
to
be
too
big
a
group
and
with
the
understanding
that,
if
we
make
10
proposals,
if
you
like
nine
of
them,
an
option
will
be
to
break
out
the
one
that
you
don't
like
and
we'll
vote
on
the
nine
and
then
deal
with
the
one
that
people
don't
like.
E
F
E
N
E
A
J
N
J
N
On
that,
john
sorry,
just
really
quickly,
I
did
get
this
pro
forma
sheet
from
the
water
department
via
robert,
so
either
I'll
send
it
out
to
everybody
or
I'll.
Let
robert
do
that,
but
it's
going
to
be
a
little
more
controversial
this
year.
Some
of
the
I
think
some
of
the
the
rate
increases,
especially
around
water,
are,
are
more
significant
than
they've
been
in
the
past.
So
we
don't
we're
not
going
to
tell
them.
You
got
to
change
the
rates,
but
what
we
can
do
is
not
fund
everything
they
want
to
fund.