►
From YouTube: June 30, 2021 Capital Long Range Improvement Committee
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
The
regular
meeting
of
the
capital
long
range
committee,
the
improvements
committee,
is
beginning
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
jeffrey
strand,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
capital,
long
range
improvement
committee
or
click
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
note
that
this
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
A
B
D
Steve
brandt,
james
brown,
here
luke
cunningham,.
E
D
F
F
F
D
H
H
F
H
D
C
So
we've
got
a
couple
hands
up
steve
brandt,
I
noticed
your
hand
was
up.
I
believe
jonathan
on
is
also
in
queue.
H
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
I
think
I
answered
during
the
roll
call
during
luke's
slot
I'm
here
I
don't
know
if
luke
is
here.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that.
E
I
It's
a
little
difficult
to
hear
to
clark,
so
I
think
I
missed
a
roll
call.
Jonathan's
online.
I
H
D
D
J
F
F
G
A
Thanks
motion
adopted
quick
review
of
our
agenda,
so
we
need
to
conclude
the
financial
recommendations
for
net
debt
bonds.
As
you
recall,
at
the
last
meeting,
we
established
an
ad
hoc
committee
to
take
care
of
that
recommendation
work.
We
had
john
willie
eric
katie,
matt
and
myself
participating
on
that
group.
A
We
need
to
complete
the
financial
recommendations
for
enterprise
funds
ditto
on
the
ad
hoc
committee,
finalize
any
general
comments
or
revisions
to
adopted
comments
based
on
the
financial
recommendations,
we'll
hear
from
staff
on
the
timeline
for
the
publication
of
the
2021
click
report
and
executive
committee
meeting
with
mayor
frye
we'll
have
discuss
our
annual
meeting
to
debrief,
which
would
be
a
best
practice
along
with
the
social
gathering
as
chair
on
behalf
of
the
chair
and
vice
chair,
I'm
proposing
that
we
during
the
off
season
have
two
ad
hoc
committees,
one
committee
on
bylaws
and
policies
and
procedures.
A
Secondly,
is
a
ad
hoc
committee
on
the
equity
training
for
click
for
2022
and
I'd
ask
to
have
members
of
expressed
interest,
amity,
foster
and
katrina,
stratton
and
again,
I'd
have
that
I
would
have
vice
chair
willie
bridges,
convene
the
meeting
and
have
it
at
the
call
of
the
executive
committee
so
without
further
ado
moving.
K
To
item
four
question,
sir
there's
one
outstanding
general
comment:
is
there
a
space
on
the
agenda
for
that.
A
There
is
number
six
okay,
so
the
concluding
the
financial
recommendations
for
net
debt
bonds.
So
I
believe
john
bernstein
will
have
a
presentation
and
spreadsheet
to
make
a
resolution
recommendation
from
the
committee
to
to
wrap
up
the
recommendations
for
net
debt
bond
financial
funding.
John.
L
Thanks
robert
just
quick
housekeeping
here,
I
I
exited
the
meeting
and
rejoined
to
see
if
that
would
help.
So
I'm
wondering
if
you
need
to
redesignate
me
as
a
presenter
one
more
time,
we'll
see
if
it
works
otherwise,
you're
just
gonna
have
to
direct
one
of
you
guys.
C
L
L
L
L
Perfect
leave
it
right
there
for
just
a
minute.
Let
me
put
my
glasses
on
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
be
brief
about
this,
but
at
the
same
time
I
want
to
make
sure
everybody's
on
board
with
what
we're
doing
here.
So
I'm
going
to
give
a
little
bit
of
context
around
this.
You
know
our
value
to
the
elected
officials
that
we
sort
of
have
a
30,
000
foot
view
of
all
of
this.
L
They
have
staff
and
lots
of
other
people
that
have
a
much
more
detailed
view
than
we
have
and
that's
not
what
our
work
we're
useful
for,
because
that's
not
our
you
know
the
staff
is
the
expert,
so
they
they
really
are
looking
for
a
30
000
foot
view
from
us.
So
I
I
mentioned
that,
because,
when
we
get
into
moving
money
around
that's
getting
a
bit
away
from
a
30
000
foot
view,
but
the
reality
is.
We
need
to
give
them
something.
That's
reasonably
balanced
in
in
an
effort
to
do
that.
L
It's
possible
that
we're
moving
a
project
that
just
plain
can't
be
moved
for
reasons
we
don't
know
about,
and
I
guess
the
way
I
look
at
that
personally
is
that's
okay,
we're
advisory.
They
have
the
flexibility
to
shift
things
back
a
different
way.
If
that's
what
needs
to
happen
because
of
some
information
we
don't
have
what's
mostly
important-
is
that
we
give
them
a
good
thirty
thousand
foot
view,
which
is
what
the
click
final
report
will
do,
and
then
we
hand
them
something:
that's
reasonably
balanced.
So
I
just
give
you
that
context.
L
L
L
It
moved
from
being
nine
percent
over
to
two
percent
over
which,
to
the
view
of
the
committee,
is
close
enough
for
government
work
for
lack
of
a
better
way
to
put
it
and
for
each
individual
year,
we're
well
into
single
digits
with
the
near
years
being
very
close
to
zero
and
some
of
the
out
years
being
a
little
bit
larger
variants,
which
all
of
us
think
is
close
enough,
so
that
I
give
you
that
context.
L
This
is
kind
of
the
starting
point
from
where
we
ended
the
last
meeting
and
where
we've
moved
this
to
so
now,
I'll
try
to
quickly
show
you
what
we
did
to
make
that
happen.
We'll
start
with
getting
it.
The
six
year
plan
down
from
nine
percent
over
to
two
percent
over
the
only
way
to
reduce
the
six-year
plan,
is
to
remove
a
project
shifting
projects
around
isn't
going
to
reduce
the
total
amount
of
spending.
L
L
L
All
of
the
funding
is
in
2027
the
out
year
and
it's
big
dollars
so
by
cutting
that
one
project.
It
takes
this
thing
from
being
over
funded
by
nine
percent
to
being
over
funded
by
two
percent
it.
This
is
a
project
that
probably
needs
to
happen,
but
if
it
needs
to
get
delayed
one
year
to
get
this
to
balance
when
it's
out
in
2027,
that
seems
reasonable.
L
So
we're
not
picking
on
a
particular
project.
This
one
just
worked
and
it
worked
well
in
the
sense
it
was
also
fairly
close
to
the
cutoff.
So
that's
the
reasoning
behind
that
now
so
from
that's.
That
gets
this
overall,
reasonably
imbalanced.
The
rest
of
what
we
did
was
shifting
was
shifting
funding
around
to
get
all
of
the
years
more
in
balance.
So
if
you
go
up
to
the
top
robert
and
just
scroll
down
and
look
for
red
starting
from
the
top
and
I'll
just
briefly
go
through
all
of
these.
L
L
We
shifted
it
to
2025,
because
that
helped
the
numbers.
We
were
severely
underfunded.
We
remain
20
underfunded
at
the
start
of
this,
in
2025
seems
pretty
non-controversial
right.
People
like
this
project.
We
put
this
project
in
we're,
telling
them
to
move
it
up
a
year,
but
it's
still
three
years,
four
years
away.
So
it's
not
like
it's.
You
know
going
to
cause
them
to
have
to
do
a
bunch
of
things
to
make
that
happen.
L
So
that's
the
first
one,
the
next
then
scrolling
down
to
these
next
few
fire
station
11.
We
just
again
we
needed
to
get
some
numbers
to
balance,
so
we
shifted
a
million
dollars
out
of
2023
into
2024..
They
still
have
4
million
in
2023.
To
get
this
going
again,
something
has
to
move
to
get
all
this
to
happen.
So
that
was
you
know.
L
We
tried
to
make
small
smaller
shifts
to
big
projects,
to
get
the
numbers
to
balance
without
having
a
major
impact
on
the
project
itself
and
when
it
starts
farmers
market,
we
did
move
out
it's
in
the
near-term
years.
We
got
to
get
those
numbers
closer
to
zero.
There's
no
way
to
do
that
without
moving
something.
So
we
picked
this
one
they're
getting
the
same
amount
of
funding,
we're
just
delaying
it
by
two
years.
Basically,
moving
down
from
that
the
911.
Again,
we
shifted
a
relatively
small
amount.
L
They
were
looking
for
7.2
million
to
get
this
going
in
2022
we
took
a
million
away
and
just
delayed
it
by
a
couple
of
years,
they're
still
getting
6.2
million
to
get
this
started
next
year.
So
the
hope
is
that
that's
not
going
to
have
a
major
impact
on
them
being
able
to
get
started.
Is
the
thought
behind
that
keep
scrolling
down.
L
L
L
L
They
still
have
over
10
million
dollars
to
get
rolling
on
this
project
in
2022..
It's
hard
to
imagine
that
that's
going
to
have
any
impact
on
what
they're
they're
getting
started.
But
again,
if
we've
made
a
mistake,
they'll
shift
it
back.
There's
one
project
that
we
deliberately
left
deliberately
left
alone,
that
they
could
and
others
where
they
can
try
to
shift
money
around
a
different
way
if
necessary,
keep
scrolling.
L
L
Sorry,
so
that's
it
for
net
debt
bonds,
so
just
go
back
up
to
the
top.
For
a
second,
you
know
we
could
have
kept
going
and
tried
to
balance
out
that
six
percent
over
in
2026
and
the
six
percent
under
in
2025,
but
the
reality
is
we're
pretty
close
and
if
they
underspend
in
one
year
and
overspend
in
the
following
year
to
it
perfectly
offset
that
I
think
that's
probably
better
to
leave
it
alone
than
keep
making
a
bunch
of
changes
that
may
have
create
calendar
problems
that
we're
unaware
of.
A
M
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
recognize,
I
mean
I
think
a
lot
of
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
but
so,
given
that
one
project-
seventh
avenue
north,
you
know
just
looking
more
at
that
project,
I
mean
it's
a
I
I
want.
I,
I
think
it'd
be
good
to
write
a
comment
to
express
kind
of
our
our
rationale
here
and
that
we
don't
necessarily
think
it's
a
bad
project
and
that
we
would
encourage
public
works
to
bring
it
back
next
year.
L
M
M
I'll
just
also
say
my
name
was
included
on
that
committee.
I
did
not
participate,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
kudos
to
all
of
you
who
who
did
do
this
work.
So
thank
you.
L
I
just
jeff,
can
I
be
recognized
for
a
second?
Yes,
john?
I
just
I
really
encourage
anybody
if
you
have
any
concerns
or
questions
to,
please
ask
them,
because
what
the
one
thing
we're
not
trying
to
do
is
force
something
through
that
people
aren't
comfortable
with
we're
simply
trying
to
get
we've
been
behind.
You
know.
L
A
Not
seeing
anyone
else
I'll
take
the
liberty
also
saying
that
I
do
think
7th
street
north
is
an
important
project
also
as
a
north
sider,
and
it's
it's
an
important
connector
from
near
north
into
downtown
by
the
ballpark.
But
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
to
have
a
comment
and
say
that
let's,
let's
do
the
street,
but
we
just
can't
do
it
in
this
six-year
cip.
N
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
say
I
had
a
chance
to
review
this
last
night.
I
thought
it
looked
great.
My
only
question
was
about
the
issue
that
john
already
raised
six
percent
from
2025
to
2026,
whether
that
would
be
a
problem.
I
think
he
addressed
that
everything
else
I
thought
looks
both
clean
and
sort
of
as
little
change
as
possible
to
get
the
job
done.
So
thank
you,
john
and
team.
O
Yep,
I
just
like
to
echo
that
and
kudos
to
you
for
working
this
and
and
very
very
clearly
explaining
it,
and
mine
is
more
of
a
question
than
a
comment,
and
it
relates
to
the
street
funding,
because
we
are
shifting
money
around
quite
a
bit
between
the
years
and
is
that.
How
does
that
work
is?
That
is
that
within
our
purview,
to
recommend
that
much
of
a
variability.
L
We've
always
done
that.
That's
kind
of
you
know,
because
there's
no
other
way
to
get
to
do
this
right.
If
we
have
to
give
them
something
that's
balanced
year
by
year,
it's
virtually
impossible
to
do
that
by
simply
putting
a
project
in
or
taking
a
project
out,
because
it's
this
that
level
of
detail
we're
forced
to
do
some
shifting
around
like
this.
So
and
that's
it's
okay
right,
we
might
be
there.
L
M
I
would
also
say
that,
for
these
projects
you
know
they're,
not
they
don't
need
10
million
dollars
all
at
once.
They
you
know
they
need
to
have
the
bonds
issued
at
the
time
that
they
need
to
pay
for
things,
so
they
don't
necessarily
yeah
again
need
it
all
at
once.
H
I
just
had
a
question:
maybe
this
is
covered
somewhere
in
the
spreadsheet
that
I
missed,
but
does
this
run
a
foul
of
either
the
street
funding
ordinance
or
the
park
funding
ordinance
in
any
significant
way.
L
So
that's
a
with
with
respect
to
park
funding.
The
answer
is
no
and
that's
because
we're
funding
everything
they're
asking
for
and
as
we
previously
discussed,
they
very
conveniently
asked
for
exactly
what
they
get,
which
is
a
problem
that
we
need
to
comment
on
streets
is
a
little
bit
less
clear.
There's
some
from
my
perspective.
L
L
So,
if
you
look
at
those
numbers
there,
it
looks
like
we're
well
within
the
street
funding
ordinance,
but
those
are
including
some
things
that
at
least
some
people
in
public
works
are
saying
should
not
be
included.
So
it's
a
it's
somewhat
up
for
debate
and,
interestingly,
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
ordinance.
The
ordinance
does
have
language
in
it.
That
says
that
they
can
look
at
and
redefine
what
qualifies
over
time.
C
Yeah
I
mean
I
think
I
can
echo
a
lot
of
the
comments
and
just
the
importance
of
understanding.
You
know
what
this
does
in
terms
of
streets
funding.
You
know
I
wanted
to
comment
on
a
couple
of
the.
We
see
some
red
numbers
up
top
on
the
over
under
for
streets
funding
on
the
spreadsheet.
That's
on
the
screen
22
through
24
like
appear
like
they're,
under
for
streets,
funding
versus
25
through
27
and
they're
a
bit
over
subscribed.
I
I
would
just
want
to
note
that
you
know
for
paving
projects.
C
The
amount
that
was
requested
or
22
through
24
would
have
made
it
difficult
for
click
as
a
body
to
meet
the
the
street
funding
ordinance
as
it's
been
interpreted,
and
so
that's
that's
not
an
unexpected
number,
and
I
don't
think
that
there
was
much
more
that
quick
could
have
done
just
given
the
the
projects
that
were
requested
to
to
to
to
better
fund
streets.
I
would
say
just
at
a
high
level
so
steve,
I
think
that's
a
great
it's
a
great
question
and
I
can
also
comment.
C
You
know
just
at
a
very
high
level
and,
having
had
limited
time
to,
I
think,
go
through
just
just
looking
at
this
it.
This
does
appear
to
utilize
some
of
the
more
flexible
funding
sources
that
we
have
available
for
the
cip
and
to
echo
john's
comments.
You
know
we're
at
seven
million
dollars.
Seven
point:
eight
million
dollars
over
on
total
net
debt
bond
funding,
which
indicates
that
these
bonds
are,
you
know
they
are
indeed
being
fully
utilized
in
this
cip,
so
yeah.
C
A
A
I
guess
john
I'll
beg
your
forgiveness,
but
just
to
be
completely
transparent
with
the
body.
The
committee
did
look
at
a
project
and
decided
not
to
move
it.
A
We
thought
that
we
were
within
the
acceptable
parameters,
and
I'm
not
mentioning
this
for
anyone
to
suggest
an
amendment
at
this
time,
but
just
full
transparency
that
we
did
look
at
pv,
123
logan
park,
industrial
right
in
terms
of
flip-flopping
in
years
to
try
to
be
at
a
more
perfect
balance,
but
we
recognize
that
our
we
are
an
advisory
body,
and
so
the
mayor
and
all
the
mayors
paid
professional
staff
is
going
to
look
at
this
and
the
council
is
going
to
look
at
it.
So
you
know
we
didn't.
C
A
B
L
L
That,
in
fact,
can't
be
done
by
leaving
this
where
it
is,
we've
give
them
the
flexibility
to
shift
it
over
and
shift
the
other
one
back
and
sort
of
send
a
message
that
you
know
under
spending
by
six
percent
in
one
year
and
overspending
by
six
percent
in
the
following
year
is
okay
that
that's!
You
know.
The
goal
ought
to
be
that
that
over
six
years,
they're
in
balance-
and
I
think
you
know
allowing
that
flexibility
is
more
realistic
and
just
a
better
way
to
go
about
doing
this
kind
of
budgeting.
A
Thanks
john,
if
we
do
not
have
any
other
questions
or
comments,
then
in
the
interest
of
time
and
completing
our
report
today,
not
seeing
any
other
hands
raised,
the
clerk
will
call
a
roll
on
adoption
of
this
recommendation
from
the
ad
hoc.
L
D
Jim
brown,
luke
cunningham
aye,
scott
engel
aye
emmy
foster.
D
F
I
F
F
A
L
So
robert,
can
you
just
briefly
pull
up
the
pro
forma
from
public
works?
I
want
to
give
a
little
context
on
this
one
as
well
before
we
dive
into
the
spreadsheet
yeah.
C
Give
me
a
second
to
to
pull
the
file
up.
L
L
These
both
form
as
there's
one
for
each
enterprise
fund,
water,
sanitary
sewer
and
storm
water,
sewer,
what's
important
to
know
about
these
pro
formas
is,
as
I
understand
it,
these
pro
formas
presume
that
every
project
that
they've
requested
of
us
will
get
funded,
and
so
what
these
show
is
with
lots
of
assumptions
about
what
water
usage
will
be
over
the
next
six
years.
It
shows
what
the
anticipated
impact
on
rates
is
over
that
six
year
period.
L
So
the
reason
this
is
important
the
equivalent
would
be
if
we
did
the
net
debt
bond
funding
without
the
city
council,
giving
us
a
net
debt
on
budget
and
having
no
idea
what
they
want
to
spend.
They
they
give
us
a
budget.
So
this
is
a
little
bit
different.
They
don't
give
us
a
budget,
but
they
show
us
what
happens
if
they
fund
everything
to
rates.
L
So,
having
said
that,
could
you
now
switch
to
the
sheet
that
I
sent
out
that
shows
the
percent
changes
to
the
enterprise
funds?
Sorry
robert.
There,
oh
you're,
ready
for
me
thanks.
Can
you
blow
that
up
a
little
bit
for
those
of
us
with
old
man,
eyes
and
old
lady
eyes,
all
right?
So
this
is
the
key
that
we
kind
of
need
to
look
at.
So
if
you
look
at
stormwater
fund
up
at
the
top,
you
can
see
that
those
percent
changes
were
basically
three
percent
every
year
out
six
years.
L
L
L
By
contrast,
if
you
look
at
the
variable
rate,
where
it
says
rate
per
billing
unit
down
towards
the
bottom
underwater
fund,
the
the
rate,
the
increases
are
quite
small
well
under
one
percent,
if
you
look
at
the
total,
those
numbers
are
a
little
bit
misleading,
because
what
they
assume
is
that
somebody
only
uses
one
billing
unit.
A
billing
unit
is
a
hundred
cubic
feet
of
water,
which
is
about
750
gallons
of
water.
L
I
looked
this
up
last
night
at
least
a
few
years
ago,
the
average
household
in
minneapolis
residential
household
uses
about
six
thousand
six
thousand
gallons
of
water
a
month.
So
I
just
did
the
math
on
this
using
a
smaller
number.
So
if
someone
had
a
bill
where
they
used
five
units
billing
units,
that
would
equate
to
a
little
less
than
four
thousand
gallons.
So
I'm
not
you
know
I'm
keeping
the
numbers
low
if
they
had
five
units
that
that
would
be
five
times.
L
So
that's
the
context
for
what
we're
about
to
do
with
enterprise
funds.
My
again,
this
is
me
talking
personally,
I
view
these
rate
increases
as
as
reasonable
overall,
in
that
all
of
that
context,
and
that's
important
in
terms
of
what
what
we
choose
to
do
in
terms
of
funding.
So
with
that,
let's
go
to
the
enterprise
funds.
H
F
L
I
guess
I
don't
know
for
sure,
but
I
mean
those
are
just
dollars
that
they're
moving
over
there
you're
they're
just
shifting
some
of
the
burden.
That
way-
and
I
I
think
I
think
the
answer
to
your
question
is
no,
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
that
we
don't
get
too
much
into
the
weeds
on
that.
That's
how
we
got
into
trouble
with
elected
officials
and
they
stopped
giving
us
this
information
about
eight
years
ago
and
again,
I
just
think
it's
a
fine
line.
L
It's
not
really
our
job
to
get
too
much
into
rates
telling
them
that
they
ought
to
shift
the
burden
to
variable
is
a
little
bit
different
than
getting
telling
asking
them
for
a
bunch
of
detail
about.
You
know,
what's
fixed
and
not
fixed
and
etc
again,
fine
line,
but
I
I
just
think
we
need
to
be
kind
of
careful
about
that.
I
think
it's
better
to
stick
with.
L
Let's
say
that
we
thought
these
rates
were
unreasonable
increases
instead
of
telling
them
to
lower
rates.
I
think
the
better
way
to
go
about
it
is
to
fund
pick
a
number.
Eighty
percent
of
what
they're
asking
for
instead
of
a
hundred
percent
of
what
they're
asking
for
so
again,
I'm
speaking
personally
when
I
say
that
I
it
looks
to
me
like
these
rate
increases,
are
reasonable.
L
L
If
three
percent
increases
under
sanitary
steward,
it
seems
pretty
reasonable
to
give
them
what
they're
asking
for
there
then
moving
down
to
storm
water.
If
you
just
scroll
up
a
little
bit
robert
the
same
thing
with
storm
water,
there
is
one
that's
close
to
the
cut-off,
but
it
makes
it
and
given
the
rate
increases,
it
seems
reasonable
to
give
them
what
they're
asking
for
and
then
scrolling
down
to
water.
L
L
L
I
personally
wouldn't
have
an
objection
if
somebody
wanted
to
make
a
motion
to
include
this
one
softening
plant
chemicals
is
fairly
important
and
I
know
we
have
some
click
members
that
can
speak
to
the
details
of
why
more
than
I
can
so.
I
would
just
that's
I'd
stop
there
and
you
know
the
proposal
is
to
fund
sanitary
every
project,
because
every
project
made
it
same
for
stormwater
and
same
for
water
but,
as
I
said
open
to
an
amendment
to
add
in
this
one
project
that
doesn't
make
our
cut.
M
Yeah,
so
I
will
make
that
amendment
I
mean,
I
think
it's
good
for
so
water
softening
prevents
clogs
and
it
keeps
our
pipes
in
better
repair.
So
I
think
that's
a
good
investment.
A
A
seconded
I
want
to
speak
to
that
as
well.
Willie
isn't
here,
so
I
can't
hand
the
gavel
to
him.
The
capital
budget
request
says
that
the
lime
slakers
are
nearing
the
end
of
their
serviceable
life.
They
have
six
lime,
slakers,
four
of
which
are
reaching
the
end
of
their
serviceable
life,
and
so
as
a
longtime
click.
Member
and
former
waterworks
advisory
citizen
advisory
commission
committee
member
water
services
has
done
a
lot
in
their
chemical
treatment
realm
to
move
away.
D
C
Let
me
when
I
change
these
real,
quick
and
you'll
be
able
to
see
the
impact.
So
if
I
delete
these
out
you're
looking
at
155.7
million
dollars
on
water
across
the
six-year
cip
and
including
it,
you
see,
169,
of
which
it's
a
combination
of
water
revenues
that
are
going
to
be
paid
in
the
current
year
and
water
bonds
repayable
by
water
revenues.
A
A
Anything
else
on
so
we
have
an
amendment
to
emotion.
A
I
would
I
don't
usually
do
this,
but
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
either
have
another
amendment
or
amend
the
amendment.
I
think
amend
the
amendment
as
deep
as
we
can
go.
If
you
can
scroll
into
the
I
want
to
get
into
the
fleet
services
area,
and
we
don't
have
a.
We
don't
have
the
pro
forma
on
that
john.
You
just
have
the
storm
water,
sanitary
sewer
and
water
fund.
L
A
That'll
be
fine,
I
think
it's
it's
more
straightforward,
as
you
suggest,
so
so
I'll
just
step
back
for
a
second
and
then
we
so
we
have
the
the
items
that
have
been
recommended
so
far
and
then
an
amendment.
So
we
should
really
is
there
unanimous
consent
on
adding
the
item
that
was
suggested
by
the
amendment
that
was
seconded.
A
If
there's
no
objection,
we
will
call
a
role
on
the
on
the
items
proposed
along
with
the
softening
plant
chemical
system,
improvement,
water,
32.
K
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
D
A
L
All
right
so
these
last
two
there's
a
fleet
enterprise
fund
and
a
parking
enterprise
fund.
We
don't
have
pro
formas
for
them.
These
are
much
smaller
amounts,
with
the
exception
of
the.
So,
if
we
use
the
same
logic,
we
just
used
there's
only
one
project,
we'd
recommend,
there's
only
one
that
that
meets
our
cutoff
of
158
and
that's
the
fuel
and
charging
station
I'll
make
a
couple
of
a
couple
of
observations
about
that.
L
L
So
that's
one
observation
and
also,
as
it
relates
to
fleet
the
amount
of
money,
that's
not
being
funded
in
those
projects
amounts
to
just
under
four
hundred
thousand
dollars.
So
this
is
not
a
huge
investment
that
they're
asking
for
to
maintain
these
things.
In
the
context
of
the
you
know,
hundreds
of
millions
that
we're
dealing
with
here
and
then
I
just
make
an
observation
about
parking
in
general.
This
as
it
relates
to
what
we
do
or
don't
do
with
cars
and
parking.
I
think
there's
risk
of
an
of
an
equity
issue.
L
Here
there
are
elderly
people
that
have
mobility,
limited
mobility
and
people
of
all
ages
that
have
handicaps,
that,
for
better
for
worse
need
to
use
cars,
and
so,
if
under
invest
in
that
stuff
too
much,
we
may
create
an
access
and
equity
issue
for
those
types
of
people.
So
I'll
just
stop
there,
I'm
not
making
any
emotions
I'll
leave
that
to
others.
If
they
choose.
M
Yeah,
I'd
actually
like
to
make
a
motion
to
and
I'll
explain
my
reasoning
to
actually
fund
everything
from
fleet
04
to
fleet
05.
That's
the
way
it's
listed
in
my
spreadsheet
and
not
fund
fleet
01,
and
my
rationale
is:
I
understand
that
fleet
01
made
our
technically
made
our
cut
off.
M
It
was
just
on
the
edge
there,
but
the
rationale
is
you
know:
we've
put
in
a
comment
that
kind
of
chat
and
for
the
second
year
in
a
row
that
shides
public
works
for
combining
these
two,
and
so
I
think
it
is.
It
is
contradictory
for
us
to
chide
them
while
at
the
same
time
providing
them
funding
and
the
reason
to
for
funding
the
others
is
that
it
they're
they're,
basically
equivalent
in
total
dollars
spent
so
swapping
out.
One
for
the
others
seems
kind
of
like
a
fair
trade.
A
L
Okay,
so
307
is
part
of
it,
so
that
my
comment
is
you
know,
I
think
you
raise
a
fair
point.
I
agree
with
you
that
they
should
break
those
out
and
it's
annoying
that
they
haven't
done
it.
I
guess
I
don't
have
a
huge
objection
to
not
funding
it.
I
mean
basically,
what
we're
doing
is
calling
their
attention
to
it.
They'll
likely
put
it
back
in
which
is
fine,
but
it's
our
way
of
saying:
let's
listen
up,
you
know
I
think
we
may
need
to
toughen
up
that
comment
more.
L
L
F
H
A
A
Okay
and
then
the
chair
wishes
to
speak.
I
want
to
thank
the
member
for
making
the
motion.
I
was
going
to
do
the
same.
I
think
not
funding
these.
Some
of
these
items
would
really
be
penny
wise
and
pound
foolish,
for
example,
not
replacing
hydraulic,
hoists
that
are
at
the
end
of
their
life,
expect
life
service
and
potentially
would
be
an
environmental
risk.
I
would
think
from
my
understanding
of
hoists,
also
things
like
the
tire
balancing
a
tiny
expenditure
that
helps
improve
mileage
and
would
save
the
the
city
money
in
the
long
run.
A
So
I
support
the
motion
and
would
probably
prefer
partial
funding
401
but
I'll
support
it,
as
is
steve,
steve
and
katie,.
K
M
L
A
The
comment
relates
to
lead
in
the
use
of
forward
thinking
strategies
and
explore
use
of
hydrogen
stations
to
support
new.
Alternatively,
powered
vehicles
request
that
since
gasoline
and
diesel
infrastructure
and
electric
vehicle
charges
achieve
and
address
city
goals
in
different
ways,
fueling
and
charging
projects
should
be
treated
as
separate
projects
such
that
they
can
be
scored
appropriately.
M
Yeah,
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
to
add
in
something
at
the
end
there
about
you
know.
We
have
not
funded
this
project
because
of
our
concern
about
being
able
to
accurately
score
it.
A
To
add
that
that
can
be
taken
as
part
of
your
motion
just
so
that
other
members
who
are
new
are
are
familiar.
We
will
ask
the
group
to
approve,
at
the
end
of
our
process,
a
sort
of
catch-all
authorization
to
delegate
authority
to
the
executive
committee
to
make
sure
that
the
report
and
recommendations
are
reconciled
and
make
any
scrivener
changes
and
other
detail
changes
to
make
sure
that
the
report
is
consistent.
A
H
F
H
F
F
A
A
A
I
had
asked
the
finance
staff
if
they
could
tell
us
what
the
contribution
from
parking
to
the
general
fund
has
been
over
the
last
three
to
five
years.
I
don't
maybe
didn't
have
enough
lead
time.
I
suspect
that
it's
in
the
you
know,
100
million
dollar
range.
I
could
be
off,
but
I
I
know
there's
a
regular
contribution
that
has
been
made,
so
that
is.
P
A
Would
think
this
would
be
a
responsible
action,
I'll
recognize,
john
and
then
robert.
L
Yeah,
I'd
just
speak
in
support
of
this,
and
actually
I'm
gonna
offer
a
friendly
amendment
at
the
end
of
my
comments.
Well,
we'll
see
whether
or
not
it's
friendly
or
not
again,
this
is
unique
right,
most
enterprise
funds.
You
cannot
divert
dollars
out
of
them.
As
I
understand
it,
this
one
you
can,
they
can
move
money
to
the
general
fund.
L
I
would
also
point
out
that,
even
if
you
move
to
electric
cars,
you
still
need
a
place
to
park
them
and
to
the
extent
that
you
make
that
more
and
more
difficult
and
the
surrounding
cities,
don't
do
that.
You
know
that
could
have
an
impact
that
was
not
what
was
intended
by
the
city.
So
there's
that
issue
and
then
there's
the
equity
potential
equity
issue
that
I
already
spoke
to
my
friendly
amendment
would,
if
you
consider
it
such
jeff
would
be
to
fund
all
years
of
this.
C
Yeah
thanks
jeff
and
I
I
didn't
have
my
hands
up.
I
just
started
to
weigh
in
the
there's,
been
a
transfer
outstanding
transfer
out
from
the
parking
fund
to
the
general
fund
of
seven
million
dollars
annually
for
at
least
the
the
past
several
years
and
and
that's
been
the
that's
been
the
general
level
that
we've
been
transferring
out
to
support
general
funded
activities.
C
There's
some
language
in
the
in
our
our
city
charter.
Associating
that
spending
with
transportation
related
activities,
I
would
say
at
a
very
high
level,
but
those
those
certainly
far
exceed
seven
million
dollars
annually
in
on
the
expenditure
side.
And
so,
as
you
look
at
that
transfer
out,
you
know
it
is
associated
with
certain
transportation,
related
expenditures.
You
could
say,
and
those
are
far
in
excess
of
seven
million
dollars
from
the
operating
side.
Q
A
Q
Just
wanted
to
mention
that
I
think
that
kind
of
information
would
be
helpful
to
have
put
into
the
cbr
for
this.
I
kind
of
find
this
this
whole
off
street
parking
thing
to
be
silly,
and
I
don't
understand
why
the
click
even
deals
with
it
because
they
might
as
well
just
we
might
as
well
just
fully
fund
it
all,
because
we
don't
have
any
information
about
what
the
implications
would
be.
Q
If
we
didn't
fully
fund
it,
and
we
don't
know,
I
don't
even
think
they're
telling
us
how
much
parking
revenue
came
in,
for
example,
last
year,
so
they
decreased
their
request
for
2022
significantly,
I'm
assuming
that's,
because
the
parking
revenue
came
back
down.
So
I
don't
know
personally,
I
think
maybe
the
city
should
be
starting
to
move
away
from
some
of
these
ramps,
particularly
after
covet
when
perhaps
office
use
in
the
downtown
will
probably
go
down,
but
I'm
not
an
expert,
and
I
don't
think
anybody
on
this
committee
is
an
expert
on
parking
use.
Q
So
I
I
guess
I
probably
will
vote
against
restoring
all
the
funding,
but
I
guess
that's
my
point.
N
Yeah.
Apologies:
I'm
asking
for
clarification
on
what
we're
talking
about
here
so
parking,
so
this
project
was
given
a
score
133
and
therefore
not
funded.
So
that
meant
that
we
were
not
going
to
fund
any
of
this,
and
now
the
discussion
is
to
re
to
recover
some
or
all
of
it.
A
N
Okay,
and
if
we
do
that,
how
does
that
affect
the
the
budgeting
we
just
did
to
at
the
top
to
even
up
the
years?
You're
gonna
have
to
go
back
to
that
and
make
further
adjustments.
A
No,
this
is
a
separate
enterprise
fund
and
I'll.
Let
our
finance
professionals
speak
to
that.
If
they
will.
N
O
L
Disrupt,
let
me
jump
in
and
just
mention
and
get
remind
people
of
an
enterprise
fund,
an
enterprise
fund
for
lack
of
a
better
way.
To
put
it
is
self-funding.
This
is
not
relying
on
net
debt
bonds,
it
relies
on
its
own
revenues
that
are
collected
from
people
parking
and
typically
with
these
enterprise
funds.
They
pay
directly
with
those
revenues
to
make
investments,
and
they
also
issue
debt
and
pay
the
debt
service
with
part
of
those
revenues
and
that's
how
they
invest
in
the.
L
Well,
if
you
fund
everything,
there's
impacts
on
rates,
you
know
they
on
the
because
they're
they're
raising
revenues
to
do
this
right.
So
if
you
with
the
we,
we
know
what
those
are
with
water
and
to
scott's
point,
which
I
think
is
a
good
one.
Is
we
don't
get
pro
farmers
on
fleet
and
parking?
We
should
probably
get
more
forceful
about
asking
those
for
future
years
because
we're
flying
a
bit
blind
without
that
information,
understood.
N
A
Let's
see
if
robert
had
a
technical
response
first
and
then
we'll
go
to
so
scott
still
have
your
hand
up
and
then
then
it'll
be
so
robert
katie
and
then
steve.
C
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
offer
just
some
additional
perspective
on
the
parking
projects.
There
may
be
some
click
members
who
remember
from
you
know
several
several
cycles
ago,
whether
or
not
parking
projects
used
to
be
considered
as
part
of
the
click
process.
I
know
that
at
least
within
recent
memory,
two
or
three
years
ago,
parking
projects
were
not
necessarily
submitted
to
the
capital
long-range
improvement
committee
for
consideration.
C
It's,
it
struck
city
finance
staff
as
a
a
bit
odd
for
lack
of
a
better
word
that
these
large
capital
projects
were
not
going
through
the
the
capital
long-range
improvement
committee
for
consideration,
especially
given
the
given
the
fact
that
these
are
directly
associated
with
transportation
improvements.
So
they
were
brought
back
into
the
capital
long-range
the
the
cip
planning
process,
one
or
two
years
ago
for
consideration
by
click.
C
It
sounds
like
there's
still
some
some
additional
work
to
do
in
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
the
approach
is
to
assessing
these
projects,
to
assessing
whether
they
make
sense
for
inclusion
and
recommendation
by
click
and
to
consider
what
additional
information
would
be
helpful
for
the
committee
and
just
kind
of
evaluating
and
understanding
what
these
projects
are,
what
those
funding
sources
are
and
whether
or
not
to
continue
making
recommendations
around
them,
but
that
that
was
the
original
idea
was.
These
are
large
capital
projects.
C
O
R
Real
quickly,
the
financial
plans
for
the
fleet
fund,
as
well
as
the
parking
fund,
are
published
annually
with
the
budget.
So
we
can
drop
that
link
in
the
chat,
but
there
are
the
financial
plans
or
performers
essentially
are
available
in
the
budget
documents
annually.
M
Yeah
first,
I
had
a
question
for
you
jeff.
Why
were
you
only
including
what
was
it
two
years
of
funding.
A
I
would
take
a
I
would
take
a
friendly
amendment
that
was
offered
to
fund
the
entire
program
as
recommended.
It
was
a
spirit
that,
because
of
coming
out
of
the
pandemic,
you
know
we
don't
know
what
return
to
work
is
going
to
look
like
for
the
entire
downtown
minneapolis
workforce,
for
example,.
A
F
A
I
would
I
would,
if
there's
unanimous
consent
and
no
objection,
take
john's
friendly
amendment,
I'm
not
hearing
any.
So
we
will
do
that.
M
Okay,
so
the
amendment
as
it
now
stands
funds
the
whole.
Yes,
okay,
my
other
thought
was
I
mean
especially
given
this
conversation,
and
I
know
just
kind
of
the
you
know
the
perspectives
of
many
of
this
committee.
M
I
think
something
that
could
be
helpful,
that
we-
and
we
should
maybe
make
a
comment
about
it-
is
for
the
city
to
understand
what
is
the
parking
usage,
especially
coming
out
of
the
pandemic
and
the
opportunity
to
make
sure
that
we're
only
making
investments
in
in
certain
garages
being
strategic
there
and
and
could,
could
those
you
know
garages
be
used
for
something
else
going
forward.
M
Like
you
know,
obviously
we
want
to
take
a
a
careful
look
here,
but
I
think
asking
for
that
type
of
analysis
on
like
parking
demand
could
help
them
in
their
prioritization
of
their
funding.
In
any
case,.
A
I
would
I
would
consider
that
as
a
friendly
amendment
also,
if
there's
no
objection
hearing
none,
it
is
so,
let's
go
to
steve
and
then
we
have
jonathan
and
matt.
H
First
of
all,
for
those
of
you
who
are
curious,
I
did
post
a
profit
and
loss
statement
by
parking
ramp
in
the
chat
for
anybody.
Who's
interested
there's
historically
been
quite
a
range.
H
The
vineland
won
over
by
where
the
guthrie
used
to
stand
is
has
been
a
dog.
The
city
sold
off
some
of
its
dogs
several
years
ago,
as
was
alluded
to
earlier,
I
fully
understand
the
value
of
protecting
assets,
but
I,
and
in
ordinary
times
I
would
not
have
trouble
using
parking
revenues
to
support
this.
I
am
going
to
vote
against
this
simply
because
I
don't
think
supporting
the
full
request.
H
I
think
it's
too
risky
until
we
know
how
much
parking
revenues
are
going
to
return
to
their
historical
levels,
with
perhaps
people
working
from
home
and
so
on
so
I'll
be
voting.
No.
I
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
have
one
quick
clarification
question
on
the
parking
revenue.
Does
the
parking
revenue
have
to
be
used
on
maintaining
capital
structures
for
parking,
lots
or
parking
garages,
or
can
those
revenue
be
used
and
other
transportation
funding
on
a
general
fund.
I
The
ladder
so
so
it
doesn't
have
to
go
to
parking
yeah.
If,
especially,
if
that's
the
case,
I
would
you
know,
I
would
like
to
echo
some
of
the
other
sentiments
that
were
expressed
by
other
members,
that
we
need
more
data
and
research
on
what
the
the
parking
demand
will
be,
especially
in
downtown
garages,
as
we
start
returning
to
work
and
as
we
are
recommending
other
programs
in
transportation
trying
to
encourage
people
to
not
rely
on
parking
and
driving
into
downtown.
I
I
don't
think
this
is
the
best
use
of
recommendations
on
recommending
putting
restoring
funding
to
this
parking
structure,
especially,
we
can
direct
those
fundings
on
to
other
encouraging
other
people
to
not
use
parking
and
not
driving
into
downtown.
So
I
would
be
leaning
towards
voting
against
this.
E
I'd,
never
be
the
one
to
do
that
here
we
go
yeah,
it's
a
good
conversation
here.
I
think
I
think
I
think
I'm
I'm
feeling
right
now
open
to
some
near-term
investments.
You
know
recognizing
that
there
might
be
maintenance
or
other
issues
that
would
be
critical
to
do
soon,
but
I
am,
I
think,
wary
about
fully
funding
the
full
six-year
rest
because
of
the
concerns
raised
already
around.
E
We
know
that
this
is
just
an
area
where
demand
and
usage
is
going
to
shift,
has
shifted
and
likely
will
continue
to
shift
dramatically
given
the
events
of
last
year,
and
I
think
there
is
a
there's
a
part
of
me,
you
know
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
role
of
parking
staff
or
policy
makers,
but
I
do
feel
a
need
for
some
type
of
policy
and
forward
thinking
vision
around
what
is
the
future
of
these
ramps
and
how
does
it
align
with
our
our
goals
around
the
climate
emergency
and
around
transportation
mode
shifts?
E
You
know
I
you
know,
I
you
know,
I
I
don't
support
and
I
don't
believe
that
there
is
going
to
be
one
day
where
or
a
day
in
the
soon
future,
where
we
say:
okay,
suddenly,
there's
no
parking.
This
is
always
always
was,
and
it
has
to
be
a
gradual
drop
of
some
sort.
But
I
think
we
need
to
be
planning
for
that,
and
I
think
that,
like
our
policies
should
be
driving
that-
and
you
know,
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
making
targeted
smart
strategic
investments
that
are
thinking
about
that
future.
E
So
for
me,
I
think
I
would
probably
vote
no
on
a
proposal
to
fully
fund
the
full
request
for
the
next
six
years,
but
I
feel
open
to
probably
the
the
earlier
version
of
this.
That
is
more
of
a
short-term
investment
and
a
request
and
a
comment
that
we
start
to
receive
more
of
that
information
going
forward.
A
P
Regardless
parking,
we've
had
conversation
about
parking
with
the
public.
Also
parking
have
had
been
this
discussion.
One
of
the
things
come
up.
We're
talking
about
the
parking
downtown
of
parking
anywhere,
their
seniors
going
to
be
driving
older
people
will
be
continually
driving.
We
have
to
look
at
that
too.
Also,
like
we
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
future.
The
county
just
said
electric
cars
50
years
from
now.
I
won't
be
around
that's
for
sure,
50
years
from
now
so
they're,
looking
at
planting
that
far
out.
So
it's
like
the
balance.
P
A
L
L
I
think
you
could
raise
that
concern
for
a
lot
of
projects
given
cobit
and
other
things
that
have
happened,
and
I
guess
I
would
suggest
that
if
we
fund
this
in
every
year,
that
doesn't
mean-
I
think,
a
very
important
thing
that
we
should
do.
That
katie
has
suggested,
as
part
of
this
motion
is:
ask
them
for
much
better
analysis
about
the
current
financials
and
also
how
they
expect
this
to
change
over
the
years.
L
If,
once
we
get
that,
if
we
see
that
there's
shifting
happening,
there's
nothing
stopping
us
for
from
reducing
funding
for
these
things,
even
in
the
years
where
we're
already
funding
it.
Now,
once
we
have
that
information-
and
that
holds
true
for
any
project
and
would
be
totally
fair
if
we
had
new
information
that
gave
us.
H
A
In
second
okay,
we
have
second,
so
we
have
a
substitute
motion,
a
discussion
on
that
and
just
want
to
check
the
time
is
124.,
I'm
going
to
lower
my
hand,
except
we'll.
Have
I
just
wanted
to
point
out,
as
john
had
pointed
out,
that
remember
members
that-
and
I
believe,
I'm
correct
the
first
year
will
be
appropriated,
but
the
rest
of
the
years
are
in
a
paper.
You
know
they're
on
paper
electronic
program
so
completely
changeable
and
not
set
in
stone.
A
So
john
eric
and
rich.
L
Really
briefly,
there's
one
other
thing.
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
had
forgotten
at
the
time
I
think
was
jonathan.
That
said,
these
funds
should
be
redirected
somewhere
else.
There
are
no
funds
to
redirect
somewhere
else,
yet
they
have
to
collect
revenue
before
you
can
redirect
anything
if
this
is
und,
if
any
infrastructure
is
under
invested
in,
let's
just
take
parking
garages
and
they
start
to
fall
into
disrepair
and
drivers
have
a
choice
between
parking
in
a
private
parking
garage.
That's
in
nice
shape
or
a
city
owned
one,
that's
not
in
nice
shape.
K
Yeah,
I
just
have
a
request,
which
is,
if
they're,
whoever
is
going
to
be
offering
an
amendment
that
we
adopt
if
they
could
include
a
comment
regarding
what
our
expectations
are
next
year
in
terms
of
coming
to
us
with
some
data.
Perhaps
a
plan
for
the
next
five
to
ten
years.
N
I
have
a
sort
of
a
parallel
to,
I
think
what
john
just
said.
I
think
if
we
decide
to
fund
short-term
years
and
leave
off
long-term
years,
all
together
that
sense,
the
message
we
want
to
send
partially
funding
the
early
years,
I
think,
is
a
little
bit
too
clumsy,
so
either
fund
or
not
fund,
but
partial
funding.
I
think
in
this
case,
would
be
impractical
and
does
not
add
to
the
message.
H
My
argument
would
be
in
response
that
it's
sending
the
message
that
we
should
be
cautious
until
we
know
how
much
annual
revenue
is
going
to
be,
and
then
we
will
revisit.
I
can't
believe
that
the
city
is
going
to
be
any
more
penurious
than
private
ramps
and
making
investments
in
capital
rehab.
A
D
D
F
H
H
O
F
P
A
Eight
names
motion
adopted
rich,
you
have
your
hand
up.
N
N
A
L
L
A
So
we
have
the
motion
on
the
floor,
then,
is
to
fund
two-thirds
of
the
recommended
amount
for
the
first
two
years,
and
maybe
you
can
show
that.
A
And
no
funding
in
subsequent
years,
which
are
not
appropriated
anyway
and
then
have
a
comment
drafted
for
the
report.
A
So
if
there's
further
debate,
let's
you
have
the
floor.
Rich.
N
I
I
think
I've
made
my
point.
The
funding
of
the
partial
funding,
I
think,
does
not
obtain
any
additional
point
funded
fully
or
don't
fund
it
all,
since
these
are
self-funded
not
funding.
This
sounds
to
me,
like
click,
is
trying
to
make
policy
and
saying
we
as
a
clique
have
decided
we
don't
like
parking
downtown,
so
we're
going
to
do
what
we
can
to
remove
it.
M
I
I
think
it
does
make
some
reasonable
adjustments,
given
the
potential
amount
of
revenue
coming
in
that
we're
likely
to
not
have
strong
amounts
in
these
coming
years,
and
that
I
mean
I
think
to
earlier
points
if,
if
the
body
decides
that
we
want
to
fund
outline,
you
know
from
24
to
27
onward,
there
are
opportunities
to
fund
those,
and
that
I
mean
this,
this
body
does
prioritize
where
funding
should
go,
and
this
that
that
that
is,
that
is
part
of
this,
whether
we're
part
you
know
prior
to
putting
it
into
parking
or
we're
putting
into
buildings
or
we're
putting
it
into
bridges.
L
Thanks,
I
would
just
say
you
know
to
say
the
city
wouldn't
be
that
panurious
on
this.
You
know
it's
a
bit
disingenuous
right,
we're
sitting
here,
telling
them
underinvest.
Well,
I
won't
say
it
that
way:
we're
telling
we're
advising
them
on
how
they
should
fund
this,
and
I
it's
us,
that's
being
that
way.
Potentially
here
they're
asking
for
lesson
2022,
because
I
think
they're
uncertain
about
how
revenues
will
come
back,
the
rest
of
those
years
will
have
a
chance
to
adjust
in
the
future.
So
voting
no
on
the
motion.
H
F
E
P
F
F
O
K
F
O
P
A
Okay,
that
motion
is
adopted.
I
think
we're
near
a
point
unless
there
are
any
other
actions
on
enterprise,
so
we're
near
a
point.
I'd
like
to
just
I'm
reluctant
to
take
another
roll
call
vote,
but
we
normally
just
have
a
motion
to
close
out
the
financial
recommendations.
M
Yeah,
sorry,
I
have
to
go
and
I
just
want
to
verify
the
three
comments
that
I
need
to
be
making.
So
there's
the
the
the
charging
slash
fueling
station
one
there.
I
think
there
were
two
more
does
anyone
else
have
those
written
down.
A
A
M
A
Thanks
katie,
all
right
we
have
do.
We
have
any
discussion,
so
we
just
what
we're
now
doing
is
we're
adopting
we're
adopting
all
the
recommendations
we've
made
on
net
debt
bonds
and
enterprise.
So
this
is
a
final
approval.
If
there's
anything
further,
if
this
passes,
then
we
need
a
motion
to
reconsider.
I
H
J
F
D
F
A
Very
good
agenda
item,
seven
final
general
comments
or
revisions
to
adopted
comments.
I
think
one
member
eric
did
you
have
a
did.
You
have
a
final
general
comment.
K
Yes,
I
have
one
general
comment
in
the
queue
which
is
to
to
to
I'll
just
say,
remind
the
the
mayor
of
city
council
that
we
are
here
with
respect
to
the
the
major
investments
that
are
coming
from
the
federal
government.
The
last
number
I
heard
is
a
total
2.7
trillion
dollars,
nationally
of
which
almost
a
trillion
has
already
been
spoken
for
for
transportation
infrastructure
that
that
leaves
almost
another.
What
is
that
1.7
trillion
dollars
that
will
be
distributed
across
the
country
for
infrastructure
spending?
K
And
I
I
understand
that
this
money,
these
funds
will
be
likely
available
outside
of
our
normal
click
annual
budget
cycle,
but
I
think
it's
necessary
for
us
to
state
that
this,
just
because
it's
outside
of
the
budget
cycle
does
not
mean
that
that
the
they
should
ignore
the
ordinance
which
says
the
green
thinks
of
a
plate
for
infrastructure.
K
So
that's
the
intention
of
the
general
comment
that
I've
submitted
here.
P
A
D
L
F
F
F
F
H
F
K
D
P
Q
Yeah,
I
just
had
a
very
short
comment
that
I
requested
close
to
two
months
ago:
information
from
public
works
and
or
cped
about
nicklet
avenue
between
basically
28th
street
and
lake
street,
and
the
reason
why
we
haven't
seen
cbrs
for
either
the
reconstruction
of
nicolette
avenue
and
or
a
bridge
over
the
midtown
greenway
and
have
received
no
comment
back.
Q
A
J
Sure
thank
you.
I
just
would
like
to
revise
swk02
because
we
did
shift
funding.
The
original
comment
read
it's
the
sidewalk
gaps.
The
original
comment
read:
we
are
disappointed
that
funding
for
swk02
is
being
paused
and
underfunded
in
the
current
cip.
A
Second,
okay,
so
I
will
ask
that
you
put
the
the
chat
seemed
like
it
was
disabled
a
short
time
ago
when
I
tried
to
see
it,
but
if
you
could
put
the
text
into
the
chat
for
the
clerk
to
record,
did
anyone
not
capture
the
motion,
as
stated
to
revise
an
adopted
comment?
A
I
think,
because
of
the
time
we'll
forgo
with
the
motion
to
reconsider.
If
there's
no
objection,
scott,
do
you
have
a
discussion
item?
A
F
D
F
F
K
F
A
Eyes,
motion
adopted
at
this
time
I'll
ask
if
one
of
our
members
will
move
the
item
that
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
sort
of
a
catch-all
resolution
that
the
committee
delegates
to
the
executive
committee
to
make
final
changes
working
with
finance
and
property
services
to
make
sure
that
the
click
report
is
consistent
with
the
recommendations
have
been
fully
adopted.
You
know
financial
and
comments
have
to
be
reconciled
ahead
of
the
final
publication.
L
Just
want
to
add
some
clarification
to
that
jeff
because
I'm
not
sure
it's
clear
from
the
way
you
described
that
that
that
includes
possibly
adding
one
or
two
comments
that
are
were
in
last
year's
report
that
weren't
possible
to
to
finalize.
Until
we
had
finished
funding
specifically
around.
You
know
how
our
funding
recommendations,
line
up
with
the
streets
and
parks
ordinance.
We
get
fairly
specific
with
them
about
that.
A
A
D
F
F
F
F
Q
C
Yeah
jeff,
this
is
robert,
so
we're
we're
anticipating
completing
the
report.
Justin
correct
me.
If
I've
got
any
of
this
wrong,
but
we're
anticipating
completing
the
report
by
tuesday
at
the
latest,
I
think
to
kind
of
incorporate
any
changes
that
are
coming
from
the
click
executive
committee,
as
well
as
any
of
the
financial
changes
associated
with
the
click
final
recommendation.
C
The
mayor's
meeting
with
the
executive
committee
is
probably
going
to
occur
sometime
on
or
after
the
week
of
july,
12th,
just
looking
at
scheduling,
we
kind
of
held
open
the
schedule
in
anticipation
of
the
schedule
sliding
a
little
bit
depending
on
what
work
it's
looking
like
today.
So
very.
A
Good
and
concluding
remarks
and
announcements
so.
A
Diligent
work
again
this
year,
working
in
the
virtual
environment,
it's
not
easy
I'd
call
it
steadfast
work
once
again,
I'm
really
privileged
and
honored
to
work
with
each
and
every
click,
member
and
the
city
staff.
A
I
see
eric
has
a
comment
I
just
want
to
thank
you
all
really
sincerely
from
the
bottom
of
my
heart
for
this
great
work
that
you
do
for
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
its
residents
eric.
K
So
I
would
like
to
add
two
things.
One
is
call
out
to
john
bernstein
john
this.
This
was
a
yeoman's
job,
making
it
technically
work-
and
I
know
you've
put
many
many
days
and
hours
into
it
and
really
appreciate
your
your
work
on
this
and
finally,
I'd
like
to
thank
jeff
strand
for
leading
us
through
this
this
process,
it's
not
easy
in
the
order
that
you
keep
really
made
these
things
go
quickly
and
very
efficiently.
So
thanks
jeff.
A
We
should
also
mention
that
I
think
a
best
practice
would
be
for
us
to
gather
I'll
recognize,
john
in
a
second
gather
for
a
debrief
as
a
facilitator.
I
always
would
do
that
in
facilitation
sessions.
You
know
what
worked
well,
what
didn't
work
well
do
betters,
etc
and
then
also,
of
course,
social
gathering,
and
I
think
we
have
an
entertainment
director,
our
food
and
beverage
director
retired,
but
maybe
one
of
our
members
will
pick
up
on
that
and
we
can
have
a
you
know
for
those
who
are
interested
could
do
that.
A
L
L
All
of
that
in
those
different
perspectives
means
that
we
end
up
with
a
better
final
product
and
I
just
want
to
say,
for
we
have
a
lot
of
new
members
this
year,
and
this
was
a
tough
year
doing
this
virtually
it's
when
you're
new.
This
is
tough
in
person,
let
alone
virtually.
L
This
is
my
15th
year.
I
actually
still
do
remember
my
first
year.
We've
done
a
lot
to
try
to
improve
the
process
in
terms
of
onboarding
and
orientation.
Back
when
I
joined
15
years
ago,
there
was
no
orientation
you
just
sort
of
thrown
into
the
fire,
and
I
think,
no
matter
what
you
do.
There's
a
learning
curve
to
this
and
there's
no
way
to
get
rid
of
that.
L
L
P
When
I
remember
I
still
remember,
like
john,
I
remember
the
first
year
it
takes
a
while
just
to
figure
out
the
scoring
and
adjusting
and
when
they
do
the
presentation,
that's
a
lot
to
comprehend,
but
like
with
the
new
folks,
as
john
jeff
has
said,
we've
tried
to
do
the
orientation
because
we
did
not
john
and
I
and
we
did
not
have
an
orientation
and
we
had
these
people
have
been
around
who
were
teachers,
in
some
reasons
and
with
a
new
staff
this
year,
that's
new
for
the
staff
putting
all
this
together
and
it's
a
teamwork,
and
when
I,
with
my
involvement,
this
is
for
the
good
of
the
city.
P
You
know
it's
not
just
our
neighborhood,
it's
community,
the
good
good
of
the
city,
addressing
some
of
the
diversity,
lack
of
and
different
community.
That's
important,
too
there's
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done.
We've
got
next
year
to
be
together
as
a
team,
and
we
have
to
work
together
as
a
team
and
look
out
what
is
the
good
of
the
whole?
What
communities
are
we
not
serving?
What
communities
need
more
to
engage?
We
still
have
to
figure
out.
How
do
we
get
the
community
engaged?
P
We
have
those
meetings
out
in
the
community
maybe
next
year
we
can
be
there
in
person
in
the
community,
but
I
think
that's
an
important
piece
that
still
has
to
be
worked
on
and,
as
you
go
out
and
prepare
for
next
year,
ask
your
community
to
be
at
some
of
those
meetings.
It's
really
important
that
we
hear
the
people
that
we
represent.
We
hear
their
voices.
P
A
L
A
Okay,
okay,
so
we'll
look
forward
to
hearing
from
both
of
you,
if
not
without
objection,
I'll
declare
the
meeting
adjourned
and
the
regular
session
of
the
click
committee
for
2021
is
hereby
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everyone
and
have
a
great
summer
have
a
great,
safe
holiday.