►
Description
View Marked Agenda
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Board/MarkedAgenda/CLIC/2408
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
So
good
afternoon,
this
is
the
transportation
task
force
of
the
capital
long-range
improvements
committee.
Before
we
begin
we're
noting
the
meeting
includes
remote
participation
of
members
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13.021
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
and
the
task
force
chairman
I'll
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
So
we
can
verify
presence
of
a
forum.
John.
C
Okay,
let's
see
thor
and.
C
D
A
F
A
C
We
got
ten
members
present.
H
Can
I
interrupt
thor
bjorn
adam
and
I
this
is
erica
motor
we
switched
so
he.
I
B
Neil,
could
you
take
down
the
presentation
slide,
so
we
can
just
see
each
other
there's.
I
think
that's
going
to
be
most
effective
for
this
part
of
the
meeting.
B
Okay,
okay,
so
lots
of
new
members,
I'm
going
to
try
to
balance
getting
this
done
accurately
and
with
everyone
feeling
like
they
got
to
say
their
piece
on
anything.
They
want
to
say
their
piece
on
with
also
being
efficient,
so
we
can
all
get
on
with
the
rest
of
our
day.
So
our
task
over
the
next,
however
long
it
takes
us,
is
going
to
be
to
go
through
the
projects
that
we
heard
about
today.
B
That
which
I
believe
is
every
transportation
project.
I
don't
think
anything
was
left
out
of
transportation,
which
is
not
typically
how
this
happens.
It's
just
how
that
broke
out
this
year.
Typically,
we
end
up
doing
roughly
half
of
them,
which
is
why
we
got
a
lot
of
work,
we're
going
to
go
through
each
project
and
put
it
into
a
category
under
project
priority,
and
I'm
going
to
read
you
those
in
a
minute
and
we're
also
going
to
do
the
same
for
contribution
to
city
goals.
B
We'll
do
each
project
for
those
two
areas
and
just
as
a
refresher
for
people
going
back
a
few
years
ago,
once
we
did
these
categorizations
individual
ratings
were
required
to
stay
within
those
categories.
That
is
no
longer
the
case.
It's
strongly
recommended,
but
you
do
have
the
ability
to
go
outside
of
those
areas
as
an
individual
when
you're
rating,
if
you
choose
to
there's,
been
concern
in
the
past,
sometimes
that
a
lot
of
these
categories
or
excuse
me
a
lot
of
these
projects
have
similar
ratings
across
the
board.
I
would
not
be
concerned
with
that.
B
Necessarily,
even
if
that's
the
case,
there's
still
a
fairly
large
point
range
within
each
of
those
categories.
Upwards
of
40
points
that
you
know,
10
points
can
make
the
difference
and
depending
on
where
it
falls
a
project
getting
funded
or
not
getting
funded.
So
I
think
it's
more
important
to
stick
to
the
definitions
and
not
if
that's,
however,
it
breaks
out
that's
how
we
should
go
about
doing
this
so
with
that
I'm
gonna
just
for
the
sake
of
everybody
who's
new.
Hopefully,
everyone's
had
a
chance
to
review
the
capital
guidelines.
I'm
gonna.
B
Just
briefly,
read
you
the
definitions
of
project
priority,
so
those
are
there's
four
of
those.
The
first
is
critical.
That's
describe
the
capital
proposal
as
indefensible
demanding
attention
due
to
an
immediate
need
of
public
or
public
endangerment.
If
not
corrected,
few
projects
can
qualify
for
this
high
of
a
classification.
B
Failure
to
fund
a
critical
project
generally
would
result
in
suspension
of
unit
of
a
municipal
service
to
minimize
risk
to
the
public.
That's
critical,
significant
is
next
describes
a
capital
proposal
deemed
to
have
a
high
priority
in
addressing
a
need
or
service,
as
previously
indicated
by
policy
makers
and
or
submitting
agency
priority
ranking.
This
designation
may
also
pertain
to
a
proposal
that
is
an
integral
and
or
inseparable
part
of
achieving
completeness
of
a
larger
improvement
or
series
of
improvements.
B
Next
is
important,
describes
a
capital
proposal
addressing
a
pressing
need
that
can
be
evaluated
as
a
standalone
project.
Proposals
may
be
considered
important
if
they
are
required
to
maintain
an
expected
standard
of
service,
achieve
equity
and
service
delivery
or
increased
efficiency
in
providing
public
services.
B
Failure
to
fund
an
important
proposal
would
mean
some
level
of
services
of
service
is
still
possible
and,
finally,
the
desirable
describes
a
capital
proposal
that
would
provide
increased
public
benefits,
enhancement
of
municipal
services
or
other
upgrading
of
public
infrastructure.
Failure
to
fund
a
desirable
desirable
project
would
not
immediately
impair
current
municipal
services
and
then
we're
also
going
to
do
contribution
to
city
goals.
That's
just
strong,
moderate
and
little
or
no
contribution,
there's
no
specific
definitions
beyond
that
for
those
areas.
B
That
does
not
in
any
way
suggest
that
we
have
to
maintain
that.
I
would
say.
However,
you
know,
since
this
committee
of
this
task
force
I'd
like
to
think
is
thoughtful.
If
it
is
what
we
did
last
year,
there
probably
should
be
new
information
or
a
good
reason
why
we
want
to
change
it,
but
nonetheless,
it's
in
no
way
to
suggest
that
we
need
I'm
not
trying
to
ram
this
through
with
last
year's
ratings.
B
It's
I'm
simply
using
it
as
a
reference
point,
so
we're
going
to
kind
of
use,
loose,
robert's
rules
on
this
and
I'll
tell
you
what
those
ratings
were
from
last
year.
I'll
entertain
a
motion.
B
Even
if
you
don't
agree
with
that
that
as
it
is,
you
might
want
to
just
move
it
and
then
we
can
discuss
it
and
make
amendments
and
make
changes
if
people
can
just
raise
their
hand
in
the
queue
so
that
no
one's
talking
over
anybody
else.
I
think
that
would
be
great,
and
before
I
dive
in
I
see
steve's
got
a
question.
D
The
second
question
is:
I've
sometimes
found
it
hard
to
keep
up
as
we
whip
through
these
fairly
quickly
will
robert
be
keeping
a
record
of
what
decisions
we
reach
so
that
and
sending
out
a
new
yes
sheet.
Okay,.
B
Well,
I'm
going
to
keep
a
record
and
I
instead
neil-
I
don't
know
if
you're
doing
this
as
well.
If
you,
if
you
want
to
you,
certainly
can
otherwise
I'm
happy
to
share
with
you
what
I'm
doing
you
are
not,
but
to
answer
steve's
question
more
broadly,
this
has
to
go
out
to
the
full
committee.
So
so
you
don't
need
to
take
the
individual
members.
Don't
need
to
keep
track
of
this.
You
will
get
a
rating
sheet
that
is
updated
with
this
information
that
has
x's
where
we've
rated
them.
So
you
then
know
that.
B
B
So
I'm
going
to
start
as
steve
alluded
to.
I
get
moving
pretty
quickly
with
this,
but
I'm
going
to
start
slow
for
the
benefit
of
people
that
are
new
to
the
process
and
just
you
know
it's
been
a
year
since
we've
done
this,
so
we'll
do
we'll
initially
start
thinking
these
projects,
one
by
one
as
we
start
to
get
into
them,
especially
when
we
get
to
paving
in
their
projects
that
have
similar
ratings,
I'm
going
to
start
to
group
them
together,
I'm
doing
that
solely
for
the
sake
of
efficiency.
B
If
I
group
five
projects
together
and
there's
one
in
there
that
you
wanna
that
you've
got
a
different
opinion
about
it
and
you
don't
want
it
to
get
so-called
ram
through,
you
can
make
a
motion
to
just
have
it
separated
out,
and
then
we
can
do
the
other
four
that
are
not
controversial
so
that
we
again
balance
efficiency
with
everyone
getting
to
say
whatever
it
is.
They
want
to
say
and
that
nothing
gets
rammed
through.
B
So
with
that
are
there
any
steve's
got
his.
No
sorry.
B
D
B
B
B
Hearing
none,
let's
see
neil
and
jeff,
I'm
hoping
we
can
do
this
by
especially
on
something
like
this.
Where
there's
not
any
comments,
is
there
a
way
we
can
do
it,
so
we
I
don't
want
to
have
to
do
roll
call
on
85
projects
that
would
it's
we're
never
going
to
get
through
this.
Is
there
a
way
to
do
this
by
unanimous
consent?
B
B
All
right
so
I'll
just
keep
track
of
these.
So
is
there
any
language
I
should
be
using
with
this
jeff
just
or
do
we
just
vote
at
the
end.
B
Right
so
without
objection
and
unanimous
consent
that
one's
agreed
to
and
we'll
vote
on
that
at
the
end,
that's
bike
28..
Moving
to
sorry
guys-
this
is
just
you
know.
Virtual
is
different,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
this
up
on
the
up
all
right
bp001.
This
is
safe
routes
to
schools
again
rated
significant
and
strong.
Do
I
have
a
motion
so
moved
so.
G
B
I'll
consider
the
second
move.
A
second.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
safe?
Excuse
me,
significant
and
strong.
G
Yes,
hi,
I'm
trying
to
find
the
email
with
the
link
that
you
referenced.
B
So
it
was
sent
out
this
morning
by
staff.
I
think
it
came,
I'm
not
sure
I
think
it
may
have
come
from
justin.
Let
me
look
quick.
J
Yeah,
it's
just
a
question
and
just
to
make
sure
that
I'm
not
seeing
something
funny,
but
this
year
bp
001
safe
routes
to
school
is
listed
in
the
excuse
me
in
the
consecutive
previous
new
year,
new
funding
requirements
at
25
or
825
and
last
year
was
35,
and
I
think
that
that
might
be
just
a
renewal.
But
I
just
wanted
to
point
it
out
just
in
case
there
was
an
error
there.
B
Yeah
so
I'll
address
that
briefly,
I
I
haven't
looked
at
that
specifically,
but
just
so
everybody
knows
we
changed
that
that
area
of
the
ratings,
so
there
may
be
some
things
that
look
different
from
last
year
in
previous
years.
It
was
where,
in
the
funding
it
was
so
if
a
project
got
introduced
for
the
very
first
time
last
year
and
it
was
being
asked
for
in
nearest
term
year
so
for
this
year
2022
it
would
get
the
highest
number
of
points
and
the
problem
with
that
was
that
doesn't
encourage
good,
long-term
budgeting
right.
B
B
K
Is
this
going
to
follow
up
and
thank
you
for
the
point
you
raised
in
a
general
session,
because
I
took
issue
with
the
it
struck
me
as
odd
that
the
department
ranked
this
project
as
number
four
out
of
62,
yet
only
gave
it
a
important
level
of
need.
So
I'm
glad
that
we're
we're
ascribing
a
higher
level
of
need
to
it.
I
think
that's
consistent
with
their
rating.
B
Anecdotally,
I
would
say
I
I
honestly,
I
don't
I'm
sure,
there's
differing
opinions
about
this,
but
the
department's
ranking
is
just
one
input
you
should
use
and
I
honestly
don't
pay
all
that
much
attention
to
it,
with,
with
the
exception
of
maybe
a
few
projects
where
I'm
curious-
and
you
know
we're
all
pretty
capable
of
figuring
out
how
important
it
is
to
the
city,
based
on
all
the
the
framework
that
we
have
all
right.
Thanks
are
there
any
other
comments,
specifically
on
bp001
I'll,
just
remind
everybody.
J
Yeah-
that
said,
I
I
I
asked
this
of
justin
and
jeff
and
I'll
just
bring
up
here-
is
that
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
still
have
a
simple
spreadsheet
of
the
project
detail
headings
that
each
project
gives.
J
I
mean,
there's
a
rating
of
where
the
level
of
importance
and
everything
else
it
may
differ
from
what
we
do
here,
but
I
think
that
being
able
to
see
that
in
a
simplified
spreadsheet,
like
we've
done
on
other
projects
when
you
get
down
to
you,
know
trying
to
rate
things
fairly
across
the
board.
I
think
that
might
be
helpful.
B
H
B
B
B
E
Yeah,
I
think
to
call
this
a
moderate.
Does
it
reflect
the
how
it's
meeting
city
goals?
I
think
this
I
agree,
maybe
on
the
first
one,
but
the
second
one.
I
think
it's
definitely
meeting
city
goals
of
moving
people
out
of
their
automobiles.
H
Yeah,
I
think
it
being
a
brand
new
program
and
they're
not
asking
for
funding
for
two
three
years
out
like
I
feel
like
I
just
don't
know
enough
about
it.
So
important
moderate
feels
good
for
where
it
is
right
now
and
I'm
totally
opening
to
changing
it
as
we
get
closer
to
more
detail
and
actually
implementing
this.
B
E
I
don't
care,
I
think
erica's
point
is
they
said,
since
it's
not
even
funded
for
the
next
few
years.
Okay,.
B
B
All
right
we'll
move
that
by
unanimous
unanimous
consent
as
well
all
right.
Moving
on
to
sidewalks.
This
is
we've
got
two
of
them,
so
I'm
going
to
take
them
together.
That's
swk001
and
swk002,
so
one
is
defective.
Hazardous
sidewalks
and
two
is
sidewalk
gaps,
both
rated
significant
and
strong.
Do
I
have
a.
G
G
B
You
don't
need
to,
let
me
know
at
all,
but
you're
welcome
to.
I
mean
okay,
but
he
can
write
a
comment
on
anything
but
to
the
extent
that
anybody
has
an
opinion
and
wants
to
suggest
that
we
ought
to
write
a
comment.
Please
please
feel
free
to
be
recognized
and
make
that
that
point
now
start
thinking
ahead
about
those
things.
I
So
I
mean
with
that.
I
want
to
write
a
comment
on
the
sidewalk
gaps
on
zero,
two
about
the
lack
of
funding
for
it
and
if
it's
a
priority
for
the
city,
how
we
actually
like
enforce
those
priorities
through
our
job
here
in
click
and
funding
it'll
be
better
written.
I
have
a
draft
of
it.
I
just
need
to
like
really
write.
H
B
Yeah,
I'm
glad
emily
brought
that
up.
I
mean
something
you
should
all
be
thinking
about
individually
as
we're
going
through
and
making
these
ratings
is,
is
projects
that
you
feel
a
little
bit
of
passion
about
or
or
you
just
have
some
thoughts
about
that
you
feel
like
there
ought
to
be
a
comment
on
start
formulating
ideas
in
your
head
about
where
you
want
to
write
comments,
we're
going
to
get
to
that
in
early
may
as
a
task
force
to
the
extent
possible
I'll
ask
people
to
draft
comments
in
advance
of
our
meetings.
B
That's
not
always
possible,
and
you
may
discover
that.
There's
other
committee
task
force
members
that
that
share
your
passion
and
you
may
want
to
jointly
author
a
comment
or
you
may
find,
there's
somebody
with
a
slightly
different
opinion.
You
can
find
a
way
to
resolve
those
differences
and
come
up
with
time
that
meets
everybody's
needs,
all
right,
so
moving
forward
on
pb001.
B
This
is
parkway
paving
that
was
rated
significant
and
strong.
I'm
you
know,
I'm
sorry.
I
need
to
go
back
for
a
second.
I
think
I
misstated
on
swk001
and
002..
Those
are
actually
critical,
strong,
not
significant,
strong,
that's
what
they
were
last
year,
so
I'm
going
to
just
reopen
that.
Is
there
any
any
issues
or
comments
on
that
all
right,
I'm
going
to
take
critical,
strong
as
unanimous
consent
on
those
objects.
H
B
Okay,
so
moving
to
paving
the
parkway
paving
project,
that's
rated
significant
and
strong.
Do
I
have
a
motion.
J
I'll
be
making
some
kind
of
a
comment
on
this.
Reflecting
on
what
I
tried
to
bring
up
during
the
meeting.
G
B
B
H
B
The
only
thing
I'd
raise
on
this
is
just
out
of
interest.
You
know
I
asked
the
question
about
why
there
was
no
funding
in
the
near
term
years
and
they
they
raised
how
important
this
is
to
the
city,
which
is
it's
interesting.
My
understanding
anecdotally
on
this
is
you
get
different
views
from
different
citizens
around
the
city
about
this?
Some
citizens
don't
want
the
assessments
that
come
with
having
an
unpaved
alley
paved
because
some
of
these
unpaved
alleys
are
not
the
dusty
dirt
alleys.
B
You
might
imagine
them
to
be
they've
been
oiled
over
many
many
years
and
almost
work
like
pavement.
The
city
is
more
interested
in
it
because
it's
easier
for
garbage
trucks
and
snow
plows,
and
that
kind
of
thing
just
just
an
interesting
factoid
about
it.
It's
not
as
universally
welcomed,
as
you
might
imagine
any
comment.
Any
other
comments
on
66
and
63
at
important
and
moderate
excuse
me
I'll.
B
I
B
D
H
B
J
F
B
This
one
is
different
than
all
of
the
others
that
we
don't
do
ratings
on.
All
of
the
other
ones
are
what
are
called
reimbursable
projects
and
they're,
basically,
internal
accounting
by
the
city.
So
an
example
would
be
they're
going
to
do
a
street
project
and,
as
a
result,
the
water
department's
going
to
come
in
and
redo
the
water
mains.
The
way
the
city
does
the
accounting
on
that
be
a
city.
B
It
assigns
part
of
the
cost
of
digging
up
the
streets
to
the
water
department
instead
of
putting
it
all
in
paving
because
water
is
benefiting
it
but
benefiting
from
it
as
well.
So
it's
nothing
for
us
to
rate
it's
just
how
they're
internally
moving
money
around
so
you'll
see
those
projects
all
end
with
an
r
and
they
show
up
in
here,
because
they
need
to
do
cbrs
on
it
to
do
the
internal
accounting,
but
it's
nothing
that
we
need
to
rate
we're
already
implicitly
rating
these
projects
somewhere
else.
Tv
75
is
a
little
bit
different.
B
B
So
if
the
city
needed
to
move
quickly
to
acquire
land
for
some
kind
of
economic
development
as
a
result
of
market
forces,
you
know
whether
it's
the
twin
stadium
or
the
viking
stadium
or
whatever
they'd
have
ready
available
funds
to
do
that
with
the
pro
the
implicit
problem.
With
that
that
click
pointed
out
to
them
every
year
is
they
were
basically
asking
for
a
fund
with
no
project,
so
they're
asking
us
to
approve
two
million
dollars
that
has
no
project
to
it,
has
no
details.
J
B
H
B
B
Yeah,
I
know
there
was
feedback
online.
I
was
just
asking
for
people
to
mute
if
they're
not
talking,
because
somebody's
got
a
bunch
of
dan.
I
think
it
might
be
your
mic.
Can
you
mute
when
you're
not
talking
here
we
go.
Thank
you
all
right.
So,
just
to
reiterate,
we've
got
a
motion
on
the
floor
for
significant
and
strong
for
pb,
108,
113
and
122.
Is
there
any
discussion.
B
All
right
we've
got
a
lot
to
get
through,
so
I'm
going
to
start
to
really
move
it
along.
If
somebody
needs
wants
to
break
one
of
these
out
because
they
have
an
opinion
about
it,
please
do
so
I'm
going
to
take
pv
123,
pv,
126,
127,
131,
132,
137
and
138
all
significant
and
strong
last
year.
Is
there
a
motion.
B
B
Remember
what
you
just
said,
and
I
yeah
no
that's
fine,
I'm
happy
to
do
that.
123
is
logan
park.
Industrial
126
is
bryant
avenue.
South
127th
37th
avenue
northeast
131
is
the
residential
neighborhood
reconstruction
projects.
132
is
first
avenue.
South
137
is
29th.
Ave,
northeast
and
138
is
26th
street.
G
B
E
E
B
B
E
B
D
John
I'll
speak
up
on
this,
because
I
think
I
was
one
of
the
people
who
might
have
been
behind.
Last
year's
rating
was
an
issue
of
whether
this
project
or
bryant
should
go
first.
This
one
is
clearly
in
the
queue
ahead
of
bryant
and
I
think
we
should
rate
it
equivalent,
as
we
are
doing
with
the
motion.
G
B
B
G
K
Yeah,
if
I'm
remembering
is
this,
is
this
the
one
where
they
showed
the
video
images
of
the
like,
where
the
brick
is
actually
exposed?
Downtown
east.
G
D
B
B
G
B
Okay,
so
we're
there
there's
a
we're
going
to
take
a
vote
on
this.
The
movement,
the
the
amendment
is
to
move
pv-143
as
significant
and
moderate.
Now.
Can
you
do
the
take
the
role
on
that.
G
B
D
C
G
D
B
B
Just
that
for
a
second,
can
I
ask
people
if
you're
not
talking,
if
you
could
mute
yourself,
because
some
people's
mics
are
taking
it
over
and
I'm
not
hearing
the
motions
in
the
seconds
so
it'd
be
appreciated.
If
you
could
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
I'm
sorry
all
right.
So
there's
a
motion
on
the
floor
for
significant
excuse
me
for
important
and
moderate
for
pv
150
any.
B
B
B
B
G
H
G
B
B
D
B
B
B
H
I
B
E
G
B
B
G
J
B
H
B
B
Hearing,
none
I'll
take
that
as
unanimous
consent
on
that
one,
so
we're
skipping
over
the
this
next
one
is
one
of
those
reimbursable
projects
that
describe
so.
We
there's
nothing
to
wait
there
that
moves
us
to
bridges
I'll,
take
the
first
two
together,
that's
br
101,
which
is
the
major
bridge
repair,
and
we
have
rehabilitation
program
and
br
127,
which
is
the
nickelod
avenue
bridge
over
minnehaha
creek,
both
rated
significant
and
strong
last
year.
It's
our
motion.
B
B
B
D
Sorry
I
keep
getting
muted
important
and
I'm
sorry
that's
keep
switching
back
and
forth
here
between
the
screen
to
unmute
and
the
spreadsheet
that
I
would
move
important
and
moderate
I'll.
Second,
it.
B
E
G
E
A
Thank
you.
I
support
the
motion
as
a
north
side
resident
who
takes
a
city-wide
view.
You
know
there
are
what
40
plus
bridges
along
this
corridor,
mostly
historic,
but
I
think
if
we
look
at
our
definitional
question
and
fully
supporting
the
infrastructure
over
time,
long-time
members
may
remember
what
was
at
fremont
avenue.
A
We
had
a
bridge
d
commissioning
and
then
we
had
a
change
and
then
we
had
a
new
bridge
so
like,
and
I
agree
with
scott's
contention
about
the
the
timing
and
it's
something
we
should
definitely
put
note
for
next
year
to
create
more
time
to
look
at
these
thoughtfully,
but
bottom
line
is
each
individual
can,
at
their
discretion.
B
And
let
me
anthony
before
you
go.
Let
me
just
jump
in
and
address
scott's
concern,
because
I
think
it's
a
fair
one.
First
of
all
the
the
problem
that
scott
is
highlighting,
it's
just
it's
a
huge
problem.
Right,
there's
just
no
way
you
can
digest
this
amount
of
material
in
that
amount
of
time.
B
At
the
same
time
you
know,
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
just
need
to
give
a
lot
of
grace
to
a
lot
of
people
involved
right,
there's
just
a
it's
a
confluence
of
events
that
made
this
occur
right
more
than
it
was
anybody
dropping
the
ball
that
shouldn't
have
dropped
the
ball.
The
entire
staff
knew,
with
the
exception
of
one
and
the
one
returning
person
was
on
a
leave
during
the
critical
time
we
were
getting
set
up
to
launch
for
this
year.
Having
said
that,
we
are
going.
B
I
I
believe,
I'm
correct
that
we're
going
through
every
single
transportation
project
today,
which
means
we're
not
going
to
have
a
need
to
meet
at
the
end
of
our
meeting
next
friday.
So
here's
what
I
would
propose
to
the
group
number
one
I
would
say
to
scott's
concern
that
he's
being
asked
to
vote
on
something
he's
got
no
clue
what
what
the
details
of
it
are.
B
I
personally
have
a
lot
of
faith
in
us.
As
a
group,
I
think
we
are
a
very
diverse
group
that
brings
a
lot
of
different
experiences
to
this
and
we're
all
intelligent
and
thoughtful,
and
I
generally
trust
the
group
as
a
whole.
B
But
having
said
that,
I
think
what
we
could
do
next
week
in
a
fairly
shortened
period
of
time
is,
if
you
know
over
the
course
of
this
week,
you
get
through
a
project
that
you
haven't
seen
so
far
that
we
vote
on
today,
I'm
willing
to
entertain
discussing
changing
the
ratings
that
we're
going
through
today
on
us.
You
know,
let's,
let's
not
be
abusive
of
it.
B
If
there's
a
handful
of
projects
where
you
go
and
you
look
at
and
you're
like,
you
know
what
I
really
disagree
with
this
I'd
like
to
bring
it
up
and
at
least
discuss
it.
We
can
use
our
half
an
hour
next
week
to
do
that,
and
then
people
don't
feel
like
this
is
getting
railroaded
through.
Does
that
sound
reasonable
to
everybody?.
F
I
can
I
also
make
one
other
note
sure
it
appears
that
this
one,
I
don't
I
I
don't
believe
we
have
a
cbr
for
it.
Even
so
I
you
know,
I
would
want
to
see
that
I
think
before
making
a
a
judgment,
because
all
it
was
was
to
mention
in
the
presentation.
G
B
The
link
to
all
of
the
cbrs
you're
correct
all
right.
I'm
gonna
suggest
that
somebody
amend
this
motion
to
table
until
we
have
a
cbr
to
look
at
there's.
No,
I
mean
the
idea
of
voting
on
something
where
you
haven't
seen
a
cbr.
It
doesn't
make
any
sense.
G
B
Okay,
neil,
can
you
take
a
vote
on
that
one
we're
going
to
table
making
a
decision
on
135
until
next
week.
C
All
right,
john
bernstein,
hi,
steve
brad,
steve
brandt,
hi,
johnny,
degarmo.
C
C
Scott
engel
hi
amity
foster
hi
he's
like
you,
stad
katie
jones,
matt,
kozenka,
hi,
erica.
G
H
C
C
D
C
B
B
That
takes
us
to
traffic
I'm
to
attempt
to
speed
this
up
here.
But
please,
if
you
want
to
break
one
out,
you
can
make
that
motion,
I'm
going
to
take
all
of
the
traffic
projects
and
I'll
read
through
them,
so
that's
tr008,
which
is
parkway
street
light
replacement,
tr
10,
which
is
traffic
management
systems,
tier
11,
which
is
city
street
light
renovation,
tr
21,
which
is
traffic,
signals
tr
22,
which
is
traffic
safety
improvements,
pr24,
which
is
pedestrian
street
lighting
corridors
and
tr
25,
which
is
sign
replacement
program.
H
B
B
B
G
E
Yeah,
I
would
rate
this
desirable
and
low,
I
feel
like
they.
They
don't
describe
the
project
or
they
describe
the
projects,
but
they
don't
describe
what
resources
are
available
and
they
don't
seem
to
have
a
plan
for
these
facilities
over
time
frames.
So,
like
I
described
in
the
presentations
earlier
I'd
like
more
information
before
giving
this
a
higher
rating.
D
A
I
will
I
will
support
the
emotion
I
do
not
support
downgrading
this
further.
I
think
that,
like
it
or
not,
these
are
these
are
really
essential
for
commerce
in
industry.
At
present,
we've
acknowledged
that
we're
moving
towards
electric
vehicles
and
moving
perhaps
to
a
place
where
everybody,
either
walks
or
bicycles
or
somehow
gets
from
place
to
place
without
using
the
you
know
the
evil
automobile,
and
I
say
that
not
to
be
contentious
with
people,
but
simply
you
know
the
pandemic
hit,
and
I
know
as
a
person
who
has
worked
downtown
the
past
year.
A
A
They
you
know,
I
had
some
employees
who
rode
the
bus,
but
there
were
places
where
there
was
no
bus
service,
I'm
told
by
the
people
living
there
where
they'd
have
to
divert.
You
know
5-10
miles
out
of
their
way
to
get
there,
and
so
maybe
in
the
long
term
you
can
have
conversions,
but
believe
me,
you
know
we
we
can't.
A
We
can't
act
as
if
the
change
has
already
happened
today,
and
I
know
we
have
to
live
the
goals
that
we
believe
in,
and
you
know,
futuristic
five
years
ten
years
out,
but
I
support
the
the
suggested
rating,
but
I
don't
support
the
downgrading
and
as
long
as
these
are
self-supporting
capital,
we
have
a
huge,
as
you
know,
huge
commercial
industrial
tax
base
downtown,
and
I
don't
know
that
all
the
employers
there
are
going
to
just
automatically
move
away
from
having
places
where
they're
working
class
people
can
park.
H
So
I
I
kind
of
wonder
if,
like
the
air
conditioning
part,
is
more
maintenance
than
capital,
but
I
was
compelled
somewhat
by
making
sure
we're
able
to
stay
compliant,
taking
payments
and
also
take
new
forms
of
payments.
E
I
feel
like
jeff
and
I
think
you're
usually
very
respectful,
but
I
feel
like
that
was
disrespectful
to
me
and
misrepresented
what
I
was
saying.
I
have
never
described
automobiles
as
evil.
I've
never
said
we
are
going
to
completely
move
away
from
automobiles.
I
never
said
that
people
weren't
going
to
work
downtown.
E
All
I
suggest
is
that
public
works
come
up
with
a
an
analysis
of
whether
these
facilities
are
being
used,
particularly
because
we're
in
a
covent
situation,
and
my
understanding
is
that
ninety
percent
of
the
ramps
are
empty
right
now.
So
I
can.
I
can
see
where
people
might
disagree
with
my
suggestion,
but
I
don't
want
to
be
represented
as
some
crazy
person
that
thinks
cars
are
gonna
disappear
and
everybody's
going
to
have,
to
god
forbid,
get
on
a
bus.
So.
D
Steve
go
ahead.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
which
proposed
rating
is
actually
before
us,
so
the.
G
A
I'm
sorry
it
was
difficult
on
you
and
I
want
to
say
through
the
chair
to
scott
no
intention
on
my
part
and
if
my
statement
was
insensitive,
I
would
retract
any
statements
that
no
was
not
intended
to
be
critical
and
in
thinking
I'll
say
that.
I'm
sorry
that
I
said
what
I
said.
B
B
B
You
know
clearly
there
how
the
car
is
fueled
needs
to
change,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
there
isn't
going
to
be
a
need
for
physical
space
for
cars
going
forward,
and
while
it's
certainly
true
that
there's
been
some
significant
changes
in
usage
of
things
as
a
result
of
kovid,
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
that
we,
the
city,
needs
to
be
careful
not
to
if
they
do
assessments
about
things
right
now,
we're
in
an
incredibly
transitional
period
of
time
right
where
it's
clear,
whether
we're
talking
about
parking
or
anything
else
as
a
result
of
coba
there's
some
things
that
are
going
to
result
in
long-term
changes,
and
there
are
other
things
that
may
rever
right
back
to
the
way
they
used
to
be
when
this
is
all
over
and
and
some
of
those
things
may
surprise
all
of
us
on
both
sides.
B
So
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
about
asking
them
to
do
an
assessment
too
early
or
at
least
making
long-term
decisions
based
on
assessments
that
might
be
a
little
bit
early.
I
guess
is
the
way
I
would
word
that
so
unless
there's
any
further
comments,
since
this
one's
a
little
bit
controversial,
we'll
take
a
vote
on
it
again
to
remind
everybody.
The
motion
on
the
floor
is
important
and
moderate
for
offsp
004.
B
D
C
E
C
D
C
C
B
That
motion
passes
all
right,
we're
making
great
progress,
everybody
just
an
update,
because
we're
well
over
the
time
that
that
this
was
scheduled
to
end,
which,
of
course,
I
knew
was
going
to
happen,
but
we're
getting
close
to
the
end.
We've
just
got
water
left,
so
I
would
anticipate
that
10
to
15
minutes
at
the
most,
maybe
even
a
lot
less
than
that,
depending
on
whether
there's
any
controversy
on
some
of
these,
so
we're
now
moving
to
a
different
tab
on
the
rating
sheet.
B
B
I'll
just
say
quickly,
while
I
I'm
fully
in
support
of
this
these
ratings.
This
is
a
great
example
of
one
where
they
just
need
to
give
us
much
more
detail
than
they've
been
giving
us
and
they've
really
gotten
a
pass
on
this,
and
I'm
not
sure
why
we
haven't
been-
and
I
include
myself
in
this
tougher
on
them
about
this-
and
you
know
this
citizen
that
contacted
me
a
few
weeks
ago
and
then
showed
up
at
the
public
meeting
on
wednesday
night
really
brought
this
to
light.
B
This
idea
that
you
know
there
this
this
project
contemplates
all
of
the
improvements
that
need
to
be
made
in
the
water
distribution
system
across
the
entire
city
and
we've
never
seen
an
inventory
and,
as
it
turns
out,
they
don't
even
have
an
inventory
there,
thankfully
they're
working
on
it,
but
what
on
earth
has
been
going
on
previous
to
them
in
doing
this?
They
have.
B
You
know
coming
up
with
nine
million
dollars
a
year
when
you
have
no
idea
what
what
what
the
total
needs
are,
and
this
this
example
that
this
particular
citizen
has
given,
with
these
dead
end
water
mains,
which
he
shared.
The
map
with
me
you'd,
be
amazed
at
how
many
of
them
are.
D
A
I'll
second
john's
comments
also-
and
just
say
I
was
thinking
about
the
water
projects
today
and
you
know
you
think
about
it.
Water
water
is
more
important
than
gold
for
life
and
we,
I
don't
think
we're
conserving
water
appropriately.
I
don't
think
we're
using
gray
water
as
some
other
jurisdictions.
I
re.
I
remember
on
click
us
talking
about
gray
water
repurposing
10
years
ago.
I
bet
it
was
10.
15
years
ago,
washington
state
was
getting
laws
in
place.
A
A
I
served
on
it
when
we
did
the
ultrafiltration
membranes
and
maybe
we
were
sold
a
bill
of
goods
and
built
too
much
capacity
at
the
time-
that's
quite
possible,
but
not
to
belabor
the
point,
but
just
you
know,
I
think
we
have
to
do
a
lot
with
water,
and
so
they
shouldn't
just
get
a
free
ride.
So
to
speak
on
on
the
projects.
We
should
be
asking
the
tough
questions,
and
maybe
we
need
to
have.
B
Yeah-
and
I
would
just
piggyback
off
of
that-
and
then
I
I
put
myself
in
there
with
everybody
else-
I
think
it's
sometimes
it's
easy
to
not
scrutinize
these
projects
quite
to
the
same
level
that
projects
that
are
funded
with
net
debt
bonds
are
scrutinized.
So
for
those
of
you
that
are
new
and
may
not
know,
these
are
what
are
called
enterprise
funds,
so
the
rates
that
they
charge
and
the
revenues
they
collect,
they're
able
to
use
to
pay
debt
service.
B
You
know
another
question
is
how
much
what
what's
the
the
asset
load,
you're
creating
and
what's
the
future
maintenance
of
that
asset
load
going
to
be
so
just
I
think
we
all
should
probably
be,
should
treat
these
enterprise
fund
projects
with
a
little
bit
more
scrutiny
than
we
have
in
the
past
and
to
be
fair,
they
have
a
tendency
to
not
give
us
any
more
information
than
they
need
to
right.
I
mean
it's
the
classic
human
behavior.
When
it
comes
to
budgeting
right,
you
give
them.
D
There
you
go
there
we
go.
I
would
just
suggest,
john
that
since
you
have
more
experience
than
anybody
other
than
perhaps
jeff
that
you,
you
draft
a
comment
that
maybe
goes
beyond
last
year's
comment
and
is
more
specific,
because
I
think
there's
probably
a
broad
consensus
around
what
you're
saying.
B
Yeah,
I'm
happy
to
do
that,
and
you
know
I
think
before
I
draft
that
comment.
I
want
to
see
what
kind
of
written
response
we
get
from
the
water
department
about
the
questions.
The
requests
I
made
this
morning
all
right:
let's
not
deliver
this
any
further
to
just
refresh
everybody.
The
motion
on
the
floor
for
water
12,
water
distribution
improvements
is
significant
and
strong.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
I'll
take
that
as
unanimous
consent
moving
right
along.
B
So,
just
to
so
everybody
realizes
that
water
18
is
a
is
a
is
a
building.
Basically,
so
that
is
that's
the
water
project.
That's
not
rated
by
transportation.
Human
development
has
that
one.
So
that
takes
us
to
water
23,
which
is
treatment,
infrastructure
improvements,
that's
rated
critical
and
strong.
Do
I
have
a
motion.
B
I
C
D
John,
I
I
would
argue
that
the
electrical
system
improvements
are
critical.
I
think
the
failure
there
in
an
aging
system
would
have
potentially
catastrophic
effects,
so
I
would
move
for
critical.
There.
B
B
G
B
G
B
F
It's
under
the
art
and
public
grounds
tab.
It
looks
like
I
wonder
why
it's
there.