►
From YouTube: January 26, 2022 Board of Estimate and Taxation
Description
Additional information at https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
C
C
C
C
C
E
C
D
F
C
D
C
C
B
C
B
C
Are
five
eyes
that
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
are
accepted
as
presented
item
number
four
and
agenda
today
is
considering
amendments
to
the
bylaws.
This
item
was
continued
from
our
january
12th
meeting
I'll
invite
dan
hammer
from
the
city
attorney's
office
to
introduce
the
proposed
amendment
to
1-1
our
bound
counsel,
julie,
eddington
is
also
on
hand
to
answer
any
general
questions
regarding
the
bond
issuance
process
dan.
Am
I
pronouncing
your
last
name
correctly.
G
G
Yeah,
so
there
are
two
amendments
proposed
that
were
held
over
from
last
meeting.
The
first
one
is
an
amendment
to
section
1.1
of
the
bylaws,
and
that
is
an
amendment
that
would
clarify
that
the
role
of
the
board
is
to
approve
the
issuance
of
bonds
by
the
city
and
not
to
issue
bonds.
The
proposed
amendment
would
not
have
a
material
effect
or
substantive
effect.
It
would
only
correct
a
technical
inaccuracy.
G
The
board
itself
is
not
a
political
subdivision
and
therefore
the
board
itself
does
not
have
the
authority
to
issue
bonds
when
issuing
general
obligation
bonds
pursuant
to
the
charter.
The
charter
states
that
the
city
may
issue
bonds
with
the
concurrence
of
two
thirds
of
the
board.
That's
in
section
9.4
of
the
charter.
G
So,
as
a
result
that
proposed
amendment
language
reflects
the
current
role
of
the
board
in
the
bond
issuance
process.
It's
a
technical
correction
so
that
the
bylaws
more
accurately
reflect
the
role
of
the
board,
and
adoption
of
the
proposed
amendment
would
not
result
in
a
substantive
change
to
the
board's
duties,
responsibility
or
role.
G
As
I
mentioned,
it
just
would
essentially
accurately
state
what
the
current
situation
is
in
terms
of
the
board's
legal
authority
and,
as
vice
president
brant
mentioned,
julie
eddington,
the
city's
bond
council
from
kennedy
graven
is
available
at
the
meeting
to
answer
questions
with
any
specifics
as
to
the
bond
issuance
process,
and
then
I'll
also
note,
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
we're
going
to
take
them
up
separately.
They're
under
the
same
agenda
item
there's
also
a
proposed
amendment
to
section
4.7.
G
That
section
would
be
amended
to
change
the
system.
Currently,
no
public
comment
is
permitted
at
board
meetings,
except
for
designated
public
hearings
or
by
unanimous
consent
of
the
board.
Adoption
of
this
amendment
would
provide
for
a
10-minute
public
comment.
Hearing
at
the
first
period
of
each
month
on
board
business
and
individual
comments
would
be
limited
to
no
more
than
two
minutes.
C
C
You're
saying
that,
as
per
the
city
charter,
the
board
does
not
issue
the
bonds.
It
approves
the
issuance
of
the
bonds
and
the
city
issues
them,
and
I
take
that
point.
But
here
we
have
the
official
offering
statement
for
our
last
bond
sales
saying
something
different
and
I'm
wondering
if,
rather
than
act
on
this
at
this
point,
we
might
want
to
think
about
looking
at
all
the
various
documentation
that
bears
on
this
issue
and
getting
it
in
sync.
Somehow.
G
Vice
president
brandt,
you
know
I
can't
speak
to
you
know
what
other
documents
might
be
out
there
and
you
know
maybe
there
would
be
some
benefit
in
kind
of
going
through
and
making
sure
that
everything
is
consistent
and
accurate.
You
know
I'm
only
speaking
to
this
bylaw
amendment
with
respect
to
the
official
statement.
You
know,
that's
an
official
statement.
That's
issued,
you
know
by
the
city
as
issue
of
the
bond,
so
I
think
that
in
general
you
know.
That's
that's
in
that.
G
G
Yeah
vice
president
brandt,
you
know,
I
think,
you're
correct.
You
know
if
this
is
a
technical
change
that
doesn't
really
have
you
know
a
substantive
effect,
so
the
the
entire
point
was
that
during
the
bylaw
review,
it
was
noted
that
this
language
appeared
to
be
slightly
inaccurate
as
to
the
actual
you
know,
authority
of
the
board
and
the
role
of
the
board
in
the
bond
issuance
process.
But
you
know
it's:
it's
only
a
statement
of
purpose
in
the
board's
bylaws,
so
you
know
adopting
it
or
not
adopting
it.
G
E
E
E
But
I
think
part
of
the
cleanup
is
right
here
in
our
bylaws
themselves,
and
so
I
I
I
will
move
approval
and
additionally
I'll
state
that
I
I
think
we
can
kind
of
go
back
and
have
a
glance
to
see
other
instances
when
we've
incorrectly
labeled
approval
when
it
should
be
issued
or
issued
when
it
should
have
been
approval.
But
in
this
case
it's
clear
that
the
bet
only
has
the
authority
to
to
approve
the
issuance
as
opposed
to
issue
themselves.
D
C
B
C
B
C
C
Read
it
unless
you
ask
you
okay,
well,
maybe
in
the
interest
of
transparency,
the
change
would
be
that
at
the
first
board
meeting
of
each
month,
comments
shall
be
allowed
for
members
of
the
public.
On
the
subject
of
board
business,
those
wishing
to
speak
shall
be
given
up
to
two
minutes
each
to
address
the
board.
C
F
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
had
what
what
I
hope
will
be
a
friendly
amendment.
I
I
sort
of
understand
the
the
general
will
and
the
goal
of
putting
this
particular
amendment
forward,
and
I
respect
it.
What
I'm
hoping
to
do
is
change
the
first
sentence
or
the
end
of
this.
The
first
sentence
to
state
on
the
subject
of
board
business
appearing
on
the
agenda
on
that
date.
C
C
E
C
C
H
Thank
you
vice
president
brandt.
I
hear
the
mayor's
concerns
about
the
board
business
and
I
think
that
the
reason
it
was
put
in
there
is
to
sort
of
clarify
that
we
don't
want
to
limit
to
the
first
board
meeting
of
the
month
and
then
not
to
fuel
the
opportunity
if
there
are
two
meetings,
so
maybe
there
could
be
clarification
around
the
board
business
of
that
month
or
we
could
just
eliminate
at
the
first
board
meeting
each
month.
C
C
A
I'm
sorry,
mr
chair
and
members,
I
was
only
attempting
to
clarify.
There
was
comments
about
the
first
meeting
versus
each
meeting
and
later
on
in
the
agenda.
Of
course,
you
know
we're
getting
ready
to
adopt
the
calendar
of
regular
meetings
and
in
most
of
the
months,
there's
only
one
meeting
per
month.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
in
most
of
the
months
he
won't
actually
have
more
than
one
meeting.
D
D
D
Are
we
going
to
limit
the
time
that
each
member
of
the
public
can
speak
or
if
there's
only
one
person,
do
they
get
the
whole
10
minutes
or
if
it's
two
people,
do
they
get
five
minutes
each
or
do
we
have
a
two
minute
limit
like
do
we
wanna?
Do
we
wanna
put
that
in
the
statute,
or
do
we
want
to
sort
of
play
it
by
ear
as
the
meetings.
C
H
C
That
would
be
a
fine
practice.
I
know
that's
the
way
it
works
at
the
park
board.
However,
what
we
have
before
us
says
up
to
two
minutes
and
a
total
of
ten.
I
might
suggest
that
we
could
try
this
and
if
it
we
find
it
not
workable
or
needs
to
be
modified.
There
is
a
procedure
for
amending
the
bylaws
mid-year.
If
we
find
that
it's
not
working
correctly,
anybody
else
want
to
participate
in
the
discussion
on
this.
C
D
C
I
Yes,
thank
you.
Vice
president
brandt
board
members,
just
very
briefly
on
the
calendar,
if
you'll
recall,
as
as
president
vice
president
brandt
pointed
out,
this
item
was
referred
back
to
staff
for
further
refinement,
in
particular,
to
look
for
opportunities
to
reduce
the
number
of
of
placeholder
meetings
in
order
to
assure
efficient
use
of
of
both
staff
and
policy
makers
time,
while
also
recognizing
the
fact
that
we
are,
as
a
body
required
to
meet
once
per
month
per
the
city
charter.
I
C
C
I
will
support
this
in
a
spirit
of
compromise,
with
the
understanding
that
the
two
busiest
people
of
our
of
our
number,
the
mayor
and
city
council
president,
will
adjust
their
schedules
as
needed
to
make
priority
for
the
board.
If
we
should
find
any
unscheduled
meetings
need
to
be
called,
and
I
would
also
point
out
that
I
this
will
make
perhaps
some
of
our
remaining
meetings
longer
and
that
would
I
hope
we
won't
hear
complaints
about
the
length
of
the
meeting.
If
that
happens,
but
is
there
any
other
discussion?
C
C
C
D
So
if
this
was
not
some
for
me,
some
kind
of
rebuke
against
the
bet
or
meeting
schedule,
but
just
to
have
a
placeholder
on
my
calendar
in
case
is
it.
It
makes
life
really
challenging.
For
my
for
my
staff
and-
and
I
really
want
to
just
try
to
make
sure
that
they
are
able
to
use
their
time
and
my
time
as
efficiently
as
possible.
So.
C
Thank
you,
council
president,
we'll
now
move
on
to
item
six
on
the
agenda.
It's
a
resolution
approving
capital
project,
bonding
requests
submitted
by
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
the
minneapolis
park
of
recreation
board
park
and
recreation
board
to
the
list
of
requested,
but
not
yet
issued
bonds,
for
which
the
board
of
estimate
and
taxation
will
consider
approving
the
issuance
of
tax-exempt
general
obligation
bonds.
So
this
is
not
the
approval
of
the
issuance
of
the
bonds,
but
putting
them
on
the
list
for
later
action.
C
I
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Yes,
mr
sterl
has
captured
that
that
accurately
acts
of
the
board
are
captured
through
resolutions
by
this
body,
and
this
is
merely
another
resolution,
as
we
do
with
assessment
bonding
requests
that
are
submitted
by
the
city
council
throughout
the
year
to
add
these
to
the
list
of
requested,
but
not
yet
issued
bonds,
for
which
the
board
will
consider
approving
later
the
issuance
of
tax
exempt
bonds.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
just
curious
as
to
get
some
counsel
from
our
bond
lawyer
or
bond
council
on
the
topic.
You
know
I'm
I'm
happy
to
do
whatever
is
the
the
accurate
reflection
of
what
we're
actually
doing
here
but
as
as
you
noted
mr
chair,
my
understanding
is
that
we
are
not
actually
approving
the
issuance
here,
but
rather
this
is
simply
more
of
a
receive
and
file
item.
Again
I
could
be
totally
wrong
and
I
I'm
fine
in
that
case,
so
I
don't
know
if
miss
eddington
maybe
could
speak
to.
J
I
C
C
I
My
apologies
vice
vice
president
brandt
I'll
admit,
I'm
having
a
slight
degree
of
difficulty
in
tracking.
Where
things
stand,
I
just
want
to
be
certain
that
I
correctly
heard
the
the
bond
council
and
and
and
if
I,
if
I
didn't,
mishear
you
or
I'm
misrepresenting
what
you
said
in
any
in
any
way,
I
I
do
apologize.
I
It
sounded
if,
as
if
you
were
suggesting
that
this,
this
should
in
fact
be
a
receive
and
file
as
opposed
to
a
motion
for
approval.
I
I
would
note
that
that
would
represent
a
change
from
the
board's.
Historical
process
is
my
understanding,
but
again
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
I
heard
you
correctly
perhaps
before
before
going
into
the
presentation.
J
The
bet
does
not
need
to
approve
the
capital
projects
that
are
on
the
list,
but
merely
add
those
capital
projects
to
your
list
for
later
on.
When
bonding
does
occur,
then
you
would
have
an
authorizing
resolution
and
a
bond
resolution
to
approve
the
the
issuance
of
bonds
related
to
these
capital
projects.
C
And
ms
eddington,
if
I
may
piggyback
on
that,
if
there
was
a
project
on
the
list
that
members
of
the
board
found
to
be
problematic,
I
assume
it
would
be
less
disruptive
to
raise
that
objection
now
and
and
either
maintain
or
delete
that
project
from
the
list
than
to
do
it.
When
you're.
Actually
at
the
point
of
a
bond
sale.
J
Vice
president
brandt,
the
the
authority
of
the
board
of
estimate
and
taxation
is
to
be
able
to
approve
bonds,
and
that
would
include
the
capital
projects
that
are
on
this
list.
The
the
city
council
is
the
one
that
actually
approves
these
capital
projects,
so
they're
already
approved,
and
so
taking
them
off.
The
list
would
be
an
unusual
action
to
take
and
not
something
that
I've
actually
seen
the
board
of
estimate
and
taxation
do
in
the
time
that
I
have
served
as
their
council.
C
If
I
could
clarify,
I
have
had
conversations
about
past
practice
on
this
point,
and
I
have
been
told
and
I'd
love
to
have
your
perspective
on
this-
that,
although
these
projects
are
in
the
city's
capital
budget
for
2022,
they
are
not
truly
going
to
go
ahead
unless
they
get
added
to
this
list,
at
least
for
the
amount
of
the
project
that
depends
on
bonding
and
that
this
is
an
important
step
along
the
way,
not
not
merely
a
ministerial
one,
but
I'd.
If
you
could
clarify
that,
I
would
ask
to
you
to
do
that.
J
Vice
president
bran
members
of
the
board,
it's
my
understanding
and
I
can
also
rely
on
lori,
johnson,
deshawnee,
dye
and
dan
hammer
on
this.
But
the
the
point
of
the
city
council
sending
this
list
to
you
is
for
you
to
add
it
to
the
list
of
things
that
may
be
bonded
for
in
the
future,
and
I
am
not
aware
that
the
board
of
estimate
and
taxation
has
any
ability
to
remove
projects
from
that
list.
K
A
Yes,
so
the
action
that's
being
requested
here
to
be
very
clear,
I
think
we've
gotten
confused
that
reads
as
if
two
things
are
being
done.
What
the
board
is
being
asked
to
do
is
to
approve
an
addition
to
the
list
of
projects.
The
rest
of
it
that
talks
about
consider
issuing
is
a
future
action.
It's
simply
highlighting
that
when
you
get
to
that
future
action,
it
would
include
more
projects.
The
action
today
is
simply
approving
the
addition
of
some
projects
that
have
been
approved
by
the
board.
C
A
C
And
to
clarify
ms
eddington:
it's
your
opinion
that
this
board
does
not
have
not
there's
any
particular
project.
I
would
want
to
remove
it's
on
this
list,
but
the
board
would
not
have
the
power
to
either
remove
a
project
that's
proposed
for
bonding
by
the
city
council
or
to
remove
it
at
the
time
of
the
bond
sale.
C
But
let's
say,
for
example,
just
to
pick
an
example
that
I
don't
foresee
coming
up
in
the
near
future.
Let's
say
the
board
is
asked
to
issue
bonds
for
a
parcel
of
projects
and
let's
say
I
happen
to
be
a
person
who
doesn't
think
that
a
sports
facility
should
be
paid
for
out
of
property
taxes.
And
let's
say
there
is
a
project
that
is
in
that
format,
as
opposed
to
use
of
special
taxes.
C
J
They
move
forward
with
many
bonding
projects
at
once,
and
then
those
move
eventually
to
the
bet
for
approval,
and
I
think,
if
there
is
a
project
that's
being
objected
to,
that
would
be
something
that
you
would.
You
would
discuss
and
want
to
deal
with
at
the
time
that
the
bonding
resolutions
come
to
your
board.
C
C
E
The
way
that
this
has
always
been
done
in
my
understanding
of
the
way
that
the
law
itself
is
interpreted
is
that
the
board
of
estimate
and
taxation
at
the
following
subsequent
meeting
has
the
ability
to
approve
or
deny
the
issuance
of
the
bond,
and
they
have
every
ability
to
vote
yes
or
no
on
the
bond
itself.
But
that
bond
is
inclusive
of
a
number
of
different
capital
projects
which
have
already
been
vetted
by
staff
and
then
have
been
approved
by
their
respective
bodies.
E
And
so
of
course,
this
body,
the
board
of
estimate
and
taxation,
should
have
the
full
authority
to
approve
yes
or
no
on
the
bond.
But
I
feel
very
strongly
that
both
the
law,
as
well
as
just
the
good
public
policy,
would
say
that
this
board
could
not
then
remove
or
add
to
the
specific
items
that
are
within
the
bond
itself,
because
those
have
already
been
vetted
in
full.
E
By
their
respective
bodies,
so
I
mean
that's,
that's
actually
why
I
think
this
particular
language
is
important
for
today,
because
indeed,
we
aren't
approving
the
final
bond,
we're
we're
simply
seeing
this
information,
we're
forwarding
it
on
to
the
next
meeting,
where
the
decision
will
be
made
as
to
whether
to
vote
yes
or
no
on
the
bond
itself,
and
we
have
no
authority
to
remove
one
of
the
items
from
within
it.
This
is
this
is
a
really
important
piece
here.
H
The
question
that
I
have
that
might
be
not
a
smart
question:
how
big
is
the
list
and
where
do
we
access
the
list
so
and
also
to
suggest?
Maybe
the
mayor
would
like
to
just
change
the
amendment
to
accepting
the
edition
instead
of
approving
the
edition,
I
don't
know
if
that
would
clarify
more
of
a
like
a
receiving
file
from
understanding
that
correctly.
But
where
is
the
list
and
how?
How
big
is
it.
C
D
Very
good,
so
I
mean,
I
guess
my
point
or
question
or
comment
is
I
mean
I?
I
thought
these
projects
have
been
through
a
a
click
process,
which
I
know
is
a
very
intensive
process
that
you
know
is
includes
all
the
information
about
these
things.
Then
they
come
to
the
council
and
to
the
park
board
for
approval.
So
there
has
been
a
lot
seemingly
a
lot
of
input
and
engagement
prior
to
this
body.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Yes,
council
vice
president,
that
would
be
an
accurate
reflection.
This
is
all
these
items
have
gone
through
a
click
process
they've
been
put
in
my
budget
recommendations,
they've
been
approved
to
counsel
and
now
they're
being
forwarded
to
the
board.
Now,
to
put
this
a
different
way,
how
this
would
impact
things
on
on
the
other
side
that
is
through
the
park
board.
C
C
C
C
I
Thank
you
vice
president
brandt
and
commissioner
menz,
and
and
thanks
all
for
the
good,
the
good
discussion.
Yes,
there
have
been
two
special
assessment
bonds
that
have
been
approved
since
the
last
bond
sale
that
took
place
in
october,
so
the
current
list
of
of
projects
for
which
bonds
have
been
requested,
but
not
yet
issued
includes
those
two
special
assessment
bonds.
It
also
includes
bonds
from
the
prior
sale,
where
bond
authorization
still
remains
so
where
we
did
not
bond
up
to
the
full
authorization
amount.
I
That
list
currently
stands
at
approximately
thirty
thousand
dollars,
or
so
sorry,
approximately
30
million
dollars.
One
thing
I
will
I
will
mention-
and
I
was
going
to
note
this
in
the
in
the
presentation
is
as
this
body
knows,
I
myself
have
been
in
this
role
for
a
limited
amount
of
time
and
somewhere
within
the
the
exchange
of
of
senior
advisors
that
have
served
this
board.
Some
of
the
the
previous
upkeep
of
the
list.
I
will
need
some
additional
maintenance
so,
prior
to
the
list
being
finalized.
I
My
hope
had
been
after
the
action
taken
by
the
body
today
to
go
back
and
review
further
out
bond
sales
that
occurred
in
the
previous
years
to
ensure
there
are
no
additional
projects
with
bond
authorizations.
Remaining,
though
I
will
know
for
the
body
that,
of
course,
the
further
back
in
time,
we
go
the
fewer
that
those
projects
should
be
one
last
thing
just
to
to
to
perhaps
note
is,
I
would
recommend
perhaps
some
slight
caution
in
how
we
approach
this
matter
today.
I
The
process
that
is
being
followed
today
is
the
process
that
has
existed
for
many
decades
and
changes
that
are
being
recommended.
I
think,
are
always
very
important
to
review
that
make
sure
we're
doing
it
right.
I
fully
think
that
you
know
obviously
an
important
thing
to
do,
but
they
do
reflect
changes
so
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you.
Thank
you.
C
K
C
This
is
for
removal,
I
believe,
of
trees
on
private
property,
which
then
the
homeowner
pays
for
either
at
once
or
over
a
period
of
years
when
it
first
came
before
click
last
spring.
It
was
at
the
level
of
three
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
I
noticed
that
in
the
council
adopted
budget
that
had
gone
up
to
800
000
and
I
believe,
that's
probably
in
the
park
board
as
well,
and
could
you
just
give
me
some
supporting
documentation
there
for
the
increased
need
for
that
level
of
funding
for
disease
tree
removal.
K
K
So,
at
the
peak
of
at
the
peak
of
the
dutch
elm
disease,
we
were
removing
over
a
million
dollars
worth
of
private
property
trees.
What
happened
is
in
2019
prior
to
the
infestation
of
the
emerald
ash
borer.
In
our
ash
trees,
we
were
removing
approximately
300
000
worth
of
diseased
private
property
trees.
K
K
In
2020,
we
removed
over
780
thousand
dollars
worth
of
private
property
trees
due
to
the
infestation
and
disease
and
in
2021.
I
just
checked
the
numbers
today,
as
invoices
are
still
processing
for
2021
and
we
have
removed
over
a
million
dollars
worth
of
private
property
trees
due
to
disease
and
emerald
ash
borer.
C
C
C
Well,
hearing
nobody.
My
sense
is
that
we're
operating
in
something
of
a
information
vacuum
here
I
would
be
tempted
to
move
to
take
out
and
postpone
that
particular
part
of
the
resolution
until
we
can
get
better
information.
I
I
requested
some
from
staff
of
public
works
and
have
not
heard
back
actually
tried
to.
C
L
L
C
Thank
you
for
the
explanation
it
sounds
to
me
like
this
is
a
project
that
is
not
yet
fully
baked
and
would
be
unlikely
to
use
money
from
us
say
a
spring
bond
sale
in
a
timely
fashion.
I
know
there
are
arbitrage
rules
that
have
to
be
heated
council.
President
jenkins,
would
you
you
you
would
like
to
be
recognized.
E
E
This
is
merely
an
informative
list
of
items
that
will
and
could
come
forward
prior
to
the
final
bond
issuance,
which
we
will
be
approving
at
a
subsequent
meeting,
and
this
is
really,
I
think
at
the
root
of
my
concern
here
is
what
we're
talking
about
right
now.
Is
that
all
of
these
discussions
as
to
whether
we
like
this
project
or
don't
like
that
project,
we,
like
this
park,
board
investment
or
we
don't
like
that
park
board
investment.
E
Those
are
conversations,
the
substance
of
which
substance
of
which
should
happen
at
those
respective
boards
that
have
done
the
work
with
their
staff.
Just
to
reiterate,
I
am
adamantly
opposed
to
this
board
reevaluating
each
one
of
those
individualized
items.
After
the
fact.
I
think
that
it
leads
us
down
a
very
scary
road,
not
to
mention.
I
don't
believe
that
it
is
the
purview
of
this
board
from
a
legal
perspective,
either.
C
A
Mr
vice
president,
yes,
if
I
may,
I
don't
want
to
cut
off
the
mayor.
I
I
wanted
to
call
attention
to
the
mayor's
earlier
point
about
this
question
of
authority
of
the
board
and
that
the
actual
action
taken
here
is
simply
updating
a
list
if
the
body
wishes
to
get
a
legal
opinion.
Certainly
you
should
direct
your
attorney
mr
hammer
to
confirm
and
get
an
opinion
that
being
a
separate
action
from
whether
or
not
this
project
is
added.
C
A
Mr
vice
president,
that
is
not
what
I'm
saying
what
I'm
saying
to
you
is
that
it's
my
understanding
that
this
is
largely
a
clerical
process.
If
I
can
boil
it
down
to
brass
tacks,
this
is
a
clerical
process.
That's
been
used
to
keep
a
list
for
tracking
purposes,
it's
not
for
the
purposes
of
approving
or
disapproving
of
various
projects
for
weighing
the
merits
of
those
projects
or
even
authorizing
the
issuance
of
bonds
for
those
projects,
all
of
which,
as
the
mayor
has
pointed
out,
are
addressed
separately.
A
I
think
that's
the
subject
of
a
directive
to
your
attorney,
to
clarify
where
those
lines
of
authority
governed
by
our
charter
and
state
law
may
need
to
be
reconciled.
That
is
a
an
issue.
This
body
is
wrestling
with
separately,
changing
the
title
of
this
resolution,
such
that
it
is,
as
I
believe,
commissioner
men's,
suggested
a
while
ago.
A
Now
it's
not
approving
the
addition
of
projects,
it's
simply
accepting
additions
to
the
list
of
capital
projects
that
would
be
funded
with
tax
exempt
general
obligation
bonds
so
that
this
body
has
a
compiled
list
that
it
can
refer
to
in
the
future.
It's
a
clerical
function.
It's
also
my
understanding,
as
mr
sterl
indicated,
that
that
function
of
keeping
lists
hasn't
been
well
maintained
over
time
and
through
various
changes
in
administrators
to
this
body.
A
A
This
is
accepting
the
projects
that
have
been
submitted
by
the
park
and
recreation
board
and
that
the
question
of
legal
authority
is
one
directing
to
the
attorney
to
come
back
with
a
more
definitive
answer,
and
I'm
sorry
that
I
interrupted
the
mayor
who
clearly
was
attempting
to
get
into
line
to.
I
think,
speak
to
that
same
issue
about
directing
the
attorney
to
get
clarity
about
the
role
of
the
bet.
H
I'm
I'm
really
concerned
about
this
discussion
from
a
park
board
standpoint.
I
think
that
we
we
go
through
a
process.
We
complete
a
resolution.
We
get
board
approval
for
the
projects
that
we
submit
to
the
bet
and
if
we
think
that
the
bet
is
then
going
to
be
able
to
remove
individual
projects,
that
seems
really
drilling
down
to
the
level
where
this
is
just
putting
it
on
the
list.
This
isn't
even
issuing
the
bond,
so
I
guess
I'm
still
learning
about
the
bonding
process.
H
So
you
know
my
learning
curve
is
is
rising
as
we
go
because
from
what
I
can
understand,
this
list
is
just
adding
to
the
list
of
projects
which
we're
we're
not
certain
of
what
the
previous
list
still
has
on
it,
and-
and
I
know
that
general
obligation
bonds
are
going
to
be
packaged,
I'm
not
sure.
If,
when
we
approve
bonds,
we
could
be
able
to
delete
one,
but
I
I
this
seems
like
we're
just
adding
things
to
the
list
right
now
and
then
the
approvals
later.
E
You,
mr
chair,
I
agree
with
commissioner
menz
on
both
counts
here,
the
first
I
believe
he
made
a
suggestion
which
I
will
put
into
a
formalized
motion
and
that
suggestion
was
change.
The
word
approved
here
to
either
accept
or
receive
and
file
either.
One
is
fine
just
for
purposes
of.
I
believe
mr
men's
commissioner
men's
comment
earlier
I'll
move
to
go
ahead
and
accept
rather
than
approve
or
to
amend
so
that
it
says
accept
rather
than
approve,
and
then,
mr
chair,
I
have
an
additional
comment
right
after
that.