communications. We are ready to begin.>> Okay, one moment. meeting of the board of estimate andtaxation for uh June 24th, 2026. My name is Steve Brandt and I am the presidentto the board. Before we begin the meeting, I will ask the clerk to uh reada reminder to participants in the meeting about diction.Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to allmembers, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live toenable greater public participation. These broadcasts include realtimecaptioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of ourproceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of therate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture andtranscribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers tomoderate the speed and clarity of their comments.>> All right. Thank you. Uh let this time I'll ask the clerk to call the role sowe can verify the presence of a quorum. >> Member Chuck Tai is absent.Fry is absent. Olsson >> here.>> Payne >> present.>> Vice President Bernstein >> present.>> President Brandt >> present.>> There are four members present. >> All right. Let the record reflect thatwe have a quorum. I will now offer an acknowledgement that we meet today onland that has been under the ownership of the Dakota and Anishapeoples historically. and we acknowledge the trauma that accompanied theirdispossession of that land. We also acknowledge that they are theirdescendants are here among us today. We'll now proceed to the agenda, a copyof which was posted for public access to the city's legislative managementinformation system which is available at limsminneapolis.gov. Uh board members, the agenda for today'smeeting is before us. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda with theexception that we move item 10 ahead of the BET staff review so that we canconclude the public portion of our meeting in one block.Is there a motion? >> So moved. Second.>> Okay, we have a proper motion before us. Any discussion? Seeing none, all thosein favor say I. >> I.>> Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the agenda is adopted. Now we willuh vote on the acceptance of minutes from the June 10th regular meeting. MayI have a motion to accept the minutes? >> So moved.>> Is there a second? >> Second.>> We have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion?Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I.>> Those opposed say nay. >> The eyes have it and the minutes areaccepted as presented. Uh item number four is public comment.Uh the board receives public comment on items on its agenda at each meetingwhere people sign up to appear. Uh we do not have anyone signed up as myunderstanding today to comment on any items on today's agenda. So we will passon to item five. Uh and that is the discussion of the BET work plan goals.Uh, and to give that update is BET staff Christina Kyler.>> Yeah, if I may, President Brandt, um, the only feedback we received was fromCommissioner Chuck Tai's office saying that she had, um, no changes and thatshe liked the work plan as is. And then your comments that you emailed to me.So, if you would like, sir, we could open up a discussion to thecommissioners or um if you would prefer, I can certainly go stand up at thepodium and share a copy of that work plan so that you guys can look at itwhile you're discussing whatever you prefer to facilitate this conversation.>> Might be helpful to have it. >> Sure. Yeah, I'll go put it up. >> [snorts] >> All righty, commissioners. Can you hear me? Okay. There we go. Thank you. All righty. So,um, what you should see here is what was emailed to you earlier. It is theamended work plan. You've seen a couple different iterations of this. Like Isaid, we got limited feedback on it, but I did make some updates. I did group umthe BET work plan into three main categories. That would be BETgovernance, BET management and oper operations and then the budget andfiscal policy. So today um I think the the best thing if I may suggest is thatthe board have a conversation about if they would like to adopt the work plan,if they would like to adopt it as is, or if they would like me to make anychanges to the work plan for it to be adopted. There are some otherresolutions that'll need to come after as to the specifics. Like for example,the research inquiries that are called out here might need to change later orthe charter amendment changes that are talked about might need to change later.But if you would like to adopt the work plan as a guiding document, we cancertainly do that part today. So I know this is a little bit more of aconversation between you all, but I am certainly here to help facilitate. Can Ianswer any questions before you get started? >> I I'll go ahead. I don't think uh othermembers of the board have access to what I sent to you concerning a couple areaswhere I'd like to see some research and I don't know if you see that assomething that would be part of what you're presenting to us or somethingthat would be subsidiary to that that we would bring in later but I suggested twoareas and I'll just summarize them. One is cooperating with the city council andthe LRO's investigation of uh alternative revenues, providing someresearch capacity to evaluate the potential impacts of a possiblemunicipal income tax even though we certainly have not settled on that as aas a strategy by any sort of resolution or nor to my knowledge has the council.uh but to research uh the conclusions of any statistically valid studies for thecities that have adopted a standalone [snorts]um income tax on potential tax flight. What's their experience been revenuegeneration impact on high bracket residential real estate markets?[snorts] uh in research that tax rates and incomethresholds if the tax isn't universally applied for various cities employing astandalone central city only income tax [snorts] and the impact of the incometax for these cities on a number of residents on the number of residents ofof high income who remain in the city as measured by a census data um and usingnon-income tax cities in the same region as controls and uh real estate markettrends for high bracket homes in these cities and adjoining suburbs that arenot taxed in that way and that could fit under initiative 2 or initiative five.The second area I suggested I would like to see some further research is uhfollows up on the work that you did uh last year concerning geo debt load forpure cities. And we asked you to and you did um separate sort of true geo debtload from u re more revenue type uh bonds with a geo backup that is likelynot to be used. Uh I'd like to go a little deeper because we found throughthat research the Minneapolis debt load is uh considerably less than a number ofour peer cities certainly than the median and uh we could look at forexample the aortionment by city between regular go enterprise type go with aenterprise bonds with a geo backup assessment bonding assessment [snorts]policies. Uh, are some peer cities assessing for a greater share of thecost of street improvements in Minneapolis? Does Minneapolis show alower debt load because it uses more of a pay of you go as you go approach orhas a different philosophy for structuring its debt? U, the examinationcould also look at how pure cities finance their capital programs. Uh, forexample, do we some cities use a street assessment of the sort that St. Paulused before it was ruled u not legal. Um that assessed you each year regardlessof whether your street was improved. U and is Minneapolis getting uh forexample a greater share of street assistance from the state for than otherpeer cities uh in other states. And my ultimate goal is to see whetherMinneapolis is underinvesting in its capital assets or whether there areother logical factors that explain why our debt load is smaller. Um, and thiscould fit under area five. Um, and I think I'll leave it at there. Uh,did you may I jump in, President Grant? Do you mind? Um, I completely agree withyou that that falls into the partnership with LRO and the budget development andresearch. Um, I think that you are completely correct. Initiative numberfive that would fall under. Now, initiative number five says to providestaff resources for LRO projects to be assigned. It doesn't call outspecifically what those projects are. So, if you were to adopt this work plan,that could certainly be one of the projects you have me investigate.Although that is more BET specific, I would say that LRO that I'm nowincorporated into has a whole fleet of staff. And so it's actually very helpfulfor when you make those requests, when the board makes those requests to LRO,similar to how city council committees make those requests for staff directionsthat they can assign it to me or if one of my co-workers over there happens tohave um some special knowledge as to something specifically you're askingabout or maybe the impacts on residents, something like that, it can be dealtwith as an LRO project. Just to give you a little bit of um eyes on what I'mdoing right now. There was a staff direction that came out of city councilto explore pilot that's payment in lie of taxes and I have not formally beenassigned that but I've been taking a very hard look at it because I kind offigured you guys would be interested in it. So I would say that those areabsolutely worthwhile research projects that I think the board could vote on tohave submitted to LRO as assignments later on. I would say that that fitsperfectly into the work plan as is and shouldn't um shouldn't hold up you guysadopting the work plan if you like the way it's phrased today.>> Very good. So, uh thank you for that guidance. You're suggesting leave thework plan u generally as is and accomplish research tasks like thisthrough a staff direction. >> The way it's the way it's written rightnow is that one of our main initiatives here at the board if we adopt this workplan will be to continue our partnership with LRO. Um and then specifically thatfalls in if you if you look on page two that specifically falls into budgetdevelopment and research support which is one of our pillars of our priorities.So um I would say yes absolutely either that investigation of income tax or ifhypothetically that did not have support from the board maybe it gets tweakedmaybe it's different maybe another research topic entirely comes through. Idon't think this work plan dictates what those research topics are. It just givesyou guys the bandwidth to vote on research projects later. It justoutlines what your goals are for the term.>> All right. Is there any other discussion, Commissioner Har?>> Yeah. Um, yeah. So, sorry, I thought I I I think I filled out like some form orsomething like that with some thoughts on it. So, maybe it was some previousstep or something. So, >> sure.>> But the only, you know, I think I'm I'm good with most of it, but frankly, I Ithink I could honestly do without initiative number three, increasingopportunities for public participation. And the reason for that is well one youknow as you know in my day job I do communications I just know maintainingall this stuff is a lot of effort and you know we have limited resources hereand you know kind some of the discussions we're having around wherethe city is at right now I find you know research around revenue working withcity council to develop new revenue streams I just think those prioritiesare so important that we should focus on those. I also think that, you know, thisstuff is really quite complicated. Um, and, you know, spending effort to bringin, you know, constituents or residents of Minneapolis. For me, I I I just I Idon't see the value in it as opposed to, you know, policydriven issue areaswhere, you know, it's kind of affecting folks's day-to-day lives. Now, certainlytaxes and revenue affects folks's day-to-day lives, but frankly, I think,you know, if we're starting to get, you know, more folks coming in, we're goingto see, you know, just 12 folks who have all the time in the world and, you know,don't want their property taxes to go up or something like that. And, you know,maybe that's valuable, but frankly, I think this is something where I don'tsee increasing public participation is is is a cornerstone of what we should beprioritizing. So, you know, I'm fine with the work plan if it goes throughwhat that is. I would just say, you know, put that one kind of on the bottomof the priority list. I would also be happy if other commissioners kind ofagree with me that, you know, it's um we should be focusing on these other thingsand and maybe not put time and resources towards this. Um, you know, I'd be happyto just amend, take that out, and then move forward with the work planotherwise as is. Um, so those are some initial thoughts that I had around thatand >> you know I think um, yeah, that's how Ifeel. >> Commissioner Bernstein,>> thank you for this, Miss Gerling. Um, I just a couple of just kind of ch likemore higher level structural questions about what we're looking at and makingsure I'm on the same page. First thing is the link I'm seeing in the agendaposted for today seems different. I've got a BET draft work plan document thatwas linked online and that has the four strategic objectives and then thisversion that I have a print out of has this different layout with the fiveinitiatives. Can you just explain the Absolutely. Thank you.>> The one that's originally linked was the one that was originally presented to youseveral weeks ago at the first BET meeting. Since that time, I receivedfeedback from some of you and that was incorporated into the updated livingdocument draft that you have in front of you. You should have just received aphysical copy from the clerk and I also have it displayed here on the screen.Got it. >> The substance, if you will, hasn'tnecessarily changed. It's just bucketed in a way that I think is a little biteasier to understand and what our overall priorities are. Um, andCommissioner Olsen, I can certainly respond if you if you guys are open tome doing so. Otherwise, I will let you continue your discussion.>> If I could just quickly ask a couple just similarly structural levelquestions about Okay. Do you consider these prioritizeduh one through five or are they just in any order?>> Um I wouldn't say that they're prioritized in the in that that's whatI'm going to tackle first. I think that they're grouped together based on theBET is an organization that's kind of self-managed and we have differentpriorities. As you know, with our budget, there's a busy time with thebudget and then there's a slow time. And naturally, some of these priorities aregoing to happen when we're not in budget season. Um, so a lot more of theresearch, a lot more of the partnering partnering with LRO, I can tell youthat's very busy right now. As soon as I get guidance from the BET and theyaccept a work plan or they give me some kind of work direction, there's work Ican pick up today as far as supporting budget research and development. When Ihave things on here like BET management, operations, BET governance, governance,excuse me, that's not necessarily something that we're going to prioritizeover the heavy budget research portions of this job. They're just things thatI'm doing in the background. And frankly, I've I've been doing since I'vebeen here. This is just showing and enumerating what our goals are as a bodyover the entire course of the term, not just this year.>> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then um what t and I'm sorry this hasprobably been said but what time frame are we thinking about for this workplan? Like is this a permanent governing document until we decide to change it ordo you envision that some of these things will roll off and we will have ayou know adopt a new work plan? What's the time frame you thinking about?>> Sure. Um so it's a living document. You can change this at any time. Thisdoesn't lock you into anything. The BET is the governing body. So you can throwthis out at your next meeting. The reason I'm suggesting this is somewhatto to mirror first of all what the city council committees are doing withfiguring out what are going to be their term long goals. What what's what arethey what are they going to have staff resources allocated to to pursue aspriorities? That's what we're doing here. We're saying these are the BET'sresponsibilities. This is our scope, however limited it is, and this is whatwe would like to do over the course of this term and pursue. It doesn'tnecessarily mean that you're locked into this and we can't change it at any time.It just kind of gives a little bit more of a view for what are we doing with allof these BET meetings. >> Got it. That's super helpful. Um I havesome substantive comments, but I'll pause there if we want to continue theconversation about what Commissioner Olsson brought up or if anyone else hasanything. >> Yeah.>> Oh, sure. Absolutely. Um Commissioner Olsson through President Band. Um Icompletely understand and we can certainly remove that from the work planif you would like. I would say that BET management and operations as a pillar Ithink should stay. If we want to take off the increasing public participation,I can understand that. I would just counter that our annual meeting as we'restatutoily required to have does involve me working with city communications toinvolve and notify the general public of our meeting. So to some level that workstill has to happen. Is it necessarily a priority you want on your work plan?Completely understand if you don't. However, the other part of that pillar,strengthening communication frameworks, I think without alluding too much to it,the feedback I got from my own performance review is that the BET andthe BET position, the BET staffer, me, is not necessarily interfacing withother city departments as well as it could. And that communication frameworkshould really be worked on. I have fantastic co-workers over in finance andover in the clerk's office, but this is a position that sat vacant for a reallylong time. So a lot of administrative duties and jobs kind of they movedaround this position because it was vacant. So I think taking some time toreally strengthen those communication fra frameworks, make sure that we'rebeing respectful, not duplicating work, and that we're being as effective aspossible is really worthwhile. Maybe it's not the first priority ahead of anyresearch project, but I think it's something that should be enumerated onthe work plan as something the BET recognizes as a problem.>> Yeah. I mean I think I just when I see you know assess develop maintain socialmedia presence you know that to me I I I that doesn't seem like a a priority umyou know sharing hearing information with private media you know partnerssending releases or whatever and things like that and including print outletslocal news all that I just you know I I get the inner city stuff I get the doingthe you know what we need to do for statutoily requiring it but um you knowthose other things seem to me superolous was um you know certainly admirable butI would just really want all efforts to be focused on more substantive>> aspects. So you know I don't know if it's just we you know I don't know ifthat uh the sharing hearing information with private media partners is you knowrequired um but I would almost just be fine of you know maybe taking out thesecond two bullet points of initiative 3 um you know if folks share some of myfeelings. If not you know I'll live with it. I and I think it's a good work planotherwise. So, >> I'm going to try and intercede if youdon't mind. >> Yeah, please. >> Uh,>> President Brandt. >> Yes, sir.>> Um, with your indulgence, uh, if I can maybe help a little bit. Uh, we workedwith Miss Kaiderling to put this together and the comments I'm hearingare are sort of around if you can scroll back to the buckets. What we tried to dowas work with Christina to take the powers and authorities of the BET andher actual job description and bucket those into the biggest categories thatwill last. So that's why you see governance of this body, its managementand operations and then her core focus which is also with LRO budget and fiscalpolicy. I think all of the projects you've identified fall within thosebuckets. I hear Commissioner Olsen raising the point about having things umsort of enumerated. I think what we were doing is just saying 1 2 3 4 5 but itcould easily be one initiative number two uh could become the continue thepartnership with council on alternative revenues you could reorder I think thefifth one should probably be three if you're talking about core functionsright so one could stay one two five could become three I think the one beabove it which is strengthening communications frameworks if I wouldoffer an alternative I think it should be strengthening enterprise coordinationthat's really what she's talking about is enterprise internal coordinationacross the different departments she works with and maybe make the increaseopportunities for public participation a fifth one. I would say as a governingbody that has authority that affects taxpayers is something she needs tocommunicate. The specific bullets are less important I think from a aday-to-day operational point. These are just examples of the types of things shewould do within that initiative. But I think if it's helpful to reorder thoseso that the priority order reflects the impact as I heard you say with tax andfiscal policy and those types of things. I think that we can certainly do that.Uh the examples of scopes of work are purely that like examples of things thatthe body could give her to do that fit within these big three buckets of herjob. If that helps to sort of clarify what this work plan is intended to dobecause uh Miss Kaiderling and I share a position we both are appointed by andreport to elected bodies. We don't report to the individuals, report to thebodies. So having this work plan allows each of you to give her work that fitswithin the scopes of that work where she's faithfully responsive to a bodyand not to an individual. >> Commissioner Bernstein mayor.>> Uh Mr. Chair, uh thank you. the um the third bucket of the three budget andfiscal policy. Um it it talks about partnering with LRO around budgetdevelopment and research support. What exactly does that look like? What whatprojects are we working on there? >> Yeah, absolutely sir. Um we can speak tothat a little bit more. As you probably know with the BET did partner to lookinto alternative revenues. There [clears throat] is a current staffrequest through the city council to explore one of those alternativerevenues. that would be probably a natural um assignment for me if you wereto adopt this work plan. I am administratively housed currently inLRO. I would like to provide them some fiscal support because number one, theydon't necessarily have that built out into their organization yet and I havethose skills. So, it's kind of a natural marriage especially because they'realready housing me administratively. So, I can tell you that the um alternativerevenues would certainly be the first one that the BET has already partneredwith city council on previously. And then the other research priorities wouldbe similar to what President Brandt just said, he would like to look into, forexample, an income tax. The ideally what this body would do is similar to whatcity council committees would do. They would take a vote and if there's anaffirmative vote that yes, you want to investigate that priority, it would thenbe sent to LRO as a staff direction to investigate XYZ, whatever it was thatthis body deemed they wanted investigated. So the first item where it says BETgovernance, it says partner with city council and mayor's office aroundalternative revenues. That's the alternative revenues piece and I fullyagree with it. I voted for that. I support that.What I expressed when we talked about theinitiation of this position uh was uh to make sure that we continuedthe independence of the board and the position if we're going to have it. It'ssomething that the park board expressed repeatedly. It's something that Ihonestly [snorts] resisted because I thought that there should be a linkdirectly. I thought that we didn't need portions of the position and thatfinance within the administration could just take care of it. I lost that vote.Um, but what we decided to move forward on was was an independent person. Youlose that independence if you're then embedded with an organizationat the city and specifically on the council. uh and if the embedding is bothlegislative research and oversight that is taking a subdivision of asubdivision of the board. In other words, you know, the the boardis consistent of three different entities. Uh it's the the BE members,the park board members, and the city members. And then within a subdivisionof the city is the legislative research and oversight part. And so if we'regoing to say it's independent, it should be independent. >> Commissioner Burnstein,>> I don't have a direct response to that, but I do appreciate what you're raisingand I think it's worth discussing. I guess I had a question related to thatthough, which might help clarify, which is I was So, can we get that? I don'tknow where to find that the little guy with the the what we were just referringto that image. Can we get that up here? Sorry, I don't have it in front of me.Thank you. Um, so I was confused or like a little bit uncertain about that. Yeah.Why the partner with city council and mayor's office on alternative revenuesunder BET governance and then as budget and fiscal policy separately thispartner with the LRO on other research questions. Right. That that Yeah. Canyou speak to that? >> Okay.>> Do you want Andrew to do that? >> Actually, that'd be wonderful. We havethe director of LRO here. Um, I would be lac remiss if I didn't have him sharehis vision with you as well. >> All right.All right. Uh my name is Andrew Hawkins. I'm the director of the legislativeresearch and oversight division. I'm happy to speak to you all today. Um withregard to um again like what it looks like the partnering um piece again I cango back to the legislative um or sorry the uh municipal revenue one that camethrough BET and then subsequently and also went through council where therewas a collaborative effort. Um the one thing I think I do want um make sure Ido clarify is that again recognizing that this position reports directly tothe BET um and is administratively housed within our shop. Um kind of whatthat looks like since we don't want is any confusion of where the lines are.It's very important to us that we're extremely transparent in how we operate.So I appreciate the question. Um, as far as directions go, staff directions thatare made, uh, to Miss Keterling in her capacity for the BET, uh, that come fromBET, um, like our man will be managed, they go into AQ, it's something where,you know, she's expected to be able to manage that capacity for the BET and beresponsive to the BET. In the event that there is any additional capacity orthere are any things where both the city council and the BET have both made amotion um collaboratively as with municipal revenues um it's somethingwhere if we have the opportunity to uh partner with the BET and to leverageMiss Keterling um like for that purpose we'd like to um since again if it's aresource and we have capacity and it's serving the interests of the BET um likewe'd like to be able to tap into that like to that um opportunity. However,what it's not is that if there's things that are coming through explicitly tocity council and not this board um like to legislative research and oversight umthose just being assigned haphazardly to Miss Keterling would be out of order umsince that's obviously taking away a resource that belongs uh like to thisbody. So again, the partnership what that looks like is it's it's only wherethere is agreement on the usage of Miss Keterling and there's alignment of umagain what the bodies would like to collectively explore. However, justagain, um, like willy-nilly assigning stuff that has never gone through thepurview of this body, that just comes from counsel or that's a one offer,that's something that I think would be a neat idea. That's not something that wenecessarily intend to do um, absent a more substantial discussion with thisbody. >> Sure. Yeah.So what would be an example of something where there would be partnership andwork would be done by BET staff on LRO work?>> Uh again, I think the municipal revenue one is a good one that just camethrough. Uh >> yeah, that we're we're in agreement. Weall said yes, let's let's work together and and that's not just to be clear LRO.>> Yep. >> That's my office, that's theadministration, that's the city council, all of us saying work together. It's notjust one body, one subdivision. That's the whole body saying, "Let's do this."Y it's probably also worth clarifying as well that too. I mean everything that wedo I mean absent it being something where it's explicitly stated that youknow we don't care about what the city's doing. We just want to know what's outthere like we're very deliberate about how we do engage with the administrationand um your staff and city departments. Uh that's an extremely critical part ofour work since we want to make sure that all that works reflected correctly.>> Um in terms of you know again our support and work with the budget umwe've worked um quite a bit with our budget team. I know we still need tomeet u like new budget staff. We had to bump that one today because of thismeeting. Um but that's an area where we're still trying to figure out exactlywhere um there's an opportunity for us to support that um as well once uh onceagain mayor you um like gives our budget address um and that budget goes over tothe legislative side and the council um kind of where we can provide support umwithout again wanting to duplicate services that our budget office providesto the council. And so some of that can be looking into again if there's um anyrequests um budget budget items uh budget proposals obviously in any timethat we're going to have a period where there might be reductions or they needto have some you know substanti substantive discussions um we can lookat again like what have other cities done what's this program look like youknow what's the opportunity cost of you know cutting X versus cutting you knowlike a different you know a different proposed source um like those are alldiscussions that happen and again absent like resources historically you know thethe manner in which they get kind of figured out like behind the scenes hasvaried significantly. So we want to provide as much support as we can tostandardize that process and to work with the city's budget team. Um so whereI think there's an opportunity to be able to again um as long as the board isum on board with it recognizing the BET scope and the scope of LRO, ours is muchmore broad. Um and so being able to have Miss Keterling as part of some of thoseconversations um like could be helpful in the sense that again from the BETpoint standpoint of setting the levy and looking at the budget um if you know theinformation that she's going to have access to through those avenues let'ssay there's 10 total pages she's going to get two because that's with that'swithin your scope that's what it is. However, if she's able to leveragethose, again, they're very transferable skills um to support like the work thatwe're doing looking at um again larger scope of of items instead of seeing twopages, she you know, she gets to understand better understand 10. It'slike although the additional eight pages might not necessarily come back andinform the BET directly, like those eight pages of context are extremelyhelpful with understanding the two. Um, and so like our idea is that it wouldbolster her ability to support this body because she'd have a betterunderstanding of all of the different, you know, kind of budgetaryconversations that take place behind the scenes.>> So that suggests coordination with one body, which is LRO. Um, I mean, itliterally says that on the docket. Would there be coordination with finance?>> Would there be work with the park board's finance? I mean there's there'sthere's like four different jurisdictions that are involved here ina sense and all of them have needs in terms of coordinating their work withthe BET process. So to just choose one of them to bolster their work isn'tfair. Um so uh through the uh President Brandtuh Commissioner Fry um I think what might be helpful for this again like Ithink we've talked about there I know there's another item that talks aboutenterprise collaboration which again sort of implies it also justunderstanding our operations manual and the degree to which we're deliberateabout our partnerships um like also outlines kind of when we engage.However, in the interest of clarity, I don't think that hurts anything uh toadd in language that um again around like budget development and everythingthat it would be with LRO, it would be with finance, it would be with themayor's office um since those would all be partners that I think would be partof this process anyways and parkboard. Sorry, I I like didn't mean to leaveanybody out. >> Yes. And so, yeah, my my ask here isthat then you can't have then independent directives given by any oneof those entities. Finance can't direct you. I can't direct you. the LRO the LROteam can't direct. Um the parkboard can't direct. I mean if this isn't Imean again the the the point that was made and made fairly again I disagreedwith port part of it but the the whole point that was made that we argued aboutfor years was the importance of the independence of this position and thisboard. Uh it was a point that all of the BETspecific commissioners made as well as the park board commissioner. I disagreedwith that and lost that vote, you know, but the whole point was the importanceof independence. Now that we then have the position, I don't want to sacrificethe independence that was garnered from the beginning. >> Commissioner Bernstein. >> Yeah, I'm I think I I I Yeah, I think Iagree with uh Commissioner Fry. Um I don't it I guess you know the word fairwas used I would say actually just disadvantageousum like to me a really important and valuable thing about the position is thein you know the independence and the consideration of the three or fourperspectives here. Um so from that so from that standpoint I I I agree. Ithink like we're we're losing, you know, um effectiveness if we're notcoordinating with finance, if we're not coordinating with the park board and andthen we're not serving the true purpose of the board, which is to consider allthese perspectives and what is the fiscal path forward. But I guess theonly thing is structurally I don't quite know whatdifference that would make. I understand you're housed at LRO from like an HRsort of um you know uh yeah from a standpoint of the um youknow the ORC chart. Um but then the question comes down to like who are youworking with when you know when there's a task assigned and whose perspectivesare you incorporating and what resources are you drawing on and I don't thinkthere's anything the way this is written to prevent you from doing that butperhaps it sort of suggests more of a housing within you know working moreexclusively within the LRO which yeah I mean I agree like that would you know itwould be a shame to not also incorporate parkboard perspective um financeperspective as well, but it doesn't seem I don't currently see why that wouldn'tbe allowable. It's maybe just sort of a norm. Am I Does that make sense? Am Imistaken? >> Um Vice uh Vice President Bernstein,yeah, I can certainly speak to that. One of the foremost things that LRO isdesigned to protect is independence, but it'salso being extremely extremely transparent about every single thingthat we're doing and the source of every single thing that we're doing. That'swhy we maintain again an online database that shows every single you know ifwe're looking at something it's tied back to this council you know staffdirection that received on this date it's going to come back at this date andso I think that we want to be able to do um the same thing with you all and withMiss um Keterling like um additionally again they're not here to speak to ittoday but I'm happy to give the contact information for all of my staff in LROum and you feel feel free to ask them not once that to the best of myknowledge um have I ever editorialized their ability to interact with anybodyum that they determine who's necessary to talk to um in the you know, in thecase of budget and finance, it would be absolutely categorically insane to nottalk to budget and finance. Um, so I don't see that being anything that wouldwould be a problem, but again, I think as we kind of go, this is one of thosewhere it's a new area. Um, like as you know, as is this position. So, I thinkas we go forward and kind of figure out exactly what it looks like, it will becritical to report back to this body and kind of out, you know, lay out likehere's what we, you know, we think we might want to do if the body believesthat this will be advantageous to the operation of the BET and ensure thateverybody's in agreement before we advance on anything. Commissioner Paynehas a question. >> Uh thank you, President Brent. Actually,more a comment. Uh last year we had a pretty robust conversation about how uhto best support the work of BET and we recognized that there was a need forthis administrative support and we codified that through resolution number2025R-349 that uh specified the parameters on howum LRO was going to be working in collaboration with the BET secretary. Sothat was something that we formally adopted last year. That should clarifysome of this conversation. >> President Brandt, do you mind if I givejust a little bit of historical background as well?>> Um if I could just interject. Um >> I um do not go as far as CommissionerOlsen, I think, in uh downplaying the communication aspect of the proposedwork plan. I I would I would rate it the least of the functions, but I um I see aneed for it because I would like to see, frankly, both people who uh support themayor's proposed levy and would like to see it augmented and people who disagreewith the mayor's proposed levy and would like to see it uh uh diminished uh showup at our meetings. and um our efforts in that regard in the past have not uhhave not been fruitful and so any fresh ideas that can be brought to that Iwould appreciate. It's the first and probably the most effective point in thebudget in the levy setting process by the time the council holds its publichearing um late in the process um things are pretty much set uh unless thingshave changed since I was covering the council. uh proceed.>> Uh yes sir. Um so just to provide a little bit of historical context andwhat my experience has been since joining the BET. Um when I joined theBET, I received basically a word document with different ideas for thingsI could do with my time. Um Mayor Fry, I believe at that time that you said thatsome of those items were available off the shelf from other city departments.So that took about half of that document away. Then as I continued my job hereworking with the city attorney's office, they said that you know actually severalof those bullet points are out of scope for the BET. So then the remaining portof that document that I had, half of that got taken away. So essentially Iwas left with maybe two bullet points of requests from this board for a year'sworth of work. And while I realize that I might be walking myself off a cliffhere and making it sound like I'm not important and that you can do withoutme, I believe in public service and I believe in being efficient and that iswhat I am trying to do here. I am trying to provide as much to the enterprise asI possibly can because as much as I support the BET, if you look at thepercentage of our meetings that were canceled last year, there were a goodnumber that we didn't have BET meetings. So I completely understand what you weresaying. I can take this work plan back and I can you know the things that canmaybe came ac across as inflammatory I apologize for and I can work on but thisis coming from a place of I have been scoped intovery little job and I am trying to make myself as efficient and as a and as muchof a team player for this organization as possible. So please take this as a anattempt to be highly efficient and to support the organization. was not meantto be um punitive and lift up certain bodies over other bodies. >> Any further Commissioner Fry?>> Yeah, sorry, >> Mr. Chair. No, nothing inflammatoryabout what you've said or done to be very clear and nothing punitive. Umsimply a concern that this body has raised in the past about independenceand not wanting uh any infraction to that independence that we've discussedas being of of paramount importance. And so, you know, I I I the way I see it isis you you are doing right to try to make your time as well as possible, yourright to try to find additional work that can be done. The ask that I've hadhave is that while you're um is that that third that third piece um I mean ifwe're going to look at work that is done um it should not be limited to oneentity uh and it should there shouldn't be anydirectives that are coming down from any one of those entities. So in otherwords, the coordination should happen with all but the directives should notcome from one. If the directives are coming from one of those entities aregoing to run into a problem. Uh and and and so that's where I see this beingproblematic. Um and you know a good way of avoiding thatthat is I think just making it clear within the work plan itself.coordination with all directives from none other than this body. >> Commissioner Olsson.>> Um yeah, I you know I think things are starting to kind of I mean thatcertainly makes sense. I mean we would not want you know the park boardspecifically you know asking you to do things. Um, but you know, I I think kindof what it seems like, what I'm hearing is that is that, you know, this boardneeds to do a better job of assigning tasks that are substantive and importantand, you know, directing the coordination. I mean, and I don't seeanything in here in this work plan that would, you know, make it so thatresources, staff resources are, you know, being monopolized by by one groupover another. I mean it's it's it's you know kind of giving you a a default areaif we are insufficient in in our generation of of work capacityum assignment of work capacity. So you know I you know I I kind of hear it butI also think that the solution for me in a lot of ways is for us to start youknow hey let's start digging into some of these alternate revenues. you know, II liked the real estate transfer one, you know, let's let's look in that,right? Um, so and and and and how exactly do that? Imean, that's, you know, I'm I'm relatively new to BET. I'm still kind ofgetting my footing of kind of understanding exactly what we're, youknow, um, you know, the best methods for doing that. But, um, that's just kind ofan initial take there. And, and yeah, I think, you know, again, back to themiddle part there. Um, strengthen communication framework. Great. Lovethat one. It's the in the particip public participation. You know,sometimes I just don't always think that increased public participation is is thejuice is worth the squeeze there. Um I think we have issue area expertise onthis. I think we are elected to be here to represent these uh positions and Ithink there is so much other so many other factors that are going intobudgeting that you know having some constituents come in you know doing somesocial media stuff you know giving kind of a false sense of participationI feel like is not you know in some ways it's disingenuate like you know becauseyou know having some public testimony is that really going to change you knowokay yeah I'm gonna you know let's set the levy percent lower or whatever. So,you know, I and so that's just kind of where I'm standing there. And I know itsounds like we are in the midst of dep prioritizing it, but I I>> Yeah. So, cap cap on that. [laughter] >> Commissioner Fry,>> uh directives can be given by obviously this commission here.Do you get directives from LRO? >> Currently or after this work plan isadopted. >> Both. How about that?>> Um, currently I have my eye on the staff direction for alternative revenues justbecause that directly relates. I am I have not formally allocated any of yourresources to it towards it, but it's something I'd be excited to take on.Yep. Um, the wayCommissioner Payne brought up the administrative resolution that came uplast year and the way that that res resolution waswarded, and I apologize,this is my memory. I don't have it pulled up in front of me because we'renot uh connected to the internet here. The way that was that I would receiveadministrative support through legislative research and oversight andwhen my tasks assigned by the BET were expended and any additional time I had Icould back up LRO in any kind of fiscal investigations that they had. I believethat's the way the was resolution was awarded. I would need to find it foryou. Um, but it it basically said in that resolution that I do BET work firstand any additional time I have, which I would argue at certain times of the yearI absolutely do have, that I would work as a backup to the legislative researchand oversight team. So if the BET gives me something, I workon that. If the BET does not give me something, I find things to work on andmake myself efficient to this organization.Commissioner Bernstein, >> I'm going to defer to President Payne.>> Payne or >> uh Thank you, uh, President Brandt. Uh,I think that maybe one of the hang-ups here is just the naming of LRO. I thinkthat what the real goal here is for my part, I would like this body tohave an independent analysis of the proposed levy. Right? What in the fewyears that I've been on this board, um you get the recommended levy and youdon't have a lot of foundation to go up or down, right? And I think I think aclarifying thing here would be kind of like independent due diligenceof the recommended levy. That is like the core of the work of this body. And Ithink that frankly it could take our entire budget shop worth of staff toactually vet out what the estimates are on the um expenditures within ouroperating departments to set that levy. Um, we just have to take the budgetoffic's word on that on this body. And I think that the real opportunity is tohave someone with your type of expertise that can independently vet thatrecommended levy. And I don't know that it would be an explicit I recommend theproposed levy or I recommend increasing it or I recommend decreasing it, but atleast some type of objective and independent analysis of that proposedlevy so that this body when it ultimately takes its primary reason toexists action to set the the levy that we're doing that from a really strongfinancial foundation that is not based on um however the way that theadministration proposes that levy Because as an example, um, policeovertime was spent $30 million. If we had an independent analysis of anovertime estimate from this body when a $6 million budget was proposed forovertime, some due diligence might have found thatmaybe a 20 million million overtime budget would have been more realistic.And, you know, there were some unforeseen circumstances that maybe tiptipped us into $30 million. But for us to be an order of magnitude off in ouradopted levy uh is something that could have been prevented with a robustanalysis of that proposed budget when it came time to set that levy. So I thinkthat um this budget and and fiscal policy is the correct bucket. Um perhapsthe partner with LRO is maybe not the right heading for it, but the body ofwork is really that independent objectiveanalysis of the proposed levy so that when this body has to actually set thelevy, we're doing that from a really robust foundation. >> Commissioner Bernstein,>> I think, yeah, I think I agree with a lot of things being said. I have theresolution up and it does say that like absent work from the BET you would beyou know available to the LRO. I think the consensus here though is that wewant the board to to generate enough work to that there's more than enoughwork that needs to be generated um to fill a full-time position and to umCommissioner Payne's point you know many other positions. And so, you know, tome, um, yeah, I agree about the point about the the independence versus theLRO partnership as emphasized in the work plan would be my preference. Andthen, yeah, and just that also I guess there needs to be a conversation abouthow do we ensure moving forward that you have the directives you need to conductthe, you know, the the reasonable amount of the work that we all feel is needed.And so are those like amendments to this work plan or specifying that within thework plan of like things we want you to do as a matter of course or at anongoing basis? >> President Brandt, perhaps it needs to besaid on the record. The reason for the work plan is so that everything she doesis approved by this body. You all get to vote on it. There's buckets of work.when she's going to do anything for LRO, that would be brought back to this bodyto say this is something that's occupying one of those big buckets mostlikely in the budget [clears throat] and fiscal policy capacity because that'sboth what LRO does and that's what she does. So the marriage between them is,you know, a nice thing in that they're both focused on budget and fiscal policyfor two separate elected bodies and the whole point of having the work plan isso that that is on your radar approved and then she does the work. So I I thinkmaybe we've misunderstood that working with LRO is some additional backdoorthing into helping the council when it's really focused on those bodies of workare probably very closely related. The mayor is the CEO of the city gets thepower to propose a budget. The administration has financial policies.The evaluation, consideration, analysis, and feedback of those are split betweentwo separate bodies. However, a city council and the board of investment andtaxation. they both have their own staffs. Having them work together sinceshe's administratively housed within the LRO was just a bonus. And that's whatthe resolution adopted last year tried to set forth. So I think that the ideaof her work is always directed by this body. Never have we presumed to say it'snot. Having the work plan adopted by this body and having her bring thosework plans forward is a way of assuring both transparency and accountability tothe body that appoints her. Thank you. I would like to ask the bodywhat its pleasure is at this point. Do you want to continue this discussiontoday? We do have some bonding that we have to take care of um and defer ituntil the next meeting or do you feel we can move ahead at this point? MayorCommissioner Fry. >> Uh M Mr. Chair, I would like to make onelast point if uh at your pleasure. Uh, [clears throat]I appreciate the clerk's um comment that any directives or work that would beassigned will be assigned by this body. I think it's really important to getthat clearly on the record. Um, and any work that should be assignedshould not be focused on one entity versus another. It should be workfocused on the work of the board. So, you know, an independent critique uh ofa budget put forward u that makes sense only if there's also a critique of thebudget that is approved, the budget that is adopted, the funds that are allocatedby both the mayor and the council and the park board. And so, if we're lookingat an analysis, it should not be focused on just one. And that inherently is oneof my primary concerns about the housing in one entity over another. And soagain, if there are any directives that are given, they should be approved bythis board here. It's transparent. It's public. Everybody sees what thosedirectives are and and and therefore it it retains the independence of thisboard. I had made the exact argument, by the way, and lost that argument withrespect to coordination with finance on the administration side. I said it wouldmake sense to have them embedded in finance. That's the way it used to be.And I lost that argument. Um, having lost that argument, let's not just dothe same thing that was advocated to change. >> Is there any further discussion?Commissioner Olsson? >> Well, so frankly, I feel like I feel I'min a good enough place with the work plan that I think we should approve itand we should get you working and then we should if we have issues, we saw thatthis is not set in stone. This is malleable. this is something that we canuh learn from, get experience in and develop, you know, throughout. I mean, II I I feel that, you know, from [snorts] a parkboard's perspective, if if we feelthat, you know, we need um you know, we need staff time, we need we need workfrom you, we need to go through the BT, we'll be able to get that done. I I I Ifeel that uh you know, in the situation and having read as well uh theresolution. So, I would say, you know, frankly, unless folks have specific, youknow, uh changes or amendments, um you know, uh I don't know how the othercommissioners up here feel, but I think the longer we delay, frankly, I feellike the less we'll get out of you. >> Yeah. I'll move to amend uh I'll I'llmove to amend the final piece, which is that that piece around budget and fiscalpolicy to say partner with LRO uhfinance uh and the park board >> but but it's an amendment that I'mproposing that they still have to vote on it I believe but>> second as well >> I I believe this is before us the clerktells me in the advance uh script that this is a receive and file item uh is Isit appropriate to amend the receive and file item? I I have no objection if it'sin order. >> The um receive and file in your scriptwas only a placeholder as we didn't know whether or not this action was actuallygoing to be taken this evening. Um as long as the board agrees with thatamendment, it can just be a voice vote. >> All right. And Commissioner Fry, toclarify, uh is this under initiative five?Is it a new bullet or is it an addition to a current bullet? >> Mr. uh President, it would be anaddition to it. Um I also for the record agree with umCommissioner Olsen's commentary. U I I don't know that we need to changeanything unless he has a proposal, but I agree with the um deemphasis on thecommunity engagement part. >> All right. Anduh so that would be a separate bullet. It would say partner with LRO Finance inthe park board. >> Correct. City finance.>> City Finance. Okay. And Commissioner Bernstein,>> just to clarify, uh Commissioner Fry, are you proposing also to change thetitle of the initiative as Miss Kyling did on the screen a second ago?>> I am. Um anywhere where it references just making sure that it includes thebodies that are on this board. I>> that that along with sorry I'm a bit out of order here but that along with thecommentary from the clerk satisfies my concern.>> Commissioner Bernstein do you have anything else? Um,one second. I think for clarity, I I would like itif we also added to the to that initiative five um the language onissues related to city levies, debts, and long-term fiscal strength.>> Yeah. Um, I think that maybe, you know, that's allstated in other documents related to your position, but I think it might alsogive you more [snorts] leeway to explore those issues of your own, you know, sortof like as a as a matter of your position and rather than having to likeright now, for example, I don't love that initiative 2 says alternativerevenues. Um, I understand why because it's an ongoing project. Um, but to methe position should be focused on, you know, other aspects of city financesthat we, you know, that we touch. And so having that language codified in here, Ithink I I would like that personally. >> Are you referring to the mayor'slanguage? >> Uh, well, sort of adding to the mayor'slanguage. >> I'll take a friendly amendment andaccept it. >> Okay. So, as I understand it, it wouldnow read partner with LRO, city finance, and park board on issues regardingdebts, levies, and long-term final financial strength.>> Fiscal Yeah, >> fiscal strength. Okay. Uh All right. Isthere a uh let's see. Uh the mayor made a motion. Is there a second for thatmotion? >> Seconded.>> All right. Uh any further discussion, Commissioner Payne?>> Uh I don't think we're too deep yet. Uh, and the only thought I have on feedbackis instead of like naming all the departments or entities that this is inreference to, I I would almost rather just kind of make it moreum general to say provide um independent [clears throat]budget development and research related to levies.Uh what did you say Commissioner Bernstein?>> Fiscal long-term fiscal structure >> long-term fiscal like provideindependent analysisand research for um [snorts] levies, debts, and long-term fiscal strength.so that we don't have to kind of get caught up in LRO versus city financeversus finance and property services versus park board versus any number ofways that you could refer to it maybe to the enterprise.>> Okay, that's a u >> so that would be an amendment to theamendment if there's a second. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> All right. I I'll second to continue thediscussion on it. >> All right. Uh to discussion on themotion on the amended on the proposed amendment to the amendment>> talk about this more. >> So no just to clarify the idea wasrather than name each um LRO city finance and NPRB to sayMiss Kylin could you say it back to broaden it? So, I have changed thebullet point to instead of provide staff resources for LRO projects, I I'm notsure if you can see this as I change it in real time, but it's completely>> out and instead I have provide staff resources for independent analysis andresearch for levies, debts, and long-term fiscal strength. I think thetitle is what um Commissioner Payne is referring to for initiative 5, but Iknow there was also discussion of initiative 2 because that does call outcity council. So I will stand to hear how you would like me to amend the titleof initiative 2 and the title of initiative 5. >> Are people satisfied with the staff's?>> Well, so initiative 5 title would be something like partnership with budgetwith with all intergovernmental budgetary>> units or something or or what >> the enterp all enterprise>> beyond enterprise. >> Yeah. It's part of it. Sorry.>> Thank you. >> All right. Well, we have a motion beforeus and we have an amendment to that motion. Um, are people ready to vote onthe amended? >> I believe I can. I Mr. President, um, tothe council president's point, I believe there's a way we can do this withoutadding that language, too. And so, it's taking it it there's two ways to dothis. either you add everybody or you take out everybody.>> Mhm. >> I'm fine with taking out everybody ifthat's what he's suggesting. Um and I'm and and in addition to that takingCommissioner Bernstein's language which is talking about the the the debts andthe whatever else you said. Um and so um and so yeah, theask would would be to to say partnership with uh respective uh financial staff on >> levies, debts, and long-term fiscalstrength >> respective financial staff. I mean, whatI'm trying to say is at all three or four entities,three entities. So, finance, it's a I mean, I there's a way of there's a wayof just saying partnering with financial staff at those three without saying it.Uh you could say board of estimate and tax bet member governments,BET member jurisdictions. >> BET jurisdictions might do it.>> Uh and but then just include that language. Whatever lang I mean I thinkwe can probably send it and have her take this back, you know, and then andand it accomplishes exactly what we're hoping for here.>> All right. Is that satisfactory to you, Commissioner Bing?All right, the language is up on the screen. Um,so let's say that that's a sta staff amendment and to her own work and wewill withdraw our motions and um uh is there a motion on the overall workplan? >> Uh well, okay. Well, if we're doing someamendments, I heard some support on the uh public participation. I would justwant to uh delete the last two the second two bullet points on initiativethree, the the sharing information with private media partners and the assist,develop, and maintain social media presence. Um just cuz the first one it'sworking with city social media platforms. Fine. Um you know, reviewingmethods of public participation. Yeah, sure. I think that's that's all right.Um although I think we already said to kind of deemphasize it, but you knowthose those bottom two I just I I would like to move that.>> Okay, we're into our second hour here. So let's try and wrap this up. Um isthere um is that a motion? Do we need a motion? Do we Is there a consensus onthat? >> I'm okay with it.All right. Uh we'll consider that another amendment to by the staff inresponse to feedback. Is there a motion to approve the workplan >> as as amended by staff? Okay. Do we havea second? >> Second.>> All right. Well, uh any discussion? So, just to clarify, I'm sorry for thechair. Just to clarify, Miss Kerling, you're going to finalize typing up thatfifth one, but I think you have the kind of Yeah,>> I'll pick nicer language than what's up there right now. But yes, sir, I do haveyour intent. >> Yeah, that we're referencing all themember bodies of the BET. >> Yeah. Without Okay, great.>> An initiative to You had changes there as well.>> Yeah. And then mirroring the language in the bullet point, you know, research onOh, on initiative 2. Sorry. Sorry. Well, I Yeah, I mean, my understanding is thatthe reason initiative 2 is in there is because it's something that's already inmotion and so I'm fine with leaving it as alternative revenues. Um,>> oh, this is the one. >> Oh, initiative.>> Yeah. Yeah. Number two. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. All right.>> Uh, we have a motion, I think, before us and a second. Um the uh let's see we cando this on a voice vote. Correct. All those in favor say I.>> I. >> Opposed. Okay. The matter passes. Wehave an approved work plan and we will um proceed with staff [snorts]directions for the various portions of it as necessary.Um, next item is uh receiving projects from the citycouncil for which the board of estimate and taxation will consider approving theissuance of tax exempt general obligation bonds and the projects areavailable in your packet. Do any of my colleagues have questions or comments?Is there anybody here to speak to this one today? All right. I have a question uh relatedto this one and that is um an item that's not listed and I just wondered ifsomebody could update me on the status of it and that is I've heard somediscussion concerning assessments for George Floyd Square where there is workgoing on and I wondered u if there if that is going to be coming to us in thefuture or if that is if it's premature now. um or if anybody knows.All right. Guess we don't have an answer on that. So, oh, mayor,>> commissioner, council president. >> Council president.>> Uh thank you, President Brent. My recollection is that uh staff was ableto identify an alternative source for that. Uh and so the formal action thatthe council took was to deny that assessment. uh and it will be uh futureuh budget action that will actually make that project whole. So without anyfurther action from the council or bet. >> All right. Thank you>> and the mayor. >> Mayor P.>> Mr. President, what the council president said is correct. Umthis was done on a uh a very specific basis for this particular project. staffwas able to find funds for this particular project given theextraordinary circumstances that were experienced. This is not to be clearsomething that we have the funding to do on the regular.>> So, so no president, >> right?>> All right. >> Yes.>> Just a clarifying question. Sorry, >> Bernstein.>> Thanks. Just a clarifying question. This is to avoid uh assessments forindividual property owners in the area. Okay.>> Okay. Um, I don't know. I I guess II'll hold my I'll hold it till the next item. Um, seeing no further discussion,I'll ask the clerk to receive and file. The next item on our agenda isconsideration of the reauthorizing bonding for Haywatha Public WorksMaintenance Facility Expansion Project PSD33.Um, do my colleagues um have any questions? Okay, I have some questionsif I can find them. I did receive just before this meetingsome information from the staff about one issue that concerned me.Um, I'll preface this by saying that I've read the master plan for the publicworks complex uh that was adopted in sometime in the 1990s. I've spent timeat the um at the highwa phase one u when it was completed and I'm familiar withit. Uh, I've spent time at the east yards and I've watched people who are umdoing welding and other blacksmithing type things on wooden floors and umworking in a place that has no uh ADA accessible uh meeting room. Um and um Ihave been impatient for progress here. Umthe um we have now essentially an outside groupthat says it wants a facility that is owned by the city. Uh upsetting along-standing master plan to consolidate public works. Uh it derails therelocation of the east yards to Hayawa. It's going to 27th in University evenfarther away from the rest of the public works complex that we're trying to makemore efficient by consolidating. And it derails the training andrecruitment center that was supposed to be onsite to feed newly trained workersto public works so they could feed into the department. That has no sight. Anduh we could have I think diverted that suggested that group look across 28thStreet at the um now vacant Smith Foundry property where you no longerhave to hold your breath when you're biking by on the greenway because it'sshut down uh or the batuminous roadway property that uh may be vacated as well.Um obviously those are polluted sites. Um, the city could have also consideredrelocating some of its uh facilities like the east yards or the training andum [snorts] and recruitment center there. Um, obviously it would haveincurred a cleanup cost, but um I have I I just can't support somethingthat undoes a long-term master plan designed to make a department operatemore efficiently. um in favor of uh a group that somehowhas the political ear of both the city and the legislature. So, I just wantedto get that on the record. That's why I won't be voting for the issuance ofbonds for um that project as part of the bigger package that's before us today.Um is there any other discussion? All right. Uh seeing none, uhuh I ask the clerk to receive and file this report.Up next is the discussion on the 2026 bonding resolutions. Uh David Wheeler,Finance and Property Services, will present those items. This is a uh thisis an approval uh matter. Welcome, Mr. Wheeler. Good afternoon, President Brandt andcommissioners. I'm Dave Wheeler, senior manager of banking, investments, anddebt. Uh, I am bringing before you the authorizing and awarding resolutions forthe city's uh, general obligation various purpose bond issuance. Uh,before we get to the action, I just wanted to walk through a little bit ofthe numbers going into this issuance. Um, and stand for any questions youmight have. Uh just for reference, I've includedlinks to the resolutions you'll be acting on. Uh the authorizing resolutionallows us to uh bring the bonds to market, take competitive bids on thesale. Uh and then the awarding resolution allows us to award sale ofthose bonds to an underwriter based on the lowest interest cost to the city. [clears throat] Uh and very quicklyincluded in the authorizing resolution are the exhibits. Um this details theprojects amounts and authorizing resolution um by project uh you'll bevoting on that will go into the issuance. Uh exhibit A is the assessmentbonds. These are street improvements that are uh debt services paid back fromassessments against benefited property. Uh exhibit B details the utility revenuebonds. These are enterprise fund projects um debt services paid forprimarily from net revenues of the utility funds.And then finally, the levy funded debt. Uh these are capital infrastructureprojects throughout the city. Debt services paid for by a dedicatedproperty tax levy we certify each year. Um very [clears throat] quickly wantedto talk through the proceeds. Uh we begin at the start of the year um withall of the outstanding project authorizations that city council hasapproved for bonding. Um we work with project managers in various departmentson spending forecasts, project uh construction timelines and and spendingexpectations. Um through that work, we've uh identified $251 million inproject financing requests for this year. Um those are projects that areeither begun or expect to be soon. Um and those expenses will uh be incurredeither now or or within the next 12 to 18 months. Um below that is just kind ofthe breakdown by revenue type. Um more than half of this is levy fundedprojects. Uh about 46% enterprise fund projects and then a small portion forimprovements and then $850,000 for parkport disease tree uh program. Thisis a a very typical uh breakdown uh proportion by revenue type. Um we seethis year-over-year. Um so not not much has changed in the allocation of of theprojects and bonding types. Um, below that, uh, I just included an estimatedpar amount of the bonds. So, uh, were we to issue these bonds at par, it' bearound a $252 million issue. Again, this is preliminary and an estimate. Um, andI'll just, uh, remind you that the market is still purchasing bonds at apremium. So, our actual issuance size, we expect will be about 5% lower thanthat. So, uh, when we get to market, we'll probably, uh, h have an issue sizearound 240 to $245 million this year. Um, again, that's, uh, subject andpreliminary to change. Uh, and then just at the top right, um,just for reference, this issuance includes around 103, uh, authorizationsbeing used. That's kind of right in line with the average over the last fiveyears, actually down a bit from uh 2024 and 2025, but um those are 103 separateauthorizations uh being utilized for this issuance. Uh and just some highlevelconsiderations for this sale, we are aiming to bring these bonds to market inJuly or August, uh depending on how long it takes to pull these final piecestogether. Um this uh the these authorizations kind of allow us to takethe next steps. Um the next big thing we'll look to do is coordinate ratingcalls with the rating agencies to have this issue rated and our uh creditratings reaffirmed by the national credit agencies.The structure of the bonds will be uh the same as we've done for the pastseveral years. Uh we'll have 20 level principal payments. um this issue willmature through 2045 and then we'll have an optional uh redemption in 2035. So uha 9-year uh call protection uh that is uh at that date the city can refund theissue or call it for any reason it deems necessary. Um typically you would uh dothat in in order to achieve interest cost savings via refunding. Uh and thatcall date is is kind of market driven. Um, we take advice from Ellers on whatcall date to use. Uh, but very much look into the market for uh, input on that.Uh, we could use really any call date we want, but the shorter you go, you dotend to pay uh, higher yields uh, for that. So, um, we expect that 2035 datewill be what we end on. And then one final note, um we are monitoring one uhrefunding opportunity. The city's 2018 uh green bonds that help to help tofinance the public service building does have some maturities that uh are veryclose to achieving uh savings amount that would make it feasible and and uhprudent to refund those issues. Uh we're working with Ellers on that to keep eyeson it. Um if it gets to a point that uh it does make sense to include thosebonds in this issue, we would come back for a subsequent approval to add thatrefunding in um and detail the the savings that the the city can achieve. And then just for reference, this arekind of the market rates um comparatively over our last severalyears uh of sales. uh last year. The green line were the highest rates we'dwe' paid in quite a while. Um the orange line is the 2026. These are rates as ofMonday. This is the AAA uh tax exempt yield curve. So, uh our our sale uhwhere we to sell today would be kind of right along that yield curve. Um sohigher than than some of recent sales, but we're we're back off of the highs oflast year. Um, of course things can change in the next month or two, but uhwe expect the mark to be uh right around here. Um, again, nothing certain. Justcomes you kind of gives a an idea of of where the market is at. And then [clears throat] finally, thisis um kind of a very uh high level uh graphical representation. Um, I'll justexplain it more just a visualization. This is a look at kind of the uhauthorizations uh bonding authorizations from council going back uh to 2023 whenI really started working on the bond issues. Um and then uh a correspondinglook at how much of those authorizations were issued each year. Uh this is reallyjust to kind of illustrate the point of you know this is a larger issuance thanwhat we've had in the past few years. Uh I made mention of that when I was uhbefore you in May uh with a very brief preview of the the sale coming in June.[snorts] Um so uh very much very quickly the kind of the short story is the cityhas been budgeting, planning and programming for uh more bonding revenueto pay the cost of construction for its capital infrastructure. Um the the bluegraphs the top left is just the uh current budgets each year. Um so whatwas uh approved by council for uh that year capital improvement plan each eachrespective year. Um and then the green was the amount that we issued next year.So you can see we're budgeting and planning for more bonding each year. Umso a higher number this year even programmed and and we're actuallyexpecting to issue that that green bar a larger proportion of thoseauthorizations. Um so that's really kind of where we'regetting to this increased issuance size is um it is planned for it's expected umand so and it is u understood with the city we worked closely with enterprisefunds and and the controllers group to understand that you know with the the uhincreased debt service costs are uh expected understood and uh manageable.Uh the bottom graph is just the the total uh each year. Um and so kind ofthe same picture, but um I just wanted to give a little bit of a a visualrepresentation of kind of those amounts growing each year. And then that'sreally what is driving this increase. Um and with that, I'm happy to stand forany questions on the issuance itself or let you take action. And uh Commissioner Bernstein,>> uh these I get a couple, but they're going to be really easy for you. Um uhwhich portion of these bonds are subject to our debt limit, all of them or onlythe levy funded ones? >> Uh President Brandt and Vice PresidentBernstein, it is uh primarily just anything uh backed only by levy fundeddebt. So um there's it it statutory formula, but essentially just anythingthat is uh only levy funded. >> Got it.Um, can I >> Commissioner Bernstein?>> Thanks. Um, what um, how much debt I don't need a precise number, but roughlyhow much debt are [snorts] we retiring each year? In other words, how much arewe increasing our uh, debt limit utilization uh, this coming year?>> Uh, President Brandt, Vice President Bernstein. Um, so we are retiring. Offthe top of my head, I know it's north of a hund00 million in principal each year.Typically, uh that is u city uh you know, all our go debt, not specificallylevy funded debt. Um our our levy funded debt is about>> uh let's say 40% of the total. Um so uh I can follow up with exact numbers foryou if you uh would like but um yeah so just general rule of thumb about $100million in debt is coming off the book in principal>> and less than half of that will attribute uh yeah would come off of thelimit. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would I would say um Iwould estimate it about a third as levy funding.>> Okay. >> Are you finished, Commissioner Bernson?Got one more if I'm tracking this correctly. Um what [snorts] explains thegap between the authorization and the issuance? It's just when the projectsare ready to roll essentially. >> Yeah, very much. Um you know, wetypically will only issue bonds when a project is ready. Uh we know thatexpenses are going to be coming in. Uh IRS is uh very stringent on, you know,you issue bonds. You have to spend that money if they're taxexempt uh in acertain amount of time. So uh as a matter of practice uh and procedure wewill issue bonds for uh construction expenses we expect in the next 12months. Um and you know beyond that we we know we're serial issuers we'll haveanother issue the next year. Um so anything that we expect to fall uhbeyond that would would just wait until the next year. So it's very much a amatter of of when the projects are ready to go. Um and so happens we have a lotof projects kind of ready to kick off shovel ready or have begun now uh thisyear. >> Fabulous. Thank you,>> Mr. Wheeler. I um was checking last year's issuance when you were explaininga little bit about this year's issuance, but last year was 146 and this year it's251 and it's up substantially both in levy and in enterprise. Um could youtease out a little bit more why the amount issued uh why we have moreprojects ready this year? Is there anything [snorts] are there any majorprojects that are uh contributing to that or is this just a lot of littleprojects adding together? >> Uh President Brandt, my understanding uhis a little bit of both. Um just kind of projects across the board ready to go.Um like I said uh budgeting and programming for uh u paying theseexpenses via uh bond revenue. Um you know we had someuh that weren't ready you know carried forward their authorizations. They areready now. Um and I can assure you we did go back to project managers twice,three times uh to just verify uh their expenses, their expectations uh andeveryone has said that yes the you know project projects are on on time and weexpect to be constructing. So uh I I could certainly follow up with uh morespecifics on what projects are really hidden uh right now or or>> I can do the comparison of the detailed list. um wanted to also ask you if youcould go back to I think it's the first page of your presentationuh or at least the first page that lists individual projects the which pro these are the assessmentprojects are you looking forward >> the I think levy>> I think it was the levy funded project >> yes apologies there's It's a long list.>> It was a preceding page to this one. >> Yes. Um, okay.>> Are there earlier projects? Is there anotherlist? Because I thought I saw one on there that was April of 2022,which would not this one. It was at near the top of the list. It must not be theutility ones. There we go. Um, Glenwood Avenue, uh, April 22is the bonding resolution. Um, does that>> Yes, for for this is an assessment project that is, uh, already commenced.>> Okay. So, this is not subject to the four-year rule.>> Uh, my understanding is it isn't. >> All right.>> But I I guess I'll verify that. Yeah. >> Very good. Thank you. All right. Anyfurther questions or comments? Okay. Uh,seeing no further questions, may I have a motion to acceptuh, I would say a motion to adopt resolution 2026004and resolution 2026005 as a block.>> So moved. >> All right, we have a motion in a secondbefore us. Is there any discussion? Okay. Uh seeing that will the clerkplease take the role? >> Member Chugai is absent. Fry>> I. >> Olsen>> I. >> Payne>> I. >> Vice President Bernstein>> I. >> President Brandt>> abstain. >> There are four eyes and one abstension.>> All right. The matter has passed and please remind me to sign the appropriateresolution afterwards. Umthe next item we have I believe with our reshuffled agenda isthe matter of um a was to be a discussion item thatinvolved u the charter change discussion that wehad at our previous meeting. And um as a result of some discussionthat I had with Commissioner Payne before the meeting, he suggested a staffdirection be adopted. uh that the uh Board of Estimate andTaxation hereby directs staff to draft a resolution for the board to considerthat. Number one, requests the Charter Commission to consider an amendment tothe charter that allows for a mechanism to assure a quot a quorum can beachieved for conducting business of the BET. And number two, request the citycouncil to consider implementing the proposed amendment via ordinance. Andthe draft requested draft resolution will be presented to the BET forconsideration at the next regular meeting for potential adoption. So, um,do we need a vote on a staff direction? I assume we do. No. All right.>> You you would need a you would need a vote. It doesn't need to be a roll call,but it does need to have approval from the board.>> All right, we'll have a voice vote. Uh, is there any discussion?>> Second it. >> Okay, we have a second for CommissionerOlsen, Commissioner Bernstein, >> Commissioner P. >> Oh, I thought your leg was on. Okay,you are you are okay. >> Okay, I see no discussion. All those infavor say I. I >> I opposed. Nay. All right. The staffdirection is adopted. Thank you for that. We will look forward to aresolution at the next meeting. Um the final item on our agenda today is aboard discussion on staff uh our executive secretary ChristinaKaiderling. Before I uh entertain a motion to close the meeting, I willrecognize the attorney uh Mr. Hammer to provide the legal basis for the uh closesession. The next item on today's agenda relatesto the evaluation of the performance of executive secretary Christina Kiterlingon individuals subject to the authority of this board. The Minnesota openmeeting law permits but does not require the closure of the meeting for such aperformance review unless the individual who is subject to the meeting requeststhat it remain open. SoI just wanted to make sure that I understand what you just read because itwas a little contrary to my understanding. Um the law permits theclosure of a meeting unless the individual who is the subject of themeeting request that it remain open. So [snorts]um does the person who is the subject ofthe meeting have the discretion to request that it be closed?>> President Brandt, no. The board can make the decision to have it the meeting beopen or closed. But if the board determines to have a closed meeting, theperson who is the subject of the meeting has the option to say that they wouldprefer that the meeting remain open. >> I see. Okay.All right. Well, in that case, I guess I'm not required by law to close themeeting um in this case. Um and um we are seeking at this point a motion u byone of my colleagues here uh that the meeting be closed is permitted byMinnesota statutes 1305 subdivision 3A to conduct a discussion on staffChristina Kiteling. Uh Miss Kiterling, do you have an objection to closing themeeting? >> I have no objection.>> Okay. because you do not we'll proceed to vote on the motion.Um all those in favor say I. >> I oppose. Nay. Nay.Uh that carries and the public portion of our meeting is now closed and we willleave the dis and um do I wait on the We can move to the back room, Mr.>> Okay, we don't Okay, this is the close session. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, the time is now 6:02 and the boardis back in open session. We will resume the regular meeting of the BET for June24th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role so we can verify the presenceof a quorum? Member Chugai is absent. Member Fry isabsent. Olsen >> present.>> Payne >> present.>> Vice President Bernstein >> present.>> President Brandt >> present.>> There are four members present. >> Okay. I will uh summarize the board's uhclose session for an evaluation of our executive secretary Christina Kitelingas having taken no action. And uh so are my colleagues have any announcements orupdates before we end? All right, seeing none, we havecompleted all business to come before us. Without objection, we are adjourned.