Good evening or afternoon. Welcome to this regular meeting of the Board of Estimate and Taxation for April 22nd, 2026. My name is Steve Brandt. I'm the president of the BET. Before we begin the meeting, I would like to ask the clerk to read our reminder regarding diction during the meeting. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. All right, at this time I'll ask the clerk to call the roll so we can verify the presence of a quorum. Um I will also note that we are expecting Commissioner Olson um to be arriving uh slightly late. Thank you. Commissioner Chaktai. Present. Frye is absent. Olson is currently absent. Payne. Present. Vice President Bernstein. Present. President Brandt. Present. We have four members present. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. I will now offer an acknowledgement that we meet today on land that has historically been uh under the jurisdiction of the Dakota and Ojibwe tribal groups and uh acknowledge the acknowledge the uh trauma that accompanied the dispossession of that land. We'll now proceed to our agenda, a copy of which was posted for public access to the city's legislative information management system, which is available at lms.minneapolis mn.gov. For today's meeting, uh board members, the agenda is before us. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda? >> So moved. Second. All right, we have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed, nay. The eyes have it. The agenda is adopted. Next is the acceptance of minutes from the March 23rd regular meeting. May I have a motion to accept those minutes, please? So moved. Is there a second? Okay, we have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the minutes are accepted as presented. Item four on the agenda is the acceptance of public comment. While we have closed the public hearing on the levy, it is board standard to receive comment on any of our other agenda items. The clerk informs me that we have no one signed up today. So we will continue with the next item on our agenda. Uh I just want to remind the public that any item on the board's agenda is fair game for comment at that meeting. And uh there is at least one here that I would would think people would maybe want to uh comment on, if not now, down the road, having to do with alternative revenues. Um The next item we will Oh, uh next item is receiving filing the report from Guidehouse Inc., which is related to alternative municipal revenue sources. At our adjourned meeting, we lacked quorum and so we couldn't properly file the report. Are there any questions? We will be discussing that later in the meeting. Any discussion on that? Seeing no discussion, I will ask the clerk to receive and file the report. Item number six up next is my discussion uh that I've brought before the board on potential charter amendments. I've provided a memo for the board to review uh previously, I'll remind the board that we did go on record, I think before Commissioner Bernstein was a member and Commissioner Olson, uh uh as adopting a request to the Charter Commission that uh there be amendments considered to the charter that would expand the size of the board by one person and elect that person from the general public. Um I have elaborated on that um and uh I'll present what I've got here. Um this grows out of I guess some frustration. Um many of these things do um since arriving at the board uh under the guidance of our council, I um >> [snorts] >> from time to time get guidance about things we cannot do and some of these are are aimed at maybe addressing some of those things and others are aimed at making our meetings um run more smoothly. Um The quorum issue is one that's dogged us uh this year. I recognize that council members have uh a crowded plate and uh the mayor is often likely [snorts] to be called out to an emergency on a moment's notice. Um but achieving maintaining a quorum has been an increasing issue for us, especially when there's no advance notification uh that somebody won't be here. Uh this can be addressed in two ways and I suggest we think about both of them because I think the first one, although maybe preferable in terms of providing a council backup, uh may not always work. But the idea is to amend the charter to to permit the council president and the budget committee chair to appoint a standing designee to attend the meetings when they cannot. Uh these could potentially be their essentially vices, uh the council vice president or the budget vice chair. Um but again, these people may be subject to the same sort of pressures and conflicting [snorts] meetings as a deterrent to current council members. So I would suggest doing both approaches, which is um adding that those backups, uh but also returning the board to seven members, um it which is the board's traditional size until we lost our library board member with the demise of the Minneapolis library system. And this would bring two advantages. If we went to seven members, we'd still only need four, so we'd have another person as a margin of error. And there would be one extra person to make that quorum. Uh and it would come from the segment of the board that's had a good attendance record. Um a second advantage is that the board would of course now have a tie-breaking number of members, ending its status as the only elected board uh in the city with an even number of members that has which has occasionally led to deadlocks in the past, most notably when we were uh uh debating whether to uh hire an executive secretary or go with a different arrangement. So um my preference would be the to uh uh do both of those. Uh I offer a further suggestion that we could elect the three public board members by district, uh sort of using the same election districts as the park and school board members. That would create greater uh distribution, uh better distribution, and uh we have been skewed toward either downtown or south or southwest in the past. So I would like to stop there and ask if people have any reaction to those that concept or those concepts. >> [clears throat] >> Uh Council Member Payne. Uh thank you, President Brandt. Um just something I think that's important to add to this conversation is the fact that the Charter Commission is currently contemplating a number of amendments. Um There's kind of two buckets of amendments that I think are still not resolved on how they want to be approached. One of those buckets is a a series of technical amendments. And another bucket is changing the council appointment authority with charter department heads. So it actually uh is proposing eliminating the concept of charter departments and limiting the appointment process to the cabinet positions. That's the commissioner of community safety, uh the city operations officer, and then through a little bit of back and forth, the Charter Commission included public works and CPED uh in their proposal. Always had um the fire and police chief as maintaining their appointments. And so those are quite substantive in nature. And the way the it was originally contemplated was bringing them to the ballot as one question that included technical amendments and those substantive changes. And there was some dialogue at the last Charter Commission around perhaps the desire to separate those out as they are quite different in nature. I had even offered some public comment that uh those technical amendments should be considered something that we could pull out for a um uh of a uh amendment by ordinance with all 13 council members and the mayor. I think there would need to be some legal work done to unpack the technical amendments from the substantive changes to the appointment authority and all of this is kind of ongoing and in flight and so maybe one first curiosity would be in your mind what kind of timeline are you anticipating cuz this is adding kind of another layer into that mix right now that could add some complexity but if you if if this is more of an exploration for this year but not something that we're actively looking to pursue until you know a couple years from now that that would be one thing but I think if you're trying to have this happen in the same time frame that could add some complexity of trying to disaggregate technical amendments really significant substantive changes to how council exercises its authority and then this is I think a blend of quite a substantial change obviously creating a new elected seat is a pretty significantly substantive change but then I know that you've had some conversations around like the name which I don't think would be a particularly material change to what the scope of this work is so it's just less a question more just kind of a set of thoughts but maybe just what's the timeline that you're thinking and as far as pursuing these is maybe the question. Commissioner Payne thank you for laying out the broader picture here. I've been sort of following this from afar and I >> [clears throat] >> I probably side with you on the issue of charter departments but um um is it your understanding that uh both of the both of the packages if they are separated would be uh intended for this fall's ballot? That I don't know if that has been decided. My my understanding is they were marching towards a uh question on the ballot for this fall. I think that was at least some of the commissioner's intention uh but the discussion that happened in the last charter meeting was talking about how the technical amendments are right now combined with the substantive amendments and how that might be confusing as a single ballot question so I don't know how the charter commission aims to resolve that cuz that could mean you know holding off uh the substantive changes and trying to move forward with the technical changes uh but uh we still need to figure out if those technical changes could happen by ordinance cuz I would imagine that would shape some of how the charter commission is approaching this as well. I would just say that um if my memory is correct next year will not be an election year for the city or for state offices and I don't believe for the school board either so if we don't uh get on board for something this fall we'd be looking at a two-year delay. My preference would be to um keep this independent. I think you're right that that the name change might be falling to the area of technical um one one um reason for maybe doing that is that >> [sighs] >> unfortunately the charter commission does not look uh favorably upon the existence of the Board of Estimate and last time Sally rejected this when we brought this forth this time I hope is that the council will see fit to put it on the ballot um and so it I'm reluctant to sort of get it lumped in but I certainly defer to people with better political instincts than mine. Is there any other any other discussion on the size? Commissioner Chu Tak Chu Tak. Um thank you Mr. Chair. Um I think I'll start with addressing um the question you posed around uh the the two changes the around alternates and uh in particular for uh I think myself and the council president potentially the mayor as well. Is that what you were thinking? Uh okay. [clears throat] Um or yeah I think that's where I'll start. Um I personally would really benefit from that so I want to advocate for it and be transparent in that. I um you know we started our meeting late today in part because I I was the fourth member to be here and I was really late um and I think that our um that those alternates being limited to our vice chairs for the for the council president that's the council vice president for the budget chair that's the budget vice chair um is is a good thing and and can help ensure that the business here can continue and that has just not just an impact on uh the elected members of the Board of Estimate and Taxation but also on our our city staff in the clerk's office and the attorney's office uh often in the finance department and elsewhere that have to be here but the clerks and the attorneys uh regardless of what's on the agenda always have to be here and and that is um you know these are always evening meetings this is this is something that is a lift for them and and out of respect for um for the fact that they're working evenings to be here that our elected members are um have other jobs that you do that you're making time to be here. Um I I just want to I I want to be more respectful of that as a chronically late person to this committee in particular. Um I think um I I I'm supportive of that and think that would be a great addition. Um now to this broader question of um how does that relate to other changes that the charter commission is considering um and and the politics around that you know I think there's there's both uh from my perspective the the reality of like adding a seventh seventh member who is elected um and um and in particular given the history that uh uh President Brandt that you highlighted I didn't know about that that history of the library board. Um and that we we do have we've I have been a part of this body when we have taken um divided votes and those divided votes end up being 3-3 and and there isn't actually a logical conclusion that's not that doesn't that I don't think that's a good thing. Um I don't think that contributes to um a healthy balance here and and um and I think it's a good thing that more uh if if there's an increase in representation on this body that that comes from an additional elected member. Um As it relates to So from my perspective any of the changes that we're discussing here as it relates to the Board of Estimate and Taxation I would I would put under the the bucket of non-controversial. I understand that the perhaps the charter commission doesn't approach them that way but I think that the charter commission perhaps finds um my position on their proposed change which is I think every single director in the department whether it's the IT director or the HR director or the COO should all be appointed and should all go through council confirmation council consent. Um I know that's not a widely uh held perspective but I think it's it's beneficial to our local democracy and um I think we should care about our local democracy. Um so I I don't I I think you're correct in that the um the charter commission will perhaps see the addition of a seventh member as something that's controversial. I don't know that they'll find the name change as controversial. Um I I think that these uh proposed changes that you are um you are bringing to our attention and have in the past as well um should be a part of the conversation as we are um moving forward on potential changes to the city's charter. Okay. That I think is the piece I feel the most strongly about. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. Is there more discussion? Uh one practical issue is um presumably the technical amendments um which the name change might qualify for would be um assembled by the charter commission uh which tends not to do anything that we would like it to do. Uh so how do we get it past that obstacle? Um does the council have the power to put it on? I think council the way this works isn't the council council asked the charter commission to look at something and then the charter commission reports back but does this the council then have the power to um add things that the charter commission thought were not appropriate for one reason or another? And maybe uh our attorney could uh weigh in on that. If if um if the uh we bring forward something and the charter commission is asked to study it they don't like it um they recommend against it comes back to the council is the council then able to nevertheless [snorts] put it on as a charter amendment proposal. Commissioner Brent, I apologize. I don't know the charter amendment process off the top of my head, so I would have to look into that. >> Okay. All right. Um Another question I guess I have along same lines of practicality is is there a deadline coming up uh for things to be considered as charter amendments and does anybody know roughly what the timeline is for that? Because I think the charter does lay out I haven't looked at it recently, but does lay out some time periods that Yeah. Yes, Commissioner Chughtai. Yeah, um so this was discussed pretty recently um in like among uh the the city's um [clears throat] legislative department. So I while I'm going to attempt an answer and then in that time I I hope Mr. Hammer is like looking at the paths of changing the charter and will correct me, but uh there are two distinct paths for amending the charter. Uh one of those is is by ballot question um and that can be done through a citizen petition. Um that requires a certain threshold of uh voters in the previous election um to sign a um uh a thing when Petition. a petition and that's one way of amending the the charter. The second is by um by ordinance and and and the by ballot question path can be um can be um uh started by uh citizens signing a petition. It can be started by um uh the charter commission itself and if uh they propose uh something there's like a contest period in which any resident or any citizen of the city um it can uh can ask it can challenge that process and ask to have it put on the ballot for voters' consideration. Um it can be done by um I think those are the two ways it ends up on the ballot. And then um by ordinance it requires um the city council proposing the change that that again can be initiated that change or the concept of that change can be initiated by the charter commission, by the city council, by another elected body, whatever it takes um and it is um uh it requires a unanimous vote of the city council. So that's why only technical changes or things that are generally considered non-controversial um are considered for this process because it requires unanimous consent of the council and the signature of the mayor. Um so a 13-0 vote plus the signature of the mayor gets um gets a change to to the charter to be possible. It also includes some consent. I think the charter commission also has to approve that. Um so it's like charter commission, council, mayor all on the same page about something. Usually that means it's going to be non-controversial um or technical in nature um and the deadline that we're working on for this year uh if the the goal is for non-controversial changes to be approved, I think the charter commission needs to know um by like May-ish uh of this year because um we're working backwards from the timeline of the ballot question happening this year, which means that language for um a ballot question needs to be approved by the city council regardless of how a ballot question happens, the language of a ballot question is approved by the council. Um again consider uh with with is subject to the the signature or veto of the mayor. Um So there's like an August timeline. It's certain number of days before early voting starts. Um Mr. Hammer, are you ready? >> [laughter] >> I I will try. Uh Th- Through President Brent um that sounded basically right to me although I was although I was reading at the same time, so um Yes, so if you take this to the charter commission, you know, the charter commission can you know, decide to put it on the ballot or submit it to the city council for you know, if it's approved unanimously by the city council by well, I shouldn't even say unanimously. As you mentioned, it's a 13-0 vote, so there can't be any abstentions or people absent. Uh it can be just adopted that way. It looks like the deadline to go on the ballot is 17 weeks and the charter commission if it's if something is a we're probably running a little close cuz if the charter commission is um if the city adopts an ordinance by uh or a charter amendment proposal by ordinance, it still needs to be referred to the charter commission and they have up to 150 days to review that, at which point they will return it to the city they don't have to use the whole time, but they have that whole time at which point they can return to the city council. The city council will either use their original proposal, use a new proposal if one is proposed by the charter commission um and it and it'll move forward from there. So I think if everybody is using their fully allotted time, you know, I haven't counted out the dates on the calendar, but I would assume we're pretty close to um be being too late for that. But it I I think overall it was it was an accurate uh description. So Mr. Hammer, um the process you described involving let's say the non-petition route, the the city council um route, um obviously there's a charter commission review. Um Are there two and the and the charter commission can recommend what it will and then there will be a um uh decision by the city council whether to follow the charter commission's advice or whether to proceed further. Um say they it's not a um matter where a 13-0 vote would be um feasible. Uh Does the city council still have the power at that point to put it on the ballot? President Brent Yes, I believe you know, the the charter commission can either uh you know, just approve it as presented to them. They can reject it as presented to them or they can provide a separate uh the or they can provide alternative language that they would like to have be considered. Um At which point it's returned to the city council and the city council takes action and their action can be to just go with their original proposal. Um notwithstanding a substitute proposal maybe being presented by the charter commission. Thank you. That that gets around some of my concerns about going through the charter commission, but >> [snorts] >> um Maybe we could proceed now um I have a couple of thoughts. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Olson. Yeah, [clears throat] thanks. Apologies for being late. Session's a little crazy right now, but um you know, it it should probably give a couple of my thoughts. Um I will say you know, I understand I can you know, sympathize with wanting to you know, have an odd number of members. Um however, I do think with six we have a built-in need for a supermajority of of a vote. And so I do think that's important that may have been said already. Um I think that's an important consideration. Especially when we're talking about you know, the financial health of a city, you want to make sure um that the body is is pretty well in agreement there. >> [snorts] >> Um I will say you know, again adding you know, another person and you know, I I it was kind of delineated with you geographically. Again, I think it's important that we have folks who are elected and considering um the full outcome of the city and and I think if we reduce it to geographies we might see folks thinking geographically um or thinking about what's good for my neighborhood or my constituents. Whereas if it's at large I do certainly have uh you know, my quarrel with with at large uh in certain ways as far as how it's been used in the past for kind of um you know, to you know, undermine, overrepresent certain groups. That certainly is a thing we can you know, talk about, but what it does do with at large is that you are every person in the city is your constituent and and you are considering the financial health of the entire city. And I think that is a benefit that we have with the current system. I think quorum certainly a frustration um you know, perhaps you know, we we could consider some things where you know, quorum for votes is different for quorum to hold meetings and actually maybe conduct business and be able to talk and make get things on record. Um you know, perhaps uh you know, we could start you know, levying personal fines against people who are you know, tardy or have certain amount of you know, you know, I think we could maybe think of some other creative ways um just because I don't know. I I I I I do those are just my initial kind of gut reactions um and ensuring that we have representation that is cognizant that they are here for the whole city. I think it's important. um So, couple thoughts there. The technical name change side, I think that's all fine. I think you know, again for appointing alternates or designees I'd probably want to have something in there that limits it to just a a certain amount a year. Oh, yeah. Um you know, just so it's not something that's happening all the time. You know, voters elect folks, right? To to um to represent them. I mean, this is more in the case of the the board chairs designee than necessarily the councils, but um Yeah, those are just kind of my initial thoughts here. Mr. Bernstein. Thank you, President Brant. Um I'm going to echo a little bit um what Commissioner Olson said. I I haven't been on the um on the commission um long um and so you know, I'm speaking from limited experience, but I I don't think that the high um the supermajority requirement is necessarily a something that that would um bear a uh an amendment like this to the city's charter. I think that the the need to work together and to come to a strong consensus is is maybe uh a feature and not a bug. um Maybe I'll be uh regretting those words at sometime in the future, but uh I think there should be a strong consensus about our city's funding needs and what's an appropriate funding level and you know, um a guaranteed agreement on one side or the other is not necessarily going to lead to uh more healthier deliberations or a better outcome. Uh um I I also just think practically speaking the level of interest in this um illustrious office that we hold um might not bear for a competitive process um to find three candidates. I mean, we did have three this year and and I've looked in the past couple years there have been four in some cases five, but um you know, I think that there's a certain um realistically um there is there is potentially a challenge there with you know, you don't want to end up in a situation where anyone who wants to sit on the BET just, you know, registers and and walks on, so to speak. So, ensuring a competitive election I think ensures a certain quality of candidate who's going to have the energy and the wherewithal to go out into the community and make their case about why this is an important office, which I think it is. Um but I do appreciate I'll just say in closing um I appreciate the spirit of the uh amendments and thinking about how this body can better serve uh the residents of Minneapolis. Um I think that the deliberations that happen here are going to become more important in the decades ahead as um we face demographic changes, environmental challenges, um a whole slate of things that are going to make it difficult to fund the services that any city that and we especially need. Um and so I think thinking like you are thinking about ways to improve the body, to increase engagement, participation um and to ensure that we're endowed with the powers to carry out these duties, you know, to the best of our abilities. I think I I like the way you're thinking about that and I'm definitely open to continuing those conversations. I certainly think one of your proposals, which is written in this document as more of an addendum, is interesting is you know, we do have very limited authority on, you know, legal authority over setting the levy and approving bonding, but um you know, the ability to do that with all the information that we need, to request information, to set up studies or to request studies be done um of topics related to the levy and the tax base. I I would very much be interested in in those conversations. Um and then sorry, if I could ask a question How does it work to ask someone else a question? I I I haven't done that yet. You would just ask Can I ask Yield to a question through the chair? I have a question for Okay. I have a question for uh Commissioner Payne. Certainly. Could you just restate your perspective on the political environment and how I I think I followed what you were saying, but if you could just say that one more time cuz I certainly recognize there's very charged potential ballot questions on coming from the Charter Commission and then you were speaking to doing something less controversial as that's going on. If you could restate that, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. >> For sure. I'll try to break this down. Um >> [clears throat] >> there are a number of charter amendments that are largely non-controversial, technical in nature. Pretty broad consensus of support for that. Um and then there's a second bucket of charter amendments being contemplated right now around the appointment authority of City Council and would substantively change what our authority is within the structure of the charter. >> [snorts] >> Um At the beginning of the Charter Commission meeting, there was a discussion of taking those on as one topic of uh under the umbrella of streamlining the charter to align with the new government structure or nance. And the and they had some draft language for a question that essentially obfuscated the fact that they were changing the substantive powers of City Council under the auspices of a technical amendment. At least that's my That was my editorial view of it. Um and I had suggested in my public comment that there there seems to be a number of things that we could take on in the technical amendment arena through the the ordinance process, which would be a much more streamlined process that would require um the City Council having unanimous support in the signature of the mayor, but it wouldn't require going to the ballot because now layering your specific question on the politics of things uh I think that setting politics aside first the technical amendments should be a separate question from substantive amendments. I just think that's like a good governance thing, not a political thing. But then layering the politics of it if we had a technical amendment ballot question, a substantive powers change to City Council as a ballot question, a technical amendment around the name of BET as a ballot question and a substantive change to the number of seats on the BET as a ballot question I think that would be quite a bit of ballot question fatigue. And so we should think about of these various proposals, which ones might be able to be bucketed in as one non-controversial amendment that could be moved through ordinance and then which should be a ballot question. And then there's a separate question of a ballot question for this year. We should definitely avoid a ballot question next year cuz there's not an election, so we would have to have the cost, expense and the logistics of running an election just for a charter amendment. I would highly recommend against that. Um So, the So, the question would be which of these should go to the ballot and when as a substantive question. Thank you. Um I would just like to to address a little bit to Commissioner Olson's point about having the citywide um uh interests that Commissioner should have citywide interests as opposed to parochial interests of a particular district. Um I can see how that would be a concern for a uh park board where you're dealing with projects and you're voting on individual projects or a uh city council where various projects come forward in the in the capital program. Um but here we essentially are setting policy citywide. We're not picking and choosing among things that happen in various wards or various sections of the city. Um when we set the levy, we set the levy citywide. Um and um there can be times when there are different feelings about the proposed levy in different parts of the city. Um For example, there was a run of several years um after the um commercial values started falling where the Northside residential values were going up much more sharply than the rest of the city because that's where the housing values were relatively speaking. And so people there, I think the fourth and fifth wards one year were saw a median property tax increase just for the city portion of about 14% and so if I were representing that area of the city, I might have a different point of view on the mayor's proposed levy than if I were representing uh Longfellow or Whittier or whatever. Um and then the other issue is we do issue authorize the issuance of debt, but that debt comes through us as a package forwarded by the City Council and I know because uh Attorney Hammer has uh advised me in the past, we do not have the power to dip and choose in there and and uh take out or add projects. And um so again, it's a it's a citywide approval. That's just a a perspective to think about. Um if we've exhausted the discussion about Oh, Commissioner Payne. Um I think I should I I feel like the quiet part should be said out loud, which is that there there was a movement to abolish the BET. Uh and I think it's actually related to the quorum issue and let me explain that. Um one thing that I've learned in my time in office, especially since becoming president, like the thing that happens every time when I'm in community, people like, "I'm so sorry to bother you. I don't mean to take up your time." And I'm always trying to remind them like this is my job is to spend time with my community. Um and what I've learned is that we're we're not stretched for time. We have really important priorities and the things that are lower in our priority list, we don't have as much time for, right? So, it's just a a minor distinction. And I think what happens very frequently with the BET is that um we have really important business to do around September and I think that we don't have as much clarity about what business we are focused on throughout the year because and I think this actually and we have a kind of good generational makeup of the body right now uh because if you're old enough, you remember various forms of economic crisis when the work of this body would be so critically important around some of the hardest choices that a city has to make um when times are tough. Uh how much are we going to tax our constituencies? Um and I think that it's actually a reflection of better times economically that this this body feels a little bit more routine sometimes. Uh but I don't think that this body has as much taken up a much more independent agenda to really constrain the city as an institution. The body marginally makes amendments to a recommendation coming from the mayor. It doesn't necessarily independently make that amendment. It's more of a response to a mayor's recommendation. Um and and so I think that that the quorum issue is really about um how urgently the members of this body see this work. And I think that when the economy is strong it doesn't feel like the decision here is feeling as critical because it's in alignment with a body with a recommendation generally speaking. Um I think it's been actually very healthy for us to be an independent body from the city. Uh but with those cross-pollinations of being members of city council, you know, that my first year uh we actually increased the property tax levy on BET specifically to meet some of the needs of our park system uh which were not included in the mayor's recommended budget. But then we on city council actually lowered the levy through the budget amendment process. So, I knew at the time that we were making that uh motion on BET that there was I was already kind of identifying some areas where we could um offset some of those increases in the levy. So, I I I I like that separation and independence um but I think that now we are actually pivoting to s- like at at minimum extraordinarily uncertain economic times, right? Um at worst, maybe some really dire economic times. There's war in the Middle East again. Um very specific to Minneapolis, there's trying to recover from Metro Surge of which we still don't know the full economic fallout for that and what the impact on our tax base is going to be. And I think there's going to be some really important work and decisions that need to be made here. And this is going to be an a body that I think will receive that priority. Um as a result of the important decisions coming before us and I we already know a few of them. I've spoken with some of you about them. Um I say all that to say um I don't want to solve a quorum problem. Like if the if the solution if the problem is that people are not showing up, I don't think I don't know that necessarily the solution is expanding the membership. The solution might be what what's the agenda that we're building for this body that makes it a meeting you cannot miss. Right? Um because even today's agenda um I I'm a I'm a government nerd. I love this conversation, but this is not a conversation that necessarily is like an urgent conversation to the day-to-day delivery of city services. It's kind of a little bit more of a um philosophical and academic academic conversation, which I'm here for. Uh but um I think a solution to um making sure that people are prioritizing prioritizing this meeting is having a really strong agenda that makes this meeting be so important that you can't miss it. Um And not And not that I'm opposed to expanding the membership, but I actually share some of the sentiment that uh uh Vice President Bernstein shared that um you know it's hard enough to recruit people to run for any office and then it's harder still to run for some of these more obscure offices and um I I would hate for us to expand the number of seats and then not necessarily get the most competitive races out of that process. Um let alone you know there's probably never going to be a world where somebody doesn't at least fill out the paperwork, but I don't want to be in the world where somebody got the seat just because they filled out that paperwork. All right. Let's Oh, Commissioner Bernstein. Sorry, I just I really appreciated what Commissioner Payne said and I just wanted to add one thing on and I don't have an answer to this, but I'd like to say it on the record is that it I something I talk about in my work I I work on the state budget and and I run a coalition that's active on state budget challenges. Uh and you know, how can we have a state budget that meets our needs over the long run? And one thing I do when I start a presentation for that work is I put up a picture of a horizon and I talk about the work of our coalition as um thinking about the long term and that the work of fiscal policy being uh something that happens over the very long term. It's work of decades, not just years. And I think that in in the world I would like to work towards, that is uh that sort of sentiment is part of the discussions here at the BET. And so, the challenge that uh Commissioner Payne references is or that kind of brings up is that the mayor and the city council members are putting out fires every single day. Um we have residents that have no shelter, um that are in urgent need of medical care. We are about to you know, we're facing potential loss of the most important safety net hospital in the in the upper Midwest um here in our downtown. There's always stuff like that going on that is extremely urgent. Um and then this is a place where the business feels like it can wait. And in some senses it can and then in another sense it really can't because when those property tax increases hit this year or next year and our downtown tax base continues to struggle um or when we continue to try uh struggle to fund our you know, our infrastructure needs or other needs, um then all of the sudden we'd wish that we'd been working on a 10-year plan 10 years ago. Uh and so I I do think that there's more discussion to be had here about how can this be a body that really contributes to constructively resolving those challenges and thinking through our options as a city in the in the very long term. Um if it's to continue existing, I think it should be trying to help fulfill that role. Um and we should you know, work towards agendas that build towards it and maybe that has to do with more expert testimony or it has to do with um addressing specific questions, you know, um but I I just I really appreciate that you said that and so I just wanted to add that piece. And then one final thing just along those lines is you know, the the theory behind this body was that you've got um concurrent taxing districts. And you mentioned that the library used to be a part of it and the city and then also the park board. Um but obviously Minneapolis residents are also paying school property taxes and they're also paying county property taxes and then we have special taxing districts uh and we have the Met Council. Uh and so I you know, this would be a much longer term project and we would need to really talk about it over the long term, but is there a world where we have a board that consists of some of the members of those governing bodies as well so that we can really think about the property tax burden and the mix of services? Just the auditor's report that we got back earlier this week talks about how the city has a department of health, there's potential for a bigger thing. Now, that's like much more than we want to bite chew on today, but I just thought I'd throw that out there. Thank you. I would like to affirm for Commissioner Bernstein that his concept of a larger body with more representation um does have historical precedent. It was called the Board of Tax Tax the Board of Tax Levy, I believe. Uh and it existed in the 19th century and it existed up until the the authorizing legislation was passed in 1919 that created this board with its current almost current membership. So, uh it had representation from the school board, it had representation from the park board, it had representation from the county board. Um and um um I'm always saying we got to go back to the 19th century. All right. I'm I'm wondering if we should put this first one aside. Uh I've tried to focus on that one and talk a little bit about the issue of powers and whether we should carve out something that allows us to be more proactive in the area of um of undertaking studies through the formation of committees. And I know that power is exclusively uh reserved under the charter right now for the city council. Um and they were good with us on looking at alternative revenues but it would be nice to have the ability as a body to be more proactive and perhaps look at some of those long-term questions that through the use of either internal or external committees that commissioner um Commissioner Bernstein was just referencing and I wondered if anybody has any thoughts on I don't have specific wording it's something that you know it would have to be probably wordsmithed with attorney Hammer but do the people have any thoughts on that? Okay. Commissioner Payne um I I don't suppose anybody knows the answer to this question but what where did the estimate part of estimate and taxation come from because another thing that raised in that auditor's report was um the role of our assessor and how the county also has an assessor and I think it's been a topic of conversation about you know whether or not the city and the county should be consolidated into one assessor but I wonder if there's a history of like some of that assessing work happening in BET. Uh I don't believe Commissioner Payne I don't believe so. I believe that the origin of the name of the term estimate is that if you look well if you go way back to the early 1920s it sounds as though reading the legislative record and some of the newspaper coverage at the time and so on that the um the council which was at believe part-time at the time and had two council members per ward was fairly lackadaisical about budgeting and there was a sense by some of the for lack of a better term graybeards in the community that maybe that needed to be tightened up and so one of the things that was included in the first charter and I believe it arises somewhat in state law was a requirement that by X date uh each summer uh the department submit an estimate of their expenditures for the following year. Um we don't really get that in a pure form. It may have existed at one point but I think it is all rolled up into the mayor's budget and um so um we don't really dive into those estimates if you will spending requirements the way that a the council's budget committee does uh very deeply uh but that I think is the origin of the name and I don't think it has anything to do with assessing per se. So it was more of the estimate of the costs to deliver city services. >> Right. Yeah. Okay. All right. I don't hear a strong um I don't hear any strong support for this idea. Um uh Mr. Brown yeah. Yes Mr. >> A kind of continuation on that. Um cuz I would just I would want our powers to be really clear and what our scope and our agenda to be really clear and then to have our name reflect that um and I feel like the name presented here um presupposes a clarity of what our scope is but then also this uh question about powers leads me to believe there's maybe some more thought we could put into what a rational set of powers that we would want to advocate for beyond what we're doing right now which is pretty wrote approval of the mayor's lobby and then you know approving bonds when they come to us and there's often times very little divergence from what the administration proposes. Okay. All right. Well I'm getting the suggestion I think fairly strongly that the powers and the name section should be put aside maybe for some further strategizing about what sort of board we envision ourselves as and what what changes in the charter might be needed to accommodate that. Um I'd like to get a sense of the willingness of the board to proceed with the uh two items uh two or three items depending on how you look at it uh under size. Um I believe I heard Commissioner Payne speak in support of of adding the vices uh to the eligible members. I heard uh and Commissioner uh Chughtai uh and may do as well um and I think I heard support from majority of the board to go to seven members. Um I'm not sure I heard that same support for electing by districts but I'd like to I'd like to uh get a sense of the of the direction of the board on the size so that we can uh either proceed with asking the attorney to draft a resolution or drop the idea. Well so uh sorry Commissioner Commissioner Olson Um so I actually we do have a park board meeting tonight talking about our own budget so I am going to have to leave. I will say I'm not ready to support expanding the board by another member. Um I um yeah name I think and scope a little more work. Uh the vices um yeah I think I think I'm okay with that for now. Um so I think we can continue that conversation and move it forward. I mean all of you can continue the conversation. Um and uh yeah so I think that's where I am standing currently um and I will have to leave but before the municipal revenues discussion but I did want to say that I do I I quite like the real estate transfer idea. I like the uh income tax idea and I like the uh city assets uh idea as well. Those are if we're picking three to focus on those are ones I I particularly like with the real estate transfer one I think being one that I I [snorts] when I was watching it and and reading about it um that's one that I'm enthusiastic about but um all all all those three that I mentioned I I I'm into so um sorry I I can't stay for the the rest of that discussion but we're um uh we're going to be setting up a good park board budget so you you y'all will be able to support it quite unanimously unanimously I'm sure so um but yeah that's all right. And other stuff on the current thing that you want thoughts on? Okay. Thank you Commissioner Olson for getting giving us that input on alternative revenues. Um I think what I will do is ask the attorney Oh Commissioner Payne. Uh I would say my preference would be to see some resolution to these proposed changes to the charter that have such a strong impact on city council. Maybe that's very self-serving as the president of that body um but I wouldn't want to um create any complexity or confusion on BET amendments at the same time that these other substantive amendments are in flight. Uh and then I'm not saying I'm opposed to the seven to expanding the number of members but I what I'll say is I would my preference would be that we make this our agenda so powerful and meaningful that you don't want to miss a meeting as a resolution to this quorum issue um first uh but either way I think regardless of any topic or position on a topic I would recommend that um we at the soonest march towards like a 2028 timeline cuz I don't think rushing to get language on the ballot for this fall this body that well um given the outstanding questions that some members might have on some of these amendments. Uh Commissioner Payne do I interpret that as still supporting the vice addition? I I my personal position on this uh I'm not in opposition to it but I just believe you should show up to meetings so that's my position. >> [laughter] >> Um and is that a possibility for a technical amendment in your view? I would think that would not be particularly controversial but that would have to be a conversation. Okay. All right. I'll have a conversation later with the attorney and see what we can come up with in that area. And okay I see no further discussion on this item. We're missing our red red things today that's why I'm missing people when they want to comment. Um we'll move on to item seven which is a discussion of Guidehouse's alternative municipal revenue sources report. Um we received and filed that earlier. The reason I would like to get some guidance here is that um We just We have lost a quorum. We have. We have. Okay. I I believe Commissioner Chughtai is either using the facilities or just stepped out. I think I see her laptop there still so as long as the intention is for her to return then we haven't lost quorum we've just temporarily lost quorum so um no official business can be acted upon but you can still make discussion. Thank you. Um W- What I would like to The reason I bring this up is that Commissioner Palen and Commissioner Bernstein and I have received an invitation from Council Member uh Warsame to discuss uh further steps related to um where we go next with this discussion and maybe develop some kind of proposal. And I I'd like to get a little better sense of where the board is. Um I think I agree uh with Commissioner Olson on my top three. Um I went by two I was out about in the community today and I went by two city buildings that were sitting unused as real estate that could have been monetized. Um And so I'd like to see that done in a prudent way. And uh the income tax obviously has many unanswered questions, but it's our biggest potential for raising uh a significant amount of revenue. And the real estate transfer uh although it is limited in the amount of money it would raise, I think it it um is a relatively painless compared to some of the other taxes that are on the agenda and uh uh I'm interested. I think Commissioner Bernstein might have some other ideas about how we can monetize city assets, but those would be my top three. I I was sort of thinking about PILOT, but not sure the money is worth the pain. Um So uh does any other commissioner want to weigh in on their top? Commissioner Palen. Um I don't know that I got a top three. I'm also very much interested in uh inco- uh individual income tax. Uh but I would just suggest procedurally that we should draft up a resolution from this body and uh forward that to the um IGR committee at city for city council. Uh so that you know, I know a number of these require uh state law changes and I think that having a formal communication from BET to city council uh would be really beneficial to get that included in our formal lobbying efforts. And uh the question is what should that draft resolution give priority to? Commissioner Bernstein, do you have Commissioner Chughtai, do you have input here? Um Where to start? Um I think of the things that we discuss that that were highlighted by Gu- uh Guide Guidehouse, um I agree there's a certain appeal of the real estate transfer tax cuz we already have one. There's a small county one and the state one. If we could pass a citywide one, but I think to me I'm trying to think about uh benefit versus the cost {slash} likelihood. And the challenge that we face at the state level is very significant with any of these. And so a battle that could take years to get a real estate transfer tax that's not likely to raise more than say $10 million a year might not be worth the same amount of effort or similar amount of effort pursued towards, you know, another another set of fiscal powers that the city might try and acquire from the state. Um so that's one thought. Um I came in very skeptical about PILOT. Um but seeing the amount of revenue that they're raising in Boston, which granted is a different context, but um if you had the right concept of use around that money, if it was going into a trust fund of some sort rather than funding programs and you didn't need to necessarily rely on, you know, steady growth, but you could essentially take whatever you could get from those who are willing to pay, um I think that's pretty interesting because we don't need state approval to do that. And that is the only or one of two proposals or a couple Maybe there's a couple of these local special district taxes, but one of very few proposals of this list that we could do without state approval. So I think thinking about the cost of trying to and the likelihood of trying to receive state approval for some of these is very important um in from my point of view. Um And then I would say I remain skeptical about individual income taxes as nice as the idea is. Um we are a pretty small municipality um with very fast growing suburbs. Um and so you know, if we could do it at the county level, I think that's a lot more interesting. Hennepin County is 25% of the state and they have 50% of the households making over $500,000 a year. Uh that num- both those numbers are a lot smaller for Minneapolis. Um And uh and I'll just end by saying um Oh, sorry. You know, two things. Empty homes tax. Um that I don't know if folks were paying close attention, but there was like unanimous interest in vacancies, the problem that commercial and uh residential vacancies have in our communities, uh the challenges related with blight and then specifically not blight, nice storefronts that are just left open, comments on both of those things from different members of city council. So I think that bears a lot more scrutiny. What can we do current powers and what do we need to go to the state to get additional powers to do? And then um finally this asset monetization question, which I think is on there in part because I talked to a lot of people about it. Um uh it's a real interest of mine. It is something that they do very effectively in other countries. Um it would take a lot of work over many of many years with staff and electeds thinking through what this would look like, but we do own an enormous amount of land. We charge for utilities. We have all of these assets that do generate Actually, the the plurality of income for the city comes from charges and fees. Um and so are we doing that in the best way possible? Um and what are other options to generate revenue from non-tax sources? I think it's a very important discussion, but it's it's a longer-term discussion. Um so yeah, those were my thoughts. Commissioner Palen. Uh yeah, I'm I'm really interested in empty homes tax. Uh almost more so from uh housing policy perspective than a revenue generation perspective, but I think it accomplishes two things at the same time. Uh one thing that's not in the Guidehouse report, but is something I've been thinking a lot about is uh LGA reform. And I think that that like has to be something that needs to be on the table when we're talking about big hard fights that are worth taking on to secure this financial future of our city. >> [snorts] >> And the idea that I've had around LGA reform uh it is essentially to try again weaving in hou- housing policy. Um the LGA formula is uh got several weighted factors. Population is kind of the most simplistic way of thinking about it, but some of the other weighted factors are things like the number of housing units and the number of 1940s housing units. Uh and I think that that is really tied to infrastructure and the increased cost of infrastructure for maintaining older sewer pipes and so on. And I think that one of the big barriers right now for establishing good housing policy, especially outside of the city of Minneapolis because we were at the forefront with our 2040 plan and upzoning single-family residency, uh we saw bills at the legislature fail because they preempted housing policy at the municipal level, which was uh pretty heavily lobbied against by uh entities such as the League of Minnesota cities because you know, even us in the city of Minneapolis don't like being preempted by the state regardless of the topic. I think [snorts] that one way that we could address both ours, funding needs and try to establish better statewide policy and therefore get more bipartisan support would be advocating for uh amending the LGA formula to include a weighted factor for uh the adoption of upzoning housing policy or a model upzoning uh policy. Uh I actually was meeting with a constituent last week who was a former member of uh planning commission in one of our suburbs. And one of the things that was used as an argument against upzoning was the cost to maintain or modernize the infrastructure to take on that increased density. And so I think that this would both be an incentive to improve your hou- housing policy and off- offer some substantive funding to help offset whatever cost burdens you might have. And I know for our suburbs, especially our first-ring suburbs, they're getting to end of life cycle on a lot of their core infrastructure. Um many of the suburban municipalities, we've seen reports in BET, um they are running into a pretty significant debt crisis. Um they've basically since their founding been low-tax zones for a lot of the residents who choose to live in the suburbs. Um and that low-tax policy over generations is now leaving a lot of their core infrastructure um under-maintained and at end of life. And therefore, they're going to be hitting significant property tax levies and we'll see this um coming up. And we already see this with like much higher tax levies in surrounding suburbs than the amount that we've had to increase in the city of Minneapolis. And I think one way to offset that would be uh suggesting that you modernize your holly modernize your housing policy by including some upzoning and pair that with uh formula modification that allows to offset the costs of that. Thank you, Commissioner Payne. That's an interesting intriguing idea. Is um uh one thing I wonder is whether a legislature that wasn't allow willing to allow the preemption for upzoning um would move in that direction. It it inverts it from being a preemption to an incentive. Okay. Commissioner Uh thank you, Mr. President. Um to answer your question I think uh this body should um consider bringing uh or consider a resolution um as a follow-up to to the report and the joint meeting discussion that came out of there. Um And as it relates to some of the changes that were proposed or could be considered um you know, I I certainly think that uh changes to the LGA formula, which um had had such a significant impact on the city of Minneapolis and sent the city of Minneapolis into a um a deficit crisis um for for years um and a budget crisis for years was, you know, the the changing of the LGA formula by the Pawlenty administration. Uh similar things were done to the education funding formula, and to this day um children who go through our our public school system today um rece- or go to schools that have less funding um adjusted for for factors like inflation and um and and like >> [snorts] >> purchase power um today than than than prior to the Pawlenty era, right? So, there's there's these significant ways in which disinvestment in in public good uh was was advanced by the Pawlenty administration, and and to um to advocate for um for for rethinking those exact systems is is I think uh both principled and smart, and uh and and politically a thing we should be doing. Um I In that same vein, you know, something the city of Minneapolis has has advocated for in previous years um recently is is the expansion of the downtown sales tax boundary um to include the North Loop, which um which you know, uh isn't currently and and isn't subject to the same um downtown uh liquor tax um and and there are there's just a lot of um money left on the table there that that could otherwise be uh be used for um investing in um in economic development in our city. Um I think in addition to that, of the things that were included in the Guidehouse report that that I am most interested in, I think um similar to other sentiments that have been brought up here, you know, uh from a valley's perspective, I'm I am most interested in a local option sales tax. I understand that that uh that comes with such a uh a strenuous lift uh um at an intergovernmental level with um with the requirement of state approval and and a lack of consensus there that uh perhaps I I you know, I don't I don't have a lot of um faith [snorts] or or I don't I I don't have a lot of optimism, that's the better word. Um that this is something that's going to be successful, but I I think that at the the the state's largest city advocating for such a thing could lead to um the the state um using you know, considering adding um aspects of taxing income and wealth that uh whether we see that revenue in a direct way or not is beneficial and is a step in the right direction in how we think about public goods, whose responsibility it is to contribute towards them, and whether that should be done in equitable manner or not, because currently it is not. And I'm of the belief that it should be. Um I think that's a belief that's shared pretty widely on this dais. So um I think there's a benefit in advocating for a local option income tax uh not because I think it's going to be fruitful, but because I think it could be fruitful in a uh it it like in a trickle-down sort of way, I suppose, where uh you know, and I hate that term, I really do. I [laughter] really do. Um but something for us to consider. Um the the form or the to contribute to the conversation around the empty homes tax, I think that's that that I would expand from my perspective to include all like vacant development, all all uh parcels of land that have some form of development on them, as in aren't just like an empty piece of land. Um so, that's that's looking at vacant homes and residential property, and vacant commercial property. Um and I think that's that's as close as we get to a land value tax. I think that is uh something that also then incentivizes um development. I think it incentivizes, you know, just not sitting on land, and and is a way of fighting land speculation, and I think that's important and and something worthy of consideration. Um and then the second um thing to come out of the Guidehouse report that I am most interested in pursuing is is the payment in lieu of taxes pilots. Um I attended a local progress uh conference, which is uh local governments all around the country um and people who consider themselves um progressive um who are interested in local progressive policy making that convene on a annual basis, and then there's, you know, other other ways that that that group of people gets together over the course of a year um to talk about local um progressive policy making. Um they they had a um a session or a seminar on um local tax policy, where payments in lieu of taxes were were discussed in great detail. Um and I think I am uh something I'm looking forward to doing is bringing forward some uh follow-up um legislative items for the city council to consider. I I would hope that's something that the this body would be in um uh would be excited about or supportive of. But just really looking at in Minneapolis, then what does it look like for us to um to pair uh non non-taxable uh or non-current or or tax-exempt uh parcels of land and who owners are, and really looking at uh education institutions like the University of Minnesota, um hospital hospitals or medical institutions that are privately owned like um like Allina and HealthPartners and more um who uh who are currently uh not paying property taxes, but reaping the benefits of uh of uh local uh goods and services that that property taxes do pay for. Um and um and using that as a mechanism to to in increase um local revenue. So, I I think um you know, really really approaching this as as the chair of the budget committee, I am most interested in payment in lieu of taxes um as as a place where I want to do further work, um and believe, to summarize, that I think the the city of Minneapolis' position should be to continue advocating for LGA formula reform, to advocate for the expansion of the downtown tax boundary, to advocate for a local option income tax or an increase to income taxes broadly um and um that uh that something that's worthy of further exploration or consideration is is around vacancy and land value. Thank you, Commissioner. Um I will note that there are possibilities um for coalition with St. Paul on the pilot issue. They took a long look at it a number of years ago and didn't proceed, but uh recently I was at a spoke to a meeting of uh downtown well, people sort of outgrowths of the St. Paul strong folks uh who took a look at city finances, and uh they uh expressed an interest in reviving that, and uh so, that offers fruit for the city of Minneapolis to build a coalition. Uh is there any further discussion on this item? Commissioner Bernstein. Yeah, just as we're thinking about a potential resolution sent to the IGR committee um not on this list but um a bill that I think is really important that I believe the city has officially gotten behind in the last couple of years is um uh fee reform, uh fee flexibility. Um so right now the city is very limited in what fees it can charge for different services and so for things like parking, the laws I more or less understand it is um that you can only charge a fee commensurate with the cost of providing the service itself. So if it's parking, then it's the cost of our parking operations and our parking spaces. Um and I think I I am curious about how we interpret direct cost cuz there's you know, there's overhead and there's all sorts of things involved with the cost of any program, but the legislation that was um supported in previous years um allowed for the city to factor in things like you know, broader social cost, environmental cost, things like that and I think that you know, any institution needs to be able to you know, set to charge for the things that it provides in a way that covers the you know, full gamut of its expenditures and certainly a city needs to do so and so I think that just emphasizing something that's already I believe on the government relation relations teams uh agenda I think is an important uh thing here so the city can have the flexibility it needs to uh you know, create a strong budget or make our budget stronger. Thanks. Just to add a little bit of momentum to the idea of um asset monetization, I called up a piece of property that was originally obtained by the city um for the uh purpose of redeveloping um the projects as they were then called um into Heritage Park and it's still sitting vacant after 20 years of not being developed. So, uh continue on uh to item eight. Our new business is receiving projects from the city council for which the Board of Estimate will consider approving the issuance of tax-exempt general obligation bonds. These projects are available in your packet. Are there any questions? Okay. >> [snorts] >> Uh seeing no further discussion, I'll ask the clerk to receive and file. Do any Does anybody have any announcements before we end? All right. Uh if we've cleared all business to come before us without objection, we're adjourned.