meeting of the board of estimate and taxation for uh June 24th, 2026. My name is Steve Brandt and I am the president to the board. Before we begin the meeting, I will ask the clerk to uh read a reminder to participants in the
meeting about diction. 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 realtime 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. Thank you. Uh let this time I'll ask the clerk to call the role so we can verify the presence of a quorum. >> Member Chuck Tai is absent. Fry is
absent. Olen >> here. >> Payne >> present. >> Vice President Bernstein >> present. President Brandt >> present. >> There are four members present. >> All right. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. I will now offer an
acknowledgement that we meet today on land that has been under the ownership of the Dakota and Anishab peoples historically and we acknowledge the trauma that accompanied their dispossession of that land. We also
acknowledge that they are their descendants are here among us today. We'll now proceed to the agenda, a copy of which was posted for public access to the city's legislative management information system, which is available at lims
minneapolis.gov. Uh board members, the agenda for today's meeting be is before us. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda with the exception that we move item 10 ahead of the BET staff review. so that we can
conclude 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 those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the agenda is adopted. Now we will uh vote on the acceptance of minutes from the June 10th regular meeting. May I 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 are accepted as presented. Uh item number four is public comment. Uh the board receives public comment on
items on its agenda at each meeting where people sign up to appear. Uh we do not have anyone signed up as my understanding today to uh comment on any items on today's agenda. So we will pass
on to item five. Uh and that is the discussion of the BE 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 from Commissioner Chuck's office saying that she had um no changes and that she 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 the commissioners or um if you would prefer I can certainly go stand up at the podium and share a copy of that work plan so that you guys can look at it while 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 the amended work plan. You've seen a couple different iterations of this. Like I
said, we got limited feedback on it, but I did make some updates. I did group um the BET work plan into three main categories. That would be BET governance, BET management and oper operations and then the budget and fiscal policy. So today um I think the
the best thing if I may suggest is that the 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 any changes to the work plan for it to be adopted. There are some other resolutions 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 or the 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 can certainly do that part today. So I know this is a little bit more of a
conversation between you all, but I am certainly here to help facilitate. Can I answer any questions before you get started? >> I I'll go ahead. I don't think uh other members of the board have access to what I sent to you concerning a couple areas
where I'd like to see some research and I don't know if you see that as something that would be part of what you're presenting to us or something that would be subsidiary to that that we would bring in later but I suggested two areas and I'll just summarize them. One
is cooperating with the city council and the LRO's investigation of uh alternative revenues, providing some research capacity to evaluate the potential impacts of a possible municipal income tax even though we
certainly have not settled on that as a as 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 the cities that have adopted a standalone [snorts]
um income tax on potential tax flight. What's their experience been revenue generation impact on high bracket residential real estate markets? [snorts] uh in research that tax rates and income thresholds if the tax isn't universally
applied for various cities employing a standalone central city only income tax [snorts] and the impact of the income tax for these cities on a number of residents on the number of residents of of high income who remain in the city as
measured by a census data um and using non-income tax cities in the same region as controls and uh real estate market trends for high bracket homes in these cities and adjoining suburbs that are not 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 uh follows up on the work that you did uh last year concerning geo debt load for pure cities. And we asked you to and you
did um separate sort of true geo debt load from u re more revenue type uh bonds with a geo backup that is likely not to be used. Uh I'd like to go a little deeper because we found through
that research the Minneapolis debt load is uh considerably less than a number of our peer cities certainly than the median and uh we could look at for example the aortionment by city between regular go enterprise type go with a
enterprise bonds with a geo backup assessment bonding assessment [snorts] policies. Uh, are some peer cities assessing for a greater share of the cost of street improvements in Minneapolis? Does Minneapolis show a lower debt load because it uses more of a pay of you go as you go approach or
has a different philosophy for structuring its debt? U, the examination could also look at how pure cities finance their capital programs. Uh, for example, do we some cities use a street assessment of the sort that St. Paul
used before it was ruled u not legal. Um that assessed you each year regardless of whether your street was improved. U and is Minneapolis getting uh for example a greater share of street assistance from the state for than other
peer cities uh in other states. And my ultimate goal is to see whether Minneapolis is underinvesting in its capital assets or whether there are other logical factors that explain why our debt load is smaller. Um, and this
could 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 with you that that falls into the partnership with LRO and the budget development and research. Um, I think that you are
completely correct. Initiative number five that would fall under. Now, initiative number five says to provide staff resources for LRO projects to be assigned. It doesn't call out specifically 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 now incorporated into has a whole fleet of staff. And so it's actually very helpful for when you make those requests, when the board makes those requests to LRO, similar to how city council committees
make those requests for staff directions that they can assign it to me or if one of my co-workers over there happens to have um some special knowledge as to something specifically you're asking about or maybe the impacts on residents, something like that, it can be dealt with as an LRO project. Just to give you
a little bit of um eyes on what I'm doing right now. There was a staff direction that came out of city council to explore pilot that's payment in lie of taxes and I have not formally been assigned that but I've been taking a very hard look at it because I kind of figured you guys would be interested in it. So I would say that those are
absolutely worthwhile research projects that I think the board could vote on to have submitted to LRO as assignments later on. I would say that that fits perfectly into the work plan as is and shouldn't um shouldn't hold up you guys adopting 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 the work plan u generally as is and accomplish research tasks like this through a staff direction. >> The way it's the way it's written right now is that one of our main initiatives here at the board if we adopt this work
plan will be to continue our partnership with LRO. Um and then specifically that falls in if you if you look on page two that specifically falls into budget development 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 if
hypothetically that did not have support from the board maybe it gets tweaked maybe it's different maybe another research topic entirely comes through. I don't think this work plan dictates what those research topics are. It just gives you guys the bandwidth to vote on research projects later. It just outlines 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 or something like that with some thoughts on it. So, maybe it was some previous step or something. So, >> sure.
>> But the only, you know, I think I'm I'm good with most of it, but frankly, I I think I could honestly do without initiative number three, increasing opportunities for public participation. And the reason for that is well one you know as you know in my day job I do
communications I just know maintaining all this stuff is a lot of effort and you know we have limited resources here and you know kind some of the discussions we're having around where the city is at right now I find you know research around revenue working with city council to develop new revenue
streams I just think those priorities are so important that we should focus on those. I also think that, you know, this stuff is really quite complicated. Um, and, you know, spending effort to bring in, you know, constituents or residents
of Minneapolis. For me, I I I just I I don't see the value in it as opposed to, you know, policydriven issue areas where, you know, it's kind of affecting folks's day-to-day lives. Now, certainly taxes 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 going to 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't see increasing public participation is is is a cornerstone of what we should be prioritizing. So, you know, I'm fine with the work plan if it goes through what that is. I would just say, you know, put that one kind of on the bottom
of the priority list. I would also be happy if other commissioners kind of agree with me that, you know, it's um we should be focusing on these other things and and maybe not put time and resources towards this. Um, you know, I'd be happy
to just amend, take that out, and then move forward with the work plan otherwise as is. Um, so those are some initial thoughts that I had around that and >> you know I think um, yeah, that's how I feel. >> Commissioner Bernstein,
>> thank you for this, Miss Gerling. Um, I just a couple of just kind of ch like more higher level structural questions about what we're looking at and making sure I'm on the same page. First thing is the link I'm seeing in the agenda posted for today seems different. I've got a BET draft work plan document that
was linked online and that has the four strategic objectives and then this version that I have a print out of has this different layout with the five initiatives. Can you just explain the Absolutely. Thank you. >> The one that's originally linked was the one that was originally presented to you
several weeks ago at the first BET meeting. Since that time, I received feedback from some of you and that was incorporated into the updated living document draft that you have in front of you. You should have just received a physical copy from the clerk and I also have it displayed here on the screen. Got it. >> The substance, if you will, hasn't
necessarily changed. It's just bucketed in a way that I think is a little bit easier to understand and what our overall priorities are. Um, and Commissioner Olsen, I can certainly respond if you if you guys are open to me doing so. Otherwise, I will let you continue your discussion.
>> If I could just quickly ask a couple just similarly structural level questions about Okay. Do you consider these prioritized uh 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 what
I'm going to tackle first. I think that they're grouped together based on the BET is an organization that's kind of self-managed and we have different priorities. As you know, with our budget, there's a busy time with the budget and then there's a slow time. And naturally, some of these priorities are
going to happen when we're not in budget season. Um, so a lot more of the research, a lot more of the partnering partnering with LRO, I can tell you that's very busy right now. As soon as I get guidance from the BET and they accept a work plan or they give me some kind of work direction, there's work I can pick up today as far as supporting
budget research and development. When I have things on here like BET management, operations, BET governance, governance, excuse me, that's not necessarily something that we're going to prioritize over the heavy budget research portions of this job. They're just things that I'm doing in the background. And frankly, I've I've been doing since I've
been here. This is just showing and enumerating what our goals are as a body over 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 has probably been said but what time frame are we thinking about for this work
plan? Like is this a permanent governing document until we decide to change it or do you envision that some of these things will roll off and we will have a you 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. This doesn't lock you into anything. The BET is the governing body. So you can throw this out at your next meeting. The reason I'm suggesting this is somewhat to to mirror first of all what the city council committees are doing with figuring out what are going to be their
term long goals. What what's what are they what are they going to have staff resources allocated to to pursue as priorities? That's what we're doing here. We're saying these are the BET's responsibilities. This is our scope, however limited it is, and this is what we would like to do over the course of
this term and pursue. It doesn't necessarily 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 all of these BET meetings. >> Got it. That's super helpful. Um I have some substantive comments, but I'll
pause there if we want to continue the conversation about what Commissioner Olsson brought up or if anyone else has anything. >> Yeah. >> Oh, sure. Absolutely. Um Commissioner Olsson through President Band. Um I completely understand and we can certainly remove that from the work plan if you would like. I would say that BET
management and operations as a pillar I think 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're statutoily required to have does involve me working with city communications to
involve and notify the general public of our meeting. So to some level that work still 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 and the BET position, the BET staffer, me, is not necessarily interfacing with other city departments as well as it could. And that communication framework should really be worked on. I have fantastic co-workers over in finance and over in the clerk's office, but this is
a position that sat vacant for a really long time. So a lot of administrative duties and jobs kind of they moved around this position because it was vacant. So I think taking some time to really strengthen those communication fra frameworks, make sure that we're being respectful, not duplicating work,
and that we're being as effective as possible is really worthwhile. Maybe it's not the first priority ahead of any research project, but I think it's something that should be enumerated on the 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 social
media presence you know that to me I I I that doesn't seem like a a priority um you know sharing hearing information with private media you know partners sending releases or whatever and things like that and including print outlets local news all that I just you know I I
get the inner city stuff I get the doing the you know what we need to do for statutoily requiring it but um you know those other things seem to me superolous was um you know certainly admirable but I 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 if that uh the sharing hearing information with private media partners is you know required um but I would almost just be fine of you know maybe taking out the
second two bullet points of initiative 3 um you know if folks share some of my feelings. If not you know I'll live with it. I and I think it's a good work plan otherwise. So, >> I'm going to try and intercede if you don't mind.
>> Yeah, please. >> Uh, >> President Brandt. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, with your indulgence, uh, if I can maybe help a little bit. Uh, we worked with Miss Kaiderling to put this together and the comments I'm hearing are are sort of around if you can scroll
back to the buckets. What we tried to do was work with Christina to take the powers and authorities of the BET and her actual job description and bucket those into the biggest categories that will last. So that's why you see governance of this body, its management and operations and then her core focus
which is also with LRO budget and fiscal policy. I think all of the projects you've identified fall within those buckets. I hear Commissioner Olsen raising the point about having things um sort of enumerated. I think what we were doing is just saying 1 2 3 4 5 but it could easily be one initiative number
two uh could become the continue the partnership with council on alternative revenues you could reorder I think the fifth one should probably be three if you're talking about core functions right so one could stay one two five could become three I think the one be above it which is strengthening communications frameworks if I would
offer an alternative I think it should be strengthening enterprise coordination that's really what she's talking about is enterprise internal coordination across the different departments she works with and maybe make the increase opportunities for public participation a fifth one. I would say as a governing body that has authority that affects
taxpayers is something she needs to communicate. The specific bullets are less important I think from a a day-to-day operational point. These are just examples of the types of things she would do within that initiative. But I think if it's helpful to reorder those so that the priority order reflects the
impact as I heard you say with tax and fiscal 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 that the body could give her to do that fit within these big three buckets of her
job. If that helps to sort of clarify what this work plan is intended to do because uh Miss Kaiderling and I share a position we both are appointed by and report to elected bodies. We don't report to the individuals, report to the bodies. So having this work plan allows each of you to give her work that fits
within the scopes of that work where she's faithfully responsive to a body and not to an individual. >> Commissioner Bernstein mayor. >> Uh Mr. Chair, uh thank you. the um the third bucket of the three budget and
fiscal policy. Um it it talks about partnering with LRO around budget development and research support. What exactly does that look like? What what projects are we working on there? >> Yeah, absolutely sir. Um we can speak to that a little bit more. As you probably know with the BET did partner to look into alternative revenues. There
[clears throat] is a current staff request through the city council to explore one of those alternative revenues. that would be probably a natural um assignment for me if you were to adopt this work plan. I am administratively housed currently in LRO. I would like to provide them some fiscal support because number one, they
don't necessarily have that built out into their organization yet and I have those skills. So, it's kind of a natural marriage especially because they're already housing me administratively. So, I can tell you that the um alternative revenues would certainly be the first one that the BET has already partnered with city council on previously. And
then the other research priorities would be similar to what President Brandt just said, he would like to look into, for example, an income tax. The ideally what this body would do is similar to what city council committees would do. They would take a vote and if there's an affirmative vote that yes, you want to investigate that priority, it would then
be sent to LRO as a staff direction to investigate XYZ, whatever it was that this body deemed they wanted investigated. So the first item where it says BET governance, it says partner with city council and mayor's office around
alternative revenues. That's the alternative revenues piece and I fully agree with it. I voted for that. I support that. What I expressed when we talked about the initiation of this position
uh was uh to make sure that we continued the independence of the board and the position if we're going to have it. It's something that the park board expressed repeatedly. It's something that I honestly resisted because I thought that there should be a link directly. I
thought that we didn't need portions of the position and that finance 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. You lose that independence if you're then embedded
with an organization at the city and specifically on the council. uh and if the embedding is both legislative research and oversight that is taking a subdivision of a subdivision of the board.
In other words, you know, the the board is consistent of three different entities. Uh it's the the BE members, the park board members, and the city members. And then within a subdivision of the city is the legislative research and oversight part. And so if we're going 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 raising and I think it's worth discussing. I guess I had a question related to that though, which might help clarify, which is I was So, can we get that? I don't
know where to find that the little guy with the the what we were just referring to 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 revenues under BET governance and then as budget and fiscal policy separately this partner with the LRO on other research questions. Right. That that Yeah. Can you speak to that? >> Okay.
>> Do you want Andrew to do that? >> Actually, that'd be wonderful. We have the director of LRO here. Um, I would be lac remiss if I didn't have him share his vision with you as well. >> All right. All right. Uh my name is Andrew Hawkins.
I'm the director of the legislative research and oversight division. I'm happy to speak to you all today. Um with regard to um again like what it looks like the partnering um piece again I can go back to the legislative um or sorry the uh municipal revenue one that came through BET and then subsequently and also went through council where there
was a collaborative effort. Um the one thing I think I do want um make sure I do clarify is that again recognizing that this position reports directly to the BET um and is administratively housed within our shop. Um kind of what that 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 that are made, uh, to Miss Keterling in her capacity for the BET, uh, that come from BET, 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 be
responsive to the BET. In the event that there is any additional capacity or there are any things where both the city council and the BET have both made a motion um collaboratively as with municipal revenues um it's something where if we have the opportunity to uh partner with the BET and to leverage Miss Keterling um like for that purpose
we'd like to um since again if it's a resource and we have capacity and it's serving the interests of the BET um like we'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 to city council and not this board um like
to legislative research and oversight um those just being assigned haphazardly to Miss Keterling would be out of order um since that's obviously taking away a resource that belongs uh like to this body. So again, the partnership what that looks like is it's it's only where there is agreement on the usage of Miss Keterling and there's alignment of um
again what the bodies would like to collectively explore. However, just again, um, like willy-nilly assigning stuff that has never gone through the purview 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 we necessarily intend to do um, absent a
more substantial discussion with this body. >> Sure. Yeah. So what would be an example of something where there would be partnership and work would be done by BET staff on LRO work? >> Uh again, I think the municipal revenue
one is a good one that just came through. Uh >> yeah, that we're we're in agreement. We all 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 the administration, that's the city council, all of us saying work together. It's not just 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 we do I mean absent it being something where it's explicitly stated that you know we don't care about what the city's doing. We just want to know what's out there like we're very deliberate about how we do engage with the administration and um your staff and city departments.
Uh that's an extremely critical part of our 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 um we've worked um quite a bit with our budget team. I know we still need to meet u like new budget staff. We had to bump that one today because of this meeting. Um but that's an area where
we're still trying to figure out exactly where um there's an opportunity for us to support that um as well once uh once again mayor you um like gives our budget address um and that budget goes over to the legislative side and the council um kind of where we can provide support um without again wanting to duplicate services that our budget office provides
to the council. And so some of that can be looking into again if there's um any requests um budget budget items uh budget proposals obviously in any time that we're going to have a period where there might be reductions or they need to have some you know substanti substantive discussions um we can look at again like what have other cities
done what's this program look like you know what's the opportunity cost of you know cutting X versus cutting you know like a different you know a different proposed source um like those are all discussions that happen and again absent like resources historically you know the the manner in which they get kind of figured out like behind the scenes has
varied significantly. So we want to provide as much support as we can to standardize that process and to work with the city's budget team. Um so where I think there's an opportunity to be able to again um as long as the board is um on board with it recognizing the BET scope and the scope of LRO, ours is much
more broad. Um and so being able to have Miss Keterling as part of some of those conversations um like could be helpful in the sense that again from the BET point standpoint of setting the levy and looking at the budget um if you know the information that she's going to have access to through those avenues let's say there's 10 total pages she's going
to get two because that's with that's within your scope that's what it is. However, if she's able to leverage those, again, they're very transferable skills um to support like the work that we're doing looking at um again larger scope of of items instead of seeing two pages, she you know, she gets to understand better understand 10. It's
like although the additional eight pages might not necessarily come back and inform the BET directly, like those eight pages of context are extremely helpful with understanding the two. Um, and so like our idea is that it would bolster her ability to support this body because she'd have a better understanding of all of the different, you know, kind of budgetary
conversations that take place behind the scenes. >> So that suggests coordination with one body, which is LRO. Um, I mean, it literally 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's there's like four different jurisdictions that are involved here in a sense and all of them have needs in terms of coordinating their work with the BET process. So to just choose one
of them to bolster their work isn't fair. Um so uh through the uh President Brandt uh Commissioner Fry um I think what might be helpful for this again like I think we've talked about there I know there's another item that talks about enterprise collaboration which again
sort of implies it also just understanding our operations manual and the degree to which we're deliberate about 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 to add in language that um again around like budget development and everything
that it would be with LRO, it would be with finance, it would be with the mayor's office um since those would all be partners that I think would be part of this process anyways and parkboard. Sorry, I I like didn't mean to leave anybody out. [snorts] >> Yes. And so, yeah, my my ask here is
that then you can't have then independent directives given by any one of those entities. Finance can't direct you. I can't direct you. the LRO the LRO team can't direct. Um the parkboard can't direct. I mean if this isn't I mean again the the the point that was made and made fairly again I disagreed
with port part of it but the the whole point that was made that we argued about for years was the importance of the independence of this position and this board. Uh it was a point that all of the BET specific commissioners made as well as the park board commissioner. I disagreed
with that and lost that vote, you know, but the whole point was the importance of independence. Now that we then have the position, I don't want to sacrifice the independence that was garnered from the beginning. >> Commissioner Bernstein.
>> Yeah, I'm I think I I I Yeah, I think I agree with uh Commissioner Fry. Um I don't it I guess you know the word fair was used I would say actually just disadvantageous um like to me a really important and
valuable thing about the position is the in you know the independence and the consideration of the three or four perspectives here. Um so from that so from that standpoint I I I agree. I think like we're we're losing, you know,
um effectiveness if we're not coordinating with finance, if we're not coordinating with the park board and and then we're not serving the true purpose of the board, which is to consider all these perspectives and what is the fiscal path forward. But I guess the only thing is structurally I don't quite know what
difference that would make. I understand you're housed at LRO from like an HR sort of um you know uh yeah from a standpoint of the um you know the ORC chart. Um but then the question comes down to like who are you
working with when you know when there's a task assigned and whose perspectives are you incorporating and what resources are you drawing on and I don't think there's anything the way this is written to prevent you from doing that but perhaps it sort of suggests more of a
housing within you know working more exclusively within the LRO which yeah I mean I agree like that would you know it would be a shame to not also incorporate parkboard perspective um finance perspective as well, but it doesn't seem I don't currently see why that wouldn't
be allowable. It's maybe just sort of a norm. Am I Does that make sense? Am I mistaken? >> Um Vice uh Vice President Bernstein, yeah, I can certainly speak to that. One of the foremost things that LRO is designed
to protect is independence, but it's also being extremely extremely transparent about every single thing that we're doing and the source of every single thing that we're doing. That's why we maintain again an online database that shows every single you know if we're looking at something it's tied back to this council you know staff direction that received on this date it's going to come back at this date and
so I think that we want to be able to do um the same thing with you all and with Miss um Keterling like um additionally again they're not here to speak to it today but I'm happy to give the contact information for all of my staff in LRO um and you feel feel free to ask them not once that to the best of my knowledge um have I ever editorialized
their ability to interact with anybody um that they determine who's necessary to talk to um in the you know, in the case of budget and finance, it would be absolutely categorically insane to not talk to budget and finance. Um, so I don't see that being anything that would would be a problem, but again, I think as we kind of go, this is one of those
where it's a new area. Um, like as you know, as is this position. So, I think as we go forward and kind of figure out exactly what it looks like, it will be critical to report back to this body and kind of out, you know, lay out like here's what we, you know, we think we might want to do if the body believes that this will be advantageous to the operation of the BET and ensure that
everybody's in agreement before we advance on anything. Commissioner Payne has a question. >> Uh thank you, President Brent. Actually, more a comment. Uh last year we had a pretty robust conversation about how uh to best support the work of BET and we
recognized that there was a need for this administrative support and we codified that through resolution number 2025R-349 that uh specified the parameters on how um LRO was going to be working in
collaboration with the BET secretary. So that was something that we formally adopted last year. That should clarify some of this conversation. >> President Brandt, do you mind if I give just a little bit of historical background as well? >> Um if I could just interject. Um
>> I um do not go as far as Commissioner Olsen, I think, in uh downplaying the communication aspect of the proposed work plan. I I would I would rate it the least of the functions, but I um I see a
need for it because I would like to see, frankly, both people who uh support the mayor's proposed levy and would like to see it augmented and people who disagree with the mayor's proposed levy and would like to see it uh uh diminished uh show
up at our meetings. and um our efforts in that regard in the past have not uh have not been fruitful and so any fresh ideas that can be brought to that I would appreciate. It's [snorts] the first and probably the most effective point in the budget in the levy setting
process by the time the council holds its public hearing um late in the process um things are pretty much set uh unless things have changed since I was covering the council. uh proceed. >> Uh yes sir. Um so just to provide a
little bit of historical context and what my experience has been since joining the BET. Um when I joined the BET, I received basically a word document with different ideas for things I could do with my time. Um Mayor Fry, I
believe at that time that you said that some 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 here working with the city attorney's office, they said that you know actually several of those bullet points are out of scope
for the BET. So then the remaining port of that document that I had, half of that got taken away. So essentially I was left with maybe two bullet points of requests from this board for a year's worth of work. And while I realize that I might be walking myself off a cliff
here and making it sound like I'm not important and that you can do without me, I believe in public service and I believe in being efficient and that is what I am trying to do here. I am trying to provide as much to the enterprise as I possibly can because as much as I support the BET, if you look at the percentage of our meetings that were
canceled last year, there were a good number that we didn't have BET meetings. So I completely understand what you were saying. I can take this work plan back and I can you know the things that can maybe came ac across as inflammatory I apologize for and I can work on but this is coming from a place of I have been
scoped into very little job and I am trying to make myself as efficient and as a and as much of a team player for this organization as possible. So please take this as a an attempt to be highly efficient and to support the organization. was not meant
to be um punitive and lift up certain bodies over other bodies. >> Any further Commissioner Fry? >> Yeah, sorry, >> Mr. Chair. No, nothing inflammatory about what you've said or done to be very clear and nothing punitive. Um simply a concern that this body has
raised in the past about independence and not wanting uh any infraction to that independence that we've discussed as being of of paramount importance. And so, you know, I I I the way I see it is is you you are doing right to try to
make your time as well as possible, your right to try to find additional work that can be done. The ask that I've had have is that while you're um is that that third that third piece um I mean if
we're going to look at work that is done um it should not be limited to one entity uh and it should there shouldn't be any directives that are coming down from any one of those entities. So in other words, the coordination should happen
with all but the directives should not come from one. If the directives are coming from one of those entities are going to run into a problem. Uh and and and so that's where I see this being problematic. Um
and you know a good way of avoiding that that 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 that
certainly makes sense. I mean we would not want you know the park board specifically you know asking you to do things. Um, but you know, I I think kind of what it seems like, what I'm hearing is that is that, you know, this board needs to do a better job of assigning
tasks that are substantive and important and, you know, directing the coordination. I mean, and I don't see anything in here in this work plan that would, you know, make it so that resources, staff resources are, you know, being monopolized by by one group
over another. I mean it's it's it's you know kind of giving you a a default area if we are insufficient in in our generation of of work capacity um assignment of work capacity. So you
know I you know I I kind of hear it but I also think that the solution for me in a lot of ways is for us to start you know hey let's start digging into some of these alternate revenues. you know, I I 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? I mean, that's, you know, I'm I'm relatively new to BET. I'm still kind of getting my footing of kind of understanding exactly what we're, you know, um, you know, the best methods for doing that. But, um, that's just kind of an initial take there. And, and yeah, I think, you know, again, back to the
middle part there. Um, strengthen communication framework. Great. Love that one. It's the in the particip public participation. You know, sometimes I just don't always think that increased public participation is is the juice is worth the squeeze there. Um I
think we have issue area expertise on this. I think we are elected to be here to represent these uh positions and I think there is so much other so many other factors that are going into budgeting that you know having some
constituents come in you know doing some social media stuff you know giving kind of a false sense of participation I feel like is not you know in some ways it's disingenuate like you know because you know having some public testimony is that really going to change you know okay 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 it sounds 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 is adopted. >> Both. How about that?
>> Um, currently I have my eye on the staff direction for alternative revenues just because that directly relates. I am I have not formally allocated any of your resources to it towards it, but it's something I'd be excited to take on. Yep. Um, the way
Commissioner Payne brought up the administrative resolution that came up last 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're not uh connected to the internet here. The way that was that I would receive administrative support through
legislative research and oversight and when my tasks assigned by the BET were expended and any additional time I had I could back up LRO in any kind of fiscal investigations that they had. I believe that's the way the was resolution was awarded. I would need to find it for
you. Um, but it it basically said in that resolution that I do BET work first and any additional time I have, which I would argue at certain times of the year I absolutely do have, that I would work as a backup to the legislative research and oversight team.
So if the BET gives me something, I work on that. If the BET does not give me something, I find things to work on and make 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 think that what the real goal here is for my part, I would like this body to
have an independent analysis of the proposed levy. Right? What in the few years that I've been on this board, um you get the recommended levy and you don't have a lot of foundation to go up
or down, right? And I think I think a clarifying thing here would be kind of like independent due diligence of the recommended levy. That is like the core of the work of this body. And I think that frankly it could take our entire budget shop worth of staff to
actually vet out what the estimates are on the um expenditures within our operating departments to set that levy. Um, we just have to take the budget offic's word on that on this body. And I think that the real opportunity is to
have someone with your type of expertise that can independently vet that recommended levy. And I don't know that it would be an explicit I recommend the proposed levy or I recommend increasing it or I recommend decreasing it, but at least some type of objective and independent analysis of that proposed
levy so that this body when it ultimately takes its primary reason to exists action to set the the levy that we're doing that from a really strong financial foundation that is not based on um however the way that the
administration proposes that levy Because as an example, um, police overtime was spent $30 million. If we had an independent analysis of an overtime estimate from this body when a
$6 million budget was proposed for overtime, some due diligence might have found that maybe a 20 million million overtime budget would have been more realistic. And, you know, there were some unforeseen circumstances that maybe tip tipped us into $30 million. But for us
to be an order of magnitude off in our adopted levy uh is something that could have been prevented with a robust analysis of that proposed budget when it came time to set that levy. So I think that um this budget and and fiscal
policy is the correct bucket. Um perhaps the partner with LRO is maybe not the right heading for it, but the body of work is really that independent objective analysis of the proposed levy so that when this body has to actually set the
levy, 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 the resolution up and it does say that like absent work from the BET you would be
you know available to the LRO. I think the consensus here though is that we want the board to to generate enough work to that there's more than enough work that needs to be generated um to fill a full-time position and to um
Commissioner Payne's point you know many other positions. And so, you know, to me, um, yeah, I agree about the point about the the independence versus the LRO partnership as emphasized in the work plan would be my preference. And
then, yeah, and just that also I guess there needs to be a conversation about how do we ensure moving forward that you have the directives you need to conduct the, 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 the work plan of like things we want you to do as a matter of course or at an ongoing basis? >> President Brandt, perhaps it needs to be said on the record. The reason for the work plan is so that everything she does is 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 body to say this is something that's occupying one of those big buckets most likely in the budget [clears throat] and fiscal policy capacity because that's both 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 policy for two separate elected bodies and the whole point of having the work plan is so that that is on your radar approved and then she does the work. So I I think maybe we've misunderstood that working
with LRO is some additional backdoor thing into helping the council when it's really focused on those bodies of work are probably very closely related. The mayor is the CEO of the city gets the power to propose a budget. The administration has financial policies.
The evaluation, consideration, analysis, and feedback of those are split between two separate bodies. However, a city council and the board of investment and taxation. they both have their own staffs. Having them work together since she's administratively housed within the LRO was just a bonus. And that's what
the resolution adopted last year tried to set forth. So I think that the idea of her work is always directed by this body. Never have we presumed to say it's not. Having the work plan adopted by this body and having her bring those work plans forward is a way of assuring
both transparency and accountability to the body that appoints her. Thank you. I would like to ask the body what its pleasure is at this point. Do you want to continue this discussion today? We do have some bonding that we
have to take care of um and defer it until the next meeting or do you feel we can move ahead at this point? Mayor Commissioner Fry. >> Uh M Mr. Chair, I would like to make one last point if uh at your pleasure.
Uh, I appreciate the clerk's um comment that any directives or work that would be assigned will be assigned by this body. I think it's really important to get that clearly on the record. Um,
and any work that should be assigned should not be focused on one entity versus another. It should be work focused on the work of the board. So, you know, an independent critique uh of a budget put forward u that makes sense
only if there's also a critique of the budget that is approved, the budget that is adopted, the funds that are allocated by both the mayor and the council and the park board. And so, if we're looking at an analysis, it should not be focused on just one. And that inherently is one
of my primary concerns about the housing in one entity over another. And so again, if there are any directives that are given, they should be approved by this board here. It's transparent. It's public. Everybody sees what those
directives are and and and therefore it it retains the independence of this board. I had made the exact argument, by the way, and lost that argument with respect to coordination with finance on the administration side. I said it would make 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 do the same thing that was advocated to change. >> Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Olsson?
>> Well, so frankly, I feel like I feel I'm in a good enough place with the work plan that I think we should approve it and we should get you working and then we should if we have issues, we saw that this is not set in stone. This is malleable. this is something that we can uh learn from, get experience in and
develop, you know, throughout. I mean, I I I I feel that, you know, from a parkboard's perspective, if if we feel that, you know, we need um you know, we need staff time, we need we need work from you, we need to go through the BT,
we'll be able to get that done. I I I I feel that uh you know, in the situation and having read as well uh the resolution. So, I would say, you know, frankly, unless folks have specific, you know, uh changes or amendments, um you
know, uh I don't know how the other commissioners up here feel, but I think the longer we delay, frankly, I feel like the less we'll get out of you. >> Yeah. I'll move to amend uh I'll I'll move to amend the final piece, which is that that piece around budget and fiscal
policy to say partner with LRO uh finance uh and the park board >> but but it's an amendment that I'm proposing that they still have to vote on it I believe but
>> second as well >> I I believe this is before us the clerk tells me in the advance uh script that this is a receive and file item uh is Is it appropriate to amend the receive and file item? I I have no objection if it's
in order. >> The um receive and file in your script was only a placeholder as we didn't know whether or not this action was actually going to be taken this evening. Um as long as the board agrees with that amendment, it can just be a voice vote.
>> All right. And Commissioner Fry, to clarify, 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 an addition to it. Um
I also for the record agree with um Commissioner Olsen's commentary. U I I don't know that we need to change anything unless he has a proposal, but I agree with the um deemphasis on the community engagement part.
>> All right. And uh so that would be a separate bullet. It would say partner with LRO Finance in the park board. >> Correct. City finance. >> City Finance. Okay. And Commissioner Bernstein, >> just to clarify, uh Commissioner Fry,
are you proposing also to change the title 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 the bodies that are on this board. I >> that that along with sorry I'm a bit out
of order here but that along with the commentary from the clerk satisfies my concern. >> Commissioner Bernstein do you have anything else? Um, one second. I think for clarity, I I would like it
if we also added to the to that initiative five um the language on issues related to city levies, debts, and long-term fiscal strength. >> Yeah. Um, I think that maybe, you know, that's all
stated in other documents related to your position, but I think it might also give you more leeway to explore those issues of your own, you know, sort of like as a as a matter of your position and rather than having to like right
now, for example, I don't love that initiative 2 says alternative revenues. Um, I understand why because it's an ongoing project. Um, but to me the position should be focused on, you know, other aspects of city finances that we,
you know, that we touch. And so having that language codified in here, I think I I would like that personally. >> Are you referring to the mayor's language? >> Uh, well, sort of adding to the mayor's language. >> I'll take a friendly amendment and accept it.
>> Okay. So, as I understand it, it would now read partner with LRO, city finance, and park board on issues regarding debts, levies, and long-term final financial strength. >> Fiscal Yeah, >> fiscal strength. Okay. Uh All right. Is
there a uh let's see. Uh the mayor made a motion. Is there a second for that motion? >> 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 feedback
is instead of like naming all the departments or entities that this is in reference to, I I would almost rather just kind of make it more um general to say provide
um independent budget development and research related to levies. Uh what did you say Commissioner Bernstein? >> Fiscal long-term fiscal structure >> long-term fiscal like provide
independent analysis and research for um levies, debts, and long-term fiscal strength. so that we don't have to kind of get
caught up in LRO versus city finance versus finance and property services versus park board versus any number of ways that you could refer to it maybe to the enterprise. >> Okay, that's a u
>> so that would be an amendment to the amendment if there's a second. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> All right. I I'll second to continue the discussion on it. >> All right. Uh to discussion on the motion on the amended on the proposed
amendment to the amendment >> talk about this more. >> So no just to clarify the idea was rather than name each um LRO city finance and NPRB to say
Miss Kylin could you say it back to broaden it? So, I have changed the bullet point to instead of provide staff resources for LRO projects, I I'm not sure 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 and research for levies, debts, and long-term fiscal strength. I think the title is what um Commissioner Payne is referring to for initiative 5, but I know there was also discussion of initiative 2 because that does call out city council. So I will stand to hear
how you would like me to amend the title of 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 budget with 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 before
us and we have an amendment to that motion. Um, are people ready to vote on the amended? >> I believe I can. I Mr. President, um, to the council president's point, I believe
there's a way we can do this without adding that language, too. And so, it's taking it it there's two ways to do this. either you add everybody or you take out everybody. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> I'm fine with taking out everybody if that's what he's suggesting. Um and I'm and and in addition to that taking
Commissioner Bernstein's language which is talking about the the the debts and the whatever else you said. Um and so um and so yeah, the
ask would would be to to say partnership with uh respective uh financial staff on >> levies, debts, and long-term fiscal strength >> respective financial staff. I mean, what I'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 way of 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 think we can probably send it and have her take this back, you know, and then and and 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 we will withdraw our motions and um uh is there a motion on the overall work plan? >> Uh well, okay. Well, if we're doing some amendments, I heard some support on the
uh public participation. I would just want to uh delete the last two the second two bullet points on initiative three, the the sharing information with private media partners and the assist, develop, and maintain social media presence. Um just cuz the first one it's
working with city social media platforms. Fine. Um you know, reviewing methods 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 know those 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 is there um is that a motion? Do we need a motion? Do we Is there a consensus on that?
>> I'm okay with it. All right. Uh we'll consider that another amendment to by the staff in response to feedback. Is there a motion to approve the work plan
>> as as amended by staff? Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Well, uh any discussion? So, just to clarify, I'm sorry for the chair. Just to clarify, Miss Kerling, you're going to finalize typing up that
fifth 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 have your intent. >> Yeah, that we're referencing all the member 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 on Oh, on initiative 2. Sorry. Sorry. Well, I Yeah, I mean, my understanding is that the reason initiative 2 is in there is because it's something that's already in
motion 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 can
do this on a voice vote. Correct. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. The matter passes. We have 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 city council for which the board of estimate and taxation will consider approving the issuance of tax exempt general
obligation bonds and the projects are available 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 related
to this one and that is um an item that's not listed and I just wondered if somebody could update me on the status of it and that is I've heard some discussion concerning assessments for George Floyd Square where there is work
going on and I wondered u if there if that is going to be coming to us in the future 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 able to identify an alternative source for
that. Uh and so the formal action that the council took was to deny that assessment. uh and it will be uh future uh budget action that will actually make that project whole. So without any further action from the council or bet.
>> All right. Thank you >> and the mayor. >> Mayor P. >> Mr. President, what the council president said is correct. Um this was done on a uh a very specific basis for this particular project. staff
was able to find funds for this particular project given the extraordinary circumstances that were experienced. This is not to be clear something 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 for individual property owners in the area. Okay. >> Okay. Um, I don't know. I I guess I
I'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 is consideration of the reauthorizing bonding for Haywatha Public Works Maintenance Facility Expansion Project
PSD33. Um, do my colleagues um have any questions? Okay, I have some questions if I can find them. I did receive just before this meeting
some 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 public works complex uh that was adopted in sometime in the 1990s. I've spent time
at the um at the highwa phase one u when it was completed and I'm familiar with it. Uh, I've spent time at the east yards and I've watched people who are um doing welding and other blacksmithing
type things on wooden floors and [snorts] um working in a place that has no uh ADA accessible uh meeting room. Um and um I have been impatient for progress here. Um
the um we have now essentially an outside group that says it wants a facility that is owned by the city. Uh upsetting a long-standing master plan to consolidate public works. Uh it derails the
relocation of the east yards to Hayawa. It's going to 27th in University even farther away from the rest of the public works complex that we're trying to make more efficient by consolidating. And it derails the training and recruitment center that was supposed to
be onsite to feed newly trained workers to public works so they could feed into the department. That has no sight. And uh we could have I think diverted that suggested that group look across 28th
Street at the um now vacant Smith Foundry property where you no longer have to hold your breath when you're biking by on the greenway because it's shut down uh or the batuminous roadway property that uh may be vacated as well.
[snorts] Um obviously those are polluted sites. Um, the city could have also considered relocating some of its uh facilities like the east yards or the training and um and recruitment center
there. Um, obviously it would have incurred a cleanup cost, but um I have I I just can't support something that undoes a long-term master plan designed to make a department operate more efficiently.
um in favor of uh a group that somehow has the political ear of both the city and the legislature. So, I just wanted to get that on the record. That's why I won't be voting for the issuance of bonds 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, uh uh 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 this is an approval uh matter. Welcome, Mr. Wheeler.
Good afternoon, President Brandt and commissioners. I'm Dave Wheeler, senior manager of banking, investments, and debt. Uh, I am bringing before you the authorizing and awarding resolutions for the 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 of the numbers going into this issuance. Um, and stand for any questions you might have. Uh just for reference, I've included links to the resolutions you'll be acting on. Uh the authorizing resolution allows us to uh bring the bonds to
market, take competitive bids on the sale. Uh and then the awarding resolution allows us to award sale of those bonds to an underwriter based on the lowest interest cost to the city. [clears throat] Uh and very quickly included in the authorizing resolution
are the exhibits. Um this details the projects amounts and authorizing resolution um by project uh you'll be voting on that will go into the issuance. Uh exhibit A is the assessment bonds. These are street improvements that are uh debt services paid back from
assessments against benefited property. Uh exhibit B details the utility revenue bonds. These are enterprise fund projects um debt services paid for primarily from net revenues of the utility funds.
And then finally, the levy funded debt. Uh these are capital infrastructure projects throughout the city. Debt services paid for by a dedicated property tax levy we certify each year. Um very [clears throat] quickly wanted to talk through the proceeds. Uh we
begin at the start of the year um with all of the outstanding project authorizations that city council has approved for bonding. Um we work with project managers in various departments on spending forecasts, project uh construction timelines and and spending
expectations. Um through that work, we've uh identified $251 million in project financing requests for this year. Um those are projects that are either begun or expect to be soon. Um
and those expenses will uh be incurred either now or or within the next 12 to 18 months. Um below that is just kind of the breakdown by revenue type. Um more than half of this is levy funded projects. Uh about 46% enterprise fund
projects and then a small portion for improvements and then $850,000 for parkport disease tree uh program. This is a a very typical uh breakdown uh proportion by revenue type. Um we see this year-over-year. Um so not not much
has changed in the allocation of of the projects and bonding types. Um, below that, uh, I just included an estimated par amount of the bonds. So, uh, were we to issue these bonds at par, it' be around a $252 million issue. Again, this
is preliminary and an estimate. Um, and I'll just, uh, remind you that the market is still purchasing bonds at a premium. So, our actual issuance size, we expect will be about 5% lower than that. So, uh, when we get to market, we'll probably, uh, h have an issue size
around 240 to $245 million this year. Um, again, that's, uh, subject and preliminary to change. Uh, and then just at the top right, um, just for reference, this issuance includes around 103, uh, authorizations being used. That's kind of right in line
with the average over the last five years, actually down a bit from uh 2024 and 2025, but um those are 103 separate authorizations uh being utilized for this issuance. Uh and just some highlevel considerations for this sale, we are
aiming to bring these bonds to market in July or August, uh depending on how long it takes to pull these final pieces together. Um this uh the these authorizations kind of allow us to take the next steps. Um the next big thing we'll look to do is coordinate rating
calls with the rating agencies to have this issue rated and our uh credit ratings reaffirmed by the national credit agencies. The structure of the bonds will be uh the same as we've done for the past several years. Uh we'll have 20 level
principal payments. um this issue will mature through 2045 and then we'll have an optional uh redemption in 2035. So uh a 9-year uh call protection uh that is uh at that date the city can refund the issue or call it for any reason it deems
necessary. Um typically you would uh do that in in order to achieve interest cost savings via refunding. Uh and that call date is is kind of market driven. Um, we take advice from Ellers on what call 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 do tend to pay uh, higher yields uh, for that. So, um, we expect that 2035 date will be what we end on. And then one
final note, um we are monitoring one uh refunding opportunity. The city's 2018 uh green bonds that help to help to finance the public service building does have some maturities that uh are very close to achieving uh savings amount
that would make it feasible and and uh prudent to refund those issues. Uh we're working with Ellers on that to keep eyes on it. Um if it gets to a point that uh it does make sense to include those bonds in this issue, we would come back for a subsequent approval to add that
refunding in um and detail the the savings that the the city can achieve. And then just for reference, this are kind of the market rates um comparatively over our last several years uh of sales. uh last year. The green line were the highest rates we'd
we' paid in quite a while. Um the orange line is the 2026. These are rates as of Monday. This is the AAA uh tax exempt yield curve. So, uh our our sale uh where we to sell today would be kind of right along that yield curve. Um so higher than than some of recent sales,
but we're we're back off of the highs of last year. Um, of course things can change in the next month or two, but uh we expect the mark to be uh right around here. Um, again, nothing certain. Just comes you kind of gives a an idea of of
where the market is at. And then finally, [clears throat] this is um kind of a very uh high level uh graphical representation. Um, I'll just explain it more just a visualization. This is a look at kind of the uh
authorizations uh bonding authorizations from council going back uh to 2023 when I really started working on the bond issues. Um and then uh a corresponding look at how much of those authorizations were issued each year. Uh this is really just to kind of illustrate the point of
you know this is a larger issuance than what we've had in the past few years. Uh I made mention of that when I was uh before you in May uh with a very brief preview of the the sale coming in June. Um so uh very much very quickly the kind of the short story is the city has been
budgeting, planning and programming for uh more bonding revenue to pay the cost of construction for its capital infrastructure. Um the the blue graphs the top left is just the uh current budgets each year. Um so what was uh approved by council for uh that year
capital improvement plan each each respective year. Um [snorts] 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. Um so a higher number this year even programmed and and we're
actually expecting to issue that that green bar a larger proportion of those authorizations. Um so that's really kind of where we're getting to this increased issuance size is um it is planned for it's expected um
and so and it is u understood with the city we worked closely with enterprise funds and and the controllers group to understand that you know with the the uh increased 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 of the same picture, but um I just wanted to give a little bit of a a visual representation of kind of those amounts growing each year. And then that's really what is driving this increase. Um and with that, I'm happy to stand for
any 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 uh which portion of these bonds are subject to our debt limit, all of them or only
the levy funded ones? >> Uh President Brandt and Vice President Bernstein, it is uh primarily just anything uh backed only by levy funded debt. So um there's it it statutory formula, but essentially just anything that 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 roughly how much debt are we retiring each year? In other words, how much are we increasing our uh, debt limit
utilization uh, this coming year? >> Uh, President Brandt, Vice President Bernstein. Um, so we are retiring. Off the 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 specifically levy 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 for you if you uh would like but um yeah so
just general rule of thumb about $100 million in debt is coming off the book in principal >> and less than half of that will attribute uh yeah would come off of the limit. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would I would say um I would 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 the gap between the authorization and the issuance? It's just when the projects are ready to roll essentially. >> Yeah, very much. Um you know, we
typically will only issue bonds when a project is ready. Uh we know that expenses 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 a certain amount of time. So uh as a matter of practice uh and procedure we
will issue bonds for uh construction expenses we expect in the next 12 months. Um and you know beyond that we we know we're serial issuers we'll have another issue the next year. Um so anything that we expect to fall uh beyond that would would just wait until the next year. So it's very much a a
matter of of when the projects are ready to go. Um and so happens we have a lot of projects kind of ready to kick off shovel ready or have begun now uh this year. >> Fabulous. Thank you, >> Mr. Wheeler. I um was checking last year's issuance when you were explaining
a little bit about this year's issuance, but last year was 146 and this year it's 251 and it's up substantially both in levy and in enterprise. Um could you tease out a little bit more why the amount issued uh why we have more
projects ready this year? Is there anything are there any major projects that are uh contributing to that or is this just a lot of little projects adding together? >> Uh President Brandt, my understanding uh is 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 these expenses via uh bond revenue. Um you know we had some uh that weren't ready you know carried
forward their authorizations. They are ready 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 and everyone has said that yes the you know project projects are on on time and we
expect to be constructing. So uh I I could certainly follow up with uh more specifics 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 you could go back to I think it's the first
page of your presentation uh or at least the first page that lists individual projects the which pro these are the assessment projects 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 another list? 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 the utility ones. There we go. Um, Glenwood Avenue, uh, April 22 is 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. Any further questions or comments? Okay. Uh, seeing no further questions, may I have a motion to accept uh, I would say a motion to adopt
resolution 2026004 and resolution 2026005 as a block. >> So moved. >> All right, we have a motion in a second before us. Is there any discussion?
Okay. Uh seeing that will the clerk please 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 appropriate resolution afterwards. Um
the next item we have I believe with our reshuffled agenda is the matter of um a was to be a discussion item that involved u
the charter change discussion that we had at our previous meeting. And um as a result of some discussion that I had with Commissioner Payne before the meeting, he suggested a staff direction be adopted.
uh that the uh Board of Estimate and Taxation hereby directs staff to draft a resolution for the board to consider that. Number one, requests the Charter Commission to consider an amendment to the charter that allows for a mechanism
to assure a quot a quorum can be achieved for conducting business of the BET. And number two, request the city council to consider implementing the proposed amendment via ordinance. And the draft requested draft resolution
will be presented to the BET for consideration 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 Commissioner Olsen, Commissioner Bernstein, >> Commissioner P.
>> Oh, I thought your leg was on. Okay, you are you are okay. >> Okay, I see no discussion. All those in favor say I. I >> I opposed. Nay. All right. The staff direction is adopted. Thank you for
that. We will look forward to a resolution at the next meeting. Um the final item on our agenda today is a board discussion on staff uh our executive secretary Christina
Kaiderling. Before I uh entertain a motion to close the meeting, I will recognize the attorney uh Mr. Hammer to provide the legal basis for the uh close session. The next item on today's agenda relates to the evaluation of the performance of
executive secretary Christina Kiterling on individuals subject to the authority of this board. The Minnesota open meeting law permits but does not require the closure of the meeting for such a performance review unless the individual who is subject to the meeting requests that it remain open.
So I just wanted to make sure that I understand what you just read because it was a little contrary to my understanding. Um the law permits the closure of a meeting unless the individual who is the subject of the
meeting request that it remain open. So [snorts] um does the person who is the subject of the meeting have the discretion to request that it be closed? >> President Brandt, no. The board can make
the decision to have it the meeting be open or closed. But if the board determines to have a closed meeting, the person who is the subject of the meeting has the option to say that they would prefer that the meeting remain open. >> I see. Okay. All right. Well, in that case, I guess
I'm not required by law to close the meeting um in this case. Um and um we are seeking at this point a motion u by one of my colleagues here uh that the meeting be closed is permitted by
Minnesota statutes 1305 subdivision 3A to conduct a discussion on staff Christina Kiteling. Uh Miss Kiterling, do you have an objection to closing the meeting? >> 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 will
leave the dis and um do I wait on the We can move [clears throat] 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 board
is back in open session. We will resume the regular meeting of the BET for June 24th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role so we can verify the presence of a quorum? Member Chugai is absent. Member Fry is absent. Olsen >> present.
>> Payne >> present. >> Vice President Bernstein >> present. >> President Brandt >> present. >> There are four members present. >> Okay. I will uh summarize the board's uh close session for an evaluation of our executive secretary Christina Kiteling
as having taken no action. And uh so are my colleagues have any announcements or updates before we end? All right, seeing none, we have completed all business to come before us. Without objection, we are adjourned.