Okay, going to call this meeting to order. Um, welcome to this. Thanks, Steve. [laughter] Welcome to this regular meeting of the board of estimate and taxation for July 22nd, 2026. I'm Eric Bernstein. I'm the vice president of the board of estimate
and taxation. I'll be chairing today's meeting. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder reminder to all me uh 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. [snorts] Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of their rate of speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments of for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and
clarity of their comments. At this time, I will ask the clerk, Mr. Nasvvic, to call the role so he may verify the presence of a quorum. >> Member Chugai is absent. Fry is absent. Olsen >> here. >> Payne
>> present. >> Vice President Bernstein >> present. >> President Brandt >> here. >> There are four members present. I'll now offer a land acknowledgement that we meet and we make our homes on lands uh inhabited traditionally by the Dakota and Anesnabek people. Um and that uh
acknowledge the displacement and other systemic harms that have been enacted on those people um in the many years since the settlement of Minneapolis um as it is now today. Um, we'll 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 limbs.minneapolis.gov. Um, first option uh action on the agenda is to well, it's to adopt the agenda. I'll note for everybody that we're going to take this agenda out of order. We'll
discuss the BET staff cost of living adjustment um uh instead of number five at number what will be number nine after receiving uh projects uh uh for a bond issuance. Um uh may I please have a motion to
adopt the agenda? >> So move second. >> Uh I have a proper motion. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Uh all those in favor say I. I. >> All those opposed say nay. The eyes have it and the agenda is adopted. Uh, next
is the acceptance of the minutes from the July 8th regular meeting. May I please have a motion to accept the minutes? >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh, we have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? Uh, seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed, nay. The eyes have it
and the minutes are accepted as presented. Item number four on the agenda is the acceptance of public comment. It is board standard to receive comment on any of our other agenda items. Uh um the clerk informs me that we don't have anyone signed up to speak
today. Um and not seeing anyone rising. Um uh I'll ask the clerk uh to receive and file the comments. Um up next is discussion and consideration of a No. Okay. Sorry.
We're going to number six like we said. Next is the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 202728 budget outlook. Julie Weissman will present this item perhaps. Not Julie, [laughter] >> if you could identify yourself for the
record. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Good evening, U President Brent and Vice President Bernstein and uh board members. My name is Al Dangor. I'm the superintendent for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. It's great to be with you this evening and uh u look forward to our
conversation or presentation. Um so um thank you for the work that you do to establish of course the maximum property tax levy for the city and for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. And as you know the maximum levy you set
is what provides the ceiling for the park board's property tax request. So it definitely uh directly affects whether we can maintain current levels within our organization for the Minneapolis residents and of course for the taxpayers.
Tonight we are here to present the 2027 maximum property tax request for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Our request is slightly less than what we forecasted in 2027 in the 2026 budget. We're doing that because we are
increasing our revenue projections. At the same time, the request also reflects additional health care costs that we must account to keep staffing and service uh services stable within the park board. I want to say, of
course, I'm incredibly proud of our staff and their ability to forecast responsibly and consistently year after year. Our request our request to levy for 2027 is 5.86%.
This request is primarily a current service level budget. It provides the resources necessary necessary for several things to operate North Commons which is an historic legacy, the highest investment in a park at North Commons uh in our
history and the community that fought for this for years to bring this to life and it's in construction right now and will be open in 2027. a really important piece of our organization and for this community and for our our entire park system. the next level of completion um
up for Opera Harbor. Again, our gratitude relationship with the city uh and this amazing place that is a 20acre park and a place on the north side that was again uh community involved and we're excited to open uh this up and to again look at the completion of Upper
Harbor and the work we're doing there and of course to operate the fast pitch softball fields for our girls softball program. We're grateful working with MPS and the amount of work we have done to get to the point to providing excellence and high quality softball for our girls athletic. It's welld deserved and again
communitydriven and working with our public schools. And then of course to support other amenities that are coming online within our organization. We recognize that it is challenging to bring new amenities online during times of financial pressures.
I want to state though, however, that the planning and funding for these facilities occurred before many of our current pre pressures took shape. Our res our residents are counting on these assets to be available and maintained, and our budget must match that reality.
We also hear your requests from the board clearly and consistently for continued growth in our nonpropy tax revenue. We share that priority and we share that commitment. Today, Director Weissman will provide a comprehensive overview of our revenue
sources, including our enterprise fund to this board. Across all funds, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board raises approximately 57 million per year in nonpropy tax revenue. That helps reduce overall dependency on property
tax to the city, which represents about 65% of our actual operating revenue. That's an important important fact. So, while property tax is still a significant portion of our funding, we are working every year to broaden our
funding base and reduce resilience where we can on property tax. We ask for your serious consideration of this request from the park board. We could bring forward a larger double-digit request given the level of
need in our system. Instead, we are putting forward a budget that is focused on what residents and taxpayers have been promised. Funding staff, funding materials, and funding the resources required to operate the assets that are
coming online and one of the best park systems in the country. as we continue to make commitment uh to diversify revenue sources over time and we and we continue to make commitment to diversify revenue sources over time.
We understand that these are tough times and our conversations with the mayor and with our finance folks. We understand it's tough times. We work hard to manage responsibly within the resources available and we appreciate the BET's role setting the maximum levy ceiling that helps govern how we plan to deliver
those services. And finally, we also know parks and wrecks are economic drivers. Research from the National Recreation and Park Association and a comprehensive report by the Center for City Parks Excellence confirm that every dollar invested in
public parks, committees see at least a $3 return in economic benefits. We take this role seriously and perhaps the best place to see our work is not only across the city, but its impact in the downtown corridor.
With that, please allow me to introduce Director Weissman who will walk through our revenue sources and the details of this request before you. >> Sorry, Superintendent Bengor. Before you go, can I just wanted to clarify you you talked about this being a mostly current service level budget and then you named
just a couple of it was fast pitch softball, Upper Harbor, North Commons. Um are those the primary deviations from the current service level and is that why you name them or are they just sort of marquee projects that you have going on? There are more key key projects that we have happen. >> Got it. Yes. Got it. Thanks.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Welcome, Miss Weiss. >> Yeah. >> Please uh begin. >> Good evening, Vice President Bernstein and board members. I'm going to walk us through uh our presentation. The first
slide that I have here are key budget dates. I'm starting with this slide because the uh park and recreation board has decided to uh shift forward the
superintendent's recommended budget release. Uh so you will see that that is planned for August 19th. I know that there have been times when the board of estimate and taxation has found it
difficult to decide on the Minneapolis Park Board tax levy uh without having the full budget in front of them to be able to review. So in response to that, the superintendent
uh decided to uh shift that up. So that is a significant change in our process and is why our board adopted their maximum property tax levy request which
they did adopt on July 15th. So I'm going to start with an revenue update. We have heard loud and clear from the mayor, city finance staff as well as the board of estimate and taxation
uh a desire to uh have a more diversified revenue base for the park and recreation board. Um, on July 1st, our board of commissioners
adopted the strategic directions, performance goals, and priority comprehensive plan strategies for 2027 through 2030. This is a process that each board as they come online
uh go through to support the implementation of our comprehensive plan. And it is also the mechanism by which our board um um uses the performance measures as
their basis for review of the superintendent annually. I wanted to point out that in this strategic direction um we have a strategic direction D sharing our impact funding our future
and the first performance measure is to establish and implement an organizationwide revenue strategy and by the end of 2030 develop maintain and publicly report on progress of an organizationwide revenue
development ment strategy that increases the total nonpropy tax revenue by 20% or 4.3 million in the general fund and 8% or 1.4 million in our enterprise fund
with the overall goal of reducing the property tax share of the MPB's operating budget. So the next two slides um are slightly modified from the
printed version that you received. I wanted to make sure that I'm describing properly what the operating budget is and how we will be measuring and reporting on the results of this
action. The first slide here is really about park funding models and uh the revenue pyramid. So there are three common park funding models. The good or the public good model
which 60 to 80% of the budget is supported by property taxes. This is heavily utilized by large urban systems. This model prioritizes universal access, free programming, and extensive
environmental stewardship. Our general fund is operated as a public good model. For the 2026 budget, property taxes is 81%
of the general fund budget. So we are slightly above uh the the model in this scenario. However, our enterprise fund operates under the
enterprise model and we are far in ahead on the enterprise fund model because absolutely no property taxes are utilized to support our enterprise fund.
So if you look at both the general fund and the enterprise fund as our operating funds and you combine those two models, it's considered more like the hybrid
balanced model. And for the hybrid balance model, it says 40 to 60% property tax. When we look at our 2026 budget, we are at 69%
um for both funds combined together. So we are definitely leaning towards more of a public good model. And the goal with this overall
performance goal um strategic direction and performance measure is to get us more in line with a true hybrid model for our enterprise fund. We don't
normally present enterprise fund information to this body and so it sometimes gets lost in the conversation. So, one benefit of having the superintendent's recommended budget um
on August 19th is we will also be able to provide information to this body about the enterprise fund and about the hybrid model of operations. So in the
enterprise fund we have almost 100 FTEES that are supported in that area and operate those enterprise functions and we have 842 FTEES in our general fund.
So what revenue is generated in the enterprise fund? It's permits, golf, concessions, waterworks, sculpture garden, parking, ice arenas, and permits citywide.
If we look at our park system map, the areas of the city that are in the pink, >> it's not showing two. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, sorry. >> The last one also had this one. Okay. So, here are the enterprise fund revenues
and then when we look at our system, uh the areas highlighted in the pink color are our enterprise fund areas. So those are completely off of the
property tax roles as far as um operation capital rehab. Everything is feebased and supported uh through the enterprise fund. This is the 2026 budget for the
enterprise fund and you can see the various areas and whether they have an operating loss or an operating income. So we do have some areas that we are working on making self-supporting
and the risk of these not becoming self-supporting like the sculpture garden and waterworks is that if they can't be self-supporting they potentially would have to move into the general fund and then it would be an
impact uh to property taxes if we have to do that. >> [snorts] >> our net income in the enterprise fund. Uh this is kind of a busy chart, but really what it's trying to reflect here
is that is that parking and concessions are consistently our highest net income generators. And then you'll see the ice arena and sculpture garden are below the line. Uh
so you see that they've historically have had net losses and then the most volatile um net income is our golf courses and you can definitely see in 2020 the
resurgence of golf uh during COVID and that kind of resurgence has um been maintained. However, expenses have really inflation has really impacted our
Gulf net income. Our enterprise fund balance funds our rehabilitation and capital. So you can see that we build up our reserves over time and then when we make
investments we're using those reserves. So what is in the general fund for re revenue? We have athletic fields, water parks, picnic shelters, movies and music. all of our feebased activities,
dog parks, canoe and kayak rentals, buoys. This is a good depiction of our of other revenue in the general fund. I have excluded ARPA for this presentation
to show COVID's impact to our general fund revenues. So you'll see that dip in 2020 and and a further dip in 2021 as co um impacted partial year in 2020 and
pretty much the full year in 2021. Um, and we have slowly been rebuilding since CO and really truly with the 2026 budget is the first time that we are budgeting to a level that is at the
precoid level. So we have already been working on revenue diversification. Um it we've been doing it for a very long time. That's where park dedication came from. That's where um the work on
getting the storm water fee. Uh so that work has always been ingrained in how we how we budget and how we uh work. But really starting in 2026,
we established a revenue team uh with a crossf functional group of staff uh that their job is to generate revenue. And these are the items that are implemented
or being implemented this year that were budgeted in 2026 2026. So, we have a sponsorship position that was added and we have a sponsorship work team that's been established and we're working to
identify assets, programs, and packages that have value that we um may be able to get sponsorships for. under vendor cons or enhancing our user experience. We have expanded wheel fund.
We have um created semi-permanent locations with seating for food trucks. So, this is a new um permitting process with food trucks where a food truck can be at a specific location for the entire
season um and have seating available there. And then we are working on a parks on tap concept uh which is a neighborhood park um
where there can be festivities and have um beer and wine um available at neighborhood parks and it would be um a mobile event that would move throughout
the city for the summer. We do need uh legislative changes in order to do that. Um it made it on the legis um on some legislation this year, but it actually made it too late. So it wasn't approved
during this legislative session. Um so we are working to um continue that for next year and we're hopeful that it will make it through uh the next year. There was a lot of
support for it. So we feel that it will parking has been a big topic of conversation in the 2026 budget. We expanded our event pricing and we have
allocated that additional revenue to the general fund. So this this is a a function that's normally in the enterprise fund and we have taken the extra revenue that we raise um during
events and move that into the general fund. We are also in the process of implementing paid parking at the Neman Sports Complex and that is a general fund function. So the revenue generated from parking there uh is a general fund
revenue. We're using pricing to encourage turnover at our busiest lots and we're piloting digital lot management for our program fees. We um we continually look at market and
benchmarking and increase fees as appropriate. With the success of our discount model citywide for youth, we have established a discount model for all senior
programming that has been implemented. It was implemented this summer. We're expanding programs. We're expanding sports skill development programming. We increased field rental fees and we added
additional canoe racks which have largely all sold out. So to ensure um our work this year is to ensure successful implementation of the ideas built into the 2026 budget and to
continue to develop new ideas. What to look forward to in the 2027 and 2028 budget will be sponsorship revenue. Billboards and kio kiosks exploration
hopefully parks on tap will come to fruition. Benchmarking again um and then expansion of programs and this will include the new facilities at North Common. So we
are estimating some increased revenue generation when that new building comes online. So now for our general fund um outlook. So this is the six-year projections for 2027. We have a property tax increase of
5.86%. You'll see um I'll highlight for you on uh the fees, fines and other revenue line. We have increased uh the projection for other revenue in 27,28
29 and 2030 in response to that uh revenue um performance measure. We have full-time wages and part-time wages that are increasing, health insurance that's increasing, other
expenditures that are increasing, the assumptions that are built into 2027 um into our projections. We have workers compensation that that is increasing by 10%. Health insurance that's increasing by 10%. The last I
heard is it might be increasing by 11%. Um Minnesota paid leave increases by 25%. Our other expenditures are increasing by 4% but property insurance is increasing
by 10%. So, our system equity investment, uh, Vice President Bernstein, when we talk about a current service level budget, the, um, facilities that are coming
online and the assets that are coming online, we want to maintain those assets at the same level of service that we maintain our other assets. If we're not able to do that, then it decreases the
service level citywide um when we bring um an expanded facility or new facility online. So that's why when we talk about um a current service level budget, it sometimes has those
additional items in it. So, I wanted to just take a little bit of time to talk about North Commons. North Commons will have a phased opening. The new building construction
is due to open in January of 2027 with the full building and water park being open in the summer of 2027. This is really a transformational renovation. One of the oldest and
largest neighborhood parks in the NPRB system, located in a historically underserved community with a deep history of racial trauma and one of the state's highest concentration of youth.
The investment fulfills commitments made by previous boards and reflects years of community engagement and dialogue. The redesigned campus enhances safety, strengthens community connections,
creates spaces for youth development, creativity, culture, recreation, and gathering, ensuring North Commons is ready to serve a new generation. This request
asks for an additional $500,000 to operate the North Commons facility. This is in addition to the existing budget. I wanted to show this slide
because on the far right you'll see the darker brown building. That's the original North Commons building. So everything to the left, the fieldhouse and then the gray building that jets out
uh from the fieldhouse is the new construction. This is increasing this facility from 20,000 square ft to 68,000 square ft. It will contain four gyms,
um, a water park, and the the gray building that's jettting out, that is the support building for the water park, as well as uh will be locker rooms and
warming rooms for uh the ice, winter ice. So we are looking to provide maintenance, programming and safety for this new facility with this request.
So to talk about the maximum property tax request, I want to start with uh a little bit of the history. The park board general fund has increased an average of 6.1%
annually over the last 10 years. That's cumulative 63.8% over the 10-year period. The city of Minneapolis general fund property tax levy has increased an average of 8.5%.
Over the last 10 10 years, that's a a cumulative of 104.2%. The Minneapolis Park Board is a percentage of the total city tax, and this is the 10-year history of the park
board's percentage of the total city tax. And you can see the general decline where we were once um about 18.5%
of the total city tax and we're around 17.5 currently. So this just reflects that in the property taxes overall for the city um
that the city's general fund has um has needed more from the tax base uh than the park and recreation board has. So, the levy projections that were built
into uh the city of Minneapolis's budget for the park board is highlighted here. I have the yellow box around it at the bottom. It's I have it as the city financial plan. >> I think we're one slide behind you.
>> Got you. There you go. Thank you. [laughter] Um, and so the city is projecting for 2027 a 2.3% increase for the park board and then 3.5% in the out years. And our
plan is above that for most of the next five years. So there has become a gap in funding and I have started to show this slide um between what we plan and what the city
plans for us. And this gap has actually narrowed a little bit slightly because of the revenue the increase in the revenue that we are starting to put into our projections. But there is still a
significant um gap. So, here is our maximum property tax levy request that our board adopted on July 15th to provide
um the annual wage increases uh and other uh wage and fringe adjustments for our current staff. We would need [laughter] about a 4% property tax levy or 3.8 million.
Our other goods and services inflation, we need 1.56% or 1.5 million. And then we get into our uh workforce and activation of the
amenities that are coming online with North Commons, Upper Harbor Park, and then various smaller other items. So those three add up to about a million
dollars that we're asking for um the activation of these and maintenance of these assets. [snorts] So our total ask um would have been 6.4 million or 6.76%.
We have other revenue increases built in which is reducing our ask by almost 1% and our total request is just is a mil
$und00 million or 5.86%. When we go through our budgeting process, the board provides their priorities for the next budget cycle.
and we work with the board to identify where the funding sources where they want staff to look for the funding sources for um the various priorities and when do they want those various
priorities to come online. So, I did want to address two items that are significant board priorities that are not included in this property tax request. That the board has already
communicated to us that they were not willing to go higher with their property tax request to get these items. So, we will be looking for other ways to fund these. And the first one is enhancing
stewardship for natural areas. Um, and I will highlight number two that says by the end of 2030 that we would secure funding to implement the staffing and resources. Um, the resources model developed in 2026
for 400 acres of managed natural areas and expand the staffing and resource model to account for additional managed natural areas over time. So what does this staffing model say?
This is a draft. It has not gone through all the board approvals. So it is a draft, but there's currently three full-time FTEES, 2.25 seasonal FTEES, two park cores, and one conservation
core crew. The 2026 model says that we need seven full-time FTEES, 2.25 seasonal FTEES, two park core, one conservation core, and also the
equipment and workspace needs identified. The budget requests that have been submitted by the department for 2027 and 2028 will start to move us towards the
implementation of this 2026 uh staffing model with converting three seasonal workers into three additional full-time FTEES. The cost of that is $170,000.
In 2028, there is a request to add a wildlife program position, and that cost would be $171,000. And then 2029
and above, we would be adding additional workspace, vehicles, equip equipment, and seasonal staffing. The other area is a labor relations. This board is very um finds labor
relations uh very important and um so there is a recommendation to add a labor relations position at a cost of just under 200,000. And again, this is not built into the
property tax base. So, we would be looking at other ways to fund this position. And then with the increase in the amount of data requests that we receive, especially around um labor,
um we are requesting a part-time data request position that would also have to be funded in some other manner. And with that, I will open it up to questions. >> Thank you very much, Miss Wisman. That
was excellent presentation. Extremely clear and informative. I really enjoyed it. Um, questions. >> Uh, Commissioner Payne. >> Uh, thank you, Vice President Bernstein. you had uh I can't remember what slide number it was, but you had the uh
5-year projection for the city's recommended levy compared to the park boards. Is that estimated based on the current service level level and city projections or is that a different source?
So this is the financial projection that the city does annually that's included in the 2026 adopted budget. So this has not yet been adjusted for any of the
adjustments that the city is working on on their side. >> So that's 2026 actuals and then the financial direction 2728 etc. And then a separate question for the labor relations position. Um, how have
negotiations been managed to date without that position? >> Um, Vice President Bernstein and a board member. Um, very good question. We have been handling all the union negotiations
in the house. We have an HR specialist. What's Rhonda? We Yeah, we've used our HR staff as well as our management staff. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Uh thank you. Uh Julie, vice president and or yeah, Vice President and member Payne, >> if you might just introduce yourself just for the record. Sorry. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. Jennifer Ringle, deputy superintendent, Minneapolis Park Board. We uh have a model within the
Minneapolis Park Board where each of the executive team members, so there's five of us, we have divided up the different labor agreements that we are that we have as an organization. We have nine of them and we each take an expertise based on kind of where the most of the majorities of the member of those collective bargaining units report up
into the organization. We have one staff member, a senior um uh uh HR uh consultant, and she's on all of them. So she has a nice continuity across the organization and then we bring in a
couple of notetakers and additional folks and staff members who might be experts in the teams who are working within those collective bargaining units. This particular work um we found labor relations has gotten more sophisticated over time. There's more to
consider um and we actually have grown the number of labor units that we have within the organization. So seeing that demand, we see that the opportunity to bring in someone who has this skill set would be um a great benefit not only for negotiations but also ongoing grievance
management, ongoing conversations about the contract. So uh we'll be hoping we can find funding for it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mr. Rangold. Other questions for Miss Weissman? Uh President Brandt? Hi, welcome. Um, I wanted to clarify the
goal of reducing the property tax share of the park board's overall operating budget. Um, how do you define your operating budget and what is it currently?
So the operating budget is everything except for our capital budget. So it would include our enterprise fund and our general fund and our uh our 2025
audited uh financial statements. uh the superintendent uh quoted that that stat. Um for the 2025 audited financial statements,
property taxes is 65% of total operating revenue. >> Thank you. Um, if I read your figures
correctly, you are projecting a 33% increase in the category that includes other revenue. Um, how much of that would be increases in fees from current
charges and how much would be uh anticipated to come proportionally from um new um new revenue sources that you're developing that you spoke of? >> Um, Vice President Brandt and board
members. Um, I don't have that specifically. Uh we are looking the new revenue streams and revenue sources um
could be an additional 6 to 800,000 annually. Um but again it's going to take time to establish those new programs and new services and get all the various things in place in
[snorts] order to um get that Thank Thank you. Um if I could continue then um you're in relatively good shape I believe with um neighborhood parks given the city's the agreement you have with
the city for the neighborhood parks program. Um regional parks it seems to me have been the area that where maintenance has flagged. Um the paths are often rough and um seaw walls sometimes crumble. Um have you indicated
have do you have a priority for I mean the strategy to date has essentially been um let's go to the St. Paul and try to get the legislature to live up to what it said it would do many years ago. Uh which is sort of like um the old Peanuts cartoon where you kick try and
kick the football and it gets pulled away at the last minute. Is there um any strategy that's aimed specifically at regional parks? Uh, Vice President Brandt and uh, board members,
what I'll say about regional parks is that regional the if you envision the acreage of regional parks. Regional parks are the public good
and revenue generation within regional parks. other than uh very large events. Um it's difficult uh to you know to
generate revenue in those in those areas and ultimately the usership of our regional parks are not just city of Minneapolis residents.
So the area that should be providing the support for the upkeep and the maintenance of our regional parks is the state of Minnesota and the metropolitan council and then by state
law they should be providing 40% of the costs of operating and maintaining those parks and and they're not. So, I know that it's I know that it seems
feudal, but that's the area that needs to move. I agree with you that 40% um is goal that has not been met and I
suspect it's not likely to be met and I um you seems to me you have means within your system to generate revenue that's captured from those folks who come from outside of Minneapolis through um installing more um parking me uh parking
charges not just at the regional parks but at the bays u there are tucked into the parkway system um that um would capture some of that revenue and um that's kind of creative thinking I was hoping I would see u I appreciate the
work that's been done um but u if you're if the goal is to capture a broader public support seems to me there are ways to do that that's maybe an observation if you want to respond that's fine Uh, Director Weisman, thank you. Um,
President Brandt, I think, um, a lot of our work in addition to trying to get the 40% that's allocated by statute, a lot of our work is actually looking for diversified ways in which we can access other types of funding sources. So, actually the storm water fund and
talking through that whole process, that's been a real a real focus actually on the regional park system. That's a place we would be um seeing some relief. We end up with thinking about the endowment that's being created by the foundation and how that would bring on some additional relief. There are new
grant programs that are being created at the uh state level that we'll be looking at to try to get funding for path and trail reimprovements. We will hope everybody supports a legacy amendment uh renewal in a few years when we try to reinstate the parks and trails funding
that helps sustain a lot of the capital. Uh the parking itself, we talked a little bit earlier, parking sits within our enterprise fund and we have to serve the needs of that enterprise fund first and foremost. This past year, we were below what we needed to keep that fund alive. So, um if we get to a point where
we have surplus in that fund, we can start looking at it. But just increasing the parking in the regional system would first go to sustaining that enterprise fund. Sure. >> While we're on that subject, a couple of my questions were there, so maybe I
could just step um step in real quick. So, what is your ability to transfer revenue from the enterprise funds? Because I know at the city there's some limitations on it. Do those same limitations apply or how would you describe that? Uh, Vice President Bernstein. So, our
um, financial management policies establishes how fund how money can be moved between funds. Movement at the fund level is a board decision. Uh, so that would have to be a decision made by the board. Uh to date, staff have looked
for creative ways to maybe take some of the types of revenue strategies that are in the enterprise fund and find a way to apply them to the general fund, but have primarily recommended to the board to date that the enterprises fund isn't fully sustainable yet in in and of
itself. And then on the subject of the alternative revenues, um there was a slide that said um alternate there will be a report and some updates on an alternative revenue strategies by 2030.
Uh and I'm wondering is that just the date of a of a big check-in? Are there things that are going to I know there's some things that are already moving. So, I was just kind of trying to clarify like it's not going to take 3 years to have alternative revenues coming in, but
this is just a a reporting date or could you explain that? >> Yeah. Um, President or Vice President Bernstein, thank you for that question. So, th that performance goal that you saw is written as a four-year performance goal. So, basically what we're saying there is we want to accomplish all the aspects of that goal
by the end of that four-year time period. We develop um annual action plans for each of those. And so for example, next year's action plan of formalizes the strategy and starts implementing many of the things that director Wisman put out. And then we
will start being collecting the other aspects of revenue generation. We're hoping to tap tap into into that strategy. >> Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. Uh uh President Brandt, did you have more questions? Yes, I have some questions about the enterprise fund uh components.
Um I want to zero on a couple. Um the sculpture garden is operating at a loss. Was that anticipated when the sculpture garden was revamped about I don't know 10 15 years ago now? Um and does that
include the cost any any uh debt service costs or is that strictly on an operating basis? And then secondly um 20 years ago when commission uh commissioner then council member Dzik
was arguing to build a ice arena over in northeast it seemed like the argument was that ice arenas were in great demand in the Twin Cities area. and I'm wondering how you then lose money on a nice arena.
>> Um, President Brandt, both very good questions. So, in terms of the sculpture garden, both the sculpture garden and I will actually throw waterworks into the same category are two kind of significant park properties that we are attempting to think of as a
microenterprise. So all of the aspects of potential revenue generation within them, whether it's parking, whether it's concessions, whether it's events, stays within that particular park. It is maybe the the park board's version of what
other cities might call conservies, right? Where we where we where we have a governance structure that doesn't look favorably at conservies. This is kind of that same concept where you through your programming and your overall revenue projections you attempt for it to be um
uh self- sustaining. The projections for the sculpture garden were higher when we first started. It is completely operating that you're seeing as the deficit within that. The primary piece that led us to not yet receiving what our initial projections were were one we
had a hard time finding a vendor. We now have fro yo soul there. we're they're doing well. We're hoping they continue to do do well. And then we also saw a sea change in how people wanted to do events um and especially events within the city of Minneapolis. We're actually
pretty encouraged. We're seeing a whole new event package coming up and some really in strong interest in it. And so we're hoping little preview, you'll see a revenue projection increase for the sculpture garden over the next couple of years. uh comm or council member and
commissioner district is very was or dets was very strongly um uh excited about the Edison now um northeast ice arena the biggest limitation we have there is that the ice itself is a bit
unstable there's I I believe only one sheet of ice there and the building itself is continuing to um deteriorate so we have a high level of expenses related to that particular ice sheet and are actively looking at what the future
scenarios are for that space. Um because it won't be sustainable in its current function. That would suggest that the um best outcome in terms of sustainability might be to uh tear [snorts] it down and replace it with something else. Um the
um concessions are I think u if I read this right just um sort of at the level that they were before the pandemic um actually a little bit lower. Uh and yet
you've added on a I mean there's been a renovation at Nakcomomas. There's been the addition of a facility at the trail head. Um, do you have any sense of why the revenue generation has not um >> rebounded?
>> President Brandt, I appreciate the questions because it also then helps me tease out where these where these properties sit. So the trail head is um with the Lopet Foundation, right? They are a subleas of the LEN Foundation and roll up into their overall portfolio.
The lit is actually a concessionaire type of operating agreement with us in their entire um program. If they are at a spot where they are making revenue as a nonprofit, we would get a share of their revenue. So, we don't get a direct
um uh cut of the the trail head concessions. At uh Lake Ncomomas, we've had a few things there. So, we have a new vendor there. We've got some changes in uh kind of the facility itself, but the real trouble there for the first
couple of years was that we couldn't get the liquor license in place based on the uh kind of rules around how a liquor license and outdoor spaces had to be designed. And so we had to do some construction and development there in order to be able to be in a spot where
we could be um productive. Uh we are coming on um real strong this year with bread and pickle. We're seeing a higher uh revenue there than we've seen in a very long time. Sea Salt continues to be uh fantastic and we continue to work
with Pimento. Could um would you mind putting that slide back up that showed those different alternative revenue streams? This was what um Commissioner uh Brandt was referring to. Um just would be
>> I don't know which one for sure. Um, was it in >> It was a couple of uh I think if you keep going, you'll get there. >> Something like this. >> Uh, no. It was the lines different. Uh, it had parking. It had concessions. >> Oh, okay.
>> There you go. Oh, >> okay. >> One more. >> This one. You like this one? Okay. Yeah. Thank you, >> Commissioner Olson. >> Yeah. Um, so, and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but we did increase, you
know, parking fees and I think we implemented some new spaces at other parts of our park system recently in the last couple years, I believe, >> as well. >> Yep. Um, uh, u, member Olsen, you are correct. So, there's a couple of things that
Director Weiseman showcased a little bit earlier. Rolling out new parking at Neman. Um, that would be in the general fund. That is a real um, popular place not only for the people who are using the field, but it also becomes a staging area for folks going to the airport. And
so, we'll be looking at some revenue generation off of the parking in that location. Uh we are working we can't quite call it surge parking yet. Um but we are working on kind of the some of the same principles the city uses that you are you're raising your rates as
everybody raises your rates so you're not kind of the lowest priced individual [laughter] or the lowest priced municipality um in the area. Where you're seeing it show up in our budget is around the event parking. So, where we are able to do an increase in event
parking, we're also taking that and putting that into um the general fund. And then aside from that, our um parking staff work pretty um uh diligently to constantly be scoping new parking meter
locations. You know, we rolled out some new meters around the north side of Bay Maska. We're always looking for new spaces, especially when there's relationship to other modes of transportation coming online so that we don't end up um being kind of the all day parking spot for folks who are using
other modes of transportation. >> Um and yeah, I just like to, you know, I guess give some kind of comments as I'm the uh representative of the of the park board here. Um, you know, I think for for me when we're looking at overall budget, [snorts] one of the most relevant slides is the one that shows
that the city property taxes has increased over the last decade or or what have you by 40% more um than the park board. Um, so we are already kind of operating as a pretty lean organization and uh in fact, you know,
really just recently got to staffing levels that were pre Great recession. Um and that is after we've added on several you know new parks and uh increased our population and increase all various needs. Um, so, [snorts] you know, to my
fellow commissioners, as we kind of continue to look at the budget, as we continue to look at, um, you know, potential needed austerity measures at the city, I would say that, you know, the Minneapolis [clears throat] Park Board is not in organization, a part of
the city budget that has been um, gluttonous in any sort of way. Um, and as was mentioned, it provides, you know, a lot of important economic benefits. And you know, as it goes to parking, you know, I'm I'm [snorts] if if we want to, you know, designate, you know, mandate
some things. I I if if you've ever heard me speak on the park board, I am I'm so happy to be putting parking meters just about anywhere and everywhere. But I also do trust our staff that they have been looking at the costbenefit analysis of where we are putting those spaces to make sure that they're as optimal as possible. I will say on the regional
parks, um you know, I while you know, St. Paul, it can be often a pipe dream. We actually had our most successful year maybe ever financially at the capital just this last session. Um so I think as a board we are really starting to create
a lot of uh really strong intergovernmental partnerships with our uh fellow metro parks and regional park uh uh assets and users. And we're finding a lot of bipartisan agreement there. [snorts] Um and you know we're also looking at uh you know potential
other uh options of of raising funds there that I think you know are going to be really important and effective. Um so just to say that we are um you know as a board finding [snorts] uh you know more effective ways of finding funds outside of the property taxes but even looking at property
taxes. you know, to put it kind of bluntly, we are owed [laughter] quite a bit that we have have not been given um when compared to what the city has has has been taking from property taxes. And if you were to, you know, go to any one of our constituents and ask
them what, you know, the most important part of what their favorite part of the city is or do polling, they would put parks first and foremost. So, as we're looking at our our our our budget and, you know, I think our 5 uh 86 is is really pretty reasonable to
kind of fulfill the promises of these uh new parks that we are are bringing online that were, you know, just not necessarily uh you know, not at any sort of whim. These are important areas to activate. Um, so, you know, we're going to meet those promises as we move
forward if we continue to be in kind of austerity times. You know, I know as a president of the board that we are going to be uh very stringent and kind of critical about potentially expanding our our footprint. So, just wanted to kind of add that add those two cents. Um, and
uh yeah, I'm sure we'll have many more conversations about this budget as we move ahead. >> Thank you, Commissioner Olsener. Uh, Commissioner Olsen. Um, uh, President Brandt. >> Uh, I Miss Wisman, I had a question
about the slide on page 13, general fund other revenue. Um, it shows you have a goal of raising your nonpropy tax revenue by uh 20% by 2030.
Um this shows um a 11.7 million other revenue within the general fund. A 20% increase in that wouldn't be
$4.3 million. It would be 2.7 million or unless you're in >> Slide 13. >> Yeah. Unless you're including LGA as part of your nonpropy tax revenue. Um, Vice President Brandt and uh, board
members, LGA is considered nonpropy tax revenue. It's non city property tax revenue. >> I look at as property tax relief revenue, but uh, okay, I understand >> from sales taxes. >> Okay.
um skipped through a fair number of questions, but um I was surprised um that with a proposal that amounts to a
net increase of 1.02% 02% on the person on a person's overall tax bill in Minneapolis and what my esteemed colleague describes as a lean budget. um the board was not willing to go further in the area of implementing the
natural resources management and maybe this is not fair to put you in the position of responding to but um the um the investment would be about 170,000
and the park board currently receives if you cost it uh volunteer services in the area of 700,000 from the 40 or so natural resources caretaker agreements it has. And you know, I can show you the
scars on my hands from going after invasives and parkboard property. [snorts] Um, those in those invasives, not not so much buckthornne, but the smaller ones that people don't pay attention to, the
the aolisum that's popping up all over uh outside of parks now. um the um garlic mustard um the um uh bellflower that's erupted
all around um Lake Ncomomas last year. [snorts] Um those are are are things that are imposing costs on um the homeowners of Minneapolis to deal with. They're either to just go out and pull them up on their own or to
um to um uh invest in weed tillers that may not be best for the environment because they've escaped the park board's domain. Uh, and if you look at Lake Harriet, the one of the places that is um most prolific with horissum, which I
don't expect people to be familiar with, but is on the hillsides where the park board no longer mows. And um, so I would make that observation. I mean, I was prepared to make a U budgetary amendment, a levy amendment that would
fund the conversion of the positions from full-time to part-time. Um, but uh if the park board is not willing to put its money where um its priorities list is, I I'm I'm
discouraged and disappointed. Well, I I can partly respond to that because that, you know, was partly a decision of the board and certainly Jennifer, uh, Director Wisman, if you have, you know, additional comments. I mean, the reason we didn't add that to the overall request is because we saw
where the city is at financially. And the request we have now is to, you know, just meet the very basic minimum requirements to make sure that each, you know, uh, part of our our parks is their their needs are being met. We obviously recognize that there are these natural
resources needs and we would love to have those funds, but you know, we already kind of recognize that just getting the bare minimum of what we need was potentially a a big ask here. And so, um, yeah, more than happy to to to
go higher and meet that commitment. And, you know, this board has made it very clear to our our staff that that is something that we're going to be pushing for and fighting for. But um you know we we're just kind of >> met with this stark reality of of where
our our current budgetary situation is. But you uh Jennifer Julie if if y'all have [snorts] any additional thoughts on why we did the thing the way we did it. >> Uh President Brat um member Olsen you know what we heard from the board was
not a lack of support around doing this. What we heard is that maybe property tax wasn't the first place to go to try to find the funding for it. And if um not to go too deep into the regional side, but one of the key sources of funding on our regional side is lottery and m and
that is a funding source that we've actually used to grow the natural areas program already within uh the park system. So that is still an option available. Um certainly once the board sees our uh recommended budget, they also could amend their property tax levy
request if they're not liking the the the method by which we're trying to meet their priorities. But my impression would be um that lottery on and m is not a guaranteed source and it's subject to fluctuations
at the state level just like the uh lack of funding uh that you're experiencing for the last 40 years in other areas. um property tax is a little bit more sustainable um in the sense that it's something that is controlled locally and
um it's just my observation that the park board is losing the battle. Parks are being overrun not just in their unmanaged natural areas but in highly used areas with um things that
are um crowding out the native species. And I don't expect you to respond, but feel free if you want. >> Well, I think um President Brandt staff would agree. I think commissioners agree and they are trying to find a way forward. I um will say that the lottery
on M tends to be a very stable source. However, I did just hear Pamela Gokamire behind me saying something about it that she might want to contribute about lottery onm. >> Thank you, Jennifer. Uh Pamela Go Meyer, intergovernmental relations
administrator for the park board. Um President Brandt and commissioners, the 10 metro um implementing agencies that run the regional parks in this area. Two years ago, we made a decision to change our strategy um when trying to
go from 9% to the 40% that's supposed to be mandated by the state to pay um to try to make it more palatable and not so overwhelming of a jump. And so we are asking for a staggered step up from the
legislature. And we weren't it's it wasn't a budget year last year. It was a bonding year. So, we do plan to get that legislation reintroduced and advocate for that step stepped up percentage increase each budget cycle to hopefully
get to the 40% one day. >> Thank you. >> Okay, it's been a good number of questions. Any others here? Okay, I've got uh just one more and then a comment and then we'll close out. Um
I just um on your enterprise uh growth slide that we had up a couple minutes ago, no need to call it back up. Just um that was in dollars uh and to see I'm just sort of trying to understand
for those levels to be flat for 10 years. Can you like I know Commissioner Olsen mentioned that there's been work on parking fees but you know if we're [snorts] collecting the same amount of revenue in a lot of these categories as we were a decade ago
um Miss Weissman saying perhaps I'm mis mistaken. >> Yeah. Um Vice President Bernstein, is this the graph you were meaning or did you want the one that had all of the >> I was looking at the different lines. Uh yeah.
>> Yeah. Thanks, M Vice President Bernstein. So, this slide is actually net income. Uh, if I just reflected revenue, revenues have consistently increased in the enterprise fund over
time. uh since co the unfortunate part is that inflation inflation and costs and our union contracts have all um increased as well and so >> that's very helpful. Thank you.
>> That's impacting the net income. >> That makes more s a lot more sense. Okay. So, um still doing work on alternative revenues and I appreciate certainly this presentation made that very very clear and we appreciate your and the taxpayers. I know appreciate your
care with the budget and with the levy. Um I just have one closing comment which is to say that I I've said this publicly before. I'll say it again today on the record. I think um my uh portion of my property taxes that go to Minneapolis parks are the best value I get as a
homeowner. Uh and uh I'm very strongly in favor of a of a budget and a levy that supports your needs um this year and sets you up well for the future. And I think that as a city, we're worried about our tax base, of course. We're worried about the burden on taxpayers, but we don't stay in a
good place or get to a better place by, you know, initiating an austerity program. Um, we get there by having continuing to have the best parks in the nation and by making forward progress even during difficult times. So, I'm very committed to a budget that um keeps you in a good place and and gets us to
an even better place for everyone in the city and everyone who visits. So, I appreciate your hard work on this and the excellent presentation today and all the questions that you answered. If there's nothing else, I'll uh thank you for coming and I'll call up Mr. Wheeler. >> Uh, Mr. Vice President, you need to
receive and file that report. >> Okay. >> Can I have a Do I >> just Let's receive and file that. Received and filed. Okay. Fabulous. Mr. Wheeler, welcome. sorry for keeping you waiting so long.
>> Please proceed. >> Uh thank you and good afternoon uh President Brandt, Vice President Bernstein. I'm Dave Wheeler, uh director of banking investments and debt for the city. Uh we are bringing before you today a resolution to authorize the
issuance of refunding bonds. Excuse me. Um the issue in question is the city's general obligation capital improvement bond series 2018. Uh these were issued in October of 2018 initially to
construct uh the public service building and finance work on the east side storage facility. Uh the issue itself matures through 2046 uh but is callable beginning December 1 of this year. Our municipal adviser Ellers has indicated to us that there
are significant interest cost savings if we were to uh pursue a refunding at this time. Uh so this resolution does allow us to do that. Um just I'm trying to be very brief here um and then stand for questions at the end. But uh some
considerations for this is that uh these are intended to be issued along with the city's uh 2026 various purpose bond issue which was authorized by this board uh last month. Um the resolution before you does have an authorization amount
that would be uh enough to refund the entire issue. Uh however, at this time we do expect that we this would only be a partial refunding. Uh we would look to call the maturities through 2036. Uh the reason being is that the uh current
market rates and couponing um beyond 2036, those last 10 years, uh there's actually just very minimal savings to be had. Um and the city's actually in a better position to retain that flexibility and leave those longer maturities outstanding uh and look look
to call them at a future date. Uh we do estimate approximately uh $1.9 million in interest cost savings right now. Uh where we to refund these uh about twothirds of that is on the capital improvement plan bond portion. Uh that's
the public service building. And then a third of th those savings would be recognized in the solid waste uh enterprise fund um related to the east side storage facility. Um sorry and I just add couple notes. Um I
I'll add that obviously these are preliminary estimates just kind of reflecting current market rates. Uh the actual savings will be determined on the sale date. So it could be even more, could be a little less. Uh but we do expect a material amount of savings to hold uh regardless of uh where interest
rates go in the in over the next month. Um and then just to confirm uh the authorization does not obligate the city to issue these bonds. Um just allows us to. So, if for any reason on the sale date uh interest rates um aren't good
enough, they've risen too much uh and the savings aren't at an adequate level, uh we would simply uh pass and and withhold the the refunding portion at this time and look for a better date. Uh so, with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions.
>> President Brandt, >> Mr. Wheeler. Um, I believe the refunding is of a financing that preceded your time on the job as well as the elected times of anybody here on the board. Um,
if this were a funding resolution, I would be voting against it because I resent the fact that the U city did an end run around the uh public and uh click when it came to getting approval
for the um public services center. I realize there are mechanisms in state law that allow that to happen, but I am not one to stand in the way of 1 almost $2 million in savings from a brief funding. And I just wanted to get that
on the record. Thank you. >> Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? Seeing no more questions, um I'll ask for a motion to accept resolution 22 20226-00009. >> So move >> second.
>> Second. Okay, we have a proper motion before us. Any additional discussion? Seeing none, will the um clerk uh please take the role? >> Member Olsen >> I. >> Payne I.
>> Vice President Bernstein >> I. President Brandt >> I >> There are four I's um Okay. Um thank you, Mr. Wheeler. Um so we'll now uh take up what was
originally item number five uh and is now item number eight. Uh oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Um, we're going to go to um
we're going to find our place on the page. Okay. Um, the eyes have it. The resolution is approved. There we go. [snorts] [laughter] Our next item on the agenda is uh uh our new business is the receiving of projects from the city council for which
the board of estimate taxation will consider approving the issuance of taxexempt general obligation bonds. The projects are available in your packet. Do my colleagues have any questions or comments? Seeing no discussion or questions, I'll ask the clerk to receive and file the
projects. Um, okay. And now we will go um to what was originally our fifth agenda item. um uh discussion and consideration of a resolution for the cost of living adjustment for BET executive uh
Christina Kaiderling. This resolution states the following that pursuant to its authority under section 5.2B 2B of the city charter to provide for the compensation of its executive secretary. A cost of living adjustment or a COLA
increase of 2.5% shall be added to the salary schedule for the position of executive secretary of the board of estimate taxation effective with the payroll period beginning on July 26, 2026. Be it further resolved that effective
January 1st, 2027, the salary schedule for the position of executive secretary of the board of estimate and taxation shall be adjusted each year by the same amount as any cost of living adjustment applied to the unclassified jobs in the city of the of Minneapolis appointed
employee group. [snorts] Um, and so I do believe we have um some questions on this one. Um, do we want to invite Miss Kaiderling to brief us or Steve, do you w to
Thank you. I think we're sort of between a rock and a hard place on this one. We took an oath to uphold the law and u I am told that at least informally the uh city attorney's office representative on the to the board of estimate has
indicated there may be problems with going retroactively. On the other hand, uh this happened uh through no fault of the board, no fault of Miss Kaiderling uh who was early in the year trying to ascertain her status
and um uh it actually happened because the city made bro no provision in its HR department for an adjustment in this position uh for cost of living. it's just not in any of the positions that [snorts] are granted a cost of living
that are outside of bargaining units. Um, so, uh, Mr. Hammer has indicated, I believe, that he will not be able to pull up the, uh, specific citations today that, um,
would, um, uh, prove his point. And u and u on the other hand if we leave uh if we put this off for a couple weeks then Miss Kylering if it's not retroactive loses another couple weeks of her cost of
living adjustment. So I'd be prepared to move this uh with the understanding that um if we are um informed that this is a um act that
we cannot take under our authority that we would have the option to resend it and repass the second half of of the um of the resolution. I don't know how that strikes others. >> Uh, Commissioner Payne,
>> I'm not entirely sure what what was what what's the goal of the motion. Uh, President Brent, yes. >> The goal of this motion is to grant a at least get her a 2 and a half% increase that she's due and has been due since last January, at least effective with
the current payroll period. Um, and um, we could strike that and make it January 1st. >> I say strike it and make it January 1st. And if there's a legal reason that we
can't then uh now does the do we do we need to make a written amendment to the motion to say effective January 1st legal blah blah blah. I wonder if
there's any sort of trick we could use, some sort of wording or amendment that [snorts] we could cover all of our bases here that we could say something to the effect that we are may we want it as best as possible to be January 1st going
so we can get the back pay um uh that Miss Ketling uh deserves. Um but then also we can say you know if not that then today effective today so then we don't have another two week situation or
something like that on our hands. Um I'm wondering if there are I mean seems like we can probably do that right we can so maybe if we give ourselves a little bit of time here to come up with the wording that would get to that intent.
Um, I could propose on the fly here, um, if the clerk is ready that we change the last clause of the first uh, resolving clause that effective with the payroll period beginning on January
1st, 2026, comma, or if that is not legally permissible on July 26, 2026. six and I'll make that a motion. >> I'll second that.
>> Mr. Hammer, did you have a comment? >> Uh, yes. Uh, Vice President Bernstein, uh, commissioners, as President Brandt mentioned, I'm not really prepared to speak on the specifics of this, but I can say that this has been reviewed and that the judgment is that a cost of living
adjustment cannot be made retroactive. So I don't have the rationale behind that unfortunately but you know just for the edification of the board I wanted to make that statement. >> Well we could probably bring [snorts] forward a resolution that specifically
grants some form of back pay or compensation. >> I I think >> necessarily related to cost of living. I think that would probably be the obvious workaround is next time to come to calculate the amount that was lost and
to pass a resolution providing pay to compensate for a cost of living adjustment that wasn't made. if we have that authority. >> That seems like it would be of
questionable legality if if Dan's um representation proves up in what he gives to us. Um is there any if I could ask Dan, is there any is there any statement of public purpose
in the ordinance that would give us some context? I can certainly see not granting backdoor cola increases u retroactively because um the city's trying to avoid essentially um backdoor
pay increases sweet you know sweeteners like that. Uh but this is clearly uh a result of a a screw-up by the city and not re recognizing we had this position and not providing for it and we shouldn't even have to be taking this u
cost of living adjustment vote. Um >> uh Commissioner Bane >> uh given Mr. Hammer's legal analysis on the motion that's in front of us. Uh now I think that technically President Brent
made a motion that was seconded to amend it. Uh so I don't know if you want to formally resend that motion, President Brent, before I begin. Well, I was um my motion would only the retro portion would only take
effect if it's not found to be legally impermissible and it would automatically be July 26th if it is found to be. Uh well, what I was going to suggest is perhaps we pass
this resolution that has been vetted by the attorney and do a separate motion um to this resolution requesting that the attorney provide a legal analysis on our options
for doing back pay to be presented at our next meeting. >> I'd certainly be agreeable to that. So then what we have before us could if if you were to rescend your amendment, >> I'll rescend it. >> Okay. >> We could pass this so that we can take
care of the cola. That's clean. But then I think separately we should make a sub motion that is directing the attorney to give us a legal analysis of a pathway towards restoring that back pay to January 1.
>> That sounds like a good idea. So would that motion so we pass this and then a separate motion does that need to be written or >> it would be two distinct motions. So, one motion would be the uh resolution
that's before you, the COA increase, and then someone would have to make a different motion to make a staff. It would essentially be a a staff uh ask, which would then just need a simple majority of the board and it wouldn't need to actually be it could be a voice
vote because it's just a staff direction. >> Okay, great. So then in that case, it seems like we're all agreed on this as a path forward. So then can I have a motion uh to pass resolution 2026-008? >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Okay. Um having a proper motion before us, I'll ask uh Mr. Nazic to call the role. >> Member Olsen >> I. >> Payne >> I. >> Vice President Bernstein >> I. >> President Brandt >> I.
>> There are four eyes. >> Okay. Um, the eyes uh have it and the resolution is passed. Oh. Uh, Commissioner Bane. >> Uh, thank you, Vice President Bernstein.
I move to direct the city attorney to provide at our next uh regular BET meeting a legal analysis for uh accommodating retroactive back pay for the COLA uh adjustment that we just
passed today dating back to January 1. >> Okay. So, we have a motion before us. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. having a proper motion before us. Um, if we can just do I, uh, we'll do a V. M. Mr. Nas, do you call the voice vote or can I?
>> You can call a roll call or it can just be a voice vote. It's up to you, chair. >> Okay, let's do a roll call just to be formal about it. I'll ask Mr. Nasvik to call the role. >> Commissioner Olsson, >> I. Payne, >> I. >> Vice President Bernstein, >> I.
>> President Brandt, >> I. >> There are four eyes. with four eyes. We eyes have it. Uh so the resolution is passed or the motion is passed. Um thank you for that. Uh Commissioner Payne. Um with that business concluded, uh that
brings us to the last item on our agenda, which is announcements. Um do my colleagues have any updates before we adjourn? I just >> I just wanted to say I most likely will not be at the uh [snorts]
second I think it's on the 26th in a August just to give you a chance to prepare again. >> Okay, I'm excited for that. Um any other announcements before I adjourn? See if I can lift this heavy gavvel. Well, let's
see if we're announcing absences. Um, two weeks from now on the 5th, I will be uh out of town. Um, and then again on uh >> we're not meeting on the fifth. Okay. I'm just looking at every other week.
Um, okay. >> Would you like to announce the location of your >> Marlin Island? All right. Getting some [laughter] >> Yeah, Lake Superior, you know, should be nice. But and at the end of August, you'll be back because possible quorum
issue with President Payne absent. >> Yeah. Unless we meet on the 26th. >> Okay. >> Uh I'll be not in town either on the 26th. So >> of August >> of August, >> which is the same meeting as President Brand. >> Okay. >> Well, Commissioner,
>> we will we will in the interim figure out about quorum for the 26th in that case. Okay. Any other announcements? Okay. All right. Thank you everyone. Thank you for tolerating my sloppy chairmanship. Um, and I hope everyone has a great evening. With that, we are
adjourned.