Committee - Regular Meeting

I will call to order our Public Works Committee for today. Our first item on our agenda is an update on the county's cost participation and maintenance policies. Hennepin County is in the process of updating our cost participation policy to evaluate their effectiveness in supporting our mutual goals of cross-agency partnership in building and maintaining our transportation systems. This process is meant to be collaborative, including internal and external work groups to build a framework, gather input, and foster effective dialogue to ensure that our policies are financially responsible, efficient, and receptive to the diverse needs and goals of the county and our partner agencies. Here to introduce and share a bit about the update is Lisa Cerny, Casey Atkins, and Carla Stevie. Welcome.

Chair Anderson, thank you, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide this update today. And with that, I will hand it over to Casey.

Thanks, Lisa, and good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Casey Adkins with Transportation Project Delivery. In the next few slides, I will share more about the history and philosophy behind the policies, requests for change by several of our city staff partners, and our process for updating the policy. Next slide, please. Thank you. As we update the policy, it's important to understand the purpose and philosophy. These policies provide a clear mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities, both for funding and maintenance, with our capital road and bridge projects. We ask our city partners to cost share on project elements that provide a more local benefit and support more city interests and needs. This also ensures a vested interest in the project outcome. Working with 45 different cities, it's important to ensure transparency and consistency through this policy and our projects. Next slide, please. The county's cost participation policy was first established in 1978. The policy has been revised several times with our current policies adopted by the board in 2020. The timeline also shows the history of our Complete Streets policy, first adopted in 2009 and updated in 2023 with Green Streets Incorporated. Although not shown, it's also important to mention that our Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2021, and our Toward Zero Death Action Plan was adopted last year, which has emphasized the importance of safety and active transportation along our roadways. Next slide, please. Public Works and County Administration receives letters from several city staff, leadership, city engineers, and public works directors. This slide outlines the specific asks from these cities for changes to the county's policy. For capital, the ask is to remove all city costs for complete and green streets elements, including multimodal and stormwater elements. For maintenance, the ask is for the county to financially partner with the cities to maintain complete and green streets elements. And for process, to better understand the city's priorities and their ability to cost participate earlier in the process. Next slide, please. The Board approved a resolution earlier this year regarding the policy updates, which highlights the value of our city partnerships to build and maintain our transportation system, that transportation funding, resources, and priorities at federal, state, county, and city levels have evolved, and key dates for the update. Next slide, please. As part of the process, we developed a stakeholder work group with 17 large and small cities in urban, suburban, and rural areas. This collaboration is important to build a framework, gather input, and have effective dialogue with our city partners. We also want to ensure our policies are financially responsible, transparent, and receptive to the diverse needs and goals of the county and our partner agencies. Next slide, please. This has been an iterative process. The city work group has generally been meeting monthly since February to generate ideas and provide input. We've been taking this feedback and analyzing data and impacts. And there are also touch points with all of our city partners to gain their feedback throughout the process. Next slide, please. In the next few slides, I will share more about the first of two surveys sent to our city partners and provide some initial recommendations for a base scope concept right-of-way, and stormwater costs. Next slide, please. Our first survey to all cities asked about cost participation models, base scope concept, ability to pay, and how cities currently fund transportation projects. The slide shows the specific questions asked and feedback provided by 29 of our city partners through the survey. In total, through the work group and survey, we heard from 32 of our 45 cities. In general, we heard that cities preferred the current detailed cost participation model, which is cost by line item, overall support for the county paying 100% for a base scope concept, and general support for ability to pay, but mixed results on what this should be based on. Next slide, please. In our conversations with cities, we discussed a base scope concept that would be fully funded by the county. In our current policy, the split for new sidewalks and trails is 50-50 between city and county. Similar to MnDOT's recent policy update, we propose the county will pay 100% for base scope active transportation elements. This aligns with the new TAA funding, which came through the 2023 legislature, which is mostly focused on active transportation. This also aligns with our updated complete and green streets policy towards zero death action plan, disparity elimination, and climate action plan. Next slide, please. The base scope definition, as shown on the slide here, is supported by both county and city staff. With this change, the county will pay 100% of the active transportation base scope elements. Cities would pay 100% of elements above and beyond the base scope. The base scope will vary based on the context, system, and community needs. Next slide, please. Transitioning to right-of-way, Our current policy has a 50-50 cost split, with the county covering the full cost for cities less than 5,000 in population. We are proposing the county pays 100% of right-of-way costs for the base scope, focused on active transportation elements. The base scope will consider right-of-way constraints to stay within the current right-of-way when possible, while also meeting community and system needs. Next slide, please. In terms of stormwater treatment, the region has new regulatory enforcement standards, and Hennepin County is generally paying for capital and maintenance costs to meet those requirements. We intend to reflect this change with our policy update. Next slide. And then for stormwater conveyance, our current policy is 50-50 for cities greater than 5,000 in population, covering 100% for small cities. We discussed the cost split for this shared infrastructure at length with our city workgroup. Based on these discussions and staff analysis, there are two options for consideration. The workgroup preferences that the county pays for 100% of these costs within county right-of-way. However, since stormwater conveyance is an interconnected system between the county and cities, staff recommend to base the cost share on contributing area, not a straight 50-50 split as in the current policy. with a maximum of 50% for cities to provide fairness when they are contributing less than 50% of stormwater. The county will continue to fully cover these costs for small cities. And with that, I'll hand it over to Carla.

Thanks, Casey. I'm Carla Stevie, county engineer. I will shift the conversation to maintenance in the next few slides I will share more about results from the second survey that we sent to all of our city partners feedback received through the city workgroup and some initial staff recommendations for maintenance I Next slide. Based on our current policy, cities are responsible for off-street sidewalk and trail maintenance. This partnership is important to effectively and efficiently serve our residents. In the survey, we asked about city maintenance policies and practices for snow and ice clearance, specialized equipment used, biggest challenges, and cost. Feedback was provided by 25 of our city partners through the survey and through the work group. Next slide. The cities were clear in the workgroup and in the survey that the biggest challenges for bikeway winter maintenance is the timing of plowing and snow storage, followed by staffing, equipment, and then cost. The challenges shared by the cities is due to city and county snow removal operations conflicting with each other. Next slide. Another important data point shared by the cities is the annual cost per mile to clear snow and ice. For trails, the majority indicated that the cost per mile is in the $250 to $500 range. The cost for sidewalks was generally more than trails due to the width and equipment needed. Next slide. Given that the biggest challenge shared by the cities is the timing of county and city plowing, staff recommend maintaining the current policy while focusing on improved coordination. And we've been discussing ways to improve this with our city partners. In addition, we will continue to consider width in the Bay Scope, which impacts city plowing costs. Next slide. Transitioning to the capital improvement program, I'll share more about the request from cities regarding our CIP process, ability to pay, and anticipated program impacts. Next slide, please. As we've been meeting with the city work group, they have requested more funding for cost participation and partnership opportunities and a desire to better align county and city capital programs. The request for more funding is outside of the cost participation policy, and staff recommend considering that this is part of the CIP and budget process. Next slide, please. The county currently considers a city's ability to pay, especially for small cities that do not receive state aid. For our small cities, our current policy includes a greater county cost share. And our practice has included flexible invoicing terms for cities as needed. MnDOT recently updated their policy, and ability to pay was a significant change. Cities generally support using ability to pay, but differ on what the cap should be based on, whether that's tax capacity, state aid, or a combination of the two. Staff recommend holding on any additional changes until further evaluation is completed and consider this in the future. We will continue to connect with MnDOT to understand impacts with their change, as well as supporting a regional research study for local funding so that we can continue the conversation in the future. Next slide, please. As we continue through this process, we're estimating impacts to our program. From a high-level review, with the change in the base scope costs only, there would be a reduction in local city costs of 25 to 30 million in our five-year CIP. This would likely result in the county needing to shift one project per year, depending on the project length, city size, and cost. Next slide, please. And here's a reminder of our schedule. We are at the August board check-in, and we'll be providing recommended updates in January 2027 with anticipated board adoption in spring of 2027. And that concludes our presentation, and thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Do my colleagues have questions? Yes, Commissioner Goodell.

Actually, I don't have so many questions as I just have comments. So, and I'm sure you're not surprised hearing from me because I talked to public works directors and engineers, not just in my own district, but outside my district. And I will tell you that they were surprised to see this presentation coming before the board and that they didn't get a chance to review it and have comments around it first. And so that was one of the feedback pieces that came right to me because they really are looking for more dialogue, dialogue around just the whole thing around base scope elements and definitions around that. What is the base scope? And when we look at these active transportations and what cities want, you know, is there going to be any room to negotiate any of that because it's a safety issue and we all have the zero fatality rules. Right-of-way is another big thing about who pays for right-of-way and how much and what can be afforded. I think, too, cities still want to have more conversation around the stormwater and And that has to do with that the cities have to pay for all their own stormwater and put in their own stormwater dollars and for their own upgrades. And so does the county. And the cities don't charge back the conveyance of water into theirs from the county roads. So they're saying that the county should pay for theirs. And they pay for their own storm sewer as they see it. And so there's a lot of conversation that I think still needs to take place. And again, too, as we heard the city's costs about the challenges of keeping the sidewalks and trails clean through the winter when the county comes over and plows over them several times sometimes without them being able to keep up on that. And so they're having a hard time keeping up on trying to keep those trails open. And I think it's worth the time right now to start talking about the ability to pay because cities are really struggling with it. They're actually stopping projects or doing half of projects or saying we can't do it this year and having to put things off. And I think we need to have more dialogue and discussion around that. And I think if we sat down at the table and had more conversation and less presentation that they would get the opportunity to speak. I know they did talk about the length of the meetings and that longer meetings might be more necessary and to take on more topics very specifically. And also, too, just about the location always being out in Medina. Maybe some of the locations could be closer at one of the other city halls or something like that for people. And that was more of like the format that MnDOT had. And also, too, came up the increased funding for city-led projects because some of them were expecting the 50-50 split, and that's not what that is when that comes to it. And so fewer cities will lead a city project. And that hurts the city, too, when they really need to get a project and they've got some federal funding or other state funding through, and then they need some help from the county, and the county can't come up with a 50-50 split. So I just think that we need to spend more time with longer meetings and more dialogue. That's what I really hear. They want to talk more about definitions, and they want to hear some more about true negotiations and see less surveys and more dialogue. That's what I heard.

Thank you. Commissioner Fernando.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for all of the data and acknowledging that we won't be considering something more formal until next year. My interest is on the revenue side. Of course, we're all being asked about revenue, and so greater understanding around what is the revenue that populates our cost participation and what is the revenue sources that populate the municipality, the city's cost participation. That is what residents are asking of us to look into. We evaluate the total amount that households are contributing. So just to be more specific, I had learned that we generally pool our funds and then Sequence our projects there are some cities that do special assessments for their portion of cost participation to the parcels themselves So that's where it would be interesting because in the there might be an inequity occurring, but the data will share more That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Thank you Commissioner Connolly Thank You.

Mr. Chair a great presentation. I appreciate all the work that went into this and And and the conversation about assessing property so that's gonna happen with a big project that's coming up in my district Where the city assesses the homeowners for part of their cost we don't do that but That's how they recoup the payment of the work that needs to be done in coordination with our project so it's not really something to take into consideration because That's not in most of the project area. I'm talking Park and Portland here. Most homeowners aren't going to necessarily be able to afford that. I really want cities to rethink assessment processes, but that's a different topic. But related, the question I had was just around for capital costs, active transportation, and for right-of-way. We're moving from 50-50 cost share to 100%. So we would cover... everything for base scope elements, right? That takes a significant cost burden off of cities at the expense of one project of ours per year. or per year in the CIP. I'd like to talk about that for a second. So if we were to delay, and this has city approval, like cities agreed that this is the direction that we should go, et cetera. And I want to be mindful of cities. I also want to be mindful that we have projects that we need to get done that are in our CIP and they're in there for a reason. So if we delay one project a year, I'm wondering like how that would be determined. And if it wasn't, like if it wasn't a 100%, you know, county payment, like 100% county responsibility for base scope elements, then what happens if it was 90-10? What happens if it's 80-20 as opposed to 50-50? Does that save us having to delay a project? So there's two questions in there somewhere.

Chair Anderson, Commissioner Conley, I will start and the team can let me know if we need to modify that. So, Commissioner Conley, I think your first question is if kind of what projects would be impacted if we were to reduce projects by one a year. Is that kind of your first question? So we have not done a full analysis of that. Part of what we would anticipate doing when we come back this winter for your consideration and of adoption this spring is to discuss an implementation plan. And at that point in time, we would have gone through more analysis to understand details, dollars, projects, where projects in the CIP are. Are they, do they already have a base scope defined? Do they not have a base scope? So don't necessarily have a specific answer for you today, but that is work that we anticipate we will need to do and you will want to know and understand that before you take action. And then can you please repeat your second question?

Yeah, just thank you. And that's helpful to know that you're thinking about it. That'd be part of the overall implementation as we move towards the winter months here. But the second one was really just if we were to avoid delaying a project by one year, does that mean a different cost split? Like were cities given 90-10, right, 80-20? Like if our share wasn't 50-50 but significantly more than what it is now, maybe not 100, right? Does that save us a project from being delayed? And were cities receptive to that if you did have conversations about it?

Chair Anderson, Commissioner Conley, I can share in general. So as we were trying to figure out project components to cover in various different percentages, cities really did prefer to have that detailed line item, like sidewalk, curb and gutter, boulevard, like it is today in our policy, not necessarily just a would you do a 90-10 split. They liked the detail and that level of conversation on each project. We could continue to have the conversation and ask them that question. We still have upcoming meetings with the city work group. So we're happy to take that question back and have further conversation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, it's just for me, are there other scenarios that might save us from having to delay a project? We've got Remind me of the road miles in Hennepin County? 2,200 road miles in Hennepin County. And we've got a lot of really important projects happening across the county right now and into the future. And they're needed improvements, right? These are safety improvements. These are complete restructuring of roadways to meet our zero deaths goal, to be ADA compliant, all of the things. And so I would hate to have to... be moving those down the line to accommodate a policy that I think could be maybe configured in a way that could work for cities and maybe there's a scenario where we wouldn't have to delay any projects. So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Lundy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple questions I had was on that slide on the difference between trails, bikeways versus sidewalks, that cost differential. I was curious. I think they all use the same equipment, so then it's really about how much they're plowing sidewalks. And then if they're getting snow pushed into the sidewalk, is that a – I'm trying to understand. That's like a close number. That is a big number. Or is it because they just have more sidewalks?

Commissioner, or Chair Anderson, Commissioner Lundy, I believe it is primarily related to sidewalks are narrower, which means that you can't run certain equipment down the sidewalk to do the clearing. And so you have to have additional specialized equipment. You move slower. takes more time, costs more, versus trails are oftentimes wider. For example, if you can drive a pickup truck with a blade on the front of it versus a Bobcat with a smaller blade, just the amount of time that it takes, the number of miles you can cover in a shift is very different, which is oftentimes what leads to the difference in cost.

okay because i've never seen i only have brooklyn park to go on so only what i know it's not a small city is that i've never seen a truck on a sidewalk it's always the same equipment doing the trails the sidewalks and bike which is fine i mean i was curious if that part about the disconnect on maybe we could coordinate better is pushing snow where they have to go back out the sidewalks and replow a second time because I'm guessing, you know, if it's a trail, and I'm using definition of a park trail or a bike trail, the needs are probably a little less than someone just trying to get their kid to the bus stop, which would be a sidewalk is...

Chair Anderson, Commissioner Lundy, it really does depend upon which city and what the situation is as it relates to sidewalks and trails and how and who uses them when. And I mean, you really touched on it is we are having, we're in the process of scheduling meetings with our city partners around the coordination of plowing snow. How do we make sure that if we're out there We're not filling in something that the city or others had just done and so that's part of our plan for Follow-up from these conversations and not the October timeline.

Okay, and I'm just trying to look through the notes so I would agree with Commissioner go tell about the I think the definitions I talked to my cities and they were just there was a Not agreement on what is is, right? That this means that. And so I think that might be something that I would just ask if staff go back and, you know, do we just ask, like, open-ended question, do we all agree on these definitions? I've seen, you know, project books where, you know, you have a definitions page where you just, everybody agrees here's what this means and then throughout the whole document, I don't know if that's what you do. But it just, it was a common question I got from a few of my cities on that. The ability to pay I think is really important. But I also just, what I share with the cities is I want to provide a base ability to pay. I don't need, if someone wants gold-plated streetlights with a four-lane sidewalk on each side and someone else just wants the basics, we pay the same for either one. They can pay the extra if they want. I think that's fair. Because I think, you know, Commissioner Connolly and I have talked about when trails cross into new cities, suddenly everything changes. And is it the county doing that or is it the city doing that? Because There is differences when you cross things in there. So I think that would be important on the ability to pay. I think there's, you know, there's limits. And so whatever we can find, I think, you know, maybe a property tax violation is kind of an equitable thing because it's common. I also know some cities spend more money on their streets. than others do. So I don't want to reward bad or good behavior. If they want to spend less, it's not my job to make up their gap. Because at Brooklyn Park we had to do a franchise fee because we found out our asphalt was deteriorated twice as fast because of some decision 20 years ago. So we had to enact a franchise fee to cover that. I'm also curious, and I think understanding how cities do assessments, they are very different between city and city, where some assess the full value, some of it's 40%, some don't. Like Brooklyn Park, we agreed to do a franchise fee, which I don't. gladly put a sunset clause on, which I know they'll never take off, because no one's going to want to put back assessments. But sometimes they're not assessing things at all. Everybody pays a franchise fee on the utilities. I think Plymouth does that as well. So those things kind of go into cost, where if we're paying for a project and the cities then turn around assessing the same people who are on that project Who's paying what? Are we paying the city? Are they going to lower the property tax owner's burden, or are they just going to put it into their general fund? I don't know. I'd like to know. I mean, they can do what they want, but if they're assessing the full value and then they're also on the other side getting money from us to offset, I don't think that's the same either. A question on stormwater. So if... I'm not sure the county's wrong. I know the city's much better. So if someone has a new development, green space, they're putting in a new building, they have to account for stormwater, we do all those calculations, there's a fee that goes into it, there's a whole bunch of stuff. If that water, do we assess based on the fact that a new building goes up which dumps water into our stormwater system? Because if they put a new building up and suddenly then we go back five years and have to redo it, we have to account for that new volume.

Chair Anderson, Commissioner Lundy, Hennepin County does not have a stormwater fee. Many cities do have stormwater fees, and that's kind of their way of generally managing stormwater runoff from private properties and then creating the uniform billing rate that they then charge the property for the amount of runoff.

Because I'm just wondering if they create more stormwater and we go back in to redo it and we have to account for this new development That actually means the costs got shifted to the county For this new building going in and I also know the fee only apply depends on the city Some cities say if you can take care of your stormwater on site, you don't have to pay the fee But if you have to dump it in the system, then they start charging but so I guess my point is that I don't know if I'm making sense and is a development can affect or stormwater when we go back out 5 years later have to redo something that we have to account for more volume and then there's the argument are we going to see more volume because the climate change or just things changing so I'm kind of curious neck so I think overall, I like where the plan is headed. I think, as you said, there's work to be done. But I do think that definitions really would be beneficial. Because I didn't catch it. I caught it from cities complaining. And so then I think of, well, if we're not all agreeing on what things are, then that starts a bad policy. And the last thing I had was just understanding that cost. how much it sounded like MnDOT didn't quite do the back-end calculation on there, what promises made on the front-end. I'd like to not make that mistake. So whatever we promise on the front-end, we should at least know what is that going to affect us. And I think it would mean delaying projects, which I think everyone's like, oh, we're okay with that. That sounds really cool. But the longer you delay projects, the more things just pile up later on. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? All right. I appreciate it. I've also heard from my cities, I'm not going to repeat a lot of the same comments, but have heard similar themes of ensuring that we have full engagement and continuous engagement in the process, that I heard the same thing that you did about kind of the surprise. The group that was convened didn't know about the county recommendations yet until the presentation was scheduled, and then they were a little bit like, oh. So, I think we should make sure that we are continually engaging and reengage with that group to make sure that we are communicating and providing enough space to get feedback on the proposed recommendations so that we can avoid some of that kind of back and forth that ends up happening. Commissioner Lundy, you brought up a really interesting point about fees for stormwater management. Do we have, like, I know we can't assess property owners for things. I don't want to because I got assessed for street improvements and storm and gutter and curb and everything, and I hated it. It's another bill that I have to pay, and I'm bitter. But... Is there a different mechanism that we have at our disposal If cities want to go about this, that we could apply a fee to properties that's not property tax, that would be a stormwater fee, because based on how much water would flow into a thing, because we don't have development or land use authority. And so we are left dealing with the decisions that cities are making and then it's using a system that's underneath our roadways that we may not have complete control over how it's being impacted. And so I'm curious if there are any mechanisms at our disposal to help with that, or is it just we have to incorporate it into a cost of a project that we get through federal, state, or local funding, and that's it, right? I don't know if you can answer that.

Chair Anderson, I can share, you know, state aid funding does cover drainage costs, expenditures. I think what you're asking is are there additional or new revenues that we could identify in order to help cover the increased stormwater costs?

Yeah, well, and especially because, I mean, this has been true for a very long time. And as I've learned about this, state aid does not cover the cost of maintenance. And so as maintenance costs are going up and as climate change is impacting the amount of water that we have to deal with, we are going to have to do more to manage all of this. And so, yeah, I'm just curious what else

Chair Anderson, I would need to work with the county attorney's office in order to respond to that. There's obviously clear legal guidance and whatnot that we would need to think about from another revenue collection perspective.

Very good. Kenna. Kenna.

Can I have one more comment? I just want to go back because you brought up a really good question about capacity. So did Commissioner Lundy. And I can tell you that in the cities that I have oversight in, that redevelopment doesn't happen because there are capacity issues with the infrastructure. It just doesn't happen because they can't overload it or they can't put it on there because the pipes can't handle it. or that they don't have a water line large enough to be able to have the capacity to be able to put the sprinklers in that were required for the upgrade. So those are the things that actually really happen. And I don't know a county going back five years later and tearing up a road to put in a storm sewer or anybody. So that just doesn't happen. I just wanted to remind us that Cities are funded mostly for their roads and everything like this through their gas tax, and that's what they use and they bond against. They can bond against it and everything. But it's going down. It's going down tremendously, especially with the EV vehicles and people driving less and the more fuel efficiency. So while we were giving a lovely tax through the state, thank you state, and Met Council was for that, they have nothing. And in fact, their ability to pay is going down. as the costs are going up. So this is the rub that they're feeling, and that's why we're hearing from them. And I think it's a big concern for them. And I want to make sure that they don't have to delay their projects, because they are turning them down. They're saying, we can't do it. Or we can't do this half. We can only do half. Or we can't do this project at all. We don't have the money. We're bonded out, and we can't because of our bond rating. So I think we have to be realistic about where we might need to go to. So I think there should be give and take in negotiations.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I appreciate the update on this. Look forward to hearing more on the process and the final recommendations and kind of where we go from here into next year. The next item on our agenda is to approve the minutes from our previous meeting. May I have a motion? So moved.

And a second? Second.

We have a motion and a second for our minutes. Any additions, corrections, or comments on minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. We have several items of routine new business, and in the interest of time, I will look to approve the block, items 3A through 3F.

I'll move the block.

Second.

We have a motion and a second for the block. I'll read them into the record. Item 3A is an amendment to an agreement with MnDOT, City of Plymouth, and Three Rivers Park District, adding retaining wall ownership and maintenance with no additional county costs. Item 3B is to negotiate an agreement with MnDOT for the Hennepin Avenue suspension bridge, large bridge project fund granted. receiving $9 million in state bonds. Item 3C is to negotiate an agreement with MnDOT and the 106 Group LTD to perform an architectural history survey on Kasach 23 in Minneapolis, estimated county cost of $10,500 in our TAA Active Transportation Fund. Item 3D is to negotiate an agreement with Three Rivers Park District and the City of Minnetonka relating to construction and cost participation in CASAS 61, Plymouth Road, and CASAS 73, Hopkins Crossroad, multimodal trail project with a subproject with a not-to-exceed of $500,000 in county bonds. items 3e is to negotiate an agreement with three rivers park district in the city of minnetonka relating to construction and cost participation in a multimodal trail project on casas 60 baker road a sub project uh with a not to exceed of five hundred thousand dollars in county bonds item 3f is to negotiate an agreement with minneapolis for cost participation and maintenance for multimodal improvements along north side greenway a sub project uh with a county cost not to exceed of $496,000 in county bonds. Any comments on any of these items? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Those items are approved. And that is the end of our agenda.