largely these are just corrections to the low-level departments um that we initially placed these dollars into for the mayor's recommended budget.

So expenditures and revenues tie out evenly.

Item two is a recognition of additional revenue for um the capital uh budget. So, this is an increase in both revenue and expenditure to the 4,100 street uh fund, the street paving capital program. We received additional grant dollars from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

even though there are less than half the number of amendments to consider this year, we only got about 48 hours to review and research these amendments. And that's a pretty big lift. Um, I've previously asked and will continue to do so that we get this information in a timely manner.

I will first uh apologize for the lateness of this. The responses are written to the original drafting of the amendments. We have been working very hard with the chair and with her staff to revise amendments. I think you will be seeing some of those revised amendments.

This amendment purpose is to establish zero waste project manager full-time within public works to lead and coordinate and advance the city communitydriven zero waste program. ... The second part is uh uh requesting a proposal budget uh 25% ongoing funding to support zero waste work group.

I'm curious why this funding is from solid waste and recycling and not the climate legacy initiative because there's already funding for this in the climate legacy initiative. I wasn't even sure though I assume this has gone through appropriate legal review that this is even an appropriate use of our solid waste and recycling funds.

I do think that we're at a bit of an impass when it comes to plans to close the herk and we really need help from the community in guiding that process. I think it would be extremely beneficial for us to have a work group of of experts in the environmental justice world, in the engineering world, in the uh u legal sphere to help us devise strategies to really get to zero waste.

this amendment um before you is an amendment to um [snorts] set aside $150,000 uh from the franchise fee and then $50,000 ongoing um to serve as a way to help residents with utilities.

We increased these fees. Somehow residents have increased utility bills and they're looking for additional support from these organizations that help on utility support. And I would like to have um this funding and ongoing funding to help offset some of that cost to residents.

This budget amendment restores the original council allocation made during this 2024 budget markup session regarding sidewalk plowing pilots. U, the mayor's proposed budget essentially cuts the additional funding that council made to public works to implement several pilots to improve winter walkability on sidewalks.

This appropriation comes directly from the snow and ice control budget. What is more basic than removing snow from our streets? I have not supported this in the past and I cannot support this now. An appropriation or an earmark is a cut. It is a cut to other city services.

what we found last year was the most successful approach was uh the most cost-effective approach was really giving grants to neighborhood organizations had relationships with their neighbors could help support them through the the plowing or excuse me the the sidewalk clearing in addition to the work that we do for corner and intersection clearing already.

This amendment earmarks the estimated $4 million that we will receive if the franchise fee ordinances pass next Thursday. And [snorts] the uh language is written with a contingency for that. And the reason that I decided to craft this and earmark that money towards weatherization and retrofitting is exactly because of the comments we've been receiving from the public.

We don't get to, as council members, go backwards and say there's just one um or that we're only going to focus on one that we like. We need to protect the goals of the program, all of them, to make meaningful progress here.

the climate legacy initiative currently uses green zones as a priority. North side green zone, southside green zone and uh low-income properties and any uh organization that is serving uh people in low-income situations. And so about 60% of the funding goes to those uh what we are currently calling our umbrella justice category.

This body should not approve this project because the administration chose to commit the city to a $24 million building before getting council approval and funding. ... The administration incorporating this project into the settlement agreement was a overreach, an attempt to bypass our budget authority as council members. And the administration has cited the settlement agreement as requiring the need for this facility and that is just simply not factual.

the settlement agreement required uh us to do both a training assessment and a facilities assessment. ... Alifa approved that but of course the next step in the process then is to go to click which happened and then to come to the city council for ultimate budget approval. Um so I would argue we did not do a wrong process here.

This action will result in massive delays to compliance for the settlement agreement and any consent decree. Site acquisition, design, bonding, legislative support take a long time, and the initial steps of this project I put in place a long time ago. Sending this back to the drawing board will lead to multi-year delays, meaning we'll be out of compliance with the settlement agreement timelines.

I also share that there is a lot of confusion um or lack of information or questions not only um among click members, not only among council members but also among our legislative delegation. I have received several questions asking what we have asked today. Is this required by MDHR? Is this a part of the settlement agreement? This doesn't feel clear.

Uh we were going to restore the funding for the community connections conference, but we also know that it was very highly unlikely that the neighborhood community relations department was preparing for this event next year. and we did not want to set them up uh with unfair expectations of uh making sure that they had to do some lasting planning.

The city council supports reinstating the community connections conference in 2027. Be it further resolved that the city council understands that the community connections conference is a free event that connects residents of Minneapolis community groups, neighborhoods, and local government.

I [clears throat] think that the community connections conference should evolve and I think that it should be this the way that we interact with community should be done, you know, in more decentralized ways, more innovative ways. And I think that the community connections conference is a lot of effort for just one event.

We have seen an increase of federal enforcement, immigration enforcement across the city uh this year and we drafted this amendment initially just to increase it because we had seen a need impacting our immigrant residents and this week has been extra hard for our neighbors.

We have a lot of our neighbors right now who are being kidnapped by this disgusting federal administration who is literally picking up our neighbors off the streets. We have due process being stripped away from a lot of our immigrant neighbors and we have a federal administration that does not care about our communities.

Um, I don't really want to share all the all the horrible stories that's happening in the community, but but it's real. So, um, [snorts] I do want to say people are hurting. Your fellow residents, fellow neighbors are being targeted. That's just the reality of it.