While all five of these items that I didn't see until 6:00 p.m. last night, um, have merit, only one of them, the safer grant, I see as truly time-sensitive. There is no reason the others couldn't wait and be put through a normal committee process.

The Trump administration and the House Republicans and Senate majority led by Republicans in Congress just passed a nearly $70 billion funding bill for ICE and Border Patrol. That was just finalized a couple days ago. And the one of the resolutions I'm saying is that this body does not support that action. I don't want to wait till next week for this body to say collectively united that we oppose ICE and this funding that is going to impact our undocumented neighbors across the city.

I will name every single council member who are bringing walk-ons. Also have moved substantial work through committees that we are taking up today. Um and are continuously producing um policies, budget appropriations all in response to the urgent needs of their respective constituents and that includes myself. Um so I am proud of the fact that we have council members who can do both end.

This is not the right plan or timeline for the people's way. Community input was clear. This was not the path forward. And if we are going to take the time to get community feedback, we should follow it just like we did with the street reconstruction. Not including George Floyd's family is not the right path.

The selection process for the people's way, as council member Chavez noted, was actually supposed to wrap up and be completed last May, but the Fry administration went ghost and there was no decision made. And this prompted an outpour of outreach from community members to city council members about why the city had delayed announcing a developer and that they also had never seen such a thing happen with other contracts.

What I want out of this is for us to truly come together. This is how you show people how to get things done. This is the one project that we can all work together in love, in collaboration, and really build something amazing on this corridor that reflects all of us, that reflects what our city has been through and and the future of our city. This is it. And we have to stop fighting about it.

if the body decides to uh vote to deny it, it would end that RFQ process, the request for qualifications process. Um, we have talked to council members uh Chavez and uh Stevenson about a meeting with the mayor next week where we would plot out another path forward.

this is a reconstruction project that is not like sorry not like any other that has come before it and it is not like any other that will come after it. Uh this is a unique situation and we should not be levying the property owners and the businesses and the homeowners uh with this special assessment given that the murder of George Floyd happened here.

Why would we um charge residents um to help upgrade an area that they did not help perpetuate harm against or perpetuate divestment into? Um, so I just want to say thank you to our colleagues and also to our public works uh leadership and staff um for uh working together and really getting to this place but also subsequently um moving forward in how we're going to cover um the difference um of what we're waving today.

I agree this is a unique situation and I'm in agreement to cover the street assessments. um in a different way and I appreciate public works help in getting us there. It feels like it's just the thing to do in this extraordinary situation.

This is basically restricting law enforcement that we do joint powers agreement with on the city of Minneapolis moving forward from concealing their face with the mask. ...it breaks down trust. And it is an absolute especially in the city of Minneapolis where we have seen so much harm when there isn't transparency and accountability from our law enforcement.

We have seen uh, people pretending to be uh, law enforcement. We have seen um ice of course who are covering their face. People could not tell. I myself witnessed um you know sheriff's office and some people thought that they were they were eyes because they were just I guess searching uh doing their work in in in the area. And it's really sometimes you might not see the badge on on the shirt they're wearing or might wear in special um clothing uh but also covering their face makes it makes it super super difficult.

I'm just wondering if um on item number two, the appointment of the police chief and deleting this item from the agenda, if um the city attorney might be able to speak to whether this um nomination will count as one of the three attempts to fill the position since it's being um we're in a unique situation with the incumbent um resigning.

I I would read that deletion of the item from the agenda does is not the same as a rejection and also we're not within that that vacancy period. So, Council Member Chuck Tide, that answer your question?

The fact of the matter though, regardless of policy, is that a nomination was made, the person who was nominated resigned. They're no longer even an employee. They've they're not in consideration. The mayor has a duty to bring a new nomination.

I feel like this discussion is important and I want to be very clear like I think I'm right in having a conversation about this because we as a group and as a city as elected leaders have not had a single conversation together about the resignation of the chief. And I think we do need to have that because it is a very important deal.

Uh well, there's nothing to deny here. He's he's no longer with the city and deletion is the right way to go in my opinion. So, I will not be supporting this motion. I just think that we're making it too complicated and creating um uh more discussion to it.