Good morning. Good morning. I said, "Hey, the sun's out. Come on. I'm getting getting back. Sun's out." >> Good morning, everyone. My name is Elliot Payne. I'm the president of Minneapolis City Council. Before we begin our meeting, we have the presentation of honorary resolutions. I'll invite Council Member Vita to give the first presentation related to Administrative Professionals Day. Good morning, everyone. Um I'm so excited to be here today to recognize our administrative professionals, which I think is everyone. But, thank you all so much for being here. It's an honor to serve as a city council member knowing that you all are behind the scenes doing the good work of the city of Minneapolis. I appreciate each and every one of you. So, thank you for being here and thank you for allowing me and my colleagues to recognize you today and every day. Um so, recognizing Administrative Professionals Day in the city of Minneapolis. Whereas, administrative professionals, including program customer service representative, program assistants, aides to the director, and other administrative supportive staff represent one of the largest segments of the world's workforce. And whereas administrative professionals are vital contributors in today's team-oriented work environment and are key frontline public relations ambassadors for the city. And whereas the city of Minneapolis recognizes the invaluable contributions of administrative professionals who play a key role in ensuring the efficient operation of our government, business, and communities. Whereas administrative professionals in Minneapolis demonstrate dedication, skill, and excellence every day by processing invoices, permits, licenses, assessments, and perform other critical functions in their support of leaders, staff, and the public, often going above and beyond to ensure smooth operations in all areas of city life. And [snorts] whereas the work of administrative professionals enhances communication, organization, and productivity, making Minneapolis a better place to live, work, and thrive. And whereas administrative professionals play a vital role in leveraging technology to keep city operations efficient, effective, and connected. And whereas they coordinate technology resources, provide referrals, and deliver training, helping colleagues navigate tools and systems with patience and expertise. And Whereas And oh, here we go. Whereas their work ensures that city systems are used accurately and consistently supporting informed decision-making. And whereas they enable seamless collaboration across departments, strengthening the overall functioning and service delivery of our city government and whereas administrative professionals are the driving force behind the success of our entire enterprise ensuring efficiency, organization and continuity in all operations and whereas administrative professionals day offers a special opportunity to recognize and appreciate the vital role that administrative professionals do to support the city of Minneapolis and its residents. And whereas the city of Minneapolis is committed to fostering an environment of respect, appreciation, and recognition for the contributions of all employees including those in administrative support roles. Now therefore be it resolved that the mayor and the city council do hereby recognize April 23rd as administrative professionals day in the city of Minneapolis and honor the dedication and exceptional service of all administrative professionals in Minneapolis who are an integral part of our continued success and growth. >> [applause] >> Does Does anyone want to speak? >> [applause] >> No one wants this is a quiet group. All about work, business, business only, no talking. I love it. All right, well thank you all so much. You do you do a phenomenal job. You do fantastic work. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. On behalf of North Minneapolis, we appreciate you. We we love that you are doing the work. These livability things that mean so much to us. You all are behind the scenes making sure that we have safe and livable communities. So thank you very very much. >> [applause] >> And I just want to add my favorite part of the day is when I can say good morning or good afternoon to one of the city staff. So grateful for what you do to help our office in the third ward carry out constituent service. So and that's what it's all about, the taxpayers making them happy and you do that. So thank you so much for everything you do. Okay, got a room now. Squeeze it in. >> [applause] >> Who was the keeper of the microphone? I'll take it. Where'd the second microphone go? Okay, perfect. Excellent. Should everybody want to me or stay there? Yeah, let's actually Can if Yeah, perfect. Next, we will welcome up Council Member Chad Thai to recognize Alan Hoppy. Perfect. Perfect. Good morning. Um it's my privilege to be here today recognizing an incredible um and steady leader in our finance department um with uh with my colleague uh Council Member Paul Misukanis. Um so, we'll start with uh with reading this resolution and um perhaps we'll have some folks say a few words, too. Um This is recognizing Alan Hoppy for his decades of service and dedication to the City of Minneapolis. Whereas Mr. Alan Hoppy, a 4-year US Marine veteran, commenced employment with the City of Minneapolis on November 4th, 2019, starting with 18 months as senior advisor to the Board of Estimate and Taxation and then completing 5 years as the Director of Banking, Investments, and Debt under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer. And whereas Mr. Hoppy brought to the city four decades of strong experience, specialized training, and rewarding insights in public finance and treasury services covering cash flow management, banking, merchant cards, investments, debt, and team leadership. And whereas Mr. Hoppy moved the city's banking management into the Investments and Debt Division, thereby creating valuable synergies and a return environment for existing and future division staff to deliver more coordinated financial institution services throughout the enterprise. And whereas Mr. Hoppy evaluated the team roles within the division by modernizing the position descriptions, enhancing the responsibilities that led to increasing staff engagement and morale, and zero turnover. And Mr. Hoppy guided the division into billion dollars of annual cash flow, administered one billion dollars of outstanding debt, overseen the issuance of over a hundred million dollars of bonds per year, and overseen the merchant card program which facilitated the enterprise-wide collection of a hundred million dollars of revenue per year. And whereas Mr. Hoppy led the division in reviewing and purging a hundred years of records for debt, banking and investments, including the filing of 80 barrels with recyclable with recyclable material and trash. And whereas Mr. Hoppy participated in enterprise endeavors including assisting with various staff recruiting and hiring, acquisition of an ERP system and a supporting consulting firm, acquisition of a payment platform, multiple other procurement initiatives to keep the city competitive, and emergency operations training at the Maryland FEMA training center. And whereas Mr. Hoppy is greatly appreciated for his deep analytical insights, principled approach to business planning and execution, and his challenging questions. And whereas he will be deeply missed as a leader, colleague, and friend by the finance and property services department, city elected officials, department heads, and staff. Now therefore, be it resolved that the mayor and city council hereby present you with this honorary resolution in recognition of your sincere of our sincere thanks and well wishes upon this occasion of retirement. Thank you, Mr. Hoppy. >> [applause] >> I I assume somebody as part of his department would like to speak. Mr. Happy, I just want to say what a pleasure it's been working with you. You know, I've I've asked questions from the dais after you've presented and they've been more like, here's a thought that came to me because of the way you presented something differently than what I read. And your thoughtful answers to those questions on the spot, right up here, you know, it is really unmatched and and I really appreciate that about you and I'll miss that about you. Did you want to say a few words? Thank you. Um thank you very much, council members, uh for your support and uh for the mayor's support and everything that the finance group has done. Um I appreciate being hired by the city of Minneapolis as well as the Board of Estimate and Taxation. It's been a great experience, a lot of good um hard-working people leading a team effort uh to deliver results and uh we've got a great crew um taking over um after I leave. So, I'm going to retirement and wish everyone the best. >> [applause] >> Awesome. Yes, thank you very much. I'll grab that from you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. At this time, I'm going to call this regular meeting of the City Council for April 23rd to order. The clerk will call the roll. Council member Sawhney. Present. Council member Stevenson. Present. Council member Rainville. Present. >> Council member Veto. Present. Council member Paman. Present. Council member Sawhney. Present. Council member Warren. Present. Council member Sawhney. Present. Council member Sawhney. Present. [clears throat] Council member Sawhney. Present. Council member Sawhney. Present. Vice President Asma. Present. President Pain. Present. There are 13 members present. Let the record reflect we have a quorum. Before we begin the meeting, I want to let me I want to remind all members and staff that this meeting is broadcast to enable greater public participation. The broadcast includes a real-time captioning as a means to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. With that, the agenda for today's meeting is before us. I have one amendment before us, which is a notice of ordinance introduction related to addressing gaps in the health department's authority to act to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Are there any other amendments to the agenda? Seeing none, may I have a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? So moved. Second. The clerk will call the roll. Council member Sawhney. Aye. Council member Stevenson. Aye. Council member Rainville. Aye. Council member Veto. Aye. Council member Paman. Aye. Council member Sawhney. Aye. Council member Warren. Aye. Council member Sawhney. Aye. Council member Sawhney. Aye. Council member Sawhney. Aye. Council member Sawhney. Aye. Vice President Asma. Aye. President Pain. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and the agenda is adopted. The next item is acceptance of the minutes from our adjourned meeting of April 8th and our regular meeting of April 9th. May I have a motion to accept those minutes, please? >> So moved. Second. The clerk will call the roll. Council member Palmisano. I. Council member Stevenson. I. Council member Rainville. I. Council member Vita. I. Council member Palmisano. I. Council member Chavez. I. Council member Warren. I. Council member Scheffer. I. Council member Warsame. I. Council member Shugart. I. Council member Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Bender. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries and the minutes have been accepted. Finally, we have the referral of petitions, communications, and reports to the proper committees. May I have that motion, please? So moved. Second. The clerk will call the roll. Council member Palmisano. I. Council member Stevenson. I. Council member Rainville. I. Council member Vita. I. Council member Palmisano. I. Council member Chavez. I. Council member Warren. I. Council member Scheffer. I. Council member Warsame. I. Council member Shugart. I. Council member Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Bender. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries and those matters have been referred. The next order of business is the presentation of reports from our standing committees. Those are taken in alphabetical order beginning with the report of our Business, Housing, and Zoning Committee given by that committee's chair, Vice President Osman. Thank you, Council President. Um Business, Housing, and Zoning Committee is bringing forward 12 items. Item one approves a housing revenue bond to the Bocina Common Project. Item two approves a land sale a part of the Minneapolis Homes Purchase Program. Item three approves a liquor license. Item four approves 22 liquor license renewals. Item five approves two gambling license. Item six approves a street renaming application from Council member Vita. Item seven amends a resolution by updating legal legal language. Item eight authorizes a cooperative funding agreement for fair housing. Item nine, authorizes agreement related to the easement and utilities. Item 10, grants a park land dedication fee waiver for the Malcolm Yards project. Item 11, accepts the grant from Met Council. And lastly, item 12, approves the Spring Brownfield grant application. With that, I'll move all items for approval. Thank you. Vice President Osman has moved approval of the committee's report. Is there any discussion? Council member Wanza. Thank you, President Payne. I just wanted to make some comments in reference to item number 10, which authorizes the staff to work with the park board to accept this land easement in partnership with Malcolm Yards as in lieu of the park dedication fees that are required with new development. This land easement is going to help close the Grand Rounds missing link, which is a multi-year project that will finally close the three-mile gap and will incorporate parts of Ward 2 like what's being considered in this item into overall project that includes 50 miles of parkway bicycle paths as well as pedestrian access of the Grand Rounds. So, this is a really exciting multimodal project that many government agencies have spent years advancing and and it's great to see that the work of this council and also the collaboration between Ward 2 property owners in Ward 2 also in collaboration with my office, we were able to bring funding to make sure we could study what it would look like to close this gap and I'm grateful to see the fruits of that or those collective efforts yield us in being able to move this piece forward. And even though I can't ride a bike, I look forward to walking or triking or uh whatever else you can do around these grand rounds once it's completed. So, just wanted to say this is a exciting project and I'm hopeful all my colleagues will support it. Council member Vita. Thank you, President Payne. I just wanted to pull item number six for a separate vote and make some comments, please. Noted. Council member Sheaf. Yes, I just wanted to say one further comment on item number 10. This is so exciting that this is happening and I'm very grateful for this to be happening, but I do want to clarify that this does not complete the grand rounds, but gets us one step closer to that overall goal and an important important step, but it does not it's not the final step. Thank you. What? I thought I said that, but okay. Seeing no one else left in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the biz report minus item number six. Friendly debate is it? Council member Chaundry. I. Council member Stevenson. I. Council member Bender. I. Council member Vita. I. Council member Palmisano. I. Council member Chavez. I. Council member Warren. I. >> Council member Sheaf. I. Council member Wansley. I. Council member Goodman. I. Council member Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries and those items are adopted. Next we'll take up item number six and I'll recognize Council member Vita. Thank you, President Payne. I just wanted to quickly speak to item number six, the commemorative street renaming in honor of Miss Bird Berdel Beaks. Berdel Beaks Way is going to be between Penn Avenue and Queen's Avenue North. I think it's the 10-year anniversary of Miss Beaks losing her life to gun violence in North Minneapolis. Her family is here today who asked for this street renaming in her honor. Colleagues, this is a um This is a very important renaming to the Northside community. This was a grandmother, auntie, mother, just a all-around great person in North Minneapolis who opened her home to many young people. And it's been 10 years since she lost her life due to senseless gun violence. A grandmother, a nurse, a caregiver in our community. I really appreciate you being here today, Bonnie, in honor of your mother and your family. So many people have reached out in North Minneapolis and talk about all the good that your mother did in our community. All the kids she loved on and welcomed in her home. >> [snorts] >> All the families she fed and clothed. How if a child was locked out of the home, they knew where to go to be safe. Thank you to the Beeks family for sharing her with us. I know this isn't a lot, but it's what we can do as a council to honor your family and your mom. Again, thank you all so much. And thank you for living in her legacy. You really are continuing the work around gun violence and making sure that this doesn't happen to anyone else. So, thank you so much. >> [applause] >> On that, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Chughtai. I. Council member Stevenson. I. Council member Rainville. I. Council member Vita. I. Council member Palmisano. I. Council member Chavez. I. Council member Warren. I. Council member Freyfer. I. Council member Warsame. I. Council member Chughtai. I. Council member Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries and that completes all items on the business report. The next report is from our Climate and Infrastructure Committee, which will be presented by that committee's chair, Council member Warsame. Thank you, President Payne. Uh the Climate and Infrastructure Committee has 12 items to bring forward. The first is a passage of resolution for the project approval, assessment, and area abandonment for the Logan Park Industrial Reconstruction project. Two is a passage of resolution for the project approval and assessment for Northrup Residential Resurfacing project. Three is authorizing agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation for landscaping improvements at the Triangle Park Downtown Minneapolis. Number four is authorizing agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for landscaping improvements at the West Bank. Five is approving the Art-A-Whirl large block event permit May 15th through 17th, 2026. Six is approving the Edina Art Fair large block event permit June 5th through 7th, 2026. Number seven is approving the Prince Celebration 10th Anniversary Celebration of Life Block event permit June 6th and 7th, 2026. Eight is passage of resolution related to the Marshall Street Northeast Reconstruction project. Nine is accepting the low bid for the watering gate site improvements at 4300 Marshall Avenue Northeast. 10 is accepting the low bid for the traffic marketing marking First Avenue South and Nicolette Avenue project. 11 is authorizing a contract amendment with PCI Roads LLC for the 2025 concrete pavement rehabilitation project. 12 is passage of resolutions for the project designation and cost estimate for the 38th Street and Chicago Avenue Street Reconstruction Project. The committee also set a public hearing for June 4th, 2026. And with that, I'll move all items for approval. Council member Warsame has moved approval of the committee's report. Is there any discussion? Council member Rainville. Uh thank you, Mr. President. I would like to speak briefly on item five and number eight, please. Go ahead. Thank you. For item five, that's the Art of the World large block event. And uh this is very exciting. We have an arts district in Minneapolis and it's in Council President Payne's ward as it is in mine. And it's just a great celebration of arts and the vitality that has happened in Northeast to all those empty buildings. So, I would I thank all the volunteers who are putting that on and I would encourage all of our colleagues and the public to attend. For item number eight, I did speak at length at the uh committee I thank you Chair Warsame for allowing me to do so. Uh and I just want to again thank our public works staff for this Marshall Street reconstruction work. It's been a lot of public meetings, a lot of back and forth. Uh I do not have the relationship with county staff that I do with our city staff. And they have carried the wishes of the citizens along this corridor as well as the business community uh to its its fullest view. So, I'm just very grateful for our our public works staff led by Director Sexton. Thank you. And I added myself to queue both to speak to Alder World, so thank you for covering that, and to item number one, Logan Park Industrial. This is related to Alder World in that the original design of that reconstruction was also including Quincy, which is kind of the epicenter of a lot of the Alder World activities. That project has been split into two parts, so this phase is not addressing Quincy. This is the Quincy Street is the street that our community is really invested in. I'm actually going to be meeting with some of our arts community later this afternoon to talk about the Quincy Street reconstruction, but what we have in front of us today is about the other side of Central Avenue, largely covering Tyler Street, a little bit of Jackson on on that side of it, but looking forward to moving forward with that project while we all take the time that we need to discuss the future of Quincy Street. So, seeing no one else left in queue, I'll ask that the clerk to call the roll on the committee report. Council member Choudry. Aye. Council member Stevenson. Aye. Council member Rainville. Aye. Council member Vita. Aye. Council member Pomonisano. Aye. Council member Chaddick. Aye. Council member Warren. Aye. Council member Shafer. Aye. Council member Wansley. Aye. Council member Shugtime. Aye. Council member Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osterman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and the report is adopted. Next we'll have the report from our Committee of the Whole given by that committee's chair, Council member Choudry. Thank you, Mr. President. The Committee of the Whole forwarded eight items to approve today. Number one, passage of ordinance related to temporary pre-eviction notice 45-day extension, also known as Pause Eviction Save Lives. Item number two, passage of resolution related to gift acceptances from Refugees International. Item number three, passage of resolution related to gift acceptance from Vera Institute of Justice. Item number four, passage of ordinance related to drug paraphernalia decriminalization known as Care Over Criminalization. Item number five, passage of resolution appropriating funds for non-traditional and culturally specific community mental health and well-being services at the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center. Item number six, passage of resolution related to gift acceptance from Local Progress. Item number seven, passage of resolution related to gift acceptance from Community Solutions. Item number eight, approving a legislative directive related to Minneapolis Police Department spending for fiscal year 2025. With that, I'll move all items for approval and it's my understanding that item number one and item number four will be taken up separately for discussion. Uh Council Member Chughtai has moved approval of the committee's report minus items number one and four. Is there any discussion on the remainder of the report? Council Member Chavez. Uh scratch that. I was going to pull the items out. Okay. Uh seeing no one else left in queue, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on all items except one and four. Council Member Chughtai. Aye. Council Member Ellison. Aye. Council Member Rainville. Aye. Council Member Vetaw. >> Aye. Council Member Palmisano. Aye. Council Member Chavez. Aye. Council Member Warren. Aye. Council Member Sheaf. Aye. Council Member Wonsley. Aye. >> Council Member Chughtai. Aye. Council Member Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and those items are adopted. Next, we will take up item number one, which is a temporary pre-eviction notice extension of 45 days. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll ask Sorry, I'm on the wrong line. Yeah. Yeah. Councilmember Chughtai. Thank you, President Payne. I just wanted to make some quick remarks about this ordinance. Um First of all, I want to say that no matter how you look at it, the fact of the matter is our community after Operation Metro Surge has been completely devastated. Um the economic impact is one that we've spent a lot of time talking about here on the dais and out in community. We have our own economic impact assessment that shares that and we know that renters have been disproportionately impacted. Looking at $15.7 million of an impact month per month. The fact of the matter is eviction filings across Minnesota remain alarmingly high in early 2026. The numbers show that we have one of the highest filing years on record. And we only have the numbers from March filings. And there are community members who came into our chambers just two days ago who have personally struggled to pay their rent, who have personally lost loved ones, who were taken, who have personally felt fear and persecution at the hands of ICE, that have said that they need this extra time. And I just want to make it really abundantly clear to the public what this ordinance is asking for is a mere additional 15 days. Two weeks. Most Americans in two weeks receive another paycheck. Our community is repairing and many of those community members who lost their job, whether their jobs stopped existing or they were too fearful to go, they're getting in a place where they're picking themselves back up and they're trying to make ends ends meet for themselves and their families. And we're saying with this ordinance, just give them an additional 15 days at the end of the month so they can get another paycheck. Let's look at all the mutual aid organizations across the city. Specific shout-out to the work that's being done in Ward 12 from the and Ericsson neighbors who are still doing fundraisers, the Longfellow greater relief fund, the several fundraisers happening in Nokomis East. They're all sharing that they're at thousands and thousands of requests that they've had over months and they need more time to fundraise. This is This is not a bold, radical ordinance. This is the bare minimum. We tried to pass 60-day pre-eviction notice. That did not prevail, very disappointingly, even though it prevailed across the river in St. Paul. And we watered this ordinance down and came to a compromise of adding 15 days. And it would be an absolute shame to see all of our neighbors show up for each other month after month, put so much on the line, in a moment where the city of Minneapolis can show up and say, "Hey, we're going to give a little bit of extra time in addition to the rental assistance that we passed and in addition to advocating to the state legislature for rental assistance, we're going to do this for you." And so, I'm looking forward to this passing. I really, really implore the mayor to reconsider any idea of a veto and to move this through and for us to work together, to work with the housing organizations that might feel worried about the extra 15 days, to come together to continue to raise rental assistance and to continue to advocate at the state capital that we get a deal through because it's an emergency our community needs it and eviction filings lead to homelessness if people can't find housing and homelessness is far more expensive than just giving people an extra 15 days so they can pay their landlord rent anyways. Thank you. Vice President Osman Council Thank you Council President and thank you Council member Chughtai and you know for me that this ordinance is is really um help it will help many people especially um many of my residents who are 96% renters. I don't know if we have a short memory we have we forgot what we went through uh our communities have been terrorized for the entire time people were lost their jobs they could not get out of the house for for days. Um I was disappointed uh not to see the 60 days move forward uh but this is 45 days as Council member Chughtai put it it's it's only 2 weeks. And and if any uh landlord or anyone um you know is against this I just don't see the point your tenant are immigrant. Minneapolis is a immigrant city. This is uh this is what we can do least what we can do to help folks um stay in their homes. And uh I'll definitely encourage the mayor uh not to veto this um and think about Ward 6 residents. Just think about them. Uh think about the immigrants. Think about the folks that went through a horrible time. Think about the communities that have been attacked by federal government and by Donald Trump called them by name called them horrible things. That's what they what experiencing. And I'm going to say uh again, let's let's think about actually doing something instead of talking. Thank you. Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President um Payne. Um I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has put forth efforts around fundraising to support community members. I want to thank our neighborhood organizations and individual community members that have put um put forth fundraising for funding to ensure that we have um clear pathways for individuals to get their rent paid. I want to thank the members of this body who um have voted for us to be able to funnel money down to the county and the county programs because we have provided the county with almost three quarters of their $10 million budget. The problem that I'm seeing here and the problem that I am I'm getting is a lot of individuals calling me and stating that they're not able to utilize those links that, you know, once they go so far without a actual eviction notice, they're not able to get access to the funding that exists out there, that they have to have an eviction notice. So, I'm getting calls from landlords and things like that that are saying that the only way that people can receive this funding that we have pivoted down to these different county programs is that they have some type of notice to quit or eviction notice in order to be able to receive that funding. So, if there was something [clears throat] and I thought that we had discussed it on this body that individuals would not need an eviction notice and that the AMI was going to be increased to support more families, then that stuff needs to be made clear so that people don't have to obtain an actual eviction notice in order to be able to access this funding. So, the information and communication that came down from the city that many of us have shared on our social media pages and in our newsletter states on there that you need an eviction notice in order to be able to access the funding that has been funneled down from the city. So, I understand individuals needing more time, but I also know that the notice itself is what individuals are being told that they need to permeate an emergency in order for them to be able to receive that funding. So, if that information is inaccurate or whatever the case is, somebody needs to fix that so that people are able to get what they need. Thank you. Council member Mosley. Thank you, uh Council President Payne. I will note and just as a re-grounding of this conversation that we're having, the reason why I'm supporting is because uh we were told originally on the first round when we were discussing a 60-day notice extension um to give people more time that we just needed rental assistance only and based off of the figures and the data that we mulled over on Tuesday, we know evictions have increased and rental assistance alone will not be the solution towards keeping people in their homes and preventing displacement um and we know evictions cost way more than preventing them in the first place. So, I always saw this as a preventive tool and this is why I'm supporting it once again, even with the 15 days. In terms of ways to get access and information, every single council member has received a number of communications from our C PED director. That's basically looped in what you need in order to access these funds and the qualifications. You need one or of the qualifications that's listed in there and the community partners that's also integrated into um helping our residents receive these funds. So, I would say this is a great opportunity once again to work with our staff who's been super communicative to every single one of us of trying to be responsive to the feedback that many of us have shared to get these dollars into the hands of residents and also updating in real-time the information on their website to try to make it more streamlined. Um so, it would likely be helpful if we need to include the communications that's been sent by C PED to to this file that might be helpful, but in a in addition to this conversation, you you do need a preventive tool. And this is I think it's is really important to think of we still have $1.8 million that's in front of the county's board right now what is basically the timeline has not been clear on when those dollars are getting out the door. We already have two million of the 3.8 that we passed in total that is ready to go out the door to residents and that is where we had which was very clearly communicated. You needed the 30-day pre-eviction notice. You needed to make a certain percentage of income. All the things that our staff have integrated into their communications. That was very clear for what was needed for the two million and then this body passed subsequent resolution sharing additional expectations that we would like to see a sign to that $1.8 million. I think that is a great opportunity to also connect with staff to hear what is the update, how has the Hennepin County Board been approaching that. Um and I I believe we'll be receiving some information on the additional rental assistance. But that is still going to take time along with the money that the state will pass to get to residents, which likely won't be unlocked until July. So all of this said is people still need more time to access these dollars that we're trying to get out into our communities. Council member Chaudry. Thank you, President Payne. Just really quickly, one, I just want to appreciate um Council member Wars' advocacy and connection to her ward around the needs that people have been facing and like the questions around rental assistance. I've definitely been getting a lot of the same questions as you. Um I think maybe some of your questions uh might be helpful if there is CPED around to answer the state of play in terms of rental assistance. I'm looking at the emergency rental assistance flyer that we were sent by the CPED director that says you can receive assistance if you meet these three qualifications. And it says if you live in Minneapolis, your household income is at or below 30% AMI and that if you receive a 30-day pre-eviction notice from your landlord, and I think that's important for us to state and say that like you don't if you live in the city of Minneapolis and you're applying for rental assistance from Hennepin County and you're qualified at income level, you don't need to wait until you have an eviction filing. You can use that pre-eviction notice. And that's why if we have the 45-day pre-eviction notice and people are applying for rental assistance, they can get that time. We also know um it's taking a it's taking some time to get our rental assistance implement implemented as Council Member Warsame shared. And so, that time might be prudent once again. Um the other thing that I'll note is as far as it comes with mutual aid, and then also there's an organization Alliance Minneapolis that's a congregation of different churches, synagogues, and mosques that also do rental assistance. There is no income level that's required. There's no um eviction filing that's required to access those types of funds. It's It's very much need-based. So, there are other places where people can get the support if they're not able to go through these rental assistance channels. And then, once again, like giving people some time to either get another paycheck, work with their families, work with their neighbors to come together in paying rent, or maybe even work out a deal with their landlord, I think would be wise. And so, just wanted to put some of those points out there. Council Member Warsame. Thank you, um Council President. So, I'm looking at that same flyer, and I went online with a um with a organization that was helping individuals apply for the rental assistance on yesterday. And if you do not have an eviction notice or a court date, you cannot move further in that application. It stops you. It tells you that you're ineligible for the current funding in as it stands in existence right now. So, I went on there because I'm trying to figure out why there's still all of these grave barriers of individuals being able to access the funding that is out there to support our our neighbors and community members, you know, as it stands. So, they want you to have that pre-eviction um notice. And so, you need that and then and then they're asking when your court date is and if you don't put that information into this online application, you can't move forward. And I remember when we first started this process of discussing this several months back, I was very detailed in the way that this is lined up. The the greater problem is is that some of these housing service providers, because funding had been cut by DHS and different things like that, their portion of the rent has not been paid. So, it's not necessarily our neighbors whose rent hasn't been paid. It's other organizations who haven't paid up their portion of that. So, when you see a rental ledger, it has whose responsibility it is to pay, you know, your portion, maybe 30% of your income. Our neighbors may be behind, you know, two or three months with that. So, they may only owe like $300, but the organization who is supporting them in rental assistance means they have a larger balance that is still sitting there. And because those people have not been in communication with property owners and landlords, then that portion of funding is not being paid. So, the evictions are coming down because of a disconnect a lot of times in that relationship, not with the actual tenant themselves. So, something else needs to be done on the back end of things that don't necessarily have anything to do with the tenant themselves because the organization if you're receiving some form of rental assistance or what have you, they're not going to pay the other part of money that is due by said organization and they've had to separate that, they've had to make it very clear to property owners and landlords and different people like that that it is not their responsibility to pay that contract actual amount and that they can't pay that contractual amount of that relationship on the other end. So, there's a lot of disconnects in this and people are getting frustrated with these um these subcontracting organizations that pay rental assistance and pay rents in shared rent contractual agreements with um with residents who are renting under rental assistance programs, whether it be some form of a GRH program or whether it's some form of, you know, a housing subsidy program that, you know, helps individuals to stabilize themselves and their families. Those portions of the rents is what's not being paid as well and you can't go and get emergency or rental assistance for that. So, that's that's a bigger a bigger issue, but if you don't have an eviction notice for the portion of the rent that you have with this information that we gave out here, this emergency rental assistance with the same stuff that um Chairwoman Childress had read off here, it if you don't have it, you can't move forward with either of these organizations. It'll stop you so far in the application and tell you that you are not qualified. So, I don't I'm I mean I truly believe that this this ordinance will help people if it's if we keep it the way that it is to be able to apply for these funds so that they have an eviction notice and they can get the help that they need sooner than later. I I'll note that we've been joined by Ms. Schutt from the City Attorney's Office if anybody needs clarifying questions from our attorneys and I'll recognize Vice President Osman. Yes, I I probably have a question. The way The way I understand is that if individuals are late to pay their rent at the 5th day of the month or the 6th day then they receive a notice of um eviction which say something like if you don't pay we will file um eviction in 30 days. Like they will receive that. So, that's that'll that is notice should be enough for them to apply the grants that we put forward, correct? Ms. Schutt. Good morning, members of the council. My name is Amy Schutt. I'm an assistant city attorney in the City Attorney's Office. Through the chair, Council Member Osman, you are correct that generally speaking practices of landlords are to issue a notice of eviction following a late payment. The timing of that might vary from landlord to landlord, but that is a pretty consistent practice. As has been noted by other council members on this dais, part of the rental assistance program is requiring that notice of eviction for our Minneapolis funds in order to move forward with the program and that's been highlighted on the city's apologies. That notice of eviction from the landlord. That's been highlighted on the city's Yep, pre-eviction notice. It's been highlighted on the city's websites through the correspondence you've received. Additionally, the Hennepin County funding in Hennepin County's main program, also has a requirement of a eviction filing. So, one of the two of those will get you into this program in general, but you do need one or the other in order to be eligible for funding under the program in Minneapolis. Thank you so much. Yeah, that's exactly how I understand. If you are rented Minneapolis the 5th or the 6th day, most of landlords send you a pre-eviction notice. It's just an automatic thing they they sent. I see that a lot with our residents. So, that should be enough for them. And on the other hand, of course, the income um guidelines make it challenging. I completely understand that. That's something I talked about in in the past. Um but this uh pre-eviction um notice for 14 days um I think even if we don't have a resource available, it's still a good thing for the resident to have. They can go their relatives. They can go pick up a couple shifts to to kind of catch up with those uh with that pre-eviction before the landlords files. It kind of gives them enough time. So, I would just kind of really see it as uh good to have the resources and and grants available, but at the same time, even better to have 2 weeks extra to come up with that money. Thank you. Council member Chughtai. Yeah, thank you um thank you, Mr. President. Um I think I'll ask uh if it's if it's okay with you, Mr. President, um can we invite Director Hansen up just to answer a few questions? Director Hansen. Morning. Good morning. Um thank you for uh sending to the council earlier this week uh a an email outlining uh emergency rental assistance and how it is going to be implemented. Um I know you were before the body and and talked about just a just a couple cycles ago and we're talking about an estimated implementation timeline in April which has been met. Congratulations. Thank you. So, I just I want to ask a couple of questions here. I'm seeing on the city website that um that you included information about in your email that there are a couple different paths people can go through. So, depending on where they are in in the process of facing eviction, potential eviction. So, can you outline the process for for an individual who has court summons and how they might access rental assistance? Council President Payne, members of the City Council, my name is Eric Hanson. I am the director of community planning and economic development and it is a delight to be here this morning. To answer your question, uh Council Member Chuc Tai. So, there are two different funding sources if you need rental assistance. If to there's city funded and there's county funded. If you have a court filing with with our JPA, our joint powers agreement with Hennepin County, the county through Rent Help Help Rent Help Hennepin will use their funds. So, those and if you have a pre-eviction notice and you live in Minneapolis, we use the city funds first. So, the the best thing for Minneapolis residents to do is as soon as you know that you think you're going to be evicted is to contact the organizations that we have as intake organizations. So, well before you get the court summons. If you're at the court summons phase, those organizations still can help you. But you can also go to Rent Help Hennepin directly and they can put you into the into the list. But we want you, anybody who's facing eviction, to ask for help as soon as you know something's wrong. Excellent, thank you. Now, if uh if someone is trying to access rental assistance, I understand these processes can be really confusing, especially when you're going through a traumatic uh period um in in your life where you're concerned about facing eviction. I can understand how it might be um confusing to um or or just there's it there's just a lot of um information out there and not entirely sure what the correct process is. So, you know, if a person is filling out a uh like a form online and um they are uh they have a pre-eviction notice and they they see that they can't actually continue to uh complete their application, they might be completing an application through RentHelp Hennepin, which requires a court summons. Is that accurate? >> Yes. Council President Payne, Council Member Chughtai, it's my understanding that that is accurate. If you go through RentHelp Hennepin and you do not have a court summons, it'll stop you. That's why we ask Minneapolis residents to go through the the the community-based providers that are working with us because they can help navigate whether you have a pre-eviction notice or a court summons, which is the proper path. That's why don't wait until you get the court summons. Act now. And the three uh organizations that have been identified um or selected as as subcontractors for um for distributing or assisting uh folks with accessing uh rental assistance, in particular for those who um have a pre-eviction notice, are these organizations ones that have any type of experience doing something like this in the past, perhaps during the COVID-19 pandemic? Council President Payne, Council Member Chughtai, I'm not sure exactly how long they've been contracting with Hennepin County, but they've gone through a procurement process with the county. Uh we um think that they're totally capable to do the work that they're being asked to do. That's awesome. Yeah, and I I all three of them have uh on their website still like archived information about um uh distributing rental assistance um during the COVID-19 pandemic when that became available. Um so I think uh I think it it's it's just um it's important to know that there is help for for people out there regardless of the uh the stage of the process that they're in. Thank you so much for outlining that and for your diligent work in in making uh this available for residents. >> Thank you. Council member Wansley. Yeah, thank you staff for uh coming forward for answering these questions. No, I have no more for you. I just wanted to make sure it's clear just for the public. We're not re-litigating rental assistance um in this moment. Um right now the item that's before us is are we going to allow additional 15 days to our standing 30-day requirement uh based off of our ordinance for a pre-eviction filing notice and give people additional 15 days um to do exactly what Council Vice President um Osborne named, be able to be uh work with their networks, reach out to community organizations um who are still doing rental assistance, uh mutual aid uh to see if they can get caught up on their rent before even having to go through eviction process. Again, that prevention piece. Um so I just want to name that is at the forefront of our conversation today of are we going to give people more time? Uh rental assistance, we that we took the leadership several months ago to not only secure 3.8, but then get a match from the Wilson Foundation um to get us to nearly $7 million towards rental assistance. And we've been doing a lot of work, which as was reflected in our own uh staff's um just comments right now, a lot of us went into that process being very clear in receiving feedback from our fellow colleagues around, we want to make sure these funds get to the most impacted uh, residents and that we have qualifiers uh, that are very clear and that could be clearly communicated to the public of what you need to do in order to access those funds. That has already been hashed out. What we have the opportunity to do today is through policy means give people more time by the amount of 15 additional days. So that they don't even have to go through this process. So I just wanted to make sure before we take the vote on this that we spend a lot of time talking about something that we've already done previously, but we are absolutely here to figure out how we can give people residents or our residents more time that we denied of them just a month ago with the 60-day notice. So I just want to reground that cuz I know sometimes it gets a little bit messy when we get to votes and it's like what we're doing and just refocus on what is actually before us today. Council member Stevenson. Thank you. We [snorts] have been having an interesting debate over the last few months about how uh, having more evictions is going to give us less evictions. Um, I think uh, we should have less evictions and I'm thankful to my neighbors who know that less evictions means less evictions. Um, just this past weekend I went to a singing event where we sang songs and raised money for um, for rent relief in the Bancroft neighborhood. Thank you to my neighbors who are continuing to raise money um, and thank you to my colleagues who are planning on supporting them and supporting all of us in giving a little bit more time for more paychecks, more fundraisers, uh, and more care and love in our community. Thank you. Council member Truck Thai. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I also um just want to note that uh processing the applications for uh rental assistance does take approximately um 40 days to to to process for individual applications. That's That's um without uh additional strain or burden on on the system, um which we know exists right now. We know that there are more people that are facing eviction um than than before uh than compared to the at this point last year. So, um these these 40 these 40 a 45-day notice is so critical in ensuring that uh those who have a pre-eviction notice are able to access the assistance that um is is available and and this body has has worked pretty diligently alongside staff to uh to make available to residents. So, these two things do actually go hand-in-hand um and that uh residents' uh ability to access the uh the assistance that's available to them does require some time um and and again that that processing time is approximately 40 days. Thank you. Councilmember Chavez. Uh Council President Payne, I don't think there's been a motion to approve this ordinance, so I'll move that. Second. Uh seeing no one else left in queue, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Councilmember Chaudry. I. Councilmember Stevenson. I. Councilmember Rainville. No. Councilmember Vitta. No. Councilmember Hamasaki. No. Councilmember Chavez. I. Councilmember Warren. No. Councilmember Schaefer. No. Councilmember Wansley. I. Councilmember Sawant. I. Councilmember White. I. Vice President Asmundson. I. President Payne. I. There are eight eyes and five nays. That item carries, and we will now take up item number four, drug paraphernalia. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item as we wait for speaker management to get The authors Council member Chavez Uh President Payne, let me first talk about what this ordinance is not. This ordinance is not about legalizing drug possession, which has been said countless times. It's not about legalizing drug use. It's not about completely unrelated laws passed in other cities, states, or anywhere else. Literally, all this ordinance does is decriminalize the possession of paraphernalia in alignment with state law. As we heard during the public hearing and online commentary from constituent outreach and from the community, this ordinance will result in better better public health and safety outcomes. In fact, it was community members and organizations who first approached my office with this idea. This issue was first brought to my office by the Alliance Project in May 2025, and our work on this ordinance began this fall with our unsheltered homeless outreach workers and HIV prevention organizations. They see firsthand on a daily basis just what kind of impact our existing code has on our most vulnerable among us. They said that if this policy is good enough for the entire state of Minnesota, surely we can follow suit here in the city of Minneapolis, which has long been a leader in this state on enacting policies that are rooted in equity and fairness. It's unfortunate that this common sense policy has been distorted. In opposition to this policy, we heard instances of residents coming across discarded paraphernalia and the potential dangers of, for example, using sharps on sidewalks or on bike paths. I agree that this is not accept is is the discarded sharps and other paraphernalia litter that litter our streets is occurring under our existing laws today. Opponents to this ordinance have made the argument better than I could ever that criminalizing paraphernalia does not work. So, instead of trying more of the same and hoping for a different result, my co-authors and I have been in conversations with state lawmakers, advocates, legal experts to bring forward a policy that is already in state law. Harm reduction practitioners have shared their lived experience as to why this is good policy. Medical practitioners have shared their expertise on why this is good policy. Research have shared their data that is data-driven evidence on why this is good policy. I know there's been a lot of talk in the media about the council's priorities and what we're working on. So, count me in on the camp that is proud of the work that this policy is going to do because it is good. Policy that will have positive public health and public safety outcomes. Policy that will have tangible impact on some of the most vulnerable neighbors among us. I want to thank everybody that has worked on the development of care over criminalization. Everybody that came to testify. Everyone that has been contacting us on the city council to pass this ordinance. And I want to thank the co-authors of this ordinance that helped bring us forward. Additionally, I want to thank Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty's office, who has spoken to the city attorney's office here in Minneapolis to understand the comments that were made in committee of the whole this past Tuesday. And I want to read the letter that she's that she sent us all today. I write to express my strong support for CARE Over Criminalization ordinance that is being considered by the Minneapolis City Council. Drug use is a public health issue and decriminalizing the possession of drug paraphernalia is a critical step towards treating it as such. The ordinance will also bring Minneapolis into alignment with Minnesota state law. I understand that a question was raised at a previous hearing regarding whether drug paraphernalia charges were used as a negotiating tool on felony drug felony drug cases. As you know, my office prosecutes all felony drug cases in Hennepin County. I want to be clear that we do not use drug paraphernalia charges as a negotiating tool in our cases. Thank you for prioritizing harm reduction and a public health approach as we work together to improve public safety in our community. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. With that, Mr. President, I move approval of this ordinance. And I understand there's a debate on amendments. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. I'll recognize Council Member Schafer. Thank you, President Payne. What we heard on Tuesday from our Deputy City Attorney struck me. And I believe it deserves serious consideration by this council. First, he told us that Metro Transit Police actively use this ordinance to investigate complaints about open drug use on at bus shelters and light rail stations. He said that without it, their ability to respond and investigate would be limited. That it's part of the totality of circumstances that they need to act on in a complaint. Secondly, he told us the City's Attorney's office that this charge was used as a negotiation tool. That when someone facing more serious charges, the para- paraphernalia charge gets dismissed as part of a plea agreement on those cases, and treatment is ordered as a condition of that resolution. The paraphernalia charge creates leverage in the broader case that helps get people into treatment. Finally, and most importantly, when Council Member Palmisano asked him directly whether removing this ordinance could limit our ability to target drug dealers, he said, and I'm quoting, "I think that's a very possible outcome. Yes." He said drug paraphernalia is commonly used to find evidence of other crimes, including sale or intent to sell. These are not my opinions. They come from our city's own lawyer answering direct questions on the record in this chamber. We need to give weight to his words because obviously he's not advocating for or against changing the ordinance. He's letting us know what will happen if we go this route as it relates to transit, treatment, and targeting drug dealers, we will be taking a tool out of our law enforcement toolkit, and we will be making our community less safe. When it comes to public health, we need to be honest about what this phrase actually means. Public health is not just about the health of the people engaged in the behavior being regulated. It encompasses the well-being of the entire community, including people who are not using drugs or choose did not choose to be proximate to drug use. That includes the child at the bus stop, the small business owner watching customers walk past a corner where people are visibly using, the resident who wants to take their family to the park without encountering used needles. Their health and safety are a public health concern, too. And an analysis that doesn't weigh those harms alongside the harms of criminalization isn't really a full public health analysis. It's a partial one. And I'm not dismissing the research on harm reduction. I'm saying the frame has to be wide enough to include everyone who lives in the city. And I have to say, I kept hearing on Tuesday that this ordinance isn't about public drug use. You're right. This ordinance is about public use of drug paraphernalia. That supporters want to protect harm reduction workers and support people trying to clean access clean supplies. So, that's not in in disregard. I am not a public health expert. I am not versed in the academic literature around best practices for addressing substance use disorder. But I can read, and what we are striking from this ordinance is written explicitly in 223.235. It reads, "It is unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally to use or to possess drug paraphernalia in a public place. And we're striking that. So, when the claim is made that this has nothing to do with public use of drug paraphernalia, that's not a difference of opinion. That's not consistent with the text that is in front of us and plainly written. I've also heard comments that this is an ordinance that doesn't get used much. Maybe the numbers are smaller than what some of us expected. But even a tool that gets occasionally used is still a tool. And when it does get used, it's largely at transit stops and stations. So, I'm a no on this drug paraphernalia change. Uptown needs this. Nicollet Avenue needs this. We all need this. Thank you, President. Council Member Stevenson. Thank you. Um I want to talk a little bit about the path that we're on now when it comes to public drug use, overdoses. Um I I believe I saw a picture just the other day about the Walker Library cutting the bench off of the front of their library so that people uh wouldn't wouldn't sit there and wouldn't use. Uh we're in a place where we have to fight over whether we want public benches put anywhere, bus stops, anywhere because we're afraid of homeless people. We're afraid of people using. This is the path we're on now. What we're doing now is leading to the eradication of sitting in public. Um we have these terrible semi-benches at the light rail stations where you can supposedly lean against them to rest, but it's not a real bench where you can actually sit. This is the world we're living in now with this already criminalized. So, what we're doing now is simply not working at all. Uh all that is beside the fact that we have so many overdoses in our city, on our streets, the fact that public drug use is happening now with these laws on the books. Uh so, we we're not by any means moving in the right direction on these things. Uh so, when we have advocates come to us and say, "Hey, we have a better idea. We know how we can do something to improve the health and the the movement of people from the streets, uh from public drug use into treatment." I say we give it a shot, uh especially because the academic literature does show that this is going to uh improve outcomes, including getting people into treatment. Um I just want to highlight again the Hennepin County Attorney's comments saying that her office, which prosecutes all felony drug cases, does not use this as a negotiating tool. And if they did, if they wanted to negotiate with something, when I was a street outreach worker, we had a client who was charged with attempted loitering. Let's think about what that is. Loitering is staying somewhere too long. Attempting to do something is trying but failing to do it. Attempting to loiter is staying somewhere an appropriate amount of time. So, literally, we can charge people with anything. Anything people can be charged with in this country. We have the whole war on drugs. We have all these laws on the books. We are not wanting for tools for criminalization in this country. Uh our massive prison population is one testament to that. Um so, please, let's not talk about all of a sudden police, the county attorneys are not going to have the tools they need to to further criminalize or to find legal pathways to uh move people into uh forced treatment. Um we have so many laws, different ways to criminalize people. Attempted loitering can be one Uh it if if need be, apparently. Um lastly, I was a street outreach worker. I carried clean needles. I carried Narcan. I carried on occasion bubbles, which is glass pipes. And the reason that I did that is because I hate seeing people get HIV and hepatitis C. I hate it. I hate it so much. And what I do like is I like building relationships with people on the streets. I actually still pass people walking down the streets who recognize me and say, "Oh, hey. Um yeah, I need to get back in touch with my case worker." That's what that's what these this drug paraphernalia does. It allows me to hand someone something that they want and and bless them in a small way so that we can build a relationship that when they see me, they see, "Hey, that's somebody who cares about me." And they know that I don't want them on the streets. They know that I don't want them to use drugs. It's it's so obvious. So, when they see me, they see someone who cares about them and they see a pathway to getting off the streets and off of drugs. That's what we're doing by passing this is we are giving other workers the chance, the legal um the legal protection to create these beautiful relationships with the beautiful people that are suffering on our streets. Um that relationship is something that's really powerful. I have seen people in this city who I thought if there was anyone who could not attain housing or get clean, uh it's this person. Turn around a few months, they are in housing. There is hope for every single person on our streets. This is a pathway to hope. Um I encourage my colleagues to pass this uh for many many reasons, but for at least the hope that we can get people off the streets and into treatment and into fulfilling lives that they want and that we want for them. Thank you. Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President. Um I really am sat and thought about this and talked to numerous community members and different organizations within my ward and on the north side prior to our committee of the whole meeting that we held on Tuesday, which um which provoked the questions that I asked our city attorney when they came before our chambers. And one of the beautiful things that he said and that stood out to me was that there are current protections in the law that prevent criminalization of individuals who clean up needles, who distribute needles, and individuals who carry clean needles or participate in needle exchange programs. And that really, really, really made me feel good knowing and understanding the way that the law is currently written. And the way that the statute currently lines up that there are protections because I was concerned about if I myself would be viewed as criminal for cleaning up needles that sometimes frequently, you know, more times than not speckle my alleyway where I live at in North Minneapolis. And I was concerned about the individual organizations who do an amazing job out here cleaning up the needles, making sure that they're not in the parks and out on the streets. I was concerned about if they would be criminalized because after a needle is used and it contains, this is again the paraphernalia, it contains residue. If the paraphernalia contains residue of drug substance, it's considered criminal. And we learned that when our attorney spoke to us um on Tuesday. And I loved how um we never let the facts and the law get in the way of our opinion. I love that, too. We received a great deal of information about the protections that live within the current jurisdiction. And I want to say plainly to my community members and neighboring organizations that do this work, thank you. I thank you humbly for the work that you do to ensure that our young people are protected, our elders are protected, and all of those things. But I also um and and I know that individuals who are carrying drug paraphernalia are not necessarily the users or people who who use, but even with our individuals that use, and I shared a story about my son and my sister, and I'm not going to get into that again, but it is we are at a precipice of change. No, changing this ordinance does not clean up the needles. But once something is decriminalized, it changes the culture of the behavior. So, that will increase what we are seeing that is already existing on the streets because it is not criminal. It It It takes away that leverage of conversation that I can have with someone to improve their condition. It provokes aid to conspiracy against oneself. That's what it does. It provokes that. It provokes you being a danger to yourself or to others. And to all of my organizations that do this beautiful work cleaning up the streets and the neighborhoods and everything else, you guys are extremely valuable, but we are worth more than that. We are worth more than that and a different level of job security. We don't need that type of job security. We need real sustainable jobs in our community that are going to suffice us for the long term. We don't need that type of job security. That's not the type of job security that we need. And so I just really want to place the value back into the people and the community. Yes, hepatitis is horrible. AIDS is horrible. All of these things are horrible, but we need more clear and cohesive intervention methods in order to help people who are struggling amongst this epidemic of of chemical substance use. And this is not the answer. I cannot support this and it doesn't line up with the state of Minnesota statutes. We heard that from the attorneys on Tuesday. So, if there are people without clarity, they should re-listen to that message, read the statute itself because this ordinance does not line up with the statute and the way that it's written because there are already protections written around these different things that we are so gravely concerned about where it pertains to drug paraphernalia. Those protections already exist. The end. Council member Whiting. Thank you, President Payne. All right, colleagues, you will have in front of you an amendment here. Specifically, I can kind of talk to it a little bit before that. But it is similar to what Council member Warren brought on Tuesday with a few additional changes in there. And so, first and foremost, if I'm going to take a a moment to speak about it, I would like to extend my gratitude to the Council member Chavez and the co-authors of this ordinance for for bringing this up. And I think this is an important topic before us. And while I'm fully supportive of the underlying motion before us ordinance before us today, I think legalizing drug paraphernalia is an important step towards both safety, humanely and equitably addressing an addiction problem here in the city of Minneapolis. When cities criminalize tools of drug consumption, they push drug users away from treatment and discourage safety through programs like needle exchanges and otherwise. This can increase obviously the spread of diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. Additionally, when drug paraphernalia is policed, it is often in black and brown communities, even when studies where rates of their use is the same as their white counterparts. And so, right, I I have spoken with with our mayor at length about this ordinance several times in the past week. And while we respectfully disagree on this ordinance, it is kind of under my understanding and I think others that I've shared on this body, I believe it is likely that this will come back to us. And additionally, what we are hearing from advocates of this policy at the state level have expressed that a veto on an ordinance like this would harm the statewide public health efforts to decriminalize paraphernalia. And I I agree with them as the ones that are doing this work. If Minneapolis, the largest city in the state, strikes down this ordinance. It doesn't just It won't just be a missed opportunity for for our residents. I think it creates helps to create a chilling effect for every other municipality looking to us for leadership and setting the broader harm reduction moving back for for years to come. For that reason, I believe that we can't let perfect become the enemy of good today. And if we can help one person through the decriminalization of marijuana paraphernalia, I think we should. That will help more people in in the overall decriminalization effort than passing something that is ideal, but then will come back to us. Though I support this ordinance as the underlying ordinance as it is, I think a compromise is necessary to pass it and begin helping our residents immediately. That is why I'm moving to amend this ordinance to change this language to legalize marijuana paraphernalia. For those at home, this amendment undoes a portion of my amendment from Tuesday just keeping the the restrictions on delivery of drugs, paraphernalia to minors, but edits the prior paragraphs to keep current language minus the the marijuana paraphernalia. Right, this is not my preferred outcome and will support the underlying motion if this amendment does not pass today, but I take the mayor at at his word and want to do something whether that is incremental or not to move this forward in a way that can help our our neighbors today. Happy to answer any questions, but I think we we we spoke at this at length on Tuesday. And so, if there are any questions, happy to answer those. Council President Payne, did I move that correctly? Sure. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Council member Chavez. President Payne, while I'm thankful for Council member Palantir's work and the conversations we've had over the past few days, I'm speaking against this proposed amendment that would create inconsistency with Minnesota's 2023 paraphernalia decriminalization law. This carve out would still leave Minneapolis more punitive than state law and it would continue to have massive effects on the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C and it would disregard public health. I added myself to the queue just to say I'm also going to not be supporting this amendment. I mean, the purpose of the underlying amendment is to bring uh best practices public health best practices uh forward as part of our official policy. Uh when we're thinking about statewide impact, we are a uh charter city. Other smaller cities, statutory cities and maybe the clerk of the city attorneys can confirm this. Uh they are already operating under the state law. They don't have the ability to modify um uh local ordinances to to work within that they're effectively preempted. Uh we shouldn't be watering this down. The goal here is really specifically about the spread of disease. That's what we're trying to accomplish. Um and by limiting it to cannabis paraphernalia, which is already legal statewide, I don't know that it has the the stated effect of improving public health. So, uh I will be supporting the underlying ordinance and not supporting this amendment and I'll recognize Council Member Warren. Thank you, Council President Payne. Um I through the president, can I ask a question of uh Council Member Whiting with respect to this ordinance? Council Member Whiting? Please. So, with this ordinance, you are changing the definition of drug paraphernalia to um remove all or to state that all drug paraphernalia is considered paraphernalia other than um items associated with the use of marijuana. Am I understanding this correctly? >> that's the the easiest way, yeah. Okay. And so the items on here that are crossed out are the things that are being excluded from this ordinance? Correct. And they're all related to marijuana or cannabis products. Okay. And And so that includes item number three because it's not completely crossed out, just the number is crossed out. And letter F G I J K because they're fully crossed out, but the this one only has part of the letters crossed out. So I was just confused. >> Yes. And and and my understanding that's just a a formatting issue there. And so right, we we crossed out two above and so three becomes two. Uh because all of the the uh preceding two has been stricken. And so now it becomes the new two. Okay. Thank you for moving this, Councilmember um Whiting. You can add me as a co-author to this and I will be supporting this ordinance. >> [clears throat] >> Seeing no one else left in queue, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on the Whiting amendment. Councilmember Chaudry. Nay. Councilmember Stevenson. Nay. Councilmember Rainville. Aye. Councilmember Vetaw. Aye. Councilmember Palmisano. Aye. Councilmember Chavez. No. Councilmember Warren. Aye. Councilmember Scheafer. Aye. Councilmember Wonsley. Nay. Councilmember Goodman. Nay. Councilmember Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osman. No. President Payne. Nay. There are six ayes and seven nays. That uh fails and we will return to the underlying amendment or ordinance and I will recognize Council Member Chuck Thai. Thank you, Mr. President. Um I think the I think something I'm struggling with is um I've heard uh several times from colleagues um on this on this dais that uh a value that's important to us as a body is um listening to experts, right? Um because because um you know, we are not uh I am not a uh a public health professional. We actually only have one um on on this body. Um but I believe the public health experts when they come in and testify to us at our public hearing in the public forum um who do this work every single day. They've studied it. They practice this work every day. Telling us how important it is, how much it can be a tool to save lives for us to decriminalize the possession of drug paraphernalia, right? Um I also am I'm not a public health expert, right? And but but I too can read and we are not decriminalizing the use of drug paraphernalia in public. We're decriminalizing the possession of drug paraphernalia. Those things are different from one another. Drug use in public continues to be illegal even with the passage of this policy. Another value I hear from colleagues on on this body um and I think we can agree is is something that um that we all aspire to is uh is building consensus. And I really appreciate that. You know, I I think it's a I think it's actually what's needed in in the um preservation of local democracy. Um and what I really appreciate about this policy is the the type of consensus that was built at the state level when this exact policy was passed at the legislature. Right? With support from Representative Walter Hudson, who represents the furthest right wing of the legislature and support from Senator Fateh, who represents the furthest left wing of the legislature and support from Governor Walz who is the leader of the Democratic Party in this in the state. So, if all three of those people who rarely agree on on on something together can find that type of consensus, it alarms me that we can't do that here in the city of Minneapolis. On this body, we value listening to experts. On this body, we value building consensus. This policy is a product of both of those things. I would hope to see unanimous support. I encourage my colleagues to reflect on whether listening to experts and building consensus are actual values we hold or not. Thank you, Mr. President. Council member Chaudry. Thank you. I'll keep my remarks really brief because I know we're all anxious to vote on this. Some of the things that I heard around this ordinance is the criminalization of paraphernalia is necessary to find drugs and drug dealers and these hit rates, while seldom are necessary and fruitful. That is the same exact language and arguments that people have used for decades to say why we need stop and frisk. You can literally take drug criminalization of drug paraphernalia and compare it to language that was used for stop and frisk and you can find a one-to-one. And I think that's worth thinking about and I also think that in this country, we have had so many moments in time where we have been able to reform the criminal justice system to still address crime that happens in our community while not over policing and criminalizing community members for things that shouldn't be crimes, right? Carrying a needle, having an addiction. So, those are my remarks. Um it's clear that we're going to have a divided vote on this, but it is also clear that there is unanimous support for us to help figure out how to address substance use disorder and addiction in our communities. I really want to encourage everyone, let's not count out harm reduction as a valuable tool in this and let's not rely on punitive measures because we're not going to get the end result that we want. Council member Rainville. Uh thank you. Uh before my uh comment, I just I see the city attorney is still here. And I have a question if you wouldn't mind answering it, please. Mr. Bernstein. So, is there such a uh a a rule or law in our books as attempted loitering? I thought that was taken out by the city council years ago. Uh through the chair, Council member Rainville, um there is an ordinance for loitering. Um the lurking ordinance was the one that was repealed. Lurking, okay. Thank you. Uh I'm going to vote no on this uh because of and we all talked to our experts. The expert that influences me the most is the chief of the Metro Transit Police. And he explained what a valve built tool this is uh for, you know, the problem at the Lake Street light rail stop, the Uptown bus stop. In my ward, uh the largest complaints I get are from people using mass trying to use mass transit uh but because of the drug use. So, I will be voting no on this today after listening to uh the Metro Transit Chief of Police. Council member Vita. Thank you, President Payne. Um I So, I do not believe that this is bad policy. And I'm grateful to uh Council member Chavez for delaying this for some time. What I think is happening though for me as someone who's worked on a lot of public health policy is this is missing a component of having community on board for such a policy shift that they can understand what's happening here. The feedback I'm getting from people is fear. People are afraid. And I can't just move forward with policy. I never have and I never will. My entire 20-year public health policy uh career, I would freeze, stop policy when people felt like they didn't have a voice in it or they were fearful of what could happen after a policy passed. And that's what this is for me. The people that are reaching out to me are afraid. I don't think that it's a bad policy, but I think it's bad to move policy when community doesn't understand what the policy is going to be for them. There's a lot of people who have had some traumatic experiences in their neighborhoods, in their businesses, at their neighborhood parks, and they're not understanding what we're doing here. So, I know someone said earlier that, you know, people are talking about the timing. Timing is everything when you're changing policy. That is a big part of this work. It It This could have maybe got a unanimous vote in 6 months, but people are living in fear. People are trying to restore their businesses, their neighborhoods, their communities from what just happened in Minneapolis. And then they're faced with this, and they really don't know what's going on. So, again, I don't think that this is bad policy. I certainly don't want to criminalize people um with paraphernalia, but I think it's bad timing. I think we have not done the work, and I don't see a pathway of us doing the work to educate and to teach people about what's happening. I don't believe we've built a coalition of people who can help us to get the message out to people that this isn't terrible policy. Another thing that's important when you're changing policies like this, you need a coalition. You need a broad coalition of people, and that's what the state had that we don't have. Because this work looks better if we had built a coalition with Metro Transit, with school leaders, with um our police department, with our park police. Uh I mean, th- that is what I feel like is missing here, and and it's it's off. It doesn't It doesn't feel like we're including the people who are going to be most affected by this, the residents of Minneapolis, the business owners of Minneapolis. And so, I I would challenge us to think about that in the future. It's not that we're we're doing something that's wrong or right. It really is about when you don't have a mechanism in place for um for folks to understand or there there is no way that uh we're going to be able to monitor like if people are just being walked up to and being appro- Like there there's nothing there. And and it's scary. People I'm I just want my colleagues to know this more than anything. The people who reached out to me about this that are in fear, they are in fear. They have been traumatized in our city by some things that some of us have never seen before, and I would never ever ever take away their experiences from them. Their voices need to be heard also, and and I really do think when we make big life-changing decisions like this, we have to value their voices and their experiences. Seeing no one else after you, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Chughtai. I. Council member Stevenson. I. Council member Rainville. No. No. >> [clears throat] >> Council member Vito. No. Council member Palmisano. No. Council member Chavez. I. Council member Warsame. No. Council member Scheafer. No. Council member Wonsley. I. Council member Shugart. I. Council member Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. No. President Bender. I. There are seven eyes and six nays. That carries and that completes the Committee of the Whole Report. The next is the report of our Enterprise and Labor Relations Committee, which will be presented by its chair, Council Member Palmisano. Mr. President, the ELR Committee has eight items to bring forward today. The first is a contract with Claims Plant Claims Management Resources Inc. for subrogation and related services in the annual amount of $350,000 for a 3-year period. Item number two is a contract with Paymentus for an enterprise payment platform system. Items number three and four are similar but have different vendors. They are contract amendments with Automated Logic Minnesota for building automation system service and a contract amendment with NAC Building Technologies for the same thing. Item number five is a contract amendment with West Publishing for online legal research. Item number six is a contract with HDR for architectural and engineering consulting. Item number seven is a contract amendment with Wold Architects for additional architectural and engineering design. Item number eight is a bid for the Prospect Park water tower restoration. I'll move approval of the full report. Council Member Palmisano has moved approval of the committee report. I'll recognize Council Member Wansley. Thank you, President Payne. I just want to make some comments regarding item number eight, which is accepting a bid for construction that will help support the reopening of the Witch's Hat, which is a beloved neighborhood gem in Prospect Park. It's also been out of commission since 2019 and since I entered office back in 2022, residents have been persistent in organizing to get the tower repaired and open back up to the public. There has been a tremendous amount of patience demonstrated on their end as they've worked with my office to figure out what was needed to be done and who was responsible for repairing and maintaining the tower. And in that we learned the city's actually responsible Um, and that led of of just years of ongoing efforts and collaboration and organizing um, that led to City Council passing a successful budget amendment um, in our 2023 budget markup session um, to support the renovation of the tower so that it can become open again. Um, and while I think no one could have foresaw that it would have took two years, a little over two years to um, see that funding be realized, I just want to highlight my appreciation for my residents in their persistence and patience for us to get to this point. And I'm also very eager to see those repairs be completed so that it can not only just be enjoyed by um, immediate neighbors, but as was highlighted during our budget discussion, but um, be something enjoyed as a historical and appreciated landmark by residents all across Minneapolis and even far beyond our city. Um, and I'm excited to also hopefully see it be part of our ice cream social activities. Um, but I'm I'm really excited about this particular um, action item cuz it does brings bring us one step closer towards the reopening day of the tower. And none of that would have happened without uh, the neighbors who've cared so much um, and have volunteered out their own time um, to maintain and advocate for this uh, landmark. So, that said, um, I'm really excited to support this item. Seeing no one else up in queue, I'll ask the clerk call the roll on the committee report. Council member Chughtai. Aye. Council member Stevenson. Aye. Council member Rainville. Aye. Council member Vetaw. Aye. Council member Palmisano. Aye. Council member Chavez. >> Aye. Council member Warren. Aye. Council member Sheaf. Aye. Council member Wansley. Aye. Council member Chughtai. Aye. Council member Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and the report is adopted. Finally, we have the Public Health, Safety, and Equity Committee, which will be presented by that committee's chair, Council Member Chavez. Thank you, President Payne. The Public Health and Safety and Equity Committee has 11 items to bring forward. Item number one is considering passage of an ordinance related to immigration status of renters. This was moved without recommendation. Item number two is passage of an ordinance related to an camera reporting policy. Item number three is authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the United States Department of Justice for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant through Hennepin County. Item number four is authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the Federal Office of National Drug Control Policy for Drug Nexus Supplies. Item number five is authorizing a grant for the Minnesota Base School Health Center Grant for Health Education Program. Item number six is gift acceptance for a National Association of Food and Drug Officials. Item number seven is approving a financial sustainability of Minneapolis Neighborhood Organizations Legislative Directive. Item number eight is approving a rental dwelling license reinstatement. Item number nine is approving a Public Safety Policies and Practices related to public gatherings and transparency legislative directive. Item number 10 is encampment response policies staff direction. Item number 11 is amending Operation Metro Search Police Department overtime expenses legislative directive reporting committee presentation date and request information. I'm moving approval of these items including the revised version of the immigration status of renters ordinance posted on LAMs dated April 21st. Council Member Chavez has moved approval of the committee report including recommending for approval item number one. Is there any discussion? Uh Council Member Chavez Uh thank you, Council President Payne. I'd like to speak in support of the renter immigration status privacy and anti-retaliation ordinance that was authored by myself, Councilmember Chaundry, Majority Leader Chuck Tain, Councilmember and Vice President Osman. In response to Operation Metro Surge, we are authoring this ordinance meant to protect immigrant renters and prohibit retaliation against renters in general in Minneapolis. I've heard from our neighbors who have been threatened to get ICE called on them by their landlords because they could not pay rent and a variety of other horrific instances. Um, I also want to thank uh, the City Attorney's office for all the help with this ordinance and the quick turnaround. Uh, we had folks like Alex Cain, Joseph Jensen, Dan Abelson, Quinn O'Reilly and in general our City Attorney staff who I'm also thankful for their creativity around this. Councilmember Palmisano. Mr. Chair, could we pull out item number two? Um, we have Director Velasquez coming in and I have some questions for him about this ordinance. Take item two as a separate vote. Councilmember Warren. Thank you, President. Um, that really saddens me to hear the things that are happening with item number one because that is definitely a violation of fair housing law. So, if individuals are being targeted or what have you with these landlords doing this in violation of fair housing, I think we need to be talking about the removal of rental licenses for these individuals who are discriminating and targeting or threatening acts of violence against community members regardless of their race or nationality. Like, this is This is That's That's really serious and that is something that should um, should be taken into deeper consideration. So, thank you for bringing that to the attention because that speaks to multiple volumes on multiple levels as it pertains to residents living in places and having threats of of um immigration or deportation or violence inflicted upon them for for living in a place because um that's a violation of fair housing. Vice President Huffman. Thank you, Council President. I I do want to thank Council Member Chavez and and other authors to bringing this forward. Obviously, we have seen since this administration, Donald Trump, that immigration or immigrants has have become the finger point. Like, they have become the taboo that somehow they're bad or this and this. There's this campaign and this attack from the federal government and we have seen hate crimes rising up because of this and, you know, discrimination is what follow up. So, I would definitely say this is prevention to make sure those things are not happening in our city. We have uh immigrants who have been here, who have been a member of our community for a long time and asking somebody their document status it's it's it's wrong in my opinion. And let me just say this immigra- immigration is very complicated uh system we don't understand. There are folks that are waiting um asylum and have their case heard and escape escaping from war or famine or you name it, all kind of horrible things to come here uh for safety. Uh you know, they might not have a status, but guess what? They do have a social security, they do have a work permit? There's a pathway for them to to work while their case is pending. And and I can't imagine someone, you know, stating them, "What's your documentation state state [snorts] here?" That is the immigration job. Uh and it's not uh uh landlords or it's not anybody, even employers, to to kind of um you know, to kind of make sure that they're not discriminating. And and immigrant communities, people with accent like me, have been on the other side of attacks that have um President uh Trump and um right right-wing folks continue to pick and then appoint. So, um I appreciate you all for standing up and supporting this uh It means a lot to me and to many immigrants in in our city. Thank you. Council member Chavez. Thank you, President Payne. And uh thank you, Council member Chavez, uh for leading on this. I'm proud to be a co-author on this. I just want to hold up that this is this is a really substantive action that we're taking on the Minneapolis City Council. This is guaranteeing a level of housing security and safety for our immigrant residents. And throughout Operation Metro Surge and years before, our immigrant communities have faced inquiries about their status from landlords. And it has made them feel afraid and and at times has led to people being in a place where they're deported or their families are torn away. So, this is a very substantive action that the Minneapolis City Council is taking as it comes to housing and safety. And we've worked on this for a a long time. We've had a lot of conversations about it. And I'm really proud that we're going to see this move forward and we're going to take another step towards public safety and also immigrant justice. Councilmember Wansley. Thank you, uh President Payne. I did want to highlight, um just in consideration of Councilmember Warren's comments, um one thing that I think this came out of in terms of the the ordinance that Councilmember Chavez is bringing forward was also in response to the work that we did around the civil rights ordinance that actually covers exactly what you're talking about. And we recognized there was a need to update and strengthen it, and we did that last May. So, we do have as a result of that ordinance where people can reach out if they are facing that level of discrimination. We added additional protected status um to get support from our civil rights department to take legal action if need be on their behalf. So, we do have that, but in um our efforts to try to also tackle this piece, we realized there were some limitations, and I'm thankful that Councilmember Chavez um did it stop the work um in light of those um limitations and without uh avenue for us to um also extend protections for immigrant residents um who um are also experiencing uh retaliation, all different sorts of discrimination, um and are deserving of support from the city as well. And that's reflected in the ordinance in front of us today, but I at least want to name we do have a strengthened civil rights ordinance um that also I think complements the intent um and purpose of this ordinance that also reaches and supports a a variety variety of just um issues and and matters in which residents can be discriminated against. So, I want to uplift that work, too. Councilmember Warren. Thank you for um uh Councilmember Chavez and Councilmember Wansley for um uplifting that and for the work that you guys have done around that. Fair housing and safe housing is extremely important to me and sustainable housing. So, I'd like to be added to a co-op as a co-author to this in support of, you know, ensuring that our residents that reside here in the city of Minneapolis or anywhere here in Minnesota, like fair housing laws are federal laws and need to be supported and uplifted. So, you know, if individuals are having these type of problems or whatever, let us know. Let's file HUD complaints. Like we want to stand with you with where it comes to housing discrimination because that's that's a real place and no one should be discriminated against or threatened or to feel unsafe in their housing under any circumstances regardless to who you are and where you come from. You know, that that it does not weigh a factor in in whether you have the right to have access to safe, suitable, and sustainable housing. So, thank you for all of your work in that. Council member Whiting. Thank you, President Payne. Question here, just quick question. I think probably most suited for our city attorney here. Just reading through it and think I think I remember reading this somewhere on here, but it's looking like the under the prohibition on immigration status inquiry under exemptions. I know sometimes with our federal housing programs, right, it requires immigration status. Is that I'm assuming that looks like it's included in those exemptions? Council President, Council member, yes, that that would be if it's a requirement, a condition of a particular, you know, benefit, then then obviously that inquiry would be lawful. Okay, thank you. That's all. Vice President Osman. Okay. Got it. Seeing no no one else up in queue, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on the committee report minus item number two. Council member Palmisano. Aye. Council member Stevenson. Aye. Council member Rainville. Aye. Council member Vita. Aye. Council member Palmisano. Aye. Council member Chavez. Aye. Council member Warren. Aye. Council member Scheafer. Aye. Council member Warsame. Aye. Council member Goodman. Aye. Council member Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Bender. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and those items are adopted and we will take up item number two and I'll recognize Council member Palmisano. Thank you, Mr. President. Um I had asked if Director Velasquez could offer a little bit of clarity on some of the parts of this uh reporting policy ordinance. I understand that this is meant to be a primarily administrative item with moving the ordinance to a new chapter in our code and updating some of the language and the definitions and I can see for the most part that it does exactly that. Um but I do have questions and possible concerns about the practical impact of a couple of definition changes. Um Director, if if that's all right, I I'd like to ask you through the chair. Um in this ordinance can you help us understand who completes this report if it if an encampment is closed? Is it the homeless response team, someone on your administrative team, or do you have that figured out yet? Director. Yes, thank you, Chair. Council member Palmisano, Enrique Velasquez, Director of Regulatory Services for the City of Minneapolis. Uh currently it's a collaborative effort to prepare the report. We work with Public Works, we work with Minneapolis Police Department, Homeless Response Team, and I'm the final author and curator puller together of all the various data elements to prepare the report and submit it including the presentation. Mhm. Um there's a change to the definition of non-shelter placement from a generic stabilization bed to a more specific hospital detox or mental health hold. Um I think that's fine for us to be more clear, but does that change or make any difference to how you report outcomes and will it increase staff time to be able to do this kind of reporting? Director. Thank you. Through the chair, Councilmember Palmisano, we have to still do some evaluation of what that would mean. That's currently data that we do not have access to either through the county or through any of their partners in terms of how many people exit homelessness or unsheltered homelessness through detox or any of these other avenues that are identified. Um and due to HIPAA and other protections, that's kind of a barrier that we aren't able to overcome at at the moment. So, we would have to have some additional conversations with other partners within the county to be able to see how can we get at that information? Is it even possible to get at the information? And if not, we would probably still have to continue reporting on those outcomes the way we currently do. Yeah. Um [snorts] also something concerning to me was the change of the definition of encampment. In the existing ordinance, it's defined as a grouping of tents or tent-like structures. The proposed ordinance defines an encampment as one or more tent or tent-like structures. So, it moves basically a plural to a singular. Um I know that seems like a small change, but it could have a pretty large impact on the reporting that's is required by this ordinance. Don't we clear single tents pretty frequently, maybe even trespassing somebody off a property? Uh through the chair, Council member Palmisano, I believe that specific change was to align the ordinance definition with what our operational definition definition has been. So, when we do have instances where there's a single tent, we would consider that an encampment as well, and we would report on those situations as well. So, we do that already. Yes, ma'am. That's helpful. Um I mean, I I think that as we move forward, we have to be um just clear-eyed and consider who's responsible now for that extra reporting, and and I don't think that our intention was to put this onus on you for all of the things that you already do, and then make you the author of this kind of reporting. This isn't earth-shattering or deal-breaking, um but I just think it's important to speak out loud and recognize the impact to staff of some of these changes. The impact to staff here um doesn't seem quite as substantial as I had been concerned about, but thank you. Thanks for helping to clarify. Not at all, ma'am. Thank you. Uh Vice President Osman. Yes, this is a question for um clerk. Why is this biz item on BHS, but not on um biz? Kind of little confused here. Mr. President, the question as I understand is why did this come through the Public Health and Safety and Equity Committee versus, for example, the Business Committee? I think it has to do Mr. Walter Greeman was whispering to me diligently. It's because under our uh committee structures, licensing and inspections are part of the Public Health Safety Equity Committee. That was a change that was made from last term since there's some looks around last year that was split between two committees and this year we consolidated that we the council consolidated that all of that function would be under one committee instead of split between two. Uh Council Member Chughtai. Yeah, just to that point. I know with the encampment reporting ordinance when we first took this up even last term this went through PHS. It didn't go through Biz. But I do have a request to the president to re-evaluate re-evaluate how regulatory reports to our committees because I do think regulatory services in part should report to Biz and that should be a change that is considered to this body and I know that there is also interest from the regulatory services department in conversation with the director to do that. So we can have that conversation offline after this, but I think that is something that does need to get resolved. Yep, happy to have that follow-up conversation. Council Member Chavez and is your question about the ordinance at hand? No. Okay. >> [laughter] >> With that I will ask the clerk to call the roll. On item number two. Council Member Chughtai. I. Council Member Stevenson. I. Council Member Rainville. I. Council Member Vita. I. Council Member Palmisano. I. Council Member Chavez. >> I. Council Member Warren. I. Council Member Sheaf. I. Council Member Wonsley. I. Council Member Schroeder. I. Council Member Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries and that completes the PHC report and the report of all of our committees. The next order of business is notice of ordinance introductions. We have one notice that was added at the beginning of the meeting I along with Council members Wonsley Stevenson, Chavez, Chughtai, and Chaudhry give notice of intent to introduce at the next meeting the subject matter of an ordinance amending the health and sanitation code to address gaps in the health department's authority to act to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Are there any questions about this notice? Seeing none, that notice is hereby given and no further action is required at this time. The next order of business is the introduction and referral calendar. We have three items today. First, council members Vita and Palmisano move to amend the prior introduction of the subject matter of an ordinance amending the zoning code given at the regular meeting on February 19th, 2026 by updating the description to read amending fence regulations. Second, council members Chaudhry and Chavez gave notice at our last meeting of their intent to introduce the subject matter of an ordinance amending title 21 of the code of of ordinances adding a new chapter 597 providing for a moratorium on the establishment, reestablishment, or expansion of data center uses. Today, the authors are moving to postpone the introduction of this item to our regular meeting scheduled for May 21st. Finally, pursuant to notice, council member Whiting moves to introduce an ordinance amending the administration code for first reading and referral to the Enterprise and Labor Relations Committee amending the requirements [snorts] for completion of ethics education. May I have a motion to approve these items as listed on the agenda including the motion to postpone item number two. So moved. Is there a second? Second. I would like to pull number two for discussion. Okay. Let's take up uh item one and three that have been moved for approval. We'll hold on item number two and I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on items one and three. Council member Chaudhry. Aye. Council member Stephenson. >> [clears throat] >> I. Council member Bender. I. Council member Vetaw. I. Council member Palmisano. I. Council member Chavez. I. Council member Warren. I. Council member Scheafer. I. Council member Warsame. I. Council member Shugart. I. Council member Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Bender. I. There are 13 eyes. That carries and those matters have been referred to the committees listed on the agenda and I'll recognize Council member Scheafer for item number two. Thank you, President Bender. I had a question for the city attorney around moratoriums in general. Um I have heard that legally once a moratorium is introduced even before a vote that it goes into effect. Can is that true and can you speak to that? Madam City Attorney. Uh Council President, Council member, um yes. So, under our zoning code, we have the ability to essentially pass an interim ordinance that would put a moratorium on um on it essentially the it would allow us to pass an interim ordinance that would regulate, restrict, or prohibit the establishment or expansion of use development or project uh with respect to our zoning code and under our code of ordinances, um the effective date of the uh the moratorium does actually get triggered once uh the introduction of the interim ordinance is is passed by this body. And and and essentially I can give you citations and everything. It's been uh Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 525.830. Effective date in order to protect the planning process and the city's legitimate planning goals, the effective date of an interim ordinance shall be immediately upon introduction of an interim ordinance to the city council, etc., etc. So, so you are right that once this body votes uh on the ordinance introduction, majority vote passing that uh introduction, then it goes into into effect. Then obviously the body has has a public hearing and and time to actually vote on the actual interim ordinance. If that fails, then then we're done. If the interim ordinance is passed, then the moratorium um it's a a time-limited moratorium for a a year. Okay. So, if we were to pass this when it's reintroduced on May 21st, that's when it would go into effect. >> Correct. Okay. Um I I guess I think a blanket moratorium um is really not the solution. It's a blunt tool that we have right now. And I think overall it is already sending unclear signals to the market about what Minneapolis is doing. And it's really failing to distinguish about what might be different about data centers in an urban small market like Minneapolis that has many office conversions that need to happen and be repurposed either for housing or other business uses versus large-scale development and concerns that we're seeing where you know huge facilities are being built in Monticello, Rosemount, Farmington. Um so for us to put a blanket moratorium feels like a very blunt tool at a critical time. At a critical time in our economic story as a city. Um and even with the introduction of s- mentioning this a few weeks ago I heard from Adam Donahue of the Downtown Council that it has already created a cooling effect of investors exploring some of our smaller downtown buildings for data data center potential. We all know that we want to reduce the property tax burden on our residents. And one of the ways that we do that is by really building back our commercial tax base. And it was so exciting to see what happened with the Sleep Number building um just in January of this year where it sold for $235 million. This same building was assessed within our city just a year ago for $30 million. That is a significant increase in city commercial tax revenue just by that one building having a huge valuation change and we need that. This is not to say that there may be ordinances that we need to discuss about how we can encourage these uh data centers to connect with municipal climate initiatives like Cordia that we see them already being able to explore that would lead some of our climate initiatives. But for us to take a blanket moratorium communicates again to our business community that we do not support them. We do not take their values and their interests to heart but are willing to move ahead with something so consequential to the next year of commercial value changes in our city without their input and without their knowledge base to help us through this. So, I would like to uh make a motion to refer this back to author. Can I have a second? Second. There has been a motion to refer this back to author and it's been seconded. Uh I will recognize Councilmember Chaudry. Thank you so much, President Payne. So, I am the author of this ordinance. Had I have had the ability to not have this on the agenda and bring it to the May 21st meeting, I would. If you look at the limbs file, there's not even language that's attached to it. My intention was to have some deliberate deliberative conversations and await for the state legislative cycle to conclude in which they're discussing data centers right now and then have an introduction with language with our staff to talk to. Councilmember Shafer, while I appreciate your comments, it would have been really appreciated if you had reached out to my office and had a conversation with me about your concerns. I refer to staff as absolutely not something that I can support. And I we are not in a place where we even have language to debate, so I don't want to go into a long debate about what this ordinance is. But what I do want to say is data centers, the growth of them, it is one of the foremost issues for the cities across the country. We're seeing large expansions. Cities are all trying to determine their land use practices. And it's important that government is responsible and takes the time to consider what it means for a city. And that's why I've been working with city staff and state legislators and talking to my co-author about bringing this forward. Again, there is no language before us. Had I have been able to put this onto the agenda later, I would have. But here we are. So, colleagues, please do not refer this back to author, essentially killing the start of this important conversation before we even have language before us. And council members with concerns, I encourage you to reach out to my office and have a conversation with me so we can have deliberative discussions. Thank you. Council member Chavez. Uh President Payne, I will not be supporting the motion to return to author. I think ending debate and a conversation about the impact of data centers and the water usage that they take from our community and the devastating impact when it comes to environmental injustice that data centers have and to decide to not have that debate any further would just be not okay. So, I would be I will be voting against this motion to return to author. I think this is a conversation that we need to have. Data centers are known to impact the environment that we have in our city and in this state and in this country. Council member Shafer. Yeah, I'd just like to clarify something. I I am responding to to specific language. And the specific language that is here, though it is not robust, says moratorium. And so that means if we were to pass this in May, we have an interim moratorium on any kind of sales in this area for the next year. That is specific specific enough language for me to take action. And um I would appreciate with all of these initiatives that we have been coming through council, refer to staff, refer to staff the subject matter of an ordinance. I really appreciate when there's more language there. But to me, moratorium is a strong enough position to take a strong action. I think it would send a clear community uh a council statement to our business community that we care about the valuation uh pain that they are feeling right now and we care about that pain that we are experiencing on the revenue side of it as city leaders. And we care about how we've been having to pass that revenue on to the residential market. So, um yes, there is specific language here, and it's heavy language. It's blunt language. And it's language that I can't support. Vice President Osman. Uh thank you, Mr. President. I I I completely understand uh Councilmember Schaefer's concern. Um I think we we do need to attract uh folks to use the buildings in downtown. Uh it's it we have the right infrastructure for a data center in downtown, right? I'm sure we already have a data center somewhere in downtown, right? No, we don't? Okay. Um so in what I would tell you and what I will tell the public is that um we we need a lot of information about the data center. What What are the pros and cons of data centers? There are work that need to go. Um we need our staff to help us out to make policies. Uh at the same time, uh we want investors to come in and and look at these places and and see what ways can we make sure that we have some kind of regulation. I think as example of Roseville and other cities, we're not going to have farm of data, right? Data centers everywhere, but we have we should have some kind of um where depending on on the finding of that is environmental expertise, health expertise, there's all kind of things that we need. So, short time delay actually gives us more time to do a research, to make the right decision. And this is not pushing investors out. It's we're telling them we're here to work with them in a manner that works in the health and well-being of our city. So, as a pro-business councilman, I really want to, you know, say that um let's let's all have a conversation. Let's talk to the uh expertise uh on this and let's make a decisions that that can that can make our lives better at the same time give our struggling downtown an opportunity to build and bring revenue. Thank you. Council Member Rainville. Thank you. And uh thank you, Council Member Scheffer, for explaining in great detail why this is harmful to everybody in the city of Minneapolis. Uh you know, telephones work both ways and had the authors talked to uh Council Members who work in downtown to explain uh what the effect of this has, I took three calls last week of from people who are concerned about selling their buildings in the value that dropped. We see the best example in the world of this uh $235 million sale compared to a $30 million uh assessed value. That's what we need to do with our buildings. Uh we have to bring our downtown back and data centers are going to be part of it. There's a big difference between a 25 megawatt data center, which we have in downtown now. We have data centers already, and the kind that the state is proposing to throw the moratorium on. Those are hundreds and hundreds. There's a big difference and we have to send the signal to the business community that downtown is important and we support that. So, that's the vote we're going to take today. Do we want to keep putting a knife in downtown Minneapolis and have that space, or do you want to nurture it and bring it back so every renter and every homeowner in the city pays less? Council Member Wansley. Thank you, uh, President Payne. Uh, what I will note for this is actually there has not been a definitive stance on on whether or not data centers are good and an economic builder and actually looking at the ways in which whatever benefits they quote-unquote provide actually come at the expense of to displacement. Is it the absorption of natural resources, which we do have a lot of here? And to say that, oh, we don't have to turn ourselves with that. Like, that is extremely problematic. And what this actually tees us up to do is to do the analysis, to do the data gathering, um, that is part of our legislative process. Um, this is to start that earlier conversation. And I'm all for here of talking about how to bring in additional revenue. That is why we actually have five recommendations in front of us that could give us a pathway for bringing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars into our local economy so that we don't have to constantly worry about either corporate in-flight or corporate flight from downtown Minneapolis. And that we don't have to constantly pass the buck onto our residents and homeowners and regular, uh, folks. We do have other means of exploring bringing in additional revenue. That also doesn't mean we have to allow corporate players to come in and suck up all of our natural resources and also do other harmful effects. But I'm more than happy for us to at least start the conversation of what that looks like, to pair that with other revenue, um, generators outside of making this seem as if this is the end-all, be-all for actually addressing, um, the bleak economic outlook of our city that currently, um, regular working people are having, uh, to keep us afloat and are anticipated in keeping us afloat for the foreseeable future. So, I will just, yeah, I I will not be supporting this motion to refer back to staff. Um, I look forward to working with the colleagues to really look at, um, the full picture of impacts and actually looking at what is an alternative um, vision around economic recovery, not just around downtown, but that takes into that broader impact of concerns and other revenue tools that we can be utilizing and working with state leaders uh, to truly bring in additional dollars into our city. Councilmember Whiting. Thank you, President Payne. Uh, just I think clarifying again, so sorry, it sounds like I'm probably asking a similar question to Councilmember Shafer did. Um, but it is my understanding right that the introduction or referral of the subject matter of this ordinance um, when introduced and referred on the 21st would then start the the moratorium. Council President, Councilmember, if in fact on the 21st this body votes in favor of the introduction, then that would trigger the the effective date of this moratorium. Okay. And language again, and this is probably where I'm a little more confused is language does not need to be attached to that introduction or referral at on the 21st, correct? Uh, through the President, Councilmember Whiting, the language of the ordinance what is what the council would be referring to its committee process to develop. However, under the state law and under code cited by City Attorney Anderson, the effect of the ordinance begins immediately and then when you adopt your ordinance, you would prescribe up to a year for the moratorium to last while study takes place. So, there is an initial, you know, um, effectiveness of the ordinance based on introduction and then when the council adopts the ordinance, they prescribe future details of that moratorium. Um, and and maybe I'll I'll add to that that the wording of the introduction does actually matter. I mean, you know, the it can be crafted however and that is the thing that you're you're voting on as the introduction. Um So, you know, this one is specific to data centers. Obviously, it wouldn't have a broader effect than that. So, you know, you're going to have to look at what you're the wording of what you're voting on at the time. Okay, helpful. And then President Payne, I think it's is it possible to ask questions of the author? Is that how that works? Uh if the author is interested. >> Cool. Um and so it sounds like the date of the 21st is in reference to ensuring that when the state kind of passes some study or language on what they're thinking about from the data are you able to kind of speak to that a little bit? >> Yeah, thank you Council Member Waden. Um the that is the intention. I know that there are several bills that are being considered at the state level. Depending on what passes, that could significantly change the conversations that we have on the substantive matter. And so I felt that it would be responsible to wait until we had definitive action from the legislature on their last day, which is I believe May 18th. Okay. And then last question here for Council Member Chaudhry is it sounds like it's possible to have more specific language once we get to the 21st. Is that something that you'd be able to talk me through what that language could look like? >> Yes, Council Member Waden, great question. That was already the plan that there would be more specific language on May 21st and I said Yeah, our staff will have that. We'll work together and then we can have a great discussion here. And ultimately, I think it's a good opportunity for the public to also weigh in at a public hearing and then we can have a good debate about it. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Chaudhry. And I think I share similar concerns that my Council colleagues Schaefer and Rainville do. I think what we have seen downtown with the last I mean if we look at the Sleep Number building for example right in the evaluation a year ago of 30 and then selling for 235 million dollars is is an influx into our downtown tax base that I think shares the burden across the city and so I think I am I am open to to figuring out what this language could be and how it could be helpful and so while I'm not supportive of I think referring it back to the author today, I think we need to have a full in-depth conversation on the 21st to see if it's helpful to actually move any of this forward or not and so I know I will be happy to talk with Council Member Chaundry and and other of my council colleagues to see if we can get to some language that is helpful for for all interests considered. Thank you. Council Member Stevenson Yeah, I was hoping to ask the clerk a question. You've been around here a while. You've been around other cities, other municipalities for a while. Can you tell me the norms around uh introductions? Is it is it normal or is it common for us to approve introductions no matter what or to have discussion like this on different introductions? Mr. Clerk Mr. President, I've said this in previous meetings in different versions of the council. I'll offer it to this body in its current iteration with the new members. The legislative process that in Minneapolis begins with an introduction. That's why you vote on introductions. A vote should not be considered pro forma. They tend to be taken unanimously and they tend to operate as a means of moving forward in the process. However, it is in fact the first step in the process where a formal vote is taken. We record that vote. It is the first chance that the body has to either advance a proposal in the legislative process or to kill it outright if a majority deems that idea or proposal not worthy of the body's attention or worthy of the staff's resources to develop and further bring forward a proposal. So, is it uniformly a yes vote on introductions? Usually, but it's not always. And it is, I will remind the body, the first chance for either a yeah, we want the resources to be dedicated to developing an idea into a formal proposal or it's an opportunity for the body to say no, we don't want that. So, it is not pro forma. It sometimes feels that way because the bulk of items do move forward usually unanimously at this point in the process. Okay, thank you. Um given that the bulk of items generally move forward in this way and given that we have now seen, I think this is at least the second time that an introduction, just to begin exploring an idea, at least the second time, just to begin exploring an idea has been challenged and attempted to to vote down. I just want to note that much ink has been spilled in this city about polarization, about fighting on the City Council, about not getting along. And I just want to note that we have norms moving these things through so that we can hear what they're about and then vote on the substance of the thing later. I I just want to note that we are witnessing right now the escalation of polarization and the escalation of fighting on this body by taking these um these notices and beginning to shoot them down before they've even started. So, I just want to note this point in time because in our our and in our city we are dealing with a lot of polarization, a lot of infighting. Um and this it's just important to note when we are crossing norms. And this is crossing of a norm as far as I can see it. And so I want us to be aware. Do we want to go down the path of you want to introduce something just so we can talk about it, we can learn more about it, and your colleagues who who maybe usually disagree with you uh shoot your thing down before it gets started, or do we want to have a culture on this body of letting our things move forward so that we can learn about them, we can have language about them, and then we can assess them on the merits rather than assess them on who brought it forward or uh uh a five-word title. Um I I think that we should have a culture on this body of letting our colleagues bring policies forward so that we can hear what they are, we can see what they are, we can amend them, we can discuss them. Um I really don't want a culture on this body of killing each other's ideas, killing each other's um each other's communities uh beginning of exploration on the issues that are important to us. I think that's a bad norm for us to take. I think we should take the norm of introducing policies and and letting them move forward. Um and that will mean that we are going to let things move forward that we think we're going to uh vote down later. I right now sitting here, I don't think I'm going to support the fence regulation ordinance. But I don't know yet because we don't have any sort of information about what it is. But when it moves through the process, perhaps I will change my mind because we don't actually know anything. There will be a lot more information later. I don't want to be on a body where we kill each other's things before they get started. Um so please let's not pick up that norm. Let's keep the norm or maybe establish an even stronger norm uh of letting each other's ideas move forward to the point where we can have real discussions about the substance of what's happening. That's a request to my colleagues. Councilmember Chaudry. Second. Um thank you, President Payne. So, I just want to say, just speaking from why I brought this forward, I have so many constituents and community members that are concerned. They're genuinely concerned about the impacts this will have on our environment, the impacts that this will have on our energy grid, the impacts that this will have on national security. Um there's there's a lot of conversations that need to be had because ultimately we're talking about the future of the way that our city is shaped, and we need to move responsibly. Sure, there's a dollar tag associated with it, but there's always There's There's costs to decisions that we make. And so, I just want us to move responsibly, and I also share in let's have a culture of being able to share ideas and move them forward and actually get into the arena where we can have a debate over language, and we can have the public weigh in and share their comments as a representative body. I also think we need a culture shift a lot more in general. There needs to be a lot more kindness and grace given up here. That's just a fact of the matter. We need to be able to be open to hearing from each other and reaching out to each other. I think this is a good example of that. I care about this ordinance, um and I look forward to an opportunity for us to have a good conversation and a debate and to allow for our constituents to weigh in, and not just the constituents that own companies or have a financial stake in having a data center. Councilmember Rainville. Uh thank you, and I agree so much uh with your change of culture. Absolutely have to do it. We have to quit complaining, quit whining. We have to respect each other. But and we have the the tool to do this. It's called a legislative directive. To just jump out right away and propose a moratorium is not the way to change the culture. That's why we're so defensive. The the proper way to move this discussion would have been a legislative directive as we have done for so many times. This was just a blunt tool as Councilmember Shayfer said. So, let's change the culture. Let's use our legislative directive. Let's have those conversations. Phones work two ways. Authors can call us, especially those who are going to be affected, whose words are going to be affected. So, let's use our legislative directive instead of this blunt tool. I added myself to queue just to kind of I don't know, ground ground what the reality of the market is right now and I'm going to kind of reflect on even my career what back at the very early start of my career career I was a little baby engineer working in a large industrial facility and aging myself. This is back in like the early 2000s, 2002 time frame. Uh I worked at a factory that ran 24/7 and it had a massive load on the energy grid. So much so that this and this was in Southern California. They had to build uh essentially a jet turbine uh generator so that they could not be as impacted by the rolling blackouts. The rolling blackouts would kick out all of the sensors of this mass and I mean football field size machine uh and it would cost millions of dollars to get it started back up. So, it made financial sense for them to invest in a massive um natural gas powered turbine to keep more steady power for that industrial facility. Just to give you a sense of scale about what we're talking about. Um and I'll just read the headline from 404 Media. A black hole of energy use. Meta's massive AI data data center is stressing out a Louisiana community. Uh this is a data center proposed by Facebook uh that is 2 gigawatts and would span about the size of lower Manhattan. That's the scale of this data center and this is the scale of data center and energy use that we're talking about. Um I was at that meeting with some of our downtown stakeholders where they talked about the concept of uh you know, using a very small portion of a building to help offset the or even subsidize the cost of commercial space for the rest of the the the build-out of that building. Uh to be frank that I interpreted that as a bit of wish casting around what might happen downtown, but as you can see that the the modern era of data centers is such that they need data centers the size of Manhattan to actually deliver on the capabilities that they're trying to build out. We should not be blind to the scale of need that they're they're pursuing. Um also early in my baby career I was the engineer that was responsible for changing the tape for our our our server. Uh and then we had a little closet with a server room in it and I would go change the back out back up tape maybe once a week if I recall. This is again over 20 years ago. Um I don't think I would call that server room a data center, but I think we are even up here having a debate about whether or not there are data centers downtown. There are server rooms downtown for sure. These things are old facilities. Um they've been around for decades, but they could be anything from a single rack to maybe a floor of a building that's housing a lot of mission-critical data that that that corporation needs, but these are not the data centers that we're talking about in the age of AI. We're not talking about a 2 gigawatt facility. And um I think the point is is we don't know what kind of facilities will be built right now. And there is no guidance or regulations around what the size of those facilities would be, how much data that they could consume, what the effect on the overall grid is going to be, and therefore what the effect on rate payers will be. Um these are all unknown things and I think there's a lot of wisdom to a moratorium period, but especially a moratorium that's aligned with the legislative session that's happening right now because these these things need to be regulated and they need to be regulated beyond what a city does from a land use perspective. They need, whether it's uh gigawatt or terawatt levels of thresholds of which they have limitations on them, or the footprint that's the limitation on them. Um there's a bunch of parameters that goes into these facilities that um to Councilmember Wansley's point, there's going to be a bunch of um side effects of these facilities. Uh you know, you if you were to just let, you know, the free market run run through this without any regulation, uh you know, we've already heard about some of the facilities in states like Texas, Louisiana being another one that, you know, has pretty loose environmental regulations. These facilities are massive in footprint, massive in terms of their energy footprint, not just their physical footprint. Uh they, you know, there's talk of, you know, billions of dollars of infrastructure just to power these facilities. And we actually don't know what uh the private market is interested in when it comes to a facility downtown. They might be pitching it as like just two floors of a building to offset the the the commercial uh space. But they might, you know, build a tower's worth of these data centers. And right now, there's no regulatory framework that would limit them from doing that. And I think that having a moratorium would, uh, give us the time for the state legislature to figure those details out. Um, maybe they'll get them figured out this session, and there would be no need for a moratorium at all, because they'd have a robust framework in place. I don't feel like I'm following along the state capital enough to hear about a robust regulatory framework being contemplated this session. Um, but I I would lean on our IGR chair to be more in the know about that. But, what I do know is that an unregulated, um, area that is emerging as quickly as this, there's going to be literally trillions of dollars of investment in, uh, data centers over the next few years. Uh, many of those will not There's right now essentially a a race to who can be the number one AI, uh, company. They're all overbuilding their capacity as they compete to be the the one and only, you know, market leader. That is kind of how these businesses emerge. Uh, and we should not let, uh, our grid and our people carry the burden of that race to the bottom. Uh, and with that, I'll recognize Council Member Bonzano. Thank you, President Payne. Colleagues, this is what happened on rent control, for example. The norm of requiring staff time and effort and resources and money on items that frankly shouldn't be considered. There wasn't support on that. If we are going to do what Council Member Stevenson says, which I could applaud, first, we need to do it with all things. Um, I do have a question for the clerk through the chair. I'm curious and you spoke a little bit about this. What's the problem with subject matter introductions? Through the president. Um I'm going to maybe back up a little bit if I can use some of your time and say there was a question about whether introductions are pro forma or not and I thought I answered it but maybe I'll back up and give an example. Notice of an ordinance is required as the first step and there is no vote. You'll notice it is truly pro forma. Notices are given and every council member has the right to bring forward a notice. But the introduction is the body voting officially to move that forward in its legislative process and as I've said before when this question has come up in the body our current process allows for what is called subject matter only introductions and you'll see that on the agenda where it says introducing the subject matter of an ordinance, not introducing an ordinance. Our rules don't provide for that but our practice enables it. That's two different things. So if you're at the state legislature for a legislator introduce a bill, they have to have a draft of the bill. You can't introduce something without the draft so that all members of the body and the public can see what is being proposed. One of the reasons that we sometimes not often but occasionally at this point early in the process get into this difficult situation is because there isn't something to look at when it's just a subject matter introduction. The only thing that the body or the members of the public who are interested have to look at is the short sentence that the clerks and the attorneys have worked on. And so it doesn't have the details of what would that mean in practicality if this ordinance carries forward and is adopted. So subject matter ordered ordinance introduction is less transparent. It has less accessibility. There are problems in how we process that even though it's not in accordance with the the and the rules. We've allowed it. So, it's a practice, but not uh one that necessarily would follow strict adherence to the charter or our rules. The better process, Council Member Palmisano raised the experience with rent control. Um it's a painful one for me to relive, but I will say that the process that Council Member Shugart I had agreed to as the primary author at that point was um coming up with an interim stage, which was bringing forward an outline of the major um pillars, if I can use that term, the major legs of an ordinance, so that the body and the community had an outline of what an ordinance would contain before there was the required first vote. Under our charter, every ordinance gets two votes. The way we operate then, the introduction, that first vote that we say maybe that's pro forma, that's the first reading that's required. And so, we blow past the first reading and we say we've given an ordinance a reading, but there's not even a draft. And so, I do think that it raises questions about the overall legislative process. And, you know, the last two terms we've talked about legislative process reform. Put a pin in that and say that's something I've advocated for a while. However, the the practice is established that things can move forward. There are disadvantages to the way we do subject matter ordinance introductions, as I've just outlined, not withstanding the fact that it doesn't comport with the charter and rules, and the fact that it is less transparent and accessible, the body has a custom of using that in order to move things through. It does mean that the vote taken can feel pro forma, and I will again state it's not. It is a vote. It's the first vote to say yes to a proposal or the first chance to say no. And every ordinance gets two readings. That's the first reading. I don't know if I answered your specific question, Palmisano. Yes. So, Mr. President, this is an introduction. And maybe a better approach overall is to bring forward proposed rule changes that prescribe the way that this could all be done better, more transparently, once and for all all with more information in it when we do introductions. You know, putting data centers in rural areas and cities where the proposition is about jobs and construction and demanding massive new infrastructure loads, that's not what we have here downtown. It's about fitting in a new use in an already built environment. I don't often get to talk about a part of my past or prior experience I bring here, but when I moved here, it was because I beam moved me here from Cleveland where I was the account representative for continuity services that included three major accounts here, all data centers downtown. The University of Minnesota, Thrivent, then called Lutheran Brotherhood, and Norwest Bank. Um from what Director Hanson has shared with us here in public, the idea of foreign into some amount of data centers is a way to stabilize our large buildings downtown. This [snorts] isn't an new environmental risk if we create policy around it. A lot of this already exists with multiple feeds, multiple infrastructure feeds underground here downtown. And I think Director Hanson spoke about that. So, yes, we need regulation and policy and to step into this carefully. Um I think moratorium signal other things to the to the finance world, to the public, um and that's what in my understanding is the objection coming from Council Member Schaefer. Thank you. Council Member Vita. Thank you, uh President Payne. I just I wanted to adjust uh clarify the difference between the fence regulations ordinance and the moratorium on data centers because it was stated that um they're the same and they're not. The fence regulations ordinance has been carried over for a year, um at least I've been working on it. My office has been working on it for 2 years. Council member Council Vice President Osman has been working on it. Council member Palamisano has been working on it. Uh, sorry, Council member Council Vice President Osman, you're not listed on this, but this is actually a coalition built ordinance and introduction. The three of us had very different issues in our wards or around the city that we were facing. I did a legislative directive over a year ago. Staff came back with recommendations. Um, after staff came back with recommendations, the three of us talked about how we could collaborate how we could collaborate on getting the needs met with one ordinance introduction, and time ran out last year. So, we didn't get to get that done because we were doing a really good job at working together to make sure we only had to change and update the ordinance one time. And so, what you see before you in this, um, introduction is actually 2 years of work from staff, 2 years of work from well, uh, Councilman Palamisano, maybe more like 8 years of work from from one Council member. Um, and so, I think that is what Council member Rainville and Schaefer are saying. There is no norm. People introduce things the way in which they want to. Some of us do the background work and prepare for staff to do briefings on what we're proposing. Council member Osman and I Council Vice President Osman and I and Councilman Palamisano and I have been talking about how we organize that so people do understand what we're bringing forward uh, during this time period um, of this introduction. I I just wanted to make it clear that my, uh, introduction is not the same as the one that is clearly saying a moratorium on data centers. It is not the same. There's been multiple years of work. There have been lots of collaboration on this. Um just a couple of months ago a a man was here to um change something about his fence that did not meet the requirements and we denied him um what he asked for and I talked to him and said I I know it's not the right time, but we're coming back later. Maybe you just wait a little bit and and see what happens with this um this fence regulation ordinance. And so it is very different in how we approach the introduction of these things and and I just wanted to defend mine because I'm proud of how I work with my colleagues and with um others on this body when um when it's time to work together and this is a clear example of how you reach out to people who may be not even maybe it's not even on their radar, but this has been ongoing for some of us for quite some time and we've worked to do this introduction and we've talked to other people on this body about that. Council member Whiting. Thank you uh President Payne and I think uh both Council member Palmisano, Council member Vita, and Council member Stevenson I think give us a clear indication of why we do need some confines around what our norms are. Uh and so I think you know I I I'm happy to look into as well if we think that the legislative process that that how we introduce and refer ordinances something I would be more than happy to look into cuz I think it it points to what are our norms uh and I think Council member Stevenson and I have really only only seen it in the last 100 days that we have been here um as kind of an introduction referral and so it for for my perspective and I'm assuming uh Council member Stevenson's as well as it does kind of go away from a norm that we are used to in the last 100 days and so I appreciate Council member Vita kind of adding in some some context here that this isn't uh the norm that is typically used and so that that is helpful or at least and and there are other ways that it is used and so that is helpful to note and so I think it is something we should should look into of kind of streamlining this process. Also want to note here, right? I know Council President Payne mentioned specifically the size of some of these large data centers and and I know nothing about data centers to to be very honest and so leading on a little bit of your expertise here, Council President. Specifically looking at some of these very very large 2 gigawatt plus data centers and I just kind of did some quick research here of the specifically the Sleep Number building. It sounds like the Sleep Number building is is somewhere around 10 megawatts at the moment, but hopes to expand to close to 40 megawatts and and right, I again did some some quick research, but it sounds like a single gigawatt is about the size of a large nuclear facility. And so I think when we are looking at specific numbers, 40 megawatts is is I think I was somewhere around 50% smaller or 50 times smaller than that ability. So it sounds like we're not going to have I don't think we have the space in downtown Minneapolis in any of our buildings to put some of these massive massive massive data centers and so I think we have to be again using our data specific about what is actually coming and what it what is here currently and what we are looking at. And so this is something that I think again requires us to delve into a larger discussion. And maybe the last piece of of clarification here, I know Council Member Rainville noted that the kind of the support of motioning towards like a legislative directive. Is that what is in front of us? It looks like that's not what is in front of us, right? Okay. Well, shoot. Never mind that. Uh that is all. Thank you. Council member Sheffer. Yeah, I just want to follow up and say, you know, one of the things that I promised during the campaign last year was to really focus on economic thriving for our city. We all see the need. I see the need particularly in Ward 7 and Uptown and Downtown, the Central Business District. But I'm not the only council person that represents downtown. Council member Rainville, Council member Warren, Council member Osman, all four of us represent a piece of downtown. And I am thrilled and believe that all of us that sit on this dais, whether we have a piece of the actual downtown footprint or just have neighborhoods, it doesn't It's not a just, right? We all care about the economic thriving of our city in every corner, in every neighborhood, on every block. So, today I really appreciated Council member Rainville's uh suggestion to move forward a legislative directive around studying data centers versus a blanket moratorium. This will give us time to figure out rural versus city, potential economic benefit versus just blindly stopping any investment with a blanket moratorium. We don't even know the upside of and what the consequences would be for uh even climate, moving forward climate initiatives in our city. So, there's a lot of positives we need to look at, not just the negatives. And I'd like to be informed as a council person making a vote on this that we can really use this as a chance to bring us together and not divide over assumptions that we have or maybe have read about data centers. So, I really appreciated Council Member Rainville's suggestion. I also want to bring to light for it's my understanding that we do have the ability with conditional use permits to still be able to block any kind of development that we feel is maybe pushing the boundaries of where we want to go through the regular CPED process. Um, I believe that is true and that would give us a tool for those of us that may be fearful of the time to bring forward a legislative director on such directive around such a large body of work. Um, I just want to mention that. So, I am really thankful that Council Member Rainville brought that up. I am very supportive of his legislative directive and maybe that's something even Council Member Chaudhry would be willing to bring forward or or another person, but I I can I hope I hope today that we would return this back to author with a voice not that this is a bad idea to look into how we can regulate or learn about data centers. But as a vote that we are pro-business that we are going to not you know put any barriers up for people to look at data centers or building purchase or commercial valuation increases between now and when we accomplish that body of work. So, I just pray hope that you guys will work with me and we send this back to author with the idea to bring forward a legislative directive. Thank you. Council Member Wansley. Thank you, President Payne. I think it's actually really important to highlight what is going on right now, which is the conflation of a procedural process and a political disagreement. There is absolutely political disagreement that is being demonstrated as shown by are you pro-business or not if you are for the moratorium of data centers or if you're not, that's a political disagreement that we can have for sure through the legislative process. And I do want to highlight everyone here has used the legislative process very differently, actually. I think Councilmember uh Ta explained it pretty eloquently where just even several months ago, around the first iteration of pause of eviction save lives, I was one of the first people to bring a whole ordinance up ready for a vote, and you all, because of political differences, decided that was not the will of the body. So, I don't I I think it's a moving goal post to try to say, "Well, if you did a legislative direct, if you brought the ordinance forward at this time, then you could have earned my support." We have multiple examples that shown the contrary of that. Um I think it's completely fine for us to have and hash out political debate to say, "Is this the way in which we want to move a city forward?" Um do we want to be the one that ushers into to the realm of of not only just data centers, but as President Payne highlighted, are we okay with bending the knee to um this new iteration of corporate America that banks itself on AI, especially with lessons learned from when we've done that in the past to Uber and Lyft and other corporate giants, how that has led to disastrous impacts that generations later, 10 years later, we had to be on the cleanup duty uh to do regulations for workers who were put out of business, for uh environmental issues that came up. If we want to do the the cleanup work at the end just because we want to just say yes to a corporate entity with the hopes of which which is very short-sighting sometimes that we're going to get a bump, just a tiny bump or the speculation of a bump in our economic uh revenue, then we we ignore the larger impacts of those things. And that is the political debate that's happening. But I would rather have that happen through the actual legislative process. There is nothing wrong with the authors bringing a moratorium if they feel that is actually the pathway that they want to pursue. And other council members who do not agree with that, you have the ability to vote it down when we get to that place or bring some of the things that you all are talking about forward for further deliberation and consideration. Everyone here has the ability to work and bring something forward. But right now what's in front of us, which I won't be supporting, is a motion to refer back to staff. But if that does not proceed forward, we do have the motion to refer this to staff and do the same work that you all have talked about. There's an interim moratorium that will be put in place. And it still allows us over the span of a year to either say, "Okay, we want to do more discussion. We want to figure out more of the impacts." Actually, we'll have a moratorium in place so we could actually see the difference with that being in place versus not. Like we will have a time to do that. And if we decide after the end of that moratorium, we don't want to proceed forward, we can still do that. But there's multiple touchpoints for us to have political disagreements on a matter. And it has nothing to do with the legislative process. The legislative process is being used as a tool to just say you don't support the moratorium in itself. And that's fine. That is fine. We all have different views. We have different approaches for how we're trying to address regulation of large corporate entities that we've seen a long standing history often have and have yielded damaging impacts for working class people. And we want to be cognizant of that and responsive to that dynamic. So, I'm looking forward to having that conversation furthermore. Um but I at least wanted to highlight this has nothing to do about the legislative process. This does require amendments and changes. That is not it. We're having a political disagreement and that's okay. It's all right to be uncomfortable with that. That is part of the legislative process in itself. And I'm I'm looking forward to more on where we land on this matter. Councilmember Chavez. Uh thank you, President Payne. So, I'm just looking at the introduction and referral calendar. Item number one, defense regulation ordinance. I don't know what it is. It doesn't have language. I still think it should go through the legislative process. Item number two, it's a moratorium data centers, which there's no language because we're going to be considering that on May 21st. And then there's the ethics ordinance that has language, actually. It's the only one with language where we can actually see what this ordinance is today. And I still think that should go through the legislative process as well. So, I just wanted to at least clarify to the public there's three notices here or three different topics. The only one with language, the only one the public would actually know publicly what we would have language on is item number three, which is the ethics education ordinance. Now, I also, since we're talking about data centers, I think there's a lot of focus in downtown and we're not focusing on the impact of data centers and the impact it has on our environmental environmental justice neighborhoods, the green zones, the the neighborhoods we have where we have our uh our communities of color, our communities have been disenfranchised and have been facing the impacts of pollution. That's also a conversation that we need to bring to the table. It's not just about downtown. There are literal neighborhoods that are impacted because of the environmental injustice and environmental racism that has happened in our city, in our state, and in this country. And it's not just about downtown. The centering of downtown, I get why that's I get that that's being brought up today, but there also needs to be a a centering in our communities of color and our neighbors who have been impacted by environmental injustice. And that's a conversation we get to have. Councilmember Stevenson. Thank you. Um so, what I'm hearing from my colleagues now is that politics on this council. Um if you don't like what's being proposed, yank the e-brake, no matter what. Uh, I think that's a bad path. I don't think we should go down this path. I think we should stick with uh, letting things go through so that we can get more information on it, so we can discuss it. Um, perhaps changing our rules is needed. That's an interesting idea. Um, bring that forward. Let's discuss. But don't kill off the basis of democracy, which is discussion and debate before we even get there. Uh, we are treading on dangerous territory right now. This will set the tone of the next 4 years. Are we going to be killing discussion, or are we going to be furthering discussion? I think we should further it, and I really, really encourage my colleagues to to stick with this norm until we come up with something better. I added myself to Q just to kind of ma- maybe echo some of the same sentiment around um the the there's the substance of this around the wisdom of a moratorium on data centers, and the wisdom of uh, the actual motion in front of us is to uh delay this until after the legislative session. That that's the substance of the conversation that we're having, and it did veer off quite off topic about uh, legislative process, procedures, um, of which I think that's absolutely a conversation we should have. Um, maybe we can form a work group about that. I don't know that that's what we want to be doing, but I do just want to note that, you know, when we talk about um subject matter introduction, uh, and comparing our our legis- legislative process and whether it's a norm or rule compared to for instance somewhere like the capital. I went to the capital reviser's office just to do a like rough count of how many reviser staff there are. There's 55 staff at the state capital supporting uh uh, drafting that legislation, and that's just within the reviser's office. I'm sure there's staff on top of that that have subject matter expertise. So, I think one of the norms that we have at the city of Minneapolis is that in the past, the City Council was the strong source of power of the city, and all of the administration effectively worked for Council, and you would rely on those administrative professional staff to help you draft ordinances. Now, under this separation of legislative and executive uh we don't have the same access to that professional staff that we once had. Um it's been my intention, and I've demonstrated that throughout through budget amendments and since my time in office to build out our legislative department so that we have that robust staff, but any talk of rule change to say you have to have fully completed uh language before you bring an introduction should be supported by staff capacity to do that. Uh but, that is not the topic of what's in front of us. The topic of what's in front of us is do we want to delay this to May 21st a conversation about a moratorium on data centers. We may know by that time that we don't want that, and maybe a return to author would be a wise thing to do at that time. But, that's not what we're talking about right now. We're talking about delaying this conversation so that we can learn more about what happens at the State Capitol, which I think is the right place for the conversation to happen. Uh so, with that see no one else left in queue. Uh we're going to call the roll on the motion to return to author, which just as a reminder kills this as a concept and removes it from our agenda. Council Member Chughtai. Nay. Council Member Stevenson. No. Council Member Rainville. Aye. Council Member Vetaw. Aye. Council Member Palmisano. Aye. Council Member Chavez. No. Council member Warren. I. Council member Shafer. I. Council member Wansley. Nay. Council member Shabtai. Nay. Council member Whiting. >> No. Vice President Osman. No. President Payne. Nay. There are five eyes and eight nays. That motion fails. We will return to the underlying uh motion, which is to forward this to our next regularly scheduled meeting for May 21st. Is there Is there any further discussion on that? I see folks in queue. Is that from before the amendment the uh other motion was made? Council member Ringel. Just a No, uh don't we have since we voted on the automatic vote for Mike. I'm sorry. I'm just I'm a little I asked the clerk for some direction since we voted down this, do we still have to vote for it? Through Through the President, yes, the matter remains on the table before you. The motion now is the uh one printed on the agenda, which is to delay this to the meeting on the 21st. Thank you. I see Council member Whiting and Vice President Osman in queue. All right. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. President Payne, can I clarify something? With this vote? Yeah. Um so, to did not to support this vote, we are saying we're postponing it to May 21st. Correct. To vote against this, what is that? Is there an I'm trying to know what the vote against it is, what that does. Mr. Mr. Mr. President, a no vote is simply registering as a no vote that you don't think this matter should be deferred. There's no action of an earlier No. >> action. Thank you so much for that clarification. Thank you, President Payne. Uh I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the motion to postpone this to our May 21st meeting. Council Choudhary. Aye. Councilman Stevenson. Aye. Councilman Rainville. No. Councilman Vita. No. Councilman Pamasano. No. Councilman Chavez. Aye. Councilman Warren. No. Councilman Schaefer. No. Councilman Wansley. >> Aye. Councilman Saghal-Tai. Aye. Councilman Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are eight ayes and five nays. That carries and that item will be postponed to our May 21st meeting. Uh the next order of business is resolutions. We have four resolutions on our agenda today, two of which received presentations at the beginning of the meeting. Are there any additional comments? May have a motion to adopt those resolutions? >> Is there a second? The clerk will call the roll. Councilman Choudhary. Aye. Councilman Stevenson. Aye. Councilman Rainville. Aye. Councilman Vita. Aye. Councilman Pamasano. Aye. Councilman Chavez. Aye. Councilman Warren. Aye. Councilman Schaefer. Aye. Councilman Wansley. Aye. Councilman Saghal-Tai. Aye. Councilman Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osman. Aye. President Payne. Aye. There are 13 ayes. That carries and those resolutions are adopted. Our next order of business is unfinished business. Today we have one item of unfinished business and that is the council's reconsideration of the mayor's veto of council action 2026 A-0236 denying consent to the mayor's nomination of Toddrick Barnette to the appointed position of Commissioner of Community Safety for a term ending January 30, 2030. Uh I'll ask the clerk to explain our next steps. Mr. President, as you noted, the mayor did veto council's rejection of the nomination of the Community Safety Commissioner and returned that act together with his objections in writing as required by the city charter. This matter is contained in LIMs file number 2026-00261, which is linked from today's agenda. Pursuant to section 4.4 C3 of the city charter and under Council Rule 7.8, an act that's vetoed by the mayor is returned to Council for automatic reconsideration at its next meeting. That matter is now then before the body in the exact same form without debate and without amendment, and the immediate question to be decided by the Council is as follows. Shall the decision of the City Council stand notwithstanding the veto of the mayor? If at least 2/3 of Council votes in the affirmative, then the mayor's veto is overridden and the original act is adopted. Otherwise, the veto is sustained. That means if there are at least nine affirmative votes or I votes on this motion, then the veto is overridden and the Council's rejection of this nomination stands, consent is not given, and Mr. Barnett is not reappointed to that position of Community Safety Commissioner. With that, Mr. President, I'm prepared to call the roll for the automatic reconsideration. Uh are there any questions about the procedure for the clerk and a reminder there is no discussion or debate on this motion. Uh Council member Cheh. Uh thank you, Mr. President. Um I think uh just for the sake of clarity, um it would be really helpful to understand what the outcome of um the mayor's veto um being sustained would be here. And perhaps that uh Mr. President is a question the clerk could take on or perhaps the city attorney could take on, up to you. Uh Mr. Clerk, Madam City Attorney. I I'll I'll I can certainly address the procedure and the attorney can chime in and correct me on um any place where I am incorrect. As with any matter that's before this body, of course, some dispositive action is needed to bring finality to the mayor's nomination. The effect of a sustained veto, that is, if there are not nine affirmative or I votes on this motion, um that means that the nomination remains on the table in front of council. It stays there until council takes some type of action which finally disposes of it. So, until that time, and as the city attorney uh indicated in her legal opinion, the status quo remains in effect. So, procedurally, the mayor's nomination would remain pending. The council may then consider any proper motion um to deal with the nomination after taking up the reconsideration of the veto. And can you remind us what a proper motion would be in this instance? Uh purely for the purposes of example, of course, I would say actions that might be proper and within the council's purview at that time would include, but not necessarily be limited to, um a renewed motion to reject the nomination. Um or the other end, you could have a motion to approve the nomination. It could also include a motion to postpone this nomination to a date certain, giving the council some time to reflect, or anything else that would be properly before the body. So, there are a number of options that council could consider, um but the primary point I'll reiterate is that a sustained veto does not move that nomination away. As the legal opinion from the city attorney stated, and she should speak to this, um it does require both the nomination and the consent of the council to effectuate an appointment. So, there are lots of other pieces that happen legally and you know, from an administrative standpoint, but before the body today, right now, is the question of the mayor's veto of your prior act. And it takes nine affirmative votes to overturn that. If the veto is overturned, that is a final action. That would be, as I said, um nine affirmative votes would confirm the council's previous action. It would deny um the the nomination, and it would not give consent to the mayor's nomination, and would result in an appointment not being made. If the veto is sustained, if the council does not get nine votes, then the original nomination remains on the table in front of this body. Um and just as to follow up on that, Mr. Clerk, would uh when when would subsequent motions be appropriate? Is that at future meetings of this body? Mr. President, it could because this matter is on the agenda today, notice of the subject matter has been given. So, as soon as the vote taken on the mayor's veto is completed, if that matter is still on the table, then a motion could be brought at that time. If the council doesn't take an action today, this matter will stay on your council agenda. It will come back at the next council meeting automatically. If you don't wish it to come back at the next council meeting automatically, then a motion to postpone to some date certain would certainly be in order so that the clerks know it's not to come back at the next meeting, it's to come back at some determined future date by the body. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. So, to summarize, oh, I'm sorry. Vice President Osman II. Yes, uh I would love to hear from the legal expertise on their explanation. This has been something that confused the public uh what this means. Um and um what does it mean if we don't take any action or I guess nothing we don't approve it and somehow what happens after August 2nd. That's what I'm more interesting. Thank you, City Attorney. Madam City Attorney. Council President and council members, so I I agree with everything that Clerk Carroll stated. He he explained everything accurately. Uh in terms of, you know, what happens to this particular incumbent, um again, if the vote today is to override the veto, um this particular incumbent cannot be appointed reappointed to the new term. Um if the the body sustains the veto, the nomination remains open again until the body were to take an action. Um there is there are a couple of provisions in the charter that are at play here. Sort of regardless of what of what the body does today, because the incumbent is an individual who was appointed through consent of the council for last term, there's a provision in the charter, it's called holding over. That would allow so long as the mayor wants to continue, the incumbent to hold over and continue in in in the role at the permanent role. Again, I'm going to say permanent, it's at will, but I'm going to use it permanent versus interim because I think that that's a distinction that that's important here. In this holdover capacity until August 3rd or longer with consent of council, the incumbent could continue to hold over in that permanent role um at that point. Once the holdover period is over, there is a vacancy that's created and under uh ordinance actually, the mayor is the appointing authority, always has the ability to appoint an interim while a position is vacant. He could decide to appoint the current incumbent as an interim or or someone else. Um again, if this this body overrides the the veto, then the permanent the next permanent person could not be the incumbent if if the the veto is not overridden, we're sort of in a limbo period. Thank you so much. So, to summarize, the motion to reconsider the veto of the denial of the appointment of Tadrick Barnett to override the veto requires at least nine affirmative votes, and the clerk will call the roll. Councilmember Chaudry. I. Councilmember Stephenson. I. Councilmember Rainville. No. Councilmember Vita. No. Councilmember Palmisano. No. Councilmember Chavez. I. Councilmember Warren. No. Councilmember Shafer. No. Councilmember Warsame. >> I. Councilmember Chughtai. I. Councilmember Whiting. No. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are seven eyes and six nays. That motion fails, and the mayor's veto is sustained. At this point, the council's decision to deny the appointment doesn't stand, and a new motion would be in order according to the description that the clerk made. Councilmember Palmisano. Colleagues, I have a priority motion because it's about the rights of this governing body pursuant to this matter. I do think the rights of this body were violated after the last council meeting on this topic, and I would like to clear up and clear out the record. I object to the council president's April 15th letter being included in the public file on this matter. The body was not consulted. I was not consulted. Were Was everybody else? My objection is straightforward. That letter presents itself as speaking for the body, but no authority is delegated by this body to the council president for that purpose. Absent a vote of authorization, the filing of that letter falls outside the limited and procedural role assigned to the council president. That's in our rules, and I think that this action sets a very concerning precedent. Neither our city charter or our rules give a council president an inherent right or independent authority to speak for this body. The president may serve as a spokesperson, but only to convey actions and positions formally adopted by this body. That's the line. The council speaks only when it acts collectively. Without that action, there is no formal position of council to represent. The letter in question that I'm speaking about does something different. It represents and presents a selection of individual viewpoints and implies a collective position that this body did not adopt. Statements made in debates don't constitute any formal position of this body, and it doesn't speak for me. Equally concerning, it doesn't reflect the full range of positions expressed by all members. It favors some viewpoints over others, and that's a concerning pattern raised before that the council president uses a position to give preference to a particular faction of this body acting more as the leader of a political coalition instead of a leader of the entire body. All of us depend on the council president to be a fair, consistent facilitator of our process, and that's especially [snorts] important when the council is closely divided like it is today. At moments like this, the council president's leadership matters most, and we all expect that leadership to be fair, consistent, and applied equally and without favor. The filing of that letter constitutes a substantive act taken without express approval of this body. If we allow that to stand, we undermine the whole legitimacy of this body. We undermine the integrity of our own process, and we blur the line between individual advocacy and institutional action. For those reasons, I object to the letter, and I move that it be removed from the file and recognition that it was submitted without authorization, and I ask for a second to that motion. >> Second. Second. I said it, Pearl. Council member Payne, this is not personal. You do not have that authority as Council President. You cannot write a position, put it in the public record, and call it the Council's position after the fact. Where we go from here is up to this body, but for now, let's agree to clear out the record. Uh Mr. Clerk, any guidance? I'm on Q, too. I'm Council member Chavez. >> Uh thank you, Council President Payne. Just so the public knows, the letter There's a lot of accusations flying around here. The letter clearly says it's from City Council President Elliott Payne. I also want to point out the hypocrisy here. Mayor Frye submitted a letter accusing the Council of political gamesmanship, horse trading, or even worse, using confirmation process as a blunt tool, and it was also posted on on the same thing. So, I just ask us, if we're going to accuse the Council President of the same thing, let's not be hypocritical, cuz the mayor did the exact same thing right here. Thank you. This This is the memo from President Payne. It says it's from Council President Elliott Payne. It doesn't say any of our names over here, so I'm not sure why people should read names, because it's important to read the facts instead of believing what people say up here. Uh Mr. Clerk, is this motion in order? Uh Mr. President, I do believe the motion is in order. There was a discussion about the rights of the body and there was a comment about speaking um with your indulgence, maybe I'll address three things in reverse order. Council member Chavez mentioned the mayor's memo, which is in LAMs, and that's required by the charter. When the mayor vetoes anything, he is required to submit his objections in writing. It's part of the veto. The message goes with the veto. So, that's a that's part of his act in vetoing. Um the the question about whether or not the count I'm going to interpret it as the council president speaking for the body. Does the council president have the right to speak for the body? The short answer is no. Um there is a longer answer, but the the short answer is no. The law creates the council as a collective body. You've heard me say that multiple times. There are no separate independent powers provided to the president, the vice president, any officer, or any member. Um the council has to act as a body. It can only do so within the parameters of a legal meeting and then in the presence of a quorum by a majority vote. That's how the council speaks. That's how the council acts. So, any position or statement by the body has to be taken in that method for official action. It's up for the council to determine what it says and what its position on any any what any position might be. Um there are contexts that I think have to be considered important nuances. The council president does serve in a spokesperson role to express the will of the body, but that that will has to be expressed. Um and then once it is expressed, the council president can express what the will of the body is. So, in terms of being a spokesperson for the body, I think that's a limited or more narrow role. The council president is a member of the body and as an individual member, as Councilman Chavez alluded, any individual member of this body has the right to express their own position. Um but no individual member of the body can speak for the body unless the body authorizes that. Council member Whiting. Yeah, just just taking a peek here and I think you know, this is the first time I am this seeing this veto letter and I think right I think facts do matter as what Council member Chavez is noting. Taking a peek at at the mayor's veto letter as kind of clarified by our clerks here. Right, we kind of have the the heading of the mayor's office at the top and then a signature block at the bottom. So yours truly signed Mayor Jacob Frey, City of Minneapolis. Looking at the Sorry, my computer is running a little slow here. Um Looking at the perfect sounds like the the letter listed at City's Council vision for community safety and charter burnette's failure to meet that vision. If you scroll all the way to the bottom obviously we have at the top Council President Payne's heading. At the bottom there is no signature there. And so right I think it is it is it is concerning to be honest right when it says City Council's vision. I think you know, if if it was coming from the Council President it should say Council President's vision for community safety. But I think it it is seems like the motion is a motion and has has here but right I I don't I won't argue the facts under the letter. I think we are talking about whether it's the sounds like has the ability to speak for Council and it says I think clearly at the top Council's vision. That's all. Thank you. Council member Invele. Thank you very much. I will be voting for this. I I think it again it speaks to the the session that we had to cancel with unfortunate shooting during the ice occupation. This is almost the end of April. That happened January 7th. That date will always be seared in my brain. And we need to get back in the room and and talk about our culture and how we're going to make decisions and how we speak. This letter was inappropriate, lesson learned. It's it's bad for the democracy to have that happen. I don't need need to go into the leadership issues, but we should just clear the record and start all over again. Thank you. And get us in the room, Clerk Carl, please. Vice President Osman. Looking at the letter, I the way I saw it and the way I see it is that it addresses the majority council. Agree? That's how I see it. City Clerk, can you looking at the language of what's written on that, is that assumption other than what I think, which is this is addressing speaking on the majority of the council instead of just all council members? Council President, Council Vice President, that's not for me to decide. It's for the body to decide. I think the the question is whether a majority of the body feels that the inclusion of that letter is, in fact, an attempt to speak for the body or not. Um I will simply reiterate what I said earlier. >> Sure. You know, both the charter and our rules provide rights for the body and rights for the members. Rights of the body outrank rights of the members and the only way to affirmatively, declaratively say what the position of the council is is when the council takes action because you are a collective body. The council president is often and not just this council president, let me be clear. The council president by the nature of the job is often put in an awkward, untenable position. They are expected to speak for the body even when the body has not formally, necessarily adopted a position. And the media, the public, constituents, the staff look to the president to articulate what the council's position or statement is. And it is a a gray space that council presidents have to negotiate carefully. It it's always easiest, of course, if there is a clear action, a vote of the council to point to that and say that's the action of the body. Um I I will say that even when a majority of individual members make comments on the record, that is not the position of the body. That that is the position of the members who expressed it. So, that's where it can be awkward to interpret. A majority of members made comments, those are their comments. They're not necessarily the the comments of the body. So, it's not for me to make that decision, Council Vice President. It's for the body to decide. Now, just just as I said, in my opinion, the way I saw the letter is it's speaking on behalf of the majority council that took the vote on that day. But I'll I'll leave the council president's um um to see to tell us how he thinks uh it was intended to this. Thank you. Council member Wansley. Thank you, President Payne. Um what I'm also looking at in regards to the letter and some folks have referenced this conversation around the council vision as if this was something that just was makeshift of by a arbitrary number of colleagues or just the Council President unilaterally. Um, if we are looking at the government structure or the um executive to legislative government structure ordinance that outlines the scope of what the office of community safety is, it lists out these specific parameters that are referenced as the Council vision. Um, which we all created together back in 2023. Um, that outlined they are responsible and by they referring to the Commissioner of Community Safety responsible for balancing budgets. They're responsible for doing the strategic um engagement with residents. Um, they're responsible for also making sure that residents are receiving high quality safety services. We packed all that into the government structure ordinance that we all then voted on as a body. So, these parameters were not um from my understanding just made up arbitrarily. It referenced the ordinance itself around what our expectations were of this position and I can't speak for anyone else, but I know in our committee last term of public health and safety, we constantly referred to this ordinance in tracing and tracking the ways in which we did not see the current Commissioner rise to the occasion in meeting um what we outlined in the ordinance. Our legislative guidelines that we highlighted as a body and that is a justifiable reason to say for me, I voted the way that I voted. Um, and what I saw reflected in the memo. So, I do want to highlight that there was uh a reference or reflection of those Council visions to the ordinance language as well well around expectations of this position. Um, and in regards to what or the ways that the commissioner fell short? I looked at this memo. None of this is new information by the way. Well, name this is all documented also in the public health and safety committee. When you're looking at one of the examples related to budget in particular, we took that up in the first two quarters of last term and the public health and safety committee of how contractors, particularly the former leader of the neighborhood safety department, gave a contract to their boyfriend and that was okay by the commissioner of community safety. We looked at again, pub actually the media broke the story on that. Also around our rescue in which we learned that a council member and the commissioner were able to work together and collaborate on how to move a potential contract for anti-sex trafficking services that were supposed to be supporting MPD at the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center, how they were going to plan to move that outside of the traditional standard procurement process. That came forward in the subsequent action and oversight action this body had to take through a legislative directive that asked essentially for how did that happen? And also how do we correct that to make sure that any vendor, which we ultimately did select one through the credible procurement practice, like we had to do that oversight, which is something that is the responsibility of the commissioner. That took up at least seven months of just our committee work time last term. So, these are things that are not, let's say, made up. These are things that are notified in the public like court of documents of the media having to expose it. You could be upset that it got put in a memo, but it's been put in numerous memos. There was a memo that went out that talked about extensive grievances of the ways in which the office of community safety was falling short all of last term. So, this is not surprising. Um so, I just want to name there has been numerous tracking and publications of the examples even referencing this in prior terms by the media, but also it's a reflection of our own ordinance language where we set the goals for this office and the expectation of the commissioner themselves. Council Member Palmisano. This isn't the Supreme Court. This isn't saying that it represents a majority viewpoints, nor does it say so. It erases the diverse views of a governing body, and it is not a role of Council President, not Council President Payne, and not anyone to speak for this body. We've just now been unable to override an action that nullifies it. What is the title of this public document? I I'll tell you, we'll just save time here. The title of this public document is the City Council's vision for community safety and Tadrick Barnett's failure to meet that vision. That's the City Council's vision. That's not saying this is my own vision coming from the Council President. Just to offer a basic way that we do this, I want to lift up how our IGR chair, Council Member Choudry, gets buy-in on letters from this Council. She helped us to do this after the rash of gun violence that rocked our city last year. And it was the tedious work of sending out a draft, getting individuals to endorse it, making some small changes that gave it broad support, and doing all of that without violating any open meeting laws. To send something to the state legislature, even though we have adopted positions and have voted on positions against gun violence. Council President Payne, you are very aware of how these kinds of letters work. Council Member Shafer. Yes, [clears throat] I appreciate Council Member Osman's thought that maybe it was just representing the majority of the body, but unfortunately, I don't have a minority leader or a majority leader or anyone else that will be a leader for me to submit a letter that's more of official capacity about what I viewed about this nomination process. So, yeah, I I um was very surprised >> Chair. That is a That is insulting our minority and majority leader. We need to have some dignity in this chamber. Let's Let's try to keep the conversation at the topic at hand. >> Mr. President, please. I I would agree with Council Member Pam Massanou that the title itself is reason for it to be pulled from the record. And um I will be voting to remove it to preserve the integrity of the voice of every member of this body and the credibility of the oversight role that's been entrusted to us as a body and end to the role of the president and to protect the integrity of the role of the president. Thank you. Council Member Utha. Thank you, President Payne. Um yeah, this this letter that says the City Council's vision for community safety is alarming. One, because I was never asked what my vision for community safety was, especially um to write it out in the form of a letter. Um and I mean, it really is an attack on a person that I respect greatly. Um I voted for Todd Barnett. I would never say some of these things in this letter. I certainly wouldn't put it in the public worker to further uh embarrass him and his >> order, describing motives. We're not The letter exists. >> Point of order, that's a priority motion. The letter exists, Mr. President. Please continue and just focus on the um content >> letter. The letter exists. The letter is in the record. The public can read the letter. The letter is there. I get to speak up for myself and say that I would not say some of these things in this letter. That it further harms the commissioner by putting it in the record and saying that this is our vision. This is not my vision. I was never consulted about this letter. A colleague said, "Look into Lambs, you wrote a letter." And I did not. There are no signatures on this letter to say who is I mean, the vote was one away from being appointed. So, yeah, it was a majority, but six of us said, "We want to work with the commissioner. We want to continue this." And then someone else said, "Well, this is why we worked against him." That That's not how this works. I've I've had this conversation with you, President Payne, about many things around you being the president, but there being 13 election certificates. I am here to represent Ward 4. I have a voice as equal as anyone else up here does. I don't like this. I don't think this is okay. I certainly hope that this gets taken out of the record on behalf of the council and either President Payne can write his own letter and put it in or whomever wants to join me and can't because I certainly don't want to be affiliated with this at all. Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President Payne. Um when myself as a new council member first uh was elected, myself and uh several of the new council colleagues, Elizabeth Shafer, Jameson, and council member Stevenson, we sat down and drafted a letter in support and we together talked about how we wanted to keep down the chaos and confusion. So, I just want to echo what my council colleagues stated on this body earlier today and that is what drafting a letter of collective efficacy looks like. We went back and forth. We found a medium ground that represented and reflected each one of our ideas and vision for working relationships on this body. I was not consulted about any said letter and um I'm a writer. I enjoy writing. I know my letters and my numbers and I have the ability to read and comprehend. So, if anyone is going to speak for me or with me on behalf of anything, it would be nice if you would consult myself or my staff. I'm disheartened that individuals may feel however it is that they they feel, but those are your feelings and you should own them and you should take very good care of them because they're yours. I'm taking care of mine and my thoughts and ideas and ideologies and my vote and where I stand in my position and not to to override anybody else's anything, but if you want to know something, come and ask me and I think I've made that clear in several public statements that I've made. So, um I don't think that this letter um has to be removed, but I think that the authors who are in agreement with this letter should be signing this letter so that individuals know and understand who is in support of whatever the ideologies are that are attached with this letter, that those individual um authors and co-authors in support of the language in this letter then sign off um with their jurisdictional power and range or, you know, reflections to to support whatever it is that our council president has put out there. And I think in the future it would be fair to the council if a letter is going to be drafted that other individuals, you know, that we're saying, "Hey, this is what I'm going to do." Um I appreciate um Minority Leader Wansley stating that this was a a decision that the council had came up with these expectations in the last term. We're in a new season. There's new faces, new people, new representation on this body. So, that may have been the collective thought and idea that was voted upon last term, but it's not collectively where we are now. So, if that's something that we need to revisit, then let's put that on the table for revisiting um our views and ideas for how public safety should operate. Um but you can't charge me with old business. I can only be responsible for new business, and I'm a part of the new business. And in my new business and new ideas, I'm not for it. So, let's just adjust and audit the letter, pass it around, let the people who want to do it sign it, and then they can put it back in wherever it was at, and then we can move forward because this is a lot of time spent on this, and this is it just needs to stop. The end. Councilmember Stevenson. Yeah, thank you, Council President. Um what I'm hearing from some members on this body is you will not speak, you will not move policy, uh and I'm I'm concerned about this. Uh we are in a moment in our country where democracy is deeply under attack, uh and we need to be speaking, we need to be moving policy. Uh there is this at the at the national level and somewhat at the state level, uh this Republican culture of scorched-earth politics, uh where we're going to do anything and claw anything in order to make sure that nothing happens, to make sure that the voice of regular people who are paying their mortgage, who are paying their rent, does not get uh reflected in the public body. Um and I I I'm concerned about local democracy. I think that we need to be careful about this. We need to be careful about are we silencing each other? Are we Are we allowing each other to move policy, allowing debates to happen? I I think what's happening right now is is really concerning. I think this meeting is is very concerning um from a local democracy standpoint, from a couple of couple of levels. Uh we got to pull back from this precipice that we're standing on right now. We got to pull back and let the Council President speak when he speaks. We got to pull back and let people introduce uh legislation and and ordinances or subject matters of ordinances uh when that comes. This This is what we're here to do. We are here to represent and to support our people, our constituents, and we need to be leaning into local democracy, leaning into discussion rather than trying to silence, trying to demand people don't speak, demand people don't move policy. Council member Chaudry. Thank you, President Payne. Um I I think we should take a vote on putting this in the record. I think that's a good thing for us to do. So, we can have clarity and the body can decide. Um And I I I I believe that this is in order. I I would like to make the motion to add this to the record, amend Council member Pompousano's after. That's what I would I'm going to bring that forward. Cuz then we can take a a dispositive action and we can add it to the record and then people can be noted on if they support it or they don't support it. Now, this conversation has a lot to do with how we work together as a body. I am in deep agreement with a lot of what Council member Stevenson shared and also in agreement with some of the sentiments that Council member Warren shared. There are major improvements that need to be done within the culture of this body and how we interact with each other and how we show up. There is a lack of respect and dignity for one another. I think us having cameras and being on air all of the time doesn't help with that. Perhaps it contributes with that. Um I will say few Council meetings ago, like I I felt a deep deep insult to my dignity as a member of this body, which I should have called out as a point of order cuz that would have been the appropriate thing to do, and that's something that members have the right to do is to call out when their dignity is violated. I was cussed out. Uh motives were ascribed about me. And the thing is I'm a I'm a young woman of color with a platform to talk about what happens to young women of color across industries. And I'm not about that, and I'm not going to name call the council members that did those things to me and never apologized. They know who they are. And we need to we need to change course. We absolutely need to change course in the culture of this body. And if we are going to say that we want civility, culture change, well, we have to we have to walk the walk and actually do it and not just say it as a way to have like a political tool to show one side is more unruly than the other. Ultimately, we're going to disagree. Council Member Whiting and I yesterday disagreed vehemently on this point about data. We did not come for each other by name. We debated the idea. We said that we disagreed. And it was heated in the moment, but we talked about it after, and we were cool. That's what needs to happen. And this is for every single member of this body. I'm not going to do it like this for the next 4 years, and the people of Minneapolis don't want to see this cuz it gets in the way of the work. I am for sure not going to get cussed out because I called for a bathroom break. That's ridiculous. I'm also not going to stand for members trying to force a vote when I'm not in the room because I have to use the bathroom. I'm not going to be stand I'm not going to stand for being called whiny or complaining, which is very misogynistic to me. I'm also not going to stand for members saying I talk too much behind closed doors. I'm going to use my voice and going to continue to standing up. And we need culture change. We need to figure out if it's a change of our council rules, if we need to bring in a third party. Where is We have important work to do. Um I'm just going to say it right here, right now. I'm not doing it like this for the next 4 years and we need to change it and I'm up for that change and it sounds like there's many members that are up for it as well. Thank you. Council member Rainville. I'd like to throw an idea Council President Payne about walking the walk. Why don't you just withdraw the letter and let's start all over again for something that we can put into the public record. Let's end this. Council member Vita. Uh President Payne, I Yeah, I agree. I I don't know I I don't even think I know that something needs to be in the public record on my behalf um at all and I certainly feel like we all stated our positions during the public hearing of uh Commissioner Barnett. I I think that was public enough for me and and it should be for everyone, but I don't want to um speak for others. I I want to also address that, you know, this is not about you having an opinion and maybe with the majority uh President Payne, for me this is about me having a voice also. And as a middle-aged black woman, I've been taught to use my voice to stand up for myself and that's what I'm doing here. I also want to make the point that Yeah, there's a lot of work that needs to be done on this council with respect and people working with one another, but cry bullying is also a problem on this council. People don't like what somebody says, people say things to others um and then when they get called out for it, then you're a bully. You you someone said something, someone did something. And then but then when when it's being done in a manner which other people are okay with, it's not called out. And that's been my frustration on this council for 4 years. It's treat everyone fairly. We all have different positions on things. Welcome that. Be okay with that. If you if I state my position, people don't need to come back in and tell me what's wrong with my position or tell me I don't care about a certain population of people because I'm not voting the way that they want to. That's the issue, too. So, if we're going to actually work on things, let's work on everything. Let's not be selective like this letter is. This is an ongoing problem. People get to have an opinion. Those of us who have a problem with this are just saying, this does not represent us. I represent 33,000 people in the city of Minneapolis, and so does everyone else. I get to speak up for them, and I get to speak up for myself as a black woman. I don't need to be mansplained about what speaking up for myself sounds like and look like. I've been doing this for 50 years. I know what it's like. If you ask my mom, she'd tell you I came out taking up for myself. So, I don't need anyone to tell me what that looks like or feels like to me. I would never dismiss someone else's feelings about what their experiences are or what they have, and I really don't appreciate the tone that people are taking right now because people are speaking up and out against how they feel about this letter. When you put this in the public record, you take the chance of people having a difference of opinion about it. And that's it. This shouldn't even be a topic for discussion if people just say they don't like it. They don't like it. That's it. Council member Chavez. Thank you, Council President Payne. I'm just going to read part of Mayor Frey's letter. It said, "Confirmation appointments should be made based on qualifications and record. I am vetoing this council action because a decision to reject reject Hadj Barnett as community safety commissioner was not based on his robust qualifications, but instead in political gamesmanship and horse-trading, or even worse, using confirmation process as a blunt tool to force me to drop unrelated council positions." That is an accusation, and I expect that when accusations like that are made publicly, that the council president responds on behalf of the city council. Because that he used his whole media tools, communications department, to accuse the city council of this. And I expect that the council president responds. The majority position. The majority of the city council rejected the nomination, and I expect a response to that. And that is what this letter did. Now, I would I'm not going to support the striking of this letter. I think we should vote down this motion, but when we come to then vote on the underlying motion to add this letter to limbs, we can amend the language to say the council majority position. Because I do believe publicly, seven members of this body voted down this confirmation. And seven members of this body have the right to say why we did that after the mayor accused us of things. So, I just want to be very clear. Council Member Wansley. Hello. Um I just wanted to offer a few clarifying points. Once again, I Um I heard it referenced with even just the government structure piece that that was of a prior council. I wanted to name in absence of us doing charter amendment, it's not about who made up last term. This was actually in 2023 when the makeup of this council looked very different. Um and it was in response to us legally having to do so after question one passed. In in response to question one, we formed very clear guidelines of what the office of community safety would look like and the responsibilities of that position. So, I want to name that wasn't dependent upon a particular council member or anything or a council iteration. That was literally in response and required because of question one passing. And that is what's on our books that enforces on the local side our government structure. Secondarily, I want to name I I am very surprised to even hear this be introduced as a legislative motion to be voted on. In real time without the clerks ever intervening in prior committees, I've seen council members, including myself, also ask the clerks, which anyone can do, is to add a certain record to a legislative file. So, what I saw this as as a memo was reflective of the prevailing majority who took a vote on that matter and it reflected that in coordination with the government structure ordinance. Now, for those who took uh the prevail or the the opposing side, you're more than willing and open to also put together a memo and ask the clerks to upload it. You don't even have to go to us or this body for a vote to justify why you do believe the commissioner should be reappointed. In many ways, Mayor Frey also has the ability to do so with a veto letter without you know, these type of maneuvers. So, I would say actually minority who who support feel free to work with the clerks to do the same. But, I see no reason to take up this motion um when in previous terms you Everyone has been like, "Let me add something to the file." And this is not reflective on the leadership perview or perspectives. Yeah, this is wild in so many ways as opposed to just being very dis um as opposed to just accepting that the vote did not go in the way that many want many folks want. Um so, I I just went to name those clarifying points. Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President. Um, again, I'm going to state congratulations on question one, and whomever, whatever happened, when it happened, that's great. Congratulations. Now we're here. We have a new body of individuals. I said what I said. Ask me before you include me thinking subjectively because I sit here that all of a sudden I'm tailoring along with whatever it is that somebody else is doing. I have my own mind, my own voice, and I represent a completely separate population. We sit here and talk about all of these environmental justices and everything else and all of the disenfranchisement and whatever else the case is. Don't strip me of my voice. Don't strip me of my right. Hold that same energy. Hold on to it. Maintain it. Make sure that you embody those very same rights and civil liberties and all of that democracy when it goes to talking about how we need to remove stuff out of North Minneapolis that's in North Minneapolis affecting environmentally black folks in North Minneapolis. Hold that same energy. Maintain that same level of charisma and everything else. Hold on to that. Please carry that momentum with you. Carry it with you. But, ask me when you think, if you think you misinterpret, or if you think you have an idea about what I said and you're not clear, ask me. Don't just automatically include me written into something. It's not fair, and it's not okay. Otherwise, if it was all that and everything was all based on last session that this was this, why did we vote anyway now? Why didn't just the people who was here from last session vote? They should have been the only persons who voted then. Because it was already their ideas written in stone and what we said really didn't matter. We were already going to be included because it was already foundationally law. Doesn't make any sense. We still have a vote. We still have an idea. We still have an opinion. So, respect my vote. Respect my voice. When I say something, this is what I mean, and I move to call the question. Can I get a second? >> Second. The question is called. That's not debatable. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Councilmember Choudhry. I. Councilmember Stevenson. I. Councilmember Rainville. No. Councilmember Vita. I. Councilmember Vita. I. Um Oh, did you can't vote for her? Councilmember Vita. I. I. Sorry, I didn't hear you. Councilmember Palmisano. I. Councilmember Chavez. I. Councilmember Warren. I. Councilmember Shafer. I. Councilmember Wansley. I. Councilmember Suggs-Tait. I. Councilmember Whiting. I. Vice President Osman. I. President Payne. I. There are 12 eyes and one nay. That carries, and under our rules, the chair does have an opportunity to speak, and I'm going to use that opportunity to just um first address the substance of the letter. Well, it's a memo. It's not a letter. It's a memo. Uh in the process of developing this memo was one in which we solicited feedback from councilmembers who voted against the nominee. Why they voted against it. As Councilmember Chavez said, there were allegations that it was just politics or there was no substance to it. Uh so we solicited direct feedback from council members who voted against, so that's what's reflected in the memo. Uh and on the substance of council vision and whether or not I'm speaking for the council. So first things first, the majority of the body uh denied this nominee. That is the council's position. Whether you are in the majority or the minority of that vote, that is the position of this body was to deny that nominee. Um on the content of the memo, I just want you know, that we're kind of talking all around the memo, but let's let's actually get into the substance of it. Uh council vision, a balanced budget. That's actually not a council vision. That's a mandated requirement both within our city charter and by state statute. So, I hope nobody disagrees with that. Council vision, all residents receive high-quality safety services and deserve accountability when the city misses the mark. Council vision, safety for victims and survivors of domestic violence, council vision, strong, successful relationships with credible contractors and partners, council vision, leadership who is active and involved, has a clear vision of a comprehensive public safety system, is knowledgeable about all the departments they oversee, treats their employees well, and is accessible to the city council and the public. These are the visions that were outlined in the memo. We're not in a moment where people can debate it, but it would be curious to see if anybody actually disagrees with any of those vision statements. Um and then on the substance of leadership, I think leadership is about being able to articulate a vision and actually have your actions align with that vision. The first thing I said to ICE agents when I would meet them on the street and of which many I met on the street, the first thing I would ask them after introducing myself as council president was did you swear an oath to the Constitution? Because I remembered when I swore an oath. And it was like a weird combination of my experience graduating from college and getting married. That it was somewhere in the ether of those life experiences. It was it felt like something bigger than me. And it transformed me. And that transformation I felt running through my blood um as I was staring in the face of somebody carrying an AR-15 through gas mask. Leadership is not just about what words we put into a memo. Leadership is about the everyday acts that we take. I think our everyday acts on on this body carry meaningful weight. Um but I saw so much leadership in the everyday acts of people that were just living their lives, believing in our country, believing believing in our city, believing in our neighbors. And um I think the thing that bothered me the most about the allegations around our motives for denying this nominee was that it was somehow personal. That it was about our relationships. And the purpose of this memo was to say no, we have a vision that we want to see actions following through on. And we're looking at the outcomes of those actions and seeing those outcomes fall short of our vision. I solicited the feedback from members who shared that we weren't seeing the outcomes that we were expecting out of this role. And there is nothing personal about that. Um and so I was actually going to suggest making a motion to adopt this as the formal position of the body because as a democracy we move as a body. It's the majority vote that establishes what the position of this body is. And so if it is the will of the body for this to be the position, I think we should take that vote. But in a democracy we also believe in procedures. And so we have a motion on the table right now to remove this position um of which I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll and I will not be supporting and I'll be supporting the Choudhry motion to make this the official position of the body. Mr. President, so the motion in front of us is to remove the letter that is in the limbs file currently. Uh an affirmative vote of course would agree to that that the letter be removed. A negative vote would not remove the letter. So just so there's clarity on the body before I call the roll. Council [clears throat] Member Choudhry. No. Council Member Stevenson. No. No. Council Member Rainville. >> Aye. Council Member Vita. Aye. Council Member Palmisano. Aye. Council Member Chavez. No. Council Member Warren. Aye. Council Member Shafer. Aye. Council Member Wansley. >> Nay. Council Member Shugart. Nay. Council Member Whiting. Aye. Vice President Osman. No. President Payne. Nay. There are six ayes and seven nays. That motion fails. Um Point of order. >> [snorts] >> Uh Council Member Chaudry. Yeah. Point of order. I So, I appreciated the discussion that we had on the previous matter before us. And I mean, at the risk of this continuing to get a little bit more beleaguered, I'll just say I think like some of the conversation, especially with Council Member Wansley shared of members of members have long before been able to put letters into the file. Like that's that's a principle that we've held as a body and we've been able to do. And I'm feared that if we take up a vote right now, we're creating a new rule without having a comprehensive discussion about council rules. And I don't want to make that motion. I don't think we're ready to do something like that. I think that's irresponsible. So, I think we disposed of the item already. And we need to have a bigger comprehensive discussion about council rules. So, I'm not going to make that motion. And but I appreciate your commitment to democracy. I think we all want to head that in that direction. But yeah, I'm not making that motion. Point of information. Uh Council Member Warren. Um because I was confused about that. So, the vote that we just took now says that And And I appreciate the vision statement, but all the rest of the items that are in the letter then now become adopted as the idea by the council. I'm that's the point of information I'm asking. No. Mr. Clark. Uh Mr. President, no, that's not the conclusion. Um I would just say the principle under parliamentary law is that uh the disposition of one motion in either an affirmative or negative way does not automatically result in the opposite unless there is a law that says, you know, for example, the council votes something down, the opposite becomes its act. In this case, the council just said, "No, we're not removing the letter." The letter stays in the file. Um it the council has not said that's its position. So, much like the veto, until there is a dispositive action by this body, the status quo remains in place. Thank you for the clarity, Council President and Clerk um Clark. All right. Finally, we have the order of announcements. And I first want to note to uh our auditor produced two very substantial reports with a great deal of recommendation that our body will want to consider in the next weeks and months. First, the workforce optimization and comparative benchmarking report. This report assessed the size, composition, and cost of the city's workforce across all departments and offers recommendations to improve efficiency, align resources with city priorities, and support long-term organizational stability. I will refer these recommendations to the budget committee for consideration. And second, at a joint meeting of the audit committee and city council, the auditor presented the after-action reviews assessing the city's handling of the shooting of David McAtee and the death of Allison Luchear. I will refer the recommendations offered as part of these reviews to the committee of the whole for further consideration. Are there any announcements from council members? Council member Whiting? Yes, thank you Council President Payne. Just a quick announcement here, especially after kind of what we've witnessed on the dais today. We are and I think it is helpful for for community to know broadly. There is another team building exercise that this body was kind of cut short on and I know we are looking forward to that here in the future and maybe just a quick question. Do we know when that has been scheduled Clerk Carl or President Payne? Mr. Clerk. Through the president as I mentioned I believe at the last meeting staff are actively working to find dates and times that work. I had a conversation with Ms. Loma this week earlier. This is a matter of finding dates and times that work for 13 council members, the mayor and members of cabinet and also for our consultant. So not an easy task as you might imagine and so we are still endeavoring to find dates and times. I will sort of give you the general premise that we've narrowed it down to if we can find dates and times in May that would be preferable because so much time has gone by. If not we are also looking at dates and times in the month of June and July and we're going out and casting our look to October so that we can as we committed to in the contract have four check-ins per year with Ms. Loma and her team and so we are actively working on that. Those are the months we're specifically targeting. It's just very difficult to get that many different schedules to coordinate. Perfect. Thank you Clerk. Sounds like team building to come. That's the announcement. Council member Chaudry. Thank you President Payne. I wanted to just take a moment to uplift some good work that was done here on the city council. So there's been much conversation about the Uptown Ambassadors program and regrettably one of our colleagues Council member Aisha Chughtai who represents the 10th Ward and the majority of Uptown was left out of the press conference that was announcing this program and so I wanted to take a moment to give her her flowers and her offices flowers and flowers to all the residents in the 10th Ward. Um, I watched Councilmember Chughtai lead the work to bring safety ambassadors to Uptown. Um, at that time it was still a novel idea. These kinds of programs um, are cutting edge. They're untested but they're pilots that inform the creation of a public safety ecosystem. She led the way with community to make sure this program didn't just that this community actually that this actually came to fruition. Over the last two year three years she worked really hard in our budget process to make sure that this happened. She worked with three different council members from Ward 7, the administration, and her community to finally see safety ambassadors implemented in our Uptown corridor. And Councilmember Chughtai, I really appreciate you doing this work and carrying it over. Um, I hope that there is greater collaboration that comes into the future. I think there was a missed opportunity to end uh, the this work or the implementation of this work um, on a note of collaboration because that's that's what it's going to take for us to improve all of our neighborhoods, especially Uptown. Thank you. Councilmember Wansley. Thank you, President Payne. Um, I just wanted to share because this is our uh, last council meeting before May Day um, and I do know we had a resolution brought forward um, for international solidarity for international working workers day and I am so excited for this upcoming uh, May May 1st or sorry, May 2nd May 3rd. Thank you. All right. >> [laughter] >> It's been a long day. Uh, May 3rd um, on which will be in next Sunday and will take place all across the city. There are I encourage residents to check out ice out now mn.com to check out the complete listing of events that's happening all over our city to to just celebrate the tremendous amount of work and courage that our residents demonstrated during the occupation and even still as we're moving forward with this this this next iteration of recovery. Um so I'm looking forward to being in community with our workers with the folks who actually make this city vibrant and inspirational and I hope to see some of my colleagues at one of these many events that our residents are taking the time to host. So just want to say amplify that. Council member Vintal. Uh shout out to Council member Chuck Thai. We've been talking about that safety ambassador program for some time now. You deserve it. Um it never feels good to be left out or to have somebody else speak on your behalf. So um you you deserve a shout out for that work. Um I I just wanted to say congratulations to the awardees of the arts grants. They were announced this week uh for the pop-up activations and the festivals. The ones in ward four in particular are going to be on Lowry Avenue. Lowry just so happens to be the dividers of ward four and ward five. I'm so proud of the groups that are receiving the funding. The these activations are critical to our cultural corridors and I'm really really excited about this summer and how we're going to activate Lowry and the groups that receive the funding is is such a diverse group and this reflective of the community in North Minneapolis and I'm inviting you all over. Keep an eye out on announcements for the cultural corridor activations, the pop-up and the pop-ups and the festivals um for Lowry Avenue, colleagues. Councilmember Travis. Uh, thank you, President Payne. Uh, Minority Leader Want See was correct. May Day is, uh, on the 1st. I thought she was I thought I thought she was going to talk about No, I thought I saw your computer. I thought you were going to talk about the May Day event at Powderhorn Park, which is on May 3rd. So, I just want to publicly apologize to Minority Leader Want See and announce that I hope to see folks at the Powderhorn Park May Day Festival on May 3rd. Councilmember Tucker Thai. And that's the culture I want to see, Mr. President. >> [laughter] >> Where we own our mistakes. Um, uh, >> [laughter] [gasps] >> thank you. I got in queue because, um, you know, we had a we had a really long meeting. I think the our last Council meeting as well. Um, and there was an item that, um, I I didn't end up, um, speaking to, but, uh, at our at our last Council meeting, we approved and it has been signed by the mayor, um, a contract with, uh, Trellis for the first, um, parcel of development at the new Nicollet and Kmart former Kmart site. Um, this is the first piece of development that is going to go on that, uh, massive, um, site and is, um, an affordable housing project that is bringing, um, an unprecedented level of three and four bedrooms to the in line, uh, truly with the priorities that I have continued to hear, um, from the neighborhood I live in, from the community that I represent, um, around making sure that there is greater availability of affordable housing, um, in particular for families and larger families, and, um, really demonstrate that demonstrates the city's commitment to, um, equitable development and development without displacement in that, uh, in that area. It's a really big deal. This has been, um, you know, a project that is that has been years and years in the making long, uh, prior to my tenure here, um, and this marks a really, really exciting, uh, moment. And I, you know, didn't get a chance to, um, share that or or honestly to thank staff who've worked on it so diligently, um, over over a number of years for for their partnership and their incredible work. Thank you, Mr. President. Council member Warren. Thank you, Council President. Um, so, yeah, we don't have Council meeting next week, but I wanted to acknowledge that May 1st, uh, although May Day is also a national day of decisions. So, I want to give a big huge shout-out to all of the 2026 Minneapolis public school and private schools, high school graduates. Like, it's a big day for them. I know we recognized and did a resolution, Council member Whiting and I, for the seniors who are, you know, able to vote and are exercising their power of voting this year, but May 1st is also the national day of decisions. So, whether it is that you're going to college, whether you're going to a trade school, whether you're doing a gap year, whatever it is, it is a national day for you to be recognized for all of the hard work that you have put in in the last four years of high school, whatever that looks like. So, I want to make sure that we lift up our young people and and truly acknowledge them. Also, April 27th through May 1st is Tibetan Community Advocacy Week. Here in the state of Minnesota, we have about 5,000 residents who are part of the Tibetan community. We're not going to be meeting next week, but I was reached out by some of my constituents who asked that I acknowledge that and acknowledge them and our community members. So I wanted to give them that acknowledgement and make sure that we do use this time to make sure we're learning about other cultures, recognizing and showing support to our Tibetan community, and and understanding their cultural values and what have you. So that is important to me. It's important to my constituents. All of you all are important to me and let's continue to move forward as we exit out of National Poetry Month. I was going to leave y'all with some poetry, but I ain't going to do that today. But thank you. Council member for you talk. I'm sorry. I forgot and my A Wyatt would be so upset. So Ward 4 is hosting a necktie and bow tie drive for Camden High School. Wyatt has put buckets for you to leave your ties in around City Hall. We're also collecting so we're collecting for Camden High School. Our students are asking for our help and this is a project we're doing in collaboration with them. These ties will be used for prom. These ties will be used for job interviews and internships and so please if you have neckties, bow ties, please please donate them to the students at Camden High School in North Minneapolis. Council member Chaudry. Got a lot of announcements Mr. President. I'd be remiss not to uplift that we have the Lake Street Council annual meeting on Wednesday, April 29th at 3:00 p.m. at the Hook and Ladder. I think this is a really great opportunity for us to tune in to all the things that Lake Street has been doing. Obviously Lake Street is one of the corridors as a heartbeat of our immigrant community in the city of Minneapolis. And now that we're in a place where businesses are trying to recover, I think it's a really great opportunity for community members, council members to show up and show their support. Um, additionally, Hook and Ladder is an amazing independently run venue and they need support. So, if you're going, definitely buy a drink. >> [laughter] >> Well, with that, we've completed all business before us and without objection, I hereby declare this meeting adjourned.