Good afternoon. My name is Aisha Chugai and I'm the chair of the budget committee. I'm going to call to order our regular our meeting for Monday, December 8th, 2025. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. 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. At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call the role so we can verify the presence of a quorum. >> Council member Payne, >> present. >> Winsley, >> present. >> Rainville, >> present. >> Vita, >> present. >> Ellison is absent. Osman is absent. Cashman >> present. >> Jenkins is absent. Chavez >> present. >> Chowry >> present. >> Palmisano >> present. Vice Chair Kausski >> present and chair Chuck Tai >> present. >> That is 10 members present. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. I will also remind my colleagues that we will be using speaker management today. So please make sure to sign in. I'll also remind my colleagues that we have a packed schedule today and we'll need to utilize our time wisely. Before we resume budget markup, we have two discussion items on our agenda today. The first item on the agenda is regarding compensation of the mayor and council members for terms beginning January 2026. I will invite city clerk Casey Carl to introduce this item. Thank you, madame vice president. May it please the committee. As stated, I'm here to address compensation for the city's mayor and council members for the next elective term which starts in just six uh 26 days. As indicated in your briefing materials, the subject of compensation for elected officials is the responsibility of each jurisdiction's governing body. That's provided under chapter 744 of Minnesota session laws of 1971. Uh specifically, that law provides that compensation is to be set in the final year of an elective term and it becomes effective in the next succeeding term. The law also stipulates no change can then be made in the level of compensation during an elective term, neither to increase nor to decrease the rate of compensation for elected officials. So compensation for elected officials in all cities can only be set at the conclusion of one elective term. It becomes effective at the beginning of the next elective term. So unlike with our employees where we do the salary setting every year as part of the budget, there is only one time to do that for elected officials. In 2019, ordinance number 201944 was enacted, codified under section 14.60 of the city's code of ordinances, which prescribes the process to consider any compensation to be paid to the mayor or council members. And under that part of the code, compensation is to be set by a resolution that's considered first by the council standing committee having oversight of the city budget prior to any final formal action by the full council as part of the adopted operating budget. In 2021, a 2% increase in salary was approved for mayor and council members, which took effect in the term starting January 2022. At that same time, council directed the clerk to conduct an analysis of elected official compensation in peer jurisdictions given the change in the city's government structure that was approved that same year by voters. In response to that directive, the city engaged an outside agency, Guide House, to conduct the analysis of comparable peer jurisdictions. Guide House evaluated compensation paid to the mayors and council members of those jurisdictions that shared the following key features. First, each of those cities must operate under a charter that defines the elected mayor as being the jurisdiction's chief executive officer with similar scopes of powers and responsibilities as those provided for the mayor of Minneapolis. Second, each jurisdiction must have a full-time uh legislative body council that has legislative policymaking and oversight powers similar to those provided for the Minneapolis City Council. And third, each jurisdiction must have a population similar to Minneapolis, meaning that it has a similar gross domestic product or GDP, a growing population, or one which is identified as a greater Minneapolis St. Paul partnership peer city under the con rule. Also, uh, Minnesota statutes 205.84, the city council experienced two consecutive two-year terms to adjust for the redistricting of population following the 2020 census. Therefore, members of city council qualified for a potential increase again for its current term in 2024 2025. However, in response to that first survey of peer jurisdictions, it was found that Minneapolis council members were paid at more than 130% of the average salary for all of our peer cities. The average salary paid to council members in the pool of comparable cities at that time was $81,330, whereas Minneapolis council members were paid 109,846, a difference of just over $28,000. So in response at that time the council decided that it would not take a salary increase for the 2024 2025 term. In preparation for considering salaries for the next elective term that which begins in 2026 the city once again engaged guide house to conduct a very similar survey of select peer cities to inform recommendations for compensation to be paid to the mayor and members of city council starting in 2026. This presentation will summarize the results of that survey and present recommendations for this year's survey. We found once again uh to focus on peer selections of uh comparable jurisdictions that shared the same characteristics. That is cities organized under a home rule charter with an executive mayor, a full-time legislative council with similar economic scale. To be clear, we also did include a few cities that do not meet these criteria, but we did so for specific reasons. So, for example, in both the 2023 and 2025 surveys, we've included the city of St. Paul, even though that city has a part-time council. We did so because of its close proximity and because it is a first class charter city in the state of Minnesota, which offers important comparisons. We've also included Denver and San Francisco despite the fact that both of those jurisdictions are consolidated city county governments, but it's because their essential form is a strong mayor council system with parallels to the structure here in Minneapolis. We also included Washington DC even though it is a completely unique government being the nation's only consolidated city, county, and state system that operates directly under the thumb of the United States Congress. Another comparable city that was in both the 2023 and 2025 uh surveys is Portland. In the first survey, Portland still operated under its commission form of government. However, in 2022, Portland voters opted to change to a strong mayor system of government similar to Minneapolis, making those results even more relevant to our consideration today. As you can see on this slide, a total of 22 I'm sorry, I advanced it too fast. As you can see on this slide, a total of 22 cities were selected for the survey. We received responses from 19 of those 22 cities, giving us a response rate of 86%. The accompanying map on this slide shows the location for all of the cities and uses colors to distinguish between those where response responses were received. So, I'll move to the next slide, which starts the compensation analysis for mayor. Uh, as this table shows, the Minneapolis mayor has a salary of $140,814, which was set in 2021. Among the 18 cities that were part of the comparative pool, the average mayoral salary is $197,565, which means that the Minneapolis mayor is about $56,000 shy of the average paid in the list of peer cities, which puts the mayor in Minneapolis at the bottom 15% of the responding cities. That's using today's data. Guidehouse also inquired about known or anticipated salary increases for these same cities that would start in 2026. And as shown on this slide, 16 of the 19 peer cities, which is the vast majority, have reported known or anticipated increases for their mayoral compensation that would take effect either in 2025, 2026, or 2027. In fact, in 10 of those peer cities, that rate has already been defined, ranging between a 2 and 3% increase. The largest increases in mayoral salaries in the comparative cities are for Atlanta and Boston at 16% and 20%, respectively. Based on those known or anticipated salary increases, the adjusted average salary that will be paid to mayors in comparable cities will increase to about $25,998 in 2026. That means that the Minneapolis mayor would be more than $65,000 below the average if no change in compensation is provided for the next term. This slide highlights the salary data for comparable cities in 2025. So these are the current salary rates paid to mayors and our select peer jurisdictions. The cities are listed by salary from lowest to highest along the x axis with amounts shown on the y-axis. The call out here indicates the average salary in 2025 is about $198,000. You can see that Minneapolis is second from lowest in this list with only Omaha's mayor being paid a slightly lower amount. The Omaha mayor is paid a 2025 salary of $136,942, which is a difference of about $3,800 for the Minneapolis mayor. At the other end of the uh spectrum, of course, you see San Francisco. The mayor there in 2025 is paid a salary of $320,831, which is more than $180,000 difference from the Minneapolis mayor. And even across the river in St. Paul, the mayor's 2025 salary is $153,579, which is about $12,000 more per year than the Minneapolis mayor. Here we've summarized the known or anticipated increases in mayoral salary starting in 2026, which I referenced earlier. And as stated in the call out on this slide, you can see the average mayoral salary for peer cities will increase to about $26,000 next year. This differential is shown in the lighter green hash marks on the slide for those cities where it's known. And again, at the lowest end, the Omaha mayor is anticipated to receive an increase for a salary to $140,788, which puts the Omaha mayor nearly equal to the Minneapolis mayor uh current salary starting next year. At the other end of the spectrum, the Columbus mayor is anticipated to receive an increase that will raise that salary to more than $274,000, which is more than $133,000 greater than the current rate paid to the m the Minneapolis mayor. So based on current salary, as known and as anticipated with these increases among the list of peer cities, the Minneapolis mayor is compensated at significantly lower levels in comparison to those mayors in these other jurisdictions. Here the comparison is between mayor and council salaries for each peer city using uh current data for 2025 in all cases. So this slide then shows the differential between an executive mayor and their council member salaries in our comparable jurisdictions. Mayoral salaries are shown in green while the council salaries are shown in blue. At a glance you can see that mayors are compensated at higher amounts in all jurisdictions including Minneapolis. This is to be expected for these types of government structures in which the mayor is designated the chief executive officer with control over the jurisdictions's bureaucracy and its day-to-day operations. However, the difference between the salaries varies amongst the responding cities. At the extreme in San Francisco and Columbus, the difference between mayoral and cal council salaries is $184,937 and $152,460 respectively. Closer to the middle of the range in Atlanta, the difference between salaries is about $119,629 with the Atlanta mayor making $195,390 and each of their council members making $75,761. At the other end of the spectrum, in Omaha, the mayor makes $136,942 per year, while each of their seven city council members make $51,69. So that difference between mayor and council is in excess of $85,000 per year. Portland here makes an interesting case as I noted earlier because it also transitioned to an executive mayor model in 2022 which was based on a voter approved amendment to its charter exactly as happened here in Minneapolis the prior year in 2021. Due to its voter-approved government structure change, an external salary setting commission was appointed to consider appropriate compensation for the mayor and council. And because the mayor became the city's chief executive officer, that commission increased compensation for the mayoral position by almost 19% from approximately $149,000 before the restructuring to more than $177,000 today. Both before and after the restructure, the Portland mayor was paid more than the Minneapolis mayor. And for comparative purposes, the commission set pay for council members at $135,000, a difference of about 41,000 between mayor and council in Portland today. As shown here, even in St. Paul, there's a marked difference between mayor and council pay. Noting again, however, that the St. Paul City Council is a part-time position and Minneapolis is not. But even in St. Paul, the difference between mayor and council pay is approximately $76,000. Among all the comparative peer cities, the difference in salary between mayor and council in Minneapolis is the smallest. Again, with the mayor making about 140,000 and council members making 109, that means the difference in salaries here is $30,968. This slide switches our focus to city council, showing an overview of pay for councils included in the 2025 survey. As the table on this slide shows, Minneapolis City Council members receive a salary of $19,846, which was unchanged from the prior 2-year terms covering 2022 2023, and which was actually set clear back in 2021. Among the 15 cities that were part of the comparative pool, the average council salary is $15,98. And what that means is that the Minneapolis council members are about $4,000 above the average salary paid to our peer cities, ranking in the top 60% of all of our responding cities. And as with the mayoral comparison, that's using today's data. Guide House also did inquire about known or anticipated salary increases for councils starting in 2026. And as shown on this slide, starting in 2026, the average salary for councils will increase to about $112,000 per year. So that's just slightly more than the current rate paid to city council members. Um, and that suggests that the salary for city council members will still be in about the middle of the overall range of our peer cities at the beginning of the next elective term in January. As indicated on this slide, seven of the responding cities indicated that the known pay increase for their councils had already been defined and would be less than 5% of the current rate. Just like with mayoral comparisons, the largest increases for council salaries are in the cities of Atlanta and Columbus at 38% and 13% respectively. This slide shows the range of council compensation amongst comparable cities with jurisdictions listed from lowest to highest at the bottom. The callout indicates here that the current average salary in 2025 is roughly 106,000 as I've already said uh stated. So you can see that the Minneapolis Council ranks at the upper end of the middle of this range. At the extremes, the Washington DC council pays all 13 of its members $150,38. While in Seattle, the nine council members each make $148,000 per year. In contrast, the nine council members in Columbus make $88,000. In Atlanta, the 16 council members receive $75,000 in compensation. And then in Omaha at the other extreme, the seven council members each make $51,69. So there's quite a range represented amongst the peer uh cities for city council. This slide shows the same data but starting in 2026 showing both known uh and anticipated increases again from lowest to highest along the bottom axis. You can see in the call out here that the average to be paid in 2026 is going to be roughly 112,000. uh dollars. And as previously stated, we did include St. Paul here, despite the fact that they're a part-time council. I think the key takeaway here is that if no increase is planned for council members in Minneapolis, the current pay rate would mean our officials here, who are currently in the middle of the range, would slide to the lower end of that middle. So, we would go almost a full decade with no change in pay for council, and we would be moved to the bottom of the middle of that range if we don't make a change now. And over the next four years, if there is no program change in pay, council members will slip uh amongst the ranking of their peer cities. So based on that analysis, uh madame chair, of comparable jurisdictions and evaluating both current and known or anticipated future pay rates for mayors and council members, staff respectfully submits the following recommendations for your consideration. For mayor, the salary be set at $187,000 for the next elective term, which begins January 2, 2026. It should be maintained at that rate for each of the following years in that term. This change would reflect the significant increase in the scope of authority, powers, and responsibilities that voters gave the mayor when they adopted the executive mayor structure in 2021. It would also put the mayor in the mid-range of the salaries for selected peer jurisdictions which aligns with similar actions taken in Portland when that city transitioned to a strong mayor system like in city of Minneapolis. For council, we recommend the salary should remain unchanged for the first two years of the next elective term which begins January 5th, 2026, which would mean that the pay rate would remain at $19,847. However, in order to keep council members at the midpoint of their salary range, we recommend that the salary starting in January 2028 be increased by the percentage of the cost of living adjustment or COLA as it's known uh that's approved for the majority of the city's collective bargaining units in the prior year to become effective in the next year and that that should be repeated in each subsequent year in that term. Those exact rates would then be calculated by the human resources department based on budgetary decisions made by council as part of the salary schedules for those years and would be programmed into the city's budget. Uh in closing, I'd like to make just a few points. The mayor and council have acknowledged that this is a challenging budget year. Certainly, we've all heard the projections for both 2026 and the forecast into the next five. Like all local governments, Minneapolis continues to take on increased levels of responsibility as federal and state governments push more and more down the chain, often without the requisite funding. Our revenue streams are limited, and of course, local governments continue to adapt and uh attempt to meet the needs and priorities of their communities, and these differ from place to place. Still, Minneapolis is the most populated city in the state of Minnesota. It is the state's economic engine, its population center, and a hub of its cultural life. Minneapolis blends big city amenities with an above average sense of community and civic engagement. It has abundant toprated parks and public green spaces, and it's known for its high ranking in terms of quality of life metrics, including overall livability and happiness amongst residents. And of course, like every community, Minneapolis has its share of challenges. But we the people elect our mayor and council to take on the burden of planning and preparing our community for the future to ensure that our core services and our shared infrastructure remain strong and can support a growing and diverse population. These [snorts] elected positions have a significant impact on the day-to-day experiences of the roughly 430,000 people who choose to live, work, worship, and play in Minneapolis. And that extends to the nearly 3.6 6 million people who live and work within the larger Twin Cities metro region which is anchored by the city of Minneapolis. All this to say that compensation for elected officials should reflect the scope of authority, the actual responsibilities and duties of those positions and the impact they have on the lives of the residents of the community. The Minneapolis mayor and its city council have significant and important jobs and their compensation should reflect those facts. Of course, the issue of elected official compensation is for obvious reasons a sensitive subject, and I don't want to give the impression that I don't understand that. But there also is no union that advocates for increased pay for mayor and council. There are no exact apple-to-apple comparisons between jurisdictions, not within a state or even across the nation. The best that we can do is to examine approximations and try to level that field by adjusting for differences in costs across cities, states, and regions. Compensation analysis for elected officials is essential to ensure that public service remains accessible, competitive, and aligned with the real demands of modern governance. By evaluating the pay for elected officials relative to their workload across peer jurisdictions and cost of living trends, the city is better positioned to attract and retain qualified leaders, to reduce the potential financial barriers to public service, and to maintain institutional stability. A datadriven approach like the one we've followed here in Minneapolis, both in the past and present, also helped to promote transparency and public trust by showing that compensation decisions are based on objective standards and not mere politics. Ultimately, compensation analysis directly affects the quality, accessibility, and stability of our democratic governance. In very practical terms, it helps ensure fair compensation for those elected to provide effective, ethical, and sustainable leadership for the community. I'll also note the city of Minneapolis has good overall pay rates and total compensation for its workforce. We're recognized as a good employer locally in the metro region and in the state, and we regularly update our surveys to ensure we remain competitive in the public sector for relevant jobs across our peer jurisdictions. These types of surveys are routinely done to ensure that Minneapolis remains a competitive leader in local government for a wide variety of its jobs and our employees benefit from that approach. It's only fair that we take a similar approach in thinking about how to fairly and equitably compensate our elected leaders, the city council and the mayor. And with that, Madam Chair, I've completed my prepared remarks. Uh staff recommends the draft resolution be forwarded for action by the council tomorrow at its adjourned meeting when we will act on the 2026 budget. Thank you for that presentation, Mr. Carl. Uh, colleagues, are there any questions or discussion from the committee? I'll recognize council member Wanley. >> Thank you, Council Vice President Chuck Tai. Um, I did just want to thank uh our clerk staff, specifically clerk uh Carl for giving this presentation. And I know you do it every term as required and for giving us a a data grounded basis for how to make these decisions around compensation um as it pertains to either us or the mayor's office and other elected positions um within our enterprise. Um that said, I do want to note follow up just going into next term conversations that I would like to have with uh council president, our clerk staff further. Um especially as we're already in conversations with the charter commissions about how to protect our authority. Um I did find it kind of concerning the letter that was just forwarded to council that's being passed on to the charter commission by Mayor Fry essentially asking for the authority in which we have to set compensation be removed and placed within the [snorts] scope of authority of the charter commission. I don't know where this is coming from. I think no one has voted down these increases before because again they're standard and you do tremendous amount of preparation working with uh credible experts in order to get uh credible information in front of this body to make that decision. Um so I don't know where that's coming from and if that is going to be part of our continued conversations with the charter commission. I would love to uh be a part of that and of course um hold the line on having our authorities remain within our authority instead of it being treated as um a pawn of sorts. So I just wanted to note that and thank you again, Clerk Carl, for delivering a pretty credible presentation as standard. Thank you. >> I'm not seeing anyone else in queue. So So I will move approval of this item. Do I have a second? >> Second. Um, [clears throat] all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. >> No. >> Any abstensions? That motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next item on the agenda today is um receiving a presentation on the 2025 third quarter financial status report on select city funds. I will invite city controller George Hardgrove from the finance and property services department to begin this presentation. Welcome. >> Uh yeah, thank you uh chair uh Chug Tai uh members of the budget committee in the in the city council. Thank you very much for allowing me to come here and talk about the our third quarter financial report on the financial status of the city of Minneapolis. Um in just a sec here I'll start the presentation. There we go. Okay. So, um yeah, just to start off here, um this is this is our uh financial status report as of the end of period 9, which is September 30th of 2025. Um it's a point in time report. It's um we based our forecast uh shortly after we uh closed the accounting month in September and uh and made most of those in October. So, this is as of pretty much the end of October. So, the information is unuded and won't be final until the 2025 year is closed. Um final numbers will be available in our annual financial comprehensive report um which I can uh come back and talk a little bit about I believe in uh April sometime or so when we do our uh fourth quarter report as well too. Again um things have changed since then um and obviously we're getting near the end of the year. So moving on um the quarter 2 report does show that um we have several uh fund balances. We have several funds in the city and we see them being uh spent down uh especially the general fund which is uh we're forecast to be down about $60 million from where it ended up at the end of 20124. But um that's not really the only fund. We've seen some um some spendowns in the downtown asset fund, the convention center, um property services, as well as intergovernmental and it so um our so uh anyway. So yeah, our latest forecast I I believe uh we initially forecasted at 60 million for the general fund going down. Um now it's got up to about 67 almost 68 million or so. So it kind of really brings the city to a crossroads at at this point. Um certainly as you can see by the next bullet point we've uh maintained our AAA bond ratings from uh Fitch Moody's and Standard and Poor um which brings a lot of prestige to the city. Um but we are worried about the sustainability of the of the spend down especially on the general fund. Um in addition uh property taxes are about 174.4 million under the full full uh fully levied amount that was planned for 2025. We do know that some uh some amounts are uncollectible or there's delayed collections on that as well too, but that still is a little higher than what's uh the city has experienced in the past. In addition, um, as I mentioned, uh, last time I was here, uh, to talk about the second quarter, we did at that time notice a little softening in the downtown asset fund, which is financed mainly by, uh, sales taxes, entertainment taxes, uh, uh, restaurant, liquor taxes, things like that. Now, we've kind of seen that um, a little bit more pronounced now. Um, for example, the September collections were down about almost $2 million from where they were at in 2024, which um does suggest perhaps a softening in the economy. In addition, um the police and fire department are projected to be over budget by about $25 million in 2025. That's about a 3% or $9 million increase um from what we uh forecasted uh back at the second quarter. Um the self- insurance fund um does continue to improve and is well above the minimum policy of 117 million minimum by about $85 million. Again, we try to um have enough funds in there to um pay off potentially large litigation settlements. And so um we do uh get uh closer and closer to being fully funded there as well too. Then of course we uh monitor um the the federal grants as well too. There hasn't been huge changes in the last uh in the last few months, but again um certainly especially with the government shutdown and everything, we do have to to monitor that and we do expect the funding levels to go down a little bit there as well too and certainly lots of uncertainty too as far as what what will happen with the federal government. Moving on, uh, more highlights here in terms of our, uh, cash and investments. As of September 30th, 2025, we're at about,86 or 1 billion186 million or so, which it actually is an increase of 140 million from this time last year. Again, most of that is made up of the self- insurance fund and the enterprise funds, which um, which have accumulated more cash since then. So that's the main driver behind the increase in our uh cash and investments. Uh most almost all city funds are meeting their uh cash reserve minimums and fund balance minimums. Um but a few I did want to mention a few of those as well too. Um our self insurance as I mentioned before um does uh does have a negative net position due to um uh to uh to uh large potential claims for litigation. However, it is exceeding our uh short-term short-term uh goals and our financial policy to cover um the workers comp, medical, dental, things like that as well too. Uh fleet well technically meeting um our requirements by about 1.4 million. Um we have had um we've been spending quite a bit of time looking into the fleet budget. Um um we are worried the only reason really it's meeting the above the reserve requirement right now is because the um the department has cut back on uh purchasing new vehicles which we do worry could increase the maintenance cost as our vehicle fleet ages or so. So something we we're keeping an eye on. Um again it does meet the short-term um the short-term uh uh limit right now. Um but could uh could uh could uh go down from there. Our IT fund is projected to be about $8 million at the end of this year versus our target of about $9.3 million. So, ongoing discussions about that. Our parking fund is below the cash balance um by about $2 million or but it continues to improve and I I hopefully barring any kind of um you know economic downturn um that will get back into uh back into compliance with its fund balance requirement in the next year or two. Uh property services is is projecting about 2.2 2 million right now, which is uh below below our $4.6 million um target balance. And then the finally, the convention center is projected to be below the target balance. However, we believe that's really more of a technical item that we do need to probably transfer some more money from the downtown asset fund there um to make up for a transfer that was done before. Um so hopefully that could be addressed at some point. Now, at this point, I'd like to introduce and invite uh Deputy Controller Robert Lang to come uh to the podium here, and he will he will go over Rob specializes in the general fund, and he'll go over and talk about more about how the general fund is doing. Uh thanks, Rob. >> Good afternoon, and thank you very much, city council, for your time to go through the general fund today. As a reminder, the purpose of the fund is to account for all financial resources except for those required to be rec accounted for or reported on in another fund. Year-end 2025 balance for the cash is projected to be $166 million in the general fund. It was $234 million um at the end of last year. This is a $67 million use of cash projected by year end. Uh actual cash at the end of quarter 3 was $92 million and at the end of quarter 3 last year was $148 million. Again showing a use of cash of about $56 million compared to the two days two years. For fund balance, you'll see a similar story. Ending balance is projected to be $141 million. Uh the quarter 2 forecast did project $149 million. So about a $7.5 million increase. um in the use of that fund. Um [snorts] overall, it is projected to be a $67 million decrease in fund balance year-over-year. Um I do want to indicate that this use of fund was part of the budgeted um aspect when the original budget included a $24.6 million planned use of fund. There was rollovers of $41.8 million use of fund. um approximately when you total up these along with minimal amendments during the year was a $67 million budgeted use of fund through 2025. This still does exceed our 17% minimum balance. It is projected or it is calculated currently at $109.1 million. We do have that $141 million projection. So, we're $32.5 million over the 17% minimum balance requirement. Of that $141 million, there are restrictions and commitments associated with that that I would like to discuss further. So, on the top of this chart, you will see we started the year $29 million. We have forecasted revenues and expenditures resulting in that use of fund down to $141 million as previously discussed. Then we do have some commitments and restrictions. Uh at the time of this report's writing, the planned use of fund was $8.7 million into 2026. And then we do have restricted um for public safety aid and North Commons of another $14.2 million. This totals to unassigned fund balance of $118.6 million. Remembering the 109 minimum fund balance requirement for that 17%. This leaves us with $9.5 million in unassigned fund balance remaining. At the end of quarter 2's forecast and presentation, that 9.5 was forecasted at $15 million at the time of that presentation. So, this has um result in another $6 million roughly um decrease in that uh forecasted unassigned fund balance. There are some unknowns related to this number. However, uh what the final use of fund balance will be in the 2026 budget is still unknown yet. There is the rollovers that will be requested going in from 25 to 26. As a reminder, last year there was 41 uh.8 million in approved rollover. Um and comparing that to what we're currently seeing in unassigned fund does mean there could potentially be a difficult conversations ahead through the rollover process. And then finally, the last unknown would be the market uh economic and frankly political unknowns going into 2026. So let's look at the general fund revenues first. On this chart down here, you will see uh major revenue categories with what was budgeted and what is projected to your end as well as the uh budget deficit or budget overage. First, I'll point out property taxes is projected to be $17.5 million. um under budget. This is a result of less property tax collections um over the last few years. It has been decreasing from about 98% down to 97 2 years ago, 96 approximately at the end of 24 and a little under 96 forecasted into 25. Service charges is projected to be over budget by $3.9 million. This is a result of the efforts of public works and their charges for services both to internal and external customers. We go to franchise fees is under budget by $2.8 million. While franchise fees is collecting more than they did last year, the budget had a higher growth estimate than what's actually coming in. We get to licenses and permits are under budget by 4.5 million. As a result, mostly related to building permits. Uh the end of all of this indicates that revenues are going to be $18 million under what was budgeted. So how does that compare to prior years? We go to the next slide and we'll see this bar graph here shows blue is 25 and green is the three-year average. And the last comparison that's in the forecasted December shows that historically the 3-year average has been 99.9% of revenue collections. And what we're seeing here in 25 is 97.3% revenue collections. Uh a primary driver being the property taxes. So let's look at the other side. We have expenditures here. Again, we show major expense categories. What was budgeted? What is actual and the overunder. Importantly, I want to show that of all these categories, the two that are overbudget is public works by $3.6 million. Remembering revenue and service charges was $3.9 million over as an effort of public works. These uh are very close to offsetting each other. And then we move to uh public safety as a whole is $12.8 million over budget. The remaining um expense categories are coming in under budget. And how does this compare to the prior 3 years? Similar bar chart. You will see here that over the past 3 years, we've had 91.6% expenditures to budget and going into 25 we're at 97.6%. So revenues are coming in less than they have in the prior 3 years and expenses are coming in higher than they have in the last 3 years resulting in what we're seeing here today in this use of fund as departments are spending more and more to their budget. And here is the detailed report. It is um in your 70page report that accompanies these presentations. However, I wanted to pull out specifically the details related to the expenditures. Um, within that report, there's something similar for revenues as well, but I believe expenditures is where we want to focus in today. In blue is the current budget, the first blue column, and the second blue column is the year-to- date projections. These year-to- date projections are um worked on by an accountant that's assigned to the department, a budget analyst assigned to the department as well as by the department head or um representative of the department head. There are if you include public works um as one department included together, there are 26 departments in the city of which six are currently projected to be over over budget. of those six, I will quickly mention the ones that are forecasted to be over budget. So, we do start off with the attorney's office is projected to be over budget by $490,000. The res uh explanation for which is related to effective law enforcement for all, which is a required term of the settlement agreement and these are their efforts towards that. We moving on to assessing department. They did have some pro costs related to their KMA projects um that went into 2025 an overage about 200,000. They have been diligently tackling that overspend with operational savings of 82,000 resulting in a still overbudget due to the KMA project. Finance and property um sorry office of public service is forecasted to be $50,000 over budget primarily driven by a cola raise that was unbudgeted. Then we move into public safety. Um here we see the groupings that make up public safety. Fire is forecasted $5.5 million over budget. This is not uncommon. Over the last 5 years, fire has been coming in over budget um primarily due to overtime. And then uh police, we are forecasting total expenditures of $246 million. This is a 3% increase from what we presented for the quarter 2. um financials or forecasts I should say. Um this results in $19.5 million in projected overspend. Um moving down to public works, as mentioned previously, they are $3.6 million overspend uh offset by the service charges that we received. very bottom line showing that of the uh $729 million that was budgeted for expenditures, the city has spent $712 million um about $17.5 million less than budgeted. The general fund is uh the beating heart of the city and I believe it needs to get the review it's due to ensure the health and rating the city has enjoyed. So, I really appreciate you guys um letting me speak today on the general fund and the review of this. Uh and I will be passing this back to George to go over our special revenue funds, our enterprise funds, and our internal service funds. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank thanks thanks Mr. Lang. Yeah, thank you. Before I move on to the special revenue funds, I just wanted to kind of back up just a little bit here. Um just to make kind of a a point here. I mean, this is really the key um slide that I look at um to just kind of gauge the general fund health. And I just wanted to to point out um just one more time that if you look at the the total above target, you know, the 9.5 million, which actually is I think down to about 9.2 million now or so. I mean, that would be like the maximum that we could roll over next year. And you look at like what we did from 24 to 25, we rolled over almost $42 million. And what the rollover really does is it kind of buys extra time for the departments to finish up their 25 budget. So we just um undoubtedly won't be able to do quite as much as we did uh the year before. So just wanted to to uh just kind of uh you know go further that point. So moving on um the next category of funds that I'll just talk about briefly is the special revenue funds. um they're used to report um revenue and expenses um for uh funds that have uh restrictions on them. Uh our significant um our significant special revenue funds are the convention center. Uh the Target Center Arena, the downtown assets, um the police department has a forfeite and gambling proceed account. uh registratory services has a has a small has some some uh restricted funds as well as grants of course are kind of the classic restricted funds for the city as well as CPID has quite a few too. So um just in summary um we project our cash balances to go down by about um 3.1 million or so from the 2024 year end about 939 393 million. Um however that is up about 21 million from the second quarter and that's mostly due to uh CPAD fund balances being forecasted higher as well as the arena. And then conversely uh cash again is forecast to be at 360 million at year end. That's a $4 million decrease from 2024. That's also up 26 million from the second quarter. Again, mainly CPAD in the downtown asset arena because fund balance and cash often uh often moves uh at the same rate. Um so anyway, uh decreases from last year, like I say, is mainly due to the downtown asset fund as well as uh CPED. Um again these funds are set aside for a specific p per purpose and generally um it is difficult to to move them or move spending anywhere else in the city. So you can think of these as the city's um restricted funds. And then looking at the details here again you can see on the far right here that shows um the you know how much we're projecting the fund balance and the cash to go up or down from last year at the end of last year. And so you can see um again the convention center downtown assets we expect to go down but that's offset by the grant funds are projected to be up a little bit as well as CPEDs uh funding as well too. Next category of funds um is our internal service funds. Uh these are funds uh or that support departments that generally sell their services to other areas of the city. That includes certainly uh public works as engineering materials and testing lab, our fleet department, um property services, uh public works store rooms, uh our self- insurance funds are certainly some of the the bigger it covers most of our internal service funds. Again, in this case, our net position, we expect to increase about 21 22 million from 2024 at year end. That's up about a million dollars from the second quarter when I was here. Um that's again um really our equipment property services are forecasted up a little bit whereas our IT department's forecasted down. So um fairly similar to last time in the second quarter. Uh cash projections are at 226 million. Uh another again another 21.5 million from last year. Um same departments that account for the difference between now and the second quarter. Um so anyway um uh we again we we we are hoping that property services and uh intergovernmental services can can meet their cash balances um by the end of this year. Um but it still you know remains to be remains to be seen whether we can quite make that make it or not. And then looking at the at the balances again um you can see on the right hand column there on the right um we expect uh fleet as well as engine materials to go um down um a little bit down um and as well as it as well too and then self insurance up quite a bit from last year as I mentioned as we accumulate cash to cover our um legal liabilities. Then finally, the enterprise funds are used to account for um operations in the city that sell their services uh outside of the city primarily. That would include our sanitary sewer, storm water, uh the water department itself, solid waste, recycling, parking, uh CPAD has a small enterprise fund as well too. So in this case, the net position is forecasted to be about just under 1.2 billion. It's about 34 million. And um last year at this time, uh most of that is uh uh driven by the sewer and storm water areas. They're up about 20 million um from when I was here for the second quarter. Uh cashwise, we're projecting cash to be at 128 million, about a 35 million increase from 2024. Um again, that's up about 20 million from the second quarter, mainly due to this the sewer and storm water areas. And then um this tends to be the most stable of all our operations because these are are truly they're selling services that are that are you know private necessities and things like that. So not affected by the economy quite as well. We'll mention parking at the end um has come a long way since the pandemic and we're hoping to get to to its target cash balance uh shortly. And then finally just looking at the details here again you can see as I was mentioning this on the right hand side there that has the difference between how 24 will end up and 25 is projected. You can see we have about um up on sewer and storm water a little bit on water and parking uh down a little bit on waste or so as well too and CPAD is is fairly similar. So with that um that concludes uh my formal presentation today. At this time, I'm happy to uh to answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you for that presentation, uh Mr. Hardgrove. Colleagues, are there any questions um from the committee? I will first recognize Council Member Cashman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hardrove. Thank you, Mr. Lang. Uh a couple questions about some numbers that I'm seeing here. One is that property taxes are projected to be 17.4 4 million under budget due to non uh due to the non-collectible amount. Can you explain that a little bit more? >> Uh um yeah. Yeah, sure. Uh uh yeah, Chair Chug Thai, uh Council Member Cashman. Um yeah, the amount in the budget there is the total amount that the council levied for 2025, but we know that some of it, not all of it's going to be collectible because not everyone can pay their property taxes. In addition to that, there sometimes is legal judgments or court actions that um result in it being lower. So, we do know we don't expect it to ever, you know, ever collect 100% of what we have, but it is less than than what we've uh experienced in prior years. I think normally Okay. >> Um Rob, you want you want to add to that or Sure. >> Yes. So a history of our property tax collections is actually shown in the AUER on schedule 8 and you'll see the past 10-year collections within that. Um and so you will see that historically it's been 98 99% collections and that the last 3 years it has been um decreasing. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Uh second part was the neighborhood safety uh budget coming in about 10 million under budget. This may be a question for Commissioner Barnett or maybe you two know about why the neighborhood safety department was $10 million under budget. >> Yeah. Uh yeah, thank you. Thank you. Uh Cer Cast, why don't we have uh Todd come up and maybe he can, you know, explain a little more detail >> through uh the chair uh Chuck Tide, Council Member Cashman. I believe that there'll [clears throat] be a significant amount of money asked to be carried over. Um they they will encumber um some expenses that I don't think are there right now. >> Okay, sounds good. And then can you speak to the $19.6 $6 million overspend in the police department >> through the chair uh chair Chuck Chuck Thai um to council member uh Cashman specifically um when we look at that in the number breakdown. I would have to ask MPD to give you all of the details that I think you're asking uh for um in order to answer that question for you. So just give me a second here. >> Sure. Council vice president. Uh council members. So the question is um the details between the projection from quarter 2 to quarter 3 and what accounts for the change that was not projected? Is that correct? >> Yeah. I mean how did we result in the 19.6 overspend? >> So the 19.6 is different from what? Excuse me. Council vice president, council member. The 19.6 is the total um 8% over budget. Um much of which was anticipated through the course of the year. The difference is uh in in this last presentation is there was expenditures that were not anticipated from quarter 2 uh that are new now in quarter 3. Um and those come down to three things. What was not anticipated included back pay uh that was contractual um that was given out uh in quarter 3. It was not budgeted. Settlement agreement expenditures that were not budgeted. Um but the largest uh the largest share of that is this third category which is new hires. So we have hired 174 people for sworn positions this year. Um, every year that I've been here before this, the police department has gotten smaller month after month after month. We bottled out bottomed out sometime in the middle of last year. This year, there has been a very, very dramatic increase in new hires. We were budgeted for I think 20 >> 23 uh community service officers. We currently employ 74. We're hiring more next month. Um you know we hire we added an entire uh class of cadetses u over the last year. Um so what happens is when you have we have 174 new people the overwhelming majority of which are not licensed police officers. Uh community service officers those 74 they're going to go to college for at least two years in some cases three. The whole time we're going to be paying their salaries and paying their tuition. And because there's so much more of them, those expenses are greater. At the same time, you don't actually have more police officers, as many more police officers on the street. There's about 614 total sworn officers. Um 540 uh some odd or actually, you know, full duty on the street. Um and so that is by far the largest uh you know, unforeseen expense. um during the course of the year. What compounds that is at the same time this is the first year now that because we've hired so many people we've had a reduction in uh the salary acrals. So in other words there's there's fewer vacancies there's there's a reduced vacancy savings through which we used to use from people that just weren't employed here. um that is reduced because we've hired 174 people. >> Okay. I guess I'd like to ask the commissioner um who's ultimately responsible for keeping the budget in check. Who where does the oversight come in into making sure that we're planning for and then accommodating for new expenses that come throughout the year? >> Yes. through the chair uh chair Chuck Tai uh and then council member Kashman. We have um started those conversations internally to uh shore up um this process to make sure that along the way all of us um are lock step in where we are. Uh and also that means from uh finance me um the chief and I as well. Uh and so we think that um the next couple of weeks we'll have a really good process of making sure that we're lockep as we go go through this and that there is oversight. Um we had a meeting I think last week with um uh um some of the staff and finance. >> Council member Cashman, your time is expired. >> I didn't realize we were doing time. >> We are. Um, Commissioner, if you want to wrap up the thought. >> Ju just to let you know, uh, Council Member Cashman, just to make sure that we're all on the same page as we move into 2026, we did meet with finance to just make sure we're all on the right path to to um, making sure that we have all the information uh, in the right place and that all of us are aware. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we're understanding the repercussions of this to potentially our AAA bond rating and other uh controls that the city has and I'll allow others to ask about it but want to hear from you as commissioner. You're taking some responsibility for this >> through the council member's time has now expired for quite a bit. So we're going to move on and continue with Q. Council member Kashman, you're certainly welcome to get back in quue. Um before we continue with discussion, I see several colleagues getting in queue. Um I will note we have been joined in this committee by council members Osman and Jenkins. Um we've got about five additional um members in queue right now. So starting with um Vice Chair Kossky and then we'll go to Council Member Rainbow. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few more questions for the finance team. So not for MPD. Um if on the general fund balance details page I know you talk about the total above target is at 9.5. I think the the document we have in limbs says 15.3. So I just want to make sure that we get an updated document a presentation in um in the file but um I see that yours says 9.5. Could you give us a bit of a look back? What's the average that we've had over the course of the five to 10 years of this uh this target number? >> Oh, uh yeah, uh Chair Chugai, uh uh Vice Chair Kofsky. Um yeah, getting back to your original question, I I I think the third quarter report is is on there. I I also think there was the second quarter report as well, too. So, there may be there may be I think they're both there because that was that's what it was last time, you know, when we were here. It was 15 million. So, but if not, you know, we I can certainly get the presentation. >> That is what it is. But if you could just the the second part of my question is just what has been the last 5 to 10 year average or do you have that by year? >> I only really offand we I can only remember the last year or two. Um but we can get that information. It's readily available. So year end, you know, how we finished each year for the last five years or so or >> Yeah. what that target Yeah. what that target was and then what the end was. if you could do you what off hand do you have for the last two years? >> I I I will say that the the aer um does represent unrestricted fund balances. So uh after this we can pull the 24 23 22 however many years we want of the ACER and just and provide that information uh fairly easily for you. >> Okay. >> I don't know off top of my head I >> No, that's totally fine. I didn't think you probably would. So if we could just add that as a memo, but if we could go back 10 years that would be great. Um, and then another question. Um, if you could pull up the unders the just the general fund. I think it might be the next where we see the whole list of the underspending and overspending. It >> appears the computer is frozen. >> Oh, it's okay. I think what I would just and again this I can add this as a memo but um I see there are I know that council Katherine asked about some of the underspending but if we can work with some of the departments to talk a little bit about you know their underspent projections and get an answer of the why. Um so if we could just add that to a memo that would be great as well. Um, and then my last question actually is for the fire department if there's someone from fire. Thank you, chief. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon. >> Um, just a quick question. I know that you are 5 million over and my understanding is it's due to overtime. >> Yes. >> Is that correct? Okay. >> Primarily. Um my question would be how many firefighters would we need to add um to the department in order for us to reduce that overage on overtime um spending to zero >> through the chair to council member Kowski. Um I don't think we could ever reduce it to a complete zero because of contractual obligations such as staff meetings uh coverage for special events and things like that. But for most of it, what we're talking about to maintain a minimum uh level of coverage uh and I think I've reported this in in different committee meetings, I would believe that we would need in addition of at a minimum 45 firefighters. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's my question. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Um, and then next we will continue with Council Member Rainville, followed by Council Member Chavez. >> Should be going off the desktop. >> I'll uh I have two questions. Uh, one for finance uh first and then the chief. Um, of the $17 million uh that were underounted for the property tax. You say uh some of that is court ordered. So, I take it that means a building objects to the the levy and then they get it reduced. >> Uh, yeah. Chair Chug Tai, uh, Council Member Rainville. Yeah. No, that's exactly correct. We get um notified regularly by Henipin County that um, hey, you know, there's there's been an adjustment in someone's property tax. Um, certainly I can remember the ray road, one of the ray roads at one point, you know, um, you know, um, got a huge judgment, you know, to to have their property tax lowered. So, um that that does happen regularly. >> Of the 17 million under count, how much of that is the court ordered underount? >> Um um yeah, uh council member Rainville. I have to get back to you on that. We don't have a breakdown at this point in time, but they they do track it. Henipin County does track it. So, we can get back to you on that. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh my second question is for the >> If I can just quick let's make sure that was noted for administrative followup so we actually get an answer. Continue. >> I didn't mean to interrupt. Thank you. Uh Chief, I I just uh kind of a compliment and then a question. So this amount of new recruits is phenomenal. Uh no one would have anticipated in 2020 that the force would be growing so quickly. So congratulations on that. Um but what what do you anticipate going forward? Are are we going to see this fastpaced? Is it going to be slower, faster? Uh it seems like we're well on our way back uh to the number we had in 2020. >> Uh council vice president, council member, um you know, until this year at the the number of people we were hiring uh versus the attrition rate. Um even with the slight increase that we did have in 2024, if we stayed at that rate, we could go to infinity and never hit 731. literally with the amount of people that we were hiring. Um so it was a very very dramatic increase uh this year in people that we're hiring. Well over 100 more people we've hired for sworn positions than what we've lost. We've had 48 sworn members separate and we're already plus over 100 from that. Um the problem is the bigger financial issue for the city is there's no financial plan really to deal with having this many people come in the door this quickly um and still have the operational need. It it's it's very difficult in Minnesota to hire someone off the street and have them become a police officer. There's a very specific college course that people have to go to. Uh even in the case we've hired about um about 71 people this year that are cadetses. So they have college degrees already. We still have to send them to uh the two-year college here for several months before we can then send them to the police academy for 4 months and then train them in the street. Um so again it is a it is good problem to have and this is a success on the part of the city when you consider all the way up until this point we were just getting smaller and then even the little bit of the increase that we had last year was not enough to ever get us to 731. So this is a good problem to have. But the larger issue again is it's very expensive, you know, to pay the salaries for these folks, to pay for their tuition and then still not get the operational benefit of actually having police officers on the street for the city. That's the problem. >> Okay. Thank you for that explanation and and keep up the good work. You're doing a great job recruiting. So, thank you for your effort. >> Thank you, Council Member. >> Thank you. Next, I'll recognize Council Member Wanssley. Oh, okay. Awesome. Uh, thank you, CBP, Chuck, Tai. Um, I just had a couple of questions and few comments. Um, I wanted to start off. Um, and this actually digs further into the 70page report that you included. Um, but I would like to better understand the police special revenue fund that has a ending cash balance of $3.2 2 million and states that the funding from this also supports police being at additional services at the request of other city departments like public works. Um I noticed that in 2024 in this report it says that the fund had about $3.5 million and now it's at $3.2 million. Um, I'm curious to know what was the $300,000 spent on and actually quite more specifically if it was spent or tied to um the motorcycles that MPD recently posted about. So, probably you can't speak to this, but maybe someone from OCS or MPD. >> Uh, yeah. Yeah. Chair Chug Chai, Council Member Wanzi. Yeah. Know, we can certainly bring bring them up too. I do know that there is getting back to kind of court judgments or actions. They sometimes have to refund money. I believe that's like forefeerture dollars that come in um when the police um you know seize cash or things like that from people and then sometimes we have to give it back. So I can answer part of your question, but I'll bring up the the the police department to respond further. >> Becky Troswick, MPD, finance director to the chair, Council Member Wanley. I don't have the details, so I think I'll have to respond in a memo. But the motorcycles were purchased with forfeite funds. Forfeite funds can only be used for items that were not budgeted. So not as part of our regular operating budget and it can't be part of our budget reduction. So if um the budget was reduced for a certain thing, we can't use forfeite to then purchase that. So it needs to be supplemental. >> So that would be a qualifying expense under this police special revenue fund. Pardon? >> So that would be a qualifying expense under this police special revenue fund >> through the chair. Council member Wanssley, the motorcycles were purchased using forfeite funds. That is correct. Okay. >> But there is a list of other things too like teams rooms for the facilities was a technology upgrade that we use forfeite funds. And um the list is long. So I think I'd prefer to be more accurate with the memo because the list is more than 300,000. We do get income from the forfeite funds. So the net of 300,000 I think we probably spent more than that. >> Yeah. No, I was more so interested in the 300,000 and also just wanting to dig a little bit more deeper into this of seeing there's additional resources um in addition to MPD's general operating budget that we're also talking about now has exceeded through our cash balance and that general fund balance. Um so there's all these different funding sources that's going to supplement MPD's uh quote unquote need. So just getting clarity on what those needs are and you answered that at least in this piece. The next question that I had was related to a conversation that we've been having in the administration enterprise oversight committee related to um the vendor that's doing contract management for the city's parking lots and ramps. um that contract that was recently uh garner a lot of debate amongst council and I think further conversations in the next term around um its inclusivity of offduty uh officers to work in those ramps and that was a component of that contract. Um the description of this fund the special revenue fund for police seemed like it could have addressed the costs and also managed the personnel needs for those parking ramps. So, I'm just curious as to why this fund was not used as opposed to the I believe it was the parking fund, which we've also talked about as needing to have some stability um in in the coming years. So, I just want to know why this fund was not used instead of that >> through the chair, council member Wansley. the so a portion of the special revenue fund that's where we use officers and we charge say target and so those are equal expense equal revenue and if we if public works ABM contract change to using the special revenue fund that is where it would hit that's at ABM or public works discretion we did meet about that several times but I would have to defer to public works on what their decision is regarding that >> is there I see commissioner Tim Sexon here because yeah, I would like we had robust debates around this component and also around what it felt to be duplicative in terms of us paying twice. So to know that there was a potent potential uh other funding alternative, why did we not pursue that as opposed to just looping that into the ABM contract? Yeah, Cheer Chuck Tai. Um, Council Member Wanley, Tim Ston, public works director and council member Wanzi, I apologize that those conversations are still ongoing. They're still We committed to having those discussions with MPD about the use of sworn officers and for security. >> Um, and we're still having those conversations. So, I apologize we don't have a resolution yet. Um, do you know proactively because before it came to council for consideration um there was at least a rationale as to why it should go through ABM. Like I would like to know if there was even knowledge or awareness about this special revenue fund for the police as an option. >> Shai Council member Wley I am not familiar with the use of the special revenue fund for this purpose other than parking the parking fund as a way to to pay for the security services. So, we'll have to follow up with you on that and we'll be happy to do that. >> Okay, that sounds like a follow-up memo. Also for clerks. Also, um just going to the presentation on slide four, it's noted that fleet services needed to cut back and you highlight this on needed purchases in order to meet um the cash balance. And I do want to note this is just a comment before I move on to the next question. Um that had MPD implemented the offduty fees, this is one of the ways in which we could have recouped costs that's associated with um offduty officers using our fleet to do um their their side gigs. [snorts] And I don't understand why there was an operational choice to sloww walk that. But I I know we're going to budget markup where we're literally talking about offduty. And this is why I want to reference that just on slide four in itself and the negative financial position that we're putting our other services in. But staying on that slide, it does note that the self insurance fund has that forecasted uh negative position of about $57 million. And I'm not sure if this includes and by this the figure also potent like future police misconduct lawsuits. I'm thinking specifically of Davis Mouri and Amir Lock's family who have already publicly stated that they plan to take civil action against the city. Um, and I know that those cases will have tremendous amounts of impact on the cities. >> Your time is expired. Would you like to continue to spec? >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Awesome. Um, so I wanted to know if those or like are there anticipations of significant liability claims coming forward as a factor as to why we have that negative position forecasted? >> Uh, yes. Uh, Chair Chug Thai, Council Member Wanssley. Um, yes, I do believe any, um, we do work with our city attorney department that any any, uh, potential claims that we know about. Um, we do try to put in a liability for that if it does seem serious. Um, I can find the exact information by, you know, conferring with the city attorney's office, but, um, that is the that is the idea behind the self- insurance fund that we do estimate. It's based on known, you know, known actions that may be taken against us or people that have indicated, you know, they may seek legal action against the city. >> Yes. If we get a staff member on that too, based off of your follow-up conversation with the city attorneys around what is being factored into that, let's looks like you're looking potentially for someone. Okay. [laughter] >> Looking at the city >> I don't know if city attorney Abson also is aware. Again, this can be noted in the staff memo. Chair, council member Wans, I think this is best left for a staff memo and we can talk generally about how we set reserves in the staff memo, but you know the the amount of reserves that's set for a specific case would be you know attorney client privilege and reflect our analysis of the case. So we wouldn't be able to provide information to the public about specific cases, >> but we could request a close session to get more details on that in terms of the piece that's client attorney privilege. Correct. I mean I think at the appropriate time to consider the the litigation to talk about yeah the exposure is something we could have close sessions. >> So once the litigation is initiated >> or if there we you can also have a close session when there's a a claim as well on threatened litigation. >> Okay. Um I definitely want to follow up there again knowing that some uh members of the public have made those claims and getting clarity on if that has happened and if that's part of this figure. So I think it is actually timely but it sounds like followup staff memo on that piece. Um, and also I just want to note too, these are one of the reasons why I'm working with Council President Payne to bring forward and to create that executive risk management office. Um, just so we can make sure that we have someone on the executive and administrative side that is doing that proactive risk reduction and mitigation and implementing measures so we're not constantly put in positions like that. But just a couple takeaways um from this presentation that's very um eyeopening. I think it is no however you want to dress it up being $20 million over budget um when MPD already has one of the largest budgets in the city like that is a of grave concerns as much as you want to frame it around staffing and we've talked to MPD at least through public health and safety multiple times about a staffing study followup around how we can reappropriate MPD's existing resources to make sure that we're implementing actually like proven methods that doesn't also lead to this um overspending pattern that we're seeing um so that we're maximizing efficiency. Like there are so many things that could have actually not led us here. And I think that's going to be a continuous conversation of how we're making sure that we're not just treating taxpayer dollars as like a bottomless pit. Um and especially knowing that every dollar that we spend towards over overspending for this one department, that means one less dollar available for other critical priorities. We've often just talked about in this budget markup, people want to see us doing more robust things towards addressing homelessness, towards improving walkability and accessibility amongst our sidewalks. And those type of priorities become compromised when we're put in these positions where we literally have to bail out one department time and time again. Um, so I really look forward to figuring out how we could continue leveraging our budgetary authority and I know this is going to complement some of the financial policies we're bringing forward um to really think through how we don't keep putting this being put in this position that jeopardizes the the financial credibility of our city. Um, so with that, um, I have a couple staff memos and I look forward to getting that information from the mostly it's MPD and some of the other departments like the city attorney's office. >> Wonderful. Thank you. I will next recognize uh, Council President Payne. >> Uh, thank you, Vice President Chugai. This is on the uh MPD U overspend and I'm curious, do we have a breakdown on how much of that was critical staffing overtime versus standard overtime? And then I'd like to know more about the critical staffing uh details. >> Uh yeah, Chair Chai, uh uh Council Member uh Payne. Um let me uh confer with the with the police here. You guys Council uh vice president, council president. So um I I I will let uh director uh Trosky give you the exact details, but on the higher level um critical staffing overtime this year starting on January 1st was used to prioritize minimum staffing in all four all five precincts around the clock for 911 response. Um it had not been used that way previously. Um and so every shift that was filled in the city to ensure there was a minimum level of police officers on each shift in all five precincts was paid for with critical staffing overtime. So that is more than what it had been used in the past. The other thing that it had been used for reliably this year was the late night safety plans. Um that had been happening downtown uh for at least 2 years prior to this. This year it had been used in Dinky Town uh and in Uptown as well. In addition, we added uh the end of last year, I think September of October, we added a juvenile curfew task force that operates at night and on the weekends with juvenile investigators and other officers on a secondary assignment that assists them doing outreach to the most at risk uh juvenile offenders and their family members. that has been staffed all with uh critical staffing overtime. So the other thing I would add to that is I had reduced the overall hours of the late night safety plans at the beginning of the year. Um however there's other major incidents that happened during the course of the year that required additional spending with critical staffing uh overtime. So the biggest of which was July 4th of of this past year. Um, we spent a lot in critical staffing overtime uh around that that that day and that weekend and I would say it was successful compared to what we had seen on July 4th the the previous years as well as uh critical staffing overtime due to other major events. Uh we've had mass shootings obviously that the most high-profile is the enunciation shooting which then and in the aftermath of that uh there was a significant amount of critical staffing overtime but there were other incidents as well. staffing for um masids and uh uh synagogues, houses of worship uh as a result of uh both bias crimes and other incidents that were frightening to the community. Uh that was all used with with critical staffing overtime. That being said, that memo expires at the end of this year um which will level set I think expectations internally uh as as shifts are filled. Um but also will reduce I think by several million dollars the overall overtime expenditure. So um that's the higher level and I just ask the director she can give you the the the specifics with the numbers >> through the chair council president pay. Um so overtime and csot I do have the total amount for each year. Um but we do look at overtime in the aggregate because we don't budget that separately. So for 2025 CSOT was 16.5 million. In 2024 it was 15.6 million. The total o overtime and CSOT is 31 million in 2025 and 27.1 in 2024. So that's a 12% increase year-over-year. And the budget for overtime in 2024 was 13.7 million and the budget for overtime in 2025 is 5.9 million and that represents the intention to use vacancy savings to pay for overtime as we've done in the past. So this is the first year that we've been over budget due to the influx of the recruiting. One other thing just uh chair and council president, one other thing I forgot to mention with with prioritizing 911 response and adding managerial controls without a there's really a a negligible gain in sworn personnel on the street. Uh over the last year, we have significantly reduced response times. Um especially to this point now. It is uh we're about uh 2 minutes more than two minutes faster responding to priority one calls which are the highest uh you know the emergencies emergency calls. Priority 2 calls are several minutes uh faster in terms of response again without without a dramatic change in either the sworn staffing allocation in the precincts or um or or the uh the call load the workload. So I think that's both a result of having filled the shifts and then also uh adding additional managerial controls to ensure that uh we're responding as fast as possible. So I think there has been uh there has been a gain to the residents of the city. >> Does the mayor's re does the mayor's current recommended budget take into account the operational changes that you have put into place? Meaning, are we assuming vacancy savings that won't be there and and we're going to be off the mark again come one year from now or are we accurately forecasting the amount of overtime that we're going to need given our actual re staffing reality? >> Chair Chuck Tai, Council President Payne, we are concerned about the 26 budget um for sure because there was not change in the overtime budget. It wasn't increased and we weren't aware of the influx of this recruitment. So we do have to regroup and rediscuss and create some projections on what 26 is going to look like and what those mitigation efforts will be. >> But start that work now because I think the outrage that you might be getting from the dis right now is that it was we we shouldn't have been surprised by a $19 million overage. We should have known this for months, right? Like if we know today that there's going to be another overage, let's not pretend that it's going to be a surprise a year from now. So let's like let's get on top of that. Let's be very transparent not just with us but with our community. >> Thank you. Um next I'll recognize council member Chowry. Thank you. Uh vice chair not vice chair chair Chuck Vice President Chuck. Um I don't want to extend our conversation too long. So I'm just going to ask for um administrative memo. I want to just get in writing the reasons for the overages across the departments that had um a larger spend on their budgets and then specifically for the Minneapolis Police Department. Um there are three areas named back pay, settlement agreement expenditures, new hires, and if there are any other categories to kind of get into the details of how that was spent. Um, same for fire. I think that would just be helpful to understand uh more in numbers how we ended up here. And um I'll just say I think something that I'm pondering is as we're hiring more CSOS and that is causing a larger increase in budget spend and we're also spending more in critical staffing overtime. There needs to be a clearer explanation to when are we going to start seeing overtime go down if we're seeing newer hires. What's our financial plan into the future? And I think that falls uh on the Office of Community Safety to articulate. And I was also troubled to hear that that review and oversight conversations have quote unquote just started. I think it should have started um as soon as we started to see a an overage just continue to increase and increase. And at what point um and at what point does a department start kind of internally having those conversations? Is it at the 5 million mark? Is it at the 7 million mark? Um because yeah, watching a 19.6 million overspend is a lot to absorb. It is really surprising and this can't be a trend that continues budget year after budget year. It's a significantly different um picture than it was during last year's uh third quarter financial report. So those are all my comments. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you. Um and clerks, let's make sure that we've noted um the the followup from uh Council Member Chowry. Put myself in Q. Just a couple questions. Um, I want to This is This is for the police department. Um, I want to understand this back pay issue. Uh, tell me about where that's coming from as one of the contributors of the overage. >> Chair Chug Tai, I I had been aware of some back pay, but it was the numbers I had heard originally at the beginning year that I was projecting was 350,000. So, I was surprised at the 2.5 million. Um it did include and and I don't know if those contracts weren't settled like at what point um those contracts were settled settled because it is a new um contract a new unionized group and there was also some backay from the federation um they were still working out premiums and some shift differential from 24 that I didn't have a value for. So that so that is one um and I did want to add clarification that we do meet monthly with finance and so the overtime projection has not changed through the whole year. Uh the settlement costs are not included in the projections and so that's why you continue to see an increase. It's a citywide approved CFO approval process and they're onetime costs and so that's not included in the projections as we move through the year because I don't know what that'll be. Gotcha. So I mean, okay, first clarify what what what did the actuals end up being for back pay? 2.5 million. >> 2.5. Sorry, I had that written wrong. Um then moving into um so new from the beginning of the year came up in monthly meetings um that you have with finance that that overtime the reality of overtime would look the way it does um and that this would result in this large um overage for the the department's budget. what other types of choices were made um or did you bring to the le like how when did you bring this to the leadership team of of the police department as um as a as something that was happening? And were there any discussions to your knowledge at any point over the course of the year about um how to um make adjustments in other parts of the department's budget to accommodate um such a significant overage? Chug chug tai in quarter two I believe the projection was 12 million and that was related to overtime and that was before I knew the level of influx of the recruitment. So the payroll is what jumped greatly from quarter 2 to quarter 3 that now we need to do something different which would be connect to HR and know how many people are coming on board um in order to kind of calculate that that wasn't originally included in the projection. Um, so I would say in quarter two everybody was at the table regarding that. Historically the police department has been able to use vacancy savings to fund that. So originally we weren't too concerned. Um, we do we did have mitigation efforts in place for saying no to property services projects, having approval approvals in place. We did not we and that was before some major incidents happened. Um I also didn't wasn't aware that we were going to um contract with the state patrol um to the level that we did. We knew about Fourth of July that's kind of a standard that is not in the budget, but we didn't know that the we would have to continue to have enforcement details at synagogues and churches etc. So there was many things that happened um emergency related that we didn't really talk about how are we going to scale back with the reduction in crime. We would have to and that's something that we need to consider when we're looking at mitigation. How far can we scale back overtime without affecting crime, which is one of our goals? >> Absolutely. That's helpful to know. So, I'll I'll leave the remainder of my questions um for administrative follow-up as well out of an interest in time and then chief, I'll come to you to add what the thought that you have right now. So, um it'd be helpful for administrative follow-up to know if uh any regular overtime was used within the police department. So, there was an earlier question by President Payne about critical staffing overtime. Um, and so it'd be helpful to get back from the department total number of hours in overtime and a breakdown of uh critical staffing versus regular overtime. Um, the next thing is uh it'd be helpful to understand so uh I believe the department currently has 155 vacancies for sworn personnel. what is the total cost of of those um vacancies and then how was that used in the department's budget? Really, what I'm trying to get at is um what's the real number of how much how much overtime um costs are driving what's happening with the budget. So, how much did you use vacancy savings versus what was budgeted for overtime? And then the the the additional overage on top of that. Um, and those are my questions for administrative follow-up. Chief, to you and then I have one minute on the clock. Then we'll have to wrap up. >> So, uh, chair, vice president, thank you. I did issue an order at the beginning of the year, January 1st, with listing out significant uh, changes to supervisory review and managerial control both over critical staffing overtime and, uh, regular overtime. So I believe that did have an impact to ensure greater levels of accountability. Um as director Trosky was stating, >> trwick, excuse me, I'm sorry. >> Um we have had um during the course of this year, we're going to finish this year with the the north side of Minneapolis having the fewest number of shooting victims since the city of Minneapolis has tracked shooting victims, literally. And historically, the fourth precinct had the majority, more than half of shooting victims. So that's significant. What has also been happening that we've needed to respond to are problems on the south side of Minneapolis. Um over the the the second half of this year, we had a lot of street crime, a lot of robberies, a lot of violence concentrated on the south side, including uh you know, multiple victim shooting incidents. Uh and so we did concentrate a lot of our additional resources with overtime and critical staffing overtime, but then also lobbyed the state uh to provide additional patrols and additional resources. And that uh both of which was not anticipated, but was obviously needed in response to the changing dynamics of of street crime. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Um with that, I'm not seeing any further discussion. I'll ask the clerk to file this report and we are now ready to move to our next item. Thank you. Um all right. Uh back to markup. We will now continue considering revisions to Mayor Fry's 2026 recommended budget. A reminder to the public that the council will be hosting the final public hearing for the budget tomorrow, Tuesday, December 9th, at 6:05 p.m. This is our statutoily required truth and taxation hearing. We made excellent progress last week on the the market packet, finishing review of amendments number one through 26 with the exception of number 16, which we postponed. As we work through the budget today, I'm going to remind all of us once more to be respectful of each other and the process. Speeches, as a reminder, will be limited to two per motion. The first speech may not exceed 7 minutes and the second speech may not exceed 5 minutes. Do my colleagues have any questions before we begin? I'm not seeing any, but I do see that everyone has their binders. That's excellent. Um so with that we are ready to begin um progress on the amendment packet. Um I will recognize the author of each amendment to introduce their motion and then we will open the floor for discussion on the amendment before taking a vote. Staff from the budget office is on hand to answer questions that may arise during our discussions as well as the departments whose budgets are being considered for changes. I will uh note that we have a hard cut off today at 400 p.m. but we do have some time tomorrow morning along with um time um tomorrow after the public hearing concludes for any business um that we don't get to today. I am aware of some revisions to existing amendments um that authors want to go back and make. So um or are being worked out at the request of the administration. So, we'll we'll plan to take those up in one of those two um additional times. So, we will begin with the amendment that we tabled on Friday, amendment number 16, and then pick up where we left off with amendment number 27. Amendment number 16 is related to MPD offduty fees. And for that, um which is presented by council member Wanley and Council President Payne. Council member Wanley, will you please um reintroduce your amendment and make a motion? >> Thank you, Council Vice President Czechai. Uh this amendment related to MPD offduty fees is a onetime allocation to MPD for the implementation of the offduty program. This figure is taken directly from MPD's presentation on offduty fees uh that took place in the public health and safety committee just this past May. Um, on Friday, many of us learned that MPD is nearly $20 million uh over its already large $255 million budget, one of the largest in the city. And the presentation that we just received from finance also confirmed this. That alone underscores my mouth kind of dry. That alone underscores the need to keep this amendment intact as it provides MPD with the resources needed to implement offduty fees in 2026 and Brute Coupe up to $1.4 million to offset the cost of taxpayer dollars um who have been subsidizing officers MPD uh sorry officers offduty program um at that tune and would actually give those taxpayers a modest uh relief. Although this is a earmark, again, this full amount can be recouped through the fees once MPD implements the program, which council has already given them authority to begin collecting in 2026. Um, again, this year, we've passed several ordinances to allow MPD to implement fees starting in 2026. And that goal has been communicated to the administration throughout this past year as we've advanced that legislative work forward. um council even passed offduty fees in the 2026 fee schedule and if the mayor had issues with that um he had time to make them known or even vetoed um that action as he's done with other measures like PEC car um this year but he did not do that. Um, I've also heard from the COO that there is an enterprisewide technology change that departments have and are going through that they anticipate MPD will be uh part of and that will start in 2027. And while that's great, this amendment is about allocating the resources needed to implement offduty fees in 2026. Um, and uh, a solution is needed for that and this amendment allows for that. So once again, there's been lots of conversation around how we're addressing the the overspending that we just heard of. This presents the opportunity for MPD to recoup $1.4 million starting in 2026 and not allow taxpayers to subsidize uh this program, especially as we're having to comp contemplate a budget that's growing tighter and tighter. So that said, um I will motion approval of this amendment and ask for a second. Second. >> Uh, this amendment has been properly moved for approval. Is there any further discussion? I'm not Oh, council member Palisano. Madame Chair, uh, MPD did give a presentation on this in committee. Um, they also talked about the costs to run the program, not the implementation costs of the program. Um, it's my understanding we're dealing with the motion that was originally in our pockets. There isn't any change to this. The source of that is public safety services and that's mostly precinct operations and staffing. And so I'm curious what kind of impact will this cut to operations and earmark is a cut. What kind of cut would this be? What what would be the impact of this cut? um if this is going to impact precinct operations and staffing. I have to tell [clears throat] you that I share a lot of residents concerns um that they show up to a precinct with a particular need and it's very hard to find somebody there because everybody is on duty. Um >> does [snorts] anybody want to help us understand what this means? Well, I see the commissioner just walked out of the chamber, so I'm not sure if he's going to grab someone. Yes, he's going to grab someone who can answer your question. If we can just pause Council Member Pomisano's timer. Let's wait so that we don't use up all your time. >> Thank you. Actually, you don't have to pause the timer. Let I can kind of share some of my other on the other hand um given that professional staff made it clear that they can't achieve compliance with this ordinance next year anyway. That was something that was said in the committee. So not everybody heard that. Um why would we be making this cut now? Um based on their own decisions and their own timeline that we should be making this cut for the following year. Um staff made it clear that an IT system to do this work is already in the works. Um but I am concerned about what kind of an impact this cut would be to operations. Um, [clears throat] for Miss Troswick, um, I believe that as you're just walking into this conversation, the source of this amendment is a cut to public safety services, and my understanding is that's precinct operations and staffing. I'm curious what kind of an impact that would have. The amount being cut is $329,000. We're talking about MPD off duty fees right now. Okay. >> Chair Tagai, Council Member Pomosano. Um I would say the 300,000 cut is minimal. Um it's still a very tight budget in that area. That's where um I thought that they had point well if it's the public safety budget. While that's a very large budget, the majority of the budget is personnel and then jail fees is about 1.3 million of it. Um so there's not a lot of discretionary spending in that area. Um the the concern I have with the impact of this really relates to amendment number 17 that was passed and that if the revenue isn't generated, the $1 million cut to public safety is a larger issue than this 364 that has the same source. And our response in the memo is that it's possible it could result in civilian layoffs. We only have, I believe, 12 civilian vacancies right now to look at and most of those are in progress. Um, so it is concerning um trying to figure out what we're going to do with the impact to that. >> I see. Um, thank you. Thank you for the answer to that. Um I I guess we're getting the answer that it's both minimal but then it also could result in civilian um layoffs or not filling open FTEES. Um and then next I see council member Wansley. >> Yes, thank you so much. Um, just want to note again there is literally a presentation that MPD did themselves after several years of trying to get them to do the study in the first place on offduty that we took this number from. It says 329054. Uh, that is the cost to implement by MPD's own estimate. That's not Robin's implementation cost uh that I just conjured up. So they did give us the cost of what it would need to have personnel and also the software needed to do a 2026 implementation. That's always been clear. And also I want to stray away from saying that this is a cut because we've authorized fee collection on this. This allows MPD to recoup what they're already subsidizing right now as a $1.4 million uh cost to taxpayers for this program that only benefits officers while they're doing their side gigs. this does not go back into a public benefit by no means. So, we got these numbers from them and also again they can recoup the cost of it and that is why we're pretty much holding firm on a collection to start in 2026 as opposed to 2027. You have the ability to bring in revenue via this fee um and actually reduce the burden of financial strain that's being placed on taxpayer dollars. Hence by the conversation we just had about MPD going $20 million overhead. Also, I want to address this it which we heard that from the administration the IT need. This actually has been cited as an excuse or a rationale for why they have not been able to do implementation of offduty actually quite frankly since uh council member Pomisano your time when you were leading quoteunquote on offduty fees back in 2019. That has not happened. We've seen this be recycled time and time again. MPD has the ability and I know this because we've been contacted by vendors who said we can give them this software today if they do a bid and this does not conflict with the work that they're doing with it to do a overall database hall they can still go forward with that work and buy software needed to track off duty which they've said they are not doing um so this gives them the resources to do all those things and collect those fees and actually take a financial barrier off the place of thousands of taxpayers for one program that I think we've all collectively agree cuz the ordinances tied to this have been usually passed with near unanimous support. Um that we want to see regulation of this program. This gives them the resources to do so. So with that I will ask for my colleague support. >> Um director did you have anything any add? I saw you come back. >> Uh I think you I think you should be good. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, just to be clear, the presentation that I gave regarding the offduty fee, that was to calculate what the fee would be to recover to fully fund collecting a fee. Um, as stated in the presentation, it it did not include the implementation. So, that fee is just for the work that the people does. The second bullet on the second page says it doesn't include the implementation. >> Great. That's helpful. Thank you so much, director. Um, Council Member Vita, >> thank you, Chair. I I was just um I just need a clarifying question answered. I'm trying to understand where the offduty fees go because I thought they didn't go back to MPD and that they went into the general fund. >> Um, I'm going to invite uh budget director Denza to talk about where the where that revenue goes. Good afternoon, Chair Chugai, members of the committee. Um, typically all of the fees, unless they're in a special revenue fund, go to the general fund overall. When we set department budgets, we don't take into account the number the amount of revenue that they're bringing into the city. We use the current service level method of budgeting. And so MPD would not see a budget increase um to um account for this additional revenue. >> Okay. Thank But it would alleviate pressure on the on the property tax line. >> Right. Thank you. Um and then the other question is I think I'm a little bit confused about the timeline. Council member Wanley is saying that um MPD wants this implementation next year. And then council member Palisano, you're saying the following year? No. No. >> Oh, okay. So what's the 2026? >> I can speak to as author. The ordinances that we've passed has been for 2026 implementation. and the administration is trying to do a 2027 implementation, >> right? And we when we got the presentation, that is what they said to us is that 2027 implementation was more suitable for what they needed, right? And we passed for 2026. >> Okay, great. >> All right. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Council member Brosman. >> Yeah, I I am trying to catch up and see where we are with the offduty policy or ordinance. >> The Can you just >> Yeah, the offduty um that that was that's been adopted already by the council. The fee schedule has also been adopted by the council. >> Okay. Um Okay. No, no. My my my my discussion is that you know what can we just have a conversation about the offduty and what are the benefits of having offduty officers? Are are we implementing officers not to take their squad car when they go off duty? >> No, this is this council member Wley, do you want to answer the question? So, as you know, Council Member uh Osman, the 2026 fee schedule came through Biz as part of the offduty fees that we authorized. It allow pricing for uh officer with no squad card and with a squad car. So, that's what's passed. I don't have the figure right in front of me. So, that is what's passed that allows us to collect a fee on those things. So, again, there's been robust conversation about this for over a year. We've passed like at least at minimum three ordinances tied to offduty alone with the 2026 implementation start date all tied to them. Okay. Just uh overall comment for me is that I believe if we put officers on charging them the vehicle they take uh they will not be taking their they will be taking their personal vehicles. And what was told by having off duty for example somewhere in in a business when things happen or crisis happen then they're able to get in the vehicle go take care of that crisis and once we implement this and if it creates a problem where officers leave their squad vehicles behind and take their personal car then it's not going to be the same response. So that's just something to think about. Can I offer clarification on that? That is not what's been discussed at all. Council member Osman, what we're putting in place actually supports still officers because not all officers use squad cards when they're doing offduty. What has been happening? There's been no fees collected because they're using city-owned resources to do this. So, we've just attached a fee. If a squ if a officer would like to take a off duty bid and use a squad car, here's a fee for that. that's charged to whoever is soliciting those resources and that's a different fee. It's a little bit higher and if a officer has a offduty gig where they don't want to use the squad car then there's a separate fee for that. It's a little bit less. So that's it. It's not about discourage pushing them to use personal cars. It basically allows us to recoup the cost for a officer to use the city-owned resources to do it. Now, >> and just to clarify, no one the officer themsself is not paying that that amount, right? Yep. That answers that question. Okay. I'm not I Council Member Osman, I believe you're in queue a second time. That must be an accident. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Um All right. Seeing no further discussion on amendment number 16, MPD off duty fees. Clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Payne, >> I. >> Wsley, >> I. Rainville. >> I >> beta >> I >> Osman. >> No >> Cashman. >> I >> Jenkins. >> I >> Chavez. >> Hi >> Chowry. >> I >> Palmisano. >> I >> Vice Chair Kausski >> I. >> Chair Chai >> I. >> That is 11 eyes and one nay. >> That motion carries. All right. Next we are going to continue to amendment number 27. Right? We completed 26. Um all right. So just reorder my pocket here. All right. Amendment number 27 is 38th Street Thrive implementation offered by council members Chavez, Jenkins, Chowry, and Wansley. Um, Council Member Chavez, will you please introduce your amendment and make a motion? >> Thank you. Uh, Chair Chuckai, this uh 38th Street Thrive Rehitation Program is being authored by myself, Council Member Jenkins, Council Member Chowry, and Council Member Hansley. This fund gives the ability to invest collectively in stabilizing physical property and infrastructure. It gives funding for events, marketing and a branding strategy. Funding for ownership and preservation of homes and businesses for economic security and implementation of this plan which is really critical to the residents in South Minneapolis who have been advocating for uh the strong imple imple implementation of the 38th Street Thrive Plan. We believe that this funding will help achieve many of the strategies identified in the plan. Uh before we continue, I'd like to pass it to Council Member Jenkins to speak on the item as well and make a motion. >> Council member Jenkins. >> Thank you, Madame Chair and Council Member Chavez. Yeah, I mean I I am uh thrilled to to offer this uh amendment so that we can really begin the implementation process around the 38th Street Thrive plan that has been adopted by the city council um I [clears throat] believe in 2019 and we still have yet to really invest in the implement mentation. I believe that you know 38th Street is a has become a destination for uh visitors and and travelers from all around the country and subsequently around the world. And we should be investing in this process, not only to improve the communities that surround 38th Street, but to um lift it up to the significance that it has um garnered as a result of, you know, the murder of George Floyd. Um, George Floyd Square has become a prominent destination and deserves this investment by the city to to improve the infrastructure and um businesses, home ownership um entrepreneurship in the area and I would move um this amendment. >> Is there a second? >> Wonderful. We have a we have a proper motion before us. Is there any discussion? I'll recognize council member Kashman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the authors for putting this forward. It's very clear from our public hearing that we had in the climate and infrastructure committee last Thursday that the unanimous view of everyone in the community is that the small businesses of the area and the community resources of the area deserve more investment from the city. And I think we all agree with that. And this is how we can put our money where our mouth is when it comes to our support for uh 38th Street and the Chicago corridor. And I would like to ask if you'd be willing to add me as a co-author on this amendment. See thumbs up from >> some of the authors. Thank you so much. >> Wonderful. And then I'll recognize Council Member Chowry. >> Yeah. Thank you so much um chair. I really appreciate >> I think it just needs to move closer to you. >> Yeah. Can you hear me now? Is that compliance? >> Good. Okay. All right. Um, thank you so much, uh, first of all to Council Member Chavez for your work on this and then, um, just just taking the time to really, uh, be a voice on the city council for investment into areas of our city that have been underinvested in for a really, really long time. And then a big thank you to council member Jenkins um for your leadership not only as a council member but even prior to being a council member as a policy aid um for the eighth ward for the for 38th and 38th in Chicago. Um, I know that this has been something that you've worked on since you got elected, um, year by year, day in day out. And I just wanted to say I'm really proud of you and your office's work to bring this big allocation forward, especially um, in your last budget uh, as the ETH board city council member. And I think that this amendment within and I really encourage people to read um all the steps [clears throat] that were taken by council member Jenkins that led to this point. So I just wanted to give you your flowers on that. Um over the last year uh I know I don't represent uh 38th Street, but I have heard from constituents I represent in the 12th ward and then constituents all throughout the city that there is a really strong shared Northstar for making sure that 38th Street and 38th in Chicago got what it deserved and what it deserved for many many years um prior to 2020. And so I'm proud to bring this forward and as a council member into the next term, um I'm committed to ensure that we see a strong implementation and be uh a member on this body that will um help cheer for it and help it grow. >> Thank you. Not seeing any further discussion. I'll ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Pang >> I. >> Wsley. Winsley >> I [clears throat] >> Rainville >> I >> VA is absent. Osman >> I >> cashman >> I >> Jenkins >> I >> Chavez >> I >> Chowry >> I >> Palmisano >> I >> vice chair Koski >> I >> and chair Chug >> I [clears throat] >> that is 11 I's [snorts] >> um that motion carries. Um, all right. We will now continue. Okay. I see council member Vita. Council member Vita, would you like to be noted on please? >> Okay. Wonderful. If we can note her in the affirmative. Uh, great. Excellent. So, and that changes to 12 eyes's nos. Great. Next is amendment number 28, which is downtown street outreach offered by council member Rainville. Um, council member Rainville, will you please introduce your amendment and make a motion? >> Yes. Thank you. So, what this uh amendment does is it funds uh a contractor for street outreach funding for downtown. The funds would be uh sufficient for a team of six street outreach workers, two unarmed security guards, four ambassadors, and one late night safety dispatcher working in the first precinct to address livability issues and safety for residents, visitors, and businesses. The contract would cover Friday and Saturday nights from 6:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. from May 26 through October 26 and it expands the geographic area to include Nickel Mall, the theater district along Hen along Henipin Avenue in addition to the warehouse district. Uh this uh we did some you have a a new uh sheet in front of you and speaking with council member Wanley and Chavez, we made some changes. This would be run through the um office of community safety and what it does is guarantee that the council will have a review of the vendor chosen so that we'll be in control of that vendor. I see council member Monsley nodding. Thank you for that advice. And and I just want to point out that uh by protecting the sales tax that we get the local sales tax from downtown that allows us to invest in the neighborhoods. We just voted to invest $1.9 million into 38th Street. For the most part, those dollars came from the local sales tax in downtown. So, this will help us keep ongoing revenue to support neighborhood projects. And with that, I'll make the motion uh to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Wonderful. Um, great. Um, >> we love it. >> I'll recognize. Is there any discussion on this item? Council member Cashman. Thank you so much and thank you for your leadership on this. Council member Rainville. It's super important that we have more public safety resources, especially at night and especially in the downtown and the entertainment district where we have so many bars and restaurants and clubs. And it's it gets pretty wild around 2 a.m. around bar close. And so I think it's really important that we develop our um the full resource capacity around the bar close time in this area. I just did have a question for city staff, maybe Commissioner Barnett about the implementation. it's been a little difficult to implement uh nighttime services and I want to see if there's some barriers that you've cleared um in conversations with the DID to be able to hire these ambassadors that do work after you know this goes from 6:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. on the weekends >> through the chair, uh, chair, uh, Chuck Tai, Council Member Cashman. I think, uh, what you have before you comes from some discussions with Council Member Rainville to try to expedite, uh, services a lot quicker. Um there's been um a lot of conversations um with uh um Shane Xan uh his staff about some of the needs and um I think we're on a path to make sure that this service is available uh by May. So >> Okay. >> Yep. And then uh just a followup here is because I know that we've allocated money to safety ambassadors in the past and a lot of those resources still haven't reached our neighborhoods in uptown in particular. Uh safety ambassadors were budgeted for two two years ago in 2023 and still haven't been implemented in uptown. And I've heard over the last couple of years that it has to do with a lack of kind of operational structure in place in that area. And downtown has that, right? it has more infrastructure to complement it with DID and so it does uh have you know a greater ability to get done within the confines of the budget. However, I'd really like to see us develop those late night spots that ambassadors could operate out of uh in Uptown as well. Also, I just wanted to add that comment that we have budget uh still for ambassadors in uptown and I'd like to see the strategies that you're implementing downtown be applied in the other neighborhoods that also have nighttime economies and big safety concerns. >> Chair, uh Chuck Tai, um Council Member Cashman, um the safety ambassadors through DID, um they do do a service and do a great job there. you know that we have a pilot right now uh that's happening uh in on uh East Lake Street uh with our safety ambassadors that are being dispatched out of the um Lake Street uh safety center. Uh the idea is to be able to expand that program. Uh so I I hear uh the urgency um like you um business owners and other residents in Uptown want to see it there as well. Uh and so we are working towards uh as much as possible being able to expand our safety ambassador program. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next I'll recognize council member Chowry followed by council member Wansley. Thank [snorts] you, Chair Chugai. Um, I'm inclined to support this amendment. Um, I think an expansion of these services is a real benefit, but I do have a question. Maybe it's for uh the author, maybe it is for Commissioner Barnett and just kind of understanding uh the source impact. They see that it's sourced from public safety aid appropriation for community safety center pilots. And I just want to get a better understanding of what that means to shift um $236,000 from that to here. >> Chair uh Chuck Tai, uh Council Member Chowry, that was a discussion um that I had with Council Member Rainville. I think that's one reason that he reached out to other council members. Um that um pilot programs uh that that fund is there for I believe um we're at $2.4 million on that fund uh for pilot programs once the safety once the South Minneapolis uh safety center opens up. I still think we can get services there. Um and remember still we have to continue to look at um what services are there but also um looking at how do we continue to fund those services long time long term. Uh in looking at that we are continuing to um be creative as possible um knowing that some of the funding that we would have looked for uh previously would have come uh through federal funds. Those funds as we know have some strings attached to them that um the city would not accept. Um I know this council would not accept. Uh and so we we look at those funds and also we continue to look at what um local philanthropic uh opportunities are there for us to try to um not only fund these type of programs ongoing uh but just how all of this fits together. And that's why the NYU uh uh folks who um continue to help us navigate this area and have experience in this area. Uh we continue to talk to them about what we can do uh for long-term funding. I mean, in the short term, I think we're okay. Long term, I think that's something that we have to continue to talk about and build out, but that affects all of these programs. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah, just um good to good to know. Good to kind of understand what we're looking at into the future. The South Minneapolis Community Safety Center hasn't yet launched yet and so we're still waiting on that and we still have to wait and understand what the needs are going to be and what the cost is going to be in real time. Um so I think this time around I'm okay with this source. um as a council member that represents a significant portion of uh the third precinct area. Uh but I am worried about weary about continuing to take from this pot into the future. Um cuz I know that we have um taken from this uh earlier in the year uh for Metro Youth Diversion, which I think was a a good use for sure. Um, but [clears throat] I I'm going to support this amendment and that yeah, those are all my comments. Just wanted to note that for Council Member Rainbow and others in the body for this pot of funding. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Council Member Wanley. >> Thank you, CBP Chuck Tai. Um, just clarity on a couple of things. Uh, I did have the opportunity to have several conversations with council member Rainville around this. [clears throat] just sharing also some of the concerns that council member Chowry raised as someone who also represents uh the third well the area including the third precinct and also the ward that's going to have the south Minneapolis Community Safety Center uh making sure that we're uh making sure those uh that funding u for pilots there is is make being preserved for longevity and I I would encourage council member Chowry the reason why I feel uh pretty confident in supporting this is We did receive a pretty um extensive presentation from uh Office of Community Safety that laid out um the allocations that they're making using the public safety aid towards the South Minneapolis Community Safety Center. And there's still a a decent chunk of, you know, dollars left over, but I share those concerns and ideally next year we can look at how to continue beefing up uh those pilots to make sure that that center has everything that it needs. Um just clarity around the oversight piece because this is also one of the concerns that I had and I think council member um Cashman raised this piece. So uh just for clarity for either council member Rainville or the office of community safety to be intentional of making sure that whatever vendors are selected to carry out these services for it to come through council review and consideration and ultimate potential approval or not. Um, these are going to be administered via RFP through the Office of Community Safety, not through external agency like the Downtown Improvement District. I just want to get clarity on that. >> Uh, yes, you we've built that in, but Commissioner, would you like to com comment on that as well? Again, my commitment is strong that council has oversight on the vendor's selection. >> 100%. >> Awesome. >> More than strong. [laughter] Chair Chuck Tai, um, Council Member uh, Wanssley, um, you saw that the, um, there was a change and it was revised, uh, in what, um, Council Member Reignsville uh, proposed on this amendment uh, so that um, whatever whatever um, services are use. Uh we would come here um probably through I'm I'm not sure exactly what committee uh I think it would be through uh PHS. Uh but we would come come forward with um whatever uh services that we would want to see um implemented. So yes, we would come before the committee. >> Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that was clarified. I know that was a big priority of mines. Um, as you know, we do a lot of contracts with external organizations, and what we've seen this past year is, um, we've had deep concerns by some of the vendors that have been selected by our external partners, but that does not fall under our oversight. Um, so I'm really happy that we were able to have a conversation and come to this place where we know Office of Community Safety will be administering our RFP and allowing council to be part of that oversight and approval process. Um, and yeah, I feel pretty good in light of that, supporting this amendment. And thank you, Council Member Rainville, for being amendable as well as you, Commissioner Barnett, in these conversations to get to this place. >> If I could just one second. Uh, Chair, um, Council Member Wley, just to be totally clear, um, I'm not sure if it's a sole source or it's um a RFP. Uh, we have to really define what the service is. Uh so I I just say that that we will come before you but you see an RFP and I just want to leave that option that there might be a sole source here. That's all. >> Okay. So whatever procurement process you initiate that will move through the legislative process though. >> Okay. Awesome. >> Thank you. >> Wonderful. Thank you. I just want to I put myself in quue for two clarifying questions. The first is for the author. Um in the original version of this uh amendment, I saw the purpose was listed as for street outreach services in downtown and then in the revised version I see um to support the warehouse district live program in downtown. Yes. >> Is is that with intention? Are you >> that was with intention? Uh that allows more control by uh the neighborhood safety department. >> Okay, great. Um understood. And then the second piece of this is I'm just a little bit confused about this discussion on um council approval of uh whatever vendor is selected and the that being the primary reason to move to the office of community safety instead of leaving this in in the neighborhood safety department. Is this about the master contract question or or what's the go ahead commissioner >> chair Chuck Jai um to answer that question in working with council member uh Rainville I felt as though to move the process faster. Um neighborhood safety has a lot of different contracts that move. We've had those discussions before. Um, I think with my staff, uh, although I shy away from these things, um, I thought with the staff and the support, we can make this happen faster. Um, I know that's been a concern about services and in this case, I knew that, um, Council Member Rainville was talking to other council members as well. So, I I just wanted to um make sure that we could get it get services there by May as Council Member Rainville said, without it being in a queue and neighborhood safety. >> It's more about >> not that neighborhood safety couldn't do it, >> don't get me wrong. Um in fact, I don't even think they know about this revision, which I think they'll be happy about. >> Sounds great. Thank you. Thank you. Um, that's helpful to know. Um, okay. I'm not seeing anyone else in quue. So, on um amendment number 28, downtown street outreach, I will ask the clerk to call a role. >> Council member Payne, >> I >> Wley, >> I >> Rainville, >> I >> beta, >> I. >> Osman, >> I >> Cashman, >> I >> Jenkins, >> I >> Chavez. >> Hi, >> Chowry. >> Hi, >> Palmasano. I, >> Vice Chair Kausski, >> I, >> Chair Chugai, >> I. >> That is 12 eyes. >> That motion carries. Um, all right, colleagues, we've got about 8 minutes left. Let's try to get through one more amendment really quickly. Amendment number 29 is Nicollet Avenue Public Restrooms offered by Council Member Kman. Council member Kman, please introduce and move approval of your amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment pulls $700,000 ongoing from the street car value capture fund to public to fund public restrooms along Nicollet Avenue. So, as everyone is likely aware, uh public bathroom access is a human need that we all have. And Nicollet Mall is the most active transit corridor in the entire state. And as the W 7 council member representing a large stretch of Nicolled Mall, I know how great the need is for both residents who live there, elders going to the doctor's office, tour tourists coming into downtown for the very first time, uh workers who are moving along the mall, um and everyone in between. There is a big need for public restrooms. And currently, Nichollet Mall also has a problem with people relieving themselves in in alleyways and other spaces, which the DID does have to pay for. Um, and you'll see a map on here about the areas where there are public bathrooms, but also the areas earmarked red pins that are public urination hotspots. So, my amendment will improve access to public bathrooms for the transit riders who use the corridor, the transit operators who need somewhere to go during layovers, and every tourist and resident and worker who's coming through our city. We received a really high quality report from our policy and research team a few months ago about the different various strategies to implement public restrooms and my proposal builds off of that. So the idea here is to fund public works to procure multiple highquality high-tech and climate controlled standalone restrooms not portaotties from a private provider and site them along the transit lines within the value capture district project area which goes on Nicollet Avenue all the way south down to Kmart but also north across the river into northeast. And these units would also address the public safety concerns that had arisen in the past with the portaotties that did implemented um back in 2019 because they will have more innovative technology and features. We are seeing these rolled out in cities like Ann Arbor, Michigan, Portland, Oregon, LA, and Washington DC. And they have been highly successful in mitigating various issues. and the bathrooms that they've implemented have been highly cared for and cherished by the communities that that use them. So the source of funding here is the value capture fund which was initially created by the state legislature to fund the street car which was not materialized but the the funds are restricted to public space improvements in support of transit along this corridor. I would hate to let this funding opportunity go to waste. So, I hope to have your support for this budget amendment and I'll move approval. Is there a second? >> Second. [laughter] >> Wonderful. Okay. So, I see three members in Q. We've got about 5 minutes left. So, here's what I'm going to do. I've noted down the order in which you are in Q and we'll pick up the discussion when we come back tomorrow. Um, I want some time. Like, we do have a real hard cut off at 4. So, I I need some time in order to be able to walk through what comes next. Um, all right. So with that um this is a we we are going to pick up with amendment number 29 when we return tomorrow since we still have work to continue. Um I'm going to forward this um and I'm going to adjourn our committee meeting to tomorrow, Tuesday, December 9th at 10:00 a.m. so that we can continue our work on the 2026 budget. um for any outstanding items that remain after that morning session. If there are any revisions that are caught, anything like that, we'll pick that back up after the conclusion of the public hearing tomorrow evening. Um so we have time and we will get through this packet with not the same type of rush that we were in last time. So without objection, we are adjourned to tomorrow, Tuesday, December 9th at 10 a.m. in these chambers. Please again um remember to bring your packets. Although you can leave them in here to Nope, never mind. We have planning commission. Please take your packets with you and bring them back. Um thank you everyone.